Politics and personal feelings aside, was it really as bad as they say?

I mean Konami's internal politics. I feel like most people hated this game because Konami made a Metal Gear title without Kojima.

It's not anywhere near as bad as people were spewing. Most people haven't even tried it (which is stupid, it had a nearly week long "free trial" which was the full fucking game last year).

It's issues are, in no particular order:
Food/drink aren't an issue after maybe 2 hours, when you get cages and can trap bears/goats/other creatures. Berries, if you're aware of the explicit freeze on timers for thirst/hunger, can let you keep permanently 100% which makes the mechanic basically pointless.

There's no difficulty in the game whatsoever, only a handful of wanderers exist and you have seen most of them by the time you reach africa map. There are the boss monsters, but they're not particularly difficult and to beat them you're mostly just taking out more wanderers to set up the cutscene weapons to kill the bosses.
nothing quite so terrifying as the lord of dust slamming his fucking enormous foot down next to you in the dust when you weren't paying attention though.
Reviewers flat out lied about mechanics like hunger/thirst "dropping rapidly" when they freeze if you eat to fill, whinged about not having ammo for missions because they blew it all, or not knowing about bows/stealth, or tons of other shit. The game is bad enough with it's lack of content and microtransactions. People lying about it's gameplay when it's really the one decent thing it has is pretty shameful.

Did we play the same game?

mother fucker you can't even walk to a mission in five god damn minutes.

Not to mention the main dev was the guy that did most of the mechanics on the MGS series.

Kojicuks are the worst.

the multiplayer was fun, the campaign was garbage. The survival mechanics are trash and if you believe otherwise you are a fat nigger

also the performance was generally worse across the board compared to mgs v on all platforms considering the graphics were basically unchanged or worse in some ways

I love it

I disagree there. I played on base ps4 and it felt just fine to me.

hahahahahahahahaha

Attached: hahahahahaha.jpg (777x168, 36K)

the fat nigger is the youtube influencer you watched play this game for 10 seconds

It's okay, but there's a lot of resource grind and some real-world timer bullshit post-game. It's been a while since I played it, but the base drilling takes 24 hours between "phases", with 2 or 3 phases per drill. I think can be sped up instantly with premium currency and they do throw a large sum of enemies at you per phase that you'll eat through ammo and defenses per phase. Also if you don't come back in 24 hours for the next phase, the game with auto-resolve the battle for you based on some bullshit factor with what defenses you built.

>the multiplayer was fun, the campaign was garbage.

I'd say it was the exact opposite. The campaign encourages planning, stealth and preparation to survive, but the co-op just forces you into a chaotic smashing contest with zombies that feels like Dead Rising on meth.

best metal gear game since mgs1

cope harder you fat nigger

Attached: mgs cope.png (1794x865, 666K)

More players means the game is better? You must love Fortnite and Destiny 2.

imagine coping this hard

>tfw setting up like 40 of those windmill blade turrets
>sitting at a vantage point and watching the zombies fucking annihilate themselves
10/10

I'm not trying to make a point here, I don't give a shit about the game or how much money it makes. I'm just genuinely wondering if you think a high player count makes a single player game better?

I enjoyed it but the survival elements go out the window the second your base becomes decent and the enemy variety was terrible. Those 2 endgame enemies, the giant jellyfish and that gaping maw? The game needed way more of that. Eldritch abominations stalking you through the dust if you ventured too far.

it's a shitposter, ignore it and anyone else who spouts shit like cope and yikes

>I'm just genuinely wondering if you think a high player count makes a single player game better?
Honestly I would like to speed this argument up real quick because i feel like you know some low selling games that I should be trying out.

Still is.

It was ok. Could have used more enemy variation and instead of leaving skills for post-game, they should have given players the choice of doing a run with skills or a more classic MGS run without them.

The dependency on multiplayer as the real meat of the game and the awfully slow update schedule really harmed the game.

Uhh, well have you tried Uuno Turhapuro Muuttaa Maalle for the Commodore 64?

Attached: 220px-Uuno_Turhapuro_game_cover.jpg (220x278, 19K)

no but i sure as fuck am going to with that picture on the front of it

>leaving skills for post-game
They did that? Never actually finished the game. How does it work?

the thing is they had no update schedule, the game died so hard that konami pulled all funding they had for post-release content, and the events they had planned for the first 3 months have just been repeated since.

As someone who went into the game completely unbiased, and played the game on launch day, I can say for a fact that it was a good game. Ironically I found it more enjoyable than MGSV

A hidden gem, like Reddit would call it.

once you hit level cap you unlock a class system with perks for each class, it really would have been nice to get to specialize earlier in the game because some of the shit like scavenger being able to pick up everything around them at once was a godsend for singleplayer

konami.com/mg/survive/news
>last update october 2018
jesus fucking christ, was it that bad?

>that skill that automatically collects resources with stealth kills
That should've been baseline. Collecting kubans or whatever it was called was so annoying.

What's the post-game like? Worth playing after the story is complete?

literally didnt play the game

Remember when IGN gave Metal Gear Survive 6.5 but the actual guy who reviewed it for ign gave it an 8? And everybody just completely ignored it even when the guy who wrote the review complained to IGN about changing his score? Not to sound like trump, but that showed that the media was out to get Survive from day one. It was a much better game than people like to admit.

the only thing you have to look forward to in the singleplayer is just more base digs and fighting two bosses, which are pretty fun fights, wish they made more of them, whether that's worth getting through the entire story is up to you though, there's a good bit of grindan to get there from what I remember

mgsv is one of the few console games that has almost no frame dropping at 60 fps, survive definitely hovers in the 50's alot

this is me, stay mad fat nigger

Do I get to develop crazy ass scifi weapons and gadgets like in Peace Walker post-game?

they might have added shit since I stopped playing near launch but all the shit that I made was just guns from MGSV and a few bows, there were some pretty crazy melee weapons though

Less players means the game is better? You must love Battleborn and Lawbreakers

And yet Metal Gear Rising was exactly that. Kojima had nothing to do with it.

I don't give a shit about player count, that's why I didn't bring it up. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Its going to be delicious seeing them seethe when Death Stranding turns out to be garbage.

>performance worse
maybe a little, but there's less pop-in and far more enemies on screen

How about this game?
Yes the gameplay is janky as fuck. But people loved Alpha protocol.

Attached: 220px-Left_Alive_cover_art.jpg (220x277, 22K)

I have really mixed feelings about Death Stranding. On the other hand, I want it to be a good and enjoyably game, but at the same time I want people to finally see that Kojima is not genius most people think he is.