Improved, but the same.
The game is underrated by gamespot. Why? Ok, here goes – basically this is the same game as the first SF. So, considering this - the rating should be at least 8.
And in sequel are more variety of locations, more of the story, more firearms and harder gameplay. And if the sequel is so similar to prequel (all is the same, except improved controls, another playable character, some changes in weaponry and added maps), why is the rating so low? The lack of innovation cannot be the ground to reduce the rating so drastically, in my humble opinion.
Considering this, the rating should be something about minus 1 or 1,5 – and only because of the lack of innovation. In fact, I felt like playing the first part from point, where it left (the SF2 started right there). So, the rating 6.6 is totally inadequate, because of the similarity of both games.
The SF2 contains some differences, of corpse. In the sequel we have more twisted story, more stealth in the gameplay, higher level of difficulty – enemy is armoured and equipped more heavily and often aims at your head, so one bullet can be lethal to you too. And we have some humour here too.
But basically you are doing the same – running/climbing/walking/sneaking/killing/incapacitating your way through game in order to complete various objectives, and hunting heads, hitting switches, disarming bombs, activating/blowing up PC’s, finding routes, finding the correct way to be stealthy, etc.
So, if you want some more of The Syphon Filter first part – the sequel will satisfy this urge and reveal some nasty facts about the agency as well!