Why?
I don't think they have a copy yet but it might be Dan Ryckert since he is the biggest fan of the series there.
I don't think this is really true.
Metal Gear, at least to me, is first and foremost an infiltration sandbox action game with a ton of quirky Japanese-flavored humor presented as a love song to Hollywood action movies. I think that's a description which fits every single one of them, from the first Metal Gear all the way to The Phantom Pain. The sandbox has grown exponentially larger, the nature of the infiltration area has evolved over the entries, and the various influences of both the Japanese humor and the Hollywood action film feel have changed based on the themes of each game, but by and large the formula remains intact.
Have things changed dramatically in some ways? Absolutely. Are some people not particularly happy with the changes? Sure. But these are not things which specifically made Metal Gear what it is. Metal Gear existed before the long cutscenes. Metal Gear existed before radar. Metal Gear existed before vision cones. Metal Gear existed before great boss battles. I think it's a pity that some things have been left behind as the game changed to accommodate for certain evolutions, but in the end, I think it still feels like Metal Gear.
My apologies but I disagree. Metal Gear never really existed before the 1998 version. The first two games were never really popular out of Japan. It was the 1998 version with long cutscenes, great boss battles etc that gave the series a worldwide fame.
I don't think they have a copy yet but it might be Dan Ryckert since he is the biggest fan of the series there.
I know that, but I thought they would integrate a function to just press a button to listen to tape after picking it up.
Has Ars Technica been posted? It's only on their UK site at the moment so might have been missed:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/201...-5-is-cliched-confused-and-utterly-brilliant/
It’s fashionable these days to crush anything that has the audacity to try and take freedom away from the player, but MGS V's vision of a guided open world works brilliantly within the wider framework of this series. By isolating different enemy positions from each other, the world map ends up being fragmented into many levels—of differing size, complexity, and difficulty—with open space filling the gaps. Throughout the open space it's incredibly rare to run into enemies, and when you do they're usually driving a vehicle of some sort so that it’s easy to hear them coming and duck out of sight.
Why?
Q: Did Jim Sterling attend a review event? Sounds like he has a copy / has published a review? I'm trying to avoid review stuff but he piqued my interested with some Twitter buzz.
Q: Did Jim Sterling attend a review event? Sounds like he has a copy / has published a review? I'm trying to avoid review stuff but he piqued my interested with some Twitter buzz.
Lol. Okay, whatever.![]()
The complaints about lack of story are funny, when we've sat through like 20 minutes of trailers now that are pure story and look like the craziest shit we've ever seen.
Absolutely not. He was tweeting about how others were able to review the event while he's blacklisted and saying it's totally worth it etc.
My apologies but I disagree. Metal Gear never really existed before the 1998 version. The first two games were never really popular out of Japan. It was the 1998 version with long cutscenes, great boss battles etc that gave the series a worldwide fame.
He's a hater idklmao?Why?
lol, you don't get to pick and choose what's Metal Gear though, pal.
My apologies but I disagree. Metal Gear never really existed before the 1998 version. The first two games were never really popular out of Japan. It was the 1998 version with long cutscenes, great boss battles etc that gave the series a worldwide fame.
I kinda feel Metal Gear as a series, given its 28 years running, diversity in ideas and settings and stories, transitions between hardware and the strengths that brings to game development, and the various entry points fans have come in has given the franchise a Zelda like quality where people have different ideas of what constitutes as the most important parts of a Metal Gear game for them. There are some fans who, from their perspective, simply use the gameplay as short vessels between Hollywood-like produced in-engine cinematics for an excessively convoluted story. There's some more fascinated by what each game brings to the table in play, boss fights, and stealth. And the rest of the fans fall somewhere in between on the (lets call it) Kojima scale.
I mostly agree with duckroll's interpretation of the most consistent, reoccurring franchise tropes that define its identity. And also that each game seems to change things up a bit and introduce new things that by default are change, but better/worse depends on the person playing.
Like I don't think you can say the series is all about Hollywood style cinematics in excess, because you're really ignoring the first two MSX games that hadn't the tech to accomplish this. Solid introduced this style, and even so it can't be ignored that drastic changes and evolution of the stealth systems in play were just as important with each entry. MGS4 and PW are probably the only two oddballs that disrupted the pattern a bit, the former leaning much heavier towards narrative/cinematics and themes over play, and the latter adding to play some major concepts that don't directly correlate to "tactical stealth" (like Monster Hunt style co-op bosses).
I kinda feel Metal Gear as a series, given its 28 years running, diversity in ideas and settings and stories, transitions between hardware and the strengths that brings to game development, and the various entry points fans have come in has given the franchise a Zelda like quality where people have different ideas of what constitutes as the most important parts of a Metal Gear game for them. There are some fans who, from their perspective, simply use the gameplay as short vessels between Hollywood-like produced in-engine cinematics for an excessively convoluted story. There's some more fascinated by what each game brings to the table in play, boss fights, and stealth. And the rest of the fans fall somewhere in between on the (lets call it) Kojima scale.
I mostly agree with duckroll's interpretation of the most consistent, reoccurring franchise tropes that define its identity. And also that each game seems to change things up a bit and introduce new things that by default are change, but better/worse depends on the person playing.
Like I don't think you can say the series is all about Hollywood style cinematics in excess, because you're really ignoring the first two MSX games that hadn't the tech to accomplish this. Solid introduced this style, and even so it can't be ignored that drastic changes and evolution of the stealth systems in play were just as important with each entry. MGS4 and PW are probably the only two oddballs that disrupted the pattern a bit, the former leaning much heavier towards narrative/cinematics and themes over play, and the latter adding to play some major concepts that don't directly correlate to "tactical stealth" (like Monster Hunt style co-op bosses).
The Riddles get really fun and satisfying when you get to 10. Having it quantified to such a small amount, and the story starts kicking off again... It's really great, and worth blasting through the other 240 for, imo.
I really liked the design because some open world have too much 'optional' content. When you need 100% to get the game's ending, none of the content is 'optional'. The developers are saying, categorically: 'Here is what you need to do to finish the game. Go have fun doing it.' Rather than, say, in Ubisoft games: 'So if you want to 'finish' the game, do twenty of these mediocre story missions and see 1/5th of the gameworld. But, if you want, there are also all these hundreds of things you can do, just if you want. Some of them might be shit, some might be great, but you won't know until you go try!'
Imo the quality of content overall is diluted in games like that when so much stuff is optional and just there in the world. I reckon MGSV's more focused main missions and side-ops that impact all your abilities and resources will sidestep this - along with the fact that getting the 'True' ending will probably be meaningful and well-signposted, more like in Arkham Knight, making it all pretty satisfying.
More gameplay, less story, sounds great to me.
Thats what confuses me. The story was my favorite part of MGS, and now reviewers are giving it GREAT reviews and talking about the lack of story. Guess everyone finds something different to love about this series.
lol, you don't get to pick and choose what's Metal Gear though, pal.
So, riddle me this: did people get to play the full story, or was the ending really cut off?
So, riddle me this: did people get to play the full story, or was the ending really cut off?
More gameplay, less story, sounds great to me.
So, riddle me this: did people get to play the full story, or was the ending really cut off?
Watchoutwegotabadassoverhere.jpeg
There's no way every mission could be S ranked since last Tuesday, surely?So i highly doubt any of the other reviewers got to 100% yet, maybe something happens then? would be a very Kojima thing to do something but nobody knows for sure.
So, riddle me this: did people get to play the full story, or was the ending really cut off?