How do you know they were rushed?
That aside, its exactly that kind of thing that the Metacritic weighting works to flatten out.
I would argue that the early nature of PC2 reviews had far more to do with them not imposing a release day review embargo than anything else, the quality, depth and detail of all reviews vary, regardless of the day they come out or the title involved.
As an example the one I linked to above was one of the later GTS reviews to come out, would you describe it as in-depth?
It is simply my opinion based on their content. Also, you're right superficial is probably a better word than rushed. Although in my opinion, being rushed to deliver a review could definitely be causal to lack of depth. Their lack of indepth coverage is what is bothering to me, not how long it took them to review it.
IGN - 92 - Barely a mention of a single bug.
Gaming Age 91 - Not a single mention of bugs plus "Even though I am not a fan, I did have fun playing and am looking forward to dive deeper into the title. It’s definitely not for everyone, but I still recommend at least checking it out." How indepth do you think his review was?
Gameover 90 - No mention of bugs and this statement. "Everything is perfected to the minute detail". Really?? Is he playing the same game I am?
By contrast.
Gameinformer - 78 - Acknowledgement of issues you would only see if you had played more than superficially. "The A.I. cars (which are optional in multiplayer) tend to comically bunch and crash on busy corners, and yet players are penalized and told to give positions back for ticky-tack or sometimes phantom infractions. You can lay down a good qualifying time only to be mysteriously beat by several seconds by the end of the round by the rest of the A.I. field."
Gamespot - 70 - Acknowledgement of bugs. Including this statement which mirrors my own opinion. "It's a shame, then, that there's always this nagging feeling in the back of your mind that a bug or moment of AI madness will disrupt the whole thing--and more often than not, it will."
GT Planet 3.5 - Again, acknowledgment of bugs. - "Equal parts ambitious and buggy, this is definitely the successor to the first game. As a sim to emulate multiple real-world disciplines, this is the best choice on the market — just be prepared for rough edges."
I just don't get why people are trashing the relatively bug free experience of GT Sport and giving Pcars 2 a free ride? I feel both games have potential with the proper support after release. Both games to me are in the 75 to 80 range with the issues bringing them down different individually.
I don't know how we got to here from "Who else is giving up on GT Sport" and my goal is not to bash Pcars 2 all the time. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are.
