Wouldnt it be spectacular if...

[shadowf0x]

They remade MGS1 (AGAIN and in the true classic form) MGS2:SoL, and MGS3:SE for the PS3 engine I mean come on imagine the possibilities, I mean I know it probably wont happen and I can live with that...but...what IF?? sometime in the future maybe hopefully for once if Konami, wanted to squeeze more money out of the Metal Gear fan than they would do this right? Hopefully? but then again I know it is just a dream.

[A.G.]

I hate remakes. What makes the originals so good is that you get a sense of evolution from game to game. Twin Snakes had ok gameplay (the cutscenes and the voice acting is what ruined it). But MGS should be as is.

[shadowf0x]

AG, admit it if they made a TRUE remake to all the games and upgraded the graphics and gameplay, wouldnt you be stoked? I wish they would, now I understand not making a remake of the classic first 2 MG games but from MGS and up I think it would be awesome, im talking multiple orgasms at once awesome

[A.G.]

No, I really wouldn't. The thing that attracts me the MOST about the series is it's evolution. Plus it's the "feel" of each game. I don't care how perfect a remake of MGS1 would be, I will ALWAYS prefer the original. I don’t want all games to be perfect and “polished”, I like them for their flaws as well. So I say no to any remake, even if Kojima remade them.

[shadowf0x]

Man why DO YOU ALWAYS ACT IN A CLASSICAL SENSE??!!! I for one wouldnt want to play the old Metal Gear Solid, yes I am selfish damnit I WANT TO PLAY AN UPGRADED VERSION of the game, I just couldnt imagine it the awesomeness man....Metal Gear SolidV2 with MGS4 graphics and gameplay...omg, I wish..I just wish....

[A.G.]

See the problem is that it’ll NEVER be good enough for guys like you. I’ve been listening to the whole remake thing since 1999, back when everyone though how great it would be to have MG1 and MG2 remade on the PlayStation. Then it was MG1, MG2, and MGS on the PS2. Now it’s MG1, MG2, MGS, MGS2, MGS3 on the PS3. It never ends!

Fact is, Twin Snakes was a great example of why games should be left alone, and I’m not talking about cutscenes. I’m talking about gameplay. MGS2 gameplay in the MGS1 environment just does not work, plain and simple. So I stand by what I said. I understand where you are coming from, but I just disagree.

[shadowf0x]

Thanks for understanding where im coming from but I DISAGREE WITH YOU on the basis that I think Twin Snakes was pretty good gameplay wise it added depth because whenever I got caught on the PSone version and then played the GameCube version I was readily happy to hide in a locker, I liked that addition to the newer version NOW making MGS1 and MGS2 exactly like MGS4 gameplay maybe not everything yes, but graphics wise I think it would be good and I mean also to improve on the enemy AI, a smarter enemy always makes the game more fun AG...really thats what im getting at I think thats why they should upgrade the game.

[A.G.]

Yeah, but most won't re-buy these games. Twin Snakes was not a financial success I might add. As for you liking the Twin Snakes gameplay... the problem is that it was too eash. Hence I'm saying that the area layouts of MGS1 are not meant for MGS2 gameplay. The game was far too easy, even on Extreme difficulty.

In any case, I wouldn't get my hopes up. I think they learned their lesson with Twin Snakes and I doubt we'll see anymore re-makes.

[cernex]

admin said:

No, I really wouldn't. The thing that attracts me the MOST about the series is it's evolution. Plus it's the "feel" of each game. I don't care how perfect a remake of MGS1 would be, I will ALWAYS prefer the original. I don’t want all games to be perfect and “polished”, I like them for their flaws as well. So I say no to any remake, even if Kojima remade them.

What? who the heck are you? What did you do with the AG that used to argue about the MG1 and MG2 versions being the definite ones and what not? To the one that told me that people should stick with the PS2 ports?

Did I just missed something here? Because I DO remember we never agreed on that, and all of a sudden, we do.

[A.G.]

For the 100th BILLION time now... MG1 and MG2 on the PS2 were NOT the same thing as Twin Snakes. They were not remakes, they were CORRECTIONS. There is a difference. The feel and atmosphere of those games did not change. All Twin Snakes did was make an attempt to update the graphics and gameplay of MGS1. MG1 and MG2 stayed the same in terms of graphics and gameplay, and the changes that happened had to do more with their place in the cannon. Kojima renamed a lot of the characters in both games and changed the way they appeared in MG2 to make them fit the MGS cannon better. That’s not really a remake... those are corrections to titles that were NEVER meant to got past game 2 (hell originally there wasn’t even going to be a 2). So I stand by my comments and I’m not sure why you see them as contradictory to our past debates.

[cernex]

admin said:

For the 100th BILLION time now... MG1 and MG2 on the PS2 were NOT the same thing as Twin Snakes. They were not remakes, they were CORRECTIONS. There is a difference. The feel and atmosphere of those games did not change. All Twin Snakes did was make an attempt to update the graphics and gameplay of MGS1. MG1 and MG2 stayed the same in terms of graphics and gameplay, and the changes that happened had to do more with their place in the cannon. Kojima renamed a lot of the characters in both games and changed the way they appeared in MG2 to make them fit the MGS cannon better. That’s not really a remake... those are corrections to titles that were NEVER meant to got past game 2 (hell originally there wasn’t even going to be a 2). So I stand by my comments and I’m not sure why you see them as contradictory to our past debates.

So, you just said you liked that they fixed the games (well, MG2. They didn't fixed a damn thing in MG), when a couple of posts ago you said this:

No, I really wouldn't. The thing that attracts me the MOST about the series is it's evolution. Plus it's the "feel" of each game. I don't care how perfect a remake of MGS1 would be, I will ALWAYS prefer the original. I don’t want all games to be perfect and “polished”, I like them for their flaws as well. So I say no to any remake, even if Kojima remade them.

?

I can only imagine the face you would do if they announced they're realizing a "fixed version" of MGS...

Oh wait, there's no need: it was the same as mine when they did it with MG2! XD

[A.G.]

Dude, you are really starting to piss me off on this subject. Either you're doing this on purpose or I've been giving you too much credit.

1. MG1 did have fixes in the form of character name changes. Minor? Yes. But fixes still.

2. There is nothing in MGS1 that needs fixing. What you aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about changing the graphics or updating the gameplay. The "fixes" I'm agreeing with in terms of MG2 are the character faces. In the end, that's your whole damn debate, and always have been. MG2 cast looks NOTHING like what we see in the Soild series. So the fixes that Kojima made didn't really alter the game, but they did make it more relevant to series. Not to mention other changes, like the use of a correct language for Marv, intead of a broken mix of Russian and Polish.

The fact that the MG2 cast looks like a group of celebrities may not bother you, but it does make it contradict their apperance in the MGS games. That's a plot whole to some degree. See your problem is that you are comparing apples and oranges here. You think that what Kojima did with MG2 is the same as what Silikon Knights did with MGS. Not so. Not even close. So go ahead, quote me all you like. I have said nothing to contradict myself. Why you seem to think that is beyond me.

The original MG2 simply does not fit to the Solid series. And I'm not talking about graphics, gameplay, or cinamatics. I'm talking about the well known fact that there was not suppose to be a game 3. So yes, changes had to be made to that game to make it more relevant to the Solid games.

[cernex]

admin said:

Dude, you are really starting to piss me off on this subject. Either you're doing this on purpose or I've been giving you too much credit.

Oh, c'mon! so now if I "jump the rope" and say I was joking, I will look like a complete idiot who wants to avoid the truth, and if I "don't want to jump the rope" I say "I meant it" I will look like... well... like another type of complete idiot!

That's not fair! You BASTARD! XD

Well... in such situations, I will only say... NEITHER! HA!

1. MG1 did have fixes in the form of character name changes. Minor? Yes. But fixes still.

Can't argue with that. But do simple name changes count as "fixes"? I mean, most bosses (the ones I remember got their names changed) still do nothing and aren't quoted in future games so... I don't know.

I don't see what they fixed, to put it simple.

2. There is nothing in MGS1 that needs fixing. What you aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about changing the graphics or updating the gameplay. The "fixes" I'm agreeing with in terms of MG2 are the character faces. In the end, that's your whole damn debate, and always have been. MG2 cast looks NOTHING like what we see in the Soild series. So the fixes that Kojima made didn't really alter the game, but they did make it more relevant to series. Not to mention other changes, like the use of a correct language for Marv, intead of a broken mix of Russian and Polish.

What? You sure? What do you say about Ocelot's voice?

In all due honesty here, I'll just repeat what you said a couple of posts back: "The thing that attracts me the MOST about the series is it's evolution". Though that's not completely applicable with me (what attracts me the most is the gameplay), I do like seeing the evolution in the series, from all the possible perspectives. And when I saw Kojima trying to erase those traces of evolution, in character perspective and design (the bird puzzle and the owl n' snake puzzles come to mind), I can't like it. Simply because it is as if you were trying to negate your past.

Sure, you can call it "fixes". I call it "simple PR move to make new people feel more attached to the original game". As even if I understand it, that doesn't mean I should approve it or like it. Yeah, my opinion doesn't matter. So? Sue me,

The fact that the MG2 cast looks like a group of celebrities may not bother you, but it does make it contradict their apperance in the MGS games. That's a plot whole to some degree. See your problem is that you are comparing apples and oranges here. You think that what Kojima did with MG2 is the same as what Silikon Knights did with MGS. Not so. Not even close. So go ahead, quote me all you like. I have said nothing to contradict myself. Why you seem to think that is beyond me.

Perhaps, but there's a slip there. It isn't MG2 which contradicts Solid: IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. MG2 was BEFORE SOLID. I'm not saying Kojima should've gone the other way around (NO WAY IN HELL). I mean, MGS has the top-quality pics and what not, but the fact remain, that the contradiction wasn't a "mistake that needed to be fixed", it was a "production decision which happened YEARS before Solid" took place. And only because Solid was a success (and it damned deserved to be one), you're going back and change what you did years ago to make it look more like the successful product? What does that says to you?

I mean, they're not adding a tie to the DK in the original Donkey Kong only because the DK with the tie is most famous, are they?

And also, NO WAY IN HELL. If you remember (surprised you don't), this whole mess started months ago when I said MG1 and 2 were ports, and you said they were "fixed versions". NEVER have I ever compared Twin Snakes (a "remake") to MG1 and 2 (ports).

The original MG2 simply does not fit to the Solid series. And I'm not talking about graphics, gameplay, or cinamatics. I'm talking about the well known fact that there was not suppose to be a game 3. So yes, changes had to be made to that game to make it more relevant to the Solid games.

And that's were we two collide: I think changes weren't necessary because THEY WEREN'T ANY 'till the THIRD SOLID game and nobody complained (we certainly didn't, at least not that I remember), and you say the opposite.

Although, if you really think about it, that statement made it look like if it was MG2 fault's there was a Solid, XD

[A.G.]

What the hell are you talking about? You made a silly case with quotes trying to prove that I contradicted myself. How so?

Do I like remakes? NO! Do I want to see them? NO! Do I agree with the CHANGES Kojima made to MG2 to make it relevant to the Solid series? Hell YES!