Prince of Persia Comments by Tom Bramwell

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?

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.

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)

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

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.

FFS

Why don't you fuck up everything Ubisoft.

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

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 :)

@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.

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.

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

"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.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouch!

@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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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 [i]bloody hard[/i]. Excellent combination - seldom frustrating, always challenging, good "flow". Lots of fun. I'm sure this could somehow be translated to the platforming genre.

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.

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.

@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 1 times, most recently on 05/12/08 @ 11:01

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.

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

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.

Lack of demo made me suspicious now comes another proof.

This will wait for 5 euro pc classics bargain bin .

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.

@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!

@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... ;)

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

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.

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

@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. :)

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.

"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).

"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....

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.

@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.

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..

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.

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!!

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.

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.

@Troopa3k - +1

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

@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) :)

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.