To all Walking Dead fans who hate Metal Gear games

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by HipHopBeats (2874 posts) -

Guess what? You just played and praised an interactive movie! Granted, The Walking Dead is a great game mind you, but how can you continue to down games like Metal Gear Solid when you just finished playing a 5 episode point and click adventure?

#2 Posted by Planeforger (15535 posts) -
The Walking Dead never claimed to be anything more than an interactive movie (or, more accurately, a simple adventure game). It does what it does very well. Meanwhile, MGS (particularly 4, from what I hear of it) attempts to be both a movie and a stealth/action game, interrupting the gameplay every so often to throw half-hour cutscenes at you. I'm guessing that would be much more annoying than just having a pure stealth game or interactive movie separately.
#3 Posted by Lulekani (2216 posts) -
Both of those games are movie wana'be's.
#4 Posted by Duckyindiana (2288 posts) -
The big difference is that the walking dead has a great story, MGS comes off as a really poor soap opera!
#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18278 posts) -
The big difference is that the walking dead has a great story, MGS comes off as a really poor soap opera!Duckyindiana
HAHAHAHA! :lol:
#6 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

Lol?

What's this i don't even....

#7 Posted by funsohng (27614 posts) -
the problem with MGS4 was that its cutscenes (which aren't interactive) take up half of its 20-hour gameplay time. Some of the cutscene direction was just downright awful. a lot of scenes dragged a lot longer than it was suppose to be. 90% of the story was told through (mostly average to mediocre) dialogues, something that is probably the worst storytelling technique in a audio-visual medium. And story is awful for the most part. MGS4 is jokingly called interactive movie. The fact is, it's embarrassingly bad at being an interactive movie. MGS4 is freaking amazing when you skip all the cutscenes, however.
#8 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16125 posts) -

the problem with MGS4 was that its cutscenes (which aren't interactive) take up half of its 20-hour gameplay time. Some of the cutscene direction was just downright awful. a lot of scenes dragged a lot longer than it was suppose to be. 90% of the story was told through (mostly average to mediocre) dialogues, something that is probably the worst storytelling technique in a audio-visual medium. And story is awful for the most part. MGS4 is jokingly called interactive movie. The fact is, it's embarrassingly bad at being an interactive movie. MGS4 is freaking amazing when you skip all the cutscenes, however.funsohng

I don't know...I thought the game got kinda bad once you reached the third act.

#9 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6945 posts) -

I have nothing against MGS for being very cinematic.

I just hate stealth games.

#10 Posted by Archangel3371 (15358 posts) -
I haven't played anywhere near enough of The Walking Dead to pass judgement on it yet. What very little I have played hasn't really impressed me at all but I hear it does get better so...... Metal Gear Solid though are games that I absolutely love with MGS4 being my favourite. The lengthy cut-scenes didn't bother me at all in fact I ate them up and enjoyed every minute of them. I totally love the crazy stories in the MGS games and it's the main reason I play them. Of course it doesn't hurt that they also have excellent gameplay as well.
#11 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

#12 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

dvader654
The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree.
#13 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18278 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

MirkoS77
The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree.

TWD doesn't have a story, TWD has decent characters. The basic outline of any TWD plot (comic, show or game) is "Zombies, let's run. Ok, we should be safe in this prison/church/train/fuel station. Oh no, bad people want to take our canned beans, let's fight them. Oh no, zombies, let's run." It's the characters who pull the cart, the plot is virtually nonexistent.
#14 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

MirkoS77
The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree.

If all you care about is story, but this is a gaming forum. MGS is a full game. Walking Dead is more interactive movie. They dont compare.
#15 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16125 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

dvader654

The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree.

If all you care about is story, but this is a gaming forum. MGS is a full game. Walking Dead is more interactive movie. They dont compare.

The Walking Dead is an adventure game.

#16 Posted by Justin_G (198 posts) -

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

dvader654
i think the thread was a rhetorical postulation about how people judge games unfairly based on their biases.
#17 Posted by AzelKosMos (34194 posts) -

Guess what? You just played and praised an interactive movie! Granted, The Walking Dead is a great game mind you, but how can you continue to down games like Metal Gear Solid when you just finished playing a 5 episode point and click adventure?

HipHopBeats

The difference is that the walking dead was agood interactive movie ;)

#20 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

I feel as though the Metal Gear Solid series have a lot more interaction than the Walking Dead games anyway.

#21 Posted by HipHopBeats (2874 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

Justin_G

i think the thread was a rhetorical postulation about how people judge games unfairly based on their biases.

Exactly. both games are good imo for different reasons. Most Metal Gear haters bash it for being 'cutscene lenghty' and not enough gameplay. As good as The Walking Dead is, it's basically making quick choices, walking around looking for key items and QTE pop ups with even less gameplay than Metal Gear.

Both games focus on watching a complex story unravel with no way for the player to alter the outcome. The Walking Dead gives the illusion of choice where you can keep a character alive a little longer, but in the end everything still plays out the same.

#22 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

WHAT, This is the most idiotic, most asinine, worst comparison in the history of video game posts I have ever seen in my life.

You are comparing a game with practically no gameplay, The Walking Dead with one of the most interactive, full of gameplay choices, boss battles, player options, absolute masterpiece in game design in MGS. They are not comparable in any way except that they both tell stories, well almost all games do that so there is no point in comparing the two.

dvader654

The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree.

If all you care about is story, but this is a gaming forum. MGS is a full game. Walking Dead is more interactive movie. They dont compare.

Yet you compare and criticize Journey because it doesn't fit or expand upon the traditional conventions of gaming. How can you compare Journey to all others, yet not TWD to MGS4?

#23 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I haven't played Episode V of the Walking Dead game yet, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that it isn't going to retcon its entire story arc and use nanomachines to try and explain everything.

Some of us were Metal Gear fans (big ones) until we played the narrative shltstorm that was MGS4. I have no issues with the series from a mechanical perspective, and two of the four canon titles are among my twenty games of all time (with Snake Eater) holding the top slot, so I can't say I hate the series, just what MGS4's story did to it.

#24 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]The difference is that TWD has a story that's sensible and well written. MGS' is absurd and convoluted beyond degree. MirkoS77

If all you care about is story, but this is a gaming forum. MGS is a full game. Walking Dead is more interactive movie. They dont compare.

Yet you compare and criticize Journey because it doesn't fit or expand upon the traditional conventions of gaming. How can you compare Journey to all others, yet not TWD to MGS4?

You are looking at it backwards. It is insulting to MGS to be compared to walking dead. And when comparing Journye to other I only mean that in the context of GOTY in which the entire purpose of the award is to compare all games to each other.
#25 Posted by Articuno76 (18747 posts) -

The Walking Dead leaves you constantly engaged, and active; you have to make choices all the time, sometimes thinking on your feet. In MGS you can literally put the controller down and walk away and it wouldn't make a difference. Sure they are both quite passive experiences, but MGS is completely passive. Putting them together like that doesn't really make sense.

The short version is MGS has actual cutscenes where you have control completly taken from you. In comparison TWD has very few genuine cutscenes...or loads of really short ones depending on how you look at it.