Outrageous Outrun 2 review

[Welrain]

-delayed double post-

[Pij]

How is it any shorter than any other racing game, excusing unlockables, its no shorter than any other its just you race from one point to another rather than on a track. Or am i missing something?

Personally i would like to see Burnout 3 cheaper, as i had to waste my time unlocking cars so i could play it online. (makes about as much sense as saying Outrun 2 is short imo)


EDIT : I was replying to the double post, didnt see the post before

[Treble]

i just don't have the time, or inclination, anymore.

But you have the time and inclination to play through a much longer game, such as BO3? It's not a valid comparison.

The point is, the review is muddled - it expresses a measure of knowledge, recognising the game's arcade heritage, but criticises it for being arcade game in almost the same breath. Noting that it's "Dumbed-down", as the review does, is missing the point by a wide margin - the reviewer 'intelligently' spotted that it's an arcade game, yet fails to grasp that arcade games are about timing and perfection...and fun. A long slog through a variety of mission-based objectives is not the focus of Outrun 2.

It isn't a good review, as the reviewer doesn't use even his limited knowledge correctly to explain how the game works/feels.

Any argument that says that this review is intended for a different audience with different expectations to mine/people on this forum ( and therefore should somehow be read or treated differently) is also wrong, as the review pretends knowledge of the genre then proceeds to reach illogical conclusions that don't tally with this 'knowledge'. As I say, it's messy and lacks insight or authority.

[Commander Marklar]

This is entirely bizarre... the game isn't short!? Its about learning, getting better, beating times, perfecting technique, challenging yourself. It's not just about getting to the end. Treat it like a Fighting Game, or a Shooter.

This is applicable to any game, and the point I was trying to make before. Why is Outrun 2 any different to any other game? See, Outrun 2's shortness (the way I see it) is the fact that you don't have to learn much in the way of the above to clock the game, regardless of any additional elements (e.g. coming on here, willy waving about times/scores, which again, apply to any game). Certainly no more so than any other decent driving, like Sega Rally.

[JibberX]

That's entirely a personality thing I believe.

[E. Randy Dupre]

But do you honestly think the majority of the Sunday times readership know what a Saturn is?

This is why I'm finding this whole thread a bit odd. Do you honestly think that the majority of Sunday Times readers care about video games? Nobody is going to go out and buy a game based on what the Times' review says about it. The only reason national papers review games is to try and persuade their readership that they're on the ball as far as modern culture goes, that they've got a wider audience and sphere of influence than they actually have.

Does it really matter that the Times gave Outrun 2 a bad review? Yr man SOL's reaction ("meh") should be a sign that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

[Paul3704]

Randy, thats a mighty, mighty fine point.

[Concept]

I think it's the sign that mainstream coverage inside a specialist entertainment magazine (accompanying the paper) for videogaming is incredibly weak which some people are maybe annoyed by. Outrun 2's another example of this. Whereas other mediums are examined and dealt with in a critically focused manner, videogames are very much slanted from a commercial angle.

That and it's a reminder of how alienated the wider media is with regards to fundamentally understanding videogames beyond the surface.

[Madbury]

Treb, I think you're pretty much spot on with what got my back up with the review.

Commander. I do see your point that mastering the game is pretty easy to do. However it's still a lot of fun even after the necessary skills have been aquired.

I agree that most of the fun will be in comparing times and perhaps more importantly scores. Plus playing the whole thing on Live will (if they have fixed the collision problem in the demo) be a complete blast.

[Treble]

Does it really matter that the Times gave Outrun 2 a bad review?

See my post. There's a difference between a 'bad' (i.e. 'negative' review) and a badly written, ill-informed review. This is the latter.

[Commander Marklar]

Commander. I do see your point that mastering the game is pretty easy to do. However it's still a lot of fun even after the necessary skills have been aquired.

Ahh, I never said it wasn't 'fun' -- that's opinion and always open to debate, but yea, it is fun. However, I can have more fun with other racing titles, see?

[Madbury]

Aye Battle Gear springs to mind, although thats a topic for another thread.

[Pij]

mastering the game is pretty easy

Mastering the Game is harder than you think, driving from A to B in the time is easy, but learning to race with 2 wheels off the road is hard.

[E. Randy Dupre]

Treb> Okay, but if you reword the question slightly - "Does it really matter that the Times game Outrun 2 a badly written, ill-informed review?" - I think the point still stands (that's what I meant originally anyway, but I should have worded it better). It doesn't really impact on anything. Sega and Sumo won't be losing sleep over it, stores won't be cutting back on their POS advertising because of it. It won't affect sales in the slightest.

I completely sympathise with the point you're making and that Concept has expanded on - that this is indicative of a lack of understanding about games in pretty much every newspaper and magazine that isn't primarily concerned with them - but, while it's annoying and disappointing that this is still the case, it's not exactly a shock.

I dunno. There's an awful lot of directions this discussion could go in. For one, there's the stuff you said, Concept, about games being reviewed as if they're just a commercial concern, whereas other media (films, say) get treated more as an artform, with the actual artistry of the piece being examined. See, isn't that mainly the fault of both the video games industry itself and - yep - video gamers? The larger figures in the industry make little to no effort trying to get their work appreciated on an artistic level - it's not discussed as such in the wider public arena because the people creating the games generally fail to do so themselves. The talk is either financial or technical. There's a problem there, too - games are seen as primarily technical beasts, with any artistry that goes into their creation being how well the programmer has juggled this bit of code, or if the textures are properly alligned (see that ridiculous thread on PS2 VF2 in Headlines). The more theoretical stuff - design, balancing, the things that make a game fun to play - are seldom talked about by the creators. It's all polygon counts, unlockable extras, FPS.

And yes, video gamers are a huge part of this problem - you just need to read this thread for examples of how people are more concerned with price and game 'length' than they are with how enjoyable the games are. So I don't really expect a Sunday Times writer to understand or care about anything other than tech specs or how many hours it'll take to 'finish' a game, when even some people on boards like this don't.

[Treble]

A bad review is a bad review. Someone passing themselves off as a film expert who had only watched a succession of B-movies, one a year, wouldn't impress me much either. If you're even going to bother writing game reviews, you want someone who at least has a reasonably decent understanding of the pasttime.

Papers need someone like a Jonathan Ross, not necessarily a Stephen Poole: someone who has become proficient in understanding what makes something entertaining to the mass-market, without having to have been involved in deep study for years. A cross-cultural, well known figure who can explain the games to a bewildered audience in need of a familiar voice. It's not exactly asking the Earth.

So, to me, this is a non-debate, not one that needs expansion. Papers determined to write in a field they know ****-all about should pony-up for a knowledgeable but accessible reviewer, or just forget about it entirely.