"Quicksave haters, rejoice"

I don't know who has thought of the idea of quicksaving first, but I know I'd like to have a word with a guy. Preferably with a baseball bat. Why? Because quicksaving has nearly killed action gaming on PC today. Today real challenge and adrenaline in games has been replaced with "immersing story", or "spectacular particle effects" or similar crap.To me quicksaving is a cheap way for the lazy game designers to get away with below-average designs. If there ain't no quicksaving, the game has to be perfectly executed - levels just the right size, adequately challenging and fun to play even for a few times.

Why the long introduction? Because Rockstar's latest bad seed, Manhunt, is a true gift for the challenge-depraved gamers. Yep, you've heard it. No quicksaving, just save checkpoints scattered masterfully throughout the levels. This is the reason some people will call this game "too hard" or "insanely difficult". Well, it's not. It's what a true action game should be, a perfect level of difficulty, a good challenge without boredom or frustration (that is, if you are not too lazy or spoiled by the PC action games in the last decade or so).

What is even better, the level of difficulty rises with such perfection that you don't even feel it.. right when you get more skillful it hits you with the next obstacle. Pass that, and it gets a wee bit harder. Only when you finish the game you see how insanely easier the first levels were compared to the last few.

Why do some people trash this game so badly? I think it's two reasons. First - the level of violence. This ain't a game for kids. This game is so gory and merciless, no one below 18 should play it. Actually, this is one of the grudges I have with this game - I think that the level of violence is too gratuitous. It's here to shock but serves no purpose. Because of it many people will write off the game as a controversial gimmick, and not see the quality that lies beneath. This would be a fantastic game even if you took out all of the "nasty" bits. Maybe even better, because for me they became extremely boring and repetitive after an initial shock wore off.

The second reason is that this ain't a "run and shoot everything that moves" action game. Even the later levels which are more shoot-out oriented have an accent on stealth and methodical playing. Your character is fragile, and you can't go around Rambo style shooting everything. Well, you can, but you won't last long. The pace of the game is more like Splinter Cell or even Commando: move slowly, kill enemies one by one, try not to be seen. If you get in the shoot-out, do it in the "Call of Duty" style - stay in cover and shoot skillfully, never getting exposed for more then a second. This is what puts off some of the gamers, especially the ones who crave for blood and violence. Once they realise that to actually enjoy those nasty execution scenes they have to be very methodical and patient, they lose interest and write the game off as crap.

Also I think many people will give up on this game too early. This game has a strange problem, quite the opposite of many mainstream games today - later levels are much better than the first few. Once you come to the "View of innocence" level and the guns come into focus, the game quality goes up incredibly.

Now, why don't I give the game a perfect score, since I like it so much? Well, as I said, I think the extreme violence is too gratuitous - the game is so good it doesn't need it. The cutscenes are also too repetitive, and the game REALLY needs a "skip-cutscene" option, especially when replaying the levels for better time. Furthermore, the bonus material and way of getting it should be further refined. I was never sure of how much time I have left to get a star for finishing the level quickly, or how many people can I shoot and not "gruesomely execute" to get that fetish score. Maybe a better way for the game to go is to let the gamer freely decide if he wants to be a gruesome serial killer or a more merciful kill-them-quickly kind of guy instead of forcing the gruesome approach. Maybe there could even be two sets of rewards, and different endings based on the way you went through the game. Maybe we saw this kind of thing a little too much in recent games, but I feel that this game would benefit from it, and extend its replay value. Of course, than the game would also lose its demonic appeal and controversy..

Anyway, this is a very good game, if you know what you are getting into. I don't regret buying it, but also I wouldn't want my kid to play it, at least until he's mature enough.

To sum up - PC world needs more challenging titles like this one. Good work, Rockstar, but grow up - stop trying to be controversial. It gets old.

P.S. As for the people who are pro-banning this thing, well, shut up. It's always easier to blame it on TV or video games, than on school or parents. Be responsible and take interest into what your kid does and what kind of movies he watches or games he plays. That sticker on the game package actually has a purpose, you know.
Furthermore, I don't buy the idea that if the character in the game does some gruesome stuff, I'll identify with him (since I control him) and it would make me want to do stuff like that in real life. I have brain and eyes to see that these are actually polygons and pixels, and not real people. As for the level of violence in this game, well, the average slasher movie gets much more bloodier and gruesome (Texas chainsaw massacre anyone?) and those are real flesh-and-blood people there. I can even go so far as to say that maybe violent games can have a therapeutic effect on a certain social group- maybe there are frustrated people out there who would like to get a shotgun and shoot everybody, but instead fire up some bloody game, kill and hack a bunch of virtual people and vent off the steam. All is relative, as some weird dude with a strange hairdo once said.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Reviewer's Score: 8/10, Originally Posted: 10/17/04