Assassin's Creed: Revelations Review

By John Teti Published 14 November, 2011

Arrivederci, Auditore.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Ezio Auditore is old, and Assassin's Creed: Revelations doesn't try to hide this. In the third game of the Assassin's Creed 2 trilogy, Ezio is rendered with a pasty face and drooping eyelids. He has a stringy beard that makes his lips appear to pucker out like an overfed goldfish. It's the decay you'd expect for a beloved superstar on his last hurrah. This is Ezio's final appearance as a hero in the series, and appropriately, this game has the feeling of a farewell tour. Like a rock band past its prime, Assassin's Creed: Revelations is everything Assassin's Creed has ever been, and less.

Upon arriving in Constantinople, where the bulk of the main quest takes place, Ezio buddies up with a local member of the Assassins. This young Turk equips Ezio with an enhancement to the familiar hidden blade that has slid its way through so many Templars' necks over the course of the series. Now Ezio's left-handed blade is a hook, too, which he can use to slide along ropes throughout the city, like a little kid on a zipline.

The hook is also used to extend your climbing reach. Once the new tool is in place, though, climbing is no longer the quiet, stealthy exercise it has always been. One of the essential recurring moments in the Assassin's Creed series has been quietly scaling the side of building, like a spider, and enjoying the bliss of creeping where most mortals cannot.

Yet with this new piece of equipment, your climbs are punctuated by the sound of Ezio's metal hook repeatedly striking the wall. The noise itself isn't especially unpleasant, but it's the sound of superfluous gadgetry, and not something that you'd expect to hear from a man who lives his life in shadows. This game is haunted by that sound. Clank, clank, clank.

1

Precarious ledge is precarious.

Ezio is in town to recover a set of mystical keys that were hidden in Constantinople by Altair Ibn-La'Ahad, the protagonist of the original Assassin's Creed. While he's conducting his search, however, Ezio uncovers - you guessed it - another Templar conspiracy to seize power. This sinister scheme provides a welcome opportunity to skulk around, pierce enemy strongholds on tense infiltration missions, and of course, execute ornate assassination plots. It's all great fun. If the game concentrated on this stuff, that would be enough. Being Ezio Auditore, Professional Assassin is a premise that still has plenty of juice.

Yet because this is a big finale of sorts, Ubisoft apparently feels the need to lard Revelations with other storylines. So every time you bring one of Altair's keys back to your hideout, the game flashes back to Altair's life and you play a mission in his shoes. These are serviceable diversions, typical Assassin's Creed fare, but because they are isolated incidents on a separate track, they feel inconsequential. Of course the lore of the game explains that everything is connected (cue eerie music), but that's not how it feels.

Then there's Desmond, the "real-life" character who is living out the DNA-embedded memories of Ezio and Altair by way of the Animus machine. Compared to the spicy Ezio, Desmond is hopelessly bland, a tub of sugar-free plain vanilla ice cream, the generic kind. Yet he is given an even more prominent role in Revelations than in previous games (or at least a role that is harder to ignore).

2

Worst game of charades ever.

Here is what I regard as an ideal level of Desmond: I want him to show up at the opening of the game and say, "Hello, folks, I'm Desmond Miles. I'm about to step into my magical history machine and pretend to be a fabulously fun and likeable Italian fellow from the Renaissance era. Won't you join me on this thrilling adventure?" Cue title screen, and Desmond goes away. I would also allow him to appear in the credits giving the thumbs-up sign with a word balloon that says, "Thanks for playing!"

"'Hello, folks, I'm Desmond Miles. I'm about to step into my magical history machine and pretend to be a fabulously fun and likeable Italian fellow from the Renaissance era.'"

Instead, after the events that concluded Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, we join Desmond in limbo on Animus Island, stranded with the memory imprint of his predecessor, Subject 16. The convoluted sci-fi mumbo-jumbo spirals out from there, and Assassin's Creed: Revelations starts to resemble The Matrix: Revolutions, with all the going inside computers and not making so much of the sense.

Animus Island is the venue for a few cut-scenes and some Desmond-focused side missions that are unlocked by collecting "data fragments" as Ezio (this game's equivalent of AC2's feathers). On these missions, you play through spatial puzzles in a first-person perspective while, in voiceover segments, Desmond recalls and reflects on his past, mostly whining about it. He could serve cocktail weenies and show us slides from his recent trip to Machu Picchu, and the narration would be about as gripping. As for the puzzles, they attempt to be visually striking in a minimalist way, and some parts are engaging enough, but I found it hard to shake the impression that I was playing a poor man's Portal.

Don't get me wrong, I like that Ubisoft is willing to experiment with different forms. That creativity is what made Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood such a delight. Brotherhood dared to add elements to the already-successful AC2 foundation that included a brotherhood of assassins who could be trained and called into battle, a citywide fight for territorial influence, and the half-synch/full-synch dynamic that encouraged players to complete missions with a true Auditore flair. Not every new twist was a great idea - the cannon-fire segments in particular were tedious. But overall, Brotherhood worked because the new stuff tended to build out the core concept of virtuous killers whose primary asset is their efficiency and focus.

The new wrinkles in Revelations don't have such a well-defined sense of purpose, and they detract from the game a result. For instance, this entry in the series has a new tower-defence element in which you have to protect your assassins' dens against Templar attacks. It's slow and woefully uninventive, outclassed by any number of tower-defence games you can play for free on the web. Ubisoft is getting complacent here, treating Assassin's Creed as a brand rather than an idea. They slap an Assassin's Creed skin on a standard genre template and think it sufficient. It's not.

Likewise, Revelations has a peculiar fixation on bombs. You can make little bombs and toss them around to kill or distract enemies. There is a large variety of bombs you can craft - sticky bombs that blast shrapnel, say, or sudden-impact bombs that spread poison - and the game obsesses over them all. There are bomb-crafting stations everywhere in Ezio's world, and treasure chests are always foisting more goddamn bomb-making ingredients on you. PLEASE, TRY THE BOMBS!

3

Sweet rims, bro.

I have tried the bombs (even though they led me even further afield from the ideal of the "padfoot" assassin). They are fine. They are hand grenades, for Pete's sake, which have been present in video games since a couple days after the beginning of time, so it's hard to see what Revelations is so excited about. Yes, there is a wide array of ingredients and combined effects that you can craft, but at the end of the day, you can't escape the fact that all the bombs do pretty much the same thing: they go boom and make a commotion. Well, OK, there are certain metal-shelled bombs that rattle around on the ground for a few seconds before they explode. Clank, clank, clank.

"The disc is redeemed by the presence of the multiplayer game, which is really good and should not get short shrift amid the hype over Ezio's farewell."

Other past glories of the series have been neglected. Remember those wonderful jumping puzzles from Assassin's Creed 2, where it could take the better part of an hour just to figure out how to cross a room? If you could manoeuvre through one of those, hitting the finish line was exhilarating. Revelations has rooms like that, but most of the time, the way to get across is to push forward on the joystick while holding down the trigger and the A button. On occasion, you also have to press the B button to use your hook blade, in which case the game will literally tell you to press the B button to use your hook blade. Somehow the finish line does not feel as sweet.

And remember those wonderfully strange Da Vinci Code-esque puzzles that free-associated on the global conspiracy theme? Those, too, now play a much more subdued role; puzzle-solving has mostly been relegated to Desmond's side quests. The puzzles on Ezio's side of things have been dumbed way down, maybe to suit his doddering old brain, but I feel that even in his golden years, Ezio could handle something a little more complex than "point your cursor at these three rectangles, and the one that lights up is the secret door!"

4

Is that mountain giving me the finger?

The disc is redeemed by the presence of the multiplayer game, which is really good and should not get short shrift amid the hype over Ezio's farewell. Those who played the multiplayer in Brotherhood will be right at home - Revelations has most of the same play modes, all of which place players on a crowded urban map and challenge them to quietly find and murder each other. There are only a few changes, but one in particular brings the fun of community play to a new level, and that's the (creatively named) Deathmatch mode.

Brotherhood's most intriguing multiplayer mode was Wanted. The idea was that you were given one player in the crowd to hunt down and kill. Fulfill that contract, and you got a new one. Of course, all along there were one or more players who were seeking you out, too. You had to be both canny hunter and cautious prey to succeed. It made a nice thematic fit in the Assassin's Creed world.

More on Assassin's Creed: Revelations

Wanted is fun, and it's still around in Revelations, but the trouble with it is that everyone gets a big dumb compass on the screen that points in the direction of their target. Deathmatch is the same as Wanted, but it ditches the compass. You still get indications of when your target is in the area, but you have to heighten your senses of observation to discern your mark amid the bustle, rather than relying on a glowing circle at the bottom of the screen.

What a difference simplicity makes. Deathmatch has more suspense, more subtlety, and requires more guile. I played Deathmatch for hours with a group of complete strangers online - and I usually hate playing with strangers. None of us wanted to stop. We'd try other modes once in a while, but we'd always come back to Deathmatch.

If only the single-player game, which struggles to build momentum, were so well-considered. It's still fairly entertaining amid all its missteps, as the heart of Assassin's Creed perseveres to a degree. The disappointment is that Ubisoft is enamoured with its own glitter here, cramming Revelations so full of unnecessary adornments that there's not as much room for players to bring their own ingenuity and sense of adventure to the table.

Where Brotherhood enhanced the thrill of being Ezio Auditore, Revelations distracts from it. Ezio may look old, but it's the series itself that really shows its age.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of John.

About John Teti

John Teti is a writer and producer based in New York. His interests include games, TV, cake, and being a writer and producer based in New York.

Read more articles from John by visiting the John Teti archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (173) Latest comment 5 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • cyacomini #1 6 months ago

    ouch!

  • beastmaster #2 6 months ago

    I loved thge last two but I think I'll skip this years and see what next year has to offer.

  • Lionheart #3 6 months ago

    Desmond won't be happy.

  • Markitron #4 6 months ago

    Shame, was hoping for better after the brilliant AC:B, Im sure ill still enjoy it anyway

  • Cjail #5 6 months ago

    Who misses the good old Eurogamer's 8/10?
    Edited by Cjail at 14/11/11 @ 17:10

  • ZuluHero #6 6 months ago

    Poor old Ezio will have to watch those swan dives into haycarts - he might break a hip! ;)

  • imamazed #7 6 months ago

    teti

  • hippyjump #8 6 months ago

    hey, not an 8. this game must suck

  • sfp_noodle #9 6 months ago

    "Ezio may look old, but it's the series itself that really shows its age."

    So EG knocked 3 whole points off in one year because the series is showing its age? In that case, may I ask why EG continuously award COD 8/10 or more year after year? I'm not a COD hater, but even the biggest fan of the series can't deny how stale the formula has become. Whilst this score is more than deserved, it is yet another example of EGs massive inconsistencies where the same rules aren't applied accross the board.
    Edited by sfp_noodle at 14/11/11 @ 17:59

  • telboy007 #10 6 months ago

    I'm going to play the game and then come back to this review at a later date to see if I agree with it, because I cannot believe they've screwed it up after making (AC II and AC:Brotherhood) two absolutely stonking games.

  • Adda #11 6 months ago

    I've played a bit of the game so far and this review pretty much sums up my feelings of it so far. I'm a big fan of the series and Brotherhood was perfect to me but this one has too many needles trappings.

    Couldn't agree more about the bombs/ingredients, it's nearly at 'Hey, listen!' levels.

  • caesar_ #12 6 months ago

    I think that's a fair review, AC has always walked a fine line between tedium (AC1) and brilliance (AC:B) where if the out-of-animus sections aren't perfectly balanced it becomes very banal. I'm a fan of the serious but I'm not looking forward to the next installment if it is going to focus more on Desmond, who is boring as hell.

    Come on Ubisoft, it's disappointing because I know you can do it.

  • nickthegun #13 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle - when you say 'you' I assume you dont mean John Titor?

  • Wizard83 #14 6 months ago

    At last a review that didnt just pump out an 8 and has actually made me think about purchasing a game instead of being none the wiser!

    Well done John Teti.

  • benfresh76 #15 6 months ago

    Very disappointing, I loved the last two games; I knew the yearly thing would take it's toll, just wasn't anticipating such a rapid deterioration. Sigh.

  • rudderless #16 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle For one, the games have been reviewed by different writers. Who can say whether John would have given Brotherhood 10/10? (Actually, John probably could.)

    The other crucial factor is that this is not as good a game as Brotherhood.

  • mjselvig #17 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:22 12-12-2011

  • bad09 #18 6 months ago

    I'd be all over this (and Brotherhood) if only they'd sort out the crap DRM on AC2, oh well plenty of other games to buy.

    *sigh*

    :rolleyes:

  • Stompy #19 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:13:35 17-04-2012

  • Jay-ITFC #20 6 months ago

    The review is spot on regards Desmond. Bland as a blank A4 sheet. After a very average first game Ezio and Italy is what made the AC franchise shine. Having to move past this era to continue Desmond's story will probably (and sadly) lead the series to decline...

  • polaris70 #21 6 months ago

    Sounds like typical Ubi going down the "make the game easier" route. I've always found the free-running to be pretty easy anyway but the scope of the games, the beautiful settings and the puzzles kept me playing. Seems like they've even made the puzzles easier. Soon we'll be playing interactive comic strips instead of games. :(

  • Whitster #22 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:22 12-12-2011

  • sfp_noodle #23 6 months ago

    @nickthegun, @rudderless

    Sorry, I've edited the original post. I was pointing the finger at EG in general, not the writer himself. I also disagreed that Brotherhood was a 10/10 game, despite being very good.

    Different people have reviewed COD over the years yet we all know that the score won't drop below 8/10. I honestly have no qualms about Revelations being awarded a 7, it most likely deserves it, but its criticised for feeling old and stale and has 3 whole marks knocked off in the space of a year. COD has been the same game for 4 years now, yet the same criticism is never applied to those games. I just want some consistency when awarding marks because the same rules are definately not applied to all games.

  • Markitron #24 6 months ago

    @whitster

    Iv long given up on EG ever discussing things like 3D and surround sound options (the reason I get multiplatform games on PS3) Digital Foundry barely ever bothers either
    Edited by Markitron at 14/11/11 @ 17:45

  • darkmorgado #25 6 months ago

    @telboy007 Unfortunately, they HAVE screwed it up. I've put 20 hours into the game, and the review is spot on.

  • Demiath #26 6 months ago

    I've played through all AC games so far and none of them have exactly been brilliant in their implementation of parkour, assassination or strategy elements (or justified their tediously convoluted sci-fi/history plots, for that matter). I'll surely buy Revelations at some point because I want to see how Ubisoft handled Constantinople, though.

  • mcwildcard #27 6 months ago

    The law of diminishing returns strikes again.

  • jablonski #28 6 months ago

    I thought they didn't advertise with EG anywhere near as much as last year.

    You need to offer some incentive to get about the standard 8!

  • Cjail #29 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle
    At this point a reflection on the quality of these franchises (COD & AC) is necessary from the industry and the reviewers but, as you say, Eurogamer often fails to keep the same parameters of judgement...still I think that this review is on the right way.

    Anyway my opinion is that that both Ubisoft & Activision have gone too far in the exercise of repetition but they don't seems to be willing to stop.
    Edited by Cjail at 14/11/11 @ 18:09

  • darkmorgado #30 6 months ago

    @jablonski Not only that, but a last-minute embargo, and reducing sales projections doesnt exactly scream confidence in your product either. I think Ubisoft were well aware that this wasn't going to be received as well as the last two games.

  • northernlights #31 6 months ago

    please please please Assassins Creed 3 in Victorian London. Queen Vic herself could feature in the game. I LOVE the Assassins series but have to admit it needs to be different next time.

  • darkmorgado #32 6 months ago

    @northernlights Judging by the ending, I think it's a safe bet that the next game will be set completely in the present day playing as Desmond.

  • northernlights #33 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado Brotherhood is in my top ten games of all time so I am going to check this out but I would of gone for setting that we very different i.e Victorian London, Ancient Egypt, French Revolution or World War One. Though I don't want to know the ending Ive heard that the Mayan 2012 scenario will play heavily in Assassins 3

  • NotSoSlim #34 6 months ago

    One for impending price drop it seems

  • RevanNL #35 6 months ago

    Feared as much when Ubisoft announced this, a few months after stating that the franchise could use a break after Brotherhood. I'll pick it up when it's in the bargain bin (which nowadays means two months from now)

  • DAN.E.B #36 6 months ago

    I just hope they dont ruin ghost recon (even more) with there relentless dumbing down!

  • DiamondIce #37 6 months ago

    GameCentral also came in with a 7/10. The Tower defense part leaves me extremely cold.

    It sounds like Brutal Legend's RTS parts.

  • ThinkingGamR #38 6 months ago

    Not surprised. This franchise overstates the intrigue and quality of its fiction so hard, and it has one of the least interesting sandboxes in gaming. The combat is too simplistic, the RPG mechanics are superficial. The stealth mechanics are goofy. Its just a really overrated franchise that rode on the crest of "next gen" hype.

  • JayKwon #39 6 months ago

    That last sentence just feels attached because it sounded good.

    Other then that, review sounds fair and the score as well. This AC just fucked up, and although I agree that COD does a lot of the same as well, and I hate that game, it at least offers some kind of improvement other then decline and faults that make AC game worse.

  • Badassbab #40 6 months ago

    I knew it would be a 10!

  • beatwolf #41 6 months ago

    the "sci-fi mumbo jumbo". Should really just get the fuck out of these games.. But ubisoft still think we can´t swallow a bit of weird history lessons without the added sci-fi.

  • makeamazing #42 6 months ago

    I'll probably love it anyway... as i love AC and open world games.

    But i do agree that you have to be careful not to just cram lots of features that do not have depth to them, otherwise they end up being pointless features.

    Still hoping its going to be great.

  • alimokrane #43 6 months ago

    It is clear the franchise is getting tired, 8s and 7s reviews all over the place. Time to give the franchise a break Ubisoft while you still can. Stop the milking already!

  • Dave #44 6 months ago

    I think we all kinda knew Revelations would be a filler between Brotherhood and the next real installment in the AC series. They could've skipped it and no one would've missed it. But we've got to have an AC game every year, right?

    This doesn't mean I won't play it though, I'll probably love it. Albeit less than Brotherhood or even AC2. Really looking forward to AC3.

    Requiescat in pace, Ezio. I will miss you.

  • Gavilan #45 6 months ago

    After the campaign in Brotherhood I was burned out on Eizo...
    Personallly I think the series should have moved on from Ezio. Going to pass on this and see what direction AC goes from here.

  • cardboardMonster #46 6 months ago

    Unfortunately this excellent review sums up my early thoughts. It's just not as considered as Brotherhood, bolting on new elements that are largely gimmicky or a bit naff to begin with. To be fair, I do like the bombs, as they introduce a new flavour and work well with the setting. However, the Desmond and tower defence bits are jarring and just don't fit.

    Even Altair popping up is a bit of a letdown - a disparate chunk of reskinned nothingness that belies the compelling marketing campaign.

    It's hard to shake the feeling that a year isn't long enough to craft a compelling sequel, without falling foul of 1990s Tomb Raider-itus (not an actual disease). It's still a good game though, and all of the things that Ubi introduced last time that worked reassuringly still work. It's just a shame because Ezio deserves better.
    Edited by cardboardMonster at 14/11/11 @ 19:48

  • Wot_the_Melon #47 6 months ago

    I haven't played this, and probably won't because there are plenty of better games than this fighting for my time, but I thought it was slightly odd ACB was received so well... Really, I think most of the complaints in this review are also true for that game.

    AC was, strangely enough, the series which got me into gaming, and I was absolutely addicted to AC1, then to AC2 which in some ways really improved on the first game. But ACB was, though it was perhaps obvious to anyone but me, ac2.1. After 4 playthroughs of AC2 ACB almost felt like a fifth playthrough. Ubisoft didn't try to make the game harder, go more towards an assassin kind of feeling, only slightly improved the combat (but it still was far from great, and went even farther away from an assassin), and free-running, which had always been keeping a couple of buttons pressed and the game would do the rest, went from AC 2 (where there was ONE extra button in Venice, at times) back to AC 1 level.

    In short, aside from multiplayer (which I failed to find interesting, because it seemed to me to get stale after 30 minutes) and a completely useless assassin's guild due to the unchangeable low difficulty, nothing changed. It sounds as if nothing has changed again, and this time that's a 7 and not a 10.

  • BOFH_UK #48 6 months ago

    Hmm, are we seeing the limitations of the rather ambitious turnaround time on the AC games at work here? Brotherhood could at least reuse a fair few assets and the story was solid enough to support the game. Revelations seems to be rather short on story, weighed down by the unresolved plot points of all three predecessors and resorting to gimicks rather than solid gameplay to hide the fact.

    Huge shame mind, AC2 and AC:B were two of the best games I've played for years but Revelations just seems to be struggling to capture gamers attention somehow. Ah well, hopefully the next one in the series does a better job and gets back to the core experiences that made the first two Eizo games such a joy to play.

  • Hindle #49 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:04:43 04-04-2012

  • vizzini #50 6 months ago

    The story of the villains, running, leaping, diving and scale of the world have been the strongest elements of AC series for me so far.

    Provided they have been unduly affected or enhanced in Revelations then I'll probably enjoy this game even as a true 7/10.

    Should one console version managed to have removed the screen tearing, then maybe I'll feel the review was a bit harsh and an 8/10 was more fitting, but I might wait a few months for this one now, if that doesn't materialise in the face-off info.

  • The-Jack-Burton #51 6 months ago

    I was afraid that the push to keep the series annualized and the idea that it has to have MP, would ultimately begin to compromise the quality and ambition that was established in AC2 and ACB.

  • Daeltaja #52 6 months ago

    Ouchy, wbat a fall from grace.

    Won't be touching this. Talk about milking a franchise dry.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #53 6 months ago

    One of the things that annoys me about Desmond is how miscast the voice acting is. Nolan North is perfect as Nathan Drake, but Desmond has this Southern Euro/Middle Eastern look. He ought to talk like David Belle or something, that corn-fed Yankee white boy accent is all wrong.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #54 6 months ago

    As regards this game, I'll be picking it up for a tenner in May next year (it has become a tradition of sorts, for me), and I'll probably enjoy it fine.

  • ruisranne #55 6 months ago

    Now, This is how to write a review.

    *looks at Halo CE reviewer

  • drhickman1983 #56 6 months ago

    Bit dissapointed perhaps, but in all honesty I imagine I'll get this at some point regardless (I only got round to playing 2 and Brotherhood about a year after they came out, only finished Brotherhood last week).

    Personally, I think the basic gameplay elements were pretty much nailed in 2 and Brotherhood, so perhaps it was inevitable that extra elements would be tagged on.

    I actually like the back story found in the wider universe, whilst I have to agree that Desmond is a bit of a dull character, if the game was just Ezio without the Subject 16 puzzles and conspiracy's I'm not sure I'd have liked 2 or Brotherhood quite so much. Sounds like they've perhaps not got the balance right in Revelations though, and like it's been dumbed down slightly.

  • photoboy #57 6 months ago

    I think I'll skip this one. While I'm tempted for the big revelations in the story, I just really didn't like Brotherhood at all and this sounds like more of the same.

    AC2 was awesome and was actually my favourite game that year. While I wasn't really ready for a sequel I gave Brotherhood a try and while I liked some of it, I felt it mostly didn't play as well. In particular I hated the full synchronisation parts, which insisted I race through every section instead of taking the time to explore.

    So I'm taking a year off and hopefully ACIII will finally be released and won't be rushed because Ubisoft insisted on forcing out a sequel every year.

  • darkmorgado #58 6 months ago

    @lollage

    Strange, at 12 hours I had finished the campaign. After 20 hours I have got nearly every collectible, done every sidemission, and done the secret tomb, and all of the Desmond missions.

  • darkmorgado #59 6 months ago

    @lollage

    Why would I skip the cutscenes?

    I can't be arsed to take photos, but you can check my achievements. darkmorgado is my gamertag.

    75% synch. Can't be bothered to replay the story missions to get 100%, as some of them are simply dire.

    The review is completely accurate. None of the additions add anything worthwhile to the game and in fact actually make it more frustrating. The story is worse (and shorter), the city is less varied and smaller. It deserves a 7 and no more.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 14/11/11 @ 22:01

  • ps-360 #60 6 months ago

    Fuck, would of put money on EG giving the game an 8!!

  • NicolasVH #61 6 months ago

    What's wrong with a 7? A 7 is a good score; well, I was happy with it back in school.

  • gjgjg #62 6 months ago

    Didnt see that one coming! The other AC's were day one for me, but in this 8, 9 and 10/10 market I think this one will have to wait... Shame as I was holding off Skyrim for this.
    Edited by gjgjg at 14/11/11 @ 22:27

  • ps-360 #63 6 months ago

    since when was a 7 a bad score?

  • Jonathan_Fakenham #64 6 months ago

    Yeah, it's funny how an 8 is a pretty great game, but a 7 is a hollow and empty experience.

    I'm still looking forward to this though as I've loved every part of the series so far, ever since the similarly flawed reviews of the original. There's few games that lets you experience a world like when you turn off the HUD in this series. It really comes alive and becomes a way more subtle game.
    Edited by Jonathan_Fakenham at 14/11/11 @ 22:35

  • ps-360 #65 6 months ago

    @Jonathan_Fakenham I agree mate, anything below 8 now is shit apparently

  • Vaarna #66 6 months ago

    I enjoyed the hidden lairs & tombs in AC2 and ACB; the platforming was almost as good as PoP:Sands of Time. However, Ezio's maneuvering felt a bit too "automatic" at times, whereas PoP was more "technical", if you get my drift.

    Anyway, I liked the art direction and music in the last two games, so I might pick this up eventually. I'm not really bothered about the story -- it's utterly bonkers -- although I enjoyed the presence of characters like Machiavelli & the shouty mercenary bloke, even if I wasn't paying attention to much of their dialogue.

  • jumpdeveraux #67 6 months ago

    I still need to play through Brotherhood - too many good games at the moment.

    I was intending to order Revelations once initial reviews were out but I think I'll defer buying until this is in the bargain bin as these titles don't date (as I don't play multiplayer in AC series).

    Given another AC due next year it will be a shame if Ubi don't give this franchise a couple of years to breathe and then come back to it fresh - clearly too tempting to do a COD and set the milking machine to high speed.

  • Kovacs77 #68 6 months ago

    Great review. I don't think any critical review of anything has ever been more in sync with my opinion, than this paragraph;

    "Here is what I regard as an ideal level of Desmond: I want him to show up at the opening of the game and say, "Hello, folks, I'm Desmond Miles. I'm about to step into my magical history machine and pretend to be a fabulously fun and likeable Italian fellow from the Renaissance era. Won't you join me on this thrilling adventure?" Cue title screen, and Desmond goes away. I would also allow him to appear in the credits giving the thumbs-up sign with a word balloon that says, "Thanks for playing!""

    I'm pretty sure I've said this, verbatim, before now!

  • ps-360 #69 6 months ago

    @jumpdeveraux what good games are you referring to?

  • Mindstorm #70 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle you and others are reading it wrong, the bit about the series showing its age is merely a half-arsed pun. The main point of the review is that they messed up a winning formula. As opposed to the COD franchise, where a winning formula has been honed to nigh perfection.

  • ps-360 #71 6 months ago

    y does every fucking single thread/forum have to mention COD!!!!!!!!

  • jumpdeveraux #72 6 months ago

    @ps-360
    Mostly PC (BF3, Skyrim, Witcher 2 as well), also Dark Souls and Uncharted 3 on PS3 plus a few others.

    If I was heavily into the AC MP am sure I would buy Revelations Day 1 but I never really got into it vs. playing MP of other titles.

  • Jazzy_Geoff #73 6 months ago

    7 has been shorthand for shite since at least 1987

  • RevanNL #74 6 months ago

    @MENTAL1ST Nolan North isn't miscast, but he is asked to do a Nathan Drake voice. A year ago this was really annoying, but I've come to respect North, especially after his work as the Penguin in Arkham City

  • ps-360 #75 6 months ago

    @RevanNL I thought this was an ac rev review?

  • gallow #76 6 months ago

    Tis a shame but I shall purchase it next year once I get the current glut of games out the way. I have really looked forward to play both AC2 and ACB and the setting along with the sites and sounds are so immersive they are a joy to play. I have really enjoyed the character of Enzo and the supporting characters and it will be a shame to leave them once I have finished the game.

  • Iain815 #77 6 months ago

    @lollage

    That's that then, day 1 for me. I loved Brotherhood and I've been longing for this for ages, but the reviews were making me consider holding off on it.

    But fuck it, I'm happy with more of the same.

  • rotmm #78 6 months ago

    @RevanNL, "Nolan North isn't miscast, but he is asked to do a Nathan Drake voice.

    So the original Assassins Creed, where Nolan North was first introduced as Desmond Miles, was released a few days before the original Uncharted, where the same Nolan North was first introduced as Nathan Drake.

    Yet in spite of this, the Ubisoft team working on Assassins Creed specifically directed Nolan to use his "Nathan Drake" voice. Amazing.

    This is why I love the internet. Where else could I learn such impressively researched facts?

    Thank you for the lesson.

  • Zaiz #79 6 months ago

    This review reads like a 4. Since the beginning of the series I've thought to myself "Man, they should drop Desmond" but I was sure they were going to make the Desmond's Creed: Bland Asshole. And here they go, after fucking up their just fine game. Provided you can ignore the story, because the story is dumb. They could have just made this series follow a series of assassins through the ages, that would have been much better than stupid alien illuminati world conspiracy bullshit.

  • Xardan #80 6 months ago

    I dont see why anyone should be surprised. An Assassins Creed every year will effect the quality of a title, i mean even COD games take two years.

    I didnt think much of AC:B ever, the only thing that saved that was the surprisingly good multiplayer and the as ever beautiful game world. The story has become so bad it is laughable.

  • polaris70 #81 6 months ago

    I've always had a problem with the parkour and platforming in these games. Although I've enjoyed them for the setting it sometimes feels like just press A and point in the direction as Ezio does all the running and jumping for you automatically.

    I sometimes wish the parkour and platforming was more like Mirror's Edge, were it took proper skill and you got better over time. It felt like you were controlling Jade instead of just directing her. Oh well, maybe ME2 will be set in ancient times.

  • darkmorgado #82 6 months ago

    To be completely fair, Desmond barely factors into the game. You see him at the start, you see him at the end, and you see him for maybe a grand total of three minutes through the rest of the game. Obviously there's the shit "we want to be portal so bad it hurts" FPS side missions, but they're completely optional.

    I think if you hate Desmond you might want to avoid AC3, given the ending of this one.

  • makeamazing #83 6 months ago

    Dont understand the desmond hate to be honest. He's not been a major player in any of the games, its been always more about the assassins story.

    Some grumpy people on the forums today :)

  • Ashcroft #84 6 months ago

    Glad I decided to rent this one instead of buying, it's had the whiff of mediocrity about it right from the first announcement. Lovefilm have already posted my copy, hopefully I can clock it in a day. I have to hurry, as any minute where I'm not playing Skyrim causes me physical pain.

  • NewbieZilla #85 6 months ago

    @jablonski Something that is standard does not need an incentive. Thinking helps.

  • UkHardcore23 #86 6 months ago

    Given a 7 so we dont make fool of the 8 ;)

  • coolbritannia #87 6 months ago

    I got bored about 3 hours into Assassins Creed 1 and abandoned game, does it get better?

  • darkmorgado #88 6 months ago

    @coolbritannia

    The first game is awful. Skip it (youre not missing anything). AC2 and Brotherhood are great. Revelations sits somewhere between AC1 and AC2.

  • sfp_noodle #89 6 months ago

    @coolbritannia

    Personally, I feel the real AC story started with AC2 and Ezio. I've always found Altair to be a one-dimensional and dull character (he still dresses badass though). Ezio is a far more likeable character and has spades of personality. AC2 is where the good work began in terms of gameplay and narrative and then Brotherhood expanded on those solid foundations to create the (so far) best AC game. Haven't played Revelations yet but the reviews so far are the most mixed since the original. I'd suggest you play AC2 and Brotherhood and then decide if you want to play Revelations after that.

    On a side note, Ubisoft have already announced an AC game for next year, but I sincerely hope that the pessimistic reaction to this game will alter their stance and force them to wait until next gen consoles to take the series further. It's clear the game has hit a brick wall innovation wise in a similar way to COD, only it seems reviewers are more inclined to give COD an easier ride when it comes to stale and repetitive formulas.

  • Penguinzoot #90 6 months ago

    I've come to respect North, especially after his work as the Penguin in Arkham City

    He's the Penguin? I didn't know that, I wondered who it was, his portrayal is brilliant! :)

  • Penguinzoot #91 6 months ago

    @CoolBritannia

    DarkMorgado and sfp are right. The AC franchise only really kicks off with AC2. Miles and miles better than AC1. Have to say though that I loved the setting for the first Assassins Creed. It's just the plot, characterisation and gameplay that sucked. Um, well I suppose that's almost everything else in the game ... but the setting was good. In my opinion, obviously. ;)

  • darkmorgado #92 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle

    They can't really. They are pretty much locked into now delivering the next game, which I can't imagine to be anything other than the series finale (or at least the end to the plot that has been brewing since the first game). The premise of the next game is so dependent on the year 2012 it simply won't work otherwise. They've written themselves into a corner.

    My biggest problem with the game from the perspective of story is that Ezio is reduced to nothing more than a macguffin. His entire existence and life is rendered unimportant because he is simply there to give information to Desmond. It totally belittles the character.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 15/11/11 @ 01:41

  • vizzini #93 6 months ago

    @darkmorgardo

    A lot of your comments seem to be designed to discourage sales of this PS3 lead platform game, and come extremely close to outright spoiling the game's story for anyone else, even with your use of spoiler tags.

    Looking at the number of just released games you've recently played on 360, and when you first played them, your profile suggests you are a full time tester for Microsoft's approval process. Is that the case?

    And are you intentionally trying to discredit the AC game just to promote Halo Anniversary? Or is there a faceoff issue with Revelations that wouldn't look good for the 360 again, if the game had got a slightly better score?

    From the review I was feeling a 7/10 was possibly justified. But reading all your little comments about AC today that echoed Teti, and a refusal to put up your played time as lollage did. I'm now starting to think this is (8/10) AC as we all wanted, and the review is intentionally harsh because all the AC games so far have been better in the visuals department on PS3, and this is going to show the same.

  • darkmorgado #94 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    What the fuck are you smoking? I'm a Data Analyst for a mental hospital. I buy a lot of games and because I preorder through shopto I get them early.

    My refusal to put my playtime up? Well excuse me if a fucking comment thread on a website isn't enough to justify me spending the time taking a photo, uploading it and linking it in a futile attempt to placate fanboys whose minds will have already been made up.

    I do love how you try and turn every single little matter, no matter how tenuous, into some sort of PS3 vs XBox fanboy secret war though. It's like the cold war all over again and you think you're James Bond fighting the good fight.

    Quite pathetic.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 15/11/11 @ 02:03

  • darkmorgado #95 6 months ago

    Oh, and if you check my comment history, my comments about the game predate the review going live by well over a day. So I'm not simply parroting stuff.

    But of course, in your conspiracy-obsessed mind that will probably make you think that there is some grand conspiracy to discredit the game because it is supposedly leading on PS3 (where's the evidence for that btw?)

  • RevanNL #96 6 months ago

    @rotmm Then I suggest that you revisit AC1, 2 and Brotherhood. Can't really explain it but the way he delivers his lines is more Nathan Drake like in AC2 then in AC1, where his performence is quite stale

  • vizzini #97 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado

    Not at all, I was meaning Teti copied you. as he literally wrote what you said, and it is odd that someone who pays for their own games would knowingly try and damage their resale value before everyone else had got a review or rental copy, in the situation where you'd get top money back.

    Fair explanation for your reason for being able to play all those games so early, and having time to play them. But you must admit your comments look suspect, like you have gone all out to talk down the game and then gone beyond that point, for seemingly no logical reason.

  • darkmorgado #98 6 months ago

    @RevanNL Or maybe it's simply the case that as actors grow in their career, they develop distinctive habits that define their performances?

    You're really stretching an already flimsy claim beyond the realms of credulity.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 15/11/11 @ 02:10

  • darkmorgado #99 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    They don't look suspect at all, because I don't mention platform in any of my comments. If I was being employed by a platform holder, wouldn't I instead be bigging up one version of the game over another instead of criticising the game as a whole?

    My comments came because I have loved the last few AC games and I was expecting to love this one. Instead I was bitterly disappointed and, as someone who has managed to play the game thoroughly before it hits the shelves, I thought people would appreciate the feedback. There are absolutely no ulterior motives involved despite what you think (you really do come across as someone who sees anti-sony conspiracy theories everywhere). So no, I don't agree that my comments look suspect. They look like what they are: honest feedback from someone who has obtained and played the game ahead of time, which is incredibly common on the forums.

    And as much as I like being flattered, I sincerely doubt Teti was even aware of my forum comments, let alone actively copied them.

    Oh, and the game doesn't really have much resale value because it has the Uplay Passport that locks out multiplayer unless you buy brand new.

    And I don't trade my games (I am a firm believer that the prevalence of the seconhand market is a parasitic influence on the industry), so resale value is unimportant to me.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 15/11/11 @ 02:20

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #100 6 months ago

    ahaha loved the last two lines AHAHAH talk about a stabbing!

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #101 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle stop crying just enjoy teh game yourself, if I want something I buy it wont change if EG review it bad or IGN so belt up and stop moaning.

  • steagz #102 6 months ago

    Assassins Creed My Arse

  • ilmaestro #103 6 months ago

    They're still making these AssCreed games? How quaint.

  • vizzini #104 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado

    You really don't get it though, do you? Your opinion, much like a reviewer's is just one opinion and it is good to share it, but don't you think talking negatively in a repeated and forceful manner about a game around launch for anything other than class A bugs is quite out of order? Especially if it potentially damages others opportunity to remain open minded to enjoy the product.

    In this instance I would say you've made it harder for people to form their own opinion, by trying to repeatedly ram home a negative view that you have been substantiating with effectively plot spoilers.

    So then have these comments you've made been for our benefit? or yours?

  • darkmorgado #105 6 months ago

    @vizzini They've been for the benefit of people wanting to know whether or not the game is worth their money during a crowded release schedule.

    And you want to talk about bugs? Ok. Launching one of the crappy tower defense minigames resulted in a system crash that required a hard reboot. 5 times in 30 minutes. The problem only resolved itself when I cleared my cache. Or how about the bizarre bug where I dived into a bail of hay and the physics engine decided to play games and instead launched me 30 ft in the air? How about the fact that Ezio repeatedly "hit" thin air and rebounded off it as if it was a wall? Or the poor collision detection? The input lag?

    You seem to think I am incessantly ragging on the game when I have made it clear that it is an enjoyable game. But it is just not as enjoyable or anywhere near as polished as its predecessors and the new tricks it brings to the table fall flat. Does it mean the game is bad? No. Does it mean the game isn't as good as the legacy it seeks to continue? Yes. So to score it on par with other games in the series when it simply doesn't live up to their quality would be biased, not to tell it like it is and score it like it is: a good game in a franchise that is showing all the signs of dminishing returns due to an annual dev cycle.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 15/11/11 @ 02:59

  • sfp_noodle #106 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    Mate you're full of shit. What does this game have to do with leading on a certain platform? Go check metacritic, this is the second lowest scoring AC game after the original. Just because someone has the game early how does that make them a plant to promote or degrade a game?

    I had to laugh at your reasoning behind darkmorgado disliking the game. Who gives a fuck if the game lead on a certain platform? Is that supposed to automatically reduce enjoyment levels? I've not played the game yet myself but I've read enough reviews and opinions from people who've played it to judge that it isn't anywhere near the level of quality of previous games. Maybe you just need to accept that whilst not bad, this certainly isn't a must-have title this year when there is so much quality to choose from. Ubisoft have no-one to blame but themselves either for a yearly development cycle.

  • NegativeZero #107 6 months ago

    @nickthegun John Titor's big problem was figuring out how to play this on an IBM 5100. :p

  • Xs1ght #108 6 months ago

    Decent review, can't wait to judge it myself though. That hook does sound a bit annoying... everyone seems to forget that people have different tastes, why doesn't everyone stop moaning and judge it for yourself? I'm sure most who have commented have their own opinion and love for previous releases, give it a try and see if this has the same kind of love.

  • gooner77 #109 6 months ago

    @vizzini stop with the cospiracy theory bollocks already. i have darkmorgado and my friends list and have seen that he's been playing ac r quite extensively.

    I find your pov really ridiculous and as far as I'm concerned darkm has every right to express his opinion about a game he's played. God knows we have enough people whining about games before they're even out

    I also got AC R on saturday from shopto but haven't played it as I'm in love with skyrim atm

    seriously though just drop it

  • Sodding_Gamer #110 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle

    Couldn't agree more mate. The only downsides I've heard from this game is the desmond sections aren't that great and neither is tower defence thing. That really doesn't bother me. I neeed to get home!

  • Inmediasress #111 6 months ago

    You know I find it hilarious how people get all angry and mighty because how their favourite little series isn't geting 10/10 perfect scores all over the board.
    Always f***ing about with the old 8/10 shit and making drama about a score.
    They did it with uncharted 3 with duke nukem and a whole others.
    Come people how pathetic liitle twats can you get?
    The review is just an opinion and you are entitled to yours as well and while that gives good ground to argue at least argue abaout the f***ing game not a score.

  • Bravestinsane #112 6 months ago

    @spf_noodle

    Read this review of MW3, they destroyed it "because" it was the same old same old

    http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2011/11/10/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/1

  • Darren #113 6 months ago

    Assassin's Creed II was wonderful, the best game in the series so far IMO. Brotherhood was almost as good but way too similar to the point where it felt more like an expansion pack in my opinion. Both games, however, were a vast improvement on the initially promising but ultimately repetitive original. I'm kind of looking forward to Revelations but I do feel that Ubisoft are milking the series to an early death with what appears to be a game every year. That doesn't give the games any time to evolve unlike other sequels which take two to three years to make. I guess that shows in EG's review and score. I'm disappointing but I'll still buy the game anyway when it comes out on the PC in a few weeks.

  • Madder-Max #114 6 months ago

    The jumping puzzles were not fun in Brotherhood

  • rotmm #115 6 months ago

    @Vizzini,

    Wow, just wow. What a great post from you here, so good that I have to quote the whole thing for posterity.

    A lot of your comments seem to be designed to discourage sales of this PS3 lead platform game, and come extremely close to outright spoiling the game's story for anyone else, even with your use of spoiler tags.

    Looking at the number of just released games you've recently played on 360, and when you first played them, your profile suggests you are a full time tester for Microsoft's approval process. Is that the case?

    And are you intentionally trying to discredit the AC game just to promote Halo Anniversary? Or is there a faceoff issue with Revelations that wouldn't look good for the 360 again, if the game had got a slightly better score?

    From the review I was feeling a 7/10 was possibly justified. But reading all your little comments about AC today that echoed Teti, and a refusal to put up your played time as lollage did. I'm now starting to think this is (8/10) AC as we all wanted, and the review is intentionally harsh because all the AC games so far have been better in the visuals department on PS3, and this is going to show the same.

    As I was reading through that, I went from amusewment to incredulity. As conspiracy theories go, it's a pretty good one. But then as I got to the end I noticed yet another poster being guilty of revisionism.

    I'll quote again the part that almost made me choke on my morning coffee:

    ....and the review is intentionally harsh because all the AC games so far have been better in the visuals department on PS3, and this is going to show the same....

    What?

    While it's true that the original Assassins Creed was originally said to be a PS3 exclusive (and therefore the lead platform) and all Creed games so far have been heavily advertised alongside the PS3 branding, at no point have they ever been far ahead in the visuals department.

    Assassin's Creed

    "..While the 360 game drops the odd frame here and there, by and large it's refreshing at a steady 30fps. Not so with PS3 where even the most basic action on-screen sends the refresh rate tumbling dramatically. While the detail levels and texture quality appear to be identical cross-format (though PS3 has harsher contrast), the Sony machine employs a different anti-aliasing method than 360. The result is softer edges (good) but an unnecessary blur that masks a lot of the intricate detail you'll find on Xbox 360..

    Assassin's Creed 2

    "So, overall the performance gap has dropped, but if you've got the choice, the Xbox 360 offers a sharper picture, smoother performance, lower levels of screen-tear and faster loading, and it doesn't require PS3's 1.5GB mandatory install either."

    Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

    "However, many other engine issues haven't really been resolved. Xbox 360 still offers a smoother performance level but both games still suffer badly on occasion from some pretty obtrusive tearing. In this respect, not much has changed from Assassin's Creed II: while tearing is not so noticeable in many games, it's effectively a constant companion in the city scenes here and crops up regularly elsewhere too."


    Sadly, the walls of your conspiracy theory are all just falling down for you :(

  • rotmm #116 6 months ago

    @RevanNL,

    Or could it be something as simple as in AC1 he was Desmond was basically confused, whereas by AC2 he had a greater handle on what was going on, was more inclusive in getting onvolved in the animus and therefore North was able to bring a little more personality to the part?

    No, that's not it at all. In the recording studios the Ubisoft team, who have invested millions into creating the AssCreed brand, where shouting "No North, we need more Drake and Less Miles" over the headphones in the soundbooth.

  • king26 #117 6 months ago

    After so many games being underrated by EG I'd look elsewhere for an overall look at any given game. I certainly wouldn't base my purchase on this.

  • king26 #118 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:22 12-12-2011

  • king26 #119 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:22 12-12-2011

  • HarryPalmer #120 6 months ago

    Hmm. AC2 is one of my favourite games. Brotherhood left me kinda cold because it felt to busy and overblown, while basically being more of the same. Think I may skip this.

  • Sodding_Gamer #121 6 months ago

    @Penguinzoot

    AC2 was absolutely astonishing. Blew my expectations completely away. What I remember most from AC1 was talking in the hideouts and Altair "bobbing" up and down. God damn that was annoying! And the one mission where you are chasing a target by the docks. Two bad memories. From then on all good memories of AC :)

  • coomber #122 6 months ago

    I can't understand why anyone is raving about this review. As soon as I saw it getting criticised because the metal climbing hook makes clanking sounds I realised I wasn't going to get much from it.

  • kinky_mong #123 6 months ago

    So the multiplayer is the best part of the package? Considering I though the multiplayer of AC:B was an absolute abomination of "Who can press X to start their uninterruptable animation first" I'll be steering well clear of this iteration.

  • DarpaChief #124 6 months ago

    I get the feeling the price of this will plummet within a matter of months, should be a decent purchase for £10-ish.

    Can't believe Deus Ex prices fell so quickly, £11.99 new on Amazon already!

  • Bigglesworth #125 6 months ago

    Okay, I stopped reading when I started hitting story spoilers (I'm hopelessly behind the times and havent played Brotherhood yet) but this sounds the view of someone not all that willing to invest in the backstory and mythos of the game; someone who prefers to focus on the gameplay and mechanics.

    I've always found the AC games to give back what you put in by orders of magnitude. I get the feeling this game will be an excellent continuation of the story.

  • telboy007 #126 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado Thats so disappointing. :( Still I got through AC quite happily, so I'll probably still enjoy it.

  • SteelPriest #127 6 months ago

    you lost me at "cocktail weenies".

  • vizzini #128 6 months ago

    @rotmm

    The faceoffs for the AC series like HL2 were some of DF's worst work ever. Completely missing the difference in shorter draw distance, texture streaming popup closer to the foreground, absence of exponent fog, crushed blacks/saturated whites, and absence of true HDR lighting. All aspects that weren't issues in the PS3 version of the engine, and gave it a big visual advantage.

    Frame-rate in all except AC1, always remained at a decent interactive rate on both SKUs and tearing was roughly equal in both, by the fact it was there and noticeable, the decide factor was PS3 visual advantages and audio quality.

  • darkmorgado #129 6 months ago

    @king26 The fact that people who have the game are echoing the sentiments of the review perfectly should be enough to realise that EG arent being niggly for the sake of it

  • darkmorgado #130 6 months ago

    @vizzini considering the sheer amount of time you dedicate to spouting bollocks about how DF are clearly on the microsoft payroll and consistently fail to provide any evidence for your increasingly illogical claims, forgive me if i take anything you say with a quarry load of salt

  • vizzini #131 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado

    Anyone that is knowledgeable about programming computer graphics, could look at the list of things I've described above and compare the AC games themselves, and draw the same conclusion.

    Whether I should have any respect for DF is a totally separate issue, and doesn't change the physical evidence to support what I just wrote. But you've already told us about the class A, B and C bugs you found in the SKU you've played, so the face-off might be correct this time, if the other SKUs don't have these issues.

  • Murbal #132 6 months ago

    12 months time when it's under £15. Wish I'd done the same with Brotherhood, I still haven't played it!

  • rotmm #133 6 months ago

    @vizzini,

    "The faceoffs for the AC series like HL2 were some of DF's worst work ever. Completely missing the difference in shorter draw distance, texture streaming popup closer to the foreground, absence of exponent fog, crushed blacks/saturated whites, and absence of true HDR lighting. All aspects that weren't issues in the PS3 version of the engine, and gave it a big visual advantage.

    Really, just making things up doesn't help your case ar all. Go to any of the faceoffs and look at the images/video and you'll see that none of what you profess to be the truth actually bear any relation to it. Draw distance is identical, texture streaming popup (LOD) is the same. A prime example of that can be seen in the first slowed down video on the assassin's creed 2 face off at about 5:05, where if you look at the balcony to the left you can clearly see both sets of high-res assets streaming in ar EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Crushed blacks? Yes, the 360 version of AC1 had more contrast, but it would be as easy to say the PS3 version looked washed out in comparison.

    However, to finish off I need to quote a later post of yours:

    "Anyone that is knowledgeable about programming computer graphics, could look at the list of things I've described above and compare the AC games themselves, and draw the same conclusion."

    Really? A person that is knowledgeable about programming computer graphics can see that the PS3 version looks better than the 360 version because the latter has an "absence of true HDR lighting"

    Let me put forward another theory. A person who wasn't completely unknowledgeable about programming computer graphics would notice that none of the Assassin's Creed games on either platform feature true HDR lighting at all.

    Stop making shit up you fucking spanner.

  • Zidargh #134 6 months ago

    I won't be getting this one. Don't get me wrong, I think the series is brilliant and I'm very happy it has built the fan base it has. But, and I have said this before, I have never been able to pump more than 15/20 hours in each game.

    I'm not sure about you guys but Ubisoft has this bizarre effect on me in that I think most of their games have this natural charm that get me intrigued and willing to purchase their products. But for the life of me I still cannot understand why Brotherhood gets SUCH high praise for as good a game as it is, and as much as they have attempted to make it more varied, the new aspects are quite shallow and it is still a very repetitive game.

    Shame that with Revelations it can't leave the 'OH SNAP' impression a finale on Ezio deserves, but I'm sure for those that haven't played the series before, this will be a lot of fun for them.

  • vizzini #135 6 months ago

    @rotmm

    You are just using DF styled fud there, and for your information, there is a CRT piecewise linear gamma texture correction chip in the Xenos, like DX9 limitations. DF intentionally over exposes PS3 captures to downplay the old 360 hardware issue, as many people comment each week that the games don't look washed out like that on their TV with their PS3.

    Instead put the SKUs on your TV, one after the other, doing the same actions, and compare for yourself, like I did with AC1, you will see the differences easily on a Deep Colour capable TV (30bit panel or more).

  • Bartacus #136 6 months ago

    There are only so many times you can charge £30 plus for walking around, talking, fighting & climbing up a building in different cities with the same character type before people become bored of it & sick of paying for it.

  • rotmm #137 6 months ago

    @vizzini,

    ..DF intentionally over exposes PS3 captures..

    So let me get this straight. You contend that Richard Leadbetter has always, and continues to do so, taken the PS3 capture directly from the PS3, but then uses image manipulation to intentionally overexpose that previously pure capture before then encoding the video (or still image) for public consumption.

    Is that your contention?

  • Penguinzoot #138 6 months ago

    @vizzini Just give it up, man. There may or may not be some truth to what you say, but after your conspiracist theory performance with DM in this thread, it is hard to take anything you say seriously.
    Edited by Penguinzoot at 15/11/11 @ 12:30

  • Subdominator #139 6 months ago

    I loved the first and never got into the second. I simply don't like Ezio at all. The fact that they stuck with him for three games just made it easy for me to ignore the series. I hope it can shine again next year.

  • iamnosuperman #140 6 months ago

    I know AC is starting to look old and should be marked down because of it but people must not look at the score itself. For me the only reason I still buy AC games is the story and the continuity aspect of it. I want to know what happens next and reading about it on Wikipedia isn't really the best way to experience it.

  • vizzini #141 6 months ago

    @Penguinzoot

    I only asked him a question based on his many, many comments that day about AC:R, (imo) looked odd. He answered, saying he didn't. And I took his word for it, while explaining why I though it had seem odd and why he didn't want to prove the 12hr play through comment with a picture.

    But other people have been trying to keep that going, and I didn't take issue or reply to his personal message insult with child like name calling.

    I just took issue with him not only having been lucky enough to get and finish the game early, but seemingly wishing to hammer home the point no one else should think it is better than he or Teti did. All he had do was use the “imo” or “imho” when giving his opinion for the second time and I would have acknowledged he was trying to be helpful rather than, coming over like a game spoiler for one of the year's biggest game releases.

    I've now watch the first 15mins in HD over at computerandvideogames.com and have decided I'll buy it today or tomorrow; as even Desmond looks like he's had the Cole MacGrath infamous 2 makeover, and looks like a more fleshed out personality in the game.

    @rotmm, no, that isn't what I said, I said the captures are over exposed, I didn't give commentary on how, just why.

  • havoc2011 #142 6 months ago

    I think it's time they pushed Assassin's Creed in a new direction. Feudal Japanese Assassins? Ninjas?

  • cardboardMonster #143 6 months ago

    @Bartacus Largely agree, but couldn't the same be said of football games, for instance, with the running around, shooting footballs at goals and tackling people antics? It does seem odd (if not unreasonable) that certain genres are immune from the originality police.

    Ultimately, it's a bad year to bring out a fairly unremarkable sequel, as there's too many impressive ones for this to truly compete in the accolade stakes. Assassin's Creed fans will still find much to enjoy here.

  • dirtysteve #144 6 months ago

    The point of diminishing returns. I wonder how this bodes for their yearly updates plan?

  • Beano #145 6 months ago

    7 sounds bit harsh judged by other reviews. But I didn't expect it to match other Eurogamer 8-rated titles either. Still, I really liked AC:B and more of that sounds good to me. But waiting until I have completed Skyrim, Skyward Sword, Mario Land 3D, Halo Anniversary and MGS HD - so a cheap January purchase for me :)

  • Beano #146 6 months ago

    @vizzini It could have something to do with HDMI range setting etc. on the PS3 console?
    That can have a big impact in video output.

  • Bigglesworth #147 6 months ago

    @cardboardMonster It does seem odd (if not unreasonable) that certain genres are immune from the originality police.

    Very good point. Ironically, its genre developers who try something different and go on to find a niche that get hammered for doing so, thus ensuring their franchise ultimately fails and quite often puts them out of business.

  • rakso #148 6 months ago

    @northernlights I totally agree.

  • rob_of_the_robots #149 6 months ago

    Does this game actually add anything to Desmond's overall story then like Brotherhood did?

  • GarethBale3 #150 6 months ago

    another example where improved MP spoils the SP experience boo :(

  • Beano #151 6 months ago

    @LaFlamaBlanca My first AC game was Brotherhood and I just used youtube to get the back story from AC1+2. Unless you are really interested in playing all games, I think you should be able to start with AC:R since it should be very similar to AC:B game play wise. If you start out with AC1 now, there is a good chance you will get tired of the game play before you reach AC:R :)

  • superflyninja #152 6 months ago

    Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! I thought Ubisoft were the good guys!!! ACII was great and Brotherhood was a big leap ahead. Really disappointed after reading the review. I agree how can you be a super cool assassin if yer just lobbing bombs around left right n centre? I only used smoke bombs,wrist blades and the sword or pistol(when I had to)
    What is it with devs dumbing things down? Between this and Mass Effect....but i did agree with earlier posts, the Italian setting and Ezio himself really made these games stand out. Desmond...even his name is boring....bah...gutted :(
    Edited by superflyninja at 15/11/11 @ 15:30

  • rotmm #153 6 months ago

    @vizzini, "no, that isn't what I said, I said the captures are over exposed, I didn't give commentary on how, just why."

    A person that is knowledgeable about programming computer graphics, as I assume that you are by your earlier inference, would understand (by the very nature of trying to ensure that what you render it what is output) that when someone like DF captures losslessly directly over HDMI, what is captured is exactly what is output from the source console.

    You can't "over expose" a direct-feed capture over HDMI, unless you use image manipulation.

    So which is it? Do DF deliberately manipulate the captured images or not?

  • Morte-360 #154 6 months ago

    Enjoyed Brotherhood a lot this just feels empty, nearly every cutscene I've seen has appeared rush. Ah well back to Skyrim or Arkham I go.

  • BigDannyH #155 6 months ago

    @sfp_noodle

    I'm not sure "dropping 3 marks" is how these review scores work.

    And if there was a formulaic marking system, how do you know it doesn't start at 0 and go up?

    I'd just read the review, use it to make a judgement as to whether you want to play the game and then form your own opinion once you've played it.

    Does it really matter what someone else "scores" it and how that score relates to MW3?

  • Ashcroft #156 6 months ago

    The tower defence game in this is a crime against humanity. If anything, the review is kind.

  • vizzini #157 6 months ago

    rotmm: “You can't "over expose" a direct-feed capture over HDMI, unless you use image manipulation.”

    What if you just increased the in game brightness before capture?
    What if you capture using WinXP that uses DirectX9 and a different colour space to the PS3?
    What if you use 24bit RGB hardware with Windows(like DF do) to capture Deep colour source material(24-48bit colour true sRGB) over hdmi? ie undersampling

    What if the lossy H.264 codecs are DirectX accelerated and based on wmv and use non-standard settings?

    And that is just the few ways it could be happening that sprang to mind.

    I'm sure a through person like yourself could think of a few more reason to explain why most PS3 consumers looking through faceoff footage, wonder why the DF captures look wrong and washed out, unlike their TVs.

    The Pro Audio/Video captures Sony do themselves for games actually look like raw uncompressed gameplay footage, and they are still only using a form of lossy H.264 codec with a direct-feed capture, shouldn't that tell you something?

  • darkmorgado #158 6 months ago

    @vizzini You speak as though Digital Foundry are the only ones to comment on the regular "washed-out" look to PS3 ports, when in fact it's widely-reported. So, are all of those other journalists on the Microsoft payroll?

  • sfp_noodle #159 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    You're just rambling now seriously, give it up. It's not like AC is Bayonetta levels of bad on PS3, I played both AC2 and Brotherhood on the PS3 and didn't notice anything major apart from the screen tearing. Most of what DF picks out are minor quibbles. The only major issue present in AC on PS3 is the excessive screean tearing and longer load times because of the Blu-Ray.

    Managed to find Revelations cheap on the 360 using some codes so decided to go with that version (I rarely bother deciding over which format to buy, I almost always go for the cheapest price). Even though it's supposed to look and run better, I bet I will only notice the faster load times and less screen tearing.

    Look you've only got a PS3, what's wrong with that? There's been some absolutely fantastic games on it this year exclusive wise, plus it gets all the multiformat titles too. If those multiplatform titles are slightly inferior on the PS3, is that really a big enough deal for you to label other members of the site as part of a conspiracy? Stop embarrasing yourself and just enjoy playing games.

  • Bonders99 #160 6 months ago

    Played it last night, felt like it's just an extension pack. Just does not feel as though it is a brand new title. Albeit the graphics and frame rate on PS3 appears, to me at least, somewhat improved than the presvious titles. the score of 7/10 is pretty much on the mark. But as sfp_noodle points out, this is where EG lack consistency. COD shows no new innovations year on year yet still gets a hearty review.

  • jasonbean7 #161 6 months ago

    I never used the Brotherhood mechanic (unless I had to) in the previous game so to me the hook-blade and bombs are a welcome addition for solo-kills. Do agree about the tower-defense, though: BIG mistake.
    Edited by jasonbean7 at 17/11/11 @ 03:44

  • Wizard83 #162 6 months ago

    As soon as the 2 people that made this 'franchise' moved on you just knew it would be in trouble!

    tower defense?? fuck off with that shit!
    1st person trippy puzzles? cram it up your ass!
    reskinning Ezio as Altair? i would rather forget AC1 thanks!

    most depressing point? i have to buy it, i've played Ezio since his birth, i have to know how it ends :mad:

  • Wizard83 #163 6 months ago

    @Bonders99 Didnt COD get an 8? not my definition of hearty!

  • Bonders99 #164 6 months ago

    @Wizard83 I meant the actual tone of the review. The ACR one appears somewhat negative whereas the COD one was mainly brimming with the positive side, if you know what I mean.

  • jonfon #165 6 months ago

    @Wizard83
    "most depressing point? i have to buy it, i've played Ezio since his birth, i have to know how it ends"

    Ah yes, Assassins Creed 2 : The Toddler Years
    I think I missed that bit of DLC somewhere along the line.

  • havoc2011 #166 6 months ago

    @LaFlamaBlanca Start at the beginning.

  • jonfon #167 6 months ago

    @MrsPacMan
    Really?? I hadn't realized. I retract my obviously entirely serious post completely and apologize unreservedly for getting the wrong end of the stick.

    As we speak I'm flagellating myself in penance for my sins.

    Well I say flagellating...

  • AssassinVenice #168 6 months ago

    I have enjoy the first 3 games but this new installment disappointed me.
    The faces that i used to know are gone, they were replaced by ugly dudes (talking about Desmond, Altair and of course Ezio).
    I will go with Batman Arkham Asylum and Batman Arkham City for this Holidays.
    Then next year it will be AC Revelations and AC... (don't know the name yet).
    A 7/10 is fair enough.

  • Lemming81 #169 6 months ago

    I enjoyed AC2, but felt the sequels should have gone with other time lines/ancestors. It just seemed a bit of a missed opportunity to go with one guy for that long.

  • WJF #170 6 months ago

    I haven't played AC:R yet (it's not until next week on PC) but honestly, if the ending suggests Desmond taking on an even greater role in the next game then Ubi should do the decent thing and switch main characters.

    Just put the player in the shoes of a Templar agent in the Animus - one that has more charisma than a chalk board - and then make him kill Desmond in the present as the 'twist'. Oh and make him turn to the light side or some such sillyness during the end cut scene to ensure everyone feels better about playing the bad guy.

    It's not like they've got a major story arc planned out in advance, other than that deadline wot I won't spoil. Brotherhood's ending smacked of 'shite, we need a twist, lads' more than anything else

  • lord_fartsalot #171 6 months ago

    Im almost half way through this game. The only disappointment for me was that, the desmond's story and den defense "minigame" fall flat. They are really irritating, and I am spending a lot of time managing my notoriety, just so I dont have to suffer through the stupid den defense thing. I understand the reason it's in there, and it make perfect sense in the context, but it is quite crude considering the quality of tower defense games available these days. Another let down, is the omission of the puzzles. That said, it's still quite a quality game.

    Assassin recruitment and training and the master assassin quests are great and really enjoyable. There is an attempt to make the process of training each master assassin really personal and it pays off very well. It almost approaches mass effect 2, where each team member you recruit has his/her own story. It still has some distance go, to match ME2 but it's a great direction for the series nevertheless.

    The new eagle vision feels surprisingly natural and less "gamey" than in the previous games. It requires you to focus on objects/people of interest before they are revealed as targets. It requires more deliberation on the players part, but that is just as it should be, in my opinion. On the other hand, the hook blade speeds up movement and gameplay greatly and it's a welcome addition. Bombs are a nice touch as well, but they aren't as game changing as the recruits in brotherhood were. In other words, they needn't have been hyped so much.

    Now as I play the game, all I'm hoping for is that the quality of the story keeps up. Considering how single player oriented and story focused this game is, it is a bit surprising that ubisoft still hasn't ended any of the games in a neat manner, story wise. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and give a thumbs up to this one.

  • mrpsb #172 6 months ago

    TOWER DEFENCE IS FOR CUNTS

  • WadiumArcadium #173 5 months ago

    Got it for Christmas and I am enjoying it, as I've enjoyed the rest of the series. Looking forward to see how Ezio's story ends, Desmond's a pillock.