Trifling is the best word to describe MGS. The dialogues and cinemas don't prepare you for the parameters of the action scenes they set up, so you're dropped into these abrupt gameplay situations that demand very specific actions to reach the intended outcome. Nothing you do feels natural or instinctive or even worthwhile and so you (I) quickly become resentful that the game bothered to give you the wheel. That's the difference between MGS and other linear cinematic style adventures. It's like having a paper with columns of numbers dropped down in front of you and being asked to solve the problem without being told what kind of arithmetic to perform while being poked in the kidneys.

[ Top of Thread ] [ Post Followup ] [ Search ] [ Return to the Forum ]

Posted by substance J on July 30, 2015 at 01:04:52 EST in reply to Sorry, I tried to make it clear that I was not talking about arcade and classic type games without endings when I said that. I was thinking specifically of many platformers and RPGs that I never finished but totally enjoyed while I was playing them. I don't generally really enjoy "cinematic" type games, so I don't have many examples there, but I guess Snatcher would be one actually. I never finished that (at least I can't remember finishing it), but I really liked it while I was playing it. Also, what do you mean about Konami pumping tens of millions of dollars into endings? Does the ending cost more than the rest of the game? I thought the cost of video games was in stuff like engine development, bug testing, marketing, and executive salaries, not particular sequences within the game. (n/t) from Never Even Beat Adventure and Opa Opa.

Trifling is the best word to describe MGS. The dialogues and cinemas don't prepare you for the parameters of the action scenes they set up, so you're dropped into these abrupt gameplay situations that demand very specific actions to reach the intended outcome. Nothing you do feels natural or instinctive or even worthwhile and so you (I) quickly become resentful that the game bothered to give you the wheel. That's the difference between MGS and other linear cinematic style adventures. It's like having a paper with columns of numbers dropped down in front of you and being asked to solve the problem without being told what kind of arithmetic to perform while being poked in the kidneys.

n/t

Follow Ups:

I know a guy who loves that though - he likes the "can you figure out and then execute the specific thing I want you to do?" and his answer is "yes, and sometimes a way you didn't think of." I understand that, but it really is not for me.

(exodus)

(02:37:43 07/30/15 EST)

The QA guy on my team loves these kinds of games in a sincere way. I respect his enthusiasm because he's a good person and he likes that kind of challenge. But if a game has any kind of stealth the game gets mentally downgraded in my mind. This is why I will never finish Zelda: Phantom Hourglass or Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker.

(NeoGutsman)

(02:53:37 07/30/15 EST)

people keep telling me there are good stealth games, but I haven't experienced any.

(exodus)

(14:51:59 07/30/15 EST)

There certainly could be one, but not until they stop getting all their ideas from Metal Gear. That terrible control and the awkward way you get stuck in the cycle of running or walking or reloading and it delays the action of ducking or throwing a guy. I never feel like I'm actually playing an MGS game, just enduring it. I like games where you have freedom of movement. It can be a turn based strategy game or a digital comic or anything, in all genres there are ways to make your game fun and free and there are ways to make it suffocating. Playing MGS is like trying to fold a fitted sheet while blindfolded, wearing cement shoes, and eating BBQ ribs. Or maybe it's like middle management, where your job is to take the blame for shit you have no genuine control over.

(SignOfZeta)