It ultimately doesn't matter since even the original Bomberman wasn't interesting.
As a multiplayer game, Bomberman is awesome.
I am still one of the very few who felt that MGS2 was an excellent game, and a tighter, more cohesive experience than its successor.
Could you explain why you think that, I'm just curious as I felt that it didn't evolve enough from its predecessor and the annoying story (moreso than the original) and whiny character didn't do anything for me either.
Bomberman had one of the most bland and boring designs in videogame history, so I don't mind him being reworked into some edgy crap. As long as they TRY to keep the humor of the earlier series intact. Who else wants to see a Shadow-like Bomberman dancing around clutching his behindus as his ass is lit on fire by an explosion?
Could you explain why you think that, I'm just curious as I felt that it didn't evolve enough from its predecessor and the annoying story (moreso than the original) and whiny character didn't do anything for me either.
Actually, as a sequel, I thought it was a tremendous success. Graphically it was absolutely stunning (and remains very easy on the eyes), and I thought it made logical and interesting expansions on MGS' core mechanics, particularly in the controls. As an experience, I preferred MGS2's more self-contained setting.
I just don't understand how anyone manages to find any of the Metal Gear Solid games anything less than excrutiating to play. Especially some of the people on this board, who I have always viewed as being notriously picky. It makes me wonder if I'm just doing something wrong.
I've tried very, very hard to get into them, much moreso than I ever would have with any other game I didn't immediately enjoy, because I find the characters, story and art style tremendously compelling. But I don't think I've ever played a game with such a fundamentally stupid design. If you were going to make a game that focuses on stealthily evading enemies and occassionally shooting at them from a distance, what viewing perspective would you choose? Would it be the one where you can't see more than two feet in front of you at any given time? Would it be the one that redundantly replicates the perspective provided by your radar?
It's infuriating, especially during the boss fights. Why am I being forced into a closed-quarters perspective when I can only use long range attacks? Why am I expected to shoot Revolver Ocelot from off screen? Why can I only see where the tank is when it is close enough to hurt me? It doesn't make the fights impossible by any means, it just makes it kind of idiotic and imprecise and frustrating.
Esrever wrote:
If you were going to make a game that focuses on stealthily evading enemies and occassionally shooting at them from a distance, what viewing perspective would you choose? Would it be the one where you can't see more than two feet in front of you at any given time? Would it be the one that redundantly replicates the perspective provided by your radar?
Well, yes, the game puts you in a position of comparitive blindness... therein lies the challenge. It forces you to use a combination of the radar and, more importantly, the pressing-against-wall trick to scope out your surroundings. I never found it that hard at all, although I suppose I can envision the confusion suffered by, say, a total dumbass!!
If it's any consolation to you, MGS4 will apparently totally ditch the overhead perspective.
From what I saw of the Chrome Hounds trailer I was fairly impressed but I'm not usually into big robot games. But it's made by Sega so I'll keep an eye on it.
Wonder if we'll get any VF5, HOTD4 and Afterburner news at the TGS too? Would be nice to see them all confirmed for the 360... especially as I've just paid £20 to pre-order the damn thing.
There is a good chance of it selling out everywhere; PSP style, so I'm making sure on the day of release I can walk smugly past crying children to pick up my circle box of goodness.
Popcorn wrote:Well, yes, the game puts you in a position of comparitive blindness... therein lies the challenge. It forces you to use a combination of the radar and, more importantly, the pressing-against-wall trick to scope out your surroundings. I never found it that hard at all, although I suppose I can envision the confusion suffered by, say, a total dumbass!!
It's not confusing, it's just stupid. It's pretty much the most illogical way to "scope out your surroundings" that they could possibly provide. I don't know... maybe if you can seperate the game design from the game environment, it's less distracting. But when I am playing a game where I am supposed to be a spy, I want him to control like a spy. I want to see what he would see, deal with problems the way he would have to. I don't want the challenge to come from imaginary handicaps created by the game design, and I don't want Snake to control like a fucking submarine simulator.
I like the way Splinter Cell controls better as well, but I was hesitent to mention it since it is pretty much inferior to MGS in every other regard. It also has, I think, more of a combat focus.
I am really curious to see if Subsistence works for me.
Esrever wrote:I like the way Splinter Cell controls better as well, but I was hesitent to mention it since it is pretty much inferior to MGS in every other regard. It also has, I think, more of a combat focus.
I am really curious to see if Subsistence works for me.
You can beat the entire first game by only killing only one person. Most if not all enemies can be snuck around though a few are necessary to incapacitate. And doesn't Snake have to fight Tanks and Robot-Ninjas and all sorts of other things? I would not say Splinter Cell is more focused on combat.
I'm really not that impressed. Don't get wrong the actual graphics look great and very highly detailed but I'm just not really a fan of the MGS series and the novelty of playing an older version of Snake really doesn't appeal to me.
I guess I should rephrase. It's not that Splinter Cell forces you into more combat situations, it just doesn't penalize you as harshly for chosing to enter them. In many of the scenarios, the violent approach is at least an option, and it's possible to succeed that way if you choose it. MGS, by comparisson, doesn't generally give you an option. Know what I mean?
Esrever wrote:I guess I should rephrase. It's not that Splinter Cell forces you into more combat situations, it just doesn't penalize you as harshly for chosing to enter them. In many of the scenarios, the violent approach is at least an option, and it's possible to succeed that way if you choose it. MGS, by comparisson, doesn't generally give you an option. Know what I mean?
Well, then don't expect to act like a spy. If you kill someone and someone else finds a dead body, they will come looking for the person that did it.
Kishi wrote:I expect it to totally fail in every way and force Hudson to reverse the change, like when Konami suddenly decided to make Goemon a futuristic anime-styled affair taking in place in Cyber-Edo (or whatever).
They turned Goemon into a crappy copy of samurai pizza cats?
