You got it, but I actually liked the protagonist's name.I'm trying to avoid googling the main guy's name, I just remember it was something super generic white-guy sounding like, Ethan James or Gabe Logan or Riley Marks or some shit. Damn....It's kind of fun though thinking of the most generic names possible.
You heard me and don't let nostalgia rule over your opinion so strongly. I'm sure you have fond memories of sneaking around Shadow Moses as a snotty-nosed kid, but MSG2 craps all over it and then some. MGS2 > MGS3 > MGS1
Yes, it will but it is great knowing that inherent bias. I have played both games at their time of coming out. I like MGS for the story, characters and cinematic angle. As far as the game I would like to play - Syphon Filter 1 is the more fun one for me.I'm sure nostalgia will impact how many will answer this question
Movement in SF1 felt pretty good controlwise and at least tried to give you the illusion of controlling a real human (some say running looked funky, but it felt more alive than whatever that was in MGS). In MGS Snake could spin around for days looking like a merry-go-round, crawling felt terrible if you had to crawl into a duct. Due to changing camera angles sometimes you went the wrong way and it made aiming the gun very cumbersome in the beginning (that´s probably why the ordinary enemies are such pushovers).One of the first things I like about Syphon Filter are of course, the controls. The game actually sets up the first stages to accommodate you to the control scheme and in comparison to MGS1, it's fast and fluid. You have a real 3D third-person environment instead of a mostly overhead isometric view of the action, which I believe gives the player greater immersion within the levels itself. Switching weapons, using gadgets, moving around, aiming, interacting with objects or switches, it's all intuitive, fast, and fluid, so it never frustrates you or takes you out the game.
I agree, playing the MGS it was immediately apparent that it is a highly fictional, hammy Hollywood-esque story. SF1 made me think that it could happen (aside from the last missions and the flamethrower duel). In MGS you could watch and read the stuff through menus to get more detaield story, but reading that made me laugh (it´s like in dunkey Diablo 3 video - Big Boss is back!!! - are you even killing him??). One other thing is the dialogue - as a non-native English speaker I found the English dialogue in Syphon Filter 1 to be pleasant - they all sounded like Americans and conversations were serviceable (Markinson especially was a joy to listen to, Mara Aramov had a great accent).Moving on to what may be the most controversial opinion, I believe Syphon Filter has a better, more grounded, and more coherent storyline. Metal Gear Solid 1 may not have been as bat shit as later games in the series, but it was still pretty nuts, and being nuts for the sake of being nuts can sometimes prevent you from writing scenarios that engage the player, instead you end up confusing them. Something like the enemy setting up a trap explosive within a train station destroying the entire tunnel, with you having to fight your way out of a blazing inferno, is a scenario that the type of writing MGS1 had wouldn't come up with. There are all kinds of twists and turns that engage the player throughout Syphon Filter, while in Metal Gear you just kind of shrug or maybe get a short laugh out of its cutscenes. Additionally, you have to face another issue with MGS1's storyline, and that issue would be it referencing two previous Metal Gear games that never released outside of Japan, as a result the context is lost on the player.
Yup, just rolling around in SF1 was really fun. Movement in MGS is terrible. Weapons in SF1 were also great to use and listen to (taser frying, .45, Shotgun - Combat Shotgun not so much, K3G4 - I caled it a duckgun, ´cuz the sound reminded me of a duck, M-79 - the sound it makes the moment a grenade leaves the barrel is just beautiful, various handguns - G18, HK5). MGS had a lot of weapons but camera angles and crappy movement made them very unsatisfying to use.Gameplay is the most important factor for games, everyone knows this, and this is where I think the biggest difference rears its head. MGS1 has some decent gameplay, but it's very restricted, the controls take awhile to get used to, and are not very fluid or intuitive, and as you continue to play the game for hours the repetition and tedium starts to set in.
For Syphon Filter, the gameplay is fast, fluid, intuitive, and more open so you can approach situations several different ways, thus keeping things relatively fresh. The better controls play a key part here, especially for the gun play and overall movement, which felt so satisfying as you snuck or gun-run through well-designed 3D spaces. As you progress though the stages the game continues to present new ways to play, new enemies, new gadgets, and new combat strategies until near the end of the game. This makes it hard for repetition to start taking its toll on the player, and helps with replay value, something MGS1 has trouble with..
Yes it was. Some bosses were merciless (especially the last one).Syphon Filter was more challenging, and the combat was better than MGS especially because of the camera angle.
But Metal Gear Solid had better story, characters and music. Had more "soul" too.
It's apples and oranges at the end of the day.
If MGS WERE a 3D action game. It was mostly 3D with fixed camera (which effectively makes it 2D) STEALTH game (action was terrible in there).The only game that could really remotely challenge MGS as a good stealth-action 3D game was:
Just quoting for truth, but those stealth missions in Syphon Filter kicked for the first time much more ass than anything in MGS (expo, in catacombs, Kazachstan ...) .They aren't remotely similar in anything gameplay wise, MGS was a cinematic stealth game first and foremost while Syphon Filter was an action game with spy themes and an occasional stealth mission.
I absoultly LOVE SF and i own every game in the series and love them all, if there's one thing SF has over MGS is that it didn't end it run with a dud like Metal Gear Survive (and IMO V) and Bend knew when to put the series to rest.
Just quoting for truth. Also I liked the mission based gameplay of SF and how it reset your equipment after big mission was over. You could then easily jump into the part you wanted. Try doin that in MGS.metal gear solid was mostly cutscenes and codec bullshit , syphon philter was a actually a playable game
I guess having a generic name is a sin now. As a non-English, I thought it was cool - particularly when friends called him Gabe, but enemies - GABRIEL LOGAN, LOGAN!!!I'm trying to avoid googling the main guy's name, I just remember it was something super generic white-guy sounding like, Ethan James or Gabe Logan or Riley Marks or some shit. Damn....It's kind of fun though thinking of the most generic names possible.
The ground it broke in story management it lost on gameplay and exposition handling.MGS was more ground breaking in the way it told a story and the plot unfolded. Syphon Filter however was a good game, I thought the running animation was dumb but the game was challenging. I really liked the second Syphon Filter game.
I gained access to internet around the year 2003 and found out how well recieved MGS was. If you had asked me at the time, I would have bet my money on SF1. MGS2 - Yeah, it does.The original Metal Gear Solid was one overrated game. Had some cool ideas and mechanics, but was incredibly short and didn't mesh as well as the other titles. MGS2 on the other hand blows it out of the water from all perspectives.
the game that one enjoys more should be the better game in my opinion , i guess mgs has that block buster feel to itMGS has better level design, story, presentation, boss fights, creativity, gameplay options. Pretty much everything.
But 13 year old me simply enjoyed shooting dudes in the face more than sneaking around all game.
I don't really agree with the groundbreaking comment, it's something that's repeated a lot but I don't think it applies, most major stealth games were created in isolation from each other or had their gameplay come from computer games that focused on disguises and shadows. The one game I can think of that wouldn't exist without MGS1, Splinter Cell, still got most of its gameplay mechanics from the PC stealth games and only some from MGS. Eventually, sequels to MGS would adopt features from those PC games and Syphon Filter.
Both are great games though, you can't really go wrong with either.
the game that one enjoys more should be the better game in my opinion , i guess mgs has that block buster feel to it
so in your opinion it is a dull game which is not goodI have to disagree - "Is this a good game" and "did you enjoy playing it" are two different questions with sometimes different answers. In my case, a good example is God of War - I can't play it for more than about 5 minutes without getting bored with it - but I can see this is because I don't like the gameplay, not because the game is badly constructed.