Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Why join MGSF?
  • MGSF is officially the internet's largest MGS discussion board. So, you can enjoy your time with an active community of dedicated MGS fans.
  • Want more than just MGS talk? MGSF has a huge off-topic section for Opinions, Sport, Music, Movies, and other video games!
  • Organizations! Create your own or join an existing one. Organizations are sub-communities of the forum designed so you can gather with your closest friends on the board.
  • Blog! As a member, you have the ability to create your own blog on the forum for other users and/or guests to read.
  • Our forum also has an Arts sections for you to express your creative side, as well as a Digital Art forum in the computer corner.
  • We also have a Kojima Productions forum for members who wish to discuss KP-related issues outside of MGS.
Join our community today!

If you are already a member, please log in to your account to access all of your features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is Metal Gear Rising the best Metal Gear game ever?
Yes 5 (13.5%)
No 32 (86.5%)
Total Votes: 37
Is this the best Metal Gear Game?
Topic Started: Sep 12 2016, 09:51:03 PM (3,246 Views)
Jassassino
Member Avatar
Avocados at law.

Yes.
Posted Image
Piss off, ghost!
Posted Image
Rest in Peace, OS.

Welcome to the Gallery
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ef9 o shea
Member Avatar
Hadoken

Your joking right? Lol
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Departed
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood truck

no, it's not, but i will say that i like revengers better than mgs1, 2, 4, mpo and pw. and if it were longer, i would probably like it more than 3 as well.
Posted Image
Dirty Duck
 
Duck as sake no bidibgeybfbfhailhydradrinkn:(

awards and such

r.i.p. to the coolest dude we'll ever know :gary:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Silent Assassin
Member Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Come on man, someone's gonna take you seriously an we'll have a fanboy war in the thread.

Seriously now, it's a great game, I just like other MG games better.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
V
Member Avatar


I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Metal Gear Rising. Now Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance on the other hand...
I thought he was kidding, but I
soon realized that Mr. Kojima was serious.

Posted Image
.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BigBen0121
Member Avatar
Light Infantry
Revengeance DOES have a pretty badass soundtrack.

AND THE MEMES.

THE MEMES JACK.
My favorite MGSV Interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Octavious Wrex
Member Avatar
The man, the myth, the Monster

Revengence always makes me think of what MG would be like if Robert Rodregues were in charge. I like it, but it's hard to compare it with the other games because it's so different.
Spoiler: click to toggle

Posted Image
Compromise where you can. Where you can't, don't. Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye, and say 'No, you move'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zan Datsu
Member Avatar
Get up & Go

It's not the best metal gear game but one of the best in the series.
Posted Image

The Departed
Quote:
 
Until that diamond nipple awesome game is ever created, all we can do is dream that one day, an MG1 remake happens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blindfox
Member Avatar
Warning: NSFW

I feel like my fervent love for you has just been incinerated Jass </3 #go2hell

[rotate]
Posted Image

[rotate]Posted Image[rotate]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kim kim
Snake! Snake! SNAAAAAAKE!

I enjoyed playing Metal Gear Rising but it's not the best Metal Gear.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Cruise
Member Avatar
Ultimate
its up there, 1st or 2nd battling with acid 2
DEAD CELL 4 LIFE 4 EVER
R.I.P. GARY

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Raiden
Member Avatar
Neither enemy nor Friend
Fun game to play, but the story was shit.
Posted Image

Jack, listen to me. We're all born with an expiration date. No one lasts forever. Life is nothing but a grace period - for turning our genetic material into the next generation. The data of life is transferred from parent to child. That's how it works. But we have no heirs, no legacy. Cloned from our father, with the ability to reproduce conveniently engineered out. What is our legacy if we cannot pass the torch? Proof of our existence - a mark of some sort. When the torch is passed on from parent to child... it extends beyond DNA; information is imparted as well. All I want is to be remembered. By other people, by history. - Soildus Snake
Best MGS Game Ever
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Departed
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood truck

to be fair, so too is the story of most mgs games, if we're really honest with ourselves.

really, my main beef with mgr is how repetitive it starts to feel. there's tons of fun mini bosses, and the boss fights exceed anything mgs has to offer, but the problem is that the entire game consists of mostly samesy slash'em up battles, and too few enemies really offer distinct encounters the way certain ones do.
Posted Image
Dirty Duck
 
Duck as sake no bidibgeybfbfhailhydradrinkn:(

awards and such

r.i.p. to the coolest dude we'll ever know :gary:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StaySyk
Member Avatar


The Departed
Sep 12 2016, 10:31:52 PM
no, it's not, but i will say that i like revengers better than mgs1, 2, 4, mpo and pw. and if it were longer, i would probably like it more than 3 as well.
I'm not sure if anyone has ever asked you this on this forum. Do you like Metal Gear?
Posted Image
Mah Twitch
Smells Like Zorro
Dec 30 2015, 04:25:14 PM
If I had ten daughters, I'd let StaySyk date all of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Departed
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood truck

staysyk

honestly, i really don't know anymore lol.

if not for tpp and mgs3, i probably wouldn't anymore tbh.
Posted Image
Dirty Duck
 
Duck as sake no bidibgeybfbfhailhydradrinkn:(

awards and such

r.i.p. to the coolest dude we'll ever know :gary:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranch DuBois Est. 2014
Member Avatar
2184

The Departed
Sep 12 2016, 10:31:52 PM
no, it's not, but i will say that i like revengers better than mgs1, 2, 4, mpo and pw. and if it were longer, i would probably like it more than 3 as well.
Tom cruise and the troll who made this thread are the only folks who agreed with your aragorn-tier opinion



Posted Image

Rest In Peace, Joe.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Departed
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood truck

yes, but unlike gorn-porn, i don't just say things because witcher 3.

so allow me to back up why i said those things i said:

first and foremost, the gameplay in this game is actually fun for a change. engaging in combat is responsive, tight and challenging because you have tons of enemy types, and a plethora of mini bosses that test you at every turn. yeah, the camera's shit, the levels are garbage and the combat does get repetitive in a lot of sections, but each section is broken up properly with either mini bosses, heavy events like the tower getting shot up, and capped off with excellent boss fights.

revengers had infinitely superior boss fights than most mgs bosses to date. each one is layered, has a plethora of attacks, stages, and more important than anything, they're actually fun to fight, or incredibly insufferably challenging. more importantly, each boss fight is incredibly creative and suits the characters wonderfully.

the story is trite, sure. so is mgs1. so is mgs3 (which i really like). so is mgs4. and i won't even get into the garbage fire that is mgs2. and fuck it, mgsv's story isn't that great either. it's yet another metal gear game. contrived and nonsensical.

what set revengers above the other games? the actual dialogue exchanges. yeah, there's way more profanity than is warranted, but raging raiden doesn't just parrot the same shit everyone says to him. he actually interacts with the characters around him, and genuinely engages and challenges them. something no snake or even mgs2 raiden ever did, for the most part, bar one or two lines here or there. there's actual dynamic in the interplay between raiden and the bosses, no matter how short lived they all are.

soundtrack's hokey, but it actually works. the voice acting is mostly great with the exception of raiden trying to sound badass as the ripper, because that's legitimately hilarious because of how bad it sounds lol.

but best yet, this is an mg game that isn't trying to be smart the way every other mgs game tries to and fails miserably. instead, it's just trying to be a damn fun video game, and one that doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as its' predecessors, something mgs desperately needs, because when these hokey games actually have levity and self awareness, they become easier to appreciate, than the games that introduce characters like meryl, have them show up for 3 or so scenes, get shot immediately after, and tell fucking snake, "don't forget me!" like they've known each other for goddamn ages.

so no, i'm not trolling or being contrarian here. i genuinely believe rise of the revengers to be a vastly better game than most of the mgs series. its' story isn't great, but neither is any story in any mgs game, mpo included. it was a romp to play, and actually replay once i got the hang of parrying. and because the emphasis was fun above all else, that's precisely what i had, since revengers does a great job of being inherently fun.

i wasn't having fun with mgs1, and whatever challenges i faced, were because the controls were dogshit. whatever fun i had in mgs2 was limited to the boss fights and the arsenal segment. and mgs4, whatever fun there to be had is comically outweighed by the self important, self indulgent overabundance of bullshit cutscenes.

the only reason i don't hold mgr above mgs3 is because while both were fun, and revengers had vastly better controls than mgs3, it's also just more than half the length, and mgs3 did more to shake up the experience in that time, albeit not much more.
Posted Image
Dirty Duck
 
Duck as sake no bidibgeybfbfhailhydradrinkn:(

awards and such

r.i.p. to the coolest dude we'll ever know :gary:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KingOfNeverland
Not so lonely anymore...

The only people who would ever consider rising the best game in the series(or even a part of the series for that matter) are people who are neither MGS fans, nor capable of looking at games past their surface.

Even if you are only a part of the second category, you would still pick TPP first because it's just an objectively better game gameplay wise(not to mention, you know, it's an actual stealth based game and not a hack and slash), and it can't be completed within 6 hours. Even if it's still crap if you start to delve into it any further than that.

I am in no way dissing Rising, as I still think it's a good game if you take it out of context of the series, but if you look at it any other way you are just doing it wrong.
Edited by KingOfNeverland, Jan 29 2017, 04:53:58 PM.
mgs player since '99.country of origin:portugal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Departed
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood truck

KingOfNeverland
Quote:
 
The only people who would ever consider rising the best game in the series(or even a part of the series for that matter) are people who are neither MGS fans, nor capable of looking at games past their surface.
See, the problem with the elitist mentality is that it's so incredibly generalized, it becomes needless.

Just, for examples sake, I'm an MGS fan, despite my many gripes about this series and especially its' writing. Yet, I consider MGR superior to MGS1, MGS2, MPO, MGS4, PW, and GZ. And at the same time, I also look past the surface of those respective games.

I'm not just some tool who says, "these games aren't fun so they suck," and I've been on this forum almost ten years, had every major discussion there was to be had about MGS games. I still stand by the notion that they're inferior to Rise of the Revengers, and here's why:

1. How MGS fairs as a game.

MGS1 and 2, as games, aren't always that fun to play. They have moments, but by in large, they range from tedious, to just unenjoyable. I don't care what pedestal people put MGS on, a game, first and foremost, has to be enjoyable to play. MGS1 is unbearable. A lot of that is due to its' age, sure, but some mechanics are just plain nonsensical. Like the sniper taking ages to move or lying down immediately despite the Stinger maneuvering it just fine.

The fact that enemies could see you even if you were hiding should you just happen to fall in their cone of vision sometimes. Choking people out wasn't reliable either since, if you grabbed them the wrong way, you'd either flip them over, or break their neck while they still spot you. Even its' boss fights fall short, because MGS1 was never about combat, it was about stealth, yet only three boss fights even try to incorporate stealth, and only one of them was genuinely fun and challenging in the right ways, and not because the mechanics are actively working against me like in MGS1.

With MGS2, it was far more flexible and never became unfair. But it was also quite tedious due to the neverending spawn of enemies always closing in on your position, the backtracking, and how easy it is to exploit between hiding outside the struts, or using the M9 Tranq gun.

Sneaking around in MGS2 has the potential to be challenging in a few key corridors, but 9 times out of 10, there's literally no reason not to just knock everyone out and drag their bodies out of sight, so when the Commander calls for a Backup Unit to check out the radio silence, they search once, and leave. MGS1 is harder, and MGS2 is more tedious, but at no point does sneaking around ever really feel rewarding or engaging, which is where most people would say the fun is. I don't get that tbh.

The gameplay is a little more fun in the later games, but look at what they have to offer. MGS4 is as linear as it gets, and all too easy as a result of that, the DB shop, and enemy numbers. And the fact that most enemies are bullet sponges takes away from the fun of fighting them. There's only a few genuinely good and creative boss fights, while the others range from bullet sponges to overrated novelty gimmicks.

And once you beat it, you literally have no reason to ever put the game back into your console, especially now that MGO2 is gone, and even then, I'd argue that was an acquired taste more than an objectively fun experience 9 times out of 10, but this isn't about MGO2.

PW is equally linear, with enemies that have more reasonable HP, it's all the easier as a result to just clear out any area, especially since enemy reinforcements are so seemingly limited. And therein lies the biggest problem with PW; it's the easiest game in the series outside of the admittedly challenging boss fights, and the problem with the bosses is, most of the challenge stems from them being rocket sponges, where their HP is ridiculously high and it just takes too long to beat them at the start. Having to constantly call in for supply drops doesn't make the fight more engaging.

Then finally, GZ is perfectly functional and enjoyable. I like GZ more than the other titles I listed, but it's not a game. It's a demo, and one that has very little to really offer beyond replayability and three genuinely dynamic missions. All your enemies are the same. Your weapons are grossly underpowered. And as good as Camp Omega is, it possesses far less mileage in way of what it has to offer than people give it credit for. Had one or two missions taken place there, that'd be fine. But seven? Heck-fuck-no.

2. How the games fair on writing and plot. This being the "narrative driven" series that so many claim it is, I'd imagine this is pretty important.

Just one problem.

The writing of this entire series is a joke, and I mean that quite literally.

"Explaining MGS" has become a punchline, and that's not because it's this rich tapestry of intelligent and very in-depth storytelling. It's because MGS is a convoluted, pseudo intellectual nightmare with a canon stretched so thin, Psycho Mantis said it had an eating disorder.

Look, I know most fans love the first three MGS games' stories and characters and dialogue and so on and so forth. But let's actually look as objectively at the writing of these games as we can:

MGS1


MGS2


MGS3


MGS4


PW


GZ


Hell, just to show I'm not biased, I'll even toss in TPP; the one MGS game I genuinely love.

TPP


So, where does MGR fall in all this? Well, plotwise, it's just as outlandish, stupid and illogical as any other MGS plot, so that's a wash, but unlike the other games, there's a sense of self awareness for a change. Where the game outright acknowledges and almost takes the piss at itself.

"Nanomachines, son!" Literally, all you need to hear, just without the long winded bullshit, because it's a game aware of how stupid using such a simplistic, fictitious thing as a crux really is. It doesn't need anything more than those two brilliantly put words.

So, it's ridiculous, and aware of that, but what isn't ridiculous, even if it is over the top sometimes, is character interactions, and Raiden as a protagonist. I may not like his voice in this game, but from a writing perspective, Raiden is excellent as a protagonist. He engages with every single character he comes into contact with. He doesn't just react to them or get talked at. He challenges people, he has his own beliefs, his own ideologies, and he'll put those in practice. And his ripper side, as laughable as the voice is, does a lot of the talking for him when we see him outright cut through a kid just to get to an asshole voiced by the dude from The Shield.

For reference sake, look at the way Raiden engages with Armstrong; the main villain of Revengers, before their final battle between 3:30 to 9:30:


Now, compare that to the way Raiden engages with Solidus, the main villain of MGS2, before their final battle:


People bitch about Revengers story being stupid as sin...aaaand it absolutely is. But MGS as a series has never been anything better. They're all varying degrees of utter absurdity. So what it all comes down to is the moment-to-moment writing, as well as the core characters and their interactions. Revengers' villains might be just as underdeveloped as the ones in MGS, but the scenes they do have together carry far more weight because there's actual substance and engagement between everyone involved to give them that weight.

Revengers Raiden is an all around better protagonist than anyone who's ever rocked that title in MGS, and best yet, there's an actual consistency with Raiden. He doesn't have the bullshit fluff everyone else does, or the being 'ignored by the game and talked at' thing that Kiefersnake had. Nor is he one note. We see humanity, madness, even some occasional vulnerability in some surprisingly subtle moments, like him wanting to shake Bladewolf's paw, Bladewolf turning away and him getting angry for a moment about it. Or that scene above where he criticized Armstrong for not knowing what it truly is to be desperate when we know first hand that Raiden did.

More importantly, the cutscenes themselves are as long as they need to be. There's very little bloat and fluff that ever wastes time. Revengers is the most "to the point" MG game to date. Codec calls are real time, cutscenes are never ridiculously long, and more often than not, the cool stuff is happening in game. In any other MGS game, except TPP, Raiden's first boss fight against Sam would have been a cutscene, just like it was in MGS3, when Snake fought Ocelot and won, or fought The Boss and lost. It was a mixture of interactive and non-interactive so we the players felt as outmatched as Raiden did, which would prove important when we got our inevitable rematch.

This is the one game that wastes zero time jumping into the game. Our opening cutscene is just two or so minutes long, and then boom, right into the action, and then one villain introduction later, right into the tutorial, which happens to be a goddamn boss fight against Ray. Revengers is one of the few games with Metal Gear in the title that puts being a game above trying to tell some pretentious, self important and always somehow inconsistent story about interesting, but underdeveloped, inconsistent characters.

And more importantly, it's actually fun to play. Something I can't say about every MGS game. When it is challenging, it's challenging because the game poses those challenges, not because the mechanics are actively working against you, like a slow moving scope against an enemy with a high rate of attack while you have a low rate of recovery. Even the most insufferable boss fights still give you wiggle room even if you aren't a master of parrying. I should know, because I managed to beat Monsoon, Sam and Armstrong without ever getting parrying just right, because the game had mechanics to accommodate like jumping around like a frog on steroids.

Where does replayability fall into place? The game is inherently fun to play, and knowing the story beats won't make it any less fun, and it's short enough that you can still immediately jump back in. And like MGS1, it has VR missions for those who like beating high scores for shit.

Quote:
 
and it can't be completed within 6 hours.

That 5-6 hour campaign is around 7-8 when you factor in cutscenes, and last I checked, MGS1 was around an 8 hour campaign, but with far more than 2 hours of cutscenes injected in between. MGS2 was under 5 hours without cutscenes. MGS4 was under 6 hours without cutscenes. GZ is literally an hour long with a lot of filler to justify having to pay more than 0 dollars, and many would argue that still didn't justify it when it all takes place in one location and you face a lot of the same challenges in every single mission.

MGS3, PW and TPP are the only games with a tangible amount of campaign time, which isn't stretched out by cutscenes, but then again, I also haven't yet played MGS3 without cutscenes yet, so I can't even know that for certain. What I do know is, for that 5-6 hours of gameplay Revengers has to offer without cutscenes, you have a wide array of enemies, a good several mini bosses, and boss fights that put almost everything MGS has ever had to offer to shame, because each one has layers, a wide array of attacks, and actually challenge you based on the skills you've acquired all game long, instead of using mechanics that are gimmicks or not the core of your experience. And mathematically, it's no shorter than half the MGS games, so I really don't see the use in the length argument when it was only the Biggie games that gave you more than a few hours of gameplay.

Quote:
 
I am in no way dissing Rising, as I still think it's a good game if you take it out of context of the series, but if you look at it any other way you are just doing it wrong.
And there in lies the problem with so many MGS fans.

"So and so is a good game, so long as you don't call it a Metal Gear game." It's statements like that which lead me to believe more and more that MGS as a series is severely overrated, because there are clearly blinders welded on.

MGS is a distinct, iconic series. I'd never argue otherwise. I've been playing these games almost twenty goddamn years (Holy shit), so clearly, they did something right, and mechanically, have only gotten better and more distinct as the years have gone by. But MGS games and their stories are ultimately byproducts of their times and the limitations of those times. They absolutely aren't timeless on any front, and with time, those blemishes become all the more apparent. They can be forgiven if we accept them for what they are. But it's when people pretend that this series is the first two Godfathers of gaming that make games like Revengers look all the better.

Revengers isn't a smart game, but neither are most MGS games. It doesn't have anything to say the way other MGS games might have, but I'd always question how well executed those messages are, before I talk about their potency. Its characters aren't that well developed, like any MGS game, but they have better interactions that carry more substance and lend more weight to their scenes. And more importantly, it's just a damn fun game, even if it is simplistic at times, and repetitive in other times.

I don't consider it the best MG game because TPP exists, and TPP has vastly, with levels that complement any situation, more versatility and I can have a much more engaging time with it as a result, and its' controls aren't nearly as loose, and its' camera is actually focused, something I hated about Revengers, but I'd still take that over a fixed camera which actively worked against me at times in MGS1 and MGS2. So, no, objectively and personally, it's not the best.

But I maintain that it's up there, because it's better at being a video game, and better at what it does on the action front than MGS was on its' stealth front. It's an all around more intuitive process with controls that aren't as busy. What it sets out to do, I'd argue, it does better than a lot of MGS games.

The only reason I consider it inferior to MGS3 is because MGS3 HD Edition and 3DS Edition exist, which make up for a lot of the old games shortcomings, and the game as a whole, possesses more versatility when it comes to the campaign, the boss fights, and strategies. But it doesn't change the fact that some mechanics are very unintuitive, from FPV shooting, all the way to the asininely intrusive menu system.

And yeah, this is a long fucking post, but I don't like generalizing, as I don't think it makes for engaging discussion. If people are gonna hold that against me, go right ahead, but imo, it says something when people would rather plug ears and go "La Li Lu Le Lo" than actually talk.
Posted Image
Dirty Duck
 
Duck as sake no bidibgeybfbfhailhydradrinkn:(

awards and such

r.i.p. to the coolest dude we'll ever know :gary:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KingOfNeverland
Not so lonely anymore...

The Departed
Jan 29 2017, 09:54:42 PM
KingOfNeverland
Quote:
 
The only people who would ever consider rising the best game in the series(or even a part of the series for that matter) are people who are neither MGS fans, nor capable of looking at games past their surface.
See, the problem with the elitist mentality is that it's so incredibly generalized, it becomes needless.

Just, for examples sake, I'm an MGS fan, despite my many gripes about this series and especially its' writing. Yet, I consider MGR superior to MGS1, MGS2, MPO, MGS4, PW, and GZ. And at the same time, I also look past the surface of those respective games.

I'm not just some tool who says, "these games aren't fun so they suck," and I've been on this forum almost ten years, had every major discussion there was to be had about MGS games. I still stand by the notion that they're inferior to Rise of the Revengers, and here's why:

1. How MGS fairs as a game.

MGS1 and 2, as games, aren't always that fun to play. They have moments, but by in large, they range from tedious, to just unenjoyable. I don't care what pedestal people put MGS on, a game, first and foremost, has to be enjoyable to play. MGS1 is unbearable. A lot of that is due to its' age, sure, but some mechanics are just plain nonsensical. Like the sniper taking ages to move or lying down immediately despite the Stinger maneuvering it just fine.

The fact that enemies could see you even if you were hiding should you just happen to fall in their cone of vision sometimes. Choking people out wasn't reliable either since, if you grabbed them the wrong way, you'd either flip them over, or break their neck while they still spot you. Even its' boss fights fall short, because MGS1 was never about combat, it was about stealth, yet only three boss fights even try to incorporate stealth, and only one of them was genuinely fun and challenging in the right ways, and not because the mechanics are actively working against me like in MGS1.

With MGS2, it was far more flexible and never became unfair. But it was also quite tedious due to the neverending spawn of enemies always closing in on your position, the backtracking, and how easy it is to exploit between hiding outside the struts, or using the M9 Tranq gun.

Sneaking around in MGS2 has the potential to be challenging in a few key corridors, but 9 times out of 10, there's literally no reason not to just knock everyone out and drag their bodies out of sight, so when the Commander calls for a Backup Unit to check out the radio silence, they search once, and leave. MGS1 is harder, and MGS2 is more tedious, but at no point does sneaking around ever really feel rewarding or engaging, which is where most people would say the fun is. I don't get that tbh.

The gameplay is a little more fun in the later games, but look at what they have to offer. MGS4 is as linear as it gets, and all too easy as a result of that, the DB shop, and enemy numbers. And the fact that most enemies are bullet sponges takes away from the fun of fighting them. There's only a few genuinely good and creative boss fights, while the others range from bullet sponges to overrated novelty gimmicks.

And once you beat it, you literally have no reason to ever put the game back into your console, especially now that MGO2 is gone, and even then, I'd argue that was an acquired taste more than an objectively fun experience 9 times out of 10, but this isn't about MGO2.

PW is equally linear, with enemies that have more reasonable HP, it's all the easier as a result to just clear out any area, especially since enemy reinforcements are so seemingly limited. And therein lies the biggest problem with PW; it's the easiest game in the series outside of the admittedly challenging boss fights, and the problem with the bosses is, most of the challenge stems from them being rocket sponges, where their HP is ridiculously high and it just takes too long to beat them at the start. Having to constantly call in for supply drops doesn't make the fight more engaging.

Then finally, GZ is perfectly functional and enjoyable. I like GZ more than the other titles I listed, but it's not a game. It's a demo, and one that has very little to really offer beyond replayability and three genuinely dynamic missions. All your enemies are the same. Your weapons are grossly underpowered. And as good as Camp Omega is, it possesses far less mileage in way of what it has to offer than people give it credit for. Had one or two missions taken place there, that'd be fine. But seven? Heck-fuck-no.

2. How the games fair on writing and plot. This being the "narrative driven" series that so many claim it is, I'd imagine this is pretty important.

Just one problem.

The writing of this entire series is a joke, and I mean that quite literally.

"Explaining MGS" has become a punchline, and that's not because it's this rich tapestry of intelligent and very in-depth storytelling. It's because MGS is a convoluted, pseudo intellectual nightmare with a canon stretched so thin, Psycho Mantis said it had an eating disorder.

Look, I know most fans love the first three MGS games' stories and characters and dialogue and so on and so forth. But let's actually look as objectively at the writing of these games as we can:

MGS1


MGS2


MGS3


MGS4


PW


GZ


Hell, just to show I'm not biased, I'll even toss in TPP; the one MGS game I genuinely love.

TPP


So, where does MGR fall in all this? Well, plotwise, it's just as outlandish, stupid and illogical as any other MGS plot, so that's a wash, but unlike the other games, there's a sense of self awareness for a change. Where the game outright acknowledges and almost takes the piss at itself.

"Nanomachines, son!" Literally, all you need to hear, just without the long winded bullshit, because it's a game aware of how stupid using such a simplistic, fictitious thing as a crux really is. It doesn't need anything more than those two brilliantly put words.

So, it's ridiculous, and aware of that, but what isn't ridiculous, even if it is over the top sometimes, is character interactions, and Raiden as a protagonist. I may not like his voice in this game, but from a writing perspective, Raiden is excellent as a protagonist. He engages with every single character he comes into contact with. He doesn't just react to them or get talked at. He challenges people, he has his own beliefs, his own ideologies, and he'll put those in practice. And his ripper side, as laughable as the voice is, does a lot of the talking for him when we see him outright cut through a kid just to get to an asshole voiced by the dude from The Shield.

For reference sake, look at the way Raiden engages with Armstrong; the main villain of Revengers, before their final battle between 3:30 to 9:30:


Now, compare that to the way Raiden engages with Solidus, the main villain of MGS2, before their final battle:


People bitch about Revengers story being stupid as sin...aaaand it absolutely is. But MGS as a series has never been anything better. They're all varying degrees of utter absurdity. So what it all comes down to is the moment-to-moment writing, as well as the core characters and their interactions. Revengers' villains might be just as underdeveloped as the ones in MGS, but the scenes they do have together carry far more weight because there's actual substance and engagement between everyone involved to give them that weight.

Revengers Raiden is an all around better protagonist than anyone who's ever rocked that title in MGS, and best yet, there's an actual consistency with Raiden. He doesn't have the bullshit fluff everyone else does, or the being 'ignored by the game and talked at' thing that Kiefersnake had. Nor is he one note. We see humanity, madness, even some occasional vulnerability in some surprisingly subtle moments, like him wanting to shake Bladewolf's paw, Bladewolf turning away and him getting angry for a moment about it. Or that scene above where he criticized Armstrong for not knowing what it truly is to be desperate when we know first hand that Raiden did.

More importantly, the cutscenes themselves are as long as they need to be. There's very little bloat and fluff that ever wastes time. Revengers is the most "to the point" MG game to date. Codec calls are real time, cutscenes are never ridiculously long, and more often than not, the cool stuff is happening in game. In any other MGS game, except TPP, Raiden's first boss fight against Sam would have been a cutscene, just like it was in MGS3, when Snake fought Ocelot and won, or fought The Boss and lost. It was a mixture of interactive and non-interactive so we the players felt as outmatched as Raiden did, which would prove important when we got our inevitable rematch.

This is the one game that wastes zero time jumping into the game. Our opening cutscene is just two or so minutes long, and then boom, right into the action, and then one villain introduction later, right into the tutorial, which happens to be a goddamn boss fight against Ray. Revengers is one of the few games with Metal Gear in the title that puts being a game above trying to tell some pretentious, self important and always somehow inconsistent story about interesting, but underdeveloped, inconsistent characters.

And more importantly, it's actually fun to play. Something I can't say about every MGS game. When it is challenging, it's challenging because the game poses those challenges, not because the mechanics are actively working against you, like a slow moving scope against an enemy with a high rate of attack while you have a low rate of recovery. Even the most insufferable boss fights still give you wiggle room even if you aren't a master of parrying. I should know, because I managed to beat Monsoon, Sam and Armstrong without ever getting parrying just right, because the game had mechanics to accommodate like jumping around like a frog on steroids.

Where does replayability fall into place? The game is inherently fun to play, and knowing the story beats won't make it any less fun, and it's short enough that you can still immediately jump back in. And like MGS1, it has VR missions for those who like beating high scores for shit.

Quote:
 
and it can't be completed within 6 hours.

That 5-6 hour campaign is around 7-8 when you factor in cutscenes, and last I checked, MGS1 was around an 8 hour campaign, but with far more than 2 hours of cutscenes injected in between. MGS2 was under 5 hours without cutscenes. MGS4 was under 6 hours without cutscenes. GZ is literally an hour long with a lot of filler to justify having to pay more than 0 dollars, and many would argue that still didn't justify it when it all takes place in one location and you face a lot of the same challenges in every single mission.

MGS3, PW and TPP are the only games with a tangible amount of campaign time, which isn't stretched out by cutscenes, but then again, I also haven't yet played MGS3 without cutscenes yet, so I can't even know that for certain. What I do know is, for that 5-6 hours of gameplay Revengers has to offer without cutscenes, you have a wide array of enemies, a good several mini bosses, and boss fights that put almost everything MGS has ever had to offer to shame, because each one has layers, a wide array of attacks, and actually challenge you based on the skills you've acquired all game long, instead of using mechanics that are gimmicks or not the core of your experience. And mathematically, it's no shorter than half the MGS games, so I really don't see the use in the length argument when it was only the Biggie games that gave you more than a few hours of gameplay.

Quote:
 
I am in no way dissing Rising, as I still think it's a good game if you take it out of context of the series, but if you look at it any other way you are just doing it wrong.
And there in lies the problem with so many MGS fans.

"So and so is a good game, so long as you don't call it a Metal Gear game." It's statements like that which lead me to believe more and more that MGS as a series is severely overrated, because there are clearly blinders welded on.

MGS is a distinct, iconic series. I'd never argue otherwise. I've been playing these games almost twenty goddamn years (Holy shit), so clearly, they did something right, and mechanically, have only gotten better and more distinct as the years have gone by. But MGS games and their stories are ultimately byproducts of their times and the limitations of those times. They absolutely aren't timeless on any front, and with time, those blemishes become all the more apparent. They can be forgiven if we accept them for what they are. But it's when people pretend that this series is the first two Godfathers of gaming that make games like Revengers look all the better.

Revengers isn't a smart game, but neither are most MGS games. It doesn't have anything to say the way other MGS games might have, but I'd always question how well executed those messages are, before I talk about their potency. Its characters aren't that well developed, like any MGS game, but they have better interactions that carry more substance and lend more weight to their scenes. And more importantly, it's just a damn fun game, even if it is simplistic at times, and repetitive in other times.

I don't consider it the best MG game because TPP exists, and TPP has vastly, with levels that complement any situation, more versatility and I can have a much more engaging time with it as a result, and its' controls aren't nearly as loose, and its' camera is actually focused, something I hated about Revengers, but I'd still take that over a fixed camera which actively worked against me at times in MGS1 and MGS2. So, no, objectively and personally, it's not the best.

But I maintain that it's up there, because it's better at being a video game, and better at what it does on the action front than MGS was on its' stealth front. It's an all around more intuitive process with controls that aren't as busy. What it sets out to do, I'd argue, it does better than a lot of MGS games.

The only reason I consider it inferior to MGS3 is because MGS3 HD Edition and 3DS Edition exist, which make up for a lot of the old games shortcomings, and the game as a whole, possesses more versatility when it comes to the campaign, the boss fights, and strategies. But it doesn't change the fact that some mechanics are very unintuitive, from FPV shooting, all the way to the asininely intrusive menu system.

And yeah, this is a long fucking post, but I don't like generalizing, as I don't think it makes for engaging discussion. If people are gonna hold that against me, go right ahead, but imo, it says something when people would rather plug ears and go "La Li Lu Le Lo" than actually talk.
I never said you couldn't enjoy rising more as a standalone game and not fall into the categories I mentioned, what I meant was that it simply doesn't hold up as an actual entry in the series, because gameplay is nothing like what you expect from one. It would be like saying street fighter 2010 is the best street fighter game.

Although I still think if you look at the games from a standalone point, and you don't enjoy MGS's style of storytelling, V is still just a strictly superior game for everyone that doesn't hate stealth shooters. This is coming from someone that hated V by the way.

I did not intend for my previous post to sound elitist in any way. You already know what I(and most people) think about your views of the series as a whole, so the rest of this discussion is kind of irrelevant.
Edited by KingOfNeverland, Jan 29 2017, 10:10:31 PM.
mgs player since '99.country of origin:portugal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance · Next Topic »
Add Reply

User Color Code
Admin Global Moderator Forum Moderator Member Validating Banned