[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53173961]
tbh its the reason i cant replay mgs5, the intro is too long and theres nothing to it aside from get from a to b
its just antifun[/QUOTE]
The intro was great on a very first playthrough, because of all the hype for V and the catharsis of finally playing it. Once the hype dies down and you want to give it a go again, it's an alright intro. Certain aspects are good(Man on Fire segments) but the tutorial sections make it a drag. Not to mention above, having to do it twice with the only difference being one scene edit and a post mission scene.
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;53174116]The intro was great on a very first playthrough, because of all the hype for V and the catharsis of finally playing it. Once the hype dies down and you want to give it a go again, it's an alright intro. Certain aspects are good(Man on Fire segments) but the tutorial sections make it a drag. Not to mention above, having to do it twice with the only difference being one scene edit and a post mission scene.[/QUOTE]
Also you have to get an S rank on both and do the optional tasks if you want to unlock everything.
Someone posted this video on the Metal Gear Survive reddit which points out the factual errors in Angry Joe's, Jim Sterling's, and VideogameDunkey's videos.
[video=youtube;M7FngrrIo_c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FngrrIo_c[/video]
If you are a person who hates this game at least be an informed person who hates it, rather than listening to people who clearly haven't played 3 hours of it.
like, there's clear and obvious flaws with survive if you spend time with it, but none of the ones listed in any of jim's, dunkey's, or joe's videos are it because they're only surface level "flaws" that are either completely ignored (microtransactions, "save" slot), or become obsolete because you get stronger and in turn, the enemies become stronger as well (standing behind a fence poking with a spear, food/water management).
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53175305]Someone posted this video on the Metal Gear Survive reddit which points out the factual errors in Angry Joe's, Jim Sterling's, and VideogameDunkey's videos.
[video=youtube;M7FngrrIo_c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FngrrIo_c[/video]
If you are a person who hates this game at least be an informed person who hates it, rather than listening to people who clearly haven't played 3 hours of it.[/QUOTE]
Most of these are just bargaining/excusing aspects of game design by downplaying them to the point where one has to ask, if they're so easy to work around, why are they even a thing to begin with ?
If keeping up your resources is that easy, why even have it in the game if not for pointless window dressing ? If an entire chunk of the mechanics presented to you goes from tedious in the early game to pointless anywhere past that point, why have it here in the first place ?
Having a feature be annoying and giving some kind of workaround isn't clever. It's the most obnoxious kind of progression: you play catch-up, you crawl back up to a point where shit doesn't take too long. He even makes reference to the fact you can upgrade the snail-pace resource gathering speed with a skill, which once again begs the question, [I]why have this be a skill[/I]?
There's a reason why games like MGS V do not even bother with giving you limited stamina, or slow resource gathering: they aren't fun features, they're tedious padding meant to prolong the earlier parts of the game by artificially slowing them down.
And if these issues were all tied to the early game, if those videos are so misleading because they exclusively talk about the early game, then it's the game's fault for not making the early game better. I'm willing to believe the game gets better later because some of the problems early on basically disappear, but one has to ask, why is it not that way from the start ? Why exactly does the game allow you to cheese fights at first and only introduces enemy countermeasures at a later stage ? Clearly if the game was less about dragging its heels in the earlier stages people would have liked it better because their complaints boil down to the game being a slog at first.
It's a game with dreadful first impressions that continuously dicks you around until you get supposedly far enough into the game for its issues to fade away, and that's all they do, they fade away: even when the guy shows his high level character sprinting in fast forward he still has to take breaks to replenish stamina and he still cannot sprint for nearly as long as MGS V allowed.
I can't emphasize enough how weak the whole "it gets better later!!!" argument is. There's hundreds of games that are well designed enough to not put tedium in your way from minute one, why bother with the one game in the lot that takes [I]this long[/I] to get somewhere ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175347]Most of these are just bargaining/excusing aspects of game design by downplaying them to the point where one has to ask, if they're so easy to work around, why are they even a thing to begin with ?
If keeping up your resources is that easy, why even have it in the game if not for pointless window dressing ? If an entire chunk of the mechanics presented to you goes from tedious in the early game to pointless anywhere past that point, why have it here in the first place ?
Having a feature be annoying and giving some kind of workaround isn't clever. It's the most obnoxious kind of progression: you play catch-up, you crawl back up to a point where shit doesn't take too long. He even makes reference to the fact you can upgrade the snail-pace resource gathering speed with a skill, which once again begs the question, [I]why have this be a skill[/I]?
There's a reason why games like MGS V do not even bother with giving you limited stamina, or slow resource gathering: they aren't fun features, they're tedious padding meant to prolong the earlier parts of the game by artificially slowing them down.
And if these issues were all tied to the early game, if those videos are so misleading because they exclusively talk about the early game, then it's the game's fault for not making the early game better. I'm willing to believe the game gets better later because some of the problems early on basically disappear, but one has to ask, why is it not that way from the start ? Why exactly does the game allow you to cheese fights at first and only introduces enemy countermeasures at a later stage ? Clearly if the game was less about dragging its heels in the earlier stages people would have liked it better because their complaints boil down to the game being a slog at first.
It's a game with dreadful first impressions that continuously dicks you around until you get supposedly far enough into the game for its issues to fade away, and that's all they do, they fade away: even when the guy shows his high level character sprinting in fast forward he still has to take breaks to replenish stamina and he still cannot sprint for nearly as long as MGS V allowed.
I can't emphasize enough how weak the whole "it gets better later!!!" argument is. There's hundreds of games that are well designed enough to not put tedium in your way from minute one, why bother with the one game in the lot that takes [I]this long[/I] to get somewhere ?[/QUOTE]
because it's a survival/rpg game dingus. do you really expect a survival/rpg game to hand you everything at the start? i'm really wondering if at this point you're intentionally being obtuse.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175347]games like MGS V do not even bother with giving you limited stamina, or [B]slow resource gathering[/B][/QUOTE]
what are fuel resources
Isn't the whole point about surviving that you start off having difficulty, slowly progress your way up and end up becoming the boss of the environment of sorts?
The way I see it. Having the difficulty of mechanics reflect your current situation, like food/water not being as scarce later on is supposed to give you a feeling of accomplishment. You managed to become self-sustainable.
Asking why such mechanics should be there in the first place if it becomes 'pointless' is like asking why there's still fighting mechanics in an RPG a hundred hours in. I mean, you've got good gear and you end up beating everyone effortlessly. Why doesn't the game just make it so everyone in your vicinity dies?
Not to go offtopic, but that was my favorite part of Morrowind.
You arrive in unknown lands. Just a regular person, can barely even fight the simplest of enemies. But through progression, you train and become stronger. You end up finding out you become the Nerevar, and you can even beat up gods! Imagine how lame it would be that once you got skilled enough, enemies would just die automatically. That's sort of what you're saying.
If an RPG starts out absurdly slow and padded and then only gets good several hours in, it's not a good game by modern standards. This could be excused twenty years ago when there was still a long way to go in terms of proper design but nowadays there's no excuse.
Good modern RPGs manage to be interesting from the very start, they have a hook that immediately pulls you in and, ideally, keeps you in.
It's a worse fate for a game to [I]start[/I] on a weak note than it is to [I]end[/I] on a weak note, because first impressions matter immensely. If reviewers, including those who at least claim to have finished the game (and I'm willing to believe AJ when he says he finished the game seeing as he actually had the integrity to go through all of Ride To Hell: Retribution in order to review it), are only talking about the early tedium of a game, it likely means that the intro [I]was[/I] so awful it warped their view of the game so hard they could not see past its flaws no matter how far they got into it.
This is why the "it gets better later" argument is down to its core a weak and pointless argument, because it misses the very basis of the problem: it [I]does[/I] get better later, which means it was worse at the start, which means people will inherently be turned off by the game. Video games are an active medium, they have to draw in the player from the first minute and they have to be able to keep their attention for long enough to motivate them to finish the game which can in itself be a rather daunting task when some titles can be extremely long, longer than any other medium out there. You'll often find that people are much more motivated to finish a game with a bad second half than they are to even start playing a game that begins with an awful first half, or even an awful couple first hours, and they can't really be blamed for it.
[QUOTE=Onii;53175376]Isn't the whole point about surviving that you start off having difficulty, slowly progress your way up and end up becoming the boss of the environment of sorts?
The way I see it. Having the difficulty of mechanics reflect your current situation, like food/water not being as scarce later on is supposed to give you a feeling of accomplishment. You managed to become self-sustainable.
Asking why such mechanics should be there in the first place if it becomes 'pointless' is like asking why there's still fighting mechanics in an RPG a hundred hours in. I mean, you've got good gear and you end up beating everyone effortlessly. Why doesn't the game just make it so everyone in your vicinity dies?[/QUOTE]
I unlocked the hanging pot campfire and genuinely got hyped because of the progress made towards it.
Most games don't give you everything at the start either. Every game would be boring if they just gave you everything from the beginning
Wether modern games manage to hook people in or not depends per person.
Most moderm games manage to hook people in with pressing situations, explosions and whatnot. They always call for things to be done quickly, with haste and so on. Even when there's no need for it. Skyrim is ironically a good example for this. No matter where you went, be it the main story line or the Guilds. There was always urgency.
Honestly there's no need for urgency. Why can't games, or a game's story just take it slow? Personally, I don't think that makes a game start on a weak note at all.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175380]If an RPG starts out absurdly slow and padded and then only gets good several hours in, it's not a good game by modern standards. This could be excused twenty years ago when there was still a long way to go in terms of proper design but nowadays there's no excuse.
Good modern RPGs manage to be interesting from the very start, they have a hook that immediately pulls you in and, ideally, keeps you in.
It's a worse fate for a game to [I]start[/I] on a weak note than it is to [I]end[/I] on a weak note, because first impressions matter immensely. If reviewers, including those who at least claim to have finished the game (and I'm willing to believe AJ when he says he finished the game seeing as he actually had the integrity to go through all of Ride To Hell: Retribution in order to review it), are only talking about the early tedium of a game, it likely means that the intro [I]was[/I] so awful it warped their view of the game so hard they could not see past its flaws no matter how far they got into it.
This is why the "it gets better later" argument is down to its core a weak and pointless argument, because it misses the very basis of the problem: it [I]does[/I] get better later, which means it was worse at the start, which means people will inherently be turned off by the game. Video games are an active medium, they have to draw in the player from the first minute and they have to be able to keep their attention for long enough to motivate them to finish the game which can in itself be a rather daunting task when some titles can be extremely long, longer than any other medium out there. You'll often find that people are much more motivated to finish a game with a bad second half than they are to even start playing a game that begins with an awful first half, or even an awful couple first hours, and they can't really be blamed for it.[/QUOTE]
Survival games are never meant to be easy in the beginning. They're [I]survival[/I] games. It's going to suck when you start out. It's going to be frustrating. That's the whole [I]point[/I] of survival games and it's always been that way. That sense of progression when you find a pot to boil clean water, when you upgrade your spear you're poking shit through a fence with to a machete or an old pistol, when you're finding materials to craft legitimate defenses and create more resources, that's why people play survival games.
It's Metal Gear [B]Survive[/B]. Not Metal Gear Hand-Holding-Exploration-RPG.
Usually I'm not a fan of survival/crafting games, but Metal Gear's smooth gameplay and streamlined mechanics was what I needed to get me into the genre.
It's not a matter of "getting everything from the beginning", it's a matter with starting out with enough available to you both in terms of options [I]and[/I] obstacles that it feels like the game starts off with something immediate, enough to drive a hook that doesn't rely on the vague promise that it'll get better later.
Not to mention that Survive seems to have the problem of running two different difficulty curves for two of its core mechanical aspects, survival and combat.
The video goes to explain that combat becomes harder as the game progresses, making it more difficult and eventually impossible to pull off cheesy moves and repetitive, simplistic strategies. Yet it also shows that the survival mechanics follow an inverse curve and put you in a worse position at the start only to simplify and ease up on you the further you go. This, once again, is not good design, you're sending the player some fairly mixed messages about how the difficulty of the game should be interpreted, ie if the challenge is in becoming so strong you simply ignore obstacles that were impossible to avoid in the early game, or if the challenge is in braving increasingly tougher odds.
The game would have definitely been better off if it followed the same logic as the previous Metal Gear games, including spin-offs such as Rising, and made the beginning easier on the player with the ending being harder, while also not skimping out on some basic features which are apparently quite primordial to appreciating the game seeing as people insist the game gets really good when they're introduced, whereas complaints about the early game tend to orbit around their absence.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175380]If an RPG starts out absurdly slow and padded and then only gets good several hours in, it's not a good game by modern standards. This could be excused twenty years ago when there was still a long way to go in terms of proper design but nowadays there's no excuse.
Good modern RPGs manage to be interesting from the very start, they have a hook that immediately pulls you in and, ideally, keeps you in.
It's a worse fate for a game to [I]start[/I] on a weak note than it is to [I]end[/I] on a weak note, because first impressions matter immensely. If reviewers, including those who at least claim to have finished the game (and I'm willing to believe AJ when he says he finished the game seeing as he actually had the integrity to go through all of Ride To Hell: Retribution in order to review it), are only talking about the early tedium of a game, it likely means that the intro [I]was[/I] so awful it warped their view of the game so hard they could not see past its flaws no matter how far they got into it.
This is why the "it gets better later" argument is down to its core a weak and pointless argument, because it misses the very basis of the problem: it [I]does[/I] get better later, which means it was worse at the start, which means people will inherently be turned off by the game. Video games are an active medium, they have to draw in the player from the first minute and they have to be able to keep their attention for long enough to motivate them to finish the game which can in itself be a rather daunting task when some titles can be extremely long, longer than any other medium out there. You'll often find that people are much more motivated to finish a game with a bad second half than they are to even start playing a game that begins with an awful first half, or even an awful couple first hours, and they can't really be blamed for it.[/QUOTE]
Does that mean metroidvanias and roguelites are all shit? Is something like FTL or Darkest dungeon bad because you start the first few hours stumbling and scrounging for better resources? TBH your argument is flawed because you're expecting something like an RPG Survival game to give you literally everything from the start. Even metal gear rising didn't give you all the weapons and abilities from the start.
[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;53175400]Survival games are never meant to be easy in the beginning. They're [I]survival[/I] games. It's going to suck when you start out. It's going to be frustrating. That's the whole [I]point[/I] of survival games and it's always been that way. That sense of progression when you find a pot to boil clean water, when you upgrade your spear you're poking shit through a fence with to a machete or an old pistol, when you're finding materials to craft legitimate defenses and create more resources, that's why people play survival games.
It's Metal Gear [B]Survive[/B]. Not Metal Gear Hand-Holding-Exploration-RPG.[/QUOTE]
I can think of several survival games off the top of my head which actually take on the opposite logic and start out simpler because they actually figured out that allowing the player to start in a comfort zone and [I]then[/I] prompting them to venture further into tougher territory is a more all around rewarding experience.
Especially since games like Survive aren't punishing as much as they are tedious: running out of stamina every ten seconds on a low level character isn't making the game harder as much as it makes the game take longer.
[editline]4th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;53175415]Does that mean metroidvanias and roguelites are all shit? Is something like FTL or Darkest dungeon bad because you start the first few hours stumbling and scrounging for better resources? TBH your argument is flawed because you're expecting something like an RPG Survival game to give you literally everything from the start. Even metal gear rising didn't give you all the weapons and abilities from the start.[/QUOTE]
Both FTL and Darkest Dungeon [I]still[/I] have you fight towards harder and harder content. The upgrades to your ship/hamlet/crew/mercenaries are never going to get you to sit at the top of the food chain, they simply allow you to keep up. It takes an extreme amount of RNG in FTL to get to a point where you can effectively wipe out most threats without as much as a struggle and as far as I'm aware Darkest Dungeon never really allows that no matter how lucky you get.
And if these games were so well received while Survive is described across the board (and I mean further than those three videos) as painfully average, it means Survive's doing something wrong where those other games did something right.
This game is straight up bad
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175347]Most of these are just bargaining/excusing aspects of game design by downplaying them to the point where one has to ask, if they're so easy to work around, why are they even a thing to begin with ?[/quote]
Okay, I don't like breaking posts up into chunks like this because I feel it makes it harder to keep a conversation going, but all of your posts on MGSurvive are so long winded, vague, and obnoxious I feel it's the only way to adequately address your points.
Features are included to hinder the player to give the player a feeling of satisfaction for overcoming them, either by getting better through skill or by levelling up and becoming more powerful. It's game design 101.
[quote]If keeping up your resources is that easy, why even have it in the game if not for pointless window dressing ? If an entire chunk of the mechanics presented to you goes from tedious in the early game to pointless anywhere past that point, why have it here in the first place ?[/quote]
The survival aspect of the game is not tedious. Dunkey was being an obnoxious prick and actively refusing to engage the games mechanics by not even using the tools given to him, and Joe is notoriously impatient and unobservant.
Gathering resources becomes progressively easier as the game progresses and your base expands because later sections of the game demand you be more prepared to conquer them. This is like asking why Minecraft starts you off with just your fists if you eventually have enough iron to construct an entire rail network. Building up to the point where you no longer need to worry about the basic shit is a part of the game, in fact it's a core part of the vast majority of survival games.
[quote]Having a feature be annoying and giving some kind of workaround isn't clever. It's the most obnoxious kind of progression: you play catch-up, you crawl back up to a point where shit doesn't take too long. He even makes reference to the fact you can upgrade the snail-pace resource gathering speed with a skill, which once again begs the question, [I]why have this be a skill[/I]?[/quote]
Gathering resources takes time because [i]it's a zombie survival game.[/i] If you could just zip around the zombies without a care there'd be no tension. At the start of the game you're slow and weak and the enemy can kill you easily. You're ability to gather shit is slow to force you to engage the enemy and make gathering materials safer, which will also give you the Kuban energy to level up and make shit go faster.
[quote]There's a reason why games like MGS V do not even bother with giving you limited stamina, or slow resource gathering: they aren't fun features, they're tedious padding meant to prolong the earlier parts of the game by artificially slowing them down.[/quote]
MGSV gives you infinite stamina because it is primarily a stealth game and an action game. Running out of stamina mid fire fight or while sneaking through an enemy base aren't thematically appropriate. Of course you've ignored my explanation in another thread about how the stamina system actually works so you clearly don't actually care about inconvenient things like facts.
Also, MGSV has fucking glacial resource gathering. If you get an unrefined materials container, the only way to get large quantities of materials, it takes fucking ages for that shit to refine. In Survive once you get something back to base you have it forever. Let's not forget the multi hour research projects too, or the real time research which can take over a day.
[quote]And if these issues were all tied to the early game, if those videos are so misleading because they exclusively talk about the early game, then it's the game's fault for not making the early game better. I'm willing to believe the game gets better later because some of the problems early on basically disappear, but one has to ask, why is it not that way from the start ? Why exactly does the game allow you to cheese fights at first and only introduces enemy countermeasures at a later stage ? Clearly if the game was less about dragging its heels in the earlier stages people would have liked it better because their complaints boil down to the game being a slog at first.[/quote]
Once again, these are not issues with the game at all. They are lies spread by people who have an agenda (Jim) or by people who hate this genre in the first place and refuse to engage with it (Dunkey and Joe). Like I said in the other thread, I never sat behind a fence poking with a spear because if you play the game for 5 minutes you understand how slow and inefficient that shit is. You literally don't have the time to sit there poking at enemies and you're given ample supplies to make it to the point where you can generate it yourself. It's only a problem if you're intentionally trying to make the game look bad.
Using a spear to poke enemies isn't "cheesing fights" it's the slowest and least efficient way to do anything. The more powerful enemies only appear later once it's abundantly clear that you understand what you're doing. Bombers are pretty strong and armoureds are pretty much a hard counter to standard wanderer tactics and they show up very early. Trackers and Mortars only show up later because the gulf in power between a wanderer and a tracker is so huge that someone playing like these chucklefucks wouldn't last 2 seconds.
[quote]It's a game with dreadful first impressions that continuously dicks you around until you get supposedly far enough into the game for its issues to fade away, and that's all they do, they fade away: even when the guy shows his high level character sprinting in fast forward he still has to take breaks to replenish stamina and he still cannot sprint for nearly as long as MGS V allowed.[/quote]
It's a game with dreadful first impressions if you believe people who are literally lying about the game, sure. The game doesn't dick you around at all. In fact if you just follow the story quests the game is a little too hand holdy and easy. I know that the guy had to stop sprinting (after a sped up 30 seconds of straight sprinting in an area which doubles stamina consumption) but THIS ISN'T MGSV. Why is limited stamina such a sore point for you? Seriously.
[quote]I can't emphasize enough how weak the whole "it gets better later!!!" argument is. There's hundreds of games that are well designed enough to not put tedium in your way from minute one, why bother with the one game in the lot that takes [I]this long[/I] to get somewhere ?[/QUOTE]
The argument isn't "It get's better later!" The argument is "These youtubers are lying/misrepresenting fundamental mechanics of the game, here's how and why they're wrong." I know you're so invested in this game being bad that you HAVE to make these long winded, content-less posts, but could you just stop. Just for one minute stop and actually READ what people are telling you. It doesn't take "[i]this long[/i]" to get somewhere, you haven't even specified how long "[i]this long[/i]" is.
Metal Gear Survive is far from a perfect game, but you keep coming into these threads and insisting that it's terrible despite people constantly rebuking you. You don't argue, or bring up any points on why the game is bad either, you just insist that you are right and the game is terrible and I'm sorry but that's a load of bollocks. Either make actual points on what is wrong with the quality of the game, talk specifics or stop making long winded shitposts with no substance.
It's a bit difficult to understand what you're exactly getting at. At first you say that the combat in Survive is easy, and becomes more difficult the longer you play.
But then you say it should follow the same logic as previous Metal Gear games where the start is simple, a sort of safe zone, and easy and becomes more difficult as you play.
You could honestly say the same about the combat in Survive. The first enemies you get are quite brainless, gives you ample opportunity to mess around with them from a literal safe zone up a wall and figure out tactics. Then you get experience in-game, you level up. Your character becomes better and learns new skills. As a result, the game throws you a fitting challenge by giving you new enemy types.
As far as the stamina goes. Your endurance at the beginning is low, yeah. But it's acceptable, I wouldn't say it's -every 10 seconds- short. You can see the same issue in a lot of review videos, one fatal mistake. Their character is thirsty. And when your character is thirsty, you can lose a lot of maximum stamina. The game even warns you about this.
[QUOTE=Onii;53175461]It's a bit difficult to understand what you're exactly getting at. At first you say that the combat in Survive is easy, and becomes more difficult the longer you play.
But then you say it should follow the same logic as previous Metal Gear games where the start is simple, a sort of safe zone, and easy and becomes more difficult as you play.
You could honestly say the same about the combat in Survive. The first enemies you get are quite brainless, gives you ample opportunity to mess around with them from a literal safe zone up a wall and figure out tactics. Then you get experience in-game, you level up. Your character becomes better and learns new skills. As a result, the game throws you a fitting challenge by giving you new enemy types.
As far as the stamina goes. Your endurance at the beginning is low, yeah. But it's acceptable, I wouldn't say it's -every 10 seconds- short. You can see the same issue in a lot of review videos, one fatal mistake. Their character is thirsty. And when your character is thirsty, you can lose a lot of maximum stamina. The game even warns you about this.[/QUOTE]
When I said the game should have an uphill difficulty curve I was talking about the survival mechanics, which I've said before go against the combat's difficulty curve which is more traditional (albeit still perfectible).
In both cases, more features should have been introduced earlier to draw the players in. More mechanics should have been present from the very start in order to better show what the game has to offer, without having to trudge through three hours of gameplay which has seemingly left a bad impression a whole lot of people.
There's plenty of ways the game could have better introduced itself without straight up eliminating some of its features. There's also plenty of ways the game could have better used its survival mechanics without ending up becoming mostly irrelevant by giving the player too many options late-game and too few options earlier.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53175411]It's not a matter of "getting everything from the beginning", it's a matter with starting out with enough available to you both in terms of options [I]and[/I] obstacles that it feels like the game starts off with something immediate, enough to drive a hook that doesn't rely on the vague promise that it'll get better later.
Not to mention that Survive seems to have the problem of running two different difficulty curves for two of its core mechanical aspects, survival and combat.
The video goes to explain that combat becomes harder as the game progresses, making it more difficult and eventually impossible to pull off cheesy moves and repetitive, simplistic strategies. Yet it also shows that the survival mechanics follow an inverse curve and put you in a worse position at the start only to simplify and ease up on you the further you go. This, once again, is not good design, you're sending the player some fairly mixed messages about how the difficulty of the game should be interpreted, ie if the challenge is in becoming so strong you simply ignore obstacles that were impossible to avoid in the early game, or if the challenge is in braving increasingly tougher odds.
The game would have definitely been better off if it followed the same logic as the previous Metal Gear games, including spin-offs such as Rising, and made the beginning easier on the player with the ending being harder, while also not skimping out on some basic features which are apparently quite primordial to appreciating the game seeing as people insist the game gets really good when they're introduced, whereas complaints about the early game tend to orbit around their absence.[/QUOTE]
The problem here is you're thinking in terms of easy vs hard. Survive's survival isn't hard at any point, it just goes from having a very limited pool of resources to having a fairly plentiful (though not abundant) supply over time. Similarly the combat does not go from easy to hard, it goes from simple to complex. The standard wanderers can fuck you up from the start to the end of the game, it's just that as you get better at dealing with them they add new enemy types to keep track of. Notably, aside from armoureds acting as wanderers you can't fence poke effectively, every single enemy type is designed to make combat scenarios more complex when added on top of the rest.
There are no mixed messages when you play the game as the availability of resources scales up in line with the complexity of combat. Surviving in the survival sense becomes 'easier' to make way for the increased complexity of combat, combat being simple in the beginning so as not to overwhelm a player who may be struggling with resources.
The game would not have been better if "it followed the same logic as previous Metal Gear games" because Metal Gear has been a continually evolving series with games on one end of the timeline looking wildly different to games on the other.
How would you make survival mechanics go uphill in difficulty in the first place? In most cases you start from zero (or close to it), you end up figuring out how to survive, and then what? The only way to make it go uphill from there is by adding artificial difficulty.
[QUOTE=Onii;53175483]How would you make survival mechanics go uphill in difficulty in the first place? In most cases you start from zero (or close to it), you end up figuring out how to survive, and then what? The only way to make it go uphill from there is by adding artificial difficulty.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. There are plenty of ways to build a survival game with uphill difficulty in mind without having to resort to artificial difficulty. It simply involves scaling the harshness of the environment adequately so that your increased understanding of the mechanics and the improved infrastructure only allows you to keep up with the hazardous environment, rather than outright dominate it to such an extent that the mechanics lose some of their relevancy.
[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;53176061]Honestly I don't care if the game is good or not.
I just don't want to give Konami money out of principle.[/QUOTE]
That's completely fine, but "Reviewing" a game without actually finishing it or going beyond the tutorial is completely dishonest and unprofessional, or rating the game badly without giving it a chance because you hate Konami.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53175305]Someone posted this video on the Metal Gear Survive reddit which points out the factual errors in Angry Joe's, Jim Sterling's, and VideogameDunkey's videos.
[video=youtube;M7FngrrIo_c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FngrrIo_c[/video]
If you are a person who hates this game at least be an informed person who hates it, rather than listening to people who clearly haven't played 3 hours of it.[/QUOTE]
I don't own MG:S, but this video makes it obvious that these guys straight up just lied. Especially when all the footage is super early game stuff, enemies being levels 1-10.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;53176776]I don't own MG:S, but this video makes it obvious that these guys straight up just lied. Especially when all the footage is super early game stuff, enemies being levels 1-10.[/QUOTE]
...or they just didn't like it. Like I watched all the videos and the one you quoted, and it still seems like a boring open world game to me. Not everyone that doesn't like this game is a liar.
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;53176831]...or they just didn't like it. Like I watched all the videos and the one you quoted, and it still seems like a boring open world game to me. Not everyone that doesn't like this game is a liar.[/QUOTE]
The difference is these are people who are claiming to have knowledge of the game while misrepresenting it at best. It's especially bad with Joe who has railed against video game journalists for playing games for a couple of hours and reviewing it like they know what they're talking about, which is exactly what he's doing here.
A regular player playing for a few hours and hating it is fine, it's when you set out to review the game and deliberately misrepresent it that's the problem.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53176845]A regular player playing for a few hours and hating it is fine, it's when you set out to review the game and deliberately misrepresent it that's the problem.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I can see your point with Angry Joe, but not with Dunkey or Jim Sterling, because both of them did make first impression videos about it, not reviews.
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;53176856]Okay, I can see your point with Angry Joe, but not with Dunkey or Jim Sterling, because both of them did make first impression videos about it, not reviews.[/QUOTE]
no matter how you spin it, they're reviews in all but the title of the video.
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;53176831]...or they just didn't like it. Like I watched all the videos and the one you quoted, and it still seems like a boring open world game to me. Not everyone that doesn't like this game is a liar.[/QUOTE]
The problem I take with this is that they do not couch their reviews in this context. At the beginning/end they throw out a little bit on how they didn't manage to stomach through the whole game (except in Joe's case iirc?) and then proceed to make wholly unqualified statements such as "THE ENTIRE GAME WORLD IS FULL OF EMPTY DUST! THE ENTIRE GAME IS JUST PUTTING DOWN FENCES/PLATFORMS AND WAITING FOR THE ZOMBIES TO WALK TO YOU SO YOU CAN STAB THEM!"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
