| Kresnik said:
I just think it's an odd game. There are far too many cutscenes, even compared to previous games. The globe-trotting settings aren't as good as Shadow Moses or the jungle and they're only barely better than the big shell. Bosses are nowhere near as memorable. I'd rate 1 better on story and bosses and worse on gameplay; 2 better on gameplay and bosses but worse on story; 3 better on story, gameplay and bosses and PW better on story and gameplay. That leaves 4 at the bottom of the heap. It's not a bad game either. I enjoyed it. It's just, 1 and 3 are spectacular; 2 & PW are very good and 4 is just "good". |
Well as long as you don't think it's a "bad" game, I can live with that. xD
The cutscenes seem to be the biggest thing with everyone and obviously, that's understandable. But you and I both know the importance of the story to the overall enjoyment of MGS and just how complicated it can get. MGS4 had the huge task of concluding everything and the game still came out to be an acceptable length. Gameplay-wise, I would say the variety was the same as MGS3, which isn't bad at all. There was little to no backtracking compared to MGS1 and 2, and overall the pace is good. I guess if you heavily favored 1 and 2, then you might think the game is boring. I personally love it all.
I disagree about the locales. I mean, there is no reason to think MGS4 was somehow worse in this regard compared to previous games. Going to Europe, revisiting Shadow Moses, and ending at Outer Haven were all memorable to me. I guess the Middle East part wasn't that exciting. Boss fights I thought were pretty much the same compared to other MGS games, with some being good and others being not so memorable. Particularly I thought the Rex vs. Ray fight was epic and the last boss fight was memorable. The boss battles with the Beauty and the Beast Unit could have been better, but again not every boss fight can afford to be epic.
