MGS vs MGS3: thedogbarks vs toomanywires

This is the third in a series of articles in which myself and my friend toomanywires (whose blog can be found on 1up or at his personal website here) debate a number of issues. We hope you enjoy them and please add your own comments to agree or disagree with either of us.

toomanywires
Before I begin, just a quick disclaimer. I love the first Metal Gear Solid game, but it just so happens that I prefer Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. For me, Metal Gear Solid 3 is the defining moment of an outstanding series of games. Snake Eater represents everything that I like about video games; interesting characters, over the top story lines, pseudo-history, great combat, memorable boss battles and an outstanding theme tune. That’s right, I even love the James Bond inspired theme tune. It genuinely gives me goose bumps, even the part about eating a tree frog. So why is it that you prefer MGS1, thedogbarks?



thedogbarks
I, like toomanywires, am a huge fan of the Metal Gear Solid franchise, so I’m not exactly going to slam Metal Gear Solid 3. However I do strongly feel that the Playstation classic was a far superior game for a number of reasons, not only related to its historical significance. However, seeing as that is the most obvious starting point, let’s kick it off from there. On its release in 1998 MGS created a genre, something that very few games can claim. I don’t necessarily mean ‘stealth’ as of course other games had incorporated such elements before, rather ‘tactical espionage action’… which is a fairly meaningless but accurate description of the experience. More importantly it was the first game to be a truly cinematic experience. Spectacular scenes, an intriguing story with plenty of twists, the best voice acting in any game to date; it had it all. The game could be completed in a matter of hours, but that was the beauty of the game. Once you got good enough at it you could play through the game as if it were an action movie. Thus, it was one of the first games that other people would sit down and watch being played all the way through, because it was that well a constructed plot. Oh, and Liquid Snake was incredible. His British accent practically dripped with honey-roasted ham, and that is something that MGS3 cannot compare to.



toomanywires
I agree with your points, especially about Liquid. But, although Metal Gear Solid was a well constructed game, the gameplay had numerous restrictions that were overcome in MGS3. Shadow Moses, although a very memorable setting, was extremely limited. The Soviet jungles of MGS3 were a far bigger part of the gameplay and complemented the stealth mechanics of the series much better. As befits such a game, you were much more reliant upon your environment for survival, whether it was by utilizing your camouflage system to crawl though grass unnoticed, or hunting down a snake for a health booster. The environment actually affected how you played the game, in ways that Shadow Moses never did. Although your movements are still somewhat linear, you are afforded much more freedom than in MGS. The best example is The End, a 100 year old sniper who acts as one of the bosses Naked Snake has to subdue. Aside from being my favorite boss battle of the entire series, set across a huge area and requiring a great deal of strategy to complete, you are presented with numerous methods of besting him. The most unusual of which, and best representing the more open gameplay of MGS3, is the opportunity to snipe and kill The End much earlier in the game, ending his role prematurely and removing the need to fight him as a boss later on. Speaking of the bosses, how do you think they compare?

thedogbarks
To take you up on the freedom that MGS3 provides, I have to say that I preferred the corridor style of MGS. With its (for the most part) fixed overhead camera, and confined geometric rooms it plays out more like a puzzle game wherein there is a perfect solution. Sure you can bungle your way through setting off alarms and gunning down genome soldiers, but for perfectionists finding the optimal route added a lot of replay-ability to the game. With its slow crawls through grass and the heavy reliance on switching camouflage for different foliage the stealth in MGS3 feels a little too laborious.
I do think the bosses in MGS are far more interesting than MGS 3, not necessarily in the way that the battles play out but rather because you have far more of a connection to them. The bosses are introduced early on and you really get a feel for their unique personalities before even meeting them. Also the fact that you face some bosses multiple times strengthens the bond between Snake and the Fox Hound members so that the combat has a deeper meaning, and their final words are more poignant. In MGS3 you meet a boss, defeat them and then move on. There isn’t nearly as much satisfaction in how these sub-plots develop. MGS also has the benefit of taking place later in the timeline than MGS3 and therefore is able to draw upon the history of the series in order to present more dramatic scenarios. Even if you didn’t know who Grey Fox was before you played MGS, his prior relationship with Snake carried more impact than any boss battle in MGS3. If you want to explain why I’m wrong, please try.

toomanywires
(WARNING - Spoilers ahead)
Poor thedogbarks, you have walked right into this one. With the exception of the fourth-wall-breaking fight with Psycho Mantis, the boss battles from MGS3 far eclipse those of its predecessors. I have already talked about The End, so instead I am going to concentrate on another boss. The Boss. Has the protagonist of a Metal Gear Solid ever had a closer, or more emotionally charged relationship with an enemy? She is his mentor, his friend and mother-figure. And Naked Snake is the substitute for the son that was taken away from her. Yet she still makes the ultimate sacrifice, knowing that it will pit her against Naked Snake. Their eventual showdown to the death, set amongst a carpet of white flowers is a far more poignant moment than anything else seen in the series, before or since. You also mentioned timelines, and that MGS is better able to draw upon the existing history of the series. I would counter that MGS3's importance lies in it being the creation myth, the point from whence all else comes. The seeds are sewn for the rise of Big Boss, the foundation of the Patriots, the role of Ocelot and the Les Enfants Terribles project. And we all know where that leads us.



thedogbarks
Sigh. Wow, your little speech on the role of The Boss really had me in tears...cough. The scenery-chewing, pompous and grandiose final speech, all delivered with a plummy British accent (well we have to be good for something) by Liquid is more in keeping with the action movie analogy which I referred to earlier.
One of the reasons that these two MGS games are so comparable is because unlike the other games in the franchise they stand as complete stories where knowledge of the other games isn't necessary. As a single game the plot of MGS is an incredibly compelling piece of fiction. The nuclear plot (also present in MGS3) not only spells out concerns still relevant to the world today, the elements connected to gene manipulation and the use of viral warfare also ring true. But as a simple story of heroism, love, betrayal and war, which is told in a far more complex manner, it has rarely been topped in the medium. And unlike the other MGS games, it has two endings. Whilst for many games that could be perceived as a negative, the difference in their tones make them both thought provoking and evocative in their own way. The fact that whether you submit to torture or not directly affects if Meryl lives or dies is a weight of responsibility that few games can capture.

toomanywires
I agree that both games do stand on their own outside of the series, and that is one of the things that make them so accessible. With that being said, as for the two endings, having any knowledge of the rest of the series removes any real weight of responsibility, as only Meryl’s survival is canon.
For me, one of the most impressive things about MGS3 is that it’s the only game in the series that nailed the balance between gameplay, dialogue and cut scenes. MGS is a little on the short side, and features far too much intrusive radio talk early on. MGS2, although an enjoyable game, is full of mind numbing babble, and MGS4, despite having a hefty amount of gameplay, relied on cut scenes far too much. Finally, MGS3’s Naked Snake remains the most enjoyable and sympathetic lead in the series. He seems a far more complex, believable and human character than the first game’s incarnation. This is further aided by your knowledge of what he is destined to become, and how the events of the game will irrecoverably change his life.
Last year I played all four MGS games back to back over a short period of time. By revisiting these classics, and playing MGS4 for a second time, I found that MGS3 was still an absolutely riveting experience and remains my personal favourite. And just for the record, in order of preference – MGS3, MGS1, MGS4, MGS2.



thedogbarks
Whilst I have argued for MGS in terms of its appeal in terms of an action cinema experience, its canonical importance, and its bosses, perhaps the reason I am so enamored with the game is all the deft, genius touches that it introduced, and Kojima has never since managed to surpass.
Think back on MGS and rather than just Snake and the story, I remember flashes of the small moments in the game which challenged my own perception of what games are. Remember having to find Meryl's CODEC on the back of the game box? That was truly a moment that perhaps will never be topped in terms of originality. How about when you first sparked up a cigarette as Snake and wondered what was making a beeping noise, and then realized that smoking also had a practical use in the game? Everything to do with Psycho Mantis? Finding out that a dog urinating on you could have a positive effect? The FoxDie revelations? I could go on forever. When I think about MGS so many wonderful memories come to mind. So many memories that have changed the way I felt about videogames. Very few games could hold such esteem in my mind, so whilst I do love MGS3, it could never scale the heights of its Playstation forefather.



If you enjoyed this article the please check out our previous articles 'SNES vs Genesis' and 'Do we need fanboys?' on my 1up blog or on toomanywires personal website.

thedogbarks vs toomanywires: Do you love or hate fanboys?

This is the second in a series of articles in which myself and my friend toomanywires (whose blog can be found on 1up or at his personal website here) debate a number of issues. We hope you enjoy them and please add your own comments to agree or disagree with either of us.

thedogbarks

Ah fanboys. Lifeblood of the industry, and the heart and soul of what makes video games so different to other forms of media. Yet tragically these champions of gaming are hated and derided by the world at large. It is true that often the venom with which they express themselves and the stubbornness of their beliefs can at times be trying but that merely speaks of the passion they have. We have much to thank fanboys for, no matter how we may try to deny it. They may be the minority, but they are a very vocal minority that can affect the industry in a positive way. Let’s take Nintendo as an example. This year they announced not one, but two Mario games, a drastic re-imagining of Metroid and overtures to a completely new motion-plus controlled Zelda. Why? The wrath of the fanboys. Last year’s E3 was so pathetic for them, was so casual focused, was so Cammy Dunaway’s family stories, that they took an absolutely pounding from the Nintendo faithful and had to reevaluate their approach this year. Reggie Fils-Aime said that Nintendo had listened to the concerns of the hardcore fans (probably out of fear of being stabbed) and responded, so you should be damn grateful to fanboys. Without them the only Wii game you would be looking forward to is Mario Party 15. Don’t you agree toomanywires?

toomanywires


Mario: 10% recyclable

No I don’t.First of all, let’s make an important distinction between a fanboy and a hardcore gamer. I consider myself a relatively hardcore gamer, but I would absolutely draw the line at fanboy. A hardcore gamer is someone who plays a lot, has a certain knowledge and appreciation of the medium, knows what they like but is open to trying something new, as long as its not shite. Fanboys are spiteful beasts, more concerned with minute details, series continuity and giving everyone who doesn’t agree with them an earful. It’s an obsession that clouds the judgment and prevents one from seeing the big picture. And all of this is detrimental to their acceptance and enjoyment of anything new, which can have a profound knock-on effect upon other gamers, and even the quality of games. You say we should be grateful to the fanboys for Nintendo’s surprising announcements at E3. If Nintendo is truly catering to the fanboys, then can we blame them for a new Super Mario Galaxy that boasts 90% new levels? How is that acceptable? What happened to the other 10%!? I blame the fanboy influence and their inability to embrace change. Let’s hear it thedogbarks.

thedogbarks


The Reggie has only one natural predator; the fanboy

90% new levels is better than no new levels, but of course I agree with some of your comments about fanboys. But looking at the industry you have to be able to appreciate the value of fanboys. Let’s take the Left 4 Dead 2 announcement recently. The petition was started to boycott the game as people felt that Valve had moved on to a full sequel too quickly, and from a company which has always prided itself on free additional content and continued support for their products, it surprised many. In response to the petition Valve pledged its continual support and free content patches to the original Left 4 Dead as well as compatibility between the two games. Perhaps they would have done it anyway .Perhaps most ‘hardcore’ gamers or enthusiasts wouldn’t have bothered to raise a fuss. But fanboys are our industry watchdog, haranguing companies to ensure that we get more bang for our buck. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. As a ‘hardcore’ gamer have you done anything to encourage developers to give us a better deal?

toomanywires

I can't say that I have been that pro-active. If I feel that a developer is unfairly over-charging for something, I make myself heard simply by electing not to buy it (RE 5 Versus mode). But, point taken about Left For Dead 2, though I get the feeling that Valve were always committed to the first game as well as the sequel. Still, do you equate that movement of gamers to fanboys? When I think of the term fanboy, I think of it as being a somewhat derogatory term. By making their voices heard and achieving something worthwhile, I do not think of the people who signed that petition as being fanboys, merely dedicated gamers who felt like they were being ripped off. They are a group of gamers displaying their passion in a constructive way. That’s something to be praised, so I don’t consider that fanboyism (is that a word?!). So where do we draw the line between being passionate about a game/console and being a fanboy?

thedogbarks


War never changes...

Fair points but I think we are both getting bogged down in the terminology. So let me close by noting how fanboys have helped to elevate videogames. They lift them from entertainment into something far more cultish. In the same way that Star Trek and Star Wars can be enjoyed by many, even loved and appreciated by many, but only worshipped by a few, videogames can inspire the same loyalty that those two iconic franchises can generate. As well as the irrational hatred that comes with it. The frantic, unreasonable devotion or hatred is something that can almost be compared to how people feel about sports. You can love or hate another team unconditionally for no other reason than you are a fan. And in the same way that sporting heroes can inspire grown men to burst into tears, Miyamoto's mere presence reduces Nintendo fanboys to blubbering wrecks. And for those people who waited in line for a week to be among the first to buy a PS3, you brought media attention to our passion which is belittled and misunderstood by most of the mainstream press. Yes we are crazy, but seeing as videogames have surpassed movies in terms of revenue generated, you had better listen to our crazy. Whilst a neutral fan of football could enjoy a game between Man United and Man City, and appreciate both teams (like those of us who own multiple systems), we also need the madness of the fans who scream their lungs out. We need fanboys.

toomanywires


10 seconds later WWIII erupted

I suppose fanboys are inevitable. I wouldn’t go as far to say that we need them, but they may have their place. For a start, they make the rest of us look far more reasonable and cognitive! And I like the football analogy. But, even with the popularity of online connectivity and massively multiplayer games, I still see gaming as quite a personal experience. In football, fans fully embrace a team to exist, bond and revel within that extended community. This may be for the better; that feeling when a country comes together during a world cup run, or worse; the violence that has become synonymous with European football. However, for most people video games remain an activity that largely involves sitting in your living room and interfacing with an inanimate entity. So, this “frantic, unreasonable devotion or hatred” is somewhat misplaced in the realms of video games, and I’m thankful for that. And part of the problem is that unlike football, there is no end in sight. We can’t put Mario and Sonic in a stadium and make them play each other in front of 40,000 fans. There is no closure. It’s an endless cycle that, I will admit, when done in good humour can be a great deal of fun. But when taking the “I’m right, everyone else is wrong” fanboy approach, it’s just a waste of time. Passion? Yes, the industry thrives on it. Fanboys? Not so much.

If you enjoyed this article please check out our first article SNES vs Genesis here

thedogbarks vs toomanywires: SNES vs Mega Drive

This is the first in a series entitled 'thedogbarks vs toomanywires' in which I debate videogame related issues with toomanywires (whose blog can be found here). We will be tinkering with the format from time to time. We hope you enjoy these articles and feel free to chip in with your own comments.

thedogbarks - SNES



Back in the 90s it seemed to matter which was better, the SNES or the Mega Drive. Almost twenty years later we realize that, yes, it still does matter. Because like all arguments, this debate stems from the fact that you know that your opinion must be the correct one and you have no idea why any reasonable person would think otherwise. With that in mind, I invite you to read on and learn why I am right and everyone who dares to disagree with me is wrong.

Hardware



I will admit to partial ignorance when it comes to the technicality of which hardware was better than the other but it essentially boils down to this; the Mega Drive was fast but bland and the SNES was slower but more colorful. It depended on which of these two aspects was more important to you as to which console was better, but if you chose the Mega Drive you were wrong. For a few simple comparisons, the Mega Drive had a color palette of 512 colors of which it could display 62 onscreen at any one time. The SNES had 32,768 and could display 256 onscreen at once. Impressive? Of course. Meaningless numbers? That too is true. But putting aside gameplay preferences, if you ever wondered why the Streets of Rage looked like murky back alleys compared to the sparkling slums of Final Fight, it was due to the difference in the hardware capability. Yoshi’s island could never have been done on the Mega Drive and still stands up as a stunning graphical and artistic achievement.

Whilst they look primitive now, at the time the SFX chip and Mode 7, which were responsible for the birth of the Starfox and F-Zero franchises, were revolutionary and gave gamers a new perspective on games as well as some of the first in-game motion sickness experiences. Sonic was fast, sure, but there was no perspective or depth. Being hurled to the ground in Pilotwings was far more dizziness inducing. The comparison in sound quality also leans heavily in favor of the SNES. Unless you liked the grating and tinny beeps that were rung from the Mega Drive, its audio inferiority was obvious. If you were really into that kind of thing though you probably also believe that your alarm clock is an auditory treat.

The final nail in the coffin of the Mega Drive was the controller. You can argue all you want about the release of the six button controller but it didn’t come until five years after the launch of the system in 1993 to coincide with the release of Street Fighter 2. So if you wanted to be able to play the non-gimped version you had to shell out a pretty penny to get the same level of fidelity as the SNES offered. The six button controller wasn’t terrible, but the shoulder buttons that the SNES introduced are present in the PS3 and 360 controllers of the current generation. The SNES controller is the template for how we interact with videogames.

Software



Whilst the Mega Drive had a strong line up of games over its ten year lifespan, it pales in comparison to the SNES. At the time Nintendo had a chokehold on most of the major third parties which meant that the best games usually came to the SNES exclusively. Of course with the launch of the Playstation those embittered developers rightly abandoned Nintendo due to the arrogance and disdain that Nintendo had shown towards them. But at the time of the SNES it meant that the glory days kept on rolling. RPGs were particularly abundant and if you wanted to play Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Illusion of Gaia, Breath of Fire and so on, you needed a SNES. Of course the first party games were stunning as well and the likes of Super Mario World, Yoshi’s Island 2, Super Metroid, Super Mario Kart, the Donkey Kong Country series, Starfox, Earthbound, Mario RPG and of course a Link to the Past simply blew away anything the Megadrive had to offer.

But lists are boring so I apologize and will get back to slamming the opposition. Let’s all be honest here; Sonic isn’t very good. Sure the first and second one weren’t that bad but from then on in it got pretty ugly. Even the ‘good’ Sonic games depend on the appeal of speed over precision, and well, you know, good level design. Instead Sonic relied on being cool, trendy and having attitude as well as bombarding coked up preteens (the drink not the drug) with the idea that speed = fun. Perhaps the idea was that if you threw a game fast enough at the consumers they wouldn’t realize that it wasn’t that good to begin with. I guess it worked.

Legacy



The sad fact is that the Mega Drive hasn’t aged well at all. Once you get old enough to see past the hype you notice that compared to the SNES it looks pretty ugly. So many of the SNES games listed above really have a timeless quality, both in terms of the game play experiences they delivered and the graphical style with which they were portrayed that playing them even today doesn’t feel awkward or tedious. Which I guess is why Nintendo feels that they can keep on milking the general public by rereleasing the games on every platform they have supported since the SNES. And we keep on eating them up. I for one have Super Mario World on the SNES, Gameboy Advance and on the Wii Virtual Console, and yet it still plays as beautifully now as the day it was released.

Back in the 90s we were dazzled by the slick marketing of Sega, who managed not only to make owning a Megadrive cool, but also made owning a SNES embarrassing. After the dust settled and we became old enough to hit puberty, have sex, drink, balance out our hormones and grow up, things became a little clearer. The SNES was better.

toomanywires - Mega Drive



“Super Nintendo, SEGA Genesis.
When I was dead broke, man I couldn’t picture this.”

When The Notorious BIG famously rapped those words, he spoke of the quality of two of the best loved video game consoles of all time. We should all aspire to own a Mega Drive (Genesis) and a Super Nintendo (Super Famicom), just like Biggie. What he forgot to say though, was that you should play your Mega Drive just that little bit more. Here is why;

Hardware



1988. The year that the 16bit Mega Drive, known as the Genesis in the US, was released. That is a full 2 years before Nintendo released the Super Famicom, to be know as the SNES in the West. The MD was the groundbreaker.

While Nintendo was still providing its customer base with 8 bit titles, SEGA was delivering heavy hitting, technologically superior titles like Golden Axe, Altered Beast, Super Thunder Blade and Revenge of Shinobi. SEGA was bringing an arcade experience into the home, whilst Nintendo owners were confined to the limitations of the NES. Yet, when Nintendo finally released their 16 bit machine in 1990, it provided no technological leap from the benchmark SEGA had set two years previous. This speaks volumes about what SEGA were able to achieve.

Unlike Nintendo, SEGA were not content to rest on their laurels, constantly reshaping consumer expectations of their 16 bit machine. In 1991, the Mega CD add-on was released in Japan, to follow elsewhere in subsequent years, and known as the SEGA CD in America. It featuring a faster CPU, more memory and better graphics and most importantly CD games had a cpacity of 5120 megabits, compared to the 8-16 megabits of a cartridge. A further add-on, the 32X, would follow a couple of years later. Although they were by and large commercial failures, they do further demonstrate SEGA’s willingness to embrace new technolgies, adding further value to their existing system. SEGA were constantly pushing things forward, and it made you feel good to be a SEGA fan.

Software



When it comes to games, there a handful of greats and a significant number of gems on the Mega Drive. Sure, the MD can’t boast some of the stone cold classics that featured on the SNES (Final Fantasy IV-IV, Chrono Trigger), but for any serious gamer there is a wealth of excellent games on the MD.

When talking about the Mega Drive you have to start with the iconic Sonic The Hedgehog. Whilst he has undoubtedly taken a turn for the worse over the last few years, he remains a cultural icon of the 90s, and was at that time every bit Mario’s equal. Why play as a plodding, childish overweight plumber, when you could take control of a blue hedgehog with attitude, whizzing through greenery at break neck speeds? To this day, I cannot comprehend the appeal of Mario as opposed to Sonic.

Sales wise, Sonic 2 would be the high water mark. An outstanding game, it was released in America and Europe on November 24th 1992, a Tuesday, dubbed as “Sonic 2’s day”. Even their marketing puns were pure gold.

At first, SEGA couldn’t get big name third party developers, as at the time Nintendo had them locked into exclusive contracts. To combat this, Sega took a new approach; licensing celebrities such as Joe Montana, Evander Holyfield and Michael Jackson to headline games with a wide appeal. Once again SEGA were ahead of their time, spearheading a trend that has continued to this day. This is a further instance of SEGA thinking outside of the box.

Sonic The Hedgehog titles, the Streets of Rage series, Shining Force games, the Phantasy Star series, Road Rash, Golden Axe, Desert Strike, Shinobi, Earthworm Jim, Mortal Kombat 2, Gunstar Heroes. Good times.

Legacy



Selling 29million units worldwide, the Mega Drive was a mixed success. A virtual non event in Japan, it achieved early success in America, initially outselling the SNES thanks to Sonic’s magic. In Europe and Brazil it dominated the competition, maintaining an impressive market share throughout its shelf life. However, its was discontinued prematurely to make way for the Sega Saturn, allowing Nintendo to cement its dominant position and having disastrous ramifications on SEGA’s future as a console maker.

However, when discussing 90’s popular culture, particularly in Europe, you have to reference the Mega Drive. It’s high speed arcade conversions were the ideal bedfellow of the prevalent dance culture, and its edgy marketing campaigns took on a life of their own.

“Does what Nintendon’t”

“Welcome to the next level”

“To be this good takes AGES, to be this good takes SEGA”

It was cool to have a Mega Drive. According to the informative MD article on Wikipedia, a Sony focus group at the time found that teenage boys would not admit to owning a Super NES rather than a Genesis. Clearly, it had all the street cred in the world, and I still enjoy telling people that I was a SEGA child. It has retained something of the counter culture even to this day, and owners past and present will never shy from letting people know about their preference.

Multiple repackaged collections of Mega Drive games speak volumes about the continued popularity of SEGA’s most successful console. From the PS3 to the Xbox 360, and yes even Nintendo’s Wii, it’s not difficult to access and play a MD classic.

Ultimately, this clash of gaming titans at their peak lead to an all out console war, with the cosumers being the true winners. With each company pushing the other, gamers were treated to quality games and the chance to pick an identity, SEGA or Nintendo. This competitive spirit continues to this day. You are afterall reading a post entitled Mega Drive vs SNES.



So, what was the Mega Drive? It was playground bragging rights. It was christmas and birthdays. It was your TV screen seemingly struggling to keep up with Sonic speeding from left to right, Axel patrolling the Streets of Rage, Alex Kid coming to terms with an unfortunate case of hand gigantism, it was knocking someone off their bike with a crowbar in Road Rash and hunting down a mad dictator in Desert Strike. It was an experience, and remains one to this day.

Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, especially a SNES owner.

Long live SEGA.

taken from - http://toomanywires.blog126.fc2.com/