Most Over Rated Game of 2008

It's not "hard" at all to have an opinionVegetaJr

Yes, it is leagues better than the other games because it's simply more fun to play. The improved core shooting gameplay and Octo-Camo make the game just as cool to play as watch.VegetaJr

The cutscenes are there for a reason, and they get the job done. On any one of my several replays of the game, I just skipped them and kept playing. Acts 1,2, and 4 especially are just really awesomeVegetaJr

Man, you took the words out of my mouth. Who can deny that the Metal Gear Rex section was not one of the coolest parts in the entire Metal Gear Saga?SemiMaster

And you're right, until a cutscene cannot be skipped, then NO ONE has a right to complain about cutscenes bogging down the game play. There is zero rights to say that.SemiMaster

People can tout the merits of JRPG gaming (hello... cutscene originators people), but say that Metal Gear Solid 4 has too many? I mean opinions are what everyone has and are entitled to, but saying one thing and doing another are shifty business.I don't know, I wonder why I even bother sometimes, you know?SemiMaster

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]I don't know, I wonder why I even bother sometimes, you know?VegetaJr

The MGS series always did an awesome job with cutscenes. They are some of the best I have ever seen.Dantes_Girl

I wouldnt say the game is LEAGUES better than the first three, all of which scored in high 90s from both critics and users. If MGS4 was leagues better then it would've probably scored a 20/10 from everyone. :|S0lidSnake

And no, it's not better because it looks nice. It's better because for the first time in a Metal Gear Solid game, complicated controls weren't the problem. For the first time in MGS game, you could see a person standing 10 feet away from you. For the first time in a MGS game, you piloted a Metal Gear, you had an insane amount of freedom that the previous game promised, but ultimately failed to deliver. The freedom to take on any situation in a number of different ways.S0lidSnake

If you wanted to take the sissy way out and chaff through the entire first half of Act 4, then you could do so. (Though only in lower difficulty settings, the game just didnt give you enough chaffs during the first playthroughs in the higher difficulty settings) I thought by giving us variety in gameplay kept the game fresh, if you wanted the same sneaking of the first two Acts all throughout the game, then you're better off playing a game like Splinter Cell which is sneaking from first the start of the game till the end. Every single MGS game became an Action game towards the end, in MGS you basically stopped sneaking after facing the Hind for the first time, after that it was one boss battle after another with only a few sections of sneaking in between. After MGS2's torture sequence, the game turned into a buddy action movie for the next two hours. The last two hours of MGS3 is probably the most exhilirating two hours of gameplay I've ever played. After the traling sequence in Act 3, MGS4 became a thrill ride that lasted thorugh the entire Act 4 till you beat Psycho Mantis towards the end of Act 5. The game did have some pacing issues, but that does NOT mean the game lacked gameplay... or that the gameplay was adequate at best. No other MGS game, featured a chase scene like the one in Act 3 or a boss battle like Ray Vs Rex, or pitted you against a Metal Gear from the very first level. (The Gekkos were mini-metal gears.) Sorry but this game had more gameplay than MGS3, you just didnt give it a chance. I would like to hear what these "baffling game design choices" are as well. Also, MGS2 features the longest cutscene to gameplay ratio of any MGS game. You have to take into account the insanely long codec calls in MGS2 which were thankfully absent from MGS4.S0lidSnake

And eveyone keeps B----ing about the last cutscene being an hour long, when in fact, the cutscenes and codec calls after the Raiden/Metal Gear Ray fight took more than an hour and unlike MGS4 forced you to sit through it since there was still a boss fight left. The one hour cutscene in MGS4 came in the epilogue and the post-epilogue or whatever they called it. You knew the gameplay section was over, hell the credits rolled for people who were not fans of the story.You will probably dismiss my opinion as irrational since I'm a fan of a series and I'll 'defend it to death no matter what.' I've noticed that some fans didn't like MGS4, dont know if it's because it got better scores than other games in the series and fans of those games are feeling betrayed. I dont know what it is. I happen to respect you as a poster here, so I guess you have your reasons.S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]I wouldnt say the game is LEAGUES better than the first three, all of which scored in high 90s from both critics and users. If MGS4 was leagues better then it would've probably scored a 20/10 from everyone. :|GodModeEnabled

So according to you, EVERY critic and user who rated the game that high is either a graphics whore or a a fanboy. I dont care much about game publications reviewing games anymore, but when you have 150+ critic reviews and over a 100,000 user reviews, then there's nothing wrong with taking the average, and the average score of MGS4 was higher than the previous games. And remember, when you have that many people reviewing the game, the haters also get to rate/review the game. I'm sure in those 100,000 people, there were a lot of fans who rated it a 10 w/out even playing it, but you have to agree that there must be just as many people who despise the game just because it was a PS3 exclusive or because they are Splinter Cell fans or for whatever reason who rated it a 1.0. This is why I think averages can be taken seriously because the fanboys are equalled out by the haters. So again, you cannot dismiss MGS4's high scores just because you think everyone who reviewed the game is either a fanboy or graphics horny because not everyone is.

And you getting this upset over the smiley is absolutely stunning! I should remind you that you are on an internet forum and smileys/emoticons are and have been a part of online forums/chat rooms for years now, I really dont understand someone on a freaking internet forum getting so hostile over a single indifferent smiley in a post with over a 1000 words. Besides, I dont personally know you, I dont know you likes/dislikes, I do not know if you dont like indifferent smileys, I dont know about your taste in food, women or whatever, you can't expect a me to not use a smiley in a gaming forum. If you find it obnoxious then maybe internet forums arent the right place for you. This is absurd, put it in your sig or something. I dont have sigs on, so maybe you should change your username; GodDontlikey : | .

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]And no, it's not better because it looks nice. It's better because for the first time in a Metal Gear Solid game, complicated controls weren't the problem. For the first time in MGS game, you could see a person standing 10 feet away from you. For the first time in a MGS game, you piloted a Metal Gear, you had an insane amount of freedom that the previous game promised, but ultimately failed to deliver. The freedom to take on any situation in a number of different ways.GodModeEnabled

For a Stealth Action game, MGS4 gave you enough tools/freedom to do both and in **** What kind of freedom were you looking for? Did you want it to be a sandbox game? The game offered not only different paths, but also different ways to take out enemies... use Mk.II, tranq em, snipe em, CQC them (there were 10 different moves in CQC alone), set up claymores, set up magazines, sneak up on them, or just plain avoid them. For a Stealth action game, that is what I'd call insane amount of freedom. Now if it was a sandbox game then yes, I would've liked to be able to buy a Tacos in Act2.

And for the record, there are only FOUR areas in MGS4 with respawning enemies... four. One in Act 1 and Two in Act 2 and infact ubAct 2, you're supposed to help out the rebels take over the power station, if you do that, then the PMCs stop respawning. Also in Act 5, if you tranq all the frogs, they wont respawn. So it really isnt a big deal.

I killed close to 600 people in MGS4 on my second playthrough on hard. It was tough, but not suicidal. The game gives you enough rations to make sure you can go rambo. But then again, you mentioned having trouble with the shooting controls. This Gears/uncharted ****shooting scheme has made 3D Third Person shooting the easiest it's ever been, so if you have problems with having to press three buttons, then maybe third person shooters arent for you. (its actually just one, L1... R1 is to shoot and Right analog to target... one more button than FPS controls)

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]If you wanted to take the sissy way out and chaff through the entire first half of Act 4, then you could do so. (Though only in lower difficulty settings, the game just didnt give you enough chaffs during the first playthroughs in the higher difficulty settings) I thought by giving us variety in gameplay kept the game fresh, if you wanted the same sneaking of the first two Acts all throughout the game, then you're better off playing a game like Splinter Cell which is sneaking from first the start of the game till the end. Every single MGS game became an Action game towards the end, in MGS you basically stopped sneaking after facing the Hind for the first time, after that it was one boss battle after another with only a few sections of sneaking in between. After MGS2's torture sequence, the game turned into a buddy action movie for the next two hours. The last two hours of MGS3 is probably the most exhilirating two hours of gameplay I've ever played. After the traling sequence in Act 3, MGS4 became a thrill ride that lasted thorugh the entire Act 4 till you beat Psycho Mantis towards the end of Act 5. The game did have some pacing issues, but that does NOT mean the game lacked gameplay... or that the gameplay was adequate at best. No other MGS game, featured a chase scene like the one in Act 3 or a boss battle like Ray Vs Rex, or pitted you against a Metal Gear from the very first level. (The Gekkos were mini-metal gears.) Sorry but this game had more gameplay than MGS3, you just didnt give it a chance. I would like to hear what these "baffling game design choices" are as well. Also, MGS2 features the longest cutscene to gameplay ratio of any MGS game. You have to take into account the insanely long codec calls in MGS2 which were thankfully absent from MGS4.GodModeEnabled

I wouldnt argue with you on the story, there's no way I can judge the effect the story had on you, so I wont argue with you there. But I will take an exception when you link a shooter like Gears with a game like MGS4 that doesn't force you to kill every single enemy in order to proceed. When Gears starts having an option to shoot people with laughing tranq guns, then maybe, just maybe you can start comparing the two.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]And eveyone keeps B----ing about the last cutscene being an hour long, when in fact, the cutscenes and codec calls after the Raiden/Metal Gear Ray fight took more than an hour and unlike MGS4 forced you to sit through it since there was still a boss fight left. The one hour cutscene in MGS4 came in the epilogue and the post-epilogue or whatever they called it. You knew the gameplay section was over, hell the credits rolled for people who were not fans of the story.You will probably dismiss my opinion as irrational since I'm a fan of a series and I'll 'defend it to death no matter what.' I've noticed that some fans didn't like MGS4, dont know if it's because it got better scores than other games in the series and fans of those games are feeling betrayed. I dont know what it is. I happen to respect you as a poster here, so I guess you have your reasons.GodModeEnabled

So you thought the bosses were a let down, I agree. You thought the story was wacky, I agree. But then you started giving the reason WHY you thought the story was wacky, and thats where you lost me. MGS2 introduced the wacky AI programs. Old Snake was the reason why the story worked for so many, knowing he'd end up dying even if he saves the world, knowing Snake is a dead man walking made it so much more emotional for those who enjoyed the game. Raiden losing his arms and getting it reattached isn't as bad as say electric current coming out Volgin's hands or the President of United States grabbing Raiden's crotch. It's an MGS game dude, it's supposed to be weird as ****! I also dont understand whats so stupid about the Mechs, they were a real pain in the ass until we got the Railgun from Crying Wolf. Ocelot's hand transplant was also in MGS2, and was given a much more realistic explanation which I dont think you fully understand.

You've given me enough reasons why you dislike the game, but the fact is that none of those reasons were a huge deal to most who enjoyed the game. None of them was a dealbreaker. You didnt like the way the story went, ok most of us didnt but the story did leave us satisfied in the end. you didnt like the boss battles, yes they werent he best in the series but we still had more boss fights than in any other MGS game and the Ray Vs Rex, Liquid Vs Ocelot and Crying Wolf battles more than made up for it... or atleast it didnt take away anything from the game. The thing is you can argue about story all you want, the gameplay is really where I had an issue with you and aside from you thinking the boss battles were lame, you still havent shown me why you think the gameplay sections in this game were taken as an afterthought.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]MGS4. Itbarely had gameplay in it and the story sucked. Ten is an idicator of a game being better than other games an this game is no better than many games that have come this year. Games are being measured by their graphics and only graphics today and this is killing the industry.S0lidSnake

If that were true, then Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and Crysis would've been GOTYs of last year... but I remember a game called Super Mario Galaxy winning most of the GOTYs last year. :|

Also MGS4's graphics would soon be surpassed by GOW2, but I doubt that GOW2 would be rated a 10. And MGS4 wasn't even the best looking game on the PS3 when it came out, Uncharted and the gorgeous Heavenly Sword were still better looking than MGS4. MGS4 however had a much better overall package, it could've been the best looking game on the PS3 had they focused on just one setting like the jungle in Uncharted, but they went with five completely different areas each with their own gameplay variations which is part of the reason why the game got a better score than Uncharted and Heavenly Sword.

MGS4 had real time cut-scenes while uncharted didn't. Heavenly sword uses cgi in some cutscenes. All mgs4 graphics were running on real time so this makes it the best looking game on ps3. Assassin's Creed and many other games come to mind when it comes to games getting high scores because of their graphics.

What kind of logic is this? The games looked better during gameplay sections, so who cares if the cutscenes weren't realtime? I just dont understand the logic you're using here. First, you said that games are being measured by their graphics only and now because two CUTSCENES in Heavenly Sword were done in CGi, you're writing off a game that pitted you against thousands of soldiers at once! I just dont get it.

And Ass Creed got very mediocre scores after the review embargo was over. The gamerankings average dropped from mid 90s to low 80s in one day. Even the critics that gave the game 9+ scores, said they gave such a high score because the game "innovated" and not because it looked pretty. That and because Jade Raymond gave everyone in the industry hand....... nvm.

And of course when you lose an argument you start to attack the user. Typical.

You brought up examples of games with better graphics that got good scores because of their gameplay. I only proved that metal gear solid 4 got better score for its graphics because metal gear has better graphics. Those games use CGI so they're technically inferior to mgs4 graphics wise. I wouldn't say inferior....cheaper is the word. Metal gear had extra points because all its graphics were running on real time. You got this part? I'll be willing to explain forever.

So you thought the bosses were a let down, I agree. You thought the story was wacky, I agree. But then you started giving the reason WHY you thought the story was wacky, and thats where you lost me. MGS2 introduced the wacky AI programs. Old Snake was the reason why the story worked for so many, knowing he'd end up dying even if he saves the world, knowing Snake is a dead man walking made it so much more emotional for those who enjoyed the game. Raiden losing his arms and getting it reattached isn't as bad as say electric current coming out Volgin's hands or the President of United States grabbing Raiden's crotch. It's an MGS game dude, it's supposed to be weird as ****! I also dont understand whats so stupid about the Mechs, they were a real pain in the ass until we got the Railgun from Crying Wolf. Ocelot's hand transplant was also in MGS2, and was given a much more realistic explanation which I dont think you fully understand.

You've given me enough reasons why you dislike the game, but the fact is that none of those reasons were a huge deal to most who enjoyed the game. None of them was a dealbreaker. You didnt like the way the story went, ok most of us didnt but the story did leave us satisfied in the end. you didnt like the boss battles, yes they werent he best in the series but we still had more boss fights than in any other MGS game and the Ray Vs Rex, Liquid Vs Ocelot and Crying Wolf battles more than made up for it... or atleast it didnt take away anything from the game. The thing is you can argue about story all you want, the gameplay is really where I had an issue with you and aside from you thinking the boss battles were lame, you still havent shown me why you think the gameplay sections in this game were taken as an afterthought.

S0lidSnake

The cut-scenes you refered to were meant as a joke and they're not even part of the story. MGS4 made the main plot look like a joke. The whole Zero is the man behind the patriots thing was a disaster. It ruined everything. Kojima built something for ten years and knocked it off with one game. As for the bossfights, they have always been innovative and original but in mgs4, they weren't innovative neither original nor FUN. I still don't get the appeal of throwing chaff grenades to paralyze those spider thingies in chapter 4 and tale a guy in chapter 3. Those were supposed to be side missions in a mission or a level and not the main mission... reminds me of Assassin's Creed.

The last bossfight was disasterous*the one on one bossfight* The only thing good about the gameplay is the octocamo.

So according to you, EVERY critic and user who rated the game that high is either a graphics whore or a a fanboy. I dont care much about game publications reviewing games anymore, but when you have 150+ critic reviews and over a 100,000 user reviews, then there's nothing wrong with taking the average, and the average score of MGS4 was higher than the previous games. And remember, when you have that many people reviewing the game, the haters also get to rate/review the game. I'm sure in those 100,000 people, there were a lot of fans who rated it a 10 w/out even playing it, but you have to agree that there must be just as many people who despise the game just because it was a PS3 exclusive or because they are Splinter Cell fans or for whatever reason who rated it a 1.0. This is why I think averages can be taken seriously because the fanboys are equalled out by the haters. So again, you cannot dismiss MGS4's high scores just because you think everyone who reviewed the game is either a fanboy or graphics horny because not everyone is. S0lidSnake

And you getting this upset over the smiley is absolutely stunning! I should remind you that you are on an internet forum and smileys/emoticons are and have been a part of online forums/chat rooms for years now, I really dont understand someone on a freaking internet forum getting so hostile over a single indifferent smiley in a post with over a 1000 words. Besides, I dont personally know you, I dont know you likes/dislikes, I do not know if you dont like indifferent smileys, I dont know about your taste in food, women or whatever, you can't expect a me to not use a smiley in a gaming forum. If you find it obnoxious then maybe internet forums arent the right place for you. This is absurd, put it in your sig or something. I dont have sigs on, so maybe you should change your username; GodDontlikey : |S0lidSnake

For a Stealth Action game, MGS4 gave you enough tools/freedom to do both and in **** What kind of freedom were you looking for? Did you want it to be a sandbox game? The game offered not only different paths, but also different ways to take out enemies... use Mk.II, tranq em, snipe em, CQC them (there were 10 different moves in CQC alone), set up claymores, set up magazines, sneak up on them, or just plain avoid them. For a Stealth action game, that is what I'd call insane amount of freedom. Now if it was a sandbox game then yes, I would've liked to be able to buy a Tacos in Act2. And for the record, there are only FOUR areas in MGS4 with respawning enemies... four. One in Act 1 and Two in Act 2 and infact ubAct 2, you're supposed to help out the rebels take over the power station, if you do that, then the PMCs stop respawning. Also in Act 5, if you tranq all the frogs, they wont respawn. So it really isnt a big deal. I killed close to 600 people in MGS4 on my second playthrough on hard. It was tough, but not suicidal. The game gives you enough rations to make sure you can go rambo. But then again, you mentioned having trouble with the shooting controls. This Gears/uncharted ****shooting scheme has made 3D Third Person shooting the easiest it's ever been, so if you have problems with having to press three buttons, then maybe third person shooters arent for you. (its actually just one, L1... R1 is to shoot and Right analog to target... one more button than FPS controls)S0lidSnake

I wouldnt argue with you on the story, there's no way I can judge the effect the story had on you, so I wont argue with you there. But I will take an exception when you link a shooter like Gears with a game like MGS4 that doesn't force you to kill every single enemy in order to proceed. When Gears starts having an option to shoot people with laughing tranq guns, then maybe, just maybe you can start comparing the two.S0lidSnake

So you thought the bosses were a let down, I agree. You thought the story was wacky, I agree. But then you started giving the reason WHY you thought the story was wacky, and thats where you lost me. MGS2 introduced the wacky AI programs. Old Snake was the reason why the story worked for so many, knowing he'd end up dying even if he saves the world, knowing Snake is a dead man walking made it so much more emotional for those who enjoyed the game. Raiden losing his arms and getting it reattached isn't as bad as say electric current coming out Volgin's hands or the President of United States grabbing Raiden's crotch. It's an MGS game dude, it's supposed to be weird as ****!S0lidSnake

I also dont understand whats so stupid about the Mechs, they were a real pain in the ass until we got the Railgun from Crying Wolf. Ocelot's hand transplant was also in MGS2, and was given a much more realistic explanation which I dont think you fully understand.S0lidSnake

You've given me enough reasons why you dislike the game, but the fact is that none of those reasons were a huge deal to most who enjoyed the game. None of them was a dealbreaker. You didnt like the way the story went, ok most of us didnt but the story did leave us satisfied in the end. you didnt like the boss battles, yes they werent he best in the series but we still had more boss fights than in any other MGS game and the Ray Vs Rex, Liquid Vs Ocelot and Crying Wolf battles more than made up for it... or atleast it didnt take away anything from the game. The thing is you can argue about story all you want, the gameplay is really where I had an issue with you and aside from you thinking the boss battles were lame, you still havent shown me why you think the gameplay sections in this game were taken as an afterthought.S0lidSnake

No, not everyone but it does feel like the majority of them to me. Graphics, graphics, graphics... blah blah blah. And most series fans love it simply because its the next Metal Gear game, regardless of how good it actually is, or isnt. Its the next MGS game hoorah! Those are part of my reasoning for why the game scored as it did, I dismiss the scores because it dosen't deserve them. As a CG movie its pretty good but its like its ashamed to be a video game. I sure dont enjoy watching a 30 minute cutscene, playing for 15 minutes and then sitting through another 30 minute cutscene, then a decent boss fight that takes 10 minutes and then ANOTHER 30 minute cutscene. Out of the 20 hrs it took me to finish the game id say I actually played 7 or 8 of them and watched the rest.GodModeEnabled

For the record, I disliked MGS: PO so much that I didn't play it after the first few levels. I was so turned off by the lame bullet time cutscenes in MGS: Twin Snakes that I still haven't played the game. What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not one of those guys who've finished each game in the series a 100 times (and I know a couple of gamespot users who have finished MGS2 over a 100 times), I'm not a hardcore MGS fan. Just a regular MGS fan, and I'm sure the majority of MGS fans dont play through the single player campaigns a hundred times. And the majority rated the game high. You can't dismiss our opinion because we're fans of the series; most of us aren't irrational fans like you want to believe. As for the cutscenes being long, again if you're a fan of the series this game was no different than MGS2 or MGS3. The first three hours in MGS3 were all cutscenes apart from the 10 minute gameplay sequence that was also in the demo. You said you dont enjoy sitting through a 30 minute cutscene and then playing a 15 minute boss battle, yet you praised the other games in the series. Do you see why I'm unable to understand the problems that you have with this game?

You don't need to remind me of crap, ive been on internet forums for the better part of 10 years now so I know all about it. In a discussion its generally considered bad form to use those kind of smileys out of respect for the person you're talking to. Thats like if we were having a conversation in real life and every other thing I said you rolled your eyes at me, or sneered at me, or acted condesendingly towards me. A) im not going to like you, B) im going to have an automatic hostile disposition towards you and C) im going to think that even talking to you is a complete waste of time because you're more interested in stroking an ego than debating the point. Im just trying to point this out because you seem like a good regular to have around and as such your points, opinions and thoughts will be strong enough to carry your side of a conversation without resorting to childish taunting. Its your discretion, but its hard not to be annoyed at it. Or if you feel you cant debate a point without resorting to it perhaps you could change your username as well to S0lidSnakey_has_no_social_skills_and_cant_debate_like_an_adult.

GodModeEnabled

but that's the thing! I didn't do it to every other thing you said. It was just one single indifferent smiley in a post that was longer than my senior deisgn report. Ok maybe not, but it was a very long post, yet you apparently got so offended by it that you immediately decided not to like me. Even in real life heated debates, you're bound to show some expressions..... I just dont get how you can survive the internet for ten years when you have such contempt for a certain smiley and people who use that smiley. Now that I know that indifferent smileys piss you off or make you think any less of me, I obviously wont use it in my future replies to your posts. however, not everyone is as nice as me and if you let such a small thing affect you like that, there will be a lot of people testing you out with that ****.

Yeah MGS3 had all this "freedom" as well, and in the end its all a bunch of pointless crap and a waste of time. Why bother setting up claymores and using playboy magazines when I can shoot the guard in the face with a tranq dart, knock him out it one hit, and move on. Why bother? I found they gave you a thousand and one guns n gadjets and 99% of them are completly pointless. When in alert mode running around and shooting things ive always had more and more and more enemies pop in to take me down.... I figured the whole "we're sending reinforcements" thing was the que for respawning enemies but hell maybe im wrong. I know there was a hella lot of them, and it sure felt like respawning enemys to me. I could never manage to fully a clear a screen in the game so im not sure what I was doing wrong. However if I switched over to silenced weapons I could kill the 5 or 6 or however many guards per screen and move on in peace. And since your regular pistol has all the use of a donkey with boobs I switched to the tranq gun mid act 2 and had very few problems. The only act that was remotley challenging was Act 5 and that was mainly the incursion part when you first land on the boat that gave me problems. The control scheme is still unweildy, its the best it has been for a Metal Gear game perhaps, but its still needlessly complicated.

GodModeEnabled

let me ask you this, Why haveyou been a fan of the series? Oh and the point of giving you a thousand different choices is that you have the freedom to play the game your way. That's the freedom I was talking about, gives the game replay value.

If you can take out their radios or take out the Alerted solider before they radio-in for backup, you wont hear the "we're sending in reinforcements", because the headquaters only send in more soliders if there's a problem.

Ahhh you misunderstand me. I compare the game to Gears because they are both games with high levels of production values and graphics that skimp out on the gameplay? Whats my problem with the gameplay in MGS4? Its almost non-existant.

GodModeEnabled

Oh ok.

And you just mentioned that the game has roughly 7-8 hours of gameplay, that's around Uncharted's length with more gameplay variety and two hours more than Heavenly Sword and LBP. I wouldnt call 8 hours of gameplay non-existant. (I think it's close to ten, but I never counted. The online multiplayer has given me close to 70 hours of gameplay though.)

See, even you don't know wtf is going on with Raiden do you? lol. I have nothing else to really add here other than yeah I agree its supposed to be wacky but some it is quite...insane. Seriously how did he get his arms and limbs back? I thought Volgins electrical power came from his gauntlets or gloves or something but its a been a long time since I played it so I could be wrong. And the only emotions old snake gave me was anger when im trying to do barrel rolls to avoid gunfire and find cover and mid roll his back gives out or something, and you end up just flopping on the ground and getting shot to death. lol. Nice touch though I suppose, but it sure was annoying.

S0lidSnake

lol, what do YOU think is going on with Raiden? Raiden just didnt get his limbs back, he got his entire body back. The exo-skeleton he had on when he was a ninja was his entire body. As a Cyborg Ninja, he doesn't have human limbs, legs, feet, hips, chest... the only human thing he has is his head and his spinal cord. The exo-skeleton fills the rest, thats why the White Blood would come out of his body and not real blood. Grey Fox and Raiden went through the same procedure, Grey had nothing but his spinal cord left after Snake killed him in MG 1 or MG2 (i havent played the old MG games, you have so you know when snake killed him) which is why Paramadic made him a new body. Now Raiden at the end of the game in the hospital has apparently gotten an entire body transplant. Hence the scars, hence him acting like a little b**** again saying stuff like, "My son doesnt love me because I'm ugly." Yes, it's pretty idiotic and yes there's no procedure that can make a human being into a Cyborg Ninja, but it's just as crazy as say The Pain shooting out bullet bees, or Fortune controlling guided missiles with her mind like a certain X-Men. The game didnt get any wackier than the previous games, so dont know why you only have a problem with crazy stuff in this game.

I didnt like the mechs because I thought they were ridiculously stupid looking and over the top and almost the whole game all you do is run from them. wooo. Maybe I dont understand the hand transplant thing fully, its pretty hard to keep track of all the insanity throughout... enlighten me then, seriously I would like to know.

GodModeEnabled

Edit: This "S0lidSnakey_has_no_social_skills_and_cant_debate_like_an_adult." gave me a chuckle! :P

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]MGS4. Itbarely had gameplay in it and the story sucked. Ten is an idicator of a game being better than other games an this game is no better than many games that have come this year. Games are being measured by their graphics and only graphics today and this is killing the industry.gamingqueen

If that were true, then Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and Crysis would've been GOTYs of last year... but I remember a game called Super Mario Galaxy winning most of the GOTYs last year. :|

Also MGS4's graphics would soon be surpassed by GOW2, but I doubt that GOW2 would be rated a 10. And MGS4 wasn't even the best looking game on the PS3 when it came out, Uncharted and the gorgeous Heavenly Sword were still better looking than MGS4. MGS4 however had a much better overall package, it could've been the best looking game on the PS3 had they focused on just one setting like the jungle in Uncharted, but they went with five completely different areas each with their own gameplay variations which is part of the reason why the game got a better score than Uncharted and Heavenly Sword.

MGS4 had real time cut-scenes while uncharted didn't. Heavenly sword uses cgi in some cutscenes. All mgs4 graphics were running on real time so this makes it the best looking game on ps3. Assassin's Creed and many other games come to mind when it comes to games getting high scores because of their graphics.

What kind of logic is this? The games looked better during gameplay sections, so who cares if the cutscenes weren't realtime? I just dont understand the logic you're using here. First, you said that games are being measured by their graphics only and now because two CUTSCENES in Heavenly Sword were done in CGi, you're writing off a game that pitted you against thousands of soldiers at once! I just dont get it.

And Ass Creed got very mediocre scores after the review embargo was over. The gamerankings average dropped from mid 90s to low 80s in one day. Even the critics that gave the game 9+ scores, said they gave such a high score because the game "innovated" and not because it looked pretty. That and because Jade Raymond gave everyone in the industry hand....... nvm.

And of course when you lose an argument you start to attack the user. Typical.

You brought up examples of games with better graphics that got good scores because of their gameplay. I only proved that metal gear solid 4 got better score for its graphics because metal gear has better graphics. Those games use CGI so they're technically inferior to mgs4 graphics wise. I wouldn't say inferior....cheaper is the word. Metal gear had extra points because all its graphics were running on real time. You got this part? I'll be willing to explain forever.

I wasn't attacking you, that was a sincere question. and typical of what exactly?

No you implied that MGS4 got a better OVERALL score because of its better graphics, not that MGS4 got a better score for "its graphics". I am so confused right now, what the hell are we arguing about.

*thinks about this for a while*

*after a while*

Ok. So let me just write this down so I understand your point. Since Uncharted used ingame assets in its prerendered vids, that somehow makes the game's ingame graphics inferior to MGS4. Again, this is the same Uncharted with its incredible textures, lighting and explosions that everyone agrees are better than MGS4s. Everyone, but you apparently.

And because Heavenly Sword used two CGi cutscenes, (one at the very beginning, and the other at the very end) it is techincally "cheaper" than MGS4. Do i have this right? because if I do, it is flawed logic. Actually, let's go by your flawed logic here for a minute because MGS4 had certain scenes that were not realtime. Like that one right after the when you follow the Resistance member to Big Mama's house. Try wearing a tux or Raiden's Ninja mask or any other costume, it would go back to Snake's orginal Octocamo suit. If it was realtime, then you'd still see Snake wearing the tux. But again, it's flawed logic and just because a couple of scenes in MGS4 were prerecorded, doesn't mean it's cheap. if you've played Heavenly Sword, then you would know that it had better mo-cap and facial expressions in its cutscenes than MGS4's. Again both games look great, but heavenly Sword with its thousand enemies on screen at once, and Uncharted with its great texture do edge out MGS4 in terms of graphics. Even if they dont, let's say all three of them are equally good, by your logic they should've received the same praise that MGS4 got. But they didn't.

The cut-scenes you refered to were meant as a joke and they're not even part of the story. MGS4 made the main plot look like a joke. The whole Zero is the man behind the patriots thing was a disaster. It ruined everything. Kojima built something for ten years and knocked it off with one game. As for the bossfights, they have always been innovative and original but in mgs4, they weren't innovative neither original nor FUN. I still don't get the appeal of throwing chaff grenades to paralyze those spider thingies in chapter 4 and tale a guy in chapter 3. Those were supposed to be side missions in a mission or a level and not the main mission... reminds me of Assassin's Creed.

The last bossfight was disasterous*the one on one bossfight* The only thing good about the gameplay is the octocamo.

gamingqueen

what cutscenes did I refer to?

The Zero thing is something we discussed a couple of months ago in the official MGS4 thread. I wont go into that again, if you felt cheated by Kojima, then it's fine by me. I didn't. It came as a shock to me, and it did make sense. It made MGS3 relevant again. It made one of my favorite characters, the Boss, the centerpiece of this entire mess, and that made even more sense. Good people do bad things even when their intentions are good, it's as simple as that. I didnt like the way the story was told in MGS4, but what was there left me pretty satisfied.

There is no appeal in throwing chaffs and running away, which is why in higher difficulty settings you didnt have a lot of chaff, and you actually had to sneak around those scrabs. Take the vents you had to take back in MGS1, hang from the ledges, take out one silently making sure it doesnt alert the others and move on.

The tailing section in Act 3 is MGS4's version of a GTA game. You have the entire city at your disposal, do whatever you like, that section alone has more gameplay opportunities than in any other MGS game. Kojima could've easily forced some of the same Act1, Act2, MGS3 ****gameplay upon us, but he didnt and I'm glad for that. i killed every single PMC, took down every single chopper in that section on my third playthrough and it was awesome!

MGS games never had any side missions, dont know what you're talking about there. MGS3 had you shoot the frogs, MGS2 had you collect dog tags, but I would call those side missions. Tailing a guy around an entire city isn't a side mission.

So you didnt like the last boss fight. Okay.

And with all due respect, the whole "GTAIV bought its scores" is unsubstantiated crap. If we're going to engage in rampant speculation and conjecture, anybody can use these arguments against any game they don't happen to like.

Example:

"Mario Galaxy reviews were bought and paid for."

"RE4 reviews were bought and paid for."

"I don't trust critics and I think (Insert game here) is overrated."

Grammaton-Cleric

Well there have been articles about some dubious reviewing conditions

Opinion: 'PR's Dirty Little Game With 11th Hour Reviews'

In the weeks prior to GTA IV's release, Rockstar made promises that print and online publications would receive early review code so that they might fully ingest and digest Liberty City in order to deliver mature and balanced opinions on its day of launch.

In reality, this was not the case, with precious few publications getting to spend prolonged time with the game ahead of release. The first review of the game came from the UK's Official Xbox magazine bearing the worrying caveat "based on unfinished code".

Eurogamer, wise to the fact promises of AAA title retail code 'a week before release' are rarely upheld, arranged to play through the game over a period of days in Rockstar's offices instead (along with a couple of other UK publications). From speaking to other editors (some of high profile titles) this was not an opportunity offered to all and, when review code failed to turn up the week before release, many were left panicking about how they were going to serve their readers in a timely manner with any integrity.Gamasutra

It is not just GTA however.

Another article about Fallout 3. CanardPC's almost-review

This article is not a test. Just an "introduction for things to come". Why? Because the conditions under which I had to play this "RPG" were not acceptable: sixteen hours in a row in a luxurious hotel on an almost finished build, Bethesda asking to see my screenshots in order to "approve" them...These factors, going from obnoxious to truly scandalous would have made my review biased or even dishonest. Well, I mean a little more dishonest than what I usually do. But have no fear, even though I was deprived of my screenshots, I'm not deprived from my opinion. CanardPC

And finally Tecmo paying for prostitutes in Japan for journalists.

And finally Tecmo paying for prostitutes in Japan for journalists.

Iga_Bobovic

That's the way to do business. Who orchestrated that, Itagaki?

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]

And finally Tecmo paying for prostitutes in Japan for journalists.

SteelAttack

That's the way to do business. Who orchestrated that, Itagaki?

Maybe, but can you imagine Tecmo hiring Maria Ozawa?!

*Must resist posting hot Japanese girls!

[QUOTE="Iga_Bobovic"]

And finally Tecmo paying for prostitutes in Japan for journalists.

SteelAttack

That's the way to do business. Who orchestrated that, Itagaki?

I know Jeff has to be one of those guys.... I know it!

Wow S0lidSnake, given how lengthy your responses are, you should write a book! :PBladesOfAthena

I blame it on MGS. :P

I remember being this "nuts" about Matrix when it first came out. lol, I feel sorry for GodModeEnabled!

I can't be bothered to sort through the massive number of quotes here... but my original point is not going to change.

People hold games to double standards, because they don't like a given game because of one feature, but then praise another for the same thing, that's just wrong, and that's what I'm getting from a lot of people here. Dress it up however you want, but that's the truth.

Second, about skipping scenes. I would not dare skip a scene in Metal Gear Solid or any game like that, I feel it is integral to the experience, whereas some people do not. But the point that was being misconstrued was that people complain about cutscenes and not enough action. Just skip the damn thing, period. Unless a game explicitly denies this ability (I might have played one my entire life), the right to complain about cutscenes is zero. So try and twist those words again.

For the record, I disliked MGS: PO so much that I didn't play it after the first few levels. I was so turned off by the lame bullet time cutscenes in MGS: Twin Snakes that I still haven't played the game. What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not one of those guys who've finished each game in the series a 100 times (and I know a couple of gamespot users who have finished MGS2 over a 100 times), I'm not a hardcore MGS fan. Just a regular MGS fan, and I'm sure the majority of MGS fans dont play through the single player campaigns a hundred times. And the majority rated the game high. You can't dismiss our opinion because we're fans of the series; most of us aren't irrational fans like you want to believe. As for the cutscenes being long, again if you're a fan of the series this game was no different than MGS2 or MGS3. The first three hours in MGS3 were all cutscenes apart from the 10 minute gameplay sequence that was also in the demo. You said you dont enjoy sitting through a 30 minute cutscene and then playing a 15 minute boss battle, yet you praised the other games in the series. Do you see why I'm unable to understand the problems that you have with this game?S0lidSnake

but that's the thing! I didn't do it to every other thing you said. It was just one single indifferent smiley in a post that was longer than my senior deisgn report. Ok maybe not, but it was a very long post, yet you apparently got so offended by it that you immediately decided not to like me. Even in real life heated debates, you're bound to show some expressions..... I just dont get how you can survive the internet for ten years when you have such contempt for a certain smiley and people who use that smiley. Now that I know that indifferent smileys piss you off or make you think any less of me, I obviously wont use it in my future replies to your posts. however, not everyone is as nice as me and if you let such a small thing affect you like that, there will be a lot of people testing you out with that ****S0lidSnake

let me ask you this, Why have you been a fan of the series? Oh and the point of giving you a thousand different choices is that you have the freedom to play the game your way. That's the freedom I was talking about, gives the game replay value. If you can take out their radios or take out the Alerted solider before they radio-in for backup, you wont hear the "we're sending in reinforcements", because the headquaters only send in more soliders if there's a problem.S0lidSnake

lol, what do YOU think is going on with Raiden? Raiden just didnt get his limbs back, he got his entire body back. The exo-skeleton he had on when he was a ninja was his entire body. As a Cyborg Ninja, he doesn't have human limbs, legs, feet, hips, chest... the only human thing he has is his head and his spinal cord. The exo-skeleton fills the rest, thats why the White Blood would come out of his body and not real blood. Grey Fox and Raiden went through the same procedure, Grey had nothing but his spinal cord left after Snake killed him in MG 1 or MG2 (i havent played the old MG games, you have so you know when snake killed him) which is why Paramadic made him a new body. Now Raiden at the end of the game in the hospital has apparently gotten an entire body transplant. Hence the scars, hence him acting like a little b**** again saying stuff like, "My son doesnt love me because I'm ugly." Yes, it's pretty idiotic and yes there's no procedure that can make a human being into a Cyborg Ninja, but it's just as crazy as say The Pain shooting out bullet bees, or Fortune controlling guided missiles with her mind like a certain X-Men. The game didnt get any wackier than the previous games, so dont know why you only have a problem with crazy stuff in this game.S0lidSnake

In MGS2 they revealed that Liquid had taken over Ocelot's body and mind when Ocelot attached Liquid's right arm to his own. Now in MGS4, they said Ocelot made up that entire story and that Liquid died back in MGS1 and was never revived in any shape or form. Ocelot however went through some serious psychotherapy/hypnosis/and god knows what to take on the persona of Liquid. He did that to fool the Patriots who thought of Ocelot as one of their own. To make sure the Patriots dont find out, Ocelot never helped out Snake, went through more hypnosis to become more and more like Liquid. He went in so deep that he developed split personalities and let the Liquid persona take over him (like Tyler Durton in Fight Club). He ends up becoming the problem since he's now doing what Liquid wanted to do in MGS1, get the remains of Big Boss and take over the Patriot's AI. it's pretty cool actuallyS0lidSnake

Edit: This S0lidSnakey_has_no_social_skills_and_cant_debate_like_an_adult." gave me a chuckle!S0lidSnake

I blame it on MGS. :P I remember being this "nuts" about Matrix when it first came out. lol, I feel sorry for GodModeEnabled!S0lidSnake

I can't be bothered to sort through the massive number of quotes here... but my original point is not going to change.

People hold games to double standards, because they don't like a given game because of one feature, but then praise another for the same thing, that's just wrong, and that's what I'm getting from a lot of people here. Dress it up however you want, but that's the truth.

Second, about skipping scenes. I would not dare skip a scene in Metal Gear Solid or any game like that, I feel it is integral to the experience, whereas some people do not. But the point that was being misconstrued was that people complain about cutscenes and not enough action. Just skip the damn thing, period. Unless a game explicitly denies this ability (I might have played one my entire life), the right to complain about cutscenes is zero. So try and twist those words again.

SemiMaster

Im just going to keep this short but..

Ofcourse MGS3 you can play as a standalone, because its a prequel...I can watch the Matrix 1 and get the full effect but I cant watch Revolutions without going dbuuuuhh? This game is wrapping up 20 years of history, you expect someone whos never played an MGS game to jump in and know everything? How is that possible?

Your main beef is obviously the story. I agree about the boss battles but what is stopping you from a replay? Skip the cutscenes and the gameplay is arguably the best in the series. Like I said, besides boss battles, what makes this game worse than 3? Otocam is too easy? its virtually the same as MSG3s without the clumsy interface getting in the way. The AI is better, there is a lot more moves (CQC), tons of different ways to tackle the layouts, etc. Look at all the things holding back past MGS games. Camera, controls, lack of variation in the levels, but all those things get free passes and you slam this game has much more faults? I definitely think you are being unfair.

Oh, sorry, that is directed at GME :P

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]MGS4. Itbarely had gameplay in it and the story sucked. Ten is an idicator of a game being better than other games an this game is no better than many games that have come this year. Games are being measured by their graphics and only graphics today and this is killing the industry.S0lidSnake

If that were true, then Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and Crysis would've been GOTYs of last year... but I remember a game called Super Mario Galaxy winning most of the GOTYs last year. :|

Also MGS4's graphics would soon be surpassed by GOW2, but I doubt that GOW2 would be rated a 10. And MGS4 wasn't even the best looking game on the PS3 when it came out, Uncharted and the gorgeous Heavenly Sword were still better looking than MGS4. MGS4 however had a much better overall package, it could've been the best looking game on the PS3 had they focused on just one setting like the jungle in Uncharted, but they went with five completely different areas each with their own gameplay variations which is part of the reason why the game got a better score than Uncharted and Heavenly Sword.

MGS4 had real time cut-scenes while uncharted didn't. Heavenly sword uses cgi in some cutscenes. All mgs4 graphics were running on real time so this makes it the best looking game on ps3. Assassin's Creed and many other games come to mind when it comes to games getting high scores because of their graphics.

What kind of logic is this? The games looked better during gameplay sections, so who cares if the cutscenes weren't realtime? I just dont understand the logic you're using here. First, you said that games are being measured by their graphics only and now because two CUTSCENES in Heavenly Sword were done in CGi, you're writing off a game that pitted you against thousands of soldiers at once! I just dont get it.

And Ass Creed got very mediocre scores after the review embargo was over. The gamerankings average dropped from mid 90s to low 80s in one day. Even the critics that gave the game 9+ scores, said they gave such a high score because the game "innovated" and not because it looked pretty. That and because Jade Raymond gave everyone in the industry hand....... nvm.

And of course when you lose an argument you start to attack the user. Typical.

You brought up examples of games with better graphics that got good scores because of their gameplay. I only proved that metal gear solid 4 got better score for its graphics because metal gear has better graphics. Those games use CGI so they're technically inferior to mgs4 graphics wise. I wouldn't say inferior....cheaper is the word. Metal gear had extra points because all its graphics were running on real time. You got this part? I'll be willing to explain forever.

I wasn't attacking you, that was a sincere question. and typical of what exactly?

No you implied that MGS4 got a better OVERALL score because of its better graphics, not that MGS4 got a better score for "its graphics". I am so confused right now, what the hell are we arguing about.

*thinks about this for a while*

*after a while*

Ok. So let me just write this down so I understand your point. Since Uncharted used ingame assets in its prerendered vids, that somehow makes the game's ingame graphics inferior to MGS4. Again, this is the same Uncharted with its incredible textures, lighting and explosions that everyone agrees are better than MGS4s. Everyone, but you apparently.

And because Heavenly Sword used two CGi cutscenes, (one at the very beginning, and the other at the very end) it is techincally "cheaper" than MGS4. Do i have this right? because if I do, it is flawed logic. Actually, let's go by your flawed logic here for a minute because MGS4 had certain scenes that were not realtime. Like that one right after the when you follow the Resistance member to Big Mama's house. Try wearing a tux or Raiden's Ninja mask or any other costume, it would go back to Snake's orginal Octocamo suit. If it was realtime, then you'd still see Snake wearing the tux. But again, it's flawed logic and just because a couple of scenes in MGS4 were prerecorded, doesn't mean it's cheap. if you've played Heavenly Sword, then you would know that it had better mo-cap and facial expressions in its cutscenes than MGS4's. Again both games look great, but heavenly Sword with its thousand enemies on screen at once, and Uncharted with its great texture do edge out MGS4 in terms of graphics. Even if they dont, let's say all three of them are equally good, by your logic they should've received the same praise that MGS4 got. But they didn't.

That's my opinion... Why do you care? and saying my logic is flawed.. what's next? Look, just because I said something you don't like about a "videogame" doesn't mean you can insult me because I'm a real person with feelings and crap and not a "videogame" So drop it. Seriously...

Ok so Uncharted has better textures, it also has a better and longer*if you take out mgs4 cut-scenes* and more varied gameplay. Why didn't it get a better score? I don't think it's fair to give mgs4 a ten when Uncharted appeals to more people than mgs4 especially when it's not only about stealth. The shooting is better, the enemies are better, the controls are better. MGS4 story is a sequel so inorder to fully understand what's going on, players must play previous mgs games so its story doesn't justify the ten it got. The bossfights were lame and very few additions were made to gameplay not to mention the length of gameplay segments and how clunky the shooting was.

Yeah im probably pretty much the same kind of fan you are, love the main series of games, and dont really like any of the sidegames which is more or less what im like too. How can I put this though..... what im trying to say is that a lot of series fans are the more extreme kind, and would have loved the game regardless of how good it was, what the story was about, or whatever. Just because its a new MGS game. They wont question the high score, or the quality of the game, its good regardless and Kojima is their idol. A lot of series has these kind of fans and they are particularily obnoxious because there can't be one negative thing about the game, its all absolute sex in a box. I put all my new games through the ringer, especially one from one of my favorite series. More than this game though, this whole generation has been skimping on the gameplay for the next big graphical production. This goes beyond Metal Gear, but is relevant to the discussion because MGS4 is just another victim in the latest fiasco of pulling the wool over the consumers eyes. Like "look look heres some sexy graphics, now gow follow some moron around the city for 15 minutes and then heres another hour of sexy graphics!" Its been a while since ive played MGS3 but I don't remember the first 3 hours being all cutscenes? I praise MGS3 because it is simply the best one in the series. Its most concentrated on gameplay, has the best boss battles and story, and is actually the least wacky/insane of all of them. Also you could go into MGS3 without ever having played one of the previous games before and still get the full experience. Good luck playing MGS4 if you havent played the other three, you'd be like "abuuuhh?" Oh I survived and flourished, don't worry about that. A lot of people use smileys frequently, Hell I tend to use the tounge one when im joking around. I guess its not as big of a deal as im making it out to be. I was just trying to get the point across that most of the great posters you see here do not use those kinds of smileys in a serious conversation, and certainly not when conversing with someone you have mutual respect for. If its disrespectful in real life, its disrespectful online and its weak. Using those kinds of things tells me the person im talking to is too stupid to argue for himself and has to resort to being "cool" and "superior" and acting like an ass. Yes they are commom to forums.... but in other forums I can also swear, post porn and ridicule someone to the point of them quitting a board. Been there, down that. Its all so ****ing weak man and thats why I prefer a more refined place like this most the time. I enjoy the mix of action/stealth gameplay,the story (at least in past games) and the fun boss battles (again past games) I found the gameplay to be like small snippets in comparison to the cutscenes in this game, which is my main beef with it, there just isn't enough of it. This is the first game in the series I don't think ill ever replay. As for the radio thing, I forgot about that lol. But I still had a decent time sneaking through. I also didn't figure out that you could grab people and snap their necks until the Vamp fight...o_0 . ..... but it seems like a stupid route for the story to take to me. Why not have liquid come back, ressurected instead? It would have been a lot more satisfying and interesting than crazy old oc hynotising himself. WTF. Now that I understand it more its a bit better...but still I feel like the story could have been way better than that. I was trying to be more funny than rude :P Oh don't feel sorry for me, I am more than capable of addressing my opinion, and at the end of day I find this fun ^_^GodModeEnabled

I thought it was funny. :)

lol, it took us two days but we finally came to a conclusion. About most MGS fans being extreme, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. About MGS4 having little snippets of gameplay followed by long cutscenes, well it is true... at least in the second half of the game (Acts 3,4,5). But then again, I counted the hours of all the five Acts(I have a dvd-rip of the entire game) and the cutscenes were a little more than 7 hours long. If you dont count the hour long epilogue and debriefing, then the cutscenes are 6 hours. If you dont count the optional Mission Briefings which are just over an hour long, the cutscenes come down to a total of 5 five hours. I remember reading in the official thread that most people finished the game in 18 hours. I'm guessing they didnt skip any Mission Briefings, so that means the game has at least 10 hours of gameplay. It took me and dvader over 21 hours to finish the game, but I died a lot and he was exploring more. Still, I myself was surprised to see that the cutscenes were only 7 hours of the game.

MGS3 starts off with a very cool Halo jump scene followed by a 30 minute Codec convo in which you get introduced to Zero, Paramedic, Sigint and the Boss).After you get to Sokolov, there are numerous cutscenes including a long ass convo b/w Kruschev and Johnson and Snake Zero. Then you meet The Boss again, and finally after 5 more minutes of gameplay there's a long scene with Eva. It's all gameplay after that, however, so that was cool. But I remember even Greg Kasavin complaining about the game starting out too slow.

Raiden's body was fixed by some doctor, it was never explained. I have no idea how they can give him someone else's arms, limbs and stuff, but I think we are already doing heart transplants, and since MGS4 was set in the future it is not really that farfetched to think that Raiden can get a whole body transplant. but yeah, it's absurd.

lol, I will never defend a story like MGS4's, just trying to explain what happened and yes, I dont expect it to make sense. :P

Ok so Uncharted has better textures, it also has a better and longer*if you take out mgs4 cut-scenes* and more varied gameplay. Why didn't it get a better score? I don't think it's fair to give mgs4 a ten when Uncharted appeals to more people than mgs4 especially when it's not only about stealth. The shooting is better, the enemies are better, the controls are better. MGS4 story is a sequel so inorder to fully understand what's going on, players must play previous mgs games so its story doesn't justify the ten it got. The bossfights were lame and very few additions were made to gameplay not to mention the length of gameplay segments and how clunky the shooting was.

gamingqueen

So The Dark Knight shouldn't gotten those 4/4 stars and universal acclaim because it was a sequel? It's upto the gamer to make sure he's played the previous games before he attempts a game that has a big "4" in its title.

Uncharted is not longer than MGS4, it has less cutsenes than MGS4 but it took most people 18 hours(only 7 of them were gameplay, yes I counted) to finish the single player campaign in MGS4 while Uncharted only had an 8 hour campaign. So you like Uncharted's gameplay better than MGS4, okay, its a great game. One of my favorites, so I'm happy for you.

That said, no one is insulting you here. Dont know you keep insisting that I'm insulting you. When I insult people, it isn't pretty and I usually use a lot of curses. I make sure that they know I'm insuting them.