MSG4 on 360?

Who cares? If it happens, then it will happen. No one is going to fess up to it right now....If you would have asked 2K Boston/2K Australia on August 27th, 2007 if Biosock would EVER see the light of day on PS3 they would have laughed in your face....people sign contracts and non disclosure agreements.....they can't be indifferent because that would cause us to question them...so they have to deny rumors.....I don't give 2 shits about the MGS series but IF it comes to the 360 and I can eventually pick it up for under $20 I will just to see what the hype is about...
 
[quote name='SmokyPreacher']I know there hasn't been any official announcements, but do you yourself and eye think that MSG4 will ever come to 360? I think I read that they hinted at it but nothing more came of it. I would love to get it on da box because sorry ps3 owners/fanboys but that game alone isn't enough for me to go drop another $400+ when there aren't nearly any other games I'm remotely interested and most of which are already on/coming to the 360.[/quote]


I have the same exact mind set as you..

MGS 4 looks very good but I dont wanna drop $400+ on a MGS 4/PS3 bundle for just one game also. The other game that looks good that Ive played was Gran Turismo and thats only 2 games I like. All the rest look ok but most are Multi platform.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']No one really cared about MGS3, hence no need for a port (not to mention it barely qualifies as a MGS game).

I'd say it's likely we'll have a port of MGS4 on some sort of system by the end of this decade. And even if we don't, it's really not worth owning a PS3 just for that one game.

If you're on the fence about getting a PS3 AND you're a huge MGS fan, don't even bother waiting, otherwise just forget the game even exists. There plenty of games on Wii / 360 that are just as good, if not better.[/quote]

They made an expansion for the 3rd one, which they wouldnt have done if no one cared for it. The new one is getting no less than 90% on any review, half of the reviews are 100%. Thats a pretty high benchmark. Regardless what biases you have, you cannot just pretend the game doesnt exist.
 
[quote name='oasisboy']Superior because it plays Blu-Ray movies? :applause:

Just add an external Blu-Ray player to a 360 and you have the same thing as a PS3. Maybe on specs the PS3 might be better than a 360 but overall on games and LIVE experience is not even close to a 360.[/quote]


You are right, it is not close, Playstation Network doesnt have 10 year olds cussing racial slurs and calling you a homosexual every 10 seconds when you play online. Ive been playing online with the 360 since very early 06, and it really is pathetic what you experience playing online, and how you think of gamers after hearing this garbage. Its cut down my online play time to nearly nothing on the 360. I play online with the PS3 all the time, especially games like Tekken 5 1080p Online and it is wonderful. When it comes to playing games online, 10 out of 10 times, i prefer the PS3.
 
"I don't want a crappy console for only 1 good game!"

Alright, we got it your a 360 fanboy and hate the PS3. But, please add, "There is only 1 good game TO ME." There are plenty of games on the PS3 that I love.

And MGS4 is only one of them.

You are right, it is not close, Playstation Network doesnt have 10 year olds cussing racial slurs and calling you a homosexual every 10 seconds when you play online. Ive been playing online with the 360 since very early 06, and it really is pathetic what you experience playing online, and how you think of gamers after hearing this garbage. Its cut down my online play time to nearly nothing on the 360. I play online with the PS3 all the time, especially games like Tekken 5 1080p Online and it is wonderful. When it comes to playing games online, 10 out of 10 times, i prefer the PS3.
Click to expand...

I would agree. It's nice playing online and not having a 10 year old kid telling you that, "You suck cocks!"

Maybe I should have gotten COD4 on PS3 so I could play a 1v1 game without 80% of the time someone saying, "Challenges?" "Headshots?" or just quitting. (And I actually have a check list to prove it...)
 
[quote name='SteveDaWonder']I do not think I would pick it up if I had a PS3, but I might pick it up for the 360...[/quote]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As for MGS, I would pick it up if I had a PS3 or got a PS3 for cheap. Problem is I really can't justify the purchase right now.

Exclusives wise, I'd say the PS3 has:

Socom
Killzone (very iffy, especially after the latest 1up hand-on preview which says the game felt repetitive once they started.)
MGS4

Of course that is my opinion.

As for those who say I forgot Resistance 2, I didn't. I didn't like Resistance 1 and although 60 players online is quite the feat, I like my multiplayer experiences to have traditional numbers (8-12 players) as it allows for some type of cooperation. a 30 v 30 math will just be a mess of gunfights.
 
I wouldn't buy MGS4 for any system as I'm not a fan of the series, and even if I liked it it would take a lot more than one personal must buy game for me to get the PS3.

It has no "must buy" games for me thus far, it has several games that I wouldn't mind to play--stuff like Drake, Ratchet, Resistance, Legendary Sword and so on. But those are all kind of lower interest, buy for $20 or less games.

But to say the PS3 has no games is silly. It has a ton of games, and a good deal of very highly reviewed games. Just because they're not my cup of tea, or aren't AAA must haves doesn't mean I should say their are no games.

There just aren't enough to get me to think about buying one, especially given that I really don't need a second system since I don't game enough to keep up with all the games I want to play on the 360 as is.
 
[quote name='prmononoke']No. The game is too big for a DVD, and Kojima wouldn't water down the game.[/QUOTE]I think the problem is the cutscenes, not the game itself. And there are workarounds, including multi-discs and/or lowering the quality of the video.
 
Multi-discs would be the solution. No need to water down, or vastly degrade the graphics or cutscene. Just put it on a few discs.
 
[quote name='Hybrid5006']Lol... it would have to be on like 5 dvd's![/QUOTE]

I don't really understand why so many people think this would be a problem. If you have to switch the disc, big deal... I'm playing through on the PS3 right now, and I have to wait 3 minutes between every act anyway, what are the odds that I'm not going to get up and do something during those 3 minutes... Are we so lazy that switching a disc now would make a game bad?
 
[quote name='zzl365']I don't really understand why so many people think this would be a problem. If you have to switch the disc, big deal... [/QUOTE]

Exactly. The Final Fantasy games on the PS1 were 4 discs. It's not a big deal to have to switch discs a few times during a game.

But gamers have gotten lazier, fatter, and whinier since then, so they probably would bitch more. Though a lot of uproar over it (if it came to be) would be FUD from PS3 fanboys crying over losing the big, universally praised exclusive that "their" system finally has, rather than 360 owners who actually care about having to switch discs.
 
There are already multi-discs games on the 360: Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. Maybe others? It's a minor inconvenience.
 
[quote name='help1']As for those who say I forgot Resistance 2, I didn't. I didn't like Resistance 1 and although 60 players online is quite the feat, I like my multiplayer experiences to have traditional numbers (8-12 players) as it allows for some type of cooperation. a 30 v 30 math will just be a mess of gunfights.[/quote]
Do you bother doing a little research before putting down games based on your assumptions? It's not 30-on-30 gunfights, but each side's divided up into squads who get their own objectives to complete during the match.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3167708&p=37
 
[quote name='MisterHand']I think the problem is the cutscenes, not the game itself. And there are workarounds, including multi-discs and/or lowering the quality of the video.[/quote]

Are the cutscenes FMV or real-time as they mostly were in previous MGS games? If they're not FMV then the space taken by them shouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Do you bother doing a little research before putting down games based on your assumptions? It's not 30-on-30 gunfights, but each side's divided up into squads who get their own objectives to complete during the match.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3167708&p=37[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've been curious to see how that works out.

My concern is it would be too complicated for my liking. I like very simple online multiplayer, so a game with multiple objectives would probably have more of a learning curve and turn me off right from the get go.

But of course the game will have other modes besides the 30 on 30 multi-objective stuff, so no big deal.
 
[quote name='refusedchaos']it wont happen...and why would you want to play an inferior version of the game? you guys talk about economics and crap like that so give me a reason why 360 is getting Star Ocean and Tales? 360 rpgs always bomb in sales, yet they still do it. In addition, all you CAGs that are saying " blah blah blah, 360 has a bigger fanbase than ps3" it may be true in here but not so in Europe and Japan. in the end you guys need to face it that 360 cant have all the games.[/QUOTE]Exactly, all platforms deserve their own exclusives. I get tired of people complaining about games not coming to their platform. You either buy a particular platform to get it, or just deal without no. Not a single platform ever made has all the good games.

And by that one article, U.K. != Europe. U.K. = 25%-30% of Europe. The rest of Europe (like Italy, France, Spain, Germany, etc. is where PS3 is pretty strong, but not as popular as Wii).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I've been curious to see how that works out.

My concern is it would be too complicated for my liking. I like very simple online multiplayer, so a game with multiple objectives would probably have more of a learning curve and turn me off right from the get go.

But of course the game will have other modes besides the 30 on 30 multi-objective stuff, so no big deal.[/quote]
How is it too complicated? You get an objective, complete it, and then move on to the next one.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Do you bother doing a little research before putting down games based on your assumptions? It's not 30-on-30 gunfights, but each side's divided up into squads who get their own objectives to complete during the match.[/QUOTE]That's awesome. I'd love to see something like that in Gears of War 2.
 
[quote name='looploop']Are the cutscenes FMV or real-time as they mostly were in previous MGS games? If they're not FMV then the space taken by them shouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.[/quote]
I thought Kojima always used real-time cutscenes, therefore only needing the game engine to render the scenes. If that is the case, the game shouldn't need anymore then 4 discs. With proper compression and downsampling of the audio/textures, they could probably put it on 3 discs and put MGS Online on the 4th disc.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Do you bother doing a little research before putting down games based on your assumptions? It's not 30-on-30 gunfights, but each side's divided up into squads who get their own objectives to complete during the match.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3167708&p=37[/quote]

Sorry. I didn't bother researching because the first was lack luster, IMO.

Looking at that multiplayer setup, having all these different squads run around doing their own thing makes the game even less centralized, thus reinforcing my point of view. Also, it was probably fun for those editors because they are all together and cooperate. From what I hear, PSN users don't all have mics, which is to be expected since one doesn't come bundled ala the 360 (and even then, a lot of people don't use it).

Perhaps my opinion would be changed if I saw it in person.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']How is it too complicated? You get an objective, complete it, and then move on to the next one.[/quote]
So is it Good vs Evil, and then Good is divided up into squads of like 6 or something? Because it would be great to have an objective, and on the way your squad comes across another squad or two and they help each other out or something. I mean, imagine running by and seeing a squad getting ambushed...your squad comes along and takes out the ambushers...random but that sounds like a blast. Sort of a mini online world.
 
What we're going to be dealing with, and it's become prevalent in this generation, is the death of THIRD PARTY exclusivity. Let's be fair, as games become more and more costly to develop, companies are looking to recoup their investment as easily and quickly as possible. Let's look at right now and take the best example... GTA4. That amazing first day sales record? The huge volumes of games moving? Never would've happened if had launched only on the PS3. Surely it would've spurred on some PS3 sales, but it still would've taken Rockstar much longer to make that kind of money.

If anything, what we'll be moving towards, as much as I hate it... is the GTA4 formula. It launches on both, and then console manufacturers will pay out the ass for exclusive content for their respective system. THAT will be the new third party exclusivity. The games will all be there... but you get to decide which one you get based on the content. Just look at Soul Calibur 4... instead of being on only one console, they just have the exclusive characters. As much as I hate that that's where it's headed, I guarantee that's where we're going to end up.

Just from a cost standpoint, it's no longer effective to make a third party game exclusive, unless the console paid out a TON of money. Whether you admit it or not, it's insane to deny that MGS4 would've done WAY bigger numbers for Konami had it launched multi-platform. I don't say I agree that it should have, just that there's no denying it.

So, that's my take on things. Consoles will have exclusive first party games, and third party exclusivity will go the way of the dodo, replaced by exclusive content paid for by the console manufacturers. Look at most of the big third party franchises from yester-year... how many HAVEN'T gone multi-platform? Off the top of my head, looking at ones that HAVE: Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Devil May Cry, Grand Theft Auto, WWF Smackdown... these are some of the heaviest hitters of the last few generations, all now 100% multi-platform AFTER having been exclusive to one console (or, in some cases, MORE than one). RE, in particular, is interesting simply because they had gone ahead and signed an agreement with the least popular console of the last generation... and then very quickly realized what a mistake it was. They did everything they could to get out of it when they realized how great RE4 (lightning in a bottle) was. Now, if they had left RE4 on JUST the Cube, how much money would Capcom have missed out on? It's just good business.

Agree with me, disagree with me... that's just the way I see things. Third party exclusives, as much as I personally hate it, are an antiquated system and will disappear sooner rather than later.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']How is it too complicated? You get an objective, complete it, and then move on to the next one.[/quote]

Well, all the objectives are competing against each other.

That can easily become aggravating, and you know it. Its like when in Halo 2 you are trying to capture the flag on Foundation but its 4 team CTF Its no fun trying to capture the flag because when you get it, you have 3 other teams running after you. Conversely, when it is one team versus another, it is more clear cut, and the match up is more balanced. Since resistance will probably have more teams, it will be even more hectic. Maybe that is what you are into, so be it.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']So is it Good vs Evil, and then Good is divided up into squads of like 6 or something? Because it would be great to have an objective, and on the way your squad comes across another squad or two and they help each other out or something. I mean, imagine running by and seeing a squad getting ambushed...your squad comes along and takes out the ambushers...random but that sounds like a blast. Sort of a mini online world.[/quote]
That's one of the things mentioned in the preview, I think, that squads having trouble may call for help from a nearby squad to help them complete their objective.
 
[quote name='help1']Well, all the objectives are competing against each other.

That can easily become aggravating, and you know it. Its like when in Halo 2 you are trying to capture the flag on Foundation but its 4 team CTF Its no fun trying to capture the flag because when you get it, you have 3 other teams running after you. Conversely, when it is one team versus another, it is more clear cut, and the match up is more balanced. Since resistance will probably have more teams, it will be even more hectic. Maybe that is what you are into, so be it.[/quote]
What are you talking about? It's two teams, made of a handful of squads, facing off against each other.
 
IMO, they'll release MGS4:subsomething on the 360. When they do, If its on both platforms, I'll likely buy it for the 360 over the PS3.

I simply like my 360 more than my PS3 -- I have big hands, and the PS3 controller cramps up my hand after extended use, and I like the double edged sword that is almost everyone on Xbox Live has access to a headset. Its a ghost town on the PS3 (I've been playing Metal gear online), which makes me feel like I'm playing against bots rather than people.

The PS3 is an OK platform though... but I'm kind of regretting my purchase a bit, because there are only two games I want to play on it currently (MGS4. ratchet and clank).. and I've completed them both already... I get all my multiplatform games for the 360.
 
Sorry, I can't see them porting MGO to 360. It's already a fragile beast as it is, its being held together by tape. They'd have to rework everything, to achieve that.

Have you tried signing up for that game? BUT, MGO is a total AWESOME game. I had a blast last night.

And all honesty, about MGS4 going to 360. It wont happen as long as Kojima is around... if you played MGS4 you'd realise that it's a huge MGS fan surface finisher. It's an explosion of MGS and it's finale. It hints throughout that it's an Playstation game, and even lets you play MGS1 ect. Just because one damn MGS game was on Xbox, it would make no sense to put it on 360.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']
Just because one damn MGS game was on Xbox, it would make no sense to put it on 360.[/QUOTE]

Huh? Konami isn't stupid, they want to make money. Without money paid out by Sony upfront, they will make more money by going multiplatform.

The one caveat to that is Sony subsidizing them for exclusivity. Which is almost certainly the case or you would have seen a dual launch day and date.

The only real question is, like Bioshock, was Konami paid for a timed exclusive or permanent exclusive.

Not putting it on the 360 for technical reasons or pride reasons is absolute silly nonsense talk.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Not putting it on the 360 for technical reasons or pride reasons is absolute silly nonsense talk.[/quote]


When did sense/logic start being used in fanboy wars?:whistle2:k
 
[quote name='XxSmityxX']why the fuck is this thread 7 pages long?[/quote]
The first and third words of the title in the same sentence = super conspiracy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Huh? Konami isn't stupid, they want to make money. Without money paid out by Sony upfront, they will make more money by going multiplatform.

The one caveat to that is Sony subsidizing them for exclusivity. Which is almost certainly the case or you would have seen a dual launch day and date.

The only real question is, like Bioshock, was Konami paid for a timed exclusive or permanent exclusive.

Not putting it on the 360 for technical reasons or pride reasons is absolute silly nonsense talk.[/quote]

Huh? Everyone wants money...

There are exclusives out there you know? By your logic every single game would be multiplatform...

...And if that's the case let's just all hug and kiss cause the different consoles don't matter.

Not putting it on the 360 for technical reasons or pride reasons is absolute silly nonsense talk.
Click to expand...
Yea, let's just throw Super Smash Bro's Brawl on 360. It'll make sense...

I'm not saying another MGS game WONT come on the 360. But it definitely wont be MGS4: Sons of the Patriots (Solid Snakes finale).
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Huh? Everyone wants money...

There are exclusives out there you know? By your logic every single game would be multiplatform...

...And if that's the case let's just all hug and kiss cause the different consoles don't matter.[/QUOTE]

All big budget games are multiplatform. All AAA titles will be multiplatform or they can't make money. Unless, like I said, they are paid off.

You simply can not spent 40, 50, 80 million dollars making a game for 360 OR PS3 only. You could never make enough money. So the only exclusives of that calibur are paid for by Microsoft or Sony.

Even then, in the case of GTA4, neither Sony or Microsoft could cough up enough money to buy it's exclusivity (and they tried - hard). Rockstar decided there is simply FAR more potential money in going multiplatform.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']How is it too complicated? You get an objective, complete it, and then move on to the next one.[/QUOTE]

I meant more that I just like simple objectives--team death match, domination.

I don't like all the different modes they have in FPS games now--I'm too lazy to figure out what to do initially, get frustrated trying to get good at different game modes.

I guess the point is I'm a very casual online gamer--so I like to keep it simple. But like I said, that's not a negative as the games have multiple modes so I just stick to the simple ones and leave the more complicated, team-work oriented games to those who like them.
 
Didn't you guys hear? Sony paid Bungie to go indie and make a Halo game for the PS3. Supposedly there's a loophole in MS's rights to the Halo franchise that allows Bungie to make a Halo game with their own resources (aka, no funding from MS)...

Yeah...:bouncy:
 
[quote name='007']What we're going to be dealing with, and it's become prevalent in this generation, is the death of THIRD PARTY exclusivity. Let's be fair, as games become more and more costly to develop, companies are looking to recoup their investment as easily and quickly as possible. Let's look at right now and take the best example... GTA4. That amazing first day sales record? The huge volumes of games moving? Never would've happened if had launched only on the PS3. Surely it would've spurred on some PS3 sales, but it still would've taken Rockstar much longer to make that kind of money.

If anything, what we'll be moving towards, as much as I hate it... is the GTA4 formula. It launches on both, and then console manufacturers will pay out the ass for exclusive content for their respective system. THAT will be the new third party exclusivity. The games will all be there... but you get to decide which one you get based on the content. Just look at Soul Calibur 4... instead of being on only one console, they just have the exclusive characters. As much as I hate that that's where it's headed, I guarantee that's where we're going to end up.
[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with that. Doesn't mean MGS4 will come over, but we're not going to see many third party exclusives as we go forward through this generation and into next.

You're probably not going to have someone dominate the industry like Sony did the past two. Maybe Nintnedo will build a pretty big lead--but those are mostly casuals who don't buy traditional games like MGS4, GTA etc. anyway.

So the big franchises will have to be spread across the Sony and MS consoles to reach a big enough market to maximize profits with rising development costs.

And I agree we'll see more things like the GTA DLC exclusivity, the characters in Soul Calbur etc. as Sony and MS angle to get an advantage.

But the real key will be first party exlusives as those will be the only true exclusives.

We're pretty much already there this gen. Most of the good games I want to play are on BOTH the 360 and PS3. So it's really the 1st party games that make the decision--for me Halo and Gears and some other titles outweigh , Ratchet, Uncharted etc. For others it's the other way around. There's still some third party games like MGS and Final Fantasy XIII in the fold--but I doubt we'll see many of those next generation.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Huh? Everyone wants money...

There are exclusives out there you know? By your logic every single game would be multiplatform...

...And if that's the case let's just all hug and kiss cause the different consoles don't matter.

Yea, let's just throw Super Smash Bro's Brawl on 360. It'll make sense...[/quote]


there aren't many exclusives, and the majority of the ones that are exclusive are either first party games, or they were paid for by the console maker to be exclusive.

using super smash brother as an example is one of the stupidest things I have read...it is a nintendo first party game that is comparing apples to oranges


as for the hug and kiss comments, there are 3rd party developers that want a one console future..dennis dyack and david jaffey are the most recent people who have suggested a one console future.
 
Anyone feel as though the industry is truly running out of ideas? I mean, just about every genre you can think of has at least a handful of games competing already...
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Anyone feel as though the industry is truly running out of ideas? I mean, just about every genre you can think of has at least a handful of games competing already...[/QUOTE]

Yes.

It's because games are much more expensive to make now that ever before and investors and money people will more and more go with the "safe bets". There is a lot more to lose by risking on a new IP, mechanic, or concept.

So when someone does do something new, it will get copied to death the next several years.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes.

It's because games are much more expensive to make now that ever before and investors and money people will more and more go with the "safe bets". There is a lot more to lose by risking on a new IP, mechanic, or concept.

So when someone does do something new, it will get copied to death the next several years.[/quote]
I understand...it's just worrying. I'm glad EA is taking a chance with Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, and Spore. Codemasters took a chance with Overlord, DiRT, and GRID...all of which were successful for new IPs. Hoping this little trend continues, we need more game slike Little Big Planet :D
 
[quote name='SpikeJonez']dirt and grid were not new Ips.

its colin mcrae and toca rebranded.[/quote]
I know that, but most newcomers to the series(') might not know that. The fact that they took a chance with the rebranding says something (they way want a larger audience).
 
We still left in plenty of regular game stations so you can check out many of the latest releases on PlayStation 3, including the exclusive Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots and PLAYSTATION Network (PSN) titles such as PAIN, echochrome and PixelJunk Monsters.
Click to expand...
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/06/19/playstation-experience-back-on-patrol/

Even on the game itself, it said to be played exclusively on the PLAYSTATION 3. It says it in many places, more so than any other game (Jack Tretton himself said exclusive on PS3 several times at E3 07). Most games may just say exclusive on the case or in a magazine, but MGS4 says it in several places.
 
Bioshock says "Only on Xbox 360 and Windows" right on the cover of the game.

covers.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top