Prince of Persia: Warrior Within Comments by Tom Bramwell
We need to turn back time, but we've run out of sand.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Foregone Reality
01/12/04 @ 15:48
0
"Be the first to write a comment for this article... Or not. It doesn't really affect me."
Admit it Mugwum..! You know that these comments mean a lot to you..! ;) That said. It's a shame that mainstream gamers miss the intricate details of what made the original so great; and then opt for blood and gore instead with some swears for extra "Kewlness". Well..That's business I suppose.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 15:50
|
|
Thamuhacha
01/12/04 @ 15:56
0
>"I am the Prince of Persia." Lies. We've met him. Younger chap. Likeable.
Like this. |
|
0
You have to make the game crap in order to sell more of them?
It boggels the mind. It was to be expected, read somewhere the guy behind Sands of Time was doing something else, confident that the team would do well on their own. A mistake that killed Devil May Cry 2 and will probably kill off Metal Gear Solid as soon as Kojima leaves aswell (or in that case maybe the series will get better, without the endless dialoge and cuttscenes). Still the way the story plays out: The only way he can change his fate, the Prince reasons, is to go to the Castle of Time where the Sands were originally forged, and use some of its many portals to journey back through history and stop them ever being made in the first place, Would mean the next game (if they ever make it) will be back to normal.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 15:59
|
|
0
Hmm... I dunno... Loved the last game, but I can't decide on this one...
I'll rent it first and see what happens there. And does he seriously say "I am the Prince of Persia, and the King of Blades!" in the game? I guess he doesn't include RAZOR blades in that statement, does he? The scruffy, hobo lookin' prat! (I know I've already made that joke, but I feel it was worth repeating...) |
|
0
Dammit Ubi. Why did you have to ruin everything. SOT was my favourite game of last year, and now I'm left feeling very underwhelmed at the prospect of this. I'll probably pick it up after Xmas, out of some misguided sense of loyalty I guess, but only if its cheap.
May have to have one last go on SOT for old time's sake. |
|
Thamuhacha
01/12/04 @ 16:08
0
>does he still say 'no, no, that's not what happened' when you die?
A Mr T style "that ain't what happened fool!" would be better Edit - to the Ubisoft employess named svabbi - 7 out of 10 is pretty good. And the review is very positive about the game mechanics. Calm down.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 16:09
|
|
0
Confusing non-linearity? Oh dear. That's not my idea of fun. Just because every idiot cries "it's too linear" automatically at every game, that doesn't mean non-linearity makes sense for every genre. :-/
Still sitting on the fence. Didn't find the demo as bad as some people, but I wasn't convinced I need this, either.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 16:10
|
|
gamingdave
01/12/04 @ 16:10
0
Really enjoyed what I played of the first one, must go back and finish it. Sounds like theyve cocked it up though. The things I loved about the SOT were in the detials, the voices and the pacing. Fighting was fine as it was (from what I played) but it was all about swinging, leaping and wall running that made it a joy. Oh well, lets just hope Wanda hasnt been chaved.
|
|
groovychainsaw
01/12/04 @ 16:12
0
damn - loved the first one, but couldn't help but feel that this one would be a disappointment - what I (personal opinion warning...) think they should have done was ramp up the complexity of the platform/puzzling and have NO combat - a bold move, but I loved walking into the rooms and working out how to get to the top (the aviary form the original pops into my head here) far more than the combat, which was... meh
|
|
asphaltcowboy
01/12/04 @ 16:14
0
well, I'm disappointed... yet strangely still excited... One for the Christmas list methinks :D
|
|
0
svabbi - remember everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I respect yours and it's noted you liked the game .. that's great. Saying the review is bullshit etc.. makes people think you are a tard and your opinion then becomes void. Constructive reasons as to why the review is flawed is more sensible, swearing and saying 'u don't know jack, this game is da nutz' makes you look a twat or even worse a PR/Marketing person. (heeh sorry Marketing people...)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 16:18
|
|
0
Thank you for your stunning insight, Svabbi, but I feel I will trust the opinion of EG over the opioion of an UbiSoft PR rep!
As Thamuhacha says, they're not saying the game is crap, they're saying it doesn't live up to the incredibly high standards of the first one. It will never cease to amaze me how the games industry tries to pitch gaming as the future of entertainment, something that will be diverse and inclusive, and then target a specific (Usually American) demographic of 14 year old, hormonally incapcitated 133t speakers! I really enjoyed POP:SOT, especially since Play was selling it for £9.99! Perhaps I will wait and do the same with this one! |
|
Thamuhacha
01/12/04 @ 16:19
0
>There's a demo, nobody liked that either.
True. I am intrigued by the concept of releasing demos and review code (aim: to give people an idea of what the game is like and so on) if we should apparently play it for ourselves. Doesn't really work. Not impressed with demo + not overly impressed with game from review (by reviewer I trust) = buying something else!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 16:20
|
|
Dr.Haggard
01/12/04 @ 16:23
0
My review of WW:
Utter Bastards. True, it lacks the charm, eloquence and engaging personality of Tom's review, that 'just one more sentence' feeling, and is perhaps a little immature - you might say it's darker and more edgy too - but I feel it was more important to write it quickly and get straight to the point. I don't mind if those of you who enjoyed the original review are a little disappointed with my effort, but at least you all read it, and that's all that matters to me. |
|
Magic Panda
01/12/04 @ 16:27
0
scores dont maketh the game Svabbi.. Its what's in the review.. have you read the review Svabbi. Can you read big pages Svabbi?
Now be a good boy and go back to shooting racoons from the top of your moms trailer. |
|
absolutezero
01/12/04 @ 16:28
0
That song that plays over the intro is truely painfull. Its really really really bad and just doesnt fit the game.
Is it me or did they not have d tuned guitars in ancient Arabia? |
|
Thamuhacha
01/12/04 @ 16:30
0
>Read more reviews:
Svabbi - that 88% score is based on six reviews, only one of which IGN recognise enough to award a quality rating to. If I had my cynical hat on they are the six who got the code early and might have felt the pressure to be nice in exchange for the exclusive. Or maybe not. Let's wait until there are 92 reviews like the sands of time page has. Then we can chat about it. |
|
posh_geordie
01/12/04 @ 16:32
0
Thanks for that link to Game Rankings Svabbi - courtesy of the gamefreaks365.com link on there:
"PoP: TWW is no doubt a traitor to the series that is killing everything it used to stand for. Yet by not buying this game (rent it if you must), it sends Ubisoft a clear message of showing that they are being ignorant." You've convinced me not to get the game, cheers! |
|
0
Svabbi, that's six other reviews...all from sites I don't trust. Personally I'll pay more heed to this review than those - which still gives it a passable 70%, but indicates, on reading it, that it's probably not going to be a game I enjoy. Thanks for telling us that you enjoyed us, because that's worth knowing. No thanks for calling us wankers though, you know?
|
|
absolutezero
01/12/04 @ 16:34
0
Svabbi did you not read everyone who said they played the demo and it was shit then?
I was going to get this, Im not anymore. Plus I think Edge gave it a 7 which I trust more than the EG score anyway. |
|
0
Nice quote from the Edge review, courtesy of Metacritic:
"Ubisoft has taken a flawed game of boundless promise, destroyed some (but not all) of its appeal, fixed some (but not enough) of its problems, and jeopardised the whole endeavour by making the same mistake twice and rushing it to market before it was steady on its feet. Prince of Persia is strong and supple enough to survive this with many of its immense virtues intact. But it deserved so much better." Seems to back up what Tom says, I reckon. |
|
mash the x button
01/12/04 @ 16:34
0
"It's all part of a broad effort to improve the series' appeal."
Not for me I'm afraid. |
|
0
Svabbi, nice try. Heres another link :-
http://www.gametab.com/xbox/prince.of.persia.warrior.within/ 2667/ As you'll see from the link both the quoted reviews say exactly the same as above. I.E. By no means crap, but sadly, not as good as the first one and has had most of the charm of the original removed. Now can you please register before you make another comment, so I can click on 'ignore ?'
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 01/12/04 @ 16:39
|
|
Thamuhacha
01/12/04 @ 16:40
0
I make this about 15 to 20 people who would have bought this. But now won't. At least until it goes to £20 / €30 or something.
THE POWER OF THE PRESS! |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
