Gedo said:
Samurai Goomba said:
Gedo said:
Yes, some games deserve such high scores. I always look at the scores, as if they were comparing them to predecessors or games released at the same time.
For instance, Metal Gear Solid 4 was very superior to its predecessor, and also superior to many games released at the time it was released, therefore, I think it deserved those 10 / 10's it got from Gamespot and IGN. (Considering these sites have only given out like six or seven 10's in their history.)
I. DISAGREE.
Okay, I haven't played MGS4, but I've heard a lot of positives and negatives for the game, and it just seems like it's a much inferior game to Subsistence. Besides, I would say that Subsistence itself is a 10/10 game, so I very much doubt any sequel could be much better. If anything, the focus on gunplay and inclusion of an infinite ammo tranq gun and octocam seems like it would completely undermine the skillful stealth the series has always been about. MGS seems like it's always been more fun when your character is sneaking around unseen, and the combat has never been real great. Despite the engine reworking, I doubt it's gotten much more fun.
So, reviews. Well, this topic has kind of been run into the ground. I like Gamespy.
Well, I liked Metal Gear Solid 3 a lot as well, but everything have been improved in MGS4. Better gunplay, way, way, way better CQC, Octo-camo, Metal Gear Mk II, gunshop and upgradeable guns, etc etc. The thing is, you can play the game as a shooter, or as a stealth game. It both feels nice to either sniper three guys in the head and toss a grenade at some PMC's, or playing dead, silently sneak to an enemy, grab him by human shield, shoot two of his comrades, slit his throat or silently choke him to unconsciousness.
Some might say that the story and cinematics are either boring or confusing - I disagree. Yes, the story might be confusing if you haven't played the previous games, but if you haven't, you shouldn't buy the game. You don't walk in to your local bookstore and buy "John's adventures XVII", if you haven't read the previous sixteen books, right?
Okay, fine (interesting how I specifically avoided the cutscene length argument, but you brought it up, anyway), but I've always been a fan of games that use minimal dialogue to say a great deal, even before Yahtzee's whole, "the best writing" speech. My idea of a great video game story is something like Shadow of the Colossus or Silent Hill 2. In my opinion, if a game writer can't make their point in two games worth of dialogue, it isn't worth making.
MGS3 is great because the story is completely self-contained, with only some nods and references to characters from the rest of the series. The ending, for example, is one of the most emotional endings I've ever witnessed in the history of my gaming, and it didn't need the crutch of the rest of the series to achieve this.
The only possible exception to this that I can think of is Xenogears. The story is so good, it really SHOULD have been broken up into several games to make the plot easier to manage. If every part of the series was as good as the first disc, it would have been a flawless masterpiece.
Oh, and octo-camo is NOT a positive thing. It makes the game way too easy. A better idea would be to use the camo from MGS3, but add a quick-access menu (like the weapon select menu from MGS3) for switching camo on the fly.
Actually, this is sort of relevant to reviews. See, I would argue that MGS4 does NOT succeed at what it is trying to do. For example, looking at women's... selves increases your psyche meter. WHAT?!? Isn't this extremely childish, even for MGS? Also, why are there so many women with perfect bodies who don't do up their shirts? See, I would call these flaws, because they work against whatever grand, sweeping message the game is going for.
