daedricnekomata
CAGiversary!
i dont know about you guys who dont like it but i absolutely loved it it wasnt as good as mgs for ps1 ( a little outdated i know) but it was a worthy mgs game, i still play it to this day
Wow, Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence rules! (previously, MGS3 sucks)
- Thread starter Mr Durand Pierre
- Start date
MGS series isn't for everyone. I tried to get into it back when MGS 2 just came out and I absoulutely hated MGS2. But later I tried twin snakes and I was floored how awesome the story and cinematic feel to the game is. Then I picked up MGS 2 again and the game somehow didn't seem so bad anymore albeit it IS the worst of the series IMO(plus it mirrors MGS1 so you had to have played MGS1 before hand to appreciate that sorta twist). MGS 3 came and totally rocked though. It takes a lot of time and effort to get into it but I say the story is well worth it, cheesy or not, it's cool.
*spoiler*
Seeing a tear roll down big boss's cheek........nuff said
*End spoiler*
*spoiler*
Seeing a tear roll down big boss's cheek........nuff said
*End spoiler*
Chris in Cali
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (88%)
I tried so many times to play the Metal Gear games, and I honestly think they all suck. I don't see the appeal in them at all. I've played Twin Snakes, MGS 3, and MGS2:S. It's not a good action game, and it's not a good stealth game, I don't see what people find fun about it at all. To each his own though.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I've decided to summon this thread from the dead because I recently decided to give MGS2 a shot, and lo and behold, I've actually been enjoying it!
In fact, I'd say that with the exception of the graphics and the lameness of Raiden, it's otherwise better than MGS3 in every way. For one, there's the...
-Gameplay: Now, an overhead camera on its own is not a bad thing. Neither is no radar. But when you combine them together in an open environment, ala the original Snake Eater, you get nothing but frustration. But the camera/radar system works really well in MGS 2, It's simpler, less realistic, but a heck of a lot more fun to play. I actually feel like I'm stealthy this time around and not just trying to guess where the enemies are and how susceptable they are to my camoflauge while I crawl in the grass. The combat is still a bit crap, but I usually just let them kill me if I get an alert, then try it again. With Snake Eater, the frustration level was much higher.
-The cutscenes: While I still say the MGS series has at least twice as much cutscene time as it needs, I've been finding the movies in MGS2 a lot more interesting which is saying a lot since its graphics are so much crappier than Snake Eaters. The movies in MGS2 all seem to be advancing the plot, and it's always keeping me guessing just trying to figure it all out (made even more confusing by the fact that I've played very little of the first game). With Snake Eater the plot was too simple (I understood it fine with only minimal knowledge of the series), and it seemed to waste way too much cutscene time showing boring crap like Ocelot spinning his gun forever and just all around being a showboat. And I felt the characters were all cheesy stereotypes in Snake Eater, and while that's also true of MGS2, it bothers me a lot less since the writing is so much more plot based than character based. If you're going to make an espionage political thriller/horror game, you don't want to waste time getting to know everyone's backstory. You just want to get to the bottom of what's going on. This was something Killer 7 had going for it, that I felt Snake Eater did not.
And while I still say the series is too cheesy to really be deep in any kind of artistic sense, and there's way too many cutscenes, and the combat is still annoying, I can actually see what people see in the series now. I could still change my mind (I'm at the point where I just foguth Fortune), but so far I'm pretty intrigued by this game.
In fact, I'd say that with the exception of the graphics and the lameness of Raiden, it's otherwise better than MGS3 in every way. For one, there's the...
-Gameplay: Now, an overhead camera on its own is not a bad thing. Neither is no radar. But when you combine them together in an open environment, ala the original Snake Eater, you get nothing but frustration. But the camera/radar system works really well in MGS 2, It's simpler, less realistic, but a heck of a lot more fun to play. I actually feel like I'm stealthy this time around and not just trying to guess where the enemies are and how susceptable they are to my camoflauge while I crawl in the grass. The combat is still a bit crap, but I usually just let them kill me if I get an alert, then try it again. With Snake Eater, the frustration level was much higher.
-The cutscenes: While I still say the MGS series has at least twice as much cutscene time as it needs, I've been finding the movies in MGS2 a lot more interesting which is saying a lot since its graphics are so much crappier than Snake Eaters. The movies in MGS2 all seem to be advancing the plot, and it's always keeping me guessing just trying to figure it all out (made even more confusing by the fact that I've played very little of the first game). With Snake Eater the plot was too simple (I understood it fine with only minimal knowledge of the series), and it seemed to waste way too much cutscene time showing boring crap like Ocelot spinning his gun forever and just all around being a showboat. And I felt the characters were all cheesy stereotypes in Snake Eater, and while that's also true of MGS2, it bothers me a lot less since the writing is so much more plot based than character based. If you're going to make an espionage political thriller/horror game, you don't want to waste time getting to know everyone's backstory. You just want to get to the bottom of what's going on. This was something Killer 7 had going for it, that I felt Snake Eater did not.
And while I still say the series is too cheesy to really be deep in any kind of artistic sense, and there's way too many cutscenes, and the combat is still annoying, I can actually see what people see in the series now. I could still change my mind (I'm at the point where I just foguth Fortune), but so far I'm pretty intrigued by this game.
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']I just started Metal Gear Solid 3 last night, and I really can't fathom why the series is so highly acclaimed.
Before 3, I'd only played a little of the first game and hated it, mostly due to playing a last generation game. But I knew both of those problems would be remedied in the third game, and with all the great reviews it had been getting (as well as the good deals at EB) I figured I would give it a shot.
And after playing it for about 4 hours it sucks. Really sucks. A lot.
For one thing, at least half of the 4 hours I've seen has been movies. This wouldn't be so bad if I liked the story or understood it. We're subjected to cliche after cliche after cliche, but I would know that if I played other Kojima games. The plot twists are uninteresting to me since I don't give a damn about the characters. I'm missing somehting since I know little of the first 2, but even so this is a prequel and should be easy for newcomers to grasp. In many ways it is easy to grasp, but I think it is uninteresting. And a lot of the dialogue is just awful to me. Like Snake hitting on women, since he is obviously gay. That woman who saves your game only to rant on and on about movies and philosophy every time. If I wanted a good story I'd read a book, or at least watch a movie (and like I was saying, at 4 hours into the game I've been subjected to at least a movie's length worth of talking and cutsenes). I mean this is a game, why would I want a good story, then I couldn't complain about it???
This would be more tolerable if I liked the gameplay, but I don't. For one thing, I find the game is WAY too complicated for its own good. Like to heal your wounds there is a ton of supplies that you need instead of something old and played out like the RE style green herbs or first aid kits. You actually have to apply like 5 items to yourself to heal a broken bone. I like the idea of the stamina meter effecting your health and movement, but so far that hasn't played into things much.
But the worst thing about it is that I just did find the stealth fun. Now I like stealth games. I loved Beyond Good & Evil, and liked Splinter Cell. But due to the shoddy camera angles, and the fact that you can't really estimate an enemies line of sight or hearing, makes it more a game of trial and error. I can't fathom why they didn't use a third-person behind the shoulder camera like Splinter Cell, or Hitman. As a result you'lll often be spotted by offscreen enemies. It's every bit as cheap as it sounds. Now I know why people bought the Susitance version because all of this shit I just bitched about was fixed.
And when you are caught you can switch into first-person and try shooting the enemies, but the guns don't have a crosshair and I seem to miss 90% of the time and have no idea why. So far it seems a better strategy is to just run around grabbing and knifing soldiers, but it's not very fun and I'm sure it won't last long.
After reading several extremely positive reviews of the game it's hard to believe we've been playing the same game. I'm sorry, but after 4 hours playing time plus on hour reading the manual, that's 5 hours I've devoted to this game so far with very little enjoyment out of it. I hear it gets better, but it will sure have to get A LOT better real fast if I'm going to keep playing it.[/quote]
Fixed.
Also, play more. After the four hour mark, you should be getting into more game than movie. The beginning and the end of the game have lots of cutscenes. Seriously, finish it and try to say it sucks.
EDIT: Holy shit, there were two more pages. Oops. I still stand by my thoughts. Subsitance really did improve on everything you hated about the original release.
Before 3, I'd only played a little of the first game and hated it, mostly due to playing a last generation game. But I knew both of those problems would be remedied in the third game, and with all the great reviews it had been getting (as well as the good deals at EB) I figured I would give it a shot.
And after playing it for about 4 hours it sucks. Really sucks. A lot.
For one thing, at least half of the 4 hours I've seen has been movies. This wouldn't be so bad if I liked the story or understood it. We're subjected to cliche after cliche after cliche, but I would know that if I played other Kojima games. The plot twists are uninteresting to me since I don't give a damn about the characters. I'm missing somehting since I know little of the first 2, but even so this is a prequel and should be easy for newcomers to grasp. In many ways it is easy to grasp, but I think it is uninteresting. And a lot of the dialogue is just awful to me. Like Snake hitting on women, since he is obviously gay. That woman who saves your game only to rant on and on about movies and philosophy every time. If I wanted a good story I'd read a book, or at least watch a movie (and like I was saying, at 4 hours into the game I've been subjected to at least a movie's length worth of talking and cutsenes). I mean this is a game, why would I want a good story, then I couldn't complain about it???
This would be more tolerable if I liked the gameplay, but I don't. For one thing, I find the game is WAY too complicated for its own good. Like to heal your wounds there is a ton of supplies that you need instead of something old and played out like the RE style green herbs or first aid kits. You actually have to apply like 5 items to yourself to heal a broken bone. I like the idea of the stamina meter effecting your health and movement, but so far that hasn't played into things much.
But the worst thing about it is that I just did find the stealth fun. Now I like stealth games. I loved Beyond Good & Evil, and liked Splinter Cell. But due to the shoddy camera angles, and the fact that you can't really estimate an enemies line of sight or hearing, makes it more a game of trial and error. I can't fathom why they didn't use a third-person behind the shoulder camera like Splinter Cell, or Hitman. As a result you'lll often be spotted by offscreen enemies. It's every bit as cheap as it sounds. Now I know why people bought the Susitance version because all of this shit I just bitched about was fixed.
And when you are caught you can switch into first-person and try shooting the enemies, but the guns don't have a crosshair and I seem to miss 90% of the time and have no idea why. So far it seems a better strategy is to just run around grabbing and knifing soldiers, but it's not very fun and I'm sure it won't last long.
After reading several extremely positive reviews of the game it's hard to believe we've been playing the same game. I'm sorry, but after 4 hours playing time plus on hour reading the manual, that's 5 hours I've devoted to this game so far with very little enjoyment out of it. I hear it gets better, but it will sure have to get A LOT better real fast if I'm going to keep playing it.[/quote]
Fixed.
Also, play more. After the four hour mark, you should be getting into more game than movie. The beginning and the end of the game have lots of cutscenes. Seriously, finish it and try to say it sucks.
EDIT: Holy shit, there were two more pages. Oops. I still stand by my thoughts. Subsitance really did improve on everything you hated about the original release.
RelentlessRolento
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 48 (100%)
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']I've decided to summon this thread from the dead because I recently decided to give MGS2 a shot, and lo and behold, I've actually been enjoying it!
In fact, I'd say that with the exception of the graphics and the lameness of Raiden, it's otherwise better than MGS3 in every way. For one, there's the...
-Gameplay: Now, an overhead camera on its own is not a bad thing. Neither is no radar. But when you combine them together in an open environment, ala the original Snake Eater, you get nothing but frustration. But the camera/radar system works really well in MGS 2, It's simpler, less realistic, but a heck of a lot more fun to play. I actually feel like I'm stealthy this time around and not just trying to guess where the enemies are and how susceptable they are to my camoflauge while I crawl in the grass. The combat is still a bit crap, but I usually just let them kill me if I get an alert, then try it again. With Snake Eater, the frustration level was much higher.
-The cutscenes: While I still say the MGS series has at least twice as much cutscene time as it needs, I've been finding the movies in MGS2 a lot more interesting which is saying a lot since its graphics are so much crappier than Snake Eaters. The movies in MGS2 all seem to be advancing the plot, and it's always keeping me guessing just trying to figure it all out (made even more confusing by the fact that I've played very little of the first game). With Snake Eater the plot was too simple (I understood it fine with only minimal knowledge of the series), and it seemed to waste way too much cutscene time showing boring crap like Ocelot spinning his gun forever and just all around being a showboat. And I felt the characters were all cheesy stereotypes in Snake Eater, and while that's also true of MGS2, it bothers me a lot less since the writing is so much more plot based than character based. If you're going to make an espionage political thriller/horror game, you don't want to waste time getting to know everyone's backstory. You just want to get to the bottom of what's going on. This was something Killer 7 had going for it, that I felt Snake Eater did not.
And while I still say the series is too cheesy to really be deep in any kind of artistic sense, and there's way too many cutscenes, and the combat is still annoying, I can actually see what people see in the series now. I could still change my mind (I'm at the point where I just foguth Fortune), but so far I'm pretty intrigued by this game.[/QUOTE]
Yes defintly MGS2 had a superb plot... I always felt letdown by how complex MGS2's plot was and then MGS3 toned it out by alot... Seriously, the deepest plots I have ever found have only been in MGS2 and Killer 7... I like it when a game makes my brain hurt for good reasons.
In fact, I'd say that with the exception of the graphics and the lameness of Raiden, it's otherwise better than MGS3 in every way. For one, there's the...
-Gameplay: Now, an overhead camera on its own is not a bad thing. Neither is no radar. But when you combine them together in an open environment, ala the original Snake Eater, you get nothing but frustration. But the camera/radar system works really well in MGS 2, It's simpler, less realistic, but a heck of a lot more fun to play. I actually feel like I'm stealthy this time around and not just trying to guess where the enemies are and how susceptable they are to my camoflauge while I crawl in the grass. The combat is still a bit crap, but I usually just let them kill me if I get an alert, then try it again. With Snake Eater, the frustration level was much higher.
-The cutscenes: While I still say the MGS series has at least twice as much cutscene time as it needs, I've been finding the movies in MGS2 a lot more interesting which is saying a lot since its graphics are so much crappier than Snake Eaters. The movies in MGS2 all seem to be advancing the plot, and it's always keeping me guessing just trying to figure it all out (made even more confusing by the fact that I've played very little of the first game). With Snake Eater the plot was too simple (I understood it fine with only minimal knowledge of the series), and it seemed to waste way too much cutscene time showing boring crap like Ocelot spinning his gun forever and just all around being a showboat. And I felt the characters were all cheesy stereotypes in Snake Eater, and while that's also true of MGS2, it bothers me a lot less since the writing is so much more plot based than character based. If you're going to make an espionage political thriller/horror game, you don't want to waste time getting to know everyone's backstory. You just want to get to the bottom of what's going on. This was something Killer 7 had going for it, that I felt Snake Eater did not.
And while I still say the series is too cheesy to really be deep in any kind of artistic sense, and there's way too many cutscenes, and the combat is still annoying, I can actually see what people see in the series now. I could still change my mind (I'm at the point where I just foguth Fortune), but so far I'm pretty intrigued by this game.[/QUOTE]
Yes defintly MGS2 had a superb plot... I always felt letdown by how complex MGS2's plot was and then MGS3 toned it out by alot... Seriously, the deepest plots I have ever found have only been in MGS2 and Killer 7... I like it when a game makes my brain hurt for good reasons.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Question about Subsistence: While the new camera sounds cool and all, it also sounds like it could make the game too easy and render all the nifty gadgets (like the motion detector and sonar) nearly useless. Or maybe you could just use them to find animals. I liked the idea of having to use lots of little gizmos to make up for a radar and forcing you to think before you move, but I also don't like being spotted by offscreen enemies. So is the game still even a challenge with the new camera?
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
What I remember most, from Metal Gear Solid 3, was the uneven pace of every aspect of the game.
I prefer Metal Gear Solid 2.
I prefer Metal Gear Solid 2.
pimp tyranny
Banned
i definitely prefer MGS 2 and the original to MGS 3, but i enjoyed the third entry. taking away the clear cut walls and open view made the gameplay considerably different, though arguably not for the better. ya know, i actually thought i was pretty proficient in the first two games, able to sneak by most confrontations. in Snake Eater, i probably caught the enemies' attention and had to hide in a hole every other sequence. one notable exception was the part on the side of the cliff, with a helicopter flying by periodically and you had to advanvce up a few ramps to the top to meet the chick i think. anyway, it had it's moments, but they weren't MGS 1/2 moments. maybe i'd enjoy it more now that i have Subsistence LE bitches! lol but really i think i'll try it out.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Despite starting this "I hate Metal Gear Solid 3" thread, I somehow came to the unprecendented decision to buy Subsistence. I was already a bit curious about it as the new camera sounded infinitely nicer (I'd heard it being compared to how RE4 took a series I previously considered crap and made a game I really loved out of it), and after playing through and guiltily enjoying the first 2 Solids, I decided it was time to give Snake Eater Redux a chance...
And I have to say, I'm liking it much better this time around. It could just be because I've played the earlier installments, so it's been a general progression of gameplay advancements (unlike when I went from Splinter Cell to Snake Eater and was shocked by how differently they look and control), but I'm sure the new camera really has a lot to do with it.
And while the cutscenes are still way longer than they need to be, I'm liking them better too this time aorund. Probably because they're so much better than the shoddily voice-acted and written earlier installments. (Gotta love the ending of the original where Snake and Otacon "choose life" and ride off into the sunset cracking stupid jokes). Before I'd heard so much about how great the Metal Gear stories where, so I was expecting high art and really dissapointed at the ridiculousness of Snake Eater. But I've since lowered my expectations and consider it to be like most anime where its got good visuals, art direction, and an interesting plot, and is somewhat enjoyable if you can get past the shoddy dialogue. I still say the exposition is far too long-winded (like JFK and Kruschev talking which seems to go on forever when they could have just had the Colonel tell you that Russia will blame America unless we can capture The boss in the next 7 days. See, that took me one quick sentence, not 3 or so minutes).
But gameplay-wise I'm liking it. The Metal Gear series is far more addicting than it has any right to be (perhaps beause of all the "breaks" you get with the cutscenes).
But I do have one or two minor gripes: It's hard to tell where you're aiming exactly, and the CQC makes things way too easy. Thus far I see no reason to ever use a gun when I can just storm the troops and throw them all down with my bare hands. Will this change later on? I started a game on normal, but I'm deffinitely considering restarting on hard.
And I have to say, I'm liking it much better this time around. It could just be because I've played the earlier installments, so it's been a general progression of gameplay advancements (unlike when I went from Splinter Cell to Snake Eater and was shocked by how differently they look and control), but I'm sure the new camera really has a lot to do with it.
And while the cutscenes are still way longer than they need to be, I'm liking them better too this time aorund. Probably because they're so much better than the shoddily voice-acted and written earlier installments. (Gotta love the ending of the original where Snake and Otacon "choose life" and ride off into the sunset cracking stupid jokes). Before I'd heard so much about how great the Metal Gear stories where, so I was expecting high art and really dissapointed at the ridiculousness of Snake Eater. But I've since lowered my expectations and consider it to be like most anime where its got good visuals, art direction, and an interesting plot, and is somewhat enjoyable if you can get past the shoddy dialogue. I still say the exposition is far too long-winded (like JFK and Kruschev talking which seems to go on forever when they could have just had the Colonel tell you that Russia will blame America unless we can capture The boss in the next 7 days. See, that took me one quick sentence, not 3 or so minutes).
But gameplay-wise I'm liking it. The Metal Gear series is far more addicting than it has any right to be (perhaps beause of all the "breaks" you get with the cutscenes).
But I do have one or two minor gripes: It's hard to tell where you're aiming exactly, and the CQC makes things way too easy. Thus far I see no reason to ever use a gun when I can just storm the troops and throw them all down with my bare hands. Will this change later on? I started a game on normal, but I'm deffinitely considering restarting on hard.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']But I do have one or two minor gripes: It's hard to tell where you're aiming exactly, and the CQC makes things way too easy. Thus far I see no reason to ever use a gun when I can just storm the troops and throw them all down with my bare hands. Will this change later on? I started a game on normal, but I'm deffinitely considering restarting on hard.[/QUOTE]
What are you refering to when you say aiming? Guns? Are you going into the first person view first? I never used CQC at all during my first time through the game, so I wouldn't know if it's over-powered. It depends on your style of play. That's how it generally can be in MGO, but it depends on who you are.
What are you refering to when you say aiming? Guns? Are you going into the first person view first? I never used CQC at all during my first time through the game, so I wouldn't know if it's over-powered. It depends on your style of play. That's how it generally can be in MGO, but it depends on who you are.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']What are you refering to when you say aiming? Guns? Are you going into the first person view first? I never used CQC at all during my first time through the game, so I wouldn't know if it's over-powered. It depends on your style of play. That's how it generally can be in MGO, but it depends on who you are.[/QUOTE]
I have been going into first person view to shoot. There's no laser or crosshair or anything, and I haven't quite adapted to where my bullets go exactly; which can be the difference between shooting a guy in the head and sending him down, or hitting his shoulder and alerting the guards.
I have been going into first person view to shoot. There's no laser or crosshair or anything, and I haven't quite adapted to where my bullets go exactly; which can be the difference between shooting a guy in the head and sending him down, or hitting his shoulder and alerting the guards.
Congratulations on getting Subsistence, once you're done playing MGS3, be sure to give Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 a try, they did a great job porting them over.
Anyway, I absolutely loved MGS3, so much, that I've begun playing through the whole series again. I've already completed MGS3, Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2, and Twin Snakes, and now I'm currently playing MGS2 over again. I highly recommend doing the same.
Anyway, I absolutely loved MGS3, so much, that I've begun playing through the whole series again. I've already completed MGS3, Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2, and Twin Snakes, and now I'm currently playing MGS2 over again. I highly recommend doing the same.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']I have been going into first person view to shoot. There's no laser or crosshair or anything, and I haven't quite adapted to where my bullets go exactly; which can be the difference between shooting a guy in the head and sending him down, or hitting his shoulder and alerting the guards.[/QUOTE]
I believe L1 looks down the barrel of the gun for a better view. Only certain guns have a laser sight or crosshair on the end of the barrel.
I believe L1 looks down the barrel of the gun for a better view. Only certain guns have a laser sight or crosshair on the end of the barrel.
So basically your biggest complaint about the game is the lack of hand holding.
You need the game to specifically tell you how far away the enemy can see and hear and where exactly the gun is shooting. You have trouble understanding how buttons work and get frustrated when a game actually gives you a reason to avoid damage.
First Aid exists because the game wants to discourage fire-fights. It's a repurcussion of battle.
There's lots of buttons because they each have a function. I'm sorry you are only used to simple games.
Gun sights have never been a problem. Too bad you failed to read the instruction book before playing. Tutorial levels are for the weak and lazy.
You can't tell the enemy's specs because you shouldn't need to.
A quick glance and some patience are all you need to get around them.
People can beat the entire game in under 2 hours without being seen or damaged.
I'm sorry you don't like mature games.
You need the game to specifically tell you how far away the enemy can see and hear and where exactly the gun is shooting. You have trouble understanding how buttons work and get frustrated when a game actually gives you a reason to avoid damage.
First Aid exists because the game wants to discourage fire-fights. It's a repurcussion of battle.
There's lots of buttons because they each have a function. I'm sorry you are only used to simple games.
Gun sights have never been a problem. Too bad you failed to read the instruction book before playing. Tutorial levels are for the weak and lazy.
You can't tell the enemy's specs because you shouldn't need to.
A quick glance and some patience are all you need to get around them.
People can beat the entire game in under 2 hours without being seen or damaged.
I'm sorry you don't like mature games.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='M3wThr33']So basically your biggest complaint about the game is the lack of hand holding.
You need the game to specifically tell you how far away the enemy can see and hear and where exactly the gun is shooting. You have trouble understanding how buttons work and get frustrated when a game actually gives you a reason to avoid damage.
First Aid exists because the game wants to discourage fire-fights. It's a repurcussion of battle.
There's lots of buttons because they each have a function. I'm sorry you are only used to simple games.
Gun sights have never been a problem. Too bad you failed to read the instruction book before playing. Tutorial levels are for the weak and lazy.
You can't tell the enemy's specs because you shouldn't need to.
A quick glance and some patience are all you need to get around them.
People can beat the entire game in under 2 hours without being seen or damaged.
I'm sorry you don't like mature games.[/QUOTE]
-The first-aid stuff isn't too bad actually. Just takes awhile to learn. And I do try and avoid being sighted, but when I am I am finding CQC to be way too overpowered. But it's not like I'm frustrated that the game "gives me reason to avoid damage," but I felt that getting your energy knocked down was already reason enough to avoid damage.
-My problem with the controls has little to do with the buttons. Sometimes the layouts take awhile to get used to (notably holding down R1 to look in first person, then lightly hitting square to bring up your gun, then hitting L1 to get a better angle. I got the hang of this after awhile, but it never quite feels natural). My main problem with the controls mostly has to do with the clunkiness of crawling. Like turning around quickly.
-Also I did read the manual page for page before playing. And there are no tutorial levels (unless you mean Snake Vs Monkey, or the Virtuous Mission, which I consider part of the real game). I'm used to first-person shooters where your shots fire a bit higher than your gun. I've gotten the hang of where to shoot, but I still wish it had a RE4 style laser pointer.
-I never said anything about wanting to see an enemy's specs. In fact, most of your repurcussions are to complaints that I did not make.
-It is true that I wish I had a better sense of how far enemies can see. This is nowhere near as bad as Hitman where you can get snipered with little to no warning. But I happen to prefer the more simplistic visual "avoid the cone" stealth of the earlier Metal Gears or my favorite, Sly Cooper.
I'm not sure what you mean by not liking "mature" games. How do you define mature? Is it in terms of difficulty? Complicatedness. Subject matter? Because I'm not opposed to ultra-violent games, and I like a good challenge (like Jak 2 or DMC 3, which I both beat), but I do tend to get impatient with games that have steep learning curves if that's what you mean. But I don't think it was.
You need the game to specifically tell you how far away the enemy can see and hear and where exactly the gun is shooting. You have trouble understanding how buttons work and get frustrated when a game actually gives you a reason to avoid damage.
First Aid exists because the game wants to discourage fire-fights. It's a repurcussion of battle.
There's lots of buttons because they each have a function. I'm sorry you are only used to simple games.
Gun sights have never been a problem. Too bad you failed to read the instruction book before playing. Tutorial levels are for the weak and lazy.
You can't tell the enemy's specs because you shouldn't need to.
A quick glance and some patience are all you need to get around them.
People can beat the entire game in under 2 hours without being seen or damaged.
I'm sorry you don't like mature games.[/QUOTE]
-The first-aid stuff isn't too bad actually. Just takes awhile to learn. And I do try and avoid being sighted, but when I am I am finding CQC to be way too overpowered. But it's not like I'm frustrated that the game "gives me reason to avoid damage," but I felt that getting your energy knocked down was already reason enough to avoid damage.
-My problem with the controls has little to do with the buttons. Sometimes the layouts take awhile to get used to (notably holding down R1 to look in first person, then lightly hitting square to bring up your gun, then hitting L1 to get a better angle. I got the hang of this after awhile, but it never quite feels natural). My main problem with the controls mostly has to do with the clunkiness of crawling. Like turning around quickly.
-Also I did read the manual page for page before playing. And there are no tutorial levels (unless you mean Snake Vs Monkey, or the Virtuous Mission, which I consider part of the real game). I'm used to first-person shooters where your shots fire a bit higher than your gun. I've gotten the hang of where to shoot, but I still wish it had a RE4 style laser pointer.
-I never said anything about wanting to see an enemy's specs. In fact, most of your repurcussions are to complaints that I did not make.
-It is true that I wish I had a better sense of how far enemies can see. This is nowhere near as bad as Hitman where you can get snipered with little to no warning. But I happen to prefer the more simplistic visual "avoid the cone" stealth of the earlier Metal Gears or my favorite, Sly Cooper.
I'm not sure what you mean by not liking "mature" games. How do you define mature? Is it in terms of difficulty? Complicatedness. Subject matter? Because I'm not opposed to ultra-violent games, and I like a good challenge (like Jak 2 or DMC 3, which I both beat), but I do tend to get impatient with games that have steep learning curves if that's what you mean. But I don't think it was.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']-It is true that I wish I had a better sense of how far enemies can see. This is nowhere near as bad as Hitman where you can get snipered with little to no warning. But I happen to prefer the more simplistic visual "avoid the cone" stealth of the earlier Metal Gears or my favorite, Sly Cooper.[/QUOTE]
They took a more natural take on the guard's viewpoint, as you pretty much just react to where they're looking logically and you'll be fine. I saw nothing hard about it in this aspect, as I just stayed out of their line of sight as often as possible and stopped moving when they came by or hid.
They took a more natural take on the guard's viewpoint, as you pretty much just react to where they're looking logically and you'll be fine. I saw nothing hard about it in this aspect, as I just stayed out of their line of sight as often as possible and stopped moving when they came by or hid.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I just finished playing through Subsistence on hard mode and lo and behold, I loved it! Since I first started this thread nearly a year ago, I have changed my mind almost 180 degrees about this game. While all of my initial complaints were valid they were nearly all either A.) Fixed with the camera in Subsistence, B.) Had a tough learning curve, (Notably improving one's aim with headshots, and getting a good feel for how far the enemies can see and hear) and C.) The opening mission is probably the worst, most poorly paced part of the whole game (okay, the cave is worse, but shorter). But once I got a feel for changing my camoflauge all the time, crawling on the ground, and shooting a soldier in the head with a tranq, the game became immensely fun, addictive, and had tons of depth to boot. (I saw part of a speed run where a guy goes through the game on European Extreme without getting an alert in just over an hour and a half. He had some pretty dang clever strategies.)
And that's just the main game. I checked out a bit of Metal Gear 1 & 2, and couldn't really get into them, but I may give them another shot later. The duel mode is pretty cool, though I can't really get into speed running bosses, since I kind of like it when they drag on and become more suspenseful, but it's deffinitely appreciated, since the boss fights are all brilliant (The Fury is probably one of my favorite boss fights of all-time). I feel similarly about Snake Vs Monkey where I played all the levels, but got poor times. The Secret theatre is really hit and miss, but the good movies are really good. And finally, Metal Gear Online is something I lack the capacity to check out due to my lack of wireless. But really, more than anyhting, I just feel like playing the single-player game again, but on Extreme difficulty.
The only complaints I had about the game that I still consider to be valid are the clunkiness of turning around while crawling, and the length of the cutscenes. Some of the cutscenes are pretty good and occasionally even moving. But then sometimes you're subjected to dialogue such as:
Snake: What is the Philosipher's Legacy?
Granin: You've heard of the Philosopher's haven't you?
Snake: Uh, yeah.
Granin: Well this is their legacy.
or
Volgin: Very well then. I shall explain it all to you before I kill you.
But with a game as fun to play as this one, in subsequent play-throughs I'll probably be skipping these cutscenes anyway (since they're so fresh in my memory). I felt Snake Eater was a game with a lot of good ideas, but poor execution. But Subsistence gets it rights. Who knew?
And that's just the main game. I checked out a bit of Metal Gear 1 & 2, and couldn't really get into them, but I may give them another shot later. The duel mode is pretty cool, though I can't really get into speed running bosses, since I kind of like it when they drag on and become more suspenseful, but it's deffinitely appreciated, since the boss fights are all brilliant (The Fury is probably one of my favorite boss fights of all-time). I feel similarly about Snake Vs Monkey where I played all the levels, but got poor times. The Secret theatre is really hit and miss, but the good movies are really good. And finally, Metal Gear Online is something I lack the capacity to check out due to my lack of wireless. But really, more than anyhting, I just feel like playing the single-player game again, but on Extreme difficulty.
The only complaints I had about the game that I still consider to be valid are the clunkiness of turning around while crawling, and the length of the cutscenes. Some of the cutscenes are pretty good and occasionally even moving. But then sometimes you're subjected to dialogue such as:
Snake: What is the Philosipher's Legacy?
Granin: You've heard of the Philosopher's haven't you?
Snake: Uh, yeah.
Granin: Well this is their legacy.
or
Volgin: Very well then. I shall explain it all to you before I kill you.
But with a game as fun to play as this one, in subsequent play-throughs I'll probably be skipping these cutscenes anyway (since they're so fresh in my memory). I felt Snake Eater was a game with a lot of good ideas, but poor execution. But Subsistence gets it rights. Who knew?
RelentlessRolento
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 48 (100%)
If you really don't want to play those I reccomend reading the comic book versions of these storys then. It's a digested verson of the entire story.
Note: if you own a PSP, I highly reccomend MGS: Digital Graphic novel... amazing work put into that.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']If you really don't want to play those I reccomend reading the comic book versions of these storys then. It's a digested verson of the entire story.
Note: if you own a PSP, I highly reccomend MGS: Digital Graphic novel... amazing work put into that.[/QUOTE]
Eh, despite its fanbase I'd actually say the story is the worst thing about the series. I liked the story to the third game the most because it was a lot simpler and like an old spy film. The story to the first MGS had its moments, but then it all came down to some stupid sibling rivalry between you and your evil twin. And the story of MGS2 made absolutely no sense and was a complete mess. (to start with, if there's a Solid Snake and a Liquid Snake, shouldn't the third one be Gas Snake or Gaseous Snake? What the hell is "Solidus" supposed to mean anyway?)
The 4th game looks pretty interesting though with its distant future setting and crazy organic robots. But shouldn't Ocelot be MUCH older? I mean he appears to be about 20 in Snake Eater which takes place in 1964. Then Solid Snake is born in the Les Enfants Terribles project in '72. So Ocelot should be about 28 years older than Solid Snake, who appears to be pushing 60 in MGS4, but Ocelot sure doesn't look like he's in his late 80s.
I still say the games are fun, and the story can be mildly interesting, but only if you take it with a grain of salt (did you ever really believe that the Cobras actually helped America win WWII?). It's not exactly Shakespeare.
Note: if you own a PSP, I highly reccomend MGS: Digital Graphic novel... amazing work put into that.[/QUOTE]
Eh, despite its fanbase I'd actually say the story is the worst thing about the series. I liked the story to the third game the most because it was a lot simpler and like an old spy film. The story to the first MGS had its moments, but then it all came down to some stupid sibling rivalry between you and your evil twin. And the story of MGS2 made absolutely no sense and was a complete mess. (to start with, if there's a Solid Snake and a Liquid Snake, shouldn't the third one be Gas Snake or Gaseous Snake? What the hell is "Solidus" supposed to mean anyway?)
The 4th game looks pretty interesting though with its distant future setting and crazy organic robots. But shouldn't Ocelot be MUCH older? I mean he appears to be about 20 in Snake Eater which takes place in 1964. Then Solid Snake is born in the Les Enfants Terribles project in '72. So Ocelot should be about 28 years older than Solid Snake, who appears to be pushing 60 in MGS4, but Ocelot sure doesn't look like he's in his late 80s.
I still say the games are fun, and the story can be mildly interesting, but only if you take it with a grain of salt (did you ever really believe that the Cobras actually helped America win WWII?). It's not exactly Shakespeare.
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']If you really don't want to play those I reccomend reading the comic book versions of these storys then. It's a digested verson of the entire story.
Note: if you own a PSP, I highly reccomend MGS: Digital Graphic novel... amazing work put into that.[/quote]
There are comic book versions of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2? :shock:
Note: if you own a PSP, I highly reccomend MGS: Digital Graphic novel... amazing work put into that.[/quote]
There are comic book versions of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2? :shock:
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']
The 4th game looks pretty interesting though with its distant future setting and crazy organic robots. But shouldn't Ocelot be MUCH older? I mean he appears to be about 20 in Snake Eater which takes place in 1964. Then Solid Snake is born in the Les Enfants Terribles project in '72. So Ocelot should be about 28 years older than Solid Snake, who appears to be pushing 60 in MGS4, but Ocelot sure doesn't look like he's in his late 80s.[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell it looks like Solid Snake is the only person that has gotten really old. All the other characters appear to have only aged a few years.
The 4th game looks pretty interesting though with its distant future setting and crazy organic robots. But shouldn't Ocelot be MUCH older? I mean he appears to be about 20 in Snake Eater which takes place in 1964. Then Solid Snake is born in the Les Enfants Terribles project in '72. So Ocelot should be about 28 years older than Solid Snake, who appears to be pushing 60 in MGS4, but Ocelot sure doesn't look like he's in his late 80s.[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell it looks like Solid Snake is the only person that has gotten really old. All the other characters appear to have only aged a few years.
Mr Durand Pierre
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='whoknows']From what I can tell it looks like Solid Snake is the only person that has gotten really old. All the other characters appear to have only aged a few years.[/QUOTE]
So let's try and figure this out: Solid Snake was supposedly retired even before the first MGS, so let's say he was about 43 in MGS2. And I'll round down with 4 and say he's only 58. So it may only be about 15 years after MGS2. Then it would make sense if Otacon went from mid-late twenties to early 40s, and that Roy Campbell is still alive. Naomi and Meryl still look young because we want outr Metal Gear babes to still be babes. I can take that with a grain of salt. But that still doesn't explain why Snake and Ocelot look so close in age. Even rounding down and saying Ocelot was 18 in MGS3 would still make him 26 years older than Solid Snake. That's a pretty huge continuity blunder on Kojima's part.
So let's try and figure this out: Solid Snake was supposedly retired even before the first MGS, so let's say he was about 43 in MGS2. And I'll round down with 4 and say he's only 58. So it may only be about 15 years after MGS2. Then it would make sense if Otacon went from mid-late twenties to early 40s, and that Roy Campbell is still alive. Naomi and Meryl still look young because we want outr Metal Gear babes to still be babes. I can take that with a grain of salt. But that still doesn't explain why Snake and Ocelot look so close in age. Even rounding down and saying Ocelot was 18 in MGS3 would still make him 26 years older than Solid Snake. That's a pretty huge continuity blunder on Kojima's part.
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre']The 4th game looks pretty interesting though with its distant future setting and crazy organic robots. But shouldn't Ocelot be MUCH older? I mean he appears to be about 20 in Snake Eater which takes place in 1964. Then Solid Snake is born in the Les Enfants Terribles project in '72. So Ocelot should be about 28 years older than Solid Snake, who appears to be pushing 60 in MGS4, but Ocelot sure doesn't look like he's in his late 80s.
[/quote]
Snake isn't as old as he looks. But because he is a clone, his genes are degrading at a faster rate than normal people's genes, so he is aging faster than everybody else. Ocelot should be hovering around his mid to late 60s depending on how old he is in Snake Eater and exactly when Guns of the Patriots takes place. Solid Snake, while actually being probably 40-45 (I don't remember from the first game when he and Liquid were cloned) looks more like he's 65+.
[/quote]
Snake isn't as old as he looks. But because he is a clone, his genes are degrading at a faster rate than normal people's genes, so he is aging faster than everybody else. Ocelot should be hovering around his mid to late 60s depending on how old he is in Snake Eater and exactly when Guns of the Patriots takes place. Solid Snake, while actually being probably 40-45 (I don't remember from the first game when he and Liquid were cloned) looks more like he's 65+.
ViolentLee
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
I'll resurrect this thread just to gush at how much I loved this game. I've been a huge MGS fan, but slacked on playing through Snake Eater (there were lots of great games out at the time). With Subsistence, I started over, and have been playing slowly over time. The third-person really comes in handy (though it's odd you can't use it in the final battle) In the last two days, though, I probably played 7 hours or more -- from about Groznyj Grad to the end (not The End).
I probably put it above MGS 2, but below the first game. The story is great, the characters awesome, and the details trademark Kojima. I'll likely start over again, just to play with the new things I unlocked and not kill so many people this time (I basically took out everyone I found this go-around). I also got the camo from beating both Vulgan and Boss with non-lethals. I missed getting The End's special camo, though; I had held him up, but accidentally shot him with the tranq the final time instead of waiting for the camo. At least I got his tranq sniper, though it didn't carry over to my new game.
Here were my stats:
Dif: Normal
Time: 22:07:38
Saves: 57
Continues: 21
Alerts: 112
Killed: 412
Seriously Injured: 103 times
Total Damage: 33 life bars
Life Med Used: 8
Plants/Animals Captured: 34 kinds
Meals Eaten: 100
Special Items: N/A
Rank: Shark
I probably put it above MGS 2, but below the first game. The story is great, the characters awesome, and the details trademark Kojima. I'll likely start over again, just to play with the new things I unlocked and not kill so many people this time (I basically took out everyone I found this go-around). I also got the camo from beating both Vulgan and Boss with non-lethals. I missed getting The End's special camo, though; I had held him up, but accidentally shot him with the tranq the final time instead of waiting for the camo. At least I got his tranq sniper, though it didn't carry over to my new game.
Here were my stats:
Dif: Normal
Time: 22:07:38
Saves: 57
Continues: 21
Alerts: 112
Killed: 412
Seriously Injured: 103 times
Total Damage: 33 life bars
Life Med Used: 8
Plants/Animals Captured: 34 kinds
Meals Eaten: 100
Special Items: N/A
Rank: Shark
You line up the sights, like in a real gun. When using the Scorpion or M9, you do have a laser sight. Regardless, it isn't designed to be a fast paced action game like RE4. You're supposed to take time to line up your shots.
It's supposed to be clunky. You lose manueverability and speed in exchange for low visibility.
The vision cone was removed from gameplay because Kojima felt that players relied too heavily on it, and eventually the game became about looking at the radar instead of the actual game screen. The best indication of how an enemy can see you is if you can see them. If you can see them and you aren't well camouflaged, it's very possible that they'll see you if they're looking in your direction.
I felt the story was more about how you don't have to let your genes define you, that you can be more than what your genes might have destined for you. I thought this was reinforced by the fact that although Solid Snake was the "inferior twin" he still beat Liquid and instead of using his perfect soldier genes to war he uses them to find peace.
I didn't have any issues with MGS2's story. However, Solidus Snake's name, if you paid attention during MGS2 dialogue, was a combination of Liquid (or rather aqueous) and Solid. Not too rigid but also not too soft, he was supposed to be the perfect balance between his two brothers.
Yup, officially licensed by IDW Publishing, and drawn by popular comic painter Ashley Wood. The work is very good in some parts, sloppy looking in some others. Kojima liked the series enough to create the Digital Graphic Novel series.
I was majorly pissed when I realized the tranq sniper didn't carry over since it took so much work to do. However, The End's boss battle was MUCH more enjoyable with the new camera. With the old camera it was frustrating since you often had to stop and switch to first person mode to track him and he was really fleet-footed for an old guy.
Damn, you played Rambo style.
Solid Snake was "born" in 1972. He retired from active military duty in 1996, after the events of Metal Gear 1. He came out of retirement several times for Metal Gear 2 and Metal Gear Solid 1. The Big Shell incident took place in 2009. So, he was 37 at the time of MGS2. It's estimated that MGS4 takes place in 2015, which would only make Snake 43. If you noticed, despite the fact all three Big Boss clones were born at the same time, Solidus is much older than Solid Snake in MGS2.
As Stuka pointed out, only Snake appears rapidly aged due to the primitive cloning technology used to produce him. The real reason is that Kojima says he's beginning to feel his age having developed video games for so long, and wanted to try making a game with an older protagonist. Personally I think it's great, but I don't like Snake with the Burt Reynold's moustache.
bread's done