General gaming discussion

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544801#Comment_122544801

Yeah I can't even disagree that it feels a bit redundant, especially a year after the collection came out which means people can still easily play the original. In some parts too it looks like they're just making changes for the sake of it, such as now having Snake's health and stamina bar in the bottom centre of the screen…. because…. why….? Maybe it's because he's Big Boss, and bosses usually have their health bar at the bottom of the screen…. Who knows?

I'm guessing though that in many respects, it'll end up like the Demons Souls remake. People who played the original might not appreciate some of the little changes and the effect it has from the original intention and design. But, if it means people who never played the original or any of the HD re-releases decide to pick it up and they enjoy it for what it is, well that's just a new MGS3 fan, and I'm all for that. The world will be a better place.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544820#Comment_122544820

Nah. MGS1 is still a stone cold classics and perfectly playable if you are willing to engage with a control system that differs from modern controls. MGS3 is also another all time classic. Both of those games are also pretty light when it comes to the heavy handed storytelling, they're far better paced and let you have fun with the systems.

MGS2 I think doesn't hold up as well and there's definitely issues with pacing and the amount of cutscenes. And the less said about MGS4, that game is a bit of a stinker. And for all the flak MGSV gets it really plays brilliantly, although the less bloated Ground Zeroes probably highlights it a lot better.

Even the older games and spin offs are great. Revengeance is one of the all time great character action games, Metal Gear 1 and 2 are 2 of the best msx games and still really playable and I'll make a case for the Gameboy colour metal gears solid ghost babel being one of the best in the series.

Penn

A lot of the dialogue in the MGS games are definitely over-written and unnecessarily long. Especially MGS2 where half the conversations between characters happen over Codec because they're so long they couldn't animate the entire cutscenes. But at the same time, taking MGS2 as the same example it is insanely prescient of how the digital age has developed, with control of information, and the weaponisation and propagation of misinformation. There are ideas in that 2001 game that, as overly-long and cumbersome as the explanations of them may have been, are incredibly relevant to today.

That said, it's a big part of why MGS3 is my favourite, because the story is probably the least complex of all the MGS games, but it's also a lot more focused in how it's presented.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544820#Comment_122544820

I mean, the story vs gameplay discussions have always been there with MGS. I remember in particular the discourse around MGS2 and MGS4 at the time. They have long been considered games that are as indulgent (for better and worse) as they are popular. I’d say Peace Walker and MGSV were always noted for having a tight focus on gameplay compared to the sprawling stories of some of the others (MGSV has a sprawling story too, just more diluted in such a massive game).

That said, MGS3 has long been considered the one that course corrected from MGS2’s excesses (which were revisited with a vengeance in 4) and had a lot more focus on clever, tight gameplay and in-depth mechanics. It’s also the one where Kojima’s cinematic dreams most benefited the storytelling, such as the iconic final boss fight. Also, no video game has ever had a better ladder 😅

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544905#Comment_122544905

The problem with 5 wasn't how it plays, it's the story. Or lack of one.

I still don't understand why there was base building. Then repeat the same things over and over and over and over and over again.

With the hardware available now there is the potential there for a serious espionage / stealth game, maybe we'll get a MGS6 some day, would be a pity if it ended with 5.

Penn

MGS4 definitely suffered from "dot all the i's and cross all the t's", because Kojima was trying to wrap up the entire saga and close off everything, and so everything had to be explained to the nth degree (while also explaining everything new in MGS4 such as the war economy etc) because Kojima (at the time) didn't want to do any more MGS games. Not saying he still didn't over-indulge a lot while doing so, but that's a big part of why the story in MGS4 suffered. Hell the final cutscenes go on for something like 70 minutes. I think that's part of why button prompts were integrated during cutscenes where if you press X at certain points, you see flashbacks of images from previous games etc, because otherwise people's controllers would have been constantly turning off due to no inputs.

johnny_ultimate

Without going into spoilers, there’s a narrative development near the end of MGSV that IMO justifies the whole base / army building aspect of the game - in particular, the way it suddenly marries gameplay and storytelling in a way I’ve rarely seen in a game, to the point where it’s even willing to push back against the player.

Sadly, the story completely falls apart after that point and doesn’t really end properly, though that seems to be down to the game’s troubled production.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544921#Comment_122544921

I think MGS2 gets too much credit for it story. It has some interesting themes and ideas, many of which unfortunately turned out true for society. It is however wrapped up in some of the corniest and hamfisted dialogue and writing.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545025#Comment_122545025

Oh definitely. 90% of anything involving either Rose or Emma is pretty abysmal.

"Jack, did you remember what day it is?" Rose, I just fought a huge dude on rollerskates drinking wine with a straw while planting bombs all around me. Maybe shut the f*ck up.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122544986#Comment_122544986

I didn't get anywhere near the end of 5 before getting bored and stopping playing.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545025#Comment_122545025

The game play in 2 was fun though and the story, while not amazing, was at least bearable.

I think. Struggling to remember now and starting to doubt myself. I think I replayed 2 loads of times.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545057#Comment_122545057

It is unfortunate the way MGS5 is laid out in that after the end of Act 1, you have to replay a lot of previous missions but with a harder difficulty, and do a lot more of the (often repetitive) side missions in order to unlock new missions which then develop the story. And even then a lot of those missions involve breaking into the same base as previous missions but maybe just have to get into a different room or you have to perform a different action while there etc. So I can see why someone would get bored and maybe quit. There does feel like quite a bit of padding in order to ensure you're collecting enough resources etc to continue building your base, which is ultimately a key part of the gameplay loop.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545089#Comment_122545089

I can't remember how far I got, but I was really disappointed in that game. Also annoyed at the stupid tapes you listened to in the helicopter, I've always hated that method of story telling.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545062#Comment_122545062

MGS2 is kind of not fun to play until subsequent playthroughs when you learn the ropes and can start having fun. It's a weird game like that. It is remarkable how good the enemy AI is in that game and how many options you can to play around with that AI and how to dispatch them.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545220#Comment_122545220

I think I tried to re-play 2 a few years ago but didn't get very far.

But I got further than I got trying to replay 1. Man those controls are whacky, I don't know how we coped with them back in the day.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545220#Comment_122545220

The AI isn't always that great… 😁

(about 3:01:00 if link doesn't work)

https://youtu.be/sFmdFiUUa0s?si=twpQWpt5KHaQ2-40&t=10818

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545235#Comment_122545235

I think we coped with them because all control schemes were fairly wonky back then, so you had to learn and then remember all different control schemes. Whereas now a lot of control schemes are fairly uniform.

I've toyed with getting the Master Collection to replay 1-3 again, but I'm definitely trepidacious about having to replay MGS1 with those controls. MGS2 & 3 I think are a lot easy to adapt to.

johnny_ultimate

It wasn’t really until the 360 / PS3 era that games - mainly talking first / third action games - really locked into a nearly universal controller control scheme, or at least one that could be easily adapted for a particular game’s individual needs. Before that there were no real set rules so developers had much more leeway.

I think it’s been mostly for the best, as the vast majority of games are easy to just settle into now for anyone with any experience. But it definitely makes older games harder to return to, and it’s not always easy to adapt some older control schemes for modern games - as the Tomb Raider rereleases show, a modern control scheme still requires tweaks and workarounds to offer the same functionality as the older version. Other older games I’ve gone back to and my brain just takes ages to rewire itself to everything.

Retr0gamer

I think in a way we have lost a lot having control schemes so homogenized. In ways it's good for accessibility but it can limit creativity. I mean look at souls games now and how down the likes of giant bomb were on its control scheme.

I do feel the metal gear games try to do a bit too much with their controls from the second game on. The pressure sensitive buttons on the dualshock 2 were new and once you got a hmag of them it was a nice way to ease off and not fire a shot in first person. When twin snakes came to GameCube and you had to press a second button it felt very intuitive. I actually feel the controls are worse for MGS2 and 3 in recent releases because theyve had to use more complex controls to compensate for the pressure sensitive controls of those games.

MGS1 is pretty easy to get the hang of. It controls and feels great. You just have to get used to holding down Square to auto aim and releasing it fires a shot (to come out of it without firing you have to unequip, the MGS2 way ends up feeling better).

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545359#Comment_122545359

The pressure-sensitive controls for MGS2 also affect the Vamp boss fight, where (canonically) he can judge and anticipate your movements by the way your muscles are tensing up, so to shoot him you're supposed to be lighter on the controls so your muscles aren't as tense. Which is kind of a cool way to utilise the controls, but also, pretty annoying to use when knives are being thrown at your face and also not that adaptable to other versions of the game (re-releases or ports).

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545299#Comment_122545299

I have the master collection, was a waste of money in the end as I couldn't ever get used to the MGS1 controls and camera angle.

The camera angle is wild, you have times where you literally can't see where you are going. You can walk around a corner and be spotted because the camera angle is just totally wrong, you didn't see the enemy there.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545437#Comment_122545437

You're meant to be looking at the radar at all times. You can even see their vision cones.

Actually someone was saying how the substance camera makes MGS3 too easy. I played the original game and you couldn't really see enemies in that so you had to use first person view as well as all the radar options to figure enemy positions out. The thing was the animals in the environment would be picked out as well so you had to use a variety of options just to work it out. I played the HD versions and didn't need these at all.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545505#Comment_122545505

But the radar didn't always help either. The only way to be sure was to peek-look every single corner.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545505#Comment_122545505

The radar is key, but there are a few areas where it's jammed or if you're going up/down stairs you can get caught out because their cone of vision isn't showing. Or of course you can be in Caution and trying to make a break for it and not realise an enemy is around the corner. But it's fairly reliable the majority of the time.

But it's where I vehemently disagree when anyone tries to say the gameplay of MGS3 is just MGS2 but in a jungle. The cones of vision are gone, and the radars and sensors you have are limited in their application and how long you can use them. That's why the stealth gameplay in MGS3 is so good. You can be right at an enemy's ankles and not been seen with the right camo, and enemies have far better (and unknown) range in their vision so you can't always just run past them if they're far enough away because you don't know if they'll still see you or not. Makes the stealth far more exciting.

Of course, you mostly just end up tranq'ing all enemies with a long-distance headshot anyway, but you at least have to put the work in to identify where they are first.

CatInABox

Star Wars Outlaws is getting some incredible reviews!

Incredibly bad ones, that is….

2/5 from eurogamer.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545639#Comment_122545639

A Ubisoft game is mediocre? I am SHOCKED! Shocked I tells you!

brady12

Just about enough in it that I will try tonight/tomorrow on ubisoft plus on xbox

Retr0gamer

Seema the devs said they took influence for the open world from red Dead redemption 2 so makes sense that all the complaints about the open world are that it's boring and devoid of anything to do.

CastorTroy

To be fair, it's getting more positive reviews as well. But it's Ubisoft so will have its price cut quick enough.

Assuming people remember that it released. Like when reading comments about it, I was reminded that that Avatar game came out.

Exclamation Marc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122545639#Comment_122545639

That's not really representative to be fair.

Currently sitting on 76 on Metacritic for the PS5 version which is perfectly reasonable (81% positive reviews, 17% mixed reviews, 2% negative reviews) and reflects a generally good game. Xbox and PC versions both sitting at 77.

The Eurogamer one is literally the only 'incredibly bad one' (at time of writing).