Content Test 3

Original URL:
Fighting Force 2
Graphics: 7.2
Gameplay: 5.4
Sound: 6
Control: 6.5
Replay Value: 4.5
Rating: 5.8

   One of the most boring games of '98 gets the sequel treatment, all I want to know is why? Fighting Force was not only a stale game, but it had poor graphics and cheesy gameplay. Eidos and Core tried to make it up to the public with a new Fighting Force title. They claimed that this one would set the standards of 'beat 'em ups' and change the genre, as we know it. They also said that the game would feature better visuals and enhanced gameplay than the first FF but let's see if they kept their promises.

   Eidos/Core did keep one promise but it was the one I cared least about. Fighting Force 2 does feature pretty nice graphics but compared to the saucy visuals from many of the good games out there, Fighting Force 2's visuals are just plain polygons that have no meaning. Seems as if Core only concentrated on its graphics engine and thought that the gameplay factor was fine. Obviously the people at Core have been staring at Lara Croft's chest way too much. Fighting Force 2 only features decent graphics but that just doesn't please me at all, the background detail is very lacking, all of the textures look ugly and wrinkly. Only Hawk Manson has some detail in him, but that doesn't improve the game in any way.

   If you were one of the people who was duped into purchasing the first FF, then you might've noticed that the game had very uninspired gameplay and poor replay value that didn't please anybody. In the first FF all you did was walk around shooting at people or punching them in the face pointlessly. The game was so boring that I can't even remember the storyline that ruined the game altogether. The average gamer just dropped the game and probably gave it back to the store, while the more hardcore gamer probably just snapped the CD in half. What really confuses me is that if the first Fighting Force was so lacking, then why did Eidos decide to do another one, especially if the concept and game title is already not very popular anymore. The second FF is still the same old boring walk, shoot, open door, walk shoot, open door, walk, shoot, Oh, you get the idea! The game just doesn't give you the bang for the buck, the missions are way to simple, in fact they are so simple that my 2-year-old niece can beat them in a flash.

   The sound is pretty average, I have heard much better but yet again if compared to a game such as MGS, then FF2 is definitely left in the dust of its own garbage. The game doesn't include much dialogue and even if it did it would just be poor just like the title itself. The explosions sound pretty good and so do the groans but that is about it. So there you have so far we've got somewhat lacking visuals, poor gameplay and sound. Wow, Eidos is on a role!

   Control is basically like the sound, not bad or good just average. Hawk Mason has a variety of moves he can pull of such as back flips, side flips and side steps. The game is in full 3D and directional movement isn't that difficult at all, you can roam around in most places, jump on top of objects as well as destroy them for cash.

   Fighting Force 2 didn't prove itself to be anything, Eidos' Metal Gear/Syphon Filter wannabe just went down the garbage in my opinion. The game only features good graphics, but the gameplay suffers greatly and so does the shameful replay value. Please do the Playstation community a favor and stay away from this game, instead pickup Medal of Honor or Metal Gear Solid.


1/30/2000   SolidSnake