Why all the hate for Cruis'n USA N64!?

[Kevincal]

I have always enjoyed this game even though it was consistently reviewed as garbage (less than 50%...pfft)...Sure, it's not arcade perfect, but it's still a lot of mindless fun imo. :)

[DigitalSpace]

No hate here. It's definitely been bettered by World and Exotica, but if you like racers it was one of the best in the oversaturated arcade racer selection on the N64. I remember staying up late one Saturday night when I was in high school trying to get all the way through the game. Good times.

[Emuaust]

well probably because there where better arcade racers on other consoles at the time, seems pretty clear cut to me.

[badinsults]

I enjoyed it. There are worse racers out there.

[AMG]

I've always liked the game.

[Mark30001]

I preferred the San Francisco Rush series (mostly Rush 2 for N64 & Rush 2049 for the Sega Dreamcast) than Cruis'n USA.

[madman77]

I thought Cruisn USA was one of the worst home racers of its time. The graphics were horrible, the fog and pop up made the experience unbearable. Tons of better racers on the PSX and Saturn.

[fishsandwich]

I thinks it's pretty crappy. The music drives me crazy and they took out the roadkill. There are so many better racers on the N64, including the sequels. Did they add anything special for the home release? I remember finishing the entire game is less than one hour.

I suppose it got so much negative press because it was the first N64 racer, one from a "Dream Team" developer that were supposed to deliver only A+ titles and it wasn't as good as several Saturn and PSone racers already available at the time.

[bangtango]

well probably because there where better arcade racers on other consoles at the time, seems pretty clear cut to me.

What he said.

By the time it came out on N64, other racing games on competing systems had raised the bar.

It doesn't mean Cruisn' USA is a bad game, in fact I like it. It just means it was deemed "outdated", compared to the competition, by the time it came home on N64. More or less.

[Greg2600]

SF Rush, particularly, Rush 2, much better. I liked Crusin USA, but I agree there was something wrong with the graphics. My eyesight is fine, but then and now, I simply have a hard time seeing what is going on, on the screen. Very odd, something I have no problem with on any other game. In fact, Cruisin World (never got Exotica) is fine. I think they just plain botched the graphical portion of the game, when transferred to cartridge. That is very odd, given the arcade game was based directly off the N64 hardware.

[Push Upstairs]

I think it simply looks like ass on the N64.

But I really liked the arcade game, especially when you got to play in the full "car" machine.

But I did find "World" and to some extent "Exotica" to be better.

[Kevincal]

I understand the criticisms of the game. However, after a quick search online, you'll see many scores of 50% and below which I think is absurd, especially considering the game controlls like a dream...

[jajaja]

I didnt know this game was hated. The reviews, are they made when the game was new or in later time?

[fishsandwich]

I think they just plain botched the graphical portion of the game, when transferred to cartridge. That is very odd, given the arcade game was based directly off the N64 hardware.

The arcade game was not running on N64 hardware. It was supposed to (and rumored to) run off actual N64 hardware but it really ran off a Midway V Unit arcade chipset. Main CPU : TMS32031 @ 50 MHz, Sound CPU : ADSP 2105 @ 10 MHz.

I've seen it written that the N64 framerate was actually a bit higher than the arcade original.

[Kevincal]

I didnt know this game was hated. The reviews, are they made when the game was new or in later time?

They were written when the game was new. I guess the fact that the game was delayed a couple times coupled with the fact that the graphics weren't arcade perfect really clouded the minds of most reviewers and they couldn't look past this and actually realize it was a decent game! Sorry for the run-on sentence! :P

[GrayFox]

I paid full price for it on day one.

That game isn't worth $70, that's why it deserved the reviews it received.

[kedawa]

I've never played the arcade game, but I had the N64 game at one point. I think a friend gave it to me or something. I definitely didn't pay $70 for it.
I always thought the game was laughable, but still somehow fun to play, sort of like Pit Fighter for Genesis.
It's so cheesy that I couldn't help but love it.

[vintagegamecrazy]

I remember seeing the arcade and being blown away in 1994. Several years later I tried the N64 version and it was just plain aweful, the music sounded like it was from the SNES and the graphics were aweful, every stage looked like the last and there was hardly any detail at all. I was bored quickly and yes there were way too many better racers out at the time released even earlier than that game.

[Tron 2.0]

Played it in the arcade pretty much mindless fun.

Can't say i gave the, N64 one a good run didn't own one then.

[cyberfluxor]

I understand where people are comming from not liking Cruis'n' USA due to the lack of certain features and visual effects. Personally though I have no problem with the game and love the racing. It's just fun and the tracks are interesting with all the turns, bumps and secrets. It was a good alternative to all the fighting racers that were out on the system and for some reason a lot of the PS1 games I play the handling isn't as enjoyable, same goes with Dreamcast games, just don't know why.

[theshizzle3000]

I thinks it's pretty crappy. The music drives me crazy and they took out the roadkill. There are so many better racers on the N64, including the sequels. Did they add anything special for the home release? I remember finishing the entire game is less than one hour.

I suppose it got so much negative press because it was the first N64 racer, one from a "Dream Team" developer that were supposed to deliver only A+ titles and it wasn't as good as several Saturn and PSone racers already available at the time.

Hated the music. I loved that little "cruisin' the world" song I used to sing it when I was a kid.

[CreamSoda]

Sorry in advance for the negative post...

But it was the 3rd N64 game I got in '97, following after the legendary Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64. Needless to say, paying full price for the game at release I was VERY dissapointed.

Weak graphics, annoying music, and a $60 price tag for a 2 hour game?!!?

Count me out. :p

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

The reason it was reviewed harshly is because at the time a slightly more realistic racing game was desired and expected. Games like Daytona, Ridge Racer, Sega Rally, Need For Speed, etc. While these were all still "arcade racers," they were way more realistic and sim-like than games like Cruis'n USA, which is just outright over-the-top nonsense. Then a short time later Gran Turismo came out and killed any interest most gamers had in a racer like Cruis'n USA.

I think the Cruis'n games are incredibly fun and their graphics and music fit their nature perfectly. The Rush games are fun as well, but the Cruis'n games take things even further in my opinion and sometimes that's exactly what I want in a racer. I think Cruis'n USA and Cruis'n World are really top notch games. Cruis'n Exotica is not as good, in my opinion. It lacked a lot of the direct nature and outright fun that the first two games had.


...word is bondage...

[SegaAges]

This completely reminds me of california speed. I love the Cruis'n games, and I love california speed, but not being able to run pedestrians over in california speed took away a small amount of the fun.

I don't know what everybody else was talking about. It is Midway. I couldn't name you one realistic game that Midway has made. I always knew and loved them for being over the top. That is also why I loved their racers, and I love the way the cars control in cruis'n usa

[chrisbid]

in the dictionary under the word 'average', should be pictured a copy of Cruis'n USA for the N64

[Kevincal]

I agree it's not worth paying $60... That's why back in 1996 I rented a copy from Blockbuster or Hollywood video a couple of times which cost me no more than $10. Then I finally bought a boxed copy about a year or so ago for $5-10. I guess that's why I'm not bitter about the game being average! (Above average imo... ;))

[Aussie2B]

You can count me as another person that paid the full MSRP for Cruis'n USA. I got it very close to the release, possibly on launch day.

I had played the arcade game on a few occasions at the local bowling alley, and I had great fun with it there. When I got the N64 version, I was too clueless to notice the differences between the arcade game, and I played the heck out of it back then. It was only the third N64 game I had, after Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 (ironically, it was Pilotwings that I couldn't get into and still can't to this day, despite that a lot of people love it; I'd honestly rather play Cruis'n USA). I had virtually nothing to compare it to since I didn't have a PlayStation or a Saturn, and at that point I had very little experience with racers. I think the only other racer I owned at that time was Super Mario Kart.

So yeah, all the odds were in Cruis'n USA's favor back then as far as pleasing me went. I think I played with every car on every difficulty and unlocked everything. I guess I got my money's worth, but it does kind of sting that I spent so much money on it back then and it's practically worthless now. :P

Now that I'm older and wiser, yeah, I'd say it's a fairly poor game, but it's still playable. I'd say scores of 40-50% are fairly deserving and would be what I'd probably give it if I reviewed it. Of course, this is assuming we're talking about a reviewing scale that uses the full range correctly, not the ridiculous practice of applying grade school judgments of "competency" to rating a product. You don't need to use 3/4 of the scale to describe different levels of how poor a game is, while games that range from mediocre to near perfection have to be squeezed between 70-100%. But that's a different tirade. My point is: if these reviewers viewed 70% as a mediocre game, then I agree wholeheartedly that Cruis'n USA doesn't deserve less than 50%. It's a slightly below average game at worst.

I think kedawa really hit the nail on the head, though, since I'd say the game is more laughable than bad. The extreme pop-up, the goofy graphics, the ridiculous music, and the overall cheesy presentation is what bring it both down AND up at the same time. If there was a MST3K for games, Cruis'n USA would be on it.

[Kevincal]

For some reason, I actually prefer the "grade school" method of scoring a game. I guess that's just what I'm used to from my school days. So, when I see a game like this one get a score of say...50% To me, that looks like a failure and not an average score. It seems to me in most cases, online atleast, the reviewer isn't clear about their method of scoring a game.

[.Goomba24]

I bought the game at a garage sale in '00 (I remember this for some wierd reason). I enjoyed it, but I could easily beat it in less than 30 minutes. The graphics were very buggy for it's time (hence, San Fransisco), and the music was a mix of folk-reggae-techno that hade me wince. Gameplay wasn't too bad, but if you were used to the arcade version and it's sister titles (World & Exotica) then you had somthing to complain about. Noth the greatest of its time, but it was by no means "horrible".

[Nesmaster]

YEAHAH, WHOA WHOAH, WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOAWOH


... I liked this game back in the day on my N64 :P

I have and always will prefer the Rush series over Crusin'.

[bangtango]

Things to consider:

Just compare Cruis'n USA to the Atari 7800 version of Pole Position II. That game gets horrible reviews, despite the fact it was a "good" version of that particular game. Someone may need to confirm release dates here but I am pretty sure that a much better game like Outrun had already been released by the time Pole Position II came out on the 7800.

Competition from other games has something to do with reviews. Case in point, all of the sports games released during the 16-bit era that may have played all right and looked nice but didn't have real players or real teams (missing any and all licenses). They weren't going to compete with games by Sega and EA who actually went out and licensed the teams and real players.

I'll also never forget the minor controversy EGM started in the early 1990's when one of their reviewers ripped World Heroes on Super NES. Whoever the writer was, he accused Sunsoft (who merely ported the game) of "trying to capitalize on the success of Street Fighter 2." Next issue, one or two angry readers had written in and they even printed a letter from somebody at Sunsoft. EGM's point was that World Heroes came out on Super NES after Street Fighter 2 had already raised the bar on the system, and for that reason the game had to take its lumps in the form of poor reviews from all the writers.

[Kevincal]

That is true. However, I believe it's unfair to give a low review score for a game on one system because another system has a better game in the same genre. Ya sure, Wave Race 64 was totally awesome and obviously better than Cruis'n, but Cruis'n was such a different game from Wave Race even though they are both racing games. Plus, since most professional game reveiwers have access to all systems and games, it's easy for them to become jaded, thus making it harder for them to appreciate any game that isn't brilliant (i.e. Wave Race 64.) :D

[Push Upstairs]

I'll also never forget the minor controversy EGM started in the early 1990's when one of their reviewers ripped World Heroes on Super NES. Whoever the writer was, he accused Sunsoft (who merely ported the game) of "trying to capitalize on the success of Street Fighter 2." Next issue, one or two angry readers had written in and they even printed a letter from somebody at Sunsoft. EGM's point was that World Heroes came out on Super NES after Street Fighter 2 had already raised the bar on the system, and for that reason the game had to take its lumps in the form of poor reviews from all the writers.

The problem with EGM's reviews was that any game they could compare to SF2 they did which included games similar to SOR & Final Fight.

I have to agree that their review of "World Heroes" should have focused more on how good of a home port it was instead of explaining why it wasn't SF2. But then post-SF2 reviews in EGM are mostly a joke anyway...hardly any better than the most amateur game review websites that exist today.

[bangtango]

The problem with EGM's reviews was that any game they could compare to SF2 they did which included games similar to SOR & Final Fight.

I have to agree that their review of "World Heroes" should have focused more on how good of a home port it was instead of explaining why it wasn't SF2. But then post-SF2 reviews in EGM are mostly a joke anyway...hardly any better than the most amateur game review websites that exist today.

I thought it was stupid of EGM to blame Sunsoft for supposedly ripping off SFII. I don't know if Sunsoft initially expressed interest in the rights to port the game or if someone came to them first but they were just doing their job. After all, people like me loved reading about the Neo Geo games in the early 90's and seeing the screen shots in magazines. I was able to play them in the arcade but couldn't afford the system back then so it was kind of cool that someone would be bringing those games to a 16-bit system. I'm sure I wasn't the only one so there was a demand for it among fighting game fans and arcade gamers.

I remember Ed Semrad responding to the guy who wrote in from Sunsoft to defend the port of World Heroes. Semrad tried to make him look like a fool and picked apart his letter, implying that World Heroes wouldn't sell worth a damn on Super NES. What a dick. Every blog I read about his tenure at EGM claims it was somebody else who played the games instead of Ed and used Semrad's name to write a review.


Kevincal: Sorry to derail the thread.........Hey, I used to rent Cruis'n USA and Cruis'n World back when the N64 first came out. I don't own either game but will gladly pick up USA (or World) if I find it used somewhere for a decent price.

Reviewers tend to have that attitude you talk about. I mean Space Harrier on the Sega 32X is basically an arcade perfect translation. Every review I've ever read for it rips on the game for being dated and says Sega should have done another sequel or remade it from the ground up.

[Kevincal]

Derailing threads doesn't bother me. ;)

[Push Upstairs]

I remember Ed Semrad responding to the guy who wrote in from Sunsoft to defend the port of World Heroes. Semrad tried to make him look like a fool and picked apart his letter, implying that World Heroes wouldn't sell worth a damn on Super NES. What a dick. Every blog I read about his tenure at EGM claims it was somebody else who played the games instead of Ed and used Semrad's name to write a review.

Well, I think the reply in the magazine made it that much more obvious that the magazine (and reviewers) were either in the deepest recesses of fanboyism or they were getting something from Capcom (or both).

I can say that the reply makes "Ed" seem even worse than when they published that idiotic review. I'm far from a fan of fighting games, and I've played probably 10 minutes of "World Heroes" (if that) in my entire life, but I knew their review was biased and out of line.



Reviewers tend to have that attitude you talk about. I mean Space Harrier on the Sega 32X is basically an arcade perfect translation. Every review I've ever read for it rips on the game for being dated and says Sega should have done another sequel or remade it from the ground up.

I had the Saturn and 32x version of this game (briefly) and I compared the two and I honestly couldn't see that much difference between them.

"Space Harrier" was a great home port despite what those reviews blab on about. I never read a single review for "Cruis'n USA" and I was immediately let down (and this was before I was disgusted with the N64).

[vahn401]

god, this game was one of the biggest reasons why I loved the N64. My dad used to work a third shift and borrow n64 games from a guy he worked with for me to borrow. One morning I woke up and this friend let me borrow cruis n' usa and the N64 steering wheel. I skipped school that day. One of the many fond gaming memories.

[Technosis]

I had played the arcade game on a few occasions at the local bowling alley, and I had great fun with it there. When I got the N64 version, I was too clueless to notice the differences between the arcade game, and I played the heck out of it back then.

You illustrate the very common premise of a game being considered bad or crappy based on comparison to another platform. I guess the bottom line is whether or not the game is fun for you.

This reminds me of comment a friend made while playing a very lackluster Guantlet port on the C64. He said "It would be a good game if you hadn't played the arcade one".

[j_factor]

I never liked Cruis'n USA, and that is completely independent of it having been ported to N64. I remember playing it in arcades, and thinking the handling was annoying, everything felt "floaty", and the graphics were ugly. And the soundtrack sucked, especially compared to Daytona.

In any case, I never bothered to try the N64 port because I didn't like the original. I guess that makes my stance on this game pretty unusual, but I don't think the hate is all for Cruis'n USA N64 so much as it is for Cruis'n USA period.

I'd like to footnote that I have absolutely no qualm with "unrealisticness" in racers, and in fact I've never enjoyed games like Gran Turismo. But Cruis'n USA just doesn't play well, IMO.

[man_traic]

nice for a quick cruise (oo-er missus) but not worth buying

ive got it on emulator and i liked it for a few hours but i can see why youd be annoyed at £50-£60 at the time :(

[klausien]

Cruisin' USA on the N64 gets a bad rap because it deserves it. The hype that surrounded the game is the main culprit. It simply didn't deliver on its promise. The game played well enough, but the graphics were far worse than the arcade game that was supposed to be on the same hardware.

The PSX port of Ridge Racer also set a standard that required a near "arcade perfect" port of Cruisin' to satisfy anyone. The draw distance in the N64 Cruisin' is so poor that it is near unplayable in a serious manner. The game looks like crap. It is a poor port of a so-so game.

The arcade version of Crusin' USA is a decent 3D OutRun update, lacking the class of it's forebear. The N64 version is severely neutered, and fails to deliver even the promise of the arcade version, resolution limitations aside.

It was simply a missed opportunity. The arcade original was quite fun. The N64 version; not so much.

[Kevincal]

The pop-up is only REALLY noticeable when using the camera furthest away from the car in the N64 version of Cruis'n USA. Using the ground cam (my favorite) yields a little pop-up but it's not bad at all. I can see cars coming a mile away (figuratively)... ;) Methinks you just hate the game period no matter how good it looks anyway :D, and that's fine. :)