I disagree. Headhunter 2 is one excellent looking PS2 game even when compared to Devil May Cry (which I have played extensively). I don’t see how anyone can expect developers to squeeze much more out of the aging PS2 hardware.
I would just hate to see Amuze disappear off the radar for good simply because they thought up a lot of great ideas that they just didn’t implement very well (the game actually reminds me of C&C: Tiberium Sun in that respect).
That’s life I suppose. Irrespective of sales, don’t you think that Sega were at least pleased with the technical side of the game?
To be brutally honest, Devil May Cry wipes the floor with Headhunter: Redemption.
But that doesn’t mean that the game is horrible, in terms of technical accomplishments. I was intentionally comparing the game to the “cream of the crop” on the PS2 (in terms of technical accomplishments) because that was what was being argued here.
Besides that, though, I simply don’t see how HH:R delivers anything compelling. There was nothing innovative about the gameplay that I remember.
Well I don’t see how the graphics could have been much better (I especially liked the giant robotic spiders), but yes, the game was a disappointment overall. Amuze should have expanded on and around the winning gameplay of the original.
What if that was their attempt at doing so?[/quote]
I can’t see how. They basically took out the bike sections, taking away the (illusory) sense of freedom found in the first game, and condensed the action into one linear mission after another.
For example, in Headhunter, there was a mission where Jack had to race to different parts of the city on his bike to disarm suitcase detonators for a nuclear bomb all before the timer runs out. There was nothing even remotely like that in the sequel. The game also focused less on stealth and more on combat instead of carefully balancing the two like before. And I won’t discuss the main character or the shaky targeting crosshair…
I wouldn’t call Headhunter 2 an expansion on the original game’s winning gameplay. I’m not quite sure what inspired Amuze to make so many drastic changes.
What I meant is, what if all those changes are what Amuze thought were improvements on the gameplay? It’s all a matter of perception. Maybe they thought they were improving the overall game by removing those portions or changing the targetting, etc. Puts a different perspective on the developer, don’t it?