I think it is quite good - an excellent piece of work - but a rather mixed shooter compared to other greats. The atmosphere, as admirably as it tries, is forgettable (I certainly had forgotten about it), the level design, as good as it sometimes might be, is nothing special and (I'm sure) has many drawbacks.
But like many shooters of its time, there is a kind of attention to detail that seems to try to lift the game out of the boundaries of its genre and become something more worthwhile, something to stand on its own compared to any other game of any genre, and simply become THE game, and that is lost nowadays (in shooters, if nothing else). (Maybe that is different, generally, for Nintendo fans. I don't own a console anymore, because that is either something for people who get their stuff bought by their parents, or for people who work; people somewhere inbetween have to economise and rather focus on computers.)
I might add that my brother owned the game (though I owned the console) and I didn't play it as much as I otherwise might have, which might have coloured my perception more to the forgettable than for other players (who tend to be very fond of it).
I just recently had a little bout of Turok 1 again, and while I find it a relatively tepid drag (and mostly did back in the game), the effort is quite admirable, and the level design keeps one going (even while one finds it often pretty dull).
Edit1: I remember thinking back in the day that this was the closest the N64 got to PC graphics, which made me kind of proud (though we had both, I had a special link to my first "revolutionary" console, up until the PS2 made it "officially" obsolete - I was resentful toward the Dreamcast, fo course, it being clearly more powerful but still looking similar).
Edit2: OKay, I chekced on Youtube, and the Dreamcast had better textures than the PS2 (almost everything had...), but the polygons and lighting of the PS2 was something. Similar to the T&L revolution on PC, still defining games.
Comments 1
Re: Review: Turok 2: Seeds of Evil (Nintendo 64)
I think it is quite good - an excellent piece of work - but a rather mixed shooter compared to other greats. The atmosphere, as admirably as it tries, is forgettable (I certainly had forgotten about it), the level design, as good as it sometimes might be, is nothing special and (I'm sure) has many drawbacks.
But like many shooters of its time, there is a kind of attention to detail that seems to try to lift the game out of the boundaries of its genre and become something more worthwhile, something to stand on its own compared to any other game of any genre, and simply become THE game, and that is lost nowadays (in shooters, if nothing else). (Maybe that is different, generally, for Nintendo fans. I don't own a console anymore, because that is either something for people who get their stuff bought by their parents, or for people who work; people somewhere inbetween have to economise and rather focus on computers.)
I might add that my brother owned the game (though I owned the console) and I didn't play it as much as I otherwise might have, which might have coloured my perception more to the forgettable than for other players (who tend to be very fond of it).
I just recently had a little bout of Turok 1 again, and while I find it a relatively tepid drag (and mostly did back in the game), the effort is quite admirable, and the level design keeps one going (even while one finds it often pretty dull).
Edit1: I remember thinking back in the day that this was the closest the N64 got to PC graphics, which made me kind of proud (though we had both, I had a special link to my first "revolutionary" console, up until the PS2 made it "officially" obsolete - I was resentful toward the Dreamcast, fo course, it being clearly more powerful but still looking similar).
Edit2: OKay, I chekced on Youtube, and the Dreamcast had better textures than the PS2 (almost everything had...), but the polygons and lighting of the PS2 was something. Similar to the T&L revolution on PC, still defining games.