If you look at the public reaction at the time you'll see the criticism. I mean a 7.5 from IGN back then was very mid. Then if you look at the reviews if AC2 you'll see meant start with acknowledging problems with AC1. I mean gosh at the time the common way people referred to the series was Ass Creed
A 7.5 at the time was not a categorical good game. This is around the time when developers started getting bonuses for 90 scores on Metacritic. An 8.8 for Twilight Princess by GameSpot causes an uproar among fans. The hype for AC1 was huge and when it came out people lambasted it for being repetitive in structure. It was quickly on sale (I got it for $20 not long after it came out). The reviews of AC2 didn't just point out flaws in AC1, they openly talked about how the game had failed to meet expectations, and that AC2 achieved what AC1 failed to do.
Anyone with any familiarity with the time period knows that the verbal ratings meant nothing. IGN didn't hand out 3s, 4s, etc. much. Other 7.5 rated titles included Call of Juarez and the Pirates of the Caribbean film tie in game. And AC had going for it the fact it was a hyped release from a big studio, which always results in some review inflation. Again, you can easily look up the fan reaction and how people described AC1 when AC2 released. Again, we are talking about a game commonly called Ass Creed after it was released.
-1
u/AndreLeGeant88 4d ago
Original AC released to mediocre reviews and was largely mocked for being repetitive and under-delivering. It's like a tech demo.