OPM: Since its debut in 2007, Assassin’s Creed has deservedly earned itself a reputation as one of the most accomplished series in modern gaming, delivering moments of exhilaration and grandeur year after year. In addition to providing a new setting (the American Revolution) and hero (Connor Kenway), this latest instalment was supposed to be the biggest step forward for the franchise – and the open world genre in general – since it began. Well… it’s not.
Non-playable characters in certain games are meme material, thanks to their foolish behavior. These are the big-budget games with the dumbest NPCs.
Bethesda makes the most consistently stupid NPCs, like really bad... yet I still can't help but love playing their games. Guilty pleasure, I guess. *sigh* 😩
Every Bethesda game and Every Halo game. This list needed to have Cyberpunk somewhere.
Here are the most peaceful areas in games that are otherwise quite violent, offering players respite from chaos in the game world.
My first thought was the safe rooms in the resident evil series. When you hear that enchanting music you know you’re safe.
I literally just came here to post this. That music in the Resi 1 safe rooms is playing in my head.
I was thinking TLOU work benches. Although I remember one time where it was a false security.
Perfect. 👌👌
I'd add the top of my highrise apartment in GTA Online. That calm, quiet peace, just knowing as soon as I step out that door I will be bombarded by 8 and 12 year olds calling each other n**** and f****, trolled by combat jets and rocket launchers.
The entire map of SotC is peaceful as hell. Used to just ride around exploring it.
Afterlife in Cyberpunk 2077 is a peaceful area? Erm, hands down and very hard to miss, Misty Olszewski's Esoterica is the absolute epitome of peaceful areas in that game.
The "last of us" deer location i found to be a welcoming respite. It was nice to not have someone trying to eat me.
With the recent reveal of Assassin’s Creed Mirage and the promise that the series will return to its roots, there hasn’t been a better time to get stuck into Assassin’s Creed’s back catalog, whether it’s replaying an old favorite or getting lost in previously looked-over classic.
I really enjoyed Assassins Creed 3. My only complaint was that I didn’t enjoy when I had to switch from Connor to Desmond. It’s a personal preference, but Connor’s story was just more fun for me.
On a side note, Black flag was the most enjoyable of the AC games I played.
Gotta admit I thought this game would be getting 9's and 10's across the board
I never understoood why its popular but hey thats the industry.
I'm gonna post this here, because I think it's relevant. I already posted it on another review which was an 8.5. (hence the quote)
"Assassin's Creed III builds strongly on the series but fails to take a giant leap of faith into any real new territory"
It's weird. A lot of people complain about high ratings like 8.5 / 10 merely because they're not 9 or 10 / 10. And I think that's partly to do with a game's expectations, like with how some games you just feel are going to be perfect scorers in advance of their release.
But when I read reviews like this, it makes me wonder how much journalists contribute to that understanding of and 8.5 as somehow sub-par.
The phrasing of the quote above is interesting. The game apparently "fails" to do something quite significant; to deliver on a certain promise. Now, it's hard to see how an 8.5 scoring game can really be said to "fail" on any level; "fail" seems too strong a word for the score it's receiving. Perhaps "falls slightly short" would be more apt.
This leads me to my point, how much of our understanding of high scores like 7.5s through 8.5s as somehow "bad" or signifying "failure", can be ascribed to journalists' phrasing?
We read lots of reviews, and how many of the 7.5s and 8.5s make use of inappropriately depreciative words like "fail."? Is it possible that the reason we think these scores are somehow bad has to do with trends in reviews and the language they use? Often that language doesn't reflect the objectively high score a game is given.
It seems like we've imagined some sort of big gulf of quality between an 8.5 and a 9, which is absurd. It's like the higher the score, the more hyperbolic and excitable a review becomes, it doesn't use critical restraint, and so you get a wide gulf between the associations built into each score. I.e. 8.5/10 = "good, but it fails on some levels" and 9/10 = "OMG BEST GAME EVER FFFUUUUU" and 10/10 "This is the greatest game ever made no other game can or will even come close, I can die now having played this."
And so I think this also effects our expectations and anticipations for a game. With these ideas sort of engrained in our heads, any game that was super hyped and receives an 8.5 / 10 is accompanied by a vague disappointment. Because the hype has made use of all the language of a 9/10 game.
7s and 8s to the gamers before this gen was respectable. After sites and magazines started handing out 9s and 10s like candy, anything that didnt get a perfect/non perfect score is ... suspicious, given the fact its a AAA release.
Review sounds about right. I and my mate have been playing the early release copy for two days now and some of the bugs we've encountered are really annoying.
I hope the patch fixes all issues. I hate unpolished games. That is why i stay away from most multiplats.