[PS3] Metal Gear Solid 4 *spoilers*

[DuckThor Evil]

It's just on the edge of our reality.

I'd say the things in this game go a little bit further than to the edge
Not that I mind though. MGS 4 was the first Metal Gear game I spent significant amount of time on, and I loved it. I think it's one of those games that is more than the sum of its parts. I'd like to see more cut scenes in other games too.

 

[vanquish]

The amputated arm taking over a person is an extension of "cellular memory".

That quick "dancing" move could be something programmed into a Japanese robot into the future. Here is a video of a simple dancing Japanese robot. Therefore, these things should not destroy the suspension of disbelief. It's just on the edge of our reality.

Except that its physically impossible for that robot to perform those kind of over the top dance moves, using only its rather unstable wheeled legs.
And why would a spy drone type robot be designed to dance?
Also how can it fit two handguns with suppressors and the solid eye into its storage compartment, does it use Tardis technology?

 

[psorcerer]

I disagree completely, MGS4 to me has very very dated in game mechanics.

And can you give me an example of "non dated" mechanics by your standards?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Except that its physically impossible for that robot to perform those kind of over the top dance moves, using only its rather unstable wheeled legs.
And why would a spy drone type robot be designed to dance?
Also how can it fit two handguns with suppressors and the solid eye into its storage compartment, does it use Tardis technology?

Dude, please. You have pogo styled robots that balances using a hoping motion. Why would a spy drone type robot be designed to dance? Because, the scientist character is quirky like that and Japanese culture is like that. Not to mention that the character called Sonny helped to design the robot in the first place.

The two handguns with suppressors is another matter, but isn't the robot's compartment section angled? I don't remember how big the robot was in actual dimensions and I don't believe you know either. Talking about the guns and stuff is going quite overboard. It's like me trying to talk about how the guys in Gears 2 can hold such freakishly large assault-type rifles with one hand and no effort. Why don't the chainsaws every run out of fuel? Is is powered by screams? Or, where do the horde get their leather clothes from when they suppose to live completely underground. Do they have cattle underground where there is no grass? Are the Horde the basis for UFO cattle abduction methology?

Do you see my point?

 

[Neb]

All in all, i can understand why MGS fans like the game, but for people who haven't played the previous titles and are not to into the story, MGS4 isnt particularly groundbraking. It just comes out like a run of the mill stealth game, that plays like anyother stealth game, and does little to nothing in regards to evolution of the genre.

Im not saying SC is better, im just saying if you take away the enjoyment that some people get from the Storyline and cutscenes in MGS4, your left with a pretty average game, certainly not the masterpiece that some people here swear it is.

If it's judged by the same metric other games are then yes you summed it up real good. And theres no reason why it should be judged by another metric just becouse it is a MGS game or Kojima Studios product or PS3 exclusive to 'romantise it'.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

(considerations of the science and practicalities of the little Mark II)...
The two handguns with suppressors is another matter, but isn't the robot's compartment section angled? I don't remember how big the robot was in actual dimensions and I don't believe you know either. Talking about the guns and stuff is going quite overboard.

The whole discussion here is overboard! Snake can fit a missile launcher, several rifles, cardboard box and barrel on his skin-tight uniform! He can instantly change into a barrel with no 'pulling out the barrel from my backpack and climbing into it' animation. There's no realism here!

Kojima Productions understood they were making a computer game and they didn't compromise their idea of the gameplay for the sake of realism, which is how it should be. The choice of gameplay may not be your cup of tea, but pursuing pure realism would in turn alienate those who enjoyed the MGS franchise. There's no need to identify what is scientifically possible or not as the nature of the game clearly shows the designers weren't limiting themselves only to what is scientifically possible. Chances are they just picked ideas that sounded cool, and then maybe dug up any reasonable sounding explanation from anywhere they could find one. I seriously doubt anyone was making choices based on scientific rationale. I cannot for a second accomodate the notion that the designer of the MkII sat down with some replica firearms to gauge the relative size of the robot so it would be technically possible for it to fit two handguns. The LCD screen alone shows technology considerations were a non-issue. The screen is labelled HD but it is pixelated. The designers chose to make the screen pixelated for it to stand out and look very cool, with an excellent shader effect, but at the same time chances are the screen on a real robot of that class would be OLED and certainly it'd show no pixelation if it was HD!

There is no science here! Don't try to argue for or against it. MGS4 is a computer game! It wasn't a submission to 'Scientific American' or 'New Scientist'! Was it fun or not for you? That's the only real matter, if the designers choices made for a good game or not, and not if their choices are scientifically plausible.

 

[2real4tv]

The game is definitely not striving for realism but there is a lot of real world hidden political messages in the series. I remember playing through MSG1 and hearing about the genome project for the first time. They seem to take real science/technology and put a sci fi spin to it.

 

[grandmaster]

I just can't get on with the Metal Gear games. When I'm playing them, I think they're excellent. However, codec conversations and cut-scenes mean I'm spending more time watching them and I'm afraid I just don't have the patience. Therefore I just skip the cut-scenes and completely lose track of what's going on, and quickly lose interest in the whole thing.

Surely there must be a better way of combining gameplay and narrative rather than basically isolating them from each other?

 

[vanquish]

The whole discussion here is overboard! Snake can fit a missile launcher, several rifles, cardboard box and barrel on his skin-tight uniform! He can instantly change into a barrel with no 'pulling out the barrel from my backpack and climbing into it' animation. There's no realism here!

Kojima Productions understood they were making a computer game and they didn't compromise their idea of the gameplay for the sake of realism, which is how it should be. The choice of gameplay may not be your cup of tea, but pursuing pure realism would in turn alienate those who enjoyed the MGS franchise. There's no need to identify what is scientifically possible or not as the nature of the game clearly shows the designers weren't limiting themselves only to what is scientifically possible. Chances are they just picked ideas that sounded cool, and then maybe dug up any reasonable sounding explanation from anywhere they could find one. I seriously doubt anyone was making choices based on scientific rationale. I cannot for a second accomodate the notion that the designer of the MkII sat down with some replica firearms to gauge the relative size of the robot so it would be technically possible for it to fit two handguns. The LCD screen alone shows technology considerations were a non-issue. The screen is labelled HD but it is pixelated. The designers chose to make the screen pixelated for it to stand out and look very cool, with an excellent shader effect, but at the same time chances are the screen on a real robot of that class would be OLED and certainly it'd show no pixelation if it was HD!

There is no science here! Don't try to argue for or against it. MGS4 is a computer game! It wasn't a submission to 'Scientific American' or 'New Scientist'! Was it fun or not for you? That's the only real matter, if the designers choices made for a good game or not, and not if their choices are scientifically plausible.

Thank you Shifty, it amazing the lengths proponents of the series will go to prove its realism.

With regards to Lucid's comments that "the scientist character is quirky like that and Japanese culture is like that" Aren't basically all the characters Western? Otacon's name is Hal Emmerich, which would make him German or something.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

There is no science here! Don't try to argue for or against it. MGS4 is a computer game! It wasn't a submission to 'Scientific American' or 'New Scientist'! Was it fun or not for you? That's the only real matter, if the designers choices made for a good game or not, and not if their choices are scientifically plausible.

Actually, that is incorrect (as I've shown with "cellular memory" and robots balancing themselves). There is PLENTY science in MGS4. Just not ALL of it is science fact and science fiction. As we know, some things that were science fiction 30 years ago are now science fact. Nanomachines are science fiction, but is on the way to becoming science fact. A lot of the gun models were of actual guns. So, there IS science here. There is SCIENCE fiction and SCIENCE fact. Don't try to argue against it.

However, certain liberties were taken that fall outside of science fiction or fact. My point was for Vanquish to not pick at those aspects that don't necessarily make sense as a reason to not like the game when it exists in EVERY game (as I proved with my Gears 2 nitpicking at the lack of science which he liked).

 

[obonicus]

Actually, that is incorrect (as I've shown with "cellular memory" and robots balancing themselves). There is PLENTY science in MGS4. Just not ALL of it is science fact and science fiction. As we know, some things that were science fiction 30 years ago are now science fact. Nanomachines are science fiction, but is on the way to becoming science fact. A lot of the gun models were of actual guns. So, there IS science here. There is SCIENCE fiction and SCIENCE fact. Don't try to argue against it.

MGS4 is almost entirely fiction. Let's be serious here. Just because they say words that are vaguely scientific doesn't mean that they're using science! I mean, from the very beginning, the whole 'I'm a clone, except made with only your recessive genes', 'I'm a clone, but only with your dominant genes' was a sign of just how deeply scientific the series is.

But that's okay; MGS4 isn't more or less outlandish than any shonen anime or comic book. Hell, all videogames pretty much strive to be Michael Bay movies and MGS4 does that pretty well, in fact. MGS thankfully shows a fair amount of internal consistency -- which is more or less why fans like it so much. The outlandish world Kojipro created fits together well -- with some glaring exceptions, naturally.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

MGS4 is almost entirely fiction. Let's be serious here. Just because they say words that are vaguely scientific doesn't mean that they're using science! I mean, from the very beginning, the whole 'I'm a clone, except made with only your recessive genes', 'I'm a clone, but only with your dominant genes' was a sign of just how deeply scientific the series is.

But that's okay; MGS4 isn't more or less outlandish than any shonen anime or comic book. Hell, all videogames pretty much strive to be Michael Bay movies and MGS4 does that pretty well, in fact. MGS thankfully shows a fair amount of internal consistency -- which is more or less why fans like it so much. The outlandish world Kojipro created fits together well -- with some glaring exceptions, naturally.

I said that MGS4 is based on SCIENCE fiction and SCIENCE fact. That link is to the definition of science fiction. The 1st definition is how I'm using "science fiction". How are you interpreting my use of "science fiction"?

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

 

[vanquish]

Dude, please. You have pogo styled robots that balances using a hoping motion. Why would a spy drone type robot be designed to dance? Because, the scientist character is quirky like that and Japanese culture is like that. Not to mention that the character called Sonny helped to design the robot in the first place.

The two handguns with suppressors is another matter, but isn't the robot's compartment section angled? I don't remember how big the robot was in actual dimensions and I don't believe you know either. Talking about the guns and stuff is going quite overboard. It's like me trying to talk about how the guys in Gears 2 can hold such freakishly large assault-type rifles with one hand and no effort. Why don't the chainsaws every run out of fuel? Is is powered by screams? Or, where do the horde get their leather clothes from when they suppose to live completely underground. Do they have cattle underground where there is no grass? Are the Horde the basis for UFO cattle abduction methology?

Do you see my point?

While I doubt that any videogame is completely realistic, most Western games such as Gears of War suscribe to Hollywood realism, which may not hold up under close scrutiny, but at least doesn't scream "how the hell is that possible" to you, unlike MGS4 which uses anime/manga realism which is rather more farfetched, and is ill suited to a stealth game that tackle serious topics.

Not to turn this into a comparision thread, but some examples:
In Gears the characters weapons are clearly visible on their back, unlike MGS4. With regards to the Locust 'leather' clothes, leather doesn't have to come from a cow, eg. crocodile leather. The ability of the characters to hold such freakishly large assault-type rifles could be explained by the fact that they are freakishly large themselves. And yes the lack of a visible energy source for the chainsaw bayonets is an issue, but the very same issue is prolific in action blockbusters such as Iron Man, a genre Epic has tried to emulate with the game.

 

[Nesh]

While I doubt that any videogame is completely realistic, most Western games such as Gears of War suscribe to Hollywood realism, which may not hold up under close scrutiny, but at least doesn't scream "how the hell is that possible" to you, unlike MGS4 which uses anime/manga realism which is rather more farfetched, and is ill suited to a stealth game that tackle serious topics.

Not to turn this into a comparision thread, but some examples:
In Gears the characters weapons are clearly visible on their back, unlike MGS4. With regards to the Locust 'leather' clothes, leather doesn't have to come from a cow, eg. crocodile leather. The ability of the characters to hold such freakishly large assault-type rifles could be explained by the fact that they are freakishly large themselves. And yes the lack of a visible energy source for the chainsaw bayonets is an issue, but the very same issue is prolific in action blockbusters such as Iron Man, a genre Epic has tried to emulate with the game.

MGS4 is like post modern art. The art itself will confess to the spectator that it is indeed not real but an artistic creation that touches certain topics. MGS4 recognizes that it is a game and it tells to the gamer that although it is not real, and thus can do things that shouldnt be considered "realistic", it can still touch serious subjects, messages and concepts within the unlimited possibilities offered by the artistic direction it has chosen or the artistic medium. In this case a videogame.

Would Otacon have really asked Snake to change the disk in order to move to the next section in real life? Would a real Sniper kick the bucket simply because it took you a week to continue the game? Can you trick a psychic by changing the controllers? Would anyone ever be able to heal himself from serious wounds by switching off and on his console? What about the part where you are asked by your codec conversation that in order to progress you have to call the frequency shown at game screenshots at the back of the game's box? there are countless of examples where the game tells to the gamer that "hey I am a game and I know this. You are enjoying me through your TV set. Look I can do this and that. My fictional characters are also aware that they are fake and a part of the game"

Gears of War is different

 

[Phil]

I might get the idea that MGS4 isn't anyone's cup of tea, but to critize every single one of its strengths is taking it a little bit to far. :S

I disagree completely, MGS4 to me has very very dated in game mechanics. Your constrained by ridiculous things, like boxes or 40cm tall ledges. For some reason your character is unable to climb these! The whole game is basically build around the same mechanics in previous MGS games. The feeling i got from MGS4 was a PS2 game with PS3 graphics.

Game mechanics can mean a little more than jumping over boxes.
The game mechanics is a strength of the game, because it's sharper than most games outthere and a lot sharper than Uncharted (which was brought up as a comparison title). The varied range of moves and actions (CQC -> Grabing enemies, using them as human shields, interact with them, throws and attacks) that Snake can take do are not exactly few either. Compared to most games, one might even find it complex. Even if it didn't evolve much from MGS3 on PS2, compared to most games, it's still boasts an impressive selection of moves while feeling good and sharp which adds to the game experience once you'get used to them.

And as for not being able to climb 40cm tall ledges or boxes - why would you want to climb them anyway? It's not as if there's a reason why you'd need to in the game - and it's not like every other game limits you to an almost 2d grid. Games are built around bounderies, some just offer more so than others. MGS4 is no different in that matter. It doesn't let you climb boxes (that aren't ment to) because there's no reason to. It's not a platformer, it's an action/stealth game and climbing boxes isn't part of the game.

I didn't find MGS4 much fun to play, if Konami would have hired an editor to cut some of the redundant cutscenes away i might have enjoyed it more.

Too bad. I wasn't talking about the cutscenes, I was refering to the fun gameplay engaging in the cat & mouse game with the enemies that the game so brilliantly enables.

Challenging? What exactly is challenging about MGS4? You have a camo suit that makes you invisible for all practical reasons, there is no challenge, you just have to move slowly enough (or just tranqulize everybody if your on speed runs).

Playing it on the higher difficulty settings, where the AI not only is more complex, but where the setting is a bit more realistic as well with more enemies patroling the area. The camo suit also doesn't make you invisible - it basically increases (or decreases) the level of awareness. Movement makes you more visible, as well as standing in the light or using an unappropriate camo for the scene you're in.

The challenge is sneaking from point A to point B without getting seen at all or trying to beat the game without killing a single enemy player. This might not be the fun way for you to play it - but if you're honestly wanting to play the game like some random first person shooter, than yes, the game isn't for you. Kojima did try to make the game as accessible as possible to all players (giving various options on how to play the game), but not all approaches give the same challenge, the same fun and there are bounderies as well.

If you're not liking the game, maybe you should try playing it differently. You can't buy a FPS and then criticize it for not being a platformer (while trying to play it like one). MGS4 should be played like the 3 games before them. If you don't, then you're bound to run into problems.

Are we playing the same game? The Enemies all run around on scripted paths, all that is required of you is to lie still with camo suit if they are close, and move slowly if they are in visible range. If you get into trouble and actually have to shoot enemies, they are exceptionally bad. They really suck, i never encountered normal enemies that proved to be a challenge, you can easily kill all enemies (where they dont respawn) on any given stage without breaking a sweat.

We are playing the same game, but as explained above, you might be playing it different to the norm or in a way it wasn't intended (you speak of running, which obviously doesn't lend itself well to this type of game) or we might simply have a different view on what is fun.

And your last sentance basically gives away you haven't attempted to play the game on medium let alone the higher difficulty settings. A few direct hits by enemies and you're dead, so no, engaging in fire fights will not get you anywhere. Playing it like a FPS (like you're obviously tried too) will perhaps work on the easier difficulty settings, but the game will hardly be rewarding or fun.

When Hideo put the message "This is no FPS" in the very first MGS4 trailer, he quite obviously ment it so.

Engaging cat and mouse game? Unless the AI has been alerted, all it takes is some crawling and pacience. If AI is allready allerted, you might aswell tranqulize or kill them anyway.

No, the cat and mouse game that you can engage in (if you want to) by playing with the AI by sneaking up on enemies, luring them away from there scripted patroling path etc. There are more than a few different ways to do this and is something that has been a trademark to the series since the beginning.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder how you tried to play this game.

dont really think its that varied. The base core gameplay is allways the same (not that there is anything wrong with that), basically you just try to run around and not getting seen.

Here we go again. It's not a running game...

The action is horrible, as a shooter it doesn't hold up compared to any decent titles. This largely because of weapon dynamics and horribly stupid AI that gives you 0 challenge in fire fights.

...and it most definately isn't a shooter either. If you got into fire fights, you're definately not doing things right.

Its just a stealth game, get from point a to point b without sounding alerts, that is the game. You might have to do something at point B, but this is still what the game is all about. I would not give MGS4 credit for "espionage action, stealth play, action, escape on vehicles" and so forth" You sound like a commerical.

And you sound like a guy playing a tactical shooter/sneaking game like head-less chicken running around alone in a warzone engaging in firefights and then complaining about the lack of challenge/realism/point in the game. Someone forgot to tell you it's (obviously) a sneaking mission... If you want to criticise the game, AT LEAST play the game how it was ment to be played.

Im not saying SC is better, im just saying if you take away the enjoyment that some people get from the Storyline and cutscenes in MGS4, your left with a pretty average game, certainly not the masterpiece that some people here swear it is.

Strangely, you seem to be the only one in this discussion babbling on about cut-scenes and storyline and I certainly don't see any MGS fans talking about it. I stated some of the games strengths and pointed out why and what makes them an impressive feat. Having you point out flaws in it when you obviously didn't even attempt to play the game as it was ment to, doesn't really hold up well, I'm afraid.

Perhaps this is the downfall of MGS4 - It's a game that can be played in so many different ways, but not all ways convey the strengths as well as others. If you want to get the best exerpience, you need to play it like a MGS game. The fact that it is possible to play it differently is perhaps it's greatest weakness. This is the reason why IMO it's best to play it on the higher difficulty settings - it really forces you into the whole sneaking gameplay.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

While I doubt that any videogame is completely realistic, most Western games such as Gears of War suscribe to Hollywood realism, which may not hold up under close scrutiny, but at least doesn't scream "how the hell is that possible" to you, unlike MGS4 which uses anime/manga realism which is rather more farfetched, and is ill suited to a stealth game that tackle serious topics.

Not to turn this into a comparision thread, but some examples:
In Gears the characters weapons are clearly visible on their back, unlike MGS4. With regards to the Locust 'leather' clothes, leather doesn't have to come from a cow, eg. crocodile leather. The ability of the characters to hold such freakishly large assault-type rifles could be explained by the fact that they are freakishly large themselves. And yes the lack of a visible energy source for the chainsaw bayonets is an issue, but the very same issue is prolific in action blockbusters such as Iron Man, a genre Epic has tried to emulate with the game.

What underground source of leather is there? It certainly didn't look like croc skin. It looked like polished bovine skin. Also, even the strongest men on the planet can't maneuver a weapon of that size with that amount of ease. It's not possible. Also, there is no way elite soldiers could be THAT bulked up when mobility and endurance is more important.

Another example:
How do all these stupidly huge creature survive deep underground? Why do they peacefully live along side of the Locust deep underground with no other plausible food sources down there? Which is more far-fetched? Fighting HUGE deep underground creatures or a war-torn future in which technology and human ambition is at the heart of the matter.

Now, do you see how weird that is to say you don't like a game because of a few points that lack plausibility? Both of these games are great. It's wild that you would pick something that spans ALL games to pick at one game with.

 

[vanquish]

I might get the idea that MGS4 isn't anyone's cup of tea, but to critize every single one of its strengths is taking it a little bit to far. :S

And your last sentance basically gives away you haven't attempted to play the game on medium let alone the higher difficulty settings. A few direct hits by enemies and you're dead, so no, engaging in fire fights will not get you anywhere. Playing it like a FPS (like you're obviously tried too) will perhaps work on the easier difficulty settings, but the game will hardly be rewarding or fun.

I think he has a point on the enemies, I played thru the demo on the second hardest difficulty setting, and found the enemies were rather easy, even with the basic gun, they run straight at you, fire sporadically, and sometimes just stop in front of you and do nothing. I actually found the controls and the cover mechanics (which I was still getting used to) the hardest part of taking out the enemies.

With regards to sneaking, it seems a rather artificial construct at times, eg. When the enemies spot you, but aren't on 'alert' mode, they sometimes will climb up the ladder and walk directly towards where I was lying with 85% camo, and then kick you. But on the other hand when there is no 'caution' or 'alert' triggered, you can simply crawl right beneath their feet, and they won't notice.

 

[vanquish]

What underground source of leather is there? It certainly didn't look like croc skin. It looked like polished bovine skin. Also, even the strongest men on the planet can't maneuver a weapon of that size with that amount of ease. It's not possible. Also, there is no way elite soldiers could be THAT bulked up when mobility and endurance is more important.

Another example:
How do all these stupidly huge creature survive deep underground? Why do they peacefully live along side of the Locust deep underground with no other plausible food sources down there? Which is more far-fetched? Fighting HUGE deep underground creatures or a war-torn future in which technology and human ambition is at the heart of the matter.

Now, do you see how weird that is to say you don't like a game because of a few points that lack plausibility? Both of these games are great. It's wild that you would pick something that spans ALL games to pick at one game with.

My point is clearly different to what you are attempting to rebutt, I am talking about the way the two games approach realism rather than any specific details.

 

[Phil]

I think he has a point on the enemies, I played thru the demo on the second hardest difficulty setting, and found the enemies were rather easy, even with the basic gun, they run straight at you, fire sporadically, and sometimes just stop in front of you and do nothing. I actually found the controls and the cover mechanics (which I was still getting used to) the hardest part of taking out the enemies.

I'm not sure how the demo difficulty settings compare with that of the full game. Could be that it was turned down even more to make it more appealing to the potential customers (given that anyone who's a MGS fan already has the game anyway). Even if not, it's been a while since I played, but I do know that on "hard" or "very hard", you don't last more than a few shots. Mistakes do happen and occasionally, you will get spotted regardless how skilled you are. Giving the enemy players perfect aiming abilities wouldn't exactly make it a fun game, so regardless how realistic you may find it, that gap you see is there to make it possible to shoot that enemy and then get out of sight quickly enough to hide from the respawning enemies. It's not as if the game should magically turn into a shooter once you're spotted. Once you spotted, you either run for it, or you shoot the enemy and then run for it. Standing there and turning the game into a shooter isn't the way it should be played (even if it works!) and it's not possible on the higher difficulty settings (e.g. hard/very hard) as you're either end up shot dead or without amunition and then shot. The flaw in the enemy player is effectively there to give you that needed time frame to get yourself out of that situation.

With regards to sneaking, it seems a rather artificial construct at times, eg. When the enemies spot you, but aren't on 'alert' mode, they sometimes will climb up the ladder and walk directly towards where I was lying with 85% camo, and then kick you. But on the other hand when there is no 'caution' or 'alert' triggered, you can simply crawl right beneath their feet, and they won't notice.

Artificial it might be, but it's there because it's a game and to make the whole thing rather fun. It's also somewhat logical that an enemy in the "Caution" or "Alert" trigger is more aware as they are looking for you and overly suspicous compared to their normal state when they're just going around their normal patrol route.

Your example of when enemies spot you but aren't on "alert" mode, happens when you make a sound or move when in the sight of the enemy but are too far away for him to gather what exactly he's seeing. He will then walk over to you and check if he's been imagening things or if there really is a some of threat. The "kick" into your body is just to check if you're alive or just a dead body. Finding you alive, will then put on "alert" mode (= enemy is sighted). "Caution" mode is used when they know an enemy is near by but not in sight and the enemies are looking for you.

It's artificial, sure - but this is what makes the game fun at the same time. Once you fiddle around with it (on the higher difficulty settings), it gets all the more amusing. Playing it on easy or medium, sadly, kind of breaks the whole illusion as the enemies are seriously dumbed down.

 

[obonicus]

My point is clearly different to what you are attempting to rebutt, I am talking about the way the two games approach realism rather than any specific details.

Neither one cares much for realism. Trying to say that one ridiculous comic book-lke series is more realistic than the other is just stupid. Is Batman more or less realistic than The Punisher? Both have holes you can pilot a ship through. They try to be internally consistent, try to pretend that their world holds up under scrutiny, but neither does.