IGN's review...

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaBounti
  • 24 comments
  • 2,470 views
LaBounti

LaBounti

Messages
5,051
Messages
Labounti
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/792/792572p1.html

They gave it an 8.9 and basically it does everything its supposed to do.

Graphics are not the strong point and they choose 60fps over sharper visuals.

I'll buy it when it's on sale and it more than likely will be. I got Gears when it was on sale for $39.99 less than a month after release. Its lame track list is a key for me. Car list is ok but i believe they are withholding content which i don't agree with.
 
After reading that review I was suprised to see such bad comments regaring the graphics (I'm sorry but if I'm buing a $500 system, I want better graphics than my last system).
None the less, the graphics weren't what suprised me... It was the overall description using the term "lack luster" that suprised me.
 
I didn't find the graphics to be that bad in the demo, granted they wern't as good as PGR3 but PGR3 had less than half as much content and no modifications. The graphics were good enough imo.

Also some of the other complaints int he review we're kind of odd, the start about complaining about the speed, well this game isn't Burnout, it's not meant to have exagerated speed effects, nor is it PGR where the cars all handle with an insane bias towards controllable slides. Then there's the comlaint about having to win all the races in certain events to win the event, and his point is. That's how it is in a lot of racing games, GT included. Having single race events and series based events offers variety and FM1 had that as well.

It just seems to me like the review was written by someone who's happier playing PGR3 or burnout than a sim like GT4 or Forza 2. The final score of 8.9 is good and should say this is a very good game, but the words in the review at times suggested otherwise and it left me wondering who they got to write it. They didn't touch on much for a 3 page review but they dedicated a whole paragraph to the race structure which is a structure I was already expecting and have no problems with and anyone who's played FM1 should already expect. Just seems a bit of an odd review imo.

To illustrate the confusion this could have on people heres's a quote from IGN's preview written by
There's been a trade-off to reach this smoother than thou framerate though - the environments in the game aren't quite as jaw dropping as we'd hoped. Functional is probably a better way to describe them. We've sampled about 8 tracks, and while some of them have a few pretty sections, we haven't seen anything that inspired us to whip out the virtual camera. It's not such a big deal though. Due to the intense handling and fast frame rate, we were usually so focused on the pavement that we didn't have time to take in the scenery.

Unlike the roadside, the inhabitants of the road are a sight to behold. We've spent far too much time pausing our replays to rotate the camera and peek up the skirts of these saucy, turbo-charged ladies. They're smooth in all the right places, with nary a polygonal seam or harsh angle to be seen. They're lit quite nicely too, with an HDR-like glow when in direct sunlight, but they seem a little dark in the shadows. And the reflections in the bodywork just pour over the car's metal curves. It's disturbingly sensual.
Click to expand...

Sure it doesn't say the graphics are superfantastic, but it says they are good enough and that the cars look fine. They we're written by two different people. Perhaps Hilary (who wrote the review) had a poor TV, or the settings wrong on it. It looks fine on my telly. Even the second opinion was written by someone who doesn't have an interest in cars.
 
This is why I stopped reading reviews years ago, that and the only gaming journalists worth any salt are the ones that write edge magazine.
 
Everyone keeps mentioning jaggies in reviews which for me is really frustrating. I'm willing to sacrifice absolutely immense graphics for more attention on handling and the added features which Forza 2 has. I played the demo of Forza 2 in HD on my 42 inch plasma screen and I was pleasantly surprised with the graphics considering that it was an unfinished product.
 
Race Idiot
This is why I stopped reading reviews years ago, that and the only gaming journalists worth any salt are the ones that write edge magazine.
Click to expand...

Not sure about "edge" but I agree that reviews are for suckers (and right now I'm a sucker since EB will not let me demo FM2). :ouch:

None the less, I like how both of you have been independant enough to point out the flaws in the reviews.

With that sort of info contradicting their opinions, I'm going to have to trust in you guys over them. 👍
Also, it's good to know the graphics aren't as bad as I had feared... The last thing I want to do is buy a 600 dollar system only to end up thinking the 360 really is a Xbox1.5 with little graphical improvement over the last system.

Sure, I know the old saying that graphics don't make a game fun, but they certainly can make a difference.
When I upgrade to a next gen system I want the graphics to upgrade with it and for a while there I was afraid FM2 was going to be sub-par.

Glad to hear you both weigh in. :cheers:
 
I tended to avoid game reviews too. They're so varied these days, or a little biased towards a game genre, that I tend to ignore them. I did read the Gamespot review and read the summary of IGN's, but I gave up after that.

Gamespot says the sense of speed is great, but it's the opposite opinion from IGN's reviewer. Gamespot liked and rated the graphics very highly, despite them saying the textures are the greatest, bu you don't notice this unless you've crashed. I do... IGN have it pretty much spot on IMO.

I just dislike the varied opinions, so I have to find out for myself. That's all that matters. I like a couple of games that have an average of 6/10.
 
Dave A
Then there's the complaint about having to win all the races in certain events to win the event, and his point is. That's how it is in a lot of racing games, GT included.
Click to expand...

Maybe, it's because I haven't played a GT4 in a while, but I don't remember having to win all the races in a series to get gold.
 
first off, I didn't say in a series, I said in an event, secondly there are a hell of a lot of events in GT4 where you complete single races in no particular order, and to win the event you have to win each individual race, eg the FF cars event was 3 single races that you could complete in any order as and when you wanted, the same goes for the majority of events in GT4.
 
Well then, I guess it really doesn't matter to me. I only have a slight preference for the series events.
 
i never trust reviews, look at all the genki serie's reviews. Most of them get 4-5 but they are my favourite games, Heaps of modification and tuning options, along with godly number's of car's and AWSOME tracks. They should really use people who LIKE racing games to review them:(
 
Yes they should, 1-10 scales are not really good anymore IMO. x-Plays 1-5 is a better way to me even though they can be off as much as IGN.
 
IGN really has a 6-10 scale... and they suck at rating on that even. They're rubbish.

Forza 2 is a good game I feel, and after playing GT:HD, I'm leaning more towards FM2. My quick review is below...

Graphics, FM2 is quite stunning, though it is lacking in points. Things still don't look as real as they do in the GT series. I'm not sure why they don't, they just don't though. When using the hood view, the reflections off the hood of the car are distracting, and I have found that on tree happy tracks, such as the Nurb, trees will "pop" suddenly into existence on them. Other than these, its visually pleasing.

Physics feel fine, if not a little bit more oversteer happy than cars would be in real life. But I also did not spend much time fiddling with tires and it could just be FM2 defaults to a more grippy tire than you would find in real life. Plus side is FF cars are fun and interesting to drive; I enjoyed the Integra Type R quite a lot.

Control wise, simple and it works. HUD though is lacking in that the rearview mirror is only visible from the bumper view. I don't understand why they didn't make it visible from the hood view.

Sounds are good, though the tire noise still rubs me the wrong way. Another one of those things I can't explain, but it just doesn't feel right.

If I had a 360, I'd probably get the game and play it alot. Thats saying alot for me, since I buy about 2 games a year for my consoles. Online play looks promising, and possible updated content is a good thing, as long as they keep prices sane. And FM2 is actually in my list of games that are making me want to buy a 360, despite not having an Mk1 MR2 (or really any Toyota's for that matter... seriously, no Celica GT-4) or a challenging version of the Nurb.

So if you like cars and have a 360, get it. Thats what I have to say about it.
 
they don't have a rearview mirror in hoodcam view becouse with it, they wouldn't have been able to lock it in at 60fps;)
 
I haven't read a game review in a magazine/online in over a decade. There just isn't good reviews any longer. And I attribute this to the age group doing most of the reviews--they are from the PlayStation generation. Yes, I will use a generalization in the next following statement. Younger gamers for the most part just can't appreciate a game for what it is as a total package. All the time I hear graphics this and "cool" features that (IE gimmicks). As an older gamer I'd rather sit down and play a game like Hard Drivin' for the Mega Drive as I would to sit down and play GT4. 1994 the "graphics first" mindset really game into form. Gone are the days where graphics were third or fourth on the list. Story, gameplay (aka game engine), and controls were more important in the "olden" days. So this has in turn ruined the games with substance--because according to these people "omghax these grafix suck".

Meh, I'm rambling... Let me just say on this particular topic that I'm not surprised that this game didn't get a 9.5+ rating from these places. Forza 2 on things like content and controls alone is worth a 9.0.
 
Exactly how old are you. I'm 28 and I get excited for graphics and "cool" features. I don't want to play the same games every year(Madden) that doesn't add things of interests outside the core of the gameplay. Look at Forza2's Auction House, its ridiculous that people spend more time in that plus painting cars than the actual game. When someone gets a car from the AH what do they have to do with the cars? Stare at them? Now selling cars with perfect setups for tracks is a more practical use than a simple paint job.

But if they paid for the game they can play it as they want. I'm still waiting for a racing game with a full replay editor, camera placement and editing in game. Gimmicky? Yeah, but I love race replays.
 
LaBounti
Exactly how old are you. I'm 28 and I get excited for graphics and "cool" features. I don't want to play the same games every year(Madden) that doesn't add things of interests outside the core of the gameplay. Look at Forza2's Auction House, its ridiculous that people spend more time in that plus painting cars than the actual game. When someone gets a car from the AH what do they have to do with the cars? Stare at them? Now selling cars with perfect setups for tracks is a more practical use than a simple paint job.

But if they paid for the game they can play it as they want. I'm still waiting for a racing game with a full replay editor, camera placement and editing in game. Gimmicky? Yeah, but I love race replays.
Click to expand...

Minus your age you pretty much personify my opinion. And I feel that is what's wrong with the video game industry now. Graphics and gimmicks first and then--if you care--content/story/gameplay/controls. And YOUR OPINION about Forza 2 players spending more time on designs and the auction house is just that--an opinion. Its a cool feature you seem to dismiss even after you say that you LIKE cool features. I personally spend 80% of my time playing Forza 1 designing cars, and when I get Forza 2 I can guarantee that I will be spending more than 60% of the time designing cars and another 10-15% of the time in the auction house--selling and or buying. A replay editor would be nice, and it would add to a racing game's content--but if the game consisted of a generic set of cars and tracks and then the replay editor then I'd call the replay editor "gimmicky" because the rest of the game is generic. Maybe age hasn't as much to do with it as more people are getting into gaming later in their life, but I still blame the PlayStation (and now XBOX) generation for ruining the overall gaming experience. As an old school gamer I see less and less games each year that catch my interest--and a good ¼ of them when I do buy them get promptly returned or put down and never used again because they disappointed me. Lets face it, graphics rule now--if you can't admit it then you are blind to the industry.

You can't really use sports games for comparison because they are and always will be the same--they are simulations of real sports leagues. You aren't going to add some fictional teams to an NFL game are you if the goal of the game is to simulate the NFL. *edit* Which is why I play Blitz and NBA Jam.*edit*

While this is probably 90% off topic, it is a reflection of my views on game reviewers. I feel they are from the generation of graphics first content second--and thus they can't and don't appreciate games for what they are. If GT5 came out and looked 100% like GT4 but they added 1000% more content and every manufacturer with every model AND every circiut track on the planet what would you graphics generation players do? Buy it, or discriminate against it because the graphics "suck" or are "outdated"? Its a legitimate arguement.
 
i guess it's good that 2 of my fav game serie's are also the benchmrks in graphics(imo), GT, and MGS.

but my most plaed game(52 hrs in 2 weeks today lol) lately has been txrd:2, and before that it was C1GP. So no i don't like games for just their graphical appeal.
 
I don't think anyone should like a game just for its graphics. To me graphics are just as important as gameplay neither in modern games should matter more than the other.

I play many games that dont fair to well in the graphics department all the time. and me being a lover of classic games makes it easier on the eyes. I just got Chorno cross and started over Soul Reaver for PSone.

I'm also well aware of what opinions are. I dont think painting cars is a part of the gameplay and could be considered gimmicky(by definition) if doesn't affect the gameplay and could(the gameplay) function 100% the same without it.
 
Good thing I never ever listen to reviews. Those of you that dont have the game are truly missing out on one of the best racing games ever made. I would easily give this game a 9.9 and that is probably the highest review I have ever given for a racing game in my life. I also think the graphics are very very good when you consider everything this game has to offer. The auction house is one of the coolest features I have ever seen in a game. Also the fact that we can race around online with any color car and over 4,100 vinyls per car is just something NO other console game has ever offered. EVER. I personally have spent most of my time designing and I have been loving every minute of it. 👍
I have probably spent 70% designing cars, 10% in the auction house, and the final 20% racing.
Also those judging off the demo need to realize that demo is only 1% of what this game has to offer. I found the demo extremly boring. You cant adjust your cars in the demo, no auction house in the demo, you cant race online in the demo, and most important you cant even paint your car in the demo. Bottom line is that if you dont have the full version of Forza 2 then your simply missing out. :sly:
 
LaBounti
I play many games that dont fair to well in the graphics department all the time. and me being a lover of classic games makes it easier on the eyes. I just got Chorno cross and started over Soul Reaver for PSone.

I'm also well aware of what opinions are. I dont think painting cars is a part of the gameplay and could be considered gimmicky(by definition) if doesn't affect the gameplay and could(the gameplay) function 100% the same without it.
Click to expand...

Painting is gimicky, I agree. But its a feature alot of people like, including me. I always like making a car look how I want, so its distinctive and unique. This allows that to an extreme degree.

Off topic - Chrono Cross is a great game. Did you ever play Chrono Trigger though? If not, you should, best Console RPG ever in my mind.
 
FF4 > CT

But CT is by far one of the best games ever in the history of ever.
 
Hey I never said painting was gimmicky, just not a part of the core gameplay.



Continued Off Topic: I never finished Chrono Trigger, i only played it via emulation but i really liked what I played. Its combat engine is more my style than FF. But it CT was that good I'll get it for PSone(I love amazon.com). Chrono Cross is still in its wrapper.

I have a few psone titles and will not hesitate to get more via the PSN.
 

Latest Posts

Back