Printable View
I played the hell out of MGS2, 3 and even Twin Snakes. I can still go back to the original on the PlayStation just fine. Sorry, I really don't see where you're coming from on the gameplay.
I can't compare Zeldas gameplay, but I was impressed with how good the visuals looked when I picked it up again last November. It had an almost Disney charm to it. And I play these things on a wide-screen TV. When something's aged I know it pretty quickly.
Man it's like talking to OoT fans all over again who still assert the game plays better than all the other entries. :roll2
I never said that. I just didn't see any of the problems you found with it when I go back to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
I had a lot of fun with FFXII. It wasn't a great game for story but was super expansive for exploration, quests and weapon collecting. Would be interested in replaying it at some pointQuote:
Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn
Ocarina of Time is fairly low on my list of Zelda games. I love the top down Birds eye view of games, so things like Oracles of Seasons/Ages, Links awakening, A Link Between Worlds are all my favourites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Wind Waker is my favourite 3D one. I have the HD version on the Wii U. May give it a bash at some point.
I wasn't accusing you of saying it was better I was simply stating that it was like talking to fans who refuse to see problems in the gameplay due to nostalgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJI never said that. I just didn't see any of the problems you found with it when I go back to it. Please get over yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
It is still fun, just really simple in hindsight and for a series known for it's complexity I view this as a sign of it not aging well. It's design is limited by the technology nothing more.
@Mr. Shauna - I prefer top-down as well but I really liked Twilight Princess, I still need to play Wind Waker though which the demo made me wish I had. :(
Wind Waker is my favorite mostly because the combat system included the parry attacks. About to be hit b a sword, dodge out the way and attack then in a weak spot. Worked great for taking out big guys.
It also has a great feeling of adventure and openess with exploration, which apparently is one of the games faults. It is "Too Big" and has long periods of travel time. An 8x8 grind with each 1x1 square taking 1 minute to traverse. Can take ages to get places if you are going across the map.
I love the animation, it looks bad in screenshots but watching it in action is a whole different story.
Oh. My mistake, then. I apologize for getting anal. I see where you're coming from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoI wasn't accusing you of saying it was better I was simply stating that it was like talking to fans who refuse to see problems in the gameplay due to nostalgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJI never said that. I just didn't see any of the problems you found with it when I go back to it. Please get over yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
It is still fun, just really simple in hindsight and for a series known for it's complexity I view this as a sign of it not aging well. It's design is limited by the technology nothing more.
It's my fault for not being more clear.
Well ya know I was younger, or we were younger, and we had lower expectations maybe. MI was GREAT AND INNOVATIVE because while you could shoot and stuff, you could also do espionage levels and disguise yourself and you had all the gizmos....Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22I came in here to say this one actually, but here's the thing: it was bad even when it came out. But it was good in the "it's so bad it's good," kind of way. There was so much wrong with it, but it also had some cool ideas and managed to be entertaining in spite of itself. I still love the game to death, but I will concede that as bad as it was when it was released, it has gotten so much worse with age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
I dunno, I just remember it seemed like something really new and interesting but you're right, it was always bad and I was just too sheltered to realize that.
I never said the AI would work in a modern game (well, it would, just not one with the production values of MGS2 or 3 obviously). But it doesn't need to be the most advanced thing ever for the game to still be incredibly fun and play extremely well. You might as well be arguing that because we live in a world with games like Mario World, Yoshi's Island, or Mario 64, that Super Mario Bros. no longer plays well because there's less level variety, fewer enemies, enemy patterns are significantly simpler, and there are much fewer secrets to find. But that's really not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoIt never felt natural and I don't believe for a second it worked well. Maybe for the limitations of the PS1 but I feel later games have improved this to some varying degree. The movement with it it is very clunky and I find it gets in the way more that I would like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
The A.I. works for the time but not anymore. Seriously go through MGS2 or 3 and then back to MGS1 and you will understand what I mean about the A.I. not being nearly as good as I would like it to be. The issue here is that technology has marched on and unlike RPGs which have remained pretty static when you look at the "engine" action/stealth/platform games are the ones that really show the power of a new system. MGS1 is a masterpiece of it's time but it doesn't hold up as well as it's predecessors from a gameplay standpoint, hell I even feel that Metal Gear 2 has held up better.Quote:
And the AI may have been a lot simpler, but that's part of the reason the game was a much tighter and smoother playing experience. Not to say the later games are worse because of the AI or anything because they're not, but MGS very much plays like a game that knows what it's about and does it extremely well, while the later games have much more breadth to them as far as what you can do which is also cool, but leads to a bit more of a balancing act from designer and player. A balancing act which hasn't always worked so well (tranquilizer gun in MGS2, the stealth and action dichotomy in MGS4).
I feel the same way about MGS. No, the AI isn't advanced, no you can't aim as fluidly and completely as you can in later games. But none of that actually matters because it's not those other games. It doesn't need better AI to make up for how easy first person aiming and a tranquilizer gun made things. Or to adjust for the fact that you can change camo and hide, quite literally, in plain sight. It's a much different style of stealth game than it's successors, and what it is plays unbelievably well. It's smooth, the controls work extremely well given the level design and gameplay they're attached to, the AI is exactly what it should be for how complex the game is. Doom didn't stop being an extremely fun game that plays very well just because we got true 3D aim and better AI. Same goes for MGS.
And as far as the aiming, like I said, I don't remember ever having an actual issue with it. It's simple to use, predictable, and quick. And then after spending as much time as I did playing VR Missions it got even easier. At a certain point you don't even think about it anymore. By the time I stopped playing religiously I could run towards a guard, three shot him to kill him, and reload my gun without even slowing down. It's a system that just works. It works well for what it needs to do, and when you get good at it, you can be REALLY good at it.
I'll be honest, I actually think that stopping and third person aiming in MGS2 and 3 is far more cumbersome. It makes sense to some degree since they weren't trying to be action games at all, but it's still cumbersome. If the AI and the rest of the game design wasn't set up to work around it I'd find it almost insufferable these days. I actually think that one mechanic has aged more poorly than MGS has.
Oh it was definitely new, and it had some great ideas that some later games kind of took up either influenced by the game or just by accident, but it's hard for me to say it was amazing when it came out since MGS came out about three months later. It was a fun time and I probably cut it more slack than I otherwise would have because it was so interesting and because of my age and the time it came out, but once you realize it's contemporaries were games like MGS, Goldeneye, etc. it was hard not to realize even then that it was rough around the edges to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
That said, it's one of the few N64 games I held onto back when I was liquidating a lot of my collection a few months back. So even now I love the game more than I should. :)
As I pointed out to ToriJ, it's not like I feel MGS1 is crap, I just don't have as much fun with it like I used to, I mean when I can literally walk around guards (like almost touching them) and they can't see me because they have no peripheral vision I feel there is an issue. It just wasn't the magical experience for me the last time I played through it as it was back in 1998. That's not to say it wasn't still fun but the newer games have spoiled me. I have mixed feelings about the FPS targeting in the the next two games as well but I grew to appreciate it more after MGS3 Subsistence cause the over the shoulder camera control sucked the difficulty out of the game and I was annoyed to see it stay in the series but what can you do?
You shouldn't take my opinion so seriously though, just because I feel it aged badly is not an objective statement of it's value, it was just the only game I can think of where I don't enjoy it as much as I used to but still loved. The majority of badly aged games I could list and most people would agree with me on are largely games that were never good to begin with. I mean Evil Zone has aged terribly as a fighter but it was a terrible fighter to begin with, regardless I still love it. MGS1 is my second favorite MGS, only behind MGS3 and it's largely because I just don't have as much fun with it as a game.
My inner child will strike me down for this, but Quackshot. I still think it is a solid game, and it remains one of my favorite Genesis titles, but playing it now I don't find it the masterpiece I used to think it was.
T2: The Arcade Game is another one that comes to mind. I dropped so much money into that machine as a kid, and, playing it again recently, I don't quite know why. The gun on it was really cool, and I still like it, but outside of the Terminator license the rest of the game is generally boring.
Outlaw for the 2600 also deserves mention. I played that all the time with my neighbor, but after playing it again not too long ago, Combat is a superior title that offers everything Outlaw does, minus the cowboys. Still an okay game, but not the 'turn-to' title it used to be for me.
Damn near my whole Sega Genesis collection. Especially when counting 32X and SegaCD. 32X had almost exclusively garbage. But for some reason I continuously tried to enjoy the Doom game. And for SegaCD I had a thing for FMV games back in the day. I wasn't one of those people who cringed immediately when it came out. I embraced interactive movies, as long as it wasn't just a movie with quick-time events. Acted cut-scenes was fine by me. But damn that stuff is ugly these days. And all the controls are so garbage.. In all of them
I kick everyone's ass at Evil Zone. It was the one fighting game in all the world asides from wrestling (if they even count) where I could own my cousins who beat me at every other fighter in existence. If life was Evil Zone, I would be a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Don't mind me, I just wanted to brag. Rep for knowing what Evil Zone is.