Come on, MGS3 is one of the best games ever, but as a stealth game it really can't compete in either depth or replay value with the original two Thiefs. If anything the MGS series introduced emergent gameplay to consoles, but the original Thief games remained supreme in that sense.
-
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 The Phantom Pain - One Year Later
- Thread starter Kindekuma
- Start date
Yet in my experience as an author and a storyteller, when you begin telling a story and don't complete it, it's unfinished.
In the case of MGSV, the unfinished story arcs mean the game is unfinished.
Whether the game was locked down earlier than it should have been and polished, polished, polished is meaningless. If the story, and hence the game, was not complete, you're only polishing a very shiny, unfinished game.
swearing-circle
Member
Many people regard it was a poor MGS while I thoroughly believe that it is an MGS game through and through.
The games have developed their systems as they have gone on in time. MGS3 was the first game to introduce any kind of menu management that continued way into 4, PW and 5.
However, I believe 5 does micro management much better than the previous entries of the game. The survival viewer in 3 was not a particularly great mechanic in my eyes as it forced you to constantly stop and go during gameplay. Furthermore, the whole camo system made the games far too easy in many regards. 3 is and always will be the easiest MGS game.
5 barely takes you out of the action in game. When you do need to use the Idroid it's not cumbersome (online connectivity aside). Calling in choppers and positioning Quiet is incredibly fast and intuitive (holding x, not going into their respective menus).
The gameplay is very much what I expect from a MGS game in both the core mechanics, which are now more refined than ever and the freedom to tackle missions how you want. The latter being blown up on a massive scale. The open world in this game absolutely serves a purpose and is the only reason why I can stand it. I tend to hate open worlds as they often feel aimless but MGSV gives me a lot to work with and gives you more reason to revisit a mission.
Side tasks sometimes require you to play a mission in a completely different way, travelling to the other ends of the map to accomplish tasks. Some missions can be completed within minutes once you know the layout/destination of targets. E.g. in Traitors Caravan, travelling straight to the aiport is the fastest way to complete the mission.
MGSV is the emergent gamplay of the series x100. Which is what always made MGS to me. Although 2 is my favourite for story/atmosphere/scenarios. 5 is definitely up there with 3 and 1. It's definitely a better game than MGS4 in my eyes played the worst, had the worst gameplay scenarios and the worst story in the franchise.
While 5 isn't great in the story telling department, I'd definitely take it's slightly more subtle approach to story telling than 4's OTT answer for everything. Also, we do see Big Boss become a "demon" as much as people want to complain we don't see him do anything bad.
The games have developed their systems as they have gone on in time. MGS3 was the first game to introduce any kind of menu management that continued way into 4, PW and 5.
However, I believe 5 does micro management much better than the previous entries of the game. The survival viewer in 3 was not a particularly great mechanic in my eyes as it forced you to constantly stop and go during gameplay. Furthermore, the whole camo system made the games far too easy in many regards. 3 is and always will be the easiest MGS game.
5 barely takes you out of the action in game. When you do need to use the Idroid it's not cumbersome (online connectivity aside). Calling in choppers and positioning Quiet is incredibly fast and intuitive (holding x, not going into their respective menus).
The gameplay is very much what I expect from a MGS game in both the core mechanics, which are now more refined than ever and the freedom to tackle missions how you want. The latter being blown up on a massive scale. The open world in this game absolutely serves a purpose and is the only reason why I can stand it. I tend to hate open worlds as they often feel aimless but MGSV gives me a lot to work with and gives you more reason to revisit a mission.
Side tasks sometimes require you to play a mission in a completely different way, travelling to the other ends of the map to accomplish tasks. Some missions can be completed within minutes once you know the layout/destination of targets. E.g. in Traitors Caravan, travelling straight to the aiport is the fastest way to complete the mission.
MGSV is the emergent gamplay of the series x100. Which is what always made MGS to me. Although 2 is my favourite for story/atmosphere/scenarios. 5 is definitely up there with 3 and 1. It's definitely a better game than MGS4 in my eyes played the worst, had the worst gameplay scenarios and the worst story in the franchise.
While 5 isn't great in the story telling department, I'd definitely take it's slightly more subtle approach to story telling than 4's OTT answer for everything. Also, we do see Big Boss become a "demon" as much as people want to complain we don't see him do anything bad.
GZ is a mini sandbox, a small portion of a game, designing an entire game like GZ would get way too repetitive. TPP had more objective types and they had to design a game around that. Back up back down, traitors caravan, where do the bees sleep missions are designed specifically with open area in mind , and these mission won't work really well on GZ like mission and yes, not every level is as tightly designed as GZ but they don't have to be, they are at least 2-3 bases that are as complex as GZ, OKB is 10x better than GZ.
These two statements don't work together.
And while it's fully debatable that classic "story telling" was never MGS's strong point, story did used to be the focus. And with TPP it simply wasn't there at all most of the time.
I've always enjoyed the gameplay, but it's never been the greatest in terms of intuitive control schemes for example.
TPP is the first MGS where the gameplay really took centre stage as an industry leading system. It's truly beautiful. Before that we've had some incredible gameplay moments and absurdly brilliant innovations (mostly forth wall breaking craziness and other weird Kojima genius), but there's a very good reason why people exploded about the incredible gameplay in GZ and TPP: it was simpy a massive jump forwards.
Put it simple, you were starting a different topic from what we were discussing. Let's put aside the totally subjective and kinda bullshit "not a good MGS game" statement for a minute. I was trying to prove to Liam how a sandbox design allows far more freedom than previous games. You chimed in to say it didn't make the game a good MGS game, that's fine. But it's not what the discussion was originally about. Get the drift?
Man, if they'd made, say, a dozen areas like GZ and linked them all in an overall DS style hub so the nentire thing emulated a much larger Shadow Moses or Big Shell, then kept the linear stoytelling, ditched the mmo filler nonsense, and kept the story focus on previous MGS games, BUT allowed the wonderful TPS enough room to breath with the 12 (or however many) GZ style sandbox areas...
That game could have been the greatest game ever.
It's the repetition, filler, grind, micromanagement, and lack of story/atmosphere that made this game a non-entity in the series.
Why are you debating the qualities of the sandbox design? This is part of the overal debate of "Is TPP a good game in retrospect".
Hence, my clarification of reasons why the quality of the sandbox design doesn't evelate the overall game is important, and required, in the overall debate.
The debate here isn't "Is TPP a better sandbox than previous MGS games", and while that was your micro-debate happening within the macro-debate, it still requires clarifications and further reasoning to give it meaningful value within the macro-debate.
That game could have been the greatest game ever.
It's the repetition, filler, grind, micromanagement, and lack of story/atmosphere that made this game a non-entity in the series.
The drift, my friend, has carried you away it seems...
Why are you debating the qualities of the sandbox design? This is part of the overal debate of "Is TPP a good game in retrospect".
Hence, my clarification of reasons why the quality of the sandbox design doesn't evelate the overall game is important, and required, in the overall debate.
The debate here isn't "Is TPP a better sandbox than previous MGS games", and while that was your micro-debate happening within the macro-debate, it still requires clarifications and further reasoning to give it meaningful value within the macro-debate.
sounds boring as fuck
swearing-circle
Member
That depends on whether you think MGS has had good story telling throughout the series. I've always believed that 4 and Peace Walker have had trash writing and that the magic was gone in 3. I consider 5 to better than both of those games in that regard.
5 actually still had a lot of story in comparison to previous games. Cutscenes, tapes, in game radio chatter still adds up to quite a lot in the grand scheme of things. MGSV still has about 5 hours of cutscenes which is in the same ballpark as 3. Maybe a little under.
4 had 8 hours of nonsense.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree though because I honestly didn't find 5 repetitive, I really liked the micromanagement compared to previous entries and I actually really like the story in how contained it is but how it also cements Big Boss as an ass. I also really enjoyed the atmosphere myself!
I will contest to the fact that the end game does become a grind if you continue to pursue the FOB mode but I never felt that grind until I finished the game. Most development items prior to patches only really took about 18 minutes to develop, which would usually finish by the time you finished a mission. I much prefer that to PW's system where you had to complete a set number of missions to finish the development of an item.
If Konami make another Metal Gear game moving forward I do believe that a smaller scale game would work better in their favour. Primarily because of their micro-transaction bullshit that they've infested the game with in later patches etc.
Keihart
Member
Chapter 1 is really great.....and that's it, it felt like just half a game, regardless of the amount of hours i poured in in the end, it was just like grinding in the first section of a really good RPG without ever getting anywhere. Like if this game was 3 disc and i was stuck playing the first disc forever.
Trailers were awesome but then the actual game plot was super flat, i'll never forget how hard i cringed at Skull Face and Snake silent jeep ride.
Trailers were awesome but then the actual game plot was super flat, i'll never forget how hard i cringed at Skull Face and Snake silent jeep ride.
The problem with V in terms of story is pacing. Filler, grind, repetition... too much crap in between the story elements, ruins the way it's delivered.
No it doesn't.
Sure, I get where you're going. Look, let's just start from the beginning. Liam claims that the sandbox design allows "slightly different ways" to tackle missions. I responded by saying it gives players much more freedom than the linear level design in previous MGS games. Liam continues denying it and somehow uses the Act 3 level of MGS4 of an example of previous games giving players as much freedom. Thing is, I was never discussing whether the sandbox makes the game a good MGS game.
Basically, is your clarification totally relevant with the thread as a whole? Yes. Is it relevant to what I was objectively trying to prove? In my eyes, no. I hope I explained why I found it "off topic" enough.
i want varied in my objectives like in TPP not just infiltrate base after base for like 30 hours
All you've really done is prove you don't understand how meaningful discussions happen.
What makes you think I didn't want the objectives in each area to be varied like in TPP?
Look, I don't usually debate subjective statements since it's completely up to the individual. What I was debating was an objective fact. So when you bring in subjective facts in an objective discussion, I find it irrelevant.
MisterCrow
Member
I had heard that months and months after release, Konami had fucked with the prices of things and the way the FOB stuff worked? In a way which made the game seemingly worse. Is that stuff true or did they fix it?
You make it sound like we played different TPPs.
If I have to infiltrate Nova Braga Airport one more time...
I provided the example to the question you asked, but it appears you wanted something else.
Look man, you articulate your points well but I'm really, really tired of discussing this game in general and why it disappointed me. Agree to disagree.
Your "objective debate" exists within the confines of this thread, which is a retrospect of TPP.
It needs clarification or it's actually off-topic itself.
I hope you can appreciate the irony here?
WrenchNinja
Member
It controlled okay. Didn't care for most of the missions though. I got sick of visiting the same two areas over and over again and having to wait for that stupid helicopter everytime you get to a drop off. Motherbase is just an irritation, just to add grinding and wait time to the game. Story and writing was pretty terrible, along with the lack of presentation. The game just feels like a gussied up Peacewalker and I don't particularly like Peacewalker.
I did think that the game modifying enemies and environments based off your playstyle was pretty neat though. So it had that going for it. But not enough to make the the gameplay that much more interesting, just mildly annoying.
I did think that the game modifying enemies and environments based off your playstyle was pretty neat though. So it had that going for it. But not enough to make the the gameplay that much more interesting, just mildly annoying.
swearing-circle
Member
This only really affects the end game. So if you want to carry on developing high level gear that's been introduced with patches then yes, you do need to delve a little. Although, if you save up your free MB weekly coins you don't have to although progress will be slower. All these items are primarily used in FOB but skilled players won't need them really.
Rexatality
Member
Sorry, but I refuse to believe that MGS3 is even better than the original Thief games
well you can start by playing it
Yes, I totally get what you mean. It's totally fair for you to state your opinions on the sandbox design. But when I read it, it seemed irrelevant to me. Perhaps it's just me. I rarely want to delve into my own opinions when I discuss objective matters. Let's just say we're viewing this from different angles.
and there are 25+ locatons
Yes. I'm viewing them in relevance to the overall thread, and you're not.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Story was/is complete, it ends with Cypher's death at the end of the first chapter.
Game is open-ended because of the "War without end" meta, and because it sits in an extended multi-game continuity that's been kludged together over the years meaning you have no excuse for knowing both what happens next or that there are going to be plot-holes all the way through this saga!
Sorry, but if you don't understand why MGSV is structurally complete and what Kojima was going for with this elliptical construct, I suggest you go back and re-examine the title. It'll possibly help your writing*.
EDIT*: Key point, it may be instructive even if you dislike/diagree with it. My point is that there is a method to what Kojima is doing structurally and editorially.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
I enjoyed the hell out of it. I still have a few things to finish up that I'll get back to one day. I put over 100+ hours into the game and was, admittedly, burned out with it by the end.
Regardless, I didn't play a game with better gameplay than MGS V last year and it is the only MGS game I've ever finished--story wise.
I'll go back and keep building FOBs and get my nuke set up at some point, but I still need some time apart from it.
Regardless, I didn't play a game with better gameplay than MGS V last year and it is the only MGS game I've ever finished--story wise.
I'll go back and keep building FOBs and get my nuke set up at some point, but I still need some time apart from it.
wild wild rice
Member
Quite possibly the most poorly structured game I've ever played. Which is a shame because the controls and general flexibility are pretty excellent. But since said controls are used in such an overlong and monotonous structure I can't agree with the "best gameplay ever comments."
Gameplay is much more than great controls. It's the sum total of great controls, great level design, variety in challenges, user friendliness, worthwhile use of time, etc. MGSV fails miserably in all these areas except controls.
Gameplay is much more than great controls. It's the sum total of great controls, great level design, variety in challenges, user friendliness, worthwhile use of time, etc. MGSV fails miserably in all these areas except controls.
Uh, yeah. I said this earlier. Did you not read that bit?
Here:
Basically, is your clarification totally relevant with the thread as a whole? Yes. Is it relevant to what I was objectively trying to prove? In my eyes, no.
Roni
Gold Member
Eh... Thief had more replay value than MGS3 and Chaos Theory controlled better than MGS3.
Truth being preached right here.
And the thing you were objectively trying to prove is part of the overall debate. So: yes.
You can't redefine the purpose of the thread because you don't like counter points, and you can't redefine how meaningful discussions work just because you want to put a full-top after your "objective" win.
Thief levels are bigger but core was way too simplistic, CQC and larger area in MGS3 added more replay value to me, Chaos controlled better because it core like thief is simplistic, it doesnt offer the same level of control like MGS3
JigglesBunny
Banned
Don't worry, Kojima had 7 years to finish it and he never got around to it either.
This is a first post worthy post.
Really loved the game. I don't really have much problems with the story either tbh. What most impressed me in first MGS was how the story was told and how much time was spent on it. And the plentiful codec discussions that teach me more about the characters and lore. I wasn't never really blown away with the actual story and writing. More like amused with all the wacky and dumb stuff as a contrast to the very serious tones. And this is still present in MGSV, "she breaths through her skin" hilarious. So while the story took a backseat in this title, I accepted it quite fast and just enjoyed playing the game. I didn't feel a great story was robbed from me, I never excepted that from Kojima. I appreciate him for different reasons.
My personal ranking would be MGS3, MGSV/MGS (difficult to choose between them), MGS4, MGS2.
My personal ranking would be MGS3, MGSV/MGS (difficult to choose between them), MGS4, MGS2.
agentofatlas
Member
Bro I've reading your posts here in the thread and just wanted to say all your posts are spot on about the sandbox aspect man.
As for the game itself, MGSV is great. The sandbox aspect really brought to the forefront the element I felt which really makes the MGS series shine above others. That's of course gameplay, messing with the ai/soldiers, completing objective differently, experimenting on possibilities.
Inferno313
Banned
It's a masterpiece, a flawed masterpiece, but a masterpiece nonetheless. Tied with MGS3 for my favorite entry in the series.
SolidChamp
Banned
This was another issue for me. Konami shifting all my resources to "online storage" was a real asinine move by them and fucked my ability to develop new gadgets and weapons.
Have they relaxed the FOB stuff with new updates? (Who am I kidding, this is Konami)
swearing-circle
Member
I think i'm going to have to disagree on a few points here. The game has great controls, sure. The level design is up for debate as it seems although, I think that it's great.
However, I feel that there's a ton of variety here. From infiltration, rescuing, assassinating, eavesdropping, tailing, extracting. That's not to mention specific levels which shift goals. The side tasks also add a huge amount of variety in how one approaches the levels in the game and capturing animals (which i'll admit sucks).
The game is incredibly user friendly though, the interface is fast and snappy and it's incredibly easy to call in support/set up quiet/ call in a chopper. It's one of the best UI menus i've ever used.
And as for time, the game is constantly rewarding you every second. Literally, for every second you are playing you are being rewarded with resources that are being constantly converted. You should check out superbunnyhop's video on 100%ing MGSV as it sheds some light on all the things that work and don't work but it highlights perfectly how "every action has consequences" and how time is rewarded. The video is super interesting regardless though so I recommend anyone check it out.
OléGunner;215614060 said:
FOB is optional for the most part. You can set your game to offline mode although that stupidly restricts you from your online resources but FOB when online is still barely an issue. You only really tend to get attacked if you do a lot of invasions yourself and if you have a good group of active friends then you can have them defend your base for you anyway. If you're inactive on the game for a certain amount of time then your base doesn't show up on the invasions list. So no need to worry about being away.
Konami has pushed microtransactions but they do give away quite a few a week. So you can save them and not spend a penny like I have. I have 3 FOB's just from using the daily login rewards. Konami have also started FOB events which rewards players with new blue-prints, camos, base camos, emblem parts etc.
Most recently, they've given us swimsuits to unlock. We also got a Riot pistol a while ago which is like a gas grenade pistol which is pretty neat. If you want to the OP gear though like the tranq pistol that knocks out anywhere it hits, then you'll have to grind for resources by doing FOB's. However, these tools aren't needed to infiltrate high level FOB's if you know what you're doing.
Thief allows for mantling and climbing all around the levels, not to mention the multiple speeds you can move at or the leaning. It took until MGSV for Kojima's series to allow a comparably fluid traversal of the levels. And that's simply talking about the core controls, as for the gameplay itself the number of tools at your disposal and the mechanics in use make the gameplay loop anything but simplistic. This is perfectly explained at length in dozens of the essays published at http://sneakybastards.net/blog/.
And let's also ignore the thousands of FMs, hundreds of them being truly superb, making the original Thiefs two of the most replayable games in history.
This isn't an argument you can win, mate. As I said, not that Snake Eater doesn't have enough merits making it one of the absolute best games in history.
swearing-circle
Member
While I don't disagree that Thief has more depth I just wanted to point out in MGS3 there are 3 speeds of movement and you can lean in both MGS2 and 3.
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
I just finished part 1 this past week. I really enjoyed it, but I don't think I'll be trying too hard to "finish" the remainder of the game or attempt to complete collecting things. I enjoyed my time with it otherwise.
Crazy Diamond
Member
In his last 7 years at Konami, he and his staff made Peace Walker, created the Fox Engine, worked on Metal Gear Solid Rising, released Ground Zeroes, developed PT in secret and released it as an indie title of sorts, began development on Silent Hills. Phantom Pain is hardly unfinished, nor did Kojima have 7 years to "finish" it. It's missing one mission and a gameplay mechanic (Battle Gear). Yes, it sucks that those were excluded. Their exclusion doesn't undermine the 3-4 years spent developing MGSV nor the hundreds of hours people spent seemingly enjoying their time with the game leading up to the game's end.
swearing-circle
Member
Just some tips to make life a bit easier. The repeat missions are not compulsory! They honestly should have been put in another tab because it's very misleading. To get the next mission to pop just do any yellow side ops and listen to any yellow tapes.
If the mission still hasn't popped, just do one or two side ops and you'll get another mission. Also, when you complete a side-op just quit to the ACC in the pause menu rather than call in the chopper. Saves time.
Also, see Chapter 2 as more of an epilogue and you should hopefully enjoy it a bit more.