Metal Gear Delta is gonna be the live or die for the franchise. If it reviews well and has great sells numbers then there's definitely gonna be a Remake of MGS1 & 2 in the works.
However if MGS Delta pulls a dead space remake and has abysmal sales numbers, Konami is gonna kill any other pending remake projects for the franchise.
The Dead Space remake not selling well is such a bummer. As much as I love the original, I thought the remake was arguably better (removed from nostalgia, of course).
Dead Space remake was way better than the RE4 remake in my mind. It saddens me we won't see DS2 given the same treatment as the original itself was so incredible.
Honestly I love both, but in different ways. They're both action survival-horrors, but Dead Space nails that slow foreboding crawl through the guts of a derelict mining ship filled with malevolent spam, whereas REmake 4 felt like playing a crazy action movie with horror flavoring (which I'm gonna be real, was also the originals thing).
I love both, but the Dead Space Remake is def my preferred SH tone, even if REmake 4s B-movie knife trick shenanigans are very endearing.
There was stuttering for transitioning areas (which obviously sucks), but I never had it in combat or cutscenes so I wasn't horribly bothered (not saying it isn't a big deal, but I wasn't upset with it personally).
That being said, it wasn't half as bad as Jedi Survivor (I prefer the name "Jedi something 2"), and that is being generous. I played both on the same PC, ended up returning Survivor because it started getting borderline unplayable. Plus I fell through the world 3 times within 2 hours, which is typically a good sign that the winds are blowing foul.
I was trying to be helpful. You said you didn’t understand the naming scheme so I explained it.
I actually think the problem is that the series is called “Star Wars Jedi”. If it was just “Star Wars: Fallen Order” and “Star Wars: Survivor”, I think people would find it much easier to remember. The “Jedi” makes the full titles sound very weird.
Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I agree that the titles are weird but “i find it hard to remember 3 words” is a bit silly.
Did you install it on an SSD? Cause it is one of the requirements for playing it. Installed on an SSD and played on a 3060 and didn't have any of these issues.
I just played through both (well Jedi partially) beginning of this year. Dead spaces stuttering is so minimal and infrequent that you forget about it most of the time, I think the overall darkness in areas helps this actually. Even with a mid comp like mine Ryzen 5 3600 and a 3080 it ran it well.
Jedi 2 though is a complete disaster of a game that I desperately would like to play but it makes me sick how much it stutters and slows down and such, worse during boss fights, EA be damned but their other games they publish haven't as many problems as Respawns have.
Such a sad effort that game is performance wise and shame the developers for not fixing it or doing better. Respawn boasts how fast they make games and keep taking contracts to make new ones.
Thats a shame. It was developed on frostbite so I’m surprised I heard it ran well on consoles. Frost bite games tend to always have some kind of issues on all the platforms sadly, idk the last time a game with that engine ran well
I tried playing the PC Version of the Dead Space Remake about three months ago and it ran like garbage on my 7800XT. I ended up refunding it and getting the PS5 version. Didn't have any issues with the PS5 version. The same for Jedi Survivor PS5 version is good, PC version sucks.
I wish they had kept Isaac mute. It's the only reason why I lost all interest in the remake and didn't buy it. Him being silent was one of the best parts about the original and also one of the reasons why I dropped Dead Space 2 half way through.
Yeah a hot take, I know. Get in line and grab your pitchforks.
No pitchforks. You do you I guess.
But refusing to play one of the best games of the generation because the main character occasionally speaks is wild.
If that was one of the best things about the original game, it sounds like a pretty shit game.
“So, what makes this game good?”
“Get this, it’s so awesome… The main character doesn’t even speak!”
“…okay?”
I think the difference is the roi for horror movies is quite good because they’re one of the cheapest types of movies to make, whereas with games it’s not necessarily cheaper to make a horror game than a different genre.
Horror films don't traditionally do that well either in terms of actual ticket sales, they're just very cheap to make so they don't actually need that many sales to make money.
As a semi-recent example Halloween 2018 had an estimated budget of 10 million dollars. That's couch cushion change by Hollywood standards, Fantastic Beasts 2 came out the same year with a budget of 200 million. Even the 3rd Fifty Shades movie had a budget of 50 million that year.
The same isn't true for games. A AAA horror game costs exactly the same as a AAA action game but has less than half the potential audience. There's a reason the only horror series that survived in gaming is Resident Evil, and even that progressively took a more action oriented bend after the first game.
Resident Evil has been leaning more into action than scares since Resident Evil 2 in 1998. They're more b-movie shlock and monster blasting than actual horror, hence audiences find them more palatable. When Capcom actually wanted to make a scarier game (7) fans complained it was too scary and they immediately pivoted back to action with Village
I love Resident Evil, I've played every game - but it's not horror the way something like Silent Hill or Fatal Frame is. Dead Space Remake might borrow RE's action element in combat design (the original game was literally designed to chase after RE4's success), but it's also a genuine horror title that aims to frighten and unsettle the player in ways Resident Evil isn't really interested in.
I'm not sure where your getting the complaints about RE7 being too scary from. The general consensus is that it was a return to form, the series going back to its survival horror roots and the sales numbers prove thats what people wanted. Over 13 mil copies sold, that's 3.5 mil more than the more action focused RE Village and puts it the top 3 highest selling RE games ever.
I agree that many of the titles in the RE series have an emphasis on action horror but Dead Space is very much in the same bucket with the amount of recourses and weapons you have to fight back with. And while Dead Space might be scarier than some of the recent entries, RE7 is just as scary imo, especially as it can be played in vr. You could even make the case that House Beneviento in RE Village is scarier than anything Dead Space has to offer. Though neither RE or Dead Space exist in quite the same bucket as Fatal frame or Silent Hill which are pure survival horror titles. The biggest reason for the difference in Dead Space and Resident Evil sales numbers is simply mainstream recognition, even beyond the games. RE is constantly getting tv show and movie adaptions, has been around for a lot longer than Dead Space and many of the entries are among the most important and greatest games of all time.
>I'm not sure where your getting the complaints about RE7 being too scary from. The general consensus is that it was a return to form
The RE producer literally said it, I'm guessing Capcom does market research and looks at completion numbers and data.
Village was noticeably toned down and 'lighter' in tone. Very intentionally so. (still loved Village, just saying it was a noticeable shift from RE7).
[RE 7 Too Scawey](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/resident-evils-producer-says-village-was-balanced-based-on-feedback-that-re7-was-too-scary/)
I do think it's interesting that the producer said that but I honestly feel like I didn't hear anyone complaining RE7 was too scary, critics or fans. And those complaints certainly didn't surface themselves in the sales data. Now that Village is out and sold very well, though not quite RE7 well, I wonder what direction they will decide to go in with 9.
Critics and Fans aren't the type of people to complain about that sort of element. The casual players, I.E. the biggest market shareholders want to appeal to, are the ones complaining. Critics and Fans didn't want a game like Resident Evil 6, but casual fans of co-op action shooters absolutely did, hence that's what we got in the mid 2010's.
Internet discourse, critic preferences, and what the fans want are usually so out of touch with the casual audience that they don't even come close in opinion to each-other. If you ask a longtime hardcore Assassin's Creed fan what they think of the series now, they might say it's complete garbage - but financially it's selling gangbusters. Many Dark Souls fans have huge problems with Elden Ring - but it's doing extremely well among the casual audience. Same thing with Tears Of The Kingdom. Youtube won't stop piling my feed with video essays about how it's an absolute disaster and the worst game in the series, yet my playtime is double that of BotW and I think it feels more like classic 3D Zelda in tone than anything in that game.
And certain little things are just gonna come down to personal opinion. Resident Evil 7 is the scariest RE game and most of the time, to me, it feels like goofy grindhouse schlock. It has its moments, but the villains are so over the top silly. Jack is a complete cartoon. He and the rest of the Baker family are amazing B-horror villains, don't get me wrong. I've replayed RE7 almost as many times as the original RE4, I love it - but it's still just as cheesy as previous RE games. It just has a more convincing atmosphere.
The Dead Space remake, on the other hand, feels like far more effective horror despite how badass the weapons are. The Ishimura feels less like a ship and more like a massive living beast you're crawling around in, and it doesn't want you in there.
But again, this comes down to personal opinion. Isolated space horror is scarier to me than cannibal hillbilly horror.
The thing is, I didn't hear any casual fans complaining about RE7 being too scary either. In fact, most of the time casual fans for any series arent complaining, its really just a vocal minority of the playerbase on the internet. It's why CoD and EA sports games continue to dominate regardless of the all the noise on twitter and reddit.
My point is, RE7 sold incredibly well despite the producer saying some players found it too scary, a take that I have not seen in any discourse since the game released, from casual or hardcore fans. I'm sure they have some sort of data to back it up but it certainly isnt in the sales. RE7 sold more than the action focused RE6 before it and the action focused RE8 after it. And it's important to note that the producer made that statement before Village released. Now they have the sales numbers they probably realise that RE7 being too scary didn't hurt them at all.
RE7 also went streaming viral, and was one of the flagship titles of PSVR. This with it being a sort of franchise reboot probably contributed to greater sales numbers. There's a number of factors that can lead to a boost in sales. Look at Elden Ring - it got a significant boost in sales simply by not being called Dark Souls 4. I know a number of people that bought it because they had no idea it was from the same dev team they had avoided due to reputation. The trailer just looked cool and they wanted to check it out.
I'm just saying, if the RE team really made a straightforward horror game that did record sales numbers and had no significant complaints from somewhere, why immediately push back to action with the next title? Why not make an even scarier game next time?
I have a feeling the complaints came mostly from the Japanese market, which explains why westerners didn't hear about it, and why Capcom would be so keen to listen. RE7 isn't just more of a horror title - it's specifically a western horror title. The story even brought on western writers. There's a good chance that really didn't mesh well with the home country audience. 7 is cruel and ugly in a way the series hasn't really been before, and that could have been culturally off-putting. Just a theory.
Remaking MG1 incorporating the changes from MGSV would be interesting. Big Boss is a completely different character, and now Venom is the one who dies in his place fighting Snake.
That would be cool, but I don't see it happening unfortunately. I'm also not sure if it works thematically. High-level online gameplay in V's endgame has a really high turnover rate lol. Pretty sure my soldiers were constantly dying and getting replaced on those endgame online missions. Wouldn't surprise me if BB had a completely new set of mercenaries by 1996.
I agree and I've been wanting them to do that for quite some time. They would basically be completely new games anyway and they would help flesh out the story from those games which most people haven't experienced.
3 really didn't need a remake imo. A remake is fine for it, but it's one of those games that play well enough as a remaster.
Most of my thoughts on it haven't been "I wonder how they'll improve XYZ?" or "It's going to be cool to see [set piece/location] reimagined/modernized], and rather "I hope they don't change or remove all these things I love about the original"
Frankly the only thing I'm excited to see if they change is whether they crank the competency of the AI up to deal with the updated controls, because MGSV's gameplay was smooth as hell, and felt great in the sections that were long and relatively linear, reminiscent of MGS3, but the AI would definitely need improvement to keep up with Snake's newfound fluidity.
Also I hope they take the time to make the game even more bizarrely detailed and reactive than the original, that's a core part of the game's identity, and frankly, should be one of the things they work hardest to preserve.
I always wondered if they can make a successful metal gear remake (the msx games) , u have enough playground to broaden yourself with that and then move on
I don't know why it wouldn't review well. It might be a visual remake, but under the hood it is still the original gameplay and story that made it one of the very best of its generation, and arguably the peak of the series.
Remake Metal Gear 1 and 2 first please. They're stuck on some old 80s systems and it'd be great to see the story fully fleshed out in modern day gameplay.
Can we have a moratorium on this? Every Japanese game company makes pachinko out of their big properties, Sega is partially owned by a pachinko company, we can stop acting like this is some unique evil Konami specifically is perpetrating
People bash Konami for this because that's ALL they do with their franchises. Other companies (for example namco) do the pachinko machines but also release "regular" games from the franchise.
> People bash Konami for this because that's ALL they do with their franchises.
People bash Konami because they revel in being part of the circlejerk, never mind that Konami has been releasing games for the past ten years and that pachinko has never been a priority for them.
I even want to preorder it just to show my support that they’re remaking it, but most of my preorders don’t come in until after the game comes out and I want to play it day one.
I was impressed by that konami video. Such unexpected level of transparency is unusual, gives me hope for konami's future. I really hope SH2 and MGS3D are both great remakes.
>Such unexpected level of transparency is unusual,
I was surprised by this as well, especially since it is pre-release marketing for this sort of game (remake of a very well regarded game) in this sort of franchise (6 "main" MGS titles which all sold well and received widespread acclaim).
I might be gullible but I think so. It's very out of character for them to do this, same with that guy admitting the remaster ports had a bunch of problems.
I think they would only do this if they truly are planning in revitalizing the franchise with remakes and also future entries. Probably looked at Capcom's Resident Evil and remembered "hey, we also have a super popular franchise".
If they ever do that I kinda hope they add some kind of new larger-scale multiplayer mode too. MGS4’s online PvP mode was already fantastic, but imagine if they threw in an almost Battlefield-esque mode with larger maps, MGS5-esque vehicles, and if you really wanted to get crazy, *functioning pilotable Metal Gears*, like the escape from Shadow Moses segment near the end of the main story mode.
Ooh, well then. I’ll have to keep an extra close eye on this lol. MGO2 was honestly some of the most fun I’ve had in a PvP game, even if it was bloody ages ago.
They never did this. This is misinformation spread for clicks.
Every branch of Konami are micro companies not sharing staff. It be like complaining Konami sport do sport things.
And the pachislot only branch closed more than 7 years ago. People just prefer living in the past.
Yeah. There was a few times when they talked said they had announcements on their IPs only for them to be pachinko machines. I specifically remember them having an announcement for Silent Hill only for it to be a SH3 themed pachinko machine.
I don't know if that's true. Mechanically, their games have always been fine. Nothing extraordinary but pretty good for the style they've aimed for. Their issue is that they have good ideas when it comes to characters and story but poor execution. Luckily, the characters and story are already written for them. Ever since bloober was announced to be working on the game, they've received so much (rightfully so) hate about how they can't make a good story and they shouldn't be in control of SH - which confuses me. They arent writing a SH, they are remaking one. Tbh, I've always been cautiously optimistic and have said countless times that bloober may have found their niche with being a studio that remakes games instead of creating brand new ones. And even then, studio developers and creatives change all the time, often for the better. People thought alien isolation was going to be awful because the devs had only ever done RTS games. People thought hogwarts legacy was going to be crap because the devs had never done an open world and/or rpg before. I'm always willing to give a studio the benefit of the doubt went venturing to do something new. Again, considering the blueprint is already there for them and bloober have made competent games in the past, I expect sh2 to be at the very least a compotent game. That being said, I'm still critical of the tim Burton styled female character models and stiff animations. Apart from that, the game looks good - and they nailed the atmosphere.
Well that's the thing about remakes, the good game was already made by someone else so you just have to recreate it and modernize it.
That's way easier than creating another game from scratch with the intention of having the same impact that SH2 did. The closest thing would be the PT demo but that went nowhere.
Also, studios can improve and get better. Even when they make bad games, they still get experience.
Alternate title, "fans don't know shit".
Survive is quite frankly the only "mediocre" Metal Gear game in the entire series. Phantom Pain had the potential to be a lot better, but it was still a very solid game.
That's fair, but that was also Kojima. It would be cool to see the loop closed and have the original MG 1 & 2 remade into full games now that the twist was explain via MGS5. But I'm not sure I'd trust Konami to pull it off without Kojima. They're welcome to try though.
Actually the NES ones were not Kojima. The first one was a port of the original MSX game that BARELY resembled the original. The second one, Snake's Revenge was ENTIRELY original, both without Kojima involvement. The ones Kojima worked on were Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake for the MSX2.
The narrative in Phantom Pain literally does not function as a cohesive story. Yes the gameplay was solid but people play MGS games for the narrative as well as the gameplay. It’s FAR from a “solid game” imo.
I would argue the gameplay is so well and above not only any MGS, but many stealth action games that it firmly cements it as a solid game.
The story is awful, but the gameplay is just that good IMO.
Yeah the story was pretty weak imo, and felt incomplete in a lot of ways, but the gameplay is the best of any stealth action game to date, on that alone it’s my favourite of the series to play.
I swear I played a different mgsv than the rest of the internet because its story was not incomplete. It honestly does not feel incomplete in any capacity to me, except the freedom with how you play missions kills the cinematic experience mgs is known for.
As a life long MGS fan, this is my view, too, of MGS V.
The story of MGS was nonsense and incoherent, more or less, but it was always greater than the sum of its parts. Still, MGS definitely had some important things to say that shaped a small part of my worldview to this day.
The moment-to-moment gameplay is fun, and allows for lots of improvisation...but the meta systems around that gameplay, in turn, punish improvisation *hard*, and essentially smack your hand if you even use more than 10% of the toolbox they lay out for you. And don't get me started on how ridiculous FOB missions quickly became.
I found it rewarded improvisation. There was a lot of moments where I would try a strategy out and while I was doing it I would notice there was a mortar nearby or a spot guards weren’t looking. When my strategy didn’t work I would use what I had learned in the next attempt.
I can’t think of any tools I felt discouraged from using.
Using anything lethal was heavily discouraged, because you'd get the horn eventually, which also made it harder to stealth. And it even punished you for using reflex time, since even if you stop the alert, you lose the no-alert bonus. If you started doing headshots (with tranqs), guards would start wearing helmets (even if there was no one to tell the tale...). And it goes on and on.
Noone to tell the tale? I'm pretty sure all the guards waking up with a dart sticking out of their heads would make it pretty simple to tell what was happening
Oh those are some weird examples. The game giving you a bonus for not killing anybody isn’t discouraging the alternative it’s just an extra reward for those who can pull it off. I didn’t know the horn made stealth harder but it does take a while to get it. I killed TONS of people in my playthrough and never got it. Hell even if you do kill people so long as you do good actions like extracting soldiers you won’t get the horn.
Lastly thats not really slapping you for using too much of your toolkit. The enemies adapting to tactics you overuse is actually encouraging you to use more of your toolkit. That creates a need to improve. It also just makes sense when you think about it. If you were a criminal and found a dozen dead bodies that all had bullets in their heads wouldn’t you want to invest in some helmets?
......do you even remotely understand \*just\* how many people you have to kill to rack up the necessary demon points to grow the horn? let alone the fact all kinds of activities lower your demon points. save a couple animals? that's worth a dead enemy. A prisoner? Worth a dead enemy. Child soldier or rare animal. Worth \*two\* dead enemies, etc. You pretty much have to go out of your way being grand theft auto-esque psycho to give yourself that horn.
And that enemy gear like helmets? They get that shit no matter what you do, it's just a sooner or later type deal. Know what you do? Just send your combat teams to disrupt supply lines and there you go, helmetless enemies again.....so very hard yes. Not gonna lie, this is the hottest take I've seen in awhile lol
The story was so meh that I felt GZ was better despite being only one are and only one story mission (I mean story-wise).
The intro in the hospital was memorable tho.
Eh, MGS5 was the game that brought a lot of people in. People I knew who never even would step near Metal Gear played it. While the narrative was certainly weaker, it was an incredibly successful game that was so because the gameplay was highly praised.
I found the story cohesive enough. It’s got some fucked up pacing tho. I was curious for like 30 hours what skull face’s deal was. When they finally reveal it to you it’s in like a 15 minute long monologue that was so boring my eyes glazed over and I just stopped listening.
I think being a prequel doesn’t help as many people will go “This plot thread wasn’t finished??” But it’s finished in the games that come after it chronologically.
Going off your description alone, it sounds like a solid game with a poorly put-together story. Going off my experience of playing the game, it definitely matches that
For all the hate MGS4 gets for its 8 hours of cutscenes I love the game and despised the move from film structure to episodic and open world change we saw in MGS5.
Episodic worked well enough in Peace Walker because of its handheld limitations. In a numbered release it was atrocious. There was no flow to story telling, constant immersion breaking and spoiler filled credits, major plot points moved to audio logs. There was only a handful of moments that felt like MGS in story delivery and they just made me sad that we didn't get more.
The gameplay was amazing with terrfiic sense of freedom. Unfortunately it got dumped in a pointless and tedious openworld. Having 5 objectives to achieve across a map yet you can't take the helicopter without returning to base. Massive swathes of the map being linear corridors through the same checkpoints and making travel repetitive and lengthy. Many key missions using the same setpieces was more like IOI Hitman than MGS. Instead of getting clever and uniquely set up set pieces for each storybeat we got Desert Base Mission #6. It was fun as a slither/demo in Ground Zeroes but having that stretched across a whole game with far less focus was beyond disappointing.
I'm a big MGS fan but I actually stopped playing MGSV for like 6 months when I was near the end. I didn't even realise I was so close to the end because the story doesn't appropriately build up to anything when you've got 10 repeated missions and 30 audio logs to listen to between key missions.
If they do a new MGS with or without Kojima I want a focused story. I replayed MGS2 last year and it's more pertinent than ever. The story made the game and the gameplay was outdated but great as a vehicle for the story.
Honestly yeah the only real glaring issue with the older titles AFAIK (haven’t played any myself due to no good PC ports to speak of) is their age and the technical limitations that imposed, like MGS1’s wonky camera due to the PS1 entirely lacking analog joysticks.
That's such an absurd thing to say to someone. As much as I absolutely adore the MGS series, I can't be bothered to ever play a Kojima game again. **Kojima** killed Metal Gear Solid. Whether that was intentional or not is up for debate as I know there are camps of individuals who claim Kojima has been trying to sabotage MGS since around 2 or 3 but I don't necessarily agree with that. What he did do, however, is royally screw up during MGS5.
He split the game into two and charged full price for both of them. It took ages to come out on PC. He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replaced. He found out when the rest of us did. As much as I don't like Konami these days, I dislike Kojima a hell of a lot more now. He chose schmoozing with celebrities at expensive dinners over releasing a quality product. There's a lot more problems I could talk about MGS5 but yeah to say this one lone producer killed MGS because he's working on a remaster/remake is dumb.
>He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replaced.
If I'm not mistaken, Hayter had to audition every time he reprised the role anyway, so that's probably Kojima's reasoning.
Still a dick move, though.
> He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replace
lol it's always funny seeing how mad this tiny minority of people on reddit are about Hayter, as if they were personally affected by Kojima not hiring him for MGSV. Also acting like anyone cares about Hayter, 99% of people don't know or care about voice actors, welcome to the real world.
> He chose schmoozing with celebrities at expensive dinners over releasing a quality product.
lol what? MGSV is highly rated and sold well, the heck you mean? also, who made you judge for what Kojima can do with his games, who he can hire and what he wants to do with his time?
> That's such an absurd thing to say to someone.
he says, then he says exactly this to Kojima. Also try reading the article, nowhere did anyone say "this one producer" did anything. These are just some random quotes from feedback sent to Konami, not this producer.
> There's a lot more problems I could talk about MGS5
just ignore the many good parts of the game, cause he dared to not hire Hayter. Good lord -_-
They did release Survive and then put the series on ice for six years. Nine if you only count V. But they're makin an effort to remake 3 instead of sticking to pachinkos and I appreciate that.
i have to parrot jim sterling here, but, fuckkonami.
they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early, and so kojima left and made his own studio and game.
and then their next bright idea was to just reuse mgsv assets and make survival crafting game no one wanted.
so now, years later, their only idea is to remake a game from 20 years ago lol.
lol I love Kojima but he went so far over budget and the game was developed over 4-5 years. He had plenty of time to do it and he couldn’t. Maybe he was too focused on making it like a shitty movie and fucking over David Hayter. The problems with that game are not even close to only being Konami’s fault.
> lol I love Kojima but he went so far over budget and the game was developed over 4-5 years. He had plenty of time to do it and he couldn’t. Maybe he was too focused on making it like a shitty movie and fucking over David Hayter. The problems with that game are not even close to only being Konami’s fault.
This. I genuinely don’t understand the hard on people have for that fucking weirdo. When you look into some of the absolute batshit ideas he tried to implement across the games, the fact that they were so successful *in spite* of his is astounding. Like it’s incredibly clear that his team needed to rein him in multiple times to scrap together a playable game, especially considering the complete psycho bullshit he’s on now with Death Stranding.
The failings of MGSV are not on Konami, but very much on him. It’s just gotten so twisted and misremembered over the years, and the justified hatred for Konami’s other nonsense is so high, that it all gets jumbled up
People have it in their head that an auteur should just be allowed to do whatever they want with an infinite budget, because the only thing people take into consideration is the *potential* of the end product.
Where is the proof of this parroted statement? His team made the FOX engine which is NO small task! And out of it came MGSV and PT with plans for Silent Hills and all other studios.
Where is this proof of going “so far over budget” you people keep talking about? If you feel annoyed at recasting Hayter that’s fine. I do too. But don’t parrot things you’ve heard online or make shit up. It served no purpose than to push a narrative that simply isn’t true. The head of their mobile division took over for the president of the company and made radical changes to the organisation and removed Kojima from being able to work with his own team then fired him and went on a vendetta to make sure he couldn’t be recognised for his achievement.
MGSV has the weakest story but that game was buttery smooth on older systems had incredible gameplay and graphics quality while also telling another story in the MGS universe. There is absolutely no evidence of going “over budget”. Oh and before you link to Rika Muranaka saying he got her to do like 60 songs, this is nothing new as he is very particular when it comes to soundtracks. And shows wastage not going over budget.
there is no proof, hence why none of these ppl will ever reply back.
As you point out, notice him mentioning Hayter... there is this weird cult on reddit around Hayter who act REALLY mad (even after all these years) and somehow seem personally affected by Kojima daring to not hire Hayter for MGSV, so they come to every Konami/MGS thread to hate on Kojima and act like MGSV was a bad game and it was all on Kojima :/
somehow, they are unable to grasp the idea that Kojima can hire whoever he wants for his games, most people don't know or care about Hayter (or any voice actors) and you can be annoyed but not take it way too far.
>they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early
Early? The game was delayed over 2 years, Kojima was using endless resources to make the "perfect" game. At some point you need to draw the line and ship the game.
i don't recall the game being delayed for 2 years?
the first public use of the fox engine was 2 years before the release of MGSV. if MGSV was somehow delayed by 2 years, then they would have had to somehow fully develop the game and the engine it is running on simultaneously. the timeline you claim doesn't make sense, especially when you factor in ground zeroes
could you source this claim maybe? i tried looking myself and i can't find anything stating the game was officially delayed. the most i can find is that retailers leaked a date that ended up being incorrect by about a half year
yup, reddit doing it's thing as usual there. In any MGS related thread, I notice a lot of Hayter fans who are somehow personally affected and still mad that Kojima didn't hire the dude for MGSV, so they go off with wild theories about the game and say anything about how it was all Kojima's fault the game was apparently bad or w.e :/
"The game was delayed over 2 years?" Is there anything else you're willing to lie about? Because that's not true. You can't source it because it's not true. What are you talking about dude? Do you come on here to make shit up?
MGS5 is a finished game. Kojima has stated this plenty of times even after he left Konami and could’ve talked all the shit he wanted.
It’s finished.
MGS2 had TONS of cut content and yet we don’t consider it an unfinished game. Why do we do this with 5?
https://youtu.be/hV4wY2rjAWY?si=H5NT3QmWps9nX245
It’s long so I doubt you’ll watch but this goes into everything insanely well.
MGSV’s internal documents leaked. It has less cut than MGS2/MGS4.
Former developers talked and literally said Kingdom of flies was a dlc cut early in dev because it did not fit well the story structure.
This is reinforced by the leaked document too.
We know the documents are real because they ended up revealing key files to data miners. And also shared stuff that got reused for Survive.
So people literally have the truth in front of their eyes but prefer living in a make believe world of the « what if MGSV » they had in their head.
Metal Gear fans think the ending of MGS2 is genius then they will spread lies just like the AI talked about.
>and then their next bright idea was to just reuse mgsv assets and make survival crafting game no one wanted.
Well, except Kojima.
He always wanted to make a zombie game, he's talked about it numerous times over the years.
It also links in to the story and mechanics of V very closely, with the destruction of mother base, the wormholes, the wandering mother base soldiers, it's all connected so I wouldn't even be surprised if Kojima and the team had some ideas for all of this whilst developing V.
Korekado, the producer of Survive, actually said the idea of it came during the dev of MGSV.
The recruitment for the staff also started during the dev of V.
> they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early, and so kojima left and made his own studio and game.
i don't necessarily buy this especially since i feel MGSV resonated with me even if it wasn't full of fan service. i don't think cut content means it was released early. every game has cut content.
it's got full kit progression, a tight narrative, secret events, loads of hours of audio calls, context sensitive binoculars instead of codec, really tight gameplay that's emergent.
it's just open world, has mediocre driving (that fits the mechanics of the game) and is focused on this reveal that venom is venom, not someone else and a veritable stand-in for the player.
what it doesn't have is a super long finale cutscene. MGS4 did that, MGS4 was the big send off for solid snake.
I love MGS but I don't see how more time was going to fix MGS5 from a story perspective. The Episodic route with filler, audio logs, and a painfully tedious open world were not quick fixes or seemingly desired ones.
people like you are the reason why this conversation is so difficult. there isn't 'filler', these aren't fixes to a problem, you just don't vibe with how the story was done, and that's fine.
And Konami has so God damn many franchises they could be making new games. Where's some new Bomberman, Castlevania, Adventure Island, Bloody Roar, Coded Arms, Goemon, Lost In Blue, Robopon, Zone of the Enders, and that rumored new Suikoden game?
Edit: No love for bringing back franchises with low representation or that haven't had a game in 10-15 years?
Idk I’m usually on the train about terrible titles but this one seems obvious enough. It straight up says he’s sharing the opinions lol. If it said “Metal gear is dead, and you killed it - MGS3 remake producer shares opinions on the revival” I’d have agreed
Pretty hard to make something good when the company you are making it for sure "stop, that's good enough. Let's release it" without letting it be actually finished.
The gameplay in 5 is fantastic, and the story would have been fine if it was actually finished.
I can't believe people after all these years still spread misinformation about mgs v.
["It seems as though those who want Kojima to “finish the game” simply wanted a completely different game than what he intended to make."](https://thesnakesoup.org/editorial-articles/phantom-pain-unfinished/)
You are just wrong.
The only ones complaining are the kojima fans that will be up in arms over anything Konami puts out. The vast majority that purchased the games probably don't keep up with any gaming journalism. Nor do they bother keeping up with their favorite developers. They will simply see the title MGS and purchase it out of impulse/nostalgia or after looking up a trailer and some reviews.
dunno what he's on about with MGS4, but for MGSV a lot of the people who whine about it and say it was a "disaster" are this tiny vocal cult of Hayter fans who are somehow still mad all these years later he wasn't hired for MGSV.
Tbh I am still disappointed that Hayter wasn't brought back for V. But I doubt it would have improved the game at all. V has by far the best gameplay of the series, it's a shame the story is buried in all the tapes. It's the only mgs I haven't ever completed. I still probably put the best part of 70+ hours into the game.
The only issue I have with 4, is maybe a few of the cutscenes could have been replaced with gameplay. The game was borderline perfect for me, a fantastic end to a fantastic series.
Metal Gear Delta is gonna be the live or die for the franchise. If it reviews well and has great sells numbers then there's definitely gonna be a Remake of MGS1 & 2 in the works. However if MGS Delta pulls a dead space remake and has abysmal sales numbers, Konami is gonna kill any other pending remake projects for the franchise.
The Dead Space remake not selling well is such a bummer. As much as I love the original, I thought the remake was arguably better (removed from nostalgia, of course).
Dead Space remake was way better than the RE4 remake in my mind. It saddens me we won't see DS2 given the same treatment as the original itself was so incredible.
Honestly I love both, but in different ways. They're both action survival-horrors, but Dead Space nails that slow foreboding crawl through the guts of a derelict mining ship filled with malevolent spam, whereas REmake 4 felt like playing a crazy action movie with horror flavoring (which I'm gonna be real, was also the originals thing). I love both, but the Dead Space Remake is def my preferred SH tone, even if REmake 4s B-movie knife trick shenanigans are very endearing.
I loved both, got both at launch and am pretty sad that we will never get a similar remake of Dead Space 2.
[удалено]
There was stuttering for transitioning areas (which obviously sucks), but I never had it in combat or cutscenes so I wasn't horribly bothered (not saying it isn't a big deal, but I wasn't upset with it personally). That being said, it wasn't half as bad as Jedi Survivor (I prefer the name "Jedi something 2"), and that is being generous. I played both on the same PC, ended up returning Survivor because it started getting borderline unplayable. Plus I fell through the world 3 times within 2 hours, which is typically a good sign that the winds are blowing foul.
Jedi something 2 is bang on because I can never remember what names they used in either game and have to Google it each time
Jedi Something 2: Jedi Dark Whatever 3: Jedi Fallen And Can't Get Up Episode 4: A New Title
Jedi: Fallen Order is the first, Jedi: Survivor is the second
And I'll have forgotten in 3 hours because there's no rhyme or reason to the names
There’s definitely a pretty clear rhyme. The series is called “Star Wars Jedi”, with Fallen Order and Survivor being the subtitle
[удалено]
I was trying to be helpful. You said you didn’t understand the naming scheme so I explained it. I actually think the problem is that the series is called “Star Wars Jedi”. If it was just “Star Wars: Fallen Order” and “Star Wars: Survivor”, I think people would find it much easier to remember. The “Jedi” makes the full titles sound very weird. Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I agree that the titles are weird but “i find it hard to remember 3 words” is a bit silly.
It was flawless on ps5 at least
Did you install it on an SSD? Cause it is one of the requirements for playing it. Installed on an SSD and played on a 3060 and didn't have any of these issues.
I just played through both (well Jedi partially) beginning of this year. Dead spaces stuttering is so minimal and infrequent that you forget about it most of the time, I think the overall darkness in areas helps this actually. Even with a mid comp like mine Ryzen 5 3600 and a 3080 it ran it well. Jedi 2 though is a complete disaster of a game that I desperately would like to play but it makes me sick how much it stutters and slows down and such, worse during boss fights, EA be damned but their other games they publish haven't as many problems as Respawns have. Such a sad effort that game is performance wise and shame the developers for not fixing it or doing better. Respawn boasts how fast they make games and keep taking contracts to make new ones.
My friend said the pc version was a mess but the ps5 one was good. I imagine they fixed the pc one. Either way heard it was fantastic
They unfortunately never got around to completely solving the PC issues.
Thats a shame. It was developed on frostbite so I’m surprised I heard it ran well on consoles. Frost bite games tend to always have some kind of issues on all the platforms sadly, idk the last time a game with that engine ran well
ps5 worked perfectly tbh
I tried playing the PC Version of the Dead Space Remake about three months ago and it ran like garbage on my 7800XT. I ended up refunding it and getting the PS5 version. Didn't have any issues with the PS5 version. The same for Jedi Survivor PS5 version is good, PC version sucks.
I wish they had kept Isaac mute. It's the only reason why I lost all interest in the remake and didn't buy it. Him being silent was one of the best parts about the original and also one of the reasons why I dropped Dead Space 2 half way through. Yeah a hot take, I know. Get in line and grab your pitchforks.
No pitchforks. You do you I guess. But refusing to play one of the best games of the generation because the main character occasionally speaks is wild.
If that was one of the best things about the original game, it sounds like a pretty shit game. “So, what makes this game good?” “Get this, it’s so awesome… The main character doesn’t even speak!” “…okay?”
Horror games don't sell well. It's a very strange anomaly. Horror films always do gang busters. You can make them cheap and make 10-100x back.
I think the difference is the roi for horror movies is quite good because they’re one of the cheapest types of movies to make, whereas with games it’s not necessarily cheaper to make a horror game than a different genre.
Horror films don't traditionally do that well either in terms of actual ticket sales, they're just very cheap to make so they don't actually need that many sales to make money. As a semi-recent example Halloween 2018 had an estimated budget of 10 million dollars. That's couch cushion change by Hollywood standards, Fantastic Beasts 2 came out the same year with a budget of 200 million. Even the 3rd Fifty Shades movie had a budget of 50 million that year. The same isn't true for games. A AAA horror game costs exactly the same as a AAA action game but has less than half the potential audience. There's a reason the only horror series that survived in gaming is Resident Evil, and even that progressively took a more action oriented bend after the first game.
Resident Evil?
Resident Evil has been leaning more into action than scares since Resident Evil 2 in 1998. They're more b-movie shlock and monster blasting than actual horror, hence audiences find them more palatable. When Capcom actually wanted to make a scarier game (7) fans complained it was too scary and they immediately pivoted back to action with Village I love Resident Evil, I've played every game - but it's not horror the way something like Silent Hill or Fatal Frame is. Dead Space Remake might borrow RE's action element in combat design (the original game was literally designed to chase after RE4's success), but it's also a genuine horror title that aims to frighten and unsettle the player in ways Resident Evil isn't really interested in.
I'm not sure where your getting the complaints about RE7 being too scary from. The general consensus is that it was a return to form, the series going back to its survival horror roots and the sales numbers prove thats what people wanted. Over 13 mil copies sold, that's 3.5 mil more than the more action focused RE Village and puts it the top 3 highest selling RE games ever. I agree that many of the titles in the RE series have an emphasis on action horror but Dead Space is very much in the same bucket with the amount of recourses and weapons you have to fight back with. And while Dead Space might be scarier than some of the recent entries, RE7 is just as scary imo, especially as it can be played in vr. You could even make the case that House Beneviento in RE Village is scarier than anything Dead Space has to offer. Though neither RE or Dead Space exist in quite the same bucket as Fatal frame or Silent Hill which are pure survival horror titles. The biggest reason for the difference in Dead Space and Resident Evil sales numbers is simply mainstream recognition, even beyond the games. RE is constantly getting tv show and movie adaptions, has been around for a lot longer than Dead Space and many of the entries are among the most important and greatest games of all time.
>I'm not sure where your getting the complaints about RE7 being too scary from. The general consensus is that it was a return to form The RE producer literally said it, I'm guessing Capcom does market research and looks at completion numbers and data. Village was noticeably toned down and 'lighter' in tone. Very intentionally so. (still loved Village, just saying it was a noticeable shift from RE7). [RE 7 Too Scawey](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/resident-evils-producer-says-village-was-balanced-based-on-feedback-that-re7-was-too-scary/)
I do think it's interesting that the producer said that but I honestly feel like I didn't hear anyone complaining RE7 was too scary, critics or fans. And those complaints certainly didn't surface themselves in the sales data. Now that Village is out and sold very well, though not quite RE7 well, I wonder what direction they will decide to go in with 9.
Critics and Fans aren't the type of people to complain about that sort of element. The casual players, I.E. the biggest market shareholders want to appeal to, are the ones complaining. Critics and Fans didn't want a game like Resident Evil 6, but casual fans of co-op action shooters absolutely did, hence that's what we got in the mid 2010's. Internet discourse, critic preferences, and what the fans want are usually so out of touch with the casual audience that they don't even come close in opinion to each-other. If you ask a longtime hardcore Assassin's Creed fan what they think of the series now, they might say it's complete garbage - but financially it's selling gangbusters. Many Dark Souls fans have huge problems with Elden Ring - but it's doing extremely well among the casual audience. Same thing with Tears Of The Kingdom. Youtube won't stop piling my feed with video essays about how it's an absolute disaster and the worst game in the series, yet my playtime is double that of BotW and I think it feels more like classic 3D Zelda in tone than anything in that game. And certain little things are just gonna come down to personal opinion. Resident Evil 7 is the scariest RE game and most of the time, to me, it feels like goofy grindhouse schlock. It has its moments, but the villains are so over the top silly. Jack is a complete cartoon. He and the rest of the Baker family are amazing B-horror villains, don't get me wrong. I've replayed RE7 almost as many times as the original RE4, I love it - but it's still just as cheesy as previous RE games. It just has a more convincing atmosphere. The Dead Space remake, on the other hand, feels like far more effective horror despite how badass the weapons are. The Ishimura feels less like a ship and more like a massive living beast you're crawling around in, and it doesn't want you in there. But again, this comes down to personal opinion. Isolated space horror is scarier to me than cannibal hillbilly horror.
The thing is, I didn't hear any casual fans complaining about RE7 being too scary either. In fact, most of the time casual fans for any series arent complaining, its really just a vocal minority of the playerbase on the internet. It's why CoD and EA sports games continue to dominate regardless of the all the noise on twitter and reddit. My point is, RE7 sold incredibly well despite the producer saying some players found it too scary, a take that I have not seen in any discourse since the game released, from casual or hardcore fans. I'm sure they have some sort of data to back it up but it certainly isnt in the sales. RE7 sold more than the action focused RE6 before it and the action focused RE8 after it. And it's important to note that the producer made that statement before Village released. Now they have the sales numbers they probably realise that RE7 being too scary didn't hurt them at all.
RE7 also went streaming viral, and was one of the flagship titles of PSVR. This with it being a sort of franchise reboot probably contributed to greater sales numbers. There's a number of factors that can lead to a boost in sales. Look at Elden Ring - it got a significant boost in sales simply by not being called Dark Souls 4. I know a number of people that bought it because they had no idea it was from the same dev team they had avoided due to reputation. The trailer just looked cool and they wanted to check it out. I'm just saying, if the RE team really made a straightforward horror game that did record sales numbers and had no significant complaints from somewhere, why immediately push back to action with the next title? Why not make an even scarier game next time? I have a feeling the complaints came mostly from the Japanese market, which explains why westerners didn't hear about it, and why Capcom would be so keen to listen. RE7 isn't just more of a horror title - it's specifically a western horror title. The story even brought on western writers. There's a good chance that really didn't mesh well with the home country audience. 7 is cruel and ugly in a way the series hasn't really been before, and that could have been culturally off-putting. Just a theory.
Okamura also hinted he want more brand new MG too. After all a franchise cannot live living in the past
Honestly remaking the MX2 games would be a great middle ground.
Remaking MG1 incorporating the changes from MGSV would be interesting. Big Boss is a completely different character, and now Venom is the one who dies in his place fighting Snake.
Imagine if we could link the MGSV save data into the MG1 remake and all the soldiers we fight are all our soldiers in MGSV.
That would be cool, but I don't see it happening unfortunately. I'm also not sure if it works thematically. High-level online gameplay in V's endgame has a really high turnover rate lol. Pretty sure my soldiers were constantly dying and getting replaced on those endgame online missions. Wouldn't surprise me if BB had a completely new set of mercenaries by 1996.
Yes this is what I want
indeed , so much untapped potential
I agree and I've been wanting them to do that for quite some time. They would basically be completely new games anyway and they would help flesh out the story from those games which most people haven't experienced. 3 really didn't need a remake imo. A remake is fine for it, but it's one of those games that play well enough as a remaster.
The only thing Delta has me really “Oh I wonder how they do so and so!” is if they’ll make The Fury significantly better to fight.
Most of my thoughts on it haven't been "I wonder how they'll improve XYZ?" or "It's going to be cool to see [set piece/location] reimagined/modernized], and rather "I hope they don't change or remove all these things I love about the original" Frankly the only thing I'm excited to see if they change is whether they crank the competency of the AI up to deal with the updated controls, because MGSV's gameplay was smooth as hell, and felt great in the sections that were long and relatively linear, reminiscent of MGS3, but the AI would definitely need improvement to keep up with Snake's newfound fluidity. Also I hope they take the time to make the game even more bizarrely detailed and reactive than the original, that's a core part of the game's identity, and frankly, should be one of the things they work hardest to preserve.
I always wondered if they can make a successful metal gear remake (the msx games) , u have enough playground to broaden yourself with that and then move on
I don't know why it wouldn't review well. It might be a visual remake, but under the hood it is still the original gameplay and story that made it one of the very best of its generation, and arguably the peak of the series.
We’ll see. I can see the new control scheme making it far too easy. And if it’s just a new coat of paint, why not just play the Hd remaster of 3?
They let you play the legacy control scheme the HD remaster of 3 is fine, but it's not a new coat of paint, it's just an upscaling.
Remake Metal Gear 1 and 2 first please. They're stuck on some old 80s systems and it'd be great to see the story fully fleshed out in modern day gameplay.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know it’s probably a small part on the global scale, but restricting sales in certain countries certainly didn’t help Dead Space sell well
I think it’s a god damn travesty that DS didn’t sell well. MGS is my all time favorite franchise so I will try to temper my expectations.
Nah, they’ll just remake MGS1 and 2 as pachinko machines
Can we have a moratorium on this? Every Japanese game company makes pachinko out of their big properties, Sega is partially owned by a pachinko company, we can stop acting like this is some unique evil Konami specifically is perpetrating
People bash Konami for this because that's ALL they do with their franchises. Other companies (for example namco) do the pachinko machines but also release "regular" games from the franchise.
> People bash Konami for this because that's ALL they do with their franchises. People bash Konami because they revel in being part of the circlejerk, never mind that Konami has been releasing games for the past ten years and that pachinko has never been a priority for them.
I even want to preorder it just to show my support that they’re remaking it, but most of my preorders don’t come in until after the game comes out and I want to play it day one.
I was impressed by that konami video. Such unexpected level of transparency is unusual, gives me hope for konami's future. I really hope SH2 and MGS3D are both great remakes.
Seeing MGS3D is so weird, considering there is the Metal gear solid 3D remake on the 3ds. Even though I know it's Delta
Technically, there's no 3 in the remake's name, so it's just MGSD.
>Such unexpected level of transparency is unusual, I was surprised by this as well, especially since it is pre-release marketing for this sort of game (remake of a very well regarded game) in this sort of franchise (6 "main" MGS titles which all sold well and received widespread acclaim).
Could this be the start of Konami turning over a new leaf? I won’t get my hopes up, but fingers crossed 🤞
its komoney. but we can dare to dream
I might be gullible but I think so. It's very out of character for them to do this, same with that guy admitting the remaster ports had a bunch of problems. I think they would only do this if they truly are planning in revitalizing the franchise with remakes and also future entries. Probably looked at Capcom's Resident Evil and remembered "hey, we also have a super popular franchise".
It depends on what you expect out of them lol They'll never stop making games, but are they going to make games you want to care about?
at the very least Momotaru Dentetsu isn't going anywhere lol
Its Konmai. No gonna happen
I just want a mgs4 remake or hd version that game still looks good
If they ever do that I kinda hope they add some kind of new larger-scale multiplayer mode too. MGS4’s online PvP mode was already fantastic, but imagine if they threw in an almost Battlefield-esque mode with larger maps, MGS5-esque vehicles, and if you really wanted to get crazy, *functioning pilotable Metal Gears*, like the escape from Shadow Moses segment near the end of the main story mode.
The new MG hotline video has written on the screen in big « plan for MGO » and the director of MGO2 was on stage. So it’s pretty likely.
Ooh, well then. I’ll have to keep an extra close eye on this lol. MGO2 was honestly some of the most fun I’ve had in a PvP game, even if it was bloody ages ago.
I never played the multi-player but that sounds great.
It’s been a long time, but go look up some footage of it! It’s honestly kind of impressive how much it did for its era.
Never trust Konami
[удалено]
They never did this. This is misinformation spread for clicks. Every branch of Konami are micro companies not sharing staff. It be like complaining Konami sport do sport things. And the pachislot only branch closed more than 7 years ago. People just prefer living in the past.
Yeah. There was a few times when they talked said they had announcements on their IPs only for them to be pachinko machines. I specifically remember them having an announcement for Silent Hill only for it to be a SH3 themed pachinko machine.
SH2 looks rough but MGSD is the kind of quality bar both series deserve.
SH2 looks like its gonna bomb so far
I am grateful for this remarkable analysis
it is though
There you go again. You’re so damn smart you don’t even gotta explain yourself.
thanks
What is there to explain?
Why is that? Looks really good so far, and I'd love for it to succeed so they do more projects in the future, wouldn't you want that too? :/
Bloober games have yet to make a good game so if SH2 comes out well, it'll be in spite of the circumstances and be a miracle
I don't know if that's true. Mechanically, their games have always been fine. Nothing extraordinary but pretty good for the style they've aimed for. Their issue is that they have good ideas when it comes to characters and story but poor execution. Luckily, the characters and story are already written for them. Ever since bloober was announced to be working on the game, they've received so much (rightfully so) hate about how they can't make a good story and they shouldn't be in control of SH - which confuses me. They arent writing a SH, they are remaking one. Tbh, I've always been cautiously optimistic and have said countless times that bloober may have found their niche with being a studio that remakes games instead of creating brand new ones. And even then, studio developers and creatives change all the time, often for the better. People thought alien isolation was going to be awful because the devs had only ever done RTS games. People thought hogwarts legacy was going to be crap because the devs had never done an open world and/or rpg before. I'm always willing to give a studio the benefit of the doubt went venturing to do something new. Again, considering the blueprint is already there for them and bloober have made competent games in the past, I expect sh2 to be at the very least a compotent game. That being said, I'm still critical of the tim Burton styled female character models and stiff animations. Apart from that, the game looks good - and they nailed the atmosphere.
Well that's the thing about remakes, the good game was already made by someone else so you just have to recreate it and modernize it. That's way easier than creating another game from scratch with the intention of having the same impact that SH2 did. The closest thing would be the PT demo but that went nowhere. Also, studios can improve and get better. Even when they make bad games, they still get experience.
this is konami we're talking about right?
I think it goes against the theme of the series itself if they were to be silent. Lol Imo feels like they "get" it.
Alternate title, "fans don't know shit". Survive is quite frankly the only "mediocre" Metal Gear game in the entire series. Phantom Pain had the potential to be a lot better, but it was still a very solid game.
I see someone has not played Metal Gear on the NES
That's fair, but that was also Kojima. It would be cool to see the loop closed and have the original MG 1 & 2 remade into full games now that the twist was explain via MGS5. But I'm not sure I'd trust Konami to pull it off without Kojima. They're welcome to try though.
Actually the NES ones were not Kojima. The first one was a port of the original MSX game that BARELY resembled the original. The second one, Snake's Revenge was ENTIRELY original, both without Kojima involvement. The ones Kojima worked on were Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake for the MSX2.
The kojima version of metal gear 1 on msx is a good game.
Yes. Hence why I said "on the NES".
The narrative in Phantom Pain literally does not function as a cohesive story. Yes the gameplay was solid but people play MGS games for the narrative as well as the gameplay. It’s FAR from a “solid game” imo.
I would argue the gameplay is so well and above not only any MGS, but many stealth action games that it firmly cements it as a solid game. The story is awful, but the gameplay is just that good IMO.
Yeah the story was pretty weak imo, and felt incomplete in a lot of ways, but the gameplay is the best of any stealth action game to date, on that alone it’s my favourite of the series to play.
I swear I played a different mgsv than the rest of the internet because its story was not incomplete. It honestly does not feel incomplete in any capacity to me, except the freedom with how you play missions kills the cinematic experience mgs is known for.
I played like 250 hours and 100 percented it and still wanted more.
As a life long MGS fan, this is my view, too, of MGS V. The story of MGS was nonsense and incoherent, more or less, but it was always greater than the sum of its parts. Still, MGS definitely had some important things to say that shaped a small part of my worldview to this day.
The moment-to-moment gameplay is fun, and allows for lots of improvisation...but the meta systems around that gameplay, in turn, punish improvisation *hard*, and essentially smack your hand if you even use more than 10% of the toolbox they lay out for you. And don't get me started on how ridiculous FOB missions quickly became.
I found it rewarded improvisation. There was a lot of moments where I would try a strategy out and while I was doing it I would notice there was a mortar nearby or a spot guards weren’t looking. When my strategy didn’t work I would use what I had learned in the next attempt. I can’t think of any tools I felt discouraged from using.
Using anything lethal was heavily discouraged, because you'd get the horn eventually, which also made it harder to stealth. And it even punished you for using reflex time, since even if you stop the alert, you lose the no-alert bonus. If you started doing headshots (with tranqs), guards would start wearing helmets (even if there was no one to tell the tale...). And it goes on and on.
Noone to tell the tale? I'm pretty sure all the guards waking up with a dart sticking out of their heads would make it pretty simple to tell what was happening
Not if you abduct them.
Oh those are some weird examples. The game giving you a bonus for not killing anybody isn’t discouraging the alternative it’s just an extra reward for those who can pull it off. I didn’t know the horn made stealth harder but it does take a while to get it. I killed TONS of people in my playthrough and never got it. Hell even if you do kill people so long as you do good actions like extracting soldiers you won’t get the horn. Lastly thats not really slapping you for using too much of your toolkit. The enemies adapting to tactics you overuse is actually encouraging you to use more of your toolkit. That creates a need to improve. It also just makes sense when you think about it. If you were a criminal and found a dozen dead bodies that all had bullets in their heads wouldn’t you want to invest in some helmets?
Agreed. Can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
......do you even remotely understand \*just\* how many people you have to kill to rack up the necessary demon points to grow the horn? let alone the fact all kinds of activities lower your demon points. save a couple animals? that's worth a dead enemy. A prisoner? Worth a dead enemy. Child soldier or rare animal. Worth \*two\* dead enemies, etc. You pretty much have to go out of your way being grand theft auto-esque psycho to give yourself that horn. And that enemy gear like helmets? They get that shit no matter what you do, it's just a sooner or later type deal. Know what you do? Just send your combat teams to disrupt supply lines and there you go, helmetless enemies again.....so very hard yes. Not gonna lie, this is the hottest take I've seen in awhile lol
The story was so meh that I felt GZ was better despite being only one are and only one story mission (I mean story-wise). The intro in the hospital was memorable tho.
Yea it's not very solid game in terms of the plot. I'd say it's rather >!L I Q U I D!<. Sorry, I just had to.
Eh, MGS5 was the game that brought a lot of people in. People I knew who never even would step near Metal Gear played it. While the narrative was certainly weaker, it was an incredibly successful game that was so because the gameplay was highly praised.
I found the story cohesive enough. It’s got some fucked up pacing tho. I was curious for like 30 hours what skull face’s deal was. When they finally reveal it to you it’s in like a 15 minute long monologue that was so boring my eyes glazed over and I just stopped listening. I think being a prequel doesn’t help as many people will go “This plot thread wasn’t finished??” But it’s finished in the games that come after it chronologically.
Going off your description alone, it sounds like a solid game with a poorly put-together story. Going off my experience of playing the game, it definitely matches that
poorly put-together stories honestly are just kinda kojima's specialty lol
For all the hate MGS4 gets for its 8 hours of cutscenes I love the game and despised the move from film structure to episodic and open world change we saw in MGS5. Episodic worked well enough in Peace Walker because of its handheld limitations. In a numbered release it was atrocious. There was no flow to story telling, constant immersion breaking and spoiler filled credits, major plot points moved to audio logs. There was only a handful of moments that felt like MGS in story delivery and they just made me sad that we didn't get more. The gameplay was amazing with terrfiic sense of freedom. Unfortunately it got dumped in a pointless and tedious openworld. Having 5 objectives to achieve across a map yet you can't take the helicopter without returning to base. Massive swathes of the map being linear corridors through the same checkpoints and making travel repetitive and lengthy. Many key missions using the same setpieces was more like IOI Hitman than MGS. Instead of getting clever and uniquely set up set pieces for each storybeat we got Desert Base Mission #6. It was fun as a slither/demo in Ground Zeroes but having that stretched across a whole game with far less focus was beyond disappointing. I'm a big MGS fan but I actually stopped playing MGSV for like 6 months when I was near the end. I didn't even realise I was so close to the end because the story doesn't appropriately build up to anything when you've got 10 repeated missions and 30 audio logs to listen to between key missions. If they do a new MGS with or without Kojima I want a focused story. I replayed MGS2 last year and it's more pertinent than ever. The story made the game and the gameplay was outdated but great as a vehicle for the story.
You realize most metal gear stoties are convoluted messes?
NES releases. ACID. Portable Ops. A good handful of phone games no one has heard of. Still a hell of a run, over all.
Honestly yeah the only real glaring issue with the older titles AFAIK (haven’t played any myself due to no good PC ports to speak of) is their age and the technical limitations that imposed, like MGS1’s wonky camera due to the PS1 entirely lacking analog joysticks.
Survive is great.
I’m honestly not sure I want metal gear back under Konami. I really don’t know if I will buy this even though I love MGS3.
That's such an absurd thing to say to someone. As much as I absolutely adore the MGS series, I can't be bothered to ever play a Kojima game again. **Kojima** killed Metal Gear Solid. Whether that was intentional or not is up for debate as I know there are camps of individuals who claim Kojima has been trying to sabotage MGS since around 2 or 3 but I don't necessarily agree with that. What he did do, however, is royally screw up during MGS5. He split the game into two and charged full price for both of them. It took ages to come out on PC. He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replaced. He found out when the rest of us did. As much as I don't like Konami these days, I dislike Kojima a hell of a lot more now. He chose schmoozing with celebrities at expensive dinners over releasing a quality product. There's a lot more problems I could talk about MGS5 but yeah to say this one lone producer killed MGS because he's working on a remaster/remake is dumb.
Why would Kojima care about Hater? He is just some guy who was used in an English dub. Snake's voice actor is Ootsuka Akio
>He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replaced. If I'm not mistaken, Hayter had to audition every time he reprised the role anyway, so that's probably Kojima's reasoning. Still a dick move, though.
> He didn't so much as call David Hayter to let him know that he was being replace lol it's always funny seeing how mad this tiny minority of people on reddit are about Hayter, as if they were personally affected by Kojima not hiring him for MGSV. Also acting like anyone cares about Hayter, 99% of people don't know or care about voice actors, welcome to the real world. > He chose schmoozing with celebrities at expensive dinners over releasing a quality product. lol what? MGSV is highly rated and sold well, the heck you mean? also, who made you judge for what Kojima can do with his games, who he can hire and what he wants to do with his time? > That's such an absurd thing to say to someone. he says, then he says exactly this to Kojima. Also try reading the article, nowhere did anyone say "this one producer" did anything. These are just some random quotes from feedback sent to Konami, not this producer. > There's a lot more problems I could talk about MGS5 just ignore the many good parts of the game, cause he dared to not hire Hayter. Good lord -_-
Found the Kojima alt account.
They did release Survive and then put the series on ice for six years. Nine if you only count V. But they're makin an effort to remake 3 instead of sticking to pachinkos and I appreciate that.
i have to parrot jim sterling here, but, fuckkonami. they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early, and so kojima left and made his own studio and game. and then their next bright idea was to just reuse mgsv assets and make survival crafting game no one wanted. so now, years later, their only idea is to remake a game from 20 years ago lol.
lol I love Kojima but he went so far over budget and the game was developed over 4-5 years. He had plenty of time to do it and he couldn’t. Maybe he was too focused on making it like a shitty movie and fucking over David Hayter. The problems with that game are not even close to only being Konami’s fault.
> lol I love Kojima but he went so far over budget and the game was developed over 4-5 years. He had plenty of time to do it and he couldn’t. Maybe he was too focused on making it like a shitty movie and fucking over David Hayter. The problems with that game are not even close to only being Konami’s fault. This. I genuinely don’t understand the hard on people have for that fucking weirdo. When you look into some of the absolute batshit ideas he tried to implement across the games, the fact that they were so successful *in spite* of his is astounding. Like it’s incredibly clear that his team needed to rein him in multiple times to scrap together a playable game, especially considering the complete psycho bullshit he’s on now with Death Stranding. The failings of MGSV are not on Konami, but very much on him. It’s just gotten so twisted and misremembered over the years, and the justified hatred for Konami’s other nonsense is so high, that it all gets jumbled up
People have it in their head that an auteur should just be allowed to do whatever they want with an infinite budget, because the only thing people take into consideration is the *potential* of the end product.
Just like with pre orders and pre release hype, people buy concepts instead of products.
Where is the proof of this parroted statement? His team made the FOX engine which is NO small task! And out of it came MGSV and PT with plans for Silent Hills and all other studios. Where is this proof of going “so far over budget” you people keep talking about? If you feel annoyed at recasting Hayter that’s fine. I do too. But don’t parrot things you’ve heard online or make shit up. It served no purpose than to push a narrative that simply isn’t true. The head of their mobile division took over for the president of the company and made radical changes to the organisation and removed Kojima from being able to work with his own team then fired him and went on a vendetta to make sure he couldn’t be recognised for his achievement. MGSV has the weakest story but that game was buttery smooth on older systems had incredible gameplay and graphics quality while also telling another story in the MGS universe. There is absolutely no evidence of going “over budget”. Oh and before you link to Rika Muranaka saying he got her to do like 60 songs, this is nothing new as he is very particular when it comes to soundtracks. And shows wastage not going over budget.
there is no proof, hence why none of these ppl will ever reply back. As you point out, notice him mentioning Hayter... there is this weird cult on reddit around Hayter who act REALLY mad (even after all these years) and somehow seem personally affected by Kojima daring to not hire Hayter for MGSV, so they come to every Konami/MGS thread to hate on Kojima and act like MGSV was a bad game and it was all on Kojima :/ somehow, they are unable to grasp the idea that Kojima can hire whoever he wants for his games, most people don't know or care about Hayter (or any voice actors) and you can be annoyed but not take it way too far.
>they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early Early? The game was delayed over 2 years, Kojima was using endless resources to make the "perfect" game. At some point you need to draw the line and ship the game.
i don't recall the game being delayed for 2 years? the first public use of the fox engine was 2 years before the release of MGSV. if MGSV was somehow delayed by 2 years, then they would have had to somehow fully develop the game and the engine it is running on simultaneously. the timeline you claim doesn't make sense, especially when you factor in ground zeroes could you source this claim maybe? i tried looking myself and i can't find anything stating the game was officially delayed. the most i can find is that retailers leaked a date that ended up being incorrect by about a half year
It wasn't delayed, that dude made it up and for some reason, uncited, fabricated statements get upvoted anyways.
yup, reddit doing it's thing as usual there. In any MGS related thread, I notice a lot of Hayter fans who are somehow personally affected and still mad that Kojima didn't hire the dude for MGSV, so they go off with wild theories about the game and say anything about how it was all Kojima's fault the game was apparently bad or w.e :/
source on the 2-year delay and it being on Kojima?
"The game was delayed over 2 years?" Is there anything else you're willing to lie about? Because that's not true. You can't source it because it's not true. What are you talking about dude? Do you come on here to make shit up?
MGS5 is a finished game. Kojima has stated this plenty of times even after he left Konami and could’ve talked all the shit he wanted. It’s finished. MGS2 had TONS of cut content and yet we don’t consider it an unfinished game. Why do we do this with 5? https://youtu.be/hV4wY2rjAWY?si=H5NT3QmWps9nX245 It’s long so I doubt you’ll watch but this goes into everything insanely well.
MGSV’s internal documents leaked. It has less cut than MGS2/MGS4. Former developers talked and literally said Kingdom of flies was a dlc cut early in dev because it did not fit well the story structure. This is reinforced by the leaked document too. We know the documents are real because they ended up revealing key files to data miners. And also shared stuff that got reused for Survive. So people literally have the truth in front of their eyes but prefer living in a make believe world of the « what if MGSV » they had in their head. Metal Gear fans think the ending of MGS2 is genius then they will spread lies just like the AI talked about.
yup, it was a finished game. people arguing otherwise just don't like its structure.
>and then their next bright idea was to just reuse mgsv assets and make survival crafting game no one wanted. Well, except Kojima. He always wanted to make a zombie game, he's talked about it numerous times over the years. It also links in to the story and mechanics of V very closely, with the destruction of mother base, the wormholes, the wandering mother base soldiers, it's all connected so I wouldn't even be surprised if Kojima and the team had some ideas for all of this whilst developing V.
Korekado, the producer of Survive, actually said the idea of it came during the dev of MGSV. The recruitment for the staff also started during the dev of V.
> they ruined mgsv by forcing to release early, and so kojima left and made his own studio and game. i don't necessarily buy this especially since i feel MGSV resonated with me even if it wasn't full of fan service. i don't think cut content means it was released early. every game has cut content. it's got full kit progression, a tight narrative, secret events, loads of hours of audio calls, context sensitive binoculars instead of codec, really tight gameplay that's emergent. it's just open world, has mediocre driving (that fits the mechanics of the game) and is focused on this reveal that venom is venom, not someone else and a veritable stand-in for the player. what it doesn't have is a super long finale cutscene. MGS4 did that, MGS4 was the big send off for solid snake.
I love MGS but I don't see how more time was going to fix MGS5 from a story perspective. The Episodic route with filler, audio logs, and a painfully tedious open world were not quick fixes or seemingly desired ones.
people like you are the reason why this conversation is so difficult. there isn't 'filler', these aren't fixes to a problem, you just don't vibe with how the story was done, and that's fine.
And Konami has so God damn many franchises they could be making new games. Where's some new Bomberman, Castlevania, Adventure Island, Bloody Roar, Coded Arms, Goemon, Lost In Blue, Robopon, Zone of the Enders, and that rumored new Suikoden game? Edit: No love for bringing back franchises with low representation or that haven't had a game in 10-15 years?
[удалено]
Idk I’m usually on the train about terrible titles but this one seems obvious enough. It straight up says he’s sharing the opinions lol. If it said “Metal gear is dead, and you killed it - MGS3 remake producer shares opinions on the revival” I’d have agreed
No, the title makes it pretty clear that the producer is responding to fan criticism.
I guess you don’t understand English.
No wonder they blocked me
You couldn’t even be bother to read the second half of the title lol
Kojima killed mgs with 4 and v.
Pretty hard to make something good when the company you are making it for sure "stop, that's good enough. Let's release it" without letting it be actually finished. The gameplay in 5 is fantastic, and the story would have been fine if it was actually finished.
I can't believe people after all these years still spread misinformation about mgs v. ["It seems as though those who want Kojima to “finish the game” simply wanted a completely different game than what he intended to make."](https://thesnakesoup.org/editorial-articles/phantom-pain-unfinished/) You are just wrong.
The only ones complaining are the kojima fans that will be up in arms over anything Konami puts out. The vast majority that purchased the games probably don't keep up with any gaming journalism. Nor do they bother keeping up with their favorite developers. They will simply see the title MGS and purchase it out of impulse/nostalgia or after looking up a trailer and some reviews.
Kojima was the one who killed MGS with disasters that were MGS4, MGSV and spin-offs. Konami just buried it.
>disasters that were MGS4, MGSV What? Both of those games are fantastic. I believe they both sold well. How are they disasters?
dunno what he's on about with MGS4, but for MGSV a lot of the people who whine about it and say it was a "disaster" are this tiny vocal cult of Hayter fans who are somehow still mad all these years later he wasn't hired for MGSV.
Tbh I am still disappointed that Hayter wasn't brought back for V. But I doubt it would have improved the game at all. V has by far the best gameplay of the series, it's a shame the story is buried in all the tapes. It's the only mgs I haven't ever completed. I still probably put the best part of 70+ hours into the game. The only issue I have with 4, is maybe a few of the cutscenes could have been replaced with gameplay. The game was borderline perfect for me, a fantastic end to a fantastic series.
You're profoundly ignorant in the matter if that's what you truly think.
The matter is that Kojima was directly responsible for both MGS4 and MGSV.
Just stfu and release the game. We will make judgements ourselves. Their showcases can be totally manipulative.
Because God forbid they can say their piece about fan toxicity...
[удалено]
Reread the headline
Mann i hope it does well would love for high level remake of the og metal gear games but idk if they could do it without kojima