Gaming Metal Gear Solid:To get,Or not to get...

[Guest Solid Snake]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i]
[B]I really don't think that Metal Gear Solid 2 is any better than its predecessor. While Metal Gear Solid 2 offered a very nice looking visual package, it wasn't really as revolutionary as I had originally hoped.

Compared to the first Metal Gear Solid, the storyline was really constipated, boss battles weren't nearly as original and overall the drama became melodrama. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=teal]I beg to differ, my friend. Yes, as you said, the graphics are very smooth, but I found it to be much more than visuals that kept me entact for 20+ hours.

It was mostly the stealth, where you must remain unnoticed, and had to use strategy to find a way past your enemies, sometimes using the M9, and others not. The controls, I thought, were also very cleaverly done. With them, the game could mix in this third-person perspective with a little first-person to take out the enemies. You could even carry quite a few things at a time, and take them out quickly with the R2 and L2 bottons, other than some games where you have to go through your whole stock with one botton, and if you miss something, your in trouble (i.e. James Bond 007 The World is Not Enough).

The story wasn't all that bad either, which a lot of people seek to criticize. It took probably the most realistic story path, however. In other words, they most likely did not come up with the whole thing from the start; maybe the skeleton of it, but not everything. A more probable outcome would have been for them to make it up as they went along, each step branching to what they think would really happen in that situation. If this plot still sickens you, then I'm sorry, but I was quite intrigued of how in depth, lengthy, and off-the-wall it was, just what I personally like to see in a plot. I would hardly call it "constipated," heh.

As for the bosses, ok, they could have been better. But if there were more, and much harder, it probably wouldn't have been worked in about a very realistic way. Yes, I know that I usually don't like games to be realistic, but with a plot as wild as this, it's good to have some mixes that even it out. Personally, I found the bosses fun; maybe not as hard as the prequal, but fun nonetheless.

In conclusion, I feel that MGS2 was better than MGS. I can't say what it really was, and no, it was not the graphics, but something just didn't keep me in tune to MGS, that did with MGS2. I am not denying that it was a great game, but I do prefer the sequal.[/color]

:blah:

[Flash]

*sigh*... Metal Gear Solid 2...

[IMG]http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2001/20011130l.gif[/IMG]

And that's all I have to say about that... ^^;

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solid Snake [/i]
[B]
[color=teal]It was mostly the stealth, where you must remain unnoticed, and had to use strategy to find a way past your enemies, sometimes using the M9, and others not. The controls, I thought, were also very cleaverly done. With them, the game could mix in this third-person perspective with a little first-person to take out the enemies. You could even carry quite a few things at a time, and take them out quickly with the R2 and L2 bottons, other than some games where you have to go through your whole stock with one botton, and if you miss something, your in trouble (i.e. James Bond 007 The World is Not Enough).[/Quote][/B][/color]

lol, Are we still talking about Metal Gear Solid 2? Everything you mentioned about gameplay has been done in the first. Metal Gear Solid 2, to its credit, did add a few new abilities to the mix, but nothing that really impressed me. Saying that the two Metal Gear Solid games play similar to one another is a big understatement. Especially since Metal Gear Solid 2 merely build upon the formula of its predecessor. :toothy:

[B][Quote][Color=teal]The story wasn't all that bad either, which a lot of people seek to criticize. It took probably the most realistic story path, however. In other words, they most likely did not come up with the whole thing from the start; maybe the skeleton of it, but not everything. A more probable outcome would have been for them to make it up as they went along, each step branching to what they think would really happen in that situation. If this plot still sickens you, then I'm sorry, but I was quite intrigued of how in depth, lengthy, and off-the-wall it was, just what I personally like to see in a plot. I would hardly call it "constipated," heh.[/Quote][/color][/B]

Hmmm, you kind of contradict yourself here. Early on in this paragraph you refer to the storyline as taking the most "realistic path," but later say that it's "off the wall." I would definitely say that your latter assessment is the more accurate.

Like I previously mentioned, Metal Gear Solid 2 is far too Melodramatic. Also, we'll be venturing into [B][size=5]SPOILERS[/B][/size] now.

Do you really think that it was necessary to mention that Otacon had an affair with his step mother? What overall importance does it have? He could have easily had a rocky relationship with Emma. It seems like the story came on a little thick.

Also, does it make sense to put Raiden's nagging girlfriend in contact with him in the serious situation that he is in? There is no way that an organization would place their man in a mission like that, only to have him come to terms with his personal life. The sappy piano music was the icing on the cake. Unlike the first Metal Gear, the second was way too melodramatic.

Lastly, the storyline took too many twists and in a very short time. By doing so, not only was it unrealistic, but very ineffective. The Colonel's ramblings took me out of the experience. They literally admitted that it was a game. That totally took away the sense of belief. Plus, they showed the "Game Over or Continue" screen, while Snake and Raiden were fighting, which furthered the pain.

The first Metal Gear Solid was easy to follow and satisfiable. The second left many people confused. Trust me, visit some Metal Gear Solid 2 forums and you'll see people asking whether or not Rose is even real or not. I can understand trying to surprise the player, but MGS 2 was taken in the wrong direction.

Anyway, you suggested that someone buy the second Metal Gear before the first. No way Jose'. MGS2 makes numerous references to MGS1 that are [B]vital[/B] in understanding the plot. Unless you've played through the original, there is no way that you can play through the sequel and enjoy the experience on the same level. Imagine not knowing the intimacy of Snake and Hal's relationship, or his lost relationship with Meryl and Naiomi.

[B][Quote][Color=teal]As for the bosses, ok, they could have been better. But if there were more, and much harder, it probably wouldn't have been worked in about a very realistic way. Yes, I know that I usually don't like games to be realistic, but with a plot as wild as this, it's good to have some mixes that even it out. Personally, I found the bosses fun; maybe not as hard as the prequal, but fun nonetheless. [/B][/Color][/Quote]

I wasn't talking about the difficulty. I was disappointed with the bosses because, with the exception of Fortune, it was hard to identify witht them. I saw all of the bosses of the first MGS as people that chose the wrong path. The bosses of MGS2 are flat characters. They show nothing except for their obvious evil side.

[B][Quote][Color=teal]In conclusion, I feel that MGS2 was better than MGS. I can't say what it really was, and no, it was not the graphics, but something just didn't keep me in tune to MGS, that did with MGS2. I am not denying that it was a great game, but I do prefer the sequal.[/B][/Color][/Quote]

Once again you have to consider if someone hasn't played through the first already. Playing through it is vital to getting the most out of the sequel. ;)

[zidane11]

I say it's a must have. It gets better after you beat Sniper Wolf and it twice as good when you beat the game.

[Guest Magma Dragoon]

Flash, did you get that at penny arcade??? I love that place.