i\'m not sure that mgs sucks,..i know when i bought it for psx back in 97, i thought it was one of the hottest games out, and for that time it was something truly innovational...fast forward some years later,...i did happen to purchase mgs 3, and while i did like the story and pretty graphics, for me it was a bit of a chore to play...why?.. the gameplay...the gameplay hasn\'t changed much from the that psx game in 97....it was a good game, but i ended up trading it in...if the series can freshen up the gameplay in the next series, maybe i\'ll support the franchise again...
What are you talking about? The survival and camoflauge systmes are the biggest changes in MGS since it became 3D.
Sure the core movement and such hasn\'t changed, but how you play the game has. Not to mention the removal of a radar (though optional in the first two) required more instinctive and visual methods of survival.
The only thing I could think of that needed to be improved was camera manipulation and gun aiming. Which I\'m sure were improved in Substinance. Camera at least was drastically. Not having played it, I\'m not sure about the latter. Given the nature of the game, though, I don\'t think they wanted you to be shooting too much, though.
And Metal Gear Solid had a plethora of
small innovations. As did the sequals. But then again, a lot of games feature small innovations. However, when the original Metal Gear was released, it had a major innovation (the introduction of a stealth element).
