Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters.So i never played any of them. A thread here reminded me that.. and sparked my interest in the series, unfortunately, because now i have this itch and it wont go away..
Graphically speaking, my standards are non-existent because from my humble experience, i can play anything from GTA IV modded with ENB series, to Pong. If the gameplay is satisfying and for a game focused on story such as MGS, the story would need to grab my attention..
How is the gameplay, but more importantly, are the bosses mind boggling hard to the point of frustration, or are they just hard? This is about MGS 1 only, the rest of them are irrelevant until i finish the first one.
Is it worth 6$?
Lucianu
About the MGS series
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Raiden was actually created to make Snake seem more impressive a character, instead of asking rookie questions, he now answers rookie questions. Raiden was asking the rookie questions this go-around, and if anybody complains that Raiden argued with the Colonel too much, realize that Snake did it just as much in MGS1, and argued some of the same things.
So i never played any of them. A thread here reminded me that.. and sparked my interest in the series, unfortunately, because now i have this itch and it wont go away..
Graphically speaking, my standards are non-existent because from my humble experience, i can play anything from GTA IV modded with ENB series, to Pong. If the gameplay is satisfying and for a game focused on story such as MGS, the story would need to grab my attention..
How is the gameplay, but more importantly, are the bosses mind boggling hard to the point of frustration, or are they just hard? This is about MGS 1 only, the rest of them are irrelevant until i finish the first one.
Is it worth 6$?
Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters. What in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story.
So i never played any of them. A thread here reminded me that.. and sparked my interest in the series, unfortunately, because now i have this itch and it wont go away..
Graphically speaking, my standards are non-existent because from my humble experience, i can play anything from GTA IV modded with ENB series, to Pong. If the gameplay is satisfying and for a game focused on story such as MGS, the story would need to grab my attention..
How is the gameplay, but more importantly, are the bosses mind boggling hard to the point of frustration, or are they just hard? This is about MGS 1 only, the rest of them are irrelevant until i finish the first one.
Is it worth 6$?
Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters. What in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story. I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact.
[QUOTE="dionysosm"][QUOTE="Lucianu"]Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters. FoulcryWhat in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story. I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact. besides that other game on the NES hes refering to was Snake's Revenge, which has nothing to do with the series other then the name. MG2 has alot of story , MG1 less so
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Foulcry"] I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact.AcidSoldnerbesides that other game on the NES hes refering to was Snake's Revenge, which has nothing to do with the series other then the name. MG2 has alot of story , MG1 less so Agreed, I was referring to the MSX versions anyways. But ya, Metal Gear 2 was quite story driven. while the story in MG2 isnt as twisted as some of the later games, for a game in 1990, running on the MSX (which really wasn't any more capable then the Commodre 64) , its very story driven , and impressive at that. the only annoying part , was the keycards.
[QUOTE="Foulcry"][QUOTE="dionysosm"]Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters. AcidSoldnerWhat in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story. I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact. Nevermind I thought he meant the NES games which were horrible my fault but even still the MSX games were good but they didn't really get fleshed out untill Metal Gear Solid I mean maybe you and Dark think they were really fleshed out but I don't really consider a few text bubble's popping up every once in a while a story. Sure it might have been good for it's time sure but like most games back then you could probably learn more of the story in the manual then the actual game. From what I remember their were only like 2 or 3 importantthings in those games. Thats not really fleshed out. I mean maybe for then sure but like I said these games didn't really get thoroughly explained untill Metal Gear Solid.
I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact. Nevermind I thought he meant the NES games which were horrible my fault but even still the MSX games were good but they didn't really get fleshed out untill Metal Gear Solid I mean maybe you and Dark think they were really fleshed out but I don't really consider a few text bubble's popping up every once in a while a story. Sure it might have been good for it's time sure but like most games back then you could probably learn more of the story in the manual then the actual game. From what I remember their were only like 2 or 3 importantthings in those games. Thats not really fleshed out. I mean maybe for then sure but like I said these games didn't really get thoroughly explained untill Metal Gear Solid. I guess we can agree to disagree.[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="Foulcry"] What in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story.Foulcry
Although Gametrailers did a retrospective on the Metal Gear 1 and 2 and they seem to think there was enough plot in both of those games to warrant its own part in the retrospective series: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-one-metal-gear/33740.
[QUOTE="Foulcry"]
I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact.AcidSoldnerNevermind I thought he meant the NES games which were horrible my fault but even still the MSX games were good but they didn't really get fleshed out untill Metal Gear Solid I mean maybe you and Dark think they were really fleshed out but I don't really consider a few text bubble's popping up every once in a while a story. Sure it might have been good for it's time sure but like most games back then you could probably learn more of the story in the manual then the actual game. From what I remember their were only like 2 or 3 importantthings in those games. Thats not really fleshed out. I mean maybe for then sure but like I said these games didn't really get thoroughly explained untill Metal Gear Solid. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Although Gametrailers did a retrospective on the Metal Gear 1 and 2 and they seem to think there was enough plot in both of those games to warrant its own part in the retrospective series: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-one-metal-gear/33740.
I have seen it I love Gametrailers retrospectives especially the Castlevania one. Yea most of that info that they have on both games is due to what was told in Metal Gear Solid though. Like a lot of stuff wasn't added on untill later games to keep the story going in later titles. Like the main one that blew everyone away that no one knew about was apparently Big Boss was Solid Snake's father but you didn't actually find that out untill Metal Gear Solid and they even mention that they found this out in Metal Gear 2 in Metal Gear Solid but if you remember the MSX games none of this was ever mentioned at all. The story of MGS got very confusing sometimes because sometimes they would re-write things to make stuff work.So i never played any of them. A thread here reminded me that.. and sparked my interest in the series, unfortunately, because now i have this itch and it wont go away..
Graphically speaking, my standards are non-existent because from my humble experience, i can play anything from GTA IV modded with ENB series, to Pong. If the gameplay is satisfying and for a game focused on story such as MGS, the story would need to grab my attention..
How is the gameplay, but more importantly, are the bosses mind boggling hard to the point of frustration, or are they just hard? This is about MGS 1 only, the rest of them are irrelevant until i finish the first one.
Is it worth 6$?
Metal Gear has been released in kind of a strange order. It was not released in chronological order at all. Chronological order is as follows: Metal Gear Solid 3 Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear (Released on the MSX) Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Released on the MSX2) Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. You can get Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake on the second disc of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. I would highly recommend this. Metal Gear is a decent game and is worth playing at least once, but do not expect too much from it. It is very much an NES era game. It does not have much story, and it does not have much of a sense of direction. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is where the series really started getting good. It has great character and a deep and complex story that is well told and well paced. This is where Kojima first showed his brilliance. No fan of the series should miss this game. It was brilliant. It was not until Metal Gear Solid (about 6 years later) that the world started to recognize him for the genius that he is. As for the difficulty level of Metal Gear Solid, it is tougher than 2 and 3, but it is, by no means, impossible or incredibly frustrating. It is very much a managable game. There is a remake of this game for the Gamecube called The Twin Snakes that is easier than the original version was. Interesting note: There was a Gameboy Color game called Metal Gear Solid (Metal Gear Ghost Babel over seas) that is a psuedo sequel to the original Metal Gear. It is a 'what if' scenario, and it poses the question "What if Big Boss did die at the end of Metal Gear 1?" It is an unofficial sequel, but Kojima was heavily involed in it. It is well worth tracking down a copy and playing because it is a brilliant game, as well. The mechanics of Metal Gear Solid transfered well to the 8 bit GBC, and it sacreficed nothing in terms of story and characters. What in the world are you talking about lol? Neither NES game had much of a story. It didn't really become an actual story or a successful franchise till Metal Gear Solid. I like both MSX versions for gameplay but get real dude neither game had a story or explained anything that could even form a story.Nevermind I thought he meant the NES games which were horrible my fault but even still the MSX games were good but they didn't really get fleshed out untill Metal Gear Solid I mean maybe you and Dark think they were really fleshed out but I don't really consider a few text bubble's popping up every once in a while a story. Sure it might have been good for it's time sure but like most games back then you could probably learn more of the story in the manual then the actual game. From what I remember their were only like 2 or 3 importantthings in those games. Thats not really fleshed out. I mean maybe for then sure but like I said these games didn't really get thoroughly explained untill Metal Gear Solid. I guess we can agree to disagree.[QUOTE="Foulcry"]
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"] I'm not quite sure what your going on about but both Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 had a story to them and quite good ones for their time in fact.AcidSoldner
Although Gametrailers did a retrospective on the Metal Gear 1 and 2 and they seem to think there was enough plot in both of those games to warrant its own part in the retrospective series: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-one-metal-gear/33740.
Metal Gear 2 has quite a bit of plot. It gives back stories to it's characters. It goes deeper into what is going on andf why. It fleshes out it's characters and world. For being from the early 90's, it is the most complex action game out thereMetal Slug>Metal Gear Sly>Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, 4Captainqwark10Dude, how is Sly better that three games out of the metal gear solid series? I played it and pretty much the only thing it did special was the ability to play as three different characters (the original didn't even have that...), all having their abilities and disabilities, one had to do one thing while another had to do something else. I like the Sly series, but it's just a kid's game, honestly, metal gear solid is mature and gives a ground-breaking, enthralling story. And comparing metal slug? Don't get me started, metal slug is a shooting game, metal gear is a sneaking game. They don't compare, they're both good in different ways.
Dude, how is Sly better that three games out of the metal gear solid series? I played it and pretty much the only thing it did special was the ability to play as three different characters (the original didn't even have that...), all having their abilities and disabilities, one had to do one thing while another had to do something else. I like the Sly series, but it's just a kid's game, honestly, metal gear solid is mature and gives a ground-breaking, enthralling story. And comparing metal slug? Don't get me started, metal slug is a shooting game, metal gear is a sneaking game. They don't compare, they're both good in different ways. I was comparing Metal Slug to Metal Gear not MGS. The reason why I think Sly is better only because it is a linear good looking game filled with cutscenes and focuses more on exploring and stealth. MGS beats it every other way though. GS stop hating on peoples opinions and deleting them.[QUOTE="Captainqwark10"]Metal Slug>Metal Gear Sly>Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, 4ImBananas
Dude, how is Sly better that three games out of the metal gear solid series? I played it and pretty much the only thing it did special was the ability to play as three different characters (the original didn't even have that...), all having their abilities and disabilities, one had to do one thing while another had to do something else. I like the Sly series, but it's just a kid's game, honestly, metal gear solid is mature and gives a ground-breaking, enthralling story. And comparing metal slug? Don't get me started, metal slug is a shooting game, metal gear is a sneaking game. They don't compare, they're both good in different ways. I was comparing Metal Slug to Metal Gear not MGS. The reason why I think Sly is better only because it is a linear good looking game filled with cutscenes and focuses more on exploring and stealth. MGS beats it every other way though. GS stop hating on peoples opinions and deleting them. I wasn't hating, I was debating. I was calling out opinions. And I knew you were comparing metal slug to metal gear, it still doesn't compare, metal gear is stealth, metal slug is shooting, they can't be compared, they're entirely different. I like Sly's linear gameplay, it's fun, it's kiddy, but if metal gear solid beats it in every other way, then how is Sly better? Speaking of Sly, it's been a long time since I played those.[QUOTE="ImBananas"]
[QUOTE="Captainqwark10"]Metal Slug>Metal Gear Sly>Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, 4Captainqwark10
[QUOTE="Foulcry"] Nevermind I thought he meant the NES games which were horrible my fault but even still the MSX games were good but they didn't really get fleshed out untill Metal Gear Solid I mean maybe you and Dark think they were really fleshed out but I don't really consider a few text bubble's popping up every once in a while a story. Sure it might have been good for it's time sure but like most games back then you could probably learn more of the story in the manual then the actual game. From what I remember their were only like 2 or 3 importantthings in those games. Thats not really fleshed out. I mean maybe for then sure but like I said these games didn't really get thoroughly explained untill Metal Gear Solid.
I guess we can agree to disagree.Although Gametrailers did a retrospective on the Metal Gear 1 and 2 and they seem to think there was enough plot in both of those games to warrant its own part in the retrospective series: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/part-one-metal-gear/33740.
Metal Gear 2 has quite a bit of plot. It gives back stories to it's characters. It goes deeper into what is going on andf why. It fleshes out it's characters and world. For being from the early 90's, it is the most complex action game out there Like I said to Acid I don't really consider a few text bubbles here and there a fleshed out game. If you think it is very fleshed out fine thats your opinion. I just remember way more gameplay then actual story or explanations which I obviously always exected from that era of gaming. I'm not complaining at all I just don't share the same opinion as yours. Like Acid said Agree to Disagree.[QUOTE="Captainqwark10"]I was comparing Metal Slug to Metal Gear not MGS. The reason why I think Sly is better only because it is a linear good looking game filled with cutscenes and focuses more on exploring and stealth. MGS beats it every other way though. GS stop hating on peoples opinions and deleting them. I wasn't hating, I was debating. I was calling out opinions. And I knew you were comparing metal slug to metal gear, it still doesn't compare, metal gear is stealth, metal slug is shooting, they can't be compared, they're entirely different. I like Sly's linear gameplay, it's fun, it's kiddy, but if metal gear solid beats it in every other way, then how is Sly better? Speaking of Sly, it's been a long time since I played those. Sly 2 and 3 are not linear in anyway, feature better stealth, more memorable characters, a more unique approach, and each playable character has unique abilities with original puzzles. Other than that, Metal gear Solid beats it in maturity, Gun-play, Killing, Cinematics, Graphics(Debatable.), interface, and other things. But Sly is the better game because it focuses on the GAME. I wasn't talking to you I was talking to GS, they deleted an opinion.[QUOTE="ImBananas"] Dude, how is Sly better that three games out of the metal gear solid series? I played it and pretty much the only thing it did special was the ability to play as three different characters (the original didn't even have that...), all having their abilities and disabilities, one had to do one thing while another had to do something else. I like the Sly series, but it's just a kid's game, honestly, metal gear solid is mature and gives a ground-breaking, enthralling story. And comparing metal slug? Don't get me started, metal slug is a shooting game, metal gear is a sneaking game. They don't compare, they're both good in different ways.
ImBananas
I wasn't hating, I was debating. I was calling out opinions. And I knew you were comparing metal slug to metal gear, it still doesn't compare, metal gear is stealth, metal slug is shooting, they can't be compared, they're entirely different. I like Sly's linear gameplay, it's fun, it's kiddy, but if metal gear solid beats it in every other way, then how is Sly better? Speaking of Sly, it's been a long time since I played those. Sly 2 and 3 are not linear in anyway, feature better stealth, more memorable characters, a more unique approach, and each playable character has unique abilities with original puzzles. Other than that, Metal gear Solid beats it in maturity, Gun-play, Killing, Cinematics, Graphics(Debatable.), interface, and other things. But Sly is the better game because it focuses on the GAME. I wasn't talking to you I was talking to GS, they deleted an opinion. I mean, NON-LINEAR gameplay, sorry, when I'm in pain, tired, etc., I just don't think. I know the difference between linear and non-linear, non-linear is freedom, linear is just going across a set path. I do believe Sly featured better stealth until Konami made metal gear solid 3 subsistence version, which knocked Sly's almost perfect camera angle out of the way, Splinter cell had it before sly, though. Splinter Cell didn't have many memorable characters, not a lot of memorable missions, but it had a pretty dang good camera, doing exactly what the player wants, instead of MGS' overhead camera angle, made somewhat more tolerable in MGS2, but still hard to take. But metal gear solid focuses on the game, too, MGS3 not only had better graphics and was more mature than its predecessors, but it was realistic, you could still fire from the hip and in a first person camera, you can grab people and interrogate them, you have to survive in the jungle, you have to make use of what you have, whether it's a knife to take bullets and arrows out of your body and then wrapping up the wound, or if it's simply lighting a cigar and putting it to a leech to burn it off, it focuses on the game, and sly really has a more unique approach, that I agree with, more characters to play as that can all do special things, but the MGS series has this mark for it as well, more memorable characters than Sly, yes, I remember most of Sly's characters, Sly Cooper, Bentley, Murphy, Carmelita Fox, the bad guys I forgot, but I remember having to take down a GIANT bird called Claw, never beat it in the original, but I play Sly 2 beginning to end and loved it, but MGS just has those characters that have suffered so much you can't help but remember them, I think the only serious injury to a good guy was Bentley's crushed legs in Sly 2, the bad guys had most of the pain with Sly simply whacking them a cane, Bentley knocking them unconscious, or Murphy beating their brains out, but most of those were regular enemies, all the bosses except Claw were usually sent to jail, Claw was seriously just a giant bird and it fell in lava, but in the MGS series, many people were badly injured, Snake gets his eye shot out in MGS3, and people tend to remember characters whose deaths they cried over, whose injures they suffered to watch, but nobody was that loved in the Sly series, and wow, this is the first on-going debate I've had in a while, thanks for being my first on GS, the last was on another forums, in all honesty.[QUOTE="ImBananas"][QUOTE="Captainqwark10"] I was comparing Metal Slug to Metal Gear not MGS. The reason why I think Sly is better only because it is a linear good looking game filled with cutscenes and focuses more on exploring and stealth. MGS beats it every other way though. GS stop hating on peoples opinions and deleting them.
Captainqwark10
I can also say that Peace Walker's good, but that's where I lie, MGS1-3 and Peace Walker, I beat the first and second one, MGS3's dark cave confuses me still, I'm stuck on Peace Walker Battle 2 in MGS: Peace Walker.Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, and 3 are good. I can't say anything about the other MGS games, because I haven't played them.
MathMattS
[QUOTE="MathMattS"]I can also say that Peace Walker's good, but that's where I lie, MGS1-3 and Peace Walker, I beat the first and second one, MGS3's dark cave confuses me still, I'm stuck on Peace Walker Battle 2 in MGS: Peace Walker.Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, and 3 are good. I can't say anything about the other MGS games, because I haven't played them.
ImBananas
To get through the cave in mgs3, you can use Sanke's cigar to light up the cave, or just change the brightness setting of your tv till you can see the walls.
1 and 4 are the best IMO. The control scheme/mechanics in 2 and 3 frustrated me so much I couldn't finish them. Get MGS1 (probably the Gamecube version) then hang on a little in case 2 and 3 get remade. MGS3 is coming to the 3DS and I just hope the controls are better.tomarlynWhat about 2 is so different from 1? I can understand 3 with the camo, food, treating your injuries, and the overall jungle.
2 is basically the same as 1, though. Gameplay-wise.
1 and 4 are the best IMO. The control scheme/mechanics in 2 and 3 frustrated me so much I couldn't finish them. Get MGS1 (probably the Gamecube version) then hang on a little in case 2 and 3 get remade. MGS3 is coming to the 3DS and I just hope the controls are better.tomarlynI can understand why 3 annoyed you but the second had some of the best gameplay in the series
What about 2 is so different from 1? I can understand 3 with the camo, food, treating your injuries, and the overall jungle.[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]1 and 4 are the best IMO. The control scheme/mechanics in 2 and 3 frustrated me so much I couldn't finish them. Get MGS1 (probably the Gamecube version) then hang on a little in case 2 and 3 get remade. MGS3 is coming to the 3DS and I just hope the controls are better.BranKetra
2 is basically the same as 1, though. Gameplay-wise.
The controls make it overly complicated, the gameplay mechanics. the amount of buttons you have to use just to aim and fire a gun properly is stupid, especially if you want to do it whilst leaning around a corner. Thats just one example off the top of my head. The things you mentioned about MGS3 are not what I'm talking about, those features were excellent IMO.I'm talking about gameplay mechanics.
I can understand why 3 annoyed you but the second had some of the best gameplay in the series 3 is one of my favourite games of last gen except for the gameplay machanics, the controls and how you take down enemies/sneak/evade nearly made me break my PS2. Its archaic and not as simple or fluid as it was in MGS1. This is what stopped me from finishing 1 & 2, it was a pain for me to play.[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]1 and 4 are the best IMO. The control scheme/mechanics in 2 and 3 frustrated me so much I couldn't finish them. Get MGS1 (probably the Gamecube version) then hang on a little in case 2 and 3 get remade. MGS3 is coming to the 3DS and I just hope the controls are better.spookykid143
What about 2 is so different from 1? I can understand 3 with the camo, food, treating your injuries, and the overall jungle.[QUOTE="BranKetra"]
[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]1 and 4 are the best IMO. The control scheme/mechanics in 2 and 3 frustrated me so much I couldn't finish them. Get MGS1 (probably the Gamecube version) then hang on a little in case 2 and 3 get remade. MGS3 is coming to the 3DS and I just hope the controls are better.tomarlyn
2 is basically the same as 1, though. Gameplay-wise.
The controls make it overly complicated, the gameplay mechanics. the amount of buttons you have to use just to aim and fire a gun properly is stupid, especially if you want to do it whilst leaning around a corner. Thats just one example off the top of my head. The things you mentioned about MGS3 are not what I'm talking about, those features were excellent IMO.I'm talking about gameplay mechanics.
I liked 3 for those reasons, too. I like the entire MGS series that I've played so far, including Portable Ops. ...I know what you mean about the corner aiming from 2, though. It was a little tricky, but once I learned it, it wasn't a big deal. I don't know what you mean about the mechanics. You said to another poster that the mechanics of 3 are "archaic" compared to one...but then you said it's because less simple. When I think of "archaic" I think of simplicity. The more something grows, the more complex it becomes. That's how it is everywhere.[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]The controls make it overly complicated, the gameplay mechanics. the amount of buttons you have to use just to aim and fire a gun properly is stupid, especially if you want to do it whilst leaning around a corner. Thats just one example off the top of my head. The things you mentioned about MGS3 are not what I'm talking about, those features were excellent IMO.[QUOTE="BranKetra"] What about 2 is so different from 1? I can understand 3 with the camo, food, treating your injuries, and the overall jungle.
2 is basically the same as 1, though. Gameplay-wise.
BranKetra
I'm talking about gameplay mechanics.
I liked 3 for those reasons, too. I like the entire MGS series that I've played so far, including Portable Ops. ...I know what you mean about the corner aiming from 2, though. It was a little tricky, but once I learned it, it wasn't a big deal. I don't know what you mean about the mechanics. You said to another poster that the mechanics of 3 are "archaic" compared to one...but then you said it's because less simple. When I think of "archaic" I think of simplicity. The more something grows, the more complex it becomes. That's how it is everywhere. When I say archaic I mean for instance, using a difficult method for a simple task. But it really means old fashioned methodology, techniques, idea's, etc (in a bad way this instance IMO). When talking about the controls, the way the game is played, nothing else.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment