YEAH, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED; SO MANY ARTICLES AND REVIEWS AT THE TIME SPOKE OF NAUGHTY DOG "FINALLY LEVELLING OUT THE DIFFICULTY PROPERLY" OR "FIXXING THE DIFFICULTY CURVE" AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT I'M SURE IT WAS AT LEAST INTENTIONAL OR MADE AS PART OF THE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN FOR JAK 3.
THE PLOT... JAK 3 GAVE US LIGHT JAK, GAVE US THE WASTELAND... BUT SO MUCH OF IT WAS JUST "WHAT". THE DARK MAKERS WERE A REPLACEMENT, A MORE DIFFICULT ENEMY THAN THE METAL HEADS, JUST AS THE METAL HEADS WERE TO LURKERS. TURNING EROL INTO A PSYCHOTIC MEGALOMANIAC? YEAH, HE WASN'T STABLE IN JAK II, BUT HE WENT FROM BEING A MORALLY DUBIOUS AND DIVERSE CHARACTER TO "BIG BAD RAWR SCARY I'M THE VILLAIN" CHARACTER. THEN LET'S NOT FORGET HOW THE TIMELINE DOESN'T EVEN WORK, EVEN WHEN NOT CONSIDERING THE TIME TRAVEL.
JAK II: SIG'S WORKED FOR KREW FOR YEARS JAK 3: SIG IS A WASTELANDER WHO WENT TO HAVEN TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING FOR DAMAS (YOUNG JAK) AND HATES HAVENITES
SO LIKE, SIG'S TOTALLY GOT AN AWESOME POKER FACE, BUT STILL. AFTER SIG'S "I'VE DONE SOME STUFF I'M NOT PROUD OF AND I WANT OUT" SPEECH IN JAK II, IT WAS A BIT WEIRD TO SUDDENLY SEE HIM IN SPARGUS, IN THE ARENA, TOTALLY OKAY WITH POTENTIALLY KILLING JAK FOR A BIT. WASTELANDER HONOUR AND ALL THAT, I GUESS, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. HOW LONG WAS YOUNG JAK LOST IN HAVEN? SIG WAS KREW'S HEAVY FOR YEARS, TO QUOTE CANON; HOW LONG WAS HE LOOKING FOR YOUNG JAK, THEN? WAS HE A SPY IN HAVEN FOR DAMAS FROM THE BEGINNING?
I MEAN, I FILL A LOT OF THIS IN WITH FANON, BUT STILL.
DUDE, SIG IS LIKE MY HEAD-BREAKING POINT. I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE IF THEY CHANGED DAMAS' RIGHT HAND MAN TO SOMEONE ELSE. LIKE AN ENTIRELY NEW CHARACTER? 'CAUSE BASICALLY EVERYONE KNOWS THAT JAK IS THE TRUE HEIR OF HAVEN CITY-ESPECIALLY HIS FRIENDS-WHICH IS KIND OF A BIG HINT THAT HE AND DAMAS ARE RELATED. IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO SHOULD PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER IT'S SIG. I'VE TRIED TO FILL UP THAT POT HOLE MANY TIMES BUT I'VE NEVER COME UP WITH SOMETHING SOLID. EXCEPT MAYBE LASER-GUIDED AMNESIA. AND I NEVER REALLY GOT HOW SIG IS ONLY 28 IN JAK X, EITHER. THAT WOULD MAKE HIM 26 IN JAK II. YEAH, NO. I ALWAYS THOUGH THAT HE WAS SOMEWHERE IN HIS LATE THIRTIES, 'CAUSE 26 DOESN'T WORK WITH THE TIMELINE AAAAAH
THE STORY IS GOOD BUT IT'S GOT PLOTHOLES THAT YOU COULD DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH. I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE NAUGHTY DOG ONLY HAD ONE YEAR TO MAKE THE ENTIRE GAME, OPPOSED TO TWO FOR THE SECOND.
MAYBE SIG GUESSED BUT WAS WAITING TO SAY SOMETHING BUT THEN SHIT WENT DOWN, AND THEN HE WAS WAITING FOR DAMAS TO FIGURE IT OUT? OR MAYBE BETWEEN THE TIME TRAVEL SHENANIGANS AND WHATNOT THEY FIGURED THERE WAS NO WAY JAK COULD BE THAT LITTLE BOY. IDK THEY NEVER MADE SIG OUT TO BE A PARTICULARLY CLEVER CHARACTER UNFORTUNATELY. I'D BE INCLINED TO JUST SAY NAUGHTY DOG WAS LAZY AND WANTED A WAY TO BRING BACK SIG.
THIS EXACTLY. NAUGHTY DOG SHOVED SIG INTO A ROLE THAT MADE NO SENSE FOR HIM. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DUE TO NOT WANTING TO MAKE A NEW CHARACTER, WANTING TO MAKE SURE SIG WAS ACTIVE IN 3, OR WHATEVER, BUT IT WAS A POOR DECISION ON THEIR PART.
ALSO HIS AGE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT. ESPECIALLY WITH HIM BEING YOUNGER THAN TORN, OF ALL PEOPLE. I SERIOUSLY PICTURED LATE TWENTIES FOR TORN AND MID-LATE TWENTIES FOR SIG, BUT NOPE.
SOMEONE ONCE TOLD ME THAT JAK 3 WAS WHEN AMY HENNIG NDI AND THEY BLAMED HER FOR THE PLOT PROBLEMS, FOR SOME REASON. IDK, IT HAD TO DO WITH OTHER GAMES SHE HAD WRITTEN THAT HAD CLUSTER FUCK-ESQUE PLOTS? I THINK IT'S BULLSHIT, PERSONALLY, AND JUST AN EXCUSE TO BLAME A WOMAN FOR ~DOING EVERYTHING WRONG~. ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A MALE-DOMINATED GENRE. I MEAN, A NEW WRITER CHANGING THE DYNAMIC OF THE TEAM MIGHT BE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, SINCE THE NEW WRITER WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON BOARD THE SAME IDEA TRAIN AS THE OTHERS, BUT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY LIKE "IT'S AMY HENNIG'S FAULT BECAUSE SHE WRITES BAD STUFF" OR WHATEVER. ESPECIALLY SINCE NDI SAID CLEARLY AFTER BOTH TPL AND JAK II THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHERE TO GO NEXT, THEY HAD NO SET PLAN FOR THE THREE GAMES AND WERE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY WENT ALONG.
AMY HENNIG ALSO WROTE AND DIRECTED SOUL REAVER 2 AND MAN THAT THING HAD A CLUSTERFUCK OF A STORY BUT IT WORKED. ANYWAY, ACCORDING TO IMDB DANIEL AREY & ANDY GAVIN WROTE THE FIRST THREE GAMES AND GAVIN HAS BEEN ONE OF THE DIRECTORS FOR ALL OF THEM. ASK ANY SCRIPT WRITER AND THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS THE FINAL SAY NO MATTER WHAT THE SCRIPT IS ABOUT.
I GUESS THEY JUST WANTED TOO MUCH WITH JAK 3, MAKE IT THE MOST EPIC ENDING TO A TRILOGY IMAGINABLE. I MEAN, JAK X DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF A STORY BUT AT LEAST THAT MADE IT UNDERSTANDABLE AND MAKE SENSE. STILL, THOUGH. I THINK JAK 3 HAD THE BEST CHARACTERIZATION AND MOST VARIED GAMEPLAY. THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT ALL OF 'EM.
THE PLOT... JAK 3 GAVE US LIGHT JAK, GAVE US THE WASTELAND... BUT SO MUCH OF IT WAS JUST "WHAT". THE DARK MAKERS WERE A REPLACEMENT, A MORE DIFFICULT ENEMY THAN THE METAL HEADS, JUST AS THE METAL HEADS WERE TO LURKERS. TURNING EROL INTO A PSYCHOTIC MEGALOMANIAC? YEAH, HE WASN'T STABLE IN JAK II, BUT HE WENT FROM BEING A MORALLY DUBIOUS AND DIVERSE CHARACTER TO "BIG BAD RAWR SCARY I'M THE VILLAIN" CHARACTER.
THEN LET'S NOT FORGET HOW THE TIMELINE DOESN'T EVEN WORK, EVEN WHEN NOT CONSIDERING THE TIME TRAVEL.
JAK II: SIG'S WORKED FOR KREW FOR YEARS
JAK 3: SIG IS A WASTELANDER WHO WENT TO HAVEN TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING FOR DAMAS (YOUNG JAK) AND HATES HAVENITES
SO LIKE, SIG'S TOTALLY GOT AN AWESOME POKER FACE, BUT STILL. AFTER SIG'S "I'VE DONE SOME STUFF I'M NOT PROUD OF AND I WANT OUT" SPEECH IN JAK II, IT WAS A BIT WEIRD TO SUDDENLY SEE HIM IN SPARGUS, IN THE ARENA, TOTALLY OKAY WITH POTENTIALLY KILLING JAK FOR A BIT. WASTELANDER HONOUR AND ALL THAT, I GUESS, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. HOW LONG WAS YOUNG JAK LOST IN HAVEN? SIG WAS KREW'S HEAVY FOR YEARS, TO QUOTE CANON; HOW LONG WAS HE LOOKING FOR YOUNG JAK, THEN? WAS HE A SPY IN HAVEN FOR DAMAS FROM THE BEGINNING?
I MEAN, I FILL A LOT OF THIS IN WITH FANON, BUT STILL.
/RAMBLES
Reply
THE STORY IS GOOD BUT IT'S GOT PLOTHOLES THAT YOU COULD DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH. I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE NAUGHTY DOG ONLY HAD ONE YEAR TO MAKE THE ENTIRE GAME, OPPOSED TO TWO FOR THE SECOND.
Reply
Reply
ALSO HIS AGE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT. ESPECIALLY WITH HIM BEING YOUNGER THAN TORN, OF ALL PEOPLE. I SERIOUSLY PICTURED LATE TWENTIES FOR TORN AND MID-LATE TWENTIES FOR SIG, BUT NOPE.
SOMEONE ONCE TOLD ME THAT JAK 3 WAS WHEN AMY HENNIG NDI AND THEY BLAMED HER FOR THE PLOT PROBLEMS, FOR SOME REASON. IDK, IT HAD TO DO WITH OTHER GAMES SHE HAD WRITTEN THAT HAD CLUSTER FUCK-ESQUE PLOTS? I THINK IT'S BULLSHIT, PERSONALLY, AND JUST AN EXCUSE TO BLAME A WOMAN FOR ~DOING EVERYTHING WRONG~. ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A MALE-DOMINATED GENRE. I MEAN, A NEW WRITER CHANGING THE DYNAMIC OF THE TEAM MIGHT BE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, SINCE THE NEW WRITER WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON BOARD THE SAME IDEA TRAIN AS THE OTHERS, BUT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY LIKE "IT'S AMY HENNIG'S FAULT BECAUSE SHE WRITES BAD STUFF" OR WHATEVER. ESPECIALLY SINCE NDI SAID CLEARLY AFTER BOTH TPL AND JAK II THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHERE TO GO NEXT, THEY HAD NO SET PLAN FOR THE THREE GAMES AND WERE JUST MAKING IT UP AS THEY WENT ALONG.
Reply
I GUESS THEY JUST WANTED TOO MUCH WITH JAK 3, MAKE IT THE MOST EPIC ENDING TO A TRILOGY IMAGINABLE. I MEAN, JAK X DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF A STORY BUT AT LEAST THAT MADE IT UNDERSTANDABLE AND MAKE SENSE. STILL, THOUGH. I THINK JAK 3 HAD THE BEST CHARACTERIZATION AND MOST VARIED GAMEPLAY. THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT ALL OF 'EM.
Reply
Leave a comment