• MGSV: A Bad Open World Game
    67 replies, posted
my opinion on the open world mechanic in Metal Gear Solid V. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LP-uLcn26E[/media] tl;dr it doesn't do enough with open world to let the world seem alive.
I think The Witcher 3 approached the open-worldness a lot better, it feels a lot more alive. That was my biggest issue with MGS:V, the only reason to 'want' to explore was solely for resources and even then, exploration was going camp to outpost to camp with nothing inbetween
Skyrim and Fallout 4 were i think the last decent open world games i have played and i mean that they did the open world part better. Just never look up images or anything from those games so you can fully explore the game all by yourself, especially Skyrim was a wonderful treat.
I thought this was going to be the typical "not enough wildlife between outposts" kind of point, but I was pleasantly surprised. You're right about all of this, there's barely anything that remains in the aftermath of major story events. The fuel tank at the oilfield is pretty much it. Even after Sahelanthropus decimates the power plant, the power plant is in pristine condition on your next return trip. The actual open-world maps aren't bad, but they could've done so much more with it. That said, though, I did still enjoy MGSV's open-world gameplay. The gameplay mechanics offer up loads of fun, and I spent many hours just wandering the map, taking out outposts in creative ways. It does start to feel bare and repetitive the more you do it, but it was extremely fun for a while.
I feel like MGSV would have been a lot better (and more structured) if the game went for large open stages instead of the open world. More Ground Zeroes in scale than the empty landscapes we got. Ground Zeroes felt like the start to a true MGS game with stellar gameplay; when MGSV dropped Snake stopped talking at all, and things went off the rails.
Yeah, what the fuck were people thinking to give the game so many awards? I bought, beat it, uninstalled it. Don't get me wrong: it's not bad, but compared to other MGS titles it's just bland. There's really not much to do in the world than ever repeating sidequests. No real variety, no real memorable moments. I kinda regret buying it...
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;50082113]I feel like MGSV would have been a lot better (and more structured) if the game went for large open stages instead of the open world. More Ground Zeroes in scale than the empty landscapes we got. Ground Zeroes felt like the start to a true MGS game with stellar gameplay; when MGSV dropped Snake stopped talking at all, and things went off the rails.[/QUOTE] I remember magazine previews a year ago stating that each of the areas and outposts were like individual Ground Zeroes all over the game map. Turns out every single Outpost is basically the same thing re-arranged and only a handful of bases even remotely approach Ground Zeros levels of intricacy and good design - everything else is just bland open areas that are both a stealth smorgasbord and a nightmare to survive in if you get spotted.
To me it boils down to variety. There just isn't enough going on in the open world to even justify the free roam option.
The problem is that the game was clearly rushed out in the wake of Kojima being kicked out of the company. The game could have used at least another year to streamline and finish the story, and flesh out the open world.
[QUOTE=lew06;50082261]The problem is that the game was clearly rushed out in the wake of Kojima being kicked out of the company. The game could have used at least another year to streamline and finish the story, and flesh out the open world.[/QUOTE] Yeah. And we can't know for sure, but I would guess the open world as a whole was at Konami's insistence. Once Skyrim released (and eventually sold over 20 million units) everybody jumped on that open world train.
the blatant signs of the game being rushed so hard were offputting enough that I couldn't even finish the game. it was a grueling dullness I never expected to come out of a metal gear solid game
It doesn't help that there is literally nothing on any of the maps that aren't part of a main mission. You visit [I]everything[/I] on the map, it's like they didn't even bother, so like, every region you didn't go to is completely empty or useless
I feel MGSV should have taken the level-design and layout approach as MGS3 did, it is still my favo game in the series.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50082065]Skyrim and Fallout 4 were i think the last decent open world games i have played and i mean that they did the open world part better. Just never look up images or anything from those games so you can fully explore the game all by yourself, especially Skyrim was a wonderful treat.[/QUOTE] I got bored of skyrim very quickly, it was nice to see all the variation in the world but most of the time there was no reason to visit cool place X other than maybe get some side quest you'll never finish. The places looked nice but didn't really have any content
Adding more wildlife, civilians, walker gears and roaming tank convoys would have really livened the maps up. They also could have put opposing factions fighting each other randomly to make each area seem more like active warzones. Having two different areas/ecosystems was a mistake as well. Better to do a good job building one area than to do a mediocre job making two different locations.
I bought MGS V because I loved the whole tactical sneaky operator thing it had going for it. I loved Ground Zeroes and I really enjoyed TPP, but it was a flawed game, no doubt about it. I'm holding out hope for Ghost Recon:Wildlands to satisfy my open world operator simulator desire, but it's Ubisoft, so who knows what will happen.
[QUOTE=Holt!;50082677]I bought MGS V because I loved the whole tactical sneaky operator thing it had going for it. I loved Ground Zeroes and I really enjoyed TPP, but it was a flawed game, no doubt about it. I'm holding out hope for Ghost Recon:Wildlands to satisfy my open world operator simulator desire, but it's Ubisoft, so who knows what will happen.[/QUOTE] Other than the whole "climb tower to reveal world" thing, Ubisoft is pretty good at making open world games.
one of the biggest things that irked me was the complete lack of stuff to do on mother base like seriously, there was no real reason to even bother trying to run around and check anything out because there was nothing happening. soldiers patrolled around in preset patterns and occasionally saluted me. punching them got boring very quickly. i don't even understand the point of the wildlife reserve because it's literally just a trophy case for the animals you fulton back. you go there and it's ironically even more lifeless than any other part of the game.
[QUOTE=Hillo;50082528]I got bored of skyrim very quickly, it was nice to see all the variation in the world but most of the time there was no reason to visit cool place X other than maybe get some side quest you'll never finish. The places looked nice but didn't really have any content[/QUOTE] Quests and shit were boring yeah, but i was talking about the open world aspect which was done rather well since there was quite some variation and the atmosphere and music make it all really great.
I find mgs4 to be a more enjoyable because of being more centered into more detailed action.
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;50082460]the blatant signs of the game being rushed so hard were offputting enough that I couldn't even finish the game. it was a grueling dullness I never expected to come out of a metal gear solid game[/QUOTE] I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANTED TO LOVE THIS GAME. It has so many awesome elements, so much could have done. SO MUCH POTENTIAL. SO MUCH. While the story mission were fun and awesome, fuck the game felt empty and near the end I was really saddened. It was clearly rushed. Which makes me even more sad because this will likely be the last Metal Gear we will ever see...
Nice videos man, you've got a new subscriber keep it up!
MGSV is a GREAT game if you just go back and play missions individually. Like someone else said, if it was like GZ, with smaller, but more varied mission areas i think it would have been way, way better. More concise story in line with MGS, still plenty of ways to tackle things. Such a shame. I do kind of hope Konami use Fox engine to do MGSVI, if just to see where it goes.
I agree, the quality of the different parts of the game seems kinda inconsistent at many times. Still overall an incredibly enjoyable game that could be made so much better.
mgsv just wasn't even that great to begin with. the open world was bland and I heard the ending was a complete joke
[QUOTE=lew06;50082261]The problem is that the game was clearly rushed out in the wake of Kojima being kicked out of the company. The game could have used at least another year to streamline and finish the story, and flesh out the open world.[/QUOTE] ehh yes and no. it seems like the story was probably done a long time ago; pretty much every cutscene was covered in a trailer. and some of these trailers are years old. [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it but just that I think the story wasn't rushed, just crap :(
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50083061]I find mgs4 to be a more enjoyable because of being more centered into more detailed action.[/QUOTE] MGS4 had legitimate warfare going on, even if it wasn't as open-ended as the original intent (this seems to be a recurring thing, since MGS3 was meant to be open world but the PS2 couldn't handle it). It made it feel like the environments you snuck or fought through had a reason to be as they were, and that Snake really was an outsider to the conflict at hand that could influence it if the player so desires. If you don't, no big deal, the fight goes on regardless. Unfortunately this was mostly for the first two chapters; the final chapter has a brief cinematic hint of it but it lasts like one area, and the other two chapters are the worst chapter in the entire game and a gigantic nostalgia boner chapter. Meanwhile MGSV doesn't have any of that. There's never two factions fighting, the [sp]parasite zombies and Skulls[/sp] literally are a situation toggle where nothing else will appear while they're active, the Mujaheddin are referenced but only exist as hostages to rescue, and all the civilians conveniently fled both Afghanistan and Africa, leaving the former to be entirely inhabited by Russian forces and the latter by PMC groups that also don't fight eachother but just sort of stand around waiting for nothing but the player's sneaking purposes.
Exactly! Perfectly explained. The first 2 chapters are absolutely great. You can intervene in the fights and just play around with it, kind of like MGS3 and its jungle bits, but better, because there are actual fights going on instead of just guards here and there. It takes a nosedive in Act 3 though. It's boring as FUCK, somewhat on rails imo because you HAVE to follow the guy, and just uninteresting due to the whole place and the kind of mission. Act 4 is nostalgia, which I DO like quite a lot, but it isn't used to its full potential, and the fact that there aren't any human enemies outside of the boss battle, is just bad, because the enemies you do fight there, are awfuly boring. They could have used the frogs there... I forget the final act, but it felt very claustrophobic and restraining, because its a nearly endless supply of enemies, and almost no way of hiding, so if you get caught, you have to shoot.literaly.everything. MGSV is good, we can't deny that, but its dull in the very end.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50083711]ehh yes and no. it seems like the story was probably done a long time ago; pretty much every cutscene was covered in a trailer. and some of these trailers are years old. [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it but just that I think the story wasn't rushed, just crap :([/QUOTE] I think they planned ahead and it may or may not have been shit, but it's been outright stated that they cut a lot of shit from the story iirc. There's even plot important cutscenes that were never finished. There's also so little actual story that it makes me suspicious, at the very least.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50082065]Skyrim and Fallout 4 were i think the last decent open world games i have played and i mean that they did the open world part better. Just never look up images or anything from those games so you can fully explore the game all by yourself, especially Skyrim was a wonderful treat.[/QUOTE] Bethesda's had a wonderful downhill curve in keeping their open worlds interesting and interactive, and you would've thought that Obsidian's wrassle with Fallout 3 would've woken them up. But it didn't. And that said, MGS:V was even more dead. It was a game with a plot that takes a needless right hook (for better/worse/same up to opinion) and is pretty barren/grindy without a quest going on. The locations are pretty generic and even the big set-pieces don't really seem to involve you enough to leave a lasting impact, imo. Really coulda used another year or two on the backburner. Witcher 3 pulled it off rather wonderfully for a modern game, but you're still left with big, empty dead sections and sprawling towns of copy-pasted NPCs with little to do. That said, it was beautiful and animated enough to keep you entertained through those slogs, most of the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.