PS3/360 HD collections missing the first one in the series

OpenToSuggestions · 1 Apr 2012 at 23:03

Hey all.
Is anyone else a bit miffed at the latest 'HD collections' that have come out missing the first one in the series?
I am referring to Metal Gear Solid and Silent Hill. I know these games were PS1 but I was really up for buying these collections but when they are missing number 1 in the series it just doesn't make them complete collections :confused:

.
It is possible to buy them off PSN (cannot comment on the 360 as I don't own one) but that just isn't the point imo as they are not cheap.

Phatjayunoi · 1 Apr 2012 at 23:13

MGS1 you can still buy off the PSN Store, but as for the first Silent Hill, if I remember correctly, it was once there but since been removed. I think it is still available on the US PSN Store though. Just a process of making a US account, and then getting your own payment method e.g. U.S PSN Card.

As for why they never include the first games, probably because a lot more work has to be done on them and the developers don't want to waste the resources. The PS2 era games are easier to upscale and therefore a quick cash-in for a re-release.

pauLAW · 2 Apr 2012 at 08:55

Yeah this is something which annoyed me also.

MGS1 may well be on the PSN but its £7.99!!! plus it would be nice to see some trophy support.
In my opinion no one should disagree that its poor they are not including the likes of MGS1 and Silent Hill... I know that they are seriously dated and it would take a lot of work but so what.

The least they should do is stop calling them a collection!

antijoke · 2 Apr 2012 at 09:07

But they are a collection.

K1LLSW1TCH · 2 Apr 2012 at 09:23

Indeed, just not a complete collection. You can understand why the original Playstation versions have been omitted from the recent HD collections though, I mean developers are having a hard enough time making Playstation 2 games look passable graphically, let alone something from the previous generation. Whether this is down to lazy developers wanting to put minimum effort in I don't know.

ps3ud0 · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:16

From an Edge article that covered the Ico/SotC conversion its actually not that easy to convert PS2 games to PS3. In that particular case IIRC they were written using an obscure Japanese linux distro so getting to and understanding the source code itself was difficult enough...

The way Ive seen it is I can understand why theres lethargy in upscaling PS1 games after the effort of PS2 games, but them not to be included in collections just as a PS1 game seems mad. Its not like those people buying them wont be informed consumers and aware of the restrictions. The current halfway house solution just annoys everyone...

ps3ud0 :cool:

NokkonWud · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:34

Silent Hill is 'free' for PSPlus users at the moment.

Nitefly · 2 Apr 2012 at 14:50

Perhaps it's a choice to not include those games for the sake of ruining legacy. I've been playing MGS1 on and off infrequently for awhile now and in terms of gameplay and graphics it's horrendously dated compared to modern games.

NokkonWud · 2 Apr 2012 at 15:02

I too have been playing Metal Gear Solid and I think it holds up terrifically well. It's still a fine example of game progression and story telling and doing so in unorthodox ways. Controls wise it was limited to the controls of the time, but they're pretty solid and robust and the mechanics of the game hold up enough for it to work even 15 years post release.

It's purely a technological reason sadly, some hold up better than others, Silent Hill for example is still a very enjoyable experience, but you have to want to love thief and sadly newer games are more approachable to the new market of gamers (given their age you have to understand a whole new generation of gamers are coming to these games) so putting out newer games and selling the older games separately to those who want to replay and relive their experience with them. Quite a good business strategy.

Nitefly · 2 Apr 2012 at 15:16

NokkonWud said:
I too have been playing Metal Gear Solid and I think it holds up terrifically well. It's still a fine example of game progression and story telling and doing so in unorthodox ways. Controls wise it was limited to the controls of the time, but they're pretty solid and robust and the mechanics of the game hold up enough for it to work even 15 years post release.

It's purely a technological reason sadly.

I didn't criticise the story aspect of it at all. If anything, that's why I keep playing it - the story is great. The graphics aren't even particuarly offensive to me.

Otherwise, the controls are rubbish and tanklike (aiming in particular is a chore), the music is repetitive (the same for every boss fight and every time you are seen by an enemy), the enemies are just stupid (they see you and shoot at you, then 20 seconds later get bored and walk away...?), the boss fights take way too long and are often repetitive (far too many hit points), sections can be cheap with insta-death moments, surviving is often a case of re-entering areas to exploit respawning health... all are artefacts of when game developers simply didn't know better. I had the original splinter cell when that came out and the stealth aspect was must more convincing, obviously helped massively by the fact it's a more recent game. In MGS it feels like you are playing glorified frogger

It's not bad by any means, it's just not particuarly good by todays standards. I don't think it's something that re-polishing with HD would fix for newcomers to the series.

NokkonWud · 2 Apr 2012 at 15:31

I think the problem is when you go back these things show up so much, but aside from repetitive music and sometimes the respawning health, they are all criticisms you could throw at many games still being made now, even great games like Uncharted are very guilty of everything you just mentioned but with other things going on its maybe more forgiveable.

I also agree regarding the stealth, it Splinter Cell always feels like it nailed it first time, but the pacing of Metal Gear Solid was a lot better. It's give and take when it comes to stealth I guess, if you can dedicate a game to it it will be slower and have less market appeal, but to those it does it will feel amazing and that's why Splinter Cell, Thief, Riddick and Hitman all have very cult followings.

Nitefly · 2 Apr 2012 at 15:53

I don't think the Uncharted games have anything particuarly annoying about them with regards to controls, although the occational jumping section has been slightly frustrating. The biggest criticism that series faces is the whole 'wave of enemies' thing, which I thought they cut down on massively in UC2.

NokkonWud · 2 Apr 2012 at 16:01

Really, I felt they amped it up to 11 with the waves of enemies in Uncharted 2. That was my biggest issue with it, even more than the shooting in it, but I never had an issue with the rest of the controls in the first 2 (Drake stumbling like a drunken, overly tactile buffoon in the 3rd is ridiculous though.) It's a shame, because I love everything about those games except when you have to go into combat, but with Uncharted 2 a huge section of that game just made it become a shooter (that being the weakest part of the game) and it just ruined the illusion of magic for me and that was down to just endless waves.

Masking these waves with great game play is the way to hiding it, something like Gears of War 3 with its Horde mode actually thrives on this (that and playing with friends of course.)