-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PGR3 Review Thread
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
chespace said:
The point there trying to make is that 480p visuals will not give you the jump in visuals as a HDTV. With that said, 480p visuals have to be taken into account also because HDTV still isn't widely accepted. In fact, HDTV gamers are in the minority.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
chespace said:
ZOMG, Doug Perry did that review? :lol
A game with the polish of PGR3 should have been at least a 9 on IGN with all the other crap they have given 9's before. Freaking WWE Raw got a 9 on this site! :lol (joking)
I mean, come on, they are trying to hock the mini-game included inside the main game for 5 bucks on Xbox live!
I wonder why IGN has 'tightened the belt' at this point in time....
I mean, come on, they are trying to hock the mini-game included inside the main game for 5 bucks on Xbox live!
I wonder why IGN has 'tightened the belt' at this point in time....
JoDark said:
You have to "save" those higher scores for the future. I posted my Mario Kart DS review last week and I gave it a 9.4 (our highest score at the site), but I wasn't about to tack on anything more so there is still some wiggle room. I do believe it is by FAR the best DS title available though.
Any decimal points above 9.0 are pretty shallow anyway. A 9.0 (deserved, that is) game should be considered a must have anyway. The extra decimal points just become a bit of emphasis.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Games are designed for HDTV, that is how they should be judged.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Is it true the AI is the same? Because I really hate the "I'm going to kill you AI" of PGR2, which is a toss up for most lame with GT's, "Is this a racing game?" smarts.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Well, we haven't seent he graphics in real life yet. At least I haven't. Internet video feeds and images don't count. So, perhaps when we actually see it in motion, we'll know why it got a 9 instead of a 10.
Or perhaps, there is nothing that deserves a 10.
Or perhaps, there is nothing that deserves a 10.
C- Warrior
Banned
Snaku said:
My sense at humor, when the fuck was I trying to be funny?
What's wrong with you? All I said was don't lump PGR3 with Kameo. That's fuckin it, shit dude--go play some more Curse of Darkness or something.
DrLazy said:
As opposed to the IGN review which basically says "the game plays a lot like PGR2"
... what exactly did you want to know about the gameplay? The cars feel more distinct from each other, which is something we mention our review. Did you even read it?
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Musashi Wins! said:
That's gonna make or break the game for me. If the AI cars bump your ass off because they are following the racing line regardless of you are there or not a la PGR2, then I'll fucking sell that game faster than I sold PGR2.
ghostlyjoe
Member
360 review scores simply will not be as informative, from a consumer's perspective, as current-gen reviews -- at least for awhile. You can expect greater disparity in review scores from site to site and probably less comparitve precision in reviews overall.
It's just common sense. The 360 is first out of the gate, and essentially being on the vanguard of next-gen, there just isn't anything to compare these games to. We don't know what "middling" graphics or "middling" gameplay is truly going to be until we have many more games to compare.
For this first wave, I suggest we all approach reviews with caution and keep our excitement in check until the big picture is made clear. Basically, I'm just saying that, even more so than with current-gen games, you're gonna want to get some hands-on time with these launch titles before you decide to buy or not.
By the second wave of games, we should have a clearer idea of what to expect from "next-gen."
It's just common sense. The 360 is first out of the gate, and essentially being on the vanguard of next-gen, there just isn't anything to compare these games to. We don't know what "middling" graphics or "middling" gameplay is truly going to be until we have many more games to compare.
For this first wave, I suggest we all approach reviews with caution and keep our excitement in check until the big picture is made clear. Basically, I'm just saying that, even more so than with current-gen games, you're gonna want to get some hands-on time with these launch titles before you decide to buy or not.
By the second wave of games, we should have a clearer idea of what to expect from "next-gen."
Zer0 said:
I heard the same thing with P2P on XBL. There was going to be too much lag, whoever was server was going to have an advantage.... blah, blah, blah. The reality was much different. XBL has very few complaints of lag and nobody has a latency advantage.
It doesn't matter how MS does it. Just like it doesn't matter that the game is rendered at 600P. The end result is all that matters. The game looks better than any console game to date. If MS can pull of 30,000 viewers on a P2P connection, then more power to them.
Zer0 said:
IIRC the way they are doing it is that there would be one spectator in a match, and that spectator would be hosting 5 other spectators (and those 5 other spectators would each host 5 more spectators etc etc). So instead of one guy hosting 30,000 spectators, its a lot of people hosting. I read that somewhere, I'm not sure if it was official information or not though.
sportzhead
Member
WOW, they could set up a race with all the best racers, and have people tune in and watch it.
30,000 people watching your beat the best in the world, priceless.
Nice score. PGR3 is a must buy for me! 
I don't really think this is a good philosophy. You should only rate a game on the merits of itself, not on some (unknown at the time) possibility of a new feature in the future.
What I mean is that 'saving' a score for something in the future just for the sake of it is simply unfair to the developers (not that this is what you should be doing, but you should be 'fair' to the game itself.) You can bet there will be better looking games a year from now. That's a certainty. But how does the game look now in comparison with the rest of the offerings? Sure you can deduct in the event of pop-ups/framerate issues. Again, it's room for improvement that's actually visible in the game at the time of the review.
The expectation that a 10 is perfection is also ridiculous. LoZ: OoT wasn't perfect. Mario 64 wasn't perfect. Halo wasn't perfect. Goldeneye wasn't perfect. However, all these games managed to elevate the current game experience for their genres at their releases and I believe are well deserving of '10' scores.
As I mentioned before, this is not saying that a game lacking features (offline and online mp where appropriate, different game modes, etc.) that are common or have been done before shouldn't be deducted 'points' for this. The same goes for visual and sound issues (sound cracking, poor compression, visual artifacts, framerate issues, etc.) But holding a score for a future game to 'blow' you away just for the sake of it is simply ridiculous.
Jeff-DSA said:
I don't really think this is a good philosophy. You should only rate a game on the merits of itself, not on some (unknown at the time) possibility of a new feature in the future.
What I mean is that 'saving' a score for something in the future just for the sake of it is simply unfair to the developers (not that this is what you should be doing, but you should be 'fair' to the game itself.) You can bet there will be better looking games a year from now. That's a certainty. But how does the game look now in comparison with the rest of the offerings? Sure you can deduct in the event of pop-ups/framerate issues. Again, it's room for improvement that's actually visible in the game at the time of the review.
The expectation that a 10 is perfection is also ridiculous. LoZ: OoT wasn't perfect. Mario 64 wasn't perfect. Halo wasn't perfect. Goldeneye wasn't perfect. However, all these games managed to elevate the current game experience for their genres at their releases and I believe are well deserving of '10' scores.
As I mentioned before, this is not saying that a game lacking features (offline and online mp where appropriate, different game modes, etc.) that are common or have been done before shouldn't be deducted 'points' for this. The same goes for visual and sound issues (sound cracking, poor compression, visual artifacts, framerate issues, etc.) But holding a score for a future game to 'blow' you away just for the sake of it is simply ridiculous.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Gek54 said:
That's not what I experienced in PGR2. I would be just maintaining my place in the race during a corner when the AI cars would "bump me off" because my racing line through the turn crossed into their racing line. And that would happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Really annoying.
ghostlyjoe
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Halo is not a typical launch title, but that's not the real problem with this comparison. The problem is the XBox, and Halo, weren't first out of the gate last gen. Dreamcast really set the standard for what to expect from a this generation in terms of visuals and gameplay. And, of course, the PS2 was already established by the time XBox and Gamecube came along, so there was plenty of basis for comparison beyond PS1-era and PC games.
That said, I'm NOT trying to imply that the reviews will be totally off-base. I'm just saying that scores will be less uniform and more subjective, depending on the reviewers' expectations of "next-gen." I'm just cautioning folks not to wet their pants because some site gives a launch title a 10 (or a 7).
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Gek54 said:
No, you said "don't pass" during a turn.
krypt0nian
Banned
Agent Icebeezy said:
indeed. can't wait for this one. Tried to buy it today but they were still waiting for UPS to show with the shipment.
Love how all over the "OMG the storm is coming" posts outnumber any such posts.
Good job guys! :lol
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
Have you played the game? I am by no means a project gotham racing fan but to say they (the press) should hold back on their scores because they hope something better will come along is not a good idea because something will almost inevitably come along that is more enjoyable. Halo was a launch game and I know alot of people who still consider the best game on Xbox. Perhaps they did enjoy the game a perfect amount? Who knows. But certainly don't say "appropriate" when discussing opinion.Dante said:
It's amusing (and a little sad) that people put so much stock and care enough to write on and on about *one* person's arbitrary numerical value to a game.
I really believe they should write the reviews and not assign a score at all. Let me know if there are any glaring problems in the game. Let me know what it does well and then give me a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" kind of recommendation.
Is there anyone out there that would buy a game if it gets a 9.3 instead of an 8.9? Would you not buy a game you know you'll probably love because it got a 7.9? Who the hell cares? If you were interested in the game to begin with, why would let some jack-ass's "grade" dissaude you, barring some kind of major problems with the game?
It boils down to stupid "bragging rights." OH, yeah? Well IGN gave my favorite game a 9.8, so that makes it better than your favorite game, which got a 9.7!"
Lame.
I really believe they should write the reviews and not assign a score at all. Let me know if there are any glaring problems in the game. Let me know what it does well and then give me a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" kind of recommendation.
Is there anyone out there that would buy a game if it gets a 9.3 instead of an 8.9? Would you not buy a game you know you'll probably love because it got a 7.9? Who the hell cares? If you were interested in the game to begin with, why would let some jack-ass's "grade" dissaude you, barring some kind of major problems with the game?
It boils down to stupid "bragging rights." OH, yeah? Well IGN gave my favorite game a 9.8, so that makes it better than your favorite game, which got a 9.7!"
Lame.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Gek54 said:
Big diff though. I would certainly accept if the game's car AI decided that me passing it in a turn warranted aggressive protection of their lead. But that's not the case. It's car AI just pretending I'm not there during a turn and keeping their racing line no matter what. That's just lazy programming.
theREBELins
Banned
Gaming = archaically fingering sticks and buttons
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA
clearacell
Member
masud said:
:lol
Actually, I believe this brings up a great point. Are gaming websites, especially the ones who have already tried the Revolution controller, basing their opinions on "next-gen" standards? That is, are they already comparing graphics to what they saw in the MGS 4 trailer, and the control compared to the Revolution controller?