For the record, this is not foreshadowing. Our review is coming soon; this is merely a question for discussion.
You might spot a growing trend with the Assassin's Creed III reviews that are headed your way: The game will be viewed as an accomplishment of the highest order, with the obvious exception of a few easily noticed bugs and glitches.
The question is obvious- What exactly qualifies as an "acceptable" flaw, and what factors must one consider in determining the requisite criticism? A game like ACIII is ridiculously large and ambitious so perhaps one should be more lenient when it comes to such errors. On the other hand, isn't that a slippery slope? In some ways, a lot of games are ambitious; it can't be okay to simply dismiss or purposely overlook glaring flaws just because the designers had a very tough task.
After all, isn't it important to accept one's limitations? Ubisoft has already said that they barely fit ACIII onto current hardware (with the help of the new AnvilNext engine), and that should tell you something. Maybe this is a project that would've been a better fit for better hardware, and it was a mistake to try jamming it onto current systems just for the sake of high holiday sales. But if the bugs in question don't significantly hinder the gameplay experience and are mostly only visual in nature, isn't it more of a "graphic-whore" commentary to condemn the entire game for those graphical miscues? Aren't we missing the larger point?
Then again, if the AI isn't very good, that does have an impact on the experience, although to what extent is largely subjective. It's a difficult question to be sure, and it's one people will be arguing over for the next few weeks. What do you say?