Is MGS5 best open world game this generation?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Not by a country mile, which coincidentally is the usual stretch of land in this game between points of genuine fucking interest.

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".

He doesn't want anyone's opinion. He just wants us all to tell him how right he is.

The problem with MGSV's "open world" is that it is entirely devoid of any worthwhile landmarks.

I enjoy the gameplay, and how the large map is utilised to complete your objectives, but its just super boring to explore.

At least with TW3, there were a lot of interesting and memorable locations to visit and explore. MGSV is just brown.

You can have the best story or gameplay in the world, but if your map is boring, it may as well just be procedural, because im not going to remember it. Skyrim is a good example of the opposite, in that the world has great landmarks, and is fantastic to explore, but there is little to actually do in its world.

stroopwafel:

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.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that aspect either.

They really should have consolidated the weapons so they all fit on the selection wheel at once. We didn't need three kinds of arrows that just do regular damage, we didn't need three kinds of explosive trip mines when the ones with the wires are objectively better, we didn't need both sticky and non-sticky bombs and we sure as fuck didn't need harvest arrows.

However, I'll gladly take swapping out bows and selling/dropping junk every so ofen over MGS5's goddamn base and resource management.

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.

Those parts I didn't mind so much. The world was so ridiculously pretty that I often enjoyed travelling through it. Scavenging for health plants, while hardly thrilling, gave me something to do between point A and point B. Although I agree that having Alloy auto-harvest them instead of having to press a button would have been an improvement, especially when you're on a mount.

The travelling did wear on me by the late game though.

MGS5 could have been a great game had Konami deigned to let Kojima finish it.

The funny part is that people - apparently - still take TC seriously. I would have thought that everyone around here would have learned by now, but apparently not.

The formula:
"Here's my opinion that goes completely against the general consensus (most likely deliberately just to get a rise out of people), now lets have a discussion about it! Oh, btw: everything you say is completely, definitely wrong for no other reason than 'because I said so'."

Nier Automata>everything open world

Personally I reckon Far Cry 3/4 does open world stealth better, even if my all time favourite open world games for 'freedom of how to tackle objectives' as well as stealth is the tag team of Mercenaries (for it's vehicle stealth) and The Saboteur (for it's on-foot stealth). Combine those two and you'd have the perfect sandbox in my eyes.

I would agree that Witcher 3 is a much better game, not just in the sense of being an open world game. I am eagerly awaiting Cyberpunk 2077.

B-Cell:
it released around the time TW3 also released but its better than TW3 in every single way.

You'll have to elaborate on that, because I thought The Witcher 3 was better written, had a more interesting world, had better quests, a better story and better combat mechanics (once mastered). The second half of MGS5 was realy boring to me, it lacked the craziness of MGS4, the quality story of 3 and 1 or the meta weirdness of 2, I didn't even finish it, a first for the entire Metal Gear franchise.

There's also Breath of the Wild, which would have almost uniformly excellent except for the weapon degredation.
I liked Horizon Zero Dawn as well, it's a bit generic in some regards (woohoo it's the post apocalypse), but the setting, creature design and general build quality of the game were excellent.

MGSV tried to take a middle ground between the two "open world" game design philosophies, and didn't do it very well. It had sandbox-style maps, but little sandbox-style content, but relied on the older style of mission-free roam structure and content gating. Mother Base itself wasn't the problem, but rather that little was done with it except for a couple missions, and serving as the venue for progression mechanics. Honestly, I think the game could have pulled it off -- if the revenge system/enemy preparedness mechanic had been a lot more robust, aggressive, and dynamic. Those big-ass maps would have felt a lot more claustrophobic and dynamic if Snake (and the player) had to contend with infantry/armored patrols, CAP's, lookouts in unexpected positions whose sole purpose wasn't to engage Snake but rather report back intel on his whereabouts, CP's and outposts which actually upgraded in hardware deployment and fortification (or were abandoned, to deprive enemy forces of resources) based on Snake's activities, and even locals who could be allied with or turn against Snake depending on his choices.

For instance, I remember Afghanistan CP's 6, 9, and 11 to be my favorite whipping boys when I played MGSV. Centrally-located, placed along natural chokepoints, easily approached and vulnerable, and always there brimming with potential recruits and supplies. No reason to not hit them, ever, if you were traveling between major locations. So, what happens, and how does it impact your gameplay, if you've been a little aggressive, and ride through to unexpectedly find CP 11 and 6 abandoned except for one lookout on the ridges, and a tank company with heavy soldier escort and extensive fortifications at CP9, who could in turn rapidly respond to reports of enemy activity at Wakh Sind or Da Ghwandar?

I'd have to say no. Even with the open world it had I didn't feel like I needed or wanted to do any of it. The Witcher 3 however made me feel like I needed/wanted to do the open world stuff because of how I felt like I was either effecting the world or the people that lived inside of it.

well i gave up on this game once again. i tried to like it but i cant.

i dont think i will ever finish it.

I mean, while it wasn't a bad game, going through the world felt a pain (as you always need to return to Mother Base) and the effect on gameplay was hit or miss (sometimes it worked well but mostly didn't have much effect).

I think Witcher 3 is better deserving of the title, even if it's the obvious answer.

I had a lot more fun with the first Mordor game.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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