OnlySP: A major issue I’ve seen over the past few years with the gaming industry is blind hype. What do you mean by blind hype, you ask? Well, read on and I’ll explain.
The Metal Gear series, led by Kojima, pioneered the stealth genre, creating a masterclass in storytelling and gameplay.
No. But MGS5: Ground Zeroes might actually be one of the greatest Game Demo ever, if not the best.
I know a lot of people didn't, but I actually liked that story twist at the end. The game was fun and all, but I wouldn't call it a timeless classic.
Metal Gear legend stopped with number 4.
MGS5 needed a year or 2 more of development to be maybe among the classics.. it was clearly rushed, especially at the end. The story teaches us absolutely nothing new.
A demo is free that was a $40 cry for help as later we would know konami did not want to fun hideo and his team anymore that is why we got the unfinished phantom pain.
Meh
Great stealth gameplay but the game was just average.
Bland open world that felt lifeless, the story felt shoehorned in, unfinished story etc. The whole thing was just average to me compared to the other main titled games.
I would have rather preferred it if they kept Ground Zeroes for the main game as the opening and the rest of the game turns into a Metal Gear 1 & 2 remake to bring things full circle.
If you dig around they had old behind trhe scenes of phantom pain vids and books wrote around the time.
Before funding was puled the main idea was to keep peace walker coop it was in the games early builds and that end game were your building your base that was suppose to be metal gear one.
You as the fake big boss was going to make your own metal gear one map aka your base (outer heaven) then me as sold snake use the mode that is in the game invade/defeat the base even fight your current version of metal gear that was in the game but not finished.
So your idea was on the table bit got canned.
Like hell it is. That was the first time I became aware of being sold an unfinished game and was blown away about blind fanboys saying it was some perfect game.
Yea, the first few chapters were great until they do that thing halfway and make you replay all the missions again. Then little things like capturing animals but only seeing a JPEG unlike 3 where everything was modeled out. Areas were massive, desolate, and boring to look at.
Game was a massive let down for me and the potential was so high for it. Honestly, this was one of the most disappointing games I ever played. What’s worse is it starts off brilliant. You literally play through until you get to the point where you could tell they just stopped developing and then quickly used glue and construction paper to “finish” it and then sold it. Quite frankly, that’s insulting to consumers and fans.
People have selective memory. This game had huge drama attached to it, what Konami did to Kojima and this game was horrible. Now they praise Konami cause they revived Silent Hill, even though SH looks half arsed too.
I dunno if they’re getting much praise after the Silent Hill 2 debacle. Makes me scared sh*tless for the MGS 3 Remake…
I don't wanna defend konami, but Kojima had 7 years to make the game, it's not that weird for a publisher to expect a game to be finished in that amount of time.
Also no one is praising konami from what I've seen, they're just excited that a Silent Hill game is releasing
@Michiel1989
You’re absolutely correct. Look, the dude is a visionary and has brought us some incredible games, but he constantly would go over budget and could never stick to a deadline. I don’t know if people remember the MGS 4 trailers but it became a joke when you’d see a release date and then they crossed it out in the next trailer to give another.
What a lot of people don’t know is there’s a certain amount of money given for development and marketing. When you go over the budget and add additional marketing over the deadline it isn’t cheap. MGS GZ and V were laughable to me for the amount of time he had to develop them and he spent even more time on the engine that wasn’t anything revolutionary to me. I mean, GZ was nothing more than a demo and they released that art like $40 I think, probably to further help fund V. He then spent money for Kiefer Sutherland who did nothing for the character, which I think Kojima just wanted because he’s a fan.
Konami just had enough and said this is the deadline and you’re done after this. It’s business, but fans took it personal. I mean look at this Overdose game he’s been doing.,, like when is that ever coming out?
I kind of forgot about overdose but yeah exactly my thoughts. He has made some of the best games out there and definitely deserves time to create his new masterpiece, but it's not a bottomless well.
This is pure speculation but I imagine he got around 4 years to make the game excluding pre-production. If after those 4 years the game is nowhere near being done, the relationship will be strained between them one way or another.
about the konami being praised thing, if let's say blizzard announces world of warcraft 2 today I'll be excited as hell for the game, but that doesn't mean my opinion of blizzard changes only a tiny bit cause they're still trash.
Yeah, it was the only MGS I didn't play and this is coming from someone who got back into gaming after skipping a generation due to MGS4 back in 2008. It just seems to be the complete opposite of the MGS I always knew and loved (1-4).
Yes and no. In many ways in was a great game; there's a very strong argument that it has the best gameplay of any MGS game, and that it is one of the more interesting open world "playgrounds" we have gotten, in terms of how the world operates. But as an MGS narrative, it is pretty far down the list, for many reasons.
I don't think there is any argument. The gameplay was incredible. But yeah...disappointed in the rest. Could have been incredible but...well...we all know what happened...
I don't think there is much of one either but apparently some people found the world very boring compared to the more linear structures of other entries so I didn't make a definitive statement in order to acknowledge the outliers.
The thing about Metal Gear Solid is that the narrative is what determines which is your favorite because the gameplay had ALWAYS improved with every mainline entry. It's amazing.
If it was gameplay, we'd all say The Phantom Pain, but the story is what truly sets them apart.
For me, that's Snake Eater, which is also my favorite game of all time.
That's my favorite too, particularly if we are talking about the subsistence version with camera control.
Whether it's showcasing damage realistically or simulating fractures and conditions, these games are worth checking out.
The Metal Gear series has sold 60.2 million copies, as of September 2023.
Too bad it was a lazy release. They could've updated the visuals and everything. Missed opportunity.
...and yet, they couldn't give more respect and effort into the collection.
What a terrible company.
Even Watchdogs had a better variety in missions than MGSV I still can't believe I paid full price for this. What a huge letdown story wise. ;)
Hype isn't the issue here. It's simply an unfinished mess with absolutely piss poor mission structure with a mostly absent story devoid of humor or personality.
I think journalists are to blame aswell, they are the ones who should be doing their research and telling us whether or not a game has a problem or not, if it's worth our hard earned money.
They get so many exclusive walkthroughs with it, interviews with the developers, first footage, behind the scene hands on and even the first people to play the game at special gaming events like E3
So with all that in mind you also have the fact that when the game comes out and they are reviewing it they will be able to pin point any flaws the game in question has, based on their experience they had in the past or when they are playing it in the present.
However they don't tell us most of the time, especially when it's a well respect franchise or depending what developer/publisher are involved.
If we take MGSV as an example then developers should have noted it's repetitive side ops, main missions which were glorified side op missions, Big Boss being devolved as a character, the waste of talents Sutherland was apparently being brought in for, the fact the story goes nowhere (a big focus for the series) and the missing/cut content. So why was that not talked about hardly, why did they still give it 9/10 or 10/10 saying it's better or on par with past MGS titles when it's obviously taken a step back in "MOST" areas.
Are they scared? Do they not want to risk loosing connections? Or what about free shit they get like press kits and other goodies?
This is why we should start to expect better from journalists. I mean they don't have a problem nit picking new IPs to death if they can so they can do it if they want to, so why not all titles regardless what they are or who is involved.
Companies aren't going to stop doing the best they can selling their games to us. How could people not be excited for a new metal gear solid game? The game is actually really good despite the story not being as strong as the other games in the series, what is the point of this article?
As a game, I really enjoy The Phantom Pain. The story is behind Snake Eater, but what were people expecting? The game was made to be approachable with shorter cutscenes. Something had to give.
I still can't agree with everyone suggesting it is repetitive. There are plenty of ways to approach these missions and I simply can't see what others do. In the end, it really doesn't matter. I love the game and will continue to do so. :0)