Metal Gear replay schedule

[fgdj2000]

Yeah, we are going in circles here. :-)
But sorry, I can't let go just yet. Also, none of this is personal, right?

1. I did not deny that Snake in MPO looks exactly like he did in MGS3 and I agree on all you said. THere are discrepancies between Ashley Wood's artwork and Snakes polygon model. And yes, they used the same engine as MGS3 - more precisely, Metal Gear Online (from MGS3 Subsistence). The game originally started development as essentially a port of MGO 2005, with no story attached, but then they added a single player campaign in later on - with a story. That being said, I still think there is a difference between the MGS3-MPO situation and the MGS2 situation, since - unlike everything in MGS2 - MPO was a seperate release from MGS3, on a different system, with very different game mechanics. So, there is a difference, but what MPO definitely is, is a spin-off of MGS3. In that, I can agree with you, that it reuses the same accets and expands on the story of MGS3 a bit.

2. Kojima has personally stated that MPO happens before MG1 - once again, I don't deny that, but that was long ago, before MPW and MGSV and since then, his stance has clearly changed on that topic. The only time he mentioned MPO again recently, was that twitch interview and there he first admitted that it was partially canon (which is the part that is often quoted), before reverting that statement and instead saying, that he makes a clear distinction between the games he directed (MG1, MG2, MGS, MGS2, MGS3, MGS4, MPW, MGSV) and those he only produced (MPO, MGR). But we've been here before...

[Cerberus_0408]

Well then here's my issue. The problem I notice is that people really do only concentrate on the plot. No other factors seem to be used to make the judgement call. Hmm... if I wrote it like this, would it make more sense?

1. Metal Gear
2. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake
3. Metal Gear Solid
4. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty
5. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater & Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops
6. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots

Fact is, I’m not using any different logic than to say that Metal Gear Solid VR Missions is part of the cannon. It is clearly referenced and shown in MGS2 as something that Raiden goes through as his training. Thus, Metal Gear Solid VR Missions by all rights should be an actual plot installment in the series. As seen:

1. Metal Gear
2. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake
3. Metal Gear Solid
4. Metal Gear Solid VR Missions
5. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty
6. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater
7. Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops
8. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots

But it isn’t referenced as such. It’s something that falls under the general heading of Chapter 3: Metal Gear Solid. Same goes for MPO. It falls under the general heading of Chapter 5: Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater. How can it be considered a separate entity when it uses Snake Eater’s graphics and game engine? Not to mention that it was made spur of the moment with full intent to cash in on Snake’s Eater’s success.

You must remember that, while the title is not MGS3 Portable Ops, it is ALSO not MGS4 Portable Ops. And second, titling the game MGS3 Portable Ops would not be smart marketing cos people would think it was merely a port of Snake Eater onto the PSP. As such they would run into the same problem they did with Ghost Babel. If you recall, in US it was release as Metal Gear Solid, not Ghost Babel.

As for the marketing, it is vital. $$$ = More Metal Gear games. No $$$ = No more Metal Gear games. Ghost Babel's horrid marketing explained the game's terrible revenue. Calling the game MGS3 Portable Ops would be misleading to the consumer. Konami clearly learned their lesson after Ghost Babel. If you recall, Ghost Babel was largely based on Metal Gear Solid. It was created due to that game's success with many similarities. When releasing it in US, they took it one step further and even titled it the same.

Also, I'm sorry, but you are not correct. There is a GREAT deal of similarity when you compare the way Big Shell and Tanker connect to the way San Hieranymo and Tselinoyarsk connect. From Sokolov, to RAXA, to the Successor Project...It all links.

[A.G.]

OK, but seen by who? That's the part you don't get. For example, to me, MPO never happened. Not as a stand-alone chapter nor as part of MGS3. To me, it was MGS3 and then it was MG1. There was nothing in between that wasn't covered in Act 3 of MGS4. That's what it is to me. I don't care what Konami, Kojima, or the fan base say to to the contrary. Period.

So your argument is very much pointless. I haven't touched MPO in probably 6 or 7 years. And I'm not planning on doing so.

Let it go, man. Pick what you want to follow and enjoy. Don't waste your time fighting proxy arguments that will never change anyone's mind.

Plus, don't forget one other important point... Metal Gear is DEAD!

[Cerberus_0408]

Then what do YOU choose to follow and enjoy? Not just you, but anybody else who still reads this board.

Also I don't get how MGS is 'dead'. Didn't MGS5 come out?!

[A.G.]

My preference has never changed. It was always the same 6 games that I outlined on the site as a complete series. At first my justification was that it was canon because Kojima directed them. But after MPW was announced it changed to simply because it was my preference.

And in regards to MPO, I never liked that they brought back Sokolov, created a needless parallel between Big Boss/Gene and Snake/Liquid, and retconed the MG2 backstory of Gray Fox. Not to mention making Outer Heaven something that Gene came up with, including the funds and plans. The game had terrible gameplay and design, a useless plot, and awful controls. Production values were a record low since Snake's Revenge.

Metal Gear
Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake
Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty
Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater
Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots

That's it. For me that's the complete Metal Gear series. These are the games I look forward to replaying every year. It's unlikely that I would replay other games. The only exception is Ghost Babel. I liked the style and design. Plus it was its own thing and not some bullsh*t missing link.

[A.G.]

Jun 17, 2016 21:48:52 GMT -5 Cerberus_0408 said:

Also I don't get how MGS is 'dead'. Didn't MGS5 come out?!

And? It came out last September and has been rather quickly forgotten. The game was incomplete and can't compete with the top titles on the market.

[Cerberus_0408]

And in regards to MPO, I never liked that they brought back Sokolov, created a needless parallel between Big Boss/Gene and Snake/Liquid, and retconed the MG2 backstory of Gray Fox. Not to mention making Outer Heaven something that Gene came up with, including the funds and plans. The game had terrible gameplay and design, a useless plot, and awful controls. Production values were a record low since Snake's Revenge.

Then why did Wikipedia hold PO in such high regard?

"Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops received highly positive critical reception from critics, and is often viewed as one of the best games released for the PSP.[8] It was praised for its visuals, usage of Metal Gear elements and story, while criticism was directed at the game's control scheme."

"Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops received positive reviews. The game scored an average of 86.95% based on 43 reviews on GameRankings and an 87/100 based on 54 reviews on Metacritic.[54] IGN[12] and GameSpot[9] in particular both awarded the game 9 out of 10.

The game sold 230,321 copies after two weeks on sale in Japan."

And again, from the MGS wiki:

"Portable Ops received very positive reviews from critics. Metacritic gave the game a metascore of 87,[24] while GameRankings gave the game an average of 86.95% based on 60 reviews.[25] IGN gave Portable Ops a 9 out 10 saying "Portable Ops literally stretches the system to its limits, perhaps farther than any other game to date, making this title a must have for PSP owners."[9] GameSpot gave Portable Ops a 9 out of 10. They praised the game for its story, open-ended gameplay, multiplayer options, presentation, graphics, sound, music, speech, and replay value. They criticized the game for its lack of 3D cutscenes, full speech, blood effects and its complicated control scheme.[6] "

PO reviews:

GameRankings gave 86.95%[54]
1UP.com gave A[14]
Eurogamer gave 9/10[51]
Game Informer gave 9/10[53]
GamePro gave 4/5[49]
GameSpot gave 9/10[9]
GameSpy gave 5/5[50]
GameZone gave 9/10[52]
IGN gave 9/10[12

[A.G.]

Again, I don't understand why you are arguing here. I don't care what reviews MPO got. I don't care that you liked it. I didn't. So to me it will never be part of the series.

What is your obsession with trying to convince others to like what you like? I won't. No amount of research or quotes will change my mind about that game. If you like it, if you want to count it as part of the series, then go for it. But I won't. And there is nothing you can do about it.

[fgdj2000]

Reviews can be so misleading. Final Fantasy XIII received great reviews upon release, but years later everyone agrees on it being an utter failure and the lowpoint of the series. I am completely with A.G., jsut that I also include MGSPW (because I really liked that game for some reason) and MGSV (which despite its incompleteness had its heart in the right place, awesome gameplay and really touched me when it came to the fates of all the characters from MPW) and I have the added bonus of being backed by Kojima himself. Even if they add new MG games (which they probably won't as it looks right now) these games are still definitively Kojima's complete series from beginning to end. And, since you mentioned gameplay, you can see a clear evolution throughout the games and them becoming more open and giving the player more and more control over how missions play out. It's not perfect, but these eight games (MG1, MG2, MGS1, MGS2, MGS3, MGS4, MGSPW and MGSV) I will cherish and replay again and again - maybe not every year, but every few years, whenever I have nothing else to play or whenever I feel like it - you should choose what you like about the series. And cherish that. MPO was a spin-off based largely on MGS3, while Ghost Babel was a spin-off largely based on MGS1 for instance. So in that regard, you are right, but it doesn't matter now. Metal Gear is dead, because the creator is gone and his successors are only interested in gambling machines right now.

[Cerberus_0408]

It is just a pity that Kojima sacrifices good gameplay for deteriorating stories (like PW) or vice versa (PO). Personally I feel he should've improved on both as the series goes on. Instead of making even MORE retcons, plot holes etc. But I realise that in a series as convoluted as MGS, containing multiple conspiracies and numerous alternate/ expanded universes, sh*t like that will happen.

[A.G.]

Find what works for you and go with it. Everyone has their own preferences, nothing wrong with that.

[fgdj2000]

Jun 18, 2016 4:14:31 GMT -5 Cerberus_0408 said:

It is just a pity that Kojima sacrifices good gameplay for deteriorating stories (like PW) or vice versa (PO). Personally I feel he should've improved on both as the series goes on. Instead of making even MORE retcons, plot holes etc. But I realise that in a series as convoluted as MGS, containing multiple conspiracies and numerous alternate/ expanded universes, sh*t like that will happen.

That lies in the eye of the beholder. I don't think, MPW has a bad story; I actually think it's great. I also don't think that MPO has that great of a story.
On that last bit about plot holes in a series as complex and convoluted as Metal Gear we can at least agree.

[Cerberus_0408]

PW's story is good, don't get me wrong, but it happens not to fit in with the original trilogy (MG1 to MGS1). Essentially, it sends the story of the first 3 games down the storm drain. (At least to me anyway)

[A.G.]

Jun 18, 2016 8:47:18 GMT -5 Cerberus_0408 said:

PW's story is good, don't get me wrong, but it happens not to fit in with the original trilogy (MG1 to MGS1). Essentially, it sends the story of the first 3 games down the storm drain. (At least to me anyway)

MPO had the same issue. By bringing Sokolov back they ruined a good MGS3 moment. By intoducing the ICBMG they ruined the Metal Gear concept and showed US government involved in the project 30 years before the "top secret" Rex. Gray Fox backstory was ruined since suddenly the gene therapy project became repetitive. Not to mention it contradicts his story from MG2. The overall story was a waste of time. Instead of focusing on what matters to the overall series plot, formation of the Patriots and the Les Enfants Terrible Project, it gave us a useless story that added nothing of value. The important stuff was briefly touched on after the credits, and even then it was nothing that the credits timeline of MGS3 didn't already say.

Seriously, what does that game offer the overall series plot that either wasn't already revealed in the MGS3 timeline or wasn't a useless negative?

[Cerberus_0408]

MPO had the same issue. By bringing Sokolov back they ruined a good MGS3 moment. By intoducing the ICBMG they ruined the Metal Gear concept and showed US government involved in the project 30 years before the "top secret" Rex. Gray Fox backstory was ruined since suddenly the gene therapy project became repetitive. Not to mention it contradicts his story from MG2.

If you hold that logic, then MGS4 also contradicts MG2. Big Boss believes that war and conflict is a natural state that has an intrinsic value to it, whereas The Boss, Solid Snake (and any normal human being really) consider war as something that has to be done at best, but in the end only causes pain and waste of life. This is why Solid Snake was so bitter in MGS1 and MGS4, because he saw himself as just another worthless killer, whereas in MGS2 he had (briefly) found an ideal to live for: exposing (not destroying) Metal Gears (e.g. non-violently).

This explains Outer Heaven's formation in the first place, to propagate war, because BB thought of war itself as something "good". Then along came MGS4 with all that stuff about interpreting The Boss' will and Outer Heaven being the realisation of Big Boss' interpretation of her will. How do you end up twisting the clearly pacifistic ideals of The Boss into wanting to plunge the world into a constant state of war? The Answer is in MPW: Big Boss understood The Boss perfectly, but rejected her for it. He actually wanted to have a different world than The Boss and thought she was wrong and started to resent her for that... and only at the end of MGS4 did he realise the error in his ways and agrees that she was right all along to "let the world be".

So, see, dude, MG2 was there even earlier and MGS4 outright contradicted MG2. And then along came MPW and actually fixed it. So, the fact is, Peace Walker's ending actually ENHANCES the ending of MGS3 and MGS4.

Also, about MPO, I don't want to waste my time in any more pointless arguments, but let me just point out that according to the MGS wiki, "They stated that the game would feature an online mode and a single-player mode that continued the canon Metal Gear story, unlike the previous PSP Metal Gear games Metal Gear Acid and Metal Gear Acid 2" under this link:

metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Portable_Ops#Development

(As such, Konami considered the story canon)