New Review Posted: Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes

Daniel Weissenberger · 06-30-2004, 01:07 PM

Gene Park plays through this Metal Gear remake and says:

"Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes is filled with the joy of filmmaking, which is both its greatest selling point and, inherently, its biggest problem as a videogame."

The rest is available for your perusal here:http://www.gamecritics.com/review/mgstwin/main.php

Nicato · 06-30-2004, 07:15 PM

Such a timid, somewhat dull, by-the-numbers review, I thought.

Though well-written, I felt as if I were reading an above-average EGM review. Though commendable, and speaks volumes of Gene's skill, that's not saying much. It felt like it was punched out the night before. Good, I suppose, but lacking the usual flair.

Gene Park · 06-30-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicato

Such a timid, somewhat dull, by-the-numbers review, I thought.

Though well-written, I felt as if I were reading an above-average EGM review. Though commendable, and speaks volumes of Gene's skill, that's not saying much. It felt like it was punched out the night before. Good, I suppose, but lacking the usual flare.

Hey dude, thanks for the almost compliment.

For a response, read my post in the "How many hours do you get for sleep" thread.

Gene Park · 07-01-2004, 05:31 AM

No I'm not really back. I thought I could keep up with things, but I'm set for a promotion at the Pacific Daily News to assistant news editor, which will keep me busier than I am now as a reporter. This means more stress, less videogames, less time to write thoughtful reviews and more of seeking solace at Guam's seediest bars run by the raunchy Asian underground.

I know this isn't the proper thread, but Erin's article blew my mind. It's too bad she hasn't written much in the way of reviews lately. Erin, if you can hear me, e-mail me!

crisdecuba · 07-01-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

For first-timers, in this case, I'd say read the book first.

Would you really recommend playing through the PS1 version first, or was that simply a nice closing?

~Cris

Gene Park · 07-02-2004, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crisdecuba

Would you really recommend playing through the PS1 version first, or was that simply a nice closing?

~Cris

Yes I'd really recommend playing the PS1 version first.

crisdecuba · 07-02-2004, 02:13 AM

Is there really a reason to play the first one after playing the GC version?

For example, would there be any reason to watch the original 70's Star Wars after seeing the restored/cleaned up version 90's version?

~Cris

Brad Gallaway · 07-02-2004, 03:33 AM

For example, would there be any reason to watch the original 70's Star Wars after seeing the restored/cleaned up version 90's version?

Greedo didn't shoot first.

GC_Thom · 07-02-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GC_Brad

Greedo didn't shoot first.

Exactly. There are many people who dislike the changes made enough that they feel that the PS1 game is superior. Of course, you have to be able to work past the dated graphics, but I found that easy enough - it's impressive how good that game looks compared to other PS1 games.

Nicato · 07-03-2004, 12:26 AM

First rule of writing: know your audience.

Since the majority of the people reading Gene's review have probably played MGS on PS, I would guess that he is reccommending the PS version over the GCN incarnation rather than giving consumer advice. Any newcomer to the series would probably find the PS version too outdated.

David Stone · 07-03-2004, 12:37 AM

I just want to address something I've seen in countless reviews of this game:

The reason the dialogue had to be re-recorded was because the original PS1 dialogue was 8-bit, 22.050kHz sound. You'd hear a real quality drop and loads of hiss compared to the rest of the audio (which is 16-bit 44.1 kHz Dolby or stereo interleaved). It had to be updated just like the graphics.

But yeah, they did a crappy recording session for those voices.

Nicato · 07-03-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

Uh, what? Nick, it's pretty obvious Gene is recommending that newcomers play the PS1 version first. I'm pretty sure "first-timers" doesn't refer to people who have *already* played MGS on the PS1, and it'd be pretty stupid making that recommendation to someone who's already done it.

First rule of interpretation: READ. CAREFULLY.

I was actually. I call it reading between the lines.

.

Well, I don't want to get into this big debate over what Gene was saying and wasn't saying without him chiming in. But, realistically, who is reading his review--or for the most part, interested in the game--that hasn't played MGS?

When you deal with any "best game evar", I think there is a lot of sentimental value and/or nostalgia and/or cynicism that comes with it. My experience with OOT has taught me this. It was my first time playing a 3D Zelda game and, while people who've played it in 1998 seem to recommend it over WW, I wouldn't simply because of the lower quality graphics and (especially) sound.

Whatever Gene meant, consciously or subconsciously, I must disagree. If you are one of the few people reading this post who haven't played any Metal Gear games, start with Twin Snakes. The purists may prefer the old game just on principle (though I'm not necessarily saying that those here do).

That's it.

Gene Park · 07-04-2004, 04:42 AM

Actually I played the original MGS just recently (before I wrote the review) and I'd still recommend it over Twin Snakes for anyone who hasn't played an MGS game yet. Not that it's a more enjoyable play experience. It isn't.

It's just better acted, the action during the cutscenes is more believable, and it's a good history lesson. Twin Snakes' cutscenes are just a little too weird and flamboyant, even when compared to MGS2. And it's not like Twin Snakes made any cuts to the excessive storytelling.

Chi Kong Lui · 07-04-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gene_peace

It's just better acted, the action during the cutscenes is more believable, and it's a good history lesson. Twin Snakes' cutscenes are just a little too weird and flamboyant, even when compared to MGS2. And it's not like Twin Snakes made any cuts to the excessive storytelling.

New Flash! Metal Gear Solid is suppose to be weird and flamboyant. That's why I love Sons of Liberty so much. The tone is much more correct for what Kojima's intensions are which is to create a digital Broadway musical without any singing.

I'm still looking for a super discounted version of Twin Snakes, but if what you're telling me is that its too over the top, that's perfect because I always thought the original MGS made little sense trying to realistic.

Chi

Chi Kong Lui · 07-05-2004, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

You really think so? I don't get that at all. While Kojima's direction is flashy and the characters are straight out of a comic book (incidentally, there's an MGS comic book on the way), the production as a whole conveys an intense, soul-stirring appreciation for finding meaning in one's life that would simply clash with MGS2's weirdness and flamboyancy (I figure MGS:TT's weirdness and flamboyancy is somewhat different--at the very least, I think it would be restricted to presentation, whereas MGS2 also nestles its W&F deeply in the story). In fact, that's arguably why MGS2 managed to turn so many people off, because it still attempts, at times, to seriously resonate in the way MGS1 did, but the general craziness prevents one from being able to take it seriously at all.

You didn't think MGS was over the top? All the crazy death and preachy monologues? Snake tackles a tank and guy with a turbine engine straped to his back? The only problem was that the PlayStation's graphic capabilities weren't up to the task of matching Kojima's zany vision. The end result was something that almost resembled something that was realistic, but is poor at doing so if judged on realism. I think Sons of Liberty is much more what Kojima had in mind.

Chi