http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/11/26/need-for-speed-undercover/1 Need for Speed is back and faster than ever, hoping to recapture the high-octane thrills of Most Wanted and redeem itself after Pro Street. With a massive new open world and a plot full of gentle twists and handbrake turns could this be the Need for Speed we really need?
Played it, im interested in how they make the cars feel so little like actual cars, the driving style is rubbish. Remake Porsche Unleased!
Porsche unleashed Cheesecake! Seriously though, the idea of NFS ****whatever sounds cool**** being an immersive and entertaining racing game is fast disappearing as it becomes clear that this is seen as a cash cow product. Every single forum that discusses this game will have posts referring to Porsche Unleashed and that is for a reason. It had the exact balance between fun and simulation whilst never trying to be overly complicated or cool - it was all about fun racing. I may pick this up when it's in a bargain bin, but the publishers won't be getting full price from me, not when there is so much else around at the moment. It's a real shame though, NFS as a brand is just wasted and it looks like there is no end in sight for those of us who would love to see it return to form.
This just continually reminded me of NFS:Most Wanted - which, while i enjoyed Most Wanted a whole lot, is a two year old game.
ok Bit-Tech something that has been really itching me for a while about all sites that review games. You all give them too high scores. this from what I read in your own review should not be getting a 7. If a game is repetative after a while the graphics arent stunning it should be more like a 5. I think the way your hardware reveiws are done are exellent and you can judge it on each of the different areas. I dont see why this cannot be done for game say in the following areas, Gameplay Graphics Performance Replayability multiplayer price And then get an overall score from that. While this may make games look worse for the industry it makes the really good games like left 4 dead look great. /debate
ive been playing undercover fo a while now and its not bad, however it absolutly HATES triple SLI with a vengience. im lucky if i can get it over 25 fps
Because a game isn't as defineable as a piece of hardware is, is why we use this scoring method and why we only use whole digits. With a GPU you can look at the performance and say - "Wow, this gives an extra 20 FPS and is the same price as a GTX 280? Cool!" and you can reward it in both value and performance. With a game though, you can't reliably put a numerical figure on the graphics and how pretty they are - nor should you. You could say that a game which has HDR might get an extra point in graphics - but then you're faulting games which either were made on a budget or to which these effect aren't relevant. Braid has blurry, painted graphics - but we still love it to bits and give it a high score. Conversely, Crysis has truly fantastic graphics which a lot of people can't access. Thus, the best way to approach the review is to give not a score but rather a detailed explanation of the game, it's pros, cons and excuses. We do that and in an ideal world we'd leave it at that, with no score whatsoever. The reality is though that a score of some sort is needed for reasons both political, commercial and in terms of accessibility. For those readers who don't want to read 1000 words of "The graphics aren't great, but the game design negates that as an issue", we have a score as a rough guideline. Splitting scores up for something subjective is a thorny issue. If an FPS has deathmatch but not CTF, is that -1 or -2 points? If a game doesn't have either mode but has something new and original is that -5 or +5? If a game costs £30 but offers 40 hours of boring grind does that mean that its got more or less value than a £10 game like World of Goo which has a small but thrilling level set? Where there are defineable boundaries for a sub-score like 'Performance' that idea works. What you're proposing though is that putting a 7/10 on a game as a whole isn't truly representative, so we should put 7/10 on something equally indefineable, like Gameplay. Another path would be to score be percentages - but whats the difference between 96% and 97%? PC Gamer may think they can tell the difference, but I doubt they could point it out to me. In the end, a good way to be sure is to read a breadth of reviews and to read the reviews fully, without just skipping to the last page or the score. I don't think it's fair to say we give out too many high scores - in the entire two years I've been at bit-tech there's only been three 10/10s and around twenty 9/10s. True, retrospect might alter those in the eyes of some though. Need for Speed is a fun game that is accessible, stable and enjoyable, but it is a bit samey after a while and doesn't do anything startlingly new. That fits our definition of a seven - it meets our expectations, without exceeding them and has a flaw or two that gamers might want to be wary of. If you like arcade racers, you'll probably like this. If not, there are other games out there. You can read our score guide for more information: http://www.bit-tech.net/scores/
Is that a 1 or a 7? And how about you guys slap EA about and get them to play the old NFS games then make the new one, instead of just playing the last four or five drivel releases and doing more of the same?
I'd give this game a 5 out of 10. The graphics are glitchy, the handling is piss-poor, the story is drivel and unengaging, it's been done before and the previous effort managed to be all that this clearly isn't. It really is a pile of mouldy cabbage. Bear in mind that a game that loads gets a 5 from me, this game just scrapes through. It really is barely a game and I should only give it a 4, the extra point is for the fact that, at least it didn't crash or hang. To give it a 7 is pandering to the 'if you like this sort of thing..' imo
Thanks CardJoe for the explanation, I can see where you guys come from and I cant argue with the logic of your system but I still feel with so many high quality games out now there needs to be more that seperates them I dont beleive ive ever seen a game hit below a 5 on this in the last year. Obviously I could be wrong and someone might prove this, I just think having a score rating where no games even hit below 5 in the last year means that we need to raise our standards and what we expect. even if the 10 is then unacheivable it gives the industry something to work for. But you have explained how and why you do it, so I will leave it at that.
Have to admit to being a bit puzzled by the final score myself... you don't seem to have much that is terribly positive to say about this game, but it still gets a 7? Now, I'm not a reviewer, and I don't get paid to play games, but if I was as unimpressed with it as you seemed to be in the text, it would not be pulling a half-decent score. ... Regardless of that (as I am usually prepared to take most reviews with a pinch of salt for 'personal taste' items like games) which previous Need for Speed would you say this is most like? If it's Carbon or Pro Street, I'm not touching it. If it draws more in comparison with Most Wanted, I'll think about it. The current EA match Porsche Unleashed or NFS3 again if they tried, though.
We've had below 5s for sure - just look at Conspiracy Island or Quantum of Solace. The issue is though that most games which are going to score that low are ones that most gamers can tell are crap anyway and purposefully avoid it. So, whats the point in wasting three or four days to review it? Don't worry though, this year we'll be having a round-up of all the best of the worst... Regarding the game, I feel its only the last page which is focusing on the negatives. The game works, it is fun, it does what it says on the tin - its an average game with a few issues that will be overlooked by genre fans. 7 seems fair to me for that conclusion. Unremarkable, but playable.
I'd probably give it more like 3/10, ok the graphics are good, but its hardly original, majority of the cars are shared with previous games, nothing really that new, the general driving experience is rubbish. What i don't understand is why they have made the cars drive so crap, even the driving experience was better on Underground 2, since then they have just ruined it. Honestly, a 2CV in real life corners better.
Sry but this game is appauling it's Most Wanted with added sexiness from Maggy Q (She is the only reason to buy this game) otherwise just buy NFS Most Wanted
