@Jimbo said:

"1. the degree of excellence of something."

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

"1. the degree of excellence of something."

Are you just being deliberately ignorant? You can't just dismiss half the definition by deleting it (the half which made this crystal clear btw), and in the half you've decided to keep, 'degree of excellence' also implies a comparison to other similar things. Hence 'degree', as in, what a scale is broken up in to, as in a scale for comparing things. And hence 'excellence', as in 'how much something excels'... that's 'excel' as in 'be better than other things'.

'Degree of excellence' literally means to what extent something is better than other things.

@Jimbo:

That's not half the definition; it's an alternate definition. Semicolons are used to clarify a previous statement (not exclusively, but it is a use), like I did there. Besides, that definition does not say that you have to compare against other games; simply that a comparison must be made. Maybe compare against that standard I mentioned earlier? Those questions, maybe? You can consider a game on its own merits (or lack thereof), and you should do such a thing.

I thought we were getting Assassin Creed spin-offs.  I would play the fuck out of  Assassin Creed X, Legends, Soccer, Zero, ZX, Network, or Star Force.   This thread disappoints.  BOO THIS THREAD!!!

Well its cause they want the game to work in parallel with the real world, so the last of desmond needs to happen before 2012. I forgot where i read that, but it was in an interview

I wonder what will miss an annual release first, Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty.

We probably have a few years until either take a year off though.

Usually I'm one to say screw publishers, but you know that you can actually skip these games, right? I mean, it's not necessary to play every single game out there. I know that games are fantastic and everyone wants to play everything that is cool, but your responsibilities have to come first.

I'll tell you the exact same thing I tell everyone when they get pissed they can't have a game day one. The game will be there when you have the time and resources to have the game. It's not going anywhere. Unless it's Nintendo.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo:

That's not half the definition; it's an alternate definition. Semicolons are used to clarify a previous statement (not exclusively, but it is a use), like I did there. Besides, that definition does not say that you have to compare against other games; simply that a comparison must be made. Maybe compare against that standard I mentioned earlier? Those questions, maybe? You can consider a game on its own merits (or lack thereof), and you should do such a thing.

Umm, yes you can compare to a standard. What is your standard going to be derived from? Other games. Those 'other games' are always changing (as new games come out), hence why the standard needs to constantly change over time to reflect that. If your standard doesn't adapt to reflect the evolving state of the market then it will almost immediately become outdated and meaningless. There are very good reasons why it doesn't work in the manner you're suggesting it should, eg. an FPS standard fixed at Wolfenstein 3D would be completely redundant today.

The questions you put forward are qualitative and comparative in exactly the same way. We aren't talking about tolerances on a bolt here. You can't make a quantitative measurement on "Does it control well?", so 'well' compared to what? Well compared to your standard which is based on Wolfenstein 3D? Well compared to the games that were on the market when it launched? Well compared to the games that are on the market whenever the question is being asked? Those old skool FPSs were considered to control well at one point and you couldn't even look up or down. Standards change - necessarily so.

@Jimbo:

Except it's still very possible to phrase the questions in a way that they do not reference other games. For example, the control question. I could rephrase it as "do the controls do what I expect them to do" or "do the controls allow me all the actions necessary to complete the challenges it puts forth". Neither of these questions reference other games, and this process can still be done with the other questions posed. So, for example, the controls in Wolfenstein 3D would work because they allow you the actions necessary to complete the actions it puts forth. If those controls would be put in a modern FPS, on the other hand (and assuming that all other factors stay the same), yes, it would be a bad thing. However, it would not be bad specifically because it's old or because it's been done before; it would be because the controls would not allow you to complete the game in a reasonable fashion (enemies at a different height would be impossible to shoot, meaning the controls would not allow you to complete all the challenges it puts forth). If we're encouraged to compare to other games, then just about every game out there is complete crap because it's derivative of some work out there, whether it knows it or not. The only way to fix this issue is to stop comparing to other games altogether, and just consider a game on its own accomplishments.

@Video_Game_King said:

@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?

Multiplayer cannot be judged wholly the same, and things like e-sports, patches, and the challenge keep it fresh. Yet, games like that can still wear thin for many, you don't see many people talking about it of course considering that we get quite a bit out of those games as is.

I also fear I have missed this nice, heated debate. Fuck.

@CaptainCody said:

Yet, games like that can still wear thin for many, you don't see many people talking about it of course considering that we get quite a bit out of those games as is.

"These games can still become stale, but you don't see people complaining because they don't become stale." Something about this statement isn't quite right...

@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. There are mistakes in Rev, but they are fixable. I still enjoy this game series and so do 9 million other people.

Well said. Assassins Creed 2 still boasts one of my favourite campaigns of all time and Ubisoft won't let down with the final game.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CaptainCody said:

Yet, games like that can still wear thin for many, you don't see many people talking about it of course considering that we get quite a bit out of those games as is.

"These games can still become stale, but you don't see people complaining because they don't become stale." Something about this statement isn't quite right...

Poor strawman, No one complains as much because getting over 100 hours out of them is usually pretty good, that doesn't stop everyone of course but discussion for those types of games don't take place much on Giant Bomb. RTS and fighting games aren't as relevant to this thread for obvious reasons, and those games still try to evolve the formula, unlike an adventure series spanning 5 games still unresolved and unchanged for the most part.

@CaptainCody said:

Poor strawman, No one complains as much because getting over 100 hours out of them is usually pretty good, that doesn't stop everyone of course but discussion for those types of games don't take place much on Giant Bomb. RTS and fighting games aren't as relevant to this thread for obvious reasons, and those games still try to evolve the formula, unlike an adventure series spanning 5 games still unresolved and unchanged for the most part.

They do? Although I can't speak for RTSes, fighting games often stick to the exact same building blocks. In fact, Street Fighter has been criticized several times for not evolving its formula, making it fairly relevant to this discussion. And on that final comment: "unresolved" is a legitimate complaint for a game in the series. Games should have some sense of finality and self-containment (not the best word for what I want to say, but as long as it works...). "Unchanged", however, is not. Maybe it doesn't need to change because it's good enough as it is? Of course, if there are flaws present in the game, then yes, they should be fixed, but it sounds like people want change merely for the sake of change. THAT DOES NOT WORK.

I can only assume the terrible quality of Revelations is because their main team was hard at work on AC3.

If AC3 is half as much of an improvement that the second one is over the first then I am excited.

@TooWalrus: I'd buy that Assassin's Creed.

That doesn't stop people from buying Call of Duty. I understand what you're saying, it makes sense, and I kind of agree, but my first comment proved you wrong.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CaptainCody said:

Poor strawman, No one complains as much because getting over 100 hours out of them is usually pretty good, that doesn't stop everyone of course but discussion for those types of games don't take place much on Giant Bomb. RTS and fighting games aren't as relevant to this thread for obvious reasons, and those games still try to evolve the formula, unlike an adventure series spanning 5 games still unresolved and unchanged for the most part.

They do? Although I can't speak for RTSes, fighting games often stick to the exact same building blocks. In fact, Street Fighter has been criticized several times for not evolving its formula, making it fairly relevant to this discussion. And on that final comment: "unresolved" is a legitimate complaint for a game in the series. Games should have some sense of finality and self-containment (not the best word for what I want to say, but as long as it works...). "Unchanged", however, is not. Maybe it doesn't need to change because it's good enough as it is? Of course, if there are flaws present in the game, then yes, they should be fixed, but it sounds like people want change merely for the sake of change. THAT DOES NOT WORK.

Street Fighter isn't the only fighting game, and if you only play arcade I can see the problem. I can also say that stabbing dudes is getting a little old considering how easy the game is, and how the story goes NOWHERE.

@CaptainCody said:

I can also say that stabbing dudes is getting a little old considering how easy the game is, and how the story goes NOWHERE.

Validinvalid.

@Video_Game_King said:

@CaptainCody said:

I can also say that stabbing dudes is getting a little old considering how easy the game is, and how the story goes NOWHERE.

Validinvalid.

Those are my gripes on the franchise, I'm not implying the story is tied to the gameplay itself.

its just annoying that games come out so fast now a days

@CaptainCody:

Oh, the franchise as a whole? Not on a game to game basis? That could work, I guess, at the very least in terms of the story.

@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".

I think if it was "Megaman-ed" it would've been flat out cancelled and forgotten about. Only throwing the character and universe into fighting games.

HOLY SHIT SOUL CALIBUR 5 ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

@El_Galant: You know why? Money is why. They continue to sell and sell well. Hell, people have said that about Call of Duty as well but here comes Modern Warfare 3 last year doing even bigger numbers than Black Ops.

@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.

So, when can I expect a game based on this quote developed by NEOGAF users?

I would agree with you, but we haven't seen what AC3 will be. Let's hold of before we start making speculations. Besides, I loves AC2 and Brotherhood so they can do what they want.

The thing with AC, or at least the main storyline, is that I'm convinced it actually has an end. Ubisoft can keep pumping out spin-offs and side-stories, but after Desmond does whatever it is he needs to do, I imagine that the Assassin's Creed teams will move on to making a new IP for whenever that next generation of consoles appears.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo:

Except it's still very possible to phrase the questions in a way that they do not reference other games. For example, the control question. I could rephrase it as "do the controls do what I expect them to do" or "do the controls allow me all the actions necessary to complete the challenges it puts forth". Neither of these questions reference other games, and this process can still be done with the other questions posed. So, for example, the controls in Wolfenstein 3D would work because they allow you the actions necessary to complete the actions it puts forth. If those controls would be put in a modern FPS, on the other hand (and assuming that all other factors stay the same), yes, it would be a bad thing. However, it would not be bad specifically because it's old or because it's been done before; it would be because the controls would not allow you to complete the game in a reasonable fashion (enemies at a different height would be impossible to shoot, meaning the controls would not allow you to complete all the challenges it puts forth). If we're encouraged to compare to other games, then just about every game out there is complete crap because it's derivative of some work out there, whether it knows it or not. The only way to fix this issue is to stop comparing to other games altogether, and just consider a game on its own accomplishments.

All you're going to end up answering is whether a game functions or not. You're judging an evolving art form as though you're talking about a component coming off a production line. You're trying to fix subjective judgements by not making any at all. A game cannot be considered awesome on the basis that "the controls allow the actions necessary to complete the challenges put forth". That's like saying mangles are still awesome because they allow you to wash your clothes - mangles stopped being awesome when superior alternatives become available.

"Does this game function as intended?" is not the same question as "Is this game good?". You can call it functional without comparing to other games, but you can't call it good, because that's a comparative statement. The controls in old skool FPS were functional for the games they were in, but given how that control scheme is now completely obsolete (even though it in fact can be used to shoot enemies at different heights), it's fair to say that it is no longer considered awesome by many people. It actually would be functional in a modern game, because you can just have the height aiming be automatic. That would still be considered bad -despite being functional- because the vast majority of people consider a control scheme with manual y-axis aiming to be superior to one with automatic y-axis aiming.

Most games are crap and are called crap for the reason you say. If another game already exists which is superior in every way, then there was no reason for the game to be made or played, and certainly no reason for it to be considered awesome. That's why the vast majority of games are played by very, very few people. It's not a problem that needs solving - it's comparative judgement working as intended. All that fixing standards would do is stifle innovation and encourage a lower quality of game than would otherwise be produced. With your attitude we'd still be living in caves because that was 'awesome' once compared to sleeping outside.

I'm of the opinion that Revelations brought nothing worthwhile to the table at all, not even narratively (which is usually what can be relied upon to justify an otherwise identical or weaker game). If somebody hadn't played the previous AC games I would tell them to play those instead. If somebody had played the previous AC games I'd tell them they really didn't need to bother with Revelations, unless they wanted more of the same but at a slightly lower standard. Even ignoring the fact that one came out a year after the other, I would still consider Brotherhood to be the superior game. Brotherhood is far more focussed mechanically and has a much better storyline. The only circumstances in which I would consider Revelations a great game would be if AC2 and Brotherhood had never come out.

@Jimbo:

You say that as though that's all I have to bring to the table, when in reality, there's more to it than that. You can consider the story, the graphics, the gameplay mechanics, and all of that using similar questions. By no means is this a perfect method, but it's, at the very least, a step forward. Being functional is a step toward being good, and not being functional is a large part of it not being good.

Only it is a problem, since removes quality from anything grounded in the game itself. By your logic, I could say that Chrono Trigger's a piece of shit because Phantasy Star IV made it redundant. Might as well cast aside the music, the battle system, the story, the art style, the sidequests, the characters; just discount it all because Phantasy Star IV beat it to the punch. In fact, if we're saying that originality is a necessary component of a good game, then NO GAME IS GOOD, FOR THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL GAMES. Everything borrows from everything else. Even the earliest of games borrowed from real world equivalents of some type.

Yet my standard does not remove the impetus for better games, since no game can be perfect. Once that's accepted, that means that potentially, any game in development could be better than what there is now because of improvements and refinements made to what is already there. Thus there's a reason to want change in games: not simply for its own sake, but because these changes could make a good product even better. Again, let's go back to your FPS example. The fixed height thing could still be considered good, given all that crap I said before, but the XY axis thing would be considered better since it would allow me to face my challenges with greater flexibility, giving me a reason to want it in later games. If a game went from manual XY axis to fixed height, then that would be a step down in quality, since it would represent a loss of function, yet it would still be hard to complain about this control scheme if it was still functional, given the challenges placed forth in the game.

But HOW!? How would you tell this hypothetical person that Assassin's Creed II is superior to Revelations? "Revelations isn't as good as Assassin's Creed II because it does everything the same as that game" isn't going to hold water for them. You're trying to apply your own subjective experiences as something masquerading as objective fact, essentially telling them that their potential experiences are invalid (or something like that); THAT is the problem I wish to fix. I realize that it's impossible to remove this entirely, but I still want to minimize its role, which is why comparing games to me is such a vice. You could tell them that it's better game because it controls more efficiently (and then cite examples of how the two control differently and why one is better than the other) or that the world simply has a lot more to it, but you CANNOT say that Revelations is a bad game simply on the basis that it is the same as Assassin's Creed II, which you have acknowledged before as good. Why would you consider Brotherhood to be the better game? Are there no independent reasons to justify your opinion on that? Is there nothing to be found within the games themselves that allows you to arrive at that conclusion?

As my final point, let me leave you with this, a question that has yet to be answered in this thread: how would your method allow me to review/judge my first video game ever? According to you, since I have nothing to compare it to, I have no way of knowing if the game is good. Yet that seems like a bit of a bullshit argument, since I'd still find some pleasure (or lack thereof) in whatever I was experiencing. Too abstract for you? Fine, how about a real world example: Katawa Shoujo. (I can't stop. I just can't stop talking about it.) This was my first visual novel ever, meaning I had no other games to compare it to. It would be pretty stupid of me to compare it to an RPG or an FMV game or something, since it's clearly none of those things and it would be unfair to treat it as such. So what was I to do? According to your method, absolutely nothing. But clearly, I was able to write a blog and review on the manner without comparing it to other games, mainly by asking questions like the ones I posed before.

To quote myself from another AC3 thread on my opinion on the franchise:

• AC1 was alright.
• AC2 was amazing.
• AC: Brotherhood was a let-down after AC2.

I haven't bothered to pick up Revelations as it seems like just more of Brotherhood. I'll most likely buy it at some point, and I'm definitely interested to see what they do with AC3 in hopes they'll capture the awesomeness that was AC2 once again.

Ubisoft have said that they are not going to release an Assassin's Creed next year. So I don't think there is anything to worry about!

Revelations already showed that they can't keep up.

Brotherhood was great, revelations was decent, honestly I think we're mostly just bored of Desmond's story not moving forward and even though Ezio is awesome, kinda bored of him too. I just hope that 3 moves the Desmond story forward in significant ways, I don't mind having another animus assassin, but hopefully thats not the majority of the game this time, needs more stuff with Desmond like at the end of Brotherhood.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo:

You say that as though that's all I have to bring to the table, when in reality, there's more to it than that. You can consider the story, the graphics, the gameplay mechanics, and all of that using similar questions. By no means is this a perfect method, but it's, at the very least, a step forward. Being functional is a step toward being good, and not being functional is a large part of it not being good.

Only it is a problem, since removes quality from anything grounded in the game itself. By your logic, I could say that Chrono Trigger's a piece of shit because Phantasy Star IV made it redundant. Might as well cast aside the music, the battle system, the story, the art style, the sidequests, the characters; just discount it all because Phantasy Star IV beat it to the punch. In fact, if we're saying that originality is a necessary component of a good game, then NO GAME IS GOOD, FOR THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL GAMES. Everything borrows from everything else. Even the earliest of games borrowed from real world equivalents of some type.

Yet my standard does not remove the impetus for better games, since no game can be perfect. Once that's accepted, that means that potentially, any game in development could be better than what there is now because of improvements and refinements made to what is already there. Thus there's a reason to want change in games: not simply for its own sake, but because these changes could make a good product even better. Again, let's go back to your FPS example. The fixed height thing could still be considered good, given all that crap I said before, but the XY axis thing would be considered better since it would allow me to face my challenges with greater flexibility, giving me a reason to want it in later games. If a game went from manual XY axis to fixed height, then that would be a step down in quality, since it would represent a loss of function, yet it would still be hard to complain about this control scheme if it was still functional, given the challenges placed forth in the game.

But HOW!? How would you tell this hypothetical person that Assassin's Creed II is superior to Revelations? "Revelations isn't as good as Assassin's Creed II because it does everything the same as that game" isn't going to hold water for them. You're trying to apply your own subjective experiences as something masquerading as objective fact, essentially telling them that their potential experiences are invalid (or something like that); THAT is the problem I wish to fix. I realize that it's impossible to remove this entirely, but I still want to minimize its role, which is why comparing games to me is such a vice. You could tell them that it's better game because it controls more efficiently (and then cite examples of how the two control differently and why one is better than the other) or that the world simply has a lot more to it, but you CANNOT say that Revelations is a bad game simply on the basis that it is the same as Assassin's Creed II, which you have acknowledged before as good. Why would you consider Brotherhood to be the better game? Are there no independent reasons to justify your opinion on that? Is there nothing to be found within the games themselves that allows you to arrive at that conclusion?

As my final point, let me leave you with this, a question that has yet to be answered in this thread: how would your method allow me to review/judge my first video game ever? According to you, since I have nothing to compare it to, I have no way of knowing if the game is good. Yet that seems like a bit of a bullshit argument, since I'd still find some pleasure (or lack thereof) in whatever I was experiencing. Too abstract for you? Fine, how about a real world example: Katawa Shoujo. (I can't stop. I just can't stop talking about it.) This was my first visual novel ever, meaning I had no other games to compare it to. It would be pretty stupid of me to compare it to an RPG or an FMV game or something, since it's clearly none of those things and it would be unfair to treat it as such. So what was I to do? According to your method, absolutely nothing. But clearly, I was able to write a blog and review on the manner without comparing it to other games, mainly by asking questions like the ones I posed before.

Game B borrowing from Game A is fine as long as it's improving the aspect it's borrowing, or offering some other aspect that Game A doesn't. If Game B comes later than and is inferior to Game A in every respect and offers nothing else new then there was no reason for Game B to be made (other than $$$, obv). I don't think Revelations offers any meaningful improvement over Brotherhood, and I think the new elements it does introduce make the game worse overall (it has become mechanically bloated and lacks focus). Of course I'm applying my own subjective experiences, because that's the very essence of making a recommendation, or offering a judgement on the quality of a game (or any other artform) - whether the person I'm telling chooses to listen to me or not is up to them. There's nothing at all wrong with how that arrangement works. Which is fortunate, because that's how it always has and always will work.

How does somebody review or judge their first game? Simple: by playing more games first. You are in no position to review games if you've only ever experienced one game. You'd be making a judgement from a position of ignorance and presumption. Anybody in their right mind would promptly dismiss your opinion as being insufficiently informed and go find a more qualified person to ask. As for your 'visual novel': given it's just a mix of narrative, art and choose your own adventure (AFAIK), then you are already plenty familiar with those things from other media and can make your comparison against examples from there. You certainly did this, whether consciously or not - your idea of what makes a good story is based on stories you have experienced in the past, ditto art etc. This can't be applied to games so easily because the only place you'll find comparable interactive elements is in other games.

Somebody who has never played a game before might find Kill Switch awesome, but they are far less likely to do so if they played Gears of War first. Again, it's not that the game has changed, it's that the persons expectations have changed. The standard required for them to consider something 'awesome' has rightly and naturally become much higher as a result of their experiences. You would say that if they judged Kill Switch as awesome, then every cover-based TPS they play thereafter -which at least matches the standard of Kill Switch- must also be called awesome, because the standard of awesome isn't allowed to change, ever. This renders any judgement of quality they make on future games practically worthless, because by that never-changing standard vritually everything is awesome, ad infinitum. If I come to them for a recommendation and they tell me they consider virtually every game in the genre to be awesome because they're all at least as good as Kill Switch, I would tell them to get the fuck out of my face, then go and find somebody less crazy.

Please accept my personal artist impression as to what I was hoping this thread was about.

@Jimbo:

I totally agree with your first example (I even think that I made it part of my argument earlier), but deviate at at "offers nothing else new". What if it's already a damn fine game? Why would it ever need to introduce anything new? (I'm assuming that you don't mean "improve on flaws present in the original material"; instead, I believe you to be saying "introduce something new.") Simply for the sake of being new? That's appeal to novelty; that's utter bullshit.

There is something wrong with that approach, and it's what I've been telling you this entire time: it has nothing to do with the game. If I'm gonna recommend a game to somebody, I'm gonna make damn well sure that we're talking about the same thing as much as possible. I'm aware that they may interpret it differently, but if I'm using my own interpretations, I'm going to use interpretations that come from the game, not from something extrinsic to the game. (If any of that makes any sense.)

That doesn't make any sense, though. You're essentially telling these people that their opinions are invalid, even if they do everything in their power to justify their opinions in a concise, logical manner. Even if they've 100% played the game, taken extensive notes on the manner, examined it in great detail, and have outlined a completely cogent and sound argument on why their opinion makes sense, fuck 'em, because clearly, they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. Meanwhile, somebody who's played only ten minutes of the game before launching into an uninformed tirade against it would be more trustworthy simply because they've played more games than the other person. Again, this reduces the opinion to something separate from the game altogether, when it's actually something derived from the game. A good reviewing/judgment process should hold up in all situations, and right now, your process is failing pretty damn bad in this respect.

(I don't know what Kill Switch is, but moving on...) Ah, touche. This will take a lot of work to argue out of.....OK, I think I got something: they don't necessarily have to use Game X as the basis as their entire system of quality. They simply need to go back to that question thing (or perhaps some other system neither of us have thought of) and apply it to the game. I assume that Kill Switch is supposed to be an example of a bad TPS; if that's the case, then the previously outlined method will bring them to the conclusion that Kill Switch is a poor game. However, even if they do believe it to be a good game, it does not necessarily follow that they'll love every TPS they play after it. Perhaps they will think that those other games do not achieve their goals as well as they could achieve them. I don't know. Also, I'm not sure I understand that last statement. So they're not allowed to like an entire genre because their earlier experiences with it were good? I'm sort of confused as to what you're saying.

@El_Galant: Man, if you've got enough time to log onto Giantbomb and bitch about it then you've probably got enough time in your busy schedule to pop in Revelations. You have like 8 more months, regardless. I'd have a problem with what Ubisoft is doing if the games were suffering in quality as a result of the annualization (Dragon Age 2), but they simply aren't. To be honest, I thought Revelations was as good as 2/better than Brotherhood, the stuff they do with story is, in my opinion, amazing.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@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?

I agree....what?Even with all the nonsense he mentioned I still find time to play games.But I just use that time for other things.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@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?

Yeah, dude, I don't know.

I have a girlfriend, a job and a cat. I also have time to play more than one video game a year.

Being on Twitter might impede my ability to play Assassin's Cre.. no, wait, what?

If you don't have time to play them then don't. Wait for when you do have time and by then it'll probably be real cheap. They won't stop making them when they can still sell millions.

Revelations certainly showed that they need to do something about the gameplay formula, but since the game is confirmed to take place during the American Revolution (or at least around that period) the game would have to change some, since there aren't the same architecture at all and the style of combat has changed during the past 200 years.

Also I could see the Assassin working for both sides, which maybe could add a faction control element, but guessing is useless as of now, I guess we'll have to wait until we get more info.

@Rowr said:

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.

That's probably what I did not understand...anyways it's cool to see the thread had a good number of replies. Now that I saw the AC3 trailer, I can easily say that I will probably GameFly it sometime in 2013...haha

@CaptainCody said:

@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.

I don't know about this. Things that are great stand the test of time regardless of what they are. I just played Shadow of the Colossus for the first time and I was very impressed on how enjoyable the game is with just a sword, a bow, a horse and just being able to grab onto a certain texture. Great execution on a simple premise with over the top bosses. The Matrix is still great to watch 13 years later...and many people keep their favorite books around so they can read them again at some point in the future. Just because the interactivity isn't updating the impact of the experience will always stay enjoyable....even if you are looking at the Sistine Chapel or the statue of David, both created by Michelangelo, they remain great works and enjoyed by millions 400+ years later....

@Jimbo: @Jimbo said:

@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.

To make it simple, why is a woman hot? Because she is physically more beautiful than most of her female counterparts, thus making her more desirable and 'awesome' to be with...haha...in all seriousness though there are a couple of degrees at the top where a hot girl will not cease to be hot just because you find a 'hotter' one. So I refute the 'cease to be awesome' argument, it just makes it less impressive, more like something to compare it to when grading others. Best of the best.

Don't drag me into this again. I don't have the energy or mental capacity.

My only complaint with the Assassin's Creed series was that Brotherhood and Revelations had about seven hours worth of tutorials before things actually started up. That's too much of a slow burn to keep me going. If they can get back to the focused ways of Assassin's Creed II, then I'll be more than happy.

Nonetheless, I'm excited for AC3.

Remember how Ubisoft was gonna put that assassins creed legends game on 3DS and then cancelled it and a lot of people were upset?

Oh wait...