I'm biased on this subject. I'm a fan of the Metal Gear series. I've even beat the old school MSX ones using emulators.
Metal Gear 1 and 2 are classics. I've also played the new ones to death.

Right now, I'm on my third play through of Metal Gear Solid 3 : Snake Eater. I've pretty much done everything there is to do in the game... got the patriot, stealth camo, and all the other camos. I've played it far too much, but still love the game.

That's why I'm biased on the subject of Metal Gear games... I'm a fan. Kojima is the man in my opion.

Greg Kasavin is the senior editor here at Gamespot, and I respect his opinion on games more than anyone, save for Amer Ajami, but that's only because I know the guy.

Greg... 8.7 for MGS3? Come on.

I've played the competition...
I own or have played nearly all of 2004's top rated games. I think I know what I'm talking about when call a game good Nearly 5000 of my contemporaries have given MGS3 an average rating of 9.5. I'm inclined to agree with them.

Now I agree with you Greg, MGS 3 has a lot of in jokes for fans of the series... But I don't believe that it limits the appeal or accessibility of the game. Again I speak from a biased MG fan's perspective... but hey I know a good game when I see it.

The finale of Metal Gear Solid 3 is among the most exhilirating and exciting game experiences I've ever had, rivalling the frenetic pace of the biggest Hollywood blockbuster... But it's better because you get to play it.

In my opinion, the game is in essence the most accessible of the Metal Gear games, because it's an intro. All of the exposition required to make sense of the rest of the series is contained therein. I think this, among other reasons makes it the strongest entry in the series.

I know the gameplay mechanics have not changed a great deal since Metal Gear Solid 2. But why re-invent the wheel? If it aint' broke don't fix it. The gameplay mechanics of the Metal Gear series have been nearly the same since 1988 and have obviously worked. I crave new game innovation as much as the next man, but rating a game lower than it deserves because it doesn't re-invent the wheel is just unfair.

In a year full of sequels that tried, and in many cases failed to live up to expectations... Because they tried to re-invent the so called wheel, Why punish the game that sticks with what works and delivers?

I'm just being an ass now. 8.7 is a great score. I just think it should be a little higher, for one of this years great games. But hey, what do I know? You're the one who does this for a living.

Good job Greg, keep up the good work. (I'm being serious not sarcastic.)