[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Gamespot will probably not give this game a ten. They gave Metal Gear Solid 3 an 8.7 at first. That score outrages me far, far more than the Jeff thing with Kane and Lynch. MGS3 is exceptional. It is one of the best games on the PS2, possibly the best, and certainly very, very noteworthy for that entire generation of counsils. They basically failed to give any reasons why it was the game was bad, aside from the cut scenes and the camera shots, both of which are IMPORTANT, and GOOD. I think we can except something in the low 9s in the very least, but no more than a 9.5 all the same. Gamespot has done the MGS series bad before, I see no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so.MAILER_DAEMON
You know the main reason why Solid 3 got an 8.7 while its re-release got a 9.0, right? Before I answer that, let me say that it's unprecedented for a "director's cut" or any kind of re-release with extra content to score higher than the original... just compare Sons of Liberty's score to Substance's.The answer is in the camera. As much as Solid 3 moved the series forward in gameplay by adding a more complex hand-to-hand system, modified aiming, and environments, they messed up when they stuck with the old camera. The overhead camera system that looks forward worked in Solid and Solid 2 due to the radar, which showed you things that you couldn't see without going into first-person view. However, Solid 3 not only added larger areas with the jungle environments, but by taking away the radar, you were forced to rely even more on first-person view, slowing the game down and making it hard to know where you were going if you weren't going up the screen.
It didn't stop MGS3 from being considered "Great" in GS' eyes. Most people completely ignore the fact that games that get an 8.x on GS are considered "Great," while something in the 9.x range is considered "Excellent." For all the areas that MGS3 moved the series forward... not only in gameplay, but story as well... the original camera from Snake Eater did hamper the experience. Subsistence's camera is so much better than i can never play the original game again, and even if the extra content wasn't there, I'd have gone out and bought Subsitence anyway. There's a reason what that's the version that came with the Essentials Collection, and why that camera is being used in Solid 4.
It's what turned a great game into something uniformly excellent.
While everyone always uses this argument, I can see how some would think it doesn't completely validate a sub-9 score. I personally don't care, but I will give an example of why "8.7 is a great score" arguments can be refuted. Look at how many games scored better than MGS3. I don't know your entire taste in games, so I won't offer a direct comparison. However, there have probably been hundreds of games that have scored higher than MGS3, yet for me and I'm betting a ton of other people, there aren't 25 (or even one) games that are better, much less hundreds. It's all subjective, I know. However, so is the 8.7 = "Great." It all depends on how the person views the score.
Honestly, I don't care about reviews because pretty much all of them take off points for negative aspects, even if there are so many good aspects to bump it back up. For some reason, GTAIV didn't fall into this category, which is why so many people think it's now one of the more overrated games of all time.
Really, though, people don't seem to understand MGS reviews are very unique from most game's reviews. Unlike a very casual type of game, such as Mario, Halo, etc., where almost anyone can play the game for a bit and enjoy it, thus praise it in reviews, MGS is quite different. There will always be the reviewer that plays through a game jotting down opinions and taking notes as they go along, and those will be the people that will never give MGS "shockingly" good reviews. Then there are the reviewers that just play through the game without nitpicking at a soldier in a group of 20 that turned the wrong way for a second, and they just play to the end and then base their opinion. The latter type of reviewer is where MGS gets it's high-9 - 10 scores. Then, of course, there is also the reviewer that just doesn't like the series. ;) I'm not saying one way of reviewing is more right than the other, but I will tell you that the person that just plays through the game has an opinion that is far more indicative of how most gamers (at least MGS gamers) will feel about the game. Of course, a review is just that one person's opinion, which is why I learned long ago to care little about some number at the end (or beginning) and more about what is said.
I have no doubts so far about how much I will ultimately enjoy MGS4. If the game is an improvement as a whole on the series (which all signs point to absolutely on this), it will have to be in my top 10 games of all time, because MGS 1-3 are already there. Yes, I'm hyped for the game, maybe too much so to the point that I can only be disappointed. However, I don't think I will be, and hope to prove as such in about 10 days time.
Log in to comment