The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Wink wrote:
> unneccecary.
Awww cute!
*Rapes*
> unneccecary.
Awww cute!
*Rapes*
Im tired, well thats not an excuse as I dont know how to spell it anyway, I wont use lubricant as it takes away the rush.
What does that mean ?
It's better because the gameplay was improved with the addition of the MGS2 moves, and ease of movement was helped by the gamecube controller and the animation was made more fluid and lifelike. The graphics were far superior, and the cutscenes were more fleshed out and interesting. They improved every aspect of the game that you can improve.
You are really sad if you're nitpicking because they changed some of the art direction. If the cutscenes had always been like they are in the Twin Snakes you wouldn't complain and you know it. They're more interesting and they're far more adrenaline filled. If you want to cry because tiny elements of the story were changed "waaaah snake can dodge bullets what thats ridiculous!!!!" - the whole game is fantasy, for god's sake, why are you arguing about realism? How on earth did they get a tank into that minefield? How come Ocelot can take so many bullets and not die? It's a GAME, not the Bible.
Pretty much everyone who played it thought that it was far superior in every possible way, you really do look pathetic picking hols in a game like this, just give it up.
You are really sad if you're nitpicking because they changed some of the art direction. If the cutscenes had always been like they are in the Twin Snakes you wouldn't complain and you know it. They're more interesting and they're far more adrenaline filled. If you want to cry because tiny elements of the story were changed "waaaah snake can dodge bullets what thats ridiculous!!!!" - the whole game is fantasy, for god's sake, why are you arguing about realism? How on earth did they get a tank into that minefield? How come Ocelot can take so many bullets and not die? It's a GAME, not the Bible.
Pretty much everyone who played it thought that it was far superior in every possible way, you really do look pathetic picking hols in a game like this, just give it up.
Adrenaline ? This is an immature thing to say. The graphics and gameplay of MGS2 are now pointless to be added to MGS1 , because now MGS3 has both better graphics and gameplay.I wasn't talking about realism at all. I was talking about the kind of impression left in the player's mind about each character. The parts that contained fantasy in the original game were beautiful because they were unexpected, besides they didn't give Snake any improved abilities. And that's why Fox's appearance at the end was beautiful, it actualy made us feel that he saved Snake. Snake's limited abilities in the first made him feel helpless infront of the powerful REX, and that is why Fox's superior abilities made a difference. While in The Twin Snakes it didn't make such a difference, it seemed that Snake was going to manage anyway. Also, Ocelot, Sake, and all the Bosses could take many bullets only during the gameplay just to make the game harder. The cutscenes were based on the fact that one bullet can kill anyone, and that's why Snake gave up to the soldiers after fighting Sniper Wolf for the first time. If the gameplay rules like the health bar applied in the cutscenes, then Snake wouldn't have given up and all what he had to do is keep fighting and lose some health and after he kills them he uses some rations to compensate for the health loss. But no, that's not what happened because one bullet could kill him. Besides it doesn't make any difference because as I've already said: It's not about realism. It's about impressions, eamotions, and feelings. I don't know you, but when I play Metal Gear Solid, I'm not looking for action. What I'm looking for is something artistic. Something that can move my feelings. It has never been about action. To make it simpler: Did you watch The Matrix ? Imagine 2 ways that the movie through 2 ways:
1- The way it was actually done. Neo Keeps struggling through the entire movie. His minds keeps becoming free slowly, until 2 scenes:were he was on top of the building, do you remember that famous scene where he dodges ? That came as a complete surprise, everybody is dazzled the first time they see the movie when they see the scene. The second scene is in the subway station. Throughout the whole movie everybody kept telling him that as soon as he sees an agent he should run like hell. They told him that nobody has ever survived an agent, EVER. Agents punch through concrete walls, people who shoot them and hit nothing but plain air. Neo, who was one of those regular people, at the subway, knowing all that, refused to run. He stood right there, and he decided to fight. And he struggles, and everytime he falls, he rises again , and never gives up, and despite the agent's strength and speed , Neo made one hell of a performance, and that's what made this scene special. This was the first case the movie could have been done, and that's how they did it, and that's what made those scenes special.
2- Imagine: What if Neo beleived from the beginning that he was the one, and what if he could free his mind completely right from the start ? He would keep dodging, killing agents, and do anything he wants, like in The Matrix Reloaded. Imagine the previous scenes but on this setting. Neo dodges bullets. So what's new ? Neo killed agent Smith. So what ? That's boring. We already know that he is the one, so he can kill agents, and doesn't even have to dodge bullets, making the whole scene pointless, that is offcourse based on the assumption that he became the one from the beginning.
Now what do you prefer ? First case represents the original Metal Gear Solid. The way it was originally created by a genius. The second case represents Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, where all elements of surprise vanished, and where the spectacular and heroic scene became absolutely pointless. I don't know about you , but, I'd definitly choose first case.
1- The way it was actually done. Neo Keeps struggling through the entire movie. His minds keeps becoming free slowly, until 2 scenes:were he was on top of the building, do you remember that famous scene where he dodges ? That came as a complete surprise, everybody is dazzled the first time they see the movie when they see the scene. The second scene is in the subway station. Throughout the whole movie everybody kept telling him that as soon as he sees an agent he should run like hell. They told him that nobody has ever survived an agent, EVER. Agents punch through concrete walls, people who shoot them and hit nothing but plain air. Neo, who was one of those regular people, at the subway, knowing all that, refused to run. He stood right there, and he decided to fight. And he struggles, and everytime he falls, he rises again , and never gives up, and despite the agent's strength and speed , Neo made one hell of a performance, and that's what made this scene special. This was the first case the movie could have been done, and that's how they did it, and that's what made those scenes special.
2- Imagine: What if Neo beleived from the beginning that he was the one, and what if he could free his mind completely right from the start ? He would keep dodging, killing agents, and do anything he wants, like in The Matrix Reloaded. Imagine the previous scenes but on this setting. Neo dodges bullets. So what's new ? Neo killed agent Smith. So what ? That's boring. We already know that he is the one, so he can kill agents, and doesn't even have to dodge bullets, making the whole scene pointless, that is offcourse based on the assumption that he became the one from the beginning.
Now what do you prefer ? First case represents the original Metal Gear Solid. The way it was originally created by a genius. The second case represents Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, where all elements of surprise vanished, and where the spectacular and heroic scene became absolutely pointless. I don't know about you , but, I'd definitly choose first case.
"beautiful" it's a game, it's fantasy, what's your problem? The characters were good, the cutscenes were more exciting. And was MGS3 out when Twin Snakes was released? And how is talking about "adrenaline" immature? You really do say some odd stuff
The storyline in MGS isn't good enough to quibble over petty changes in art direction. It's good, but it's not great. Obviously you have some sort of passion for it, but I think alsmot everybody felt that the Twin Snakes was an improvement.
Isn't it possible that the reason that you lost the surprise in the Twin Snakes because you already knew the story? The gameplay of Twin Snakes is better it's actually more enjoyable to play. You can argue about the cutsccenes all day, but I don't buy games because they have amazing storylines, because hardly any games do, and Metal Gear isn't one of them. It's cinematic, it's involving, but the characters were never as wonderful as you seem to think, they were all prety clichéd.
gerrid wrote:
> "beautiful" it's a game, it's fantasy, what's your problem?
> The characters were good, the cutscenes were more exciting. And was
It's not about excietment.
> MGS3 out when Twin Snakes was released? And how is talking about
But eventually it will be released, and when that happens the gameplay of the Twin Snakes will not make any difference.
> "adrenaline" immature? You really do say some odd stuff
It's not odd, it's mature.
gerrid wrote:
> The storyline in MGS isn't good enough to quibble over petty changes
> in art direction. It's good, but it's not great.
It's the greatest. It's the best, of all time.
>Obviously you have
> some sort of passion for it, but I think alsmot everybody felt that
> the Twin Snakes was an improvement.
Yes, I do have a passion for it. And maybe all regular gamers think it's an improvement, but obviously Konami don't. If this Ryuhei Kitamura was any good then why was MGS3 directed by Hideo Kojima ? Ryuhei Kitamura isn't even 1/10 as good as Hideo Kojima. Ryuhei Kitamura is just another action director, Hideo Kojima is an artist.
gerrid wrote:
> Isn't it possible that the reason that you lost the surprise in the
> Twin Snakes because you already knew the story?
No, because whenever I play the original, I feel it's magic every single time, and I never get bored of it.
>The gameplay of Twin
> Snakes is better it's actually more enjoyable to play.
And ? So what ? The gameplay has never been the most powerfuk point about any of The Metal Gear games. It has always been the brilliant story and direction that made every title so famous in the first place. Besides, as I said before, 2 months later no one would want to play The Twin Snakes for it's gameplay, because there will be MGS3.
>You can argue
> about the cutsccenes all day, but I don't buy games because they have
> amazing storylines,
Well I do.
>because hardly any games do,
Actually most Japanese games do.
> and Metal Gear isn't
> one of them.
It's the best one of them.
> It's cinematic, it's involving, but the characters were
> never as wonderful as you seem to think, they were all prety
> clichéd.
Yes they are. Actually ever since MGS1 was released Yoji Shinka was acclaimed the best video games character designer on par with Tetsuya Nomura , the designer of Final Fantasy characters.
> "beautiful" it's a game, it's fantasy, what's your problem?
> The characters were good, the cutscenes were more exciting. And was
It's not about excietment.
> MGS3 out when Twin Snakes was released? And how is talking about
But eventually it will be released, and when that happens the gameplay of the Twin Snakes will not make any difference.
> "adrenaline" immature? You really do say some odd stuff
It's not odd, it's mature.
gerrid wrote:
> The storyline in MGS isn't good enough to quibble over petty changes
> in art direction. It's good, but it's not great.
It's the greatest. It's the best, of all time.
>Obviously you have
> some sort of passion for it, but I think alsmot everybody felt that
> the Twin Snakes was an improvement.
Yes, I do have a passion for it. And maybe all regular gamers think it's an improvement, but obviously Konami don't. If this Ryuhei Kitamura was any good then why was MGS3 directed by Hideo Kojima ? Ryuhei Kitamura isn't even 1/10 as good as Hideo Kojima. Ryuhei Kitamura is just another action director, Hideo Kojima is an artist.
gerrid wrote:
> Isn't it possible that the reason that you lost the surprise in the
> Twin Snakes because you already knew the story?
No, because whenever I play the original, I feel it's magic every single time, and I never get bored of it.
>The gameplay of Twin
> Snakes is better it's actually more enjoyable to play.
And ? So what ? The gameplay has never been the most powerfuk point about any of The Metal Gear games. It has always been the brilliant story and direction that made every title so famous in the first place. Besides, as I said before, 2 months later no one would want to play The Twin Snakes for it's gameplay, because there will be MGS3.
>You can argue
> about the cutsccenes all day, but I don't buy games because they have
> amazing storylines,
Well I do.
>because hardly any games do,
Actually most Japanese games do.
> and Metal Gear isn't
> one of them.
It's the best one of them.
> It's cinematic, it's involving, but the characters were
> never as wonderful as you seem to think, they were all prety
> clichéd.
Yes they are. Actually ever since MGS1 was released Yoji Shinka was acclaimed the best video games character designer on par with Tetsuya Nomura , the designer of Final Fantasy characters.
homosh wrote:
>
> But eventually it will be released, and when that happens the
> gameplay of the Twin Snakes will not make any difference.
So I should wait ten years for a new version of a fun game to ocme out rather than buying the fun one that's out now?
MAKES SENSE!
>
> But eventually it will be released, and when that happens the
> gameplay of the Twin Snakes will not make any difference.
So I should wait ten years for a new version of a fun game to ocme out rather than buying the fun one that's out now?
MAKES SENSE!
Page: