• 143 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by MangyForestCat (75 posts) -

I love the alternate reality that the entire Bombcast takes place in.

You know, that alternate reality where the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.

Where Fable 3 is the most dissappointing game of 2010.

These two are but the most recent examples of the crazy reality that these guys live in. It's amazing to me that they do not connect the dots between their opinions of these and other games, and the fact that they are in a unique position (by way of their chosen profession) to experience things that the average consumer and video game enthusiast does not.

#2 Posted by FunExplosions (5407 posts) -

Pretty much everyone that isn't a frat bro or old man disagrees with you.

#3 Posted by MatPaget (1115 posts) -
@MangyForestCat said:
 

 the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.


It was
#4 Posted by Milkman (16664 posts) -

SICK BURN! YOU REALLY SHOWED THEM, BRO! 

#5 Posted by Cornman89 (1579 posts) -

 Why not just say you disagree?

#6 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

  

#7 Posted by zymase (158 posts) -
@MatPaget said:
" @MangyForestCat said:
 

 the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.


It was "
Yeah, play it again.  For the Desmond parts.
#8 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

I don't think either AC is that great, but I did beat AC2 and never actually got past the first two assassination missions in AC; game is MAD BORING DOG.
 
and I was playing the PC version as well (not of AC2, fuck that)

#9 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

YEAH FUCK THEM FOR HAVING OPINIONS! BURN THE INFIDELS!

#10 Posted by President_Barackbar (3455 posts) -
@MatPaget said:
" @MangyForestCat said:
 

 the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.


It was "
No shit, doing the same missions OVER AND OVER AGAIN got old REAL FAST. Not to mention I think I have every citizen's thank you response memorized because they were ALWAYS THE SAME LINES!
#11 Posted by JJWeatherman (14558 posts) -
@Cornman89 said:

"  Why not just say you disagree? "

Yes. Say it to yourself though. In your head.    
#12 Posted by HatKing (5886 posts) -

Assassin's Creed was rife with bad design decisions.  Time has only put a magnifying glass to those errors.  I can't imagine that game is even remotely playable today.  However I would say Assassin's Creed 2 is one of the most improved sequels of all time.  While I couldn't even push myself to finish the first Assassin's Creed I 100%'d II and damn near 100%'d Brotherhood. 
 
Fable 3 is sort of an inverted story to the Assassin's Creeds.  The first two Fable games, while not living up to their impossibly high expectations, were both downright great and then they tripped up on the third.  They were a vehicle for an effective morality simulator.  You made decisions, fun ones, and built skills that would eventually create a character in your own, fantasy, image.  Fable 3 decided to put those ideas on the back burner and instead focus on story.  The problem was story has never been a strong suit of the Fable games, or even Lionhead studios.  So Fable 3 basically became a game with a few interesting characters, annoying decision making, and character building that hardly reflected in your character's appearance.   
 
Personally I don't hate Fable 3 as much as the crew did, but I, fortunately, knew the big decision at the end and prepared for it.  Had I not I probably would have hated the game.
#13 Posted by Daveyo520 (6682 posts) -

You know that it is just their opinion, right?
 
I am always annoyed by the topics that are made by people who have left the default icon on. Almost as if they don't even care about contributing to the site in a good way.

#14 Posted by Aegon (5496 posts) -


#15 Posted by beej (1674 posts) -

I agree with them about assassins creed. I hated that game (maybe it only sucked on PC, but some of the issues seemed like design rather than just a poorly realized port) 

#16 Posted by MangyForestCat (75 posts) -
@HatKing:
I played through the entirety of the original Assassin's Creed again after playing through Assassin's Creed 2. It is not unplayable. A game made in 2007 by Ubisoft Montreal as their premiere holiday title is not a game that you "can't imagine that game is even remotely playable today." Maybe if this was the future of 2020 when we all play games that are downloaded to our eyelids (the superior platform) then that might be true. 

I am not arguing that the first Assassin's Creed is better the Assassin's Creed 2. I agree that the Assassin's Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood are both superior games. I'm saying that the crew lives in a crazy upside down reality where the first Assassin's Creed is a busted game that a person suffers through from start to finish.
#17 Posted by WarlordPayne (700 posts) -

I can't comment on Fable 3 since I haven't played it, but I played Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 for the first time, and back to back, about 4 or 5 months ago. 
 
Assassin's Creed 1 is fucking terrible.  I don't know how that game sold well enough to earn a sequel with how poorly made it was.  I'm glad it did, though, because AC2 was actually a really good game.  I agree with HatKing that it's one of the most improved sequels I've ever seen, if not the most.  It feels like AC1 was an internal test build or something just to make sure the mechanics worked and AC2 was them putting those mechanics into an actual game.

#18 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -
@MangyForestCat said:
" @HatKing: I'm saying that the crew lives in a crazy upside down reality where the first Assassin's Creed is a busted game that a person suffers through from start to finish. "
Which is exactly the experience I had with that game. 
 
Can't comment on Fable 3 since I have yet to play it.
#19 Posted by Deusoma (3005 posts) -

Someday, people are going to realize that there is such a thing as an incorrect opinion. Hopefully, that will do away with the knee-jerk reactions I always see to threads even remotely like this one, and lead to actual discussion of whether or not the opinions in question have merit. That would be nice. :)

#20 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4395 posts) -

Looks like I'm part of that alternate reality too then. I didn't care for AC then and I'd sooner shoot myself than play it now. Fable is always disappointing. It's never bad by any standards, but there's always so much promise within each game and they always fail to deliver exactly what they promise. Fable 3 just so happens to be more disappointing than any of it's older siblings.
 
And disappointing does not mean bad. Disappointing means exactly what I just said above. They promise things that they can never live up to.

#21 Posted by Ksaw (343 posts) -

 Assassin's Creed came out almost 4 years ago. At the time the game looked amazing, the cities were huge and incredibly detailed and all of the traversal abilities and slick looking animations were pretty compelling. It was also incredibly repetitive and sort of shallow on some ends. I don't think anyone was saying that the game was terrible, but that the improvements featured in the sequels were so great that they served to highlight the faults of the original. I can see how someone like Brad, who is fully aware of the improvements made to later installments in the series, would find it tiresome to play his way through the less refined original for the sole purpose of  fully grasping the story elements.    

#22 Posted by Slaker117 (4838 posts) -

 @MangyForestCat: 
Dude, I love the first Assassin's Creed. I spent countless hours playing and getting every damn achievement in it. That game has so many god damn problems. Parts of it just feel broken, others are poorly designed. Doing the same boring ass side missions every city was stupid, the guard detection was unfair, fighting was slow and tedious, free running was janky. I could go on. It was a really neat game at it's core, but you had to suffer through so much to get to the cool parts.
 
The Fable series has always been underwhelming to me. I can't speak to Fable 3 as I never played it, but that's because I got burned before. A lot of the decisions on the interface sounded poorly conceived and annoying. I would have been more surprised if it wasn't another disappointment.
 
And when do they ever claim to speak for the average consumer? They are commenting on their own experiences from their unique position. You're right about that. They know that. It's not like they can ajust their opinions though. It's theirs, not yours. Take that for what it's worth.

#23 Posted by zudthespud (3281 posts) -
@MangyForestCat: I agree with the Bombcast on AC. When I first got it I got through the first 5 or 6 assassinations and then spent another 6 months trying to find the motivation to do all of those interrogation missions again. I ground through to the end because I was really interested in the fiction. Now I've seen it I won't ever play  that again, at least not all the way through. 
 
i haven't played Fable 3 but my friend who is a huge fan of the series said it was bad. Seems to be the general consensus. After Fable 2 was so loved it's very disappointing.
#24 Posted by Shirogane (3569 posts) -

Gee, you people are either assholes, or just like to jump hate train, AC was a great game. Though if you go back today, it's pretty horrible. 
 
Probably both of the above is true though. I mean, it is the internets.
#25 Edited by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

Those games aren't that good. Assassin's Creed is incredibly repetitive and Fable 3 is shit.

#26 Posted by Asrahn (552 posts) -
@MangyForestCat said:
" I love the alternate reality that the entire Bombcast takes place in.

You know, that alternate reality where the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.

Where Fable 3 is the most dissappointing game of 2010.

These two are but the most recent examples of the crazy reality that these guys live in. It's amazing to me that they do not connect the dots between their opinions of these and other games, and the fact that they are in a unique position (by way of their chosen profession) to experience things that the average consumer and video game enthusiast does not.

"
Hey, it could have been worse. 
 
They could have been Gametrailers.com employees. 
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though, really. 
 
... except for GT.com employees. Fuck them.
#27 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

They give reasons for why they dislike Fable 3 and why they find AC to be such a slug to get through, I don't see why you have a problem with this.

#28 Edited by Slaker117 (4838 posts) -
@Shirogane:  There are things that AC1 did that are amazing. Those things didn't make it a good game. It was severely flawed and even at release I remember seeing complaints similar to those here. The vastly superior sequels makes it even easier to see it's many failings.
#29 Posted by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -

While I disagree with the GB crew and AC1 is my favourite in the series they are entitled to their own opinion too.
One thing I noticed is that as members of the gaming press they put much more emphasis then for example me on the mehcanics/bugs/usability of a game. Whereas I can easily ignore the "jank" if the underlying game is good.

#30 Posted by Shirogane (3569 posts) -
@Slaker117 said:
"@Shirogane:  There are things that AC1 did that are amazing. Those things didn't make it a good game. It was severely flawed and even at release I remember seeing complaints similar to those here. The vastly superior sequels makes it even easier to see it's many failings. "

The main things with the 'flaws' were that people were expecting something more, i went into the game not hyped up at all. And quite late actually, probably a year or 2 after release. I found it to be great, i had no problems with it whatsoever.
#31 Posted by Khann (2830 posts) -
@MangyForestCat said:
" @HatKing:I played through the entirety of the original Assassin's Creed again after playing through Assassin's Creed 2. It is not unplayable. A game made in 2007 by Ubisoft Montreal as their premiere holiday title is not a game that you "can't imagine that game is even remotely playable today." Maybe if this was the future of 2020 when we all play games that are downloaded to our eyelids (the superior platform) then that might be true. I am not arguing that the first Assassin's Creed is better the Assassin's Creed 2. I agree that the Assassin's Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood are both superior games. I'm saying that the crew lives in a crazy upside down reality where the first Assassin's Creed is a busted game that a person suffers through from start to finish. "
What you need to realise is that the gaming community as a whole lives in a world where if a game isn't brilliant, it's complete unplayable shit. 
#32 Posted by Borodin (416 posts) -
@Shirogane said: 
The main things with the 'flaws' were that people were expecting something more, i went into the game not hyped up at all. And quite late actually, probably a year or 2 after release. I found it to be great, i had no problems with it whatsoever. "
Couldn't disagree more. A game being savagely repetitive to the point where you've seen all the gameplay the game has to offer within 20 minutes, has nothing to do with expectations - that's just a repetitive ass game. Now if you're telling me your standards are really low, then fine, but that doesn't change the fact AC 1 was a very flawed game in many respects, respects which the developers pretty much owned up to.
#33 Posted by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -
@Shirogane said:
" @Slaker117 said:
"@Shirogane:  There are things that AC1 did that are amazing. Those things didn't make it a good game. It was severely flawed and even at release I remember seeing complaints similar to those here. The vastly superior sequels makes it even easier to see it's many failings. "
The main things with the 'flaws' were that people were expecting something more, i went into the game not hyped up at all. And quite late actually, probably a year or 2 after release. I found it to be great, i had no problems with it whatsoever. "
I'll take your two years and raise you one.  I played it in 2010 and still thought it was a mediocre game.  Its only redeeming quality (besides its production values) was the platforming which was used in the pursuit of nothing interesting.  
 
Hype is not what hurt Assassin's Creed.  Hype is what saved it.
#34 Posted by guthwulf (251 posts) -

WAT??? Teh Bombcast cant be RONG!!!

#35 Edited by haggis (1677 posts) -

I bought AC2 on faith: the first game had so much potential. The climbing and open world nature of the game were fantastic. It was graphically impressive. It had some bright spots. But like a lot of people, I suppose, by the second assassination I was already getting bored. I didn't get much further than that. But I still bought AC2, because I hoped they fixed the problems. And you know what? They did. The first game was incredibly painful primarily because everyone could see that beneath the tragically dull mission structure was a fantastic game waiting to emerge. We all wanted to love the game, but most of us couldn't. AC2 was a far better game. And Brotherhood was even better than that. I'm almost scared how excited I am for AC3.
 
I've only played a little Fable 3. I was one who was incredibly disappointed by Fable 2, so I didn't have high expectations for the third. That said, I can easily see someone who enjoyed Fable 2 be disappointed in Fable 3. It's not a stretch to imagine that.

#36 Posted by zegolf (224 posts) -
@EvilTwin: I concur. I also did the "Assassin's Creed-a-thon" just so I could get caught up on the story for Ass Bro and AC1 was like pulling teeth.  I'm sure when it came out, the game was amazing, but the leaps that were made between AC1 and AC2 are enough that AC1 can be labeled as fairly rough game.  You hit the nail on the head.  Had AC1 not received the hype that it did, AC2 never would have come out and turned the series into a great series.
#37 Posted by Baillie (4081 posts) -

For everyone shitting on Assassin's Creed, you clearly didn't play it when it first came out.

#38 Posted by Vitor (2815 posts) -
@Asrahn said:
" @MangyForestCat said:
" I love the alternate reality that the entire Bombcast takes place in.

You know, that alternate reality where the first Assassin's Creed is one of the most painful experiences in modern video game history.

Where Fable 3 is the most dissappointing game of 2010.

These two are but the most recent examples of the crazy reality that these guys live in. It's amazing to me that they do not connect the dots between their opinions of these and other games, and the fact that they are in a unique position (by way of their chosen profession) to experience things that the average consumer and video game enthusiast does not.

"
Hey, it could have been worse.  They could have been Gametrailers.com employees.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though, really.  ... except for GT.com employees. Fuck them. "
Amen brother, Amen. 
 
I respect Shane Satterfield and Geoff Keighley a great deal. Doesn't mean I ever have to agree with how they run their site/their general opinions though...
#39 Posted by chrissedoff (2082 posts) -
@FunExplosions said:
" Pretty much everyone that isn't a frat bro or old man disagrees with you. "
if there's 2 things that old men and frat bros can agree on it's that fable 3 and the first assassin's creed rule
#40 Posted by RaoulDo0k (86 posts) -
@MangyForestCat: Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't make it invalid.
#41 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4710 posts) -

I agree with the OP, but there's no point posting it on a forum filled with brown-nosing cunts with a copy-paste opinion.

#42 Posted by Lautaro (448 posts) -

Basically this thread is : OP disagrees with the staff, people go fucking crazy. Nothing new to see here.

#43 Posted by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -
@GunslingerPanda: 
@Lautaro:
 
I think it mostly has to do with how poorly he presents his ideas.  He's also focusing too much on the Giant Bomb staff as if they're the only people in the world who thought Assassin's Creed was mediocre and made worse by time, and that Fable 3 was disappointing.  They weren't, by far.  
 
I actually agree with him to some extent that the Giant Bomb staff sometimes lose perspective on what an average gamer thinks or feels about certain things.
#44 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

Assassins Creed 1 wasn't the greatest and Fable 3 was dissapointing as hell. 
Its their opinion. 
Good on you for having your own. 
#45 Posted by Borodin (416 posts) -
@Baillie said:
" For everyone shitting on Assassin's Creed, you clearly didn't play it when it first came out. "
Why is that? I played it when it first came out and like another guy in this thread, it took me about 6 months to finish because it was such a chore to play - yeah the graphics/environment and the free running were really cool but just about everything else about it was dull as hell
#46 Posted by Chris2KLee (2334 posts) -
@Milkman said:
" SICK BURN! YOU REALLY SHOWED THEM, BRO!  "
God damn, tell me about it! I don't know how GB will ever recover from this DAMNING critical beat down. They should just shut the website down now. Game Over.
#47 Posted by Meowshi (2911 posts) -
@Vodun said:
" YEAH FUCK THEM FOR HAVING OPINIONS! BURN THE INFIDELS! "
As opposed to the tremendous amount of respect and civility you're showing towards the OP's opinions, right?
#48 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -
@Khann said:
" What you need to realise is that the gaming community as a whole lives in a world where if a game isn't brilliant, it's complete unplayable shit.  "
Truer words have never been spoken.
#49 Posted by Baillie (4081 posts) -
@borodin said:
" @Baillie said:
" For everyone shitting on Assassin's Creed, you clearly didn't play it when it first came out. "
Why is that? I played it when it first came out and like another guy in this thread, it took me about 6 months to finish because it was such a chore to play - yeah the graphics/environment and the free running were really cool but just about everything else about it was dull as hell "
I don't know, it didn't take me long at all to complete the game, short and sweet. 
#50 Posted by NarcolepticBat (410 posts) -

Have you gone back and played Assassins Creed recently?