For those who came in late- catch up on all the juicy guns/no guns debate here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/486174-Beautiful-Choclate-Cake-Without-The-Choclate
I'm sure there were others as well, but that's all I could find at short notice. I think overall licensed cars have been a mistake too. Many have wanted it for a long time, but unlike most driving games, a strength of Driver was it's ability to attract non-motorheads to it's exciting-to-all movie chase gameplay. Everyone loves being in a good movie chase, and not everyone cares at all what car they're using.
It was a nice addition in D:SF, and the cars
do look gorgeous, but the compromise seems too high- limiting what kind of cars you can use, limiting the damage they can sustain, and limiting the kind of gameplay that can happen around them, i.e. explosions. A hidden strength of the older games was that since cars were approximations of multiple types of cars, people could just imagine they were driving whichever car they preferred to be driving. That's not possible with licensed cars.
I would much prefer the gameplay dictate the look of the cars, rather than the look of the cars dictating what gameplay we can have.
By the way, saying Driver needs licensed cars to be unique is just silly- racing games quite often have licensed cars,
so Driver doesn't really gain anything unique from that. Just Cause and Saints Row are already leaving GTA behind with their 'unique' brands of mayhem and action.
That could have been Driver if they had branched out while keeping the fantastic driver handling. Instead they're banking on Shift to make the game unique, which worked, but -again- at the cost of limiting the gameplay possibilities. To be fair, they really made the best use they could of shift in D:SF, but it won't float a second shift game.