Why I Find Metal Gear Solid Overrated

I took the time to play the Metal Gear Solid series for the first time. I got through all of the games (not 100%), and I have to say: I'm more than unimpressed. For such a fantastic and intriguing premise, I was surprised that very little of it was engaging to me. I liked the characters, and the gameplay was good, if a little clunky, but here are the things that piss me off the most about this series.

TheEnvironments

To put it simply, there's not enough variety to keep me visually stimulated. People complain about modern military shooters consisting of mostly gun metal gray and brown shades all over the place, and yet I'm seeing similar settings in the MGS series. The first game? In a mostly gray military compound. MGS2? You're on an oil tanker and some sort of plant, both of which are mostly gray. MGS3? It's a forest, sure, which is a wonderful change of pace, but that's all it amounts to. And MGS4? You're in the Middle East, which is mostly shades of brown and sand. Not one location has engaged me long enough in the visual sense. I don't want to be in these levels. I get that the nature of the story limits the kinds of locations you could find government encounters in, but with all the crazy crap they put you through, they could've had a bit more creativity in the environments.

The Story

This will be without spoilers, just so you know. I'm all for government conspiracy stories. I like the premise of shadow organizations shifting the balance of power in the world. I like the espionage elements. However, two problems occurred as I played. One was that the story grew so convoluted and so complex that it became increasingly difficult to follow. Too many plot twists just for the sake of having them, horrendous and redundant exposition dumps, and a lack of understanding of basic science were all red flags from the start. Kojima may have great ideas, but his execution needs drastic work.

and I know what you're thinking: "oh, well it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek because it breaks the fourth wall and nobody takes anything too seriously." Oh, how wrong you are on that last bit. Now, with the first game, the fourth wall breaks are fun and silly. However, the joke got old right with the next game, and they started using them pointlessly. Which makes me sad because the story takes itself way too seriously. In a conspiracy story, it makes sense for things to get serious. That's not the issue. The campy acting, fourth wall breaks, and general silliness of some of the characters' actions and dialogues, at least to me, serve to undermine the experience as a whole, leaving the whole tone of the games inconsistent at best and irritating at worst.

The Gameplay

While the basics of the gameplay are functional and can be fun in certain sections, I find that it becomes needlessly complicated at times. I don't know if its having to hold down so many buttons for a lot of basic functions like using a gun properly, or if it's the too human movement mechanics feeling stiff and clunky whereas Snake is supposed to be this agile mobile stealth army, but the gameplay itself just doesn't feel right at times. MGS4 fixed a lot of the movement issues, to be sure, but the rest of the series still suffers from this. I had little issues with the camera, but the AI were ridiculously bad, either being selectively deaf or hoplessly blind until you fall into their arbitrary sights. In the first game its understandable. The PS1 wasn't exactly known for its intelligence in enemy patterns. But to have the same problems persist into the PS2 games and to some extent in MGS4 was more than a little annoying.

And there you have it. My reasons for why I think Metal Gear Solid, as a franchise, is overrated. If you like it, that's fine. Go ahead and enjoy these games. There's lots to find interesting and/or engaging in them. I just feel like people too often overlook the issues or ignore them altogether.

And please, if you want to discuss, please be reasonable human beings. Or else I'll send Snake over to your house and have him snap your neck silently.

Well that's one hell of a long opening post , I'll read it in full detail later when I'm more patient ,and post again .For now, I gotta say , I totally agree that MGS series are much too much overrated.They certainly don't live up to their reputation,especially the most recent entries , MGS4 and other ones released after that.

MGS 3 was good though.

I love the gameplay and environments in MGS but I'm with you on the storylines. Especially when the games tend to unload far too many details and twists in one cut scene. I think Sons of Liberty is the most guilty of that with codec conversations that go on for about half an hour... I find myself waiting and waiting to get back to the action and when I finally do, I don't really want to play anymore.

Yeah it's an overrated series, but I've still enjoyed the games I played (1, 2, 3 and Peace Walker). the Gamecube version of 1 was a lot of fun, although yeah cut scenes got to be ridiculous. 2 was my least favorite (ludicrous cut scenes and the plot became way too complicated). But 3 had the best balance of story and gameplay. The story was never too complex, meaning it was pretty easy to follow, and the gameplay was fairly open ended with all the wide open environments. Plus dat Snake Eater. Finally, Peace Walker actually has really fun and addictive gameplay. Story was meh though.

So yes I find the series to be overrated, but still enjoyable.

It is overrated. Around the same time Homeworld came out as Metal Gear Solid on the Playstation. It was leagues better and a far superior cinematic gaming never given the credit it deserves, mostly due to console gamers and console focused media having never fucking played it in the first place.

A truly criminal injustice.

I don't think it's overrated, in fact I love it, I love everything about it. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Metal Gear Solid is one of my favorite franchises. It's definitely not for everyone and honestly not everything should be made to appeal to everyone. It's a shame that Kojima is cutting back on the cutscenes in Phantom Pain to appeal more to the casuals.

Not every game appeals to everyone who plays games. You don't like Metal Gear Solid. No big deal.

Dude, are you seriously suggesting that he is cutting back on cut scenes for casual gamers? People complained about the cut scenes in MGS4. Seriously man.

It's not for everybody.

It's totally unique to every other series out there. In my opinion, video games are the great medium for storytelling. And Metal Gear Solid celebrates this to the fullest. Have there been a few missteps along the way, (Liquid's Arm, mishandling of the Patriots lore) yes. But the world Hideo and his team have created is so far reaching and intriguing.

You could talk for weeks and not even broach the subject of gameplay. To me that says something.

I won't address your quips aside from saying I love the gameplay, it's got a sandbox element and it's unique to every other game. And as for varied environments? In MGS4 you go to the Middle East, South America, Europe, Alaska and ultimately a floating ark.

What more do you need?

You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with you on nearly EVERY single level.

@Netret0120: So state some counterpoints. Saying I disagree isn't enough to stimulate discussion, and when I saw this thread I thought that there would be a legitimately good discussion of the merits and faults of the series (and to me, there's plenty on both sides).

I enjoyed Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater & not going to disagree with that. Metal Gear Solid is an good, but not great gaming series (overrated & not bashing the series at all).

The Metal Gear franchise has a certain level of craziness found no game, that's why I enjoy it so much.

what does Sierra's and Relic entertainments Homeworld have anything to do with this topic? is it just a comparison? sure it's one of the best RTS games of all time, even bested by 2, but... really? no offence, but y u do dis?

me too. i find it appeals to the manga loving crowd, and while not everyone is into manga by a long shot (i'm more into the anime myself) it still appeals to those who love well duh convoluted and zany storylines, and tons of exposition (sometimes, if you must know, it's done on purpose in MGS:2 BTW mastermetal777 because it's entire story revolves around the "breaking of game with reality" and surrealism. it's the whole point: same thing with Liquids arm. PS: i laughed so hard when i heard that, and "the La Li Lu Le Lo!?" just made me double over in lulz; which is hardly game breaking for me.)

still haven't played 3 yet, the supposed crowning achievement in the series, so yeah, i might not have all my discretion yet. and 4 wasn't finished either, so i got alot of catching up to do before Phantom Pain. (AND Peace Walker too. gonna get the collection sometime when i am in the mood for the insanity of it all)

I respect the franchise, But I dont personally like any of the games, side from RISING, which I surprisingly loved!

I'm fully convinced Kojima is one of the worst writers on Earth. If the game didn't take itself too seriously this may not be an issue, but as the TC notes, it does. Kojima goes to all these extensive lengths to make his games so technically accurate to the last detail and tactic, and then fills them with such garbage as soda drinking monkeys, fecal humor, and snatch bombs. And for what? There's no POINT to any of it, it's all just unnecessary immature, juvenile garbage simply to be there.

I thoroughly enjoyed GZ's gameplay, but I do wish someone with some skill with the pen would write the story as MGS has always been so contingent upon it. But at this point, it'd be better just to start over. Combine Tom Clancy's writing with Kojima's design=one of the best games ever.

Not to be.

l guess it depends.

Most of the series is 10+ years old, MGS4 is 6 years old and you're complaining about their ageing mechanics and story?

People forget how long it has been these days because the last gen went on forever, but remember HL2 came out in 2004 and HL came out in 1998, that was 6 years and people couldn't even imagine playing HL back then, at least MGS4 is still rather playable today.

Makes me laugh when people also say HL2 is overrated and they've just played it........ it is 10 years old lol.

@mastermetal777: I get what your saying about having to hold so many buttons down to use some of the guns properly, and cut scenes can get a little silly but I still liked them even with the exaggerated dramatics.

Love everything about MGS.

What games gameplay do you consider to be better than MGS?

How much of MGS4 did you play...? There's only one act that takes place in the Middle East.

You're insane if you think that.

I love MGS, but I think everyone should acknowledge that Kojimas way of telling stories, while incredible at the time, is an outdated form of telling a tale for video games. I think its smart to shorten the cutscenes to make the story and action flow better. MGS3 is still an incredible game, but it's story just doesn't flow as well today with its overly long info dumps and awkward transitions.

Yeah, it seems like most of op's issues have to do with the age of the games. I've been replaying the collection recently and they do feel a little dated, but definitely not outdated -- and that points to their brillance = when released, they were way ahead of their time, so much so that almost a decade later they still are very playable. Not many games can make that claim.

IMO the best thing about the series is the attention to detail. After playing the tanker incident, to this day, anytime I see a projector in a game I walk in front of it to see if I cast a shadow -- most games don't bother getting that detail right. Its the lityle details that separate the materpieces from the run of mill games. The MG were all masterpieces in their time.

Now, as for the story. ... eh, you either love b-movies, or you don't. That does come down to a matter of taste. At least no one can say the story is boring/generic, which is a problem a great many games have to this day.

i'd like to see anyone deliver a better story to the MGS franchise.

it's campy, and it's suppose to be. alot of people seem to misunderstand that factor entirely, and opt for being whiny about the whole thing. there are NO realistic stories in video games. i defy anyone of you to actually give an example of a game with a realistic and plausible and well thought out story. hell, even a film for God sake. gopher it.

Legacy of Kain, Planescape: Torment, The Last of Us, Spec Ops: The Line, Silent Hill 2, Marathon; hell, maybe even Myst or The Longest Journey

Eh. what good is counterpoints? you think its overated its my second favorite franchise of all time. Any high profile game/series is going to be in arguments like this with no points just really subjective opinions tinted with nostalgia. Some people also think FFVII is the best RPG of all time, I do not. I could argue its not even a real RPG. But would that change anyones opinion? Make a stimulating conversation? No and no.

Some games just should not be in threads like this. At best you get I like it, I don't answers, at worst flame wars.

MGS series one of the best series i ever played

MGS is probably one of the best video game series ever. But holy crap did Kojima screw up with 2. It's probably one of the most uninspired pieces of trash I've ever played in my life. How Kojima could write something as compelling as mgs1 and then follow it up with the clusterf**k that was 2 I'll never completely understand. He did recover with mgs3 though. As for 4 and 5 - can't speak for them because I haven't played them yet.

MGS may fall flat on its face at times, however it is NOT overrated. Kojima is a brilliant story-teller - it's just that about 20% of the time he can be really stupid.

Spec Ops: The Line is pretty realistic and has a brilliant plot. The Last of Us has a very well thought out story grounded in reality (the infected in the game are based on a real-life fungus that affects ants and other insects, and they applied it to humans). Most of Rockstar's games are based on realistic settings and/or stories, and some have come out with amazing stories (Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire, Bully, and GTA to some extent). Heavy Rain is a pretty realistic plot (barring some hollywood moments) that's very plausible - serial killers are most definitely out there.

I think it's pretty ignorant to think there's no realism in video games when there are many examples that prove otherwise.

I don't play many stealth games, honestly, so I couldn't give a proper comparison. I am a fan of the Splinter Cell games though, and I hold Dishonored and the Deus Ex franchise in high regard for their approach to stealth gameplay. But in terms of pure stealth games like MGS, like I said, I can't really say.

MGS 2 was suppose to be that way. It was part of the theme of miscommunication and expectations. Unfortunately, almost all of MGS2 was retconned in the PoS that was MGS4.

Anyone saying MGS2 has a terrible plot should read this. It was all intentional.

http://metagearsolid.org/reports_vr_theory_2.html

Wow, really? Just because I think MGS is overrated, I automatically don't qualify as a gamer? Cuz everybody is supposed to all like the same thing, right? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't like the MGS series. Big deal. I don't like a lot of popular franchises, but that doesn't make me any less a gamer for it. I love more games than I don't.

Like I said, not everything needs to cater to everyone. Fans of the series already know what to expect. Franchises or any concurrent theme start to lose value when you start questioning out how can you appeal to people outside your core audience who have no interest. If people don't enjoy Metal Gear Solid, no one is forcing them to play it.

For example I've grown to dislike turn based combat in JRPGs. It was fine when I was younger but now I prefer real time combat. I shouldn't expect Final Fantasy games or Ni No Kuni to appeal to my particular dislikes. Instead I can simply chose to play RPGs more to my liking.

you missed the part of post (and the post i was responding to apparently) where i asked for a game that was "NOT campy, and had total realism and yet had a good story." you named nothing even close to a realistic game other then Spec Ops, and i'll argue that is your only choice that makes any sense... i'd also argue that while the game has an interesting plot premise, that it also doesn't have a great fleshed out story, really. though that's only my opinion.

zactly.

Splinter Cell, now that's a good example of a realistic game with great story line and that wasn't campy (well, the first few) and was a great series... it continues to be great even though it's campiness has been increased. but i still say, these games are a rarity.

all the above games are campy though. they are entirely campy, even Spec ops. the Last of US comes close, but... those spores that infect people and turn them into zombies is NOT realistic.

i think i probably was out of line when i said there were no games with these concepts in mind... but it's extremely rare to be pulled off. i mean, look i can think of another one that almost fits the bill,... SWAT. but was SWAT a game series that had a fleshed out all encapsulating storyline? i think the closest i've seen so far to realistic, plausible and well thought out story that isn't campy (which is the whole argument) was the mention of Splinter Cell. since we're all talking about our frankly sometimes ridiculous opinions, i think i am gonna change mine to include that game. that's the only one i can think of. there are probably some army games that be looked at as having a non-campy and realistic and well thought out and plausible story, but they are among the few. *shrug*

The way I see, it was never the amount of cutscenes or the length of them that fans loved, it was the story. As long as Mr. Kojima crafts a great story ( that may lack some of that goofiness of the past games), he will be doing his job. A developer cannot restrict themselves to the same formula. Sometimes creating a new amazing experiences means taking a familiar franchise in a whole new direction ( which is something that is not being completely done with TPP).

Look at FF. That series is going in a whole new direction with XV, and the fans will either except for what it is and judge it by what it does as a game, or criticize for not being what THEY view as a FF game.

No franchise is going to stay the same. Even if the creators do not desire to appeal to others.

I disagree...for the most part. I loved the environments for the most part, the outside of Big Shell got old but was only a used to get from point to point. The middle-Eastern setting was the only one I found rather meh; but for some reason I didn't mind it as much as I normally would. I can't put my finger on it. MGS (while old) really used darker shades alot of the time, and I never really felt bored what I was looking at it. The hard cold greys,blacks and what not made me feel alone on the mission at hand with only a handful of people for support. The Jungle/forest setting in MGS 3 is just brilliant. It goes from Jungle, to caves, mountains, bases; its really great and i feel like it has been the best setting so far. The jungle was really alive, and I thought looked quite nice.

The story is something I understand; it gets long winded in 2 and 4 and its very easy to get tripped up in. However, I think this is a point that is a bit more subjective. I love the twists, and the conspiracies and just everything about the MGS story. Again though, I can see how it can turn some people off and I don't blame people if its not their thing.

The controls I half agree. MGS 1 the controls were pretty bad and its part of the reason its probably my least favorite in the series. However i feel like the issue with the guards sight is corrected in three. The guards vision never really bothered me in 1 and 2, it played to the style of stealth in those games. I do prefer their patterns and vision in three though and how the stealth works in that game.

It's not about appealing to everyone. In fact, MGS5 looks like it will appeal to the least amount of people. It's cutting back on the sci-fi stuff and inserting darker themes which some will likely find distasteful. You don't have to be a huge fan of Metal Gear and actually think that the overly long cutscenes were amazing. Peace Walker had short cutscenes, and I think its possibly the best Metal Gear game to date.

Well from a pure gameplay standpoint it fails at what it is advertised to be: a stealth game.

Kojima seems to take years to figure out most mechanics that Thief has been doing since 1998.

Picking up bodies , light and dark systems , variable foot step sounds on different surfaces to name a few.

But the narrative is really something to look up to despite all the silliness. Plus the ending in MGS 4 is the perfect example of how to bring a loooooong story to a satisfying end and my favourite ending besides Portal 1/2's ending.

Many will disagree, as do I.

F*CKING STINGER MISSILES AND GIANT MECHS

@cooolio: Damn those casuals for actually wanting to play a game! Can't they just appreciate a good movie?!

I think you are a fool for calling someone who want more gameplay over 40min cut-scenes a casual.

@iamllamapie: Wait. You are referring to the guy that I replied to right?

@cooolio: Yeah, wrong person. Forgive me?

It is overrated . Games like Thief were way ahead of their time when MGS was released on PS1 . The main problem with MGS had been its story , which is stupid , yet the game tries hard to take everything seriously . Cutscenes are long and boring , backgrounds in those cutscenes are completely empty with nothing really going on and characters are just running here and there doing odd things to make cutscene longer . Too bad instead of being epic , it mostly feels over dramatic .

I think you're misinterpreting the word "campy" here. Just because there requires some level of suspension of disbelief doesn't make something campy. Camp, by definition, is when something is appealing or humorous because of how ridiculous it is to the viewer. A fungal infection that infects humans and turns them into a form of living zombie? That's science fiction, not camp. The difference is that it's plausible, where as in something that's camp, it's too ridiculous to ever be considered realistic. Examples of camp would be the Adam West Batman series (as well as the Joel Schumaker films), Twin Peaks, Monty Python, plays like Hairspray, and many more.

A lot of games fall into the camp territory, this is true. Metal Gear Solid is one such example. But to say that there are no non-campy games is a little misinformed. Most games make you suspend your disbelief, but that doesn't make them campy. Would you consider science fiction works like Blade Runner or Ender's Game campy because they require the viewer to leave reality for a short time and look at the fictional future? No, because they're all plausible outcomes and have generally serious overtones. They're not over-the-top silly to the point where it's funny.

Cutscenes are bad.... No matter how good or short they are. Theres already a medium built from the groud up on the concept of passive storytelling.... Let games be games.

@Lulu_Lulu: I don't see cutscenes as bad if 1) they're not overused 2) they don't intrude and cause inconsistencies with gameplay and story. Cutscenes are not inherently bad. Their misuse is.

@mastermetal777

Imagine cutscenes as fire and Gameplay as water. More of one is bad for the other. Because they are literally opposing concepts.

Let me be clear about what it is that I'm saying... Cutscenes are not good for games, thats a fact. They are only good for how people perceive games...

Its kinda like alcohol and movies, Alcohol is not good for movies.... Its only good for how you perceive movie when you're drunk off your ass.

People think I'm telling them they shouldn't enjoy cutscenes.... I'm not... They can watch all the cutscenes they want..... On TV.... The entire platform was designed so you could sit on your couch and do nothing but watch.... Why put that in games ? (no matter how short)

It would be one thing if the medium for watching stuff without interacting didn't exist and the only way to experience would be to play a video game.... But thats not the case theres a medium for that and its loaded with all the passive storytelling your eyeballs can handle.... So why have it in video games ?

Whatever it is people think Cutscenes adds to gaming, it sure as hell aint based on something objective.

Its Non-interactive and Games are interactive. Whether people don't mind or don't notice that they couldve had some more gameplay instead of of a cutscene doesn't change that.