Hey, it's me again, you might remember me as the redditor who made the post "Why is Manhunt 1 considered better than Manhunt 2?"
Thinking back to that post I don't think I properly explained my points on why I think that 2 is better than 1, so in this post I'm going in-depth to compare both games to make the case that Manhunt 2 is the superior game.
Manhunt 1:
Story:
The story is not good, what very little story there is in the game to begin with.
The characters aren't all that interesting, the game doesn't flesh out James that much, the most development he gets is when he's angry when one of his family members dies, other than that he's barely a character, the reporter is there, I guess the most memorable one would be Starkweather, constantly talking to you, occasionally orgasming, he's the only part of the game that'll stick with me.
There are multiple asspulls and sections where characters are stupid for the sake of the plot.
Ramirez has a very good chance at killing James but instead lets him go to play hide and seek.
The cop ambush in the trainyard is the dumbest scene in the game, in gameplay cops will not hesitate to shoot James on sight, yet in a cutscene when he walks into an ambush they take forever to shoot him just so that Cerberus can take him to Starkweather's mansion.
The game doesn't explain how the reporter knew where James was so she could pick him up.
Cerberus prepares to execute Cash but are interrupted by Piggsy.
That's too many times where James escapes death through either stupidity or coincidence.
Mr. Nasty, the supposed mastermind behind Manhunt 1, is never seen or mentioned in the entire game, only in the manual and the marketing, which makes me think that his character was made late into development.
It's really stupid that you have to read the manual in order to find out who's the big bad of the game because if you don't read the manual you'll never know about Mr. Nasty, I didn't know who he was until someone on this subreddit mentioned him offhandedly.
Now a story isn't all there is to a game, so what's the gameplay like?
Gameplay and Presentation:
The gameplay is barebones, the biggest issue is that the gameplay is too simplistic to carry a 10-hour campaign.
The mechanics are:
-
You can hide in the shadows.
-
You can throw an item to distract.
-
You can move bodies.
-
You can knock on walls.
And that's mostly it, that ain't much for what you're going to be doing for most of the game, it's too simple for a stealth game.
And the attempts to vary up the gameplay aren't good, slowly carrying a heavy can of fuel and escort missions aren't good ways to vary up stealth, the escort missions just slow down the already slow gameplay because you're constantly going back for them to call them to follow you.
Another issue is the executions, they're a novelty that get old real fast, about halfway through the game you see most of the executions, so for the rest of the game, you're having sit through the same unskippable kills over and over again.
The one word I would use to describe the gameplay of Manhunt 1 is "waiting" because that's what you do for most of the game, you wait in the shadows, you wait for the enemies to turn around, you wait behind enemies for the reticle to turn red, even the first phase of Piggsy is waiting in the shadows for him to turn around, again because the gameplay is simple, there's not a lot you can do because executions are one of only three real ways to kill an enemy (The others being firearms and shitty melee)
A stealth game where there's only one way to stealthily take down an enemy is not great, it's even worse when the game is 10 hours long.
Stealth games are supposed to be slow and methodical, except they forgot the methodical part and it's just slow.
Speaking of the melee, it's really annoying when the game forces you to use the melee by having scripted enemies jump out at you from around corners, really annoying.
What I think is another big issue with game, is that the level design is not good, it's too big and open for the simple gameplay, the level design and the gameplay don't mesh well.
Pacing is not great either, it's very wonky, for more than the first half it's super slow stealth (Too slow), and then the second half it's fast paced with mostly shooting.
Boss fights aren't great, they boil down to "Do the same thing you've been doing for the entire game, but you have to do it more than once", you shoot Ramirez, but you have to shoot him a little bit more than regular enemies, you execute Piggsy, but you have to do it more than once.
The big issue with Piggsy's boss fight is that on the first playthrough it's very trial and error, and trial and error is possibly the worst thing to do in a horror game, because the more times you die and reset, it's going to get less and less scary each time, so doing a trial and error boss fight in a horror game is such a weird decision.
This is gonna be a more subjective point, but Manhunt 1 wasn't really scary, I wouldn't even say it's creepy, none of the environments felt creepy to me, just dirty, there's nothing scary about a dirty street, or a dirty factory, or a dirty junkyard.
The creepiest thing in Manhunt 1 was Piggsy, his design is fantastic and his pig squeals would have made him terrifying.
Would have… if they didn't make him speak with a goofy voice, they almost had something that scared me and screwed it up with one dumb decision.
Now you might be thinking, "You got to be thinking about when it came out, it was amazing in 2003!"
But was it though? As a stealth game, it wasn't all that good at the time, Splinter Cell came out the year prior and Metal Gear Solid 2 came in 2001, so even at the time, there were better stealth games to play.
As a horror game, it wasn't all that good at the time either, in 2003 Silent Hill 3, Fatal Frame 2 and Forbidden Siren came out, and in 2001 there was Silent Hill 2, so even at the time, there were horror games that were much creepier and had much better atmosphere at the time.
The thing that made Manhunt 1 stand out was that it was a horror-stealth game, but if neither the horror or the stealth is done well, and was outclassed by other games at the time, what's the point?
Commentary and Meaning:
Now, this isn't a knock against the game itself, but instead a knock against an interpretation that claims that "Manhunt 1 is a commentary on violence", so this is what I have to say on the subject.
There is no deep meaning to Manhunt 1!
It's so confusing how this even became an idea because nothing in Manhunt 1 even suggests that it's even trying to say anything about violence or trying to be a deconstruction about violent games, all of it is played straight, what you see is what you get.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the subtext.
Ok, if that's how players interpreted it, fine, but then another issue arises, players taking their interpretation, and claiming that's what the game is objectively about, I've seen multiple forum posts where instead of saying "This is how I interpreted Manhunt 1", they say "This is what Manhunt 1 is about", despite that interpretation not having much ground.
Conclusion:
I wouldn't say that Manhunt 1 is a good game, it's not a good stealth game or a good horror game either, the only thing going for it is the premise but beyond that, there's nothing much to it.
If I were to give it a rating, I'd probably give it a 5/10.
Manhunt 2:
Story and Characters:
Well, there's an actual story, so already a big upgrade, in Manhunt 2, there's more than just gratuitous violence, 2 has an ongoing mystery, each mission progressing the story, unraveling it bit by bit.
The main protag and antag, Daniel and Leo, have a more interesting dynamic than James and Starkweather, Daniel actually has a personality and is an unconventional protag, more so than James was in that he's kinda wimpy and at first killing makes him feel sick, Leo is sadistic, constantly manipulating Daniel to be as violent as he can be while having his own ulterior motives.
There's no asspulls or coincidences that gets the characters out of deadly situations,
In conclusion, I think that 2 has a much better story with actual characters to be interested in.
A few criticisms I see thrown against 2's story are that the twist is predictable and that it is "less realistic than 1".
The realism critique doesn't work because 1 and 2 are equally unrealistic, in order to make that critique for 2 you have to ignore how unrealistic 1 is.
The twist critique doesn't work because Leo being another personality in Daniel is never treated as a twist, so thinking that it's supposed to be a twist is… weird.
Gameplay and Presentation:
I wouldn't say the gameplay is improved but more so that the levels have been improved, some of the issues from 1 do carry over but they're mitigated, having the levels be much smaller and more tight quickens the pace of the gameplay and makes it less of an absolute slog that 1 was, also, having there be aerial executions and more verticality to the levels are nice additions.
Executions are back and because there's more variety of executions means they get old a lot slower than in 1 and if they ever do get old, you can just skip them, really wish that feature was in 1.
How Manhunt 2 switches between stealth and third-person shooting segments is a lot better, it makes sure that neither style gets tiring, giving the game better pacing.
Whereas in 1 the first half was stealth and the second half was mostly third-person shooting.
Boss fights are gone, and I think that's okay, because the game still has simple gameplay so the boss fights would still be simplistic and not all that interesting, the gameplay has to have more depth before it can have more interesting boss fights.
The presentation is step up from 1, having a lot more varied and interesting environments, from asylums to sex dungeons to tv stations and mind palaces, Manhunt 2 offers more interesting environments.
Conclusion: it's a shame that Manhunt 2 has the reputation of being the worst out of the two, despite being an improvement in every way to its predecessor.
So in summary:
The biggest factor of why I think Manhunt 2 is superior to Manhunt 1, is that Manhunt 1 feels so hollow, it feels like it's trying so hard to edgy and controversial that once you get past the violence, there's nothing, there's no story, there's barely a plot, characters are one dimensional and the gameplay is so mind-numbingly tedious that I never want to touch it ever again.
Whereas in Manhunt 2, when you get past the violence, there's stuff happening, there's actual characters that are actually written in an actual plot.
It doesn't rely on the novelty of edginess and gore to keep you engaged for 10 hours, I don't know how to explain it properly but maybe I would describe it as immature, like most of the decisions in Manhunt 1 feel like they were specifically made because they were edgy and controversial, like having a gang of neo nazis and modeling a penis onto Piggsy.
But Manhunt 2 doesn't rely heavily on being edgy, because once you get past that stuff, there's more to it, there's a story and a good one at that, characters that are developed and fleshed out.
It's weird because when people praise Manhunt 1, it sounds like that they are describing Manhunt 2, and when people shit on Manhunt 2, it sounds like that they are describing Manhunt 1.
I think that Manhunt 2 deserves more appreciation than Manhunt 1.
So now that I have talked in detail about the two already existing Manhunt games, it'd be fitting to talk about the future of the franchise.
There is no future for Manhunt.
To put simply, there is no audience for another Manhunt.
Manhunt is too niche of a series to justify making another game, not a lot of people would buy it, the Manhunt subreddit doesn't have more than 500 people, that says to me that Manhunt will forever remain a cult classic, it's legacy being references and easter eggs in bigger Rockstar games.
The only way for Manhunt to continue would be in spiritual successors.
And one thing I don't get is when people talk about Manhunt 3, they say that it couldn't be done today with realistic graphics.
But there have been games today just as gory as Manhunt that are realistic, you don't even have to find a different developer to do so, just look at Max Payne 3 and Red Dead 2, so this point doesn't really have any ground, you could make a Manhunt game today with realistic graphics.
That's all I have to say, if you think that I've gotten anything incorrect, please explain in the comments.
I think Manhunt 1's story is all it needs to be. You dont need a split personality/ghost and unraveling mysteries. Manhunt was about you fighting for your life to escape this hellish city, then it changes into a revenge story once Starkweather double crosses you. It doesn't need to be any more in depth than that. The levels aren't huge or massive either. Except for maybe that stinking trainyard.
James Earl Cash is way cooler than Danny. He's a very gray character, because you dont know if he killed his family or not. It makes everything feel dirtier. Danny is supposed to be a wimpy guy, but he really, REALLY fucks people up. When Cash is killing someone its more subdued and realistic than Danny, who goes around fatality-ing people like he's Reptile. Cash's executions make it feel like he's just trying to get away from it all and maaaybe taking his anger out on them in some instances.
We're supposed to buy Danny as this tortured soul... yet he kills seemingly innocent people in gruesome ways literally because the voice in his head (Leo Kasper) tells him everyone (regardless of their role in the story) is "with the project!" and "must die!", without us being sure if it's true half the time.
Even then the Project, as fucked up as they are and what they did to Danny, seem to be the good guys in this scenario since the second Danny's freed from his cage he starts performing gruesome, painful, lethal, torments upon doctors and patients alike.
I don't want Danny and Leo to get their "revenge" and uncover the truth about "the project", he's a dangerous murderer who belongs in a cell or six feet under
In any other franchise, no matter how how bleak would have Danny and Leo as the villain.
It's one reason why I can only describe Manhunt 2 as "Tasteless"
Manhunt 2 isn't the first game where you kill innocents.
But it is one of the few where it's required and the innocents unlike GTA's Pedestrians or Fable's Civilians, aren't cartoonishly incompetent blood fountains... react like real people.
Hell, Harvester (a game where you do play a villain protagonist with the goal of becoming a serial killer), even knew better.. as all the townsfolk of Harvest are incompetent sadists who no real person could possibly relate (especially Mr. Pottsdam).. With the only characters not acting this way are
Edna who owns the dinner, whom the game makes you feel bad about killing (but it's required to progress)
and
Stephanie, and even her
Yeah, Harvester's about a serial killer too, but at least it has something say, a look into madness if you will.
Manhunt 2.. has nothing to say.. and its story just fails on every level.. I can't feel bad about Danny, no matter how tortured he is... because of easily he kills in such painful ways with the slightest of prodding from Leo.. hell he doesn't even fight back or argue against Leo until the Good Ending... several dozens of corpses later!
Msnhunt 2 feels like it was made by the Columbine Kids in the alternate timeline where they survived the Shooting and somehow became professional game developers.
also... fuck the names Danny Lamb and Leo Kasper
Danny Lamb, Lamb because he's the innocent half, Leo, lion, because he's the savage killer.. oh and Leo's last name is literally Kasper... as in Casper the Friendly Ghost... get it... cause he's the personality of a dead serial killer implanted in your mind.. making him a form of ghost!
Hahaha, it's so cute I could puke
I'll take Manhunt 1 over Manhunt 2 any day.
Manhunt
Manhunt 2... is someone telling a fucked up joke that doesn't actually have a punchline, it's just shocking for the sake of being shocking, and ya know what, it's the one game the media was right about.
So was James Earl Cash.
As so was Manhunt 1.
As so was Manhunt 1.
Neither did Manhunt 1.
James Earl Cash was named after James Earl Ray, Get it? Cause he's a murderer!
I am absolutely tired of people pretending that Manhunt 1 is some genius work of art and that Manhunt 2 is just shock for the sake.
When in reality, they are not that different, except 2 is actually a good game, and not a mediocre game where people fill in the story themselves because there's so little substance in the actual game.
If you loved Manhunt 1, more power to you, I can't take that away from you, but if you're going to say that it is better than Manhunt 2, you're going to need better arguments.
That's because you don't recognize art when you see it.
Thing is, I can't judge Cash, you can't either. We don't know what his past is. We don't know if he was wrongly accused, we don't know if he was an assassin, we don't know if he killed in self-defense and the state didn't see it that way... We don't know
All we know is that Cash has found himself in an unenviable position where the only choice he has to kill the scum of the Earth. Criminals (Hoodz), White Supremacists (Skinz), Murderous Lunatics so far gone they beg to be put down (Smileyz), Pedophiles (Innocentz), and members of an Industry who kill people and then jack off to it (Piggzy, Cerebus, Ramirez, Starkweather)
Cash doesn't get off to it, he isn't excited by the rush, he just kills to survive, and when presented with innocent bystanders, even ones he's implied not to like... he refuses to risk their lives and becomes visibly upset when they're killed anyway.
He doesn't accuse the Female Reporter of being part of some conspiracy and actively helps her attempt to bring down the Carcer City Corruption.
Cash is no hero, the game doesn't make any attempts to make you sympathize with him either... But it's clear you have no place to judge him.
In stark contrast to Danny Lamb who the game wants you to believe is some innocent victim of circumstance, this sacred "lamb", who can do no wrong being unjustly hunted by "The Project"
Except I can call bullshit on all that because it's contradicted by the game itself.
Danny is a fucking idiot who will let the Government scramble his brains for money. He wants to be pitied like the little egomaniac he is, even when he's cutting up people left and right, and not precise painless blows like Cash either.. but straight up tormenting them. He shows no resistance to Leo whatsoever until the very end of the game, (as opposed to Cash who never trusts Starkweather and only listens to him under the threat of death. Taking the first chance he gets to bail on Starkweather and start plotting to kill this sadistic director)
To make matters worse, the game (right up until the end) presents Leo as this anti-hero instead of the psychopath he actually is. This kill or be killed voice in your head that cheers you on when you kill,
Again in contrast to Starkweather who praises Cash upon killing yes, but it's clear from the start that Starkweather is an antagonistic force and while Leo comes off as encouraging, Starkweather comes off as depraved (praising the act, using the person)
Another difference between Starkweather and Leo... I don't spend several stages playing as Starkweather "hunting the poorly defined bad guys!"
And again the villains make all the difference
In Manhunt, you're hunting white supremacists and street-toughs who show a clear desire to kill for Ideology or Money.
In Manhunt 2, everyone is a target and you're told not to worry about it because "It's all the Project! Your best friend Leo Kasper, cool guy, says so."
Hell, your first real gang (after butchering innocent doctors who were treating a protagonist with clear murderous tendencies... oh but they weren't innocent, they're part of the poorly defined "Project") are "The Pervs", people just hanging out at a sex den minding their own business. I mean yeah they were making snuff films, but that's just a cliffnote near the end of the only stage they appear in. The Pervs are just there because "Heheh... murder shocking.. sex shocking." (Also let's be honest, they're not Project. Uncle Sam doesn't pay people to stand around in Horse Costumes and fist each other... though I'm sure Fox News claimed that Obama raised taxes to do just that)
Compare that to the Skinz (first real gang after the Tutorial Hoodz) who hunt you in a junkyard while creepy music is playing, talking about how you're "Halfbreed Scum" and how "God favors the white man"
Yeah... it's almost as if.. having an actual villain instead of butchering innocents matters.
To put it simply Manhunt is a commentary on the Media shaming people for enjoying darker content, while also being the ones who facilitate the desire for such.
Manhunt 2 is what CNN told your Grandma Mortal Kombat is back in 1992.
Danny Lamb and Leo Kasper are the most unlikable video game protagonists in gaming history.. and again.. any sane developer would have made them villains. I could easily see the duo as one of the Psychopaths in the Dead Rising series.
Cash isn't winning any Humanitarian Awards, but he's a character I can control without feeling dirty as shit afterwards.
Ohhhhhhh... we're going there are we?
And Manhunt 2 is the tasteless one in your eyes?
Might I remind you about Innocentz and the Skinz? What do you think is the reason for them being in the game? How come they're not shocking for shocks sake?
Manhunt 1 is guilty of the same things as Manhunt 2.
Cash kills the first hunter he's ordered to without hesitation, that gives me decent idea what he did to go to death row.
There is nothing in Manhunt 1 to even suggest that the game is a commentary on anything.
Besides, the game would have to have a decent story first before delving into these things.
Again, you're writing the story for the game, there is no evidence of this commentary in the game.
Keep saying that, maybe someday it will become true.
What? The game makes it very clear that Leo is a psychopath.
Leo!! Leo is the villain of Manhunt 2!! Not the Project.
You keep saying that the orderlies were completely innocent bystanders, except the game sets up that the orderlies are not great people, if you listen their dialogue during the level, It's clear that they do their job mainly for the money, with their way of dealing with patients primarily involving physical abuse and over-medication.
Maybe their not "shove a syringe in their eye" worthy assholes, but the game does set up that these orderlies are not regular people doing their job.
You pulled this card on me so I'm going to pull this card you as well.
You didn't understand Manhunt 2, you didn't understand that Leo is the antagonist, not the protagonist.
Manhunt 2's story is about Leo Kasper manipulating Danny into destroying the Project and to completely take over his mind, but your blind hatred for Manhunt 2 has caused you to get this basic fact incorrect.
What your comment tells me about you, is that you need to be spoon fed on who the good guy and bad guy is, because you can't understand that on your own.
People have given plenty of good arguments here, you just decided you like 2 better, so you're keeping your dog in the fight. Manhunt blows 2 out of the water in every respect aside from play control.
All it needs to be is good, which it still isn't even if I accept the minimalist approach to the story.
The story is still filled with contrivances and cutscene incompetence.
What I meant by that was huge open areas don't mesh well with the gameplay, whereas the smaller claustrophobic design of Manhunt 2s levels work better with the gameplay.
I don't think James meets the minimum requirements to be called a character.
Here's a little test:
Describe James Earl Cash without mentioning what he looks like or his role in the story, just him as a person, what are his traits?
And? Where's the negative?
If you're saying it in a negative way, the story gives a reason as to why Danny is so violent, it's because Leo is trying to take over as the dominant personality by encouraging him to be violent.
That's not the conclusion I came to when watching his executions, to me it seemed like he took some enjoyment in executing people, although he is just so much of a blank slate you can assign almost any emotion onto him.
Eh Manhunt 1 had a nuance to it. Cash is emotionless and has no problem with killing, we don't know anything about his past, and the people he kills the world is better off without..
In Manhunt 2 "EVERYONE'S THE PROJECT! KILL DANNY KILL!", it's as tasteless as a Troma Film
A blank page is not nuanced.
Dude, you really have an axe to grind for Manhunt 1. It's widely considered the better game by most people for many reasons. Manhunt 2 is nowhere near as good, and if you don't agree, hey that's okay. You've stated multiple times in here, long-windedly, how you don't think 1 is better. We get it. 1 had style, it was the first of its kind, and it had a purpose for the violence. 2 is just straight up mean-spirited schlock.
But yea, just take the L on this and let it go? Enough posts about this.
People kept telling me that Manhunt 1 was better than Manhunt 2, and then I played Manhunt 1, and it wasn't as good as Manhunt 2, and now I'm voicing my opinion.
This only my second post, and the reason for making this second post is because I wanted to go more in-depth into the issues of Manhunt 1.
This post is nearly 2 months old, I have moved on from it, the only reason I keep coming back is because I get comments on this post from people who've just discovered it.
I have an perspective, and I'm voicing it.
Don't like that? Either respond to the points that I made in my post or don't comment and leave a downvote.
Manhunt 1 IS objectively better than Manhunt 2, you just have a different opinion. That's fine, but like I said the overwhelming majority disagrees with you on that one.
Nah, Manhunt 2 is the objectively superior of the two.
It has better gameplay, better story and better characters.
Lol wut... No it doesn't. The story is hot garbage and pretentious. Gameplay is better, but that's it.
Nope. Sure doesn't. Manhunt 1 hit every mark at the time. It was meant to be a dark, retro 80s style snuff game. It didn't take itself overly seriously like Manhunt 2 did. Manhunt 2 didn't need a "good story" because that's like saying porn needs a good story. Everything about Manhunt 2 misses the mark. The overly disturbing executions do not mesh well with the pathetic story. Manhunt 1 is the superior game overall. Manhunt 2 has better gameplay, but that's about it.
I mean, I understand both points of view, but how can you say MH1 it's "objectively better" than MH2? care to elaborate? Can you name things that make it "objectively better"?I tried to be objective with them 2, but still at the end of the day what I think about both games are still opinions. No one can be 100% objective about which one is "better". It's all about what you like or don't like.
I personally think that MH1 handles lore better than the second game, but in gameplay aspects, I feel much more comfortable with the second game. Speaking about ambience, I liked both, but some maps from the second one felt better made than the previous title. Some people will agree with me, some people won't, which is okay. But even if the majority thinks like me, that won't make my opinion a fact, nor will it make the second game "objectively better".
Of course, you can talk about "technicalities", like which one handles technical aspects better than the other; maybe you can objectively qualify the quality of the product itself, like resolution, graphics, etc. But story-wise? Gameplay-wise? Character development? that's all about tastes. You can't define what you personally like as "objectively better".
I love both games.
And what are your thoughts on the rest of post?
Well I like both games, but Manhunt 1 is my favorite out of two.
I think why people like Manhunt 1 is because it didn't try to be deep though, it was more realistic (since Danny/Leo's split personality isn't a result of naturally occurring mental illness, but rather a government experiment where a completely seperate person's brain patterns were stored in Danny's brain and that process malfunctioned as they became aware of each other), it felt more congruent with the gameplay.
I mean Danny has panic attacks about the idea of harming someone, he vomits when he sees blood and feels guilty about killing people and acts like he's morally conflicted even though he still kills people with the utmost savagery and deliberation, whereas James Earl Cash is left just vague enough to be sympathetic, yet it's never specifically stated that he's a good guy either, he was on Death Row at the start of the game, and he murders people in a cold emotionless way but for self-defense, because he doesn't have a way out. He's on the quiet side and he doesn't seem to be overly bothered by his family members dying, but he works for the gameplay, just like Jimmy Hopkins suits the gameplay of Bully, whereas Danny Lamb is kind of acting different in cutscenes to how he acts in game, the parts where you play as Leo definitely make more sense.
In general, I like both Manhunts for different reasons, Manhunt 2 has several gameplay improvements over the original, but Manhunt 1 was less ambitious with the story and it paid off well, also I think the character animations of Manhunt 2 were more detailed (aside from the walking cycles, I preferred them in the first game because instead of the same animation they all had different ways of walking which defined their characters, like the Innocentz were drugged-up and they would kind of walk with an unbalanced wobble, the Smileys like Barry had a really brilliant aggressive walk where they held both of their arms down firmly, etc.), better executions because they were a lot more brutal and violent, but the first one had better character models, better textures, only thing I didn't like was how small their faces are, they lacked detail, the faces in Manhunt 2 were better and larger.