It objectively has the best gameplay in the whole series and focuses less on story, and you all hate it.
Meanwhile when Kojima makes a more story based game like Death Stranding, Sup Forums complains about it being a movie game. Why is this?
Why does Sup Forums hate MGSV?
Other urls found in this thread:
1. Sup Forums isn't one person
2. It's not a finished game.
guards suck
challenge is limited to tying a hand behind your back
deploying with credits every missions bores me to tears
no the gameplay is not the best.
>Why does Sup Forums hate MGSV
Becasue unrealistic expectations weren't met
the gameplay is rteally good
the problem is the lvl design
no hayter, instead we get the 24 canadian guy, oo.... snake barely talks because of this.
decent gameplay but feels a little empty, it's supposed to be open world but they cut to credits after every mission, it completely threw me out of the game.
I still like it but it's deeply flawed.
if by gameplay, you mean fundamental movement, aiming and camera controls, yes it is the best by far
but everything else sucks.
fans just wanted another linear MGS. Kojima instead went sideways and tried to perfect his PSP games.
It's like he had a nagging feeling that Portable Ops sucked because of hardware limitations and he never stopped trying to make it right.
>you will never be that hyped for a game ever again
>you will never watch the Red Band trailer daily for months while going OH WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH along with it
>you will never play Ground Zeroes whenever you needed a fix of those glorious controllers while thinking of all those bases you'd infiltrate from any place you want to.
>you will never get the MGSV you dreamt of
I want to go back. I want the game to have been cancelled just so I could have the one in my mind forever.
Its still a 10/10 game but not what Sup Forums expected so its shit
i expected a complete story and level design on par with ground zeroes, not fucking skyrim
What were you expecting?
I think MGS2 has better gameplay.
I don't like Reflex timing.
I don't totally like how movement works in V.
I do like MGS2's level design.
I do like how all the mechanics play into the level design and are reinforced by the level design.
Several Ground Zeroes facilities with some terrain inbetween, layered designs for these facilities along with several different entry points, I was expecting just a bigger Ground Zeroes.
It was a fun game but they led us on way too hard and fell short on the delivery
Imo a good game, but they over-hyped it in all the wrong ways.
Why do you care that man children on the internet don't like your taste in video games?
The base of the gameplay is fine
It's the structure. It opts for Peace Walker's mission structure and the game feels super-padded because of it. Also, despite being less focused on story, it decided to literally have half a story
2deep4plebs
Also, people are retards and thought it would wrap up the series, when its the bridge between the prequels and the rest of the games, and is really the middle.
When I played it, I received a cassette tape after a mission that references events from a mission that I had not played at that point. That is pretty shitty.
There is no story and the game just ends halfway through.
I enjoyed the game.
Pros
>Stalking the savannah in the rain with Hall and Oates playing while Quiet acts cute and protects me
>Miller being a paranoid racist
>The stealth is legitimately fun
>Random female crew member mission
>Genuinely creepy moments
Cons
>Instead of just letting the campaign be and giving you one act with every mission, they made it two acts and padded it out with conditional missions that nobody wanted to play
>Failure to deliver on Volgin and Mantis
Its a good game, with fucking micro transactions in it. And its not just optional shit either, they rigged it so you basicly either buy their konami coins, or only have one forward base, and wait litteraly a week to make some of the better items, if you can even build them, since the better stuff requires more staff than one base can hold.
If it didnt have that shit itd be 10/10 for sure.
Because of quite
I didn't hate it but it was nothing special. The open world aspect SUCKS, and the game has zero respect for the player's time.
>expecting a finished game is unrealistic
I'm so tired of people saying the gameplay was the only decent part. It fucking wasn't. The fox engine was trash.
The only good thing in that game was in the soundtrack, and it wasn't the whole thing. It was the variable mix used out in the field.
Level design a shit
Didn't need to be open world. Resource collection/mother base shit was pointless. It was also unfinished.
2 is my favorite. v is a decent operator roleplay. the story is lacking though.
most mgs games have an interesting idea
funny enough revengeance ended up being the best mg after 2 bc of this
I liked MGS5 a lot, but it was unfinished which is real problem so I see why people give it shit. If they would have not only finished the game but also released MGS5 Ground Zero and Phantom Pain together as a single package then it would have been better received and remembered. At that point it is just people who are really against open world gameplay mixed the with people who don't like Kojima would be the main detractors
they tried to to the dark souls gameplay model
interactive, emergent strategies, etc.
in that sense its the best. the resources dont matter so if you lose the invasion big deal
I liked the idea of mother base. they should've done more
>what is offline cheat engine credit hacks and construction speed hacks
i mean its hardly hacks
the game is pretty great all things considered
they should've put people in charge of base defense during story missions ds style and made infiltration hard
ds and lfd2 share a lot of common design elements in that the structures are designed around human thinking. its more fun than beating some dumb ai
Stealth games are shit, the stealth in lords of shadow (and the future city) parts ruined a good sequel.