-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Giant Bomb #16 | DO... DONK...
- Thread starter Myggen
- Start date
- Status
LurkerPrime
Member
Distractions are a powerful thing.
Well that's unexpected...
Piston Hyundai
Member
you motivation totally backfired because it's just making me feel like shit about what joey styles is doing anymore
blainethemono
Member
thats true, if they're within that range you can always just stun them with a kick first though
mostly it just feels cooler to hold them up and tell them to get down though
BreezyLimbo
Banned
IMO it's more important than Witcher 3. Simply because Witcher 3 doesn't really 'advance' anything, it's a really solid Western RPG. Sure it's got a storyline akin to the original Mass Effect with the open worldness of an Elder Scroll Game(To a point), but MGSV in it's oppenness in regards to emergent gameplay are more important. That's what Witcher 3 is lacking, emergent gameplay. Sure you can make an argument that the MGSV story is unfinished, but the gameplay is 2nd to none. It's probably one of the only games in it's genre that does emergent gameplay right.
StopMakingSense
Member
Oh right, i thought you meant you could do extra CQC with the magazine in your hands lol.
I think its a masterclass in sandbox game design, but I don't think the actual open world part of it adds anything to the experience.
TheMrPliskin
Member
I don't think he is wrong, regardless of how it turned out it's still unnecessary.
LurkerPrime
Member
Well, y'never know with Metal Gear Solid. It's a tricky series.
Without getting into spoilery specifics...
MGSV has great level design and a huge armament of gameplay systems which makes varying up approaches a lot of fun, but don't mistake this for having a good open world. MGSV does everything it can to cut up, cordon off, and reset the open world--it's essentially area-based, with missions and side missions deciding the area being selected. Everything is completely reset the moment you board Pequod to leave--the open world is a farce.
The Witcher 3, meanwhile, blurs the lines between traditional, linear RPGs and huge, open worlds, with a game world that is affected by the decisions being made. The consequences aren't always big, but they're there. Yes, it's cut into areas, and yeah, harvestables and enemies can respawn, but none of this is nearly on the same scale as MGSV. The Witcher 3 has a definite progression within its open world, based on what the player has done, and I can't think of a single other open world game that's even come close to these accomplishments.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Not exactly a bad thing to have the world reset. And having the world be pretty much a combination of different bases scattered around...wouldit be better if it was simply menu based and you selected which base to go to? It definitely cuts out alot of the fat that plagues other Open world games, IE in Far cry with it's endless towers to climb or assassins creed with...it's endless towers to climb.
I haven't really seen the Witcher 3 world 'progress' in the time spent with it. IE yeah people will mention stuff like 'Oh did you hear about the bloody baron?' Stuff like that. . And like you said, stuff respawns in witcher 3, or 'reset' as you put it for MGSV, so it's no different than MGSV in that regards aside from the story beats that change conversations or interactions with characters. Yeah, it's an open world game with the story branches of Mass Effect, but there is no real emergent gameplay like in MGSV. Witcher 3 is a fine Western RPG. The gameplay leaves alot to be desired, though.
all games are unnecessary they're just fleeting moments of entertainment we spend large amounts of money on
LurkerPrime
Member
Let me put it this way, MGSV is as gameplay-emergent as MGS3 and they're both equally open world. The only difference is that MGS3 is lacking a mission select and side-ops are baked into the progression.
Regarding Witcher 3, it's not just dialog or specific characters that change in the environment but a wide range of things that you may not immediately notice, some quite far-reaching in their effect. Dialog changes are among the most obvious, but there can be whole events or areas changed by decisions--permanently, and potentially affecting future choices. It really is awesome once you start to notice this stuff.
Twin Tails
Member
It is a shame lots of GB won't finish W3, well I don't think they will, cause that game is something.
Resident4t.
Member
MGS V is a great game, but it in no way takes advantage of its open world. It's actually a really bad example of an open world.
Slamtastic
Member
Oh man, MGScanlon V is gonna be rough now that I've actually been playing the game myself and can get all backseat and cringey over the play style, with little to no MGS story shenanigans for laughs at the reactions.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
MGSV is far, far more 'open world' than MGS3 is. I dunno what you're saying, that they're both equally open world. That's just...wrong. Objectively. And I know what you mean like events, probably one of the more noticeable one are the 3 sisters. But it's like...yeah Fallout 3 and Skyrim both did that. And that's great, that's RPG. But it's not treading new ground in that sense.
The Dear Leader
Banned
Drew has been wallowing in the same blood and filth for all 4 episodes lol.
StopMakingSense
Member
For somebody whose played as much mgs5 as Dan, he seems to know very little about certain things.
Though the overhand grenade throw takes a while to figure out.
Though the overhand grenade throw takes a while to figure out.
It would lose nothing if it were strictly a menu based system. Hell, I pretty much played the entire game by just selecting the next mission from a menu and I imagine that is how most people are playing it since the world itself has nothing to offer.
Respawning enemies does not make it just like the Witcher. In the Witcher your agency has a lasting impact on that world and the narrative. You can load up someone's save and walk around and actually see the choices they've made. MGSV doesnt really have that. For instance...
the game lets you "choose" to extract or kill Quiet, but there is nothing to be gained from choosing the latter option and it doesnt matter anyway since you can also just repeat the mission and extract her instead.
The Dear Leader
Banned
He said he Rambo'd through the game so I doubt he knows much about some of the subtleties of the game, which isn't a bad thing, the less Dan has to tell Drew, the more Drew will play his own way. They should rotate Jason in for a couple episodes, I'd love to hear some of the advice he has to offer.
Y'know, I'm gonna echo in and agree with the original assertion; MGSV's open world is not an effective open world because the moment you encounter a base or outpost it becomes (size- and approach-wise) almost MGS3-like in its scope...except less good stealth-wise because you can circle around everything til you find the easiest entry, and everything that isn't a base or outpost is effectively meaningless empty space. The major difference between locales in the two games is loading screens between areas. MGSV's world is a series of funnels between smaller sandboxes.
The larger bases in MGSV feel similar in size to Groznyj Grad and that area with the cabin and the maps where you fight The End. It's more like older MGS games that way than people generally accept or admit.
EDIT: Ground Zeroes is a better sandbox area than anything in MGSV. I wish the full game had been a series of maps like GZ. It felt so much more imposing and real than anything in MGSV.
The best mission in the game is the one that has you stealth through a section that can only be accessed through that specific mission
OKB Zero
BreezyLimbo
Banned
GZ was basically the equivalent of 2 major bases from MGSV stuck together. You have the concrete building area(Which is shallow with no inside areas except the basement), the tent area, the warehouse area(Again, shallow), and the POW camp. What made it sandboxy was the weapons scattered around and the way you can approach the mission objective, but MGSV has plenty of open approaches, even more than GZ. GZ was great, but IMO it's nothing compared to MGSV.
I've gotten to the tail end of MGS 5 and it's really lame that you have to replay missions to unlock new story missions. Kinda kills any flow that game had. That probably won't be fun to watch once Drew gets to those. Which he may have said not all of his play through will be recorded, I can't remember.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
You can actually do side ops in order to unlock the things.
Twin Tails
Member
Yeah, I'm there and I have stopped playing alot. Just doing like a mission a day now.
He has completed where the honey bees sleep, and I think there really isn't that much story after that IIRC.
Apparently, you can just do side ops instead and it'll open up whats left fo the story. I didn't realize that myself and replayed all those and I agree that its really lame, particularly the total stealth ones. Side ops suck too but at least there's less time commitment.
It's more than just raw geography; it's tower placement, spotlight cones, NPC placement, actual cameras, the vehicle route...in practically all ways, Camp Omega is a more fun area to play in than any one location in MGSV. I'm literally willing to make a video treatise to this fact.
And you know what? Yes, MGSV has more open approaches. But forever and a day now, stealth games are made by the way they limit and disempower the player, not by the way they empower them. It's not "what is the corridor of least resistance into this place" but rather "how can I use the tools at my disposal to make my way through this corridor".
You don't have to replay them. I did no missions replays before finishing the game. Side Ops count.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
It's shitty that they just repeated the episodes with the tags attached to it, instead of giving you the option of replaying old missions and choosing those modifiers. That'd be alot more fun. They were probably just time constrained and had to buffer it out :l
I disagree. There's what...4-5 towers in the game, the one main tower by the actual LZ in the base, the NPC placement is something that MGSV does well as well...and MGS has always been a stealth action series. Yeah you can argue that a stealth game is better by how they limit a player, but since MGS2 the games have expanded and broadened the options for a player. And those are exemplary games. To say that MGS2 and MGS3 limit and disempower the player is just wrong. They empower the players completely, so I disagree with the notion that stealth games are made by limiting the player. I just disagree that limiting gameplay is a good thing for a stealth game.
I disagree. There's what...4-5 towers in the game, the one main tower by the actual LZ in the base, the NPC placement is something that MGSV does well as well...and MGS has always been a stealth action series. Yeah you can argue that a stealth game is better by how they limit a player, but since MGS2 the games have expanded and broadened the options for a player. And those are exemplary games. To say that MGS2 and MGS3 limit and disempower the player is just wrong. They empower the players completely, so I disagree with the notion that stealth games are made by limiting the player. I just disagree that limiting gameplay is a good thing for a stealth game.
StopMakingSense
Member
? You can visit that whenevs. There's several sideops there.
Twin Tails
Member
The first subsistence mission, mission 33 I think, was actually really fun. Would of never know that you can just take out the
I got in stealth, took it out in 1 shot, and ran towards chopper ending S rank. I want to try the extreme ones too.
radio and leave the 3 dishes.
i don't think Camp Omega is a pinnacle of open world design by any means but I do think it is generally speaking better designed than most locations in MGSV. That said, I think most locations in MGSV are designed well enough until you figure their paths of least resistance.
I don't think MGSV really takes advantage of its open world very well. Interactions between outposts even is so limited half the time I don't see the point of blowing up the comms arrays other than to do it. It's not like they spawn backup most of the time, or effective backup. Maybe a truck will pull up, I don't know.
I don't think MGSV really takes advantage of its open world very well. Interactions between outposts even is so limited half the time I don't see the point of blowing up the comms arrays other than to do it. It's not like they spawn backup most of the time, or effective backup. Maybe a truck will pull up, I don't know.
like many persona games, DAN falls victim to the fact it doesn't tell you right up some stuff is unlockable and so the crew just assume you can't do it 
also why play rhythm games on normal? whyyyyyyy
/edit okay nevermind jason be legit
//edit okay jeff getting mad hype about the bass was pretty great
also why play rhythm games on normal? whyyyyyyy
/edit okay nevermind jason be legit
//edit okay jeff getting mad hype about the bass was pretty great
But FC2 is fucking annoying to play. I can appreciate it from a distance, but it sucks to play. Too much bullshit busywork.
I remember liking that game but ultimately getting pissed off with all of the patrols that came by
i wish mgsv's actual open world was more interesting. sandbox missions are great because there's triggers and specific things going on here and there. the open world itself has like a dude in a truck who goes between outposts. maybe two.
and guard changes I guess
where's my armoured convoys? My choppers? my random walker gear patrols? Prisoners trying to escape and being recaptured, or animals looking for food and being hunted by other animals or some shit?
ah well. the missions are still pretty good
and guard changes I guess
where's my armoured convoys? My choppers? my random walker gear patrols? Prisoners trying to escape and being recaptured, or animals looking for food and being hunted by other animals or some shit?
ah well. the missions are still pretty good
Like I said in here yesterday, I actually prefer the Far Cry gameplay for stealthing around bases/outposts and take them over without being detected.
I actually 100% both FC3 and FC4 with all the DLC and I'm not even sure I'll finish MGS...
Don't get me wrong, the MGS gameplay is fun but there's nothing holding the missions and side-ops together other than a menu and a cumbersome home base management.
Piston Hyundai
Member
Far Cry 2 is probably the best game that still also fucking sucks.
Stefanie Joosten, the woman who plays Quiet, has been streaming herself playing TPP, and she is actually better than Drew, no joke. I'm talking: stealth, lining up head shots, noticing helmets and such and changing her strategy. It's very impressive, considering MGSV is very systems and control heavy.
StopMakingSense
Member
Well if she's getting helmets, she's quite a bit farther along than Drew.
NumberThree
Member
Yeah a woman handling all those controls and systems is really impressive.
She plays video games, what's so special about it?
- Status