Gameplayer and Official PlayStation Magazine Writer Mark Serrels has explored some of the oddities in review scores for Assassin's Creed.
"Basically: Assassin's Creed. Review scores below 9. Treat with extreme prejudice."
And it's not just AC, but many other games released nowadays.
Journalism blows in this day and age....
Too bad nobody did this concerning the R&C scores...
I guess since the 360 is involved, more people take notice
I bought ac yesterday and wish i had not its a 7 out of 10 in my book.
Well said Mark... nothing more to add.
This guys made a lot of sense;) The reviews threw me off...some gave it 5/5 some gave it 7/10, 8/10, 6/10....they were all over the place! He's motivated me to say "what the hell" and pick it up:)
play it and make your own review. After playing i see why there is discrepancy. It had a lot of weight on its shoulders but simply didnt live up to the hype. I also think the controls are a little over simplified. I would give it an 8 but far too many were dissapointed with the game to give it a 9
its sad cause these reviews will impact negatively on AC scores. word of mouth from the internetz to the playground will sour from the game especially 360 users, who'll probablu just get Mass effect now
Giving undeserved ratings (high or low) is todays hip thing to do.
That`s why Demos are the way to go nowadays
except demoes are just waht the publisher wants you to see of the game.
I prefer a small demo with only one level more than 10-15 written reviews from few @ssholes
yeah. i agree that the demos are the way to go. but they suffer from the same sickness of moovie trailers. how many times did you watch a trailer and tought that the movie was kick ass and went to see it ? then you came out and found that the trailer contained the only 2 minutes of good footage in the all damn movie ? the demos are the same sometimes. i was going to skip overlord because of the mixed reviews.. played the demo and got addicted. bought and it its a so so game... but not worth 60 euros.
Bah, even if that's enough to hook you then that's good enough to buy it in my opinion. Even if they just show off the best parts.
Superb find and article
"when average run of the mill games Tony Hawk’s are getting higher reviews than a revolutionary game like Assassin’s Creed because ‘the missions were a bit repetitive’, something is seriously wrong."
Some wrong indeed.
"I sincerely hope you guys will enjoy Tom Clancy’s Advanced Brain Training Shooting Hero 6 – because there’s a good chance it’s all you’ll be getting from Ubi in the near future. "
Sad and true.
Reviewers just love Tony Hawks and EA games (Fifa 08 gettins 9s and 8s), not new IPs that at least try new things...
this is one game that should get all our support. There has been much worse out this year, yet they have scored better.
And we wonder where all the creativity in gaming has gone. We have killed it by demanding nothing more then the same old crap, crap 2, crap 3, crap 4 and then a remake of crap 1 again in a spacial tin box.
i hope this game does well, from the little i played i thought it was amazing.
I dont know what version of ac you played but the version I played was garbage. The lack of variety is annoying. Wish there was a bow and arrow or something.
Just because it is revolutionary it has to score high? A game at its core needs to entertain. I give kudos to Ubisoft for taking a chance on something new, more developers should do that, but you can be revolutionary AND entertain too.
I haven't played AC so I can't say if it is a 7 or a 10 or somewhere in between, but from this argument the high ratings should have been mailed in by reviewers before they even opened the box?
Maybe Ubisoft just created a great game engine and the game on top of it was bland. Are we scoring the engine, the game or both?
This game has a lot more going for it than the reviewers are letting on. Everyone is too busy blowing Mario(I have no idea why) right now to give this game serious consideration.
the internet is a great thing. say u only got 1 magazine and that person reviews a game like say...AC a 6. if u trusted that reviewer, u probably wouldnt pick it up. now we get a broad range of reviewers we can compare, and weed out the idiots nd make a better decision for ourselves. 2/5 for SMG? o.O
i own AC and its more than what the low reviews have cut it down for. plus i agree that reviewers trying to hit a deadline rushed thru the game and couldnt enjoy the game for alll it has offered me so far. on that note...bring on uncharted today :)
I find the biggest problem to be elsewhere
Reviewers rate the game according to their expectations, not according to how really good a game is. So if a game is overhyped like AC, when the so-called reviewer finds it to be an 8-8.5/10 then most of the times he gets furious and gives it a 6 or maybe a 7 if he's in a good mood. He can't appreciate the game for what it is but rather feels disappointed with it and rates it even lower than it should really be. Do you think that if anyone never heard of the game AC, and just showed up to the reviewer's office I bet that then he would find it nearly perfect. Even the most respected sites fall under this trap.
IGN conan 6.7
IGN Heavenly Sword 7
How can this be even remotely possible? Both 6-7 hours game but otherwise miles apart in terms of gameplay, storyline, graphics and so on. The problem is that they expected too much out of HS and when it didn't deliver they gave it a 7 due to disappointment only. They didn't expect anything good from Conan so they could be objective about it. But the truth is that the actual difference between the 2 games is much much bigger than 0.3.
And this is just only one example out of many for every console out there right now. So just don't trust everything you read go rent the game and find out for yourself. I played AC for 6-7 hours and it's around 8.5-9 for me. It's not perfect but it's fun. Remember, it's what seems fun and good for you may not be fun for the guy that's playing it under a deadline for a magazine. For example Mass Effect might be the way to go for you. I find all the talking a little bit boring and maybe I'm wrong. After all if we all liked the same things we would all be playing one or two types of games
You made an excellent point without any prejudice towards a particular console. Conan is a 7 while Heavenly sword is definately a 9. Nowadays, reviewers want to take minor flaws and drag the game through the mud simply because it didn't live up to their expectations. I read all the reviews to Heavenly Sword and couldn't find legitament complaints. 6-7 hours is standard length for an action game and they're all repetitive if you do the same moves over and over. What do reviewers want devs to do? Postpone the game for 2 years so they can add 3 extra hours of gameplay and a few extra combos? After playing Assassin's Creed, I can honestly say I haven't been this impressed with a game since Gears of War. Assassin's Creed is nothing less than a 9. Period.
Be aware that most reviewers, certainly on-staff reviewers (as opposed to freelancers) have been playing games in some capacity for months before it comes to review time. This includes many builds of preview code, shindigs like E3, dev interviews. Rushing for a deadline is part of the publishing world and I think that you professional journos have had months to see if a game is reaching its goals before being able to confirm or deny it successes in the final product
the game is designed to take your time to play. you cant rush through it or youll miss the experience. give this game a chance and remember its not about moving in the shadows stealth. its moving in plain sight stealth.
i totally agree reviews these days are severely flawed in so many ways, so is the insistence on AAA when what actually is AAA far to many maximum scores are issued these days. Not so long ago a 7 was classed as a good game this generation a 7 is frowned upon as a failure
As for Assassins Creed in a nutshell i'm loving it, the story is amongst the best i have experienced in a very long time in gaming terms
i completely agree. i remember the days when a 5/10 was "perfectly average." now it seems average has shifted up to 7..
This game is incredible!
One problem is that the reviewers have been not only rushing through the game to get their reviews done but they have been playing preview copies for months.
The game is incredible and it is an incredible step ahead of most that is out right now.
This game is amazing plain and simple!
i take it you like it then
seriously i agree the graphics are incredibly detailed, the story is fantastic which drags you into the game and holds your interest or it does for me. atm tho i can't drag myself away from Cod4 multiplayer but i will be taking my time with Assassins Creed and basking in it's obvious beauty
I agree, well said.
It is very true that reviews are getting to be a joke. They say that it is repetitive, ummm, aren't all games out repetitive. You run you gun, you run you gun, or you drive around a track lap after lap. Come on. Get serious.
I used to listen to certain reviewers and base my purchase on those reviews, not anymore. I am now getting games that I want and am not basing them on reviews anymore. I have wanted Assassin's Creed for a long time and I got it and am loving it. I got Heavenly Sword and loved it! I got a lot of games that did not review well and enjoyed them. If I am uncertain of a game I will rent it and base my own opinions on it and decide if I will keep it or return it. It all comes down to what each person likes and shouldn't be based on an ever progressing useless group of reviewers that are either biased or payed-off or both.
Its called making up your own mind......try it some tym. Reviews are there to influence our purchase but ultimately its the consumers decision. I never put too much bank on reviews, i may check em out tym and agen but in the end i never really let myself be driven to buy or not buy a game based on them.
i totally agree with this article, theres shooters everywhere, no creativity at all, and when someone dares to be different, then most critics will do everything to make this game look bad. I still think that Assassins creed is very good game!!!
It's a sad state of affairs that you can't put total faith in review scores these days.
I don't know. I've never felt that it was ever a good idea to put complete faith in someone else's opinion. That's how people should see reviews. As opinion. Not as a buyers guide.
i say they just fire all the reviewers and start from scrath again since it seems alot of them have'nt been doing a very well job as of lately.
Agreed. A fresh start is needed. Now I see why that article about problem with review system was right...
I agree with you on the set expectations. All the hype this game was getting.
On the length and having to rush through, that argument has been going around now, but I don't see how that can apply to just this game. How the heck does a reviewer review something like Oblivion which could take months if you fully explore it? There's so many games that have alot of added hours you could take if you weren't going through the just the core gameplay, that this argument could be raised for any and all of those.
I would think a solid reviewer should be able to resolve the core gameplay and infer how that might extend to the extra hours needed to fully take in the game.
I'm enjoying the game, but I would give it an 8/10 mostly for the fact that they make you play as that other guy. Those who have played the first bit of the game know what I'm talking about, and I found it to be really out of place and annoying, all I want to do is run around the cities and stab people in the neck.
Its find it very interesting also that Assassins Creed is minimally better than Kane and Lynch. Even with all the flaws of AC the technical achievements of that game (free running, foward thinking controls etc.) should have created a greater gap score-wise. Its like these scores are forcing developers to stick to the tried and true formula of FPS, and not to challenge the status quote. Kind of sad really.
side note: are you guys going outta ur way to collect the flags? i got all but two in Maysuf, sent 3 templar soldiers to their graves and all the poor citizens saved. collecting all the flags is gonna take a loooong good time :)
But I think reviewers are being a bit too harsh on this game. Everyone that I've asked, said the game is awesome.
You know what IGN ?????? You are EVIL !!!! pure EVIL . I agree with Vasilisk
While I do agree that some reviewers have been hitting the crack-pipe a bit too hard before reviewing AC and thus giving it strange scores (playing it now, it deserves nothing less than 10/10), I can't sympathize completely with this guy. Basically what he is saying is: Different opinions should not be tolerated. Apparently reviewing is a science with "do's and dont's" and HE is enlightened and knows the truth. Ridiculous.
Should we always follow mainstream? NO, ffs.
I know it's easy and tempting to agree with him at first glance, but as Phil Collins would say: OH! Think twice!
rent this game first. maybe you'll be disappointed .. maybe not!
but, rent it first!
i'm the last one who bashes a game without playing it first and AC is just NOT FUN!
it's like a movie playing in front of your eyes and all you have to do is press a button. the world is huge but there's not a single thing that pushes you to do something else but the main missions.
sad but true. i also find it sad that all the people are complaining about reviews that really tell the truth about this game.
i got Ratchet yesterday and 20 minutes in Ratchet is 10x more fun than 3 hours in Assassins Creed - trust me.
I agree 100% and as the guy above say atleast rent first...but I will say everyone who was interested in this game from the begining should Buy it still...I think it's a very ambitious game which sets out to accomplish alot of things all at one time..and 95% of it accomplishes that goal..except for the repetitive missions..and the some times..easy A.I..but the story is amazing..the contrls are innovative..the platforming aspect is freakin amazing..just don't spend the entire first hour doing that or you'll get bored easily..lol..support great games..Assassins Creed is one of those...!!!
He is the man, I like this article.
By discouraging something so innovative just because the mission was a little repetitive, we are slowly kill off innovation in the industry.
And all we got is remake of the same crap...
Reviewers are just pushing there personal views on a game. IGN are classic as there 3 regions have review this. 6.7, 7.7 and 8.7???????
Consistant!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 people review it all different , why don't they get on a call and post a global 7.7??
All like diffent type of game I bet and could not program a washing machine
Reviewers pushing their personal opinion? What do you think a review is?
Its the same with uncharted... gamepro gave a HIGHER score to Need for Speed. Sorry but thats just retarded. The bigger the game the better the opportunity to get hits on your website. Sad but true. Saying this, reviewers may be pushed in directions other than their real opinion.
What a scam that could have been a few sundays ago. Tell your advertiser what you are doing and post HALO3 1/10 and wait for the 8 billion hits and all the publicity on the forums then become a pro PS3 site and you are set for life.
conan got a 7.5 and heavenly sword got a 7 from IGN.. LOL... .5 higher than heavenly sword..
I dont know how that happen because anyone in here who likes to play games will know heavenly sword is way way way and i mean way better than conan.. I was blown away by heavenly sword and i think it shouldnt have received anything lower than a 8...
When i played conan i laughed and laughed some more and stopped playing it after 15 mins..
I haven't enjoyed a games as much as Assassin's Creed since Gears of War came out. This game doesn't deserve the bad ratings at all, the reviewers who give the bad ratings have some alternative agenda they are not talking about. IGN lost my respect when they gave their rating, now I know that reviewer didn't have a clue about what he was talking about
I thinkl that reviewers should be less harsher with new ips and games like Assassin's Creed, Uncharted and Mass Effect that are first in series with new ideas compared to sequels that have perfect forumlas over the years. Fifa, NFS and Madden had all the time in the world to perfect themselves and are still lacking. I think that reviewers should be harsher on them than games that at least try new things.
That's actually how I perceived Hitman in the beginning.
It was a brand new title, fairly experimental, which was clearly going to have sequels. In retrospect, I'd say that it had at least one common trait with some of the criticism that Creed is receiving now: AI issues. While it is kind of a let-down, it's a new IP (and in AC's case, a very large budget one) and it will take some time to get the bugs out. Nobody's perfect, and nobody can deny that Ubisoft tried their darndest to produce this title, it just needs a little more time to mature and reach its full potential. Not like it's never happened with anyone else.
I have faith in them.
this is a love it or hate it game.
i don't love it.
I don't really understand. Is the notion that people should not believe the bad reviews and only believe the good ones? Or worse, that people should buy this game and support it because it's different? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can tell you right now: the major complaints about this game are 100% correct. In fact, even the positive reviews mention them. The difference, it would seem, between the positive and negative reviews is simply that the positive reviews don't seem to think that repetitive gameplay is a game-killer, while the negative reviews obviously do.
The game is good, okay. It does a lot of things well. But there's just no variance or depth AT ALL. Honestly - what's going on in this game? What do you actually DO? It's a stealth game in which you can't make stealth kills. Calling it 'open-world' is a HUGE stretch. You can't talk to anyone, there's no currency or goods, you don't change clothes or upgrade weapons. I mean, really, this is a classic 'follow the storyline' game and not much else at all.
'Follow the storyline' games are not 9's, I don't care how nice they look or feel. There has got to be something more going on, and Assassin's Creed has NOTHING else going on.
I really need to get on trying this one out...haven't had a chance to pick it up but I know I will love it. I love games with repetitive nonsense where I can just run around and cause havoc. Like GTA. I never play the game I just run around with all the cheats on blowing people up and seeing how long I can run from the cops. Saints row was fun to run around with a rocket launcher and grenades blowing everything in sight up for the cool havok effects and explosion. I don't know I like short games I can play through and have a set path and than get it over with. I know I'll like this because I am going to love just running around climbing everything
Is an awesome game.It does have its problems but they do not take away from how fun and different this game is.I'm tired of games that don't try anything new.Assassin's Creed pushes the envelope with new.
REVIEWS are nothing but idiots running around forcing their opinions down people's throught...........
They are fools for dissing ASSASSINS CREED, its them missing out not US.
Reviewers should be fired for reviewing games outside of their genre, seriously.
Even I get tired of FPS or action games and want something else, ASSASSINS CREED delivers!!!!!
Its got some repetitive missions in it, but so does FABLE? So does FINAL FANTASY? SO DOES ANY DAMN GAME KNOWN TO MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was a NEW, BRAND new game and UBI SOFT doesn't deserve this as the game is FUN!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone stop what you're doing and play ASSASSINS CREED...........Its a GREAT game with some repetitive missions in places, like any other game known to man. And that's all it is, you should ENJOY it.
Its doing NEW things not seen before in games, so ENJOY Assassins Creed!!!
And ENJOY Mass Effect and Call of Duty LAST...
It just so happens The Crusades,Knights Templar,and all that stuff,
garners my interest more than just about any other point in history,
and on my 360,this fvcker plays like a dream.
There aren't any IMO!
This game's a 9 out of 10 all the way in my book.
If you're into this type of game,
do yourself a favor,DON'T MISS OUT.
I'm off to play it right now.
Cheers Ubisoft,ya knocked this one out of the park.
I want part 2 already.
I couldnt agree with you more, dont you think its nice to see a game like this come out rather than the same bullshit all the time like Halo and Call of Duty. The online gets so frikin repetetive, i used to play Quake all the time and am over it already. If you are having fun at it i guess go at it, dont listen to me. But if you have been playin games for as many years as me then you should know where im coming from. I want new ideas, sick of all the military run and gun bullshit games these days!
Personally I love AC....it's very fun, and although it is a little repetitive, it def. beats the sh!t out of games like Halo 3, or some other generic shooter that gets higher scores....esp. EA games.
I guess I would give AC 9/10, it's very refreshing, something new, and I haven't had any frame rate problems(Xbox360 version)
If you are looking to buy this, and you've got enough for two, or three games then pick this up. Don't do it if you only have enough for one game though, because you may not like, this game seems to be an acquired taste.
In light of this whole ordeal, the numbering convention in reviews should be thrown out the window of a tall building to die from either the shock of the fall or the impact of hitting the pavement.
Honestly, if every possible source that relies on a number, and maybe even letter grades, to rate a game were to abandon it in favor of having the reader, listener, or viewer make their own decision based on context, we wouldn't be having this problem.
That said, I haven't played Assassin's Creed, but I've been on the fence about it from the very beginning. The experience looks solid, albeit with some issues, but the whole package was never that enticing for me. I'll eventually play it, but it'll probably be a used game purchase since I don't entirely believe in renting games I intend to enjoy from start to finish.
What a douce bag this guy is, there are plenty of people out there that think this game is a 7/10, not just a "few biased sites", what a dumbass.....
are judging games on nowadays.
for me, the main things i look at when judging a game for myself are these (in no particular order):
Graphics: how are the graphics? solid for the type of game it is? ie; Lego Star Wars can't compare to Ratchet and Clank Future, but does it really *HAVE to? i mean, it's Legos! for me, Assassin's Creed has *GREAT visuals, especially when taking into account how *HUGE the areas are, and the fantastic draw distance.
Controls: how are the controls? are they intuitive? too complicated? can i move the character around with ease? examples of good/solid controls; Ratchet and Clank Future, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed. example of bad controls: Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, and Spider-Man 3: The Game (or, really, just about *ANY game from Activision barring Call of Duty).
Gameplay: is the game fun? that is to say, am i enjoying myself. example of a game in which i enjoyed myself; Assassin's Creed, Ratchet and Clank Future, Uncharted. example of a game where i *WASN'T enjoying myself; Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness (for the record, i *DO think Ninja Gaiden Sigma is damn cool, but it wasn't *FUN. i was throwing my controller across the room more than i was playing the game. for me, i play games to relax. if i want to raise my blood pressure, i'll open the mailbox and look at all the bills i have to pay), and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.
those three things, to me, are vital.
to me, what makes a 7/10 game is this poor graphics (in comparison to reasonable graphical standards, ie, a game like Ninja Gaiden Sigma should be the bare minimum a game should look like in this generation. Spider-Man 3 doesn't cut it), sloppy controls (ie, i can't do *ANYTHING, like make a simple jump, or move my character around properly; it's cumbersome, and i'm fighting with the controls more than playing the game), and poor level design (ie, is it bland corridor after bland corridor).
things that, for *ME, don't warrant a 7/10 score:
variety - since when is this a *BAD thing?
repetitive NPCs - this is videogames, not the real world. i don't care that i've seen that same chick 20 times, and often right next to herself. it's a *VIDEOGAME. technology is not, and probably never *WILL, get to the point where there are an infinite number of variables for NPCs.
also, repetitive enemy types don't bother me either, and for the same reasons. as long as there are at least 5 or 6 types that can't *ALL be beaten the same way (ie, a lot of the baddies in Heavenly Sword, God of War, and Ninja Gaiden require you to switch up tactics a bit), then it's all good if they don't have, say, 1 million variations.
repetitive gameplay mechanics - as long as the mechanics are fun (i *NEVER get tired of ripping people in half in God of War, or sneaking up behind a rooftop archer and stealth killing him in Assassin's Creed). if the game is a level grind (ie, any MMO, really), but it's not fun, then yeah, that warrants a low score, but killing enemies in repetitive hack and slashers like Ninja Gaiden Sigma, God of War, DMC, Heavenly Sword, and a slew of others is fine. no one ever demerits a game like Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or Half Life, for the fact that, at *LEAST 85% of the games length, you are shooting someone, i don't think a hack and slash should be demerited for constantly hacking up people. just about *EVERY game ever made is repetitious, from Tetris to Zelda. as long as the gameplay is *FUN, that shouldn't matter.
these punk reviewers nowadays simply seem to be bandying about 7's like it's crack because they don't have *FUN with their jobs anymore. they aren't gaming for recreation like *WE are. they're getting through this game to move onto reviewing the next. do i feel sorry for them? no, actually. it's their *JOBS to remain objective and fair at *ALL TIMES. as reviewers, they have a responsibility to inform us consumers, to the best of their abilities, their opinions on a product. so far, quite a few solid, entertaining, and fun games have been torn to shreds due to nitpicking, and not a single, solid complaint.
are the framerates in games like Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, Ratchet and Clank terrible?
do the controls suck?
are the graphics bad?
is the story uninteresting and poorly written and acted?
are gameplay mechanics like combat and puzzles not enjoyable?
are levels designed poorly?
if the answers to these questions are "No," then why the hell are you giving these games 7/10 and below for, Pete's sake??
those 5 questions basically cover the fundamentals of game design nowadays, and for most genres. if the answers to the questions above are yes, then we have a problem with the game.
Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, had poor graphics for it's time, *HORRIBLE, ancient controls, boring and trite block-pushing puzzles, uninspired and uninteresting combat (with guns and hand to hand), but a good story for the most part. i can *SEE why Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness would get the poor scores it did. it sucked.
Assassin's Creed (and Ratchet and Clank Future, and even Heavenly Sword) all had:
1: Beautiful visuals
2: Really good to excellent controls (Creed's "puppet-system" takes a bit to get used to, but once you adjust, it's quite intuitive)
3: Fun combat/puzzle, gameplay mechanics
4: Excellent stories with good to fantastic voice acting
5: great level design, with either excellent variety (Ratchet and Clank and Heavenly Sword), or an immersive world/environment (Assassin's Creed)
the media is simply getting caught up in their own hype (man, did they hype the crap out of *EVERYTHING announced for the PS3, and games like Assassin's Creed, which are quite ambitious), and then tear into the game when it realistically and understandably fails to meet that hype.
they have no one to blame but themselves for this, but they still take it out on the game.
the bottom line, is that Assassin's Creed is fun. Ratchet and Clank Future is fun. Heavenly Sword is fun. it doesn't matter if the game doesn't have, say, Achievements, or multi-player components via Live or PSN. those things simply don't matter. after all, does the fact that Bomberman: Act Zero has online and Achievements somehow keep it from being a complete waste of gaming space? *NO. it's a sh*tty game single player, multiplayer, achievements or not. a good game is a good game. period. whether single player only (Uncharted: Drake's Fortune), multiplayer only (Warhawk), or both (Call of Duty 4, Resistance Fall of Man, Gears of War, etc). a bad game is a bad game. period.
they bring it up now -_-
what about it being fasionable to bag on the ps3? its the same thing
IGN ---> Conan - 6.7 Heavenly Sword - 7
you dont know sh2t about games
In the end his reasoning you have to support crap to get better games. WTF??? He says if you dont give games like AC a good score, you will only get Tony Hawk remakes. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. This guy is a MORON. Especially since just about everyone is giving it a mediocre score.
As far as im concerned this game blows even Halo 3 away. At least its different, unlike the same run and gun same looking aliens every Halo. I got burnt on playing Halo3 after a week, same thing with Call of Duty. Im startin to get burnt out on the same ole game, shoot and sniper military bullshit, no challenge. Its at least nice to see something different for a change
I am playing Halo 3 right now actually. Is it a good game. Its ok, but it was hyped like no other. MS gave all reviewers 800$ worth of schwag to review their game. Of course it scored well even though it was a flop. Do not compare games to Halo 3.
If you're looking for a challenge, try Ninja Gaiden: Sigma or Devil May Cry 3.
There's a challenge.