The only AC game I've played was Brotherhood. I liked it well enough, except for the fact that it sort of assumed that you had experience with the other games, since it didn't really explain much of the interface or how to do things. (which is funny, since it appears that AC3 overdoes it on the tutorial stuff)
But I quit the game when I got stuck on some Desmond puzzle thing, and I never went back to it. Seriously -- the game is gorgeous and amazing in Rome, and completely tedious in the Desmond part. And yet there was just.so.much. of the Desmond part.
So AC3 has intrigued me. Even better if, as I understand it, those parts can be skipped for the most part in the new game.
It all comes down to whether you want a review to just reaffirm your own opinion, or do you want it to convey some insight into the game? If it's the latter, then whether or not you agree with a review is completely irrelevant to the value of the review.
There are some odious Desmond bits in AC3 that you can't skip, unfortunately. But the crazy precursor gods backstory bits -- what the holy heck is going on????? -- can be skipped.
Mr. Herb, you know you can just instantly jump to the beginning of a race, don't you? It might not be immediately obvious, but it's always an option. Personally, I like driving to the races, since each car also has milestones you earn as you use them. Furthermore, driving to races is a great way to find new cars, billboards, speedtraps, and security gates.
Good point about the checkpoints. There are still shortcuts, but there's really none of the "make your own route" that they did in Paradise, is there?
And also a good point about the post-release support. Criterion brought the game a loooong way from the state it was in when it was released.
When I played the "regular" Assassin's Creed multiplayer for the first time in Brotherhood I was really impressed, but I quickly got kind of bored with it. The hide-and-seek dynamic was a bit ruined because inevitably whenever you got the kill someone else would see you doing so and then start chasing you down. Maybe the animations were too long or something? It was a really interesting idea though.
Also Tom, you lump the 2010 Hot Pursuit in with the deservedly ignominious Black Box Need For Speed Installments, but it was developed by Criterion (like Most Wanted) and I thought it was really good. In particular, playing Hot Pursuit (the mode) online was excellent. And I'm not really a racing games guy for the most part (that is to say, when you say racing games, I think "Mario Kart" or "Burnout" before "Gran Turismo" or "Forza"). Did you play it much, and if so, why didn't you like it as much as Most Wanted?
The Brotherhood multiplayer pretty much introduced the concept. Revelations made it even better. And AC3 made it even better again, as well as added co-op. Suffice to say, it's come a long ways since you tried it in Brotherhood, Nik! I think you'd be pleasantly surprised!
Thanks for the correction on the Hot Pursuit developer. I didn't remember that was Criterion as well. I reviewed Hot Pursuit for Gameshark and gave it an F. I pasted the full text of my review in the comments section under the Most Wanted review if you're interested in the details. I'd be happy to talk more about it over there if you're interested.
Wait, what Desmond bits can't you skip in AC3? I really thought the strength of the game was that ALL the Desmond stuff (those awful first person puzzles) were purely optional, so I simply skipped all of them. It was a nice finale for Ezio and I was basically able to completely avoid Desmond, so I quite enjoyed it. Am I blocking out something traumatic?
Edit: Derp, I'm thinking of Revelations (being as it was the third game in the AC2 series) rather than the new game, which I keep forgetting is already out for the console folks. It's a shame to hear there's unskippable Desmond stuff in 3, though, as I thought moving the Desmond stuff into purely optional territory in Rev was a good decision.
Considered upgrading to a newer version of flowplayer? Seeking back and forth in a podcast is really a hassle as it is, and I prefer not downloading the podcasts. I'd rate the searchability of the podcast 1/5 stars, but I am not sure I can handle the response.
I loved the show. Thanks for doing your shows. I can tell when a critic really plays a game from the words they say about it, not necessarily the score they give it. Although, I'm inclined to disagree with all the 7-9 score hate. If you think about school, 7 means a "D" or "C". 8 means a "B". 9 means an "A". Below 7 is an "F". Above 9 is a perfect score. Most "grades" fall into the "D" to "A" range I reckon. I think an "F" grade would be reserved for a broken game that was obviously phoned in on the bus to school. And, likewise, a 100 "A+" would be an exceptional game better than all the rest in it's class. This doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. I could care less for scores, though. I understand we have to have them but if I am really trying to figure out how someone thinks and if I'd like what they have experienced, I'm going to need more than a grade.
This brings me to why I love reading and listening to you guys talk about games so much. I know you actually play them. I appreciate your opinions and you freely giving them to me. I even feel compelled in some cases to play the game myself and give you my opinion back. It should be said, that even though I might be a podcast "fanboy", I very rarely (if ever) agree 100 percent with Tom. It simply isn't why I listen to him. I listen to him because he has a lot of opinions that come from playing a lot of the game in question. I want to know about the game from someone whose really really played it, and can entertain me while talking about their experience. I would be so bored if I agreed with everything that was said. I don't require a pat on the back for my 60 buck purchase. But I do enjoy focused conversation and opinions of good humored, intelligent, and friendly souls. I need more than stars, grades, or scores to get that fix.
