• 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.

Metal Gear Solid Community |OT4| God Bless the Chopper!

Well, I have seen people calling the game a mess, mediocre, terrible, boring, not better than what ubisoft/other open world games do, if not, they are better and also, garbage. I have also seen people say GZ is better than TPP and Camp Omega is better than anything TPP offers.

1481.gif

You can use all the laughing gifs you want but I think it's ridiculous how few fun bases there are in such a large game. So much space gone to waste. I know empty space used as downtime is good in an open world but I really don't think Kojima knew how to design an open world game despite the mechanics being top notch.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
You can use all the laughing gifs you want but I think it's ridiculous how few fun bases there are in such a large game. So much space gone to waste. I know empty space used as downtime is good in an open world but I really don't think Kojima knew how to design an open world game despite the mechanics being top notch.

I don't think it's really Open World and I'm pretty sure Kojima went to great pains to explain that it wasn't 'true' Open World in the years leading up to release. Unfortunately, there are a ton of expectations that come with the term that it is difficult to shake.

Think about it like this: are there any incentives to explore the Open World? The plants are all near landing zones or outposts, the animals can be found in similar places, there doesn't seem to be anything to do out in the wilderness.

Where are the incentives to get us to explore...? There aren't any.

Why is that? Did Kojima, the detail obsessed game designer of 30 odd years forget to include them...? I sincerely doubt it.

I think it was never his intention to have people explore the landscape and I'm glad. What would we do out there but pointless busy work? I want to travel to and infiltrate enemy compounds, not travel to and pick-up plants. XD

As I see it, the space is designed to be used, for the most, to allow 'free-infiltration', to approach and plan how you will enter and exit bases. Different open areas are used for different missions (Tank stuff), escape routes (end of episode 1), sniping spots (too many to mention) etc. and to give the world a sense of coherence. In that capacity, it works extremely well.
 

brau

Member
You can use all the laughing gifs you want but I think it's ridiculous how few fun bases there are in such a large game. So much space gone to waste. I know empty space used as downtime is good in an open world but I really don't think Kojima knew how to design an open world game despite the mechanics being top notch.

You know whats up. The game feels its big for the sake of being big with nothing else in it. Nothing really happens between outposts too. Its a waste of time.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Here's a Polygon article with Kojima discussing the Open World:

"I think the term 'open world' has taken on a life of its own and caused misunderstandings," the head of Kojima Productions said in an interview published in this week's Famitsu magazine. "Of course it's not going to be a game where Snake fishes all day or changes jobs and pursues a different life. The game map is an open world and you have freedom in that way, but in MGS5, it's clear what you're doing. That may be 'I have to help someone' or 'Destroy this thing' or 'Go gather intelligence at this spot'. Some missions will have time limits, too."

[...]

Kojima explained to the interviewer, Famitsu publisher Hirokazu Hamamura, that going open-world with MGS5 is something that, if anything, was overdue for the type of games he creates. "With MGS up to now," he explained, "we could only build the interior of wherever you were infiltrating. How you got there was shown in a cutscene, and the player would just suddenly be in front of the entrance. Once you finished the mission, there'd be another cutscene, a helicopter or whatever would come by, and you'd escape. It's not that linear games are bad [...] but really, it'd be fun if you were the one thinking about how and where to infiltrate, what sort of equipment to bring, and how to get out of there."

"I think the way that MGS is combined with an open world here is something that we haven't really communicated very well yet."

[...]

"I feel that games are interactive media, and the rush comes in being able to use what you're given freely to play. Open worlds create that for you, and I think the future of gaming lies in them."
 

Purdy

Member
Getting away from all the MGSV hyperbole.

Finally decided to platnium the games, on MGS2 and started with the VR missions, how much more difficult do they become? Done ~40% in 2 days, so all of Raiden, half way through Snake and Pliskin unlocked and the remaining two to unlock. Heard its a pain on the dick so thought id do it first
 

Rajang

Member
Finally decided to platnium the games, on MGS2 and started with the VR missions, how much more difficult do they become? Done ~40% in 2 days, so all of Raiden, half way through Snake and Pliskin unlocked and the remaining two to unlock. Heard its a pain on the dick so thought id do it first

Yes, do they get significantly harder. The MGS1 Snake missions are the hardest. Also the hold up missions with the M4 are really difficult because how sensitive the buttons are on the PS3 controller. Also one of the most difficult missions is the MGS1 Snake - Variety 1 mission, where you have to protect the box from 31 rushing soldiers with a PSG1. GL with that lol. Took me quite a few retries. The music in that level still haunts me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0GhFG9jmFQ
 
You can use all the laughing gifs you want but I think it's ridiculous how few fun bases there are in such a large game. So much space gone to waste. I know empty space used as downtime is good in an open world but I really don't think Kojima knew how to design an open world game despite the mechanics being top notch.

My point being is that there is more than ONE fun base to infiltrate in TPP with a shit tons of ways to do it, with a fuck tons of tools at your disposal and the level of freedom is unparalleled when it comes to the stealth genre or action games in general. To say that GZ is better than TPP is just....

what______gif__by_seanguy4-d7aznn1.gif


The controls and animation alone dethrones GZ. I will say this that when I started playing the game, I disliked how empty the open world is but the more I played, the more I loved the detail of my surroundings without being jam packed with useless shit like many other open world games, it's the closest thing to RDR but with better controls save for the fact that RDR has random encounters and shit. It's done in such a way that all the other bases are connected to one another and I love having the freedom to plan how I approach any base in the way that I want and the game doesn't punish me by doing so. Listening to the fantastic array of music at my disposal while DD sniffs out dudes as I snipe out every guy from 100+ meters away is fantastic and why is it so good? because everything you do looks and feels fucking great. That's just one buddy, when you bring in your support and the endless ways to approach anything with the tools you have as well as what the other buddies do to the playing field, it's damn great.

Everything you're doing in the game is beneficial to your MB developments whether its items or weapons or buddy equipment or helicopter.etc and leveling up each part of your MB, down to the very simple fact of you killing a guy or fultoning him would be a better choice? The side ops seem repetitive sure save for the story based ones and I agree with that but when you look at it as a quick way to get someone awesome for your MB? It's great, especially if you want a quick fix of playing time before heading out to work or anything.

Then of course you have the missions and how different people can have different outcomes, many times where I thought I was sure about getting a mission failed like most other open world games but it turns out no, I can keep on playing and try out the next best option I can and this shit just goes on and on throughout the entire game. I think the best example is mission 16 where there are loads of people having problems within that mission but with the way I did it, you could interrogate enemies and they will give you the exact location of the vehicle which is in an airport and thus the rest of your mission will be there, I know many people who wasted an hour or so just chasing around the vehicle's predicted movement whereas I didn't. Then when the skulls appear you either have the patience to attract their attention else where and you could fulton the vehicle if you have that upgrade at that point OR you could bring in D-Walker and wreck havoc OR you could fight them off with rocket launchers OR you could call in your support to help you with the fight as long as you're away from the vehicle itself OR OR OR OR....

Then when all is said and done you got the great MGS details that most developers won't give a fuck about but you know Kojima and co always does. These weird, who gives a shit about it detail but it's awesome that it's there and I appreciate it kind of things that you don't see anywhere but MGS games because they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Then you have FOB's which are great especially when you're done with the game, it's fun to defend your base it's just a shame that the servers SUCK. I am hoping with MGO things are different and that's another thing, we got MGO coming. There's just so much game here, too much even. I'm 200+ hours in, still unlocking new things to develop and try out. It's hard to even put this game in one genre because it excels as an action game, stealth game and open world game in the sense of having so many options as well as the freedom for said options. I just wish we could skip these damn helicopter rides when dropping in but that's really a small negative when I think about how much good the game does and how many discussions I had with people I know about the ways we tackled every mission and succeeded in doing so.

Edit: Storywise I prefer the first 4 by a mile but even then MGS5 has a very interesting story than many other games thanks to the ideas/themes presented, execution is not all there though. I massively prefer it to PW. I also dislike the tapes and prefer the codec BUT there are some excellent lore stuff in there that I loved. In the end though, I'm strictly talking gameplay here.

Edit 2: I forgot about how the enemy adapts to your playstyle as well which is excellent and the fact that you could basically go from mission to mission without ever returning to the ACC. Just resupply on your ammo, exchange buddies on the fly if you want, drop a vehicle if you choose to do so and get going unless you want to change your costume.

You know whats up. The game feels its big for the sake of being big with nothing else in it. Nothing really happens between outposts too. Its a waste of time.

The only thing that happens is the logical thing which is time shifts for the other guards to arrive. I don't now what you guys were expecting to happen in a war torn occupied land. It would have been cool to see Afghans trying to retaliate but it would be just that, cool. I don't think it would benefit in the long run because it'll ruin your plans of infiltrating a base in the way you wanted but I could see it as something good to witness if it happened randomly like sandstorms. I'm past the point of waiting for sandstorms now though as I can make them on my own will as well as rain haha.
 

brau

Member
The only thing that happens is the logical thing which is time shifts for the other guards to arrive. I don't now what you guys were expecting to happen in a war torn occupied land. It would have been cool to see Afghans trying to retaliate but it would be just that, cool. I don't think it would benefit in the long run because it'll ruin your plans of infiltrating a base in the way you wanted but I could see it as something good to witness if it happened randomly like sandstorms. I'm past the point of waiting for sandstorms now though as I can make them on my own will as well as rain haha.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178929548&postcount=5269
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178931144&postcount=12439

Two posts that talk about things that i thought would help the game.
 
My point being is that there is more than ONE fun base to infiltrate in TPP with a shit tons of ways to do it, with a fuck tons of tools at your disposal and the level of freedom is unparalleled when it comes to the stealth genre or action games in general. To say that GZ is better than TPP is just....

Admittedly, I wouldn't really say GZ is better than TPP. Just that I expected more bases on the scale of Camp Omega in such a large game. A lot there isn't memorable, at least to me. All the points you made about the game are true but it just never all came together for me no matter how long I played it. And personally, the MB stuff kinda ruined it for me which is weird because I loved it in Peace Walker and I had been looking forward to it. It felt like too much of a grind. I dunno, maybe in a few years, I'll come back to the game and see more to it.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Death Metalist said:
...unless you want to change your costume.

You can do that in the field.

Not to backtrack because I agree with 99% of your post but, as you probably guessed from our previous discussions, I personally think TPP's story is a much more coherent and interesting story than MGS4's.

We'll leave it there ;)
 

brau

Member
Admittedly, I wouldn't really say GZ is better than TPP. Just that I expected more bases on the scale of Camp Omega in such a large game. A lot there isn't memorable, at least to me. All the points you made about the game are true but it just never all came together for me no matter how long I played it. And personally, the MB stuff kinda ruined it for me which is weird because I loved it in Peace Walker and I had been looking forward to it. It felt like too much of a grind. I dunno, maybe in a few years, I'll come back to the game and see more to it.

TPP is a better game. But GZ is a better experience overall. Totally driven by the fact that GZ is more contained and focused. But TPP has better gameplay, additions, tools, items, encounters and all that jazz. Story, presentation, narrative and closure. GZ takes the prize hands down.
 

Your first idea is great. I'd love to do something like that myself rather than sending out your men to do the thing however, at the same time the option is still there for you to do so by sending out your men so it kind of works in both ways, It's just that sending out your men to do the thing saves up on you doing it and letting you focus on the tasks you have at hand. Especially if you're the kind of person who wants S ranks or wants to do the mission tasks.

The second idea is not one I'd welcome unless there is an option for you to use health items because you already die pretty quickly in the game and enemies ganging up on you sounds kind of terrible especially if they are already adapted to your playstyle. But all in all I could see Koji and co doing both ideas with balance if they were able to make a sequel but at this point a sequel to MGS5 would be MG1 & MG2 remake which is what I feel Konami will be doing next if they intended to do a new MGS.

Admittedly, I wouldn't really say GZ is better than TPP. Just that I expected more bases on the scale of Camp Omega in such a large game. A lot there isn't memorable, at least to me. All the points you made about the game are true but it just never all came together for me no matter how long I played it. And personally, the MB stuff kinda ruined it for me which is weird because I loved it in Peace Walker and I had been looking forward to it. It felt like too much of a grind. I dunno, maybe in a few years, I'll come back to the game and see more to it.

I personally think that honey bee mission had a base much better than Camp Omega and real gorgeous at night as well as day. Camp Omega looks ugly at day time. I replayed GZ after TPP and really, it just doesn't compare. You'd get the feeling of you've been spoiled too much with a mix of you're stuck in what is essentially a large square. I'm the opposite of you in that I played PW like a traditional MGS and got my ass handed to me by the terrible bosses that you can't experiment with which I should add unlike TPP. After grinding for S ranked soldiers, I was able then to make strong rocket launchers to take on the bosses but by then I already was hating the game but in the end I just liked it. It's my very least favorite MGS, you can't even crawl in that game.

In this game, I never felt I needed to go out of my way to grind for something as I did a few side ops and story missions with halfway through the game focusing just on story missions all the way through. It probably helped that experimentation is a huge part of the game and it's only rewarding if you intend to put the time into it.


You can do that in the field.

Not to backtrack because I agree with 99% of your post but, as you probably guessed from our previous discussions, I personally think TPP's story is a much more coherent and interesting story than MGS4's.

We'll leave it there ;)

MGS4 is my favorite but I can easily see why people hate it. I personally play it every year once and enjoy it but that's just me haha. See, now I didn't know you could do that. Is it just a PC thing or what? lol, the game that keeps on giving.
 

brau

Member
Your first idea is great. I'd love to do something like that myself rather than sending out your men to do the thing however, at the same time the option is still there for you to do so by sending out your men so it kind of works in both ways, It's just that sending out your men to do the thing saves up on you doing it and letting you focus on the tasks you have at hand. Especially if you're the kind of person who wants S ranks or wants to do the mission tasks.

The second idea is not one I'd welcome unless there is an option for you to use health items because you already die pretty quickly in the game and enemies ganging up on you sounds kind of terrible especially if they are already adapted to your playstyle. But all in all I could see Koji and co doing both ideas with balance if they were able to make a sequel but at this point a sequel to MGS5 would be MG1 & MG2 remake which is what I feel Konami will be doing next if they intended to do a new MGS.

I actually agree with you. Them taking out rations to replace with auto regen kinda takes away from the game. You are not looking out for your survival and being careful. You can just run through... and don't worry about bullets. So you become a little more careless. So yes.

Overall, my main gripe with the game is that it wants you to play for so long, but it doesn't do a good job in engaging me after i have seen most of the things it has to offer. The only thing at that point would be the story, but that is shit. So i have to make my own fun in that case... and that kind of gets old fast. But for each person different strokes. :)

I just want the game to engage me and surprise me. I would keep playing it if it did that.
 

brau

Member
They're good ideas. The first reminds me of MGS3 and the ammo/food storage. But, to be honest, people could think of ways to improve even the very best games, that doesn't make them bad, you know?

Like i said.. i don't think TPP is a bad game. Its an amazing game. Its fun, it lets you do all the epic moments yourself. I just wish more things were happening around. More things to engage you. Half the fun of say GTA is that i have stories to tell that are just so random of things that happen to me. MGSV is more, well, i went and did this and this happened. TPP you have to poke at it for it to react to you. Instead of the game doing something for you to react to it. Its a very simple thing, but it goes a long way.
 

Mercutiouk

Neo Member
Like i said.. i don't think TPP is a bad game. Its an amazing game. Its fun, it lets you do all the epic moments yourself. I just wish more things were happening around. More things to engage you. Half the fun of say GTA is that i have stories to tell that are just so random of things that happen to me. MGSV is more, well, i went and did this and this happened. TPP you have to poke at it for it to react to you. Instead of the game doing something for you to react to it. Its a very simple thing, but it goes a long way.

I guess that's the main difference. Take GTA IV and V for example, they do have a more structured story in that sense but it doesn't have the freedom that allows players to tackle missions in such different ways.

So, MGSV doesn't have a strong narrative structure as the last GTA games. But bear in mind that this is Kojima's first incursion into the open world structure, while Rockstar took years to perfect that formula. He did some things right, one example is the duel with Quiet which is non linear. But Chapter 2 could have been more robust if some of the missions weren't side ops. I get that it was similar to Zadornov missions in PW, Kojima is trying to break the linear mission structure which some people like it while some does not.

Regardless, I think MGSV is a masterpiece for what it is. I'm trying to play Mad Max and it doesn't come even close. I agree that every game brings something to the saga, every one of them has its faults, but it doesn't detract from the MGS experience.

Everyone can have an opinion, but detract the game simply because it doesn't follow your expectations. It is fine to discuss what you don't like but some people it is the worse game but with the best gameplay and that doesn't make it a MGS game. After every single game being different from each other, is it even possible to say that? The linear narrative structure was the only thing that never changed and we've seen that now. The question is: is it possible to go back to the linear game again after what we've seen with the gameplay?
 
Meh who cares it's a dead franchise anyway, not like they'll ever release a finished version of mgsv or use anything anyone says to make a better mgs6

Mgs6 will star kazuhira mcdonalds hamburgers miller and he will fulton guys out of the battlefield and ask himself "im gonna extract him?"
 

brau

Member
I guess that's the main difference. Take GTA IV and V for example, they do have a more structured story in that sense but it doesn't have the freedom that allows players to tackle missions in such different ways.

So, MGSV doesn't have a strong narrative structure as the last GTA games. But bear in mind that this is Kojima's first incursion into the open world structure, while Rockstar took years to perfect that formula. He did some things right, one example is the duel with Quiet which is non linear. But Chapter 2 could have been more robust if some of the missions weren't side ops. I get that it was similar to Zadornov missions in PW, Kojima is trying to break the linear mission structure which some people like it while some does not.

I don't think the issue is that its not linear. Or that what the game does is not appropriate. All i am saying is that the game is rushed, unfinished and stitched together in a very disappointing way towards the middle of the game. I actually thought the pacing and narrative of Chapter 1 was good. It could be a lot better, but for what is trying to do i thought it was fun and well presented.

What i don't like is that the game doesn't have an arc in general. Characters never develop or change in any way...and Skullface motives are very bland and don't help make an awesome villain. Just to many things getting in the way of the story to make it something outstanding.

Regardless, I think MGSV is a masterpiece for what it is. I'm trying to play Mad Max and it doesn't come even close. I agree that every game brings something to the saga, every one of them has its faults, but it doesn't detract from the MGS experience.

I praise the game for what it is. I think the game redefined itself for the better. The gameplay is just simply amazing. Responsive, grounded and it runs really well. But the world is uninspired, it never engages you unless you go poke at it, and there is just simply not that much to keep you on your toes for as long as the game wants you to play it. At least in my case. I know people that have been playing the game for 200+ hrs and love it. I got to hr 30 and started to see cracks... then by 40 i wanted it to really be just me and to not be bad. By hour 50 i was done with the game, just wanted it to end. Hour 70 i was happy the game was done and i knew i would not go back to it again anytime soon.

See... the time where everything was new the game remained engaging to me. New places to explore, and to infiltrate. But the lack of variety on missions. The lame side ops which are just recycled... I dunno.. too many little things.

Everyone can have an opinion, but detract the game simply because it doesn't follow your expectations. It is fine to discuss what you don't like but some people it is the worse game but with the best gameplay and that doesn't make it a MGS game. After every single game being different from each other, is it even possible to say that? The linear narrative structure was the only thing that never changed and we've seen that now. The question is: is it possible to go back to the linear game again after what we've seen with the gameplay?

I don't detract from the game where it excels. But obviously... there are glaring issues with the game that imo don't make it GotY, and trust me... i wanted it to be. The decision on the presentation of hte game is not the issue. The issue is that the game is just not complete. Too many things that went into the game that have no obvious enhancements. You take out half of the terrain in teh game, take out the FOB (which right now is plagued by server issues and cheaters to be bothered with), take out most of the empty shell of motherbase and make it like PW, and the zoo... then you end up with a lot of time that could be freed up to focus on what is important. The gameplay, the world, and the story arc and characters.

A lot of people have pointed out that changing a few things in the story would not make it a good story. Its just badly written. I believe they are correct.
 

Davilmar

Member
I think it is difficult to separate the meta-commentary from the rest of the game since everything ties into it. The false marketing, the convoluted nature of the plot and the shifting alliances, the similar narrative beats to MGS and their subsequent subversions; all are used to destabilise us, keep us on the back foot, and to make its point about (depending who you ask) sequels or the nature of reality in the digital age. The confluence of all these parts is pretty staggering, I think.

If you ask me, the most important thing about MGS2 is, for me, the fact that it is the very pinnacle of the top-down, line-of-sight style gameplay Kojima has been flogging since MG1. Take Substance into account and you have the most complete and thorough examination of that style of gameplay. That's why he went and broke all the rules with MGS3, breaking up the relentless blockiness of the levels and allowing the player to hide in plain sight. Admittedly, the bosses in MGS2 are not anything to write home about... except Solidus and the Tengu which were series highlights.

If the lofty themes weren't resting on the foundation of such superbly realised gameplay, it wouldn't really mean all that much.... kind of like Spec Ops, I guess?

Also: anyone who criticises MGS3 is a heathen and should be burned at the stake. It is equally as good as MGS2 but for very different reasons.



Not heard them yet! Looking forward to it.



Maybe everyone is just sharing their opinions? It's all gravy, baby.


That is true about the meta commentary, regarding MGS2. I think MGS2 would have been better if certain things were done differently. A lot of the dialogue was redundant, the Big Shell was a boring location in comparison to the Tanker, the bomb missions didn't really do anything for me, Dead Cell was boring as characters in comparison to FOXHOUND, and the game largely just threw large sections of exposition with Arsenal Gear. I mean, most people had praised the Snake-Otacon handshake scene when Emma died. I laughed my ass off. It was highly inappropriate, and from a narrative perspective ruined the sad scene of Emma dying. That was just one of the issues I had with the storyline. The Colonel AI talking to Raiden when he is on top of Federal Hall was excellent, and the commentary is as relevant today as it was ten years ago.

I loved MGS3 because it gave the players far more open spaces to manipulate the environment and interact with the enemy AI. Even though the original game (Snake Eater) had a terrible camera system. It surprises me that Kojima would give a more open playground, but he still stuck with the antiquated camera from MGS1 and MGS2 that no longer worked here. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to Kojima, but I just considered the top-down nature of MGS1 and MGS2 to just be repeats of MG2. Nothing to write home about in particular. He designed the game around that system. The game system was still relatively uneven given that you had a large line of sight to use the M1 tranq to take out enemies and basically walk down levels. Of course, MGS2 was not broken by this system in the way that Twin Snakes was. Still, I wouldn't call it a "pinnacle" but we just have different views on that. You make good point, and I respect that.

I find MGS3 to be as good as MGS2, and I completely agree that both are excellent for different reasons.
 

Rajang

Member
TPP is a better game. But GZ is a better experience overall. Totally driven by the fact that GZ is more contained and focused. But TPP has better gameplay, additions, tools, items, encounters and all that jazz. Story, presentation, narrative and closure. GZ takes the prize hands down.

I agree.
 
I mean, most people had praised the Snake-Otacon handshake scene when Emma died. I laughed my ass off. It was highly inappropriate, and from a narrative perspective ruined the sad scene of Emma dying.

Man, that was like one of the best moments in MGS2. You could tell just by that handshake how much their friendship grew coming from MGS1. You'd think why would Snake give a fuck about some scientist named Otacon? but it's damn awesome that he does, because Otacon is a great character and you're glad that Snake is counting on Otacon just as much as he is counting on Snake.

Aside from the handshake, the cuts, wide angle hug shot and the music all make it just a really memorable scene and I won't lie, it gave me the feels in a way that I'm glad Otacon just never gave up. Unlike his piece of shit dad in MGS5.

iPA8XUYjM3lXM.gif
 
TPP is a better game. But GZ is a better experience overall. Totally driven by the fact that GZ is more contained and focused. But TPP has better gameplay, additions, tools, items, encounters and all that jazz. Story, presentation, narrative and closure. GZ takes the prize hands down.

Spoken like a true legend.
 

Mercutiouk

Neo Member
I don't think the issue is that its not linear. Or that what the game does is not appropriate. All i am saying is that the game is rushed, unfinished and stitched together in a very disappointing way towards the middle of the game. I actually thought the pacing and narrative of Chapter 1 was good. It could be a lot better, but for what is trying to do i thought it was fun and well presented.

What i don't like is that the game doesn't have an arc in general. Characters never develop or change in any way...and Skullface motives are very bland and don't help make an awesome villain. Just to many things getting in the way of the story to make it something outstanding.

I praise the game for what it is. I think the game redefined itself for the better. The gameplay is just simply amazing. Responsive, grounded and it runs really well. But the world is uninspired, it never engages you unless you go poke at it, and there is just simply not that much to keep you on your toes for as long as the game wants you to play it. At least in my case. I know people that have been playing the game for 200+ hrs and love it. I got to hr 30 and started to see cracks... then by 40 i wanted it to really be just me and to not be bad. By hour 50 i was done with the game, just wanted it to end. Hour 70 i was happy the game was done and i knew i would not go back to it again anytime soon.

See... the time where everything was new the game remained engaging to me. New places to explore, and to infiltrate. But the lack of variety on missions. The lame side ops which are just recycled... I dunno.. too many little things.

I don't detract from the game where it excels. But obviously... there are glaring issues with the game that imo don't make it GotY, and trust me... i wanted it to be. The decision on the presentation of hte game is not the issue. The issue is that the game is just not complete. Too many things that went into the game that have no obvious enhancements. You take out half of the terrain in teh game, take out the FOB (which right now is plagued by server issues and cheaters to be bothered with), take out most of the empty shell of motherbase and make it like PW, and the zoo... then you end up with a lot of time that could be freed up to focus on what is important. The gameplay, the world, and the story arc and characters.

A lot of people have pointed out that changing a few things in the story would not make it a good story. Its just badly written. I believe they are correct.

In regards to the story, I thought it was intentional. The game is not satisfying because it is not meant to be.
We are hunting for an enemy that does not exist. Cipher as an organization is long gone and the main characters know nothing about it. Zero got so used to do the orders behind the scenes that nobody noticed the difference. The Patriots are in charge from that moment. Zero is not even the villain we thought he would be, since BB is alive because of him.
Which I think it is in line with the MGS saga that there are rare cases of true villains, I can only think of Volgin as an example.

Skull Face main objective all along is to set the cycle of revenge in motion. It is because of him that the whole saga actually starts. The cycle is revenge leads to no satisfaction. He wanted to have control over the events in motion, hence his plan with the archaea, but his death doesn't stop anything, quite the opposite the characters not only feel unfulfilled, they will direct their revenge towards Big Boss.

I think MGSV needs a bit more of interpretation and there is a lot that can be interpreted.

Regarding the game itself and how complete it is, we won't be able to know for some time, at least until Kojima starts to talk. Based on the MB development system itself I think that there were micro transactions in SP, but were abandoned prior to launch, so many things in the Nuclear trailer about the kingdom of the flies. The Kojimagate may have contributed to the cuts, but if that didn't happen I doubt that MGS V would see the light of day, tbh.
 

Mercutiouk

Neo Member
TPP is a better game. But GZ is a better experience overall. Totally driven by the fact that GZ is more contained and focused. But TPP has better gameplay, additions, tools, items, encounters and all that jazz. Story, presentation, narrative and closure. GZ takes the prize hands down.


Spoken like a true legend.

I love GZ but I see them both as part of the whole now, but I respect your opinion especially in terms of atmosphere.

At least you are not calling GZ a demo as the rest of the internet used to do.
 
In regards to the story, I thought it was intentional. The game is not satisfying because it is not meant to be.
We are hunting for an enemy that does not exist. Cipher as an organization is long gone and the main characters know nothing about it. Zero got so used to do the orders behind the scenes that nobody noticed the difference. The Patriots are in charge from that moment. Zero is not even the villain we thought he would be, since BB is alive because of him.
Which I think it is in line with the MGS saga that there are rare cases of true villains, I can only think of Volgin as an example.

I like the tagged spoiler here because it re-contextualizes a big plot point in MGS4,
Zero being the big bad
it's not stupid anymore due to MGS5's explanation.

Never even realised how much I liked how
Zero
was handled in 5 until I saw Superbunnyhop's analysis.
 

brau

Member
I love GZ but I see them both as part of the whole now, but I respect your opinion especially in terms of atmosphere.

At least you are not calling GZ a demo as the rest of the internet used to do.

Its funny when you think all of GZ is a prologue to the prologue... i guess GZ and then the hospital scene would all be the prologue?

They are just so different, in structure and presentation, even the narrative and dialogue to the rest of TPP.

At least it makes it easier for me to consider it as a stand alone. AND... GZ left me asking for more. While TPP just disappointed me story wise.
 
TPP is a better game. But GZ is a better experience overall. Totally driven by the fact that GZ is more contained and focused. But TPP has better gameplay, additions, tools, items, encounters and all that jazz. Story, presentation, narrative and closure. GZ takes the prize hands down.

I love GZ a lot. I've spent over 60 hours just messing with the mechanics and screwing around with the guards. I'm waiting till I 100% MGS5 until I start doing the same and i'm hoping it lives up to my expectations. There were a few things I've noticed that I can't do in 5 but could in GZ.

For instance, I liked holding guards up at cliff sides and then pushing them off but in TPP pushing the stick forward and pressing R1 just causes the player to perform a throw. The type of CQC attack you do seems to be random this time around, unless i'm missing something?

While I think presentation is debatable (I love the cutscenes in TPP) I don't personally feel that the narrative in GZ can really stand on it's own. Mainly because it lacks a real conclusion. It ends on a massive cliff hanger and we are left just as in the dark as when we started.
 
People call the game repetitive but tbh I don't think so.
People say that all you're doing is going and extracting someone or something from an outpost. Sure that sounds repetitive, but I think of it like this: What were you doing in previous MGS games for them not to be repetitive? In MGS3 and 4 (the more open games) all you're doing is going somewhere. Getting from point A to B. That doesn't make them bad though. The point isn't what you're doing tbh, its how its happening. The point is the sneaking and stealth mechanics. The actual gameplay. MGS1 and 2 are a bit different because you're in a small area and doing a bunch of different things (including backtracking). That's not bad either. Again the main point is the mechanics that you play with while doing these things. Same goes for MGSV. Sure your extracting a target, but is that REALLY what you're doing? No you're recon-ing, sneaking through a base, having a shoot out with guards, or whatever. It's just that the open world mission structure of this game naturally makes it so there has to be something that ends the mission, which is extracting the target, or destroying something.
Also, lol @ anyone who calls MGSV repetitive and then says "Uncharted is amazing." Now THAT'S repetitive (shootout, climb, cutscene, "puzzle" rinse & repeat). Not to say UC isn't good tho, but I can't play that shit for more than an hour before getting bored.
 
Meh who cares it's a dead franchise anyway, not like they'll ever release a finished version of mgsv or use anything anyone says to make a better mgs6

Mgs6 will star kazuhira mcdonalds hamburgers miller and he will fulton guys out of the battlefield and ask himself "im gonna extract him?"

WAIT

Is his hamburger place the reason you extracted all those animals? The NGO was a lie...

KAZUHIRA NEEDS MEAT
 
People call the game repetitive but tbh I don't think so.
People say that all you're doing is going and extracting someone or something from an outpost. Sure that sounds repetitive, but I think of it like this: What were you doing in previous MGS games for them not to be repetitive? In MGS3 and 4 (the more open games) all you're doing is going somewhere. Getting from point A to B. That doesn't make them bad though. The point isn't what you're doing tbh, its how its happening. The point is the sneaking and stealth mechanics. The actual gameplay. MGS1 and 2 are a bit different because you're in a small area and doing a bunch of different things (including backtracking). That's not bad either. Again the main point is the mechanics that you play with while doing these things. Same goes for MGSV. Sure your extracting a target, but is that REALLY what you're doing? No you're recon-ing, sneaking through a base, having a shoot out with guards, or whatever. It's just that the open world mission structure of this game naturally makes it so there has to be something that ends the mission, which is extracting the target, or destroying something.
Also, lol @ anyone who calls MGSV repetitive and then says "Uncharted is amazing." Now THAT'S repetitive (shootout, climb, cutscene, "puzzle" rinse & repeat). Not to say UC isn't good tho, but I can't play that shit for more than an hour before getting bored.
A 10-12 hour linear experience with more crafted level design and set pieces is a bit different from repetitive actions in a 60 hour open world game. There are enough options for a lot of people to do different things in TPP so it won't seem as repetitive to some but yours was a poor comparison.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Like i said.. i don't think TPP is a bad game. Its an amazing game. Its fun, it lets you do all the epic moments yourself. I just wish more things were happening around. More things to engage you. Half the fun of say GTA is that i have stories to tell that are just so random of things that happen to me. MGSV is more, well, i went and did this and this happened. TPP you have to poke at it for it to react to you. Instead of the game doing something for you to react to it. Its a very simple thing, but it goes a long way.

I see what you're saying but I think the comparison is a little off. I would say TPP isn't so much GTA as it is Hitman, if you see what I mean. You control and manipulate a robust series of systems, and the world reacts to your interference, sometimes in surprising ways. I think both that and what you're describing have their place in gaming.
 

brau

Member
I see what you're saying but I think the comparison is a little off. I would say TPP isn't so much GTA as it is Hitman, if you see what I mean. You control and manipulate a robust series of systems, and the world reacts to your interference, sometimes in surprising ways. I think both that and what you're describing have their place in gaming.

Blood money is a great example of that. Yep. I love Hitman. :)
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I'm done with the game for now. 70% complete. I will get back to the busy work one of these days. There are only so many prisoner and soldier extraction side ops I can do without getting fatigued.

That being said, even though the side ops are repetitive as all hell, its ultimately a good thing they are in the game. I know people replayed MGS4 for the ranking trophies but otherwise it really was lacking in extra gameplay content. Too much repetitive optional gameplay is a better problem than too little optional gameplay.
 
I just realized that I never use D-Walker. Used him (or it) only once but all he had was the tranq gun so I was like nah and haven't used him since.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Never really been a fan of the hitman games.

Aw, they're great! Up there with MGS and Max Payne as being designated "my shit".

At their best they're weird little puzzle games with a jet black streak of humour. At worst, they're Absolution.

Blood Money was incredible.

Too bad the game after that was straight garbage.

Si, correcto! Now there is a follow-up to a legendary series that I couldn't get behind. XD

New one is supposed to be more like Blood Money. Hype if it is.

Yeah, the gameplay videos look like it'll be a return to form. Can't wait!
 
I just realized that I never use D-Walker. Used him (or it) only once but all he had was the tranq gun so I was like nah and haven't used him since.

D-Walker is like D-Horse on steroids. Especially when you unlock the different heads and rockets for it. Also, if there is one Hitman game everyone needs to play, it's Blood Money.
 
Top Bottom