PlayStation 2

Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence

...

How. In. The. HELL. Am I supposed to play this godforsaken game?!

I've tried looking at the tutorials, but no matter what I do, I keep getting spotted. I'm camouflaged. I'm moving slowly. I'm not making any noise. And I STILL keep getting spotted!

Are there any tutorials for this game around? Because I'm really getting frustrated. I already beat MGS1 and 2. I'm not going to let this game defeat me. But I also refuse to slave at it if it's going to be so bitchy about ANYTHING I DO.

Argh. ;_;

Provided your problem is that you keep being spotted when trying to approach enemies from behind - here's the solution:

Just walk the last few meters with the digipad. There are three movement speeds: running, walking (both with analogue stick) and sneaking (digipad).

I find it odd that the sneaking speed isn't available with the analog stick. Still, your suggestion helped me a lot, and now I'm able to grab them and knock them out, then shoot them with the tranq gun. :D

I thought I'd be OK, but the game sends out more soldiers!

Also, I can't figure out how to keep enemies in choke holds... I keep slicing their throats. :P

MGS 2 and 3 are some of the few games that make full use of the PS2 controller's analogue buttons. Actually, few people realize that all eight action buttons are capable of reacting to how strong they are pushed.

When choke-holding an enemy, press the circle button only lightly to keep holding him. If you want to kill him, increase the pressure. If you want to strangle the enemy to unconsciousness, press the button repeatedly very fast. If you're too slow he will escape from your grip.

That just doesn't make sense. I mean, holding or pressing repeatedly, OK, but pressing harder? There's no such sensors in a regular PS2 controller.

Actually "harder" is basically the normal way of pressing the button. The other is to barely push it. Star Ocean 3 and the Gran Turismo games also use that. Probably more racing games use that too.

Yeah, that's the way I understand it, "pressure time".

As I said, all action buttons of the Dualshock 2 controller are in fact capable of managing analogue input. (all buttons except Start, Select, L3 and R3)

What's not to understand there and why wouldn't make it any sense, please?

It doesn't make any sense because having seen a DualShock 2 open I never noticed any kind of "analog" sensor for any other button than the two analog sticks. All the other buttons are the same way buttons have been since the NES maybe: nothing more than contact sensors. Would you please care to give some reference for your affirmation?

He's telling the truth.

I used to own a game called Mad Maestro. The game actually detected how far in the button went when you pressed it, and it punished you if you didn't do it the right way.

Also, Grand Theft Auto 3, at least, lets you control how fast your car can go depending on how hard you press the button.

Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 can detect how hard you're pressing the button; for example, pressing R1 lets you go into first person view. Now, if you press L2 or R2, you can shift your view a bit to the left or right. Pressing down all the way on either button will make Snake or Raiden peek all the way; but varying degrees of pressure will make him move a bit less.

It's really annoying because I'm used to just pushing the button all the way down. This game won't forgive you if you mess up. :P

The problem is that there's no electronic reason for it. I mean, look at the DualShock 2 PCB. There is no such thing as a analog sensor for any of the buttons. All of them are just "0 or 1" sensors, nothing more. I don't want to sound arrogant or something, but it seems it is rather a matter of perception. From the point of view of circuitry building, there is no way the controller could actually tell you're pressing a button too much.

Hey, I don't know how pads work, all I know is that they do what they're supposed to do. :P

"Although each button can be configured to perform a specific and distinctive action, they all work on the same principle. Each button has a tiny curved disk attached to its bottom. This disk is very conductive. When the button is depressed, the disk is pushed against a thin conductive strip mounted on the controller's circuit board. If the button is pressed lightly, the bottom part of the curved disk is all that touches the strip, increasing the level of conductivity slightly. As the button is pressed harder, more of the disk comes into contact with the strip, gradually increasing the level of conductivity. This varying degree of conductivity makes the buttons pressure-sensitive!"

from Howstuffworks

Thanks beetle, that should explain (although different conductivity levels in a controller is something a bit odd).

Does it mean it's analogue then? I don't know much about how electronic devices work, so maybe calling it analogue and sensible to pressure wasn't precise enough?

Yes, we could call it analogue then, but you know, it still is weird. I've been thinking in some way of doing it with regular rubber contacts and the closer I got was something like what beetle posted. Anyway, I stand corrected.

Yay! I'm not insane then! :-)

I've been thinking in some way of doing it with regular rubber contacts and the closer I got was something like what beetle posted.

My very inefficient thought experiment model was to just have a stack of contacts help apart lightly... press the button just a little and only the top one is invoked, press harder and other, lower contacts come into the circuit.

To be blunt the stealth in Snake Eater sucks. After Thief, Splinter Cell or Hitman the only way for me to enjoy the game was to play it as an Action title. The game doesn't get harder but becomes much more fun to play.

To be blunt, the whole genre is pretty much wasted on someone who prefers Splinter Cell's gameplay over Metal Gear's...

Er... I didn't quite get that. Which genre? Stealth? Action? Interactive movie? Both games are third person shooters with the emphasis on stealth gameplay, they share the same genre.

Are you implying that Splinter Cell stealth is inferior to the one of Metal Gear Solid games? Or do you see MGS games as a separate genre altogether?

I was talking about the widely recognised Stealth-Action (sub)genre, which contains all the games you mentioned and of which Metal Gear is widely regarded to be first game.

I was implying that the stealth aspect of any Metal Gear game is superior to that of the Splinter Cell series.

...and boxes can move.

If one thinks that superiocity of gameplay aspects depend on how realistic they are, then your remark would be valid. Personally, I think realism has nothing to do with it :-)

When it comes to stealth, it has.

Understood. Now, I am aware I'm playing with fire here, since you have labeled yourself as an "MGS fanboy" in your rap sheet. Just try to keep your head cool, OK? ;-)

I was talking about the widely recognised Stealth-Action (sub)genre, which contains all the games you mentioned and of which Metal Gear is widely regarded to be first game.

I have little to say either about Metal Gear or the first two games of Solid series. So I'll start from the assumption, that you think that MGS3 contains all the positive aspects of MG stealth in it.

Here are my points as to why stealth in Thief and Splinter Cell is more varied, interesting and fun than in Snake Eater (maybe MGS2 had the best stealth ever, I don't know, I am yet to play it.)

• Does Snake Eater have different gauges for measuring the amount of light shed on you or the amount of sound you're making by simple reloading?
• What about various surfaces to consider?
• How about destructible environment like light sources or alternative paths to your destination?
• Cardboard boxes. The point is not the lack of realism, but the lack of common sense.
• Exclamation marks over enemies heads?
• Camouflage system? Which is just a joke, because you see the numbers right in front of you. It's only a matter of trying every outfit one by one, looking for what gives the bigger number
• Camera lives its own life
• Stamina will only drop if you purposely make it do that. No point in it at all, plenty of food around.
• Changing clothes (like lab coat or blonde Russian officer) is pretty much scripted

My major complaint is the first one, the lack of shadows. Shadows which made both Thief and SC very compelling. Without them MGS3 is the game where you're forced to spent all the time on your belly in full light with the only real stealth option available is monitoring your foes and staying in grass. That's no real stealth I can appreciate. I wasn't particularly fond of AI either, an enemy may stand on your hand, but if the number says 100, it means you're not even there.

If I can't modify my environment or use it to my advantage (is there a point to remind you of Fisher acrobatics?), if I can't use dozens of ways to distract my enemies including walking around them through other paths, what is the appeal of that stealth system then? Sure, shooting bees and taking snakes is fun and all but that's just a fun gimmick. There is no deep gameplay value in that.

I want to ask you to respond to my post not by commenting on what I have said about MGS (I am sure you'll find a plenty of arguments), but by analyzing SC and Thief in comparison to MGS3.

Having played both series at least once (I own Splinter Cell 1 through 4, but have only played 1 a bit due to PC issues), I think both game series are fun, but there's one thing you have to consider when talking about the Metal Gear Solid series:

It's not supposed to be overly realistic.

The entire series isn't exactly modeled after our own world. I mean, the characters refer to action buttons and life gauges. You have to have at least a little bit of sense of disbelief to be able to enjoy the MGS series. You can't do that with Splinter Cell, because it's as close to reality as you can get without really going overboard.

I intend to play the Splinter Cell as soon as I have the time, but in my opinion, there's no point comparing the two, because the gameplay is fairly different.

Yes. That's why I played Snake Eater as an action game and had lots of fun with it. I don't compare games, I compare stealth aspects of these two. And as Donatello has pointed put in stealth realism does matter.

Well you know what? The damn game FROZE on me just as I was starting the second act.

God damn it. And I was just getting the hang of it, too.