Patrice Desilets, the author of the original Assassin’s Creed, has hit the nail on the head and once again changes the story. Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey is a game not about the Crusade, but about our ape ancestors. Is there a chance it will change the history of video games?? The answer is in the video review.

Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey

Best comments

Verdict: An ideal game for a degraded squad to increase IQ.
Arguments:
— The action takes place in ancient Bratsk, Chuvash region.
– To continue, you definitely need a mother.
— Maximum in-game age — 15 years.
— Communication through one word/guttural singing/inarticulate sounds.
— Gradual assimilation of which side of attack/defense we play.
— Creation of survival guides occurs through general interaction.

When the release (okay, the press version is actually pre-release) version has gamebreaking bugs – this means that the game should have been released at least a month later. For example, DayZ (although it was there, is and will always be), AC: Unity. They came out unprepared and deserved low marks. I repeat, I liked the game and right now I continue to develop my family. But to stretch the mark for a “commendable” idea? The idea is laudable, the implementation is not yet. In this case, No Man’s Sky should have rated higher. And Civilization VI is not “commendable”, but “raisin”, because patches and additions are ahead. It’s just this:. Now it’s a pass, then we’ll talk.

In fact, you should not look at the assessment (what were you even listening to??), but try it personally. Someone else’s opinion that Need for Speed ​​(2015) is not very good did not convince me not to buy the game and not enjoy the reflection of the streetlights on the wet asphalt. )

If it had an “excursion mode”, like in the latest ACs, it would be possible. And so, due to the conventions of the video game format, the game is at the level of Civilization. It’s like you’re Alexander the Great, but you bomb Britain with nuclear bombs.

So that’s what you are, Elman) And I agree with the review, the game is clearly not for everyone, which does not negate its merits.

Elman has an amazing gift for talking about the merits of the game with such enthusiasm that after that the desire to play completely disappears 🙂

Australopithecus – knows what food looks like. Your task is to survive until the time when Australopithecus appears. )

No OFC. After all, https://gamblingsitesnotongamstop.co.uk/ the name is not sexist MANkind, but progressive HUMANkind. Everything according to the precepts of Justin Trudeau.

“Prokhodnyak” is not only for bugs, the author explained in detail what “prohodnyak” is for, which is on the verge of “commendable”. Unity also received a “pass”, if I don’t mind, and in Skyrim there are not bugs, but features! Mammoths still fly periodically, giants are sent into space, and horses walk along steep mountains. Everything is fine with Skyrim)))

I just EXTREMELY disagree with the assessment. This is just a blatant case of injustice.

Why was the game given "Prohodnyak"?? Because of bugs, as stated in the review itself. Let’s remember some more buggy games. This is Assassin’s Creed Unity, which was first remembered after the fire in Notre Dame. This is Batman: Arkham Knight, which was still polished quite well and personally, on my, not even a top-end PC, it ran perfectly. This is, after all, Skyrim, which managed to produce a wonderful atmosphere on an engine that is quite poor for an action game and was recognized as the game of 2011!

Of course, Ancestors is an amateur game, and comparing it with full-fledged AAA games is a bit of a stretch. It represents a kind of arthouse: Patrice Désilets simply conceived it, made it, and the mass consumer, in general, does not need it. For example, I won’t take it: I’m not interested. However, giving such a nugget “Prohodnyak” only for bugs is very vicious and cruel. The bugs will be fixed, there is no doubt about it, because Patrice and his team are unlikely to abandon their game. But the rating will remain! There is a risk that a random user, in five to ten years, will visit the site as the most trusted resource and… perhaps dismiss such an interesting project.

With all due respect, the rating should be revised, and the fact that even the most broken games nowadays can still be fixed should be taken into account.

Everything tastes and colors gamers felt-tip pens are different, but Elman, in my opinion, is what “burns” in his business and prepared a very good review in which he talked not only about the game, but also about its creator and why, in order to perceive the game, it is worth knowing about the previous projects of Patrice Désilets. The text is such that it is not perceived as “emotions from the first impression” or something similar, but this only shows that the author of the review approached its writing as meticulously as possible.

For comparison, look at any “review” of Anton, prostihospade, Logvinov – I can’t call it anything other than a stream of thoughts, but there are more than enough emotions there, perhaps this approach will be closer to you. Elman just proves once again that he knows how to do reviews.

It’s hard for me to discern where there is sarcasm, irony and post-irony, but I think that without flying mammoths Skyrim would not be Skyrim)

Just what’s the matter. Before us, in fact, is the only adequate simulator of the ancestor of the human race. I think that at least because of this fact, and also because bugs in modern games are inevitable (as well as their fixes), we could give the game a “Commendable” rating. She deserves it, no matter what you say.

Rather accustomed to waiting. Moreover, no one says that banks should be kept silent, we are only talking about the final assessment.

It is better to introduce lectures by Stanislav Drobyshevsky into the education system. Or order him or one of his colleagues a normal textbook. And a game is a game. She takes what suits her and ignores the rest. The concept of evolution itself is too complex to adequately translate into a simplified gameplay scheme for the masses. In addition, there is an obvious flaw that will have a very bad effect on understanding the essence: the development process in the game looks deterministic, and you need to steer correctly in order to climb this ladder to a point that is known in advance – a reasonable person. Which of course is not true.

The game must be rated at release, that is, on the day the game is sold, the buyer must be aware of all the problems of the product. Whether the authors of the game will fix their bugs, which ones, or leave everything as it is, we don’t know for sure. Maybe the game will turn out to be a complete economic failure and the developers will give up on it altogether. And yes, bugs on release have never been the norm, and everyone knows very well how games are patched today. The situation is aggravated by such consumers who, apparently, are already accustomed to swallowing.

The rating system is very clumsy. It is exhibited along with the first review and will not go anywhere (as an example, Heavy Rain, a review of the PC version of which brought with it a “pass-through” in the game’s passport). Another thing is user rating. On Metacritic and Opencritic, user opinion has long been discordant with the opinion of the critics themselves, who are clearly not aware that classic Hollywood/game development is a little in the past. We have user reviews here. Attach a system of ratings to them and the same thing will happen in cases where the game at the start and quite later changes beyond recognition.

And we have a “Review”. It’s called "Inspection Protocol". The hairdryer justified No Mans Sky, it seems.

After watching the stream of this game a couple of days before its release, I realized that I would not play. It was very interesting to watch, but nothing was clear, although one thing was clear – it takes a lot of time to play and patience to understand everything! Thank you for the wonderful review, from which I learned more than from the stream, and was convinced that the game is absolutely not for me.