Chris the great Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 FUCK SAKE. As if gekko's aren't annoying enough, they throw damned suicide gekkos at you, and it's not even some clever name for a crack group, they actually fucking blow up! How the Hell am I supposed to take care of these when I have no idea how to kill a gekko properly anyways! Seriously how do I take these fuckers down and actually kill them rather than giving them a good rest. ok, these things are bastards to kill, but you should have just picked up a nice new rail gun. the gekko has 3 weak points, each knee and a small point on its "head" shooting knees takes em to the floor for a bit, shooting the head kills em out right, i belive the weak points show up as little circles if your solid eye is turned on. dont stop shooting, keep killing em till the section ends. its tough but nothing unrealistic.
Nolan Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 MGS4 fell short, it wasn't even better than MGS3(easily bested the 2nd though). Honestly I think Kojima was just screwing with us the same way a troll would post something ludicrous to start a flame war. The graphics were good, but nothing mind blowing or astounding. I was playing Chronicles of Riddick while my friend was giving MGS4 a once over and I noticed that it certain points Riddick has better textures(usually worse though) and that's not zooming way in on both, just normal play. Story was typical MGS stuff, no higher or lower than the others really. Confusing, but I've seen more confusing (and better at that). Gameplay, this is where it shines. Plenty of people probably didn't like the stealth approach (therefore not liking the game), while others (my friend) ignored it and played like an action game. Well with MGS4 you can play either way really action or stealth or a mixture. The one thing I wish had made a return would be the self treatment in the field from MGS3. Haven't tried online. There is lots of replay value though if you want all the medals. I may sound kind of negative but really the game is great and should be played, but it's similar to FF7 great but not as great as popular opinion. Of course popular opinion decides everything. I find Valkyria Chronicles to be a much better game, I decided that off of the demo alone, then went and bought it. Speaking of VC.....it only sold 33K in the US November, so everyone should go buy it for great justice.
dwarf Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Oh yeah those suicide gekkos *duh* And the graphics on MGS4 are insane in some parts, Valykria Chronicles doesn't come close, it's a bloody cartoon!
Deathjam Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Hmm, i managed to run out of ammo with the Rail gun...Will try it again with more patience. Also, the vamp fight was annoying cos I *knew* that was the way to do it, but actually doing what needed to be done was so tough.
dwarf Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 It tells you on the syringe thing when you pull it up in the menu.
Deathjam Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Well yeah, but actually grabbing him was a pain in the butt.
Nolan Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 And the graphics on MGS4 are insane in some parts, Valykria Chronicles doesn't come close, it's a bloody cartoon! ....I wasn't talking about the graphics when I said it was a better game. (which btw everything is imo) Besides, beauty is in the beholders eye, graphics aren't just about realism art style and a flowing together with other parts of the engine help. That's why people say Prince of Persia is a beautiful game, despite that it's a cartoon as you say.
dwarf Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Vamp scared me much more in MGS2 when you see the damage he causes to the guards, very freaky cut-scenes. He still looks badass in this game though. But MGS4 has everything it set out to be - the stalking section and Shadow Moses snow effects are too good!
Nolan Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 But MGS4 has everything it set out to be - the stalking section and Shadow Moses snow effects are too good! They certainly are good, but I'm not that impressed personally.
dwarf Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Whatever floats your boat - for me I looked in awe because graphically (at least in terms of raw technicalities - if that makes any sense) I haven't played anything that looks better. Plus it was nostalgic even though I still don't really claim to know exactly what was going on. Gameplay wise - it was fairly linear, but if you tried to take multiple routes and find everything then it's a very skillful process. For example CQC can sometimes be the only option in certain areas.
Chris the great Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 And the graphics on MGS4 are insane in some parts, Valykria Chronicles doesn't come close, it's a bloody cartoon! well i dissagree, to a point, that graphic being relaistc makes em any better. then again, it wasnt exactly a hugly tasking game visualy, textures could be very bassic as it didnt really matter.
dwarf Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 No I understand art style and the difference between it and graphics, but this had both, and I thought both sides were nailed.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Act 4 has suicide Gekkos. You kill them with that rail gun thing that you nab off sniper wolf. ...Sniper WHAT!? You telling me that chick survived!?
Nolan Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 No I understand art style and the difference between it and graphics, but this had both, and I thought both sides were nailed. On a technicality every game has both:heh: well i dissagree, to a point, that graphic being relaistc makes em any better. then again, it wasnt exactly a hugly tasking game visualy, textures could be very bassic as it didnt really matter. I don't which your talking about:confused: Whatever floats your boat - for me I looked in awe because graphically (at least in terms of raw technicalities - if that makes any sense) I haven't played anything that looks better. Plus it was nostalgic even though I still don't really claim to know exactly what was going on. Gameplay wise - it was fairly linear, but if you tried to take multiple routes and find everything then it's a very skillful process. For example CQC can sometimes be the only option in certain areas. I never really needed CQC that I remember, the Tranq pistol is my best friend. As for the graphics, I assume by raw technicalilties you mean the fact that this is done on hardware equivalent to a 7800GTX and a great CPU and limited RAM...yes it's great looking in that aspect. Not playing anything that looks better is really a matter of opinion again. Going for realistic, Crysis still has the title of best graphics (I understand you may not have played it, hence your wording) but if you stray from realistic or into differing versions of realism (Like AC-MGS-GoW-Crysis, all realistic but all different) then it's just your own preference. Me I love game visuals like STALKER and Assassins Creed more.
Daft Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 ...Sniper WHAT!? You telling me that chick survived!? lol, sorry, Crying Wolf.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 lol, sorry, Crying Wolf. LOL... *sigh of relief*
Nolan Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Crysis needs a really expensive pc to run at full settings. When the game came out. No one could play at full settings. I have not checked lately but does it still need a quad SLI setup to run at full? The new graphics cards are not worth it for just one game. I doubt given the lack of change in tech pc's can handle Crysis at high resolution(1920 x1080) on one card in dx10 mode yet. Crysis can be run on quite a cheap PC now adays(close to the PS3s launch price, or lower if you can cannibalize other components). Nothing can "truely" max it yet, but even at high/very high@1920x1200 it's still oneofthebest/best looking games. When it first released Drivers were a really big problem too.
Nolan Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Run is not the same as playable. Also no one wants to play Crysis in ugly form. Its about the graphics. A game that no one can enjoy the way it was meant to be... Oh the pain. The sad fact of the matter is there a whole scene based around tyring to get the game run based on how little the graphics can be compromised. How many mods and config files do we have to download? One mistake i made is 1920 x 1200 monitor. It hurts graphics cards. I cant stand non native resolution. When I say run I mean playable on High 1680x1050 and lower. A more expensive card can do very high 1680x1050 excellently and depending on your definition of playable 1920x1200 very high. For Crysis a steady 17 and above is playable imo. Honestly, depending on what card you have of course, 1920x1200 shouldn't be a problem for most games there are only a few that really have trouble there (Crysis, STALKER CS). Furthermore, I wasn't trying to do a direct comparison of graphics, Crysis has the best it is fact. They are out of reach for the majority of people, but they are the most realistic. What I was trying to make a point of though is that different styles are appealing to different people. On some end of the year award polls I voted STALKER for graphics because I prefer that style over Crysis Warhead, despite I do know Crysis is better. It's like voting for Prince of Persia over Assassins Creed, both are great looking but the art is so different that you can't really define which is better and it comes down to preference. My preference is not MGS4, which is great(best?) for consoles, but not my thing.
Nolan Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 17 fps is unplayable. Witha mouse you need more than just 30 fps. Actually for me no it isn't, well depending on the game. A racing game=unplayable. Chronicles of Riddick Unplayable, Fallout 3 unplayable Crysis or STALKER are both playable like that. Dont know about realistic but yes its the most adavanced. So advanced that its way out of reach for anyone to care. It's not out of reach,http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3437&p=5. The orange bar is a 80-120 dollar (us) card, and it's just under 30fps bump upto 150 and there is the 4850/9800GTX+ above the 30fps mark. Its your choice. I like flow for example I like Flow too. It's a simplistic very clean art style, it's no different from liking Pixeljunk (insert noun here).
Nolan Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Stop being apologetic. Tell Crytek and the graphic card companies to do better. Or we will have to put with more of this. The current new gfx cards are just there to keep prices high they have not yielded enough performance increases. I'm not being apologetic, depending on which game I find 15fps and above to be playable, as long as it's steady, jumping from 15-25 constantly isn't playable. No AA, not even 1080p. Even then the best card in the chart is still over 30 fps. Its a sucky situation. No wonder everyone plays WOW instead. Those are....I'm not even going to bother, you're a moron. Have a good day.
Deathjam Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 OMG this game takes FOREVER to end! I need to sleep! But damn did it have a very strong finish, in gameplay, story and cinematic aspects. Really loved how the control scheme changed to suit the environment snake found himself in. Ah well, looks like ill be going back to the online part so send me a PM if anyone feels like going online. OMG there is MORE!? Seriously when will this end?!
Deathjam Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Take your time. Then join me for abit of MGO later. May play some MGO today after work, then gym. Crap forgot to charge headset ¬_¬. Did you get the expansion packs?
Columnar Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Ooh... please be true. I'm playing through it for the second time just now and trophies would just be the icing on the cake.
Daft Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I haven't played it for ages so I'd be up for this however I don't want to have to start a completely new save.
Recommended Posts