Wow I didn't know that graphics were what made a game playable, wait game......play? Gameplay? I have heard that word before, but I think it means, what you do in the game, and how fun it actually is, but like this review, we should always look towards the graphics of the game, and review it as the game's soul purpose, screw controls, forget variety, throw replayability out the window, it will and always be about graphics, period the end.
Just because it hasn't particularly been improved, doesn't mean it's bad. And also, if this port is about the same as the DC game, and the PS2 port was worse than the DC version, shouldn't this get a higher score than the PS2 port?
ok, WHAT IS WITH YOU JEFF?!? you are saying that we are better off getting a dreamcast and then getting crazy taxi rather then getting this game because it looked so bad. But you also said that it looked the same as it did on the dreamcast. So does that mean we should by the older system if we are going to play the crappy looking game? i think this review is just messed up.
This review is inaccurate. Why would someone pay for a Dreamcast and the game when they JUST said it's the same thing? It is not a sloppy port; just because you have no huge steering wheel and pedals doesn't detract from it. Needless to say, of course the arcade is better. But, this game deserves a 7 at least.