Jak II reviews, who to believe.

[mass]

Man, I hate it when you get these polarized opinions. IGN and Gamespot actually agree for a change on Jak II with a 9.5 for IGN and a 9.1 for GS. OPM gave Jak II only a 3.5/5 and Gamespy slammed it with a 2/5, and apparently hated it worse than Blinx, and they hated Blinx.

Everyone seems to agree this a hard game, but some are smiling while others are frowning. Guess I'll have to rent and figure it out for myself.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

Game Informer gave Jak II a 9.25.

Even before the reviews came in, I already preordered the game, since I like Naughty Dog's work. I'm really interested in seeing how they have taken the platformer to a different level.


Also, GI gave Castlevania: Lament of Innocence an 8. If no one else has posted review scores for GI, I will in the General Discussions forum.

[slade]

Gamespy did to Jak 2 the same thing they did to Ratchet and Clank. Their reviewer (Benjamin Turner for both) basically focused on the character personalities with a few asides about gameplay. And the score was lowered because the apparent edginess of the characters wasn't suitable for youngun's.

Oh well, I'll be looking at Benjamin Turner's R&C2 review to see if he does the same thing with it.

[mass]

<div class=\"smallfont\">Gamespy did to Jak 2 the same thing they did to Ratchet and Clank. Their reviewer (Benjamin Turner for both) basically focused on the character personalities with a few asides about gameplay. And the score was lowered because the apparent edginess of the characters wasn't suitable for youngun's.

Oh well, I'll be looking at Benjamin Turner's R&amp;C2 review to see if he does the same thing with it.</div>

He also went on about how ugly he thought the game looked, and how they botched the "aesthetic design" of the game. One of the things I find about reviewers is once they find the gameplay not to their liking, they sharpen the knife and start carving up everything else. From what I've seen of gameplay vids of Jak II, the game does look very impressive.

Here's an excerpt of their Oddworld review commenting on the graphics. Now, I own Oddworld, like the game, but, if Jak II's aesthetic design is ugly, Oddworld's is even uglier and done deliberately.

"Yeah, the story and characters sound totally messed up, yet they're totally believable. Part of the reason is the game's outstanding graphics. In the outdoor areas, the trees, rocks, and water are immaculately detailed. The same goes for the indoor levels, which have a gritty, metallic, and sterile look. The numerous environments of the game have lifelike detail, enabling you to suspend your disbelief. "

I mean, you're supposed to be commenting on the quality of the graphics not whether it syncs with your expectations.

"Jak II takes the best graphics engine on the PS2 and makes it look ugly 70 percent of the time. This city's no looker, and you're correct in guessing that its frequently visited sewers aren't either. As the game progresses, you get to explore some more enjoyable environs, but the ratio is definitely tilted toward the ugly. The other major problem here is the character design, which is worse than before. Jak is the worst offender, and amusingly, the game almost seems to acknowledge this: The first unlockable cheat turns off his green Slurpee of a goatee. Chuckling, I gladly took it up on its offer. Outside of the questionable artistic direction, the engine is still technically impressive. Character animation (if not always the framerate) is liquid-smooth, and the game supports both widescreen and 480p progressive scan. It's a pity the overall look is so poorly conceived. "


I mean, is the graphics engine good or isn't it. Makes it look ugly? Sort of like saying, hey, Rachel Hunter is a babe, but that outfit she's wearing, forget about it, I'm kicking her out of bed.

[Glockstar]

I just got done reading the reviews myself.
Haven't got the new issue of GI yet though :mad: , and don't have access to the IGN review. But you're right, GameSpy and GameSpot gave it totally opposite reviews. In example: One says that it's beautiful (and he's right), while the other says it's ugly. Ugly?!? I don't think so! (What the hell game was he playing?!?)

Judging from what I've seen and played (which was only two levels from a playable demo), I'd have to say that the guy at G-Spy is not only way off the mark - but he's a complete jackass. I've thoroughly read thru both reviews, and I think the GameSpot reviewer covered the game quite well - though I don't know about the score. A 9.1 ? :confused: The G-Spot reader review scores look more indicative of the games true ranking, to me.

The G-Spy reviewer on the other hand...
I think Tappy is the one that said that he's had with them... well I think I'm about done with GameSpy as well. What a farce.

[Twelve]

Tough one. For me, the most important factor is the difficulty. Difficult games are very attractive to me. Also, if this game has more of a storyline than part one, I'll give it a shot. As far as the graphics are concerned, the whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing has to be remembered. If there are people who are saying the Jak 2 is the prettiest game on the PS2, then I'm quite sure that the graphics aren't BAD, even if there is exaggeration involved.

I thought this review was quite fair, though based on what he said, I believe he rated it to HIGH:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=53455


12

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

<div class=\"smallfont\"> :confused: The G-Spot reader review scores look more indicative of the games true ranking, to me.

</div>


I dunno. Most reader/user reviews always seem to pop up pretty quick after a game has been released. It's like they put in a hour or two and try to review the game after that, which is pretty unaccurate.


As far as Jak II, I have put in a little more than an hour into the game. The graphics look pretty good, so far. I will agree with some reviews that mention the city and how travelling from one place to another isn't really fun. It's mostly driving a vehicle from one place to another, trying not to hit too many people or else the guards will be alerted. That's about the only "bad" or "unfun" part I have found. Everything else seems pretty good, eventhough I don't have a gun yet. So far, I think the Gamespot and IGN's reviews are pretty accurate from my first impression.

[Glockstar]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>


I dunno. Most reader/user reviews always seem to pop up pretty quick after a game has been released. It's like they put in a hour or two and try to review the game after that, which is pretty unaccurate.

</div>

You are right about that.
That's why it's time for me to shut up about it, and open my ears.

Keep'em coming, RBH. :D

[Y2kMISFIT]

Hahahaha, this thread reminds me about a chat I had online with a friend of mine yesterday.

Y3kScarFace: Jak II got a 9.1
Y3kScarFace: I wonder how many cocks the head Sony guy had to suck at gamespot.com to get that score

[T.Tashi]

I've noticed that if a game is particularly difficult, it tends to get treated more harshly and that J2 is a hard game is pretty much universally acknowledged. I think some reviewers had issues with the difficulty, got mad at it for that, and decided to slam it for other reasons. No pro reviewer is gonna admit a game was too hard for them. They'll invent other issues... like... it's ugly. :rolleyes: If anyone has a grip on PS2 hardware, it's Naughty Dog.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

After putting a few more hours into Jak II, I think it's a good game. The only part (I still) don't like is the driving in the city.

After Jak II, I will never go back to the simple platformers such as Mario.