Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by gundamcero

Kojima left Konami and went independent. Then released an entirely new IP in roughly three years. That is insane in regards to game development for a brand new IP. So no MGS V was not in anyway a fault of Kojima. Konami was constantly back-seating his development forcing him to make changes and cut things at a moment notice. Game development is not easy and the longer a game takes the better. The game is a masterpiece for what was released. If Konami let him finish the game it would have been even more-so. THE MGS franchise is nothing without Kojima.

For clarity sake. Horizon Zero Dawn took six years to develop. MGS 5 took roughly the same amount of time given they re-did the entire engine for the game.

Modern game development has become overly bloated imo and the development timescales ridiculous. A console generation used to be 5 years. Stretched out to circa 7 for the last few. A game taking almost as long as an entire console generation is imo unacceptable unless its a moderate budget and small studio development team.

As for Kojima putting out Death Stranding in 3 years, it finally shows when a fire gets lit under his ass to pay his own studio bills, he seems much more incentive to get it out the door sooner. Although i still think with Sony funding it somewhat, he still dawdled around.

Ultimately i think he's talented but he's a diva in my eyes and takes way too long being a perfectionist to output a game in a typically good timescale if he can drag his feet.

I think a much more acceptable development time is probably 2 years MAX for a big AAA studio release with the amount of resources and man power they have. For god sake, we had like 3+ mainline GTA entries on the PS2 era. Things have gone down the pan and imo gamers have become too lenient for the trash games we have got. Cyberpunk 2077 is probably a key example of what's wrong with the modern gaming landscape when companies can build goodwill to then completely nuke it with a crap bug ridden release to try please shareholders. Exceptions i guess are in some ways GTA V and the constant milking they done.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Modern game development has become overly bloated imo and the development timescales ridiculous. A console generation used to be 5 years. Stretched out to circa 7 for the last few. A game taking almost as long as an entire console generation is imo unacceptable unless its a moderate budget and small studio development team.

As for Kojima putting out Death Stranding in 3 years, it finally shows when a fire gets lit under his ass to pay his own studio bills, he seems much more incentive to get it out the door sooner. Although i still think with Sony funding it somewhat, he still dawdled around.

Ultimately i think he's talented but he's a diva in my eyes and takes way too long being a perfectionist to output a game in a typically good timescale if he can drag his feet.

I think a much more acceptable development time is probably 2 years MAX for a big AAA studio release with the amount of resources and man power they have. For god sake, we had like 3+ mainline GTA entries on the PS2 era. Things have gone down the pan and imo gamers have become too lenient for the trash games we have got. Cyberpunk 2077 is probably a key example of what's wrong with the modern gaming landscape when companies can build goodwill to then completely nuke it with a crap bug ridden release to try please shareholders. Exceptions i guess are in some ways GTA V and the constant milking they done.

But why does it matter to you when, according to PSN, you haven't been online to play anything in 9 months if I remember correctly?

I don't disagree that it can sometimes take too long for games to come out nowadays, and how we sometimes only get one game in a series each gen now. Only one Gran Turismo, although they can keep the microtransaction grind fest now, and even only one Ratchet & Clank game for PS4. Hopefully we get more of the latter this gen, especially with the possibilities Rift Apart set up now for the franchise.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Modern game development has become overly bloated imo and the development timescales ridiculous. A console generation used to be 5 years. Stretched out to circa 7 for the last few. A game taking almost as long as an entire console generation is imo unacceptable unless its a moderate budget and small studio development team.

As for Kojima putting out Death Stranding in 3 years, it finally shows when a fire gets lit under his ass to pay his own studio bills, he seems much more incentive to get it out the door sooner. Although i still think with Sony funding it somewhat, he still dawdled around.

Ultimately i think he's talented but he's a diva in my eyes and takes way too long being a perfectionist to output a game in a typically good timescale if he can drag his feet.

I think a much more acceptable development time is probably 2 years MAX for a big AAA studio release with the amount of resources and man power they have. For god sake, we had like 3+ mainline GTA entries on the PS2 era. Things have gone down the pan and imo gamers have become too lenient for the trash games we have got. Cyberpunk 2077 is probably a key example of what's wrong with the modern gaming landscape when companies can build goodwill to then completely nuke it with a crap bug ridden release to try please shareholders. Exceptions i guess are in some ways GTA V and the constant milking they done.

2 years lead time is completely unrealistic for major AAA game development in 2022. I agree that I believe studios could do a better job of finding ways to save dev time but going from say a 5 year dev cycle to just 2 seems a bit "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. You really think a game like Horizon Forbidden West could've been done, start to finish, in 2 years? Or Ghost of Tsushima? Or The Last of Us Part 2? If you think crunch is bad now, it would be downright unsustainable if you told a dev team like Naughty Dog they have to produce something at the quality level of The Last of Us Part 2 in a 2 year window.

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

But why does it matter to you when, according to PSN, you haven't been online to play anything in 9 months if I remember correctly?

I don't disagree that it can sometimes take too long for games to come out nowadays, and how we sometimes only get one game in a series each gen now. Only one Gran Turismo, although they can keep the microtransaction grind fest now, and even only one Ratchet & Clank game for PS4. Hopefully we get more of the latter this gen, especially with the possibilities Rift Apart set up now for the franchise.

We only got one Ratchet and Clank last gen because Insomniac went on to develop Spider-Man and Miles Morales. I'm happy with the tradeoff. I certainly wouldn't want to give up those two games in order to get a second Ratchet and Clank. One of those per generation is fine with me. Though I have to admit, I'd love to see some Rivet DLC.

There never needs to be more than one Gran Turismo per console generation. We shouldn't be seeing GT8 until PS6 launches. They should just spend the rest of this generation improving and expanding on GT7. For starters, fix the damn servers and get the game back up and running!

[Talal86]

not only that 2 years developing an AAA game is unrealistic, but also why would you event want them to do that?

games are too long and bloated now, but we also have post launch support, free or paid. so studios taking their times is a blessing for me, I think 3 should be the absolute minimum between sequels, but preferably they should take 4-5 years

the Ryu Ga Gotoku Studio completely killed the joy of Yakuza for me, they need to take a 5 years break at this point

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

But why does it matter to you when, according to PSN, you haven't been online to play anything in 9 months if I remember correctly?

I don't disagree that it can sometimes take too long for games to come out nowadays, and how we sometimes only get one game in a series each gen now. Only one Gran Turismo, although they can keep the microtransaction grind fest now, and even only one Ratchet & Clank game for PS4. Hopefully we get more of the latter this gen, especially with the possibilities Rift Apart set up now for the franchise.

Lol, don't pay attention to that. I'm hiding in "Appear Offline" permanently

Don't get me wrong, i love having games that hit a high quality but even if right now they could scale things back to pre-production being done by a small group to scout out the main outline of the games and then when they usually end the last project they go full pelt into the next IP etc.

I think okay, if we account for much bigger complicated game worlds, we also have to realise that game engines have also evolved greatly to account for that too imo. Unreal Engine 5 is a great example.

So, maybe let's say 2-3 years full on development and i'm not really gonna include the 1-2 year small pre-production they do sometimes. The way i judge it is that a game shouldn't be taking more than a console generation to make. Like i said, look at the PS2 era. We had a slew of GTA entries. Even PS3 managed GTA IV and V. We haven't had a new GTA for the entirety of PS4s gen and we never got a mainline Gran Turismo. They strung out Sport imo as a bit of a cash making attempt.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Modern game development has become overly bloated imo and the development timescales ridiculous. A console generation used to be 5 years. Stretched out to circa 7 for the last few. A game taking almost as long as an entire console generation is imo unacceptable unless its a moderate budget and small studio development team.

I'd say too the way we consume media and there's so much of it compared to say the ps1/ps2 era that aside from diehards of series etc. nobody really stays hyper focused on these things anymore.

The advent and success of micro transactions within free games etc. or the ability to squeeze out revenue from decade old games (coughs rockstar) means they don't have the same incentives as back then.

While I agree like during PS2 era we got 2 metal gear games (plus 2 substance games).

-ps3 we got basically 1 game MGS4 and some remakes and rising

-ps4 we basically got the same offerings Ground Zeros and MGS5

I don't think we'll ever go back to a model of 2-4 games for a series in a life cycle (maybe the exception might be spiderman from insomniac, and FPS series)

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I'd say too the way we consume media and there's so much of it compared to say the ps1/ps2 era that aside from diehards of series etc. nobody really stays hyper focused on these things anymore.

The advent and success of micro transactions within free games etc. or the ability to squeeze out revenue from decade old games (coughs rockstar) means they don't have the same incentives as back then.

While I agree like during PS2 era we got 2 metal gear games (plus 2 substance games).

-ps3 we got basically 1 game MGS4 and some remakes and rising

-ps4 we basically got the same offerings Ground Zeros and MGS5

I don't think we'll ever go back to a model of 2-4 games for a series in a life cycle (maybe the exception might be spiderman from insomniac, and FPS series)

Metal Gear 5 was a cross gen. It came to PS3/X360.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

We only got one Ratchet and Clank last gen because Insomniac went on to develop Spider-Man and Miles Morales. I'm happy with the tradeoff. I certainly wouldn't want to give up those two games in order to get a second Ratchet and Clank. One of those per generation is fine with me. Though I have to admit, I'd love to see some Rivet DLC.

There never needs to be more than one Gran Turismo per console generation. We shouldn't be seeing GT8 until PS6 launches. They should just spend the rest of this generation improving and expanding on GT7. For starters, fix the damn servers and get the game back up and running!

True, but they are big enough now that they should be able to develop more than just Marvel games. As much as I love them (Spider-Man was my favorite exclusive from last gen), there's really no excuse why there couldn't be a few Ratchet & Clank games this gen. It would be ridiculous given the potential they have now after Rift Apart.

As for Gran Turismo, I'd still disagree, but now I could care less given how poorly they are managing 7. I'd still not play it even if I got it for free, and that's saying something given how impressed I was with their State of Play for it.

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Lol, don't pay attention to that. I'm hiding in "Appear Offline" permanently

Don't get me wrong, i love having games that hit a high quality but even if right now they could scale things back to pre-production being done by a small group to scout out the main outline of the games and then when they usually end the last project they go full pelt into the next IP etc.

I think okay, if we account for much bigger complicated game worlds, we also have to realise that game engines have also evolved greatly to account for that too imo. Unreal Engine 5 is a great example.

So, maybe let's say 2-3 years full on development and i'm not really gonna include the 1-2 year small pre-production they do sometimes. The way i judge it is that a game shouldn't be taking more than a console generation to make. Like i said, look at the PS2 era. We had a slew of GTA entries. Even PS3 managed GTA IV and V. We haven't had a new GTA for the entirety of PS4s gen and we never got a mainline Gran Turismo. They strung out Sport imo as a bit of a cash making attempt.

If whatever you're doing is that secretive that you have to hide offline, then maybe I don't want to know what you're playing.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Metal Gear 5 was a cross gen. It came to PS3/X360.

who cares if they threw a bone to prior gen lol

MGS5 wasn't even announced until 19 months before PS4/XB1 launched let alone development hell that it was in etc. For all intensive purposes it was for that era [ps4/xb1].

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by supersix4

who cares if they threw a bone to prior gen lol

MGS5 wasn't even announced until 19 months before PS4/XB1 launched let alone development hell that it was in etc. For all intensive purposes it was for that era [ps4/xb1].

What do you mean who cares? It came out on PS3/X360, giving that gen two mainline metal gear games. The list was wrong and I was correcting it. Thats all.

[n0tredom]

Originally Posted by supersix4

I don't think we'll ever go back to a model of 2-4 games for a series in a life cycle (maybe the exception might be spiderman from insomniac, and FPS series)

The PS5 is the first game system since the PS1 that I didn't wait for an MGS game to come out before buying it. I bought my PS2 to play MGS2, my PS3 to play MGS4, my PSP to play Peace Walker, and my PS4 to play MGSV. Heck, Kojima's cinematic style of story-telling in MGS is probably the main reason I'm a movie collector and on this website.

I put 200+ hours into MGSV, so I was ok with what we were given, but I was actually expecting something closer to Witcher 3's expansions where we'd get additional chapters or content as DLC to expand on the vanilla game. With MGS1, we got the VR missions side-game. With MGS2, we got Substance which had Snake's Tales and more VR missions. With MGS3, we got Subsistence which added the moveable camera, MG1&2, and other things. The PSP games with their mission-based levels all seemed to be fleshed out with side-missions.

Then, with MGS4 and MGSV, we were pretty much just given the vanilla games. I guess I could include MG online as side-content for them, but I'm not an online gamer.

So, if MGS was ever revived, I wouldn't mind a release-plan similar to FF7 remake, Witcher 3, or other PC games that have planned expansions on a relatively consistent basis. They really could have done this with MGSV if the fallout didn't happen; instead, the Fox Engine was wasted on the Zombie game.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

What do you mean who cares? It came out on PS3/X360, giving that gen two mainline metal gear games. The list was wrong and I was correcting it. Thats all.

who cares because it wasn't exclusively developed for that generation which was the entire point. I thought that was clearly obvious lol

Originally Posted by n0tredom

The PS5 is the first game system since the PS1 that I didn't wait for an MGS game to come out before buying it. I bought my PS2 to play MGS2, my PS3 to play MGS4, my PSP to play Peace Walker, and my PS4 to play MGSV. Heck, Kojima's cinematic style of story-telling in MGS is probably the main reason I'm a movie collector and on this website.

I put 200+ hours into MGSV, so I was ok with what we were given, but I was actually expecting something closer to Witcher 3's expansions where we'd get additional chapters or content as DLC to expand on the vanilla game. With MGS1, we got the VR missions side-game. With MGS2, we got Substance which had Snake's Tales and more VR missions. With MGS3, we got Subsistence which added the moveable camera, MG1&2, and other things. The PSP games with their mission-based levels all seemed to be fleshed out with side-missions.

Then, with MGS4 and MGSV, we were pretty much just given the vanilla games. I guess I could include MG online as side-content for them, but I'm not an online gamer.

So, if MGS was ever revived, I wouldn't mind a release-plan similar to FF7 remake, Witcher 3, or other PC games that have planned expansions on a relatively consistent basis. They really could have done this with MGSV if the fallout didn't happen; instead, the Fox Engine was wasted on the Zombie game.

Yeah I liked MGS5s map enough to S rank all the maps, but by the end I was over it and the story really fell apart... Unlike 1,2,3,4 which I've played multiple times each...

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by supersix4

who cares because it wasn't exclusively developed for that generation which was the entire point. I thought that was clearly obvious lol..

So what? I mean, what difference does that make? I'm confused as to why that is even a point of contention. Why is that an issue?

[Zivouhr]

One new game developed every 10 years seems like enough time to fine tune it and have it polished by a team of 200 or more developers, programmers and artists, as with MGSV.

At least it seemed like 10 years.

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

One new game developed every 10 years seems like enough time to fine tune it and have it polished by a team of 200 or more developers, programmers and artists, as with MGSV.

At least it seemed like 10 years.

MGSV came out 5 years after Peace Walker. and in those 5 years Kojima team worked on the cancelled Metal Gear Rising, PT and made a great engine

the gap was anything but "dragging feet".

the thing is good games take time, but Konami just wanted to license Metal Gear to shitty third rate western developers that would completely kill it like they did with Silent Hill

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Talal86

MGSV came out 5 years after Peace Walker. and in those 5 years Kojima team worked on the cancelled Metal Gear Rising, PT and made a great engine

the gap was anything but "dragging feet".

the thing is good games take time, but Konami just wanted to license Metal Gear to shitty third rate western developers that would completely kill it like they did with Silent Hill

Didn't Metal Gear Rising get offloaded and done by Platinum Games?

P. T. was a pet project to get him to work with Guilermo Del Toro imo and because of it being a very small enclosed area to loop the stuff in, he didn't really have to do much. First person camera means they literally didn't have to worry about animation much either.

I think the game engine definitely helped them but as we all know, there's probably a lot of stuff that this discussion would diverge into and tbh, i think we can see how Kojima made the choice to for Death Stranding use a 3rd party engine that simply did what he needed. Its definitely why i think Epic are really positioning themselves really well with Unreal Engine 5 and beyond. They're creating an engine that with a few tweaks can really help push the boundary and ease of open world games.

MGS should probably get a full on reboot with tweaks here and there to really bring the series back with a bang but i feel with Kojima consulting, the original material to tweak. It should be something that can be done in 2-3 years per game of full on development.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Talal86

MGSV came out 5 years after Peace Walker. and in those 5 years Kojima team worked on the cancelled Metal Gear Rising, PT and made a great engine

the gap was anything but "dragging feet".

the thing is good games take time, but Konami just wanted to license Metal Gear to shitty third rate western developers that would completely kill it like they did with Silent Hill

5 years, that's not too bad, thanks.

Yes, Konami, with that MGSurvive online only game, what a waste of MGS.
What's interesting is to know if the MGSV multiplayer mode online servers are still going to this day, or if they've been shut down forever. That alone probably took awhile to develop and test.

[Warm Gun]

Why remake it? For the casual who refuses to play anything older than ten years? There's a progression of graphics and gameplay mechanics that I like, beginning with Metal Gear in 1987. I wouldn't wanna go from an over the shoulder modern third person shooting perspective in the (second) Metal Gear Solid remake to MGS2 or 3's fixed cameras (I try to use that original camera as much as possible even in Subsistence.), face button actions and plainer graphics and then back to the modern over the shoulder shooting perspective with MGS4.

I'm sure they'd try to make the level design more complex, because of the new camera and inevitable reduced importance of stealth, and end up with a story that doesn't connect to the game design as well as the original game's.

I'm sure they'd replace some of the codec conversations with in-game talking, making it harder to pay attention because you're still interacting.

I'm sure they'd replace more of the cutscenes with in-game events, as is the norm now. Maybe force some walking too.

I'm sure they'd replace the unique character designs with boring real life models.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Why remake it? For the casual who refuses to play anything older than ten years? There's a progression of graphics and gameplay mechanics that I like, beginning with Metal Gear in 1987. I wouldn't wanna go from an over the shoulder modern third person shooting perspective in the (second) Metal Gear Solid remake to MGS2 or 3's fixed cameras (I try to use that original camera as much as possible even in Subsistence.), face button actions and plainer graphics and then back to the modern over the shoulder shooting perspective with MGS4.

I'm sure they'd try to make the level design more complex, because of the new camera and inevitable reduced importance of stealth, and end up with a story that doesn't connect to the game design as well as the original game's.

I'm sure they'd replace some of the codec conversations with in-game talking, making it harder to pay attention because you're still interacting.

I'm sure they'd replace more of the cutscenes with in-game events, as is the norm now. Maybe force some walking too.

I'm sure they'd replace the unique character designs with boring real life models.

Good point that they would change the camera from bird's eye view to an over the shoulder 3rd person view. That would definitely change the experience a lot. And the controls too.

I imagine they'd go for a MGSV style for MGS1.

[Havok83]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Why remake it? .

Money