Support NeoGAF

[Miburou]

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.

Why do you even bother replying? I'm being serious here.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I like Splinter Cell and Thief but they're a totally different world...

Metal Gear is more anime influenced... the whole series revolves around biped, nuclear-capable, mechanoid monsters? The "Solid" installments add genes, les enfants terribles, and other themes into the mix. The facilities as well - like the lifts to the lower levels in MGS1. They're hallmarks of that style. The story is stylised drama in the same vein.

Splinter Cell is more Americanised stealth.

 

[-SRV-]

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?

:lol You're taking offense to what happens in about EVERY GAF thread? And you aren't guilty of same offense? :lol

 

[-SRV-]

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.

I see your points about the camera and rather poor stealth compared to SC, but I think the MGS stories are fine. In many ways, I see MGS as more cutscene/story than gameplay. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

[SolidSnakex]

:lol You're taking offense to what happens in about EVERY GAF thread? And you aren't guilty of same offense? :lol

I'm just asking, how does someone saying that a certain game is their favorite in a thread about that series suddenly means that you or someone else needs to bring up another game to say is your favorite? How does that even make sense?

 

[dark10x]

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.

I fully understand the camera system complaints, but that's ALL Splinter Cell brings to the table. I LOVE the Thief series, but Splinter Cell is a terribly stealth game. It's a completely linear, trial and error based romp rife with piss poor AI routines and other problems. The multiplayer component of PT was fantastic, but it makes for a terrible single player experience. While all of those games have a starting point A and an end point B, in one way or another, Thief and MGS allow the player to deviate heavily between those points. Splinter Cell requires the player to follow an exact path throughout the game and the only freedom allowed comes when you choose a tool to eliminate hostiles (and there is almost always a specific tool the developers intended you to use per scene). It controls very well, has a great camera system, and features wonderful (though unpolished) visuals; but the actual game design simply falls down.

I must say, though, it is rare that I find a game unplayable as a result of the camera system chosen. The only recent exception I can think of would be Dino Crisis 3, which was nearly unplayable at times as a result of the terribile camera choices (especially when taking the action presented into consideration).

Oh, and SSX, I don't think we should bother with him anymore. Did you see his post history? Yikes! Talk about completely opposite opinions. He seems to hate many of my favorite franchises, loves Nintendo, and is generally negative or sarcastic in nearly every post.

 

[-SRV-]

I'm just asking, how does someone saying that a certain game is their favorite in a thread about that series suddenly means that you or someone else needs to bring up another game to say is your favorite? How does that even make sense?

First off context, big picture:

My original post:

"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."


Then dark10x challenged me on why I am waiting on getting MGS3. Then he said why put RE4 into the thread. I then answered it. I then used the quote of the topic starter to demonstrate that his statement was, in a way a call for discussion or what is:

... the best game this generation, I dont think Ive played a game wiht so much care put into it.

Proper invitation for discussion I thought, though my main point in my original post was that there is no sense paying $49.99 when the game will be done as a "substance" title in a few months or discounted to $19.99. I'll wait until then. As it further relates to the topic, MGS2 put me off enough, that the MGS series is no longer AAA in my book, and that I WANT to wait until MGS3 is discounted until I buy.

Relevant discussions. Makes sense. do I need to make it any plainer?

 

[-SRV-]

Oh, and SSX, I don't think we should bother with him anymore. Did you see his post history? Yikes! Talk about completely opposite opinions. He seems to hate many of my favorite franchises, loves Nintendo, and is generally negative or sarcastic in nearly every post.

No problem with that assessment. We do have opposing viewpoints mostly. Conflict helps make the world go around. I am NOT a Konami fan. I'm a Nintendo, Sega, Capcom, and Square fan. As per negative or sarcastic, that's a legit complaint. My bad.

 

[dark10x]

Ha ha, now that we have that out of the way, I'm sure we won't have any problems. Most people don't even claim sides.

 

[-SRV-]

Ha ha, now that we have that out of the way, I'm sure we won't have any problems. Most people don't even claim sides.

I look forward to heated debates, if you care. Everybody has sides and preferences, that's passion. Passion is usually good, if tempered by reason. (feeble attempt at philosophy).

 

[Gaia Theory]

I hope that Raiden makes a return to the series, again as a playable character. He kicked ass. His legend began on a somewhat funny, but serious note, and where his story could go from MGS2 could be very interesting indeed.

 

[Guns N' Poops]

I hope that Raiden makes a return to the series, again as a playable character. He kicked ass. His legend began on a somewhat funny, but serious note, and where his story could go from MGS2 could be very interesting indeed.

I agree. I would love to see him and Solid Snake together in the sequel to MGS2.

 

[Dsal]

MGS2 did indeed have great gameplay. Really great gameplay.

It's everything outside the gameplay that sucked so hard. It was almost as if the story, characters, and horrendously overlong codec drivel was all put there to piss off and torture the player on purpose rather than entertain them. Except for a handful of cool parts in the storyline, it was generally so god awful and aggravating that it undid all the joy of the gameplay making it one of my most hated games in this generation for me.

I opt instead for the extended virtual missions in MGS2 Substance. Lots of pure fun gameplay without the prerequisite for masochism.

MGS3 on the other hand, is one of the greatest games of this generation. Amongst many other things, one of the more obvious things that Kojima fixed around this time was putting more effort into telling the story through the game more interactively rather than through paragraphs of text.

MGS2 was about Kojima giving you want he wanted, no matter how preposterous.
MGS3 was about Kojima actually wanting to give you what you wanted.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Yes, MSS2: Sons of Liberty was just asking me to accpet too much. It was a decent game but in no way lived up to the hype. I can go for a cooky story, but MGS2 was somthing Kojima concocted after eating way too many 'magic mushrooms'. MGS3, is just awesome and a good piece a story telling. It is a very good game that renewed my faith in the series. Now let's hope Devil May Cry 3 does the same.

Besides Splinter Cell help to pull me away from all that MGS2 rabble. I'm not trying to compare the two games, SC stuck to it's guns of us a gritty espionage story (you'd expect no less from a Tom Clancy game). MGS2, was some like some wacky anime nightmare that had alot of potential but was lost in the quagmire of the game. It just wasn't very cohesive or imersive to me. Like someone said above Thief series is a good example of the stealth genre as well.

But I REALLY like MGS3, just need to find some time to finish it. I reallyl have been savoring the boss battles.

 

[Mzo]

Hmm, yeah, I wonder why people like MGS and not MGS2? What could it be?

Vamp does have a backstory. I dont know about him feeding on his family, but he has gay sex with Scott Dolph.

Oh, right, the story was fucking stupid.

 

[SolidSnakex]

MGS2 did indeed have great gameplay. Really great gameplay.

It's everything outside the gameplay that sucked so hard. It was almost as if the story, characters, and horrendously overlong codec drivel was all put there to piss off and torture the player on purpose rather than entertain them. Except for a handful of cool parts in the storyline, it was generally so god awful and aggravating that it undid all the joy of the gameplay making it one of my most hated games in this generation for me.

I opt instead for the extended virtual missions in MGS2 Substance. Lots of pure fun gameplay without the prerequisite for masochism.

MGS3 on the other hand, is one of the greatest games of this generation. Amongst many other things, one of the more obvious things that Kojima fixed around this time was putting more effort into telling the story through the game more interactively rather than through paragraphs of text.

MGS2 was about Kojima giving you want he wanted, no matter how preposterous.
MGS3 was about Kojima actually wanting to give you what you wanted.

Great point. It actually makes me wonder if that's playing a big role in why he doesn't want to do the next one. He likes to be creative, and with the series being so popular there's already a certain level of what people want and they don't want it to be different. So he's basically having to do what people want instead of what he wants. With a new series it'll just all be about what he wants to do since there will be no expectations as to what the game should be.

Now he can go off and do his 1 death and your disk is no longer works game.

 

[Lyte Edge]

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.

Exactly. As good as the game play was, I lost any motivation to go all the way through it. MGS2 just wasn't for me. I was glad I had Ghost Babel to play through back then.

 

[Brandon F]

I do miss the dogtag collection, gave stealth a little more purpose...if not a very trivial one(certainly would have complemented interrogation nicely). I haven't sunk much time into MGS3, but I'm still having trouble grappling many of the basic quirks to being a sneaky bastard, particularly in the jungle. The plot, progression, and area design are wonderful however and a great step-up from the previous games. (I really loved that dark cave segment)

My fondest memories of the franchise still stem from MGS2:Substance however. I got crazy addicted to those mini-challenges, and have nearly all of them completed. Inspired me to run back through the game in Extreme difficulty, which was a nice challenge. Given my initial dissapointment to MGS2 back in 2k1, Substance really helped me grow to appreciate many facets of that game. As my skills increase and I progress frather in MGS3, this should change.

MGS1 is just far too dated, and the Silicon Knights revamp only punctuated how much this game has aged in 6 years, despite aesthetic upgrades.

 

[Dsal]

Great point. It actually makes me wonder if that's playing a big role in why he doesn't want to do the next one. He likes to be creative, and with the series being so popular there's already a certain level of what people want and they don't want it to be different. So he's basically having to do what people want instead of what he wants. With a new series it'll just all be about what he wants to do since there will be no expectations as to what the game should be.

Now he can go off and do his 1 death and your disk is no longer works game.

Yeah, it's understandable why he feels that way. It's the whole auteur vs. entertainer tension that happens so much. Either way, it almost always ends in either the author or the audience that ends up disappointed.

Once someone is successful in presenting a creative vision, the vision doesn't really belong to the creator exclusively anymore and it's more of a shared custody thing with the audience. How the creator handles this paradox is always a tricky situation... some don't handle it well as one might be able to glean from certain movie directors ;D.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

I love all three Metal Gear Solid games, they all rock. MGS2 had the worst story IMO, MGS3 is the best.

I also like Splinter Cell, played Theif 3 and didn't like it.

 

[Gantz]

Nope, the MGS series stills sucks and is one of the most overrated series ever.

 

[satterfield]

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.

I agree with this man. The food and healing systems are just annoying junk added onto basically the same game as MGS2. And this is the last semi-free pass that Metal Gear is getting as far as reviewing its gameplay is concerned. The gameplay and camera system are outdated and clunky. You can't even move if you have the sniper rifle equipped. That's just ridiculous. It's a solid game based upon its presentation and story, and it's highly polished, but the "innovations" its supposed to have are garbage IMHO.