I recently (week ago or so) played through all 3 of these games (Sands of Time, Warrior Within, and The Two Thrones) in order, beginning to end (good ending in Warrior Within) for the first time on PC (borrowed the pack that comes with all 3 from a friend).
And I have to ask, what is big deal?

No, I am not BASHING these 3 games; I just don't understand the level of praise these games are getting. Don't get me wrong, the games are fun to extent. But they were buggy, the story was ordinary, and honestly, the platforming was boring, repetitive and occasionally frustrating.
What I did like? The boss fights and 'obstacle courses' you had to get through in order to extend your life, as well as most of the stuff in the third game.

Now I want you to know that literally JUST BEFORE I played The Prince of Persia games, I played Marc Echo's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, and I thought it was a great game. Random People/friends/Yahtzee Croshaw/"Tycho" from penny arcade/Gamers told me that the Prince of Persia games were very similar, and that they pretty much all thought PoP > Getting Up. I thought this odd considering I felt I had a hell of a lot more fun on Getting Up.
Disclaimer: The last platformer I've played before the 3 PoP's and Getting Up was the Spyro games on the PS1. so it been a while, and I've literally never played ANY other combat focused action adventure games, like for instance: God of War, DMC series, Heavenly sword, Shadow Of the Colossus(not sure if this fits), Ninja Gaiden, etc. and I'm not a huge fan of puzzles.

The first game is apparently the most loved by fans, I'll start with this one:
Platforming: This is apparently what fans loved the most, it was it focus on Platforming compared the sequels. I thought the long expanses of puzzle platforming were somewhat dull and slow moving and the check point system the game sticks you with makes it even more repetitive. GOD DAMN CHECK POINTS.
Combat: repetitive and frustrating, the enemies just teleported directly to you and just gang raped you, and killing them didn't help, they fucking RESPAWNED, the combat basically amounted to me vaulting over enemies over and over and just jumping all over the god damned place mashing the attack buttons wait for the enemies to stop respawning.
Puzzles: now note, these were probably not bad, but I'm not good at puzzles and they bore me, so I gamefaq'd them. I won’t bother mentioning them anymore.
Story: Story seemed simplistic, but the main character narrating it was charming, and the voice acting was exquisite. The ending was good.
music: Some random Arabian Nights type stuff, suited the game but was nothing spectacular.
Boss Battles: what?


I then moved onto the second one, this one is apparently the least liked by fans.
Platforming: pretty much the same stuff with a few new elements added. Felt just as boring, except for the obstacle course you had to go through to get the life upgrades, those were fun if not occasionally frustrating.
Combat: MUCH IMPROVED, but it still felt simplistic, just pull a few random combo moves and wipe the floor with the enemies.
Story: The nice thing about this one was that there were plot twists, the problem that the story had was a lack of a connection from the first game's prince's attitude and the second game's prince's attitude. Suddenly the prince was Kratos or something. With the motivation of the prince being mostly just to save himself, further making me feel kind of meh about it.
music: Metal and Hard rock type stuff. Which I generally like, and I felt it fit the prince's 'mood' if anything.
Boss Battles: this was the best thing about the game, the boss battles were really fun.

Finally my personal favorite of the three, The Two Thrones

Platforming: I actually liked the platforming in this one, it blended well with the combat and the 'speed kills', in the other 2 games it just felt very separated. and the life upgrades were just as fun, though I didn't get all of them in this one like in WW.
Combat: much more involved as well as evolved. Also much more difficult, so I'll admit I found myself screwing up a lot.
Story: Actually pretty good. Tied everything together pretty well at the end to.
Boss Battles: Just as fun as the second one.
music: I don't remember any of it to well...  I think it was just the same as the first really.

If by chance the puzzles are what made these games so much fun then I guess these games just weren't for me.

I understand that it seems odd that I played through all of these games with all my complaints, but remember I never said I hated these games, and it is obvious I liked the games enough to play through all 3 of them. I just find it so odd that so many people loved these games as much as they do... and now I ask what you thought of the PoP games and what you thought of Getting up? (If you played any of these games that is.)

I also want to say that I'm only considering the new Prince of Persia game as a game to get when it comes out.

Also since I didn't HATE the games and they were fun for a play through, I'm willing to play more games like PoP or Getting Up, any recommendations?

You forgot to add Assassin's Creed to the list.

are you suggesting Assassin's Creed? or are you talking about the list of action adventure games that I listed that I have not played?

If its the former, (which makes less sense considering your wording) my PC probably wouldn't be up to the task at the moment, so I'm waiting till I get a new graphics card for that game.

If it's the latter, then: That's why I added a "etc." at the end. I knew I was forgetting a game or two, just didn't to add more then I had.

If it none of the above... then I'm lost.

The best PoP game is the one on the SNES.  Now that is fun.

Yeah I'm pretty sure if you wanted to play the game you should have gotten it for anything but the PC. Ubisoft doesn't make a whole lot of GOOD PC PORTS and if I remember correctly the Prince of Persia ports are really bugged so that would explain the bugs.

EDIT: And fatty was saying that Assassins Creed is basically PoP

I have played the PC PoP's and them on PS2

by far I loved it on PS2 but hated it on PC, that is your problem

I dunno, I can't imagine it would be to different on PS2 other then the controls, and they were not that big of a problem surprisingly, I got used to them after about a half an hour of play on the first game. Then again, never played any of these kinds of games on a console, so I dunno just how much better it would be on a console.

yeah considering it was developed for the consoles and then ported to the PC and they did it very halfway.

I'm playing Sands Of Time for the PS2, and I just can't think of a working control scheme for that game without the use of a joystick or gamepad. I just don't think it would work. So yeah, I think you'd like the PS2 game more.

what makes the games so great is the fluidity, gracefulness and overall "badassness" of the acrobatic portions. The combat I was never a fan of, although two thrones was much better with the speed kills. Going through the entire game speed killing 98% of the enemies is pretty gratifying. But regardless, what makes the games so great, and what all the praise is for, is the acrobatic stuff. I've played the ps2 and pc versions of two thrones (i have all 3 on ps2, but only two thrones on pc) and it was pretty subpar. I used a gamepad, so at least the controls were normal, but yeah a lot of bugs and it wasnt as smooth or anything.

Also, you always ALWAYS have to play the games at least twice. Because the second time though, you'll remember where to go and stuff, and you can just have this totally fluid experience and it's really quite amazing.

yeah I played sands of time and two thrones on gc and i played warrior within on ps2

i played two thrones on xbox and while the graphics were way better, the gameplay seemed the same.