Page 1 of 1
What do you think about this games
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:30 pm
by JUNKER
I was wondering if some games like "Syphon Filter", "Splinter Cell" or "In Cold Blood" can easily be be rotulated as espionage or tactical games? I really enjoy myself playing In Cold Blood (even tough its gameplay being so different than MG)
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:40 pm
by damasch
MG(S) beats all the other games in gameplay and story... (played syphonp. and sc myself)
Kojima says that Syp. and SC are his legacy.....
his legacy is the only thing I don't like on him...

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:12 pm
by Johnny Undaunted
I remember playing demo versions of the first two Syphon Filter games. They weren't that good (they had really crappy controls) and I always found the series to be overrated anyway.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:08 pm
by Rick Deckard
Syphon Filter was great. You had a taser which could set people on fire from the inside. That said, it's no Metal Gear Solid. It's not even close. It's not even near to close. It's quite far away, actually, but it's still rather fun.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:44 pm
by ReasonWhyNot
Splinter Cell is cool, but it's completely different from Metal Gear. Some of the basic stealth tactics are similar, but Splinter Cell really tries to expand upon those basic elements. Stealth is the total focus of the gameplay, instead of being just a single element as it is in Metal Gear. And the stories are totally different. Yeah, so you have two gruff heroes, but they're set in two entirely different universes. People have got to learn to understand that. They're both good games on their own terms.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:01 pm
by Johnny Undaunted
Even keeping in mind Syphon Filter as a stand-alone game, I still found it to be pretty ghastly. It has nothing to do with it being an MGS-ripoff, but rather with the game having some of the most overcomplicated and unresposive controls I've ever experienced in a PS game.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:43 am
by 87th
I really loved the original Syphon Filter, but I loved it for the same reasons I loved Tomb Raider 2, rather than MGS. It was a much more linear game, but concentrated on exploration a lot more than MGS did. Later levels like the Cathedral and the Mueseum were very TR-esque. I did like the Stealth, but it worked in a very different way than it did in MetalGear.
I think it's easy to compare MGS and SF as they're Stealth games from roughly, the same time. They're very different games, though.
I liked SC, too, but no where near as much as MGS, or even SF.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:12 am
by JUNKER
One thing is clear: none of these games can be compared to Metal Gear (storyline, gameplay). My question was if they can be classified as espionage and tactical games. I ask this 'cause nowadays if a game has a stealth use on its gameplay people already classify it as a espionage game. I dont think its that simple. My opinion is that a good storyline makes all the difference. And what about "In Cold Blood"?? I think its a good game even its controls being so complicated.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:33 am
by 87th
I really haven't played much of In Cold Blood, but I don't know why i'd ever want to, either.

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:52 am
by JUNKER
I really haven't played much of In Cold Blood, but I don't know why i'd ever want to, either.
I dont think its a spectacular game. But its nice. It has some interesting puzzles(although being a quite easy game)
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:49 am
by Szczepaniak
I personally found the settings and plot of the SC games to be nauseatingly boring.
Forced myself to play a few hours of two different SC games, being desperate for something close to MG, but eventually had to pack it in.
Nauseatingly boring, thats the two-word combo I'd use for all these MG pretenders to the throne....
On the other hand, I quite liked Deus-Ex and its use of stealth. It's still probbably my favourite PC game today.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:22 am
by Crowley
I've played through the first Splinter Cell and I liked it for the most part, but the levels were incredibly linear. The absolutely worst part was the lobby of the Chinese Embassy.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:49 am
by Jonathan Ingram
Splinter Cell was just weak. I found all the gadgets really good, and some of the moves are cool, even if Sam Fisher does move about like a Ford Fiesta full of quarry rubble on shopping trolley wheels. But the story just bored me to tears, and I gave up when I got to the abattoir. The game itself was so focussed on being stealthy that it ran itself into a hole. Everytime you get spotted, you try and shoot back but Fisher's aim is less accurate than a drive by shooting in Compton. Tedious stuff.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:56 am
by JUNKER
Splinter Cell is a predictable game. And as said before, Sam Fischer's aim is the worst aim that i've ever seen. Even aiming in the head is almost impossible hit a headshot. For that and others (a lot od others) reasons Metal Gear is the best. Thanks to master Kojima MG will be forever unbeatable
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 am
by Rick Deckard
I shot a guard three times in the crotch and he was completely unphased. It took another two bullets in the head to take him down. So now you know what to do the next time a Splinter Cell fan shouts "Realism!" at you - snap his neck, MGS-style.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:11 am
by JUNKER
The truth is that Tom Clancy is a paranoid man who wrote only paranoid scripts for paranoid games. His games are always the same. Rainbow Six (the entire serie) and Splinter Cell are very good examples of repetitive games. Terrorits invading some embassy and a group or a secret agent trying to stop'em. Always the same idi.ot storyline. Metal Gear is the only action game that its storyline can be compared to a RPG game storyline. And in many cases, MG is even better than some RPG storylines.
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:51 pm
by Szczepaniak
Thank you junker, I couldn't agree more.
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:26 pm
by ReasonWhyNot
Yeah, I would think that the Metal Gear series has better overall storylines than most RPG's. That's because most RPG's are all fantasy nonsense with no substance. Lots of pretty CG, but nothing involving or absorbing. In fact, I can't think of any truly deep RPG storylines. The classic franchises of Zelda or Final Fantasy are both good series, but I don't think the majority of gamers play them for their stories. People play Kojima's games for their stories, without a doubt, and while they may elevate above the common videogame story, even Kojima's stories fail on certain levels. I'm not trying to criticize, but it's unfair to criticize all the other franchises that have spun off from certain elements of Metal Gear, because I don't think any of the game's mentioned had the priority of creating a really deep and engaging plot. They were obviously more focused on creating a videogame, which is why the gameplay overwhelms the storyline (unlike Kojima's games, which like to make the story more, or at least as equal a priority as the gameplay). Most of the stories, which may be considered an after-thought by many, are just used as an excuse to move the protagonist from one situation to another, just like any generic movie straight off the production-studio conveyor belt. Now you certainly have the right to criticize the gameplay for not being as fun and expansive as that of the Metal Gear series once again, but even that's not really fair, because those games were not just trying to duplicate the success of the Metal Gear series, but create something new entirely. Whether you see them as blatant rip-offs of something better, or as homage being paid to one of the greatest game creator's ever, is up for you to decide (much is the same argument over whether or not Tarantino rip-offs the original films he "borrows" elements from to use in his films, like with Kill Bill). You can always still criticize the game creator's because, in your opinion, they didn't succeed at making an overall good/fun game, but (aside from In Cold Blood, which I know nothing about) they should still be given some respect for trying something a little different than what Kojima creates (unlike Sammy Studio's Spy Fiction, which is as blatant a rip-off as you're going to get of Metal Gear).
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:38 pm
by hybridtheory
Crowley wrote:I've played through the first Splinter Cell and I liked it for the most part, but the levels were incredibly linear. The absolutely worst part was the lobby of the Chinese Embassy.
Mot so Meats for me... Yea it's a good game, but is very strict. Though I suggest trying the splinter cell:chaos theory demo. It's a lot more open minded kinda like mgs3 with the multiple paths. You're able to select a loadout, and unfortuantly the aim is still jerky.
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:49 am
by JUNKER
Well, i have to say that i agree and disagree about some things that ReasonWhyNot wrote. I agree that MG have a deeper and a more involvent storyline than RPG's games. But you cant make this afirmation a truth for everybody. I think that the majority of gamers who play RPG games really play them for their storylines because they participate, they really interact with the story. And thats the objective. And can you imagine somebody playing a RPG game for hours, days, even months thinking the story sux?? I cant. Well, about criticize the author. Tom Clancy is really paranoid. And his games are always the same. The good vs the bad. The special elite group / special agent against terrorists. Nothing else. Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell dont add nothing significant in games storylines, controls, graphics. They dont try to make nothing revolutionary in the games world. They are made only to sell and make their creator rich and famous cause they are mainstream games. Anyone coul beat them at any time.