MGS4 Under Pressure...1 Million Day One or Die!

[ThaMaskedGamer]

According to a report at Eurogamer, MGS4 needs to move 1M copies day one in order to profitable! Why it has to be on day one and not say the first week or the first month is beyond me. I think they are just starting the hype campaign again for this game cause no major media sites have been mentioning it over the last few months.

Here is the article from Eurogamer:
<b>Metal Gear Solid 4 has to sell over a million copies on day one if it is to be profitable, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

Still, game producer Ryan Payton is adamant it will not become multi-platform to recoup costs, and stands eagerly beside his old friend PlayStation.

"The PlayStation brand has always been good to us, and we're pretty bullish on the PS3," Payton told Reuters. "We're telling our fans that if you want to play Metal Gear Solid 4, you have to buy a PS3."

Reuters' report adds: "Payton said the new 'Metal Gear Solid' needs to sell over a million copies on the first day it goes on sale due to its costly production."

It is no secret rising development costs mean it is tougher to make money on exclusive titles these days, but PS3 has a particularly hard struggle as it hasn't sold as many consoles as its rivals.

Fantastically named IDC analyst Billy Pidgeon believes this new batch of games cost around USD 10 and 50 million to develop. Coo.

"You might be able to weather one title coming in at 500,000 in sales," warned Pidgeon, perched atop a power line. "But two or three failures like that and even big publishers are going to be hurting."

But Sony has looked into this miserable future and prepared against the demise of third-party exclusives by ramping up its own internal development. It now has 15 studios working on games, according to marketing boss Peter Dille, which is more than both Microsoft and Nintendo combined.

Apparently we will also see the same number of PS3 exclusives released between September 2007 and April 2008, too.

Dille added: "We understand publishers are needing to recoup their investment. From our perspective, as long as the games aren't going exclusive to other platforms, PS3 gamers are not actually losing anything."

What a wise old fellow.

Bringing it all to close is news that only two PS3 games have ever sold over one million copies, where as its older brother PS2 has had nearly one hundred surge over that mark. Still, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune at the end of next week, wink nudge.</b>

Well they are staying loyal to Sony 'till the end. I think they should be able to do it since by the time the game comes out they should be close to 10M worldwide. I think the advertising campaign will be a blitz so awareness will be at Halo levels. Still there is a large possibility they could fail to move one million in a day. Its kind of a silly move, remaining so loyal. Even if they move 2 million or 3, they could double that with a 360 release. Oh well, I guess 360 money don't spend for them.

[Mochan]

And the answer is... they're already profitable from the money Sony moneyhatted them with to keep them loyal!

[Gamer From '78]

According to a report at Eurogamer, MGS4 needs to move 1M copies day one in order to profitable! Why it has to be on day one and not say the first week or the first month is beyond me. I think they are just starting the hype campaign again for this game cause no major media sites have been mentioning it over the last few months.

Well they are staying loyal to Sony 'till the end. I think they should be able to do it since by the time the game comes out they should be close to 10M worldwide. I think the advertising campaign will be a blitz so awareness will be at Halo levels. Still there is a large possibility they could fail to move one million in a day. Its kind of a silly move, remaining so loyal. Even if they move 2 million or 3, they could double that with a 360 release. Oh well, I guess 360 money don't spend for them.

Let me say this first: I eagerly look forward to playing this title whenever it is released next year. Seems like July or later as it stands now.

BUT....the "super-mega-hyped-gotta-have-it-MGS2-train" has left the station. We aren't in 2001 anymore and the more time that has gone by, the less that the Metal Gear series sells. The series peaked with Metal Gear Solid 2. That game alienated alot of fans including me. The follow-up title, Metal Gear Solid 3-Snake Eater sold around HALF of what MGS2 passed. Snake Eater is also widely regarded as the best entry in the series.

Metal Gear Solid: 6.6 million
Metal Gear Solid 2-Sons of Liberty: 7 million
Metal Gear Solid 3: 3.7 million

That's a pretty drastic drop. Neither MGS2-Substance nore MGS3-Subsistence sold a million copies. Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

I'm sure MGS4 will sell over a million copies. That should be no problem. Day one? No way. The reality for Sony is that the Metal Gear series will never have the draw of Halo. There will be no midnight madness release for MGS4. It will be released to little or no fanfare. Just like everything else on the PS3.

[ilnadmy]

The follow-up title, Metal Gear Solid 3-Snake Eater sold around HALF of what MGS2 passed. Snake Eater is also widely regarded as the best entry in the series.

Say what? Let me break down your logic for you:

1. MGS2 sells 7 million.
2. MGS3 sells 3.7 million.
3. Half of the people who played MGS2 never played MGS3.
4. MGS3 is "widely regarded" as the best game in the series.

See where the disconnect in the logic train is? It's between 3 and 4. How do you go from "barely anyone played this game" to "it's widely regarded as the best"? Widely regarded by who? The 3 million people who never played it?

For me, MGS2 was the best in the series. For many people, it was the first. For yet another group, it was the third. I don't think there's any kind of major consensus on which game is the best.

That being said, MGS4 is going to wipe the floor with every single game to have come before it, and all those to be released after it.

[Cuddly Knife]

Snake Eater is the best in the series by a long shot.

What 78 was saying is how even though MGS3 was highly praised by almost everyone(gamers who played it and critics), gamers felt a little bit jaded after the drastic twists in MGS2. The first obviously being Raiden being the main guy throught the last 3/4 of the game. The second being how the story went all loopy in the end. People wanted to play as Snake. People also didn't want the last three hours of the game to be almost all cut scenes with fifteen minutes of gameplay thrown in the mix.

Of course, I thought the game was great, and still play it to this day(on the Xbox, along with MGS remake on GCN and MGS3 on the PS2), but most others that I have read on don't feel the same way as you and I, illest. The sales also show that this is true.

[T.Tashi]

I think people are conveniently forgetting a few things.

The biggest is it's a worldwide simultaneous release. A million in a day worldwide is not out the question by any stretch of the imagination.

Metal Gear Solid and MG2 were both the debut Metal Gears for each system. Four will be the debut for the PS3. There is gonna be a heightened interest in that fact and what new things Kojima brings to the gameplay and we've all seen a piece of that. And it'll move systems. MGS4 will be a reason people will buy a PS3.

It's a funny stat to throw out. Kinda like a movie has to make $100,000,000 on opening day to be profitable. That really makes no sense. The Titanic didn't make its $600 million one day so it's a bust? :rolleyes: I think the guy got misquoted. He's reported to have said, and it's not even a quote, that they need to sell a million copies the first day it goes on sale due to costly production. Maybe they need a million sales the first day to meet a financial projection. It only makes sense as it relates to projected sales over a length of time, because sales numbers drop over time. But Eurogamer seems to have jumped the gun and made a huge assumption.

[Mochan]

I haven't finished Snake Eater yet. Haven't even gotten past 10 minutes of it. It wasn't because I got jaded after MGS2, it was because the camera in MGS3 pissed me off.

The best game of the series was MGS1. *THAT* is a highly-held opinion by many people.

I do agree though that MGS is no Halo... and thank god for that.

[Gamer From '78]

Snake Eater is the best in the series by a long shot.

What 78 was saying is how even though MGS3 was highly praised by almost everyone(gamers who played it and critics), gamers felt a little bit jaded after the drastic twists in MGS2. The first obviously being Raiden being the main guy throught the last 3/4 of the game. The second being how the story went all loopy in the end. People wanted to play as Snake. People also didn't want the last three hours of the game to be almost all cut scenes with fifteen minutes of gameplay thrown in the mix.

Of course, I thought the game was great, and still play it to this day(on the Xbox, along with MGS remake on GCN and MGS3 on the PS2), but most others that I have read on don't feel the same way as you and I, illest. The sales also show that this is true.

Thanks for clearing that up Knife. And to address the rest of the replies, being a "debut" title for a new PS system has nothing to do with it.

Metal Gear Solid sold 6.6 million copies. The unbelievable hype for MGS2 moved 7 million copies. The subsequent title Snake Eater sold 3.7 million copies. Interest in this series is waning.

How so? This is in sharp contrast to Halo which sold 5 million copies with Halo 2 selling 8 million copies. Halo 3 has already surpassed 5 million copies as well, only being on the market for what, 3 months now? I don't think it is unreasonable to say Halo 3 will sell 8 million or more copies in it's lifetime, do you?

The Metal Gear series has been losing fans. Nobody rushed out to buy Portable Ops or the Ac!d titles. The special edition Substance and Subsistence titles didn't move a million each either, despite all the bonus goodies and the $29.99 price tag for MGS3-Subsistence-the best in the series that also includes both the original Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 from the MSX. Truly, this is the ultimate package for Metal Gear fans released so far. Also of note, Twin Snakes on the Gamecube which was a TRULY superb offering didn't move a million units either.

There is no hype train for MGS4. I think alot of gamers have moved on past the "FMV spectacle" and have grown tired of watching & listening to a game instead of actually PLAYING a game.

Do I want MGS4? Yes. Will I buy it shortly after it is released? Yes. Am I going to run to the store to get it? Nope. I probably won't even pick up a PS3 until around the time it is released. I have the money for a PS3 right now, yet can't find a good reason to buy it. Instead, I've been picking up some classics like Soul Calibur (Dreamcast), Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Perfect Dark and Jet Force Gemini (N64). All of those, mint & complete in the boxes/cases or whatever for under $60 with shipping.

I believe in doing things legal, and with top-notch emulators on my PC, a good controller and the original games, I've been having a blast.

[Mochan]

There is no hype train for MGS4. I think alot of gamers have moved on past the "FMV spectacle" and have grown tired of watching & listening to a game instead of actually PLAYING a game.

I would just like to point out that the Metal Gear Solid series doesn't use FMVs much. Like, MGS1 used one FMV at the very end of the game?

I do agree though that MGS as a whole has been on the decline, though it is unclear to me whether it was the fault of MGS2, MGS3, or both. I personally had no issues with MGS2.

MGS2 came along and did extremely well due to hype and the wow factor of its visuals at the time. MGS3, coming in on the tailend of last gen, totally did not have that wow factor and was a strange game as well.

Enter MGS4, coming in again with a lot of wow factor attached to its visuals, I don't know what will happen though. The PS3 is such an iffy platform to sell games on so it feels like a train wreck waiting to happen. The game will undoubtedly move some PS3s, but how many? I hope for the PS3's success though, I want it go up and the 360 to go down. Either that or the 360 fix up its hardware.

[Tappy_Tibbons]

MGS4 looks to be the first good game in the series since they decided to steal Splinter Cell's control scheme instead of the total crap used in the last 3 games.

[Mochan]

Spliter Cell stole its control scheme from Tenchu....

[ThaMaskedGamer]

That's the funny thing. We already had SC Conviction, which I thought the single player was a great change and improvement to the series. Now since the next generation started we have been hearing about MGS4. This has to be one of the longest games in development ever. When it releases even if it is good, the question is will Splinter Cell come along again and kick its arse in the gameplay department.

Plus we all know SC will have a killer online component while MGS4 probably won't have ANY online component.

I think Metal Gear would make a great movie. A better movie than game. Or at least I think if the game is going to really live up to its hype, they need to turn the game's infrastructure and mechanics over to a western developer who could really do the gameplay justice.

But this will be a classic 360 v. PS3 battle. MGS4 exclusive to the PS3, SC5 exclusive to the 360. Which will be better? That's a suckers bet, SC5, gameplay wise is going to wipe the floor with MGS4. Now a lot of you Snake lovers will tell us how much u love the story, but then a few years later tell us how u didn't like the story(as with MGS2), so that's subjective, but gameplay and technicals and mechanics, watch SC5 is gonna sh*t all over MGS4.

I'll play both. Or I will try. Like Mochan experienced with MGS3, I couldn't play past I think level 3 in MGS:S on XBOX, now granted it was rental, if I had bought the game, I would have finished it. I think i'll gamble, even given my past dislike for this franchise, and just buy MGS4 day one. I mean its gotta be hot, otherwise Sony may as well just get out of the game.

[Jaa Phaanom]

Plus we all know SC will have a killer online component while MGS4 probably won't have ANY online component.


I think there's a video on PSN showing the online gameplay for MGS4.

[ilnadmy]

The gameplay in any one MGS game wipes the floor with the gameplay in all the SC games combined. Which isn't saying much, since they all have the same gameplay, just different levels. What they should do, to avoid confusion, is instead of releasing Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, etc... just do what EA does with its sports games: Splinter Cell 2007, Splinter Cell 2008, Splinter Cell 2009 World Cup, etc...

Would make things a lot simpler if you ask me.

[Jaa Phaanom]

The gameplay in any one MGS game wipes the floor with the gameplay in all the SC games combined. Which isn't saying much, since they all have the same gameplay, just different levels. What they should do, to avoid confusion, is instead of releasing Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, etc... just do what EA does with its sports games: Splinter Cell 2007, Splinter Cell 2008, Splinter Cell 2009 World Cup, etc...

Would make things a lot simpler if you ask me.

Activision should do the same with the Call of Duty games :prrr: the Splinter Cell series has become pretty stale though. Hopefully, Conviction will change that.

[Mochan]

This has to be one of the longest games in development ever.

You're Just being pedantic here, not even close. MGS4, probably wasn't in development until after MGS3 which shipped around 2004 so I really doubt that MGS4 probably has been in development for more than 3 years. In fact, if you think about it, it couldn't have been in development for longer than the PS3 dev kits were shipped, which I recall was in 2005 so the game has probably only been in development for some 2 years thus far.

Now how does that stack up to other games?

Daikatana took 3 years to develop.
Van Braun (Fallout 3) started is going 4 years.
Frontier took 5 years.
Stalker was in development for 7 years.
Team Fortress 2 was in development for 9 years.
Duke Nukem Forever has been in development for like 10 years.
Prey is the grand champion to my knowledge, taking 11 years.


On the other hand, let's look at a game that we know has been in development for longer than 3 years now. Too Human, for the XBox 360, this was originally announced in 1999 and is still in development slated for a release next year, even if you only want to count its time in development on the 360 which began in 2005, that's 2 years counting with two lawsuits to boot, that's still at least as long as MGS4 could possibly have been in development.

So quit barking up the wrong tree, if you're going to hate a game at least get some perspective.



For the record, I think MGS4 will technically be better than Splinter Cell, the Splinter Cell series has never really impressed me on a technical level although that may also have to do with the directing of the scenes. I still remember when MGS2 first came out and the intro sequence rocked my boxers. I've played 3 SC games thus far and nothing in them managed to impress in terms of the cinematics, and in terms of technical aspects the first 3 SC games have never impressed me either, may have to do with how bad they looked in comparison to contemporaries on the PC front.

Did Double Agent really manage to go to a level of technical excellence beyond others of its ken? Never played DA but I really doubt it.

Gameplaywise Splinter Cells have always been a Thief Ripoff with bad level design and watching Sam Fisher flex his decades old muscles onscreen in bukake splits, but I will admit I did not like the gameplay in MGS3 much, though a lot of that sentiment has to do with the camera and how I couldn't even see myself at times, much less the enemies.

[silversparrow]

Daikatana took 3 years to develop.
Van Braun (Fallout 3) started is going 4 years.
Frontier took 5 years.
Stalker was in development for 7 years.
Team Fortress 2 was in development for 9 years.
Duke Nukem Forever has been in development for like 10 years.
Prey is the grand champion to my knowledge, taking 11 years.
You can also add Oblivion (4 years) to that list.

Gameplaywise Splinter Cells have always been a Thief Ripoff with bad level design and watching Sam Fisher flex his decades old muscles onscreen in bukake splits, but I will admit I did not like the gameplay in MGS3 much, though a lot of that sentiment has to do with the camera and how I couldn't even see myself at times, much less the enemies.
Have you tried MGS3:S? The inclusion of the user controllable camera solved all those problems with the game.

[Mochan]

Not yet unfortunately, it's just one of those games that I forgot all about by the time Subsistence came along. I probably will sometime but I'd have to track down a copy of the game.

[Cuddly Knife]

Plus we all know SC will have a killer online component while MGS4 probably won't have ANY online component. I think that MGS4 will come out, then MGS Online will be something akin to Warhawk. Online only game, either as a piece of DLC or a retail version for 40 bones.

I think Metal Gear would make a great movie. A better movie than game. Or at least I think if the game is going to really live up to its hype, they need to turn the game's infrastructure and mechanics over to a western developer who could really do the gameplay justice. I don't think a MGS movie would work at all. There are too many important things that would be left out of the movie. Plus, would you really want to see realistic versions of bosses like what we have in MGS series? I wouldn't, unless it was CG.

I'll play both. Or I will try. Like Mochan experienced with MGS3, I couldn't play past I think level 3 in MGS:S on XBOX, now granted it was rental, if I had bought the game, I would have finished it. Dude, it's B/C on your PS3, and can't cost more than ten bucks, I bet. Subsistense. Or however the hell it's spelled. The one with the controlable cam-cam.

In fact, if you think about it, it couldn't have been in development for longer than the PS3 dev kits were shipped, which I recall was in 2005 so the game has probably only been in development for some 2 years thus far. Correct. The original trailer for the game(using some crappy graphics compared to where it's at now), came out in May '05. http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/vids_7.html

The gameplay in any one MGS game wipes the floor with the gameplay in all the SC games combined. Which isn't saying much, since they all have the same gameplay, just different levels. I feel the same way about both games. They all have added minor improvements to the games, but usually most things stay the same. It's kind of a wierd situation here for the next two in the series. Except the new SC is going a different route. If it's gonna be Splinter Cell/Assassin's Creed, then it will be nuts, seeing how much I enjoyed AC, and the gameplay will only be all the better.

I find myself being a bit of a hypocrite here. I am really leaning more towards SC because of the promise of new gameplay elements compared to what we've seen in other versions, meanwhile, MGS is basically staying the same(I don't think the warring factions will play to big a part in this game, when they've shown lots of hints that this will be another story-driven game with little room for sandboxing), with the exception of the (IMO, it's just silly) poorly utilized octo-cam and third/first-person views. However, I find myself dissing DMC4 for going the way of a totally new gameplay element, while praising NG2 for sticking to the current formula, refined. I wanted DMC4 to follow what 3 did(it still might, thank you playable Dante), but then again, I think MGS4 would lose something if it went a new way. And seeing how this is the grand finale, changing things too much would probably just alienate gamers even more from what MGS2 did.

[Mochan]

I don't think a MGS movie would work at all. There are too many important things that would be left out of the movie. Plus, would you really want to see realistic versions of bosses like what we have in MGS series? I wouldn't, unless it was CG.

Beowulf!

Me I don't want a liveaction movie either. I'm an animation junkie.


Except the new SC is going a different route. If it's gonna be Splinter Cell/Assassin's Creed, then it will be nuts, seeing how much I enjoyed AC, and the gameplay will only be all the better.

MGS4 looks to be going a different direction as well, but we shall see. The Warring elements thing seems like you could correlate it to what SC did with Double Agent, i.e. not really important in the grand scheme, but who knows how it plays out. I for one think you are right in saying it's still going to be a story (and character)-driven game. The bigger changes seem to be in the control scheme and feel rather than creating a sandbox game.

Assassin's Creed, I sort of curse myself that it's not out on the PC yet until Spring next year, but then I look at the backlog of games I have lined up and then realize I don't really mind. But don't get me wrong I so want the game, I am more interested in it than the gazillion other shooters I have lined up to play, if for nothing else than to have something different and to get a good stealth game back in my system.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I think there's a video on PSN showing the online gameplay for MGS4.

Opps, if true, my bad.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

The gameplay in any one MGS game wipes the floor with the gameplay in all the SC games combined. Which isn't saying much, since they all have the same gameplay, just different levels. What they should do, to avoid confusion, is instead of releasing Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, etc... just do what EA does with its sports games: Splinter Cell 2007, Splinter Cell 2008, Splinter Cell 2009 World Cup, etc...

Would make things a lot simpler if you ask me.

That just goes to show you have no clue about what u speak of. First of all SC was light years ahead of anything on the consoles when it released, so forgive them if they used the engine for a few sequels. Splinter Cell 2 was different from SC 1 in that they added the Spies vs Mercs online campaign, and also gave the story campaign an online co-op mode. The spies v. mercs was one of the greatest achievements in online play of last generation.

But where u are totally wrong and clueless is the last Splinter Cell, it was NOTHING at all like the first ones, give the PS3 version a spin and u will see.

And I'd much rather have an action packed feature rich SC game every year, than an overhyped snooze fest with little gameplay features every 2 or 3 years.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You're Just being pedantic here, not even close. MGS4, probably wasn't in development until after MGS3 which shipped around 2004 so I really doubt that MGS4 probably has been in development for more than 3 years. In fact, if you think about it, it couldn't have been in development for longer than the PS3 dev kits were shipped, which I recall was in 2005 so the game has probably only been in development for some 2 years thus far. Wrong, developers often do work on games before they get dev kits, they just work to a set of theorized specs the console manufacturer gives them. And even if we just go back to '05, which we know the game was in developement before it was shown 3 years is being kind. I think by the time the game releases, Holidays '08 my guess with the usual last minute delays, the game will probably be four years in development. Compare that with SC5 which wil have a two year turn around and i'll bet dollars to donuts technically SC5 whips Metal Gears arse.

<b>
On the other hand, let's look at a game that we know has been in development for longer than 3 years now. Too Human, for the XBox 360, this was originally announced in 1999 and is still in development slated for a release next year, even if you only want to count its time in development on the 360 which began in 2005, that's 2 years counting with two lawsuits to boot, that's still at least as long as MGS4 could possibly have been in development. </b>Yeah but u are comparing apples to oranges. MGS4 wasn't conceived in one generation for one platform and then moved to another generation to a different platform. Metal Gear hasn't run into major problems with its game engine that would force the developer to file a lawsuit and then modify the engine themselves. So let's not be misleading.

<b>
So quit barking up the wrong tree, if you're going to hate a game at least get some perspective. </b>Oh so saying the game is a long time in development is hating on the game? Why do u think the game will have a budget over $50 million easily?


<b>
For the record, I think MGS4 will technically be better than Splinter Cell, the Splinter Cell series has never really impressed me on a technical level although that may also have to do with the directing of the scenes. I still remember when MGS2 first came out and the intro sequence rocked my boxers.</b>That's because u are talking about cinematics and i'm talking about gameplay. Gameplay wise u didn't have all the different animations that Sam could achieve in MetalGear. Climbing up poles, zip-lining, hanging upside down chocking guys, rappelling down a building and busting through the glass window, shooting all kinds of gadets that stick to walls and zap people or become cameras from which u could dispense gas! And the environments, SC is very much a vertical game, incorporating vents and overhead infrastructure, really MGS2 at least was comical compared to SC side by side.

<b>
Did Double Agent really manage to go to a level of technical excellence beyond others of its ken? Never played DA but I really doubt it.</b>PC front? Duh SC was a PC game too. And the only close to it was Thief and SC advanced way beyond the Thief series, now some people prefer Thief, but in terms of what u can do with your character, SC took it to the next level.

Anyway, i'm anxious to play both, so if Metal Gear is better, i'll be damn surprised but I won't be angry. I'll just be surprised. I think the kind of movements and animation and visuals in Assassin's Creed will be utilized even further in the next Splinter Cell game. Technically I think Ubisoft teams work together and share information better than in other companies. And I think when u look at the GRAW and Rainbow series it is easy to say they get stale, but then u see a competitor like COD4 try and step up and fail in so many ways technically. COD4 paints a pretty picture, but it is a very shallow game and even graphically GRAWS geometry, textures, animation, definitely AI, and vehicles are way better than COD4 superficial eye candy. So I haven't seen a japanese developer keep pace technically with western teams. We will see.

[Dancer O_o]

I watched the videos, hot scientist, stupid monkey, tactical team lead by wacky haired chic, screaming mechanical thing that thinks it's a dinosaur, stupid monkey, token blackguy arms dealer trying to be sooo damned cool with nade, geriatric Snake, stupid monkey, homosexual references and downright juvenile bathroom humor...no thanks...let's not forget the stupid monkey shall we.

It may sell 1 million in Japan, but not anywhere else. MGS is not a console moving property anymore, sad but true, get passed it. The more I see of that game the less I want it, if they expect it to sell 1 million they better stop with the trailers. And, when it fails like a dog on the PS3 you'll see the developer chance it's tune about releasing it on other consoles real fast.

[T.Tashi]

Splinter Cell was stealth on rails. It was so linear it redefined what a straight line is. That game got a pass because of its graphics and little else.

[Gamer From '78]

I watched the videos, hot scientist, stupid monkey, tactical team lead by wacky haired chic, screaming mechanical thing that thinks it's a dinosaur, stupid monkey, token blackguy arms dealer trying to be sooo damned cool with nade, geriatric Snake, stupid monkey, homosexual references and downright juvenile bathroom humor...no thanks...let's not forget the stupid monkey shall we.

It may sell 1 million in Japan, but not anywhere else. MGS is not a console moving property anymore, sad but true, get passed it. The more I see of that game the less I want it, if they expect it to sell 1 million they better stop with the trailers. And, when it fails like a dog on the PS3 you'll see the developer chance it's tune about releasing it on other consoles real fast.

While I must see how the series "ends" I cannot help but chuckle and agree with everything you said. The last few trailers I have seen for MGS4 made me go "ugh" with despair. But I have to add that the new breed of Metal Gear are particularly stupid looking. What purpose do these biped half machine/half robot things serve. They seem to come from the School of Bad Game Design. The little robot that runs around and almost falls over adds a level of stupidity to the game and takes away from whatever the main gist of the "you-know-it-will-be-convulted-story." The monkey is plain retarded.

MGS4 is shooting for new levels of stupidity. And here I thought that naked Raiden running around the sewers in MGS2 was bad. :rolleyes: I truly think we are seeing the tell-tale signs of dementia from Kojima after being forced by Konami to work on Metal Gear games for the last 20 years.

As for Splinter Cell Conviction, I have high hopes for this game. Ubisoft is taking their time and it wasn't long after Konami announced the delay for MGS4 that Ubi pushed Conviction back to about the same time. Splinter Cell as a series beats Metal Gear in the "stealth" category hands-down. The draw for Metal Gear was always the cutscenes and characters. But I think that in this day and age, gamers being forced to watch & listen to inane babble over a Codec won't cut the mustard.

[Gamer From '78]

Splinter Cell was stealth on rails. It was so linear it redefined what a straight line is. That game got a pass because of its graphics and little else.

And how would you describe Metal Gear? Running down a straight line is how I describe it. Little variation if any at all. No penalty for being discovered in a game that is supposed to be about "stealth." Half the time, you could leave an aread and then come back. Or at least get away from the guards for a minute or so and they forget all about you. Splinter Cell had real consequences and you FAILED your mission if discovered.

[Gamer From '78]

I would just like to point out that the Metal Gear Solid series doesn't use FMVs much. Like, MGS1 used one FMV at the very end of the game?

I do agree though that MGS as a whole has been on the decline, though it is unclear to me whether it was the fault of MGS2, MGS3, or both. I personally had no issues with MGS2.

MGS2 came along and did extremely well due to hype and the wow factor of its visuals at the time. MGS3, coming in on the tailend of last gen, totally did not have that wow factor and was a strange game as well.

Enter MGS4, coming in again with a lot of wow factor attached to its visuals, I don't know what will happen though. The PS3 is such an iffy platform to sell games on so it feels like a train wreck waiting to happen. The game will undoubtedly move some PS3s, but how many? I hope for the PS3's success though, I want it go up and the 360 to go down. Either that or the 360 fix up its hardware.

Sorry, I didn't mean FMV per-se, but rather cutscenes and Codec babble galore. And as much "wow" that gamers get from the graphcs, there is an equal amount of "ugh" due to the ludicrous characters and plotline. Reall, do we need a version of Speed Racer's Chim-Chim in the game? :rolleyes:

[Cuddly Knife]

Hmm, I may be in the minority here, but to me, the graphics for MGS4 already look outdated compared to games like Uncharted, Crysis(duh), and even Gears. Anyone else agree?

[T.Tashi]

And how would you describe Metal Gear? Running down a straight line is how I describe it. Little variation if any at all. No penalty for being discovered in a game that is supposed to be about "stealth." Half the time, you could leave an aread and then come back. Or at least get away from the guards for a minute or so and they forget all about you. Splinter Cell had real consequences and you FAILED your mission if discovered.

What real consequence? It's a game. The real life option is you're dead. Anyway on extreme the consequence was game over. At least Metal Gear gave you some open area so you had more than 1 way to get from A to B allowing you some gameplay versatility. Splinter Cell lacked even that. I love stealth and I've played a lot of stealth games, some of it pretty obsure stuff: Tenchu, Hitman, Rogue Ops, Siren, CY Girls, Sly Cooper, some James Bond titles... some of it stealth heavy and some stealth lite. I got about halfway through Splinter Cell and absolutely hated it. The linearity, combined with the level design was overly contrived and incredibly bland. So, the graphics and the gadgets (paint by numbers as they were) were the highlights.

[Gamer From '78]

Hmm, I may be in the minority here, but to me, the graphics for MGS4 already look outdated compared to games like Uncharted, Crysis(duh), and even Gears. Anyone else agree?

I think it boils down to style more than sheer graphics horsepower to make a game look good. That being said, MGS4 isn't anything to really write home about graphically. Pretty much most Unreal Engine games have the same level of detail. Call of Duty 4 looks just as good. Gears and Rainbow Six Vegas look better IMO.

People can say what they want, but the bland color pallette detracts from MGS4 for me. Is it Kojima & Co. covering up for crap hardware that is hard to work with, as they did with Metal Gear Solid 2 and it's "everything is green or a shade thereof" color pallette?

Again, it boils down to preference in aesthetics. But I can name off a bunch of games more "eye appealing" to me than MGS4. Halo 3 would be one of those with it's vivid, varied colors and use of lighting.

And I just have to say this...the new "chicks in suits" or whatever they are that mimic characters from MGS1? D-U-M-B. :rolleyes:

[ilnadmy]

Super Mario World had more varied colors than MGS2. Does that it make it a better looking game?

Idiot.

And the "Beauty and the Beast" unit is pure GENIUS. If you can't appreciate it, then GTFO of my internets.

[Gamer From '78]

Super Mario World had more varied colors than MGS2. Does that it make it a better looking game?

Idiot.

And the "Beauty and the Beast" unit is pure GENIUS. If you can't appreciate it, then GTFO of my internets.

Please, refrain from the personal insults and petty attacks Ilnadmy. You are better than this.

My example of the color pallette in Halo 3 making the game more eye appealing to me than the drab colors of the MGS series was clearly labeled as "IMO". You then use a game from three generations ago that was colorful (SMW) to try and discredit my opinions. That makes YOU the "idiot."

To each his own on the "Beauty and the Beast" unit. I think it's stupid. I'll go on record right now as saying that this game will be yet another Kojima-snorefest, over-burdened with mindless babble, cutscenes galore and Codec-speak that puts you to sleep faster than Ambien CR.

This game will do next to nothing to improve the status of the PS3 as dead-last this generation. And when gamers see Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto and several other series previously associated with the Playstation brand on the Xbox 360, it will only serve to hurt Sony further.

[silversparrow]

This game will do next to nothing to improve the status of the PS3 as dead-last this generation.
Is this what it's come down to? Which console sells the most?

Going by your logic the Xbox and GC were total crud and not worth anybody's time since they didn't sell anywhere near as much as the PS2.

[ilnadmy]

Please, refrain from the personal insults and petty attacks Ilnadmy. You are better than this.

My example of the color pallette in Halo 3 making the game more eye appealing to me than the drab colors of the MGS series was clearly labeled as "IMO". You then use a game from three generations ago that was colorful (SMW) to try and discredit my opinions. That makes YOU the "idiot."

To each his own on the "Beauty and the Beast" unit. I think it's stupid. I'll go on record right now as saying that this game will be yet another Kojima-snorefest, over-burdened with mindless babble, cutscenes galore and Codec-speak that puts you to sleep faster than Ambien CR.

This game will do next to nothing to improve the status of the PS3 as dead-last this generation. And when gamers see Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto and several other series previously associated with the Playstation brand on the Xbox 360, it will only serve to hurt Sony further.

Oh come on, this is System Wars. What's Sys Wars without some trash talk?

But fine, I'll play your way this time. Halo 3 obviously looks better than MGS2, but that's because its a 360 game while MGS2 was a PS2 game. When MGS2 came out it looked amazing. I don't care that it didn't have a wide palette of colors. Did Gears of War have a wide palette of colors? It's all grey and brown, just like MGS2. It still looks amazing though. Plus, the Plant level of MGS2 had a lot more colors than the Tanker, especially when the sun started to set, and when you moved into Arsenal.

What about Splinter Cell? All the Xbots were drooling over that game when it was released, and yet it's all dark, dark, and more dark. What happened there? Why does Splinter Cell look good but MGS2 doesn't? Makes no sense.

And as far as the story, MGS's storyline is based on the supernatural. I don't expect realism when I pop in an MGS game. I mean Psycho Mantis? Cardboard boxes? Stuffing Nikita launchers in his pants and pulling them out at will? Vamp? Walking nuclear tanks? Cyborg ninjas? I love all those things, and yet in no way are they realistic. You guys loved the first MGS, and yet it wasn't realistic at all. What happened since then?

And honestly, I don't care if MGS4 doesn't catapult the PS3 into first place. I'm going to play it because I enjoy the series and want to see how the story ends. I'm not playing this game because it'll help the PS3. I'm going to play this game because I WANT TO PLAY THE GAME. It's that simple.

[silversparrow]

I don't care that it didn't have a wide palette of colors. Did Gears of War have a wide palette of colors? It's all grey and brown, just like MGS2. It still looks amazing though. Plus, the Plant level of MGS2 had a lot more colors than the Tanker, especially when the sun started to set, and when you moved into Arsenal.

It's been explained by one of the producers at Konami that MGS4 will take place in more than one locale. So far we've only seen scenes from the Middle-Eastern portion of the game. It's very easy to conclude that the game doesn't have a "wide color palette" if you're only judging it by the videos available so far.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

When MGS2 came out it looked amazing.
It did? Wow, it must have looked dramatically different on the PS2 than it did on the XBOX, because it looked like garbage on the XBOX, especially compared to Splinter Cell. Graphically there is no comparing the two.

I agree with you though that games don't necessarily need a lot of vibrant colors to look great. But MGS2 just didn't look great at all. Unless u mean the movies.

[ilnadmy]

Dude, for a PS2 game, MGS2 looked stunning. Maybe it wasn't up to par with the top Xbox graphics, but come now we're talking about the PS2 version.

[Cuddly Knife]

MGS2 looked good, but Halo 2 looked better than MGS2 and 3. MGS3 looked really good, and was probably the most impressive PS2 game, looks-wise.

Wow. I just saw a commercial for the PS3 showing MGS4 in with games like Assassin's Creed and SvR08. Gotta say that AC looked more impressive on the commercial.

[Gamer From '78]

Oh come on, this is System Wars. What's Sys Wars without some trash talk?

But fine, I'll play your way this time. Halo 3 obviously looks better than MGS2, but that's because its a 360 game while MGS2 was a PS2 game. When MGS2 came out it looked amazing. I don't care that it didn't have a wide palette of colors. Did Gears of War have a wide palette of colors? It's all grey and brown, just like MGS2. It still looks amazing though. Plus, the Plant level of MGS2 had a lot more colors than the Tanker, especially when the sun started to set, and when you moved into Arsenal.

What about Splinter Cell? All the Xbots were drooling over that game when it was released, and yet it's all dark, dark, and more dark. What happened there? Why does Splinter Cell look good but MGS2 doesn't? Makes no sense.

And as far as the story, MGS's storyline is based on the supernatural. I don't expect realism when I pop in an MGS game. I mean Psycho Mantis? Cardboard boxes? Stuffing Nikita launchers in his pants and pulling them out at will? Vamp? Walking nuclear tanks? Cyborg ninjas? I love all those things, and yet in no way are they realistic. You guys loved the first MGS, and yet it wasn't realistic at all. What happened since then?

And honestly, I don't care if MGS4 doesn't catapult the PS3 into first place. I'm going to play it because I enjoy the series and want to see how the story ends. I'm not playing this game because it'll help the PS3. I'm going to play this game because I WANT TO PLAY THE GAME. It's that simple.

You continue to skirt the issue. I'm comparing Metal Gear Solid 4 to Halo 3. Current Gen versus Current Gen. Halo 3 looks better IMO. Going back to last gen, Halo and Halo 2 looked better than Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3 respectively. Hell, Halo looked better than both MGS games.

What's happened since the first Metal Gear Solid to change gamers minds?

Metal Gear Solid has enemies like Sniper Wolf, Vulcan Raven, Decoy Octopus, Liquid Snake and Psycho Mantis. Though Mantis was weird, psychic abilities aren't that far fetched and the rest of the gang was fairly normal. Then you have the Metal Gear which was a bipedal nuke launcher. Not all that out there if you ask me.

Metal Gear Solid 2 has enemies like the black chick that can't die, Vamp, the fat dude on rollerblades planting bombs and an androgynous, gender-bending "hero" named Raiden. The Metal Gear is a big screaming dinosaur with lasers in it's mouth ala Godzilla and the story was so convulted it could give you motion sickness ad nauseum.

And no arguement about playing a game because you want to play it. I'm just saying that this convulted game won't help the PS3's fortunes.

[ilnadmy]

Obviously Halo and Halo 2 looked better than MGS2 and MGS3, Xbox was superior hardware. You can't say the same about PS3 vs 360. Plus, Bungie couldn't even get full 720p going on Halo 3, and had to compensate by throwing unmitigated bloom in your face. I wouldn't call that "great graphics". Sure, it's colorful, but colors != great graphics.

[Mochan]

Godzilla is awesome.

[Tappy_Tibbons]

MGS is typical Japanese-overly-convoluted-cannot-get-to-the-point-if-their-life-depended-on-it-crap

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You continue to skirt the issue. I'm comparing Metal Gear Solid 4 to Halo 3. Current Gen versus Current Gen. Halo 3 looks better IMO. Going back to last gen, Halo and Halo 2 looked better than Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3 respectively. Hell, Halo looked better than both MGS games.

What's happened since the first Metal Gear Solid to change gamers minds?

Metal Gear Solid has enemies like Sniper Wolf, Vulcan Raven, Decoy Octopus, Liquid Snake and Psycho Mantis. Though Mantis was weird, psychic abilities aren't that far fetched and the rest of the gang was fairly normal. Then you have the Metal Gear which was a bipedal nuke launcher. Not all that out there if you ask me.

Metal Gear Solid 2 has enemies like the black chick that can't die, Vamp, the fat dude on rollerblades planting bombs and an androgynous, gender-bending "hero" named Raiden. The Metal Gear is a big screaming dinosaur with lasers in it's mouth ala Godzilla and the story was so convulted it could give you motion sickness ad nauseum.

And no arguement about playing a game because you want to play it. I'm just saying that this convulted game won't help the PS3's fortunes.

Well I gotta kind of disagree with you here. What you are saying about last generation is all pretty accurate. But in terms of MGS4 I have to say the game looks impressive. I can't say it will be graphically better than A.C. or SC5, in fact, mostly likely it won't look as good as either. But at least it will be a contemporary challenger. At least the graphics will be "modern" and good enough that they don't look substandard next to other games. Plus looking at some of the videos the animations look great! This was a big problem I had with MGS2, the animations were garbage and Snake couldn't do half the moves Sam Fisher could. In this game it appears u can truly do a lot of stealthy things.

Now, notice I haven't said anything about MGS3, I've never played the game. But if MGS4 is technically equivalent to modern games, then I think its story, convoluted or not, may actually be an appeal for the game. I don't know as much as you guys do about the story and characters, but they always seemed very cool to me, i just couldn't get past the gameplay and graphics. So now thats not longer an obstacle I look forward to seeing these characters in a real nextgen game, even if it isn't the apex of graphics.

As I said before, I know SC5 is gonna kill MGS4 graphically, so i'm not going to be disappointed when that becomes reality. I still will likely buy MGS4 day one and I expect it to be a very good game. Of course, if it isn't, I will be the first to tear into the game. Its a 3rd person stealth/action game, i'm looking forward to it, i'm not going to hold its past against it. If it is a great game it will be a good exclusive for the system, even if the graphics aren't the best. The big problem though is if it is bad, that's really going to hurt the PS3. So I think there is a lot of pressure on this game.

I will add though that if MGS4 doesn't look better than Halo3, that will be a tremendous failure. I think the game will look better than Halo3. It has no reason to not. Halo3 is a game that features a lot of elements on screen, huge environments, vehicles, etc., no game has a single player campaign the scope of Halo3, so Halo3 is no where near what can be achieved on the 360 if u bring the scale down and focus on a smaller gaming world with more detailed characters, as we have seen in other games. MGS4 is longer in dev., releasing later, and has a much smaller scope. They should be able to give each element on screen more polys, more detail, and better animation. If it looks worse than Halo3, that will be a disappointment.

[Dancer O_o]

Metal Gear Solid has enemies like Sniper Wolf, Vulcan Raven, Decoy Octopus, Liquid Snake and Psycho Mantis. Though Mantis was weird, psychic abilities aren't that far fetched and the rest of the gang was fairly normal. Then you have the Metal Gear which was a bipedal nuke launcher. Not all that out there if you ask me.

You have got to be kidding. Psychic abilities to this day have yet to be proven under any lab conditions AT ALL! And most Psychics are fat over the hill wannabes that have 70 IQ or less, it's as lame as that stupid-assed Ghost Hunters crapola I see on Sci-fi channel that is a complete waste of valuable airtime (buncha morons falling over each other in the dark while the audience is forced to watch thru night-vision cameras, boring as hell)...anyway, as for the rest being normal...I don't know, it's my opinion that nobody is normal in the MGS universe of retards prancing around like Jackanapes. A bipedal nuke delivery system is stupid on so many levels. It would have to launch only ICBMs because the stupid thing can't fly. It's slow and large so as to be a big fat target for any air to ground strike with ease. The Metal Gears roars like dino so you can find it even if blind and stupid. On top of all that they are usually holed up in some remote as hell location like Alaska so as any satellite could be tasked to find it in no time at all...no, the MGS universe is so far from reality it ain't even funny.

[T.Tashi]

the MGS universe is so far from reality it ain't even funny.

Hence, it's appeal. :thumbsup: It's freakin' bizarre.

The villains from MGS are probably the greatest array of villains in any one game. And the psycho mantis boss fight was brilliant

But both the U.S. and Russia had extensive psi-ops programs, much of which is stll classified. The most infamous is probably the Stargate Project (not to be confused with the show). So that stuff within an espionage context does fit the game.

[ilnadmy]

The thing that appeals to me about the MGS story is that it's fantastical, but based in real-world probabilities. In other words, genetic modification isn't that far-off an idea, but making a soldier that can single-handedly take down an entire army is fantasy. Nuclear proliferation is a reality, but a walking tank that can launch an undetectable nuclear weapon from anywhere in the world is far-fetched. Espionage is a well-established craft, but carrying around Stinger missiles and cardboard boxes is a little ridiculous. The game plays with these links, taking real-world events and issues and sprinkling in a healthy dose of imagination and fantasy.

You need to learn suspension of disbelief when playing MGS. This game is not Rainbow Six. The weapons aren't meant to be realistic, the enemies aren't meant to be realistic, the story isn't meant to be realistic, and Solid Snake sure as hell is not meant to be realistic. If you can appreciate that then you'll start to appreciate MGS for what it is.

[Gamer From '78]

You have got to be kidding. Psychic abilities to this day have yet to be proven under any lab conditions AT ALL! And most Psychics are fat over the hill wannabes that have 70 IQ or less, it's as lame as that stupid-assed Ghost Hunters crapola I see on Sci-fi channel that is a complete waste of valuable airtime (buncha morons falling over each other in the dark while the audience is forced to watch thru night-vision cameras, boring as hell)...anyway, as for the rest being normal...I don't know, it's my opinion that nobody is normal in the MGS universe of retards prancing around like Jackanapes. A bipedal nuke delivery system is stupid on so many levels. It would have to launch only ICBMs because the stupid thing can't fly. It's slow and large so as to be a big fat target for any air to ground strike with ease. The Metal Gears roars like dino so you can find it even if blind and stupid. On top of all that they are usually holed up in some remote as hell location like Alaska so as any satellite could be tasked to find it in no time at all...no, the MGS universe is so far from reality it ain't even funny.

Since this is a videogame discussion, I won't delve deeply into the psychic aspect. My comparisons of characters from Metal Gear Solid 1 & 2 was more along the lines of "more believable versus the limber fat cackler on rollerblades. :rolleyes: is what that guy deserves. Nothing more. Yet, psychic abilities aren't far fetched at all. The large majority of the human brain is not used by the majority of the populace. There are all kinds of records of things such as a twin knowing the moment of their siblings death and goverment projects that to this day remain classified. Clearly, there is more to the human mind than we currently know about.

As far as the bipedal MG's, the originals didn't roar like dinos, that began with Metal Gear Solid 2. That earns a second :rolleyes: from me.

[ilnadmy]

You know, 78, you rag on Fatman when he's probably the most believable boss in any MGS game. The guy's just a bomb expert on roller blades. Nothing special or supernatural about him whatsoever. I would have thought you'd hold him up as a shining example of what bosses in MGS should strive to...

My comparisons of characters from Metal Gear Solid 1 & 2 was more along the lines of "more believable versus the limber fat cackler on rollerblades.

Again, what's unbelievable about him? Fat guys can't wear rollerblades? Is that it?

[Cuddly Knife]

The thing that appeals to me about the MGS story is that it's fantastical, but based in real-world probabilities. In other words, genetic modification isn't that far-off an idea, but making a soldier that can single-handedly take down an entire army is fantasy. Nuclear proliferation is a reality, but a walking tank that can launch an undetectable nuclear weapon from anywhere in the world is far-fetched. Espionage is a well-established craft, but carrying around Stinger missiles and cardboard boxes is a little ridiculous. The game plays with these links, taking real-world events and issues and sprinkling in a healthy dose of imagination and fantasy.

You need to learn suspension of disbelief when playing MGS. This game is not Rainbow Six. The weapons aren't meant to be realistic, the enemies aren't meant to be realistic, the story isn't meant to be realistic, and Solid Snake sure as hell is not meant to be realistic. If you can appreciate that then you'll start to appreciate MGS for what it is.
Quoted for the truth.

[Gamer From '78]

The thing that appeals to me about the MGS story is that it's fantastical, but based in real-world probabilities. In other words, genetic modification isn't that far-off an idea, but making a soldier that can single-handedly take down an entire army is fantasy. Nuclear proliferation is a reality, but a walking tank that can launch an undetectable nuclear weapon from anywhere in the world is far-fetched. Espionage is a well-established craft, but carrying around Stinger missiles and cardboard boxes is a little ridiculous. The game plays with these links, taking real-world events and issues and sprinkling in a healthy dose of imagination and fantasy.

You need to learn suspension of disbelief when playing MGS. This game is not Rainbow Six. The weapons aren't meant to be realistic, the enemies aren't meant to be realistic, the story isn't meant to be realistic, and Solid Snake sure as hell is not meant to be realistic. If you can appreciate that then you'll start to appreciate MGS for what it is.

I have no problem with suspension of disbelief. I enjoy the far-fetched as much as things based more in reality. However, my point is that Metal Gear as a series continues to push the boundaries of stupidity. Revolver Ocelot possed by Liquid Snake through his talking hand? A dancing monkey? Robotic "teh gey" versions of the original Solid's enemies? Trap-Jaw (tm Matel and Master of the Univers/He-Man) Raiden? I keep waiting for Orko to pop up. :rolleyes:

[Dancer O_o]

The large majority of the human brain is not used by the majority of the populace.

untrue, the majority of the human brain is used, most of the brain functionality is used for visual processing. All regions of the brain do things and I could easily show you with charts and mapped brain regions imagery from brain scans to demonstrate how psychologists have proven that 90 percent of the brain is actually used...even idiots use most of their brain, you have just been brought up to believe that crap about "majority of the human brain is unused" . One thing is clear about the human body, if you don't use it, you loose it eventually (atrophy).

I do think that as humans continue to evolve we will see more interesting abilities, just not for a few thousand years though.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I don't know if this is old news or not, considering it is in G.I. then it must be old news, but it was new to me. Anyway MGS4 is obviously pushed back, but not only that, Japan is getting the game first, whereas before it was going to be a worldwide release! Daaaamn that sucks, I was kidding around when I said expect the game around the Holiday's 2008, but it looks like that's exactly when the game will hit US shores! Wow, talk about no need to pick up a PS3 early.

Hell with GTA4 coming to 360 with exclusive content, DMC4 coming to 360, and RE5, there is NO incentive to get a PS3 until next Black Friday! GT5 probably won't make it 'till next XMAS, the only other games I can think of are Final Fantasy, which nobody really cares about anymore in the states and of course Killzone 2. But who knows when that will release. Next year is looking like another 360 year!