Thrik

Is that with beardo (I think) playing? It did look pretty good.

wtf

Ages. It's still accessible in a read-only format here, though: http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Yes. Whoops, Sony!

It does seem mental. I didn't realise I was getting something so valuable when I bought it in late 2006. Not that I'll ever be selling it. I'd go trundling through GameStation and whatnot, though. Relatively rare stuff does randomly turn up there quite frequently.

I'd just play the PS2 version personally, which you can grab extremely cheap. It's a better game on its native console for sure. As for Subsistence, yes it is a superior version. Although the camera seems like a throwaway feature, it does actually make a huge difference to the way the whole game is played. In a nutshell, instead of being locked to pre-defined camera angles like in MGS1 and MGS2, you're given the free-range camera that's used throughout MGS4. If this were MGS1 and MGS2 it wouldn't really matter, and indeed the many indoor sections of MGS3 are no worse off with the original camera. However, the huge, open jungle areas are definitely better and feel more tactical when you have a free-range camera, as you can look around properly rather than having to jump into first-person view every time you want to check the road ahead. I would go for Subsistence if at all possible. It still seems to be quite widely available in the UK: http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=metal+gear+solid+subsistence

I think the MGS2 story is excellent too. It is a complex set of events that'll confuse the hell out of you if you're not expecting it and thus prepared to pay close attention, but if you are and do it's very fulfilling IMO. MGS3, though... fuck me. I envy you experiencing that for the first time.

Delicious!

They're from 2006 You're only adding shit, uninsightful one-liners to them You're still on thin ice after your Grim Fandango movie hoax in 2006 :tdown: :tdown: :tdown:

I wouldn't say they're two different styles, BigJKO. Diablo 3 pretty much has graphics that are how World of Warcraft 2 would look if it were released today, whereas Diablo 1 and 2 were very detached visually (as you can see in the shot above). It's even more obvious if you look at WoW concept art, and many indoor WoW areas are very reminiscent of that first high-resolution Diablo 3 screenshot above. I do like that Blizzard have their own signature style, though. You can always recognise them a mile off, and have been able to since Warcraft 3.

It does seem to have inherited a lot of the Warcraft look. I actually thought that first high-resolution screenshot above was a WoW screenshot, posted for comparison or whatever. It doesn't seem to be, though. Still looks cool though, and as someone who never really got into Diablo I'll embrace it for what it is. ;

If it's an EU console that it definitely won't have full backwards compatibility, and instead has semi-software emulation that works with some games and not for others. I'm not sure about the current US consoles, but I'd expect they no longer have it either. At this point it's so difficult and expensive to get your hands on one that's guaranteed to support backwards compatibility you're better off just saving the £100-£250 and getting a PS2 Slim instead. On a purely aesthetic level, I also prefer the newer consoles' matte silver trim rather than the over-shiny chrome on the original PS3s.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying earlier. The PS3 is remarkably good at replacing the home cinema equipment of a lot of people. There's so much configuration for each component it's way above the level of most consumer separates, including most DVD players. I'd agree that the PS3 remote is a must, though. With that fucker you can just use the unit like your regular DVD player and whatnot. I'd also like to see some kind of LCD display so you can use the CD player without needing to turn the television on — not sure if one exists. If it does though, let me know where you saw it.

There shouldn't be. Both are pretty similar, and doesn't the SCART adapter just convert from composite anyway? I forget whether or not the PS2 has physical connections for both. As for upscaling, it would be nice if the PS3 upscaled the resolution of PS2 games but I don't think it does. I think it just upscales the overall outputted picture, much like a television does. You can probably get equivalent or superior upscaling to the PS3's effort if your television has a good upscaler chip inside it.

It's never been possible purely through software, although certain parts of the PS2 have varyingly been emulated whilst hardware is used for others. However, software emulation is still used to run PS1 games.

The general prospect of buying a PS3 is sound at this time. Their cost is pretty much on par with the 360 now (they end up roughly equal when you factor batteries, wifi, wireless controllers, etc), and quality games are plentiful. Not to mention the excellent home cinema functionality I've mentioned before on Thumbs. As for your reasons, you're totally out of luck if you want to play any PS2 games on a European 40GB console. One of the ways they managed to get the price down so much was by literally removing the PS2 hardware that was in the PS3, thus making it entirely incapable of playing those games. The flipside to this is that the money you'd spend buying a PS2-compatible PS3 could just as easily be spent getting a second-hand PS2 Slim (even thinner and lighter than a Wii) for like ~£50. That's the option I chose for guaranteed compatibility. There's no confirmed upcoming revision I'm aware of, and it's unlikely to benefit you much if one comes along anyway. Hard drive upgrades are openly supported by Sony as Norfolk said above, with a hatch on the side of the console and everything.

Anyone else got this yet? Am I crazy for writing something like this, or does anyone agree?

We have a bit of a problem! I don't think the domain has got long before it falls into the hands of squatters (it's already a week over), so a fast renewal is kind of critical. Aristotle says he'll recompense whatever it costs. Edit: OK, situation resolved.

I don't know about other people, but I'd be inclined to use the term to describe MGS because the overall experience gives me an emotional response more like a deeply involving movie rather than something like reading a book, or hearing a radio play, or GTA4 which feels more like arcade-like fun. I'd say no particular part of MGS is primarily responsible for this, and it's more a combination of characters that're very fleshed out, an extremely immersive world (particularly MGS1 and MGS3), a storyline full of twists, and — particularly in the cases of MGS1 and MGS2 — a very film-like approach to camera angles. MGS pretty much has its own unique feel that's complimented by all sorts of things, not least the Harry Gregson-Williams soundtrack. It is difficult to quantify concisely though, I'd agree. I'd be very reluctant to credit even a majority portion of the 'cinematic' feel to the cutscenes though, despite that being a logical first assumption. I wouldn't normally use the term to describe MGS anyway, though. MGS is just a game and it has a great atmosphere in my opinion. It's its own thing, which doesn't work for everyone.

I don't understand your question at all.

I'm fairly sure he means MGS4. I don't recall any such long scenes in the previous games. From the sounds of it they did go a bit overboard with MGS4 and it's total fan service (ie: satisfying every question everyone's ever had), but then I do find myself thoroughly entertained by MGS cutscenes so I'm guessing I won't mind. They've gotten increasingly better with each game, and they've gotten good at minimising potential boredom too.

Good job you can pause them. More like watch half the next day.

I loved the twist about WoW gold. So unexpected!

Yeah, just dive in with MGS2 I'd say. Or Twin Snakes if you don't remember much of the story, as MGS2 is tied in quite closely with it — MGS3 is pretty much a different story due to being a prequel, albeit still totally relevant and part of the time line. MGS2 is definitely just as heavy as MGS1 on the story/dialogue, while MGS3 will be quite refreshing as they've kind of simplified things a bit (less of the insane technology, thanks to being set in the 60s) and it feels... well, just different. More action-packed, too. I'd put the MGS series above pretty much any other games I've played in the past several years though. If you have a list, they want to be towards the top. God I want to play MGS3 right now.

Yeah the story is pretty nice in how fleshed-out it is, which makes a change. By the end of MGS3 you feel part of something special but absolutely ridiculous. I assume that becomes even more so with MGS4. Really though, you don't actually need to play them all to understand it. The MGS series was designed with the assumption that a lot of people would have missed the really early/PSP games, so you can play MGS 1, 2, 3, and presumably 4 without really feeling you've missed anything. MGS3 is a real highlight because of how detatched it is from the previous two (largely set in the soviet jungle). Even if you don't have a PS3, I'd really recommend you play the older MGS games because they really do stand up well and offer amazing experiences for those who can enjoy the signature heavy gameplay/cutscene mixture. I'd personally say that they got increasingly better with each iteration, although I've not played MGS4 yet. The earlier MGS games still look pretty nice, too. By the time you're done there may be a cross-platform version of MGS4 anyway (MGS1 and MGS2 had them). If you want to do a full series play this year like a lot of people have done, I recommend substituting MGS: Twin Snakes on the GameCube for MGS1. It's a remake of MGS1 with MGS2-ish graphics and some of the gameplay features brought in from MGS2. Total MGS1 zealots prefer the original, but I'll always recommend Twin Snakes because a lot of the feel of MGS1 has been lost due to its technological age. Despite being an original MGS1 fan when it came out, I prefer to replay Twin SNakes.