Metal Gear Series Playthrough

Pighardia

Pighardia

Pighardia

Soldato
Joined
9 Jan 2011
Posts
17,987
Hi everyone.

I have played all Metal Gear games except 4, which I played half of before losing my save last month. Instead of starting again, I have decided to replay all of them!

Now, I just need some thoughts on what order I should play them in. I was just going to go through them in release order, but before I started, I thought it might be good to play them in chronological order.....I am really not sure. I haven't played some of these for ages!

I have all except 4 on the Vita, so will be playing them on that. Here is what I am thinking-

1+2
Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2
Snake Eater
Portable Ops
Peace Walker
Metal Gear Solid 4


Or

Snake Eater
Portable Ops
Peace Walker
1+2
Metal Gear Solid
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 4

Thoughts?...The more I think about it, the more appealing the second one is

PS. I've played the Acid games, and might include them as well, but they aren't crucial.
 
I did this at the beginning of last year, played them in order of release. Didn't really get on with Peace Walker though so I gave up on that.
 
TheVoice said:
I did this at the beginning of last year, played them in order of release.
Click to expand...


I originally decided to do that, but after starting the first game last night, I started thinking that chronological might be best.

I really enjoyed Peace Walker on the PSP when I originally played it, despite the horrid controls and OTT boss fights, it obviously had potential, and now the controls have been improved I look forward to trying it out again(not sure I completed it first time, as the controls were just too awkward on the PSP!).

There is nothing quite like the MGS games:)
 
I did this a while back, but don't have the portable ones.

I just did:

MGS (I had the idea as I finished this...)
MGS3
MGS2
Peace Walker (for a few hours)
MGS4
 
The only potential issue with doing the second option (story chronological) is it highlights the stark changes in gameplay e.g loosing CQC and camera improvements going from 3 - 1/2.

If you're fine with that though it can point out some parts of the story you might have missed by playing it in release order.
 
luggles said:
The only potential issue with doing the second option (story chronological) is it highlights the stark changes in gameplay e.g loosing CQC and camera improvements going from 3 - 1/2.

If you're fine with that though it can point out some parts of the story you might have missed by playing it in release order.
Click to expand...

I did find when I started Metal Gear Solid 2 not long ago that I couldn't get used to the fixed camera angles more than anything. I don't think it has dated particularly well tbh....Shame as I have played it countless times before. Overall though, it doesn't really bother me.

K1LLSW1TCH said:
Personally I'd play them in the order they were released, just as the developers intended.
Click to expand...
Not sure you can say that the developers intended it that way really.


I'm still up in the air tbh, I am gonna start tomorrow, so will decide then..
 
im another that would vote for playing through in order of release, i have never played through the original Metal Gear though.
 
Pighardia said:
Not sure you can say that the developers intended it that way really.


I'm still up in the air tbh, I am gonna start tomorrow, so will decide then..
Click to expand...

Just because the story is set in different points of time doesn't always mean you should play it chronologically. It's better to start with the first game which was released due to the huge gameplay differences as the series progresses, also the fact that when you see Ocelot in MGS3 you have no idea who he is, wouldn't it be better to play MGS first so you at least have some idea? If you play them chronologically you won't get any of the nods to the games which were released previous to whichever game you're currently playing.
 
I have all the home console releases, and only one of the psp ones.

I'm sad to say that I've not finished any of them, and not even started most of them. From what I've been told the subsistence version of 3 is very different and is basically another game when compared to the basic version. Can someone confirm this? I do have both the basic and subsistence versions of MSG 2 and 3, and was wondering if its worth playing/keeping them both.

TIA
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
Just because the story is set in different points of time doesn't always mean you should play it chronologically. It's better to start with the first game which was released due to the huge gameplay differences as the series progresses, also the fact that when you see Ocelot in MGS3 you have no idea who he is, wouldn't it be better to play MGS first so you at least have some idea? If you play them chronologically you won't get any of the nods to the games which were released previous to whichever game you're currently playing.
Click to expand...


Tbh, as I have already played them all apart from 4(which would be the last game in both scenarios anyway) I am not sure that really applies to me. I am not bothered about the difference in controls really, though MGS2 did seem really dated when I tried it again.

I think it might be quite interesting to play through them in chronological order, but anyway, I will decide later on when I start playing them. Atm, I am leaning towards playing them in release order for the simple reason that I need space on my memory card, so getting MGS off there is a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom