Oh, great, Ocelot even looks like Troy Baker now... I miss Pat Zimmerman.Close, one/five month(s) for consoles and PC respectfully.
Yes, though I kinda wish it would have been something akin to Peace Walker, co-op for the side ops (including boss battles with AI weapons) and then have some versus modes and stuff on the side.
Given that you can call in all sorts of support options in missions being able to have a co-op buddy tag along would have been an excellent addition and given all the online infrastructure in place to support the whole FOB infiltration stuff I am not sure why they don't allow this?
Then again they did say you can call in buddies to help you fend off attacks on your FOB and online friends can help fend off attacks on your FOB while you aren't online so perhaps it will be in game? Not sure.
Oh, great, Ocelot even looks like Troy Baker now... I miss Pat Zimmerman.
I have a feeling that one day when I'm playing, I may call Ocelot Troy Baker.
Well, in Peace Walker you could just do all Ops, even Mains Ops, in co-op which was neat. It feels like a step backwards to not include it again. Especially because taking on one of the tougher AI weapons with your buddies, as you crazily cross the battlefield in a quirky Cardboard-Ambulance-Box to revive them, whenever they get mowed down was probably the greatest thing ever. It was especially tense to fight Peace WalkerGiven that you can call in all sorts of support options in missions being able to have a co-op buddy tag along would have been an excellent addition and given all the online infrastructure in place to support the whole FOB infiltration stuff I am not sure why they don't allow this?
Buddies, meaning a support character like Quiet or possibly Ocelot? Story characters or animals like the Diamond Dog and Horse. Would have been fun if one player could control Quiet or Ocelot though.Then again they did say you can call in buddies to help you fend off attacks on your FOB and online friends can help fend off attacks on your FOB while you aren't online so perhaps it will be in game? Not sure.
Buddies, meaning a support character like Quiet or possibly Ocelot?
Buddies as in online friends, about 26:12 on the video General TSAR posted on the previous page it says it is possible to request help from online friends to repel attacks, though exactly what that entails is unclear.
Ah, yes, that's probably tied to the whole feature about invading other player's motherbases not the missions themselves.Buddies as in online friends, about 26:12 on the video General TSAR posted on the previous page it says it is possible to request help from online friends to repel attacks, though exactly what that entails is unclear.
I don't know about you guys but for my first playthrough I feel like going Rambo on everyone. (and of course build my army.)
Oh, great, Ocelot even looks like Troy Baker now... I miss Pat Zimmerman.
Hating on ya boy Troy still
Nothing TPP related but still wanted to share:
Good times.
Snake's hygiene or lack of it.
Still, gameplay-wise, the game is starting to look up, so I can forget about the arbitrary additions of vehicles and horse riding.
How is it arbitrary? The maps are huge and the only fast travel system is a cardboard box delivery system scattered here and there.
Vehicles and D-Horse were a logical addition in order to navigate the world in a timely manner.
Anyone know what transfers from Ground Zeroes to Phantom Pain? I think some of the POWs you rescue can be used as soldiers in Phantom Pain but anything else? Any bonuses for S-ranking or completing missions on hard? Any of the collectibles have an effect?
Then allow me to rephrase it as "hand-in-hand with the tedious sandbox".How is it arbitrary? The maps are huge and the only fast travel system is a cardboard box delivery system scattered here and there.
Vehicles and D-Horse were a logical addition in order to navigate the world in a timely manner.
Fair enough, personally I favor a mix of wide open spaces and tightly designed spaces which is what Zaire/Angola seems to be.
Fair enough, personally I favor a mix of wide open spaces and tightly designed spaces which is what Zaire/Angola seems to be.
I don't think we disagree on that, entirely. Ground Zeroes map was wide while also being tight and not too open or unnecessarily padded. Worlds, maps, like say Silent Hill in the Silent Hill games, the Asylum in Arkham Asylum, the houses in Thief 2 etc. All of these are memorable and as you progress you get to explore more and new areas, you did the same in Shadow Moses in the first game. It's the Metroidvania-esque approach I like.. that and pretty much everything else I mentioned.
Then allow me to rephrase it as "hand-in-hand with the tedious sandbox".
The additions of vehicles feels less like something that would compliment the stealth and infiltration, and more like Kojima wanting to channel Rockstar games, which he has even said he wanted. I'll take sprawly and tight designed levels over empty open worlds that are gonna get tedious in the long run without consistently using fast travel.
Oh come now I think you might be being a little unfair here, to me the stealth genre has always been about tactical options and exploiting opportunities and the way I see it the vehicles open up a whole new suite of tactical options and opportunities to exploit, sure there will probably be a bit of traversing large stretches of wilderness to get to your objective (though I am pretty sure there will be drop zones and extraction points closer to your mission objective as well) however to lament the introduction of vehicles because of this is incredibly short sighted, I mean if you have played Ground Zeroes you know you can hide in the back of certain vehicles and use them to stealthily traverse checkpoints or get to the other side of an enemy base but they also make great explosive decoys and traps as the enemy and even assassination targets will unknowingly get in and drive a jeep that has been rigged to blow. There are also tanks for those who prefer the more indiscriminate destruction approach which while not the most stealthy of options is still good to have as an option at least, the Jeeps also make for a good method of escape when the **** hits the fan and you need to haul ass to the extraction zone. They even showed a video of somebody using the fulton on a jeep to take down a helicopter so it all depends on your imagination and how you use these things to your advantage, in the end the vehicles look like they will add far more value to the game than they could possibly detract from it.
Honestly if you are looking for something to be negative about I am not sure vehicles are the thing, personally I would go with the micro-transactions as I have yet to see a game where micro-transactions have impacted a game in a positive way and I have doubt that it wont be any different for Phantom Pain.
Then again if stealth games to you are only about avoiding enemy vision cones then I hear Volume is supposed to be pretty good.
Oh come now I think you might be being a little unfair here, to me the stealth genre has always been about tactical options and exploiting opportunities and the way I see it the vehicles open up a whole new suite of tactical options and opportunities to exploit, sure there will probably be a bit of traversing large stretches of wilderness to get to your objective (though I am pretty sure there will be drop zones and extraction points closer to your mission objective as well) however to lament the introduction of vehicles because of this is incredibly short sighted, I mean if you have played Ground Zeroes you know you can hide in the back of certain vehicles and use them to stealthily traverse checkpoints or get to the other side of an enemy base but they also make great explosive decoys and traps as the enemy and even assassination targets will unknowingly get in and drive a jeep that has been rigged to blow.
There are also tanks for those who prefer the more indiscriminate destruction approach which while not the most stealthy of options is still good to have as an option at least, the Jeeps also make for a good method of escape when the **** hits the fan and you need to haul ass to the extraction zone. They even showed a video of somebody using the fulton on a jeep to take down a helicopter so it all depends on your imagination and how you use these things to your advantage, in the end the vehicles look like they will add far more value to the game than they could possibly detract from it.
Oh, sure, microtransactions are poison and even more so in non continuous games like Metal Gear. You won't see me celebrating it, as much as not even bothering giving it the time of day.Honestly if you are looking for something to be negative about I am not sure vehicles are the thing, personally I would go with the micro-transactions as I have yet to see a game where micro-transactions have impacted a game in a positive way and I have doubt that it wont be any different for Phantom Pain.
Then again if stealth games to you are only about avoiding enemy vision cones then I hear Volume is supposed to be pretty good.
Oh, sure, tactical-espionage-action yada-yada. Having played the first 3 games, however, tactical and 'action' is something I've always associated with the Hitman franchise, and less so with Metal Gear. It's not like I'm against it in this game, but to be honest -- Why would anyone ever use it, when you have easier alternative methods? The whole angle with Snake hiding at the side of his horse, for instance, riding past a couple of guards undetected always struck me as incredibly odd -- You could forgive the old games for having the guards being unable to see 2 feet straight ahead of them but this? How could these guards not get suspicious of that or even see him? The option is neat, sure, if not silly.
You could ask the same question of the cardboard box that mysteriously seems to shift every time they take their eyes off it, the troops in the Metal Gear universe aren't exactly known to be rocket scientists and it does take a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to believe that a train soldier would fall in love with the picture of a bikini model on the front of a cardboard box. I do find it pretty funny that you need to research these items in the R&D Lab as if they are the cutting edge of military tech in a world that has giant battle mechs and cloaking devices before the 21st century.
For all it's attempts to broach some fairly serious topics the Metal Gear series has always had more than it's fair share of quirks.
Using the chopper to travel in Ground Zeroes would usually always alert enemies, I didn't see a need for it beyond the sole use of extracting POWs, which is fine, but it alerts the enemy base because they are noisey so they ruin my flow of wanting to be secluded at all times -- Neither did I see a need for the cars, as they too are rowdy and attract attention as opposed to avoiding detection. Sure, the idea of hiding in one, to get inside restricted areas, is neat but that's a whole different angle then actually driving them. The problem is that the game needs to encourage stealth, and if you have several different other ways of how you could easily extract a guy with fulton, or infiltrate a base using only the Tranq gun then why would ever need anything else? In previous games, I didn't see much need for any equipment beyond the Tranq gun, and fulton (in Peace Walker anyway). Now, don't get me wrong. If you want to play the game like more of an action game, gunning blokes down, traversing in vehicles then that's great, as long as the game doesn't detract encouragement for using stealth like other examples i.e. Hitman Absolution or Splinter Cell Conviction.
It shouldn't be incredibly hard to be stealthy over capping guys down, or using the 'get-out-of-jail-free' equipment.
To be honest I did not know that you could traverse between landing zones in a chopper in Ground Zeroes, mostly because as you said there is no reason to (though in a larger map I imagine it could come in handy), as for vehicles while it is true I rarely found myself in the drivers seat in Ground Zeroes that does not mean that they did not provide interesting new opportunities and challenges to take advantage of, you don't have to be in the drivers seat to make use of them, for instance one of the side ops requires you to assassinate 2 guys, one of the targets likes to get in a car and drive around so if you know which car he is going to use you can always plant some C4 on the vehicle and wait for him to get in, if you are too late for that but know which route he is taking in the car you can plant a claymore or some C4 on the road and get him that way, and while explosions might not be what you call stealthy they can be a good diversion as usually nearby guards will be called to investigate allowing you to slip by while they are distracted.
To be honest I do hope there are things to discourage heavy use of the Fulton, one of the biggest drawbacks of the tranq gun is the enemy does not stay down indefinitely, however allowing the player to use the fulton to just get rid of any trace as well as adding another soldier to your ranks gets rid of that downside and makes things a little too easy.
I won't deny the intricate methods of using your equipment in TPP is neat. The problem I have, like I mentioned above, is if you start leaning towards designing an action game, it ultimately alienates the stealth, usually it'll always lead to scripted scenarios where it's not even possible to be stealthy.
Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to say here, this part simply makes no sense, giving the player more tools to play with and allowing them more freedom in how they approach a mission objective leads to scripted scenarios where it is not possible to be stealthy? Not seeing the logic here. Sure many "action" games like Call of Duty are heavily scripted as they funnel you down corridors shooting down mooks until you reach a certain spot where another event is triggered, however this is not a direct byproduct of "action", in fact true action is the manifestation of chaos which is the polar opposite to scripted order and it looks like MGSV provides a great foundation for creating exciting and unscripted action.
That is the thing with MGSV, it makes failure exciting, it doesn't just greet you with the game over screen as soon as you are detected, it allows you to keep going as the **** hits the fan in an effort to salavage what is left of the mission and somehow come out with the win!
To me pure stealth games aren't all that interesting as the pure stealth approach comes down to little more than avoiding enemy cones of vision and moving when the coast is clear, if the enemy has a predictable movement pattern then it is not so much difficult as it is time consuming as you wait for the window of opportunity. I do like the stealthy approach but I prefer a more aggressive style of stealthy approach where I make my own windows of opportunity and if I see an opportunity to neutralize or occupy a large portion of the enemy force without drawing too much attention to myself I usually take it. It really depends on what opportunities present themselves, the items I have on hand and the mission parameters but I have always been more fond of the type of plan that has a 50% chance of working but a 100% chance of being spectacular either way. Never been incredibly fond of the whole ghost thing where you complete the game without any kills or alerts.
Being quirky doesn't excuse the AI for being thick -- I do hear what you are saying though. The cardboard box, however, rarely fooled guards in the earlier games, so there's no need to use it. It's a stigma of the series at this point though. The earlier games could be forgiven for restricting enemies from not be able to see 2 feet ahead of them -- Now? Not so much.You could ask the same question of the cardboard box that mysteriously seems to shift every time they take their eyes off it, the troops in the Metal Gear universe aren't exactly known to be rocket scientists and it does take a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to believe that a train soldier would fall in love with the picture of a bikini model on the front of a cardboard box. I do find it pretty funny that you need to research these items in the R&D Lab as if they are the cutting edge of military tech in a world that has giant battle mechs and cloaking devices before the 21st century.
For all it's attempts to broach some fairly serious topics the Metal Gear series has always had more than it's fair share of quirks.
You never had to worry about ammo on Tranq guns in previous games, it might change here with Phantom Pain - If so, that's good at least.To be honest I do hope there are things to discourage heavy use of the Fulton, one of the biggest drawbacks of the tranq gun is the enemy does not stay down indefinitely, however allowing the player to use the fulton to just get rid of any trace as well as adding another soldier to your ranks gets rid of that downside and makes things a little too easy.
How are you getting that from what I said? The discussion here wasn't in any way related to freedom in gameplay -- You can argue the definition of "action" all you want; I was, however, making a reference to the overall treatment of modern stealth games adapting the traits of self "proclaimed" action of today.. Something along the lines of what you are describing below.Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to say here, this part simply makes no sense, giving the player more tools to play with and allowing them more freedom in how they approach a mission objective leads to scripted scenarios where it is not possible to be stealthy?
What you are describing here is the essence of most modern stealth games, i. e. the examples I provided. Conviction is littered with narrow corridors and maps designed with an action game in mind with stealth elements on side as oppossed to the opposite. There are sections dedicated entirely to guns blazing action sequences and chase scenes. The same could be said of Absolution, abandoning all subtlety, to be more actionySure many "action" games like Call of Duty are heavily scripted as they funnel you down corridors shooting down mooks until you reach a certain spot where another event is triggered, however this is not a direct byproduct of "action", in fact true action is the manifestation of chaos which is the polar opposite to scripted order and it looks like MGSV provides a great foundation for creating exciting and unscripted action.
We won't really know how good the the game does things, until we play it, but anyway. It's not really about whether the game doesn't grant you a permanent punishment for cocking up the stealth as much as it is about encouraging it. In Snake Eater, there would be dire consequences when facingThat is the thing with MGSV, it makes failure exciting, it doesn't just greet you with the game over screen as soon as you are detected, it allows you to keep going as the **** hits the fan in an effort to salavage what is left of the mission and somehow come out with the win!
Suit yourself - No point arguing this point beyond me simply disagreeing.To me pure stealth games aren't all that interesting as the pure stealth approach comes down to little more than avoiding enemy cones of vision and moving when the coast is clear, if the enemy has a predictable movement pattern then it is not so much difficult as it is time consuming as you wait for the window of opportunity. I do like the stealthy approach but I prefer a more aggressive style of stealthy approach where I make my own windows of opportunity and if I see an opportunity to neutralize or occupy a large portion of the enemy force without drawing too much attention to myself I usually take it. It really depends on what opportunities present themselves, the items I have on hand and the mission parameters but I have always been more fond of the type of plan that has a 50% chance of working but a 100% chance of being spectacular either way. Never been incredibly fond of the whole ghost thing where you complete the game without any kills or alerts.
Being quirky doesn't excuse the AI for being thick -- I do hear what you are saying though. The cardboard box, however, rarely fooled guards in the earlier games, so there's no need to use it. It's a stigma of the series at this point though. The earlier games could be forgiven for restricting enemies from not be able to see 2 feet ahead of them -- Now? Not so much.
Well to be fair the enemy in Ground Zeroes does have a fairly far view distance and the distance at which they spot you does change whether you are standing crouching or crawling (and with the weather apparently), however you can't make the view distance too far otherwise it would not be much fun if the guard on the other side of the base spots you the moment you step out into the open.
You never had to worry about ammo on Tranq guns in previous games, it might change here with Phantom Pain - If so, that's good at least.
On this point, we can agree at least.
The ammo for the tranq gun is limited in Ground Zeroes (though you can find more around the base) so I would say it is a pretty safe bet to assume that it would be the same in Phantom Pain, however it is not so much the tranq gun but the fulton recovery device allowing you to permanently incapacitate an enemy and remove any trace of them from the map, I am just hoping there are things in place that discourage heavy use of it.
How are you getting that from what I said? The discussion here wasn't in any way related to freedom in gameplay -- You can argue the definition of "action" all you want; I was, however, making a reference to the overall treatment of modern stealth games adapting the traits of self "proclaimed" action of games.
What you are describing here is the essence of most modern stealth games, i. e. the examples I provided. Conviction is littered with narrow corridors and maps designed with an action game in mind with stealth elements on side as oppossed to the opposite. There are sections dedicated entirely to guns blazing action sequences and chase scenes. The same could be said of Absolution, abandoning all subtlety, to be more actiony
By the fact that you were saying that it was the "action" elements that turned these games into heavily scripted games that did not allow the stealthy approach, that is what you were saying right? I mean that is what I got from "If you start designing an action game, it ultimately alienates the stealth, usually it will lead to scripted scenarios where it is not even possible to be stealthy"
I can see what you are saying here, you see games that have made the switch to a more aggressive style of gameplay and noticed they have also become more linear and restrictive and assume that it was the inclusion of "action" elements that caused this? You are pointing your gun at the wrong target here as there is something else these games share that is a far bigger culprit in the dumbing down of the industry, cinematic storytelling. The culprit here is not the inclusion of action elements but a desire to tell a cinematic story and have gameplay look and feel like you are playing a movie which requires heavily scripted set pieces that funnel the player into the next scene.
We won't really know how good the the game does things, until we play it,
Ground Zeroes already does a fairly decent job of it, don't see why Phantom Pain would not do just as good a job if not better?
It's not really about whether the game doesn't grant you a permanent punishment for cocking up the stealth as much as it is about encouraging it. In Snake Eater, there would be dire consequences when facing The Sorrow if you had gone with the lethal approach.
It shouldn't feel like an after thought, or incredibly difficult, to do the entire thing without being detected
There are plenty of ways Ground Zeroes encourages a stealthy approach and I have no doubt Phantom Pain will as well, from not being able to complete certain objectives while enemies are alarmed to the fact that more enemies flood into the map as soon as you are detected, you will certainly have an easier time of things if you can remain undetected as you wont have as much enemy artillery pointed your way, not to mention the ranking system that rewards the player (hoping they do away with it in Phantom Pain) for remaining undetected and not killing people by giving them bonus stuff like extra weapons and whatnot for subsequent playthroughs.
Remaining completely undetected should be difficult to do, if it were easy it would not be much of an achievement, but I do agree it should not be impossible.
Retour en haut
