Why I Find Metal Gear Solid Overrated

@Lulu_Lulu: I'll point you to this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXIR2dlktc

@Lulu_Lulu: I would have to disagree with you. To simply stand around and license to someone/read a text is the samething as a cut sence. Sure you might be able move around but you still need to stand around doing nothing just watching. Sounds to me like you want something like doom2. I would rather have story and if i want nothing but game play i'll go online.

How is Metal Gear Solid overrated when it pioneered an entire genre of games? It was also really the first game to be taken seriously outside of the gaming industry, or maybe its better put to say that the medium could do more than just gameplay.

Didn't the second game have a single cut-scene that was almost half-an-hour in length? And didn't MGS4 have nine-and-a-half hours of total cut-scenes?

Look, i'm not against cut-scenes, but come on...are Kojima trying to make movies or games? Too much is too much. There are probably only a few hours of actual gameplay.

@Heirren: I don't really care if it was a pioneering game or not. Just because it pioneered something doesn't necessarily mean it still holds up. It can be respected, sure, but not everybody has to like what's popular. For instance, I also find the Half-Life series to be overrated, but I can still see and respect why people like it so much. Games are subjective. You have your tastes, I have mine.

@mastermetal777

Sorry... Can't See videos on this browser. Also I got a few links stating my argument too but Its nice to be able to explain it with my own words.... Its a great way to see if people understand me... And by extension if I understand the topic. You should try it some time.

@RollinBones333

Wrong !

It has the the same result or leads to the problem. But its most definately not the same thing. Its kinda like reading twilight or watching it.... Both the movie and book are equally boring... It makes no difference to people so they say its the samething. But no it isn't. Look.... I hate force walks and stand arounnd radio narratives just as much as the next guy..... The solution isn't cutscenes, .

I'l be straight up with you..... Gameplay is a tough concept to sell, infact I don't think alot of gamers particularly like gameplay... So developers appeal to them in a format that their more familiar with. Its no coincidence that gaming only became popular when technology allowed it to mimick other mediums.

I'm not saying people "the casuals" who started gaming when it became mainstream don't like gameplay.... On the Contrary.... They appreciate gameplay more than those of us who were gaming since pong. Not once have I come across a casual gamer who insisted on having cutscenes.... The want the game play. Whether its on facebook or on their phones.

From what Ive seen its actually the "true gamers" who want more cutscenes, more stories, immersion, graphics. They just want more of everything.

@Heirren

This whole medium is about gameplay.... Metal Gear's attempt to do more than that in way thats got nothing to do with gameplay only reinforces the idea the games are not good at certain things the sameway other mediums are.... The have to leech that concept from other mediums if they want to be just as good.

He's a great writer who makes great stories.... But he has no faith in gameplay anymore than the people who play his games just for the story.

I tend to agree, but the cinematic nature of games has been evolving since the nes arrived--its just the technology wasn't there and MGS was the game that truly broke that ground. Also, if you were are old enough to remember people were raving about MGS specifically on how it sucked players into the games world based on more than just its cutscenes. It was the overall production.

Now I know what you mean about gameplay--Mario is SOOOOOOOOO good because it is flawless in design and has this way about promoting the players imagination through what is on the screen, all while doing so with a control mechanic that can develop over time--it is incredible watching a novice player in a 3d mario vs a skilled one; Nintendo is literally the only developer to get this right. However, MGS also has a way of giving a young one that "I'm this hero, I can control what he can do." aspect. Yes the first game has its issues, but it has specific ways in which it evokes emotion; one in particular is seeing things from a 3rd person and then crawling under a tank and going first person. It seems minor but I vividly remember having that feeling of actually being in the environment.

I'd also question the lack of gameplay in mgs. Yes the cutscenes, while good, have become overblown for a game, the gameplay imo is some of the best--especially MGS4. MGS4 was one of the most pure, modern gameplay experiences I can remember last gen. The game taught you the rules, gave you the playfield, and didn't tell you what to do with it. It guided you in a general direction at times, but there were multiple ways in which to discover the answer. It is one of the few games to do this really well.

@Heirren

I wouldn't say it was the overall production. I would say it was the overall experience that people liked..... I view cutscenes as an External factor.... They don't improve the game they just improve the experience... They improve how we percieve the content. Pretty much the sameway Powerfull Narcotics can genuinely improve a fireworks show (Please don't do drugs), but the difference between Video games and Pyrotechnics is that Cutscenes are not only legal.... Theres an entire format dedicated to the concept of non-interactive storytelling..... Regardless of what they contribute to the overall experiennce... They contribute nothing to gaming..

And its not just Cutscenes..... Luckily Video Games is a subset of the umbrella known as Interactive Entertainment.... Which consists of Simulations (also Known as Serious Games), Zen Games (like Journey), Interactive Narratives, Visual Novels, Gamification, and so many others. And thats just within Electronic Gaming.... Include bored games and sports and triviaand the possibilities are endless. Lets not ruin that with cutscenes.

@Lulu_Lulu: I believe cutscenes should provide context, or highlight otherwise unremarkable scenes, such as just standing around and listening to people talk. I for one am taken out of the game's immersion whenever I'm forced to stand in a room listening to people chatter on and on about what's going on when I'm given the freedom to move around and do whatever the hell I want. When gameplay is involved, I want to do, not listen. Cutscenes give you the opportunity to kick back, relax, and take a breather from an especially tense moment in the gameplay. I wouldn't call them rewards, just small breaks. They're a form of pacing that's still being honed to this very day. Done improperly, the impede the gameplay experience and break the flow and consistency of the game's rules, much like the MGS series does.

But on the flip side, games like the Half-Life series are too immersive for their own good, always letting the player have total control over the character even as story moments persist and move along. For me, that's a no-no, since I get distracted very easily when I'm in control, and so I miss important story elements due to my absentmindedness. When there's a cutscene or a moment where you're left with no control of a character (which is honestly the same thing, but in a different context), it allows me time to sit back, relax, and not worry about missing some important item in the corner or anything else.

You can't just simply do away with cutscenes, as they're still a tool of storytelling. Would you remove from the artist his square or his ability to use gray or brown, since the latter is another element that seems to be overused in games? Would you remove the wide-angle lens from the cinematographer of a film? Would you remove chords from a musician's tool belt? Of course not, because every now and then, you get that one piece or that one game that uses these elements brilliantly and thus immerses you deeper into the story and world that you're thrust into. Cutscenes are nothing but a tool, and when used properly, they can transcend the medium of gaming and propel it beyond the world that gamers only know, and bring them into the mainstream audience for acceptance.

@mastermetal777

1)Theres not a single form of Entertainment designed for your immersion. Some people can immerse themselves in books, movies, games... A piece of gum on the floor... Literally anything can be immersive this is just a variation of the "What is Art" argument and believe me its best not to discuss such things.... Art has no rules... No wrong or right... No good or bad. Infact Art doesn't even make sense... Now replace the word "art" with immersion and bam.... Same difference !

2)I wouldn't remove The Wide Angle lens or Chords from musicians because The Belong in that medium... They were born there. Cutscenes are not.

3) Cutscenes are a reward and a break... Its not an either or situation.... But I can tell you this... Just because one is tired of blasting Nazi's dicks off doesn't mean they should use a cutscene to change the pace.... They can Use Puzzles.... Simple easy to solve Puzzles. And if you're alread playing a puzzle game then they can ramp up the pacing by using action. But if you a player has completely lost his desire to play a game then he should put the controller down pick up the remote and watch Shark Week just like normal person, if you have an Xbox one you can just snap to TV Mode just like that, and resume the game almost just as quickly. Hey I like movies , but if I'm tired of all the action in a movie I don't insist they slow down the pacing using texts ( a storytelling tool for a different medium) just to give me a break... Nobody does this because if they were tired and wanted to experience something in a different form they word pick up book or masterbate or whatever. Movies don't operate on the logic that if you're tired of watching they can fade to black and deliver the next 5 minutes of plot like an Audio book. Only video games operate by this logic.

4) You know what. Cutscenes aren't a Storytelling tool (or they aren't just a storytelling tool). Their just there to reel in people who don't like Gameplay. I'm not surprized gaming became popular right around the same time cutscenes came in.... Gameplay is just as unpopular as its always been. Cutscenes don't give context to gameplay... They are a rewad for gameplay.

But heres what I don't get people are ready to jump and defend gaming's story telling potential with their lives... So the Why is it don't people believe that gameplay can just as powerfull a storytelling tool ? Why is a game's most powerfull tool for telling a story cutscenes ? (nobody says its cutscenes but consider all the examples people like to give for great storytelling and you'l see its mostly cutscenes)

@Lulu_Lulu: "There is not a single form of entertainment designed for your immersion." Then why the hell do we even bother with storytelling or world building in a video game? For the eye candy? Since the advent of storytelling in video games, players have been blessed with the ability of a video game to completely absorb them, to grip them, to "immerse" them into their world, characters, and story. Hell, not even video games. Film has also been trying to bring the audience in to participate in the story for the longest time. But in video games, the single fact that you control the main character is the very definition of immersion. Whether you're controlling the predetermined hero of the game or a silent player-created avatar, the purpose of a video game is to suck you in and bring you into that world. To say that video games are not meant to immerse you is denying the very idea of video games as an interactive experience.

Cutscenes have existed in video games for as long as they've wanted to tell a story. Whether its in the form of a text scroll with little to no animation, a pre-rendered cutscene, or a live-action clip, there have always existed points in the story of a video game where the player is forced to sit down, relax, and enjoy the story. Pressing a button to advance the text really doesn't count as playing the game. It has been a storytelling trope of video games for a long time, and the most talented developers can use them effectively without sacrificing gameplay in the process. Take for instance, The Last of Us. In a game that takes around 12 - 16 hours to beat, depending on your skill, the game only provides you with about an hour and 40 minutes of cutscene time, and neither one of those cutscenes involves a true moment of action. Their either midpoints in between encounters where you can't really do much, or their quiet scenes that help the characters (and the player) calm down and reflect on the situation at hand. And a vast majority of those scenes last little longer than a minute (some of the longer ones are mostly transition points between acts or chapters). The majority of the story comes from the gameplay and optional dialogues that can occur throughout.

To see a cutscene as a reward for gameplay is kind of missing the point. In storytelling, the action is always followed by a quiet, mostly introspective scene with the main characters. In a game like BioShock, Dark Souls, or Metroid Prime, this doesn't apply because honestly, you (as the protagonist) have nobody to talk to and share your experience with. In a game where you're building relationships with characters, be it your player character or the face of the game, simply standing around or walking around while they talk doesn't necessarily make for a better story experience unless the game has already sucked you into it. In fact, if the player only cares about gameplay, they'll ignore the story dialogue completely, which defeats the purpose of having effective dialogue in the game to begin with. In a game like The Elder Scrolls, story moments are those where the player cannot move and is having a conversation with anyone or anything. To take away control of a character is an effective method in gaming to either keep things simple or to make the player feel helpless. Cutscenes are one such method of doing that.

Cutscenes can be used to tell a story well. If what you're saying is true, that they exist simply to "reel in people who don't like gameplay" then why the hell are they playing a game to begin with? They would much rather watch a movie if that were the case. And also, the cutscenes themselves would be all flash and no meaning, which might be the case in poorly handled games, but it is certainly not the case in games like Grand Theft Auto, The Last of Us (or hell, any Naughty Dog game), Halo, Assassin's Creed, which have all gotten acclaim for their storytelling, and all of them feature cutscenes that are neither intrusive to the gameplay or completely break the game flow (that's what their respective glitches do on their own).

I'm the first to defend video game storytelling. I love it when a game is competent enough to deliver it through gameplay well, but it has to be the right kind of game. Empty or abandoned worlds in games like BioShock, Metroid, Gone Home, Dark Souls, or anything of a similar nature have done gameplay storytelling well because the environment tells the story for them, as well as any lore it may have about its locations. Cutscenes would have ruined that immersion into the world because how do you contextualize isolation other than making you feel helpless. That being said, doing away with cutscenes entirely is to make all game stories the same kind of story, and that's no good. There are so many different ways of bringing about a story in a video game. If it decides to go the minimalist approach, cutscenes are a bad idea. If it wants to establish character moments, then cutscenes should allow them to talk and contextualize their movements so that there's a focus on their action while talking, instead of you turning your back on them to look at a random bird flying by and completely missing what they're trying to say, especially if the game wants you as the player to care about them. I'm not saying cutscenes are the be-all-end-all of storytelling in games, but I believe it's a little unfair to demonize them simply because some people don't care for them while others feel it helps contextualize the experience. Me? I think it simply depends on what kind of game you're making, and what kind of story you want to tell.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject. You don't have to like cutscenes. That's fine. But I believe we have a long way to go before we're ready to make every single game do away with them entirely, and the kinds of stories people want to tell/hear about will always vary from person to person. If you want to avoid cutscenes, then go ahead and limit yourself to games that don't use them.That's okay if that's your taste. I, on the other hand, will enjoy a good story if it's just that: good, cutscenes or not.

@mastermetal777

Another thing this medium suffers from is a proper terminolgy to describe things, people just say things like fun, mechanic, story , not realising the subtle differences between subsets within these concepts..... Naturally they get offended when I say certain things aren't really games..... Anyway

1)We tell stories engage and entertain not to make you feel like you're a prince in Atlantis instead of a guy on your couch. Immersion is overated.

look I'l simplify this early before we into long texts. Its not just cutscenes that are not related to gaming.... Even several interactive mechanics are not related to games either. Games are interactive systems with Flexible rule sets that allows players to overcome obstacles... Theres win states theres fail states... Theres rights and theres wrongs. Immersion as absolutely zero role to play in this concept. Games are actually work, they require learning and effort, its not surprising to me this turns so many people away... They want gaming to be about interactions instead of Gameplay (yes theres a difference... A big one), they want to sit back and relax and get all that easy/instant gratification that other passive mediums like movies provide. Thats What Games are.

2)Whether a concept is good or not is irrelevant to my point, I like cutscenes too, the my favourit one is The Avengers Movie :p. My arguments is merely about how things relate to the medium they're on... How much people like them or how long they've existed with in the medium is irrelevant, Games are interactive, cutscenes are not. Whether you "believe" they are intrusive or not is irrelevant, like you I have no desire to be in a continuous state of play through out an entire game... Like you a like variety and dynamic changes are appreciated, what I don't do is use this to say Cutscenes are part of gaming.... they are not, not in any context not in any scenario.... Does that bothe me ? Well thats not important now is it.... Such is the Nature of Objective logic.

3)Lets get back to terminology, Texts Scrolls are not Cutscenes. So yeah... I know what you mean... They have the same affect but understand that they most definately are not cutscenes.

4) According to my earlier definition of what video games are then you might have to accept that games can't tell stories at all let alone tell them properly, consider what the word "Storytelling" is exactly, it implies a one way system where one person talks/shows/writes and the other person listens/observes/Reads. I would say that the concept of Storytelling is not just not a part of gaming but any attempt of to tell one threatens the integrity of gaming.

5) Still on Terminology.... I mentioned before that Video Games are just one sub category of a vast medium.... games like Football Manager, Heavy Rain, Journey and To The Moon are not Games, they are Simulations, Interactive Narratives, Non-Games, and Visual Novels. Naturally sometimes These concepts can mix and match to create hybrids concepts but its important to understand that I'm not trying to be rude or anything by saying something is not a game or a part of gaming, I'm just being specific.

But one thing you can bet on is that Cutscenes are dy n a part of gaming or even interacative entertainment in its entirety. Not even that time we turned CSI into a drinking game....

@Lulu_Lulu: "We tell stories engage and entertain not to make you feel like you're a prince in Atlantis instead of a guy on your couch. Immersion is overated."

Right there, you missed the entire point of playing video games altogether. Video games allow you to mold the story as you see fit, and for most people, yes, they do feel like the prince of Atlantis, or the champion warrior, or simply the hero of the tale. When people get immersed in a game, they're becoming a part of the experience by playing. Actually playing a game is the ultimate feeling of immersion before virtual reality becomes viable. Gamers become the storytellers of a naturally incomplete story. And being immersed, or deeply engaged or involved as the dictionary puts it, allows that to happen.

Do we not play video games to engage or entertain? If stories are done for solely that reason, then what's the point of studying storytelling altogether? Or even studying the potential video games have in society altogether? Allowing storytelling into video games has opened the floodgates for a whole new form of storytelling, much like film did when masterpieces such as Citizen Kane began toying with the notion that film could both tell stories and become something deeper. Video games are slowly reaching that, and it's been happening through storytelling. They're no longer just work and effort; they're a new form of storytelling. And holding them back to simply being a risk/reward medium is doing this great medium of entertainment more harm than good.

I believe video games are the next form of art, and to say that they're nothing more then mechanical systems of risks and rewards with no potential for storytelling is really holding this great medium back. Maybe they shouldn't even be called video games anymore, but all games have one goal: success in some form or another. Whether that's getting the highest score on Galaga or reaching the climactic conclusion of a gripping story is entirely on what that game wants to be.

@Lulu_Lulu: If you can't follow the links, just copy and paste them into your browser search and watch these two videos

"Extra Credits - Cutscenes"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXIR2dlktc

"Extra Credits - Art is not the opposite of fun"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLKVg-2d54c

@mastermetal777

Its not the Link... Its my internet connection.... I live in SA mate..... High speed broadband is not exactly standard here. Atleast not for the Unemployed :p.

Anyway I don't know what dictionary you're reading but Immersion and Engagement are two different concepts, also games aren't even like that.... Games most definately need context, the system needs to be given some "colour or flavours" before one can begin playing..... However what the specifics of that context is is irrelevant, they don't even have to make sense.... In Super Mario it doesn't matter if he's a plumber or some twisted anthropromorpheous banana peel, and if you have goombas or Zombie cupcakes... It doesn't change the nature of the game... Your entity must hop on top of the opposing entity to succeed... What these entities are specifically and how they affect the way we play or if we're willing to play at all is where immersion comes in..... One might be reluctant to play if they replace Mario with a Scrotum and goombas with a Picture of their mom's face.....

Thats got nothing to do with underlying nature of gaming.... Thats just our perception colouring our experiencies. Its one of the things I love about Mario, the entire context, mythology and lore of his game is like some kind of twisted hallicnation from the mind of a guy tripping serious balls !

I try my best not to associate any part of a game to the the things that make up its context (Its really difficult)

Video Games are not even about any single thing you see on the display.... Its about the rules and how one interacts with them... Not the world, not the characters not the plot... Its all about the rules.

Everything attached to the game after that doesn't improve it as a game... its just there for the sake of entertainment since humans are funny like that. Its just perception. Its why I won't buy FIFA or CoD every year... That would just be redundant. however Usually the stuff thats attached is used interactively or at the very least don't not negate Interactivity.... And then Cutscenes came along.... And you know how the story goes from there.

as for things like storytelling I already mentioned twice now how Interactive Entertainment is structured to accomodate things that are not games.

Oh and one last thing. How does a medium grow if it does what other mediums are good at?

Film didn't become better by not using cinamtography and imagery, Literature didn't become better by using pictures, music didn't become better by using videos... And most importantly Interactive Entertainment is not going to become better by non-interactive cutscenes.

I'm not saying it won't succeed, I'm saying people are so eager to justify this medium as an Art form like other mediums by actually making it like other mediums, and thats what cutscenes are doing to interactive entertainment. Whether people realise it or not they already acknowledged that they don't believe games can be art, if they could then there wouldn't be so much emphasis on cutscenes (or even story telling but thats much harder to discuss so forget I even mentioned it). If you wana see games be art then let them games,

Also art is overated and stupid, I really don't like talikng about art. In Art anythying goes, its highly subjective.... Hell its Subjective Defined.

The Metal Gear series barely qualify as video games to me. They're just cut scenes filled with immature jokes and plotlines that only a 13 year old could be entertained by.

@Renegade_Fury

Theres plenty of gameplay.... the Problem With Metal Gear is not its plot or the Quantity of cutscenes... Its that it reinforces the idea games can't tell stories by being games..... They need to temporarily be movies to do that.

Hence video games have become a compound medium of sorts that follows a Gameplay-Cutscene-Game-Cutscene type of structure. As always when everybody collectively agrees with the wrong thing... It becomes right.

The gameplay that's there, I find to be very slow and clunky, and it's the main reason why I don't play them. The cutscenes and ridiculous plot are just more fuel to the fire since they're constantly in your face, and are interrupting what is an already terrible gameplay experience. Anyway, I'm not arguing the essence of what Metal Gear is to the industry; I'm just stating my complaints with it.

Others who have recently played the series for the first time along with you aside, if you played them all when they were first released then maybe you would have an opinion that could be countered by something other than hindsight.

@mastermetal777: Have you played MGS: Ground Zeroes? While not perfect it does address some issues. I personally like Big Boss' character development from MGS 3 to GZ. Wonder if when we get to play him as a villain.

Agree with him here. It's an acquired taste. You play MGS long enough to either love it or hate it.

Big Boss: Loyalty to the end, people!

@mastermetal777, @Lulu_Lulu I feel that some games are starting to become a "better than film" experience. At least for the action adventure type of film. Cut scenes, used sparingly, can juice my gameplay experience and make the world of the game come alive. The more you can build the story into the game play the better, of course. The great example of this is when John Marsten rides into Mexico for the first time in Red Dead Redemption. Basically a cut scene but you are controlling the horse and the speed you go decides a lot of the feel. I went into Mexico very slow... it just didn't seem like a good idea at the time...

@jetjetjaguar

I disagree... Its different mediums, games aren't better than films or vice versa. It apples and oranges, some people like to watch and some people like to play......

Also I don't consider consider riding a horse gameplay..... I consider it a game mechanic.

Gameplay is how mechanics work within the rules. So Isolating single mechanic for narrative purpose isn't really using gameplay to tell a story..... If you've Played Beyond 2 Souls or Heavy Rain then you'l notice the entire game is like that, filled with intuitive mechanics, but theres no rules or structure.... So its just interaction.... Hence why Cage calls them Interactive Dramas instead of Video Games.

If you haven't played Beyond then I highly reccomend... Its out of this world plus you get to see Ellen Page naked ! ;)

Happy to. :)

I play MGS knowing it's gonna be one of the most Japanese games ever with ridiculous cutscenes, wtf game features (cigs to reduce stress lol, but they can kill you!!) and Kojimas perverted attempt at cinema. It's all pretty funny, but the gameplay and the whole thing is fantastic. I'll always love the franchise

I'm dressing up like that for Halloween. Though I've got a girly-man beard compared to Snake.

Yea he's a bad writer but Snake's a cool looking character. For a cool costume I don't need competent writing.

This one does.

I think the game will be technically brilliant, as all Kojima's games are. I'm the wrong one to ask if the narrative will improve, because I think it's garbage to begin with. It'll be a hilariously ridiculous ride though, of that I have no doubt.

@elisnake: awards aren't indicative of quality in every scenario. Look at the Oscars for proof of that. I just can't stand his storytelling techniques.

@mastermetal777: I agree with all of that, played all the Metal Gear Games but I was bored of them for those reasons after Meta Gear Solid 2.

I even noticed those points when I played the first two games, so it was in my decision making to stop bothering with the franchise

The games are all pretty damn good, but Kojima is probably the most unsubtle writer in the history of the universe

--The environments

You are free to dislike the environments. Nobody can argue that. But what Kojima and his team do so well is recognized in creating a cohesive world and tone. The series has fantastic art direction. The game world truly feels like it exists.

--The Story

Again, another subjective area. It isn't without its faults but it gets praise for the way it is told. It is rooted in film and the cinematography rivals most that comes out of hollywood and the like. Where it faults, imo, is with some overly long, poorly scripted and presented, codec conversations. Drebbin had some dialogues that had me thinking...."oh for petes sake just get to the point."

--The Gameplay

I tend to agree here somewhat. In hindsight I actually think the first game holds up really well. Not that 2 and 3 don't, but "enhanced" version feels a little clunkier than it ought to. At this point the series was still designed for a more fixed camera, and having that open cam added later added some odd moments. Metal Gear 4 I disagree with. That game deserves all the praise. It feels great to play. The movement feels great, the sneaking is top notch, and the shooting is exceptional. I was actually VERY surprised at how much MGS4 improved in this area--the action plays like a good action game. And then there's the multi faceted gameplay. MGS4 essentially opened "levels" for players, and these levels could be tackled in numerous ways. Very few games do this right, but MGS4 not only had multiple ways to complete an objective, but the style in which the player might do so also could very.

...havent fully sunk into Ground Zero, but the controls feel a little bit better than 4, i think.

Thief also came out around the same time, and it completely and utterly blew MGS out of the water, gameplay-wise (and general design-wise).

That isn't even hyperbole on my part - I literally could not force myself to play more than a few hours of the original MGS, due to how archaic it felt compared to other stealth games of its time.

You are complaining about the colour palates? Really? And MGS4 was set in 5 different places, only one of them was the Middle East, and they all had drastically different colour palates.

The story since the beginning has been outrageous. People love the franchise because of this.

And controls? That's all you can complain about. Seems like you just don't like the games, and that's fair, but they definitely deserve a lot of praise for pushing so many different boundaries of gaming at the time of their release.

Personally, I hated the ending of MGS4 that retconned everything in the series up to that point, but it was still a very enjoyable game.

@elisnake: Thief defined stealth better than MGS in my opinion.

Are those anything like snizz snukes? ...or Oprah's minge?

At one time, i would not have agreed with you but as of lately, I totatlly agree.

totally different look on things from me, but it's one of them games series you needed to be there for, when they came out.

MGS1 there was nothing like it out there at the time, it blew a gust of fresh air to the gaming world, the stories of war and the heartache of depressed feelings for the enemies was greatly welcomed.

I didn't like the second because it pretty much copied the story of the first game and in the game it actually even has solidous explain that the tanker was meant to represent what happened at shadow mosses,

the third game was amazing which took elements of the first 2 games and gave a wider look at the history of MGS, 4 was just more of a throw back to the old games and really pulled on the heart strings for nostalgia reasons more than anything.

I think it really is a series which you had to be there for more than trying to play them now,

let me guess you didn't play then in order :)

ppl play MGS games for story and stealth since well compared to most, MGS does do stealth right I mean its the only game really that has stealth as its main attraction.

Nope, reality.