• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Was the original Syphon Filter a better game than Metal Gear Solid 1 (PS1)?

bender

bender

What time is it?
HTxH.gif


Syphon Filter was, is and always will be trash.
 
TexMex

TexMex

Member
No, but I fucking love Syphon Filter and have replayed it more than MGS.

MGS experience can’t be topped but I enjoyed the moment to moment gameplay in SF more. It had fun ideas, unique controls that worked well and felt like a more fun action movie. That opening level that has you running down the street, shit blowing up, rolling through glass windows, tazing guys til they explode - that shit was great.
 
Krappadizzle

Krappadizzle

Member
I'm trying to avoid googling the main guy's name, I just remember it was something super generic white-guy sounding like, Ethan James or Gabe Logan or Riley Marks or some shit. Damn....It's kind of fun though thinking of the most generic names possible.
 
Last edited:
SkylineRKR

SkylineRKR

Member
MGS was more ground breaking in the way it told a story and the plot unfolded. Syphon Filter however was a good game, I thought the running animation was dumb but the game was challenging. I really liked the second Syphon Filter game.
 
Azelover

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
I remember Sony promoted this game to hell and back. It's a good game, but MGS was in another league.
 
AlteredForms

AlteredForms

Banned
The original Metal Gear Solid was one overrated game. Had some cool ideas and mechanics, but was incredibly short and didn't mesh as well as the other titles. MGS2 on the other hand blows it out of the water from all perspectives.
 
Naked Lunch

Naked Lunch

Member
I didnt play Siphon Filter 1 in 1999 and still wont play it today because of that wacky ass running animation.
I think I remember the main character having a dumb name too.
Shit sucks.

MGS is the GOAT.
 
Dave_at_Home

Dave_at_Home

Member
Why Siphon Filter was cool
  1. You could fry dudes with a taser
  2. The fist boss you encounter can be killed with a single headshot. This seriously blew my dumb kid mind back in the day.
That's all I can really remember, though. What I do remember was that MGS was more of an actual stealth game and Siphon Filter was more action.
 
Derktron

Derktron

Banned
My opinion, Syphon Filter is one of the best games ever in the PS1 era, not even close to Metal Gear. Not a big fan of Metal Gear.
 
Sander Cohen

Sander Cohen

Member
SF 1 and MGS 1 were before my time but I know how hard SF 2 etched into my mind. It was first game of that type I ever played and I was totally in over my head (as a 10 year old), not sure I passed first stage (you start in a cave and it’s cold and icy). I know I got to a certain cutscene but I could’ve used cheats to get there. Anyway, I quickly realized that purchase was a big mistake and went back to my pirate games dealer to return it. But cannot stress enough how impressed I was about everything I saw, it felt like a game for grown ups lol. So I can only compare it to MGS 2 few years later that totally blew it out of the water (and everything else up until that point) many times over.

I think it could be wise for Sony to resurrect that IP (if they still hold the rights) and make their own MGS-like franchise, they don’t have anything similar in the portfolio. Modern 3rd person militaristic spec-ops stealth/shooter game.
 
abstract alien

abstract alien

Member
It's not, but I can understand how one could get that feeling. Syphon Filter was rather under appreciated for what it was, and had legitimate potential as a future strong franchise.
 
Paulxo87

Paulxo87

Member
I'm so old the SF demo as a kid sold me on the game. I must have played that first level with the CDC agents 100 times. Game deserves a remake honestly.

But to answer the OP - no. Hell no
 
nordique

nordique

Member
Absolutely not.

Syphon Filter was a slightly above mediocre game back then, whereas MGS was a genre, media and platform defining game

Not even close to compare the two
 
muteZX

muteZX

Banned
I played MGS 1 as a graphic novel with a terrible gameplay. I played MGS 2 as Pacman, I watched the minimap in the corner the whole time, similar to MGS1 cotrol setup is clumsy and terrible. I stopped playing MGS 3 after a few minutes. I definitely lost my temper.

SF = C12.
 
Last edited:
J

justAjohn

Member
Since there are only, like 5 replies in total and a bunch of useless reactions, I´ll take them in turn.

Isleofsancroy said:
I'm sure nostalgia will impact how many will answer this question​
Click to expand...
Yes, it will but it is great knowing that inherent bias. I have played both games at their time of coming out. I like MGS for the story, characters and cinematic angle. As far as the game I would like to play - Syphon Filter 1 is the more fun one for me.
Isleofsancroy said:
One of the first things I like about Syphon Filter are of course, the controls. The game actually sets up the first stages to accommodate you to the control scheme and in comparison to MGS1, it's fast and fluid. You have a real 3D third-person environment instead of a mostly overhead isometric view of the action, which I believe gives the player greater immersion within the levels itself. Switching weapons, using gadgets, moving around, aiming, interacting with objects or switches, it's all intuitive, fast, and fluid, so it never frustrates you or takes you out the game.​
Click to expand...
Movement in SF1 felt pretty good controlwise and at least tried to give you the illusion of controlling a real human (some say running looked funky, but it felt more alive than whatever that was in MGS). In MGS Snake could spin around for days looking like a merry-go-round, crawling felt terrible if you had to crawl into a duct. Due to changing camera angles sometimes you went the wrong way and it made aiming the gun very cumbersome in the beginning (that´s probably why the ordinary enemies are such pushovers).

In SF changing weapons was a bit imprecise because you had to manually scroll through them with a button (triangle I think) or go to the menu and change it there (I think it was also needed to equip non-combatant items). You could alsopump the shotgun for some reason. The grenades and grenade launcher could kill you too (especially gas grenades, if you forgot where you threw it and couldn´t see the faint green smoke, then you died) I really appreciated the two types of targetting (first person manual and third person rough auto) - the automatic one was good only for pointing at the enemy and then switching to first person.

In MGS changing the items(!) and weapons was very convenient - too bad using them was ass. I quickly realised that killing things with weapons was very cumbersome, better to throw them or choke them and run to your next destination than waste bullets. Many weapons were primarily made to fight bosses or to do gimmicky stuff (C4, Nikita, Stinger, PSG1...). CQC in this game was very bad - you had one measly full combo and then realise doing the full combo was not optimal, so you did one-two or just one. SF1 didn´t even go there, I admit.
Isleofsancroy said:
Moving on to what may be the most controversial opinion, I believe Syphon Filter has a better, more grounded, and more coherent storyline. Metal Gear Solid 1 may not have been as bat shit as later games in the series, but it was still pretty nuts, and being nuts for the sake of being nuts can sometimes prevent you from writing scenarios that engage the player, instead you end up confusing them. Something like the enemy setting up a trap explosive within a train station destroying the entire tunnel, with you having to fight your way out of a blazing inferno, is a scenario that the type of writing MGS1 had wouldn't come up with. There are all kinds of twists and turns that engage the player throughout Syphon Filter, while in Metal Gear you just kind of shrug or maybe get a short laugh out of its cutscenes. Additionally, you have to face another issue with MGS1's storyline, and that issue would be it referencing two previous Metal Gear games that never released outside of Japan, as a result the context is lost on the player.​
Click to expand...
I agree, playing the MGS it was immediately apparent that it is a highly fictional, hammy Hollywood-esque story. SF1 made me think that it could happen (aside from the last missions and the flamethrower duel). In MGS you could watch and read the stuff through menus to get more detaield story, but reading that made me laugh (it´s like in dunkey Diablo 3 video - Big Boss is back!!! - are you even killing him??). One other thing is the dialogue - as a non-native English speaker I found the English dialogue in Syphon Filter 1 to be pleasant - they all sounded like Americans and conversations were serviceable (Markinson especially was a joy to listen to, Mara Aramov had a great accent).
In MGS - it was turn based dialogue (damn you Japanese!) with ham and cheese and expositions like from some anime ( Solid Snake (David Hayter); Hey DARPA chief I am here to rescue you! - DARPA chief (decoy octopus); Stay awhile and listen!). I like Brittish accent as the next guy but even the Liquid couldn´t save that from being ... ugh.

Isleofsancroy said:
Gameplay is the most important factor for games, everyone knows this, and this is where I think the biggest difference rears its head. MGS1 has some decent gameplay, but it's very restricted, the controls take awhile to get used to, and are not very fluid or intuitive, and as you continue to play the game for hours the repetition and tedium starts to set in.​

For Syphon Filter, the gameplay is fast, fluid, intuitive, and more open so you can approach situations several different ways, thus keeping things relatively fresh. The better controls play a key part here, especially for the gun play and overall movement, which felt so satisfying as you snuck or gun-run through well-designed 3D spaces. As you progress though the stages the game continues to present new ways to play, new enemies, new gadgets, and new combat strategies until near the end of the game. This makes it hard for repetition to start taking its toll on the player, and helps with replay value, something MGS1 has trouble with..
Click to expand...
Yup, just rolling around in SF1 was really fun. Movement in MGS is terrible. Weapons in SF1 were also great to use and listen to (taser frying, .45, Shotgun - Combat Shotgun not so much, K3G4 - I caled it a duckgun, ´cuz the sound reminded me of a duck, M-79 - the sound it makes the moment a grenade leaves the barrel is just beautiful, various handguns - G18, HK5). MGS had a lot of weapons but camera angles and crappy movement made them very unsatisfying to use.

The one thing you didn´t mention is that in MGS if you get hurt you flash like a character from a platformer, but in SF1 if you get hurt - you gotta take cover, son! Also stockpiling or farming rations in MGS just killed all the tension. In SF1 you cannot stockpile Flak Armour, but have to come back to it or kill armoured enemies with headshots and get their armour (if you damage it beforehand, you get less or none at all.)

SlimeGooGoo said:
Syphon Filter was more challenging, and the combat was better than MGS especially because of the camera angle.

But Metal Gear Solid had better story, characters and music. Had more "soul" too.

It's apples and oranges at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. Some bosses were merciless (especially the last one).

MGS had more of the story and ways for the player to get up to speed. SF1 had shorter but more approachable story. I don´t think one had better story than the other. Music - agreed. "Soul" - especially after hearing Kojima´s complaint about the translation - I beg to differ.

Krappadizzle said:
The only game that could really remotely challenge MGS as a good stealth-action 3D game was:

Tenchu_Stealth_Assassins.jpg
Click to expand...
If MGS WERE a 3D action game. It was mostly 3D with fixed camera (which effectively makes it 2D) STEALTH game (action was terrible in there).
Tenchu being better in the stealth, action and music department? - Yeah I agree, story not so much. If they put in the mission editor as in the Japanese version, then it would be even better.
Rean no Kiseki said:
They aren't remotely similar in anything gameplay wise, MGS was a cinematic stealth game first and foremost while Syphon Filter was an action game with spy themes and an occasional stealth mission.

I absoultly LOVE SF and i own every game in the series and love them all, if there's one thing SF has over MGS is that it didn't end it run with a dud like Metal Gear Survive (and IMO V) and Bend knew when to put the series to rest.
Click to expand...
Just quoting for truth, but those stealth missions in Syphon Filter kicked for the first time much more ass than anything in MGS (expo, in catacombs, Kazachstan ...) .
mansoor1980 said:
metal gear solid was mostly cutscenes and codec bullshit , syphon philter was a actually a playable game
Click to expand...
Just quoting for truth. Also I liked the mission based gameplay of SF and how it reset your equipment after big mission was over. You could then easily jump into the part you wanted. Try doin that in MGS.
Krappadizzle said:
I'm trying to avoid googling the main guy's name, I just remember it was something super generic white-guy sounding like, Ethan James or Gabe Logan or Riley Marks or some shit. Damn....It's kind of fun though thinking of the most generic names possible.
Click to expand...
I guess having a generic name is a sin now. As a non-English, I thought it was cool - particularly when friends called him Gabe, but enemies - GABRIEL LOGAN, LOGAN!!!
SkylineRKR said:
MGS was more ground breaking in the way it told a story and the plot unfolded. Syphon Filter however was a good game, I thought the running animation was dumb but the game was challenging. I really liked the second Syphon Filter game.
Click to expand...
The ground it broke in story management it lost on gameplay and exposition handling.
AlteredForms said:
The original Metal Gear Solid was one overrated game. Had some cool ideas and mechanics, but was incredibly short and didn't mesh as well as the other titles. MGS2 on the other hand blows it out of the water from all perspectives.
Click to expand...
I gained access to internet around the year 2003 and found out how well recieved MGS was. If you had asked me at the time, I would have bet my money on SF1. MGS2 - Yeah, it does.

To answer the question from my perspective

Was the original Syphon Filter a better game than Metal Gear Solid 1 (PS1)?​

Yes, it was the better game to play. MGS was the better 20hrs movie to watch and listen to - on account of there being more of it.
 
Last edited:
Calverz

Calverz

Member
Hahahahahahaha

Seriously people are misremembering syphon filter or are simply too young to have played it. It was nowhere near as good as mgs. Hell it was slightly above average in itself anyway.
 
mxbison

mxbison

Member
I personally enjoyed Syphon Filter more, completed it like 5 or 6 times, but I wouldn't say it's a better game than MGS.
 
fatmarco

fatmarco

Member
I get that they're both about international espionage but they're completely different games. Syphon Filter is pick up and play action/ a shoot'em'up, while MGS 1 is methodical stealth.

Personally I'd rather replay Syphon Filter than MGS 1 but then I'd prefer playing MGS2/3 over both.
 
mansoor1980

mansoor1980

Member
mxbison said:
MGS has better level design, story, presentation, boss fights, creativity, gameplay options. Pretty much everything.

But 13 year old me simply enjoyed shooting dudes in the face more than sneaking around all game.
Click to expand...
the game that one enjoys more should be the better game in my opinion , i guess mgs has that block buster feel to it
 
Dream-Knife

Dream-Knife

Banned
I do think MGS is overrated, but I couldn't play past the second or third level in SF without getting bored. I absolutely hate third person shooters.

Splinter Cell is what MGS should have been, if it wasn't an NES sorry MSX game brought onto the PS1
 
Last edited:
S

Soulblighter31

Banned
Isleofsancroy said:
I don't really agree with the groundbreaking comment, it's something that's repeated a lot but I don't think it applies, most major stealth games were created in isolation from each other or had their gameplay come from computer games that focused on disguises and shadows. The one game I can think of that wouldn't exist without MGS1, Splinter Cell, still got most of its gameplay mechanics from the PC stealth games and only some from MGS. Eventually, sequels to MGS would adopt features from those PC games and Syphon Filter.

Both are great games though, you can't really go wrong with either.
Click to expand...


Gotta say, this is one of the most correct statements ive ever seen on such a console throughbreed forum. Usually you have people that grew up and only know consoles and are entirely removed from the space of home computers, where the real gaming revolution happened, where the actual best games were developed and were nearly all the gaming genres we play today were born.

On a console forum like this one, you have people thinking MGS invented stealth or that it was the first cinematic game and all the other games took influence from it. They ignore that Thief was the designer of the modern stealth genre from which every stealth game to this day takes its influence. They ignore that you had cinematic games on PC dating back to the 80s and there were giant AAA blockbusters like Wing Commander 3 and 4, with hollywood actors and hours of footage. And they ignore that there are practically zero games on the market that play like MGS 1.

So. hat's off to your correct statement again
 
Animagic

Animagic

Banned
I like both but come on... not even remotely better than MGS.

Wildly different games actually. Syphon Filter felt almost like a refined spy version of tomb raider.
 
Trimesh

Trimesh

Banned
mansoor1980 said:
the game that one enjoys more should be the better game in my opinion , i guess mgs has that block buster feel to it
Click to expand...

I have to disagree - "Is this a good game" and "did you enjoy playing it" are two different questions with sometimes different answers. In my case, a good example is God of War - I can't play it for more than about 5 minutes without getting bored with it - but I can see this is because I don't like the gameplay, not because the game is badly constructed.
 
mansoor1980

mansoor1980

Member
Trimesh said:
I have to disagree - "Is this a good game" and "did you enjoy playing it" are two different questions with sometimes different answers. In my case, a good example is God of War - I can't play it for more than about 5 minutes without getting bored with it - but I can see this is because I don't like the gameplay, not because the game is badly constructed.
Click to expand...
so in your opinion it is a dull game which is not good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Rise and Fall of Syphon Filter - GVMERS
18
1K
March Climber replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta exists because Konami was starting to get worried the “younger generation of gamers aren’t familiar with Metal Gear anymore”
News 2
50
3K
SolidQ replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater | Preview Thread
Opinion 2 3
108
7K
RCX replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta Pre Orders Open Today | Collector's Edition Detailed
News 2
54
6K
EDMIX replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta New Trailer | Xbox Showcase 2024
News Trailer 2 3 4 5 6
280
18K
RagnarokIV replied
Top Bottom