Midnight Club Los Angeles vs Need For Speed Undercover
- Thread starter D_gamer725
- 56 comments
- 16,496 views
JB-BMW1989
(Banned)
- 200
- JB-BMW1989
- JB BMW1989
Midnight Club Los Angeles is the most epic fail of a street racing game I have ever played. The AI is really bad and it sucks if you play it alone. Not only that, it has texture problems when loading. I tried it both PS3 and 360. The game is broken.
Don't trust the critics' reviews. The best way is to play it to believe it yourself. I'm playing NFS Undercover right now and it plays better with a controller than on the Logitech G25.
Don't trust the critics' reviews. The best way is to play it to believe it yourself. I'm playing NFS Undercover right now and it plays better with a controller than on the Logitech G25.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,635
- Texas
This is a close up screenshot from HP2 (PC Version) and you can see that compared to undercover the graphics in NFS games havent changed all that much since then! Currently playing MC and the graphics are much better, more like TDU level.
Robin.
What? Undercover looks much better than that photo, Robin.
I disagree with you totally, MCLA is by far better then NFSUndercover and it is not the most epic fail. I have no problem with textures. This game has something that nfs series forgot, and that is gameplay and fun. Sure it's arcade but so is NFS. And to say that NFSU plays better with controller then with g25 says how poor it is. MCLA plays much better with g25 then controller. And using g25 with h shifter and working clutch is more fun.
OneEyedPimp you need to open your other eye, maybe then you will see what is better.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Ive had no issues with texture loading at all on the PS3 version, even when blasting along everything is loaded up perfectly before you get there, traffic, pedestrians and the high res building textures. The draw distance in the game is actually quite impressive. If theres anyone who knows how to do open world scenery its Rockstar!
Reventón;3225722
I havent seen the game in person but from the screenshots of undercover I don't see all that much of an improvement from HP2 and would say that the games graphics are identical to MW. HP2 certainly looked good then and still looks reasonable now..
If you look at this undercover screen below it still has the same simple textures and jaggies as the HP2 picture (just smoothed out more). But then again im going on screens so it may well be much better in real life.
Robin
Last edited:
In many ways the graphics is slightly better than Rockstars other sandbox games: GTA IV. Even the frame-rate issue that plagued GTA IV isn't as bad in MC:LA. And although it may not make much differnce if you happen to run at 720p but unlike GTA IV, MC:LA is upscaled to 1080p and On my Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD, the game look quite fantastic even more so than the already astounding Burnout Paradise.
- 5,677
- United Kingdom
- Dragonistic
The only frame drops I have in MCLA is if I use Roar in heavy traffic, it otherwise runs perfectly for me.
- 5,677
- United Kingdom
- Dragonistic
Now I have something to say. Although I haven't played MC yet anyone who says NFS:U is crap is wrong. I just rented it an hour ago and the damage is great and it reminds me of MW. The bad thing is that it lags about 3 times each race
I wish people would just stop claiming damage as a games asset (maybe in a SIM because thats supposed to simulate as realistically as possible), it's not a neccessity to make a game good. Reminds you of MW? Probably cus it looks almost exactly like it (lazy EA maybe? Would anyone be surprised if EA were lazy?).
- 5,051
- Labounti
As long as you can have fun with its it doesnt matter what other people think. I on the other hand found most wanted dull after a while. Caron is a hollow piece of software whos only saving grace is the drifting. The game play is dull. I've read a few reviews for Undercover and they all say the game has frame rate issues, that can kill a racing game experience. the game setting is not so hot either, is always dawn or dusk with a bright son affecting your vision. That is a poor design choice. The game is noting special either typical NFS. The issues really isn't "is it a good game?" but if its worth 60 or 70 dollars. For it is not, Most wanted wasnt, Carbon wasn't and Pro Street wasn't. All those games leave you feeling like something is missing and that the gameplay wasn't meant to last. Its an annual series and it shows that dead lines are in place(reusing too many car models)
Its a rental or budget title at best. I'll wait for it to drop in price as it should by February like the other games did.
Its a rental or budget title at best. I'll wait for it to drop in price as it should by February like the other games did.
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
I've been watching this discussion with interest. I just ordered MC:LA from Play at £17.99.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Good choice, at first I was sceptical about MC especially the graphics but seeing how undercover turned out I went for this and I wasnt dissapointed at all. The graphics are actually very impressive both on the cars and environments and it offers some of Rockstars great open world design. It can be quite challenging at times though
I can see myself taking ages to 100% it!Robin
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,321
- United States
Currently renting NFS Undercover, and am a little disappointed so far.
Honestly, I think NFS is going down the tubes. What happened to the old NFS style? They can keep the cars and customizing the same, but bring back the handling characteristics of Hot Pursuit:2 and the cross country racing. I enjoyed that much better.
Honestly, I think NFS is going down the tubes. What happened to the old NFS style? They can keep the cars and customizing the same, but bring back the handling characteristics of Hot Pursuit:2 and the cross country racing. I enjoyed that much better.
Last edited:
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
I own both games, and both have their redeeming features, and while both are similar, they feel like two entirely different games.
Now, I will say this. I prefer MC:LA, over Underground. It just feels more like a finished product. Also, Underground seems more linear, and the frame rate in Underground could have been much better. While these seem like minor nitpicks, I think for what EA and Rockstar were trying to achieve, Rockstar pulled it off much better.
Now, I will say this. I prefer MC:LA, over Underground. It just feels more like a finished product. Also, Underground seems more linear, and the frame rate in Underground could have been much better. While these seem like minor nitpicks, I think for what EA and Rockstar were trying to achieve, Rockstar pulled it off much better.
- 5,677
- United Kingdom
- Dragonistic
By underground you mean undercover 
- 759
- Alabama
- Horobi-Scorpion
Indeed.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,321
- United States
I returned Undercover a couple days early to Blockbuster. Just wasn't feeling it.
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
By contrast, I fired up MC: LA to see what it was like, and had to switch off the console after three hours. Hilarious fun, just hard enough to make you want to get better at it, plenty to look at, precious few consequences of going wrong, great freedom.
I bought it as an antidote to GT5P, and it's absolutely perfect in that role.
