Ok that was actually 14 hours into the game, I got my numbers wrong. And at the 17 hour point I'm near the end, so it was more than halfway there. In comparison I beat MGS2 in 9 or so hours. And that's because of all of the codec stuff which there is much less of in SE. However, I want to play SE all over again right now since it's so much damn fun. Tons of replay value.
Oh, and another thing I wanted to mention is that the ratio of gameplay to cinemas is much better than it was in the past two games. Instead of having a 1:1 ratio of playing to watching, it's more like 5:1 now. There are still plenty of cinemas, but there's much more gameplay.
And about the story, it's good and I love the way they tie it into actual world history, but so far there really hasn't been much crazy stuff. Nothing compared to the awesome insanity of MGS2's storyline, and not even as conspiracy-laden as MGS1's. However, I still have a few hours left and I haven't heard a thing about The Patriots (other than the thing you heard in the trailer), and there's supposed to be plenty of explanation in that regard, so I'm still expecting some crazy stuff. I'll let you know after I beat it tonight.
How's not having a radar? Does the camera angle present any problems? How about aiming when not in FP mode?
These are some complaints I've seen on another board, but they're from idiots, so I figured that they were just retards who can't play the game properly. "I keep getting caught AAHHHH it's so annoying!!" guh...
Not having a radar is actually an improvement, I think. I always thought that the radar made the games too easy, and you often looked at the radar instead of the main game while running around. Having a radar in lush jungle landscapes would kind of defeat the purpose, you know? The AP detecter or more than enough.
The perspective would be more of a problem if I ran around trying to kill people, but if you play the game right it's not a big deal. Sometimes I wish I could move around in a FP or behind-the-character perspective solely because the environments are just to purdy to look at, but other than that I haven't had any real problems. And the CQC system makes stealth all the more fun!
19 hours, 29 minutes, and 37 seconds. That's how long it took me to complete Metal Gear Solid 3. And what do I have to say about it?
WOW. Wow. Wow. Wow. Holy fucking wow.
I just beat the best damn game of the year (well, I still have to finish Prime 2, so it may be a bit too early to tell right now). I just beat the second best PS2 game ever, and one of my favorite games of all-time. Only topped by ICO in terms of artistic magnificence, and only topped by ICO in having the most emotionally satisfying ending a video game has ever had. ...No wait--scratch that. It's one of the most emotionally satisfying endings I have ever witnessed, be it from a game, movie, book, whatever. The sheer joy you'll feel at the ending of the game will bring tears to your eyes. It almost did for me.
Throughout most of the game I found the story to be pretty pedestrian for a Metal Gear game, but the last hour or so changed all of that, and really changed the way I look at the entire game story. It's not as wonderfully insane as MGS2's storyline is, and in that respect MGS2 is still very unique. It does explain the backstory of the main MGS2 plots, though it still leaves a few things unexplained for MGS4. There is a lot of closure in the game, both in terms of plot and emotion and it does feel like the trilogy is complete, though MGS4 is definitely needed. It makes me want MGS4 more than just about anything else (save Wanda), and I pray that it comes out as soon as possible.
MGS3 is the culmination of everything Hideo Kojima has learned about game design, and it's one of the best games ever created. I sincerely hope that he continues to make more Metal Gear games because is it his child, and only he can make a game like MGS3.
Any questions? :D
No. :(
UNLESS.... no :(
If I could.. would you give it to me?
No, but I'd yell at you for not buying it already. :D
I have to play it again, fool! :p
Would you have waited for someone to give it to you?
Well either way I'd be waiting..
So..
..would I have to pay for it?
I could sell you a new copy, I guess. No profit for me, just so long as you pay for shipping.
But then he'd need a way to play it...
That's what mod chips are for.
Or Freelancer... for GC... :D
Exactly, but MGS3 is not on the GC.
I know, but don't you have to show its superiority in the categories it wins in when you can, especially on a Nintendo board? :)
No, the place you show it's superiority is the PS2 forum. We all know the GC is cool here.
There's a nice Kojima interview up at
IGN, and he mentioned something that sounded exactly what I said earlier in this thread.
Here's what I originally wrote:
Quote:Not having a radar is actually an improvement, I think. I always thought that the radar made the games too easy, and you often looked at the radar instead of the main game while running around. Having a radar in lush jungle landscapes would kind of defeat the purpose, you know? The AP detecter or more than enough.
And here's what Kojima said:
Quote:Kojima: The series was turning into a radar game where you just pay attention to the radar and not use your visual senses or listening. That's what I wanted people to depend on instead of the radar so in the jungle I wanted people to listen to the grass moving or noise and so that's why I got rid of the radar.
Makes me feel good that I was thinking the same way as Hideo Kojima. :D
I like radar/automaps in games...
Why don't you just MARRY the silly japanese man, OB1?!
(well, <i>one</i> of us had to say it)
Yeah, radar and automaps are nice, but they aren't exactly one and the same. Now an automapping system so as you reveal the layout of areas is pleasent, but a radar is something that really affects the game in a much bigger way than just getting lost. For example, I happen to have Metal Gear for NES. Fun game, no radar at all. Really, it's a different feel to MGS and MGS2. I know it's not the original, and Hideo actually really dislikes that port (not nearly as much as he apparently hates the pathetic Metal Gear 2 on NES, which took the sneaking aspect out completely, he hated that enough to make his own REAL Metal Gear 2, and from what I've read it's awesome, but it's on a system I will never ever have), BUT, it managed to give me a good sense of sneaking around without knowing for sure what's around the next bend. I was all "oh no, what's on the next screen NES?, no not that!". Having played MGS3, I note that the radar was removed. Well, it is set in the cold war, that technology just wouldn't work all that well. They added a couple extra things (nice demo, including almost all the items in the game from the start like that :D, as opposed to the "prize" a certain OTHER demo offers), like Sonar and motion detector. They are limited in use for two reasons. One, battery life, the other, one needs things to be moving, and the other can be heard. I really don't get why others would be able to actually hear the sonar mind you, I'd think the device would use a frequency outside human hearing range myself :D, but oh well it adds some strategy. Anyway, as a result I end up looking through my binocs and doing corner peers a lot more often, usually as a result of some sound I heard but wasn't sure what direction it came from (ah the beauty of full rich mono, wouldn't trade it for da worlds), crawling about, and generally being all sortsa da sneaky. In MGS and MGS2 I'd sorta depend on the radar a lot. My eyes were generally glued to it, well not literally, I had to keep an eye on the actual gameplay the whole time since, well, that's where the game actually takes place and where I go to shoot, hide, and do stuff and the radar just doesn't have the detail, but it was close. I'd say I had one eye on the radar whenever it was available and I otherwise sensed danger could be around (my Snake senses ya know, or just finely honed gamer's instinct). So I'd say radar has it's place, but it's good to see that every now and then it's removed to totally change the focus of the game.
Actually, in every FPS I've ever played, my family, friends, whoever, we all agree that radar is "the stupid" and we ALWAYS shut it off to keep the game fun. (Among other things, like in the console games that don't system link, looking at the floor while running around blind so no one can see where you are going.)
Halo 2 however made it a motion detector so you can only see things that are moving, and not only that, moving quickly. Thus, every now and then turning it on, for the first time, added a fun element. It's still normaly shut off, but thinking no one is around only to suddenly spin around and see that person crouching and crawling towards your back side suddenly spring into a mad dash to slice you up is pretty fun. Weird, how that adjustment actually adds a certain sense of sneakiness rather than removes it... Of course it takes away other sneaking stuff, like being able to run without revealing yourself. Eh, it's a tradeoff...
Oh, what was I saying? Oh yes, I really want to get MGS3 eventually because I totally see how the limited radar can really make things more sneaky.
Automaps make it easier... yeah, fine, sure, but it makes it so much more fun to play with them! So much less frusteration...
...
Ya know it gets frustrating when you misunderstand what I say really often, but oh well.
Anyway, I actually specifically seperated automaps from a radar system in that post above. Automaps are something I think can't hurt ANY game, as it only reveals stuff as you uncover it, not reveal stuff you haven't seen yet. It's a past tense system. Radar is present, revealing the now and stuff you haven't uncovered yourself, and THAT is what I was saying can affect a game and in some cases change it for the worse, like for example MGS3.
It all depends on the implementation, DJ. In some games that is true in others it is not. For radar, it's simple: radar is a circle (usually) on the screen that shows the locations of all the enemies around you, and sometimes friends as well. But automaps are different. There are many different kinds -- onscreen automaps that go in the middle of the screen (over the playfield) and show a 2d top-down view of the ground as you explore it, turning and following you as you wander around so that you can easily navigate the terrain if you have been there before but obscuring your view (like in Diablo II or Jedi Knight I), pause-screen automaps that have full 3d representations of the world (like in TIE Fighter or Jedi Knight I, where you can look at the whole area (well, for JK, the whole area that you have explored) on the pause screen map and rotate around in it in 3d (shaded semi-transparent polys)), onscreen automaps that are like radar in that they are a circle in the corner of the screen and are devoted to the automap but they have not just enemy locations but the terrain as well (so you can see both the local surroundings and people or points of note, like in Tribes: Vengeance, Guild Wars, World of Warcraft, etc) (these automaps show you all of the terrain and everything in the nearby area. Usually this means you can see locations for everything on the circle of the automap... and also these are often tied to a larger map, where you can see the bigger picture (like the world map in WoW) as opposed to just the little circle on screen). The final kind of automap I can think of would be that 2d map display you can bring up -- a different category from the 3d ones because it is generally simpler and easier to use, but possibly less informative and helpful depending on the game...
So while you have something of a point for a Jedi Knight implementation of an automap, look at a World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, or TIE Fighter (for the radar aspect) to see where the cracks appear in your arguement.
That is to say, I consider them very similar. I do prefer automaps because I like to be able to see the terrain, but radar is better than nothing (and for a space sim like TIE Fighter they would be indestinguishable because there is no land so how can you tell if it's radar or an automap... :))
I was talking purely of the sort where it is only unveiled as you explore in the game. Automapping over a preexisting map is more, but that's because it adds something I didn't even mention, a preexisting map. I'm talking strictly about the automap portion itself. As for being able to zoom out and make sense of things in relation to what you have explored, that's always a good thing. If you can take a pad and paper and do it in the real world, they should let you do it in the game, that's how I see it.
Metroid Prime's automap is probably one of the best ever made. Seeing everything in 3D is a huge help.
I never thought that I'd be saying this, but DJ is absolutely right. She's saying pretty much the same thing I did, even though she can't see my posts. The removal of the radar in MGS3 was a terrific idea and really adds to the stealth aspect of it all. Though I imagine playing the game in mono would make things a bit tough. :D
Quote:Why don't you just MARRY the silly japanese man, OB1?!
(well, one of us had to say it)
Maybe I
will!!
RPGs should definitely have maps... they benefit greatly from them. Same, quite obviously, with minimaps in strategy games. FPSes? I like them. I can see why you'd say that minimaps or automapping (in its various forms) makes the game easier, but even if that is true I'd argue that the fact that it makes it so much less frusterating when the level design gets past the blatantly obvious corridor, among other benefits, makes it worth it...
As for Prime, it has an automap like the pause-screen automap in Jedi Knight, with a 3d representation of the level you can examine. I agree, great map and very useful... more useful than the JK one actually. In that game it was the onscreen automap (revealed as you explore and 2d not 3d) that was the most useful...
Yeah the Prime map is great.
I was talking about radar, not automaps! I think automaps are great ABF, it's the pure radar I'm talking about.
To make it clear what I mean, I am talking about the circle, or sometimes it's a cone or grid, that shows enemy locations, or sometimes also ammo and objective locations, whether you have been there or not.
Quote:I was talking about radar, not automaps! I think automaps are great ABF, it's the pure radar I'm talking about.
To make it clear what I mean, I am talking about the circle, or sometimes it's a cone or grid, that shows enemy locations, or sometimes also ammo and objective locations, whether you have been there or not.
Um, but I talked about radar too, not just automaps... in space shooters the two are indistinguishable as the terrain is black anyway. In a FPS... well I haven't played many FPSes that just have a straight radar. GoldenEye and Perfect Dark do, but that's about it... are those the only ones or is there anything else? In the context of just PD, I like the radar but it's okay without it. If given a choice I'll leave it on but I don't use it that much anyway so it's okay off...