I never played the original Perfect Dark, except for a few spurts of split-screen multiplayer on my friend's N64, which I almost always lost. I did try the first mission of the single player campaign, but my initial impression was that the controls were clunky, the levels were confusing to navigate, the mission objectives were frustratingly difficult, and the graphics were inferior to FPS's I'd played on the PC. To be perfectly fair, I didn't really give it a chance, so I think we can safely discount my opinion of the original Perfect Dark.
That said, I played all the way through the campaign of Perfect Dark Zero on the X360 and found it quite enjoyable; about as enjoyable as Halo 3 (which I also beat). The presentation showed a great deal of polish, I found the controls and combat to be a lot more sensible than the first game, and there was enough variety in the missions to hold my interest. Yes, its story was bland and uninteresting and some of the missions got pretty frustrating in this one as well (especially that damn temple mission; it took me many, many tries to figure out how to get past the last room). However, in Perfect Dark Zero's defense, these are complaints I could just as easily make about Quake II, or Halo 3, or Gears of War, or Serious Sam, and many of the other games I've enjoyed in the past.
Clearly, my opinion of Perfect Dark Zero is in the minority, as I've heard from numerous third-party sources that Perfect Dark Zero is a terrible game that can't hold a candle to the original and that Rare was a lot better before they got bought out by Microsoft. Frankly, having never enjoyed any N64 FPS in the slightest (except for the multiplayer, which was only fun because I was with my friends), I'm stuck wondering if this is just incomprehensible fanboy rage or if the things that made Perfect Dark Zero so bad just went over my head.
So, not wishing to troll, please explain to me why Perfect Dark Zero was bad. I'm not really interested in being right or getting proved wrong, I'm just confused about this whole situation.
That said, I played all the way through the campaign of Perfect Dark Zero on the X360 and found it quite enjoyable; about as enjoyable as Halo 3 (which I also beat). The presentation showed a great deal of polish, I found the controls and combat to be a lot more sensible than the first game, and there was enough variety in the missions to hold my interest. Yes, its story was bland and uninteresting and some of the missions got pretty frustrating in this one as well (especially that damn temple mission; it took me many, many tries to figure out how to get past the last room). However, in Perfect Dark Zero's defense, these are complaints I could just as easily make about Quake II, or Halo 3, or Gears of War, or Serious Sam, and many of the other games I've enjoyed in the past.
Clearly, my opinion of Perfect Dark Zero is in the minority, as I've heard from numerous third-party sources that Perfect Dark Zero is a terrible game that can't hold a candle to the original and that Rare was a lot better before they got bought out by Microsoft. Frankly, having never enjoyed any N64 FPS in the slightest (except for the multiplayer, which was only fun because I was with my friends), I'm stuck wondering if this is just incomprehensible fanboy rage or if the things that made Perfect Dark Zero so bad just went over my head.
So, not wishing to troll, please explain to me why Perfect Dark Zero was bad. I'm not really interested in being right or getting proved wrong, I'm just confused about this whole situation.
