Metal Gear Survive Full Review & Analysis

Doakes
MGSF Philosopher
MGSF Philosopher
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:17 pm

March 14th, 2018, 7:28 pm #1

Hey, folks! So, having spent roughly 90 hours with Survive, forty plus on the Single Player, and around forty five or so on Co-Op, I've finally whipped together a full video review & analysis regarding Metal Gear Survive. Past all the hyperbole, all the controversy, and all the questionable anger and animosity, these are just my general overall thoughts on what I felt to be a severely flawed but ultimately MOSTLY fun spinoff title.



Take this for what it is; just one aging gamers' opinion, nothing more. With any luck, it lends at least some perspective without being too dreadfully boring. :P
Quote
Like
Share

Edgelord
Tengu Commando
Tengu Commando
Joined: February 25th, 2015, 3:09 am

March 17th, 2018, 12:16 pm #2

Your voice is literally unbelievably iconic and beast.
BEFORE THY BECOMES SALTY WITH THE TEARS OF BEING OFFENDED.
BEHOLD THE FIELD IN WHICH I GROW MY FUCKS TO GIVE.
LAY THINE EYES UPON IT AND SEE THAT IT IS BARREN
Quote
Like
Share

0zerocypher0
Light Infantry
Light Infantry
Joined: May 21st, 2014, 2:53 am

March 23rd, 2018, 9:00 am #3

Reminds me of the voice in Mass Effect for the Codex...good video,thanx...
I would feel real trapped if I didn't know that I could commit suicide at any moment...
http://devilushninja.deviantart.com/
Quote
Like
Share

Doakes
MGSF Philosopher
MGSF Philosopher
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:17 pm

April 11th, 2018, 4:25 am #4

You guys are far too kind, thank you. :)
Quote
Like
Share

The Gentleman Phantom
Hi-Tech Soldier
Hi-Tech Soldier
Joined: November 2nd, 2014, 5:42 pm

April 12th, 2018, 7:18 am #5

I'm honestly not surprised a lot of this forum supports this rubbish. It's not a MGS game and simply using the engine and name built off Kojima, but people here don't want to hear that and they got your money for a Metal Gear addon that should've only been maybe $15 at most from MGSV.

More people are upset that Kojima implied he's a God to the MSG world he created than Konami using the MGS name to sucker people into buying a forgettable zombie game no one will remember and making paywalls (or unnecessary point systems, however you wanna slice it) BS for save slots and etc lol.
Quote
Like
Share

dg1995
Jail Guard
Jail Guard
Joined: January 16th, 2018, 9:53 pm

April 12th, 2018, 7:52 am #6

I think I'm more upset for reviewers praising the hell out of Phantom Pain like it's one of the best games of this generation while It's one of the worst open world games that has ever created.(Even GTA 3 is a much better open world game than Phantom Pain)
On the other hand survive is much better than Phantom Pain. PP only has better stealth and story but in all other ways Survive is much better.
Quote
Like
Share

Doakes
MGSF Philosopher
MGSF Philosopher
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:17 pm

May 3rd, 2018, 3:45 am #7

The Gentleman Phantom wrote:I'm honestly not surprised a lot of this forum supports this rubbish. It's not a MGS game and simply using the engine and name built off Kojima, but people here don't want to hear that and they got your money for a Metal Gear addon that should've only been maybe $15 at most from MGSV.

More people are upset that Kojima implied he's a God to the MSG world he created than Konami using the MGS name to sucker people into buying a forgettable zombie game no one will remember and making paywalls (or unnecessary point systems, however you wanna slice it) BS for save slots and etc lol.
I don't think this comment is all that constructive, The-Gentleman-Phantom - It seems like more of an excuse to take needless jab at people who actually liked this game, and I think that's unwarranted. That's kind of why I made this review in the first place, to actually elaborate in detail why I felt the way I did about Survive. It seems more like you're assuming that those who purchased and enjoyed Survive are sheep who have no minds for themselves. They just buy anything with a Metal Gear title on it. I'm not saying those kinds of people don't exist. There will always be devoted fans of anything to anything. However, to assume that EVERYONE is like that is dreadfully ignorant.

I'm now into May, and I'm still fairly consistently playing Survive's Co-Op, exploring the open world in search of more unlockables and replaying a select few missions that had stealth action which I quite enjoyed. I didn't go into Metal Gear Survive expecting anything but escapist fun and for the most part, that's what I got. It's clunky, not always intuitive and no, it won't have staying power. But for $39.99, I got a satisfying experience and have had more fun playing Survive's simple, dumb yet enjoyable gameplay model than most games that I've played these days.

The only time I've ever felt ripped off paying for something with Metal Gear in the title was when I spent the exact same amount of money for what was ultimately a $40 demo in Ground Zeroes. It had two deeply enjoyable missions, two decent missions, and a couple of missions I played and will never touch again because they did nothing for me. They all mostly played the same bar that brief window when I'm actually undertaking an objective. If anything, THAT should've been the $15 download, and even that's high for a game that's ultimately no better than the Tanker demo of MGS2, which DID come free as demos are supposed to.

Meanwhile, I paid the exact same price for Survive, and I got a twenty plus hour campaign that I mostly enjoyed, and a simple, dumb fun Co-Op mode that I continue to play and have more fun with than I EVER did with any iteration of MGO. That's what I went into Survive expecting, and that's what I got. Do I see myself playing Survive as long as I continue to play MGSV? Absolutely not, but it doesn't NEED to be that masterpiece of gaming for me to get my moneys worth.

As for Paywalls, they don't really interfere with the game. You'd have no reason to ever play Survive because it's not the kind of campaign that beckons replaying, and it now has the added feature to replay any chapter in the game, so the $10 save file is now completely superfluous. Even the Base Dig isn't ridiculous. It's clearly a F2P Model, since you have to wait 22 hours each wave or pay to start immediately, but it's not the core of the game, just like unlocking the FOB-quality weapons of MGSV wasn't its' core, and it too had ridiculous wait times you could bypass with real money. The core of Survive's gameplay loop is exploration and Co-Op, and neither one is P2W.

Survive isn't high art, and it didn't NEED to be. It just needed to be fun, and it was. The Dust World was enjoyable to explore, and the experience was fundamentally unique from MGSV. Most of its' outposts are completely restructured from how they were in MGSV, and even the few that aren't don't play or feel like they did in MGSV.

If that's not YOUR thing, that's fine. It isn't for most people, and I completely get it. But what you're saying is insulting and I think that's very unfair. Neither you nor anyone else have any right to say what people should or shouldn't buy or enjoy. I don't like MGS4 at all, but I'm not going to be needlessly snarky to people who genuinely love that game because what right do I or anyone else have to do so?

No one's saying the game's above criticism or perfect. Heck, in this very video, I covered a good deal of what I thought didn't work about Survive, and one month later, I've got plenty more that I don't like. But a game doesn't need to be perfect or even amazing to be enjoyable. Most knew what they were getting into when they bought Survive, and knew that it had a budget of six dollars. We're all consenting adults. We get what we pay for, and at the end of the day, we either like it or we don't.

If it's JUST about how the Metal Gear name is used, well, Metal Gear has never been this quality high art thing. It's now and always been a goofy pseudo-political B-Movie series of games. Survive does have an air of cynicism in its' mere existence, sure, but for what it was, I was ultimately satisfied and got more out of Survive than I tend to with most video games, because most games I play either don't have a lot of replay value, or just don't click with me enough to warrant replaying. Heck, I'm BARELY managing to play Far Cry 5, and that's mainly because its' Arcade Mode is a near perfect level and mission maker. But the core game itself is such a bore to me. It's "Ubisoft Open World Game 5-1000: Another One." Perfectly functional, but so thoroughly identical to every other open world game I've ever played that I can't even find the will to bother playing outside of its' Arcade Mode. Whereas with Survive, I genuinely have a more enjoyable time combating or sneaking past crystal zombies and fighting alongside random players in horde mode because the gameplay, while flawed, has a real life to it that feels unique from most games I play.
wrote:I think I'm more upset for reviewers praising the hell out of Phantom Pain like it's one of the best games of this generation while It's one of the worst open world games that has ever created.(Even GTA 3 is a much better open world game than Phantom Pain)
On the other hand survive is much better than Phantom Pain. PP only has better stealth and story but in all other ways Survive is much better.

I'm kind of at a loss with this, dg1995 - Because for starters, reviews are based on opinions, and opinions are not static. I can comprehend disagreeing with an opinion, but not being bothered by them.

Open world games are not static. The quality of an open world video game is not contingent on how much filler and fetch quests can be stuffed into the open world, but rather, the quality of the gameplay itself. The reason critics lavished MGSV with relentless praise is because its gameplay loop is unmatched. Each mission is deeply open ended, and each Outpost is designed in such a way where you have several paths to your objective, and each path complements whichever playstyle you go through. You have a wide array of gadgets and abilities which are highly practical that encourages creativity in your playstyle, and the way a mission adapts to that playstyle makes however you play actually feel natural and organic, instead of feeling like you're breaking the game, most of the time.

The open world aspect doesn't always complement the missions, but it also doesn't hinder them most of the time either. Most missions take place within pretty nearby areas of your LZ, so it's not like you're traversing far to get to your objective, and in most cases when you are, there are sequences in between en route to your objective that keep things interesting. For example, in Phantom Limbs, you can traverse any one of the available Outposts and locate the Intel File, or just go straight to Miller. In Honeybee, you have an entire sequence where you can rescue a Hamid Soldier either at the dam or anywhere in between when the Soviet Jeep is heading to the caves, which is something of a second mission within that larger mission. Even Hellbound requires that you sneak out of Serak Power Plant before even heading towards the Central Base where Huey's Lab is.

Survive might have a better open world which definitely offers more incentive to actually venture into than MGSV ever did, but critics and reviewers alike didn't praise MGSV for having an amazing open world. They praised it because it was a phenomenally enjoyable video game with many fantastic, highly replayable missions to its' name. MGSV's open world itself may have been lifeless, but the vast majority of people typically go into MGS games for their missions and the actual stealth action gameplay, and that was where MGSV shined brighter, at least in my personal opinion, than any stealth action game before it, and there's a very good chance it will be a very long while before I ever play a stealth action game that can surpass it in terms of mission quality, gameplay quality, longevity, and pure, quality entertainment value.
Quote
Like
Share

dg1995
Jail Guard
Jail Guard
Joined: January 16th, 2018, 9:53 pm

May 5th, 2018, 5:31 pm #8

Doakes wrote:Open world games are not static. The quality of an open world video game is not contingent on how much filler and fetch quests can be stuffed into the open world, but rather, the quality of the gameplay itself.
Imo the quality of open worlds is determined by how much fun you can have with it.

Take GTA 3(2001 game) for example, You are in a city where you can:

1.Drive around the city and listen to radio channels(Which can either be soundtracks,advertisements and interviews which are fun to listen).

2.Explore the city and find secret missions,rampages and hidden packages. Or learning the city layout and discover the locations of bribes.

3.Drive special vehicles.Which can be rhino(a tank) boats or can be that plane which was hard to fly.

4.Fight police forces until they kill you.

5.Or increase the wanted level and try to escape the police either by going into Pay 'n' Spray or collecting bribes.

6.Fight gangs in the streets and be careful when driving around the territory of the gangs that are your enemies.(Especially Mafia)

but compare it to phantom pain. what can you do outside of missions ?

1.Traveling around which is boring.

2.Driving around which is boring because vehicles are too slow.And vehicle physics are also bad.(I didn't even manage to make a vehicle upside down)

3.infiltrating bases(Which is a same thing that you do in the whole missions)

4.hunting animals. Which is just a tranquilize-fultoning and doesn't have any challenge or a chance of failure.

5.Listening to tapes which are just a way to explain the nanomachine storyline.

6.fighting zombies which is boring after the first time.

7.gun fighting with enemies.(Which I didn't enjoy it since it was a simple cover shooter with regenerating HP in combat)

8.Exploration is one of the main aspects of true open world games and yet with exploring in phantom pain you only find some animals,flowers and diamonds which are useless since you have much better ways acquiring them. There is only materials which are useful and you have to just search big bases to find them which makes 70-80 percent of the map, useless.

MGS V was advertised as an Open World game and if your open world game only shines in the main missions, that means that you have failed to make a proper open world game.
Quote
Like
Share

Edgelord
Tengu Commando
Tengu Commando
Joined: February 25th, 2015, 3:09 am

May 5th, 2018, 8:02 pm #9

Somebody is bitter
BEFORE THY BECOMES SALTY WITH THE TEARS OF BEING OFFENDED.
BEHOLD THE FIELD IN WHICH I GROW MY FUCKS TO GIVE.
LAY THINE EYES UPON IT AND SEE THAT IT IS BARREN
Quote
Like
Share

Doakes
MGSF Philosopher
MGSF Philosopher
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:17 pm

May 5th, 2018, 10:02 pm #10

dg1995 wrote:Imo the quality of open worlds is determined by how much fun you can have with it.
That's perfectly fair. However, the quality of any GAME is typically determined by how much fun one has with its' campaign itself. Having a fun open world to jerk around in is perfectly fine, but it's also dime a dozen. Fewer and fewer open world games stand out because the content it has to provide is popcorn content; perfectly consumable but not quality content that's so good, you dive in for more.
wrote:Take GTA 3(2001 game) for example, You are in a city where you can:

1.Drive around the city and listen to radio channels(Which can either be soundtracks,advertisements and interviews which are fun to listen).
But that's completely aimless. The only open world game I've ever played where I genuinely enjoyed the traversing element was Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, because traversing and exploring was the key point of the game, and the world was so massive and portrait-esque that it was designed to make exploration a venture that actually feels worth while. If I want to drive around aimlessly listening to tunes, I can do that in virtually any open world game.
wrote:2.Explore the city and find secret missions,rampages and hidden packages. Or learning the city layout and discover the locations of bribes.
But none of that had a point. There was maybe one actual secret mission in the entire game that wasn't listed with a marker, and it was the Marty Chonks mission, which had the player doing a lot of fetch quests. Hidden Packages and Rampages were all for the sake of completionist runs which, again, are perfectly fine, but not something I'd ever consider fun.
wrote:3.Drive special vehicles.Which can be rhino(a tank) boats or can be that plane which was hard to fly.
You could certainly do all of those things none of that is content that really digs its' hooks into you. Racing has now and always been a chore in GTA games because the vehicles just don't cut it for tight corners and in later games, it's only ever been made worse by the looser steering. And as far as tanks go, there's only so long one can just blow up everything before it gets dull.
wrote:4.Fight police forces until they kill you.
But this is also aimless is the thing. It generates gameplay but it's not stimulating. It's essentially a horde mode without a goal, reward or purpose besides mayhem. And that exists in every game these days. It's a base model for action, not something unique which gives it an edge.
wrote:5.Or increase the wanted level and try to escape the police either by going into Pay 'n' Spray or collecting bribes.
The escape was always the most stimulating part of police chases, but it was always at its' best when it was in service of an actual mission. When it was just in the open world, it was always in service of nothing, and without a goal to strive towards, it's hard to be stimulated or engaged.
wrote:6.Fight gangs in the streets and be careful when driving around the territory of the gangs that are your enemies.(Especially Mafia)
Basically the same as the above, only without the increasingly more difficult waves.
wrote:but compare it to phantom pain. what can you do outside of missions ?
Well, the first thing to note is that the missions are the main DRIVE of MGSV. Metal Gear has now and always been a mission focused video game. Having an open world never changed that. In all of the streams and demos ever released for MGSV, none of them were ever about the open world expanse itself, but rather, the missions, the gameplay, and how the open world could work in service of that, which, for the most part, it does.

It doesn't need to have all this excess fluff. But even then, it still has enough of it.
wrote:1.Traveling around which is boring.

2.Driving around which is boring because vehicles are too slow.And vehicle physics are also bad.(I didn't even manage to make a vehicle upside down)
See, I actually had more fun traversing Afghanistan than I ever did GTA3, because riding my horse was inherently more enjoyable than bumming around a big gray city for way too long in between missions. Not only that, I also enjoyed the 80's music and MGS music that MGSV's cassette player had to offer a lot more than the Scarface soundtrack of GTA3 and its' opera. And I'm not a fan of rap at all so its' hip hop did nothing for me.

And unlike most GTA games, 3 included, you aren't traversing LONG distances from the LZ to the Mission Area. And in the select few when you do, there's always a secondary mission or optional content to undertake in between A to B.
wrote:3.infiltrating bases(Which is a same thing that you do in the whole missions)
That's the same thing you do in every Metal Gear game. I don't understand how that's suddenly a negative now. Especially since every time you touch down, you have Side Ops to undertake, which all touch on the fundamentals of Metal Gear gameplay. It's all nuggets of gameplay with an actual purpose. You can infiltrate a compound and rescue a target, capture an enemy, eliminate a squad of soldiers, etc. And each one is open ended enough to be played however you wish, which is what MGSV prided itself on. There's an actual structure to the side missions of MGSV in the same way that there was a structure to the side missions in MGS2, which many people hailed as one of MGS2's strongest features, myself included.
wrote:4.hunting animals. Which is just a tranquilize-fultoning and doesn't have any challenge or a chance of failure.
I'm completely over hunting animals in video games. It wasn't stimulating in Far Cry 3 or Assassin's Creed, and it certainly wasn't stimulating in Survive. Personally, I'd rather do something unique like capture animals without force, or in the case of bears, fight them with tranq rounds and CQC, which offered a considerable bit of challenge. It's not exactly stimulating gameplay, minus the bear, which felt more like a mini-boss to me, but I find that far more preferable than doing what every other open world game does by having you kill animals and restricting upgrades from you until you do. Because then, not only is hunting not enjoyable, but failing to do so means I'm limited in what kind of gear I can use.

I don't like that I can't make a Large Fire Quiver in Survive because I can't find a Rare Anubis during the completely random Side Ops that turn up. And my experience is lessened as a result.
wrote:5.Listening to tapes which are just a way to explain the nanomachine storyline.
Well, exposition is always boring. It was boring in every other MGS game as well. But MGSV's tapes also had some truly compelling character moments. All of the Truth Tapes, the audio scenes with Skull Face, the Burger Tapes, all of Huey's interviews, Strangelove's final monologue, some of Venom Snake's more poignant moments, there's a good few hours of genuinely compelling material in those tapes for all the mindnumbing exposition it drones on about. And that's pretty much par the course with anything really.
wrote:6.fighting zombies which is boring after the first time.
The zombies were one Side Op though, and there were plenty of others that remained consistently fun. I enjoyed every single Tank Unit because unlike PW, they weren't a grind to beat and actually felt like proper Tank Bosses with an appropriate amount of life and the added bonus of just a select amount of varied soldiers guarding each one. They felt like a cross between a PW Tank and the Ocelot Unit, and each one was always open ended. Similarly, I really liked the combat against the Heavy Infantries because whether you fought them head on or picked them off silently, they're equipped in such a way where you kind of need to get creative, which I enjoyed. I also enjoyed taking on Elite Soldiers when they're snipers, because that too feels like a kind of mini-boss, especially if I fight them head on, having to punch through their guards before I can capture the sniper.

The point is, this side content actually has an aim, not just in reward, but a tangible goal which is in line with MGS' gameplay model, particularly the way it blends stealth and action. They aren't all winners but with the exception of mine disposal, I can't think of any I ever felt was a slog or was just plain unenjoyable.
wrote:7.gun fighting with enemies.(Which I didn't enjoy it since it was a simple cover shooter with regenerating HP in combat)
Not really. So much of what made MGSV's gunplay work as well as it did was movement and the structure of any given outpost. You not only have tons of cover spots, but plenty of environmental advantages for offense, as well as bum rushing soldiers with bullets and hard hitting CQC. Enemy soldiers are typically pretty good about lobbing grenades so it isn't like other cover shooters where you only need to find one concrete divider and stay there for two minutes. Especially considering MGSV's aiming rectical more unwieldy, so it encourages more precision, whilst proving more effective within close proximity.
wrote:8.Exploration is one of the main aspects of true open world games and yet with exploring in phantom pain you only find some animals,flowers and diamonds which are useless since you have much better ways acquiring them. There is only materials which are useful and you have to just search big bases to find them which makes 70-80 percent of the map, useless.

MGS V was advertised as an Open World game and if your open world game only shines in the main missions, that means that you have failed to make a proper open world game.
The exploration of MGSV is one of its' weakest elements and one of Survive's biggest strengths, certainly. But that's not undercutting MGSV if the focus is the actual missions which have a leg up on pretty much any open world game I can currently think of, particularly open world shooters, especially of the GTA variety.

And from there, the question I ask is, what's more important? Having an open world with tons of secrets to explore or having quality missions that are open ended, dynamic and accessible enough that you'd actively WANT to replay them over and over? And for me, it's no contest. Look at Arkham City, for instance. That's an open world game with plenty of compelling side content, loads of secrets with interesting text paragraphs for each one, and unlockable collectors stuff. And it has a gripping amount of Gothic atmosphere. But like any game built around that model, eventually, you reach 100%. Eventually you find all the secrets and do all the secret missions, and from there, what's left? You can always replay the game, but what incentive will you ever have to go exploring for secrets that don't lend themselves towards enhancing the actual gameplay? Completionism doesn't have staying power, strong missions do.

And to say that MGSV only having strong missions isn't enough is something I admittedly find quite baffling. That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it, but I just can't see where you're coming from if that's the case.
Quote
Like
Share