Were the reviews really paid or people aren't buying it?

[IncarnatedDemon]

You played MGS 2. Not the original so you wouldn't know what the hell's going on even more than the fans who played the original that also didn't know what the hell was going on at that time. You also had Raiden who would just whine like a baby and get in arguments with Rose every 5 minutes basically. Being REALLY FREAKING ANNOYING.

And how the hell do you expect to grasp anything Metal Gear Solid by just watching cut scenes and of MGS 4 so you sure as hell wouldn't understand a single thing in that game unless you played the previous titles. MGS 4 was a conclusion to Solid Snake's story.

Is there a point with you telling me that i can´t grasp Metal Gear Solid serie by playing a little of one of the game and watching cutscenes?

 

[Chancey289]

Is there a point with you telling me that i can´t grasp Metal Gear Solid serie by playing a little of one of the game and watching cutscenes?

Because you can't just skip around in Metal Gear Solid and expect to understand what the hell's going on. Especially just watching MGS 4 cutscenes because that game's purpose was to answer all the questions we've had about this bat sh!t insane plot and give us closure.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Because you can't just skip around in Metal Gear Solid and expect to understand what the hell's going on. Especially just watching MGS 4 cutscenes because that game's purpose was to answer all the questions we've had about this bat sh!t insane plot and give us closure.

Did i claim to understand Metal Gear Solid story?

 

[Chancey289]

Did i claim to understand Metal Gear Solid story?

Then don't say Metal Gear fans have to be cool with Rising which is a Metal Gear title in name only.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Then don't say Metal Gear fans have to be cool with Rising which is a Metal Gear title in name only.

Why is it Metal Gear in name only?

 

[Chancey289]

Why is it Metal Gear in name only?

Maybe I'll explain later. Arrow is on so I need to go watch that. Peace.

 

[ToCool74]

Rising was just wasting time. As far as the Metal Gear crowd is concerned.

Please don't speak for all of us, to many fans like myself it was a nice side game while we wait for Metal Gear Solid 5 to drop.

True it did burn Metal Gear Solid fans like yourself, but it didn't completely lose all of the original Metal Gear fans.

And it brought in new fans to the series.

I personally don't see it as a "waste of time" at all, the whole time it was being developed another team was working on Ground Zeroes aka Metal Gear Solid 5.

 

[MigsRZXAStylish]

The game is severely underrated though by the fanatical stubborn side.

Gotta agree with you on that, Chancey!

 

[Lionheart]

Am I the only one who thinks "remake" and "reboot" are pretty much the same exact thing. I'm not talking about vidya games. I'm talking about in general.

To me, the word remake implies that they created the same game again, but tweaked some things, usually just updating stuff. Remakes could also be of one game, say, Resident Evil 2, whereas the word 'reboot' implies that they started over, basically disregarding what came before. Like how you reboot a PC; it overwrites the old state and gives you a new one, throwing away the old. I'd probably use the word reboot to indicate that it's a remake of a series, as opposed to just a remake of one game. Reboot: to start over with a story, as opposed to one chapter.

 

[Lionheart]

Rising is the future canonically to the Metal Gear story line. And my biggest issue with Metal Gear Rising: Revengence (I don't think that's a real word) is how it's a Metal Gear in name only basically. Decent hack n slasher but, as a Metal Gear titles it falls flat on its a$$. It really lacks that directorial flare Kojima brings and is just "style over substance" That's not Metal Gear. Metal Gear is both.

Yes, but it's doesn't necessarily alter the MGS story; it's just a seemingly insignificant chapter. So far, it hasn't had any influence on the older games, and I don't think it'll have an impact on MGS5 or Ground Zeroes either. And I don't know, but Metal Gear hasn't existed since, what, the early '90s? It's always been Metal Gear Solid, and now that it's called Metal Gear Rising, it's basically a franchise in itself. I believe It's set in 2018, so yeah, it's canon. But is that really such an issue? Snake's story has been told, and Big Boss is still getting attention, and they're not tied to what Raiden is doing in some far-off country, in 2018, no less. In this case, I'd say it being canon really doesn't matter, especially if die-hard MGS fans hate Raiden.

Rising was just wasting time. As far as the Metal Gear crowd is concerned, The Phantom Pain is what was really on everyone's mind. That's why people didn't want Rising. They wanted the next Metal Gear Solid. The one Kojima was making himself.

And yet, they're also working on MGS5 and Ground Zeroes. Started from before they made MGR, I think. So they made a game for the people who happen to like hack and slash games. So what? It's a bonus! You've still got MGS5 and MGS: GZ, so just ignore MGR, then. Want to play MGS, then by all means, do. I'm going to buy MGR as well as MGS5 and Ground Zeroes, because I would enjoy all three - and I've played MGS2, MGS3, Peace Walker and MGS4, so I'm not a stranger to the series either. No sense in moaning about something that's basically a canon spin-off (H&S) set in the future.

 

[VineBigBoss]

- MGR makes no harm to the MGS story or main series gameplay concepts by itself (they even tried, with not much sucess, to implement some of the main games mechanics like stealth kills), MGS is still MGS, while MGR is just one hack'n'slash exploring the MGS world and Raiden story. Sam is one of my favourite characters of the MGS world along with Big Boss, Ocelot, Solid, Grey Fox, and The Boss.

- MGR is a challenging and cool-looking hack'n'slash with elements, enemies and characters of the MGS franchise and that's all. He does not intend to be more than this.

You're just butthurt because some old DMC and hack'n'slash fans praise more MGR than DmC. MGR isn't at the level of the old DMC series gameplay-wise too, but people were just dissapointed with DmC and decided to praise anything they think that's better than it or any other well-polished hack'n'slash game on the market today. Personaly, i'm willing more to get Bayonetta than MGR, but i'll end buying the two of them.

The public is favorable to MGR too, you don't talk for not even the half of MGS fanbase or new fans, stop lying a little or trying to make things look favorable to your opinions when nothing supports your statements, MGR had favorable critics coming from users and MGS fanbase:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/metal-gear-rising-revengeance
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/metal-gear-rising-revengeance

 

[Dante94513]

I cannot count the users rating in Metacritics for both games. Thanks to the people ****ing up the rating in DmC. A 4.1, people giving it 0s - 4s without playing it. (Even those with 5 - 6s don't want to seem bias to readers), not the mention they're coming from the same users. This is why I'm sticking to critics for now on (and sometimes before buying a game, I have to look at the walkthrough), because they're are much more professional. Even when some gave DmC a perfect score (which is too high), I can atleast see why and understand after playing the game. Not the whole "OMG, IT'S SO COOL, BUY IT AND SUPPORT CAPCOM, CUSE I SAID SO." Maybe the flaws weren't so big on them. Uncharted 3, Max Payne 3, and MGS4 had a few perfect scores despite there flaws. And I don't how you can be disappointed with DmC then praise MGR when honestly after reading a lot of reviews, and watching walkthroughs (I can't buy the game til it's down to $30). There is just as much flaws if not a little more than DmC.

 

[VineBigBoss]

I cannot count the users rating in Metacritics for both games. Thanks to the people ****ing up the rating in DmC. A 4.1, people giving it 0s - 4s without playing it. (Even those with 5 - 6s don't want to seem bias to readers), not the mention they're coming from the same users. This is why I'm sticking to critics for now on (and sometimes before buying a game, I have to look at the walkthrough), because they're are much more professional. Even when some gave DmC a perfect score (which is too high), I can atleast see why and understand after playing the game. Not the whole "OMG, IT'S SO COOL, BUY IT AND SUPPORT CAPCOM, CUSE I SAID SO." Maybe the flaws weren't so big on them. Uncharted 3, Max Payne 3, and MGS4 had a few perfect scores despite there flaws. And I don't how you can be disappointed with DmC then praise MGR when honestly after reading a lot of reviews, and watching walkthroughs (I can't buy the game til it's down to $30). There is just as much flaws if not a little more than DmC.

The DmC thing i think that really got to another level. I don't think DmC deserves 0s or 4s, in my review i give it a 7 (but with some "forced" criterias by the site iself, if i would do a fresh review pointing out my own criterias, it would be a 6 or 6.5). But it's not true for most games in there. And liking it or not, the opinions and scores on Metacritics reveals players opinions, even they're supposely biased or not, and that was the main point for posting it as Chancey claims that most of MGS fans hated MGR.

People became dissapointed with DmC because previous entries were much better and challenging gameplay-wise, at least most of the people who dislikes or doesn't like DmC as much as the old series (my case) justify, including me. Trading a top-quality for an above-average hack'n'slash is not a good thing, but MGR is a "new" IP, it's the first hack'n'slash game in this world and settings, and it's an above average hack'n'slash. So people tendes to praise it more than DmC, this variance in acceptance from the players comes from its history as a hack'n'slash game.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

I cannot count the users rating in Metacritics for both games. Thanks to the people ****ing up the rating in DmC. A 4.1, people giving it 0s - 4s without playing it. (Even those with 5 - 6s don't want to seem bias to readers), not the mention they're coming from the same users. This is why I'm sticking to critics for now on (and sometimes before buying a game, I have to look at the walkthrough), because they're are much more professional. Even when some gave DmC a perfect score (which is too high), I can atleast see why and understand after playing the game. Not the whole "OMG, IT'S SO COOL, BUY IT AND SUPPORT CAPCOM, CUSE I SAID SO." Maybe the flaws weren't so big on them. Uncharted 3, Max Payne 3, and MGS4 had a few perfect scores despite there flaws. And I don't how you can be disappointed with DmC then praise MGR when honestly after reading a lot of reviews, and watching walkthroughs (I can't buy the game til it's down to $30). There is just as much flaws if not a little more than DmC.

DmC is fifth iteration of DMC gameplay
MGR is the foundation(1st) of RISING gameplay

Point: DmC gameplay is polished and has less flaws because past games evolved the gameplay.


Also i read MGR did not have same amount of time for developing it as DmC.


But MGR flaws are excuseable Once becuz its first game i.e the foundation.
And as result of that im buying it cheaper than if it didnt have flaws.

If MGR 2 has most of same flaws as Mgr1 i assure u many people will keep away from the game i.e not buy it or praise it.

 

[Chancey289]

The DmC thing i think that really got to another level. I don't think DmC deserves 0s or 4s, in my review i give it a 7 (but with some "forced" criterias by the site iself, if i would do a fresh review pointing out my own criterias, it would be a 6 or 6.5). But it's not true for most games in there. And liking it or not, the opinions and scores on Metacritics reveals players opinions, even they're supposely biased or not, and that was the main point for posting it as Chancey claims that most of MGS fans hated MGR.

People became dissapointed with DmC because previous entries were much better and challenging gameplay-wise, at least most of the people who dislikes or doesn't like DmC as much as the old series (my case) justify, including me. Trading a top-quality for an above-average hack'n'slash is not a good thing, but MGR is a "new" IP, it's the first hack'n'slash game in this world and settings, and it's an above average hack'n'slash. So people tendes to praise it more than DmC, this variance in acceptance from the players comes from its history as a hack'n'slash game.

MGR is not a "new IP." It still has that Metal Gear in its name. I expect a Metal Gear experience regardless of the change in genre.

Even though I still HATE Raiden with a freaking passion Rising was still a decent game overall. As a Metal Gear game is sure shames its lineage. It's very obvious Kojima wasn't a part of the project. I really wish it could have been Kojima's original idea for the game. He wanted to do the Gray Fox game. Goddammit Konami.

And don't you ever use MetaCritic to try and prove a point. That doesn't mean sh!t.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

^ the gameplay of Rising is pretty new, and gameplay is core of videogames, so its definetly a new game.

 

[Ters]

This is why I'm sticking to critics for now on (and sometimes before buying a game, I have to look at the walkthrough), because they're are much more professional.

so how 'bout them review embargos on the new Star Trek game that caused every review to curiously omit the fact that online co-op doesn't work and the game is a buggy mess

 

[Chancey289]

^ the gameplay of Rising is pretty new, and gameplay is core of videogames, so its definetly a new game.

A spinoff set in the Metal Gear universe. I expect the Metal Gear experience.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

A spinoff set in the Metal Gear universe. I expect the Metal Gear experience.

Tell me what that experience is?

 

[Ters]

Obviously Chancey is just an entitled nerd who can't handle change :troll: