[Dunkey] Metal Gear Dies - General

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53157384][IMG]https://s3.amazonaws.com/AZComics/comic527.png[/IMG] [I]"They always start you off with a silenced tranquilizer gun and then, over the course of the game, give you a bunch of cool toys that are nowhere near as fun or efficient as the silenced tranquilizer gun."[/I] Metal Gear has had this problem since 2 and never fixed it.[/QUOTE] Well, they sort of tried to from 3 onwards with the supressor's health in all games after and low ammo count for the tranq gun in V. On the topic of Survive though... I feel like it went the way of MW2. People got mad at Konami for a flurry of things, but they still ended up buying this completely obvious cashcow of a game.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53157935]or maybe it's a flaw in people's arguments of how survive doesn't fit the metal gear canon, because it isn't supposed to.[/QUOTE] Well its not that it doesn't follow canon, MGA and GB dont but they're really good, its just that its a radically different focus and tone compared to the 20th/21st century contemporary political/war setting with small elements of the fantastic that the rest of the series focuses on. I think that's what people mean.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53157845] youve been told several times that people find it fun and wanna defend a game people are relentlessly shitting on for shit they dont care about in said game, stop acting like its some unknown to you[/QUOTE] why is it important to defend a game you enjoy on the internet when people are rightfully bashing it for the context of it's release can't you just enjoy the game but also allow people to shit all over konami, every post that is "yeah guys i know konami are bad people but the game is so [I]fun[/I]" is basically exactly what konami wants.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;53158089]why is it important to defend a game you enjoy on the internet when people are rightfully bashing it for the context of it's release can't you just enjoy the game but also allow people to shit all over konami, every post that is "yeah guys i know konami are bad people but the game is so [I]fun[/I]" is basically exactly what konami wants.[/QUOTE] Because on the other side, people shit all over the game and and konami, not letting others enjoy the game. And I don't think konami could care less about the online opinions and people defending the game, as long as the game sells :v:

[QUOTE=DMGaina;53158101]Because on the other side, people shit all over the game and and konami, not letting others enjoy the game. [/QUOTE] let me tell you something, you can enjoy a game all you like. if the opinion of online comments detracts from your enjoyment of a game, then the problem is with you. also in the tiniest way, Konami [I]does[/I] care about online opinion. between that and raw game sales, it's the only thing we as consumers can influence in this situation.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;53158108]let me tell you something, you can enjoy a game all you like. if the opinion of online comments detracts from your enjoyment of a game, then the problem is with you. [/QUOTE] But... you seem distracted by people liking the game? Why is it important to tell them they are wrong and underline how shitty the thing they like is?

There are so many good games out there thesedays i don't see why you'd ever feel the need to play a konami game in particular. "but its fun" is like saying "but at least it fills me" about food. No shit it does, it wouldn't even be a game otherwise, but there are way better options for lower prices out there that don't involve giving money to an awful game dev for a subpar experience.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;53158136]But... you seem distracted by people liking the game? Why is it important to tell them they are wrong and underline how shitty the thing they like is?[/QUOTE] Because in this context, positive, public support of the game translates into success for Konami. It's important to note that I'm never one to tell them people are wrong and that they can't enjoy their video games - I just think it's pretty damn important that if your only positive thing to say about Survive is "i guess it's fun" then you should concede to some degree an apathy towards the industry. When discussing the game with people who are really proactive about the changes they want to see in the industry, don't be surprised if you're immediately dismissed for buying one of the most microtransaction riddled games of 2018 so far. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] basically shitting on konami = good, supporting konami = bad. you've already supported konami a little bit by giving them your money, that's fine, but do you really need to support them more by being their internet defense force?

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;53158145]Because in this context, positive, public support of the game translates into success for Konami. It's important to note that I'm never one to tell them people are wrong and that they can't enjoy their video games - I just think it's pretty damn important that if your only positive thing to say about Survive is "i guess it's fun" then you should concede to some degree an apathy towards the industry. When discussing the game with people who are really proactive about the changes they want to see in the industry, don't be surprised if you're immediately dismissed for buying one of the most microtransaction riddled games of 2018 so far. basically shitting on konami = good, supporting konami = bad. you've already supported konami a little bit by giving them your money, that's fine, but do you really need to support them more by being their internet defense force?[/QUOTE] I see your point but the sad thing is, that it wont change much in the end, no matter how you approach it. People defending the game or trying to boycott the game are very loud but in the end, but in the end, they are just a minority, so tiny that they don't even appear on the radar. The BIGGEST controversy Metal Gear Survive had was not the missing involvement of Kojima or anything like that, it was the $10 for a saveslot story, which made it already to public headlines. Was it major enough to change it? Not really... will these scummy microtransactions pay out for Konami? I don't know but they would not have included them back into Survive if they weren't working in MGSV. As sad as this sounds but MGSV had a lot of new players who have never played an MGS game before, and they don't care less about review scores for Survive or Kojima's involvement, the controversy with the Gameawards or anything like this, their main source of information for the majority is not even the internet, it's advertisements and Gamestop. I know this sounds crazy, especially here between so many gamers and enthusiasts who are deeply deeply involved with this industry but regular consumers just outnumber all of us. In the end what is important for Konami are the sales for the first weeks and later in some quarters the all time sales and the live costs/income they generate with the microtransactions. With internet comments and reviews you might change how the game will be developed internally, because the developer team needs this input to pitch their next idea to the higher ups, but that won't change Konami's mind on pushing out another game anyways. So the most effective way to change anything would be if a huge portion of players would just stop buying a certain product and no matter how loud we yell at people over the internet on not to buy something, we wont reach the whole mass of consumers who love stuff you hate and don't know about most of the stuff you like. [B]Edit:[/B] I work with videogame market analysis, business development and other fancy sounding crap (not mainly however) ranging from Budget games under 1m to AAA games that have ranged to up to 10m so I don't talk this stuff out of my ass

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;53157319]Eh, I feel like he's being a bit harsh. Everything he was showing was early in the game when you're pretty starved of resources. I'm currently at the end game, and I'm drowning in food and water. The main thing that bothered me with MGS V was that all of the fun ways to play had bad consequences. "Oh you like killing people? Guess what? Now you're covered in blood forever and can never wash it off. Shame on you!" Basically forcing you to play non-lethally. Survive lets you use all that lethal weaponry with no consequences, so I can just blast baddies with a shotgun to my heart's content.[/QUOTE] Counterpoint: being covered in blood forever is rad as fuck

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53158204]Counterpoint: being covered in blood forever is rad as fuck[/QUOTE] It was too shiny for my taste, I disliked it, especially on the clothes

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53157457]They also start using some of your own gadgets if you use them frequently enough. Notably they have their own version of the inflatable Big Boss if they get tricked by it enough times. It never occurs if you play extremely stealthy since the enemy never learns what tricks you're using, or if you simply never do anything out of the ordinary... like constantly shooting people in the head. To list a few things that change depending on how you play the game: - They wear helmets when you frequently land headshots. - They shoot fultons more and more accurately the more you use them in their line of sight. - They're more suspicious and more likely to report things to CP if you're sneaky but still interact with them. - They tend to place more landmines near their outposts if you sneak by them. - They notice you faster if you've been spotted a lot. - They use decoys if you use them a lot. - They use better combat gear if you're very aggressive. - They wear NVGs if you mostly operate at night. - They wear gasmasks if you use gas-based gadgets.[/QUOTE] Just want to point out that while your actions do impact the rate at which enemies gain certain enhancements the system was never fully finished. In the game new enemy equipment is actually unlocked based on your story progression. Enemies will use decoys even if you've never developed them, conversely enemies will never equip helmets before you do the first few missions. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;53157832]I find it odd how people seem to be popping up to adamantly defend this game and Konami so much as of late. Like, its perfectly fine to buy it and enjoy it, i dont think anyones saying you're wrong if you're having fun with it, thats just personal taste (and i havent played it so i cant really say anything regarding whether its good or bad personally), but there are perfectly valid criticisms that can be leveled against the game itself, the context in which it exists, as well as the practices that led to it being what it is and existing in the first place. Unrelated but in general considering the precedent set by what happened to Team Silent and Silent Hill i have a bad feeling about whats gonna happen to the Metal Gear IP in the future. I can already imagine an MGS6 being made by some western developer who has absolutely no idea what the series should be.[/QUOTE] I find it odd how you go into every Metal Gear Survive thread, spout the same bullshit and ignore the people telling you that the game is actually good. You say it's fine to enjoy it, but the fact that you're shitting on the game at every opportunity and ignoring the people who have actually played it paints a different picture. People are defending the game because of retarded comments like: [QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;53157564]Compared to the previous games in the series, MGSurvive is a bad game. Yes it's even worse than Portable Ops[/QUOTE] No one who likes Survive thinks Konami are the good guys. They're just sick of the constant shitting on this game by people who haven't played it and only watched Jim Sterling not even bother getting through the tutorial.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53158309] I find it odd how you go into every Metal Gear Survive thread, spout the same bullshit and ignore the people telling you that the game is actually good. You say it's fine to enjoy it, but the fact that you're shitting on the game at every opportunity and ignoring the people who have actually played it paints a different picture. People are defending the game because of retarded comments like: .[/QUOTE] Im not ignoring people telling me the game is good, a friend of mine has told me how much fun he's had with it and it looks fun. Im not even shitting on the game, the only thing i really dislike about the game itself after having heard about it since it released is that it has microtransactions and you need to pay for extra save slots. My main issue with the game is just the reason it exists, really, so not even the game itself. Like if i got the game i'd probably like it. And the main issue i've had with how some people choose to defend it is that i've seen some people really try to whitewash the shit Konamis done (not all, some, ive seen a few do it). I mean i still think its wildly out of place in the Metal Gear franchise but if its good its good.

The situation with MG Survive reminds me a lot of the edgy DMC reboot. Most people who played the originals ended up shitting on it for missing the point of the series, and also ended up bashing it for what it represented as a game, namely Capcom's trend to rip beloved franchises from the initial creators hands in order to give it to unrelated western developers who miss the point, because Capcom still believes the only way to sell a game to a western audience is to have it be developed by a western team. But there were still people who ignored those issues and some of the legitimate complaints with the gameplay that only become glaring or problematic if you play many of these games, claimed the game was totally fine and played it without much willingness to understand or accept why exactly people were so mad. Like, you're allowed to like any game you want, but if people get really pissed off at a game because of publisher mistreatment and undesired paradigm shifts that turn the games into something else (and in the cases of both dmc and survive, something considerably more common and thus for many people infinitely less interesting), there's probably a good reason for it and simply dismissing this kind of criticism by making up your own little narrative that Konami's a totally fine publisher that totally didn't violate its own IPs and devteams repeatedly seems nothing short of delusional.

Personally, I'm just annoyed that big youtubers are spreading the word that this is the worst game ever made, and many of the viewers just take that opinion and make it their own without looking further into it.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53158309]No one who likes Survive thinks Konami are the good guys. They're just sick of the constant shitting on this game by people who haven't played it and only watched Jim Sterling not even bother getting through the tutorial.[/QUOTE] I could go and dig some posts that literally say Konami did nothing wrong and their mishandling of their dev teams is a myth. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;53158528]Personally, I'm just annoyed that big youtubers are spreading the word that this is the worst game ever made, and many of the viewers just take that opinion and make it their own without looking further into it.[/QUOTE] They're not even saying it's the "worst game ever", they're just pointing out it's awfully generic and fails to represent what Metal Gear is as a franchise, which is a perfectly valid criticism considering the fact it [I]is[/I] just another zombie game, and it [I]does[/I] fail to represent what Metal Gear is as a franchise. It ignores all of the paradigms that made the series what it is, the same paradigms that even wild spin-offs like Rising managed to capture. And people were fucking [I]livid[/I] about Rising when it was first announced. Most people were livid until it actually got a demo and suddenly people realized it was fucking fun as shit. It's almost as if the game turned out to actually be a success and didn't need a dedicated group of small people to defend its existence seeing that, as it turns out, it actually was a really good Metal Gear game after all. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] Right now Survive is a game that's being criticized by most outlets as technically not awfully put together, but still extremely generic and average. Which, to many people, including most who cared about the MG franchise for being the antithesis of generic and average, equates to the game being trash. Konami's usual bullshit only makes it harder a pill to swallow and most people will obviously be fucking pissed off at a game that falls in line with Konami's ability to absolutely and thoroughly rape its own franchises.

I don't think anyone can deny that releasing this game right after the controversy surrounding them letting go Kojima was a remarkably poor decision. Many were looking to see if Konami would respect the franchise and continue doing justice to it, myself included, and what did they release as their FIRST post-kojima metal gear game? This thing, an asset flipped "spin-off game" with about as much originality and appeal as a wet paper bag. Its hard not to take away from this that they simply don't give a shit about the metal gear franchise, and that is pissing fans off regardless of the anti-konami drama. Had this been released after they hit it out of the park with a proper MGS6? I guarantee you it wouldn't be getting nearly as much flak.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158544]why is it important for you to bash a game you dislike on the internet when people are rightfully enjoying it on release cant you just shit over konami while allowing people to enjoy it, every post that is "games shit, you shouldnt enjoy it, konami sucks wheres kojima" does nothing but increase vitriol amongst people for no reason other than identity politics changing a few things around in your post makes it equally valid, but youl still disagree with it and so will others[/QUOTE] The guy literally says it's okay to enjoy the game but that won't stop him from shit on konami, and you're asking him to allow people to enjoy the game while still shitting on konami. You can't read.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158556]did you think i was replying to him and him alone? he was talking about an overall group of people. christ stop reaching to get a sick zinger[/QUOTE] You quoted him and did no effort to mention virtually anyone else, so yeah, you were pretty evidently talking to [I]him[/I], not to a group of people.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158565] youd rather argue than come to common ground, its ok if you dislike the game and its ok if we like the game [/QUOTE] Eh? Huh? Thats exactly what a couple of people have been saying. Its okay to like the game but its also okay to discuss Konamis faults and how the game relates to them, that doesnt mean they're attacking the game, but factoring in the context behind how and why the game exists in regards to a larger discussion about that company. Thats what the other guy said even.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158582]whats so hard to understand about the idea that saying "you shouldnt argue about it just because you like the game" is as valid as "you shouldnt argue about it just because you dislike the publisher"[/QUOTE] I'm... Sorry? I'm not sure i understand.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53158518]The situation with MG Survive reminds me a lot of the edgy DMC reboot. Most people who played the originals ended up shitting on it for missing the point of the series, and also ended up bashing it for what it represented as a game, namely Capcom's trend to rip beloved franchises from the initial creators hands in order to give it to unrelated western developers who miss the point, because Capcom still believes the only way to sell a game to a western audience is to have it be developed by a western team. But there were still people who ignored those issues and some of the legitimate complaints with the gameplay that only become glaring or problematic if you play many of these games, claimed the game was totally fine and played it without much willingness to understand or accept why exactly people were so mad. Like, you're allowed to like any game you want, but if people get really pissed off at a game because of publisher mistreatment and undesired paradigm shifts that turn the games into something else (and in the cases of both dmc and survive, something considerably more common and thus for many people infinitely less interesting), there's probably a good reason for it and simply dismissing this kind of criticism by making up your own little narrative that Konami's a totally fine publisher that totally didn't violate its own IPs and devteams repeatedly seems nothing short of delusional.[/QUOTE] Misses the point of the series? Care to elaborate on what that is exactly? Is it just that the game has zombies that it 'misses the point'? Regardless of the fact that not-zombies have been in MGS4 and MGSV. It has the stealth, the action, even the political intrigue. Of course you wouldn't know that if you form your opinion based on youtubers who can't be bothered to even get past the tutorial. What the fuck does Capcom have to do with anything here? The people who made Survive are largely the same people who made MGSV, many of whom are also responsible for MGS3 and 4. What are the legitimate complaints about the gameplay? Be specific, because the ones brought up by Dunkey are actually bullshit. In fact sitting behind a fence stabbing shit is one of the least effective things you can do. Why exactly are people so mad? You complain that people that people don't "understand" but you never fucking go into even mild detail about what the problems are, you just say there are problems. If people are pissed off because Konami are a shit publisher and not because the game is bad they should stop fucking lying and saying the game is shit. What is the actual issue here? That Konami are bad or that the game is bad? Because one does not beget the other. No one here has once said Konami are an okay publisher, or "making up [their] own little narrative that Konami's a totally fine publisher". Holy fuck that's the most condescending thing I've read in a long time. How about rather than going into every single MGSurvive thread and posting inflammatory, vague bullshit and conflating your hatred for Konami with a hatred for the game you actually tell us what your problems are? What makes this game bad in your opinion? Is it a gameplay issue or a story issue? Are you just mad at how Konami treated Kojima? That has nothing to do with the quality of this game. Seriously. I want to hear, plainly, what your actual opinions are and how you came to think them. Otherwise your constant need to shit talk the game with bullshit like "There are problems" or "There are reasons people are mad at the game" without ever elaborating is basically just shitposting.

[QUOTE=ntzu;53158542]I don't think anyone can deny that releasing this game right after the controversy surrounding them letting go Kojima was a remarkably poor decision. Many were looking to see if Konami would respect the franchise and continue doing justice to it, myself included, and what did they release as their FIRST post-kojima metal gear game? This thing, an asset flipped "spin-off game" with about as much originality and appeal as a wet paper bag. Its hard not to take away from this that they simply don't give a shit about the metal gear franchise, and that is pissing fans off regardless of the anti-konami drama. Had this been released after they hit it out of the park with a proper MGS6? I guarantee you it wouldn't be getting nearly as much flak.[/QUOTE] idk what you're on about. a spin-off game was THE right choice they could have and did make. what do you think would have happened if they immediately announced mgs6 right after the kojima debacle? are you crazy? the spin-off is to dip their feet back into mgs to gauge the reaction.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53158610]idk what you're on about. a spin-off game was THE right choice they could have and did make. what do you think would have happened if they immediately announced mgs6 right after the kojima debacle? are you crazy? the spin-off is to dip their feet back into mgs to gauge the reaction.[/QUOTE] They should have waited way longer to reveal it, like maybe announce it 6 months ago. The Kojima stuff was always going to factor in and it always will because they're never ever going to live that down, but they announced it way too soon after the KJP dissolution, lots of stuff about V's development coming out, the cancellation of Silent Hills, and the Game Awards snub, it was all really fresh in peoples heads. Rising 2 would probably be received without any ire, also.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53158631]They should have waited way longer to reveal it, like maybe announce it 6 months ago. The Kojima stuff was always going to factor in and it always will because they're never ever going to live that down, but they announced it way too soon after the KJP dissolution, lots of stuff about V's development coming out, the cancellation of Silent Hills, and the Game Awards snub, it was all really fresh in peoples heads. Rising 2 would probably be received without any ire, also.[/QUOTE] if they only announced it 6 months ago people would find a way to still bitch about it. "it took them 3 years to make this??? how lazy!!! this is how they treat metal gear?!!" most of the arguments against survive don't even take into consideration the time frame of when this game was announced, they'd still complain about the same things.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53158637]if they only announced it 6 months ago people would find a way to still bitch about it. "it took them 3 years to make this??? how lazy!!! this is how they treat metal gear?!!" most of the arguments against survive don't even take into consideration the time frame of when this game was announced, they'd still complain about the same things.[/QUOTE] Like i said, thats always going to factor in now, but it could have been mitigated a bit. Also, it might be a rather superficial difference, but if it was advertised as a standalone expansion pack like Gat Out of Hell or OpFor/Blue Shift instead of a new game i think it would have gotten less flak as well, since thats essentially what it is.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158649]im pretty sure it was known to be a non canon standalone expansion spinoff, it might not have said it on the box but are you implying people bought into it thinking it was going to be a normal metalgear game? i actually dont understand what you are trying to say here, it was pretty obvious from the first trailer it was on foxengine and a different type of game set in universe, what else do you want for that :V[/QUOTE] Subliminal differences in how an audience perceives it based on how its presented. It was more or less presented as a new game, but was clearly using like 75+% of the assets from V and the gameplay and whatnot, so it can lead people to judge it as being a lazy quick asset flip based on that presentation, while if it was presented as like "Standalone Phantom Pain Expansion Pack: Metal Gear Survive" everyone would automatically understand its branching off of that specific games assets and mechanics, and i think it would've helped how its been received if only a little bit. If it was presented more in that kind of way and announced close to a year later than it was i think a lot of the backlash wouldnt have been as harsh.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53158596]Misses the point of the series? Care to elaborate on what that is exactly? Is it just that the game has zombies that it 'misses the point'? Regardless of the fact that not-zombies have been in MGS4 and MGSV. It has the stealth, the action, even the political intrigue. Of course you wouldn't know that if you form your opinion based on youtubers who can't be bothered to even get past the tutorial. [/QUOTE] It's hard to formulate this way, but the overall problem I have with the game is simply that, beyond the most basic surface level, it fails to be an actual MGS game. It emulates what was done but doesn't understand [I]why[/I] it was done that way. Namely, it copies the science fiction and war aspects of the story but fail to understand [I]why[/I] it was there to begin with. In all mainline MGS games, even in Rising, the ever changing nature of conflict and technology are purely backdrops to personal stories. Survive focuses solely on the sci-fi aspect and tries to extrapolate on things that didn't need extrapolating. It basically does what most fanfiction ends up doing. MGS is not a series about metallic archaea and nanomachines and wormholes and AIs, it's a series about how individuals are shaped by war, and how war itself is an antagonistic, all-consuming force. These are not concepts that Survive harbors. Survive focuses solely on the science fiction parts which, to no one's surprise since this was known for years, can't stand on a leg of its own. Put simply, stuff like nanomachines and whatnot are really stupid, but it's endearingly stupid when used as a means to push a deeper narrative which only uses them as a backdrop. Survive, focusing entirely on wormholes and nanomachines and such things, fails to achieve this same effect and just comes off as really dumb. As for the gameplay, it's bog standard survival. It obfuscates things that were simple in MGS V but are made longer or more tedious for no good reason. Grabbing things was instant in MGS V, now it takes time in Survive. Sprinting was unlimited in V, now it depletes stamina and takes a long time to restore. This isn't even the first time the series tackles the concept of solitary survival: MGS 3 was entirely about Naked Snake being lost alone in the middle of a forest and having to sustain himself. But the system was far less invasive and felt like it actually carried a purpose for the story, it wasn't there just to tack in a survival feature. TL;DR it's a pale copy of a series that doesn't understand what actually made it good and only manages to copy it on the most surface level imaginable. [QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53158610]idk what you're on about. a spin-off game was THE right choice they could have and did make. what do you think would have happened if they immediately announced mgs6 right after the kojima debacle? are you crazy? the spin-off is to dip their feet back into mgs to gauge the reaction.[/QUOTE] They could have let it die like it should have instead of trying to maintain the series without the main driving force behind it.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53158660]It's hard to formulate this way, but the overall problem I have with the game is simply that, beyond the most basic surface level,[B] it fails to be an actual MGS game[/B]. It emulates what was done but doesn't understand [I]why[/I] it was done that way. Namely, it copies the science fiction and war aspects of the story but fail to understand [I]why[/I] it was there to begin with. [B]In all mainline MGS games[/B], even in Rising, the ever changing nature of conflict and technology are purely backdrops to personal stories. Survive focuses solely on the sci-fi aspect and tries to extrapolate on things that didn't need extrapolating. It basically does what most fanfiction ends up doing. MGS is not a series about metallic archaea and nanomachines and wormholes and AIs, it's a series about how individuals are shaped by war, and how war itself is an antagonistic, all-consuming force. These are not concepts that Survive harbors. Survive focuses solely on the science fiction parts which, to no one's surprise since this was known for years, can't stand on a leg of its own. Put simply, stuff like nanomachines and whatnot are really stupid, but it's endearingly stupid when used as a means to push a deeper narrative which only uses them as a backdrop. Survive, focusing entirely on wormholes and nanomachines and such things, fails to achieve this same effect and just comes off as really dumb. As for the gameplay, it's bog standard survival. It obfuscates things that were simple in MGS V but are made longer or more tedious for no good reason. Grabbing things was instant in MGS V, now it takes time in Survive. Sprinting was unlimited in V, now it depletes stamina and takes a long time to restore. This isn't even the first time the series tackles the concept of solitary survival: MGS 3 was entirely about Naked Snake being lost alone in the middle of a forest and having to sustain himself. But the system was far less invasive and felt like it actually carried a purpose for the story, it wasn't there just to tack in a survival feature. TL;DR it's a pale copy of a series that doesn't understand what actually made it good and only manages to copy it on the most surface level imaginable.[/QUOTE] why do you keep arguing as if it's a main numbered title? it's a spin-off.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158673]it is a new game, a spinoff or standalone expansion doesnt need to have it in bright neon lights saying "GUYS THIS ISNT A NORMAL METAL GEAR GAME" even though survive essentially had that with its marketing, making me even more confused as to why youd say this i legitimately dont understand how from the trailers, betas and gameplay in general this could be seen as a normal mainline metal gear game, any knowledge into the series would tell you what it is and if you arent familiar with the series then the distinction doesnt matter[/QUOTE] Its not that its a mainline game or spin-off or not, its that the difference of it being presented as a [i]new game[/i] or [i]a standalone expansion to an existing game[/i] that would have made a difference in response, i'm saying.