Reviews// Driver: San Francisco

Posted 26 Aug 2011 15:00 by
In the two-part preview (here and here) of Driver: San Francisco, I pronounced the game to be genius. Now that I have finished the game, little has transpired to change that opinion. But while I spent some time anticipating true greatness, a weaker than expected ending to the main story left me a little disappointed. But when I say a little, I do mean a little. A smidgen. An iota.

Driver: San Francisco remains my game of the year so far, by a long stretch.

The preview code we were sent comprised the first half of the game in its entirety, and I'd advise you to read that first, since I do not intend to repeat myself here. Instead, I'm going to expand on that piece with details of what the second half of the game contains, touch on some aspects of the multi-player options which I did not cover in my preview (but which Svend did here) and give my final opinion, and explain why I felt that teeny tiny bit disappointed by Driver: San Francisco.

Not that that disappointment stopped me from continuing to frolic in the extensive and compelling open world environment, or try (repeatedly) the few remaining challenges. There are still a couple of vehicles I do not own, and many challenges offer you the chance to compare your personal best against a leaderboard online, which adds to the continued playability of the game.

Driver's biggest USP is the way that the game dispenses with one of the biggest problems with open world driving games? namely, the sparcity of and distance between missions when you come close to completion.

Driver deals with this by including the innovative - revolutionary, even - Shift Mode. Shift mode combines a term with which we are all familiar, with an experience with which most of us are not. Not unless we've had access to some pretty amazing mind altering drugs, that is. The experience to which I refer is the one of floating out of your head, and getting a bird's eye view of the city below you. Then being able to zoom into the consciousness of almost any of its inhabitants. Very possibly exactly the set of circumstances for which the term "Pretty trippy, man!" was invented.

Driver is pretty amazing. But nothing is perfect (except, of course, for the love of God - if we ignore pestilence and famine and corporate greed) and such is the way with Driver: San Francisco. But its failings are few and far between.
-1- 2   next >>

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 ?
Tim Smith 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
Rod Todd 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.
Tim Smith 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.