840°
7.5

Assassin's Creed: 8.3 For PS3, 7.5 For Xbox 360 From WorthPlaying

WorthPlaying writes:
"Rabid anticipation for Assassin's Creed dates back to the developer's pencil-shaded storyboards. Whenever the hoopla over a mere, mortal video game begins so early, almost invariably well-kept secrets - prettier, faster, fancier, gee-whiz titles - surface during the development process and steal all the wunderkind's thunder. Of course it's not fair, but it's life in the mercurial games industry: Major publishers' good titles, otherwise destined for greatness, even genre-defining status, are subsumed by a couple of blam! graphics, multiplayer juggernaut games that drop out of the sky late in the day, robbing the longtime darling of her charm. Unfortunately, often as not, publishers and developers follow the gaming public's lead, wrapping up things faster than they'd have liked, refocusing development efforts in new directions; no one wants to be deemed last year's news the very day their baby hits store shelves. Certainly both of these quirks of the industry to some degree befell the once-hallowed Assassin's Creed."

Read Full Story >>
worthplaying.com
Myth6008d ago

why the 360 scored lower? I can't go that site.

MK_Red6008d ago

Well, the thing is that 2 reviews are actually completely different and don't compare the 2 versions.
The thing that I like about it is that there are 2 completely different articles for each version and probably written by different people.

It think others like GameSpot and IGN should do this and let different people review different versions instead of 1 person reviewing PS3, 360, PC and other versions of a game. They do it about handheld PSP/DS and console versions but I think they should write a seperate review for each versions (PS3, 360...) instead of writing a general review for all and then pointing at differences in some spots.
They should use a PS3 writer to write about the PS3 version and a 360 guy to do it for 360 and then later, they should write VS articles and explain the differences in that article instead of the same article for all versions that they6 currently use.

I specially liked GameDaily's different reviews for 360 and PC versions of Jericho.

Bladestar6008d ago (Edited 6008d ago )

They don't say... they review the Xbox 360 version November 14 and the PS3 version the November 21.

The person that reviewed the xbox 360 version was a guy named "Atom"...

The person that reviewed the PS3 version was a guy named "Sanford"...

The title of this article is made to start a flamewar..

paul_war6008d ago

But Bladestar, flamewars are your speciality

TheXgamerLive6008d ago

I just went and took you off my ignore list and then you go and headline a flamer like this.

This isn't an equal article/review as 2 different persons reviewed it, still as what we've seen from actual video the Xbox 360 version is better, smoother, mopre smaller details and better colors, etc...

MK_Red6008d ago

I'm not saying the PS3 versions is better or the other way. The title just points out the scores that are give by 2 different people, meaning that reviews are just opinion and the 360 reviewer didn't like the game as much as the PS3 reviewer.
And if you read them both, they don't say that 360 version is weaker or something.

With this, maybe people could see that reviews are indeed opinions and it would be better if different people are allowed to review the same game so we can have more opinions.
GameSpot and IGN have lots of money and staff yet write a single review for the game and point slight differences in the end of article in a flamy way while they could use different people to review each version:
The PS3 reviewer should compare Assassins with Uncharted and PS3 games while 360 reviewer should compare it to Crackdown and 360 games.
The later, they could post a seperate article to only compare the 2 versions.

The reviews are no longer professional. They have become insanely personal so let it be. At least use more than 1 and different people to review different versions.

Snukadaman6008d ago

On topic, where were these sort of reviews for madden 08...for skate??

Polluted6008d ago

I agree with Red about changing the review system, but to be fair, there was no reason to mention the X360 score in the title of the article. On the one hand he's saying we need to review titles for each system based on their own merits and not waste time fanning the flamewars. On the other hand the title of the article is kind of saying "Hey look, PS3 got a better score than the X360. Take that Xbots". Which really isn't the point.

Vader6008d ago

I just found out about this site about two weeks ago and they have alot of info but if you look, it seem that they trash the 360 and love the ps3. Look at the stuff they have on here, it's crazy. I have a ps3 and 360, people don't like that game but it still sales, they where having problems with the ps3 one but why is that not posted on here. Every thing I see about the ps3 is good, xbox360 bad.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 6008d ago
solar6008d ago

oh baby jesus here we go again! ::ducks behind my wii::

monkey6026008d ago

the baby jesus comment made me laugh. + bubble for you

BlinkGT6008d ago

ROFL §§§ An other site to ban...

Bladestar6008d ago

Everyone knows the game is a good in both consoles... it's the same game in both consoles.. with the same issues and same problems... using this article to prove that the PS3 has the better version is stupid... since both reviews were made a week apart... and by not the same person.

Besides who the !@$@(#&@#$ is WorthPlaying?

They don't even have a review for COD4 on the xbox 360?

I would take this review more seriously if they at least would review the game side by side and explain why they gave the PS3 version a higher score...

actas1236008d ago (Edited 6008d ago )

you know gamespot or xboxspot gave 9/10 for the game on both consoles----> PS3 version is much better.

HeavyweightInTheGame6008d ago

I thought both versions were the same?!?!

Kaneda6008d ago

Other games...when 360 is better than PS3 version... People were bashing PS3...

Now this site gave PS3 version better score... People asked "WHY?"... How is it possible?

SlippyMadFrog6007d ago

Did you guys read the article? THe review is for the PS3 version ONLY. The Xbox360 version was reviewed by someone else at a different time. I suggest you view the comparison video of the two version before going to conclusions.

Vip3r6007d ago

Why are you getting so upset that the PS3 got a better score than the 360? You never complain when it's the 360 getting a better score than the PS3. Hmm...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6007d ago
Ashta6008d ago

Two different reviewers.

The Xbox reviewer was Atom
The PS3 reviewer was Sanford May

Two different reviewers, two different opinions. Hell, not one of them speaks about anything technically between the two systems. The reason why Atom scored it lower? He didn't like it as much as Sanford. He felt it was too repetitive and not the hyped blockbuster he was expecting.

Simple as that. It's just two different opinions and neither of them bash the other console in either review.

MK_Red6008d ago

I really hope other sites do the same and put different people for different versions.
It's really much better two read two different opinions instead of having same person writing the review for all versions of PS3, 360 and such and then point the differences and bash one system in the end of article (The way that IGN and GameSpot do...).

paul_war6008d ago

MK, I agree with you, in principle. But in reality, if they do this then it will be open season for 'flamewars'. As like it or not people will still take the different reviews as FACT that one version of a game is better then another. When the same reviewer might have given them both equal scores.

MK_Red6008d ago

I know what you mean but there has been a lot of talk about scores and the fact that they could go away. By removing the scores and just having 2 different people reviewing PS3 and 360 versions, we can have the PS3 guy talking only about PS3 version Assassins and comparing it only to PS3 games like Uncharted. The 360 one could do the same with 360 AC and compare it to Crackdown and games on 360.

All I'm saying is that the current method of IGN and GameSpot is THE flame bait that uses the same person and text for the review but give different scores.
I believe that the PS3 version of Assassins and any other multi title should be reviewed on its own merits and solely as a PS3 title and the same should be done about 360 one.

And for comparisons, a different article with image and video proof should be used instead of the same guy for PS3 and 360 version talking flame bait in the end of review and saying PS3 has better framerate but 360 has better lighting or vice-versa and with personal reviews (IGN saying 360 has better frame, GameSpot saying PS3 has better frame), by using different people for different versions, at least we could have more opinions and less flamish comparisons.

Show all comments (90)
60°

PureArts & Ubisoft Announce Assassin’s Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama

This should make fans and collectors very happy. PureArts & Ubisoft Announce Assassin’s Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama Assassin's Creed Hunt for the Nine 1/6 Scale Diorama available for pre-order on January 25.

260°

Can We Finally Admit Assassin's Creed 3 Deserves an Apology?

AC3 was released during a turbulent transition period for Ubisoft and the Assassin's Creed series. It ventured into uncharted territory, narratively and mechanically, which caused it to receive mixed reviews. At its core, though, it's a damn good stealth game.

Read Full Story >>
thenerdstash.com
isarai205d ago

Nope, I hated 3, connar was bland, literally the most flat character in the entire game. Not to mention to myriad of bugs, camera issues, and that annoying thing where he automatically ditches his weapon you payed for for the sake of a cool finishing move forcing you to trek back to your base after almost every encounter just to re-equip your own weapon. It just didn't work as fluidly as the others like 2 and 4

Samonuske204d ago

The series peaked at AC3 for me. It’s been my favourite in the series. Connor will always be one of my favourite video game protagonists.

Becuzisaid204d ago

No. Game was BORING. Connor was really dull. Environments, while impressive, because of the geographic location and time period were not really exciting to be in. I would love some kind of game set in there colonial American time period, but a game like AC that back then centered around parkour and vertical traversal really didn't fit those environments.

-Foxtrot204d ago

Nope

There was a lot of issues but mine is how they handled the war

They told us Connor was not going to get involved, that the war was more of a background setting for the real story and it wasn’t going to be one sided

They lied, even the cinematic E3 trailer showed Connor emerge from the Colonist side and slaughter the red coats to get to his target, inspiring the Colonists to fight back

I just thought it would have made more sense lore wise that the red coats were mostly compiled of Assassins fighting the Colonist templars who wanted to take the new world for themselves.

Since the Red coats lost the war, it would then explain how the Templars started to gain the upper hand and how on the future the assassins were mostly killed off and the Templar’s had pretty much taken over everything.

Instead it just felt like they didn’t want to p*** off the American audience

Even Haytham was cool, he should have been an Assassin through and through and should have been the main lead.

toxic-inferno204d ago

The game even seems to lack the humour of the other games. It almost seems as though the idea of even slightly making fun of American history wouldn't be acceptable.

-Foxtrot204d ago

Exactly

It just felt super safe

“Better not make the colonists look super bad incase people boycott our game”

jeromeface204d ago

someone missed the whole point

-Foxtrot204d ago

There was literally no point

What I've just said above would at least make sense lore wise and why the Assassins start to loose their war, die off and how the Templars are in control in the future of almost everything....what they did was just, pointless

CrimsonWing69204d ago

I’m one one of those weird people that liked Ass Creed 3, but to be fair I never got around to finishing it.

Show all comments (28)
240°

5 Of the Most Unlikeable Video Game Protagonists

There are good video game protagonists, and there are bad video game protagonists.

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
215d ago
GhostScholar215d ago (Edited 215d ago )

I disagree that max is unlikable. Chloe is infinitely more unlikable in my opinion.

gold_drake215d ago

omg chloe was awful. i really hated her at the end haha

Cacabunga215d ago

Abby was absolute trash protagonist in every way..
Tidus was so meh to me..
On villain side, the one i didn’t like wa Micah, because they wanted him to be that way and it was brilliant👍🏽

Rancegamerx215d ago

I agree, I liked Max, Chloe was a horrible friend and a bad influence.

Cacabunga215d ago

Everyone agrees on chloe, I’m sure even ND do.

H9215d ago

Both are horrible, granted Chloe is infinitely worse, it feels like Chloe is just fanservice for people who too over the edge and wasn't written to be a character that makes sense

GooGobbler215d ago

What about that Forspoken Tw*t

MrChow666215d ago

exactly I was expecting it to be a the top of the list

ravens52215d ago

Ye I was expecting her too. Guess they actually played the game. Unlike you and whoever agrees.

gpimlott214d ago

I played through the whole game and think she is one of the worst character Ive ever played as

ravens52214d ago (Edited 214d ago )

gpimlott. How?

Stanjara204d ago

Why would I payed and played the game if the whole internet is making fun of a character?

-Im here to kill Chaos...are you Chaos?

Yeah, I didn't play that game either.

Christopher215d ago (Edited 215d ago )

She's actually not bad. It's the writing itself that is bad overall, but she's fine overall. She's no worse than Miles Morales IMHO. Both thrust into a spotlight and receiving both praise and blame and dealing with it.

Forspoken is a bland game because it's 75% bland, boring, repetitive going through the motions and diversions that add nothing of the value with purposefully gated memory moments that don't feel organic or like you're discovering things but waiting for others to reveal things.

ravens52215d ago

Exactly Chris. Even though I liked the game. I kno u played it. People who actually played it and went thru her dream saw she was a good likeable person who really just acted out due to being alone and unloved. I think your problem is it was open world, I think if it was more linear you may have liked it better.

savedsynner215d ago

Oh no she's bad. Very unlikable even before you add on the bad dialogue. The game could have been quite good with a good protagonist

ravens52214d ago

For all the people like synner. Shes actually half white lol. Inferior complexity is a hell of a thing. You'll be ok.

Nerdmaster215d ago

Most of these aren't even that bad. Especially comparing to others like Squall "Whatever" Leonhart, Forspoken's Frey, and the guy from Atomic Heart.

-Foxtrot215d ago

Squall is one of the best developed main FF characters so...

People talk about his "whatever" thing thats at the start of the game, not the character he eventually becomes in the end.

Nerdmaster214d ago

No amount of "character development", (especially the ones that for me feels sudden and undeserved like Squall's), will justify him being a d**k to my girl Quistis. Even if he found the cure for cancer, from that moment on, I would never like him.
The article is about being unlikeable, and he was indeed unlikeable for at least half of the game.

BrainSyphoned215d ago

Squall is the best protagonists in FF so you can go whatever yourself.

H9215d ago

My good sir, I need to steal that "you can go whatever yourself" because it's gold

BlaqMagiq1215d ago

Except Squall has actual character development.

gold_drake215d ago (Edited 215d ago )

the "watever" is only present in the english localisation.
so your argument doesnt rly ... stand imo.

Nerdmaster214d ago

Good for you that you could enjoy the japanese version. That's not the case for me and the majority of people here, though.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 214d ago
gold_drake215d ago (Edited 215d ago )

i had to stop reading after the "blatant misogyny" in the Dantes inferno section.

i actually liked Max haha.

the forspoken chick is missing tho

Show all comments (49)