The lack of Assassin's Creed 3 reviews isn't a good sign.

#101 Posted by verbalmedal (57 posts) -

Right now it has 85 average.

#102 Posted by Fruitcocoa (596 posts) -

The only thing with Assassin's Creed III is that it's horribly ugly. I'm judging the game from yesterdays livestream. I went onto the Red Dead Redemption quick look and it seems more fun and much more beautiful, and also - no loadscreens.

#103 Posted by OrwellHuxZam (151 posts) -

@Foozlekiller: G4 gave it a 5/5; and most other sources I've found say it's great.

#104 Posted by haggis (1674 posts) -

@Jumbs said:

@haggis said:

At the moment, only 3 of 32 reviews on Metacritic are mixed. The rest are positive. So what's the problem again?

And I'm amused by this idea of reading reviews after you've purchased a game to make sure you've spent your money well. On what other purchases do you go looking for other people to tell you if you're happy? This thread is full of some of the craziest things I've ever read from gamers. I honestly don't get it. I don't eat at a restaurant and then read reviews to see if I liked the food.

Game devs have their problems, but I'm starting to think that the gaming community itself has a long list of problems that it isn't even aware of.

This thread is full of people who think ign/destructoid/joystiq are reputable sources of opinion and information. Of course they're crazy.

Good point.

#105 Posted by algertman (871 posts) -

@ShinjiEx said:

Assassins Creed III is the best video game of the year.

There is your review ^__^

Nope. Those are the Halo 4 reviews.

#106 Posted by Foozlekiller (10 posts) -

@MrOldboy said:

Its all about expectations. Even reviewers get caught up in hype sometimes. Sometimes they are so excited for a game based on the coverage they've provided during development that they cant help but think the game is great. Sometimes they expect so much and the slight flaws drag a score down a ton in relation to those same types of flaws in other reviews.

Scores are still important though, they still drive sales. They get people paid. Whether we like it or not, they are important to the industry. The most important thing they might do for the more enthusiast crowd is validation. This thread was created because of this. We want validation that what we like is actually great and what we hate is actually bad. That's why these reviews exist, we already know if we are probably going to buy a game, we just need that extra push at the end to validate that preorder we made.

I'll admit I also do this. I preordered Forza Horizon, I bought Dishonored and Xcom. I knew I would before any reviews came out. I still check the reviews, metacritic, etc to make sure that I spent my money well, at least how I define well.

Found the article about the power of reviews and metacritic:

"Reviews are powerful things, and perhaps, from a purely business perspective, bonuses based on Metacritic scores are more rational than we thought. When a high score has this much power to shape the sales and success of games, why not reward teams that can deliver high scores, which are shown to lead to higher sales? It’s a cynical point of view, but the numbers speak for themselves. When reviewers sit down to craft that number, they’re wielding an incredible amount of power."

The reason I made the (accurate) prediction in the first place had a lot to do with the $$$ side of things. Review scores matter. As PA points out, they wield an incredible amount of power. If I were a Developer/Publisher AND if I were concerned about the quality of my game it seems reasonable to assume that I would want to make an embargo last as long as possible. If I were confident in my game, I would want to lift it ASAP for publicity sake. That was my main point. I guess I sounded like a Troll. Meh.

And sometimes bugs and glitches don't kill review scores: Skyrim = 96 (

It's all about the money. I am not saying basing purchases on review scores is right or wrong... It is just a fact that most people have limited resources ($ and time) and don't want to waste it on "bad" game when there could be another game they feel is more valuable out there.

And let's be honest. Before dropping $60, you want to make sure it won't be another Atari E.T. =)

#107 Edited by BigBoss1911 (2689 posts) -

@ripelivejam said:

i guess it's not the revolution some thought it would be...

Loading Video...
#108 Posted by algertman (871 posts) -

@BestUsernameEver said:

It's sad when a lot of gamers think 80 is merely good. Wrong, 70 is good, 80 is great, 90 is superb, and 100 is perfect.

Nobody grades like that.

90-100 - GREAT

80-89 - AVERAGE


#109 Posted by BestUsernameEver (5026 posts) -

@algertman said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

It's sad when a lot of gamers think 80 is merely good. Wrong, 70 is good, 80 is great, 90 is superb, and 100 is perfect.

Nobody grades like that.

90-100 - GREAT

80-89 - AVERAGE


Tru dat.

#110 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -

It's a shame that the good parts of this game are buried along with the terrible AI and awful combat. I don't know why reviewers aren't picking up on these things more.

Even the Yakuza games (such as 3, 2008) manage to make the 5v1 combat scenarios work better than Assassins Creed.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.