Don't waste your money mate!
-
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
Don't waste your money mate!
matrix-cat
Member
Why does this constantly come up in these threads? People complain about MGSV being mission-based, having wait timers and grinding and farming bullshit and so often the response is "Did you play Peace Walker?" Why does that matter?
Only if you are going for 100%. There is no grinding involved if you are playing it for the story. I was able to unlock lot of weapons just by playing normally.
People are complaining about extra optional stuffs now?. Side ops are not important, best soldiers are in main missions not on side ops.
Noisepurge
Member
Because Peace Walker was the previous Kojima Metalgear and the style he wanted to make these games in. Peace Walker was even originally being called MGS5: Peace Walker.
The gameplay style should not have come as a suprise after playing Peace Walker (and Portable Ops)
Roni
Gold Member
I have to disagree with you OP.
I think the game is amazing, it allows you to play the game exactely how you want. You can speak to 10 different people and they all would have completed the same mission in a different way.
It gives you an objective, it gives you the tools and says 'there you go - go do your thing'
and I think that's rare in todays games and they pulled it off fantastically.
I think the game is amazing, it allows you to play the game exactely how you want. You can speak to 10 different people and they all would have completed the same mission in a different way.
It gives you an objective, it gives you the tools and says 'there you go - go do your thing'
and I think that's rare in todays games and they pulled it off fantastically.
matrix-cat
Member
The question "Why is all this grinding and farming and repeating missions in my Metal Gear" is still perfectly valid, though, regardless of whether the player is familiar with Peace Walker. Doesn't matter whether it comes as a surprise, the question is whether a person finds it enjoyable or not. When I'm getting frustrated at having to wait an hour for a gun, or wait for my Fuel to be processed so I can start construction on another MB platform that I'll also have to wait for, knowing that Peace Walker was also a big grindy ordeal doesn't help. I didn't enjoy the grind in that game and I don't enjoy it in MGSV.
Someone can't point to faults in MGS V just because the handheld titles exist???Whether its a surprise or not has nothing to do with someone not liking what was done in V. Hell, because I played PO and Peacewalker and I knew this game was likely going to be a bad MGS game even while enjoying most gameplay elements of all 3 games.
Manny Calavera
Member
I kinda have to agree on many points. I do agree the game is well made and especially the stealth, but I just find it to hard to get interested of the plot or the characters. The open world is also surprisingly boring. I do admit I'm still quite early on, I've played maybe 1/3 or bit more, but it's been a while since I last played and find it hard to get interested of playing more.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I thought it was the pinnacle of stealth gameplay and felt very much like a Metal Gear Solid game to me but I guess I was wrong with that :/
black cobra
Member
you are not wrong. as disappointing as the story and its delivery may be, the gameplay is incredibly good and for me, one of the best gaming experiences i had in years.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
It's barely a MGS game. miss the story and crazyness of the other games.
I saw this when they were letting outlets show some early gameplay before the game was released and I called it out on youtube for that. Everyone jumped on me.
It was super easy to see it was a souped up peace walker and I sill haven't bought it.
I saw this when they were letting outlets show some early gameplay before the game was released and I called it out on youtube for that. Everyone jumped on me.
It was super easy to see it was a souped up peace walker and I sill haven't bought it.
Sora the Cat
Member
Na man, a lot of us feel that way. Don't let this kind of threads deceive you.
When the missions in a game become as tepid as the ones MGSV has with so many filler objectives that have incredibly little payoff in terms of goal or narrative then yes, it does feel like a chore to do many of the things in the game. Especially when the game destroys it's semblance of immersion with it's equipment development time which becomes incredibly frustrating during the "save the kids" side op, where chances are you end up having to grind to be able to develop the Fulton ugrade you'll only use once, and then wait another 20 minutes for the thing to develop.
That isn't enjoyable game design really.
I like this post.
Keihart
Member
Never said that the gameplay mechanics in TW3 are better than MGSV, i said that the quests are well designed with production value instead of just VR training lite, because that's what most of side ops are. I apriciate MGSV gameplay, i like VR missions, but MGSV in no way is a finished game with loads of quality content, it's an unfinished game with dull content and great mechanics.
It is specially dissapointing because MGS never lacked good mechanics(except the portable ones :/) so these great gameplay praises can be said of any previous entry.
Edit: Since we are at it, the best recruitment of soldiers moment was in portable ops with "calling to the night.." and the whole Jonathan story.
Give War A Chance
Member
I agree.
Peace Walker and MGSV are both "bad" Metal Gear Solid games. However, MGSV, on its own, is a fantastically fun, open world game.
It was a weird situation as I was playing through it because I was always disappointed that the story wasn't more front and center... but then I would play the missions and just be in love with the gameplay.
Bleh. I still don't know how I ultimately feel about it. I'd probably give it an A because, at the end of the day, I had a lot of fun playing it and that's what matters.
Peace Walker and MGSV are both "bad" Metal Gear Solid games. However, MGSV, on its own, is a fantastically fun, open world game.
It was a weird situation as I was playing through it because I was always disappointed that the story wasn't more front and center... but then I would play the missions and just be in love with the gameplay.
Bleh. I still don't know how I ultimately feel about it. I'd probably give it an A because, at the end of the day, I had a lot of fun playing it and that's what matters.
Lol... Sorry, but after recently playing MGS2 again, no. Haven't played MGS1 in a few years, but I remember being supremely frustrated with the controls in that one as well. I never once had any issue with any controls in MGSV... except maybe one of those rocket-launching vehicles.
Roni
Gold Member
My point is you probably do this with every game. Every games becomes a system which you aim to learn and then break by employing the most cost-effective strategy.
This works and is even welcome in linear games, but is absolutely not the point of sandbox games.
Keihart
Member
Yeah right, because all those mechanics weren't new at the time right?
Third person action games, with shooters and stealth games in particular owe a lot to MGS series mechanically.
TheBoss1
Member
I'm tired of seeing the same people bitching about the same thing over and over. You would swear the whole world feels like them if you didn't pay attention to who's repeating themselves in every thread. We get it. You didn't like it. Get over yourselves.
OP, MGSV is a lot different in mission structure so if you liked the old, linear gameplay but don't like change then you will not like the game. Also, cutscenes are there. They're just spread out because of the long gameplay sessions so it seems a lot more sparse, but there IS a similar amount of cutscenes compared to past MGS games. The problem is that the story is all over the place and lacks focus.
OP, MGSV is a lot different in mission structure so if you liked the old, linear gameplay but don't like change then you will not like the game. Also, cutscenes are there. They're just spread out because of the long gameplay sessions so it seems a lot more sparse, but there IS a similar amount of cutscenes compared to past MGS games. The problem is that the story is all over the place and lacks focus.
JumpCancel
Banned
Peace Walker IS a Metal Gear game. It has boss' (regardless of how you feel about the A.I's), it has charm, an attempt at a coherent story. Also a twist at the end that is hidden through gameplay, that doesn't randomly add itself un-introduced to your mission menu.
Yes the gameplay has its limits but remember it was designed as a portable title. The short mission structure tied with the mission select screen were meant to be approached whether you had 5 or 30 minutes to spare. When playing on a home console the enemy A.I is limited to compensate for only having the one analogue stick of the PSP. Tapes where used in the absence of codecs as it would have halted the pick up and play nature of the games design. They made sense and helped shame and support the colorful cast of characters. TPP uses them as exposition heavy info dumps, since they couldn't find a coherent way to do so through the "story"
All in all Peace Walker delivered on its original title as the true Metal Gear Solid 5 and to me remains as such.
Pilgrimzero
Member
I didn't finish PW due mainly to the boss fights. They weren't fun. Also, he surpisingly made the main game play even more linear.
Yeah really weird people won't let it go.
The whole 'bad mgs' thing seems to come from ppl who havent seen the whole series evolve. Kojima has redefined that with every game. MGS5 not being like 2&3 doesnt necesarily make it a bad mgs.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Same. I don't get it either. I love the gameplay, but its a really poor MGS game.
I loved the intro. Got me in the mood. Intense and we'll directed. The rest lacked that MGS touch.
Thing is, a game that knows how to design a very advantageous strategy is usually one that knows how to balance it out so it doesn't become a crutch for the player to lean on. Metal Gear Solid 3 for example did this really well; while you had the suppressed tranquilizer gun from MGS2, the actual suppressor had incredibly limited usage before it lost it's potency as a stealth weapon, and to that end you'd have to strategize when and where it best comes to usage, particularly so on Normal and higher difficulties. While granted, MGSV and it's way of granting you resources isn't as instant as MGS4 and it's trivialized Drebin system, all it does to make it less advantageous is add a wait timer for your resources to drop which only ever really feels like a disadvantage when you're in alert and more an annoyance when you're not detected.
And sure, you can make the case that MGSV is a sandbox, but honestly in contrast to Ground Zeroes I found that the open world did incredibly little to benefit the actual design aspect of infiltration because half of the time the only significant thing the sandbox does is having to travel to the key locations through barren landscapes before you find a small establishment. There's few times where there's any incentive to explore and find additional things to do. Ideally I feel like more thought should have gone into designing those establishments to be more memorable as I can only count the oil facility in Africa as a standout, memorable location. It feels like the game should have been designed into having multiple "Camp Omegas" that would have been more interesting to infiltrate instead, and alter each one of them in multiple ways circumstantially depending on each mission you go on. That's when the game makes the most of it's strengths and removes the unnecessary downtime.
Roni
Gold Member
You got a point.
If I stop and take a long hard look at the series, I'll have to admit every MGS since 2 has been disappointing to me for one reason or another: 2 had Raiden and an unfinished a plethora of unfinished plot lines, 3 had Big Boss and a setting in the 60's with seemingly no connection to the rest of the series (instead of Solid Snake kicking some ass in contemporary times) and 4 had Old Snake with much of the personality Solid had displayed in MGS and MGS2 gone, bad Codec conversations and great gameplay that had zero replayability due to the grind that it was to replay that game, let alone a particular cool scenario you liked. Peace Walker had bad graphics and limited gameplay options compared to 4.
But I came to appreciate all that, each game tries to pull in different directions and that's what makes me excited for every new MGS game. I never truly know what to expect. I do know it's going to be something new, though.
OK, two things...
MGSV is a sandbox experience, not way around that, and because of that even the most outrageous strategies must have a similar effectiveness to the good old silenced non-lethal sniper rifle. What if the player wants to know every single soldier using supply crates? Or knock them out using decoys? The game has to support that and reward that train of thought. Any strategy can be a crutch.
But EVEN THEN....
MGSV is also a prime example of how to introduce dynamic difficulty and keep the player having to change his strategies over time. Helmets, Shields, Riot Gear are some of the examples that either make it more challenging or outright impossible to employ Tranquilizer weapons in combat or stealth. Which is an example of how the game still attempts to make every conventional strategy more challenging as your play.
the_milkybar_kid
Member
I agree with the initial statement. But none of the points the OP raised. Been a big fan of the series since Solid on PSX. For years Kojima has nailed (for me at least) the story aspect, whilst the gameplay has always been a little clunky. Now he's nailed the gameplay, but the story is absolutely all over the place, and not in the least bit interesting.
I've played 80 odd hours and fairly nearing the end, but for the build up the game had up towards the first few missions in Africa, it's fallen completely on it's arse. If the decision to make Kiefer not talk much was a design choice, it's failed completely in my view. I find the game is brilliant to play, and I'm still looking forward to see how it ends up. But I can't explain just how disappointed with it I am. I realise it's not everyone's bag, but I actually like the extended dialogue (though 4 did take it a step too far). Every time I get to a cutscene, I rejoice. But every single time I'm let down by just how little interaction there is between Snake and everyone else. I gave it a bit of a pass to begin with because of the tapes. But if I'm being honest with myself, it's not nearly enough for a Metal Gear game.
I think they did a great job with making the game so open.Entering that base to retrieve Miller in the But I feel they struggled to tie the story into it. I've no idea why they even included Mother Base as a place to go either when there's absolutely noting (I don't include perving on Paz or Quiet as objectives).
I was quick to disregard any other title from Konami post MGSV. But if they one day turn round and say they're remaking Metal Gear 1 and 2 with Solid Snake in Outer Heaven with David Hayter, I'll be all over it.
My friends also a big MGS fan and he's also completely let down by the same reasons.
I've played 80 odd hours and fairly nearing the end, but for the build up the game had up towards the first few missions in Africa, it's fallen completely on it's arse. If the decision to make Kiefer not talk much was a design choice, it's failed completely in my view. I find the game is brilliant to play, and I'm still looking forward to see how it ends up. But I can't explain just how disappointed with it I am. I realise it's not everyone's bag, but I actually like the extended dialogue (though 4 did take it a step too far). Every time I get to a cutscene, I rejoice. But every single time I'm let down by just how little interaction there is between Snake and everyone else. I gave it a bit of a pass to begin with because of the tapes. But if I'm being honest with myself, it's not nearly enough for a Metal Gear game.
I think they did a great job with making the game so open.Entering that base to retrieve Miller in the But I feel they struggled to tie the story into it. I've no idea why they even included Mother Base as a place to go either when there's absolutely noting (I don't include perving on Paz or Quiet as objectives).
I was quick to disregard any other title from Konami post MGSV. But if they one day turn round and say they're remaking Metal Gear 1 and 2 with Solid Snake in Outer Heaven with David Hayter, I'll be all over it.
My friends also a big MGS fan and he's also completely let down by the same reasons.
I've said this before, but even though those are options, they're also mostly gimmicky ones that are only really fun to use once or twice but also relatively impractical. Dropping a crate onto a foe is only really a useful strategy over anything else during the Quiet boss battle, and like I said a few pages back, decoys are relatively inferior to using empty magazines because the former will put guards in a caution state while the latter doesn't. Incidentally while we're on the subject of those;
Seeing how I often mentioned the tranq gun in conjunction with empty clips early on, you can still employ the latter to misdirect armored guards and knock em out with a CQC if that matters. The main point here is the ability to bypass guards. The only time I elect to take guards out with anything I have is when they're an inconvenience or when I want to fulton them, which is still perfectly doable with the most basic load out.
I dunno, I feel like the best way to scale difficulty in MGSV is to only allow you to go into most missions with a limited load out based on what you choose from the start and then heavily restrict the things you're allowed to supply drop from then on. Limit the suppressors, limit the empty clips, make having to actually procure ammo and materials on field more integral. That's why out of all the rehashed missions later in the game, I enjoyed the Subsistence missions since it made things more challenging and made the most out of having to use what the environment can offer. I wish MGSV had more of that - more of you assessing the situation because you're relatively unequipped to handle the situation, as opposed to most of the best solutions otherwise being neatly handed to you from the start
O.DOGG
Member
I'm not disappointed with MGSV one bit. Aside from a few questionable design decisions it has the finest gameplay in the entire series. In fact it's the one MGS game I've played the most, currently sitting at 300+ hours. Sure, I consider MGS3 better because of its story but MGSV is a close second because of the gameplay which is exquisite.
I agree with the OP. I've progressed a similar amount, on mission 11 right now I think. There have been only a couple of "cool" parts that I'd expect from a Metal Gear game.
The game feels completely stretched thin. Why am I doing so many rescue/capture missions targeting some rando? That is super boring.
Remember Metal Gear Solid? You infiltrate a gigantic base and fight supernatural bosses every hour or so.
Like I said, I'm only 11 missions in, I feel like I'm still in a tutorial level, and I'm still hoping that it turns into a real MG game with interesting STUFF.
For reference:
Metal Gear Solid bosses,
Most MGSV bosses through mission 11,
The game feels completely stretched thin. Why am I doing so many rescue/capture missions targeting some rando? That is super boring.
Remember Metal Gear Solid? You infiltrate a gigantic base and fight supernatural bosses every hour or so.
Like I said, I'm only 11 missions in, I feel like I'm still in a tutorial level, and I'm still hoping that it turns into a real MG game with interesting STUFF.
For reference:
Metal Gear Solid bosses,
Most MGSV bosses through mission 11,
My opinion on this game is odd to me. MGS3 is my favourite game of all time and I wasn't overly fond of PW (had a good time with it though! But not GOAT-tier). I am also a huge fan of "experience" type of games, with stories and the adventure itself on the front. However, I think MGSV is absolutely stellar.
I feel like I am truly setting up and managing a huge operation and some missions are very, very memorable to me, due to how they played out. And the great part of this is that most encounters are due to your own playstyle. It really is my own experience. That is some fantastic gamedesign. I really feel like playing as a legend on the battlefield. And I like that there is some bizarre mg-style story looming over it and I also love the tapes.
Some problems are completely legit though. The game is a bit too grindy, the world could use some additional content in the empty spaces and there is the unfinished story (which I have yet to witness, mind you).
I feel like a modding community could make the game even better by cutting some mandatory missions, make a few tapes scripted inbetween (maybe with some simple codec-esque presentation on the idroid) and make requirements lower for storyprogression. And that would be without even altering the game's actual content.
That said, I can name a few clear problems for each MG and yet I love them all. I think it is blown out of proportion. Then again, MGS2 and 4 were also called the most terrible game ever on frequent basis.
I feel like I am truly setting up and managing a huge operation and some missions are very, very memorable to me, due to how they played out. And the great part of this is that most encounters are due to your own playstyle. It really is my own experience. That is some fantastic gamedesign. I really feel like playing as a legend on the battlefield. And I like that there is some bizarre mg-style story looming over it and I also love the tapes.
Some problems are completely legit though. The game is a bit too grindy, the world could use some additional content in the empty spaces and there is the unfinished story (which I have yet to witness, mind you).
I feel like a modding community could make the game even better by cutting some mandatory missions, make a few tapes scripted inbetween (maybe with some simple codec-esque presentation on the idroid) and make requirements lower for storyprogression. And that would be without even altering the game's actual content.
That said, I can name a few clear problems for each MG and yet I love them all. I think it is blown out of proportion. Then again, MGS2 and 4 were also called the most terrible game ever on frequent basis.
The strangest omissions are the lack of series staples, such as being captured and escaping, torture scene, vehicle chase, etc. I feel like the first one was planned but abandoned due to Konami, the second was arguably replaced by managing the MB crisis, but the chase scene is unusually absent despite being potentially more engaging than any of the previous games since we can now drive vehicles.
I can't help but feel a vast majority of development time went in to optimizing the engine and tweaking the gameplay. Konami pulls the plug on additional funding because they're abandoning the industry, so the last X months are spent stitching together simplistic missions and scattered cut scenes intended to be implemented in much different ways, while abandoning the completion of tons of other planned features like a fleshed out Mother Base and Animal Conservatory, Battle Gear, Mission 51, jungle landscape, an underground base connecting OKB-0 and the Power Station, and god knows what else.
Every mission should have the option of being Subsistence. That's some of the most engaging gameplay in the genre.
*sigh* Just give me MGS3 completely remade using the Fox Engine.
I can't help but feel a vast majority of development time went in to optimizing the engine and tweaking the gameplay. Konami pulls the plug on additional funding because they're abandoning the industry, so the last X months are spent stitching together simplistic missions and scattered cut scenes intended to be implemented in much different ways, while abandoning the completion of tons of other planned features like a fleshed out Mother Base and Animal Conservatory, Battle Gear, Mission 51, jungle landscape, an underground base connecting OKB-0 and the Power Station, and god knows what else.
Every mission should have the option of being Subsistence. That's some of the most engaging gameplay in the genre.
*sigh* Just give me MGS3 completely remade using the Fox Engine.
Zombegoast
Member
There are tons of different ways to get into bases but there is always that one path that allows you to get in without raising suspicion and never found a reason to go through any other area. It's not like there are weapons and items are hidden when going to Path B instead of path A.
MGSV is in no way more a sandbox game than MGS3 where destroying supplies and the HIND in Bolshaya Base will affect the outcome of the soldier's behavior, There are no multiply ways in Fighting Quiet like you did with The End in Mgs3 and there was no moment in MGSV where you can disguise yourself to blend in with the soldiers. It's just rinse and repeat in MGSV since Mission 1.
Fate/Cipher
Member
I couldn't agree more. My biggest disappointment with Metal Gear Solid V was that it never lived up to its "Peace Walker 2.0" moniker. The only thing I found to be reminiscent of Peace Walker was scrolling through the Mother Base staff menu from time to time, but beyond that, not so much. As much as a change-up as Peace Walker was from the traditional Metal Gear formula, it retained everything that makes Metal Gear, "Metal Gear." When I account for what fits the Metal Gear mold, I don't believe MGSV meets the standard set by the thirty year history of the brand. I find titles, even outside of the series' canon, such as Ghost Babel, Portable Ops, and Revengeance, to be more in alignment with the Metal Gear namesake than The Phantom Pain; noteworthy story, colorful cast of characters, distinct setting, unforgettable boss battles, and the list goes on. MGSV delivers some of these things, sure, but ultimately not to the extent that some of us had been hoping for after years and years of anticipation.
Roni
Gold Member
Again, your argument clearly paints that picture that you're a very efficiency-focused person.
Yes, but why not do it with different tools? Explore how they react... Again, you're only looking at efficiency.
Doing things based on efficiency is the stance I thing with things at work, not when I'm having fun playing a game. The fact that strategies and tools are gimmicky and really only fun to use once is entirely subjective to you.
It's fine not liking the game, but it's not garbage simply because it doesn't appeal to your style of play.
This baffles me. This is a clear example of how you can't seem to play the game the way you want to. Why not deploy with the most basic weapons and refrain from using them. You have the power to make every mission a subsistence mission, and yet you can't do it out of some sense that if the game allows you to play it on Easy, you should.
Play the game like you want to play it, not like it tells you to.
Lol this is so fucking true.
It sucks ass as a Metal Gear game honestly. I can't bring myself to play it anymore, and I only spend a few hours with it. The gameplay is fine, and there's lots of it but gameplay isn't be all end all. I think, I have only seen two cutscenes in the game and already gave up on it, and I have completed every other Metal Gear game.
I'm curious if we'll see more of Liquid and Solid Snake, as young boys. Can anyone spoiler and say yes or no, without actually spoiling anything? I just wanna know, so that I don't spend 80 hours and then I won't get to see Liquid and Solid develop.
Are there even any more bosses than
?
I'm curious if we'll see more of Liquid and Solid Snake, as young boys. Can anyone spoiler and say yes or no, without actually spoiling anything? I just wanna know, so that I don't spend 80 hours and then I won't get to see Liquid and Solid develop.
Are there even any more bosses than
The Man On Fire in the starts and Quiet
You seem to think that I didn't experiment with the options that were given to me, or that you assume the game told me the way to play. I did experiment, and I came to find that I always defaulted to the basic tools because those were the ones that were always the most effective.
There was no reason to ever deviate from that because eventually the game grew frustrating under it's monotony and specific objectives. I would experiment more if I ever felt like the game rewarded me more for doing so, but unfortunately it doesn't. There's plenty of ways the game could improve on that; it could reward you with context-specific actions, give bonuses, encourage the player to experiment by giving them a proper reason to do so. That's how game design works. If the game itself can't give me a good reason to care, then I don't see why I should care.
I'd appreciate if you assumed less about the way I play games just because you see something in this game that I clearly don't. There are plenty other games that are better designed and reward creativity much more than MGSV does, and I love those games.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
You say this a lot and I still love you more for it ever day.
Ugh, Chrono Cross is amazing. The opening of the opening was one of the first songs I ever learned on guitar.
This is not true at all. MGS 5 has bigger environment with much more complex level design. It has better AI that learns from your playstyle like wearing helmets, NVG, body armor etc. sometimes they even block path A with landmines. Along with that MGS 5 has buddy system. MGS 5 is bigger and better sandbox game than MGS 3 ever was. Even boss fights like Quiet and man on fire have multiple ways.
The game gives you all the tool, the player has to find a way to utilize them all
Canis lupus
Member
Well no because if you ever played a MGS game you'd know that what makes MGS, MGS are the 3 ingredients I described, if it lacked those it's only MGS in name.
It's like this the whole game unfortunately, but it actually gets worse towards the end.
TheKastorian
Member
Story-wise it definitely not as crazy as other entries and -yes- I still miss David Hayter.
But I haven't had this much fun in a open-world videogame in a long time.
But I haven't had this much fun in a open-world videogame in a long time.