R: Racing Evolution

I learned early that when Namco puts a racing game together, you need to treat it as if E. F. Hutton had just given financial tips; pay attention and rush out to experience it for yourself.

Looks, sounds and plays every bit as good as "Gran Turismo 3" while bringing some great new additions to the genre.

A great simulation racer that does almost everything well. The Racing Life mode is too short and the rally racing can be unforgiving. But the pressure sensitive gameplay, realistic AI, and event challenges round out a great race package that’s tough to pass.

The intimacy, the almost Zen-like relationship with the track is not here. Even so, I would be a fool to call this game anything other than great. [Jan 2004, p.60]

The notion of a story-driven racing game is definitely something I'm getting used to, and after an initial feeling of resistance, I have to say the game got to be quite fun...It's not the greatest racer ever made, but it is pretty darn good.

Touchy controls and a story mode that is over almost before it begins are the most glaring oversights to this game. However, the realistic AI, wonderfully stylish presentation, and overall fun to be had with R: Racing more than make up for any shortcomings.

Tries too hard to appeal to all types of racing fans, without ever feeling like a complete experience.

t looks fantastic! But it plays just ok.

It’s a unique racing experience that isn’t quite arcade and certainly not simulation. As long as you know what to expect going in you won’t be disappointed and you might even be a bit surprised.

A fairly entertaining game for the duration of the racing life mode, mostly because of the impressive pre-rendered sequences, but if you’re looking for a racing game with the simulation style goodness of "MotoGP," or the frenetic action of "Ridge Racer," you’d be well advised to look elsewhere.

A fun time, in spite (or because) of its ludicrous story and cutscenes, which you won't find in any other serious racer.

A fun game but its not "Ridge Racer." "Ridge Racer" always complimented the "GT" series well but with this game its two trying to be in the same vein.

R isn’t a horrible game, and if you actually get a bit used to the controls it’s absolutely playable, but the whole idea is that you shouldn’t have to get used to a racing game’s controls unless it’s as rewarding as, say, "Gran Turismo."

A solid racing game, but its real-world courses (and even its original venues) fail to deliver the same amount of sheer thrill that its completely arcade-skewed predecessors did. [Jan 2004, p.29]

While the ability to purchase new vehicles by completing challenges isn’t an original idea, it’s executed to near perfection. Admittedly, poor artificial intelligence, sometimes-awkward controls and a fairly small selection of vehicles all keep the game from rivaling titles such as Project Gotham Racing 2, but Evolution is an fine title nonetheless.

It's too bad that there's nothing but straw where R: Racing Evolution's heart should be. [Jan 2004, p.121]

In the end though you have to consider that when it's good its very very good and when its bad... its just a bit rough, never terrible.

Control is stiff and the sensation of speed comparatively slow. And it's certainly not as fast and arcade-cool as "Ridge Racer."

It attempts to deliver some simulation-styled thrills, but the driving physics and options simply aren't up to snuff when compared to other, better games. On the other side, the addition of brake assist turns the game into an overly simplified affair that reduces the gameplay to holding down the gas pedal and steering.

Worth a look if you are a fan of the "Ridge Racer" games, but everyone else can probably give it a miss.

A solid, but very vanilla racer.

The game does, basically, offer lots of variety, a flat learning curve and a decent story mode for those that aren’t just looking for the latest in car physics.

A feature-lite driving simulator that neither offends nor excels in any particular area of design, and one that doesn't elicit a sense of excitement, rather a feeling of déjà vu.

It's not the worst racing title we've seen, whilst some of the ideas are worthwhile; it's just a huge shame that the actual racing experience just isn't there.

If you're looking for the ultimate racing experience, you'll need to look elsewhere.

The action on the track is mediocre, especially once you realize you'll have to wrestle with the touchy control on the same tracks in the same cars over and over. [Jan 2004, p.124]

In other words, it's just like all those other racing games you read about but never buy. Except, in this case, it's a tacit reminder that Namco has slipped so far down the field that it's actually being lapped - by games we bought almost five years ago. Oh sod it: ARGH!

Not even that new or innovative as it’s just ripping off the idea generated by a very popular movie.

Its attempt at being a jack-of-all-trades could seem quite appealing to gamers who casually approach the driving genre. Connoisseurs, on the other hand, will own the highest quality examples of each trade that do the job better, leaving R: Racing Evolution feeling mostly redundant. [Mar 2004, p.98]

An average game. It's got a lot of good ideas that we've seen before, but isn't able to pull it all together. Still, it's got a decent story and extras that will continue to challenge after Racing Life is done.

The on-track action can only be described as skatey, as your tires never seem to grip the road. With a bit of practice, you can compensate for this, but the game just never feels right because of it.

As the central deficiencies (car physics, handling, lack of challenge) also become more and more prominent with each race, most players will simply tire of its blandness, and decide to save the time Namco wants them to spend tuning their cars for an altogether better racing game.

For a title trying hard to inject personality into the genre, the experience feels irreparably mechanical. There's plenty of variety in terms of racing categories and machinery, but the overall lack of involvement is inexcusable. [Feb 2004, p.102]