The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I...again...can't choose, anyone else want to choose for me?
Page:
"What? They are two completely different games, what can Splinter Cell show Metal Gear with regards to cinematic presentation, an over the top but fantastic story, great characters, decent action sections, open level design that lets you approach each area without getting pushed down one corridor all the time. "
I thought metal gear solid was about the stelath and hiding? most people seem to think that MGS made the stealth genre sometimes. Granted the SC is linnear but then so is a decent rollarcoaster ride. You don't complain about that.
Metal gear solid seems to play lIKE
i THOUGHT MGS IS A STEALTH GAME. A STEALTH GAME MEANS USING STEALTH NOT RUNNING AROUND BLOWING STUFF UP. THATS NOT STEALTH THATS BEING RAMBO.
"that Metal Gear was the first stealth game back in 88 and then with the PSONE version it really brought the stealth genre to life"
MG questionable. MGS revolutionising the stealth genre? rubbish. Thief the dark project did that first on the pc. Use shadows and sound effects to create stealth. What did mgs use was just sight. You could easily have run behind someone and grapped them in mgs. They wouldn't even know what got them.
"This has to be the most amusing part of your reply. A challenge? You call Splinter Cell a challenge? Try playing Metal Gear on European Extreme with no radar to look at; that is a challenge. "
MOre like a poor attempt to actually make the game harder. Hey, looks like the radar is helping people. Splinter cell doesn't have a radar. You resort to sound and stealth to do anything.
In thief don't you shoot lights out? jeez. Some people.
Looking back, yes SC was slightly challenging. I didn't delete it. But i was stressing the point that some of the things that MGS use to make things challenging are simply things to annoy.
"Oh and the guys who worked on Pandora Tomorrow ripped everything from the original as the original team worked solely on the online play so instead of delaying it they handed the game engine over to a new team who basically created new back drops and the new features like the laser sight, swat turn amongst a couple of other things. It didn't force you to resort to stealth any more than the first,"
Most enemies go around in groups. If one goes down he begins radoing in. If the alrm sounds, they get better protected against armed assualts. Next time things get more difficult resorting to arms. Stealth is paramount if guns are required. As for the idea that its just a rehash. So was mgs2 a rehash of mgs2 with better graphics and added a couple of features. But then, why change a formula that works. But frankly mgs thinks it could do stealth. But theres flaws in their stealth work and they miss vital elements out.
I thought metal gear solid was about the stelath and hiding? most people seem to think that MGS made the stealth genre sometimes. Granted the SC is linnear but then so is a decent rollarcoaster ride. You don't complain about that.
Metal gear solid seems to play lIKE
i THOUGHT MGS IS A STEALTH GAME. A STEALTH GAME MEANS USING STEALTH NOT RUNNING AROUND BLOWING STUFF UP. THATS NOT STEALTH THATS BEING RAMBO.
"that Metal Gear was the first stealth game back in 88 and then with the PSONE version it really brought the stealth genre to life"
MG questionable. MGS revolutionising the stealth genre? rubbish. Thief the dark project did that first on the pc. Use shadows and sound effects to create stealth. What did mgs use was just sight. You could easily have run behind someone and grapped them in mgs. They wouldn't even know what got them.
"This has to be the most amusing part of your reply. A challenge? You call Splinter Cell a challenge? Try playing Metal Gear on European Extreme with no radar to look at; that is a challenge. "
MOre like a poor attempt to actually make the game harder. Hey, looks like the radar is helping people. Splinter cell doesn't have a radar. You resort to sound and stealth to do anything.
In thief don't you shoot lights out? jeez. Some people.
Looking back, yes SC was slightly challenging. I didn't delete it. But i was stressing the point that some of the things that MGS use to make things challenging are simply things to annoy.
"Oh and the guys who worked on Pandora Tomorrow ripped everything from the original as the original team worked solely on the online play so instead of delaying it they handed the game engine over to a new team who basically created new back drops and the new features like the laser sight, swat turn amongst a couple of other things. It didn't force you to resort to stealth any more than the first,"
Most enemies go around in groups. If one goes down he begins radoing in. If the alrm sounds, they get better protected against armed assualts. Next time things get more difficult resorting to arms. Stealth is paramount if guns are required. As for the idea that its just a rehash. So was mgs2 a rehash of mgs2 with better graphics and added a couple of features. But then, why change a formula that works. But frankly mgs thinks it could do stealth. But theres flaws in their stealth work and they miss vital elements out.
spoonbeast wrote:
> quite simply, metal gear solid wasn't up to scratch with splinter
> cell. Splinter cell showed us how metal gear solid could have been
> better.
What? They are two completely different games, what can Splinter Cell show Metal Gear with regards to cinematic presentation, an over the top but fantastic story, great characters, decent action sections, open level design that lets you approach each area without getting pushed down one corridor all the time.
Splinter Cell is completely one dimensional, the game forces you down not just one route but one street in order to get where you need to and providing you follow the 'shoot lights >> move to dark' routine the game offers little to no challenge at all. Metal Gear pulls of what it aims to do far more than Splinter Cell trying to create an open ended stealth game. It takes linear gameplay to whole new boring level unless you take it on LIVE.
MOre better illistation of stealth not some b movie crap
> where you can blow the living crap out of everyone.EDIT: Plus it
> doesn't use fixed camera angles that are sometimes useless to gain an
> upper hand or attempt to create surprises.
Again, surprise what? The majority of Metal Gear is pre-scripted so aside from the standard sneak, snap and move on to the next plot twist Metal Gear keeps the element of surprise to a minimum as it isn't an out and out stealth game, it is a mixture of stealth and action. The fixed camera works perfectly providing you don't approach the game expecting to utilise a 360 degree camera, it seems you want two games to have exactly the same attributes, hence not offering any different to a stealth genre marred by crap attempts to rip off Metal Gear, you are forgetting that that Metal Gear was the first stealth game back in 88 and then with the PSONE version it really brought the stealth genre to life.
Thats like what? a crap
> idea thats from the last century?. Thats not stealth thats being
> pathetic. Thats not having a challenge thats being annoying,
This has to be the most amusing part of your reply. A challenge? You call Splinter Cell a challenge? Try playing Metal Gear on European Extreme with no radar to look at; that is a challenge.
Splinter Cell is stupidly easy as you always have somewhere to hide and unlike the Thief games or even Manhunt you are always within a foot or so of a shadow and if not you can create your own by shooting lights out to guards turning round and saying "Oh it must be my mind playing tricks on me", yes of course it was, every light in the room was shot out and I heard gun fire, lets put two and two together and then slap the people who made the game for completely over looking the fact that Artificial Intelligence is a big part of today’s games, why do you think they are going to go with a dual CPU in the Xenon? There are reports that one will be used solely for in game AI. Far Cry and Riddick are two excellent examples of excellent enemy AI; it can't be over looked, especially in a game like Splinter Cell where you are relying on the game putting you in a realistic situation.
> As for splinter cell not being a challenge. I agree. Although
> Splinter cell 2 makes you resort to stealth much more which i like.
You contradict yourself, one minute you are saying Metal Gear is crap for not offering a challenge and then you go and say this...
Oh and the guys who worked on Pandora Tomorrow ripped everything from the original as the original team worked solely on the online play so instead of delaying it they handed the game engine over to a new team who basically created new back drops and the new features like the laser sight, swat turn amongst a couple of other things. It didn't force you to resort to stealth any more than the first, in fact the big outdoor environments made it far easier to just open fire and take down who you wanted without considering the use of stealth.
> quite simply, metal gear solid wasn't up to scratch with splinter
> cell. Splinter cell showed us how metal gear solid could have been
> better.
What? They are two completely different games, what can Splinter Cell show Metal Gear with regards to cinematic presentation, an over the top but fantastic story, great characters, decent action sections, open level design that lets you approach each area without getting pushed down one corridor all the time.
Splinter Cell is completely one dimensional, the game forces you down not just one route but one street in order to get where you need to and providing you follow the 'shoot lights >> move to dark' routine the game offers little to no challenge at all. Metal Gear pulls of what it aims to do far more than Splinter Cell trying to create an open ended stealth game. It takes linear gameplay to whole new boring level unless you take it on LIVE.
MOre better illistation of stealth not some b movie crap
> where you can blow the living crap out of everyone.EDIT: Plus it
> doesn't use fixed camera angles that are sometimes useless to gain an
> upper hand or attempt to create surprises.
Again, surprise what? The majority of Metal Gear is pre-scripted so aside from the standard sneak, snap and move on to the next plot twist Metal Gear keeps the element of surprise to a minimum as it isn't an out and out stealth game, it is a mixture of stealth and action. The fixed camera works perfectly providing you don't approach the game expecting to utilise a 360 degree camera, it seems you want two games to have exactly the same attributes, hence not offering any different to a stealth genre marred by crap attempts to rip off Metal Gear, you are forgetting that that Metal Gear was the first stealth game back in 88 and then with the PSONE version it really brought the stealth genre to life.
Thats like what? a crap
> idea thats from the last century?. Thats not stealth thats being
> pathetic. Thats not having a challenge thats being annoying,
This has to be the most amusing part of your reply. A challenge? You call Splinter Cell a challenge? Try playing Metal Gear on European Extreme with no radar to look at; that is a challenge.
Splinter Cell is stupidly easy as you always have somewhere to hide and unlike the Thief games or even Manhunt you are always within a foot or so of a shadow and if not you can create your own by shooting lights out to guards turning round and saying "Oh it must be my mind playing tricks on me", yes of course it was, every light in the room was shot out and I heard gun fire, lets put two and two together and then slap the people who made the game for completely over looking the fact that Artificial Intelligence is a big part of today’s games, why do you think they are going to go with a dual CPU in the Xenon? There are reports that one will be used solely for in game AI. Far Cry and Riddick are two excellent examples of excellent enemy AI; it can't be over looked, especially in a game like Splinter Cell where you are relying on the game putting you in a realistic situation.
> As for splinter cell not being a challenge. I agree. Although
> Splinter cell 2 makes you resort to stealth much more which i like.
You contradict yourself, one minute you are saying Metal Gear is crap for not offering a challenge and then you go and say this...
Oh and the guys who worked on Pandora Tomorrow ripped everything from the original as the original team worked solely on the online play so instead of delaying it they handed the game engine over to a new team who basically created new back drops and the new features like the laser sight, swat turn amongst a couple of other things. It didn't force you to resort to stealth any more than the first, in fact the big outdoor environments made it far easier to just open fire and take down who you wanted without considering the use of stealth.
Mav wrote:
> If you want absolute garbage, listen to spoonbeast.
>
> Wasn't going to post in here, but that had to be pointed out.
quite simply, metal gear solid wasn't up to scratch with splinter cell. Splinter cell showed us how metal gear solid could have been better. MOre better illistation of stealth not some b movie crap where you can blow the living crap out of everyone.EDIT: Plus it doesn't use fixed camera angles that are sometimes useless to gain an upper hand or attempt to create surprises. Thats like what? a crap idea thats from the last century?. Thats not stealth thats being pathetic. Thats not having a challenge thats being annoying, cheap and pathetic. Oh and whats your thoughts on MGS vs splinter cell? Oh i see: you haven't got one. It's better to illistrate your points as to why i'm wrong not just say it. Prove it.
As for splinter cell not being a challenge. I agree. Although Splinter cell 2 makes you resort to stealth much more which i like.
On the xbox i strongly recommend splinter cell for TRUE stealth not metal gear solid although its an alright game.
> If you want absolute garbage, listen to spoonbeast.
>
> Wasn't going to post in here, but that had to be pointed out.
quite simply, metal gear solid wasn't up to scratch with splinter cell. Splinter cell showed us how metal gear solid could have been better. MOre better illistation of stealth not some b movie crap where you can blow the living crap out of everyone.EDIT: Plus it doesn't use fixed camera angles that are sometimes useless to gain an upper hand or attempt to create surprises. Thats like what? a crap idea thats from the last century?. Thats not stealth thats being pathetic. Thats not having a challenge thats being annoying, cheap and pathetic. Oh and whats your thoughts on MGS vs splinter cell? Oh i see: you haven't got one. It's better to illistrate your points as to why i'm wrong not just say it. Prove it.
As for splinter cell not being a challenge. I agree. Although Splinter cell 2 makes you resort to stealth much more which i like.
On the xbox i strongly recommend splinter cell for TRUE stealth not metal gear solid although its an alright game.
Twin Snakes is both action and/OR stealth, depending on what you want to do. People are such morons when they say 'it's not stealthy enough!!!11' - If they tried, it is. And SC just sucks in the action bits, whereas MGS excels.
Both. Pandora Tommorrow online is class.
Both. Pandora Tommorrow online is class.
Mav wrote:
> If you want absolute garbage, listen to spoonbeast.
I especially liked the "if you want a challenge get Splinter Cell" comment. They are both mind numblingly easy to the point of being a joke.
Without a doubt Metal Gear however Splinter Cell 3 is looking decent, I just hope they can manage to string a decent, challenging and worth while single player campaign together now as both have been lacking this so far.
If we are narrowing it down to one game, Twin Snakes urinates on both Splinter Cell games from a great height. Online Splinter Cell is excellent but the single player is guff.
> If you want absolute garbage, listen to spoonbeast.
I especially liked the "if you want a challenge get Splinter Cell" comment. They are both mind numblingly easy to the point of being a joke.
Without a doubt Metal Gear however Splinter Cell 3 is looking decent, I just hope they can manage to string a decent, challenging and worth while single player campaign together now as both have been lacking this so far.
If we are narrowing it down to one game, Twin Snakes urinates on both Splinter Cell games from a great height. Online Splinter Cell is excellent but the single player is guff.
If you want absoloute garbage, buy Metal Gear Solid.
Both are completely different games. In my opinion:
1. MGS1
2. SC1
3. MGS2
4. SC2
1. MGS1
2. SC1
3. MGS2
4. SC2
If you want absolute garbage, listen to spoonbeast.
Wasn't going to post in here, but that had to be pointed out.
Wasn't going to post in here, but that had to be pointed out.
Splinter Cell easily.
if you want proper stealth get splinter cell.
If you want better gadgets, get splinter cell.
If you want a challenge get splinter cell.
If you want a decent control system, get splinter cell.
If you want decent graphics get splinter cell.
If you want xbox live support get splinter cell.
If you want poor AI, long boring cut scenes that break up the action, poor camera angles and card board boxe action, Buy metal gear solid.
If you want better gadgets, get splinter cell.
If you want a challenge get splinter cell.
If you want a decent control system, get splinter cell.
If you want decent graphics get splinter cell.
If you want xbox live support get splinter cell.
If you want poor AI, long boring cut scenes that break up the action, poor camera angles and card board boxe action, Buy metal gear solid.
Page: