Mark Serrels’ Take On Why Assassin’s Creed Is Getting Low Scores
By William on Sunday, November 18th, 2007 at 9:31 PM PST In Microsoft
Gameplayer and Official PlayStation Magazine Writer Mark Serrels recently explored some of the oddities in review scores for Assassin’s Creed in his article “Assassin’s Creed… WTF!?!” He believes that the lower scores are a case of critics trying to be the ‘big man’ and go against what the true score should be basically. He points out that in this case, he thinks that it’s simply a bunch of ‘little big men’. I completely disagree with his article, but it’s an interesting read. Assassin’s Creed was over-rated in my opinion and I’m definitely not changing that opinion. The real reason why review scores are dropping for AC is the fact that more reviewers actually have the game now. There are too many games out there for us to play all of them prior to releases, so things like this do happen. Assassin’s Creed was a step forward in some areas, but the game was an overall let-down for me. I’m not the only one who thinks this. AC reminds me of the experience I had with the original Fable. I was truly psyched about both games and then when I finally got my hands on them, I felt let-down and completely uninterested. Perhaps the let-down factor is really driving down scores too, but shouldn’t it? If you hype up a game, it really needs to back up all the hype.
Basically: Assassin’s Creed. Review scores below 9. Treat with extreme prejudice.
You see, when you have a look at a gamerankings, or metacritic even on the most critically acclaimed games (like Bioshock, GTA, etc) there’s always one idiot that wants to be the ‘big man’ by giving Gears of War a six or something ridiculous. It just so happens that in the case of Assassin’s Creed a whole bunch of these ‘little big men’ have happened to release the exact same review at the game.
Check out his article HERE.
on the basis of looks sure its a 9-10
on the basis of gameplay its just a polished PoP nothing new or exciting really, which makes it average… and average is a 5. if Mark Serrels thinks that 7’s are bad scores then he needs to re-learn the number scale and stop writing for a gaming mag.
You’re completely entitled to your opinion. I personally think AC is a great game, even though it tends to get repetitive at times, it’s still a fun game to me and I love exploring the cities and the story so far. If I was reviewing the game, I’d overall be praising the game.
I’ve read more reviews from people giving it between 7’s or 8’s out of 10 than higher so I suppose they must all be wrong lol
I’ve just had a quick look on Google news for a couple of reviews I hadn’t read before:
Canadian Press 4/5 (7.5/10) http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKMiMwY28WssoqBTmZVksgYsI59w
Team Xbox 7.9/10
http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1428/Assassins-Creed/p1/
CM Life 4/5 (8/10)
http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/storage/paper906/news/2007/11/16/News/assassins.Creed.A.Living.Breathing.Fantasy.World-3106322.shtml
I have played AC and although the last 1/3 of the game was old, I still believe it needs to be held along the lines of a high 8. This is game SOLID. Hardly any technical issues or gameplay engine. Althought the story had a weird way of going about itself, it was quite good. The cities are pretty expansive along with the free land between them. Now what I dont understand is how this rated a average of 7/10 while Halo 3 gets that whole 10/10 average. Docking a game off for repetiveness, short story, and failed to live up to the hype is awfully f**ked up. Halo 3 is the same thing as 2, the story was good, but what, oh yeah, short, and in my eyes, it failed to live up to the hype. I am a xbox360 owner, not a Wii or ps3 fanboy. AC was good and Halo 3 was good, why are they not marked the same? Explain this.
The reason why the game got 7/10 by most people because it was just Prince of persia with a graphics overlay and a story change, its been done and its been seen before.
They’ve made too many similar games to PoP and I’ve only played the first, I thinked it it was unique, but now they put it in every game they make and it just makes it much more repetive, if you look at Halo 3, New graphics, new weapons, new features, better online play, new vehicles, What can you name off in AC thats new, can you ride an elephant, can you ride something else rather then a horse like every other rpg? It looks the exactly same as Oblivion and Fable, just different graphics and the PoP style slapped in it, I probably wouldn’t even be interested in it when it comes out for pc if it ever does.
I thought it was unique for PoP at the time is what I meant, dang keyboard.
@skylar,
Don’t try to make sense of this based on Halo. Its pretty clear the gaming press gave Halo 3 a pass. Its a good game so its not a really big deal. But AC is not getting the same pass because its not Halo.
Also, I think a lot of the lower review scores coming in are because the reviewers are actually finishing it. Most of the poor reviews criticize it for getting boring later in the game due to its repetitive nature. If a lazy ass reviewer doesn’t finish the game (as I’m sure many don’t), then they would miss out on one of the major flaws. My guess is, in an effort to get reviews up first on a major title, many reviewers didn’t actually finish the game. The more honest reviewers who did are giving it lower scores. I could be wrong.
Thank god I didn’t play PoP cuz AC rocks I love it. Reviewers also give mario party 9’s and 10’s so who cares. Either you like a game or not reviews are just a base for you to know if more people like it then don’t. If every review you read was low then rent the game and see. I think this game smokes Halo in every aspect. AC is cutting edge in many facets as far as console games go.
Oh yeah but I’m to busy playing Crysis to feel any repitiveness.
I dunno, I don’t have a 360, thus I have no real say in this except, people need to stop over hyping games or you’ll be let down everytime.
Firstblood is right. It is the gamer who have to decide for himself that a game is good or bad. Every review is subjective, based on the writer’s preferences. Some might think the repetitivness is a major flaw in the game and downgrades it. But to others, it is not a big problem. For example, I think the Halo games are overrated, just like all FIFA/NFS/Sims games, because their sequels/expansions usually lack any kind of inovation. But this doesn’t mean that everybody have to think this way. It is just my opinion.
rite fo start Halo is sh*t same old same old fps never been fan of it, ac same sh*t am a pickey gamer we all hav r own opinions on things and a wasnt buzzed bout halo or ac, seems to me devele dont really know wot a gamer wants no more everythink juss feels the same wot happened 2 the days of classics like resi 1,mgs silent hills etc them games really did hit home so unless some1 brings som originalty back looks like we all doomed :O
hola
quiero decir q yo juego rakion y soy nuevo entre esperando q si me pueden desbanear mi cuenta porfa nose q debo hacer para q me desbaneen porfavor si alguien sabe desbanear agregarme ami correo jajaja_123_23@hotmail.com ok por fa-
used cisco,
I wouldn’t say all reviewers are lazy for not finishing games. There’s just too many games out there to actually beat them all before you drop your opinions of the game. I didn’t actually finish Assassin’s Creed and I probably never will. I’ve put in about 6 hours of gameplay with it and honestly don’t even feel like finishing the game. There probably is a degree of laziness with some reviews of the game though. My suspicions when it comes to reviewers is that a lot of them jump on a bandwagon and simply recycle opinions from other reviewers. That’s really the lazy part. There are also certain sites (not dropping names) who have business relationships with companies and they are inclined to not bash certain titles. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. I guess I can understand some high scores because the game really does introduce some new and unique aspects, and I can also understand the lower scores.
I am really looking forward to follow up in this series and hope that they take the critical responses to heart and made a killer game. You definitely can never take a single review to heart because we all have different opinions. Several of the guys here at Gaming Today have an overall positive opinion of the game while I have an overall negative one and that just happens sometimes.
AC is about a 7-7.5 game. It looks great, but in this day and age, that’s no accomplishment. Here’s my question: How is a 7.5 a poor score?
This highlights something I think more people should be talking about: Review Scores, and what they mean. Most people, if they see a game get a score of 5 (on a 1-10 scale) think that the game is terrible. In the current review culture, they’d be right.
Games that are just awful should get 3’s. Maybe even lower, if they’re that bad. Average games? 4-6. Good game? 7-8. Great games get 9’s, and perfect games get 10’s. It makes me laugh to see how many reviews sites throw 10’s at every AAA title that comes along, then you read the review, and they talk about the flaws the game has. How can a game score a 10 if it has flaws? There hasn’t been a 10/10 game released this year, imho. CoD4 is a good 8.5-9, but not a 10.
Constantly rating every game from 5-10 just throws the integrity of your review scale down the toilet.
@ Ron
Best response to date. You’re totally correct about the scores being skewed a few notches too high. A 10 means perfection, not a game with even a few small flaws.
I agree with Ron. 10s really should be an extremely rare thing. 7 really isn’t bad. My take on AC may seem really negative and part of that is because of how let down I feel about it. There are still many, many games that are much worse than AC. Most people I have talked to consider the game to be in the 7 range.
So far this year, my favorite 2 games have to be Halo 3 and BioShock when it comes to Xbox 360 games. Neither of which were perfect.
Tagging on to Ron’s sentiment, I like AC. I enjoy it a lot but I’d probably give it a 7.5 myself. I think though, and we’ve discussed this on the File-N-Forget podcast that reviews and reviewers have an interesting role in the game industry.. Something that frustrates me as both a professional reviewer and a gamer.
Folks should check out the podcast, we really did talk at length about it. You can find it easily by clicking on the Features tab above and then File-N-Forget. The episode was called Reviewing the Reviewers.
Yeah, when a “whole bunch” of people give a game a mediocre review… maybe there is a good reason.
This game let me down really badly too. They could have done so much with this expansive, beautiful and highly detailed world. Instead they chose to neglect gameplay. What a waste of $60USD
@william,
Good point.
@Ron,
The best explanation I’ve read is that game scores are like grades in school.
Consider a 90-100 and “A” game. 80-89 is a “B” game. 70-79 is a “C” game. 60-69 is a “D” game and 59 and below is an “F”. The assumption is that every game, even the shitty ones should get enough right to get the game to a 50 or so. Meaning a game that would be a 1 would not even allow you to control the player in a straight line or something that basic.
I don’t agree with this approach but it helps explain the way reviews are expressed.
@used cisco: I can see that. However, if that’s the scale that’s used, why isn’t anyone saying that? If a review source, be it online or print, said that was how their reviews worked, I’d be all for it.
Instead most places apply the logic you describe to a 1-10 rating system, and that makes no sense. I have no problem with rating systems going 1-100 and using the methodology you describe.
I can tell you this. Our rating system here at Gaming Today is 1-10, and poor games will receive the scores they are due based on a straight 1-10 system. For more on this, see Chris’ Painkiller review that published today.
@Ron,
I totally agree. This type of confusion really hurts the industry (and I never even heard this explanation from a game site, but from another commenter), particularly when you have a site like this rate a game a 2 and another site ranks the game a 6 even though they both intend to give it a “failing” grade.
@cisco: The sad thing about it is that the only people hurt by this are the people that want to know what to buy.
“Well, gave it a 6, and Gaming Today gave it a 2. has been around longer, so it might be all right. I’ll go buy it.”
*2 days later* “THIS GAME IS BLOODY AWFUL!”
I wish (and I know this is a HUGE pipe dream here) that there could be a standard of review scoring. Sure, I might score games differently than you would, but I bet the aggregate scores would be a lot more telling if this sort of thing existed. At the very least, the average reader would know what to expect.
Hey dudes,
Thanks for the replies, but I can’t help but think I’ve been a little bit misrepresented here. I never said I thought everyone who reviewed Assassin’s less than a 9 were ‘little men’, that’s just a direct misquote! But yeah, it’s all good regardless.
I agree with a lot of the posts here. Yes, the review system is flawed. The sad thing is that the way people review games now and since forever 7 out of 10 is average, not 5. That’s just the way it is. It’s skewed all wrong, which is kind of stupid.
Seems Assassin’s Creed is simply a love or hate title. I happen to love it.
look i got the xbox 360 then it broke so i returned it then i got the xbox witha cuple games then later on i traded that in for a wifi connector and metriod prime hunters. now christmas comes along . i though well the ps 3 is more reliable the xbox 360 but then i saw the price for the ps3 it was 1,00 doillars i was like wooooo dude no way then i loooked at the xbox 360 agian and i was like well they fixed the red light thing and its the same as ps 3 but cheaper. so i ened up with xbox 360 now. ps: ps3 sucks!!!!!!!!!
Edited for content
Please don’t steal other people’s name in an EXTREMELY lame attempt to make them look bad
@Mark: I see that the quote in the article was a little off. We’ll get that fixed. I think you’re right on some points in your piece though. There are cases where some reviewers want to ‘make a name for themselves’ by simply being the only person with the ‘balls’ to give a highly regarded game a low score. I don’t think that’s the case with AC, necessarily, but I do think that your point has merit.
We’ve discussed the inability of some people to do anything but bash on games in the past here, and it’s a topic I still think holds a lot of validity.
Thanks for stopping by!
This wasn’t an attempt to make anyone look bad. I definitely think Mark’s opinion on this game is valid. I just happen to not agree with it. I also agree that in many cases, reviewers give an off rating to a game simply to try and make a name for themselves, but that probably wasn’t the case here. AC is really a love-hate thing like many of you have mentioned. It’s honestly a very difficult game to properly review.
Fortunately, the powers that be here allow us to express our unabridged opinions on topics which I believe is something that will continue forever on Gaming Today. I have to wonder how many sites pressure their reviewers to take it easy on certain games. We’re pretty much allowed to be as honest as we want to be here with our opinions. The way things are at GT, it really opens our writers up to some criticism on certain topics, but open debate and communication is something I love. I’d hate it if we all agreed on every game.
loser,
the PS3 does not suck. I play the Xbox 360 more than any of the other systems and that’s simply because of the games. I think the PS3 is probably the best console that simply needs a better library of games.
2008 will be a big year for Sony. There’s also no need to really hate on any of the systems too much. I can point out a long list of flaws with all three of the next-gen consoles.
@William: My comment wasn’t directed at you, just reiterating the discussions we’ve had in the past about the “everything must suck” mentality that some people seem to have.
Just wanted to clarify.
“2008 will be a big year for Sony. There’s also no need to really hate on any of the systems too much. I can point out a long list of flaws with all three of the next-gen consoles.”
I happen to think that William is dead on right here. With games like Uncharted, MGS4, Gran Turismo, and the release of things like Home and LittleBigPlanet, Sony has a bright future next year. I think people tend to forget that the PS3 is only a year old. It has a fair bit of market time left to it.