187: Ride or Die Review

Die, please.

Version tested: PlayStation 2

You can imagine the conversation that took place in a hundred game studios across the world:

“We've got to have something like San Andreas!”

“But it would take a hundred people three years to produce the amazing, immersive world of the Grand Theft Auto games.”

“Well, let's just stick some swearing ethnics and guns and use a few Gangsta-sounding phrases in an otherwise entirely generic game then. You've got three months. Just do your best, sweetie.”

Cars and girls

187: Ride or Die is clearly a game whose entire premise was surely conceived in a discussion just like that. Look at the features; Cars, Guns, Drive-bys, Gangsters, the occasional cleavage-glimpse; everything you'd be expecting to find in the current canon of games which wants to shamelessly ape Rockstar's magnum opus.

What it doesn't have, naturally, is the other 98 per cent of a game such as GTA: San Andreas. At its core, Ride or Die is a rather limited driving game. Drive around a few very small, suspiciously rectangular courses, power-slide around the occasional corner, squeeze a finger when you're near one of the other cars, and you'll occasionally blow up your competition with weapons.

It's very standard arcade fare; Yet we all know that well-executed arcade fare can provide many an hour of mindless time-wasting, providing that what it manages to offer is fun. Unfortunately for this game, not only does it not offer a great deal of fun at all, the occasional thing it does get right has been done much better so many times before. You'd have to seriously consider whether this game is worth even a weekend's rental, as boredom starts to set in within the second race.

Powerslideslave

2

Even shooting consenting friends is a bit of a no-no.

The handling of the cars in this game is a particular irritation when trying to make the most of the Ride or Die experience. Since the tracks are composed pretty much exclusively of 90 degree turns, you need to powerslide around each and every corner, to within an order of magnitude. You'd hope then for a reasonable degree of handling from the cars.

What you get (and in an odd way, this is quite an achievement for a physics engine) are cars that seem to suffer from both chronic understeer and oversteer at the same time. You want to make it around a corner, so you ease off the acceleration, and begin turning. Little happens, and you fly face-first into the opposite wall. Fine. So you start to brake and turn a bit sooner, give a little impetus to the slide round the next corner. Your car now rotates 90 degrees on the spot and you crash head first into the wall to your left. After a while, you begin to suspect the game doesn't want you to turn corners successfully at all.

The cars move at a fair whack for the most part, except for the wretched SUVs, which are painfully slow and induce a feeling of loathing each time you have to start the same tedious race again. There is a speed power-up meter, recharged by sliding (which you have to do constantly), which means you can hit a button and have your vehicle get a screaming speed boost. This gives a brief burst of adrenaline, and almost makes it worthwhile. Yet, because of both the slow response time of the controls, and the vehicle's terrible handling, this invariably causes you to smack lengthwise into a wall and wipe out whatever advantage you'd hoped to achieve. It also makes your screen look like it has been smeared in Vaseline while the boost is happening. Useful.

Outtamyway!

3

Shooting people who mis-spell Legoland, though, is fine.

In an immersive game world such as San Andreas, the other vehicles have a clearly defined purpose. They form a persistent part of the fabric of the city. They have drivers with a purpose who know where they're going and move like real cars in real cities. They complete the sense of reality and, of course, give you an endless supply of cars to steal. Ride or Die has cars in its city too. The purpose of these cars however seems to be to arbitrarily and randomly appear in the middle of the road, perpetually in your way. Why the designers thought that the one thing you need to really enhance a racing game is a stationary car continually blocking your lane and generally getting in the way is a total mystery. It's frustrating lunacy, and detracts from the slender fun value of this game even further.

The guns in this game are, well, the usual. There's a bangy one, and a boomy one, (which causes the word “BUCKSHOT!” to interpose on your screen regularly, provoking gangsterly paroxysms from your sun-roof dangling avatar) and a whirry-machine-gun one. If any of them have particular characteristics that make them interesting isn't clear, but in general you'll just hold the necessary button when near an enemy car and if you're lucky it will explode, and if not, there's another gun to pick up around the next bend. There is the occasional explody-thing too, which might or might not be a Molotov cocktail; it's difficult to care.

Can anyone speak anymore?

1

Remember, shooting people while in cars is not clever.

The voice acting in Ride or Die is perfectly competent, although this might not be obvious immediately as you are assaulted from the outset by an endless series of badly-scripted drivel, which becomes more soul-destroyingly ludicrous as the missions progress. It feels like a parody of Gangsta-speak, or perhaps more accurately, a script written by some preppy WASP kid using an English-to-Gangsta translator page they found on the web one morning. There's only so much “Yo shizzle, Gangsta!” a person can take.

The game looks reasonably attractive. A decent set of shiny cars and neon lighting offers enough distraction briefly from other aspects of the game. In addition to the “drive round a small track quickly” missions, there are a few GTA-esque missions, such as defend ‘X’ from endless baddies ‘Y’. There's also Speed-III-stay-above-this-speed-or-the-bomb-she-will-a-blow round. These rounds are mildly more fun and do seek to break the mediocrity somewhat.

187: Ride or Die is a game that could have been much better, had it not focused on trying to cram as much Gangsterite gibberish up its Los Santos as possible, and instead focused on creating a game which was enjoyable, distracting nonsense. The small, regimented courses and samey weapons selection, coupled with bad handling on every vehicle lead to a game which outstays its welcome in only a few hours. It is unfortunate that the title of this game should offer a choice between “riding” and “death”, because in a game so lacking in enjoyment, it's really no choice at all.

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (29) Latest comment 7 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • valli #1 7 years ago

    I was expecting more from Ubisoft. Next GTA clone please!
  • Talha #2 7 years ago

    Ooh, and I feel so stupid for waxing lyrical about Ubi in another thread. Nevermind, the occasional lemon does turn up. Honestly I don't know why people won't let GTA be - why there has to be wannabe clone every week?

    IMHO, game publishers should get off this whole stupid Bling Bling illegal street racing scene and concentrate on making some real arcade racers - just Burnout is not enough.
  • Blerk #3 7 years ago

    If the full game's like the demo I had a go at, 4/10 seems mighty generous.
  • bionutz #4 7 years ago

    I thought so....
  • w00t #5 7 years ago

    It's a big pile of wank. Score's a bit generous, though... ;)
  • Dizzy #6 7 years ago

  • Teeth #7 7 years ago

    4 is the new 2!

    /has said this before
  • Talha #8 7 years ago

    Seems right. After reading the review you'd think it was getting somewhere around 1.5 but bingo! it is 4.

    I still can't get the fact that Ubisoft published this atrocity. Maybe they are trying to lure EA into buying them!
  • tengu #9 7 years ago

    So... this is as good as Conker on Xbox then?

  • Scientist #10 7 years ago

    "Rap == crap"

    That's what my parents used to say back in 1990. How it made them laugh.
  • Teeth #11 7 years ago

    The score system seems to be universally logarithmic. Here's how I see the scale as it currently is (most review sites use this scale, it seems to me):

    0: not possible with exception of drunken reviewer
    1: game was released at pre-alpha state
    2: execrably bad game full of bugs
    3: game is really bad. Relatively bug-free but is frustrating and a nightmare to "play"
    4: game is pretty bad. Frustrating to play, nonsense game design, nothing original.
    5: game is bad. Still no original features, general lack of fun, in the territory of starting to think about mediocre graphics, sound etc.
    6: game is poor. Might be enjoyable for a few hours or as a rental, but on this scale, a 6 is still a recommendation not to buy the game.
    7: the game is mediocre. Everything about the game is done OK, no bugs or anything, acceptable graphics and sound, probably worth a buy if nothing else is out.
    8: the game is good. Worth a buy. Some nice features and good production.
    9: the game is outstanding. Preorder this if the review was out before the game (oooh)
    10: Perfect game. This is the pinnacle of modern gaming. Nearly everyone on the planet would enjoy playing this game. No games ever get this score because no game is perfect.

    Here is the scale as I think it should be:
    0: Not worth reviewing. 0 and 1 from the current scale.
    1: One of the worst games possible in the current marketplace. Buggy drivel.
    2: Game is really bad. Relatively bug-free but is frustrating and a nightmare to "play". 3 from the old scale.
    3: game is bad. Still no original features, general lack of fun, in the territory of starting to think about mediocre graphics, sound etc. 5 from the old scale
    4: game is poor. Nothing to redeem it beyond maybe a couple of jokes or some interesting gameplay.
    5: mediocre game. Soupy gameplay with nothing to make it poke its head above water but nothing bad taking it under either. You might like it.
    6: not too bad, give it a try, you might love it.
    7: pretty good game, buy it if you like that sort of thing. Interesting features and good production.
    8: good game, buy it now! Really takes gaming forward with new ideas or totally new gameplay. Also really interesting visually. Or this could be a regular game type just done really, really well.
    9: Great game. Preorder. Immersive, atmospheric, beautiful, detailed, eveything.
    10: An awesome game. Paragon of the medium. Not perfect, but pretty much as good as you can expect. Everyone involved with the game clearly did their very best to make a terrific game.
  • Teeth #12 7 years ago

    Alternatively you could go the poncy high-brow pretentious route and do away with scores altogether :)
  • Talha #13 7 years ago

    Wow, Teeth, that was hard work man. But I have a feeling EG will sooner chew their leg off than give any game a tenner.
  • Teeth #14 7 years ago

    That's what I mean bengalibengali.

    In the current scheme, no games get below 4 or above 9. So essentially the current scheme is a 1 to 5 scale where 4 = 1 and 9 = 5.
  • Talha #15 7 years ago

    can we discuss the game please? It is so much fun to muck up bad movies and games...
  • tengu #16 7 years ago

    Didn't Half Life 2 and Halo 2 get a 10 on EG though?

    Not that either deserved it...
  • Senor_Sanchez #17 7 years ago

    is tetris not 10/10?

    cant really be faulted, simple, accessible, engrossing, addictive and pretention free escapism
  • Teeth #18 7 years ago

    Well OK bengalibengali - maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration. Let's revise it, shall we?

    "10: Perfect game. This is the pinnacle of modern gaming. Nearly everyone on the planet would enjoy playing this game. Very few games ever get this score as it is reserved for the one or two games a year that were really overhyped."
  • Teeth #19 7 years ago

    That's fair then.
  • Teeth #20 7 years ago

    :)

    Let's leave it now, I'm done ranting.
  • gaijin #21 7 years ago

    all hail the Teeth Scale. Henceforth games shall be measured in "degrees T".

    but I think we should keep the 'perfect 10' as purely aspirational. Just to give 'em something to aim for...

    jokes apart, I'm interested in this from work p.o.v - past discussions on the reviews issue seem to have suggested that people reckon a numerical score *is* helpful as long as it's in the context of a review that explains *why* the game gets that rating, and sets out the reviewers stall eg "now, I have a longstanding admiration for primate-slapping games, but this..." clearly at the outset. That fair?

    as for 187 - well, sounds like murder.
    "never met him.... never... will .... now"
  • Wobble #22 7 years ago

    forget this, get total overdose instead. Mine arrived yesterday and so far it's great fun =)

    /sombrero steal!
    //shame the engine seems 2 years old :(
  • gypsumfantastic #23 7 years ago

    Regarding this game's score:

    I gave the game a '4' ultimately because that's what I think it deserves.

    It may not be a great game, and it may not be especially fun or playable in ordinary circumstances, but the game:-

    * Looks pretty good

    * Isn't buggy and

    * Offers maybe an hour or two of limited enjoyment when coupled with a few chums and bottle of what you fancy on a Friday night.

    So, a '4' it is.

    I'm not sure I take the points about scores being "logarithmic". I'd expect a game that got 3/10 to be borderline unplayable. 187 Ride or Die is not unplayable, it's just not much fun.

    Regards,

    Martin Coxall
  • Teeth #24 7 years ago

    Yeah. I don't really have a problem. Just, I think that if 3 is borderline unplayable, then 2 must be unplayable... so what are 1 and 0 for? Even if we discount zero, we... ah, forgeddit :)
  • Sunrise #25 7 years ago

    Well, it didn't get an 1,8 or a 7, which is a surprise to say the least.
  • botherer #26 7 years ago

    That way, 1 is reserved for games so spectuarly bad that they deserve the most humiliating mark possible. If EG scored according to various suggest methods, 1 would possess no meaning.

    And, bear in mind, you awful people change your collective idiotmind with every review. I was chastised for giving a wantonly mediocre game a 5, informed that it should have been a 7, based on some lunatic system where < 5 = 0.

    The argument about scores is ultimately an enormously boring one. The simple reality is, we're right and you're wrong, and you smell really gross. So shut up whining you dreadful smelly people.
  • gaijin #27 7 years ago

    all arguments about games are ultimately boring. as is most writing about them.

    in fact I'm not sure why I'm here.

    /leaves
  • Teeth #28 7 years ago

    I do actually smell quite gross right now.
  • IMO #29 7 years ago

    Perfect scale:

    1 - Rubbish compared to Halo
    2 - Not even remotely as good as Halo
    3 - Very Poor attempt at replicating the quality of Halo
    4 - Poor attempt compared to Halo
    5 - Approaching the level of Halo
    6 - Nearly as good as Halo
    7 - A fraction worse than Halo
    8 - As good as Halo
    9 - Better than Halo
    10 - Much better than Halo


    Now...that wasn't so hard was it?