I usually dont complain about graphic beauty or the lack thereof... Its Gameplay that matter; before and now.
... But this one: Over 100gig. and its not that its itnt top notch graphic; its downright ugly. Take a look, for example, at the pic. right above this comment-section. Left side; 'box of flowers'? Textures this ugly we got rid of in AAA-games around 2004. I cant stop beeing amazed by a ) how dumb the gameplay & diaglogue is and b ) How ugly the game is, considering the size and what games 10% its size maneage.
How they maneaged to pull this one off I'll never comprehend. But I'm sure there are plenty of teenage-toddlers out there to make it sell reguardless.
What interest me FAR more than this article is getting rid of gamespots obnoxious 'auto play' of its videos when reading an article here.
... We are actually some humans left who can - and prefer - to Read. Perhaps... juuust perhaps you could let it be optional to Click on the button instead of force-feeding your numbnuttian' videos?
Ofcourse; www.pcgamer hasnt videos so its an easier and more intelligent choice; there's that too.
As far as the Guillemot-family they can stick it' where their intelligence apparently is located.
@NinthFall: Its all a matter of taste, ofcourse, but to me the Metro-series are much much better and full of condensed ambiense than the Fallout plastic-worlds.
@GarGx1: Sure - because before microtransactions AAA-titles was more expensive (you got to be more naive than than minimum iq' to think that ''micro.. goes into gamedevelopment'' - it goes into the companies and especially shareholders pockets).
How can this be too difficult to understand? Have you not seen an AAA-game budget pre-microtransactions ??
Here's my impression after having tried the two closed tests at UBI, in case someone wants a pre-evaluation:
[owner of the crew 1 - wouldnt buy crew 2]
- >
OK: First and Last - > FrameRATE: OK
<first test it was a smooth 2-3 fps; I like a challenge. This time everyting was fine>
WORLD DETAIL & 'living world feeling' - important to open world games:
OK, its not as dense [wildlife, ped's., traffic and variations] as it could be. Its passable.
DRIVING: Satisfactory [a bit on the "good" side, which is a boone for any driving sim. Well done. Reminds me a lot of the crew 1, but betta'].
CAR: Hmm... They look nice. But guys: DETAILS, details, details. [lights: Not controllable - common, since Codemasters games in the late 80'ties headlights were controllable in car-games. Pleeease. Working gauges: The main ones, but the rest is stationary - I hope this changes in the final product].
INFO: UGH. I think you've missed the ball here: What Really immenses us in a game - is our own IMAGINATION ! : -) Not fancy ''eey, youve got a gazillion followers'' - but specs, info., pictures, ABOUT the VEICHLES. Let us learn about them. Let us Dream about them.
- A shiny picture and a one-liner about their specs? Not good enough. Go back and learn from the early Need for Speed games - yes; lots of details, lots of info go dig into, the grahpics back then were horrible, but people Loved it - just give us something for our imaginiation and it'll take off. Much overlooked thing in driving-games of late.
Disciplines: OK. Good creativity of combining a racing-rally-boating-flying game.
LOCATION: Ugh. Here it hits ground'. I've paid for Crew 1 to experiense driving across USA. Please, give me a reason to buy another ''across a continent'' game - By Offering a NEW CONTINENT. Simply guys. Dont do this 'Assassins creed', Far Cry' etc. etc. to us by re-hasing what we've already seen. Pretty please.
- I know its far too late here. But perpas a crew 3: Europe (niice), Asia (interesting), Australia (cool), Africa (the clear winner - its got All:
big city driving in Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, Cape' & Cairo; off-road galore, maddeing beauty of flying round Kilimanjaaro and the Swaziland peaks, and imagine speed-boating up the Nile or racing the Victoria falls - see THERE is where gaming-possiblity could take us - if YOU DARED and put work into it. I know I demand that of myself in my work).
Even though I got this game for free (gift from the Internet itself) I have to say that its not worth playing - Yep Gonzales': Even for free its not worth it!
... Too bad, because my first pc-games were the NFS-games and much enjoyed them back when Game-Play was the thing in focus. Now.. even a good mobilegame surpasses this one - even if a good mobilegame is nearly a contradiction.
Great Days of the first NFS, the NFS Porsche and even the much later The RUN. Great fun.
R.I.P. NFS - some day you might resurrect, but I dont see it coming anyear soon.
/Dr. Mabuse.
Ps: When I give it a little think': the old games had a great way of attention to the details and specs of the cars. In the beginning it might only have been sprites and lines on the screen but the info' were deep and engaging. You could spend hours just on reading and looking a charts.
That's part of the core appeal of a car-game, I guess; marvelling over the details of the car, comparing, dreaming etc.
... In these new NFS' of late the graphics are smashing, but the cars in NFS Payb.? Its a box w. wheels as far as the depth of info. Really? So you think we'r most into the Cars or the Hollywood-mock-off story when playing a car game? I'd imagine it was a no-brainer but obviously far from it at EA-sports.
Our brains & imgination need something to play with too; not only our eyes!
doctormabuse71's comments