Second Sight

[linkster]

Yes, fairly nicely put.

It is interesting having read an awful lot of reviews and forum pundits say "no reason to go back it" when there are actually dozens of little funnies like this which you just won't notice first time through.

[MonkeyWrench]

A nice touch sure, but hardly a good enough reason to put yourself through all that frustration a second time.

[linkster]

A nice touch sure, but hardly a good enough reason to put yourself through all that frustration a second time.

Well, depends how frustrating you found it the first time through I guess. It's an awful lot easier when you know how to avoid the respawning guards and can just concentrate on experimenting.

[MonkeyWrench]

Yeah I guess, but not all the frustration was born from things that would be easier in hindsight, such as the annoying dodgy camera positioning. The game was good, but not *that* good

[linkster]

Yeah I guess, but not all the frustration was born from things that would be easier in hindsight, such as the annoying dodgy camera positioning. The game was good, but not *that* good

I agree, neither camera mode really lent itself particularly well to stealth play, but then I think there's been a lot of nonsense spouted about it because people wanted naturally to pigeon hole this game (including Codemasters, frankly) when it set out to do something quite ambitious, i.e. let you decide your own way to play. Its biggest failing in that regard, other than the flaws in the 'stealth' play that have been discussed at length, is the rewards are quite subtle - it expects you to want to play it more than once, thereby discovering a lot of depth, and that's frankly asking a hell of a lot of the player.

To my mind it's always been closer to Deus Ex than something like Metal Gear, but with more appeal to a mass market who don't care about levelling up and the like. Fair play to Free Radical for pulling off something quite special. Honestly think it's a game that people will become more fond of as time goes by.

[Eight Rooks]

I agree, neither camera mode really lent itself particularly well to stealth play, but then I think there's been a lot of nonsense spouted about it because people wanted naturally to pigeon hole this game (including Codemasters, frankly) when it set out to do something quite ambitious, i.e. let you decide your own way to play. Its biggest failing in that regard, other than the flaws in the 'stealth' play that have been discussed at length, is the rewards are quite subtle - it expects you to want to play it more than once, thereby discovering a lot of depth, and that's frankly asking a hell of a lot of the player.

To my mind it's always been closer to Deus Ex than something like Metal Gear, but with more appeal to a mass market who don't care about levelling up and the like. Fair play to Free Radical for pulling off something quite special. Honestly think it's a game that people will become more fond of as time goes by.

Could well be - a nice point - although it does still rightly deserve to be taken down a peg for being so unpolished in some regards, and having no tangible reason to go through it again. Skill-based gameplay and sandbox pissing about is all very well, but even then you expect some clear signs the developers intended it that way. As well as having no unlockables (save two) Second Sight has no clear grading system, no stats after every attempt... saying "you get out what you put in" is one thing, but that shouldn't excuse games that quite clearly aren't finished, or aren't as good as they could plainly have been.

With a grading system of some kind as well as an overall stats table, and unlockables depending on you playing it different ways, this would have been great. On the other hand, as you say, it is unfair to slate it hugely for supposedly having no replay value at all, because even in this state that's clearly not the case, not even for some weird hardcore niche of players. I think with any game with an element of messing around you can expect some players to keep going back and trying different stuff.

[linkster]

Could well be - a nice point - although it does still rightly deserve to be taken down a peg for being so unpolished in some regards, and having no tangible reason to go through it again. Skill-based gameplay and sandbox pissing about is all very well, but even then you expect some clear signs the developers intended it that way. As well as having no unlockables (save two) Second Sight has no clear grading system, no stats after every attempt... saying "you get out what you put in" is one thing, but that shouldn't excuse games that quite clearly aren't finished, or aren't as good as they could plainly have been.

With a grading system of some kind as well as an overall stats table, and unlockables depending on you playing it different ways, this would have been great. On the other hand, as you say, it is unfair to slate it hugely for supposedly having no replay value at all, because even in this state that's clearly not the case, not even for some weird hardcore niche of players. I think with any game with an element of messing around you can expect some players to keep going back and trying different stuff.

Oh the game's got faults, no doubt about that. The thing is I'd certainly want to question anyone who says it's clearly not finished - I mean by what standard? I think being Free Radical who play on their heritage and get the benefit of the doubt because of it then the expectations are exceptionally high. I've seen it described as "buggy" which I think is extremely unfair. Also people picked up on the physics implementation, and frankly I agree, but let's face it, physics is still a new phenomenon in games, and certainly judged alongside Psi Ops' Havok it falls short. Again, it's being compared to the best, and that's fair enough, but I do feel many comments I've read go way overboard & ignore (or are made in ignorance of) the difficulty in implementing such a system - physics is very processor intensive, yet this game still has heaps of effects, enemies, large levels with no load times. There's always a trade off.

As for the developer intending it that way, take the example early in the third level. You walk into the foyer with the police. People who played the E3 demo complained that you couldn't jump over the little railing, you were forced to go near the police. FRD knew that, and fixed it, so you can practically bypass that entire set piece. But would you want to? Why not pick up the sign, pull it towards you, hide behind it. It is as you say sandbox pissing about, but then the developer did intend it that way, because the game is littered with instances where they didn't want to deny the player a "logical" way through. Coming back to my original point, that is asking a lot of the player, but that was what FRD wanted to do, wherever possible.

[Eight Rooks]

As for the developer intending it that way, take the example early in the third level. You walk into the foyer with the police. People who played the E3 demo complained that you couldn't jump over the little railing, you were forced to go near the police. FRD knew that, and fixed it, so you can practically bypass that entire set piece. But would you want to? Why not pick up the sign, pull it towards you, hide behind it. It is as you say sandbox pissing about, but then the developer did intend it that way, because the game is littered with instances where they didn't want to deny the player a "logical" way through. Coming back to my original point, that is asking a lot of the player, but that was what FRD wanted to do, wherever possible.

But I don't think the sandbox stuff comes across that well, though, and I think the bugs/poor implementation of it hurts it even further. Why not pick up the sign and hide behind it? Perhaps because I already know the physics are nothing like as good as Psi-Ops (even from just playing the PO demo), that they're a pain to control, that the police are just a "locked door" that you can't get past and that I'm more than likely in no real danger from them even if I have to go near them? Also that I already know (or have the distinct impression) that I can just gun my way out of every confrontation inside the level, and I'm somewhat frustrated and want to stop wandering around and get out here, and the sooner the better?

And the idea that at some point you couldn't jump that railing (I never heard about the E3 demo)... no, sorry, that's not some understandable omission that they corrected out of magnaminity or anything, it's a stupid mistake that they realised they had to fix. It's notable, for example, that Vattic can't jump; there were a few points in the game where I thought "well, he could get through there, or into that part, or down that way if only they'd let him do x, y or z". And that's not me being greedy - that's poor design on their part. Not game-ruining poor design, but faults that deserve to be taken into consideration.

True, the little touches are there, and the potential is there, and it deserves to be applauded for having done a lot more than many other games. But it's patently obvious IMO it is not some misunderstood classic. You can't go "well, sure, there are these little glitches all over the place and all these notable shortcomings, but if you do this and this, this happens, and that's really cool, so just forget the other stuff".

Second Sight is a good game, and one that doesn't deserve any harsh criticism. Flat. But it is... "unfinished", for want of a better word; not full of gaping holes, but with plenty of tiny, nagging little things where you keep wondering "why doesn't this do that? why can't I go there? why does this feel so lifeless? why doesn't this work that way?" It leaves me with the lasting impression that it could have been so much better if they'd only worked on it for a few more months, and games that do that get marked down, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry if I seem like I'm getting snappy or if this is incoherent. You did say some pretty good things - I just get very touchy at the whole amateur reviewing mentality of "oh, this game made me feel brilliant when I went here, or did this, or saw that part, so it has to be a 10 out of 10" and some of what you were saying seemed to be drifting towards that, so I, um, ranted on a bit.

[linkster]

Sorry if I seem like I'm getting snappy or if this is incoherent. You did say some pretty good things - I just get very touchy at the whole amateur reviewing mentality of "oh, this game made me feel brilliant when I went here, or did this, or saw that part, so it has to be a 10 out of 10" and some of what you were saying seemed to be drifting towards that, so I, um, ranted on a bit.

Christ no, wasn't going there at all. Wouldn't quibble with whatever you don't like about it either, and I wasn't actually referring to you with my initial comments. Just I know this game did try and do something that is certainly at odds with the way many games are designed, and from what I've read that does often get lost in the stampede to compare it to what's gone before.

[Eight Rooks]

Christ no, wasn't going there at all. Wouldn't quibble with whatever you don't like about it either, and I wasn't actually referring to you with my initial comments. Just I know this game did try and do something that is certainly at odds with the way many games are designed, and from what I've read that does often get lost in the stampede to compare it to what's gone before.

Oh, very much so, as Edge said - which is why I don't really want to get rid of it, certainly not yet... there's enough it does right that it'd be a shame if it just got forgotten as supposedly another iteration of "me-too" third-person action gaming. It's not part of that at all IMO.

I do still want to compare it to Psi-Ops, though, whether or not they're both part of some new marketing trend.

[linkster]

Oh, very much so, as Edge said - which is why I don't really want to get rid of it, certainly not yet... there's enough it does right that it'd be a shame if it just got forgotten as supposedly another iteration of "me-too" third-person action gaming. It's not part of that at all IMO.

I do still want to compare it to Psi-Ops, though, whether or not they're both part of some new marketing trend.

lol yeah. Bloody rip off.

[tiddles]

I don't really disagree with any of the criticisms made so far, but nevertheless I'm really enjoying this game - in fact, I'd go so far to say it's one of my favourite games so far this year, along with Riddick.

It's hard to pinpoint what makes it so compelling, despite its acknowledged flaws. The characterisation is very well realised, the story nothing out of the ordinary but tightly focused and well told. I guess I'm a fan of the TimeSplitters art style too.

There's no getting away from the fact that it's a stealth game, with all the attendant absurdities of the genre, but what really appeals to me is the range of solutions to each stealth puzzle; once you get your full complement of mind powers, there's always more than one way to beat each section.

The shooting is quite addictive too. The level stats have a "Morality" rating, which seems to be higher the fewer people you kill; it's actually quite compelling trying to get through each level using only the tranquilliser gun and non-lethal mind powers (which fortunately include possessing an enemy and getting him to clobber one of his mates over the head).

I've not played Psi-Ops, but if it's as good as or better than this then I'm definitely looking forward to it.

[EvilBoris]

I finished the game last night, in just under 7 hours, I really enjoyed it, but looking back at it is making me think of all the bad things. Like the way that the stealth sections were most of the time negated by the fact you could kick everyones ass by throwing them around. Also the story failed to properly kick off and i felt like i was waiting in limbo for something really amazing to happen

[linkster]

Like the way that the stealth sections were most of the time negated by the fact you could kick everyones ass by throwing them around.

Hence the respawning NPCs I guess. Certainly on the NSC base, flinging people around just ain't an option. If the stealth works well at any point in the game it's definitely there.

[Eight Rooks]

Hence the respawning NPCs I guess. Certainly on the NSC base, flinging people around just ain't an option. If the stealth works well at any point in the game it's definitely there.

Also, flinging people around never seems to work as well as Psi-Ops (still going from the demo, of course). You don't get any real sense of being able to violently fling someone away, and it rarely if ever knocks someone else over - they might as well all be trash cans with arms and legs. (Then again, the trash cans seem to work better!) Still funny pitching them down long drops, though - the three-storey tower in the asylum springs to mind.