henke on 24/3/2015 at 18:00
It's over. At 8 hours it's pretty long, longer than I expected. The soundtrack is great, the gameplay is better than in the first one, tho I can't exactly say why. I just felt much more in control in this one. Also it feels like it's more focused on shooting than the first one, tho that might just've been my playstyle. Only thing I didn't like about the gameplay were a few missions which were super hard and kinda required you to cheese it to make progress. A few of them takes away your guns and forces you to fight a bunch of heavily armed baddies, which eventually devolves into just stepping out from behind a corner so a baddie can see you, then ducking back and beating him down when he comes running to investigate. Then repeat the same cheesy tactic over and over again for an entire mission. Those missions were pretty sparse tho, thankfully.
The story is... really something. It keeps jumping around in time and from person to person, Pulp Fiction style, and tho I had connected a few dots by the end, I haven't pieced it all together. It's almost Dark Souls-level opaqueness. I gotta go search youtube for a video of someone explaining it all.
All in all though, great game. Definitely a worthy sequel.
nicked on 24/3/2015 at 20:50
Also just finished it.
Certainly a very interesting game.
It almost feels more like a collection of master levels than a full sequel - levels which are much harder and often seem to have a clear "solution" to figure out and perfect, rather than the chaotic riffs of the first game's levels. There's no consideration for newcomers, either in the story which is heavily entwined with the first game, or the gameplay, which seems designed for people who have played the first game to death and find it too easy now. The levels are a mixed bunch - some are linear, hard and long and can get frustrating in a way the first game never was. Others are exhilarating for almost the exact same reasons, because of the drawn-out challenge of ensuring you don't put a foot wrong, and the relief of completing it successfully.
I still can't decide whether it's a game that masterfully, deliberately deconstructs one's expectations of it, or a "difficult second album" that doesn't quite know how to recreate the lightning in a bottle of the first game. The plot leaps from character to character and is completely chronologically jumbled, such that it becomes impossible to care much about the characters, or even feel any sense of progression. But it seems like that's the point, that it's almost a comment on it's own pointlessness.
It's a fascinating game and I'm glad I played it, but I can't work out whether I actually liked it or not.
Briareos H on 25/3/2015 at 08:33
Very well put.
catbarf on 31/3/2015 at 22:12
Quote Posted by nicked
levels which are much harder and often seem to have a clear "solution" to figure out and perfect, rather than the chaotic riffs of the first game's levels.
Huh, interesting, I had the polar opposite reaction- in HM I felt like I could plan a route through the missions, going as quickly as possible, relying on speed and surprise. In HM2 the melee enemies are easier to kill so they never posed much of a threat, but there are gun-armed enemies everywhere and enormous maps where the enemies can shoot farther than I can see, forcing a lot of trial-and-error combined with very cautious movement and baiting enemies.
I liked where they went with the story but I feel that the level design in HM2 ruined the 'flow' that was integral to the first game.
