November 19, 2010
By Michael Lowell
Sly 2: Band of Thieves
Playstation 2
Developed: Sucker Punch Productions
Published: Sony Computer Entertainment America
Released: September 14, 2004 (North America)
Note A: The Sly Cooper trilogy was just re-released on the Playstation 3. The series has a reputation for being some of the best platformers that nobody played. Let’s check in on that.
Note B: This review analyzes a game released during a previous generation. This review is not here to reflect player and critical reception at the time of the game’s release. It’s here to see whether those perceptions held up.
To understand where Sucker Punch got it wrong with Sly 2: Band of Thieves, you have to understand that it seemed like a hell of an idea in 2004. The industry was only three years removed from Grand Theft Auto III, and Rockstar Games firmly demonstrated their game was no fluke by repeating the success with 2002′s Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Yeah, open-world wasn’t particularly new. The world of computer role-playing had been delivering a brand of open-world for almost two decades, with Fallout and Ultima and a world of dungeon crawlers all sporting a major exploration element. The difference? Grand Theft Auto made open-world video games feel organic and alive; that non-player-characters and their low polygon counts were “leading real lives”, had “places to go”, had “errands to run”. But what about console gamers? Shit, for them, day became night. Grand Theft Auto III changed the world of consoles. Every developer was asking the question: “How can we capitalize on the success of Grand Theft Auto III?” That’s how the slightly-conjoined universe of Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy (a bit of a swan song for the dreadful world of item-collection-based platforming) returned in 2003 with a sequel featuring a massive cityscape, automobiles to traverse it, guns to shoot their assailants.
It’s little surprise that a year after the release of Jak 2, the sequel to Sly Cooper’s platforming adventures received the same treatment. Both games were published by Sony and Sly Cooper was supposed to be the heir apparent to the throne of Crash Bandicoot, a series that sold millions during the late nineties without having to sweat. Critics were thrilled with Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus but sales indicated consumers were not. The main criticism of that game was its length, as the game could be completed in seven to ten hours. So why not kill two birds with a single stone? In the way a role-playing game can have its “content doubled” by halving the amount of experience granted by kills, the mere act of getting to the next mission would require Sly to waltz around buildings and tip-toe by watchguards and dodge patrolling tanks and oh my God it will be awesome! Grand Theft Cooper was a go.
The problem? This is still 2004. Nobody had quite wrapped their head around the open-world sandbox game…at least not those who were using Grand Theft Auto as their body of reference. The sandbox game had grievous flaws that needed to be addressed. Hell, they still do: How do you make level design interesting when you’re so busy hyping the size of your brand new game world? You can’t. If you’re developing the next Elder Scrolls game, you hype the grandeur of the locations the player will be visiting, not the positioning and location of hazards that make those places interesting to explore. That’s why you add day-and-night cycles and wow audiences with “dynamic reflexive intelligence”. You go bigger and more exuberant until you’ve finally fooled your audience into believing the smaller details don’t matter. So let’s ask: What does Sly 2 do to become bigger and more exuberant in the absence of level design?
Well, it triples the number of playable characters. Those two characters are Bentley the Turtle and Murray the Hippo, featured as supporting characters in the original game. I can very easily explain the problem with this: You are designing a new platformer. Platformers are at their best when the controllable characters display a level of acrobatic ability. Sly Cooper does this and the game world is built for his strengths. Hell, look at Mario in his three-dimensional debut. Mario could triple jump, he could long jump, he could bounce off of walls, he could do backflips. Mario could do all of these things that weren’t necessary in his less complicated, two-dimensional, side-scrolling affairs. In order for level design to survive its new boundaries, Mario had to become a freak athlete. His skill set had to become more complex. His abilities had to be optimal within that open space. Sucker Punch made the decision that their two new playable characters in their action-stealth-platforming game were going to be a turtle and a hippo. That’s like designing the latest Assassin’s Creed game to chronicle the exploits of a man and his wheelchair.
This looks a lot more exciting than it really is.
In an attempt to distance themselves from any criticism that Murray and Bentley simply aren’t as fun to maneuver as Sly, Sucker Punch has loaded each of these characters with a diverse roster of abilities. And just like in the previous game, these abilities are completely optional. The player doesn’t acquire them as necessary, he purchases them. And unless you want your platformer to become an intolerable item-collection endeavor similar to 2003′s Kya: Dark Lineage (a forgotten sixth-generation platformer that required the player to purchase critical items, amongst other grind mechanics), those purchases have to remain optional. So the question is: Does the game grant the player incentive to purchase those abilities? Not really. Padding out the entire ability tree requires the player to grind for money. The best way to acquire money? Pickpocketing guards. In these instances, it’s not about coins; it’s about collectibles. The collectibles are worth a lot of money. But these collectibles hinge on a drop rate. In other words, the process of collecting money is no different than your girlfriend’s manic obsession with her favorite MMORPG. In the pursuit of increasing access to the game mechanics, the player has to completely pigeonhole his playing experience.
As-is, the platforming can’t carry an entire game. Sucker Punch places a lot of hope that mini-games and beat ‘em up sections can. It’s a mixed bag. Bentley’s “special ability” is hacking, which plays out in a series of run-and-gun shooting missions. Think of these sections as some crazy compromise between Doom’s off-the-wall level design and Geometry Wars’ simple combat. The problem with these sections is that they’re way too easy. Remember, this is supposed to be “entertainment for kids”. While the rest of the shoot ‘em up genre has been taken to its logical extreme with the bullet hell shooter, Sucker Punch wasn’t going to complicate things. Needless to say, it suffers as a result. As far as Murray is concerned, his specialty is kicking ass. Once again, too easy. The issue with combat in The Thievius Raccoonus was the game’s emphasis on stealth; being spotted by any animal with a firearm usually meant that you were going to take damage. In a game where you could take a maximum of three hits before perishing (and more commonly one or two), that was a big issue. In response, nothing has changed except for the addition of a life bar. Sucker Punch chose the absolutely least-interesting route in making fisticuffs more forgiving: They simply increased the margin for error. (It’s important to note that this also significantly harms any stealth incursions, since any mistake can simply be responded to with brute force, because “Hey, I have a life bar. I’ll regain that health in a little bit.”)
Perhaps most aggravating? Even as technology progressed and the game worlds in the Grand Theft Auto series grew bigger and bigger, there was never much of an issue in knowing where to go. When the world layouts grew too complicated, Rockstar Games adjusted. When Liberty City was redesigned as an archipelago in 2008′s Grand Theft Auto IV, the developers designed destination markers that were accompanied by an optimal traffic route. This optimal route would be displayed in the minimap. For starters, Sly 2 doesn’t even feature a minimap. Period. So how do you know where destination markers are located? By repeatedly switching to your binoculars. There’s a very big problem with that: Destination markers can be obscured by buildings and the environment. And this game is in love with the Z-axis, whether you’re climbing the highest perches of aging statues or navigating city streets flanked by towering complexes. And while destination markers will still display themselves when you unequip your binoculars, the destination markers will eventually fade out, requiring you to constantly use your binoculars in order to re-acquire your target. “Obnoxious” would be rather disingenuous in describing it. This is bad enough when you’re playing as Sly Cooper. Now imagine trying to dissect your “optimal road route” with Bentley or Murray, who don’t have access to the chutes, ladders, and high-wire act that allows Sly to traverse the environment.
Navigating Sly Cooper’s universe is a hell of a lot more complicated than it looks.
And somehow, Sly 2 still weathers its issues and plays alright. In the complete absence of level design is very good mission design, which uses the Super Mario school of philosophy (radically change the playing field from level to level and convince them you’re not employing a series of cheap gimmicks) and runs with it. The mere act of navigating Sly Cooper through the various overworlds is still enjoyable. In the total absence of level design, the platforming mechanics still work. The camera isn’t perfect, but the controls are still tight. As far as the implementation of the design is concerned (how well designs and concepts were converted into code), there’s really not a lot to be disappointed with.
But you know, I’m beginning to notice a trend with promising-but-ultimately-disappointing titles: Alpha Protocol delivered on real role-playing and screwed up everything else. Enslaved: Odyssey to the West was a giant escort mission where your escort was infallibly intelligent. These disappointing games always seem to effectively accomplish what they’re not expected to. So dare ask: What does Sly 2 get right? The video game aimed at children delivers one of the most intelligently written, humorous, and dark storylines you’ll find in a platforming game. Sly Cooper is as much a badass as any of his assailants and the struggle between good thieves and bad thieves (portrayed as far more urgent than it was in the predecessor) comes to its logical conclusion: A band of buddies torn apart by the rigors of every anthropomorphic man and woman they had to cut down. That’s at least worth some points on the review scale, and if anyone ever takes a break from playing Call of Duty so he or she can yell at you for playing “kid games”, shove this game in their face and tell them to shut the fuck up.
All of these minor victories and solid disappointments can be surmised with a single series of missions: During the later half of the game, you have to conduct a series of train robberies. Rather unsurprisingly, these missions are literally on-rails. They require you to move one car a time to the front of the train. They require you to analyze the layout of each car. Each of these cars can easily play on their own motif. One car can require the player to jump from safe zone to safe zone. Another car can require the player to hide in the shadows until it’s safe to make a run for it. Sly 2 spends all its time introducing us to new playable characters and new abilities and gigantic overworlds and the series of missions featuring well-designed levels is easily the most entertaining part of the entire game. That is, what The Thievius Raccoonus already accomplished with a degree of success.
So there you go. Know how politics is all about the money? How winning basketball is all about defense and rebounding? Sly 2: Band of Thieves is an open-world take on Sly Cooper’s brand of action-stealth-platforming. That is, an action-stealth-platformer without level design. And guess what? Good platforming is all about level design. The act of successfully stripping level design from the platforming equation would have been some incredible achievement. Sucker Punch tried and half-succeeded. That ain’t good enough.
2 out of 5
(Games rated two-out-of-five will appeal to their target audience. But against the body of work produced in this forty-year-old medium? Against that copy of Beyond Good and Evil sitting on the rack for eight bucks? Yeah, it has issues.)
Special Thanks To:
IGN’s Screenshot Gallery for the Pretty Renders
e series has a reputation for being some of the best platformers that nobody played. Let’s check in on that.</em>
<em><strong>Note B: </strong>This review analyzes a game released during a previous generation. This review is not here to reflect player and critical reception at the time of the game’s release. It’s here to see whether those perceptions held up.</em>
Yeah that seems about right. I still haven’t finished this one. Also did you play inFamous? It’s made by Sucker Punch and looks good to me. I’m curious if it is actually good.
I still don’t get this obsession 3D platformers have with levels being non-linear. What’s wrong with linear? The only 2 3D platformers I can think of that truly got level design 100% right are Rayman 2 and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (there’s too many levels where you just faff about in the first one).
Comment by Q-veta on January 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Just pointing this out…
“for the purpose of yelling at because you play “kid games””
“yelling at because”
Comment by PIES on January 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm
@Q-Veta: Can’t say I have. And considering it’s the complete opposite of any video game they’ve released before or after, I won’t dare trying to make assumptions on how it plays.
I don’t get the obsession with non-linear platformers. I mean, Metroid is great because level design is still hugely important (and in creating a world where backtracking is entertaining, it’s probably MORE important than a linear platformer). I guess it has to do more with the fetish for sandbox games. I personally don’t give a fuck for sandbox games at this point. Everybody else does. And nobody has quite come to terms with their weaknesses. The sooner, the better. This past decade is going to be host to a massive range of open-world games that will not age well at all.
@PIES: Done, amended, and taken care of. Thanks for the correction.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 27, 2011 at 12:13 am
I’m not that big on sandbox games either. The last one I played and enjoyed was Crackdown. Before that it was GTA 2 (yes two).
I don’t think I can touch any N64 platformer at this point (except Rayman 2, but that’s on tons of other systems). I didn’t even like Super Mario 64. Maybe I should give it another try.
Comment by Q-veta on January 27, 2011 at 6:43 am
I didn’t care much for Mario 64, either. It’s clearly a damn good game, though it had to make some concessions to make sure it didn’t lose people the very moment it tried to make the transition to 3-D. But as far as all these open-world, go-where-you-want games are concerned, Metroid is still the gold standard. I know Metroidvanias are rather cliche these days, but damn, they do it so well.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 28, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Except for Prime 3, Other M, Fusion and Prime Hunters.
I tried Castlevania Symphony of the Night and Aria of Sorrow on the the DS but they just feel off somehow compared to the good Metroid games.
Comment by Q-veta on January 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Let’s not pretend Metroid Prime 3 was a Metroid game at all. It was a linear action game with the Metroid model. As for the Castlevania games, they hinge their exploration on very straight-forward item drops. It was very pre-determined and predicated. Super Metroid let players use items as suggestions for where they would go. You could get into Kraid’s lair without the Hi-Jump Boots. You could clear Maridia without the Gravity Suit. Whether Nintendo expected players to accomplish those feats or not, it made for something the Castlevania games can’t really touch.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 29, 2011 at 3:07 am
Well it was more Metroid than the other 3 I listed. For a Castlevania game that I actually like the PSP’s got my back on that one with Dracula X Chronicles.
By the way, did you play Sly 3? Is it more like Sly 1 or Sly 2? Sly 1 was so much more action packed.
Comment by Q-veta on January 29, 2011 at 6:51 am
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2946/metroidcomparison.gif
Comment by Q-veta on January 29, 2011 at 7:38 pm
I’m almost finished with Sly 3 and I pretty much have nothing nice to say about it. The third game doesn’t even pretend to be a platformer. It’s actually closer to a SINGLE-PLAYER PARTY GAME. It nearly triples the number of playable characters and pretty much trashes the great storyline the franchise had going. It’s completely contradictory and features a ton of “Let’s bring back old characters for the hell of it!” moments. It feels like a Saturday morning cartoon instead of a kids’ game for adults.
And yeah, I haven’t played Other M. I think I may have to do it simply because of how controversial the game has been. Sounds like good dissection material. (My goal is to eventually review ALL of the core Metroid games on this site. Look forward to doing it.)
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 29, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Well I guess I won’t be finishing Sly 2. I thought maybe if Sly 3 was good I’d finish 2 (the way I play games is if I can play all the main games in the series, I MUST play them in order, I even played DMC 2 knowing it was bad). Too bad, I had a lot of fun with the first. Guess it’s back to finishing Klonoa 2 for me.
As for Other M it’s like Metroid Fusion in 3D except instead of the little monologues Samus had on the elevator rides there’s now 10 minute unskippable cutscenes with god awful dialogue. It’s also more linear than Fusion if you can believe that. Music sucks too.
Overall I’d give it a 2/5 because the ending really blew me away. It’s the one good thing I can say about this game and I really do remember it fondly. And even if the mechanics are incredibly dumbed down from Prime and Super (which is quite an accomplishment because those games weren’t complex) I still had some fun with it and got 100% item collection despite the horrible story and cutscenes. Yes, they really are that bad. I usually can ignore the story if it’s bad but I just couldn’t in this one.
Metroid Prime Hunters would get a 1/5 from me though, it has no redeeming qualities. NOTHING
Comment by Q-veta on January 29, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Yeah, you’ll find mixed opinion on which game is the best in the series. In my opinion, I found a “Platformer with level design” -> “Platformer without level design” -> “Party game”. I know the order I’m taking them in.
I do find that amusing that Other M could possibly be more linear than Fusion. If the game sounds to me like what I think it does (Ninja Gaiden without the crushing difficulty and minus the complexity), it’s going to be a very, very hard sell for me. I’ll wait until it’s cheaper (or until I have access to a Nintendo Wii again). And I won’t even speak on Hunters. I have zero interest in playing the game at all.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 30, 2011 at 12:04 am
It does feel a little like Ninja Gaiden but instead of carefully blocking, dodging at timing your attacks you get an overpowered dodge move which you constantly abuse (it’s the only way really).
What happened to your Wii?
Comment by Q-veta on January 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Nintendo Wii fried on Christmas day. Touching, really. I’ll figure out a workaround.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm
If it was from a firmware update, Nintendo had the exact same problem at the end of 2009 when their firmware bricked Wiis. I guess they’re making it a Christmas thing.
Comment by Q-veta on January 31, 2011 at 9:51 am
Yeah, that’s basically what happened. Of course, like Microsoft, they won’t hold themselves to fixing that for under 100 bucks. Oh wells!
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 31, 2011 at 9:10 pm
So, Ghetto…When can we expect your review of Earthbound? :P
Comment by Truhan on February 1, 2011 at 12:24 am
I’m going to begin getting around to some older games in due time. Choosing them very carefully, though. I’m not going to review some very specific titles until I feel my writing is capable of doing them justice.
Comment by Mike Lowell on February 1, 2011 at 12:50 am
Oh ho ho, sounds to me like you plan on some big things for us. As long as you continue to come out with the occasional rant or funny article, I am more than appeased.
Comment by Truhan on February 1, 2011 at 3:21 am
Review of Halo Reach.
Comment by Q-veta on February 1, 2011 at 10:12 am
Metroid always seems a prime topic around here.
Any of you guys get to play Shadow Complex on XBLA? The developers took a month before they began production to have everyone play through Super Metroid. Aside from some clunky 2.5D elements (shooting enemies in the background was a pain…), it’s a really good game.
Comment by iamKelly on February 1, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Oh, and if you want something to make you angry:
http://dualanalog.com/content/i-finally-played-super-metroid
Comment by iamKelly on February 1, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I tried playing Shadow Complex but I couldn’t get around the fact that everything was so bland and generic. From what I’ve heard it’s a very good copy of Super Metroid, but I always thought the atmosphere in Metroid was a must.
As for the link…
“I’ll have to admit, hearing all the familiar sounds and finding all the weapons and accessories that I have encountered in the Prime series was unexpected”
The man is retarded, how would familiar sounds be unexpected in the same series? They would in fact be expected like the sound of the 1UP mushroom in Super Mario Bros. But besides him being stupid, I don’t see much to complain about. He said he played all 3 Prime games but not whether he enjoyed them or not. Maybe he just like metroidvanias. To be honest the first time I played Super Metroid I didn’t find it that great because it was the first game in that style I played and I wasn’t used to all the backtracking. Now it’s definitely in my Top 5 favorite games.
@Mike: forget Halo, review ANGRY BIRDS instead.
Comment by Q-veta on February 1, 2011 at 9:26 pm
*Maybe he just doesn’t like metroidvanias
This place really needs an edit feature.
Comment by Q-veta on February 1, 2011 at 9:27 pm
This is unrelated but I tried Angry Birds. Jesus Christ why the hell is this thing so popular? I get why Tetris was so popular but Tetris is good. If you make a mistake things get a little tougher. The AB version I played had infinite restarts of a level and I couldn’t shake the feeling I was back in 1999 playing the bazooka training levels in Worms Armageddon except without the charm and the fact that the game would gradually get more awesome.
It’s really like a level of Worms where you can’t move, the only weapon is the bazooka, the enemies don’t attack and all the charm the game had is replaced with the “charm” of some guy’s first flash game.
Comment by Q-veta on February 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm
@iamKelly: Haven’t played it. Don’t have any access to an X-Box for the time being. Figures it has to be one of the few games that is actually an exclusive. It’s on my to-play list if I get another X-Box, but that’s going to be a while.
And as for the Super Metroid critique, let me put it this way: The greatest games in the history of this industry don’t make you nostalgic after the first time you play them. They make you nostalgic for the second and third and fourth playthroughs. Super Metroid is one of those games. It’s tough to realize how incredible it is until you’ve begun to dissect it.
Q-Veta: Well…there’s one thing I can tell you about Angry Birds. I played it very briefly and simply didn’t get what the hell is the deal with it. Do I review a game that I know I am going to slam from the get-go? But yes, it’s a scaled-down version of Worms. And nobody is going to tell me a less complicated, less interesting version of Worms is a better game than Worms because it has more outlets to be played on.
And I’ll see if this template has any sort of automated nickname and content feature. I can edit all of my posts from a standard post creation tool. I know you guys don’t have access to that. I’ll figure something out.
Comment by Mike Lowell on February 2, 2011 at 9:58 pm
We would fall in love with you Ghettoman. But not in a way that would be considered inappropriate for our work relationship. More like something we never talk about but always keep in our hearts until our dying day, when we realized we were living a lie all along when getting married and having children.
Comment by Truhan on February 3, 2011 at 5:05 am
“And nobody is going to tell me a less complicated, less interesting version of Worms is a better game than Worms because it has more outlets to be played on.”
Actually I’m pretty sure the Worms series as a whole is on more platforms than Angry Birds. But I truly cannot understand why it’s so popular. The game isn’t even as fun as the training missions of Worms Armageddon where you learn the basics, let alone the actual missions or the fantastic multiplayer.
I guess the levels are very short but if you don’t have much time you might as well put an emulator on your hipster phone and play a level of Super Mario World.
Comment by Q-veta on February 3, 2011 at 7:27 am
@Truhan: I understand completely, sir.
@Q-Veta: I’ll go with the easy answer: They haven’t played it before so it is new and original.
Comment by Mike Lowell on February 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Even so, it’s still not a good game. I don’t have an iPhone or an Android so I don’t know how other games are, maybe Angry Birds is very complex and interesting compared to the other touch based games.
Comment by Q-veta on February 4, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Compared to the mobile phone library? It’s one of the few “full” games. Elsewise, yeah. Not much to it.
Comment by Mike Lowell on February 4, 2011 at 5:17 pm
It’s always interesting to read your analysis, but “anthropomorphic man and woman” is a tautology. “Zoomorphic” would be more like it.
Comment by Ilya Chentsov on January 3, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Point taken. Whenever I get around to rewriting the review, it will be amended.
Comment by Mike Lowell on January 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm