Looks to be as good as the game was.

I was thinking the same thing. Looks as good as the game...which is to say not good at all.

IGN gave the game a 9.6/10 rating and voted it as the Game of the Year 2003 thus praising the game for its "intuitive control, stunning atmosphere and satisfyingly clever environmental puzzles," and later concluding it was one of "[their] favorite adventure offerings of all time." GameSpot gave The Sands of Time a score of 9.0/10 "recommend[ing it] wholeheartedly." Zero Punctuation repeatedly mentions the game as a personal favorite, praising the time-control mechanism, beautiful environments and "really strong characterization" of both the Prince and Farah and only marking it down for repetitive combat mechanisms.
In general, the game was most often praised for its graphics, the acrobatic combat and platforming, the forgiving and responsive controls, the animation of the Prince, the story, and the time-manipulation abilities of the Dagger. Graphics were received mostly as a positive aspect of the game, with GameSpot saying it had "beautiful look to it". The Cincinnati Enquirer and Nintendo Power agreed, describing the game as "graceful", "gorgeous", and had "unprecedented animation".
The game's average score on review aggregators Metacritic and GameRankings is a 92%, making it one of the best reviewed games for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube.

You're joking, right? Sure, you personally might not have liked the game. However, it won several awards, and spawned 2 sequels and a movie, so clearly it had to suck. Not understanding the logic there, at all.

From the Wikipedia article:



There's a big difference in someone not liking a game because of personal taste, and a game being "not good at all."

Phe and I went to see this tonight. Neither of us were terribly impressed. Mike Newell is an incredibly competent but unimaginative director, as evidenced by his functional-but-far-from-transcendant Harry Potter entry (Goblet, for those keeping track). Prince of Persia wants desperately to be the next Pirates of the Caribbean, but it fails because it lacks utterly the wit and goofy fun of that film. This is as mundane a blockbuster as you're going to find: perfectly watchable but utterly uninteresting, with nothing to keep your mind latched on, even while you watch the film itself. It comes off as a complete paint-by-number project; it wants to be Raiders of the Lost Ark, but winds up closer to Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, a listless, cynical and clinical machine that hits all the required notes but never really makes them sing. Bereft of energy, fun, and humor, there's little need to spend theater money to see it.