Gaming Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

[Charles]

I came across this new media for Metal Gear Solid 3, so I decided I may as well post it up. As most of you know, Kojima is always uber-secretive about its new Metal Gear projects, so even a trickle of new information or screenshots is a big deal. Especially when they're this gorgeous. I would say that even in this still-early state, this is the best-looking console game I've ever seen (with the[i] possible[/i] exception of Resident Evil 4). The sheer ambition alone involved with producing a game successfully in this setting staggers me.

[img]http://media.metalgearcentral.com/screens/mgs3/168.jpg[/img]

Check out the detail on each individual blade of grass. Or the moss and foliage creeping up the tree trunks. Even a detail as miniscule as the leaves commands attention. I'm only left wondering if each individual branch and hanging vine in the backdrop is being produced in real time or is painted.

[img]http://media.metalgearcentral.com/screens/mgs3/166.jpg[/img]

Here, you can see that the ground textures could still use a bit of work. Also, dynamic lighting hasn't been fully implemented yet. "Snake" still doesn't cast a shadow. This shot does give you the opportunity to scope out another form of camouflage though (which incidentally seems to be ineffective according to the meter). Note the face paint too. Cool stuff.

[img]http://media.metalgearcentral.com/screens/mgs3/165.jpg[/img]

This is probably my favorite shot. The detail on "Snake's" character model is amazing. The individual wisps of hair, the creases in the uniform, the smeared face paint, the buckles, the wires--somebody pinch me.

[img]http://media.metalgearcentral.com/screens/mgs3/167.jpg[/img]

This shot impresses me because of sunlight's radiance being casted onto the grass in the form of a soft glow effect reminiscent of Ico's presentation.

There you have it. Despite Metal Gear Solid 2 breaking my heart (only to a certain extent), I'm confident that this latest installment will not only be the strongest in the series, but a revolutionary step in gaming. At least as far as tactical espionage games are concerned, that is. The scope is just out-of-this-world. Aside from some low resolution textures and a lack of shadows playing off the environment onto the characters or vice versa, the visuals are seeing a level of polish few completed games can claim.

It should prove interesting to see how they pull everything together in such a "free" setting. You know, you could easily get lost in a forest atmosphere no matter how ambient or beautiful it looks due to the lack of variety in an environment like this. It's definitely a feat to look forward to.

[Shinmaru]

Well, I had thought the screens that I had previously seen for Metal Gear Solid 3 looked fantastic, but I wasn't expecting anything [i]near[/i] the amazing quality of these. They look absolutely fantastic.

Screen 1: I was actually thinking the same thing, heh. If the individual branches and the vines covering them are actually rendered in real time...wow. I can't even think of a coherent thought to finish that lol. The shot looks extremely good, I think, and the amount of detail put into it is just astounding.

Screen 2: Yep, it's quite obvious that the ground textures need a bit of work but everything else is looking good.

Screen 3: My jaw just about dropped when I saw this one - Snake's character model is stunningly close to photographic quality. The little bits of light shining through on Snake is a nice touch, too.

Screen 4: Very cool looking shot that shows off how fun that the jungle environment should be. There should be plenty of suspenseful moments while the guards hover mere feet away from wherever Snake happens to be hiding. Good stuff.

This is the part where I curse the fact that I don't have a PS2 lol. I really think Metal Gear Solid 3 will end up being one of those games that you just buy a console for, no questions asked. Like Charles said, the game really looks like it'll not only be the best in the Metal Gear series but a revolutionary step in gaming. Stuff like that doesn't come around very often.

[Semjaza]

Game is looking good, although I'm not quite as blown away as you are heh. The detail on Snake is nothing beyond things I've seen in other games before, although it's definitely nice.

I'm not too sure about that grass shot. I'm not sure what can really be attibuted to soft lighting on the blades when all the grass in the shot is colored that exact same way. It makes it hard to pick out much of anything due to a lack of comparison.

I actually think the first shot is the most impressive.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this. Playing in the jungles again should be fun. It kind of reminds me of First Blood, in a way... which is always a great thing.

[Ganon6d9]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=2][FONT=Tahoma]Being the Nintendo fanboy that I am I'm way more psyched up for The Twin Snakes, but I'll be damned if this isn't one impressive looking game. I've always wondered what it'd be like to be Rambo, this sounds about as close as I'll get without actually being him(probaby a good thing). I haven't really been following this game but from what I've heard it's... well... impressive, I'm pretty sure it's going to set the bar for adventure games up a few notches. Here's hoping for MGS3 remade on the 'Cube(don't own a PS2).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Ashura]

It [I]is[/I] looking very impressive. I just hope they also focus on gameplay. I've actually seen about 5-6 mins of footage on DVD featuring footage from E3 2003 and I was nearly ready to change my religion to become a Kojima-ite! You think the stills look good! From what I saw from the footage, you can get different forms of camoflauge to disguise yourself better. You now have to hunt snakes and other animals just to eat! You don't know how cool it looks to see Snake actually take a bite of a snake. Also, now they can send dogs after you, requiring you to discuise your trail via walking through water. You can also climb trees as well, allowing you to get the 'drop' (pun intended) on your enemies. You also now have a knife, so you can slit guards throats instead of just knocking them out. AI for guards is amazing now. Instead of the pathwise movement used in MGS 1 and 2, they will try and flank you, cover each other, use aggressive tactics to get closer to you, use natural cover, retreat when wounded, everything! Should make for less predictable gaming. Gamewise, MGS3 seems to be less linear than MGS 1 and 2, which can only be a plus. And best of all (from what I can tell)...no Raiden! :D

It seems like a huge concept that most people couldn't pull off. But you never know...Hideo Kojima has surprised us before.

[Gohan Egret]

E3 2004 MGS3 Trailer Released:

[CENTER][B][url=http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/536/536086/vids_1.html][COLOR=Green]E3 2004: Metal Gear Solid 3 Konami Demonstration[/COLOR][/url][/B][/CENTER]

Pure. Goodness.

I was completely blown away with this trailer. The quality that IGN provides is so-so, but the actual content is, for lack of a better word, bonkers. Yes, bonkers. Make sure to check out the in-game demo played by Mr. Kojima himself (a little humor thrown in for good measure, hehe).

[Shinmaru]

Heh, what struck me as most interesting in the trailer was how [spoiler]it appears that a young Revolver Ocelot is in this game.[/spoiler] I'm not sure if that had been revealed on any site or something before this video came out, but oh well lol. It's rather easy to notice when you're watching the video, anyway. IGN's video is rather blah in quality, but you can tell still tell how great this game looks, which is quite a testament to it (I felt that the video that Nintendo released for Paper Mario 2 was a bit off in quality, as well...not really up to the sharpness of the screenshots).

[BlueYoshi]

[COLOR=Teal]I hope this news doesn't come as much a shock to you as it did for me, because I swear, if I was a few decades older I may have had a heart attack from this. No joke!

Apparently, two youngsters aged between the ages of 19-20 stole the MGS3 demo that was at E3. Witnesses have reported that the two crooks cracked the Perspex case on one of the pods on the Sony stands in order to gain the disc.

They managed to pull off this stunt by [i]leaning[/i] heavily on the actual unit, dispatching the disc from it. From there they took off with the one level demo to one of the most highly anticipated games of our time.

I'm just anxious to know how this will effect the actual release and content of the game, as we all know how secretive Mr. Kojima is of his projects, and him knowing his demo is out there doing god knows what isn't really going to bake his cake.

Man, that's seriously rough.[/COLOR]

[Charles]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi][color=teal]I hope this news doesn't come as much a shock to you as it did for me, because I swear, if I was a few decades older I may have had a heart attack from this. No joke!

Apparently, two youngsters aged between the ages of 19-20 stole the MGS3 demo that was at E3. Witnesses have reported that the two crooks cracked the Perspex case on one of the pods on the Sony stands in order to gain the disc.

They managed to pull off this stunt by [i]leaning[/i] heavily on the actual unit, dispatching the disc from it. From there they took off with the one level demo to one of the most highly anticipated games of our time.

I'm just anxious to know how this will effect the actual release and content of the game, as we all know how secretive Mr. Kojima is of his projects, and him knowing his demo is out there doing god knows what isn't really going to bake his cake.

Man, that's seriously rough.[/color][/QUOTE][center][img]http://www.slownerveaction.org/forumfun/images/sucks/lastweek2.gif[/img][/center]
[center] [/center]

[left]It won't affect the release or content of the final game. The demo is quite different from the final version. For example, Snake finds a backpack loaded with ammunition and weaponry near the beginning of the demo. In the final game he'll just begin with cigarettes as usual. Also, there's some trick to the "time paradox" message in the final version that's not present in the demo.[/left]

[left]So yeah, I'm sure this isn't a huge concern as far as spoilers go--the demo is probably fairly brief.[/left]

[natetron46]

[QUOTE=Wingnut Ninja][COLOR=Teal]I hope this news doesn't come as much a shock to you as it did for me, because I swear, if I was a few decades older I may have had a heart attack from this. No joke!

Apparently, two youngsters aged between the ages of 19-20 stole the MGS3 demo that was at E3. Witnesses have reported that the two crooks cracked the Perspex case on one of the pods on the Sony stands in order to gain the disc.

They managed to pull off this stunt by [i]leaning[/i] heavily on the actual unit, dispatching the disc from it. From there they took off with the one level demo to one of the most highly anticipated games of our time.

I'm just anxious to know how this will effect the actual release and content of the game, as we all know how secretive Mr. Kojima is of his projects, and him knowing his demo is out there doing god knows what isn't really going to bake his cake.

Man, that's seriously rough.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
That is a good story, I had heard that that happened, but I hadnt heard the details, thanks for those. What do you mean leaning, do you understand how they actually did this? It doesnt seem very clear to me.

[BlueYoshi]

I dunno. I didn't really understand it either. They penetrated the display case and must have took off from there. I heard elsewhere that they bashed the unit a couple of times before the disc ejected itself, so that source might not be entirely accurate.

[Magnum Apex]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Unlike the great number of gameplay trailers we've seen up to this point, this new footage focuses on the other side of the MGS3 coin, the cinematic side. Expect the unexpected, and like we have all learned from previous MGS installments, don't even bother trying to figure out the story. You won't.

To watch the trailer, click GameSpot's news article [url="http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/20/news_6105295.html"]here[/url]. The trailer's right there for instant viewing.

[img]http://forums.rajah.com/images/smilies/drool.gif[/img][/font][/color]

[Brasil]

My reaction to the new trailer: "Eh."

The more and more I see of MGS3, the less and less I'm caring about it. For one, the previous gameplay footage we've seen isn't really anything groundbreaking, when you think about it.

The highly touted "Camo" feature isn't remarkable at all, because the game is still helping you, by giving you a percentage of how well you're hidden. Hopefully, this feature can be turned off, but from what we've seen/read, nothing has hinted at it being able to be disabled.

The Stamina idea is half-baked, as well. Yes, you can die from, kill, and eat crocodiles and such, but when you "Harvest" their meat, you're still getting an Inventory item, which gives you a read-out on how healthy the meat is or how much it will restore your health.

For how much Kojima and Konami have been screaming "Organic gameplay" for MGS3, I'm still seeing gameplay "revolutions" that are less than revolutionary. If they wanted totally organic gameplay, there shouldn't be a hud at all, or at the very most, a tiny ammo count in one of the corners.

My largest problem with this Camo system is how players are not left up to designing their own Camo patterns. Yes, there are contests, yes they can customize how they look in-game, but no matter what they do, the computer is still going to give them a "This is how much you are hidden" percentage. How challenging is that? lol

I'd rather do away with the Percentage read-out, increase the range of color/patterns in a particular location, and give players the chance to evaluate their Camo Rating through [i]visuals[/i], not numerical read-outs.

It seems that Kojima is obsessed with giving players freedom? Give us a visual, player-evaluated Camo system, and not a computer-evaluated one.

[Charles]

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]

[satan665]

Seriously, the percentage on the camo index doesn't really help you that much. The safest bet in the game is to stear clear of the bad guys, which is hard if your impatient. If you've played the game I'm sure anyone would agree that it feels very natural and realistic. After all is said and done its still a videogame, and if you need to be super realistic than you can go play paintball or something.

They even make fun of the videogame aspects of the game, if you grab a glowing mushroom and call para-medic you get a pretty funny conversation about batteries. By far the funniest one though is if you get in the cardboard box and call Sigint. getting Tom to go off about James Bond was a pretty good one too though.

I've always liked the incentives they give you to play through multiple times too. I've beaten it, but am currently playing through again to beat the bosses by running out their stamina to get their camo/items. I was trying to not kill anyone, but I accidentaly slit a guards throat while interrogating him. :(

[Brasil]

[quote name='Charles]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 [b]CQC system[/b'], 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.[/quote]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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[satan665]

You make pretty valid points with everything you describe, but while the experience isn't dramatic or revolutionary it is still the top of the line. The cure menu is still like using items, but its much better than being mysteriously healed by food or just grabbing a glowing first aid kit. I think if you had to be really deliberate about healing by wrapping bandages etc. then it would take too much away from the gameplay (take too much time to do).

Its pretty much a difference of opinion at this point, but it seems like your expectations are just unrealistically high. Really who is making better games at this point?

[Zidargh]

[QUOTE=Siren]
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]

Whilst I respect you for your opinions and well-structured arguments, I still feel you are setting fairly high expectations.

Unless you are looking for a [i]Thief: Deadly Shadows[/i]-esque pick-lock control system for removing bullets or something along the lines of that, I feel your ideas of a 'groundbreaking-gaming-mould' are still incredibly ambitious.

Let's take your idea of 'moving the joysticks around'-idea. Whilst this would be no means impossible (quite a good idea actually, lol), this would be quite a bold transition into the Metal Gear world. And do you really feel the fans of the series are quite prepared for that, or even want that?

You're completely right in saying how you feel this 'window dressing' takes away the survival element of the game. I'd much rather an adrenalin-causing, intense-struggling battle with the controller to try and escape gangreen, than using the D-Pad to go through a handful of windows to actually cause something to happen. But this relates to my opinions in this 'modern' day and age of gaming; Whilst the ideas are brilliant, I feel the ideas are too ambitious to put across, even if they actually worked. I like things simple, that cause awe-striking and complicated results.

I miss the times when I was younger, where I was pretty much pleased by anything an FF-game gave me, or other quality series' had to offer.

To be honest, I feel this whole gaming-thing has become too competitive. Every company is trying to outdo eachother by taking huge steps into a genre they're not too familiar with (Though Kojima's keeping to his foundations it seems, 1-up for him). This situation's just producing alot of crap with fancy aesthetics, whilst there is a minor exception of a few stars.

As is the way with modern business.

[Brasil]

[quote name='sata665']The cure menu is still like using items, but its much better than being mysteriously healed by food or just grabbing a glowing first aid kit.[/quote]But fundamentally, what you just described there is no different than using a healthpack in say...Psi-Ops. It's not that I'm saying all types of item cure systems are crap. I just look at what MGS3 was being described as, and seeing how fundamentally, the item/cure system is no different than your run-of-the-mill 3rd-person action/adventure game, and can't help but be a little bit disappointed in how there's really zilch innovation there.

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. It just makes more sense, what with the whole "surviving in the wilderness/hunting" thing they were talking about, and would actually put more of a pressure on us, because we're [i]constantly[/i] on the prowl for meat, as opposed to opening up our pack and seeing the five snake meats there.

The hunter never stops, and Snake stops, lol.

[quote name='Zidargh]Unless you are looking for a [i]Thief: Deadly Shadows[/i']-esque pick-lock control system for removing bullets or something along the lines of that,[/quote]That's [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about, and I find Thief: Deadly Shadows to be one of the better examples of how these different gameplay types can be blended together.

I view the MG series nowadays as eating itself, honestly. With each new game released, Kojima and his crew have to constantly re-attract gamers, and just from the trend of MGS1-3, the self-destructive tendency is already becoming apparent.

I mean, it's like Andy Kaufman in a way. Kaufman had built things up so much, that he constantly had to try to out-do himself to appease his fans. I see that happening with MGS. Whereas Kaufman performed himself into a corner, Kojima and Co are slowly, but surely, developing themselves into a corner.

[Charles]

[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.

[satan665]

I agree with Siren about the Kaufman like hype, its one of the things that happens with these big name sequels. People who hadn't already played it saying that it is going to be the best game ever, and taking the info we had about the camo and survival stuff and just got way too excited about it. Its probably half the fault of gamers and reviewers and half the fault of Konami hypemasters.

That being said, I'm pretty happy with everything they did in the game and it is myfavorite game this year. It would have been cool if in extreme mode you lost the camo index. maybe also if you select the items needed to heal you would have to go through an animation on the screen so that you needed to take time and find a safe spot to bandage up. I've plenty of times in the game healed 4 injuries while running from bullets and guards. There's always improvements, maybe the new Metal gear game will blow us all away with these ideas.

[OtakuSennen]

[quote name='Siren']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]
[color=navy]You could always just ignore the number, Alex. Lord knows I did.[/color]

[Brasil]

Good to have you back again, Charles.

[QUOTE=Charles]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 fun. And, that's what I play games for.

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]
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]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.[/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]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. [b]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.[/b] That's not even my strongest point against what you're saying though.[/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]It's not just the camouflage you adorn Snake with that generates excitement--[b]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[/b].[/QUOTE]
Since you brought up Splinter Cell, I'll talk about it, as well. I've bolded where Splinter Cell is no different.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
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 moreso 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]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? [b]Now, remind me again why the player isn't allowed to figure out what will work best?[/b] 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]
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.

[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.[/quote]
"Hightlight item"
*click*
"Apply item"
*click*
"Highlight different item"
*click*
"Apply different item"
*click*

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]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.[/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 damange 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.

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.

[QUOTE][b]I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but I doubt it[/b]. Love them or hate them, these games leave lasting impressions. People, to this day, still 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.

[b]Consider that most fans agree that it's the best game in the trilogy[/b], and I'm left pondering the validity of your point despite its hypothetical, and unfounded, nature.[/QUOTE]
I was hearing the exact same things back when MGS2 was released.

[QUOTE]You could have fooled me.[/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]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.[/quote]
My issue is not with the jungle setting. I welcome the jungle setting, lol. It fits more with the tone of the series than the Big Shell ever could. I was just as bored as you were on that hexagonal monstrosity, in the middle of the ocean. My issue also never was with the graphics. My focus has always been on the gameplay, specifically, the cure system and Camo.

[quote]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.[/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 horridble 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.

[Charles]

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.

[The Vampire: Ed]

[font=Comic Sans MS][color=red]Well, I can pretty much sum up why Metal Gear Solid 3 is more enjoyable to play than Splinter Cell, at least for me, without involving the camo system or the rations--just gameplay.

In Splinter Cell, as already stated, you're forced to complete levels and objectives exactly as the creators decide you should. If you try to stray even a hair off course you're mission is over and they throw you back to the start of the level or last check point. It's especially not enjoyable when simple little flaws cause mission failures, such as an enemy spotting you through a wall somehow. I've seen it happen once while watching Charles play. Anyway, the point is you're stuck doing exactly what the creators want you to do with little to no leave way what so ever. You can never really play your own way. In Splinter Cell when you're spotted the mission is over, in some missions when you kill someone the mission is over, etc. These aren't fun when they're forcing their rules, their guidelines, upon you.

However, in Metal Gear Solid 3 they give you similar guidelines but give you, the player, freedom over whether or not to obey those guidelines. For instance at some part in Metal Gear Solid 3 you're told to avoid casualties, and you do as you're told and follow their orders to a tee--or, you can kill every soldier you come across and not fail your mission, all though I'm fairly sure you get chewed out about it in a conversation. But that's it, that's part of the fun of Metal Gear Solid 3. You have more freedom, and you choose how you want to play. If you like being stealthy you can be, you're not forced to be. If you like running and gunning you can do just that, but you don't have to. I mean, what makes the Metal Gear games extremely fun is the fact that you can be spotted, but instead of failing immediately after the enemy lays their eyes on you; you can chose to either kill them, knock them out, or simply run and hide until they give up and return to their positions.

How could anyone not enjoy Metal Gear Solid 3 more? I mean if you don't have fun playing it, it can only be because you don't know how to approach it with the freedom you're given in the game. I don't own either game, but I had my chance to play both and see almost all of both. In my opinion Metal Gear Solid 3 is just much more enjoyable.[/color][/font]