It's a weird response from those that didn't want anything to change. Amazing game in my opinion.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Metal Gear Solid V: Dissociative Disorder (Super Bunnyhop review and analysis)
- Thread starter Zombie James
- Start date
It's a weird response from those that didn't want anything to change. Amazing game in my opinion.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Even then you're still locked into your mission area. You could still do a sprawling mission like Red Brass, but instead of being tacked onto the same Afghanistan Map, make a bunch of different ones. Things could have been much more interesting.
This is such a sorry excuse and justification for why this supposed "open world" is so barren and devoid of anything interesting. It's not done properly at all. Nothing happens between outposts as others have said...at least give us some small skirmishes between factions and maybe some wild animals rampaging in the area, or helicopters flying over the open world and not scripted in some outpost mission. And you have like....ONE patrol truck with two guys on it for the entire freakin map. And you'd be lucky if you ran in to it.
Not full of stuff on purpose my ass. Game is incomplete and poorly planned. The mission structure is bad, the repetitive side ops are bad. It's like Kojima threw in the open world map just for the sake of calling it an open world game.
Serpens007
Member
Went from hospital-WTF moments, to rescuing miller, to do dirty work for Diamond Dogs expansion, to the discovery of skullface, boss fight with a new character, to encountering past friend that now is suspected, then going to africa to see some weird shit happening with corpses, child soldiers, more weird shit with headphones, more boss fights, more dirty work, more child soldiers, to infection in mother base then revelations of a new friend, confrontation then main boss
It was well paced. Or no, it was at your pace. I finished a mission, listen to a tape, do some side ops, went to the other, repeat. Never had a problem. It wasn't very different of cutscene-escenario-codec calls, only that this time I was the one deciding the whens.
Perhaps, my friend. MGS has always rewarded playing out of the box, but MGSV was all about it. That feeling of "oh my god, it worked" when trying something to infiltrate is that fond memories. Especially in that 30th mission.
I think is again a thing of how you decided. I used D-Walker, the tanks, and my own guns in a lot of ways, finding the weak spots.
The skulls sniper fight
Maybe it just wasn't as most people got it in their heads with so many emotional trailers and stuff.
At the end is a thing of opinions. I loved SkullFace acting, the infamous WHOOOO scene felt so MGS3-Ocelot-Like.
Really good review, and he actually brought up some interesting points about the story that I hadn't considered. The reviewers ignoring the glaring flaws and handing out 10/10s really needed to get called out.
Seems like the video is bringing out some of the more hardcore MGSV defenders though, and the dismissive attitude I keep seeing is really getting annoying. Getting flashbacks to the way certain Gaffers would defend MGS4's flaws by acting like they didn't exist and that the people who criticized them were idiots.
Seems like the video is bringing out some of the more hardcore MGSV defenders though, and the dismissive attitude I keep seeing is really getting annoying. Getting flashbacks to the way certain Gaffers would defend MGS4's flaws by acting like they didn't exist and that the people who criticized them were idiots.
This ain't gonna happen. 2015 is a year with actually strong big games (Witcher 3), and, potentially, Fallout 4.
Serpens007
Member
I agree with you both.
Yeah, not like 2008 that didn't have any big game like GTA or anything. /s
I can feel the salt already for this year.
Primethius
Banned
Which zone are you referring too? I traverse near half that map to pull off my run. I don't see any deadweight about that.
The game supports so many different styles of play that if you stick to one, it's going to be clear that your not really going to be exploring the entire thing. But on repeated missions with differing tactics, I haven't really come across anything that has felt like a deadweight to me.
If you're talking about a variety of locations, I won't argue against that. But I was talking strictly about map size/open world here.
Personally, even with all of the games problems, it's still one of the best games I've ever played. The gameplay is just fantastic. It never gets old.
Really think it's going to come down to Bloodborne or MGS5.
GTAIV had an immediate backlash, just like MGSV now. By the end of the year critics will be ashamed of their reviews and give GOTY to something they remember fondly and has gotten even better since it came out (Witcher 3) or the most recent big game (Fallout 4).
You should see how this game grades completion percentage
Collect all the animals!
Do all the mission tasks!
Collect all the blueprints!
Do all the RNG deployments!
Collect all the emblems!
Do all the side ops! Don't forget mine clearing missions, all ten of them!
If you want to 100%, this game has more tailing missions than Assassins Creed Unity.
MGS4 and even GTA4 were left in the dust when Fallout 3 released in 2008. The same will happen this year with Fallout 4. Gaf goty will be MGS5 though. There is no doubt about it.
Isn't this typical of sandbox games? like gta etc. I haven't got the platinum yet, but it's less stupid than Final Fantasy 13 and Demons Souls so far.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
The zone in that screenshot. That is the Area of Operations. You cannot do anything outside of that marked zone, so everything outside of it (i.e., the entire open world) is irrelevant.
As was pointed out by someone else:
I'm not saying that mission zone is deadweight, I'm saying that everything else outside of it is. It has no bearing on that mission. In fact, getting rid of the connection to that open world might have allowed for more varied locales. And that's my point. I think the game would have been better served by ditching the unnecessary open world and sticking to very large sandbox areas. The large areas like that within Red Brass are great. It allows for a unique freedom of approach and choice. The rest of the world, littered with barren wastelands, massive unclimbable cliffs and copy/paste guardposts? Not so much. Why include that when it felt, at least to me, like a chore to navigate?
MGSV has its flaws like every game does, how you think all those flaws matter or how they stack up vs what you like about the game is what will determine how much you like the game overall. I don't think for a minute, it is impossible to understand for any of us here that if one thing is extremely good about any game it can outweigh all the negatives/flaws pointed out by others about said game.
For me, personally, MGSV is one of those games where something is just that good about it enough to outweigh all of the negatives anyone has ever pointed out about the game. And that something specifically is the gameplay and systems tied to that. Gameplay isn't just one thing, it's many things as well -- just as much as the story consists of many things (voice acting, script, etc). And while I'm aware story is very important for the MGS series, I'm willing to overlook the issues with its story because of how good the gameplay is. And there are flaws to the gameplay but I'm willing to overlook those as well because what's there vs what's not vs what are very small flaws in the grand scheme allows me to overlook them easily.
For what it is, I enjoyed MGSV, even the story it did have despite its jumbledness and... limp ending (that really disappointed me, like many others). But I'm still playing it and enjoying it and I do agree with much of what SBH said in the video -- however it is not enough for me to hate the game, put it lower on the totem pole of the games I really liked this year, etc etc. It's still going to be at the near top of my list of great games this year. I'm one of those people who can like one (pretty important) portion of the game enough that it significantly outweighs all the flaws -- and I also value MGS' overarching lore/story but again I can overlook the flaws of the story and I've long accepted it now that MGSV's story while... isn't superb or amazing, the gameplay more than makes up for it and if I were to give a review I would rate it 4/5, easily. Hell, I could give it a 5/5 too.
It's just going to depend on the person and it seems a good portion of the media valued the gameplay more than the story (ignoring any reviews that may have been made from the boot camp) -- which makes sense because how many of the reviewers were long-time MGS fans who actually paid any attention to the overarching story of MGS games? I don't know (obviously) but I bet you that number can be counted on one hand.
Just what I think, kind of rambled a bit (it's laaaaate x_x)
For me, personally, MGSV is one of those games where something is just that good about it enough to outweigh all of the negatives anyone has ever pointed out about the game. And that something specifically is the gameplay and systems tied to that. Gameplay isn't just one thing, it's many things as well -- just as much as the story consists of many things (voice acting, script, etc). And while I'm aware story is very important for the MGS series, I'm willing to overlook the issues with its story because of how good the gameplay is. And there are flaws to the gameplay but I'm willing to overlook those as well because what's there vs what's not vs what are very small flaws in the grand scheme allows me to overlook them easily.
For what it is, I enjoyed MGSV, even the story it did have despite its jumbledness and... limp ending (that really disappointed me, like many others). But I'm still playing it and enjoying it and I do agree with much of what SBH said in the video -- however it is not enough for me to hate the game, put it lower on the totem pole of the games I really liked this year, etc etc. It's still going to be at the near top of my list of great games this year. I'm one of those people who can like one (pretty important) portion of the game enough that it significantly outweighs all the flaws -- and I also value MGS' overarching lore/story but again I can overlook the flaws of the story and I've long accepted it now that MGSV's story while... isn't superb or amazing, the gameplay more than makes up for it and if I were to give a review I would rate it 4/5, easily. Hell, I could give it a 5/5 too.
It's just going to depend on the person and it seems a good portion of the media valued the gameplay more than the story (ignoring any reviews that may have been made from the boot camp) -- which makes sense because how many of the reviewers were long-time MGS fans who actually paid any attention to the overarching story of MGS games? I don't know (obviously) but I bet you that number can be counted on one hand.
Just what I think, kind of rambled a bit (it's laaaaate x_x)
striferser
Huge Nickleback Fan
Yup, count me in too. I love the insane batshit story from mgs series, but by the end of the day what make me truly love mgs is the game design. I usually did a repeat playthrough for every mgs game, skipping the cutscene and just enjoying myself doing stupid stuff
That would be a true shame, but I don't see it happening. The honeymoon period for MGSIV was way longer. V has crazy amounts of backlash in just a few weeks.
Checking the threads of other big games this year, Witcher 3 and Bloodborne are still well loved. Plus Witcher 3 has an expansion coming next month which will help refresh people's minds on how amazing it is. And again, the big one left is Fallout 4 later this year.
Serpens007
Member
MGS4 also had that backlash. It still beated GTAIV and Fallout 3 among other great games. Twice.
Yeah, the salt is going to be amazing.
Primethius
Banned
I'm still not quite sure I understand. Yes, I get that it's deadweight for the mission Red Brass (as in, the mission is literally over if you go out of the bounds). But those other areas are used for other missions.
Hence, my comment that the open world is really just a patch work of large mission zones, but connected. The game could have used more locales for sure, but I don't think that has any bearing on the actual open world structure of it. The open world is quite different from possibly every other open world game I've played.
As has been mentioned MGS4 won twice! You only have to look at user reviews of the games to see that in MGS4 & 5s case the negativity is a vocal minority. GTA5 got immediate hate and negative user reviews.
I also think all the first time players who got V won't give a shit about the canon being altered.
Does that mean their review is flawed though or just that they pulled a still from marketing materials /the net? What effect did that have on their review?
I hate this response so much.
potatohead
Member
The gameplay of MGS5 is fantastic. That's exactly what I'm so upset about. There is absolutely a portion of this game which is absolutely ace and amazing.
But it's wasted on a game with repetitive levels and awkward design choices in the second half and a poorly presented story (most of the time). It is absolutely a strong game, with a great engine, and everything. But it feels unfinished and unrealized.
For all these reasons my personal GOTY is going to Bloodborne. I just had a much better experience with it, and it wasn't sullied by grinding or free-to-play mechanics (FOBs) and ridiculous GMP prices for singleplayer related things like weapon and buddy upgrades.
Cool. Time will tell. I'm curious to see how the game is seen in 10 years.
I don't really care about metacritic user reviews at all, but even there Witcher 3 dominates MGSV, so going by that logic, that's the people's favorite game.
Moon_frogger
Member
You really need to replay a few missions then. Scripted events take place in completely different locations simultaneously. All mission critical assets and targets are in play on different parts of the map.nothing ever 'spawns in' and taking dramatically different paths through each mission results in a completely different play through. It's almost structured like an arma mission and it wouldn't be possible if each area was a self contained mission. This is dramatically apparent in the very first mission and they only explore it further with subsequent missions. Sure there are a couple here and there that could have been done in closed off environments like ground zeroes but those are the minority and even those ones benefit from amazing replayability due to the way the open world is logically and completely married to the mission design. You are frequently tailing enemies across large sections of the map in real time, or not. If you already know where your target is from prior playtheoughs you can go straight there, or kill the person your supposed to tale, or extract them and get Intel. It's really incredible how they managed to do a fresh take on 'open world' and actually make it mean something. This is why the game got all those 10's
Moon_frogger
Member
Unlike unity, the mission doesn't end when your spotted by the tail. And the stealth mechanics themselves aren't shady as fuck and unreliable. This should give you a clue as to the difference between the two games. Not to mention...none of those completion grades require even 1 bit of aimless wandering. It's almost all clearly spelled out how to get them in the mission objective lists. Mgsv benefits from being open world but is almost never dragged down by it.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I still don't see the justification for the open world. There's nothing about the other areas that needs them to be connected. In fact, I think it suffers from being connected because to justify the connection, there's tons of empty wasteland and copy/paste outposts added in.
Other open worlds try to justify their existence by adding some dynamic elements to them. That is severely lacking here. I'm too lazy to write out my own thoughts entirely, so I'll just quote this post:
If all your open world is aiming to do is be a series of roads between some sandbox areas with nothing meaningful to do otherwise, then you've created a pretty mediocre open world. There's nothing that justifies the open world and connectivity of areas because at the end of the day, we didn't get a world. Games like Fallout or The Witcher made me buy into their world. This game doesn't. There's nothing believably dynamic or enthralling about the maps. It's just a series of roads to and from AOs. So why bother?
It does seem to be a story > gameplay type of game so who's surprised?(MGS5 simply has the larger fanbase so it won't matter)
We can see for instance that MGS sales dropped like a rock after 2 but otherwise, the only backlash I see for 4&5 is on message boards. It's not apparent when looking at critic + user reception and sales.
How else do you gauge that those two games are hated by the fanbase or the backlash being huge?
Primethius
Banned
If all the mission areas were separate, maybe you'd have a point but several overlap. Plus as I have mentioned, what you see as a series of roads are part of that sandbox. Perhaps your style of play didn't bring them into play but that doesn't make them useless or meaningless.
But I guess that's the beauty of the sandbox that was created.
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
Video hits a lot of good points, especially with the player/reviewer discrepancy.
The gameplay is superb, but even that gets old after a while via 'optimal' strategies for S-ranks or what have you, and there's a lot of problems in virtually every other aspect of the game, from the the story to the resource grind to the barrenness of the Open World and Mother Base, etc...
The gameplay is superb, but even that gets old after a while via 'optimal' strategies for S-ranks or what have you, and there's a lot of problems in virtually every other aspect of the game, from the the story to the resource grind to the barrenness of the Open World and Mother Base, etc...
Moon_frogger
Member
I can understand people not liking the open world and there are valid criticism. but yeah, 'it could have been self contained levels without changing any of the missions' is just daft. Of course it couldn't! a large percent of the missions take place on literally half to 3 quarters of each open map. and you can complete the same mission objectives in dramatically different places depending on what you do. my roomates missions 16 looked nothing at all like my first playthrough. We went to completely different places and completed the objective in entirely different locations and both playthroughs were spontanious, exciting and dynamic EXACTLY BECAUSE it took place in an open world. far cry and assassins creed story missions gate you off in small areas and give you a game over screen if you even give the slightest whiff that you might deviate from the mission. the story missions in far cry 4 in particular could easily have been in any corridor shooter or call of duty game. the open world stuff is almost like a separate game. metal gear completely subverts this and it's amazing.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I just don't agree. They are useless and meaningless in so far as they are barren. That's my primary critique here. The open world is an absolutely boring snooze-fest with very little point to it other than running from area A to area B. Once I got to my mission area, I had a good time. But traversing it felt pointless because the entire open world design felt so entirely artificial and forced. Running past guard post #124 (and maybe fultoning the soldiers out) is not my idea of a well imagined world. There's absolutely no life to the world.
Yeah, seems to be the case.
Primethius
Banned
I feel like your missing what I'm saying. Follow me for a second. All the missions occur in zones. These zones are connected. Some mission zones overlap in other missions. What you see as a road from point A to point B is literally a possible avenue for me to tackle a mission. Maybe in that mission. Maybe in another mission which has that road.
Just because you don't use the roads doesn't make it so no purpose exists. In that Red Brass image you posted, I'm sure maybe for some people, yourself included, the roads were point A to B. But I use them. They are integral in my strategy. I can even point them out and entirely recreate it because I've spent so much time trying to figure it all out and perfect it.
It's the sandbox. My uses are different then your uses.
Have you played mission 14? Attempted to get all the mission tasks? (Listen to all four prisoner interrogations) It's incredibly buggy. Not only is it not fun having to follow this guy around everywhere, half of the time he just walks over, bugs out, and doesn't interrogate the prisoner.
I can't agree with no aimless wandering either, a good amount of tasks are "find this specific plant in this general area 1000m away from the actual mission"
More to the point, this game has equal amounts of collectathon filler, if only for collecting all the animals (have fun placing down hundreds of capture boxes! It's completely random what you get!)
As I mentioned before, who can deny that the reviews were influenced by the Konami / Team Hideo Kojima drama? The situation is shady as heck.
You seem to be underestimating The Witcher 3. Game has sold 6 million + copies.
Moon_frogger
Member
the game really isn't meant to be played as a wandering traveler sim. the fact that you can just wander between missions is a complete red herring. It's when you're ACTUALLY INSIDE the missions that the open world makes sense. it's chasing a tank from one base to another and getting caught up by a patrol or roadblocked by an outpost where things get exciting. it's following a tail to an unknown location and then accidentally killing the tail and having no idea where to go next...then figuring it out from other clues. It's getting intel about a trucks likely travel route...then restarting the mission, going straight to the origin point and finding that the truck is RIGHT THERE waiting for a guy to wake up, get in it and drive to his location. It's a bunch of scripted events that don't fall apart when you play with them, manipulate them and use all your tools and cunning to try something different. you're like bill murray in groundhog day.
I guess if I was to just wander the world, try to see the sights and catch some R & R in mgsv's world then yeah, I'd be dissapointed that there aren't hidden bunkers, npc skirmishes, dudes with quest markers above there heads etc. but I've never once tried to do that because i knew that's not what the open world was for.
WickedLaharl
Member
You seem desperate for this to happen
Like you would be upset if it didn't win goty
Anyways shitty design choices like the crap open world were forgivable but the bullshit with fucking me over on a buddy that i couldn't see coming cuz i'm not motherfucking psychic hurt my opinion of the game badly.
Moon_frogger
Member
I'll agree with the animal collecting It's a bitch. I'd never try to do it. But it's also the only time anything like that happens. the plants can be instantly spotted by d dog if you're even a mile away from them. and I've never once had the ai scripting bug out on me in mission 14. What console are you playing on? I'm on steam.
I highly doubt the best stealth game ever made will be forgotten just because it was a poor metal gear game. All I can say is best of luck to Ubisoft if they make another Splinter Cell now. In fact best of luck to any dev doing a stealth game. They have to do a lot to match up to this game going forward.
The only way MGSV will be forgotten is if we get a stealth game surpassing it because right now it is at the top of the pile.
Serpens007
Member
I would if a game that doesn't deserve it does. If Witcher 3 or Bloodborne does, it will be fine.
But if MGS4 got that amount of salt, just imagine what would happen if V wins. That would be worth alone.
Moon_frogger
Member
one super annoying thing about this video is his 'we all saw the ending coming' segment where he posts images from 2 fan theories that completely miss the mark on the actual twist....lol one was 'david hayter is the medic' the other was 'the medic is ishmael!. saw it coming my ass.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
I get his criticisms, but dont agree with all of them. While a lot of reviewers had to finish it in under 40 hours, I doubt many players will sink 100+ hours in to get to the ending. I also thought it was strange that he mentioned how weird it is BB doesnt talk a lot in cutscenes....right after talking about the fact that you arent BB. I think the gameplay mechanics alone make it worthy of 10/10 status, it really is a masterpiece of game design and deserves that credit. I think the story is too little, but that really doesnt stop it from being 10/10, because 10/10 doesnt mean perfect.
Primethius
Banned
Because I said I would elaborate a bit. Off the top of my head, that's the area I use when tackling the mission with one specific variation. I have other variations that use the sandbox differently.
For others, the roads between Wakh Sind Barracks all the way to Spugmay Keep might simply serve as transit points between the various locations. But they aren't meaningless. My take on the mission requires the roads because the Commanders are travelling on them. Ambushing the commanders, hiding the vehicles and making them walk to the meeting point seems to be the key for me to pull it all off. But I haven't been successful with this variation yet, so I might have to change it up.
tl;dr: It's a sandbox. Stuff has it's uses. The open-world is a patchwork of mini-sandboxes. Very unique compared to other open-worlds.
Games like Dishonored and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are better overall games than MGSV. Not only they are fun, but they have other things going for (like good stories, amazing art direction, memorable music, and not a crap open world to deal with). Seems like some people are trying to salvage what some agree is the only good thing about Metal Gear (the gameplay!), as if it is vastly superior to other games. The genre itself is pretty small, so there's barely any competition.
Why should a game who's emphasis is on gameplay instead of story be penalized just because that wasn't the case in the last game? MGS4 is the shady one. Last game + platform exclusive.
Even the people who hate the game will agree it's got exceptional gameplay and their main gripe is a story development or how the pacing was not to their liking. It's no different to the slew of AAA titles with weak gameplay and uninspired mechanics getting rave reviews for production values or story. It's the other side of Uncharted or the Witcher and just as valid.
I'm sure W3 will put up a good fight, I just don't think it'll win on GAF judging by 3&4 winning in the past.
Primethius
Banned
You're right. There isn't a lot of competition. And those two titles don't really hold a candle to MGSV in terms of stealth. It is vastly superior.
I'd like to clarify that I don't think AC: Unity is a better game, far from it. It's just that some things that the series is criticized for appear here. Having the mission tasks attached to completion percentage feels off, and conflicts with the game being about completing objectives with absolute freedom. This is especially true for the tailing mission tasks, because everyone hates tailing, no matter how well it's done.
Anyways, I'm on xbox. It seems slightly buggier than the other platforms, so that could be the culprit.
Similar threads
- Poll