You're sitting in a beautiful restaurant, sharing wine and tall tales with good friends, when your steak finally arrives. You're starving and it looks delicious. You cut away a bite-sized chunk and place it in your mouth, savoring the anticipated moment. Immediately you discover to your horror and confusion that it tastes terrible. Disappointment reigns as you realise your evening shall not live up to expectations, and you're now broke.
Much like the beautiful girl across a crowded bus who strikes up a conversation and turns out to be duller than an Orc Peon's axe, or the lush film that turns out to be directed by Michael Bay, there is Assassin's Creed.
The player controls an ex-assassin living in the near future who is undergoing experimentation in a mysterious lab. He is placed in a machine to live out his "genetic memories", allowing him to relive the experiences of his ancestor, a great assassin operating in 1191. The ultimate goal of the game is to relive the assassinations of nine people who are instigating The Crusades. This will allow the future scientists to achieve something through the tried and true method of technobabble.
It's a good story, and the future framing sequence is a particular stroke of genius. Playing as a character who is interfacing with a machine allows in-world explanations as to why game elements such as a health bar and control map appear on screen. They are transformed from a necessary evil into a part of the world itself. It's a great touch.
The graphics are gorgeous. Assassin's Creed is the best-looking game to come along. Environments approach photorealism. The main character model moves fluidly and sharply, even passers-by move naturally.
Another astounding innovation is the interactivity of the world. You can climb and vault absolutely everything. Nothing stands in your way and it works seamlessly, intuitively.
Visually, the game is breathtaking.
Unfortunately, it's also really, really boring.
Traversing a three dimensional landscape looks impressive, but requires the player to just hold a button down.
Combat looks impressive, is also a one-button affair.
It's all very elegant and simple, but it's dull. Add to this the tedious nature of the missions and there is nothing to keep attention.
The promise of a free world is squandered by enforcing dozens of tiny, specific missions - like gathering information or pickpocketing - that involve travelling somewhere and pressing one button.
In the end, the game is impressive until you start to actually play it, and then it's just plain boring.
It deserves praise for its innovation and presentation, but it's just not a good game.
Stefan tells stories, writes about stories and tells stories about stories.
2 comments:
I still stand by the claim that older games are much more fun not because (well, not just) nostalgia view, but also because graphics/sounds weren't the selling point of the game. We new that animated graphic on the screen was meant to be an Alien Tentacle, and instead of trying to make it look that little bit better and killing most people's PCs, they spent time on the gameplay/story instead.
It's the same with movies. Back when special effect blockbusters were going to cost big cash and not made on a PC, the studios wanted to make damn sure that this film is going to be good otherwise they're going bankrupt. Check out T2 and tell me that film isn't still good today.
Sure, some clever new games come out of nowhere and take us by surprise (Portal), but it's less and less and more either remakes, sequels or games like you decribe.
I'm addicted to WoW these days myself. My 360 is my home media centre more.
I've never played WoW, as I know with complete certainty that it would be the end of my life as I know it.
I do agree with what you're saying here. Good stuff. I'm a firm believer in gameplay as the bedrock of a good game. All else forms the trimmings.
Post a Comment