I'm a regular reader of the Escapist, but I've not really participated on the forums much so far. Still, the notion of writing a few reviews is one I've thought I'd rather like to try - if only as an exercise.
My point of view on games stems from an outlook which, though I'd hesitate to call it 'artistic' or 'intellectual' as either implies a degree of snobbishness I hope to avoid (though am likely often prone to, all the same), but one that attempts to judge them on merits and value as more than mere entertainment - looking, perhaps, for some worth to the experience that lasts beyond merely killing a few hours at a controller.
SPOILER WARNING: I look a lot into the narrative and story, including any major twists and ending(s). Needless to say, stay away if you do not wish to spoil the game's story for yourself. I also assume some familiarity with the game already, so I generally will cut down on the fluff of explaining the basic concepts.
Assassin's Creed - Review
First Impressions
My opinion of Assassin's Creed shifted for a very long time, based first on previews and then on the reviews. On the one hand, both the setting and the gameplay are the sort that appeal very much to me personally - on the other hand, the mingling of futuristic elements into the mix seemed tacky and unnecessary (to me and a lot of other people), particularly as we were not really presented with the context at any point. Moreover, in direct contrast to some of the earlier promises the developers made, saying they were striving for a fluid experience which, as much as possible, 'did not feel like a game' (or words to that effect), the point that almost every reviewer took great care hammering in... is just how rigid the structure of the game is, with a routine, monotone pattern - rather than, say, a free-flowing narrative experience.
This put me off even more - sure, the dynamic free-running would be fun for a while. But, just like most of the reviewers I read, I could easily see myself getting bored with the formulaic pattern of doing the same missions - pickpocketing, interrogation, assassination - over and over again until I was blue in the face. It's not like there's anything else to the game.
Life in the Crusades
I only picked up Assassin's Creed recently, when I saw it on the shelf for a mere £8 (second-hand, for the PS3). Quickly, I realised that there's more to it than first meets the eye.
To get the straightforward over with - yes, there's little doubt that the game fails as far the core gameplay mechanic goes. With such a large, open world available to the player, limiting him or her into such a narrow bunch of repetitive missions is unimaginative to the point that it could be decreed as abuse of the environment artists - so much work, so little point for it as far as the single-player campaign goes, but more on that later. Perhaps I should reword the complaint thus: in terms of gameplay, Assassin's Creed clearly delivers far less variation than it has the blatantly available resources for.
There, that's out of the way, though I'll revisit the core gameplay mechanics later in a little more detail.
The thing is however, that the game tries (and mostly succeeds, in my humble opinion) to innovate in practically every single area which isn't a part of the core gameplay.
My main revelation came somewhere halfway through the game when I reluctantly realised that the writing is actually pretty damned good. A lot of games have decent writing and, admittedly, the bigger problem usually lies in interactivity rather than quality (after all, if I want great linear prose, I can always read a book, or watch a movie). In contrast, as an example, RPGs are at the other end of the spectrum, where they mostly have passable writing with a lot of interaction (like Bioware's work), but rarely do you get both at the same time. Assassin's Creed hides many nuggets of brilliance and though it's fairly linear, at least it tries to spice things up a tad in the interaction environment as well (though not a lot).
Assassin's Creed is told from a point in the nearby future, where the player controls Desmond - a former 'assassin' in our own time. The story is then split up into a number of discrete chunks with the majority of the action happening during the crusades in the Holy Land, with interludes back in the present set between each chunk. So far, so unremarkable.
Unexpectedly, the script itself borders on actually being sophisticated (in some places). This is cleverly disguised at first. The secondary protagonist after Desmond, that is - Altair, is introduced as a generic videogame hero, disrespectful of authority, arrogant and mostly an idiot, though he does not realise this. Ingratiating the chav population? Perhaps. As a matter of fact, when I was picking it up, a passing chav did indeed recommend to me the game while I held it in my hands as 'wicked'.
Quite often, we see this character concept (the more generous might call it an archetype) in entertainment - not just games - second only perhaps to the grizzled space-marine. Sometimes, we see them learn their lesson. Other times, they show that their cocky can-do attitude is, in fact, what is needed to save the world from certain destruction (and get the girl, given that overabundance of serotonin) and to hell with everyone else's advice of being 'careful' and 'obeying rules' which are there for no reason whatsoever.
Altair gets chastised pretty much immediately after the tutorial and intro, getting stripped of his rank and introducing that old game adage - losing all your powers and having to re-earn them.
What did take me by surprise, was the depth of almost all the characters along the way - particularly Altair's. I'll jump out and say outright that there are many rough edges here, for instance it never is quite made clear how Altair managed to become the best and highest ranking assassin in the order in spite of his constant breaking the rules and snarky attitude - the question of how the character got to where he was is never touched upon and his past remains a blank slate. An omission which could've added a bit more depth, I reckon.
On the other hand, the genuine character development is trully impressive. We're presented with something more than the typical "Oh! So that's what my master meant! I've learned my lesson now, so I can be even more cocky and arrogant now that I know I'm underpinned by the right ideal as I face the final boss!" that we so often see. Altair's journey to enlightenment is reflected in his dialogues with the local chiefs whom he reports to in the assassins' bureaux of each city and with his boss, Al-Mualim.
For instance. The man who lost his brother and his own arm due to Altair's arrogance and cockiness is in the prologue, is viciously hostile towards him at first, whenever visited. And yet their relationship has a well-executed dynamic to it. By the end of the game he starts to respect Altair's skill, whereas Altair grows to understand his own failings, both men learning from each other. It is not a sudden conversion, the subtlety and restraint (throughout the script in general, as a matter of fact) is admirable - and watching the protagonist learn and evolve, in terms of both character and wisdom, is very rewarding emotionally.
The rest of the game's major dialogues are largely between Altair and his victims. A lot of this is merely debating ideologies (contrasting goals against the means used to achieve them is a thread often revisited, for instance) - some of the discourse here is rather shallow and, indeed, repetitive. On the other hand, really interesting nuggets of thought are struck upon every now and then. The phrase 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted', which has been popularly attributed to the order of assassins, gets a lot of exposure here, starting with Altair's hilarious original interpretation that this implies all other rules can be broken at will - leading eventually to considerably deeper musings, some bordering on the trully philosophical (the game's central goal, the 'Piece of Eden' in itself presents a curious allegory to the ideas presented).
Again, the evolution of Altair from the self-assured, smug youth into the ponderous, introspective man is heart-warmingly carried-off.
The presentation is at times a bit dry - too often the dialogue skips between glimpses of insight and confused babble, often retreading the same topics and in a few points even I would say it's a tad drawn out. But, as long as one invests in the effort of listening, there are parts that will likely inspire at least a few interesting thoughts in most people.
Of course, the downside is that all development (as far as the crusades are concerned) is painfully linear - especially for an open-world game - and any perceived choice is always purely superficial. Pretty much all of the content is spoon-fed to the player, the only interaction is (sometimes) choosing the order of the assassinations (superficial, like I say). The investigation missions are a little more interesting in that a lot of them are optional - so the player can choose whether or not to trade in a bit more time to, perhaps, earn some more insight into your current target. Unfortunately, amongst these there are very few pieces that are actually worth the effort, most reward the player with a single sentence that tells nothing of interest.
The one notable thing here is how all of the dialogue is presented - at last, the developer has eschewed the traditional cut-scenes. Dialogues and many of the interludes are, of course, still scripted, yet always the player retains some degree of control. The character can often move about as he talks or change the camera position - at the very least, pan around from a fixed viewpoint. It's not much, but it's a good step away from the tradition of the standard cinematic cut-scene and generally works really well.
Back to the Future
I point out I've really only talked about the crusades part of the game. For me however, it is the few brief points at which you take control of Desmond again that the game really shines.
My points from the previous section remain - the writing remains as strong as ever, perhaps even more effective as the conversations are condensed from moderately lengthy debates into short, but inspired exchanges. Unlike Altair, Desmond is mostly unobtrusive, kind of a non-character - for the player to associate with more, I imagine. I rather liked him - feeling alienated from the player character is sometimes I often run into (often because the developers cast them as either jerks, whiny, idiots etc). Desmond is a very fine realisation of the everyguy that, personally, I had no problems with (well, except one - which I'll mention below).
Desmond is confined to just a handful of rooms, yet it is here that we really see the something that we usually don't find in games. Perhaps the juxtaposition against the prevailing gameiness we find in the rigid mission structures of the crusades helps skews my opinion, but the gameplay here really stands out. You are taken out of the customary interface and not really given any goals other than what you are told to do (which is rarely more than 'lie down here' or 'go to bed'). Everything else is left up to you. There are a variety of extra dialogues with the characters which you can trigger during the downtime, fleshing out some of the background. If you keep your eyes peeled however, there are several oppotunities to be sneaky and earn some extra exposition by finding codes for computers and stealing access-key pens. It's nothing much, but it's rewarding - moreso as it's not cued by the game, coming out as something closer to a primitive adventure game.
What really makes it work is that the entirety of the 'crusades' part is presented almost as a game-within-a-game. Even the manual that comes with the disc features a rather amusing set of comments on behalf of one of the game's antagonists (sometimes even criticising the control scheme). It's a nice touch and really works to the game's advantage on the whole - the gameiness I've complained so much about in the crusades becomes more acceptable the way it's presented and, as I've already mentioned, the present-day interludes work better in contrast, seeming more real and immersive as a result.
This would work even better if the ratio between the crusades and the present-day was a tad more even. If it were, the tedious repetitiveness of the core gameplay might have been somewhat forgiveable. That, and the interaction between the optional content versus the main dialogues in the story is... well, non-existent. Read as many emails as you like, but Desmond will still act surprised at every story revelation.
The Main Course
To finish off, I should probably touch on the many-times-mentioned 'core gameplay'. There's not a lot to say about it. I suspect the developers thought, "Well, here's this whole great big, open world, some citizens, guards, hideouts etc... excellent! Gameplay will emerge from this and we don't even need to touch anything else!" before promptly taking the weekend off. Really, that's the only sane way I can read their intent at this juncture.
The world is impressive. I mean, trully impressive - you really could, quite easily, house a small MMO within the confines of the Holy Land. Which leaves me thoroughly bemused, since much of it serves no purpose (read: the Kingdom). In fact, the premise of the game on first glance lends itself considerably better to a more linear, corridor-like structure. People say that Mirror's Edge would have benefitted from an open world - in my opinion Assassin's Creed would, instead, make more sense as a linear platformer. I'm not saying that the game would be better by any means, no. Merely that the gameplay premise doesn't require anything else. It's like starting a ten-foot tall mural when all you want to paint is a singe flower. If you don't have a whole meadow in your sights, a 12" canvas would have been enough.
There are two approaches to open-world games: lots and lots of content (Bethesda, Rockstar) or... a few simple rules that lead to (in theory) emergent gameplay (Far Cry 2, Assassin's Creed, well, pretty much everyone else). One of the approaches works - the other doesn't. Bethesda, I think, learned the lesson a lot sooner than everyone else with Arena and Daggerfall, the epitomy of open-world, which is why they've gotten so good.
Simply put - you get out of the game what you put in. If you do want to go down the road of emergence: more complex, sophisticated dynamics that interact with each other and that allow for many different types of interaction for the player with the world would be the key to success. Otherwise, 'lots and lots of content' seems like the surest bet.
Perhaps there's a critical point after which the amount of effort invested into the ruleset for an emergent-gameplay world returns more gameplay than an equal amount of work put into scripted, hand-made world. If there is, I don't believe anyone has reached that point yet.
Assassin's Creed excels at delivering the illusion of experiencing the atmosphere and ambience of what the Holy Land might have looked like during the crusades. So long as you don't look too close to the surface, (where are all the workers apart from the merchants? where are all the animals? why does noone ever use those rooftop gardens that are so abundant?) it's enough to really draw you in for a few hours, so much that merely walking through the streets is a pleasant experience.
The crowd dynamics are probably the most interesting part of the core gameplay, which I found myself enjoying even after the free-running and combat had grown old - almost everyone in the crowd fits into one of several 'personalities' who react differently to Altair, from the beggars, to the guards, the thugs, the madmen... which make manoeuvering through the streets really interesting, both in and out of pursuit. There are a lot of tools for crowd interaction that make this quite interesting and, moreover, it is something that you'll likely only discover in depth after you've grown tired of climbing every damned thing in sight.
Pursuit can be fun a few times and offers a high number of baited-breath moments per minute, but the chases are often let down either by oddities in the controls (aiming your jump to end up in the gazebo/bench rather than on top of it with only seconds before the guards catch sight of you is usually only a milimetre difference as far as the analogue stick goes), or oddities in AI - who, in spite of all the "I've never seen anyone do that before," at Altair's escapades are perfectly capable of acrobatic gazelle-leaps when chasing you.
Perhaps the most comical (and frustrating point) was when navigating the docks distrcit in Acre - Altair cannot swim, yet is inevitably attracted to water, leading to more moments cursing in anger at that point in the game than any other as he routinely chooses to miss any potential foot/hand-hold and plunge into the ocean. And here I am, precariously perched on a high-tide post when I see a guard chasing a drunk, neither of whom seem to have the least difficulty hopping from boat, to post, to post, to boat, to dry land, to boat... etc.
A quick and final note on the combat - there's too much of it. Way too much. Towards the end of the game, where you're forced onto a linear path... sure, it's bad enough, but even more disturbing is the 'citizens in distress' you come across all the time, who are being manhandled by four or five guards. And, naturally, to free them you have to brutally slaughter each of those guards... plus all of the dozen or so more who immediately come running to their aid. One can't help but think if those citizens won't think twice about screaming for help next time, knowing that their life comes at the cost of several dozen others'...
In Conclusion
Let's take a collective, deep breath. There's a lot to appreciate in the game. A disappointing central gameplay aspect is framed by impressive narrative and presentation. At its heights, the writing surpasses the vast majority of videogames in terms of the depth, characterisation and intelligence. There are many good ideas hidden around the borders, even if the central tenets are poorly executed.
Outside of pure entertainment, there's a lot to take away here - themes ranging from faith to politics to philosophy are touched on and are worth listening to. Unfortunately, presenting this in the format of this game seems a waste of talent. A novelisation, on the other hand, would work really well (less so as a movie... unless the director went in a trully arthouse direction). Alternatively, the writer would do well to lend their talents to a game that makes better use of the story - this kind of depth would work tremendously well in a Deus Ex game.
If you've got the time and, like me, never picked the game up for fear of a shallow, pointless gameplay experience - give it a try, you might find something to like, even if you don't muster the patience to see it all through to completion.
My point of view on games stems from an outlook which, though I'd hesitate to call it 'artistic' or 'intellectual' as either implies a degree of snobbishness I hope to avoid (though am likely often prone to, all the same), but one that attempts to judge them on merits and value as more than mere entertainment - looking, perhaps, for some worth to the experience that lasts beyond merely killing a few hours at a controller.
SPOILER WARNING: I look a lot into the narrative and story, including any major twists and ending(s). Needless to say, stay away if you do not wish to spoil the game's story for yourself. I also assume some familiarity with the game already, so I generally will cut down on the fluff of explaining the basic concepts.
Assassin's Creed - Review
First Impressions
My opinion of Assassin's Creed shifted for a very long time, based first on previews and then on the reviews. On the one hand, both the setting and the gameplay are the sort that appeal very much to me personally - on the other hand, the mingling of futuristic elements into the mix seemed tacky and unnecessary (to me and a lot of other people), particularly as we were not really presented with the context at any point. Moreover, in direct contrast to some of the earlier promises the developers made, saying they were striving for a fluid experience which, as much as possible, 'did not feel like a game' (or words to that effect), the point that almost every reviewer took great care hammering in... is just how rigid the structure of the game is, with a routine, monotone pattern - rather than, say, a free-flowing narrative experience.
This put me off even more - sure, the dynamic free-running would be fun for a while. But, just like most of the reviewers I read, I could easily see myself getting bored with the formulaic pattern of doing the same missions - pickpocketing, interrogation, assassination - over and over again until I was blue in the face. It's not like there's anything else to the game.
Life in the Crusades
I only picked up Assassin's Creed recently, when I saw it on the shelf for a mere £8 (second-hand, for the PS3). Quickly, I realised that there's more to it than first meets the eye.
To get the straightforward over with - yes, there's little doubt that the game fails as far the core gameplay mechanic goes. With such a large, open world available to the player, limiting him or her into such a narrow bunch of repetitive missions is unimaginative to the point that it could be decreed as abuse of the environment artists - so much work, so little point for it as far as the single-player campaign goes, but more on that later. Perhaps I should reword the complaint thus: in terms of gameplay, Assassin's Creed clearly delivers far less variation than it has the blatantly available resources for.
There, that's out of the way, though I'll revisit the core gameplay mechanics later in a little more detail.
The thing is however, that the game tries (and mostly succeeds, in my humble opinion) to innovate in practically every single area which isn't a part of the core gameplay.
My main revelation came somewhere halfway through the game when I reluctantly realised that the writing is actually pretty damned good. A lot of games have decent writing and, admittedly, the bigger problem usually lies in interactivity rather than quality (after all, if I want great linear prose, I can always read a book, or watch a movie). In contrast, as an example, RPGs are at the other end of the spectrum, where they mostly have passable writing with a lot of interaction (like Bioware's work), but rarely do you get both at the same time. Assassin's Creed hides many nuggets of brilliance and though it's fairly linear, at least it tries to spice things up a tad in the interaction environment as well (though not a lot).
Assassin's Creed is told from a point in the nearby future, where the player controls Desmond - a former 'assassin' in our own time. The story is then split up into a number of discrete chunks with the majority of the action happening during the crusades in the Holy Land, with interludes back in the present set between each chunk. So far, so unremarkable.
Unexpectedly, the script itself borders on actually being sophisticated (in some places). This is cleverly disguised at first. The secondary protagonist after Desmond, that is - Altair, is introduced as a generic videogame hero, disrespectful of authority, arrogant and mostly an idiot, though he does not realise this. Ingratiating the chav population? Perhaps. As a matter of fact, when I was picking it up, a passing chav did indeed recommend to me the game while I held it in my hands as 'wicked'.
Quite often, we see this character concept (the more generous might call it an archetype) in entertainment - not just games - second only perhaps to the grizzled space-marine. Sometimes, we see them learn their lesson. Other times, they show that their cocky can-do attitude is, in fact, what is needed to save the world from certain destruction (and get the girl, given that overabundance of serotonin) and to hell with everyone else's advice of being 'careful' and 'obeying rules' which are there for no reason whatsoever.
Altair gets chastised pretty much immediately after the tutorial and intro, getting stripped of his rank and introducing that old game adage - losing all your powers and having to re-earn them.
What did take me by surprise, was the depth of almost all the characters along the way - particularly Altair's. I'll jump out and say outright that there are many rough edges here, for instance it never is quite made clear how Altair managed to become the best and highest ranking assassin in the order in spite of his constant breaking the rules and snarky attitude - the question of how the character got to where he was is never touched upon and his past remains a blank slate. An omission which could've added a bit more depth, I reckon.
On the other hand, the genuine character development is trully impressive. We're presented with something more than the typical "Oh! So that's what my master meant! I've learned my lesson now, so I can be even more cocky and arrogant now that I know I'm underpinned by the right ideal as I face the final boss!" that we so often see. Altair's journey to enlightenment is reflected in his dialogues with the local chiefs whom he reports to in the assassins' bureaux of each city and with his boss, Al-Mualim.
For instance. The man who lost his brother and his own arm due to Altair's arrogance and cockiness is in the prologue, is viciously hostile towards him at first, whenever visited. And yet their relationship has a well-executed dynamic to it. By the end of the game he starts to respect Altair's skill, whereas Altair grows to understand his own failings, both men learning from each other. It is not a sudden conversion, the subtlety and restraint (throughout the script in general, as a matter of fact) is admirable - and watching the protagonist learn and evolve, in terms of both character and wisdom, is very rewarding emotionally.
The rest of the game's major dialogues are largely between Altair and his victims. A lot of this is merely debating ideologies (contrasting goals against the means used to achieve them is a thread often revisited, for instance) - some of the discourse here is rather shallow and, indeed, repetitive. On the other hand, really interesting nuggets of thought are struck upon every now and then. The phrase 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted', which has been popularly attributed to the order of assassins, gets a lot of exposure here, starting with Altair's hilarious original interpretation that this implies all other rules can be broken at will - leading eventually to considerably deeper musings, some bordering on the trully philosophical (the game's central goal, the 'Piece of Eden' in itself presents a curious allegory to the ideas presented).
Again, the evolution of Altair from the self-assured, smug youth into the ponderous, introspective man is heart-warmingly carried-off.
The presentation is at times a bit dry - too often the dialogue skips between glimpses of insight and confused babble, often retreading the same topics and in a few points even I would say it's a tad drawn out. But, as long as one invests in the effort of listening, there are parts that will likely inspire at least a few interesting thoughts in most people.
Of course, the downside is that all development (as far as the crusades are concerned) is painfully linear - especially for an open-world game - and any perceived choice is always purely superficial. Pretty much all of the content is spoon-fed to the player, the only interaction is (sometimes) choosing the order of the assassinations (superficial, like I say). The investigation missions are a little more interesting in that a lot of them are optional - so the player can choose whether or not to trade in a bit more time to, perhaps, earn some more insight into your current target. Unfortunately, amongst these there are very few pieces that are actually worth the effort, most reward the player with a single sentence that tells nothing of interest.
The one notable thing here is how all of the dialogue is presented - at last, the developer has eschewed the traditional cut-scenes. Dialogues and many of the interludes are, of course, still scripted, yet always the player retains some degree of control. The character can often move about as he talks or change the camera position - at the very least, pan around from a fixed viewpoint. It's not much, but it's a good step away from the tradition of the standard cinematic cut-scene and generally works really well.
Back to the Future
I point out I've really only talked about the crusades part of the game. For me however, it is the few brief points at which you take control of Desmond again that the game really shines.
My points from the previous section remain - the writing remains as strong as ever, perhaps even more effective as the conversations are condensed from moderately lengthy debates into short, but inspired exchanges. Unlike Altair, Desmond is mostly unobtrusive, kind of a non-character - for the player to associate with more, I imagine. I rather liked him - feeling alienated from the player character is sometimes I often run into (often because the developers cast them as either jerks, whiny, idiots etc). Desmond is a very fine realisation of the everyguy that, personally, I had no problems with (well, except one - which I'll mention below).
Desmond is confined to just a handful of rooms, yet it is here that we really see the something that we usually don't find in games. Perhaps the juxtaposition against the prevailing gameiness we find in the rigid mission structures of the crusades helps skews my opinion, but the gameplay here really stands out. You are taken out of the customary interface and not really given any goals other than what you are told to do (which is rarely more than 'lie down here' or 'go to bed'). Everything else is left up to you. There are a variety of extra dialogues with the characters which you can trigger during the downtime, fleshing out some of the background. If you keep your eyes peeled however, there are several oppotunities to be sneaky and earn some extra exposition by finding codes for computers and stealing access-key pens. It's nothing much, but it's rewarding - moreso as it's not cued by the game, coming out as something closer to a primitive adventure game.
What really makes it work is that the entirety of the 'crusades' part is presented almost as a game-within-a-game. Even the manual that comes with the disc features a rather amusing set of comments on behalf of one of the game's antagonists (sometimes even criticising the control scheme). It's a nice touch and really works to the game's advantage on the whole - the gameiness I've complained so much about in the crusades becomes more acceptable the way it's presented and, as I've already mentioned, the present-day interludes work better in contrast, seeming more real and immersive as a result.
This would work even better if the ratio between the crusades and the present-day was a tad more even. If it were, the tedious repetitiveness of the core gameplay might have been somewhat forgiveable. That, and the interaction between the optional content versus the main dialogues in the story is... well, non-existent. Read as many emails as you like, but Desmond will still act surprised at every story revelation.
The Main Course
To finish off, I should probably touch on the many-times-mentioned 'core gameplay'. There's not a lot to say about it. I suspect the developers thought, "Well, here's this whole great big, open world, some citizens, guards, hideouts etc... excellent! Gameplay will emerge from this and we don't even need to touch anything else!" before promptly taking the weekend off. Really, that's the only sane way I can read their intent at this juncture.
The world is impressive. I mean, trully impressive - you really could, quite easily, house a small MMO within the confines of the Holy Land. Which leaves me thoroughly bemused, since much of it serves no purpose (read: the Kingdom). In fact, the premise of the game on first glance lends itself considerably better to a more linear, corridor-like structure. People say that Mirror's Edge would have benefitted from an open world - in my opinion Assassin's Creed would, instead, make more sense as a linear platformer. I'm not saying that the game would be better by any means, no. Merely that the gameplay premise doesn't require anything else. It's like starting a ten-foot tall mural when all you want to paint is a singe flower. If you don't have a whole meadow in your sights, a 12" canvas would have been enough.
There are two approaches to open-world games: lots and lots of content (Bethesda, Rockstar) or... a few simple rules that lead to (in theory) emergent gameplay (Far Cry 2, Assassin's Creed, well, pretty much everyone else). One of the approaches works - the other doesn't. Bethesda, I think, learned the lesson a lot sooner than everyone else with Arena and Daggerfall, the epitomy of open-world, which is why they've gotten so good.
Simply put - you get out of the game what you put in. If you do want to go down the road of emergence: more complex, sophisticated dynamics that interact with each other and that allow for many different types of interaction for the player with the world would be the key to success. Otherwise, 'lots and lots of content' seems like the surest bet.
Perhaps there's a critical point after which the amount of effort invested into the ruleset for an emergent-gameplay world returns more gameplay than an equal amount of work put into scripted, hand-made world. If there is, I don't believe anyone has reached that point yet.
Assassin's Creed excels at delivering the illusion of experiencing the atmosphere and ambience of what the Holy Land might have looked like during the crusades. So long as you don't look too close to the surface, (where are all the workers apart from the merchants? where are all the animals? why does noone ever use those rooftop gardens that are so abundant?) it's enough to really draw you in for a few hours, so much that merely walking through the streets is a pleasant experience.
The crowd dynamics are probably the most interesting part of the core gameplay, which I found myself enjoying even after the free-running and combat had grown old - almost everyone in the crowd fits into one of several 'personalities' who react differently to Altair, from the beggars, to the guards, the thugs, the madmen... which make manoeuvering through the streets really interesting, both in and out of pursuit. There are a lot of tools for crowd interaction that make this quite interesting and, moreover, it is something that you'll likely only discover in depth after you've grown tired of climbing every damned thing in sight.
Pursuit can be fun a few times and offers a high number of baited-breath moments per minute, but the chases are often let down either by oddities in the controls (aiming your jump to end up in the gazebo/bench rather than on top of it with only seconds before the guards catch sight of you is usually only a milimetre difference as far as the analogue stick goes), or oddities in AI - who, in spite of all the "I've never seen anyone do that before," at Altair's escapades are perfectly capable of acrobatic gazelle-leaps when chasing you.
Perhaps the most comical (and frustrating point) was when navigating the docks distrcit in Acre - Altair cannot swim, yet is inevitably attracted to water, leading to more moments cursing in anger at that point in the game than any other as he routinely chooses to miss any potential foot/hand-hold and plunge into the ocean. And here I am, precariously perched on a high-tide post when I see a guard chasing a drunk, neither of whom seem to have the least difficulty hopping from boat, to post, to post, to boat, to dry land, to boat... etc.
A quick and final note on the combat - there's too much of it. Way too much. Towards the end of the game, where you're forced onto a linear path... sure, it's bad enough, but even more disturbing is the 'citizens in distress' you come across all the time, who are being manhandled by four or five guards. And, naturally, to free them you have to brutally slaughter each of those guards... plus all of the dozen or so more who immediately come running to their aid. One can't help but think if those citizens won't think twice about screaming for help next time, knowing that their life comes at the cost of several dozen others'...
In Conclusion
Let's take a collective, deep breath. There's a lot to appreciate in the game. A disappointing central gameplay aspect is framed by impressive narrative and presentation. At its heights, the writing surpasses the vast majority of videogames in terms of the depth, characterisation and intelligence. There are many good ideas hidden around the borders, even if the central tenets are poorly executed.
Outside of pure entertainment, there's a lot to take away here - themes ranging from faith to politics to philosophy are touched on and are worth listening to. Unfortunately, presenting this in the format of this game seems a waste of talent. A novelisation, on the other hand, would work really well (less so as a movie... unless the director went in a trully arthouse direction). Alternatively, the writer would do well to lend their talents to a game that makes better use of the story - this kind of depth would work tremendously well in a Deus Ex game.
If you've got the time and, like me, never picked the game up for fear of a shallow, pointless gameplay experience - give it a try, you might find something to like, even if you don't muster the patience to see it all through to completion.
