Anyone have Spy Hunter for the PS2? (1 Viewer)

[CRyan]

I don't have a PS2 but used to love this game years ago. Anyone have it and have any comments? Looks pretty great and was wondering about playability.
Also, is this game going to be made available for the PC or even the XBOX?
Thanks for any information,
C. Ryan
------------------
http://www.elitestoragedesigns.com/RyanOAR.bmp

 

[Peter Rohlfs]

I found the graphics to be great but the game almost unplayable.
They state a 2 player mode on the box but you have to "earn" it.
You are given missions with a primary goal. If you don't do that the run through doesn't count no mater what else you do. This wouldn't be bad, except this is not all you have to do. There are a number of 2nd goals.
To advance to the next level you not only have to not only perform the primary goal, but have accomplished enough goals to earn the next level. Also, these only count for what you accomplish in a single run.
It gets worse because these goal points are added up. So if you just got enough on the last level to get to the next you will have to be a superman and the next level (accomplish alot of goals) to advance.
Some of the 2nd goals are ludicrous as avoiding civiian casualties. In Spy Hunter ?@!@##????
Also you have limited machine gun rounds! This is Spy Hunter?? It also seems to take more shots than the original to kill things and you can't kill the weapon van.
On the 4th level you have to use guided missles. Since you have limited missles you can't leave them out as your primary weapon. So to use then you have to hit L1 to change from machine gun to missle. Push down on the left analog joystick to select lock target. Hit R1 to fire missle. This is WAY too much work to do when in the middle of a fire fight.
I haven't gotten past the 4th level.
If you expect a fun shoot em up no brainer like the original you'll hate it. If complicated games are what you like, this might be your cup of tea.
Peter

 

[CRyan]

Ahh man. They ruined it. The hardest part about the game used to be missing oncoming traffic. Oh well, it seems like they do this to too many games now. What ever happened to brainless fun?
Thanks for the review!
C. Ryan
------------------
http://www.elitestoragedesigns.com/RyanOAR.bmp

 

[Frederick]

I have it, and to be honest, I'm enjoying it. Yeah, it took me a minute to get used to the controls, but now that I have I'm having a blast with it. I believe that I'm on the sixth level now, or maybe it's the fifth. Once you've finished a level, you can go back and try and complete all of the goals. They aren't impossible. You may have to play the level 3 or 4 times to find everything, but I've been enjoying it so much that it hasn't really bothered me. This isn't a game that you'll just blow through, although it's not very long from what I've been reading. This game isn't very complicated. It just isn't the old Spy Hunter that we played back in the day. No where near. It would have been nice if they included it on the disc, though. I'd suggest renting it, C. Ryan. If it turns out that it isn't your cup of tea, you really didn't lose too much ...
Freddy C.
------------------
" ... Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much ..."

 

[BrianB]

Also you have limited machine gun rounds! This is Spy Hunter?? It also seems to take more shots than the original to kill things and you can't kill the weapon van.

I think you were something different to what the game is, sorry. The original was a simple, straightforward arcade blaster/racer. A game with that simple a mechanic wouldn't stand up in the market in this day & age... Again, to complain about the /number of shots to kill/ something? Did you really think they'd carry through the mechanic to /that/ degree?
As for it being overly complicated? Not in my experience. It's tricky - it's got definite replay value - but it's not complicated.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Peter Rohlfs]

Brian,
The unlimited shots were at the heart of SpyHunter.
In a modern roleplaying computer/console game you wouldn't have unlimited arrows, throwing axes, throwing swords or spells. Food wouldn't heal all damage and keys wouldn't just be lying around all over the place. But when Gauntlet was updated they realized they should leave these things in.
They made the environments 3d and added new goals, but they were similar to the original goal. Instead of just find the exit, they added find the shard, and/or some special items and the exit. While adding new complexities and modern 3d graphics they stayed true to the spirit of the original.
I don't believe SpyHunter accomplished that. They could have put a "arcade" mode with a 3d version of Spyhunter in the general spirit of the original (unlimited shots and gong on a killing spree) and a "story mode" with what they did. A lot people will buy this game as I did, because they were a fan of the original and wanted something faithful to the spirit of the original.
But I did say that some people will like the type of game they put out.
I also think it is very wrong to list a game as 2 player if it isn't that way out of the box. I waited for a friend to be over to open this game. One person playing and another twiddling their thumbs is not what we had in mind.
Peter

 

[BrianB]

Simply put, I think you were expecting something it's not, simple as that. All the reviews/previews I've read make it quite clear what the game structure/style is.
I should make it clear here, I work for the developer, just in case accusations of bias get thrown my way.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Jason Seaver]

Simply put, I think you were expecting something it's not, simple as that.

Like "Spy Hunter"?
I see where he's coming from, though - part of the reason to use the recognizable name is to attract fans of the original game, and it seems like it would be a good idea to include a "classic-style" mode, as Jeff Minter did on "Tempest 2000", or at least not change the play mechanics too much.
Of course, that leaves the question of how much is too much. "Spy Hunter" probably couldn't make the transition unmolested, because the only breaks in it are for power-ups and losing lives, whereas today's games are almost all goal-oriented. It's too bad the audience doesn't seem interested in games that are about enjoying the journey rather than reaching the destination, I guess.

 

[BrianB]

It's too bad the audience doesn't seem interested in games that are about enjoying the journey rather than reaching the destination, I guess.

Broad sweeping generalisation coming up.
A large percentage of the North American market play games just to finish them - as soon as they get to the end, the game is thrown on the rubbish pile, never to be played again. If a game forces them to repeat levels or if it prevents them from saving after every single challenge/difficult part of the game, they'll complain vociferously.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Kelley_B]

A large percentage of the North American market play games just to finish them - as soon as they get to the end, the game is thrown on the rubbish pile, never to be played again. If a game forces them to repeat levels or if it prevents them from saving after every single challenge/difficult part of the game, they'll complain vociferously.

Truer words have never been spoken, which is really sad.

 

[Jason Seaver]

A large percentage of the North American market play games just to finish them - as soon as they get to the end, the game is thrown on the rubbish pile, never to be played again.

That's probably good for the industry, though - I mean, imagine if someone were to create a game without an actual ending (a la "Asteroids"), or which could be won but was different every time someone played (a la "Star Raiders"), that was so much fun that gamers weren't back in the stores a month or two later to buy new software (and, every few years, hardware)?

 

[Alex Spindler]

Remember that you are comparing an arcade game with a home game. In the arcade, the goal is to keep you interested for as little as 3 minutes. Any more and they start to lose the value of your quarter. So the game mechanics are kept simple and the goals basically neverending but steadily more difficult (so as to eventually eat up all your lives).
Console games, on the other hand, have to make you feel as though your $50 was well spent. So they have to elaborate the goals and give it some replayability. This is why few arcade games are ported to, with the exception of fighting games. These are often modified to hide characters until the player accomplishes some goals.
Historically, games are criticized if they don't have goals or are simple ports of an old arcade version. This has so many of the classic elements (the black cars, the weapons, the oil slicks) that is seems fair to include the Spy Hunter name IMO.
BTW, Trying to get enough objectives for Level 10. They certainly are making this one a difficult point total.

 

[Peter Rohlfs]

Brian,
The game does force you to repeat levels until you do multiple goals at the same time. That was one of my complaints.

Peter

 

[BrianB]

The game does force you to repeat levels until you do multiple goals at the same time.

Tough
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Jason Seaver]

Console games, on the other hand, have to make you feel as though your $50 was well spent. So they have to elaborate the goals and give it some replayability.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Way back in the early 1980s, we would have felt ripped off it were even possible to reach the end of a videogame. What made a game replayable was not the ability to re-enter it and find a finite number of hidden objects in static places. Rather, it was a combination of well-designed gameplay, incrementally increasing difficulty, and enough random elements that you couldn't count on memorization.
The original "Spy Hunter" was that kind of game, and while I can understand how those don't really sell any more, it's too bad the new version doesn't include an option to play that way.

 

[Rob Varto]

Jason brings up a good point. I remember being about 7 or 8 years old playing Empire Strikes Back on my Atari 2600. The goal was to shoot down Imperial AT-AT's with your snowspeeder. In all, each AT-AT took about 100 shots to knock down. AFter you took one out, there's be another one behind it. The idea was simplistically stupid and the game would never "end" unless you turned the console off, but for some reason, I was addicted to shooting those damn things down - for hours... pathetic
I don't really have an interest in getting Spyhunter for the PS2 (although I played it for hours on my computer back in the day) simply because I don't care to HAVE to accomplish a number of goals to move forward... I guess I've become a victim of "getting to the end". The only games that really avoid this strategy are sports games with franchise options.

 

[paul h]

Surely they must have put the original Spyhunter on the PS2 version somewhere? as an unlockable bonus or something...