Where other recent platformers like LittleBigPlanet and Mirror’s Edge have chosen a hardcore path with difficult, timing-intesive running and jumping, the next-gen franchise relaunch Prince of Persia instead tries to bring in a more casual crowd.
Leaping across platforms is very forgiving, and if you manage to mistime a jump, you are rescued by your partner, Elika, and pulled back to the nearest platform. Essentially, the short clip of Elika grabbing the Prince is just a streamlined replacement for a Game Over/Loading screen, but on an emotional level it allows gamers to fail and retry objectives more often before frustration sets in. But more importantly, the actual gameplay has been simplified significantly compared to previous Prince of Persia titles. The “platforming” here largely involves scrambling along walls and ceilings — an automatic process that requires no balance or input of any kind from the player — until the Prince reaches a ring or magical platform, at which point the player must tap a button to propel the Prince along the next stretch.
Plenty of reviewers have scoffed at this casual approach to a traditionally hardcore genre, but I actually didn’t find it to be a problem. Instead of having to pay extreme attention to timing and character placement, Prince of Persia requires the development of a flow, a rhythm that forces the player’s button taps to mimic the smooth movement of the Prince. Mix that in with the forced exploration of stunningly colorful, interesting environments to collect light orbs, and Ubisoft has a solid game formula on their hands. Unfortunately, it all falls apart in the combat.
Prince of Persia’s developers obviously wanted the game’s sparse combat scenarios to have a distinct flow as well, and at first they succeed. Early encounters teach players the importance of parrying and blocking. Fellow eat-sleep-gamer Nick Suttner has rightly compared PoP’s defensive fighting style to Assassin’s Creed. I only wish it had stayed that way.
See, Prince of Persia has a lot of boss encounters. The game is split into four themed worlds, each of which has a big boss baddie reigning over it. The four worlds are each divided into six stages, each of which climaxes in a fight with that area’s boss. Unlike regular face-offs, though, these bosses have special abilities that pull the player out of the combat, requiring a specific button press to avoid knockdown attacks. Worst of all, the bosses can string these special moves together in quick succession, turning battles into extended quick time events. In other words, whereas the regular battles emulate the feel of the platforming gameplay, the boss battles resemble it in a much more mechanical way. Instead of sticking to the idea of both gameplay types having a rhythmic flow, the developers decided that combat should also center around simplistic button-tapping to avoid death. If that design choice makes the platforming slightly too easy, it makes the boss battles far too drawn out and frustrating.
I hate having negative feelings toward a game that has such high production values and fun core gameplay because of one rogue element, but the frequency of these boss encounters make them too much to bear. If these super-powered foes had only appeared two or three times each, even that would have been fine, but taking them down six times before they were gone for good turned a fast-paced, gorgeous platformer into a pastel-colored grind.
Yea – I hated to dislike on this game but there were some major issues with it.
I wonder if the game would have been better if the boss fights had been improved or just removed altogether? It seems to me that the story could have been written in such a way to cater to the strengths of the gameplay which were the platforming and world exploration.
I am afraid I agree too.SOT was soooo good, I wish that mechanic was developed further, loved the time reverse stuff in that game, so much more elegant.
I have to disagree with you on the streamlining of the platforming. I hated it. Sure it kept the game moving at a steadier pace, but at the expense of player satisfaction. All of the so-called “platforming” elements felt so automated to me that it felt like I was playing one big quick-time event. Mirror’s Edge suffered from the same issues but it didn’t hinder the experience nearly as much, because the visual hints were optional and there was enough platforming that depended solely on skill.
A lot of my friends like to ask me why I hate the new “casual” focus game companies have turned towards. I don’t. It only bothers me when this new view on game development interferes with games I’m already familiar with and like due, in part, to the difficulty. I use the word difficulty loosely. I don’t need a challenge per se, I just don’t like the feeling that I’m being spoon-fed my games.
Sands of Time was a masterpiece to me because it gave me a sense that, every time I solved a puzzle or progressed through a room, I accomplished something. There was no dirt smears on the wall telling me where I should run, or a bright light indicating I should press “y” to jump farther. You had to figure out how to progress through logical reasoning, and nothing else.
On topic: yeah, combat sucks.
I agree with what you’re saying here… However, I wish to comment on your writing.
Dude. You need to do some more editing!
example:
‘Essentially, the short clip of Elika grabbing the Prince is just a streamlined replacement for a Game Over/Loading screen, but on an emotional level it allows gamers to fail and retry objectives more often before frustration sets in. But more importantly, the actual gameplay has been simplified significantly compared to previous Prince of Persia titles.’
should read more like:
Essentially, the short clip of Elika grabbing the Prince is a streamlined replacement for a Game Over/Loading screen, meaning, on an emotional (subliminal? -sic) level, gamers are able to fail and retry objectives more often before frustration sets in. Most importantly, however, is that the actual gameplay has been simplified significantly compared to previous Prince of Persia titles.
I hate to be a douche, but you are a professional writer- and I love your work because it isn’t just thrown out onto the internet like many other publications. And frankly, when you use too many ‘buts’ its hard to read.
Self-Note: I’m a comma whore and I say however too much.
I agree with Philip. The platforming had a nice flow to it that made enjoyable for me, but, then again, I’m a shitty gamer. I couldn’t complete Sands of Time because pretty early on I ran into one of those, pull switch-turn-run-jump-grab ledge-shimmy shimmy shimmy-turn-jump-grab ledge-shimmy shimmy shimmy-jump up to a ledge-shimmy shimmy-turn jump-grab ledge-pull up-run down a hallway-turn-run down a hallway-jump-wallrun-jump-grab ledge-shimmy shimmy shimmy-jump-grab ledge-pull up-run down a hallway-turn-dive through door before it closes sequences, and the 0 margin for error was too much for me. Kind of like the Meat Circus and this was really early in the game.
The Elika saving your ass mechanic is no different than GAME OVER/reload, it’s just faster.
Then again, I’m a shitty gamer (is shitty-gamer.com taken?).
The proof of that is that I was able to finish PoP and get all 1001 lightseeds.
The boss battles were frustrating and tedious. They lasted a lot longer for me than probably most of the readers here, but you should know why by now. Some lasting over 45 minutes.
Despite those complaints, I very much enjoyed Pop, but Jesus, the ending!
FYI, the article’s formatting looks pretty bad via RSS (at least in Vienna on the Mac).
I’m not much of a POP fan. I didn’t play the first two because… Well, I just didn’t get around to them, so I went into this new one with some fresh eyes.
To me, the QTE nature of the gameplay was a little much at times. It just felt weird to me that they were applying the “little input, big output” rule to gameplay. Especially since SO much of the game is platforming. But that’s something else I want to get to later. By making the game play essentially just “reading the levels a certain way so that you make the right inputs”, it just killed any sense of control in the game. To me, it always felt like was in some kind of groove that was impossible to get out of, unless you really hit the wrong direction.
But the issue I have the most problem with is to make the game largely about platforming and exploration only after you clear “the corruption”. I don’t know why UBISOFT made it that way, but I felt like the balancing was way off. To me, it was like they were saying “ok, you killed that boss, now you have the REAL work to do”. To me, it’s like you’re being PUNISHED for winning boss battles, rather being rewarded. The prince doesn’t get any stronger, Elika doesn’t automatically get her powers either until you do all that (necessary) platforming. Maybe because it’s we’re conditioned to get rewarded after doing something like fighting bosses, but I don’t think it was UBISOFT’s intention to punish us after fighting bosses. It just happened that way.
Good article.
I completely disagree on this one. I’ve been playing POP lately as well and I think it’s one of the best games of 2008. And it certainly has some of the most charming charaterizations I’ve seen in a while. Elika and the Prince have some actual chemistry which is rare to see in a game.
The boss encounters do get slightly annoying after a while but MUCH LESS so than in the tedious Assassin’s Creed.
Prince of Persia 2008 is a fantastic game.
I’d also like to add that there is nothing casual, to me, about this game what so ever. It’s pretty hard core in fact, with its collecting and focus on keeping a rhythm going.
Just because every limb isn’t mapped to a button doesn’t mean it’s a casual game.
I’m definitely going to buy this one because I’m very interested in the ‘no punishment’ aspect that they’re going for. In most adventure games prior to Day of the Tentacle, you would encounter scenarios where you would get stuck. You missed a particular item in a location you no longer have access to, you just used an item in the wrong place and now it’s gone, or you performed key actions that failed to trigger a particular event because they were in the wrong order.
At the time, everyone was worried that they were dumbing games down too much that would traditionally challenge players in a very compelling way, and certain games were even famous for their death or failure sequences, such as Space Quest and Quest for Glory/Hero’s Quest. Today we all know Day of the Tentacle as one of the most popular entries in the genre. Part of that was its humor and bizarre scenario, but another part of that was just that the game was a joy to play. The frustrations of saving and loading over and over because you died, and the urge to look up a FAQ and cheat were removed because you no longer felt the dread that you could be screwing yourself over in the long run. For obsessive compulsive gamers like me, that just lifted a huge weight off your shoulders and you could just enjoy the game.
I’m excited to see how they will bring this philosophy to a more action oriented game. I wonder if this style of play will turn out to be better than Nintendo’s recent patent filing that describes a game where you can watch the computer play through for you, and interrupt it only when you have the desire to interact with the game’s mechanics. If a section looks too hard for you, you simply watch the game itself do all the work, and then maybe next time you play you’ll try it yourself now that you’ve been shown how.
That sort of hand holding feels a lot more like cheating than what PoP is trying to do. Even Alone in the Dark seems to have a good method, breaking the game up into chapters and letting you skip ahead when you’ve accomplished enough of the stage’s goals. I’ll be very interested to see how all of this this turns out and to see what the reception is of games that implement these features.
It’s interesting that you mention QTEs as a primary detriment to the boss encounters.
For me, the entire presence of the thinly-veiled QTEs was a detriment to me for the whole game. One quick look at the environment you’re scaling and (granted it only makes sense on the DualShock button names) the walls transform into a series of button commands scrolling your way.
Need to wall-run? The cross-hatch scratches indicate a press of the X Button. Need to swing with the gauntlet? The ring perfectly sums up your need to press the O Button. There’s no perfect analog to Triangle, but after several hours of staring at walls (rather than the gorgeous environs), I no longer felt like I was playing a game… It was just a series of button commands.
Good read sir, looking forward to more
Mr. Gornicki, you might want to give my essay a read (click my name) if the “no punishment” idea is what is drawing you to the game.
As for the article, well, it fits a niche in my head quite nicely. My own “review”(again, click my name! – though it’s not really a review) was forced to describe the combat as something “so atrocious I [could] hardly get into it without changing the thesis of” the essay I was writing. The QTE-style boss attacks are not even the worst of it. Unlike the platforming, combat was arbitrary and unrewarding. The only fight I found entertaining was the second half of the last boss fight. Tellingly, it plays nothing like every other fight.
I found the QTE-style boss attacks to fit the overall theme of the combat. Since that theme, for me, was “horrific,” take that as you will.
@Kuraine,
Mario games are good platformers because it’s just fun to control your character. The physics of your character are refined to the point that you get to have such expertise over controlling Mario that you would never fault the game for what happened. The levels are masterfully crafted jungle gyms that beg you to explore every corner.
The classic PoP was never meant to be a traditional platformer, but more of a puzzle game where the levels had to be “solved”, with different breaking floors and switches and gates. The game did require a lot of running and jumping but it required a lot of thought behind each move.
In the new PoP, it doesn’t look like you can access the entire level and that you’re just flying from point to point a lot of the time, a lot like those Sonic Adventure jump pad sequences, watching everything whizz by. Does it even give you the sense of control and timing that the classic PoP required?
It sounds like you’re saying that they are just presenting you with set pieces where the actions you have to take are pretty predictable, even if the exact sequence varies across the different areas in the game. That bothers me because it would feel to me that the game wouldn’t have any actual mechanics that rely on skill and observation, and rather relies on you memorizing a few key sequences and repeating them over and over.
This does seem a lot like a QTE, except instead of seeing X and O, you are seeing that ring or the cross hatches. At least it would probably feel a lot more natural than seeing buttons flash across the screen. In most games it seems like button presses don’t really correspond to actions that your character normally executes, but is rather a sequence of random button presses that have to be perfectly timed.
A lot of games that try to tackle complex platforming end up not having the finesse that Mario does and just end up throwing you into canned sequences that you have to time perfectly. Is that the case in PoP, or are you actually performing jumps and grabs when you’re supposed to? Is there skill involved or does the game pretty much just prompt you over and over? Is it a canned animation that your character flows into or do feel like you have control 100% of the time?
Thanks Mike, I’ll check it out! (Didn’t see your post ’til I replied)
I’ll agree with you Phillip. Although I haven’t plated Prince of Persia, I have played Yakuza 2, which jarringly thrusts you into quicktime button mashing and battle-deciding timed button presses right in the midst of combat. I wish developers wouldn’t forsake the combat that the game spends so much time teaching the player for something that usually comes off cheap.
I find QTE’s in general to be a fairly upsetting gameplay dynamic. They can easily ruin a game with shoddy impementation.
I would have to say that my own opinions of the game largely reflect Phillip’s. The ease of platforming while not particularly satisfying didn’t bother me either. The bosses really did just feel like the exact same fight 26 different times. They weren’t difficult, just boring as hell.
Ubisoft definitely played it safe with this game. There has to be some middle point between Mirror’s Edge type gameplay that’s manual and Assassin’s Creed type gameplay that’s automatic. That’s the perfect spot for Persia yet they failed to capitalize.
The combat could’ve been more challenging too. Ubisoft went out of their way to make sure you knew when the enemy would attack and told you to block with a slow motion sequence. I felt like they were holding my hand through every battle.
well I should have read then when I actually started playing the game, that I should get tomorrow via gamefly. Now my experience is probably going to be colored a little bit since I have read this, but ooh well i’ll play it and see if your points are right.
Hey Phil,
My own experience with the game wasn’t quite so negative, but I enjoyed your article nonetheless. You guys don’t have a link set-up for mail (at least, I don’t think you do), but I have a question I’d like you to address next podcast.
How do you feel about Miyamoto’s Kind Code? It’s keeping in theme with Fable II and Prince of Persia – titles which attempt to alleviate the trial and error frustration inherent to games. Curious what you guys think.
I’ll have to try this game out at some point, but I’m really getting the impression that this was (ironically) aimed at a more casual crowd, giving them a platformer/action game that those not as specifically skilled could enjoy.
Nice write-up.
I honestly grew to like the combat and the only thing that bothered me at all about this game was the overall idea that you never died. It just seemed too easy.
Regarding the death mechanic.
I think it is hypocrisy from gamers to think that the death mechanic in this Prince of Persia game is aimed at the casual.
The basic save/reload features in almost every game is EXACTLY the same but they are not automated.
What they did is save you the time and frustration of regular death in other games and I applaud them for doing it.
Funny, but I’ve always been the minority voice on the PoP series. I actually despised Sands of Time and its sequels, mostly because I hated the combat and didn’t feel as if I had enough freedom to explore as I wanted to. With this in mind, and the adrenaline built through the speed and momentum maintained with the new PoP, I actually found myself loving this entry – and especially the ending. I don’t care that it was a blatant sequel setup – it was still fantastically dour and engrossing to me – that you want to end it and leave Elika to her fate, but that it won’t let you. If they had given you more of a choice in endings, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fantastic an impact.
What sold this one more than anything for me, was the feeling of momentum and the agility presented as a result. It made it feel altogether different than anything else I’ve played, and for that I commend it. Honestly, I got so caught up that I didn’t care that I couldn’t “die” in the traditional sense. Frankly, that would have made me less inclined to attempt some of the chaotic leaps and bounds that I managed to accomplish.
Thumbs up.
Personally I liked the combat just as well as the exploring. It did get frustrating sometimes, but the quick-time events made the battle scenes look like an action scene out of a movie. It wouldn’t be good if all action games took this path, but I think it’s something different that works
Prince of Persia drove me mad because there was so much about it that was great, but after a few hours I found myself really struggling to continue- and not because the game was too hard or too easy.
It just got a bit boring because it was so damn formulaic.
If I remember right, one of the developers or producers of this game was quoted as saying “Gamers need to support innovative games if the want more of them.” While I agree with the idea, I also think it is more than a bit too much like an ultimatum.
Should we be forced to shut up, buy the game and thank them just for going out on a limb with this title?
Do the semi-sluggish sales of the title not reflect that gamers want depth, value, challenge AND innovation?
Should we, the consumer, feel bad for asking for all of this?
I work at Gamestop, and was a bit blown away when I saw Prince of Persia reduced by $10 for a few weeks (sorry guys they raised the price again!). Isn’t $50 or $40 a much better price for a game that is relatively quick to play through?
But even this price drop did not lead to a great deal more sales of the game in my store. Of course maybe that we sold a few more copies means that Ubisoft got exactly what they wanted.
I hate to make price such a factor… but reviews are for consumers, and consumers want to feel like they get good value for their $60.
I simply did not feel like there was enough value in the new Prince of Persia for the average consumer.
I would place Prince of Persia, Far Cry 2 and Mirror’s Edge at the top of my list of games that should have been held back to 2009 and improved before release.
The worst part about that is that all three of those games offer something new and awesome that should have lead to amazing sales and critical response…
I fucking hate holiday rush jobs… what a waste for the developers, publishers, and consumers.
If anyone learned anything from 2008 I hope it is that games can sell at any time of the year as long as they have one of the major pillars of good selling games in place – good word of mouth, good reviews, and good quality.
The problem I have with Prince of Persia reviews is that everyone is reviewing it a video game with a checklist.
Many people are striving for video games to be considered “art” or “emotional story pieces” and I think Prince of Persia succeeds in that category immensely. I thought the characters were super well developed, and the ending was emotionally gripping and unconventional in a way that video games haven’t attempted before.
It’s a story about loving and caring, and we have these calloused video game reviewers who consider movies like “Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift” to be the “greatest film ever” and they’re saying “Man PoP isn’t very good because it’s sort, there’s some shadow pop-in and the combat isn’t very fun.” I’m not trying to attack you Phil, in fact what I just said doesn’t apply to you at all, I’m just sort of ranting. I feel like Prince of Persia is one of those games people should stop trying to review like a car, and review it more like a movie. It’s not about whether or not it’s worth your money, it’s whether or not it’s worth your time, and I think it certainly is.
Artie- It seems to me you are more saying that you should ignore any weaknesses you see in the game if you find what it is striving for to be something worth applauding.
I think the problem people have talking about this game is that it is just too hard to give the dev team props for what they did create because of mistakes that could have been corrected.
What I experienced while playing was the game was exactly the inverse of what a developer wants- the more I played the less I felt engaged by the game.
I am sure part of the problem was that i found the new Prince’s ‘edgy’ character annoying… there were moments that were good (the I spy game), but most of the time I wanted him to quit trying to be so cool.
Add to this that I simply got sick of seeing the same jumps, rings, at boards to run up or along and it means that most of the game’s core aspects started to wear on me as the game went on.
I am sure there are some that will fall in love with PoP. I am not saying they are wrong at all. I would say that they are perhaps looking for something other than what the average gamer is looking for.
I definately do not think that looking at all the aspects of a game equates to reducing the game to a checklist. If we gave every game props for what it does right while ignoring the bits that stumble then every game would get a perfect score. And it would also not be fiar to our audience.
I’d like to see more writers explore the idea that casual game design philosophies are encroaching on hardcore games. It’s an interesting idea worth investigation.
I don’t think the “death system” would bother me that much. We are all far to into the die and restart system. Wile Prince of Persia might go too far towards a casual system I welcome any try at something a bit different.
I do hope to check this game out some time.
I didn’t like the combat at all in PoP. Against the regular enemies it was too simplistic…I just flung elika at them, followed up with a sword attack and 9 times out of 10 I would kill them instantly for some reason. And the boss encounters were, as you point out, 90% one-button quick time events.
I loved the platforming, and of course PoP is probably the most beautiful looking game I’ve ever played. And, contrary to alot of opinions i’ve heard and read, I actually liked the characters and most of their dialogue (I think I enjoyed talking to Elika more than fighting). I just wish they could have spent a little more time developing a more satisfying combat system to round everything out.
I’ve been pondering a PoP purchase, but I truly despise QTEs. Reaction time is not one of my strengths. Whenever QTEs come into play, I’m usually focused on the part of the screen where I know the button I’m supposed to press is going to pop up. It’s not fun, and I end up missing a lot of the cool animations.
This has me wondering, does anyone really enjoy QTE gameplay? Would you be sad if the game just went into a cut scene to finish the battle instead?
Liking the new ESG crowd. It’s so great to read from so many insightful commenters.
Kevin — seriously agreed on the crowd. Really great to see so many people commenting and discussing the article. Definitely the kind of readers we want hanging around!
I’m playing through this now, as I found it for $20 off. Loving the platforming.
The “QTE” description isn’t quite apt. You’re hitting buttons to jump and grab rings at specific times; the jump button always makes you jump. This is not hitting a randomly flashing button in order to progress a cutscene. Where it is similar to a quick time event is that the actions flow out longer than we’re used to. After you grab that ring and propel yourself, you won’t have to hit another button for about a second as he runs along the wall. The platforming feels like a simplified God of War (specifically the wall climbing parts), and at first it’s jarring as you don’t have to hit as many buttons to get the actions you want. That scaling back of button pressing gives the detached feeling that many people are calling QTE-like. But very quickly it gets what the 2D Sonic games got – the joy of rushing through neat areas and going from bit to bit, but with more to input.
The absense of long reloads because of failure is relieving. Despite this game being supposedly “too easy,” there are challenges where I’ve fallen ten straight times. Waiting for the game to restart each time and hiking back to that spot ten times would have driven me batty. Instead I skipped the frustration that was acceptable years ago, but at this point is a punishment that does not add to my satisfaction upon succeeding at all. Those people who do gain additional satisfaction from load time punishment are likely to feel the opposite way.
Funny thing about the combat – some of the boss encounters do take a while, but the ones Phil was complaining about on the podcast I actually cleared in under 30 seconds a piece. Those fights still needed more variety (as he said on the podcast, they recycle the same attacks without cool down and it gets straight-up silly), but since none last more than five minutes for, they feel like pallet cleansers before I jump back into the level and hunt down the collectible seeds. Phil, I totally agree with a need for proper flow in these fights, and way less actual timed button pressing.
I cannot get over how fun this simplified racing and platforming is for me. There’s this mix of scenery, motion and just enough tricks that I can’t get enough of it.
Good description. I’m still interested in trying it out… but there are so many games and a limited budget. Plus I just got Mirror’s Edge, Chrono Trigger DS, and Yakuza 2… What am I doing to myself?!
Damn, I need to start playing my copy of Yakuza 1 while my store still has a copy of Yakuza 2…
Playing last gen games hard now. Sometimes I am ok, sometimes my inner graphics whore comes out.
I much preferred the previous trilogy, the gameplay of this one did feel like one long quicktime event.
Playing through it made me want to go back and play the original trilogy… time-magic is way cooler than auto-saves and assisted-jumps.
It’s sounds interesting, to bad about the battles because asides from that it sounds great. I might still pick this up later this year, just because it still sounds like a good game.
While I normally despise QTE’s, I actually thought the boss special attacks were the best executed ones in the game. This is because even if they DID hit me the first time, the animation leading up to it would be the same whenever the boss attempted to use it again. This would let you know what button you were going to need to push before it even appeared on the screen.
In fact, certain animation tip offs were even carried through all bosses because you could notice it on the Prince rather than the enemy. You’ll notice that whenever the Prince flips his sword so he’s wielding it in a backward grip, the attack the boss is going to use requires the X button to be pressed in order to deflect it.
I thought the ability to watch the way the characters, rather than just seeing a giant blue X on my screen, allowed me to stay immersed in the game. It also gave me an extra split second to prevent incoming pain.
I’m in the minority here, but I loved every design choice they took. It’s my favorite entry in the series thus far.
While the combat gameplay was repetitive, I felt like the boss battles built up to something and each battle lead you closer to an awesome climax… ok that sounds bad. From the Alchemist’s aerial battle to the Warrior’s tower crashing to ground, the game seemed to grow more exciting during each battle. However I can see where you criticism is coming from. The combat itself didn’t evolve when the levels and bosses did, making the game seem somewhat stagnant, at times like a copy and paste routine.
I would like to make a couple of points if I may. I think that the most reviewer picking on the good stuff on that game. For example the “You can’t die”-Thing, well, what are we talking about here anyway, it is a metaphor fore failing. So what is the problem with replacing one metaphor with another. And I really like this one and its execution, especially after playing “too human” and seeing this tedious valkyrie for about a hundred times.
Or the ease of play, well I quiet like it. If I need a challenge I am playing Ikaruga. But I do understand, if somebody doesn’t like it because of that.
A and about the repetitiveness. I think the problem is not repetitiveness in general but if something gets tedious. And I don’t think this is to be found in in prince of persia. In fact I normally quiet enjoy repetitive games. Donkey Kong, Space Invaders or SMB all those games are repetitive and that is why there are some much fun. Pattern to recognize and to master that’s what it is all about. The only thing you can say is that it is easy.
I will not argue a case for the fighting system, they will have to work on this.
But what really annoyed the hell out of me is that it The unbelievable boring story. And the way its told. Even though I do not mind the new characters the sorry is first so predictable and then so tolkien-esque. The manifested evil, the corrupted and then the best is her story. Well what were their thinking.
And about the story-telling itself I really liked the dialogue but after a while I would have appreciated to got some of the story told when moving. I felt the breaks were too artificial, too to abrupt. That was What really bugged me.
Regards
J
Spot on! The climbing was just to easy the path too obvious, and then the combat was a bitch, actually making me give up on the game because one boss battle just went on and on and on. Not fun at all. It’s a shame because I always found the combat in The Two Thrones to be such fun: running up the walls, leaping over guys and stabbing them. And I loved the stealth kills, shame they didn’t bring them back.
Yep, that’s about right. I really dug the flow of the game; jumping and climbing around. It was forgiving when you messed up and fluid when you didn’t. But the combat was just frustratingly bad. So bad that I couldn’t bring myself to finish it.