Shaun
The Assassin’s Creed Shadows review embargo has lifted, and gaming outlets are throwing high scores at it like it’s the next Assassin’s Creed II. Ubisoft’s latest open-world RPG, set in feudal Japan, is getting showered with praise, and its Metacritic score is sitting at a respectable 82/100 on PlayStation 5, 86/100 on Xbox Series X|S, and 79/100 on PC. But are we looking at a genuine hit or another media-fueled hype cycle that’ll burn out once actual players weigh in?
Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed Shadows Metacritic score beats recent franchise entries!
If we’re talking numbers, Assassin’s Creed Shadows is not Ubisoft’s best-rated game, but it’s sitting higher than many recent entries:
Assassin’s Creed II (90/100) → Still untouchable. A peak.
Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood (89/100) → Close, but still higher.
Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag (88/100) → The last “universally loved” AC game.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (83/100) → Shadows is almost there.
Assassin’s Creed Origins (81/100) → A win for Shadows.
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (80/100) → Again, Shadows pulls ahead.
Assassin’s Creed Mirage (76/100) → We’re just gonna pretend this one didn’t happen.
The Japan setting and dual protagonist system clearly worked in Shadows’ favor, at least for critics. But being slightly better than the last few games doesn’t mean it’s legendary.
Critics love Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ visuals, combat, and setting, but the story? Not so much
The consensus is clear—Assassin’s Creed Shadows is fun. Reviewers are praising:
The combat – Yasuke is brutal, Naoe is stealthy, and switching between them keeps things fresh.
The world – Feudal Japan is breathtakingly detailed (and yes, that’s a valid adjective here).
The new mechanics – Weather impacts gameplay, and the time-of-day system makes stealth runs more dynamic.
Now for the not-so-great parts:
A slow start – The first few hours are dragging, and not in a cinematic build-up way.
Repetitive mechanics – It’s still very Ubisoft™, with copy-paste mission structures.
Weak storytelling – Cool protagonists, forgettable plot.
If you’re here for gameplay, visuals, and vibes, you’ll likely enjoy it. If you wanted a gripping story, well… try again.
Ubisoft’s PR machine is in overdrive, and something feels off about the glowing reviews
Look, when multiple outlets use the exact same phrase—*”a return to form”—*you start raising eyebrows. This kind of reviewer uniformity usually means one of two things:
- Ubisoft handed out strict review guidelines (which happens more than people think).
- Critics are scared to criticize because big publishers do not take bad press lightly.
We’ve seen this before. Dragon Age: The Veilguard was hyped up by critics, got high scores, and then crashed hard once players got their hands on it. If history repeats itself, we might see another massive critic-player divide once Shadows launches.
Ubisoft needs this game to sell. The company has lost 77% of its value since Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, and Shadows is its biggest gamble in years.
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (80/100) → Best-selling game in franchise history.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (83/100) → Critically loved, but weaker sales.
Assassin’s Creed Origins (81/100) → Brought the franchise back, but didn’t explode in sales.
Valhalla proved high scores don’t guarantee top sales. The real test? Player reception. If fans love Shadows, it’ll sell like crazy. If not? Ubisoft is in trouble.
The Metacritic score is good, but not groundbreaking. The gameplay is fun, but the story is lacking. The PR push is strong, but it feels… unnatural.
If you love Ubisoft open-world games, stealth action, and feudal Japan, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect it to be the best Assassin’s Creed game ever made—because it’s not.
