• Music Chat Thread V. No Cuberbullying pls
    15,823 replies, posted
i've tried replaying mgs2 twice but always stop at the bomb defusing part because it's just too tedious and turns me off
like how Raiden is deliberately annoying and how his character arc literally only works as a video game because it requires player interaction, its use of manipulation and repetition even in its fucking marketing campaign to strengthen its themes (so instead of telling you about media manipulation and corruption it uses it first hand) etc damn MGS3 might have the deepest gameplay but MGS2 is the deepest in terms of concept
Story wise I'd say 1 is the best, then comes 2 and 4, then 3 and then Peace Walker. Mechanics wise I'd say 2, 4, 3, 1, Peace Walker. But I'm a heretic when it comes to MGS so whatever.
[QUOTE=Hakita;45961195]i've tried replaying mgs2 twice but always stop at the bomb defusing part because it's just too tedious and turns me off[/QUOTE] I had to do it twice on this run cos I turned it off and forgot to save. I had gotten to [sp]saving the president[/sp] from the bombs and didn't save once :v:
I really dislike 3's camo system because it doesn't work very well, and it's fucking annoying to go into a menu constantly to change it so your camo index is better. The control's are also way too finicky and there's too much stuff every single button does. Some really simple stuff is way too complicated to do.
how can you like 3's story less than 4's?? and all of them less than 1's? like 1 loses to 2 in terms of depth and 3 in terms of a great simple story it's not a bad story but it's by far the least interesting one and 4's is just so full of plotholes, i still love it to death but come on now
[QUOTE=Hakita;45961218]how can you like 3's story less than 4's?? and all of them less than 1's? like 1 loses to 2 in terms of depth and 3 in terms of a great simple story it's not a bad story but it's by far the least interesting one and 4's is just so full of plotholes, i still love it to death but come on now[/QUOTE] I just found 3 to be extremely dumb even in MGS standards. It tries too much to be a Bond film or an action film. MGS1 was a dumb action movie game done right, it's "simple" but it has some depth.
if i were to break down it'd be (best to worst) Story: 2 & 3 tied (both masterful for different reasons- 2 in terms of depth and 3 in terms of character), 1 (solid and pretty short with lots of great characters and maybe the best balance of humour and srsness), Peace Walker (personally dont mind The Boss thing, not a whole lot going on but its solid) , 4 (a piece of shit that comes off like bad fanfiction, fucking up canon and character arcs and stories and answering questions no one asked or wanted answers to) Gameplay: 3, 2, 1, Peace Walker, 4 (basically a shitty shooter game that does not reward explorative gameplay that much and octocamo ruins stealth cos its easy as fuck. Lame and boring map design that just encourages combat too) I might be wrong with 4's gameplay cos I've only played it once but I didn't enjoy any of it. Its script is fucking horrendous though.
nah, mgs3 had a fantastic balance of silliness and seriousness, it's got tons of memorable characters and moments mgs1 was just kind of there for most of the game, a couple moments i still love but overall it's just not nearly as interesting as any of the other ones
tbh i literally cannot wrap my head around how people do not think MGS4 is the worst game at least from a story point of view. 3 is my favourite I'd say but I put 2 tied cos I appreciate it a lot and it left me with lots to think about. I don't even think 3's story is very silly. Like 2's is way crazier and weirder lol. It's an homage to bond films but it does it better than a bond film imo since it like actually has good characters and story (same for its themesong, Snake Eater goes hard as hell and is a better bond song than any bond song)
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45961268]if i were to break down it'd be (best to worst) Story: 2 & 3 tied (both masterful for different reasons- 2 in terms of depth and 3 in terms of character), 1 (solid and pretty short with lots of great characters and maybe the best balance of humour and srsness), Peace Walker (personally dont mind The Boss thing, not a whole lot going on but its solid) , 4 (a piece of shit that comes off like bad fanfiction, fucking up canon and character arcs and stories and answering questions no one asked or wanted answers to) Gameplay: 3, 2, 1, Peace Walker, 4 (basically a shitty shooter game that does not reward explorative gameplay that much and octocamo ruins stealth cos its easy as fuck. Lame and boring map design that just encourages combat too) I might be wrong with 4's gameplay cos I've only played it once but I didn't enjoy any of it. Its script is fucking horrendous though.[/QUOTE] i recognise mgs4's problems but i still absolutely love the game gameplay wise i agree that the level design is pretty awful (only like 2/5 acts are normal sneaking) but functionally the controls are insanely good, you can do so many things and they're all really easy to pull off controls-wise it's mgs3 but improved in every possible aspect, i absolutely love the gameplay, just wished there was more sneaking and less gimmick stages
3 is so fun I love Ocelot and Snake's petty rivalry. It's hilarious and entertaining but also sets up and contextualises Ocelot for the previous games. And The Boss is pretty much THE best female character in any video game. She's badass as hell, more stoic and strong than any of the male characters, her being a woman is actually relevant to her character without being a love interest as she's more a maternal figure, she has a tragic but brilliant backstory.. So good. [QUOTE=Hakita;45961306]i recognise mgs4's problems but i still absolutely love the game gameplay wise i agree that the level design is pretty awful (only like 2/5 acts are normal sneaking) but functionally the controls are insanely good, you can do so many things and they're all really easy to pull off controls-wise it's mgs3 but improved in every possible aspect, i absolutely love the gameplay, just wished there was more sneaking and less gimmick stages[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree that MGS4's [I]mechanics[/I] were great but its gameplay was overall incredibly disappointing because of where it places its focus and its poor level design. I mean, the only stage made entirely for sneaking was really really boring and uninteresting and felt like when they throw a stealth section into a non-stealth game. Not to mention it was offensively dumb fanservice giving you young Snake face-camo. It also led up to that on-rails shooter bit which is 1/10 awful
i love act 2 and dont understand at all how you find it boring??
Eh, my opinion on the games is so tied to how did I feel playing them. MGS3 was just super frustrating at times because of the controls and some mechanics, that paired with the dumb Bond plot I did not like is just the last nail in the coffin for me. MGS4 was smooth sailing and it was really pleasant to play, the story was really dumb but in a MGS way so it was this so 'bad its good' story. Almost all areas were open and had many ways to deal with everything, it in no way forces you to go gun ho on things, it actually punishes you for shooting too much. And all the nudges to the past were really well done, fucking loved when you have to come back to Shadow Moses.
[QUOTE=Hakita;45961277]nah, mgs3 had a fantastic balance of silliness and seriousness, it's got tons of memorable characters and moments mgs1 was just kind of there for most of the game, a couple moments i still love but overall it's just not nearly as interesting as any of the other ones[/QUOTE] Think I preferred 2 and 1s characters. cobra unit was just ridiculous. Then again it had young ocelot, the boss, big boss and they're some of the best characters in the series. 2 remains my all time favourite taking into account story and gameplay. Its fast paced compared to mgs3 and o preferred that. And the story as you've said is full of philosophical questions and has a lot of meta stuff going on. And I have replayed it many times, don't think its a chore.
a lot of people do seem to like it but it's literally just following some dude around a dark city which is kinda cool noir stuff but it's so simple and lame imo. And I literally could not believe that the on-rails bit was in the game. I mean I know 3 had one too but it was like a big payoff for hours and hours of gameplay and story but this came 2/5's into the game, and it was just frustrating. 3's is deliberately over the top and crazy. 4's segment just feels like a generic military shooter. Plus Raging Raven is a very average boss(it ruined Laughing Octopus. One of the best bits of MGS4 was the second half of Octopus' fight when she stops attacking etc. I loved that. But then I realised it was the same for all 4 B&B and it was nothing but a stupid gimmick. and since Raven was the second boss that was when I realised it and I hate it because it retroactively ruined Octopus) [QUOTE=Calkkuna;45961349]Eh, my opinion on the games is so tied to how did I feel playing them. MGS3 was just super frustrating at times because of the controls and some mechanics, that paired with the dumb Bond plot I did not like is just the last nail in the coffin for me. MGS4 was smooth sailing and it was really pleasant to play, the story was really dumb but in a MGS way so it was this so 'bad its good' story. Almost all areas were open and had many ways to deal with everything, it in no way forces you to go gun ho on things, it actually punishes you for shooting too much. And all the nudges to the past were really well done, fucking loved when you have to come back to Shadow Moses.[/QUOTE] i played the games in order so controls were fine for me since they got better every time. Do agree 4 is very smooth to play but I feel overall it is not a fun game because it's easy and lacks the depth that 3 had as well as the consistency and fun of 1 and 2. One of my issues is it's so EASY. Octocamo might have worked for streamlining but it was way OP. hiding is easy and Alert phases mean nothing (just hide for 30 seconds and you're good to continue- plus the fact that you spend a lot of time in a war zone means they are not that interested in you, you can literally just run past a lot of the game with no consequence) Don't think MGS4 was "so bad it's good" either. Just bad with good bits throughout. The first 3 are cheesy but legitimately good, heartfelt stories. 4 was an awful, convoluted mess that reached far too high and fell massively because of it and as I said I feel it totally ruined a lot of the characters and messed with the canon a lot. Its throwbacks were hit or miss, the MGS1 emulation was great but the Shadow Moses level was eh (good boss fight and fucking awesome end to the chapter though). Final boss is an amazing throwback. Things like Mantis reappearing for no reason, the young snake faceCamo, etc came off as cheap gimmicks and lame as hell fanservice to me though. It kinda works in that the game is about Snake's PTSD (one of the reasons I loved getting to play MGS1 again) but idk I still did not enjoy it.
seems all of us have different opinions when it comes to mgs
And that's the beauty
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45961432]a lot of people do seem to like it but it's literally just following some dude around a dark city which is kinda cool noir stuff but it's so simple and lame imo. And I literally could not believe that the on-rails bit was in the game. I mean I know 3 had one too but it was like a big payoff for hours and hours of gameplay and story but this came 2/5's into the game, and it was just frustrating. 3's is deliberately over the top and crazy. 4's segment just feels like a generic military shooter. Plus Raging Raven is a very average boss(it ruined Laughing Octopus. One of the best bits of MGS4 was the second half of Octopus' fight when she stops attacking etc. I loved that. But then I realised it was the same for all 4 B&B and it was nothing but a stupid gimmick. and since Raven was the second boss that was when I realised it and I hate it because it retroactively ruined Octopus) [/QUOTE] that's act 3, i'm talking about act 2, the forest with Octopus
[QUOTE=Hakita;45961443]that's act 3, i'm talking about act 2, the forest with Octopus[/QUOTE] oh my bad lol. So it is. Yeah I liked that area, definitely one of the strong points of the game. Some good stealth and open-world stuff. Probably my favourite segment. [editline]12th September 2014[/editline] I am actually glad that despite playing 1 and 2 yeeeears ago (I remember having a PS1 demo disc of MGS1 that I played OVER AND OVER and I played MGS2 at a friends) I only really got into the series this year because it allowed me to really appreciate them. They're not games you can fully get when you're younger and coming in older and being able to read deeper (and during a time where I am incredibly frustrated with the state of AAA gaming- it fucking sucks-) and see the games more fully and take more away from them. Reminds me as well that the gaming industry isn't 100% awful even if it seems that way and there are still lots of great games out there. i mean my favourite shooter is Spec Ops The Line and that's because it's a game that fucking hates the genre it belongs to lmao what does that say
I will be playing MGS4 again soon though so my thoughts of the gameplay may well change. I'll try and get the most out of it as I can. I do admit the story frustrated me and I kind of just wanted it to be over so I maybe didn't really take advantage of all that I should have. Trying to complete all the VR/Alternate missions in MGS2 right now though, there are literally hundreds and some of them are really fucking hard :v:
those wiley japanese make some great games as long as they're not jrpgs
[QUOTE=Hakita;45961481]those wiley japanese make some great games as long as they're not jrpgs[/QUOTE] [i]excuse u[/i] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGAWcVKDqxg[/media] i barely play JRPGs anymore but fuck me i love the original FF games and pretty much anything else Squaresoft made
i like kingdom hearts
i hate the gameplay of jrpgs so much that it's basically impossible for me to like them like the whole idea just revolves around having higher numbers than your opponents, all you need to do is grind a while and you can beat pretty much anything and i'd say that's pretty bad game design
most of the JRPGs i played back in the day avoided the whole grindgrindgrind mechanic by having the enemies' levels scale to match the players' so it's down to mostly how you equip your party and stuff which is SO much better than just grinding for hours and hours
the only JRPG ive ever put real time into was Golden Sun on the gameboy lol I fucking loved that game. and the pokemon games which kinda count I suppose?? he only final fantasy ive played was XII which is apparently the least Final Fantasy-ish of the games lmao it was really good though I put a lot of time into it.
[QUOTE=OctopusGuy;45962820]most of the JRPGs i played back in the day avoided the whole grindgrindgrind mechanic by having the enemies' levels scale to match the players' so it's down to mostly how you equip your party and stuff which is SO much better than just grinding for hours and hours[/QUOTE] well then what is even the point of having leveling if enemies just level at the same pace as you
i was really not exposed to JRPG's and the likewhen I was younger and nowadays I only have a PS3 which doesn't have many games like it so idk maybe I am destined to never play. ive always just owned Sony consoles except for the 360 (which i replaced with my PS3 :v:).
I'm only on the beginning of MGS2 and afraid to read like 90% of this page in fear of spoilers. MGS1 was amazing and 2's been fun too so far, but not digging the camera angle at some parts. What really made me realize how amazing MGS1 was how in like the first part [sp]enemies followed my footsteps which surprised me so much to see in a game in 1998 since tons of modern games don't even have it.[/sp]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.