Tarantino's "expendable" characters aren't the protagonists. The Crazy 88's in Kill Bill would be the equivalent of Hotline Miami's thugs. In contrast, all of Quentin Tarantino's lead and supporting characters are extremely charismatic, possess vibrant personalities, and have memorable quirks - everything Hotline Miami's characters lack.

Psychopathy is not sufficient characterization - especially when it's applied to literally every single character in the game. With the exception of the reporter (whose story trails off and goes nowhere), everyone is motivated by the same unwarranted and psychotic bloodlust. They're all completely flat, unlikable, and ultimately forgettable characters.

Jonatan Söderström wasted three years crafting this idiotic plot when he could've spent his resources either working on the level design and mechanics, or hiring a writer.

Sorry but I can't agree with you.

Ok, HTM2 is not a Tarantino movie. But the characters here aren't blank. Daniel, the peaceful veteran, the group of young and dumb masked jackasses, the crazy gang leader, are interesting characters. They maybe are already better depicted in differents movies or books, or series, or anywhere else, but they're not "badly written". Those characters are colorful, a lot more than "jacket" finaly.

You can't deny that they're fitting in the general theme of the game. Dennaton gathered different cultural references to make the plots of that game. And they did it well. You can't fell it ? Ok ! But don't spit on it.

Not every characters are psychopath (daniel, the henchman, the writer). So obviously you clearly missed a big point about HTM2. Some are forced to kill, or don't do it for pleasure. And some are just crazy dumb asses with big guns, and you, the player, are forced to guide them further and further through their bloody wrong choices (put them into a college and you'll got Columbine). And for a characterization, using the video game media experience for it, it's a good one.

I say it to you, because it seems that you missed it : that game is about violence, the violence you've got in yourself, the violence that surrounds you, and the violence you're forced to do or suffer.


HTM2 is not the "Game of the Year" or something, for a lot of reasons (it's too much a sequel for me - the controls - etc). But the characters are none of them.

How so? We really only see the veteran in the context of war, in which he's a John Rambo-esque killing machine. The gang members are just as you said - jackasses. And the Russian mafia boss is just another drug-addled psychopath, but with a tacked-on father-redemption story regarding a character from the last game whom nobody cared about or even remembered.

Jacket was a fine protagonist. He was a cipher for the player to act through, which was perfect because that's who the game was ostensibly about - the player. It was about you, and whether or not you needed context to enjoy a set of mechanics and audiovisuals.

Compare this to Wrong Number's narrative, which spends all its time padding the first game's backstory - a backstory the original wasn't even concerned about. Wrong Number presents answers to questions nobody asked.

All of those characters are joyless killers (the writer beats a man to death right off the bat), and the mechanics even push you in the direction of killing. In the writer's missions, if you keep clicking on a downed enemy, they will die. This need for restraint implies that the writer really does want to kill, and must hold himself back. And these kinds of stories, where every character is motivated by bloodlust. aren't terribly interesting.

And? Just saying "there's violence in the world" isn't exactly profound. Art is meant to inform an individual, or to provide some new insight on a given topic. Do you feel you possess a better understanding of violence now that you've shot a bunch of guys through plate glass windows? Or were you told something you already knew?

But I guess that sums up Wrong Number's main problem: the developer had nothing new to say. Instead of finding ways to really refine their original game, they instead opted for artificial gameplay restrains and a story which thinks it's being really clever, yet only manages to espouse ideas which are obvious to anyone who has lived on this planet.

I won't argue with you. HTM never meant to be a very "profound" game, don't you realized ? Maybe you're just taken it as it never meant to be.

I just can't figure out if you liked HTM 1 too much or not enough...

But you see, Hotline Miami did have something to say. It questioned the need for framing devices gamers use to facilitate violence. It poked fun at gamers' insecurities, in the question of "can games without context be considered 'serious art?'"

Hotline Miami was a game about games. Wrong Number is a game about nothing.
And that's the difference.

Hotline Miami was a game about games and gamers.
If you will. If you try really hard.

Hotline Miami 2 is the frame for that. The society in which the former is set and how different parts of society react to it. Critics, fans, those who see games as cause for violence, etc.
If you will. If you try really hard.

Look, I do not argue with you if you think HM2 is terrible, but it's not a "fact" in my opinion. The "message" of each game is more ambiguous than anything and it really depends on IF you WANT to see symbolism and meaning.
So trying to turn this into objective facts is kinda contradictory in my opinion.

What can be judged objectively is the gameplay which, i think, exceeds HM1 in almost every aspect. At first I was kind of disappointed by the large and open levels but in all honesty, they just build on what you have learned in HM1 and require you to think outside of the box, using rooms more efficiently as cover and see what you can't otherwise. If anything, that takes away a bit of flexibility - also in consideration that while we have lotsa characters, you are usually limited to one in each level. I just take it as a different approach as I did not want the sequel to be EXACTLY like the first game but rather building on it, which I think went pretty well.
Fortunately the game also eliminated a few issues - especially in terms of melee, which is essential for high ranks. In the first game, going against a melee opponent with a melee weapon was a game of chance. In Wrong Number, it's up to your reflexes.

In terms of the story and characters, I agree with others here, HM2 really got me thinking of Pulp Fiction more than anything. And I take that as a good thing.

All this thread tells me is that you can see what you want to see in this game. I'm not convinced it's got much to say, personally, but there's a tenderness and subtlety that slips out every so often amidst the narrative mess.

It never nails the creepy vibe of the original, but it has some great moments.

Some of the levels are stunning, and everything just works, but mechanically there are loads of issues that render the game a grind instead of a guilty goregasm.

+1.

Even though I apparently liked the game a lot more than you did, based on what you said, I echo your sentiment and would also like to say yours seems to be the more sensible approach to this matter in this entire thread.

I've got mixed feelings. Parts I loved, but the more pattern-based gamestyle is less engaging for me than HM's more chaotic levels. Mostly, I think it's the scale that's the issue - some of the levels are so long and, if there's a frustrating section, it puts me off playing the rest.

But thanks otherwise. It's clearly not a bad game, because its highs are so impressive.

I agree with general complaints about the level sizes, both the areas themselves and how long they go on (some levels just far outstay their welcome - five gigantic floors of trial-and-error-with-a-bit-of-luck shootouts just grows wearisome and frustrating - especially when I've cleared one, arduous screen infested with enemies and get killed by the one douche left with a golf club or something because my reflexes weren't quite fast enough or my attack wouldn't connect for some reason or something else made me want to smash my mouse on many occasions) and off-screen enemies hiding behind glass walls. Not even always a glass wall but a long hallway upward where I can't get the enemies attention without crawling halfway up, and by the time the gunman notices me I'm already dead, or levels where I'm shot by an enemy in the upper half of a level I didn't even know existed. The sketchy A.I. from the first game has only been barely fixed, ranging from spidey-sense sharpshooters who'll blow you away the instant you inch around a corner to enemies who don't even pay any attention when you fire off a dozen SMG rounds in the door next to them. The randomized enemy placement for some instances doesn't help.

I said this in the Steam forum but what it reminded me of were the platforming games of old that often suffered from "leap of faith" level design. That is, you couldn't see where the next platform you had to land on was and so had to just to jump hoping not to land down a bottomless pit, insta-death whatever, but instead the next platform (see: Super Empire Strikes Back).

There are improvements I will say though. The weapons don't feel as meaningless as they did in the first game, where every melee weapon and gun felt exactly the same, whether because they were or because they weren't in a game properly utilized for their strengths, I dunno. But despite the overdone level designs the advantages/disadvantages of each weapon was more felt. SMGs/rapid-fire weapons in general are good for taking large swaths of enemies despite their imprecision. The shotguns' spread-fire makes taking out enemies from a distance, especially the ones behind glass, a LOT easier, and they kill the big thug guys in one hit, which is nice. Just make every shot count since they run on limited ammo. And the silencer of course is great for taking out enemies without bringing attention to yourself despite its limited ammo and somewhat imprecise fire. Melee weapons seemed to have their own subtle attributes that I noticed. Smaller ones have, obviously, shorter range, like batons and knives but swing faster so you can take out a bunch of enemies without fewer delays between attacks. The longer-range melee weapons are, obviously, the opposite (though the Son's katana is still probably the best melee weapon in the game overall - ridiculous range and pretty fast to boot). The enemies introduced later on that are only vulnerable to melee weapons and immune to bullets seemed gimmicky to me and made levels with a mix of them and the big guys a pain (especially after the prison level when it's hard at first to tell who the enemies immune to bullets are just by looks, until I found they're the ones standing prone with some kind of black club held upward). The insane prisoners though harder to kill (due to running at hyperspeed) were a bit easier to tell apart.

Speaking of, people talk about how nonsensical it is in the military levels how you can't pick up dropped weapons after you've run out of ammo for your own weapon, and I agree to some extent, but what makes less sense is that prison escape level. Why, after disguising yourself as a prison guard, wouldn't your character want to escape immediately? What was the point of putting yourself in more danger in a uniform to kill off a bunch of more crazy prisoners before you reach the SWAT team who probably would've handled them just fine anyway? Gameplay contrivances I know, but we're talking about a narrative-driven game here...

Another improvement: no annoying boss fights! Unless you count running around the prison yard waiting for the pipe to be thrown to you to take down that pissed-off dude or the Son's encounters during his whacked-out drug trip, but those are too minor to count for "bosses" imo. While good boss fights might have been interesting I think just leaving them out altogether, or reducing them to the form I mentioned was for the better. These games just weren't designed for them.

I probably could say more but I'll leave it here for now.

Exactly. Everyone has their own tastes, preferences etc. There will be some games, movies, books, tv shows that get critical acclaim that I will think are terrible.

If someone really hated a game and thought it was terrible, then you won't be able to convince them otherwise. The same as if someone thinks a game is awesome and really enjoyed it you can't turn around and say "no you didn't and here's why..."

Just let people who liked the game like the game and let people who hated it hate it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/10078-Hotline-Miami-2-Wrong-Number-and-Ori-And-the-Blind-Forest-reviews

Just saw this. I guess I wasn't the only one thinking Tarantino.

Gameplay-wise, the new characters are interesting, but plot-wise, protagonist roulette kind of undoes everything achieved by the original's plan to stick with a single unreliable POV. Ha ha, suckers, 90% of that actually happened!

Played it through just now. You only objective point that gameplaywise, too much open areas are worse I can counter with that in Hotline Miami, you also couldn't just go in Rambo style. Granted, you have to use shift more, but that's it. Initally, the controls weren't as tight but that's been patched now.
Don't compare it to the first one, take it as own game.... If you really want the same experience, wait for custom levels.
As for the game itself... way more story and even more coolness. I like the shit out of this title.
You have to realize that game company just can't make a second picasso. And, by god, Hotline Miami is better than a picasso. So they didn't even try. So if you believe the companies who put out sequels to a game you consider as a picasso, and moreso, they then tell you "it will be even better.." .. and.. honestly.. you believe that.. I think you set yourself up for disappointment. I know, I was an UT fanboy for decades.
So objectively.. this game is not terrible.. I think you use this word to display your own huge disappointment. Of course I could be wrong.. don't want to tell you what to think.. move along...

I disagree I thought that HM2 was better.

While both games have lots of trial and error, the first game needed speed and tactics to get through the level/ It eluded to strategy but it was never really there. HM2 on the other hand does require very real strategy to make it past some of the levels.

The games also has a lot more depth and complexity. While there aren't as many masks they make a bigger difference and the levels design complements the characters and masks very well.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

lol, yeah I thought the same thing.

I bought the regular version on sale for $12, then saw that the "deluxe" version had the "soundtrack" as bonus content and contacted gog to be able to pay the difference to upgrade and once I did I realized I wasn't getting the actual soundtrack just a 6-track EP of some remixes!

Now I just feel stupid. Especially because I only bought it because it was on sale (I had seen a number of complaints about the sequel, but figured it wouldn't be a big deal for the price), and then I end up paying even more than I planned on for not even getting what I wanted!

I don't blame gog, they were very helpful concerning my requests, just wish I had paid more attention to the description of what I was getting. My fault really, but that doesn't really make me feel any better.