Let's talk sequels and franchises

[Skykid]

stupid arguments, asinine people.

I agree.

It seems everybody likes to put on their super-intelligent-expert-games-critic hat when they post on a gaming forum, it's pretty sad.

Well it really depends on how well formulated the arguments are. This is a game forum where people discuss games, weirder shit has happened.

Is it nowhere near as much fun or complicated as Panzer Dragoon Orta?

I know we've discussed this before, but I really don't get this thing you have with complexity in games. I don't consider escalating levels of complexity in gaming to be any kind of virtue.

Even though Drum's Space Invaders comment was a throwback to a previous discussion (and designed to push your buttons), there is a level of complexity in the skill required to master it. It doesn't have surface complexity - as in lots of buttons, diverging paths, hidden secrets and multiple endings - but it requires a crapload of brainpower and effort to decipher how to be great at it, which is far truer than something like Shenmue which puts skill requirements on the back burner.

Hope this makes sense.

[Limbrooke]

The MGS hate squad is out in full force. Who'd have thought it would boil up again?

I'd say I enjoy the Solid games enough although my experience has exceptions to Subsistence and MGS4 which I've yet to try - it could be a while for 4. As a gamer who was out of the loop for many years and didn't muddle around with fine details, when I tried MGS2 after having no prior experience in the series I was interested and I found the game to be enjoyable enough to not wain on the plot issues. I'm not going to fight the long fight and say it's coherent and that's fine because I don't care. However... some people do if you're inclined to read: http://www.metagearsolid.org/reports_mgs2.html

The game plays well enough and is interesting enough setting wise for a great experience - between myself and the few friends locally I knew who spoke of the game almost nobody ever talked about the plot and or their vitriol for it. I look back on my time in it, trying to improve my run times and of unlocking more content, and have nothing but good memories. I think with the time I spent in it, pardon VR missions on Substance, I'm done and when I go back to the main game (if I do) I don't know how I'll reflect or contrast how things I preceive are now. Speaking strictly on the technical side and being fun to play, it was a great game, no mistake.

Going to Solid 1 afterwards perhaps did not leave as great a lasting impression, going backwards hardly ever works in favour of the progeneitor. However, it is a great game given the total package it presents and time/platform in which it was released. Having experienced this, even after MGS2 really shored up my interest in the series as a whole. Sadly, when I tried out Solid 3 it seems the series had taken a sharp turn away what caught my interest so well in the first two. I'd like to try Subsistence as I hear the camera is far improved but I couldn't be bothered anymore - perhaps if I catch a copy in a bargain bin one day. I cannot be bothered with the PSP games and I have no PS3. I did try the original MSX games a bit but they never captured my interest much. I will say the GBC game holds hope, but it too stalled along the way.

I think for many sequels and series, it's hard to back and appreciate the originals if certain elements are improved (graphics, challenge, controls, etc..) and to that end I do feel as having missed out on something with Metal Gear. If you sampled them in a more appropriate order and therefore held the sequels up to great standards that came before them I can understand that position but I am not in that boat.

[Siren2011]

Hope this makes sense.

It makes a lot of sense, actually. I was tossing and turning in bed just a minute ago because my conscience was eating away at me.

DRUM, your argument holds more credibility than I had originally thought, and I guess I owe you an apology for being a dick. I'm sorry.

Reflecting on my memories of the game, I recall how there was a lot of mindless backtracking and talking to people. And during battles your vitality could rejuvenate so long as Ryu stood long enough without receiving damage or some shit like that. Though that's more of a flaw of the game's challenge, it's still worth mentioning. I was looking at the decoration of the game, and not so much the meat of it (or lack thereof).

I know we've discussed this before, but I really don't get this thing you have with complexity in games.

You want an honest answer? Because I click with complex games more than I do with any simple game. There is nothing like turning the power button on and playing a new fighting game for the first time, completely unfamiliar with and curious about the assortment of moves at the player's disposal, and learning to pull off each one and the right time to use them based on the properties of you and of your enemies (reach, speed, windows of opportunity such as the vulnerable airborne foe who is about to land.). You can't get that experience with Karate Champ, and you sure as hell can't enjoy Karate Champ for a year and a half. I can with Arcana Heart, though. Which is why I am almost always preferring a complicated game to a simple one (Ikaruga's simplicity > Radiant Silvergun's complexity is an exception). I love that steady incline of my skill evolving, maturing, and reaching ripeness. Non-complex games make such experiences next to impossible, for there can't be much skill to be learned if a game isn't intricate. Now some might get some pleasure out of such games (ex. you and Ocarina of Time), and that's ok I guess. But I can't enjoy playing it for reasons I have already stated in other threads. Why do you think so many people enjoy it, as well as Kingdom Hearts? Why don't they just pick up a Batrider PCB with a supergun instead? Because it takes very little skill even without hearts and other health aids. Garegga, on the other hand, is a rape sandwich that demands the player understand how the rank works before he can progress far into it. Again, the casuals can't handle stressful videogames because they don't understand them, so they'll never discover how rewarding such an undertaking could actually be.

So complexity is more of a rule of thumb than anything. Sometimes simplicity just works!

[ChainsawGuitarSP]

Going off Siren's philosophy on game design, Irem shooters are pretty much the best thing you could ever play in an arcade. <3

[Obiwanshinobi]

I didn't find the new camera in Subsistence very useful. The game was fine without it. Limited visibility is a part of the challenge and adds to the atmosphere, a bit like in survival horrors. MGS3 feels less arcadey than 1&2 (the framerate is lower too), but having played the likes of Thief before, I didn't have any problem with it. MGS3 is also a game where sometimes your ears are more helpful than your eyes (dosn't pull it off as masterfully as Thief, though).
Oh, and Snake very much IS Rambo. MGS3 is a massive tribute to Stallone flicks (especially First Blood).

[burgerkingdiamond]

Metal Gear Solid for PS1 was awesome. Played through 2, don't remember much about it. Never played 3.

MGS4... What a pile of shit.

[Skykid]

The MGS hate squad is out in full force. Who'd have thought it would boil up again?

You know that thread is four years old right?

I click with complex games more than I do with any simple game. There is nothing like turning the power button on and playing a new fighting game for the first time, completely unfamiliar with and curious about the assortment of moves at the player's disposal, and learning to pull off each one and the right time to use them based on the properties of you and of your enemies (reach, speed, windows of opportunity such as the vulnerable airborne foe who is about to land.). You can't get that experience with Karate Champ, and you sure as hell can't enjoy Karate Champ for a year and a half. I can with Arcana Heart, though. Which is why I am almost always preferring a complicated game to a simple one (Ikaruga's simplicity > Radiant Silvergun's complexity is an exception). I love that steady incline of my skill evolving, maturing, and reaching ripeness. Non-complex games make such experiences next to impossible, for there can't be much skill to be learned if a game isn't intricate. Now some might get some pleasure out of such games (ex. you and Ocarina of Time), and that's ok I guess. But I can't enjoy playing it for reasons I have already stated in other threads. Why do you think so many people enjoy it, as well as Kingdom Hearts? Why don't they just pick up a Batrider PCB with a supergun instead? Because it takes very little skill even without hearts and other health aids. Garegga, on the other hand, is a rape sandwich that demands the player understand how the rank works before he can progress far into it. Again, the casuals can't handle stressful videogames because they don't understand them, so they'll never discover how rewarding such an undertaking could actually be.

So complexity is more of a rule of thumb than anything. Sometimes simplicity just works!

Well... ok. I still think you might be unintentionally using the wrong word. Perhaps it's 'depth', or 'multi-faceted' games that appeal to you. In skill terms, Ocarina requires a little bit more than the likes of Shenmue, but neither require as much as something like Virtua Fighter - or Space Invaders - when it comes to mastering the game. I also can't quite see the Ikaruga simplicity example - that game is bastardly complicated when placed next to most other shmups.

MGS3 is a massive tribute to Stallone flicks (especially First Blood).

Except it's hammed up no end with Japaneseness and pace killing cutscenes, which kind of smudges out the vibe.

I think for many sequels and series, it's hard to back and appreciate the originals if certain elements are improved (graphics, challenge, controls, etc..) and to that end I do feel as having missed out on something with Metal Gear. If you sampled them in a more appropriate order and therefore held the sequels up to great standards that came before them I can understand that position but I am not in that boat.

I definitely am. Was blown away by the first on release, played through it in Japanese and again in English. Hideo came into the store signing copies.
I expected MGS2 to be an enormous improvement, but it was a step back in everything except graphics. In fact, the entire thing was a bit of a dogs dinner. That made me rightfully wary of anything he produced from then on.

[burgerkingdiamond]

You want Shenmue 3 and Heart of Darkness 2? And you were giving early games shit for being too simplistic?

Oh dear God. Heart of Darkness I can understand, but the Shenmue series is simplistic? My God, you're an autistic moron. The game has it's own realistic weather system, a highly interactive world with (playable!) arcade machines in arcades, capsule toy machines, secret encounters with thugs depending on the day and time you walk down a particular alleyway, advancing the story through a new branch, a Virtua Fighter inspired fighting system with trainable and upgradable moves, and plenty of side quests?

That is simple.

lol.

Nigga, please. The only thing simplistic about it is QTE.

'Lots of shit to do' is complex like a Jumbo-colouring-fun-and-activity-book is complex. The QTEs are dumb, but they're not any dumber than any other part of the game. It's comical to put capsule toy machines as a complexity bullet point and concede QTEs. That trashy retro arcade games (you have to go back to the mid 70s to find arcade games more air-headed than Super Hang-On and Space Harrier) apparently warrant an exclamation point is too much. The character routines/weather and game world itself is pretty involved but the requirements of the player are nil - far less than Space Invaders. I don't even hate Shenmue or anything, I just thought it was hilarious that that is your standard for 'complexity'. I'm glad it's been clarified, anyway.

theres no need to hate on Space Harrier.

[Mortificator]

A strong argument could be made for Metal Gear 2 being the best in the series, but the original Metal Gear is lame in everything but concept. It requires very little thought or skill from the player... guards can only see in a pencil-thin line straight ahead, most alerts are neutralized simply by walking to the next screen, and all the bosses except the tank and the last pair are beaten by standing in one place and hammering the fire button.

Still better than Solid because less story.

I think game design should be weighted way heavier than plot. Otherwise, Scramble is better than Gradius Gaiden because LESS STORY.

@Siren You're being trolled. Everyone knows Shenmue is a beloved classic that was way ahead of it's time. When that happens it's best to just ignore it and move along.

I think this thread needs a Shenmue tribute.

I remember when myself and another staff member bought a PS2 on my credit card as a temporary purchase just to play MGS3, took it home and set it up, all excited like it was Christmas.

Sounds like a couple dudes who've played a prior Metal Gear game and loved it.

[Skykid]

Sounds like a couple dudes who've played a prior Metal Gear game and loved it.

Yeah, Metal Gear Solid.

Prior to MGS3's release, Hideo had recently been at ECTS doing a Q&A about Snake Eater and showing a special preview. We knew Snake was back, Raiden was gone, and that he had addressed all of the concerns (his words via an interpretor) of disgruntled fans unhappy with elements of MGS2.

So sure, we were definitely stoked, and consequently let down.

[Arcade Legends 3]

I think I know who this guy is. I know his piss-poor English anywhere. Don't feed the troll, as they say.

That is actually true - but only the half of it. Thus yeah, I am not any good at English.
But I am not a troll... Or "troll"; because I actually do not what it means. Still, it is obvious something relatively bad.
So be it! This is my last post for this year; at least because of December that is coming. And as about my next post - as for the "Top 25 of All Time" - it will be even further in time - so maybe I will have been improved my English.
Some of you, guys, are from USA - so you know English, or at least American English. Excusez-moi.

p.s. Do not make any jokes. (Curse you!)

[Obiwanshinobi]

Except it's hammed up no end with Japaneseness and pace killing cutscenes, which kind of smudges out the vibe.

Now tell me about the cutscenes and storytelling qualities of S&P2. Where I feel every yen spent on those cutscenes should've been spent on better animations instead.

[Skykid]

Except it's hammed up no end with Japaneseness and pace killing cutscenes, which kind of smudges out the vibe.

Now tell me about the cutscenes and storytelling qualities of S&P2. Where I feel every yen spent on those cutscenes should've been spent on better animations instead.

This is a terrible example, how can you compare the two? First of all, I've never played S&P2 in English language (as I mentioned before) so I can't discern any problems with dialogue. All I gleaned is the dynamism, which I like a lot. Whether it's creeping up on those desert guards to nick their bikes, the opening of stage 2 when they hit the ground running and the perspective pans into game mode, and at the end of the same stage when the girl flip kicks the boss a mile into the screen.
Nothing smacked as poor graphically to me (they're in game graphics, so the same as everything else) and as I mentioned, if the dialogue is trash, I've not been privy to it.

They share cinematic presentation (and granted, MGS excels in this area) but S&P2's cutscenes are nothing like some of MGS's diarrhoea moments are they?
It doesn't have 30 minute cutscenes featuring unrelated rambling dialogue about how to fry an egg or make a movie, does it. (...Does it??)

[ryu]

there was no point to the cutscenes in s&p2 at all, and in a way it was wasted money because the people they must have wanted to sell them to didn't buy the game. but how much work was put into those scenes anyway? iirc they are pretty lame and it's hard to imagine that a lot of resources could have been put into them. the voice acting was probably the most expensive about those cutscenes. anyways, the dialogue in s&p2 is really just forgettable. it's awful, yeah, but you just know whoever wrote that shit did it on intention and probably didn't care much about it themselves.

i can't really talk about metal gear. i only remember that i've played the hell out of the playstation game, and later the demo of mgs 2 just once and never bothered enough to actually buy the game. mgs 4 sounds pretty awful to me to be honest.

i think, on a personal level, it's hard for a great game that one really likes to become stale. everyone has this one game they keep replaying, so why shouldne't be more gams that are like those out?
got no idea if those cowadoody shooting games are any good at all, but from what i hear they must be the very definition of "rehash", and yet look at how much they sell.

rather than becoming stale a series can only get bad, or worse. if it's stale it was probably shit in one way or another right from the start. what kills a good or great series is either when the developers change to people that can't work with the formula of a given series, or if the develors try out new directions and have a hard time hitting those "awesome idea" nails they used to hit so easily. a recent example would be skyward sword, which could have been fucking awesome but ended up being "just" good.

[Moniker]

rather than becoming stale a series can only get bad, or worse. if it's stale it was probably shit in one way or another right from the start. what kills a good or great series is either when the developers change to people that can't work with the formula of a given series, or if the develors try out new directions and have a hard time hitting those "awesome idea" nails they used to hit so easily.

I dunno about that. The SMT series has gotten somewhat stale for me, but I don't think it's gotten worse over time. Probably better, actually. Nor does the series have any systemic problem that I can pinpoint. They just keep plugging the demon fusion system, which has gotten old despite whatever else is going on in the game. I mean, the first 3 or 4 games you play in the series are great, regardless of which you choose.

[stryc9]

Chalk me up as another detractor of the Metal Gear franchise. Although it is true I have only played the first two games, I hated Sons of liberty so much it put me off wanting to look at the rest. No shit, 8 hours of backtracking around an oil refinery will do that to a man.

[neorichieb1971]

Sega could liven up my world by releasing a space harrier with wipeout type graphics.

They could also redo power drift with some new drifting mechanics like those in Super mariokart.

[Estebang]

Sega could liven up my world by releasing a space harrier with wipeout type graphics.

Planet Harriers.

Never made it to the Dreamcast, though.

[evil_ash_xero]

Except it's hammed up no end with Japaneseness and pace killing cutscenes, which kind of smudges out the vibe.

Now tell me about the cutscenes and storytelling qualities of S&P2. Where I feel every yen spent on those cutscenes should've been spent on better animations instead.

This is a terrible example, how can you compare the two? First of all, I've never played S&P2 in English language (as I mentioned before) so I can't discern any problems with dialogue. All I gleaned is the dynamism, which I like a lot. Whether it's creeping up on those desert guards to nick their bikes, the opening of stage 2 when they hit the ground running and the perspective pans into game mode, and at the end of the same stage when the girl flip kicks the boss a mile into the screen.
Nothing smacked as poor graphically to me (they're in game graphics, so the same as everything else) and as I mentioned, if the dialogue is trash, I've not been privy to it.

They share cinematic presentation (and granted, MGS excels in this area) but S&P2's cutscenes are nothing like some of MGS's diarrhoea moments are they?
It doesn't have 30 minute cutscenes featuring unrelated rambling dialogue about how to fry an egg or make a movie, does it. (...Does it??)

Sin and Punishment and Sin And Punishment 2's cinemas are good for trying to figure out. I really don't understand what's going on in those games much, at all. But it doesn't matter.

I forgot about the egg stuff...oh man...But I still maintain that the "game" parts of all the MGS games, are..umm...SOLID. I just finished 3, 2, and PW(first ending), in a row, and had a very good time. Of course, I didn't watch any of the cinemas, having seen them already. MGS2 got on my nerves with it's constant codec beeping, but I didn't answer any of them, unless they made me. Very flawed game, but it's fun underneath. I still think MGS3 is the best one, and one of the PS2's best games. Like I said, it just has too much story bunched up at the beginning.

[ryu]

rather than becoming stale a series can only get bad, or worse. if it's stale it was probably shit in one way or another right from the start. what kills a good or great series is either when the developers change to people that can't work with the formula of a given series, or if the develors try out new directions and have a hard time hitting those "awesome idea" nails they used to hit so easily.

I dunno about that. The SMT series has gotten somewhat stale for me, but I don't think it's gotten worse over time. Probably better, actually. Nor does the series have any systemic problem that I can pinpoint. They just keep plugging the demon fusion system, which has gotten old despite whatever else is going on in the game. I mean, the first 3 or 4 games you play in the series are great, regardless of which you choose.

i don't think the fusion system alone isn't much of a strong point anyways. just look at persona 3.

[Mortificator]

The SMT series has gotten somewhat stale for me, but I don't think it's gotten worse over time. Probably better, actually.

Definitely better. It's actually kind of amazing that MegaTen, a series conceived when a shitty novel was fertilized by a shitty RPG, became as good as it did.

On series in general, I've noticed I feel revulsion when sequels don't change enough. Dawn of Sorrow was a little worse in most areas than Aria of Sorrow, yet while my opinion of Aria is "great," my opinion of Dawn isn't "not as great" but "trash." I don't think I could stand to play another Metroidvania, 8-bit Mega Man, or 3D Zelda in those series repeated formulas.

For some reason, this doesn't affect me when I replay old games. I like Mega Man 2 and will likely replay it more than once in the future, but if Capcom made another MM2 clone, I probably wouldn't even look at it.

[JBC]

I think this thread needs a Shenmue tribute

Ahahaha, shit. I swear I know this guy.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Well, I don't think S&P2 cutscenes had a budget anywhere near those of MGS2, but still. I'm playing S&P2 with the Japanese voices and English subtitles, and the cutscenes kind of suck. In more ways than one. As for the MGS series, the cutscenes are skippable and I don't think the criticism should be focused on them anymore. There's just more content to those games than the cutscenes. Switching between first person and third person views in MGS3 was acquired taste, but it ultimately worked for me. My only reservation is that the CQC would've been better at a higher framerate, with reduced input lag. Also, Konami pulling the plug out of MGO.