Original Splinter cell vs Metal Gear solid trilogy. which is better trilogy?

MGS for the story in the first 2 games alone.

Splinter Cell has better gameplay than Metal Gear Solid

Metal Gear Solid 2 has better game-play than Splinter Cell 1-2

Metal Gear Solid 3 has is about equal with Splinter Cell 2.

Chaos Theory is better than all of them, Ubisoft's best game, a masterpiece, gamings savour etc...

It's Splinter Cell obviously:

1.Splinter Cell 3 had a great coop mode which MGS games don't have.

2.Controls are better in Splinter Cell games.(In SC you don't need to press and hold the grab button calmly for grabbing the enemies and not killing them while they are into your grab.

3.Camera is better in Splinter Cell games compared to the first 3 MGS games.(Which sometimes make you being seen by enemies outside of camera)

4.Aiming and movement while aiming is far better in Splinter Cell compared to MGS.

5.Splinter Cell 1 at least(Since I've only played 1 and 3) doesn't punish you to kill enemies and so you don't have to hold back on enemies and get rid of them as you may see fit or get pass them undetected.(Since it's a stupid gameplay mechanic that stealth games give you lots of cool weapons and penalize you for not playing in a boring way)

5.And finally as a video game all Splinter Cell games have more length compared to MGS games.(Since the first MGS games were actually movies disguised as games.)

The only thing better in MGS games compared to Splinter Cell are the bossfight battles and some nice story moments that you see among the loads of filler cutscenes and dialogues.

Splinter Cell (1) actually has a great story, quite mature compared to Metal Gear Solid.

The story-telling is just better in Metal Gear Solid. Splinter Cell looks better in-engine, but it uses crappy 1996 looking FMV''s and you most get story-telling through text.

The only stand out bit of story-telling in the original is when this shit happens.

Metal Gear Solid 2's use of limited technoligy was incredible. It actually had really low textures (even for the time) and assets but hid them so well it's barely aged.

MGS for the story, and SC for the stealth gameplay.

Honestly, both trilogys are exceptional, but MGS wins. It left a legacy in the gaming industry. Splinter Cell is a bit more forgettable.

@uninspiredcup said:

Splinter Cell (1) actually has a great story, quite mature compared to Metal Gear Solid.

The story-telling is just better in Metal Gear Solid. Splinter Cell looks better in-engine, but it uses crappy 1996 looking FMV''s and you most get story-telling through text.

The only stand out bit of story-telling in the original is when this shit happens.

Yeah, it was a pretty memorable moment even though that you could ruin it by moving.(Which then soldiers will shoot down both the player and the guy in front of him which was quite funny.)

Agreed

Splinter Cell, MGS is mostly average from what I've played of the series (3 games) and definitely forgettable & over hyped like its creator.

@dorog1995 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Splinter Cell (1) actually has a great story, quite mature compared to Metal Gear Solid.

The story-telling is just better in Metal Gear Solid. Splinter Cell looks better in-engine, but it uses crappy 1996 looking FMV''s and you most get story-telling through text.

The only stand out bit of story-telling in the original is when this shit happens.

Yeah, it was a pretty memorable moment even though that you could ruin it by moving.(Which then soldiers will shoot down both the player and the guy in front of him which was quite funny.)

Playing through them again, aside from the aforementioned shitty FMV's, they've definitely aged better.

Some stuff in Metal Gear Solid, like the pacing and writing is just... bad.

MGS in my opinion, 3 is phenomenal.

Splinter Cell for me over Metal Gear Solid.

Spinter cell has better gameplay that even the games on gba was amazing. But MGS is much more memorable and the story although I personally think sucks, still better than splinter cell. Also there is just this tension in mgs where u just dont know where enemies are due to restricted camera control. Splinter cell is more forgiving due to it having 3rd person camera.

Definitely Metal Gear Solid for me. I love some of the cool and quirky things that you can do in the game plus I just really love the crazy story, characters, and bosses.

People playing splinter cell for gameplay? Even though SC gameplay is clunky, paint by the numbers and robotic? lol

MGS has better story and gameplay, lol da fak made SC have good gameplay? It wasn't until Splinter Cell started copying MGS's more fluid gameplay that it started to get better.

MGS2 and 3 are better than the entire Splinter Cell franchise. Everything about Splinter Cell is forgettable and the only thing Chos Theory had over for first 3 MGS games is graphics but that didn't make up for it's clunky capitalistic gameplay.

MGS 1-3 are 10/10 games.

Splinter Cell 1&2 suck balls. Chaos Theory is the only good game.

MGS wins.

Gameplay:

MGS 2 & 3 > Splinter Cell trilogy > MGS1

Story:

MGS trilogy > Splinter Cell trilogy

Have to go with "Splinter Cell," if only because, unlike the first MGS, all three of these stealth games have a way for your character to walk stealthily. "Yeah, this is a sneaking mission, Snake, so you either have to run or crawl on your belly."

MGS3 is better then the Splinter Cell trilogy as a full on video game. Splinter Cell is for more serious stealth, but as full on video game boss fights and all gameplay shenanigans MGS is better.

No question Metal Gear Solid. It's also been more influential.

Splinter Cell is good tho

Both are awesome, but for story and memorable moments I'd have to go with the MGS trilogy. For stealth gameplay it's probably the Splinter Cell trilogy.

Crouching doesn't quiet you in real life. I liked how you could run without alerting anyone in the older MGS games. Then Kojima decided his stealth games had to play like every other stealth game. It all became slower after that. Not as fun. I wanna be like a ninja, moving quickly in and out of the shadows. Like Batman. Crouching should be there to reduce visibility and nothing else.

Splinter Cell uses the mouse-wheel to alternate speeds like a dial than a simple on/off stealth mod. It's measured by meter that takes into account light/sound.

I remember. The further down you pull that meter, the slower he moves and the lower he crouches. The meter didn't work that well. It was garbage when I had to quickly accelerate or quickly slow, because more often than not he would slow even more than I needed him to. It takes too much time to figure out how many notches you have to roll the wheel to get the speed you want.

Nope. The mouse-wheel works for walking/running as well. You don't need to crouch.

The meter worked perfectly. The game was built around reducing light with interactive world. Been playing it (literally) 5 minutes ago, none of the problems you had.

Finished the first game this week as well, never had a problem with the mouse-wheel light/sound mechanics once.

Controls like silk, as a matter of fact. Probably the best console-to-pc reverse engineering in a third person game. It feels far better than the original Xbox pad or the vast majority of titles e.g. Mass Effect...

I'll just copy-and-paste what I wrote in another thread giving some reasons why I think MGS 2 & 3 have better gameplay than Splinter Cell 1-3:

Controls were limited and restrictive compared to MGS 2-3. Splinter Cell didn't even let you crawl, something you could do in even MG2 Solid Snake on the 8-bit MSX. MGS2 also had smarter AI, such as enemy soldiers work in teams cooperating with one another in ways they didn't in Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell 1-2 also didn't have interrogation mechanics, while Chaos Theory's interrogation was still limited compared to MGS3, where you can get info and pat for items (the latter of which you couldn't do in Chaos Theory). And nor did Splinter Cell 1-3 have a camo system like MGS3. Also, Splinter Cell was more linear and limits your options, whereas MGS was more non-linear and gave you more options in how to approach different situations. MGS2 also had a Metroidvania-esque level design. And of course MGS has great boss fights, which Splinter Cell lacked.

MGS1 was originally created for the PS1's standard D-pad controller. The game was in development since 1994, revealed in 1996, and mostly complete in 1997, before the DualShock controller released. It would've been too much to rebuild the game with proper analogue movement, so they saved that for MGS2, which began development soon after MGS1 released in 1998. However, they did have time to make great use of the DualShock's force-feedback function in MGS1.

the thing is every other MGS after original is just kojima trolled us.

he trolled in MGS2 as we play as snake and no mention of raiden at all. but after prologue you switch to raiden. even boxart has snake on cover

in MGS3 (which regarded as best in series) again he show we play as solid snake in jungle. but end up becoming a prequel about big boss.

in MGS4 you play as snake but old snake who looks terrible and tired.

in MGS5 trailers are fantastic showing excellent story only we got no story at all and protagonist venom snake is just dull.

we never got true solid snake after original MGS.

MGS 3 is the best game ever. Never liked Splinter Cell, it's a crappy series

I you've played Metal Gear 1 & 2 (on the MSX, or the versions included in MGS3 Subsistence), then the character changes in MGS 2 & 3 make sense.

Solid Snake was the hero of three games, MG1, MG2 Solid Snake, and MGS. He retired after MG1, then got called out of retirement in MG2, and then got called out of retirement again in MGS. So Kojima wanted to take a break from writing yet another Solid Snake mission where he gets called out of retirement once again.

In MGS3, it was obvious that's Big Boss, not Solid Snake. Big Boss was the antagonist in MG1 and MG2 Solid Snake, and then MGS revealed that Solid Snake is his clone. Since MGS3 is set in the '60s, it's obvious from the start that it's Big Boss, not Solid Snake.

He was trolling with MGS 4 & 5 though. First with Old Snake, and then with Venom Snake.

Splinter Cell by a huge margin.

nobody care about MG1 and 2. it was MGS that actually made the series popular.

and its only game where we play as solid snake. he is hero of franchise yet only in one game in series he is protagonist. in every game started different protagonist.

Im hoping for atleast one MGS game started solid snake. not bigboss, not venom snake etc. how about remake of original MGS??

It didn't have to be an analog stick. It, like "Syphon Filter," could've made Snake crouch-walk -- or, really, any type of on-two-feet movement that isn't a flatout run -- with a button. Modify the Cross button so that instead of two options of "stand and duck down," with crawling spinning off the latter, you have three: stand, crouch, prone.

All this talk is making me think about picking up the MGS collection on ps3. Loved those first 3 games.

This. Kojimatards will rush in here to say that Kojima's verbal diarrhea and shitty controlled MGS were better however MGS 1-3 doesn't hold a candle to story, story-telling, gameplay design, game mechanics and controls to original Splinter Cell trilogy.

Totally false and reductionist view. If it weren't for Splinter Cell Kojima wouldn't know how to implement good camera nd controls that directly ties into the gameplay design. Not to mention Kojima ripped almost all his ideas from other games that were far superior than his no matter what point in time we are talking about. MGS 1-3 were light years behind Splinter Cell games in coherent design, controls, story, story-telling, characters and most important of them all stealth.

As I said in another thread:

If SP didn't let me crawl it took Kojima 25 years to finally implement visibility and darkness in MGS V. These checkbox lists are invalid because the design of Splinter Cell didn't need crawling. Shoehorning interrogation mechanics doesn't make the actual game design better. Splinter Cell had much better and cohorent game design along with better writing. As for linearity LMAO, all games upto MGS V were linear, as for the shit camo system in MGS 3. Yeah, I remember how crap and couple with the shitty controls, it was stupid. Again, Commandos had way better system than what Kojima tried to do with camo, again the similarities with that Deer Hunting game becomes apparent here how that game extensively used such things to hide. I could easily name Hitman as well, again a series far superior to Kojima's at the time. There are multitude of games that did all the things Kojima is usually praised for much better and before him.

I mean look at the freedom in beloved MGS 3:

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is easily the Best Stealth Game ever.

Imo interrogation system is another one of the bad designs in stealth games. Since this system just forces the players to play in a linear way.(Always grab enemies from behind,interrogate then knock them down.)

The camo system wasn't that good. It forces the players to pause the game whenever they move into a new terrain in order to switch the camo that they is suitable for the terrain.

As for guards , ins some way they are actually smarter in splinter cell. If they detect you they can kill you much faster than MGS games. In Splinter Cell 3 they may switch to powerful weapons and body armors and go into cover when the whole mission location knows your presence.

Also I never get the whole "Linear" criticism that Splinter Cell gets. You have lots of ways to play the game. You can get rid of the guards in a lot of different ways(Stunning them via shocker , kill them with a gun, grab them from behind , jump on them) or if you want you can get pass them undetected.( move into shadows , distract them , destroy a light source ).

Another problem that MGS games have is that they never "Force" the players to play in a stealth way which imo is a wrong choice.(I mean First Person Shooter games force the players to play in first person view , RTS games force the players to build their bases and gather resources so stealth games should force the players to play in stealth way)

@pc_rocks:

Splinter Cell's creators disagree with you:

Metal Gear is a stealth action game. Every game that has ever used that idea owes its existence to the success of Metal Gear. Other people have done it better since, in my opinion, and we now have a deeper understanding of the gamespace that a stealth mechanic can create, but all of us analytical types who understand it now could probably never have conceived it and sold it to a publisher in the first place. Without Metal Gear, there would be no stealth games. So it's not really that I feel we were "influenced" by it, but rather that we owe the existence of our game to those who were brave enough to take the first step and to open up the new genre for us to create in.

Clint Hocking (2005)

Kojima really knows how to create characters and surprise players. It shouldn’t surprise you that Metal Gear Solid was a huge inspiration for Splinter Cell. It was a pioneer for both the genre and the quality of directing, and I’m always flattered when people make comparisons between the two series.

Mathieu Ferland (2009)

I didn't think too much of MGS 2 and 3 though the original was terrific. Notable part 2 would have been better but I found the environment of being on a ship and then later the oil rig to be rather flat and dull. That said I found SC trilogy to all have enough variety to keep me interested.

Those sticky camera darts tho.

It's like Chaos Theory vs Snake Eater. Can't pick.

Yea they did lol Spinter Cell 2 practically makes a note in the tutorial. In Splinter Cell 1, aside from interrogating them, you literally had to drag them across the map to eye-retinal machines.

It's less used by design than some inability, Splinter Cell is a Tomb Clancy game and therefore more grounded than shaking enemies for ammo boxes. interrogation is only used when relevant, with data-sticks enemies carry providing optional information (as Sam Fisher is a hacker, it's a key part of the game).

Enemies do search as well, with multiple alarm states changing the enemy count and equipment they use on level e.g. flack jackets. It's a mechanic games like Dishonered would use years later. Designed to increase the difficulty, penalizing the player for being a dumb-dumb. The game goes as far as to take into account where you have left bodies at significant jumps points in the map.

.Sam doesn't use crawl because the game doesn't really need it, the levels are built for Sam to use verticality with light/sound. His acrobatic movements are primarily for pipes, climbing up walls.

Granted, in 1-2 these are not used nearly enough as they could be. It's really 3 that properly utilizes this with multiple routes. 1-2 are very linear games. But so is Metal Gear Solid 1/2/3. They are largely connected square maps.

----

Also I'd like thank the forum for ERROR: The CSRF token is invalid. Please try to resubmit the form, it's just what you want when you're writing out a big ass post having to take the time to link shit.

Splinter cell, chaos theory is too much of a classic, it kicked metal gears ass in stealth, gameplay, and graphics. Ironically ubisoft still have not topped chaos theory, niether has metal gear. Metal gear doesnt even have that great of a story imo. Its pretty stupid.

Any main line MGS game is better than any Splinter Cell game, IMO. MGS 3 is one of the greatest games ever made, and MGS V’s gameplay mechanics are superior to any other stealth game by a wide margin. It’s sad V was never finished.

Actually they agree with me. First guy was wrong because Kojima didn't create stealth genre nor made it popular. It existed way before Kojima and games that had better stealth mechanics. Like I said previously, it's a false popular belief that Kojima created stealth genre and that's what the creators were referring to. The first guy was factually wrong. Now that's out of the way, he also said that other people have done it better than Kojima and MGS, further proving Splinter Cell didn't rip-off MGS in anyway whatsoever and at the same time it was a better game. He was just being nice to Kojima and MGS by wrongly thinking MG was the first stealth game, nothing more nothing less. Splinetr Cell had better gameplay, better game design, more coherent story and world, better controls, better camera, better and believable characters. MGS: subsistence is a proof that it was Kojima that ripped SP 1-3 and further tried to copy it in 4.

As for the second guy, he again word for word re-iterated what I have been saying 'characters' and 'weird story'. He's giving Kojima the credit for that, not for the game design or anything. No one would remember Kojima or his shitty games for their gameplay or game design. IT's always for the shit characters and shitty weird writing. This very thread is a living proof of it. All the guys that voted MGS in their post are saying the same thing, that they remember MGS for its writing, boss fights or characters which we all know aren't great but stand out because of being weird and crap. No one gives two shit about his game design or gameplay.

There are no two ways about it. Kojima in his own words proudly claims that all his inspiration comes from movies, all his tropes and direction is influenced by movies and that he doesn't even play games. And we all know only in games his shitty writing and story-telling could be tolerated, hence he's not in movie business just like David Cage. I mean a 5 year old could conceive and write a better more coherent story in his dreams than Kojima will ever be able to.

I like both but I prefer MGS

Anyway, my favorite SC is Blacklist. Fight me!

I am by no means of a Kojima fan, but however, played and enjoy both Splinter Cell & Metal Gear Solid series equally. Back when Splinter Cell was in it's prime, I used to feel that it surpassed Metal Gear in every meaningful way. Not only did it give a deeper Stealth gameplay system than Metal Gear, that needed you to focus on a wide variety of things to successfully sneak past an area, from the sound of your footsteps, lighting, enemy disposition. It also provided a very unique asymmetrical Multiplayer that was, in my opinion, far ahead of it's time. But however, as times went on, Metal Gear Solid 3 came out, which brought forth it's own form of unique stealth that focused on hiding in plain sight by blending into the environment, and also stealth more difficult since enemies were much more sensitive to sight and sound. At this point, I thought both series were pretty close to each other.

The next-gen arrived and Splinter Cell brought forth Double Agent. Which Ubisoft made the mistake of releasing 2 completely different versions of. What's widely considered to be the superior version was unfortunately the "last-gen" version, which at the time, next-gen version was considered to be mediocre, and thus became forgettable. The next-gen for MGS was followed by MGS4 Guns of the Patriots which as much of a mess of cut-scenes as it was, did bring it's own innovations through the Octocamo, and Metal Gear Online. No matter what way you look at it, MGS4 just wasn't nearly as forgettable as Double Agent turned out to be and not to mention, MGS4 push the PS3 to it's limits. So what did Splinter Cell do next? Conviction. Oh boy, this is when the problems really started. Many people would say Conviction is a fine game and I agree, I like it because it felt like I was playing a Jason Bourne game. (which was good because I'm a Bourne fan of that series) But it seemed to have forgotten much of the identity that made Splinter Cell into what it was. The entire core gameplay was reinvented and streamlined to a point where it was almost unrecognizable. Gone was Sam Fisher's finesse, and freedom of movement. And replaced with a stompy, pissed off loose-cannon trapped in a context-sensitive world. You couldn't even jump anymore for damn sakes.

MGS continued onward with MGS: Peacewalker. Basically a Metal Gear Solid - Lite, but still managed to continue the story, and introduce a slew of new ideas to the franchise which would turn out to change it's entire future. It all has to do with Mother Base. Conviction was followed by Blacklist. Which, is actually a pretty damn good game. Sadly it retains the engine of Conviction, which means you have to rely on context-sensitive prompts to do everything. It brought back many of the ideas that Conviction had thrown out the window. You now had a wide range of valid options at your fingertips to handle a mission. Great by all means, sure, but most importantly to me, a fan of stealth games. It allowed for the option to completely ghost through entire levels. It was, by all means, a far better game than Conviction. But, I feel this was too little too late. The game was hardly advertised much, and when it was, it kept giving off the impression of it being a loud and explosive shooter. The game got basically no support after launch. And it hasn't been spoken about ever since. Also, NO Micheal Ironside. Again, this parallels MGS in that Snake is no longer voiced by the man who defined who Snake was to begin with. But in Snake's place is Keifer Sutherland, who also serves as the face of Big Boss through the Fox engine's facial capture. Who the hell replaced Sam Fisher? No clue.

Even when all this is said, I look back on both franchises and I realize why Metal Gear series has remained more consistently popular than Splinter Cell. The Story? Yes, I believe Metal Gear's absolutely bonkers story, no matter what you may think of Kojimas writing, is a very big reason why Metal Gear is that much more popular. Why do you think when @Jag85 posted "Splinter Cell's creators disagree with you?" Because the creators understands what makes MGS unique in terms of stealth & story wise. The problem with Splinter Cell is that it's story in nearly every single game tends to have an extremely weak presence. No matter it's overarching storyline or themes, it all just fades in the background and becomes negligible. Sure, you can say both Metal Gear and Splinter Cell are nothing, but white noise of militaristic mumbo jumbo, but the story in Metal Gear resonates far more strongly within the campaigns. And also introduces a wide cast of very memorable characters in every single game. I love both of these franchises, so I have a looot to say about them lol :)

Blacklist is a good game. Ignore the haters.

By that I mean, ignore Ghost.

I think the whole creators appreciate other popular franchises is due to this that if they bashed them they would alienate the fanbase of MGS that might play their Splinter Cell games in future.(I mean just compare it to Itagaki the creator of DOA that bashed other franchises as much as he could and as a result his games were less popular than the games he bashed)