The "Retro Game Reviews" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops'.
A "Metal Gear Solid" game on a PSP game you say? Yes, yes it this. Thought this is not quiet Metal Gear Solid, it doesn’t feel like Metal Gear Solid, but it may look so. You will see what I mean as you shovel through the review.
Gameplay is extremely frustrating, that it self some people consider as a boss. The camera angle is the main problem of the whole game, it's impossible in some cases for an enemy not to see you, due to the crappy camera angle setup. For example walking up the stairs it self is a task, it is impossible to see the enemy up the stairs; therefore you will be spotted before you know it.
One of the other main problems is the a.i, it's not very responsive at all. You could come from the side of the enemy, right in his face, and he won't see you. This is not the only problem, that was just one I thought of at the top of my mind. If I were to think up the whole list of a.i complaints I had, it would lead you right into next year.
It's also a very slow game. Things that were pulled off effortlessly is MGS1 on the PSX, are now much more frustrating to do. Lets take leaning on walls, I don't know why but that just got much harder. You could actually find yourself at the edge of the wall right were the enemy is, and Snake might run.
Most of the game revolves around getting from point A to B.
The analog, oh I don't know were to start... It's horrible. Just horrible. It's such a task to just move around with it. There is the option to change the d-pad to move Snake with, but there another problem within itself; the d-pad doesn’t even move diagonally...
Another change is that Snake doesn’t a built in half a tone storage anymore, were he could carry 25 guns + a rocket launcher and stinger missile. Now you only have 4 weapons to choose from. Weapons are also much harder to obtain, recruiting the right soldiers to get the weapon that you want. This may make the game much more realistic, but much more difficult.
All these things, they can ruin your experience, put you off and make you throw your PSP, but if you’re a determent fan you will keep trying. I myself don't know how the hell I managed to complete the game.
You will be p****d with the cut scenes, being cat scratch drawings. After all that hard work trying to beat that certain boss, the least you expect is a proper cut scene, not some half arsed drawing by a drunken hick. Really disappointing to not see cut scenes in full motion.
The story was perfect and amazing. It just didn't go through well with those cut scenes, it barely manages to get the message through. The story was the one thing to keep you going, it can be really gripping.
Also the music is astonishing. It makes the whole feel, cinematic, just how it should. Voice acting was just how I imagined the characters would sound.
The online mode is one of the best elements in the game. I found myself hooked onto it for hours. There are enough people on it, to have a nice few matches with. It is one of the best online games in my opinion. Too bad you’re limited to certain phrases "Hello". Example, person A says "Whats up", you cannot really reply because Konami have put in no answer in for that. Thats the problem in a lot of cases.
I would give the game a well deserved 7/10, only due to the Story, Sound and Online play. I would recommend you rent this game first, to see if it's your cup of tea.
Gameplay is extremely frustrating, that it self some people consider as a boss. The camera angle is the main problem of the whole game, it's impossible in some cases for an enemy not to see you, due to the crappy camera angle setup. For example walking up the stairs it self is a task, it is impossible to see the enemy up the stairs; therefore you will be spotted before you know it.
One of the other main problems is the a.i, it's not very responsive at all. You could come from the side of the enemy, right in his face, and he won't see you. This is not the only problem, that was just one I thought of at the top of my mind. If I were to think up the whole list of a.i complaints I had, it would lead you right into next year.
It's also a very slow game. Things that were pulled off effortlessly is MGS1 on the PSX, are now much more frustrating to do. Lets take leaning on walls, I don't know why but that just got much harder. You could actually find yourself at the edge of the wall right were the enemy is, and Snake might run.
Most of the game revolves around getting from point A to B.
The analog, oh I don't know were to start... It's horrible. Just horrible. It's such a task to just move around with it. There is the option to change the d-pad to move Snake with, but there another problem within itself; the d-pad doesn’t even move diagonally...
Another change is that Snake doesn’t a built in half a tone storage anymore, were he could carry 25 guns + a rocket launcher and stinger missile. Now you only have 4 weapons to choose from. Weapons are also much harder to obtain, recruiting the right soldiers to get the weapon that you want. This may make the game much more realistic, but much more difficult.
All these things, they can ruin your experience, put you off and make you throw your PSP, but if you’re a determent fan you will keep trying. I myself don't know how the hell I managed to complete the game.
You will be p****d with the cut scenes, being cat scratch drawings. After all that hard work trying to beat that certain boss, the least you expect is a proper cut scene, not some half arsed drawing by a drunken hick. Really disappointing to not see cut scenes in full motion.
The story was perfect and amazing. It just didn't go through well with those cut scenes, it barely manages to get the message through. The story was the one thing to keep you going, it can be really gripping.
Also the music is astonishing. It makes the whole feel, cinematic, just how it should. Voice acting was just how I imagined the characters would sound.
The online mode is one of the best elements in the game. I found myself hooked onto it for hours. There are enough people on it, to have a nice few matches with. It is one of the best online games in my opinion. Too bad you’re limited to certain phrases "Hello". Example, person A says "Whats up", you cannot really reply because Konami have put in no answer in for that. Thats the problem in a lot of cases.
I would give the game a well deserved 7/10, only due to the Story, Sound and Online play. I would recommend you rent this game first, to see if it's your cup of tea.
Page:
Must resist urge to retaliate and prove I am not a d*****s....
Ach, this is hard.
Ach, this is hard.
Revolver Ocelot wrote:
> Ninja_Reborn wrote:
> It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you
> stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it
> by calling me a fool.
> Now come on, really. Thats a very bad excuse. If you, for
> instance, had said "Thats a very dumb comment, not like
> you." or something along those lines, I would be wrong.
> But you didn't, you said I couldn't spell "realized",
> which was insulting my intelligence. Me calling you a fool was
> simple retaliation. And there is no way in hell you xould call
> this just a "discussion".
I don't remember directly calling you stupid, and I don't understand, your not even my girlfriend and your bitching at me... The word "stupid" isn't even supposed to be that offensive, c'mon dude what are you? Then you try to justify a spelling error which is clearly false.
I'm going to make a stop to this argument now, no more argument provocative replays. Petty arguments on forums go no where anyway.
> Ninja_Reborn wrote:
> It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you
> stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it
> by calling me a fool.
> Now come on, really. Thats a very bad excuse. If you, for
> instance, had said "Thats a very dumb comment, not like
> you." or something along those lines, I would be wrong.
> But you didn't, you said I couldn't spell "realized",
> which was insulting my intelligence. Me calling you a fool was
> simple retaliation. And there is no way in hell you xould call
> this just a "discussion".
I don't remember directly calling you stupid, and I don't understand, your not even my girlfriend and your bitching at me... The word "stupid" isn't even supposed to be that offensive, c'mon dude what are you? Then you try to justify a spelling error which is clearly false.
I'm going to make a stop to this argument now, no more argument provocative replays. Petty arguments on forums go no where anyway.
Ninja_Reborn wrote:
> It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you
> stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it
> by calling me a fool.
Now come on, really. Thats a very bad excuse. If you, for instance, had said "Thats a very dumb comment, not like you." or something along those lines, I would be wrong.
But you didn't, you said I couldn't spell "realized", which was insulting my intelligence. Me calling you a fool was simple retaliation. And there is no way in hell you xould call this just a "discussion".
> It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you
> stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it
> by calling me a fool.
Now come on, really. Thats a very bad excuse. If you, for instance, had said "Thats a very dumb comment, not like you." or something along those lines, I would be wrong.
But you didn't, you said I couldn't spell "realized", which was insulting my intelligence. Me calling you a fool was simple retaliation. And there is no way in hell you xould call this just a "discussion".
Revolver Ocelot wrote:
> I hate these conflicts, the forum members are too intelligent for
> a decent result to come.
>
> Okay, for firsts, nobody cares about a small spelling mistake.
> To point that out and to call me stupid was asking for an
> argument.
> I was trying to discuss a point in a friendly way, and for some
> reason you took it as a "challenge". I'm 12 and I
> could figure that out.
>
> Second, okay, you have a different point of view from me.
>
> A "one man's junk....." sort of thing, so that, as
> said before, made no need for you to insult me.
It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it by calling me a fool.
> I hate these conflicts, the forum members are too intelligent for
> a decent result to come.
>
> Okay, for firsts, nobody cares about a small spelling mistake.
> To point that out and to call me stupid was asking for an
> argument.
> I was trying to discuss a point in a friendly way, and for some
> reason you took it as a "challenge". I'm 12 and I
> could figure that out.
>
> Second, okay, you have a different point of view from me.
>
> A "one man's junk....." sort of thing, so that, as
> said before, made no need for you to insult me.
It was a discussion not an argument. And no I did not call you stupid, I called your comment stupid, then you jump started it by calling me a fool.
I hate these conflicts, the forum members are too intelligent for a decent result to come.
Okay, for firsts, nobody cares about a small spelling mistake. To point that out and to call me stupid was asking for an argument.
I was trying to discuss a point in a friendly way, and for some reason you took it as a "challenge". I'm 12 and I could figure that out.
Second, okay, you have a different point of view from me.
A "one man's junk....." sort of thing, so that, as said before, made no need for you to insult me.
Okay, for firsts, nobody cares about a small spelling mistake. To point that out and to call me stupid was asking for an argument.
I was trying to discuss a point in a friendly way, and for some reason you took it as a "challenge". I'm 12 and I could figure that out.
Second, okay, you have a different point of view from me.
A "one man's junk....." sort of thing, so that, as said before, made no need for you to insult me.
Revolver Ocelot wrote:
> Fool, don't insult someone if you're not sure you're right.
>
> Un-dumb
> word spelling
>
> And, that makes no sense. Better A.I would mean greater vision
> etc. on the gaurds. If its really hard because of the camera,
> then being able to walk beside them is a small benefit to you.
> Oh yes, and sorry for trying to comment on your review with some
> intellect, I promise it won't happen again.
3. To bring vividly to the mind.
If correcting your spelling is an insult let it be, plus don't try it, you were meant to use "realized" in that sentence not "realised", so don't try and justify something completely wrong, it makes you look even more stupid.
And better A.I is a good thing, it's what helps a game get a better score. I don't find walking right beside a soldier realistic.
And sorry for replying to your post and justifying what was said.
> Fool, don't insult someone if you're not sure you're right.
>
> Un-dumb
> word spelling
>
> And, that makes no sense. Better A.I would mean greater vision
> etc. on the gaurds. If its really hard because of the camera,
> then being able to walk beside them is a small benefit to you.
> Oh yes, and sorry for trying to comment on your review with some
> intellect, I promise it won't happen again.
3. To bring vividly to the mind.
If correcting your spelling is an insult let it be, plus don't try it, you were meant to use "realized" in that sentence not "realised", so don't try and justify something completely wrong, it makes you look even more stupid.
And better A.I is a good thing, it's what helps a game get a better score. I don't find walking right beside a soldier realistic.
And sorry for replying to your post and justifying what was said.
Fool, don't insult someone if you're not sure you're right.
Un-dumb word spelling
And, that makes no sense. Better A.I would mean greater vision etc. on the gaurds. If its really hard because of the camera, then being able to walk beside them is a small benefit to you.
Oh yes, and sorry for trying to comment on your review with some intellect, I promise it won't happen again.
Un-dumb word spelling
And, that makes no sense. Better A.I would mean greater vision etc. on the gaurds. If its really hard because of the camera, then being able to walk beside them is a small benefit to you.
Oh yes, and sorry for trying to comment on your review with some intellect, I promise it won't happen again.
Revolver Ocelot wrote:
> I should leave this but anyway.
>
> You say that the game is extremely hard because of the camera,
> yah?
>
> Then maybe they realised this and dumbed down the A.I so that
> the game would be a little more possible.
Not really, actually thats quiet stupid. Having better A.I, does not necessarily mean that the game will get harder, and why would they make it possible to come right next to the soldier, but to the side of him and not notice. Don't you think thats stupid, well maybe not to someone who can't spell realized....
> I should leave this but anyway.
>
> You say that the game is extremely hard because of the camera,
> yah?
>
> Then maybe they realised this and dumbed down the A.I so that
> the game would be a little more possible.
Not really, actually thats quiet stupid. Having better A.I, does not necessarily mean that the game will get harder, and why would they make it possible to come right next to the soldier, but to the side of him and not notice. Don't you think thats stupid, well maybe not to someone who can't spell realized....
I should leave this but anyway.
You say that the game is extremely hard because of the camera, yah?
Then maybe they realised this and dumbed down the A.I so that the game would be a little more possible.
You say that the game is extremely hard because of the camera, yah?
Then maybe they realised this and dumbed down the A.I so that the game would be a little more possible.
Shanty Claws wrote:
> You're saying that the game is really hard with the bad camera,
> so if the A.I. were better (More alert=catch you more.) then
> wouldn't the game be impossible?
Who said having better A.I would make the game impossible?
> You're saying that the game is really hard with the bad camera,
> so if the A.I. were better (More alert=catch you more.) then
> wouldn't the game be impossible?
Who said having better A.I would make the game impossible?
Page: