The "characters" cast reel and credits for Hideo Kojima before/after every mission has to be some of the most obnoxious shit i've ever seen in a video game.
Not only does the former spoil, but the later is so ego-centric. I know who the damn director of MGS5 is, thanks for telling me the 18th time.
It would be warranted if each episode had major plot points and felt like an episode. But many missions feel like glorified side-ops. Those that don't really stand out like a sore thumb.
this is the best and the worst MGS depending on what kind of MGS fan you are. This is absolutely the best gameplay MGS. So good. Addicting. The missions can be tackled is totally open. You can do a perfect stealth or you can be a walking tank. It gives you total freedom. I love the gameplay. But if you are a fan of MGS for its story and long cutscenes and codec conversation, you'll be sorely disappointed frown emoticon the story is pretty weak and there is too much missions between events of the game And some mission may be fillers. The game has multiple ending like peace Walker. I just completed the first chapter. But I'll play for the story. I wanna see how the story ends. I wish the story was better with more cutscenes. But this game is so good to play. I played over 46 hours right now And I wanna play so much more. Sometimes I play 12 hours a day. That's how addicting the game is.
Agreed. You play for 1 hour and it becomes 4 very, very quickly. It's that good. And as someone who always played MGS for the story, I've really had to try to change my spots here. It is definitely refreshing to play an MGS where I enjoy the game as much as the cut scenes though. Other than MGS3 (where I thought he nailed both the game and the story) I usually just struggled to get to the next piece of narrative, hoping it would be worth the effort.
Hahaha @ the explanation for Quiet's clothes. Yeah Kojima, I feel reallyyyyy ashamed.
The first time she bent over in the ACC I must admit I became quite vigorously ashamed for about 10 minutes and then had a shower.
That whole post is classical example of someone stretching to justify why something that is different from their preconceptions and expectations is "wrong".[/QUOTE]
Completely disagree, all of the points are bogus.
Welp, then allow me to defend myself here. And let me state that if your key point is 'his opinion is what it is because it differed from his expectation', then
a) You don't know what I was expecting, and
b) You could dismiss any opinion of a creative work that way.
But you did engage my points head on, so fair enough. I just didn't like that one line.
1. The management aspect and all the menu manipulation it entails is gameplay, its just gameplay of a different sort. Beyond the basic meta-game fun of building up your own private army
I didn't find that particularly fun. It's all just menu busy-work to me. You fulton guys (something I don't like about the base gameplay at all as it's too easy a way of dealing with bodies), then they're automatically placed where they need to be and you unlock weapons to purchase. Nothing about that is particularly fun, novel or interesting to me. It's just a little convoluted.
it allow the player to shape the action component in a myriad of ways. It allows you to strengthen yourself and to weaken the enemy selectively and independently.
It does let you do this to the enemy, and I mentioned that. That's pretty cool. But as for 'strengthening yourself selectively' almost every game does that with weapon selection and loadouts, which is all this amounts to when it comes to Snake, really. This one makes that process very convoluted (having to upgrade MB to unlock more slots, thus needing more men, and higher level men etc) and hides things behind annoying 18 minute timers and GMP / resource grinds. I don't see how that added anything. I would have preferred that if you pick up a weapon or blueprint in the field, that's it. There it is, available. Then you can 'selectively strengthen' however you want without having to micromanage resources. I'd like to be big boss in the field, not a regional logistics manager, thanks. Let's leave that to Kaz. What the fuck does he do, anyway? Again, this is just my opinion on how I felt while experiencing the game. I will admit that if the multiplayer thing is good then it might justify a lot of this.
The cited example is incorrect also, as supply drops occur in that mission automatically regardless of whether you call them or not. Not to mention that making time free from threat to dig into your iDroid is half the skill involved.
I know that the supplies are called automatically and should have said so. Point taken. However they were never delivered at my location or on time and therefore did not get the job done, leading to me recalling having to do it myself. The fact that half of the fight was making time to delve into a menu
was essentially my complaint - I thought that was weak design in a weak fight. I didn't enjoy playing it, and the menu issue was a part of it.
This is fundamentally fallacious as the actual hub of the game is the ACC, not mother base. Mother base is effectively another sort of "field" environment where missions and story events take place. "Why can't we just select a mission and go" is just another restatement of the "why have an open world" argument. Point being if you just jump to locations based off a rote menu, spatial relationships between points in the game world are redundant. Its convenient but flavourless.
You are right that the hub is the ACC, but
a) That's the point: why? Why not just go from Mother Base whenever you want and remove a layer of abstraction and time wasting? Why couldn't everything that happens on the ACC just be done from Mother Base, from where you then call a chopper? And
b) You are brought back to Mother Base automatically on countless occasions for cutscenes or what-have-you and then what I stated applies.
As for the 'flavour' point, I did not find the world itself particularly cohesive or real, and therefore that point doesn't stand for me. If I had, it certainly would be a good point, and I get what you mean about spatial relationships of locations in the game. That's a good point. It's just that the way the map was executed those relationships seemed artificial to me. They were very clearly 'levels' connected by roads, particularly in Afghanistan where you have so few options in getting from place to place due to the cliffs and ravines.
3. The game is formatted like episodes of TV show to accentuate the stand-alone nature of the combat scenarios they contain. The "surprise" aspect is kind of moot given each mission is intended to be replayed multiple times. Sub-objectives are in many cases mutually exclusive (i.e. eliminate vs extract target) or take place in geographically remote locations, there's a balancing "surprise" element in what those are in many cases. Ultimately though, there is benefit to knowing who/what you are facing up-front in terms of building anticipation of what you are going to encounter, not to mention allowing you to equip an appropriate loadout for what can be lengthy stretches in the field.
Ruining the first playthrough of a mission because it's 'designed to be played multiple times' is a terrible decision, not least because many people only play through a game once. There's no reason that an enjoyable first experience and good replayability should be exclusive. And there's no reason that spoiling the contents of the chapter increases replayability. Thus there's absolutely no reason for it, and the missions aren't detailed or long enough to make the credits seem warranted in the first place. As for the 'preparedness' reason, this might apply if you got to choose your loadout after the credits, but you don't. I think most people have agreed that this hindered rather than helped their enjoyment of the game, I feel the same.
There is plenty to be done, and fun to be had, from just exploring these expansive war-zones. The whole point of "open-world" construction is to provide a free-form sandbox wherein you set your own targets in order to amuse yourself.
Someone mentioned the bear earlier, so it's a good example here. In many open world games I would have stumbled upon the bear and been wrecked, and it would have been awesome. In this one, I very nearly did, but right before I did I got the message 'Side op accepted - hunt the legendary bear' and I was able to see it was prowling ahead of me. Rather than something just occurring I had simply stumbled into another mission. It's just not quite the same as 'making your own fun', not to me, and it makes it feel like the missions and side-ops could have been separated into levels without harming much of what I enjoyed about the game.
I do appreciate you taking the time to debate, though, and that you didn't try to defend the story, though, lol.