The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Has anyone noticed that MGS1 was supposed to take place this year ? Metal Gear 2:Solid Snake took place in 1999, if you haven't played it you can read "Previous Missions", and in MGS1 after the Ninja Boss fight Snake said that he fought Gray Fox on a minefield in Zanzibar 6 years ago, which means that MGS1 took place this year !!!
Page:
homosh wrote:
> Wink wrote:
> Does it matter? MGS2 was utter crap anyways.
> But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
You need to die, MGS2 doesn't touch 1 in any aspect.
> Wink wrote:
> Does it matter? MGS2 was utter crap anyways.
> But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
You need to die, MGS2 doesn't touch 1 in any aspect.
homosh wrote:
> But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
Er, no.
> But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
Er, no.
its a reason. you won't buy it if the lead was office worker #5444.
Mercutio wrote:
> homosh wrote:
>
> EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out
> there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
>
> thats because they were engineered to look great. you know, so people
> can actually buy the game.
They didn't do that so that the people would buy the game, it's because Yoji Shinkawa and Hideo Kojima are geniuses. Besides I wasn't talking about appearance, I was talking about the story. If the appearance makes any difference then mgs2 would have been the best game in the series, but that's not true. It's all about the story.
> homosh wrote:
>
> EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out
> there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
>
> thats because they were engineered to look great. you know, so people
> can actually buy the game.
They didn't do that so that the people would buy the game, it's because Yoji Shinkawa and Hideo Kojima are geniuses. Besides I wasn't talking about appearance, I was talking about the story. If the appearance makes any difference then mgs2 would have been the best game in the series, but that's not true. It's all about the story.
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that according to the plot, the game was supposed to take place this year.
homosh wrote:
> EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out
> there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
thats because they were engineered to look great. you know, so people can actually buy the game.
> EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out
> there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
thats because they were engineered to look great. you know, so people can actually buy the game.
well it's not real, and you're talking about how a fictitous event took place in what year. Kinda makes the topic irrelevant.
Offcourse I know it's not real, have you ever heard of a U.S president called George Sears or James Jhonson ?
EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
EDIT: Besides , I doubt that there would be great characters out there in the world like Solid Snake or Gray Fox.
You know that MGS is not actually REAL? So things didn't actually "happen" in 2005 or whatever. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Wink wrote:
> Does it matter? MGS2 was utter crap anyways.
But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
> Does it matter? MGS2 was utter crap anyways.
But it's still better than The Twin Snakes.
Page: