POP dev expected "pats on the back"

By Robert Purchese Published 23 December, 2008

Ubi says risks were not appreciated.

Prince of Persia producer Ben Mattes has said he was surprised how reluctant fans, developers and critics were to support new ideas trying to "shake up the industry and push things forward".

His worry, he told IGN, is that "our industry in fact has a stronger appetite for the familiar than it wants to admit".

"For years we've all been reading complaints about sequels and companies churning out carbon copies of proven formulas without focusing on innovation or taking risks. Fans, developers and critics alike seemed ravenous for new ideas - new IP, major innovations - advances in this art-tertainment form we all love," said Mattes.

"We tried to really embrace this challenge on POP. We set out to keep a few core fundamentals but to re-imagine everything else, discarding some very well entrenched ideas not only about the brand but also about videogames in general. And we weren't alone. EA took some major risks this year with new IP and innovations - Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, for example.

"What surprises me is how little these high-level risks seem to be noticed and appreciated as attempts to shake up the industry and push things forward," he added. "Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new."

We gave Prince of Persia 6/10, our biggest sticking point being the absence of challenge when clambering around, which formed a repetitive and unsatisfying core for our money.

Mattes believes he accomplished what he set out to do with POP, and likes the realistic length and opportunity for people - both casual and hardcore - to finish the story. However Mattes, in hindsight, admits difficulty was something he would have done differently.

"I think we could have done a better job in giving more challenge to those gamers who play a game to accomplish and achieve, rather than experience," he said.

"We talked a lot about it during development - multiple difficulty settings, etc. - but could not come up with a way to modify all aspects of the game - combat, acrobatics, trap difficulty - in a graceful and interesting way."

The next step for Prince of Persia will be "significant DLC", which Mattes said will be new content such as unseen areas, enemies, powers and fight moves. No dates have been mentioned.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (126) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • schachmatt #1 3 years ago

    Of course it's everyone else's fault.
    Never heard that one before.

  • Aretak #2 3 years ago

    What a load of bollocks. There's nothing "innovative" about the new PoP. Everything about it is a poor copy of another game, from the visuals to the gameplay to the main character (who is Nathan Drake in a Halloween costume).

  • PearOfAnguish #3 3 years ago

    Okay, everyone form an orderly queue, we all need to show our appreciation for a platform game with a big 'ol virtual cock-sucking.

  • darleysam #4 3 years ago

    I was actually disappointed by its poor reception as the game was remarkably good. The presentation alone (that black cardboard box just as a start) was great and I thought the game was very well-made. But yeah, some people just can't deal with the lack of a Game Over screen.

    People gots to troll, I guess.

  • daz_john_smith #5 3 years ago

    "Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new."

    I was expecting a better game. Swings and roundabouts innit.

    OK Mr Mattes, well done for innovating and creating one long quick time event. Seriously though are we expected to praise every new idea even the ones that don't work, Mirrors Edge for example is horribly broken and flawed.

  • mowgli #6 3 years ago

    I thought it was superb so you can have a virtual pat on the back from me.

  • darleysam #7 3 years ago

    Mowgli no! It's cool to hate things now.

  • chicknstu #8 3 years ago

    I'd give them a pat on the back. If they'd gone the old tired route of 'When the player dies, make them repeat the last large section of gameplay', then it wouldn't have been half the game it was. It took all the fustration out of the game.

    I love the fact that these guys are trying to push things forward. The fact that most 'Gamers' were opposed to it doesn't surprise me at all, but I really hope the team don't start taking them seriously.

  • berelain #9 3 years ago

    I think he needs to be aware that the reason these new IP's didn't do too well isn't because they were new, but because they simply weren't quite good enough. Mirror's Edge being a fine example of that; its almost brilliant, but lets itself down with some bungled design decisions towards the end of the game.

  • Aretak #10 3 years ago

    "Mowgli no! It's cool to hate things now."

    It's even cooler to be sarcastic on the internet every time somebody doesn't like the same things you do though.

  • PearOfAnguish #11 3 years ago

    Mowgli no! It's cool to hate things now.

    No, it's cool to like the things that other people don't and then moan about how they just hate them because it's trendy. That is truly cool, my friend.

    Portal on the other hand was fairly innovative

    Good example. A clever, unique concept with great execution, and it was very popular. Fancy that. Braid, World Of Goo and other titles also got lots of praise.

    And you know, sequels and remakes aren't a bad thing so long as they are actually good games. It's when they're endless mediocre sequels cynically pumped out year after year that people start to complain.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/08 @ 14:38

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #12 3 years ago

    it is frustrating to repeat large sections of game but the difficulty is broken, its the same in Fable 2 tho and most people seem to love that, and dont try and tell me that getting scared was a reason not to just die and respawn in Fable.

    I still think the new POP is really good fun even tho the difficulty is broken, does seem to be happening more and more these days. Possibly stems from a weak attempt to encourage casual gamers to play through.

  • darleysam #13 3 years ago

    No, I get tired of people who just shout "GENERIC" and "COPYING!" whenever they don't like a game. That's great, you don't like it, there's lots I don't like. I'll at least actually try to find a reason to criticise it if so, instead of just bandying about some buzzwords to try and sound like I've got a clue. It really is a much better game than people give it credit for, but because it's a big Ubisoft release (and you see the same thing for a big EA release too), people jump straight to their happy conclusions that it sucks.

  • Dynamize #14 3 years ago

    You sure took a risk and revolutionised the idea of "new IP and innovations" by making the seventh game in an established IP spanning 20 years, which had recently been re-ignited with a high-profile trilogy, Mattes!

    By most accounts you made a decent platformer in a well-establised series. Be happy in that. Don't try to paint it as some maverick, auteurist move though. That just makes you look a bit silly.

  • kangarootoo #15 3 years ago

    Seems to me the key difference is between trying something new and actually achieving a successful result.

    Games do want original ideas, but they also want quality games.

    Now on the whole PoP was very good. We gamers do get bogged down in the minutae sometimes and far too often we either declare love or hate with nothing in between, based on the most unobrusive things. However, it wasn't awesome and in many ways it wasn't as good as Sands of Time (though I think too many of us forget how cocking awful the combat was in SoT).

    So change is good, and we DO want change, but only if it change for the better. If we get change and we don't like the result we won't be patting anyone on the back (and some would say, neither should we).

  • JohnnyWashnGo #16 3 years ago

    Its was oooookay I suppose. Nowhere near as groundbreaking or innovative as I think the developers would like us to believe.

    And as nice as it looks, it provided very little in the way of risk/reward during gameplay. I don't buy games to watch them, I buy them because I fancy a challenge, and PoP provided very little challenge.

    Still... looked pretty didn't it?

  • kangarootoo #17 3 years ago

    On a related note, I am sure I have been seeing a trend over the last year or so for developers to get vocal when people pick faults with their work. Specifically, they seem to get vocal in a very "its the gamer's fault" kind of way (I am looking at you Burnout Paradise and Duke Nukem Forever).

    Personally I have never felt that was appropriate behaviour, and it borders on embarrassing. In this particular case its not a major deal as he is just expressing some mild surprise and disappointment, but one the whole it is behaviour that I think should be completely avoided.

    Our job is to make games that our target audiences like. If the target audience DOESN'T like a game, the only reason its dev should be opening their mouth is to ask why, so they can hopefully find out what went wrong and how they can improve the sequel.

    Any kind of "actually, you should have liked it more, but you didn't because you failed to understand XYZ" type talk just makes my toes curl.

  • insincere_dave #18 3 years ago

    "sigmagoat"

    Why don't you go and suck off your "space marine" boyfriend in the back of your generic "urban racing" sports car.

  • Vanmunt #19 3 years ago

    Good game, one of the best endings to a game this year... well, maybe the best ending to a game this year.. (hopes Peter Molyneux (Spelling!) gets to play it!!)

  • kangarootoo #20 3 years ago

    "Still... looked pretty didn't it?"

    It looked AWESOME. One of the prettiest games out there atm in my opinion. And the core mechanics of running about were tight enough (some odd choices with the whole jump/claw functions I thought, but aside from that). And even the combat moves themselves worked pretty well.

    It was just the meta game that glued it all together which, I think, people felt was lacking. Lost a little in implementation, as always.

  • kangarootoo #21 3 years ago

    @sigmagoat

    You have some deep issues.

    And might I recommend using the full stop a little more often. You might even find it fun.

  • darleysam #22 3 years ago

    Messrs. Holkins and Krahulik save the day again
    http://ww w.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/...
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/08 @ 14:55

  • paulf #23 3 years ago

    I almost felt for him, I'm all for innovation and trying new things but then I read that he called gaming 'art-tertainment' and that was it, no pat on the back from me

  • Pinewood_Groves #24 3 years ago

    What's the major innovation in the new PoP? Taking an artistically beautiful game and deliberately ruining the atmosphere with scooby-doo cartoon voices?

  • neonemesis #25 3 years ago

    EA took some major risks this year with new IP and innovations - Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, for example.

    Yeah but thats the point isn't it? These were new IP's whereas players are going to find it hard to swallow drastic alterations to the formula of established IP's such as PoP. What did they expect?

    Innovations and risks are better spent on new IP's that don't already have a fanbase to moan about changes to a proven formula.

  • jellyhead #26 3 years ago

    Call him a Waaaaaaambulance!
    Cry more, good on you Mr Dev for making changes, well done. The fact that those changes weren't necessarily for the best doesn't matter does it? Good art doesn't make a good game.

    As for the rest not selling well, don't release them all in bloody November then! 0_o
    It's not rocket science that people have a limited budget. I think EA have done a stellar job this year with their new IPs and i've supported them. The fact they may be going back to churning out DRM ridden dross means that they'll probably be the last EA games i buy.

    Am i allowed that opinion? :)

  • Shakey_Jake33 #27 3 years ago

    Lets be fair, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space sold because of the hype, not because of any perceived innovation.

  • darleysam #28 3 years ago

    Mirror's Edge hasn't sold very well (but was innovative because who else has tried doing a first-person game about platforming instead of combat?) and Dead Space being a sci-fi survival horror is, frankly, quite a new thing of late. Not a great many games coming out under that banner, and the dismemberment was brilliant, as were the zero atmosphere and gravity stuff.

    So, yeah, they were innovative and have under-sold.

  • jellyhead #29 3 years ago

    It also makes you wonder if the sales expectations for these games was realistic in the first place?

  • Eighthours #30 3 years ago

    Bah. This is the kind of comment that typifies the industry at the moment. Bemoaning the lack of enthusiasm for "innovation" when that innovation isn't actually all that great.

    As far as I'm concerned, people are craving "the new", but that new has to be really good and supported by compelling marketing for it to succeed. The problem here is that many design decisions that are seen as innovative by head-in-the-sand producers are actually a backwards step. As we've seen from the likes of Half-Life 2 back in the day, gamers are more than happy to embrace innovation where it actually exists. I'm struggling to think of a genuinely iinnovative game that's been a failure - apart from, arguably, Boom Blox, which flopped because of the pisspoor marketing strategy.

  • Lexx87 #31 3 years ago

    jstar + fucking 1 :)

  • space_ace #32 3 years ago

    dude, the prince can fly now - wtf - no thanks :)

  • drumbaby #33 3 years ago

    POP SOT and all other POP games ever since were total shite. How could they make it even worse with this new one?

    Now THAT'S an achievement!

  • Stuz359 #34 3 years ago

    In general I would prefer a non-innovative game that get's everything right as opposed to an innovative game that get's nothing right. An innovative gmae that get's most things right is the most welcome of all however.
    The new Prince of Persia is a beautiful game to look at. It is a great example of what can be achieved on next-gen platforms other than brown-grey space marine epic fps 247. But the voice acting made me shudder. It's so americanised and cheesy for what is essentially a game set in the middle-east. Sands of Time is a much better game and even now it's unique and haunting visual style is lovely. But with the sequels, they made the prince little more than a violent thug and again americanised the whole thing and suddenly a bigger emphasis on combat.

    In short, innovate when you can do something truly useful and brilliant (like Portal). Innovation for innovations sake usually leads to disaster (Mirror's Edge).

  • steoc4 #35 3 years ago

    I'm really enjoying PoP. I can understand why people dislike certain aspects of it, but what really confused me is how it got the absolute opposite reaction to Fable 2, for doing exactly the same things. The "player can't die" and "path of light" mechanics in the two games are practically identical, yet Eurogamer praised one for reinventing gaming and being a breath of fresh air by removing the difficulty, and berated the other for destroying the game by removing the difficulty.

    I guess I find it particularly grating because PoP is a beautiful game to experience and is very enjoyable as it is, while Fable is just painful with its annoying minigames, repetitive voices and generic fantasy world. The only reason for the different reactions to exactly the same mechanics that I can see is the relative marketing budgets of the two games...

  • darleysam #36 3 years ago

    I wonder how many people who are criticising the dialogue and voice-acting also bitched about Disney's Aladdin. Because it's basically the same thing.

  • tnomad #37 3 years ago

    Their intentions aside they made quite a ho-hum game and convincing themselves how brave they've been doesn't make it so. A next-gen 3rd person platformer based on a long running and succesful franchise doesn't seem that much of a risk to me.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/08 @ 15:44

  • Domovoi #38 3 years ago

    The fact that you can't die alone doesn't make a game less fun. Look at the lego games: dying means nothing there, but the games are still barrels of fun besides being incredibly easy to finish. And hey, I prefer just starting again right where I died over the endles traipsing all over town again just because you got blown up near the end of the mission in GTA4. But making it less frustrating alone does not make a good game.

    It could be a good idea to have some sort of discussion with this guy. He might have some good points, but obviously there are arguments against POP too. Could be interesting to see both viewpoints unfold. As long as nobody says art-ertainment.

  • Vanmunt #39 3 years ago

    I'm really enjoying PoP. I can understand why people dislike certain aspects of it, but what really confused me is how it got the absolute opposite reaction to Fable 2, for doing exactly the same things. The "player can't die" and "path of light" mechanics in the two games are practically identical, yet Eurogamer praised one for reinventing gaming and being a breath of fresh air by removing the difficulty, and berated the other for destroying the game by removing the difficulty.

    I guess I find it particularly grating because PoP is a beautiful game to experience and is very enjoyable as it is, while Fable is just painful with its annoying minigames, repetitive voices and generic fantasy world. The only reason for the different reactions to exactly the same mechanics that I can see is the relative marketing budgets of the two games...

    Amen to that brother.

  • butler` #40 3 years ago

    His own examples, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, are good examples of why he's talking shit.

    He kinda shot himself in the foot there tbh.

  • Domovoi #41 3 years ago

    "How much do you reckon a game like portal would've sold if it hadn't been bundled in the orange box? "

    I have no idea, but I would've bought it if it wasn't. I already had HL2 and Episode 1, and I didn't care about TF2, so if I could have bought Episode 2 and Portal separately, I would've.

  • VicViper #42 3 years ago

    @Interfector

    Pretty well I'm guessing since it was a fantastic game, not for the portal malarkly though because of the excellent writing and ok yes the half life setting.

    Death in games is really stupid as a mechanic these days, its a remanant of arcade design, when at home dieing is merely and incovienece. Did anyone complain when they worked out that the res chambers in Bioshock mean't that you could beat the game (It would take a while) with the wrench allone? after all there was no major cost for using them if you didn't use your ammo or eve it cost you nothing. Or quick saving in PC games being more or less the same mechanic in PoP.

    I though PoP was a great game, innovative? maybe a bit. With regard to Mirrors edge I'm not sure how first person parkour is not innovative unless a game did it before that is an innovation and personally I'm a time trail fan.

  • darleysam #43 3 years ago

    butler, why? Both Mirror's Edge and Dead Space are innovative games that have undersold compared to expectations.

  • dr_faulk #44 3 years ago

    Funny, I was a bit 'meh' on the Mirror's Edge demo on the Xbox. But I bought a PS3 and it came in the bundle, and I'm really enjoying it. It is something quite new, and I guess it deserves some credit for that.

  • Feanor #45 3 years ago

    Ubisoft are such a bunch of whiners. They expect everyone to love their big November games no matter what, and are prepared to take revenge on magazines and websites that don't kiss their ass.

  • jellyhead #46 3 years ago

    Who's expectations though? EA are saying that ME is a disaster yet i suspect they may have been a little enthusiastic in their sales forecasts. Do we have any sales figures for POP? Until we do it's really only FUD and i suspect the start of their "we tried but you didn't buy the game. Now we'll require a DNA sample before you can play the game".

    I suspect some Pro-DRM shenanigans to appear soon.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/08 @ 16:07

  • darleysam #47 3 years ago

    Yeah we do, NPD numbers. Mirror's Edge is pushing about 200,000 and Dead Space somewhere between 400,000 - 600,000 (apparently enough to warrant a sequel). When games of this type are needing up to a million to start turning a profit (I'd wager a bit less, but say 750,000 is a decent estimate), they've under-performed.

  • XdarXideX #48 3 years ago

    Apparently no-one here is used to repetition yet... even though it accounts for about 99% of games.

    Prince of Persia is a good game, and Ben Mattes is actually very right. People complain all the time that sequels are exactly the same as the original. "# point 5" is the most commonly used bullshit on the internet when describing sequels that don't turn out to be something completely different to the original. When a game changes the formula the same people complain. "Next-gen" is still getting thrown around too and no-one has any clue as to what should make a next-gen game.

  • LHH #49 3 years ago

    ...but everyone is still waiting on Resident Evil 5....

  • jellyhead #50 3 years ago

    Because some people want innovation and others want more of the same doesn't mean that POP is a good game. As for no-one knowing what "next-gen" means, Well maybe the developers should get a clue as to what "next-gen" means, it is their job after all.

    It's quite simple, appeal to me and i give you money in exchange for the hours of entertainment. Don't and i won't.
    Edited by 1 at 23/12/08 @ 16:16

  • el_pollo_diablo #51 3 years ago

    Well I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge and Dead Space. I take my hat off to EA for making more of an effort this year than they have since Winter Games came out for the C64.

    I'm sorry that their effort hasn't paid off, because it's going to be people like me, you know the people who don't put FIFA 09 and NFS in the charts, who suffer.

  • penhalion #52 3 years ago

    When the consensus is that POP sands of time had a better more engaging story (correcting your own mistake not someone elses). Better platforming i.e no hand holding, timing actually mattered and skills had to be learnt. A better sidekick i.e. you didn't control her and had no say in what she did or even how she did it as opposed to Elika who is quite litteraly just a selectable weapon in female clothing. The ending in sands actually had you do exactly what you would hae done in reality i.e. stop the whole mess from happening in the first place. In the new POP the ending is idiotic as you effectively undo everything and betray your companion in the worst way imaginable (not to mention what happens to the rest of the world as a result).

    I gave the game a fair shake and the reality is that the only plus it really has is that it looks good.

  • jellyhead #53 3 years ago

    Me too, El_Pollo, me too.
    I've Dead Space and Red Alert 3 sat on my desk and they're the first EA games i've bought in a long while. Likely the last too if the go back to their old ways. I'm sorry but i can't afford to be buying games i'm not keen on just because the dev will cry if i don't.

  • Wouwie #54 3 years ago

    Innovation? Honestly, when i was playing PoP, i was reminded of Dragon's Lair and Space Ace. It had zero innovation but it was all about going backwards instead. Never felt that bad in paying money for a game.

  • agparrot #55 3 years ago

    I haven't played the new PoP yet, but I hear agreeable things about it from some of my Friends List, and disagreeable things from others, but surely this is more of the problem, from Mattes:

    "We talked a lot about it during development - multiple difficulty settings, etc. - but could not come up with a way to modify all aspects of the game - combat, acrobatics, trap difficulty - in a graceful and interesting way.".

    Why not?

  • Xerx3s #56 3 years ago

    He is right though, people keep on moaning about the need for innovation but when push comes to shove they don't put money where their mouth is.

  • JahB #57 3 years ago

    "Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new."

    Perhaps I'm an idiot, but I think perhaps I was expecting a good game, not that joyless piece of graphics-hype crap the new POP was.

  • SixFootHalfling #58 3 years ago

    "We talked a lot about it during development - multiple difficulty settings, etc. - but could not come up with a way to modify all aspects of the game - combat, acrobatics, trap difficulty - in a graceful and interesting way.".

    For combat maybe make the enemies harder to kill? Give them faster reactions so they block more often? For trap difficulty - make them easier to trigger? Make them harder to avoid?
    For accrobatics - the jumps should require skill anyway so it shouldn't make any difference to the accrobatics, apart from maybe allowing a larger area to land on in the lower difficulties.

    I haven't played the game so I'm just assuming that the enemies can block, and I'm going off the EG review, and friend's coments, for the jumps being to easy, but that is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

    Also, since when is collecting 1001 "light seeds" innovative? Fucking annoying - Yes Innovative- No

  • TedMoseby #59 3 years ago

    As much as I like the game, whoever thought the "trial and error dodging through the air via the power plates and a restart at the beginning of the sequence if you fail" was a fun idea needs a good slap, not a virtual pat on the back.

    Simple rule of thumb: Is it fun? If it is, great. If it's not, then it shouldn't be in there!

  • darleysam #60 3 years ago

    Where did he say collecting light seeds was innovative?

    Running and jumping? How derivative! Swords? So unoriginal. Using words to communicate? What is this, a book?

  • shinki #61 3 years ago

    I think the art team deserve a pat on the back, that game is beautiful. However... in my opinion the kind of person who would give developers props for a game is not the same kind of person who this game's "new direction" seems to favor. I imagine a lot of people are silently enjoying POP in their living rooms while the hardcore audience who feel it was way too easy and bland gameplay-wise are speaking up.

  • asphaltcowboy #62 3 years ago

    They can have a pat on the back from me! I've loved every minute of it (very near the end). It is true that the difficulty is flat throughout and that is a problem. As I've said at great length in the forum thread, it basically suffers from the same issues people had with Assassin's Creed. Of course, I also loved that so, go figure!

  • Oh-Bollox #63 3 years ago

    New IP does not automatically = innovative.

    New IP does not automatically = commercial success.

    Innovation does not automatically = commercial success.

    The entire point of making excellent, innovative games, is exactly that. To make excellent, innovative games. Not to make loadsa money. EA would rather pump out 50 shit titles a year and make a massive profit, than make 30 shit titles and 20 innovative ones and make a respectable profit (please forigve the black and white shit/innovative categorisation, it's for the purposes of the example only). They're a business and a very efficient one at that. But they need to take the long-term view and realise that without creativity the industry will stagnate and die.

  • ExplodingClown #64 3 years ago

    You know, voice acting that didn't make me want to punch the television would have been a good start. What was wrong with the modest and endearing Prince from the Sands of Time/Warrior Within/Two Thrones? Or how about a voice that just sounded Persian rather than like some obnoxious cock from the San Fernando valley? Granted the art style was truly lovely - it's about time someone ripped off Okami and Ico.

    Dead Space was enjoyable but not innovative (it was pretty much RE4 in space with some Silent Hill thrown in). Stupid cliched 'boo scare' ending, too.

  • hiddenranbir #65 3 years ago

    WHAT FREAKIN' RISKS!?!?

  • Xerx3s #66 3 years ago

    Innovation should only be applied when it adds something to the fun factor of the game. Innovation in itself has no right of existence. A good game should just aspire to be a good game with innovation applied when it actually enhances the experience.

  • Les #67 3 years ago

    "Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new."

    No, just stupid. The video game press is conservatism incorporated. As long as your game isn't aimed at their conservative readership, there's nothing to worry about.

  • Les #68 3 years ago

    "Our job is to make games that our target audiences like. If the target audience DOESN'T like a game, the only reason its dev should be opening their mouth is to ask why, so they can hopefully find out what went wrong and how they can improve the sequel."

    I suspect the core gamer (= video games journalist) wasn't the prime target with the latest PoP. I think it's perfectly OK to be annoyed or frustrated by the incompetence of the average video game journalist, because they, while rapidly losing importance for the market as a whole, still are the key to the hearts of the core gamers.

  • Knot #69 3 years ago

    The developer is like the angry young boy / man : The angry boy (ubi) kicked at the world, but the world kicked back, ten times harder.

  • UncleLou #70 3 years ago

    I think it's perfectly OK to be annoyed or frustrated by the incompetence of the average video game journalist, because they, while rapidly losing importance for the market as a whole, still are the key to the hearts of the core gamers.

    Who cares for "importance for the market"? Except the publishers of course. It's a games journalist's duty to point out flaws of a game to their target audience, at least on a "core" gaming site.

  • philreeduk #71 3 years ago

    well i am enjoying it at the moment so you get a pat on the back from me sir!!!

  • autogunner #72 3 years ago

    calm down, mr ubi guy, there has been alot of games out recently and I have a large backlog, also the sub par reviews from the journos means this is going to be budget material. It was never going to be a number one was it anyway. the point is they did try some new things, and most of it didnt work as it was dumbed down too much prior to release i hear.

  • BillyBrush #73 3 years ago

    This is the 5th in the Prince of Persia series

    That's one less than Police Academy

    wouldn't it be more innovative to come up with a new IP?

    this guy Ben may well need to take a step back

  • Freek #74 3 years ago

    Just having sometihng new doesn't automaticly make it good. You experiment, you try new things, that's good. But sometimes these things don't work out, don't be surprised to get called out on it.

    Left 4 Dead is also a new IP, also a new kind of gameplay experience, also riksy in the sense that it only works in multiplayer. But it's allot of fun so it won allot praise.

    PoP got flack for being repetative, don't try to deflect that by playing the "new ideas" card. You already tried that with Assasins Creed, you got critizised for it then too. So why fall into the same trap with the new PoP??

  • Mockerre #75 3 years ago

    Ok. This is the harsh, cold truth. Maybe they set out to make somthing different and unique... but they failed.
    The game sucks. Really, utterly sucks.
    And I’ll tell you why.
    First off, the graphics. The cell shaded style is great and the graphics are beautiful, but the whole world is, hm, generic fantasy. It doesn’t have the Arabian feel.
    The level design. It doesn’t feel real. When you played the earlier PoP games you could IMAGINE you’re stumbling through ruined palace… here? Who the f*** build does places? Chain rings on the ceiling? Inverted pillars? Magic plates built when the city was at the peak of it’s glory, that help you circumnavigate the RUINED city, as if they were designed to do it in the first place? People used to live here? Give me a break. It’s a madman’s dream and an example of sloppy design.
    We’re still at level design. The city feels empty. Devoid of… well, anything. Even the earlier PoP games were more alive.
    And the levels themselves? Each and every district is the same old same old. You don’t really learn new moves, each level is just the same 4 or 5 tricks repeated ad nauseam.
    We’re at repetition? So how about the game designers force you to play the section’s you’ve just finished AGAIN. So you can collect the light orbs (oh, and prolong a short game).
    And it’s incredibly easy too. Almost everything you do is automated. What took a combination of 3 button pressed (times button presses I might add) in the old games, takes 1 reckless button press. It’s just not satisfying anymore.
    Maybe combat than? Well no. It’s a glorified QTE. And you can’t die remember? So it’s just grinding and tedium, you know you’ll beat the enemy eventually, it might just take you long, pain-staking minutes of QTEs. And did I mention that you fight the same bosses 5 or 6 times?
    Ok. We’re almost out of stuff. Story? There’s no story. Go fight 4 bad guys and then return to the temple to fight ahriman. Yes, there are the dialogues between the prince and elika, but they are just filler and fluff. There’s no progression and no change. You just move from one boss to the next. The talks prince and elika have with each other are meant to bring them closer together so you can understand the ending of the game (why the prince does what he does). But you know what? It doesn’t work. There was never that one turning point where you see they really fall for each other. I blame the openness of the story/gameplay (you can tackle each of the similar levels in any order you’d like!), which doesn’t add that much to the whole experience.
    That do we have left? Oh, the voices and music. The Prince sounds like a typical boys band member (cheese, out-of-place-in-an-arabian-setiing lines included), Elika is, well, ok. And the music is okeyish too.
    There you have it.

    Sorry for double-posting but it cut the beginning of my msg.

  • adamamosa #76 3 years ago

    I think if thid game had been a new IP and not carried the high expectations of POP, it would have got much better reviews, Personally I loved it. It was only meant to be a game to get me though to Christmas so I wasnt expecting much of it. It turned out to be one of the best games of the year in my opinion. It may be because I havent played sands of yime. Or maybe because I wasnt looking for much of challenge, so i could just enjoy it.

  • qoobah #77 3 years ago

    @penhalion The ending in sands actually had you do exactly what you would hae done in reality i.e. stop the whole mess from happening in the first place. In the new POP the ending is idiotic as you effectively undo everything and betray your companion in the worst way imaginable (not to mention what happens to the rest of the world as a result).

    :(

    :((

    Please, pleeease put spoilers there next time? :(((


    As to the issue discussed here, I'd have to concur with the main thought here, that innovation has to lead to making the product better. In games case, it means the game has to be more fun. What "fun" means differs from genre to genre I guess, but innovating in one area and leaving gaping holes in the others (Repetition again? Have they learnt nothing from Ass Creed?) isn't cutting it. Applause in this industry comes for making a fun game, not innovation for innovations sake.

    I didn't play the game yet but I plan to (hence my QQ at penhalion's post ;)), so I can't be very specific. Hovewer judging from what people are saying the new PoP is a classic example of lots of form and little substance. Innovation won't save a game that has no firm foundation in fun and engaging gameplay.

  • sneetch #78 3 years ago

    I really like it so he can have a virtual pat on the back from me too. It's a truly beautiful game, not terribly challenging perhaps but I can't remember enjoying playing a game as much in ages. I actually like the Prince, I mean, sure he's a complete asshole, but well done and where I am in the game at the moment Elika is running rings around him in the dialogue.

  • HolyJebus #79 3 years ago

    God I'd really hate to be as pissed off with life as most of ye seem to be. Enjoy Christmas morning, when you piss all over the presents you receive.

  • eepic #80 3 years ago

    i never wanted this faggy kid's game on my Xbox anyway, it should've just been on the ps3 o wii like all the other kiddie games.

  • DrugBert #81 3 years ago

    Sure it is innovative with turn-based combat in a realtime action game, and having someone swoop in and pull you to the previous checkpoint without simply teleporting there with full health might also be innovative (although it has been done before). But the problem is that it isn't an improvement, and as such the innovation isn't really worth much and more time should have been spent on improving the game until the innovation surpasses the status quo. I like the thinking that you shouldn't be punished for failing if that is the way to learn and master the game, but there are such a thing as taking it too far. If you want to make a simple casual game then go for it but don't mix and match difficult hand-eye coordination with too much forgiveness, all you get is disappointment from everyone rather than just the semi-hard-core or the semi-casual crowds. Just quit complaining about other people's opinions, at least you have a fanbase with the prince of persia series as opposed to almost all other childrens games.

  • chicknstu #82 3 years ago

    This is such a classic 'Gamer' thread. Loving it, keep it coming guys :)

  • ronuds #83 3 years ago

    So even if it's a bad idea we should be patting people on the back? Give 'em the old "at least your tried" consolation prize?

    And why should Mirror's Edge sell a bunch? For one, it's not that great a game -- some love it and some don't -- but, secondly, it's like 6 hours long! That has "rental" written all over it. Haven't played Dead Space, but I didn't exactly think "revolutionary" from what I saw of it. Looks like a shooter in space. Whippeeeeeee!

  • bad09 #84 3 years ago

    I haven't played POP, TBH I never rated the 3D ones anyway (only opinion guys, don't hate), but what did this guy expect.

    I have to say from the footage I've seen it looks like a terribly boring experience and I can't really see anything great there, innovative or not. to me It's not surprising it did not go down that well.

    (oddly I love AC the game POP supposedly nicked all it's fighting from)

  • Les #85 3 years ago

    "Who cares for "importance for the market"? Except the publishers of course. It's a games journalist's duty to point out flaws of a game to their target audience, at least on a "core" gaming site."

    It's also a games journalist's duty to educate his/her audience and not just slavishly follow their established convictions...

  • penhalion #86 3 years ago

    The reality the games industry needs to face is that it's intended markets are getting totally fed up with the same old stuff in new clothing.

    Back in the Atari, sega, nintendo days of famicoms and jaguars. The industry crashed precisely because we all got totally disillusioned with the crapfest that was sequel after sequel.

    @darleysam

    You are totally correct. LBP, Dead Space, Mirrors Edge and now the new POP are all loosing money. The cost of producing them and the returns are simply not adding up. Let's face it. If it takes a team of hundreds to produce pretty graphics with totally generic and lacking gameplay, then as cruel as this may sound, those software houses deserve to go under.

    I look at the forums each day and (amongst the dross) there are gamers who simply say "Why didn't they add X or Y". Usually these one line questions contain better ideas than a team of 100 so called game developers could come up with in the space of a two year project. It makes me ashamed to be working in this industry. It's even more idiotic, because often on a project, you will hear precisely these kinds of genuinely inovative suggestions and the designer will shoot them down. Not because they are no good but, because the idea didn't come from them.

    It makes it extremely hard to feel anything when a designer and his team go under as a result. Pride before a fall is what I usually think.

  • Domovoi #87 3 years ago

    "This is the 5th in the Prince of Persia series "

    The fifth? I assume you're counting the orginal POP, The Sands of Time, The Warrior Within and Two Thrones? So what happened to Prince of Persia 2 and Prince of Persia 3D?

  • beastmaster #88 3 years ago

    How does no challenge = innovation? May as well be Rise of the Robots.

    I think they tried to appeal to 'non gamers' and alienated it's core audience. When I first saw the screenshots I thought it looked excellent. Then I saw the bouncy ring things, the combat and the bint helping him along in motion and it put me right off.

    Mirror's Edge I'm still not sure about. Demo was just okay. If it comes down a bit in price (£20) I'll buy it.

    But let's look at a few things here. For arguments sake, LBP, Banjo Nuts & Bolts and to an extent End War tried to innovate. They didn't sell. Ico, Rez, Beyond Good & Evil...The list goes on.

    Most of the above games would not be overlooked by gamers who post on this site. But I was in Game today and i saw a lot of people buying The Hulk on PS3 and 360. The reason seemed to be it was £20 (I think) and it's got The Hulk.

    So, critics be damned! Hulk Smash!

  • UncleLou #89 3 years ago

    "It's also a games journalist's duty to educate his/her audience and not just slavishly follow their established convictions..."

    How about becoming a little less cryptic? What exactly is your problem with how PoP was reviewed?

  • Mudo #90 3 years ago

    Obviously I'm shit at games cos I'm finding this new Prince of Persia quite challenging and sometimes even frustrating :(

  • Triggerhappytel #91 3 years ago

    So buying the game alone isn't enough; we have to give them kudos for pinching ideas from elsewhere and fusing them together admittedly well - and what - not voice criticisms?! I think anyone who thinks this game is innovative is kidding themselves; all the good ideas are from Okami and SotC, and they've ruined the parts that made the Sands of Time trilogy so great.

    PoP is an easy game to play, the presentation is superb and it looks lovely, but it is just mind-numbingly repetitive. Not as bad as Assassin's Creed, but not a million miles away.

  • NegativeZero #92 3 years ago

    Personally for me the 'lack' of challenge is a great thing. It means that the only thing that I need to invest in the game is a bit of my time in order to finish it. I won't get stuck in some lame difficulty spike or run out of lives or any of that sort of bullshit. It checkpoints whenever you're standing on solid ground, so if you fuck up you're never going to be kneecapped by retarded checkpointing dropping you twenty minutes back either - it's like a quicksave between any jump.

    For some people that sucks, but for some people it doesn't. I suggest that the game hasn't been made for the former group.

  • Thunderbolt #93 3 years ago

    Mudo,

    Agreed. Maybe I'm a crap gamer and I've finished my share of hard games i.e. Ninja Gaiden 2 recently but I feel that the difficulty level is set just right.

    In fact at the end of the game it got so frustating that I threw the controller on the floor which is very unusual for me.

    The biggest problem with this game is the repetition and combat which sucks just like all POP games.

    Having now completed it I will say that its been a pleasant experience and that you can now get it at £18 at Play.com it is worth getting.

    But as for 'pats on the back' - try harder next time

  • Kiigan #94 3 years ago

    Yup, love those new ideas such as:

    - reducing all the platforming and combat to moronic impossible-to-fail QTEs
    - making a game that more or less plays itself
    - lots of other stuff lovingly "borrowed" from Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Okami

    Well done on all that risk-taking Ubisoft!

  • Doctor_What #95 3 years ago

    Borrowing lots of stuff from games that didn't sell and repackaging it with a world-renouned brand to try and expand the tastes of maintstream gaming audiences? That does sound like taking risks to me. It might not exactly be innovative, but it is a bit of a risk.

    Innovations:
    Making complex platforming easy
    Making one-on-one fights interesting again - it's saying that new gen doesn't have to just mean more numbers of enemies on screen
    Making most of the plot optional - rather than forcing you to see it all in cutscenes you can get the bare minimum from those and do the rest when you want to (if you want to at all).

    I think they've done a damn good job with these and I'm very much enjoying the game. I think I can see where the plot is taking me, so I hope they surprise me, but it's not too bad. It's not a perfect game, but I think it's a solid 80-90% for me.

  • ShiroBen #96 3 years ago

    Did he really say "art-tertainment"? Really? I mean ... really?

    ...

    Really?

  • penhalion #97 3 years ago

    @Doctor_what

    Innovations:
    Making complex platforming easy

    That is an oxymoron platforming is either complex or easy it can't actually be both and there-in lies the true problem with the new POP. All it's elements are negated by the design choices made with the gameplay.

    Making one-on-one fights interesting again - it's saying that new gen doesn't have to just mean more numbers of enemies on screen

    Every fight can be won with the same sword, throw, Elika air combo for stupidly massive damage. Even the boss fights can be won this way. The fighting is only interesting the first time, until you realise every fight has the same 3 events. The fights in assasins creed were more inovative and exciting that the fights in POP.

    Making most of the plot optional - rather than forcing you to see it all in cutscenes you can get the bare minimum from those and do the rest when you want to (if you want to at all).

    A story driven game needs the plot to be integral to the game. As a result of the optional plot, the game's ending doesn't work at all. In fact , due to this design choice, the ending is leaving a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths. It litterally makes playing the game pointless.

  • Melan #98 3 years ago

    its Christmas so Iwill give the UBI devs a pat on the back, everybody here can get a pat on their back. Come on guys its Christmas its all about love (and gluttony) ,so leave the hate until the new years night drunken fist fights.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS.

  • Anasui #99 3 years ago

    so basically, he's whining about poor sales. Shut that cakehole, boy, game is sub-par and the 6/10 from EG was perfectly appropriate

  • byron_hinson #100 3 years ago

    I enjoyed the game, but have to say it was easy - not due to the lack of dying at all though as that is no different to a game over screen in the way it was done, but simply because it felt like a QTE turned into a full game.

  • Lawlost #101 3 years ago

    I must admit I was one of those people who shyed away from this new pop game because it was entirely hand drawn animation, I still shudder at the thought of the number of 10p pieces I shoved into 'The Sword in the Stone' arcade game which as far as I could tell the controls of which had no bearing as to what was happening on the screen.
    Edited by 1 at 24/12/08 @ 15:15

  • Doctor_What #102 3 years ago

    @ Penhalion:

    Before I get going, I should point out that this is written in the tone of pleasent discussion of ideas, not ranting at you. I'm geniunely interested in this discussion. It's hard to disagree and suggest a genial tone of voice on the internet!

    Your comments tell me that you don't work in the design bit of the industry, and so there's an aspect of the typical art v.s design v.s code v.s art (somehow audio usually get away without arguing with anyone, lucky blighters!).

    Believe me, when you're a junior designer, no matter what the studio says it still won't listen to your ideas, so other departments' suggestions don't stand a chance. Yes, there are some (many) incredibly prissy lead designers who don't listen and that's to the detriment of the whole industry... However, it's not always like that. In some companies a good suggestion gets a fair airing.

    I've seen titles where the restrictions of art hamsting the designers entirely, the limitations on the animation budget mean that the designers constantly have to narrow their focus, and the coders can't get the more innovative ideas from the designers to work because 'no-one does it that way'... And then you have expectations that extra ideas from other departments are going to be taken on board when the ones from the design department can't even be implemented? Sorry, I do understand the frustration you feel about good ideas being dismissed, I had that exact experience in one of the Readers' Top 50 list games, but I don't think you can boil it down to simply being designers not listening, because a whole project team needs to work together and the designer's job is to sychronise all those things.

    Anyway:

    Innovations:
    Making complex platforming easy

    That is an oxymoron platforming is either complex or easy it can't actually be both
    Yep, that's why I didn't say that. The platforming is very complex: running up walls, across walls, hanging on pillars, sliding, jumping, various types of triggers, ceiling runs, and ring runs. That's a hell of a lot for any platform game, and POP makes all those things possible without complicated button combinations. So, in other words, it makes complex platforming easy. Which is what I said.

    Every fight can be won with the same sword, throw, Elika air combo for stupidly massive damage.
    Yep, except for those ones where you have to start with magic. Or the ones where you have to start with a gauntlet attack. In fact, it forces you to change your combo choice based on the visual elements on-screen. You know, I think that's pretty cool. There are loads of different combos, and I'm enjoying finding different combos for different visual results. Maybe that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't actually use the same moves all the time, you need to use different openers, which then change what you can do next.

    The fights in assasins creed were more inovative and exciting that the fights in POP.
    True enough in some ways - by the end of AC the fights were really good, but they were only good because there were nine people attacking you, and in those you really could use exactly the same move time after time (the parry attack worked again, and again, and again). It was still fun because of the timing, but it was very repetitive. What POP has achieved with solo battles is more than anyone has done outside of beat-'em-ups for many years. That, I reckon, is pretty innovative.

    As a result of the optional plot, the game's ending doesn't work at all. In fact , due to this design choice, the ending is leaving a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths. It litterally makes playing the game pointless.
    Literally? Then it must be true ;)

    I've not finished it yet, but I've been enjoying it a lot. So far I'm really enjoying the charcterisation in the optional dialogue bits. If you skipped all of them then you clearly aren't a person who cares about plot, so why bother getting your knickers in a twist about the ending? It's not like you didn't have the choice to engage with the story. If you choose not to bother with it then I really don't think you can complain about it not pandering to you. That's like not voting but complaining about the government.

    BTW, I really enjoy your comments in the posts. I don't always agree with you, but I do always enjoy reading your opinions. Merry Christmas chap/chapette.

  • penhalion #103 3 years ago

    @Doctor_what

    Your comments tell me that you don't work in the design bit of the industry, and so there's an aspect of the typical art v.s design v.s code v.s art (somehow audio usually get away without arguing with anyone, lucky blighters!).

    Actually I have worked in the design side. I haven't been a lead designer yet though. In the case of POP, the designer (guy complaining in the article) was told way before things were finalised, that certain elements didn't work. He choose to ignore those comments and adopt an I am god attitude.

    That is an oxymoron platforming is either complex or easy it can't actually be both
    Yep, that's why I didn't say that. The platforming is very complex: running up walls, across walls, hanging on pillars, sliding, jumping, various types of triggers, ceiling runs, and ring runs. That's a hell of a lot for any platform game, and POP makes all those things possible without complicated button combinations. So, in other words, it makes complex platforming easy. Which is what I said.

    As most people have pointed out. The platforming is nothing more than hitting the right button. You don't even really have to do it at a set time because the input ick-up is so generous. There isn't any complexity to the platforming at all. It's all automatic. This means that you DON'T wall run, roof run etc. etc. The computer does it for you after you press the A or X button depending on the console. You say it yourself that the game allows you to do the acrobatics without any complex button combinations. That's because thew game actually does the work for you. Your own description shows that the platforming is anything but complex. One of the trohies/achievements is actually to run from one end of a level to the other in a short time. This would be very difficult if the controls and timing were like those in sands of time. As it stands it's one of the easiest achievements to get after purifying the level. Once you start the run, you only need to resort to the analogue sticks on three or four occasions. the rest of the run is purely hitting A/X and B/O in the general timeframe to trigger the pre-canned animations.

    Every fight can be won with the same sword, throw, Elika air combo for stupidly massive damage.
    Yep, except for those ones where you have to start with magic. Or the ones where you have to start with a gauntlet attack. In fact, it forces you to change your combo choice based on the visual elements on-screen. You know, I think that's pretty cool. There are loads of different combos, and I'm enjoying finding different combos for different visual results. Maybe that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't actually use the same moves all the time, you need to use different openers, which then change what you can do next.

    Nope all the fights can be won this way. Even if the initial sword attack does no damage, the throw or the elika part will still start the combo and as it's just a matter of doing the air combo once the creature is eventually thrown. You don't have to pay any attention to the starting state of the enemy. It's a very broken combo system.

    I've not finished it yet, but I've been enjoying it a lot. So far I'm really enjoying the charcterisation in the optional dialogue bits. If you skipped all of them then you clearly aren't a person who cares about plot, so why bother getting your knickers in a twist about the ending? It's not like you didn't have the choice to engage with the story. If you choose not to bother with it then I really don't think you can complain about it not pandering to you. That's like not voting but complaining about the government.

    The story doesn't work even when you try to follow it. My achievements on the 360 version show all the story elements go take a look! You should already have discovered this if you have been following it as you say. For instance, the conversations become out of sequence depending on which levels you choose to do first. This tells me that there was only ever supposed to be one route through the story. Also, because Elika is effectively a talking weapon with almost zero personality, you never get attached to her. By the end of the game she becomes little more than an accessory you use with the Y button. She doesn't do anything for herself and in some instances (during the trigger tile sequences) can actually get in your way and get you killed!

    If you liked the game then fair play to you. It should however, be obvious from the majority oppinion on even this forum, that most people saw the game for what it was. A pretty looking but, ultimately broken game.

  • dacicus #104 3 years ago

    I'm giving a pat on the back for POP for one thing: no DRM at all.
    As for innovations, no way I'm going to do that. Sure, I'll buy the game to support the decision they took when they've removed the DRM. But, I'm not going to buy the game because of the "innovations" Because from my point of view, there are none notable.

  • login_name #105 3 years ago

    @ Penhalion & Doctor_What

    I kinda agree with both of you.

    My opinion on the game is currently 50/50 It started out a little more biased towards liking the game, but the longer I play the less I'm enjoying it. I understand what they set out to achieve and in a lot of ways they do deserve that pat on the back, but they should have at least tried to cater for their original fan base and had a classic control option.

  • Doctor_What #106 3 years ago

    Thanks Login_Name :)

    @Penhalion:

    Mattes is a producer, not a designer. Most producers do talk a lot of nonsense and listen badly to feedback. It seems to be partially their job as vision holders, but that's just the nature of them. They have to be a bit blinkered to keep a project on track.

    I still maintain that the platforming is complex, because the actions performed are complex. I think you are arguing that the controls are over-simplified, which may be true, but I think that's a matter of personal taste. I know that if I don't press the O button then I won't catch that ring and I'll fall. Yes, there's a very generous amount of time to press it in, but what's wrong with that? It's still me seeing what I want to do and then doing it.

    I'm not saying that it is a brilliant game, but I do think that there are some innovations or interesting experiments in there.

    As for the story - so far it's a pretty bland tale lacking in form (and they don't seem to have a clue what their catalyst was for the characters, but that's a whole long other discussion), but I admire the attempt at making it optional for people who weren't interested. Did it work? Not very well this time, but it could do if they tried again. That's what innovating is about!

  • djed #107 3 years ago

    "I think we could have done a better job in giving more challenge to those gamers who play a game to accomplish and achieve, rather than experience," he said

    Maybe they also could move all actions to one button and mark that button with a little triangle pointing right. Oh wait...

  • madmax17 #108 3 years ago

    I realize what he is trying to say but that is a load of bullshit, innovation means shit if the game is crap on top of that POP was anything but innovative it was as mainstream as you can make a game, practically developed for 2 year olds and they are the only ones that enjoyed playing it, difficulty ridiculously easy, very repetitive like all Ubi games (AC), the past POP's were innovative this one isn't, also no mention that the game was pirated less thanks to no DRM.

    And why is the prince a fagot backstreet boy, oh Ubi you just don't get it.
    Edited by 1 at 27/12/08 @ 12:19

  • Liam64 #109 3 years ago

    The character of the Prince aside, the new PoP is such a good game. It (sadly) takes a brave developer to remove death as a punishment from a game, but I'm glad Ubi are part of the growing group that are doing so. Being punished for dying is such a ridiculous inclusion in a piece of 'entertainment', and has been ever since games started offering more than just some purile coin-op challenge.

    *pats Ubi on the back*

  • Collymilad #110 3 years ago

    The guy is right.

    Never happy.

  • Scimarad #111 3 years ago

    I've just been playing this now...

    One thing I could absolutey bloody do without is all those bloody camera acrobatics...It's making me feel really sick! It is really necessary to have the camera go swooping right in every five seconds and then zoom right out again? It's seriously off putting.

  • Genji #112 3 years ago

    New ideas need to be tried. Of course it's important to make them "fun", but that's pretty difficult to know unless you've tried them. I appreciate games that try new things. Even if they're shit, and no fun at all. Other developers can then take and develop those ideas, and learn from their mistakes. This is how progress is made.

  • 1simen1 #113 3 years ago

    POP hasn't failed. According to Vgchartz.com it has shifted 550k from launch until des.20'th.

    [link url=http: //www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=24824
    ]http://ww w.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?i...[/link]

    Another week has passed and it will be closed to 700k when the next numbers are out.
    Most likely it will be a million seller worldwide eventually.

    In my opinion that's a sucess.

  • captain-future #114 3 years ago

    /pats developer

    /then gives him my peace of mind (feedback)

    /gives him a cookie too

  • peak_performance #115 3 years ago

    @liam64
    "The character of the Prince aside, the new PoP is such a good game. It (sadly) takes a brave developer to remove death as a punishment from a game, but I'm glad Ubi are part of the growing group that are doing so. Being punished for dying is such a ridiculous inclusion in a piece of 'entertainment', and has been ever since games started offering more than just some purile coin-op challenge.

    *pats Ubi on the back* "

    You're looking at death from the wrong angle, as a punishment instead of encouragement: encouragement to evaluate the reason behind your death and encouragement to improve. Most games doesn't use this to it's full capacity but instead puts you back a few rooms to your last quicksave and don't challenge you enough to need to improve as a player, but there are those that do: among them Ninja Gaiden and Shiren the Wanderer.

    Removing death from them, and many other games, would hamper the experiences. Don't be too quick in thinking that death is some leftover from those days when computers were powered by lit candles just because some-to-most games don't need it.

    Of course, this new PoP game doesn't seem to need a death system as much as a completely reworked challenge model.

  • Doctor_What #116 3 years ago

    Having now finished the game, I can confirm that it's got some nice characters but a completely useless control of the narrative. What is it with Ubisoft Montreal that means they do this? Assassin's Creed did the same thing: a fairly interesting set-up, then no significant plot advancement until the last twenty minutes of the game - the middle of the game is pretty much a void of narrative development. They really need to get some help on this, because whoever they've got working on these things at the moment really don't seem to know what they're doing.

    Still: I enjoyed the platforming and I enjoyed the fighting. I can see that they were trying some new things, and I did like them, but the story... Oh the story... Sands Of Time got it so right, how can they now be getting it so wrong?

  • ZuluHero #117 3 years ago

    hmmm... well i thought it was difficult enough and loved every minute. The vistas and art are just staggering.

    I'll give the developer a pat on the back, and if it helps my copy now sits lovingly next to ICO and SoTC as games that are keepers. And there are only a few games that ever reach that shelf as every thing else usually just gets traded in...

    Sure i was very verbal about EGs contraversal 6, but they're still entitled to their opinion, just like i'm entitled to mine.

  • ZuluHero #118 3 years ago

    oh and to those complaining about the lack of death in the game - didn't it make you think "hmm maybe death isn't supposed to mean anything in this game" when they put pick ups out over abyss' that once you jumped would be impossible to recover from bar Elika's help?

    Sure bad design maybe, and i wouldnt have done that - but they did at least try to show you that death wasnt a bad thing...

    Maybe as gamers we're just too used to the harsh death-retry-wash and repeat syndrome of games of yore to appreicate when a developer tries to make a game fun without making it frustrating?

  • Widge #119 3 years ago

    I only played Sands Of Time, but that was pretty much death proof. Either you rewound time and retackled what you were doing, or you 'died' to have the Prince re-start the scene again. No issues with that really. Something like Fallout needs a death mechanic where you really need to fear encountering something nasty.

    The Zero Punctuation review of the game was quite good, now he's usually scathing on any gameplay mechanic that is dire and he had no issue with the deaths. Where it seems the game has fallen down is gradual diluting of image to be generic and American while tying this to an uninvolving level design, poor plot/script and combat mechanic.

  • TravisTouchdown #120 3 years ago

    "...people keep moaning about the need for innovation..."

    No they don't. Forumites do.

    And I'm not saying that's bad, or that forumites are knobs - I'm just saying there's a difference. And one that most "people" are seemingly completely unaware of.

    I do love you all though.
    xxxx

  • KickAssWitBashir #121 3 years ago

    I'm not going to give the POP team a pat on the back, but daz john smith deserves one for making me laugh out loud " I was expecting a better game. Swings and roundabouts innit". : )

  • dominalien #122 3 years ago

    I only started playing the game yesterday, so I won't comment on most of the things you guys are talking about here. I dislike the camera movement, it's really stiff and unpleasant to my eyes.

    Also, I got two of the three (IIRC) story-related trophies immediately in the big plain with the tree. I just talked to elika a few times and I already "got to know her". This is pretty ridiculous. These conversations should be definitely more drawn out. Ideally, they would be triggered automatically at certain points, if not she should "say no more" until the player progresses further into the game. The constantly flashing "press L2 to talk to Elika" icon is also really annoying. It seems to expect me to stop and talk to her constantly when I just want to get on with saving the world.

    Other than that, I love the art design. Combat seems on the easy side. Also, there's a trophy for "killing 10 enemies before they spawn". I got that after killing the 1st one...

    Oh, and I worked as a game designer at one point. The "it's not my idea" resentment is certainly there, but one who lets personal failings get in the way of good design should not be a designer in the first place. Also, producers will often demand silly things for no reason and you will have to comply. As for ignoring good ideas - when push comes to shove, it may turn out that a good idea will not be so good after you start implementing it in practice and also it may just happen that implementing a certain good idea might break a lot of things which are already done, so changing one thing may necessitate changing many other things, which will delay production and make you redo a lot of testing.

  • espibara #123 3 years ago

    AT the nd of the day the sands of time effectively removed death from the game with the rewind button. the new game does the rewind for you straight way keeping you in the game and makking it flow great.

    What the developers needed to do was have the ability to turn it off in the option menu.

  • dominalien #124 3 years ago

    Having played more of PoP today I must say I really like the no-death mechanic. Perhaps the penalty for dying in combat could be bigger (enemy getting back all health?).

    Certainly beats playing Dead Space on Impossible, dying every 5 seconds and looking at the loading screen for another 20.

    Not saying I don't like Dead Space ;-) Although I AM just doing that for the trophy.

  • kangarootoo #125 3 years ago

    I am a bit late to this thread development, which is a shame as the discussion seems to have been a good one.

    I'll chuck my 2p on the pile.

    "often on a project, you will hear precisely these kinds of genuinely inovative suggestions and the designer will shoot them down. Not because they are no good but, because the idea didn't come from them"

    That is simply a poor designer. I hope the use of the word "often" is for drama, but tbh I think you might be right. One of the most important parts of design is review of ideas; opening your mind to everything regardless of its origins and ALSO being prepared to chuck ideas out ifthey don't work (even if they were your own favourites).

    I would say however that we don't really know that much about what went on behind the scenes. It has been mentioned that the guy being quoted is a producer rather than a designer, but the meanin of that role varies from company to company. Was he in fact theholder of the vision, or did he just meddle in design, or did he in fact stand back and let people work but we have got the wrong information? Was it actually too late to change the things that were found to not work (if so, poor project management is what I would unfortunately call it)?

    Maybe we simply aren't the target audience anymore. We, the vocal minority of hardcore gamers, might simply not be the best people to judge the game because it wasn't made JUST for us.

    We talk about the scourge of the mainstream, and how it is ruining all our games. Personally I don't buy into that school of thought, but thats not really relevant. My point is that if the team were told to make the game more accessible and less hardcore, we can't blame them for doing exactly that. We might complain that they were given that brief in the first place, but in carrying out the brief they were set (assuming hyperthetically that is what happened) they were simply acting professionally.

    Is this a case of don't shot the messenger (or maybe don't shoot the guy that made a cart with three wheels, because he was just doing what he was told)?

  • dominalien #126 3 years ago

    I always considered myself a hardcore gamer, but I guess I am not. Or at least not any more.

    I actually hate trophies or achievements, as they are called in green-land ;-) They make me replay games I'd already completed. I played Drake's 5 times, first three to get all medals (even though they were just between me and drake, with no way to brag about them), then after the trophy patch came out another two times to get all the trophies. I enjoyed it, of course, but it was time I could have spent playing other games, like Silmeria, Persona 3, MGS4. They are all, and more, on my waiting list. Or maybe trying to get all the trophies actually MAKES me a hardcore gamer?

    Problem is, I like the new PoP. Maybe not as much as I liked PoPWW (yeah, yeah, no accounting for taste), but I still do. Does that make me a mainstream gamer? Of course, I'll probably replay it to get all the trophies, especially as it's easy. Am I a hardcore gamer now?

    I need to listen to my mum and to start seeing a shrink, I think...

  • warlockuk #127 3 years ago

    Can they also have a kick in the nuts, too?