Follow

    Assassin's Creed III

    Game » consists of 24 releases. Released Oct 30, 2012

    The fifth console entry in the Assassin's Creed franchise. It introduces the half-Native American, half-English Assassin Connor and is set in North America in the late eighteenth century amid the American Revolutionary War.

    Ubisoft officially Megamans the Assassin's Creed franchise.

    • 120 results
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Avatar image for el_galant
    El_Galant

    81

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 4

    #1  Edited By El_Galant

    I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.

    Avatar image for dany
    Dany

    8019

    Forum Posts

    416

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #2  Edited By Dany

    I loved Assassins Creed

    I loved Assassins Creed II

    I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

    I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

    1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made. There are mistakes in Rev, but they are fixable. I still enjoy this game series and so do 9 million other people.

    Avatar image for ahmadmetallic
    AhmadMetallic

    19300

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 11

    #3  Edited By AhmadMetallic
    @Dany said:

    I loved Assassins Creed

    I loved Assassins Creed II

    I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

    I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

    1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made. 

    Pretty much. AC 1 through Brohood were amazing, Revelations was OK but showed that the formula is now literally dead, so it's up to this 3-year-old AC3 to make or break the franchise. Let's wait and see.
    Avatar image for fluxwavez
    FluxWaveZ

    19846

    Forum Posts

    19798

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 6

    #4  Edited By FluxWaveZ

    @El_Galant said:

    We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames.

    ...Alright, what?

    Avatar image for dany
    Dany

    8019

    Forum Posts

    416

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #5  Edited By Dany

    I wouldn't call the gameplay boring, it is just stacked with so many weapons and mechanics, that it becomes tedius to run around the city with 30 icons on the map. Killing people is too easy and the fail states are constrained.

    Avatar image for mikemcn
    mikemcn

    8642

    Forum Posts

    4863

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 8

    #6  Edited By mikemcn

    Call of Duty is the only game for a whole boatload of people, which is why it can get away being a yearly franchise for the most part, it'll sell long after "gamers" have moved on. Assassins Creed doesn't have that, its audience while large, has a larger amount of people who play lots of different games, so for Ubisoft to put out another "ok" assassins creed game would be a bad idea, as most of AC audience would be somewhat disappointed.

    Avatar image for bog
    BoG

    5390

    Forum Posts

    42127

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 5

    #7  Edited By BoG

    I did not play any post-II AC games because I wasn't around to do so, but I don't think they've done anything wrong at this point. Two high quality spin-off games leading up to the third official installment isn't bad. From the sound of it, III should be much bigger than its predecessors, which is exactly what we should expect. As long as they up the ante with each iteration, I won't complain.

    Avatar image for jeanluc
    jeanluc

    3891

    Forum Posts

    7939

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 11

    User Lists: 13

    #8  Edited By jeanluc  Staff

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    Avatar image for el_galant
    El_Galant

    81

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 4

    #9  Edited By El_Galant

    @JeanLuc said:

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

    Avatar image for el_galant
    El_Galant

    81

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 4

    #10  Edited By El_Galant

    @FluxWaveZ: Just saying that with so much going on in your life and other games to play might be rather wise to ease off on putting an AC game every year. Might turn into a series people stop caring about quickly.

    Avatar image for kindgineer
    kindgineer

    3102

    Forum Posts

    969

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #11  Edited By kindgineer

    Yearly games don't bother me as long as they are good. If you cannot beat it within a year, thats fine. No one says you have to jump on it upon launch. However, I wish - since they kept the same engine/gameplay - they would just make these expansions with less filler (I.e. hiring assassins, tower conquering) instead full retail box games. Will my wish ever be obtained? No, too much money to be made.

    Avatar image for tentpole
    TentPole

    1856

    Forum Posts

    9

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #12  Edited By TentPole

    I know they have done a good job at making sure I don't give a shit anymore.

    Avatar image for sooty
    Sooty

    8193

    Forum Posts

    306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #13  Edited By Sooty

    I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

    I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

    Avatar image for internetdotcom
    InternetDotCom

    4038

    Forum Posts

    133

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #14  Edited By InternetDotCom

    I was hoping this meant fat Ezio

    Avatar image for lordxavierbritish
    LordXavierBritish

    6651

    Forum Posts

    4948

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 7

    User Lists: 6

    For a minute I thought Ubisoft was cancelling the next Assassin's Creed.
     
    What a strange world that was.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #16  Edited By Video_Game_King

    *sigh* Hey, remember what I said in that other AC3 thread? I stand by all of it in this one.

    Avatar image for fateofnever
    FateOfNever

    1923

    Forum Posts

    3165

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #17  Edited By FateOfNever

    @El_Galant said:

    @JeanLuc said:

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

    I'm pretty sure that's just called annualizing a franchise. Having 5 games games in a series is hardly "Megamans"... what the fuck is that even? If you wanted to use it in a context of "they have many spin offs" maybe? Maybe. Since Megaman has Megaman, Megaman X, Megaman Battle-Network, Megaman Zero, Megaman ZX. Or if you wanted to use it in the context of them canceling a project out of the blue and then going "We have no plans at all to do anything with this because the fans just don't care enough." or some BS, I would maybe also accept that. Using it to say you are annualizing a franchise sounds really stupid. And your definition of "More than players can either count or remember playing" doesn't even fit into this. Five games is hardly "more than players can count or remember." If you can't count to five or remember playing 5 games in a franchise.. well, I guess there are bigger problems than trying to coin "Megaman-ing something" as a phrase.

    Avatar image for meatball
    MEATBALL

    4235

    Forum Posts

    790

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 10

    #18  Edited By MEATBALL

    I've yet to play a game in the series I didn't like, so I'm not going to complain about the yearly format until they do. Bring on Assassin's Creed III!

    Also, this is basically Ubisoft being Ubisoft, they will basically keep Ubi Montreal (and the 500 other studios they're outsourcing to) slaving away on these games at this sort of clip until they make a bad one. After that they'll go back to the drawing board for a while, release a new game with fresh mechanics but the internet will have a big fucking teary because it didn't stick to the formula that they claimed they had gotten sick of a few years beforehand.

    Okay, now I'm just being an ass. Truth is I'd definitely prefer to have a bit of a gap between these games, but the situation is what it is - and on the bright side I don't think they've made a bad game since they moved Asssassin's Creed to an annual release schedule.

    Avatar image for toowalrus
    toowalrus

    13408

    Forum Posts

    29

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #19  Edited By toowalrus

    @El_Galant said:

    @JeanLuc said:

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

    Or, at least that's what @El_Galant: thinks "officially Megamans" means. I'd interpret the topic title to mean that in ACIII, you fight eight elemental bosses, and steal their weapons, then use them against the other bosses which are each weak to one of those elemental weapons. Then, at the end, you have to fight them all at once- it's called a "boss rush".

    Avatar image for oldirtybearon
    Oldirtybearon

    5626

    Forum Posts

    86

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 0

    #20  Edited By Oldirtybearon

    Retard posts retarded thing. People quickly chastise retard.

    I see nothing wrong with this thread.

    Avatar image for emuleader
    EmuLeader

    635

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #21  Edited By EmuLeader

    @AhmadMetallic said:

    @Dany said:

    I loved Assassins Creed

    I loved Assassins Creed II

    I loved Assassins Creed Brotherhood

    I liked Assassins Creed Revelations

    1 out of 4 being 'ok' is not bad. Actually it is quite fantstic run they have been on. Word is that III has been worked on for 3 years and it is the biggest game Ubisoft has ever made.

    Pretty much. AC 1 through Brohood were amazing, Revelations was OK but showed that the formula is now literally dead, so it's up to this 3-year-old AC3 to make or break the franchise. Let's wait and see.

    I agree with this. There is only so much of the same good thing one can take at a time. This is just like COD. They keep putting out games that are VERY similar, and now they are getting grief for it. I started the franchise with ACII and loved brotherhood, but I skipped Revelations because it seems like its the exact same game again with little payoff at the end. I want to see them innovate, or at least put a different coat of paint on it, so it doesn't seem like the same game with new unrewarding story beats. I'm putting my hopes in ACIII. Don't fail me now.

    Avatar image for cl60
    CL60

    17117

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #22  Edited By CL60
    @Video_Game_King

    *sigh* Hey, remember what I said in that other AC3 thread? I stand by all of it in this one.

    And you're still wrong. Things can get stale. For example call of duty 4 was a fantastic game, but at this point they need to actually change rather than release the same game every year, same gies for assassins creed, and I and many others hope ac3 changes it up.
    Avatar image for morrow
    Morrow

    1871

    Forum Posts

    32782

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #23  Edited By Morrow

    Now this is gonna be tough for me. I love the franchise, but am way behind. I just started getting into brotherhood and am miles away from revelations ._.

    Avatar image for echoforge
    EchoForge

    183

    Forum Posts

    16

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 12

    #24  Edited By EchoForge

    I'm sure they'll find a way, but it's hard to really justify going past III story-wise, considering the series is supposed to end in 2012 (September even, I believe). I understand Ubi turning this into an annual franchise (a couple of hints suggesting that B'hood and Rev were total cash-ins, a result of the unexpected success of II), but creatively, they've painted themselves into a corner.

    Of course, they can always take the fiction sideways, a la B'hood again. They can always follow-up with Altair's son, or, as in the AC Encyclopedia, follow up with the Chinese assassin that met up with old Ezio, or any other time period, like Czar-ist Russia.

    Avatar image for dixavd
    Dixavd

    3009

    Forum Posts

    245

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #25  Edited By Dixavd

    I would be pissed if another AC game didn't come out this year... why? Because every single game up to this point has referenced the date 21st of December 2012 (effectively making it a date that has been set-up in the AC universe since 2007) - for them to do that and then not release a game in that year would be really annoying.

    Avatar image for reygitano
    ReyGitano

    2493

    Forum Posts

    2112

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 10

    #26  Edited By ReyGitano

    @TooWalrus said:

    @El_Galant said:

    @JeanLuc said:

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?

    Or, at least that's what @El_Galant: thinks "officially Megamans" means. I'd interpret the topic title to mean that in ACIII, you fight eight elemental bosses, and steal their weapons, then use them against the other bosses which are each weak to one of those elemental weapons. Then, at the end, you have to fight them all at once- it's called a "boss rush".

    It feels like I just got done playing brotherhood, and I don't have an urge to pick up Revelations any time soon... but if they megamaned Assassin's Creed III, that sounds like a STELLAR game. Desmond starts going so crazy that cyberspace tech starts leaking into whatever era he's reliving this time around.

    Avatar image for zenaxpure
    ZenaxPure

    2584

    Forum Posts

    2577

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 0

    #27  Edited By ZenaxPure

    I really don't understand how someone can be against it. I mean no one is making you play it and considering all of the games continue to sell good enough there is clearly an audience who wants to play one each year. Especially considering if you're only interested in the main story you could get through most of the games very quickly.

    Avatar image for sooty
    Sooty

    8193

    Forum Posts

    306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #28  Edited By Sooty

    I'll Mega Man your face with my fist.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #29  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @CL60:

    And that's still a bullshit argument. How can you say that Modern Warfare 3 is a crap game by saying that it's exactly the same as Call of Duty 4, which is not a crap game? What if I hadn't played Call of Duty 4, but want to to play Modern Warfare 3? How would that argument apply to me in any feasible way? Again: don't drag other games in the argument when determining whether a game is good or not.

    Avatar image for marz
    Marz

    6096

    Forum Posts

    755

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 11

    #30  Edited By Marz

    i'll be ok with AC3 if they actually end Desmond's story, otherwise any games they make after that i don't care much about.

    Avatar image for shun_akiyama
    Shun_Akiyama

    519

    Forum Posts

    34

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #31  Edited By Shun_Akiyama
    @JeanLuc said:

    I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

    a better one would be "sonics" or "guitarheros" or "call of dutys" 
    People would actually really love if a new megaman game came out.
    Avatar image for rowr
    Rowr

    5861

    Forum Posts

    249

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #32  Edited By Rowr

    @El_Galant said:

    I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.

    You're not going to find much sympathy in here, game forums are populated with people who have nothing but time on their hands, mostly teenagers.

    I totally agree with you, I'm still a third of the way through brotherhood and i'm pretty sure with the mass of great games out from last year it's going to be a year until I touch revelations if I touch it at all. Which I probably wont as it seems like it's less of the crazy conspiracies of the 1st and 2nd and more "fun times with Ezio". Which at this point feels pretty done.

    Yearly is too much for a franchise like Assassins Creed, especially when you factor in masses of DLC.

    Avatar image for kandycane2029
    Kandycane2029

    517

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #33  Edited By Kandycane2029

    I'm having a hard time trying to bring myself to play ACR. I'm suffering from series fatigue.

    Avatar image for evilsbane
    Evilsbane

    5623

    Forum Posts

    315

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 0

    #34  Edited By Evilsbane

    @Sooty said:

    I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

    I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

    It had some bad repetition no one will argue with you on that but hardly lifeless the underlying story was Really good and the concept was Really good some of the execution was off but all of that was fixed in 2 so why is it so hard to believe that someone could enjoy AC1, a good story can pull you through just about anything.

    Avatar image for sooty
    Sooty

    8193

    Forum Posts

    306

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 3

    #35  Edited By Sooty

    @Evilsbane said:

    @Sooty said:

    I don't know how you people loved AC1, that game was fucking terrible and by far one of the most repetitive, lifeless games I've played this gen.

    I'm just going to pretend you people that have different opinions do not exist.

    It had some bad repetition no one will argue with you on that but hardly lifeless the underlying story was Really good and the concept was Really good some of the execution was off but all of that was fixed in 2 so why is it so hard to believe that someone could enjoy AC1, a good story can pull you through just about anything.

    I though the story was dreadful. Altair is a terrible and boring character, to me that series starts with 2.

    Avatar image for klei
    Klei

    1798

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 4

    #36  Edited By Klei
    @El_Galant said:


                       

    I don't understand the need to put a game out every year for this series. I haven't even been able to play Revelations yet, I don't think we have enough time to play all these games much less get excited over another AC game within a year of each other. We have lives, work, go out, girlfriends, wives, maybe kids in some people case, family, etc...watch TV, movies, write blogs, play sports, exercise, Twitter, Facebook and play videogames. Ubisoft better rethink their strategy now before we get sick of a diluted product...and that is all I have to say.



                       

                   

    I have well enough times to play through a 25 hours long game within one year.
    Avatar image for cl60
    CL60

    17117

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #37  Edited By CL60

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @CL60:

    And that's still a bullshit argument. How can you say that Modern Warfare 3 is a crap game by saying that it's exactly the same as Call of Duty 4, which is not a crap game? What if I hadn't played Call of Duty 4, but want to to play Modern Warfare 3? How would that argument apply to me in any feasible way? Again: don't drag other games in the argument when determining whether a game is good or not.

    And I still don't understand how you are unable to understand how something can get stale after the same thing being released over and over again for 5 years.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #38  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @CL60:

    Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

    Avatar image for cl60
    CL60

    17117

    Forum Posts

    -1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 5

    #39  Edited By CL60

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @CL60:

    Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

    No it really doesn't. If I've been playing the same game every year for 5 years straight. The same things that I considered fantastic 5 years ago, I wont consider them that great anymore, because I've already played through the same damn thing 5 other times.

    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #40  Edited By Jimbo

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @CL60:

    Perhaps because that contradicts the notion of determining a game's quality using things only within the game itself?

    Were you not paying attention when I explained how qualitative standards change over time?

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #41  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @Jimbo:

    Do they have to, though? I can still enjoy Citizen Kane or The Divine Comedy or early Greek statues or anything else in any other medium that's pretty damn old; why should video games be any different?

    @CL60:

    Even though absolutely nothing about it has changed? So if I am to understand your argument correctly, then originality is something that can totally determine the quality of a game, right?

    Avatar image for captaincody
    CaptainCody

    1551

    Forum Posts

    56

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #42  Edited By CaptainCody

    @Video_Game_King: Video games aren't movies, books, or television. They are video games. The interactivity of them is what makes them stale and unoriginal over time, this will be a constant from now until the end of time. It is a quantitative factor based on how many games of a kind you play.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #43  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @CaptainCody:

    But that doesn't really make any sense. If interactivity makes them stale over time, then how are so many people still playing Starcraft? And how would World of Warcraft be dominating the MMO genre if that was true?

    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #44  Edited By Jimbo

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @Jimbo:

    Do they have to, though? I can still enjoy Citizen Kane or The Divine Comedy or early Greek statues or anything else in any other medium that's pretty damn old; why should video games be any different?

    The argument there is that those things have rarely, if ever, been bettered. They didn't release very slightly better sequels of Citizen Kane every year for the next 5 years.

    Nobody said you can't enjoy old things anyway, I said standards change over time. Just because a game is 'awesome' today doesn't mean it will be considered 'awesome' a year later. It's not that the game has changed, it's that 'awesome' has changed. If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #45  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @Jimbo said:

    If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

    No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #46  Edited By Jimbo

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @Jimbo said:

    If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

    No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

    It blows my mind that you can't grasp this concept.

    When you call something awesome you are making a comparative statement. It inspires awe because it is of a higher / more impressive nature than its peers. Once enough of those peers match or improve on it then it ceases to be awesome.

    You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #47  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @Jimbo said:

    You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

    Yes, you can; no, it is not.....Shit. I don't see anywhere else for this to go.

    Avatar image for bvilleneuve
    bvilleneuve

    304

    Forum Posts

    11

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 9

    User Lists: 0

    #48  Edited By bvilleneuve

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @Jimbo said:

    If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

    No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

    You're right that a company can release five games in a row and have them all be at roughly the same level of quality. That doesn't then force me to like them the same amount, though. Part of what makes a game good is how it controls, what its story is, and what its graphics look like, but part of it can also be the novelty of the experience. So AssCreed Rev can technically be just as good as AssCreed Bro, but I'm not obligated to buy it or enjoy it, in the same way I'm not obligated to listen to Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solos on repeat just because it's "technically" some of the best guitar playing.

    Avatar image for video_game_king
    Video_Game_King

    36563

    Forum Posts

    59080

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 54

    User Lists: 14

    #49  Edited By Video_Game_King

    @bvilleneuve:

    Hooray for a logical post that manages to resolve this dilemma! Now I just need to see if everybody agrees that liking something is not the same as admitting that it's good (and that they should admit that all of these five games hover around the same level of quality, all other things being equal).

    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #50  Edited By Jimbo

    @Video_Game_King said:

    @Jimbo said:

    You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

    Yes, you can; no, it is not.....Shit. I don't see anywhere else for this to go.

    "1. The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."

    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.