OMG Nintendo.com

Are Mainstream Reviews Failing the Wii?

Jan. 8 5:06 PM by Alicia Ashby

I generally try to read everything I can that mentions Nintendo. This includes mainstream coverage, which can be... uh, wacky. Occasionally, though, you see something truly unusual or alarming... like this review of Destineer's Indianapolis 500 Legends from the IndyStar.com website. While it does criticize the game for being too difficult, the tone is overall more interested in discussing what the game does well.

This startled me, because the last time I brought up Indianapolis 500 Legends on this site it was as an example of the general low quality of the Destineer product set to flood the market this January. It is, in fact, a game that mainstream reviewers appear to absolutely hate. Its scores to date are a miserable 46, a 30, and a 30 when translated into metacritic's universal out-of-100 index.

I'm going to compare quotes from the IndyStar.com review and the mainstream reviews behind the cut. Is the mainstream gaming press failing this game?

First up, Amanda Kondolojy at Cheat Code Central:

The gameplay is the major problem in this title, as it focuses way too much on just driving around in classic cars. This would be pretty cool if there were different tracks and the different vehicles drove differently, but the trouble is that it's all the same. You'll spend the bulk of the game driving on what feels like the same track in the same car. Of course, this problem wouldn't be such an issue if there was a variety of ways to play, but unfortunately, there are very few modes to this game. In fact there are only two: classic mode and mission mode.

Compare to the following from IndyStar.com:

True to its name, "Indianapolis 500 Legends" is a game for historians and die- hard race fans. You know? People who get a kick out of infamous crashes, rear-engine roadsters, the skills of long-retired drivers.

It is not, I repeat, not for casual gamers or lovers of beautifully rendered, wild-drivin' racing games. This is not "Mario Kart" set at the Speedway.

Next, Louis Bedigian at GameZone:

The racing games that excel in these areas are able to do so because of the technology at hand. We did not have great racing games in the 80s. Aside from Mario Kart, there werent any to speak of in the early 90s until the Saturn and PlayStation consoles arrived. Two-dimensional gaming is great for many things, but it was not kind to this genre.

Compare to the following from IndyStar.com:

Fire up "Indianapolis 500 Legends," and you're in for an immediate history lesson. The game spans races from 1961 to 1971. You'll see TV footage and newspaper headlines, drive the roadsters A.J. Foyt, Eddie Sachs and others did, plus change your own tires and add fuel as a member of a pit crew.

Finally, Robert Workman at GameDaily:

Indianapolis 500 Legends also looks and sounds ancient  and we don't mean in a historic manner. The game's appearance is on par with a budget GameCube title. The tracks don't vary that much in detail and the only real difference between the cars are the custom paint jobs. The frame rate moves steadily at thirty frames per second, but there are noticeable "jaggies" in the trees and stands that are hard to miss  especially on a high-definition TV. The sound department is no better. It highlights dull engine noises and laughably bad music samples that sound like jingles for a country radio station. You'd have a better time listening to weather reports.

I was going to quote a competing passage from the IndyStar.com, but there is actually no mention whatsoever of graphics or sound in that review. It is treated almost as if it was not an object of any importance, and certainly not like a detriment to the gameplay. Instead, the IndyStar.com review only discusses the title's controls and specific in-game goals.

Now, I'm not going to say any of these reviews are particularly better or worse than any others. That's not my place here. But I do want to throw the question open to the commenters-- which reviews do you think do a better job of letting an interested buyer know whether or not they should get this game? Basically, ignoring the numerical scores, which ones do you think are the better review? I'm curious to see what the answer is. I'm not sure, myself.

• << prev
• next >>