This game is pure garbage in mechanics

[blugre]

I died so much for the dumbest stuff, like when I press the jump button to double jump it would not register. or I would die for other mechanical stuff. But the worst was repeating the entire level again if you messed up once. I will never play the jak series again.Big ups to the people who platinum this game, I know your pain.

[A little fluffy cat]

Big ups to the people who platinum this game, I know your pain.

You platted it so you earn a big

[Dr_Mayus]

Yup 2 and 3 were garbage. There was no reason that Insomniac could make a game where you could aim your gun and Naughty Dog couldn't follow suit.

[totallycrushed]

Blaster jump spin and just spamming fists in combat is a great way to get through the most of it.

 

Edit: Also using speedrun strats and orb glitch makes the plat fairly easy.

Edited September 4, 2016 by totallycrushed

[blugre]

Blaster jump spin and just spamming fists in combat is a great way to get through the most of it.

 

Edit: Also using speedrun strats and orb glitch makes the plat fairly easy.

I did plat it, but it was terrible, i was totally ill playing it, it would had been more fun if the mechanics were fixed.

[Caesar Clown]

The double-jump thing was a big problem, but that was about it. There was no problems with Jak 3 except the annoying driving levels (the enemies that smash into you and slow you down or how often you flip over, or both).

 

I guess aiming the guns was a problem as well, but at least in the 3rd, you just use the bouncing shot and don't have to worry about aiming at all. It's kind of funny because that shot was way more precise than any other gun.

[totallycrushed]

I did plat it, but it was terrible, i was totally ill playing it, it would had been more fun if the mechanics were fixed.

I get you =D That's why I used SR strats. Too hard for me. Never even finished it on PS2.

[mekktor]

Yep, Jak II is by far the worst game I've ever played, which was a real disappointment considering how good the original was.

[Saionji]

Maybe mechanics were a bit frustrating but I think it was definitely one of the best games ps2 had to offer. Along with JAK 3 and JAK X they were my favourite JAK games. First JAK and Lost Frontier werent so good imo but I saw many people say first JAK was the best.

[skateak]

I had no clue this game was so hated. I haven't played it yet but I bought the collection a while ago and I plan on playing it a month or so. I will have to keep this in mind so I won't be disappointed. 

[J2V89]

I know many didn't like this game a lot but even with the game mechanics, it's still a great game. 

[Jak]

I died so much for the dumbest stuff, like when I press the jump button to double jump it would not register. or I would die for other mechanical stuff. But the worst was repeating the entire level again if you messed up once. I will never play the jak series again.Big ups to the people who platinum this game, I know your pain.

Exaggeration. The mechanics are far from "garbage".

The double jumping is an issue for you? Let me make it known the double jumping is fine. What to know, however, is that there is a timing window for how long you have before losing your second jump, and when you can double jump after the first jump. Starting with the false unresponsive comment(s), its simply not, you just cant second jump a frame or max-immediately after the first jump, there's a small restriction delay designed there. Theres also another restriction, a realistic, from what it seems, threshold that when you're gaining more weight from the fall of the first jump, you lose your double jump- you literally lose it. If you try to do it anyway, he wont jump.. period. So the second jump is actually not "unresponsive", that's just a completely false technical term to use; you're simply just pressing the jump button too fast after the first input (or questionably too late when platforming), expecting an imaginative outcome.

 

(Don't assume, expect, or play the game as if it was other platformers where you can double jump a frame or so right after the first jump and where can actually preserve and use your second jump at any given time after the first jump - which both apply to Legend of Kay as one example - even if you're falling down a level with no pits at great speed, which is obviously weird. Jak has it so that if you gain a set fall speed, you lose your second jump. The other half I went over.)

 

Yup 2 and 3 were garbage. There was no reason that Insomniac could make a game where you could aim your gun and Naughty Dog couldn't follow suit.

Lets not forget the first Ratchet and Clank game had no aiming either, yet its rarely complained about. Neither II or 3 were garbage. There's plenty of true garbage games due to unplayable technical difficulties, bad animations, bland music, extremely bad frame-rate, and lack of polish in areas. Jak series is a game series that does a lot of its (genre) things averagely/slightly beyond averagely/good, which is why no real particular area shines, genre wise. (Jak X and TPL are the more prominent genre games in the series, capturing their respective genres fully and representing them consistently because of less mixture other-genre elements, however, Jak II and Jak 3 properly portray the open-world concept consistently also [while sadly lacking some interactivity though].) Animation and storytelling are some of his series' best and strongest aspects.

Don't be too ignorant though, ND had there reasons for not designing a shooting system nearly everyone desires. I would only criticize them for no strafing at best, which a sequel would need. (Jak 3 didn't advance the gun-play, not variety, correctly. They added more variety but didn't fix the actual issue.)

 

There was no problems with Jak 3 except the annoying driving levels (the enemies that smash into you and slow you down or how often you flip over, or both).

just use the bouncing shot and don't have to worry about aiming at all. It's kind of funny because that shot was way more precise than any other gun.

Jak 3 had a few other issues, although im not talking mechanically im thinking design choices this time, but I wont go in-depth about that here. The Marauders are fine, they are always avoidable with the right skill level and/or buggy. The grenade launcher buggies are more advantageous/less disadv- against them. Now if you perhaps actually combined the sandstorm effects into the mix then things get difficult definitely, but that doesn't mean it was poor game design just because it was difficult to a point you did not like or could handle.

The flipping mostly occurred when driving over small grouped rocks. There are alternative ways to flip to, but those are all balanced, justified, and realistic, something they screwed up in Uncharted 4; its impossible to flip over in the jeeps in that game, which is unrealistic and flawed design. At least Jak 3 acknowledged the realism of driving in a sandy terrain.

There's at least 3 other gun (mods) in the game that were more precise than the Beam Reflexor, even with its accuracy related upgrade, so that statement is incorrect also.

 

First JAK and Lost Frontier werent so good imo but I saw many people say first JAK was the best.

First Jak game was solid all around: gameplay, story, platforming, level design, music, voice acting, controls, animation and voice synchronization, etc. Second game brung some new issues, however, the overall package, was still superior over the first game (combat, gameplay, story, cast, villains, longer length campaign, more content, Jak's voice, etc).

The Lost Frontier is a decent game. Worst installment, and in some areas did huge disservice to his franchise definitely, but its a decent standalone game and did some good to his franchise like adding concepts like regenerating eco energy overtime (as opposed to gaining eco energy back from eco vents or enemies - Jak II and Jak 3), Eco Skills (rpg elements), and the Hero Mode feature finally working the way it should and became a new difficulty mode without purchasing it.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Mar

[The_Blackout_Kid]

Now I have to start my playthrough of Jak II just to see if it truly is "garbage". I only slighty remember playing it on PS2 back in the day, so maybe I just forgot.

[AJ_Radio]

At this point in time, Ratchet and Clank is easily the best overall series. Sly Cooper had excellent platforming and good chemistry, but wasn't as engaging since the series relies more on stealth as opposed to the two other platforming series.

 

The only real difficulty I've had in Jak II so far is being chased by a tank in first person mode and escaping from the Slums with the Seal, but I found out that using a hoverboard works quite well. Then again I've yet to play the final third of the game so my opinion may change.

 

If you want a truly bad playthrough, watch DPSGaming. Constantly bitched about double jumping and no checkpoints throughout the whole ordeal and yet he consistently ran directly into metal heads. How that asshole is still around posting videos on Youtube is beyond me.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Spastic

[yellowwindow7]

Jak 2 is considered the worst in the series, if lost frontier was made by naughty dog that would be the number one worst Jak and Daxter game to date!

[Hemiak]

Jak 2 is easily my favorite Jak game. It "adultified" the series. The shooting might not be top notch, especially by today's standards, but it was an awesome new addition to the franchise. It also took everything good about the first one and made it better.

I can't really add much to what Mar said, but I've never once had a double or triple jump fail to register, on the ps2 or ps3. The game has about the same amount of checkpoints as every other ps2 platformer of its era. It's just a little less forgiving, which is a good thing. If you're looking for a free platinum this isn't it, but if you go in with your eyes open this game is fantastic.

FYI: I've also played and loved every Ratchet game. This is (imo) better than any of them.

[Jak]

At this point in time, Ratchet and Clank is easily the best overall series. Sly Cooper had excellent platforming and good chemistry, but wasn't as engaging since the series relies more on stealth as opposed to the two other platforming series.

 

The only real difficulty I've had in Jak II so far is being chased by a tank in first person mode and escaping from the Slums with the Seal, but I found out that using a hoverboard works quite well. Then again I've yet to play the final third of the game so my opinion may change.

 

If you want a truly bad playthrough, watch DPSGaming. Constantly bitched about double jumping and no checkpoints throughout the whole ordeal and yet he consistently ran directly into metal heads. How that asshole is still around posting videos on Youtube is beyond me.

 

No, the two cant be compared because of the unparallel (generationS/installmentS) gap. All original trilogies can be compared however. And no im not saying series need to have an equal number of games to become comparable. R&C has just had so many, and theres easily technical superiority with Ratchet's newer gen games.

 

Jak 2 is considered the worst in the series, if lost frontier was made by naughty dog that would be the number one worst Jak and Daxter game to date!

 

Again, wrong. Jak II is actually rated and most received as the best game in the trilogy. It makes sense why, and then it doesnt considering how much praised the first game was. This obviously means both games are highly rated but Jak II is just moreso.

Some of the lesser Jak 3 fans (including myself) have tried to persuade the world Jak 3 is the best, but it has never worked. (Its no question Jak 3 does numerous things better than Jak II, however, Jak II is still potentially the better game in the trilogy for special reasonings though, since "technically" Jak 3 is the better designed game, technically.) Jak II is still considered the best even with all the complaints it gets. Jak II still offers more content, much indepth combat, better lore and atomsphere, and more varied gameplay, and way better story/storytelling, plus way more things Vs Jak 1, not Jak 3. Jak II is essentially the dark successor evolution to the first game, fixing a lot of its problems like no more temporary and level tied eco gameplay, a voice for Jak which not having one in TPL killed the immersion factor and connection with the character (example, imagine Joel or Nate without a voice), a bigger and more personality based cast, post game content, satisfying and challenging combat, and more. What TPL was criticised for, Jak II fixed. Jak II just introduced a few issues in addition, some subjective and some objective. Most of the complaints are nostalgic, invalid ones, precisely like the situation with the older Pokemon games not actually being hard, they just were when you were younger. (The ppl who do the orb glitch for platinum will never know either.)

The developers believe Jak II to be the best also, and they talked about specific areas of how it is so, saying things like the best decision they made for Jak was giving him a voice, and then saying how his 3 dimensional personality makes him more appealing and immersive with the players (than his 1.5 or 2 in the first game).

I can go on and on, and list more quotes from the developers. But Jak II is easily a "better game" than Jak 1, technically and in general: More content, better story and storytelling (mind you), and better gameplay secures this fact. Those are some of the 3 most major components in games when you exclude graphics, none of which includes a better soundtrack, character depth and development, atomsphere, cast of characters, better animations and effects across all fronts, etc. Jak 1 doesnt become the better game just because you prefer it or its more colorful world, "good feeling" vibe, collect-a-thon element, and vaguely superior platforming (since Jak II still retained a high amount of platforming, which is simply camoflauged to most people, in the actual matters-sectioned off levels that are not the wide-open-sandbox hub area w/ vehicles).

Edited October 15, 2016 by Parker

[AJ_Radio]

I'm only going to ask you this once. Do not shove your opinions down mine or anyone else's throats.

[Jak]

I'm only going to ask you this once. Do not shove your opinions down mine or anyone else's throats.

Was making a point, and I did such... no big deal. If I disagree with something, I will express why.

[yellowwindow7]

No, the two cant be compared because of the unparallel (generationS/installmentS) gap. All original trilogies can be compared however. And no im not saying series need to have an equal number of games to become comparable. R&C has just had so many, and theres easily technical superiority with Ratchet's newer gen games.

 

 

Again, wrong. Jak II is actually rated and most received as the best game in the trilogy. It makes sense why, and then it doesnt considering how much praised the first game was. This obviously means both games are highly rated but Jak II is just moreso.

Some of the lesser Jak 3 fans (including myself) have tried to persuade the world Jak 3 is the best, but it has never worked. (Its no question Jak 3 does numerous things better than Jak II, however, Jak II is still potentially the better game in the trilogy for special reasonings though, since "technically" Jak 3 is the better designed game, technically.) Jak II is still considered the best even with all the complaints it gets. Jak II still offers more content, much indepth combat, better lore and atomsphere, and more varied gameplay, and way better story/storytelling, plus way more things Vs Jak 1, not Jak 3. Jak II is essentially the dark successor evolution to the first game, fixing a lot of its problems like no more temporary and level tied eco gameplay, a voice for Jak which not having one in TPL killed the immersion factor and connection with the character (example, imagine Joel or Nate without a voice), a bigger and more personality based cast, post game content, satisfying and challenging combat, and more. What TPL was criticised for, Jak II fixed. Jak II just introduced a few issues in addition, some subjective and some objective. Most of the complaints are nostalgic, invalid ones, precisely like the situation with the older Pokemon games not actually being hard, they just were when you were younger. (The ppl who do the orb glitch for platinum will never know either.)

The developers believe Jak II to be the best also, and they talked about specific areas of how it is so, saying things like the best decision they made for Jak was giving him a voice, and then saying how his 3 dimensional personality makes him more appealing and immersive with the players (than his 1.5 or 2 in the first game).

I can go on and on, and list more quotes from the developers. But Jak II is easily a "better game" than Jak 1, technically and in general: More content, better story and storytelling (mind you), and better gameplay secures this fact. Those are some of the 3 most major components in games when you exclude graphics, none of which includes a better soundtrack, character depth and development, atomsphere, cast of characters, better animations and effects across all fronts, etc. Jak 1 doesnt become the better game just because you prefer it or its more colorful world, "good feeling" vibe, collect-a-thon element, and vaguely superior platforming (since Jak II still retained a high amount of platforming, which is simply camoflauged to most people, in the actual matters-sectioned off levels that are not the wide-open-sandbox hub area w/ vehicles).

um... I liked the first Jak and Daxter more than two and three.

[mekktor]

I'm only going to ask you this once. Do not shove your opinions down mine or anyone else's throats.

 

Bad boy Mar for defending Jak 2 in a thread about Jak 2.

 

(words and stuff)

 

You have some good points there. I hate Jak 2 with a passion, but even I'll admit that it did do some things better than Jak 1. The characters and storytelling were absolutely much better, while Jak's voice was a nice addition (hardly essential though). Things like atmosphere and setting are more subjective - I much preferred Jak 1's "good feeling" vibe (as you say). As for better gameplay and more content, I completely disagree. The gameplay was for the most part, complete and utter crap. The platforming in Jak 1 was not "vaguely superior", it is basically non-existent in Jak 2. When it does exist, the platforming sections are just poorly designed and, combined with an awful checkpoint system, not fun (more on that later). Add to that terrible shooting, terrible mission design, and way too much driving back and forth across the most boring open-world city you could imagine... you get the picture. Was there more content? Yeah, of course. Does more content make a game better though? I don't think it does when that content is based on garbage gameplay.

 

And then there is the big one - the difficulty and checkpoint system. The problem is, the game's redeeming qualities are absolutely worthless if the game just isn't fun to play (a common view from what I've seen). When you're repeating a long section for the fifth time because you died - whether due to the unforgiving difficulty or quite often because the game did not work as expected - and once again you say to yourself "this pile of garbage is just not fun"... Well, then quite simply you are playing a bad game.

Edited October 15, 2016 by mekktor

[Jak]

um... I liked the first Jak and Daxter more than two and three.

That's irrelevant (and so do a lot of people) since your claim was speaking of the general public ("Jak II is considered the weakest game in this series", which is not true and actually applies to Jak X - which makes no sense for very legitimate and rationally, objective reasons - if were talking about the installments made by Naughty Dog, and The Lost Frontier if the entire franchise is included), not yourself... Jak II is defintely-generally the better game from a game standpoint and fanbase standpoint. I thought Jak 3 would have eventually proven to be the better game over time but Jak II has held its throne still to this day, which part of from what I can see does make sense, regardless of how much I love part 3.

Jak II is no different from the usual trend of 2nd installment sequels being considered the best: Sly, Ratchet, DBRB2, Dead Space 2, Resistance 2, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, inFAMOUS 2, Crysis 2, Sonic 2, Borderlands 2, Sonic Adventure 2, Pokemon Gold/Silver, Pkmn B/W2, CODMW2, etc. Not ALL 2nd installments are consideted the best, but majority of the time they are.

Bad boy Mar for defending Jak 2 in a thread about Jak 2.

 

Jak's voice was a nice addition (hardly essential though). Things like atmosphere and setting are more subjective - I much preferred Jak 1's "good feeling" vibe (as you say). As for better gameplay and more content, I completely disagree. The gameplay was for the most part, complete and utter crap. The platforming in Jak 1 was not "vaguely superior", it is basically non-existent in Jak 2. When it does exist, the platforming sections are just poorly designed and, combined with an awful checkpoint system, not fun (more on that later). The most boring open-world city you could imagine... you get the picture. Was there more content? Yeah, of course. Does more content make a game better though? I don't think it does when that content is based on garbage gameplay.

 

And then there is the big one - the difficulty and checkpoint system. The problem is, the game's redeeming qualities are absolutely worthless if the game just isn't fun to play (a common view from what I've seen). When you're repeating a long section for the fifth time because you died - whether due to the unforgiving difficulty or quite often because the game did not work as expected - and once again you say to yourself "this pile of garbage is just not fun"... Well, then quite simply you are playing a bad game.

It's always hilarious to see Jak II issues brung up as if they didnt exist in Jak 1. Jak 1 had a terrible checkpoint system throughout several levels: Gol and Maia's Citedal, Snowy Mountain, and plenty of other areas.

Moving on, Jak II had a stronger and more lively atomsphere than Jak 1. What you prefer is whats subjective, Jak II's felt more immersive and real.

Jak's voice WAS essential for character depth, immersive and default storytelling, and to prevent Jak from being the bland character AND from ppl immersing themselves in a character who they can project themselves with via playing. Theres a reason why he was given a voice and why the devs refer to it as the best overall decision theyve made for Jak entirely. And its one of those reasons from Jak's franchises that made ND'S other series so good.

Jak II had better gameplay because hits felt satisfying, combat was improved, enemines required challenge, the vehicle control felt better, and there was more play-aspects to use with Jak. Stuff like checkpoints is part of game design, not game-play.

The platforming part is just completely wrong, and is a horrible exaggeration. Jak II even had segments where its platforming was better because they were more complex platforming design, like in Mar's Tomb with the moving rods, and scattered upside down platforms that combined the two core mechanics of shooting and platforming, which is a huge plus.

"Most boring openworld". That's funny, what about inFAMOUS's, possibly Gravity Rush's (Vita), and plenty more?

The difficulty and checkpoint are fine majority of the time. It is only a few mission areas where the checkpoint is poorly designed. Playing the games when you're older actually corrects most false ideas ppl believe... sometimes.

[totallycrushed]

Everyone is allowed to have their opinions on games, stating facts and dev. com. doesn't change others opinions. 

[mekktor]

It's always hilarious to see Jak II issues brung up as if they didnt exist in Jak 1. Jak 1 had a terrible checkpoint system throughout several levels: Gol and Maia's Citedal, Snowy Mountain, and plenty of other areas.

Moving on, Jak II had a stronger and more lively atomsphere than Jak 1. What you prefer is whats subjective, Jak II's felt more immersive and real.

Jak's voice WAS essential for character depth, immersive and default storytelling, and to prevent Jak from being the bland character AND from ppl immersing themselves in a character who they can project themselves with via playing. Theres a reason why he was given a voice and why the devs refer to it as the best overall decision theyve made for Jak entirely. And its one of those reasons from Jak's franchises that made ND'S other series so good.

Jak II had better gameplay because hits felt satisfying, combat was improved, enemines required challenge, the vehicle control felt better, and there was more play-aspects to use with Jak. Stuff like checkpoints is part of game design, not game-play.

The platforming part is just completely wrong, and is a horrible exaggeration. Jak II even had segments where its platforming was better because they were more complex platforming design, like in Mar's Tomb with the moving rods, and scattered upside down platforms that combined the two core mechanics of shooting and platforming, which is a huge plus.

"Most boring openworld". That's funny, what about inFAMOUS's, possibly Gravity Rush's (Vita), and plenty more?

The difficulty and checkpoint are fine majority of the time. It is only a few mission areas where the checkpoint is poorly designed. Playing the games when you're older actually corrects most false ideas ppl believe... sometimes.

 

If you noticed, I only criticised the combination of the difficulty and checkpoints. One issue without the other would be far more acceptable. Together though, they made it impossible to enjoy the game (enjoyment being something I consider fundamental to a game being good).

 

As for Jak's voice, I didn't think it was an improvement at all. Keep in mind, plenty of great games (with fantastic storytelling) have silent protagonists so clearly the mere inclusion of a voice isn't essential. In this particular case, I didn't like what the voice added to Jak's character - he become a generic bro-Jak. I just preferred him without a voice. I think once again this one is just a matter of opinion.

 

I completely disagree that combat was improved. I barely used the melee attacks in Jak II due to the risk of being punished so severely with the limited health and long checkpoints. That left the guns... The best strategy I found ended up being just run around smashing R1. Completely boring. Checkpoints, by the way, I did not say were part of the gameplay, but they certainly affect your gameplay experience by forcing certain strategies.

 

Don't get me started on Mar's Tomb. That platforming section was unbearable (if I'm thinking of the same area). It was just poorly designed, far too much trial and error involved, and of course you know what that means with those checkpoints...

 

"the most boring open-world city you could imagine" was obviously a bit of an exaggeration. It was a pretty dull setting though, not to mention the whole wanted system tied into it, which was just a chore.

 

Well, it's been interesting to hear such a passionate argument for the game, I respect your dedication to it. I really do wish I could have enjoyed it as much as you did, but with all it's flaws it just wasn't possible. For what it's worth my opinion is based on playing it as an adult, 30+ hours put into it, 285 legit orbs (damn sewer orb disappearing post-game). And, I honestly can't remember playing a worse game than this.

[Jak]

If you noticed, I only criticised the combination of the difficulty and checkpoints. One issue without the other would be far more acceptable. Together though, they made it impossible to enjoy the game (enjoyment being something I consider fundamental to a game being good).

 

As for Jak's voice, I didn't think it was an improvement at all. Keep in mind, plenty of great games (with fantastic storytelling) have silent protagonists so clearly the mere inclusion of a voice isn't essential. In this particular case, I didn't like what the voice added to Jak's character - he become a generic bro-Jak. I just preferred him without a voice. I think once again this one is just a matter of opinion.

 

I completely disagree that combat was improved. I barely used the melee attacks in Jak II due to the risk of being punished so severely with the limited health and long checkpoints. That left the guns... The best strategy I found ended up being just run around smashing R1. Completely boring. Checkpoints, by the way, I did not say were part of the gameplay, but they certainly affect your gameplay experience by forcing certain strategies.

 

Don't get me started on Mar's Tomb. That platforming section was unbearable (if I'm thinking of the same area). It was just poorly designed, far too much trial and error involved, and of course you know what that means with those checkpoints...

 

"the most boring open-world city you could imagine" was obviously a bit of an exaggeration. It was a pretty dull setting though, not to mention the whole wanted system tied into it, which was just a chore.

 

Well, it's been interesting to hear such a passionate argument for the game, I respect your dedication to it. I really do wish I could have enjoyed it as much as you did, but with all it's flaws it just wasn't possible. For what it's worth my opinion is based on playing it as an adult, 30+ hours put into it, 285 legit orbs (damn sewer orb disappearing post-game). And, I honestly can't remember playing a worse game than this.

You know a lot of games are hard and punish you severly for failing or dying. Going by your perspective, you'd find Dragon Ball Xenoverse, Demon/Dark Soul, Furi, Zombi (?), original 2D Sonic games, and other games bad because you cant handle the challenge. The first Jak game was highly criticised for its easy'ness and weak combat, two things Jak II clearly fixed, with just the few traditional overdosed areas that every single game does as none are perfect.

Well that's you. ND's way and which is evidently supported by Jak's voice, was giving him a voice. Youre not grasping the full perspective. It wasnt just for storytelling, I just included what else it was for. His voice was a necessity to create and expand Jak's character (especially at the time), not just the story. They wanted to create a 3 dimensional character, purposely going further than what they had with Crash's (this was confirmed). And again, the voice also factually negates the possibility of the player feeling like they are the character: Link, etc, something that happened with the first game and to which ND BOTH disliked and was the opposite of what they wanted. This is simply just a matter of ignorance on your part, im sorry, and the reviews of his character ("he's boring, Jak's just there to do what Daxter cant, Daxter is more interestering, Jak is too bland", etc) also breaks your point. You can tell a story with a mute character like Link but that's not all there is to it with Jak. You enjoy Jak 1 heavily, I get it. If youre one of those onesided Jak 1 fans though then this convo is completely pointless, like Gen 1 Pokemon fanboys and Sonic the 2D Hedgehog fanboys. It's easy to say the story and whatever else you said is better because you'd look silly to say otherwise.

If you feel that way on combat then both your observation skills and general skills were poor. The melee was quite evidently viable on the KG Robots, Krimzon Guards, several Metal Heads who dont wield projectile attacks like the grunts, stingers, mountain grunts, and then even a few of the projectile ones. Are you not competent enough to use combos and attack at the right time? Do you expect a game to allow you to always attack when you feel like it without thinking? Jak's II melee was still viable and effective, period. (I pray for a PS4 remaster solely to record the famous areas ppl claim are way too hard or absurd.)

These complaints are kind of bad. Every game is repetitive. A game is boring because its core mechanic is what you're using most of the game? I mean like... then COD (campaign wise) is boring since you shoot everything and nothing else. Racing games are boring because youre stuck in a car, being only limited to driving with versality usually being in the tracks. Etc. Dont get me started on fighters, especially 2d ones. Jak (the game, not the openworld) isnt boring, theres plenty of diversity and mixed genres to prevent it from being boring. If you find it boring, its because you have no personal interest in it.

Mar's Tomb had some of the best platforming in the game. It was essentially a stronger version of the 'platforming spike in TPL' (yes read that again) in the Lost Precursor City level. Nothing about Mar's Tomb platforming was bad, especially considering the HUGE diversity: Daxter play, Daxter chase segments, 2D Jak platforming, 3D Jak platforming, etc. Uncharted 2 and 3 easily had a lot of way too similar platforming style levels to Jak. I remember one specifically from the Ice Level in Uncharted 2. (Uncharted generally shares a lot of aspects from the Jak series, though.)

No, the checkpoints were fine. Theres truly a misconception with the checkpoints to, because the game doesnt always do the best job at clarifying what is part of a active mission or new mission. Playing Level Select makes this clear, because every story mission is listed. For example, Mar's Tomb is actually a 3 part seperate mission, which is why they chose not to make a checkpoint through each seperate trial path. Best example I can think of is an arc vs a special episode. Arcs are seperate episodes with 100% continuation, whereas specials are a combination of a few episodes in one. A lot of Jak II mission structures are actually like arcs. You know this is just a bit too complex for me to explain to you, despite that great example. but the checkpoints are misunderstood and overly criticised.

You didnt make it obvious that it was an Exag. I could never beat Jak II as a kid. I didnt beat it till later teen years (same with other games). Having grown up, it's much more tolerable and nowhere near as painful when I played it as a kid, because I wasnt smart enough to realize certain things. Driving controls, traffic, racing, guns, none of them are as bad as they are made out to be, you just need to learn how to get good with them. I never have issues racing, driving, shooting majority of the time (trick being sycronizing the compensating lock on red sight targetting system.. only relevant to really 2/4 weapons), etc. The gun system is flawed, part of it only actually, but it's not broken or flawed enough to completely ruin the experience, because of the compensating built in tracking mechanic.

You talk about this being a bad game and poorly designed in areas, what about the Sonic 1 and 2 difficulty, enemy placement, limited lives, losing all rings no matter what attack animation you get hit by or the power of the hit, etc, Sonic the Hedgehog 06 featuring actual broken aspects, and more games I sadly can think of but which there are.

You never played it as a kid, so you didnt have anything to learn from when coming to it. I dont know man, you probably suffered from the traditional blind run PT. A second PT should go through much more smoothly, especially if you did all orbs legit as you said.

If this is the worst game you ever played, it says a lot, since there are actually broken games, poor control games, very glitchy games, actual prominent and objectively poorly designed games Soinic 06 yet again being a prime example, nothing remotely closr to Jak II, etc. Jak's games are still highly polished AAA games with no truly glaring issues that puts the games in the bad rating area. Few big ones in all 3 games but nothing like Sonic 06, EDIT: Dragon Ball Kinect, Superman 64, Sonic Party, Ride to Hell Ret, Killzone PS2 (if what Jenny told me is true), Resident Ev.. other games I just terribly cannot list at this time.

My wording is taking a hit....