Prince of Persia Comments by Tom Bramwell

"...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

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

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.

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.

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

How about you guys actually just play the game?

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

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!!!!

@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.

@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.

Fuck. PoP scores just go down and down. Sands of Time was SO good.

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.

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

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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

Why couldn't they have the guy from Sands of Time again?

@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!

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.

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.

Sands of Time remains top dog. No surprise.

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... :'(

"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.

@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?

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.

@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.

"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.

@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

@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?

Halo 3 Checkpoints. Removing the challenge?

@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.

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.

@Darren, Troopa3k, sneetch, Penhalion etc.

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

/get's coat

"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

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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!

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.

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..

"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? :)

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.

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.

@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.