Here's the problem. No one has really pinned down what makes this game "fun". I'm reminded of Test Drive Unlimited, a game that people were raving about for about 2-3 weeks after it came out. Then, it suddenly flatlined when people realized that an "open world" game with no sense of direction or motivation...well, just isn't fun.
The demo of this game got stale quick. I've said much in other threads about the single-player game and the numerous flaws, most of which stem from two problems: no "retry event" option and no selectable restart points from the map.
So, let's talk about multiplayer. I know people were raving about how much better the game was online, but I couldn't quite grasp it. Rambling down the road and trying to ram each other was great fun for about three or four minutes, but the thrill quickly wore off. The ugly side of the multiplayer aspect reared its head when we tried the challenges. Some of these were very lengthy and even downright tedious at times. Here's an example that I originally posted in
this post, when a friend and I tried it:
The challenge where each player had to hit 6 billboards took us about a half hour to complete. He actually had an early lead on me, getting 2 before I could get even 1, then he got a third. After that, I nailed 5 more in succession, and thought because I "won" it would have ended there, but we had to wait for him to get 3 more. Since we had no idea where the remaining unbroken billboards were, we had to scour the city, and if I found one before he did I would drive near it (so he could locate me on the map), and then wait for him to smash it. It was very frustrating for my friend, especially since there wasn't much payoff at the end, apart from a message saying that we accomplished it. Our effort could've at least unlocked another car, or another paint job, or something.
It would've been much better if it were truly competitive, and one skilled player could actually "win" the event. As it is now, the only reward is "you did it", and there's no real incentive to go back and try it again.
Seeing how this challenge flowed so inelegantly led me to consider another potential problem, which neither
IGN nor
1UP addressed in their respective reviews: how multiplayer race events are handled.
If you're in an online game with 7 other people, and you decide it would be great to set up a race, do you have to wait for all 7 of your opponents to meet you at the starting point? After all, that's how single-player handles it...no retry, no selecting already played events from a map...you're required to drive to the starting point. Is it safe to assume multiplayer is handled the same way?
Let's suppose that it is handled that way. This means that if one player gets lost in the big city trying to find where the hot spot is supposed to be, then everyone else is forced to wait for him. If he just wants to go wander off sightseeing, then everyone else is forced to wait. How are players expected to manage situations like these? Did the developers even consider that? Did the reviewers?
On the other hand, let's suppose that it isn't handled that way. This would mean that the host can hit "start" on his controller and the other 7 guys are all conveniently whisked to the starting line in an instant. That's fabulous...then why the hell can't we have selectable start points in single-player mode?
I'm concerned that all this "big open city" hoopla with "no loading times" might make a nifty tech demo, but unfortunately doesn't necessarily make a good game. Sadly, the reviews from IGN and 1UP (the only ones I could find on the Web) focus much more on the technical aspects of the presentation, rather than evoking any notion of enjoyment. I fear that once the technical novelty of the "big open city" wears off, the game's going to be relegated to the closet because it just isn't fun to play.
