I, uh... hey, look over there!SineSwiper wrote:Meh. What is this "reasonable stable" you speak of?
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
MGS4 Master Thread
- Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Very neat. I'll grab that very soonBlack Lotus wrote:The Metal Gear Database is now downloadable from PSN. It's essentially a Metal Gear encyclopedia, full of any and all information about the series you could want to know.
Is the PSN free stuff linked to a specific console like the 360 stuff or can you transfer it? If I get my PS3 in November and this isn't available anymore, would I be able to transfer it from my bud's PS3 to mine and actually still be able to use it?
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
No game is worth buying a $500 system for IMO. But in terms of measuring the value of a game, as I've said before, I generally measure in terms of number of hours while taking into account the quality of those hours. So a game like Metal Gear, when it's all said and done, is gonna give me about 20 or so hours worth of gameplay the first time I play it (I'm relatively thorough; at least I try to be). That's $4 an hour for the $80 limited edition, which is about what you'd pay for a movie in the theatre. And for a game of this quality with cutscenes as great as they are, it's a very good 20 hours. That's before you even take into account resale value, which will probably drop it closer to $2 an hour. It's a relative bargain when compared to other forms of entertainment.Tessian wrote:I've never played much more than a few hours of any MGS game so this never interested me... but I have to ask-- how is this a game worth justifying the purchase of a PS3? How is it a game worth buying period? If more than half of the game is just cutscenes then where's my game? I'm not saying it isn't an awesome movie with some interactive elements to it... I dunno, I just don't see how people can buy a $60 game, find that most of it is a movie, and feel the price is justified, let alone a reason to buy a $400 system.
As for the game itself? Well, the cutscenes are spectacular. It's like an excellent interative movie for the cutscenes alone. The game part itself is definitely there, about as much as a longer FPS is. It terms of volume, it's actually got more than most games that are comparable (I'm not comparing against the 100+ RPGs). The cutscenes and storyline are amazing, so it just makes it that much more. Don't forget, there is an online mode to the game as well, if that's what you care about.
But even if you never play online, the game has more than enough content to warrant the purchase of the game. The system just to play the game? That's silly
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
I always thought that the quality of the cutscenes of MGS only reinforces the point that the game combat engine is a joke. In the cutscene it's like hey check out all these cool stuff we can do! And then when you get to control your character it's like sorry, you can't actually do any of this stuff. Someone here (might be Mental) said Kingdom Hearts is great because of the relative ease you can pull off awesome stuff. That's what MGS should be, where X X X X Triangle lets you do some of these crazy stuff you see in the cutscenes. Instead you're constantly reminded of just how limiting the game engine is, especially in the boss battles.
For any other game the game engine of MGS would be adequate, but for a game that constantly tries to pass off its cutscenes as some form of art, it's really hard to ignore the limitation of the game aspect of MGS.
For any other game the game engine of MGS would be adequate, but for a game that constantly tries to pass off its cutscenes as some form of art, it's really hard to ignore the limitation of the game aspect of MGS.
Don Wang, is there anything he doesn't bitch about? Out of all of the things, you bitch about the gameplay in MGS? It has great gameplay.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
His complaint isn't without merit.
Alot of games have these amazing cut scenes that you either see your character do, or the enemy do, but when you finally fight your animations/actions are nothing like that, or the enemy is nearly as flashy/powerful as they were the moment before they slaughtered 100 enemies in the span of 5 seconds.
Case in point: Snake enters an area at one point in the game(And if this spoiler upsets you die), and takes down 7 soldiers or so with CQC(Close Quarters Combat). Now that's pretty/impressive amazing, but if I try and take on more then 1 soldier with CQC most of the time I end up dead, or on my back, and looking at the Game Over screen.
Alot of games have these amazing cut scenes that you either see your character do, or the enemy do, but when you finally fight your animations/actions are nothing like that, or the enemy is nearly as flashy/powerful as they were the moment before they slaughtered 100 enemies in the span of 5 seconds.
Case in point: Snake enters an area at one point in the game(And if this spoiler upsets you die), and takes down 7 soldiers or so with CQC(Close Quarters Combat). Now that's pretty/impressive amazing, but if I try and take on more then 1 soldier with CQC most of the time I end up dead, or on my back, and looking at the Game Over screen.
Well since the theme of MGS is supposed to be stealth it's probably okay that you can't just go in and kill 10 guys by pushing triangle X 2. But there's nothing stealthy about fighting bosses. I mean you're supposed to be like a guy who can beat people who can take out an entire army by themselves 1on1 and most of the time boss battle looks like what 2 grunt soldier would look like. Your average soldier has attacks that look more formidable than someone who is supposed to be able to blow up a Metal Gear by kicking it.
I'd say MGS needs something like the Sands of Time in Prince of Persia, some sort of limited way to do totally awesome things. For cutscenes that are way over the top, the actual combat is very underwhelming and very anti-epic. You're supposed to be playing the role of a living legend but you sure don't ever see any indication of that via the gameplay.
I'd say MGS needs something like the Sands of Time in Prince of Persia, some sort of limited way to do totally awesome things. For cutscenes that are way over the top, the actual combat is very underwhelming and very anti-epic. You're supposed to be playing the role of a living legend but you sure don't ever see any indication of that via the gameplay.
There are arguements for both sides. Don Wang sort of just said what Tycho said on his Penny Arcade blog (eerily similar language usage too).
My stand is generally this: in a game, an interactive medium, rule of thumb should be that you don't show something that the players themselves would rather be doing. RPGs tend to get away with this, sometimes far too often, but oftentimes 'cause the mechanics don't work that way, and gameplay/storyline are seperated.
Devil May Cry 4 got a lot of flack, however, for having bombastic fight scenes that we watch, and can't really interact with.
This has been combated, in a fashion, with the addition of Quick Time Events, though these, of course, have also been criticized, most prominently by Yahtzee.
Metal Gear Solid, however, has usually played a steady tightrope with these things. The first MGS did this really well, using cutscenes to set up really cool shit that WE, the player, would do. MGS2 and MGS3 included things like Snake doing CQC and all that jazz, and people give it flack in the manner Don Wang described, that the stealth doesn't work for these bits.
I disagree, to a point. You see, if the cutscene abilities were in the game engine, the game would be broken, because there would be no reward for stealthy gameplay. Additionally, most of the cutscenes involve Snake being seen, caught, or attacked by enemy characters--which, in a Metal Gear game, is the worst possible scenario. The idea is stealth, and the actual game engine is built to encourage stealth. Cutscenes, being worst possible scenarios in terms of both the game's narrative and the game's mechanics, require a means to return to the status quo, and this is acquired through fancy acrobatics and all that weird shit that we have come to love about Metal Gear Solid. Its acceptable, to a point, because it's A) entertaining a
a means of circumventing the game engine in order to emphasize a certain point, that point being that Snake is a super-soldier, capable of handling any situation. If you could handle any situation in the actual game mechanics, the game would not BE a stealth game anymore. So, yeah, while it may get irritating to enviously watch Snake take down seven guards, frankly, its better that we at least get to see it and still enjoy a game that isn't broken.
Now, boss fights. Boss fights I actually always liked in the MGS games, excluding MGS2 because most of them were either very cheap or very dull--Fatman being cheap, Vamp being dull. Like the cutscenes, boss fights are sort of the "worst possible scenario" for Snake, as he's been found out, and now must fight to escape/survive. However, these boss fights have never felt overly difficult because of the game's mechanics. Look at the Revolver Ocelot fight in MGS1. In the original, its not too hard, but it can be challenging because it's likely the first time you extensively have to use a pistol, and there's no first person aim. Yet, the game was built without a FPS aim, so the boss battle is still a bit challenging, but easily doable. In the Twin Snakes remake, we have the same boss battle, but its fucking retardedly easy because you can actually follow Ocelot with a gun in FPS mode and BOOM! Headshot.
Every boss battle, though, generally takes advantage of different aspects of the game system, forcing the gamer to "think on their feet", similarly to how Snake would. Stealth may fail at times, and it is at those times that both protagonist and player are tested. Psycho Mantis was a great example of this--for Snake, his mind is being read. For the player, his playstation is screwing up. Sure, there's no stealth, but none of the fights felt UNFAIR because of how the game worked, ESPECIALLY with the addition of FPS aiming in later games.
Metal Gear Solid 3 takes this one step further by giving you larger arenas to fight bosses, and actually--with camo and the like--encouraging you to hide from bosses and ambush them, enabling Guerilla warfare. Examples of this can include the End and the Fury, but the Revolver Ocelot fight and especially the final fight against the Boss also take advantage of the stealth camo mechanic, and thus further integrate game engine with the game's boss fights.
Frankly, there's been really few poor marks to strike against any MGS game's actual gameplay. Even the original, without an FPS aim, is still an amazingly fun game to play, and each later installment just keeps building on to that. In fact, the biggest complaint you can give the series is that, since it is so fun to play, when you are forced to watch the game instead of play it, you get annoyed because you are having so much fun just PLAYING.
My stand is generally this: in a game, an interactive medium, rule of thumb should be that you don't show something that the players themselves would rather be doing. RPGs tend to get away with this, sometimes far too often, but oftentimes 'cause the mechanics don't work that way, and gameplay/storyline are seperated.
Devil May Cry 4 got a lot of flack, however, for having bombastic fight scenes that we watch, and can't really interact with.
This has been combated, in a fashion, with the addition of Quick Time Events, though these, of course, have also been criticized, most prominently by Yahtzee.
Metal Gear Solid, however, has usually played a steady tightrope with these things. The first MGS did this really well, using cutscenes to set up really cool shit that WE, the player, would do. MGS2 and MGS3 included things like Snake doing CQC and all that jazz, and people give it flack in the manner Don Wang described, that the stealth doesn't work for these bits.
I disagree, to a point. You see, if the cutscene abilities were in the game engine, the game would be broken, because there would be no reward for stealthy gameplay. Additionally, most of the cutscenes involve Snake being seen, caught, or attacked by enemy characters--which, in a Metal Gear game, is the worst possible scenario. The idea is stealth, and the actual game engine is built to encourage stealth. Cutscenes, being worst possible scenarios in terms of both the game's narrative and the game's mechanics, require a means to return to the status quo, and this is acquired through fancy acrobatics and all that weird shit that we have come to love about Metal Gear Solid. Its acceptable, to a point, because it's A) entertaining a
a means of circumventing the game engine in order to emphasize a certain point, that point being that Snake is a super-soldier, capable of handling any situation. If you could handle any situation in the actual game mechanics, the game would not BE a stealth game anymore. So, yeah, while it may get irritating to enviously watch Snake take down seven guards, frankly, its better that we at least get to see it and still enjoy a game that isn't broken.Now, boss fights. Boss fights I actually always liked in the MGS games, excluding MGS2 because most of them were either very cheap or very dull--Fatman being cheap, Vamp being dull. Like the cutscenes, boss fights are sort of the "worst possible scenario" for Snake, as he's been found out, and now must fight to escape/survive. However, these boss fights have never felt overly difficult because of the game's mechanics. Look at the Revolver Ocelot fight in MGS1. In the original, its not too hard, but it can be challenging because it's likely the first time you extensively have to use a pistol, and there's no first person aim. Yet, the game was built without a FPS aim, so the boss battle is still a bit challenging, but easily doable. In the Twin Snakes remake, we have the same boss battle, but its fucking retardedly easy because you can actually follow Ocelot with a gun in FPS mode and BOOM! Headshot.
Every boss battle, though, generally takes advantage of different aspects of the game system, forcing the gamer to "think on their feet", similarly to how Snake would. Stealth may fail at times, and it is at those times that both protagonist and player are tested. Psycho Mantis was a great example of this--for Snake, his mind is being read. For the player, his playstation is screwing up. Sure, there's no stealth, but none of the fights felt UNFAIR because of how the game worked, ESPECIALLY with the addition of FPS aiming in later games.
Metal Gear Solid 3 takes this one step further by giving you larger arenas to fight bosses, and actually--with camo and the like--encouraging you to hide from bosses and ambush them, enabling Guerilla warfare. Examples of this can include the End and the Fury, but the Revolver Ocelot fight and especially the final fight against the Boss also take advantage of the stealth camo mechanic, and thus further integrate game engine with the game's boss fights.
Frankly, there's been really few poor marks to strike against any MGS game's actual gameplay. Even the original, without an FPS aim, is still an amazingly fun game to play, and each later installment just keeps building on to that. In fact, the biggest complaint you can give the series is that, since it is so fun to play, when you are forced to watch the game instead of play it, you get annoyed because you are having so much fun just PLAYING.
You can't seriously tell me the theme of the game is stealth with regard to bosses. The 1 on 1 fights in MGS are very honorable. I mean you have people who carry laser beams, light sabers, and rocket launchers just throw away their weapons and start punching each other to death because that's the MGS way of settling 1 on 1. The game might be about covert operation but pretty much every one of importance is a warrior before he/she is an assassin. Nowhere in the series are you ever expected to just walk up behind a boss and snap his/her neck.
The gameplay and the cutscene of MGS has to be intertwined because the way the game uses them. If you see Revolver Ocelot shoot 6 guys in one round of bullets while juggling his revolver 10 times in the process, it's kind of hard to take him seriously when the average guy with machine gun poses more threat than he does when you actually have to fight him. If the stealth aspect of this game is supposed to be down to earth (e.g. you can't even fight 4 guys at the same time if you're seen), then the boss fight aspect is definitely supposed to be way over the top, and they're not even close. It doesn't matter if the actual fight itself is fun or not from a gameplay point of view. The presentation simply fails from an artistic point of view.
If you take a game like Kingdom Hearts, and look at say the Showdown of Fate where Sephiroth and Cloud hit each other 25 times in midair. If you're in control of one of these characters, you can do it (it'd just be both of you parry each other 25 times). When you fight Riku you can get some totally crazy counter-recounter chains going on when he's in his darkness form. The skill required to do some of this stuff might be next to impossible, but the game engine supports this. The best example I can think of is the famous Street Fighter 3 video where the guy who was Ken parried a super from Chun Li when he had no life left, and then finished off with like a 15 combo of his own. The whole chain of events flows quite well, since it actually happened during real gameplay. Now you can easily replicate that as a cutscene, but what makes this famous is that this chain of events is real. You might not be able to do it but you know it's doable, so if you see it done or in a cutscene you appreciate this is the work of a gaming god in action. Now if they say show a scene where Akuma parried 250 attacks from 10 guys at the same time to show how powerful he is. It's true no one alive can do this, but you know that in theory, the game engine can support this, which is why Akuma is supposed to be some kind of living god. If this was not possible in the game engine, it'd just be yet-another-cutscene.
Take Soul Calibur and put the training AI on counter every hit, and get like a 10 hit counter chain going, make a video of that and it certainly looks cool. Now put the game on super duper hard and the AI basically does this, and with a lot of practice you can pull off those 10 counter chains in a real fight. Is this move practical? Probably not, as Soul Calibur is not balanced by any stretch of imagination, but what gives these acts of super skill credibility is the fact that they're doable. In the case of MGS, it's obvious that nothing in the cutscenes is remotely doable in the actual gameplay no matter how good you are.
The gameplay and the cutscene of MGS has to be intertwined because the way the game uses them. If you see Revolver Ocelot shoot 6 guys in one round of bullets while juggling his revolver 10 times in the process, it's kind of hard to take him seriously when the average guy with machine gun poses more threat than he does when you actually have to fight him. If the stealth aspect of this game is supposed to be down to earth (e.g. you can't even fight 4 guys at the same time if you're seen), then the boss fight aspect is definitely supposed to be way over the top, and they're not even close. It doesn't matter if the actual fight itself is fun or not from a gameplay point of view. The presentation simply fails from an artistic point of view.
If you take a game like Kingdom Hearts, and look at say the Showdown of Fate where Sephiroth and Cloud hit each other 25 times in midair. If you're in control of one of these characters, you can do it (it'd just be both of you parry each other 25 times). When you fight Riku you can get some totally crazy counter-recounter chains going on when he's in his darkness form. The skill required to do some of this stuff might be next to impossible, but the game engine supports this. The best example I can think of is the famous Street Fighter 3 video where the guy who was Ken parried a super from Chun Li when he had no life left, and then finished off with like a 15 combo of his own. The whole chain of events flows quite well, since it actually happened during real gameplay. Now you can easily replicate that as a cutscene, but what makes this famous is that this chain of events is real. You might not be able to do it but you know it's doable, so if you see it done or in a cutscene you appreciate this is the work of a gaming god in action. Now if they say show a scene where Akuma parried 250 attacks from 10 guys at the same time to show how powerful he is. It's true no one alive can do this, but you know that in theory, the game engine can support this, which is why Akuma is supposed to be some kind of living god. If this was not possible in the game engine, it'd just be yet-another-cutscene.
Take Soul Calibur and put the training AI on counter every hit, and get like a 10 hit counter chain going, make a video of that and it certainly looks cool. Now put the game on super duper hard and the AI basically does this, and with a lot of practice you can pull off those 10 counter chains in a real fight. Is this move practical? Probably not, as Soul Calibur is not balanced by any stretch of imagination, but what gives these acts of super skill credibility is the fact that they're doable. In the case of MGS, it's obvious that nothing in the cutscenes is remotely doable in the actual gameplay no matter how good you are.
Christ, I think we have somebody who can write paragraphs worth of posts longer than Don Wang's :P
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
great gameplay? I get to play the game for about 10 minutes, then I'm subjected to about 20-40 minutes of cutscene (possible exaggeration). For a Metal Gear game the gameplay is certainly a step above the others, but due to the relatively non-competitive and non-evolutionary nature of the stealth genre (what? splinter cell? that's pretty much it), we haven't seen any big gameplay steps from anything. Penny-Arcade references Assassin's Creed as a possible stealth game..... and it certainly has a much more robust combat system. However, since the stealth elements are so rudimentary, you can see that there have been sacrifices there too.SineSwiper wrote:Don Wang, is there anything he doesn't bitch about? Out of all of the things, you bitch about the gameplay in MGS? It has great gameplay.
There has yet to be a gameplay renaissance in the stealth genre. Until then I'd say Metal Gear, though possessing a much more complicated button system than is needed for the fairly rudimentary gameplay, is the best stealth game out there. Did anyone play the last Tenchu? I played the demo and it was easily the Superman 64 of the current generation. There is no competition for it, thus it is king.
Assassin's Creed's problem was it's repetitiveness, from the combat, to the missions, to the information gathering, the same thing you did at the first memory, you're doing at the 9th, and the actual assassinations at the end of each, which was the best part of the game happened so fast, and were so short, you wanted to do it again badly, but couldn't.
The best part of Assassin's Creed was the freedom, and the presentation. Blending in between people, and slowly making your way through a crowd to kill someone, and walking away before the body hit the ground was just fun(There are a few minor assassination missions in between the "big" assassination).
Nobody forces you to watch MGS4's cut scenes. If you don't care about the plot you can skip every one, and every codec conversation. I've never been stumped on where to go and felt watching the previous cut-scene helped point me in the right direction, the cut-scenes really don't do much to explain things outside of moving the story along. You're loaded into a city, or location, you play through it from point A->B and you move on. You can gun your way there, or you can be stealthy. If you just focus on MGS's gameplay, it's a fantastic game, if you bitch about the gameplay because you feel compelled to sit through the cut-scenes, that's a whole other issue.
The best part of Assassin's Creed was the freedom, and the presentation. Blending in between people, and slowly making your way through a crowd to kill someone, and walking away before the body hit the ground was just fun(There are a few minor assassination missions in between the "big" assassination).
Nobody forces you to watch MGS4's cut scenes. If you don't care about the plot you can skip every one, and every codec conversation. I've never been stumped on where to go and felt watching the previous cut-scene helped point me in the right direction, the cut-scenes really don't do much to explain things outside of moving the story along. You're loaded into a city, or location, you play through it from point A->B and you move on. You can gun your way there, or you can be stealthy. If you just focus on MGS's gameplay, it's a fantastic game, if you bitch about the gameplay because you feel compelled to sit through the cut-scenes, that's a whole other issue.
I've played most other metal gears (MGS, MGS2, MGS3, MG:PO, and MGAcid) and I've found their stories fairly convoluted. I'm not saying that the gameplay is bad because of the story, I enjoy SOME of the story (the liquid/ocelot thing is RETARDED). The problem I have with the cutscenes is that they are too long for their own good. Want to make a nice fully realized world? Then plunk me in it and give me the small intricate details if I want them (Mass Effect's crazy encyclopedia thing was a GREAT idea), not shove them down my throat and pretend that it's all super important.
Now the gameplay is something I'm complaining about (I complain about EVERYTHING, even if I like it) because:
a) the buttons are stupid. Why should I have to scroll through my L2 and R2 menus when I just have to switch them out once or twice an area through the start menu anyways? Why can't I run and then crouch or go prone without doing a roll? What does the circle button do?
b) maybe I was spoiled with Halflife, but why am I not playing through some of the cutscenes? It seems like I'm just renting Snake's body to bridge between the cutscenes. I really, really enjoy some of the over-the-topness of some of them, but others I find myself asking "why am I not playing right now? They show snake sneaking around a corner and give me the option of seeing through his point of view, but why can't I do that? Is it too much for me? It seems like Kojima is too worried that I'll fuck up his game or not see what he wants me to see.
and c) what has changed since MGS3? the over the shoulder firing and the new camo system (to a degree) are the only things that have really changed. I can't do anything new, I can just do the things I was doing before a little easier. There have been no real revamps in the metal gear gameplay. there have only been slight tweaks. First person shooting and holdups in MGS2, CQC and the camo system in MGS3, moveable camera in MGS3:Subsistence. I'm saying that it's all fairly rudimentary because it hasn't really changed since MGS, it has only gotten easier.
I just see these problems in the game. I probably appear to not be enjoying the game, but I like it. It's certainly the best in the MGS franchise, but there are still some flaws in it that I'm going to nitpick about. I like the story, but I find myself just not listening to it because they drone on and on about things that I don't find either interesting or important.
Now the gameplay is something I'm complaining about (I complain about EVERYTHING, even if I like it) because:
a) the buttons are stupid. Why should I have to scroll through my L2 and R2 menus when I just have to switch them out once or twice an area through the start menu anyways? Why can't I run and then crouch or go prone without doing a roll? What does the circle button do?
b) maybe I was spoiled with Halflife, but why am I not playing through some of the cutscenes? It seems like I'm just renting Snake's body to bridge between the cutscenes. I really, really enjoy some of the over-the-topness of some of them, but others I find myself asking "why am I not playing right now? They show snake sneaking around a corner and give me the option of seeing through his point of view, but why can't I do that? Is it too much for me? It seems like Kojima is too worried that I'll fuck up his game or not see what he wants me to see.
and c) what has changed since MGS3? the over the shoulder firing and the new camo system (to a degree) are the only things that have really changed. I can't do anything new, I can just do the things I was doing before a little easier. There have been no real revamps in the metal gear gameplay. there have only been slight tweaks. First person shooting and holdups in MGS2, CQC and the camo system in MGS3, moveable camera in MGS3:Subsistence. I'm saying that it's all fairly rudimentary because it hasn't really changed since MGS, it has only gotten easier.
I just see these problems in the game. I probably appear to not be enjoying the game, but I like it. It's certainly the best in the MGS franchise, but there are still some flaws in it that I'm going to nitpick about. I like the story, but I find myself just not listening to it because they drone on and on about things that I don't find either interesting or important.
Games like Metal Gear Solid really could use some kind of one sentence summary like: "In this cut scene Otacon talks about his obession with Anime" or whatever thing they thought was important enough to take 5 or 50 minutes to talk about. You should be able to just skip all the dialogues if you don't care about them and then scroll back to see what's being said (it's much faster to read a page of text than listening to a page of text).
The voice overs are good enough though that most of the time they are pretty interesting to listen to.
Plus, I like Otacon. He gets a lot of hate, but he's my favorite supporting character.
Plus, I like Otacon. He gets a lot of hate, but he's my favorite supporting character.
Well people probably like different characters but it's pretty unlikely someone will like to listen all the characters talk forever. And even if you don't care about the story it has to be a collossal failure in terms of storytelling if you have to actually skip it even if most of the stuff is just psychobabble. Rogue Galaxy has a feature that recaps what's currently going on when you load the game. MGS could use something like that when you do skip cutscenes.
Rogue Galaxy was a steaming pile of overhyped shit.
There's a few games that did that with the loading. I think Xenosaga 3 did that.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Yep. Kojima desperately needs an editor.bovine wrote:The problem I have with the cutscenes is that they are too long for their own good.
Yeah, agreed on this also.bovine wrote:Want to make a nice fully realized world? Then plunk me in it and give me the small intricate details if I want them (Mass Effect's crazy encyclopedia thing was a GREAT idea), not shove them down my throat and pretend that it's all super important.
Sort of agreed. The controls are a million times better, but still overcomplicated. I admit to having a fondness for the L2 and R2 menus, but that may be nostalgia.bovine wrote:a) the buttons are stupid. Why should I have to scroll through my L2 and R2 menus when I just have to switch them out once or twice an area through the start menu anyways? Why can't I run and then crouch or go prone without doing a roll? What does the circle button do?
I will say, though, that this game's cover system is the most intuitive I've experienced. One button press to enter cover, and one to exit, or you just pull away after holding the control stick away from your cover for exactly the right amount of time. Shooting from cover works like you'd expect. The octocamo makes taking cover and hiding feel perfectly natural and easy. Thumbs up, Kojima!
More of this would be lovely, but I did really like the cutscene and gameplay integration of Act 1. The game shifted you really nicely between play and observation, and in places where you wouldn't necessarily expect it: like, in a cutscene you might see geckos arrive, and you expect to see Snake escape them and have the game give you back control when it's safe; but nope, you've got to escape those geckos yourself.bovine wrote:b) maybe I was spoiled with Halflife, but why am I not playing through some of the cutscenes?
Also, the bits where you did get to play through the cutscenes were completely rad, like the vehicle chase and escape sequences. Also (spoilers), the sequences where you were piloting the Metal Gear, the crawl through the microwave tunnel, and the Liquid-Snake fistfight at the end of the game.
That said, the game is definitely top-heavy with completely non-interactive, non-integrated cutscenes, most of which could have been significantly cut, or excised completely. Thumbs down, Kojima!
To be honest, that's what I most wanted out of the game. I really enjoy the fundamental gameplay mechanics of MGS; they've always just needed polish. Even after MGS4 they need more, but they've gone from almost unplayable cumbersome in MGS3 to intuitive in MGS4. So, I'm happy.bovine wrote:I'm saying that it's all fairly rudimentary because it hasn't really changed since MGS, it has only gotten easier.
Yeah, for sure. Kojima again really badly needs an absolutely ruthless editor.bovine wrote:...there are still some flaws in it that I'm going to nitpick about. I like the story, but I find myself just not listening to it because they drone on and on about things that I don't find either interesting or important.
I think when you got a game with dialogue like MGS, it's pretty clear what the designer has to say is more important than stuff like the enjoyability of the game. It's like how Evangelion really just exists because the director wants to tell you about a few things he thought was totally awesome whether you liked it or not. If you want to enjoy the game, you got to listen to what Kojima has to say, whether you like it or not.
And personally I think that's the designer going on a power trip, but as long as he makes good games, you don't really have much power to stop him.
And personally I think that's the designer going on a power trip, but as long as he makes good games, you don't really have much power to stop him.
I beat this on the weekend. Incredible, what a great ending to the series. If there's one game of this generation (so far) that's worth buying a system for, it's this one. Just amazing. And what a final act, that was unbelievable.
I hope to hell Kojima a) starts making other games of this depth and quality and b) ensures as a producer (you think he'd let go of this cash cow that easily?) of the inevitable sequels/offshoots that they retain the same level of quality and intertwine with the storylines and universe he's created.
I hope to hell Kojima a) starts making other games of this depth and quality and b) ensures as a producer (you think he'd let go of this cash cow that easily?) of the inevitable sequels/offshoots that they retain the same level of quality and intertwine with the storylines and universe he's created.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
I disagree. I beat it in 20 hours. With the blu-ray disc that comes with the special edition advertising that the game has 12 hours of cutscenes in it, I only played the game for 8 hours. The game is good and fun, but there isn't enough of it in there to justify buying an entire system. The story is fun (if a bit more long-winded then it needs to be), the gameplay is enjoyable, but it might as well have been just a movie instead of a game.Zeus wrote:If there's one game of this generation (so far) that's worth buying a system for, it's this one.
See, I have zero issue with the ratio of cutscenes to gameplay. I've always thought the gameplay in the MGS series was pretty good but not great. It's always been the unparalleled quality of the storyline and cutscenes that have been the main attraction in that series. That's what's kept me coming back not the gameplay. And this one by far had the best storyline and cutscenes IMO.bovine wrote:I disagree. I beat it in 20 hours. With the blu-ray disc that comes with the special edition advertising that the game has 12 hours of cutscenes in it, I only played the game for 8 hours. The game is good and fun, but there isn't enough of it in there to justify buying an entire system. The story is fun (if a bit more long-winded then it needs to be), the gameplay is enjoyable, but it might as well have been just a movie instead of a game.Zeus wrote:If there's one game of this generation (so far) that's worth buying a system for, it's this one.
I also thought that the gameplay was the best in the series too. I've never had as much fun doing stuff in an MGS game as I did with this one. It was a bit easy, yes, but I've come to expect that from Japanese games now. They have to cater to their audience and you always hear that country whine about how every game ever made is too hard ("Dora is too damned hard, I can't figure out what to do"). It's something we've got to live with.
I finished it in about 23 or so hours and I had a blast every minute I played (or watched) it. ESPECIALLY the last act, it was incredibly well scripted. Very much a Six Feet Under quality ending. It really is one of the best gameplay experiences I've ever had.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Sure he does. Blu-Rays are at least $10 more expensive than DVDs and there's only a few movies worth that kind of upgradeEric wrote:No must-see, but since you have a glorified blu-ray player I guess you don't have to get DVDs anymore now do you?Black Lotus wrote:So now what do I do with my PS3? Any must-see Blurays?
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Well I haven't bought a DVD in..... well, I don't know how long. I can stream almost anything through the 360 or PS3 that I've downloaded. Only problem is, the couple of HDDVD or Bluray rips I've tried are janky at best. And those are the very few you can find as .avi files. .mkv's still don't play through either, and that's what most HD/Blu are encoded as.Zeus wrote:Sure he does. Blu-Rays are at least $10 more expensive than DVDs and there's only a few movies worth that kind of upgradeEric wrote:No must-see, but since you have a glorified blu-ray player I guess you don't have to get DVDs anymore now do you?Black Lotus wrote:So now what do I do with my PS3? Any must-see Blurays?
Yeah, I had actually d'loaded Galapogos in 720p but it kept buffering through the 360. So I borrowed the Blu-Ray off of a bud.Black Lotus wrote:Well I haven't bought a DVD in..... well, I don't know how long. I can stream almost anything through the 360 or PS3 that I've downloaded. Only problem is, the couple of HDDVD or Bluray rips I've tried are janky at best. And those are the very few you can find as .avi files. .mkv's still don't play through either, and that's what most HD/Blu are encoded as.Zeus wrote:Sure he does. Blu-Rays are at least $10 more expensive than DVDs and there's only a few movies worth that kind of upgradeEric wrote: No must-see, but since you have a glorified blu-ray player I guess you don't have to get DVDs anymore now do you?
There is a bit of a used market now. I can find a few Blu-Rays for about $15 used. Still, there are only a few movies I would go after that are actually worth it in HD. There's really no reason to go and get Atonement in HD but when Wall-E comes out? That's almost a must-purchase on HD if you have the player and TV for it
I was there on that fateful day, were you?