ok i have played Meatle Gear Solid 2: sons of liberty now and i think i understand most of the story now.. but it would be great if you said a fact from the series of metal gear eg. Solid Snake is a clone form the origanal Snake "Big Boss" as well as Soildus Snake and Liquid.. what else is there to tell me and the rest of the world not completely sure of the story line?
Metal Gear fans i need your help!
- Thread starter fatandy
- Start date
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/11/30
On a serious note... no wait, it's hard to be serious about Metal Gear Solid after Sons of Liberty. It was simply that stupid. Anyway, another verifiable fact:
Liquid Snake has a really rubbish English accent that will make you recall every stereotype about red telephone boxes, chimney sweeping 10 year olds and 48 cups of tea a day. Oh he was voiced by Cam Clarke, Leonardo in the original Turtles Cartoon and Kaneda in one of the Akira Dubs. And he is openly gay, which puts a whole new perspective on him being able to take control of Revolver Ocelot. You know, a dodgy, yaoiful perspective.
Anyway, i'll shut up and give you a more suitable fact: The patriots that everyone keeps harping on about got the Bruce Willis treatment. (they've been dead all along
)
On a serious note... no wait, it's hard to be serious about Metal Gear Solid after Sons of Liberty. It was simply that stupid. Anyway, another verifiable fact:
Liquid Snake has a really rubbish English accent that will make you recall every stereotype about red telephone boxes, chimney sweeping 10 year olds and 48 cups of tea a day. Oh he was voiced by Cam Clarke, Leonardo in the original Turtles Cartoon and Kaneda in one of the Akira Dubs. And he is openly gay, which puts a whole new perspective on him being able to take control of Revolver Ocelot. You know, a dodgy, yaoiful perspective.
Anyway, i'll shut up and give you a more suitable fact: The patriots that everyone keeps harping on about got the Bruce Willis treatment. (they've been dead all along
)
Last edited by a moderator:
Problem of course is that since you've already played MGS2 then you aren't going to be surprised by any plot twists in the first one (having already learned about what happened).
In any case, there are two ways of looking at MGS2 (haven't played 3 since it never came out on PC). One is just as a standard game trying for an in-depth plot about the nature of perspective of reality and how that's shaped by the information we recieve. The other is just as a self-referential (post-modernist I've heard it described as, although I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of the term) game, just a game that knows it's a game and isn't afraid to use that fact to mess around with the player a bit. :mrgreen:
As the latter it succeeds quite well I feel. Anyone who's played the last 3rd of the game knows how surreally self-referential things get (Colonel going freaky wierd is the one of the more major signs, but stuff like the little hexagonal patterns that start to appear beneath everyones feet as the walk as well, and other little things).
However, as a game trying for some depth, well... Let's just say it's a bit of a mixed bag. I can see what they were trying to do with it. How much you appreciate it is really down to
a) how much you understood of all the dense and kind of confused plot exposition in the last parts of the game, and
b) personal preference.
I can sort of get a grip on the plot (although I probably need to play through a second time to get a better understanding of the storyline), but I think it might have been better implemented to make some things clearer. Plus they never really explained some of the issues that were left unresolved at the end of MGS1 (mainly the whole FOXDIE thing).
What I will say for it though is that it's a cool and cinematic game. Plus the boss fight with the harrier jumpjet was awesome.
I think one of the main reasons why MGS2 wasn't that well recieved was because people were expecting a realistic game. However, when you think about it this isn't really in keeping with what the first one was about. Let's face it, giant walking robot tank with nuclear weapons? Check. Psychic with mind control and telekenesis? Check. Eskimo shaman with minigun? Check. Gulf War conspiracy theories to do with secret government cloning and gene therapy experiments? Check. Even the simple inability to take the weapons off a guard you just took out (wouldn't THAT have made life simpler. :lol: ).
Metal Gear Solid was anything but realistic. Instead it was aiming for a sort of comic-book style cool, which it achieved quite well. MGS2 simple allowed the creators to be more indulgent in that respect, making things look and feel more 'cool' while trying to inject some more depth into it. Like I said, self-indulgent. In some respects they may have gone a bit overboard, but on the whole I think it works out well enough. It could have been done better, that's my feeling, but I also feel it's not as bad as everyone says it is.
In any case, there are two ways of looking at MGS2 (haven't played 3 since it never came out on PC). One is just as a standard game trying for an in-depth plot about the nature of perspective of reality and how that's shaped by the information we recieve. The other is just as a self-referential (post-modernist I've heard it described as, although I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of the term) game, just a game that knows it's a game and isn't afraid to use that fact to mess around with the player a bit. :mrgreen:
As the latter it succeeds quite well I feel. Anyone who's played the last 3rd of the game knows how surreally self-referential things get (Colonel going freaky wierd is the one of the more major signs, but stuff like the little hexagonal patterns that start to appear beneath everyones feet as the walk as well, and other little things).
However, as a game trying for some depth, well... Let's just say it's a bit of a mixed bag. I can see what they were trying to do with it. How much you appreciate it is really down to
a) how much you understood of all the dense and kind of confused plot exposition in the last parts of the game, and
b) personal preference.
I can sort of get a grip on the plot (although I probably need to play through a second time to get a better understanding of the storyline), but I think it might have been better implemented to make some things clearer. Plus they never really explained some of the issues that were left unresolved at the end of MGS1 (mainly the whole FOXDIE thing).
What I will say for it though is that it's a cool and cinematic game. Plus the boss fight with the harrier jumpjet was awesome.
I think one of the main reasons why MGS2 wasn't that well recieved was because people were expecting a realistic game. However, when you think about it this isn't really in keeping with what the first one was about. Let's face it, giant walking robot tank with nuclear weapons? Check. Psychic with mind control and telekenesis? Check. Eskimo shaman with minigun? Check. Gulf War conspiracy theories to do with secret government cloning and gene therapy experiments? Check. Even the simple inability to take the weapons off a guard you just took out (wouldn't THAT have made life simpler. :lol: ).
Metal Gear Solid was anything but realistic. Instead it was aiming for a sort of comic-book style cool, which it achieved quite well. MGS2 simple allowed the creators to be more indulgent in that respect, making things look and feel more 'cool' while trying to inject some more depth into it. Like I said, self-indulgent. In some respects they may have gone a bit overboard, but on the whole I think it works out well enough. It could have been done better, that's my feeling, but I also feel it's not as bad as everyone says it is.