I Dislike MGS. I am not alone.
Metal Gear
I think in the world of gamers we are split into two groups. Those who like Metal Gear Solid, and those who dislike Metal Gear Solid. I fall into the camp of the latter.
At first, I thought that there was something wrong with me. I played completely through the original Metal Gear on the Nintendo, and that’s a pretty big accomplishment for an 11 year old. I didn’t know why my opinion on the game changed so much. I made me doubt myself. Maybe my critiques weren’t justified. Maybe I was an anomaly. Maybe IÂ should be put down in case I carry an MGS hate gene and need to stop this evolutionary tree from spreading for the sake of humanity.
Well, perhaps eugenics may be a bit extreme, but at the same time, I couldn’t help but feel like an outcast from the gaming community on the MGS issue. My friends have told me tidbits of clever parts, and if you’ve read things by me before, you know that I like clever. It also supposedly has cool characters, and I like cool characters. So far so good.
But there’s something off putting about having to sit through 20 minutes of a contrived plot to get to the first moment of being able to play the game. And when the game does start, the game play is decidedly meh. I’ve always been of the opinion that a video game isn’t the greatest medium to convey a story, but I feel that the story is there to propel you to play through the game. In other words, I would prefer a game with good gameplay and no/poor story vs a game that has a good story and poor gameplay. There are so many other means of getting good stories, but video games are the only place that I can get good gameplay.
Even though it’s a argumentative fallacy, I think I’ll appeal to what others say upon this MGS issue. Listening to Zero Punctuation on MGS4, he brings up many of the points that I’ve said in the past, such as long cut scenes, which has historically the low hanging fruit in terms of MGS criticism. In addition, and he puts an emphasis on this, another criticism he has is the poor inane writing. Like I said, I like cool characters, but if I have to wade through 10 hours of uncool stuff* to get to hear a cool character say one clever thing, I’ll just pass, thank you.
Also, Tycho from Penny-Arcade has a similar opinion as mine. I WANT to like the MGS series. I’ve purchased MGS2, and when I get a PS3, i’ll probably pick it up when it’s cheap in a few years. For MGS, it’s not about gameplay or story, but I think it’s about the experience. MGS is like Phantom of the Opera for opera goers, it’s full of production but short on game.
Â
*And I have put in my due because I’ve watched Phokal play many many hours of this, most of which consisted of the most uncool gameplay/dialogue I’ve seen. This included a 10 minute ladder climb. Yes, that’s it. It cost me 10 minutes of my life to watch him put one arm over the other. Of course, he seemed to enjoy it because he was willing to jump off when he got to the top. That may be what separates those who like MGS4 and those who don’t. The ones who like exciting ladder climbing gameplay and those who don’t.
There is a key fallacy in your argument: that the gameplay is bad. The gameplay is actually quite good. If you skip the cutscenes and the occasional “ladder”, the core sneaking and shooting is quite fun. Of course, it’s only really fun to play; the tension isn’t there otherwise. It is NOT fun to watch someone stare at a bush waiting for a guard to come by, lining up the perfect headshot. But it wasn’t fun to watch someone do that in Thief, Splinter Cell, Deus Ex or any other sneaking game. The only reason metal gear is tolerable to watch is because of it’s main hindrance: it’s got a lot of cutscenes.
The problem is that sometimes you play for 5-10 minutes and are hit with another 20 minute cutscene. If you don’t like watching the movies then when that happens it aggravates the player.
The other problem, I think I can explain, is the story is like Lost or Heroes. Some aspects that you see are not supposed to make sense. And just telling you which ones are (by talking, and telling you, the back-story necessary) is inadequate. Describing that Psycho Mantis reads your memory card and tells you about other saved games (like Castlevania: SotN) lacks the visceral punch that happens when he does it to you and you don’t see it coming. Knowing that he fakes the flipping of your TV to “Video 2” is nothing compared to the frantic “omg, my tv just flipped!” and running up to flip it yourself, only to then have it flip away from the game.
Note: I give away parts of the Psycho Mantis fight simply b/c it’s assumed everyone has read these two by now.
Remind me to boot it up and show you the zombie part at least.
I’ll think of more later.
“There is a key fallacy in your argument: that the gameplay is bad. The gameplay is actually quite good. If you skip the cutscenes and the occasional “ladderâ€, the core sneaking and shooting is quite fun.”
That’s the point. If you like “ladder” gameplay, then of course you’ll say things such as “The gameplay is actually quite good”. I mean look closely, you’re saying “It’s quite good, if I ignore what sucks.”
“It is NOT fun to watch someone stare at a bush waiting for a guard to come by, lining up the perfect headshot.”
See, this doesn’t sound fun to me even if I was playing. Even your example of what’s fun about the game seems unfun to me.
“The other problem, I think I can explain, is the story is like Lost or Heroes. Some aspects that you see are not supposed to make sense.”
Right, but the problem isn’t necessarily the wacky storyline, but it’s the writing. The problem is that they spend all their money on making the game fill a blu-ray disk and didn’t have any money to hire a writer. Sure, I can deal with plots that don’t make sense, as long as it’s filled with other things (such as explosions, gunfights, humor, gameplay) but if I have to sit through half hour cutscenes listening to people with mouth diarrhea, it’s no longer a good experience. Again, it’s a matter of cost. Am I willing to spend X in annoyance to receive Y in gains? From what I’ve seen and played, it has not lived up to what people have said about it.
Like I said, you’re willing to go through all sorts of hoops for the meager gameplay, you’re willing to put up with the suck (ladder). I’m just saying that MGS4 isn’t worth the time.
“Describing that Psycho Mantis reads your memory card and tells you about other saved games (like Castlevania: SotN) lacks the visceral punch that happens when he does it to you and you don’t see it coming.”
See, that’s where it’s clever. I’ve said many times that I like that. It’s the, as you said, segments 4 to 1 ratio of cutscenes to gameplay that kills the desire to play it.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t play it. I mean if you enjoy it, by all means enjoy it. But like I said in the beginning, there are 2 types of people in the world, people that like MGS4 (reviews, ps3 owners) and people that don’t like MGS4 (offcolour reviewers, webcomic writers, me).
Gameplay = normal, sneaking gunplay. Not ladders or boss fights. It is fun to enter a room and sneak/take-out guards. Despite the ratio, this still makes up for 40-50% of the actual game. 20% boss fights or other scripted, neat events. Rest for cinematics. Rough estimates, of course.
As for hiding in the bush lining up the headshot. This isn’t Metal Gear. This is every single stealth game. If you don’t like stealth games, then of course you won’t like the grand-daddy of them all. But this is equivalent to hiding in the shadows as Sam Fisher waiting for the perfect headshot on the guard across the bridge, or hiding in the shadows in thief waiting to hit the guard in the head with an arrow, or waiting in a vent in Deus Ex waiting to headshot a guard with a tranq bolt. This is usually pretty tense, because unlike other games, you really can’t miss. Metal Gear and Deus Ex are far more forgiving about alerts; you can’t just run in and kill everyone if you feel like it. But waiting behind the wall with Octo-camo in MGS in order to CQC a guard whose route you memorized is exactly the same as dangling from the pipe in Splinter Cell getting ready to press Y (?) to hang upside down instead of B (? hang right side up) to allow the contextual neck snap animation while upside down. Or blackjacking a guard in Thief. Or Stun/Swording an Agent.
And what’s particularly funny about that is, that out of every stealth game, MGS is the most forgiving and can be played almost entirely like a shooter. You don’t have to wait for the headshot. You just won’t get a good ranking. It almost rewards players you like to run and gun, since every gun you pick up from a killed enemy (and more come when you set off alerts) is equal to money, used in a store that has more guns and customization than Army of Two.
And really, I know I scarred you with the ladder, but let it go. MGS3’s ladder is the long elevator ride that builds up tension before you sneak into the main compound. Each game has had a sequence where not much happens as you transverse a large area to reach your important destination. MGS1 had the key card running, MGS2 had the post-bombs run, MGS3 has the ladder, and MGS4 has the hallway. They each were meant to make the player a bit uncomfortable (“when’s something going to pop out at me!”) right before something big occurs. Half-life, Resident Evil (including 4), and just about any ‘tension’ game has something like this. For MGS: they are single events similar to the obligatory torture sequence, betrayal, or fight against a military aircraft.
Part of Metal Gear’s strengths is the ability to build tension. Instead of making it constant, Kojima brings it up and down. Sections are humorous or easy and put you at ease, then followed by a build up sequence (via anticipations or light action). The ladder is the extreme example of anticipation; and the most so in the entire series (5-10 min out of 4 separate 20hr games).
Also, the cinematic ratio is not 4-1. The game is less than half cinematics. The problem is the consistency in which this is presented (as I explained above). For example: there are almost no cinematics during the entire middle of MGS4. The middle acts have very long intro briefings and ending cinematics, but the gameplay in the middle is almost entirely uninterrupted. The issue is Act 1 has a cinematic every few minutes to show a new feature or introduce a character, similar to GTA’s “everything is a god damn tutorial” for the first few hours.
There are certainly people who won’t like Metal Gear. The problem is the ‘problems.’ They are as exaggerated and over blow as Metal Gear’s plot. Every game has had at least one boring, 10 minute sequence as you tried to stack crates, or platform in an FPS perspective, or got lucky with a grenade throw and ended what should have been a long combat WAY too early. Even if the ladder doesn’t build tension for you (b/c you hadn’t played the game up to that point, and wouldn’t have any apprehension about entering Grojny Grad), it’s hard to knock the other 15 hrs of gameplay,…ok, 10 hrs of gameplay, 5 of cinematics, because it failed for 10 minutes.
And seriously, how many hours did we waste to grind sheep in Overlord, backtrack in Halo, or get waylaid by Bandits when you tried to rest or travel in Baldur’s Gate.
after ranting for this long, I think I’ve got it:
*********************************************
I guess my point is: Metal Gear’s faults are present in every game we’ve ever played. Take Metal Gear, which has great gameplay for 10 hrs, and 5 hrs of cinematic. Place next to game B, which has 10 hrs of B/B+ gameplay. People HATE Metal Gear, but don’t hate Game B. Does losing control of your character really bother people THAT much? Even if the same people can grind in an mmo, pause to break and watch some TV, and then go back to grinding?
“[Stealth Gameplay stuff]”
I think I look at stealth gameplay as a puzzle game. You look at the pieces and remember the pieces vs [for the most part] putting the crosshairs over the baddies. Stealth gameplay is fine for those who like it. I don’t really care for it, so for me, metal gear solid has to live or die by its story. Probably the most stealthy game that i’ve played is Beyond Good and Evil, which was fine, and a bit of No One Lives Forever 2, where you can be clever and stealthy. I would go in with guns blazing if given the opportunity. Honestly, I’ve tried splinter cell and that didn’t really do it for me either.
“It almost rewards players you like to run and gun, since every gun you pick up from a killed enemy (and more come when you set off alerts) is equal to money, used in a store that has more guns and customization than Army of Two.”
I think here’s another difference. When we’re playing Army of Two, you keep saying “You should upgrade your guns” and I keep saying “I don’t care”. You like the pokimon collectible aspect of weapon collecting and that just doesn’t do it for me.
“And really, I know I scarred you with the ladder, but let it go.”
I know, I think the big problem is that you were trying to show off with it. Remeber, we were leaving to go somewhere and you made us waith so that you could climb on top because you thought that there was going to be something cool on top (as a payoff for the “tension”. The problem is that there never was a payoff.) Again, I know that there were clever parts, but after 10ish hours of watching you crawl around, I didn’t see anything that would compell me to play the game.
“Part of Metal Gear’s strengths is the ability to build tension. Instead of making it constant, Kojima brings it up and down. Sections are humorous or easy and put you at ease, then followed by a build up sequence”
Right, we keep going over this again and again. There are many sections. Some are good. Some are lame. The lame sections outweigh the good sections. Not worth time.
“Also, the cinematic ratio is not 4-1.”
That’s a quote from you:
“The problem is that sometimes you play for 5-10 minutes and are hit with another 20 minute cutscene.”
and here’s what I said:
“It’s the, as you said, segments [of] 4 to 1 ratio of cutscenes to gameplay that kills the desire to play it.”
Looks like we said the same thing.
“Every game has had at least one boring, 10 minute sequence as you tried to stack crates, or platform in an FPS perspective, or got lucky with a grenade throw and ended what should have been a long combat WAY too early. Even if the ladder doesn’t build tension for you (b/c you hadn’t played the game up to that point, and wouldn’t have any apprehension about entering Grojny Grad), it’s hard to knock the other 15 hrs of gameplay,…ok, 10 hrs of gameplay, 5 of cinematics, because it failed for 10 minutes.”
As a spectator, that’s not the only place that it failed. That’s where it failed spectacularly. I keep bringing up the ladder not really because I hated it. It just shows the mentality of the people who enjoy MGS.
“Take Metal Gear, which has great gameplay for 10 hrs, and 5 hrs of cinematic.”
Whoa, let’s not get carried away. The gameplay is fine, but I hardly find it “great”. Remember, people have different likes and dislikes. What’s A+ to some is B- to others. Different folks, different strokes. What’s the important take away here? It’s that there are certain authorities (ie, Penny-arcade, Zero Punctuation) that agree with me. And I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I think my video game tastes fall relatively in line with the Penny-arcade guys.
“Does losing control of your character really bother people THAT much?”
Yes, if I have to listen to a bunch of people spout nonsense, yes, it does really bother me that much.
“Even if the same people can grind in an mmo, pause to break and watch some TV, and then go back to grinding?”
Hey now, I can watch TV and grind in WOW. It’s not an either/or situation. Heck, I could read arstechnica while playing WOW. How would metal gear solid play out if I watched tv and played at the same time? (I have the technology to do it)
Heh.
Stealth gameplay + tranq gun + skipped cinematics = Penny arcade gives thumbs up.
I enjoyed that, and the gunning with allies in act 1 and 2, taking down enemy encampments. You should come over and play some of it sometime.
I’m not sure I would say that he gives it “thumbs up” but here’s some select quotes that I’ve read:
Tycho: 6/11/2008
“I sometimes wonder why I buy every MGS game that comes out when I profess to hate them, and also authentically do hate them, but I know the answer.”
Tycho: 6/13/2008
” If I fail at sneaking, the game ceases to be Metal Gear. In the space of a second, it becomes an incredibly clumsy action game. The boss battles are comprised almost entirely of this other system, a mechanism that has now been exposed for what it is: a punishment.”
Tycho: 6/13/2008
“I hated the game less. Is that sufficient?”
Tycho: 6/18/2008
“I actually like the story of Metal Gear, but it’s not told well.”
Which is similar to my comment that the story isn’t the problem, it’s the writing.
The odds are, you’re pulling your comment from his line:
Tycho: 6/18/2008.
“I only started to enjoy Metal Gear Solid once I began skipping the cutscenes.”
No one said that there aren’t enjoyable parts to mgs, but if I need to skip 1/3 of it to enjoy it, maybe it’s not for me. But again, he’s a quasi professional video gamer. He has time to play for what he likes even with all that he dislikes about the game (bad combat, poor writing), and with the ability to skip cutscense, that really might make the game playable.
I still stand by my statement. There are many flaws with the game. I don’t have time to play through all the flaws (bad combat, bad writing, bad cutscenes) to get to play what’s good (stealthing, shooting people with a tranq gun).
sigh…
Combat = good. It’s no worse off than Gears at its basics (L1 to Aim over shoulder, R1 to shoot. R1 without L1 performs melee). The only lack is a blind fire mechanic to the cover system. When you take into account you can flip the side of the gun and lean around corners manually, it is hardly missed. Add on ‘other mechanics’ (going prone, running while crouched or standing, camo, CQC) and you’ve got fun mechanics, good level design, and fun AI.
Notice no one’s complained about things people usually complain about in games. Backtracking, Levels, AI, guns that don’t feel right, broken controls (besides yahtzee), cheap off screen kills, etc. All anyone really complains about is the story. And, yes, if the 25-33% watching aspect is enough to ruin the experience for you, then it does. That doesn’t make the core/rest of it ‘bad’ however (though, for you, it can make the overall product/presentation bad). It just means you can’t ever be immersed in it because of the distraction.
More extreme example for those that don’t like cinematics: Being pulled out of a movie with constant commercials can ruin the pacing of the movie. That doesn’t make the actual plot of the movie bad, however. For you, if the commercials were removed and the movie stitched together (which, you can do with the start button), then it’d be a good movie.
Then there are those that enjoy the cinematics. They help build up some interesting characters and give purpose to the actions you take within the game. Sure, some just plain suck. But on average they are entertaining, and every once in awhile you simply get a good one. Much like watching most geeky entertainment (babylon 5, buffy, etc), the crappy parts are usually just build up for the better stuff.
I think you should play it a BIT, just so you can see that the controls are fine, the combat is fun, and sneaking around is satisfying. Minor learning curve, but no more so than GTA4.
“When you take into account you can flip the side of the gun and lean around corners manually, it is hardly missed.”
You love this feature (you’ve talked to me about it 4 times), i say meh. What i’ve played of MGS2 and what i’ve watch you play mgs3 is nothing like Gears of War other than at the most superficial level. Added to the fact is that I probably wouldn’t have played gears of war all the way through single player and that I have only played Halo with other people shows that enjoy playing FPSs/TPSs with others and find them boring alone. The only FPS that I remember playing to completion was Call of Duty 4, and I didn’t skip any of those cut scenes the first time through. The presentation was great and the game flowed in and out of cutscenes, keeping you engaged while at the same time progressing the “story”.
All those things that you listed are problems with games, sure, and mgs4 might have missed them all. There are still plenty of problems (ie, poor writing)
“…broken controls (besides yahtzee)…”
You mean Yahtzee and Tycho (the ones that I am using to validate my observations of MGS), as seen in the following quote:
“it becomes an incredibly clumsy action game. The boss battles are comprised almost entirely of this other system, a mechanism that has now been exposed for what it is: a punishment.”
Well said, Tycho, well said. And is coming from someone who “gives it a thumbs up”
“That doesn’t make the core/rest of it ‘bad’ however (though, for you, it can make the overall product/presentation bad). It just means you can’t ever be immersed in it because of the distraction.”
I focus on the cut scenes because it’s there and it’s so cheesy and poorly written. If it was good, I don’t think anybody would really mind. Sure, I could skip it, and that’s fine. I’m not sure your commercial analogy applies though. There’s quite a gulf between a cutscene and a commercial (and anyway, I don’t dislike cutscenes because they mess with the presentation, it’s just that video games generally have grade B cutscenes, and I’d rather be playing videos games over watching a video game).
“For you, if the commercials were removed and the movie stitched together (which, you can do with the start button), then it’d be a good movie.”
Yeah… again, not the same. A movie is almost always better for everybody when you remove the commercials. Is MGS4 always better when you remove the cutscenes? What’s lost when you remove the cutscenes? What happens if I want to know what’s going on, but I don’t have time to sit through 5 hours of B grade dialogue?
“Much like watching most geeky entertainment (babylon 5, buffy, etc), the crappy parts are usually just build up for the better stuff.”
Yes, but it’s important to note that the crappy parts are just that, crappy. That’s what I’m saying, there’s a lot of “crappy parts”. I would be just fine watching just the Good parts of DS9. The other issue is that there may be a payoff at the end of Babylon5, but what’s the payoff in MGS? Stuff you like enough to forgive the crap (stealthing, being able to switch your weapon from one shoulder to the other, ladders) aren’t what I like (multiplayer, concisely edited story that tells the story without making you feel like you’re 11 and reading Dragonlance).
“I think you should play it a BIT, just so you can see that the controls are fine, the combat is fun, and sneaking around is satisfying. Minor learning curve, but no more so than GTA4.”
Hey, I’ll be more than willing to try it.
MGS4 gunplay is nothing like MGS1-3 gunplay. MGS4 plays like Gears, the others do not.
Parts that I like don’t include “the ladder.” No one likes the ladder. You aren’t supposed to. It’s meant to make you feel unnerved or uncomfortable as you approach the ominous base of Grojny Grad (spelling…).
Tycho’s quote: is that from his last post, where he actually begins to enjoy MGS4 (using stealth and tranq gun), or earlier? Also, boss fights are examples of where the tranq gun gameplay isn’t really used. Can’t really say any specific puzzle elements without spoiling things, but they more or less play out like older boss battles from the nes (pattern memorization. move to certain locations, perform certain actions, repeat 3 times; bosses have periods of invulnerability after being hit a couple times). In MGS1, you still had blinking invulnerability when you or they were hit. Now mask it with a blurred retreat. It was jarring the first time I fought Ocelot in MGS1, but since I’ve gotten used to it and enjoy the throwback. Ninja Gaiden, God of War and Resident Evil 4 all examples of games that do this, too.
MGS4 has multiplayer. It’s quite fun. Pretty much a separate product included with the main game. The core gameplay stands up pretty well (though, the headshot is a bit overpowered. or body shot underpowered. a bit like gta in that regard. a separate article to discuss, i’d think :)
The point you’ve seem to be making is “the whole game has too much bad to be good at all.”
I disagree. The core gameplay (used in multiplayer, or single player when playing) is very fun and well built no matter how much passive entertainment hurts the product. My point is, if I skipped the intro and gave you the controller part way through act2, and you didn’t know it was MGS, you’d think it was a good game. Sure, this doesn’t ‘save’ the game for you: and it *shouldn’t*. The overall package includes too many poor cinematics for you. But that doesn’t just destroy the balance and gameplay they created in between.
“Parts that I like don’t include “the ladder.†No one likes the ladder. You aren’t supposed to. It’s meant to make you feel unnerved or uncomfortable as you approach the ominous base of Grojny Grad (spelling…).”
Okay, but instead of calling it a boring 10 minute climb, you spin it to make it a positive part of the game. That’s the point. If they wrote in that climbing a ladder as a literary technique of building suspense, that goes back to my point that they need to spend more money on writers and less money on trying to fill 50 gigs of data. Again, story is fine. The writing is not.
“Tycho’s quote: is that from his last post, where he actually begins to enjoy MGS4 (using stealth and tranq gun), or earlier?”
I didn’t see him mention this actually. Maybe if you linked to a page and a quote, we can discuss it.
I will say that he says he’s fine with the stealth, it’s the combat/writing/cutscenes that he dislikes.
“MGS4 has multiplayer. It’s quite fun. Pretty much a separate product included with the main game. The core gameplay stands up pretty well (though, the headshot is a bit overpowered. or body shot underpowered. a bit like gta in that regard. a separate article to discuss, i’d think :)”
I had a feeling that you were going to say that, but I figured you’d be able read the context of “multiplayer”. When I say “Added to the fact is that I probably wouldn’t have played gears of war all the way through single player” and “The only FPS that I remember playing to completion was Call of Duty 4” I’m talking about co-op through the campaign.
Does MGS 4 have multiplayer through the campaign?
“I disagree. The core gameplay (used in multiplayer, or single player when playing) is very fun and well built no matter how much passive entertainment hurts the product.”
I think that the core MGS gameplay is probably adequate, much like the core gameplay of halo, gears of war, Army of Two. Sure, it might be better overall, but at the end of the day, it’s just a stealthing third person shooter.
Like I mentioned, the only reason I played any of those games was because I was playing with someone else. I didn’t beat gears of war on my own. I haven’t beat Halo because I wasn’t able to find someone to campaign with me, I probably wouldn’t have beat army of two alone… The X person shooter single player is so so for me unless I’m playing with someone else. Add to the fact that there’s stealthing, which I don’t care for, and no context of what i’m doing if i’m skipping all the cut scenes, the game would need some impressive tricks to convince me that it would be good.
“The point you’ve seem to be making is “the whole game has too much bad to be good at all.—
I think that’s paraphrased a little incorrectly. The correct sentense is “the whole game has too much bad to be worth my time”. I’m sure there are snipplets of “good” (clever stuff that you never showed me), but the cost of getting to those (because god knows that the 10 or so hours I’ve seen of it was pretty terrible. I just had a flashback of when you were crawling around a cave stabbing crabs? Did that really happen or is that just so ridiculous that it was a parody that I saw somewhere?) is not worth it.