I liked the first game, so I was looking forward to this one. It seems like there is a story behind Fighting Force 2’s development, and I might look for it at some point. From what I read, Fighting Force 2 started as something different, and turned into a single-player beat’em up.
This game plays like a bad Tomb Raider clone. I have no idea why the developers went in this direction. It would’ve been nicer if they had stuck with a beat’em up.
This game had to have started as something else. This was probably something different than a sequel to Fighting Force because it has nothing to do with that game. Fighting Force 2 is a bad and forgettable game.
TLDR: Fighting Force 2 doesn’t know what it wants to be.
Narrative
I looked up the story in the manual. We’re given a “Background” that acts as the story for the game. You play as a member of SI-COPS, which is an amalgamation of three real organizations and one that I don’t think exists.
The story has to do with human cloning and a corrupt corporation. Cloning was one of the things that got used in several things in the late 1990s. It was similar to the “world ends in 1999” trope that was also used in many creative works at that time.
This section sets up that there is going to be more to the game than a beat’em up. It sounds like it was going to be a stealth game instead of a beat’em up. This lends more credit to IGN’s review of the game, which I’ll go over later.
It is strange that everything from the first game’s narrative was dropped. I wonder why they chose to make this a Fighting Force game. Maybe that name got tacked on later in development, and was used as a reason to turn this into a beat’em up when they started running into issues.
Gameplay
Fighting Force 2 was supposed to have different gameplay. From what I read, it was originally going to be closer to Syphon Filter and Metal Gear Solid. Something happened during development, and it was turned into a single-player beat’em up.
This is a single-player beat’em up, which is always a recipe for disaster. Games like this are much more fun with someone else. Not having the option for a second player is awful. Even a bad game can be fun if you have someone else laughing at it with you.
What is very cool is how everything explodes! It feels like a parody of an action movie from the 1980s where stuff just blows up. If you told me this was going to be a comedy, I would believe you.
The manual can be found online (Link). It is helpful if you only have the disc for either the Dreamcast or the PS1. The game uses tank controls, which is something I didn’t know until I looked in the manual. It is an odd choice for a beat’em up.
There is only one playable character in this game. Since it is a single-player game, this isn’t too surprising. There are a lot of items you can pick up and you have an inventory to manage.
This is what leads me to think this was never supposed to be a sequel to Fighting Force. It is so far from the first game’s gameplay, and it feels like it was going to be a different game entirely. I feel bad for the development team on this one.
I didn’t like the changes to the gameplay. This doesn’t feel like the first game at all, and I don’t think this should’ve been a part of the series. Fighting Force 2 feels like a bad clone of Tomb Raider.
Visuals
The game looks good for the time. It is a nice looking PS1 game. It can sometimes be a little dark, and the camera is an issue.
For the game released in 1999, it looks very good. The levels look nice and the explosions are cool. The layout of each stage isn’t very good.
When you go into a small room, the camera becomes your worst enemy. You have no control over the camera, which zooms and spins around the room randomly. You could probably adjust to it with enough time, but things shouldn’t be this way.
While the graphics look very good for the time, everything works against you. Also, the game looked very dark on my TV. If I was using a CRT, I probably wouldn’t have this problem.
Reviews at the Time
The review scores for this game were horrible. I only found two reviews that considered Fighting Force 2 an average game. I looked at four reviews this time. I wanted to look at more, but they don’t seem to have been archived as well.
The Official PlayStation Magazine gave this game a 2/5. The reviewer criticized the game for having clunky and repetitive gameplay and said “Frankly, Fighting Force is about as exciting as a golf game played in quicksand.” I’m not sure what this quote is supposed to mean, and I can only guess that it means he didn’t like it.
IGN wrote a strange and rambling review that came across like someone trying to sound smarter than they are. I guess the reviewer is upset that Eidos told them one thing and delivered something else. The reviewer called this game “a better looking Fighting Force, except with one player.” They gave the game a 3/10.
Gamespot gave the game a 3.6/10. The same person reviewed both games, and it seems like their opinion drastically changed on the first game. The review praised the graphics, but didn’t like the gameplay. It is strange that he said “this game is better than the original Fighting Force – but that’s really not saying much.” Gamespot gave the first game a 5.3/10.
EGM had four people review this game. None of them liked the game, but two reviewers gave it a 5/10. Like the other reviews, they liked the graphics and didn’t like the gameplay.
I’m not sure if the press releases of interviews still exist, but it would be interesting to find them. Looking at the reviews, it seems like some revisionist history is going on. When the first game is mentioned, the reviewers call it bad. This isn’t how the first game was received two years earlier.
Something must have happened with Fighting Force 2’s development. It seems like the game changed directions at some point during development. Stuff like this happens all the time, and I think a few of the reviewers held it against the game.
4/10. This is a bad sequel to a decent beat’em up. I got the impression that the developers didn’t know what they wanted the game to be, resulting in a mess of a game.
Pros
- Lots of explosions
- Good Graphics
Cons
- Bad Controls
- Single Player Only
- Doesn’t know if it wants to be Tomb Raider or a Fighting Force sequel
- Bad Camera
Conclusion
I wanted to figure out what happened with this game. I’m sure there are interviews with former Eidos and Core employees, but they are probably talking about Tomb Raider. This is a baffling game.
Fighting Force 2 doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. It could’ve been a decent beat’em up, but it ends up being a bad Tomb Raider clone. I don’t think this should’ve been a part of the Fighting Force series.
I wish they had made a beat’em up instead of this. The first game wasn’t too bad, but this one is disappointing. This just isn’t something I want to play again.
If you liked this post, please check out my reviews of Fighting Force on the PlayStation or N64.