@alihan992: You clearly do not understand why WoD failed. In it's core, WoD was a good expansion. The problem with the expansion was the lack of content that came after the launch. Compare WoD's patch (a selfie toy) vs Legion's 7.1 patch (Mega dungeon karazhan, a longer questline in Suramar and 3 raidbosses. And even if you ignore that and look at Legion itself then you should be impressed with what there is to do. These ratings are welldeserved and most critic reviewers have WoD in the back of their heads. Regardless of that, they rated Legion with awesome figures and deservedly so.
@catsimboy: 'Old stationary WoW'? What does that even mean? WoW is far from stationary. Look at Final Fantasy and SWTOR. Now those games you stand still for longer periods. Seems like you dont know what you're talking about.
@jenovaschilld: The lore is weak in WoW? Lol, ok. Just your humble opinion. The narration has been excellent in Legion. The cutscenes certainly spoke to my emotion. I have played Lotro and the lore wasn't that great imo. And EQ is dead and burried.
@Jaxith: Since we're discussing Legion, it's safe to credit Blizzard for it's positive changes since it borrowed from games like Diablo 3 to augment it's installment of wow that admittedly saw it's original form take shape by taking elements from predecessors like Everquest.
@p1p3dream: Yes, he had to make up the stories since he wanted to end the franchise after MGS 1. But the game was so popular that Konami urged him to make new content. Unfortunately he had to make adjustments in MGS 2 since they tried to make the game appeal to youngsters, mainly females, so they introduced 'Raiden' (dont like him) as the protagonist and Snake took a backseat. After that a 'new' protagonist was introduced in Big Boss. Then the mobile gaming devices had to have a game of it's own, and all had to be cannon. Then he went back to Snake and then back to Big Boss (in MGS3). And all of it had to make sense.
I do agree that the storytelling could have been better, including the script of the characters.
In an ideal world, all our problems would be solved after one chapter. But realistically, these problems (the recycled dilemma's) persevere. I can see how this might seem like doing the same thing over and over. The reason why it's not getting old is the unresolving nature of people, the hero's, anti-hero's, would-be hero's, etc. This means putting accent on characters and that's another strong point of the franchsie: the characterdevelopment. And this is one of the main reasons why I love this franchise. I can relate to them, understand their motives and get emotional attached. One good example is sniper wolf in MGS 1. Another is Big Boss. It's focus on these characters gives room for the recycled dilemma's to live on the background. You actually care about what is going to happen to him, her or the other. Another favorite is Ocelot, our triple agent. is he bad? Is he good? Love how the game makes you guess. Same goes for Big Boss. It shows our dualism, how we yield to our beliefs that can't be labelled good or wrong. I really miss this in games.
@GunEye: I don't waste too much energy on people who're too biased and can't rate a game for what it is. You clearly are too attached to the classic MGS and can't accept that MGSV is a new beast with a new voice actor and with people like you I rather not wish to debate since you're too closed minded.
PS "Kojima is lucky anybody talks about him," And you tell people how to feel.
@p1p3dream: I'm very critical of games, especially Kojima since he wants perfection. I can see his flaws, but can also see how underrated he is.
I'm not saying that you need to be part of the mensa group to see the appeal of the Kojima games. I'm comparing the depth of his games to the traditional current games. Gamers usually don't care about proxy wars, child soldiers, dna manipulation, geopolitics or actual world developments.
You also have to remember that he had to make a new game with a coherent story while not launching the game subsequently. So he doesn't try to make it more complicated, he makes up the story as he goes. The result being harder to follow, without snatching the red line of the story. He does not use the same narration over and over again. In MGS4 he used an extreme amount of exposition to tell the story. In MGSV he went the other way with limited exposition and using cassette tapes.
Yes, he's a pervert and I don't mind. What I don't like is how he portrays women like Quiet. It's not necessary,
The part where you say he 'wants' to make an epic story is where we disagree. The story is better than mass effect or any other games. The 'convoluted' part is the result of not making the game subsequently.
I'd rather not bring Uncharted 4 to the table since it's a stereotypical, scripted game that is merely 'fun'. And a league below MGS. I do understand why people like it, but it's not because of the deep story. There is nothing intellectual behind it, it's pretty straight forward. You also don't understand why I mention intellectual. It's because of the artform he chooses in his trailers for instance and the influences of culture, politics, nostalgia and different mindsets is also what sets him apart from the rest.
Gorehowl81's comments