Yea. Just never trust reviews. I've played many games over the years that all this "big-name" companies and magazines say are terrible and give them 5-6/10.Point being is that if you're a hitman fan then get it. I think its better without saving. I've never saved while in the middle of a mission anyways.
The review scans are here... and from the looks of it. This guy seems like a big fan of Hitman Blood Money.
What he says is Hitman lost its identity, your kills are limited by what the level designers give you rather than your own creativity, and most of the assassinations are slow mo events. Most of the game is linear, and offers few open areas to experiment.
Also, there is no quicksave, so people who want to be perfectionists need to start the level over
Im not sure what to think... he does seem like a fan of the franchise...
Maybe I should get that HD collection before I try absolution then
Although i strongly dislike that most "big" titles are all gradually merging into a big generic grey genre, i stand by the point that reviewers SHOULD NOT effect a score by its previous iterations.
I mean this in both ways, Hitman shouldn't be down scored because of comparisons to previous games, the same as i believe that COD titles should not receive 9's and 10's because COD4 was good and fear that you will be berated for not giving a score the masses want purely because it has links to the previous title which was good. All reviews and opinions are one and the same and are completely objective to the individual.
Any REAL gaming journalist with even an ounce of integrity should be rating games on their own merits, by all means draw comparisons for people to get a feel for what to expect, but don't let that change the score that it would have received if it was a stand-alone game and not part of a well known franchise.
This is a concept "gaming journalists" cannot grasp. they are reviewing a GAME not a FRANCHISE, therfore any changes to the overall series should not effect the actual games score.
You're completely missing my point, however better or worse it is than Blood Money is irrelevant.
He is reviewing Absolution, not the Hitman FRANCHISE.
Score the mechanics for what they actually are, don't use previous titles as a put down.
For talking sake, say this is a new IP's game and the mechaincs are due a 7 or 8 out of ten, is it fair that the same game under a different franchise should be treated more harshly and given a 6 because of the name on the box? Again, he is reviewing the GAME not the FRANCHISE. There's a massive difference.
To change a score it realistically deserved, be it higher or lower, because of the name on the box is unfair and a massive journalistic double standard.
Edit: Just for reference, any disagrees you may or may not get, i won't disagree you, you're entitle to speak your mind just as much as i am, it's good to have a mature debate with a reasonable user for a change =)
But the thing is there are those people who want a true Hitman game.
Same critisism was made for Dead Space and Resident Evil
Im completely fresh to the franchise, so I know nothing about it... but I think in some regard he has a point, because if a game doesn't meet up with the reputation of previous games there will be disappointment
I think gameplay wise, AC3 is the best one Ubisoft created. Some people think the game is a disappointment... in the end its opinions, and everyone has a different one
As long as you have something reasonable to complain about
I will get Hitman Absolution no matter what.. i waited for a hitman game enough time.. and so far what I saw and heard about it, Im sure, I will love it!
'Score the mechanics for what they actually are, don't use previous titles as a put down.'
I don't get your logic, so if a game is worse than another in the same series it should not be critiqued for its sloppyness? (Not meaning to put words in your mouth but that was my understanding, please clarify if incorrect)
Isn't it better that a dev know of the issues so that it may be fixed either via a patch or future title?
You're looking at it the wrong way. Yes people need to look at the title on it's own merits, but people ALSO want to know how it is compared to previous titles.
I personally loved Lost Planet 2, hated Lost Planet. Thought Spelunker (NES) was a broken mess, couldn't find a flaw in the PS3 version. Can't bring myself to finish Killzone 1, would love another game like Killzone 2. Loved the story of Bioshock, wish Bioshock 2 didn't exist.
If you've played a lot of video games, then you're sure to find you don't love every title in the series or maybe you enjoyed the "different" one. This is okay and why reviewers bring it up. Part of it's own merits is in fact living up to previous titles. Developers don't go into a sequel expecting to make a completely different title, they go in fixing and improving things they didn't in the previous one. So much of the game is about matching and exceeding expectations that you have to factor it in.
With this being said I don't think it should have an absurdly large impact on the score like we've seen, but I do think failing to achieve the same / better experience is something to take points off (.5 - 2 depending on how bad).
Nimblest Assassin is completely correct. To review a game objectively, you must judge it purely by its own merit.
This talk about "franchise reviewing" is... missing the point.
If game A in a franchise has better mechanics than game B in a franchise, then game A should be judged better than game B--because of the mechanics, not because of the franchise.
I'm not a fan of hitman, but I can say that "It doesn't feel like a Hitman game" is not a valid criticism.
The general rule of thumb is, if you change the name of the review to -anything- else, does the review still make sense? So, in this case, we have the comment "Hitman Absolution does not feel like a Hitman game."
So, replace the title to get, "Rainbow Kerfufflepuff does not feel like a Hitman game."
Does that sound like a valid point?
Of course not--because it's not. When we say that games should be reviewed objectively, we mean that applies to EVERY game EVER. In a franchise, that means every entry from first to last. That's the only way to objectively review anything, and it's sadly a fact lost on most "game journalists," mostly because there's no such thing.
"For talking sake, say this is a new IP's game and the mechaincs are due a 7 or 8 out of ten, is it fair that the same game under a different franchise should be treated more harshly and given a 6 because of the name on the box?"
In some cases, a new IP might be judged less harshly because it is new, and some of the mechanics might require some polishing.
For example, a game with decent animations will get a decent score. If, however, that game happens to be a sequel to Uncharted or AssassinsCreed, then the animations will get a poor score. Why? Because it falls below expectations. It has to raise the bar set by its predecessors, or at least match it, otherwise what is its reason for existence?
I think judging a game by its previous installments is fair.
It's just like a movie.
If I'm huge Matrix or Transformers fan, I'm going to be crazy upset if the newest movie in the franchise is a comedy / musical, whether is a good movie or not.
Fans of the franchise do have certain expectations.
If I'm playing Uncharted / Tomb Raider, and Drake sucks at climbing all of a sudden or Lara can't flip in the new game or fire while moving, I'd be like what the-?!
Unless they make the game a prequel with the treasure hunters just starting out learning the ropes, it may be disappointing for fans of the franchises, no matter how mechanically great or fun the game is.
If the reviewer wanted to cater to everyone, they could always say something along the lines of: "Hitman Absolution is a good game in it's own regard, but compared to previous titles; it falls short"
Something like that. The score would have to disregard the series though.
I don't care about scores so much as the content of the review, and after reading it, this guy does make some good points.
Absolution looks like it will probably be a good game, but not necessarily a good Hitman game. If the level design and save system is as restrictive as described here, that's a bit unfortunate.
Here's the deal: the guy had a crap PC. Ran the game at 15 FPS when you will have tons of people being able to run it at 60 FPS. When your PC sucks of course the game isn't going to process AI properly, the levels will look like crap, and with the settings too high with extra bloom (which he complained about) the FPS will tank even more.
I'd suggest not reading PC reviews for this reason, and at least stick to console reviews. That way you'll get at least a standardized idea of the performance (if you read Digital Foundry that is) where they show you how the PC version stacks up to the consoles, and what settings are recommended.
Never review anything. Ever. If you really think that a sequel to a game cannot be compared to it's predecessor well then reviews are something you should never get into it. The predecessor is what you're supposed to compare it to first. If it's somehow worse than the previous iteration, well then you automatically get off several points (score-wise).
@KnowyourStuff
he said he even used three different PCs that ran skyrim properly and they all had performance issues. I think no one should read your comments for this reason.
I agree with everyone putting down Faceless...his argument makes no sense.
"Don't judge the franchise judge the game." What is this nonsense.
When they put the name "Hitman," In the title and used the character model of 47 they were ADDING to the franchise so they should be in all intents and purposes be graded by the franchise quality.
I don't want my Halo 4 or say Halo 5 all of a sudden in the middle of the campaign go Dance Dance Revolution and it won't because people expect a certain familiarity with the name "HALO."
I agree with the reviewer...the game is garbage. I am basing it on it's FRANCHISE pedigree and this isn't Hitman not even on purist mode.
Buy it if you want but don't act like it's any better than Silent Hill:Downpour
I find this so stupid when people go "oh this game got higher than this game, these guys are not credible"
1) A review is an opinion. 2) Both reviews were written by different people 3)5 point difference witcher got 89, dragon age got 94.. big whup 4)You are supposed to READ the review, in order to understand the score... not the other way around
I wish reviewers would get rid of scores and just do a buy, rent or pass system
That way people will stop bitching about a 5 point difference based on the reviews of 2 different people
I was considering to buy this for PC, I've never played a game in the franchise, but Absolution looks really good... maybe consoles if I see a few more reviews.
The Nuns are like some sort of killer squad out for 47, think The Deadly viper crew in Kill Bill. Why they are nuns I have no idea, I guess it answers it in the game.
Its probably a good thing you have never played a game in this series so you'll go in fresh, without any preconceived notion of what its supposed to play like.
Even the guys who downloaded it from torrents said its so awesome their gonna buy it original just to support the developer for their effort! Now thats saying something
For a second, I thought that said "9.9". I was going to lose it.
Those reviews are probably based off the console version, which runs well based off my experience at Comic Con. This review specifies it's the PC version that sucks
PC Gamer this was the PC version reviewed and it looks like another CRAPPY console port to PC!
I'm sure the Console version is fine and will provide consolers lots of "Console Game" type of fun but for PC Gamers Hitman Absolution is CRAP!
Sure PC Gamers play "Console Games" on their PC's but many of them like Hitman Absolution are crappy ports and not done correctly like Alan Wake or Deus Ex: Human Revolution!
The upcoming Thief 4 is more of my type of game for my PC than Hitman:Absolution anyway!!!
I'm sure anyone who like Hitman will buy it. I myself am not a fan, but the review read like he was sulking, almost as if he was on a 'man-period'. Read really bitchy to me.
A lot of PC reviewers hate it when their games are more 'consolised', and can't keep their bias out of their reviews.
"A passable stealth game, but one that **betrays** almost everything that, until now, has made Hitman great."
Hmmm, I dunno. Sounds like it was pretty bias IMO. Like a butt hurt ex fan.
Reviewers are entitled to their opinion, but betray is such a strong word, especially considering you should be judging the game on its merits, not how it wasn't how you dreamt it should be.
Just my 2 cents, as I said, I have never playede a Hitman game before, but the review sounded like a toddler chucking a tantrum becuase there was no banana flavour milk left.
"overuse of bloom, poor story, small levels, pointless objectives (e.g. open a door), no saves, bad AI."
"the game actively encourages you to kill guards and sentries unlike previous Hitman games, which emphasized stealth over all else. Not that it matters—as many of the assassinations you perform are pre-determined cutscenes in which Agent 47 fails to kill his target"
"the PC port of the game was done so poorly that the game even tells you to "gently" press your mouse button, as if it were the same as an X360 controller. In addition, the performance of the game was sub-par on PC Gamer's machines, running at a sluggish 15~ FPS."
Wow... this doesn't sound like Hitman at all. I was really looking forward to it, but I'll have to pass. I don't play sloppily-developed games.
I was summarizing it for anyone who just wanted the important parts, and illustrating my point, clearly it wasn't meant for you. Next time just mind your business and move along.
I personally agree with you on this. If they want to make such drastic changes to the core gameplay/atmosphere of a series they should just make it a new IP altogether imho.
I do know the reason why they don't make it a new IP though, because they want the sales based off the established name.
Max Payne 3 was good but it was just a typical third person shooter with bullettime.
It was NOTHING like a Max Payne game people don't really say anything because it was Rockstar who made it. Any developer made it and people would be truthful about it. Graphics/AI/Animation wise it was good but everything else, especialy character development and storywise it failed, it felt like one step back for the franchise.
I honestly think it was a new IP but they turned it into Max Payne once they knew they could develop the sequel, I honestly don't see why they set it in Brazil. Overall it just felt like Man on Fire: The Video Game.
It's because they have new ideas that they want to implement, but new IP's are risky. So they shoehorn these ideas into their existing franchises. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
For the perfect example of both take a look at the Red Faction franchise. Red Faction: Guerrilla was a fantastic game, it was a TPS unlike the originals, but it was still very much a Red Faction Game just on a much grander scale. Red Faction: Armageddon on the other hand threw out everything that made Guerrilla so great, and became a mediocre linear TPS instead.
What I kind of like with this review is they review it based on past Hitman games, while other reviews (same with any franchise) don't take the older games into account
If they don't live up to the old games then reviews should say something...I mean if there so differnt from the franchise we fell in love with then they should of just made a new IP at the end of the day.
Wow. A shame, but not hard to believe these days. From the previews and footage it does looks like they're trying to shake up the Hitman series with this iteration. Sometimes that causes devs to lose focus completely. Without good AI and a sense of accomplishment in the end after each assassination, then what's the point of the game at all? Just another redundant action game.
I'm still holding out. I have faith. There are WAY too many previews and hands-on articles about how amazing Absolution was. More specifically, many previews confirmed that the "feel" of the original games have not been lost in Absolution - despite the fear that this would simply become a churn/burn action game.
There have also been a number of very positive reports from hands-on players attending E3.
A few things I noticed that seem a bit off:
1. The source itself could be questioned, especially considering this review compared to the others (8's and 9's out of 10)
2. The reviewer claims 15 FPS... ? Come on, IO would never release Absolution at 15 FPS because it's a bad "console port"... you need to invest in some new video cards! The consoles can't run the game at a solid 45 FPS when you are blowing up gas stations, if a well equipped PC can only run it at 15 FPS.
Finally, I'm not sure why a review should take into consideration the previous versions of the game. That makes no sense to me. The game is the game. Half Life 1 was great and Half Life 2 was great... they stand alone.
I love how I get a "Disagree"... for criticizing a "review" that is being paraphrased. None of us have actually read the review being reported on, I'm questioning the article itself based on the source/details.
There really isn't much to disagree with.
If* this review is accurate, I will personally buy PC Gamer a gaming rig that is sufficient for running games from 2008+
Whenever I see reviews like this it makes me wonder whether the reviewer only chose such an different view to increase traffic to their site. Or maybe it's more of a hipster response, doing the opposite of everyone else. Cause it's too mainstream.
When i first seen the title i thought "Ah its just some guys opinion, this is Hitman, i know im gonna love it so nothing to worry about". But this guy sounds like a genuine fan and i agree with the aspects of the game he is disappointed with.
"The review pans the game for its art style and overuse of bloom, poor story, small levels, pointless objectives (e.g. open a door), no saves, bad AI.
The review also points out that the game actively encourages you to kill guards and sentries unlike previous Hitman games, which emphasized stealth over all else. Not that it matters—as many of the assassinations you perform are pre-determined cutscenes in which Agent 47 fails to kill his target, rendering all of your work pointless."
Also add in the lack of an inventory you have to plan with at the beginning of each level and the rest of what i read on the scans and it's sounding like Hitman has lost its heart and that i may be disappointed when i get this game.
God Damn it. Why are games feeling less like games nowadays and instead just one long interactive cut scene?
In Contracts mode you do as you wish, choose your outfit, weapons, and go hunt
Story mode just walks you trough basic training and gives you a story of Agent 47, where you are supposed to just have fun following objectives, it's made for new-comers to Hitman Absolution, so that they don't fail so much and get introduced to the way this game works.
I actually forgot all about Contracts mode, it aint all doom and gloom afterall. Although i really hope it works out like you said and how its supposed to, if so then it should add real depth to the game and give us that "Hitman" experience.
I don't trust reviews anymore. I'm gonna wait until people on N4G get a hold of the game and see what they think. I won't be able to play absolution for a long time anyway as I will be hooked on Allstars for the forseeable few months.
Iv read too many early reviews and have talked with too many people who have actually played the game to know this review is off. Not at all worried that this game won't be the Hitman game we have all been waiting for.
What I took away from this review was more issues directly related to the PC version and not the console versions. I (right or wrongly)assumed this author was being specific to issues on the PC version only.
But isn't there Story and then the Contracts? Which are actually the game-type all Hitman game's have had story delivered?
Story is probably made to tell a story, to introduce mechanics, to just follow the tasks and to learn what is possible in this game, and just have fun without using your brains much.
And after that you play Contracts, which have pre-made contracts for all levels, choose to complete them as you wish Hitman Old-School style and then after you can do contracts made by other people and/or create them yourself.
I personally think that this review is just absurd and inappropriate and should be forgotten, wait for better reviews or just ignore, I will personally just get the game and see what it has, I just know I will like it.
Being this far down nobody will probably read this.
It's a good game. I think a problem most fans of Hitman will have is it has been a long time (7 years) since the previous incarnation. Each Hitman game has changed in one way or another but because of that gap a lot of people won't recognize the changes made from other games. Blood Money is probably my favorite hitman game. This one is good as well. There are things in it that I don't agree with such as the set inventory at the start of each mission. It does feel a lot more linear than previous Hitman games. It doesn't in some of the missions have that "do it your way" feel unlike previous incarnations.
I would say to;
Those who haven't played hitman before you should try the HD collection when it comes out however that does not include the original Hitman Codename 47. That was a PC only game. So I would recommended playing the previous games before hand so you can understand the story more. This is a good game though. The contracts part will be a good addition to the Hitman universe.
Those who have played Hitman before you should still give it a go. It is a good game. I see the issues people are having but it is a good game. As a fan of Hitman I can understand the frustration but lets be honest if Absolution was exactly the same as Blood Money we would complain about that. Hopefully now we will see more games come out sooner rather than wait 7 years.
Buddy, it is, just there is also single player, which gives you a pre-set path, whre you must do things to advance, after that you do contracts Hitman old-school style.
EDIT: Damn, was meant to post this as a reply to SouthClaw above.
Is it worth buying? You and the review in the article mention the more linear approach and the lack of "do it your way" approach in a some of the missions. Also the lack inventory setup. This is a huge reason why i love the Hitman games. The planning, the observing and then when its all done i would look back on the mission and think about the things i would do different the next time. Obviously this adds huge replay value too.
The cutscenes are also very disappointing, im sick of games taking the control away from the player and makinf us watch a game instead of playing it.
You're also saying if we played Hitman we should give it a go but i think people who are big fans would be more upset by these changes as they are expecting that 'Hitman' experience and, as it sounds, will be letdown bigtime. Opposed to guys who never played it and dont know what they are missing.
I asked was it worth buying because i ignored the urge to buy some games in my backlog, the likes of Borderlands 2 and Sleeping Dogs, because i was waiting for Hitman, but i dont want to buy something thats going to disappoint and also something that once ive finished i wont replay.
objective : open this door ((tag on door/the door location in map/they tell you where it is and how you reach it / they tell you what you will deal with to reach it ..etc))
what the hell is wrong with the developers these years ?!! since they think we are that stupid why dont they let the character play it self and just let us watch .
i see many games do this , games are very easy now :( , even ps1 games are harder then most of this generation games...
I have mastered the free flow combat in Batman Arkham City that I was flying around groups of goons with barely any effort. Chucking batarangs and freeze grenades simply because I was bored.
I replayed Oni after that and got owned by the AI all the time - versus one enemy at a time. And this was a game that I played repeatedly for years (there was severe lack of punching games on the PC back then).
WTH are you people on?! Of course it should be compared to previous titles!
Anyone can make a new IP any time they feel like it, but if it has a brand name slapped on it then I expect it to have overall similarities to the other titles in its franchise, thus reading a review I would be most interested in what's been changed. I am sick to death of them using name recognition to sell games that they've completely RUINED (ie. streamlined for mass appeal.)
Okay Guys... So, many of the things Ian states in this review are false. I did a whole writeup over at PC Gamer forums about this. I'm 5 missions into the Xbox360 version of this game and I can assure you that
1.) stealth is still important
2.) You are not rewarded for killing gaurds or civilians ITS THE OPPOSITE, you receive negative points
3.) CHECKPOINTS ARE PRESENT IN Easy-hard mode. Expert and Purist mode have checkpoints turned off.
4.) I really want to know the specs on the rig they were running this.
5.) It plays exactly how hitman should play!
Like I said, I'm playing the 360 version, but most of his points would apply to the game in general (mechanics and how its played)
Thanks for the write-up... one note about the people still criticizing the PC "port" version (in reference to someone posting that you didn't play it, so therefore you can't verify the FPS issue) - I've played the Sniper Challenge on the PC. Same game engine, physics enabled, alot going on... played it for the 360 first and then the PC.
I can honestly say that the PC version ran much smoother and the graphics were much more detailed. Even better, this was run using a Nvidia 450 GTS ($100 card), and since then I've installed a Nvidia 660 Ti w/ 3 GBs of VRAM.
From a technical perspective, unless IO has gutted, butchered and rebuilt the PC version since the Sniper Challenge came out, the 15 FPS comment has to be complete and total bullsh*t.
you cant,and u cant save and u cant even kill ur targets cause of dumb cutscenes.But according to this review u can chose weapon and equipment in contracts mode.
110°
30°
30°
0°
Ad 
90°
30°
40°
40°
40°
40°
The review scans are here... and from the looks of it. This guy seems like a big fan of Hitman Blood Money.
What he says is Hitman lost its identity, your kills are limited by what the level designers give you rather than your own creativity, and most of the assassinations are slow mo events. Most of the game is linear, and offers few open areas to experiment.
Also, there is no quicksave, so people who want to be perfectionists need to start the level over
Im not sure what to think... he does seem like a fan of the franchise...
Maybe I should get that HD collection before I try absolution then
"What he says is Hitman lost its identity"
Although i strongly dislike that most "big" titles are all gradually merging into a big generic grey genre, i stand by the point that reviewers SHOULD NOT effect a score by its previous iterations.
I mean this in both ways, Hitman shouldn't be down scored because of comparisons to previous games, the same as i believe that COD titles should not receive 9's and 10's because COD4 was good and fear that you will be berated for not giving a score the masses want purely because it has links to the previous title which was good. All reviews and opinions are one and the same and are completely objective to the individual.
Any REAL gaming journalist with even an ounce of integrity should be rating games on their own merits, by all means draw comparisons for people to get a feel for what to expect, but don't let that change the score that it would have received if it was a stand-alone game and not part of a well known franchise.
This is a concept "gaming journalists" cannot grasp. they are reviewing a GAME not a FRANCHISE, therfore any changes to the overall series should not effect the actual games score.
He also complained that the stealth mechanics are not as smooth as prior games, and overall it doesn't feel like Hitman
Reviewers made the same criticism with AC3
And this guy does compare the game to others and tell what to expect, mostly being hitman blood money
You're completely missing my point, however better or worse it is than Blood Money is irrelevant.
He is reviewing Absolution, not the Hitman FRANCHISE.
Score the mechanics for what they actually are, don't use previous titles as a put down.
For talking sake, say this is a new IP's game and the mechaincs are due a 7 or 8 out of ten, is it fair that the same game under a different franchise should be treated more harshly and given a 6 because of the name on the box? Again, he is reviewing the GAME not the FRANCHISE. There's a massive difference.
To change a score it realistically deserved, be it higher or lower, because of the name on the box is unfair and a massive journalistic double standard.
Edit: Just for reference, any disagrees you may or may not get, i won't disagree you, you're entitle to speak your mind just as much as i am, it's good to have a mature debate with a reasonable user for a change =)
But the thing is there are those people who want a true Hitman game.
Same critisism was made for Dead Space and Resident Evil
Im completely fresh to the franchise, so I know nothing about it... but I think in some regard he has a point, because if a game doesn't meet up with the reputation of previous games there will be disappointment
I think gameplay wise, AC3 is the best one Ubisoft created. Some people think the game is a disappointment... in the end its opinions, and everyone has a different one
As long as you have something reasonable to complain about
'Score the mechanics for what they actually are, don't use previous titles as a put down.'
I don't get your logic, so if a game is worse than another in the same series it should not be critiqued for its sloppyness? (Not meaning to put words in your mouth but that was my understanding, please clarify if incorrect)
Isn't it better that a dev know of the issues so that it may be fixed either via a patch or future title?
You're looking at it the wrong way. Yes people need to look at the title on it's own merits, but people ALSO want to know how it is compared to previous titles.
I personally loved Lost Planet 2, hated Lost Planet. Thought Spelunker (NES) was a broken mess, couldn't find a flaw in the PS3 version. Can't bring myself to finish Killzone 1, would love another game like Killzone 2. Loved the story of Bioshock, wish Bioshock 2 didn't exist.
If you've played a lot of video games, then you're sure to find you don't love every title in the series or maybe you enjoyed the "different" one. This is okay and why reviewers bring it up. Part of it's own merits is in fact living up to previous titles. Developers don't go into a sequel expecting to make a completely different title, they go in fixing and improving things they didn't in the previous one. So much of the game is about matching and exceeding expectations that you have to factor it in.
With this being said I don't think it should have an absurdly large impact on the score like we've seen, but I do think failing to achieve the same / better experience is something to take points off (.5 - 2 depending on how bad).
This talk about "franchise reviewing" is... missing the point.
If game A in a franchise has better mechanics than game B in a franchise, then game A should be judged better than game B--because of the mechanics, not because of the franchise.
I'm not a fan of hitman, but I can say that "It doesn't feel like a Hitman game" is not a valid criticism.
The general rule of thumb is, if you change the name of the review to -anything- else, does the review still make sense? So, in this case, we have the comment "Hitman Absolution does not feel like a Hitman game."
So, replace the title to get, "Rainbow Kerfufflepuff does not feel like a Hitman game."
Does that sound like a valid point?
Of course not--because it's not. When we say that games should be reviewed objectively, we mean that applies to EVERY game EVER. In a franchise, that means every entry from first to last. That's the only way to objectively review anything, and it's sadly a fact lost on most "game journalists," mostly because there's no such thing.
In some cases, a new IP might be judged less harshly because it is new, and some of the mechanics might require some polishing.
For example, a game with decent animations will get a decent score. If, however, that game happens to be a sequel to Uncharted or AssassinsCreed, then the animations will get a poor score. Why? Because it falls below expectations. It has to raise the bar set by its predecessors, or at least match it, otherwise what is its reason for existence?
It's just like a movie.
If I'm huge Matrix or Transformers fan, I'm going to be crazy upset if the newest movie in the franchise is a comedy / musical, whether is a good movie or not.
Fans of the franchise do have certain expectations.
If I'm playing Uncharted / Tomb Raider, and Drake sucks at climbing all of a sudden or Lara can't flip in the new game or fire while moving, I'd be like what the-?!
Unless they make the game a prequel with the treasure hunters just starting out learning the ropes, it may be disappointing for fans of the franchises, no matter how mechanically great or fun the game is.
A gimp Drake would somehow dull the experience.
Something like that. The score would have to disregard the series though.
Absolution looks like it will probably be a good game, but not necessarily a good Hitman game. If the level design and save system is as restrictive as described here, that's a bit unfortunate.
I'd suggest not reading PC reviews for this reason, and at least stick to console reviews. That way you'll get at least a standardized idea of the performance (if you read Digital Foundry that is) where they show you how the PC version stacks up to the consoles, and what settings are recommended.
Never review anything. Ever. If you really think that a sequel to a game cannot be compared to it's predecessor well then reviews are something you should never get into it. The predecessor is what you're supposed to compare it to first. If it's somehow worse than the previous iteration, well then you automatically get off several points (score-wise).
@KnowyourStuff
he said he even used three different PCs that ran skyrim properly and they all had performance issues. I think no one should read your comments for this reason.
"Don't judge the franchise judge the game." What is this nonsense.
When they put the name "Hitman," In the title and used the character model of 47 they were ADDING to the franchise so they should be in all intents and purposes be graded by the franchise quality.
I don't want my Halo 4 or say Halo 5 all of a sudden in the middle of the campaign go Dance Dance Revolution and it won't because people expect a certain familiarity with the name "HALO."
I agree with the reviewer...the game is garbage. I am basing it on it's FRANCHISE pedigree and this isn't Hitman not even on purist mode.
Buy it if you want but don't act like it's any better than Silent Hill:Downpour
I find this so stupid when people go "oh this game got higher than this game, these guys are not credible"
1) A review is an opinion.
2) Both reviews were written by different people
3)5 point difference witcher got 89, dragon age got 94.. big whup
4)You are supposed to READ the review, in order to understand the score... not the other way around
I wish reviewers would get rid of scores and just do a buy, rent or pass system
That way people will stop bitching about a 5 point difference based on the reviews of 2 different people
Aside from DA2, there hasn't been any review that I would say was way off the mark.
Basing their credibility on ONE review is absurd.
Also... can someone explain the stripper nuns?
Its probably a good thing you have never played a game in this series so you'll go in fresh, without any preconceived notion of what its supposed to play like.
Those reviews are probably based off the console version, which runs well based off my experience at Comic Con. This review specifies it's the PC version that sucks
this was the PC version reviewed and it looks like another CRAPPY console port to PC!
I'm sure the Console version is fine and will provide consolers lots of "Console Game" type of fun but for PC Gamers Hitman Absolution is CRAP!
Sure PC Gamers play "Console Games" on their PC's but many of them like Hitman Absolution are crappy ports and not done correctly like Alan Wake or Deus Ex: Human Revolution!
The upcoming Thief 4 is more of my type of game for my PC than Hitman:Absolution anyway!!!
A lot of PC reviewers hate it when their games are more 'consolised', and can't keep their bias out of their reviews.
"A passable stealth game, but one that **betrays** almost everything that, until now, has made Hitman great."
Hmmm, I dunno. Sounds like it was pretty bias IMO. Like a butt hurt ex fan.
Reviewers are entitled to their opinion, but betray is such a strong word, especially considering you should be judging the game on its merits, not how it wasn't how you dreamt it should be.
Just my 2 cents, as I said, I have never playede a Hitman game before, but the review sounded like a toddler chucking a tantrum becuase there was no banana flavour milk left.
"the game actively encourages you to kill guards and sentries unlike previous Hitman games, which emphasized stealth over all else. Not that it matters—as many of the assassinations you perform are pre-determined cutscenes in which Agent 47 fails to kill his target"
"the PC port of the game was done so poorly that the game even tells you to "gently" press your mouse button, as if it were the same as an X360 controller. In addition, the performance of the game was sub-par on PC Gamer's machines, running at a sluggish 15~ FPS."
Wow... this doesn't sound like Hitman at all. I was really looking forward to it, but I'll have to pass. I don't play sloppily-developed games.
next time you're going to attack someone, try to be smart. We don't look down on smart trolls as much as the illiterate ones.
Hitman, GTA4, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Max Payne 3, DMC etc
I do know the reason why they don't make it a new IP though, because they want the sales based off the established name.
Only thing I can see from what is said in this article is the overused bloom. It kinda looks like it. Nevertheless Agent 47 can never fail... ever.
Max Payne 3 was good but it was just a typical third person shooter with bullettime.
It was NOTHING like a Max Payne game people don't really say anything because it was Rockstar who made it. Any developer made it and people would be truthful about it. Graphics/AI/Animation wise it was good but everything else, especialy character development and storywise it failed, it felt like one step back for the franchise.
I honestly think it was a new IP but they turned it into Max Payne once they knew they could develop the sequel, I honestly don't see why they set it in Brazil. Overall it just felt like Man on Fire: The Video Game.
For the perfect example of both take a look at the Red Faction franchise. Red Faction: Guerrilla was a fantastic game, it was a TPS unlike the originals, but it was still very much a Red Faction Game just on a much grander scale. Red Faction: Armageddon on the other hand threw out everything that made Guerrilla so great, and became a mediocre linear TPS instead.
Other reviews have been overwhelmingly positive.
If they don't live up to the old games then reviews should say something...I mean if there so differnt from the franchise we fell in love with then they should of just made a new IP at the end of the day.
I will be beyond dissappointed if this game is a letdown.
Unless you mean the sites who just give poor scores to get attention, then i agree and just ignore me if thats the case.
There have also been a number of very positive reports from hands-on players attending E3.
A few things I noticed that seem a bit off:
1. The source itself could be questioned, especially considering this review compared to the others (8's and 9's out of 10)
2. The reviewer claims 15 FPS... ? Come on, IO would never release Absolution at 15 FPS because it's a bad "console port"... you need to invest in some new video cards! The consoles can't run the game at a solid 45 FPS when you are blowing up gas stations, if a well equipped PC can only run it at 15 FPS.
Finally, I'm not sure why a review should take into consideration the previous versions of the game. That makes no sense to me. The game is the game. Half Life 1 was great and Half Life 2 was great... they stand alone.
There really isn't much to disagree with.
If* this review is accurate, I will personally buy PC Gamer a gaming rig that is sufficient for running games from 2008+
Are you having a conversation with yourself?
IMO, Hitman will always play better on a console.
PC's will always play better than console sorry, 60 fps rock solid and 1080p+ res. How is 720p- res and sluggish 30 fps are better than that?
Consoles are for exclusives only IMO, and PCs for multiplats and PC exclusives.
Also Hitman's roots are ON PC
games run better on PC, and most multiplatform games these days come with full gamepad support if you prefer to play them that way.
But this guy sounds like a genuine fan and i agree with the aspects of the game he is disappointed with.
"The review pans the game for its art style and overuse of bloom, poor story, small levels, pointless objectives (e.g. open a door), no saves, bad AI.
The review also points out that the game actively encourages you to kill guards and sentries unlike previous Hitman games, which emphasized stealth over all else. Not that it matters—as many of the assassinations you perform are pre-determined cutscenes in which Agent 47 fails to kill his target, rendering all of your work pointless."
Also add in the lack of an inventory you have to plan with at the beginning of each level and the rest of what i read on the scans and it's sounding like Hitman has lost its heart and that i may be disappointed when i get this game.
God Damn it. Why are games feeling less like games nowadays and instead just one long interactive cut scene?
In Contracts mode you do as you wish, choose your outfit, weapons, and go hunt
Story mode just walks you trough basic training and gives you a story of Agent 47, where you are supposed to just have fun following objectives, it's made for new-comers to Hitman Absolution, so that they don't fail so much and get introduced to the way this game works.
Just doesn't seem possible. This feels like Google bait.
It is a shame that the PC version is a mess (according to this review) given this series roots on PC and all.
Story is probably made to tell a story, to introduce mechanics, to just follow the tasks and to learn what is possible in this game, and just have fun without using your brains much.
And after that you play Contracts, which have pre-made contracts for all levels, choose to complete them as you wish Hitman Old-School style and then after you can do contracts made by other people and/or create them yourself.
I personally think that this review is just absurd and inappropriate and should be forgotten, wait for better reviews or just ignore, I will personally just get the game and see what it has, I just know I will like it.
It's a good game. I think a problem most fans of Hitman will have is it has been a long time (7 years) since the previous incarnation. Each Hitman game has changed in one way or another but because of that gap a lot of people won't recognize the changes made from other games. Blood Money is probably my favorite hitman game. This one is good as well. There are things in it that I don't agree with such as the set inventory at the start of each mission. It does feel a lot more linear than previous Hitman games. It doesn't in some of the missions have that "do it your way" feel unlike previous incarnations.
I would say to;
Those who haven't played hitman before you should try the HD collection when it comes out however that does not include the original Hitman Codename 47. That was a PC only game. So I would recommended playing the previous games before hand so you can understand the story more. This is a good game though. The contracts part will be a good addition to the Hitman universe.
Those who have played Hitman before you should still give it a go. It is a good game. I see the issues people are having but it is a good game. As a fan of Hitman I can understand the frustration but lets be honest if Absolution was exactly the same as Blood Money we would complain about that. Hopefully now we will see more games come out sooner rather than wait 7 years.
Is it worth buying?
You and the review in the article mention the more linear approach and the lack of "do it your way" approach in a some of the missions. Also the lack inventory setup. This is a huge reason why i love the Hitman games. The planning, the observing and then when its all done i would look back on the mission and think about the things i would do different the next time. Obviously this adds huge replay value too.
The cutscenes are also very disappointing, im sick of games taking the control away from the player and makinf us watch a game instead of playing it.
You're also saying if we played Hitman we should give it a go but i think people who are big fans would be more upset by these changes as they are expecting that 'Hitman' experience and, as it sounds, will be letdown bigtime. Opposed to guys who never played it and dont know what they are missing.
I asked was it worth buying because i ignored the urge to buy some games in my backlog, the likes of Borderlands 2 and Sleeping Dogs, because i was waiting for Hitman, but i dont want to buy something thats going to disappoint and also something that once ive finished i wont replay.
what the hell is wrong with the developers these years ?!! since they think we are that stupid why dont they let the character play it self and just let us watch .
i see many games do this , games are very easy now :( , even ps1 games are harder then most of this generation games...
I have mastered the free flow combat in Batman Arkham City that I was flying around groups of goons with barely any effort. Chucking batarangs and freeze grenades simply because I was bored.
I replayed Oni after that and got owned by the AI all the time - versus one enemy at a time. And this was a game that I played repeatedly for years (there was severe lack of punching games on the PC back then).
Anyone can make a new IP any time they feel like it, but if it has a brand name slapped on it then I expect it to have overall similarities to the other titles in its franchise, thus reading a review I would be most interested in what's been changed.
I am sick to death of them using name recognition to sell games that they've completely RUINED (ie. streamlined for mass appeal.)
1.) stealth is still important
2.) You are not rewarded for killing gaurds or civilians ITS THE OPPOSITE, you receive negative points
3.) CHECKPOINTS ARE PRESENT IN Easy-hard mode. Expert and Purist mode have checkpoints turned off.
4.) I really want to know the specs on the rig they were running this.
5.) It plays exactly how hitman should play!
Like I said, I'm playing the 360 version, but most of his points would apply to the game in general (mechanics and how its played)
If you want to read my write up follow the link http://www.pcgamer.com/foru...
I can honestly say that the PC version ran much smoother and the graphics were much more detailed. Even better, this was run using a Nvidia 450 GTS ($100 card), and since then I've installed a Nvidia 660 Ti w/ 3 GBs of VRAM.
From a technical perspective, unless IO has gutted, butchered and rebuilt the PC version since the Sniper Challenge came out, the 15 FPS comment has to be complete and total bullsh*t.
Oh, and for those who still think this is "just a Port": http://www.polygon.com/gami...
"Not that it matters—as many of the assassinations you perform are pre-determined cutscenes in which Agent 47 fails to kill his target"
That would really annoy me if they were pre-determined cut scenes.