• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Metal Gear Solid V: Gamescom Gameplay Demo

Hjunklay said:
That would have helped, but also the fact that a mere year later Batman: Arkham Asylum came out. Rocksteady recognized how cool their gameplay cycle was and introduced an entire mode that revolved around exploring the gameplay and mastering it. KojiPro didn't.

I consider MGS4's stealth elements to be on par with 2 and 3, but MGS4's shooting mechanics are an entire generation ahead, so I wanted to play with the game for its gameplay. I guess I wanted something akin to an offline version of MGO2 that let me spend more time with the game without having to replay through the thick story filled with cutscenes. And I'm one who loves MGS4's story, don't get me wrong.

In the end, Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes did it perfectly. You have your story, but you also have a ton of side missions that are strictly gameplay-centric. Goes to show that even though I beat MGS4 some 3-4 times, I have spent over a 100 hours with both Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes.
Click to expand...

MGS4 should have gotten a substance version with tons of VR missions.
 
Ishida said:
They have this nonsense idea that the franchise should've ended with their favorite game (Often MGS2). And also they are people who take Metal Gear way too seriously.
Click to expand...

ace_ventura_sleep-68773.gif


Sleeeeep.... Sleeeeep....

I hold 2 & 3 in equally high regard btw
 
Hjunklay said:
That would have helped, but also the fact that a mere year later Batman: Arkham Asylum came out. Rocksteady recognized how cool their gameplay cycle was and introduced an entire mode that revolved around exploring the gameplay and mastering it. KojiPro didn't.

I consider MGS4's stealth elements to be on par with 2 and 3, but MGS4's shooting mechanics are an entire generation ahead, so I wanted to play with the game for its gameplay. I guess I wanted something akin to an offline version of MGO2 that let me spend more time with the game without having to replay through the thick story filled with cutscenes. And I'm one who loves MGS4's story, don't get me wrong.

In the end, Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes did it perfectly. You have your story, but you also have a ton of side missions that are strictly gameplay-centric. Goes to show that even though I beat MGS4 some 3-4 times, I have spent over a 100 hours with both Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes.
Click to expand...

Ah, I can understand that. Well it's good something akin to that is in TPP then. Although I suspect I'll largely think "Well I'm at A, for the mission I must get to B but there's all stuff in between so let's explore it..." unless the mission limits me in some way, in terms of area, which doesn't seem unreasonable too much.
 
wild wild rice said:
Or the apparent lack thereof in the 35 hours between the beginning and end.
Click to expand...


I think the major thing people are forgetting here is that a vast majority of the story will be told in the tapes, just like in peace walker, except this time you can listen to them while playing the game, which seems pretty awesome seeing as this game has such a massive amount of gameplay.

I seriously doubt any of the reviewers scrambling trying to finish the game in time sat around listening to tapes.
 
If a great chunk of the story is told via tapes, then it sucks for me. I don't really like to hear story audio when I play games.

I also love MGS's cut-scenes so I hope there are enough.
 
Screaming Meat said:
Wait, which one am I?
Click to expand...

Whichever you want. In the end none of them end well. One of them dies from a virus, then posseses an old man, then he gets doppelganger'd by the old man.

The other grows old and dies knowing the girl he loved is banging Johnny Sasaki.

No winners here.
 
Ishida said:
Whichever you want. In the end none of them end well. One of them dies from a virus, then posseses an old man, then he gets doppelganger'd by the old man.

The other grows old and dies knowing the girl he loved is banging Johnny Sasaki.

No winners here.
Click to expand...

Otacon is Snake's one true love not Meryl. Come on!
 
wild wild rice said:
Thank you! I'm starting to wonder why there hasn't even been the passing mention of boss battles. I don't want specifics, just tell me they're in there and they aren't PW-tier.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention. Since the early June previews we've heard more than once "Yes there are boss battles, but I can't say more than that."
 
EatChildren said:
And as one last addition to this wall of text: if you're a rabid Metal Gear fan who adores the series in all its strengths and weaknesses, who is already 100% sold on The Phantom Pain, no matter how it turns out or what anybody else thinks you really owe it to yourself to go into this one as blind as possible. It's the last Hideo Kojima Metal Gear you will ever play. That's it. No more. The very last one. Even if the narrative is a total cockup and the open world falls apart as a useless, boring mess, every preview you read, review you consume, footage you watch, is a piece of that big puzzle you will never, ever get back. You're subtracting experiences from their natural environment, the game itself, that you already intend to play. The last of its kind, at that. "I love Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear series", then do yourself a favour and gift yourself an experience through the last one ever as clean and personal possible, devoid of the taint of reviews, previews, footage, opinions, scores, and all that shit. Because if you mess up your already sold and excited perspectives with arguments over scores and varying opinions of others that, at this point, don't really matter and aren't going anywhere once you're finished, you're never getting this experience again.



That's the subjective part: some people love the hype wave, need it, enjoy it, and ride it until release. But I just know once reviews hit there's going to be a bunch of fucking bickering, obsession with scores, analysis of critical text and how valid it is based on a game people here haven't played, and bla bla bla.

I suppose I'm speaking mostly for me, but I've long been weening myself off pre-release media and material and written content when I'm already interested in and committed to buying a game. Same applies to all creative works. I already wanted Bayonetta 2 so I didn't need to read a hundred different previews, and limiting my exposure to media benefited my end experience when I played it for myself.
Click to expand...

This is such a good post.
 
EatChildren said:
If you're a rabid Metal Gear fan who adores the series in all its strengths and weaknesses, who is already 100% sold on The Phantom Pain, no matter how it turns out or what anybody else thinks you really owe it to yourself to go into this one as blind as possible. It's the last Hideo Kojima Metal Gear you will ever play. That's it. No more. The very last one. Even if the narrative is a total cockup and the open world falls apart as a useless, boring mess, every preview you read, review you consume, footage you watch, is a piece of that big puzzle you will never, ever get back. You're subtracting experiences from their natural environment, the game itself, that you already intend to play. The last of its kind, at that. "I love Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear series", then do yourself a favour and gift yourself an experience through the last one ever as clean and personal possible, devoid of the taint of reviews, previews, footage, opinions, scores, and all that shit. Because if you mess up your already sold and excited perspectives with arguments over scores and varying opinions of others that, at this point, don't really matter and aren't going anywhere once you're finished, you're never getting this experience again.



That's the subjective part: some people love the hype wave, need it, enjoy it, and ride it until release. But I just know once reviews hit there's going to be a bunch of fucking bickering, obsession with scores, analysis of critical text and how valid it is based on a game people here haven't played, and bla bla bla.

I suppose I'm speaking mostly for me, but I've long been weening myself off pre-release media and material and written content when I'm already interested in and committed to buying a game. Same applies to all creative works. I already wanted Bayonetta 2 so I didn't need to read a hundred different previews, and limiting my exposure to media benefited my end experience when I played it for myself.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, it's been hard to not just want to see the hints of a pay off before it's out. But, as an MGS fan, I know I want this game, at it's worst it'll be a good feeling MGS themed sandbox to mess around in for a few weeks, which you know is still pretty goddamn alright, at it's best it'll be the finale MGS game we've been waiting for.

It's a win/win to me.
 
Xiraiya said:
Yeah I agree, it's been hard to not just want to see the hints of a pay off before it's out. But, as an MGS fan, I know I want this game, at it's worst it'll be a good feeling MGS themed sandbox to mess around in for a few weeks, which you know is still pretty goddamn alright, at it's best it'll be the finale MGS game we've been waiting for.

It's a win/win to me.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mbp10hMp991r3zat8.gif
 
Xiraiya said:
Yeah I agree, it's been hard to not just want to see the hints of a pay off before it's out. But, as an MGS fan, I know I want this game, at it's worst it'll be a good feeling MGS themed sandbox to mess around in for a few weeks, which you know is still pretty goddamn alright, at it's best it'll be the finale MGS game we've been waiting for.

It's a win/win to me.
Click to expand...

Yessssssssss
 
BjornTheBear said:
Can you tell me why a lot of people seems to hate MGS4, without saying spoilers?
I'm midway through it and I LOVE the game.
Click to expand...

My main problems with it, were that the gameplay clearly felt like it got cut, design wise, at the last minute.
A lot of promises didn't really pan out as i expected (choose your side on the battlefield; no place to hide; etc).
Then you had big chunks of the game that were just not fun to play, never mind replay, and dragged on forever (which i can't mention, as to avoid spoilers).
Also, cutscenes were too long (which is true for MGS2 and 3 as well, but in MGS4 you had these MASSIVE chunks of cutscene, whereas in past games they were split up a little more).

Ultimately, the story tried too hard to please the fans and tie any loose end, no matter how clumsily.

It had some strong moments for sure though, which again i won't mention 'cause they are spoilers.
 
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...

I get what you're saying. I personally think MGSV has the better approach than Far Cry (or pretty much any action game with an XP system), because not only is it not gimping your player character's personal moveset at the start arbitrarily, but the progression system makes a lot more sense for the game. Like in Far Cry I guess it kinda makes sense in that you get "more deadly" the more battles you fight, but overall it feels kind of artificial especially when everything from abilities, to upgrades is gated behind some sort of XP system and if you start the game over you will no longer have those player abilities despite being proficient at the game.

In MGSV you have full access to all of Snake's physical capabilities from the get-go (I assume), and the progression system is actually linked to the narrative and fleshed out in a way I have yet to see in any game outside of like an RTS or something. You are a leader who has to build and army and equip it, so it makes sense that in the gameplay you have to develop those new items and build your base and get your soldiers and everything--which is all done through an economy system of money, that again makes sense in the world--, and it's tied to a real physical place with tons of detail and gameplay implications instead of just being an abstraction of a bar you fill up that is tied to arbitrary requirements.
 
Fancy Clown said:
I get what you're saying. I personally think MGSV has the better approach than Far Cry (or pretty much any action game with an XP system), because not only is it not gimping your player character's personal moveset at the start arbitrarily, but the progression system makes a lot more sense for the game. Like in Far Cry I guess it kinda makes sense in that you get "more deadly" the more battles you fight, but overall it feels kind of artificial especially when everything from abilities, to upgrades is gated behind some sort of XP system and if you start the game over you will no longer have those player abilities despite being proficient at the game.

In MGSV you have full access to all of Snake's physical capabilities from the get-go (I assume), and the progression system is actually linked to the narrative and fleshed out in a way I have yet to see in any game outside of like an RTS or something. You are a leader who has to build and army and equip it, so it makes sense that in the gameplay you have to develop those new items and build your base and get your soldiers and everything--which is all done through an economy system of money, that again makes sense in the world--, and it's tied to a real physical place with tons of detail and gameplay implications instead of just being an abstraction of a bar you fill up that is tied to arbitrary requirements.
Click to expand...

Sure. Narratively it makes more sense not to learn skills like taking less damage when on fire, but that is kind of besides the point to the comparison.

The 'issue' (I don't know if there really is one) isn't so much giving technical explanations for in-game gained abilities. It's the fact that the progression of those abilities is tied to Mother Base. It's a metagame of recruiting staff, acquiring resources, assigning staff to projects, waiting for the completion of projects between gaining player abilities.

So, unlike Far Cry 4 where gameplay grants you more gameplay options, effective management of your Mother Base grants you more gameplay options in MGSV. It's a more convoluted way to essentially the same end result.

The 'problem' this can cause would be exasperated by attempting to complete the game within a truncated time-frame to get a review out; you might skip this portion of the game that seems optional only to realize that it is integral to a lot of the gameplay progression, including the abilities that the player has.
 
Alienous said:
Sure. Narratively it makes more sense not to learn skills like taking less damage when on fire, but that is kind of besides the point to the comparison.

The 'issue' (I don't know if there really is one) isn't so much giving technical explanations for in-game gained abilities. It's the fact that the progression of those abilities is tied to Mother Base. It's a metagame of recruiting staff, acquiring resources, assigning staff to projects, waiting for the completion of projects between gaining player abilities.

So, unlike Far Cry 4 where gameplay grants you more gameplay options, effective management of your Mother Base grants you more gameplay options in MGSV. It's a more convoluted way to essentially the same end result.

The 'problem' this can cause would be exasperated by attempting to complete the game within a truncated time-frame to get a review out; you might skip this portion of the game that seems optional only to realize that it is integral to a lot of the gameplay progression, including the abilities that the player has.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah definitely. I misread your post and didn't realize you were talking about reviewers. Yeah, with far cry there is no way for them to miss the upgrade system since the core gameplay is tied to it, but in MGSV mother base is sort of a separate entity.
 
Ishida said:
It's from the artbook "The Art Of Metal Gear Solid" by Shinkawa.

I think that particular art was also used in MGS4 during Liquid Ocelot's final exposition (I might be wrong on this one).
Click to expand...

I have all the art books except the one from MGS2 & 4. This from one of those?
 
While MGS4 didn't live up to the hype that it set, I still find it highly enjoyable upon replay. There's so many gadgets and gizmos and secret unlocks that I replayed it more times than I can count.

For me, it's best to think of MGS4 as a split experience into pieces, or Acts. Some resonate with others stronger than others, and I personally thought 1 was my favorite. But that's just me.
 
Alienous said:
I had a brain fart and entered the Spoiler Thread. Doesn't seem to be much going on there, actually, but this Reddit translation and detailing on one of the reviews is interesting. It reflects a lot of the concerns I had regarding the game.

I'll spoiler tag it just in case, but there really isn't anything spoiler-worthy in the review. It's typical review stuff, talking about impressions towards the plot (or lack-thereof) and gameplay. There aren't any real plot details, but it does talk about things like how much of the plot he thought the trailers gave away, for instance.
Click to expand...

Hm, some of my biggest worries realized. I really didn't want this to be a console version of Peace Walker :/
 
the "cryptic or elitist" story point in that review makes me more excited honestly. Sounds like he's pulling inspiration from art film based on previous comparisons that tonally it's kind of like a David Lynch film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Strafefox - The Making of Metal Gear Solid
0
216
winjer replied
Metal Gear Solid Collection vol. 2 In development
2
78
1K
Badlucktroll replied
Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater - Gameplay Trailer
2 3
115
3K
Killer8 replied
Going straight from Metal Gear Solid 1 to Metal Gear Solid 2 is a crazy experience
Opinion Retro 
23
670
Sybrix replied
Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater now supports Xbox Play Anywhere
10
130
Darsxx82 replied
Top Bottom