The Big Forza 2 Thread *
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
Those comments dont jive with the score. 'we think its a mediocre racing sim, so lets give it editors choice and a score just shy of a 9.0/10!'
In my opinion if a racing sim isnt a good, or fun, racing game, you've failed the main and most important goal. I think thats stating the obvious. Im not saying i agree or disagree with their comments, im quite indifferent, but that score and those comments are screwy. That seems like a score fabricated out of peer pressure and fear of hate mail and getting blasted to kingdom come on their forums to me. If they didnt think much of it they should of scored it as such. Shows you how flawed review sites can be.
Add to that the fact that Gamespot gives the graphics a 9.
but this is more than about graphics
One thing to note is the reviewers personal taste. A sim will only appeal to a certain audience. If it's too much effort to go fast, then a lot of people might shy away from it. Realistically, people want a mix of sim and arcade. One of the reasons people love games like PGR3 and Burnout Revenge is because it gives them the thrill of hooligan driving. Sideways in exotic cars, with smoke coming off tires and enough blur effect to make you think you're about to hit light speed. That stuff really attacks your senses and releases that endorphin rush.
Now jump from that to a game like Forza2 and yes it'll seem quite bland! The added fun factor is simply replaced by real life driving. All of a sudden, things seem slower, cars don't like sliding around, mistakes seem to penalized harshly and so on. If these reviewers start comparing Forza2 to the "thrill" factor of the aforementioned games, I'd honestly shy away from it.
What happen to 4xFSAA?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1012135&postcount=1202
I imagine the review was written a little before that fix was released
Thats cool..BUT..
1. How can people who havent got LIVE get the fix?
2. The game was still promised to have 4xMSAA and hardly any jaggies on release, not later on though a patch.
Hey, i'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but i get the feeling they get it the same way they get GeoW map packs and other patches, either not at all, or some other distribution method. As for the game shipping with MSAA, yeah it's not good, but again, it's not without precedent, sometimes you have to stop working to hit a deadline set by marketing etc, and it's not the designers call. I don't know why, but if you really want the fix, it's not that difficult to find someone with a broadband connection to let you hook it up and download it.
Not this again...
That's the game. Things change. Ask Nintendo and Sony.
Where the hell is my GT-PSP while we're at it?
/sick
/tired
Last edited by a moderator:
It's incredibly frustrating that people can't appreciate a gem like this for what it is, but prefer to criticise it for what it is not. This isn't my type of game (I'm a Wipeout kind of racer) but I can fully appreciate Forza2 as a gorgeous realistic racer. The IGN-type reactions are disappointing but expected.
I had trouble with the first Forza in that I had no depth perception playing that game. Any other game whether it was CM,TOCA,Grand Turismo etc. I could easily judge depth and when corners were coming up. Playing Forza for some reason everything seemed flat to my eyes. It was unplayable for me.
scooby_dooby
Legend
All I know is, the gameplay in Forza is fun as hell, maybe the reviewer didn't appreciate the realistic and challenging AI, wicked tuning options and blown-out online modes which make for extremely fun and exhilirating races.
To me, a sim is about the racing & tuning, that's the fun-factor right there, the IGN guy really seems to concetrate on the superficial rather than the core. I've had a ton of fun with 3 laps and 18 cars in the demo!
Anyways, hopefully I'll be able to pick this up tonight
To me, a sim is about the racing & tuning, that's the fun-factor right there, the IGN guy really seems to concetrate on the superficial rather than the core. I've had a ton of fun with 3 laps and 18 cars in the demo!
Anyways, hopefully I'll be able to pick this up tonight
All I know is, the gameplay in Forza is fun as hell, maybe the reviewer didn't appreciate the realistic and challenging AI, wicked tuning options and blown-out online modes which make for extremely fun and exhilirating races.
To me, a sim is about the racing & tuning, that's the fun-factor right there, the IGN guy really seems to concetrate on the superficial rather than the core. I've had a ton of fun with 3 laps and 18 cars in the demo!
Anyways, hopefully I'll be able to pick this up tonight
nice to see someone's actually enjoying the game.
did you get your wheel yet???
scooby_dooby
Legend
Yup, a few weeks ago, it's alot of fun. Gonna be a long day at work today!
NO sensible human being would've rate FM2's graphics with a 7. That is the fundamental level on which I disagree. The graphics are ok, all things considered.
This game represents a scattering amplitude of features (HDR, FSAA, 60 fps, real time reflections and damage, etc) that I didn't see in any game to date.
Having read the comments about the graphics, the review seems too superficial for what I am looking for in a "good" review.
Not that the graphics are perfect or the best ever. They have some flaws but makes up for them, like a lot of well-done games to date, with the overall quality of its presentation.
What's more, the graphics look fine for me. Take a look at Gamespot's Video Review, cars look above average:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FbNxZ48zVRQ
Like most games with GREAT gameplay, the reviewer knew perfectly what the vulnerabilities would be and where they would reside and he exploited them wonderfully, in a trivial way. But hey, it works for him.
Most car enthusiasts can see this sort of stuff and know better than to trust it implicitly, but newcomers or interested gamers can get misguided or confused.
Quoting someone -which whom the reviewer agrees in everything he says-; "And I stink at driving."
I couldn't agree more and I'm struggling to find the appropiate definition for this type of journalism.
Looks like the review is written by someone who would rather be playing Burnout, Full Auto or Dirt.
He praises the physics but just because he knows the fact that Physics Processes are updated 360 times every second.
He doesn't mention things like doing donuts with a RWD car and watching the rear wheels spinning crazily while the front wheels barely move because of the lack of actual speed. Things like that IS what's GREAT about this game.
Give me realism over pretty graphics any time of the day!
Gamespot's review is the most accurate of them all, and the 1up one is also fine. IGN's review is unsatisfactory.
Racing games' reviews should be written by somebody who play and enjoy the genre in question, and people familiar with the subject, not by a spoiled journalist.
Regardless, he gave the game the Editors' Choice Award anyways but that lacks soul, because of his lifeless review.
The final score is 8.9 but it wouldn't make any difference if it was a 5 or a 3, given his comments. Someone pointed out that IGN's X360 editor resigned a month ago.
This game represents a scattering amplitude of features (HDR, FSAA, 60 fps, real time reflections and damage, etc) that I didn't see in any game to date.
Having read the comments about the graphics, the review seems too superficial for what I am looking for in a "good" review.
Not that the graphics are perfect or the best ever. They have some flaws but makes up for them, like a lot of well-done games to date, with the overall quality of its presentation.
What's more, the graphics look fine for me. Take a look at Gamespot's Video Review, cars look above average:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FbNxZ48zVRQ
Like most games with GREAT gameplay, the reviewer knew perfectly what the vulnerabilities would be and where they would reside and he exploited them wonderfully, in a trivial way. But hey, it works for him.
Most car enthusiasts can see this sort of stuff and know better than to trust it implicitly, but newcomers or interested gamers can get misguided or confused.
Quoting someone -which whom the reviewer agrees in everything he says-; "And I stink at driving."
I couldn't agree more and I'm struggling to find the appropiate definition for this type of journalism.
Looks like the review is written by someone who would rather be playing Burnout, Full Auto or Dirt.
He praises the physics but just because he knows the fact that Physics Processes are updated 360 times every second.
He doesn't mention things like doing donuts with a RWD car and watching the rear wheels spinning crazily while the front wheels barely move because of the lack of actual speed. Things like that IS what's GREAT about this game.
Give me realism over pretty graphics any time of the day!
Gamespot's review is the most accurate of them all, and the 1up one is also fine. IGN's review is unsatisfactory.
Racing games' reviews should be written by somebody who play and enjoy the genre in question, and people familiar with the subject, not by a spoiled journalist.
Regardless, he gave the game the Editors' Choice Award anyways but that lacks soul, because of his lifeless review.
The final score is 8.9 but it wouldn't make any difference if it was a 5 or a 3, given his comments. Someone pointed out that IGN's X360 editor resigned a month ago.
iceberg187
Regular
He critiqued art design in a racing game. LOLOL
