Prince of Persia Comments by Tom Bramwell

@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

"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.

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".

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

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.

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.

>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 :-)

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!

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

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

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.

/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 ;)

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.

Interesting long comment section (makes a change eh) my main concerns about Prince of Persia are not based on difficulty. Like it or not, we need to accept as Les rightly points out that big budget games need a wide audience, and cult games will require smaller ones, rather than spiralling out of control. In other words, gamers and industry alike need to create a viable market for cultish games of all kinds (not just arcade, retro styles that dominate all three consoles online services) to sell well enough to make a reasonable profit.

My main concerns about PoP are based on my views on Assasin's Creed, the way I felt the game design doesn't gel with the wonderful environments, animation and gameplay mechanics that have been created so I'll be interested to see how others feel about the game int he coming weeks.

@Darren bringing up the vita-chambers reminds me of my experience playing the Bioshock demo, died in the grand hall with the stairs, the respawn is at the bottom of the stairs, but before I realised where I was, or what had happened they were all over me and I was finished, so I think placement is just as important as the respawn system itself. but oh man I feel your pain about DMC3, not sure how far you got into it, and I think this is something that a lot of Capcom (and early Clover) games suffer from is spikes and poor pacing, not being able to save before bosses is bad enough, worst still when the early bosses (when you have less experience playing the game, and fewer abilities) are much MUCH harder in DMC3 than many of the later ones.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/princ...

interesting...

At last a review that seems fair. Thank you!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

"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!).

JET SET RADIO FUTURE!, I recently bought JSRF because I had repeatedly heard the game was one of the greatest games ever made, incredibly stylish, cell shaded graphics. but far, far too easy seemed to be the same things that kept popping up. One review though called the game out on its difficulty and gave it 6/10... guess the site, guess the reviewer. Now I really am fond of reviews on this site they seem to get a good percentage of their scores spot on. JSRF is easily a 9 on my own personal scale so I have high hopes for POP.

Difficulty wise i died maybe 5, 6 times in that games entirety and all that game did was kick you back out to the menu.. a hindrance more than anything. restarting from a save always put you back in the area you died in with very little penalty, I dont see why peope are so hung up over the difficulty . Uncharted was easy as hell. okami too... but thaeir experiences werent diluted in any way when I played them. Look around theres nothing but love for JSRF ... The difficulty thing doesnt even seem to get mentioned when people gush over that game so why does POP get slated for it... maybe I'm wrong and I will find the game underwhelming and thats for me to find out for myself but from what I have seen and heard I truly think this is the kind of game I would truly love also.

I like challenge btw , I like to think i'm pretty good at games.. I just dont see why there should be an unending barrage of it in every game ever made... games are afterall entertainment

Whats up EG ubisoft not paying you.

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.

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...

@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...

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?

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.

"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?

Off the back of the metacritic average (currently high mid to high 80s) I'm quite suprised by how harsh this review was.
I think i'll definitely give this one a go, after Fable 2 and Fallout 3...

>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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

"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?

"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.

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!

@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)?

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.