Board 8 > MGS3 is the best MGS.

(+) Yeah! (+)

how can 3 be better than 4? 4 has the best gameplay, the best cutscenes, it definatley has the best story when you take in that its linking everything and it has the most surprises for sure. i was hooked the entire game. best graphics..music is awesome esp with choosable tunes with the ipod item..how can you say its the worst? mgs2 is prob the worst because of the length and so many unanswered questions..some ppl were even disapointed with it after the epic mgs1

eh its a hard choice the entire series is amazing... even the worst one is 100 times better than most games today

It's more important how those mechanics are used within the game rather than that they exist. "Gameplay" is a broad category that encompasses almost everything in the game, and there's simply no way MGS4 even meets the minimum limit for it to be near the top. MGS4 has good gameplay for about 2 hours, and then it totally bites it and becomes something of a disaster. I like the revamped controls, as well as things like crouching walking and octocamo, but there just isn't enough meat on the game for you to get good mileage out of the actual mechanics. It's the worst game to replay, the worst game on Extreme, and somehow put less emphasis on stealth. Just no good.

3 > 2 > 1 >> 4 is how I'd rank the gameplay for the series. I think you can go MGS2 or MGS3 depending on which style you prefer -- urban vs. jungle, tight areas vs. open areas -- but 3 has CQC, which is something I can't do without. I can't understand putting 3 last, in any case. It has the deepest gameplay of the three games, with the most freedom in play styles, and a nice learning curve to the mechanics that make it fun to replay and try new things. Weird that last is 'generous'!

--
"When I was a young man, I had liberty, but I did not see it. I had time, but I did not know it."

It's more important how those mechanics are used within the game rather than that they exist. "Gameplay" is a broad category that encompasses almost everything in the game, and there's simply no way MGS4 even meets the minimum limit for it to be near the top. MGS4 has good gameplay for about 2 hours, and then it totally bites it and becomes something of a disaster. I like the revamped controls, as well as things like crouching walking and octocamo, but there just isn't enough meat on the game for you to get good mileage out of the actual mechanics. It's the worst game to replay, the worst game on Extreme, and somehow put less emphasis on stealth. Just no good.

3 > 2 > 1 >> 4 is how I'd rank the gameplay for the series. I think you can go MGS2 or MGS3 depending on which style you prefer -- urban vs. jungle, tight areas vs. open areas -- but 3 has CQC, which is something I can't do without. I can't understand putting 3 last, in any case. It has the deepest gameplay of the three games, with the most freedom in play styles, and a nice learning curve to the mechanics that make it fun to replay and try new things. Weird that last is 'generous'!

not sure how you "cant do without" CQC and then say how MGS4 totally bites. MGS4's gameplay is pretty damn good. Acts 1, 2, and 4 are all excellent. Act 5's first part is stealth gaming at some of its finest. You mention how MGS4 puts less emphasis on stealth. I wouldnt say less emphasis, but it does give the user the best option to play the game more FPS style.

Its also LOL worthy that your first paragraph says "MGS4 puts less emphasis on stealth" (meaning you can replay the game with a completely different playstyle). Right afterward you then say "Just no good".

Then in the 2nd paragraph you completely contradict yourself when saying MGS3 "has a nice learning curve to the mechanics that make it fun to replay and try new things". So its ok for MGS3 to have different styles of play but when MGS4 does it its "theres no emphasis on stealth anymore!"

MGS3's gameplay is very poorly designed, with the menu based system. It has some replay value, but i wouldnt say it has so much better replay value for gameplay than MGS2 or MGS4. Not even close imo.

But tbh, all i really care about is that mgs1 and 2 are ahead of 3 and 4. MGS1 and MGS2 are by far the best of the 4. I prefer 4 over 3 because it has much more complex themes to the story, and kojima delves into those respective themes more in MGS4 than MGS3.

--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK
Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II

and when i criticize mgs3, its in respect to the rest of the series. MGS3 is a top game of all time. But compared to MGS1/2 its a solid tier below. And compared to 4 its still a drop.

--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK
Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II

MGS3 is without a doubt the worst one IMO. I don't get why people like it more than the others.

MGS 1 and 2 got memorable bosses. What do MGS3 got except for the The Boss? Can anyone honestly say that The Pain, The Fear, The Fury and the End are more interesting characters than Vlad, Sniper Wolf, Fortune, Vulcan Raven e.t.c? The Metal Gear fights where epic in MGS1 and MGS2 but how was it in MGS3? All I remember is that you where on a motorcycle...

Not to mention that Old Ocelot >>>> Young Ocelot.

--
Ngamer64: Zylo, you're making less sense every day. Black Turtle > Me

Someone just said the bosses in MGS2 were memorable. Wow.

Yeah, Metal Gear RAYs is a great boss fight, other than that... the rest aren't much. Not compared to the wonderful boss fights in the other games, especially MGS3.

And every character is more interesting than Fortune.

I also like young Ocelot more than old Ocelot. Josh Keaton probably has something to do with that though.

--
~Halo Rolling around at the speed of sound.
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2417/sonicspeed.jpg

I have beaten MGS4 multiple times, I have beaten it on Extreme, I have even made Big Boss rank! There is no doubt that compared to the previous games, MGS4 has less emphasis on stealth and more emphasis on gunplay. Can you sneak around? Sure. Is it as good, or even as demanding and necessary, as the previous games? No. Acts 1/2 are nice, they do a good job of building on what MGS3 started, but they're not even 'top tier' quality segments. They were building up to something interesting, but then right after that, the game completely gives up on the idea of managing a live battlefield for a poorly executed stalking idea, and then sneaking around small robots. Act 5 had a nice stealth area but it lasted for about 5 minutes.

MGS3 just makes better use of its mechanics, and gives you more freedom and time to see them to their full potential. There's more to what I mean by choosing how to play than 'guns blazing' versus 'stealth.' You constantly have something new put in front of you, with multiple ways for you to approach it. There are multiple ways to beat each boss, you can throw snakes at guards to take them out, CQC can get you through almost the entire game on its own, poisoning The Fear and shooting him with the fatal weapon will decrease his stamina bar. It's crazy to me that some people get stuck on 'menus.' You don't even need camo to get through the game with stealth! There's some real depth to MGS3's gameplay that most people don't actually put to use, mostly because a lot of people here aren't fond the gameplay side of the game, and are more focused on the narrative. MGS2 also has some deep gameplay that mostly gets brought out through the VR Missions. MGS3 is just fun to play, thought, and that's the important part.

--
"When I was a young man, I had liberty, but I did not see it. I had time, but I did not know it."

^I pretty much agree with that entire post. Except that I did love Act 4 of MGS4 the most. It had some nice stealth aspect to it, including the fight with Crying Wolf, and it's less practical to go through the Act guns blazing because the robots will rip you apart. I find it to be the most stealth oriented part of the game. Whereas the rest of the game doesn't benefit as much from stealth, which I dislike.

--
~Halo There is no Crane, only Scarecrow!
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3739/scarecrowq.jpg

I really enjoyed Act 4, but it was mostly for other reasons. I didn't like the idea of robots being the enemies there, but it made the atmosphere better, so I don't know that I would have changed it. I think it lacked interesting gameplay, but still pretty awesome.

--
"When I was a young man, I had liberty, but I did not see it. I had time, but I did not know it."

I liked the robots. It felt right, somehow. I can't explain why, but it just seemed really fitting to me.

--
~Halo Live, fight, survive, as a family.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7469/batfamily.jpg

I have beaten MGS4 multiple times, I have beaten it on Extreme, I have even made Big Boss rank! There is no doubt that compared to the previous games, MGS4 has less emphasis on stealth and more emphasis on gunplay. Can you sneak around? Sure. Is it as good, or even as demanding and necessary, as the previous games? No. Acts 1/2 are nice, they do a good job of building on what MGS3 started, but they're not even 'top tier' quality segments. They were building up to something interesting, but then right after that, the game completely gives up on the idea of managing a live battlefield for a poorly executed stalking idea, and then sneaking around small robots. Act 5 had a nice stealth area but it lasted for about 5 minutes.

MGS3 just makes better use of its mechanics, and gives you more freedom and time to see them to their full potential. There's more to what I mean by choosing how to play than 'guns blazing' versus 'stealth.' You constantly have something new put in front of you, with multiple ways for you to approach it. There are multiple ways to beat each boss, you can throw snakes at guards to take them out, CQC can get you through almost the entire game on its own, poisoning The Fear and shooting him with the fatal weapon will decrease his stamina bar. It's crazy to me that some people get stuck on 'menus.' You don't even need camo to get through the game with stealth! There's some real depth to MGS3's gameplay that most people don't actually put to use, mostly because a lot of people here aren't fond the gameplay side of the game, and are more focused on the narrative. MGS2 also has some deep gameplay that mostly gets brought out through the VR Missions. MGS3 is just fun to play, thought, and that's the important part.

again, i say that MGS4 does have less emphasis on stealth, but it allows you to play the game an entirely different way. I feel you are giving points to MGS3 for multiple styles of gameplay, then faulting MGS4 for the same reason. It is kinda hypocritical.

Secondly, i think its wrong to say that MGS4 only has guns blazing vs stealth. CQC exists in the game. Weapons with all sorts of designs exist in the game. MGS4's gameplay is very solid. The reason why id still put it behind two is because like you said, MGS4 does have less meat on its bones, especially compared to MGS2.

And MGS2 has way more gameplay than just "mostly gets out in VR missions"

--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK
Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II

From: ShadowHalo17 | #057
Yeah, Metal Gear RAYs is a great boss fight, other than that... the rest aren't much.

The Harrier is a pretty great boss fight.

--
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8718/leonflowchart.png