Where is the review?

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by planetary (350 posts) -

Did I miss something? Alex reviewed the Vita game, but the franchise installment didn't get a proper review?

Bombcast this week seemed to indicate that Ryan was playing/had played it?

#2 Posted by Cheesebob (1243 posts) -

Ryan only finished it on thursday. I'm thinking Monday for review if there ever is one.

#3 Posted by Mister_V (1375 posts) -

Ryan is doing it. He likes to take his time with reviews.

#4 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

#5 Posted by BigDaddy81 (330 posts) -

@Mister_V said:

Ryan is doing it. He likes to take his time with reviews.

Best way to do a review in my opinion.

#6 Posted by LiquidPrince (16009 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

My bet is on this.

#7 Posted by Ares42 (2729 posts) -

@BigDaddy81 said:

@Mister_V said:

Ryan is doing it. He likes to take his time with reviews.

Best way to do a review in my opinion.

Except that by the time the review is out people (who are smart enough to not put all their faith in a single review) have already made up their mind based on other reviews. While there certainly is something to making sure it's done right, it's also quite important to remain relevant.

#8 Posted by Solh0und (1799 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

I'm also guessing this. He said on the bombcast( I didn't watch the quick look for spoiler purposes) there was a little jank in the game but nothing gamebreaking.

#9 Posted by huntad (1955 posts) -

@Ares42 said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

@Mister_V said:

Ryan is doing it. He likes to take his time with reviews.

Best way to do a review in my opinion.

Except that by the time the review is out people (who are smart enough to not put all their faith in a single review) have already made up their mind based on other reviews. While there certainly is something to making sure it's done right, it's also quite important to remain relevant.

I agree. I think last week was the most important week for that review. It loses a lot of it's importance after the fact. I'm not complaining, because I already have the game, as I'm merely pointing out what I think. It's a balance between getting it out on time, and making sure the review is thorough. Oh well, I usually like Ryans reviews anyways.

#10 Posted by laserbolts (5331 posts) -

It's unfortunate it's not up when it should be. I never use giantbomb reviews as any sort of buying advice anyway so its not a big deal to me that Ryan is slacking. Still curious to see if he lets the bugginess of this game get to him.

#11 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -
@laserbolts
It's unfortunate it's not up when it should be. I never use giantbomb reviews as any sort of buying advice anyway so its not a big deal to me that Ryan is slacking. Still curious to see if he lets the bugginess of this game get to him.
Ryan's reviews are well written so saying that he's slacking is the wrong thing to say. He's late but it'll be done soon.
#12 Posted by Baillie (4245 posts) -

By the time Ryan's review is out, it won't matter to anyone. If anyone was anticipating on getting it, they already have. If anyone was on the fence, then they have already made a decision due to other outlets and the general reception from the gaming community.

I barely read reviews as it is, but I don't see the point when I have already heard all I need to know by checking out the forums here.

#14 Posted by MiniPato (2743 posts) -

He burned it after after that twitter thing.

#15 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

Haven't tried the single player yet but as "Someone Who Knows" (TM) the multiplayer maps are easily the best batch so far; there are 3 (out of 7) maps with no roofs at all, which is fantastic for limiting the most dickish players (as well as the general morons) and 3 of the other maps aren't dominated by roofs either. The final map, Animus Village, is a bit too large but the roofs only dominate sections of the battlefield as opposed to the whole thing a la Galata, Ippokratous, and Antioch in Revelations. No single map is as good as Castel Gandolfo but they're all at least above average and there aren't any huge clunkers that make you want to quit immediately depending on the mode.

In terms of Deathmatch every map seems quite playable though a bit slower paced outside of Brewery and Fort Wolcott. Wolcott is the only particularly bad map here as it is too small and too open for a full 8 players (which I guess is a bit rare at present, but nevertheless) so you'll wind up having too much bumrushing. Brewery is easily the best DM map for either game and just generally flawless, a very small two story room with tons of blind corners, positioning, and various hidden locations; superb. The Animus Village DM is essentially the Ippokratous DM map which was excellent, but with a little more variety and less restrictive movement.

Note: Playing the game purely as stealth or slow moving still isn't a great way to play, you need to have a nice mixture and a comprehensive knowledge of what each of the other players are doing at all times to succeed admirably. The Assassinate player-base is still dreadful so you'll probably want to stick to Wanted for the most part, and this is easily the best game for Wanted out of the three.

@MiniPato: That will probably only have an impact on his opinion of the multiplayer. However GB gave Revelations "Multiplayer of the Year" or whatever it was called last year, AC3 is that but with better maps and a few small tweaks that improve the already fantastic systems. I wish the playerbase was more cohesive and creative but you can't blame the developers for that.

#16 Posted by Laurentech (127 posts) -

@Baillie said:

By the time Ryan's review is out, it won't matter to anyone. If anyone was anticipating on getting it, they already have. If anyone was on the fence, then they have already made a decision due to other outlets and the general reception from the gaming community.

I barely read reviews as it is, but I don't see the point when I have already heard all I need to know by checking out the forums here.

Indeed. I don't use reviews. If I did, Giant Bomb would not be my ideal source. The reviews are often well past release, and there are a lot of major games they simply don't cover. Not that they can't write reviews (they certainly can), but there is something to be said for relevancy.

#17 Posted by planetary (350 posts) -

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

#18 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out. 
#19 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1438 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

You're probably right, but I hope they are 3.

#20 Posted by jgf (393 posts) -

I don't mind somewhat late reviews, as I almost never buy on day 1. I buy games when the price drops to about 30-40 euros, which is basically after 2-3 months and I don't think I'm the only one. I add possible purchase candidates on my amazon wish list to keep an eye on price drops. And for those games I buy day 1, I don't need a review anyway. So I'm in favor of thorough reviews.

#21 Posted by DelroyLindo (387 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out.

That response makes no sense

#22 Edited by mutha3 (4986 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man said:

@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out. 
Your post is shitty and you should feel bad for writing it. If you've heard the bombcast this week, you'd notice that Jeff has aired some concerns about whether reviews are still relevant for the GB audience. Its a fair point.
#23 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@DelroyLindo said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out.

That response makes no sense

Someone needs to invent Sarcasm quotes.  
 
I mean to say that he should try to write a review wile dealing with all the other crap the guys have to deal with. 
#24 Posted by fetchfox (1289 posts) -

@Baillie: Well no, PC here... still almost three weeks till release. Sucks.

#25 Posted by Mister_V (1375 posts) -

Between quicklooks, The bombcast, TNT and other stuff you can get a good sense of what the GB guys think of a game even without the review, If you want to know what Ryan thinks of AC3 listen to the podcast and watch the quick look and TNT.

#26 Posted by Morrow (1829 posts) -

@jgf said:

I don't mind somewhat late reviews, as I almost never buy on day 1. I buy games when the price drops to about 30-40 euros, which is basically after 2-3 months and I don't think I'm the only one. I add possible purchase candidates on my amazon wish list to keep an eye on price drops. And for those games I buy day 1, I don't need a review anyway. So I'm in favor of thorough reviews.

Same here. Day 1 purchases are a rare occasion for me as well. And AC III will surely get a platinum version release anyway.

#27 Posted by DrDarkStryfe (1140 posts) -

Quick Looks are becoming the bigger priority than reviews. The only reason a Halo 4 QL hasn't gone up before the review is because of Microsoft wants no campaign video before launch.

#28 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

This series is overdue a scathing review because the AI and combat have been bad throughout. It's a shame we can't mix and match the mechanics of games.

#29 Posted by Brendan (7843 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@DelroyLindo said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out.

That response makes no sense

Someone needs to invent Sarcasm quotes. I mean to say that he should try to write a review wile dealing with all the other crap the guys have to deal with.

That doesn't explain the second part of your post, and even if it did your post was still unnecessarily combative. He said something absolutely true, and not even in a dickish way. I usually dislike the word "white knight" but you deserve that title with that post.

#30 Posted by Trav (241 posts) -

@Mister_V said:

Between quicklooks, The bombcast, TNT and other stuff you can get a good sense of what the GB guys think of a game even without the review, If you want to know what Ryan thinks of AC3 listen to the podcast and watch the quick look and TNT.

I agree with this. That spoiler alert kinda left me out to dry on the quicklook though. I didn't want to watch it for that reason, so I'm not really sure of Ryan's take on the game. A sanitized review would fill that gap. There are a number of other outlets where I can get that though, so it's not a big deal.

#31 Edited by DjCmeP (1148 posts) -

Come on, guys. Who actually comes to this site for reviews?

#32 Edited by murisan (1119 posts) -

I was a big advocate for this game, but I just got to Sequence 7, and god fucking damn does the game get buggier and buggier. Also, the last sequence I did involved possibly the most annoying "escort" mission I've ever played.

I'd give it a 3/5, and I hope that's what it gets, because that's honestly all it deserves. Ubisoft hasn't learned anything about pacing, if anything they've become more devious with dragging missions out unnecessarily.

If I had to wager a guess as to why the review isn't done, it would be that Ryan is slogging through these drawn out missions that seem to get more and more elongated as the game progresses.

#33 Posted by Winternet (8025 posts) -

Do reviews matter anymore? If you're looking for a buying advice doesn't a metacritic number suffice? If you're looking for a certain opinion from someone, then the review being out this week or the next isn't really an issue. Also, you can already have a taste of that opinion from other sources (Quick-Look, Bombcast, . . .).

#34 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -
@laserbolts
It's unfortunate it's not up when it should be. I never use giantbomb reviews as any sort of buying advice anyway so its not a big deal to me that Ryan is slacking. Still curious to see if he lets the bugginess of this game get to him.
Should be? Go fuck yourself. They didn't get a review copy and they've said before they aren't chasing day 1 reviews.
#35 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

@planetary said:

Did I miss something? Alex reviewed the Vita game, but the franchise installment didn't get a proper review?

Bombcast this week seemed to indicate that Ryan was playing/had played it?

Writing for a job sometimes takes longer then expected. I have to write a lot for my job and I occasionally get stuck and have a hard time finishing psych assessments even though I have a deadline. Sometimes some things are just harder to write then others.

#36 Edited by Peanut (954 posts) -

Giant Bomb reviews are entirely irrelevant and, quite frankly, below the quality of the rest of the sites content. I'm not saying they're poorly written, but they're devoid of any real entertainment value and they're never a very good jumping off point for discussion, so what's the purpose? Everything you need to know about games that get covered come from the podcast and QL's, both of which provide a much better insight into the way they feel about games than a written review does and do so in a much more entertaining way.

#37 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3906 posts) -

It's a shame the guys can be so late with reviews sometimes cause they've written some really good ones. Ryan is the perfect dude to review this game too as I've said in another thread cause he loves the series but will say when a game isn't good like he did with Revelations. Kinda loses relevance after a week but I'll still enjoy reading it.

#38 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@planetary said:

Did I miss something? Alex reviewed the Vita game, but the franchise installment didn't get a proper review?

Bombcast this week seemed to indicate that Ryan was playing/had played it?

Writing for a job sometimes takes longer then expected. I have to write a lot for my job and I occasionally get stuck and have a hard time finishing psych assessments even though I have a deadline. Sometimes some things are just harder to write then others.

I think it's a bit sloppy for something as lax as a video game review, it's not like Ryan reviews games often either, I think the multiplayer issues could be what is holding it up though. (maybe? didn't stop the others)

#39 Edited by impartialgecko (1628 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

Haven't tried the single player yet

You what?

#40 Edited by Ares42 (2729 posts) -

@Winternet: Yes, reviews still matter, and no a metacritic number isn't enough. I was actually pretty set on not falling for my annual AC mistake yet again but after reading some suprisingly positive reviews (from sources I trust) I decided to give it another shot, and I'm glad I did. There are several games I've bought and enjoyed this year purely because of reviews, and over the last few years I've also learned that I should've listened more closely to reviews when they said games aren't great.

Having that said though, GB reviews are rarely a major deciding factor for me, QLs tend to give a better picture. But considering I usually use at least 3-5 sources, watching 3-5 different QLs would've been too much.

#41 Posted by dudeglove (8015 posts) -

@MiniPato said:

He burned it after after that twitter thing.

Can someone explain?

Online
#42 Posted by Bocam (3785 posts) -

I'm still waiting for that Red Dead review

#43 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@dudeglove said:

@MiniPato said:

He burned it after after that twitter thing.

Can someone explain?

I think he's referring to this little gem.

#44 Posted by spankingaddict (2705 posts) -

Lazy ass Ryan don't care .

#45 Edited by laserbolts (5331 posts) -

@Leptok said:

@laserbolts
It's unfortunate it's not up when it should be. I never use giantbomb reviews as any sort of buying advice anyway so its not a big deal to me that Ryan is slacking. Still curious to see if he lets the bugginess of this game get to him.


Should be? Go fuck yourself. They didn't get a review copy and they've said before they aren't chasing day 1 reviews.

Calm down there buddy. Reviews should go up when the game is released. That is when most people are looking for purchasing advice. Im sure most have either looked elsewhere for a review or dont care about reviews anyways. Not to mention the hits the site could get from metacritic if it was up when everyone flocks there at release. Pry yourself off his dick for a second and relax.

#46 Posted by Petiew (1353 posts) -

I enjoy the reviews, I've started to get bored of the majority of quick looks 10-15 minutes in and turn them off soon after. Reviews are just the right length for me. 

Sometimes I just want to hear what the guy who sat down and played a game for 30+ hours really thinks of it in a succint manner. Not what Brad read on popular video game site Neogaf, an interesting history of the development from Patrick, how Jeff hasn't touched the series but dislikes it, or even how Vinny plans to break the game. Quick looks don't always give a great representation either.
 
Reviews are easy to read and you don't need to sit or skip through a ton of other content to get to them. I really hope the guys keep doing them and I think they're definitely still relevant.

#47 Posted by NTM (7479 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@DelroyLindo said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@planetary said:

If the crew really thinks reviews-as-purchasing-advice are an important part of the site, they should get them done on time. If not, then don't bother with them and invest resources elsewhere.

Go for it. Have fun on your way out.

That response makes no sense

Someone needs to invent Sarcasm quotes. I mean to say that he should try to write a review wile dealing with all the other crap the guys have to deal with.

Yeah, that didn't really seem like "sarcasm". Your comment seemed like the typical "If you don't like it, get the fuck out."

#48 Edited by Yummylee (22056 posts) -

@Petiew said:

I enjoy the reviews, I've started to get bored of the majority of quick looks 10-15 minutes in and turn them off soon after. Reviews are just the right length for me. Sometimes I just want to hear what the guy who sat down and played a game for 30+ hours really thinks of it in a succint manner. Not what Brad read on popular video game site Neogaf, an interesting history of the development from Patrick, how Jeff hasn't touched the series but dislikes it, or even how Vinny plans to break the game. Quick looks don't always give a great representation either. Reviews are easy to read and you don't need to sit or skip through a ton of other content to get to them. I really hope the guys keep doing them and I think they're definitely still relevant.

I agree with this completely. I watch a lot of quick looks as well mind you, but I also enjoy reading reviews because they offer a concise and accessible venue (if I want to remind myself what so and so thinks of such and such, I'm not exactly gonna scour through all of the bombcasts) into what a particular staff member thought of this game. Plus they're all talented writers at that, so regardless of whether it's for the sake of purchasing advice or not, I still enjoy giving them a read. I have no interest in buying Halo 4, but I read Jeff's review anywhoo because I'm still curious in finding out his thoughts about it. Plus they don't usually go to the same length of detail about a game during a bombcast discussion as they may for a review.

Quick looks are also primarily here for entertainment value, and since the staff are usually heading in cold, you're hardly getting a clear viewpoint on just what they think about it. Plus there's examples like the I Am Alive QL where Brad was pretty optimistic, but then the review came along with a 2 star slapped on there. Most importantly, though, is that while you can hear what they think of a game to some degree on QL's, bombcasts, even the TNT's - that's the problem. It's all so scattershot, and their reviews give a decent summary of their overall thoughts about a game.

#49 Posted by Dredlockz (346 posts) -

@Joeybagad0nutz said:

@Fredchuckdave said:

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

You're probably right, but I hope they are 3.

I'd give it a 3, too.

Definitely not the strongest in the series, lots of jank.

#50 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1438 posts) -

@Dredlockz said:

@Joeybagad0nutz said:

@Fredchuckdave said:

The stars will be 4, if that's what you're wondering.

You're probably right, but I hope they are 3.

I'd give it a 3, too.

Definitely not the strongest in the series, lots of jank.

It's gameplay and setting is done incredibly well, but the story just failed so hard that I personally couldn't give it anything better then a 3. And I hope Ryan expresses how downhill the story went with this game instead of being like other companies (ign, and a couple of other reviewers) who are giving the game 90's and praising the story when it is so obvious how bad and how hard they retcon the game from the other one in the series, also how bland Connor really is. Yes, we get it, he is naive, but that never changes. He is so one tracked minded in that game it is ridiculous. Not even taking brotherhood and revelations into account, you witness ezio character changed so much in 2, where as in the beginning of the game he was brutally murdering the man who executed his family and disgrace Veiri corpse after he killed him and by the end of the game he couldn't bring himself to kill the man he was trying to kill all along because he was tired and it would serve no purpose because Rodrigo was beaten and was never gonna recover from that beating.

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.