God, this game is so good

Nah, you're thinking of MGSV.

What's it like living in opposite land?

It's true. The game controls superbly, but it's all rendered completely null and void due the fact that it has practically zero level design.

MGS1 is unironically more fun to play than MGSV.

>The game controls superbly,
And that alone puts it above MGS1.

Not when the map is completely empty save for a few small, boring generic guard outposts that are boring as hell to sneak through.

Dumb zoomer

you might argue it's a movie game, but it has some pure fucking kino moments desu

Attached: rex-vs-ray.jpg (630x354, 30.46K)

It would be very good without Drebin. Instant ammo resuply was a mistake since it kills all tension.

MGS1 didn't exactly have stellar level design either. At most a room will only have like 3 guards and the game stops being about stealth halfway through.

TALK

What MGS1 had was a fantastic industrial aesthetic and a never-ending stream of big events. MGSV's core problem is that its length fucks with the pacing of the narrative really bad.

And MGS1's core problem is that the gameplay sucks.

It doesn't though, it's simple but it hardly sucks.

It was okay for the time, but doesn't hold up well.

i only played it two years ago, it plays perfectly fine. it's just a simpler mgs2.

Congrats on having low standards, I guess.

some really strong gameplay for four hours cutscenes with the weakest story in the series for the other 4

more like your standards are so high it's retarded. next you'll say mgs2 doesn't play very well.

No, MGS2 plays good.

Attached: DE6D4DDA-2802-4720-BC59-9BE3D522F6E2.jpg (600x800, 78.7K)

>the weakest story in the series

V

same, I played it recently to and I don't think it has aged that badly.

so how doesn't mgs1 play well? it's just mgs2 without some additional features. the fundamentals are identical.

I never played V so ill revise my statement to weakest in the series thus far

MGS2 has better movement, more options, and several small changes like not alerting the whole base the millisecond one enemy sees you that it functions so much better. Even just grabbing enemies from behind is better because you're less likely to accidentally bump into the enemy due to a pitifully short grab distance.

the base movement is identical, it lacks fluff like hanging which has little use in mgs2.

>and several small changes like not alerting the whole base the millisecond one enemy sees you
don't get spotted when it's not a scripted event

Why are you bothering to argue with this failed aborted fetus? Buddy is underage and never played MGS1 considering he's saying MGS1 is bad but goes on to say MGS2 is better.

i'm just baffled by how someone can say 1 is bad yet 2 is good. i mean 2 is good, but 1 is hardly bad.