Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance or Splinter Cell?

L

Lefty

CAGiversary!
Both were 9.99 used at my local Hastings, and I only had 11.00, including 1.00 for bus fare home. So I got MGS2 and walked home. Did I make the right decision? Regardless, I'm getting paid 50.00 tomorrow and I'm gonna get Max Payne, State of Emergency, Splinter Cell, and Hitman 2 for 9.99 apiece. Thanks, Hastings used games!
 
Well i liked MGS 2 much better because it was a bit more action based while Splinter Cell seemed much more simulation based. I would imagine SC is a more rewarding experience because you have to do stuff perfectly, but if you don't have the patience, i doubt its for you.
 
You can't go wrong with either. They're both great games and I personally love them both equally.

As others have said though, Splinter Cell is for the patient gamer, whereas Metal Gear is a bit faster paced.
 
I thought Splinter Cell was way too rigid. All you did was exhaust every possible way of getting somewhere by trying everything you could think of, dying, and restarting from a checkpoint. Even using a walkthrough wasn't always helpful. I just thought it was too frustrating, and I even played the "easy" PS2 version.
 
I loved mgs2 while I though splinter cell was just too slow. The story of mgs2 is awesome despite the fact taht its aloittle bizare, an unless you have wet dreams about snake, raiden shouldnt bother you.
 
mgs2 all the way, i liked splinter cell but it cant compare to mgs2. theres more of a story line and the more games a lot more action oriented.
 
MGS2 let me play the game the way I wanted to (run in, guns blazing). Splinter Cell let me do that, too, but only if I liked seeing the Mission Failed screen a lot.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']I thought Splinter Cell was way too rigid. All you did was exhaust every possible way of getting somewhere by trying everything you could think of, dying, and restarting from a checkpoint. Even using a walkthrough wasn't always helpful. I just thought it was too frustrating, and I even played the "easy" PS2 version.[/quote]

You suck, that game wasnt that hard. I played both the gamecube and xbox versions on hard and I did pretty well. There was onely 1 part in the entire game when I didnt know what to do and had to ask someone, other than that the puzzles were not too hard to firgure out.
 
I am hopelessly addicted to MGS2, and will get Hitman 2 next because I played Splinter Cell at a friends and it was near-impossible. Maybe when I get better at sneaking around.
 
I have played MGS2 through it like 5 times. MGS 2 is so much better than Splinter Cell.

Splinter Cell pisses me off because of all the stupid keypads
 
MGS 2 all the way. i got it when it came out, $50. it was completely worth it. i wonder what my favorite game that winter was, FFX, MGS 2, or GTA 3.
 
I'm gonna get Max Payne, State of Emergency, Splinter Cell, and Hitman 2 for 9.99 apiece

dont get state of emergency! that game sucks and it only has 4 levels. i hope im not too late...

anyway i like both games but i think they are very different even though they are the top 2 "stealth" games.MGS2 lets you go guns blazin or you can sneak around and not be detected. either way it is extremely fun. splinter cell is usually not for casual or easily frustrated players. most of the people i know who enjoy and conquer splinter cell are hardcore gamers that can beat most games in the first few days they get it.
 
Splinter Cell is my favorite Xbox game, though I haven't played MGS2. Just ordered it from ebgames yesterday, so I'll be checking that out in a week or so.

I totally disagree with the comment about SC being about trying every possible thing you can think of to get past a level. To me the beauty of the game is that there is more than one way to get past almost every situation and it really rewards a thoughtful approach over running in with guns blazing.

For example if you see a gaurd on the fringes of a pool of light you can try sneaking up on him and grabbing him, just sneaking around him, throwing a bottle to the far side of him and hustling past when he turns the other way, or maybe shoot a distraction camera a little ways from him (in the dark) and knock him out/snipe him when he comes to investigate.
 
Splinter Cell, all the way. The best part of that game was figuring out how to get around difficult scenarios, it is much more of a thought-intensive game than MGS2. You're one lightly armed guy, trying to pick your way through a room full of guards. The intensity level is really unmatched by pretty much anything else on the market. After I beat the game, I looked forward to the Live expansion levels like nothing else.

Speaking of MGS2, I got about 3/4s of the way through the game before I threw in the towel. It was BORING. Don't get me wrong, the parts you actually played were pretty decent, but I was so sick of cutscenes I pitched the game on the shelf and never felt the urge to break it out again. I loved the original Metal Gear on the NES, BTW.

I turned 30 last week, so it's possible that MGS is for the younger crowd, and SC is for the "mature gamer". I have a 21 YO and 25 YO working for me, and neither of them really liked Splinter Cell all that much. Basically, it's not "run'n'gun" enough for them.

That said, I haven't yet bought Pandora Tomorrow. I'm STILL waiting for a cheap-ass deal! What's the story here? I have $73 worth of Best Buy certs, but I'm waiting for it to go on sale. I hate paying $50 for a game, regardless of how badly I want it. The fact that I'm still playing Ninja Gaiden has something to do with this as well (on chapter 12, so I'm getting close to the end).
 
well to me MGS2 was just less frustrating, were as SC was really pissing me off. The controls for a game that relies on persion, were whacked out. Shooting a light bulb takes 5 or 6 shots, and getting a head shot on a guard is near-impossible. As far as realism goes, there both far from it, SC's not very realistic at all, its just a slower more thoughtful game, that forced you to use trial and error a whole lot.
 
I didn't get State of Emergency, the pawn shop had already sold it. I was going to get it because I had heard that the multiplayer was fun and it was cheap. Anyway, I got Max Payne and Hitman 2 and I'm looking forward to playing them when I finish MGS2.
 
Splinter Cell is a great game, but MGS2 is much more suited for me because it doesn't frustrate me as much as Splinter Cell did. I recently played Pandora Tomorrow and first level itself almost made me want to throw my controller.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']well to me MGS2 was just less frustrating, were as SC was really pissing me off. The controls for a game that relies on persion, were whacked out. Shooting a light bulb takes 5 or 6 shots, and getting a head shot on a guard is near-impossible.[/quote]

With just the pistol (or the other gun non-zoomed) it *is* near impossible to hit a bulb or make a head shot unless you are VERY close.

But with the SC-200K (or whatever it's called) you can zoom into sniper mode and make those shots. You don't have that gun until a few missions in and I personally didn't realize you could zoom with the thing until I RTFM. I was on the 3rd to last mission at the time and damn would a few of those earlier missions been easier if I had known to zoom. :lol:

Although it does make for an interesting challenge. See if you can play through the entire game without going to sniper mode once. Some of the later missions would be nearly impossible in certain places without it. But I got almost to the end (on Normal) without using it.
 
Wow, I liked Splinter Cell over MGS2...doesn't seem to be the general concensus (how the hell do you spell concensus?) here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top