Metal Gear 30th Anniversary

[fgdj2000]

I for one am glad, that Kojima kept things fresh and was brave to change the series' formula, rather than shoving uninspired sequel after uninspired sequel in our faces.
I tend to conpare Metal Gear a lot to another series that used to be one of my favorites: Assassin's Creed.
But where AC gradually lost any personality and originality and became a lifeless product, MGS kept its identity and even when it failed, it still had its personality. And the more I replay TPP, the more my expectations change, the more I like the game and its radically different approach to storytelling. It actually reminds me quite a lot of Dark Souls. Minimal storytelling and you gradually discover the story for yourself rather than being shoved from highlight to highlight. You never quite know what's gonna happen next, whether the next mission is just a regular mission or a major story development. But that kind of storytelling isn't for everyone. Amd I really dind the gameplay engaging. I also feel while other MGS games are made for binge-playing (e.g. finishing the game in a couple of days), mgsv is more a game that wants you to take its time with it.

[A.G.]

I also feel while other MGS games are made for binge-playing (e.g. finishing the game in a couple of days), mgsv is more a game that wants you to take its time with it.

Agree with the first part. And that has to do with the excitement of good storytelling where you want to know what happens next and can't step away. You know your mind will be blow and you will have so much to take in and think about. MGS5 isn't really the case where you want to take your time, you have no choice. The bits of boring info sprinkled through chapter after chapter of uneventful gameplay in a lifeless sandbox makes it fairly easy to put the controller down.

I personally think that changes to the formula are good, but they need to be logical. If you want a radical change, then make a new IP. I see nothing brave with what they did after MGS4. If you can't make these game consistent then the bold move isn't to keep slapping the Metal Gear name on everything. It's creating a new IP and growing it. MGS3 was a great example of a formula change that still felt the same while bringing in so much new. As I said, MGS4 started to mess with things but it still felt like it's part of the same series. And hey, a reunion special is always a little different. 😉

[fgdj2000]

Well, I think the reason why MGSV was maybe a bit boring has more to do with the trailers than the actual game. They gave so much away. I watched and re-watched them a lot and also watched a couple of analyses, some of which turned out to be pretty accurate. Because of those, the parasites weren't really a surprise anymore. That Skull Face would be killed of rather mutely also was kind of expected given the subject matter of revenge leading to nothing good and ultimately leaving you hollow. I don't how much this applies to you, but these expectations and pre-knowledge colored my first playthrough and kind of tainted the whole experience for me. On my second playthrough, knowing what to expect and also knowing the final twist so many things have new meaning. Even something as little as those "Big Boss is watching You!" signs at Motherbase.

I'd just like to touch on a couple of things:
I agree with you that it would have been better for the game to be a new IP. It is tonally very diffirent from the other games and clearly Kojima wanted to do something very different with this game. Much darker and much more subdued and personal. Having new characters would have been much more interesting. However, since the game was so deeply embedded in the middle of the series, there were so many expectations to the characters to the story, to things like the level of technology even. As such the game didn't really have the breathing room it needed and that's just sad. Personally, I believe Kojima has wanted to work on a new IP for years, but was forced to work on more Metal Gear games. Given how Konami seems to treat its employees and how they kicked out Kojima and how Kojima constantly talked about not doing another Metal Gear and how "Project Ogre" was intended to be different, about family (which is pretty much not in TPP), there is a lot still in the shadows. But that's me rambling on. In short: yes, it would have benefited the game, if it was a new IP.

Another thing is the barren open world. It actually grows on me. It really plays into the dark and bleak tone of the story and in a way runs home a point about how bleak war really is (whether it really was intentional or not, but it's Kojima we're talking about, so at least some thought went into it). The fact that there are no civilians left and everything is just occupied by soldiers, just shows how destructive war is. Especially in Afghanistan, where you constantly see ruins of what used to be a highly developed culture. Also, I think I prefer the barren wasteland with atmosphere and a focus on enemy base infiltration to a clusterf*ck of a map filled to the brim with meaningless side-missions (even though TPP does admittedly has a share of these, though they usually factor into your army-building) and poorly scripted NPCs. Few developers actually do get these kinds of open worlds right (Rockstar, CD Projekt RED), but most of them feel like lifeless environments filled with useless tasks (Ubisoft). Personally, I'm tired of these kinds of Open Worlds at this point and whenever I'm excited for a new game and they show of the map filled to the brim with icons and tons of HUD messages screaming at you that there is something happening 2m away from you, I instantly lose interest, so I'm happy that TPP only constantly screams stuff at me that's happening off-screen (Motherbase stuff) or that is actually useful (weather updates, enemy detected, etc.).

Also, for me, it really didn't the Metal Gear formula too far when it comes to gameplay. It's really just on a much grander scale. Only the boss battles are pretty much missing. Quiet, Eli and Sahelanthropus and a couple of Skulls encounters that are more comparable to the FROGS encounters in MGS4 than actual bosses. But everyone feels different there.

[A.G.]

I personally don't care about the open world concept. I'm not against it, but i refuse to accept it if detail has to be sacrificed it for it. Look at the jungle maps in MGS3. I'll take those small yet full of life maps over ANYTHING that was offered in MGS5.

[Cerberus_0408]

Considering how MG2 was a sequel to MG1, MGS1 was a sequel to MG2 and MGS2 was a sequel to MGS1, I actually have to give Kojima the credit where it's due in MGS3 in that even though it's a prequel, it actually does A LOT of stuff that wasn't tried previously. Like it was mentioned above, the jungle was one of them. But even the survival menu also added LOADS into the game which was never seen in the games prior.

[fgdj2000]

@cerberus: Exactly. I like that Kojima tried new things with each game, instead of using the same formula over and over. Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Far Cry, Tomb Raider (Core Design, Crystal Dynamics and Reboot Eras), Just Cause, even GTA to some degree, they all make only minor changes to a formula and maybe overhaul it after several games. The result is a series of games that overall feel very similar. Not that those are bad game series, but I can do nothing but respect any developer who, rather than going the easy route and just replicate past successes, would change things up considerably at the risk of falling flat on the face.

a .G.: For that reason, I can deal with the lack of detail in some areas. True, the environments don't seem as painstakingly hand-crafted as the ones in Snake Eater and that's a loss. Even the base in Ground Zeroes seems more detailed, but I'd argue that many of the locations and bases in the main game are just as detailed and as memorable as GZ and some of the other games, like that beduin encampment in Mission 6 or the airport or the base where you have to get Huey. That level in particular was mind boggling to me on my second playthrough, because I stumbled across a hidden route through some ruins that game me a lot of cover, that I completely missed the first time. To me, the game makes up the lack of detail in level design with some of the best gameplay I have seen in any stealth game, possibly even some of the best in any game period. But I get what you mean. I felt the same with Assassin's Creed. It has some beautiful environments, that ultimately lack detail and consist of copy-and-pasted elements if you look closely. It also has only mediocre gameplay to boot. Early games still had an engaging story that held my interest, but after Ezio, the games became a snooze-fest and became very tedious.

[fgdj2000]

So, Metal Gear 30th anniversary came and went with a whimper. Can we expect any more from the 20th anniversary of Metal Gear Solid? Oh, yes, some new MGS that is - quite literally - undead!

[A.G.]

Yeah, the series is certainly dead. But I got my PS3 so I’m fine with the Legacy Collection. My only regret is that I don’t get the MGS4 remaster. After seeing what that did for Uncharted 1 and 2 I’m very curious!

[Cerberus_0408]

Jan 5, 2018 6:42:12 GMT -5 fgdj2000 said:

So, Metal Gear 30th anniversary came and went with a whimper. Can we expect any more from the 20th anniversary of Metal Gear Solid? Oh, yes, some new MGS that is - quite literally - undead!

I kinda agree with the release of Survive...