you took the words right out of my mouth :lol:you could play every mgs created and still be confused icyseanfitz
This topic is locked from further discussion.
you took the words right out of my mouth :lol:you could play every mgs created and still be confused icyseanfitz
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 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. And this is the part where we agree to disagree, because I don't believe that.Just out of curiosity, which 90+ Metacritic game with tons of reviews do you feel doesn't deserve to be called a quality game?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.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] 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.
Objectivity doesn't mean what you think it means.jg4xchamp
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]And this is the part where we agree to disagree, because I don't believe that.Just out of curiosity, which 90+ Metacritic game with tons of reviews do you feel doesn't deserve to be called a quality game? Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War 2, Half-Life 2, GRAW, and Final Fantasy VIII off the top of my head.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]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. Eddie-Vedder
I don't think I wrote that....but um. Mass Effect 1? I mean it's not straight up awful, but it's buggy, unpolished, has clunky gameplay, has repetitive side quests, the RPG elements are either half assed or just silly, the actual consequences aren't well done. I don't know if I'd call it bad, but it's average at best. jg4xchamp
You didn't.
But Mass Effect, too.
: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:[QUOTE="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.
RyanShazam
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.
I couldn't deal with? Wow you're so full of yourself, it's kind of pathetic. Seems like you can't deal with people liking the game, and it REALLY gets under your skin. Nothing you said about the game made me like it less, a lot of what you said is so nitpicky it's hilarious. You have a problem with mindset. No game is perfect, but you greatly exaggerate it's faults and blow them way out of proportion. You need to realize it's more your taste, and not some random darpa chief bs. The story is still incredible, even with all the nuttiness., not in a classic literature way, but in a crazy over the top MGS kojima way. Anyway I have to go so I won't answer for a while.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]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.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]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. Eddie-Vedder
I couldn't deal with? Wow you're so full of yourself, it's kind of pathetic. Seems like you can't deal with people liking the game, and it REALLY gets under your skin. Nothing you said about the game made me like it less, a lot of what you said is so nitpicky it's hilarious. You have a problem with mindset. No game is perfect, but you greatly exaggerate it's faults and blow them way out of proportion. You need to realize it's more your taste, and not some random darpa chief bs. The story is still incredible, even with all the nuttiness., not in a classic literature way, but in a crazy over the top MGS kojima way. Anyway I have to go so I won't answer for a while. Eddie-Vedder
Eddie, I sincerely worry for you man.
I supplied you with information. Information that you could not retort. So instead you started trying to insult me and kept going off on this tangent about how I should play Nintendo games. In other words. You could not deal with the information I presented. Thats not being full of myself. Thats me pointing out exactly what happened. Its only a few pages back if you would like me to repost it for you.
I have no issues with people enjoying the game. Plenty of people on this board enjoy it. Do you see me telling them they're wrong for enjoying it? No. But as I said before, I'm quick to shut down any BS regarding the game. I am every bit as entitled to criticize the title as others are to praise it.
I didn't say any game is perfect. And I didn't exaggerate and blow things out of proportion. I gave direct statements. Again, I will repost these if you are not willing to go back and read it again.
And for the 3rd time now. The over the top craziness is not my issue at all. I have no idea why you keep bringing that up. MGS has always been over the top. I wouldnt have it any other way.
And excuse me for the Darpa Chief issue. Guess I'm in the wrong for paying attention to a story and its characters and maybe hoping for a bit of cohesiveness and continuity. Thats my bad. PLEASE KOJIMA! In the next MGS game I want you to bring The Boss back from the dead, but make her a dude that has a love affair with Sunny. I wont care!
You mean the higher rated Mario Galaxy series?Eddie can't handle the truth lol[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games.RyanShazam
Yo, wiimotefan being observant is for b*tches. Go home and play a Nintendo game. Stand back and watch us real MGS fans take a load down the throat for Kojima San, no questions asked.
Nah, but speaking on "retorts" you never did reply to my comment about Madnar. What gives?
I started with MGS4 as many very first MGS game ever and i was pretty fine with it tbh.. i will someday play the past one too but after MGS4 i can say im starting to become an MGS fan and cant wait for Rising and the other one
[QUOTE="RyanShazam"]You mean the higher rated Mario Galaxy series?Eddie can't handle the truth lol[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]I think you need to stick to those Nintendo games.RyanShazam
Eddie lives on a one way street, best back up! He might not see ya with them blinders on.
Yo, wiimotefan being observant is for b*tches. Go home and play a Nintendo game. Stand back and watch us real MGS fans take a load down the throat for Kojima San, no questions asked.
Nah, but speaking on "retorts" you never did reply to my comment about Madnar. What gives?
ConanTheStoner
lol way to sum up the "argument". :P
And I didnt mean to ignore your post, I just got caught up with good old Eddie. I was under the impression that you and I agree, but for different reasons, so I didnt see a point in arguing about it. And tbh, I think you're absolutely right. I mixed up Madnar with Marv for some reason, but the point still stands. Even moreso actually.
[QUOTE="ConanTheStoner"]
Yo, wiimotefan being observant is for b*tches. Go home and play a Nintendo game. Stand back and watch us real MGS fans take a load down the throat for Kojima San, no questions asked.
Nah, but speaking on "retorts" you never did reply to my comment about Madnar. What gives?
Wiimotefan
lol way to sum up the "argument". :P
And I didnt mean to ignore your post, I just got caught up with good old Eddie. I was under the impression that you and I agree, but for different reasons, so I didnt see a point in arguing about it. And tbh, I think you're absolutely right. I mixed up Madnar with Marv for some reason, but the point still stands. Even moreso actually.
Nah son, I'm here to fight!
Show me your moves! :x
The Wire IS the greatest show ever lol. But not winning awards doesn't go against my argument, like I said with the Oscars, maybe some other less deserving show won against the Wire, but I'm certain even though it was less deserving, it was still quality. Eddie-VedderThe Wire isn't simply based on the notion that comparing it to television in opposite territory is absurd, let alone quantifiable. Someone will yell Faulty Towers or I Love Lucy, another person will scream The Twilight Zone and another might even ramble on about Coronation Street, causing the person who was about to say Deadwood and Madmen to shatter their teeth. There's no metric value attachable to 'quality' and metacritic in itself is extremely flawed; and even the ratings systems on IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes have their gross share of faults. This isn't testament to outright 'quality' it's a selective critical aggregate. The Oscars is an elite circle jerk; highly prominent and by no means bad, for sure, but neither is it indicative of 'quality', as much as the next established awards ceremony. You're better off judging the actual subject for what it is.
Only Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2. Definitely play Metal Gear Solid 2, it's the best in the series.
Peredith
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]The Wire IS the greatest show ever lol. But not winning awards doesn't go against my argument, like I said with the Oscars, maybe some other less deserving show won against the Wire, but I'm certain even though it was less deserving, it was still quality. skrat_01The Wire isn't simply based on the notion that comparing it to television in opposite territory is absurd, let alone quantifiable. Someone will yell Faulty Towers or I Love Lucy, another person will scream The Twilight Zone and another might even ramble on about Coronation Street, causing the person who was about to say Deadwood and Madmen to shatter their teeth. There's no metric value attachable to 'quality' and metacritic in itself is extremely flawed; and even the ratings systems on IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes have their gross share of faults. This isn't testament to outright 'quality' it's a selective critical aggregate. The Oscars is an elite circle jerk; highly prominent and by no means bad, for sure, but neither is it indicative of 'quality', as much as the next established awards ceremony. You're better off judging the actual subject for what it is. Yeah, exactly.
The Wire isn't simply based on the notion that comparing it to television in opposite territory is absurd, let alone quantifiable. Someone will yell Faulty Towers or I Love Lucy, another person will scream The Twilight Zone and another might even ramble on about Coronation Street, causing the person who was about to say Deadwood and Madmen to shatter their teeth. There's no metric value attachable to 'quality' and metacritic in itself is extremely flawed; and even the ratings systems on IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes have their gross share of faults. This isn't testament to outright 'quality' it's a selective critical aggregate. The Oscars is an elite circle jerk; highly prominent and by no means bad, for sure, but neither is it indicative of 'quality', as much as the next established awards ceremony. You're better off judging the actual subject for what it is. Yeah, exactly.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]The Wire IS the greatest show ever lol. But not winning awards doesn't go against my argument, like I said with the Oscars, maybe some other less deserving show won against the Wire, but I'm certain even though it was less deserving, it was still quality. jg4xchamp
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Yes. Furthermore, MGS series always had a very "unic" gameplay, very love/hate kinda thing. Is that supposed to be Snake in your avatar? He kind of reminds me of Sean Bean (Boromir in Lord of the Rings, Trevelyan in Goldeneye) in that pic.Do you need to play the other Metal Gear games to understand 4?
Kane04
you could play every mgs created and still be confused :D but yeah play at least 2 but 1 and 3 if you can, there all brilliant games
icyseanfitz
Only thing they are NOT brilliant games except 4.
[QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"][QUOTE="icyseanfitz"]
you could play every mgs created and still be confused :D but yeah play at least 2 but 1 and 3 if you can, there all brilliant games
skrat_01
Only thing they are NOT brilliant games except 4.
3 isn't 'brilliant' and 4 is? Hah. You have to understand that the people who praise 4 don't understand that the game hates them.If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.MGS4 was one of the high points this gen for me. Nanomachines and all.
Master_ShakeXXX
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.MGS4 was one of the high points this gen for me. Nanomachines and all.
DarkLink77
I want a proper remake of the original MGS more than anything. Not that Twin Snakes sh*t.
Eddie can't handle the truth lol[QUOTE="RyanShazam"][QUOTE="RyanShazam"]You mean the higher rated Mario Galaxy series?
ConanTheStoner
Eddie lives on a one way street, best back up! He might not see ya with them blinders on.
Its pretty sad lolOne of the most convoluted plots in gaming. Has some cool moments and some really stupid ones.
MGS4 kind of breaks everythning down i thought, the main story anyway.
If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]
MGS4 was one of the high points this gen for me. Nanomachines and all.
Master_ShakeXXX
I want a proper remake of the original MGS more than anything. Not that Twin Snakes sh*t.
Yup, I remember being sorely disappointed with Twin Snakes when it came out.
If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]
MGS4 was one of the high points this gen for me. Nanomachines and all.
Master_ShakeXXX
I want a proper remake of the original MGS more than anything. Not that Twin Snakes sh*t.
Isn't it the same game with different cutscenes?If you're going to play any of them before hand just play the first, it throws back to that far more than the others.
But there's also not much to understand in the first place...
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.DarkLink77
I want a proper remake of the original MGS more than anything. Not that Twin Snakes sh*t.
Isn't it the same game with different cutscenes?In a way, yes, but those cutscenes are just too far over the top even for MGS.. well actually they're over the top for Snakes portrayal. Of course Snake is always portrayed as a bad ass in MGS, but not as a super human. He's supposed to be the underdog going against impossible odds. This is especially true of MGS since Liquid has the superior genes. But in Twin Snakes you have Snake doing stupid sh*t like surfing on missiles among many other ridiculous things. He also goes way out of character, losing his cool, being way too dramatic and really just not acting like the SS we know.
Then there is the gameplay. Twin Snakes was MGS1's level design and enemy layout coupled with MGS2's gameplay mechanics. This made the game way too easy. As if shoehorning those mechanics in without balancing the other aspects wasn't enough, they also give you a tranq gun that essentially breaks the game further.
Those tend to be the major gripes.
Beyond that a lot of people feel the atmosphere of MGS was lost in Twin Snakes and I would have to agree.
The last nitpick is the voice acting. All the characters lost their accents from the original. I never had beef with this, but a lot of fans do.
Seriously, TC, don't. You'll spend half the game trying to figure out which pieces of the previous games they retconned and which pieces they didn't.
@heretrix, about that database. You'll never get the same experience from that as you would from playing the games. Furthermore, the database is full of errors. Kojima signed off on it as canon, but he didn't develop the database and he clearly didn't proof read it. There are many huge discrepancies between the database and the actual games.
At one point we compiled all the errors into a document on the old Gamefaqs MGS4 board. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Wiimotefan
Did not know this...I know my mgs, so I only skimmed through it though. I take back that suggestion.
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]
@heretrix, about that database. You'll never get the same experience from that as you would from playing the games. Furthermore, the database is full of errors. Kojima signed off on it as canon, but he didn't develop the database and he clearly didn't proof read it. There are many huge discrepancies between the database and the actual games.
At one point we compiled all the errors into a document on the old Gamefaqs MGS4 board. I'll see if I can dig it up.
mccoyca112
Did not know this...I know my mgs, so I only skimmed through it though. I take back that suggestion.
Its not so bad if you're just looking for some broad info, but when you start trying to connect the dots things get messy. Especially some of the scenarios regarding MGS1 and MGS2.
And it would never be a good substitute for just playing the games, but I would sooner recommend just watching all the cutscenes on Youtuberather than digging through the database.
I tried to find the database error thread, but had no luck.
No you just need to smoke about 4 lbs of weed and then drink 2 gallons of Jack Danials and then drop 3 acids and then you'll have no trouble understanding the story at all....
[QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"][QUOTE="icyseanfitz"]
you could play every mgs created and still be confused :D but yeah play at least 2 but 1 and 3 if you can, there all brilliant games
skrat_01
Only thing they are NOT brilliant games except 4.
3 isn't 'brilliant' and 4 is? Hah.Yup, I don't like ultra serious game with enemies who shoots bees out of his mouth, a person who kills enemies by using electricity bolts through his body, or 100+ year sniper with eyes popping out and most stupid of them all a ghost.:roll:
[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]3 isn't 'brilliant' and 4 is? Hah. You have to understand that the people who praise 4 don't understand that the game hates them.Only thing they are NOT brilliant games except 4.
DarkLink77
Even though 4 is still stupid, I kinda like it. So you can say I hate the MGS series except 4.
3 isn't 'brilliant' and 4 is? Hah.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]
Only thing they are NOT brilliant games except 4.
zeeshanhaider
Yup, I don't like ultra serious game with enemies who shoots bees out of his mouth, a person who kills enemies by using electricity bolts through his body, or 100+ year sniper with eyes popping out and most stupid of them all a ghost.:roll:
MGS3 isn't ultra serious. No Metal Gear game is ultra serious, they're all different mixes of cheesy or camp and outrageous. If you're looking for serious or realistic then you're playing the wrong games entirely. MGS3 doesn't delve into bad philosophy rambling or high concepts that go nowhere, it's a story about characters and that's why it works well. MGS4 on the other hand wants to have its cake, eat it and in the process smears it across the room.[QUOTE="funsohng"]Yep. I'd say it's an absolute must. MGS4 is pretty much trying to cover up the mess they made in MGS2.mems_1224This I still have no clue what happened in MGS4 :lol:
Story too difficult ?
OT: I suggest you play the previous games first, starting with MG4 is a bad plan, you won't understand it at all.
[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] If they remade 3 with 4's improvements to the gameplay, I'd sh!t my pants.DarkLink77
I want a proper remake of the original MGS more than anything. Not that Twin Snakes sh*t.
Isn't it the same game with different cutscenes?The new cutscenes were dreadful, and they also inexplicably replaced the original's excellent soundtrack for something more monotone and generic. They updated the graphics but the game ran like complete sh*t. The gameplay was improved but other than that it was a complete mess.
[QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] 3 isn't 'brilliant' and 4 is? Hah.skrat_01
Yup, I don't like ultra serious game with enemies who shoots bees out of his mouth, a person who kills enemies by using electricity bolts through his body, or 100+ year sniper with eyes popping out and most stupid of them all a ghost.:roll:
MGS3 isn't ultra serious. No Metal Gear game is ultra serious, they're all different mixes of cheesy or camp and outrageous. If you're looking for serious or realistic then you're playing the wrong games entirely. MGS3 doesn't delve into bad philosophy rambling or high concepts that go nowhere, it's a story about characters and that's why it works well. MGS4 on the other hand wants to have its cake, eat it and in the process smears it across the room.If they are not trying to be ultra serious then make it a fantasy game, what's with historical events and military $hit.
MGS3 isn't ultra serious. No Metal Gear game is ultra serious, they're all different mixes of cheesy or camp and outrageous. If you're looking for serious or realistic then you're playing the wrong games entirely. MGS3 doesn't delve into bad philosophy rambling or high concepts that go nowhere, it's a story about characters and that's why it works well. MGS4 on the other hand wants to have its cake, eat it and in the process smears it across the room.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]
Yup, I don't like ultra serious game with enemies who shoots bees out of his mouth, a person who kills enemies by using electricity bolts through his body, or 100+ year sniper with eyes popping out and most stupid of them all a ghost.:roll:
zeeshanhaider
If they are not trying to be ultra serious then make it a fantasy game, what's with historical events and military $hit.
What's to say they can't do what they want? COD is extremely stupid and hyper-realistic in its portrayal of reality, Shogun 2 aims to create a historical backdrop for players to rewrite history with contextually accurate things. MGS is hyper-realistic with a mix of science fiction and fantasy; it's all pretty Japanese in its blend of elements - and it's capitalised on to build plot and characters, which is what gives the game so much character, separating it from something like Thief (which also mixes fantasy and steampunk/sci-fi) but in a medieval setting. That's the nature of fiction, if you don't dig what it's doing, 'scool.[QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] MGS3 isn't ultra serious. No Metal Gear game is ultra serious, they're all different mixes of cheesy or camp and outrageous. If you're looking for serious or realistic then you're playing the wrong games entirely. MGS3 doesn't delve into bad philosophy rambling or high concepts that go nowhere, it's a story about characters and that's why it works well. MGS4 on the other hand wants to have its cake, eat it and in the process smears it across the room.skrat_01
If they are not trying to be ultra serious then make it a fantasy game, what's with historical events and military $hit.
What's to say they can't do what they want? COD is extremely stupid and hyper-realistic in its portrayal of reality, Shogun 2 aims to create a historical backdrop for players to rewrite history with contextually accurate things. MGS is hyper-realistic with a mix of science fiction and fantasy; it's all pretty Japanese in its blend of elements - and it's capitalised on to build plot and characters, which is what gives the game so much character, separating it from something like Thief (which also mixes fantasy and steampunk/sci-fi) but in a medieval setting. That's the nature of fiction, if you don't dig what it's doing, 'scool.No matter how you spin MGS games are crap, both in gameplay and in storyline. Seriously nothing in MGS makes sense. Only the baddies have super human strength, not you and govt. always send you alone on a mission without anything. In one half the ENEMY is trying to kill you in the next half it's on your side, WTF is all this? Big Boss won't die no matter what, it will always reborn in the next game, I guess these kind of things are common to all Japanese games that's why I generally don't like Japanese games. All in all MGS doesn't make any sense and simply sucks.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment