Farewell, Metal Gear

It's going to be a long, long time before we see a franchise nosedive the way Metal Gear has.

There's a lot to say about what Konami has done with Metal Gear Survive, but the line that should resonate the most is here from Dunkey: the game needlessly, endlessly tedious.

Sure, there's some people that will enjoy the constant management of their stamina and fluid intake. But most will go insane, especially when their waypoints go missing thanks to the fog. If the constant walking hasn't sent you insane first.

And while I don't know that I'd say Andromeda is more fun, at least Andromeda didn't charge you extra for save slots. One save slot? That makes Nintendo look generous.


Comments

    i think Destiny 2 could argue with that opening sentence...

      As bad as destiny 2 is.. i don't think its worse than this..

      Destiny 2 is fun, just not fun for ages and ages. This isn't fun.

    Is it really that bad or is it just cool to hate, I ask this because Nioh was highly over rated & resused so many assets to the point of ridiculousness & i enjoyed the Surge which was largely shat upon by the gaming media especially Kotaku, "The Surge isn't a very good game" Heather titled her article, I mean if it's genuinely bad than it deserves the criticisms but they said Fallout 4 was great & reviewed it by comparing it to Fallout 3 which wasn't even the last Fallout game made & Fallout 4's meticritic user score was a stark reality in contrast to the reviewers.

      Heather also said the loot system was incredible, the combat was exciting and that the themes were interesting. She also didn't title the article like that at all: she just said the world was disappointing, which is fair and isn't a wholesale criticism of everything in the game. Saying she shat on the game isn't a fair assessment of what she wrote (or streamed).

        Yeah Nioh owns if you like collecting loot and stat management. Surge was a fine game verging on being a great game, but I never felt like playing it after the end in the way I do with Bloodborne (great combat and an engrossing world) or Nioh (samurai magpie simulator 2017).

          Yeah Nioh is a awesome samurai sim lol but since it's mission based, The game could of had really interesting levels but it was another copy & paste job that is a trait of Koie Tecmo like the Dynasty Warrior games which Nioh's William is a playable character in now lol.

          Having bought and finished The Surge this a weekend, I agree.

          I loved the combat. It was incredibly satisfying. The game also doesn't give me the serial bordeom that Lords of the Fallen did.

          But there are so many nods to Dark Souls without acknowledging why Dark Souls chose to do some things. I got lost so many times in The Surge, because although the world is kind of pretty sometimes, the middle section the middle section is flabby and filled with identical corridors. There's plenty of shortcuts, but why you'd use half of them I have no idea. On the other hand, you generally don't get lost in Dark Souls unless the game wants you to be lost.

          What's more, in Dark Souls, usually if you can see a place, you can start heading towards that direction and through a sequence of windy paths and radically looking scenery, usually arrive there. The surge doesn't really have that.

          Also, the robot scorpion things with two legs early on really almost made me rage quit.

          And yes, Nioh is far too samey. I tried playing Way of the Strong after finishing it and it just made me angry.

            I must be the only person who liked Lords Of The Fallen. I found it struck the right balance between Dark Souls lite mechanics and something a little more tangible and approachable when it comes to the story.

            Don't get me wrong, I love when games don't lay it all out in front of you and explain every little detail, it's one of the many reasons why Destiny 1 is better than Destiny 2, for example. But Dark Souls took it to an extreme I couldn't engage with, if the story and the mechanics are nihilistic and ambivalent to the player's enjoyment, it makes it really tough to keep playing when the going gets tough.

            Of course this is purely personal opinion, I can totally understand Dark Souls appeal, but I think Lords Of The Fallen and The Surge's dev deserves some credit for keeping the AA game dream alive. Competent yet imperfect games are way more interesting than risk-less AAA monoliths that have had every hard edge and quirk polished to a gentle curve.

              Oh, the Surge did it very well. But I felt it just came up short due to some odd game design choices. It was far better than I thought it would be, but could have used some self-awareness.

              Dark Souls... I'm not of the opinion that story and mechanics are inimical to the player. The convoluted stats aside, at its most simple, it's about learning your animations, anticipating or learning the enemy's animations, and achieving mastery. I just beat the boss of the Ringed City DLC last night for the first time before I went to bed and my heart was pounding in a way that I only ever got faintly from the Surge from the last boss.

              Dark Souls environments and enemies also have a sense of decayed majesty that none of the copycat's have ever really achieved, which is part of the reason Lords of the Fallen was so dull for me to play. I played the Dancer of the Boreal Valley fight in Dark Souls 3 again and again, largely because it's such a beautiful enemy. I could pretty much do that fight without taking damage from it.

              Here's the boss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPReLrVTqtc

              Dark Souls goes in more for environmental story telling or the incidental storytelling through equipment info. That's not for everyone, but the surreal environments, strange gothic horror monstrosities, and fragmented storytelling gives it a numinous quality that really appeals to me. It is, to me, like a game version of Les Chants de Maldoror, or The Holy Mountain movie, or a T.S Elliot poem.

        The header on the article was something along those lines "The Surge isn't a good game" Her criticisms were refuted by many in the comments, She like i are entitled to our criticisms, My point being that it is popular to hate specific games, & i shat "upon" was a bad generalization of the gaming media's reaction to the Surge in general & not specifically singling Heather out, She streamed the game & gave it a chance where many didn't bothor, That itself speaks volumes.

        Actually Alex, the article was titled "I can officialy confirm that the Surge isn't any good" It's been changed to "The Claustrophobic world of the Surge is disappointing" So my remarks aren't uncalled for as it turns out as yes, She did in deed shat upon the game.

          The article was never titled like that, on the Australian site or the US site. It's in the lede, but it was never the headline, ever, and you're ignoring the more nuanced points that Heather made and where she praised the game. She also wrote more than one article about The Surge, and streamed it as well and offered extra thoughts. If you're going to categorise someone's thoughts about a game, you have to include all of them otherwise you're just being blatantly unfair.

            I can just hear your exacerbation from here and this is just a classic case of why Kotaku ditched the numbers from their reviews I am sure. People aren't interested in nuance, they want a neat little package that they can use to validate their own tastes and interests.

            Besides, since when did a game have to be "good" to be enjoyable? I have had a lot more fun playing games like Jedi Power Battles than Call Of Duty.

              One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had was with a group of mates playing CSI Miami: The Video Game on the Xbox 360. Everyone had plastic water bottles and we played pass the controller around. Bugger up a puzzle and you got pelted.

              Great time. The game itself was atrocious, but with some groups anything is fun.

        Sorry, I can be negative & confrontational at times, I have Aspergers disorder & i'm also kind of a negative ass, It's a lighting stotm in my head, Apologies to Heather aswell.

          All good! No harm done mate. Plus it's Monday, and Monday is always turd.

            I'll try to be less provocative in the future though, Enjoy your week.

      I agree about Nioh. Heaps of people seem to really enjoy that game and as a "Soulsborne" fan myself, I did not.

      It started off pretty cool but over time, it got incredibly repetitive and boring due to its level/mission-like structure. I don't understand the praise that Nioh received, to be honest.

        I thought it was funny to call it a soulsborne when it struck me much more as a Ninja Gaiden/Diablo game with souls elements (mainly around level progress and amrita). I love Nioh for many reasons and none of them really translate to why I like souls games.

          I guess the reason I reference it to Souls games is because when I first heard of Nioh, it was described to me as "Dark Souls and Samurai", which sounds awesome.

          You're right, though. It's certainly faster than Dark Souls and Bloodborne, the game play could be more similar to Ninja Gaiden due to the speed and aesthetics, with some inspiration behind Soulsborne games.

          I personally didn't like Nioh. I liked it at first, and I wanted to keep liking it, but for me, the game slowly became repetitive where I just got tired of playing it.

      I like Fallout 4, It was the first one I played though.

        Fallout 4 is alright, I mean Bethesda brought Fallout back from the dead, It's just that it's corpse is different lol.

        There was a lot to like in Fallout 4. It was a varied and details world which, for a wanderer like me, was excellent. There were some interesting stories and some fun quests.

        It suffered from an outdated engine and the update of their conversation system didn't really work, though it was an interesting idea.

        Bethesda need a new, siny, modern engine, then bring on Fallout 5 and Skyrim 2.

      I’m really enjoying it. It’s a lot less Metal Gear than Survival, so when told that it’s a spin-off, think HARD spin-off.

      It’s hard as balls initially, but once you master the skills and set yourself up with automated resource collection to get over the entropy, the game really opens up. One of those times when it’s important to push through main story missions before side-questing.

      That said, I actually loved Nioh AND The Surge.

        Yeah, I guess it's a case of just weathering the storm of criticism & trying something out yourself. If it clicks awesome & if not, Buyers remorse lol but you never really know if you'll like a game untill you try it & give it a chance. That's why steam refunds don't really work as 2 hours for a big game especially with game idlleing & menu's etc. 2 hours isn't a fair representation of a game's quality, I hate every Bethesda game opening with a passion for example .

    One save slot? That makes Nintendo look generous.Unless you look at games like Pokémon and Xenoblade Chronicles X.

      But they don't charge you for an extra save slot either.

        But MSGS is not the first game to do something like this. Its 11 bucks for a name change in WoW for example.

          That's a false equivalence. You can have multiple characters under the one account, each of which has a different name. In this you have one character, one save file, and if you want to do a second run separately you've got to spend an additional $US9.99.

          But changing a simple string of text is too costly for their servers so of course they need some cash to let you do it.

      Pretty sure in Pokemon I have never had to pay for the ability to have more than one Pokemon on my side, and I have no idea about X, but if it's anything like 2, the plot dictates your character party, not your wallet.

    I'm having great fun with Mass Effect Andromeda.

      I really enjoyed it. So glad I avoided reviews until after I finished and was quite shocked by the hate. Once you ignore the white lips, it was fun.

    Has anyone actually played the original Metal Gear in the NES? A very regretful purchase indeed. Game was real bad and brain numbingly easy. How it got sequels beats the crap out of me.

      The NES version is a port and pretty bad. The original version came out on MSX2 and is a hell of a lot better.

      EDIT: We also look at it from 2018. Most things look bad now but were very different in the past. It would be hard to compare it back when it was released.

      Last edited 26/02/18 1:08 pm

        I hope you did detect his sarcasm, but other than that very few games still resist the test of time.

        Last edited 15/03/18 8:47 pm

    Metal Gear will live on... as a poker machine.

    Turning a highly acclaimed IP and incredible engine into a buggy assset flip thatuses the worst elements of both zombie and survival games is beyond insane... and the saddest thing this was pretty much the predicted outcome when they announced it and worse still a scriptkiddie could asset flip a Unity game on Steam better thsn this in less than a month. What a waste! Fck konami.

    I've been watching Rising Super Stream play it, expecting a train wreck and it's... doesn't seem to be. I know Liam is the kind of guy who can wade through some real shit, but MG Survive feels... competent for the most part.

    The bad parts all feel like they were dictated to the team by Konami management rather than intended design choices. That team clearly did the best it could given the circumstances, and the game comes out... okay. Yeah sure, attaching the Metal Gear name to it is a bit of a stab in the gut, but the development team itself is mostly people who worked on the previous MGS games, so at least there's some pedigree.

    I know we'd all have liked to see MGSV: Finished, but, well, I'm actually cautiously optimistic that maybe Konami will see the response to this and realise that perhaps the franchise is worth more than just a Snake Eater Pachinko machine and a mediocre survival game.

      Totally agree. That is some CEO decision idiocy, and should take nothing away from the core developers and their output.

      MGS fans need to find the names that decided Kojima was crazy, just so we won’t have the mistake to support their next endeavour. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the same heads that decided a ‘save game slot,’ a game’s system function, was to be monetised.

      Why do management/ceo/board of directors/ share holders think they know anything about game development?

    I just don’t get how this is happening to MGS. it’s like an elaborate and costly “fuck you” to the fans for the sake of it.
    Remember good Konami? With Parodius, Gradius, Suikoden, Silent Hill, Rocket Knight and the like? All good times!
    This is like the Michael Bay movie version of a childhood franchise.

      Konami is trying to milk the MGS name as much as possible before they destroy it completely.

    Metal gear V wasn't perfect, But it was pretty damn close.

    This.......... this whatever it is....... is just blasphemy.
    This isn't Metal Gear and it's not worth your money or your time.
    it looks awful and i'm very very interested how it even claims to be a Metal Gear game ?

    NO Kojima - No Fun

    Everyone going ape shit over save slots... If they had one character noone would complain. Seriously don't need more than one character unless it's another person in your household. Which seems pointless for consoles as they can log in their profile and if it's on PC it means your brother/sister essentially bought a game for $10.

    Is it a Metal Gear game? No.
    Should it have been an expansion to MGS5? aka Final Fantasy Comrades Yes.
    Am I tired of reviewers being so biased with this game without giving it a chance? Yes.

    I enjoyed the game for what it is. Is it tedious? Umm of course.... Name one survival game that isn't.... Its OK for don't strive to have a hunger meter but everyone complains about this one...

    I seriously have to wonder what the FUCK happened to Konami, because I just can't fathom how a company can go from being a successful and respected creator of some of the greatest games of all time to actively TRYING to be as bad as physically possible in every possible regard. They alienate their key creators, abuse their workers, insult the gaming media, try to blatantly extort their players as much as is physically possible to get away with (hey, remember "forward base insurance" from MGSV?) and do their absolute best to degrade and ruin all their great franchises. It's like the company was taken over by an executive who secretly hates video games and is on a personal mission to destroy Konami from within and turn it into the most-hated gaming company in the world, because I can't even IMAGINE any other possible motivation they'd have for the bullshit they've pulled over the last several years. You can't even attribute it to shameless corporate greed, because aside from their horrifically exploitative microtransaction practices, their idiotic decisions seem to be driven by a crippling FEAR of success and profit!

    Pfft. People hated this game before anyone even fucking knew what it was. The signal to noise ratio on this title is impenetrably fucked by worship of Kohima, hatred for Konami, and nostalgia goggles for a franchise that only had two - maybe three - really great games in it.

    As far as Survival genre games go, MGS is a cut above most. Needing to eat your body weight in food and water every day in a timescale that’s reduced a day to a half-hour is a problem that bloody defines the genre, and MGS handles it better than most. Especially once you’ve played for a couple hours and essentially automate the process to the point that it’s less involved than taking a daily pill.

    The mapping system is actually a really strong point of the game - most games treat the map as an afterthought, a necesssary evil of utility to show you where the collectibles or next missions are. MGS actively involves you in the process of intentional cartography, and gives you incentives to do so - not to Etrian Odyssey levels, but much more than any other game. It’s really refreshing to plunge into the depths and actually have to make plans about how you’re going to find your way back, and have the game actually supply you with craftable tools to aid in that process. (Eg: if you’ve navigated through territory before, when you stand in that territory again later, you can see where you are on the map. But when you go out into the fog, you can’t see where you are in it on the map until you bring that cartography data back to base... unless you drop a craftable beacon which will show you where you are, so you can decide which direction to head for the nearest safe point.)
    There’s an added bonus that mapped terrain improves success chances for the expedition crews, but those crews are useless anyway, so it’s pretty much irrelevant. (Much like complaints about paying to unlock more of... the useless crews.)

    The beta was useful to confirming for me that a purchase was going to be worthwhile, but in such an irrationally, emotionally-biased reviewing environment, I would be strongly encouraging the devs to put out a demo. Plenty of the YouTube reviewers are just straight up telling lies about the bloody thing because they’ve approached the game with all the intellectual honesty of a child who has - through hours of negotiation and protest - promised they’ll only eat their hated carrots if they like the taste of them once they’ve tried them... for the first time ever.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now