[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48539726]You arent reading it right.
Its Nuclear-Equipped, which it was, or at least thats how it was designed to be.[/QUOTE]
It was never nuclear-equipped, it was designed as an anti-metal-gear metal gear
[QUOTE=mn_chaos;48537877]That metal gear makes me concerned that this game suffers from aoz syndrome. I mean its a bit unavoidable considering how long ago the original was released and the technical limitations of making the REX we got in the first place, but this seems REALLY out of place.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. I think all the different metal gear designs make sense respective to their time periods and the people working on them. You gotta remember, most of the information wasn't passed on from generation to generation, so it's very well possible that the predecessors of REX could achieve different design goals and with more advanced technology than REX had. Otacon didn't have the kind of resources that Zero or Big Boss or the KGB have, and so yeah, their metal gear projects can be more technically impressive than what came later and it would still make sense to the canon.
REX was developed by a team led by Otacon, and he didn't even know the full extent of what he was building and that it was meant to be able to launch a nuke undetected, so yeah, it's a clunky, boxy mess. It fits that it looks like what it does. Just a few years before MGS1, Big Boss had already developed smooth-bodied, more organic looking metal gear units, nuclear equipped as well, but it's not like Hal would have had access to any of those designs, they were technically the property of foreign nations and he was building the thing for Armstech.
Metal Gear as a concept and as a designation applies to so many different units developed independently by so many different parties at so many different points in history that it's really difficult to start to compare them. Everyone has access to a different set of resources and therefore produces something different.
This proliferation of metal gear concepts was what spurred the creation of the RAY unit, and explains why RAY itself was never meant to be nuclear equipped; there were so many metal gears that they needed an anti-metal gear.
Fuck Konami
After all they've done. Fuck them. They could've released Jesus Christs second coming and I wouldn't forgive them for what they've done to Kojima.
The father and creator of this game if you may. Now they release this shit and some of you guys are eating it up like hotcakes.
This is not justifiable by any means in my opinion.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;48539793]No it wasnt.[/QUOTE]
Shit you are right actually, it was Arsenal that was going to launch the nuke, not the Ray/s.
I don't understand the hype. I bought and played the demo on Steam and beat it within 20 minutes... I also binge-played and beat Guns of the Patriots on my PS3 in a single week back in 2010.
I just don't understand MGS, I suppose.
[QUOTE=J Paul;48539848]I don't think so. I think all the different metal gear designs make sense respective to their time periods and the people working on them. You gotta remember, most of the information wasn't passed on from generation to generation, so it's very well possible that the predecessors of REX could achieve different design goals and with more advanced technology than REX had. Otacon didn't have the kind of resources that Zero or Big Boss or the KGB have, and so yeah, their metal gear projects can be more technically impressive than what came later and it would still make sense to the canon.
REX was developed by a team led by Otacon, and he didn't even know the full extent of what he was building and that it was meant to be able to launch a nuke undetected, so yeah, it's a clunky, boxy mess. It fits that it looks like what it does. Just a few years before MGS1, Big Boss had already developed smooth-bodied, more organic looking metal gear units, nuclear equipped as well, but it's not like Hal would have had access to any of those designs, they were technically the property of foreign nations and he was building the thing for Armstech.
Metal Gear as a concept and as a designation applies to so many different units developed independently by so many different parties at so many different points in history that it's really difficult to start to compare them. Everyone has access to a different set of resources and therefore produces something different.
This proliferation of metal gear concepts was what spurred the creation of the RAY unit, and explains why RAY itself was never meant to be nuclear equipped; there were so many metal gears that they needed an anti-metal gear.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget The Philosopher's Legacy, which was a money macguffin that funded the Shagohod, Peace Walker, and presumably the TX-84. BB never had any of that money, so they had to make due with scavenging- the only reason why Zeke was able to be made was because all the parts were salvaged from the AI weapons. No one after that really had the designs nor the funding to build giant deterrent metal gears anymore (or so it seemed), so what's the next best solution? Build a bunch of smaller ones. The TX-55 was meant to be small and mass produced, and this would have been achieved in MG2 had there not been time restraints (a Metal Gear G would have been put around Zanzibar but they instead replaced it with tanks). Overall, you could explain why Metal Gears downgrade so much over the years, though it's still a little weird to see this giant humanoid Metal Gear.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540308]I don't understand the hype. I bought and played the demo on Steam and beat it within 20 minutes... I also binge-played and beat Guns of the Patriots on my PS3 in a single week back in 2010.
I just don't understand MGS, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
It is ok to not like something, just don't be a dick. Lots of people don't like MGS, its pretty normal.
[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;48540315]Don't forget The Philosopher's Legacy, which was a money macguffin that funded the Shagohod, Peace Walker, and presumably the TX-84. BB never had any of that money, so they had to make due with scavenging- the only reason why Zeke was able to be made was because all the parts were salvaged from the AI weapons. No one after that really had the designs nor the funding to build giant deterrent metal gears anymore (or so it seemed), so what's the next best solution? Build a bunch of smaller ones. The TX-55 was meant to be small and mass produced, and this would have been achieved in MG2 had there not been time restraints (a Metal Gear G would have been put around Zanzibar but they instead replaced it with tanks). Overall, you could explain why Metal Gears downgrade so much over the years, though it's still a little weird to see this giant humanoid Metal Gear.[/QUOTE]
What Otacon said in MGS4 comes to mind:
[QUOTE]The Gears you've fought before were all basically designed and produced to serve as nuclear platforms. RAY was an exception to the rule, but even that was an anti-Metal Gear weapon designed to defeat all of the Metal Gear clones popping all over the world. Its value was still measured in terms of the framework of nuclear strategy. Its been 25 years since the end of the Cold War. We live in a world of regional conflict and asymmetric warfare - and it's getting worse every year. The age of the war economy is upon us. The value of Metal Gear as a weapon - the very concept itself - has changed with the times. You might even say it's evolved. Nowadays, a Metal Gear needs to be more than a nuclear attack platform. It needs to be adaptable, well-suited to fight in large numbers, traverse urban settings, and work alongside infantry. The Gekko were the answer. There are different types of Gekko designed for different missions, and not all of them are equipped with nuclear capabilities. So technically, they're not Metal Gears. Of course, there are still some of the old Metal Gears around - their primary job is to launch nuclear strikes. But these days, Gekko are the first name in bipedal war machines. They may have gotten smaller, but they're as ferocious as ever. Whatever you do, don't underestimate them. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Broguts;48540334]It is ok to not like something, just don't be a dick. Lots of people don't like MGS, its pretty normal.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not trying to be a dick. I watched the trailer and it was really well done; I just don't understand, is all. I wasn't trying to call anyone out on anything.
I don't, not like these games; I understand they have a rich and twisty backstory, and are usually technically advanced for their time (I'm still impressed with Guns of the Patriots, and that game is six years old). But what's the appeal with the trailer? What gaps is it filling in that everyone's going crazy, I guess is what I'm trying to ask? I wasn't trying to be a dick; sorry you got that impression.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540386]No, I'm not trying to be a dick. I watched the trailer and it was really well done; I just don't understand, is all. I wasn't trying to call anyone out on anything.
I don't, not like these games; I understand they have a rich and twisty backstory, and are usually technically advanced for their time (I'm still impressed with Guns of the Patriots, and that game is six years old). But what's the appeal with the trailer? What gaps is it filling in that everyone's going crazy, I guess is what I'm trying to ask? I wasn't trying to be a dick; sorry you got that impression.[/QUOTE]
I'm not implying you were a dick, I just wanted to say that its fine to have a different opinion.
[QUOTE=Broguts;48540392]I'm not implying you were a dick, I just wanted to say that its fine to have a different opinion.[/QUOTE]
I think you may be missing my point -- *what* is the deal with this trailer? I am very curious.
And this title takes place before GotP, but after Snake Eater, so I must assume the time period is the late 80s/early 90s?
Guns of the Patriots will make little sense to you if you never played any MGS before since that entire game was basically tying up loose ends for the entire series with some fan service on the side. It is the actual "ending" to the series, and takes place chronologically last. I mean most of the game is a cutscene for a reason - there were a lot of story beats to cover for the "ending" of MGS.
MGS3 is likely the only metal gear you can play without context because it is not only a prequel but the only one where the story is pretty much self contained. Obviously if you didn't play MGS1 and 2 then all the really cool story bits you learn about in MGS3 would be lost on you (or you'll get excited and start reading a wiki after you beat the game).
This game basically bridges MGS3 (the prequel) with the "modern" era of MGS (MGS1+2+4). You'll probably be able to enjoy it without playing the others but a lot of the story will likely have not much impact if you never played any of the other MGS games. I'm pretty sure the overall story of V will be self contained enough to enjoy on its own, but the characters and their significance will be lost on you.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540386]No, I'm not trying to be a dick. I watched the trailer and it was really well done; I just don't understand, is all. I wasn't trying to call anyone out on anything.
I don't, not like these games; I understand they have a rich and twisty backstory, and are usually technically advanced for their time (I'm still impressed with Guns of the Patriots, and that game is six years old). But what's the appeal with the trailer? What gaps is it filling in that everyone's going crazy, I guess is what I'm trying to ask? I wasn't trying to be a dick; sorry you got that impression.[/QUOTE]
Wait did you only play Ground Zeroes and MGS4?
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48540447]Wait did you only play Ground Zeroes and MGS4?[/QUOTE]
MGS4, then Ground Zeroes, yes.
[editline]25th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=KorJax;48540441]post[/QUOTE]
Also, thank you! That sort of explains a lot.
So I guess there was a gap in the series, and this fills it in, thus completing the overall story arch?
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540479]MGS4, then Ground Zeroes, yes.
[editline]25th August 2015[/editline]
Also, thank you! That sort of explains a lot.
[B]So I guess there was a gap in the series, and this fills it in, thus completing the overall story arch?[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is supposed to show how Big Boss who is a generally ok dude in MGS3 becomes a villain in MG1 and 2.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540479]MGS4, then Ground Zeroes, yes.[/QUOTE]
Then you wont understand absolutely anything and its no surprise you dont so far. MGS4 is probably the most disconnected to MGSV aside from Zero honestly, its so far in the future and the finale of everything that it doesnt matter really. You dont even play as the same snake in MGS4 as you do with GZ/MGSV.
You need to play MGS1/2/3/PW or at the very least watch them in that order by sept 1st if you wanna know everything. Id recommend playing them over anything though but thats a lot to get through if you cant wait to play V.
The entire series is edited into movie format on youtube.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540479]MGS4,
So I guess there was a gap in the series, and this fills it in, thus completing the overall story arch?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. MGS3 is the first game chronologically, then Portable Ops (Which I dont think is considered canon), Peace Walker, Ground Zeroes, Phantom Pain, and then Metal Gear 1 starts.
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;48537690]Wow that looks fucking stupid, machine gun crotch really kojims?
[editline]123[/editline]
pff yeah what am I talking about I totally see the strategical advantages in having a mech with the design of being a huge infantryman with a machine gun crotch.[/QUOTE]
[B]Ahem[/B]
[IMG]http://uc.exteen.com/team-sama/images/mgs%20D.jpg[/IMG]
Honestly Metal Gear's story as a whole is convoluted yes but not very complex, if you really can't be bothered playing the games there's no harm in just reading the wiki or watching lp's/cutscenes just to get the gist of things if you just want to play MGSV.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540418]*what* is the deal with this trailer? I am very curious.[/QUOTE]
The only people who would get this trailer are fans of the series. If your not a fan, you wont understand, I guess.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;48540531][B]Ahem[/B]
[IMG]http://uc.exteen.com/team-sama/images/mgs%20D.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I know other mech's in the series had dick guns, like rex for instance. Doesn't make me think it looks any better really. But then again I think most mechs in general look pretty stupid for any real military purpose.
To be brutally honest I think every "Metal Gear" in every MGS has looked stupid as fuck, I've never really played the games for the mech designs/to fight the mechs. In fact the fights against; Rex, The several Ray's, The Shagohad and all the PW mechs have been my least favorite boss fights in MGS.
Like the mech's are just not fun enemies to fight all they are is pretty much dodging their shots, spamming chaff grenades and dumping tons and tons of ammo into them.
The End's boss fight in MGS3 is my favorite. Creeping around the jungle, the rain slowly creeps up, you can't seem to find him for ages but then you hear a crack or the glint of his scope, and either you hunker down to fire back or quickly try to creep your way to where he is so you can hold him up.
Thanks for the explanation.
Since I did enjoy the Ground Zeroes, for what it was, and also MGS4 back in the day, I will go watch those YouTube'd Movie versions of them and probably pick this up. Thanks for the patience of trying to explain all of this to me, heh! Much appreciated.
[QUOTE=Suitcase;48540579]Thanks for the explanation.
Since I did enjoy the Ground Zeroes, for what it was, and also MGS4 back in the day, I will go watch those YouTube'd Movie versions of them and probably pick this up. Thanks for the patience of trying to explain all of this to me, heh! Much appreciated.[/QUOTE]
metal gear is a series to be played not watched
if you can, play them. since you've already played 4 and gz it would be easy enough to play 1/2/3/PW.
Honestly I might be the only one that thinks this but I was really not a fan of the fixed camera angles in MGS1, 2, and Pre-Substance 3.
I feel like especially for 2 and 3 it just hindered the gameplay, more often than not I found myself being seen by a guy completely hidden by the angle that I hadn't noticed in first person.
It's probably heavily controversial but I can understand not wanting to actually play MGS1 and 2 purely because I myself didn't enjoy the gameplay with the pre-Substance 3 Camera. I personally played MGS1 and 2 more for the experience/story.
Not so say that you shouldn't play 1 or 2 they're two of the best games in the series just I understand not wanting to.
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;48540633]Honestly I might be the only one that thinks this but I was really not a fan of the fixed camera angles in MGS1, 2, and Pre-Substance 3.
I feel like especially for 2 and 3 it just hindered the gameplay, more often than not I found myself being seen by a guy completely hidden by the angle that I hadn't noticed in first person.
It's probably heavily controversial but I can understand not wanting to actually play MGS1 and 2 purely because I myself didn't enjoy the gameplay with the pre-Substance 3 Camera.[/QUOTE]
At the very least, in 1 and 2 the game was designed to use the Soliton Radar and MGS1 especially wasn't a dick about guard sight. There's a few moments in 2, though. MGS3 had further enemy sight ranges and no true Soliton equivalent, but the fixed camera ends up being something of a nightmare due to this. In a way, the traditional fixed cameras had the games designed around them until 3, which got that fixed in its re-release.
I would really like to see a re-release of MGS2 with a GZ/TPP third person camera, I think it'd play really well.
[editline]25th August 2015[/editline]
I found MGS2 had a lot more open spaces than MGS1, like that goddamn fucking warehouse in Strutt F the fixed camera angles were a goddamn nightmare to avoid guards with.
[QUOTE=dannass;48539984]Fuck Konami
After all they've done. Fuck them. They could've release jesus crists second coming and I wouldn't Forgive them for what they've done to Kojima.[/QUOTE]
I like to think of it this way, this is my last sign of respect towards Kojima's MGS series and his team who worked hard on the game.
Even though Kojima is no longer with Konami, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to see the fans buy and play MGS5 anyways, since he and his team put so much work into it.
I don't really care if most of the money is going to Konami, this is the last thing I'm buying from them anyways.
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;48537690]Wow that looks fucking stupid, machine gun crotch really kojims?
[editline]123[/editline]
pff yeah what am I talking about I totally see the strategical advantages in having a mech with the design of being a huge infantryman with a machine gun crotch.[/QUOTE]
Weaponized cod pieces are an integral component to a Metal Gear you doofus.
[QUOTE=ClauAmericano;48540709]I like to think of it this way, this is my last sign of respect towards Kojima's MGS series and his team who worked hard on the game.
Even though Kojima is no longer with Konami, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to see the fans buy and play MGS5 anyways, since he and his team put so much work into it.
I don't really care if most of the money is going to Konami, this is the last thing I'm buying from them anyways.[/QUOTE]
It feels so wrong how they showcase the whole saga, Like they're saying: "Hey, Remember how much fun we've had? All the laughs and tears, Come back guys. For old times sake"
This shit is like a domestic relationship
[QUOTE=dannass;48539984]Fuck Konami
After all they've done. Fuck them. They could've released Jesus Christs second coming and I wouldn't forgive them for what they've done to Kojima.
The father and creator of this game if you may. Now they release this shit and some of you guys are eating it up like hotcakes.
This is not justifiable by any means in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
People are excited because it's a celebration of Kojima's legacy, not Konami's.
Rest assured, the release of this game is going to be the last breath of relevance Konami ever breaths. It's all pachinko and terrible "sequels" from here on out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
