|
|
Post by kitten on Nov 7, 2010 21:19:09 GMT -5
Isn't Metal Gear 2 the one where you use an owl to convince a guard that it's nighttime? And feed chocolate to flesh-eating hamsters, or something? I read through that big long rant about it that somebody posted, and yeah... it sounds fun, but impossible to take seriously in any way. (: -Tom Don't forget squeaky sand.  The plot of Ghost Babel, iirc, was actually heavily inspired by Metal Gear 2. Only without as much ridiculous shit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2010 21:20:09 GMT -5
As was MGS. It's essentially the same game. Kind of funny how Snake completely forgets about the details of what he did in Zanzibar, aside from Fox and Big Boss, in the span of six years.
|
|
|
|
Post by X-pert74 on Nov 7, 2010 21:20:19 GMT -5
They're just poisonous hamsters, if I recall correctly. And it's not like the other games don't have their fair share of silliness. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy the series  |
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Nov 7, 2010 23:31:14 GMT -5
Yeah, the fact that it doesn't quite take itself seriously is one of the reasons I can take it seriously.
And not in that "one comic relief guy" sort of "not taking it seriously" that your average "serious" game does. I mean that level of absolute insanity that can only happen in a video game.
It's also the reason I love No More Heroes and Killer 7. Kind of a shame nothing has surfaced about Project S, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Nov 8, 2010 0:20:30 GMT -5
While Metal Gear 2's plot is indeed deeper than the original game, it's kinda generic compared to the Metal Gear Solid series. Kojima basically ripped off most of the plot from some war novel and made it into a video game. Solid Snake had very little character development, Big Boss's motivation is one-dimensional compared to the later games, and every other character was kinda just there. The only character who I felt was properly fleshed out was Gray Fox and it's kinda disappointing that his backstory was badly revised in MPO.
|
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Nov 8, 2010 4:23:38 GMT -5
Why separate it from the so-called higher/deeper experiences games can offer? Aren't those experiences fun? Uhh... not necessarily? That's kind of the point. At least I wouldn't call The Pianist a fun movie or Kafka's The Trial a fun book. Not really sure how that's a misconception. I mean, if you're not entertained or learning something (which is, in and of itself, a form of entertainment) I think the problem is that your definitions differ a bit from the conventional. For example, I doubt most people would consider something like reading through the Encyclopaedia Britannica a form of "entertainment". |
|
|
|
Post by akumajobelmont on Nov 8, 2010 5:39:23 GMT -5
Why separate it from the so-called higher/deeper experiences games can offer? Aren't those experiences fun? Uhh... not necessarily? That's kind of the point. At least I wouldn't call The Pianist a fun movie or Kafka's The Trial a fun book. True. I recently objected myself to the movie 'A Serbian Film'. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING about that film is fun. Or entertaining. The subject matter is horrid, the boundaries that are crossed are shocking. But, as an experience, especially for those looking for something that they have never seen before in film, it's perhaps untouchable. I'd feel guilty recommending it to anybody because of what is contained within the film, but it's something that I'm almost thankful to have experienced (in a bizarre way), and won't likely ever forget. But it couldn't be called 'fun' in any measure. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Nov 8, 2010 6:14:25 GMT -5
Why separate it from the so-called higher/deeper experiences games can offer? Aren't those experiences fun? Uhh... not necessarily? That's kind of the point. At least I wouldn't call The Pianist a fun movie or Kafka's The Trial a fun book. Or Pathologic a fun game. Yet it is one of my all time favourites. |
|
|
|
Post by Strider on Nov 8, 2010 6:42:54 GMT -5
Forgive me if this sounds repetitive, but I've got the SaGa games on the brain recently.
As someone who frequently tries to talk up SaGa 2- on the grounds that it's awesome- one of the statements I frequently hear people make is that it's impossibly hard because Mutants (your casters) lose abilities totally at random. The thing is that, unlike in the original SaGa, this isn't true- abilities can be rearranged, and mutants will always lose the last ability on their list when they learn a new one.
This is why you should read the manual!
- HC
|
|
|
|
Post by loempiavreter on Nov 8, 2010 10:10:47 GMT -5
Why separate it from the so-called higher/deeper experiences games can offer? Aren't those experiences fun? Uhh... not necessarily? That's kind of the point. At least I wouldn't call The Pianist a fun movie or Kafka's The Trial a fun book. The Pianist bored me to death, so in my opinion it's NOT a good film. What are you trying to say? |
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Nov 8, 2010 10:51:41 GMT -5
This is why you should read the manual! - HC Quoted for the truth. I can't recount the number of times people would complain about a flaw in a game that doesn't exist for not reading the manual. |
|
|
|
Post by retr0gamer on Nov 8, 2010 11:14:56 GMT -5
One that gets on my nerves is that videogames don't age.
Goldeneye looks terrible now, has terrible AI and the framerate makes it nearly unplayable. In retrospect robocop vs. Terminator was a poor game. FPS games have moved on since the original Halo. FF7 doesn't seem such a good RPG once the graphic sheen is dulled.
There's plenty of games that are timeless but sometimes a game really wasn't that good when you look back at it. Still have arguments about this with people though and they say I hate the games when I don't, I do like them but I'm just being realistic in pointing out their flaws that are more noticeable now.
As for games not having to be fun, kind of true. Silent Hill 2 is a perfect example. Not a great game to play but one hell of an experience. I'd also lump Vagrant Story in there as well. I didn't really enjoy playing it enough but the music, story and visuals all came together to make it thoroughly worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Nov 8, 2010 11:55:56 GMT -5
The Pianist bored me to death, so in my opinion it's NOT a good film. What are you trying to say? What are you trying to say? You've posted a contradicting opinion, which is all well and good, but you seem to have forgotten to make a point. One that gets on my nerves is that videogames don't age. Good ones don't. Though it can be hard to tell the difference between quality and novelty sometimes, at least initially. And even if games don't age, they can still be surpassed - it's not that they're worse in retrospect, but worse in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Nov 8, 2010 12:09:14 GMT -5
Completely and totally disagree. FF7 is still untopped by anything Square Enix has released since, IMHO, and its poor graphics don't take away from the experience one bit.
As pkt said, good games DON'T age.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by loempiavreter on Nov 8, 2010 12:27:12 GMT -5
The Pianist bored me to death, so in my opinion it's NOT a good film. What are you trying to say? What are you trying to say? You've posted a contradicting opinion, which is all well and good, but you seem to have forgotten to make a point. Your implying that The Pianist and Kafka's The Trial, are GOOD products in their mediums. But for something to be good, it has to be enjoyed not? There must be some redeeming factor why you think it is a GOOD product. Like the Silent Hill example someone else gave, it's "an hell of an experience" so that must mean you are enjoying having this experience. |
|
.jpg)
