Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

I disagree being a person who started MGS late, MGS2 was the first one I completed. I actually played MGS1 for Psx first and got maybe 2 hours into the game, but the horribly out dated graphics and game mechanics for the time I played it made it a pain. When I played through MGS2 it gave me more interest in the story of MGS1, and made me push through the Psx version.. then eventually I got through the NES ones, MGS3, bought Ps3 for MGS4, bought a PSP for MGS: PO (And resold the PSP, then bought again for the add on, then resold again).

I think each Metal gear 'Solid' game has a stand alone storyline except for MGS4. MGS1 You're Solid snake, there's tons of side story and back story you don't play through. MGS2 you're raiden, same deal.. tons of back story and side stories you don't play through. MGS3 you're big boss... once again so many holes in the past and even the future of that story.

MGS2 sets the stage more for MGS4 then any other game with actually introducing the overall enemy of the series. I don't want to downplay MGS1, but from personal experience starting the series in the Ps2/360 Era.. I can tell you if I went into the series with the idea that MGS1 HAD to be completed before moving on to part 2, I'd have not went out of my way to be as hardcore of a MGS fan as I am now.

Actually, if you're going to do MGS1, I'd say play twin snakes first, because the Psx one is just one of those games where systems were just converting to 3D and its gameplay mechanics show itself to be very horrible these days.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

I'd just like to remind everyone that MGS is not the 1st game in the series. Metal Gear is, followed by Metal Gear 2. MGS is in many ways a remake of MG2 (gameplaywise).
If you can find a copy of MGS3:Subsistence, then get that for the 2d games.
Anyway, i highly disagree that playing mgs1 is vital, 2 is practically stands on its own, and 3 is a prequel. But, the way 4 is designed everything that came before it is vital.
fyi, i played mgs2,mgs3, mg1,mg2, mgs. mgs really makes no sense wo the 2d games.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

Metal Gear (1) had a very basic storyline, one that could be told in less than a paragraph maybe. lol

MSX2 (Metal Gear 2) is where you finally get a somewhat deep story.. It doesn't compare to MGS games in deepness, but it was the first with its theme of blurring the lines between good and evil in war is is definently a relevant story to help push along the newer ones.

I would say MSX2 is more needed to understand MGS1 then MGS1 was needed to understand MGS2. Raiden was a new fresh character who dismissed his whole past, so you don't need a game before to understand him. And he's thrown into a wild situation that was escalating for years that he knows nothing about so its a bit easier to relate to Raiden then the veteren Snake.

In MGS1 Snake has already long known the Colonel, Big Boss, and Grey Fox, and their stories were very relevant to the game, and snake was already a legendary mercenary but for reasons you never got to play through if you start with MGS1.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

I would just like to point out that Master Quest was amazing. I never had to think as much with Zelda puzzles in any other Zelda game, and it was basically OoT but harder.

Uhm but... That being said it still wasn't that hard. Zelda games are too easy some times. Which is why... OoT can't be the best game ever...

I'm hoping the best game ever hasn't been made yet. It gives me something to live for.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

I liked MGS3...

THE FEAR

But yeah, yeah, Zelda, incredible, etc. I don't know, I do have to get it some props. It's the only RPG I've ever played, save City of Villains, that could hold my attention at all.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

Zelda is hardly an RPG... Action-adventure is the right term.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

Yea, I wouldnt call Zelda an RPG either. Not even close really.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

It has a lot of RPG elements though, the very basic ones that make an RPG a "Role Playing" game. The main character doesn't even have a name, and you progress his equipment and health and whatnot during the game.

Calling it an action/adventure game usually implies its more linear... and implies the game is less about developing your character and "living" through the story... There's not really many action games where there are so many side quests that have nothing to do with progressing the story and everything to do with making your character stronger like Zelda.

There's just no levels and exp and cutscenes. :p

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

And that's all nullified by the fact that Zelda's an action/adventure. :D

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

That's because Nintendo is generally afraid to make cut scenes that don't use in-game graphics. WTF?

1st. Nintendo has always implied that the main character's name is Link. There has never been any question in that. The second game is titled "The Adventures of Link" I mean... Ok. Yeah. His name is Link. Sorry.

Anyway the only side-quests in the majority of zelda games that weren't progression related were the heart pieces. I mean, all that does to make you stronger is allow you to take more damage. I know there are a couple more like finding great faeries etc. I know. It all comes down to the fact that as far as that goes it's worthless. You don't have to do those things unless it's progression related. I mean, if you're good enough, you can beat the shit out of OoT without ever needing to pick up a heart container. It's all about skill. RPGs rarely allow you to get by that easily. They put that shit in their because for the most part the items and exp you gain in those side quests are amazing and so you do them. Fetch quests, monster slaying, or deeper story element character developing side quests. You do them because you kinda need to, at least to beat the game. In Zelda games I'm like "Whatever" if I find a heart piece I go "Oh Snap" and it's cool. I play the game for the dungeons, the fighting of the enemies, mini-bosses, and bosses. It's an action/adventure game. I don't see an RPG in Zelda at all. Sorry.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

You could call the main character link, yet the games clearly take place in different worlds, and the ones that take place in the same world feature different people as the main character. And he doesn't even have a personality, and you pick his name from the gate.. thus why you're role playing him.

Most RPGs can be beaten without heavily doing side quests, its just a lot harder if you don't do it. Likewise, most RPGs don't enforce the story on you hard, you can just chill out a lot and make money or get a lot of unnessicary perks...

I can see why people would not like to call it an RPG since it doesn't follow the same exact formula of every other RPG... But there is tons of RPG elements in it. Zelda is as much an RPG as Mario tennis is a sports simulation game.

Re: Pay Tribute to the Greatest
 

I guess it depends on what 'RPG' means to you. Is it literally a 'role playing game'? Then yes, Zelda is an rpg. You pretty much roleplay Link, who doesn't utter a word, but lets you, the player, do the talking.

But if you take it purely as a genre, Zelda is far from an RPG. It doesn't use xp, turn/time-based battles, party members, healing spells, etc. I don't think I'd even want to play Zelda if it were a real RPG. I love it because it's an action-adventure.