AC2 was such a huge improvement, that in retrospect, it's actually shocking. It's like going from Far Cry 2 to Far Cry 3.
I'd definitely be interested in playing them again. This trilogy really was the spiritual successor to the Prince Of Persia games (particularly evident when you would go underground into the tombs). Each individual tower was a little, fun puzzle. I never played Revelations properly and I'm very nostalgic for the soundtrack (mostly the main theme) in the Ezio games, so if done well, I'm in.
Wow, that would be mad.
This looks pretty unique.
This hasn't actually been confirmed by Ubsoft, and I wasn't able to find any new information in this article. It's quite misleading.
Wholeheartedly agree. If this article was questioning how thorough a review should be for a game that has no effective ending, like a multiplayer game or a procedurally generated game, it could be an interesting discussion (the guidelines would naturally be a bit more murky), but this just seems like an excuse/pathway to laziness.
I know, it reeks of laziness. If you're not properly informed, you can't conduct an accurate, trustworthy review
You are correct in saying that for MP games, procedurally generated games, fighting games, amongst others, the standards would have to be different or altered to fit. However, the gist of what I was saying still stands. The main point that I'm trying to make, is that you have to be thorough, engage with and get the full intended experience of a game for a review to hold weight. For the examples you brought up, I would emphasize that you try all or a large amount of the characters, modes, ...
If you're just putting a rudimentary to relatively detailed opinion of a game out there (as in, you're just getting a basic feel for it), then no. That is merely an impression of a game.
However, if you're conducting an official review for a game, then yes. If the second half of a game is wildly better than the first half with better or newly introduced mechanics, features, level design, action, puzzles, etc, and that is not noted in your review, it is essential...
Couldn't have said it better myself. Some people in the comment section here are deluded.
Yeah, but he's commenting on the absurdity of what this developer is saying, and the only way he can do that is through comparisons to the "smooth visuals".
This looks like it has a lot of personality. The 80s music just sort of seals the deal.
lol, that was hilarious. This looks like it's going to be a very memorable DLC, as long as it at least has an adequate amount of content.
Yes! This is really good to hear. I was pleasantly surprised by Blacklist. It was far better than Conviction, and an all-around, great game.
I thought Splinter Cell: Blacklist was a HUGE step in the right direction. The stealth was once again well executed and really good.
Agreed. I've been saying this a lot lately as well.
People don't like buying things at that price up front though, especially if they don't know if they'll like it. It should be $7.99 per month.
It is an amazing technical achievement, but it needs to be repackaged and sold as a cheaper, Netflix-style service (for all Smart TVs as well).
These guys do publish a lot of quality titles.
It's not that Halo 4 was a bad game per se. It is actually good game. The heart of the issue is that it got a lot of things wrong, from a purist and fan perspective (besides the story, that was a step up). Halo 5 going out of its way to address many of these issues, backs this narrative up.