Your top ten most anticipated games of 2003

[OB1]

It's that time of the year again, folks! Just list out the ten games (confirmed titles) that you want the most in 2003. Here's my list.

1. Zelda: Wind Waker (March, GC)
2. Freelancer (March, PC)
3. Fable (Who knows...winter maybe?, X-Box)
4. Deus Ex 2 (June, PC)
5. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (February, X-Box)
6. F-Zero GC (June, X-Box)
7. Advance Wars 2 (June, GBA)
8. Xenosaga (February, PS2)
9. Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (May, GBA)
10. Devil May Cry 2 (January, PS2)

[Dark Jaguar]

Zelda: Wind Waker
Xenosaga
Chrono Break (this likley won't be out this year, in fact I'm pretty much CERTAIN it won't be, but if it was, here's where I'd put it)
Fable
Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow
Mega Man X7 (that's this year right?)
Soul Calibur 2
Devil May Cry 2
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
F-Zero GCN

If I could add a few more, they would be Final Fantasy Origins (mainly for FF2's first US appearence) and Final Fantasy 3 (assuming it gets out this year).

[Private Hudson]

Final Fantasy X - 2
Final Fantasy 11
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicle
Fable
Pikmin 2
Halo 2
Skies of Arcadia: Legends
Dragon Warrior VIII
Star Ocean 3: Til the End of Time
Silent Hill 3

[OB1]

I can hardly wait until Freelancer comes out. I've been waiting for a next-generation Privateer-like game for about seven years now. It's going to be soooo good.

[Dark Jaguar]

Ah yes, Crystal Chronicles is another I can't wait for. That's the problem with top ten lists these days. Ten isn't nearly enough!

[Sacred Jellybean]

1. Zelda

...

[A Black Falcon]

Hmm, I don't know... but this is a good start, I guess.

-Warcraft III Expansion Pack (soon to be announced, Blizz is giving hints) (pc)
-Zelda- The Wind Waker (gc)
-F-Zero GC (gc)
-Lords of the Realm III (pc)
-Skies of Arcadia Legends
-Star Wars - Knights of the Old Republic
-LionHeart (pc)
-Greyhawk: The Temple of Elemental Evil (pc)
-Rise of Nations (pc)
-Rayman 3 (pc/gc)

[Great Rumbler]

Here's my list:

1. Zelda
2. Fable
3. Final Fantasy: CC
4. F-Zero GC
5. Devil May Cry 2
6. Xenosaga
7. .Hack
8. Soul Calibur 2
9. Pikmin 2
10. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

[Dark Jaguar]

I'd also like Warcraft 3 Expansion, if there was some confirmation (other than, you know, the fact that all Blizzard's previous PC games save WC1 had an expansion) of it coming out.

[A Black Falcon]

With the text "The winds of the north whisper... that a new king shall arise..."

on Blizz's website. I'd call that a pretty strong clue...

[Dark Jaguar]

On the other hand, it could just be an image from World of Warcraft. However, I'd sure like to use as much specious logic as I can.

[MgL]

My list

1.) Zelda: Wind Waker (GC)
2.) StarFox Armada (GC)
3.) Halo 2 (Xbox)
4.) Zone of Enders: The Second Runner (PS2)
5.) Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicle (GC)
6.) F-Zero GC (GC)
7) Final Fantasy Origins (PS)
8) Tenchu 3: Wrath of Heaven (PS2)
9) Ninja Gaiden (Xbox)
10) Devil May Cry 2 (PS2)

[EdenMaster]

Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
1. Zelda

...

Heh, that's pretty much how I feel too, SJ :D.

[OB1]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about Halo 2. I'll fix my list.

[Laser Link]

Yeah, I'm pretty much only interested in Zelda as well. Mario Kart, but that isn't confirmed. Maybe that Pokémon game will be nice, but I doubt it. Maybe AC2 will be out this year. Um, 1080 maybe? I guess Skies as well, but I probably won't buy it for a while. And maybe F-Zero. That's a lot of maybes.

[lazyfatbum]

Gamecube. (Titles with '*' are rent-first)
----------------------------------------------------------
Hardware: GBA P (Moisture levels... rising)
Hardware: Memory Card 159
Hardware: Component Video Cables (Someone ask me why :D)

Zelda: The Wind Waker (OoT, Ura Zelda) (I AM MOIST WITH ANTICIPATION TO THE NTH DEGREE)
F-Zero GC (MOIST HERE TOO)
1080 Avalanche (SLIGHTLY MOIST)
Starfox: Armada (DEFINATELY MOIST)
Wario World (DAMP)
XIII * (Unknown levels of moisture)
Red Faction 2 * (Slightly damp)
RTX Red Rock * (Slight condensation)
Enter the Matrix * (Unknown levels of moisture)
Viewtiful Joe (FLOOD)
Resident Evil 4 (SWIMMING IN IT)
Killer 7 (DROWNING)
PN03 (DEATH FROM WETNESS)
Pikmin 2 ( *has died* )
Animal Crossing 2 (Unknown levels of moisture)
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles (DEFINATE DAMPNESS)
Mario Tennis (MOIST)
Mario Kart GC (MOIST)
Soul Caliber 2 (DAMP)
Gladius (DAMP)
Splinter Cell * (Unknown levels of moisture)
Barbarian * (Unknown levels of moisture)

Gameboy Advance
------------------------------------
Hardware: Gameboy Advance SP (I am a living bucket of moist)

Pokemon Ruby or Saphire (it better not suck)
The Lost Vikings (YAYAYAYA!)
Mega Man (there's a bunch, there's just one that I want)
Jet Grind Radio (wtf)
Ninja Five-O (a game from Konami!?!?)
Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow
Blackthorne
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced
Onimusha Tactics (I might try them both out and just get one that I like the moist I mean most)
Fire Emblem Advance (if it's released here)
Klonoa 2
Lufia: The Ruins of Lore

Man i'll just stop there. *wipes mangina and contemplates buying a strap-on bucket*

[Nick Burns]

Originally posted by lazyfatbum
Hardware: Component Video Cables (Someone ask me why :D)

Why? :D

[The Former DMiller]

1. Wind Waker
2. F-Zero
3. Pikmin 2
4. Advance Wars 2
5. Final Fantasy X-2
6. Skies of Arcadia Legends
7. Xenosaga
8. Mario Kart (if out in 2003)
9. Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow
10. Resident Evil 4 (probably a 2004 release)

[OB1]

Lazy: You should add more moisture to Splinter Cell. It's an awesome game.

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
Lazy: You should add more moisture to Splinter Cell. It's an awesome game.

You should get a paper towel and dry yourself out. It's a pathetic game.

[Nick Burns]

Zelda is the only game I am really looking foreward to...

[OB1]

Originally posted by Private Hudson
You should get a paper towel and dry yourself out. It's a pathetic game.

So.. is it a pathetic game because it's better than MGS2 and that really makes you mad? Or is it a pathetic game because you live in some sort of bizarro world where cel-shading has an opposite meaning and crappy games are good and vice versa?

[A Black Falcon]

PSX-land where PSX/2 games have to be better than similar games on other platforms? All the platforms have those people... of course the problem here is most people feel that way for Nintendo (more correctly... :) ).

[OB1]

Well that's just because Nintendo is the best video game developer in the world. I own all of the consoles and I play all video games so I have no need to be a biased fanboy. Some of my favorite games in recent years are actually first-party Sony games: ICO, Mark of Kri, and GT3.

[A Black Falcon]

No, Blizzard is the best game developer in the world. Can you think of another developer who quite literally hasn't made a game that sold less than a million copies since 1994? (or makes better games? But that's subjective... of course, so is any opinion on who's the best game developer...)

Of course thats easy when you only have to release one game a year, so its not exactly a fair comparison... :)

[OB1]

All of the kids that proclaim Blizzard to be the best developer in the world really make me laugh. Yes they're very good at what they do, but they only do two or three different things! Nintendo makes dozens of games every year covering several different genres. One is a humongous developer that has literally hundreds of AAA titles under their belt, and the other is a tiny developer (in comparison) that makes one good game a year. And they haven't made any games that cover more than two different genres in the past what, six years or something like that?

Wee...

[A Black Falcon]

Sure, since 1995 Blizz has only made RTSes (3 of them, and 2 expansion packs with 1 upcoming) and action-RPGs (two, and an expansion pack). Before that of course they made other stuff on SNES, but since '95 that's all they've made...

Yes, they don't really innovate that much... they do things differently, but not hugely different. They just do it better than anyone else has... their RTSes are my favorite games of any kind, no question...

True, they only have, currently, 3 development teams. Yes, tiny compared to Nintendo... but still they are at the very least one of the most respected (if not the most respected) developer there is... and the best one. IMO.

[OB1]

If by best you mean "the best at making two types of games and only one title a year", then yes you are correct. Of course, tastes in video games vary from person to person and it's all subjective, but if you look at which developer makes the most highly-rated games on a regular basis, Nintendo wins.

[EdenMaster]

No matter what you take into account, Nintendo wins. Nintendo kicks the crap out of Blizzard in innovation for one thing. They make great games, but not veyr many. Warcraft has seen huge graphical upgrades, but it is very much the same game. Nintendo plays around with their franchises a bit to keep them fresh. Nintendo pumps out plenty of good games every year, whereas Blizzard releases maybe 1, 2 if we're lucky.

Blizzard is a big-name developer, and is certainly near the top of the list, but Nintendo holds the crown. It always has, and most likely will for a long time to come.

[A Black Falcon]

I go by how much I get from their games... sure, because of how big it is I probably have played more hours of Nintendo (first-party only here) games than Blizzard ones... but nothing from Nintendo can match, for me, the sheer brilliance (and lasting power of me playing them!) of Blizzard's RTSes... and that, to me, is enough to have me call them the best.

I'm sure years from now I won't play much NGC... some, of the really great long-lasting ones, probably... but do I think I'll quit playing occasional games of Starcraft, or even Warcraft II, anytime remotely soon? Definitely not. Nothing I have matches them in playability, variety of gameplay, and how long they last as fun games... and because of that I like them best.

Nintendo is second, of course. Third? I'm not sure... I'm tempted to say Lucasarts, as I find some of their classics are among the best games ever made (In my top 10 list, 3 are Lucasarts games -- Jedi Knight, TIE Fighter, and Grim Fandango... and a whole other bunch of games, including Sam and Max, Rogue Leader, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, The Curse of Monkey Island, and X-Wing Alliance are also really really good games...), but then I think that they haven't made a great internal game in several years. Oh well... they are still great... if mostly, now, for their history and liscences (which other developers make games based on). I hope that their currently upcoming new games, such as Gladius, RTX Red Rock, Full Throttle 2, and Sam and Max 2, change that...

[OB1]

Hey it's perfectly alright if you prefer Blizzard's games over Nintendo's. I know lots of people that also like that stupid DBZ PS2 game (not that I'm comparing the two). But the fact of the matter is that Nintendo releases the largest number of highly-rated titles every year.

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
So.. is it a pathetic game because it's better than MGS2 and that really makes you mad? Or is it a pathetic game because you live in some sort of bizarro world where cel-shading has an opposite meaning and crappy games are good and vice versa?

I disliked it because it's level designs were so linear. I was expecting a whole heap of missions similar to the Tanker level in MGS2, and what I got was a whole heap of missions similar to the stealth segments of Syphon Filter (but with pretty lighting). Everything I said about the demo (remember my thread?) turned out to be true. And the game was just a bore.

Why would I care if some people think it's better than MGS2?

I own all of the consoles and I play all video games so I have no need to be a biased fanboy

Just because you have no need to be a fanboy, doesn't mean you're not. I own all three console (5 if you count DC and GBA) and I won't deny I have an affinity for my GCN the most, despite the fact that I play my PS2 far more.

And Sega are better than Nintendo .:p

[A Black Falcon]

But the fact of the matter is that Nintendo releases the largest number of highly-rated titles every year.

Yes, that is definitely true. No question.

It doesn't change the fact that those few Blizz games get more playtime (as individual games) than anything else I own.

[OB1]

Congrats, ABF.

And Hudson... I won't even reply to those remarks. You're such a troll.

[Private Hudson]

I'm a troll?

You accused me of disliking the game based on the fact that it shares the same genre of MGS2.

Granted, my Sega comment was flaimbait, albeit a joke......and the truth. :)

[OB1]

But I can't resist.

I disliked it because it's level designs were so linear. I was expecting a whole heap of missions similar to the Tanker level in MGS2, and what I got was a whole heap of missions similar to the stealth segments of Syphon Filter (but with pretty lighting). Everything I said about the demo (remember my thread?) turned out to be true. And the game was just a bore.

SC's gameplay is much more non-linear than MGS2's actually. There are several ways to go about each situation, unlike MGS2 where you can only do so much. And stealth is actually a big part of the game. It really does put MGS 2 to shame. And I love Metal Gear.

Just because you have no need to be a fanboy, doesn't mean you're not. I own all three console (5 if you count DC and GBA) and I won't deny I have an affinity for my GCN the most, despite the fact that I play my PS2 far more.

Come on, you're a huge PS2 fanboy. Sure Nintendo is my favorite developer, but I'm really not biased in your sense of the word. My favorite game of 2001 wasn't even a Nintendo game. It was ICO. A first-party Sony game.

[OB1]

And Sega isn't as good as Nintendo. Sure you could like them more than Nintendo, but if you were line up all of Nintendo and Sega's game and see which side's games got better reviews, Nintendo would win.

[Private Hudson]

I never called you biased.

And I've been called a GCN fanboy (at XBox boards) and an Xbox fanboy (at PS2 boards). And now I'm a PS2 fanboy (at a GCN board).

Surprisingly, really. :) Like I've stated before, I have no affinity for Sony, or it's console (actually, a severe disliking). The companies who I do love, and will always love are Sega, Squaresoft, Capcom and Nintendo.

SC's gameplay is much more non-linear than MGS2's actually. There are several ways to go about each situation, unlike MGS2 where you can only do so much. And stealth is actually a big part of the game. It really does put MGS 2 to shame. And I love Metal Gear.

SC's gameplay was far more linear than MGS2's . The mere fact that it used Crash Bandicoot levels (one path, virtually) eliminated so much potential it had. My levels basically came down to doing the exact same thing every step of the way. I don't know how you did it, but I was too bored to try to experiment.

And it truely did have potential, I sincerely hope they eliminate this from the sequal, or at the very least, MGS2 incorporates some elements of SC into it's own gameplay.

Remember, I was once extremely excited about SC, I would not dislike it for something as trivial as it's supposed "Metal Gear Solid 2 killah" tagline.

I can get into it's other major problems that ruined the experience for me, if you wish. But right now, I'm running late for work. :)

[OB1]

So just because there are seperate levels instead of two main areas as in MGS2, that makes it linear? SC's gameplay is not as linear as MGS2's gameplay becuase there are so many ways to accomplish your goals. You seem to care more about how linear the levels themselves are, while I care more about the gameplay. There is pretty much only one way to accomplish the goals in MGS2. I've replayed several levels in SC, and each time I did it a completely different way. This was also done in Deus Ex, but executed better in SC. After I played SC I realized just how un-stealth-like MGS2 really is.

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
[B]So just because there are seperate levels instead of two main areas as in MGS2, that makes it linear?

Having a set path to follow for the entire level makes it linear. I thought that was pretty clear, given the word "linear" present in every other sentence when I describe the main reason I dislike the game. But you've been making a habit of mis-understanding perfectly clear sentences lately, so I'll let it pass without drawing too much attention to it, and without rambling on about it unnecessarily so as to make myself look smart, when in actual fact I am making myself look like an ass.

SC's gameplay is not as linear as MGS2's gameplay becuase there are so many ways to accomplish your goals.

Like I said, there may be many ways to do it, You seem to care more about how linear the levels themselves are, while I care more about the gameplay.

The linearity of the levels effects the gameplay greatly. It's like saying Crash Bandicoot plays just like Jak & Daxter.

There is pretty much only one way to accomplish the goals in MGS2.

That's funny. Given that there are so many more obstacles, and patrolling guards, and different routes, and just generally different ways to go, it's hard to imagine it being only one way to accomplish your goals. In Splinter Cell, you may hide in the shadows and let the guard pass, or you may jump up and split kick the walls and let him pass under you, or you might shoot him (although another major fault in the game is the limited number of people you can kill). In MGS2, you might wait for them to pass, or you might crawl under some boxes, or you might take out the radio in his hand so he can't call for backup, then shoot him, or you might distract them and run/crawl/climb past etc. etc.

There really isn't much difference about the number of ways you go about accomplishing your goals. But the style of having a single path to follow for the entire mission is VERY ditracting (at least, AFAIC).

I just play it, and picture how awesome it would have been if there was one big environment, with multiple goals, and patrolling guards and radio check-ins (instead of the dead bodies MAGICALLY being found if you leave it in the open). Being able to explore different areas of your environment to find completely different routes to take to the end. NOT being forced to move FORWARD the whole time (being on the set path).

This is just the way I find the game, and it really just doesn't strike a cord with me.

I've replayed several levels in SC, and each time I did it a completely different way. This was also done in Deus Ex, but executed better in SC. After I played SC I realized just how un-stealth-like MGS2 really is.

Why bring up Deus-Ex??? They are completely different. Or are you comparing them for linearity? In which case... I don't agree, but whatever.

Anyways, I certainly agree that MGS2 isn't as stealth based as Splinter Cell.

[OB1]

Just when I thought you ran out of stupid juice.

Having a set path to follow for the entire level makes it linear. I thought that was pretty clear, given the word "linear" present in every other sentence when I describe the main reason I dislike the game. But you've been making a habit of mis-understanding perfectly clear sentences lately, so I'll let it pass without drawing too much attention to it, and without rambling on about it unnecessarily so as to make myself look smart, when in actual fact I am making myself look like an ass.

Ok, let me repeat myself one more time. WHILE THE LEVELS THEMSELVES ARE LINEAR, THE GAMEPLAY IS NOT AS THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH EACH OBJECTIVE.

The linearity of the levels effects the gameplay greatly. It's like saying Crash Bandicoot plays just like Jak & Daxter.

Oh what a fabulous comparison. Yes I can see where you see the similarities. In SC you can accomplish each seperate goal in any number of different ways, making for a unique gameplay experience each and every time you replay the levels. In Crash Bandicoot you run in a straight line and jump over people. Wow.

That's funny. Given that there are so many more obstacles, and patrolling guards, and different routes, and just generally different ways to go, it's hard to imagine it being only one way to accomplish your goals. In Splinter Cell, you may hide in the shadows and let the guard pass, or you may jump up and split kick the walls and let him pass under you, or you might shoot him (although another major fault in the game is the limited number of people you can kill). In MGS2, you might wait for them to pass, or you might crawl under some boxes, or you might take out the radio in his hand so he can't call for backup, then shoot him, or you might distract them and run/crawl/climb past etc. etc.

Haha, you tickle my funny bone. There is only one (count 'em: one) level in SC where you cannot kill anyone, and that's because the place you're sneaking into is CIA Headquarters.

MGS 2 is likle Ace Combat where SC is like MS Flight Simulator 2002. The stealth aspect is very restricting in MGS2 compared to SC. In SC there is a far greater emphasis placed on stealth so you really have to be careful with what you do. I've played through MGS2 several times, and after playing SC I can honestly say that I almost can't even call MGS2 a stealth game since is really is such a simple game. Each time I played MGS2 it was pretty much the same experience. Sure I could take a left instead of a right at certain parts, but you are extremely limited in what you can do in the game. Each time I replay a level in SC it's a completely new experience, as I've stated numerous times already.

There really isn't much difference about the number of ways you go about accomplishing your goals. But the style of having a single path to follow for the entire mission is VERY ditracting (at least, AFAIC).

That is a blatant lie. As I've repeated over and over to you (you really don't get it, do you?), there are many more different ways to each goal in SC than there are in MGS2. That is a fact.

I just play it, and picture how awesome it would have been if there was one big environment,

All of the environments in SC put together are around five times as big as the two main environments in MGS2. And each level in SC looks and feels different from the rest so there is a lot of diversity.

...with multiple goals

Um... have you ever played Splinter Cell before? There are dozens of goals in each level of the game.

, and patrolling guards and radio check-ins (instead of the dead bodies MAGICALLY being found if you leave it in the open).

Obviously you haven't played the final version of the game since you would have noticed that they fixed that bug. The guards also do regular radio check-ins.

Being able to explore different areas of your environment to find completely different routes to take to the end. NOT being forced to move FORWARD the whole time (being on the set path). [quote]

Despite the level design in MGS2, the game is extremely linear. You also have extremely long cut scenes and radio transmissions that get in the way of gameplay every few minutes.

[quote]Why bring up Deus-Ex??? They are completely different. Or are you comparing them for linearity? In which case... I don't agree, but whatever.

Deus Ex is similar to SC in the sense that there are several different ways to go accomplish each goal which makes for some great replay value. I've beaten both games. Have you?

Anyways, I certainly agree that MGS2 isn't as stealth based as Splinter Cell.

So... what was your argument then?

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
Ok, let me repeat myself one more time. [b]WHILE THE LEVELS THEMSELVES ARE LINEAR, THE GAMEPLAY IS NOT AS THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH EACH OBJECTIVE.

No need to repeat yourself, old man. I certainly understood you the first time. And I even went into a little detail about it.

Oh what a fabulous comparison. Yes I can see where you see the similarities. In SC you can accomplish each seperate goal in any number of different ways, making for a unique gameplay experience each and every time you replay the levels. In Crash Bandicoot you run in a straight line and jump over people. Wow.

Crasdh Bandicoot has a set path, so does Splinter Cell. Lalala :)

Haha, you tickle my funny bone. There is only one (count 'em: one) level in SC where you cannot kill anyone, and that's because the place you're sneaking into is CIA Headquarters.

Sorry, was confused. I'm thinking of the number of times you get caught. It's been a while since I played this, remember? ;)

MGS 2 is likle Ace Combat where SC is like MS Flight Simulator 2002. The stealth aspect is very restricting in MGS2 compared to SC. In SC there is a far greater emphasis placed on stealth so you really have to be careful with what you do. I've played through MGS2 several times, and after playing SC I can honestly say that I almost can't even call MGS2 a stealth game since is really is such a simple game. Each time I played MGS2 it was pretty much the same experience. Sure I could take a left instead of a right at certain parts, but you are extremely limited in what you can do in the game. Each time I replay a level in SC it's a completely new experience, as I've stated numerous times already.

Great. And in SC I might do a split kick, instead of hiding in the shadows. I'm sorry, but that doesn't count as being non-linear to me. I want levels to EXPLORE, I don't want to be forced on to the same path the whole time. Just because you may do slightly different things on that same path, doesn't make the game non-linear to me.

All of the environments in SC put together are around five times as big as the two main environments in MGS2. And each level in SC looks and feels different from the rest so there is a lot of diversity.

Rrrg. You don't understand.

Um... have you ever played Splinter Cell before? There are dozens of goals in each level of the game.

I never said there wasn't.

Obviously you haven't played the final version of the game since you would have noticed that they fixed that bug. The guards also do regular radio check-ins.

Ahh. I never noticed. :) Or I forgot, either way :)

Deus Ex is similar to SC in the sense that there are several different ways to go accomplish each goal which makes for some great replay value. I've beaten both games. Have you?

Fraid not :( Although for the most part, Deus Ex was a great game. Can't wait for the sequal.

I returned SC before I finished it.

So... what was your argument then? [/B]

That Splinter Cell bored me.

Like I said. It was a game that had serious potential. But I much prefer my stealth to take place in large environments (ala Tanker in MGS2) rather than exruciatingly linear "crash bandicoot" styled levels.

Although, I'll say this. I never noticed all the different ways to accomplish each goal. When I was playing the game, I basically just hid in the shadows and waited for someone to walk past, wash, rinse repeat. You have, however, inspired me to go play the game one more time. If I'm still unimpressed... well... I'm sure you don't care.

:)

[OB1]

Crasdh Bandicoot has a set path, so does Splinter Cell. Lalala

Great. And in SC I might do a split kick, instead of hiding in the shadows. I'm sorry, but that doesn't count as being non-linear to me. I want levels to EXPLORE, I don't want to be forced on to the same path the whole time. Just because you may do slightly different things on that same path, doesn't make the game non-linear to me.

*sigh*

If you want to explore, don't play MGS2 or SC. Play Morrowind or something. If you want some great stealth action where you can find dozens of ways to accomplish each objective and really have to think about what you're doing, play SC. If you want a stripped-down version of that, play MGS2. And you can do a hell of a lot more than split kick and hiding in the shadows.

Rrrg. You don't understand.

Sure I do. I was extemely dissapointed when I found out that there would only be two areas in MGS2.

I never said there wasn't.

Yeah you did. Let me quote you: "I just play it, and picture how awesome it would have been if there was one big environment, with multiple goals,"

You don't even know what you said. Tsk tsk.

Ahh. I never noticed. Or I forgot, either way

How convenient for you.

I returned SC before I finished it.

That Splinter Cell bored me.

Like I said. It was a game that had serious potential. But I much prefer my stealth to take place in large environments (ala Tanker in MGS2) rather than exruciatingly linear "crash bandicoot" styled levels.

*sigh* What's the point in arguing with such inane remarks?

Although, I'll say this. I never noticed all the different ways to accomplish each goal. When I was playing the game, I basically just hid in the shadows and waited for someone to walk past, wash, rinse repeat. You have, however, inspired me to go play the game one more time. If I'm still unimpressed... well... I'm sure you don't care.

So you sucked at the game, whupee.

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
If you want to explore, don't play MGS2 or SC. Play Morrowind or something. If you want some great stealth action where you can find dozens of ways to accomplish each objective and really have to think about what you're doing, play SC. If you want a stripped-down version of that, play MGS2. And you can do a hell of a lot more than split kick and hiding in the shadows.

Not necessarily exploring. But I don't want to be stuck on the same path the entire game. That's what ruined the game for me.

Throw sam fisher on the tanker in MGS2, then let me do a mission! Throw him ANYWHERE that there isn't one set path. Imagine the possibilities of how great it would have been.

Sure I do. I was extemely dissapointed when I found out that there would only be two areas in MGS2.

Erm.. Obviously you don't understand.

Yeah you did. Let me quote you: "I just play it, and picture how awesome it would have been if there was one big environment, with multiple goals,"

Of course I said that. But I never said SC didn't already have that. I was referring mainly to the large environment. It can take place in multiple levels all it wants, just don't force me on the one PATH!!!

How convenient for you.

?? I addmitted I was wrong..

*sigh* What's the point in arguing with such inane remarks?

Because it's the reason I disliked the game.

So you sucked at the game, whupee.

I thought the game was kinda easy, actually.

[OB1]

Not necessarily exploring. But I don't want to be stuck on the same path the entire game. That's what ruined the game for me.

Throw sam fisher on the tanker in MGS2, then let me do a mission! Throw him ANYWHERE that there isn't one set path. Imagine the possibilities of how great it would have been.

That would be terrible. Only two areas? No thanks!

Of course I said that. But I never said SC didn't already have that. I was referring mainly to the large environment. It can take place in multiple levels all it wants, just don't force me on the one PATH!!!

So you'd rather have two environments instead of twelve or so?

I thought the game was kinda easy, actually.

Uh-huh. And how far did you get?

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
That would be terrible. Only two areas? No thanks!

I never said I only wanted two areas. Give him twleve areas, give him a hundred, just don't have them STUCK ON ONE PATH THE ENTIRE LEVEL. 12 areas, all about the size of the Tanker in MGS2 is all I would need.

For me, level design plays a big part in how much I enjoy a game. It's the same reason I have a big problem with Halo, level design. The same reason I have a problem with MoH: Frontline and many other games.

Uh-huh. And how far did you get?

I think about 4 missions. It really didn't impress me enough to keep it. Particularly compared to Mech Assault (XBox's true AAA title).

[OB1]

Ugh, this is so pointless.

You're stupid. End of debate. :shake:

[A Black Falcon]

Wow... someone got OB1 to quit a debate! Hmm... what did I learn? That I have to repeat dumb opinions ad nauseum? Great... :)

[OB1]

Bingo.

[Dark Jaguar]

Why do you think OB1 got us to quite all the time ABF? That's a lesson he's always known, because it's the closest thing to a Jedi mind trick he's got :D.