Sweetz's forum posts

#1 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -
#2 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

I just finished MGS2 for the first time last night. The worst fight for me was Vamp. I also had a lot of trouble with the Metal Gear Ray(s) fight until I figured out the trick.

Regarding Fatman - I found this fight incredibly easy. I'm not sure why people think it's so troublesome unless they missed the trick. The game suggests you need to first person aim to knock over Fatman - that's BS. All you have to do is plug him with the SOCOM 4 or 5 times using the auto-aim in top down view and he'll fall over, at which point you then easily shoot him in the head.

Harrier was also very easy, beat that one first try. There's no "trick" to that one, so I have no guess as to why people had trouble with that one unless it was rebalanced in the HD version or something.

Vamp fight was really rough. I ended up having to look up hints for that one. Turns out if you throw/shoot grenades in the water, they'll cause Vamp's O2 to run and he'll jump out of water and be slow for a short moment allowing you to get some easy shots in. Even then I still went through all of my rations.

Ray was also tough until I figure out that you shoot them in the legs, which causes them to "roar" at point you shoot them in the head and it does way more damage. You can take them out pretty quickly once you learn that.

Solidus was very easy, it's like an easy version of every Dark Souls fight. Just figure out which animation leaves him open to attack, walk around and hit him in the back.

#4 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

Hmm Kotaku's story for this has a very similar opening line:

Aside from being one of the dullest entries in the best-selling series, Assassin's Creed Unity appears to be riddled with bugs.

Although GB articles aren't timestamped, judging by comment timestamps it looks like Patrick was first.

#5 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

Mass Effect Trilogy full remake, seriously.

A lot of classic games would be cool with newer graphics but are fine as is. The thing about Mass Effect is that, even though the trilogy was good overall, there was sooo much untapped potential there. I see so many ways in which those games could be improved and make something truly amazing. I'd love a remake that basically pulls the best parts out of each game and then rebuilds it as one unified whole, with opportunities to fix up some of the weaker writing and expand the scope.

#6 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

Pretty sure Dan said he'd never played these, so I'd flip it and have him at the controls.

I agree that Dan should take the controls if he hasn't played them. I couldn't remember if he said he played them or not, but after having actually played them, I had the suspicion that he did not.

In particular...I remember where Dan talked up the "fist fight between Solid Snake and Grey Fox in a minefield". The reality is humorously underwhelming. It's a tiny square room with mines bordering the walls, where Grey Fox just kind of runs around like a fool and you take pot shots at him.

Only thing is, if Dan does play them, I'm guessing he would insist on doing original difficulty and I don't know if that's a good thing.

#7 Edited by Sweetz (553 posts) -

Having only ever played Metal Gear Solid in it's day, I was inspired by Metal Gear Scanlon (which I enjoying a great deal) to play the other games in the series. So I picked up the Legacy collection and just finished up the MSX originals Metal Gear 1 & 2.

I found the commonalities between MG1, 2 and Solid to be pretty surprising. For what it's worth, I think it would be great site content for Dan and Drew to play through both of the old games - but if only one can be done, then definitely MG2. The degree to which Metal Gear Solid borrows from MG2 in particular had me in awe quite a bit. I think Drew's reactions/perspective on how similar MG2 is would be cool to see. There's also probably a ton of people out there that have played Metal Gear Solid and later sequels, but never the MSX originals and would have interest in watching these.

Couple notes for the guys that should be helpful for planning should they somehow read this thread:

  • The way you access these games is not immediately obvious. On the Legacy/HD collection you go into MGS3 first, then you can get to them from the MGS3 menu.
  • I played on easy difficulty (added for the HD collection version) and would strongly recommend the same for you guys. As is typical for games of the era, on original difficulty the games are quite difficult to extend their play time - much more difficult than MGS on normal. I don't think there's much good in repeating sections of these old games ad nauseum. I was more interested in the historical perspective, not the challenge, and the game was still quite entertaining anyway. There are still plenty of insta-death possibilities regardless of difficulty that will keep the entertainment factor up.
  • Metal Gear 1 requires some fairly ridiculous leaps of logic to progress that should be good entertainment - but also could lead to getting stuck. Following the same philosophy as the difficulty, I resorted to a guide when necessary and don't regret it. Keep one handy just in case. MG2 is far more reasonable to figure out.
  • MG1 took me a little under 4 hours to finish, MG2 took me just under 5. I figure you'll tack on a couple hours for talking and general entertainment, but these shouldn't suck up too much time.
#8 Edited by Sweetz (553 posts) -

@mb said:

I wonder how these games play with an Xbox 360 controller? I originally played these with a joystick. Oh, and don't even try playing with a mouse and keyboard, it is an exercise in frustration.

As a person who tried to use a 360 pad with other older space shooters, I'm guessing it won't work well.

The problem is round gate vs square gate joysticks.

Basically joysticks work by measuring position along two axes (like an X, Y graph). Say that the joystick coords for center is (0, 0), fully forward is (0, 100), fully right is (100, 0) for example. Proper flight sticks (and joysticks of yore) have a square "gate", meaning the opening at the base of the stick that determines its movement range. So when you move a flight stick all the way to the top right corner, you are at the full extent of the vertical range, and the full extent of the horizontal range - same as if you were just moving in one of those directions individually - i.e. top right would measure (100, 100).

Because gamepad joysticks have round gates, you can't actually get to the full extent of their range. When you point a 360 joystick to the top right, you're only around 70% as far forward as if you were moving it forward only and only 70% as far to the right as if you were moving it right only. I.e. it would measure (70, 70).

Newer games designed for analog gamepads are built to compensate for this (though usually in a pretty simple/weak manner by simply treating anything reporting values >= 70% of the joystick's range as 100%), . However, older games were built for flight sticks with square gates and expect full range movement at all possible stick angles. As a result, they don't feel right if you try to play with round gate gamepads. If you're trying to yaw and pitch at the same time (i.e. moving the joystick up/right, down/left, etc.) you'll only be rotating the ship at 70% the speed in either direction that it's capable of doing. This doesn't sound like much, but it's actually a far bigger impact than you might think, especially if the game was designed to have non-linear rotational speed based on the magnitude of the input. I've found it to render these old games more or less unplayable on a gamepad. They demand a basic flight stick.

#9 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

Holy crap that's awesome, not sure why Jeff was unhappy with his delivery, I was cracking up.

#10 Posted by Sweetz (553 posts) -

All in all, this guy is blacklisted and the media (this article) is saying that is a valid response to this behavior. I don't know if I agree.

It's absolutely valid. Steam is a privately owned store, it's their right to choose what products they do and do not want to sell. Nobody has a right to sell things on their store. Believing otherwise is over-entitlement to the point of absurdity. If I was running Steam, I would have stopped carrying his games for the "incompetent" comment alone. If you want to criticize my business, that's fine, but don't expect that you get to do that and still have your products carried by my store.

Note that there's also a downside for Steam which is that they no longer make revenue from selling his product - though that's obviously a teeny drop in the bucket for them.