[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53158670]why do you keep arguing as if it's a main numbered title? it's a spin-off.[/QUOTE]
Because Rising managed to both be a spin-off [I]and[/I] be a good MGS game at the same time.
"It's a spin off though" does not excuse its narrative and creative shortcomings. It's still called Metal Gear. It still has to abide by some of its concepts, otherwise it should be called something else.
[QUOTE=redBadger;53157340]His comparisons at the beginning were a bit weak since Metal Gear Rising departs from the main line games as well.[/QUOTE]
Metal Gear Rising is actually fun though
EDIT: I’m confused at the dumbs
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158691]based on the actual fundamentals of mgs the only thing it did well in thats specific to the genre is bombastic events, which believe it or not survive does fine too[/QUOTE]
Rising follows the setting, tone, and technological advancement introduced in MGS2 and 4, but with a more tongue in cheek b-movie tone. Its essentially an MGS1-4 style plot but you play as the ninja of those games instead of the soldier.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158695]if it was marketed as "yo we are making this without koji haha its a spinoff" directly, nothing would change[/QUOTE]
Wha?
How do you not get the point im making.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158695]if it was marketed as "yo we are making this without koji haha its a spinoff" directly, nothing would change
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
yes, thats what i mean by bombastic events, the writing even within the metal gear world is shit but the way it presents its shit writing is well in tone
the only thing thats even remotely close to it is the "villain monologues about a mcguffin/philosophy" and codec calls, of which survive does the same[/QUOTE]
Huh?
The general political overtones, setting, the plot itself in a way, and the bosses are all heavily based on what MGS4 established, as well as stuff like the codec, all the extra items, and its visual style and (non boss fight) music, its all patterned to be like a more tongue in cheek MGS1-4 style game, in tribute to it.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158698]because you keep saying that itd be somehow different if they marketed it directly as a spinoff without explaining HOW they would change it, you arent being clear at all and are having an intensely hard time understanding everyone elses arguments.
if you are talking about the actual ingame setting then you are talking about something you have 0 knowledge on because clearly you havent even watched the opening cutscene.[/QUOTE]
Dude I'm not saying "main vs Spin-off" I'm saying "Game vs expansion" why are you not understanding this and taking it as some kind of attack.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158712]a lot of your complaints would be solved by playing the game, youd actually realise you are wrong about most of it, again, aside from the political undertones which are instead interpersonal undertones
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
ok you are going in circles while ignoring my point, whats the difference between a main game and a spinoff and an "expansion", what weird definition have you cemented in your head that requires X game be semantically defined in such a way that also limits it from escaping that definition[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying main vs spinoff what the fuck.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158716]ok ignore the rest of the post then?
im asking you to clarify and you wont, clarify it instead of picking a single point you disagree with and ignoring the rest, if you read the rest of the post maybe youd see i wrote "expansion" too!
in the post you quoted i asked you to define the difference between main, spinoff and expansion and you read that and went "wow lets just complain again"[/QUOTE]
Dude what the fuck I was just making a suggestion on how the marketing couldve mitigated the harsh response it got, why are you freaking the fuck out and putting words in my mouth and slinging accusations.
And yes, its a spinoff but functionally its a standalone expansion pack, like Gat out of Hell for Saints row, and if it was marketed with that being stressed more I think it would've received less scrutiny.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
What complaints have I even made besides it having micro transactions and being a drastic setting shift.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158736]im frustrated that it took you like 6 posts of you saying the same thing over and over again to actually write what you mean, while at the same time now saying what i disagreed with in the first place clearly :V
what you are saying now is what i disagreed to before with
im sorry if it came off as me being rude but you were incredibly obtuse over such a simple statement that i addressed in the first place.
no, if it was marketed differently, as a lesser game than a normal mgs game it would not have changed.
and no, it wasnt presenting itself as a mainline game, its clearly a spinoff (and before you get mad no, you not talking about spinoffs doesnt make that not valid)[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying its not a spinoff, I never said it wasn't a spinoff, I wasn't even implying it wasn't being marketed as one, my point was that if it was marketed as a standalone spin-off [i]extension[/I] of V it would've made people understand more what it is and what its doing and not criticized it for things like reused assets.
How on earth did you read any of the rest of that out of the very simple point I was trying to make. Spinoffs and Expansion Packs aren't even mutually exclusive, I specifically mentioned the HL1 expansions which are both.
I thought I made it crystal clear the first time I posted it, I'm confused how you interpreted it like that.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
Like more than anything I'm just very confused because I was just trying to make a point of how Konami could have handled the promotion better to help sell the concept to it's skeptical audience.
I think changing the context in which the game was presented in reference to the prior games would have done at least some good in it's favor, it wouldn't eliminate the criticism but I'm sure like people who complained mainly about all the asset flipping wouldn't have done so under that pretext.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53158765]yeah and unless it was an entirely new game outside the metal gear universe it wouldnt have changed anything, even if it was a new game with new assets people still woulda been really angry at it and find reasons to be angrier just because of the politics behind koji vs konami[/QUOTE]
Yeah and that's the point, If it was treated less like a game and more an extension of V, I think it'd alter its perception on a subconscious level.
Like for example the GTA IV episodes aren't treated necessarily as individual games but different arms of GTA IV and discussion of IV usually includes them, it's factored into that whole and sort of judged as an extension of that product because it's presented as extensions of it, while the GTA III era Stories games are considered entirely stand alone games despite being more or less the same thing the episodes did for IV but to GTA III and Vice City.
[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, it fails to be an actual MGS game.[/QUOTE]
I do believe I said specifics on why the game is bad. For one thing it's a non-canon spin-off much like Metal Gear Rising or Metal Gear Ac!d. Both of which are wildly different to MGS beyond the surface level, moreso than Survive.
[quote]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.[/quote]
It may surprise you to hear this but that's actually the primary focus on Survive's story. The vast majority of the game's cutscenes are dedicated to the concept of whether you should place your trust in people. Your primary ally in the game is a member of XOF who initially is only helping for his own benefit. It's not a complex story but it follows a similar focus to the other games, just one more inline with the survival setting.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Actually the game gives about as much explanation to the nanomachines as Metal Gear Rising does. The metallic archaea is just used as a weapon and isn't even explained (which should probably be considered a fault). Survive's story is about coming together and doing the right thing in desperate times. I little trite perhaps, but hardly all about the sci-fi bullshit.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The wormholes are used solely as a means of getting the characters into the world and as an end goal to leave. The story, while it does use nanomachines destroying the world as a threat, doesn't focus heavily on any of the technology. The AI is just introduced with no fanfare and becomes a character for the story.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The survival elements in the game are actually incredibly minor. It's more like a streamlined version of MGS3's system. Grabbing things was [i]not[/i] instant in MGSV an I find it quite odd that you think it was instant. Grabbing items in Survive ranges from slow when you're searching through containers to literally instant when you're picking up plants and junk. You can also unlock a skill which lets you pick shit up faster, and the scout subclass gets a skill that pick up everything around you when you pick something up.
The stamina system has actually been completely overhauled to fit the survival theme, it wasn't just slapped in randomly. Sprinting takes away stamina quickly, as does crawling and slowly sneaking. Sneaking normally drains stamina slowly and all non-standard attack drain stamina. This is so you can't just run away in the middle of a fight and being reckless will get you killed. Also the stamina only takes a long time to regenerate if you keep trying to use it, standing still for two seconds causes it to shoot back up.
[quote]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]
Funny that you talk about the game being a surface level copy of MGS when you clearly only have a surface level understanding of the game yourself. Survive takes a number of features from older Metal Gear games and focuses hard on them. It isn't a traditional Metal Gear game but that's why they made it a non-canon spin off.
If this was released like Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption, and no one cared about the Kojima stuff this game wouldn't get a fraction of the vitriol that has been thrown at it.
dunkey is always hilarious but his more serious/review videos are pretty weak sometimes
comparing the fence-spearing to decoy and fist shenanigans isn't fair, mgsv breaks down into just as boring and repetitive gameplay if you just take the path of least resistance
and say what you will about the whole kojima fiasco, the criticism is definitely warranted, but moving past that, do you really expect them to just kill the IP?
according to the fans there's no way to capture the magic of the previous games without kojima, yet they're also not allowed to evolve and change the formula to adapt to that?
It's impressive how Dunkey manages to spark pages-long discussions here every time when more critical videos get made by him.
At least this time the discussion didn't derail.
[QUOTE=krail9;53158918]dunkey is always hilarious but his more serious/review videos are pretty weak sometimes
comparing the fence-spearing to decoy and fist shenanigans isn't fair, mgsv breaks down into just as boring and repetitive gameplay if you just take the path of least resistance
and say what you will about the whole kojima fiasco, the criticism is definitely warranted, but moving past that, do you really expect them to just kill the IP?
according to the fans there's no way to capture the magic of the previous games without kojima, yet they're also not allowed to evolve and change the formula to adapt to that?[/QUOTE]
Konami's known to absolutely violate their franchises and mutilate them so, yeah, I'd rather have them kill the IP.
Silent Hill went down a spiral of utter garbage after they took it away from the original team.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53159019]Konami's known to absolutely violate their franchises and mutilate them so, yeah, I'd rather have them kill the IP.
Silent Hill went down a spiral of utter garbage after they took it away from the original team.[/QUOTE]
that spiral started because they handed it to a bunch of progressively cheaper no-name studios who just made bad, misunderstood versions of Silent Hill 2. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Shattered_Memories"]and coincidentally the only good post-Team Silent game is also a weird non-canon side story that has only one or two real Silent Hill holdovers.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Cone;53159082]that spiral started because they handed it to a bunch of progressively cheaper no-name studios who just made bad, misunderstood versions of Silent Hill 2. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Shattered_Memories"]and coincidentally the only good post-Team Silent game is also a weird non-canon side story that has only one or two real Silent Hill holdovers.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Shattered Memories was more of a weird remake in the same vein as Twin Snakes, except when Twin Snakes pretty much made everything worse, Shattered Memories actually managed to pull some interesting ideas.
[editline]a[/editline]
Oh and I'm not even sure how much ground the "Metal Gear Survive's made by the same people" argument actually holds considering all of the key names are different. It may have a few minor programmers but all of the people who made MGS V what it is are pretty much out of the picture, including the writers and lead programmers.
Most of the key figures left alongside Kojima.
[QUOTE=krail9;53158918]dunkey is always hilarious but his more serious/review videos are pretty weak sometimes
[/QUOTE]
For some reason I just can't stand Dunkey when he starts talking in a more serious manner. Something about the way he explains things just doesn't sit right with me and it takes serious effort to actually get through his more serious videos. I don't know if that's just me though.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53159204] Something about the way he explains things just doesn't sit right with me and it takes serious effort to actually get through his more serious videos.[/QUOTE]
You have to go into more detail because I have no idea what couldn't sit right with the way he talks.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53159204]For some reason I just can't stand Dunkey when he starts talking in a more serious manner. Something about the way he explains things just doesn't sit right with me and it takes serious effort to actually get through his more serious videos. I don't know if that's just me though.[/QUOTE]
I think it's because it's hard to tell if he's actually being serious or not.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;53159204]For some reason I just can't stand Dunkey when he starts talking in a more serious manner. Something about the way he explains things just doesn't sit right with me and it takes serious effort to actually get through his more serious videos. I don't know if that's just me though.[/QUOTE]
he also doesn't argue for his points very well since it needs to fit his 5 minute style of videos
Dunkey's hyperboles aside he makes a good point that the game's a massive nosedive in terms of the excitement that the previous games offered.
Going from hyperactive action stealth with a mix of legitimately compelling storytelling and downright silly moments to a game that slows down to a crawl every time you want to open a fucking box or try to sprint for longer than a minute is, as he puts it, kind of a massive nosedive.
Even the arsenal you're given's fucking worse. I've spent the time to actually check for all the gadgets you get in this game and there isn't really anything that comes close to a worthwhile replacement for any of the robot arms you could get in V or any of the cool and actually original stuff you'd get in the titles before that.
Metal Gear Survive sounded like a good idea, but what I'm seeing here is awfulness. Where's the part where you actually get to use a proper gun?
[QUOTE=Minigun;53159981]Metal Gear Survive sounded like a good idea, but what I'm seeing here is awfulness. Where's the part where you actually get to use a proper gun?[/QUOTE]
the part where dunkey hasn't reached yet because he never went past the tutorial.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53159987]the part where dunkey hasn't reached yet because he never went past the tutorial.[/QUOTE]
to be honest i see people keep saying this, but if playing for two hours isn't long enough to clear the boring tutorial section, that's pretty bad game design
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;53159987]the part where dunkey hasn't reached yet because he never went past the tutorial.[/QUOTE]
Most designers try to frontload their content because it doesn't matter if it gets good eventually, it's boring now.
This was a very dishonest video.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
"Metal Gear 4 is incredibly bold just for trying to make sense out of the previous games."
Leaving out the poor characterizations of EVA, Johnny, Meryl, the B&Bs, Drebin (though to a lesser extent). There's the egregious bike chase in Act 3, the misuse of Eastern Europe in general, etc. He decries Survive for issues already present since MGS2: That there is usually one dominant, most efficient strategy to neutralize the enemy.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;53160098]its a survival game with pretty big rpg elements
its like saying a wizard in the first hour of a rpg cant do much compared to one in the later parts, you might be squeezing out lil shitty bolts of lightning in the first hour compared to summoning dragons and shit later
making players get guns later isn't a terrible decision
if players had easy access to guns and ammo throughout the first few hours, the game wouldn't be nearly as atmospheric or spooky as it surprisingly was
see: fallout 4 giving the player power armor and a minigun at the first quest[/QUOTE]
I'm with that, but the low-power start of the game should still be fun/engaging, or if it's not, at least short.
i really dislike it when people try to make a point by intentionally using selective crappy boring footage vs funny exciting footage
[QUOTE=Hammer7;53157368]Even Dunkey didn't like it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, even someone that notoriously dislikes survival games hates a survival game
[editline]26th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Keychain;53160218]i really dislike it when people try to make a point by intentionally using selective crappy boring footage vs funny exciting footage[/QUOTE]
That's dunkey in a nutshell though, he did the same for dota vs LoL (i think, was definitely a moba)
for one game he chose a battle, so action + stuff is happening, with many creeps on the screen and compared it against a non-battle with very little creeps on screen and said 'this game has too much going on and I can't see!!!!!'
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
