[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

Seeing as how the story is part of the game (especially in MGS, which has done the best job of any game I've ever seen of blending gameplay and storytelling), I think it's rather unfair to discount the role of the story when judging the quality of the game. The story was one of the things you were complaining about, after all.

Besides, even if we're just talking about gameplay, I think MGS holds its own against Splinter Cell quite well.

It's a part of the game for sure, and I don't mean to discount it. I simply mean that gameplay is more important to me than watching cutscenes that comprise half the game length (if the cutscenes were extremely good then I might have a different opinion, but it's clear when I see them why Kojima could never become anything more than a "by the numbers" film director). As for MGS gameplay, it's fine. I simply prefer to have control of the camera and I feel that there's more I can do in a SC game, plus better A.I. For most of MGS3 I could just run from location to location to avoid being caught. In SC each mission is in one large area with no separate areas to load. Running from place to place doesn't really help.

Originally Posted by mag

I don't see why that matters at all. MGS is a scifi story. It's not a military documentary. It's not supposed to be realistic.

Is that why Kojima uses real places, historical events, etc. in his stories? It's like a hybrid between a comic book and realism. I don't mind that either. Sci/fi it isn't though. Not in my opinion. The villains are pure comic book.

Originally Posted by mag

Obviously, there were other stealth games being made at the time. But if you ask anyone who knows about games to name the one person who most influenced the genre, I can almost guarantee you they'll say Hideo Kojima. He really is the father of this genre.

I can guarantee most of them will say Kojima too. It's the popular and common answer. But I do happen to know plenty who argue that Tenchu was the real beginning of what we think of as the stealth action genre, and since the lead designer isn't as well known as Kojima, it would be hard to put a face on that "father" wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by mag

As I said, it's a matter of what you're looking to get out of the game. Which is why I don't consider either one to be better than the other. The plot is part of the game. You can't say that we can't compare plots just because that's a point on which Splinter Cell is weak. If we're going to compare these games, then we should compare the whole games.

I agree with that. That's why I said it's fine if Evo wants to judge that way. But when comparing both games, I personally don't choose to say that Splinter Cell is inferior because it doesn't have a massively convoluted plot starring homosexual vampires, floating hornet men, and a guy who shoots electric bolts. The two franchises are obviously going for a different feel.

Originally Posted by EvoG

Err, your ENTIRE first post(and parts of the others) went on about his lack of 'directing' ability and storytelling, and all the techniques he "stole" from other directors, which you specifically cited, so I'm rather baffled by your response, as I was replying to THAT post...

SC, despite being a fun game to play, is not any more fun than MGS(or rather, MGS isn't any less fun than SC), but fails miserably in emotional impact in comparison. I get BOTH in MGS, and despite the whole nebulous arguments about how much games should be just games and how much narrative they should they have, when both are an option, why not exercise both?

I can't really share your enthusiasm for the "emotional impact" of MGS because I didn't realize there was any. But I still believe Splinter Cell has better gameplay, and a much better camera. I agree that games should exercise both options (story and gameplay). Splinter Cell does, just in a different style.

Originally Posted by EvoG

I'm not talking just technical attention to detail, but character and story; artistic attention to detail. The difference between a great game and a masterpiece. As for your second comment about RCA and aspect ratios...uh, okay, so?

You also ignored the rest of my commenting regarding the updated version of MGS3, which addresses issues you have strong feelings about.

Again I apologise for not knowing what you meant. I thought you meant technical attention to detail because I wasn't aware that the MGS games had any character, story, or artistic attention to detail. But I wouldn't say "uh, ok, so" about RCA and aspect ratios. It enhances the experience as anyone who plays games that way would agree. As for the updated MGS3, I'll have to try it sometime. I liked the regular version fine. It was in my Top 10 favorite games last year.