well.. maybe a late reaction if it comes to the FMV sequences.. but I will type this part anyways...

I cheer for the FMV sequences if they add something to the game. But nowadays there are games with more FMV's then the game itself.. And I think this bites wind! I think the gameplay will suck big time (Wing Commander 3 and 4 for example).. But with MGS 1 & 2 it is a different story.

Without the FMV's you whould mis very much info on the game itself (especially if it comes to the ending of MGS2)

But then again, the FMV sequences could be intergrated in the gamplay itself..

Anyways, developers have found a different way if it comes to story telling. And that's with FMV/ realtime seqeunces. I don't have a prob with that, but if the gameplay is influenced by it.. then I'll leave it in store

If it comes to the original thread.. I enjoyed MGS1 more then MGS2. Many elements of MGS1 where used in 2. But the effects of MGS2 are pretty cool.

If I had to choose between al of them (including the MSX versions) I whould choose MGS1 or Metal Gear 2. I think MGS2 is just way to confusing for me (if it comes to the ending)

I really like the 'Hmmm?!? Who's footprints are these' gag in MGS1 And they removed it in MGS2. On the otherhand, I like the gag with the Tanker part where SolidSnake can press the 'beamer'.

metal gear remains GREAT
played the 1,2 and the psx and pc of solid 2

i havent got round to playing snakes revenge for the nes
but i'll let u know how that ends

and i cant wait for solid 3 in november

so well yes there great games.. no there not as good as msx mg2

I played mg1,mg2 on msx,mgs1 on psx and I liked them all. I'm still waiting for mgs2 for pc or psx ;-)

no need to wait, you can buy it right off the shelf

I think SolidEric means he has no PS2 and wants a MGS2 for PSX (Which is confusing coz Sony released a real PSX which is PS2 based, but that aside )

I hate 3D games, and PSX's Metal Gears are not a exception. I played a little Metal Gear Solid 1 and I didn't see any difference with any other similar 3D game. So, I stick on the MSX versions.

I just hope that Konami will not decide to port the Gradius saga to 3D also, since this would kill the saga as the Metal Gear saga has been killed.

konamiman:
believe me, the way MGS and other sequels work is really the way Kojima wanted them to be. If computer gaming era started on machines with 3D capabilities, Kojima can be the first one using them in games.

Most of the time, camera angle is about the same as in 2D versions, and navigation is 2D-alike too. Just get accustomized.

If MGS2 is how kojima envisioned Metal gear to be, he is a dumbass.

I know Kojima wants to converge movies with games, and that's all fine. But what he's doing now is turning a great game genre into a mindless movie!

MGS2 has more FMV's than gametime, for goodness sake!!!
Also the movie-like music really doesn't add anything.

If Kojima wants to converge movies and games, he should make a game that plays like a movie. Not make a movie that's interactive somewhat.

Quote:

I hate 3D games, and PSX's Metal Gears are not a exception. I played a little Metal Gear Solid 1 and I didn't see any difference with any other similar 3D game. So, I stick on the MSX versions. I just hope that Konami will not decide to port the Gradius saga to 3D also, since this would kill the saga as the Metal Gear saga has been killed.

Sure. It went from a fanbase of a couple of hundreds to a couple of millions. It sure died a horrific death

Quote:

If MGS2 is how kojima envisioned Metal gear to be, he is a dumbass.

In your opinion. In my opinion and millions of other MG fans, he's brilliant.

Quote:

I know Kojima wants to converge movies with games, and that's all fine. But what he's doing now is turning a great game genre into a mindless movie!

In your opinion. It's still a game, and far from mindless. Actually the plot behind MGS2 could have been written by Robert Ludlum, and if you consider his books to be mindless, I guess there is nothing I can say

Quote:

MGS2 has more FMV's than gametime, for goodness sake!!!

That's a simple and trendy remark found all over the boards of people that did not like MGS2, and it's simply not true. It is only true if you play the game once in very easy mode. I've finished MGS2 in every gamemode and got every secret in the game...you don't want to know how long my gametime was

Quote:

Also the movie-like music really doesn't add anything.

In your opinion. I loved it. The MGS2 main theme is very powerful and has everything a theme should have. The suspense music is great and the transitions are very well crafted. I cannot look in your head, but it sure sounds like you criticize everything just because it's different from Metal Gear in 1987.

Quote:

If Kojima wants to converge movies and games, he should make a game that plays like a movie. Not make a movie that's interactive somewhat.

You cannot make games that play like a movie. Since a movie is not interactive...you can only PLAY a movie by looking at it. I am not saying the ratio between scripted and free movement in MGS2 was perfect, it was a bit much, no discussion there. But in my humble opinion they could keep the number of scripted sequences the same, and increase the playtime in between two of them. That *would* be perfect, in my eyes.

Man, I loved the cut-scenes (I hate that word) in MSX games.. Like SD-Snatcher 'n such... They were amazing, and always had fun looking at the animations and story that was unfolded there.
But in MGS2 I was yawning and hoping for the damn thing to end really soon.

It's just really really boring!

And ofcourse you can make a game that plays like a movie... Ofcourse movies are not interactive. Movies are definition of linear. But games are (especially recently) becoming more and more alinear. So that can't be combined then in your opinion?

What about DVD movies with different endings, etc... They exist, sure they are crappy, but it's coz it's new.

It goes without saying this is all IMHO, but MGS2 is a large step BACK from a videogame.

I guess the problem is the same problem we see all over the game world. Quite a few years ago software companies stopped trying to make games and started trying to make money. The product (result) has become irrelevant at best. That means you're in for treat if you're a mainstreamquakelovingbitch and pretty much fucked if you're someone that looks for storyline or depth in your videogames.

The only nice attempt I've seen the last 'few' years was a game called Omikron which was unfortunately not really finished and was ofcourse punished accordingly for trying to 'invent' a new genre and trying to re-introduce something that resembled a storyline. I guess the game was never finished because of some lame-ass publisher-enforced deadline or budget limit and since it wasn't a fps it naturally flopped.

Me and the other 3 people that bought it loved it tho, at least the first three hours of the game that were finished. Buy it, if you ever come across it in the 3 euro box of your local video store. The first few hours of the game are really immersive, after that the plot suddenly stops and you're left wandering aimlessly in a massive interactive world. The graphics were amazing for it's time and the music was at least great for me...

I wish more people would take the plunge and would at least try to make real games... I guess they'll be brutally punished like the designers of Omikron tho...

Quote:

And ofcourse you can make a game that plays like a movie... Ofcourse movies are not interactive. Movies are definition of linear. But games are (especially recently) becoming more and more alinear. So that can't be combined then in your opinion? It goes without saying this is all IMHO, but MGS2 is a large step BACK from a videogame.

I totally agree with you guyver, games nowdays are more like a movie,but hey you can click those movies away and go on with the game!

First of all, sometime ago an interview with Hideo was published in a brazillian videogame magazine. What was said by Kojima was somewhat like: Konami wanted to create a new game in 'Commando' style, but MSX was able to cope only with a few sprites in the same line... and if many sprites were in the same line (shoots or characters) it would cause too much flickering. Then the idea arose: And if the game's idea was NOT to shoot? If the player should avoid the enemies, the problem would be solved. This is how Hideo describes the origin of MetalGear "Tatical Espionage Game". That way, since Commando is a game that has a similar point of view of MSX MetalGear, I don't think "MGS is like how Hideo thought at first" simply because what Metal Gear became is different from what he thought at first.
Probably he thought it would be nice if it could be in 3D, and so on, but these ideas probably came later, when the first real-3D games were released.

Anyway, I liked a lot Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2. A liked Metal Gear Solid at Playstation, but it would be a lie if I had said it's best than original. In fact, I own also Metal Gear Solid for GameBoy Color... and damn it! I think THAT is the way Metal Gear should be. It's pretty similar to MSX versions, but it's fast, the movements are smooth (many frames), lots of enemies... In fact, I think Metal Gear Solid for GBC is a lot better as a sequel to Metal Gear 2.
I agree with Konamiman (I do not like 3D games also), but I think Metal Gear Solid for PSX is a great game. I just do not like to think of it as a "perfect sequel" to Metal Gear 2 storyline.
Metal Gear was always based in movies stories, even the main character is based in a Hollywood character (Snake Plissken, from Escape from New York, a trash action movie which I like a lot, btw). But I don't know exactly why, MGS just seems to lack something.
And MGS2 simply throw away the spirit. MGS2 has a great story, but I think of it is as a really boring game. As pointed by some friends... too much "movies" - non-interactive action. Too much background/parallel storylines. This was not the way in MSX games. You had no idea of what was happening. There was no need for parallel storylines to confuse the player (as happens in MGS2).
In MGS2, the storyline has too many "real time plot changes"... that made myself question Hideo's hability to finish a history line. I did not liked the way he finished Snatcher (this thread was a big discussion in pvt mails, I do not want to reopen it...) and I did not like the way he wrote MGS2. In both cases, the game has a different speed: on Snatcher Act 1 and 2 and Metal Gear 1 to Metal Gear Solid, things hanppen in a timing. On Snatcher Act 3 and MGS2, things just happens in a rush, as if someone was pressing him to "finish this game soon, man, we want to sell it!".
Please, do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying Hideo is a moron. I think he has brilliant ideas, but I also think Konami usually put him in a rush and maybe he "doesn't work well" under pressure.

Even with all those remarks, I think all versions of both stories (Snatcher/MG - excluding NES MGs, whose are not from Hideo, AFAIK) are superb, far above the "good" classification.

These are just my 2 cents...

I have just (finally) finished MGS1 for the very first time and have just started playing MGS2. To me, MGS1 was (and has always been, that's why I finished it this late) a struggle. I wasn't capable of controlling the game the way I wanted it to be. The 'camera'-positions and the distance of the player (overview) felt somewhat wrong to me. Apart from that, it felt like one big Metal Gear 1 & 2 ripoff, considering the situations you ended up in and the puzzles you had t o solve. It was like your favorite band finally releasing a new CD, and when you bought it it turns out to be just another compilation with only one or two new songs. (wow, what a nice bridge to the music of the game). In Metal Gear 1 and 2, the music played a very important role in the game. It added the atmosphere it needed. Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 just don't do it for me. But for that matter, almost none of the modern computer games soundtracks really appeal to me. IMHO, Computer games aren't meant to have movie-theme-style music. Adding SCC squeeks and PSG bleeps to a movie would not help a lot either. The two are very different things.

However, I am quite enthousiastic about MGS2. As the game doesn't only look very good, the gameplay works just like I'd want it to. When I'm on top of the plant, and can look around at the sky, the water, shoot a pigeon or two to sleep, etc. etc. etc. ... it gives 3D game what you'd expect they should have.

As for the FMV's, well on one hand I like them, on the other hand.. there's no art in FMV's compared to 'real demos' as they used to be in games in the 'MSX days'. Furthermore, the FMVs in MGS2... in the entire 'tanker' part of the game, just when you think: 'aaaaaaaaaah a fight!!!!' the FMV sets in and something happens you'd like to take part in as a gamer. The first encounter with 'Vamp' and 'Olga' in the plant were equally disappointing.

Of course, Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 sold millions and millions, but the original Metal Gear games dated from a time that not every home in the 'western' world had at least one computer. Comparing sales figures from 1998-2004 (MGS1 has just been souped up and re-released as Twin Snakes) with 'just' 1987 and 1988, even when taking the amount of (MSX) computers and several other economical calculations in account, seems like something pointless to me.

By the way.. Hideo Kojima IS a genious, there's no doubt in my mind about that.

Just to make something clear: I'm not saying Hideo is not a genious, I'm just saying geniouses can be dumbasses sometimes too