The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Metal Gear Solid'.
Which one is better ?
Page:
Lukeman wrote:
> Ducking in Halo doesn't get the blood pumping! In the end you're just
> gonna run in and blow everything up anyway!
Yeah having you shield down to nothing with one bit of health left and avoiding those little pink homing shots flying about everywhere: definitely no rush there...
and as for needing tactics: try playing Halo on Legendary, you'll also be doing a lot of duck and cover on that setting.
> Ducking in Halo doesn't get the blood pumping! In the end you're just
> gonna run in and blow everything up anyway!
Yeah having you shield down to nothing with one bit of health left and avoiding those little pink homing shots flying about everywhere: definitely no rush there...
and as for needing tactics: try playing Halo on Legendary, you'll also be doing a lot of duck and cover on that setting.
There are so many games like that.
I.e, Thief, which is built upon stealth so much more.
I.e, Thief, which is built upon stealth so much more.
Ducking in Halo doesn't get the blood pumping! In the end you're just gonna run in and blow everything up anyway! Its when your lying wearing your leaf pattern camo in the high grass armed with a knife...and theres a gaurd three inches from you face with an AK-47, THATS where the excitement it. It's not like Halo where, if you're seen, you just blow everyone up with your machine gun. If ypou're discovered you stipl hjave to think tactically on MGS. Take out the guy who's seen you, or find the radio man and take out him. Use the first guy as a human shield as you try to find cover, grab the edge of a cliff as you run off it and hope the reinforcements arn't smart enough to look over the edge of a cliff...which is always a stupid move because they are..... the cut-scenes, for me, provide much needed releif from the "England V Brazil Penalties in world cup final" feeling the rest of the game gives you.
Lukeman wrote:
> The gameplay is so much deeper than MGS2.
> Using campuflage to hide from enemies as they walk inches in front of
> your face...there isn't much else ion the gaming world that'll get
> your heart pounding quite like that.
Thief, Deus Ex, Far Cry, Halo... infact any game that lets you duck and crouch to avoid being spotted by enemies.
> The gameplay is so much deeper than MGS2.
> Using campuflage to hide from enemies as they walk inches in front of
> your face...there isn't much else ion the gaming world that'll get
> your heart pounding quite like that.
Thief, Deus Ex, Far Cry, Halo... infact any game that lets you duck and crouch to avoid being spotted by enemies.
You can't aim and move in Resi 4? Hmmm might need a new example then: "It's like playing the early Zelda titles when you much prefer OOT", that'll do for now. Or perhaps coming back to the original Doom if you prefer Doom 3.
As for SNES titles: Most are fine but these early 3D games like MGS are poor by today standards.
Hardly that difficult to work out what I was saying and those examples of yours were REALLY reaching...
As for SNES titles: Most are fine but these early 3D games like MGS are poor by today standards.
Hardly that difficult to work out what I was saying and those examples of yours were REALLY reaching...
I love MGS, but as far as MGS2 goes, you're right. SC:CT is probably better. MGS2 was far too much like the original, the animations wern't good enough and the Radar made things too easy.
Metal Gear Solid 3, is an entirely different banana. If you've played it you know what I mean. The gameplay is so much deeper than MGS2. Using campuflage to hide from enemies as they walk inches in front of your face...there isn't much else ion the gaming world that'll get your heart pounding quite like that.
I think the absence of the Radar from MGS2 was a brilliant idea, and it really led to a much better, much more tactical game. Splinter Cell gets the edge on MGS2, but I think MGS3 devours the competition.
Metal Gear Solid 3, is an entirely different banana. If you've played it you know what I mean. The gameplay is so much deeper than MGS2. Using campuflage to hide from enemies as they walk inches in front of your face...there isn't much else ion the gaming world that'll get your heart pounding quite like that.
I think the absence of the Radar from MGS2 was a brilliant idea, and it really led to a much better, much more tactical game. Splinter Cell gets the edge on MGS2, but I think MGS3 devours the competition.
Hedfix wrote: (7/10/2005 3:58pm)
> Except those old SNES are better than current PSP titles.
SNES games? GOOD!
Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5:41pm)
> There's no competition though if you want realism and not something
> with too many elements harking back to the SNES.
SNES games? BAD!
> Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5.34pm)
> "So I'm in first person aim and yet I can't move?
> Great..."
MGS - you can't aim and move. BAD!
> Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5:45pm)
> It's like trying to play Resident Evil when you much prefer Resident
> Evil 4.
Resi 4 - you can't aim and move. GOOD!
"Black is only black if I support your side of the argument. Otherwise, black is - quite clearly - white."
> Except those old SNES are better than current PSP titles.
SNES games? GOOD!
Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5:41pm)
> There's no competition though if you want realism and not something
> with too many elements harking back to the SNES.
SNES games? BAD!
> Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5.34pm)
> "So I'm in first person aim and yet I can't move?
> Great..."
MGS - you can't aim and move. BAD!
> Hedfix wrote: (20/10/2005 5:45pm)
> It's like trying to play Resident Evil when you much prefer Resident
> Evil 4.
Resi 4 - you can't aim and move. GOOD!
"Black is only black if I support your side of the argument. Otherwise, black is - quite clearly - white."
homosh wrote:
>
> But it's still nowhere near MGS. MGS is closer to being a movie
> rather than a game.
Which is why replaying section is just watching long parts of a movie you've already seen that very day: it's boring.
> That's the biggest fu**load of crap I have ever heard.
No he's right, the MGS series seems to be stuck in some very old-school gameplay with some frustrating gameplay choices and fixed backgrounds (though maybe not in the latest one).
Like I said: playing an MGS game is like playing an original Resident Evil game when you much prefer Resident Evil 4, it's a major step backwards.
>
> But it's still nowhere near MGS. MGS is closer to being a movie
> rather than a game.
Which is why replaying section is just watching long parts of a movie you've already seen that very day: it's boring.
> That's the biggest fu**load of crap I have ever heard.
No he's right, the MGS series seems to be stuck in some very old-school gameplay with some frustrating gameplay choices and fixed backgrounds (though maybe not in the latest one).
Like I said: playing an MGS game is like playing an original Resident Evil game when you much prefer Resident Evil 4, it's a major step backwards.
homosh wrote:
> That's your personal taste. Some people prefer a movie-like scripted
> game, and realistic games aren't necessiraly everybody's favourite.
and some people prefer to actually play their video games rather than watch them.
But what's realistic by the way of alerting a base of terrorists, hiding in a locker for 99 seconds and them all deciding *sod this for a game of soldiers, he'll be back later let's just forget about him*
> That's your personal taste. Some people prefer a movie-like scripted
> game, and realistic games aren't necessiraly everybody's favourite.
and some people prefer to actually play their video games rather than watch them.
But what's realistic by the way of alerting a base of terrorists, hiding in a locker for 99 seconds and them all deciding *sod this for a game of soldiers, he'll be back later let's just forget about him*
All is good then :)
Page: