Gamers
Assassin's Creed for PC gets very good ratings - not always though
Assassin's Creed for PC gets very good ratings - not always though
Last updated on April 9, 2008 - 18:22.
Many PC users have been waiting for it, now it will be availible soon. But it seems that not everybody thinks that Assassin's Creed is the great game everybody was expecting, good yes, but not great.
On Wikipedia you see the ratings the game got. There are many top ratings, but there are 7/10s as well. It is criticized that the game would repeat itself and many areas are rather unimportant for the game. If this is true can be found out in a few days.
— 
—
Last updated on April 9, 2008 - 18:22
28 points
Story Tags
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Technorati
Do you want to do more than just read news or articles about games? Then join the GamersGlobal community today and grow from "User" to "Editor"! Together with our professional journalists, you'll be part of an accurate, high-quality, up-to-date gaming website. It's easy, it's free, it's fun -- so join us now to:
Vote
Publish
Co-op
Level
Advertisment_Rightbar_Standard
User created content, unless stated otherwise, is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Germany License. All other copyrights remain with their respective owners.
Well, I also preordered the game, but I totally agree, the game looks great and jumping from rooftop to rooftop is a lot of fun, but if it wouldn't look quite as good, it would only get mediocre ratings.
The Gameplay mechanics are from the mid-ninties, and after about 1-2 hours into the game you have seen every mechanic there is to see, there are no new movements, no new weapons or any other stuff later in the game, it's just another 10-15 hours more of the same.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the game, I will enjoy it too, it just isn't a revelation and a 7/10 rating is a good score in my eyes.
Really? I've got the impression, that nowadays anything below a high 80 or even a 90 is not worth playing. I'm not talking about German print magazines, mind you, but about the situation in general.
well, maybe I think to much about my really old Power Play magazines, or maybe it has something to do that I don't agree with those scores in magazines a lot of times.
The way I see it, a game around 50% is still doing 50% right and could be worth playing. But you're right, everything is literally over-rated these days, Games that aren't finished and are unbalanced as hell get scores in the 70's, or even 80's.
I also think that games are generally over-rated these days which is why I find it very interesting to delve into the depths of UK print magazines at the moment. PC Gamer UK for example have a strange way to rate games and I rarely agree with them (the gave Spellforce 2 a percentage of 51. WTF?) but when a game disappoints them then they also give a really shattering rating for it. At least this is the impression I have after having read about five to six issues in the last seven months.
And as much as I like GameStar, which for me is still and always has been by far the best pc games print magazine in Germany (and I am not only writing this because Jörg is watching): They have just released a review of "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty" on their website, and when you read it you will only find absolutely devastating words for the game. And then you see the rating: 51%. But why? It reads like it would have to be 20%.
Hey, dear pc games magazines: You have every right to give a damn crap game a damn crap rating. Please. Thank you.
Some games get really good rates, but get boring after a month, some are really good even after 10 years, Starcraft for example, and get less than other games. The people testing these games don't know everything, they just write down what they think about it at that moment, and what they expect the game to be like in a few months. And it is totally possible that they get things wrong.
But I don't see a tendency to give better rates than 10 years ago. But I see a tendency to be disappointed because I have seen all this before somewhere...
;)
You should always use permanent wiki links when using wikipedia as reference.
Right now it would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed&oldid=20426... but there already could be changes to the version you read ;)
you're right, didn't think about that, but it's very true. thanks
will keep that in mind as well, it's good advice, never though about that before.