Is It Unfair To Compare Metal Gear Solid V To Previous Entries?
You're starting to hear this more and more: Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is just so different from any of the previous series installments.
Whether the new structure is better or not is an argument for another day; what I'm interested in is whether or not people think it's actually unfair to compare MGSV to its predecessors.
Many have said the story simply isn't as impressive in this one (primarily due to the inherent nature of an open-ended sandbox game), and even the boss fights - a staple of the franchise - just aren't as memorable. In other words, while MGSV is undoubtedly a masterful production, it doesn't rely as heavily on the storytelling components and legendary boss battles. The way the game is played is also very different, as there's a ridiculous amount of freedom and options.
Hideo Kojima says this is the vision he has long since had of the franchise, but older technology just couldn't allow him to realize the vision. Therefore, one could argue that the new MGS is the pinnacle, the culmination of the creator's hopes and dreams. That alone should make it stand apart, right? And yet, inevitably, gamers all over the world will try to compare it to the old classics. And sometimes, when the new products are just this much different, those comparisons become fraught with difficulties.
What do you think? Is MGSV a totally different beast? Should it be compared to past efforts or not?
Related Game(s): Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
8/31/2015 9:44:55 PM Ben Dutka