This is not an "I'm right and your wrong" reply, it's just my honest, humble opinion.
I guess I understand where you're coming from, and the points you make are grounded and solid -- I, too, have absolutely nothing against old-looking games, but I can't play those classic Ultima titles, as great as I know they are, simply because due to a mix of gameplay and personal taste in design, I just can't get into them. You're completely entitled to your opinion regarding MDK and MDK 2.
Now, I'm not trying to change your mind, or anything, all I want is to put things in perspective by pointing to a different opinion. I am one of those guys who think MDK is better than MDK 2, for a multitude of reasons: first, there's nostalgia. I played MDK when it was released, back in '97, and spent hours upon hours just having a blast with it. The "Shiny" factor you mentioned briefly is indeed tangible in MDK, there's no denying it; the game is wacky, preposterous, undeniably over-the-top, it manages to convey its humour via scenery, items, props, settings, characters and even gameplay while being fast-paced, intuitive and fluid as hell (obviously, taking into account it's a 1997 game). I like the character backgrounds and designs in MDK more than in MDK 2, especially Bones' (aka Max), who went from being a sleek super-cyber-six-legged-dog to a dumb-looking cyber-mutt carrying loads of weapons. Kurt was also dumbed-down, going from a one-man army to being a weakling janitor in a coil suit, having to focus way too much on sniping. Dr. Hawkins' stages were just plain boring and his control scheme felt unpolished, clumsy and downright... unfinished. Yes, MDK 2 does look a lot better than MDK, but that's only natural, as the first one came out three years before the sequel, and three years spanning 1997 to 2000, in video games, was a very long period, and one that saw a lot of tech innovations and upgrades. Adding to that, whereas MDK made me think "wow, this thing is gorgeous!", by '97 standards, MDK 2 felt "meh" at best, graphically speaking, in 2000 -- there were definitely better looking games, by then. MDK, in my opinion, is more fun, I like the design choices and the artistic direction better, I like the fact I don't need a mouse to play it, which gives it a more "arcade-y" pick-it-up-and-go approach, the fact it is a short game means I can replay it as many times as I please without it starting to get tiresome, it's just uncompromising, polished fun -- and replaying it allows me to better myself, finding all of the secrets and mastering the platforming and the combat.
MDK 2, to me, is a good game, but definitely not on par with Shiny's masterpiece. BioWare did a very decent job, but their game just isn't as charming and fun as MDK -- the comic book panels and covers as means to tell the story are awesome, but that's about the only thing I'm willing to admit it does better than the first game. I never played MDK 2 when it came out, back in the day, because, to be honest, it was hard to find in stores, and even the gaming media magazines we had failed to mention it. When I found out about it, I watched some screenshots and was unimpressed by what I saw. I finally bought it a few months ago, here on GOG, just to see for myself "what all the fuss was about" (a lot of people love it). Well... let's just say I haven't finished it, yet -- it's not that I think it's hard, it's just way too long for an action game that's... decent, at best. It's way too unbalanced, I respect BioWare for what I think they were attempting to achieve, but not all characters are fun to play as, and they even managed to strip Kurt of some things that made him awesome to play as in MDK.
Well, I did mention nostalgia, and that's a huge deal. If you played MDK 2 first and you think it's great, then chances are MDK will feel dated and sub-par. It's understandable. But, to me, having played MDK when it was released, it is, most definitely, the best of the two.
Happy gaming, sorry for the WALLOFTEXT! :P
Post edited March 13, 2014 by groze
