The Destructoid Assassin's Creed 2 Debacle

A look into the recent internet furore around Destructiod's Assassin's Creed 2 review.

[DonCorneo]

AC2 is an improvement, sure. but a polished turd is still a turd.

[Silentmerc3nary]

The game is not a turd anyway, nor was the first.

[Shotgun_Roamer]

Reviewers can say whatever they want, if you enjoy the game thats all that matters, the number they give doesn't. If it looks intreguing rent it and then pick it up. Reviewers numbers are all over the board, what counts is what you think about the game, wether you are in the majority or minority. And that, is consumer power.

[Anon1974]

Destructiod has become a general stain on the already tarnished profession of game journalism. They no longer provide any valuable service or insight, just existing to stir up fanboy sentiments an a desperate attempt for hits.

This shift for Destructoid started months ago but was sudden and obvious and I, personally, can only assume that it was an editorial decision to provide controversy instead of legitimate news and article after article, Destructoid has since delivered the most nonsensical, non-newsworthy crap articles that I've seen this side of fanboy run smear sites like the playstation defense force.

I understand opinion pieces. I have no problem with those. I have no issue with reviewers offering their own opinion. That's your opinion, more power to you, but just take a gander at Destructoid's "original" articles and you'll see such a mess of poorly worded, poorly researched "opinions" that it becomes obvious the inmates are running the asylum.

Sad. Gamers need to simply leave this site to die a merciful and quick death.

[DMason]

"In the space of one comment people accused him of purposefully down-marking a big-name game just for hits (which is a favourite accusation of the unintelligent comment-troll)"

I like this quote the best, because it's 100% accurate. Unintelligent people use this reasoning when they feel extremely butthurt about a score their precious game didnt get.

But AC2 DID NOT deserve to receive a 4.5. I'm playing it right now and it has given me an enormous amount of playtime and enjoyment.

I think this was a well written article. Better than most "articles" on this stain of a website. This writer is trying to defend most of the gaming blogs in general. Too many excuses are made to warrant why a game didnt get a perfect score. It's a sad world when the reviewers try to appease the general gaming population by giving high marks for fear of getting massively flamed.

[Shotgun_Roamer]

oh yes of course. if you consistantly disagree with someone why would you care about their opinion? rediculous.

[Bubbles_Kitty_Cat]

If you ask me, the recent accusations against Ubisoft are of far greater importance than a simple review...

http://www.psxextreme.com/p...

[BRG9000]

I'm all for reviewers expressing their honest opinions, and for a scoring system that actually utilizes the entire spectrum (i.e. 7 is a solid score, 5 is average, etc). But there is just no way that when you consider all the crappy games released week after week, that this game is "BELOW AVERAGE", which is how destructoid defines a 4/10. The game has flaws, and even if you are someone who see those flaws as bigger obstacles than others see them, there is no way you can say that this game is not better than half of the games released this year. That's where your credibility as a reviewer is clearly put into question.

[raztad]

LOL@Destructoid

There is two ways to know how off a review really is

1) Play the game and judge by yourself.

2) Take the metacritic average and see how far is the review score.

Wierd, AC2 has a 91 meta score but I dont see Destructoid review. I guess 4.5/10 would drop the score too much and conveniently destructoid review was left out.

[Blaze929]

...who cares? Why are people whining over this. His opinion, move on. Just numbers, big whoop. People whine over nothing way too much. I still went out and bought the game day 1 and still love it.

Seriously, I don't get it. I don't get why this article was even made. WHO CARES

[HolyOrangeCows]

that Jim made some good points.

[Perkel]

Yeah very good points. AC1 was so boring that i just barely finished it.. Only beggining and end was good rest was crap..

So they didn't changed formula...

[lightningsax]

@Raztad - Wouldn't a good aggregator include the reviews and then take the top and bottom outliers out of the cumulative score?

Ergh. I guess the key word there is "good."

So who's going to call foul because someone wants to get hits on their site? Just because someone shouldn't do that doesn't mean they can't do that. Is Destructoid a non-profit organization with a mission? Capitalist ethics at work: If you don't like it, don't go to Destructoid. But, let's look at the other side of it, which is just as valid. Games journalism *should* be consumer-oriented and not fool anyone just to garner good stats for advertisers.

That's why there should be some strong national standards that every paid reviewer should adhere to, but take this for what it is - it's ethics, not the law, and Destructoid doesn't have to follow an ethical code if it doesn't want to. Once again, we can just not go there if we disagree.

But there's yet another side to this, and that's that the Metacritic phenomenon is cutting out individuality and putting everyone on a scale. What if - ye Gods - the reviewer actually disliked the game? What if his problems with it are totally valid, and in the perception of his overall experience, warranted that score?

He's on the site for a reason - someone hired him because he had some good insights into games. He's not the Voice of a Generation, he's one guy. One guy who might be wrong, but still a guy. I don't want to lose that individuality from reviews and just hold them up against Metacritic... which is just a product of another company that wants your money, by the way.

TL;DR version - Not defending him, not protecting him, but he shouldn't be railed against. He's just a guy reviewing a game, and even if it's a hit-garnering hoax, that in itself is not out of the realm of everyday for-profit company behavior. Also, Metacritic-ing everything just sucks.

[Elven6]

Raztad: Destructoid's review is listed on the 360 version of Metacritic but surprisingly not the PS3 version.

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Despite this, they both have the same MC score.

Lets keep in mind, this is the same Jim Sterling who was outed for reviewing Halo Wars (a 7) based SOLELY on the tutorial missions.

[Solidus187-SCMilk]

the guy reviewing AC 2 probably wasnt objective(uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). If he says he was objective and he really believes AC 2 deserves a 4.5 he doesnt know much about videogames and shouldn't be a reviewer. Its Pretty simple. I didnt like FF8 and got bored and stopped playing before the third disk. Does that mean it sucked and I should give it a 5 if reviewing it. NOPE> others will like it and I have to review it objectively and tell the readers if it accomplishes what it was supposed to, not if it was what I wanted it to be. And AC2 is at least a good game that improves on EVERY aspect of the original.

AC2 is great and Id give it atleast a 9. Sure, I can see it getting lower scores but a 4.5 is WRONG. If its his "honest opinion" then id be honest when Im saying hes WRONG. Your opinion can differ all day but IT IS A FACT THAT AC2 IS A GOOD GAME AND DESERVES MORE THAN A 4.5.

I dont care about reviews because I can tell a quality game and I know what kind of games I like.

Im more bothered by the moron blog ps3center. This guy is a moron and a prime example why video game blogs are a JOKE. I like how he tells people they are wrong for disagreeing with a bad score of 4.5 and says he says that hes "never played the game." Idiot. How dumb are some people.

[poindat]

Comment from Sterling straight from his review of The Saboteur: "Also, butthurt Assassin's Creed 2 fanboys need to stop polluting my lovely review of the better game."

LOL, that's professional all right.

>.<

[4Sh0w]

I say if the guy thinks AC2 is a 4.5/10 game then OK good for him. I totally disagree with him though, and I think most professionals and ordinary gamers think the game is much better than that, but so what, wheres the conspiracy? I'd have to check out more of his past reviews because it could be maybe its just this game we disagree on. Sometimes that happens, ya know, but if he's this far off with how I see other games then I simply take it that we have very different tastes. Things arent so black n white when it comes to reviews.

I remember reading a article from a journalists that said Micheal Jordan is the most overated basketball player, from the headline my immediate thought was this guys a joke, but he made some excellent points about how MJ benefited from always having a supporting cast that(dont they all?), how MJ missed more gamewinners than he hit, how he scored alot because he was selfish, how the ref's catered to him because the NBA pressured them since he was the face of the NBA, how he lacked that other truly great competition as past greats, on and on he made some great points and I came out of it undertanding how a very samll minority could think MJ wasnt the best, but at the end of the day, you dont accomplish the things he did by being avg or medicore, call it timing plus greatness but the man was sick on the court. I know that this isnt exactly the same thing, my only point is that no matter how many people think something or someone was really good, there will be some who dont see it that way, if they have some legit reasons besides just looking to hate, well then we call that a opinion.

damm sorry for the long winded babble.

[Real Gambler]

And getting hits on Destructoid is how he's getting paid. Funnily, I would consider the owner of TheSixthAxis in the same category. If there's no hits, let's stir some controvery, crank the number up, no matter what, and get more money from the advertisers.

So, yes, we are dealing with professionals here, but basically, professional web site owners who need hits to make good money out of their web sites. They made a choice, now it's up to the readers to decide how to take any articles coming from those guys.

[StanLee]

Destructoid's review is terrible. I find it hard to believe the reviewer played, much less, finished the game. I was really disappointed in how unprofessionally written and poorly thought our the reviewers criticisms were.

[Solans Scott]

I owned the game and I must say that it was quite enjoyable. I will agree with the reviewer about the graphics. I have owned both games and I agree that the facial animations in the second game are quite disappointing, in my opinion. Surprisingly in the first game I had no problems pulling of counter kills but in this one I found it really difficult. Maybe it's just me.

[jessupj]

A review should not be an opinion. A review SHOULD be as objective as it can be. It should be a critique against a clear set of standards. Think about it this way. There is an english teacher sitting at his/her desk marking 2 separate essays. Both of them are on different subjects, but both have the same level of quality (grama, pacing, spelling, articulation etc). The teacher is suppose to mark according to a set of strict guidelines. Guidelines I might add that have been discussed, standardized and published for all teachers to read and follow.

But this teacher, instead of rightfully giving the same mark for both essays, grades one of them lower because he/she doesn't personally like this particular student. Or maybe he/she degrades it because they don't like the subject matter.

This is what edge and other unprofessional so called gaming journalists are doing, or so it seems. Marking according to their personal likes and dislikes (and fanboy bias) and giving their opinion of games, instead of reviewing ALL games CONSISTENTLY against a clear set of standards.

I have to question people's intelligence when they excuse a ridiculously bias review with, "It's his opinion, he's entitled to it." I say again, a review is not the same as an opinion. Please read my comment again if you cannot grasp this, or if you disagree please give a reason.

[StanLee]

I've been saying the same thing for years. Well said.

[LastDance]

Well Assassin's Creed is a good game but equally flawed. Perhaps not as bad as 4.5/10 but still.

Facial animations (especially Desmond's girlfriend who does not even look human) are very poor.

The purchasing of weapons, ammunition and armour is absolutely pointless because you can take out an entire batallion of men with your bear hands and one section of health.

AI is weak as hell, and the climbing mechanics are terrible for precise platforming (ie in the Assassin tombs).

I'm suprised people are defending this game so fervently. It's flaws are plentiful.

[gamingisnotacrime]

Experience? is this a game developer or a game reviewer? How many flaim baits the "professionals" have been throwing at us the last 3 years, no wonder gamers lose respect for this reviewers. Gamers seem to be pleased with Assasins Creed 2 and that is all that matter, nip tick is no fun in any game.

@ below
exactly, if they dont behave like professionals, then they cant expect to be treated as such. Years of experience does not make up for low quality performance. Quality >> Quantity

[WLPowell]

Seeing as how there isn't a sliver of professionalism in video game journalism nowadays, it's all politcal slant and bias childish opinionated soap boxing. And anyone giving AC2 anything below a 6 should just accept he was wrong and rightfully accept the hate he receives. If you didn't like it that's fine and dandy (but that's not your job to be like "I don't like this game... 4!"), but you're supposed to be telling us if the game is a good game or not, which AC2 is a great game.

[iceman06]

Is an argument fallacy anyway. It is basically arguing from the point of authority or superiority. It is a common argument when someone thinks that they know more than you because they are in a specific position. When, in fact, you may be just as informed...and NOT in that position. There are times where that may be beneficial...like being a lawyer or doctor. Most of us are not equipped with the education to argue with those professionals. However, in points of subjectivity or opinion it really doesn't take much to match wits. Sure he might have made some "powerful" and "compelling" points. But, at the end of the day, he was flat out WRONG for giving that game a 4.5! Even an opinion can be so flatly skewed as to contradict what conventional wisdom says...and be misguided.

[sayedstafa]

I completely agree with you, there is no "experience" when it comes to reviewing games. If anything, Destructiod should have shown how "professional" they are by getting a reviewer more suited for that style of game. He obviously hated the first one, why have him review the second? That's like if I hate football game, and then I review Madden. Jim Sterling gave Dynasty Warriors 6 a 8/10, yet Assassin's Creed a 4.5/10. Maybe the people who think Assassin's Creed 2 is good and dislike Dynasty Warriors are all just lacking "experience."

[AliTheBrit19]

He gave the game 4.5 out of 10

He's a moron, seriously what kind of scores does he give to other games?

AC2 deserves no less than an 8/10

Personally its a 9.5/10 for me

[mrv321]

Are you seriouslu suggesting that all reviews must be above a certain freshold? I don't mind justified bad scores, it's the ones without justification and hypocracy that annoy me the most. Take for example GT's Uncharted 2 review I was annoyed at that because they didn't apply the same standards as to other games. Abd narjed it down for being unoriginal while MW2 or Gears 2 RECIEVING none of that. Am I acucsing GT of fanboyism? No. Am I accusing them of being human with varying opinions and standards? Yes.

[AliTheBrit19]

^^ No he's a moron for having flawed reasons for such a low score, and probably only going after a shock review

If you look at the scores for some of his other games, its a joke

No, a review is not supposed to be an Opinion, at all, its supposed to be an evaluation of a game, say I hated the idea of a game set in WW2, I hate it so much that I give the game a low score, that's because in MY OPINION the setting is bad, but its not an accurate evaluation of what the game offers.

Seriously learn what a review is, moron ;)

[Shadow Flare]

I totally agree with alithebrit. If you want an opinion on a game, visit forums and read peoples comments like we are here. But as a reviewer, you're in a position of responsibility. You have a duty to inform the gamers reading if this game is of good quality. You can't score it down if you simply don't like the game. The message destructoid have given off is that this is a bad game. Which is just plain and simple wrong. Look at what the gamers say, look at all the other reviews. Its a good game. It is not a 4.5/10 game. And frankly, to give a score like that for whats generally agreed as one of the best games of the year, he doesn't know how to review a game properly, and shouldn't be allowed to professionally review games, because he may mislead alot of people

[Perkel]

lol . Reviews are always opinions ! You can't exclude reviewers thoughts.

It's not math when you adding 16 people @ screen, 10 h gameplay, multi, Italy after adding this you have 9.5/10.

Assasin 1 was crap. I loved how was gameplay created about parkour but there weren't any thing to hold you longer. Story was mess, quest were crap. 9/10 gameplay time you chased someone or you wandered aimless..

first game was like 9/10 and i lol at reviews with 9/10 scores.
AC1 shold be 5/10 at most. AC2 if he is telling the truth same.

[AliTheBrit19]

"You can't score it down if you simply don't like the game. The message destructoid have given off is that this is a bad game. Which is just plain and simple wrong. Look at what the gamers say, look at all the other reviews. Its a good game. It is not a 4.5/10 game"

You are correct sir! very good post, glad to see some people still have some sense in their heads :) +bubbles

[mrv321]

So what your saying is that we shouldn't allow reviewers to have their own opinions but instead rate games on what they think the general population will thin. And besides I highly doubt Destructoid is THE ONLY site people will go for. You look at loads of reviews and you decide from there.

[baum]

"No, a review is not supposed to be an Opinion, at all, its supposed to be an evaluation of a game"

And how do you evaluate? With an opinion, moron.

[jerethdagryphon]

that review is skewed it reads like he went in looking for flaws and magnified them

:some missions have you slowly following a guy around,

yea its called tailing, and its not easy to do in real life especially if the person is paranoid or activly serching for a tail.

graphics yes they wernt perfect, but they were not bad either

fast travel was fine, its like a 2 minite walk every 3 hours to go to your base from the station there.

and how bad were this guys skills as a player if he had problems using assassination tricks,

i had problems getting into a proper fight

Combat. the enemy stand there doing nothing and attacking 1-2 at a time
combat is the same as batmans, context sensitive and about patiences and timing not hack and slash.
if 10 enemy came at you at once you would die plain and simple
and it would be no fun the 1-2 method works for this type.

sigh: i read the review with an open mind and having platiniumed the game im aware of everything about it,
i never had a significant problem with movment or anything
maybe im just better at games

bad review, not because of score but because hes gone in looking for flaws and magnifying them

[LastDance]

"if 10 enemy came at you at once you would die plain and simple"

Did we play the same game? Is there some way you can change the difficulty?

I refuse to believe that that was the case for you. I can video me with leather armour on and NO weapons and EASILY take out 20+ men (and NO that is not a boast of my skill).

I finished the game in about 20 hours and I only died about 3 times because I fell too high.

[Shadow Flare]

No, he means if 10 guards were all actually attacking you simultaneously. You may have 10 guards standing round you in a circle, but only 1-2 attack you at the same time. He was saying if all 10 attacked at the same time, it would be too hard and really stupid. 1-2 attacking works for this game, I agree

[table]

"He is a professional with many years of experience behind him. You’re not."

Long time gamers who have played many more games than him can be just as professional. Sometimes a reviewer has to put personal opinion and taste asides to give a fair and unbiased review. I think a lot of people are getting pretty tired of destructoid and their lacklusture journalism.

[WLPowell]

It might be the only time that happens.

[table]

and why is that mr.powell?

[JonnyBigBoss]

Destructoid... heh.

If a site uses outlandish titles and sentiments to attract readers for hits, I have a hard time seeing the purpose of the site.

[pokeystaples]

I like Jim and frequent Destructoid pretty regularly. I think it's funny that people think they're all about controversy when they're a pretty even site. Anyone who listens to the podcasts knows that Jim is going to say how he feels and we need more of that in journalism. We need reviewers less concerned with trying to ensure the next review copy and more honesty. The first assassin's creed sucked to me. If this one is more of the same I'm glad at least ONE reviewer had the cajones to say it sucked.

[Redlogic]

I thought the game was fairly well put together. Yes, there is some credence to what Jim's but there were a few things he pointed out that just didn't make sense. He stated that Ezio climbs to slow, but all you have to do is hold down R1 and boom! He climbs faster!!! Bad graphics? uhhhh did I buy a early production copy by mistake? The game looks great!

I think Jim had a bad vibe for this game before he even turned it on, hence a review that only harps on the negatives of the game. I could care less about people liking a game or not, but because of this review and him purposely leaving out any positive aspects of the game that will make people simply skip the game all together. That's unfortunate because they are missing a great experience (in my mind at least).

[Tony P]

I agree with 'decide for yourself'.

And I have no idea why anyone needs to come to Sterling's defense.

His opinions of a game aside (yes, aside) the guy *promotes* discord himself in the comments. He's not some innocent victim. When your persona is built on writing acerbic articles about things you don't like, you're not going to get even-tempered responses from people. Ask Yahtzee or Bill O'Reilly or whoever. He's a smart guy, he knows what he's doing. Controversy draws the crowds. They make him sound like a meek, humble monk or something.

[MajestieBeast]

Like i trust a site that gives a 6 to infamous enough said this is a poor excuse for a gaming site and that list is becoming very long since this generation i dont know what caused it but it has something to do with Microsoft entering the console business. This is just a way for them to get hits cause they cant make good articles or content so they have to do it this way what a shame.

[Seferoth75]

Take my advice and go get some professional help. MS entering the market has caused sites to make poor judgement on who they let write reviews? Is it MS fault when it rains? When you get a flat is it because MS was out to get you? It might be time to accept the fact that MS is not out to get you or ruin the world of gaming by paying sites to post bad reviews of multi platform games.

[PS360PCROCKS]

lol @ seferoth, thanks that's how I felt reading his post.

[Jamescagney]

'Now, I haven’t personally played the game in question'

I stopped reading after that, how can you defend someones review of a game when you haven't played it yourself?

[WinterSoldier357]

too true mate...

[ian72]

He is a professional with years of experience and your not.

That sentence really got to me. I have been playing games since the ZX80/ZX81 days and I know when a game is good or not. Also when a review is right or wrong.

4.5 is very very wrong for AC2.

[JonnyBigBoss]

I thought it was totally unprofessional and inappropriate.

[Bathyj]

All that was missing was putting his thumb to his nose, playing an air trumpet and saying nyah, nyah nyah nyah, nyaaaaaaaah !

No I'm not a professional, I'm an amateur, but I do have 30 years experience.

BTW
You might want to look up the definition for "professional". It doesnt mean you're good, even though thats the context people use it in.

It means you get paid to do it, while I do it for the love of it.

"One free man defending his home is as strong as ten paid soldiers."

[mastiffchild]

It was an uncalled for slur on the o. I'm a trained, qualified and time served journalist myself and am only not working as one now through ill health(don't cry, please). In my 15 years reporting on various things for some far more prestigious sites, papersand mags than damn D'toid I have had the dubious pleasure of writing reviews for loads of games and loads of music releases-do I think I'm more qualified as a result to have a bloody opinion than any other gamer? No, of course not. That would be SO arrogant it's untrue and I fail to see just why the Sterling defense force would put such a slur out there.

Perhaps I'm better placed, as Sterling is, to articulate my thoughts into decently presented work of this kind but, certainly, I've no more insight than any other experienced gamer. I always tried to be as fair as I could and understand which things were probably only annoying to me and which things were REAL flaws in the games. Sadly, I feel that Jim was determined to knock the game for whatever reason-I say this because of the lack of him stating pretty much anything he felt was good about it. Chirst, I even found two good things to say about Shellshock2 the other month and that's just about the worst made game I've played in the last ten years! I gave it a 3/10 yet STILL found room for the couple of things they did OK ut Jim was just hell bent on getting the hammer out for AC2(which, after playing a few hours the other day hjasn't grabbed me any more than the dull first game did if I'm being honest)and wasn't ever interested in seeing anything good in it even though he must have for it to get nearly half marks. He obviously knows there are good points but his refusal to say what they might be makes him look really petty, imo, and runs the risk of people thinking it's just hit seeking controversy.

Whether it is IDK but, certainly, controversy creates traffic and does it quickly and short term that's great and tempting for a site but longer term it just kills any cred that took you years to get together, imo. Sterling CAN write, imo, but this kind of hatchet job does noone a favour.

[skwidd]

Giving the game a 4.5 means it's not even playable and the quality is very poor. Just look at video and screen shots and you can see the quality is not poor at all. The fact that it is playable and more people than not enjoy it and play it warrants it at least a 6 at this point. Anything less is just wrong.

[jerethdagryphon]

current standard scoring

people say that no one uses the full spectrum of 0-10
thats wrong its just the scale has changed over the years

currently its

10: Perfect outstanding to be honored and respected
9: outstanding worthy of praises, extremely minor niggles,
8: excelent game to be recomended and enjoyed slight niggles mar surface but little effect on gameplay

7: abover averge minor flaws that effect gameplay still good
6 averge : larger flaws mar the substance and affect gameplay significantly ie broken challenges missing items or things that make its harder when it shouldnt be

5 below averge, major flaws but still playable bargin bin buy

4 : largly below averge massive flaws can break the game

3: fair nearly broken at times requires dedication to make it work

2: poor an unfinished product released before its time

1: broken unplayable and or bad premise, avoid at all costs

0: unratable will not run work or serve as anything but a coaster

these are ratings as far as i can gather tripple aaa being 9-10 and a good game scoring 7-10

examples of 10s i cant think of bearing in mind that scores of existing games if scored today would shift down

original half life on release,
halo combat evolved, due to the console fps breakthough

9's
lbp
uncharted

6's
haze (it was playable but had glaring flaws)

2 skynet

1: oil tycoon

[MajestieBeast]

You saying people need mental help the only 1 who needs that is you. So before you start your little 14 year old comments go to bed and go to school cause that would do you good and the faster people take your bubbles the faster youll be back where you belong the openzone. Did i even say microsoft had something to do with muliplatform games no but you can see it with exclusives by sites like edge.

[LtSkittles]

He also just reviewed Avatar, and gave it a 3/10. I think he's doing it for attention.

[Unicron]

You guys realize you can look at ANY game, with ANY mindset, and give it ANY score you wanted, and find some aspect to "justify" it right? Reviews are OPINIONS. Scores are ARBITRARY. Journalism is a joke these days. I don't care what some random person thinks of a game I myself may or may not enjoy. And I certainly don't care for an aggregate (Metacritic) that plays bias games and leaves out certain outlets because of personal reasons (G4tv due to personal beef with Sessler.)

Hell, I could make an argument that Halo 3 and Uncharted 2 are mediocre affairs, back it up with "facts" and slap a 4.5 on both of them. And it would be entirely "valid." Hence why review scores are the most inane, utterly stupid parts of a review. If you want a game to suck, it can suck. If you want a game to be good, it can be good. The whole while, the actual contents of the game itself has not changed. It's just one's perception and mindset.

Read the review, play the game for yourself. Use them to INFORM, not to JUDGE. Because game "journalism" is a business, and businesses are in it for ONE purpose. TO. MAKE. MONEY.

[solidjun5]

I know everyone would like to say "Reviews are OPINION', but I think as a reviewer you should review from an objective stance. Otherwise, it just goes on to be an Opinion in which, as said above, any Joe Blow (in this case, the joe blow hard is Jim) can slap an arbitrary number and come up with 'valid' points. I personally think every website should go the kotaku route. No numbers. Present the good points and the bad points and go from there. Now I know those Gametrailers said that if they did that, no one would go their site. Boo hoo. If you write objectively and stop trying to be controversial, I think people will still go and watch (or hopefully read) the reviews.

[Unicron]

I agree. I love Kotaku's review system. I think it's the change the industry needs. Until then, the transparent grubbing for scores will drive reviews.

[DarkTower805]

This is where I stopped reading. Seriously, if you haven't played the game then you have no reason to understand why people are so angry about a review that puts the game lower than Damnation. Seriously, these D-Bags gave Damnation a 5 while Assassin's Creed 2 gets a 4.5?

[solidjun5]

I mean if you're going to defend the idiot called Jim Sterling, at least play the game to see it from both sides. Otherwise, it's that "bros before ho##" mantra that seems to be applicable here.

[Captain Tuttle]

I despised the first game, most overhyped piece of trash this gen. The original review describes exactly how I imagine the follow up to be. I'll pass.

[Unicron]

God forbid you try for yourself.

[Captain Tuttle]

I tried the first one and got burned. Not again. Looks like more of the same to me, just alot of smoke and mirrors.

Don't worry, I'll live.

[Bathyj]

I can understand that.

I think Cliffy B said, a good game is basically 30 seconds of fun, repeated over and over again.

If you dont enjoy that basic element of AC of running over buildings just to kill someone when you find them, then theres nothing for you in AC 2.

Like I said in my other post below (which, thank you for reading BTW), thats pretty much all there is to this game and I dont see why anyone who hated part 1 would be drawn to anything new in this one because there is nothing new that really effects the gameplay.

I thought with the introduction of currency there might be a few RPG elements in there but you get so much money so quickly, I soon had all the armour and weapons in no time, and then money becomes irrelivant. I had about 300K when I finished the game and nothing but throwing knives and medicine to spend it on.

But again, I had alot of fun with it, cos I liked that 30 seconds.

PS
I'd love to see a Tenchu game in a world this big and detailed. Stealth killing is alot more about patience and stalking in Tenchu, but the climbing, huge cities along with the grappling hook of Tenchu would be great.

[STONEY4]

"He is a professional with many years of experience behind him. You’re not."

What, because he reviews games on a site makes him a professional? That doesn't mean he has a good taste in games, or is good at games either. Seriously, Greg Miller from IGN said the Uncharted 2 co-op missions were hard on easy difficulty. Who cares if he's been playing games longer than most people, it doesn't mean he's good.

[Unicron]

Experience what? Playing games?

I work for a dev company. I've been gaming since I was 5. I guess MY opinion is more valid and I'm more of a professional than Jim will ever be, no?

[PS360PCROCKS]

A 4.5? Seriously? 4.5 is a TERRIBLE game, AC2 is not a terrible game.

[STONEY4]

The game deserves at least a 9. 4.5 is seriously WTF.

[Demon5500]

I agree with you on the score 9 easy on 360 in my score book and 8.9 on ps3 but 4.5 dam, that is to low, the reviewer must have been just not in to the game, The graphics and the draw distance and the world always felt like it was a live.

[A LIVING LEGEND]

I haven't played AC2 but I did play AC1.If and I stress "if" AC2 is anything like AC1 then 4.5 is being generous.
Ubi has yet to impress me,personally.Farcry2 was their best outing and it was lacking.The Splinter cell dream is exactly that and POP was easily forgotten and rather bland at best.A "review" site gives a review and is condemned nonetheless by the rabid faithful.Perhaps he enjoyed it as much as I personally enjoyed AC1?

[jerethdagryphon]

remember ubisoft is an umbrella corporation and has different offices that really are different company

romania made hawx which was not bad but flawed

montreal made prince of persia sands of time which was nearly perfect in lots of peoples books

theres a few others dotted around

assassins creed was a new ip and the first was not bad yes it was repetitive but in a very basic way all games are by nature

in modern warfare do you or do you not do the same thing over and over and over again,
over different maps and with different weapons. if you answer no then your lying to yourself

all games are repetitive.

creed 1 was a semi sandbox world with a linear main quest it gave more freedom then you think
yes the mini missions before assassinations were annoying and repeitive but the core idea was there

a pop movement style game with free flow combat in a open world.

creed 2 removes those required mini missions to let you get on with the killing

its story driven plot so yes it will be linear

is it perfect no
is it good hell yes

[Silly Mammo]

My God! When has it been news to blog about someone else's blog?!?

[solidjun5]

"Also, butthurt Assassin's Creed 2 fanboys need to stop polluting my lovely review of the better game."

As poindat pointed out, This is as professional as you can get. HA

[Bathyj]

For starters, I like both these games. I am an AC fan. But..

for all the hype about how this is changed and that was added I am happy if someone is pointing out that everything people found boring and repetitive about part 1 is still intact for part 2.

Serious they have a point about everyone glossing over the faults in this game. Nothing much has really changed, substance wise. All the changes are pretty superficial and dont really effect the gameplay much at all. Seems the hyper train has taken over this game just like the first and no one has a bad thing to say about it, so in a way I'm glad this was brought up.

Having said that, this guy is a jerk, obvisouly. A 4.5? Really? The game has its faults. Its still repetitve, and like all open world games and even FPS, mission involve pretty much going from A to B and killing the guy you find there. And boy is it piss easy. Did anyone find it hard at all? I like to sneak, but if you cant be bothered its no problem to take on 15 guys and kill them all. Its even easier bare handed so you kill them with their own weapons.

But I still like the game. The graphics are great, the size of the world and draw distance is quite amazing. I like jumping people from above, or taking on a group of 4 killing 2 instantly and then the other 2 before they've had time to react. Its nice to pull that off without having to pull your sword. And boy do I like pushing those FKN minstrals to the ground.

The bottomline is a review scord is NOT an opinion, no more than a speedometer is an opinion of the speed your car is doing. Its supposed to be an accurate reflection of the quality of a game, even if its not your sort of game. You're personaly preconseptions should be left out of unless they actually effect the gameplay.

I have absolutely no interest in Gridiron. I think its a stupid game, and I'd rather watch lawn bowls (which is a brilliant game BTW) than spend a sunday watching your so called "football".
But if I was called upon to review Madden, even though I'm not the most suited person for the job, I would leave my distain for the sport out of it and judge the product on its own merits. Anyone can tell a lot goes into a Madden game, the graphic, animations are always top notch and from what I read are generally A grade games. I would not come along with my own gripes and give it a 5 and expect to be though of as professional. No game with such high production values deserves under an 8 unless there are actually gamebreaking flaws that stop the enjoyment factor. If the quality is apparent then you need to justify a low score with more than "Its just not my cup of tea."

Personally I would give AC2 about an 8.5. Its not quite top shelf to me and doesnt deserve a 9, but it was a lot of fun and technically high quality, so a 4.5 is just ridiculous. 4.5 is abroken, unplayable game. AC2 is not.

Website need to start realising their responsibity to the consumers and not lead them so blatanly astray from the real numetrical value of the quality of a game. Its not like we wont find out the true story somewhere else and they are only hurting there own credibility, which destructoid has none in me eyes. How can I trust a review of a game when he's so off the mark on this one.

[Captain Tuttle]

Good post man.

[DigitalAnalog]

But I never gave any serious thoughts to their reviews, and it's not a worthy site even for trolling.

-End Statement

[Demon5500]

This game I found to be more enjoyable then uncharted 2, And yes I finished both the 360/ps3 version due too work?, Xbox360 was better, but there was not that much difference in the end, clearly this reviewer, has not grasped the amazing story and were the franchise is heading, My only complainant was the screen tearing, and the controls could have been tuned a bit more, And the twist at the end blew my mind kind of in the MGS4 way, well worth the purchase on any console. Cant wait for the next:)

[Tex117]

I kinda agree with the review score, but would not have gone so low with it.

Maybe a 7.

This game is such a cool concept, but in the end, I just don't have that much fun playing it. Of the games I bought this year.

Demon's Souls
Uncharted 2
Dragon Age
ACII.

This game is far and away dead last.