spider-jide
Avenger
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 13,697
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
No. Read it again. Its just MGS3 with MG and MG2 not MGS.
Nathan said:
carbuff said:can any one tell me hoe to beat sorrow
MaxCarnage said:I have loved all the MGS games. MGS for PSX was revolutionary, and was one of the first games that I just couldn't put down. When I first played it, I basically played for a weekend straight until I beat it. The story was, especially for a video game, phenomenal.
The thing about MGS that some people just can't get into is that they're less a game than a cinematic experience. You're taking part in a sci-fi/paranormal espionage thriller. In order to move such a complex story with all the twists and turns forward is to have lengthier cut-scenes than your typical game. The same thing was true of Wing Commander 3 and 4; some people loved those games because they felt so epic, but some people hated them because they were too bulky and too many cinematics.
SC, however, really throws you in there and doesn't waste time with cinematics. Like many Tom Clancy products, it's more grounded and really strives to give you a sense of reality along with the compelling story. I think it's really selling SC short to say that it's stories aren't as in-depth; they just don't feel as theatrical as the MGS games because they're not meant to be. It doesn't jar you from the game in order to present you with the next phase of the story; it tells the story through what you as the player are doing. This is preferable to a lot of players.
What it really boils down to is taste. What each game does it does well. I prefer MGS because of the epic qualities to it and the cinematic feel. I really like the sci-fi/supernatural aspects to the game. I played the first SC and it was a great game, but it wasn't as much fun for me as MGS is.
Debate is great, and it's really fun to go back and forth. But in reality, you're comparing apples to oranges. MGS and SC are two very different games. The only elements that are similar are the focus on stealth rather than shoot-em-up action. And in reality, SC is much better on that front than MGS is.
James"007"Bond said:I truelly believe that the MG games are superior to the SC games by far but the SC games are still enjoyable.
I love SC for the fact that its a more grounded game, however, I only follow whats going on with mild attention, I just make sure I focus on completing the objectives and I'm good. Whereas, with MG. One has to pay close attention because the story really eclipses everything else and everything is just so epic, its a fantastic series of games.
MaxCarnage said:I have loved all the MGS games. MGS for PSX was revolutionary, and was one of the first games that I just couldn't put down. When I first played it, I basically played for a weekend straight until I beat it. The story was, especially for a video game, phenomenal.
The thing about MGS that some people just can't get into is that they're less a game than a cinematic experience. You're taking part in a sci-fi/paranormal espionage thriller. In order to move such a complex story with all the twists and turns forward is to have lengthier cut-scenes than your typical game. The same thing was true of Wing Commander 3 and 4; some people loved those games because they felt so epic, but some people hated them because they were too bulky and too many cinematics.
SC, however, really throws you in there and doesn't waste time with cinematics. Like many Tom Clancy products, it's more grounded and really strives to give you a sense of reality along with the compelling story. I think it's really selling SC short to say that it's stories aren't as in-depth; they just don't feel as theatrical as the MGS games because they're not meant to be. It doesn't jar you from the game in order to present you with the next phase of the story; it tells the story through what you as the player are doing. This is preferable to a lot of players.
What it really boils down to is taste. What each game does it does well. I prefer MGS because of the epic qualities to it and the cinematic feel. I really like the sci-fi/supernatural aspects to the game. I played the first SC and it was a great game, but it wasn't as much fun for me as MGS is.
Debate is great, and it's really fun to go back and forth. But in reality, you're comparing apples to oranges. MGS and SC are two very different games. The only elements that are similar are the focus on stealth rather than shoot-em-up action. And in reality, SC is much better on that front than MGS is.
WaffleKnockers said:
AshtonFoster said:100% Agree on this.
I'm the bigger MGS fan....For me, the cinematics in Snake Eater were simply breathtaking, and put most real films to shame. The gameplay to in MGS3 was outstanding, and I believe a improvement on the previous games, and overall the game captivated me and immersed me on so many levels. I cared about the characters, and after player MGS3, I wish every game has the same effect, at least on a storytelling level. But Splinter Cell has impressed me more on one level....and a level which I do regard VERY highly: Splinter Cell is the better game at making the gameplayer feel as if he or she is an agent, where stealth means everything. You're put in these realistic settings, with great tension and atmostphere, and it gives you great satisfaction when you either take out a load of guys or complete an objective (Though saying that, I probably had my finer moments in Snake Eater - Especially when in the Outdoor jungle levels).
Anyways, my ideal game would actually be a mesh of both - MGS' Cinematics, music, graphical detail, voice acting, storytelling, and some of it's gameplay elements, mixed with SC's stealth design, camera angle(for certain parts) and, realistic gameplay. As regards to a realistic story-line or a more a more supernatural story-line...One of both please.Either that, or just give me a '24' game with the requirements above. Oooooooooo yeah
Gammy79 said:I'll post here too because I love the game so much.
This game rules, MGS3 > SC![]()