Of course, this assumes you can get past the horrible controls that seem to lag behind your commands. The slideshow framerates makes playing the game somewhat painful and can be headache inducing. This game suffers from a host of problems and is technically inferior to the first title, in my opinion. This is the longest and most frustrating FPS I've ever played.yet it turns out to be semi-speedrunable. That's really lazy and I think people expect it now days because the bar for level design is no longer at Turok level 1, or SMB 1-1, or every dungeon in LttP.Speed run of Turok 2: Seeds of Evil in 8 segments completed on March 31 2005. You don't have to make a clever stage anymore because if you think players aren't going to 'get' your level, you can just tell them where to go. My point here is that objective markers aren't necessary when the level design is exceptional, and that objective markers are a replacement for clever level design. It's endlessly frustrating and the constant, gradual progression you feel in the first level is replaced with what feels like nothing. A complex, messy, difficult-to-navigate mess of corridors and halls that seem to have no end and with no objectives. It's really quite brilliant and combined with a fantastic minimap, it has no need of objective markers.
The world feels open, alive, ready for exploration and there are rewards everywhere if you find the stage's secrets, but at the core is this quasi-linear path you can take with pretty clever gating that's used to not only implicitly direct a player to the 'right' place, but to also provide a sense of progression. The very first level is a pretty great example of this. I think Turok has masterful examples of how level design can 'guide' a player to the objective.as well as examples of how to frustrate a player endlessly. Turok is often the go-to example of why explicit direction can be a good thing in games with some focus on exploration, but I don't really agree with that conclusion.
0 kommentar(er)
