 |
| Trippy to say the least. |
I didn't actually purchase this product, but I wanted to give an impromptu review of it for those of you who might be considering getting one. I walked into my local Best Buy store in search of a decent cordless headset for my late night online gaming sessions and as I made my way through the aisles, this little gadget caught my eye. After reading several descriptions surrounding the mechanics of the device, I wanted to see the 3D in action.
The device is quite obviously the most sleek of any of the GameBoy iterations, and the overall size of the unit is a study in efficiency. Both internal screens are small when compared to the Sony PSP for example, but the displays are vibrant and the bottom touch screen (which doesn't support 3D FYI) was responsive. Nintendo opted to include an analog joystick to the new device which was a welcome inclusion for those who don't like having to use a thumb or stylus on the bottom screen while concentrating on the top display for more complicated functions.
Though the system still uses cartridges, there is a port for a memory card for larger data saves. The device also has two front facing cameras for taking 3D photos (possibly video) and one rear facing camera for self portraits. The full package looks impressive, but let's get to the part that everyone wants to read about. How does the 3D work? Using 3D on a small screen is less like the 3D experience in the movie theater and more like looking at one of those computer generated seeing eye 3D puzzle pictures. The depth of field appears to go into the device rather than popping out of the screen. The game that was loaded into the device that I used was Pilotwings Resort which is a flying game, and the new sense of depth lent itself to the believability of flying through the game's stages.
Nintendo allows users to control the "3Dness" of displayed images by way of a small slider on the bottom right hand side of the top display. Toggling this slider adjusts the depth of the screen for those more sensitive to the technology being used for the consoles 3D effect. The biggest drawback to the design employed by the system is that the display must be positioned in a very specific manner for the effect to work. Tilting the screen just a few degrees in any direction nullifies the illusion completely. Also, after 20 or so minutes of dialing in the depth to my liking, I developed some slight visual blurriness when not looking at the display. Having used other types of 3D technology, this effect is not typical for me, but I found myself having some trouble focusing on 2D print for several minutes after looking away from the screen. I must just be more sensitive than some people when it comes to this particular 3D method.
Though Nintendo may have an edge on some competitors in terms of convenience and having created a 3D effect without the need for external accessories, I'm still not sold on the novelty of 3D in general in regard to current gen consoles and the effect that it has on games. Of all the current gen advancements, I can't really say that I believe 3D will be the next big thing to catch on for all future titles as long as images are limited to flat screen presentations. Perhaps once the technology becomes more immersive and not so headache/vertigo inducing the idea will take off. Until then, it seems more like a novelty trick. I really have no desire to purchase the 3DS, but some might enjoy it.
I finally got the chance to dig into the multiplayer component of Homefront. It has been a busy couple of weeks for me trying to play through Assassin's Creed 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum in my spare time (these ain't no 5 hour campaigns!), but I finally managed to sit down to several stable rounds of multiplayer mayhem. The games that I have played so far have been limited specifically to the non battle commander regulated ground control that plays much like Call of Duty's domination and even more like Battlefield Bad Company's conquest mode. With that said, I will be focusing mostly on elements that are prevalent through all game modes.
Control/Visuals
The biggest relief about Homefront's multiplayer is that the control scheme seems tighter than in the single player campaign. The on screen animations are still pretty rough for a current gen FPS title when compared to its immediate competition, but those issues are minor. The texture rendering is still fairly grainy regardless of what resolution setting the game is played in, and this makes for some frustrating aiming issues sometimes. As for character models, players are placed on either the U.S. Marines team, or on the Korean Private Army. Each team has about 4 unique skins that are applied based on what armory class is selected before each spawn. By now these skin types are becoming standard fare across the genre, but they serve their purpose in providing a little bit of variety. The only apparent issue with the character skins was that the KPA character uniforms are burgundy and beige, and they stick out of the scenery more than the American Marine uniforms. Aside from being fairly dated, the visuals are passable. The control scheme is also generic when it comes to FPS titles, but this isn't really a bad thing.
Ranking System/Battle Points
Homefront employs a familiar ranking or leveling system that unlocks new weapons, accessories, abilities, and weapon loadouts. For the most part, leveling goes fairly quickly and it was possible to unlock suitable kit loadouts within an hour of normal gameplay. Just as with other similar titles, leveling is achieved through the collection of battlepoints and XP during regular matches. In an effort to collect some of the profits that would be lost through used game sales, THQ requires that players input a profile exclusive "battle code" that comes with new copies of the game or that can be purchased through XBox live and Playstation Network. Without the code, it is impossible to rank past level 5, and all weapons besides those available at the outset will remain locked.
The main difference with how Homefront plays from other FPS titles is with the in match reward system. For every kill or objective completed, players are rewarded with battle points. These points can be used to activate a number of extras that can level the playing field or tip the scales in one team's favor completely. Points can be redeemed to purchase vehicles, extra armor, air support, UAV scans and so on. The system is very similar to Medal of Honor's point system, but points rely less on how many consecutive kills players rack up between deaths, and more on how efficiently players earn kills or capture objectives. For the most point, the point system is the component that sticks out most from other titles.
Weapons/Perks
This section is most directly comparable to games in the COD franchise in that weapons have to be used to unlock accessories for them. Red dot, holographic and ACOG scopes are only unlocked after a specific number of kills are made with each weapon for example. How these weapons perform is influenced by the game's perk system. Perks, however, are far more abundant than in other titles, and they are equipped in a much different way. Each player has a certain number of what could be called "perk points" that depends on his or her rank. When a perk is unlocked, it has a numerical value associated with it ranging from 1 to 3 perk points. As a player gains ranks, more points become available making it possible to equip more active perks. This is similar to the kill streak system in Modern Warfare 2 in that if a perk is removed, points become available again. You aren't really spending points, but rather you are managing slot availability. Though it might seem like this mechanic would give more seasoned players an unfair advantage, the system actually works very well due to the fact that, unlike other titles, the influence of the perks in Homefront doesn't make a huge impact. Skilled players will always have the advantage against reckless or amateur gamers in Homefront. None of the weapons or perks had a cheap feel to them and each weapon seemed balanced. More powerful weapons were regulated by higher recoil, and weapons with higher firing rates had lower accuracy.
Overall Impressions
Some reviews have called Homefront a cross between COD and Battlefield Bad Company 2, but the game truly plays more like a cross between Medal of Honor and Battlefield Bad Company 2 which are both DICE titles with similar mechanics. Matches feel relatively balanced, and an emphasis on teamwork is clearly apparent in objective based game modes. The game maps are large, but not as large as those found in Battlefield, yet they still offer plenty of room for vehicular and infantry combat. Though there isn't much innovation to be found with this title, it succeeds in being a viable alternative for those who find that the Black Ops and Bad Company scenes have grown a bit stale. In this regard, this title deserves at least an 7 out of 10 for overall gameplay and presentation. If subsequent installments of the title should be released, concessions must be made on the subject of improved visuals, but Homefront makes for a suitable diversion for now. Whether or not the game will hold up against the future release of heavy hitting titles like Battlefield 3 or the unnamed future installment of Call of Duty this coming Fall has yet to be seen. However, this game is enjoyable and it should be played for what it is. Homefront is an alternative, but its not really direct competition for bigger titles. It would be nice to see some downloadable maps in the near future like DICE has offered as well. During a 2 hour session, I played through 4 multiplayer maps repeatedly. I'm not sure if there are more or not, but a little more variety would be nice.
Score: 7 out of 10 (Good, but not Great)
*UPDATE - It may be fair to say that although I rated this game a 7 out of 10, it has dominated my online multiplayer activity since I started playing and that is saying something. So far, it has beaten other games such as Crysis 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam for my attention. As a result, I would have to say that the playability factor really overrules any of the game's shortcomings. Homefront is a very balanced game, and I have yet to experience any exploitive behavior from other players on the Xbox 360 version. Vehicles still tend to bend the favor of matches from time to time, but most failures are a result of poor teamwork rather than unbalanced weapon rewards.
Homefront, while flawed is a satisfying experience in many regards. The different classes are weighted in a thought out way so that no loadout seems cheap. There are still weapons that provide a slight advantage to unexperienced players, but a skilled veteran can dominate with any loadout. Another great thing about this game is that while other players are busy playing Black Ops, the servers are relatively clear, and mid-match dumping is quite rare. Most matches that load completely go off without a hitch, though some lag is to be expected. However, lag here and lag in games like COD are very different things.
With these things in mind, would like to note that although I won't change my rating of this title due to the fact that the weaknesses I mentioned earlier could have been remedied by a longer development schedule. However, it is fair to note that Homefront is a worthy shooter that deserves respect in the multiplayer arena. For those who don't like this game, thank you for the extra server space!
I thought I would keep with the Assassin's Creed series to see what improvements could be made with the franchise and Assassin's Creed 2 (AC2 hereafter) doesn't disappoint. With that, let's get to the meat of the review.
Story
I won't spend too much time on the particulars of AC2's storyline, but this game was far more immersive than its predecessor. In this installment, you follow the story of Desmond Miles as he dives into the memories of another of his assassin ancestors, Ezio Auditore. Ezio's story takes us to renaissance Italy which is rife with political treachery and civil unrest. Suffice it to say that work is in great abundance for an aspiring assassin. The greatest improvement about the story was how fluid the presentation was this time around, and how much better the voice acting was. Gone are the lengthy (and un-skippable) post-assassination speeches, and cumbersome navigation sequences. Instead, the story flows naturally through missions and through side quests.
There were some parts of the story that seemed to drag a little as the game tries to familiarize the player with game controls and with the world that you are navigating through. However, the pace picks up quickly and the momentum doesn't falter until the end of the game. Desmond's side of the story was a bit difficult to identify with this time around, and little time was played as Desmond in general. Clearly, this installment focused more heavily on establishing Ezio's role in the series. Overall, there were no issues with the story at all, and this installment was far more rewarding and exciting than the first title. Supporting characters also play a far more important role in the plot of AC2, and at no point does Ezio just seem like a mindless and emotionless killing machine like Altair did in the first game.
Visuals
The original AC was a visually stunning game, but AC2 definitely leaves its predecessor in the dust. Every visual element of the game has received a graphical overhaul from environmental modeling to facial animation during cinematics. The world that Ezio traverses is full of life and color that draws players into the story in a way that the first title could not. Furthermore, each city that Ezio visits has a unique look and feel to it. The first two cities that you visit contrast so nicely that you really appreciate the work that the game's developers put into this title.
There seemed to be a little bit of copy and pasting of architecture, but such things occur in real life, so it didn't really detract from the credibility of the game in any way. Several other graphical tweaks really served to enhance this game in almost every way possible. AC was a visually impressive piece of work, but AC2 seems more alive and organic.
Gameplay
Gameplay was also greatly improved from the original title. The biggest issue with the first game was with the side quests that must be completed before moving on to the assassination target itself. In AC2, side quests are a supplement to the games action, but they serve a much different purpose. AC2 employs an economy system that allows players to purchase new weapons, armor, medicine, and clothing throughout the game, and performing side quests is one way to earn quick cash. However, the main missions will also earn you cash.
Another nice thing about the side quests in this installment was that they didn't seem as redundant as those in the first game. The categories themselves were varied and there seemed to be a staggered difficulty system as you completed more missions of a different type. For example, as you complete more assassination contracts, the targets get more challenging. It was also nice to see that the control scheme has been vastly improved from the original game. Free running and climbing controls were still a little bit sketchy from time to time, but they were much smoother than in the original game.
The combat system was much more responsive as well, though the original turn based defend and counter attack mechanic is still in place. The developers added a wider range of weapons to this installment that make for some interesting combat animations, but in reality the standby weapons (sword, knife, hidden blade) will get you through most situations. The most usefull addition to the combat system was the disarm counter move that allows Ezio to take a weakened enemy's weapon and use it against them! It was particularly satisfying using this against battle axe wielding opponents. Overall, the control scheme of the game has been tuned better, but there are still some improvements needed that I hope will show up in the next installment.
Final Impressions
Assassin's Creed 2 takes the standard that was set by the original Assassin's Creed and improves upon it in almost every way. Renaissance Italy looks and feels as you would expect, and the characters that live there are more fleshed out this time around making for a more developed and intriguing story. There were no noticeable hitches or spikes in difficulty throughout the experience that detracted from the game's progression, and AC2 serves to elevate the credibility of the franchise. This installment took me roughly 14 to 15 cumulative hours to complete the game's storyline with a little bit of side questing and treasure hunting, and I was not left wanting for much.
I will be taking a short hiatus from the series as I tackle Batman: Arkham Asylum, but be on the lookout for my review of Assassin's Creed brotherhood in the near future. I am also taking a little break from video reviews until I improve my mastery of the video editing software that I use. My hope is that I will be able to post game footage with commentary soon as opposed to video of myself rambling about the games I am playing. That's all for now, but be on the lookout for my review of Batman: Arkham Asylum in my "Titles I Missed" segment of The Novice Reviewer.
Getting my hands on a copy of a new release this close to the actual release date is a pretty rare occasion for me, and I hope that fact serves to underscore the level of anticipation that I had for this title. When I first read details about the then upcoming release of THQ and Kaos Studios, I thought, "This game really has some potential". I was drawn in by the prospect of a war being fought by civilians against an oppressive occupying force, and the dramatic power such a conflict could lend to a first person shooter. I imagined frenetic gunfights in ruined suburban and rural neighborhoods with waves of relentless foes pressing down on ill-equipped guerrilla forces. In the end, all my expectations were left largely unfulfilled. Lets explore why.
Visuals
I try to be very careful with this component of video game reviews because I firmly believe that graphics don't make a game. However, it is important to note that serious gamers have come to expect a certain level of polish when it comes to visual presentation. There is a minimum expectation if you will. Developers don't need to cram every possible pixel and polygon into a character model or an environment to make it visually exciting, but a simulation game should attempt to draw players into the experience. With that said, I took issue with several presentation elements employed in Homefront. The first deals with what I would consider fairly simple character animations. Like other FPS titles, Homefront employs a fairly generic control scheme. A click on the right analog stick performs a melee strike with your knife, and a press of the right bumper (XBox) or the R1 (PS3) button triggers a grenade toss. The animations of these actions typically only require a handful of frames to complete, and it doesn't take much work to make a simple arm swipe look convincing. The designers of Homefront seem to have ignored this fact. Grenade tosses and knife swipes are shown in ultra high speed, and the animations look awkward and unrealistic. You can barely see the blade of your knife, and the grenade toss looks more like a gentle egg tossing competition. Not to mention that if you hold down the grenade button, you don't hold the grenade. There is no cooking of grenades in Homefront, or much opportunity to aim for that matter.
These were minor issues, but what really bothered me was the quality of the games rendering. In a word, Homefront looks gritty. This is not a comment on the developer's portrayal of a war-torn environment, but rather a criticism of Homefront's lack of texture smoothing. As objects become more distant, they also become more grainy around the edges. I'm not sure if this was an attempt to blur distant objects or characters, or a failure of the game's engine to retain a high rendering quality. I didn't notice any texture popping or fogging, but the textures used in Homefront weren't anything to write home about in the first place. Some objects seemed too detailed while others were lacking. I don't feel that these shortcomings ruined the overall experience in Homefront, but they certainly detracted from the credibility of the game overall. Other games like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 have done more with less and still have managed to create a more immersive experience in the past, so it seems unacceptable for a newer title to put out an unpolished product that takes dates itself back to a standard that other titles have already surpassed.
Story
I couldn't find much fault with how the game was written, or with the overall concept of this fictional war, but I think that the direction employed overshadowed the underlying message that Homefront was capable of. That coupled with voice acting that failed to convey the proper emotion in some situations left me wanting for a more visceral involvement in the game's conflict. Having seen the work of John Milius on screen before (Apocalypse Now, Red Dawn), I have seen what the narrative could have been if it would have been employed correctly. I think, however, that this is a shortcoming that may have originated from having a noted screenplay writer develop a story and dialogue for a game where action has a high potential for overshadowing dialogue and narrative.
The opening "on rails" scenes where the main character is shuttled through the streets of an occupied town did a very good job of conveying a sense of oppression, but from that point forward I found it difficult to connect emotionally to the story at all. There was no sense of triumph after battles, and I felt no disgust or betrayal in moments of defeat. Video games are quickly becoming one of the most prominent artistic outlets for storytelling, and titles who fail to meet the standards that gamers expect quickly get left by the wayside.
Gameplay
This category is where Homefront ultimately failed to live up to the hype. Early descriptions of the campaign claimed that the war in Homefront would be fought block by block, and from house to house. Indeed, there were some scenes that involved clearing houses and eliminating targets, but I feel that other games have created a better sense of invasion than homefront in a smaller span of time. In Modern Warfare 2, for example, you take control of a military unit tasked with clearing a suburban neighborhood of invading Russian forces. The battles were intense, and it was easy to feel the emptiness, and horror of an abandoned area that families had occupied. In Homefront, homes looked empty, but not necessarily lived in. Little time was spent in these areas, and due to the pacing of the game little time was available for exploration.
Waypoints were also a matter of some concern while playing through Homefront's campaign. The game has multiple difficulty levels, and hard could be rated as medium, by other game's standards, but there were some sections where the enemy AI seemed to be heightened to frustrating levels. There were several scenes where opponents scored quick kills through precision shots and through their uncanny ability to throw grenades with deadly accuracy. With that said, the placement of waypoints seemed frustratingly unfair during some sequences. Many times I found myself completing an objective only to be dispatched by the enemy, and the game would put me all the way back at the beginning of the sequence. I would say that there were at least half a dozen of these situations where the odds seemed unfairly stacked against me, and luck was the only thing that allowed me to push through.
The last part of gameplay that detracted from the Homefront experience was the way the non playable characters reacted and interacted with each other. Isn't Homefront supposed to be a civilian resistance war? From my understanding, the characters of Homefront were supposed to be ordinary people taking up an extraordinary cause, but throughout the campaign they acted no differently than the soldiers you would find in any military shooter. There was no hesitation or remorse from any of the main characters that made it past dialogue. Each character seemed as well equipped to fight a ground war as any well trained soldier. Even the dialogue between the characters was riddled with military lingo. I would have expected more civilian dialogue from normal folks. This was yet another aspect of the game that failed to convey the mood that the story had the potential to convey.
Final Thoughts
Homefront had the potential to be a very interesting if not groundbreaking campaign, but with a short duration (I played through in 4.5 hours on hard difficulty) and slew of presentation issues THQ and Kaos studios missed the mark with this one. The fact that this game had a great premise but failed to create a compelling vehicle for the emotion and scale that the story demanded was easily the most disappointing aspect of this title. With so many FPS clones on the market, seldom does a title stand out as being unique. Homefront certainly had the plot to carry it, but its failure to create a polished and fully developed gameplay experience that melds story telling and action as a cohesive whole may have doomed this title to the ranks of mediocrity. I have yet to play any of the multiplayer component yet, and maybe that can save the game. However, it is disappointing to see so many games that have both a campaign and multiplayer yet the amount of effort devoted to both is lopsided. Games like Halo and Battlefield put a great deal of effort and love into crafting both sides of their titles, and consumers seldom feel that there is anything lacking, but Homefront definitely left me wanting. My overall score for this one is 6 out of 10 (barely memorable/hardly replayable). Again, I haven't played multiplayer yet, but that is for a different review. If you don't plan on playing online, opt for a rental on this one and save yourself $60.
By now you all should know that I am not often the first person to get my hands on new titles, but there are plenty of older games that have been out for years that I have not had the pleasure of playing. Therefore, I will be adding a segment to this blog called "Titles I Missed" where I will play and review older games. I vow to attempt to play each game to the finish no matter how horrible or difficult the game may be, and render an opinion of the game itself. I will also discuss how I feel the title has shaped gaming standards and techniques in comparison with other titles.
With that, let's jump into the review with a title that garnered fairly impressive success, Assassin's Creed from Ubisoft which was released in 2007. For those of you who don't know, Assassin's Creed (AC for the sake of brevity hereafter) follows the exploits of an assassin named Altair (al-tay-ear) as he fights the enigmatic Templars during the early years of the Crusades. The main story is supplemented by the story of Desmond Miles who is the imprisoned descendant of Altair. I won't go into too much depth regarding the story, but suffice it to say the game highlights the conflict between European and Middle Eastern forces during the Middle Ages. As Altair, you will spend most of your time exploring this world and the turmoil that has taken hold there. Rest assured that the developers took a very diplomatic approach while crafting the story so that no parties should be too offended.
Story
Religion is a rudimentary backdrop for the setting and for the motivation of the character in AC's storyline, but you aren't beaten in the face with cultural or religious issues of conflict. The story telling style of AC is simple yet effective with 2 separate storylines being told that intertwine to make one cohesive whole. On one hand, you are Desmond Miles, the unwitting participant in the plot of the modern day Templars to find an ancient artifact. On the other hand, you are Altair fighting to regain your honor and status as a master assassin and to do the bidding of the assassin leader Al Mualem. Most of the cinematic elements of the game are told through a series of in game interactive vingnettes, and through exploration discoveries that also serve to uncover important intel about assassination targets. The voice acting of Altair leaves a lot to be desired at points (he doesn't even have a Middle Eastern accent) but the narrative serves its purpose. The most important focus of the game is on Altairs return to glory, but it is overshadowed by the sci-fi elements of Desmond's imprisonment and pseudo-interrogation by the use of a genetic memory scanner called the "animus". The story was never overbearing or underwhelming, and I found it to be interesting overall. The only thing I found fault with was the length of time spent questing between snippets of story, but that has more to do with gameplay mechanics than the story itself.
Gameplay
At first glance, AC is a free roaming sandbox game which presents players with a vast landscape that is ripe for exploration, and like other exploration games (Grand Theft Auto, Fable 2) quests and side missions are key to successful completion of the game. In each city you must climb tall buildings to push back the fog of awareness and open up your map of the surroundings. Minor missions are unlocked by climbing these viewpoints, and information vital to the successful planning of your assassination endeavors is unlocked by completing these missions. Where AC fails in this regard is that the missions become very redundant as they do not differ between different cities. The basic missions are: save a citizen, pick pocket, eavesdrop, aid informer, and interrogate. Each mission type really only has 2 or 3 various outcomes, and it is not necessary to complete all of the mission types in each region to move on to your ultimate target. If one were inclined to play through the game as quickly as possible, it would suffice to complete half of the missions in each region and then move on to the assassination target.
This system lacks the freshness that you get from other "errand" based mission games like Grand Theft Auto 4 or Red Dead Redemption. If the cinematics between errands had been more rewarding, it may have been more bearable, but it was sometimes painful to have to go through the same actions in different settings over and over again. The assassination targets themselves, which really are the main focus of the game, did offer an interesting challenge as each target could be approached in a variety of different ways. The only fault that I found in this is that each assassination could be performed without any stealth at all. In fact, it was possible to barrel right through most targets and deal with the fallout without any planning at all. This seemed to contradict the very essence of the game itself. In short, I was expecting more of a Splinter Cell/Metal Gear Solid feel, but I ended up with Ninja Gaiden instead.
Controls
This segment can be broken into 3 basic sections: Blending, Free Running, and Combat. Blending involves keeping a low profile so as to not draw the attention of city guards as you explore. As you walk around the streets of each city, the contextual sensor in the top left corned of the the screen represents your level of exposure with the local guards. As long as Altair remains in a fairly inconspicuous state, you can move through the streets without causing any alarm. I found it possible to hold down the run button through most of the less crowded streets without arousing suspicion, but some areas were far too congested to traverse quickly. In short, blending consists of a methodical, and sometimes tedious approach to navigation.
Free running is a much faster way to navigate each city, but beware of rooftop archers. The controls are simple here. Hold down the run button, and leap from rooftop to rooftop. As the game progresses, Altair will regain free running skills such as balance and the ability to grab ledges if he should misjudge a gap. The most important part of free running is picking the most expedient and reasonable route. Half of the time will be spent climbing by using the left control stick. However, this can be a bit frustrating at times. Every once in a while, Altair will refuse to grab a ledge that seems easily within reach, but this was a minor setback. I would have liked to see a little more puzzle solving involved with the climbing aspect, but AC is but the first installment in a 3 part franchise (not including off shoot titles that weren't on major consoles). There were some frustrating points with free running towards the end of the game where Altair was forced to navigate through a city port. Apparently, swimming is not a necessary skill for an assassin, and falling in the water spells instant death.
The combat system in AC either makes or breaks the game for me. When Altair is exposed and surrounded by guards, the battle system employs some sort of turn based mechanic that has your opponents waiting to strike at you. Though it may be tempting to strike out at foes with wild abandon, this always leaves you open to attack. Instead, you must usually wait for a guard to strike, and then push the counter attack button at the correct tome to trigger a lethal or non lethal blow. Tough the counter attack animations are fun to watch, this system quickly becomes repetitive. You always have the option of escaping from the guards and lowering your visibility, but it is often more prudent to simply kill them all off. Stealth kills are also possible, but in the last part of the game you are forced to face waves of enemies head on. During some of these later battles, it seemed almost impossible to evade some attacks, and combos are quite frequent. The fault that I found with this is that it seemed like the game took a substantial jump in difficulty in a short time. I'm not complaining that the game was too difficult, but some battles seemed quite lopsided. The last shortfall that I found with the combat system was the camera. Many times the killing blow animation would move the camera to a position which obstructed my view of the continuing battle.
Final Opinions
Overall, Assassin's Creed was a good game. I played the game from start to finish in around 10 cumulative hours, though there are plenty of collectible items to be found in the world of AC for the hardcore gamer that I have little desire to pursue. In terms of replay value, I have no desire to relive the game. There is one way to play through, and only on possible outcome, although there may be some value to planning your assassinations out differently if you should desire. However, this was a Gamefly rental for me which I promptly sent back to receive my next queue selection. I played through the PS3 version of the game, and I feel that at the time of its release, the title was overshadowed by other popular games like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for me. Although the game was quite successful for its release, I felt that I could have been more fleshed out. Perhaps if less effort was devoted to the free roaming, it could have been devoted to filling in the gaps in the action more. I have a copy of Assassin's Creed 2 that I have started, and the second title already shows more promise. The review should be on its way in a couple of weeks. The release of Homefront will impede my progress with AC2 a bit.
I will post a video review that will cover all of the main console installments of the Assassin's Creed franchise after I complete all 3 games. I also have Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines for the PSP which is a continuance of the first game, but I don't feel that it contributes to the evolution of the regular series. In closing, I give Assassin's Creed a 7 out of 10 by current gaming standards. AC has clearly left it's mark on the "sandbox" game genre, but its descendants promise to provide a more well rounded experience.
