In the run-up to the end of December, I (like many others) have been furiously trying to finish as many games as possible to understand the discussion around Game of the Year. The last few weeks had me plowing through Metal Gear Solid V, the 50+ hour opus that simultaneously feels like one of the best games to come out in 2015 while also feeling frustratingly like an incomplete experience. I'll likely have a write-up of my overall time with MGSV, along with some of my other favorite games this year later this month, but for now I just want to talk about how it fits in with the rest of Metal Gear series. Just as a warning, the rest of this post is only going to be relevant to people who care about Metal Gear's byzantine lore and production history, so sane people feel free to click away. Also, MGSV spoilers will be discussed.

MGSV is not really Metal Gear Solid V, as in the sequel to Metal Gear Solid 4. Sure, it certainly is within the same franchise as the other Metal Gear Solid games and there has been precedence of the series jumping around in time (see the outstanding Metal Gear Solid 3), but MGSV and MGS4 seem like direct rebukes to one another. MGS4, mostly due to release order, doesn't acknowledge the events that transpired in its successor. MGSV, mostly due to advancing technology and the presumed internal politics at Konami, shows active disdain for its predecessor's aggressive linearity and reliance on extended cutscenes. As I think about it, this is a real rarity in video games. Most franchises are very much about building and expanding the successful foundation with each sequel, and up until this point that was true for Metal Gear. In fact, MGS4 seemed like the most perfect celebration of the series' formula, from its spaghetti plot and constant revelations to its (at the time) near-perfect stealth sandbox. That game felt like a well-deserved victory lap to end the adventures of Solid Snake and his bloodline.

Now, of course there were other Metal Gear games to follow MGS4. Metal Gear Rising came out several years later as a Platinum developed hack and slash game that largely exists outside of the franchise canon. The other post-MGS4 game to come out, however, made a bigger impact on the Metal Gear formula than its humble origins would suggest. Of course, I am referring to Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, the PSP developed game that at first glance seemed to be Hideo Kojima chasing the appeal of handheld franchises such as Monster Hunter and Pokemon. The game was very much focused on completing bite-sized missions, which was rather unlike the game-spanning missions of the main franchise. In addition, the inclusion of the Fulton recovery system made for an addictive loop of capturing soldiers to improve your base which would then improve your gear and allow you to more effectively capture soldiers (and so on). Of course, I'd be remiss to mention that a lot of this formula was built upon the oft-forgotten Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops, but this new strain of Metal Gear gameplay really didn't click together until Peace Walker.

But what is a Metal Gear game without the story? On this count, Peace Walker comes up a bit short. The exploration of the CIA/KGB proxy war in Central and South America was an inspired choice along with exploring how Big Boss went from Naked Snake to the leader of Outer Heaven. However, the execution is lacking. I don't necessarily think that the blame lies with the story itself or even the lower production value caused by a limited handheld budget. No, the story was handicapped from the start because it was a prequel that came after MGS4. Essentially, the events of Peace Walker have to not really matter for the events of MGS4 to remain canon. Any new characters, such as Paz and Chico, have to conveniently disappear before the events of Metal Gear for the series to make sense. In this light, it was smart that Peace Walker pushes its core gameplay loop to the fore and is less concerned with the plot overall. The fact that the game was a handheld side mission (or downloadable HD re-release) also helped forgive the fact that the story didn't feel like a “real” Metal Gear narrative.

So now here we are with Metal Gear Solid V, which champions the formula set forth by Peace Walker. The capture soldiers/build bases/develop equipment loop has now been polished to a mirror sheen and placed in a beautifully realized open world. It is safe to say the MGSV is the best playing Metal Gear game ever made. But, like Peace Walker, the narrative of MGSV leaves a lot to be desired. Yet again, none of the events of MGSV really matter. You know that by the time the credits roll that Skull Face will not only be stopped, but also will be wiped clean from Metal Gear history. Sure enough, by the time you reach the first ending to the game, Skull Face is killed and the protagonists proceed to stamp out all further references to him. It is here that Kojima decides to enliven the proceedings with some twists that ultimately go nowhere. First is the revelation of Quiet's true identity as the assassin sent to kill Snake in the hospital. This certainly helps to re-contextualize her motivation to help Snake, but in the end really does not change how the previous story events are viewed by the player. Second is the discovery that Huey Emmerich murdered Otacon's mother, Dr. Strangelove, and was actively sabotaging the Diamond Dogs throughout the game. This damns Huey in the player's eyes, but even before that he wasn't a very likable character and it always seemed dumb for Snake to trust him after Kaz's impassioned objections. Finally, we have the “major” revelation that the Big Boss we were playing as for the entire game isn't the real Big Boss, but rather the medic that was seen in the exploding chopper in Ground Zeroes. At first, this came as a big shock to me and for a while I thought that it helped save the otherwise lackluster story. But upon further reflection it really doesn't change much. This “Venom Snake” never gets mentioned as a fraud by any character later in the series and he dies as Big Boss at the end of Metal Gear. The real Big Boss then “dies” at the end of Metal Gear 2, so it doesn't actually change anything by the time the events of Metal Gear Solid occur. All this reveal does is re-contextualize the real Big Boss as a cowardly glory-seeker that traded on the heroism of his phantom while keeping himself out of harm's way. It only serves to diminish Big Boss's legacy for what is essentially a cheap twist.

I'm still very much conflicted on how to feel about Metal Gear Solid V. The tight gameplay and jaw-dropping production values both serve to make this one of my favorite games of the year, but the disappointing and pointless story leaves me feeling empty as a Metal Gear fan. I suspect that I will be wrestling with my feelings on this game for quite a while, and I can't help but wonder if my criticisms would have been muted had they simply removed the “V” from the title. In any case, what is presented is highly polished and a wonder to behold, and I would still very much recommend MGSV to both fans and non-fans of the series. It's still Metal Gear, and it's still very Solid.

I'm conflicted, too. Its biggest obstacle was being the next numbered entry after MGS 4. It comes with a certain expectation. I think the crew here touched on this sort of thing when they discussed what a Super Mario Bros. 4 would have to be.

When I played the game, I loved playing it. The stealth was superb and the options you had seemed endless. The intro was a little too long, but if I knew that it was the most scripted sequence of the game, I would've appreciated it more at the time. The story was underwhelming aside from 3 or 4 sequences. Knowing there was supposed to be

I'm tired of so many AAA franchises going open-world, and it was the same thing here because there were so many distractions. If a story is strong in an open game, I'll just mainline the campaign and ignore most side missions. The fact that the story was fairly weak didn't keep me focused on the main narrative. The game didn't have great pacing, but was hard to put down because of the gameplay and constant need to check the status of research and combat deployments. We're getting into Farmville "look at the bars fill up" stuff. That's not what I want from the last Kojima Metal Gear.

I'll probably just put it as my number 5 for GOTY, because I loved so much about it but expected so much more. In a year where nearly every big game met or surpassed expectations, MGS V was the only one that didn't. But that's because my expectations were overblown so I don't even know if that's a fair knock.

On a side note, I never want to hear the phrase vocal cord parasites again. I can't remember the last time hearing a certain phrase could consistently trigger an audible "ugggghhhhh" response from me.

OH! And you should probably say "spoilers ahead" somewhere in this post.

@csl316: I definitely understand the notion that open world design in modern games can is a bit overdone, but there are some examples of it working out, such as in The Witcher 3. I guess it comes down to the type of franchise you're dealing with. With an RPG, an open world tends to compliment the established design, but with a linear action games like MGS, the open world can be at odds with the franchise's established tropes. It's a tough balance to maintain, as I imagine that market research indicates that open world mechanics sell better than linear single player. In any case, I fully expect MGSV to be a lot of people's game of the year, which will make this one of the oddest years for gaming's "best-ofs".

Also, I did in fact mention spoilers in my first paragraph. I'm not a huge fan of putting spoiler blocks in my blog post but I do believe in giving people fair warning. Is there a better way I could warn people?

I choose to think of the V not being 5, even though it is, because it sets it apart in the ideal way.

I was so addicted to PW but hated the story so going into MGSV, my expectations were perfectly in line with the result. It is really sad though how obvious it is the production was (for a good reason) cut short by Konami. Chapter 2 mannn....a lot of good beats but no connective tissue whatsoever.

MGSV, mostly due to advancing technology and the presumed internal politics at Konami, shows active disdain for its predecessor's aggressive linearity and reliance on extended cutscenes.

You're not saying that the focus away from a dense story with cutscenes is because of Konami are you? Because that seems blatantly wrong to anyone who was paying attention to any pre-release content. Unless you want to assume that Kojima and co. were forced to structure the game this way by Konami from the start.

Also I completely disagree about Peace Walker's story. Peace Walker was a very Metal Gear-feeling Metal Gear story. It had pretty much everything you expect from a Metal Gear story. Nuclear proliferation preaching, weird characters, strange plot twists, and a crazy "no, it was actually me all along" ending. I'd still say the events of Peace Walker are still more germane to the story overall than MGSV by a large margin.

I've said before that Kojima doesn't really care about the story canon that the fans care about, more than the thematic story he wants to tell. I have had lots to say about MGSV. But I think it can all be summed up by the fact that this game uses a Roman numeral, instead of an Arabic numeral like all the previous games.

I feel like you are totally right with this. For me MGS V is a great sequel since it has lost everything that got out of control in the series. MGS 4 has many great moments but its just super stupid and too silly for its own good. MGS V is sort of a step back where you are less exposed to the story. In that way its is the opposite to MGS4 where you were drowning in exposition and had cutscene every 5 minutes of the game. Finding middle ground between the two would be epic but it didn't happen.

Diminishing Big Boss' legacy is a bit much seeing as his cult of personality is what allows the ruse to flourish.

Without being rude to OP, I think people so attached to this thinking are just missing the point. It's just a name. It's obviously not ideal for you that the game Kojima wanted to make wasn't the game you wanted to be made. But that's expectations. He did his time with narrative driven MGS. He changed storytelling in videogames, and capped it off with 4. He had a boatload of time, talent and money and wanted to do something new.

Namely, an open infiltration game with a structure designed around meta games of resources gathering and staff management. He wanted to explore certain themes. Job done on both counts. It cruises at 60FPS, plays flawlessly and was a joy to exist in for tons of hours. He didn't WANT to make a sequel to MGS 4 in terms of structure and storytelling. So he didn't. That's a bummer if you had wanted that, but it's not a reason to try and bring down what V achieved.

I think you got something wrong. MGSV is not MGS5 and if you would ask Kojima he would tell you that MGSPW is the most likely candidate for the number 5, as it tell the story of the real big boss after the events of MGS3.

Naming it as MGSV was a smart marketing move to make us all hyped up about it and it worked.

I tend to not think about it too hard. Honestly the discussions about it being MGS V as opposed to MGS 5 are quite silly. It was the next big Metal Gear game in the series that I really enjoyed playing. Was it perfect? No, but then again neither were any of the previous games. The most pure of them all is still Metal Gear Solid (1) as it's the perfect blend of action, story and silliness. The later productions all leaned very heavily either one way or the other. The beloved Snake Eater was originally a huge pain to actually play until they introduced camera controls in the Subsistence release and it's levels were for the most part really uninspired and dull.

So just enjoy MGS V for what it is. Whether it's V or 5 or what have you doesn't really matter - what matters most is the fun you have with it, and there is plenty of that to be had in this final entry.

MGS4 is not a great game, its a pretty good one but nothing particularly special. MGSV is an excellent game. Peacewalker is also an excellent game though a technically limited one due to the nature of the PSP.

I disagree with the idea that MGSV turns Big Boss into a "cowardly glory-seeker" but that's mainly because the ending is so vague. In my mind, by putting this fake Big Boss in the line of fire and keeping the real one in the shadows, Big Boss is better able to build up the mercenary's paradise that he had been working towards since Peace Walker; it keeps Zero('s AIs?) out of his hair as he can continue to work for FOXHOUND, all while his phantom builds the idea of the legendary mercenary. Of course, because things are never spelled out, we can't tell if he really was afraid for his own safety and simply used Venom to build his legacy with no personal risk, but that doesn't fit the mold of the Big Boss who you get to play as in 3 and Peace Walker.

As for nothing really having an impact on the story in the end, that's just the nature of prequels. Unless you go back and retcon the older games, you can't introduce anyone or anything new without a way for them to either leave no impact on the later story, or having their influence be misconstrued as someone or something else's. You get stuck with a bit of a dilemma: add in new characters who have to be wiped out or removed by the start of the older game's timeline, or stick with the established characters and give them a reason for not referencing any events that they never mentioned in the earlier games. MGSV happens too far in the past for most of the MGS 1-4 characters to be relevant, so unless you want a game bereft of people, you need to go with the "introduced only to die" route. I don't feel that's MGSV's fault, rather I blame MGS4 (or more precisely, Kojima) for wrapping up everything a bit too neatly. 4 goes out of its way to make some (at times fairly ludicrous) connections, and I often wonder if Kojima realized his next game would be another MGS1 prequel, or if he even intended to go back and do another game at all. If that game was more vague and left more mysteries, I think MGSV would have had the wiggle room it needed to make more of its revelations work.

Hear Hear! I thought the 5-star rating generated by Brad's review was a travesty given the big plot gaps in this.

I mean Drew was able to call the plot twist by the first episode, I was of a similar mindset at the time and spotted little clues throughout to help confirm it for me.

I felt like for a "Metal Gear" Game the lack of philosophical musings from Big Boss also had a crippling effect on the story and I never really felt the charismatic leader of men shine through at all when everyone BUT Big Boss is talking at length. Like I felt Hayter nailed it at the end of Peace Walker with his speech to the men in showing this villainous leader that has raw charisma to inspire his men.

Leaving Liquid running around with a deadly super bioweapon and a powerful Metal Gear? It's not really forgiveable that that goes unresolved.

Another problem I had...even IF they had included the final mission, I don't see the 'transformation'. Since Venom eventually goes onto become the big bad of MG1 we're shown him snapping into supervillainous form as the final scene effectively. Though where was the turning point to warrant this? Yes he had to do some horrible things, but it was always done as a result of one person - Skull Face. The outbreak? Yeah it's horrible he had to kill his own men but for the ones that were still sane they realised it had to be done and accepted that. The shooting of Eli in the final mission? An accident, he hadn't intended to do it. Yeah I'd understand some torture and regret but there's a big leap from "I'm a monster" to "I'm a monster...and I'm going to do monstrous things because I hate the world!" I just didn't see anything that would make him hate the world that way as to start the events of MG1.

That was how I felt. Chapter 1 felt kind of weak and didn't have any great moments in it, while Chapter 2 has easily the most interesting moments and a couple of really satisfying conclusions, but it felt like they were just arbitrarily plopped in wherever it was convenient.

What if they had called it Metal Gear Solid: Venom, instead of MGSV: The Phantom Pain. Kinda accomplishes what OP was looking for .

I personally think that story wise it is a good follow up to Peace Walker but from a game play stand point it reminds me more of Metal Gear Solid 4. It seemed like the main focus in Metal Gear Solid V was the main story with the Side-Ops getting very little attention where in Peace Walker most of my game time was spent on Side-Ops (I thought the Peace Walker story was good it was just a bit short), and also with the removal of co-ops (and some of the more funny weapons) the game has a more Metal Gear Solid 4 tone to me.

In the end I think Metal Gear Solid V is great but it could have used a bit more time to work on the side-ops (I think the newest patch helps with this but still dosn't solve my issues with side-ops) and story (the idea for the kingdom of flies chapter is great and would have loved to play it) before it came out.

I didn't like either of them. The Phantom Pain is the first MGS I won't finish.

@sad_aust:It's a commonly overlooked detail, but, it's worth mentioning that:

@mnemoidian:I might have put to much stock in that detail then. (at this point I'm convinced I put to much stock in that detail)