How would HL2 compare with MGS2?

T

twinscythe

Guest
I actually finished MGS2 like the night before first playing HL2. So its a bit of a natural reaction for me to compare.

What I found was that even though HL2 is superior to MGS in coding by far (i.e. lighting, physics engine, object detail) it was nevertheless less realistic. For instance, the guards seem to know where you are behind a wall or object no matter how hard you try to flank them on the other side. There were random instances where I walked up to a guard and he was looking the other direction, but its no something that I could have control on.

Another case is that there were a lot of details that were added in the relatively simple scripts of MGS2 (sneezing, gun point hold ups, guards taking a piss or just bludging) which adds to the realizm and maybe even replayability, whereas yet in the more powerful and efficient codes of HL2, things were just simple and straight foward - i.e. kill enermies in a single way, no other possiblites.

What I mean that HL2 could have is lets say you are in a rebel base, and people a briefing you a mission. If you use your gravity gun and smash up all the furnitures, then the A.I. could at least have some reactions to your actions. Or you could make noises by tapping on walls or using gravity gun to throw objects to divert the attentiond of guards, so you can safely progress through a point without killing anyone. Or maybe even listen to guards having conversations while hiding behind a wall.

Its just my opinion. I know HL2 was developed mainly with the MOD community and multiplayer in mind, but singleplayer would be a lot more replayable and fun if more time where spent adding alternate routes and realism details.
 
thats one reason why the MGS series are so good

but I think is just style of the developers
 
I really can't see the Combine pissing over walls ever being a part of the game. ;)
 
MGS is definitely my favorite series, best games of all time in my opinion. Technically HL2 is superior but the AI in MGS games is amazing. Even MGS2 has superior AI to HL2 and other games, and MGS3 is mindblowing because it's even more dynamic. Another clear advantage that MGS series has over all other games is in pure polish.

I like MGS better than HL, but they both have great attributes. Just depends on your style of play.
 
The AI in the MGS series is extremly simple.

We know your in this position and we are going to send a guy on a random path to search for you. And when the timer has run out we'll act like nothing happend.
 
agree with topic maker the attention to detail in mgs is mind-blowing,ben play mgs3 no more 15 feet cone vision and the ai in hl2 isnt better imo anyway than mgs2
 
When did HL became a stealth game?

Precisely, it's NOT.
 
Different type of game. MGS, i believe, focuses more on stealth then on pure action.

However, i did notice that the combine in HL2 do react to sound and can be snuck up on. I remember a part where a combine came outside to investigate, hit him with a radiator from the grav gun and his friend came running out.
 
I think they're two vastly different games that really shouldn't be compared. Half-Life 2 is primarily action/adventure and MGS2 and 3 are both more stealth style games. They've got very different premises and different areas of the game have to be made at different levels of quality because of that (as MGS needs top-notch AI, while HL2 needs generally great gameplay).
 
I'd have to agree that the games are too different. If MGS were a pure first-person shooter, you could slaughter everyone effortlessly.
 
FFS, MGS3 doesn't come out over here till March, and to add insult to injury i'm going to new york before then, but I wouldn't be able to play a US copy :cry:
 
^Ben said:
The AI in the MGS series is extremly simple.

We know your in this position and we are going to send a guy on a random path to search for you. And when the timer has run out we'll act like nothing happend.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? First of all the combat AI is incredible. In MGS2 it was impressive but in MGS3 you see squads of soldiers come in as reinforcements. They effectively flank you, find cover, know when to throw grenades, get injured and will actually leave the play area, if you shoot their radio they will find another one, they will recover another gun if they run out of ammo or you shot it out of their hands, etc. The AI is also affected by whether or not you blow up the supply post in the area, they fight differently if they're starved or low on ammunition. You will never see a group of soldiers walking to you or firing at you, the only time they're in the open is when the fight first begins, they shoot at you some and then run for cover. If there is no cover they go for tall grass and lay down. It's just so amazing. There is one time in MGS3 where you can fight two squads of 6 guards simultaneously on a mountain top, it's just breathtaking to watch them work.

AI is the one area where MGS stands tall above all other games.
 
The MGS series is probably the greatest videogame series I have ever played. It has something I look for in every game: A great story and amazing gameplay. HL2 fills the blocks for this too, but MGS takes it all.
 
Why are my comparing stealth game to HL2? Why would you call MGS a stealth game? Both games puts you in a similar position, you need to get past point A to point B without getting killed. It just so happens in HL2 your character can bit a lot more bullets from enermies, but it doesn't make both games dramatically different.
Besides my comparison concentrates not only on gameplay, but mainly on attention to game details, such as realism which HL2 should easily have more of than MGS2 given its superior code design and hardware.
 
"So, who is this guy Freeman?"
"They say he was ground zero"
"Science team? You think he was responsible? Sabotage maybe?"
"I don't know, but I just know he's been killing my buddies"
"Oh yeah, he'll pay, he'll definately pay."
 
twinscythe said:
I actually finished MGS2 like the night before first playing HL2. So its a bit of a natural reaction for me to compare.

What I found was that even though HL2 is superior to MGS in coding by far (i.e. lighting, physics engine, object detail) it was nevertheless less realistic. For instance, the guards seem to know where you are behind a wall or object no matter how hard you try to flank them on the other side. There were random instances where I walked up to a guard and he was looking the other direction, but its no something that I could have control on.

Another case is that there were a lot of details that were added in the relatively simple scripts of MGS2 (sneezing, gun point hold ups, guards taking a piss or just bludging) which adds to the realizm and maybe even replayability, whereas yet in the more powerful and efficient codes of HL2, things were just simple and straight foward - i.e. kill enermies in a single way, no other possiblites.

What I mean that HL2 could have is lets say you are in a rebel base, and people a briefing you a mission. If you use your gravity gun and smash up all the furnitures, then the A.I. could at least have some reactions to your actions. Or you could make noises by tapping on walls or using gravity gun to throw objects to divert the attentiond of guards, so you can safely progress through a point without killing anyone. Or maybe even listen to guards having conversations while hiding behind a wall.

Its just my opinion. I know HL2 was developed mainly with the MOD community and multiplayer in mind, but singleplayer would be a lot more replayable and fun if more time where spent adding alternate routes and realism details.
Click to expand...


Dude, no offense, but that´s the most stupid comparisson that anyone on this Earth could ever make, you´re trying to compare a top-notch graphics next-generation game with a PS2 game?!

I just can´t believe in my eyes................
 
rofl i know.

IMO HL 2 has way more realism. if there is a TV on in MGS2 can you rip the plug out of a socket and throw it at someone, and have them grunt and go "hey stop that"

Why compare MGS2 to HL2. They are so different. Then why not compare MGS2 to chess? I'm sure alot of people would rather play a good game of chess then MGS2.

ROLF

just saying.
 
Hmm... both games are uncomparable. But both of them has a Gas-Masked soldier.
 
you cant compare the two authors, it isnt fair!
Dinasaurs versus cat
gun versus fork
Asians versus valve!

You just cant... Everyone knows dem asians are crazy!
 
Drizzt said:
rofl i know.

IMO HL 2 has way more realism. if there is a TV on in MGS2 can you rip the plug out of a socket and throw it at someone, and have them grunt and go "hey stop that"

Why compare MGS2 to HL2. They are so different. Then why not compare MGS2 to chess? I'm sure alot of people would rather play a good game of chess then MGS2.

ROLF

just saying.
Click to expand...

In HL2 can you shoot a bucket of ice, watch the ice fall out, melt, and turn into water right in front of you. Can you conact your allies at any point during the game to receive an unbelievable comprehensive index of dialogue that directly waits to where you are, what you're doing, what you're wearing, where you're looking, etc. Can you shoot a magazine and watch it randomly flip to different pages? There are so many examples of amazing attention to detail in MGS games, it's unreal.
 
Victor2 said:
Dude, no offense, but that´s the most stupid comparisson that anyone on this Earth could ever make, you´re trying to compare a top-notch graphics next-generation game with a PS2 game?!

I just can´t believe in my eyes................
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I think you just said the stupidest thing on Earth. How do you call it a "next-generation" game when its being played right now by our generation of computers?
So, I assume that you cannot imaging with your head how to compare two games that are dramatically different in hardware levels... Well, I don't think any two "different" games share the same coding, development time, gameplay, game style, and hardwares. Also, don't you just love it when people say "no offence" and then say shit to you thinking that they'll get away - "no offence, your a retard... no offence, your mum's a whore"

You obviously never took notice of the things that I said could share common grounds between the two games - i.e. attention to 'intelligent' details, such as giving more personality to guards, having alternate methods of solving a problem. Things that doesn't neccessarily mean more coding algorithms, but instead more time thinking about how the player could do to maximize immersion.

Such is what exists in even MGS1.

You could argue that the physics engine could let you do a lot of things unachievable in MGS2, and therefore MGS2 is a stupid game, but having a extremely sophisticated physical envirnonment wouldn't mean much when it does not have enough relevance with the enjoyment of the game. I do know that in many key points during singleplayer the advanced physics engine is used, but would it be enough to have the player use it only to get past keypoints in the storyline?

As I said before, obviously Valve would not need to put as much emphasis on singleplayer gameplay alone - the main reason behind the sales of the game would be its multiplayer and mod availibility factors. I DO realize you cannot compare the 2 games directly, but I don't think there's anything you can compare directly then if they are being unintellectually contrasted (unless you take 2 exactly equal things and compare, which is also stupid)
 
Console+Stealthy game vs PC+FPS game...

Impossible to compare...
 
Have you played MGS2? Not possible to compare things if you don't know one of them either.
Its not so hard to see similarities if you played both.
 
twinscythe said:
Have you played MGS2? Not possible to compare things if you don't know one of them either.
Its not so hard to see similarities if you played both.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have played both msg1 and msg2 on playstation 2 And I gotta say Metal Gear Solid 1 Is the best game I have ever played on console... thats because of its story.. Its very nice story and some parts are sad. I loved it. And I finished msg2 too. Its nice but there's not so good story in it, but some of the features are nice. So as a result I gotta say

MSG1 & 2 - Best Console games ive played

Half-Life 2 - Best PC Game I have ever played & Best game I have ever played

I just think those two arent comparable because of totally different gameplay and features. Graphically MSG 2 Is great, tho it loses to half life 2. (I havent played msg3 so i cant tell anything about it)
 
smwScott said:
In HL2 can you shoot a bucket of ice, watch the ice fall out, melt, and turn into water right in front of you. Can you conact your allies at any point during the game to receive an unbelievable comprehensive index of dialogue that directly waits to where you are, what you're doing, what you're wearing, where you're looking, etc. Can you shoot a magazine and watch it randomly flip to different pages? There are so many examples of amazing attention to detail in MGS games, it's unreal.
Click to expand...

The ice menlting thing is a simple animation, gordon doesn't talk so a radio thing wouldn't exactly work, when you shoot the magazines they allways land on the same page, the guards allways act in exactly the same way when you do a certain thing (shoot their radio and when they try to use it they will ALLWAYS run off for a new one).

Most of the stuff in MGS is very simple, but executesd so fluidly that it creates the illusion that theres a lot of tech going on.

How can you not point out that allmost every location on MGS looks exactly the same? There are no proper outdoor enviroments (well not before 3 anyway)? The guns are stored in big floating spinning boxes?
 
I prefere HL series but the MGS is still very good.
 
The big point of Half-Life 2 was it's physics engine, and my god, I had the best fun in a computer game in my life smashing people with radiators and swinging suspended bars into their midsections. covering someone in paint, setting zombies on fire, dropping cars on them, riding a dune buggy.
Finally getting the beefed up gravity gun.
I don't care about realism, for christ's sake there's a 5km high citadel in the city centre and there are zombies in the suburbs. Where's the realism in that? The main realism was the physics engine, which did superbly, I thought. It was great fun.

And HL2 has emotional faces for the characters, making the story more immersive.

At the end of the day they're different games.
I believe HL2 would be an action game, whereas MGS 2 is a sneaky sneaky thiefy thiefy, stealthy stealthy (sorry don't know the genre name specifically :))

Edit: Also the fact I like the pc but I hate consoles, having owned 5 of them before (Gamecube, Playstation, etc).

I like the keyboard better than a control pad, and console games are a bit limited. Might change with Microsoft getting involved, and blurring the line between consoles and PCs.
 
anyway remember the tengus at the end of mgs2 in arsenal gear with naked raiden who didn't have any weapons and had to hold his balls so he wasn't able to punch,those tengus were tough mofos,ninja bastards
 
twinscythe said:
Why are my comparing stealth game to HL2? Why would you call MGS a stealth game? Both games puts you in a similar position, you need to get past point A to point B without getting killed. It just so happens in HL2 your character can bit a lot more bullets from enermies, but it doesn't make both games dramatically different.
Click to expand...

This oversimplification says everything about your argument.

Besides my comparison concentrates not only on gameplay, but mainly on attention to game details, such as realism which HL2 should easily have more of than MGS2 given its superior code design and hardware.
Click to expand...

It would be stupid to have Gordon running around and sneezing. This is not a stealth game. So what if you sneeze? You're still going to kill the guy. Why can't I use stealthy tactics? Because this is first and foremost an action title.

In any case, I don't like the MGS series that much because I feel it focuses far too much on the details rather than the game as a whole. Oh yay. Raiden can slip on some bird shit, run down a hallway, go through ten seconds of brutally simple stealth gameplay, and then endure half an hour of cutscenes.

There's not enough meat to the games IMO.
 
twinscythe said:
Have you played MGS2? Not possible to compare things if you don't know one of them either.
Its not so hard to see similarities if you played both.
Click to expand...

I have played both, and I think you're comparing apples to oranges.
 
Simularities? I think the only simularity is Half-life 1 and MGS 2 were both in a facility!
 
i enjoyed hl2 far more than mgs2 (mgs2 story was too ****ed up/confusing/ridiculous by the end imho) and thats why ive played mgs2 twice in 1.5 years and hl2 4 times in 6 weeks.

as stated before, 2 totally different games released on different platforms with different technical capabilities, u cant compare them properly (this isnt a simple affair of hl2 vs. d3 -> hl2 RULEZ!! :)), therefore i leave it at...

half life = best pc series
mgs = best console series
 
I'm also a big MGS2 fan (havent tried MGS3 yet :( ) However, I think Half-life 2 is a much better game. I mean, I like sneaking past a group of ninjas naked with my hands of my dick as much as the next guy, but HL2 has some really memorable sequences that really set it apart from other games. That don't involve naked men. :p
 
Mike521 said:
HL2 owns MGS2

on a related note, dog crap also owns MGS2
Click to expand...

i highly doubt you would rather play with dog crap. A least mgs2 isnt messy and dosnt smell bad.

anyway, theese games are almost exactly opposite. In hl2 the "you are gordon" is played out to the max. you never hear him or see him. in mgs well, its 3rd person and you talk all the time. Hl2 has 2 very short cut scenes while in mgs about 50% of the game is cutseanes. then of xourse there is evrything else thats been said.

although i like hl2 better mgs is one of my favorite games. mgs is sometimes more like work then play (for example in mgs3, why wo
uld i want to wander around in a pitch black cave using my cigar for light. should which is why i think it falls short of hl2.
 
uberBullsquid said:
i enjoyed hl2 far more than mgs2 (mgs2 story was too ****ed up/confusing/ridiculous by the end imho) and thats why ive played mgs2 twice in 1.5 years and hl2 4 times in 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

If you don't pay attention to the story your wasting your time playing MGS :/

You need to have a reasonable understanding of the various real world wars, since the story is based so heavily in fact.
 
v1p3r said:
If you don't pay attention to the story your wasting your time playing MGS :/

You need to have a reasonable understanding of the various real world wars, since the story is based so heavily in fact.
Click to expand...


I pay attention, i was referring more to what happened near the end on/after arsenal gear, the S3 stuff that ocelot was talking about etc. it just seemed odd compared to mgs on the psx and the nes even, it was just too over the top for me...
 
IMO

the topic creator was conparion some simply and almost uninportant things tha is that MGS games are very good focused in simple details that make them very realist
for example in MGS3 if you swing in a river you body is infested whit leechs
also in MGS3 there is a cool cure mode when you literaly make surgerys on yourself,for example if you get a deep cut you hav to desinfect it and use some wire to closed it and aplly a bandage if you want that cut completly cured,you even can you see the body of the character in some Xray looks and you can see where are the bullet inside your body and another injuries
things so simple give a very realistic feelings
also in MGS3 the A.I of the enemyes is more cool too,they run fast to cover start to shoot you from distance and if you get close they attack you whit knife and you make special combat move to avoid the knife attacks
so simple things make the MGS very realistic

but HL2 hav it realism too,the phisics engine,the design of the levels are very realistic IMO cuz looks like developed to every thing you will try to do,like try to get out to other places or explore etc,one example are the combines in the begining that block some ways and if you get close they puch you back

thats what all the comparation, just a simple comparationg about simple details and there is no need to flame the others game for that
cuz they where people comparing hardware and stuff like that when the topic creator was just comparing simple and litle things

is just that are people that cant accept that are good games apart of HL2
and some tru fact is that the MGS games are one of the best series EVER in all videogames
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
2K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
If you post it, they will come...
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top