|
 On 02/21/2014 at 04:14 PM by Machocruz See More From This User » |
Yes, Metal Gear 7. As far as I know, this isn't Solid Snake's story anymore. And Metal Gear sporting 3D graphics is no longer novel (Solid in mathematical terms means 'cubed' or 'to the third power. A cube is 3D, plus MGS was the third mainline Metal Gear game. This was intentional on Kojima's part). But they probably keep the Solid tag for marketing reasons, since MGS1 was a game changer and the game industry seems to have a practice of adopting the traits of the first major succes in a series and carrying it over to following games. But I digress.
I don't really know much about the next MG at this point, but I'm dedicated to the series so it's a no-brainer. I'm a little worried about this one being dumbed-down. Supposedly there are on screen icons telling you where enemies are, which you can see through walls, and things like that. No, thank you, I've eat the hardest stealth games for breakfast. Hopefully you can turn that shit off.
I suppose open world is a big deal. Depends on opportunities for long range combat. Driving around just so I can get to the next meaty gameplay "node" or look for collectibles isn't my idea of an upgrade. Bigger isn't always better. Yawn
I plan on keeping myself in the dark on until I can play the game myself. I've made the mistake of going on info gathering binges for this series before. It's really pointless in the long run, even harmful to the hands-on experience. Game will look and sound good, and probably have some interesting and/or unique ingredients, and that's all I need to know.
Overall, i'm excited but my biggest concern is definitely the open world. What I have enjoyed most about the MGS releases is how story driven they were. I worry that this emphasis on an open world experience will take away from that.
Also, that pic of Keifer Sutherland is great 
I have the opposite fear, that the game will still have cutscenes that are too long, on top of the time (usually padded) that an open world will add. MGS4 took cutscene length way too far in my opinion. MGS1 got storytelling just right, and 3 was a lot more bearable than 4.
I want to stay in the dark either. I'm a little skeptical on it as well, but at the end of the day whether a Metal Gear game is good or bad, it's always interesting and worth playing just for the discussions on it.
Exactly. Plus they are always worth checking out for the cool character and mechanical designs.
I mean, there's always potential for Kojima to just change everything at the last minute, so may as well stay in the dark.
I'm rather excited for Phantom Pain as well though I didn't buy into the whole "pay $29.99 for a short prequel" nonsense Kojima pulled with Metal-Gear ground zeroes.
However jadedness aside, I do see MGS as one of the revolutional franchises that really pushed gaming into a new frontier in terms of both story-telling and gameplay.
I didn't do Ground Zeroes either, for the same reason. Plus the scenario on hand didn't look interesting.
I wonder if PP will have the gun-porn of MGS4. Being somewhat of a gun nut, it was cool to have all those weapon options, but at the same time I like the elegance of design that MGS2, 1, and the 2D games had (weapons had more clearly defined uses), plus the multiplayer in 4 didn't allow access to all the weapons from the single player, which I think was a sorely missed opportunity for more interesting vs. play.
Comments