There seems to be this cliché misconception about games that,
generally, the sequel to a very popular game is usually much less
stellar, to say the least. Why misconception? Because I don?t think
there?s any law that states that, and the only reason it is widely
believed is because it happens much too often. This wasn?t the
case with Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear, Warcraft II, Gabriel Knight 2,
Fallout 2, Wing Commander 2, 3, 4, 5; Privateer 2, Crusader: No
Regret ? and the list goes on. However, it did happen to quite a
few games, one of which, to my utmost chagrin, is Interstate ?82.
The original Interstate ?76 took the industry by storm with its
no-holds-barred attitude, amazing soundtrack, stylish movies, and
most of all, a completely immersive and entertaining gameplay.
Cars were authentically modeled, the story was tight, and
multiplayer was wicked. How does Interstate ?82 fare in that
respect? Let us examine it section by section.
My first and foremost grudge about the game lies in the physics
department: this doesn?t feel like an Interstate game, but much
more like Twisted Metal, and that comparison isn?t a flattering one.
Cars don?t feel like they have mass; when I put a few machine
guns on my Courcheval Manta ?73 and raised its weight to over
10,000 pounds, not only did it not feel much different from the
previous 6,000 but the collisions and the momentum transfer were
just as unrealistic as before. What I mean by this is that when cars
collide, there should be some exchange of energy, and physics
governing laws of motion should take effect, such as changing
vectors of motion, inertia, momentum and so forth. It doesn?t feel
like any of that is present in I82, though ? it feels kind of like if you
were to glue together a paper vehicle, stick some plastic machine
guns onto it, and ram it into a wall. No, that wouldn?t bend the
bodywork. It just bounces off. Bodywork also bends in a very
strange way: seems as if the actual car model isn?t often warped,
and usually the texture is stained with ripples and waves to make
it look bent. I did manage to expose a wheel on my Porsche 911
(which, for the lack of a licensing agreement with Porsche and all
other manufacturers is called the Messernacht, which, incidentally,
I can?t manage to translate ? to the best of my (limited) German
knowledge, this means "razor night," a term that I fail to
understand), however, the wheel was completely undamaged (am
I being too picky?) and I was unable to replicate the effect. Cars
also never flip over ? a la Need For Speed 2, they flip back onto
the wheels in most intriguing feats of black magic. When cars fall
from rooftops, or other elevated positions, they bounce off so
lamely that I almost stopped playing the game.
Next up for disection is the gameplay. In one of the previews on
I82, the developers were quoted as saying that the gearbox would
be dropped in I82 because nobody ever used it in I76. Excuse me?!
I wonder where they got that from ? in any case, I?d much rather
use the gearbox than the incredibly lame auto-brake system that
was implemented in 82. In 76, when I?d drive up a hill, I?d switch to
Park, kill the engine and observe. If I wanted to do some nasty
spins, I?d throw the car into a skid and hit Tab to switch to Reverse.
Granted, that isn?t entirely realistic, but it?s enjoyable, and
something you may have longed to do for a while but were too
scared to do in your own car. What does I82 have in this sense?
Nothing. You hit Up, you go forward. You release it, you slow down
(because of friction, kudos for getting that right), and then what?
Your brake lights come on, and you?re stopped. Want to go back?
Hit back, wait a second or two, and go backwards. Doesn?t sound
bad? It is. The time it takes to change from forward to reverse
motion is so abysmally long that in any proper Deathmatch one
would be dead by the time it?s done, or at least badly wounded.
Same applies from changing from reverse to forward. Need I
mention the white reverse lights don?t work? Oh, and there?s no
more cockpit. I guess that wasn?t used too much, either.
There are about 30 missions in the game, set in about 20 different
areas. Each mission has sub-missions, like "Flip switch to open
gate," "Drive to point 1" and, one of the most eloquent, "Kill all
creepers" and/or "Kill all Dickies," coupled with "Ambush these
fools." The story is told via pre-rendered movie sequences, as well
as engine-rendered cinematics, most often taking place while
driving. All in all, I find, the story is more or less of a premise to
blow up stuff, rather than being the integral backbone, like it is in
some other games. These 30 missions are played out through the
means of equipping yourself with different vehicles, different
weapons for the vehicles, different equipment and so forth. One
very good feature that I like about the game is you no longer wait
for some omnipresent Force From Above to grant you a new car,
but you get what you have the guts to take ? you kill, carjack and
steal parked cars. The good old pistol is still there, which means
you can get an essentially undamaged car from your opponent;
you encounter parking lots every once in a rare while which might
have a vehicle or two worthy of notice on the premises; and, last,
but not least, you can run up to a dude driving a car and try to kick
him out of his vehicle (though that won?t always work, what with
the lack of pacifism in the early 80s youth and all). All that is
accomplished via the means of getting out of your car, a novel and
interesting concept. Equipping your car is done via purchasing
upgrades on money that you get for blowing up other cars, aka
"salvage." I strongly feel, however, that "salvage" is an incorrect
term here ? "bounty" is more appropriate. In I76, you actually did
salvage components from destroyed cars, and Skeeter, your
mechanic, would often produce the niftiest pieces of hardware out
of the rubble. Now all you do is buy, and I don?t think I like that
idea, generally because the things you really want to buy cost
about three times as much as you happen to have at any given
moment. I think what Activision should?ve done was have both,
and perhaps have a usage meter on the weapon/equipment, so
that if you don?t repair it, it wears down eventually, and salvaged
items would have a certain amount of wear on them right off the
start. But they haven?t? so this discussion is rather pointless.
The AI has some problems. For one, if you?re fighting an enemy
and stand in one place, he will traverse the same closed-ended
route to go away from you and come back guns blazing, so you
can just sit there quietly and snipe him. Moreover, why is it that all
computer opponents drop oil slicks 97% of the time, even if they?re
driving towards you? It almost seems like? but I can?t make that
joke. Of course, (fairly) obviously, they eventually drop so many oil
slicks they get stuck in them themselves. While I?m at the oil slicks,
why is it that the car behaves so badly in them? By that I don?t
mean that it handles poorly, after all, duh ? you got oil on your
tires, but whatever happened to the wheels locking? That is, if you
drive into an oil slick and stop you are unable to move for a good
10 seconds: I?m sorry, but that?s not how oil slicks work in real life.
It almost seems like they?re poodles of glue instead. Or toxic,
paralyzing gas that puts the driver into complete anaesthesia for
10 seconds. In any case, whatever it is, it isn?t oil.
When I read PC Gamer?s preview of I82 in the November 1998
issue, I looked at the screenshots and drooled. I had a 3Dfx
Voodoo 1 back then, and wondered, will it or will it not be enough
to run the game with all those beautiful explosions, nice-looking
cars and cool scenery? then Redline came out, and it really drove
my Voodoo into the ground ? so much that I had to turn down most
of the detail. Now, after having played I82? I must say that the
screenshots lend it a bit more justice than it deserves. First off,
there are sprites in the game. In case you don?t know what sprites
are, they are 2D bitmaps plastered onto a 3D world in hopes that a
player won?t ever actually reach them to see that they have no
volume to them. It saves processing power, and was widely used
in the mid- to early-90s games due to insufficient hardware at the
time. Now, however, sprites are becoming significantly rarer, if
only because processors can handle the extra load and it adds so
much to the graphics quality. I82 uses sprites rather freely, along
with tiled textures on walls, which is fairly standard practice, but
which look like bathroom tiles, which is not. There is one building,
that can be seen in one of the screenshots which had me
wondering for a good couple of minutes whether that was
intended to be someone?s very, very big bathroom at some point
during the development (as a sort of an inside joke). Or those
endless fences textured like some sort of a happy graveyard, with
all the vines et al; all in all, I am somewhat disappointed with a
large number of the textures used. The backdrops are usually
quite nice, though, and the mountainous scenery is pretty
appealing, if low-res. Water is very un-watery, though ? it?s just a
mirror. I suppose that?s a way of making the player go "Wow, nice
reflection" and leave? but that doesn?t really justify doing it.
Overall, things don?t look too bad, as long as you don?t get too
close to them.
In summary? Interstate ?82 is a lot less impressive and
groundbreaking as it was originally touted to be. Its astounding
resemblance to the lame Twisted Metal on PC and its horrible
physics, tiled textures and lacking environment variety make it
significantly less enjoyable than Interstate ?76 was. I?m not sure I
can really recommend it, perhaps only to those who actually
enjoyed Twisted Metal (for anything other than multiplayer ? I must
admit to having played that for about 8 hours straight one sad, sad
night). Activision, as the proverbial saying goes, dropped the ball
on this one ? and ended up with a very mediocre title which is
sure to disappoint the fans of the original.
12/20
10/15
20/30
15/20
4/5
6/10