Game? No. Interactive-Cinematic-Experience? Yes. MGS3: Snake Eater should just give up and be a movie.
User Rating: 6.6 | Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater PS2
Why, you may ask, am I giving what is arguably one of the most highly anticipated games of 2004 such a poor rating? Well, simply put, the word "game" applies to MGS3 in only the most forgiving of definitions. What am i talking about? Let's get all the obligatory game review stuff out of the way and I'll try to clarify. In all of the normal game rating areas, Snake Eater performs very well. Graphically it looks beautiful. The whole game has a great sense of style, the environments are beautiful, and it really makes the most out of the PS2's rapidly aging hardware. Full points there. Audio? Great. Yes, the voice-acting goes way off into melodramaland, but that's standard for the MGS series, and if you've heard english-subbed anime, it shouldn't be anything new to you. I've always been a big fan of the ambient music in MGS (the soundtracks for the first 2 actually have a permanent place in my iPod these days, as dorky as that sounds) and MGS3's tunes follow in the same footsteps (with the exception of the MGS3 theme "Snake-eater"). The ambient and weapon SFX are polished, sound nice, whatever other terms mean good things about them. Full points here too. The gameplay takes a slight diversion from MGS1 and 2, but not necessarily a bad one. Yes, there's no fixed radar, but you're given multiple ways to detect baddies in your area, and MGS3's method actually feels the most natural of the 3. You have multiple ways to "see" what's around you, and you can pick sonar, motion detection or just have your controller rumble if something's nearby, whichever fits your playstyle best. If you want to be really realistic about it, you can just switch to your handy scope and check the area out 1st-person-style as you advance. The new camoflage system can require a bit of micromanagment (if you're a perfectionist like some of us) but you can usually get away with just switching when the environment color changes drastically, so fine with that. Combat is still okay (not great, but okay), and the new Close Quarters Combat (CQC) stuff is nice, not as in depth as i'd hoped, but nice. Almost full points there. I wish they'd ironed out some of the more aggravating problems from MGS1 and 2, but it's not a huge deal. MGS3's big "revolution" with the stamina meter, hunting and cure menu are just NOT. As in not revolutionary, not necessary, not fun, but also not too obnoxious and not too much of a hindrance to most player's enjoyment of the rest of the game. In my opinion, the game would be more streamlined and flow better without these features, but you always have to add something to a sequel, and I've seen much worse mechanics get tacked onto games as "improvements". No points deducted. Surprisingly enough, the storyline is much more straightforward than the debacle that was MGS2, and it the mix of period footage and game elements actually manages to make it seem like something that may have happened. Okay, only in a really wacky alternate reality, but hey, let's not nit-pick. If you're familiar with the series, you already know what you're in for. For all the rest of you, welcome to MGS land, try not to think about it too hard, you'll give yourself an aneurism. Wrap all of this goodness up in a game that'll probably last you at least 40 hours, and you're gettin' a pretty good deal for your 50 bucks. So "Value" gets almost full points too. So with all this great stuff, why only a 6.6? Remember at the beginning that i said that the word "Game" doesn't apply to MGS3? Here's where we get into that. Example: In the first 5 hours of "Gameplay" in MGS3, you touch the controller for a grand total of probably 45 minutes. The remainder of that 4 hours and 15 minutes are CINEMATICS. And I only wish I was exaggerating. Between the full motion cinematics, series-of-stills cinematics, flashback and context cinematics and codec conversations, you spend more time in MGS3 with the controller on the floor than in your hands. This is simply unforgivable. In an interview prior to MGS3's launch, the developers bragged that they'd stuffed the DVD to overflowing in their attempt to fit everything into the game. My response: It's amazing how much space video and coding for in-game cinematcs takes, isn't it? If you want to watch a 40+ hour movie that THINKS it's a game, repeats itself endlessly, and basically bores the pants off any other movie ever made (including Waterworld), then MGS3 is the game for you. If you actually want to play a game though... well, I'd recommend almost anything over this boring pile of cinematics. If the production values weren't so good (and expensive) MGS3 would rank in the worst games I've ever had the non-priviledge of staring at. 'nuff said. 
