Charles

[size=2][b][u]Story One[/u][/b] Bess has nothing to live for. The first place she looks is on the ledge of a skyscraper. Usually the last place people look. Ironic. There it is, outlined below. Torpid insects dotting the landscape. The tiny figures are a constellation; she connects the dots. There?s laundry to do. She climbs down and returns home. [size=2] [b][u]Story Two[/u][/b] ?You get three wishes,? said the magic genie. World peace sounded like a good start. World peace or eternal life. World peace, eternal life or the ability to fly. Something with panache. The genie folded his arms. ?Choose carefully,? he cautioned, ? I cannot reverse wishes once they?re made.? Coke. Safe. Perfect. Coke. [b][u]Story Three[/u][/b] [size=2] Josh and Patricia stared at one another blankly. Neither spoke. Suddenly it became clear to Josh that he didn?t understand women. Patricia did what she vowed never to do and pigeonholed Josh as a typical male, immature and afraid of commitment. Both considered saying things they?d regret later. They loved one another very much. [/size][/size][/size]

[QUOTE=James][color=#800080]It's still pretty bad though. Remember that in many of these tests, they're not activing Wi-Fi or having volume/screen brightness up. Most games (if you are actually using the speakers and so on), are probably going to give you between one and two and a half hours of playing time. The games that give you more time are going to be the ones that access the UMD less frequently -- but those games are in the minority.[/quote][/color]I conveniently failed to mention that simply because I know it's easy to play spin doctor in these threads. It's always interesting to see if people will work for their response and bring up significant issues like the ones you've mentioned. I doubt that most people have read up on the issues they're discussing whether they're valid complaints or not. Regardless, I still couldn't see myself playing any handheld for more than an hour at a time tops. [color=#800080][quote]I think the bigger issue is the type of games themselves. Most people play handheld games on the bus or train -- in other words, for relatively short bursts. Games like Gran Turismo 4 Mobile, or Dynasty Warriors (or many others you may care to name) don't lend themselves to that format. So, I think Sony is going to have to a) try to find ways around the disc access issue and b) encourage the creation of [i]handheld games[/i] rather than console games on a little screen. If Sony only try to duplicate PS2 games, PSP will have a lot of trouble. My hope is that we see more unique titles, as in, PSP-specific games. So far I'm reasonably happy with the lineup, there are a few games I'd like to get. But as I've said before, I think the whole debate is a little redundant -- we will ultimately be comparing "GBA 2" to PSP rather than DS. The PSP and DS are both very different systems, with different individual purposes. But I think much of the gaming media are still stuck in a 16-bit mindset, whereby two portable systems (where portability is the only trait they share) [i]must[/i] be in direct competition as a result. I think that concept will be shown to be massively incorrect as these two systems go through their lifespans. It's already shown to be problematic, based on some of the initial sales results (ie: the fact that DS did not cannibalize GBA SP as many expected it would).[/color][/QUOTE] [color=black]Yes. Therein lies my entire problem with both units. I have no inclination to purchase either because each holds a significant flaw that I can't excuse. The PSP has some titles that would be perfectly suited to on-the-go gaming, such as Darkstalkers Chronicle: The Chaos Tower, Tony Hawk and Hot Shots Golf. But, the overall focus of the system is to provide a pocket-size current generation console. My living room is the limit for that sort of gaming--I don't need to be absorbed in it when I leave my home. It's just not necessary; it's too much. As a multimedia device it's sexy, but I've no desire to purchase UMD films only usable on the PSP. I'd rather just purchase the DVD version. [/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]The DS just seems like a testing ground. Although it's completely different from the GameBoy line, I can't see Nintendo focusing on it once the successor to the GameBoy Advance launches to compete with PSP (if the PSP sells well enough to warrant any true competition, which should take quite a while considering how the market stands). Thus far the uses developers have found for the touch screen don't seem very innovative or fun. Obviously there are exceptions, but--drawing a pentagram to put the finishing touches on bosses in Castlevania DS? Looking at a track layout for Ridge Racer? No thank you. Currently, the only released title that interests me on the system is Super Mario 64 DS--and it's just a spruced up port of an aged game. The enhancements are excellent but hardly enough to carry the system at this time for me. Also, I would find it rather awkward using the touch screen on a bus or something, defeating its purpose as a handheld. [/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]I'd rather wait for titles like Metroid Prime: Hunters and Wario Ware. Rather than plunk down $150 I thin it'd be prudent to see how Nintendo supports it long-term. Also, I know that it'll drop in price significantly once the PSP launches despite the illusion that they're not directly competing at the moment.[/color] [color=black] [/color] [color=black]So, that initial must-buy impulse just isn't there for me. I can wait. Being wary is the best approach here.[/color]

[quote name='NorykoAngelcry][size=1][color=darkred]"So, Paris Hilton, a rabbi and a PSP are walking to the store...and the PSP runs out of battery half way there."[/color'][/size][/quote] You should read IGN's diary on the PSP's battery life. I don't find it terrible considering the factors involved. When the PSP is used for other functions, such as an ipod, the longetivity of the battery is just fine. Only when playing titles more taxing to the hardware (i.e., Ridge Racers) does it suffer at all. Even then, I can't see myself playing portable games for extended periods of time on any given session. It's not as if three to four hours worth of game time is terrible.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] I would, but before I do, I'm posting up my second list...yes the exclusive one with the super cool people on it. I wouldn't want their names to get lost amidst all of the others. [b]Super-Cool People I'd Like To Meet[/b]: Charles.[/size][/QUOTE] You're able to abuse me one minute and win me back again with your silver tongue. That's a quality worth preserving.

[center][IMG]http://img109.exs.cx/img109/6250/pspwned7xs.jpg[/IMG][/center]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Yay, somebody wants to meet me. I feel so privileged, with one person. But Danethol is cool. So, I'm happy :)[/size] [size=1]I'd like to meet him, Siren, Asphy, Alan, Warlock, James, Juuthenna, Syk, Ryoko TDC, Annie, Kane, Corey, Desbreko, Drix, Radaghast, Wondershot, Panda, Celia, Semjaza and Baron Samedi [because I'm sexy] lol.[/size][/QUOTE][center][img]http://img26.exs.cx/img26/1218/satan8ka.gif[/img][/center] I'm hurt that I'm not on your list. In conclusion, die. Members that I've met include Rob (Vampire Ed) and Alex (Siren). But, they don't really count since I actually introduced them to the site. I met them before they were members. Otherwise, I've hung out with Aleia on several occasions. In relation to the topic, I'm not [i]against[/i] meeting internet people per se but I've no desire to do so. It's difficult to explain. It's not easy to put my perspective into clearly definable terms so I'll put it this way: removing the mystique and anonymity from the Internet is making it into something more personal than I would like. Perhaps Japan_86 and I could meet up someday, make a sex tape, sell it a la Paris Hilton and become millionaires. Annie and a few others could join in and we could make the first OtakuBoards orgy.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]Hence: I guess I see that point at where it violates a game's EULA.[/color][/QUOTE]I understand what you mean. It's just that I consider what they're talking about completely different from trash talk. Verbal sparring ceases to be trash talk when exits the realm of referring to a player's skill and becomes something personal; it's just not competitve behavior anymore. By classifying this type of behavior in the same category as trash talk one gives these sort of people an excuse for their actions; they simply got carried away in the moment and their harmless intentions were betrayed by overzealously. However, I've been in a pre-game Halo 2 lobby where a female gamer repeatedly urged other players to give her oral sex (only with more vulgar language of course). It had absolutely nothing to do with the game or trash talking; she was just being an idiot. When logged into a game without using the microphone, someone mistook me for an Asian player because of my screen name I suppose (Captain Eggroll) and proceeded not only to call me all sorts of racist names, but to threaten me as well. Now, are these examples I've listed trash talking taken past a certain point or are we just dealing with nasty individuals with serious personality flaws? I'd say the answer is rather obvious. Their motive to harass others is both intentional and pre-motivated.

[quote name='Ganon6d9']Unless I'm sorely mistaken and I've screwed up my dates, Resident Evil 4 is on track for release in less than a month. And the last post was made something like 2 months ago, don't let it slip away people, we want to keep the discussion alive. Seen any new movies, any new screenshots? TELL US! I, for one, am starving for new RE4 media and haven't seen anything new on the game in about a month.[/quote]Dude, if you're so anxious to play the game you should seriously go to your local Gamestop or EB and pick up the free playable demo disc that comes with the reserve. It was released about a month ago and is essentially the demo that was playable at E3. Although it's not long (it lasts roughly ten minutes or so) there is some fun to be had; it's all action and the control scheme suits it well. There are some minor clipping issues apparent in the demo (I was able to walk through a tree) but it's polished considering. Otherwise, there are old introduction movies and trailers from old Resident Evil titles but it's obvious that the Resident Evil 4 demos (there's a video trailer as well) are the real attractions on the disc. This is old news and I'd be surprised if gamers here were unaware of it. Check it out. Also, some new screens were released from a yet-to-be-seen trailer. I'll post the links instead of direct images just in case anyone is afraid of potential spoilers. [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17231.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17231.jpg[/url] [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17230.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17230.jpg[/url] [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17228.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17228.jpg[/url] [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17227.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17227.jpg[/url] [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17226.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17226.jpg[/url] [url="http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17225.jpg"]http://gc.advancedmn.com/images/media/up17225.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=RabidInuFanboy]Morpheus knows why I don't play online games at my house... *cries*[/QUOTE] As if that's an acceptable reply. Who cares if one person knows why you don't play online at your home? An "inside" answer like that is spam. You may as well have just posted a picture of Matt Damon or something else equally useless. Fix your post or it'll be deleted. :) okthnxbye.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]As far as I'm concerned, talking trash (to a point) is a normal part of competitive online gaming. I get ticked if someone is spawn camping, and make snide comments when I kill the same person several times in a row. It's part of the experience.[/color][/QUOTE] It's important to make the distinction between talking trash all in good fun and being abusive, which is what's being discussed here.

[quote name='Kyuai][font=Palatino Linotype][color=darkred]Does anyone else have issues with overly-competitive or just plain rude online players? (Just a thought)[/color'][/font][/quote]All the time. I'm not afraid to use the feedback system to report them either. There's no excuse for hateful slurs being thrown around during a video game; it's not fair and it's unacceptable. I sign on to have a good time, I don't want to listen to a bunch of morons say hurtful things to people. Sometimes I turn everyone's voices off. But, more often than not I just mute the offending party. It's a nice solution to the problem.

Online play is a big determinant for me when selecting which version of a game I'm going to buy. Although I don't play online very often, I'm obviously going to take advantage of possessing all three major consoles; it's natural to select the version with the most robust features, barring any major differences in playability. Online multiplayer components especially sway me when they outclass the single player campaign. I simply wouldn't be interested in games like Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow and Rainbow Six 3 without the online feature. The same could be said of Halo 2; I would have either sold it or never bought it to begin with had there not been an enticing multiplayer component attached to it. Socom II sits in the same boat. I'm not interested in the heavy emphasis placed on commanding allies--it's commendable but not suited to my interests. The online function, on the other hand, is brilliant. Especially for a console shooter. I'd say it's the most developed one I've played. I would like to play online sports games on my Playstation 2 but opponents ruin the experience with cheat devices, so I'm glad that EA has decided to support Xbox Live. When one considers the realism sports games have achieved in gameplay and franchise modes, one recognizes that multiplayer is where developers need to start building. There's not much left to achieve on this generation of consoles otherwise. So that's my answer. I'm not an avid online gamer but the availability of online play does sway my decision when purchasing cross-platform titles. It adds variation every now and then. It's just too bad that many online gamers are dorks who are able to play games [i]constantly[/i], leaving more casual gamers like myself completely in the dust. That drains some fun out of the experience. Current matchmaking engines don't seem to match competitors of similar skill levels effectively yet. Again, Socom II holds an advantage in that department. I should start playing it again.

[quote name='Legend-killer']has anyone played it if so what do you think of it[/quote]There's already a thread dedicated to this game. Here is the link: [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=39475&highlight=Prince+Persia+Warrior"]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=39475&highlight=Prince+Persia+Warrior[/url] You should always search game titles to see if there's a thread related to them before creating a new one. Read the sticky thread entitled "How to Post in Play It" for more details. Also, please put more effort into your posts. One poorly constructed inquiry isn't going to cut it as a topic here. I apologize if I sound harsh but blunt honesty is what is sometimes needed for motivation in these situations. Hopefully more people have indeed played the game since the holidays have rolled around. Although I despise the cliche' new dose of "attitude" there looks to be a good, genuine game underneath the marketing rubbish.

Well, I'm back again. It's been a rough work schedule. Now, on with this. [QUOTE=Siren]Good to have you back again, Charles. Slow-paced tension versus arcade-y shooter? Like Rainbow Six 3 versus Halo? I play games for fun, too, but I'm not about to go choose to watch Starship Troopers when I can watch Alien, and likewise, if I've got a game that's more white knuckle, hiding in the shadows, avoiding enemies, with insta-death should I mis-step instead of being able to pretty much open-ended run n gun, I'm going with the insta-death. Being babied (which is how you're describing MGS3, lol) is not exactly my idea of a good game, lol.[/quote]Thank you. It's always good to return and jump right into a good discussion. I feel very fortunate to just have one handed to me like this. Now that the pleasantries are over, it's time for the gloves to come off again. Your approach to this discussion confuses me for a number of reasons. Your failed analogy is the first red flag. I had compared Splinter Cell with Metal Gear Solid 3 because Splinter Cell was obviously born from it and was created to compete directly with it. These titles don't share two utterly different approaches or vastly differing styles. The basic gameplay and objectives are very similar. The gravely-voiced protagonists in both games share similar abilities and the scenarios they face resemble one another closely. The difference is in craftsmanship. This is nothing like comparing Rainbow Six 3 and Halo 2 where the only commonality is that you play as a character grasping a gun in their hand from a first person perspective. Neither Metal Gear Solid 3 nor Splinter Cell are arcade shooters. I'll be blunt. One game is fun because it was designed exceptionally; the other is aggravating because it's laced with glitches and poor pacing. The craftsmanship in Splinter Cell completely fails in direct comparison with that of Metal Gear Solid 3's. I've wasted entire clips into light bulbs with no effect in Splinter Cell simply because of poor collision. You have a tendency to bold specific quotes from my replies as if you've placed careful consideration into what I've been saying but your blatant misreading of very simple concepts gives you away. I had never suggested that Metal Gear Solid 3 "babies" the player. In fact, my argument is quite the opposite. Metal Gear Solid 3 is more mature than its competitors, if that makes sense. It gives players the freedom to handle any given situation in the way of their choosing. If anything, it's Splinter Cell that babies the player by forcing them to approach each objective in a [b]very particular[/b] way. If Sam Fisher so much as steps on the wrong person's toe, a "mission failed" screen pops up. How is that enjoyable? Isn't that a way of holding the player's hand? Truly great games allow flexibility. They allow the player to strategize and weigh the consequences of their actions. Tell me this: How fun would a game like Mario 64 have been if each star had to be gathered in a very rigid, precise way? Metal Gear Solid 3 isn't riddled with unacceptable glitches. It's mature enough to allow the player to make it "their game." It has a difficulty level that isn't artificially increased by poor trial-and-error design. I can only assume that in making this point, you're overstating my very minor criticism of the forgiving damage levels Snake takes from gunfire. It's not an issue that ruins the game and like everything else in Metal Gear Solid 3, it's been put in place for a reason. The developers didn't want players to die immediately upon detection. No. They intended to leave room for players to react in real-time, adjust to their mistakes, and play through a situation that has become altered because of them. As a long-time gamer, I'm able to see the genius in that design. For me, that attention to detail will always be the key difference between true masters of the art and their imitators. Something like Splinter Cell is able to offer fancy, superficial glaze, but it doesn't dig nearly as deep. [quote]Considering the MG franchise itself, the very first NES game being rather user-[i]un[/i]friendly, and bulky, and not all that fluid at all, even by "yesterday's" standards, I don't think that the MG series (or MGS series) was ever really focused on being "fluid, simple, and easy to pick up and play." The menus alone were convoluted as hell in the originals (I don't think anyone cold deny that, lol), and it took some time to use the menus in MGS adequately. Maybe it's just me, but the Metal Gear series has been more complicated than simple, and bulkier than more fluid. I mean, honestly, Charles, do you expect a n00b to be able to pick up MGS1 (and likewise, 2, and 3) and play it like they've been playing it for years?[/quote]I laughed at this; you're really grasping at straws here. Again, we're traveling into the realm of subjectivity. I've played the original Metal Gear Solid recently and experienced little to no problem whatsoever in navigating through the menus. The game was difficult, not because of poor design, but due to the higher difficulty common to games of the time. I can pick up any number of 8-bit games and have my *** handed to me. Metal Gear is no exception. :laugh: Play the original Metroid compared to Zero Mission and you'll see exactly what I mean. Metal Gear Solid 3 is obviously an evolution of the developer and the genre. The first efforts aren't going to be flawlessly smooth or fluid, especially considering the era they were developed in. Metal Gear was revolutionary at the time of its inception. We're talking about a cinematic stealth action title on the Famicom. It was an ambitious goal considering the limitations of the technology. So of course there were going to be some problems. Still, the games weren't complicated at all from a design standpoint. Plus, think about it: How much [i]more[/i] complicated have the Metal Gear games gotten since then in terms of menu interface since then? Not much, right? Probably less judging from your perspective. Compare that philosophy, of keeping the series simple over the years to that of other series that have overly complicated their formulas, thus ruining them. Even games that sprung on during the 32-bit error haven't been able to sustain the longetivity and simplicity Metal Gear has. Look at how Tomb Raider has been muddled down with stats for individual limbs and a bevy of unnecessary RPG elements. In any case, I just don't agree with this flimsy tactic of assaulting games that are almost two decades old and trying to validate it as a way of criticizing the current crop of Metal Gear Solid titles. If you can navigate Splinter Cell's menus, but not Metal Gear Solid's simple pull-down interface--something's wrong. Also, indeed--there is no reason why anyone with some experience with video games can't pick up any current generation Metal Gear Solid title and play it efficiently within a matter of minutes. They offer a copious array of difficulties to choose from and a simple control scheme that anyone can become familiar with immediately. Of course, that's not to say they can [i]master[/i] it immediately or play as if they've been playing for years. What quality title would allow a non-existent learning curve like that? Not even Tetris! Either you misphrased that or you're being ridiculous. [quote]If it's such common sense anyway, and anyone with a pair of eyes can easily figure it out, why is there the percentage read-out to begin with? It just becomes redundant.[/quote]Who cares? I'll say it again, you're focusing on a [b]very[/b] minute detail and trying to pass it off as a critical design flaw. After putting in a few hours with the game I had forgotten all about the percentage indicator. It didn't matter either way in practice--it was completely inconsequential and never dictated how the game should be played. [quote]Since you brought up Splinter Cell, I'll talk about it, as well. I've bolded where Splinter Cell is no different. These are examples of how you can handle enemies, and a variety of the ways are very precise and methodical, almost overly cautious, which is the same type of gameplay you'd find in Splinter Cell, in fact, even more so in Splinter Cell, because the game really punishes you for miscalculations. I don't see how what you've described is really any different from Splinter Cell, anyway. You're talking about how to approach an enemy, disable him without being detected, or how to use the environment to your advantage. The only difference is location (jungle vs the slums of Jerusalem).[/quote]I've explained my comparison sufficiently above so I'll be brief here. Metal Gear Solid 3 punishes you for miscalculations. Ask anyone who's had an entire pack of enemy soldiers pursuing them through the forest with dogs. Almost always, that effect is the result of a legitimate error on the player's part. [i]That's [/i]thrilling. Escaping, re-adjusting to the situation and approaching it differently is fun. On the other hand, Splinter Cell does not punish you merely for sloppy play (you're being very liberal here), it literally bullies players based on either rigid linearity or glitchy gameplay flaws. It says "You're at Point A, there's point B. Here are some obscure objectives for you to carry out in-between. Now, get there [b][i]exactly[/b][/i] how we intend you to or you'll have to repeat the entire section." :sleep: On occasion I was forced to repeat an area because of haphazard tactic but most of the time it was because of a severe gameplay flaw (i.e., I shot an enemy in the head with my silenced pistol and it literally registered no damage whatsoever save for a flinch). [i]That[/i] is not enjoyable. At least not to me. I find that brand of difficulty artificial, not based on clever design that requires intense thinking, but rather quite the opposite. [quote]The Camo percentage doesn't allow the player to figure out what's best, because it's telling them what's best. Regarding spoiled food, there's no "method that works best" there, because the end result is the same, and there's no variation, unless you get purged more if you pop some of the medicine instead of spinning. "Hightlight item" *click* "Apply item" *click* "Highlight different item" *click* "Apply different item" *click*[/quote]Not this again. We're not playing Full Spectrum Warrior here or some meticulous camoflage simulator. The game doesn't revolve around the camoflage system--it's just a new twist on the formula. It's not meant to dictate how the game is played. The player can run around shirtless if they choose to. And, again, the number relative to the camouflage is based on common sense. If Snake infiltrates a gray building, then [i]of course[/i] gray camouflage is going to offer a higher read-out than a white uniform. With or without the number being visible that's how the game would operate; the number has no bearing on that. I don't need the number to discover what's best for the situation. It's there, I will give you that. It's the one point of yours I do agree with--the number is indeed there. I'd hardly say it's something I pay attention to though. Regarding food--if you spin and vomit you lose stamina. If you use medicine, you don't. There's variation. [quote]Call me cynical, Charles, but that's just the same ration system with a different presentation and name, lol. If by "different," you mean in the superficial sense, then, yes; it's different. But fundamentally different? I can't see how.[/quote]As I said, Metal Gear Solid 3 isn't offering a complete revolution in gameplay. Like other sequels, it's operating on a proven engine that's been tweaked with each subsequent release. Having said that, there are significant differences related to hunting and gathering organic food compared to storing rations. Different foods have different tastes, different effects, and can spoil--so players are forced to manage their supply carefully since it can actually [i]damage[/i] them if managed inefficiently. Also, unlike the ration system, the food doesn't magically restore Snake's health. It restores stamina--which allows Snake to heal faster. Think about it--if you eat a sub sandwich, does it heal your wounds? Of course not. So, I'd say the very concept is quite an advancement in realism. Which, in retrospect is exactly what it's supposed to be. [quote]I would hope that one doesn't go recklessly rushing into a group of enemies more because one would get heavily damaged, and one would want to avoid heavy damage, because heavy damage is hazardous to one's health, instead of simply because one doesn't want to take the 35 seconds it would take to rapidly cycle through one's item menu and apply a bandage. Avoiding damage for the sake of avoiding damage is a no-brainer; 35 seconds to apply a bandage or two, or three, shouldn't be a factor at all.[/quote]I don't see the point of parrying with my points with a full paragraph that doesn't say much of anything at all. You have the same reasons for avoiding conflict in Metal Gear Solid 3 as you would in other games--only you can take damage. So what? In Metal Gear Solid 3 I don't want to rush full-on into an area with reckless abandon because back-up troops will be called in, Snake will take heavy injury, and the game could be lost. There are a lot more detrimental consequences there than simply being forced to repeat the area and suffering no other reprimand. Repairing damages is just relative to that. It's not supposed to be a substitute to logic. That is, it's not supposed to be the only incentive not to charge into danger recklessly--it's just an effect that accompanies it. I'd avoid playing poorly so that I could acquire a higher ranking and carefully study my surroundings for secrets, two necessities for unlocking some of the cool Easter eggs upon completion. [quote]I can't see how. I never was suggesting that I want to taste the animal flesh. I never was suggesting that I want to feel the rough bark of the tree as I climb it. I never was suggesting that I want to smell the dirt.[/quote]You're conflicting yourself here. [b]"Given what they wanted to do, with the gradual Stamina drain and all, and the need to consistently eat, why they didn't just have you strip the animal right there and eat on-the-spot is beyond me."[/b] [b]"We're talking Willard a la Apocalypse Now, rising out of the water, hair slicked back, with black warpaint streaking his face, moving in and out of the shadows, wielding a machete."[/b] [b][font=Tahoma]"Unless you are looking for a Thief: Deadly Shadows-esque pick-lock control system for removing bullets or something along the lines of that.[/font][/b] [b]--That's [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about."[/b] You wanted a slower, more meticulous game that Metal Gear Solid 3 is simply not trying to be. It's not an arcade shooter, but at the same time, it's not a detailed simulation either. It's a video game that sacrifices critical detail for pacing and playability. The formula isn't supposed to deviate from the familiar Metal Gear Solid path--again, it's for the fans. Now that the Solid series is over Kojima and crew can go in that direction if they want with future releases. But it wouldn't make sense from a design perspective for them to make the drastic changes you're suggesting within one game in a trilogy. They had to maintain a similar feel across the series to maintain cohesiveness. [quote]Charles, you know how much I played (and loved) MGS1. You and I had extended-length discussions about how MGS2 totally dropped the ball when it came to being a game. You and I had conversations examining how horrible the bosses were in MGS2, and how Fortune was the only worthwhile (sympathetic) boss villain. I'm not a "non-fan" of the series. If I were a non-fan of the series, I wouldn't even be posting here, lol...I wouldn't even give two sh-ts about how particular aspects of the series are declining. If I were a non-fan of the series, I wouldn't have collected every single damn dog tag in MGS2. And I'd hardly classify MGS3 has reinventing the game from the ground-up, too.[/QUOTE]No, no, no. I've had this discussion many times with various people. Metal Gear Solid 2 never dropped the ball when it came to being a game. Be very careful with your words there. Its story failed (only in the last hour at that), some of the level design was questionable, and the frequency of codec conversations was irritating but the core gameplay is almost universally recognized as terrific. Ask yourself, would you have gone through the process of collecting every dog tag if the actual game was terrible? You said it yourself there. The frame rate was a silky smooth sixty frames per second, the controls were responsive, and the artificial intelligence made some significant leaps over its predecessor. Metal Gear Solid 2, as a game, helped kick start the current generation of software on the market and set a benchmark in terms of combining technology with gameplay, a blend that quickly became a standard throughout the industry. We can talk about this until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, you're coming into this discussion at a disadvantage since you've not beaten the game yet. Your perspective simply isn't fully shapen. Complete the game and then come back to me. At that point, words won't be necessary for me to convince you. The game will pretty much do that. If you're a fan of the series, as you claim to be, you'll understand that it's not fair to play a portion of it and then come to half-baked conclusions based on the limited time you've spent with it.

[QUOTE=Siren]One thing. lol An improved hand-to-hand combat system isn't going to compensate for the lackluster "survival" gameplay. I've already expressed my thoughts on the Camo rating (which, after having some hands-on time with the game, remain identical). I feel that it's still half-baked. It's far from developed enough, and stripped down enough, to excite me at all. By this I mean, the idea of Camo in this game, and blending in to the surroundings is a solid idea, and on paper, it sounds wonderful. We're talking Willard a la Apocalypse Now, rising out of the water, hair slicked back, with black warpaint streaking his face, moving in and out of the shadows, wielding a machete. But what we get is something that only feeds us more computerized read-outs, with no real dependency on the player to figure out what's going to work best?[/quote]The survival gameplay isn't lackluster at all. One only needs to look to other games in the genre comparatively to understand just how fine-tuned Metal Gear Solid 3 truly is. I have no doubt that you're familiar with Splinter Cell's frustrating "trial-and-error" gameplay. The scenarios themselves in that game are more stealth oriented, and you're less likely to survive a hail of bullets than you are in Metal Gear Solid 3 (the game is admittedly quite forgiving in regards to sustaining damage even on the harder difficulties) but Splinter Cell's gameplay just isn't as [i]fun.[/i] And, that's what I play games for. That's why the camouflage system isn't as meticulous as you'd like it to be. Kojima wanted it to be there--but he didn't want it to get in the way. But, really, to be earnest, the index isn't a huge problem that needs defending. For one thing, it's such an intuitive, common sense system, that one isn't likely to even rely on the reading. One doesn't need to be an experienced player to judge which combination will work most effectively when sneaking--they just need a pair of eyes. That's not even my strongest point against what you're saying though. It's not [i]just[/i] the camouflage you adorn Snake with that generates excitement--it's how you approach the situation. I find that most of the stealth is centered around the player's patience and their strategy when approaching any given situation. There are almost always multiple ways of navigating around a group of enemies. You can hide in a thicket of grass, crawling slowly on your belly--carefully choosing objects to hide behind all the while. On the other hand, you can isolate an enemy, snipe him, tranq him, or play somewhat more aggressively, shooting out his radio so that he cannot call for back-up. You can even use nearby objects; you can push barrels into enemy units, throw poisonous snakes at them or shoot explosive materials. Yet, at no time will you face a "mission failed-" screen and have to repeat the section for no good reason. By isolating one facet of the game, you're completely ignoring all the depth that makes it so special. For example, did you know that when you eat spoiled food, you're not forced to use medicine, but may instead spin Snake around in the menu screen causing him to vomit? Now, remind me again why the player isn't allowed to figure out what will work best? That seems to be an issue in other stealth games in which there's only one method to success, but not here. No two people will play this game exactly the same. [quote]Another new and exciting gameplay feature that so many people are touting as "deep" or "challenging" is this Surgery thing. We're simply using items. That's it. We're not using the joysticks to maneuver a knife and remove the bullet. We're selecting Ointment-->Apply, then Bandage-->Apply. This is deep how? This is a challenge how? This is organic gameplay how? I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone.[/quote]What's your point exactly? I've not seen many people tout this feature as "deep." But, most agree that it doesn't get in the way or ruin the game either. It's just an alternative method to healing that works in conjunction with the feeding system to provide a more interesting experience than simply finding intermittent ration items that will automatically restore Snake. It's not supposed to be a challenge, or deep. Just different. Furthermore, it encourages players not to be reckless because it can be time consuming if you barge into a room, suffer from a multitude of injuries, and go through the process of healing them individually. If you were concerned with not boring anyone, you'd encourage these kinds of changes. But, then again, you don't seem to be against change per se, but rather, you were looking for Metal Gear Solid 3 to completely revolutionize gaming in some way with its tweaks. So, you've taken a very critical stance against variations to a familiar formula that have been introduced. I'd say that you need to be reminded of exactly what kind of game Metal Gear Solid is supposed to be. No one is trying to achieve Tom Clancy levels of depth. No. The Metal Gear Solid series, has roots as a cinematic tour de force. However, despite the complex technology and direction dedicated towards achieving that end in each iteration, the series is geared towards the complete opposite in terms of gameplay. Again, it's a throwback to the roots of video games, when they were fluid, simple, and easy to pick up and play with enjoyment in mind. It's not about being burdened down with complex systems. Now, go play Splinter Cell. [quote]My assessment of MGS3 is similar to my assessment of MGS2. In a year-and-a-half, once the initial excitement of the game wears off, people's positive opinions of it will change fairly drastically.[/quote]I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but I doubt it. Love them or hate them, these games leave lasting impressions. People, to this day, [i]still[/i] have energetic discussions about Metal Gear Solid 2 , for example. Many will agree, despite their opinion of the story, that the actual game is incredible. Metal Gear games are masterpieces, and like all video games that occupy that coveted rank, they last the test of time. Why else would the original Metal Gear Solid have been remade for the GameCube? It wasn't being introduced to a new audience for the same purpose of easing them into the series as we saw with the Resident Evil remake. Metal Gear isn't moving over to GameCube. It's because Metal Gear fans, like Zelda fans or what have you, are dedicated to the product enough to preserve its status throughout the years. Consider that most fans agree that it's the best game in the trilogy, and I'm left pondering the validity of your point despite its hypothetical, and unfounded, nature. [quote]To clarify, I'm not looking to be able to actually smell the dirt, feel the foliage or anything like that. I'm not about to criticize a game for being unable to recreate the smells and tactile sensations of the jungle, because I'd be setting highly, highly unrealistic expectations.[/quote]You could have fooled me. [quote]What I am looking for, however, is if a game's developers (like Kojima and his crew) are so strongly emphasizing a level of gameplay previously unrealized, with new and exciting features that will immerse you more than ever before...I don't want some derivative menu/item system whose "survival" aspects are nothing more than superficial window dressing, and really, that's all MGS3's new gameplay options are: just a regular menu/item system wrapped in a fancy "Hey, look at this!" costume.[/QUOTE]Kojima has always had a vision for Metal Gear, and that vision involved a sneaking mission that began with a drop-off in the jungle. Again, the developers weren't trying to usher in a completely revolutionary level of gameplay. They just wanted to freshen the series by going back to its roots. It's an obvious goal that's been realized both through plot and the environment. They wanted to take the Metal Gear formula, pick it up, and take it somewhere else. That's all. The developers created a convincing jungle environment with the Playstation 2 technology that's impressive to behold; it does more than live up to the series' immersive environments--it surpasses them. Not only visually, but also because it's more interesting to play through and allows more possibilities on the gameplay side of things. I'd say that, in practice, it's more suited to the stealth experience overall. The game wasn't reinvented from the ground up to "convert" non-fans of the series; it was intended to please the fans. Keep that in mind before you waste your time replying with points I'll easily counter.

Wow, I find it very disheartening that there's not been one single post in this thread since the game's release. Hopefully the holidays will change that. This is a [i]huge[/i] title and by far my favorite game of the year. I've had it upon release and completed it; the experience was beyond my expectations, which were impossibly high to begin with. Metal Gear Solid 3 first appealed to me because of the terrific trailers. They were easily better than just about any theatrical trailer I've seen recently. I was looking forward to the cinematics, art, and story more so than the actual game. When impressions started pouring in and they confirmed that the plot was not only coherent, but far superior to even the first Metal Gear's plot, I found myself actually looking forward to a game for the first time in a while. And so, when I played the game, I related the experience to a good book; at first I was playing just to devour the engrossing story--I wanted to move forward to see more. As I moved on, I discovered just how much improvement the actual game has seen outside of the cinematic direction. Although the jungle is divided into "rooms" they're much larger and more interesting than the indoor environments found in the previous Metal Gear titles. They're much more suited for a stealth-action title. Not only are the landscapes a beauty to behold--there are more uneven surfaces to navigate, objects to interact with, and hazards to avoid. The actual indoor environments don't suffer and are designed just as thoughtfully as better. They break up the outdoor sections nicely, offering a nice break from trekking in the wilderness. By the time I moved on from one of the structures I had to infiltrate, I was ready to be thrust into the ambient outdoor environments again. Just that feeling of wanting to see the next locale, and moving on slowly through the brush was invigorating. Although the camera is often criticized as being too limited, I agree with Kojima's logic in retaining it--it forces you to move slowly. In the previous post in this thread, which seems ancient now, Siren basically rambled on about the new gameplay features being introduced and how they're not revolutionary. This is true, but they certainly don't get in the way of anything. As a matter of fact, they're positive additions that are there if you want another layer of depth to explore. That's all. The CQC system, in particular, deserves mention, however, because it's the one new feature I believe improves the gameplay significantly. When I played Twin Snakes, I had a difficult time enjoying it because Snake's combat abilities just felt so aged compared to what Ubisoft was doing with Splinter Cell. Even watching the in-game cut scenes from Twin Snakes annoyed me because I wasn't able to replicate the hand-to-hand combat presented in them. It was just a mindless, button-mashing affair. Snake Eater's CQC gives the player options that greatly expands your available options during enemy encounters. You can interrogate an enemy to sometimes hilarious results, choke him out, break his neck, throw him down, slit his throat, or use him as a human shield. It's a lot more enjoyable than punch, punch, spin kick, or holding them up for dog tags. Also, the little touches are amazing. Especially the boss battles. I'm sure you've all heard about the sniper battle with The End, by now, which can last minutes or hours depending on how you play it. You can even circumvent it altogether if you know how. Every boss battle is exciting in its own way and really throws one back to the time when boss battles were something spectacular, that gamers could talk about fondly for years. The boss characters themselves aren't developed much as characters, which is disappointing, but it doesn't detract from the experience. They're there for Snake to kill in an epic way, which is just fine with me. If you want to learn more about them there are optional codec conversations that will provide you with information. I like how you have to work for details--they're not just given to you. Speaking of codec conversations--their role has been reduced substantially. After the first hour or so of the game, which is essentially just an introduction, they become limited, relevant, and optional. There's far less melodrama, more comedy, and better written dialogue. So, they're entertaining and worth checking out. If anything, they flesh out the story and explain little things [spoiler]such as why the Cobra Unit members explode after you defeat them.[/spoiler] I could go on, but I'd like for more people to experience the game before any minor details are discussed. It would be pointless for me to go into them when no one can relate to what I'm talking about. So, I hope some of you pick this one up. It has a killer story that actually improves the overview of the other games in the series, the best ending I've ever seen in a video game, interactive (to a point) cut scenes, and an improved gameplay experience. Shame on you if you sit this one out. [size=2][/size]

Obviously, Sega and Take 2 started this whole mess by undercutting EA through price instead of going head to head directly through product quality. In addition to that, it's not as if there's any real competition for EA's Madden franchise to begin with. Sony's Gameday has been awful for years, Microsoft cancelled its mediocre Fever franchise, and Blitz was lost in the shuffle ages ago. In short, EA's foolish if they bothered. Although ESPN sold more than it usually does this past year, more people still bought Madden despite its substantially higher price tag. That speaks volumes as to where these titles stand, quite frankly.

[quote name='Siren']Yeah, it does have that Charlesness to it, but I wasn't going for anything like that, of course. I was more concerned with the thematic of the idea, really, how sick things need to get put down, like Old Yeller and bad threads.[/quote] This image has my seal of approval, although most threads I close don't conjure up images of puppy dogs, but rather ugly things like sick babies and the black death.

[quote name='Xander Harris']Another good bit of advice: learn how to spell 'girlfriend' before you ask someone to be one ;)[/quote] And yet some more advice: Stop trying to be funny because it's not working. ;) Now, being a good boyfriend isn't just attributed to physical gestures, such as holding hands or kissing. Don't completely consume yourself with high expectations of molding yourself into a "good boyfriend." If you're looking at yourself negatively and adjusting your behavior according to critical self-doubt, things will probably go awkwardly. You'll probably stilt whatever you say or do. It won't seem natural. Just be at ease and your reactions will come intuitively. So, instead of focusing on making a move on her, just concentrate on making good conversation and being a fun person to be around. Yes, being an interesting person is surey preferable to rushing to hang all over her.

[quote name='Falkon']I have to say that, personally, I am REALLY really looking forward to the release of the PSP. I mena, how COULDNT you want something that has a pretty damn good processing power, damn good graphics for a handheld, and the ability to play wirelessly online (using wireless BlueTooth technology.)[/quote] This isn't a very sophisticated response but I'll tell you this: the reason I won't be jumping out of my seat to buy a PSP is because I have a Playstation 2 at home. The unit itself seems to offer little that would interest me outside of the novelty of enjoying a similar experience to what I might enjoy in front of my television. I'm not in a position where I absolutely [i]must[/i] be connected to my Playstation 2 "at the hip" so to speak. I can take a break from it, which negates the need for a luxury item like the PSP. So, my train of thought is similar to that of Desbreko's.

[quote name='Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f]I am a creature of logic, Sciros. Point out my flaws, please.[/color][/size][/font'][/b][/quote]Well, first of all, that's a very contradictory statement in and of itself based on the inscrutable nature of the rhetoric I've seen from you thus far. [quote]Well, you wrote alot there, Baron Samedi. God created everything from Himself. He is unlimited, and if He wanted to make the universe expand, He could, because he can't be "used up". [b]You want proof, but I can't give you that. All I can give you is the truth. If you want proof, you'll have to look for it within yourself. If you have faith, you have proof[/b]. It has to come from within. If you look for it in yourself, and you can't find it, it's because you don't expect or you don't want to find it. Open your heart, and you will receive all the proof you need. How do I know it's within you? [b]You'll just have to take my word for it.[/b] God "created" us in his image, from the infinite perfection that is himself. Since we originated from him, we share in his immortality. To destroy a soul would be to destroy a part of God. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed. If our souls were created from something other than God, then they would be an abomination, and they would disprove God. And throughout all of this is balance, balance, balance.[/quote] Edit: I'm deleting Midnight Rush's post. Please don't bring that bullcrap in here. And you spelled employer wrong in your signature. okthnxbye.

[quote name='lava lamp']You should be flattered. Think of OtakuBoards as kindergarten. The boy who hits you wants to hit it.[/quote] [center][img]http://img59.exs.cx/img59/9759/olson2.gif[/img] [/center] [left]Yeah, anyone who gets particular mention should feel honored. It shows I have a special place in my black heart for them whilst I hate everyone else just equally.[/left] [left][QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1][/left] Are you telling me that Charles wants to...err, hit it? With me? I thought I listed that I didn't like people with small penises... >_>[/size][/QUOTE][center][img]http://img73.exs.cx/img73/3959/sob_kid.jpg[/img][/center]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']People with small penises.[/size][/quote]So, you prefer people with large penises is what you're saying? What are you getting at exactly? Anyway-- [list] [*]Baron Samedi [/list]

[center][img]http://img54.exs.cx/img54/9789/whocares4.jpg[/img][/center] I highly advise you to read the "How to post in Play It" sticky thread sitting at the top of the page. Instead of creating new threads and fragmenting discussion on one game, you should post within the existing one relevant to it. It'd be a lot easier to gauge other peoples' opinions on the game by reading through one discussion instead of creating a useless one-sentence topic. Everyone has different criteria when it comes to measuring a game's quality so you should keep that in mind also as it might not coincide with your own. Here's the proper thread: [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=35797&highlight=Fable"]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=35797&highlight=Fable[/url]

[QUOTE=lava lamp]I think they just found: [img]http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/ce/july/garycoleman_150.jpg[/img] Gary Coleman?[/QUOTE]It's funny cause it's true. lol! That has to be one of the better posts I've encountered here in quite a while--and I think it's because I've come to the harsh realization that I've unwittingly professed some latent desire that'll be used against me again and again.