Kojima did take a lot of his team with him, though, didn't he?

Depends on whether ihe new Metal gear is a video game or a pachinko game.

There needs to be an option that says "only if it's good". So I'm gonna go with no for now.

I've already played Acid and Rising, so... yes? Heck, I haven't played it myself, but I heard good things about Ghost Babel, too.

Kojima brings a lot to Metal Gear, some of it good, some of bad. So when he's not around you lose some stuff, but maybe that's not a bad thing. And who knows what you might gain in its place? And keep in mind, It's not like he wrote a novel; a vast multitude of people made those games happen. So if someone comes along and does something interesting with that setting and those characters, I'm down.

What i want to see from Konami is for them to take a team and and relase a sequel to MGS V in the same way that Fallout 4 is a sequel to Fallout 3. Just take the same engine, same concepts, same everything, and then refine the design to the point where it adresses the few legitimate concerns from the previous title. Thats it. I don't want to see them try and reinvent the series or try to recreate the style of the older games because I like the core of what they have here. I LOATHED how the previous games played and story is of a secondary concern to me. So having a game that plays like MGS V only it was actually finished this time would be amazing.

Hell, now that I think of it, what I really want to see is a Directors Cut for MGS V. Fix the problems with the 2nd act, add the 3rd act it seems obvious that they were working on, and just polish the fuck out of this thing. I would easily pay $50 for an expansion pack for this game.

Ctrl+F "pach" -- 4 results

I am disappointed by the lack of pachinko jokes in this thread.

Yes if it's good why not to be honest I was kinda disappointed in MGSV the game clearly was rushed and not finished I would love a remake of MGS3 with fox engine.

Hideo Kojima was nowhere near the first guy to make a game that "felt like a movie".

Maybe it's my Komima-irritation showing, but I feel like most people who worship Kojima never played PC games in the 1980-90s. People like Chris Roberts, with Wing Commander, were making games that both looked more like movies and played better as games than anything Kojima was doing. Kojima, with Snatcher, was basically just emulating what western PC developers were doing at the time, but making it more anime. (And Snatcher, in my opinion is a WAYYY better showcase of Kojima talent than MGS.)

Agreed. The Phantom Pain is the first MGS I won't finish. Konami's MGS may be worse, but at this point there's nothing to lose.

I vote for "Maybe, it depends"

@bananasfoster: No but he popularised it, you said he didnt influence games when he most definitely did. But you obviously have some problem with the guy so it's not worth arguing...

Only if it's "Machine gun-less".

I would much rather play Kojima's new game instead of another unfinished Metal Gear game from Konami.

As a fan since the original Metal Gear on the ps1, MGSV was disappointing for me.

I voted "Yes" but only if it looks good which i highly doubt it will.

Konami now have a total control on the franchise, So the things they have done with MGSV will not look too greedy anymore.

Do you think Konami can resist the temptation to fill the next game with "nano"-transactions?

I believe Kojima's design has a lot to do with what makes Metal Gear so unique, but it isn't the only influence, a combination of the talent at the studio, the times the games were made in, the budget afforded to the developer, the generous development time the games were afforded, it's a whole host of things which contributed to their quality so i'll be interested to see if he can continue that in his new situation. That being the case i wouldn't mind seeing how a new Metal Gear from a new team turns out, the biggest factor of its development is Konami's apparent disregard for video game development, if they do decide to make a new game it may not receive as much care as the franchise was given before, that's more of a factor for the franchise currently than a lack of Kojima.

O_o I'm not seeing how you could say he popularized it. When games that were emulating the style of a movie came out before, along-side, and continued to after Metal Gear Solid, it seems arbitrary to attribute their lineage through Metal Gear Solid. I mean, heck, there were FMV games that WERE basically movies, at the time.

This conversation is kinda pointless. Konami is never going to make a AAA game ever again. They basically said as much and certainly acted the part in the past few months.

I know they may just make some of their franchises into slot machines or whatever but Metal Gear has value and I wouldn't be surprised if it was sold off. Castlevania as well. If the value they could get from selling the IP is enough to outdo any bonus the machine gets for being branded like that.

We'll see what happens but I won't be so shocked if that happens at some point.

Big companies never sell off IP. Especially IP as big as Metal gear and Castlevania. They never do because if the company they sell the IP to makes more money than the sales price the executive that sold the IP is in deep shit. That guy won't get any props for selling the IP but he will get his ass fired for giving it away for less than it was ''worth''.

So yeah, big company always retain control of all their IP ''just in case'' because that's way better for them than having a competitor make bank with their property.

Totally. Even if the new thing was bad, that wouldn't take anything away from the old thing, and what if the new thing is awesome? Also I could totally see Konami making more of these too. Honestly I feel like people are jumping the gun a little bit when they say Konami is getting out of the video game business. If they spent so much money developing MGSV, then I feel like they'd want to make some more of that initial investment back. They could probably accomplish that by recycling as much as they could from MGSV, and making a couple bare bones sequels with the remaining staff they have.

Probably not. I did like Revengeance, but that still started as Kojima's idea didn't it? Anyway, even if they did make another Metal Gear and it was good as a game (as in, it plays well), I just don't think that's enough for me. I already felt massively disappointed with MGSV's complete shift to open-world sandbox gameplay, massive hour count, and sparsely delivered story. It just wasn't what I wanted out of a metal gear game at all. I play very few games these days. A game that plays good and has lots of content isn't much of an incentive for me. It's gotta have something super unique about it, ideally be a shorter and more compressed experience, and have an in my face interesting story. I doubt anybody but Kojima can pull off the simultaneously insane and brilliant auteur thing that I crave.

Without Kojima OR Shinkawa a new Metal Gear will just be a husk of its former self, no thanks.

As many cool things as there are in MGS, a lot of that is probably the team of people he works with, and I know I'll be mostly alone in saying this, but I hate the way he approached story telling, so I'd actually love an MGS game that continue the tradition of cool gameplay touches but with a story that maybe I could actually enjoy.
Though at this point Konami has shown how shitty they are that I wouldn't really want to support any game they put out.

@bananasfoster: It's just my own personal opinion that he did it better and people took notice, and there's a reason MGS is still relevant whereas FMV games are still sort of a joke. (with the possible exception of "her story" although I havent played it.) On some level any successful franchise that's been going as long as Metal Gear influences the industry whether or not you (or I) think it was done better before is irrelevant.

at this point i think i'd prefer it

I've had plenty of that former self. "The robots don't look like they used to." is not a deal breaker.

@shindig: Shinkawa wasn't just responsible for the robots.

I know he wasn't.

I would easily wait and see to see if it's up to the quality of the others, but w/ the way Konami treated Kojima the past year I'm not really wanting to support Konami in the slightest. I'm wanting to get the dlc for Legacy of the Duelist but I just can't bring myself to spend money on something Konami puts out anymore :/

This right here. There are much more competent writers and directors than Kojima who can essentially ape the style of Kojima, and do better than him in the process. Besides, as people have said, game development is extremely collaborative. We can talk about Kojima as having the most influence over the game, sure, but he's not the only one making these games what they are. I'd even argue that one of the things he had the heaviest involvement in (writing) are by far the weakest aspect of the series.

There are actually lots of japanese devs who I think could make a pretty cool Metal Gear game, and take the franchise in a unique direction at the same time. It'll never happen because they're all spread out among several non-Konami companies, but the potential for something great is there.

@brackstone: Except for the part where Revengeance is nothing like a Metal Gear game, and anybody who says so clearly has never played or seen a Metal Gear game. It's Bayonetta with swords.

The biggest difference between Kojima a lot of other developers, especially developers like those at Platinum, is that he doesn't care about giving people what they want. That's what makes Metal Gear games great. I'm sure the next guy who makes a Metal Gear game will say "well people want David Hayter and Solid Snake, better just give them that I guess. No reason for me to put any thought into making the game unique or anything".

How boring.

When Dead or AliveAlive/Ninja Gaiden lost Itigaki I didn't think I'd want another one of those but DOA got better without him. Ninja Gaiden did get worse.

There are plenty fans of the lore in MGS and I think it's likely they can turn out a decent game without him.

If we can have Star Wars without Lucas and Star Trek without Roddenberry why not MGS without Kojima?

If it's fun, yes.

I played and loved portable ups when it came out and all kojima has done since it came out is try and make it more and more worthless because he didn't make it same goes for rising. People can make good mgs games without him and they will do better without him trivialising them.

I suppose it depends one what you look for in a Metal Gear game. I'd agree that the gameplay was not Metal Gear at all, as it was so fundamentally different, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. In terms of story, writing and setup, it's as Metal Gear as it gets.

Besides, isn't the fact that it went out and did something new, with almost a completely new set of characters, a unique thing? I'd argue that it's Kojima's writing that's become stagnant and boring, but we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If it's good, why not play it?

And God YES, we need a sequel to Revengeance. That game was pure bliss!

I can understand where you are coming from. I just disagree with how influential that the games are seen to be. I think that people over-estimate the amount of copies that MGS actually sells. It's like a celebrity that everyone talks about, so everyone assumes they must be rich. Metal Gear Solid and Kojima games don't really move that many units. They sell paltry numbers next to something like Grand Theft Auto, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed or any of the other big-name titles.

I think Metal Gear Solid for the PSX was popular because it was a lot of people's first introduction to a lot of concepts. Dan, for instance, had never experienced Anime at all when he played MGS, and he didn't own a PC. So it was the first game he played that was aimed at people older than the Super Mario Brothers crowd. But, meanwhile, many people had already experienced anime and to them, MGS is a pretty typical anime storyline. And to people who had been playing PC Games, which were always aimed at older, smarter kids and adults, it wasn't any revelation in terms of maturity.

So, for a specific group of people MGS was revelatory and holds a huge space in the history of gaming.

@brackstone: There's just something about Revengeance that doesn't take itself seriously in the way that mainline Metal Gear games take themselves seriously. It just seems too fast and silly to be a Metal Gear game. I just can't get behind a main character who goes around saying "it's time for Jack to let 'er rip!", that's just ridiculous. But whatever, like what you like.

I want absolutely nothing to do with Konami from now on. If they aren't involved and another good Metal Gear game comes out then I'm all for it. Otherwise I'll take a hard pass.

Sure, why not? Tons of potential in that franchise and other developers could certainly do amazing things with it.

Probably not.I mean...if we take away the fact that it might not have the ol' Kojima magic from before.

Then we'd still be supporting an abominable company that has a history of treating their employees monstrously and tried to screw over one of the greatest game directors of my generation (I would say at least). Plus after the last game there was a clear decline in story quality (the prime reason I buy these things). The series could have ended fine at MGS4 so whatever came after would have had to be damn impressive to not ruin a good track record.

If it's good, sure. I have no loyalty to people or companies. I play what interests me.

Even the writing and the setting is really not that similar to Metal Gear. Kojima manages to toe the line between serious and absurd in a really haphazard way that is very unique to his style of directing. Revengeance was just balls out silly without any restraint. It was the Avengers to Kojimas Dark Knight. Simply putting PMC's and incomprehensible monologues about war and purpose doesn't instantly make it a Metal Gear game.

Also while some people swear by it, the combat system in Revengeance was seriously flawed and lacked the nuance and fluidity that Bayonetta had. It was a clunky game, with some not so great visuals and a very skin deep MGS inspired paintjob. This may all sound super harsh but thats only because I think there was a lot of potential in that game to be something cool on it's own, but it really never shook that feeling of being a tech demo forcefully built out into a full length game.

seriously, where is the option to just wait and see how it turns out? what if kojima gives it the okay but it's a steaming pile of shit? what if he doesn't but it's awesome? why do people care who's connected to a game or not?

if it's good people will play it. if it isn't people won't.

if its good then yes

Thank you. No one seems to get it.

I'm actually even more interested in a Kojima-less Metal Gear. Have someone with a new take on it direct.

No because there nothing left to tell from that universe. Every part of the Big Boss/Solid Snake saga have been told. What else could they do with it story wise?

@rongalaxy: "No, but not because of kojima. I wouldnt play it because fuck Konami."

Exactly.