Is the Metal Gear Solid series overrated?

[Raykuza]

My first experience with MGS was with 4. I was confused about all of the backstory, but I still managed to identify the significance of every event. A couple months ago (so no one says anything about nostalgia) I bought the MGS collection and played through 1-4 in sequence on my PS3. It was a memorable experience, and the series is now one of my favorites.

The series is certainly not without its faults. The writing can be absolutely terrible at times, and the whole deal with Liquid's arm is honestly somewhat stupid. But the story is great, and the characters are memorable. The plot is complex, but that has to be my favorite part about it. The cutscenes are long, but when you are so invested in the story, you usually don't care. The game's environment is filled with small details that let you know that the people making the game really care about their work. I know this has been said before but it's absolutely true: you either love it or you hate it.

I'm starting to think it is. I've been giving my best shot at MGS3 Subsistence, which some people say is the best in the series. The controls are clunky, CQC barely works, every time I talk to the medic to find out about an animal I've killed, or plant I've harvested, I get some long dialogue about a horror flick.

It also has a bizarre mix of realism and fantasy, which I find disconcerting. Aiming with the pistol seems realistic enough, but the inability to sidestep is completely disconcerting. Having to adjust camo according to the environment makes sense, but it's just an exercise in going into the menu, turning it into a chore since the game could just do it automatically or just default to a single type of camo (which would also be more realistic). And for some reason, eating a reticulated python heals you.

That bizarre mix of reality and sci-fi is another thing I love about the game's plot, but you seem to be holding this game to modern day design standards. You have to look at the game and its blocky figures and low res textures and awkward AI and unintuitive controls and remember that in back in 2004, people were shitting bricks over this. You'll enjoy it a lot more that way. Come to think of it, old MGS titles achieved levels of detail that a lot of modern games still don't include.

 

[migo]

Also, the gameplay has not moved on significantly since the PS2 days.

This worries me the most - I figure some of the problems I'm having are because I'm coming in late, and if MGS4 is more modern it might have better controls, but if it's still stuck back there...

How are the controls clunky? I CQCed and knife slit every guard in my first playthrough of MGS3, and I was then punished for that during The Sorrow "fight." CQC takes some time to get used to; it's a bit complicated because you have so many things you can do to a guard while they are CQCed. The only major control complaint about MGS3 is the fixed camera, which was remedied in Subsistence.

For one, the moment you grab an unconscious sentry the controls invert, so pushing forward moves you backwards. For another, due to the analog sensitivity of the buttons being used, it's rather hard to nail what you actually want. The NGPC handled that much better by doing long and short presses rather than hard and soft. Also, only being able to move forward and turn is pretty damn archaic, and creates some problems.

 

[warm slurm]

Splinter Cell isn't that great, it's all about hiding in the shadows with bright green goggles. Splinter Cell's levels are more linear than MGS3 and MGS4, part of being a good stealth game is giving you options to move around your environment. There's so many more options in gameplay in the MGS series; you can hide in the shadows and shot people (like Splinter Cell) or you can sneak up and CQC everyone. Hell, you can use the right radio frequency to call off guards in MGS3. Metal Gear's gameplay has always been top notch for its time and the games always have great boss battles; it's the story and cut-scenes that make or break the series for people not the gameplay.

How isn't Metal Gear's gameplay good when the online portion of MGS4 (Metal Gear Online) is the deepest and most innovative online shooter this gen?

I never said it was the gameplay that makes or breaks the series. If I did I wouldn't have said that if you're playing the game for the gameplay (and I mean solely), you're doing it wrong. It isn't bad, it's even pretty good once you get used to it, but it isn't fantastic and the stealth stuff is pointless when you can run 'n' gun through most of the game (ESPECIALLY MGS4). You can't do that in Splinter Cell.

I never played MGO too much; MGS4 left too bad of a taste in my mouth for me to ever want to put the game back in my PS3 again.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

The MGS series is a perfect example of a post-modern video game. The way it marries the real and the surreal is ingenious. It's got plenty of flaws, but at least it's willing to take risks and try new things. Which I think is damned respectable.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

No, and it sounds like you played the game with apathy and impatience as though you had somewhere better to be so you were just going to play it like a generic action game. Firstly, if you are succeeding by running through shooting everything and are not dying repeatedly, then start a new game and up the difficulty, then go back into it with the mindset to play it like a stealth game, then don't because your starting on a game that's almost all fan service. So much won't make sense, vast amounts of dialog will just be nonsense and as you said pseudo-philosphy, but it's all part of a web that's been intricately span for years. The gameplay was beautifully refined, I appreciated all the changes Kojima made, it improved my control of Snake and really made my extreme run a lot smoother than it was on MGS2. Occaisonally I'd have a little struggle with positioning, and therefore, despite being beautifully refined, it was still hindered under a very unconventional control set up. Ultimately though, if you play from 1 to 4, you have already developed your way of playing and MGS4 really irons out all the decades creases.

I can only implore you to play them from beginning to end, 1 to 4, to really develop and evolve your appreciation of the unique presentation of the games and the utterly insane but ultimately satisfying characters and story. It's much like bourbon, over time your palet forms a relationship, an understanding, and from then on your taste refines and good bourbons definition and subtlties are revealed. Despite all this though, bourbon will be an acquired taste.

I don't know what else to say without being overwhelming and making even less sense. The MGS games are Hideo Kojima's magnum opus, and as a collective are among the best that gaming has to offer. They are startingly unique and refuse to dilute their madness for mass appeal, they're art. As you can probably tell from this thread, there are many diverse and broad ranging opinions on the matter, from blanket loathing to utter adoration, and selective favouritism in between. For those of us who do still enjoy the games, MGS4 was by no means over rated, it was rated highly, and fairly so.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

The order of MGS games as far as I'm concerned is MGS1 remake for gamecube > MGS3 > MGS1 > MGS2=MGS4

 

[warm slurm]

What made MGS 4 different from the rest?

Kojima obviously just pulled it out of his ass. The characters hardly resembled themselves; the ones that did were ruined by the end, anyway. The plot made no sense, even by MGS standards. An arm possessing Ocelot who was really a good guy in the end? lol okay, thanks for the build-up to that plot twist. /sarcasm
Kojima tried to tie up every little thing from the past games even if the resolution made no sense (or just wasn't needed in the first place). He vamped nanomachines up to be some godlike power shit even though they were never that important in the past games.

It just ruined everything. The only thing it improved was the gameplay, I guess, although all it did was make stealth even less essential and basically turned it into an average TPS.

 

[A random person]

I can't judge the whole series, but I'll give my opinions on the two games I've played.

Twin Snakes: I played it because, not owning any original Playstation games, I thought I'd enjoy Psycho Mantis more. Overall it struck me as a good action game, but not the best by any means.

MGS3 Subsistence: I kinda sucked at the beginning and put it down for a long time, but later got back to it and fucking loved it. Taking guards out was fun, the bosses were among the best in gaming, and, aside from difficulty with taking out Raikov (seriously, you cannot get his body up there; thankfully, he goes up there on his own), it was overall a great experience. Hell, I even liked the cutscenes (this contributes to my theory of why I liked this better than Twin Snakes; Kojima may make long cutscenes and conversations, but they're interesting. Silicon Knights just stuck Matrix-esque stunts in them).

I also might like 2, considering my liking for other works considered post-modern.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Also, the gameplay has not moved on significantly since the PS2 days.

This worries me the most - I figure some of the problems I'm having are because I'm coming in late, and if MGS4 is more modern it might have better controls, but if it's still stuck back there...

MGS4 is perhaps the best 3rd-person shooter this gen, the controls are not stuck back in last gen or stuck back anywhere. Vanquish is probably the only game this gen that may be a better 3rd-person shooter in gameplay. Metal Gear Online is the deepest and most innovative online shooter this gen. Console FPSs don't even having leaning while Metal Gear Online is a 3rd-person shooter with 1st-person shooting with the ability to lean, something that every console FPS should have but doesn't. It's all the other shooters that are stuck back somewhere in the gameplay department. Every shooter nowadays is just a cover shooter (AKA glorified whack-a-mole) or a devolved FPS.

How are the controls clunky?...

For one, the moment you grab an unconscious sentry the controls invert, so pushing forward moves you backwards. For another, due to the analog sensitivity of the buttons being used, it's rather hard to nail what you actually want. The NGPC handled that much better by doing long and short presses rather than hard and soft. Also, only being able to move forward and turn is pretty damn archaic, and creates some problems.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. When you pick up a unconscious guard (AKA sleeping guard), I wouldn't say the controls invert. You can only pull the guard backward as that makes sense as it's easier to pull a (sleeping or dead) body than to push it. If you want to pull a guard to the right and you back is facing to the right, then you push right on the analog stick; how is that inverted? You are pressing right and you are going to the right. I don't understand your "only being able to move forward and turn is pretty damn archaic" complaint as you can move anyway you want even in first-person IIRC.

 

[Azex]

The game (MGS4) is awesome. The series is awesome. Either play the whole series or none at all.. dont just play 2 and 4 and expect miracles this isnt CoD

 

[Burst6]

I really like the series. I don't like 4 though. When i actually played the game it was fun, and the ending was awesome, but there were too many long cut scenes. I usually like to watch every single cut scene in every game, but halfway through MGS4 i just started skipping scenes.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I dont think so, Of course I am a fanboy for MGS. I think the problem is that MGS is VERY heavy on the story. More than half the game is story. Which i have no problem with.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Metal Gear Solid 4 is pretty redundant if you haven't followed the game from at least Metal Gear Solid (though having played Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake would add a lot more to that).
See, charging balls deep into Metal Gear Solid 4 is like watching Return of the King before watching The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Yes it will be epic and you might enjoy it, but a lot of the lore is lost on you (having read The Hobbit is the equivalent of having played the original Metal Gear).

You won't care enough about the plot or the characters to enjoy the cut scenes. When it was released there were a lot of complaints about the length of the cut scenes; but I thoroughly enjoyed all of them. So yeah, I get called a fanboy a lot and maybe that's so. But the reason I rate the series so highly is because it's got a very deep, convoluted (and I'm using that as a positive) story. The characters are very relatable (except Snake, who has his sole moments of relatability in Metal Gear Solid 4, nice timing Kojima).

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

MGS is not overrated IMO. It brought something new to gaming with the "stealth mechanisms as opposed to blowing enemies to bits" formula.The story is pretty good too (and cinematic).

I understand that you might not be able to understand it now, but at the time (the PSOne era) it was revolutionary. MGS4 is just the latest evolution of a beloved franchise. With way too many cutscenes

 

[Thaius]

It really all depends. If one likes good stories and can handle the over-the-top, monologue filled story that is Japanese storytelling, the games are some of the best ever (despite the older games being cursed with old-school fixed-camera syndrome). On the other hand, if someone either doesn't understand and/or like Japanese storytelling or is an elitist who thinks video games should only ever tell their stories entirely through gameplay with no cutscenes involved, they will not like it. It all depends on perspective.

EDIT: I would like to point out that the term "overrated" is not synonomous with "bad," however pop-culture-haters might try to make it so. Anything that is popular will be overrated. It may also be good. It's possible. Especially considering quality in art is partially subjective in the first place. So sure, considering there are many people out there who think the series is the best thing to happen since the son of God died for their sins, sure, it's overrated. It's also really good regardless.

 

[Ben Agar]

The first was awesome, loved the complex plot and interesting characters but from 2 it seemed to go down hill from there (although not sure about 3 never really played it) 2 seemed to suffer from sequelitis the plot was so confusing and convoluted it was ridiculous, too many Xanatos gambits and Raiden replacing Snake was a bit stupid (although I didn't mind as much about him as other people do) 4 I found just unplayable and boring, hated it and gave up within the first half hour.

 

[sumanoskae]

I haven't really played any MGS game except 4.

I tried playing 2, but found it has not aged well. Fixed camera angles cripple stealth games.

Maybe you need all the backstory for it to seem relevant, but I found MGS4 to be highly competent but artistically bland.

The gameplay is tried and true, if a bit repetitive, the boss fights are... at least novel(If incredibly generic and cheesy), and the story and characters are well structured but without any real depth.(Spoilers) At the end of the game, Snake saves the world because... he's a good guy, from bad guys who want it under their control... because they're evil... yeah. The whole commentary on technology is interestingly executed, but thematically obvious. You mean if we continue to depend on technology we won't be able to function without it?, well no shit

Plenty happens in MGS4, but none of it really carries any weight. After I played Mass Effect 2, I thought "I'll remember this for the rest of my life", Then I played it again. After I finished MGS4 I thought "That was kinda cool" and haven't played it since.

I'd say that the games are defiantly overrated, people talk about Metal Gear for it's story, but i'd say that's it's weakest link, not because there's so much of it, but because there's no point to it. It's seems so proud of it's story but what's it showing off. Games are passed the point when a decent story is groundbreaking, but MGS4's competence is praised as brilliance(To quote Extra Credits)

 

[The Night Shade]

MGS is not overrated the problem is that the games aren't appealing for a wide audience also i like to add that the gameplay in the MGS games are great it's different,and the story (the biggest complaint this game has) if you don't like it skip it you can skip about 90% of the cutscenes

Also again:if you want to really enjoy the series i recommend playing MGS 1,3 and 4 forget about 2

 

[dancinginfernal]

I would say no, but I've loved MGS from the first so I'm a little lenient towards that.

But still, it's a great series. Play Twin Snakes, it's for the gamecube and should run on the Wii. I haven't tried. It's a remake of the first game, and good for people new to the series.

 

[migo]

Given you say this:

I don't understand your "only being able to move forward and turn is pretty damn archaic" complaint as you can move anyway you want even in first-person IIRC.

I'm not sure I trust the rest of what you're saying. Also, you're comparing MGO to console FPSes, which are objectively inferior to PC FPSes, and the whole problem I have with MGS3 is that it's massively inferior to Thief.