Support NeoGAF

[orthodoxy1095]

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.

I think you're getting really overly fixated on my "road" comment. I understand the use it has for the context of a mission and strategy. I understand that having different pathways allows for different approaches. I've repeated that numerous times in fact. My point is that outside of the specific mission objective areas, like a palace or a village, the game has no dynamism to it. When I hear something described as an open world, I expect the game to try to reflect exactly that: a world with life and vigor.

When you go down a chosen road according to your planned strategy, there should be more to the world than a guardpost and an occasional truck. There should be some tension. What I'm talking about is the lifeless and snooze inducing repetition that game hands you in terms of the world. There are almost no surprises. The biggest surprise might be seeing a guard wearing a piece of gear to counter you. That's about it. There should be dynamic obstacles. We hear all this garbage in cassette tapes and briefings about the fighting between the Mujahideen and the Soviets. Why the hell isn't that in the game? If anything, that would only add more creative options to the game. Why are helicopter patrols scripted to be attached to specific missions instead of roaming the map? Why are there only like one or two trucks driving around the map instead of numerous?

The lack of meaningful interactions with the world is just so evidently reflected in the game itself. There's nothing dynamic about the world, so there's almost nothing dynamic about the side content, which is also generally meaningless, repetitious content. Eliminate this Tank unit. Eliminate that Armored unit. Get this Prisoner. Extract this Soldier. None of these events have any ramifications on the game really, and that's just one more thing that contributes to a lack of dynamism.

 

[Surface of Me]

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.

I dont care about stories in my games and I absolutely adore the MGSV's OST. Gameplay trumps all and MGSV trumps all others in this metric.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

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.

and that mission added nothing to the story.

the best missions were in closed off, large compounds that have many options for progression to the end point

the worst were driving around in a large area trying to find or waiting for a convoy to come by as you do giant half circles around outposts.

Afghanistan is pretty much a giant map of roads that force people into funnels to get around the area, and Africa is wide open version of Afghanistan with one small section of actual jungle. The world has no life and the only existence of the open world design is to get from LZ to mission area, or run around and fulton people

 

[CHC]

the open world isn't full of distractions and collectible trinkets in every hill and valley...on purpose. It's there to facilitate a ground breaking mission structure. it's there to steer you towards the mission areas, which are so close together it's almost trivial. I guess if you're trying to play this game like skyrim then yeah.....but it was never trying to be skyrim or some ubisoft collectathon. It's an ope world done properly, in service of the game, not just for the sake of an open world.

There were a MILLION things they could have done to enrich the world. There is literally NO reason to explore anywhere unless you want to Fulton men or supplies, both of which the missions furnish you with plenty of.

Possibilities could include: Cross faction battles, non-hostile NPCs, rare rewards for Mother Base requiring interesting climbing / traversal, some beautiful hidden places to see, geographically diverse areas, more interior locations, "VR mission"-esque trials or things rolled right into the world, etc. I mean can you honestly say with a straight face that you would prefer miles of empty desert, unclimbable walls, and endless hostile guard posts over SOMETHING.... anything at all to find or to do?

 

[Coda]

This was a good video analysis. I pretty much hate MGS V in almost every facet. The gameplay, story, characters and pacing are boring and terrible. I love MGS 1-3 and it pains me how much I didn't like V. Now granted I'm only at mission 13, but I have no reason to continue. I'm bored every time I play it.

 

[Game4life]

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.

Dishonored is a piss poor attempt at stealth and does not come close either mechanically nor in terms of combat options. Look at the no of ways people can complete a mission in MGSV vs Dishonored. There is a reason why people are still discovering new ways to approach missions and have dedicated threads regarding this when it comes to MGSV while Dishonored never had them. Deus Ex HR is decent but again it does not even match up to Chaos theory let alone MGSV.

Dishonored story is one of the worst I have ever seen in a AAA game. An absolute snooze fest but then again most AAA games have forgettable stories. Deus Ex HR has amazing art direction and a decent story though so I will give you that. It is one of my favorite games ( the shooting was piss poor but whatever I played stealthily so I did not mind )

Both these games wish their gameplay was as good as MGSV though.

 

[Primethius]

I think you're getting really overly fixated on my "road" comment. I understand the use it has for the context of a mission and strategy. I understand that having different pathways allows for different approaches. I've repeated that numerous times in fact. My point is that outside of the specific mission objective areas, like a palace or a village, the game has no dynamism to it. When I hear something described as an open world, I expect the game to try to reflect exactly that: a world with life and vigor.

When you go down a chosen road according to your planned strategy, there should be more to the world than a guardpost and an occasional truck. There should be some tension. What I'm talking about is the lifeless and snooze inducing repetition that game hands you in terms of the world. There are almost no surprises. The biggest surprise might be seeing a guard wearing a piece of gear to counter you. That's about it. There should be dynamic obstacles. We hear all this garbage in cassette tapes and briefings about the fighting between the Mujahideen and the Soviets. Why the hell isn't that in the game? If anything, that would only add more creative options to the game. Why are helicopter patrols scripted to be attached to specific missions instead of roaming the map? Why are there only like one or two trucks driving around the map instead of numerous?

The lack of meaningful interactions with the world is just so evidently reflected in the game itself. There's nothing dynamic about the world, so there's almost nothing dynamic about the side content, which is also generally meaningless, repetitious content. Eliminate this Tank unit. Eliminate that Armored unit. Get this Prisoner. Extract this Soldier. None of these events have any ramifications on the game really, and that's just one more thing that contributes to a lack of dynamism.

I think understand where you're coming from and I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. You seem to be looking for something entirely different then I am. You're looking for a more typical open-world game. I'm tackling this like a sand-box that just so happens to be interconnected. I don't think I've ever actually roamed around in the entire game from point A to point B so I've never looked for those kind of dynamic things at all. It never even occurred to me to consider those things. I'm playing this like a stealth game with large sand-boxes.

and that mission added nothing to the story.

the best missions were in closed off, large compounds that have many options for progression to the end point

the worst were driving around in a large area trying to find or waiting for a convoy to come by as you do giant half circles around outposts.

Afghanistan is pretty much a giant map of roads that force people into funnels to get around the area, and Africa is wide open version of Afghanistan with one small section of actual jungle. The world has no life and the only existence of the open world design is to get from LZ to mission area, or run around and fulton people

So..? You're talking to the guy who thinks MGS story is shit. I'm glad it added nothing to it. It's a great mission.

 

[Ratrat]

the worst were driving around in a large area trying to find or waiting for a convoy to come by as you do giant half circles around outposts.

If you lack imagination maybe. There are dozens of ways to go about them. Something that can't be said for most games in either the sandbox or stealth genres.

 

[Lanrutcon]

What this thread taught me is that there are people who think MGSV won't win GOTY.

 

[Surface of Me]

What this thread taught me is that there are people who think MGSV won't win GOTY.

I think this year will be damned close and Im not sure there will be a major consensus among outlets. We already have Bloodborne, Witcher 3, and MGSV, three heavy contenders. We still have Fallout 4, which Im sure will be a critics darling and commercial success, as well as wild cards like Halo, JC3, and the new AC.

 

[Griss]

Some great comments there about how poor the open world was. It offered absolutely nothing, and was one of the worst implementations of an open world I've come across in years.

What this thread taught me is that there are people who think MGSV won't win GOTY.

...you think it will?

Most of GAF played Bloodborne, you know. Witcher 3 will pilfer the RPG fans. Both those games are far superior to MGS V imo. Neither had the backlash MGS V is currently undergoing. Witcher 3 is buggy and glitchy but is a memorable, riveting tale in a way MGS V never is. Bloodborne is damn near flawless. Damn near. I'd be surprised if MGS V wins, but also surprised if it finishes outside the top 3.

 

[Sub_Level]

I think this year will be damned close and Im not sure there will be a major consensus among outlets. We already have Bloodborne, Witcher 3, and MGSV, three heavy contenders. We still have Fallout 4, which Im sure will be a critics darling and commercial success, as well as wild cards like Halo, JC3, and the new AC.

A number of outlets jump the gun by December so I cannot imagine JC3 will even be in the running for anything other than a potential cult classic.

 

[Surface of Me]

A number of outlets jump the gun by December so I cannot imagine JC3 will even be in the running for anything other than a potential cult classic.

I believe in Giant Bomb.

 

[Primethius]

Some great comments there about how poor the open world was. It offered absolutely nothing, and was one of the worst implementations of an open world I've come across in years.

If you judge it by open-world standards, sure. But it offered a really good sandbox for the mission encounters.

 

[PensivePen]

His complaints about some of the flaws in the level and gameplay design and how little the game respects the player's time were right on the mark for me. I really feel like the gameplay could be so much better if just some more care had gone into the design of the areas, objectives, and tweaking missions so that the player can get in and out of the gameplay faster.

It's part of the reason I'm having trouble going back to the game just to experiment with the gameplay.

 

[Game4life]

What this thread taught me is that there are people who think MGSV won't win GOTY.

This year has too many good games. It will be close.

I completely agree with the barren open world argument. There are not enough missions that require the player to go back and forth between different outposts to warrant an open world. I did not play GZ but did youtube a lets play after finishing MGSV TPP and it really looked very well designed. Would people who played GZ agree?

I would have loved a series of missions with similarly designed levels rather than an open world. The GZ map looks more intricately designed than any outpost or mission area we got in TPP.

 

[Yopis]

If you judge it by open-world standards, sure. But it offered a really good sandbox for the mission encounters.

Exactly this was more space to experiment with. Not pool tables or burger joints in Gta. The fact you have enough space to attack the same setup scenarios multiple ways, is the genius of the game. The loud vocal minority missed the point.


Some argue about the world being lifeless or side ops being repetitive. Again this is a different approach you are the variable more than the world. You try thing differently to get result. Just takes a different mindset. This will lead to repeatability more in the long-run. It's about what you did completely.

 

[Surface of Me]

If you judge it by open-world standards, sure. But it offered a really good sandbox for the mission encounters.

You should judge it by open world standards, because it as an open world. I agree with the open world being barren to an extent. Traveral isnt fun or meaningful and it does take a long time to get to where you are going without much filling the gaps in between. The open world MGSV provides flexes its muscles by the amount of tools at your disposal and the multiple instances to enemy bases. I also found raiding road checkpoints to be pretty fun. It is a valid complaint. There are certainly better open worlds, at the same time it's hard to think of better sandboxes.

 

[PensivePen]

There are not enough missions that require the player to go back and forth between different outposts to warrant an open world. I did not play GZ but did youtube a lets play after finishing MGSV TPP and it really looked very well designed. Would people who played GZ agree?

I would have loved a series of missions with similarly designed levels rather than an open world. The GZ map looks more intricately designed than any outpost or mission area we got in TPP.

Yeah, there are only a few bases in Phantom Pain that are as well designed as Camp Omega in Ground Zeroes, and only rarely does Phantom Pain use multiple bases in a single mission. The crappy little outposts between bases in Phantom Pain also feel totally pointless. And Camp Omega has so many more variations to its guard layouts because of all the different missions in it. Some of the areas in Phantom Pain are used multiple times, but not many. If we'd had 10 Camp Omega quality bases in Phantom Pain with 5-10 missions each, I think its gameplay would be way more immediately enjoyable.

 

[staticneuron]

If you judge it by open-world standards, sure. But it offered a really good sandbox for the mission encounters.

Yeah. I agree. It is more Sandbox than open world. It isn't about going anywhere or doing anything to beat the game. You have to do specific things but are given a great amount of freedom to do so.

I disagree with the video dissertation that things needed to have a huge twist or an over the top explosive finale. The point with those is that the snakes and raiden were on a totally different level in terms of experience and their abilities as soldiers. The idea is that put into extreme circumstances (S3) they may be able to mold another snake. The idea of the soldiers being amazingly talented are hinted at.

Ocelots character simply could have mellowed out with age. His character in the after stages were him being covert and even driving himself insane.

And the assumptions about the child soldiers leading to big bosses downfall, I don't get at all.

As far as I am concerned the game is good. The tone makes sense given the hints dropped through most of the game. You would have to be blind not to see the end coming but as such it means that this particular "snake" is not larger then life. Great soldier, thinks like the boss because he was his protege (the trophy makes sense doesn't it?) but who is better than he is? Well.... the clone of naked snake.

Game serves it purpose. Answered questions while still trying to remain fun as a game. The interesting addition of the larger sandbox elements is well appreciated and if you think about the numerous ways you can approach a situation, it makes me appreciate the design even more.

Sometimes it seems as people want to criticize a title that much more when it gets high praise.

Yeah, there are only a few bases in Ground Zeroes that are as well designed as Camp Omega in Ground Zeroes, and only rarely does Phantom Pain use multiple bases in a single mission. The crappy little outposts between bases in Phantom Pain also feel totally pointless. And Camp Omega has so many more variations to its guard layouts because of all the different missions in it. Some of the areas in Phantom Pain are used multiple times, but not many. If we'd had 10 Camp Omega quality bases in Phantom Pain with 5-10 missions each, I think its gameplay would be way more immediately enjoyable.

The outpost weren't there to be a burden. You could sneak past most of them without touching a single guard. They mainly were there so you could plan an attack and get soldiers with skills so you can level up your MB and develop better material. Most of the game I ended up stopping because of the stats. They end game developments make the game even more fun to play.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

This year has too many good games. It will be close.

I completely agree with the barren open world argument. There are not enough missions that require the player to go back and forth between different outposts to warrant an open world. I did not play GZ but did youtube a lets play after finishing MGSV TPP and it really looked very well designed. Would people who played GZ agree?

I would have loved a series of missions with similarly designed levels rather than an open world. The GZ map looks more intricately designed than any outpost or mission area we got in TPP.

Jim Sterling did a video at one point called "We Need More Spencer Mansions," referencing the iconic nature of Resident Evil's intimate setting. I don't know that TPP needed to necessarily be more intimate and just outright not an open world, but at the same time, I feel like Camp Omega was a pretty memorable locale. I remember it well even though I only played it a few times and ignored almost everything outside the main mission. I can't say the same for almost anything in TPP, where I feel like the only locales I remember are due to the sheer repetition of having to return there, rather than any iconic or intimate design.

 

[Griss]

If you judge it by open-world standards, sure. But it offered a really good sandbox for the mission encounters.

Sure, but it could have been a series of smaller sandboxes (the size of each mission area, for example), which would have allowed for diverse levels, more story variety, and less time wasted travelling.

I get that having roads between two outposts was sometimes important, for missions where you're chasing down a truck or a tank or whatever. But that didn't necessitate a whole open world. The world itself was useless.

Jim Sterling did a video at one point called "We Need More Spencer Mansions," referencing the iconic nature of Resident Evil's intimate setting. I don't know that TPP needed to necessarily be more intimate and just outright not an open world, but at the same time, I feel like Camp Omega was a pretty memorable locale. I remember it well even though I only played it a few times and ignored almost everything outside the main mission. I can't say the same for almost anything in TPP, where I feel like the only locales I remember are due to the sheer repetition of having to return there, rather than any iconic or intimate design.

Nothing in TPP touched the brilliance of Camp Omega's design.

 

[sappyday]

Yeah. I agree. It is more Sandbox than open world. It isn't about going anywhere or doing anything to beat the game. You have to do specific things but are given a great amount of freedom to do so.

I disagree with the video dissertation that things needed to have a huge twist or an over the top explosive finale. The point with those is that the snakes and raiden were on a totally different level in terms of experience and their abilities as soldiers. The idea is that put into extreme circumstances (S3) they may be able to mold another snake. The idea of the soldiers being amazingly talented are hinted at.

Ocelots character simply could have mellowed out with age. His character in the after stages were him being covert and even driving himself insane.

And the assumptions about the child soldiers leading to big bosses downfall, I don't get at all.

As far as I am concerned the game is good. The tone makes sense given the hints dropped through most of the game. You would have to be blind not to see the end coming but as such it means that this particular "snake" is not larger then life. Great soldier, thinks like the boss because he was his protege (the trophy makes sense doesn't it?) but who is better than he is? Well.... the clone of naked snake.

Game serves it purpose. Answered questions while still trying to remain fun as a game. The interesting addition of the larger sandbox elements is well appreciated and if you think about the numerous ways you can approach a situation, it makes me appreciate the design even more.

Sometimes it seems as people want to criticize a title that much more when it gets high praise.

Um that's not really the case for this game. Most people criticizing are fans of the series. People just point out how it can get so much praise when the flaws are very obvious. GTAIV got the same type of backlash but GTAV didn't even though they were both highly praised. Even not a fan of the story/series, stuff like the mission padding, meaningless open world and side-ops, terrible story pacing, and repeating missions are all flaws that can take anyone out of the game. If it didn't affect you great, but to deny there is a problem is being oblivious.

 

[PensivePen]

The outpost weren't there to be a burden. You could sneak past most of them without touching a single guard. They mainly were there so you could plan an attack and get soldiers with skills so you can level up your MB and develop better material. Most of the game I ended up stopping because of the stats. They end game developments make the game even more fun to play.

I guess that's a problem for me personally since I don't really get much joy out of micromanagement like that. I would always fulton soldiers when it was possible but I rarely went out of my way to look for the best ones and tried to let Mother Base handle itself as much as possible.

I know a lot of people liked that element in Peace Walker though (didn't like it there either) so I'm sure many enjoyed it in Phantom Pain.

 

[Yopis]

Some great comments there about how poor the open world was. It offered absolutely nothing, and was one of the worst implementations of an open world I've come across in years.



...you think it will?

Most of GAF played Bloodborne, you know. Witcher 3 will pilfer the RPG fans. Both those games are far superior to MGS V imo. Neither had the backlash MGS V is currently undergoing. Witcher 3 is buggy and glitchy but is a memorable, riveting tale in a way MGS V never is. Bloodborne is damn near flawless. Damn near. I'd be surprised if MGS V wins, but also surprised if it finishes outside the top 3.

In the grand scheme what backlash though? Few hundred people stating loudly that the game wasn't perfect? Sometimes things don't click with people. Just because we have a few threads for a week doesn't amount to much imo.

 

[staticneuron]

Um that's not really the case for this game. Most people criticizing are fans of the series. People just point out how it can get so much praise when the flaws are very obvious. GTAIV got the same type of backlash but GTAV didn't even though they were both highly praised. Even not a fan of the story/series, stuff like the mission padding, meaningless open world and side-ops, terrible story pacing, and repeating missions are all flaws that can take anyone out of the game. If it didn't affect you great, but to deny there is a problem is being oblivious.

Denying that there is a problem just is a difference of opinion. I completed all of the missions and all of the side ops So yes I played it but as far as story pacing goes in all of the MGS games you could choose to take your time or you could choose to speed run the game. Since the game is pretty clear on what you have to do next, just complete the main objectives and you won't have to worry about pacing.

The complaint about the helicopter is curious one because by the second to last upgrade the helicopter is there by the time you hear "arriving shortly". The max upgrade, you don't need to bother calling it until you like 200 meters off.

The helicopter rides (intro to a region) and the long expanses I have always viewed as a way to mask streaming and loading of assets. Last gen some games did it with FMV's, other games did it with long elevator rides, or long empty pathways to get from one area to another (destiny, vanilla FFXIV!), forgiving the technical reasons are part of the enjoyment of the game because people forget how much ram the console has and the fact that things need to be loaded into ram but most devs are brilliant at masking it. They have had lots of experience. So I am sure they would allow you to instantly load into an area if the tech allowed it. To complain about it makes it seem like they wanted you to wait on purpose. Which is silly.

I guess that's a problem for me personally since I don't really get much joy out of micromanagement like that. I would always fulton soldiers when it was possible but I rarely went out of my way to look for the best ones and tried to let Mother Base handle itself as much as possible.

I know a lot of people liked that element in Peace Walker though (didn't like it there either) so I'm sure many enjoyed it in Phantom Pain.

And the awesome thing about it. You don't have to. You are rewarded with soldiers at the end of some missions. you can have Deployment missions that gather volunteers which timer runs as you play the game. You could ignore it and not be a problem.

 

[Cartman86]

Metal Gear story is a fucking bullshit mess of convoluted terrible writing. I mean god awful cringe worthy trash. The only reason you would ever enjoy it is if you were 12 like I was when you first played it or enjoy it for the camp. MGSV is the best the series has been by a mile. Vocal chord parasites are nothing compared to the other shit the games have pontificated for 20 minutes about. And by pontificate I mean repeat the same though 3 times in 5 minutes before moving onto the next repetitive prattle. The series has become a train wreck you can't look away from and I wouldn't have it any other way. How are they going to top the stupid shit they did last time?! Worrying about characterizations and motivations at this point is a fools errand.

 

[Game4life]

Yeah, there are only a few bases in Phantom Pain that are as well designed as Camp Omega in Ground Zeroes, and only rarely does Phantom Pain use multiple bases in a single mission. The crappy little outposts between bases in Phantom Pain also feel totally pointless. And Camp Omega has so many more variations to its guard layouts because of all the different missions in it. Some of the areas in Phantom Pain are used multiple times, but not many. If we'd had 10 Camp Omega quality bases in Phantom Pain with 5-10 missions each, I think its gameplay would be way more immediately enjoyable.

Jim Sterling did a video at one point called "We Need More Spencer Mansions," referencing the iconic nature of Resident Evil's intimate setting. I don't know that TPP needed to necessarily be more intimate and just outright not an open world, but at the same time, I feel like Camp Omega was a pretty memorable locale. I remember it well even though I only played it a few times and ignored almost everything outside the main mission. I can't say the same for almost anything in TPP, where I feel like the only locales I remember are due to the sheer repetition of having to return there, rather than any iconic or intimate design.

It is disappointing that nothing like camp omega exists in TPP then. It looks very nicely designed. I had very high hopes when I saw the

Spoiler

mansion

in Mission 28 but was so disappointed with how it ended up.

 

[Spinluck]

MGS has always gotten higher review scores than it deserved, this isn't anything new to the series.

 

[Alienous]

Metal Gear story is a fucking bullshit mess of convoluted terrible writing. I mean god awful cringe worthy trash. The only reason you would ever enjoy it is if you were 12 like I was when you first played it or enjoy it for the camp. MGSV is the best the series has been by a mile. Vocal chord parasites are nothing compared to the other shit the games have pontificated for 20 minutes about. And by pontificate I mean repeat the same though 3 times in 5 minutes before moving onto the next repetitive prattle. The series has become a train wreck you can't look away from and I wouldn't have it any other way. How are they going to top the stupid shit they did last time?! Worrying about characterizations and motivations at this point is a fools errand.

You're doing a great disservice to Metal Gear Solid 1-3.

They not have been amazing stories but they were effective.

"The series has become a train wreck you can't look away from and I wouldn't have it any other way."

Why?

 

[Interficium]

Reviews on this game have really bothered me.

The last major AAA game that came out that was mechanically excellent, with universally-praised gameplay, but with a sparse/poor story, repetitive objectives, and the always-popular "cut content" was Destiny last year.

Reviewers had no problem absolutely eviscerating that game. Angry Joe had a meltdown about "where's the rest of the game, and the story" etc.

Metal Gear Solid V comes out a year later and has excellent gameplay, but a series-worst story and a whole act 2 dedicated to repeating missions with modifiers, in addition to actually showing players cut content in a pack-in DVD, and reviewers dole out the 9/10s and 10/10s. Including "angry gamer" messiahs like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe, who have made whole videos destroying other games for committing just ONE of the sins I mentioned above, and I didn't even list the FOB MTX stuff.

What is it about Kojima that has the press so snowed over? They've carried his water on both MGS4 and MGSV, both incredibly flawed games for incredibly different reasons. I can only chalk it up to some kind of Jobsian reality distortion field.

 

[DevilFox]

Reviews on this game have really bothered me.

The last major AAA game that came out that was mechanically excellent, with universally-praised gameplay, but with a sparse/poor story, repetitive objectives, and the always-popular "cut content" was Destiny last year.

Reviewers had no problem absolutely eviscerating that game. Angry Joe had a meltdown about "where's the rest of the game, and the story" etc.

Metal Gear Solid V comes out a year later and has excellent gameplay, but a series-worst story and a whole act 2 dedicated to repeating missions with modifiers, in addition to actually showing players cut content in a pack-in DVD, and reviewers dole out the 9/10s and 10/10s. Including "angry gamer" messiahs like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe.

What is it about Kojima that has the press so snowed over? They've carried his water on both MGS4 and MGSV, both incredibly flawed games for incredibly different reasons.

This 100 times. Kojima is overrated and has a full defence force ready to fight for him, all the Konami stuff only turned things worse. I mean, the web is starting to get full of "the content has been cut on purpose, this is the real Phantom Pain, Kojima is a genius OMG" not to mention the 4th wall bullshit, how are these even a thing? No one out there get a pass as Kojima does (or very few), it makes me dislike the man more than I already do, this shit has to stop asap. We absolutely need more professionals with a pen rather than paid gamers with a keyboard.

 

[Surface of Me]

Reviews on this game have really bothered me.

The last major AAA game that came out that was mechanically excellent, with universally-praised gameplay, but with a sparse/poor story, repetitive objectives, and the always-popular "cut content" was Destiny last year.

Reviewers had no problem absolutely eviscerating that game. Angry Joe had a meltdown about "where's the rest of the game, and the story" etc.

Metal Gear Solid V comes out a year later and has excellent gameplay, but a series-worst story and a whole act 2 dedicated to repeating missions with modifiers, in addition to actually showing players cut content in a pack-in DVD, and reviewers dole out the 9/10s and 10/10s. Including "angry gamer" messiahs like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe who have made whole videos destroying other games for committing even ONE of the sins I mentioned above, and I didn't even list the FOB MTX stuff.

What is it about Kojima that has the press so snowed over? They've carried his water on both MGS4 and MGSV, both incredibly flawed games for incredibly different reasons. I can only chalk it up to some kind of Jobsian reality distortion field.

If you really think Destiny is comparable to MGSV, then I dont know what to say. Destiny forces players down extremely wide hallways and ends with a Horde mode 9 times out of 10. MGSV is nearly almost limited by the player's imagination. It's extremely easy to see the difference.

 

[aliengmr]

Its pretty overrated. I mean it deserves a fair amount of praise, but a large helping of criticism too.

 

[Interficium]

If you really think Destiny is comparable to MGSV, then I dont know what to say. Destiny forces players down extremely wide hallways and ends with a Horde mode 9 times out of 10. MGSV is nearly almost limited by the player's imagination. It's extremely easy to see the difference.

I really don't think you want to be making a "9 times out of 10" argument when the video this whole thread is based on pretty clearly lays out how 90 percent of MGSV's mission design basically falls into two categories (go to place A and make thing B disappear).

Shouldn't you be going on one of your unhinged yet hilarious "x is absolutely disgusting and is everything wrong in the games industry" rants about the MTX in Metal Gear? What gives this game a pass? Something something Kojima? Enlighten me.

 

[Surface of Me]

I really don't think you want to be making a "9 times out of 10" argument when the video this whole thread is based on pretty clearly lays out how 90 percent of MGSV's mission design basically falls into two categories (go to place A and make thing B disappear).

You must've missed my other part of the post where i say the player's imagination is largely resposible for how missions play out. It's hard to find fault in that when we are talking about an interactive medium.

Edit: Seeing the second half of your post, Im glad you find my rants hilarious. However, I still dont see the comparison to MGSV to Destiny besides cut content. A thin thread considering nearly every game likely has cut content. The content in MGSV is many more hours than that in Destiny in my opinion. Destiny has excellent minute to minute gameplay via its gunplay, beyond that I think the vast majority of its level and encounter design is mediocre at best. MGSV offers players multiple entrances and exits, different tools to experiment and adapts to your playstyle to shake things up. I dont think MGSV is a 10/10 personally, but I can easily see how someone else would view it as such. The same cannot be said about Destiny IMO.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

I find it disingenuous when people oversimplify a gameplay to "go there, do a thing", in this case it's "make a thing disappear". Like how is that not 80% of all games when you get down to it? You have an 'objective' and you make it 'disappear'.

On the topic of GOTY- I noticed all of the current candidates have something going against it- for Bloodborne it's the variety, for Witcher 3 it's the combat, for Batman AK it's the bat mobile, for MGSV it's the missing content.

 

[Interficium]

I find it disingenuous when people oversimplify a gameplay to "go there, do a thing", in this case it's "make a thing disappear". Like how is that not 80% of all games when you get down to it?

You just have to tap into the unlimited potential of your imagination, like Surface of Me.

 

[Karl Hawk]

On the topic of GOTY- I noticed all of the current candidates have something going against it- for Bloodborne it's the variety, for Witcher 3 it's the combat, for Batman AK it's the bat mobile, for MGSV it's the missing content.

See, my problem with Witcher 3 combat complaints is they make it seem like its the worst combat system ever made despite its just adequate at worst

 

[sappyday]

See, my problem with Witcher 3 combat complaints is they make it seem like its the worst combat system ever made despite its just adequate at worst

Yea. It could be really shallow or it could be really fun and engaging. It depends on the difficulty.

 

[razzmahtazz]

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.

This thread and the George's video seem to contradict your point. Shit's toxic. Venomous even.

I can say Witcher 3's combat's not that good, its open world is the same ubisoft junk but the story kept me playing for 100+ hours, but somehow I can't say MGSV's story sucks but the open world is a sandbox for good combat and stealth that kept me playing for 100+ hours.

 

[dc89]

He's spot on in my opinion. Great review.

 

[swearing-circle]

See, my problem with Witcher 3 combat complaints is they make it seem like its the worst combat system ever made despite its just adequate at worst

The combat in the Witcher isn't anywhere near as bad as people say it is but it's definitely not great. I love the Witcher 3 but I have some issues with it in regards to the core gameplay (combat, roach, general movement) and the pacing of the game. The middle section drags but thankfully it does pick up towards the end.

MGS5 also suffers from serious pacing issues but I find myself enjoying it more purely because the moment to moment gameplay is so enjoyable. That's why I personally hold it in higher regards than the Witcher 3 although, W3 is still the most surprisingly excellent game i've played all year as I knew nothing about the series prior to all the hype it received.

 

[Emulated Hype]

I mean, the web is starting to get full of "the content has been cut on purpose, this is the real Phantom Pain, Kojima is a genius OMG" not to mention the 4th wall bullshit, how are these even a thing? No one out there get a pass as Kojima does (or very few), it makes me dislike the man more than I already do, this shit has to stop asap.

It's utter denial. Honestly, it reminds me of when Bioware flubbed the ME3 ending and the community conjured a fan theory to plug up the plot holes.

 

[teokrazia]

Very good review, it matches almost perfectly my opinion.
And his avatar is almost a copycat of mine! :O

 

[ezekial45]

Reviews on this game have really bothered me.

The last major AAA game that came out that was mechanically excellent, with universally-praised gameplay, but with a sparse/poor story, repetitive objectives, and the always-popular "cut content" was Destiny last year.

Reviewers had no problem absolutely eviscerating that game. Angry Joe had a meltdown about "where's the rest of the game, and the story" etc.

Metal Gear Solid V comes out a year later and has excellent gameplay, but a series-worst story and a whole act 2 dedicated to repeating missions with modifiers, in addition to actually showing players cut content in a pack-in DVD, and reviewers dole out the 9/10s and 10/10s. Including "angry gamer" messiahs like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe, who have made whole videos destroying other games for committing just ONE of the sins I mentioned above, and I didn't even list the FOB MTX stuff.

What is it about Kojima that has the press so snowed over? They've carried his water on both MGS4 and MGSV, both incredibly flawed games for incredibly different reasons. I can only chalk it up to some kind of Jobsian reality distortion field.

This 100 times. Kojima is overrated and has a full defence force ready to fight for him, all the Konami stuff only turned things worse. I mean, the web is starting to get full of "the content has been cut on purpose, this is the real Phantom Pain, Kojima is a genius OMG" not to mention the 4th wall bullshit, how are these even a thing? No one out there get a pass as Kojima does (or very few), it makes me dislike the man more than I already do, this shit has to stop asap. We absolutely need more professionals with a pen rather than paid gamers with a keyboard.

This is complete bullshit considering that 'the press' totally put Kojima through the ringer for how Quiet was portrayed in the game and his reasoning behind it. Despite being ecstatic about the game, they still called him to task about certain things. So no, 'the press' are not in some weird hypnotic trance for all things Kojima. Is it that hard to see that they liked the game despite its flaws and that the strengths outweighed the negatives?

But of course, they don't share the same opinions as you and were quite positive on the game, therefore they're corrupt and are totally on the take by your standards it seems.

 

[Rising_Hei]

This isn't Super Mario, the MGS franchise is closely tied to the quality of their narratives.

Yes the gameplay is better than MGS2/3 but the vast gap on the story side drags the game as a whole down.

That'd be to yourself, to me it doesn't, and the story isn't as bad as some of you make if look like, just like how MGS4 has been trash talked here in gaf for year when it was and it's a fucking awesome game.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Some great comments there about how poor the open world was. It offered absolutely nothing, and was one of the worst implementations of an open world I've come across in years.



...you think it will?

Most of GAF played Bloodborne, you know. Witcher 3 will pilfer the RPG fans. Both those games are far superior to MGS V imo. Neither had the backlash MGS V is currently undergoing. Witcher 3 is buggy and glitchy but is a memorable, riveting tale in a way MGS V never is. Bloodborne is damn near flawless. Damn near. I'd be surprised if MGS V wins, but also surprised if it finishes outside the top 3.

Oh, I completely agree that this year yielded some amazing titles, but I think MGS is going to get it. Whether it'll deserve to is a debate that will probably rage afterwards.

 

[GeNoMe]

Great video, now we wait for Matthewmatosis review.

I wanted to thank you for pointing out this youtube channel. I'm really enjoying his MGS reviews. Thanks

 

[MikeBreezy92]

This thread and the George's video seem to contradict your point. Shit's toxic. Venomous even.

I can say Witcher 3's combat's not that good, its open world is the same ubisoft junk but the story kept me playing for 100+ hours, but somehow I can't say MGSV's story sucks but the open world is a sandbox for good combat and stealth that kept me playing for 100+ hours.

No what he's saying is that For some people if something impresses them enough they're willing to look over it. So for the reviewers it must of struck a chord with them that others games did not. You can get more cynical with that but it happen. People bitch about F:NV being buggy but its still a 10 for me regardless of clunky combat and undeveloped plot lines and characters.

Like I said though All MG games are divisive to the point that arguing about which one is better is pointless as hell to me.