The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance is nearly upon us. In essence, it contains all of the original Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty game, plus extras which you can access from the main menu:
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Page:
Darwock wrote:
> Good grief, the same people who moan about the lack of gameplay in
> MGS2 are now saying 'whats the point in the VR missions'????
For the record, I am not one of those people - I enjoyed MGS2 just the way it was. But I didn't want the VR missions for the first game, and the same applies now.
> Good grief, the same people who moan about the lack of gameplay in
> MGS2 are now saying 'whats the point in the VR missions'????
For the record, I am not one of those people - I enjoyed MGS2 just the way it was. But I didn't want the VR missions for the first game, and the same applies now.
Darwock wrote:
> You're getting what you asked for.
Actually, I'm not personally. When the konami.jp website was requesting feedback both before and during the development of Sons of Liberty, I submitted tons of great ideas and absolutely none of my them were used.
I mean, what was wrong with my "MGS: Dance Beat with the dancemat peripheral box-set" invention? Then there was "Snake-a-vision: Fantavision without the fireworks but using Stinger Missiles instead" idea which didn't even warrant a mention. Cream of the crop was "Snake Racing 4x4" based on the London to Brighton Vintage Car Rally, but I didn't even get a thankyou from Hideo on that one. Maybe he was jealous that my visions of games development were more developed than his.
> You're getting what you asked for.
Actually, I'm not personally. When the konami.jp website was requesting feedback both before and during the development of Sons of Liberty, I submitted tons of great ideas and absolutely none of my them were used.
I mean, what was wrong with my "MGS: Dance Beat with the dancemat peripheral box-set" invention? Then there was "Snake-a-vision: Fantavision without the fireworks but using Stinger Missiles instead" idea which didn't even warrant a mention. Cream of the crop was "Snake Racing 4x4" based on the London to Brighton Vintage Car Rally, but I didn't even get a thankyou from Hideo on that one. Maybe he was jealous that my visions of games development were more developed than his.
I think it was more of a response to all the whingers who couldn't appreciate it for the masterpiece that it is and kept going on about the cutscenes.
You're getting what you asked for.
You're getting what you asked for.
I personally think this was the plan all along.
Release MGS2 incomplete (minus VR missions) and they knew it would sell like anything regardless.
Leave it a year, then re-release with the bits missing and voila! Stupid people buying it again.
I thought MGS2 was alright. The Tanker level was excellent but the rest of it just bored me. The demo that came with Zone of Enders had the best bit of the game.
Sneak CUT SCENE Sneak CUT SCENE pick up controller CUT SCENE move 2 steps forward CUT SCENE turn corner CUT SCENE
VR missions do not a good game make.
Silent Hill 3 - now there's a game I'm hankering for
Release MGS2 incomplete (minus VR missions) and they knew it would sell like anything regardless.
Leave it a year, then re-release with the bits missing and voila! Stupid people buying it again.
I thought MGS2 was alright. The Tanker level was excellent but the rest of it just bored me. The demo that came with Zone of Enders had the best bit of the game.
Sneak CUT SCENE Sneak CUT SCENE pick up controller CUT SCENE move 2 steps forward CUT SCENE turn corner CUT SCENE
VR missions do not a good game make.
Silent Hill 3 - now there's a game I'm hankering for
Yeah, that's the crux of my dilemma. The VR missions rocked, but I'm desperately hoping Konami won't make me pay £40 to play them. £20 yeah, I'd find that acceptable.
Maybe they've done something else to the game that they haven't let on to the press that have previewed the game so far. But it would have to be a major something, and they'd have to reveal what it is before releasing the game.
I don't understand why they couldn't release the extras as a standalone disc for £20 anyhow, afterall, any data that it needs to communicate to the main game and vice versa could be done via the PS2's memory or via the PS2 memory card itself? C'mon Konami, you know you want to...
Maybe they've done something else to the game that they haven't let on to the press that have previewed the game so far. But it would have to be a major something, and they'd have to reveal what it is before releasing the game.
I don't understand why they couldn't release the extras as a standalone disc for £20 anyhow, afterall, any data that it needs to communicate to the main game and vice versa could be done via the PS2's memory or via the PS2 memory card itself? C'mon Konami, you know you want to...
Good grief, the same people who moan about the lack of gameplay in MGS2 are now saying 'whats the point in the VR missions'????
Did none of you ever play Special Missions on the PS1? It takes all the fantastic stealth elements of MGS and makes PURE GAMEPLAY out of it. With a game system as advanced as MGS2 (shadows, damp floors, radio communication etc) the possibilities for a cracking game are immense.
I have a friend who's never played MGS2 so I may sell him my copy for a tenner or so and buy substance. But I'm definitely getting it.
Did none of you ever play Special Missions on the PS1? It takes all the fantastic stealth elements of MGS and makes PURE GAMEPLAY out of it. With a game system as advanced as MGS2 (shadows, damp floors, radio communication etc) the possibilities for a cracking game are immense.
I have a friend who's never played MGS2 so I may sell him my copy for a tenner or so and buy substance. But I'm definitely getting it.
Nope, going back to what I said in my previous post, cut scenes etc etc have ruined that whole game for me, in fact I don't think I'll ever buy another MGS title again.
Unlikely, for me anyway.
Would you guys buy it if it was being sold at £19.99?
Metal Gear Solid 2 sorta made me lose taste for Solid Snake and his many adventures. The first one was a pure classic, but the second one received too much hype.
And as for Substance?..it can lick my big manly balls. And here's me thinking it was released ages ago and slowly deteriated in the flaming gutters of tripe.
And as for Substance?..it can lick my big manly balls. And here's me thinking it was released ages ago and slowly deteriated in the flaming gutters of tripe.
Page: