Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

I actually think that the game couldn't handle a more flexible camera and maintain a playable framerate. I seriously doubt it was handled this way for "level design" issues.

---

Of course it was a design choice--look at old Metal Gear, and then Metal Gear Solid on PSone, etc. etc. Konami is the most capable development team for PS2 (them or Polyphony), so I don't think it had anything to do with hardware limitations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Konami is the most capable development team for PS2 (them or Polyphony)

---

The shittiness of Metal Gear Solid 3 defies that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Konami is the most capable development team for PS2 (them or Polyphony)

---

Yep. :tu:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

And lol, I did it without talking to anyone on the radio, so I had no clue there was an ammo depot there until AFTER the fight. So I did it all without a sniping gun =X

---

That sucks. Whats cool about that boss fight was how there are many way to play it. But I think using the directional mic in combination with the thermal googles to find his general location, and then looking around very carefully with your sniper rifle was one of the most satisfying boss fights I've ever played. It really gave me the feeling like I was in a big jungle and at any second I could get shot from an unknown location. Reminded me of my paintball playing days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Of course it was a design choice--look at old Metal Gear, and then Metal Gear Solid on PSone, etc. etc. Konami is the most capable development team for PS2 (them or Polyphony), so I don't think it had anything to do with hardware limitations.

---

I think hardware limitations had something to do with it. Imagine for a moment that the camera was less of a birds eye view and more of a RE4 type view. Now imagine that in front of Snake are a bunch of guys shooting at him. I don't think the PS2 could handle all that with the detail of the environments and the draw distance without a hit in the framerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Konami is the most capable development team for PS2 (them or Polyphony), so I don't think it had anything to do with hardware limitations.

---

Even the most capable development team for the PS2 would have trouble getting blood from a rock.

And the camera worked in MGS1 because it was a pretty differently designed game from 2 and 3, I hope you can at least feel the difference between the games. The first MGS was more a throwback to the older games and how they played than 2 and 3 are, they feel like totally different games to me.

And that camera was ok years ago, so long as you had a radar to keep track of the things that Snake couldn't see despite them being totally in his face without stopping to go into first person view. They changed the camera around a lot for MGS2, there were more behind the character moments since the game design had changed a lot. Now for MGS3 they have even more wide open areas than MGS2, but they go back to the claustrophobic overhead camera of the first game, which was only acceptable since most places were broken off into small rooms anyway AND you had a radar? That makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

Even the most capable development team for the PS2 would have trouble getting blood from a rock.

And the camera worked in MGS1 because it was a pretty differently designed game from 2 and 3, I hope you can at least feel the difference between the games. The first MGS was more a throwback to the older games and how they played than 2 and 3 are, they feel like totally different games to me.

And that camera was ok years ago, so long as you had a radar to keep track of the things that Snake couldn't see despite them being totally in his face without stopping to go into first person view. They changed the camera around a lot for MGS2, there were more behind the character moments since the game design had changed a lot. Now for MGS3 they have even more wide open areas than MGS2, but they go back to the claustrophobic overhead camera of the first game, which was only acceptable since most places were broken off into small rooms anyway AND you had a radar? That makes no sense to me.

---

That's why it's a horrible game. Konami is like Nintendo in that their fanboys are apologists, and heil every poor decision as innovation. Trying to make a Splinter Cell level stealth game with an atrocious camera and archaic point of view is shitty game design.

If the characters and story weren't so awesome I wouldn't be playing it right now.

Its far from a deal breaking issue. So you have to press the 1st person view button a lot? In Splinter Cell you have to fiddle with the camera a lot too to get a desired view point. Neither are perfect and as long as the developers realize the shortcomings of the camera and design the game with these shortcomings in mind it isn't a big deal to me. If you are running through MGS3 or SC guns blazing and never looking around before hand, then yeah, you are gonna get frustrated. But only an idiot would play the game that way.

The Fury fight is a lot like the fight with Vulcan Raven, except terrible.

The last 3 hours of this game should be its own game.