Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Heh, nice observation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MGS3 gamespot review 8.7
- Thread starter SomeDude
- Start date
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I just gave a call to my EB (in Canada) and was told that "the game was supposed to come out on friday" (WTF?!) "but we just got word that it got pushed back a day - so saturday!"Um, this is little off topic but somewhat related seeing as how I can't make my own judgement of the game since I CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE. Does Best Buy, Target, or Circuit City have it in yet? GS and EB says they'll get it tomorrow.
Thanks... I think I'm going to go over to the US and buy this tomorrow, although I have it preordered in that EB here.
I'm pretty sure there are definitely some story spoilers. I can't say for sure because I skipped every paragraph that started with "The story is..." or alike.
The problem is that you have to constantly switch it depending on the direction you're heading in. More often then not, however, you'll be switching to the first person view just to get a decent lay of the land. I admire Kojima in not wanting to implement a third person view from over the shoulder for the game as it would drastically change the overall feel of it from something of stealth to white knuckle action, but in an environment like this, having a default camera that limits how you play the game is ridiculous.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I figured. When you are running southwards, you definitely have to switch the camera all the way down for example. I don't mind it, though, as 3rd person camera, like in SC, needs constant adjustments anyways. On the other hand, I just really like that cinematic feel and the atmosphere the MGS-type of camera gives, even if it's sometimes detrimental to gameplay.
GermanOfficer
Member
The score does not affect my desire for this game....not a bit
I hope my copy ships today or tomorrow so I can play it by the end of thge next week.
Go videogames+
I hope my copy ships today or tomorrow so I can play it by the end of thge next week.
Go videogames+
KilledByBill
Member
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
As it shouldn't. If you read what he says in the review, you'll probably want the game even more
Well, I still think the environment is what really makes the pains of the camera apparent. In MGS2 or MGS, every environment you encounter is essentially man-made with lots of corners and hallways to work with. The camera actually benefits you a GREAT deal in those instances. There's rare occasions in those games when you need to see further then the default view, but in MGS2 in particular, everytime you do, the camera perspective changes. Think of the balls out action at the end of MGS2 and how the camera is ALWAYS pulled back and behind your character more then enough to see down the entire length of the area. These scenes are very action specific however and actually don't need any camera tricks to imply that stealth is required to make up for a weak camera system which is the dilemma I'm actually directly referring to here with MGS3 when it comes to altering the camera at all.
Mashing said:
I guess I just didn't see it take off so fast in the others.
But yes, this general...
"Oh no you don't, fanboys! Get your asses back into this thread and complain! We didn't pop all of this popcorn for nothing!"
... behavior is getting fucking stale. It's sad that people are fishing for violent fan reaction just so they can justify a dogpile.
What happened to the good old days when we actually waited for gamers to overreact?
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
I knew that gamespot would give it a low score, just like they have with other games. As someone said, this is a great review for a MGS fanboy, so I'm happy.
There is something that worried me about the review though:
"So you'll need to move carefully and slowly to avoid detection, especially since you don't have access to a fancy radar like you did in the previous games. You'll need to actually look and listen for signs of foes in your vicinity, which gives the game a very deliberate pace."
Does this mean that the game will have slow gameplay like Splinter Cell?
There is something that worried me about the review though:
"So you'll need to move carefully and slowly to avoid detection, especially since you don't have access to a fancy radar like you did in the previous games. You'll need to actually look and listen for signs of foes in your vicinity, which gives the game a very deliberate pace."
Does this mean that the game will have slow gameplay like Splinter Cell?
The penalties for being detected are no where near as severe in MGS3 as they are in Splinter Cell plus the fact that you actually take far less damage from gunfire then in any other MGS game to date helps out a great deal as well. It seems you can still play this game however which way you want to and the environment affords you far more oppurtunities to be truly creative when approaching new challenges.
Escape Goat
Member
Hollywood Video and Blockbuster didn't have it yet
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
I like the idea that you can be more creative, but it also sounds that the game will be slow without the radar. As far as i know there are three different radars. one that shows you where all still or still lifeform is, One that detects both moving and still but makes a sound that can be heard by everyone and one that makes a higher frequency beep the closer you move to something but can only be heard by you. it does sound like it will work well, but I dont know how well it will work in indoor environments.Ryu said:
skip said:
People really have a skewed view of what exactly are "spoilers." The fact that you play most of MGS2 as Raiden is not a spoiler, it is a GAMEPLAY FEATURE. The only reason it was a spoiler is because Kojima was being a douche bag and tried to (for some unnecessary reason) decieve the public into thinking MGS2 was primarily about Snake and it wasn't. It's the same with Halo. The fact that you play as the Arbiter is not a spoiler, it is a GAMEPLAY FEATURE. Bungie were just being douches about it and instead of telling people and advertising it as a feature of the game, they tried to hide it and it somehow morphed into being a "spoiler."
KilledByBill
Member
After reading the full review and listening to the video it seems like Greg gave the game a very fair review.
I like what he said in the video review, that the game knows its audience and if you've lenjoyed the series up till now then you're really going to love Snake Eater. I also liked what he mentioned about the depth of the games characters; how you'll learn more about Snake and his motivations as you play through the game but also just as much about great characters like The Boss and Ocelot.
I can understand his complaints as well, if you come in hoping that magically the game is going to play like Splinter Cell then you'll be disappointed. But as a big fan of the series I can't wait!
I like what he said in the video review, that the game knows its audience and if you've lenjoyed the series up till now then you're really going to love Snake Eater. I also liked what he mentioned about the depth of the games characters; how you'll learn more about Snake and his motivations as you play through the game but also just as much about great characters like The Boss and Ocelot.
I can understand his complaints as well, if you come in hoping that magically the game is going to play like Splinter Cell then you'll be disappointed. But as a big fan of the series I can't wait!
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
Well then I'm happy. MGS and MGS2 are my 2 most favourite games, so this seems to be a good thing for me.KilledByBill said:
Did he say that the gameplay was similar to the previous two games in the video review?
Oh! My Car!
Member
In before whoever's next!
Oh, a bit late for that now it seems
Oh, a bit late for that now it seems
KilledByBill
Member
Yes, this was something he talked about quite a bit. Greg made a point to mention that even with the new features added, such as CQC, MGS2 players will feel right at home in the sequel. He talked about this as another apect of the game that was great for fans of the series but probably wouldn't win over people who didn't care for the series trademark gameplay.
It also seems that now that much of the gameplay has shifted to the jungle environment, it gives the player more freedom to either run & gun their way through or play the hunter and quietly take out enemies one by one.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
I watched the video review on GS, and I have to say the review seems fair and balanced, but when he says that fans of the series so far will enjoy it above all it worries me, because I've been getting somewhat tired of the series now that the games have been out for a while. I'm still going to give this a rent, as I'm curious to see what happens in the story, but boss battles aside, I'm just not confident the gameplay will bring anything fresh to the table.
KilledByBill
Member
Based on what I played of the demo, it seems like the "freshness" of the gameplay will depend on how the gamer decides to use the new features. You can beat the demo without ever using the CQC or you can go through it only using CQC(lots of slit throats that time). You can pretty much ignore the camo system and just gun all of the guards down or you can take full advantage of camo and either get the drop on guards or evade them entirely.
Personally I'd rather have it this way since, if you choose, you can change the experience every time you play. The jungle environment seems to have really expanded these posibilities compared to the Big Shell or Tanker levels in MGS2.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Agreed. I'll still stomach the bad camera, cause I love MGS. Kojima needs to Splinter Cell-ize it just abit (camera wise), and they'll be set.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
KilledByBill said:
I disagree with this. It's something people always say to try to pump up the replay value of a game that has superfulous or faulty design built into it's features. I think the truth of the matter is that finding that delicate balance between added/essential features and simply adding some feature fluff is what separates great games from average.
Understand, I'm not knocking this game in particular which I haven't played, but the truth is when a designer adds a bunch of small features to the gameplay which only manage to change some minor cosmetics and force you to make pointless changes, you feel it when you play the game. It makes those choices that much less important. I think that's why the little changes a game like GTA makes make it so noticeable to people who care about such things.
Just my take, I hope the game is good. I must say that Gamespot tends to take a much more sober look at those things than IGN does, and it's never been more noticeable than the last couple months.
Tortfeasor
Member
All of the gamestops in Chicago have it in now... I picked mine up around 1:30pm.
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
Thank goodness. now all my worries are gone.KilledByBill said:
This is what I love about Kojima. No matter how many people hate his games, he will stay loyal to the MGS fanbase. I can only hope many more MGS games come from him.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Metal Gear Solid, widely considered to be one of the greatest games of the '90s right? It got an 8.5 on GS. Then they said MGS2 was worse....but gave it a higher score than its predecessor. Now they say MGS3 is better than MGS2, but give it a lower score.
The MGS3 review also follows the classic GS review format by raving about it until the very last paragraph where some personal bias or minor complaint comes into play reducing the game's overall score.
i'm sorry, but if they are willing to overlook all the flaws in GTA (which are numerous such as a bad camera, slowdown, etc) then why are they so hard on MGS3 which has less flaws, new gameplay features and adresses and fixes the "problems' or concerns fans had about the last game? i read the review and i didnt quite agree with everything that he said but he wasnt completely off-base either.
The MGS3 review also follows the classic GS review format by raving about it until the very last paragraph where some personal bias or minor complaint comes into play reducing the game's overall score.
i'm sorry, but if they are willing to overlook all the flaws in GTA (which are numerous such as a bad camera, slowdown, etc) then why are they so hard on MGS3 which has less flaws, new gameplay features and adresses and fixes the "problems' or concerns fans had about the last game? i read the review and i didnt quite agree with everything that he said but he wasnt completely off-base either.
sonycowboy
Member
I honesty don't care about the review. I can tell you this is the best PS2 game to be released this year, unequivocably. Better than GTA:SA, better than R&C, better than Jak 3. IMO wink
I can understand some gripes about the camera and the healing thing. There is a level of abstraction that is inherent in the MGS engine (hello, shooting a snake creates a floting circle of food for you).
That being said, the new camo gameplay, the CQC, the unfreakenbelievable boss fights, the incredible diversity of levels and gameplay to go with the most gorgeous graphical engine yet designed for the PS2 take those few gripes and completely wipe them away as if they don't exist.
My problem is with reviews like this that seem to be of the school of thought that you start with a 10 and then you subtract points for problems you find. A game is MUCH more than the sum of it's parts. It's the overall experience and his reviews rarely convey that to me. I can easily see GTA:SA being a 9.9, but if I were to subtract .1's and .2's for every little problem I find, it would be lucky to be a 9.0 game.
I can understand some gripes about the camera and the healing thing. There is a level of abstraction that is inherent in the MGS engine (hello, shooting a snake creates a floting circle of food for you).
That being said, the new camo gameplay, the CQC, the unfreakenbelievable boss fights, the incredible diversity of levels and gameplay to go with the most gorgeous graphical engine yet designed for the PS2 take those few gripes and completely wipe them away as if they don't exist.
My problem is with reviews like this that seem to be of the school of thought that you start with a 10 and then you subtract points for problems you find. A game is MUCH more than the sum of it's parts. It's the overall experience and his reviews rarely convey that to me. I can easily see GTA:SA being a 9.9, but if I were to subtract .1's and .2's for every little problem I find, it would be lucky to be a 9.0 game.