| sasquatchmontana said: Would you say Driveclub is indicitive of a quality most racing studios didn't have and if so, could you explain why it scored much less then it's contemporaries, despite being delayed a year? |
Driveclub is successful because it was able to capture both casual and hardcore racing fans. This was achieved by having in-depth physics models for all of their cars, in order to create a simulator driving experience, while incorporating an easy-to-drive almost-arcadey feel. It was a fantasticly designed hybrid racing game that appealed to all racing fans. Driveclub also provided a very interactive and connective racing experience in beautiful cars, locations, and environmental conditions.
Like every other game, Driveclub was scored right when the game was released, which is also the same time when the game was riddled with online connectivity issues. It is safe to assume that most of the reviews for Driveclub can be attributed to this shortcoming.
Now Halo: The Master Chief Collection scored an 85 on metacritc, 14 points higher than Driveclub, and released during the same holiday season. Halo: TMCC was also riddled with online issues and was down for a significantly longer time (approximately 100 days) in comparison to Driveclub. So here we have a game (Halo) score a perfect 100 on one review and get numerous other highly rated reviews as well. Most of the reviews would simply state that they had issues getting online but brushed it off by saying that this will simply be patched in 2 days and then slaps a review of 90. Are you serious?
So I would like to ask why you think Driveclub deserved their low review, while Halo rightfully deserved their high score. If you don't want to bring Halo into this, then talk about Battlefield 4. I don't want this to be an exclusive game war battle, but rather the complete and utter bias towards a new franchise versus an established franchise.
