The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Nice, original title there, but I guess it's appropriate!
According to the reports of those that have played the demo, Metal Gear Solid 2 is looking very fine indeed.
What strikes me about the comments though, is the large variety of things you can do. Just looking at the thread "How do you kill yours" in the PS2 forum lists dozens of different things. Point a gun at them from close range, they'll put their hands up. Shoot them in the leg, and they won't stand on it. You can look in lockers, and hide bodies in them. You can hit your head on the locker doors if you're daft enough to try to get too close to a picture in one of the lockers ;-).
Now all of this got me thinking. It seems so much more involved than anything previously seen. I guess that the only limitation of the demo is that you're stuck within the boundaries of the ship.
But as time goes by, things will improve. The developers won't have to create levels that confine the players to such small areas, and I'm sure other levels of MGS2 will be much larger, this was after all, only the first level.
There are other improvements that can be made too, a shot in each leg, and one in the hand shouldn't kill a man, you should be able to torture them more before they die!
You should be able to pick up all objects, and have a good look at them. If they're useful, take them.
I'm not saying games should become ultra realistic, but it would be nice if advancements where made that made your character more versatile in attack, and more manouverable. The landscape should become more interactive. If you're walking through a grassy field in the morning, your shoes should get wet, and you should be able to pull up some of the grass. There should be realistic cloud movement, with it darkening, and breaking into rain. Your characters hair, or fur, should move in the wind, and after a bit of a run, or a fight, they should sweat, and look a little out of breath.
Games are going to keep on moving to new levels and I think the next step is development of what the characters can do, and their interaction with the environment around them. There are currently many barriers in these areas, but it looks like games such as Metal Gear Solid 2 will help to break these down.
According to the reports of those that have played the demo, Metal Gear Solid 2 is looking very fine indeed.
What strikes me about the comments though, is the large variety of things you can do. Just looking at the thread "How do you kill yours" in the PS2 forum lists dozens of different things. Point a gun at them from close range, they'll put their hands up. Shoot them in the leg, and they won't stand on it. You can look in lockers, and hide bodies in them. You can hit your head on the locker doors if you're daft enough to try to get too close to a picture in one of the lockers ;-).
Now all of this got me thinking. It seems so much more involved than anything previously seen. I guess that the only limitation of the demo is that you're stuck within the boundaries of the ship.
But as time goes by, things will improve. The developers won't have to create levels that confine the players to such small areas, and I'm sure other levels of MGS2 will be much larger, this was after all, only the first level.
There are other improvements that can be made too, a shot in each leg, and one in the hand shouldn't kill a man, you should be able to torture them more before they die!
You should be able to pick up all objects, and have a good look at them. If they're useful, take them.
I'm not saying games should become ultra realistic, but it would be nice if advancements where made that made your character more versatile in attack, and more manouverable. The landscape should become more interactive. If you're walking through a grassy field in the morning, your shoes should get wet, and you should be able to pull up some of the grass. There should be realistic cloud movement, with it darkening, and breaking into rain. Your characters hair, or fur, should move in the wind, and after a bit of a run, or a fight, they should sweat, and look a little out of breath.
Games are going to keep on moving to new levels and I think the next step is development of what the characters can do, and their interaction with the environment around them. There are currently many barriers in these areas, but it looks like games such as Metal Gear Solid 2 will help to break these down.
Page:
Only in the interests of raising my monkey.
That doesnt sound right does it?
Heck, I'll spank my monkey until it throws up if that's what is needed to make it work how I want to.
Nope, still wrong.
That doesnt sound right does it?
Heck, I'll spank my monkey until it throws up if that's what is needed to make it work how I want to.
Nope, still wrong.
You like spanking your monkey then do you goatboy?
:-)
:-)
Yeah Yeah, we all agree Myst blows.
But what about Black & White?
Meka raised a good point about training monkey to dung fling.
I am a wise and noble leader, and woe betide any villagers that do not worship me as the Ape-Shape approaches, pooping and scooping, hurling with deadly accuracy.
And it better learn fast, or I'll beat it like the red headed stepchild it is.
But what about Black & White?
Meka raised a good point about training monkey to dung fling.
I am a wise and noble leader, and woe betide any villagers that do not worship me as the Ape-Shape approaches, pooping and scooping, hurling with deadly accuracy.
And it better learn fast, or I'll beat it like the red headed stepchild it is.
Yep, that's Myst.
And after about 3 months of hard work, you finally get to the end, and the final outcome of the game (win/lose) depends on your last action, and there is NO CLUE AT ALL as to which of the two final options you have to choose from is the correct one.
So after all that discovering, button pushing, puzzle solving, water flowing, astronomy discovering, paper finding, door opening, book reading and everything else you did to get to the end, it all comes down to a 50:50 choice between one picture or another.
Tosh.
And after about 3 months of hard work, you finally get to the end, and the final outcome of the game (win/lose) depends on your last action, and there is NO CLUE AT ALL as to which of the two final options you have to choose from is the correct one.
So after all that discovering, button pushing, puzzle solving, water flowing, astronomy discovering, paper finding, door opening, book reading and everything else you did to get to the end, it all comes down to a 50:50 choice between one picture or another.
Tosh.
Unfortunately I've never played Myst, but a guy I work with once told me about how incredible difficult it could be. Something to do with pulling switches, or levers to change something or other, but you didn't know what until a couple of hours later after you'd done something else, so you had to undo what you'd just done, go back, and try a different lever!!
Sound about right?
Sound about right?
Agreed, but Myst?
FantasyMeister: Making sence of meka_dragons inane ramblings since 8/00
When it comes to the games becoming more complex, this would be down to the developers.
They may be able to create such puzzles, but as you say, what would be the point if it detracted from the gameplay?
What it could do though, is make the game more entertaining, as you'd always be finding new things, and new ways to take out the enemy.
Also, if the basic missions were still fairly straight forward, but there were many little sub-missions that involved finding the documents hidden in the pocket of the shirt hanging third from the back in the wardrobe on the left in the room with the green door, that would get you a higher ranking upon completion of the game, then people would try to complete them.
I doubt any developer would make something that tricky to find without giving you a little guidance. Maybe upon pointing a gun at someone, they'd hint at where the documents where hidden.
You'd know you had to try to get information from people because it would be listed as part of the mission.
When it comes to the games becoming more complex, this would be down to the developers.
They may be able to create such puzzles, but as you say, what would be the point if it detracted from the gameplay?
What it could do though, is make the game more entertaining, as you'd always be finding new things, and new ways to take out the enemy.
Also, if the basic missions were still fairly straight forward, but there were many little sub-missions that involved finding the documents hidden in the pocket of the shirt hanging third from the back in the wardrobe on the left in the room with the green door, that would get you a higher ranking upon completion of the game, then people would try to complete them.
I doubt any developer would make something that tricky to find without giving you a little guidance. Maybe upon pointing a gun at someone, they'd hint at where the documents where hidden.
You'd know you had to try to get information from people because it would be listed as part of the mission.
I think the kind of interactivity that Meka_Dragon is alluding to is a viable possibility in the future, however I agree with other points raised that there is only so much fun it can add to the gameplay.
What Meka seems to be visualising is a mix of Shenmue (interactivity with objects, different fighting moves) with the advanced AI of MGS and MGS2, which would make a game playable in so many different ways that there could be infinite ways of completing games in the future. A good thing.
However, that kind of complexity could detract from the gameplay, which is the most important factor of any game (easy to control? quick to get into? fun to play?).
With the MGS series, the more interactivity the better, but we are looking maybe 7-10 years before engines are developed that can make it possible and 5-10 years before consoles are developed that can handle the requirements of those engines.
There is also the risk of games becoming WAY to difficult to finish. Say a gun was hidden under the mattress of a bed, but you could only get in to that bedroom by finding the key which was locked in a locker which could only be opened if you killed someone just right so that they collapsed into the locker door and forced it open.
Annoying puzzlers are around like that today, Resident Evil is full of such tricks, albeit not as complicated or difficult to achieve.
I think maybe a whole new genre would have to be developed to handle this complex environment interactivity, a genre where moving the game onward does not just depend on actions in the environment happening in a specific sequence, or we could be left with games that are just too hard to complete.
What Meka seems to be visualising is a mix of Shenmue (interactivity with objects, different fighting moves) with the advanced AI of MGS and MGS2, which would make a game playable in so many different ways that there could be infinite ways of completing games in the future. A good thing.
However, that kind of complexity could detract from the gameplay, which is the most important factor of any game (easy to control? quick to get into? fun to play?).
With the MGS series, the more interactivity the better, but we are looking maybe 7-10 years before engines are developed that can make it possible and 5-10 years before consoles are developed that can handle the requirements of those engines.
There is also the risk of games becoming WAY to difficult to finish. Say a gun was hidden under the mattress of a bed, but you could only get in to that bedroom by finding the key which was locked in a locker which could only be opened if you killed someone just right so that they collapsed into the locker door and forced it open.
Annoying puzzlers are around like that today, Resident Evil is full of such tricks, albeit not as complicated or difficult to achieve.
I think maybe a whole new genre would have to be developed to handle this complex environment interactivity, a genre where moving the game onward does not just depend on actions in the environment happening in a specific sequence, or we could be left with games that are just too hard to complete.
You want to train a monkey to throw faeces?
Get a job in a zoo, I distinctly remember as a cub-scout, Guy The Gorilla doing just that at a bunch of cackling young lads banging on the glass.
Black and White has noble ideals and a grand scheme, but let's face it.
Who isn't going to raise a mean-a** gorilla that eats villagers and throws it's stink-loafs about?
Be Good - Be Evil
Be Childish
Get a job in a zoo, I distinctly remember as a cub-scout, Guy The Gorilla doing just that at a bunch of cackling young lads banging on the glass.
Black and White has noble ideals and a grand scheme, but let's face it.
Who isn't going to raise a mean-a** gorilla that eats villagers and throws it's stink-loafs about?
Be Good - Be Evil
Be Childish
Your Honour wrote:
I know its
> the future of gaming, but do you really want to be able to do
> ANYTHING in a game? Would that just make the whole gaming experience
> a lot more complicated and ultimately less fun?
I don't want to be able to do absolutely everything, just a little more interaction with objects and the environment
It may well for
> for some genres, but for others i think it would be a bad thing.
> Games like MGS, Goldeneye, Thief etc it would be great. What about
> games like AoE? Do you really want a game so lifelike that you have
> to wait 9 months for a new villager?
You're right, it doesn't work for RTS games, but I'm sure if implemented into the correct genres, it could be a lot of fun.
I'm not asking to be able to dress my character or anything like that, but if there's a window, I want to be able to peer through it. A vase, look inside it. A TV, switch it on.
Just little changes in the environment that will make people go "Have you tried switching the TV on? If you do a guard comes in. But rather than looking around, he watches the TV for a bit, so you can clock him!"
I know its
> the future of gaming, but do you really want to be able to do
> ANYTHING in a game? Would that just make the whole gaming experience
> a lot more complicated and ultimately less fun?
I don't want to be able to do absolutely everything, just a little more interaction with objects and the environment
It may well for
> for some genres, but for others i think it would be a bad thing.
> Games like MGS, Goldeneye, Thief etc it would be great. What about
> games like AoE? Do you really want a game so lifelike that you have
> to wait 9 months for a new villager?
You're right, it doesn't work for RTS games, but I'm sure if implemented into the correct genres, it could be a lot of fun.
I'm not asking to be able to dress my character or anything like that, but if there's a window, I want to be able to peer through it. A vase, look inside it. A TV, switch it on.
Just little changes in the environment that will make people go "Have you tried switching the TV on? If you do a guard comes in. But rather than looking around, he watches the TV for a bit, so you can clock him!"
Page: