Top
260°
4.0

IGN: Need for Speed Undercover PS3 Review

While the Xbox 360 version runs at a mostly steady framerate, the PlayStation 3 version can become downright unplayable at times. You'll see framerate hitches constantly from the start, but entering a race with a full lineup of fast cars who kick up dirt at the start can cause the game to crawl.

Need for Speed Undercover is a poor game with a ton of problems, both technically and in terms of design. The open world design is completely lost as you can't actually drive to any event, many races are closed off which means no cross traffic, and it's incredibly easy.

Presentation - 6.0
Graphics - 3.5
Sound - 8.0
Gameplay - 4.0
Lasting Appeal - 6.0
Overall -

The story is too old to be commented.
Forbidden_Darkness3837d ago

If EA wants to make NFS the top series again, their going to have to give the team two years too make the game amazing.

PoSTedUP3837d ago

i dont think that sony feels the need to go out their and show everyone how to develop for the ps3 because most of these multiplat games arent even worth it nowa days, like cod [email protected] for instance isnt that much of a difference compared to madden08 and the orange box which were horrible onps3 ya know. if the games are almost similar then ill buy it (like [email protected] etc.) but if they turnout like this then i wont even look at it. devs are only hurting themselves by being lazy. thats why i own like 15 ps3 exclusives and 3 multiplats (madden09, nhl09 and burnout) cause most multiplats suck, i had oblivion n it was good though,but games like this arent even worth 25$ imo.

Traveler3837d ago

Developers aren't lazy, that is the biggest load of crap ever. Most developers work extremely hard and for long hours. The problem is that the PS3 is very difficult to get good performance out of. If you have lots of time and huge budgets, like Killzone 2, you can make games that look great on the PS3. But it takes a lot more time and effort to get there.

Jamegohanssj53837d ago

Forbidden Darkness pretty much sums this all up. LMAO!

TGSI

SL1M DADDY3837d ago

Not because the PS3 version is worse than the pathetic 360 version (since both versions are horrible) but rather because they hvae raped the series and simply shipped trash. I would just love a Most Wanted remake that actually used the next gen console the way they should be used.

GoldenAge3837d ago

Well I guess Insomniac would like to have a word with you then...

But all this aside I'm sure you meant well but if Insomniac can make Resistance 1 on PS3's first year Ratchet & Clank Future Tools of Destruction the next year and Resistance 2 and a PSN downloadable title at the same year then I assume that by now most developers would be able to understand even some of the cells architecture and make decent games.

For example Fallout 3 was better on the 360 than the PS3 but how much did the difference really affect the PS3 version a few crashes here and there but the difference is relatively small(IGN 9.6=360, 9.4=PS3) the excessive talk about greatly inferior PS3 version does not apply to me or my friends with the PS3 since all of us have yet to experience this game ending bug we've just experienced slight bugs that were although less on the 360 still were on the 360 version.

Now what's bugging me is I don't know if you were implying that all 3rd party devs if not all devs have to take years and years just to make a good PS3 game.

Anon19743837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

PoSTedUP mentioned Orange Box being horrible on the PS3. I just finished it three weeks ago and it was awesome! The Orange Box on the PS3, despite having a few issues still managed a Metacritic score of 89. People act like it was an unplayable mess when really it was fantastic on the PS3, it was just better on the PC and 360. Same thing with Madden 08. Managed a metacritic score of 81 on the PS3 vs 85 on the 360 - so the average reviewer hardly saw a difference, and most certainly didn't think it was even enough of a difference to adjust their scores. Too much is made out of this. Just look at the hoopla about Fallout 3. You'd think from the talk around the forums that the PS3 version was ruined, instead of having an average review score of 92.
Here's a hint for you. Scores around 90 generally equal good games. Scores of 4, not so much. Here's another tip, if a company can't be bothered to make a decent game in the first place on the 360, what do you think the chances are that they put any effort into a PS3 port?

acedoh3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

Kind of like with COD. So we go from last years crappy version to an even crappier version. It's really to bad this series has taken a next gen nose dive. They really ought to learn something from Criterion who can make a great cross platform game. The PS3 is hard to develop for excuse is really old by now. Developers have had over two years to learn the PS3 and if they can't make a decent version on the PS3 then well they should just delay the release.

PoSTedUP3837d ago

what im saying is that if a dev cant make a decent ps3 game at this point in time it just makes them look like he wants a quick buck and makes no effort in trying to learn the ps3 architecture. the "lazy" devs are the ones who STILL PORT games over to the ps3 when in fact they ALL know that the game will turn out sh***y but they do it anyWAY. and games like NFSU doesn't even deserve to be in with my collection of great games.... make a crappy game and then make it even crappy on the ps3 by not taking the time out to make it good?!?!? #$%@#$ i support the talented devs and the good games, not the lazy ones making bad games.

Lykon3836d ago

I agree with darkside about the orange box, i played it on ps3 and thought it was superb , played through the whole thing which took weeks. Now i'm playing fallout 3 on ps3 which is the best game i have ever played in over twenty five years of gaming, the graphics are good and are often stunning (especially the ants). I am really disappointed to hear that the latest need for speed is a pile of manure. I feel spoilt for choice with all the great games on the ps3 so am not that bothered, it must be depressing for the developers to be forced into a quick release of a game that is clearly not ready.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3836d ago
TheColbertinator3837d ago

Looks like this game is bad on any console you play it on.Its a shame since I once had respect for this series

-GametimeUK-3837d ago

ps3 owners shafted again... although anyone who buys this game is shafted in the end so it doesnt matter

darkwing3837d ago

anyone who buys this game is shafted, regardless of platform

pwnsause3837d ago

hopefully this will be the last EA game thats 360 lead.

3837d ago
Cheboury3837d ago

"hopefully this will be the last EA game thats 360 lead" I thought by now we have gotten over this childish impertinence! I guess there are still toddlers playing where they aren't allowed to!

...grow up!

Why o why3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

i honestly think he's making a point about games that are led on the ps3 being on par on both consoles not as some snide remark. EA have already proved this with their games just look at burnout p.

ok if its a snide remark then ill take it back but the fact remains the same.

Cheboury3837d ago

The point IS NOT which console is the lead base for the project but the POINT SHOULD BE... simply make a NFS that works! Why is this so hard?

NFS: Underground and Most Wanted had gotten very good review! So bloody stick to that!

AND STOP BLAMING E.A... I suppose there is a lead designer on the project from Black Box right? Well he should be replaced by a more competent one!

all E.A can do is quality control... and they should but a great game starts with the designers!

pwnsause3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

"hopefully this will be the last EA game thats 360 lead" I thought by now we have gotten over this childish impertinence! I guess there are still toddlers playing where they aren't allowed to!

...grow up!"

I am grown up, im 21 years old, LOL

Listen, my friend has an Xbox 360 and I have a PS3. we get the same games, and we compare. games that have lead on the 360 look worse on the PS3, games that have lead on the PS3, look the same on both platforms.

Which comes to the point as to why PS3 Developers, such as Factor 5 stated that the only way to make a PS3 look and play the same on both systems is to... You Guessed it, make your games PS3 lead or work like how Infinity Ward did Call of Duty 4, split the dev team into 2. Only then you can have a %99 similarity between both versions, and not %50.

Look at Burnout Paradise, PS3 lead, looks %99 identical on both Consoles. Look at Dead Space, also another game that lead on the PS3, %99 identical on both versions. Its not that Hard to make a game PS3 lead, just start on that platform, and you'll immediately learn on How to develop on that Platform instead of Gimping a game. I makes both sides (PS3 and 360 owners) happy.

The PS3 is a console that is based on an architecture that No game programmer has Used before, thus its difficult to learn it. Why not start on that platform first so that you can learn how to program on that Architecture and then easily port the code to the other console that can read that code Easily since its PC based code?

BTW NFS is a game that going to suck for a long time as long as they DO NOT take their time on attempting to refresh the series. Thats why its getting bad scores right now. Thats why EA is being Blamed here, other than that, Developers have to start making their games PS3 lead if they dont want the "other" version of the game to be gimped, thus loosing sales.

Traveler3837d ago

I think there is some truth to that, but even games that were lead on the PS3 sometimes look better on the 360. Dark Sector and Mirror's Edge both had the PS3 as their lead development platform and I thought both of those games looked better on the 360. I don't think we have seen enough games with the PS3 as lead to draw any final conclusions. All we know is that there have been a couple games like Dead Space and Burnout Paradise that had the PS3 as lead and ended up looking virtually identical on both platforms.

thor3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

The reason that when the PS3 is made the lead you get identical versions is because the 360 is capable of running anything that the PS3 can, whereas the PS3 is NOT capable of running everything (as smoothly) that the 360 can. It's not about getting the "power" out of the PS3. If, for a game with the PS3 as the lead, the 360 had instead been made the lead, the 360 version would look better, the PS3 version would look better BUT would have problems.

If you make something for the least capable system and then port it, the other system can handle it, but if you make it for the most capable system then port it, the other system will struggle. The PS3 struggles in many cases.

They DELIBERATELY make the versions look as identical as possible, and I believe that for some games the 360 version is actually toned DOWN to make it look the same as the PS3 version.

pwnsause3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

"I think there is some truth to that, but even games that were lead on the PS3 sometimes look better on the 360. Dark Sector and Mirror's Edge both had the PS3 as their lead development platform and I thought both of those games looked better on the 360. I don't think we have seen enough games with the PS3 as lead to draw any final conclusions. All we know is that there have been a couple games like Dead Space and Burnout Paradise that had the PS3 as lead and ended up looking virtually identical on both platforms."

those games that you just mentioned are based on the Unreal Engine 3, an Engine that is basically built for the PC, so of Course the 360 can play these games better. Mirror's Edge However, is a PS3 lead, which made the game stable and equal on both Platforms.

@Thor

"Do you realise...
The reason that when the PS3 is made the lead you get identical versions is because the 360 is capable of running anything that the PS3 can, whereas the PS3 is NOT capable of running everything (as smoothly) that the 360 can. It's not about getting the "power" out of the PS3. If, for a game with the PS3 as the lead, the 360 had instead been made the lead, the 360 version would look better, the PS3 version would look better BUT would have problems.

If you make something for the least capable system and then port it, the other system can handle it, but if you make it for the most capable system then port it, the other system will struggle. The PS3 struggles in many cases.

They DELIBERATELY make the versions look as identical as possible, and I believe that for some games the 360 version is actually toned DOWN to make it look the same as the PS3 version."

That is not the reason why. The reason why is that the PS3 is a system that is built with a different architecture. the 360 is easier to create games on because the system is based on PC architecture.

Cheboury3837d ago

Your post is besides the POINT my friend because this is simply a case where NFS sucks as a game from a designer point of view. The game isn't fun, isn't challenging enough and simply unimpressive to look at!

The fact that the PS3 & Xbox 360 have framerate issues, to the point of making the game unplayable, is another fact that E.A/Black Box has rushed this title. It is simply unexcusable to release a game in that state!

I do get the feel that what ever the creed behind the series used to be was supplanted for a quick cash in of the series!

Why o why3837d ago

on reflection i hear where ur coming from. My point would make more sense if at least ONE of the versions was good.

@ thor. Do you mean Uncharted capable or GT5P capable because ur confusing me if your talking about graphical capability cause ive not seen anything like those yet.

pwnsause3837d ago

"Your post is besides the POINT my friend because this is simply a case where NFS sucks as a game from a designer point of view. The game isn't fun, isn't challenging enough and simply unimpressive to look at!"

I do agree with the statement that you just said, but as I said, leading on the 360 is one of the reasons why the PS3 version is virtually unstable, which lead to getting a lower score than the 360 version. Yes both versions are crap, but its unacceptable to not put any effort into making the PS3 version of the game on par with the 360 version.

thor3837d ago

Yes it has a different architecture. But think about it this way;

You're a developer. You are not able to get very much power out of the PS3.
You make a game on 360, using all the power you can find in the console.
You port it to PS3, and since you can't get as much power out of it the game looks worse (has issues).
Now you make the same game (from scratch) for PS3 first. It looks worse than the original, because you're not able to get as much power out of the console. But the game has no graphical issues like framerate dips.
You port it to 360, and since you're using the same assets (textures, models and such), and you can get more power out of the 360, the game looks practically the same. You don't want to show the PS3 up and you don't want to put any more effort into development, so you don't improve the 360 version any more. But this version looks WORSE than the version made for 360 initially.

I'd guess that developers are NOT changing the basic structure of their engines based upon the cell processor. Insomniac are, but it seems since Resistance 2 was a bit rushed it didn't have the graphics everyone was expecting. All devs are trying to do is optimise their existing engine for the cell by moving processes to the SPUs. They do this even if they are leading on PS3.

To summarize:
PS3 has better looking games from 1st party due to long development time and talented developers rather than the power of the PS3.
Games led on 360 look worse on PS3 because it can't handle them as well.
Games led on PS3 could look better on 360 had they been developed for 360 first.
Devs try to keep the PS3/360 versions as identical as possible and they do that by developing for the lowest common denominator (the PS3's GPU).

DiabloRising3837d ago

Thor, simply put the issue is shoehorning PC/360 style development and coding onto the PS3. The PS3 doesn't take very kindly to that kind of programming. It needs some special attention due to heavily parallel processing with those bastard SPUs. If you made said game for the PS3 originally, I don't think your results would be 'any worse' than if you started it on the 360. It really comes down to the devs.

If anything, its the exclusives that do prove that both systems are about on par visually. What it really comes down to is talented dev teams on both systems and good art direction. I think Criterion and Infinity Ward have proven what a little forward thinking can do with regards to this gen. Sadly, not every title gets that kind of benefit, especially around the holiday season when the mentality is "push it out now."

Sony I feel needs to either make more PC based architecture for their next system and allow simplicity in design, or simply design better tools to help devs.

Cheboury3837d ago

Okay... I can now see that you tried to make an honest point and not just a snide remark on the subject at hand. At least that is the impression I am getting.

excuse moi for my trigger happy fingers on the keyboard.

thor3837d ago

I realise that the "style" of development might cause some problems.

But devs don't change their "style" of development when they lead on PS3 - otherwise, wouldn't they have the _same_ problems when porting over to 360? Think about it. If the problems are caused soley by a difference in architecture, then wouldn't a PS3-to-360 port be just as bad as a 360-to-PS3 one?

"It's the exclusives that do prove that both systems are about on par visually." Well, Sony has a lot of talented 1st party devs - MS does not yet when you do have a developer who puts a lot of effort into graphics, you end up with Gears 2, which, at the moment, probably beats out every PS3 game available in terms of graphics. If you had more teams like Epic creating exclusives for 360 you'd see a hell of a lot more graphical powerhouses for 360 (and if they all looked as good or even better than Gears 2, they would beat out every PS3 game as well). Only KZ2 beats Gears 2, and that has had a load of time and money poured into it. If you spent the same amount on 360, you could yield at least the same if not better results.

Traveler3837d ago

@why o why
"Do you mean Uncharted capable or GT5P capable because ur confusing me if your talking about graphical capability cause ive not seen anything like those yet."

A lot of people act like those games are doing something the 360 isn't but I don't agree with that at all. I own Uncharted and I have played GT5P and I don't think that they surpass the what I have seen on the xbox 360. I would put Uncharted about on par with the first Gears, but Gears 2 is the best looking game on consoles at the moment in my opinion. Naughty Dog and Polyphony Digital are both extremely talented developers and since their games were first party titles I am sure they had healthy budgets and all the help Sony could give them. So I'm not so sure if that really proves anything about the power of the ps3 other than with the right time, effort and talent it is capable of pumping out some very nice graphics. However, there is simply no way to know for sure what the 360 could achieve if a really ambitious developer decided to try to really maximize the use of the hardware and create something amazing and had the time and money to pull it off.

Why o why3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

top man, bubble

@ thor, well put but i still disagree. u still get a bubble for being able to put well thought out comment without using bs stats n sites

@ OnslaughtX

i dont want them to make the next console more like the pc or the next 2 consoles will be the same. If the pc architecture is so easy to make great looking games why is it really only the unreal engine that has excelled. Im still looking for the next game to (graphically) wow me since gears. If there is no challenge then there is no push to get the best out of something. New tech can do that. With change comes progression and new was of dealing with things. I do hear what ur saying in terms of making it easy for everybody but at the same time i like the uphill struggle that has yielded games like drakes, mgs4 gt5p etc.

@Traveler

my point is what looks better. And the games i mentioned are hard to beat graphically and they were done in the relatively early life of a console that is harder to dev for whereas the 360 which is easier to dev for is stuck on gears so to speak (still one of the most graphically impressive game on the 360 and next gen consoles).

u list them for me

my point is if its easier then there should be more but ill have to take a step back and factor the number of exclusives devs available to the 360 console. Your time and money point is a good one but that can also be a bit of a moot point as we have seen games in dev for ages that were either no good or have not even come out yet. MS can spend more on advertising and dlc than they do on actual game development and maybe there's where the problem lies

thor3837d ago

I agree with everything you said there.

Uncharted and GT5:P look great, but I'm sure the 360 could handle them given enough development time.

Gears 2 clearly has the best graphics on consoles at the moment.

And of course you are right when you say that time, effort and talent can produce a great looking game. Most of the greatness in graphics comes from nicely designed environments, characters, textures and shaders anyway ;P

DiabloRising3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

I don't want to go into detail on something I don't know the 100% ins and outs of. I'll PM you an article if I can find it, I believe it was Ars Technica, about how actually it IS easier to go from the PS3 to the 360 than from the 360 to the PS3. IIRC, the main issue many devs have is taking the 360 code and tossing it onto the PS3's primary CPU, without using the SPUs at all. Couple that with the bottlenecks of the system, and you have tons of unused resources, the PS3 chokes. It's not so much the elements and assets are different, but how they are allocated. Then again, I'm just a humble artist, not a programmer. ;-)

@ Thor & Traveler

As for the 1st Party dev comment... Konami isn't a first party dev, and look at what they got out of the PS3. I don't follow what you mean by "more teams like Epic" however. They were given a TON of $$$ by MS (alot allocated to marketing alone) to make Gears of War and make it exclusive. Traveler to answer you, I would think an ambitious dev tapping into the 360 would give you, yup, Gears of War 2. You and Traveler seem to be saying that Epic is the only one "tapping" the 360, which I think isn't exactly correct. Epic is a middleware engine maker using their own tools, that's how they get the edge, not because other devs are less talented. Other devs on the 360 aren't engine makers, simple as that, though they are still quite ambitious and talented. What you have been seeing from titles like Halo 3 IS what an ambitious designer will give you. (Though titles like NG2 and Fable 2 are not visual slouches at all.)

In the end though, I firmly stand by the fact that there is nothing that one system can do that is impossible on the other. How easy it is to get to those results though, is up to the skill of the dev team.

On a side note, I'd still hold MGS4's character models well above those of Gears 2, but Gears 2 takes the post processing and environment crown.

Jamegohanssj53837d ago

Time and time again must I remind you all that Kojima Productions makes the game and Konami just publishes it? Oh yeah, nothing beats the graphics in Killzone 2, Uncharted, and Metal Gear Solid 4. NOTHING! On a console that is.

TGSI

ultimolu3837d ago

Exactly. I'm sick of comparison videos and 360 fans gloating over the fact they have teh best version when both versions should be the same.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 3837d ago