Intelligent Metal Gear Solid Review.

[MessiahOfPants]

Here's a few questions about your 'intelligent' MGS review.

1. Which Boss is it when I have to throw grenades at someone, because gunfire is useless?

2. Since when is the fight with fatman (the mad bomber) about Luck? You have a sensor to tell where the bomb is on the radar.

3. Do you need a game to make sense for you perfectly? Does it matter if realism isn't great? Mortal Kombat has a guy with Ice powers. Fallout 3 has a window which asks whether you want to change aspects of your childhood as you leave the vault.

4. Why do you need a walk through for this game? I managed perfectly fine without (Except MGS1 wasn't perfect, but I never used a walk through.

5. I happened to stumble into rations constantly by chance. Plus you can shake down guards for them, Dead or Alive.

6. Do you actually like stealth games or are you a fast paced counterstrike player who prefers first person shooters.

I believe that he means The Pain, because you have to throw grenades at him to get rid of his hornet shield. Also, I agree with you on all these points. First, games were never realistic, even games based off real events aren't realistic. Is it realistic to have all your grenade wounds cured in seconds, just by hiding by a car? Also, the Metal Gear series as a whole was a pretty linear, so I never needed a walkthrough for the main story, unless I was looking for secrets. You find rations and ammo very commonly, so I never needed to find bullets all the time. And I agree with you on the last point, as Metal Gear doesn't really cater to fast paced gamers, as you have to wait, and be patient sneaking around and watching cutscenes.

Wow thank you for seeing it my way.
The Pain. Oh yeah. If he was a bit more descriptive in his review by saying lets say "He had a shield which only grenades could get rid of" then I would have known.
Not an 'Intelligent review' more like an 'Annoying Rant'.

And don't forget the tank in the first Metal Gear Solid.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Here's a few questions about your 'intelligent' MGS review.

1. Which Boss is it when I have to throw grenades at someone, because gunfire is useless?

2. Since when is the fight with fatman (the mad bomber) about Luck? You have a sensor to tell where the bomb is on the radar.

3. Do you need a game to make sense for you perfectly? Does it matter if realism isn't great? Mortal Kombat has a guy with Ice powers. Fallout 3 has a window which asks whether you want to change aspects of your childhood as you leave the vault.

4. Why do you need a walk through for this game? I managed perfectly fine without (Except MGS1 wasn't perfect, but I never used a walk through.

5. I happened to stumble into rations constantly by chance. Plus you can shake down guards for them, Dead or Alive.

6. Do you actually like stealth games or are you a fast paced counterstrike player who prefers first person shooters.

I believe that he means The Pain, because you have to throw grenades at him to get rid of his hornet shield. Also, I agree with you on all these points. First, games were never realistic, even games based off real events aren't realistic. Is it realistic to have all your grenade wounds cured in seconds, just by hiding by a car? Also, the Metal Gear series as a whole was a pretty linear, so I never needed a walkthrough for the main story, unless I was looking for secrets. You find rations and ammo very commonly, so I never needed to find bullets all the time. And I agree with you on the last point, as Metal Gear doesn't really cater to fast paced gamers, as you have to wait, and be patient sneaking around and watching cutscenes.

Wow thank you for seeing it my way.
The Pain. Oh yeah. If he was a bit more descriptive in his review by saying lets say "He had a shield which only grenades could get rid of" then I would have known.
Not an 'Intelligent review' more like an 'Annoying Rant'.

And don't forget the tank in the first Metal Gear Solid.

Yes but he did say that it was obvious to shoot the boss with guns, and only madmen would take on a tank with a gun. I did, because I'm just that crazy.

 

[Aries_Split]

The review itself isn't that great but I found NewClassic's incomprehensible & bitter trolling to be far more offensive.

If you cannot remove the subjective elements from a review, then you shouldn't be writing a review.
You have no objectivity in this piece, and it really kills your points.

Uh, what? It is impossible to be anything approaching objective when writing a review of any entertainment medium. The process of cultural review is the very embodiment of subjectivity.

The idea that reviewers have to provide some kind of proof for each point they make is also ridiculous.

"I didn't like the interface"
"Prove it!"
"I, uh, didn't like it..."
"Conjecture."

It's Conjecture when you provide a point without anything to back it up, thus nulling the point.

"I didn't like the interface."
"Prove it!"
"It's clunky because it requires you to open 3 different menu's to change weapons, and you can't pause gameplay whilst doing so, so it hampers the game's fluidity."
"CONJE-Nevermind."

Also, NOTHING in Metal Gear Solid is based on luck.

"Oh no! An enemy with no apparent weakpoint!"
"OTACOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!"

 

[Jumplion]

The review itself isn't that great but I found NewClassic's incomprehensible & bitter trolling to be far more offensive.

If you cannot remove the subjective elements from a review, then you shouldn't be writing a review.
You have no objectivity in this piece, and it really kills your points.

Uh, what? It is impossible to be anything approaching objective when writing a review of any entertainment medium. The process of cultural review is the very embodiment of subjectivity.

The idea that reviewers have to provide some kind of proof for each point they make is also ridiculous.

"I didn't like the interface"
"Prove it!"
"I, uh, didn't like it..."
"Conjecture."

He's not meaning it like that (atleast, I don't think he's meaning it like that), he's basically telling the reviewer to explain why he doesn't like this or this.

It's more like;
"I didn't like the interface"
"Well, why didn't you like the interface?"
"I, uh, didn't like it..."
"Explain."

But anyway, I tried to read through all of it, but there is such a thing as to many words. Usually I'm open to people who type up a lengthy and well thought out review, but this review was way to long and didn't pace it's sections evenly. Try to keep your next review shorter but still in depth.

 

[Maet]

In defense of NewClassic (not that he needs defending or anything since really what I'm doing is just adding my two cents), I think his comment was more of the "There's and a time and a place for _______..." variety. Objective reviews are often bland and sterile, and subjective reviews are often aggressive and misinformed. A balance needs to be struck between solid argument and personal flourish.

 

[scnj]

The review talks so much about how hard it is for the player to work out what to do when the player can simply press select and phone any number of people for hints on how to proceed.

 

[y8c616]

More like an "ironic" review.

I agree. Plus, why does this guy feel the need to slap the "Intelligent" tag on at he start, when in the 1st sentence he launches into massivly biased shit-talking. I guess he thinks its intelligent because he's going against the majority of critics who gave the series (much deserved) acclaim.

 

[James Raynor]

OK whatever. I probably overreacted.
I just don't like seeing people treated so harshly and hauled over the coals like they've just written their final PhD thesis.
Constructive criticism has a limit.

Asking him to explain his point isn't a bad thing.

 

[Eggplant]

How about the level design? There are too many corridors leading into corridors. This is similar to the door problem; you will often find yourself having to enter a corridor with multiple guards patrolling in different directions.


Another disgustingly unintuitive ?puzzle?, is when you are faced with a fat man prancing about, laying bombs, on roller-blades. He is, on the whole, immune to bullets, but if you shoot him enough times in quick succession, he will fall and lay on the ground waiting for you to shoot him in his exposed head, only to take a little of his health before the process repeats. How is the player supposed to know to do this? There is no way of working this out with your brain, you could only discover it out my accident. And so, what?s the point in presenting it as a challenge at all? The puzzle can only be solved by luck, and so it is not interesting! So do not waste our time with it! But the one thing that frustrates me more then the development team thinking they can insult my intelligence with such a task, is that many of the writers for popular videogame websites and magazines pay particular praise to these boss battles. What is wrong with them?

I found the corridor into corridor thing very realistic. When I walk into a building, its good to know that there are doors and walls in it. I cant actually work out where its a common thing, MGS1 is set inside a military building and MGS2 and set on Oil complex (something like that, i cant remember)thats about as close as you get to corridor into corridor. MGS3 is in the jungle mostly and MGS4 is spread out too how can you complain when something is realistic but also complain when seomething isnt?

Also when you kill Fatman, have you ever tried pressing triangle and shooting him IN THE FOOT because that makes him fall over. He is also fat and stops for a breather every now and then.

If your still finding the game too hard, there is a setting called EASY for you to play. If you cant play it after that, i suggest you go back to counterstrike

 

[007Loser]

Having "Intelligent" in the title and then having the text full of "terrible" is an oxymoron or something like that. Contradiction, that's the word.

 

[Fightgarr]

The review itself isn't that great but I found NewClassic's incomprehensible & bitter trolling to be far more offensive.

If you cannot remove the subjective elements from a review, then you shouldn't be writing a review.
You have no objectivity in this piece, and it really kills your points.

Uh, what? It is impossible to be anything approaching objective when writing a review of any entertainment medium. The process of cultural review is the very embodiment of subjectivity.

I agree with this point here. I've never played the game but it appears that it is well reviewed and it appears that this review is labelled as "intelligent" because it doesn't like the game. While this is not necessarily true, it is no way in the wrong for providing a subjective opinion, all reviews ever are subjective. The only thing you could say about a game from an objective stand-point is: It is a game.

 

[Eggplant]

I just laugh that his Intelligent Halo review was received so well, and this is the worst review i have EVER read

 

[007Loser]

You guys are all idiots, you just don't understand. This is why a peice of crap like the MGS series can be so popular.

You either like the series to begin with or you don't. That's how it works.