IGN's review is online

  • 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#2 Posted by Fallen189 (5036 posts) -

A well written and entirely reasonable sounding score.

#3 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Ouch, that score is going to leave a mark.

#4 Posted by p_p_o_d (543 posts) -

I havent gotten my hands on the game yet but from what I have read/seen of the final version of GT5 i agree with IGN.    
 
I feel so dirty now.   
 
   

#5 Posted by GlenTennis (3145 posts) -

Impending rage in 3... 2... 1..

#6 Posted by RankRabbit (394 posts) -

Joystiq gave it 4/5 but the  review is mostly saying how whomever wrote the review doesn't like cars that much anyway. 
 
As for the IGN review I don't like hearing the game has recycled PS2 textures.

#7 Posted by Lemoncookie01 (1666 posts) -

PAGING KAOSANGEL

#8 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -

Its not like I'm gonna go stop my preorder now based on two days of playing these reviewers had done. 

#9 Posted by xyzygy (10032 posts) -
@StaticFalconar:
Didn't IGN say last week that thay had the game?
#10 Posted by Damodar (1428 posts) -

Review seems fair enough. The final comment about "a 10/10 driving simulator in a 5/10 game" also seems reasonably fair. 
 
But the driving simulator part is what I'm there for, and I already knew it was going to be amazing from the way the physics changed from Prologue to GT Academy etc, so I'm sure I'll love it either way.

#11 Posted by p_p_o_d (543 posts) -

and here comes the rest.... 
 
yup.  seems to be doing ok.   a few 10s,  one or two 7s but mostly 8s  
  
I was expecting more low scores to be honest,  big hyped japanese game,  hardcore as fuck,  weird design choices everywhere.  seems like the thing the games press hate thing gen. 
 
the 10 for destructoid seems random as fuck.   wouldnt think GT would be someone on there payrolls thing.   
 
#12 Posted by MisterChief (832 posts) -
@Lemoncookie01 said:
" PAGING KAOSANGEL "
He killed himself after seeing the score.
#13 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -
@xyzygy: seeing as it took GT-PLanet (a crew with racing game fans that is presumabiliy good at the game), like 2 weeks to hit the better AI and car crashes, I can basically assume IGn never saw that part of the game. but 8.5 is a pretty damn good score anyway. 
#14 Posted by niamahai (1405 posts) -

*turn on internet savy mode*
 
BIAS! THAT WEBSITE IS BIAS! THE BIAS AT THE WEBSITE! SITE BIAS!
 
yOU CANNOT SPELL BIAS WITH... BIAS!
 
BIAS!
 


#15 Edited by BunkerBuster (1042 posts) -

After reading that review I would have given that game a Six out of Ten.  
Terrible music, terrible menus, terrible damage modeling and detail on more than 2/3 rds of the cars.  
Or maybe its just me. 
 
I can't wait to read the EuroGamer review. When IGN gives 8's Euro gives 4's. It's going to be FUN.

#16 Posted by George_Hukas (1317 posts) -
@Fallen189 said:

" A well written and entirely reasonable sounding score. "

 "..when the handling's as good as Gran Turismo 5's it's hard to find complaint."
 
I lol'd
#17 Posted by Landon (4152 posts) -
@Fallen189 said:
" A well written and entirely reasonable sounding score. "
#18 Posted by p_p_o_d (543 posts) -

oh god I just realized forza 3 will have a higher average score. 
 
oh man ..... I bet you anything Turn 10 or microsoft release a press release about this by the end of the day. 
 
ok im off to buy GT5.  
#19 Edited by RockAction (377 posts) -

 
surprised at the 8.5, thought it would be closer to 9.5 
 
i watched the now playing feature on gamespot about it and it looked fine, graphically i was underwhelmed but the game looked solid enough, didnt like the menu design either 
 
i can't judge how the game played and how realistic the simulation of racing felt with weather effects and car customization and tuning etc but its GT its bound to be good 
 
still thought it'd be higher than 8.5

#20 Posted by AgentZigzag (89 posts) -

Does anyone want my copy. I don't want it anymore.

#21 Edited by charlie_victor_bravo (1047 posts) -

9.0 for graphics is generous. Jaggies and flickering shadows everywhere.  1080P mode is not even full screen (at the start you can scale it to fit).

#22 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -

I feel the urge to call Kaos ...

#23 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

kaosangel will never heard the end of this.

#24 Posted by charlie_victor_bravo (1047 posts) -

Metacritic's score 86!

#25 Posted by Edwardryu (437 posts) -

IGN, gamespot have serious problem on review recently. they have lost mind that they have been screw up such a nice game this year. I don't follow it, and don't set the point to buy games anymore. their reviews are piece of shit todays.

#26 Posted by PhaggyBigNastyMcKill (564 posts) -

I'm calling it.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FLOP

#27 Posted by Red12b (9084 posts) -

I'll make my own mind up when I get it.

#28 Posted by sickVisionz (1268 posts) -

I think that's lower than most expected.  It's a shame that the IGN review almost makes it sound like if they just had more time...

#29 Posted by Vitor (2823 posts) -
@Lemoncookie01 said:
" PAGING KAOSANGEL "
Is it wrong that the first thing I did when opening this thread was to see if he had replied?
#30 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -
@charlie_victor_bravo said:

" 9.0 for graphics is generous. Jaggies and flickering shadows everywhere.  1080P mode is not even full screen (at the start you can scale it to fit). "

In fairness, I think this is a hard area to judge.  Shadows and jaggies are awful in the game, but we do have 1080 and it runs at 60fps.  The standard cars look awful in places but the premium cars are some of the best graphics you'll see in a game.
 
This is probably my biggest issue with the game though, along with the poor structure.  Everything is so inconsistan.  Reminds me a lot of Spore or Perfect Dark Zero..  Clearly suffers from the extended development time.
#31 Posted by BeachThunder (12096 posts) -

Aren't scores in the 80s supposed to be good :o

#32 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind said:
" @charlie_victor_bravo said:

" 9.0 for graphics is generous. Jaggies and flickering shadows everywhere.  1080P mode is not even full screen (at the start you can scale it to fit). "

In fairness, I think this is a hard area to judge.  Shadows and jaggies are awful in the game, but we do have 1080 and it runs at 60fps.  The standard cars look awful in places but the premium cars are some of the best graphics you'll see in a game.  This is probably my biggest issue with the game though, along with the poor structure.  Everything is so inconsistan.  Reminds me a lot of Spore or Perfect Dark Zero..  Clearly suffers from the extended development time. "
Isn't there supposed to be 2xAA at 1080p? and 4xAA in the 720p mode? 
 
One would think that would take care of at least some of the jaggies.
#33 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -
@sodiumCyclops: Cetainly not from what I've seen, the jaggies are a huge issue.  The blurry low resolution textures dont help much either.  There was a topic with people posting, what I assumed were terribly angled screenshots a few days back if you can find that.  I dismissed that as trolls purposefully trying to make the game look as bad as possible, but the game literally does look like that when you aren't using premium cars.
 
I would have preferred the 'all around good' from Forza 3 over the 'ranging from excellent to piss poor' we have here.
#34 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind: 
 
I hope a lot of these problems are kinda nit-picky. I usually take a really optimistic approach to games that I buy, but man this is worrying.
#35 Edited by xyzygy (10032 posts) -
@BeachThunder:
Yeah, but this game was touted to be the best driving game ever for 5 or 6 years but the majority of the reviews are saying that it's not at all.
#36 Posted by TheBlindChessman (241 posts) -

Oh , Japan.

#37 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -

I think JoyStiq sums it up the best: 
 
 "Here's the deal: If you're one of those car nuts I mentioned earlier, here's your game. Have fun, we'll see you in a year when you finally leave the house. If you're not in that group -- you like, even loveracing games, but care less about tuning and more about the thrill of the race -- GT5 is like walking in on a group of physicists discussing string theory and asking who wants to go toss around a ball for a bit. You're looking to have fun; they're only interested in studying the math behind how it bounces." 
 
I own an Infinity 37 and Mercedes E350 in real life, both are racing grade and I take both to the track in New Jersey time to time (got membership there too).  People who don't like cars won't understand, but for people like me who spent time in Tokyo watching Drift Trials, SuperGT races, F1 cars, grew up buying model cars, etc....it's the game we wanted.  The insanity of tuning in GT games has been second to none, and that's why people play it.  Both cars I own in real life are in GT5, and that's pretty much the best wish any GT fan has.

#38 Posted by Mrskidders (1330 posts) -
@KaosAngel: Great response, im sure you will love it.
#39 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -
@KaosAngel What is your opinion on the A.I.?
#40 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@sodiumCyclops: ...I don't get my copy until 8 a.m. - 12 p.m., still got time.  :| 
 
Can't frickin' sleep knowing the UPS guy will be here any second.  x.x
#41 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -
@KaosAngel Yeah my copy arrives in 8 hours! I really do want to enjoy this game. I might just stay away from these threads and enjoy it.
Did you ever get into heavy tuning? A lot of the really technical stuff goes right over my head (I ride motorcycles) but if you know much about tuning I would love to get some tips.
#42 Posted by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:
" Aren't scores in the 80s supposed to be good :o "
No you idiot, haven't you heard?  If a game is lower then a 9.5 it's a fucking piece of shit.  Therefore Gran Turismo 5 is a big flaming piece of shit.
#43 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@sodiumCyclops: I only did it for the cars I really got into in older GT games, and it's always fun skidding out of control and learning why that happens.  You should check out Tourist Trophy if you haven't.  It's PD's motorcycle game had has all the tracks from GT4, it's hard as hell for me though.   
 
The basic idea is to put on all the electronic assist first, and break it down from there.  Or you can turn them all off, and experiment with what does what.  Normally I turn off ABS, because I don't like the way cars do it in real life.  Don't worry about all the charts and crap in the tuning options at first, figure out how you drive and then add stuff or take stuff out to give you better control.   
 
It's always fun going into a corner with a new tune-up...and skidding the hell out.  
#44 Posted by TheBlindChessman (241 posts) -
@ArchScabby said:
" @BeachThunder said:
" Aren't scores in the 80s supposed to be good :o "
No you idiot, haven't you heard?  If a game is lower then a 9.5 it's a fucking piece of shit.  Therefore Gran Turismo 5 is a big flaming piece of shit. "
It's not a flaming pile of shit, it's just not as good as Forza 3  ; )
#45 Posted by Red12b (9084 posts) -

GT Acquired motherfuckers!  
 
watching the sweet intro

#46 Posted by JJWeatherman (14560 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:
" Aren't scores in the 80s supposed to be good :o "
Exactly.
#47 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -
@KaosAngel Heh, and here I was thinking about just dumping the car on it's arse and hoping the low centre of gravity will take car of the rest!

No but seriously, it does just sound like trial and error and a little common sense.

As for the graphics, did they render all the tracks at an even quality? Or did they take the same approach as the premium/standard cars? It seems all the reviews so far haunt touched on that.
#48 Posted by OmegaPirate (5522 posts) -
@Red12b said:
" GT Acquired motherfuckers!   watching the sweet intro "
gah i really oughta start the install, is it as long as they say it is?
#49 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@OmegaPirate said:
" @Red12b said:
" GT Acquired motherfuckers!   watching the sweet intro "
gah i really oughta start the install, is it as long as they say it is? "
Just do it, the average is around 30 seconds to over a minute to load a track without the install.  The install takes 40 minutes.  You'll make up the time from the install in about a day or two.
#50 Posted by Red12b (9084 posts) -
@OmegaPirate:  
it installs in the background which is very neat

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.