Prince of Persia Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 5 December, 2008

Take it easy.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Prince of Persia hasn't always spun a good yarn, but it's often overcome that with exotic locations and even more exotic acrobatics, and for the first few hours the new-look Prince threatens to do likewise. Having stumbled upon a Princess in peril while out hunting for his wayward donkey, the Americanised Prince falls into a divine battle between the forces of good and evil, and proceeds to wisecrack and Brendan-Fraser his way through an occasionally delicate story of restoring life to a corrupted fantasy world of epic palaces and Skies-of-Arcadian technology.

His antics are almost as destructive to the ambiance as the formerly caged God of Darkness, Ahriman, is to the environment, and his jarring dialogue and delivery persistently overshadow wistful, majestic graphics and his more serious and likeable new female counterpart, who rarely gets a chance to project the character her few monologues attempt to establish. With an oddly small, immobile head atop bulging musculature, the Prince looks awkward in his own skin, and he certainly feels out of place in his own game.

But while others have backed away from gaming's most empowering genre, Ubisoft seemingly follows up last year's dauntless Assassin's Creed by cutting away as much frustration as possible, delivering the most extraordinary and death-defying platform move-set ever, and then exaggerating it deliciously in every step, prance and bound. Leaping into space, the Prince is able to claw himself an extra six feet up any given cliffside he strikes to reach an edge. He can chain alternate wall-runs, flip between trapezes and beams, slide down dusty slopes, grind down walls with his gauntlet, clamber across patches of greenery and grab at poles.

Carefully placed hooks also allow him to traverse sequential wall-runs on the same surface, hook himself around corners up, down and sideways, and even run briefly along the ceiling from the tops of pillars. The game's camera - so often the bane of third-person platform games - does such a quietly excellent job throughout that we almost forgot to mention it. There's almost no break in pace or control for great stretches, even minutes after you take the reins, and the Prince's movement is satisfyingly deft compared to the likes of Nathan Drake and Lara Croft.

'Prince of Persia' Screenshot 1

Elika seems like a nice lass, but she's forced to spend a lot of time having a go at the Prince for saying something daft or annoying.

With Princess Elika, Ubisoft has also found a much-needed replacement for the Sands of Time. Rather than reversing mistakes several times and then being booted back to a checkpoint, every mistimed leap into the abyss and ill-judged release is rescued by the ethereal hand of our newfound Princess, who places the Prince back on the last solid platform he reached in a split second. Elika also acts as a double-jump; when the Prince comes up short, the screen bleeds colour and a stab of the Elika button gives you a timely boost to cover the remaining distance. Fail and she saves you anyway.

It's actually impossible to die. If the Prince succumbs to an enemy in battle, Elika restores him at the cost of a bit more health on the enemy's bar, and in platform sections the most we lost was around 20 seconds. This can be frustrating if it happens a few times in a row, as it does when the tendrils of corruption arrive later and timing movements becomes more of a factor, but it's trifling next to the eons-old anguish of Tomb Raider, Mario, Sonic and, of course, past Princes of Persia. For some the absence of death will be a step too far, but we agree with Ubisoft's designers; having to try again is punishment enough, and the lighter the punishment the better.

After three POP games of increasingly complex (and for many increasingly maddening) combat, Ubisoft also seeks to make amends in battle. Each fight involves chaining together sword, gauntlet, acrobatic and magical attacks, each assigned to a face button, and blocking with a shoulder. There are quick-time button procedures to follow during clinches and after failing to block a couple of successive attacks, but the emphasis is on accessibility, if the emphasis is on combat at all. Enemy encounters outside boss fights are infrequent and even avoidable in many cases.

Alas though, having called to mind Assassin's Creed with its ambitious platforming, open levels and initially cool and efficient combat, Prince of Persia then calls to mind its greatest failing; it runs out of ideas, so it just does the first ones again and again. There's a bit of evolution in combat, as enemies move between states that require you to focus on particular attacks, and a circle of oozing corruption at the edge of the battlefield forces you to take more notice of your position, but despite a variety of available combinations the designers struggle to educate you, relying on a combo list in the menu beyond the basic tutorial, and throwing up enemies far too capable of blocking and countering whatever you do.

Platforming also evolves poorly, or not at all, and soon it's all too easy. Timing and preloading is immaterial, as a few vaguely accurate stabs send the Prince clambering and swooping through even the most outrageous combination of obstacles, and any lingering tension dissipates until every level feels like a procession. As this feeling settles in, it's compounded by ill-judged additions like corruption tendrils and moving blobs (think exhaust pipes that flare in sequence and moving saw blades). There are a few occasions when they're used to good effect, as you embark on a simple but exotic-looking sequence of wall-runs and trapeze-swings and the corruption is timed to snap conveniently at your heels, but for the most part they just break up the flow.

The Prince does gain a few new abilities as the game wears on, allowing him to spring magically from wall-pads across vast distances (think back to Sonic's bounce pads), or sprint up or along walls dodging left and right to avoid jutting edges, but these elements are simply more window-dressing for the core procession. Puzzles, meanwhile, are almost non-existent for the first five or six hours, and hit-and-miss after that, occasionally involving the level layout but seldom to the same extent as past games, Tomb Raider or ICO - whose influence lives in details like Elika's flapping blouse and the hazy desert visuals but nowhere else.

'Prince of Persia' Screenshot 2

The visuals are one of POP's few successes. With a couple of exceptions, we're in a dreamworld. Freeing each section from the darkness of corruption is a lovely sight.

Elika can also point the way, sending a glowing orb off to direct you to your destination, and fans of elder POPs might wonder how this reconciles with the elaborate jungles of ledges, poles and trapeze that were puzzles themselves, but the answer is that it doesn't have to, because there's nothing like that either. You sometimes need to be told which path to take, but it's only ever a path, never a puzzle. Where there is exploration, it also falls flat - and then back on itself. Each vanquished boss leaves reawakened surroundings filled with light seeds - glowing orbs that need to be collected in their hundreds to unlock later levels - and their distribution prompts you to circle areas already explored and traipse this way and that.

With all these things in combination, the result is a game where you pick an area to save from the corruption, go there, run to the top, do a fight, gather some orbs and then repeat. The platforming fluency is seductive, but it's a language of indifferent thumbing yawned through timing windows as wide as a house. The crushing thing about Prince of Persia, however, isn't this. It's that we're faced with yet another poor game planted in a bed of fantastic technology and interesting mechanics, which, rather than empowering the player to solve interesting problems in new and exciting ways, merely sends you for a long and elaborate stroll through a beautiful world devoid of challenge or variation, and marred by excessive repetition.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (265) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • caligari #1 3 years ago

    Oh ho!

  • abrakababra #2 3 years ago

    Jesus this review took it's sweet ass time didn't it?! Oh ho! Indeed.

  • caligari #3 3 years ago

    Oh well - perhaps I'll pick it up when the price is slashed to 17.99 in a few weeks. :D

  • 4thVariety #4 3 years ago

    Funny thing, I was just talking to a friend yesterday how good the game might be and we both agreed that it had to get worse than 8/10 on Eurogamer, since the Eurogamer review isn't up pre-launch. Of course all the glaring reviews were up long before today, which to me is more of a dent in the game, than if the bad EG review was released with all the others.

    This marketing behavior lends more weight to this review, since holding back bad reviews somehow indicates that those bad reviews are onto something the other articles missed.

  • Murbal #5 3 years ago

    Money saved. Phew!

  • caligari #6 3 years ago

    Any idea if there will be a demo on Live?

  • TedMoseby #7 3 years ago

    Had this through the post last night, and have spent an hour or so with it. It's "nice", without being particularly a standout. It is a bit frustrating at first, especially wall-running (for me at least), but the banter between the Prince and Elika is nice, and on the whole I'l looking forward to exploring it and taking my time with it.

    It does feel a bit like Assassin's Creed in that I wanted to like it a lot more than I do - it does so many things right - art design, the voices are excellent and nowhere near as annoying as they could have been, the whole thing looks polished, but underneath it all, the actual levels and tasks that you have to go through/perform are just a little underwhelming.

    6/10 is fair, I'd say maybe add a point if this sort of game is your bag. It's a 7 for me.

  • spookyzombie #8 3 years ago

    Another low EG score. This game is fantastic to play and beautiful to look at. It's Metacritic average is 86/100, so this reviewers opinion of POP is lower than his peers.

  • abrakababra #9 3 years ago

    Anyone see the cover art for the 360 version with the plastic slip off?!
    It gets my game cover of the year award.
    Stunning cover art, where less is actually more in this case!

  • JohnnyWashnGo #10 3 years ago

    Oh dear.

    I nearly popped the cash for this yesterday - glad I didn't now.

  • Aretak #11 3 years ago

    "It's Metacritic average is 86/100, so this reviewers opinion of POP is lower than his peers."

    I'd wager that's because any reviews not showering it with praise have been held back by Ubisoft. Games journalism is a joke.

  • matrim83 #12 3 years ago

    I am not a consipracy nut but I agree with Aretak. All the early reviews have been glowing. Too much and unbalanced praise.

  • Laroxus #13 3 years ago

    It's a really good game. Much better then the boringness Assassins Creed was.
    However I tend to push to much buttons since I'm used to much more challenging platform games while the Prince does most of his stuff automatically.

    But all in all a 8.5/10 for me.

  • Pastici #14 3 years ago

    I'll still get this though. It looks fun and well, I play games for fun...

  • HolyJebus #15 3 years ago

    Sounds to me like Ubisoft need to hire some new game designers.

    I'm a fan of Ubisoft but one thing I must comment on is the poor quality of the tutorials in their games. It is obvious with most of their games they are trying to open them up to a more casual audience these days but then go and ruin it by creating tutorials that generally fail to tell you how to play the game if you aren't already familiar with the mechanics. The last Splinter Cell springs to mind as one of the worst tutorials for new comers i've ever seen.

    Anyway, this seems like it might be worth a bargain bin purchase after xmas. How long does it last Tom?

  • muscleblade #16 3 years ago

    "Money saved. Phew"

    Read the IGN review and spend the money instead. If that is how it works.

  • bluem4gic #17 3 years ago

    Mr Bramwell!

    I agree with the score for once!

    I got this through the post yesterday and even though I am enjoying the game. There a few things that bug me

    Casual Play: The game practically plays itself. Gone are the timing of platforming. Press circle when the prince grabs a ring and the he will automatically run on for you. QTE anyone?

    Level Structure: Don't think for one second that you will come into a room like the original games, scratch your head and say "hmm where do I need to go now?" Platforming is linear as hell but the Ubisoft designers have cleverly put multiple paths in each level to create the illusion of free roaming level platforming.

    Mission Structure: The same shitty mission design that plagued Assassin's Creed is present in this game. Find corrupted area, kill boss , collect light seeds and repeat. repetitive nature, the mission designer needs to be shot.

    Not one fucking puzzle: I am four hours in and not found not one fucking puzzle to do. What the fuck is going on. I am not holding my breath.

    Gotta collect them all: The fact that Ubisoft's Producer for Prince of Persia believes that hardcore gamers will be satisfied with collecting light seeds to get their kicks. This is not some shitty EA Simpsons game boys.

    However with all my ranting, I don't feel as I have been robbed of my hard earned cash. It still an experience I would recommend. It is a damn better than warrior "emo" within and two thrones. Just wait for the price to come down a little if your worried. But if you like platforming games, purchase this immediately. Just don't get from GAME, Shopto are currently doing the game for a reasonable £33.99 (where is my 15% VAT?) or wait a few weeks and if it not selling well. It will be £24.46 like Tomb Raider.
    Edited by 2 at 05/12/08 @ 08:07

  • TheBiGW #18 3 years ago

    An interesting take on the game. I've been playing this a lot and I really enjoy the contrast between the 'corrupted' level and the time you spend in it after you have freed it. In the later levels where they are 'corrupted' it feels like a race against time to get to the end, quite often with the level boss taunting you as you go. Then, after you've freed it, you get to stroll around at your leisure and collect the light orbs. Some of the set pieces during the boss fights are great to watch too.

    The ease with which you can string together combo runs is fantastic - not once have I blamed the control system or the camera for a miss timed jump (although sometimes it does appear to be on-rails like the aformentioned Assassin's Creed). During long combo runs it feels more like 'Dance Dance Prince of Persia' with the emphasis on button timing more than directional skill. The benefit of having Elika drop you back to the nearest flat platform if you fall is that it leads to far more experimentation than if you had a set number of lives/limited 'rewind' bar. And this IMO is a great move - especially when it comes to collecting the light orbs after an area has been freed.

    I also like the way the story is not forced upon you, and you can find out more about it as you go by talking to Elika. It's worth doing as there is quite some chemistry between the two.

    Things I don't think work that well - I don't think the symbiosis between the two main characters is that well used. Yes, they work well in combat, but there is little to no puzzle solving involving their unique skills, and it seems that most of the platforming sections could be achieved by each of the characters in isolation. I've also noticed a few parts of the level design where the 'invisible wall' syndrome kicks in - for example platforms you should be able to climb up, or walls you should really be able to claw-fall down, or drops off the end of platforms you should be able to make. In general though, these aren't enough to spoil the game.

    So for me, it's more of an 8/10 game. Ubisoft would be crazy to not release a demo of this on Live, so I guess for those people with too many great games to play over xmas it would be worth waiting for that to make your mind up.

  • killyourtv #19 3 years ago

    Epic Fail

  • Les #20 3 years ago

    "I reckon that, as ever, Eurogamer as just more demanding"

    LOL :)

  • Krelle #21 3 years ago

    Love this game atm. Difficulty also just perfect for me (im rather crap at games in general).
    I dont look for challenges in games, I just want to experience them. Like reading a book or watching a movie.

  • siro #22 3 years ago

    Another low EG score. This game is fantastic to play and beautiful to look at. It's Metacritic average is 86/100, so this reviewers opinion of POP is lower than his peers.

    Oh really, it's lower? I thought 6/10 is higher than 86. Thanks for the insight mate, I was never good with numbers.

    I read like two not very positive reviews and those actually motivated me to get the game. I like easy, short and pretty graphics every now and then. Seems PoP is bringing all that.

  • neilka #23 3 years ago

    I'm about halfway through and it's definitely better than a 6.

  • BrokenSymmetry #24 3 years ago

    So this is worse than Warrior Within (which got 7/10)? Don't think so.

  • Darren #25 3 years ago

    Another EG review that goes against the grain like the Banjo-Kazooie XBLA one... hmmm...

    I've got the game coming this morning and I'm liking the fact that this is an easy entertaining game with eye candy personally so I expect I'll enjoy it far more than Tom Bramwell. At least I know I'll be able to finish the game and get my money's worth from it... I was never struck on challenging games anyway...

    Odd though how one reviewer can proclaim a game great and go so far as to call it the best Ubisoft game in ages (VideoGamer 9/10) and another deem it only just above average (EG). It's times like this when a pre-release demo is pretty much a must as it's hard to know from the reviews just who is "right". I mean I loved Banjo-Kazooie XBLA and consider it worthy of a 9 so I'm hoping that Prince of Persia turns out to be another such game.

  • Darren #26 3 years ago

    P.S. What Krelle says echoes my own feelings about games actually. :)

  • Darren #27 3 years ago

    @ [eSc]Demon - If every game was like Ninja Gaiden in difficulty then I'd have given up gaming years ago. :p

  • Les #28 3 years ago

    "I dont look for challenges in games, I just want to experience them. Like reading a book or watching a movie."

    Varies from game to game for me. But I agree it doesn't always need to be challenging. For a shooter it's essential, otherwise there's little left to play the game for. But for a game based around exploration, it's not.

  • HuggyAtHome #29 3 years ago

    Good review - nice to get a balanced opinion from this vs the other sites out there. Sounds interesting but far too passive an experience for me. Maybe 'Lego PoP' would have been more challenging?
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 08:27

  • Maykael #30 3 years ago

    Ubisoft is the new EA then. Selling nice looking games with shitty gameplay (ACreed, Far Cry 2, Shaun White, etc.). If this disappoints me as much as FarCry 2 did I'll never pay for a Ubi game again.

  • Kenshin001 #31 3 years ago

    Oh dear. Was really looking forward to this but not so sure now.

    "It's actually impossible to die."

    Really can't understand this game mechanic. A good game should allow you logical ways of avoiding dying (as opposed to learning by dying) but at the same time reward you for overcoming a challenge.

  • cubbymoore #32 3 years ago

    This seemed great on the first page, then the second page took a surprising turn :(

  • The_Inquisitor #33 3 years ago

    Any of us could have written the same, damning review from just 5 minutes watching the pre-release trailer. It was never going to be a game worth the time of anyone after challenge, puzzles or adventure (though if you enjoy modern Sonic games then I'm sure it might offer some thrills).

    I don't get Ubisoft, they make games that look like they're pushing gaming into new, brave new areas but then seem to pull in the reigns at the last.

  • Les #34 3 years ago

    "It's actually impossible to die."

    Because of unlimited lives in most games where you can actually 'die' it has become rather meaningless. Not being able to die isn't a bad thing in my book. Definitely is more consistent within the game world than dying with arbitrary checkpoints.

  • GordonCaladan #35 3 years ago

    Yes, good work holding back the review until after all pre-orders have been shipped.

  • spookyzombie #36 3 years ago

    @ siro - Don't mention it - glad to help. I've heard he rumours you're a bit slow.

  • Goodfella #37 3 years ago

    Well, I absolute love the game so far (3 hours in), it's just my cup of tea.

    Horses for courses and all that.

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #38 3 years ago

    For those who missed the forum thread yesterday, sorry the review's late, but it took a while to get hold of the game for reasons I won't go into.

  • sailesh #39 3 years ago

    ouchie!

  • mcbi4kh2 #40 3 years ago

    There not also the same reasons it received a much lower score than meta is it?
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 08:59

  • saku_luk #41 3 years ago

    Hmm my card was already billed and game sent to me ;p and since I ordered from UK and live in Poland I can't be arsed with returns, oh well, I wanted either this or Mirrors Edge, picked this and will prolly pick ME anyway.....Tho i hoped it would be better :/

  • Pinewood_Groves #42 3 years ago

    Pretty much exactly what I expected after the Expo.

  • Pac #43 3 years ago

    First of all can I say thank God that the Animal Crossing advert is no longer on the front page.

    EG - please never put an ad on your site wich automatically creates a sound effect (without clicking on it) again!

    My main point is this: At what point did game designers think it would be a good idea for your character not to die. I am all for diversity and clever game design (best case in point I can think of is the rewind function in GRID) but dying is a fundemental ellement of gaming. It is "the draw" that keeps you playing. If I want to read a book or watch a film I will (and often do) so.

    Are these games designed for people who play a 2-D shooters with unlimited lives? If so, you might as well stick the fire button down with some chewing gum and go and do something else.

    It might sound petty but I have stopped playing a perfectly good game for this very reason (Fable 2). If game designers keep doing this, then it is going to save me a lot of money.

    /rant off

  • ZuluHero #44 3 years ago

    Oh dear - maybe its time for Tom to hang up his reviewers hat and cloak...

  • penhalion #45 3 years ago

    It's interesting that EG took the integrity route rather than the review first if you score 8 or above route that gametrailers and IGN took. I played my friends review copy of this and was about to warn everyone that the game is incredibly easy and has pretty much zero actual challenge. I definitely wasn't expecting EG to mention any of these things after the resistance 2 review they did.

    Totally agree with this review. The new POP director really doesn't understand the series at all. He nailed the visuals but, didn't understand what made the gameplay work. He tries very hard to create the ICO relationship but, the prince is so obnoxious that it simply fails on the grounds that you really hate the main character right up until the end (after the bloody end credits no less).

    Why didn't they use the assasins creed engine asit was, and do POP directly on that. This would have been a completely new perspective for the series right there!

  • kmittal82 #46 3 years ago

    Played this for like an hour or so, the combat till now is very easy, hardly any enemies spawn. The platforming sections do get you thinking on how to collect the obrs.

    6/10 is too harsh, I would lean towards 7/10

  • loop7 #47 3 years ago

    Hmm not as good as Tomb Raider then?

    Seems like there are some background problems surrounding this review which may have knocked down the score a point or 2?

  • Triggerhappytel #48 3 years ago

    I agree with The_Inquisitor, I think all of what this review says was inevitable after all of the videos and previews. No matter how pretty and no matter how fluid, a game that essentially plays itself gets a great big red mark against it in my book - trying your hardest to copy wonderful games like Ico, Okami and SotC won't save you.

    I never expected I'd be getting this, but this review confirms it (I never trusted the overwhelmingly positive early reviews, either - especially brIbeGN). I'll be interested to see if Edge, and to a lesser extent gamesTM, agree with EG.

  • menage #49 3 years ago

    Seems like a trademark Ubi title then, i have 2 of those already, I'm never buying one again. (excluding BGEE2 if it is any different)

  • Troopa3k #50 3 years ago

    I can't quite understand why people have such a problem with not being able to "die" in the game? The whole concept introduced in this game only really changes your ability to die from a story point-of-view - gameplay-wise surely it's no different to checkpoints, quicksaves, etc, just much quicker and less annoying?

    I'll admit now that I haven't played the game yet (it's ordered through Play.com, and should be here today), so I'm not going to start passing judgement on the game as a whole, but I fail to see what the problem is with not being able to die?

    In most games you as the player have lives, so when you die you watch yourself die, then respawn at the last ledge/platform/whatever you were standing on. So in this case it's absolutely no different, except that you don't have to watch the death animation play (and technically you have unlimited lives). On checkpoint based games again, this is no difference, except that effectively there are checkpoints on every ledge. And it's the same as any quicksave feature whereby you press save just before every tricky part.

    Personally I think it's a great idea - as the review states, the challenge comes from trying to beat the part that is causing you problems - how the game makes you restart that segment doesn't impact the challenge in anyway. Personally, I really like this idea as it should prevent a lot of the frustrations of having to complete huge swathes of a level over and over because of one ledge at the end you can't quite make, or having to wait for a savegame to be reloaded time and again. As has been stated, whilst I enjoy challenges, games are meant to be entertaining, and any effort to reduce my frustrations I feel should be applauded.

    Just my 2 cents, mind! :p

  • siro #51 3 years ago

    Triggerhappytel: I'm also very interested in what Edge will have to say about this. I still like the sound of the casual enjoyment approach.

  • JYM60 #52 3 years ago

    FFS

    Why don't you fuck up everything Ubisoft.

  • andywilkie35 #53 3 years ago

    As someone mentioned earlier, I'll get this in the new year when it goes down to £17.99 on Play or something

  • saku_luk #54 3 years ago

    I like a challange (almost got platinium in WHD) but this system I like more than in previous PoP games, I loved those, but having to watch a bloody loading screen for a long time few times in a row was frustrating....dunno about PC versions, but PS2 had a looong loadings thats for sure, imo :)

  • Pac #55 3 years ago

    @Troopa3k

    Making you replay an earlier part of the game seems like a chore. But when you brake it down this is a fundemental part of playing games in my opinion.

    a) It makes you learn patterns and the skill set necessary to progress
    b) It offers you a challange (probably the reason you play games in the first place)
    c) You get to see the next bit of the game that the designers have lovingly created

    I will admit that, how far you ask the player to repeat what they have already played is something of a dark art - however, if there comes a point where this principle is dispensed with all together the desire to play games will be lost - IMO.

  • marty_k #56 3 years ago

    I kinda liked it after the Expo. Wasn't extraordinary but had some fun trying out the game. Expected 'strong' 7/10

  • Triggerhappytel #57 3 years ago

    "Good, it's about time there was a backlash against this increasing belief that games should have as little difficulty as possible. Dumbing down is an understatement."

    Agreed. This is Ubisoft trying to make one of their core franchises appeal to both the core gamers as well as the casual masses, and it seems to be a poorer game as a result.

    @ Garo - "You give this game 6/10 and yet other games with obvious flaws get 9/10 or even 10/10?"

    Apart from the fact several people write for EG, it's all subjective anyway. Don't ever take these reviews as gospel; if you don't think you'll agree try the game out for yourself.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 09:49

  • Bangaioh #58 3 years ago

    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouch!

  • IronCladChicken #59 3 years ago

    @Krelle & Darren
    If you’re not after a challenge and more of an experience, then, why play games at all? - Surely books & movies already do this? I’m not suggesting you’re wrong in your thinking, just trying to understand where you are coming from – It feels like your saying, when I play football I’m not worried about winning or losing I just like to get outside and run around for a bit? If you can’t fail, what’s the point of playing?

  • septimus #60 3 years ago

    After the frustrations of Mirrors Edge, I am actually looking forward to a relaxing game.

    Mirrors Edge had the challenge missing from PoP, but it hasn't got the control scheme to match and playing it for ten mins just made me want to put Gears2 on so I could shoot things in the face.

  • Thunderbolt #61 3 years ago

    Got my game before Darren. Got my game before Darren. Got my game before Darren. Got my game before Darren.

    \Sorry but just this once I'm up on Darren

    Anyway, although I'm a hardcore POP fan and would have gotten this regardless. I have to appreciate that the former trilogy has now ended and this is a new chapter.

    Of what I played last night it was pleasant, like Assassins Creed best enjoyed at its own pace. Having just finished GOW2 its nice to have a differently paced game.

    As for the lateness of the review I assumed this was because of the review embargo because Ubisoft knew this wasnt up to scratch.

  • Eighthours #62 3 years ago

    It's interesting that EG took the integrity route rather than the review first if you score 8 or above route that gametrailers and IGN took...

    I love the inference that somehow anyone who didn't score this game a lower mark is unprofessional. I personally know two very good videogame journalists who reviewed the game this week and loved it. No backhanders, no corporate shilling, no PR pressure. Ever heard of personal opinion?

    (I'm not saying that no reviews are tainted by certain influences, but the ones I'm referring to definitely weren't, and it's a lazy charge to make when other reviews turn up later and happen to fit with your own opinion.)

    I'd be interested to learn Tom's woes in getting a copy of the game, though I can see why he'd be reticent to spill the beans.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 10:03

  • woodnotes #63 3 years ago

    This is one of those few games I totally want anyway, regardless of this review - because I know I'll like it.

    As for the repetition, I remember this being one of the big issues in reviews of Assassin's Creed. But if you're a reviewer, you have to play through the game and complete it as quickly as you can. If you're like me and take months to find the time to complete a game, then repetition is nowhere near as much of an issue.

  • VicViper #64 3 years ago

    Having got this yesterday (Thanks play.com) and spent enough time to get two of Elikas powers and take out the warrior, I can say that I'm loving it..

    yes the game sometimes runs on automatic when platforming but then I've got mirrors edge if I want complicated movement
    The art is fantastic and the story is alright about as good as any other game of this level of story telling (There are better, portal for one) Its bright and easy and not hard brain which is nice given that the last few games on the xbox have been brown depressing gore feast (I did like gears 2 but theres only so much shooting a guy can take)

    When the time trial pack comes out I go back to Mirrors Edge as I do love that but I can see myself playing PoP again and again when I want to play the game equlivent of ambience music
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 10:09

  • Kazzahdrane #65 3 years ago

    Oh EG you break my heart :( But I trust your reviews, so will only pick this up when it's much cheaper. Or rent it. Bah!

  • InsoFox #66 3 years ago

    Well, I often agree with reviews on this site, but they guy at destructoid loved it and they're completely independent (and I often agree with them too) so I'm still looking forward to this one.

  • karstux #67 3 years ago

    About the death and challenge thing: I think the TrackMania games got it exactly right. A crash hasn't much meaning, because at the press of a button you're instantly back at the start, not losing any time. Also, the circuits are usually very short, so no "backtracking" is involved.

    However, the challenge is still there because the tracks themselves are bloody hard. Excellent combination - seldom frustrating, always challenging, good "flow". Lots of fun. I'm sure this could somehow be translated to the platforming genre.

  • malmer #68 3 years ago

    Sounds more like the reviewer is angry over something and starts to pick on minor flaws just because he came into the experience somewhat angry/frustrated. And like some other commmenters here saying every other game journalist has been bought by ubisoft is just BS. Sounds more like Tom here has issues with how the game was delivered and that tainted his review.

    The rest of the world will enjoy the game for what it is (a solid 8 to 9 out of 10). And we who buy the game, despite this review, will come back to eurogamer with a cautious look on future scores they give.

  • Les #69 3 years ago

    Based on what I've read from the reviews, this is probably a good game on the wrong formats. PC, PS3 and 360 owners in general like some challenge in their games, while this seems to be designed for the new 'Wii' gamers. It's a bit like releasing Gears of War on Wii.

    I think I will still get this in a month or six. Too much to play right now so I wouldn't play it anyway before that time. If you're interested read some reviews and form your own opinion instead of just looking at a score.

  • Darren #70 3 years ago

    @Kenshin001 - The concept of dying in games is a pointless one anyway IMO since you can just reload your previous save game and resume from there so where is the risk? If you haven't saved the game or the auto-checkpoints are sparse then that might constitute a risk but then people will just complain about having to re-do sections of the game over and over and where's the fun in that?

    IMO games like BioShock and this new Prince of Persia show that the developers realise that dying in games is an annoying inconvenience, particularly if there are loading times involved, rather than a penalty anyway and thus don't bother with the archaic (IMO) lives system which isn't remotely realistic anyhow. Having a game where you don't die is actually *more* realistic in the sense that if you *did* die in a game then you either have to restart it from the beginning>/i> or not be able to continue at all... you know... 'cos you're dead!!! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 11:01

  • Goodfella #71 3 years ago

    I find it amusing and somewhat sad that this game is getting slated simply because it goes against convention and is regarded as too easy. Oh how easily people forget that games were so much hard 10, 20+ years ago. Heck, you couldn't even save, you had to complete the game in one sitting (or leave the computer on) with limited lives.

    The makers of PoP have simply tried to make things different, it's free flowing and fun, no game over screens, no loading screens, etc. Sure there's not a grea deal of challenge to be had but this is one entertaining and frustration free game, that also looks very nice.

  • Darren #72 3 years ago

    squarejawhero - "Ha, everyone arguing about the score (as usual) and not citing the actual text? Sounds like bloody good reasons for it to be 6/10 to me."

    Except the reasons given by the reviewer for awarding that 6/10 score are not necessarily what other people would deem flaws with the game, e.g. the ease of the gameplay and the complete lack of dying. Even the voice acting and character of the prince is completely subjective.

    In my book those are plus points and I suspect that is the reason why other reviewers have given the game a higher score... that they're judging the game as an experience not particularly as a challenging game. Everyone is different but I play games for the experience not the challenge so an easy game doesn't bother me at all - in fact, I prefer it - so long as it is fun/entertaining and keeps me playing right to the very end, something I'm more likely to see if the game isn't too challenging. :p

  • muscleblade #73 3 years ago

    You cant die. But there is a 100G achievement and a gold trophy for not needing Elikas help more than a 100 times. That is enough for me to worry about how many times i "die" (need help). Theres also a speedrun achievement so the challenge is in the achievements/trophys. So im all good. I will be buying this.

  • michaelius #74 3 years ago

    Lack of demo made me suspicious now comes another proof.

    This will wait for 5 euro pc classics bargain bin .

  • DjchunKfunK #75 3 years ago

    I have one thing to say to those who complain about not being able to die and bemoan the lack of lives. Dying and the lives/continues system was introduced for one reason alone. To get people to put more money into the arcade cabinet. It is an old convention that could do with being replaced and I for one am glad that developers are finally looking at different ways of replacing it.

  • Pac #76 3 years ago

    @Darren

    I think games should provide risk and reward and give players a real challenge.

    IMO the best experiences come from hard work and skill not just through joining the dots (so to speak).

    However I completely respect your opinion - horses for courses and all that!

  • Darren #77 3 years ago

    @IronCladChicken - No, books and movies do not offer the same experience at all because a game lets me play as a character and enjoy a whole new way of entertainment. It's for that reason why I prefer to play story-driven games with a beginning, middle and end and not the dull, repetitive online shooters and such like. So, no, I do not agree with you at all that we shouldn't be playing games, for me it is a unique alternative to movies and books and one I've enjoyed for years.

    However, the games I've enjoyed the most are the ones that were moderately or less challenging and the ones I managed to complete. I wouldn't even consider listing Ninja Gaiden as one of my favourite games because it was so hard that I found the entire experience more frustrating than fun. And what's the point in playing games like that? Being good at a game means nothing in real world terms unless you view them as a personal challenge. For me though I'm not in the slightest bit competitive, if I played sports for example I'd only play them for fun not to win. But, you know, that's just me... ;)

  • patchbox360 #78 3 years ago

    if buying - 6/10
    if renting - 9/10

  • IkariW #79 3 years ago

    I got this yesterday, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it.
    Yes, I'll agree, its not the best game in the world ever, but then, its never really claimed to be either.

    Its a welcome redirection for the POP franchise, in my opinion.
    But then, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and no doubt people will disagree.

    Although, I will say this, in my opinion, opinions them selves are based on knowledge and you gain knowledge though experience. So please can we stop with the pointless "Failed" or "Phew I've saved some money" comments....as they are just that, pointless.

    Think a demo is needed like someone commented, then we can all make an informed opinion based on that experience.
    Eurogamer usually does make an informed opinion, although, it can be tainted by reviewer mood, time of year, whether or not they got a free copy of the game, that kind of thing....

    I have to say, that last issue really annoys me, why the h£ll do websites/magazines think that they deserve free copies of games? We have to pay for these games so should they!

    Also, please can reviewers stop making comments abouts certain, more 'technical' areas of games. I mean, review the game, as a game by all means, rate the game, certainly, but don't comment on certain areas from technical point of view...please...as few are qualified to make these comments, and they have a responsibility to provide the public with informed opinions, not ill-informed b*llsh!t.

    Leave the people who are qualified, i.e. the developers of games to make the more technical comments.
    As I see it, being a games reviewer and commenting on them technically is a lot like being a teacher.....in so much as,

    'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach'

    Ikari.










  • naknakkus #80 3 years ago

    I wish EG had the same integrity about another deeply flawed game - Fallout 3. I guess different reviewers have different standards.

  • sneetch #81 3 years ago

    @Les
    "Because of unlimited lives in most games where you can actually 'die' it has become rather meaningless. Not being able to die isn't a bad thing in my book. Definitely is more consistent within the game world than dying with arbitrary checkpoints."

    Indeed, in Sands of Time, for example, didn't you just respawn at the door to whatever room you died in? Rarely much more than a few dozen feet back and once you have the dagger, well, I don't think I died died once after getting it. Did I miss it? Miss the deaths? Miss the swearing at the stupid controls because I pushed the bloody button in time but this cheap piece of shit controller, which was obviously assembled by angry chimps from poo and spit didn't resp... oh, wait, the batteries are dying. Where was I? No I didn't miss it at all. The no dying thing sounds like the dagger of time again. But with infinite charges (rarely a problem anyway).

    I loved Assassins Creed, one of my favourite games in ages (10/10 for me, replacing Sands of Time) and the last game I've 100% completed in ages so I've no doubt I'll love this. Yeah, you can say it had repetitive missions but show me a game where the same three or four missions don't keep popping-up wearing poor disguises (funny hats and fake beards) again and again and I'll buy you a pint (well, I won't, but I'll drink one for you).

    "Ubisoft seemingly follows up last year's dauntless Assassin's Creed by cutting away as much frustration as possible"

    Wait, there was frustration in Assassin's Creed? Pretty "easy-mode" game I thought. I've read Tom's review twice and this game sounds more and more like Sands of Time, although the lack of "puzzle" sections is a bit of a downer but I can't remember all that many from Sands. I need to play that again after this. :)

  • XdarXideX #82 3 years ago

    Having played the game I'd like to confirm that it is actually great fun and beautiful. Definately deserves more of an 8 than a 6 but then I've come to expect that from Eurogamer these days.

  • UncleLou #83 3 years ago

    "if buying - 6/10
    if renting - 9/10 "

    Don't believe in that separation at all - a game is as good as it is, whether it cost a million, or you've found it in the street. If a game is bad and feels like a waste of time, it's also a waste of time if I rent it. But life's too short for games that are only good enough to rent. I am not against renting, mind, not at all, but I wouldn't rent a game that I wouldn't also buy (but can't because I don't have the money, or am unsure how good it is and need to find that out).

  • Vanmunt #84 3 years ago

    "rather than empowering the player to solve interesting problems in new and exciting ways, merely sends you for a long and elaborate stroll through a beautiful world devoid of challenge or variation, and marred by excessive repetition."

    That didn't stop Bioshock getting a 10

    or fable or fallout....

  • MrDurandPierre #85 3 years ago

    I'm about 5 hours in and really liking the game a lot. Admittedly, the Prince's modern day yank accent is out of place, but I was disappointed by that months ago when the first trailers were released. I actually think the dialogue and chemistry between the two leads is better than I would have thought, granted I thought it would be gobsmackingly awful.

    And yes, the game is easy, and I too am saddened by the lack of puzzles. But the set pieces are astonishing and there are puzzles of sorts if you're trying to go about collecting all the light orbs. Really though, it's a bit like updated POP mechanics, Okami graphics, and game design straight out of the first Jak title, which is a tad disappointing. Still, as a platformer fan, I think it's a really good game, if not the absolute masterpiece it could have been.

  • Troopa3k #86 3 years ago

    @Pac

    I agree with you about replaying (and for the reasons you suggested) but PoP doesn't change this, does it? Typically you start at point A, get to point Y, die, and go back to point A. All PoP is doing is saying that you've already done points A to X, so why make you redo them when you have already proved you can do them, learned the required skills, and beaten the challenge offered by those segments? So now you can focus on point Y, learning the skills/patterns necessary to beat that challenge, in order to progress. I could see your point if the game said "You've died, so I'll save you and move you *past* the bit that killed you", thus circumventing the challenge, but that isn't the case.

    Pac
    "I will admit that, how far you ask the player to repeat what they have already played is something of a dark art - however, if there comes a point where this principle is dispensed with all together the desire to play games will be lost - IMO."

    I agree with you on this - it is very much a dark art, and (as of yet) there isn't a perfect answer. There may never be, as every person's taste's are different, so the ultimate solution may be to choose what sort of restart/respawn you, as the player, wants - checkpoints, start the level again, or PoP-style rescuing. Would the desire to play be lost without repeating segments? I think it would, yes. If you fail at something, and it moves you past it, then you aren't playing, merely watching. However, as I have said, I don't think this is what PoP is doing.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 11:26

  • jimboton #87 3 years ago

    Good review, I think.

    The problem is not that you cannot die, that in itself is nothing but a 'clever' mechanism to avoid repetition and a loading screen although it tends, of course, to ease things a lot. The problem is that you cannot possibly fail at anything you try. There is no point to this game at all. Because it is, you know, a game. It's not a novel, it's not a book and it's not 'ambience' music.

    Worst thing is, it should have been very simple to include the options to turn off all the 'safety net' stuff Elika pulls off, the direction pointers you are given and to make timing a bit more strict, likely turning the experience into something very different... but they didn't. Maybe Ubi thought that the (inexperienced? casual? lazy? slightly retarded?) audience this is aimed for could accidentally mess with such complicated options and unduly frustrate themselves, god forbid..

  • windflaw #88 3 years ago

    spookyzombie: "Another low EG score. This game is fantastic to play and beautiful to look at. It's Metacritic average is 86/100, so this reviewers opinion of POP is lower than his peers."

    But Tom's a peerless reviewer.

    I tried to hold out for the EG review, but was seduced into buying this by a combination of other positive reviews, the lovely-looking pre-order pack on play.com and the SoT Prince, Farah and BG&E Jade skins that can be used in the game. I'm a pretty big Prince of Persia fan and would probably have gone for it anyway, but this review has the ring of truth about it so now I'm more hoping that I'll like it than actually looking forward to it.

    On a semi-related note, the recent rumours of PR companies attempting to pressurise websites into not publishing critical reviews until after a game's release is very worrying. Bullying-enforced censorship? Something is rotten in the state of videogames. I really hope that's not why the Eurogamer review was later than the others, and I don't think I'll be buying any more Ubisoft products for a while.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 11:29

  • itsfuzzy #89 3 years ago

    HHmmmm.

    IGN and Gamespot both give this a much higher rating. Bought out?
    Or EG's review just very harsh?
    Suppose you need to play to find out!!

  • figaro7 #90 3 years ago

    I purchased this tonight, and all i have to say is, its confusing as fuck! Maybe im just tired, but its just not grabbing me at all. Ive been given no reason to care for the lady or prince in the first hour, im hoping it gets better. As it stands, this is the worst pop of the lot, but im not far enough in to judge.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #91 3 years ago

    One of the things that didn't quite gel with me in Assassin's Creed was that Altair would automatically jump, hop or whatever when you ran at an obstacle. Seems like they have employed a similar system in POP. Half the fun of platformers is timing the jumps. No sale.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 11:47

  • Darren #92 3 years ago

    @Troopa3k - +1

  • IkariW #93 3 years ago

    Hold on, did I just read that correctly? Rumors of PR companies asking websites to not publish critical reviews until after a game is released?? oh my god.....really??? you don't say, thats terrible......

    Where have you been Windflaw?!?! this has been happening for years and years and years....and before that when websites weren't even around and we just had paper mags!

    Do you really think this doesn't work in reverse?? i.e. Websites get all manor of 'Nice things' from PR companies to publish 'Slightly better' than good reviews on their games??? well I can tell you, with an informed opinion, that it does, every day.....

    So to not buy a product from one specific publisher, even if they did do this, is just short sighted. You might as well not buy games published by anyone. And please don't believe everything that the Interweb tells you from now on, and that includes games website reviewers, as they will give you their 'Peerless' opinions as long as you keep lapping them up....

    Question everything...

    Ikari




    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 12:39

  • Pac #94 3 years ago

    @Troopa3k

    Fair enough arguement. And I am all for clever mechanisms that break gaimg conventions. But from what Tom says it still lacks challenge.

    Perhaps I am just a bit old school. I was one of those people who fed arcade machines with ten pence pieces back in the day.

    And I had to work pretty hard to get the money as well (with paper rounds part time jobs etc) :)

  • AlvySinger #95 3 years ago

    While I agree with Mr Bramwell's well judged views, especially about the deeply misjudged voicework, I have had a very different experience with the game.

    Unlike all the 10/10 games that preceded POP which I shelled out for(Fable II, Fallout 3, GOW 2), my first sitting with the Prince lasted an impressive four hours - with only brief pauses to reach for another cold one from the fridge.

    Despite all the repetition, both in combat and platforming, POP never feels lilke a grind. Unlike the pleasant torture of the ruthlessly difficult Two Thrones, this game flows like a meandering brook with the gentle current of exploration tugging you along.

    As someone old enough to have bought the original Prince of Persia for the Amiga, I have always objected to the 'hitting a brick wall' tendencies of platform/adventure games. It's also uniquely refreshing to be able to enjoy the physical pleasures of death defying leaps without the omnipresent fear of tumbling back to a long forgotten checkpoint.

    Still, a couple of puzzles wouldn't go amiss next time eh Ubisoft.

  • pha #96 3 years ago

    "...yet another poor game planted in a bed of fantastic technology and interesting mechanics, which, rather than empowering the player to solve interesting problems in new and exciting ways, merely sends you for a long and elaborate stroll through a beautiful world devoid of challenge or variation, and marred by excessive repetition."

    ^^^^^^
    THIS

  • IkariW #97 3 years ago

    And while we are on the subject.....

    I'm pretty sure that I remember reviews of ICO, Rez, Def Jam:Fight for new york, NFS Most wanted, being totally and utterly 'Peerless' at the time as well......

    ...Funny how websites and magazines 'Champion' these games and games like them now isn't it? Even though most sl@gged them at the time....

    Odd that...

    Its really simple, come to an opinion yourselves, think about it, question it, if people and don't, great games like these will never get made again!

    And that would truely be a 'Rotten' state for the video games industry to be in....

    Ikari

  • Anasui #98 3 years ago

    shocking, innit? Not for me


    I was counting on EG. Absolutely sick of all these nines because I was convinced game would be decent at best.

  • penhalion #99 3 years ago

    For all those who think not being able to die in a game or loosing any ground for a mistake, is some kind of step forward. This is simply not the case. The whole point of a game is that it challenges you while telling a story. If there are no consequences for your actions, then you quickly end up simply gliding through the world with no sense of attachment to it. You start to take everything for granted. A room full of spike traps..not a problem, just keep hammering away at it randomly until something works. No need to think about the problem because there are no consequences for getting the solution wrong.

    If you have a game with no consequences, then you have effectively made a game where brute force will win the day and thinking is completely optional. The original POP sands of time, introduced the ability to wander about a level and work out a route to the top or how to open a door and get through it in time. There was constant danger as you tried to fend off a dozen sand demons. You could avert death only as long as you had sand left in the dagger. You therefore had not only to explore the game but also look for more sand. You even occasionally had to seek out combat in order to re-fill the tank before tackling a particularly hairy acrobatics section.

    All of the above sands of time features are now completely gone from the game. You don't need to worry about working out a section before attempting it. You don't have to run away from a hard battle because you can't ever be killed etc. etc.

  • sharky_ob #100 3 years ago

    Anyone who starts thier post with 'Not as good as.....' is a cock.

  • XdarXideX #101 3 years ago

    How about you guys actually just play the game?

  • RedSparrows #102 3 years ago

    oh but it looks so gorgeous, the art makes me gooey ;(

  • pha #103 3 years ago

    This games is just another demonstration that the games industry is gearing itself towards the "casual" gamer.

    Or as I like to call it... the "Wiization" of games. SUCKS!!!!

  • Darren #104 3 years ago

    @penhalion - But there are no real consequences for dying in other games that have that feature though since checkpoints, auto-saves and game saves circumvent the whole thing in a totally convenient and totally unrealistic manner! Or are you saying you'd rather have the ultimate challenge, a game that really does punish you if you die by making you have to restart it from the beginning like those old 8-bit games from many years ago did when you lost all your lives? :?

    As others have correctly said the challenge comes from playing the game not the act of dying itself, that's just a way of saying "hey, look you've died, you suck, try it again" but it really isn't needed IMO. If you miss a ledge in Prince of Persia and have to be rescued by Elika or respawn to a Vita-chamber in BioShock then it is still pretty obvious that you failed, only the games are being far less patronising about it.

  • Pac #105 3 years ago

    @Darren

    I think you are missing the point a little there.

    I think we are discussing "dying" in the video game environment. Going back to a checkpoint is essentialy the same as dying. It makes you replay the segment until you do it "correctly"

    It is not death sequences I find appealing but the challenge itself.

    It is all about risk and reward. And essential to video games creating any sense of satisfication - IMO

    What I object to is games that offer no challenge from the off. I personally find this patronising.

    That said, I like a challenge - that is why I play videogames.

  • marty_k #106 3 years ago

    penhalion:

    It is a step forward - it makes the game less frustrating and more accessible for larger audiences. For example, because of work and other activities I can only spend like 2 or 3 hours per day on playing games, watching films etc. I enjoy the fact that PoP respects my time and doesn't force me to start each time from the checkpoint. I want to see as much as possible in relatively short period of time and I really don't like to replay each of game's segments just to get to the point where I died.

    Furthermore, my girlfriend likes to play as well and it's A LOT easier to share such game like new PoP than mentioned by you Sands of Time.

    Few years ago I would agree with your points without any hesitation, but now it's a different story.

  • IkariW #107 3 years ago

    I totally agree with Penhalion when it comes to the question off 'Not being able to die' being seen as a step forwards.
    Agreed, its just not rewarding for a player, the greatest reward is cheating death through skill....always has been, always will be.

    Anyway, one thing I can't agree with is the whole 'Timing of jumps' etc, issue in this game.

    'Peerless' Tom, commented on the fact that all the timing has gone from the game, and that takes away player skill etc.
    Specifically referring to grabbing rings whilst doing wall runs and that kind of thing.

    Right, lets get one thing straight, this is as much of a technical and artistic issue as a gameplay design one, in fact, proabably more so. So in commenting on this 'Lack of player' timing being required as a purely bad design related issue...is I'm afraid, ill-informed.

    Its obvious from the very start, infact, before you play the game that the new POP is a game driven by artistic flair and the desire to create something beautiful. Now, to say that is the wrong direction for the game would be just an opinion...

    ..What I'm trying to say, is that to obtain a 'beautiful' game, you partly need beautiful animation. Now, the animation, for the most part in POP is absolutely gorgeous, fluid, smooth and varied.

    To obtain fluid animation, you have to do a few things.....one being to cue up the next animation immediately as its required. This achieves seemless animation.
    Problem you have with a game like POP that requires the player to influence that animation, sometimes, whilst it is already playing one. So, you have two choices...either, you cut the animation, stop it in its tracks and play the next 'player' required one....or, you allow a slight 'Fuzzy' input by the player to maintain the impression of fluid animation, but create what seems like a slight delay in timing.

    POP chose the latter option, probably due to a decision that was made from the start of the project....we want to create something very aesthetically pleasing, I think they have done this.

    I for one, can sligthtly adjust the way I play and approach a game to work within the restraints that are provided, with out it effecting my enjoyment of it.

    Anyway, its a technical issue as much as a design one...so to comment on something like that with such flippancy....well...back to my previous post about teachers.

    Sorry to droan on a little too much, and like I say, just an opinion.
    Ikari




























  • XdarXideX #108 3 years ago

    @Pac

    Except the challenge IS there. Because if you don't succeed you get to do it again and again until you're able to get it right. There simply isn't a loading screen and waiting time before retrying. Exactly the same as in Bioshock. I don't understand how it's not completely obvious to some people that there is pretty much no difference except not having to wait. Sure, in Bioshock you could be punished by losing some valuables but then why is that more of a challenge? It's just an inconvenience.

    PoP is great. You guys need to try it.

  • dryden555 #109 3 years ago

    not sure this one is worth full price. Looks pretty though.

  • Darren #110 3 years ago

    @Pac - No, dying and going back to a checkpoint makes you often have to re-do parts of the game you've already done so I'm all for a game placing me back at the point before I "died" and for the game to disguise that "death" by way of more believable equivalents such as the Vita-Chambers and aid of Elika which fit in more with the game worlds IMO.

    Take Call of Duty: World at War for example, the checkpoints are placed after each setpiece but I've lost count of the number of times I've been frustrated by having almost done the setpiece only to die before I reached the next checkpoint because of those bloody annoying grenades. That just is not fun in my book... making me shoot all the same enemies again I've just killed once or even five times before... no fun at alll... and it is hardly realistic either. Of course, if you're after a challenge then there's the difficulty setting and the option to make enemies behave more realistically or be harder to kill, etc. not punishing the player by making them redo the game over and over ad nauseum. That is just poor game design in my book.

    But if you want a challenge then there are loads of other games out there for you to play like Call of Duty: World at War on Hard but clearly Prince of Persia is not aimed at people such as yourself. That said, there's no reason really why the developers of Prince of Persia couldn't have added a range of difficulty levels to the game to appeal to everyone from the casuals to the hardcore so they've clearly a missed an opportunity there in that respect.

  • ParanoidZombie #111 3 years ago

    Ok, ninja gaiden2 is my GOTY, I love mirror's edge to bits, i just completed the 50 episodes of N+, but I don't agree with those who complain that the game is too easy. I mean, difficulty is not a means to an end. Gaiden is a game designed for the hardcore masochists like myself, N+ wouldn't make any sense if it was easy, Mirror's edge is an old school platformer in shiny HD clothes, but games like Bioshock or PoP are essentially journeys, you're meant to explore, experiment, absorb the story and try to relax. What's wrong with that? I cleared Bioshock 3 times, and never found it to be repetitive, every time i got tired of a particular gameplay element I just tried something new, and the fact that the game wasn't punishing was liberating.

    On the other hand, PoP seems to be as repetitive as Ass Creed, and that's the real deal-breaker for me. But that's a design flaw that has nothing to do with the lack of challenge.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 12:42

  • septimus #112 3 years ago

    Only major downside to the game so far -> his bloody accent.

    Why couldn't they have the guy from Sands of Time again?
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 12:42

  • Pac #113 3 years ago

    @Darren

    I agree entirely. Perhaps it is just a matter of personal opinion. But I believe that games should "by default" offer a challenge.

    For example I changed the difficulty to Hardcore on GoW 2 because I waltzed through the first two levels without a scratch (and believe me - I am not that good!)

    I just think that games are spoonfeeding a little too much these days and IMO Fable 2 and Bioshock are guilty of this. If as you say there is the option of turing the difficulty up or down then this is one sollution. Perhaps I am stuck in my ways and object to these "steps forward" in the name of accessability.

    I am closer to forty than thirty next week!

  • windflaw #114 3 years ago

    Ikari: So to not buy a product from one specific publisher, even if they did do this, is just short sighted

    But it will keep me happy for a while until I forget about the whole thing... :-)

    More from Ikari: don't believe everything that the Interweb tells you from now on, that includes games website reviewers, as they will give you their 'Peerless' opinions as long as you keep lapping them up

    It's actually for the quality and honesty of his writing that I consider Tom peerless, not for any 'correctness' of his opinions. Sorry if that's what it sounded like when I said it (it was actually intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek), and sorry to only clarify that now after all the time and effort you spent rightfully lambasting my naivete. As I said the game's already on its way to me in the post, so I'll be happy to make my own mind up about it.

    And you're completely right, I really should be more cynical and disbelieving in general, but with so many games out there you do have to ultimately base a good number of purchases on other people's opinions. And the great thing about Eurogamer (IMO, natch) is that while you can never be sure if their opinions will match yours you can be damn sure they're theirs. Which is usually good enough for me.

  • Gearskin #115 3 years ago

    Can't believe all this chatter about "death." In Sands of Time, if you missed a jump, you would rewind time to the last safe platform and attempt the jump again. The only other option is falling, and then loading a checkpoint. In this game, rather than do either, Elika catches you and returns you to safe ground.

    It's no different. It's just another way of dealing with the same situation. So what's with the moaning?

    It's an elegant system. And it works within the context of the game world. I sunk hours into this last night. It's a joyful game.

  • hiddenranbir #116 3 years ago

    Sands of Time remains top dog. No surprise.

  • Troopa3k #117 3 years ago

    Darren @ 05-Dec-08 11:42:23
    "@Troopa3k - +1 "

    Lol - I was about to come on here and write "Darren +1" after reading your comments!

    @Pac
    I can see where you are coming from, but I think I'm just more like-minded with Darren on this - "No, dying and going back to a checkpoint makes you often have to re-do parts of the game you've already done so I'm all for a game placing me back at the point before I "died" and for the game to disguise that "death" by way of more believable equivalents such as the Vita-Chambers and aid of Elika which fit in more with the game worlds IMO."

    Nonetheless I can fully appreciate your point and think, ultimately, it just comes down to personal preference. In an ideal world we would have the option of turning the Elika character (well, her ability) on/off - so we can either be saved (as in the present PoP) or have checkpoints, ala all other games! However, I do applaud PoP for trying something different and for effectively giving the player personification on screen - yes, I do understand that the main character is always meant to represent *you*, the player, but double-jumps, respawns, etc, have always jarred with any form of realism in games. The Elika character provides a plausible (though fantastical) way around this, effectively giving you (or perhaps, the other half of you with the "special powers";) on screen representation.

    I personally like what PoP has done, but I appreciate that others don't. Nonetheless, they get kudos from me for trying something new, and perhaps it is something that can now be refined over the generations until it suits everyone. Afterall, checkpoints haven't always existed, and it's taken a long time for those to be refined to where they are today (not too frequent, not too sparse, not right-before non-skipable cut-scenes, not after power-ups so the player is left under-powered when retrying, etc).

    Man, I waffle.......! :p

    EDIT: Can't use tags... :(
    EDIT2: Still couldn't use tags... :'(
    Edited by 2 at 05/12/08 @ 13:06

  • Les #118 3 years ago

    "For all those who think not being able to die in a game or loosing any ground for a mistake, is some kind of step forward. This is simply not the case. The whole point of a game is that it challenges you while telling a story."

    Think I'm perfectly capable to determine what the point of a game is for myself thank you very much. A game is a structured activity, nothing more nothing less. What one wants to get out of it is to the individual. And how one wants to set the rules is up to the designer.

  • penhalion #119 3 years ago

    @Marty_K

    A lot of reviewers and those who have played the new game, have picked up on an obvious side effect of not having any consequences for death. There is a subsequent lack of challenge and therefore no feeling of acomplishment when you win. How can you have won a battle or challenge if you were never at risk of loosing it to being with?

    Let's apply your no death as a step forward idea to all new and up-coming games shall we.

    Killzone 2. You get shot by the enemy but, just as you are about to die a medic conveniently comes along and shoots you full of miracle juice. Voila you are back on your feet and can now finish off the enemy troops you were in the middle of killing when they flanked you. In fact may as well have the troops simply stand still while you shoot then remove any risk of having to think about what you are doing.

    Resident Evil 5. Just as the hammer wielding monster is about to smash you to death, your partnet pulls you out of the way. You can then simply pump bullets into him until he falls, safe in the knowledge that you will always be rescued just before you loose all of your life. Betteryet, lets have the villagers no longer bite or attack you because they may kill you and we don't want that to happen do we. Instead you simply enter the village, arrest the leader and the game feeds you the end credits.

    Bionic commando. Every time you miss a swing, the game simply auto shoots out your arm to the nearest attachable object and hauls you up to it. This way you never have to worry about falling due to lack of skill or planning. Just jump and as long as you are near an object you don't even have to press any buttons. Similarly let's have your commando auto shoot any creatures that get too close to you. Pressing any button simply results in a different attack animation. Whenever your health drops to near zero, you auto dodge until it goes back up again.

    Having no consequences for your actions within a game, makes the game totally pointless. I have yet to see any argument that gives a working solution for this. Why on earth would anyone buy a game where you don't need to do anything to win. Isn't that waht movies are for?

  • worstgamerever #120 3 years ago

    How come so many people think Assasins Creed wasnt a good game. I think the POP comparisons with that game are unfair. Regardless of what Eurogamer or anybody gave AS, that - for me - was one of the finest games of last year.

  • Darren #121 3 years ago

    @Pac - Well I'm 42 next year so I've seen how games have progressed since the early days and I'm all for the mechanics that BioShock, Fable 2 and now Prince of Persia use because it reduces frustration and means that I can actually complete the game and get my money's worth out of them... eventually (with the number of games I like to play across four platforms, it often takes me months to complete them, assuming they're interesting enough to *want* to complete that is!).

    There's nothing more galling than buying a game and finding out I just cannot progress beyond a certain point because of the difficulty something that ruined the original Ninja Gaiden and to a lesser extent its vastly inferior and somewhat underwhelming Xbox 360 sequel for me. That's £30+ down the drain straight away. The best games IMO are those that have difficulty settings that allow the user to play the game at their own level, e.g. I was struggling with God of War on the default difficulty but dying unlocked an easier mode that suited me more and allowed me to play the game right to the end and I loved every second of it, having been able to experience the whole thing.

    The recent Devil May Cry 4 is another example of a game I completed on the PS3 and enjoyed immensely because it had a difficulty setting perfect for me but allowed me to revist levels with a powered up Nero on the higher settings making me feel far less inadequate. While I enjoyed the earlier PS2 games too, I never completed them as I found them far too hard, particularly the third game.

  • Les #122 3 years ago

    "It is all about risk and reward. And essential to video games creating any sense of satisfication - IMO"

    Depends on the game. A puzzle can be challenging without posing any obvious risk apart from wasting your precious time a bit too much. I think game designers still have a lot to learn in how to better incorporate a challenge within a game world.

    For platforming games for example, challenge could be created by making the paths through the levels less obvious, thus turning them more into a puzzle. Or instead of dying when missing a jump and starting over, the game could let the avatar not jump at all because he/she realised he/she wasn't going to make it. You would still need to get your timing right though to advance. In case of boss fights, the battle could be protracted if you suck, earning you less rewards or something, rather than just letting you die and start all over again. Just some suggestions, might not work in a real game but it's clear that game designers' current efforts are far from perfect.

  • Darren #123 3 years ago

    @penhalion - You've just made Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2 and Bionic Commando sound a whole lot better for me with your superb suggestions! ;)

    Pah, challenge... it's overrated... if you want a worthwhile challenge that actually means something in the *real world* and one that people won't laugh at you about when you mention it then go climb a mountain or something. A real one that is. :p

  • Troopa3k #124 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    But there are consequences - just because you can't die, doesn't mean that there is no challenge. Those levels won't clear themselves. Sure, there is no consequence for death, but there is a consequence for not taking part. And let's be honest now, there never is a consequence for death - except the tedium of waiting for the last save/checkpoint to load. Unless you go back to classic games, where you had 3 lives, maybe a few continues, and then that was it - if you die, you are back to the beginning *of the game*. And lets be honest, nobody wants that nowadays (do they?).

    And lets look at your examples:

    Killzone 2. You get shot by an enemy, your health is very low, so you give *yourself* the shot of miracle juice/medpack, etc, then you are back on your feet. And just because you are back on your feet doesn't mean that you can kill those soldiers - they could just keep killing you. So the argument of having them stand still is flawed. And even if you *did* die, you'd just reload and have to kill the same soldiers over and again - in which case, they may as well stand still as you are going to kill them anyway, surely? And at least in PoP, if you are saved whilst fighting, the bad guys get a health boost as well, so you can't simply make it a fight of attrition, attacking, being saved, etc. You have to actually learn and improve.

    Resident Evil 5. As above to be honest.

    Bionic commando. Nowhere in PoP does it automatically complete the part of the level for you if you die - it puts you back to the start of the point you were at. So in BC you wouldn't just auto shoot, you would "teleport" back to the ledge you just jumped off. The challenge is still there as you still have to make the jump, but at least it's easier to retry.

    Ultimately there are never any consequences for your actions in terms of your own character, as you will inevitably always prevail, just through being able to reload/respawn, etc. The challenge comes from seeing the game through to the end, overcoming the problems presented. And the best consequences come not from your own character but what happens to *the world* around your character - do you save people, or kill them, be a good guy, or a bad guy, etc?
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 13:24

  • Gearskin #125 3 years ago

    Halo 3 Checkpoints. Removing the challenge?

  • Pac #126 3 years ago

    @Troopa3k

    "Man, I waffle.......! :p "

    Don't we all :)

    I agree, clever game mechanics are never a bad thing as long as they still provide the player with a challenge.

    I thought the replay function in GRID was a masterstroke.

  • sneetch #127 3 years ago

    I would just like to say this is one of the most interesting and thought provoking comments threads I've seen on this site.

    Thanks.

    @penhalion
    I don't believe anyone is saying that the concept of dying and failing should be removed from games, as your examples point out without the threat of death most games become pretty pointless.

    On being saved from death by Elika in this game, I think it's a good idea and worth trying but that it should have been restricted to the platforming sections only and not the battles. If you can't die in combat and you have a situation where you're going to get through each and every fight, even if you go off and make a cup of tea at the start without pausing. That's probably not a great idea. :)

    Still, I'm really looking forward to playing this. Roll on 5:30.

  • Pac #128 3 years ago

    @Darren, Troopa3k, sneetch, Penhalion etc.

    Great comments. Let's leave while the goings good.

    /get's coat

  • Les #129 3 years ago

    "Ultimately there are never any consequences for your actions in terms of your own character, as you will inevitably always prevail, just through being able to reload/respawn, etc. The challenge comes from seeing the game through to the end, overcoming the problems presented."

    +1

  • Miths #130 3 years ago

    I played the first four hours last night, and in terms of sheer fun and awe of the art design and character animations I'm gonna go with a 9. Unlike the reviewer I actually rather like the voice acting and personalities of both the Prince and Elika and there's some pretty funny dialogue between the two on several occasions.

    Like Assassin's Creed it does seem like the gameplay will become repetitive over time though, but I seriously doubt I'm gonna end up feeling this was a 6/10 game. I even doubt I will go as low as 7.

    And obviously Eurogamer is also scoring the game far lower than the current Metacritic average - and I don't really trust their opinion any more or less than those from a number of other sites.

  • polaris70 #131 3 years ago

    I have no problem with games that are aimed at the casual market, but lately I'm seeing a trend that the gaming industry is moving too far in that direction. If people want to play games just to experience the world they create then fine, I have no problem with that. But please gaming industry, get the balance right. I play games as a challenge, if I'm dying a lot in a game then it's simple, I'll just try and get better and more skillfull at the game; Isn't that the reason to play games in the first place, be it a video game or a game of tennis or a game of footie?

  • ParanoidZombie #132 3 years ago

    Darren wrote: "There's nothing more galling than buying a game and finding out I just cannot progress beyond a certain point because of the difficulty something that ruined the original Ninja Gaiden and to a lesser extent its vastly inferior and somewhat underwhelming Xbox 360 sequel for me. That's £30+ down the drain straight away. "

    I understand, but why did you buy the game in the first place? Buying a game that's as notoriously hard as NG and then complaining that you can't progress is a bit weird, isn't it? it would be a bit like buying a game as notoriously easy as the new PoP and then complain that the challenge isn't there... Since there are a ton of websites out there reviewing these, just buy the games that suit your tastes / skills / patience. There's a market for tough games like NG2 (sold more than 1M copies), lots of people buy easy stuff like god of war or PoP, everyone should be happy that both types of games exist IMO.

    I like challenging games so i got mirror's edge. You don't, buy PoP instead. Just don't expect Pop to be as rewarding as ME, while i accept that ME isn't as fluid and relaxing as PoP.

  • Vanmunt #133 3 years ago

    Hugh? how come most other reviews give it a 90+?

    Are Eurogamer being controversial to gain attention again? *Rolls eyes*

    No, Ubi just didn't advertise enough...

  • AlvySinger #134 3 years ago

    BTW, anyone know how long the game actually is?

    I've sunk four hours in now and while I'm (McDonald's jingle) loving it, a 20-hour Two Thrones marathon might be a bit of a stretch.

  • Feanor #135 3 years ago

    I predicted a 7 from EG and poor sales, so maybe (hopefully) the sales will be very poor.

    Fuck Ubisoft and their PR bullshit. if you have to buy this game, buy it used.

  • Darren #136 3 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie - As far as the original Ninja Gaiden went, how did I know that the game was going to be too difficult for me until I tried it? I had no problems playing the demo as I recall and what is difficult for one person might not necessarily be the case for someone else. Of course, I didn't learn just how hard the game was until *after* I'd bought it when the developers admitted that they'd made it deliberately hard, hence the reason they went on to release the easier Ninja Gaiden: Black, a game I incidentally got much further into by the way albeit on the insulting Ninja Dog mode. I never did complete it though, got bored of it before the end, but it only cost me a fiver anyway so it was no loss.

    As for Ninja Gaiden 2 as I implied that game was easier than the original but it wasn't a particularly good game IMO, certainly not for an Xbox 360 sequel, so it was one I stopped playing once the difficulty ramped up on a certain level and I just never returned to it. It was those irritating creatures on the canals in Venice that did it from memory, the wayward (read: el crappo) camera was really annoying here too.

    You know, difficulty is subjective anyway... even if a review claims a game is easy doesn't necessarily mean it will be for me. Similarly, I've played games that were reported to be hard which I surprisingly found less so, so it can work the other way too. You really cannot rely on reviews to gauge how easy or hard a game is so they aren't very useful if, like me, you pre-order all the games you're interested in.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 14:33

  • Darren #137 3 years ago

    Yes, I realised that *after* I'd posted hence I've now edited it out. However, my point still remains that difficulty is a subjective thing and demos often show the earlier, easier parts of the game anyway so they cannot really be used to judge how hard a game is beyond that, particularly in something like Ninja Gaiden.

    Of couse, had the developers included a range of difficulty levels from insulting easy to incredibly hard then no-one would have had any complaints and, really, there is no excuse for not doing so with a game like Ninja Gaiden as it would be so easy to adjust number of enemies, enemy health, your players health, etc. etc.

    Coming back to Prince of Persia, there's no reason why Ubisoft couldn't have added something similar to the game as well so that everyone could choose their own level of challenge, whether easy or hard. I mean it can't take that much effort once the main game levels and mechanics are in place, right?

  • layleeloo #138 3 years ago

    Rather that sitting here writing dissertations to prove the size or your willies, heres an idea - go and play it!!!

    I've been playing it since yesterday and I rather like it. Sure it may get sllightly repetative but guess what, so is Gears of War 2, so is littlebigplanet, so is mirrors edge and most other top games which I own and love!

  • Ilroy #139 3 years ago

    As I expected, this installment is just a typical dumbing down of a series that was once renowned as being challenging. I reckon that I'll just pick up the trilogy box-set on the Playstation 2, instead of wasting my time with this. Even though the cell-shaded graphics are gorgeous, it doesn't make up for the simplistic gameplay.

  • duusern #140 3 years ago

    I was looking for a review of this game yesterday before i bought it,but in vain..(EG is the only Gamerpage that doesnt follow the rest of the "hype-sheep";)I must say that i also found the game to be a disappointment,though it was very pretty graphics-wise.That's another 50 quid wasted.Well,well..

  • kangarootoo #141 3 years ago

    "6/10 is too harsh, I would lean towards 7/10"

    Isn't "leaning" toward 7/10 still a 6/10? Or are you leaning over more than half way? :)

  • marty_k #142 3 years ago

    Penhalion, for the record:

    In modern FPS games (like Resistance or COD) it works almost like you described: you're being shot but few seconds later your 'health bar' magically goes up. More of it - you don't need a medic, just some time without catching a bullet. I won't discuss RE5 because (in my opinion) it totally sucks.

    Other than that I got your points and honestly appreciate your input. As long as people care about games, there will be teams working hard to provide them challenges.

    All I said in my previous post was that UBI made a step towards mainstream audience which is okay, because console owners are getting older and have less time to play, thus are looking to have more bang per minute spent playing games.

    The real challenge for developers is to please hardcores AND mainstream which is a damn hard task. Plus, I would love to see more games where my girl can either join me for few minutes or play on her own without being upset because a game is too difficult and can't adjust to her on the fly.

    Btw. great thread, guys.

  • Robyrt #143 3 years ago

    I'm almost done with the game, and the bad things Tom says are true. The Prince is annoying (although Elika is wonderful), the required number of collectibles to progress is too high, the platforming has too much auto-aim, and the combat spends more time in QTEs than it does in the regular combat system. If you're not mashing the dialogue button at every plot point, you'll miss some of the game's best parts.

    Ubisoft is making a big statement here. This is not a hardcore game in any way, it's an interactive fantasy experience. It is so easy your parents can play it, and I think that's a good thing. It's not a game for you, it's for everyone else.

  • penhalion #144 3 years ago

    @troopa3k

    Killzone 2. You get shot by an enemy, your health is very low, so you give *yourself* the shot of miracle juice/medpack, etc, then you are back on your feet. And just because you are back on your feet doesn't mean that you can kill those soldiers - they could just keep killing you. So the argument of having them stand still is flawed. And even if you *did* die, you'd just reload and have to kill the same soldiers over and again

    Unless the enemy had regenerating health too, you'd eventually kill everyone in the area simply by being saved and then shooting randomly at them when you were revived. You loose no ground because you are never returned to a checkpoint through death (POP simply returns you to the last platform you were on). By dying and starting the section again, you get to choose different tactics and refine your approach. You effectively learn to use caution and strategy instead of relying on imortality to pass a section. When you do get past the section, even if it was frustrating, you still feel a real sense of acomplishment. You've become one of the elite with proven skills. It's why difficulty levels were invented in the first place.

    Why not have games where there is a difficulty level called casual. In that mode you are spared death and can simply trudge, consequence free, though the game. For the rest of the gaming populace, they could then have the usual easy, medium and hard levels with death and skill required to progress. In that case I would also argue that achievements and tropies should be removed from the casual difficulty too as the player would have done nothing to deserve them.

  • Darren #145 3 years ago

    @duusern - You do realise that the EG review represents *ONE* person's opinion of the game and doesn't necessarily reflect those of the other staffers who may or may not consider it better or worst? ;)

    What I'm saying is that EG are no more "right" with this review than any other site that offered their take on the game... ultimately it is only *you* that can decide how good any game is... or isn't. So saying that EG are great because they don't follow the "hype sheep" is a bit silly really... there's no such thing as a "correct review"... it's all subjective at the end of the day.

  • mrt181 #146 3 years ago

    stupid game designer, what is so difficult about implementing different difficulty modes?

    easy: you can never die (I'am to young to die)
    normal: you can fall into your death, but eika will help you during combat (Hurt me plenty)
    hard: you are on your own (Nightmare)

    or just options for eikas behavior, make everything activated on default for those pussy gamers
    help during comabt: on/off
    rescue from falling: on/off
    show path: on/off
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 15:02

  • layleeloo #147 3 years ago

    Although personally I like the game, the freeness it hands out achievement is laughable. 10 points for starting the game. Wow. Most worthwhile button press id ever made! haha. At least it boost your gamerscore if you are a score whore. But then, if it hands stuff out 10 at a time easily i'd rather that then casual people can at least acheive something rather than have the rediculiusly nails acheivements like the 1st 360 pes had etc

  • Les #148 3 years ago

    "The real challenge for developers is to please hardcores AND mainstream which is a damn hard task."

    I think the first challenge is realising you can't please everyone with every game. The next one is how to make appealing hardcore games for casual budgets. Eventually publishers will figure out the maths and the number of risky big budget hardcore titles will decrease.

  • Darren #149 3 years ago

    mrt181 - There is no excuse for the developers not doing what you suggested... just laziness really or maybe they were pressured into making an easy, accessible game for the Christmas market by Ubisoft. After all, most people probably play games on the default difficulty which tends to be Normal or Medium... maybe that was considered to be potentially too hard for the market Ubisoft were aiming the game at? :?

  • layleeloo #150 3 years ago

    mrt181. That would have been good for this game actually. It is a bit annoying that you cant fall to your death as i just spent all night last night making leaps of faith with no worry or cosequence.

  • noller #151 3 years ago

    Ouch. So Jade will still not talk to you.

  • UncleLou #152 3 years ago

    "Ubisoft is making a big statement here. This is not a hardcore game in any way, it's an interactive fantasy experience. It is so easy your parents can play it, and I think that's a good thing. It's not a game for you, it's for everyone else. "

    The question is: does this necesarily need to be done with a franchise that (at least originally) had an entirely different reputation?

    I don't think anyone really minds that different audiences are served, too (apart from the abstract idea that it takes away development time for the type of games you want to play), but when it's clearly a replacement of what they prefer, people understandably get a bit worried.

  • Pac #153 3 years ago

    @Les

    "the number of risky big budget hardcore titles will decrease"

    Not sure I would agree with you there.

    At the risk of going out on limb here...

    I am not convinced that casual gamers are the ones buying the majority of games. I know the Wii is probably outselling everything at the moment and the majority of games for it are casual but I get the impression that the software attachment rate is quite low.

    The real driving force behind the software industry in my opinion is the gamer who buys one or two titles a month (say perhaps 20 titles a year) not the casual gamer who will buy 1 or 2 titles a year.

    I am however prepared to eat humble pie if someone shoots me down in flames with relaible statistics to the contrary.

    Edit: strange word crept in at the end
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 15:13

  • mrt181 #154 3 years ago

    this game is not for a "casual" audience, it's too long, has a story, and "difficult" controls:

    You just have to imagine your parents or any other "casual" gamer.

    1. Would they buy it? no, because of the games-genre
    2. Would they play it? no, watching you "hardcore" gamer playing it they see how complicated it must be to control and watch for all those things on the screen, it seems more like work than relaxing and enjoying a casual game.

    I do not get it why the publishers do not get it that "casual" gamers do not care for games that are clearly best suited for "hardcore" gamers. By trying to please the "casual" gamer they annoy the "hardcore" and still can't get the casual gamer.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 15:21

  • marty_k #155 3 years ago

    Les: Imagine you're in the money making business. Would you spend your 10 mil on something that makes another 10, or maybe you would go for 30? From publisher's standpoint it doesn't make sense to make game that will attract hardcores only. In most cases developer is the only one who actually cares about such target. So, for your average publisher, it is essential to hit Joey Six Pack, and if Hardcore Teddy finds the game appealing it's a nice bonus. That's why developers find it challenging to make a game for 'everyone'.

    mrt181: You're right on. The problem is that so many settings can scare potential mainstream customer. You have to remember that your understanding of game mechanics is way above standard, and some absolutely logical solutions are not that easy to comprehend for 'the rest of us'. That's why, as far as I get it, there's a need to work on mechanisms that adjust level of difficulty in the background, without bothering Average Joeys. It's difficult, but doable.

  • muscleblade #156 3 years ago

    Darren wrote: Pah, challenge... it's overrated

    To you maybe. To me a challenge is a must to have fun. I guess thats why i like achievements (only the challenging ones, i hate the time consuming ones). Without a real challenge a game becomes boring imo.

  • Darren #157 3 years ago

    @muscleblade - Well I was being sarcastic, you know? ;)

    While I might like easy-ish games because they're more my "skill" level, they still *do* offer some challenge for me, I don't think I'd play a game it all it was was an interactive CG movie with prompts to press buttons at certain points!!!

  • miiiguel #158 3 years ago

    OXM gave it a 9, but also complained about the lack of challenge.
    Regarding this issue, the most enjoyable games, in the sense of "achivement" are the ones who realy push the envelope - but that's a very individual thing.
    One I can rememeber is Army of Two DLC and its "Professional" difficulty level. It was (to me) very hard and on that kinda of edge od being "too much" but it never crossed the line. I like it that way.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 15:34

  • Mockerre #159 3 years ago

    It's really an interesting argument. On one hand, you've got the people that death in videogames is needed, as it provides a challenge, on the other those saying that checkpoints and saves are the same thing as taking death out from a game. The funny thing is, I think both of those groups are right ;) Checkpoints and saves ARE basically the same as removing death via somethin (like Elika) BUT they feel different. I think it's all in the perception of things. When the screen flashes GAME OVER / YOUR DEAD / whatever, you FEEL like it's a penalty, even thou you'll probably start not far from the point you died.

  • Thunderbolt #160 3 years ago

    Darren,

    Have you actually played the game yet? Your opinion of it might change once you given it a few hours.

  • Darren #161 3 years ago

    @marty_k - I agree with your reasoning as to why publishers prefer to aim games at as many people as possible but you have to ask why the developers didn't think to include a range of difficulty levels in Prince of Persia.

    As I said earlier it can't be that difficult to do once you have the levels designed and the gameplay all mapped out? Why only make it for the casual market... surely if you aim it at those *and* the core market too with adjustable difficulty levels then you could have double the sales?

  • patchbox360 #162 3 years ago

    the casual mentality is straying from what has brought gaming to its peak in popularity up to now- imagine pacman, mario, pong, mgs without death or lost

    its more logical to die and restart than to be immortal but not an immortal

  • Darren #163 3 years ago

    @Thunderbolt! - I have the game waiting for me at home but have not yet played it, no.

    However, I'm not discussing Prince of Persia specifically anyway but my preference for easier games in general. I may not like Prince of Persia at all, a game being easy doesn't automatically guarantee that it's good, but one that is easier has a higher chance of me actually enjoying and completing it! Put it this way I'm actually looking forward to playing it more now knowing that it is easy than I would be if the reviews and comments had said it was challenging.

  • mrt181 #164 3 years ago

    @marty_k: you are right. the average customer should not fiddle with settings. But just answer this simple questions?

    Can the average user read?
    Is she/he retarded (no offense meant to anyone who is)?

    It is a simple interface fix:

    click any button, start game or more -> choose difficulty/options and explain them to the user in a textbox

    so for pop it would be: click any button, start or start, but more difficult (choose options). clicking start makes the game as it is, clicking start, but more difficult (choose options) opens a menu were you can set eika's behavior, how frequent checkpoints are used (if you are able to die) and so on. Every option is explained in a textbox or maybe even shown in a short comparison video. tell the user that he can set these any time during the game by entering the pause/options screen and that they are effective immediately. This way you can activate eika's rescue during annoying passages, instead of getting frustrated.

    Just give the user choice if he wants it and everyone will be happy
    Edited by 2 at 05/12/08 @ 15:49

  • marty_k #165 3 years ago

    Darren - Some people in the industry believe that it isn't 'right' to give the player too many choices and that such thing as selecting difficulty level may be confusing. This belief is based on the fact that most people select 'medium' because they are afraid of loosing part of the experience with 'easy', then the game is too difficult and word of mouth doesn't work as well as it should. I haven't seen any official data on this, though.

  • Les #166 3 years ago

    "I am not convinced that casual gamers are the ones buying the majority of games."

    They will be very soon, if they're not already. Wii's tie ratio (source: gamasutra) by the end of September 2008 was 5.5 games per console. 360's tie ratio by the end of October 2008 (that's with more than an extra year on the market which paints a rosier picture for 360) was 8.1. That means the average 360 owner has around 47% more games in his collection than the average Wii owner. However, current installed base for Wii is 39.0 million, for 360 it's 24.2 (vgchartz.com). This gives the Wii an advantage in installed base of 61%, with a year less on the market.

    If these numbers are reasonably accurate, lifetime software sales for Wii would be 214.5 million units and for 360 196.0 units. With 360 being on the market a year longer.

    Of course the picture gets a bit more complicated if you factor in the PC and PS3 as well, but still the Wii as a platform should be very attractive from a business perspective, especially if you take into account the lower average development costs per game.

  • marty_k #167 3 years ago

    mrt181 - If I had a choice: no difficulty levels at all (be it hidden or selectable) or chance to put the proper menus somewhere deep in options, I would go for the latter. But the optimal solution is to incorporate proper mechanisms into the game to adjust the difficulty without player's knowledge. Like: if your are hitting enemies in the head 9 out of 10, then the game scales down head hitboxes to actual head size etc.

  • Darren #168 3 years ago

    @marty_k - Fair point but what's wrong with making the game's default difficulty Easy then offering harder ones for everyone else intelligent enough to navigate a game's options menu?

    Or better still prompt the user for a difficulty level at the start of a new game with Easy highlighted by default and clear explanations of what each of the other difficulty levels is. It's not rocket science after all, it's just a simple choice at the start of the game!

  • sneetch #169 3 years ago

    @marty_k
    "mrt181: You're right on. The problem is that so many settings can scare potential mainstream customer. You have to remember that your understanding of game mechanics is way above standard, and some absolutely logical solutions are not that easy to comprehend for 'the rest of us'. That's why, as far as I get it, there's a need to work on mechanisms that adjust level of difficulty in the background, without bothering Average Joeys. It's difficult, but doable. "

    They don't need many settings, they need:

    Quick Start (starts the game in easy mode)
    Start (allow you to select the options/difficulty you want, maybe "Advanced Start";)
    Continue (allows you to choose the game you want to continue)

  • FortysixterUK #170 3 years ago

    As usual another highly critical review from EG. I bet it's nowhere near as bad the score implies.

  • Les #171 3 years ago

    "Les: Imagine you're in the money making business. Would you spend your 10 mil on something that makes another 10, or maybe you would go for 30? From publisher's standpoint it doesn't make sense to make game that will attract hardcores only."

    That was kind of my point. Developing a game that's both attractive to the casual and the hardcore usually leads to disaster as the groups are just too distinct. Thus publishers should focus on the bigger group, the casual ones, especially given the lower development costs, thus lower risk. If they want to realise the same kind of returns on a hardcore focused title, development costs for hardcore titles will have to come down. If not, and publishers really follow the money, less and less development funds will flow to the hardcore games. For now, hardcore gamers are saved by traditional concepts being ingrained in the industry mindset. But sooner or later someone will realise that the times have changed. And then the rest will have to follow.

  • Waldo #172 3 years ago

    A lack of challenge didn't stop games like Prey and Bioshock from getting rave reviews.

  • JediMasterMalik #173 3 years ago

    The environments are so fucking beautiful, it's a real damn shame the rest of the game doesn't live up to it. Next gen Okami please.

  • JediMasterMalik #174 3 years ago

    Did no one read the review? (why do I even ask, of course not)

    They like the easiness of the game.

  • marty_k #175 3 years ago

    Darren: I got your point. You can play with proper naming as well, like "normal" for actual "easy" level, then "hardcore" and "inhuman" or something. It's like telling people that 'cheap' stuff is 'affordable'. A solution, definitely. Proper one, depends how far you want to go ;-)

    I would love to see some comments by people who represent so called mainstream group. Unfortunately, to learn their points one needs to shell some cash to do focus groups ;(

    Les: Fair enough.

    Btw. Check this one: http://www .veotag.com/player/?u=wgcqpthubc . Kinda scary, they don't play games! :-)
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/08 @ 16:22

  • godfatherobie #176 3 years ago

    Wow, well done Eurogamer.

    Another poor, innacurate and badly written Review.

    Why some would think websites might "make up scores" to go in-line with other websites,
    you surely didnt,

    you possibly also didnt realise only 2 sources have given prince of persia such a poor score while others have been handing out 8's and 9's.

    I've been thinking it for a while now, but it's official,
    Eurogamer Reviews arent worth reading, ((like most of the site)) and the reviewer seems about as warm and friendly as most of your forum regulars,

    So, Well done IGN, Gamespot, gametrailers, etc, etc, etc because between you and your honest and well created articles and reviews, you've as good as made Eurogamer Extinct,

    God knows why Sony trust Eurogamer with there beta's, (especially considering how badly organised most have been)

    But that could well be why developers such as eutechnyx decide to seek beta testers themselves rather than let sony hand them out to make-shift websites like this,

    Good riddance, Eurogamer,
    it's honestly a shock that your not going into administration with woolworths, click, mkone to name a few,

    because I for one wont be here in the new year.

  • UncleLou #177 3 years ago

    Did no one read the review? (why do I even ask, of course not)

    They like the easiness of the game.


    Hm.

    "...soon it's all too easy..."
    "...devoid of any challenge..."

    Tom liked the "personified checkpoint" mechanic, not the general easiness. At least that's how I read it.

  • Ryze #178 3 years ago

    :o

    6!

  • JediMasterMalik #179 3 years ago

    I took everyone's complaints about lack of challenge to mean the never being able to die, as opposed to not being challenged by the platforming or puzzles.

    Platforming and puzzles that are too easy and too consistently are shit, anyone arguing otherwise is wrong. I guess I just assumed they didn't mean that.

  • oliath #180 3 years ago

    Ubifail

  • smelly #181 3 years ago

    "you possibly also didnt realise only 2 sources have given prince of persia such a poor score while others have been handing out 8's and 9's. "


    So now the score is "wrong" because it's not the same as other websites scores? Oh brother!

    Besides - it's not like this game wouldve got a 9 or a 10.. it doesnt have guns...

  • Gearskin #182 3 years ago

    Better than L4D.

  • cyber_nicco #183 3 years ago

    I somehow have a feeling that I'd like this more than a six. Can't exactly explain why...

  • Dynamize #184 3 years ago

    Goddamn style over substance. Stop messing up the franchises I like Ubi! You had Prince of Persia down pat with SoT. All you had to do was tweak the combat, everything else was fine. The VAs, the characterisation, the platforming, all good. Then you made it all go wobbly, and persist in making it go wobbly.
    This makes me concerned for BG&E 2 :(

  • XdarXideX #185 3 years ago

    Beating a tough Challenge has nothing to do with fun. The sense of accomplishment can also be called pride... and sadly some people can't live without it. Fun and Pride are totally different things and if you think having pride is fun, then you're actually stupid.

    Prince of Persia is fun and challenging in the way you do actualy have to time things, like many of the acrobatic moves and the fighting moves. Just because it short cuts the loading screen of having to restart a section of the game you failed at, it doesn't mean there's no challenge.

    I said it earlier and now I'll have to say it again... but in caps... ahem

    PLAY THE FUCKING GAME

    and then you can comment on its challenge. I bet you'll like the game regardless anyway.

  • Feanor #186 3 years ago

    Please consider leaving the planet as well, godfatherobie.

  • UncleLou #187 3 years ago

    Beating a tough Challenge has nothing to do with fun. The sense of accomplishment can also be called pride... and sadly some people can't live without it. Fun and Pride are totally different things and if you think having pride is fun, then you're actually stupid.

    Not as stupid as when you're assuming your definition of fun is everyone else's. Of course.

  • asphaltcowboy #188 3 years ago

    "stupid game designer, what is so difficult about implementing different difficulty modes?

    easy: you can never die (I'am to young to die)
    normal: you can fall into your death, but eika will help you during combat (Hurt me plenty)
    hard: you are on your own (Nightmare)

    or just options for eikas behavior, make everything activated on default for those pussy gamers
    help during comabt: on/off
    rescue from falling: on/off
    show path: on/off"

    @mrt181: Right, so once you've switched those off, how does that change the game? If you can fall to your death/get killed in combat, what happens? You respawn just before the bit of platforming/fight? Except having to show you a "You failed" screen and asking if you wish to continue, what would be the difference? Surely they're keeping you immersed by not having to show you death screens. This is just taking the instant reloading out of your hands - I fail to see what the problem there is!

  • ronuds #189 3 years ago

    Whatever happened to Ubi?

    This IS Ubi, innit?

  • Dismiss #190 3 years ago

    You can't die in Fable II, either. Or Little Big Planet. Unless you try very, very hard, that is. However, good job showing people that reviews are a subjective thing.

  • Les #191 3 years ago

    "Thankyou EG for standing up to UBISOFT and not lying about this game as other reviewers have!"

    LOL, just LOL.

  • rommy667 #192 3 years ago

    I think its a crap game and 6 is even to high,sands of time on xbox1 was/is WAY WAY better so get that instead and all will be well :)
    Edited by 1 at 06/12/08 @ 05:47

  • creepylizard #193 3 years ago

    @Confounder
    How you can say any of that as if its fact is just plain ridiculous. Its far more likely that EG badly reviewed something you like or gave a good review to something you dislike.
    Take your head out of your backside and the chip off your shoulder.
    That goes for anyone else that has the bizarre idea that EG are involved in some sinister reveiw bias conspiracy. Plain nonsense

  • Les #194 3 years ago

    "Eurogamer reviews are commercially driven. Any one who thinks otherwise is gullible."

    You're right about that but in a different way than you think. EG reviews are written to resonate with the readership, so that they keep coming to the site. So there's a very clear commercial drive as there is with every commercial medium. I'm very skeptical about video game journalism in general but I don't think that a site like EG sells review scores. The outliers can be explained by a combinantion of poor individual match-ups between reviewer and game and the wish to please the target audience.

  • Robyrt #195 3 years ago

    To implement a true difficulty system in this game, you'd need to do something about the "highway"-style level design, the textures / effects that signpost your next required button press, Elika's ability to heal you in battle, the number of light seeds required for each power, etc. It would be a lot of work, and they are already pretty much down to the wire in terms of shipping in 2008.

    That being said, the combat system is a MASSIVE upgrade from previous Prince/Altaïr games. I actually found myself wishing that I had a big arena battle to pull off more ridiculous combos, unlike previous games where my most used attack was "vault over them and run away".

  • smelly #196 3 years ago

    @Les: Gees.. come on.. Seriously? Are people REALLY that gullible?

  • septimus #197 3 years ago

    Quite a few hours into the game now and really like it. It's just a more convenient check point system. Shame the fights are so easy, but other than that, good game. 7.5/10.

  • tnomad #198 3 years ago

    Having played it for a few hours I think Tom is spot on.

    If you think the EG guys get paid for review scores you're dreaming. It's consistenly amazing how in almost every comments thread on this site the EG guys are accused of bias or selling out but you all come back for more! ^_^

    I think EG, Edge and Consolvania are just about the only review sources I know I can trust not to have taken bribes in one way or another.

  • smelly #199 3 years ago

    >If you think the EG guys get paid for review scores you're dreaming.

    Of course they dont.. that'd be dishonest.. no site/mag will get paid for reviews..

    But if you trust someone who's income comes from adverts then that's up to you :-)

  • Nill #200 3 years ago

    Gah, I had a feeling this game would head this route. Following the hideous developer videos for it, they kind of hinted at the game being watered down, akin too much toward being as casual as possible, that it'd end up being just uninteresting piss all together.

    Sounds like they weren't inventive enough with the concepts either, which again fits the mentality.


    EDIT: Oh and it's a true fucking shame seeing this franchise go down like this. Shame on you, money-grabbing Ubisoft. SHAME ON YOU!
    Edited by 2 at 06/12/08 @ 01:54

  • sajtion #201 3 years ago

    lol like am going to believe some idiot who didn't enjoy it and rated it 6. get a life moron! i don't need shit from you

  • Anxiety #202 3 years ago

    this is bullshit. your complaints are almost exactly the same problems i found with uncharted: Drakes fortune, and you somehow gave that a 9

  • byron_hinson #203 3 years ago

    Well got this yesterday and while I agree with the dying arguments in part - most of us who die in the game in the various areas are just going to continue from where you left off anyone so that part doesn't really matter does it? I'm enjoying the game but I do find it too easy, not due to the lack of dying, just the running, jumping, grabbing etc is far too easy to pull off. Graphically it is fantastic and I am one who likes the voice work over all as well. Also after picking up the PS3 version I have to say I'm pleased its as good, if not better than the 360 one this time round thanks to far better sound. I'd probably give it an 8 myself, but its just personal opinion, but a 6 does seem very harsh from my playing of it.

  • ZuluHero #204 3 years ago

    /sigh

    A reviewer that totally misses the point..

    Having played the game last night for 4 hours i agree with every other review out there (yes even the IGN one - i know /shock)

    Id say it was an 8 or even a 9. The production values are through the roof, controls are tight, story is engaging, voice overs are decent (the prince is lol funny as well) the way the prince and elleck interact- so far i can't fault the game, and im glad this crap review didnt sway me.


    Like i said earlier - its time for Tom to hang up his reviewers cloak and hat. If he's become this disillusioned and cynical then he's been in the industry far too long, and its time to get out while he has a tiny ounce of gamer left in side him - before it shrivels up entirely and he becomes a bitter twisted husk.

    Before its too late...



    EDIT: its too early to check spelling - maybe later ;)
    Edited by 1 at 06/12/08 @ 09:12

  • HardCoreGamer999 #205 3 years ago

    Should we count who voted pro or con ?
    It's getting clearer and clearer for me as i read the posts.
    Gamerankings.com says average 86 %
    Between 60 % and 90 's
    EUROGAMER gives the lowest score.. ? Strange and certainly questionable ?
    But then again for me after reading multiple reviews i will give this game a chance , it is certainly appealing enough. Maybe a bit easy but then again do games ALWAYS have to be challenging , from time to time i like to be immersed with something different.



  • HermitArcader #206 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Mr.Gordons #207 3 years ago

    http://ww w.gamespot.com/ps3/action/princ...

    interesting...

  • b00n #208 3 years ago

    At last a review that seems fair. Thank you!

  • PotajiTo #209 3 years ago

    No way this is a 6, sure, not a 9, but at least a 7.

  • E-Raz0r #210 3 years ago

    No more UBI-Games for me. It is just too frustrating for me to see all this wasted potential.

  • Krelle #211 3 years ago

    Its funny..Im sure there are people who would vote this GOTY08.

    ICO scoring 6 and 7s many years ago comes to mind. Or REZ.

  • Grayvern #212 3 years ago

    This review isn't what really put me off. What put me off was the wired review which points out that a lot of moves in the game are canned animations that are uninteruptable. The game also ques up button presses and then executes them in turn.

    Also unlike some people here seem to be saying I play games for different reasons at different times some games I play for challenge some for challenge.

    Edited by 1 at 06/12/08 @ 17:26

  • Obiwanshinobi #213 3 years ago

    For example, because of work and other activities I can only spend like 2 or 3 hours per day on playing games, watching films etc. I enjoy the fact that PoP respects my time and doesn't force me to start each time from the checkpoint. I want to see as much as possible in relatively short period of time and I really don't like to replay each of game's segments just to get to the point where I died.

    Making a game for people like you, yet challenging IS possible. You could play Jak II for one hour, 'dying' many times and being entertained at the same time. Not only that - after just one hour you could have saved progress and seen another piece of the story. Jak II used to be both eye candy and challenge. The game designed precisely with the purpose of an adult working 4 life being able to complete. What's more, the gameplay evolves from the start to the very end; the game is a far cry from being repetitive.
    On the other hand I can think of much easier (which is not always bad thing) games designed for weekend/all night gaming rather than afternoon gamig session (Okami and PoP:TSoT weren't exactly good for so called quick fix).
    If developers are all against obligatory repetition and serious challenge in their product, they can still implement alternative endings tricky to unlock, optional super-bosses bloody tough to defeat... Okami was easy to finish, but hard to complete in 100% with all minigames, secrets and stuff like that.

    I am all for diversity and clever game design (best case in point I can think of is the rewind function in GRID) but dying is a fundemental ellement of gaming.

    No, it isn't. Im pretty sure you can think of many games (sport, racing, point'n'click adventure...) starring 'immortal' playable characters.

    It is "the draw" that keeps you playing.

    Maybe playing 'survival' games. Not every game is about survival. Of course, not being able to fail is odd.

  • smelly #214 3 years ago

    I dont understand why people get upset at a low score?

    I'm more upset when a game gets a HIGH score that it doesnt deserve... Because then i've wasted money on it!

    At least with a low score, i can read about the problems the game has and make an informed decision.. That and knowing that they obviously hadnt paid for a lot of ads...

  • smelly #215 3 years ago

    Although on the same score.. i dont understand how this game gets marked down for being easy.. while bioshock - which doesnt have any real penalty for death and subsequently is the easiest game ever made - gets a 10?

  • Krelle #216 3 years ago

    Jak 2 was way too hard. It just gets frustrating when you die and have to restart a mission like that.
    If a game starts to feel like work, I just say fuck it and quit. Unlike most others (it seems) I dont have fun while repeating a mission 6 times.
    On a side note, this is what I dont like with the GTA-series. I always get stuck on a mission and get bored.

    btw, Still, I love the Jak & Daxter games. Come the fuck back Jason Rubin. plox

    EDIT: I understand very well that some people find their motivation in failing over and over until you finally make it. I guess it has to do with winner instinct? Im like that myself when it comes to footy, need to win at any cost. But for some reason I dont feel that way at all when it comes to games.

    Edited by 1 at 06/12/08 @ 20:31

  • Obiwanshinobi #217 3 years ago

    Jak 2 was way too hard. It just gets frustrating when you die and have to restart a mission like that.
    If a game starts to feel like work, I just say fuck it and quit. Unlike most others (it seems) I dont have fun while repeating a mission 6 times.

    Actually these missions used to be very short (and diverse). Nowhere near DMC3 level of unforgivingess.

    On a side note, this is what I dont like with the GTA-series. I always get stuck on a mission and get bored.

    Well, it's the matter of a personal preference. The question what kind of game you are looking for. Unlike GTA, Jak II allows you to save just before mission. Beating the game in separate 1-hour sessions is technically possible (and entertainig, if you like the challenge). One more thing - Jak II keeps you awake whilst playing. An important thing for a working adult.
    Edited by 1 at 06/12/08 @ 20:41

  • kendoji #218 3 years ago

    Eurogamer reviewers are Nazi aliens working for the CIA!

    Ahem, anyway - good review - and despite the relatively low score, I think I'll want to pick it up. I'm a sucker for fancy graphics and high production values.

  • AOFanboi #219 3 years ago

    Um there is NO discernible difference between "death animation, return to checkpoint/savepoint" and "saved-by-babe animation, return to checkpoint/savepoint". Other than it seems PoP has more of them than the average console title. Are you going to say "save anywhere" games (like you often have on PCs) are deserving of even lower scores?

    Games with death = Rogue, Hack, Moria, Nethack, Angband - that family. You die, you have to start over from the beginning. Anything else is hand-holding, whether done e.g. R&C style or the new PoP style. (I think some other games have an "Ironman" mode like that, but they are few.)

  • malmer #220 3 years ago

    I'm halfway through and so far it is the best game I've played this year, and yes I've played both Gears 2 and Fable 2. They were good, but this game captured my mind and my heart. It is simply amazing. Would rate this game a strong 9.

  • smelly #221 3 years ago

    "Anything else is hand-holding, whether done e.g. R&C style or the new PoP style"

    Since the ps2 games have become less and less "hardcore" gamers dont want challenge any more - they want to be able to beat the game no problems.. Not like when i were a lad growing up with sega and nintendo games :-)

    Case in point.. been playing Dead Space all afternoon.. Fairly far into it (i think - just did the shitty asteroids game).. And until that part i hadnt died once! Im playing in normal mode, and i dont consider myself an fps king or anything (quite the opposite in fact - i'm shit at them!).

  • niteninja #222 3 years ago

    Whats up EG ubisoft not paying you.

  • moroboshi #223 3 years ago

    I've been playing this game pretty much non stop since I got it on friday. It's outstanding, a total joy to play and has the best visuals this year by far. Lovely soundtrack too.

    This is a typically nonsensical review from Eurogamer designed purely to be controversial and drive traffic to the site. If anyone misses out on this wonderful game because of, well, quite frankly the 'reviewer' should be fired.

  • darkangelizer #224 3 years ago

    not the best pop... extremely easy, you never die, i have seen better grafs in previous pop... ia problems with the girl. but their relationship is interesting and coops as well, especially in fights. you have to try a demo before buying, it may not please everyone...

  • ZuluHero #225 3 years ago

    @moroboshi

    + a million

    I love this game. Its a keeper for me. And its so lovely that its going to sit proudly right next to ICO and SotC.

    Im so glad i traded in Gears of Bore (or Gears of Chore - i couldn't decide which ;) for PoP!



    Usually EG are good. But sometimes they just totally miss the point...

  • Les #226 3 years ago

    For me it's eye opening how many gamers think difficulty level = number of times you die during a game. Just because most games till now, thanks to a lack of imagination from the developers, stuck to that formula doesn't mean it's universally true. Gaming is changing and it's good to see that some of that slowly starts to seep through to the hardcore consoles. Or would you all just want things to stay the way they are: Playing old games with new graphics?

  • Obiwanshinobi #227 3 years ago

    For me it's eye opening how many gamers think difficulty level = number of times you die during a game. Just because most games till now, thanks to a lack of imagination from the developers, stuck to that formula doesn't mean it's universally true.

    I suppose that actually very few gamers think this way. What about racing games? Puzzle games? Huh? Platforming can be difficult without killing playable character, but when the game 'plays itself', it can be considered too easy.

    Or would you all just want things to stay the way they are: Playing old games with new graphics?

    I don't think that's what 'they' want. In my opinion PoP: TSoT was much easier than typical 3D platformer, yet it still used to test your skill. It was, you know, interactive entertainment. That interaction was revolutionary at the time, not the graphics (similiar to Ico visuals, especially soft lighting).

    P.S. I've yet to play this brand new PoP, but sooner or later I will. I don' believe it's all crap. Perhaps every gamer has her/his own idea of difficulty/challenge. Some people think of certain jRPG as 'hard', just because beating the final boss requires lots of level grinding and you can encounter enemy tougher than whole your party at the very beginning. For me such games are not 'hard' - they are just long and repetitive. On the other hand I found many platformers challenging, despite the fact that it was difficult to 'die' in them.
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/08 @ 13:18

  • ZuluHero #228 3 years ago

    "i suppose that actually very few gamers think this way. What about racing games? Puzzle games? Huh? Platforming can be difficult without killing playable character, but when the game 'plays itself', it can be considered too easy."

    the game really doesn't "play itself". There are sections that link from one another using neaarly every button on the pad in multiple combinations. You miss or fail and its right back to the last time you touched solid ground. Which sometimes is a very long way back. TBH im glad Ubi went with the decision to have a safety net as i would have snapped the disk in sheer frustration a long time ago. This wway i can take my time, ponder my next move, take in the spectacular views and not have to worry about messing up.

    UBISOFT have given you a huge playground, and instead of imposing harsh "make one false move sunshine and we're gonna kill you and DELETE YOUR SAVE!" restrictions they've said; "here is your playgrond... go have fun."

    And thats a bold thingto see happen in the games industry its so easy to say one thing and then switch your philosphy halfway through (mirrors edge im looking at you) and I for one respect games designers that have courage in their convictions and follow it through to the final game...

    Anyway, thinking about it - is the fact that you get saved everytime any different from the rewind function in other PoPs?
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/08 @ 13:55

  • smelly #229 3 years ago

    >It seems that Eurogamer do not have the right mix of people.

    Nonsense!

    Its just that as a reader you have to understand what type of reviewers they have?

    For example, guess the score for this game : average FPS, interesting plot, nice graphics, full screen advert to right of the review

    That's right.. it's a 10.

    it's simple.


  • Freelancepolice #230 3 years ago

    Not to put the cat among the pigeons but the sensi xbox 9/10 was in return for a lovely bundle of laundry codies provided eg with

  • Les #231 3 years ago

    "What about racing games? Puzzle games? Huh?"

    Plenty of racers that work with dying, maybe not the more sim-like ones but still. Same goes for a fair share of the puzzle games (think any Tetris clone) but as we're discussing an action game here and people freaking out by the idea you can't die in one you (should) know that was not my point.

  • chaosinthesnow #232 3 years ago

    Well I finished it earlier, 1001 light seeds and all, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. I get what the reviewer says, but to be honest I almost feel like we played two different games. I played a gorgeous game that has a straight forward but enjoyable story, a fantastically designed world, interesting characters and some really enjoyable platforming. The combat was surprisingly good, once I got into the flow of it.

    I liked exploring the environments, collecting the seeds, doing the speed runs between areas. Plus the ending was very clever. Yeah, I miss the environmental puzzles (though in fairness they are there to an extent if you go looking for the light seeds) and the perhaps slightly more control over the platforming would be better, but I don't really care. It was magical in a way I normally reserve for Zelda titles. For the record, I hate Assassins Creed, I think it's one of the most boring games ever created so the fact that I didn't find this repetitive says something.

  • Krelle #233 3 years ago

    EGs new policy is to always have the highest OR lowest score on gamerankings/metacritics ,it seems.
    For almost a year ive got the feeling that they score more to stick out, than to help gamers buy games theyll like.

  • Obiwanshinobi #234 3 years ago

    the game really doesn't "play itself". There are sections that link from one another using neaarly every button on the pad in multiple combinations. You miss or fail and its right back to the last time you touched solid ground. Which sometimes is a very long way back. TBH im glad Ubi went with the decision to have a safety net as i would have snapped the disk in sheer frustration a long time ago. This wway i can take my time, ponder my next move, take in the spectacular views and not have to worry about messing up.

    The very idea is OK with me.

    UBISOFT have given you a huge playground, and instead of imposing harsh "make one false move sunshine and we're gonna kill you and DELETE YOUR SAVE!" restrictions they've said; "here is your playgrond... go have fun."

    Sounds a little bit like SotC: "Here's your Landscape. Now get a load of this!" The key word is "fun", as usual. If you feel like having some more punishing fun, you probably should look somewhere else. I hope developers still have plans for games that 'want to get you', with all this good, old "you hurt me, I hurt you" stuff right in place (MadWorld, please be nasty, God Hand way).

    Anyway, thinking about it - is the fact that you get saved everytime any different from the rewind function in other PoPs?

    I'm not sure how this saving works in this one, but in the famous trilogy you had essentially trial and error gameplay. Doing things 'correct' was almost entirely up to you. Rewinding time only removed the bitching factor. Challenge was still there. Oh yes, The Sands of Time were so easy (yet unbalanced, combat-wise) that I couldn't ask for easier game. If this one is even easier, it should be very cleverly designed to entertain me. I can enjoy easy games as long as they're not dumbed down.

    Plenty of racers that work with dying, maybe not the more sim-like ones but still. Same goes for a fair share of the puzzle games (think any Tetris clone) but as we're discussing an action game here and people freaking out by the idea you can't die in one you (should) know that was not my point.

    Supposedly this particular action game has something to do with the famous platformers of the past, thus inevitably arouses platforming veterans' interest. Any platforming veteran knows that falling may 'hurt' even without 'killing' you. An example: you climb a very high construction, you fall off the wall just before reaching the top, but instead of an endless pit, spikes, lava etc. there's water down there. You survive, but climbing once again you carefully watch your steps. Some gamers don't play regular platformers just because either way - being 'killed' or being forced to repeat the sequence - they get pissed off. The Sands of Time managed to please such gamers and gain respect of platforming veterans thanks to the clever design. Similiar balance is all I ask for in this case and I don't believe that actually many gamers think difficulty level = number of times you die during a game. They are rather afraid of the game being dumbed down.

    It was magical in a way I normally reserve for Zelda titles.

    Hell, so few games contain this magic... Rayman 2: The Great Escape, Beyond Good & Evil, Okami... Pitfall: The Lost Expedition maybe...
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/08 @ 02:41

  • Slipstream #235 3 years ago

    Disagree with the review, absolutley loving this game, it is simply a divine slice of gaming. Perfect it is not, graceful and lush, it is.

    As for the ad speak, I can't believe people are still babbling on about it. Get real...

    Perhaps it is not as intrusive as Shaun White, but the Music that the Animal Crossing add plays is utterly atrocious, yes it's an Ad, did you also see the score that game got on this site, probably not that's why you're still talking trash.

    Not saying that some companies wont pay off reviewers at times, but it doesn't happen as often as you evidently think, an I never get the impression it happens with Eurogamer.

    Like I said I don't agree with this review, I understand some points being made, and I feel UBI really have been taking the piss as of late, but I can cherish this game as something else, thankfully.

  • bloodflowers #236 3 years ago

    "For some the absence of death will be a step too far, but we agree with Ubisoft's designers; having to try again is punishment enough, and the lighter the punishment the better."

    Have you considered taking up watching films or reading books?

  • Les #237 3 years ago

    "and I don't believe that actually many gamers think difficulty level = number of times you die during a game. They are rather afraid of the game being dumbed down."

    Like I said, I didn't think so either but judging by the comments in this thread, as well as the review itself, I might have been wrong.

  • Gearskin #238 3 years ago

    Well I finished it at 1am last night and, imo, it's one of the best games released this year. Certainly one of my favs anyway. Ending was fantastic!

  • IronCladChicken #239 3 years ago

    @Darren
    Lol... I didn't say you shouldn't be playing games - Just that games that present no challenge aren't actually games - They are cartoons that require the occasional button press to continue.

    The storylines of most (actually pretty much all) games really, really suck in comparison to books and movies (no matter what the reviewers say) which primarily cliched stroylines, environments & characters - & on the off time they don't they tend to crib from movies and books anyway.

    By challenging, I don't mean frustratingly hard - I mean challenging (difficulty level should help decide the level of the challenge) - That may not mean having a lives system as long as it requires you to think instead (since games tend to be a sedatery thing - outside of the wii - its either twitch or think to play)

    Wouldnt it be easier to watch a DVD and every 10 minutes rewinding the DVD two minutes back? - You get a storyline, it's interactive and presents no chalenge - problem solved! :p

    >if I played sports for example I'd only play them for fun not to win. But, you know, that's just me
    So, a scoring system would be unnecessary as well (since it doesn’t matter who wins, just as long as it's fun)?

  • Krelle #240 3 years ago

    IronCladChicken:

    It seems you play games for a different reason than me (and mayhaps Darren).
    Saying that Darren is wrong, like you do, is just ignorant.

    I dont want to be challenged really. I want the difficulty to be set exactly so that I never have to think "Wow, this is easy" or "This is too hard ;cc".
    I dont want to die in RPGs, and i dont want to replay levels in GOW. Im not saying that there shouldnt be a challenge at all, just that I dont want to notice it.
    (Hard to explain really. Sorry for the messy english.)


    I play games that are challenging aswell. But id be happier if they were less punishing at times.

    When it comes to puzzle-games. Like IllustLogic or whatever, ofcourse there must be a challenge for it to acctually be a game, but thats becouse it the main, and only, reason to play the game. Same thing with games like GeometryWars. The game IS the challenge here.

    Im still insist that you can "experience" a game, and love it, without ever thinking about diffculty or the challenge.
    And, no, its not the same as reading books/watching movies, couse lack of challenge does not equal lack of interactivity.
    Games are not [any other medium] + Challenge on top.

    To end this silly discussion.
    You say games have worse story etc than movies. This is probably true if you try to do some impossible measurement of quality over 2 mediums. But thats also missing the point completly.

  • HolyJebus #241 3 years ago

    This thread makes me embarrassed to be a gamer once again. I think EG should have 2 sites, one for over 25's and one for under. The under 25's can bitch and moan about review scores and who has the bigger console and the over 25's can discuss their experience with the game, AFTER THEY HAVE PLAYED IT.

  • DjFlex52 #242 3 years ago

    @ HolyJebus

    +1...my sentiments exactly!

  • Zelos #243 3 years ago

    To all those saying "just add difficulty levels", I think that's a little harder than it sounds. 3 difficulty levels means three times the gameplay testing, tuning and tweaking, which is pretty expensive for the developers.

  • Les #244 3 years ago

    "and the over 25's can discuss their experience with the game, AFTER THEY HAVE PLAYED IT."

    It's a bit limiting to just discuss game experience. One can have a pretty decent theoretical discussion over game mechanics, game design, etc. The discussion here is quite reasonable, especially for EG standards. Maybe you need to work on your ignore list?

  • HolyJebus #245 3 years ago

    You would think Les that people could have a reasonable conversation about games before actually playing the game but i'm afraid that just doesn't really happen here. And I disagree that this thread has been reasonable. People who complain that if you can't die then its just like watching a movie or reading a book are just idiots. Games don't all have to follow the same rules. People should be open to as many different styles of playing as possible.

    I'm a little disappointed by the direction this game has taken and I think the best thing they could have done is not called this game a Prince of Persia game at all. Created a whole new IP and still made a new POP game along the lines of SOT. Either way, its not the end of the world. It seems quite obvious that this is a game that you will need to experience yourself to see if its your cup of tea. I will definitely be trying myself at some stage and could maybe see myself picking it up on the cheap after xmas.

    I don't use the Ignore too often as if I did there would be about 10 people left and I would have no idea what any thread was about as everyone would be ignored. Hence, one site for idiots and one for calm, reasonable people.

  • smelly #246 3 years ago

    "The discussion here is quite reasonable, especially for EG standards"

    Yeah.. he should look at "discussions" in a wii game thread...

  • Les #247 3 years ago

    "Games don't all have to follow the same rules. People should be open to as many different styles of playing as possible."

    Fully agree. And now we're having a reasonable discussion/conversation (at least I think so) without me ever having touched the game. It's quite likely I'll get it in the end as this and other reviews have done a pretty good job in selling it to me. Just not now, as I've got way too much other stuff to finish/play first.

    As for the ingore-thing. Didn't do it at first either but after having been dragged in some futile fanboy arguments by trolls I finally got it. Trolls are best combated by not feeding them and it saves the precious time of the normal comments section visitors as well.

  • muscleblade #248 3 years ago

    "One I can rememeber is Army of Two DLC and its "Professional" difficulty level. It was (to me) very hard and on that kinda of edge od being "too much" but it never crossed the line. I like it that way. "

    Its supposed to be very hard. Its the hardest diffficulty setting. I agree that proffesional difficulty on AoT DLC being the perfect difficulty. Insane on Gears and Gears 2 is also close to being a perfect challenge without being too hard.

  • jonbest #249 3 years ago

    Having played the game for a couple of hours and being a big fan of the previous trilogy (especially SOT) I felt I had to comment on this topic.....

    This game is fantastic looking and as as fast and slick as its predecessors but i'll tell you what is lacking here......pressure.

    Despite having 3-5 chances of success in previous games there was always sections that you struggled with and were faced with just one more chance....then it was do or die.

    Its pressure like this that some gamers thrive on, in COD or GOW games when your under heavy fire and being flanked with only half of your life left, you feel the pressure of needing that head shot, or that well placed grenade to save you......

    This game robs you of that feeling entirely. For me the lack of a game over screen doesn't matter.....as people have already said its not a great difference as in many games as you simply go back a short distance similar to when you fail here. The reason its so unsatisfying is that you can fail indefinetly. SOT had it perfect with the dagger system. Why couldn't Elika only save you a finite number of times and keep that sense of pressure?

    It is moments when you save yourself through good skill that bring the most satisfaction in games IMO. Finally i'd just like to add that I am going to finish and no doubt enjoy the rest of this game, but it could feel so much more rewarding if had kept with the previous methods of rewinding your mistakes....

  • muscleblade #250 3 years ago

    "Why couldn't Elika only save you a finite number of times and keep that sense of pressure? "

    There is an 100G achievement/Gold trophy for being saved less than a 100 times during a playthrough. Im sure that will give me the feeling of some pressure.

  • sneetch #251 3 years ago

    Well, I'm a good way into the game and I'm loving every minute of it. I haven't really noticed any practical difference between being saved by Elika and saving myself using the dagger of time in Sands of Time. Apart from the fact that the dagger is more forgiving than Elika: with the dagger you can rewind your way back up to the ledge or pole you jumped/fell off while Elika brings you back to the last solid ground you could both stand on, this means I am forced further back when I miss a leap and I'm saved by Elika. I genuinely find myself liking the Prince and Elika, their interactions are very well done and it brings back fond memories of Sands of Time.

    Also, when I fell in Sands of Time I sometimes swore at myself for, say, being a clumsy dumbass and missing that jump, in the new PoP I find myself apologising to Elika for being a clumsy dumbass and missing that jump so it's made me a politer gamer. ;)

    Edit: oh my science but my punctuation is terrible today!
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/08 @ 15:10

  • sneetch #252 3 years ago

    @jonbest
    "Its pressure like this that some gamers thrive on, in COD or GOW games when your under heavy fire and being flanked with only half of your life left, you feel the pressure of needing that head shot, or that well placed grenade to save you......"

    Kinda an odd example, I think: I found the "pressure" of having to stay in cover for the few seconds until my superhuman bullet magnet "mans the hell up" and magically shakes off those pesky bullet wounds was never all that high, especially as I never had to repeat all that much if I did fail.

    It's interesting to note that the "stay down for a few seconds and you'll be fine" health mechanism was pretty controversial as well, I seem to recall it attracting a lot of hate at the start.

  • jonbest #253 3 years ago

    @ Sneetch

    Agreed my examples could have been chosen better.....however I must add that I am referring to the harder settings where its a bit harder to hide away and heal up everytime. But I feel that my general point is still valid, there should be some consequence for repeated failure, I still feel SOT had the balance right.


  • IronCladChicken #254 3 years ago

    @Krelle

    IronCladChicken:

    > It seems you play games for a different reason than me (and mayhaps Darren).
    > Saying that Darren is wrong, like you do, is just ignorant.

    I wasn’t saying Darren’s view was wrong - However to discuss his opinion (which he published on a web site) and my differing views, does require for me to state that I disagree and explain where and how.

    > I dont want to be challenged really. I want the difficulty to be set exactly so that I never have to think > "Wow, this is easy" or "This is too hard ;cc".
    > I dont want to die in RPGs, and i dont want to replay levels in GOW. Im not saying that there shouldnt be > a challenge at all, just that I dont want to notice it.
    > (Hard to explain really. Sorry for the messy english.)

    Surely, If you don't notice/think about the challenge then You're not being challenged?
    I can understand not wanting to be frustrated - But for something to be challenging, there has to be a risk that you will fail and consequences for that failure.


    > I play games that are challenging aswell. But id be happier if they were less punishing at times.

    > When it comes to puzzle-games. Like IllustLogic or whatever, ofcourse there must be a challenge for it to > acctually be a game, but thats becouse it the main, and only, reason to play the game. Same thing with
    > games like GeometryWars. The game IS the challenge here.

    > Im still insist that you can "experience" a game, and love it, without ever thinking about diffculty or > the challenge.
    > And, no, its not the same as reading books/watching movies, couse lack of challenge does not equal lack of > interactivity.
    > Games are not [any other medium] + Challenge on top.

    If you are after an experence rather than a game, thats cool - but it sounds to me like you'd prefer for a Sims/Animal Crossing/second life type entertainment rather than a video gaming one?

    > To end this silly discussion.
    > You say games have worse story etc than movies. This is probably true if you try to do some impossible
    > measurement of quality over 2 mediums. But thats also missing the point completly.

    This was actually just a response to part of Darren’s argument that he doesn’t want a challenge because he wants to enjoy the storyline of games - My point was that the storylines in games - as a rule - really suck & that for a more fulfilling experience with a storyline then movies and (very much more) books would be the way to go.

    I can understand not wanting to play a game that’s consistently frustrates (although as the recent Mega Man release has shown they certainly have their place – myself, I'm a big fan of the GnG games series), but if there is no challenge, if there’s no way to win or lose it doesn’t really sound like much of a game.
    I'm not a hardcore gamer, I don't have that much free time, I enjoy playing Endless Ocean as much as GoW, I even think the Wii is a great little console with some great games on it - But a 'game' (a opposed to an open world type title) without consequence seems pointless – a time sink. Hell, even asking a girl out represents a challenge – a chance to win or lose - yes or no - you'll gonna have to deal with being at least the chance of being rejected, and the fallout when you are.
    If you try running through the forums of a few gaming sites, checking players responses to the insta-regeneration in Bioshock - which, as someone here has pointed out you means you can complete the game using brute force rather than any skill or thought - Failure can be fun (we’re all going to spend most of our lives failing anyway, so we may as well learn to enjoy it :))

  • Krelle #255 3 years ago

    IronClad:
    I know 3 people who play games for the same reason as I do. Myself, Darren and PennyArcade-Gabe. Ive had this discussion with my friends aswell, and ive been unable to explain my feelings at those times also.
    I do think you are right in everything you say, but still, I feel like you dont understand me really.
    I think that, basically, its just 2 very different ways to "view" games as an (art)form, and ive come to realize that most people wont understand me.

    Anyway, what made me reply to your post was that you didnt even acknowledge that there is people playing games for another reason than you, and just took for granted that you "understood" and wanted to categorize me and Darren into some kind of..category :)

    This thread will be dead soon, but please add me to MSN krelian@bredband.net if you wanna chat. Id probably make more sense in a more direct kind of conversation anyway.


    I hate the Sims. There is no goal and no way to win the game.
    I loved Animal Crossing for several months. One may argue that it has no goal aswell, but I found my motivation is collecting insects/fishes/shit.
    Today I bought Yakuza 3.

    EDIT: I may have cracked it (:
    I love watching others play games. I rather watch my friend play while sitting next to him/her when it comes to games like MetroidPrime, God of War, ResidentEvil, Silent Hill and so on...hmm weird, ne.
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/08 @ 12:31

  • Obiwanshinobi #256 3 years ago

    People who have played the game seem to like it, which is a good sign.
    Speaking of death...
    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article_discuss...
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/08 @ 13:58

  • gamecubeisbest #257 3 years ago

    6 out of 10 is spot on.

  • onyxbox #258 3 years ago

    6/10 is wrong.

    I've played a lot of games this year and I really enjoyed this one. I liked the 'experience' and I didn't miss it being difficult, I enjoyed the rhythm of the combat, and the fluidity of the platforming... I looks and sounds beautiful and the ending was fantastic.

    (in contrast I thought Gears of War 2 was dull and boring (with high res textures tho')... but then what do I know eh?)

    I'd give this a solid 8 / 10 but 6 is just plain wrong.

  • kaya08 #259 3 years ago

    Just had to say I thoroughly enjoyed the game. I'd highly recommend seeking out a second opinion of this game if you haven't already because this review was incredibly harsh

  • Les #260 3 years ago

    Played the game for the first time yesterday (finding it cheap on eBay made me get it before in went Platinum :) ).

    Initial impressions are good. Graphics are stunning, story is not too intrusive. Reminds me of the first PoP SoT.

    Really like the not-dying element. Doesn’t take away the challenge and is much more elegant than the fall-to-your-death-resurrect-and-pretend-like-it-never-happe ned mechanic employed in most games nowadays. And especially in a game like this, where you sometimes have to take chances in order to figure out the correct route, it works wonderfully well.

  • Les #261 3 years ago

    Having played it some more I still really enjoy it. Don't think the open world design was a good choice as it's too confusing to be able to tell where you're going without using the guide system which in turn removes much of the puzzle aspects of figuring out how to get from A to B. But other than that, no complaints. And the smoothness of navigating the environments is excellent.

  • kytetiger #262 3 years ago

    strange, i would at least give him 7,5/10

    On the overall, is i really enjoying and fun

  • f01re #263 3 years ago

    Only a tenner at play.com today only (april 1st, no, not a joke)

  • melatonin #264 3 years ago

    Tom Bramwell:

    Lost Via Domus - 7/10
    Prince of Persia - 6/10

    Find yourself a new job.

  • WJF #265 2 years ago

    Having just put in a few hours on this (it's really cheap now!), I have to say I (mainly) agree with the review.

    It's not the GOTY 08 as it's just a bit, well, dull. The world is lovely, the characters funny, the acting good, the controls smooth and forgiving.

    But it never changes. It's just fill in the dots (on the map). Why doesn't the uncorrupted lands not have a different layout for instance? It's a bit dull backtracking over a level 2-3 times just so you can open up later ones.

    And there's no thinking involved. I basically switch off my brain and let the pretty images float around in front of my eyes. It's just not that engaging despite how much care has been lavished on the gameworld

    So basically it's Ubi Montreal/10 - Great world, great production, basic, dull game design. (Still one of my fav studios though and AC2 may be the start of a glorious period for them considering how much better designed it was)