I'm calling it now.

Assassin's Creed 3 will get sub 90 on Metacritic.com. If I had balls, I'd say sub 85.

I just had to make this announcement public somewhere! Good to be a newbie at Giant Bomb.

I always thought 80/100 was still regarded as "Great".

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

There is your review ^__^

@ShinjiEx: LOL.

Well there we have it. 10/10!

80 isn't bad. It just won't give the devs bonuses. There was an article recently that stated that a game that made sub 90 makes a significant amount less money. I'll try to find it.

I wont bother to speculate. We will know soon enough anyway.

the 9/10 thats just gone up on eurogamer says your wrong.

I'm guessing Ubisoft put the embargo on everyone until the official game release. It's an alarming growing trend not only with video games but with movies too. Expect it to become the norm in the future. On any case I'd assume you'll start seeing reviews later on today.

A Norwegian newspaper gave it 5 out of 6, so you know it's good.

@Bell_End: Crap!

Is it too late to delete this! Heh.

the 9/10 thats just gone up on eurogamer says your wrong.

Joystiq just put up an interesting, well-written review.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/30/assassins-creed-3-review-declination-of-independence/

Sounds like the game is a bit uneven, with too much uninteresting stuff to do, and can be a bit overbearing with regards to your player agency.

Think it will review very well but combat, stealth and notoriety all are the same which is fine but... get the feeling that I'm not gonna want any more of the same after this game.

Sub 90 on metacritic, not worth my money...

I do agree that embargo's are a shitty practice that's becoming more and more common. I think I heard from someone on youtube the deadline was today at noon so maybe expect reviews to start appearing tonight/this afternoon

And gameinformer chimes in with a 9.50. Looks promising I'd say.

@Brodehouse said:

@mordukai ??? Growing trend? It's like the way it's been forever. We got people mad when reviews go up early, people mad when reviews come out on time, and people mad when reviews are late (or not at all). I think people should just get less mad in general.

Just to clarify. I hope it didn't come across that I was mad. Just suspicious. We've just seen so many "good" reviews come out early or right on time.

I wouldn't even waste time installing a game with less than a 90 on Metacritic on my hard drive.

9.5 from Game Informer. They don't always agree with the rest of the world- but probably a good sign.

Ryan's been tweeting positively about it

@Foozlekiller: YOU AREN'T A GOOD SIGN!!

Welcome to GB duder.

Gamespot 8.5. More on par with OP's predictions.

Not that surprising since the owners have played this series yearly for the past 3 years. I'm getting it today so these reviews don't matter to me.

Reviewers

@Brodehouse said:

@mordukai ??? Growing trend? It's like the way it's been forever. We got people mad when reviews go up early, people mad when reviews come out on time, and people mad when reviews are late (or not at all). I think people should just get less mad in general.

You sir, are asking an awful lot of the internet.

I'm sure it was just a tight embargo and we will see reviews coming in shortly. One of those things I never understood was the need for early/immediate reviews. Sure they are nice to have, but if you are unsure about a game purchase just wait a few days till all the reviews come in and then make your decision. You don't have to buy games the SECOND they come out. And yes I know that historically publishers would embargo till release day if they thought the game would get poor reviews, but this is increasingly not the case. It seems that is becoming more of the standard to say the reviews go up when the games come out. Personally I don't have any problem with that.

Hrmm.

Personally I really liked 1 and 2, got bored half way through Brotherhood and never bothered with Revelations, I was only going to get this one at launch if it was really something special, i don't live in the US and don't care about the setting for the story which seems catering to an American audience more than anyone else.

I may pick it up when it's cheap but meh.

@IAmNotBatman said:

Hrmm.

I've never even seen "nowgamer" before that.

"Metacritic of sub 85" Well I guess it's the worst game ever made then, better start writing some hate mail.

@Funkydupe said:

I always thought 80/100 was still regarded as "Great".

Plus hasn't it just come out? Shouldn't we wait a bit about this type of thing? I mean Warfighter reviews were delayed to day 1 because of a day 1 patch, and that game wasn't the worst thing in the world, judging by the reviews. (Most forgettable thing in the world, but there is a difference.)

What an active forum. I never expected this many replies.

There must be something in the water here.

Thanks for the warm welcome GB.

** Again. I'm not hating on or necessarily judging the quality of AC3. Only speculating on a possible reason for review delays. When it really comes down to it... I am all for reviewers having to purchase their own copy of the game and reviewing it from that point forward. I could see how the "swag" would bias me towards a favorable review due to the possibility of future "swag". This would delay reviews, but it could also put reviewers in the same position as we "normal" folks. (a.k.a. putting money on the line)**

Do not ever buy a game that has a <90 metacritic score. I mean, just look at XCOM, that game has a score of 89, so it must be complete garbage, right?

@BeachThunder said:

Do not ever buy a game that has a <90 metacritic score. I mean, just look at XCOM, that game has a score of 89, so it must be complete garbage, right?

DEFINITELY. Look at Hotline Miami. 87 metacritic score, complete shit game. Sleeping Dogs: 80 -> fucking terrible game.

@Foozlekiller Thanks for saving us all the pain and suffering of enduring a sub-90 metacritic score game, you're a VALUABLE addition to this website.

Video game scores according to fans.

• 10-Good
• 9-Okay
• 8-Horrible

Sounds like the average is around an 8.5 which is a great score. Sounds like brotherhood is still the peak of the series but 3 is close behind. Sadly it sounds like technical issues are the nastiest part so I'm gonna wait on the pc version, see how it runs

@IAmNotBatman said:

Hrmm.

review is pretty accurate from what i have seen from a 12hr live stream, AC3 has none of the puzzle solving, exploring or supernatural undertones in the main story (except when you are playing as Desmond) . it just feels like they made the revolutionary war the main story and you are playing through a history lesson of sorts.

exploring is not needed because there is really nothing to explore unless you want to hunt or are just looking for treasure. the parts about AC2 and ACB i liked was the exploring of the dungeons and finding the puzzles on monuments to solve. i dont want the same things as the previous games but AC3 feels like it wasted a lot of opportunity to add real depth in the main story.

*above comments are from watching a 12+hr live stream, i have not watched the ending yet.

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

"Sub 90". The internet is full of drama queens.

jeez people he wasn't even saying it was going to be bad, just be in the 80's (probably accurate) and said nothing about the actual quality of the game.

@BeachThunder said:

Do not ever buy a game that has a <90 metacritic score. I mean, just look at XCOM, that game has a score of 89, so it must be complete garbage, right?

Seriously? Ugh gross. I thought that game was awesome but I was clearly mistaken. Time to go shred that disk.

Seems like high 80's would be a good guess? So pretty great? I think the game looks cool but this annual business is gonna kill it.

well, i guess i'm glad i got NFS:MW instead of this. at least MW has a kickass multiplayer mode

@SeanFoster: Please tell me you're joking?

People want to hate on games so badly when they release. It's annoying, give it a week or so.

A review that can't find a single flaw in a game is odd. When they do add good/bad aspects, but conclude that it is still is a great game makes the review a more worthwhile read for those seeking an opinion on a game and not just confirmation on adopted assumptions.

For example:

Assassin’s Creed III is often the victim of its own technological ambition. Pop-in, frame-rate drops and occasional graphical glitches are definitely a part of the experience, and you do wonder whether the omnipresent fog in New York City has more to do with technical limitations than the weather. The loading times are also hefty and I encountered some significant bugs during my review playthrough, though the developer claims that these will be fixed with a day-one patch. But it feels petty to begrudge the game for these hiccups when it pushes the boundaries of this generation so far.

well, i guess i'm glad i got NFS:MW instead of this. at least MW has a kickass multiplayer mode

This obsession with review scores is the fucking worst.

IGN come in with an 8.5!

Seems around 8.5 is where it's at, and therefore, a great ass game!

Does it really matter most people have bought or are waiting for it in the mail

The sales charts are be broken as we speak

Reviews meh ^__^

Well, the Redbox near me finally registered having it. I'll pick it up after work, see for myself if it's worth a buy.

For the record IGN also reviewed Assassin's Creed Liberation which they gave a 7.2 :)

@murisan said:

well, i guess i'm glad i got NFS:MW instead of this. at least MW has a kickass multiplayer mode

I dunno, I think the Assassin's Creed multiplayer is pretty kickass. I haven't played this particular iteration of it, but the MP in Brotherhood and Revelations was quite excellent. I've read there's a co-op mode in AC3 which is supposed to be awesome.