• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DriveClub Review Thread.

R1CHO

Member
Are you serious? Did you watch the whole thing? He was choosing horrible racing lines, crashing into the barriers because of handbrake turns, braking mid corner etc.
It was as if I was looking at someone play a shooter for the first time.

Comparing it to an arcade or a sim is both besides the point. Judge it by what it is. PGR wasn't a sim or an arcade racer either and for some reason that worked perfectly.

He is terrible.

He says that the game is extremely forgiving and easy to drive, not a good simulator, too much grip... then you watch the video and he keeps crashing in every corner.

I am not saying that his criticisms of the game are not valid of course, but he doesn't really seem to be somebody with knowledge and experience in driving games as a whole, but a guy that enjoys a few of them from time to time.
 

Nyx

Member
Some are still caught up in the hype and find it hard to let go it seems.

Call it the denial stage or whatever.

I´m not saying it´s wrong to enjoy the game, but calling out reviewers is.
My GOTY so far is Destiny and I find the review scores to be fair....

I personally am not surprised about the reviews scores at all.

After playing DC at two Gamescoms in a row I find a lot of my initial impressions confirmed in fact.

I tried to warn people to keep their expectations in check, but got called out, had my post history dissected to prove that I was pushing some sort of "agenda" and so on..

You can tell, and I could tell watching the development over a year, that during it´s seemingly troubled development cycle DC just didn´t come together.

There are things to build upon if EVO gets another shot at it though.
The GFX engine, although it produces very inconsistent results, sure is one of them.

In 2 or 3 weeks nobody will be talking about DC anymore and I´m really curious to see where it stands when we do our annual GAF GOTYs.

Ah ok, well if you say so it has to be true.
 

Fonds

Member
He is terrible.

He says that the game is extremely forgiving and easy to drive, not a good simulator, too much grip... then you watch the video and he keeps crashing in every corner.

I am not saying that his criticisms of the game are not valid of course, but he doesn't really seem to be somebody with knowledge and experience in driving games as a whole, but a guy that enjoys them from time to time.

You voiced my thoughts exactly. Thanks.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Some are still caught up in the hype and find it hard to let go it seems.

Call it the denial stage or whatever.

I´m not saying it´s wrong to enjoy the game, but calling out reviewers is.

Shitty reviews get called out for being shitty. Not all reviews are shitty, of course.

But instead of just making random generalizations, why don't you actually respond to the extremely detailed deconstructions of the problems with many of the reviews written by various posters in this topic?
 
Some are still caught up in the hype and find it hard to let go it seems.

Call it the denial stage or whatever.

I´m not saying it´s wrong to enjoy the game, but calling out reviewers is.
My GOTY so far is Destiny and I find the review scores to be fair....

I personally am not surprised about the reviews scores at all.

After playing DC at two Gamescoms in a row I find a lot of my initial impressions confirmed in fact.

I tried to warn people to keep their expectations in check, but got called out, had my post history dissected to prove that I was pushing some sort of "agenda" and so on..

You can tell, and I could tell watching the development over a year, that during it´s seemingly troubled development cycle DC just didn´t come together.

There are things to build upon if EVO gets another shot at it though.
The GFX engine, although it produces very inconsistent results, sure is one of them.

In 2 or 3 weeks nobody will be talking about DC anymore and I´m really curious to see where it stands when we do our annual GAF GOTYs.

So you're saying that this game is a bad game because it has bad reviews ?
 

OmegaDL50

Member
Since when are 7/10 and 8/10 bad reviews?

It's not so much the arbitrary numbers but the written content. Some contrasting statements focusing on what some reviewers want the game to be, rather basing their criticism on what the game is, they are bringing up issues on what it's not.

In short, not judging the game on it's own merits but rather criticizing it because it isn't some other racer they wanted it to be.
 
Oh I completely understand, just trying to rationalize the discrepancy between reviews and the public reception. I am sure the gameplay is fine based on fans reception (Have not tried the game yet, will do once I finish my thesis), but maybe reviewers this generation is more critical about gameplay and social aspects of a racing game? Do not yet understand why the game has mixed reception among reviewers?

I'm trying to understand as well.

A lot of us have been singing praises about the gameplay.
 
It's definitely not because of the gameplay. Most mention it handles well but "lacks a soul", is "boring", "has no open-world"...

In my opinion it might be one of the best playing racing games on consoles ever with a wheel. Need to play some more but that's my first impression.

The problem is that handling well is the BARE MINIMUM a racing game should have, and even that is subjective.

People are talking about the handling in this game as though no other game in history has felt good.

The cold reality is, good handling exists in a shitload of different racing games.

How much you personally like it doesn't make the game better than all those other games with good handling.

For this game to be the amazing thing one want it to be, you have to be able to say more than "it feels really nice when I drive the car", and "it feels really fast" and the " the AI is challenging".

Those are not what make amazing or even great driving games. Hose are part and parcel, bare minimum requirements.

When people talk about the "soul" of the game, it's about the devs injecting their own personality into the game to push it past just racing and how well that personality is presented.

Some games have fantasy themes. Some have festival themes. Some have strict formulae like touring, bikes, open wheel etc. Some have cultural themes like NFS underground series.

In terms of DC, that personality is the social aspect, but have they done it spectacularly? Is it a truly standout part of the game that truly sets it apart? Would the series be able to thrive on that aspect alone?

For all the talk about DC not having gimmicks (which are not a bad thing by nature as long as implementation is good), that's exactly what the social focus is, but it isn't an astonishing addition, nor is it something fans of racers, especially arcade have never seen before.


The point is, without shining distinction and separation from other driving games that allow you to go round a circuit, p2p or drift and focusing on that alone, you open up the game to be criticised on that alone, when that alone has been done. A LOT. AND can even be replicated to a degree in other games with provided options.

And while you may believe that the accessible handling is the best thing since sliced bread and that AI who are obstacles to manoeuvre rather than competitors who acknowledge your existence is just how you want your A.I, you again open yourself upto the fact that maybe people find their implementation just okay.

You cannot build a house that's built on the same foundations many other houses are also built from, give it four walls and a roof and proclaim that your four walls and a roof are so amazing. Four walls and a roof are the bare minimum people expect from a house. If the way you made your walls is not to a persons taste, then what else is there for you to stand on? If your added splash of personality is also something other houses do or have done, your presentation of it needs to be completely unmatched and detailed implementation to be a standout addition.

Otherwise for majority opinion, it's just another average to okay to good house. Nothing wrong with that in the slightest, but that's all it can be. Because that's all you made.

Wow. Talk about waffling o_o
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Haven't read any of the reviews but DAMN did Jeff tear the game a new one on the bombcast this week. Based on his description it sounds like a terrible ancient-ass game.
 

Monster Zero

Junior Member
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.
 

terrier

Member
Watching the Gamespot review, the AI seems awful for a realistic racing game. Mario Kart level of AI. Ridiculous.

it is not realistic,is an arcade racer. The only realistic thing is the looks, some, including myself, find strange since it is usually not the way arcade racers are.
And MK8 on gamespot earned an 8, vs a 5 for DC. Kind of strange isn't it.

Btw, i wanted DC to be motorstorm, my review

2/10
 

Amir0x

Banned
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.

One does not need to be specialized in a genre to be able to give it a fair assessment. Problem with GB's review, as I illustrated in my post only a dozen or so posts back, is that it's not even close to a fair assessment. It's actually a great illustration of the huge problem with what passes for acceptable criticism today. It's just a bad review all around that does a really poor job of justifying its position, and spends most of the time being exasperated that the game has different goals than other racing games. It was an embarrassing effort all around from Jeff, frankly.
 

Taker34

Banned
In 2 or 3 weeks nobody will be talking about DC anymore and I´m really curious to see where it stands when we do our annual GAF GOTYs.

Nice one Nostradamus, your whole post is so hilarious that I don't know what to say. Wirklich geistreich.
 
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.

Well the reviewer should be competent at the game.

It's like if you get someone who doesn't play FPS, unload 2 clips of ammo to kill one normal mob in Destiny, and never gets headshots. They write the review as 1/5 because the gunplay sucks.

That's what I see Giant Bomb doing.
 
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.

There's no such thing as an objective review. It just doesn't exist, nor should it. This is a great piece on that subject.

But apart from that, when I was an editor I always tried to match games to people who had experience and knowledge of the genre.

That seems harder to do these days as many once popular genres are increasingly ghettoised by a gaming press that has gone DudeBro and ousted the geeks of yesteryear.

When Forza 5 came out many of the reviews made it seem like the reviewers had been asked to put a V8 engine together in the dark, rather than play a genre that was once considered mainstream.
 

Fonds

Member
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.

This is a fair question to ask.

In my opinion people that don't have a lot of experience in a certain field shouldn't give an 'expert' opinion on that field.
It would be the same as letting someone that almost exclusively plays racing sims play BF4 for the first time. It would just not be fun at all for them as an introduction in the genre, influencing their opinion greatly.

When someone has more experience in a certain field he or she is sure to make a more balanced analysis of said field.
We're expecting gaming journalists to be experts on what it is they are reviewing. Gaming has moved on from a game just being a game.
Certain genres in gaming should require journalists experienced in that genre to review it.
 

Tekku

Member
Good wheel support is crucial for me. The Crew is fucking shit, for example, and last gen TDU2 was ruined for me because of that.

Sure, I know what you mean. But most enthusiasts like me are gonna love this, I think.

Is The Crew really that bad? I was crossing my fingers that it would turn out good. :/
 

Jimrpg

Member
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.

No anybody can review any game, but as long as they approach it from an angle of enthusiasm and not from an angle of I can't really be fucked playing this game or I am a master critic and I must criticize every facet of the game otherwise I've failed my job. It should be from the same place as people who are going to buy the game or thinking about buying the game and want to know if its good or not. Most of the time it will be someone who specializes in the genre, but there's no reason why somebody outside of this can't review it as long as they have the willingness to play the game.

Some of these reviews don't read like enthusiast reviews, just bitter people who are hard to please.
 

Mr E.

Member
In my opinion it might be one of the best playing racing games on consoles ever with a wheel. Need to play some more but that's my first impression.

Seriously ? It's arcade though.
What wheel you using and how many degrees steering does this title support?

Sorry to call you out in this but that's a bold claim.
 

yurinka

Member
Let me ask a question for people who disagree with the GB review, would you want only reviewers specialized in the genre they are reviewing? Or is it possible for someone who's bad at sim racing games give an objective review.
Doesn't need to be specialized, but at least should need to be interested enough in the genre to know that Need for Speed was released on PS4, to be skilled enough to play decently like an average player of this specific type of game. And well, not only related to racing games: a review shouldn't be about the reviewer ego and to give bad scores because games doesn't match his idea of how a game should or shouldn't be. A review should look at a game and analyze every part of it analyzing if it's good or not for this type of game.

It's not a fault just of GB, it also happens in several other reviews. Imagine that I review Mario Kart 9 and I want it to be a realistic open world racer: 2/10 Shitty graphics, joke physics, it's a corridor!, lol non-realistic handling, tiny amount of cars!, limited amount of tracks, rubberbanding! repetive, has the same formula than a 16 bits game, no social features, etc. It shouldn't be fair because MK9 is another type of game where other things work well.

It's strange because GB use to be fair and have good taste.
 

Antiwhippy

the holder of the trombone
Hope for a better written review maybe



This encapsulates the problem with so many of the DriveClub reviews today. It's embarrassing that this is just the first paragraph, but the entire review is case after case of reviewing the game for what he wishes it was rather than what it actually is. In this paragraph, for example, he's not actually telling us why this so-called era of "arcade-to-simulation.. car upgrades" is inherently superior to the alternative, or why not having that impacts the game negatively. And he does not address that issue at any point in his review, in fact later going so far as to shamefully suggest that the lack of upgrades meant the game felt unfinished. This is an acceptable critical thought? This is the bullshit that passes muster these days? Instead, it's Jeff gleefully wishing right from the start that he was playing a completely different racing game with completely different goals, rather than evaluating DriveClub as it succeeds (or not) at its own unique racing goals.

DriveClub is a pure skill-based racer; it intentionally does not have those upgrades because it harkens to a time when racing games had no inhibition between the skill of the player and the competition on the road. There's no amount of hours you can play to earn an arbitrary upgrade to make your race ever-so-slightly better than the others around you. There's no skill bonus you get from playing 20 hours more than your next competitor. It's just your skills, your competitors and the finish line. And there's absolutely no reason why any reviewer worth their salt should be even implying that upgrades are now some necessary component of the genre. They're not. They're one specific path in the genre, of which we exist in an industry perfectly capable of having great entries in all types of racing games.

There are both positives and negatives to this design strategy, and the goal would be to discuss how exactly DriveClub mishandles this approach rather than wishing it chose goals which would make it a completely different racing game. These criticisms are from a position of someone who thinks it's his place to dismiss an entire subcategory of racing games simply because he's too daft to understand the many myriad of ways such things are positive. It's the very definition of lacking the ability to properly analyze a product, and this is his fucking job. He's reviewing from the premise that it's bad from the get go, because he feels since other racing games have upgrades, that means ones which don't feel empty or boring by comparison!

He ends his opening nonsense salvo with an attack of "old school" racing games, as if there was anything inherently negative with those. Some of the best racing games ever made are old school, and are as no-frills and no-bullshit as DriveClub.

So many of these game reviewers don't actually understand the concept of criticism.

This is not to back up any criticism of driveclub because I do not care for it, but tend to follow review threads due to morbid curiosity, but what is the concept of criticism for you?

It's entirely fair for him to find it negative that it reminds him of old school racing games if he didn't like those. Doesn't matter if you think that some of the best games come out of that era and you're free to disagree, in fact if you do you should already know that his opinion of the handling should not matter to you. As far as complaining about upgrades go from what I've read and heard it comes from feeling that the game feels barebones enough as it is.

To me, criticism and finding tastemakers that you enjoy is basically about following the history of a person's taste. I tend to know what I like and do seek out people with the same tastes as me, but always like to look at different opinions, whether it be in music or books which are mediums I like to read criticism in. Jeff does have a pretty extensive history of opinions on racing games and from what I know it pretty much just boils down to a few select need for speeds, burnout and forza. People can derive whether his opinion holds water to them from those already.
 

driver116

Member
Main complaints seem to be (updated):

-Invisible walls
-Bunching of AI cars
-AI too aggressive
-No replay
-No rewind (ugh)
-Off track reset & notification
-Collision penalty
-No weather day1
-Non fleshed out career
-Only EU cars
-Servers down/flakey
-Limited gameplay modes
-Mulitplayer 'limited'
-Limited car customisation (design & tuning)
-Clubs poorly implemented
-Buggy UI
 

p3tran

Banned
Hope for a better written review maybe



This encapsulates the problem with so many of the DriveClub reviews today. It's embarrassing that this is just the first paragraph, but the entire review is case after case of reviewing the game for what he wishes it was rather than what it actually is. In this paragraph, for example, he's not actually telling us why this so-called era of "arcade-to-simulation.. car upgrades" is inherently superior to the alternative, or why not having that impacts the game negatively. And he does not address that issue at any point in his review, in fact later going so far as to shamefully suggest that the lack of upgrades meant the game felt unfinished. This is an acceptable critical thought? This is the bullshit that passes muster these days? Instead, it's Jeff gleefully wishing right from the start that he was playing a completely different racing game with completely different goals, rather than evaluating DriveClub as it succeeds (or not) at its own unique racing goals.

DriveClub is a pure skill-based racer; it intentionally does not have those upgrades because it harkens to a time when racing games had no inhibition between the skill of the player and the competition on the road. There's no amount of hours you can play to earn an arbitrary upgrade to make your race ever-so-slightly better than the others around you. There's no skill bonus you get from playing 20 hours more than your next competitor. It's just your skills, your competitors and the finish line. And there's absolutely no reason why any reviewer worth their salt should be even implying that upgrades are now some necessary component of the genre. They're not. They're one specific path in the genre, of which we exist in an industry perfectly capable of having great entries in all types of racing games.

There are both positives and negatives to this design strategy, and the goal would be to discuss how exactly DriveClub mishandles this approach rather than wishing it chose goals which would make it a completely different racing game. These criticisms are from a position of someone who thinks it's his place to dismiss an entire subcategory of racing games simply because he's too daft to understand the many myriad of ways such things are positive. It's the very definition of lacking the ability to properly analyze a product, and this is his fucking job. He's reviewing from the premise that it's bad from the get go, because he feels since other racing games have upgrades, that means ones which don't feel empty or boring by comparison!

He ends his opening nonsense salvo with an attack of "old school" racing games, as if there was anything inherently negative with those. Some of the best racing games ever made are old school, and are as no-frills and no-bullshit as DriveClub.

So many of these game reviewers don't actually understand the concept of criticism.

looks like we read different giantbomb reviews.
 

Foshy

Member
Seriously ? It's arcade though.
What wheel you using and how many degrees steering does this title support?

Sorry to call you out in this but that's a bold claim.

Thrustmaster T500 RS. As for the degrees, I'd have to check when I come back home tonight, didn't really test that.

Found an old interview that said this
When using a racing wheel the steering animation “will be 1:1. With the wheel lock we decided to restrict it to 720 degrees to provide a more accessible experience.”
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...discusses-30fps-wheel-support-fame-much-more/

The 1:1 part seems certainly accurate, but I'll get back to you in about 8-9 hours.
 

UberTag

Member
My opinion on the matter is this - if a widely prolific & recognized gaming website that has a reputation that it holds dear comes to the realization one day that they have no reviewers on staff that are capably proficient in a specific genre of game - be it racing, fighting, MOBA, FPS, MMOs, whatever - in order to offer a fair and objective assessment of a game's featureset, quality and merits, they owe it to themselves to either hire somebody new that they can offload these reviews on to OR that they make an effort to solicit a freelance reviewer with an enthusiast background in that genre that can submit a review on their behalf.

Because if you half-ass a review in a genre you don't particularly have an affinity towards, it just makes your site look amateurish and unprofessional. So please... don't assign a person who does not know how to manually switch gears or to brake into turns or to drive without a "win" button / rewind feature a high profile racing game review.

I suck at fighting games... should I review them? No.
If a reviewer can ask themselves whether they suck at a specific genre of game and honestly answer that they do, they should not be reviewing that game. Period.
 

Revengineer

Unconfirmed Member
I'd play this if they'd release the fucking PS+ version the promised so many goddamn times INCLUDING on the release date and hey it's no longer release date!

At this point, fuck this game. I don't want to even try it. Sony, you fucked up.
 

Amir0x

Banned
You were doing really well until you slammed right into the wall with this line.

I guess I need the evidence they understand what criticism is, because it certainly isn't that garbage. I can only go by the evidence at hand.

p3tran said:
looks like we read different giantbomb reviews.

Except I backed up my position with actual quotes from the review, and you did none of that. Always funny how that works.
 

Jimrpg

Member
One does not need to be specialized in a genre to be able to give it a fair assessment. Problem with GB's review, as I illustrated in my post only a dozen or so posts back, is that it's not even close to a fair assessment. It's actually a great illustration of the huge problem with what passes for acceptable criticism today. It's just a bad review all around that does a really poor job of justifying its position, and spends most of the time being exasperated that the game has different goals than other racing games. It was an embarrassing effort all around from Jeff, frankly.

I thought Jeff had the exact opposite criticism as I had. He said the arcade handling didn't match the real life cars. I said the arcade nature of the game might mean it would make the racing more exciting and probably what the developers had in mind.

In the end its just opinions. His argument was reasonable thought I don't really agree.

I had the same argument for Blur where they used REAL cars and they had a weapon system, but the weapon system looked like those neon enemies from Geometry Wars. I didn't like that at all.
 

Denur

Member
Played a bit this morning for the first time and got to level 12. Not quite sure yet what to make of it, but overall I'm pleased with the game (I am an experienced simulation racing game player and use the T300RS). In contrast to what others say, I find the AI to be rather good and that they can make mistakes like any other human racer. They are just not really able to cope with bad players. If you brake sooner for a corner than can be reasonably expected for a certain corner, the AI will run into you like any human racer would. If you try to push them of the track, they will push back and when you are too late in trying to overtake them, they will not budge and defend their line: If this results in contact, then of course that is your fault, not theirs.
 
Top Bottom