The Metal Gear Solid series
Posted on Wednesday, March 26 2008 @ 07:39:17 Eastern
I cant wait for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. This game is one of the reasons I bought a Playstation 3.
In preparation for MGS4, I recently finished playing the entire series in it's proper time line (apart from Portable Ops, dont have a PSP), starting with MGS3, then working my way up from the original Metal Gear which comes with MGS3: Subsistance. Now I'm looking forward to this game more than ever. By the end of Sons of Liberty, my pure love for the storyline was completely reborn. As was the longing for answers. If they end Guns of the Patriots with a cliff hanger, someone will die. (no real threats)
If you have not played MGS2 and 3 and Portable Ops and dont want the story ruined, dont read this paragraph, just skip to the next one. Okay, so we know the original Patriots died around 100 years ago, but we also know that the original Patriots were called the Philosophers. But when they started dying the people who took over used their power to control wars. Because I dont have a PSP and wont any time soon I read the story for Portable Ops and copied the following from Wikipedia "Ocelot speaks of using the Legacy to form the Patriots in place of the Philosophers. Ocelot requests Big Boss be able to 'join' them in their new endeavor - becoming the Patriots."
But in the other MGS games it doesnt look like Ocelot is one of the Patriots, but working for them, well... sort of. There is going to be a second Portable Ops, so that should clear some more things up.
I just though of something, shouldn't Raiden, Meryl and anyone else Solid Snake has come in contact with be dead because of FoxDie?
I think it sucks that Cam Clarke (Liquid, credited as James Flinders in MGS1) wont be in MGS4, I had a look at the imdb page and he isn't there at all. He has a great voice! Although I originally heard Ocelot was now all Liquid on the inside, but that must have been a rumour, although it would make sense seeing as though they are calling him Liquid Ocelot. But it seems as though Liquid isn't in there at all now, otherwise it would be Liquid's voice. But the fact his appearance has changed and in trailers Ive seen he is referred to only as Liquid, just confuses me. Could it be Liquid with Ocelots voice? Hope not, cause that would be stupid... But I am glad Pat whatshisname is coming back again, he's great too. Plus it wouldnt be the same without Ocelot, he is the one character who has been in every single game. I suppose you could argue that Snake and Big Boss are the same, but they also aren't.
So, any theories of whats really going on, not just about 'Liquid', about everything? Opinions and all that stuff.
I reckon you'll be able to play as Raiden again, especially since it says 'Old Snake' in the corner, in my experience only games with more than one playable character have the characters name displayed like that. It also makes me think they will have a young Snake too, like as a flash back or something. I'm glad that just about every character alive by the end of MGS2 will be back.
The fact you dont have to follow one set path is great! Adds to the replay value of exploring different areas, although knowing me I wont be able to help myself but explore everywhere possible the first time around in case I miss an awesome item or some much needed rations or ammo. But anyway, the more freedom the better. Oh, and apparently people think there was something wrong with the controls in MGS3, what the hell were they? They were almost identical to the MGS2 controls, only better and those were a similar but improved version of MGS1 controls. I didnt see anything wrong with them at all and dont see how anyone else could.
I seriously cannot wait for this game. Im glad GTAIV is coming out before it so I have something to occupy myself with while I wait. Then theres Persona 3 which will finally be here at the end of this month. I also need to play the new Area 51 and a few other games, but unfourtunately I dont have that much money to spend as Im planning on going to England in August.
Well, until next time. Cya!
[ 0 Comments
] [ Post a Comment
What is happening to this industry!? (graphics, reviews, gamespot and hype)
Posted on Wednesday, February 13 2008 @ 10:14:37 Eastern
I hate graphics, I really do. I hate them because now days thats all anyone seems to really care about. But back when it was Nintendo vs Sega, no one cared about how good a game looked. Emphasis was solely on gameplay. I am happy to say that I don't give a **** what the graphics are like, all I really care about is being entertained. If I wanted to sit there for hours just ogling something on my TV screen, I'd watch porn.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate a good looking game, but I really only see it as a bonus, not a must.
Not all, but there are some game journalists and other people within the industry receiving less and less respect from me these days. First of all we have the famous Gamespot issue. Basically a now ex-employee was doing his job exactly as he should, but the developer's behind the game he reviewed, Kane and Lynch: Dead Men didn't like this one person's opinion of the game and since they had adds for it plasted all over the website they got unrightfully pissed off. This leads to said employee getting fired. So apparently you can get fired for doing exactly what you are supposed to do.
Crysis was marked down on one site because the reviewer didn't have a good enough machine to play on. That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game. I cannot remember what site this was on.
A review is meant to be someones honest opinion about a particular product, but now people are giving games bad reviews for crappy reasons, getting angry responses from the readers for good reviews and getting fired for a review that the developers don't like.
In an Australian gaming magazine called Hyper, a man named Maurice Branscombe felt a need to point out over 2 whole paragraphs that Kane and Lynch: Dead Men is 'never, under any circumstances, to be played by youngsters. Ever.' He goes on to say 'If you're over the age it says you have to be on the game's box, and have a solid grasp of the differences between fantasy and reality, however, then Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a violent, stylish and action-packed gaming experience.'
The fact he felt the need to say that and not let the rest of the review and the games clearly displayed rating in the magazine and the games cover speak for itself, says two things to me. First is that he is worried that someone with a few screws loose will play the game and he is trying to stop that, but the first thing that came to mind was that people are getting more worried about what the publics reaction will be if this game gets in the hands of some nut who just happens to be devising a plan to blow up his local High School. But I can understand why. Both the media public are angry and merciless. They don't care how much effort you put into something that you love, whether its a simple review stating your honest opinion that an adult themed game kicks ass, or developing a game for the enjoyment of others. All they care about is launching an attack on the easiest person and often using people who are either already troubled in some way, or children to do it. Conveniently forgetting of course that a lot of games are created for adults, it isn't the developers fault, or the reviewers, if a child gets hold of something he or she is too young to play. This is also aimed at people who may attack the reviewer for recommending a game that 'influences' violence. Obviously if a game has a 15+ rating the parent should strongly consider if this is the right thing for a 10 year old to play, for example. Chances are it isn't, but then again you see disturbing and violent behavior every day on TV.
I have been playing video games since I was 3 years old, obviously back then there was a lot less violence in the games and even when there was violence it wasn't realistic in the slightest.
I got my Nintendo 64 for Christmas, I was around 12 at the time, the first 2 games I had were Cruisin' USA and Goldeneye 007, I also bought other violent games such as Turok 2. No influence.
Today I play games such as Grand Theft Auto. Again, no influence.
So I guess I am addressing several issues here, violence in video games and the 'affect' on the players and the fact journalists are now becoming scared when they shouldn't be.
I am however, fully aware that children do absorb everything that goes on around them, thats why kids who have been abused as a child often grow up to be abusers themselves. You live what you learn. But with the correct guidance from a parents or guardian, tradgedy can easily be avoided. I have violence in real life, but I have no problem at all with violent video games or movies. I'd certainly never act it out in real life.
I would love to start up my own gaming website someday. If I do I will be absolutely sure that every staff member is honest and doesn't give a **** what people think, as long as its not in a rude way.
Back to Gamespot for a moment, CNET - Gamespot's parent company - released the following information "Stephen Colvin, former President and CEO of Dennis Publishing, the publisher of Maxim, Blender, Stuff, and The Week magazines, is joining the company as executive vice president. Colvin will be dedicated to overseeing the company's entertainment and lifestyle brands".
So now, instead of having a dedicated gamer to oversee a gaming website we have an expert in lifestyle. Sure one could say gaming is a lifestyle but you would have to agree that it is an entirely different lifestyle to those Colvin had previously been working with. I would much rather an actual gamer to be in that position, just like I would rather an actual doctor treat me than a vet, just because they are good at treating sick dogs, does not mean they should be treating sick humans, even with a similar illness.
Now for hype. Some people considered Assassin's Creed to be 'Game of the Year' worthy, while others such as 1up thought was one of the years 'top ten turkeys'. Either way, it had a huge build up of hype. Personally, I was disappointed, I expected it to be a lot more free roaming, Oblivion style. I was expecting to be able to break into peoples houses, talk to people out in the street and buy weapons and armour. I also thought there would be a lot of side quests. But that was really based on my own opinions on what the game could/should have been.
Anyway, hype is bad. It gives people false hope before they even get to play the game. Then when they do, people are often disappointed, or there are mixed reactions like Assassin's Creed. Ok, so it boosts sales, making it obvious as to why the developers do this.
I bought a PS3 when I did because of that game, I also wanted to play many other PS3 titles such as The Darkness and MotorStorm, but it was Assassin's Creed that pushed me to get it when I did. But now I certainly wont be rushing out to buy the next AC game.
Next time a game is surrounded by lots of hype, I am just going to do my best to ignore that and focus only on what I read about the game, not listening to a word of how awesome people say it will be, just read the facts and nothing else. Obviously there wont be any more assuming on my part either.
Well, I hope you enjoyed my first of many blogs.
Thanks for reading!
[ 14 Comments
] [ Post a Comment