daninthemix it's great to see that there others that lament such qualities in games, and your analysis is very accurate. However I think that were it not for those qualities (many of which might be easily adjusted) Flatout would be a pretty great and surprisingly orginal game. It has a lot of great ideas, it's just a shame they were implemented with varying degrees of success and fairness.
chrismjuk, just to clarify, I'm not online, and I've got an (otherwise) perfect 800 in Flatout. I don't want easy points. I don't care if it's easy or difficult, as long as it's (mostly) enjoyable and skill-based. Flatout usually felt like neither, and as such, though it is something that not many gamers are likely to achieve, it isn't something I'm paticularly proud of. It's just that I would've felt even LESS satisfied if I didn't manage to do it.
I suppose though chrismjuk we just fundamentally disagree on this matter, though I will never even understand your side of the argument; where you consider restarting many times due to luck acceptable. There's a lot of games I want to play, and to me that's a waste of gaming time, and I'm becoming less tolerant of such things, and hence less inclined to bother playing such games through to the end.
Who knows, perhaps it's just that I resent such things because I seem to get a lot of bad luck, and others accept them because they get a lot of good luck? But surely such a contest doesn't prove anything about ability?