Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 23
  2. Negative: 1 out of 23
  1. It's just that the game is thoroughly polished. You turn it on and everything feels right; the music, graphics, and even the menu system all complement each other perfectly. [Nov 2003, p.147]
  2. All XGRA is asking of you is to get in, hold on tight, and enjoy the ride. While it may not be the most incredible ride it is still an enjoyable one, especially for the price.
  3. The lack of depth may hurt overall sales but in my opinion it increases the fun ratio to equal that of a great, arcade racer.
  4. 80
    While the game doesn’t offer a lot in the ways of bonus features it does offer a nice amount of images to unlock – a small reward for playing through the game.
  5. 80
    Offers mesmerizing, high-speed racing and crazy bike-to-bike combat on zanier tracks. Play on extremely large TV screens may induce apparent-motion-related vomiting. Consider it yet another bonus feature.
  6. Sadly, the choppy and sluggish frame rate will eventually rear its ugly head enough to hinder the game play. On the plus side, the sound effects are awesome and the music selections are quite varied.
  7. With so many futuristic racers out there, it's hard to welcome one with open arms that doesn't go above and beyond the rest. XGRA is a really good, entertaining game, but it's a standard sequel.
  8. 75
    It's got an enhanced team mode and an actual storyline. It has an improved weapon system too. But... [t]he sensation of speed has weakened considerably by comparison to XG3 due in large to a more sluggish fluidity. Control isn't as tight. Even visuals have taken a hit.
  9. 75
    I came away really liking XGRA despite its flaws, though it's possible that the very touchy controls and high learning curve on many tracks may keep some players away. XGRA is the most satisfying heir to "Wipeout" the PS2 has seen in years.
  10. The speeds are insane, the courses almost incomprehensible and the immersion factor deep, provided you have patience and surgical analog skills. [Oct 2003, p.72]
  11. It fails to innovate as much as it promised. The courses are longer and there are more of them. The weapons are more advanced and so is the AI of the other racers, so winning will take strategy and skill.
  12. It's bigger and more ambitious than any of its predecessors, but XGRA is hindered by a few unfortunate technical and design issues.
  13. The sound is where the game really suffers. There are only two types of music you can listen to during the game. These include Rock and Techno. Both are horrible.
  14. XGRA isn't as impressive as "Extreme G 3" was when it first hit PS2 and Cube. The graphics look roughly the same, it plays similarly, and it has the same main drawback: not enough tracks. [Nov 2003, p.174]
  15. For a high-speed racer to work, the analog control needs to be spot on -- which, sadly, is not the case in XGRA. Instead of moving smoothly across the track, the craft careen wildly back and forth. [Dec 2003, p.72]
  16. The changes don't amount to much; it looks a lot like the last game and sounds worse. Ouch. [Nov 2003, p.78]
  17. Compromises too much of what worked well with "XG3" (graphics and bike maneuverability) for its fans to welcome with open arms the new additions to the series' formula (improved weapon system, wilder-than-ever track design, Season mode, etc.).
  18. Acclaim's latest manages to tick all the required futuristic race sim boxes, except the one titled 'memorable'. There's one really good thing about XGRA - it's all over very quickly. [Nov 2003, p.109]
  19. Were it not for the cretinous handling that leaves you bouncing all over the track, and dumb AI that usually lets you off the hook anyway, we might have really liked XGRA. As it stands, though, we blitzed through the game in a few hours, and frankly have no compulsion to go back to it.
  20. The playability is higher than the disappointing last installment of Wipeout, thanks to the sheer speed, though there’s nothing really new here. Using different rules for races in career mode adds an extra dimension to the gameplay, yet the whole experience suffers from murky environment syndrome.
  21. I'm sorry, but running around the same old loopy track designs in generic space bikes just isn't cutting it, and I really think developers need to either totally reinvent this genre or abandon it. [Nov. 2003, p.153]
  22. The game mostly moves at a breakneck pace that's too fast to control skillfully, but there are some instances of severe slowdown.
  23. At first glance, with it's twisting, gravity-defying tracks and fluorescent visuals, XGRA might remind you of the recent "F-Zero GX." Upon further inspection it's actually slower, sometimes much slower, less colorful and a lot less interesting.
User Score
8.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 8 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 6
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 6
  3. Negative: 1 out of 6
  1. SteveW.
    Sep 13, 2004
    9
    Awesome Game Beats The 3rd In The Series Into The Ground Maybe Not As Visually Impressive With The Worlds But It Feels Alot Better To Play You Can Just Naturally Play This And Have Fun Where On The 3rd You Found Yourselfe Almost Wantin To Complete It And Play Another Game. Full Review »
  2. VV
    Apr 15, 2004
    8
    Amazing graphics, great track design, great gameplay, great sense of speed, good music (the dance ones), lacks in depth and in options but all in all a great and FUN game, single player and multiplayer wise. Full Review »
  3. Uter
    Oct 9, 2003
    4
    This is a step backwards from the mediocre Extreme G Racing III. The courses aren't as good, and graphics somehow look worse. The gameplay is about the same. There are at least 10 racers on the ps2 better than this. Another thing this game shares with the 3rd version is a overly long and stupid title. Full Review »