Selvec said:
Trishbot said:
- Prince of Persia (2008) - The "reboot" came out several years ago and ended on a huge cliffhanger. The promise of more Prince in a new game, one that answers a few questions about his enigmatic past while raising the stakes with the unleashed Ahriman reeking havoc throughout the world, was quickly ignored in favor of an ill-advised cash-in for the Prince of Persia movie with an unnecessary and pretty much ignored return to the Sands of Time trilogy instead. I love the Sands of Time trilogy too, but that story has been done and concluded, while the new Prince remains painfully far from closure. Does Ubisoft remember this game even exists?
Prince of Persia (2008) was considered a bad remake. Many fans of the Prince of Persia series did NOT like the game at all. Thats why they made the move tie in for Sand of Time. They pretty much made sure they would never go back to this reboot since it was so dislike.
However, they did release DLC that tied up the ending and answered those questions.
Edit: and now that I think about it.
MediEvil 3!
Prince of Persia (2008) was NOT considered a bad remake. It received excellent review scores, holds a high metacritic, has good fan scores and feedback, and it sold exceptionally well too (better than Two Thrones, Forgotten Sands, and even Sands of Time - it stands at nearly 3 million copies total).
It had some seriously FLAWS, I won't deny you that (the Prince came across as a jerk, the gameplay was too simple and easy, there was no difficulty curve at all), BUT that's ignoring all the things that many, many, MANY fans loved: the unique and bold narrative, the stunning and incomparable visual style, the lush and sweeping soundtrack, the shifting nature of the world from dead to exploding with beauty and life, Elika in every facet, and certainly some of the most thrilling platforming segments in any game (the exploding blimp fight against the Wizard left me breathless).
A sequel could absolutely and easily address and fix ANY issues anybody had - and isn't that what Sequels do? Would we throw Mass Effect aside because of a choppy framerate, long elevators, clunky combat, inventory problems, and funny glitches? Would you throw out Assassin's Creed 2 just because the first one was, really, quite awful, boring, mundane, needlessly confusing, and cumbersome? Sequels can exist to fix the mistakes of their predecessors.
Prince of Persia was not a failure, by ANY stretch of the imagination, though I know many people don't care for it and they hear that often from other vocal and disappointed fans. I'm with you; I think it could be better. BUT it still did so much right, and I absolutely love the journey and charm the game has, unlike anything in this overstuffed FPS market. I'll take a game with Elika sassing the Prince while poignantly debating the ethics of damning the world for the sake of love while they trapeze themselves over bottomless pits in gorgeous Persian fantasy vistas over yet another dull-brown military shooter or shameless movie cash-in.
