Prince of Persia Comments by Tom Bramwell

@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.

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

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

"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.

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? :?

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.

Ouch. So Jade will still not talk to you.

"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.

@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

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.

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.

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.

@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!!!

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.

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.

Darren,

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

@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?

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

@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.

@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

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.

"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.

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.

@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!

@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)

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

"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.

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

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.

Excellent and accurate review. Well done Eurogamer in telling the truth about this game. The Prince of Persia IP has been Ravaged by this wii style easy play "game" A game with no challenge, beautiful yet boring It is more of an interactive video than a game. Thankyou EG for standing up to UBISOFT and not lying about this game as other reviewers have!
6/10
Well said!!!!

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

They like the easiness of the game.

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! :-)

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.

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.

:O

6!

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.

Ubifail

"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...

Better than L4D.

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

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 :(

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.

Please consider leaving the planet as well, godfatherobie.

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.

"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!

Whatever happened to Ubi?

This IS Ubi, innit?

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.

this review is ridiculous :)

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

LOL, just LOL.

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 :)