Review scores don't matter because Metal Gear Solid 4 was terrible... for me

As someone who's been following the gaming industry for the vast majority of my adult life, it's always been a mystery as to why people care so much about review scores. I'd hazard a guess that most comments given to sites like IGN, GameSpot or even Polygon revolve solely around why certain scores were given to certain games. I learned a while ago that review scores do not really speak to the quality of a game in the same way that movie reviews cannot speak to your involvement in certain stories. For instance, the Matrix sequels are among the most hated in movie circles, but I thoroughly enjoyed the hell out of them (draw from that what you will), and the same will probably be said by others of Pacific Rim later on.

Returning to games though, I got my PS3 when it was bundled with the award winning Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. Though I'd never played a Metal Gear Solid game before, I figured, "What the hell, it came bundled with my console, I'll give it a play." I'd heard a lot about MGS4 from review sites around the net and was curious why it had received so many perfect 10s. After the lengthy install and some incomprehensible babble from characters I'd never heard of, the game began. Then stopped. Then there was more incomprehensible babble. Repeat.

The game parts were... fine, I guess. Nothing to boast of. The controls weren't exactly rock solid and the genre (stealth) was one that I'm not well suited to and had no experience in. However, since this was my first Metal Gear game, most of what appealed to everyone who had given it a 10 (hearing more of the... I hesitate to use the word "story" but there it is) and reconnecting with the legendary Solid Snake after his long absence was completely lost on me. The game was what I came for and the game... wasn't fun. Wasn't even good. Was one of the worst experiences I ever had in gaming.

Now, it wasn't a complete loss. I didn't get the PS3 exclusively for MSG4; That was just a side bonus. However, on that day, I came to realize that most of what the gaming community spends it's time arguing amongst itself about (ie, review scores), really holds no interest or importance for me. I know that some companies base bonuses or future game projects on Metacritic and similar sites, but for the average gamer on the street, it's so much useless drivel. Most of what drives my interest in gaming now is, quite honestly, podcast discussion. I listen to what people say about the recent releases, the enthusiasm in their voices, the excitement in their delivery, the joyful experiences they have had. The scores mean so little, I've tried to ignore them completely anymore. I feel better for it.

Maybe you shouldn't have focused on the actual score the game received and instead read some of content of the reviews, which I will guess would have definitely mentioned that the story totally hinges on your having played the previous games in the franchise, and how many loose ends that game ties up. Metal Gear Solid is massively story driven, not sure why you would expect to be able to jump into the finale of the whole thing and expect to follow what's happening.

I've never seen Lost the TV show. If I bought the last season and started there then I would probably have a pretty shit experience with that too.

You're a little late with this dude.

I went into MGS4 having played all of the MGS games and I still don't actually understand how it got the scores it did.

@phoenix654: I'll agree with you that scores aren't all that important because gaming experiences will be subjective to everyone. That said a large part of enjoying MGS4 was, unfortunately for newcomers, heavily reliant on having played the previous games as there were numerous callbacks and inside jokes that dated all the way back to MGS1.

I didn't think it was a 10/10 game per-se but I did really like it as a MGS experience and some of the final scenes, like the microwave room, were really emotional if you've been following Solid Snake for a while.

But yah scores aren't anything too important. I hate some really popular games, that I'll leave nameless for the sake of avoiding confrontational back and forths, and no matter how many websites give them 10/10 and how many people claim how amazing they are it will not change my personal opinion of them.

I never thought I'd like an MGS game because the mechanics seemed dated for someone like me who started stealth games with Splinter Cell but I was wrong.

I went on a vision quest of sorts and played 1-4 in order and fell in love with it, despite poor controls and gameplay. It was the characters and story that captured my attention. MGS4 was the best of that for me because if how much that story it attempted to weave together into an semi coherent plot. For me its a rare example of a game that survives mostly on its fiction than its interactivity.

I agree on the review scores thing to an extent. While the state of review scores right now is a bit of a mess, I don't feel insulted by the use of them. The problem lies in sites like metacritic where it tries to combine a bunch of different review scores (that all use different scales) into one number. And the fact that some companies use this metacritic score as their basis for what the devs are paid is really depressing. Though, again, when I see a review score tagged onto the end of a review I don't immediately ignore that reviewer's opinion. Just read the actual review, as opposed to looking at the rating and leaving.

As for MGS4, I disagree, but different strokes for different folks.

And then there's Peace Walker. Oh lordy, that's a game.

So I look forward to playing that, then? Or should I look forward to playing that?

Folks complain about MGS4's story and how it's incomprehensible to newcomers, but that's exactly why four is so awesome. We have so few series like this in games, and though the "required reading" may dissuade some gamers (like the OP), they are necessary casualties. I agree about reviews and podcasts and listening for people's enthusiasm - I can still hear Brad saying that the top 10 moments in MGS4 were the top 10 moments in any game that year. You can't get that feeling unless you've played the series. I 100% understand people saying they didn't get that feeling at all, not everything is for everybody.

I've never understood the gameplay complaints though. The series just requires a lot of waiting and watching and pattern memorization and good timing. This is the essence of all stealth. Again, not everything is for everybody. For me, the obvious setups in MotN make it more puzzle that stealth, and most other games turn stealth into KO Enemy From Behind: The Game.

@sarriss said:

This is actually my biggest issue with MGS4. It turned what was a semi-coherent plot into a completely ridiculous clusterfuck of plot twists and over the top connections that made my eyes roll at times. I appreciate a story that can weave together plot threads, but not everything that ever happens and every person you've ever met needs to have some intricate connection to every major event in the story.

I kind of agree, but only because I came away from 4 almost as disappointed as I did from 2.

Your opinion is terrible and MGS4 was a 10/10 for me. Stick to Call of Duty next time.

They do matter, at least to nintendo fans (8.8)

I hate MGS 4 with a passion. The only good thing about it are the eggs. I love eggs now. Have one every morning. And yes, I was there from the start, and it still didn't resonate with me (other than me hating it), and for all the same reasons.

That said, I just picked up Peace Walker for my Vita for less than a tenner in a PS+ sale. I heard Peace Walker is actually a game, and worth playing at that.

So review scores mean nothing to you because some game that you half-heartedly tried to play, the fourth in a series you were unfamiliar with, in a genre you don't care for, didn't blow you away despite it getting 10s from several outlets? I mean, let's straighten this out, plenty of reviews are bullshit and mgs4 was definitely bullshit but I don't think you're exactly bringing anything to the table with your expert take on the game's quality either. But yeah, you're right. Review scores are pretty dumb.

Keep in mind that MGS4 released back in 2008. Which is nearly five years ago. Imagine yourself playing this, fiveyears ago. It had mind-blowing graphics, superb controls, play-it-your-own-style gameplay, incredible production values and cutscenes. Plus, the game lasted over 20 hours ( nine of which you actually play ). Metal Gear's '' drive '' was always the over-the-top story, the dramatic bosses and the 100% engine-made cutscenes. Keep in mind that MGS4 comes from a generation where games were a tad bid different. Until last summer, it even had any form of achievements!

Also, if you are a new comer, I'd highly suggest you to begin with MGS3. It ''begins'' the serie, has the best gameplay elements of all games (yet) and has a pretty incredible gameplay. That is, if you can get over some very, very old design decisions.

MGS4 isn't a terrible game. You just hopped on the last game of a grandiose series. Of course you won't understand shit.

I had never played a single Metal Gear game before MGS4 and I still found it to be one of the best games I have played. Kojima does agood job of hinting at the history between characters and thats whats important. I couldnt give two whits about the convoluted stories in the prior games because even if i hadnt played them some of the exposition in 4 summarizes the important parts aanyway.

On its own though the game has the cliched 'old warrior back for one last battle' feel to it but it is done so well that I couldn't help but feel Snakes struggle towards the end of the game.

Gameplay wise, I guess you are restricted to sneaking around and it isnt the most replayable for me but it still is quite good and definitely better than the point and click epidemic in the industry.

As for review scores, they matter not an iota to me anymore. they still havent persuaded me to get Bioshock Infinite or the Last of Us.

It's the best playing of the series, too. Honestly, this just made me want to replay it.

MGS 4 came out in 2008. It's now 2013. Why are you complaining about this now?

Why are you complaining about review scores now? That's an even more dated topic. There hasn't been a review of anything ever that someone didn't disagree with.

After finally playing all of the Metal Gear Solid games back to back, I could not finish MGS4. Actually, I couldn't even get past Act 1. And really... I couldn't even get past the first few areas.

It's just way too easy, way too overdone, and too far from what makes the games unique. It's a bland setting that's complemented by horrible plot devices and some really dumb moments. I'm all for making a game different, all the other games were very different from one another. But this was just way too far out. The only thing that I feel that game did well was making Raiden to be the awesome character that he now is, and his cutscenes with the Gekkos and Vamp. Everything else is just abysmal.

I don't want another third person shooter. I hate how you either have the option of killing people Gears of War style or sneaking by them way too easily. Gah. Really disappointed in that game.

I dont get how many of the scores got there, as products of their time, I can see the first one why it would be so praised. But MGS3, fighting a fucking ghost? That's it I'm out. But actually, I wasn't, came back for 4. Fuck... the first game showed promise, something that could be so interesting and make you want to know the fiction. Then you figure out Kojima is full of shit and doesn't have any real stories and just throws shit at the wall hoping it will stil.

I think this is a strange comment. MGS4 is essentially an easy (and thus unsatisfying) sneaking game with heavy third person shooting, by far the most shooting in the series, yet you're telling him to go play a shooter. I remember Kojima stating that one of his goals for the game was to be able to play the vast majority of the game in third or first person mode.

To know oneself and one's preferences and act accordingly, rather than buying blindly into every critcally acclaimed game? Sure, that's how I do it too. Doesn't mean reviews are pointless. Doesn't mean one shouldn't care about 'em either. Discussion is part of the fun of playing games. We wouldn't be here otherwise.

Yes, the kander commonly found in podcasts is certainly a valuable source of feedback. More so than a good write-up or video review? It depends on wether we're talking about genres I already care about or not. Anecdotes of games I don't know or care for yet really help establishing my perception of them one way or the other. However when it comes to games in my niche, more often than not, general games podcasters don't get it, and don't care to get it. So really, there's no rule here. Other than *caring is important*.

If MGS4 was "one of the worst experiences" in gaming that you have had, consider yourself lucky, if nothing else it's a functional game (I loved it). I find the review scores by themselves irrelevant, it's what is said in the review that matters. Review scores aren't laws.

@bushpusherr said:

Agreed, and it was a lesson learned. My point is that the value of a review to me used to be almost exclusively the score and the enthusiasm surrounding it. A game that gets several perfect scores from several outlets seemed to be a game that any gamer should be able to pick up and enjoy; MGS4 dissuaded me from such a simple outlook and encouraged more research into my buying habits.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. MGS4 wasn't fun for me, but it's nice that you enjoyed it. I did not enjoy it and I don't like Call of Duty much either.

Just read a couple of comments that annoyed me and I felt like venting. I used MGS4 as an example because it's the best one I had in my personal gaming history. This is my blog, I'm allowed to talk about what I'd like to talk about, whenever... right? I don't expect people to come to me for news; It's just my opinion as posted when it occurs to me and when I find time to type it.

Thanks to everyone who read and commented, whether you agreed or not.

I'll say this in regards to reviews in general. You should more into the authors and compare their likes and dislikes with your own. Finding a select few reviewers with similar tastes to your own becomes a great tool in selecting games.

That is why reviews should not include taste in the score. Feature and mechanics wise it is a great or even fantastic game smae goes for the story. But if you do not liek this kind of game you are screwed.

"...since this was my first Metal Gear." Thread over. Buy the Legacy collection and don't come back until you've played it by release date.

Jumping into 4 with no previous knownledge is entertainment suicide. It would be like reading the 4th book of 'A Song of Ice and Fire'and complain about not knowing whats going on.

Some games leave room for new fans, others(like MGS4) are games strictly for fans.

Interesting. MGS4 was my favourite game this generation, and probably one of my favourite games of all time.

MGS4 is my favorite console game to date, I don't know how anyone could consider it terrible.

You decided to play MGS4 without playing any of the previous games? Hahahaha, oh wow. Thats a really dumb thing to do.

I'm a huge Metal Gear fan and I think its unquestionably the worst game in the main series. I can't even remember the story other than it being a series of events to tie up loose ends from the good games. And the bosses were all terrible in terms of both gameplay and character motivation.

You should play the other Metal Gears then. They're actually good games.

I absolutely had a 10/10 experience with Metal Gear Solid 4 at the time, but I can say with certainty that it will age dreadfully, and if I were to go back to it now, I wouldn't have nearly as good a time with it.

It was exactly the right game for exactly the right time in my appreciation of video games and the Metal Gear Series, as well as the PS3's lifecycle and industry mood as a whole. Those 10's were from reviewers who were desperately needing something, and in Metal Gear Solid 4 they found exactly what they were looking for.

It is a game that I loved, and never need to play again.

I am a fan of the Metal Gear series and 4 was the worst one. Sure, it modernized the control scheme but after chapter two the plot just took a nosedive and bent around straight up its own ass.

MGS4 was great. Review scores don't matter because of "games" like Journey which I thought was bad.

It was a game included with my new console at the time that I gave a try because it was there. I didn't feel like hunting down 3 previous titles just to play something included with it. I've since tried to play MGS: Twin Snakes (the GameCube remake of of the original) and didn't have fun with that either or find the story comprehensible or interesting enough to play more. It's just not a series that appeals to me. I understand that a lot of people enjoy the hell out of them, but I think the time for me to get hooked on them has passed, similar to my attempt to play through Final Fantasy VII (I wasn't a Playstation owner until after FFXII came out). That coupled with my general dislike of stealth games just means I find them more frustrating than enjoyable.

God damn opinions, why do we need them? I want to be spoon fed review scores to help mold the choices I make. Christ, who the hell expects me to throw caution to the wind and try different things? Crazy people who expect me to think for myself, that's who.

I Hate Everything

The story is one of the most major factors of the Metal Gear Solid franchise. Are you somehow surprised that you didn't enjoy a game when you walked into the fourth entry of a VERY confusing video game series that was in a genre that you don't care for? I mean I understand all the criticisms that MGS4 receives (as I don't care for it either), but saying "I came for the "game" man and the game was bad" is a really stupid point to make. I wouldn't come into the third Lord of the Rings movie completely blind with no knowledge of any of the other two movies or the books and be like "ALL THESE PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT STUFF WHO ARE YOU WIZARD GUY?" You set yourself up to not like the game, and that's why you didn't. It's pretty simple, review scores had nothing to do with it.

And only stupid people look at review scores and don't read the actual review.

Look up Tom Chick's MGS4 review. Probably the most honest one for that game.

I don't think I have ever seen an active user on this site that cared about review scores. Welcome to the forums!

Get the HD or legacy collection. You might pull your hair out with MGS1 but MGS2 and MGS3 are pretty damn good and the cutscenes are much more manageable. I have yet to play peace walker yet myself.

Wait...did I step into a time portal... is it 2008?

I am a massive MGS fan and even I found MGS4 to be disappointing.

Review scores still absolutely matter, though not on individual reviews. Metacritic bonuses and sales numbers fo'evvvvvvahhhhh. Also, they mean a lot more if you're conscious of the person who wrote the review (you know, like we are here on GB.)

MGS4 is really bad, I dunno what anybody sees in it from a story or a gameplay perspective. The online was really fun though. RIP MGO2.

I think that enjoyment of MGS4 is largely based on enjoying the prior games in the series. The gameplay was decent stealth back in 2008 but nothing incredible; however it built upon a formula that was very nostalgic for a lot of people and updated it. Also (particularly for 2008), stealth games in general tend to have pretty shitty gameplay. MGS isn't alone in this; apart from Mark of the Ninja, nearly every stealth game is going to have a lot of gameplay problems. It's come up on the bombcast a good bit.

The story in MGS is ALWAYS hard to follow; the amount of cutscenes in each game could add up to more than the length of an average length movie. I'm not exactly sure I can say that the story in MGS is good, but it's complex, and for me and many people, pretty enjoyable.

However, if you missed the first 3 parts of the story you're naturally going to have no clue what the hell is going on in the 4th part. For me, it had been years since I played an MGS game and I was interested in seeing what happened to the characters. It had been even longer since I'd played MGS2, which MGS4 comes after chronologically (MGS3 being a prequel coming decades before the main series).

BTW I agree with DarthOrange: most people on this site probably don't care about review scores. You shouldn't either. You're going to hate certain games with high scores, and love certain games with low scores. It's a matter of personal taste. Play what you like. Quick Looks are for me a way to get a semi-decent idea of what's going on in a game, and usually some kind of idea of whether I'd like or not. I'm also pretty careful about which games I pay full price for; I probably only buy 1-2 games a year for $50-60, and a whole bunch on on sale (mostly on steam).

Exactly. You wouldn't go see the last Harry Potter movie or something and complain that you don't know what's happening!

Your hatred of reviews doesn't really matter because you're not everyone, reviewers aren't wrong because you disagree. And yeah, MGS is the worst series, literally the worst to go into with the fourth ga,e

8.8

In MGS, it just so happens that Big Boss was your dad, and Grey Fox is there even though you killed him previously.

In MGS2, it just so happens that Solidus raised Raiden, Fortune is the Marine commander's daughter, Otacon's sister on on the Big Shell, and the final boss fight is on top of goddamn Federal Hall, in front of a statue of George F'in Washington. Also, the entire game is deliberately meant to recreate the first game through some incredibly contrived and vague character connections.

In MGS3, Big Boss just so happens to meet young Ocelot (and is the one who teaches him how to use revolvers), Sigint becomes the DARPA chief, Granin happens to have PHOTOGRAPHS of REX and RAY in his office, and it just so happens that Big Boss is one of the founding members of the Patriots.

Yes, MGS4 has quite a few leaps of logic and stretches in places to tie everything up neatly, but so does every game in the series back to the damn MSX games. How you can go through MGS4 and be like "Come on, that's just ridiculous" without also leveling the same critique of the entire series is completely beyond me.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I went back within the last 2 months and played 3, PW, 1, 2 and 4 back to back to back to back to back because of all the MGS5 news and the apparent rampant backlash against 4 (which didn't exist back when the game came out), and MGS4 is the perfect encapsulation of the games that came before it (excluding Peace Walker, which is a steaming pile of hot garbage). Yes, it dials everything up to eleven, but nothing it does is out of left field from its predecessors.

Also, don't forget that not only was that game the end of the existing era of MG fiction, but it was also the 10 year anniversary of MGS1 (and ~20 years after MG1). Of course it was going to be rife with fan service and a bit of self-congratulation; they earned it.

Yeah, I thought it was awful as well.

I think the gaming journalist at that point started acting like movie reviewers and by that I mean that they had too much respect for the mgs franchise so they decided to give it a thumbs up similar to how every Scorsese, Spielberg, ect. Film will be praised simply because they have gathered such a respect from their older films. Now you see gaming journalist arguing if games are art or proclaiming games that are so different masterpieces like journey granted their not bad games but I sometimes wonder their motives here. Like the film by Terence Malik the Tree of Life which they proclaimed a film of excellence but to me it was a pile of garbage that only he understands. I guess in the end it's just an opinion but I just have to point it out that the gaming press are being invaded by the hipsters idk how to explain it.

Its just so frustrating to see it go from the 90s in which people just talked games and how awesome they were now its about the importance of culture in games lol it's just gotten over blown. Seriously how many games that take themselves extremely seriously get higher scores than others that don't? Gta4, Uncharted3( which took a darker tone than previous uncharteds), Journey, Bioshock(1 n infinite), mgs4,etc. again I like most of these games but it annoying when a game that doesn't deserve to get a great score gets it simply because its trying to achieve a complex plot like mgs 4 and it's frustrating because as the majority here will agree that game is not a 10. I guess like I mentioned opinions opinions lol.