2008-04-26 20:35:11

looks very PS3 and Japanese... yep.

I do like the camera view for a 3rd person game.

Damage modeling looks very unrealistic... people getting shot in the legs not going down, people having RPG rounds hit 4 feet away and not even being phased. These aren't hulking Gears of War soldiers with advanced armour on... I think it looks just as good as Gears... but I wasn't impressed with Gears of War either...

Killzone 2... looks to have the superior multiplayer, that and Resistance 2...

This will just be a distraction till those games come out. Kind of average.

2008-04-26 20:52:53 In reply to toelessfoot (2008-04-26 20:27:44)

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-26 20:52:56 In reply to toelessfoot (2008-04-26 20:27:44)

---
BlimBlim, Tyran.

2008-04-26 20:55:26 In reply to Sath (2008-04-26 20:52:53)

2008-04-26 20:59:02 In reply to GriftGFX (2008-04-26 20:55:26)

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-26 21:44:33 In reply to anm8rjp (2008-04-26 20:35:11)

2008-04-26 21:48:03

Damage modeling...

I was just expecting more from a AAA top tier next gen PS3 game.

The video looked good, but just not AAA good.

Killzone 2 gameplay vids, especially the cover fire looks very very impressive, this... not as much.

2008-04-27 00:49:10 In reply to anm8rjp (2008-04-26 21:48:03)

2008-04-27 02:22:25

the shooting seems lame

also how many shots does it take to kill some one!!!!

2008-04-27 02:35:45

Yea, I have to agree that it doesn't look very fun at all. Phaethon tells me I'm wrong though, and he's actually played it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The combat looks pretty weak, and the movement looks worse. I know it's not a balls to the wall action shooter, but come on. The controls seem to be a little cumbersome for an online game--it seems like every action the player takes involves a bit too much input and planning.

It may be good.. but these videos certainly don't compel me to try it. Out of fairness I probably will if there's ever a demo--I'm not going to bother with the beta and I don't plan on running out and pre-ordering MGS4 either.

The walk animation.. my goodness.

2008-04-27 03:21:54

It all comes together once you've plaed it for a bit and adjusted the controls to your liking. It's also highly addictive. It's got that "one more go" feel to it.

2008-04-27 04:46:02

Okay, after spending more time with the game I gotta agree with some of the comments--it definitely gets better once you know what you're doing. Still, there are two major flaws. The PS3 controller sucks for these kinds of games, and like I said before hardly anyone has headsets (thanks Sony), so communication is horrible. Also, what happened to all that environmental damage Kojma kept talking about?

Anyway, if there's anyone else like me, who thought the game sucked balls during the first hour or two, go to the training mode, learn the basics, play a couple more matches, and you'll probably begin to enjoy it. I am :)

---
Coming soon: 100 Hottest Game Babes - http://loligagger.1up.com/
XBL: Mister Vandelay | PSN: Loligagger | WII: 5851 3651 0964 4935

2008-04-27 04:54:59

So what's everyone's character look like? I went for the casual look

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p305/doax2scene...

---
Coming soon: 100 Hottest Game Babes - http://loligagger.1up.com/
XBL: Mister Vandelay | PSN: Loligagger | WII: 5851 3651 0964 4935

2008-04-27 07:04:06

MGS doesn't translate well to a shooter if you ask me. Just looking at it, i can tell the controls are all wrong. i honestly enjoy looking at the graphics, but the gameplay looks like more of a chore than fun...

2008-04-27 07:15:37 In reply to Sath (2008-04-26 20:52:53)

2008-04-27 08:45:18 In reply to Trup1aya4rea1 (2008-04-27 07:15:37)

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-27 10:55:00

If you want to take people down quickly, aim at the head, it's the only way. Otherwise people using auto-aim get too much of an advantage over skilled players. Agreed abaout the cross-hair though.

2008-04-27 12:45:46

auto-im helps only if you are so close you can CQC him.

lock on is pretty much for very tight corners otherwise its useless.

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-27 12:50:34

I posted this on another forum:

I think some excited players are confusing "slow" with "tactical." Slow does not signify that things are "realistic" or "strategic." Not to say that this game doesn't have tactics, but I'd say with confidence that Metal Gear Online is not realistic (nor, not-so-ironically, do I get the feeling that the game is trying to be). A game being "less twitch" does not bestow by any transitive property the virtue of being a thinking man's game.

As for the tactics, this depends heavily on voice chat. Three guys with voice chat are far more effective than an entire team without it. This is too bad, since I usually take voice chat for granted, and the advantage from being able to simply communicate with teammates feels less like a feature or a benefit of skill, but more the result of extra monetary investment (in a headset).

Assuming you can communicate with teammates well, then working together is great, but so far, I don't understand how it is better than other shooters out there (as has been trumpeted in this thread). I have yet to witness the imaginary scenario where formations or methodical bounding yields any statistical lead over simply the same old "walk in the same direction" together idea that has proved successful in other shooters--except, not-so-ironically, in more realistic shooters, where moving together often means getting mowed down together.

---

From here, my impressions will focus on the controls of Metal Gear Online, as I find them to be the single greatest barrier to this game's appeal.

Movement takes some getting used to. The third person perspective is alright if you have played other Metal Gear games. But that's the problem--the game's controls are still tied to the Metal Gear legacy of controls. They are simpler in that there are less buttons to press to pull off the same actions, but they are still archaic. The trouble comes from subtleties of the game. Jumping up to ledges? Rounding corners with sights up? These movements are fumbly, and have been pulled off more elegantly in other titles. Call of Duty 4 has been brought up in this thread for various reasons, and it's a perfect counter-example of intuitive controls. Both games allow walking, crouching, and prone movement. Both allow multiple levels of aim. Both allow jumping. Call of Duty 4 does all these things with more fluidity.

After about twenty minutes of play, I did come to grips with the movement controls to the point where I didn't find myself thinking about them. I wouldn't say the control layout hinders the play to the point of turning me off the game given the design, but I wouldn't say that the control scheme enhances the experience, either. A Gears of War-inspired control scheme that also allowed for basic platforming--such as the one found in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune--would have been ideal, and naturally assumed.

Combat is the core of the game, and hopefully where the beta will help the most. It's apparent that many beta testers never played the online portion of Subsistence, as you will often see people running into each other, and unable to choose between shooting, nudging, and dropping into a box as their approach to combat resolution. Fun times, and prime evidence of this game's control curve. In particular, switching between weapons could have been simpler--again, Call of Duty 4 allows for the same primary-secondary-grenade setup, and pulls off the switching between the three better. Metal Gear Online, being Metal Gear, saddles the player with the rotating menu. Again, not for that much worse, but definitely not for the better.

Shooting. I could use more feedback. Half the time I'm not sure if I got the kill or not unless I look in the top left text box. Oh I hear the scream and sometimes the slashing sound of a headshot, but I don't "feel" it coming from my shooting. Call of Duty 4 emits a little brap sound effect when you hit something, something similar would help this game, but it guess it wouldn't be "realistic."

Finally, cover. Yes, there is cover in this game, but I don't recommend actually taking cover by pressing triangle too often. In cover, players move far too slowly, and the reduced exposure advantage from peeking is minimal, compared to simply moving as usual by the piece of cover in question without pressing triangle. Maybe you'll find the peeking mechanic substantially worth it. In that case, I would still only recommend using it at the end of cover--there is no reason to take cover in the middle of a barrier. Simply walk up to it, maybe crouch, and you'll be better off most of the time.

Now, as I played the game for about four hours on and off (switching on and off with a friend) wondering why the controls are as needlessly jammed as they are, it dawned on me that Metal Gear Online is trying to offer more features than a game like Call of Duty, where moving and shooting pretty much sum up the players' options. MGO seems to strive to make shooting only half of the game, with the other half described by things like traps, platforming, and the team system. It is entirely possible that as the beta and its participants mature, that the average round will involve more than what we've seen in Gears of War, and the control scheme will explain itself.

That remains to be seen, but if you want to show this beta to a friend who's not inclined to like this game simply because it's Metal Gear and the PLAYSTATION 3's next big online offering, I suggest prefacing the demonstration by pointing out that this beta is a beta. More beta than Call of Duty 4's beta was. And if they want to try the game out, insist that they go through training for at least five to ten minutes. I've played and beaten every Metal Gear ever made except the Ac!d titles, and it still took a number of rounds to get...well, not "comfortable" with the controls, but not "uncomfortable" with them, either. Getting back into them with each MGS iteration is one thing, but trying to grasp them under a competitive environment is another.

---

Other quick impressions:
- PREPARATION: A complete bitch. PSN ID, KONAMI ID, GAME ID, character ID. Unique friends list.
- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION: Love it, always been into this kind of thing (spent hours dressing up every Rock Band character I have). Something Call of Duty 4 completely lacked. Deeper than Rainbow Six Vegas's.
- STABILITY: Technically so-so. The bigger issue is people leaving matches in between rounds.
- GAME TYPES: Have only played team deathmatch and deathmatch. I prefer team deathmatch. No standout moments that have made me yearn for a replay function yet.
- LEVEL DESIGN: Functional, but basic, at least with what's available.
- WEAPON BALANCE: I find assault rifles to be less useful than expected due to high recoil. Headshots aren't difficult to get, though. I find sniper rifles to be too useful at most ranges due to auto-aim (which I leave on). You might night get one-shot-one-kills that much, but just auto-aim and fire four times. Pistols are a little too weak.
- GRAPHICS: Not going to win any awards, but functional.
- SOUND: Needs more death scream variety. Or no screams at all.
- ONLINE INTERFACE: A night with Xbox Live would have inspired the developers greatly. You would think something as basic as selecting a name and expecting an option to send a friend request would be textbook by now.

---
Overworked, overplayed.

2008-04-27 13:37:17

Stop comparing this game to Call of Duty in or any other FPS, it is not the samething.

This game should be compared to games such as SOCOM or GRAW.
They use TPS, same type of tactical and shooting mechanic approach.

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-27 15:09:43

Take away the MGS name tag and nobody would even bother looking at this. Very poor

2008-04-27 16:29:15 In reply to inzerillo (2008-04-27 15:09:43)

---
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JatoNL

http://www.myspace.com/jatonl

2008-04-27 16:39:26

They could name it "Shoot up" and I would still say I like it.
But the reason why it is called Metal Gear "Online" is because they took all the gameplay elements from MGS and took it online, simple...better to reconize it too.
That and the name "Metal Gear" is just a very famous name that people know it instantly.

All I gotta say, I am getting much better with aiming and shooting, I just go from full auto to single shots, for some reason it really puts a heavy impact to the shots and you can either stun the enemy for another quicks econd shot or just get a headshot.

If those don't work, their life bar decreases quite fast.

PS. I HATE Blood Bath, so tight and too "busy".

---
*A New Form of Change*

2008-04-27 23:37:52

i dont get why so many ppl say the graphics are crap... i think they're really good... and it makes me sad that so many ppl dont like it :(

i havent played it but from what i've seen i think i will like it, and im not sayin that because its a metal gear game. it looks like a lot of fun with a lot of different ways to play and things to do... but i do love mgs so im definatly gonna buy it :)

metal gear isnt a very popular and advertised game in the us, so when ppl hear a bunch of hype of a game that actually is pretty popular then it attracts all the ppl that play popular games... like halo and cod4. so they try to play it like an fps game and it doesnt work good. mgs was never based on action in the other games and i doubt that konami changed it's emphasis from stealth... i bet the action in this game is just an addition that will probably make the whole thing way better. i bet when people get out of the mindset of "run and gun" and focus more on tactics and being stealth, then they will like it a lot better. i know everybody thats playing this is new at it, but i haven't seen anybody play it the way i would try to.

you all know im right because everybody keeps comparing it to cod4, which in my opinion got pretty old pretty quick... the people that say us mgs fans only like it cuz its mgs are right in that we like mgs gameplay and know how to play it. we wont try to play it like an fps... i donno anything about the supposedly "clunky" controls cuz i havent played it, but i bet i can get used to it

2008-04-28 18:00:02

first video at 1:50 did that guy actually shoot like 900 bullets int the guys back before he died?

and second video at 20 seconds in ... does he get f*ckin hit by a rocket or something, get blasted to the side all dramatic and then just walk off?