Gaming Assassins Creed: Syndicate Review

December 2013 AC:IV - "It's without a shadow of a doubt the strongest entry in the series" - 92%

October 2015 AC:S - "This is the pinnacle of Assassin's Creed. It hasn't been better than this and it likely won't beat this." - 70%

I get the point that the format may be a bit tired now, but something doesn't add up.

 

Different reviewers, different opinions on the series as a whole.

 

Yeah, different reviewers.

So, here's some thinking:

There's been a lot of these games since 2007, and the muddy controls / repetitive activities are still present. I don't think they'll ever reach it.

Honestly though, scores are rubbish. They'll always be rubbish, and the best thing to do is just read the review. It's hard to effectively convey nuance looking at just the score - it's the best Assassins Creed i've ever played, but the problems make it hard to recommend when games like Metal Gear 5 are out there showing games can reinvent themselves.

I really really enjoyed myself (Still playing it after the review is written which is rare) but I'd struggle to justify a higher score. It doesn't mean you won't enjoy it, just that it has a lot of problems.

 

Being a good game that could be better back in 2013 is probably going to garner a higher score than a game that was good in 2013 but is now as good as it's going to get in 2015.

That sentence didn't make a lot of sense to me, but if you can see where I'm coming from, you'll get my point.

 

I get you. I would have scored this game higher in 2013, but it feels really tired now.

 

In the context of how popular the series has been, and how good the best of it has been, this review, when combined with the 70% score, is ropey. If the Bit-tech reviewers are going to be so inconsistent with the scoring, why score it at all because it's next-to-meaningless. If a site uses a scoring system, then when you compare any 2 scores there should be an obvious indication as to which game the site thinks was the better game. Judge a game by the game, don't start taking out gripes with the series or the developer on the game itself.

By all means emphasise the point that it's just more of the same, but that is what the text is for. The reviewer liked what they played but wants change for change's sake.

And as for the bit on bugs? Does make me question the intentions of the reviewer. 'I've not experienced any bugs in the 30 hours I've played the game, but there's bound to be loads cos the internet says so'. Everybody knows Ubisoft is a favourite for people to hammer and any faults get blown out of proportion. This review reinforces that negative bias without any primary evidence to support it. This is exactly how games get sabotaged - blind repetition of 'buggy mess' regardless of personal experience has become normalised and great games get eternally banished to consumer's 'ignore' lists.

The internet is full of people blindly repeating **** from reviews without finding out for themselves. When the reviewers themselves do it, or even worse - relegate their own excellent experience to 'fluke' - games have little chance of recovering.

 

They never should have

Spoiler

killed off Desmond

. I enjoyed the present day drama almost as much as the main gameplay.

 

How about you try it that way next time?

 

Games change over time. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 for example, is not as impressive a game as it was back in it's launch.

While I haven't experienced the bugs but those I respect have shared videos and I've seen them while seeing the game played elsewhere. I know they exist and it's dishonest not to mention them, I just haven't encountered them.

I also don't want change for changes sake, the controls are awful, the game format is tedious. It's no better than a 7/10. It's the best Assassins Creed has been, but honestly, the format plays like it's a decade old game.

 

It seems to be much more prevalent recently that the comments section of a game review are more to do with the review than the game. That isn't a personal attack on Jake or anyone else that should do a game review, it's my opinion.

I don't agree that scores are rubbish, only their use and implementation may be rubbish. To even allude that scores are rubbish by default is to suggest that a reader can read two separate reviews with respective scores of 30% and 90% and still not be able to differentiate which is the better game, at which point why even do a review?
Scores are supposed to convey a message, in the most simplest of terms of course, but still a message... This game is good = 90%... This game is bad = 30%.
The review itself is there to go in to more detail to justify those scores and the reasoning behind them as well as offering detailed information regarding the game regardless of it's quality.

Ultimately, consistency is the key and it is my opinion that a new reviewer should have some ability to understand the nature of previous reviews and adapt, while slowly bringing their personal influence to the fore. To have reviews clash and jar with previous reviews threatens future credibility.

Anyway, that's my arsehole... um, opinion.

 

Sorry to anyone if I spoiled anything. The incident I described happened several games ago and Bit-Tech themselves divulged the same info when reviewing the next game in the series - no one seemed to mind that.

 

Assassin's Creed's controls aren't great, they lack the fluidity you hope for in a parkour/freerunning character, but it's something you adapt to and they're not awful by any stretch. But to hear that they've not improved over time is disappointing (I'm currently playing through AC2 - hence I wasn't delighted about the spoiler (but I'll live), but I've already bought Brotherhood, Revelations, AC3 and AC4 cos I like the style of the games).

If the review score had been around 82% I wouldn't have bothered saying anything, but a 22% drop in less than 2 years for what is ultimately an equal, or better, game just seems too much.

Review scoring isn't rubbish IMO, but they need to be used carefully, as they have a significant influence on buying decisions. To a certain extent scores should be timeless, and it's perhaps ironic that Sonic 2 is mentioned, given the positive review scores the 3D conversion has recently got.

Jake, you now say the game has a lot of problems (something you don't say in the review), so what are they besides bugs that you didn't encounter, controls that achieved a 92% bit-gamer score last time, and sticking to a successful format rather than keeping pace with Metal Gear Solid 5?

 

Again sorry Wingman for the spoiler - I agree I should have worded it differently.

Moving on, I definitely agree with the lack of fluidity when free running. I'm actually playing Unity at the moment and I simply just do not like the free running element - it is too clumsy for a title that is made by one of the largest gaming studios with the budget and resources to sort out this kind of problem. I actually feel it was better in some of the earlier games. As the PC version of Syndicate isn't out just yet I really hope that it is improved when its released.

As a fan of the series I'm keen to see what the present day "gameplay" is in Syndicate, and am surprised why that wasn't in the review. After all whether people like it or not, it is an integral part of the game, and an important one as each game in the series moves closer to the present.