I haven't played MGS4 yet for obvious reasons so I can't comment on it and don't want to hear any spoilers. But I enjoyed the cutscenes in MGS1&3, even if they were long. I found the cutscenes in MGS2 tiresome and a pain in the ass. The difference? MGS2's story is excruciatingly stupid, boring and confusing. It was the story equivalent of writing down random big words and calling it poetry. I didn't want the control taken from me because the parts I played were the only parts that were enjoyable. But with MGS3 I knew the cutscenes would be entertaining and interesting so they were just part of the game. The first and third game benefit from a straightforward action movie plot.
I think that makes a world of difference. Videogame stories usually are really bad. You often get either a simple "defeat the bad guy" one that doesn't try that hard but is just to tie the game together or a failed attempt at an ambitious story that comes across like wankery tripe written by a 13 year old goth. If you get the latter it's death.
MGS2 cutscenes... I watched my roommate play the ending of MGS2, and it was painful. To tell the truth, I didn't watch much of anything before the last sets of cutscenes and the last two or three bosses, but it literally felt like whomever wrote the story thought they were good just because you had one unseen figure behind another unseen figure, and everyone thought they'd all profit in their own way by making the main-ish character do whatever it was he was doing that seemed to be for little reason except just for doing it. I was definitely unimpressed with the story, and honestly not too impressed with MGS3's story, either. It seemed dull, IMO, and mostly written to reference the first two games in boring, flat ways: X meets Y, X never spoke about meeting Y in the other two games, Y never mentioned it either, we just felt like it would be cool if that happened, so we did it despite having no reference point or no expansion of the games' overall plot.
Anyways, you can see that while I respect spy game gameplay, so much of MGS (At least the second and third games) was over the top and unrealistic, yet truthfully dull and uninspired that the only way I can see that the games became so big had to have been from gameplay alone, because that story sure didn't help.
Anyways, this is why Uncharted and Uncharted 2 don't look appealing to me: You've got a game that exists in a "realistic" world, people look like people, buildings are convincingly decorated like offices, everything looks real... Then, in the demo, a man gets shot several times by a helicopter. He hides behind a desk, completely, yet sticks out his gun and picks off villains, despite the character's inability to see anything in that direction, it's all the player. It ruins the illusion, and I struggle to suspend belief in such a realistic world, while some character does amazing things just because he's the main character. I don't particularly care about how seamless things appear to be, when you've got a character in a phenomenally realistic environment, he better obey the "laws" of life, of physics, and things like that. Otherwise, there's no point, and I just flat out lose interest.
Have you ever watched a game where you fight a boss, you shoot him, cut him, stab him in the heart, and after about 100 attacks, the boss fight is over, someone comes in, fires one shot, and the boss suddenly dies? That's what I'm talking about. I get disgusted at that type of thing, and the E3 video for Uncharted 2 was chock full of moments like that.
I'll have to look at that other list, but I've already stated that LBP just looks to have terrible gameplay, absolutely miserable control for a platformer. Who cares about customization when the core of the game itself has such ugly gameplay?
Topic: Who is going to buy a PS3 Slim? (Read 87338 times)
