So MGS2 haters, did MGS3 change the way you look at the series?

psycho_snake

I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
People loved MGS1, it was considered one of the best games on the PS1, but when MGS2 came out, so many hated it. MGS3 is out now and I want to know if it makes the haters of MGS2 like the series again.

I loved MGS2, so MGS3 just built on the love for the game. I honestly thought that Kojima put 110% intop making the game perfect for everyone. I really thought that MGS3 is so far the best game this generation, I dont think Ive played a game wiht so much care put into it.
 
i've liked each game in the series considerably more than the last. but mgs3 is the first one i can love without reservations.
 
I don't really understand how someone can love MGS1 and MGS3 and hate MGS2. The core gameplay is still essentially the same (with big improvements and addition, of course). Was Raiden really a big part of the game that some people can't get over it? I thought it was all about the gameplay. MGS2 is a better game than MGS1 in pretty much every way, aside from having less interesting characters and a weird story.
 
No. One game isn't enough to save a series, and one game isn't enough to ruin one. So I never doubted that MGS3 was going to be better.

Miburou said:
The core gameplay is still essentially the same (with big improvements and addition, of course).
Yes, it is, and it was vastly improved. The problem was that you hardly ever got a chance to fuckin' use said gameplay.
 
While I didn't exactly hate MGS2, I do believe that MGS3 is the best of the series. The Metal Gear Solid series anyway.
 
MGS3 slapped me in the face and reminded me why I loved the first two so much. I personally liked MGS2... my only complaints were the lack of environments and the horribly shitty ending. MGS3 more than made up for that though. Best ending ever.
 
I'm waiting until MGS3 comes out as a "substance" version at $19.99. RE4 is worth $49.99, MGS3 isn't for me. Plus the "substance" versions have so much more to do than the initial versions have.
 
MGS2 is a masterpiece. Say what you will about MGS3, MGS2 was phenominal. Just because it didn't deliver what people expected, it was pigeon-holed.
 
Gaia Theory said:
MGS2 is a masterpiece. Say what you will about MGS3, MGS2 was phenominal. Just because it didn't deliver what people expected, it was pigeon-holed.

. MGS2 owned MGS1 hard, the haters be damned.
 
I hated MGS2 story, characters (especially the bosses, not one of them I took intrest in), and the story again. MGS3 reminded me how good MGS can be and is one of my favorite games of all time.
 
I dont understand how people like MGS1 but not like MGS2. MGS3 had quite different gameplay. It was much longer, had much better combat and wasa game that real;ly made you use your environments. MGS1 and 2 were less in each category, apart from stroy, in which all three games are equal in.

I still dont understand why people hate the story of MGS2, what is it that people find so bad about it. I loved the story of MGS2. It all made sense, it had some very nice plot twists and was great overall. It didnt have a great ending, but the cliffhanger was great. I can understand that Kojima did make some parts of the story too complicated when it could have been explained more easily, but apart from that, someone tell me something wrong with the story.
 
Considering that my problems with MGS2 seemed to be the opposite of what most people felt (I loved the story and general tone much more than in MGS, except for the interminable Codec scenes, and found the gameplay somewhat disappointing, especially with respect to the bosses) MGS3 didn't change the way I look at the series so much as it made me love the wider storyline even more and convinced me that it was in fact possible to build notably on the core gameplay.

I feel a bit silly for thinking Kojima might've lost it when it came to bosses, as well.
 
psycho_snake said:
I dont understand how people like MGS1 but not like MGS2. MGS3 had quite different gameplay. It was much longer, had much better combat and wasa game that real;ly made you use your environments. MGS1 and 2 were less in each category, apart from stroy, in which all three games are equal in.

I still dont understand why people hate the story of MGS2, what is it that people find so bad about it. I loved the story of MGS2. It all made sense, it had some very nice plot twists and was great overall. It didnt have a great ending, but the cliffhanger was great. I can understand that Kojima did make some parts of the story too complicated when it could have been explained more easily, but apart from that, someone tell me something wrong with the story.

I thought the bosses and their stories were garbage. Did Vamp even have a backstory? Fortune had powers she really wasn't supposed to have? The story in the actual game wasn't much better in my opinon, and I'm not one of those people that hate Raiden, I hate the story and the enemy characters. Where as in MGS and MGS3 I fell in love with everyone I met, both of those games are two of the rare games that gave me goosebumps I was soo into the story. I'm a HUGE MGS fan as well (I bought all the comics soo far for the series even), but just because I dont like a game in the series I'm not going to pretend like I do like most Star Wars fans.

BTW: When I saw I love MGS3, I mean I LOVE IT. I still like MGS more by a bit, but on my top games of all time it would be Snake Eater RIGHT after MGS.
 
"Did Vamp even have a backstory?"

Yah, he got his name because his village was destroyed when he was a little kid. To stay alive he fed on his family. He was at one time the leader of Dead Cell until Fortune joined and he let her take over the poisition. He had relationships with both Scott Dolph and his daughter, Fortune.

If you watch during the ending you'll see him pop up, he's still alive.
 
aku:jiki said:
Yes, it is, and it was vastly improved. The problem was that you hardly ever got a chance to fuckin' use said gameplay.

On my first playthough, cut-scenes were around 30% of the total game time. I wouldn't call that hardly getting a chance to use the gameplay. In fact the percentage is about the same as in MGS1. MGS3, on the other hand, had a far smaller cut-scene percentage.
 
MGS2 - too much talking, not enough kicking ass.. if i wanted to read a book i would!

hell, i didnt even mind all the text in xenogears (or xenonovel as my housemates call it) but MGS2 just took the michael..
 
I loved the first two but am a bit nonchalant about Snake Eater. I beat the game, I think the ending is fucking amazing (The Boss and the Vulgin), but I just don't share the view that the game as a whole was really that good. I think I would've liked the jungle setting if it were truly wide open, but to me, it felt just like being inside a building with trees growing up and whatnot. Going from one area of the jungle to another didn't seem to have any type of coherency to me; like I said, it felt like I was going from one room of a building to another.

I understood the storyline of Snake Eater far more, and that's a good thing. But when I played against the bosses in this game, it felt disorganized. Like, "Here's a boss. Fight it!" That probably wouldn't have been a bad thing, except they tried to piece them together via a storyline, and I just felt that it didn't fit together very well.

I also think the food system is WORTHLESS and just a fucking annoyance, and I don't like the backpack idea. I wanted to just have all my items already equipped. I absolutely hate going into the menu, but I found myself there quite a bit.

CQC was a great addition, though, even if it was more just for fun than an integral part of the game.
 
Also another big factor were the endings, MGS and MGS3....I mean the endings were.....fucking amazing! With the Metal Gear fight and the jeep chase in MGS and the fucking awesome bike escape and the fight against Volgin, then Ocelot....just damn. In MGS2 I just was getting more and more depressed until I fought a bunch of useless Metal Gears and Solidus who probably was the lamest and easiest boss I have faced just completely ruined the game for me. I mean I'm sorry I don't like the game, but I'm definatley not alone on this one, I understand why some people like the game, I just don't at all.
 
Vamp does have a backstory. I dont know about him feeding on his family, but he has gay sex with Scott Dolph. I wonder if Fortune ever thinks that her father fucked her best friend.

The only highlight of MGS3's story was
finding out that The Boss was still working with America, but made it look like she defected to the USSR, which made it look like a traitor in American eyes and a war monster in Russian eyes
It was actually a VERY powerful scene. I also thought
that Eva working for China
was a clever idea.

There is actually something I didnt understand:
Ocelot was working for The Patriots right, so why was he trying to kill snake?
 
psycho_snake said:
There is actually something I didnt understand:
Ocelot was working for The Patriots right, so why was he trying to kill snake?

To convince Volgin that he was on his side. If you notice he never does an even decent job of trying to kill Snake, they're are just weak attempts so he has atleast something to show to Volgin about his loyalty.

Also Vamp and Fortune were lovers too because Vamp felt that she resembled a female version of Scott since she was his daughter. Oh my. :)
 
SanjuroTsubaki said:
In MGS2 I just was getting more and more depressed until I fought a bunch of useless Metal Gears and Solidus who probably was the lamest and easiest boss I have faced just completely ruined the game for me.

Useless Metal Gears? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

And the Liquid fight in MGS1 is as easy (and lame) as the Solidus fight. In fact, the whole MGS2 experience is supposed to mirror MGS1.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you have to do more than just use adjectives like 'useless' and 'lame' to get your point across
 
I think the actual gameplay of the series is by far its weakest link, had MGS3 been done with a better camera system (RE4?) and better controls it would have easily been game of the year. I thought the story and the environments AND all the characters were simply top-notch and thoroughly engrossing. Extremely well done and make me like the series after the train-wreck that was MGS2.
 
I loved 1 & 3,but they are still nothing more than interactive movies to me.The gameplay is so broken due to the camera view you are forced to use,but whatever.
 
As for Snake Eater, the game definitely had some flaws. For one thing, enemy bullets do little damage to you, even on hard. That wasn't the case with MGS1 and MGS2. This means getting discovered is not as big a deal as in the previous games.

Another thing is that the game has many filler sections, where there aren't any enemies around, and you're just walking around, collecting items or food. MGS1 and MGS2 feel more intense because you're always in danger of being spotted. To me it feels as if Konami wanted to make the game longer, so they artificially stretched it.

It's still a great, and still my 2004 GOTY (with Ninja Gaiden), but MGS1 and MGS2 definitely did some things better.
 
Gaia Theory said:
MGS2 is a masterpiece. Say what you will about MGS3, MGS2 was phenominal. Just because it didn't deliver what people expected, it was pigeon-holed.

Yes, I agree. MGS2 IS a masterpiece. I have recently replayed it yet again, and I still adore the game. There are even things about MGS2 that I prefer over MGS3...

I'm waiting until MGS3 comes out as a "substance" version at $19.99. RE4 is worth $49.99, MGS3 isn't for me.

Why exactly?
 
Doesn`t look like it. I`ve played MGS3 for a couple hours and got annoyed by the lame gameplay mechanics and endless cutscenes/codec shit again.

I don`t think I`m gonna bother more with the game. I heard it picks up but I doubt it. I`m sure it`s just more of the same shit.
 
Miburou said:
Useless Metal Gears? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

And the Liquid fight in MGS1 is as easy (and lame) as the Solidus fight. In fact, the whole MGS2 experience is supposed to mirror MGS1.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you have to do more than just use adjectives like 'useless' and 'lame' to get your point across

Useless Metal Gears = You fight multiple Metal Gears that have no threat to society and no purpose to destroy them other than to determine Raiden's skill.

Lame Solidus = He shoots fire and dashes around the screen not trying to attack you too hard / end of game.

How does the MGS2 mirror the MGS experience? There is NO fucking character development for your enemies, so I don't give a shit about them.

Now I did use more to get my point across, if you don't understand that your just trying to pick a fight I do not wish to join.
 
I have really warmed to Metal Gear Solid 2 recently. The play-to-watch ratio is still disconcerting and disappointing, but nevertheless it's an awesome game and story.

It was a good story, but it wasn't made very accessible. I mean, from the point where you enter Arsenal and things start getting weird... they go all out to throw people off. It reminds me of the Architect speech in Matrix Reloaded. People regard this game and that movie in a similar way - and I don't think it's any coincidence. They could have conveyed it much better IMO. Not that I'm sure I could do any better :D :

The Patriots are deleting information from across the world, thanks to a program that was able to spread throughout the world when everyone updated computers in fear of the Y2K bug. This gave rise to an artificial intelligence called GW. The partial corruption of GW, causes codec speeches to get very strange towards the end of the game. Yet, once you're off of Arsenal Gear, the speeches are quite coherent again. In the Document of MGS2, they explain that this is not GW talking anymore, but JFK. Indicating strains of the AI are named after dead US presidents. They didn't make that very clear. They also didn't make it clear if it was the AI itself talking, or if it was some sort of conciousness using the network to make contact with Raiden.

Furthermore, they go head over heels in psycho babble explaining why The Patriots and this AI are deleting information in the first place. The basic gist, if I get it correctly, is this:

In genes, it's the dominant ones that are passed on. Only the strongest survive. That used to be the way with information. Only the good ideas were passed on. But now in the new information age, useless information lives on. Weak information. Information that doesn't aid our evolution. The Patriots or this AI or whatever, make the excuse that they with-hold our freedoms and erase the 'truth' because -- without information being selectively reproduced, bad ideas survive. There is no one truth anymore. Incorrect, malignant, and personal truths can all live on. They're ruling over us because thats whats best for us.

What it did do well though was create this uneasy feeling. Are they right? Or is Solidus right? Can we just be puppets? Is this game forcing me to do their bidding even though it's bad? It seemed uneasy for me killing Solidus, even though actually doing it physically was quite easy. I sided with Solidus in the end. We choose freedom. The good ideas, the truest truths will emerge. And we will continue to evolve and grow. Whoever it is in this game that is taking all of that away from us, and shaping it, needs to be sorted out.

The reason they recreate a similar set of circumstances to Shadow Moses is to show they can manipulate the common man or woman in extranious circumstances, and have them do their bidding. Even having them act in the nature of a legend like Solid Snake. The S3 plan means they not only control the information we have access to, but they use their information to manipulate to their own means and end... whatever that might be.

On the whole I think MGS, and MGS: Twin Snakes, are superior in terms of entertainment. But in terms of sheer audacity and relative originality compared to most games - MGS2 stands alone.

I'm totally looking foreward to MGS3. I'll import next month I think :) This month is RE4 month!
 
SanjuroTsubaki said:
How does the MGS2 mirror the MGS experience? There is NO fucking character development for your enemies, so I don't give a shit about them.

He means storywise. MGS2 was a training plan that mirrored what happened in Shadow Moses.
 
Guns N' Poops said:
He means storywise. MGS2 was a training plan that mirrored what happened in Shadow Moses.

Yeah, I know that. I'm just talking about the actual characters you meet and how you learn and interact from/with them.
 
Doesn`t look like it. I`ve played MGS3 for a couple hours and got annoyed by the lame gameplay mechanics and endless cutscenes/codec shit again.

Endless huh? You pretty much hit one of the major flaws with MGS3...

The game is broken up into two actual missions (similar to MGS2), and the first mission is used more as a training program as well as a place to tell a whole lot of story. There are a ton of cutscenes and codec scenes early on, but once you reach Operation Snake Eater, you're likely to forget that Snake even has a codec (or whatever it is this time).

You'll have to expand on the "lame gameplay mechanics" comment, though. The game has a pretty steep learning curve, and since you seemingly made little progress, I don't think you gave yourself enough time to get into the flow.

Substance versions are better versions. They cost less when released. I like the RE series better than the MG series. Simple as that.

So, you have an extremely limited gaming budget or something? I mean, when two AAA titles are released, I could not imagine waiting for a giant price drop. I prefer the MGS series the RE series (with RE4 being the ONLY RE game that I actually love), but I still bought RE4 on day 1. Of course, if money is tight, I could understand.

The chances of a "Substance" version being released are not very good, however. I don't think it will happen. Subtance was born out of a promise made by Konami to Microsoft, afterall...
 
Yea MGS3 has the biggest learning curve in the series. I hated the demo because of that at first, until I got my hands on the game and started to enjoy the story too much.
 
So, what I got from this thread is that the only real complaint the MGS2 haters have is that the characters aren't as interesting and the story is fucked up?
 
dark10x said:
So, you have an extremely limited gaming budget or something? I mean, when two AAA titles are released, I could not imagine waiting for a giant price drop. I prefer the MGS series the RE series (with RE4 being the ONLY RE game that I actually love), but I still bought RE4 on day 1. Of course, if money is tight, I could understand.

The chances of a "Substance" version being released are not very good, however. I don't think it will happen. Subtance was born out of a promise made by Konami to Microsoft, afterall...

You don't get it. MG is an okay series to me. I don't care if some others think it is AAA. It isn't in my book. I don't shell out $49.99 for a game that I am only mildly hyped about. That is $30 I could invest, buy my wife some flowers, get my kids a couple books, give to my church, something much more worthwhile than filling Konami's pocket. But, that's just me.

Maybe gaming and being on the "cutting edge" of gaming is much more important to you than it is to me? That's fair.
 
Miburou said:
So, what I got from this thread is that the only real complaint the MGS2 haters have is that the characters aren't as interesting and the story is fucked up?

Horrible story, Raiden sucked, bosses sucked, story sucked, and 75% of the levels (everything except for the Tanker) were boring and also sucked.

MGS2 was a f-cking abortion, imho.
 
OK, that's fine...but you shouldn't have thrown RE4 into this thread. That's just asking for trouble...

MGS2 was a f-cking abortion, imho.

OK, Mej, we know you hate it. That's fine. That's the mark of a masterpiece, afterall (which MGS2 most certainly is). :D
 
Mejilan said:
Horrible story, Raiden sucked, bosses sucked, story sucked, and 75% of the levels (everything except for the Tanker) were boring and also sucked.

MGS2 was a f-cking abortion, imho.

I seriously hope you're not talking about the boss fights when you say the "bosses sucked", because they put the ones in MGS1 to shame. MGS's boss fights feel very simplistic in comparison. As for the levels, maybe you didn't like the color scheme or something, but again there's ten times as much gameplay in them as what can be found in MGS1.
 
Miburou said:
I seriously hope you're not talking about the boss fights when you say the "bosses sucked", because they put the ones in MGS1 to shame. MGS's boss fights feel very simplistic in comparison. As for the levels, maybe you didn't like the color scheme or something, but again there's ten times as much gameplay in them as what can be found in MGS1.

Yeah, that much is obvious when you apply the superior control set of MGS2 to the world of MGS1 (as Twin Snakes did). Those levels are simply devoid of options. The Big Shell was very well designed, from a gameplay perspective. I could see how someone might dislike the actual visual design, of course, but you can't deny that it offered superior gameplay options.
 
dark10x said:
OK, that's fine...but you shouldn't have thrown RE4 into this thread. That's just asking for trouble...

Not when the topic starter has this in the first post:

I really thought that MGS3 is so far the best game this generation, I dont think Ive played a game wiht so much care put into it.

That is just a dare to bring RE4 into the discussion.
 
It doesn't really matter, but how could you really say whether or not he is wrong? That was still no reason to put down MGS3 by bringing up RE4...
 
The only boss I enjoyed fighting was the one on the Tanker, the daughter of that Russian dude. It was kinda clever and interesting (without a real gun.)

The level design for the Plant was boring, and the art for it was even more so.
 
Nope. I can't enjoy the game with the camera system they use. Sorry I get a much better experience out of games like Splinter Cell or Thief that revolve around stealth. The story in MGS titles imho has been fairly laughable. But if you like them, hey enjoy.
 
-SRV- said:
That is just a dare to bring RE4 into the discussion.

So now anytime someone makes a thread about a specific series and mentions that a game in that series is their favorite of a certain gen its a greenlight for everyone else to come in and say what their favorite game is?
 
Top Bottom