This game is pure garbage in mechanics

[mekktor]

more words and stuff

 

I'm going to try to avoid going too in-depth here because it seems won't get anywhere new with this. We'll see how that goes.

 

I don't think those difficult games are a reasonable comparison. The Dark Souls series is praised for it's difficulty being completely fair, something I would never say about Jak 2. The 2D sonic games relied on difficulty to extend the life of the game, as did plenty of other games back then. It's not fair to judge them by the standards of a later time. I also don't think they are anywhere near as difficult. I beat them all as a kid, I doubt I could have beaten Jak 2 though.

 

I agree that giving Jak a voice was the right idea, I personally just didn't like the direction they went with it. That's all. I don't know what you mean by one-sided fan. I've played Jak twice to 100% and enjoyed it both times. I've played Jak 2 to 100% and I didn't like it. I will play Jak 3 in the future and I hope it's better than both of them. That is what it is. I said the story of Jak 2 was good not because it's easy to say but because I actually really enjoyed it.

 

As for the combat, in a game where I'm trying my hardest to not have to repeat 20 minutes or more of mediocre gameplay, why would I consider using a melee attack which comes with an increased risk of taking damage? No matter how good I think I am, my priority is not dying, which leads to (a lot of the time) smashing R1. I would hardly compare that to the other games you mentioned. I'd like to see you try to get through one of those games smashing one button.

 

Mar's Tomb, all I can say is what I experienced. And that was just pure frustration, repeating a lot of sections because of both precise platforming and the trial and error required. That isn't fun to me. That Daxter chase scene might have been the worst offender for this. Even Crash Bandicoot did those chases better.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about with checkpoints. All I know is that I had to start at the beginning of a lot of levels because either the section was too punishing on mistakes, the section required trial and error to get past, or the game didn't work as expected. Funnily enough, I had no issues with double jumping, the original issue brought up in this thread.

 

If a second playthrough is required to enjoy the game, then that's a real shame because I've got a feeling not many people would make it that far. I'm glad you were able to find an enjoyable game behind all the issues.

 

And yeah, Jak 2 being the worst game I've played says that I try not to play bad games. Unfortunately this one snuck in on the merits of Jak 1. Actually, I'm playing Killzone HD right now, and while it's pretty ordinary so far, it is no where near what I would consider bad. I have a feeling Jak 2 will retain it's title.

 

I just don't understand why they didn't offer a difficulty setting. Can you imagine if Naughty Dog decided to ship Uncharted with only Crushing difficulty or The Last of Us with only Grounded? They would be considered broken games, and therefore bad. And unfortunately, that is what happened with Jak 2.

[Jak]

 

I'm going to try to avoid going too in-depth here because it seems won't get anywhere new with this. We'll see how that goes.

 

I don't think those difficult games are a reasonable comparison. The Dark Souls series is praised for it's difficulty being completely fair, something I would never say about Jak 2. The 2D sonic games relied on difficulty to extend the life of the game, as did plenty of other games back then. It's not fair to judge them by the standards of a later time. I also don't think they are anywhere near as difficult. I beat them all as a kid, I doubt I could have beaten Jak 2 though.

 

I agree that giving Jak a voice was the right idea, I personally just didn't like the direction they went with it. That's all. I don't know what you mean by one-sided fan. I've played Jak twice to 100% and enjoyed it both times. I've played Jak 2 to 100% and I didn't like it. I will play Jak 3 in the future and I hope it's better than both of them. That is what it is. I said the story of Jak 2 was good not because it's easy to say but because I actually really enjoyed it.

 

As for the combat, in a game where I'm trying my hardest to not have to repeat 20 minutes or more of mediocre gameplay, why would I consider using a melee attack which comes with an increased risk of taking damage? No matter how good I think I am, my priority is not dying, which leads to (a lot of the time) smashing R1. I would hardly compare that to the other games you mentioned. I'd like to see you try to get through one of those games smashing one button.

 

Mar's Tomb, all I can say is what I experienced. And that was just pure frustration, repeating a lot of sections because of both precise platforming and the trial and error required. That isn't fun to me. That Daxter chase scene might have been the worst offender for this. Even Crash Bandicoot did those chases better.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about with checkpoints. All I know is that I had to start at the beginning of a lot of levels because either the section was too punishing on mistakes, the section required trial and error to get past, or the game didn't work as expected. Funnily enough, I had no issues with double jumping, the original issue brought up in this thread.

 

If a second playthrough is required to enjoy the game, then that's a real shame because I've got a feeling not many people would make it that far. I'm glad you were able to find an enjoyable game behind all the issues.

 

And yeah, Jak 2 being the worst game I've played says that I try not to play bad games. Unfortunately this one snuck in on the merits of Jak 1. Actually, I'm playing Killzone HD right now, and while it's pretty ordinary so far, it is no where near what I would consider bad. I have a feeling Jak 2 will retain it's title.

 

I just don't understand why they didn't offer a difficulty setting. Can you imagine if Naughty Dog decided to ship Uncharted with only Crushing difficulty or The Last of Us with only Grounded? They would be considered broken games, and therefore bad. And unfortunately, that is what happened with Jak 2.

 

 

Oh so they're not comparable, because like Jak II, they're known for their difficulty. Jak II is known for its difficulty and ND purposely made it harder during development because the praised Precursor Legacy was commonly criticized for being too easy. It's somehow different with Jak II because of just a few lack of checkpoints, few traditional difficulty spikes, and a game-play mechanic (gun-play, + whatever else) which holds up its end but you don't like. Nope, Sonic is not exempt because Mario in its later (2D) times incorporated a save feature, whereas Sonic still had the same faulted system. This is one of Sonic's games most criticized aspects to, and the Mario comparisons were brung up by reviewers. Only the first few games gets the exception.

 

There are many other directions it could have went in, which would have been much, much worse. This is still ND we're talking about. The voice acting, personality, everything was still nicely done and polished. The "bro" character you speak of is vastly more prominent with other characters, with annoying voices, repeated dialogue, cringe-worthy jokes, 1 or 2 dimensional personalities, and so fourth in other games. Jak's character is more in-line with your standard likeable characters especially in his later 2 installments.

 

May'be your not approaching the game and its demanding skill level correctly? The game is hard, but excluding the spikes, it's PLENTY fair if you're not a newbie in gaming. You make the game sound impossible to beat or barely beatable. It's a decently challenging game (since levels aren't longer: e.g, imagine if the slums mission was longer. A lot of Jak II missions are short which make checkpoints unnecessary in some and not too hard) with some difficulty spikes. Difficulty spikes aside, it's fair. Now im seeing flawed logic. There are a lot of games where other core mechanics are not needed to progress further, I brung up one earlier. You can't use that as an argument, especially when melee attacks conserve ammo, something that's not unlimited in Jak II, and is faster than shooting at times. Not to mention the gun-play aiming isn't 100% accurate AND that gun and melee play have inter-connected exclusive combos that can only be pulled off when you melee an opponent, which so happens to be one of the strongest methods of combat against non-aerial enemies. The Jak series is actually one of those series where its even focused on gun-play isn't the only viable method of play... the design of Jak series still mostly-equally balances out the melee alongside the shooting, unlike the Ratchet and Clank series for example, which the weapons and gadgets in that game overshadows melee combat and the need to ever use it, ESPECIALLY with more diversity in tools that aren't just guns. Increased risk of taking damage is evidently only a factor if you suck at the game, putting it simply (as that includes a lot of different sub skills- non attentive to enemies patterns, openings, attacks, spacing, etc).

 

You know maybe the first time around it is, but coming back to it or analyzing it, you realize it's actually a pretty well designed platforming level, and that it does edge out TPL's more straight-forward and easy platforming. Trial and error... that sure does remind me of Sonic. Let me guess, Uncharted's chase segments were also better, right? (Keep in mine im talking about the running towards the camera chase segments not chasing the enemy ones, to.)

 

Im not saying a S-PT is required to enjoy the game, just to see what was not clear the first time around. Same logic as watching a movie more than once-- to catch what you missed or did not see. They don't call things first impressions, either, for nothing. You're new to everything at first and can't really analyze everything as you're too non-informed. You talk about a second PT being a bad thing to enjoy a game, but what about games like Uncharted 4 or something else where it tries its hardest - puts everything - to be good in the first run, corrupting its replay-ability during another PT? This is what makes narrative interactice-story driven games slightly more advantageous - balanced - as they have different scenarios or endings to offer among secondary PTs. So games that are at their best or only good a 1st time around are no worse than a game that is enjoyable the second time around (which does not apply to Jak II anyway).

 

Obviously you wouldn't try to, but unless you're the type of gamer to only buy what is commonly and positively received well instead of buying what interest you, then you should have played at least some other bad games.

 

If you'll criticized Jak II for this, the same complaint will be existent with the first game, both not offering a harder difficulty and not any other difficulty at all to begin with. At least Jak II offered a new mode for hardcore gamers, yet again giving Jak II an edge on the pie. Again, some of Jak II issues exist in the heavenly almighty Precursor Legacy also: camera issues, checkpoint issues, etc.

 

Tell me what specific enemies and instances in the game gave you problems? Because a lot are not that hard or unbearable.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Mar

[mekktor]

Oh so they're not comparable, because like Jak II, they're known for their difficulty. Jak II is known for its difficulty and ND purposely made it harder during development because the praised Precursor Legacy was commonly criticized for being too easy. It's somehow different with Jak II because of just a few lack of checkpoints, few traditional difficulty spikes, and a game-play mechanic (gun-play, + whatever else) which holds up its end but you don't like. Nope, Sonic is not exempt because Mario in its later (2D) times incorporated a save feature, whereas Sonic still had the same faulted system. This is one of Sonic's games most criticized aspects to, and the Mario comparisons were brung up by reviewers. Only the first few games gets the exception.

There are many other directions it could have went in, which would have been much, much worse. This is still ND we're talking about. The voice acting, personality, everything was still nicely done and polished. The "bro" character you speak of is vastly more prominent with other characters, with annoying voices, repeated dialogue, cringe-worthy jokes, 1 or 2 dimensional personalities, and so fourth in other games. Jak's character is more in-line with your standard likeable characters especially in his later 2 installments.

May'be your not approaching the game and its demanding skill level correctly? The game is hard, but excluding the spikes, it's PLENTY fair if you're not a newbie in gaming. You make the game sound impossible to beat or barely beatable. It's a decently challenging game (since levels aren't longer: e.g, imagine if the slums mission was longer. A lot of Jak II missions are short which make checkpoints unnecessary in some and not too hard) with some difficulty spikes. Difficulty spikes aside, it's fair. Now im seeing flawed logic. There are a lot of games where other core mechanics are not needed to progress further, I brung up one earlier. You can't use that as an argument, especially when melee attacks conserve ammo, something that's not unlimited in Jak II, and is faster than shooting at times. Not to mention the gun-play aiming isn't 100% accurate AND that gun and melee play have inter-connected exclusive combos that can only be pulled off when you melee an opponent, which so happens to be one of the strongest methods of combat against non-aerial enemies. The Jak series is actually one of those series where its even focused on gun-play isn't the only viable method of play... the design of Jak series still mostly-equally balances out the melee alongside the shooting, unlike the Ratchet and Clank series for example, which the weapons and gadgets in that game overshadows melee combat and the need to ever use it, ESPECIALLY with more diversity in tools that aren't just guns. Increased risk of taking damage is evidently only a factor if you suck at the game, putting it simply (as that includes a lot of different sub skills- non attentive to enemies patterns, openings, attacks, spacing, etc).

You know maybe the first time around it is, but coming back to it or analyzing it, you realize it's actually a pretty well designed platforming level, and that it does edge out TPL's more straight-forward and easy platforming. Trial and error... that sure does remind me of Sonic. Let me guess, Uncharted's chase segments were also better, right? (Keep in mine im talking about the running towards the camera chase segments not chasing the enemy ones, to.)

Im not saying a S-PT is required to enjoy the game, just to see what was not clear the first time around. Same logic as watching a movie more than once-- to catch what you missed or did not see. They don't call things first impressions, either, for nothing. You're new to everything at first and can't really analyze everything as you're too non-informed. You talk about a second PT being a bad thing to enjoy a game, but what about games like Uncharted 4 or something else where it tries its hardest - puts everything - to be good in the first run, corrupting its replay-ability during another PT? This is what makes narrative interactice-story driven games slightly more advantageous - balanced - as they have different scenarios or endings to offer among secondary PTs. So games that are at their best or only good a 1st time around are no worse than a game that is enjoyable the second time around (which does not apply to Jak II anyway).

Obviously you wouldn't try to, but unless you're the type of gamer to only buy what is commonly and positively received well instead of buying what interest you, then you should have played at least some other bad games.

If you'll criticized Jak II for this, the same complaint will be existent with the first game, both not offering a harder difficulty and not any other difficulty at all to begin with. At least Jak II offered a new mode for hardcore gamers, yet again giving Jak II an edge on the pie. Again, some of Jak II issues exist in the heavenly almighty Precursor Legacy also: camera issues, checkpoint issues, etc.

Tell me what specific enemies and instances in the game gave you problems? Because a lot are not that hard or unbearable.

I didn't say that you can't compare Jak II to games that are known for being difficult. I compared it to Dark Souls myself when I said the difficulty of Jak II isn't what I'd consider fair, unlike Souls. As for Sonic, it's completely irrelevant if it's more difficult that Mario. Games are allowed to have varying difficulty levels, it's when the difficulty breaks the game that there is a problem. This isn't the case with Sonic.

I don't know how I'm supposed to approach this game. Apparently it should have been as a pure test of skill with no enjoyment allowed. Yes I used melee when I had to conserve ammo, but still as little as possible to minimise the risk. The fact is I had to tiptoe through most of the game, and that wasn't as fun as it would have been if the difficulty was balanced. As for gun/melee combos, did it even tell us about these in the game? If it did I didn't see it. Increased risk is not only a factor if you suck. That's not what risk means. As I've said before, I didn't even have a huge problem with the difficulty on it's own. I actually really enjoyed the difficulty of the challenges. That's where the difficulty should be, not in the story missions where it's unavoidable and far more punishing.

Maybe it's just me but I definitely don't think of trial and error when I think of Sonic. Sure you might take a surprise hit quite a bit, but it usually only slows you down a bit, it doesn't send you back to the start. Uncharted's chase scenes are more entertaining, sure, but not a whole lot of skill required. It is cool to see the evolution of the chase through each game. The Daxter chase just didn't work. It took me maybe 15 tries, and I've done this kind of stuff plenty of times before without issue.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a second playthrough or viewing. But you have to enjoy it the first time as well, otherwise you might not even make it that far. I think it's much preferred for a game to only be good on it's first playthrough than only on it's second. Wouldn't you rather one good playthrough, than a bad one followed by a good one?

I play what I'm interested in but of course I consider how well it's received too. Who doesn't do that? Out of curiosity, in your opinion do you see worse games on my list?

I had some amount of trouble with basically every level. Off the top of my head the most frustrating sections were:

• Destroy ship at drill platform - Beat it first try but god damn those inverted controls were bad.
• Mar's Tomb - As stated earlier.
• The Palace - Jumping from swinging poles, platforms falling before you land on them, jet board not connecting onto rails, random stuff like that was pretty constant throughout the game, but here it really just kept on happening.
• Weapons Lab - Last checkpoint after some conveyor belts - the ball robots and guys near rotating platforms.
• Underport - Only because I tried punching the mines at least 5 times with no effect so I assumed you couldn't destroy them.
• Final Boss - It was fine until I ran out of proper ammo. So the game gets harder the more you fail? Seriously, what a stupid decision to lose your ammo upon death.

Oh, having now beaten Killzone, I can say that while it is indeed very mediocre, at least it's not broken like Jak II. Having said that, the best parts of Jak II were far superior to anything in Killzone. I really haven't said this enough - what Jak II got right was fantastic. But what it got wrong overshadowed all of it. I hope they learned from their mistakes for Jak 3. Speaking of which, I'm pretty excited to get into that game after this discussion of ours. Edited October 22, 2016 by mekktor

[Jak]

 Games are allowed to have varying difficulty levels, it's when the difficulty breaks the game that there is a problem. This isn't the case with Sonic.

I don't know how I'm supposed to approach this game. Apparently it should have been as a pure test of skill with no enjoyment allowed. Yes I used melee when I had to conserve ammo, but still as little as possible to minimise the risk. The fact is I had to tiptoe through most of the game, and that wasn't as fun as it would have been if the difficulty was balanced. As for gun/melee combos, did it even tell us about these in the game? If it did I didn't see it. Increased risk is not only a factor if you suck. That's not what risk means. As I've said before, I didn't even have a huge problem with the difficulty on it's own. I actually really enjoyed the difficulty of the challenges. That's where the difficulty should be, not in the story missions where it's unavoidable and far more punishing.

Maybe it's just me but I definitely don't think of trial and error when I think of Sonic. Sure you might take a surprise hit quite a bit, but it usually only slows you down a bit, it doesn't send you back to the start. Uncharted's chase scenes are more entertaining, sure, but not a whole lot of skill required. It is cool to see the evolution of the chase through each game. The Daxter chase just didn't work. It took me maybe 15 tries, and I've done this kind of stuff plenty of times before without issue.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a second playthrough or viewing. But you have to enjoy it the first time as well, otherwise you might not even make it that far. I think it's much preferred for a game to only be good on it's first playthrough than only on it's second. Wouldn't you rather one good playthrough, than a bad one followed by a good one?

I play what I'm interested in but of course I consider how well it's received too. Who doesn't do that? Out of curiosity, in your opinion do you see worse games on my list?

I had some amount of trouble with basically every level. Off the top of my head the most frustrating sections were:

• Destroy ship at drill platform - Beat it first try but god damn those inverted controls were bad.
• Mar's Tomb - As stated earlier.
• The Palace - Jumping from swinging poles, platforms falling before you land on them, jet board not connecting onto rails, random stuff like that was pretty constant throughout the game, but here it really just kept on happening.
• Weapons Lab - Last checkpoint after some conveyor belts - the ball robots and guys near rotating platforms.
• Underport - Only because I tried punching the mines at least 5 times with no effect so I assumed you couldn't destroy them.
• Final Boss - It was fine until I ran out of proper ammo. So the game gets harder the more you fail? Seriously, what a stupid decision to lose your ammo upon death.

Oh, having now beaten Killzone, I can say that while it is indeed very mediocre, at least it's not broken like Jak II. Having said that, the best parts of Jak II were far superior to anything in Killzone. I really haven't said this enough - what Jak II got right was fantastic. But what it got wrong overshadowed all of it. I hope they learned from their mistakes for Jak 3. Speaking of which, I'm pretty excited to get into that game after this discussion of ours.

 

 

Really now, Sonic is very similar to Jak in this regard, simply. Between objectively flawed enemy placements (not enough time to actually dodge attacks as they appear in instantaneous moments) and level design that yells trial and error as you learn what path is best, more dangerous, longer, etc. (Jak II doesn't have those issues though <---) When you truly compare the games, Sonic can be seen as a more technically challenging game. Jak has a consistent save feature, some enemies may be hard but the game gives you time to actually do something and you'll notice them before failing to beat them (enemies on drill platform, you'll see them hover towards you from a view distance before they attack you, some Metal Heads are spaced far enough to where you can think before how you approach them, others act like more stationary obstacles [obviously nothing overly difficult about that since a few hits will take em down] Krimzon Guard don't ALWAYS shoot at you from mid range, they run towards you, etc.

l

Many, many people have beaten Jak II. The biggest issue with progression has been claimed as Hero Mode in Jak II while on the Drill Plaftorm, and that is true. The base game difficulty has spikes and just a few bad checkpoint placements during progressive story missions but it's not impossible nor game breaking nor too annoying since long load time and long levels are completely non-existent. How about Styx Master of Shadows or Just Cause for you that when you die you have to deal with long load times every time? Cant think of any examples of long level games.

 

Difficult games aren't going to have a lot of moments that give you time to enjoy the game however you please. If you couldn't enjoy Jak II because it was too hard/too annoying, the same should apply for Dark Soul series and harder difficulty in modes in other games like Uncharted, Dead Space, and select CoD games, no matter how polished the gameplay mechanics are (they still remain very hard). And can you honestly say Jak II is worse than COD W@W on Veteran as an example? When you truly compare Jak II to other games you really see that it's not as bad as you are and others claim it to be. My views of the game even changed when I got older and realized I didn't tackle the game correctly when I was younger. The first game even conditions you with this comfort playstyle because of its practically non existent combat/challenge, most game installments difficulty are on par, the Jak games aren't because of the first game, which creates an existent flaw with the trilogy. Jak 3 retains a a decent amount of challenge from Jak II, making Jak 3 completely fine. Now obviously I am not saying difficulty in itself cannot be a fun factor but the way you're specifically using this logic is just flawed.

l

See.. things like tip-toe'ing through a level implies you're doing something wrong, especially in a spacious openworld style game like Jak. Sure some levels are linear, but it's not like Resident Evil linear. Yes the game told you about the (wastelander) combo, specifically the first mission with Sig at the Pumping Station. Not to mention the game manuals for the games that tells you all the combos, including that one. So there's no excuse for lack of knowledge on your part.

 

Apparently easier successions are fine, while ones that challenge you aren't. That's what it seem like from your Uncharted point. You acknowledge Uncharted's are more entertaining but don't outright criticize it for being easy. When Jak II makes it difficult, which it's nothing overly hard at all, it's a problem though. Im not sure why those instances gave you issue in Jak II, but they're not complaint worthy in the "too hard" department. Some games may have designed similar sections better (perhaps Crash Bandicoot) but that isn't the point here, difficulty is.

 

The way I look at enjoying games is end-game, post campaign content, and general replay-value. (1st play-through

being good comes last on the list, because unless story is reliant on the first PT like Journey, a game should be able to keep me coming back for more whether I enjoyed it or not, making me play it post-campaign, not to just be awed at my 1st time through, which itself is simply a cheap outcome due to our ignorance of not having ever played the game before. This is why I care more about end-game/post-game content/side-content. Uncharted has half relevant focused GP and it's not just about the story with these games, so aside from MP, the base game should be keeping me coming back for more than just that single PT, especially if the PT has no differing experiences unlike a game say Heavy Rain or Until Dawn. Uncharted's issue is it relies on tacked on MP to support its lifespan and replayvalue. It gets the basics right by having harder difficulties and a feature to change the core mechanics so that the gameplay feels at least slightly different but that's it. Otherwise, without MP, I can't find $60 to be a reasonable price, especially for a under 15 hour single PT, with no level up mechanics. "Ok what about a second PT?" Playing the game, a very slightly different way, with no change of outcomes except environmental paths, with everything staying the same doesn't make it any better

.) The Jak SEQUELS have all of this. The first game didn't even have Hero Mode. The first game is entirely focused on a single good PT, but can be enjoyed multiple times over but that doesn't count as that's personal  motivation (due to mostly good game design) as oppose to in-game built replay-value. Side missions, branching storylines, etc are all objective elements of replayvalue, personal feeling to play through a game again is not. Any well designed game can encourage you to play again, only bad games or good games that went too far will encourage you not too.

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/jak-ii- You have to acknowledge that the game is mostly well received. Obviously not all games are rated fairly and/or accurately (87 may not be accurate, for argument sake) but you get the majority (you see by the score is at least in the 80s) do believe Jak II is a mostly well designed game.

 

Trouble with about every level is another indicator that you're just doing something wrong. The game even at its worst is not capable of causing a competent enough gamer that many issues. Jak II's level design and combat is not that technically challenging (making it sound like an RPG with your under level character) enough to cause this kind of situation. There's plenty of simple levels and moderate ones, every-level is not like the docks, escort men through sewer, and drill platform level.

l

Inverted controls.. wasn't a lot of PS2 games like that? Don't tell me you're judging this game by modern standards, which I've seen a few people terribly do (?)

 

The Palace Mission

 

This mission, right? I don't see what's so hard about it. Ignore some of the unnecessary tactics this guy used like in the immediate beginning and towards the end, but there's nothing overly hard or spiky about it. The beginning is the hardest part due to poor camera control. The platforms are balanced, and the jetboard grinding actually takes a decent level of skill.. decent as in you know what you're doing. Spacing is important, the system isn't going to carry you and auto lock the grinding if you're missing the mark too much. If you land anywhere close to the rail you'll grind. It's definitely a spacing issue on your part.

 

Mar's Tomb Mission

 

Ok first off, notice the first time the guy gets hit simply because he was incompetent at that moment, not because of the game's mistake. You perhaps had a lot of these instances. His first death with Daxter was the same case, whether it was a mis-early input or because he terribly judged the ground surface's edge prior to the platform he had to land on (he jumped too early, that is clear). Similar case to his second Daxter death, he actually double jumped by mistake because he thought he landed on the platform, but clearly we're able to see from the video he never did let himself land the first time. More fun fact of the matter is there are checkpoints, you can mess up a few times without starting over the next checkpoint, and that you can cover any real platforming screw ups with the spinattack (via the Daxter segments that is). That's then all most of the first segment of Mar's Tomb. Second part consist of mostly puzzles and matching platform puzzles, which comes from the first Jak game. Obviously the puzzles challenge relies in your memory and observation skills, the platforming sections are fine because Jak doesn't have horrible platform controls. Last part is the boss fight. The boss is fairly challenging.

 

Final Boss

I'll give you some leeway on that one as the ammo situation is a legitimate complaint. Could have been an oversight, not every aspect of a game is intentional design. Especially if its not consistent with other boss fights, then it's likely not intentional. Really though, you shouldn't be using up all your ammo the entire fight, the first wave it's completely unnecessary because the pack of enemies coming at you require one melee attack to de-spawn/die. It's that kind of fair design in mentally challenging you on whether you're aware of that aspect that's fine (especially when you realize Jak's melee mechanics never leave him vulnerable enough to cause a contradicting issue). The guns are only needed for the boss himself, if a lot of the pack of enemies come at you in bigger numbers that cannot be viably handled physically, or the flying metal heads start coming out.

 

Like I said. Killzone HIGH DEFINITION fixed a lot of the original Killzone issues, so that's not a fair comparison. Killzone was so bad they needed to make several changes during the remaster. Jak II was never bad enough to warrant similar changes. That itself is even a supportive point on the original Killzone being a technically worse game than Jak II.

 

Do I see any worse games on your list? I'll say this, you have plenty of games where their harder difficulties will be harder to beat than Jak II, and feel "unfair". And then you have some games that are simply inferior to Jak II. I too look forward to what you specifically will have to say about Jak 3, other than it being easier. I won't need to hear that. That will be obvious. You'll likely complain about the story and driving, which it's the driving in Jak 3 (not all of it, just selective vehicles) that proves how the flying vehicle controls are actually fine. 

 

(Gtg now, I'll link a review video for Sonic 1 and 2 issues later, as I was briefly stating.)

Edited October 23, 2016 by Mar

[That_Pterodactyl]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this game was a giant crock of shit. 

[ZachBoardyHD]

Yes this game is hard to complete but it's not that hard, I completed it many times as a kid hense the platinum. The only difficult parts in the game was the racing which was so frustrating I'm surprised I didn't actually pull my hair out of my head out of anger but for trail and error i managed it. Another thing when hearing about people to conserve ammo. I don't know how they were playing but most of the game when enemies were around I would always double x, square then shoot and never once ran out of ammo throughout the game? Another thing with jumps, for the second jump to be available to do it had a time limit which should have been immediately obvious to the player when they first failed a double jump?

Edited January 23, 2017 by ZachBoardyHD

[Paleblood]

Absolutely adored the first one. It contains some of my fondest childhood gaming memories.

 

Fucking hated Jak 2. Everything about that game is just a gaint clusterfuck. I hate the story, the charakter re-designs, the whole evironment, the vehicle controls, new fighting mechanics, the interface, the GTA-like approach to open world gameplay, the look and feel and the goddamn need to be as edgy and 'cool' as you can be.

 

So... Now I really wanna go kill my backlog and plat this game 

[JNSpradlin]

Hate this game. The driving sucks, the shooting mostly sucks, and the difficulty spikes suck. Overall, this game felt like a fuck you from the devs.

[Doomsdayman]

You know if they would have fixed the checkpoint system and the aiming system. The game would have been hard but a lot less frustrating then now.

It's by far not the worst that I played but at the same time it's not the best by far.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Doomsdayman

[Alondate31]

This game is basically the worst game I have ever played in my entire life and I have been gaming since 1999-2000. I cannot express my hatred towards this game. Pure garbage. It is shocking to see this game came from ND

Edited November 23, 2017 by Alondate31

[TheLastLion93]

I really started to detest the series after I started playing this one. I went in blind except for knowing it's somewhat similar to Sly and Ratchet and Clank which I liked. The first game was alright and I found the characters to be very well made and interesting. But this one is making me rage almost in every mission and I genuinly feel sick playing it. Right now I muted the game altogether and have some of my music playing in the background to avoid going insane. It's just maddening how they managed to fuck up everything in this game except for Daxter perhaps. The driving and gunfights are aboslutely horrible. The story just plain sucks, the characters are all unlikable except for Daxter again and the missions design is collection of most detested mechanics in the gaming industry. That is time limited driving from one point to another and time limited escort missions where waves of policemen from GTA are ramming into you non stop. I always try to play a game properly to see what it has to offer but this time I'm using every available glitch out there to shorten the playtime.

Edited December 10, 2017 by DonGurke93