I'm tired of the nonsense

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

MGS2 has gotten praised since the intro video was debuted at E3 last year. I remember thinking, "damn, that looks like a kick ass game." When it came out, I thought the same thing, but there's no way in hell you can convince me that game should beat out GTA3 for game of the year. While MGS2 is a great game, it involves a lot of watching. This formula worked for MGS, but this time around, I found it to be a little underwhelming since I got to see a lot of the cinema during the previews. I felt like I spent more time watching cutscenes than actually playing the game. I haven't finished the game because it lost my interest a long time ago. GTA3 is a different story on the other hand. The game is like nothing that has ever been made. They successfully created an entire city, and made a world that you can immerse yourself in. MGS2 is a more linear game in my opinion, with less exploration and less ways to arrive at a conclusion of a mission. I still play GTA3, and I have been playing it since it came out. That being said, I want to know if I'm out of touch and all of the magazines are justified in snubbing GTA3 as game of the year.

[Guest J*ingus]

Of the two of them, I enjoyed MSG2 more.  GTA3 rocks socks as well, but I just got into MSG2's style of gameplay a lot more.  Pretty much everything in that game was interactive, or at least shootable; while the city in GTA3 was well designed, but it did bug me that you couldn't actually go inside any of the buildings.  

 

But yeah, they did waaay overdo it on the cinemas, especially the last hour of the game, which is like ten minutes of action surrounded by fifty minutes of bizarre last-second exposition.  It had a LOT more talking than the first game, even though it seemed to be shorter overall.  Could we call it Final Fantasy Syndrome, since that series is getting to be a worse & worse cinematic offender with each game?

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I'm a big mark for games with plot, so that's part of the reason why MGS2 is my game of the year.  I'd much rather have a game that goes for an ambitious plot and has a few big failures (ala MGS2) than a game that doesn't really try for a sophisticated plot at all, ala GTA3.

 

I also felt that GTA3 was somewhat unpolished, and I had to force myself to keep trying to learn the rather average controls before I could really get into it.  I hardly ever agree with Next Generation, but I was glad to see that at least one magazine noted the bad controls and marked the game down for them as opposed to gushing over the good parts so much that they forgot to mention the flaws, of which there are several.  Balance is an issue too, as some of the missions are just unbelievably hard.   And while I'm usually the last person to dwell on graphics, I have to say it took me awhile to get used to the fact that GTA3 looks worse than the average first generation DC game.

 

GTA3 definitely wins on the freedom and replay value fronts, but I'd rather have fifteen hours of totally immersive, polished, perfect gameplay than a hundred hours of somewhat frustrating gameplay.  GTA3 is a better time killer, but imo MGS2 is a better game.

[Guest fazzle]

GTA 3 wins, hands down.

 

MGS2 SUCKS as a video game.  It's decent as an interactive story, but as a video game, it sucks rocks.

[Guest Scotsman]

GTA 3 easily.  I bought bought games at the same time, and I've played MGS 2....christ, maybe for 3 hours max.  The fact that you can't go Snake for the majority of the game *really* bugged me.  It just never had the addictiveness that GTA 3 has either.  GTA 3 is probably the greatest game I've ever played.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

GTA3 did have somewhat of a decent plot, and the game used the plot in way that didn't dictate the entire game. The plot would influence the game (the gangs would turn on you and make certain parts of town unsafe) but you can still play the game without being immersed in the plot; you can explore the game somewhat freely. In my opinon, you get to play the game longer with all of the side missions and everything. I haven't found any of the GTA3 missions to be too hard. I was able to complete all of them (maybe not on the first try) and I found the driving physics to be extremely suitable for the game. MGS2 is a decent game, but it has been collecting dust since I got to the halfway point.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

" (the gangs would turn on you and make certain parts of town unsafe) "

Unsafe!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Me and my Rocket Launcher have something to say about that!

 

Anyways I refuse to pick a side. Because I can't decide. They both "rocked my socks off" if you will. I still play both of them. Haven't beaten GTA3 but to master that game....boy that would take a while. I haven't mastered MGS: 2 yet but I've beaten it.

So I can't decide.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

It's a VERY tough call, but I think I would say GTA3.  

 

GTA3 has the most refined execution of the GTA formula, with a very detailed Liberty City and, if desired, an endless amount of things to do.  MGS2 has the most refined execution of the MGS formula and one of the most immersive gameplay experiences ever, especially through the last hour and a half (but not counting the last fight).

 

If you factor out story, I think both games are equal in terms of gameplay with MGS2 having a slight edge because of the technological developments.  But the storyline of MGS2 takes it immediately out of contention, for having one of the most retarded and bizarre storylines ever to grace video gaming.  Vince Russo could have booked the last hour and a half of Metal Gear, with all the plot contrivances and double/triple turns.

[Guest redbaron51]

 

To me it had to be GTA 3. MSG 2 is good enough if you have the time, but if you want to pick up cars, blow some shit up, and do the dirty work with hookers...GTA 3 is the way to be.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I wouldn't pick either of these as game of the year.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

So what exactly would you pick?

[Guest The Masked Yodeler]

Game of the Year is Anachronox

[Guest whatitistoburn]

SimGolf > everything.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

When I first got the both of them I gave them almost equal playing time.  They were both on the same level as possible games of the year.  Then after 10 hours I finished MGS2 and have only gone back to it a few times.  I have finished GTA3 as well, but I'm still only 60% through all of the missions.  So, MGS2 lasted me about 3-4 days while GTA3 has been going strong for 3 months.  That's why it got my vote.

[Guest whatever]

I really hated MGS2, it's just a good movie with the same boring gameplay as the first one. The only thing revolutionary about the first one was the blur stuff they did, after that game it seem'sto be used a lot in PS2 games.

 

GTA3 is a great game, best ever: no, bust a great game none the less. You have to admire all the detail that went into that game.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

The only thing revolutionary about the first one was the blur stuff they did, after that game it seem'sto be used a lot in PS2 games.

You think that the only thing that was revolutionary about the original MGS was some minor graphical effect?!  Whether or not you think the gameplay is "boring" is personal opinion, but either way, it's undeniably revolutionary.  The whole use of stealth instead of brute force is something that hadn't been successfully done on consoles (at least in the mainstream) outside of the MG series, and MGS was the first game that brought the MG stealth gameplay into 3D.  That's revolutionary.  MGS was also one of the first console games to successfully tell a mature story with well developed, multidimensional characters.  Neither MGS nor MGS2 was perfect, but to act like the gameplay is just boring and derivative is totally ignorant.

[Guest goodhelmet]

man, that's a hard choice. i own mgs2 but would prefer to have gta3, which i have rented. Aw screw it, i'll just stick to ff10.