Myself, Assassin's Creed and Game Reviews.

As is the power of reviews, everybody needs to take note of them. Now I understand that reviews are generally are a big issue (why I am not sure, but that's not what I'm here to talk about*) to people, generally I wouldn't care about reviews at all, but Assassin's Creed seems to be a contentious issue, and one of the games that has really split the reviewing community down the middle. Yes, like the Crusades of old (what a strangely relevant analogy!) it seems there are two sides: With Assassin's Creed or Against Assassin's Creed. This I feel is kind of disappointing (although not surprising given the gaming community at large is as reasonable and rational as Al Queda soldiers riding on the back of the most stubborn animal in the universe) because a) People seem to forget that Assassin's Creed is actually a game, not a series of reviews and b) I think that t the quantity of bad reviews is are getting a disproportionate amount of attention, which will affect not only the sales, but the legacy of Assassin's Creed itself. I say this not particularly out of undying love for the game, but more because I feel to the need to talk about how dramatically the reviews altered my experience with at least part of my time with Assassin's Creed.

In fact, it would be fair to say that I hated the game when I first played it, paticuarly surprising considering that I was a fan of Assassin's Creed way back when it was first shown. Not sure why, but something about the mix of Montreal, strange running antics and history captured me, and I pretty much gave them a sale two years the game actually became..sellable. But a week ago those two years of fandom where as pointless as the superficial.com without Hayden Panetterie (okay, so that's not true, I'll love that website forever). Why? Because I wanted blood, wanted blood like I want thesuperficial.com to post more Hay P pics*. Yep. I was pissed, and convinced that the reviews were right and this game was the abortion that Michael Vick should have been**. I was pissed that some idiot decided that the Metriod method of taking all your weapons away is a somehow rewarding gameplay experience (developers, here's a hint: It's annoying as all hell), I was pissed about a sundry of other small, rather insignificant details. In fact I was just generally pissed, although I was still playing it several hours a day (much to the determent of a Cactus Boogie tab, which was sitting there unloved).
This joyful tirade of hate continued until I was about 75% of the way through the game, as being rather close to completion I started working through my overall impressions on the game. So there I was, wandering through Damascus (with Rilo Kiley admittedly demoodingifying (made up word!) the situation) thinking of the torrent of shit that I was going to hurl at Ubisoft for playing with my emotions. I mean, this was going to be the 'You're So Vain' fuck you letter of 2007.

Then I actually thought about it,and there was nothing. I mean, I couldn't think of a thing that I didn't like, and suddenly my 'You're So Vain' was turned into an undying love letter to ruins Assassin's Creed


Now granted, this was before the game totally self destructed in the last hour. The whole 'religious piece of stone holding increbible power' smelt of bullshit. Not just bullshit, but the worst kind of bullshit, the kind that almost ruined my game experience. To have a story that bellowed the virtues of knowledge and anti-religious fever reversed with a plot device that was the complete antithesis of this idea was immensely disappointing. Surprisingly enough, I enjoyed the 'actual' end of the game.
At least I think I did. ' I think it did' Which kind of sums my my thoughts of the story in general, as I have no idea if it's my overly analytical nature or the story is really meant to be a pseudo-philosophical discussion on the nature of war and morality. However, I'm willing to give Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt, given that my thought processes generally fall between mildly and totally inappropriate and unintelligible, thus it's more likely that they are geniuses instead of me.
Speaking of unintelligible (and my thought processes/somehow being able to feel totally inferior and superior at the same time) Ubisoft are either brave/insane/both for setting a game set during the third Crusade. Perhaps it's me putting on my history major hat again, but does the average gamer really have a good understanding of the Crusades? I mean, that was a incredibly convoluted period in history, and the game just kind of throws you into the proverbial deep end.
Elitist whining aside, I loved the game, every aspect of it. To me the lead up missions to the assassinations weren't repetitive, they were preparation and a chance to give a backstory to who the folks were that you were going to unsheathe your blade into***. The world was beautiful, involving, and the beggers, whilst annoying as shit, added atmosphere to the game.
Yes, I've gone on a tangent, but I'm getting to my point.


Basically, whilst I loved the game, I had passed judgment on the game based on notions that I had picked up from reviews. They had a negative disposition, and that disposition transferred to me after reading the reviews. Now, I'm not trying to have a go at the reviews (or the reviewers themselves, and in saying this I should also say that it's commendable that a major game can be picked apart (especially in the current situation in gaming journalism). Rather, I'm trying to disown myself (and not for the first time, believe me) because I was so easily coerced (so easily in fact that I wasn't even aware if it!) into letting my experience of a game be defined by a review and not the game itself.

Now, obviously this is a problem endemic to the gaming in general, as even a cursory glance at a message board for a recently released game will yield more topics about reviews then the actual game. Now, I think it would be fair to say that this is a trait that is reasonably isolated to the videogames. My third point, which is slowly occurring to me as I write this, is that this is the reason that the Gerstmann/Gamespot situation is so heightened. It has shit ultimately to do with Eidos, Gamespot or any other company, it's really about the nature of game reviews. Ultimately (to at least myself) the question for the reasons of Mr Gerstmanns termination are irrelevant. Just the fact that it's the Tom Clancy 'could happen tomorrow' type of storyline applied to games journalism is enough to be worrying.

About a year ago the wonderful Chuck Klostermann wrote a wonderful article in the sometimes wonderful Esquire magazine about games journalism and music journalism, particularly a fellow called Lester Bangs, whom I'm assuming you have a vague knowledge of. The gist of this article (once it could be distinguished from the litany of advertisements featuring half naked men) was that games journalism is so infantile because it's nothing but the facts, the writing is formulaic and they are more consumer information then enlightened debate.*****

To elaborate in my own words, If music reviews were like game reviews then the rating would depend almost entirely on the technical proficiency of the musicians in question (leaving Bob Dylan with nothing but 2 star ratings for the rest of his life******). Music is one of the most subjective art forms out there, and the reviews are an indication of this. Look at how different media outlets and the dichotomy between ratings that an individual CD may recieve. There is no way that I would ever find myself in a similar situation with CD, because the basic role of a CD review isn't the same as the role of a videogame. When someone gives a Neko Case CD a shitty review I want to know why they formed that opinion and didn't like it.

With a game review I can pretty much guess why they have feelings about a game, because Videogame reviews on the other hand are almost always based on the quality of the gameplay mechanics, and that isn't something that could traditionally be questioned. In fact, that's all that game reviews are, consumer information. Nobody (okay, so no game reviewer) is going to question the quality of Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, or Imagine Babies! (perhaps lack thereof is more appropriate in the last example) because their quality isn't a subjective thing, it's completely fucking obvious.

The fact (admittedly, a fact that I made up on the spot) that reviewers 'can't be wrong', because their final verdict is handed to them on a plate is the main reason that so much stock is put into their opinion, by consumers and companies alike. Again, I don't mean this as an insult to gaming journalists (whom I admire) just that merits of an individual game are obvious, because they're based on factors that are incredibly obvious to anyone, especially someone who is 'trained' to write about them for a living.

At the same time as this is said, it's not an indictment on game reviewers (or indeed game reviews) themselves, rather the nature of video games and reviewing them. It's why people place such stock in a meaningless number and some slightly more meaningful text, it's why I was so dejected over playing a game that I eventually loved. It's the fact that gamers seem to value validation in reviews rather then enlightenment (including myself in the case of Assassin's) Hell it's why Eidos Kame and Lynched Jeff Gerstmann (maybe not, but I couldn't leave out that horrendous stab at a pun. )



*As I write more and more, turns out it is what I came to talk about. Funny Huh?
**Can you in anyway guess what I'm doing at this moment? No, not that.
***What, like you haven't though it/thunk it?
****Okay, there has to be a better phrasing then that
*****At least I think that was the gist. Maybe I'm thinking of something else. Oh, and I'm not for one second implying that music journalism is 'enlightened' for one second.
******Not at all a go a Mr Dylan, who is without doubt one of the better musicians of the 20th Century