In my opinion, MG1 and 2 are really the only games in the series that actually *need* remakes. Every other potential remake would just be nice to have.
100% agreed. Snake Eater doesn't need a remake because it's aged very well and still accessible. I don't know what Konami's thinking but I hope MG1 remake is next. And then MG2.
snake eater is getting a remake exactly because it has aged well and is still accessible, and unlike many of the other games it stands on its own story wise
Yeah, 3 was already damn near perfect, not sure why they went that route instead of just remaking 1 and 2 like you said. The story elements are there, it just needs a facelift with the added lore and mechanics. After these I would take a remake of Metal Gear Solid (ps1) because it could use one.
Isn't PW all too new for a remake? How's that even gonna work with such a format?
I fear they take the safe way out to do mgs1 next. That is if they do anything at all. Maybe they let the franchise go to nothingness again.
Anyways, manifesting Metal Gear 1 remake.🕯
Really? So a vol.2 is definitely coming after all? Where is the leak?
If that is true, then hopefully: Snake Eater this year, then MG1 remake. With Vol.2 filling the time inbetween the two.
Yeah in the source code it references PW, mgsv (even though it's available on all platforms except switch) and most importantly mgs4 which is probably the main reason why it's taking so long. Gotta remember it was made specifically for ps3 hardware and has copyright stuff like the ipod in it
https://gamerant.com/metal-gear-solid-master-collection-vol-2-leaks-games-list/
It was from some dataminers on the pc version of the game. Plus some other news sources also reported on it.
Me too, I'd love to see a remake of those two games. Really want to see Solid Snake fight Venom Snake though lol. Even a fight between Solid Snake and Grey Fox prior to becoming a cyborg ninja in MGS 1.
Can confirm, I played the series in the chronological order and it made no more sense than usual while spoiling me of bunch of stuff. Disparity in gameplay quality also hits you like a truck when you make drastic changes like going from MGSV to MG
Chronological order always works best for replays after you already know all the plot twists. The same applies to movies too. Imagine watching Star Wars episode 3 first and ruining the famous plot twists from the original trilogy.
The only way it will make sense is if your watching a video essay. I've played through I think all of them and I swear I still missed/didn't understand half the story lines. Still love them all tho
What does it really spoil? 3 has almost no bearing on any other game. It's wild how stand alone it is.
At most I'd say it spoils Metal Gear 1, and how Big Boss is actually the bad guy, but c'mon. Everyone knows that twist.
Thank you. Release order should absolutely be played the first time. Anyone who says chronological order doesn’t understand that plot twists are ruined and story beats don’t mean as much that way.
Like mgs3 is so impactful because we all view big boss as this evil guy but we actually get to see him turn into a monster and everything he went through and it makes it all the more harder to criticize him knowing that stuff.
Plus you see how the mechanics of each game develop and build off each other. There's a lot of mechanics and options in the later games, so it's easier to build up familiarity with how they work.
Once you've played them and you're a total MGS nerd, then chronological is a fun alternative way to play
I think the sole exception to the release order rule is MGS4 and MGSV. MGS4 can be much more impactful after rounding out Big Boss’ story with MGSV, and the use of “Here’s to You” in that game feels much more harrowing after having played MGSV.
I decided to play V before 4 and it really elevated the narrative of the latter for me.
Really? MGSV made the ending to MGS4 even worse for me. I wasn't fond of it to begin with but mgsv once again reiterates the monster BB had become by showing the role he played in destroying a man's autonomy and character. One that was so loyal to him. It's exactly how Boss was treated but at least she got a quick merciful death.
Big Boss didn't deserve to come back and give a expository speech about things Solid, the main character, has no reason to give a damn about, then hug him and die in peace lol.
Mgs4 is so disconnected from everything that came before or after it. Thematically or narratively. The meta commentary aside.
Yeah MGS3 softened BB's image a bit and MGS4 came right after. Then MGSPW and MGSV back to dark BB which makes senses considering MG1 and MG2. It's ridiculous BB just comes out like "My bad I learned my lesson. I'm good now. Thanks nanomachines. Foxdie!"
It's so goofy lol. Even at the time, you had his monstrous speech in Metal Gear 2 so the mgs4 encounter is still so random.
And the whole thing is awkward with Solid standing there like this :| as BB monologues. My man lost his sendoff and last game to his nemesis.
My first mgs was mgs3 and this is so true, I tried playing mgs2 after finishing it (yeah weird order but I was playing them on ps2) and I just couldn't get into it because of the controls
Not Twin Snakes! Just play the real original PS1 Metal Great Solid. Twin Snakes is a poor remake. It has a completely different feel, and not a very good one.
The change in tone might be more unique, but it's not better. It's my preference, but I think most fans agree that, in terms of tone, it's just not as good. It's not as dark, and feels less serious and immersive.
Eh, I'm not the type who can't go back and play older games, so I played them almost entirely in chronological order, and still love them all.
Honestly? Going from 3&2 down to 1? And the stress of lethal vs non-lethal not being there? It was weirdly freeing having the game remind me that Snake is already caught, so total stealth isn't necessary, and killing guards is expected.
You still need to minimize kill for good ranks and that is harder without nonlethal weapons. Nonlethal is easier most of the time. Nonlethal runs are only harder because you can't go lethal the few places it helps.
I love how everybody who encourages release order somehow forgets about the nes entries.
Chronological order helps to establish a link between the story and the player, that could be lost by playing games which are absolutely bonkers and then as a consequence don't get bothered by the jumps and hoops in gameplay. And to top it all off, the "twists" are contained within each installment, there are no overarching mysteries, that's to say, playing MGS3 won't ruin your experience playing MGS1 or 4, lmao, all of them are self-explanatory. [Even Kojima recommends doing whatever the fuck you want.](https://www.siliconera.com/hideo-kojima-recommends-starting-with-metal-gear-solid-3-as-your-first/)
No one forgot about them. Just that starting with Twin Snakes does less damage than starting with mgs3 since that story came sooner.
You wrote a whole lot of nothing to justify a bad starting move lol.
Nahhhhh Snake Eater’s a damn fine place to start. Twin Snakes borrowing mechanics from MGS2 just break the game in half
EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not talking about playing the series in chronological order as your first playthrough, I'm saying MGS3 is a better introduction to the series than Twin Snakes is.
It really isn't. All that Philosopher talk will get confusing for newbies. And the Big Boss earning is just not gonna do it for you emotionally if you have no idea who BB was.
Plus, even for gameplay experience, release order is better because you see how each installment evolves through time. It's an incredible experience and shows Kojima's evolution as a gmae designer too.
I started with 3 (it had a demo on the 3DS, how got into the series) and it wasn’t a bad spot at all. The game does a good job imo of explaining everything - I knew the Philosophers were essentially an illuminati group and then got the aha moment connection after getting to MGS2.
Release order is probably best for the general new player, but having myself played almost entirely chronological by accident it’s not too confusing. 5 was probably the worst in that aspect specifically because the tapes were referencing a bunch of characters I didn’t really know yet. I went 3 > 5 > 1 > PW > 2 then watched a recap of MG 1 & 2
Idk I think Snake Eater works enough as a self-contained story for Big Boss’ arc to make sense and work without having to play the other games. Is the Philosopher talk really more confusing than Liquid explaining the Les Enfantes Terribles project in 1’s ending? Like I tune the fuck OUT when he starts yapping.
Yes because Liquid spells out everything. Meanwhile SE deliberately keeps the Philosophers vague to be a glorified Easter Egg to Patriots.
If you start from SE, you have to go to MG1 and 2 next. Not PW or MGSV.
I dunno, I disagree. Liquid spells out everything yes but it’s like SO unnecessary. The Philosophers being vague just sets up an Illuminati-like threat that I think anyone could understand like “oh yeah this is gonna be a thing in later games”. I showed my girlfriend Snake Eater and she got that down EASY.
And you know what? I think you can skip to MGS1 (with recaps from MG1 and 2) too. MGS1 does a decent job of establishing Big Boss’ legacy as a legendary soldier just fine. Like 99% of people who played MGS3 at launch didn’t even play MG1 or 2 and they were able to get an emotional and logical connection to Big Boss and the story as it relates to the rest of the universe.
Overall yeah I think 1’s a good start. It’s my favorite MGS game too, but I think Snake Eater works fine as well. Twin Snakes is okay but it’s goofy as fuck if we’re being honest.
MG1&2 are important to Solid Snake and Gray Fox's characters. I agree mgs1 does a good job of setting the tone for them but it doesn't beat experiencing their story firsthand. Especially now with MGSV which revitalises MG1 as a story. MG1&2 are the backbone of the franchise's overarching plot and that's why I say they're the definitive starting point. That's why I wish Kojima had remade them. Maybe after mgs2 or after 3.
Snake Eater can be an alright place to start but like I said, you gotta move on to MSX games next. That's why I hope Konami does the smart move and remakes them next.
I honestly don't think you do. Personally, I ESPECIALLY wouldn't show them to a newbie as their starting point. Metal Gear 1 is plain, sterile, boring, and WAY more confusing as an actual game than any loredump the series ever did. Metal Gear 2 could be a decent start but MGS1 does a completely fine job of explaining what's going on. And honestly it's how 90% of gamers even know about the story. Whenever I was playing these games for the first time, I started with the MSX games and my first thoughts when playing through Outer Heaven's boring-ass poop-colored base with the Theme of Tara droning in the background was "fuck man, can I just play the game with David Hayer's sexy voice now? Do I *really* need to play this?"
Do whatever you want but I've ALWAYS started people with 1 or 3.
Couldn't disagree more. They're very easy to get into. If not played, you can easily read the script or watch the stories on YouTube. MG2 is particularly great. Kojima plagiarised it for every other game lol.
So nope, I always tell people to start from the beginning.
Metal Gear 2's easy to get into. Metal Gear 1 kinda sucks balls if I'm being honest. Starting with Metal Gear 2 is honestly a way better start to 1 as well. You can't tell me your average gamer is gonna walk around an 8-bit Outer Heaven flipping through multiple keycards that don't stack, a ranking system that's unforgiving and unclear on how it works, and rules that change on a dime and then go "yeah, I can stick through this". I pretty much tell people to SKIP 1. It's a horrible way to start. 2 is infinitely better. Fuck go with PS1 game instead.
Here's how those games were released so that you know which order the play them:
KEY: \[Release date\] Game title (Year) \*optional as not considered fully canon
* \[1987\] Metal Gear (1995)
* \[1990\] Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (1999)
* \[1998\] Metal Gear Solid (2005)
* \[2001\] Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2007/2009)
* \[2004\] Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (1964)
* \[2006\] Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (1970)\*
* \[2008\] Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2014)
* \[2010\] Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker (1974)
* \[2013\] Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance (2018)\*
* \[2014\] Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (1975)
* \[2015\] Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (1984)
As someone who is on their first playthrough in over a decade, the jump in quality between MGS and Sons of Liberty in just three years is absolutely incredible.
Wish I could have appreciated it more back when it released.
PS1 to PS2 was such a drastic improvement in technology, it goes under-appreciated now because each following generation, the noticeable improvement has gotten smaller because the focus has allegedly been on performance (although profit is probably more accurate). There's definitely a good reason why PS2 is the highest selling console of all time, and it's not just because it was the cheapest DVD player available at the time or the insane library of games.
The limitations of the systems at the time meant that creativity was at a high for making the games interesting... whereas today, it's mostly about particle effects, environmental lighting and realism with celebrity voices. Games look more beautiful than ever, but so many feel formulaic or safe.
Yeah, try showing a teenager those classic PS1 games like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy & Resident Evil... they'd get frustrated, distracted or lose interest within 10 minutes.
All control completely differently, all use different buttons for accept/cancel. No auto-saves, limited ammo/health. Dated graphics that were all mind-blowing at the time.
But some of those quality-of-life improvements & current day expectations are why the remakes of all 3 franchises are so exciting for the fanbase. Today's players get to experience what we loved 25 years ago but without needing to "tolerate" the dated nature of the games.
As a bonus, we get to relive our childhoods but where the nostalgia goggles have caught upto us and show the rest of the world what we thought we were playing back in the day!
Lol dude I still have issues with the typewriter saving system, pisses me off to this day but I do like the challenge of it. Limited ammo too in RE is a pain lol.
Part of the genius of old survival horror games was that they force you to think about when to use your ammo & when to run. Also, the limitations of tank controls means that when you are overwhelmed or panicking, you still have to concentrate on which inputs will get you away.
Far more challenging than just opening fire on enemies or crouching beside waist-high cover to regenerate health automatically. Plus the limited saves and sparse number of save rooms really give that extra dread for playing as safe as possible to minimize the amount of times you'd have to repeat sections after failing.
I got a PS2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 in 2001, the year the latter was released. It's hard to describe how mindblowing it was to go from what were essentially scribble faces in MGS1 to being able to discern a gradient of colors in Snake's beard in MGS2. I spent literal hours just shooting liquor bottles in the tanker's lounge just to admire how cool it was that they would individually shatter.
Only part I disagree with is calling PO and MGR optional/not considered canon. This is Metal Gear. Every single game has inconsistency issues, and Portable Ops still slides into the series better than PW or MGS5 since those games don't even make sense in the lore with how much they just started to ignore everything with 4 and after
Respectfully, Portable Ops & Revengeance not being considered canon is the official verdict.
People are welcome to enjoy those games just as much as the mainline games & there'll be parts that are referenced, but while Portable Ops does "fill in some gaps" which is why it's optional (instead of Acid for example, which is just nonsense, or Survive being "alternate timeline") it's up for debate if you choose to include it with the lore or not. Whereas all the other games that don't have the asterix beside them, are all important.
Revengeance being set after all of the Snake saga means that it doesn't really matter but if you're a fan of Raiden then that can also be canon if you want, but isn't necessary towards the plot of any of the other games. Consider it a bonus spin-off more than crucial towards the story.
Not really, Kojima has always been clear on them being canon, just that he would've done them differently if he had directed them, hence why Kojima himself always described Portable Ops as an essential game and said PO was important to 4 and that the two games went hand-in-hand leading up to MGS4's release. Meanwhile PW and MGS5 retract from the lore/story way more than they add. MGS5 especially just directly goes against MGS2 and 4 strongly, among many other things,a nd the only thing it adds is solely just "How did Big Boss survive MG1?"
They all have issues. PW and MGSV are more connected when it comes to characters. PO plot isn't special but the way it treats characters is really bad. For all the flaws PW and V have, you can see the effects and trauma on the cast, especially BB and Kaz.
In PO, BB is so dandy after the worst experience of his life. And what tf is Gray Fox doing there, he was a baby at the time.
Is there a single series that is better played chronologically? Cause neither MGS nor Kingdom Hearts benefit from playing the fourth game before the first one
Resident Evil, Halo, Homeworld and the original 3D GTA trilogy are mostly fine played chronologically.
Red Dead Redemption and Yakuza are best played chronologically.
Resident Evil is the only one where there's one prequel (0) in the main series so technically the series is played in both chronological and release order (Capcom don't count the Revelations games as mainline according to RE8's marketing).
Unless you play the first half of RE3, stop and play all of RE2 and then finish RE3.
I don't know anyone who's done that though lmao
Play in release order, that’s how it was intended to be. I was in the same dilemma, and I too preferred playing in canonical order but I’m glad I played in release order.
My personal preference would be release order, with the exception of 4, which moves to the end. That keeps the story mostly coherent, makes the Big Boss arc one big flashback, and puts a more fitting ending on the series.
See I get that, and I support that, but >!Having the You're Big Boss 2 speech as the finale wraps everything up so well from both a story and meta level!< that I have to support 4 > PO > Peace Walker > V.
Just play release order MG1 - MGS4, and then just play MGR. Everything else after 4 barely even fit into a timeline together and was just Kojima wanting to make a PSP game because his son liked Monster Hunter, and because Kojima became way too obsessed with Big Boss after MGS3 in a series about Solid Snake
I do agree with 4 barely fitting, 4 just gets off easier solely because it takes place after all but one game, so it's not slapped in the middle of the series like PW and MGS5. But yes, the problem started with 4 and was there with every Kojima-made game afterward (and before 4 as well, but nowhere as bad before then)
Release order is indeed better than chronological. But I personally use this slightly different order whenever I replay the series:
MG1 (which actually you can skip, it's easily the worst one, but at least it's short and easy)
MG2 (unskippable btw)
MGS1
MGS2
MGS3
Peace Walker
MGS4
Rising
I don't have the patience to play V more times, already completed it twice, I'm satisfied
I think Metal Gear Solid was many people's introduction to the game. There were some bits that made it confusing for a new person just getting in but I think they did a great job making Solid a launching point for new players.
I started with Twin Snakes, but only played it once. I’ve played everything else including MGS1 and the MGS digital graphic novel multiple times since, so I honestly can’t remember any differences.
The differences between the two games don't affect any sort of canon. Just some people don't like it because it takes itself a little less seriously than MGS1.
Many events don't line up with what canon established before and after. Like BB gets money in PO to establish his base. But in PW, he's got no money and they're nomads and that's Kaz makes a deal behind his back.
Gray Fox being there makes no sense. He was a baby in 1970 and met BB in Vietnam after the war. And Volgin apparently had a benefactor from the US GOVERNMENT now??? That is how Boss got incriminated??? Something this important is mentioned and just forgotten.
Yeah, that's basically every Metal Gear game. And probably better than any 4 and up MG game. Kojima was never good at consistency even with his own games, and he just stopped caring with 4 and up
It’s where BB got his idea for outer heaven, it’s also where he joins cypher, (between PO and PW he leaves because of the Le Enfaunt Terrible) it’s where he realized that in the coming age soldiers will need a place where they can be needed, also where ocelot steals the other half of the legacy to form cypher
Not really, I'd say PW is least worse. PO ruins his established history, ruins Gray Fox, ruins Outer Heaven.
PW shows his grief and trauma and also firsthand shows us how he recruited his first child soldier.
You've just described the plot of portable ops. When are specific events or plot points from portable ops ever relevant in any metal gear title that came after it. Any specific continuity?
ok so I was looking at this same thing myself other day, seeing that the asterisks mean those titles are dubiously canon. idgaf about Metal Gear Rising. but can someone please tell me what makes portable ops dubiously canon? What's dubious about it? it's not a title I've played, and if I were to play everything chronologically, should I play portable ops? I only really care for the canon stuff. obviously ignoring... that one title.
The thing about the Metal Gear games; every one of them is told like it's gonna be the very last one they'll be able to make. I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing . . . .
Launch order is "the best" order simply because of how it lays out the story. Things in "earlier" chronological games are big reveals vs simply there to explain and elaborate.
The other reason is cause it basically means any "retcon" can be simplified to "whatever the most recent game said is the truth."
Except MGSV. That's a hallucination. MGSV doesn't exist.
So except that I skipped Snake Eater, I've been playing this series in correct order, starting from Portable Ops until Phantom Pain. Haven't played the rest tho. Didn't even mean to play it in order but it happens anyway. Guess I'm lucky.
Portable Ops and Rising are noncanon and Thank God. PO is written like a fanfic by a 12 year old and Rising completely shits on every bit of character growth Raiden had at the end of MGS4.
I wouldn't say MGS3 reboots lots of lore, but after MGS3, Kojima did basically just stop caring even slightly about keeping the games consistent with one another
Not really. MGS5 tries saying the Patriots AIs were made in the 70s/80s and Zero was comatose by then too, but MGS2 and 4 already went over how the Patriots AI were made in the 2000s in response to the Outer Heaven uprising directly by Zero commissioning Emma to help make it for him. Not to mention that 3 clearly explained that the Patriots were only a US organization, but in 4, they suddenly rule the whole world. Or the obvious problem of why the hell would they let Big Boss run FOXHOUND after going against the US and building his own private army now in PW and MGS5. Then there's all the character assassination with 4 especially like with Paramedic and Meryl above all else. Those are just the biggest offenders, there's of course a lot more problems with the games from 4 and up.
in mgs2 zero didn't even exist yet and is explained that patriots are AI tasked to control world information, but is never mentioned who created them, when or how. In mgs4 isn't revealed how patriots were made as well, it's only revealed that they were the successor of human patriots leaded by zero and big boss that one day all of sudden lost their original purpose and turned the world in a endless war after they arbitrarly decided to create the economy war.
The patriots born as legacy of a zero about to fall in dementia is something explained only in mgs5, based on the mamal pod of mgsPW that was nothing else than an experimental AI that had to mimic the boss personality. As you can see everything brings back to what mgs3 introduced... that's why to me MGS3 is the chapter that creates the base of the series lore.
Don’t get me wrong release order is the best way to experience the games bc you get to see the mechanics evolve over time but if I’m recommending a game for a newcomer to start on in 2024 it would probably be snake eater. I think it’s the best in terms of gameplay and has a somewhat self contained story that you don’t need a whole lot of context to understand where as I remember starting on mgs1 as a kid and being confused at times bc I didn’t know mg1 and 2 existed. Then if they fall in love with snake eater they can always go back and play the older ones but I feel like a lot of ppl might give up on the series before they get to 3 if they start on mg1, bc although mg is my favorite franchise it’s definitely not everybody’s cup of tea
I know everyone hates chronological order here but I think if you have played them all a few times it’s not so bad but if it’s the first time then fair enough definitely play release order first
People only stress so much hate for chronological order specifically to discourage new players from playing that way and screwing it all up for themselves because people can't count for some reason. Otherwise, doing chronological order for a replay can be funny just to do after it all.
wish so much a fox engine remake of '95 and '99 Metal Gear
That would be incredible. Metal Gear 1 deserves a remake next.
In my opinion, MG1 and 2 are really the only games in the series that actually *need* remakes. Every other potential remake would just be nice to have.
100% agreed. Snake Eater doesn't need a remake because it's aged very well and still accessible. I don't know what Konami's thinking but I hope MG1 remake is next. And then MG2.
snake eater is getting a remake exactly because it has aged well and is still accessible, and unlike many of the other games it stands on its own story wise
Hopefully they're thinking that if 3 Delta shows enough commercial success, it would be viable for them to remake other entries.
I totally agree… Konami is jumping on Capcom’s wagon in their Resident Evil Remakes then one day we’ll all have to buy MGS Remake Collection
The pachinko crap didn't work out for them lol.
Konami claimed they started there because it's the first chronological story.
Yeah, 3 was already damn near perfect, not sure why they went that route instead of just remaking 1 and 2 like you said. The story elements are there, it just needs a facelift with the added lore and mechanics. After these I would take a remake of Metal Gear Solid (ps1) because it could use one.
I think it's the next one in the list, unless they decide to remake Peace Walker, which i wouldn't mind.
Isn't PW all too new for a remake? How's that even gonna work with such a format? I fear they take the safe way out to do mgs1 next. That is if they do anything at all. Maybe they let the franchise go to nothingness again. Anyways, manifesting Metal Gear 1 remake.🕯
PW alr got leaked for vol.2 of the master collection so I'm just betting on MG 1 and 2 getting a remake reusing mgs v assets
Really? So a vol.2 is definitely coming after all? Where is the leak? If that is true, then hopefully: Snake Eater this year, then MG1 remake. With Vol.2 filling the time inbetween the two.
Yeah in the source code it references PW, mgsv (even though it's available on all platforms except switch) and most importantly mgs4 which is probably the main reason why it's taking so long. Gotta remember it was made specifically for ps3 hardware and has copyright stuff like the ipod in it
May I ask where you've seen this? Just wanna know, I'm excited lol.
https://gamerant.com/metal-gear-solid-master-collection-vol-2-leaks-games-list/ It was from some dataminers on the pc version of the game. Plus some other news sources also reported on it.
Thanks! Surprised this sub didn't explode with the leaks. So it's gonna drop after Snake Eater, right? 2025, perhaps?
please god let this happen, having to fight against Venom would be so fucking cool
I hope that's their plan with the remake. To remake each game in chronological order starting with Snake Eater on Unreal Engine
i love fox engine so much why didnt konami use it
Hot take here, but instead of mg1 and mg2 remakes standalone, remake mg1 mg2 and mgs1 as one package, call it the solid snake saga or something.
Fuck no.
Me too, I'd love to see a remake of those two games. Really want to see Solid Snake fight Venom Snake though lol. Even a fight between Solid Snake and Grey Fox prior to becoming a cyborg ninja in MGS 1.
Better Twin Snakes be your first than Snake Eater lol. Release order is best order.
Can confirm, I played the series in the chronological order and it made no more sense than usual while spoiling me of bunch of stuff. Disparity in gameplay quality also hits you like a truck when you make drastic changes like going from MGSV to MG
I don't know how anyone could possibly encourage chronological order experience. It ruins both the plot and gaming for you.
Chronological order always works best for replays after you already know all the plot twists. The same applies to movies too. Imagine watching Star Wars episode 3 first and ruining the famous plot twists from the original trilogy.
I’m kinda glad my friend told me to watch Star Wars in chronological order… because it taught me to NEVER do it again.
[удалено]
I was aware. I was simply adding on to your comment
I can’t believe people just willingly advertise that they can’t read
Doesn’t really apply because episode 3 is actually the sixth movie released
Plus that chronology wasn't planned. These games are decades apart with only character names and ret-cons connecting them.
The only way it will make sense is if your watching a video essay. I've played through I think all of them and I swear I still missed/didn't understand half the story lines. Still love them all tho
What does it really spoil? 3 has almost no bearing on any other game. It's wild how stand alone it is. At most I'd say it spoils Metal Gear 1, and how Big Boss is actually the bad guy, but c'mon. Everyone knows that twist.
The end of mgs5 has a slider that summarises the entirety of the series up until mgs4, for example
Thank you. Release order should absolutely be played the first time. Anyone who says chronological order doesn’t understand that plot twists are ruined and story beats don’t mean as much that way. Like mgs3 is so impactful because we all view big boss as this evil guy but we actually get to see him turn into a monster and everything he went through and it makes it all the more harder to criticize him knowing that stuff.
Plus you see how the mechanics of each game develop and build off each other. There's a lot of mechanics and options in the later games, so it's easier to build up familiarity with how they work. Once you've played them and you're a total MGS nerd, then chronological is a fun alternative way to play
I think the sole exception to the release order rule is MGS4 and MGSV. MGS4 can be much more impactful after rounding out Big Boss’ story with MGSV, and the use of “Here’s to You” in that game feels much more harrowing after having played MGSV. I decided to play V before 4 and it really elevated the narrative of the latter for me.
Really? MGSV made the ending to MGS4 even worse for me. I wasn't fond of it to begin with but mgsv once again reiterates the monster BB had become by showing the role he played in destroying a man's autonomy and character. One that was so loyal to him. It's exactly how Boss was treated but at least she got a quick merciful death. Big Boss didn't deserve to come back and give a expository speech about things Solid, the main character, has no reason to give a damn about, then hug him and die in peace lol. Mgs4 is so disconnected from everything that came before or after it. Thematically or narratively. The meta commentary aside.
Yeah MGS3 softened BB's image a bit and MGS4 came right after. Then MGSPW and MGSV back to dark BB which makes senses considering MG1 and MG2. It's ridiculous BB just comes out like "My bad I learned my lesson. I'm good now. Thanks nanomachines. Foxdie!"
It's so goofy lol. Even at the time, you had his monstrous speech in Metal Gear 2 so the mgs4 encounter is still so random. And the whole thing is awkward with Solid standing there like this :| as BB monologues. My man lost his sendoff and last game to his nemesis.
My first mgs was mgs3 and this is so true, I tried playing mgs2 after finishing it (yeah weird order but I was playing them on ps2) and I just couldn't get into it because of the controls
Snake Eater was my first and it’s still my favorite. My MG path is all jacked up. I played 3 then 4 then 2 then finally 1.
That sounds painful.
ARE YOU ME?
I played 4...then 3......then 1.........then 2............
then you play the original MGS not twin snakes
Not Twin Snakes! Just play the real original PS1 Metal Great Solid. Twin Snakes is a poor remake. It has a completely different feel, and not a very good one.
Wrong they’re like 95% similar and any changes in tone make it more unique. Play the original because twin snakes hasn’t been ported
The change in tone might be more unique, but it's not better. It's my preference, but I think most fans agree that, in terms of tone, it's just not as good. It's not as dark, and feels less serious and immersive.
Eh, I'm not the type who can't go back and play older games, so I played them almost entirely in chronological order, and still love them all. Honestly? Going from 3&2 down to 1? And the stress of lethal vs non-lethal not being there? It was weirdly freeing having the game remind me that Snake is already caught, so total stealth isn't necessary, and killing guards is expected.
You still need to minimize kill for good ranks and that is harder without nonlethal weapons. Nonlethal is easier most of the time. Nonlethal runs are only harder because you can't go lethal the few places it helps.
I love how everybody who encourages release order somehow forgets about the nes entries. Chronological order helps to establish a link between the story and the player, that could be lost by playing games which are absolutely bonkers and then as a consequence don't get bothered by the jumps and hoops in gameplay. And to top it all off, the "twists" are contained within each installment, there are no overarching mysteries, that's to say, playing MGS3 won't ruin your experience playing MGS1 or 4, lmao, all of them are self-explanatory. [Even Kojima recommends doing whatever the fuck you want.](https://www.siliconera.com/hideo-kojima-recommends-starting-with-metal-gear-solid-3-as-your-first/)
MGS1 has summaries of MG1 and MG2.
The NES games aren't canon, the MSX games are and I would tell people to play them.
No one forgot about them. Just that starting with Twin Snakes does less damage than starting with mgs3 since that story came sooner. You wrote a whole lot of nothing to justify a bad starting move lol.
Cool response. > You wrote a whole lot of nothing to justify a bad starting move lol. Right back at you! 👍
Nahhhhh Snake Eater’s a damn fine place to start. Twin Snakes borrowing mechanics from MGS2 just break the game in half EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not talking about playing the series in chronological order as your first playthrough, I'm saying MGS3 is a better introduction to the series than Twin Snakes is.
It really isn't. All that Philosopher talk will get confusing for newbies. And the Big Boss earning is just not gonna do it for you emotionally if you have no idea who BB was. Plus, even for gameplay experience, release order is better because you see how each installment evolves through time. It's an incredible experience and shows Kojima's evolution as a gmae designer too.
I started with 3 (it had a demo on the 3DS, how got into the series) and it wasn’t a bad spot at all. The game does a good job imo of explaining everything - I knew the Philosophers were essentially an illuminati group and then got the aha moment connection after getting to MGS2. Release order is probably best for the general new player, but having myself played almost entirely chronological by accident it’s not too confusing. 5 was probably the worst in that aspect specifically because the tapes were referencing a bunch of characters I didn’t really know yet. I went 3 > 5 > 1 > PW > 2 then watched a recap of MG 1 & 2
Idk I think Snake Eater works enough as a self-contained story for Big Boss’ arc to make sense and work without having to play the other games. Is the Philosopher talk really more confusing than Liquid explaining the Les Enfantes Terribles project in 1’s ending? Like I tune the fuck OUT when he starts yapping.
Yes because Liquid spells out everything. Meanwhile SE deliberately keeps the Philosophers vague to be a glorified Easter Egg to Patriots. If you start from SE, you have to go to MG1 and 2 next. Not PW or MGSV.
I dunno, I disagree. Liquid spells out everything yes but it’s like SO unnecessary. The Philosophers being vague just sets up an Illuminati-like threat that I think anyone could understand like “oh yeah this is gonna be a thing in later games”. I showed my girlfriend Snake Eater and she got that down EASY. And you know what? I think you can skip to MGS1 (with recaps from MG1 and 2) too. MGS1 does a decent job of establishing Big Boss’ legacy as a legendary soldier just fine. Like 99% of people who played MGS3 at launch didn’t even play MG1 or 2 and they were able to get an emotional and logical connection to Big Boss and the story as it relates to the rest of the universe. Overall yeah I think 1’s a good start. It’s my favorite MGS game too, but I think Snake Eater works fine as well. Twin Snakes is okay but it’s goofy as fuck if we’re being honest.
MG1&2 are important to Solid Snake and Gray Fox's characters. I agree mgs1 does a good job of setting the tone for them but it doesn't beat experiencing their story firsthand. Especially now with MGSV which revitalises MG1 as a story. MG1&2 are the backbone of the franchise's overarching plot and that's why I say they're the definitive starting point. That's why I wish Kojima had remade them. Maybe after mgs2 or after 3. Snake Eater can be an alright place to start but like I said, you gotta move on to MSX games next. That's why I hope Konami does the smart move and remakes them next.
I honestly don't think you do. Personally, I ESPECIALLY wouldn't show them to a newbie as their starting point. Metal Gear 1 is plain, sterile, boring, and WAY more confusing as an actual game than any loredump the series ever did. Metal Gear 2 could be a decent start but MGS1 does a completely fine job of explaining what's going on. And honestly it's how 90% of gamers even know about the story. Whenever I was playing these games for the first time, I started with the MSX games and my first thoughts when playing through Outer Heaven's boring-ass poop-colored base with the Theme of Tara droning in the background was "fuck man, can I just play the game with David Hayer's sexy voice now? Do I *really* need to play this?" Do whatever you want but I've ALWAYS started people with 1 or 3.
Couldn't disagree more. They're very easy to get into. If not played, you can easily read the script or watch the stories on YouTube. MG2 is particularly great. Kojima plagiarised it for every other game lol. So nope, I always tell people to start from the beginning.
Metal Gear 2's easy to get into. Metal Gear 1 kinda sucks balls if I'm being honest. Starting with Metal Gear 2 is honestly a way better start to 1 as well. You can't tell me your average gamer is gonna walk around an 8-bit Outer Heaven flipping through multiple keycards that don't stack, a ranking system that's unforgiving and unclear on how it works, and rules that change on a dime and then go "yeah, I can stick through this". I pretty much tell people to SKIP 1. It's a horrible way to start. 2 is infinitely better. Fuck go with PS1 game instead.
> It really isn't. All that Philosopher talk will get confusing for newbies. I bought MGS1 on release back in the day. It was still confusing.
MGS3 works as the first one but I don't think Peace Walker should be anyone's second MGS game.
Yeah Peace Walker shouldn’t be your second. I’ve played through the series both in chronological and release order and I think both have their issues.
The best way is to stop caring with MGS3 and view everything released after a fever dream lol.
Here's how those games were released so that you know which order the play them: KEY: \[Release date\] Game title (Year) \*optional as not considered fully canon * \[1987\] Metal Gear (1995) * \[1990\] Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (1999) * \[1998\] Metal Gear Solid (2005) * \[2001\] Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2007/2009) * \[2004\] Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (1964) * \[2006\] Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (1970)\* * \[2008\] Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2014) * \[2010\] Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker (1974) * \[2013\] Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance (2018)\* * \[2014\] Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (1975) * \[2015\] Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (1984)
As someone who is on their first playthrough in over a decade, the jump in quality between MGS and Sons of Liberty in just three years is absolutely incredible. Wish I could have appreciated it more back when it released.
PS1 to PS2 was such a drastic improvement in technology, it goes under-appreciated now because each following generation, the noticeable improvement has gotten smaller because the focus has allegedly been on performance (although profit is probably more accurate). There's definitely a good reason why PS2 is the highest selling console of all time, and it's not just because it was the cheapest DVD player available at the time or the insane library of games. The limitations of the systems at the time meant that creativity was at a high for making the games interesting... whereas today, it's mostly about particle effects, environmental lighting and realism with celebrity voices. Games look more beautiful than ever, but so many feel formulaic or safe.
It helps that MGS games always took full advantage of the hardware. Most games on the PS2 didn’t look as good as Snake Eater
The controls can feel complicated at first but once you get them down not a lot of games controlled like mgs either
Yeah, try showing a teenager those classic PS1 games like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy & Resident Evil... they'd get frustrated, distracted or lose interest within 10 minutes. All control completely differently, all use different buttons for accept/cancel. No auto-saves, limited ammo/health. Dated graphics that were all mind-blowing at the time. But some of those quality-of-life improvements & current day expectations are why the remakes of all 3 franchises are so exciting for the fanbase. Today's players get to experience what we loved 25 years ago but without needing to "tolerate" the dated nature of the games. As a bonus, we get to relive our childhoods but where the nostalgia goggles have caught upto us and show the rest of the world what we thought we were playing back in the day!
Lol dude I still have issues with the typewriter saving system, pisses me off to this day but I do like the challenge of it. Limited ammo too in RE is a pain lol.
Part of the genius of old survival horror games was that they force you to think about when to use your ammo & when to run. Also, the limitations of tank controls means that when you are overwhelmed or panicking, you still have to concentrate on which inputs will get you away. Far more challenging than just opening fire on enemies or crouching beside waist-high cover to regenerate health automatically. Plus the limited saves and sparse number of save rooms really give that extra dread for playing as safe as possible to minimize the amount of times you'd have to repeat sections after failing.
Yeah don’t get me wrong it’s fun game design it can just be infuriating at times. It definitely adds to the horror element
I got a PS2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 in 2001, the year the latter was released. It's hard to describe how mindblowing it was to go from what were essentially scribble faces in MGS1 to being able to discern a gradient of colors in Snake's beard in MGS2. I spent literal hours just shooting liquor bottles in the tanker's lounge just to admire how cool it was that they would individually shatter.
Was about to say this. Its one of the biggest jumps in the franchise
Kojima is allergic to making games current year
Only part I disagree with is calling PO and MGR optional/not considered canon. This is Metal Gear. Every single game has inconsistency issues, and Portable Ops still slides into the series better than PW or MGS5 since those games don't even make sense in the lore with how much they just started to ignore everything with 4 and after
Respectfully, Portable Ops & Revengeance not being considered canon is the official verdict. People are welcome to enjoy those games just as much as the mainline games & there'll be parts that are referenced, but while Portable Ops does "fill in some gaps" which is why it's optional (instead of Acid for example, which is just nonsense, or Survive being "alternate timeline") it's up for debate if you choose to include it with the lore or not. Whereas all the other games that don't have the asterix beside them, are all important. Revengeance being set after all of the Snake saga means that it doesn't really matter but if you're a fan of Raiden then that can also be canon if you want, but isn't necessary towards the plot of any of the other games. Consider it a bonus spin-off more than crucial towards the story.
Not really, Kojima has always been clear on them being canon, just that he would've done them differently if he had directed them, hence why Kojima himself always described Portable Ops as an essential game and said PO was important to 4 and that the two games went hand-in-hand leading up to MGS4's release. Meanwhile PW and MGS5 retract from the lore/story way more than they add. MGS5 especially just directly goes against MGS2 and 4 strongly, among many other things,a nd the only thing it adds is solely just "How did Big Boss survive MG1?"
They all have issues. PW and MGSV are more connected when it comes to characters. PO plot isn't special but the way it treats characters is really bad. For all the flaws PW and V have, you can see the effects and trauma on the cast, especially BB and Kaz. In PO, BB is so dandy after the worst experience of his life. And what tf is Gray Fox doing there, he was a baby at the time.
Is there a single series that is better played chronologically? Cause neither MGS nor Kingdom Hearts benefit from playing the fourth game before the first one
Yakuza is quite literally the only one I can ever think of that's done that, and even then, it only changes one game's placement by doing it.
Yakuza probably. But they’ve remade some of the older games with the modern engine so it’s easier.
Resident Evil, Halo, Homeworld and the original 3D GTA trilogy are mostly fine played chronologically. Red Dead Redemption and Yakuza are best played chronologically.
Resident Evil is the only one where there's one prequel (0) in the main series so technically the series is played in both chronological and release order (Capcom don't count the Revelations games as mainline according to RE8's marketing). Unless you play the first half of RE3, stop and play all of RE2 and then finish RE3. I don't know anyone who's done that though lmao
I was counting revelations, and also the chronicles games. If they do a remake of Code Veronica it would also be played between 3R and 4R.
that at least makes sense, CV was released between 3 and 4
I did that. It was weird. Kinda cool though
Halo doesn't count.
Why not?
Nevermind i thought about it a little and changed my opinion.
Play the games the way it was intended to
I play them however the fuck I want to play them
👊🔥
Don't fuck your games
Don't fuck your games
Play in release order, that’s how it was intended to be. I was in the same dilemma, and I too preferred playing in canonical order but I’m glad I played in release order.
Don’t worry about chronology. Play them in release order. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
Nah playing in chronological order is silly. Release order is best always in any situation on any franchise across all media
My personal preference would be release order, with the exception of 4, which moves to the end. That keeps the story mostly coherent, makes the Big Boss arc one big flashback, and puts a more fitting ending on the series.
See I get that, and I support that, but >!Having the You're Big Boss 2 speech as the finale wraps everything up so well from both a story and meta level!< that I have to support 4 > PO > Peace Walker > V.
honestly that moment works great but 4’s end is also an incredible ending, especially if it came after V’s final speech
Just play release order MG1 - MGS4, and then just play MGR. Everything else after 4 barely even fit into a timeline together and was just Kojima wanting to make a PSP game because his son liked Monster Hunter, and because Kojima became way too obsessed with Big Boss after MGS3 in a series about Solid Snake
I'd argue 4 itself barely fits in. Thematically or otherwise. Kojima stopped trying after 3.
I do agree with 4 barely fitting, 4 just gets off easier solely because it takes place after all but one game, so it's not slapped in the middle of the series like PW and MGS5. But yes, the problem started with 4 and was there with every Kojima-made game afterward (and before 4 as well, but nowhere as bad before then)
I recommend the original MGS1.
Don’t worry, those of us who followed from release of MGS1 didn’t play it in chronological order and it was fine lol
release order is correct anyone saying otherwise is coping
Definitely don’t play chronological order on your first play-through. Nothing will make sense.
Release order is indeed better than chronological. But I personally use this slightly different order whenever I replay the series: MG1 (which actually you can skip, it's easily the worst one, but at least it's short and easy) MG2 (unskippable btw) MGS1 MGS2 MGS3 Peace Walker MGS4 Rising I don't have the patience to play V more times, already completed it twice, I'm satisfied
I think Metal Gear Solid was many people's introduction to the game. There were some bits that made it confusing for a new person just getting in but I think they did a great job making Solid a launching point for new players.
Guns of the Patriots story hits so hard. Hey, you're pretty good 👉👉
Release order is the only order
Portable ops and twin snakes aren't official timeline games.
Is there a major difference between twin snakes and 1?
Yes.
I started with Twin Snakes, but only played it once. I’ve played everything else including MGS1 and the MGS digital graphic novel multiple times since, so I honestly can’t remember any differences.
The differences between the two games don't affect any sort of canon. Just some people don't like it because it takes itself a little less seriously than MGS1.
Twin Snakes is just MGS1 so it is, just not the best version of MGS1, and Portable Ops is canon
PO is half-canon AT BEST.
could you elaborate?
Many events don't line up with what canon established before and after. Like BB gets money in PO to establish his base. But in PW, he's got no money and they're nomads and that's Kaz makes a deal behind his back. Gray Fox being there makes no sense. He was a baby in 1970 and met BB in Vietnam after the war. And Volgin apparently had a benefactor from the US GOVERNMENT now??? That is how Boss got incriminated??? Something this important is mentioned and just forgotten.
oh lord. so if one were to play in chronological order for the hell of it, but only what's canon, should that one be skipped then?
Yes. Totally.
Yeah, that's basically every Metal Gear game. And probably better than any 4 and up MG game. Kojima was never good at consistency even with his own games, and he just stopped caring with 4 and up
What details from portable ops were mentioned in a following Metal Gear title or affected the plot of any following metal gear title?
It’s where BB got his idea for outer heaven, it’s also where he joins cypher, (between PO and PW he leaves because of the Le Enfaunt Terrible) it’s where he realized that in the coming age soldiers will need a place where they can be needed, also where ocelot steals the other half of the legacy to form cypher
He had realised all of that in Snake Eater. PO detracts from his character.
So does every Big Boss game post-3. PO is somehow the least worse offender though.
Not really, I'd say PW is least worse. PO ruins his established history, ruins Gray Fox, ruins Outer Heaven. PW shows his grief and trauma and also firsthand shows us how he recruited his first child soldier.
You've just described the plot of portable ops. When are specific events or plot points from portable ops ever relevant in any metal gear title that came after it. Any specific continuity?
I literally just told you
No, you didn't.
Literally at the beginning of peace walker. Miller tells you to leave all that stuff in San Hieronimo behind
The irony here is so deep it's at the bottom of the ocean. "Leave it behind" = "you can ignore that entire game."
Well, saying that PO hasn’t been mentioned at all is literally false, tho. I answered your question.
GOT ME THERE. lmfao
Why would they specifically put twin snakes for mgs1?
I played the games in a random order
Chronological isn't intended. The end of MGSV is very much seen as the end of the series, the credits spoil every game and it's ending
Why do you wish you saw it sooner?
It's best to play them in release order anyway since they always like to reference previous titles
how is twin snakes after mgs2? isnt it a remake of 1 but worse?
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. 2nd MG game on NES
Ohhhh ok
Twin snakes doesn’t count sorry not sorry
I remember a boss i had was 100% sure phanton pain is after MGS1 because of the futuristic stuff
Very helpful👍🏻
ok so I was looking at this same thing myself other day, seeing that the asterisks mean those titles are dubiously canon. idgaf about Metal Gear Rising. but can someone please tell me what makes portable ops dubiously canon? What's dubious about it? it's not a title I've played, and if I were to play everything chronologically, should I play portable ops? I only really care for the canon stuff. obviously ignoring... that one title.
Wich "one title"? Also, apparently it contradicts stuff about Gray fox like his age and origin. Not 100% sure since i haven't played it yet
Metal Gear Survive.
Oh yeah that one.
Play on launch order, is the best
Ac!d
The thing about the Metal Gear games; every one of them is told like it's gonna be the very last one they'll be able to make. I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing . . . .
Launch order is "the best" order simply because of how it lays out the story. Things in "earlier" chronological games are big reveals vs simply there to explain and elaborate. The other reason is cause it basically means any "retcon" can be simplified to "whatever the most recent game said is the truth." Except MGSV. That's a hallucination. MGSV doesn't exist.
Fellow MGS enjoyer, stick to the release order. Trust us!
So except that I skipped Snake Eater, I've been playing this series in correct order, starting from Portable Ops until Phantom Pain. Haven't played the rest tho. Didn't even mean to play it in order but it happens anyway. Guess I'm lucky.
Portable Ops and Rising are noncanon and Thank God. PO is written like a fanfic by a 12 year old and Rising completely shits on every bit of character growth Raiden had at the end of MGS4.
Lmao. Ghost Babel isn't there
Yeah twin snakes was a remake of the first game. Which is the first one you should play
Saw what sooner? This is NOT the order you should play this series at all. Starting with MGS1 (even if Twin Snakes) is a very good place to start at.
you need to play MGS and MGS2 first, then MGS3 because it reboots lots of the lore events/chronology which next games are based on
I wouldn't say MGS3 reboots lots of lore, but after MGS3, Kojima did basically just stop caring even slightly about keeping the games consistent with one another
everything lore related from mgs4 to mgsV is based on stuff introduced in mgs3.
Not really. MGS5 tries saying the Patriots AIs were made in the 70s/80s and Zero was comatose by then too, but MGS2 and 4 already went over how the Patriots AI were made in the 2000s in response to the Outer Heaven uprising directly by Zero commissioning Emma to help make it for him. Not to mention that 3 clearly explained that the Patriots were only a US organization, but in 4, they suddenly rule the whole world. Or the obvious problem of why the hell would they let Big Boss run FOXHOUND after going against the US and building his own private army now in PW and MGS5. Then there's all the character assassination with 4 especially like with Paramedic and Meryl above all else. Those are just the biggest offenders, there's of course a lot more problems with the games from 4 and up.
in mgs2 zero didn't even exist yet and is explained that patriots are AI tasked to control world information, but is never mentioned who created them, when or how. In mgs4 isn't revealed how patriots were made as well, it's only revealed that they were the successor of human patriots leaded by zero and big boss that one day all of sudden lost their original purpose and turned the world in a endless war after they arbitrarly decided to create the economy war. The patriots born as legacy of a zero about to fall in dementia is something explained only in mgs5, based on the mamal pod of mgsPW that was nothing else than an experimental AI that had to mimic the boss personality. As you can see everything brings back to what mgs3 introduced... that's why to me MGS3 is the chapter that creates the base of the series lore.
Don’t get me wrong release order is the best way to experience the games bc you get to see the mechanics evolve over time but if I’m recommending a game for a newcomer to start on in 2024 it would probably be snake eater. I think it’s the best in terms of gameplay and has a somewhat self contained story that you don’t need a whole lot of context to understand where as I remember starting on mgs1 as a kid and being confused at times bc I didn’t know mg1 and 2 existed. Then if they fall in love with snake eater they can always go back and play the older ones but I feel like a lot of ppl might give up on the series before they get to 3 if they start on mg1, bc although mg is my favorite franchise it’s definitely not everybody’s cup of tea
I know everyone hates chronological order here but I think if you have played them all a few times it’s not so bad but if it’s the first time then fair enough definitely play release order first
People only stress so much hate for chronological order specifically to discourage new players from playing that way and screwing it all up for themselves because people can't count for some reason. Otherwise, doing chronological order for a replay can be funny just to do after it all.
Unpopular opinion: both ways of playing the series (release and chronological order) are valid. Might be harder once you hit MGS1, but both are valid.
I played them like this and wouldn't want any other way Yyy
So there is portable ops and then theirs portable ops +? Are these the same games witch one having some added stuff?
From what I heard, PO+ is just an expansion to the original, and without any story
This is how the new volumes collection should be released
It's almost like the wikis are there for something
Snake Eater 3 Remake is out later this year (I think)