In concept, Twisted Metal 2 is a demolition derby which permits the usage of ballistic projectiles. Players choose a vehicle and an arena—or a series of arenas in the story mode—to engage in battle with opposing drivers. A variety of weapons are obtainable by pick-ups scattered throughout the stage. The objective of the game is to be the last remaining player. Two player duel mode makes a return from the first Twisted Metal, and a co-operative mode allows players to fight through tournament mode with a teammate. However, there is no ending if the game is completed in co-operative mode.
Plot
In 2006, Los Angeles is in ruins and its citizens left to struggle for survival after the conclusion of Twisted Metal, a brutal contest held by Calypso, exactly one year earlier on Christmas Eve. Aboard his airship in the skies over the destroyed City of Angels, Calypso wonders where the next Twisted Metal will take place; fourteen of the world's best drivers are already assembled to compete for whatever prize they desire. Ultimately, Calypso decides that the world itself shall serve as a battleground. In addition to the remains of Los Angeles, drivers will also battle in Moscow, Paris, Amazonia, New York City, Antarctica, Holland, and Hong Kong. After defeating all the opponents in Amazonia, the player must face Minion before proceeding to New York City. The Dark Tooth boss fight takes place after the player defeats all the opponents in Hong Kong; once Dark Tooth is defeated, the driver meets with Calypso in New York to receive their prize.
Development
SingleTrac began brainstorming ideas for a Twisted Metal sequel in late 1995. Due to the success of the original, Twisted Metal 2 was allotted 16 months for development, much longer than the previous game.
Reception
Twisted Metal 2 was both a financial and critical success. The PlayStation version sold 1.74 million copies in the United States alone. The PlayStation version has an aggregate score of 86.44% on GameRankings, based on eight reviews. The PC version averages 49.50% on the same website, based on two reviews. Critics generally regarded the game as an improvement over the original Twisted Metal due to its larger, more intricate levels and better cast of characters. However, they were divided about the graphics. The four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly said that the original Twisted Metal had mediocre graphics and the sequel made no improvement. GameSpots Jeff Kitts agreed that there was no improvement but felt the graphics still held up well. GamePro said the graphics are better than the first game but still mediocre in absolute terms, citing bland and featureless buildings, pixelation, and breakup when close to walls, while a Next Generation critic claimed, "TM2 shows significant improvement with sharper textures, a significant reduction in clipping, and even an improved frame rate." Both GameSpot and Next Generation attested that the essential nature of the gameplay was unchanged from the original, and that no change was needed. GamePro opined that "intense gameplay is what saves, and makes, the game - especially in the two-player head-to-head mode." Crispin Boyer wrote in Electronic Gaming Monthly that "I wasn't all that crazy about the first Twisted Metal, but this sequel is worlds better, even though it looks like the same old thing at first glance. Twisted Metal 2 was a runner-up for Electronic Gaming Monthlys Action Game of the Year. The following year EGM ranked the PlayStation version number 64 on their "100 Best Games of All Time", commenting that "The sheer amount of different vehicles, levels and weapons available at your disposal makes for awesome multiplayer matches." Frosty Treats, a major ice cream truck company, filed a lawsuit against Sony contending that Twisted Metal 2 infringed on the company's trademarks through the use of the phrase, "Frosty Treats", as well as similarities between the video game clown, Sweet Tooth, and the company's own safety clown. In Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against the trademark claims because they were either too generic or were unlikely to cause confusion among consumers.
