Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 16
  2. Negative: 1 out of 16
  1. You want Bikes, ATVs, Muscle Cars, SUVs, Buggies, Trucks…they’re all in here, along with every conceivable type of race set across thousands of miles of populated ultra-realistic topography, complete with dynamic weather. And it all looks and plays spectacularly. Unless you’re looking for an authentic hard core sim, there’s no reason you shouldn’t leave right now, and even if you are, a little FUEL might just change your mind.
  2. FUEL is bold, imaginative, and fun, a refreshingly straightforward slice of arcade racing ecstasy that's a much-needed antidote to the hardcore simulations that are usually offered.
  3. Even if some of the fundamental stuff has been sacrificed to the creation of this huge world, Fuel still makes it across the finish line on a far-from-empty tank. [July 2009, p.97]
  4. The huge world of FUEL is fascinating, but not much more than just a backdrop. There should be better reasons to drive around for 30 minutes than just unlocking a new paint job for your car.
  5. Impressive as the scale and visuals are as a technical achievement, the game itself is little more than a hollow shell. [Aug 2009, p.90]
  6. Fuel's races can sometimes frustrate, but making your own fun in a truly massive world is rarely a chore. [Sept 2009, p.76]
  7. Those who have followed the development of Fuel will be disappointed with the final result, while those who know nothing about its scope will find an enjoyable but at the same time unremarkable game.
  8. FUEL is a huge project but never quite fulfills its potential. The game lacks polish and style, and the overwhelmingly enormous world is too lifeless to keep you entertained. Thus, FUEL never manages to impress, making it nothing more than an average off road-racer inferior to competitors like Pure and Motorstorm.
  9. It's professor Rubbish AI and his evil sidekick Shite Physics. [Sept 2009, p.60]
  10. 14000 square kilometers are not enough to make a good game. Fuel tries to overlap its competitors by taking a sand box approach to the genre, but it fails by offering races that are neither challenging nor thrilling set in enormous and boring open spaces.
  11. Simple concept, simple name, simple game. Here you have your driving wheel and nearly endless (and rather empty) racing sandbox with suspiciously behaving opponents. [Aug 2009]
  12. This expansive arcade racer may be ambitious, but it doesn't nail all of the basics.
  13. Ten thousand square kilometers of crushing solitude. You drive on a track poorly lit by a full moon, and you desperately long for something interesting to happen. But no, there are no surprises at all.
  14. 51
    After putting in numerous hours with Fuel, I've struggled to find anything that I especially like about it. The racing has issues, but in and of itself (outside of not being able to select a ride you might want), it works well enough. Not great, but well enough.
  15. We had high hopes for FUEL, which promised to offer an expansive game world teaming with insane weather and even crazier racing. Ultimately, however, Asobo Studio has served up a barren wasteland filled with nothing to do, bland race events, and weather effects that are far less dynamic than Codemasters might have you believe.
  16. FUEL is a big world of promise, but sadly it can't deliver most of them. [Issue#23, p.54]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 71 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 28
  2. Negative: 9 out of 28
  1. RC
    May 1, 2010
    The game seems to have been sold on the strength of its huge world. The world and the graphics are impressive (lots to explore and nice lighting effects), but the game is dull. It feels like a demo for a forthcoming game, where they have finished the landscape and want to show it off, but haven't really thought about what you might do in it. Also, the objects to be found in the landscape are very repetitive - the same few farmhouses keep turning up again and again. Codemasters need to realize that it's not size that's important, it's what you do with it. Full Review »
  2. Nov 25, 2011
    Kudos to Codemasters for making a game map that is 5,560 square miles filled with many western natural exhibits, but with size comes lack of attention to detail. It's quite obvious that only the race tracks were tended to with love and care, but the other 99.5% of the map seems randomly generated with some minor fine tunings. Collisions are terrible, I will crash into a tree even though I'm 5 feet away from it. The redeeming factor is the graphics, they are rather beautiful, but in many areas if you've seen it once, you've seen it all (particularly the rolling plains). Now that the price has gone down, I recommend this as a "free ride" game, but don't expect it to hold your attention for more than an hour or 2 per sitting. Full Review »
  3. Apr 26, 2011
    You've heard others say it... I'll be saying the same. The game is just like an open world... that's it. I just felt so... lonely. Plus the world wasn't really that exciting to explore because it was all the same almost everywhere. I got it on Steam for 5 dollars... now I wish I could trade it for GRID. That was a much better game. It was all on confined race tracks, but each track looked different enough so that it wasn't getting barring. When a game talks about how large it's play area is and all the screen shots look nearly the same, there's something wrong. Full Review »