chronovore (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chronovore) wrote2008-01-09 07:22 pm
chronovore) wrote2008-01-09 07:22 pm
number two, indeed
Manhunt 2 is as irrelevant and boring to an inverse degree that the rest of the world was upset about it. Talk about a flubbed sequel; nothing is advanced from the original; it feels less harrowing and suspenseful, and the story is like a comic book, compared to the cult-film/exploitation style of the original.
I think I'm about to finish it, so I may update this with a changed opinion dependent on the ending. But right now it's a struggle to work up the energy to play it through; it's turned into a stupid run-and-gun with very little difficulty. GAH. Lame.
I think I'm about to finish it, so I may update this with a changed opinion dependent on the ending. But right now it's a struggle to work up the energy to play it through; it's turned into a stupid run-and-gun with very little difficulty. GAH. Lame.
no subject
But, no. No such luck. The boss level was really, really underwhelming. After a point, it became a pretty mechanical walk-and-gun, let alone a run and gun.
There are aspects of the game that I do enjoy. I like the environmental kills and the ability to move in one's environs a bit more freely.
Huh. There is aspect of the game that I do enjoy, apparently.
Yeah. I miss the snuff film thing. I miss the fact that, in Manhunt 1 you actually did end up playing to the crowd to a degree. If the environmentals and the free movement were in 1, it'd probably be the ideal game.
Of course, it could just be a setup for Manhunt 3 MMORPG: Murderworld.
no subject
I'd intended to finish it last night, but ended up tossing "Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie and Branded Tie-In with an Unnecessarily Long Title." I had really high hopes for that game because it is by Michel Ancel's team (they did "Beyond Good and Evil") but it's turning out to be stunningly linear. So right now I'm two for three in "bad game" territory, with the possible exception being Halo 3 which so far seems engaging if not original.
no subject
ZOMG, that would have been MADE OF AWESOME in a completely wretched, terrifying, maybe-games-are-actually-art way, and possibly make it worth the repetitive gameplay and worn-thin soundbites the Hunters mouth.
As it is, I got hung up for 10 minutes because of a bad UI decision, have spent one-too-many times running around a cleared area for five or more minutes trying to figure out where the exit is, even though I'm being "relentlessly pursued" by blue pings on my radar which apparently can't figure out how to get "in" to where I'm trying to get "out" of...
In fact, I've just had a scene where the designers badly want me to crowbar a lock off a trapdoor, to the point where they make the Hunters really really tough, and even after you cap them they drop EMPTY uzis, unlike anywhere else in the game. So instead of saying The Player can use a gun to shoot the lock off, or a crowbar, some little shithead decided I had to do it his way.
I think I'm done with this piece of crap.
SPOILER ALERT ZOMG!
Doctor White puts you through a psychodrama thing in which you have to fight through catacombs in which Watchdogs are hunting you to get to a cemetery and recover your wife's dead body and rebury her. The first part of the process, getting to the body, is a Piggsy homage, although it's much easier as the surroundings are much more open: you're still sneaking around, Leo's trying to kill you, you have to find syringes and take him out temporarily.
The second part, on the other hand, gets sort of old fast. It's sort of sad, as the image (dragging your wife's body back to her grave) is pretty powerful. The game-play, though, is pretty easy... you've got an M-16 at that point and you just carry your wife, drop her on occasion to kill a Leo, pick her up and keep walking. Once you bury her, Leo's vanquished and you find yourself on the side of the road with a new identity. The game ends with Danny walking down the road as the lonely piano of the Incredible Hulk plays in the distance.
Maybe not. Close, though.
Definitely would've preferred a no-conspiracy thing.
I really enjoyed the bounty hunter/TV set stuff, just because it got to the crazy horror that I wanted to see in the game. Alas, it didn't stick.
Re: SPOILER ALERT ZOMG!
The Manhunt 2 Guide's last pages said something like "Once you've defeated Danny, who is unreal" and I thought "Huh. I was almost positive that Leo was going to turn out to be the figment of Danny's imagination." But I knew, just knew it was going to be some bullshit Tyler Durden moment waiting at the end.
The only surprising things about what you wrote are:
(1) Gamespot's FAQ named the wrong figment; as suspected, it was Leo who is unreal, right?
(2) The game is actually keeping track of maximized (red cursor) kills versus minimum (yellow, grey) kills. Really? Is there a note of that at the end?
There is NOTHING in the summary at the end of each level that indicates this; what's crazy (pardon the pun) is that the code was already in place for this for Manhunt 1, and they're using the same engine. How hard is it to re-use this crap?! Do they expect you to re-play the game for maxed out kills to get the better ending? What crap.
But most upsetting is how handily you came up with a more unsettling ending than what the creators did. There was NOTHING, not a damned thing that was genuinely disturbing. Rather than being actually squirm-inducing, the game plays like the developer was just trying to make something that would piss off their moms.
In Manhunt 1, didn't you actually kill your own mom?
...
Actually, I've just read a little more of the guide, and now it turns out you have to kill both Danny and Leo. Huh? Who is your character actually? I still don't care enough to sit through more of the game, so would you mind summarizing?
Re: SPOILER ALERT ZOMG!
If you did lots of red kills, you have to hunt down Danny. If you didn't, you're hunting Leo.
The mechanism's in place to count the kills; it wasn't advertised in an effort to reduce controversy, apparently.
Eh.
Re: SPOILER ALERT ZOMG!
I gave the guy back his Manhunt 2 yesterday, and am headed back to Liberty City where life is simple and fun.
Re: SPOILER ALERT ZOMG!
no subject
And this is why I should write storylines for video games.
I sort of figured that would be the answer because of the ease of the game. Where Manhunt 1 was a bitch and a half to finish, M2 seemed like it wanted you to push forward fast. The half-assed ending was a bit of a disappointment.
no subject
I agree, and feel the game industry would be a better place for your presence and contribution. Even so, I feel a need to add that it's unlikely your storyline twist would have been accepted by any publisher I've worked at. Some fucking weasel in marketing or sales would talk about how hard it would be to move a game where it turns out you've killed "civilians" and the possible lawsuits it would entail, let alone the "negative publicity" (is there such a thing?) -- and a mandate would come down to change it. At that point, you can stand and fight, quit the team, blah-blah-blah, but in the end it would result in the changes the boss/client/publisher wants.
On the other hand, Rockstar, controversial pains-in-the-ass that they are to the rest of the reasonably-well-behaved development world, might have actually used that twist you proposed, because they don't really seem to believe in negative publicity, and might just add the lawsuit to the stack. And after all, you were talking about a Rockstar game.