Is MGS5 best open world game this generation?

Recommended Videos

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Personally I reckon Far Cry 3/4 does open world stealth better, even if my all time favourite open world games for 'freedom of how to tackle objectives' as well as stealth is the tag team of Mercenaries (for it's vehicle stealth) and The Saboteur (for it's on-foot stealth). Combine those two and you'd have the perfect sandbox in my eyes.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
I would agree that Witcher 3 is a much better game, not just in the sense of being an open world game. I am eagerly awaiting Cyberpunk 2077.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
B-Cell said:
it released around the time TW3 also released but its better than TW3 in every single way.
You'll have to elaborate on that, because I thought The Witcher 3 was better written, had a more interesting world, had better quests, a better story and better combat mechanics (once mastered). The second half of MGS5 was realy boring to me, it lacked the craziness of MGS4, the quality story of 3 and 1 or the meta weirdness of 2, I didn't even finish it, a first for the entire Metal Gear franchise.

There's also Breath of the Wild, which would have almost uniformly excellent except for the weapon degredation.
I liked Horizon Zero Dawn as well, it's a bit generic in some regards (woohoo it's the post apocalypse), but the setting, creature design and general build quality of the game were excellent.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
MGSV tried to take a middle ground between the two "open world" game design philosophies, and didn't do it very well. It had sandbox-style maps, but little sandbox-style content, but relied on the older style of mission-free roam structure and content gating. Mother Base itself wasn't the problem, but rather that little was done with it except for a couple missions, and serving as the venue for progression mechanics. Honestly, I think the game could have pulled it off -- if the revenge system/enemy preparedness mechanic had been a lot more robust, aggressive, and dynamic. Those big-ass maps would have felt a lot more claustrophobic and dynamic if Snake (and the player) had to contend with infantry/armored patrols, CAP's, lookouts in unexpected positions whose sole purpose wasn't to engage Snake but rather report back intel on his whereabouts, CP's and outposts which actually upgraded in hardware deployment and fortification (or were abandoned, to deprive enemy forces of resources) based on Snake's activities, and even locals who could be allied with or turn against Snake depending on his choices.

For instance, I remember Afghanistan CP's 6, 9, and 11 to be my favorite whipping boys when I played MGSV. Centrally-located, placed along natural chokepoints, easily approached and vulnerable, and always there brimming with potential recruits and supplies. No reason to not hit them, ever, if you were traveling between major locations. So, what happens, and how does it impact your gameplay, if you've been a little aggressive, and ride through to unexpectedly find CP 11 and 6 abandoned except for one lookout on the ridges, and a tank company with heavy soldier escort and extensive fortifications at CP9, who could in turn rapidly respond to reports of enemy activity at Wakh Sind or Da Ghwandar?
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
I'd have to say no. Even with the open world it had I didn't feel like I needed or wanted to do any of it. The Witcher 3 however made me feel like I needed/wanted to do the open world stuff because of how I felt like I was either effecting the world or the people that lived inside of it.