The Witcher 3 Already Won Game of the Year 2015 ?

@gorehowl81: With Kojima being shafted I'm having doubts about the game's final quality, lets remember the shit that happened with the Silent Hills Collection where the game was released pretty much broken because konami was incompetent, who is to say the same thing isn't gonna happen to MGS5? especially when Kojima was kicked out, sure Kojima is still assisting in the development but really I'm having serious doubts that he is that deeply involved in the game anymore, for all we know he is probably planning on sabotaging the game to get back at konami, either way gonna have to wait and see.

I think it will be. The Witcher 3 takes everything I love about games and molds into one beautiful package. It is the best game I have ever played in my opinion. Over 240 hours in and I am still in awe.

@ProtossX: The Witcher games have to respect the background of the books, so yeah, you can't kill villagers... People who compare The Witcher to Skyrim just don't know anything about The Witcher universe ^^

Well Fallout 4 never was that hard. It's a basic FPS with some extras. I can't use difficulty against it to be honest.

We're talking about Kojima here and Metal gear. He always deliveres quality and never let us down if you look at past games. Besides, he only will leave Konami after the game is finished and we all know how proud he is of his Metal Gear. It makes little sense to expect a half baked game. Kojima's reputation would suffer otherwise and it's his crownjewel afterall. But disregarding the turmoil between Kojami and Konami.. you only have to look at how the demo looks to have high expectations.

It not about being hard, but when people say the game is only good when you play on one challenge level then I think something is wrong with the game.

Oh well. Fortunately Metal Gear Solid doesn't have that problem.

@JamesJoule: all I know is I picked up fallout 3 game of the year edition for PC on the steam sale and it crashed 3 times before I left the vault. The characters look like $hit on 4 but the world looks much better I still have high hopes but I'm loving tw3 it got to be in my fav games of all time.

not really .. the world's graphics are shit and the art direction is not even post apocalyptic-ish .. it's ok for a game to have this .. but it's not okay for fallout 4 to have this ... it was supposed to be the game of the century ... i'll just stick with the witcher 3 knowing that no other game will reach it's level .. for now at least

not really .. the world's graphics are shit and the art direction is not even post apocalyptic-ish .. it's ok for a game to have this .. but it's not okay for fallout 4 to have this ... it was supposed to be the game of the century ... i'll just stick with the witcher 3 knowing that no other game will reach it's level .. for now at least

yeah ... kojima didn't have to put up with this shit .. first they divide the game into two games one of them is a 5 minute demo that costs 40 dollars and then they announce stupid microtrnascations .... a big fk you to fans ..

yeah .. doubt any game this year will rise to it's level

sir ... i agree with you that metal gear is an amazing franchise and mgs 5 in particular looked so promising ... kojima is a very talented man and it could have easily been on bar with other wonders like the witcher 3 ....

BUT... so many things are holding it back from being the masterpiece it could easily've been... dividing the game into 2 games .. a 5 minute demo that costs 40$ ... microtrnascations ... and i think konami's influnce will cause it to release in a state like batman ... basically unplayable at launch ... and mgs online is looking up to be a pay to win with all microtransactions and possible premuim/dlc stuff

kojima decided to leave konami once and for all... after they ruined silent hill.. i hope he doesn't allow them to ruin this ... more than they've already ruined anyway

TW3, Bloodbourne or possibly MGSV will be my GOTY. Haven't really decided yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Xqx54kon8 ...

@JamesJoule

BUT... so many things are holding it back from being the masterpiece it could easily've been... dividing the game into 2 games .. a 5 minute demo that costs 40$ ... microtrnascations ... and i think konami's influnce will cause it to release in a state like batman ... basically unplayable at launch ... and mgs online is looking up to be a pay to win with all microtransactions and possible premuim/dlc stuff

kojima decided to leave konami once and for all... after they ruined silent hill.. i hope he doesn't allow them to ruin this ... more than they've already ruined anyway

1. To rate a GAME on it's masterpiece merit, you take into account... the game which in this case is Phantom Pain, not Ground Zeroes. I agree that GZ wasn't worth 40 dollars. (I completely agree with AngryJoe's review on this)

2. Microtransactions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Xqx54kon8 Basically when you pay for the game, you get everything the game offers. Nothing less.

3. You think Konami's influence will cause MGSV to run as bad as Batman? I've trouble finding a way to understand your logic. First of all, Kojami is still working on Phantom Pain and he's a perfectionist. It's highly unlikely that he'll sabotage his own crownjewel. Konami is also looking to expand the metal gear franchise so they want phantom pain to be as good as possible to attract new gamers and the fans for upcoming titles.

4. So your reasoning is kind of off. Kojima is still in command to deliver us his last Metal Gear. The game speaks for itself and blows other games away. Even at it's current 80% complete state. I don't really care about Silent Hill. Plenty of alternarives. At least Metal Gear is unique.

5. I still don't expect MGSV to win the most goty awards since gamesites are biased (Like IGN and EA) and popular games tend to get more votes.

My bets are The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4.

I do not really care as much about Graphics that I am dictated by the initial impression on how a game looks, but rather how it plays.

And from what we have seen those two games deliver alot of content, and alot of flexibility.

TW3 we all know how is, most here likely finished it already, FO4, I see potential with, but as it is not out yet, I will wait to comment too much on it.

On the other side of Things, Batman: Arkham Knight, was a letdown in quite a few areas, and I have my doubts about MGS5 (but Again I don't have the ability to predict the future, so might just be the showing that is not up to par with the actual game.

BloodBorne falls apart a bit after the halfway point, which is a shame, because it could be a contender.

And personally I consider Xenoblade Chronicles X to come too late, and initial impressions are not too favourable.

So yeah, TW3 has a very good shot. It is an incredibly well made game, incredibly fun game, and it tells a lot of really decent stories.

By your own logic you should put MGSV at number 1 since it has the highest flexibility in terms of gameplay, is a 1080p on 60 fps game, offers 100 hours of gameplay (without being a real open world game) and doesn't have the cons of an open world (tedious fetching, quests).

Riight, given that the framerates and resolution will likely be the same on the platform I will play them, on that is a non issue for me.

However in what way do you claim that MGS5 is as flexible as FO4 or TW3? As far as we have seen in GZ, that is NOT the case.

Journalists and a few lucky youtubers had the oppertunity to play the game for 1 hour to 14 and gave their preview on their websites, all echoing the same enthusiastic feedback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uE1MJSZO6c is a 40 minute demo of the Phantom Pain. Although it's only 80% finished, it gives an overall impression on what you can expect. It would be nice if you can look at it without bias against the game.

In terms of flexibility, Witcher 3 offers us a basic melee system with Withcer enhanced perks. Fallout 4 is basically a first person shooter where you also can aim for bodyparts. In Phantom Pain you have a plethora of several weaponry that you can unlock, each with their own customization and you can even create your own unique weapon by exchanging weaponparts. Plus there is leathal and non leathal weapons. (MGSV +1). In terms of combat, you have your melee and fps with Fallout 4, while in MGSV you have an astounding variety of ways to tackle a situation. The enemies in Witcher 3 and fallout 4 are straight forward. In MGSV the enemies 1. have their own stats, 2 can be fultoned to your base to recruit to your army 3. Have high artificial intellignce 4. Adapt to your tactics 5. have their own day and night rythm 6. Will call for backup when alarmed. More flexibility: The side missions are not linear. You can choose how you proceed, may it be main mission or side mission and these missions will add to the story since your actions will influence your later game. Falliut 4 has a dog and power suit. MSGV has D-Dog and D-walker. (And a Horse and Quiet the sniper). F4's dog and power suit have more limitations than D-Dog and D-Walker. You can equip all these companions as you see fit and grow in loyalty, increasing their stats. Also, these companions can be taken out, unlike the F4 dog. D-Dog can be used to attack, distract, stun, etc. In other words, the dimension of these companions is bigger. There is also the changing weatherconditions like sand storms. You can either use it to your advantage or use the phantom cigar to skip time so the sandstorm will be gone. You can also use the phantomcigar to go into the night when it's day. (dynamic weather and real time) You also don't have to play Big Boss for optional missions. You can choose a recruit. Ground Zeroes had one base. In Phantom Pain there could be 14 of Ground Zeroes bases (in scope). And Afghanistan is just one of three areas. Optional is also the multiplayersystem. There are two: mutiplayer in your single player (where players can sneak into your motherbase) and the full Metal Gear Online game that is multiplayer based.

@JamesJoule: For me yeah probably. Then again, Fallout 4 and open world Bethesda games in general have NEVER been about the graphics. I don't know why they would start being now. I don't understand why people are shocked by that.

Also if you think Fallout 4 is Fallout 3 HD you need to go replay Fallout 3. Just in terms of lighting and item density Fallout 4 is years ahead of anything Fallout 3 was even capable of on last gen hardware. Let alone the gameplay features they've added with crafting and building an outpost.

If you let graphics spoil your experience of Fallout 4 you are pathetic and not really a gamer if you ask me.

@Dannystaples14: Anyone who calls last-gen remakes "HD" remakes is an idiot, they were already in HD lol.

graphics are important but it's not the only and main reason why fallout 4 is such a big disappointment

@Epak_: Yes but because TV companies normally label 1080p as true-HD or just HD and 720p as HD ready, 1080p has basically become the standard for HD.

I mean the term is pretty much relative anyway. In a few years when 4K TV stations start to be rolled out more looking back at "HD" and 1080p won't look particularly high definition at all. Just the same as looking back at the 360/PS3 doesn't look particularly high definition now either. It looks high definition compared to PS2, but PS2 also looked high definition compared to PS1.

It is nothing but an arbitrary label created by TV sellers to make it less ambiguous for non-technies who are scared of numbers. Just the same as Ultra HD will be if 8K ever comes along.

@JamesJoule: Not really. I'd still be playing my PS1 now if they still made games for it.

Graphics are nice and it has always been good to see how each new era of gaming progresses but as games like Crysis prove having great graphics don't necessarily make the game better. Crysis is one of dullest trilogies I've ever played. I never even played 3. I know I can't run it but the main point is I doubt I'd play it even if I could run it.

A great game will still be a great game even if the graphics are improved a bit. Sure isn't going to be making the game vastly superior having a bit more foliage on the PC version or whatever they like to make out. The only thing you need when playing games is comfort and fun. Tick those two and you can't go wrong.

Honestly I'd rather they kept the resolution and graphics the same as they were on the 360/PS3 this gen and made the games actually fun to play. Large worlds, awesome physics, environment destruction.

I don't care about damn rain droplets on Batman's Cloak when I'm flying through a city fighting bad guys!

They should focus more on the game and less on the pixels. More Batman kicking ass and less BS about the rain and paper flying about.

You can make your own weapon in FO4 and TW3 too, so that is a moot point, combat is the only solution (well stealth in a combat situation is there, but MGS has never been a true stealth game, and MGS5 less so. Meaning that FO4 has more ways to disarm a situation from the get go, it has more ways to transport, and you can build your own Places if you feel like it.

And don't forget you can custom craft the armors in FO4, not just the power armor, which in itself looks like it has more custimizations then anything in MGS5.

Now both TW3 and FO4 offers non violent solutions to conflict, and a certainty that there are more ways of completing a task. So no MGS5 has none of those.

If you think the enemies in TW3 is straight farwards, then I assume you never playied it, they are anything but. Often requireing a good deal of prep Work beforehand.

What we have seen of MGS 5 does not suggest you have a wide range of ways to tackle the situations, from what we have seen, Yeah FO has had companions since FO1, and TW3 strongly depends on the choices you make towards people, so moot point there.

The Witcher 3, has day/night effects, and even rain and storm that influence monster patters, so that matters in tW3 aswell, making it a moot point Again what you write, and FO4? well we know it has weather patterns, impact is likely not great.

So basicly you harald the time passing, of TW3 meditation, or the FO "wait" option, and claim it as a bonus for MGS5? Again moot point, both games shares it with MGS5 like pretty much everything else you stated so far.

From what we have seen, you have very limited choice in MGS5, from what we playied of the highly priced demo, it is a stealth till you are detected then shoot your way out.

No way of disarming the situation before it getting violent, there are WAY less weapon opti9ons then what there even was in FO3, no reason to suspect less in FO4. And as I noted, TW3 always reballances itself on the choices you make, giving it the claims of being one of the very few games where choices really matter. Ther ehas never been a MGS game which offered anythingi even remotely same depth. And since the MGS series is very story driven, I have Little reason to believe that it has any depth, and neither do you since none of us have playied it yet.

So your final defence of MGS5 is an optional MP system? in the lack of the systems, and options avaiable in TW3, and what we have even seen in older Fallouts, you bank on tacked on MP?

So no, MGS so far seems far less flexible nor have more options then FO4 or TW3. All points except for MP is also is TW3 and FO4, except you know, custom base Building (FO4), widely branching story by choices (TW3), more limited in scope of engagement, far less solving of issues outside of comabt (from what we have seen, I doubt MGS will have anything like it, but since it has not been shown either for or against, it is our guesses.

Less weapons, less armor, less choice (by the look of it, and 14 bases Means very Little, if the ways of going through them is not widely varried (as in never fireing a shot, simply go in, in an enemy uniform, grab a folder and fake past the guards, which I doubt wil happen). And I highly doubt it will be more technical then FO4 or TW3, given how it can run on the age old processors of the 360 and PS3 (however that does not mean that Fo4 or TW3 would be more technical either, they would simply have had more room for added ai instructions, due to more powerful minimum specs, we do not know if FO4 will have great ai rutines, however everything you mentioned ai wise FO3 did aswell).

So no I am sorry but you have written no points that is not also present in some way or another in the two other games, or have an equalant (might state that the notion of detective Work in TW3, outsets the better traversal of MGS5). But that is basicly a Whole added part of that game, which we have seen very Little of in MGS5.

It sounds more and more like you have not playied TW3, or a previous FO game.

You clearly did not see the video:

1. "(well stealth in a combat situation is there, but MGS has never been a true stealth game, and MGS5 less so" I'm sorry, but this reads as 1+1=3. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about since stealth in MGS5 is the preferred option since it gives you more rewards and is less risky, especially since the ai is very intelligent. "Meaning that FO4 has more ways to disarm a situation from the get go" This also reads as 1+1=3 since clearly you can either kill, stun,recruit and/or interrogate the enemy for info or blueprints. As far as I know, neither Fallout 4 nor Witcher 3 offers all these options. (You lose the argument)

2. "And don't forget you can custom craft the armors in FO4, not just the power armor, which in itself looks like it has more custimizations then anything in MGS5" MGSV offers the same level of customization for the game. Since Fallout 4 is an RPG, I hope they offer a plethora of options. Increasing the amount of craftoptions in MGSV would be redundant since it would lose it's functionality. Other than that you can customize your buddies (companions). Something Witcher 3 doesn't have. The power suit in Fallout 4 can be upfgraded, but it remains one dimensional since the D-walker can be equipped for stealth and combat: melee and ranged. (You lose the argument)

3. "Now both TW3 and FO4 offers non violent solutions to conflict, and a certainty that there are more ways of completing a task. So no MGS5 has none of those." *shakes head*.. You're either ignoring my words on purpose or just... it should be clear by now that you have the oppertunity to tackle any mission as you see fit in MSGV. This includes the stories of your potential buddies. This extension of freedom is found both in side missions as in the main mission.

4. "The Witcher 3, has day/night effects, and even rain and storm that influence monster patters, so that matters in tW3 aswell, making it a moot point Again what you write, and FO4? well we know it has weather patterns, impact is likely not great." Effects, yes.. but it's not the same as in MGSV where you can actually influence the weatherconditions or day and night. FO4 as far as I know does not have dynamic weather nor can it manipulate real time passage. TW3 does have that.

5. "From what we have seen, you have very limited choice in MGS5, from what we playied of the highly priced demo, it is a stealth till you are detected then shoot your way out." Hmmm didn't you say "but MGS has never been a true stealth game, and MGS5 less so" At this point I can not value your view since it reeks of bias against MGSV. Especially since you claim that you have limited choice (which is just a straight lie). At least try to be a man and be honest. "it is a stealth till you are detected then shoot your way out." No shit.. MGSV is a tactical Espionage Operation Game.. and it still offers more combat flexibility than FO4 (merely fps) and Witcher 3 (basic melee and witcher perks). (You lose the argument). The true flexibility lies in the micro management. What is the nature of the mission - What will I need - What do I need to make first - Which Buddy to take - What gear to equip myself and my buddy. All these decisions have functional value. You can't go in and treat it like COD or B4. It actually makes you use your brain since it can be unforgiving. (Again, you lose the argument)

6. It is true that choices haven't really mattered in previous games. Those were indeed also story driven. What you have to realize is that those were not open world based and had other game mechanics. So don't compare those games with Withcer 3. I do understand that you want to use them as an example that choices don't matter, but in MSGV the choices you make do. I know in Witcher 3 the choices are important, but that is on a grand scheme of things. The depth of MSGV is it's story and it's interface with the openworld. Since it's not an RPG game it's a unique game that implements elements of an open world to make decisionmaking something very important. Like I said before, it begins with prepping (What technologies to discover, what and who to take, etc) besides that you have the freedom to tackle any situation how you want in a non linear world and with surprises: Here the bossfights aren't introduced in a very loud manner.. they come very unexpected, like the bossfight against Quiet the sniper (epic battle). So you either don't kill her or you don't get her as a companion. If you keep her as a buddy then the morale of your motherbase (troops) will drop. meaning their stats will decrease. If you have D-Dog, the reverse effect will take place.

7. "in the lack of the systems, and options avaiable in TW3, and what we have even seen in older Fallouts, you bank on tacked on MP?" I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you mean. Your English is rather poor, sorry. But rest assured that MGSV's motherbase will be grand. The jeeps on motherbase aren't for show. You'll need them to go from one area to another when you expand your base. And ofcourse the story easily beats both games. (You lose your arguments)

8. "It sounds more and more like you have not playied TW3, or a previous FO game" I started with Witcher 3 since I got a free voucher with a new graphics card and finished it. Fallout I played 1, 2 and 3 (not las vegas) and liked the mechanics of 1 and 2 better. I'm an avid RPG fan (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age Origins) and can look at a game without too much bias. I'm not saying that Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 are bad games, on the contrary, I,m looking forward to Fallout 4. But that doesn't mean I have to be narrow minded like you and deny MGSV it's place as number 1 in terms of gameplay mechanics, depth, story and innovation. I'm sad to say this, but you 1 contradict yourself 2. ignore or deny things and seem adamant to detract the magnitude of MGSV in it's scope compared to the other titles. And let's not forget here.. we're comparing TWO titles here with ONE game.. and still MSGV seem the more polished. I'd respect you more if you said that you don't like MSG and be done with it.

What is the 1 main negative thing people have said about MGS4? Very little gameplay compared to the cutscenes. Well MGS5 being open world means ENDLESS amount of gameplay. And with a lot of the character story/development going to be on cassette tapes rather then cutscenes, the game will be alot more fluid.

And microtransations wont effect the game at all. You will still unlock everything in the game just by playing it. Microtransations are just for people who dont feel like unlocking it. Doesnt bother me how others play their game.

And MGO is looking hot as well and has its fan base from the past games.

We all have our opinions until MGS5 comes out and completely DESTROYS that shitty 92/100 score on metacritic with a big 96 like almost all MGS games get because its simply one of the best games ever made.

MGS5 will be game of the year. Count on it.

And lol at it not being a stealth game. wtf are you talking about? The game is what ever you make it to be. If you want it to be a stealth game then its a stealth game. If you want it to be a TPS game then thats what it is. Its that complete freedom that makes this game surpass everything else. This is me fighting every enemy in witcher 3. (square, square, square, roll, square square, square). I couldnt even finish the game and i dont intend to because the combat is just so basic. Bloodborne makes the witcher 3 combat look amateurish.

Bla bla, pointless blabber, don't forget that we already got the "prequal" for MGS5 out, it will likely not be widely different.

And thanks for proving my point by only mentioning combat *rolls eyes* Nice to see people only thinking in confrontation, which is why TW3 might be the better game.

And hey atleast TW 3 has you know, choice, and the game recognizes the consequenzes of your actions. But hey feel free playing a 3rd tier shooter with Little depth. They even removed that from the MGS series now, and that is in part why I have no faith in MGS5, it even lacks MGS.

Broad audience and all that crap.

@Omega-316

Indeed, maddie is just anti-MGSV and can't be taken serious, especially since he doesn't make sense and is contradicting himself. Though goty awards tend to be based on bias and endorcement (like IGN and EA) Not to mention popularity which does't equal best. I have to admit that I didn't like Witcher 3 because of the same boring gameplay (melee) and lack of companions). In that regard I liked Dragon Age: Inquisition more. Still I can see where Witcher 3 gets his high marks from.

Proof that you didn't see enough video footage of the Phantom Pain. Your ignorance is exposed and your anti-MGSV stance for all to see.

You seem not to be able to grasp the basics of infiltration which means stealth, which means staying out of sight which means no direct confrontation.

For the rest your view is deemed worthless since it reeks of ignorance and bias. Since no intelligent debate can flow out of this, I will just cease. It has nothing to do with your broken English, I swear.

1. No I know exactly what I talk about, hence the problem, get spotted? shoot whoever spotted you in a easy to master slow Down segment. Get spottet Again? just keep at it. Setting the alarm for the base off? no problem, you are a one man army. GZ taught us nothing less. We have already seen the basic ai in the game, it is NOT intelligent, easily exploitable and made to be exactly so, or do you seriously think they wil rework the ai from GZ?

No in FO3 you can convince, kill, make momentary Allies, pay to get out of a situation, get Allies to fight, sneak past, hack for info. Sounds like less options? Yeah no. And you can stun in FO, and knock out, you can also assassinate (nade in the pants?). By previous game, I doub't we should expect more or less.

TW4 allows for: determening if someone is or is not your enemy., allow to get involved or not (and not have it be a failure state, unless ofcourse you can walze right into an army base in MGS5 take whatever you need and go out, with a "no thanks, no combat for me" So TW3 offers an option there. It allwos for mind control, both inside and outside combat, where is that in MGS5?

2. And you know absolutely nothing of what the FO4 power armor can do, do you? no? thought so. You brought this point up in your original post and you yourself backtrack on it, seems like you are the one not knowing what you talked about here? We have armors for stealth, combat, long range, close range, repair, maintenance, and whatnot in FO3, While we do not know the armors they have in FO4, they did mention that they would be more diverse. SO far FO3 even beats MGS5, so your point does still nto stand. However this is about TW3 possible being game of the year. So for TW3 we have: speed, ability to throw signs easier, more flexible, faster and take more damage. In a game that is mostly about close combat, it does indeed not have the range, but does have as many options.

3. No you were the one that stated that MGS5 would be the candidate by its flexibility. I make an argument that it is NOT infact more flexible, and does not have the ingame systems to be more flexible then TW3, I would argue that TW3 has by far the more flexible systems. You are the one making the claim, and never backed it up. We can not tackle any mission however we want in MGS5, that is a straight up lie, we can tackle them in any orde,r but not in any way, that is false.

4. you brought this up as a point Unique to MGs5, I pointed out that both have the same. and yeah FO have had the ability to jump farwards in time, chose the time you want to act, with the day night cycle, altering to your whims. We know that FO will have multiple weather patterns, we have already seen rain, storm,s sun, day and night, we all know that you can change the time of the day by pressing using the "wait function"

5. Yes I am very biased against what we have seen in MGS5, because it is hardly even MGS anymore. Combat is a viable solution, Kojima stated it, we have seen it, and for FO4? it is not an FPS game, but a hybrid, moreso then FO3, which were an RPG. And no I do not lose the argument, because TW3 allows for more then combat. Hence why it has more flexible gameplay. And I never stated "combat felxibility" that is something you felt the need to change, I stated that the game had more flexibility, you changed this ofcourse because in terms of flexibility MGS5 would not even be in the same area. ANd in combat it would lose out to FO3, let alone what weve heard from FO4.

And in TW3? well combat is not the best point of the game, still allows for multiple ways to deal with combat, such as ranged combat, mind control, traps, melee, basic magic, oils, poisons, bombs, and potions. Unless you play on the beginning difficulty, prep Work is also in order. But then Again, this is just stacked up against the combat flexibility, as I just stated flexibility.

6. I use them as a point, because it is in part the same people making MGS5, I have little faith in how well choices will be implemented, and framkly you know as little about this subject as me, as neither of us has playied Phantom pain.

How does this game NOT have limited choice? compared to TW3 or the possible FO4? Mind explaining me? You see the entire story changes in TW3 depending on choice. Yeah the story, It is heralded as one of few games that can do that, and as a Series TW is Unique because it can change the entire story based on choice, Places you will never see, people you will never meet. When it comes to choice, I simply don't have faith in a game that comes from a series which have never had much in choice.

And shall we rake up what FO has in choice on average in the series when comes to combat? Stealth, Melee, Rangend (sniping, support weapons, standard ranged), poisoning, assassination, hacking, bringing friends to the fight, sabotage, boobytrapping, heavy support (walking tanks gotta Count here).

As for companions? well In TW3 WHO you take as an ally or friend, and WHO you don't, range far further then morale and ideals of an army base. In TW3 why you pick as an ally can kill villages, set in motion events that will impact the world around you, and have an impact on who the player is, shifting goals. Wuite a bit more far reaching then morale.

7. What I stated was that trying to make MP sound as a worthwhile system in MGS 5 was pretty foolish. We have had MGS games before (and yes if you have not found out till now, I did play most of the MGS games (all the way back to the MG games) and MP never were very good. stated that having too high hopes in the MP would likely not be a good idea, as it has never been pulled off too well in the past. The size of a base does not tetermine quality *sigh if you think so, you are likely very Young. And I hightly doubt we will see very complex systems here Again, MGS has never been complicated.

As a seperate matter that you brought up: Remind me Again why we should think the story would be better then TW3? Makes it sound like you have not playied it. Again, we do not know if the story in MGS5 will be good. All either of us knows, is that MGS never had a good story, fun stories, sure, but not good. If you try to make it sound like any MGS game had a good story I will have to start questioning if you ever playied an MGS before. Good characters, horrible storyies.

8. So you have playied all those games, yet state straight up lies about them for, what? 3 posts or so? No sorry Bias at its finest.

So you playied all fo games, and did not know it had all those combat systems, and systems outside of combat? Heralded MGS5 for having systems that both of the other titles have? and you did not have a clue that you could alter time in a FO game? (which you could even from the first?)

Sorry don't talk about Bias when you yourself is filled with it.

And You are wrong, I do not dislike MGS5, but I do not have as high hopes for it as you do. Likely because I was an MG fan since Since the first port to NES. And the systems I saw in GZ were not only all that impressive, they abandoned most of that were good in the MGS series, In order to make a game which chases after a wider audience. Why do you think I dislike the Whole chance to kill off anyone that sees you for so long option MGS5 gives? MGS were never a stealth series, but open combat were never something you would do plan for (as you died easily), what I saw from GZ, was not even something that could be recognized as MGS. But then Again, while I DO acknowlage MGS4 as a MGS game, I think most of us could see the end of the franchice there.

But then, this was your argument:

"By your own logic you should put MGSV at number 1 since it has the highest flexibility in terms of gameplay, is a 1080p on 60 fps game, offers 100 hours of gameplay (without being a real open world game) and doesn't have the cons of an open world (tedious fetching, quests)."

Read that through yourself a few times, and you will liekly find why I can and will not agree with you. Combat gameplay mentioned? and Bias.

Why do I know? The game is not out yet, read my first post in comparison.

"My bets are The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4.

I do not really care as much about Graphics that I am dictated by the initial impression on how a game looks, but rather how it plays.

And from what we have seen those two games deliver alot of content, and alot of flexibility.

TW3 we all know how is, most here likely finished it already, FO4, I see potential with, but as it is not out yet, I will wait to comment too much on it.

On the other side of Things, Batman: Arkham Knight, was a letdown in quite a few areas, and I have my doubts about MGS5 (but Again I don't have the ability to predict the future, so might just be the showing that is not up to par with the actual game.

BloodBorne falls apart a bit after the halfway point, which is a shame, because it could be a contender.

And personally I consider Xenoblade Chronicles X to come too late, and initial impressions are not too favourable.

So yeah, TW3 has a very good shot. It is an incredibly well made game, incredibly fun game, and it tells a lot of really decent stories"

Bias, year that is rich.

I won't even read this since you're just anti-MGSV and can't get passed butthurt points (the changes made to the game) and you don't see MGSV as a stealth game 'even less than MGSIV'. I don't waste my time with narrow minded people like you with so much bias against a game. Your view means nothing.