Reviews// Driver: San Francisco

Posted 26 Aug 2011 15:00 by
In some missions, you have to use Shift mode to identify enemy locations, and move to them. But you cannot go between high levels of shift (zoomed out view of the game world) and lower levels while you are moving your reticule. And this can be frustrating.

The production design of the game is awesome, with each 'level' taking the form of an episode in an imaginary TV show. Each section of the game begins with a 'Previously on Driver' round-up/video montage that handily recaps the storyline for you if, like me, you skip every cutscene. And while this seems like a conceit at first, as the story develops, it becomes actually quite a clever and useful feature.

The flipside of this is that the slow but repetitive dripfeed of plotline made me begin to care about the game story, something I studiously try to avoid usually. But the payoff (and I'll avoid spoilers) just wasn't strong enough for my liking. Now usually, I would have not given a fig, because I'd have been ignoring the story all the way through the game. But since Ubisoft Reflections has cleverly managed to get my attention, I would have preferred a stronger denouement.

And the final disappointment was that the final two missions, the big ones where you take down the kingpins of the whole operation. They were just too easy to complete... I managed both of them on first attempt. Other missions, earlier in the game had been quite challenging, and up until the end of the preview code I was convinced that the difficulty curve was perfectly judged.

On the other hand, Driver looks lovely, plays beautifully and made me unable to eat, sleep or leave the TV for three straight days. Now it is almost completely finished, I feel oddly deflated, and the few remaining missions frustrate the hell out of me, given that I finished the main story so easily.

SPOnG Score 93%
I loved Driver. I love it still. It brings an innovative solution to the open-world driving game's biggest flaws. It offers a selection of compelling side-missions that not only add variety, but also dovetail nicely to the main story. It looks beautiful, and offers a HUGE gameworld. If not for the poorly judged difficulty levels in the closing minutes, it might be my favourite game of all time.
<< prev    1 -2-

Read More Like This


Comments

you suck 26 Aug 2011 23:30
1/9
another 'brilliant' review from spong. guys, you can't write. that's why no one visits here apart from to see how bad your next article is.
lol ,-Boo... 27 Aug 2011 09:32
2/9
Bad. Very. L2write articles.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Franz 27 Aug 2011 23:38
3/9
What a s**tty article. Nothing interesting here. Did you ever play a video game before this one ?
TimSpong 30 Aug 2011 08:12
4/9
Hi there,

I'd welcome any constructive comments on why you all feel that this review wasn't up to your standards.

You can either comment here or email me directly at tim@spong.com with your considered thoughts on how, as readers, you think that we can improve.

That's it. No snark. No defensiveness; simply tell us what has upset you so much and we'll see what we can do.

Cheers

Tim
SPInGSPOnG 30 Aug 2011 15:23
5/9
@you_suck It would be remiss of SPOnG to take writing criticism from a guy who cannot even capitalise correctly.
config 30 Aug 2011 17:20
6/9
@you_suck / @lol, -Boo / @Franz In isolation I suppose this article might look a bit lacking, which suggests you didn't bother read other other, very in-depth previews the author produced (and linked to, clearly stating he wasn't going to repeat himself). Did you really want to read stuff you've already read? Or was it that the 93% score wasn't high enough?
Darshiva 1 Sep 2011 23:12
7/9
The article smells like u where sponsored to write this. No offence.
TimSpong 2 Sep 2011 11:52
8/9
Darshiva wrote:
The article smells like u where sponsored to write this. No offence.


But I do take offence. I seriously do.

It is getting to the point where it seems to me that people seriously think:

1) Enthusing over something good = being paid off.
2) Slamming something rubbish = being paid off by a competing publisher.

We are NEVER 'sponsored' in editorial.

If we were, we would state: Advertorial in the header and we would not award a review score nor call it criticism, review or preview.

If we took paid copy, a publisher would have to pay us way over advertising rates for such Advertorial. Also, it would be clearly marked as such for the reader.

It's a simple equation you see: if readers don't trust you, they won't read, they will go away.

No offence.

Tim
jackmikeMon 6 Sep 2011 00:10
9/9
Hey its an awesome review of an awesome game, dont care what anybody says.
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.