Assassin's Creed

[Bacon McShig]

Yeah, I agree. I wasn't too sold on it to begin with, then every time they showed it again, it looked worse.

floating guard in E3 demo luls

[B-Ri]

gamespot just gave it a 9.0 saying the PS3 version has a better framerate while 360 has better contrast in lighting.


wtf? its nearly opposite what IGN said.

[haohmaru]

From IGN:

"...The lengthy load times for levels (upwards of five minutes at some points) is forgivable..."

This alone makes the game a pass. Five minutes?

[Rumpy]

That can't be right.

[Riptwo]

I still think the game could be interesting, but these reviews aren't just polarizing, they're completely contradictory. I'm waiting to see what the forums say once the game's actually released.

[Lordmrw]

5 minute load times are never, never, ever acceptable. You can make the greatest game on planet earth, and load times that long would still be unacceptable. After reading a few reveiws, I'm hesitant to pick this up. Not because I think the game sucks or anything, but because tha issues that have been described are things that I know would get on my nerves.

[Rumpy]

If the loading times were that long how could every review not at least mention it?

[YellerDog]

Reviewers are scared to death of publishers?

[MechDeus]

What I'm saying, is that certain outlets were "paid" to "review the game better". Which seems to be a pretty common method of game marketing.

I'm fairly positive this was standard at GI for a while, because the scores usually didn't seem to match up with reviews. It was always a little odd.

The only thing right now that has me worried is the load times. Most of the rest of the issues don't seem like things that would bug me too much depending on the overall feel of the game, but I'm torn on it right now. I remember the original Tomb Raider being legendary to me in its load times which IIRC were about a minute, and five minutes for any game would be beyond ridiculous.

[B-Ri]

just everyone rent it :X