Current Events > Metal Gear Solid 5... Good game or nah?

(+) Yeah! (+)

That first hour tho

Worst game I ever put 200 hours into.

One of the greatest games ever made. But that's just par for the course for the series.

GZ: Fantabulous.
TPP: Ok-ish.

great visuals, great mechanics

boring, repetitive, mostly empty world, repetitive mission structure, boring characters, incomplete story

Nah, I don't see myself ever playing it again. Once the novelty of open world MGS wears off it's just so boring, the maps could not be any less interesting to explore and the missions are generic and boring. Not a single good boss fight and they showed almost all of the story in trailers.

I could go on but yeah, the game is very disappointing and clearly unfinished

Worst in the series if you don't count the portable games that it was a sequel to.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

GZ: Fantabulous.
TPP: Ok-ish.

Yeah ground zeroes is great and phantom pain is okay. The whole base ship recruiting is ass, you can't start a new game only replay missions.

oh yea, Mother Base was lame, too.

the only time it had any real meaning was mission 43, which I admit is an all time MGS great.

It has the greatest gameplay in the series and still looks fantastic for a 9 year old game. But that's about it.

Game was an odd mix of fun core gameplay in a bunch of mediocre setpieces. I hated the base building aspects and the story was... questionable.

All I can really say is that it's definitely not my favorite MGS.

MC_BatCommander posted...

Not a single good boss fight

I liked the Mecha fight. It was goofy and over the top in the most embarrassing way possible but it actually justified the open world for a couple of minutes of the 150 hour game.

PowerOats posted...

That first hour tho

you liked first hr? i loved the game

Plays like a fucking dream, story not so much.

WarfireX posted...

Worst in the series if you don't count the portable games that it was a sequel to.

Peace Walker was actually p legit.

The bosses had waaaaaaay too much HP but other than that it was really good IMO.

And Portable Ops has been retconned out of existence so

The game was fun, but I got tired of it after awhile.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Peace Walker was actually p legit.

The bosses had waaaaaaay too much HP but other than that it was really good IMO.

And Portable Ops has been retconned out of existence so

Yeah, I guess I'm pretty out of line there because Peace Walker was the only one.

Honestly, it's not so bad for a portable game, and it IS a portable game, so it's fine.

The secret last boss actually felt like a proper final boss and it was narratively way more a Metal Gear game than PP.

I guess what makes me so mad about PP is that it felt like a high budget, detailed Peace Walker, STILL being a portable game that makes you repeat missions over and over again.

And narratively speaking, it was garbage. The story contributes nothing, everyone is out of character (especially Kaz + Ocelot), and the plot twist was insultingly stupid. This is a rare case where a lot of the fan series on the trailer turned out being better than anything the game actually gave us.

I just get so mad thinking about this game, I want to throw everything associated to it under the bus, so Peace Walker gets crap.

Crafting weapons like a mobile game was shit

The best gameplay/controls I've ever seen wasted on a boring, repetitive set of open worlds.

i liked it for what it was, but ground zeroes felt more...solid.

BucketCat posted...

i liked it for what it was, but ground zeroes felt more...solid.

Scale.

GZ was one small area and a fuckin' master class in level design.

5 can't match up with the open world business holding it back.

Isn't Ground Zero like a demo level or am I thinking of something else

I do think it's a mixed bag. I always recommend it to people because it's a unique game, especially fans of Kojima and the MGS series, but it's admittedly not for everyone.

PowerOats posted...

Isn't Ground Zero like a demo level or am I thinking of something else

yea, but iirc, it was meant to be the prologue attached to TPP, but Konami wanted to make some money back on their investment, so they sold it as their own separate thing.

Great game, But it has issues some of which are Konami's fault, Other's Kojima's Fault

Storywise it's bad.

Gameplay wise, it's not that bad. I like that soldiers adapt to you based on how you play.

I just wish it had bases like Ground Zeroes, wish it had actual convoys that increased in strength and number as you progressed, and make it just one medium size open world.

PowerOats posted...

Isn't Ground Zero like a demo level or am I thinking of something else

kinda, it's more like a vertical slice imo. demo's are typically pretty limited in scope and don't always have a ton of gameplay mechanics. vertical slices will have a more robust gameplay than a demo, but the length of it isn't really enough to be a "full game"
idk if you're familiar with the newer hitman games, but it was originally released in episodes and then later those were all packaged as a full game. ground zeroes would be like an "episode" of TPP, where it has the elements but not the full story, world map, etc.

that's just my opinion, iirc it was originally advertised as a demo for TPP

it felt like it needed like two more years of development imo

I also wasn't a huge fan of being punished for bringing along the fun stuff.

Like, I already had to sink hundreds of thousands of BossBucks, dozens of rare materials, and a full fucking day of real-time waiting just to unlock the high tier, to say nothing of the hoops to get the weaker versions.

Now I have to pay out the ass to use them?

Fuck that and fuck whoever thought of it.

PowerOats posted...

Isn't Ground Zero like a demo level or am I thinking of something else

It's just the tanker mission from MGS2.

It sets the whole premise for Phantom Pain and it isn't remotely a complete story in its own right. There are also people here who pretend that it's OK that it was packaged separately, because the gameplay and base is slightly different, but it has no business being a separate product.

It was like the ultimate red flag that MGS had gone downhill along with Keifer Sutherland being the new voice, but no one knew how bad it was actually going to be.

WarfireX posted...

It's just the tanker mission from MGS2.

It sets the whole premise for Phantom Pain and it isn't remotely a complete story in its own right. There are also people here who pretend that it's OK that it was packaged separately, because the gameplay and base is slightly different, but it has no business being a separate product.

It was like the ultimate red flag that MGS had gone downhill along with Keifer Sutherland being the new voice, but no one knew how bad it was actually going to be.

ground zero was amazing, i wish phantom pain kept that same level, but it just completely shit the bed

solosnake posted...

ground zero was amazing, i wish phantom pain kept that same level, but it just completely shit the bed

But they had no business being packaged separately, whether you liked the first level of Phantom Pain (AKA Ground Zeroes) or not.

I think it was a full priced game too. MGS 5 has got nothing on Resident Evil Nemesis Remake.

It has its issues, such as its repetitiveness, but overall it's a pretty solid game.

Literally the peak of 3rd person action shooters. An average mgs game.

Great gameplay

That's all I got

Gameplay wise it's one of the absolute GOATs.

Storywise / Metal Gear wise? It's alright.

I never finished it, but it basically felt like a perfected sandbox model that was abandoned in early access, which I guess is pretty apt considering all the Kojima/Konami shit.

Definitely the weakest in the entire Metal Gear saga. It plays well enough but then you realise that you've got a barren open world with nothing to do, missions that repeat and an unfinished and uninspired story.

For me: 3 > 1 > 2 > Peace Walker > 4 > Ground Zeroes > Phantom Pain

Gameplay is fantastic.
World building and story, not the best.
The open world itself, leaves a lot to be desired.

I enjoyed the hell out of it, but that's just me.

As much backlash as there would've been in light of selling GZ separately, the best thing they could've done, IMO, to salvage such an overambitious mess would've been to split it up more. Instead of doing Afghanistan and Africa in one game, put all the dev time into making Afghanistan better with more complex bases, more mission variety and one-off gimmicks like bosses, and worthwhile side content.

Metal Gear games usually have such tightly paced gameplay (regardless of how not tightly paced the cutscenes get), that releasing a game so full of filler is pretty much antithetical to the series.

It has flaws (some more major than others), but I've dumped an ungodly amount of time into it and generally enjoyed it. Can't wait to play that sweet control scheme on Steam Deck, haha.

myusernameislame posted...

As much backlash as there would've been in light of selling GZ separately, the best thing they could've done, IMO, to salvage such an overambitious mess would've been to split it up more. Instead of doing Afghanistan and Africa in one game, put all the dev time into making Afghanistan better with more complex bases, more mission variety and one-off gimmicks like bosses, and worthwhile side content.

Metal Gear games usually have such tightly paced gameplay (regardless of how not tightly paced the cutscenes get), that releasing a game so full of filler is pretty much antithetical to the series.

Great so a $30 demo and two $60 demos

Gameplay wise it plays great. But I like Metal Gear for its bonkers story and that felt pretty much absent outside the opening so I quit after about 10 hours. Its the worst Metal Gear I played IMO.

Open world really hurt mgsv. Smaller concentrated areas would have been preferable. It does the thing I hate most in modern gaming. Huge variable landscapes with nothing in them.

Peak MGS when you're actually in missions where the bases are densely populated. OKB Zero, the oil refinery, and the afghan research lab were standouts

The open world and story are both pretty bad though. Remaking mother base in the exact same offshore configuration was dumb imo, and I think it would have been far more interesting conceptually to see Outer Heaven from MG1 be built over the course of the game, and have that be interactive between missions

Having to wait real time for equipment to develop was complete garbage, and was clearly a carry on for the otherwise really fun FOB game mode

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Great so a $30 demo and two $60 demos

TPP is more than double the length of the next longest game in the franchise. More isn't better if it's mostly padding.

"Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" is widely regarded as a good game by many players and critics alike. It received praise for its open-world design, deep gameplay mechanics, and attention to detail. The game offers players a vast sandbox to explore, stealth-based gameplay with a high degree of freedom, and a complex narrative with themes of revenge and betrayal.

However, opinions on the game can vary. Some fans of the Metal Gear series have mixed feelings about certain aspects of "Metal Gear Solid V," particularly regarding its story pacing, narrative coherence, and the departure from the series' traditional linear structure. Additionally, the game's development history, including the well-publicized departure of series creator Hideo Kojima from Konami during production, may have influenced perceptions of the game for some players.

Ultimately, whether "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" is considered a good game or not depends on individual preferences and expectations. Many players appreciate its gameplay depth and overall experience, while others may have different opinions based on their specific tastes and attachment to the series.

Nah

SilvosForever posted...

"Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" is widely regarded as a good game by many players and critics alike. It received praise for its open-world design, deep gameplay mechanics, and attention to detail. The game offers players a vast sandbox to explore, stealth-based gameplay with a high degree of freedom, and a complex narrative with themes of revenge and betrayal.

However, opinions on the game can vary. Some fans of the Metal Gear series have mixed feelings about certain aspects of "Metal Gear Solid V," particularly regarding its story pacing, narrative coherence, and the departure from the series' traditional linear structure. Additionally, the game's development history, including the well-publicized departure of series creator Hideo Kojima from Konami during production, may have influenced perceptions of the game for some players.

Ultimately, whether "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" is considered a good game or not depends on individual preferences and expectations. Many players appreciate its gameplay depth and overall experience, while others may have different opinions based on their specific tastes and attachment to the series.

AI right?