Support NeoGAF

[Liamc723]

Yeah, I was expecting a response like this from the get go. I was debating whether to reply to your post, but then I thought why the hell not. I can write a lengthy post why the open level design lets you tackle missions in vastly different ways, but what would be the point? When someone makes hyperbolic posts on GAF, it's obvious they won't change their minds. But hey, it's the reason GAF is such a toxic community these days!

I think the point you're missing is that I don't think being able to approach the same mission in multiple ways is a particularly big plus for the game and justifies its open-world.

Again, I have zero interest in replying a level just because I can tackle it slightly differently. That's not a positive for me.

And I'm not being hyperbolic, you just can't accept that I don't share your opinion. But I guess that's "toxic", right? Oh no, a differing opinion!

 

[Zojirushi]

The design mess that was chapter 2 kinda ruined it for me retroactively.

 

[dock]

holy shit, players really kept playing after chapter 1? what else is there to do?!

I had a wonderful time playing the game (once I realised I should recruit everyone, despite being told otherwise by Miller) but I stopped when chapter 1 was done, as it seemed the rest was just mopping up small stuff on the map and some sort of multiplayer base invasion minigame.

 

[PancakeAlmighty]

If Transformers devastation didn't have G1 transformers + Platinum it would have easily been my GOTY, it was definitely the game I put the most hours into (about a 100) last year

 

[Javin98]

I think the point you're missing is that I don't think being able to approach the same mission in multiple ways is a particularly big plus for the game and justifies its open-world.

Again, I have zero interest in replying a level just because I can tackle it slightly differently. That's not a positive for me.

And I'm not being hyperbolic, you just can't accept that I don't share your opinion. But I guess that's "toxic", right? Oh no, a differing opinion!

Haha, oh boy Javin.

Not everyone gets fun out of visiting the same location over and over again, but oh this time I can tackle it in an ever so slightly different way! It shouldn't need to be on me to make the game feel fun for myself, the developers absolutely do play a large part in that. I'm not lacking creativity, the locations in the game are.

The relation to Shadow Moses and the Big Shell is the point that a MGS game doesn't need to be open-world. And when they are, you get the trash in TPP.

Yep, totally not hyperbolic, these are perfectly acceptable. Oh, my, you sure showed me!

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother. Like I said, it's obvious you made up your mind.

 

[Fix The Scientist]

Game of the gen. The gameplay is literally perfect and and each mission feels like a superbly designed sandbox with infinite possibilities and variables. Odd numbered MGS games are god tier.

 

[Heartfyre]

I do think that the game caters better to some playstyles more than others. Personally, I'm a completionist in the way that I play games. I like to try and complete all aspects of a game, and I like to be rewarded by a sense of progression, which could be based upon improving a character's stats or their gear, but preferably by giving me story. What makes MGSV disappointing for me is not just that the game doesn't cater to my playstyle (completionism means suffering through hundreds of copy-paste Side Ops and praying to RNGesus to catch stupid fucking digital animals, and story? Well...), but that every other game in the Metal Gear series has catered to it. The more linear progression of the earlier games gave very regular story beats. Collectables and other side content gave you appreciable rewards. While the games changed in many significant ways between earlier releases, completionism was always rewarded...until MGSV, where it was punished behind in-game countdown grind, and progression was rendered context-lite by stunted exposition.

If you're the type that can play missions over and over without needing context for it, and if you kept to the Main Ops and only tried a handful of the Side Ops, I wholly understand how the game could be GOAT to you. I was blown away by the Main Ops as I played them first as well. But then I kept playing the game, and the aspects that made me view the game more positively were challenged by aspects that cast a negative shroud over the entire experience; the gameplay repetition, the shriveling and whimpering story payoff, and the grinding, grindy grind that grinds progression to halt.

If I stopped playing it twenty hours in, and my playstyle was the one in favour, I think I'd be sharing some of the positive feedback that some share in this thread. Unfortunately, I played the game as I play every game, and I was brutally punished for it.

 

[Roni]

Over 410 hours into the game, been replaying it lately. I love everything about the game, the story, the gameplay, the presentation, the twist.

Wanted more maps though: dense jungle, arctic location, urban warfare.

Lufwa Valley is one of the coolest locations in the game, but it's far too small. Wanted an entire map with just that type of vegetation and density.

 

[Liamc723]

Yep, totally not hyperbolic, these are perfectly acceptable. Oh, my, you sure showed me!

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother. Like I said, it's obvious you made up your mind.

..Yeah? Outside of going in all guns blazing or complete stealth, the changes you make to how you tackle a mission are going to be small, and not worthy of a reply in my opinion.

TPP's open-world absolutely is rubbish, and this justification for it allowing you to approach missions the way you want isn't a good one. You can easily do that too within self-contained levels.

It's clearly not hyperbole when many other people in this thread share this opinion.

 

[Zojirushi]

holy shit, players really kept playing after chapter 1? what else is there to do?!

I had a wonderful time playing the game (once I realised I should recruit everyone, despite being told otherwise by Miller) but I stopped when chapter 1 was done, as it seemed the rest was just mopping up small stuff on the map and some sort of multiplayer base invasion minigame.

What?

I mean the story is pretty lacking but there is an end to it and a pretty big twist to everything at the end too.

Just stopping sounds kinda nuts. Also if you mainline it you can finish it pretty quickly after chapter 1.

 

[Angel_DvA]

it's still my personal GOTY, I still blame Kojima and Konami for their respective mistakes, Konami should have wait one more year for Kojima to finish his game, for Kojima, he was clearly overwhelmed by his ambitions and his ideas and I'll never understand the time he lost just blowing hot air in social medias and in his trips...

The assessment now made, let's talk about MGSV, if we take the game as a simple game, it buries all the competition with its staging, its designs, OST, gameplay and in letter of intent, if we tried to find its place in the series, it is part of the best episodes if not the best and if we finally admit that it is a work of art at the same level as paintings, sculptures, books, musics and movies, it is the most important artwork of the last decade...

You can watch an interesting retrospective of the game here, this guy nailed it:

https://youtu.be/e4fjtS_Etvk?t=32m30s

 

[TheKastorian]

Yeah, I was expecting a response like this from the get go. I was debating whether to reply to your post, but then I thought why the hell not. I can write a lengthy post why the open level design lets you tackle missions in vastly different ways, but what would be the point? When someone makes hyperbolic posts on GAF, it's obvious they won't change their minds. But hey, it's the reason GAF is such a toxic community these days!

I concur. Some went in playing this expecting the Witcher 3 (a gazillion of NPCs, towns and villages to visit). MGSV is not a freaking RPG. It's the first stealth game to pull-off the open world feature and it was awesome at doing this. Never completed a mission the same way twice.

 

[Brocken]

Game of the generation

 

[Zakalwe]

Amazing third-person gameplay (possibly the best ever!) squandered in a repetitive open world and a game with one of the most -non-story disappointments in the history of gaming.

A poor MGS, a terrible ending for the franchise, and one of the biggest letdowns I've ever experienced.

 

[Javin98]

..Yeah? Outside of going in all guns blazing or complete stealth, the changes you make to how you tackle a mission are going to be small, and not worthy of a reply in my opinion.

TPP's open-world absolutely is rubbish, and this justification for it allowing you to approach missions the way you want isn't a good one. You can easily do that too within self-contained levels.

Really? Let's use the "classic" MGS games as examples, shall we? In MGS 1-4, I recall the general flow of a level being, stealth, kill or ghost enemies, get past level, cutscene. In some missions of MGSV, in addition to those, you can either trail someone to the target, interrogate someone to obtain info on the target, set an ambush for the target or straight up rush to the target. Please tell me any other game that offers that amount of freedom in the level and mission designs. If all these options are still just "slightly different" to you, oh, boy, I'm done.

 

[Daante]

Hype was trough the roof for me going into this game, but i only came to chapter/mission 9 or something before i stopped playing. Havent touched the game since then :S

- Open world did/added nothing special for me.
- Game looked and ran extremely impressive on my PS4
- Gameplay was probably some of the best in the series
- The whole opening chapter

Spoiler

in the hospital

is one of the best paced and atmospheric gaming segments iv ever played.
- I HATE the fact that they thought a MGS game would benefit trough instant gratification and mmo style gameplay. I could not care less about recruiting soldiers to some sort of base seeing them lvling up and shit like that. Basically it took the player

Spoiler

5-10 mins from you loaded the game until you could actually play it. And hey during this time we bombard the player with what his soldiers been up to!

As i feel now having got a good feeling and experience of how the game was structured i dont feel any need to revisit the game and try to finish it. I will most likley double dip though once its on a heavy discount on Steam, just to run it in a really high resolution on my PC to marvel of the technical achievement i think the game represents.

My rankings:

1. MGS1 tied with MGS3
2. MGS2
3. MGS4
4. MGS5

 

[Dremark]

holy shit, players really kept playing after chapter 1? what else is there to do?!

I had a wonderful time playing the game (once I realised I should recruit everyone, despite being told otherwise by Miller) but I stopped when chapter 1 was done, as it seemed the rest was just mopping up small stuff on the map and some sort of multiplayer base invasion minigame.

There's not a lot left, iirc you have a couple of story missions that unlock and then it gives you the ending. It doesn't take much more to complete the game.

I think the point you're missing is that I don't think being able to approach the same mission in multiple ways is a particularly big plus for the game and justifies its open-world.

Again, I have zero interest in replying a level just because I can tackle it slightly differently. That's not a positive for me.

I always felt the freedom to tackle situations how you wanted was one of the best aspects of Metal Gear so I felt the open world fit the game perfectly. There were plenty of areas you had to revisit (which actually isn't that uncommon in MG games) but with the missions set up differently, the areas being well designed and the freedom to try different approaches I never got bored with it.

To me aside from Mission 51 being absent the game is pretty much perfect.

 

[SliChillax]

Great gameplay, average everything else. The incredibly boring open world is shocking at times.

 

[Fardeen]

biggest disappointment ever. how can the gameplay be so good but the story sucks so bad, i always played mgs for its story and i was so down, i still feel sad, empty, the phantom pain, like i have been betrayed. all these promises, how big boss turns evil and this game answered nothing, venom was a good guy and if u think therapy could make a stupid medic in to le legendary big boss, kojima is so wrong, the whole meta, fourth wall breaking didnt deliver at all, i never want to play this game ever again

 

[Chola]

..Yeah? Outside of going in all guns blazing or complete stealth, the changes you make to how you tackle a mission are going to be small, and not worthy of a reply in my opinion.

TPP's open-world absolutely is rubbish, and this justification for it allowing you to approach missions the way you want isn't a good one. You can easily do that too within self-contained levels.

It's clearly not hyperbole when many other people in this thread share this opinion.

so you don't like to replay levels but have a clear understanding how varied they are?!

 

[Javin98]

so you don't like to replay levels but have a clear understanding how varied they are?!

I don't even know why I bother replying to him, honestly. If I hadn't spent 6 and a half hours on MGSV today, I probably wouldn't even be in this thread.

 

[Kaji AF16]

It has an incredibly precise gameplay, and it offered a handful of great, memorable moments. Yet, I believe that Kojima´s fully unleashed ego and his strained relationship with Konami conspired against what The Phantom Pain could have been.

The game is mechanically very strong but both the story and its mission structure ultimately shed light on a very complex, conflict-ridden development.

I put 58 hours into it and will probably return for more. Side note: my father become an amputee and developed real-life phantom pain a few months after I played MGS V, so the concept gained a new significance for me.

 

[Liamc723]

Really? Let's use the "classic" MGS games as examples, shall we? In MGS 1-4, I recall the general flow of a level being, stealth, kill or ghost enemies, get past level, cutscene. In some missions of MGSV, in addition to those, you can either trail someone to the target, interrogate someone to obtain info on the target, set an ambush for the target or straight up rush to the target. Please tell me any other game that offers that amount of freedom in the level and mission designs. If all these options are still just "slightly different" to you, oh, boy, I'm done.

You can do all of those things in MGS 1-4, none of that is new to TPP.

Assassin's Creed Syndicate also offers you the same amount of freedom, TPP isn't this god among men game that changed everything for open-world games.

It's just a complete disappointment.

 

[Liamc723]

so you don't like to replay levels but have a clear understanding how varied they are?!

Yes? I understand they can be varied, but then what's the point of replaying the levels? I want to make progress, not do something I've already done in a different way.

 

[Javin98]

You can do all of those things in MGS 1-4, none of that is new to TPP.

Assassin's Creed Syndicate also offers you the same amount of freedom, TPP isn't this god among men game that changed everything for open-world games.

It's just a complete disappointment.

Oh, my God. I'm speechless now, haha! Please name one example where the linear, but still relatively large levels of previous MGS allowed you to tackle missions in numerous ways.

 

[Zakalwe]

Oh, my God. I'm speechless now, haha! Please name one example where the linear, but still relatively large levels of previous MGS allowed you to tackle missions in numerous ways.

The previous games are nowhere near as sandbox. That much is fact.

However, the previous games tighter approach along with their story lines and well paced encounters is what made them great. TPP may have been an amazing sandbox gameplay loop experience, but it is an always will be a poor MGS.

 

[Javin98]

The previous games are nowhere near as sandbox. That much is fact.

However, the previous games tighter approach along with their story lines and well paced encounters is what made them great. TPP may have been an amazing sandbox gameplay loop experience, but it is an always will be a poor MGS.

That's not the damn point. You're actually helping me prove my point with most of your post. The last sentence is basically moving goalposts.

 

[Dremark]

biggest disappointment ever. how can the gameplay be so good but the story sucks so bad, i always played mgs for its story and i was so down, i still feel sad, empty, the phantom pain, like i have been betrayed. all these promises, how big boss turns evil and this game answered nothing, venom was a good guy and if u think therapy could make a stupid medic in to le legendary big boss, kojima is so wrong, the whole meta, fourth wall breaking didnt deliver at all, i never want to play this game ever again

You say you play the games for the story but they pulled the same thing with another character in MGS4. It's nothing new to the series.

 

[Chola]

Yes? I understand they can be varied, but then what's the point of replaying the levels? I want to make progress, not do something I've already done in a different way.

Hey, i'm fine if you don't like to replay missions, Its your game but come on don't pass a judgement without even trying it out

This is a small e.g from TPP. Its not just complete stealth or complete action, there are lot of hidden variables that let player solve a problem in different ways.

TPP is more like Deus Ex and nothing like AC

Mission 16 Traitor's Caravan, Objective is to extract the truck

1. Scanning the Intel file gives you the route of the armored tanks escorting the truck, you can ambush the truck and tanks with your explosives and complete the objective.
2. Interrogating a solider reveals the exact location of the truck, if you are quick enough, you can inflitrate the airport , extract the truck before the armored tank arrives.
3. You can follow the objective right till the very end and complete it without dealing with those special forces
4. If you bring in Dwalker, you can use its fulton Ballista to extract the truck without having to deal with the skull units inside

 

[Liamc723]

Oh, my God. I'm speechless now, haha! Please name one example where the linear, but still relatively large levels of previous MGS allowed you to tackle missions in numerous ways.

MGS4's third act where you tail a man to his headquarters.

You can simply tail him, taking out the guards as he does. Rush on ahead because you know where you're going. Get lost and find yourself exploring the area in search for him. Decide not to take the guards out and see what happens. See the guards arrest the guy and then let them take you to more enemies, thus taking them all out at once. Avoid the armoured trucks patrolling or take them on.

Is that enough freedom for you?

 

[neoanarch]

One year later and it's still the best game of the year. Nah actually one year on and I can confidently say the best game of the decade.

 

[Servbot24]

MGSV is a top 5 game with gem IMO. Others would be Bloodborne and Wii U games.

 

[Zakalwe]

That's not the damn point. You're actually helping me prove my point with most of your post. The last sentence is basically moving goalposts.

The first sentence is the only thing relevant to your post. And I agree with you, entirely.

The rest simply clarifies that it doesn't matter. Regardless of how great the sandbox is, the game lets itself down in far too many ways for the gameplay to elevate it.

It remains a poor MGS.

 

[Javin98]

MGS4's third act where you tail a man to his headquarters.

You can simply tail him, taking out the guards as he does. Rush on ahead because you know where you're going. Get lost and find yourself exploring the area in search for him. Decide not to take the guards out and see what happens. Avoid the armoured trucks patrolling or take them on.

Is that enough freedom for you?

I never said previous games didn't provide a lot of freedom to players. My point was the open sandbox design of MGSV allows far more freedom to players than previous MGS games.

The first sentence is the only thing relevant to your post. And I agree with you, entirely.

The rest simply clarifies that it doesn't matter. Regardless of how great the sandbox is, the game lets itself down in far too many ways for the gameplay to elevate it.

It remains a poor MGS.

So you're admitting you were replying to my post to move goalposts? Gotcha. I was never debating whether the sandbox design makes the game a "good MGS game".

 

[Dremark]

The previous games are nowhere near as sandbox. That much is fact.

However, the previous games tighter approach along with their story lines and well paced encounters is what made them great. TPP may have been an amazing sandbox gameplay loop experience, but it is an always will be a poor MGS.

I think the idea was actually to expand that aspect of them. The entire series tended to give you more options as the games moved on so I view that as an evolution rather than a change.

The tight designs pretty much ended with MGS2 and was attempted to be opened up further with the games that followed it, 5 just took that to a higher level and got it right.

 

[@Wreck]

I grabbed the puppy and let it lick Snake's face. I stopped playing after that, I beat the game right?

you bet man!

 

[Zakalwe]

I never said previous games didn't provide a lot of freedom to players. My point was the open sandbox design of MGSV allows far more freedom to players than previous MGS games.

This is true, 100%.

It's sad that it ultimately doesn't matter enough, though.

 

[CaptainofIndustry]

Put about 45 hours into the game and took a long break from it. I'm still in act 1. I'll come back to it some day.

 

[blastprocessor]

Yeah restructuring and ditching those repeated missions, having more cutscenes to explain the story instead of those silly tapes would have improved things (Kojima don't listen to people that say you're cutscenes are too long they were fine) . Enjoyed the campaign but overall felt a bit disappointed about act 2. The ending was certainly unexpected.

 

[Angel_DvA]

The previous games are nowhere near as sandbox. That much is fact.

However, the previous games tighter approach along with their story lines and well paced encounters is what made them great. TPP may have been an amazing sandbox gameplay loop experience, but it is an always will be a poor MGS.

To you, its one of the best for me with MGS2.

 

[Zakalwe]

I think the idea was actually to expand that aspect of them. The entire series tended to give you more options as the games moved on so I view that as an evolution rather than a change.

The tight designs pretty much ended with MGS2 and was attempted to be opened up further with the games that followed it, 5 just took that to a higher level and got it right.

And it fell victim to the same things almost every other open world game in creation have done: filler and repetition.

It took it too far, and sacrificed too much. Gameplay was never the defining aspect of the series, in some respects MGS gameplay has always been a little backwards. The overall experience was the marvel, and they ignored too much of what the used to be.

To you.

Obviously.

 

[Arttemis]

then you are looking for an entire different game, this is a story of a man build an army, Its not the game's fault if you had your own set of imagination and expectations

You didn't read what I said correctly. I didn't have expectations other that it would be an expanded Ground Zeroes and a complete game... Since it's not, I wish it was an entirely different one.

Also, I'd much rather build an army via means other than Pokémon-ing hundreds of traitors.

You never had to micro manage the mother base, its never forced on you, all you had to do is Fulton or not Fulton solider.

lol, people are coming with incorrect facts and hyperbolic statements

Well, other than that one, huge plot point where you're expected to literally micro manage your Mother Base. That instance aside, most of the game's mechanics involve collecting more staff to unlock more functions, and the micro managing your staff to research more upgrades, and then micro managing your staff when your base is full and have to be resorted, and then personally ordering the expansion of the base, and then waiting real hours for those expansions to complete. Seriously, what is the XO of Diamond Dogs doing?

The consequences of that design are all throughout the world, too. Instead of a complex base to infiltrate (like in GZ, or any other entry of the series) with an overworld surrounding it (like what I expected as an open world sequel to GZ), we have a giant stomping ground for repeatable side ops and little outposts where the overarching theme is to scan every enemy and collect the high ranking ones. Behold, Big Boss, the Lord of Balloons, the Lord of Acquisition.

And that's not even touching on the fact that the Fulton balloon itself is an awful gameplay mechanic that removes all of the tension that made GZ great. Instead of legitimately rescuing a POW or extracting a POI while handicapping yourself during the escape, you simply affix a device that does the work for you... It's a step back.

And then the game requires resources for the development of anything interesting, personnel to commence any kind of development, and dozens of hours of research to obtain any kind of satisfying result... Yeah, I stand by what I said. The acquisition and management elements take up far too much of the game design, and are 100x more tedious than they should've been.

 

[Chola]

And it fell victim to almost every other open world game in creation: filler.

It took it too far, and sacrificed too much. Gameplay was never the defining aspect of the series, in some respects MGS gameplay has always been a little backwards. The overall experience was the marvel, and they ignored too much of what the used to be.

Obviously.

that is your opinion, MGS3 had more depth and replay value than an another other stealth games out there, even splinter cells and thiefs

 

[Zakalwe]

So you're admitting you were replying to my post to move goalposts?

No. I replied to you then simply clarified my statement.

that is your opinion

Obviously.

 

[Clear]

Whether a game is "finished" or not involves more than performance and stability.

We know there was planned to be more content in the game than there was.

Not in my experience as a developer. You are either running the clock down by tweaking / adding new content, or put it on lock well ahead of time and polish, polish, polish.

The latter case seems most applicable here.

"Planned to be more" is meaningless. Stuff gets cut and changed all the time, so if something was planned initially, started work on, but dropped half-way through the cycle, I personally wouldn't consider that to define a game as incomplete because then it would expand the complaint beyond meaning.

 

[Liamc723]

I never said previous games didn't provide a lot of freedom to players. My point was the open sandbox design of MGSV allows far more freedom to players than previous MGS games.

"Oh, my God. I'm speechless now, haha! Please name one example where the linear, but still relatively large levels of previous MGS allowed you to tackle missions in numerous ways."

You asked for an example and I provided. Don't move the goalposts.

 

[Javin98]

No. I clarified my statement.

This is not what "moving goalposts" means.

I may be using the term wrongly, but let's not deny you went out of topic of what my debate with Liam was about in the first place.

 

[Zakalwe]

I may be using the term wrongly, but let's not deny you went out of topic of what my debate with Liam was about in the first place.

I will deny that because I didn't do that.

I agree with you regarding the open world. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter because (reasons stated above).

This is called "clarifying a statement". It's not moving off-topic, in fact it's filling out the topic meaningfully.

If we didn't do this, the thread would just be full conversations like:

You: "Do you agree the open world is more sandbox than previous games?"

Me: "Yes."

You: "Good"

And there's no value in that.

 

[Dremark]

And it fell victim to the same things almost every other open world game in creation have done: filler and repetition.

It took it too far, and sacrificed too much. Gameplay was never the defining aspect of the series, in some respects MGS gameplay has always been a little backwards. The overall experience was the marvel, and they ignored too much of what the used to be.

The gameplay in Metal Gear games has always been top notch. If anything the weakness of the earlier games was a lack of content to fully utilize it.

Even though some of the content in MGS5 is repeated it still had a lot more game in it that any game in the series prior. It built on what was there and improved it in just about every way.

 

[Javin98]

"Oh, my God. I'm speechless now, haha! Please name one example where the linear, but still relatively large levels of previous MGS allowed you to tackle missions in numerous ways."

You asked for an example and I provided. Don't move the goalposts.

Okay, my bad, I should have clarified I meant as much freedom as some missions in MGSV. Also, I'm sensing hypocrisy in your posts. So, in MGS4, those classify as "unique and distinctive ways to tackle a level", but in MGSV, where some of your actions can have totally different outcomes to the later part of the mission, it's slightly different? Okay...