134
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
134 points (89.9% liked)
Games
32712 readers
520 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As far as I'm concerned the series is definitively over. 5 was the final. You don't really need Kojima for remakes, just a team of good devs who love the series. But I also don't trust Konami to pull that simple thing off. What is with the really bad "remake" ports from all the game companies in the last few years? Is it that hard to remake a game?
As someone who thinks Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is the best Metal Gear since Solid 1*, I really do wish it had become an ensemble world. Platinum doing Raiden/Grey Fox. Imagine IOI making an ACTUAL stealth game set in that world. Hell, I could even see a timeline where Arkane made a game where you play as The Cobras. Instead, we just kept going back to the Snake well and had ever increasing dissonance between cutscene, boss, and normal gameplay characterizations.
As for bad remasters/remakes: A lot of that is that this is The COVID Year in terms of releases. These are most of the games that would have had most of their dev cycle during lockdown and were heavily delayed or had massive scope changes to meet release windows. Sometimes that means we get truly amazing games (BG3) and sometimes that means we have shovelware that just needs to avoid sunken cost fallacies.
And the other aspect is that a LOT of studios, particularly Japanese ones, are in the process of upgrading their tech. I loved Like a Dragon: Ishin (and am so excited for Gaiden next week). But that was a VERY small scope/ambition game (a mostly beat for beat remake of one of the lesser PS2 games) that was pretty openly about exploring Unreal Engine. And there have been a lot of games that are less open about "Hey, we are mostly dicking around to see if this tech works for us".
*: 3 was awesome but very much "Empire Strikes Back"... in a lot of ways including the conspiratorial "So did the Creator actually write this? Because a lot of signs point to 'no'". And 5 was an awesome sandbox with no plot or pacing to speak of
I played the main series and never played the side, PSP games like peace walker, so I was completely lost when playing 5. I was wondering what this setting and people were for a while, until I realized I had to go back and read up on peace walker.
I hate it when developers make what they say are side games in a series essential to canon, especially when they don't tell you they're doing it or when they go into the side game not planning to make it canon and then decide it's canon during or after development.
Or I should say, I hate it when developers make the next main series game assuming you've played the essential "side" game and leave out or half-ass their catch-up for people who haven't played it. I call it "Chain of Memories syndrome" after when Kingdom Hearts made Chain of Memories essential to fully understanding KH2.
Having played Portable Ops (fine), Peace Walker (fine), and Acid 1 and 2 (FUCK YEAH): 5 was still mostly nonsense.
All you get from PW/PO (since PW largely felt like a redo of PO and PW was a prototype for the format of TPP):
A friend summed it up perfectly: Ground Zeroes works a LOT better if you pretend that Peace Walker didn't exist and this is just "the adventures of Naked Snake". Similar to how we never really know what Solid and Otacon did as an NGO before they became international terrorists in MGS2.
I still have no idea who skull face is or what's his deal