So it might sound a little desperate, knowing how the GB staff take their time to review a game, but it's been one week already, and all we've got is the DLC review (3 stars, which I don't think the game deserves, although I haven't played it yet) and a Quick Look. I'm starting to worry there will be no review. Yes, AC is a game for completionists, but I don't think it's necessary to complete the game 100% to give a review. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize GB, but I'm starting to get a little desperate,

So, any whereabouts about the review?

Why do you need a Giant Bomb review of it so badly? Plenty of people have written reviews at this point.

No idea they might not even bother with one at this point.

I think Ryan is supposed to be reviewing it, so maybe he's still playing it? Or maybe he's still drafting the review. You might want to give him some time for an open world game like Assassin's Creed III.

Jeff eated it.

People still read reviews?

People still read reviews?

@rjayb89 said:

Jeff eated it.

Can we please elevate this discussion and AT LEAST use some proper grammar.

Jeff ateted it.

@DeathByWaffle said:

Why do you need a Giant Bomb review of it so badly?

Because I like GB style of reviewing. Having followed these guys for so long has made enjoy their reviews much more than other gaming sites. But that's just my opinion. Besides, it seems strange to me that a gaming site doesn't review one of the biggest games of the year, whether it's a dissappointment or not.

@Jrinswand said:

@ShinjiEx said:

People still read reviews?

Even after a Quick Look and a TNT, I still don't know what to think without them having to tell me!

This

AC3 seems like a rather... complex review to write, especially for a reviewer of the majority of the franchise like Ryan. I haven't played it yet myself, but it seems to be a bit polarizing, but then again, what isn't on the Internet?

Ryan said he likes it more than revelations, isn't that good enough? :P

@Patman99 said:

@rjayb89 said:

Jeff eated it.

Can we please elevate this discussion and AT LEAST use some proper grammar.

Jeff ateted it.

Jeff devourategluttoned it.

@PillClinton said:

AC3 seems like a rather... complex review to write, especially for a reviewer of the majority of the franchise like Ryan. I haven't played it yet myself, but it seems to be a bit polarizing, but then again, what isn't on the Internet?

85 on metacritic is polarizing? It's just a bunch of vocal whiny people making it sound like the game isn't a huge improvement over Revelations.

@Fredchuckdave: Didn't look at its metacritic score, nor do I care all that much. I was talking about what I've seen on here, along with a few other sites, Twitter opinions, and a handful of reviews (especially Gameological Society's quasi-scathing review), which, as you said, is the vocal minority, and as I said, indicative of polarized views because it's the Internet and fucking everything's either 'awesome,' or the worst pile of trash ever. Just go look at the QL comments.

I still think it's important to have reviews. Otherwise it's literally just Jeff, Brad, and Ryan playing games for fun and casually talking about them on a podcast for a living, and if that's the case, we should have 10x as much content as we usually do.

Eh. I don't think reviews need to be day one, but definitely within the first week. AC3 isn't a MMO.

@PillClinton: In movies polarizing would be indicated by mixed reviews, since almost everything gets a positive or near positive review in games you have to adjust a bit but Resident Evil 6 is much closer to polarizing. Of course you could also have something like Diablo 3 which has a vocal minority that says its great and all of the press does too but the vast majority of players stopped playing within a pretty short time period particularly for a game like Diablo (less than 5% of the playerbase being left at this point). But 85 is almost a better score than 90 because 90 means "great but not without fault" but 85 might mean "great but you might not like X" and certain players will like X immensely. Of course 90 should probably be 65-70 and 85 should probably be 60 but oh well.

@Fredchuckdave said:

@PillClinton: In movies polarizing would be indicated by mixed reviews, since almost everything gets a positive or near positive review in games you have to adjust a bit but Resident Evil 6 is much closer to polarizing. Of course you could also have something like Diablo 3 which has a vocal minority that says its great and all of the press does too but the vast majority of players stopped playing within a pretty short time period particularly for a game like Diablo (less than 5% of the playerbase being left at this point). But 85 is almost a better score than 90 because 90 means "great but not without fault" but 85 might mean "great but you might not like X" and certain players will like X immensely. Of course 90 should probably be 65-70 and 85 should probably be 60 but oh well.

Agreed on game scores badly needing adjustment, with this whacky scale we have of a 60 basically being garbage, and a, say, 30 or 40 having no difference whatsoever and meaning almost nothing at all. That's why I like GB's basic 5 point scale, though. Scores mean a lot more here, and it just makes more damn sense, short of ditching scores outright. But there are problems with that too.

Ryan is lazy

@Patman99 said:

@rjayb89 said:

Jeff eated it.

Can we please elevate this discussion and AT LEAST use some proper grammar.

Jeff ateted it.

HA!

Good start into the day, thanks

Its because Giant Bomb get a lot of funding from PETA, this is why they wouldn't review Red Dead, they won't cover any game which shows killing and skinning animals in a realistic fashion - why do you think there is never any Cabella's coverage on the site either?

@leebmx said:

Its because Giant Bomb get a lot of funding from PETA, this is why they wouldn't review Red Dead, they won't cover any game which shows killing and skinning animals in a realistic fashion - why do you think there is never any Cabella's coverage on the site either?

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!

I think a review is important given the number of spoilers that have been thrown out by Ryan. I won't watch the QL or TNT because I don't want spoilers, but I'd still like to hear Ryan's thoughts beyond what was said on the Bombcast. That said, I already have the game so I'm more interested from a scholarly point of view.

@jrodrz said:

all we've got is the DLC review (3 stars, which I don't think the game deserves, although I haven't played it yet)

Sums up the problem with video game fans and reviews. "I haven't played one second of a game, but I know enough to know that the person who played through the whole thing is wrong, and that it deserves more than three stars."

Not gonna lie, it looks a bit unprofessional that he hasn't done it.

I mean fair enough, I guess GB is kinda about the informal approach to game writing ("journalism"), and I love em for it, but you still have to do your damn job. This isn't a small game, it's one of the AAA games of the year, and I know you only get so much mileage out of subscribing to the belief that AAA games deserve more coverage but I think it's important that we learn what Ryan thinks about the game.

FYI, I'm not one of these "ERMEGERD GAMEZ JOURNOS ARE PAID OFF/LAZY" people, and I love me some Ryan Davis, but I kinda have to call him out here, he needs to get this review out.

AC3 Liberation isn't DLC it's a PSVita exclusive, so I don't think you can comment that it deserves more. Not only have you not played it, you don't know what the hell it is.

@briangodsoe: Also, chemtrails.

We get threads like this a lot. I initially thought they were annoying, but people are addressing some issues that need to be brought to light. The crew was just talking about how real they are with their reviews, and that you don't have to question their legitimacy, but that doesn't mean much when some big games aren't being reviewed. It could be a manning issue, or a general lack of time to get what they want done (they did state that they have a lot of meetings and such ever since the move to Gamespot). I don't really care about reviews, but it looks like many people rely on the crew for them.

I just want to read a review cause they're usually well written and it's entertaining to read on some else's opinion, but GB is clearly not the place where reviews are meant as purchasing advice. Though in the months where all the big releases are a review that's 2 weeks late is irrelevant since there's so much stuff to talk about every week.

@PillClinton:Of course you could also have something like Diablo 3 which has a vocal minority that says its great and all of the press does too but the vast majority of players stopped playing within a pretty short time period particularly for a game like Diablo (less than 5% of the playerbase being left at this point).

85 on metacritic is polarizing? It's just a bunch of vocal whiny people making it sound like the game isn't a huge improvement over Revelations.

I'm hoping it's just like with XCOM where it's taking Ryan a while but it'll come eventually. I would very much like to know his perspective on the game.

According to the bombcast, he likes it more than Brotherhood.

@BraveToaster said:

We get threads like this a lot. I initially thought they were annoying, but people are addressing some issues that need to be brought to light. The crew was just talking about how real they are with their reviews, and that you don't have to question their legitimacy, but that doesn't mean much when some big games aren't being reviewed. It could be a manning issue, or a general lack of time to get what they want done (they did state that they have a lot of meetings and such ever since the move to Gamespot). I don't really care about reviews, but it looks like many people rely on the crew for them.

Not trying to start shit... Just an observation. Other than the XCOM review, what was the last piece of content Ryan produced on this website? He doesn't write features (Patrick and Alex do those), he's the only member of the site that has never produced premium content, before XCOM the last review he wrote was in February (Grand Slam Tennis), and he doesn't host ILM or Happy Hour any more... TNT seems to be the one thing he's been doing on a consistant basis. It's obvious to me at least, that his role has become a more behind the scenes one, and there is no denying his visibility on the site has decreased. Vinny doesn't write reviews so Ryan would really be the only one on the site qualified to write an AC3 review, given his decreased role on the site it doesn't surprise me one bit that the review has yet to go up.

It's funny that Patrick and Alex get the most hate around here, yet along with Jeff they are the ones churning out the most content for the site.

@WilliamHenry said:

@jrodrz said:

all we've got is the DLC review (3 stars, which I don't think the game deserves, although I haven't played it yet)

Sums up the problem with video game fans and reviews. "I haven't played one second of a game, but I know enough to know that the person who played through the whole thing is wrong, and that it deserves more than three stars."

And it isn't DLC...

@leebmx said:

Its because Giant Bomb get a lot of funding from PETA, this is why they wouldn't review Red Dead, they won't cover any game which shows killing and skinning animals in a realistic fashion - why do you think there is never any Cabella's coverage on the site either?

I see two faults with your theory:

• They did a Cabella QL and shot to death, like, hella hyenas.
• PETA kills animals themselves.

Now, you better tell me what's your fucking agenda here, comrade.

At this point, I'd like to see the review just because Ryan said he'd do it.

@Shortbreadtom said:

AC3 Liberation isn't DLC it's a PSVita exclusive, so I don't think you can comment that it deserves more. Not only have you not played it, you don't know what the hell it is.

This.

Also at this stage you should try a different source for the AC3 review as it looks like GB ain't bothered and if they are it's a bit late now.

@Ghostiet said:

@leebmx said:

Its because Giant Bomb get a lot of funding from PETA, this is why they wouldn't review Red Dead, they won't cover any game which shows killing and skinning animals in a realistic fashion - why do you think there is never any Cabella's coverage on the site either?

I see two faults with your theory:

• They did a Cabella QL and shot to death, like, hella hyenas.
• PETA kills animals themselves.

Now, you better tell me what's your fucking agenda here, comrade.

Yeah! Follow his money!!! Oh... he works at Walmart... I'm so sorry.. ( I have no idea where he works.)

@WilliamHenry said:

@jrodrz said:

all we've got is the DLC review (3 stars, which I don't think the game deserves, although I haven't played it yet)

Sums up the problem with video game fans and reviews. "I haven't played one second of a game, but I know enough to know that the person who played through the whole thing is wrong, and that it deserves more than three stars."

I was about to write the same thing. Hilarious.

But obviously he knows a lot about it. Not enough to know that Liberation is the Vita AC game and not DLC, but enough to know it deserves more than three stars.

@BraveToaster said:

It could be a manning issue, or a general lack of time to get what they want done (they did state that they have a lot of meetings and such ever since the move to Gamespot).

I've been thinking this for a while. Since the move from Whiskey it's gotten pretty obvious that they need to expand the staff. The problem though is that with the way the site is run it's pretty much impossible. Jeff is really adamant about making a relationship between content-creator and viewer, which means they can't just flood in a bunch of new guys to create the content, but at the same time he's also very decided upon having full control of the management side too. It's lead them into a situation where they want to do everything themselves, which ultimately means they keep running short. It doesn't really help that not only did they lose the Whiskey media production team (which was willing to adapt to their needs, unlike a big corporation that tells them to adapt), but they were also already expanding quite heavily with side-content by the interns.

I mean, if you're a bit cynical about it, the staff for the site has sorta been halved since the move. And we've yet to see anything that they really gained from it.

@Ares42: So basically, they need interns. That seems simple enough, no?

There is really no point in them releasing a review for it anymore

@murisan said:

@Ares42: So basically, they need interns. That seems simple enough, no?

Well, sorta ye.. Or rather I'd say they need more assistants at least. But then again, could you imagine any of the guys being comfortable with having a PA? :P

Fuck reviews .... by now you should know if the game is good or not (not for me... gave up on AC after 2) so why is it important? IT IS NOT. Move the page there is more stuff to cover.

@WilliamHenry said:

@jrodrz said:

all we've got is the DLC review (3 stars, which I don't think the game deserves, although I haven't played it yet)

Sums up the problem with video game fans and reviews. "I haven't played one second of a game, but I know enough to know that the person who played through the whole thing is wrong, and that it deserves more than three stars."

You should see the Halo 4 (1 star) review threads....

@DelroyLindo:

It could be a masterpiece...

The best review ever written...

A review by which all other reviews are judged...

So good, a conference forms around it where all publishers/reviewers/PR people gather to celebrate this one amazing, world changing review...

I MUST SEE IT!!!! THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT!!!! GIVE IT TO US RYAN DAVIS!!!!!

@mutha3: Not at all, for instance I'm one of a handful of people that think Cowboys and Aliens is an irrefutably excellent movie from any perspective; but the vast majority of people either think its popcorn worthy or less. It could be that I have a keen interest in both Westerns and Alien type Sci-Fi and can pick up on the subtle genre nods and attempts at making the movie an analogue to those. Or I could just be plain wrong, but I still enjoy the movie regardless and have no fear stating my opinion as such.

I really hope he puts it out. It may not be as important anymore, but it would really suck if he spent all of that time for nothing considering how much stuff they've got going on around the office.

It's done

when it's done

dun-dun

I submit a review in Ryan's stead:

Assassin's Creed III: YOU CAN PLAYS IN GORGE WASHINTON TIMS HELLA STARS OUT OF FIV

In all seriousness I'm curious to see his written, thought out, articulated opinion as well. Especially since I suspect that maybe he needed to revisit the review in light of Ubisoft's handling of the multiplayer? I could be totally wrong on that but take in consideration that I am probably not Ryan Davis. It's done when it's done and if there isn't one then he will probably air his feelings in the Giant Bombcast which I find to be just as relevant anyway.

@Aetheldod said:

Fuck reviews .... by now you should know if the game is good or not (not for me... gave up on AC after 2) so why is it important? IT IS NOT. Move the page there is more stuff to cover.

Maybe people need more than the knee-jerk reaction of Ah man this sucks in the quicklook and more in-depth talk of the goods and bads of said game. If you went by quicklooks then you'd never buy a game if Jeff was quicklooking it. His reaction to stuff he likes is "well its fine" in such a disappointing tone that it makes him sound incredibly down on said game. Just look at the Halo 4 or BL2 quicklook to review difference.