What did you think of Dino crisis 2
- Thread starter ReaperKnight
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 7
- Points
- 3
That was my point. I never felt the dinosaurs were threatening at all in DC2, whereas I felt almost every encounter with a raptor in DC1 was full of tension.
I can see how that makes sense, I just never felt overwhelmed. Well, at least not in my recent play-through. When I originally played the game 15 years ago though, I do remember feeling terrified of fighting against the raptors.
I can see how that makes sense, I just never felt overwhelmed. Well, at least not in my recent play-through. When I originally played the game 15 years ago though, I do remember feeling terrified of fighting against the raptors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 13
- Points
- 3
It's a difficult thing to judge, I think. Mediocre comes to mind, at least when it comes to the story, but I'm not satisfied with that answer. If the writers hadn't insisted on so much time travel BS at the expense of everything else it could have been great. Dylan is an unusual protagonist. Capable but calm and soft-spoken, almost serene. Regina's acidic wit and bluntness contrast nicely, and he manages to be a good guy without it ever becoming obnoxious.
The setting was amazing. All those enormous metallic structures overcome by vines and aggressive plant life. It felt humid too. Really humid, like I could smell it just by playing. So it had that much going for it.
It also throws aways any and all interesting characters and themes from the first game. I guess they felt trapped? It might have ended with too much political commentary for a game about dinosaurs, but that's no excuse. My brain needs something to work on, or I'm going to turn the game off and go stare at a wall instead.
Maybe that was the explanation for David. Can't point out how everyone's the bad guy, so just laugh at this absurd American stereotype instead.
This was because there was nothing to have an opinion about. Dylan is sexy and nice, there's no antagonist, there's no real central question, just a bunch of stuff to shoot. Does she make a single choice in the entire game? Does anyone?
The setting was amazing. All those enormous metallic structures overcome by vines and aggressive plant life. It felt humid too. Really humid, like I could smell it just by playing. So it had that much going for it.
It also throws aways any and all interesting characters and themes from the first game. I guess they felt trapped? It might have ended with too much political commentary for a game about dinosaurs, but that's no excuse. My brain needs something to work on, or I'm going to turn the game off and go stare at a wall instead.
Maybe that was the explanation for David. Can't point out how everyone's the bad guy, so just laugh at this absurd American stereotype instead.
This was because there was nothing to have an opinion about. Dylan is sexy and nice, there's no antagonist, there's no real central question, just a bunch of stuff to shoot. Does she make a single choice in the entire game? Does anyone?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 13
- Points
- 3
Actually, DC2 has one of the most complex plot lines I've looked into. It adds it's own additions while continuing what's been previously established about Third Energy from the first game. I know the game might seem a little mindless at a glance, but there were 6 writers responsible for the scenario of DC2 and it shows.
If you have trouble wrapping your head around the Dino Crisis universe (which I wouldn't blame you), I can link you to some wikia articles I've helped write. Or if you like, open another thread and I can answer any specific questions you may have.
If any of those questions are about the Third Energy, you may direct them here
If you have trouble wrapping your head around the Dino Crisis universe (which I wouldn't blame you), I can link you to some wikia articles I've helped write. Or if you like, open another thread and I can answer any specific questions you may have.
If any of those questions are about the Third Energy, you may direct them here
Last edited:
I'm not talking about the plot, as in technical detail. It's got plenty of details to think about. It's also got a flat story, characters who go nowhere, no notable themes, and no antagonist. There's no reason to care about the plot, except for the rare few who enjoy that sort of thing, and I suspect you would be one of them.
I read your analysis and it was a good one. I also wrote all the character articles on that wiki under the username dark_avarice, an unfortunate holdover from my early teens. Whether the Third Energy was well thought out or not, and I agree it was, is irrelevant when considering character, and that's what people expect from a story.
Where does the tension come from in DC 2? It comes from dinosaurs trying to kill people. That was true in the first game, but there was also the looming threat of Kirk, Borginia, and what the Third Energy was actually going to be used for. Humanity is what makes a good story.
I read your analysis and it was a good one. I also wrote all the character articles on that wiki under the username dark_avarice, an unfortunate holdover from my early teens. Whether the Third Energy was well thought out or not, and I agree it was, is irrelevant when considering character, and that's what people expect from a story.
Where does the tension come from in DC 2? It comes from dinosaurs trying to kill people. That was true in the first game, but there was also the looming threat of Kirk, Borginia, and what the Third Energy was actually going to be used for. Humanity is what makes a good story.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2014
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 13
- Points
- 3
Yeah. It's a mess of a series, really, and that's probably why it ended the way it did. The transition from 1 to 2 was unusual enough, but 3? I haven't actually played it, but I've never heard anyone say a positive thing about it.
The depth is interesting. Most of it's done in the background and needs to be pieced together from object descriptions, even inferred. They obvious cared a lot while writing the first game. I think the reason they revised the story so heavily comes down either to marketing or a discomfort with the anti-nationalist social commentary hinted at near the end of DC 1. And that's fair enough, I guess. It's hard to fit that in with dinosaurs.
They might remake it one day if dinosaurs get popular enough. Everything's a remake or a sequel or a prequel now, so there's a reasonable chance.
The depth is interesting. Most of it's done in the background and needs to be pieced together from object descriptions, even inferred. They obvious cared a lot while writing the first game. I think the reason they revised the story so heavily comes down either to marketing or a discomfort with the anti-nationalist social commentary hinted at near the end of DC 1. And that's fair enough, I guess. It's hard to fit that in with dinosaurs.
They might remake it one day if dinosaurs get popular enough. Everything's a remake or a sequel or a prequel now, so there's a reasonable chance.
They basically did with DC as what they later did with the RE series - turned it into an all out action game.
On the one hand it was fun, but also somewhat bizarre that they're supposed to be on isolated area with no human life, and yet you could go up to machines and exchange random points for fire-arms. It didn't really make any sense to me and destroyed the immersion.
I'm a big fan of pre-rendered graphics, but I was somewhat perplexed that a game with 3D graphics had a sequel with pre-rendered visuals. This has got to be the only franchise where this has happened. Again, I'm not sure what to think about this. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm sure that if they made the 2nd game 3D, it would've dated REALLY quickly. But then again, a lot of it is just forgettable forestry and jungles. Not particurly inspiring.
One thing that I did really like was the ending. I won't mention what it is for anyone who's not completed it yet, but it had a truly brilliant ending that left me somewhat stunned. It was worth playing through the game for this ending.
Most people tend to have preferred the 2nd game. Not me however. I really enjoyed how I could approach the first game in different ways i.e. try to avoid killing dinos in one playthrough, to going on an all out massacre in another. The alternate endings and speed running it, etc. However, with the emphasis on action, there's really only one way to play the sequel.
On the one hand it was fun, but also somewhat bizarre that they're supposed to be on isolated area with no human life, and yet you could go up to machines and exchange random points for fire-arms. It didn't really make any sense to me and destroyed the immersion.
I'm a big fan of pre-rendered graphics, but I was somewhat perplexed that a game with 3D graphics had a sequel with pre-rendered visuals. This has got to be the only franchise where this has happened. Again, I'm not sure what to think about this. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm sure that if they made the 2nd game 3D, it would've dated REALLY quickly. But then again, a lot of it is just forgettable forestry and jungles. Not particurly inspiring.
One thing that I did really like was the ending. I won't mention what it is for anyone who's not completed it yet, but it had a truly brilliant ending that left me somewhat stunned. It was worth playing through the game for this ending.
Most people tend to have preferred the 2nd game. Not me however. I really enjoyed how I could approach the first game in different ways i.e. try to avoid killing dinos in one playthrough, to going on an all out massacre in another. The alternate endings and speed running it, etc. However, with the emphasis on action, there's really only one way to play the sequel.