Is MGS5 best open world game this generation?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hello,

image

So my friends, as you know that i have been criticizing MGS5 since its released mainly because of its repetitiveness, however when compare it to any other open world games that released this generation like assassins creed, far cry, GTA, witcher 3 etc. what this game did better that it manage to have excellent gameplay mechanics and that lacks in ubisoft and rockstar games. it released around the time TW3 also released but its better than TW3 in every single way.

of course it doesnot deserve 10/10 and i was very harsh on this game when it was released but after replaying I realized that its not a bad game. certainly not compare to games i mention because those games were soo boring.

I just wish MGS5 would not be fully open world so it wouldnot suffer from repetitiveness.

other than that its certainly best open world game this gen. maybe because others are so damn boring.

what do you think? is it better than open world games of this gen?

discuss

I'm struggling to even think of any other good open world games. Still, open world stealth is a dumb idea. 3/5. (Same as TW3.)

It's not even a truly open-world game. And even the little open-world stuff that it does is pretty bad.

MGS5 just had boring open space with nothing to do but capture and parachute enemies that re-used the same locations for different story missions(and thus breaking any immersion). Witcher 3 had a genuine sense of place and felt 'lived in' with quality writing and varied quests. The only redeeming factor of MGS5 is it's attention to detail which was quite exquisite.

I honestly enjoy it more overall than Horizon: Zero Dawn, even though I really enjoyed the first ten or so hours of that. I plan to finish it yet, but MGSV to me has a lot more interesting things going on, and the base building/Fulton extraction is a lot better excuse for resource gathering, which is still far less excessive than what's in Horizon. I can tolerate the branching narrative but the gameplay should've stuck closer to fighting the dino-bots using various tactics, and a much more streamlined loot system. The upgrades feel too insignificant to justify all the time spent collecting resources and managing inventories.

In MGSV, it's like the game the series was always intended to be has finally come to fruition. With the expanded design there are so many new and different ways to play, and it's still full of random trademark MGS moments and surprises. You can tackle missions however you like, with whatever you like now, and it's pretty refreshing. I know a lot of people will disagree and say the linear, scripted storylines of the past were better, but I think of it as merely a welcomed change. We've had four main games with the old formula and almost everyone complained about all the cutscenes anyways. Maybe they could've struck a more middle-road balance between the two, but still given all the horror stories of the game's development surrounding Konami's implosion it ended up going above and beyond anything prior.

Breath of the Wild came out this generation, your argument is invalid

Nah, Witcher 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn both shit all over it.

MGS5's world is empty, ugly and boring and only serves to put a pointless commute between objectives.

I remember when MGS5 was demo'd at one of the game industry shows they actually had to fast-forward through the dull travelling. It was perfectly illustrative of the inherent shittiness of open worlds. "In order to make our own game look better we're going to skip through all the boring shit we put in there for some reason!"

Zhukov:
Nah, Witcher 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn both shit all over it.

Would disagree about HZD. The inventory management drags that game down so much. It's atleast one thing MGS5 did better. In HZD 90% is running and plucking. You're always hitting the square button or holding the square button; plucking, plucking, plucking. Always plucking. If that process was automated(or more rewarding by receiving way more wood per pluck) and the world more compact so that focus would be completely on the combat HZD would have been more enjoyable. The fights against those machines could get genuinely awesome.

Zhukov:
Nah, Witcher 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn both shit all over it.

MGS5's world is empty, ugly and boring and only serves to put a pointless commute between objectives.

I remember when MGS5 was demo'd at one of the game industry shows they actually had to fast-forward through the dull travelling. It was perfectly illustrative of the inherent shittiness of open worlds. "In order to make our own game look better we're going to skip through all the boring shit we put in there for some reason!"

When I think of boring commutes, I think of all the story-related destination missions in the GTA series, having to drive across town over and over while listening to some idiot blabber the same gangbanger bs every time I have to retry a mission. Not only is it more boring but it's more frustrating because the point of GTA is to go crazy in the sandbox, not follow the same route bypassing it all on the way to some scripted mission.

MGSV could have at least shortened the theatrics with traveling to different drop points (which were also a bit scarce to begin with), but at least it's not pretending to be part of the core gameplay. Hell, you could level that Horizon: Zero Dawn is a boring commute between Dino bots. I haven't played The Witcher 3 yet but I hear its world is at least full of interesting things between A and B.

Never played it, but it is the PS+ game for this month so I'll be downloading it later. I did play Ground Zeroes though and I did not enjoy it. So if that's any indication of what I have to look forward to... no.

B-Cell:
Snip

What exactly does MGSV do right that other open world games do wrong?

The Witcher 3 takes the cake for open-world games during this "generation". In a game where the side quests can branch into their own self-contained stories with choices that affect the world, in a way, it gave you purpose in what could have easily have been mere pretty set dressing. But the Witcher 3 created an engaging, beautiful world with the narrative to keep you motivated.

MGS5 is a textbook case of how not to do missions in an open world. Repetitive (lazy reuse of locations), aesthetically ugly (Yay, more shades of brown on the dirt spectrum) and for story reasons, pointless (Unfinished, convoluted trash). So much bloody wasted space yet it still felt like it cut corners on pretty much everything. There's a decent 3rd person stealth/shooter in there...it just deserved more focus, a better setting and more structure.

I'm pretty sure, for whatever other flaws people may find in it, The Witcher 3 is the current king of open world games. Even if you prefer MGSV's (Or any other open world game) gameplay, it's actual map, bland, drab and empty, is no match for The Witcher 3's vibrant, expansive, and jam packed map.

Comparing W3 to Breath of the Wild would be a more interesting argument, I think. Unfortunately, I haven't played BotW, so I could only spectate.

Now that I think about it, MGSV and FFXV are the only new open world games I've actually played this gen, and out of those two I preferred MGSV's open world. FFXV's was prettier, that's for sure, but missions in MGSV were typically designed with open world in mind, allowing me to tackle areas from different directions and create some fluidity between mission locations.

That said, everything outside of missions was typically boring and repetitive, and the game could have benefited from simply using large, hub-based missions, but I guess that isn't as marketable these days.

God what even is this? Oh a B-Cell thread...okay.

MSGV is not an open world game. It is a mission based games taking place on open maps, completely different thing. But let's count it as "open world" and rattle off only a handful of the games that did open world better.

Horizon: Zero Dawn - incredible open world game with plenty of things to see and do without being overly big for the sake of being big.

Forza Horizon 3 - again a wonderful open world game that is a blast to get around in while driving any number of widely different cars with a shit load of stuff to see and do.

The Witcher 3 - It's The Witcher 3, do I really have to explain this one?

Ghost Recon Wildlands - Say what you want about the game itself, the world is great. Loads of things to do, mini experience bonuses to find, tons of ways to get around.

Just Cause 3 - Just do whatever you want, however you want. Blow shit up, go crazy, have fucking fun.

Fallout 4 - I mean its a Fallout game. Get lost, have an adventure, nuff said.

Mad Max - I heard you like deserts, well who would have guessed this desert would be the most desert fun you can have in a video game. God this is a good game. Car Combat, Hand-to-hand combat, collectibles that are valuable and fun. Just good stuff.

Saints Row 4 - A basket of crazy awesome.

Obviously opinions are opinions. But I just don't think maybe people are going to rave about MGSV's "world" as much as you might think.

CritialGaming:

The Witcher 3 - It's The Witcher 3, do I really have to explain this one?

yes its witcher 3. a boring game with horrible combat system and controlling.

Captain Marvelous:
Never played it, but it is the PS+ game for this month so I'll be downloading it later. I did play Ground Zeroes though and I did not enjoy it. So if that's any indication of what I have to look forward to... no.

B-Cell:
Snip

What exactly does MGSV do right that other open world games do wrong?

Like I said. gameplay mechanics

Far cry has boring missions and too much traveling from point A to point B, AC have boring mediocre gameplay, GTA has always beeen overrated, etc

MGS5 definitely didnot deserve 10/10. its more of 8 or 7/10.

Captain Marvelous:
Never played it, but it is the PS+ game for this month so I'll be downloading it later. I did play Ground Zeroes though and I did not enjoy it. So if that's any indication of what I have to look forward to... no.

B-Cell:
Snip

What exactly does MGSV do right that other open world games do wrong?

Argh, I knew I should've waited. Anyways, as far as what it does right, it gives ultimate freedom of approach to missions, loads of tools and tactics to use, much of which are acquired though an incredibly deep but fully automated meta game via the motherbase. You also have useful and varied sidekicks that add even more depth to how you tackle missions. It's the ultimate "super-soldier" game, but instead of having inhuman super powers you have a massive, pseudorealistic toychest at your disposal, which you can modify as you see fit.

MGSV is a prime example of open world done wrong. All it does is serve as a long ass walk. There is NOTHING to do between point A and B.

B-Cell:
yes its witcher 3. a boring game with horrible combat system and controlling.

So you're just going to regurgitate the opinion of that moron on Youtube, "WorthABuy"? Are you literally 12 years old? It's obvious that you've never played The Witcher 3.

B-Cell:
Like I said. gameplay mechanics

Gameplay mechanics don't make the "open-world" of MGS V any less boring. It's just two huge, boring, empty maps with a bunch of military bases scattered around. The game would have been 10 times better if it featured multiple smaller but unique locations. MGS V has less varied locations than MGS 3. Kojima fucked up.

B-Cell:

CritialGaming:

The Witcher 3 - It's The Witcher 3, do I really have to explain this one?

yes its witcher 3. a boring game with horrible combat system and controlling.

Captain Marvelous:
Never played it, but it is the PS+ game for this month so I'll be downloading it later. I did play Ground Zeroes though and I did not enjoy it. So if that's any indication of what I have to look forward to... no.

B-Cell:
Snip

What exactly does MGSV do right that other open world games do wrong?

Like I said. gameplay mechanics

Give us some examples then, explain which parts of the game's game play mechanics make MGSV the best Open World game and why.

Adam Jensen:

B-Cell:
yes its witcher 3. a boring game with horrible combat system and controlling.

So you're just going to regurgitate the opinion of that moron on Youtube, "WorthABuy"? Are you literally 12 years old? It's obvious that you've never played The Witcher 3.

B-Cell:
Like I said. gameplay mechanics

Gameplay mechanics don't make the "open-world" of MGS V any less boring. It's just two huge, boring, empty maps with a bunch of military bases scattered around. The game would have been 10 times better if it featured multiple smaller but unique locations. MGS V has less varied locations than MGS 3. Kojima fucked up.

i dont need anyones opinion to see if witcher 3 is mediocre or not. and it is. its controlling with KB/M absolutely suck, its combat suck, its story is booring, and has too much dialogues. i mean waayy too much. that it feel like talking simulator

while i agree that MGS5 would be better without open world but its better game than any open world game released this generation.

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Yet you keep regurgitating that guy's opinion. Grow up buddy.

Even B-Cell admits the game would had been better without being open world, and yet he claims it's the best at it than the rest of the games for reasons that aren't related to being open world whatsoever. OP's title should be "I like MGS5 more than any other open world game for its non-open world features".

Adam Jensen:

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Yet you keep regurgitating that guy's opinion. Grow up buddy.

Not enough shooty shooty bang bang, talking makes brain hurt, just want to shoot guys, Too many women, needs more manly shooting, crossbow sucky weapon, bang bang!

CritialGaming:

Not enough shooty shooty bang bang, talking makes brain hurt, just want to shoot guys, Too many women, needs more manly shooting, crossbow sucky weapon, bang bang!

It suddenly makes sense why someone would think the Witcher 3 is a bad game - There was certainly less 'banging' in it than the previous games!

...I'll just leave now.

So it's the best open-world game this gen, because gameplay mechanics... Suuuuuure.

stroopwafel:
Would disagree about HZD. The inventory management drags that game down so much. It's atleast one thing MGS5 did better. In HZD 90% is running and plucking. You're always hitting the square button or holding the square button; plucking, plucking, plucking. Always plucking. If that process was automated(or more rewarding by receiving way more wood per pluck) and the world more compact so that focus would be completely on the combat HZD would have been more enjoyable. The fights against those machines could get genuinely awesome.

Once you realize you only need pick twigs and health herbs (along with whatever you can loot from enemies) gathering is not that demanding.

This article basically hits the nail on the head with the statement: . The size and scope of the two main maps - Afghanistan and Africa - allow for more gameplay possibilities, whereas the size and scope of other open worlds allow for more sidequests and padded content.

That's the main difference between MGSV and other (more literal) "open world" games. Few other games have the capacity to indulge the player's imagination nearly as much.

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Then why do you keep asking for them. Why does everything you post always end with "what do you think" and "discuss".

hanselthecaretaker:
This article basically hits the nail on the head with the statement: . The size and scope of the two main maps ? Afghanistan and Africa ? allow for more gameplay possibilities, whereas the size and scope of other open worlds allow for more sidequests and padded content.

That?s the main difference between MGSV and other (more literal) ?open world? games. Few other games have the capacity to indulge the player?s imagination nearly as much.

The gameplay possibilities aren't a result of the open-world though, but of it being a Metal Gear Solid game. MGS has always had a ton of different things you could horse around with. MGS5 gave you a mostly 360 degree approach to enemy camps, but whether that was worth the pretty boring open-world is debatable.

Ground Zeroes felt way more structured and "charismatic", lacking the dead spaces and plain visuals of Phantom Pain's open-world, while still giving you a wide enough area to fool around in. I would've much rather had a linear game with GZ sized maps to infiltrate.

Breath of the Wild and Witcher 3 kick it to the kerb. When Xenoblade Chronicles 2 comes out likely it will get kicked even harder

Johnny Novgorod:

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Then why do you keep asking for them. Why does everything you post always end with "what do you think" and "discuss".

Not to defend him at all, but isn't discussion value kind of a prerequisite for thread creation these days?

OT - haven't played it yet, is another game in the backlog. I will say though that I felt TW3 has the most full and alive open world that I can remember ever playing in. Can't really think of many ways to improve on what CDPR did with that game.

Not even close. Horizon Zero Dawn is an open world game that actually requires it's open world. MGS5 could've been filled with linear mini-sandbox levels like say a Dishonored.

Casual Shinji:

stroopwafel:
Would disagree about HZD. The inventory management drags that game down so much. It's atleast one thing MGS5 did better. In HZD 90% is running and plucking. You're always hitting the square button or holding the square button; plucking, plucking, plucking. Always plucking. If that process was automated(or more rewarding by receiving way more wood per pluck) and the world more compact so that focus would be completely on the combat HZD would have been more enjoyable. The fights against those machines could get genuinely awesome.

Once you realize you only need pick twigs and health herbs (along with whatever you can loot from enemies) gathering is not that demanding.

Pretty much. I do wish Aloy just auto picked up the health herbs because why would you ever not want them vs the other plants actually filling up your inventory. Plus, you can even buy the "rare" drops so you don't have to farm the enemies.

distortedreality:

Not to defend him at all, but isn?t discussion value kind of a prerequisite for thread creation these days?

OT - haven?t played it yet, is another game in the backlog. I will say though that I felt TW3 has the most full and alive open world that I can remember ever playing in. Can?t really think of many ways to improve on what CDPR did with that game.

It because of this, "i dont need anyones opinion to see if witcher 3 is mediocre or not. and it is. its controlling with KB/M absolutely suck, its combat suck, its story is booring, and has too much dialogues. i mean waayy too much. that it feel like talking simulator"

You post a thread in the hopes of starting a discussion or a conversation at very least, yet he doesn't really offer anything to discuss. There are no counter points, no reasoning, no logic, nothing more than saying shit for what can only be the sake of trolling or genuine lack of ability to hold a dialog in any way, shape, or form.

And yeah it grates on some nerves especially when people pretty much already know what he will say on any given topic. A good game needs to have manly men, shooting other manly men, with some story but not too much. Although he often also flip flops on which mechanics he likes on any given day.

What annoys me is that sometimes his topics are really good, it's all the follow-up discussion that just go nowhere and make no sense.

Johnny Novgorod:

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Then why do you keep asking for them. Why does everything you post always end with "what do you think" and "discuss".

Silly silly Johnny. You know he'll NEVER answer that one hahahaha

CritialGaming:

Adam Jensen:

B-Cell:
i dont need anyones opinion

Yet you keep regurgitating that guy's opinion. Grow up buddy.

Not enough shooty shooty bang bang, talking makes brain hurt, just want to shoot guys, Too many women, needs more manly shooting, crossbow sucky weapon, bang bang!

But doesn't women boobs?

Should hold B-Cell's attention for at least a while

Phoenixmgs:
I do wish Aloy just auto picked up the health herbs because why would you ever not want them vs the other plants actually filling up your inventory. Plus, you can even buy the "rare" drops so you don't have to farm the enemies.

I don't mind having to manually pick the herbs, but the health system should've been tweaked so it doesn't necessitate you having to go foraging for herbs after almost every battle. Though I wouldn't have minded an auto-pick ability when riding a mount, where you can just ride over a herb to instantly snatch it up. Not only would this circumvent having to get on and off your mount in order to forage, it would make them even more appealing than they already are as a faster way to forage. Maybe something they could implement in the sequel -- Guerilla, if you're listening...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here