Metal Gear Solid - 1st Review

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (rbrtchng)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:46:20 GMT

Wow, full 10/10.

I'm so excited to finish it now (more than before). So far, so flawless.

Btw, el Salvador, I was trying to show that the 8 was unwarranted. The game deserves a MUCH higher score than what Edge gave it. Edge used useless nonsenses without any reason.

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (EL SALVADOR)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:26:50 GMT

IGN Ratings for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (PS3)

Rating
Description

out of 10
click here for ratings guide

10
Presentation
A story worthy of a feature length film, with action that keeps you engaged from the second you hit the start button 'til the final credits roll.

10
Graphics
Incredibly detailed and visually breathtaking, with amazing camera angles, MGS4 is one of the most beautiful titles ever made.

10
Sound
Haunting melodies, the re-introduction of classic themes via iPod, and perfect line delivery by actors -- this is an aural delight from start to finish.

10
Gameplay
Not only does MGS4 include new gameplay mechanics, it shatters the mold of what's expected from the series. Stealth, action, or balanced play: the choice is yours in how you explore this MGS world.

10
Lasting Appeal
There are dozens of secrets and Easter Eggs, along with tons of ways to approach any combat situation. Plus, when you're done with the single player, MGO will keep you engaged for weeks on end.

10
Masterful
OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (pharmd)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:23:15 GMT

no, of course not.... i just saw a page full of effort and for it to only count as one posts i felt bad...... i give an A for effort i guess

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (EL SALVADOR)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:21:29 GMT

ORIGINAL: pharmd

ORIGINAL: rbrtchng

There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:

Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.

That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.

Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.

The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.

So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?

So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.

While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.

Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?

And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.

Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?

Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.

So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?

An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.

What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.

And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.

Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.

In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.

This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.

Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.

i feel bad that for all that effort you put in, it should have counted as more than one reply.... ur posts count should have just got a +50

You actually bothered to read it?

I just went here:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/881/881472p1.html

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (sonarus)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:21:23 GMT

Wow...Go play some MGS4 man

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (pharmd)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:19:13 GMT

ORIGINAL: rbrtchng

There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:

Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.

That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.

Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.

The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.

So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?

So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.

While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.

Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?

And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.

Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?

Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.

So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?

An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.

What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.

And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.

Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.

In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.

This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.

Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.

i feel bad that for all that effort you put in, it should have counted as more than one reply.... ur posts count should have just got a +50

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (EL SALVADOR)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:18:35 GMT

ORIGINAL: rbrtchng

There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:

Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.

That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.

Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.

The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.

So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?

So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.

While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.

Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?

And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.

Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?

Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.

So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?

An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.

What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.

And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.

Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.

In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.

This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.

Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that the game isn't good. You sure aren't convincing anyone else.

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (Breakfast)

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:16:19 GMT

ORIGINAL: rbrtchng

There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:

Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.

That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.

Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.

The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.

So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?

So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.

While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.

Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?

And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.

Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?

Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.

So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?

An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.

What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.

And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.

Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.

In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.

This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.

Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.

...did you seriously just write all that?

You breathe school, dont you.

RE: MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (rbrtchng)

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:33:46 GMT

There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:

Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.

That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.

Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.

The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.

So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?

So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.

While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.

Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?

And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.

Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?

Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.

So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?

An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.

What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.

And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.

Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.

In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.

This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.

Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.

MAXI CONSOLES reviews MGS4 -9.5 (best in the series) (LenHart)

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:55:41 GMT

again an awesome score for MAXI CONSOLES PORTUGAL

this is the highest score obtained by any MGS game from them

"Metal Gear Solid 4 is a work of passion by Hideo Kojima. Often touching the line between genius and madness, he manages to build a truly epic ending to one of the most essential series in videogames history. Improving most of the elements from the previous titles, MGS 4 is a unique piece by its conception and nature, which rightly deserves the love of fans and the respect of all players. [June 2008]"

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/metalgearsolid4gunsofthepatriots

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (sonarus)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:51:32 GMT

He's not coming

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (MrSwede)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:05:55 GMT

ORIGINAL: sonarus

ORIGINAL: MrSwede

Hello mike! Have you met **** yet? You two would get along just fine

Good idea, i just pm'd lenhart. He should be here in a min

That would be an epic battle

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (sonarus)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:03:43 GMT

ORIGINAL: MrSwede

Hello mike! Have you met **** yet? You two would get along just fine

Good idea, i just pm'd lenhart. He should be here in a min

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (Gun_Senshi)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:03:07 GMT

Edge and Eurogamer said the following:

- great AI
- multiple ways to approach the missions
- great controls
- great shooting
- too complicated story for newcomers
- lengthy cut scenes
- simplicity of some objectives
- the game isn't what it could have been or should have been, but no reason is stated
- game doesn't appeal to reviewers who didn't enjoy MGS2's ending (refers to himself)
- score is apparently better than in new hollywood movies, fitting in perfectly with action
- Liquid Ocelot is a superb villain
- maps are a trifle small
- game encourages explorative play by hiding items in every hidden corner
- the arsenal is humongous, you can build different Snake over and over again
- again, there are tons of different ways to play
- Drebin points are a proper way of incorporating weapon collecting
- Otacon is being described as a gaming (non interactive) revolution, due to the way he looks and acts, he's called a star of MGS4
- iPod is a great addition, especially for fans
- this game is made for fans "...If you sat in lockers while footsteps came and went, or basked in codec conversations without once checking your watch, MGS4 is your just reward"
- using mkII is essential for stealth gameplay
- amazing visuals, only flaw is that textures look significantly worse up close

Edge Scans:
http://www.n4g.com/gaming/News-152374.aspx

Edge and Eurogamer are same persons

Eurogamer contributors include PC Gamer, Games TM and Edge magazine writers such as Oliver Welsh (Edge), Kieron Gillen (PC Gamer/ Edge), Jim Rossignol (PC Gamer/ Edge), John Walker (PC Gamer), Simon Parkin (Edge), Alec Meer (PC Gamer), Richard Leadbetter (Mean Machines), Dan Whitehead, Keza MacDonald (Games TM), and David McCarthy (Edge, MCV), as well as former GamesIndustry.biz editor Rob Fahey. Additionally, a number of regular contributors to the site write under pseudonyms (such as Egon Superb).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogamer

So if you read the review. The score did not match with review

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (harry190)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:00:04 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mgoblue

MGS4 has received the disappointing review score of only 8 out of 10 by Edge, Eurogamer, 360 Gamer Magazine, and GameCritics. Other reviews in magazines and newspapers have rated Metal Gear Solid 4 with scores as low as 6 out of 10! I think it's safe to say that MGS4 ended up being an even bigger disappointment than Devil May Cry 4. 8 out of 10 isn't "bad" but it won't win any awards or sell any systems.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has been reviewed and it has received a disappointing score of only 8 out of 10 by Edge.

Here is what Edge had to say:

Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled. MGS4 is not the game it could have been; nor is it the game it would have been had the series grown with the benefit of hindsight; nor is it the game it should have been if you believed that early trailer.

Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings. The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens. So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy. And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.

Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own. Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions. An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja. And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.

That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast. In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.

......................

And look at what Eurogamer said at the end:

You're sorry to see Snake go. But should you be? Guns of the Patriots is a frustrating, fractured game that turns Metal Gear Solid's world upside down several times over, but never changes it. It just burrows deeper into what fans love and detractors hate than ever before, and it will make few converts. It's a crying shame, given how many genuinely classic gaming moments there are here, given the countless exquisite creative touches, but Metal Gear Solid 4 is its own worst enemy. You could not ask for a funnier, cleverer, more ambitious or inspired or over-the-top conclusion to the Metal Gear Solid series, but it's definitely time to move on. We love you, Snake. Don't come back.

Moronic buffoon.At least get your sources right.
Gamecritics my ass.
-Delete if necessary,but don't lock the thread-

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (Gun_Senshi)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:58:59 GMT

funny how he stats facts without any evidence and proof.

typical Destuctor.

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (JVIDICAN)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:57:40 GMT

high five for mods

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (smokeymicpot)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:57:39 GMT

8 out of 10 is not bad. It is a good score. People think it is not because every other game gets a 10. Thats one review the others been good

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (MrSwede)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:57:37 GMT

Hello mike! Have you met **** yet? You two would get along just fine

RE: 4 new Reviews - 8 out of 10 by all of them (sonarus)

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:57:15 GMT

lol yea i bet MGS4 got an 8 from 360 game magazine