Now that the dust has settled, why was MGSV:TPP so _bad

It's not. It is underwhelming and repetitive, but its highs are too high for me to call it bad. I like it much more than any other Metal Gear game post-MGS3, and I think on a thematic level it's the most interesting (if not the best executed) story we've gotten since MGS2. The plot and presentation are a fucking mess, and the environments can feel like a slog that the cool stuff like the Soviet base camp just can't make up for. Still pretty good, though.

No, he's off screen working on Outer Heaven which Venom ultimately collaborates on (presumably with DD folded in). I don't think the change of BB from PW's ending to MG1 is that hard to follow given what happens in GZ.

>I think Death Stranding will prove for good whether he is the real deal or just a hack.
Naive fanboy view, I must say, but we will see

Attached: 220px-Peter-molyneux-at-university-of-southampton.jpg (220x290, 17K)

Its wasnt Big Boss or Solid but just a dull avatar

Attached: bigboss_by_athraxas-davwzih.png (800x450, 385K)

>castlevania is an example of this
Not really. He had a producer credit on LoS1 because he helped make the project happen, but he didn't have much to do with the game itself and doesn't even have producer credits on the other two LoS games I don't think. And no, LoS didn't "doom" the Castlevania series; it was a symptom of stagnation not the cause of the series' ruin or any melodramatic teenage girl shit that gets peddled on the Internet.

I do agree that Kojima is to blame for MGSV, but I also think the MGSV we got was (mostly) the MGSV we were always intended to get, KojiPro just miscalculated how good their good ideas were and didn't catch the bad ones.

Don't get me wrong, if anything I'm expecting the game to be a huge disappointment. But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt one last time.

DD ISNT A DOG, HES A WOLF!

Because it had no gameplay, just mechanics. It was essentially the same as booting up the MGS4 training mode and dicking around with your weapons. Fun for a few minutes, until you remember it has zero level design whatsoever and you're pretty much just in one massive flat room. What a piece of trash V ended up being

The gameplay imo was great. Loved all of the little gadgets and upgrades and that the worlds were essentially big playgrounds to enter and mess around in. I think it had a good gameplay feedback loop that really rested entirely on excuses for experimenting with fun mechanics.

BUT without a solid storyline and actually compelling missions all of that gets old and, in a series known for its story, it becomes a double whammy that just leaves everyone disappointed.

>play MGS2's VR Mission mode
>it's absolute hell but I beat it
>boot up MGS4
>It has VR Training, let's check it out
>blow up dummies with infinite ammo while a whole lot of nothing happens
For what purpose? What were they thinking with this?

The helicopter sucked, they made you pay more if you wanted to wait for it less when it should be free from the get go as its a QoL improvement. The game in general has no respect for your time, it makes you grind for resources to develop gear that is developed in real time, with higher tiered ones taking multiple days, only to then have you pay for it too each time you want to use it.
It was so disheartening. I already worked to get that crap, why must you keep bleeding me like this?

Death's Stranding will have all the critics lining up to eat Kojima's shit but honestly a game about playing a futuristic package courier probably won't leave a good taste in the consumers mouth. I feel a very huge divide between player and critic will occur, who knows

I'll admit I like resource management type stuff like that, but I totally understand why it appeals to some gamers and not others. And I would agree with the argument that a Metal Gear game is probably not the place for it.

Complete lack of a plot. The gameplay wasn't great despite what people say. Stupid mobile game inspired FOB, research time and all that.

>he helped make the project happen
Which he shouldn't have done, the game was a failure from the get-go
>he didn't have much to do with the game itself
He had quite a bit involvement in the development, going as far as to authorize design changes that resemble nothing close to the original and making it a reboot (which konami knew was a mistake) which resulted in the decline, so yes, he was the cause of its decline, nobody wanted this game, much less a reboot

Speaking of which, wasn't there a Castlevania game that never made it that showed Alucard and looked hack 'n' slash-esque? Could that be related to an earlier version of LoS?

>the game was a failure from the get-go
But it wasn't. LoS1 sold well and was reviewed well. It wasn't popular with the Castlevania core, but neither was Lament of Innocence which is a worse game and similarly unoriginal. Better music, though.
>which resulted in the decline
You sound like someone that wasn't a Castlevania fan in those years. The DS games were low budget and extremely niche. It's not like the series was experiencing some kind of grandiose renaissance curtailed by Lords of Shadow's malevolent intrusion. It was a big budget effort at revitalizing Castlevania that had short-term success but failed in the long run because the games that followed it were mismanaged abominations. LoS wouldn't have happened without Kojima, this is likely true, but I suspect something similar would have sooner or later.

And if you want another fun piece of history that demonstrate's Konami's confusion at what to do with Castlevania look no further than Castlevania Judgment.