Emma was okay, but Rose...argh! Go Mei Ling!
Metal Gear Solid 1 (for Playstation 1)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (for Playstation 2)
gawsh
Emma was okay, but Rose...argh! Go Mei Ling!
KAKAW.
I'm SURE I posted in this thread...
MGS 2 was a showcase. Plain and simple. It was an example of things to come. It was:
Based ON MGS 1 anyway
so...
In MGS 1, the characters were cool. Gray Fox. Sexy. The DARPA Chief and Kenneth Baker and the bosses. Sexcellent. My particular fav was Snake himself. HE DODGES A DAMN TANK BULLET, FOR CHRIST SAKE.
Above the Rest
I think MGS1 was way better then MGS2. The story line was better. The boss's where better aka Mantis, and I got to play as snake through the whole game. The development of radien was bad, the game didn't draw you to that character. MGS2 was basically a run-down version of MGS1.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A START
The player wasn't really suppose to be drawn to Raiden. The reason you do not play as Snake is because Kojima wanted to evolve Snake as a character. Show his emotions and stuff from another angle, from someone elses eyes. And that was impossible if he was the playable character. But he's still the main character. Hideo Kojima himself said that.
While Raiden is just a 'shit' compared to Snake he certainly is not a bad character. And the voice acting is great. Good job Quinton Flynn.
KAKAW.
It occurs to me that I haven't stated why I DISLIKE MGS 2.
Differing with many other people, I did not find the story confusing at all. I am a veteran of those psycho Jap films that "apparently" make no sense. Nor was my beef with Raiden. I hated him, but that was no reason for me to hate the game.
My beef was with the ATMOSPHERE. It felt very contrived, as if it was trying to be something it wasn't. The objectives were quite undefined as well. During MGS you had a cklear goal, which helped further the story well. In MGS 2, you were just covered in mystery until it became all revealed in the end, whereas in 1 you were tantalized.
It's Good To Be King
i like'd MGS1 better than MGS2 only because u had to play as Raiden through the entire game and u got to play as snake about 10 min of the game, thats what pissed me off, so if i could have voted for MGS1 i would have
Skullfucked the ecosystem
I really find it quite silly that people seem to hate the game merely because you don't play as Snake the entire time. Rather then like/dislike the game based on it's gameplay merits as Toto did, people are willing to hate a game just cause you don't play as a certain character. I don't get the logic behind that concept. Why is change so bothersome to some people?
gawsh
This is the opinion I`ve been looking for. I just love Solid Snake, but I didn`t think MGS2 sucked because you play as Raiden. I admit it, I think Raiden is kinda cool.
Skullfucked the ecosystem
Raiden never bothered me as much as I thought he would based on all the constant whining people did about him before I got around to playing the game. In fact, I didn't really have any trouble with him as a character at all. And I thought having Snake come into the picture in a different capacity was cool.
Cookie Thief
I think Toto put my exact thought into words...
I don't hate Raiden, he looks younger/more inexperienced when compared to Snake, but that doesn't make him bad... He IS a bit Whiny though... :\ Overall, I think he's a cool character, but playing as Snake is much more rewarding in a way...
Rose sucks, Emma rocks (though I don't justify her reasons for hating Otacon). Otacon lost his cool factor in MGS2...
The best one, gameplay-wise, is MGS2... Story-wise, it's MGS... Sweet stuff...
Ayo b.
mgs2 was better..
it had two playable characters, the stealth rolls/flips, the disguises, the story was phat and it had all the elements of the first game as if it was a remake..
and you could finally shoot in first person mode..
but otacon was still annoying as hell..
KAKAW.
To everyone who disliked MGS 1 because you couldn't do the things you could do in MGS 2:
The GC version of MGS 1 will have all these features, and maybe even some more. I feel that some people are selling MGS 1 short because of it's technical primitiveness.
Ayo b.
no don't get me wrong..
i don't own mgs2 but i do have and would never get rid of mgs1 as i did witht hte sequel upon finishing it..
i loved the first game..
i just enjoyed the second a little bit more..
and i WILL be purchasing Twin Snakes..
How was MGS1 technically primitive? It did things that quite a few of today's games still don't get right. Plus, when compared to what was on the PSX at the time, MGS1 was simply astounding in some of its features.
Overall, I'd have to say that MGS1 was a better game. It had great gameplay and an unbelievable plot (something that cannot be said for MGS2). MGS2 just seemed like it was a gameplay and graphics demo, "Hey, look at what we can do". MGS3 looks like it has the same type of mentality to it, let's hope they take the time to make a coherent plot this time.
It's sad to see how the poll turned out.
In my humble opinion MGS2 is pure crap. Pure crap with some of the best graphics and sounds I've ever seen in a game, but also probably the most ridiculous storyline and crappiest dialogue I've ever stumbled upon. And that is never acceptable, especially not when you're doing a sequel to the great Metal Gear Solid.
I can honestly not understand what Hideo were thinking, and the fact that they released Substance gives me a hint that they weren't exactly pleased with the original game, or maybe they just wanted to earn more cash. That would fit in the whole MGS2 thing very well.
Posting Permissions
