Poll of the Day > MGS2 vs. MGS4 vs. MGSV

(+) Yeah! (+)

1 and 3 are widely praised as the best two, so I thought I'd compare these. Weird switching between Arabic and Roman numerals, but that's how they do it.

For me 4 is by far the best with 5 being a bit ahead of 2 for gameplay reasons.
---

V > 2 > 4

Enjoyed them all though
---

4 > 2 > 5 for gameplay
2 > 4 > 5 for story

Voted 4>2>5
---

2>4>5

2 is the best

unpopular opinion: 3 was probably the worst in the main series, but the awesome story overshadowed its flaws, ok?

Went with 4>5>2

I really couldn't get into 2 sadly. I've beaten all the other games and I've heard good things about it's plot but it didn't click with me.
---

Aculo posted...

unpopular opinion: 3 was probably the worst in the main series, but the awesome story overshadowed its flaws, ok?

Honestly I would rank 3 as fourth of the five.
---

As much as people like to complain about Raiden being to protagonist MGS2 wasn't a bad game. It was a lot of fun, with an interesting story.

MGS4 was a bad game, a short game, and used nano machines as a cop out explanation for almost everything to forcefully wrap everything up.
---

3 is awesome. Anyone that disagrees has a wrong opinion

OhhhJa posted...

3 is awesome. Anyone that disagrees has a wrong opinion

3 is good, but if anything the people who overpraise are the ones who are wrong.
---

The story is definitely the best of all the games

Justin2Krelian posted...

OhhhJa posted...

3 is awesome. Anyone that disagrees has a wrong opinion

3 is good, but if anything the people who overpraise are the ones who are wrong.

What's your problem with MGS3?

You can destroy food supplies and feed soldiers poisoned food, and throw poisonous spiders as people, and none of it counts as you killing people.

Also, tranquilizing someone driving a vehicle, having them and their passengers die as they crash, and it not counting as killing them.
---

I think four peaked strictly in terms of gameplay mechanics. It preserved the relatively linear style of the MGS franchise while also giving you the ability to pick your own way (through most of the scenarios). It controlled well and was easy to master. It also preserved enough of the original idea and story to make it interesting. Not to mention it still had David Hayter and the OG cast to support. It was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of story, but was still good.

Five had a similar control scheme, but it really suffered from the open world aspect. I never felt like I was using stealth or infiltration so much as just tranqing everyone before I ever even got close. It never really felt like a MGS game to me. Even the narrative barely felt like MGS.

MGS2 was ground breaking at the time, but is hard to play in retrospect. The control scheme and gameplay are clunky and awkward. The whole Raiden bait and switch thing doesn't help either. Still, it felt like I was playing MGS.

So for me it's MGS4>2>5
---

Wow did people really not like MGSV? I thought it was the most fun of the bunch, hands down. 4 was just awful for me.
---

5 > 2 >>>>>>> 4
---

I dont think MGS should ever be open world honestly. It fucks the pacing up too much for a story based game like that

Never played 4 or 5 unfortunately. 2 was awful.
---