The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Before I start I'm telling you that I have not played either of these games, but I HAVE played their prequels and read enough to give enough information for this comparison.
MGS2 is supposedly the PS2's biggest game and with everyone else doing their "MGS2 Vs ..." post's, I thought that I'd have a go! :-)
Now imagine that a PS2 and Gamecube merged into one console, a multiformat console you happened to own.
You recieve both MGS2 and Smash Brothers Melée on the same day. Which one gets in the most play time?
If you think about it, MGS is more like Zelda. It grips you into a story where you feel compelled to move forward.
I think that once you get sucked into MGS2, you'll want get hooked into the storyline and play to find what happens next.
I think that the fun frolicks of Smash Brothers might well take back seat during this time.
Despite it being great fun, it hasn't got the pulling power of a storyline so you'll find yourself going through MGS2 instead.
This phase will last about 10-15 hours until you complete it for the first time.
Then that's it.
The storyline pulling power of MGS2 is spent.
You'll still come back for the harder difficulty setttings, to find dog tags and to play with the enemy AI and just mess around in general but there will be little to make you feel that you MUST get back to the game.
This is when it loses it's dominance over Smash Brothers.
Although coming back to MGS2 will be reasonably entertaining, it won't be as fun as playing through Smash Brothers the first time and won't be able to touch the multiplayer.
Once Smash Brothers has been played through, the single player mode will lose it's pulling power and they'll both have an even chance of being picked from the shelf... unless you have friends/siblings to play in which case Smash Brothers wins hands down.
What's more, within about 2 months, you'll finished as much of MGS2 as you care for.
You'll probably have unlocked most of Smash Brother's secrets as well but while there are real opponents to play, you'll be playing this game for years, leaving MGS2 to more or less collect dust on the shelf.
So which one wins?
If you haven't got any friends/siblings to play against then Smash Bros.'s uninspiring single player mode can't begin to compete with the stealth mission.
BUT, if you have even just the one friend to play against, although you'll locked yourself away with Metal Gear Solid for the first week until you complete it for the first time, Smash Brother's will dominate from the moment you finish MGS and will hold that authority for years.
With 2 brothers and plenty of friends to battle against, Smash Brothers Melée is THE game I have.
I played the original's multiplayer almost as much as Goldeneye's and far more than Perfect Dark's.
Along with Monkey Ball it settles the Gamecube's place as THE multiplayer system to own.
Xbox's Halo might have a neat 16 player mode, but it takes more than just ONE decent multiplayer game to take the title.
MGS2 is supposedly the PS2's biggest game and with everyone else doing their "MGS2 Vs ..." post's, I thought that I'd have a go! :-)
Now imagine that a PS2 and Gamecube merged into one console, a multiformat console you happened to own.
You recieve both MGS2 and Smash Brothers Melée on the same day. Which one gets in the most play time?
If you think about it, MGS is more like Zelda. It grips you into a story where you feel compelled to move forward.
I think that once you get sucked into MGS2, you'll want get hooked into the storyline and play to find what happens next.
I think that the fun frolicks of Smash Brothers might well take back seat during this time.
Despite it being great fun, it hasn't got the pulling power of a storyline so you'll find yourself going through MGS2 instead.
This phase will last about 10-15 hours until you complete it for the first time.
Then that's it.
The storyline pulling power of MGS2 is spent.
You'll still come back for the harder difficulty setttings, to find dog tags and to play with the enemy AI and just mess around in general but there will be little to make you feel that you MUST get back to the game.
This is when it loses it's dominance over Smash Brothers.
Although coming back to MGS2 will be reasonably entertaining, it won't be as fun as playing through Smash Brothers the first time and won't be able to touch the multiplayer.
Once Smash Brothers has been played through, the single player mode will lose it's pulling power and they'll both have an even chance of being picked from the shelf... unless you have friends/siblings to play in which case Smash Brothers wins hands down.
What's more, within about 2 months, you'll finished as much of MGS2 as you care for.
You'll probably have unlocked most of Smash Brother's secrets as well but while there are real opponents to play, you'll be playing this game for years, leaving MGS2 to more or less collect dust on the shelf.
So which one wins?
If you haven't got any friends/siblings to play against then Smash Bros.'s uninspiring single player mode can't begin to compete with the stealth mission.
BUT, if you have even just the one friend to play against, although you'll locked yourself away with Metal Gear Solid for the first week until you complete it for the first time, Smash Brother's will dominate from the moment you finish MGS and will hold that authority for years.
With 2 brothers and plenty of friends to battle against, Smash Brothers Melée is THE game I have.
I played the original's multiplayer almost as much as Goldeneye's and far more than Perfect Dark's.
Along with Monkey Ball it settles the Gamecube's place as THE multiplayer system to own.
Xbox's Halo might have a neat 16 player mode, but it takes more than just ONE decent multiplayer game to take the title.
Page:
Res€vilfan wrote:
> Strafex get a life :-D
Who needs a life when you're getting a Gamecube?? :-)
> Strafex get a life :-D
Who needs a life when you're getting a Gamecube?? :-)
i vote to turn this into an official vote , by SR , it could be :
Single Player Adventures VS Multi player Madness !
whos with me ???!!!!
ok , maybe not.
Single Player Adventures VS Multi player Madness !
whos with me ???!!!!
ok , maybe not.
ssb. melee gets my vote. If only this were a vote.....
How can you compare two totally different games!!!! Both are good in different ways! (anyway Smash Bros. is A LOT more fun)
Strafex get a life :-D
You chimp! :-D
Didn't you actually read it?
I did state that MGS2 was a story based game and I therefore stated that it would be as addictive as Zelda.
You play it obsessively to complete it the first time and then although there's a few fun secrets, mini games, and other things to come back to, it loses it's big pulling power, and a fun multiplayer becomes so much more appealing.
And that was assuming that MGS2 is as compelling in story terms as Zelda is.
I wasn't putting MGS2 or Sony down at all.
I just stated a strong reason why I'd rather own a Nintendo system - multiplayer and lastability.
Didn't you actually read it?
I did state that MGS2 was a story based game and I therefore stated that it would be as addictive as Zelda.
You play it obsessively to complete it the first time and then although there's a few fun secrets, mini games, and other things to come back to, it loses it's big pulling power, and a fun multiplayer becomes so much more appealing.
And that was assuming that MGS2 is as compelling in story terms as Zelda is.
I wasn't putting MGS2 or Sony down at all.
I just stated a strong reason why I'd rather own a Nintendo system - multiplayer and lastability.
Strafex my only advice to you is to get some gaming experience behind you, You obviously know alot about Nintendo's games but you keep comparing them to games you don't know enought about. I've played on most of the systems out there and just added an N64 to my collection but you really should see both sides of things before you compare, in other words stop having a go at Sony's consoles before you've throughaly (can't spell it) played them.
Well that WAS what my topic said, Cooky... :-)
The real comparison was that THE major upcoming PS2 title was a short-term absorbing adventure for one player, while the game we were looking forward to on the Gamecube would last 50 times longer and represented Nintendo's strength on multiplayer games, and how multiplayer is better than solo player in so many ways.
As for Smash Brothers Vs Soul Calibre/Tekken/Dead or Alive/etc...
That argument is comparible to the Gran Tourismo Vs Mario Kart.
One is more realistic and considered mature.
The other is more playable, fast and fun but puts people off with cartoony graphics.
The real comparison was that THE major upcoming PS2 title was a short-term absorbing adventure for one player, while the game we were looking forward to on the Gamecube would last 50 times longer and represented Nintendo's strength on multiplayer games, and how multiplayer is better than solo player in so many ways.
As for Smash Brothers Vs Soul Calibre/Tekken/Dead or Alive/etc...
That argument is comparible to the Gran Tourismo Vs Mario Kart.
One is more realistic and considered mature.
The other is more playable, fast and fun but puts people off with cartoony graphics.
Bit of an odd choice of games to have a Vs isn't it?
You chose a stealth/action type game and a beat em up. Surely both games are aimed to appeal for different reasons. You would want to play Smash Brothers if you wanted to have a go on a beat em up, and so to have fun beating someone to death (well outta the arena), and you would play MGS for an action stelth experiance of being a secret agent trying to accomplish some mission.
There both quite different games, and you would want to play them at different times. I don't personally think you would ever have to chose between these two games, because if you owned both then you would play the one you were in the mood to play.
If you were comparing something like two beat em ups, then there might be the situation where you think do I play Smash Brothers or Soul Calibur. But that situation doesn't occur as much when your talking about games from different genres.
Also, I personally think that Smash Brothers has a far better replay value than MGS. MGS is one of those games that when you've finished it, you've finished it. There really isn't any reason to go back and play through it again. Well there's normally the added bonus of a new costume or something for playing through the game again, but personally I think that that is a bit of a feble excuse to make someone play through a game again. As for Smash Brothers though. There is loads of reasons to play the game over and over. There are something like 250 different trofies to collect during the game. These are obtained when playing through all the different play modes, and so you need to revisit lots of the different modes if you want to get all the trofies. Also there is the incentive to play through the main game quite a few times, because by doing so you will unlock more characters. Another thing Smash Brothers has going for it, is that instead of just the normal beat em up main game, there are some very good sub games. For example there is this mode where you play the game like a good ol' side scrolling platformer, much like Mario Brothers, and playing through that is very enjoyable!
So perhaps on a different note, if you do want to do Metal Gear Solid Vs Smash Brothers Melee then I'd say that Smash Brothers Melee would win, due to the fact that it will keep you playing and comming back to it a LOT more than MGS will!
:)
You chose a stealth/action type game and a beat em up. Surely both games are aimed to appeal for different reasons. You would want to play Smash Brothers if you wanted to have a go on a beat em up, and so to have fun beating someone to death (well outta the arena), and you would play MGS for an action stelth experiance of being a secret agent trying to accomplish some mission.
There both quite different games, and you would want to play them at different times. I don't personally think you would ever have to chose between these two games, because if you owned both then you would play the one you were in the mood to play.
If you were comparing something like two beat em ups, then there might be the situation where you think do I play Smash Brothers or Soul Calibur. But that situation doesn't occur as much when your talking about games from different genres.
Also, I personally think that Smash Brothers has a far better replay value than MGS. MGS is one of those games that when you've finished it, you've finished it. There really isn't any reason to go back and play through it again. Well there's normally the added bonus of a new costume or something for playing through the game again, but personally I think that that is a bit of a feble excuse to make someone play through a game again. As for Smash Brothers though. There is loads of reasons to play the game over and over. There are something like 250 different trofies to collect during the game. These are obtained when playing through all the different play modes, and so you need to revisit lots of the different modes if you want to get all the trofies. Also there is the incentive to play through the main game quite a few times, because by doing so you will unlock more characters. Another thing Smash Brothers has going for it, is that instead of just the normal beat em up main game, there are some very good sub games. For example there is this mode where you play the game like a good ol' side scrolling platformer, much like Mario Brothers, and playing through that is very enjoyable!
So perhaps on a different note, if you do want to do Metal Gear Solid Vs Smash Brothers Melee then I'd say that Smash Brothers Melee would win, due to the fact that it will keep you playing and comming back to it a LOT more than MGS will!
:)
Super Smash Bros Melee wins hands down!
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
Page: