Do you need to play the other Metal Gear games to understand 4?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Have only played 4 and I understood nothing. It's also one of those games that gives the illusion of being playable either as a TPS (you will swim in weapons and weapon parts) or a stealth game. Only problem is that the TPS-part feels about fifty years old and is just embarrasing. Stealth is semi-decent, but nothing spectacular. I would not recomend this game to anyone. I mean even Splinter Cell Conviction is a better game...SushigluttonLol no, go play the others and then come back.
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] It's sad how upset you are. "bu bu I don't like it so it's bad" even though it's one of the highest rated and most acclaimed games of this generation and on most people top games of this gen list. But no no,. wiimote dude doesn't think so, and hes too bright for the rest of us so he must be right. You know whats really sad, how serious some of you haters can take a game series that has vampires, mechs, clones, fat dudes on roller blades among the rest of the crazy over the top sh*t. I don't understand how crazy a game can be, and how much some of you think it needs to be grounded and perfectly explained. It's like you completely missed the essence of MGS, and that's quite sad. You thinking you're too clever for MGS is what makes you look like a moron, it's a crazy over the top videogame, stop going all Freud on it. I really think you haters don't get it, and what sad is by saying that you'll think it has something to do with intelligence and understanding how the plot connects perfectly. Bu bu bu literature, plot holes. Videogame. Fat dude on roller blades. Vampires. Clones. Mechs. Understand what you're dealing with, and understand it doesn't have to be as tight as you expect it to still express something and get messages across. If every MGS game was like 3 it really wouldn't be MGS. A lot of us fell in love with 1 and 2, 3 was just an awesome change of pace. Eddie-Vedder
So pointing out obvious problems with the story is going "Freud" on it huh? Interesting that you think its that deep. And funny that you seem to think I'm so intellegent. I'm just an average guy, but it says a lot about you I suppose.
I have no idea what your last statement even means. I enjoyed MGS 1, 2 and 3, but 2 is my favorite. I don't know where you got the idea that I have a hard on for MGS3 specifically.
Also I never said MGS cant be over the top. Nothing close to it actually. You just keep reaching for those strawmen.
The fact that the previous titles have crazy sh*t going on has absolutely no correlation with the fact that the first 3 games meld well and the last game does not.
Just because a story is very unrealistic doesn't mean it gets a free pass for being bad.
But if that is the extent of your argument then I guess you have proven my point. Thank you. :)
If you happen to muster up a real argument between that pair of brain cells then by all means post away. I enjoy MGS discussions.
:lol: Everything just flew over your head, just like in MGS4 :lol: I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games. Maybe next gen you can graduate :lol:Great retort.
But I'm sorry to say that a bunch of laughing emoticons and childlike insults don't make an argument.
I gave you facts. You gave me excuses. But its all over my head? Ok Eddie.
And again with the Nintendo thing. Has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. Haven't even played the Wii in months. Been on the PS3 and PC for the most part if you really care so much about my current gaming habits.
Also I have a BFA... I have no idea what it has to do with this conversation, but again you seem so curious.
I'll let you in on some useful info Eddie. When losing an argument its always best to either ignore it and just walk away, put your bias aside and agree, or put some thought into your response and keep the debate going.
Closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming "LALALALALAAAA YOU'RE WRONG LALALALALALALAAAA", while struggling to insult the opposition and bringing up non-contributing factors does not help you at all.
[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Have only played 4 and I understood nothing. It's also one of those games that gives the illusion of being playable either as a TPS (you will swim in weapons and weapon parts) or a stealth game. Only problem is that the TPS-part feels about fifty years old and is just embarrasing. Stealth is semi-decent, but nothing spectacular. I would not recomend this game to anyone. I mean even Splinter Cell Conviction is a better game...clyde46Lol no, go play the others and then come back. People itt have explained how the gameplay in 4 was better than in the earlier games. Why would I want to go back and play three games that are presumably worse than the most awful game I've played all gen? I mean MGS4 could be used to torture prisoners. I don't even want to think about what 1-3 could do with the human psyche.
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Have only played 4 and I understood nothing. It's also one of those games that gives the illusion of being playable either as a TPS (you will swim in weapons and weapon parts) or a stealth game. Only problem is that the TPS-part feels about fifty years old and is just embarrasing. Stealth is semi-decent, but nothing spectacular. I would not recomend this game to anyone. I mean even Splinter Cell Conviction is a better game...SushigluttonLol no, go play the others and then come back. People itt have explained how the gameplay in 4 was better than in the earlier games. Why would I want to go back and play three games that are presumably worse than the most awful game I've played all gen? I mean MGS4 could be used to torture prisoners. I don't even want to think about what 1-3 could do with the human psyche.
lol talking about good gameplay then sporting mirror's edge sig and avatar.
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] It's sad how upset you are. "bu bu I don't like it so it's bad" even though it's one of the highest rated and most acclaimed games of this generation and on most people top games of this gen list. But no no,. wiimote dude doesn't think so, and hes too bright for the rest of us so he must be right. You know whats really sad, how serious some of you haters can take a game series that has vampires, mechs, clones, fat dudes on roller blades among the rest of the crazy over the top sh*t. I don't understand how crazy a game can be, and how much some of you think it needs to be grounded and perfectly explained. It's like you completely missed the essence of MGS, and that's quite sad. You thinking you're too clever for MGS is what makes you look like a moron, it's a crazy over the top videogame, stop going all Freud on it. I really think you haters don't get it, and what sad is by saying that you'll think it has something to do with intelligence and understanding how the plot connects perfectly. Bu bu bu literature, plot holes. Videogame. Fat dude on roller blades. Vampires. Clones. Mechs. Understand what you're dealing with, and understand it doesn't have to be as tight as you expect it to still express something and get messages across. If every MGS game was like 3 it really wouldn't be MGS. A lot of us fell in love with 1 and 2, 3 was just an awesome change of pace. Eddie-Vedder
So pointing out obvious problems with the story is going "Freud" on it huh? Interesting that you think its that deep. And funny that you seem to think I'm so intellegent. I'm just an average guy, but it says a lot about you I suppose.
I have no idea what your last statement even means. I enjoyed MGS 1, 2 and 3, but 2 is my favorite. I don't know where you got the idea that I have a hard on for MGS3 specifically.
Also I never said MGS cant be over the top. Nothing close to it actually. You just keep reaching for those strawmen.
The fact that the previous titles have crazy sh*t going on has absolutely no correlation with the fact that the first 3 games meld well and the last game does not.
Just because a story is very unrealistic doesn't mean it gets a free pass for being bad.
But if that is the extent of your argument then I guess you have proven my point. Thank you. :)
If you happen to muster up a real argument between that pair of brain cells then by all means post away. I enjoy MGS discussions.
:lol: Everything just flew over your head, just like in MGS4 :lol: I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games. Maybe next gen you can graduate :lol:Eddie is always sooooo butthurt hahahaha[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]:lol: Everything just flew over your head, just like in MGS4 :lol: I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games. Maybe next gen you can graduate :lol:Eddie is always sooooo butthurt hahahahaSo pointing out obvious problems with the story is going "Freud" on it huh? Interesting that you think its that deep. And funny that you seem to think I'm so intellegent. I'm just an average guy, but it says a lot about you I suppose.
I have no idea what your last statement even means. I enjoyed MGS 1, 2 and 3, but 2 is my favorite. I don't know where you got the idea that I have a hard on for MGS3 specifically.
Also I never said MGS cant be over the top. Nothing close to it actually. You just keep reaching for those strawmen.
The fact that the previous titles have crazy sh*t going on has absolutely no correlation with the fact that the first 3 games meld well and the last game does not.
Just because a story is very unrealistic doesn't mean it gets a free pass for being bad.
But if that is the extent of your argument then I guess you have proven my point. Thank you. :)
If you happen to muster up a real argument between that pair of brain cells then by all means post away. I enjoy MGS discussions.
RyanShazam
Its entertaining, but sometimes I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. :(
I understand that many people love MGS4. Obviously I don't. He can argue with me. Or he can ignore me. But instead he throws these tantrums. Its so weird lol.
Eddie is always sooooo butthurt hahahaha[QUOTE="RyanShazam"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] :lol: Everything just flew over your head, just like in MGS4 :lol: I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games. Maybe next gen you can graduate :lol:Wiimotefan
Its entertaining, but sometimes I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. :(
I understand that many people love MGS4. Obviously I don't. He can argue with me. Or he can ignore me. But instead he throws these tantrums. Its so weird lol.
Just fighting fire with fire, it's the only way to play. Theres nothing to argue, you think your personal taste has bearing on the objective quality of one of the highest rated, most acclaimed game of this generation.[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Have only played 4 and I understood nothing. It's also one of those games that gives the illusion of being playable either as a TPS (you will swim in weapons and weapon parts) or a stealth game. Only problem is that the TPS-part feels about fifty years old and is just embarrasing. Stealth is semi-decent, but nothing spectacular. I would not recomend this game to anyone. I mean even Splinter Cell Conviction is a better game...SushigluttonLol no, go play the others and then come back. People itt have explained how the gameplay in 4 was better than in the earlier games. Why would I want to go back and play three games that are presumably worse than the most awful game I've played all gen? I mean MGS4 could be used to torture prisoners. I don't even want to think about what 1-3 could do with the human psyche. You don't play MGS for gameplay alone. You play it for the story. What you basically did was treat it like a generic TPS which its not.
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"][QUOTE="RyanShazam"]Eddie is always sooooo butthurt hahahahaEddie-Vedder
Its entertaining, but sometimes I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. :(
I understand that many people love MGS4. Obviously I don't. He can argue with me. Or he can ignore me. But instead he throws these tantrums. Its so weird lol.
Just fighting fire with fire, it's the only way to play. Theres nothing to argue, you think your personal taste has bearing on the objective quality of one of the highest rated, most acclaimed game of this generation. Critical acclaim and ratings do not reflect "objective quality." Sorry to break that to you.
Critical acclaim and ratings do not reflect "objective quality." Sorry to break that to you.DarkLink77
It's bad enough that it needs to be stated so often, but how quickly one will flip flop on that specifically when they disagree with a highly rated game because it's "overrated trash that clearly bought its scores" or some sh1t.
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] objective quality of one of the highest rated, most acclaimed game of this generation. jg4xchamp
So no more Dean gifs, eh? [QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]Just fighting fire with fire, it's the only way to play. Theres nothing to argue, you think your personal taste has bearing on the objective quality of one of the highest rated, most acclaimed game of this generation. Critical acclaim and ratings do not reflect "objective quality." Sorry to break that to you. Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? :lol: What does it reflect then? :lol: Inb4 some moronic comment such as quality does not exist just personal taste :lol: Seriosuly Darklink, you really should try harder to hide your lemminghood. Sorry to break that to you.Its entertaining, but sometimes I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. :(
I understand that many people love MGS4. Obviously I don't. He can argue with me. Or he can ignore me. But instead he throws these tantrums. Its so weird lol.
DarkLink77
[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Lol no, go play the others and then come back.clyde46People itt have explained how the gameplay in 4 was better than in the earlier games. Why would I want to go back and play three games that are presumably worse than the most awful game I've played all gen? I mean MGS4 could be used to torture prisoners. I don't even want to think about what 1-3 could do with the human psyche. You don't play MGS for gameplay alone. You play it for the story. What you basically did was treat it like a generic TPS which its not. I played stealthy as much as possible because the TPS part was horrible. I wish the it was generic but it was way below that. If story is the big draw I'm not interested in the franchise anyway.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Critical acclaim and ratings do not reflect "objective quality." Sorry to break that to you.jg4xchamp
It's bad enough that it needs to be stated so often, but how quickly one will flip flop on that specifically when they disagree with a highly rated game because it's "overrated trash that clearly bought its scores" or some sh1t. I believe scores alone can be highly influenced by hype among other things, however, a game that is released in the beginning of the year, gets raving reviews, and then at the end of the year is still showered with awards, long past the hype and honeymoon period, that proves theres more to it. Please don't reply with absurd conspiracy theories.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Critical acclaim and ratings do not reflect "objective quality." Sorry to break that to you.jg4xchamp
It's bad enough that it needs to be stated so often, but how quickly one will flip flop on that specifically when they disagree with a highly rated game because it's "overrated trash that clearly bought its scores" or some sh1t. Yeah, really. I mean, we can talk about a game being overrated or whatever, but you to do that you have to assume that the reviews are objective in the first place.
Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? .Eddie-VedderIt would mean a bunch of game critics decorated it. It wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of quality as much as how much the game was adored by said critics.
Objectivity is something that really can't be argued, and there are plenty of aspects when talking about the quality of a game(this one in particular) that can be argued for and against. A great review/critique/article is nothing more than just a well constructed argument from the writer about that games quality. It doesn't become a fact. It would still be an opinion.
The game is clearly good(missed the rest of this conversation), but a metacritic score and a GOTY award is not some guaranteed symbol of quality as much as its just an award given from a select group of people based on their opinion. It is what it is.
It would mean a bunch of game critics decorated it. It wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of quality as much as how much the game was adored by said critics.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? .jg4xchamp
Objectivity is something that really can't be argued, and there are plenty of aspects when talking about the quality of a game(this one in particular) that can be argued for and against. A great review/critique/article is nothing more than just a well constructed argument from the writer about that games quality. It doesn't become a fact. It would still be an opinion.
The game is clearly good(missed the rest of this conversation), but a metacritic score and a GOTY award is not some guaranteed symbol of quality as much as its just an award given from a select group of people based on their opinion. It is what it is. Thank you for typing this so I don't have to.
I believe scores alone can be highly influenced by hype among other things, however, a game that is released in the beginning of the year, gets raving reviews, and then at the end of the year is still showered with awards, long past the hype and honeymoon period, that proves theres more to it. Please don't reply with absurd conspiracy theories. Eddie-VedderWhat conspiracy theory? I'm saying there should be some consistency to it. The same people that will defend their pride and joy getting "insulted" with metacritic scores and journalist awards are the same people that ignore that sh1t when they want to b1tch about another games quality.
Uncharted 2s bashed enough times yet that games gotten how many goty awards and how many great scores?
GTA 4 and Fallout 3? Showered with awards and well done reviews.
List goes on for any high profile series Halo, Mario, Starcraft, etc.
And these days we've had plenty of examples of high profile games winning by not even having to come out at the end of the year. So I don't see how a bunch different websites awarding something would be a symbol of quality and not straight up what it actually is: That sites opinion.
Nope no one understands MGS4's story so just go ahead and buy it.
Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic.Eddie-VedderMost modern day critics will freely admit what their job is more or less expressing their opinion.
Assuming gaming review was done like other entertainment review outlets(And it's not) than yes while there are aspects of the design that have some level of objective arguments to them(writing, technical effeciency, controls, etc) you're still arguing for the games quality by talking about the subjective aspects of the game. The part where the story resonates with the player isn't objective, the part where the gameplay is satisfying because of x,y, and z isn't automatically objective.
Those parts are for the most part opinions. Well reasoned, better articulated, and based on the players history with similar experiences, but an opinion either way.
It would mean a bunch of game critics decorated it. It wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of quality as much as how much the game was adored by said critics.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? .jg4xchamp
Objectivity is something that really can't be argued, and there are plenty of aspects when talking about the quality of a game(this one in particular) that can be argued for and against. A great review/critique/article is nothing more than just a well constructed argument from the writer about that games quality. It doesn't become a fact. It would still be an opinion.
The game is clearly good(missed the rest of this conversation), but a metacritic score and a GOTY award is not some guaranteed symbol of quality as much as its just an award given from a select group of people based on their opinion. It is what it is. So basically, nothing is quality because it can't be a universal scientific fact. I SOOOO called this coming :lol: Dude please, this is a terrible argument that can be used to discredit ANYTHING, any great film or book suddenly looks like it's not quality, just liked, it's all taste. BULLSH*T. When you have professional, educated critics pretty much unanimously praising something and awarding it it's quality, What it isn't is universally appealing, everyone has dif taste, but the game is quality, it's polished, it's expertly crafted, highly reviewed and acclaimed. Even a hater that isn't a complete and utter fanboy will be able to tell you it's quality, it's fk*n obvious. What people need to realise is personal taste doesn't change that. Because Wiimotefan doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't quality, just like me not liking Mozart doesn't take it's quality away, quality that by your argument doesn't really exist.
Most modern day critics will freely admit what their job is more or less expressing their opinion.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic.jg4xchamp
Assuming gaming review was done like other entertainment review outlets(And it's not) than yes while there are aspects of the design that have some level of objective arguments to them(writing, technical effeciency, controls, etc) you're still arguing for the games quality by talking about the subjective aspects of the game. The part where the story resonates with the player isn't objective, the part where the gameplay is satisfying because of x,y, and z isn't automatically objective.
Those parts are for the most part opinions. Well reasoned, better articulated, and based on the players history with similar experiences, but an opinion either way. That's what I've been saying all along. Taste and quality.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? :lol: What does it reflect then? :lol: Inb4 some moronic comment such as quality does not exist just personal taste :lol: Seriosuly Darklink, you really should try harder to hide your lemminghood. Sorry to break that to you.Eddie-VedderIt reflects the fact that they liked it. It doesn't reflect the inherent successes or failings of any game, movie or piece of literature. Critics get sh!t right and wrong all the time. Where are you getting "lemminghood" out of a statement that applies to everything? Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic. The fact remains that critical praise does not make something any better or worse than what it is. It just means that whoever is reviewing it liked it. A bunch of critics saying Metal Gear Solid 4's gameplay, writing, graphics, etc are good does not make those elements good. They are good on their own merits, or they aren't. Someone saying they are or are not good has no affect on their inherent quality.
As an example: Bonnie and Clyde was almost universally critically panned when it came out. It is now considered one of the finest American movies ever made. Neither one of these groups are wrong, and the views they hold had no bearing on the quality of the film.
What conspiracy theory? I'm saying there should be some consistency to it. The same people that will defend their pride and joy getting "insulted" with metacritic scores and journalist awards are the same people that ignore that sh1t when they want to b1tch about another games quality.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]I believe scores alone can be highly influenced by hype among other things, however, a game that is released in the beginning of the year, gets raving reviews, and then at the end of the year is still showered with awards, long past the hype and honeymoon period, that proves theres more to it. Please don't reply with absurd conspiracy theories. jg4xchamp
Uncharted 2s bashed enough times yet that games gotten how many goty awards and how many great scores?
GTA 4 and Fallout 3? Showered with awards and well done reviews.
List goes on for any high profile series Halo, Mario, Starcraft, etc.
And these days we've had plenty of examples of high profile games winning by not even having to come out at the end of the year. So I don't see how a bunch different websites awarding something would be a symbol of quality and not straight up what it actually is: That sites opinion. All the games you listed are high quality, people bashing them are using their personal unique taste and convincing themselves that their own taste=quality. We're on the same page, you should be arguing with someone else. I don't think you really believe that last line, because everything else your saying makes perfect sense, you're telling me a game winning 100 GOTY awards in your opinion doesn't say it has quality? To me that SCREAMS quality.
Most modern day critics will freely admit what their job is more or less expressing their opinion.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic.jg4xchamp
Assuming gaming review was done like other entertainment review outlets(And it's not) than yes while there are aspects of the design that have some level of objective arguments to them(writing, technical effeciency, controls, etc) you're still arguing for the games quality by talking about the subjective aspects of the game. The part where the story resonates with the player isn't objective, the part where the gameplay is satisfying because of x,y, and z isn't automatically objective.
Those parts are for the most part opinions. Well reasoned, better articulated, and based on the players history with similar experiences, but an opinion either way. Pretty much this. You can break a work of art apart and argue over its pieces objectively, but you cannot argue over the whole thing in that matter. For instance, one could make a very good case that, objectively, Ninja Gaiden's combat is the best in the genre. You could not do the same thing for the whole game. How a piece of art is completely dependent on how people respond to it.
Hi Eddie. I read this in a recent topic about SMG2 vs. MGS4
MGS4 is way better, only reason it won't win is because lems will always vote against cows.
MGS4 had:
Better Graphics.
Better Story.
Better Music.
Better Boss Fights.
Better Gameplay(Opinion cause game play is so dif, but it was a LOT more deep)
Galaxy got old fast I couldn't even bring myself to finish it.
Eddie-Vedder
Critics world wide gave SMG2 higher scores and much more praise. So are the critics wrong in this case?
Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic. The fact remains that critical praise does not make something any better or worse than what it is. It just means that whoever is reviewing it liked it. A bunch of critics saying Metal Gear Solid 4's gameplay, writing, graphics, etc are good does not make those elements good. They are good on their own merits, or they aren't. Someone saying they are or are not good has no affect on their inherent quality.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] It reflects the fact that they liked it. It doesn't reflect the inherent successes or failings of any game, movie or piece of literature. Critics get sh!t right and wrong all the time. Where are you getting "lemminghood" out of a statement that applies to everything?DarkLink77
As an example: Bonnie and Clyde was almost universally critically panned when it came out. It is now considered one of the finest American movies ever made. Neither one of these groups are wrong, and the views they hold had no bearing on the quality of the film.
You can't have it both ways, just a few posts up the argument being used against me works against you in claiming Bonnie and Clyde is quality, I don't remember seeing it but I'll take your word for it, and you just proved you do believe in objective quality, but that example really doesn't work against me, thats like a game being ahead of it's time and people not realizing it till after. We are talking about something getting universally praising on release, and then a year later after the honeymoon period ended still getting showered with rewards. Complexly different scenario here. This is complete proof of quality, and remember this isn't science but please use your common sense.It would mean a bunch of game critics decorated it. It wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of quality as much as how much the game was adored by said critics.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? .jg4xchamp
Objectivity is something that really can't be argued, and there are plenty of aspects when talking about the quality of a game(this one in particular) that can be argued for and against. A great review/critique/article is nothing more than just a well constructed argument from the writer about that games quality. It doesn't become a fact. It would still be an opinion.
The game is clearly good(missed the rest of this conversation), but a metacritic score and a GOTY award is not some guaranteed symbol of quality as much as its just an award given from a select group of people based on their opinion. It is what it is.
If you do happen to go back and read the conversation, I gave him facts (things that can not be disputed) and he gave me a tantrum in return.
Things like objectivity are clearly lost on this guy. :(
So basically, nothing is quality because it can't be a universal scientific fact. I SOOOO called this coming :lol: Eddie-Vedder
Learn 2 read
You would have people who were educated in journalism and english articulating their thoughts to you. The only difference is a pay grade, ability to write, and the reasoning behind said opinion. A review is still at the end of the day an opinion. It's not an actual sign of quality.When you have professional, educated critics pretty much unanimously praising something and awarding it it's quality, What it isn't is universally appealing, everyone has dif taste, but the game is quality, it's polished, it's expertly crafted, highly reviewed and acclaimed.
Because on the flip side every game reviewed 90 or higher can't be bad now can it? Is that statement true? Because if it is than okay, at least you're consistent in your stance on a critics opinion. But if you're honestly gonna say that there are totally misfires among those 90 or higher games that can clearly it's not something indicative of objective quality. Objectivity is something that can't be argued.
I never argued otherwise. But someone that same rule applies to a gamespot, ign, or gametrailers writer and then praising MGS4. It means they liked it. They'll give you reasons on why they liked it, and how it matches up in the grand scheme of gaming, but it doesn't automatically make it a quality experience.Because Wiimotefan doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't quality.
Objectivity doesn't mean what you think it means.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]The fact remains that critical praise does not make something any better or worse than what it is. It just means that whoever is reviewing it liked it. A bunch of critics saying Metal Gear Solid 4's gameplay, writing, graphics, etc are good does not make those elements good. They are good on their own merits, or they aren't. Someone saying they are or are not good has no affect on their inherent quality.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Critics have a job, it's not about liking stuff, it's about reviewing a products quality, they aren't bloggers, don't confuse the 2. A critic isn't supposed to give a game like Forza a terrible score because he doesn't like racing sims. And please don't bother giving me example of bad critics that do make that mistake, I'm well aware it happens, it's nowhere near standard practice though, nor is it correct if you call yourself a professional critic.Eddie-Vedder
As an example: Bonnie and Clyde was almost universally critically panned when it came out. It is now considered one of the finest American movies ever made. Neither one of these groups are wrong, and the views they hold had no bearing on the quality of the film.
You can't have it both ways, just a few posts up the argument being used against me works against you in claiming Bonnie and Clyde is quality, I don't remember seeing it but I'll take your word for it, and you just proved you do believe in objective quality, but that example really doesn't work against me, thats like a game being ahead of it's time and people not realizing it till after. We are talking about something getting universally praising on release, and then a year later after the honeymoon period ended still getting showered with rewards. Complexly different scenario here. This is complete proof of quality, and remember this isn't science but please use your common sense. I never claimed Bonnie and Clyde is quality. I said the critical reception of it changed over time and neither is wrong. :| I believe that you can judge pieces of a work objectively, not the whole thing. And no, awards are not proof of quality. The Academy Awards proves that by its very existence. This is going in circles.Hi Eddie. I read this in a recent topic about SMG2 vs. MGS4
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]
MGS4 is way better, only reason it won't win is because lems will always vote against cows.
MGS4 had:
Better Graphics.
Better Story.
Better Music.
Better Boss Fights.
Better Gameplay(Opinion cause game play is so dif, but it was a LOT more deep)
Galaxy got old fast I couldn't even bring myself to finish it.
ConanTheStoner
Critics world wide gave SMG2 higher scores and much more praise. So are the critics wrong in this case?
That's such a moronic argument, critics didn't review one against the other, they aren't even in the same genre, and it's 100% FACT that a game that tries to do a lot more, that has a deep story, better graphics online, etc is going to have to pass more obstacles and levels of standards to reach good reviews then a game that can focus on less things, What's obvious is both those games are QUALITY. And I bet if this was about Galaxy all these people arguing against me would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune. I don't think you understand what we are arguing Conan. And we only compare scores like that in SW, it doesn't actually work that way, makes no sense to do it unless maybe they are both on the same platform and released around the exact same time, and of course the same genre.[QUOTE="ConanTheStoner"]Hi Eddie. I read this in a recent topic about SMG2 vs. MGS4
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]
MGS4 is way better, only reason it won't win is because lems will always vote against cows.
MGS4 had:
Better Graphics.
Better Story.
Better Music.
Better Boss Fights.
Better Gameplay(Opinion cause game play is so dif, but it was a LOT more deep)
Galaxy got old fast I couldn't even bring myself to finish it.
Eddie-Vedder
Critics world wide gave SMG2 higher scores and much more praise. So are the critics wrong in this case?
That's such a moronic argument, critics didn't review one against the other, they aren't even in the same genre, and it's 100% FACT that a game that tries to do a lot more, that has a deep story, better graphics online, etc is going to have to pass more obstacles and levels of standards to reach good reviews then a game that can focus on less things, What's obvious is both those games are QUALITY. And I bet if this was about Galaxy all these people arguing against me would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune. I don't think you understand what we are arguing Conan. And we only compare scores like that in SW, it doesn't actually work that way, makes no sense to do it unless maybe they are both on the same platform and released around the exact same time, and of course the same genre.Just the bundle of excuses I was hoping to see! :lol:
Eddie my boy, you do NOT disappoint.
[QUOTE="ConanTheStoner"]Hi Eddie. I read this in a recent topic about SMG2 vs. MGS4
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]
MGS4 is way better, only reason it won't win is because lems will always vote against cows.
MGS4 had:
Better Graphics.
Better Story.
Better Music.
Better Boss Fights.
Better Gameplay(Opinion cause game play is so dif, but it was a LOT more deep)
Galaxy got old fast I couldn't even bring myself to finish it.
Eddie-Vedder
Critics world wide gave SMG2 higher scores and much more praise. So are the critics wrong in this case?
That's such a moronic argument, critics didn't review one against the other, they aren't even in the same genre, and it's 100% FACT that a game that tries to do a lot more, that has a deep story, better graphics online, etc is going to have to pass more obstacles and levels of standards to reach good reviews then a game that can focus on less things, What's obvious is both those games are QUALITY. And I bet if this was about Galaxy all these people arguing against me would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune. I don't think you understand what we are arguing Conan. And we only compare scores like that in SW, it doesn't actually work that way, makes no sense to do it unless maybe they are both on the same platform and released around the exact same time, and of course the same genre. So you say that every game ever released with a metascore over 90 is objectively a quality game? Every single one, without exception?It would mean a bunch of game critics decorated it. It wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of quality as much as how much the game was adored by said critics.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Professional gaming journalists giving the game raving reviews at the beginning of the year when it released, and then showering it with awards at the end of the year, long after the honeymood period has passed doesn't reflect quality? .Wiimotefan
Objectivity is something that really can't be argued, and there are plenty of aspects when talking about the quality of a game(this one in particular) that can be argued for and against. A great review/critique/article is nothing more than just a well constructed argument from the writer about that games quality. It doesn't become a fact. It would still be an opinion.
The game is clearly good(missed the rest of this conversation), but a metacritic score and a GOTY award is not some guaranteed symbol of quality as much as its just an award given from a select group of people based on their opinion. It is what it is.
If you do happen to go back and read the conversation, I gave him facts (things that can not be disputed) and he gave me a tantrum in return.
Things like objectivity are clearly lost on this guy. :(
As someone who would argue MGS 4 has plenty of missteps(bad writing, weak boss segments, a suffocating presentation) I'm not big on going over to see a retread of your argument(no offense).That said I'd argue it's still a pretty good game. Those opening 2 acts while linear leave the player enough room to experiment and mess around with the enemy AI. While being a perfect evolution of the gameplay ideas in MGS 3. I also thought Laughing Octopus?, Rex/Ray. Ocelot boss fights were all fun for what they were. Largely because of how unique one of them was, and some of the general fan service behind it.
I also believe for all the grief you can give the MGS 4 plot for straight up retconning, being plot device happy, and all that jazz it's one of the few triple A games that has a message it's trying to convey. For the most part it does it, but just in the most obnoxious ways possible. It's got some clear as day narrative draw backs, but as a game? Pretty f*cking good, and one that was pretty replayable considering the games biggest draw back is something I can skip.
I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.
I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.jg4xchampEveryone has a problem with that assertion, yo.
At last, anyone who's ever learned how to critique something does.
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]So basically, nothing is quality because it can't be a universal scientific fact. I SOOOO called this coming :lol: jg4xchamp
Learn 2 read
You would have people who were educated in journalism and english articulating their thoughts to you. The only difference is a pay grade, ability to write, and the reasoning behind said opinion. A review is still at the end of the day an opinion. It's not an actual sign of quality.When you have professional, educated critics pretty much unanimously praising something and awarding it it's quality, What it isn't is universally appealing, everyone has dif taste, but the game is quality, it's polished, it's expertly crafted, highly reviewed and acclaimed.
Because on the flip side every game reviewed 90 or higher can't be bad now can it? Is that statement true? Because if it is than okay, at least you're consistent in your stance on a critics opinion. But if you're honestly gonna say that there are totally misfires among those 90 or higher games that can clearly it's not something indicative of objective quality. Objectivity is something that can't be argued.
I never argued otherwise. But someone that same rule applies to a gamespot, ign, or gametrailers writer and then praising MGS4. It means they liked it. They'll give you reasons on why they liked it, and how it matches up in the grand scheme of gaming, but it doesn't automatically make it a quality experience.Because Wiimotefan doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't quality.
Objectivity doesn't mean what you think it means. We're on the same page and I am consistent however, I won't accept a single reviewers opinion as proof of quality because there are terrible critics that shouldn't be critics, there are hype machines and paid reviews and fanboys and etc. However, I don't see how it's possible for a 90+ metacritic title with tons of reviews NOT to be quality, I might not like it taste wise, but it's going to be quality for sure. Objectivity doesn't mean a reviewer giving a game a good review because he feels it's a well crafted game despite HATING the genre or the theme? Is that not a reviewer being objective? If not then maybe I really don't know what it means.
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="ConanTheStoner"]That's such a moronic argument, critics didn't review one against the other, they aren't even in the same genre, and it's 100% FACT that a game that tries to do a lot more, that has a deep story, better graphics online, etc is going to have to pass more obstacles and levels of standards to reach good reviews then a game that can focus on less things, What's obvious is both those games are QUALITY. And I bet if this was about Galaxy all these people arguing against me would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune. I don't think you understand what we are arguing Conan. And we only compare scores like that in SW, it doesn't actually work that way, makes no sense to do it unless maybe they are both on the same platform and released around the exact same time, and of course the same genre. So you say that every game ever released with a metascore over 90 is objectively a quality game? Every single one, without exception?Unless it has only a few reviews from blogger type critics lol yes. Any 90+ Metacritic with 50+ reviews or whatever is going to be quality, add tons of awards and I really don't see how you could deny that.Critics world wide gave SMG2 higher scores and much more praise. So are the critics wrong in this case?
DarkLink77
Everyone has a problem with that assertion, yo.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.DarkLink77
At last, anyone who's ever learned how to critique something does.
See I think you guys agree with me though, because I think the Oscars get it wrong EVERY single year, but they STILL give the award to a quality movie, just not maybe the most deserving that year. There Will be Blood should have gotten it over No Country for Old men, Inception should have won over Kings Speech imo, but the movies that won were still quality. Because something else is MORE deserving doens't mean the winner isn't quality, there room for more quality products.As someone who would argue MGS 4 has plenty of missteps(bad writing, weak boss segments, a suffocating presentation) I'm not big on going over to see a retread of your argument(no offense).
That said I'd argue it's still a pretty good game. Those opening 2 acts while linear leave the player enough room to experiment and mess around with the enemy AI. While being a perfect evolution of the gameplay ideas in MGS 3. I also thought Laughing Octopus?, Rex/Ray. Ocelot boss fights were all fun for what they were. Largely because of how unique one of them was, and some of the general fan service behind it.
I also believe for all the grief you can give the MGS 4 plot for straight up retconning, being plot device happy, and all that jazz it's one of the few triple A games that has a message it's trying to convey. For the most part it does it, but just in the most obnoxious ways possible. It's got some clear as day narrative draw backs, but as a game? Pretty f*cking good, and one that was pretty replayable considering the games biggest draw back is something I can skip.
I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.jg4xchamp
No worries, I wouldn't want to read it again myself.
And I agree to all that. I've never said MGS4 is a terrible game. Just extremely disappointing for a long time fan of the series that actually pays attention.
You actually recognize the issues. Eddie does not. When I present him with facts, he throws a tantrum that has nothing to do with the discussion. Hes just another one of these guys that doesn't know much about the series at all, but acts like an authority. Funny yes, but annoying.
All I'm saying is that when presented with undeniable facts he just gets upset. No point in trying to make him understand reviews, subjectivity and objectivity.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
As someone who would argue MGS 4 has plenty of missteps(bad writing, weak boss segments, a suffocating presentation) I'm not big on going over to see a retread of your argument(no offense).
That said I'd argue it's still a pretty good game. Those opening 2 acts while linear leave the player enough room to experiment and mess around with the enemy AI. While being a perfect evolution of the gameplay ideas in MGS 3. I also thought Laughing Octopus?, Rex/Ray. Ocelot boss fights were all fun for what they were. Largely because of how unique one of them was, and some of the general fan service behind it.
I also believe for all the grief you can give the MGS 4 plot for straight up retconning, being plot device happy, and all that jazz it's one of the few triple A games that has a message it's trying to convey. For the most part it does it, but just in the most obnoxious ways possible. It's got some clear as day narrative draw backs, but as a game? Pretty f*cking good, and one that was pretty replayable considering the games biggest draw back is something I can skip.
I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.Wiimotefan
No worries, I wouldn't want to read it again myself.
And I agree to all that. I've never said MGS4 is a terrible game. Just extremely disappointing for a long time fan of the series that actually pays attention.
You actually recognize the issues. Eddie does not. When I present him with facts, he throws a tantrum that has nothing to do with the discussion. Hes just another one of these guys that doesn't know much about the series at all, but acts like an authority. Funny yes, but annoying.
All I'm saying is that when presented with undeniable facts he just gets upset. No point in trying to make him understand reviews, subjectivity and objectivity.
:lol: Wiimotefan suddenly became this cool, calm and collected rational poster that's quite polite and non insulting. Oh please dude, you're famous on this board, you're in every MGS4 thread tearing it apart insulting people who like it and spamming :lol: :lol: :lol: B*tch please :lol:I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games.Eddie-VedderYou mean the higher rated Mario Galaxy series?
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
As someone who would argue MGS 4 has plenty of missteps(bad writing, weak boss segments, a suffocating presentation) I'm not big on going over to see a retread of your argument(no offense).
That said I'd argue it's still a pretty good game. Those opening 2 acts while linear leave the player enough room to experiment and mess around with the enemy AI. While being a perfect evolution of the gameplay ideas in MGS 3. I also thought Laughing Octopus?, Rex/Ray. Ocelot boss fights were all fun for what they were. Largely because of how unique one of them was, and some of the general fan service behind it.
I also believe for all the grief you can give the MGS 4 plot for straight up retconning, being plot device happy, and all that jazz it's one of the few triple A games that has a message it's trying to convey. For the most part it does it, but just in the most obnoxious ways possible. It's got some clear as day narrative draw backs, but as a game? Pretty f*cking good, and one that was pretty replayable considering the games biggest draw back is something I can skip.
I just found the notion that a metacritic score and a GOTY award from gamespot/ign is some symbol of quality. Like major award shows like THe Oscars, Grammys, Emmys in other mediums haven't shown you can't completely miss on the award.Eddie-Vedder
No worries, I wouldn't want to read it again myself.
And I agree to all that. I've never said MGS4 is a terrible game. Just extremely disappointing for a long time fan of the series that actually pays attention.
You actually recognize the issues. Eddie does not. When I present him with facts, he throws a tantrum that has nothing to do with the discussion. Hes just another one of these guys that doesn't know much about the series at all, but acts like an authority. Funny yes, but annoying.
All I'm saying is that when presented with undeniable facts he just gets upset. No point in trying to make him understand reviews, subjectivity and objectivity.
:lol: Wiimotefan suddenly became this cool, calm and collected rational poster that's quite polite and non insulting. Oh please dude, you're famous on this board, you're in every MGS4 thread tearing it apart insulting people who like it and spamming :lol: :lol: :lol: B*tch please :lol:I've maintained my cool with you throughout this thread, have I not? Kind of feel like I have to, or I might send some kid over the edge.
I doubt I'm famous on this board.
I never insult people for liking the game. You should ask FinalFantasy94 as most of my arguments about MGS have been with him.
I just know the series a little too well and when I see bs claims I shut them down. Yes, I tear MGS4 apart on a regular basis. Its pretty easy to do. I'm not alone in my distaste for the game either.
At least unlike a lot of other people that just say "herp derp movie gear lolololol" I actually support my arguments and claims. Sometimes with facts like the ones you couldnt deal with. Sometimes with well supported opinions.
Get over it.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]So basically, nothing is quality because it can't be a universal scientific fact. I SOOOO called this coming :lol: Eddie-Vedder
Learn 2 read
You would have people who were educated in journalism and english articulating their thoughts to you. The only difference is a pay grade, ability to write, and the reasoning behind said opinion. A review is still at the end of the day an opinion. It's not an actual sign of quality.When you have professional, educated critics pretty much unanimously praising something and awarding it it's quality, What it isn't is universally appealing, everyone has dif taste, but the game is quality, it's polished, it's expertly crafted, highly reviewed and acclaimed.
Because on the flip side every game reviewed 90 or higher can't be bad now can it? Is that statement true? Because if it is than okay, at least you're consistent in your stance on a critics opinion. But if you're honestly gonna say that there are totally misfires among those 90 or higher games that can clearly it's not something indicative of objective quality. Objectivity is something that can't be argued.
I never argued otherwise. But someone that same rule applies to a gamespot, ign, or gametrailers writer and then praising MGS4. It means they liked it. They'll give you reasons on why they liked it, and how it matches up in the grand scheme of gaming, but it doesn't automatically make it a quality experience.Because Wiimotefan doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't quality.
Objectivity doesn't mean what you think it means.We're on the same page and I am consistent however, I won't accept a single reviewers opinion as proof of quality because there are terrible critics that shouldn't be critics, there are hype machines and paid reviews and fanboys and etc. However, I don't see how it's possible for a 90+ metacritic title with tons of reviews NOT to be quality, I might not like it taste wise, but it's going to be quality for sure. Objectivity doesn't mean a reviewer giving a game a good review because he feels it's a well crafted game despite HATING the genre or the theme? Is that not a reviewer being objective? If not then maybe I really don't know what it means. It would just mean that he likes it. That's the objective fact. It's not necessarily a sign of quality, because that argument works both ways.
"Dude he likes the game, and he hates sports games"
which can turn into
"um it's a sports game for people who don't like sports games".
SO you can b1tch and praise both ways. Really this argument seems more about the semantics and less black and white territory. I think the argument that MGS 4 is a bad game has too many holes in it. For all intents and purposes it does some fantastic sh1t. The argument of if it's actually great or just good is more dicey though.
The Wire has consistently been praised as one of the best shows ever, and has been argued plenty of times for numero uno. Last I checked the show doesn't have a single emmy to its name. Doesn't make that show any less excellent as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know I'm not big on doing some essay battle on the merits of MGS 4. I bought it, was really excited, disappointed, replayed it, and enjoyed it for what it did right, moved on. There are far more offensive games than MGS 4(Mafia 2 for starters), and I still think Kojima can get the job done.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment