I've been thinking recently that I haven't really been living up to my name. Most of my blog posts haven't actually been that critical. 'The Analytical Angle' might be a more fitting name, but it ruins the pun, so instead, I will take this opportunity to criticise something that a lot of people like. For this post, I will be reviewing one of the most popular platformers on the Playstation 2; Jak II. My apologies for doing two game reviews in quick succession, but I've been wanting to write this one for a while.
So what is Jak II? It is the sequel to Naughty Dog's first game for the Playstation 2; Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy. And for the record, I'm not using an abbreviation, Naughty Dog dropped Daxter's name from the title for the two sequels. The series is about Jak and his best friend Daxter, who was transformed into an ottsel (a cross between an otter and a weasel, apparently) after falling into a pit of Dark Eco. The Precursor Legacy focussed on their quest to turn Daxter back to normal, and how this lead to them saving the world. The game was famous for being the first open-world platformer; there was no warp room or map screen to take you between levels. The story was simple, and the gameplay fun, if rather frustrating at times. With the sequel, however, Naughty Dog decided to take a different direction. Jak as a character was radically transformed, and the series took a much darker tone.
If any of you follow my Morning Muses, you may know that I posted my first impressions of the game back in November. If you don't, I'll post it here for your convenience:
"A month or so back I found Jak II and Jak 3 (dunno why they changed their mind about the numbering there) in the bargain bin at Game, so I picked them up. Having just finished the first game, I decided to give the second a go. It seems pretty good so far, the platforming is nice and the controls don't make me want to tear my hair out. One thing I would say is that it's a lot darker and grittier than the first game, it has a RPG/dystopia thing going on, with Jak as an escaped test subject working for the resistance. Oh, and I think Jak and the guy in the resistance he is running errands for are trying to have a grizzly voice contest! None of this necessarily makes the game bad, I enjoy dystopia stories, it's just that I generally expect platformers about fictional creatures to take themselves a little less seriously. Jak II also seems a little linear compared to the first game; right now I'm just running errands for this guy in the resistance and it's basically go to X location, do some platforming , blow stuff up, repeat. I haven't played it for long, so I'm hoping I get a little more freedom later on, and once I get into the story I'm sure I'll love it. I think this game is going to be pretty good, it just depends on how everything plays out."
I included this to show that I went into this game wanting to like it, and was willing to give it a chance despite my scepticism at the drastic changes. After all, so many people had sung this game's praises, even the guy who sold it to me, so I was expecting to really enjoy it. I'll try to keep this review spoiler free, but the same rules apply as for A Crack in Time, so don't say I didn't warn you.
Story
Jak II begins with Jak, Daxter, Keira and Samos activating a Rift Rider and a Precursor Rift Gate, which throws them into the future. Specifically, the dystopian Haven City, ruled by Baron Praxis and under threat by a race of creatures known as Metal Heads. Jak and Daxter are separated from Samos and Keira, and Jak is captured by the Krimson Guard (because poor literacy is kewel). For two years he is subjected to experiments with Dark Eco, until Daxter finally finds him, and helps him escape the Baron's palace. During this time they learn that the Dark Eco in Jak's body causes him to transform into a monster when enraged. After escaping the pair join a resistance movement in an effort to get even with the Baron. Along the way they reunite with Keira and Samos, and meet a number of new allies. Together they fight to free Haven City from both the Baron and the Metal Heads, and try to find a way home.
The plot was pretty simple, and one that we have seen many times before, but in theory was enough to drive the game. The problem is, there were just so many things about the story that really bugged me. The beginning felt pretty stupid; there seemed to be no reason for them to activate the rift gate other than 'we need to get the plot moving somehow'. On finishing the game, a lot of things became clearer, but it felt like too little too late. The story did have some interesting twists here and there, and a revelation at the end that I honestly didn't see coming, but nothing was built up nearly as well as it could have been, and every time I thought something interesting was going to happen, the game let me down.
In my first impressions, I said that the dystopia storyline wasn't a bad thing. This is because it gave Naughty Dog the opportunity to explore the characters in greater depth, tell stories that the first game couldn't have told, and really draw the player into the world. I'm complaining now because they did no such thing. The 'darker and edgier' feel to this game came across as a lazy way to give the illusion of depth to the franchise. Dark and deep are not the same, and it seems that Naughty Dog didn't realise this when they shifted the tone of the series. A Crack in Time's story worked because the shift in tone was subtle, so the series retained its identity despite a more dramatic story, and Insomniac took this opportunity to flesh out their characters. Jak II on the other hand is barely recognisable from The Precursor Legacy, and ended up as a gritty generic dystopia story that completely wasted any potential it had.
Another thing that bothers me is the humour. The writers couldn't decide when to play things straight and when to crack jokes. Yes, I did get some laughs here and there, mostly from Daxter, but a lot of the jokes came off in poor taste. An example of this can be seen fairly late into the game, when Jak and Daxter fight alongside one of the resistance members, and at one point he is standing on an unstable surface just after they had outrun a monster, giving a big speech about the future. You can guess what happens. As it turned out, the character concerned didn't actually die, but it still felt pretty insensitive to make his supposed death the punchline to a joke. Comedy and drama need to be carefully balanced, and the writers need to know what can be joked about, and what needs to be taken seriously.
Overall, looking at what they did with the story, I fail to understand the reason for the sequel's radical change. If they weren't going to utilise the potential for storytelling and character development, then why shift the tone in the first place? They could have just as easily made another game in the style of the first, maybe added a little more story and some new gameplay, and they wouldn't have had to worry about writing drama. Instead, Naughty Dog took a fun, light-hearted premise and turned it into a bland, confusing, mediocre tale that had no idea what it was trying to accomplish. It was trying to be both dramatic and silly, and both simple and complex, and the result was a mess. There is really no excuse for such messy writing, since Insomniac have proven that cartoony platformers can tell a compelling story. And yes, I know that A Crack in Time came out six years after Jak II, but I'm pretty sure the basic principles of storytelling existed back in 2003. It's a shame too, because the story had a lot of potential.
Gameplay
Jak II as a game is pretty different from its' predecessor. The Precursor Legacy was a free-roaming platformer that basically allowed you to go wherever you wanted, as long as you collected enough power cells. Jak II is more of a mission-based sandbox game. You spend most of the game running errands for various people in the resistance, and the missions are pretty varied. Some involve going outside Haven City to explore other areas in a typical platforming style, some take place in the city itself, such as escort missions, or collecting or destroying items in a time limit, and some require you take part in races. It's pretty enjoyable, but I preferred the sense of journey in The Precursor Legacy. In Jak II you were always going to end up back in Haven City. Neither game had a strong story to drive it, but Jak II suffers more because there is less to explore, and I didn't really care too much about the missions from a story point of view.
I also really didn't like how much driving you have to do. In the style of Grand Theft Auto, you can steal zoomers (basically cars/motorbikes) and drive to your next destination. These parts of the game are boring and tedious, since it takes ages to get anywhere, and they add nothing to the gaming experience. Catching the attention of the Krimson Guard is pretty inconvenient, but nothing beyond that, and you're not penalised for endangering bystanders, you just pick a zoomer, follow the map and as long as you don't hit a member of the Krimson Guard you're all good. On several occasions I found myself thinking; "They're building up Jak as a hero, but to be honest, with me in control he's more of a public menace!"
This game also introduces gunplay into the franchise; over the course of the game you acquire four different guns. The Scatter Gun has a short range but is good for taking out multiple enemies, the Blaster has a good range and is pretty effective when used skilfully, the Vulcan Cannon (my personal favourite) has a very good range, is pretty powerful and has a rapid rate of fire, and the Peacemaker is the most powerful gun, but has the least ammo. Unfortunately, the game suffers from the same problem that the first Ratchet & Clank game did; you cannot strafe. This makes it very difficult to aim the gun while avoiding enemy attacks. Then there's the issue with ammo; you're entirely reliant on what enemies drop, making it difficult to replenish your stock. In some cases this keeps the balance, since having ready access to Vulcan ammo would probably make things too easy, but if the game gives your four guns, it seems stupid to only offer one type of ammo for the final boss. This ruined any sense of progression that the gunplay system had, since you were entirely reliant on one gun at the end. Overall, it was a decent idea, but was not amazingly executed, and added to the game's generic feel. I really wish they had done more with the Eco system from the first game, especially since they made a point of Jak's talent for channelling Eco. Using different types of Eco to get different power-ups was a really good concept, and I'm annoyed that they abandoned it in favour of guns.
Speaking of Eco, it's time to talk about the Dark Jak form, activated when Jak has collected enough Dark Eco. This is an interesting idea, but I hardly ever found myself using it. For one thing, you lose access to your guns when you transform, so you're entirely reliant on close-combat fighting. This leaves you exposed to enemies who fight long-range, so was often more trouble than it was worth. It also didn't help that Jak takes a few seconds to change back when the transformation wears off, and this again puts you at a disadvantage as you lose control of the character for a bit. From a gameplay point of view, the Dark Jak form is pretty useless until you get the upgrade that makes you invincible, but this doesn’t happen until very late in. It might have worked if the game relied on close-combat, but since most of the enemies have guns, it hinders the player rather than helps them.
I realise that my next complaint partly comes down to my own ability as a gamer, but it really affected my enjoyment of the game. To put it bluntly, this game is friggin' hard! With the exception of the gun issue, it wasn't a case of fake difficulty, but the game was extremely unforgiving. One thing that hindered my enjoyment of the first game (and caused a Rage Quit that lasted almost a year!) was the lack of checkpoints. Sadly, this game is even worse than the first. The thing about platforming, at least for me, is that it is a trial and error process. After going through the first bit of the level without too much trouble, I am going to fall to my death seeing if I can make that unusually large jump. I'll then die a few more times as I try to find out if there is anything I can land on. It might take a while to realise that I'm supposed to shoot the window and then get out the Jet Board to grind along the now available ledge to the other side, and then I'm likely to fall a few times until I get the hang of landing on the rail, and getting the jump right, since the jet board is a little too sensitive to the controls. The problem is, every one of these deaths would take me back to the beginning of the level, so it got really tedious going through all that again to get back to where I was. There were several points where I had follow a walkthrough to eliminate my chances of dying, because I didn't dare try something stupid and lose everything I had done. This is not fun, it's frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a challenge, but when the game punishes you because you haven't got the hang of that one jump, the challenge stops being rewarding, and the game just becomes tedious. Sure, if I played it again I'd probably be a lot better, but I've played most of the levels so many times that I don't see the point.
On that topic, I can't see any replay value, or any reason to continue my current playthrough. After the credits rolled, the game plonked me back in Haven City with no new missions to complete. I'm guessing the only thing left to do now is find all the precursor orbs, but I really can't be bothered. When I finished The Precursor Legacy I actually made an effort to try and get some more power cells before I moved on to this game. I didn't get to 100, but I can still see myself trying at some point. Jak II has given me no reason to go back to it, which makes me wonder why they put me back in the game rather than giving me a 'The End' screen like a Final Fantasy game would.
Gameplay overall was a mixed bag. On the one hand, at some points I got really into the game and had a lot of fun. But my frustrations at the difficulty started to overtake my enjoyment towards the end. The game had some good ideas, but nothing that felt particularly special. The controls were decent, with only a few issues with camera angles and the inability to strafe. I found myself referring to walkthroughs more often than I like, and most of the time it wasn't even because I was stuck, but because I didn't want to get stressed out. For me, Jak II had some good moments, but was difficult for the wrong reasons, and this stopped me from really getting into the game.
Graphics
In terms of quality, the graphics are very good, and are an improvement over those of The Precursor Legacy. This is to be expected, as Naughty Dog would have been used to working with the PS2 at this point. In terms of visuals, I'm less impressed. I didn't like the look of Haven City; it was just dull and grey, and felt like a generic city. Compare it to Midgar in Final Fantasy VII, where even the slums are distinctive and colourful (and that was on the PSOne). My favourite areas were the ones outside the city that mirrored the first game. I preferred the look of The Precursor Legacy; it had a lot more variety and was a lot more colourful, but I appreciate the general improvement in quality in Jak II.
Characters
The more I think about Jak, Daxter, Keira, and Samos the more I began to think that Naughty Dog rely heavily on three basic character types; The hero, the tech-savvy girl and the mentor. Jak, Keria and Samos basically fulfil the same roles as Crash, Coco and Aku Aku from Crash Bandicoot. If they prove me wrong when I eventually play Uncharted then I will retract that statement, but so far it stands. There are slight differences; Jak is fairly down-to-earth, Keria is the love interest rather than the sister and Samos is sillier and grouchier than his predecessor. They're still the same archetypes though. Daxter is the only particularly original character of the main four, and I feel he has the most personality, so I'm pretty annoyed that Naughty Dog didn't deem him title worthy this time around.
Jak's change cannot be described as character development, it's more of a 'badass makeover'. Character development is something that should feel natural, and Jak's change from a mute hero to a gritty badass took place during a time skip, making the end result extremely jarring. I'm perfectly fine with Naughty Dog giving Jak a voice; if they were going to do it, this was the best time. Jak still doesn’t get very good development during the game; he's pretty uncaring towards the resistance and kinda a jerk. He comes around towards the end, but it comes out of nowhere and isn't very believable. Like I said earlier, what was the point in drastically changing his character if they weren't going to do anything with him?
Daxter retains his identity from the first game, and he is probably my favourite character. Sure, he's a little annoying, obnoxious and a bit of a coward, but he just has more personality and is more fun to watch. He's also a pretty loyal friend, sticking by Jak through all the dangerous missions he embarks on. In the first game, Naughty Dog took the easy way out in terms of Jak and Daxter's relationship. Making them long-time friends saves time on the writing side, and it was clear from the first game that they wanted to concentrate more on gameplay than they did on story, which is fine. The two had a pretty basic dynamic; Jak was the silent 'straight man' and Daxter was the wisecracking sidekick who did all the talking. Jak's makeover shifted their dynamic, as he became more assertive, and this reduced Daxter's role quite a bit. In fact, after saying that Jak became a generic character, having Daxter as a companion is the only thing that really sets him apart from other gritty heroes. I liked their subtle interactions during cutscenes, but I still feel that they wasted a lot of potential. They didn't need a whole load of drama, they just needed to show that the two care about each other. For example, there is a part in the game where they get separated, and Jak goes through an entire mission on his own before he and Daxter reunite. And Jak just says "Where have you been?". Just something as simple as "You okay Dax?" would have had so much more impact.
The Dark Jak form was another wasted opportunity to explore Jak's character in more depth, and give Daxter a bigger role. Jak has this mysterious power that he can't control, and Daxter could have potentially been the only one who could keep him from losing himself to it. This would have made their relationship a lot more balanced, and been a real test to their friendship. The Dark Jak form barely comes up in the story, making it utterly useless since it was also a useless gameplay mechanic. So as far as the heroes go, Jak and Daxter are decent characters and have a good dynamic, but, as always, if they weren't going to explore this in more depth, why make the changes?
Then we have the supporting cast. This won't take long, because there's not much to talk about. Samos and Keira fulfil the same roles they did last time, and are decent characters, but out of the new characters nobody really stood out to me. The various members of the resistance were just basic archetypes with no real personality. The only characters who stood out to me at all stood out for pretty shallow reasons; Torn is Jak's grizzly-voice competitor who I mentioned in my Morning Muse, and Sig has the same voice as Green Lantern/John Stewart from the Justice League cartoon. The lack of personality from the supporting cast made it all the more difficult to get attached to the new world. We are supposed to care about their cause, and be sympathetic towards their plight, especially since our protagonists need a reason to develop an attachment to this unknown place. I will however say that the voice acting is good; I didn't detect any awkward line deliveries. I know this should be a given, but video games have been notorious for bad voice acting, so I think it's worth pointing out when it is done well.
So overall, some good ideas, but a lot of wasted potential. None of the characters were particularly distinctive, and were pretty interchangeable in terms of their roles. It's a shame, because they didn't need to be well-developed characters, they just needed to stand out a little more. Daxter was the only character who was particularly memorable, and to be honest, he seemed a little out-of-place in this game. There was a lot they could have done, but they just didn't, and I think the game really suffers for it.
Soundtrack
To be honest, I barely remember any of this game's soundtrack. None of it was bad; it sounded fine and nothing grated on my nerves. I tend to prefer forgettable music to irritatingly repetitive music, so I don't really have anything to complain about here. The music does its job, but remains in the background.
Overall Thoughts
Pros
Good platforming
Levels are quite varied
Controls are good
Ideal length for a platformer (I clocked 24 hours)
Cons
Frustratingly difficult
Lack of checkpoints
Travelling between locations is boring
Problematic controls for weapons
Wasted story potential
Generic characters
No obvious replay value
I didn't hate Jak II, in fact I got really into it for a while. It's just that the bad outweighed the good, and when the game got more difficult, I found myself less motivated to play it. I think gamers do one of two things when a game gets frustrating; refuse to let it beat them and persist until they get past the challenge, or decide that it's not worth it and quit. I'm generally the latter. The problem is, this meant that I ended up only playing Jak II in short bursts, and this stopped me from getting really drawn in. It comes down to the game doing too many things wrong; I would have excused a weak story if the game itself was fun to play, and I would have excused some problematic gameplay if the story was compelling. For a while I was the former, but by the end I was only still playing because I thought I might as well finish it.
I can't really say that this game is worth getting. If you're looking for a platformer with some good variety, you're up for a challenge and you can find this game cheap, then you may as well pick it up. If you liked The Precursor Legacy, then this game is pretty different so you will have to decide for yourself if you like the new direction. If you just want a really good platformer then I would recommend The Precursor Legacy or Crash Bandicoot 3. If you want creative weaponry then play one of the Ratchet & Clank games. If you want a game with a really good dystopia/resistance storyline then play Final Fantasy VII. If you want a cartoony platformer with an engaging story then play Ratchet & Clank (Future): A Crack in Time.
I don't see why people love Jak II so much. It's not deep, it's not involving, it's just a generic game, and just about every aspect of it has been done better somewhere else. I suppose if you had only ever played cartoony platformers like Sonic, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro then this game would have been revolutionary. The problem is, Naughty Dog seemed to have no idea what to do with this new direction, and the end result was extremely jarring.
Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, maybe because I already own it, but I do plan to play Jak 3 at some point. I know it's going to mirror Jak II in terms of style, but I'm willing to give it a try, and see if it improves on any of the second game's issues. What I can say, however, is that if the sequel irritates me, I probably won't be inclined to finish it. I also plan to play Uncharted at some point, since it is supposed to be really good, but given what I was told about Jak II, I will have my reservations. I know Naughty Dog can make good games; I've played them, so I'm still willing to see what they have to offer, and won't let one mediocre game completely ruin my opinion of them.
This is definitely the longest blog post I have written so far, so I hope it was an interesting read. So, does anyone else agree with me about this game? If you loved it, what about it did you love, and why would you recommend it over some of the other titles I have mentioned? (I'm not trying to be condescending, I genuinely want to hear what people have to say on the matter). Feel free to leave a comment, or better yet, write a response.
