Theres one thing i don't understand about peoples attitudes to games. Take Assasins creed, derided by several people for being repetitive and having difficult combat controls. Although it scored well here, and i love the games scope and visuals, generally it was badly received.
Compare this with GTA4. Lauded generally. Really highly rated and generally well received. But repetitive and having difficult hand to hand combat.
Now i know i'm generalising a little bit here but both are huge sandbox games, you are helped out hugely by indicators of where to go next and what to do (gps in GTA4 and the viewpoints in AC) and the missions are generally repetive (pickpocket, eavesdrop etc in AC and steal car, follow someone, kill them in GTA) so why is the repetiveness of one such an issue and the other is nary given a mention? Would AC be better if it had guns maybe?
Can't people see that almost all games are repetitive? In FPS's even ones as good as COD4 and Halo 3 all you do is go around shooting people with some missions (and the odd bit of driving) thrown in to give you objectives. Games like tomb raider, uncharted, gears of War all involve several hours of the same gameplay but for some reason get away with it. Is AC too structured with the 6 aspects per mission?
I'm trying to understand why one repetitive game is worse than another? Is it the level of excitement? Personally i think fending off 8 soldiers and a templar with a sword is quite exciting! More exciting than stealing a car andf following the gps back to Brucies lockup. Don't get me wrong, i like both games. GTA4 is better but AC is also really good.
Can anyone help :D