Metal Gear Forums

Eight years ago, I made a youtube review channel back when I was still kind of in my forum mindset of "attack everything." I made reviews of every MGS game, almost none of which I stand by anymore, which is why I'm remaking all of them to give each game their fair due, especially since my thoughts have changed so dramatically since. For example, I really like MGS1 now, despite its many, many, many flaws. I like MGS4 and PW a lot more than I did back when I made those reviews too. Currently, the only review that accurately reflects how I feel is my newest Portable Ops review from 2025.

My MGSV review, however, is the one that got the most traction because it was the one I had the most to say. It was kind of a culmination of all my conflicting thoughts about what I loved and hated about MGSV wrapped into one 2 hour video. Apart from a few things, it's also the one I still stand by:



The main things I no longer stand by:

1. While I maintain that Phantom Pain's writing is solid, especially its plotline and how it's all interwoven into a larger tapestry, I don't think the game has the best writing of any MGS game at all. To be honest, I don't even personally know which game has the best writing because each game feels like a mix of unforgettable moments and characters but a whole that never quite matches the highs of what Kojima is going for. For me, DS2 is Kojima's best work as a writer by far, so it kind of put in perspective how little that title matters for me in MGS.

2. My negative thoughts on other MGS games that I listed are all dead wrong and don't reflect how I feel anymore. Something about hitting 40 and realizing how little most games hold my attention anymore made me really appreciate every MGS game so much more than I did in 2020.

3. I still love all of the boss fights but while I mention the lack of variety, I don't mention how almost every boss has methods that make them way too easy and that to enjoy each fight, I pretty much have to ignore those methods. Like how you can completely destroy all of the Skulls instantly by luring them near a turret gun. The multiple one-hit kill methods for Fire Guy.

4. I don't believe that wish-fulfillment in reviews is productive. We live in an age where that kind of critique can always be met with, "Then you just make that kinda game yourself then," and with all the available free tools to do so, there's little excuse not to. Though, I do maintain that the order of missions should've been changed, just from a screenwriting perspective. And that Eli never should've been in the game at all, especially when Demon Chico was on the table at some point in development and would've made way more sense to include after GZ, and his role in helping to bring the ship down.

There's probably some other things but that doesn't matter. 

I think these days, I'd sum up my thoughts on MGSV as thus:

It's got problems galore and not every experiment Kojima toyed with paid off. Despite its endless amount of issues, it's the only game I've played in a decade that makes me feel like a kid when I play it, because once I start, I struggle to stop. Most critiques are either value or I outright agree with wholeheartedly, and I probably have some that most people don't consider, but from 2015 til now, MGSV was the only game that I kept coming back to years after the fact, just replaying missions and experimenting with them for fun. There are some things it does better than other MGS games, some things it does worse, but none of that takes away from my enjoyment. And I hope that a future title might implement more of Phantom Pain's design philosophy, while also addressing its glaring flaws to finally find that happy middle ground between old MGS and new MGS.

Anyway, if you can tolerate young 35 year old Keiv mumbling for two hours, here's something to play in the background while you file your taxes or need to be put to sleep.

I'd been chipping away at this over the past couple of weeks.

Mission Types:
Your point about combining multiple mission types into bigger missions would lose immediacy:
So why not make it an optional playstyle choice rather than a necessity? Yes, MGSV carried on the portable mission based gameplay style that MPO and PW had before it...but it's a console game and many people are hunkering down for a big session when playing anyway. Why not let them decide to combine multiple objectives to create a sort of mission fusion system? Since missions are presented as episodes you could call this mission fusion something like OMNIBUS mode. Don't make it a value judgement that rewards you as that will result in a Persona 5 scenario where most players aim to do a palace in one sitting. Instead, just have both options positively reinforce their individual gameplay loops-players who prefer tackling missions in small individual bursts receive soldiers or equipment that work best in those environments, and players who tackle beefy combo missions receive soldiers and equipment that help doing that-think of how carrying loads of cargo on foot in Death Stranding makes Sam better at carrying loads of cargo on foot. This then doubles down on the "matter of choice" game design you talk about and helps players play the game the way they choose to.

Animals:
It's funny you commenting on finding loads of gerbils with the capture cages.
Gerbil was my last animal I needed and I legitimately had a hard time getting it, somehow. I was stuck for ages putting cages around getting animals I already had when all I fucking needed was a gerbil.

Demon Points:
I think demon snake being reserved for stuff like killing POW kind of takes away from the fact that, even if something like burning people alive with Molotov cocktails is fine mechanically, it’s still going to have an impact on the psyche of Venom, who is shown to be quite a mentally unstable character. I think it's fair to have it be attainable for playing the game in ways that aren't just psychopathic as the games have always had an anti-killing message, even despite how fun they make it. I think I only got Demon Mode when making a nuke, personally.

Bosses:
I appreciate everything you said about each of the boss fights but I feel the bosses of MGSV weren't as impactful as other MGS games. I do respect the versatility of ways you can approach them like you mentioned but battles like Eli and Man on Fire didn’t stick with me first time around, and the Skulls, while a tense opponent every time, felt more like special encounters to me-along the lines of the E.M.M.I. in Metroid Dread or the Big Daddy’s in BioShock. It meant the boss offering felt very slim compared to other titles, especially given the glaring lack of a Skullface boss battle. The bosses besides the Skulls and Quiet also feel a bit too derivative of other MGS games-you have little Liquid Snake, flaming hot Volgin, and REX with arms...even the B&B Unit in MGS4, who are quite purposefully derivative of past MGS bosses, felt more exclusively MGS4’s than most of MGSV’s bosses do. Quiet and the Skulls feel uniquely its own, but like I said the Skulls didn't feel especially like a "boss" encounter to me. I just wonder if it would have killed them to have included one more ‘new’ boss with a personality and story? In such an open ended and sprawling game I think it would have helped.

Venom:
We naturally all discussed that twist to death back on MGSF but I always fully agreed with you-MGSV was the best way to reveal that Big Boss was a true villain. To have him do that to "you" is maybe the only way to ensure that players saw that he's a piece of shit without him acting cartoonishly villainous, since many players bought in to his heroism and many actually prefer him to Solid Snake (weirdos). It's all well and good to say you wanted to see Big Boss become the villain but after MGS4 soft-redeemed him this was maybe the only way to make all the series "truths" work together-double think: Big Boss is a charismatic and lovable character, a hero of the series...and he's also a narcissistic and immoral individual, a villain of the series. With MGSV you get to experience both.

I feel like your critique of Venom being us while also being his own character is taking the meta a bit too literally. Raiden was once also used as a somewhat meta stand-in for the player but was obviously his own person, in another thread I said: "In a strange way MGSV feels like the true companion piece to MGS2. The two false Snakes and their journeys of discovery that run parallel but in opposite directions. MGS2 tells us Raiden isn’t the player, MGSV tells us the player is Big Boss. Both are about those in positions of power controlling the narrative to have the protagonists play the role of Snake. Raiden rejects that role while Venom accepts it." I think Venom's character comes through quite strong personally, while still working as a meta commentary on the player. Whereas Raiden was a meta stand-in for the player because of his idolisation of Snake and his 'playing' the past missions the same way we had, Venom is a meta stand-in mainly because of the fact that he's playing the part of Big Boss the same way we are. It doesn't mean he literally is us and that that's why he acts how he does. He was a medic, a healer. His silent attitude and somewhat passive personality are because he isn't the one after revenge. Perhaps Big Boss does, perhaps the player does, but he doesn't. He's also a broken individual. The moments his characterisation come through it's often to do with loss or grief, because that's what drives him. I do agree the twist could have been done better, but I don't think it's a conflict between Venom "being" the player and him having his own personality.

Misc:
I fully agree with your points about us not seeing Outer Heaven. People really do just want fan service and call backs in a really big way-MGSV would have been better without the callbacks. It's good precisely because of its originality and its own identity-not baby Liquid or baby Mantis, and having the end trail into Operation Intrude would not have made the game any better. (I wrote this before you then went on to roast Eli's role in this game so again, in agreement with you there).

One critique of the review-my bank recently gave me YouTube premium lite (not something I'd ever have wanted, especially) which lets you carry on playing a video while your phone is locked so my only thought was well I can "watch" Keiv's review while walking now. That worked perfectly besides moments such as when you made your point about how many missions of each category were in the main missions, where you just said "here's how many are X mission", saying how many out loud would've helped me but also made the video more accessible for blind viewers (inclusivity!), or even make it work as a written review.

I don't often listen to super long game reviews but you made all your arguments well, even when I didn't quite agree with some of them. Great video Keiv, young 35 year old you should be proud. It's made me want to revisit the game.

And to respond to your points in this thread...I'm glad you've changed your mind on a few things. I like MGSV a lot but I definitely don't think it's the most well done story in the franchise, and I obviously do think the other MGS games have a lot going for them.
I think "wish-fulfilment" reviews can be a good shorthand for articulating why something is a problem for you, and help readers see where you're coming from by illustrating an alternate scenario where things weren't how they are. Your points about changing the narrative to make Skullface work better for instance...

Are you working on a review for Delta at all?