Metal Gear Solid V: Gamescom Gameplay Demo

matrix-cat said:
This kind of thing is exactly why developers are so reluctant to go for 60FPS. The Last of Us on PS3 almost never hit 30, and it won best-looking game awards left and right. Shit like AC Unity on PS4 got lauded for its graphics, never mind that it ran sub-20 all day long. Meanwhile a genuine, 60FPS locked open world game is, "Meh, you can see the cross-gen roots".
Click to expand...

Most games just benefit more from better visuals than 60 frames per second.
 
I honestly think a good-looking 60FPS is straight up more appealing to the eye than an amazing-looking game at 30. Without even mentioning the gameplay benefits, I think that wonderful slickness you get with 60FPS is worth more than any extra effects you can push by dropping the framerate. I find it lends the game this sense of 'realness', if that makes any sense.

I'll double dip on the PC version of MGSV somewhere down the line, once I've upgraded my hardware, because I do think that the better draw distance and anti-aliasing go a long way, but I'm so glad KojiPro decided to run the current-gen consoles at 60 rather than keeping them at 30 and throwing an extra depth of field pass at them or whatever.
 
2015-08-2017_06_27-twmfz26.png
 
Alienous said:
I think Far Cry 4 is a good game to compare the two different approaches to game design.

Far Cry 4 presents the player with a lot of options, similar to MGSV. You can take down a base stealthily. You can take it down from a distance away with a sniper. You can take it down by storming in and going 'guns blazing'. You can lead animals into the base. You can silence communications before going in and killing everyone. You can take a plethora of vehicles, even an air vehicle, into the base (etc).

What Far Cry 4 does differently (seemingly) is that it layers its game mechanics as the game goes on, at a fairly natural pace. Your gameplay -> XP -> new gameplay mechanics -> more gameplay (...) .

So when you play Far Cry 4 you feel a lot more like a badass by the time you finish the game. You're grabbing people, dragging bodies, using guards as human shields, throwing knives, jumping on armoured enemies from above, walking through fire (etc).

Compare that to what MGSV seems to be doing. It looks like you are given all of your base mechanics as soon as you leave the tutorial. You can do things like pull a soldier off of a ledge and multi-chain takedowns from the get go, whereas these are upgrades in Far Cry 4. It seems that MGSV does have a similar level of additional mechanical diversity, but that it is given to you via Mother Base, rather than been something intrinsic to the game flow. Do you want more health? There's probably an armour for that you can develop. Fire resistance? There's probably a camo. One-hit CQC takedowns? Your bionic arm can be customized to do that.

So what you have is this element of the game (Mother Base), which is almost adjunctive to the core experience, dictating that progression of game mechanics. Because of that (particularly in a 'rushed' review) I could see how feeling like you aren't doing anything differently in hour 40 of the game, than you were in hour 2, could be a qualm someone would have.
Click to expand...

That's a good way of looking at it. However, I would say that the difference between unlocking certain mechanics via Motherbase and unlocking certain mechanics by upgrading skill trees a la FC4 seems more or less semantic.
 
I hope the game gets awesome critical reception, but no matter the scores it will be a day one purchase for me.

Also I think it's crazy to say that the game doesn't look good, especially considering it's 60FPS.
 
Alienous said:
I think Far Cry 4 is a good game to compare the two different approaches to game design.

Far Cry 4 presents the player with a lot of options, similar to MGSV. You can take down a base stealthily. You can take it down from a distance away with a sniper. You can take it down by storming in and going 'guns blazing'. You can lead animals into the base. You can silence communications before going in and killing everyone. You can take a plethora of vehicles, even an air vehicle, into the base (etc).

What Far Cry 4 does differently (seemingly) is that it layers its game mechanics as the game goes on, at a fairly natural pace. Your gameplay -> XP -> new gameplay mechanics -> more gameplay (...) .

So when you play Far Cry 4 you feel a lot more like a badass by the time you finish the game. You're grabbing people, dragging bodies, using guards as human shields, throwing knives, jumping on armoured enemies from above, walking through fire (etc).

Compare that to what MGSV seems to be doing. It looks like you are given all of your base mechanics as soon as you leave the tutorial. You can do things like pull a soldier off of a ledge and multi-chain takedowns from the get go, whereas these are upgrades in Far Cry 4. It seems that MGSV does have a similar level of additional mechanical diversity, but that it is given to you via Mother Base, rather than been something intrinsic to the game flow. Do you want more health? There's probably an armour for that you can develop. Fire resistance? There's probably a camo. One-hit CQC takedowns? Your bionic arm can be customized to do that.

So what you have is this element of the game (Mother Base), which is almost adjunctive to the core experience, dictating that progression of game mechanics. Because of that (particularly in a 'rushed' review) I could see how feeling like you aren't doing anything differently in hour 40 of the game, than you were in hour 2, could be a qualm someone would have.
Click to expand...

This is a good post.
 
artsi said:
I hope the game gets awesome critical reception, but no matter the scores it will be a day one purchase for me.

Also I think it's crazy to say that the game doesn't look good, especially considering it's 60FPS.
Click to expand...

An open world console game that runs at 60fps has disappointing graphics, like ok I would like to be disappointed more often 💁
 
Alienous said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

But what if MGS4 got 20/20 and so on? Surely it's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, or at least the general metacritic score, much as i hate that. I mean didn't MGS4 get a higher meta than MGS3? And most people prefer 3. It doesn't mean a lot to anyone but the individual.
 
Screaming Meat said:
That's a good way of looking at it. However, I would say that the difference between unlocking certain mechanics via Motherbase and unlocking certain mechanics by upgrading skill trees a la FC4 seems more or less semantic.
Click to expand...

Mother Base is definitely a lot more involved than your average XP -> Skill Point -> new ability system. In something like Far Cry, everything you do in the game gives you XP, whereas developing things in Mother Base requires a certain playstyle (analyzing, non-lethal takedowns, Fultoning, sorting, researching, waiting) that most reviewers probably won't be engaging in due to the pressure to get that review finished on time.
 
Snatch1414 said:
No offense but I think that's terrible advice. If anything you should be overly cautious when reading reviews. There's just too much gift-giving and favors in that industry.
Click to expand...

Kenzodielocke said:
Yeah, french game gets french bonus it seems like.
Click to expand...

Sn4ke_911 said:
Just saw the same guy gave Watch Dogs a 19/20.

Well, that's it for me. This review is not important for me. Next.
Click to expand...

We really doing this again, GAF? Dismissing reviews of games we haven't played because reasons? It's embarrassing every time.
 
BossDarkseid said:
But what if MGS4 got 20/20 and so on? Surely it's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, or at least the general metacritic score, much as i hate that. I mean didn't MGS4 get a higher meta than MGS3? And most people prefer 3. It doesn't mean a lot to anyone but the individual.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people go nuts comparing scores of games. Like you're really going to compare a number score of a game that came out like 8 years ago to a game that's about to be released? Even regardless of that, these scores should only be used as a guide. Every reviewer (and every gamer for that matter) has different tastes, and what a 9 score means to one person could mean something different to another.
 
So it's pretty likely that zero reviewers are going to play the game like how I will. I feel for the reviewers on this one, there are probably loads of cool things they are going to miss out on.
 
matrix-cat said:
Mother Base is definitely a lot more involved than your average XP -> Skill Point -> new ability system. In something like Far Cry, everything you do in the game gives you XP, whereas developing things in Mother Base requires a certain playstyle (analyzing, non-lethal takedowns, Fultoning, sorting, researching, waiting) that most reviewers probably won't be engaging in due to the pressure to get that review finished on time.
Click to expand...

I'm only really talking about the unlocking of "skills" in the MB department, I appreciate there is a lot more going on at the periphery.

In that sense, if PW is anything to go by, the chain/flow isn't all that dissimilar. They're both essentially monetised systems (GMP = XP) that give you access to certain abilities (Equipment = Skills) at certain levels (Staff Level = Character Level). The only major difference is you have to kidnap NPCs to increase the Staff Level rather than whack mooks.

That's all presuming it works like PW, of course.
 
Moronwind said:
It's a fact that it's my opinion. And the pros agree with me, that's why 30 fps is the norm.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Yet the play ability of a game, assuming a standard level of competence, would be aided more by frame rate than texture resolution. I'm getting TPP on PS4 because I don't have a PC that can play it higher settings than the PS4 and at 60+...but when I do I'll probably end up getting a copy of TPP free with GPU. You can say you'd have prettier graphics over a higher frame rate but prettier graphics do not make a better game.
 
Moronwind said:
It's a fact that it's my opinion. And the pros agree with me, that's why 30 fps is the norm.
Click to expand...

Yes, better graphics review better, but I've played games in 30fps and 60fps, with Ground Zeroes and Last of Us being two prime examples.

And 60fps is simply far more enjoyable to me than 30fps, even if it's to the detriment of the graphics.

It was also one of the few things I hated about Witcher 3 on PS4, the framerate fluctuating.
 
Lunar15 said:
We really doing this again, GAF? Dismissing reviews of games we haven't played because reasons? It's embarrassing every time.
Click to expand...

Well based on his other reviews i can form an opinion if i'd agree with him or not.
 
Betty said:
Yes, better graphics review better, but I've played games in 30fps and 60fps, with Ground Zeroes and Last of Us being two prime examples.

And 60fps is simply far more enjoyable to me than 30fps, even if it's to the detriment of the graphics.

It was also one of the few things I hated about Witcher 3 on PS4, the framerate fluctuating.
Click to expand...
yip. i tried ground zeroes at 30fps at 4k on my pc, and i honestly would rather just play at 1080/1440 at a locked 60fps any day of the week. mgsv benefits enormously from fluidity of animation and control at 60.
 
Reviews hailed MGS4 as a godsend / perfect end to the series and it's the most disappointing to me, both in game and story (though I might, as a whole, dislike Peace Walker more). I dunno. I wouldn't fixate too much on reviews for a game like this, especially if you're a long term fan.

Mostly because:

a) As a long time fan your attachment to the series will have a personal bias that will inherently not align with other people and their bias, even other long time fans. Metal Gear will have already imprinted certain qualities of its identity on your preferences and your draw to each entry will likely differ in some large and nuanced ways. I kind of look at it as an event horizon; whenever you're a big enough fan, for long enough, of a particular series, the personal reasons to keep playing subvert critical analysis (no matter how justified said analysis is) and subjective experiences from others. Each entry is going to mean a different thing to you and resonate in a unique way, and no review or other fan, no matter how big, can replicate or properly convey that to you.

b) Phantom Pain looks to drastically evolve the traditional Metal Gear formula from top to bottom while exploring ideas from Peace Walker too, which alone will splinter perspectives. Guarantee some will (justifiably, see point A) let down by the open world design, Mother Base RPG mechanics, quest types, pacing, narrative structure, and so on. Different is different, and that means a revaluation of perspective. One person's disappointment will be another person's blessing, and vice versa.

c) It's going to be a hard game to discuss without digging into the details and I suspect a lot of fans want as little as possible spoiled.

I say this as someone who reviews games, gets invited to preview events, and handles early review code; if you're already sold on the game, reading/analysing/debating/arguing reviews is totally redundant and a waste of energy, likely to do more harm to your expectations than good. Seriously. If you've already decided that no matter how it turns out, whether you love or hate it or anywhere in between, you're already sold on getting the game to at least try it for what it is, your experience will be objectively, significantly benefited by knowing as little as possible beyond this point for when you first get into the game. And I know it's hard; review pros and cons and stupid fucking scores will start floating around and they'll get you thinking. But I think most people, if they really think back, will find most of their best gaming experiences have come from playing games while knowing as little as possible. And when you already know you're going to play the damn game, there's no point tainting your perspective by seeking more information.
 
Spaghetti said:
i do find it funny how mgs was ridiculed for it's long story, intrusive cutscenes, and difficult controls, only to have all that solved in this game and people consider that a fault.
Click to expand...

These people should speak for themselves. MGS has always been about going from point A to B(with the freedom to do whatever you want within that space) and hitting the next cutscene to see what crazy shit is about to unfold within the story culminating in usually a damn memorable ending. Guess what MGS game made by Kojima that didn't have a memorable ending nor story?

For me, I have always loved the gameplay especially since every sequel is very different from one another in terms of the mechanics and what not. It's just a shame that the approach to the story in MGS5 seem to be heading in the direction of Peace Walker compared to other games especially since MGS5 plays a pivotal role for BB turning to what he is that sets everything else more or less in motion, for Solid Snake. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
On the 60 vs 30 discussion going on here;

I had read that when it came to racing games higher frame rate is considered a nice thing to have. Having recently being playing Project Cars running at 1080@60FPS (which is the first game I've played extensively with that Res and FPS combined) I honestly don't think I could go back to another Racing game that doesn't hit that mark. Its just so buttery smooth. The fact MGS5 TPP will be running at 1080@60FPS on PS4 is like music to my ears (or should I say eyes) right now. It will be glorious I'm sure.
 
EatChildren said:
Reviews hailed MGS4 as a godsend / perfect end to the series and it's the most disappointing to me, both in game and story (though I might, as a whole, dislike Peace Walker more).
Click to expand...
agree with this. well, besides the peace walker bit. i enjoyed the back to basics approach with a few new tricks (MB gameplay, etc).

but yeah. we can only really trust our own opinion when it comes down to it.

people have different opinions, and frankly reviewer opinions aren't any more special or informed than ours. they get to play it early in different conditions, but the only real difference between our opinions and theirs is that they have a platform for it.
 
EatChildren said:
Reviews hailed MGS4 as a godsend / perfect end to the series and it's the most disappointing to me, both in game and story (though I might, as a whole, dislike Peace Walker more). I dunno. I wouldn't fixate too much on reviews for a game like this, especially if you're a long term fan.

Mostly because:

a) As a long time fan your attachment to the series will have a personal bias that will inherently not align with other people and their bias, even other long time fans. Metal Gear will have already imprinted certain qualities of its identity on your preferences and your draw to each entry will likely differ in some large and nuanced ways. I kind of look at it as an event horizon; whenever you're a big enough fan, for long enough, of a particular series, the personal reasons to keep playing subvert critical analysis (no matter how justified said analysis is) and subjective experiences from others. Each entry is going to mean a different thing to you and resonate in a unique way, and no review or other fan, no matter how big, can replicate or properly convey that to you.

b) Phantom Pain looks to drastically evolve the traditional Metal Gear formula from top to bottom while exploring ideas from Peace Walker too, which alone will splinter perspectives. Guarantee some will (justifiably, see point A) let down by the open world design, Mother Base RPG mechanics, quest types, pacing, narrative structure, and so on. Different is different, and that means a revaluation of perspective. One person's disappointment will be another person's blessing, and vice versa.

c) It's going to be a hard game to discuss without digging into the details and I suspect a lot of fans want as little as possible spoiled.

I say this as someone who reviews games, gets invited to preview events, and handles early review code; if you're already sold on the game, reading/analysing/debating/arguing reviews is totally redundant and a waste of energy, likely to do more harm to your expectations than good. Seriously. If you've already decided that no matter how it turns out, whether you love or hate it or anywhere in between, you're already sold on getting the game to at least try it for what it is, your experience will be objectively, significantly benefited by knowing as little as possible beyond this point for when you first get into the game. And I know it's hard; review pros and cons and stupid fucking scores will start floating around and they'll get you thinking. But I think most people, if they really think back, will find most of their best gaming experiences have come from playing games while knowing as little as possible. And when you already know you're going to play the damn game, there's no point tainting your perspective by seeking more information.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
EatChildren said:
Reviews hailed MGS4 as a godsend / perfect end to the series and it's the most disappointing to me, both in game and story (though I might, as a whole, dislike Peace Walker more). I dunno. I wouldn't fixate too much on reviews for a game like this, especially if you're a long term fan.
Click to expand...

Roughly translated: Shut the fuck up about the reviews.

I'm kidding, that's a damn fine post

Death Metalist said:
Guess what MGS game made by Kojima that didn't have a memorable ending nor story?
Click to expand...

MGS4....?
 
EatChildren said:
And I know it's hard; review pros and cons and stupid fucking scores will start floating around and they'll get you thinking. But I think most people, if they really think back, will find most of their best gaming experiences have come from playing games while knowing as little as possible. And when you already know you're going to play the damn game, there's no point tainting your perspective by seeking more information.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Screaming Meat said:
MGS4....?
Click to expand...

200.gif


I know you hate MGS4 too much. Look deep within your heart though, because no matter how much you hate it, you can't deny how batshit crazy and memorable it is. Infact, it's so memorable that people's hate and love for that game is still strong today besides winning GAF GOTY twice, lol.

You know the truth is, PW.
 
Death Metalist said:
200.gif


I know you hate MGS4 too much. Look deep within your heart though, because no matter how much you hate it, you can't deny how batshit crazy and memorable it is. Infact, it's so memorable that people's hate and love for that game is still strong today besides winning GAF GOTY twice, lol.

You know the truth is, PW.
Click to expand...

I really like PW. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Pilgrimzero said:
Anxious to see if the "The Odd numbered games are good, the Even ones are not" thing holds up.
Click to expand...

MGS2 ruined that already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater - Gameplay Trailer
2 3
115
1K
Killer8 replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta Opening Intro Cinematic
2
90
1K
Liopleurodon replied
METAL GEAR SOLID DELTA Tokyo Gameplay Demo 20mins
37
3K
Rocco Schiavone replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater: Special Guest.... Bomberman Trailer
3
101
Danny Dudekisser replied
Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater will have two camera modes
18
168
HRK69 replied
Top Bottom