Assassin's Creed

[gamevet]

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]

I really wanted this to kick ass from start to finish and after reading all of this stuff I'm all bummed out. Looks like I'm going to move this pre order to mass effect.

[bVork]

I'm still getting this. People I know and trust have been really enjoying it.

[B-Ri]

I'm still getting this. People I know and trust have been really enjoying it.

thats what the reviews say, its great at kickoff and drags till the end. Lemme know

[Space Pirate Roberts]

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.

GI doesn't even need interference from individual publishers, they grade on a fucked-up scale where 7 is considered average, the only possible purpose of which is to inflate scores across the board, thus encouraging their readership - i.e. Gamestop shoppers, at least in theory - to spend as much as possible.

[Frogacuda]

GI doesn't even need interference from individual publishers, they grade on a fucked-up scale where 7 is considered average, the only possible purpose of which is to inflate scores across the board, thus encouraging their readership - i.e. Gamestop shoppers, at least in theory - to spend as much as possible.

IGN calls 7 average as well. I always thought it was derived from the old grading standard where a 70-79 was a C.

[NeoZeedeater]

That's how I always thought of it, too. Even with magazines like EGM in the '80s, 5/10 wasn't considered average. It was considered a bare passing grade. I have no problem with the media rating games that way as it's the way I rate them for myself.

[Frogacuda]

The problem is when they get thrown into Gameranking and Metacritic. A 2.5 star review and a 5.0 come out to the same thing, and they really aren't. It would be interesting if they made a score adjusted on a curve based on the publication's average score.

[NeoZeedeater]

I'm not a fan of the 5 star review system. It's too limited.

[Frogacuda]

lt should be limited. Ratings are fairly arbitrary indicators of the reviewers overall sentiment. It's not a scientific measurement. I hate sites that will give a game like a 92.4, like that's something different from a 90.