Metal Gear Solid: Master Collection Vol. 1

[Talal86]

I played MGS4 recently and it still looks good. 60fps is all it needs, but higher resolution would be welcomed of course

[Mr. Chaverria]

Aside from updated visuals, framerate would be the bigger deal for MGS4 and Rising. Sometimes those two would chug along so hard. MGS4 was insane in size and scope for the time. Especially literally being a very integral project to being exclusive to showing off what the PS3 could do. Rising was just crazy as hell with what it threw at you and expecting whatever console to survive unscathed from it.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by Edward R. Meow

IGN has softly confirmed this

https://www.ign.com/articles/metal-g...llection-vol-2

Getting 4 off the PS3 is phenomenal news if true.

However, it will be disappointing if we don't get Portable Ops & Rising Revengence.

It seems like they're trying to stick to Canon entries only, with any non-canon titles being treated as bonus features (like Snake's Revenge in Vol 1).

Rising doesnt need to be in this nor do I think it will be

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Modren

Probably 720p60 for Switch, at least 1080p60 for the other consoles. Though it does seem like MGS1 is still 240p, and most likely just an emulation of the PS1 version. I actually poked around in Duckstation with MGS1 the other day and had issues getting it to render well at higher resolutions, so I imagine Konami thought it would be better (or cheaper) to just leave it as-is.

What's sad is that there's a fantastic PC port that they should use that's had MANY fanmade fixes.

[Edward R. Meow]

Gamestop pre-order: https://www.gamestop.com/video-games...-5/396852.html

Amazon listing: https://www.amazon.com/Metal-Gear-So.../dp/B0C93LL82B

[Zivouhr]

I viewed the PSN PS5 pre-order listing of MGS Master Collection and I'm thinking the game pics they showed are right off of a PS1 and PS2, but what should gamers honestly expect with this set? It looks like zero improvements to the visuals, other than maybe resolution and nothing else, other than controls probably.

I guess these are just very barebones remasters in terms of the games themselves for PS5's console. Near Instant loading as a benefit too. For 59.99, I was expecting more.

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I viewed the PSN PS5 pre-order listing of MGS Master Collection and I'm thinking the game pics they showed are right off of a PS1 and PS2, but what should gamers honestly expect with this set? It looks like zero improvements to the visuals, other than maybe resolution and nothing else, other than controls probably.

I guess these are just very barebones remasters in terms of the games themselves for PS5's console. Near Instant loading as a benefit too. For 59.99, I was expecting more.

MGS1 is probably just the ps1 version upscaled

2 and 3 are the HD remasters from the ps3

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Talal86

MGS1 is probably just the ps1 version upscaled

2 and 3 are the HD remasters from the ps3

I see, thanks Talal.

[supersix4]

replaying 4 with a top up redo would be awesome

I would just love a revamp of the ranking system for finishing levels... Always irked me so much that the only thing that really mattered for the multipliers was speed.

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I viewed the PSN PS5 pre-order listing of MGS Master Collection and I'm thinking the game pics they showed are right off of a PS1 and PS2, but what should gamers honestly expect with this set? It looks like zero improvements to the visuals, other than maybe resolution and nothing else, other than controls probably.

I guess these are just very barebones remasters in terms of the games themselves for PS5's console. Near Instant loading as a benefit too. For 59.99, I was expecting more.

For what classics 1 and 2 are (3 honestly isn't THAT much better than 1/2 that its deserved a half dozen full remakes)

You'd think they'd care enough to do full full ground up builds.

[Modren]

There's nothing wrong with a straightforward port. The original games still hold up pretty well in terms of visuals, and keeping them untouched allows them to work on platforms like Switch without issue. And besides, rebuilding the games with new graphics would both negate the purpose of the upcoming MGS3 remake, but it could also go very poorly like the GTA remasters a few years back.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Modren

There's nothing wrong with a straightforward port. The original games still hold up pretty well in terms of visuals, and keeping them untouched allows them to work on platforms like Switch without issue. And besides, rebuilding the games with new graphics would both negate the purpose of the upcoming MGS3 remake, but it could also go very poorly like the GTA remasters a few years back.

uhh what lol... Original games hold up well in terms of visuals ..

Originally Posted by Modren

but it could also go very poorly like the GTA remasters a few years back.

And it could go VERY right like when raven redid COD4 from the ground up and it was a fantastic perfectly ported version of the original with updated visuals.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by supersix4

uhh what lol... Original games hold up well in terms of visuals ..

Yes, I think they look pretty good by the standards of PS2 games. Obviously they're not on the same level as a modern game, but they don't look bad. They certainly hold up better than some of their contemporaries...

Originally Posted by supersix4

And it could go VERY right like when raven redid COD4 from the ground up and it was a fantastic perfectly ported version of the original with updated visuals.

Do you think Konami would deliver something that good, though? Especially spread across all 3 games? If even Rockstar couldn't be bothered to give their classic titles the love and attention they deserve, I doubt the pachinko company would either.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Modren

Do you think Konami would deliver something that good, though? Especially spread across all 3 games? If even Rockstar couldn't be bothered to give their classic titles the love and attention they deserve, I doubt the pachinko company would either.

Honestly that's why I'd let another studio who would really value it. I bet if rockstar had done the same vs. being an in house side project it would have came out a lot better

Blind squirrel with bio shock remastered collection
The coalition with gears of war UE
Motive Studio with dead space remake

Capcom did do a good job with their own IPS with RE2/4 etc.
Square Enix with FF7

But notable ps1 remakes
Toys for bob studios Spyro/crash bandicoot was really well done
Vicarious Visions Tony Hawk pro skater (funny enough they also made that amazing Spiderman game as-well for PS1)

[n0tredom]

I find it weird they didn't put MGS4 into the first release and call it a Solid Snake collection. Then put MGS3 into the second release with Peace Walker and MGS5 and call it a Big Boss collection. Missed opportunity imo.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by n0tredom

I find it weird they didn't put MGS4 into the first release and call it a Solid Snake collection. Then put MGS3 into the second release with Peace Walker and MGS5 and call it a Big Boss collection. Missed opportunity imo.

Why is it weird? They clearly went with chronological release order and thats the only thing that would make sense. MGSIV is the conclusion to the original MGS saga and references a bit of stuff from 3 and brings closure that wouldnt make sense without playing it first

[n0tredom]

Originally Posted by Havok83

Why is it weird? They clearly went with chronological release order and thats the only thing that would make sense. MGSIV is the conclusion to the original MGS saga and references a bit of stuff from 3 and brings closure that wouldnt make sense without playing it first

I don't agree that MGS3 needs to be played before MGS4 for stuff to make sense. Let's assume that MGS4 actually came out first but the content of both games remains the same. MGS4 spoilers follow:

[Show spoiler]When you meet Big Mama during Act 3, you would have the same lack of awareness for past events that Solid Snake does. Big Mama's exposition can seem a bit spoilery, but she keeps enough stuff out that most of MGS3's story remains fresh. I would also argue MGS4's epilogue could have also made people interested in playing the events of the past.

When MGS4 came out, Kojima advertised it as the end of Solid Snake's story, which it pretty much has been to date. The entire canon Solid Snake story comprises of MG1, MG2, MGS, MGS2, and MGS4, so release it that way. MGS3, Peace Walker, and Phantom Pain have nothing to do with Solid Snake, so release them separately.

This is all just my opinion, which shouldn't matter to anyone other than myself.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by n0tredom

I don't agree that MGS3 needs to be played before MGS4 for stuff to make sense. Let's assume that MGS4 actually came out first but the content of both games remains the same. MGS4 spoilers follow:

[Show spoiler]When you meet Big Mama during Act 3, you would have the same lack of awareness for past events that Solid Snake does. Big Mama's exposition can seem a bit spoilery, but she keeps enough stuff out that most of MGS3's story remains fresh. I would also argue MGS4's epilogue could have also made people interested in playing the events of the past.

When MGS4 came out, Kojima advertised it as the end of Solid Snake's story, which it pretty much has been to date. The entire canon Solid Snake story comprises of MG1, MG2, MGS, MGS2, and MGS4, so release it that way. MGS3, Peace Walker, and Phantom Pain have nothing to do with Solid Snake, so release them separately.

This is all just my opinion, which shouldn't matter to anyone other than myself.

We'll have to agree to disagree bc the 3rd Act provides closure to plot points from MGS3 that are random and wouldnt resonate with the gamer had they not played that first. It simply would not hit the same without experiencing that beforehand

[Mr. Chaverria]

Oh, god. MGS3 needs to be played for 4 for sure.

It's nothing do w/ opinion. It's a fact that the game makes mention to MGS3 a lot. You can run through it and not care but it's right in your face that MGS4 uses MGS3 (and other things) as something to build on.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by Mr. Chaverria

Oh, god. MGS3 needs to be played for 4 for sure.

It's nothing do w/ opinion. It's a fact that the game makes mention to MGS3 a lot. You can run through it and not care but it's right in your face that MGS4 uses MGS3 (and other things) as something to build on.

First time I played MGS4 I'd never played MGS3 and I was just fine.

If you've played MGS3 then obviously that enhances the experience but I wouldn't call it essential. Not like playing MGS or MGS2, those are essential. Especially MGS2 because a lot of what MGS4 does is deconstruct MGS2

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

First time I played MGS4 I'd never played MGS3 and I was just fine.

If you've played MGS3 then obviously that enhances the experience but I wouldn't call it essential. Not like playing MGS or MGS2, those are essential. Especially MGS2 because a lot of what MGS4 does is deconstruct MGS2

First time I played MGS2, I hadnt touched MGS1 and was fine. It was only after replaying the series from release order that I realized how much the previous games build on each other and make more sense to the overall narrative. The same is true with 4 and the games taht came before it. Skipping out on 1, 2 or 3 would be like watching the epilogue of a long movie while missing a chunk of the middle. 4 isnt a normal game. It was and truly did feel like an extended epilogue to everything that came before it and thats why Konami made the right decision to release this first volume of the collection the way they did