Rise of the Argonauts Review
Fleeced.
Version tested: Xbox 360
Devoted followers of all things role-playing have been well served by the long-running battle between good and evil, and Rise of the Argonauts frames its re-imagining of Jason and his quest for the Golden Fleece in the starkest of traditional contrasts: Jason, already king and faithful protector of Iolcus, is set on his path by the murder of his new wife, Alceme, on their wedding day, by the suitably putrid, Hecate-worshipping Blacktongues.
It isn't long, however, before proceedings are sprinkled with welcome ambiguity. Jason seeks the Fleece not to serve the usual notions of loyalty, honour or selflessness but simply to resurrect Alceme, and soon finds himself in league with the gods Ares, Hermes, Apollo and Athena, all of whom will see their own interests served by his decision to abandon his people to the regency of Pelias, whose manner and dress sense are enough to illustrate Jason's rather daft decision, even for players who aren't aware of his role in the original Greek mythology from which Rise of the Argonauts borrows most of its cast.
After a fevered introduction to combat, Jason is initially consigned to trotting through the vast halls of his palace and the surrounding village passing on news to the bereaved families of guards killed in the initial Blacktongue assault, in-between listening to fortune-tellers, conversing with servants, noblemen-and-women and his guards about his duties to Iolcus (the ones he's not bothering with for the next ten hours), and the virtues of the gods and their various dominions. Apart from some sparring, there's little besides running around and talking for over an hour, before Jason finally takes delivery of his ship, the Argo, and sets off on a course to recruit the gods' descendants so he can locate the Fleece.

Jason's quest takes him to some interesting places, but he would have done better to stick around and keep his own house in order.
Conversation, which owes almost as much to BioWare in structure as it does to Greek mythology in content, does at least feed back into combat, as do the trivial tasks Jason performs before his departure and throughout the game. At certain points in conversation you're given several possible responses, and each choice represents a minor tribute to one of the four gods. Completed tasks - whether story-specific, incidental or combat-related - are recorded as Achievement-style deeds, which can be offered up to your choice of god as well. You can then invest the spoils of worship in more powerful attacks, passive bonuses and special "god powers".
Combat intensifies as Jason's quest takes him to the lands of Mycenae, Saria and Kythra, and while you're often flanked by your choice of two companions from the heroes you recruit along the way, they do their own thing, leaving you to concentrate on slaying Blacktongues, Ionians, minotaurs, satyrs and occasionally worse, using a mixture of sword, spear and mace, ever-blocking with your big golden shield. Along with the gods' boons, there are new versions of each weapon, which you receive at intervals (and can switch between back on the Argo), as well as new armour to uncover. However, your unlocks are linked to pivotal conversations and story events, rather than any overarching system. Your deeds constitute experience, and there's nothing else in the game to gather.

Despite increasing numbers of enemies and enemy types, it's never necessary to consider your attacks except in boss fights, several of which are simply repeated once you move past the initial three quests.
Simplification isn't always a bad thing, but sadly the result here feeds into a bland combat system, where despite the impressive towers of boons and god powers available to consider in the menus, the majority of conflicts are decided by two medium attacks followed by a hard "execution" blow, or by two successive execution strikes. From beginning to end, the most considered thing you have to do is occasionally switch from your favourite weapon to one of the others to suit a particular boss, or activate a god power to buff your attacks or reinforce your comrades, the choice of which doesn't have much bearing on wherever you're currently carving up the enemy, apart from different quips and incidental conversation around about the place. There are no combos to work towards, or ways to cooperate with your pals, and most of your enemies' attacks are basic, while their masters simply follow scripted patterns.
Away from battle, the story becomes rather more endearing as you deal with the problems facing the people you encounter, each of whom is suffering at the hands of some local evil you need to uncover, and here the game is relatively successful at marrying its ancient inspiration to basic detective work. On the apparently cursed island of Kythra, for example, you find yourself seeking evidence to save the life of a condemned criminal, before exercising your judgement to decide the fate of his rather more tainted companion, and as you consider the failings of Medusa and Perseus you find yourself caught up in an absorbing, interactive debate with Phaedon over the right of the Golden Fleece to exist at all.
But these relative successes are marred. Phaedon's philosophical jousting, for example, is the other side of a crude memory game, and followed by a dull boss fight, while decisions about how to treat the people you encounter are often trivial. You simply pick the response that serves whichever god you're currently trying to get some powers out of, aware by this stage that the structure of the game is rather more linear than it lets on. Choice is generally an illusion, if it's even offered, as it isn't when you're invited to either bludgeon your wife's murderer to death, watching on from his perspective after ten minutes of playing, or stand there motionless and not play the game any longer.
Argonauts' illusion of scope is initially more successful, as Unreal Engine 3 is used to conjure a vast game-world, but this is also shattered, and quickly, by narrow corridors of movement, barricaded arbitrarily, and the lifelessness of the places you visit. Iolcus, Kythra and Saria are galleries of motionless non-player characters, only some of whom have things to say, and even the more invigorated Mycenae is stunted by its own immobile NPCs and the obligatory minutes of jogging around it to reach points marked on your map.

The Aspect system, where you devote your deeds to gods in exchange for new powers, is Rise of the Argonauts' best feature, but the combat it serves is too basic to take proper advantage.
In the absence of an on-screen guide, it's necessary to dive into the pause menu's map screen wherever you go, and regularly, to find the NPCs and locations of relevance marked along its prescribed pathways. Like the combat and conversation systems, it leaves you in no doubt where you need to go, and in no doubt of the superficiality of your orienteering between people and places designed to shunt the game into its next phase, despite the fact you often have more than one thing to achieve at a time.
For all this, Argonauts' premise might have been its redemption. Combat, exploration and conversation may be processional, but there's something intriguing about Jason's apparently unwitting selfishness, upon which the game builds its masks of virtues inspired by its principle gods. Were the game to realise this, it might make up for all the hours spent wading through long-winded, often incidental conversations, grimacing at the pauses between speech (even in spite of the ability to preload your chosen responses) and the vacant expressions of the stony-faced cast.

Dialogue choices are about currying favour with particular gods and have little impact on the way the story unfolds.
Given what a large number of Greek myths were meant to symbolise, Argonauts' cultural inspiration cries out for a measure of narrative justice. Surely Jason must pay for the decision he has made - to save himself from the certainty of grief and solitude - however noble the acts it has driven him to perform in service to that quest?
But if this is a cautionary tale, it's one of this player's misplaced, increasingly desperate hope to derive some greater meaning. There is only one path, and while you meet a few interesting people and solve a few worthy problems on the way, the fundamental paradox at the heart of Rise of the Argonauts is never explored or resolved. Instead, the game concludes disagreeably, as virtually everyone Jason is supposed to protect is left tortured and dead by his original departure, and he simply has a party because he got what he wanted. For an action RPG elevated beyond its serviceable components by the allure of rich mythology to end in such a desperate contradiction is comprehensively self-destructive.
3 / 10
You may also like...
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Face-Off: The Darkness 2
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
App of the Day: Sir Benfro's Brilliant Balloon
-
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Vita Review
-
Sony admits "dropping the ball" with Demon's Souls
-
CD Projekt: Witcher 2 intro cinematic "the most expensive asset we ever created"
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 performance tip: make a new manual save
-
Grand Slam Tennis 2 Review
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
One Piece: Unlimited Cruise SP Review
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
Valve admits hackers accessed Steam transaction log
-
Mass Effect 3 FemShep trailer debuts
-
Epic's Sweeney on graphics tech: "the limit really is in sight"
-
The Darkness 2 Review
-
Double Fine Adventure passes Day of the Tentacle budget
-
Next Xbox has tablet-like touch-screen controller - rumour
-
Sony: The Last Guardian is making "slow progress"
-
App of the Day: Superman
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 now live for Xbox 360
-
Blizzard legally opposes Valve's Dota trademark application
-
EA announces starry Syndicate voice cast
-
David Braben discusses consumer Raspberry Pi release









Comments (84) Latest comment 3 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But... how? This looked amazingly great when I've seen it on TV...!
BLATANT LIE/
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Ah well, I cancelled the pre-order recently due to lack of funds, might pick it up during the summer drought or something.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Strangely OXM came out with an 8/10 and raved about the story and the title as a 'slow burner'.....?
TBH, sounds like if you want the setting/action, go for GoW, if you want the RPG and NPC interation, go for Oblivio/Fallout/Mass Effect.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
/continue to wait for Sacred 2
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
if it wasn't for the skullcracking in slow-motion, a 2/10 would be justified.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Surely there is a gap in the market for a game based on the greek myths? Come on! Sprawling sandbox world, violence, intrigue, sex, side quests, unique weaponry and items, memorable NPCs/enemies/locations - its all right there! Why, it could even be GASP! educational?
except the poor (financial) performance of this travesty will mean no developer will touch it with a bargepole. Numpties.
Please dear god, will someone recommend a decent greek myth based game?
I say we go on strike.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Ok, so by your own admission, the games industry might not be affected by the recession, but your continuing ignorance and low-score giving will affect it!
How the hell can a game score such a wide and diverse range of scores?
[link url=http://www.met acritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/riseoftheargonauts?q=ris e%20of%20the%20argonauts
]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Seconded. From the first preview I saw in Edge, I knew it wasn't going to be very good. Even the subtitle "Rise of the Argonauts" gave it away to me. Is there any kind of stock exchange where you can buy stock in a game you think is going to be good or bad? I'd make an absolute shitload.
In fact, developers, why not save yourself a few millions and hire me as a consultant before your game launches? I'll be able to tell you ten things to change that even if I can't fix your game outright, it'll convince enough people to buy it anyway.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You wasted a perfectly good opportunity to use "Risible".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It is a very weak RPG game, and in fact is more akin to those Lord of the Rings action games or Conan than an RPG. However, the art is pretty decent though a bit cartooney but overall the production values alone would earn it a 5. It plays ok, and you would usually judge it as an 'average' game in the true sense of the word, 5/10.
What annoys me most is the end of the review where the reviewer holds no regard for anyone who might be playing it or whatever and just basically prints spoilers, or rather - tells us the end.
To me it's unprofessional and smacks of the kind of 'spit the dummy out' behaviour I'd expect from a spoilt teenage gamer.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
anyone who thinks eg has an agenda is a muppet.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
There's a plug in that gap called "God of War".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But I thought when there were ads for a game splashed across EG they were then obligated to give them at least an 8.....
Maybe that theory is absolute horseshit huh?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Age of Mythology !
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If this game had been on the 360 they would've-
oh.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
zuluHero . why should any reviewer score games up just becuase we are having a small maroeconomicdownturnanomaly ? buy the game yourself . if you like it good . if you dont , bad luck for wasting £45-00 . its your choice .
Comment below viewing threshold Show
They also give games that do not live up to their expectations a much lower score than the norm.
This does not go hand in hand with their policy that 5 is medum. It just makes us, the consumers, confused and personally I have a very hard to to "rate" a EG score. I never know if it will be close to my own thoughts about a game or not.
If you take a look at gamerankings etc, EG often give either the highest OR the lowest score for alot of games.
I dont think they have an agenda, nor are they biased, but they score like fukken attention whores.
The texts themselves are solid and as good as ever, but, as much as I try, its hard to just ignore a number at the end that seems like the result of a dice-roll.
I miss old EG ;c
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I wasn't disappointed. Best laugh of the day
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Not much bitching, is there? Mostly mild-mannered disagreement. Looks to me like most people read the review, too.
I took a look in these comments to scout out the "this game deserves more than a 3" crowd.
I wasn't disappointed. Best laugh of the day
ignore poster
Er, unless it's a silly "9/10 or10/10" console-exclusive fanboy debate, I don't see what the problem with people disagreeing with a review or score is. In fact, it's the reason why I mostly check the comments to hear if a game might be worth trying out despite a poor review.
I find the your knee-jerk reaction that doesn't fit this thread at all, but looks like it was copypasted from the Killzone 2 thread, a good laugh of the day, too, though.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Haha, I had the same feeling, though I liked Too Human to an extent I'd give it a 7.0 or 7.5, but it also annoyed me at times, but exactly playing Rise of the Argonauts made me appreciate Too Human even more. Too Human compared to RotA is an extremely polished game, and its combat system is miles better than RotA's.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's not really that knee-jerk, though. And I don't do copy-paste. And I'm probably not buying Killzone 2.
I generally agree with EG's scores. So what if they gave this a 3? At best it would've got a 5, and even getting that score there are more and better games I can buy for the same price.
The reason for my reaction is that every time EG give a game a low score people start saying "I've played this, it's worth at least a 7". For more proof, see Crash Time on the Xbox360.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
EG reviewers are more and more like Edge reviewers every day - WANK.
Pretentious, up their own-arse and sensationalist in their scores.
This review ends with basically telling you the end of the game which is the action of a TWAT.
Then the 3/10 score just to be a cunt.
It's a mediocre game at best but to spoil the end is attrociously bad journalism. I bet he was dry wanking while crying when he wrote this
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Not much bitching, is there?
Are you sure you are reading the same comments section as myself, or perhaps you have a lot of people on ignore?
I wouldn't have commented about the bitching if there wasn't any now would I?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
i just hate CUNTS, and you sir are a massive TWATTING CUNT as well.
Bye!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"For an action RPG elevated beyond its serviceable components by the allure of rich mythology to end in such a desperate contradiction is comprehensively self-destructive."
This is some of the most pretentious "journalism" I've read in quite some time.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What? Because he uses words of more than one syllable? I'll translate for you:
'It could have been good but this game stinks.'
That better?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Not much bitching, is there?
Are you sure you are reading the same comments section as myself, or perhaps you have a lot of people on ignore?
I wouldn't have commented about the bitching if there wasn't any now would I?
Just scanned the first page, I see two posts (of 50) that would qualify as "bitching". Sounded to me like you were painting everyone disgareeing with the same brush. Combined with the slightly patronising "read the review" - with which to disagree isn't that easy, because it's pretty much on the money. It's the conclusion, though - the score - people disagree with.
I wouldn't have commented about the bitching about the bitching if there was that much, would?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"For an action RPG elevated beyond its serviceable components by the allure of rich mythology to end in such a desperate contradiction is comprehensively self-destructive."
This is some of the most pretentious "journalism" I've read in quite some time.
play the game (if you can be bothered with playing this crap). you'll see the review is spot on. i bought this on launch day back in december, and the 3/10 is a perfectly justified score. and mentioning the end is perfectly fair, as it really is one of the worst ever.
would you have preferred it if the reviewer had not mentioned that the end is absolute bollocks? and believe me, if you've ever read any greek mythology (ffs, even if you watched that crappy kevin sorbo hercules series) you're in for a shocker
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It's just one of those things you don't do. It's a review of a game. What about if you say an end to a game is so fucking amazing that you have to tell everyone what it is? Would that mean it is wrong to do that? But it's okay to tell someone a shitty end?
It's plain wrong no matter how you look at it.
The game may be shite, but lately EG has got on my cock. 10/10 for every game thats half decent (fable 2 = 10/10 - go fuck yerself, they can't even do a decent job of co-op on that game, and the 'immersion' is about as in depth as having a shit in a field)
i dunno, I just think - no actually i KNOW that a fair few journalists are paid off for good reviews (I've personally witnessed such 'transactions') and while it's not the norm it does happen. I don't normally post anything about anything as I can't be arsed but in the face of such shoddy wank i had to say something, even though I thought the game was sub-par
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I actually agree with you about what EG has become, but your language is just horrible.
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously, writing like that?
"..sensationalist in their scores" is probably the best way to describe EG those days, but please, atleast try to be the better person and dont fall to being just sensational yourself.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think the review reads well enough and has enough motivation for it's score on the accounts of "boring game".
Quickedit: OTOH, I feel that most other game sites give way too bland scores, even giving bland shit scores in the 60-75 range just for working. Games are more than the sum of their parts, most often less, sometimes more. Not to say there aren't slip-ups on this site, a recent one would be Fallout 3 but I'll not even start on that one.
Quickedit the twoed: Point is, I've never thought of EG:s reviews as sensationalist in the slightest idea.
Slowedit the thirded: And believe you me, I have a huge penis.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
This is what I mean, when it comes to reading scores - people these days have to make a statement. A 10/10 implies perfection, which we all know is not achievable. If it doesn't then what does it represent? If the score means nothing then why have it? because we all need to be able to compare the score to other games so we get something to judge a game by? No, because unless they are all by the same reviewer who happens to be such an impartial person who loves every genre equally - then it won't work.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Wonder if they will ever port Titan Quest to the 360 or PS3
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What I don't want a reviewer to do is play a game that he thinks is bad and then extrapolate the score to something else just because "some, or even the majority of, action gamers might like it but not me", that's just crazytalk - the score should be as personal as can be, unless extraordinary circumstances arise. This game does not seem that extraordinary since most gamers are somewhat versed in the action rpg genre.
And of course I'm not saying a 60-75 game should be reviewed as anything else, but they shouldn't be put there just because it has average gameplay elements but if it on the whole deserves it. Most games that just does something right seem to end up there even though most players (incl. the reviewer of course) would not want to play them on the whole, because they are boring.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You seem like a douche, but I wouldnt mind your huge penis. Sometimes you just want MEAT.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yet another game that I was looking forward to for my 360 that turns out to be utter shite ...
Honestly, I get to play only one game per year on my 360, if I'm lucky - OK my tastes are somewhat restricted but FFS, the only games getting 8+/10 are fucking shooters and Bethesda's output.
Elder Scrolls V in 2010 for my next game then by the looks of it ...
*yawn*
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
anyone who thinks eg has an agenda is a muppet. "
They do seem to give out an unusually large number of scores of 4 or less (which means 'unplayable' IMO) and a ridiculous number of 9+ scores (like Fable II FFS).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Edit: Reading through the comments, I have to agree that EG scores seem to be very "LOOK AT ME!" Which is odd, as the text itself is generally pretty solid, except for an upsetting frequency of "HEY LOOK WE HAVE A GIRL THAT WORKS HERE" and "AREN'T WE SO BRITISH TEE HEE" jokes. I generally come to EG first for my reviews, but the description of their scores as "sensationalist" seems to fit pretty well.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Before my initial comment Krelle, FenderMaster, darm, Buztafen, ZuluHero, scimitarDT & Starkillah_79 all bitch purely about the score without mentioning much else.
So I count 7 score bitching comments. I personally think it's time to abandon scores altogether. They serve no purpose other than to initiate knee jerk comments.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And extra hits ...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Exactly what I meant. Two comments that would qualify as "bitching", the others are politely disagreeing, making a few points why - which is exactly what the comments are for. That they don't all wrote an essay doesn't really matter.
So I count 7 score bitching comments. I personally think it's time to abandon scores altogether. They serve no purpose other than to initiate knee jerk comments.
Most people can cope with scores pretty well. Regardign "knee jerk", well, my point stands.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Why is that a problem? If games are to have stories - and, in the case of a game like Rise of the Argonauts, a story that is central to the gameplay experience - then why shouldn't they be marked up or down depending on how well those stories are told, how satisfying they're concluded? A review of a narrative game shouldn't just be a question of grading its technical merits. Criticism of every other artform - books, film, music etc - places greater value on the creative element rather than mere technical adequacy, and I don't see why games should be any different.
I really don't understand the persistent assumption that it's somehow pretentious to judge games as more than just abstract lumps of pixels that you can move around.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The actual copy of the review was leading to something more along the lines of 6/10 or 7/10 I thought. There really wasn't much in the way of negativity, apart from 60% of the review moaning about the lack of real choice but since when is real choice something that we get in games?
To justify a 3/10 I'd have expected a lot more information on what exactly is really bad about the game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Exactly what I meant. Two comments that would qualify as "bitching", the others are politely disagreeing, making a few points why - which is exactly what the comments are for.
I agree, that is what comments are for, and if it were true in this case then I wouldn't have commented. It's not though and I'm not the only person to say so.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Seems like mainly Dan and Tom scores with the EG "norm" in mind, while everyone else still score as if 7 was the medium.
If EG could just try to confuse their readers less, theyd be back on the road of win ano EG 2005-ish
Comment below viewing threshold Show
How can you even say that?
Trackmania DS is one of the finest racing games ever devised, on one of the finest consoles ever devised.
Gears of War has some of the worst AI ever devised, coupled with Epic's truly stunning lack of post-release support. At least the graphics are nice.
Halo was a technical showcase for the Xbox, further iterations have got progressively worse.
If anything, Trackmania is easily the best of the three. It's more fun, lasts longer, and you can play it on the toilet.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
In no way did it deserve a 3/10. That once again, is EG and it's reviewers being total tossers. This game makes an easy 7/10 and if you like a game with a STORY, and like the STORY well told, with lots of violent combat in between then its a good-un.
Recommended to all RPG fans with a brain cell. Graphics are perfectly fine ( not GOW 2 standard ) but not that far from it either.
Gameplay is fun and the story is ages old and is told well. Yes there is lots of talking in the game. Did I mention...it's got a story ?
EG, I keep coming back just to slate you off, you and Edge magazine really are the suckiest games reviewing organisations this side of something sucky.
I'll be back to bemoan the poor quality reviews and inaccurate opinions in the near future.