MGS3 is "Da Bomb"

Thanks, Pro, for the response. Pro's Round 2 Contentions: 1. Snake Eater was indeed a bomb 2. MGS3 and GOW2 are unfit for comparison 3. The MGS3 controls have improved 4. The drawn out movie sequences are useful 5. I should pick a new game for debate Rebuttal: 1. First, I don't recall Snake Eater ever being a bomb. Can Pro prove this? Until then, it should be considered a point without merit. Further, this debate isn't about whether Snake Eater is a bomb, but if MGS3 is a bomb or more specifically "da" bomb :p 2. Alright, I could have gone with the Grand Theft Auto games (which were my personal favorite PS2 games) but decided to go with God of War 2 because I figured it was a more appropriate comparison. While the plots are indeed different, both games revolve around a similar style play and have a story behind their action/adventure fight sequences. You'll notice that Pro has not made any suggestions as to what game or types of game would be a more fitting comparison for MGS3 - not that it matters - which I will explain in Point 5. 3. The MGS3 controls may have improved from previous MGS3 games; however, that doesn't mean that their controls aren't still awkward or are better than the controls for GOW2, therefore this is a moot point. 4. I disagree that the drawn out movie sequences in MGS3 are that entertaining. This is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but since this debate is about the game itself and not the cinematic attributes of each game, I'd reckon that the game itself is what should be considered here and in that case, the sequences in MGS3 just take away from the actual game play at hand. 5. The idea that I should pick a new game for comparison is absolutely ridiculous. In R1, Pro made the assertion that MGS3 was the BEST Playstation 2 game and he *dared* someone to refute it... so I did, and then he wimps out and tells me to pick a new game. No. There is absolutely no reason why these 2 games can't be compared, as you'll notice because Pro hasn't provided one. Just because they might be different (and by the way - they're not ENTIRELY different so it's not like this is even a major concern) doesn't mean you can't compare them or better yet just make your own case for why one is better. Obviously MGS serves as the superior war type game whereas GOW reigns as the superior fantasy game. But this isn't about which is the best war or fantasy game. This is about which is the better game, PERIOD. Pro has completely failed to make his case. There was nothing that specified which type of game I had to choose, and the idea that GOW is too "different" is the biggest cop out I've ever heard. I'd suggest Pro try to debate the actual games at hand instead of making silly excuses :) Con's Contentions: 1. I don't really have anything more to say regarding why GOW2 is better, so I'll just point out the dropped arguments from R1 that Pro did not address, which include -- (a) GOW has a superior plot (b) GOW has better ratings from critics and gamers alike (c) GOW has better game play (d) GOW has much better graphics (e) GOW has better and more interesting and unique characters (f) GOW has easier and more functional controls (g) GOW has better action sequences (h) GOW has very few if not any criticisms (i) GOW was the better sequel; it added different elements and the plot and villains weren't so redundant And obviously, GOW refers to God of War II