Why is this game so bad?

why is this game so bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8eWDclkWtzs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

not enough checkpoints, fuck this games, too many enemies

Why is your taste so bad

Way too experimental for its own good, such as gun combat
Every new weapon in jak 3 required little aiming, so they learned their lesson

Jak games have always just been shitty Ratchet & Clanks

>too many enemies
>w-why cant i j-just spin and kick everything to death?? :_;

You have guns for a reason faggot.

And If you mean the crimson guard, no shit they are infinite you'll never beat them, just hi-jack any car and flee the scene, shit isn't hard.

So just like the regular Ratchet and Clanks?

tried to add edge to what was a children's collectathon

anyone that feels nostalgia for jak & daxter is full blown retarded, this series has no fucking identity

first game was good though

They just threw in a bunch of shit that was popular at the time without making any of it work.

literally my favourite Jak game joint first place with the first game

Is it true that they put all the Jak games on PS3? I want to play them, i shall buy a PS3 if this is the case

Yes, except for Jak X which is a shame

They did, years ago

The games would be great with strafing and aiming. The gun gameplay was pretty fucking awful though.

Still love them

replaying it for the first time in 10 years and this shit is impossible i swear. i don't remember it being this hard when i was young?

This game is insanely hard

I like the Jak games despite the questionable gun combat. The tank shit at the near start of Jak II gives me cancer though.

First game will always remain my favorite of the series.

jak 1 was kinda ok
jak 2 was autistic edgy pretentious garbage meme game

I think the same thing every time I replay it but I always push through somehow. I love this game.

>Every new weapon in jak 3 required little aiming, so they learned their lesson
this alone makes Jak 3 better than its predecessor. Even if it's not as robust or tight as the original and still has plenty of poor elements.

>pretentious

What?

best one in the series. Challenging, but almost never frustrating

3 was too easy

there is an insane amount of shitters itt. i beat this game when i was like 11 years old. I agree that it was pretty fucking edgy, especially compared to the first one. but it was not hard.

Yeah, almost.

youtube.com/watch?v=8eWDclkWtzs

Love the first two but I just couldn't get into the third one.

There's no defence for the second game that doesn't also apply to the third game

I didn't like the story.

>Way too experimental for its own good, such as gun combat
But the guns are easy as fuck.
Tilt the analog stick roughly towards the enemy and fire. It works really well in conjunction with melee if you're a skilled player.

the story and setting of 2 was garbage too

>jak 1 was kinda ok
It was just a ripoff of previous gen.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad game, but it was a severe change of pace from the first game for the fans. I remember not caring for it because I was expecting more of the cartoonish collectathon of the first game and instead I got a 3edgy5me much more difficult mission based game. I dropped it pretty quick. I may go back and finish the trilogy one day because I really like the first game.

just play Ratchet instead bro

A lot of the missions just didn't feel fun. Most of them weren't hard but still frustrating. Also the fact that there was a huge lack of checkpoints and sometimes if you fuck up you have to redo 10 minutes of a mission

The game itself is alright, but it should've been a different series altogether considering how different it is from the first.

Yeah, that's what I hear... What's a good entry point? Should I jump into the newest one? (isn't it a remake?)

Third game was too easy

>tfw the sewer escort mission

The newest one is a remake, yeah.

The original game has the strongest platformer elements. All the later ones, including the remake, are more about shooting. They all have a balance though, apart from spinoffs.

If you have a PS3, I say pick up the HD collection.

Like all Naughty Dog games, graphics come first.

And gameplay comes last.

Thanks for the tip, user.

What? These games' graphics weren't that good even among PS2 games, they did have varied gameplay though.

The environments of the first game looked pretty great, but the model quality was garbage.

You're my nigga. I believe they're both fantastic for different reasons. Don't see why everyone here had a hardon for 3, it's just a rehash of 2 with shitty driving missions.

The desert vehicles were shit.

The original Jak was specifically hyped up because of its "seamless world" with no load screens. A ton of promotional material emphasized this instead of the story or gameplay.

>These games' graphics weren't that good even among PS2 games
Uh, yeah they were. High detail, good textures, animations and lighting.

Gameplay was trash, but I'll give them graphics. I honestly thought parts of Jak 2 looked much better than typical GameCube stuff.

>The original Jak was specifically hyped up because of its "seamless world" with no load screens.

Not him but isn't that a good thing?

> tfw you 100% the game to get a cliffhanger

Just like every vehicle in Haven City.

That's not really a graphics thing. It is TECHNOLOGY though.
>and then the sequels both have loading screens before every level
lol

I thought there'd be something good behind that portal, like a bonus level

instead it was a garbage sequel

Oh and to add onto this, pretty sure Jak 1, 2 and 3 ran at 60 FPS, though had bits of slowdown here and there.

As I said. Graphically, Naughty Dog did good. But that's where it ends.

>Gameplay was trash, but I'll give them graphics.

I can see Jak 2, maybe Jak 3, but Jak 1 is alright. It's basically a Banjo/SM64 styled game from Naughty Dog and is fairly solid.

Jak 1 didn't innovate at all. People rag on Crash for just being a linear 2D platformer rotated into the camera, but Jak really did nothing new.


Not that I think it matters. If it's done well, it's done well.

>Jak 1 didn't innovate at all.

Why is this necessary? Why can't a game be simply good? Look how many sequels get hated for being too different from previous games (Jak 2 even) despite whatever quality it has?

>Every new weapon in jak 3 required little aiming, so they learned their lesson

So mindessly hitting the the fire button to kill everything is an improvement over actually having to position shots and use combos? Thanks for reminding me why I didn't like Jak 3 as much as 2.

Like I said, I don't think it matters. I like Crash and I like Jak 1 because they were both exemplars of their genres.
But it's easy to lose respect for Naughty Dog when you admit that they're just a bunch of trend chasers.

It's an improvement when the game doesn't give you adequate controls for actually aiming.

Jak x is like $5usd at most retro game stores that aren't GameStop.

>I got mine last week

Did people really have that much trouble aiming in Jak 2? I mean Jesus Christ, I did fine when I was younger and it came out. It wasn't that hard.

>people rip on Jak gameplay
>tfw found roaming the wasteland in an armored turbo buggy incredibly chill

>they're just a bunch of trend chasers.
Well, that's pretty much indisputable. They've been chasing trends for their entire career. Crash was nothing more than DKC in a new perspective, CTR was so much of a DKR clone that Naughty Dog rebuilt one of DKR's levels to use as a testing ground, Jak & Daxter was clearly trying to capture Banjo-Kazooie's thunder, and they switched to a GTA style as soon as that became popular.

Try reading Andy Gavin (Naughty Dog founder)'s blog sometime. He admits that the only thing he ever cared about in gaming is to make lots of money. At one point he describes feeling physically ill when one of his Naughty Dog games was outsold by something else.

Is it really that difficult to tilt the analog stick and line up the reticle in the direction you want? Even if you had problems with the aiming, flat out removing the need to use it in the sequel is not an improvement.

Crash Bandicoot

I want to be able to move and aim independently. Or heck, just simply be able to line up a shot carefully while stationary. Every decent shooter allows you to do that.

>flat out removing the need to use it in the sequel is not an improvement.
If you have a tumour, you cut it out. Jak II is nothing but a bunch of tumorous gameplay mechanics grafted onto the first game, and Jak 3 at least made babysteps towards correcting some of those problems.

I agree that making aiming actually work is superior to removing it totally, but doing either is better than doing nothing.

I got stuck on that bit back when i was a kid so i just gave up

Not him but a lot of people rag on Crash for being a 3D Platformer that isn't open like SM64 and the like. It's why games like 3D Land and 3D World are so divisive among the fans despite being pretty good for what they are.

Still looking forward to the N-Sane Trilogy later this year.

Grand Theft Auto 3

What makes your taste better?

>Removing the need to aim in a shooter is okay.

JUST

The only good missions are the ones that are platforming in linear levels completely separate from the main world. Making the switch to sandbox game redundant.
City is lifeless and devoid of content, half of the missions don't even take place in it. There's not even any joy in going on a rampage since Krimson guards are easy to dispatch and there's no escalation of your wanted level like there is in the game it's desperately trying to ape. Navigating it between missions can't be described as anything besides complete, 100% filler.
Shooting mechanics are flawed on a fundamental level. Due to the generous autoaim required by character relative aiming, no satisfaction can come out of lining up a precise shot since the computer does it for you. This isn't even going into its other problems like the comically limited gunpool and certain techniques breaking the game.

Jak 3's an even bigger mess somehow. There they gave up on trying to make the shooting fun and just made it easy to the point of being a non-factor.

>Being a godawful shooter and a decent platformer is better than just being a decent platformer

But Jak 3 has arguably even more shooting than Jak 2. What point are you trying to make?

The first game was a stupid baby game for children.

Correct. I only play mature games for mature gamers such as myself.

Was hoping it was a bonus world with treasure all I got was Jak 2.

incredibly awful comment
the gameplay isn't even that similar, and the level design is way different

>Challenging, but almost never frustrating
Did we play the same fucking game? Jak 2 is probably the most frustrated I've ever gotten with a video game and I don't get frustrated easily when it comes to video games.

git gud

I beat it last year along with the rest of the trilogy. Thanks for a useless post with an ancient meme.

3 felt like more of an adventure. It did what a sequel should do and add on/refine what it's predecessor brought to the table. However, Jak 2 was a great game with memorable characters, and I enjoyed the challenge over Jak 3.