Metascore
61

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 18
  2. Negative: 2 out of 18
  1. 71
    Racing with four pals manages to spark nostalgia perfectly. [Issue 142, p.103]
  2. 70
    Micro Machines V4 is a surprisingly deep little racer that, while not without its problems, offers quite a decent trip down a virtual racetrack.
  3. 70
    The cars are simplistic, out-detailed even by their real life plastic counterparts. The tracks are colorful and filled with interactive objects, but this won't be mistaken for next-generation gaming.
  4. When alone, there are plenty of races and time trial competitions to play but having to replay challenges over and over in order to progress is frustrating.
  5. It is best played in short doses because of its inability to hold the average player’s attention for no longer then 30 or 40 minutes at a stretch.
  6. It comes across like fireworks, in that it's a lot of intense fun for a short period of time but when it's over, it's over. Don't expect much replay value unless you're one of those compulsive types that has to "collect-‘em-all.
  7. The AI is the type that has five aces in a poker hand - that is to say, cheap. [Oct 2006, p.86]
  8. 60
    The cars handle alright, but on a tight turn at high speeds, they drift like crazy. As a result, you'll sometimes find yourself falling right off the track, or going into a distant second when all you want to do is keep up.
  9. Perfectly playable, but gameplay and economic niggles make it far from essential.
  10. While the single-player game can be a total bitch, the multiplayer takes that frustration and turns it into actual excitement.
  11. Wi-Fi multi-player is fun, but play on your own and you'll soon slip into a slumber. [Aug 2006, p.82]
  12. The novelty of racing teeny, tiny cars is more than a little bit stale, and so is Micro Machines v4.
  13. Hollow in comparison to the mighty, beautifully designed "Mashed" and the superior PS2 version of this game. An opportunity badly missed. [Aug 2006, p.97]

There are no user reviews yet.