[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]

Yes, I've never seen anyone just disregard MGS's story the way you do, Dvader. Perhaps you've been spending a little too much time around these "It's all about the gameplay!" elitists that tend to pop their heads up every now and then and become oh so annoying.

I don't think games have been "all about the gameplay" for quite sometime.

I pretty much agree with Fathom's word for word. I play MGS for the story, and I play SC for the gameplay. In fact, if you were to ask me what the storyline was in any of the previous SCs, I honestly could'nt tell you, even though I've played through all of them and enjoyed them immensely.

Now granted, if MGS's gameplay were complete trash, there's no way I would play through a hunk of junk for it's story, but I think you are a bit mixed up when you talk as if MGS's priorities lie in the gameplay. I think very few, if any, have found MGS games to be some of the most memorable experiences theyv'e had because of the gameplay.

dvader654

No read most any review of a Metal Gear and its the gameplay that gets praise, thats why its such a success. Metal Gear has always had excellent gameplay, they have always been excellent games in every way from boss fights, the vairety in situations, the variety of weapons. The story adds to the complete package but its the gameplay that makes the game what it is.

Sorry but the reason I play games is to PLAY games, thats how its been since I was a kid and how it will be till I'm old. If it has a great story great but if not thats fine too. All that matters to me is that I am having fun PLAYING the game. I don't understand how so many can just bypass that, it makes zero sense to me.

Whatever your reasons to play games are your reasons but simply know that mine are to have fun playing a game, its as simple as that.

I don't think anyone is "bypassing" the gameplay, here. This is an interactive medium, after all, and as long as you do more interacting than watching, the gameplay will always be the most important. But I believe you're wrong about those MGS 3 reviews; I've read many that gave much higher praise to the storyline than to the gameplay. Take me, for example. As I said, I play and love both franchises, but both for different reasons (just like AlwaysSoft), and there's a darn good reason for that.

In comparison to SC, MGS's gameplay is over-complicated, not as fluid, and even clunky at times. It's also nowhere near as realistic, although I'm not saying SC is the pinnacle of a spy simulator. When I play SC, I get beautifully molded controls that are mapped extremely well to the controller, and I never feel as if I'm battling the control format. In MGS, in order to carefully target a foe with my rifle, I have to hold down two buttons, gently press another (halfway to aim and all the way to supress the trigger), and that's just plain silly. Yes, I did like the gameplay very much in MGS; I wouldn't have played it if I didn't. But there is no way on earth the gameplay stood out for me over the story, which was downright awesome from start to finish.

I understand what you're saying about playing games for fun, and having fun because we're playing. I totally get that. But there are those of us who get a great deal of enjoyment from fantastic stories, and often remember them more than the gameplay. I will always remember that scene in FF VII where Cloud was laying Aeris to rest, but I have difficulty remembering the boss fight that directly preceded it. And I adore the gameplay in FF VII; I think it's the greatest RPG ever. But without that story, it wouldn't have been half as memorable. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

CodeMunki

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

And here's our review to add to the mix-

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-reviews/58.html

I agree with what a lot of people have said, and as another voice: yes, the acting really IS that good. :)

CarnageHeart

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT

Great review, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on Kai and the value of her segments. Once I got the hang of aftertouch (which was early on in the segment where one defends Shen) I loved it. I literally grinned when I opened a door and found myself facing a good chunk of Bohan's army, all equiped with bows. I did think the collision detection was a little offfor the close-in segments (when an enemy is right in Kai's face) though I did my best to make sure the sword wielding enemies never got all that close.

Personality-wise I thought Kai was a really great though wildly insane character (well, up until she put an arrow in Flying Fox's forehead). The scene where she offered Nariko a choice between a singularly unappetizing dead bird and a live worm was ****c. Kai kind of reminded me a bit of Rikku from FFX, which is no bad thing.

END SPOILER

Also,I have no complaints about Nariko's swordplay (for reasons I explained in my prior post). I like DMC3 and NG, but I also appreciate simpler, somewhat more forgiving combat systems, such as those of God of War and Otogi.

If asked to pick a number out of the air, I suppose I would have come up with the same number you did though (HS is on the short side, though as a guy who hasn't played a high quality original DMC type game since well, DMC3, I welcomed it).

Don't misunderstand: I liked Kai a lot and she was a welcome addition to the story. Bear in mind that I said her missions seemed to be lacking in contrast to Nariko's; all she could really do was use the crossbow. But in regards to the story, I never thought she lacked any purpose because I didn't have a problem with her character. I did, however, have a slight problem with her missions. I got the hang of the aftertouch too, and it IS fun, but...well, that just wasn't enough to make her portions shine as brightly as Nariko's.

I also appreciate "simpler and more forgiving" action; I enjoyed the GoW games far more than the NG and DMC games, even though I recognize the inherent depth of the combat in the latter two. This is why I didn't harp on this facet as much as other reviewers, and a large part of why I scored it slightly higher than most sources. I never bought into the whole action fan elitist mentality that the game is no good if a casual gamer can play it. I've always thought that was ridiculous. I can appreciate both the wickedly in-depth battle system along with the more straightforward and accessible combat system; some just can't find a way to do that.

But I still found the combat just a tad lacking in HS, primarily because the lack of a jump command and some sort of magic just made it feel a little barebones. And while you do have a ton of combos at your disposal, they all have very similar effects. That sums up my complaints, though, and I certainly don't think it cripples the gameplay. Like I say in the review, it's fun, plain and simple. :)

I think what was said earlier about HS not being an entirely awesome game regardless of game length is valid...If GS thought the game was worthy of a 9 regardless of its length they would have gave it a 9, they gave Chronicles of Riddick a 9 and I finished that game in two sittings.HiResDes

I don't think the difference is that drastic; I doubt they docked HS a full point for the length. It doesn't deserve a 9, anyway. But I do believe that 8.5 is more fair, and I'd be willing to bet GS did knock around a half-point off...

And for the record, CoR is indeed the better game; my favorite of that year if it weren't for GTA: SA. But also, HS does most everything NON-gameplay-related better than CoR, which is kinda ironic. But it proves that gameplay is the most important factor, right?

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Seriously, why do we play games? What is a game? Game is something to entertain you. Story adds huge value to that entertainment and it is very important to games, and failure at it is major flaw of a game because it failed to make part of itself that is important to being entertaining game.
dvader654

I play games to play them, cause the gameplay is fun, cause I find it challenging, cause I want to lose myself to the gameplay. I have a lot of reasons before I ever get to the story.Yes it can help a lot, but in many games it does not and many times its not needed, great example is NG. Back when I was a kid I did any of those games have great stories, nope, its all for the love of the game. If I want a great story I will watch a movie or read a book.

Anyway thats my view on it, many agree with you though.

I recall you saying that MGS3 was one of your fav games of last gen, is that purely from a gameplay standpoint? It was also one of my favorite games of last gen, but thats because I loved how well all the elements came together. Minimalize the storytelling and insert some trash quality soundtrack, and I don't think I'd enjoy the experience anywhere near as much.

Yes its by far the gameplay, I find MGS's stealth action gameplay to be the best of its type. Kojima never forgets that MGS is a game first, not a spy simulator like SC, so what you get is a great gameplay exerience, one that lets you play as you want to. MGS3 I thought took the gameplay to the next level, I know some people didn't care for the camo system but I loved it, mix that in with the more open levels and you can have all sorts of fun in just one area. Add some of the best boss fights in all of gaming and you have yourself a masterpiece.

Most definetly story plays a part in these games, I doubt I would be so hyped up for the ending, what I consider the best last two hours in any game I have ever played if not for how the story unfolded. But I have played MGS3 countless times, and I always skip the story when I replay it, thats not why I keep coming back for more.

Wow, I guess we're exactly opposite on that. I adore MGS 3, but it's almost ENTIRELY because of the story (easily the best non-RPG story in history). I liked the gameplay too, of course, but the most memorable parts of that game for me ALL come from the storyline.

On the other hand, I play SC entirely for the gameplay, because it's far more fluid and realistic than it is in MGS. But on the other hand, the story is rarely a focus. It's a trade-off, and it's why I play both franchises for very different reasons.

I fully understand what a lot of you are saying, and I'm aware of the outside factors. Value is there for a reason in the GameSpot score, but I'm just wondering when and why this suddenly became an aspect of a critical entertainment review. I was always under the impression that we're supposed to be judging quality and nothing more, and in no way will the length impact the quality. Unless, like I said in the original post, the game's length is too long or too short for tangible reasons. As someone already said, they kept saying how short HS was in the review here, but they never said how it negatively impacted the experience. What exactly was the problem?

Someone else said that they wouldn't waste $60 on a 6-hour game during the start of the busiest time of the gaming year. I completely agree with that; personally, I wouldn't even own the game right now if Sony didn't send me the review copy. That being said, I WOULD have owned it at some point (probably when the price drops). Thing is, the overall package is fantastic and even singular in some aspects - most have agreed with me that the voice acting is quite possibly the best ever in gaming - and I want to have those games in my collection. I like to have the titles that aren't only fun for me, but also achieve on extraordinarily high levels. Now, HS doesn't achieve to those super high levels in the gameplay, but in terms of overall presentation, I think it does. So I'd want it.

And it makes sense to have a Value score, because every reviewer is writing the review for one purpose: to inform the reader, most likely so the reader can either decide upon or reject a purchase. So the Value category here is useful. But I will never agree that it should factor into the overall score of the game. It does not indicate quality, unless it hurts the production in some way. If the length seems exactly appropriate, it's not too short or too long. The story of HS fits very nicely in the time frame, and even though Kai's missions seemed tacked on, the purpose of those missions fit. This being the case, I don't think it's a bad thing, and just for the arbitrary reason of it being 6 hours, it gets pointed knocked off...? Of course it affects the value, but perhaps value should be entirely separate from the actual scoring. That way, the review does what it's supposed to do (indicate quality), and if the length IS a problem because of one reason or another, that factors into the gameplay score. Just my take.

This is something I'm really not understanding.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's my belief that review scores - or a set of review scores - are designed to indicate the quality of the game. If this is indeed true, I fail to see how the actual length of a game can in any way impact the numerical scores. The only way this seems possible is if the game either feels rushed or dragged out, which would directly affect the quality of the game and have an adverse affect on the player's enjoyment. That much makes perfect sense. But how good a buy it is for the consumer does not impact the quality of the title.

Granted, a reviewer has a responsibility to the reader, so it should certainly be mentioned, like in the case of Heavenly Sword. But it seems to me that GameSpot's overall score was altered due to the game's short length, and unless that's due to the story feeling rushed or hastily slapped together, this shouldn't happen. We're judging quality, yes? So if I get done with a game, and it's not too long (I wasn't stuck doing trival/menial tasks, the developers didn't harp on one section of a story, there weren't any unnecessary cut-scenes, etc.), and it's not too short (a lot of loose ends in the story, not enough time spent in each area, clipped narrative, etc.), than the length is exactly appropriate. I believe the length of Heavenly Sword is appropriate.

Is it worth the $60 price tag for only 6 hours or so? Well, you can go back and play any chapter section at any time, and you do have a reason (collect more Glyphs to unlock more stuff), so it might be worth it for those who really enjoy it. But on the surface, most people would balk at the idea of a purchase, and that's definitely logical. Therefore, it should certainly be mentioned in any review. But it absolutely should not affect the score; it has no bearing on the game's quality. But maybe I'm missing something, here...although I can't see what it is.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Seriously, why do we play games? What is a game? Game is something to entertain you. Story adds huge value to that entertainment and it is very important to games, and failure at it is major flaw of a game because it failed to make part of itself that is important to being entertaining game.
dvader654

I play games to play them, cause the gameplay is fun, cause I find it challenging, cause I want to lose myself to the gameplay. I have a lot of reasons before I ever get to the story.Yes it can help a lot, but in many games it does not and many times its not needed, great example is NG. Back when I was a kid I did any of those games have great stories, nope, its all for the love of the game. If I want a great story I will watch a movie or read a book.

Anyway thats my view on it, many agree with you though.

Wait, what about RPGs? They're essential to the game, many times. Obviously, the gameplay is at the core, but I for one will replay many RPGs just for the story.

I think you guys need to specify which titles come into the mix in the discussion...

Well of course its very important to an RPG but even then if the gameplay is not good I won't touch it. For FFXIII or White Knight Story Idon't want to know what the plot is about, I want to know how the fighting system is, what changes to the gameplay there will be. When I get the game then i will enjoy the plot.

I wouldn't bother with ANY game with crappy gameplay, that's for sure. But I don't think it's fair to say what you said before, that if you want a good story, you'll watch a movie or read a book. While games haven't managed to reach the storytelling level of either of those two mediums (and it can't possibly reach book level, for obvious reasons), I still think there are some magnificent stories and plots out there. Granted, most all of them come from RPGs, but then again, that's much of the reason why RPGs exist in the first place.

It just sounded to me like you weren't giving any credit at all to stories in games. Look at Heavenly Sword. You really ARE playing an action movie with a surprisingly solid storyline; without it, the entire production would fall much further short. I wouldn't even play it for very long, to be honest. Story is rarely - if ever - the primary focus, but we should give it its just due like we do with graphics and sound: it often plays a role. Of course, unlike graphics and sound, it doesn't ALWAYS play a role, but if it's there, it does. Plain and simple. :)

And here's our review to add to the mix-

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-reviews/58.html

I agree with what a lot of people have said, and as another voice: yes, the acting really IS that good. :)