220°

Guns of the Patriots or Phantom Pain? - Metal Gear Solid 4 vs. Metal Gear Solid V

"Before Hideo Kojima and Konami parted ways, the Metal Gear Solid series had a couple of mind-blowing final chapters so let's explore the gameplay and stories of each and see which snake comes out on top." - A.J. Maciejewski from Video Chums

Read Full Story >>
videochums.com
VideoChums1830d ago

If you want, you can vote for your favourite at the bottom of the article! 🎮😄

FallenAngel19841830d ago

MGS4 didn’t have enough sneaking levels against human enemies

naruga1830d ago (Edited 1830d ago )

MGS 4 was a superior game by large margin ...full of details and knowledge about the military world (tactics , equipment, represantation of equipment , causes/results of war , psychology etcetc) that no game has ever touch it to that level yet and it is also faithfull to original MGS formula in every way (characters , humor , sci fi plots, action etc) ......it s only con imo is its size that could have been bigger by 1-2 more Acts

DarXyde1829d ago (Edited 1829d ago )

I don't pretend to know much about the military, but I am quite well versed in psychology and The Phantom Pain's psychological themes were better portrayed in my opinion. The psyche meter in MGS4 was a great addition, but I don't think it portrayed PTSD of the B&B Unit quite as well. Their backstories didn't really seem to match up with their expressed triggers very well.

The Phantom Pain did a better job of addressing the psychological aspects phantom limb pain, trauma of lost identity and the acceptance and commitment aspect, self suggestion, compassion fatigue, and even the neuropathological implications of the shrapnel, however, even here, Kojima messed up because he didn't really get it entirely right with the neuro cognitive systems involved in localizing the brain injury. Even so, I think The Phantom Pain does better with psychology.

I also have to push back on explaining the causes of war. The Phantom Pain is more about what really happened with the mujahedeen in the 80s and inserts itself into actual events. Diamond Dogs as a private army did a lot of hired work to build their own presence, which is not uncommon. Nuclear disarmament and espionage of other international organizations is another big thing. The Phantom Pain also goes well beyond what a lot of other games do in terms of portrayal of the realities of war, though it misses the mark for palatability, specifically the nature of war crimes (e.g., attempted rape and recruitment of child soldiers; in the case of the latter, you can only knock them out, but not kill them). MGSV did some pretty profound things with its themes, honestly. The execution just fell short because the story elements were weaker.

I think MGS4 was a better fleshed out narrative, but I think you're selling the themes in The Phantom Pain short. MGSV had better gameplay and the themes were grand, but it didn't come together as well as MGS4.

naruga1829d ago (Edited 1829d ago )

@ DrXyde ...indeed all the things you say are mentioned in mGS V ....but in some way are not portrayed/ presented very well or not even at all....MGS4 managed to do better job to visualize (better interactivity) those things (psyche meter . stress meter, equipment/ weapons handling,future military hi tech , fiction + realistic military roles for every character etc etc ...if we sit to analyze MGS 4 tech and scientific details that Kojima included in the game we would need 2 pages of comments)..

.also dont forget that are video games that must be enjoyable to interact with ...so all that psychology "heavy" staff you mention could not be easily be implemented from one point and simultaneously the game to be pleasurable to play or accessible for casual audiences ......that balance of video game structure and fiction/scientific staff was imo better worked in MGS4

DarXyde1829d ago

naruga,
"but in some way are not portrayed/ presented very well or not even at all....MGS4 managed to do better job to visualize (better interactivity) those things"

These things, including overall health, are better represented in MGSV. Stress and psychological distress, in reality and MGSV, are invisible until or unless they are behavioral. It would be nice if we had some indication of our psychological state, but we don't, and MGSV represents this by omission. Other aspects of great portrayal for psychological well-being in MGSV include (but are not limited to) Reflex Mode demonstrating hypervigilance, healing slower when stressed (i.e., alert mode and combat), Quiet’s humming providing steadier aim, and Snake's tendency to experience traumatic hallucinations and bright lights.

"also dont forget that are video games that must be enjoyable to interact with ...so all that psychology "heavy" staff you mention could not be easily be implemented from one point and simultaneously the game to be pleasurable to play or accessible for casual audiences"

I didn't realize Metal Gear Solid was made for casual audiences... Do you believe that? The emphasis on narrative alone should tell you that jumping into the series uninformed takes away from the experience considerably. Here's the thing: MGSV is pretty fun to play as a game, but it is not perfect--it is, for one, barren. Gameplay could make titles more accessible, but that by no means suggests it is casual. MGS4 is fun as well and no one denies that, but it is less interactive than MGSV. Lastly, your point on things not being "easily implemented"...what? I don't recall Kojima being someone who strives for ease with things. He is something of a perfectionist. He approaches challenging things in creative ways. To this end, I believe he succeeds with MGSV.

"that balance of video game structure and fiction/scientific staff was imo better worked in MGS4"

Disagree on this point. As a -game-, I would say MGSV runs circles around MGS4. It is hard to dispute that MGSV's gameplay is an evolution or, dare I say, revolution, of its predecessors. I'll grant MGS4 some credit here in that Snake was old and less capable, so the immersion aspect here was fine. I will also agree that the science-fiction aspect was better. My goal is not to take away from MGS4--I thought it was great. I just don't believe it was the better game. Narrative was better, but I felt there was no comparison in terms of gameplay.

Mind you, these games are not meant to compete with each other; they have the same creator. It is, however, quite natural for it to outshine its predecessor in gameplay mechanics. Story did suffer, which is an egregious sin for a Metal Gear Solid title, but I think that was guaranteed to happen when Konami and Kojima fell out. MGSV was crippled, yet it was still the greater experience in terms of gameplay. That said, numerically, every Metal Gear Solid game has surpassed the gameplay of its predecessor. MGS was basic, MGS2 was a safe evolution of gameplay mechanics, MGS3 overhauled that system, MGS4 overhauled that, and MGSV overhauled it again, getting better each time. I think people tend to judge these games exclusively by their narratives because, despite MGS2 being a better game mechanically than MGS1 overall, people say MGS1 was a better game; I even have problems with that because MGS2 was incredibly underrated in terms of the story it told and the socially conscious message behind the events of the game. Honestly, I thought it was the most woke entry in the series. Snake Eater, I contend, is the gold standard of narrative and gameplay, but that's another conversation.

FallenAngel19841830d ago

I enjoyed Acts 1 & 2. But there should’ve been more like it. After that every other act plays differently and you can’t ignore that since it’s 3/5ths of the entire game

2pacalypsenow1830d ago

How you gonna forget Act 4, the best one!?

2pacalypsenow1830d ago

Well it was in the future where metal gears ruled the battlefield.

It wasn’t the 1980’s like MGS5.

FallenAngel19841830d ago

That doesn’t mean you couldn’t put in more human enemies.

Act 3 had them but the player is too busy trying to tail someone so it was a different experience.

Act 4 had only machines which was an interesting change of pace but could be cheesed with chaff

Act 5 only had one section as a stealth

I’ve replayed MGS4 as much as the next guy and have only one Trophy left to platinum the game, but it still would’ve been nice to have more human enemies. That’s why I spent countless hours in MGO’s TSNE

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1829d ago
2pacalypsenow1830d ago

Metal Gear Solid 4 is miles better than MGS5.

robtion1829d ago

You are correct. The only issue with MGS4 was the loading as it pushed the ps3 to the limit. Really surpised it hasn't got a ps4 release. Would be amazing.

Jsm89k1829d ago

It wouldn’t work on ps4, mgs4 utilitized the pressure sensitive controls of the ds3 which are non existent on the ds4. A shame cuz I was hoping to see mgo in glorious 4k60fraps

lociefer1829d ago (Edited 1829d ago )

Mgs4 every time, not only did it provide closure, unforgettable moments, and nanomachines, it was a graphical showcase and had very intersting mechanics ( camo-suit).

Mgs5 on the other hand was a piece of sh*t that never should have happened, not only did we not see big boss's demise into madness as was advertised, the twist was a fu*king kick in the nuts, and that code breaker character was one of the worst characters in video games history, F that game

Show all comments (44)
140°

Why is Steam Blocked in Vietnam? Government Shares Reason

Finally, the Vietnamese government has officially responded to Steam being blocked in the country.

Read Full Story >>
spieltimes.com
blacktiger10h ago

AMAZING! Thank You Gabe, stand for freedom of speech!!!!

PRIMORDUS10h ago

VPN to buy games, fuck that if it's allowed or not, or just use a VPN and torrent what you can.

Knightofelemia3h ago

If the game is crap then yes there will always be negative feedback it comes with the territory. It's called word of mouth or welcome to the internet. Where the truth about a game comes out really fast whether the game is good or crap. If you can't handle the criticism because of a game then why publish the game. Why should people who never criticized or even played the game be punished? Vietnam has some really screwed up laws block Steam because they don't answer us rule. And going on a witch hunt with Steam please. Where's the proof, where's the evidence of this witch hunt. Somebody is butt hurt and has a Vietnamese Karen leading the witch hunt.

250°

Take-Two CEO Doesn’t Think AI Will Reduce Employment or Dev Costs; “Stupidest Thing” He’s Heard

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.

lodossrage1d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

They already have AI trained to do coding.......

How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.

CS71d 14h ago

Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.

Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.

Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.

I actually agree with this concept.

Huey_My_D_Long1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.

Darkegg1d 14h ago

Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.

BlackOni1d 13h ago

AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.

- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.

Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.

Einhander19721d 10h ago (Edited 1d 10h ago )

CS7

In the ideal world yes.

In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.

Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.

Edit:

Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.

In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.

The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.

hombreacabado16h ago

that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.

Extermin8or3_14h ago

@Hue_My£D_Long

Yes but that is a choice then by massively increased productivity and this greater income and wealth and stagnating with similar levels of productivity and output and not creating much wealth. Usually the option that creates wealth prevails because a rising tide raises all ships.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 14h ago
Number1TailzFan1d 14h ago

You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time

1Victor1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI

senorfartcushion1d 13h ago (Edited 1d 13h ago )

He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.

porkChop1d 11h ago

Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.

neutralgamer199215h ago

There will be few companies who will go overboard and try to replace their employees with AI tech. The ones that will make the most money will be the ones that utilize ai, along with their employee talent, to make the best product possible

AI could handle some of the most time consuming processes. To expediate the development, so in return, costing the publisher's last money end time.

Extermin8or3_14h ago

Not reliably they haven't. Coding done by ai is generally abysmal for all but the most generic tasks.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 14h ago
jambola1d 16h ago

Ceo says stupid thing
Part 5837384

Zeref1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.

DarXyde19h ago

I think you mean candor, not intelligence.

If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.

I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.

romulus231d 15h ago

As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.

RNTody1d 14h ago

Hahaha yeah trust the CEO suit over the actual developers making the games. Good one.

Show all comments (37)
510°

Days Gone Director Says Bend's Project Costs Over $250M; Says PS Co-CEO Doesn't Want 2 Zombies Games

Days Gone director claims Sony has already poured in at least a $250M in Bend's project; says Days Gone sold more than Death Stranding.

shinoff21833d ago

Well that sucks. Seems they want more online trash. I'd rather of had the sequel if it was single player

MrNinosan2d ago

What online trash games did PS Studios release last 10 years?

Notellin2d ago

The past has nothing to do with the future. This is such a terrible argument. Everyone knows about their current live service push.

_SilverHawk_2d ago

It's so tragic what happened to days gone. It is such an amazing game but bandwagoners trashed it and it underperformed in it's launch year. Days gone is the best open world zombie game released in the past five years. I was recently playing it on pc and I'm still amazed by it.

Games are very expensive to make and it seems like it's normal for a AAA game to cost over a quarter billion to make so if a quality game like days gone greatly underperforms then people shouldn't be upset when they see a lot of GAAS. I still remember a lot of bandwagoners calling days gone trash but years later it's now amazing when it's considered a failure by sony.

If a game isn't the best thing seen since hats with pockets then a lot of gamers who haven't played it automatically calls it rubbish and whoever made it should be incarcerated

Cacabunga2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Co CEO prefers gamers to boycott.. so be it. I’ll never buy a gaas.
Just imagine buying a game you cannot replay in some years.. this shit must stop.

Days Gone did zombies in a very original way. The story was also so engaging. You actually only meet Zombie hordes later in the game. There are many more enemy groups to deal with.

MrNinosan2d ago

@Notelin
I am one of the few who bought Days Gone on release day and loved it completely.
However, "more online trash" is phrased like Sony has put out alot of trash online games.
We got what, 2 games? Helldivers 2 and GT7, 2 of the most sold Playstation games where both is loved by millions.

You, me and especially shinoff has no idea if Fairgames, Marathon and Concord will be trash.

Just because we (as in you and me) don't love or support online games, doesn't mean millions of other do.

And we don't know what Bend Studio is working with? We don't know if they're forced to make a online game or another amazing single player experience.

The only thing we do know is that it's not Days Gone, sadly due to poor sales the first 6 months.

shinoff21832d ago (Edited 2d ago )

More online trash wasmt meant how insee it comes across. I should've worded it different I was meaning the focus they currently have on it.

Anything online is online trash to me. How long did naughty dog spend on that dumba last of us multiplayer, how about Concord, or even the other couple we hear about. I fk with Sony because rpgs and their 1st party single player games. Been like that for years. I hate seeing them waste time, money, and talent on trash. I understand bot every game is gonna be for me but this focus they've seem to had on multiplayer is extremely disheartening. Even at the state of play the only things I was really feeling were Astrobot and silent hill 2 and I'm content with that, not everything is for me. It's just the online focus I hate. Ms bought up 3 to 4 wrpgs developers, Sony just ignores rpgs 1st party wise.

And a days gone 2 would've been much better then whatever online sht bend is working on. I do know sometimes I get very idk emotional. I do need to work on toning that down a bit lol

SimpleDad2d ago

Ammm let's see... That All-stars, Foamstars, Babilon 5 wass gaas...
Concord... can wait to play that...Marathon uuuu... Last of them gaas... U
Horizon Zero dawn has a project that leaked as a Fortnite lookalike.

They bought Destiny that is a dead gaas...people love ti.

Helldivers 2 was luck.

Jimbo was all in and pushed Sony single player games 5 years behind.

Spiderman gaas was cancelled... I mean every 1st party studio was doing gaas.

Bend had to pitch a gaas game... Open world coop something

I can't remember more... Of that crap.

tay87012d ago

@simpledad. Destiny 2 isn't a dead game. Its the number 5 most played game on steam. I dont play it, but alot of people do.

MrNinosan1d 21h ago

@SimpleDad
You failed to mention a single PS Studios game that has been released last 10 years.
Either your reading skills are crap or you think Sony own every studio in the world.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1d 21h ago
just_looken1d 21h ago

I rolled my eyes at concord not only was it just yet another cookie cutter hero shooter but that qucik look for the hero select.

Already has a free section then paid section along with a they/them she/her dei crap top right.

Nothing like a day off of work to fire up concord to read about the new characters sexual identity and or preference then a paywall do you want o buy this character shit like no i just want to shoot my gun have fun.

-Foxtrot3d ago

It would be a shame if it was true that Hermen never gave the franchise a chance simply because he didn't like it and they already had a "Zombie" game with TLOU.

NaughtyDog are most likely moving onto a new IP next so it would have been the perfect time to do it.

ThinkThink3d ago

Here's where xbox steps in and releases state of decay 3 day and date on ps5.

shinoff21832d ago

I mean it's not out of the realm of possibility at this point.

Grilla2d ago

Days gone 2 was canceled before Herman was in charge. That happened like 4 years ago.

vfl5232d ago

4 years ago he was head of Playstation Studios. He would've probably had a hand in the cancelation.

Notellin2d ago

Man two seconds of research could have saved you from this comment. Amazing work Grilla you fit in with the uniformed N4G community who speaks before verifying anything that they say.

Redemption-642d ago

Maybe encourage people to buy the game at full price and not when it's heavily discounted or go on plus. If this game had sold well when it was full priced a sequel would have been in the works. They made a single-player game that most people didn't support until they dropped the price.

Cacabunga2d ago

The guy’s just a moron.. he should have stayed within game development. His choices will have a terrible impact on the brand in the long run.

tay87012d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Dude is pretty pathetic. Sounds like a guy who's girl left him for someone better. Always talking about days gone sequel that never was, even though he is no longer at bend and hasnt been for a while. I for one am not upset about the lack of a sequel. It is one of the worst 1st party games in recent memory. Completely jank, played like an xbox game. The only redeeming quality was the hordes.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
excaliburps2d ago

Yep. Kind of weird since it wasn't a sales flop, no?

I know we have to take what Ross says with a grain of salt since we're hearing just one side of the story, but even so, the game wasn't bad at all. Heck, it's my brother's favorite last-gen game from what I recall.

The amount of zombies on screen, imagine that with the PS5 and SSD? That would be insanely fun!

Grilla2d ago

Most copies were sold on sale. Not enough ppl bought it at full price. I paid 20$ for it 6 -7 months after release.

Notellin2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Yeah we should never believe the creators side until we hear the corporate/big business side as history has shown we should always believe billion dollar corporations.

What a bootlicker statement.

derek2d ago

@Notellin, of course you'll believe an embittered ex-employee with an axe to grind because it's evil Sony he's complaining about. You guys act like days gone was this huge success and somehow Sony hates easy money a sequel would have generated. The game was mid and so was the response to it. They're still supporting the developer who is making a new ip that could be great.

shinoff21832d ago

Days gone was fantastic. I bought day one but didn't get around to it for months. When I finally did I was pissed at myself for waiting so long lol

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
P_Bomb2d ago

Well I don’t want 10 live service games, but they have no problem doing that lol. Ugh.

CrimsonWing692d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Oh great so we only get what the big wigs want… y’know, the people that really have their fingers on the pulse of what their consumers want. Faaaaantastic!

rippermcrip2d ago

Well consider they know the sales... they do know what the consumer wants.

It sold shit.

-Foxtrot2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

But if it’s true what this guy says it sold better than Death Stranding

Yet that got a sequel and Kojima aside out of them both DS didn’t really NEED a sequel compared to Days Gone which ended on such a cliff hanger twist.

Show all comments (75)