fakecontest
Bio
Nothing here!
Badges
1 Years of Service
Being part of the Backloggd community for 1 year
Favorite Games
019
Total Games Played
000
Played in 2024
000
Games Backloggd
Recently Played See More
Recently Reviewed See More
This review contains spoilers
The original Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 is one of my all time favorite games, and one that have played consistently since it was released in 2000. This remake is great, but considering what is suggested by the title gets a few critical things wrong.
The levels all are designed as immaculately as they were in the originals. The experience of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 levels do include some changes though. In an attempt to balance the Goal disparity of the originals (THPS1 had only 5 goals per level while the sequel had 10), additional goals have been added to the original game. These goals, while not horrible, change the flow of those original games' deliberate paths and patterns. These new goals can't be removed in the options to have the levels play as they did in the originals, which is odd. I understand the sentiment: Why make the original look like the inferior game with less content when things can be added to bring it up to parity with its superior sequel? But, with this philosophy in mind, what would prevent you from adding way more stuff to these games?
Which is where the moveset comes in. The movement of this remake isn't a remake of 1+2 at all, but more a remake of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, with the levels from 1+2. Spine transfers from 4, The reverts from 3 and wall plants from THUG are all here. Wisely, the "Jumped the shark" elements like getting off your board are gone. These additional moves allow for higher scores and longer combos, and the score goals for both games are adjusted as a result. It once again makes sense, but is slightly odd. an option to reduce the moveset to just THPS1 or THPS2 is there, but the challenges don't change with those adjustments.
These old levels were made with certain mechanics, movement and momentum in mind and certain goals are now broken as a result (the special tape in Venice Beach comes to mind). Are they impossible? Well, no, but the routing and flow is disrupted from its absolute perfection already achieved 20 years prior. New engines always introduce new feel, but making no attempt to maintain the purity of these two games is odd. Why pick these entries in the series? Why not just make Tony Hawk 6?
The iconic music soundtrack also comes with some additions that change the feel of the game. Some of the new songs added by bands like Sublime and A Tribe Called Quest fit the 90's/00's aesthetic of the originals, but then there are tons of new songs that have contemporary styles and feel that are at odds with these vintage game mechanics. Skepta playing while I skate the Warehouse? Blasphemy.
Menus also have the modern completionist flow and design that is expected in things like Call of Duty and also feels cluttered and weighted for a game of this vintage. Reward goals for pieces placed in the create a park editor, flip trick landed, speed run requirements, etc. They all bog down a simple, classic game into a menu-driven checklist pile of chores plaguing modern game design. This coldly prescriptive way tell players how to play is especially dissonant when attempting to embody a set of levels and mechanics near universally loved for decades. Isn't the goal here to be evocative of a bygone era of games?
Overall I enjoyed it, but it loses points for me since I assumed it would be so good as to replace the originals. It comes close. While the new graphics are welcome, they also come with new music, mechanics, goals, and so many additional changes I would have rather done without. This is a new Tony Hawk game wearing the originals levels and music like a set of old clothes, and is more interested in remaking the feel of the series as a whole rather than these two games in particular. This difference is so slight. Imagine a "Super Mario 1+2+3" remake where they all shared mechanics and power ups across all games and you can start to feel how, while interesting, that wouldn't exactly be right. It would be a remake, rather than a compilation, which is closer to what I desired from a game like this.
Should a remake be so slavish to the original? Probably not. This game is great, and succeeds in being a loving tribute to the series. Yet it modernizes so many things that it reminds me more of the year 2020 design wise more than the year 2000, which to me seems antithetical to the goals of remaking these particular games.
I love the entire series, but I felt remaking the first two games should come with a reduction of mechanics to express a simplicity and purity that I felt later entries lacked. I guess to achieve that I'll be firing up the PSX originals.
The levels all are designed as immaculately as they were in the originals. The experience of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 levels do include some changes though. In an attempt to balance the Goal disparity of the originals (THPS1 had only 5 goals per level while the sequel had 10), additional goals have been added to the original game. These goals, while not horrible, change the flow of those original games' deliberate paths and patterns. These new goals can't be removed in the options to have the levels play as they did in the originals, which is odd. I understand the sentiment: Why make the original look like the inferior game with less content when things can be added to bring it up to parity with its superior sequel? But, with this philosophy in mind, what would prevent you from adding way more stuff to these games?
Which is where the moveset comes in. The movement of this remake isn't a remake of 1+2 at all, but more a remake of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, with the levels from 1+2. Spine transfers from 4, The reverts from 3 and wall plants from THUG are all here. Wisely, the "Jumped the shark" elements like getting off your board are gone. These additional moves allow for higher scores and longer combos, and the score goals for both games are adjusted as a result. It once again makes sense, but is slightly odd. an option to reduce the moveset to just THPS1 or THPS2 is there, but the challenges don't change with those adjustments.
These old levels were made with certain mechanics, movement and momentum in mind and certain goals are now broken as a result (the special tape in Venice Beach comes to mind). Are they impossible? Well, no, but the routing and flow is disrupted from its absolute perfection already achieved 20 years prior. New engines always introduce new feel, but making no attempt to maintain the purity of these two games is odd. Why pick these entries in the series? Why not just make Tony Hawk 6?
The iconic music soundtrack also comes with some additions that change the feel of the game. Some of the new songs added by bands like Sublime and A Tribe Called Quest fit the 90's/00's aesthetic of the originals, but then there are tons of new songs that have contemporary styles and feel that are at odds with these vintage game mechanics. Skepta playing while I skate the Warehouse? Blasphemy.
Menus also have the modern completionist flow and design that is expected in things like Call of Duty and also feels cluttered and weighted for a game of this vintage. Reward goals for pieces placed in the create a park editor, flip trick landed, speed run requirements, etc. They all bog down a simple, classic game into a menu-driven checklist pile of chores plaguing modern game design. This coldly prescriptive way tell players how to play is especially dissonant when attempting to embody a set of levels and mechanics near universally loved for decades. Isn't the goal here to be evocative of a bygone era of games?
Overall I enjoyed it, but it loses points for me since I assumed it would be so good as to replace the originals. It comes close. While the new graphics are welcome, they also come with new music, mechanics, goals, and so many additional changes I would have rather done without. This is a new Tony Hawk game wearing the originals levels and music like a set of old clothes, and is more interested in remaking the feel of the series as a whole rather than these two games in particular. This difference is so slight. Imagine a "Super Mario 1+2+3" remake where they all shared mechanics and power ups across all games and you can start to feel how, while interesting, that wouldn't exactly be right. It would be a remake, rather than a compilation, which is closer to what I desired from a game like this.
Should a remake be so slavish to the original? Probably not. This game is great, and succeeds in being a loving tribute to the series. Yet it modernizes so many things that it reminds me more of the year 2020 design wise more than the year 2000, which to me seems antithetical to the goals of remaking these particular games.
I love the entire series, but I felt remaking the first two games should come with a reduction of mechanics to express a simplicity and purity that I felt later entries lacked. I guess to achieve that I'll be firing up the PSX originals.
It was strange to play probably the best 2D Sonic game ever made. Christian Whitehead and his team appear to love this franchise more than I love anything in my life. The music, levels, references and bosses were all immaculate. I even remember saying "Perfect..." out loud to a section. It has a blissful devotion to even the hardware 2D Sonic was produced on, going so far as to establish the visual language of the Genesis only to destroy it a level or two later, simply to remind me that yes, we know this is exactly how it is supposed to look back then but yes, we are going to do so much more.
It was strange because this it is a rare experience where, playing a game as divine as this, where every element is exactly designed to marry its controls, level design, music and graphics into a flawless symphony, I realized I was the problem.
This game is a perfect Sonic game. Ultimately, I thought it was alright. It turns out I don't like Sonic games as much as I thought I did. Turns out something can still be perfect in every way and it still isn't for me.
This is a perfect version of 2D Sonic and improves on the classic games in every way. Still, I didn't like Sonic 3 and still don't. I can recognize when an artist has goals set out for themselves and achieves them perfectly. This doesn't oblige me as an audience to love it though. I don't like collecting Chaos emeralds. Blue emeralds makes physically ill to look at the screen. Most dedicated platforming sections felt both floaty and rigid. All levels both felt too short and too long. These aren't critiques though, because I wouldn't change any of it: I can tell its exactly what its designers wanted, and changing it would remove what makes Sonic Sonic.
Still, if you don't like Horror movies, seeing the best, most perfect horror movie ever likely doesn't move the needle much. The best you can hope for is to at least develop a respect for the craft.
It was strange because this it is a rare experience where, playing a game as divine as this, where every element is exactly designed to marry its controls, level design, music and graphics into a flawless symphony, I realized I was the problem.
This game is a perfect Sonic game. Ultimately, I thought it was alright. It turns out I don't like Sonic games as much as I thought I did. Turns out something can still be perfect in every way and it still isn't for me.
This is a perfect version of 2D Sonic and improves on the classic games in every way. Still, I didn't like Sonic 3 and still don't. I can recognize when an artist has goals set out for themselves and achieves them perfectly. This doesn't oblige me as an audience to love it though. I don't like collecting Chaos emeralds. Blue emeralds makes physically ill to look at the screen. Most dedicated platforming sections felt both floaty and rigid. All levels both felt too short and too long. These aren't critiques though, because I wouldn't change any of it: I can tell its exactly what its designers wanted, and changing it would remove what makes Sonic Sonic.
Still, if you don't like Horror movies, seeing the best, most perfect horror movie ever likely doesn't move the needle much. The best you can hope for is to at least develop a respect for the craft.
This review contains spoilers
One of the most aggressively decent games I've ever played.
I assume Shattered Soldier and Neo Contra were too weird or something, because Konami brought in WayForward for this one, with no involvement from Nobuya Nakazato. This "return to form" results in one of the safest games ever, going for pretty much a retread of the first three games and doing little else to make it unique. The first few levels are references Contra on NES, level four references Operation C and the rest Contra III. Its nearly note for note the whole way through. Three levels are also stylized as NES Contra's faux 3D "walk forward" levels, and now they are in actual 3D. The DS 3D isn't nearly as good as NES pixel art emulating 3D, and these levels without the effect are slow with confusing screen geometry. Nowadays we don't use the word "rehash" much, but this is almost a textbook definition.
The most unique element of this game is the vertical, two screen element. Yet this layout on DS is fundamentally flawed, since a portion of the screen is "in between" the two screens on the DS, making the field of vision unfocused, and the enemy placement less masterful than what is expected from the other classic entries, since the game is constantly attempting to take advantage of the verticality by placing things on both screens.
Completing the game unlocks Contra and Super C on NES, making the game even more perplexing, since a compilation on DS would have made way more sense. Perhaps since Contra III was poorly ported to GBA and widely panned A new entry that copied the originals with new art was considered more financially lucrative.
If you have played all other entries in the series except this one, you have played this one, just in a different order. It's functional, with good music and art, but in the greater context (especially after the Contra Collection) completely forgettable, unnecessary and nowhere near as good as the classic Japanese games.
I assume Shattered Soldier and Neo Contra were too weird or something, because Konami brought in WayForward for this one, with no involvement from Nobuya Nakazato. This "return to form" results in one of the safest games ever, going for pretty much a retread of the first three games and doing little else to make it unique. The first few levels are references Contra on NES, level four references Operation C and the rest Contra III. Its nearly note for note the whole way through. Three levels are also stylized as NES Contra's faux 3D "walk forward" levels, and now they are in actual 3D. The DS 3D isn't nearly as good as NES pixel art emulating 3D, and these levels without the effect are slow with confusing screen geometry. Nowadays we don't use the word "rehash" much, but this is almost a textbook definition.
The most unique element of this game is the vertical, two screen element. Yet this layout on DS is fundamentally flawed, since a portion of the screen is "in between" the two screens on the DS, making the field of vision unfocused, and the enemy placement less masterful than what is expected from the other classic entries, since the game is constantly attempting to take advantage of the verticality by placing things on both screens.
Completing the game unlocks Contra and Super C on NES, making the game even more perplexing, since a compilation on DS would have made way more sense. Perhaps since Contra III was poorly ported to GBA and widely panned A new entry that copied the originals with new art was considered more financially lucrative.
If you have played all other entries in the series except this one, you have played this one, just in a different order. It's functional, with good music and art, but in the greater context (especially after the Contra Collection) completely forgettable, unnecessary and nowhere near as good as the classic Japanese games.