Splinter Cell vs Metal Gear Solid?

[QUOTE="fourseamer4"][QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"] Crysis.LeGoofyGoober

lol?

It's a terrible game AND it's broken.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]I can't argue on behalf of Crysis, I've never played it. But the playing dead thing was done in Army of two, also. But MGS 4 got a 10, so......Dystopian-X

metal gear

Metal Gear

METAL GEAR!!!

[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]I can't argue on behalf of Crysis, I've never played it. But the playing dead thing was done in Army of two, also. But MGS 4 got a 10, so......cainetao11

Lol j/k well I was talking about crysis anyways.

I can only assume that anyone who chooses Splinter Cell as the better isn't a fan of video games in general. It's like saying American Gangster is better then The Godfather...dr-venkman

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Javy03"]I mean MGS mastered many staples in the stealth genre.Nephilim83

:lol:

Really?

By calling that ignorant and dismissing this perspective immediately you are looking more like a hypocrite.

Thief is far more progressive as far as design is concerned - your weapons, your abilities (mind you the huge variety of arrows), using dynamic shadows, or your environment (i.e water and fire), sound distractions, luring enemies with items, large open levels that gave the player *much* choice in approaching, or using different stealth methods, and of course as Metal Gear had its cinematic camera use age, Thief used the first person perspective to its own advantage.

Mind you this was in 1998.

Hell I havent even mentioned Commandos in depth....

And no I am not talking about story, I am talking about game design.

Its what I do.

:|

I mean neck breaking? Really now. Wow stealth attacks are suddenly design breakers, that are heavily influential to the design dynamic not quirks?

Right.

MGS has stuck with its groundings for a very long period, and its no surprised they are very... solid. However the stealth mechanics in metal gear do lack complexity - even if things like camouflage add an extra dynamic, its still ontop of the original core design of evasion, relating directly back to the original mechanics.

Which is why things like 'choice' in MGS4 hit a massive design rut. Putting in much deeper combat mechanics contrasted horribly with the stealth mechanics. Simply the age old, alert re spawn system did not gel with this emphasis on 'choice'. A horrible design decision.

As good as MGS is.

Its far from the best Stealth series.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Javy03"]I mean MGS mastered many staples in the stealth genre.Javy03

Yes MGS, im sure pioneered its cinematic camera design - which was both effective visually, suited the level (and game design), was immersive and worked perfectly in tandem with the PS1's hardware issues.

MGS is a popular game, as its earned its right as a legendary franchise from the quality of titles in the series, memorable characters, story, and gameplay.

However this does not mean its the strongest stealth game, and yes it doesnt ONLY focus on stealth, which is one factor why its stealth mechanics lack the depth and complexity of other stealth orientated titles.

Hell, I even said *from a purely stealth design perspective*.

As much as I like metal gear, I am focusing primarily on the games stealth mechanics

SC: Gameplay

MGS: Story

Graphics: MGS at the moment, sinc I need to actually see Convivtion in person.

I do enjoy SC series more though.

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]Splinter Cell for gameplay, MGS for graphics, neither for story. Stories in both of them aren't special at all.dgsag

metal gear solid is better homeyqua93

is this a joke question? MGS4 is rated 10 for a reason

If I want story and gameplay: Splinter Cell.

If I want action and boss battles: Metal Gear.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="idontbeliveit"] if thats the case then i'd rather take the "outdated" cutscenes over this supposed new style of innovation. i cant imagine it being anymore entertaining or involving than the cutscenes are, which is one of the reasons MGS4 is so good;)

idontbeliveit

Many of MGS's cutscenes are entertaining, but there's no way that cutscenes are involving. In fact, they get flak precisely because they are an uninvolving peice of what is supposed to be an interactive experience.

Good lord. Stop being a defensive fanboy. I didn't say they were "flak" and I didn't say I hated them. I said that cutscenes in general get flak because they are uninvolving.Some of you MGS fanboys just can't take any criticism of your game.

I really like both but I got to say in general metal gear is one of the best series ever, splinter cell isnt.

Splinter cell

Graphics- depends on wut system ur playin it on, the original one on xbox was way better than mgs3 though, so ill give it an A

gameplay-B

Story- C

MGS

Graphics C+

Gameplay-A

Story- A+

Metal gear winds

if thats how you feel then thats too bad. i always get drawn into the cutscenes because i find them very entertaining and interesting. if you find them flak, then skip them. no one is forcing you to watch them.Tragic_Kingdom7

Good lord. Stop being a defensive fanboy. I didn't say they were "flak" and I didn't say I hated them. I said that cutscenes in general get flak because they are uninvolving.Some of you MGS fanboys just can't take any criticism of your game.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"] if thats how you feel then thats too bad. i always get drawn into the cutscenes because i find them very entertaining and interesting. if you find them flak, then skip them. no one is forcing you to watch them.Dystopian-X

Good lord. Stop being a defensive fanboy. I didn't say they were "flak" and I didn't say I hated them. I said that cutscenes in general get flak because they are uninvolving.Some of you MGS fanboys just can't take any criticism of your game.

They get flak by some people who say that they are archaic and uninvolving. I'm not saying that everybody gives them flak. And people like myself will still tolerate them simply because there are not many ways to get around them yet.However, I will criticize a game for relying on them too heavily. There is no reason why Kojima can't go for economy in his storyelling and minimize cutscenes while maximizing player control.

What makes cutscenes such a good method of storytelling in a game? Really, they are one of the "only" ways of storytelling right now, so that's why they look like one of the best. Once developers find a way to make every story sequence a gameplay situation while making the talking segments like those in Half-Life, the flaws of cutscenes will be apparent.

Many of MGS's cutscenes kick ass, but the day that developers find good alternatives to cutscenes will a great one.

As a stealth game--SC is better and more realistic. MGS is way more fun though with its crazy story and ridiculous bosses/characters. Hate on the cut scenes, but it feels like a comic book to me. The gameplay/controls in MGS are unparalleled. wstfld

How the hell are the controls unparalleled? Although Kojima (to his credit) has improved the controls alot in MGS4, MGS still has a more cumbersome control interface than most games.

I've always liked Splinter Cell a lot more, never really cared much for the MGS series & MGS4 is not something I'm looking forward to this Fall when I'm buying a PS3.

When it comes to stealth games, I'm a bit of a purist. If there's little penalty to getting caught, then the game loses some of it's appeal for me. In that respect, Splinter Cell does a much better job.

I like that Splinter Cell limits weapons to a modular rifle with ammo gears primarily toward stealth. Air foils, chaff, various vision enhancements, gas, sticky cams, sticky shocker, EMP gun... and the fact that they are compact enough for all of it to fit on Sam's body. The idea that I can carry multiple rifles, explosives, including a rocket launcher without any penalty to stealth kinda takes me out of the game. So does that idea that I can change the camo on my suit and my face as quickly as I can manipulate the menus, again, takes me out of the experience.

I also prefer SC's use of shadows and light to his advantage. Move for move, Sam gives me a much better feelling of being a ninja or master thief.

Then there's the aesthetic itself. MG's anime vibe is totally lost on me.

I don't begrudge anyone's preference of Metal Gear. Splinter Cell is just the purer stealth game in my eyes.

VoodooHak

Although Splinter Cell never really clicked with me and I prefer Metal Gear Solid, your argument for SC is excellent.

Gameplay definately goes to Splinter Cell. It's varied, intense and hella fun.

Story goes to MGS for it's interesting plot, along with the crazy twists.

Spliter Cell is more fun than MGS4. Cut scenes are nice, but games have the ability to be story driven THROUGH interactive experience, meaning they can drive the storyline as you play the game, and don't need 30 minute long cut scenes to make it happen. They could have at least put in some button mashing during the cut scenes to spice it up a bit. Phazevariance

People seem to hate quick time events, but even though they are imperfect, to me, they are superior to a totally uninteractive cutscene.

I look at cutscenes are something I just have to tolerate and enjoy somewhat while they are unavoidable (however I will not tolerate an oversaturation of them). They can be cool sometimes and they are not bad, but I think storytelling philosophy in video games really needs to change.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"][QUOTE="def_mode"]

is this a joke question? MGS4 is rated 10 for a reason

def_mode

He was being sarcastic.

They get flak by some people who say that they are archaic and uninvolving. I'm not saying that everybody gives them flak. And people like myself will still tolerate them simply because there are not many ways to get around them yet.However, I will criticize a game for relying on them too heavily. There is no reason why Kojima can't go for economy in his storyelling and minimize cutscenes while maximizing player control.

What makes cutscenes such a good method of storytelling in a game? Really, they are one of the "only" ways of storytelling right now, so that's why they look like one of the best. Once developers find a way to make every story sequence a gameplay situation while making the talking segments like those in Half-Life, the flaws of cutscenes will be apparent.

Many of MGS's cutscenes kick ass, but the day that developers find good alternatives to cutscenes will a great one.

Tragic_Kingdom7

I find SC to be very linear in its stealth.. Its like theres only one path to follow to not be noticed, (Keep in mind I never played the latest SC)

Metal Gear almost always has many different ways to progress through the area and every time I start a new game I find its alot different than the last.

(I find new areas / items / new ways to take down the bad dudes)

this battle become a fanboy debate because 360 has SC and PS3 has MGS4.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

They get flak by some people who say that they are archaic and uninvolving. I'm not saying that everybody gives them flak. And people like myself will still tolerate them simply because there are not many ways to get around them yet.However, I will criticize a game for relying on them too heavily. There is no reason why Kojima can't go for economy in his storyelling and minimize cutscenes while maximizing player control.

What makes cutscenes such a good method of storytelling in a game? Really, they are one of the "only" ways of storytelling right now, so that's why they look like one of the best. Once developers find a way to make every story sequence a gameplay situation while making the talking segments like those in Half-Life, the flaws of cutscenes will be apparent.

Many of MGS's cutscenes kick ass, but the day that developers find good alternatives to cutscenes will a great one.

Dystopian-X

I think you bring up a good point about QTE. It does have to be used right. Much like cutscenes, it shouldn't be abused and it shouldn't compromise the story. I think Heavy Rain might be on the right track in this regard (though I can't at all be sure).

I'm not sure that most people that give them flak have their own alternatives, because there are not many games with substantialstories out there that avoid them. I think the people that give them flak mostly object to gratuitious use of them.

Cutscenes are going to be around for awhile, so right now, it would be extremely intellectually dishonest of me or anybody else to fault developers for using them. But I just don't abuses of them. As breathtaking as some of the cutscenes in MGS4 were, not even close to all of them needed to be there (the mission breifings in particular come across as gratituous).And the one's that were super long could have been cut down without compromising the story. If Kojima had cut down on cutscenes and cutscene length, it's most likely that the story would have benefited due to being more focused and less meandering.

GTA4's cutscenes were not anywhere close to as well-done and technically advanced as MGS's and one of two of them were a bit funky, but I prefered R*'s use of cutscenes better. They seemed to try to be economic and get them out of your way as soon as possible while still offering up a compelling story. The way the bulk of the character development was done through in car conversations was pretty brilliant IMO and is the kind of thing that more developers should try to do.

this battle become a fanboy debate because 360 has SC and PS3 has MGS4.

___gamemaster__

This battle has become a fanboy debate because people like yourself have equated opinion with fact.

I think you bring up a good point about QTE. It does have to be used right. Much like cutscenes, it shouldn't be abused and it shouldn't compromise the story. I think Heavy Rain might be on the right track in this regard (though I can't at all be sure).

I'm not sure that most people that give them flak have their own alternatives, because there are not many games with substantialstories out there that avoid them. I think the people that give them flak mostly object to gratuitious use of them.

Cutscenes are going to be around for awhile, so right now, it would be extremely intellectually dishonest of me or anybody else to fault developers for using them. But I just don't abuses of them. As breathtaking as some of the cutscenes in MGS4 were, not even close to all of them needed to be there (the mission breifings in particular come across as gratituous).And the one's that were super long could have been cut down without compromising the story. If Kojima had cut down on cutscenes and cutscene length, it's most likely that the story would have benefited due to being more focused and less meandering.

GTA4's cutscenes were not anywhere close to as well-done and technically advanced as MGS's and one of two of them were a bit funky, but I prefered R*'s use of cutscenes better. They seemed to try to be economic and get them out of your way as soon as possible while still offering up a compelling story. The way the bulk of the character development was done through in car conversations was pretty brilliant IMO and is the kind of thing that more developers should try to do.

Tragic_Kingdom7

As for ppl who hate on the cutscenes.. I see many of them bring up the storytelling present in games like HL or Bioshock as their alternatives. I don't think they are all that superior since you miss a lot of info with those but some them do bring them up against the MGS type of storytelling.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

I think you bring up a good point about QTE. It does have to be used right. Much like cutscenes, it shouldn't be abused and it shouldn't compromise the story. I think Heavy Rain might be on the right track in this regard (though I can't at all be sure).

I'm not sure that most people that give them flak have their own alternatives, because there are not many games with substantialstories out there that avoid them. I think the people that give them flak mostly object to gratuitious use of them.

Cutscenes are going to be around for awhile, so right now, it would be extremely intellectually dishonest of me or anybody else to fault developers for using them. But I just don't abuses of them. As breathtaking as some of the cutscenes in MGS4 were, not even close to all of them needed to be there (the mission breifings in particular come across as gratituous).And the one's that were super long could have been cut down without compromising the story. If Kojima had cut down on cutscenes and cutscene length, it's most likely that the story would have benefited due to being more focused and less meandering.

GTA4's cutscenes were not anywhere close to as well-done and technically advanced as MGS's and one of two of them were a bit funky, but I prefered R*'s use of cutscenes better. They seemed to try to be economic and get them out of your way as soon as possible while still offering up a compelling story. The way the bulk of the character development was done through in car conversations was pretty brilliant IMO and is the kind of thing that more developers should try to do.

Dystopian-X

As for ppl who hate on the cutscenes.. I see many of them bring up the storytelling present in games like HL or Bioshock as their alternatives. I don't think they are all that superior since you miss a lot of info with those but some them do bring them up against the MGS type of storytelling.

I agree that both methods have their drawbacks. I think that when technology gets better, developers will be able to acheive a fusion of the strengths of both methods.

FTR, I'll explain why I prefer MGS over SC.

1) I really like genre-mixing games like GTA and MGS. These kind of game sare always greater than the sum of their parts, but I find them more interesting to play because they are more dynamic. SC may have more honed individual gameplay elements, but MGS does more overall IMO. I'm not a stealth purist whatsoever, so I have no problem with the "lighter" stealth elements, because there's a nice fusion of genres going on in the MGS series just as there's a nice fusion of genres in the GTA series.

2) The characters and story in MGS comes across as WAY more inspired even if MGS has its fair share of storytelling problems. I also find thevisual style to stand out more.

3) I think MGS has more of a variety of gameplay situations than SC even if the gameplay elements themselves in SC are deeper.

One area I would like MGS to be more like SC in however is the difficulty. I find MGS to be to easy to coast through. I wouldn't like MGS adopt heavier sleath elements and compromise its genre-mixing, but simply make it less easy to coast through and make the AI smarter. I very nearly got through South America by crawling on the ground.

The way I see it the simplest way to describe and compare the two experiences is this.

If you want to play a mordern ninja, sneak in the shadows use high tech gear to hack, monitor and sabotage your way to completing objectives splinter cell is the game to play.

If you want a mish mash of all-action and stealth with a greater emphasis on the action complimented by head to head boss battles, then metal gear is your game.

Personally, SC has by far the superior gameplay. Even Sam Fisher feels better to control, his movements seemingly modelled after a real life ninja.

Story is a difficult subject when dealing with these two and depends on what you prefer. If you like a real world thriller presented with the more genuine take on espionage, Splinter Cell's story will appear far more superior to Metal Gear.

If you're more into a more exxagerated over-the-top comic book like take on spies and black ops then Metal Gear will appear the better story. But both games do fine in the story department.

Splinter Cell's stories seem more relevant to our mordern issues though, the information warfare storylines (SC1), biological warfare (sc2), technoligcal warfare and master minding wars (Chaos theory) and lastly, domestic & global terrorism (DA).They are all based on real world or potential real world issues, so an extra point there for the SC story.

I honestly like both. I still hold that the original Metal Gear Solid is one of the greatest games ever made (possibly the greatest), and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was a fantastic offering on the PS2. Sons of Liberty and Guns of the Patriots, however? They tarnished the reputation of MGS in my eyes.

Splinter Cell started from more humble beginnings, but the quality of the series has been incredibly consistent. Even the latest Double Agent is a great offering, even if it did not reach the dizzying heights of Chaos Theory.

Both games offer different types of gameplay. Stealth is handled differently enough for there to be people who don't necessarily like stealth in either series. In time I've preferred to like Splinter Cell's gameplay more, perhaps because it's more realistic and rewarding. Still, I like how there's less linearity in MGS's design.

The same goes with story. I don't understand how people automatically assume Metal Gear Solid's story is better. The first game's story is really amazing. The second game's story is really messed up. The third's story was about Big Boss which was cool. The fourth story was complete utter fan service which pretty much stops MGSfrom ever getting the movie treatment because it's so convoluted and esoteric.

Splinter Cell's stories are more intriguing in a much different way though. It's not flamboyant, self-obsessed, and in your face though. I mean, the series started off with the investigation of two CIA agents gone missing then goes into the whole idea of racial genocide, fuel wars, and cyberterrorism. The second game was a plot about biological warfare that was worthy of a season of the fantastic 24 series. Only in Double Agent and Conviction have things gone a bit personal for Sam. Nevertheless, it's still a good romp through. Or maybe System Wars does not like political thrillers unless they have vampires and hot chicks? lol

I honestly like both. I still hold that the original Metal Gear Solid is one of the greatest games ever made (possibly the greatest), and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was a fantastic offering on the PS2. Sons of Liberty and Guns of the Patriots, however? They tarnished the reputation of MGS in my eyes.

Splinter Cell started from more humble beginnings, but the quality of the series has been incredibly consistent. Even the latest Double Agent is a great offering, even if it did not reach the dizzying heights of Chaos Theory.

Both games offer different types of gameplay. Stealth is handled differently enough for there to be people who don't necessarily like stealth in either series. In time I've preferred to like Splinter Cell's gameplay more, perhaps because it's more realistic and rewarding. Still, I like how there's less linearity in MGS's design.

The same goes with story. I don't understand how people automatically assume Metal Gear Solid's story is better. The first game's story is really amazing. The second game's story is really messed up. The third's story was about Big Boss which was cool. The fourth story was complete utter fan service which pretty much stops MGSfrom ever getting the movie treatment because it's so convoluted and esoteric.

Splinter Cell's stories are more intriguing in a much different way though. It's not flamboyant, self-obsessed, and in your face though. I mean, the series started off with the investigation of two CIA agents gone missing then goes into the whole idea of racial genocide, fuel wars, and cyberterrorism. The second game was a plot about biological warfare that was worthy of a season of the fantastic 24 series. Only in Double Agent and Conviction have things gone a bit personal for Sam. Nevertheless, it's still a good romp through. Or maybe System Wars does not like political thrillers unless they have vampires and hot chicks? lol

FrozenLiquid

Easily the best post in this thread. Personally I prefer Splinter Cell's story because it's delivered like it's a real world crisis.

The political tensions run high, the news networks reporting the latest developments on the crisis and Lambert giving you the facts as bluntly as possible: "find the evidence or its full scale war with China". I love that!

Sure there are no monologues by well acted villains like Big Boss or running battles with mechs, but it's a well delivered political thriller .

MGS > SC Imo.

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"][QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]Splinter Cell for gameplay, MGS for graphics, neither for story. Stories in both of them aren't special at all.jerkface96

im a huge 24 fan so i prefer SC. ive just never been into MG. played the first one on the NES and thats about it.