Wow...

The demo was great and I will be buying it.

Later

 

IGN AU gave AC an 8.7, though.

Apparently, there are many mixed reviews about the game. But the most important thing to remember is that a review is nothing more than an opinion from one person. I've bought a few games that had scored under 8 and I enjoyed them very much. So at least give it a try... rent it or something, you might actually like it.

 

Let me just say, that I'm not surprised of the two lackluster reviews; after play-testing this, I knew it was gonna have issues with reviewers because of the AI and the combat-system.

Let me also note that the complaint in the IGN review for PS3 version about framerate is COMPLETELY off-base and a fallacy created by a writer who is the 360 editor and known PS3 basher. I've spoken to people who have playtested the PS3 version (I played 360), and they note its completely false.

Let me try to explain something to you guys who might be on the fence about this game. This game is not the killer-ap people expected. It is not the end-all, it is not perfect. Some elements, specifically environment interaction and control scheme, are some of the most unique and innovative features I have seen in an adventure game, and honestly DO warrant a look just for those reasons. Exploration in this game is an absolute blast, I don't care what other reviews say about repetitive nature of the game. The control scheme is brilliant when you actually get it down, but many will be turned off as to its properties (basically, button combinations change depending on the situation and face buttons are assigned basic body parts). It is not as confusing as it sounds written out, and it truly is a great control system IMO.

The combat and enemy AI, to put it simply, is flawed. Combat usually involves you being outnumbered and out gunned, yet enemies have a habit of attacking you one at a time. Sometimes, guard behavior is odd and not as responsive as one would hope. However, this does not make the combat bad. Combat, especially when one learns the countering moves, is fun. Some might be turned off that enemies don't rush you all at once, but because the game is based on quick kills and then retreating, the countering system is based on watching one enemies attack, and timing your attacks to kill him quickly. What I don't feel some understand is that you're not SUPPOSED to kill every guard the comes out (and trust me, I had over 30 chasing me at one point in my playtime, it was crazy). To put it simply, I never felt bothered by the system, and found myself enjoying it and being creative with it.

IGN noted that the game gets tedious, particularly collecting information for your kill. I found it disappointing that the variety of missions didn't differ much, but I wouldn't say it was tedious. Surely, I've had much more tedious experiences in RPGs or other adventure quests that simpily demanded them. Fortunately, if you find it too tedious to do the side-missions and flag collecting, you really have no reason to do more than the minimal. If you do it that way, you're gonna get 12-15 hours of it, and that is pretty good IMO considering the lengths of games these days. If you did like I plan to do when I pick up my retail copy, you'll do a lot of side-missions and exploring, and based on talk with others, I'd realistically say you could get anywhere from 18-28 hours if you truly wanted to invest some time into it. Take it how you want it, but although this game gives you little incentive to play it again, you can enjoy it for a while.

With those criticisms stated, let me tell you why I'd recommend at least a rental. The game is point blank gorgeous, and vastly technically impressive. The three cities are apparently very historically accurate, and are HUGE. When I say huge, I mean it feels impressive in it's scale; the kind of feeling you got when climbing the monsters in Shadow Of Colossus impressive. As stated earlier, the control scheme and the environmental interaction is worth the price of admission alone IMHO, and showed be experienced by anyone who considers themselves a adventure gaming fan. The story is pretty interesting at times, but the twist that happens literally 5 minutes into the game didn't really interest me (hey, they plan on making sequels, so there obviously trying to set up for better things).

In closing, let me say that I can see why people are freaking out about reviews, and that is hype. To many, this was supposed to be the game that would change the adventure genre forever. Believe me when I say that while extremely innovative, it most likely won't. I compare this game on the top of my head to Shadow Of Colossus in terms of how interesting and fun it was to play, and the sheer innovation of game design and scope. The difference? One carries monstrous hype, the other crept-up on almost everyone in the industry. It's really a shame too, because while a lot of gamers are gonna ***** and moan about what the game could have been or how they wish something else would have been implemented, they'll be missing out on a great time.

 

Why go to any game review site? You're the man....

So with PS3, you just let me know what games I should buy!

 

Good points, KamikaZ. I feel the same way about the adventure/exploration of this game. It looks very good.

The funny thing is that Gamespot mentioned in their review that the PS3 had a better framerate than the 360 version. And todays morning, IGN actually modified the review and took out the framerate issue with PS3, only to put it back up just recently.

 

That is pretty much what happened. People were expecting too much from this game. It also didn't help that problematic issues such as the AI weren't addressed at all, even though they were apparent from the first time the game was shown.