Driver 3

[the shape]

It's an awful situation, and one that would be much worse were it not for forums such as this one, but I'm not sure it's as rampant as is beginning to be suggested here. Well, if it were, discrepancies between public opinion and review score such as those we've witnessed with Driv3r would be much more common, don't you think? It wouldn't have caused the ****storm it has. And people would stop reading magazines. Rather, it seems to be something a publisher reserves for special occasions.

Five years full time in games journalism, two of those as editor, I was only ever offered bungs by two companies, although admittedly more than once. I think the problem falls right to the PR department, whose activities the larger company may be unaware of, and how much the good score/cover/page count is worth to those reps in career kickbacks, whether it's simple bonuses or mere corporate kudos that's likely to help them out when it comes to promotion time.

They are under greater and greater pressure to secure positive coverage, and it shows. Often a games publisher is entirely unwilling to admit their product is anything less than triple-A, shifting the blame entirely to their PR dept when scores are lower than hoped and coverage is less than expected. The sale of these games pay everyone's wages. That's a lot of corporate pressure on the back of the PR rep. Sometimes they decide to cheat to win.

[Concept]

Although I said I wouldn't stray again, I feel this current debate does have something to do with Driver 3, in pinpointing it as an example of a problem.

I admit I may have formed the impression before of tarnishing all gaming journalists with the same brush, and I didn't intend for that to happen. Of course I have respect for the likes of Edge, GamesTM, Eurogamer, Gamecentral, Gamecritics, NTSC-uk etc. and many others. The trouble is the journalists who have integrity and care about what they write appear to be outnumbered by those who are willing to cave into reader demands, commercial pressures et al. That's the way it comes across in a lot of magazine/website based journalism these days... As if videogaming is a stepping stone some are using in the hope of moving onto something greater. And personally, I find that a bit insulting for a medium that I happen to a hold a great deal of respect for.

Now, I wasn't asserting that certain editors aren't in control or aware of the problem. Or that they choose to ignore or go along with it. I was simply pointing to widespread re-occurring examples (in this generation) that certain aspects of videogaming coverage look decidely unbalanced and inconsistent at times. (For example, berating one game for a flaw, and then glossing over a similar one in another title).

I agree that the truly obvious situations of stinking messes (Angel of Darkness, Enter The Matrix, Driver 3) only seem to happen a few times a year...

But I do think the problem is widespread with how reviewers handle examining and rating games. IGN and Gamespot are two of the more obvious culprits in handing out tons of average games 7.0/8.0 scores time and time again, but so many other sites and magazines do it, that I find the situation untrue in periods.

Often it seems only the worst of the worst get marked down middle-average or less. I think a lot of this is probably less to do with bungs and more to do with the psychological mindset which has taken hold of a large proportion of journalism.

Give your readers what you think they want. I think that's the mentality that goes behind a lot (not all) of videogame journalism.

[Concept]

And just extending that point a little further...

If you (speaking in general terms here) constantly hype a game to boost your magazine sales and focus on the 'big' titles, then when they finally get released you may not necessarily want to disappoint or turn away the readers you've been enticing during the periods in the run-up to a release/s.

This could be a reason why so many games (even average) manage high scores. It almost seems a paradoxical situation, because by hyping a game to maintain or increase a readership, you may also be bounding yourself to a scenario where you have to justify it. Hypothetically speaking.

[Gareth C]

A 3, or even a 6, would suggest that the game is fundamentally broken and the gameplay offers little if anything in the way of enjoyment.

Nick Ellis
Deputy editor, XBW

Is that what a 6 means? If so it goes some way to explaining his reasons for a 9, which by that scale probably only equates to pretty good

[Fragmaster]

To be frankly honest... I like this game. Now maybe this is because I have not been following the news much for it, and I wasn't hyped up about it.

This is probably the biggest reason why it has failed in the eyes of gamers, it wasn't what they were expecting.

I have been playing this game for the last few days and have come to the conclusion it is fun but it does admittedly come with its faults. Now slag me off as you will but I think people are making a fuss over nothing and over exaggerating these faults. I have heard people say, "Bah, the car skids everywhere you can't control, pop up is atrocious, graphics suck, gameplay sucks, reflections suck, animations suck". You name it and I have heard it but none of these are really true in a fashion.

Maybe this game was way too hyped for its own good, now its here people are angry and upset that it is not what it was hyped to be.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[markgreyam]

it has a host of technical issues, but i cant deny that i still like it. it dont know what it is, but underneath the slow down and unforgiving mission design and obvious problems there is a still a gameplay heart beating there somewhere.

the on foot sections are laughable in parts, and i think the original tutorial shooting section in the firing range was designed to accurately prepare for the real life effort, because the enemies in game show as much intelligence as the cardboard cutouts that pop up from behind the walls. at least the cardboard knows to move back behind cover.

its not worth full price tho. it feels pretty unfinished, and some of the bugs ive seen and heard about make it feel like youd be paying that money to virtually play test the game. and in this case its not like the bugs you find can be fixed. they should have spent the money they wasted on 'celebrity' voice talent to pay some play testers to iron out the bugs and stretch the game out for another 6 months to get the on foot stuff feeling at least competent.

the game clearly hasnt seen the inside of a QA department, but yet at the same time it appears that they at least had the right idea. im amazed at how long i can mess around in free ride mode.

[mid]

One thing is for sure - it will be really interesting to see how many of the complaints are dealt with by the PC release later in the year. Pop-up and framerate at the very least should be easy enough to fix by just throwing hardware at the problem, in any case.

All this negative talk has made me hang off for a little while, as it now seems ineviatable that there will be really cheap copies available from all the disappointed people, but I'm still curious about the game. Besides, I've got a good couple of month's worth of games to get through already, thanks to all the sales around right now (like finally getting a Gamecube version of Ikaruga for ?8.50 the other day).

[RLench]

I found this on the Gaming Age forums and thought it was great:

[martTM]

A 3, or even a 6, would suggest that the game is fundamentally broken and the gameplay offers little if anything in the way of enjoyment.

Nick Ellis
Deputy editor, XBW

I... I'm... good lord. I'm lost for words. A 3, yes... but a 6 means the same? I'm gobsmacked. Really.

[SharkAttack]

I found this on the Gaming Age forums and thought it was great:

heh I was about to post that! Bloody funny

[macosx]

It's like GTA with all the fun and finesse sucked out of it. I especially love the way the LOD drops in the shadows of the trees 30 ft away from you. Can you invert the controls?

[Shimmyhill]

I want to cry, i want to cry because i bought this game.

It may be the final straw for games for me - last game i bought was PGR2, not really been into games for a while now - then i buy this.

Utterly ****e and genuinly the worst game i have ever played.

[Friction]

Whilst I'll agree with the general opinion that this game is indeed ****e; The aiming is so so bad and the missions challenge my boundaries of patience -

'Get in the boat and chase him' - Turn around to find boat (literally 2 seconds pass) 'He Got Away' Game over!

I must admit however that the Director mode has provided (and still does) hours of enjoyment! I've always been a fan games that have replay options and the ability to change all the cameras and mess with everything is certainly a feature I would like expanded on in future titles!

That's my 2 pence worth!

Cheers

Dave

[martTM]

Utterly ****e and genuinly the worst game i have ever played.

It's not utter ****e... yes, it's bad but then it's also got some competent points... not many, but certainly some. In all honesty though, I have to suggest that if you genuinely think it's the worst game you've ever played, you haven't played a lot of games. Not a slight on you... just a thought. Going on past experience, I'd suggest picking up Spyhunter 2, Sonic Battle and Syphon Filter: Omega Strain - now THOSE are terrible games. Particularly the first two.

[Ginza]

Sonic Battle. Agreed.