| Jimbo1337 said:
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. |
For one, the pre-launch reviews of both DC and MCC mentioned no online issues. I read one review of DC that mentioned the online issues...3 weeks after launch.
Both Driveclub and TMCC, launch day were reviewed on the basis that their online worked correctly as these issues evidently did not occur for reviewers. Driveclubs launch day meta is based on it working correctly. It was low because the game pretty much missed some glaringly obvious staples, which for any modern racing game is a big no-no
Aiming for 60fps? Released at 30fps. Zero splitscreen. Hyped up weather? No weather. No replay? What is this 1996? Content lite. Yeah, last time I saw a racer with 5 tracks it was on Sega Saturn. There's barely any game. A 12 month delay and the the whole game reeks of simply being a small scale game, shoved onto a disc because maybe Sony didn't have enough retail exclusives.
Now I think it's perfectly fine if you don't want to make an open world racer, but you should be at least 60fps (Especially since Forza was doing it a year earlier witth 50% less power right?) and if you're not 60fps , you should be a looker at 30fps
I mean, i'm used to this from my 30fps racers
Freaking PGR4 from 7 years ago. 7 YEARS!!!! 2700 days difference. Split-screen? Check. Free-roam mode? Check. Lacking in content? Hell no. Weather? Day 1. Photomode and replay? You bet your ass.
And if you're not a looker, you should have a game with content and local multiplayer. And if you got little content, you should at least have a fun game. Driveclubs gameplay is unremarkable. And the bare minimum you should have a god-damned replay in a freaking racing game. Seriously?
N64 racers had it, but not with 8GB of GDDR5 you don't? Gah.
Driveclub had low targets and it missed them all. Evolution would have been better off making another Motorstorm, at least it would have had some off road mayhem with some cool destruction, instead we have neither a top tier sim or arcade, with minimal content on realistic grey roads missing base staple functionality.
| Jimbo1337 said:
So I would like to ask why you think Driveclub deserved their low review, while Halo rightfully deserved their high score. |
Well as I stated, both games were reviewed on the basis their online modes did function. But even then, MCC has 4 amazing remastered campaigns . Too much for Driveclub to have one?
