Which Metal Gear Solid game is better in terms of GAMEPLAY only? MGS1 or MGS2?

The general consensus is that MGS1 is the better game overall. Most of us know it has a better story than 2, and most of us hate Raiden and blah blah blah. That being said though, I think that MGS2 has better gameplay than MGS1. For example, I hate the aiming mechanics (or lack thereof) in MGS1; that and you can't climb like you can in MGS2.

In terms of gameplay,

MGS4>MGS3>MGS2>MGS

I've never played 4, so I can't comment on that one. I do agree that of MGS 1, 2, and 3, 3 has the best gaming, but we're only comparing 1 and 2.

Honestly, I think the gameplay in MGS is pretty lackluster.

Honestly, I think the gameplay in MGS is pretty lackluster.

psx2514

Nowadays yeah. But back then it was revolutionary. Never before had I played a game so thrillingly immersive. Was the first game that made me feel like I was in a Holywood movie.

MGS2's gameplay improves much on the first but the plot is a different story. Basically gameplay-wise it got better and better as the (console) sequels went on.

[QUOTE="psx2514"]

Honestly, I think the gameplay in MGS is pretty lackluster.

Aero5555

Nowadays yeah. But back then it was revolutionary. /QUOTE] Yeah, but I think people were blinded by how "revolutionary" the game was back then to see the lackluster game play. I agree that it's a revolutionary game being that it is the first stealth game to do it right, and the first video game to integrate cinematic storytelling with gameplay. Still, the gameplay was lacking. MGS2 vastly improved upon the gameplay of its predecessor, and then MGS (Subsistance) was even better (I like the 3rd person behind the back view so much better than the over the top view).

well the gameplay is MGS2 is pretty much the same as MGS1 , but with the addition of hanging from ledges, first person shooting and shooting from cover.

there are also the swimming sections in MGS2 but I never found those fun.

so yes, technically the gameplay is better, but due to the story being better in the first, and the gameplay not being that outdated by the newer ones (still a perfectly playable game), I consider the first to be the better game.

I have never played the original but have Twin Snakes which has all the features of MGS2. Twin Snakes was superior in the story department but I liked the open parts of Big Shell which was something new for the series. If you truly want the best you should pick up MGS3 Subsistence. the new camera does wonder for the series and the open environments are a lot of fun to play in. TheColbert

[QUOTE="psx2514"]

Honestly, I think the gameplay in MGS is pretty lackluster.

Aero5555

Nowadays yeah. But back then it was revolutionary. Never before had I played a game so thrillingly immersive. Was the first game that made me feel like I was in a Holywood movie.

MGS2's gameplay improves much on the first but the plot is a different story. Basically gameplay-wise it got better and better as the (console) sequels went on.

I agree with this. If you're talking in terms of for the era, then MGS is far and away better than any of them. However, if you just mean generally speaking, than yeah, it's kind of lacking nowadays.

[QUOTE="Aero5555"]

[QUOTE="psx2514"]

Honestly, I think the gameplay in MGS is pretty lackluster.

sayyy-gaa

Nowadays yeah. But back then it was revolutionary. Never before had I played a game so thrillingly immersive. Was the first game that made me feel like I was in a Holywood movie.

MGS2's gameplay improves much on the first but the plot is a different story. Basically gameplay-wise it got better and better as the (console) sequels went on.

I agree with this. If you're talking in terms of for the era, then MGS is far and away better than any of them. However, if you just mean generally speaking, than yeah, it's kind of lacking nowadays.

In terms of gameplay,

MGS4>MGS3>MGS2>MGS

arkephonic

I just wanted to add that I'm of the few that disliked MGS's GC remake. Sure it touched up the gameplay but it felt like stripping the original's appeal and value. It's like taking a 70's Classical Rock song and having Glee cover it.

Not saying that all remakes suck (some are like Eric Prydz's House take on a certain classic). But in the Twin Snake's case it didn't work out IMO.

For it's time MGS made a way bigger impact, but by today's standards of course MGS has WAY better gameplay. I went through the first 3 leading up to the release of 4 to prepare for even more convulated and confusing ****, and I had to force myself through MGS1. Considering the whole Solid series on PS, i'd say MGS3>MGS4>MGS2>MGS1.

for me personally it would have to be MGS1 > MGS3 > MGS2 > MGS4. gokuofheaven

[QUOTE="gokuofheaven"]for me personally it would have to be MGS1 > MGS3 > MGS2 > MGS4. Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="gokuofheaven"]for me personally it would have to be MGS1 > MGS3 > MGS2 > MGS4. AcidSoldner

just to make my point clear, when I say its easier to shoot, I don't mean going in guns blazing, that would be stupid, but what I mean is that if you get detected, which happens quite often in MGS4 simply due to the level design , its easier to get out of a situation by shooting your way out.

in the earlier MGS games once you get discovered , the only real chance you have to run away very quickly and hide, and you don't really have to do that in MGS4, you can just stand in one place and keep shooting, especially if there is something to take cover behined.

just to make my point clear, when I say its easier to shoot, I don't mean going in guns blazing, that would be stupid, but what I mean is that if you get detected, which happens quite often in MGS4 simply due to the level design , its easier to get out of a situation by shooting your way out.

in the earlier MGS games once you get discovered , the only real chance you have to run away very quickly and hide, and you don't really have to do that in MGS4, you can just stand in one place and keep shooting, especially if there is something to take cover behined.

Darkman2007

One of the things that I enjoyed the most as the series progressing was the increasing effectiveness of Snake (and Raiden I suppose in MGS2) in actual combat. I enjoy the Splinter Cell series a lot as well.

While the first Splinter Cell is probably my favorite in the series, one thing I absolutely hated about the game was the fact the Sam couldn't fight back worth ****.

I get that these are stealth games and the player should be rightfully punished for not being sneaky enough, but we're playing as soldiers, Sam was a former SEAL and Snake was in the Army, they should at least be able to put up a fight.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

just to make my point clear, when I say its easier to shoot, I don't mean going in guns blazing, that would be stupid, but what I mean is that if you get detected, which happens quite often in MGS4 simply due to the level design , its easier to get out of a situation by shooting your way out.

in the earlier MGS games once you get discovered , the only real chance you have to run away very quickly and hide, and you don't really have to do that in MGS4, you can just stand in one place and keep shooting, especially if there is something to take cover behined.

AcidSoldner

One of the things that I enjoyed the most as the series progressing was the increasing effectiveness of Snake (and Raiden I suppose in MGS2) in actual combat. I enjoy the Splinter Cell series a lot as well.

While the first Splinter Cell is probably my favorite in the series, one thing I absolutely hated about the game was the fact the Sam couldn't fight back worth ****.

I get that these are stealth games and the player should be rightfully punished for not being sneaky enough, but we're playing as soldiers, Sam was a former SEAL and Snake was in the Army, they should at least be able to put up a fight.

put up a fight yes, but there were plenty of times where I just sat in one place for 10-20 minutes and survived perfectly fine , and in fact quite a few times I didn't even sit in one place, I advanced towards to goal while shooting everywhere, and did quite well. Again this was on hard difficulty.

In the older games you could fight back the initial waves of attackers, but quite quickly you would lose, which is why after killing the initial attackers, it was best to hide. I never had to do that in MGS4

put up a fight yes, but there were plenty of times where I just sat in one place for 10-20 minutes and survived perfectly fine , and in fact quite a few times I didn't even sit in one place, I advanced towards to goal while shooting everywhere, and did quite well. Again this was on hard difficulty.

In the older games you could fight back the initial waves of attackers, but quite quickly you would lose, which is why after killing the initial attackers, it was best to hide. I never had to do that in MGS4

Darkman2007

Another one would still come in, though. Other times, they wouldn't. I think they did that in 4 to make it easier or at the very least, make each area more sectioned off. In 1,2, and 3, the enemies come from the transition points of the maps and could be hit there. I didn't see too much of that in 4, if at all.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

put up a fight yes, but there were plenty of times where I just sat in one place for 10-20 minutes and survived perfectly fine , and in fact quite a few times I didn't even sit in one place, I advanced towards to goal while shooting everywhere, and did quite well. Again this was on hard difficulty.

In the older games you could fight back the initial waves of attackers, but quite quickly you would lose, which is why after killing the initial attackers, it was best to hide. I never had to do that in MGS4

BranKetra

Another one would still come in, though. Other times, they wouldn't. I think they did that in 4 to make it easier or at the very least, make each area more sectioned off. In 1,2, and 3, the enemies come from the transition points of the maps and could be hit there. I didn't see too much of that in 4, if at all.

Yeah, but with Octocamo, the options grew a lot. As long you're on the line of patrol and the camouflage is good enough, I would go prone right next to them. I agree about the cutscenes. There were a lot of them...but this thread's about gameplay.

Personally, I really like MGO. A ton of people are in normal firefights, then you have cqc, and stealth experts. For the single player experience, 3 is my favorite. MGO takes it, though.

Yeah, but with Octocamo, the options grew a lot. As long you're on the line of patrol and the camouflage is good enough, I would go prone right next to them. I agree about the cutscenes. There were a lot of them...but this thread's about gameplay.

Personally, I really like MGO. A ton of people are in normal firefights, then you have cqc, and stealth experts. For the single player experience, 3 is my favorite. MGO takes it, though.

BranKetra

I felt that MGS2 was lacking in gameplay, not because the gameplay was terrible but because there just wasn't much of it. People always say that Metal Gear Solid is more of a movie then a game, but that was actually partially true in the case of MGS2.

MGS1 was pretty good. BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

put up a fight yes, but there were plenty of times where I just sat in one place for 10-20 minutes and survived perfectly fine , and in fact quite a few times I didn't even sit in one place, I advanced towards to goal while shooting everywhere, and did quite well. Again this was on hard difficulty.

In the older games you could fight back the initial waves of attackers, but quite quickly you would lose, which is why after killing the initial attackers, it was best to hide. I never had to do that in MGS4

Darkman2007

Another one would still come in, though. Other times, they wouldn't. I think they did that in 4 to make it easier or at the very least, make each area more sectioned off. In 1,2, and 3, the enemies come from the transition points of the maps and could be hit there. I didn't see too much of that in 4, if at all.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] I remember that, too. It encouraged stealth, for sure....but I remember that in all the games, enemies would eventually stop coming in hordes after you take out enough of them.

Another one would still come in, though. Other times, they wouldn't. I think they did that in 4 to make it easier or at the very least, make each area more sectioned off. In 1,2, and 3, the enemies come from the transition points of the maps and could be hit there. I didn't see too much of that in 4, if at all.

AcidSoldner

of course the game can be played without firing a single lethal bullet, just use a tranqualiser gun :P

actually the only parts I found that were really about stealth was the first part of Act 3, and some sections of part 4 .

trust me , I play all the Metal Gear games with stealth as the main goal , and always on at least hard difficulty, and I find stealth was compromised in alot of places in MGS4

also its pretty much impossible to run out of ammo in that game, due to the selection of guns, which is fine , but unlike the other MG games, I actually have to fight more.

and to clarify , I don't dislike MGS4, its actually one of my favourite games on the PS3, but if anybody knows me, Im quite happy to critic games to voice my opinion ,even if they are really good :P

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] I remember that, too. It encouraged stealth, for sure....but I remember that in all the games, enemies would eventually stop coming in hordes after you take out enough of them.

Another one would still come in, though. Other times, they wouldn't. I think they did that in 4 to make it easier or at the very least, make each area more sectioned off. In 1,2, and 3, the enemies come from the transition points of the maps and could be hit there. I didn't see too much of that in 4, if at all.

AcidSoldner

Yeah, the ranking system is encouragement. Besides that, they always mention it's a sneaking mission. I know that if he wanted to, the player could kill everyone. However I think that Snake being old encourages stealth. In nature, when a creature becomes elderly, they scavenge more. Even predators. Not to mention Kojima said that 4 was supposed to be the last in the series. What better way than to have the main character get old and incapable of fighting?

The reason I mentioned that is because the MGS games have a lot of real world information in them. So, it's not too far fetched to make conclusions the same way.

MGS2 is still the best, MGS1 was good, MGS2 perfected everything in MGS1 to the max. MGS3 is easily the worst of the games. It had a lot of innovative ideas, and they just killed the game. The food concept had too many variables that simply made it inconvenient to even have it in the game. The camo system was broken and unrealistic.The worst of all was the injury system. It was so annoying having to fix certain injury's in the heat of the game. I hated MGS3. Mine would look like... MGS2 > MGS1 > MGS4 > MGS3

First I've ever heard of that version. I wonder why they didn't release that in U.S.?BranKetra

The general (probably false) thought on why Integral was released in the first place is because Kojima felt the English adaption of MGS outdid the original Japanese in terms of voice-acting and he felt that it indeed was the complete edition of the game. He loves his Hollywood movies so the thought isn't very far-fetched.

from a gameplay standpoint you gotta give it to MGS2. That being said they really screwed up the story on that one.

Just overall, not game play alone I'd go like

MGS3>>MGS4>>>>MGS1>MGS2

Just gameplay I'd say it'd be

MGS3>>>>>MGS4>MGS1>>>>>MGS2