Roni
Gold Member
Just to make it clear: there were 2 one-on-one duel Boss fights in MGSV.
-
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.
MGSV in my opinion is a bad metal gear solid game.
- Thread starter FATALITY
- Start date
Just to make it clear: there were 2 one-on-one duel Boss fights in MGSV.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
And I have observe that mostly NON Metal Gear Solid fans are the ones advocating for the game.
This is irrelevant in fact and the only thing that matters is what people think of the game itself, most people just identify as a long time MGS fan and then make their critiques because there seems to be some sort of internal dissonance caused by this game and the criticisms some of us have can only be put in the correct context if people understand what were your expectations for the game in the first place due to your own personal history with the franchise.
Quiet
the Man on Fire
I appreciate those, but I'm taking about the kind of character-based intimate duels Metal Gear Solid has had in the past. Ocelot, Olga, Solidus to an extent.
I really have not seen many posts that don't back up their opinions with a reasonable why they don't like the game. Not to my surprise either, most of the things people complain about are pretty much along the same lines. So something must be the problem, and not the fact that they are an MGS fan.
There is also a one on one
twice with Eli.
#1 defender
Member
Roni
Gold Member
People not liking the game is fine. And many don't because of those ridiculous expectations mostly brought about because very few people played Peace Walker.
The issue is that instead of declaring one simply doesn't like what was released, people make a point of validating themselves by pointing out that it's not that they didn't like the game, it's that the game is bad. Which it clearly isn't...
Yeah, actually I forgot about that. More like that would have been good.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
This is literally all the game has to offer, the actual set pieces and major events are so sparse and what little there is of the story is told terribly.
The game really only gives as much as you're willing to put into it, you have to constantly meet it half way which is very frustrating because you can never just kick back and enjoy the ride, you always have to be actively taking the wheel.
It's a bad MGS game by any metric, all the characters are down right dreadful and nothing really happens in the grand scheme of things.
That being said the gameplay and mechanics are still absolutely incredible, I just with the game gave you more interesting scenarios and more reasons to use the diverse tools to get your goals accomplished.
The fact that you can finish about 85% of the content the game has to offer with a silenced rifle, your tranq gun, the fulton balloons and the sneaking suit is really shit design.
Completely agree OP, MGSV is the first MGS game I haven't completed almost immediately after buying it (and I played through Peace Walker for Gods sake). It doesn't matter that it's the best playing one when the open world is so big, bland and boring. Then there's the FOB that makes me less and less likely to ever finish Act 2.
Tatsumi Oga
Banned
I agree with everything you said dude, except about the prologue. I absolutely Loved that part, it had suspense, an awesome atmosphere and it was just so damn awesome. As soon as I was thrown into that open world... the... I guess flow was completely gone and I just wasn't feeling it. I didn't give up though of course and I kept going on, trying so bad to truly like it and see what made it so OMFG special, but... that just never happened for me. In my book MGS doesn't need an open world structure, OR at least make that world interesting because I'm sorry but that world is just boring as can be.
I do want to finish it sometime though. I have a shitload of missions to go.
I do want to finish it sometime though. I have a shitload of missions to go.
Punished_Snake
Member
MGS V doesn't have the best story in the series, but it's the best MGS game. Deal with it haters.
Roni
Gold Member
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Absolutely.
Just because the game exists at the opposite end of the story/gameplay-balance spectrum to MGS4 doesn't make it bad, or even a bad Metal Gear.
Its just different, certainly to what some fans wanted, and sadly they just seem unable or unwilling to deal with it as its own thing.
I don't even think it has the best gameplay in the series. I found it to be a soulless open-world game that's missing the character and the charm of the previous games. The pacing is awful, way too much padding, repetitive mission structure... It's a bloated grind fest. And it lacks the memorable boss battles and easter eggs the series is known for.
For some reason everyone is all about open worlds these days. It's not always a good thing. I would've much preferred a linear, focused, tightly-designed experience that I could see myself playing again and again. MGS3 remains my favorite in every single way for these reasons.
For some reason everyone is all about open worlds these days. It's not always a good thing. I would've much preferred a linear, focused, tightly-designed experience that I could see myself playing again and again. MGS3 remains my favorite in every single way for these reasons.
I'm sure I would have loved the prologue had I not fucking seen it in pretty much its entirety pre-release, Kojima.
The whole time I'm just sitting there wondering when scenes would happen, not what would happen. None of that should have been shown.
brandonh83
Banned
Had more fun with the MGS2 demo. That to me is good level and game design.
I think I'd still put MGS3 ahead of MGS5 overall, but that's pretty much just because of the boss fight point going almost exclusively to MGS3. Otherwise, MGS5 gave me a lot of the same vibes that made MGS3 resonate so much with me: a willingness to break from tradition of its predecessors and giving you an incredible amount of freedom within your environment to go at it the way you would like to. MGS5 has the advantage of over a decade's worth of gameplay refinement to work with and to improve upon, and it's tough to think of a lot of games that play better than MGS5, let alone any game in its own series.
As for the story, whatever; it's fine if you're disappointed if it didn't offer up a resolution for everything, since it doesn't, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to ignore that one of the biggest problems that they've had with the Big Boss storyline is how unbelievably padded out it's been since MGS3's ending, and starting directly with Portable Ops, every game has gone out of its way to complicate such a simple yet effective motivation for why he became what he became with a litany of terrible retcons and robbing him of his agency with a never-ending parade of characters that exist only to introduce already-established concepts in the series for the sake of satiating a misguided need to fill out that aspect in a chronological manner. Introducing a bipedal mech because hey, Big Boss hasn't actually fought one yet, is a hell of a lot less interesting when you've already fought 20 of them or so in the previous titles.
As for the story, whatever; it's fine if you're disappointed if it didn't offer up a resolution for everything, since it doesn't, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to ignore that one of the biggest problems that they've had with the Big Boss storyline is how unbelievably padded out it's been since MGS3's ending, and starting directly with Portable Ops, every game has gone out of its way to complicate such a simple yet effective motivation for why he became what he became with a litany of terrible retcons and robbing him of his agency with a never-ending parade of characters that exist only to introduce already-established concepts in the series for the sake of satiating a misguided need to fill out that aspect in a chronological manner. Introducing a bipedal mech because hey, Big Boss hasn't actually fought one yet, is a hell of a lot less interesting when you've already fought 20 of them or so in the previous titles.
JumpCancel
Banned
That content is what made PW great. It humanized the characters and PW had a lot of fun with its cast. Different tone of course but was a great element of that game. Hamburgers where only ruined in that they used Codetalker as Kaz' foil. Should've been Snake.
Dick Justice
Banned
Good thing MGS3 didn't end up being open world. Shudder to imagine how much worse it would've ended up being.
The whole
Paz tapes, on how she falls in love with Motherbase
Moon_frogger
Member
Hahahaha. As a metal gear fan I have to give you props for this
Unknown One
Member
I don't think it does either. It has good mechanics, but gameplay isn't just mechanics. It's the complete package. The level design is not good and bland. The A.I is almost as dumb as MGS1 guards. You are as a player too powerful. You got so much tools at your disposal that nothing is a threat. If the enemies do see you, you can just run out of the area. The bosses are the worst in the series. I take all of this into account for gameplay.
I hit 88% on the game (with like 160 hours into it) when I decided to scrap my save and start over (currently 37% and in mission 30 - dunno how many hours but it's a LOT shorter then my first playthrough).
It's my favorite MGS game by far and I've been playing since MG1 on the NES (I own two copies of every single game).
I get the contrivances with the story and how incredibly devisive it is and yeah it's not really a true "open world game a la GTAV or RDR or Witcher 3" - but the gameplay is sublime and I fall into the minority that liked the story - so I get that I'm biased....but after the ridiculous exposition in MGS4 and how clusterphobic the Acts in that game felt Afganistan and Africa are a breath of fresh air.
TL;DR: I loved the game and it's my fave of the series but I get why people don't like it.
It's my favorite MGS game by far and I've been playing since MG1 on the NES (I own two copies of every single game).
I get the contrivances with the story and how incredibly devisive it is and yeah it's not really a true "open world game a la GTAV or RDR or Witcher 3" - but the gameplay is sublime and I fall into the minority that liked the story - so I get that I'm biased....but after the ridiculous exposition in MGS4 and how clusterphobic the Acts in that game felt Afganistan and Africa are a breath of fresh air.
TL;DR: I loved the game and it's my fave of the series but I get why people don't like it.
I really don't get this line of thinking. What makes it a 'bad Metal Gear' game, exactly? I agree it has the least important story in the series and the repetitive nature of some of the missions get tedious but I wouldn't call any of it bad. Those that go on and on about the story act like MG 1-4 is Dickens-esque. I'd rather play 5 over 2 and 4 any day of the week.
Absolutely agree
MvmntInGrn
Member
Best gameplay and best "level" design in the series. The large facilities/outposts are fantastic.
It did lose some of its cinematic flair and character drama with the move away from a more linear game, but I wouldn't trade what MGSV achieved for that either.
It did lose some of its cinematic flair and character drama with the move away from a more linear game, but I wouldn't trade what MGSV achieved for that either.
JumpCancel
Banned
TPP should have taken the que from GZ. I would have rather had 5-7 smaller well constructed areas designed like Camp Omega each with their own rules and structures. What we get in PP is 3 clusters of small, designed areas stitched together with a bland open landscape with little to do and only a handful of meaningful collectibles.
Tatsumi Oga
Banned
Yeah they did show some bits of it during that video game awards show a few years ago. But that was only a small part, wasn't it?
I agree.
Doesn't feel like a MG game. The game's absolutely stunning looking and the gameplay mechanics it strives for gel together perfectly. But it doesn't feel like the MG of the past.
The prologue was so out of this world it kind of turned me off. The gameplay moved so slow and by the end I knew this was a different MG than what I loved.
This started early cause I never got excited by any of the trailers. In the past MG trailers got me soooo pumped. But when I saw some of the torture scenes, snake with blood on his face, snake pouring ASHES on his face, etc. Like what? I remained excited at the prospect at seeing the finale of Big Boss's storyline.
After playing for a few hours I was tired of the game and decided to quit. Never done this with a MG game but I knew I wasn't going to enjoy the game. So I decided to just read up on the story since that's the primary reason I play MG.
Spoilers ahead...
Still looking forward to see what Konami does with MG.
Doesn't feel like a MG game. The game's absolutely stunning looking and the gameplay mechanics it strives for gel together perfectly. But it doesn't feel like the MG of the past.
The prologue was so out of this world it kind of turned me off. The gameplay moved so slow and by the end I knew this was a different MG than what I loved.
This started early cause I never got excited by any of the trailers. In the past MG trailers got me soooo pumped. But when I saw some of the torture scenes, snake with blood on his face, snake pouring ASHES on his face, etc. Like what? I remained excited at the prospect at seeing the finale of Big Boss's storyline.
After playing for a few hours I was tired of the game and decided to quit. Never done this with a MG game but I knew I wasn't going to enjoy the game. So I decided to just read up on the story since that's the primary reason I play MG.
Spoilers ahead...
I was so bummed. Another character switcharoo by Kojima. Why even do this? I get the whole anyone can be big boss angle but I feel like that theme had already been alluded to.
Still looking forward to see what Konami does with MG.
People always crap on Twilight Princess for having a world with nothing to do in it. I found MGS5's to be even emptier.
Roni
Gold Member
You sound like someone who enjoys challenge in their games, someone who finds value in a game that tests you SKILL. MGSV is on the opposite side of the spectrum: it tests your CREATIVITY. It needs to empower the player with tools that allow him to get the job done in a plethora of ways.
Malcolm9
Member
I'd agree if most of the facility buildings weren't closed off, there isn't enough large interior areas for me.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
I don't see how playing or not playing Peace Walker could hurt or not the expectations for MGS V. MGS V problems are their own and aren't carried over from PW. If anything there are some issues with PW that are more prevalent in MGS V but that doesn't mean that PW players didn't have different expectations than the fans that never bother to play PW because it was a handheld title.
I don't see mother base management to be a huge complain, or that fultoning stuff is silly or the times of developments are also silly or something left over because Konami wanted to micro transaction the game with that. Most of the complains I see are about the open world itself, how empty it feels, the repetitive nature of the side missions and the main missions (though the tasks for each mission provide enough incentive to tackle on each mission from a different perspective or perform different things in every mission for more variety), how the game seems to push for a more lethal approach rather than a stealth, the reasons of reflex mode existing, the FOB stuff, the lack of attachment to any of the side missions or even the main missions (sure I get some random soldier/gunsmith/translator/tank to increase the level of my base, but it has no impact with the story if I save it or not, specially later in game where you will most likely replace that person with some random soldier from some random outpost because he is S or S+) and particularly the story and how the game decided to present it (favoring showing information though tapes rather than cutscenes, which I found much more interesting than some of the cutscenes that did made the cut in the game) and the lack of boss battles.
Sure people seem to say "as a huge MGS fan I ..." but I would say that is mostly born into how different MGS V is compared to the rest of the series and seeing all the issues I think the game has (but not the serries as a hole) I can only see that phrase to establish some context into how and why they didn't like a lot of the changes the game made to the formula.
Moon_frogger
Member
I don't agree at all. Anybody complaining about this is grossly oversimplifying the mission objectives. That's like saying in past metal gears all there is to do is sneak around or kill people. Extraction, kidnapping, sabatoge etc is far more varied than what you largely do in previous metal gears which is 'reach the goal' or 'rescue the hostage' same criticism goes with the toys. You literally just described every other metal gear game minus the Fulton.
Totally bogus criticism.
TheAssist
Member
Its funny when some people state their opinion as fact. I'm sure thats how it works.
Anyway, i think MGS V is a very good game with some unnecessary flaws.
Some missions use the open word in a great way and people tend to forget that these would have not been possible the same way if the game was structured like GZ. Then again, in some missions you just run around for 2 minutes and nothing happens.
Better fast travel options would have been nice. Side ops should have been closer to one another.
Some say it was repetitive. I dont get that point since the game gives you literally dozens of options to tackle each mission and its incredible hard to design levels that give you this amount of freedom. If you chose to do it the most boring way every single time, thats your own fault.
Story is the main weak point considering its an MGS title. Probably would have been fine if it was any other game. Apart from the weirdness that would catch you off guard then.
Oh and the boss fights. Those actually really sucked. And mission 42 can go fuck itself.
In the end people are right when they say it didnt quite feel like a metal gear. But i wouldnt call it a disappointment. I got something different, yet I was very satisfied with what i got, a great gameplay experience.
Anyway, i think MGS V is a very good game with some unnecessary flaws.
Some missions use the open word in a great way and people tend to forget that these would have not been possible the same way if the game was structured like GZ. Then again, in some missions you just run around for 2 minutes and nothing happens.
Better fast travel options would have been nice. Side ops should have been closer to one another.
Some say it was repetitive. I dont get that point since the game gives you literally dozens of options to tackle each mission and its incredible hard to design levels that give you this amount of freedom. If you chose to do it the most boring way every single time, thats your own fault.
Story is the main weak point considering its an MGS title. Probably would have been fine if it was any other game. Apart from the weirdness that would catch you off guard then.
Oh and the boss fights. Those actually really sucked. And mission 42 can go fuck itself.
In the end people are right when they say it didnt quite feel like a metal gear. But i wouldnt call it a disappointment. I got something different, yet I was very satisfied with what i got, a great gameplay experience.
Seriously though, fuck mission 42
It was pretty much the whole thing. Incidentally, it got the point across way the hell faster than it does in the game, which winds up as one of the most brutal slogs I've seen for a AAA game's mandatory "you're an idiot, so here's a glacially paced tutorial where you do nothing notable so you can learn the controls" section.
It's a game that I think is going to be divisive for many people and generate discussion like this for years to come. It's one of the most frustrating and ultimately disappointing games for me in recent years because you can easily see this 10/10 masterpiece beneath the surface but it just doesn't make it. It falls short in too many areas.
It has amazing gameplay. If you say that it's not the best in the series than you're flat out wrong, objectively. Story, mission design, the open world itself are all pretty crap though. Outside of some great level design in the bigger bases the rest of the open world is completely empty and boring as shit. Even the soundtrack is well...I can't remember it at all? Aside from the 80s hits which were cute and a horribly misused Sins of the Father, I honestly can't even recall the soundtrack. That's a huge step back from past MGS games.
It has amazing gameplay. If you say that it's not the best in the series than you're flat out wrong, objectively. Story, mission design, the open world itself are all pretty crap though. Outside of some great level design in the bigger bases the rest of the open world is completely empty and boring as shit. Even the soundtrack is well...I can't remember it at all? Aside from the 80s hits which were cute and a horribly misused Sins of the Father, I honestly can't even recall the soundtrack. That's a huge step back from past MGS games.
Spinosaurus
Member
Are we just taking mechanics in a vacuum when we talk about the "gameplay" or are we also considering level design and mission variety?
Because the latter two are just as important, on top of the pacing and rewards.
Because the latter two are just as important, on top of the pacing and rewards.
Hope you like pachinko!