Dude, dude... Yes, you like over-simplified, hand-holding bullshit like Mass Effect 2 over Baldur`s Gate II, Ultima VII and Planescape Torment. Yes, you have shit taste in games. I get it already. No need to rub it in.Hagane wrote:MGS2 is good if you like non-games, which isn't surprising from you since you seem to regard Baldur's Gate as a shining beacon of game design.
MGS2 is a non-game only if the rest of them are as well. So, it`s either all of them are non-games or none. Be consistent.
I disagree on all accounts here. I believe the changes MGS2 brought to the table were integrated into the game with great success and that it was an expertly crafted and well-paced experience from start to finish. Something that I cannot say about the first MGS. Personally, I never regarded MGS1 as a truly stellar game. A truly memorable and unique experience like Snatcher and Policenauts - yes, but that`s about it. I don`t think the sum of its individual elements worked as well as you say it did. The no hit zones on enemies was an embarrassment even then given how wonderfully it was handled in other PSX games like Medal of Honor where soldiers reacted realistically depending on where you shot them(in MGS the sniping rifle was a one hit kill weapon regardless of whether you shot the enemy in the leg or in the head) or even Syphon Filter where easy kills could only be achieved through headshots. No proper aim and not being able to see who you were shooting at much of the time was lame as hell too. Not to mention that MGS was an incredibly short game despite being artificially prolonged with backtracking. Making trips to the armory and the whole freeze/unfreeze the key card thing were not cool even then.njiska wrote:Look, Jon, MGS2 expanded upon elements of the original MGS gameplay formula by adding First Person aiming, bodies you need to hide and lots of stuff you just mentioned. But a game is only as good as the sum of it's parts, and that's the real problem here. You can take a look at individual components and point out how they are better than individual components of the previous game, but when you look at the overall package, it just doesn't compare. MGS is a tightly designed game with gameplay that fits together with it's plot and pacing. MGS2 is a game with expanded gameplay options, but a terrible story, atrocious pacing, less interesting characters and missions that just aren't engaging. Tanker is great because it's short, and the pace moves along at a good clip. Once you get to Big Shell everything starts to slow down and fun factor drops. This has nothing to do with Snake being more popular than Raiden, I actually kind of like Raiden, but everything to do with a madman being given free range to do what he wants without any kind of editor or oversight.
The story and characters stuff is way too subjective, so I won`t comment on that. I don`t regard Metal Gear`s story as anything more than comic relief anyway(nor do I believe it was intended to be anything but) and MGS2 delivered in spades in this respect.
I rarely play the first MGS these days unless I want to do a story run of the series. I`m way too used to the improvements introduced by the sequels and its stealth mechanics are way too simplistic to my liking. It is effectively Pac-Man 3D.
It would`ve been a much better game had it come out with those elements already integrated into it. The Twin Snakes was a ham-fisted remake that wasn`t rebalanced in accordance with the gameplay improvements(and still, many who played it before the original MGS on the PSX will argue that it`s a better game and they won`t be completely wrong).If you want to make the argument that MGS could be improved upon by adding the elements above, then take a look at The Twin Snakes. MGS2 gameplay with MGS story, pacing and all that good jazz.
I remember Snake getting peed on by a wolf cub in the first game. Did you leave that out on purpose? Or is getting peed on okay with you as long as it`s the manifestation of manliness and badassery that is Solid Snake that gets peed on?mesh control wrote:LOL @ those "improvements".
You forgot the part where Raiden is peed on.
And how`s that relevant to anything anyway?
Don`t position your character under some dude`s stream of urine if it bothers you so much. Problem solved.Obviously an improvement. Very immersive, would play again.
Barely having any stealth mechanics worth mentioning is not more. I`d like to see you try and make a case that MGS is a better game than MGS3. But you can`t and you won`t. Again, it just seems to me that you are not very well-versed in the subject. I would hazard a guess that you either spent very little time on the later entries in the series or just flat out didn`t play them at all(I would assume it`s the latter).Less is more, and that will always be the case when it comes to Kojima, because he's his own worst enemy.
There are opinions and then there are wrong opinions(and bad taste in games - refer to Hagane for that
). Saying that MGS series didn`t progress over time and implying that the first game is somehow the best one is one such case. Take the duel with The End out of MGS3 and make it into a separate game and it`ll be a better game than MGS1 due to how much more depth, variety and ways to approach the enemy that single duel has over the entirety of MGS.
