Talk:List of Metal Gear media

References

Hope the page is okay -- I just created it. References are needed for the release dates which, after compiling the whole page, I could not be bothered to implement. Most can be taken directly from individual game pages, but these are required however. FL status could be quite simple to achieve. Andre666 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the initial list! ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I added in references for most of the video games. Still need a few though. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Still needed

So I still can't find a few references:

• The dates for the two Ashley Wood comics; they don't seem to be with the ISBN searches
• The MGS novel date; all I can find is 2008
  • These are all confirmed if I can use Amazon.com for a source; anyone know about that?
• European release date info for MGS 2: Digital Graphic Novel (removed)
• A specific release date for Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
• European release date for the first Metal Gear on MSX2 and earliest release date
• European release date for the first Metal Gear on NES (GameSpot says 1988)
  • The above two providing that this site is a valid reliable source Guess not
• Special Missions European release date
• The Radio drama's release date
  • The above two providing this site is also valid source

I think I got all of the original release dates with the IGN and GameSpot pages, and I'm not sure what Notes facts need to be cited. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Abut the european DGN2: I live in Europe, but I have never seen the second DGN. Either it is an upcoming release or it was released in very few countries or the information about an european version is wrong.:)87.174.249.202 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, thanks! ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done?

Okay I think I got everything; all of the release dates at least. Shall we put this up for a peer review or featured list candidate? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We're back to needing a cite for the European release of Metal Gear for the NES. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Those pesky European release dates

So I can't seem to find anything (reliable) that confirms a 1989 release date for Metal Gear on the NES. GameSpot's page only has it as 1988. Some non-reliable sources like IMDb and MobyGames has it at 1989. Also this site has it as 1988. Additionally, the scans of the PAL version have the copyright notice at 1988, though that's probably no indication of release date.

Also, there's no source for the specific European release date of Metal Gear for the MSX2. That'll also be needed before we can try for Featured List status.

Does anyone know anywhere we can find info on these two dates? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, on GDC Hideo Kojima talked about the (Main ;P) Metal Gear Series. Release Dates were given. The European MSX2 Metal GEar was released in september 1987 according to that presentation. And is there much that can be considered more reliable as a presentation of Maestro himself?^^87.174.227.229 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoulda checked here before editing, lol. Is this video on youtube? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BINGO. Found it, adding now. Thanks a lot '87! :D ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now as far as the 1989 release date for the PAL NES version, I found a site that shows a video (and image) of the start screen for the PAL version of the game clearly showing "(c) 1989", but I don't know if it'll count as a reliable source. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Other additions

Would the Metal Gear Saga Vol 1 and 2 dvds be appropriate on this list? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. What I still don´t get is, why list supplements and updated versions sepperately? I don´t know of any other game series´ article in wikipedia, which does that. Remakes are somewhat blurry, since they can be viewed either as heavily updated and enhanced version or copletely new game heavyly based on the original. Two other reccomendations: sepperate it into the three sub-series, meaning the original Metal Gear Series, the Metal Gear Solid Series and the Metal Gear Acid Series and stand alone spin offs. On the other hand, we could list them all in one list to avoid MPO discussions. Furthermore the NES Metal Gear should be listed as a sepperate game, since Hideo Kojima himself stated on the GDC Presentation "That other game (not version, a full game) [...] was a crap game". Maybe the two NES Games could be listed as another sub-series?87.174.196.4 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The games listed as the 'main' series are canonical; that is, they tell the main story of Metal Gear/Metal Gear Solid – they should be in one section. Supplements and remakes should be separate as they work well together; spin-offs should be fine too. Alternatively, we could do canonical, non-canonical and supplements/remakes? Andre666 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If Metal Gear was a film series, I would agree, but as a game series, it is not just about story. If it was just about that, why didn´t they number Snake Eater as MGS0? The Engine, the gameplay and it´s developement are all additional factors, a film series does not have. I don´t know, if you like any bigger franchises (such as Stargate, Resident Evil, maybe Terminator). They all have spin-offs, that are canonical. So a spin-off should never be mesured simply by canon. MPO doesn´t tell such a big storyline in the series. It is merely expanding on the prequel cncept of MGS3, visualizing, what was said in the timeline of MGS3 (namely the Foundation of FOXHOUND). As for Updates. I think, it´s just clutter. It works also to mention them just as a "Note" in the box of the respective original games. Remakes could still be listed, but it would be less clutter. There would only be three. (NES-Metal Gear, TWin Snakes, Acid Mobile) and the section could be listed below the spin-off.

Just another question. Do you consider Document, Digital Graphic Novel and Database as full Games?87.174.220.112 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule about numbering needing to be in order of the timeline of the story. (See Prequel#Computer and video games for examples.) I think the main thing is that the list needs to be portrayed in the best way possible to educate someone who's never played a Metal Gear game. Canon is one good way, as someone would probably want to know the main series storyline. Grouping by type would work, separating games from updates (i.e. MGS3 from Subsistence) would also work. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding Metal Gear (NES) into the Supplements/Remakes section. The game was drastically different from the original, it's not really a port. It was a remake in MANY ways. Characters were changed, many area layouts were changed, even a jungle setting added. It should be listed along side Twin Snakes as a remake. Outside of that the list looks fine. I like it. But if you're going to list the games by canon, I think you should put MGS3 on the list first. If you're going by plot, list them in plot order. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm focusing on refs for now so i'm not worrying about order too much. For the US version of Metal Gear, i guess that would work as a spin-off or supplement. I wouldn't call it a remake since that wasn't the original intention; it seems more like something similar to when a movie studio re-cuts a film. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Worry about order"? What's there to worry about? You have a canon listing of the games. Why aren't they listed in the order of the canon? LOL I even fixed it so it was, but now I see it's changed. Why? 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant that I'm working on getting this list closer to Featured List quality right now. You're a fan of the series, you can probably find several quality refs for the information. Ask Andre666 (talk · contribs) about the change, he rv'd it; i'm assuming for similar reasons. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what is the point of this article? Just seems like the same grouping but on a different page. How is it tied to the Metal Gear Series article? 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's split from the normal article. See List of Halo media, List of Final Fantasy media, etc. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant with the numbering thing, is, that there are reasons why a game is numbered as a full sequel and others aren´t. It´s a general thing. Why wasn´t for example Resident Evil Code: veronica numbered "3"? Or why wasn´t the sequel numbered "5" instead of "4"? There are some game series, that scrap the numberings (like the Tomb Raider Series). But those, that retain them have there reasons. So why wasn´t Portable Ops numbered 4? Or 5? Frankly, I have the impression, that the series was listed in the canonical-supplements-spin-off (non-canonical)-fashion so long, that you are unable to think of another possibility. Comletely reanrranging the listing. Well, granted, Th1rte3n has approved some of the changes made in the previous year, but then again they have ultimately all been reversed. I for instance think people want to know, about the series evolution. From the narrow beginnings with srtaight-lines-seeing enemys, imprisoned in one screen, over 45 degree views, the ability to crouch and the guards ability to move from screen to screen, to the 3D games, the later survival and war zone elements of the metal gear solid games.87.174.249.202 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about the MGS2: DGN

Is the 2nd digital graphic novel on a UMD disc for PSP or is it just on DVD? And is it interactive or just a video? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/japanese/index.html

That´s a link to the official japanese site. I bet I can speak japanese as well as you.^^ Still there is a list of Metal Gear games (curous, the list is excluding mobile phone games), where MGS2: Bande Dessinee is stated to be released on DVD only. As for the other question, I guess it is like the "watch" mode of the first DGN. But guessing is not encouraged by wikipedia, isn´t it^^87.174.249.202 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, as long as we can find it on the site i don't think we need to list a second ref for it. It's just good to be sure since there seems to be a lot of conflicting info on it. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, check this out: http://www.touch.konami.net/mgst/pc/

It is the official site of MGS Touch, where it clearly states, it is a retelling of MGS4 (at least I understand it like this^^)87.174.249.202 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Database, Document and the Digital Graphic Novel

I suggest moving them to related media. They are not actual games. Now because they´re released on a PS2 DVD-Rom or a UMD labeled with a PSP Logo. If you have an ancylopedia for instance that is in a CD-ROM, it still is not a computer game.87.174.249.202 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DGN is still technically a game, just a different type of game (search and find), but for document and database, we could separate them into a separate section: Applications. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't make too many sub-sections; just chuck 'em in related media if you want. Andre666 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Allright, that´s a point^^. But then I suggest to either move it to the spin-offs or MGS Touch to the supllements/remakes section as MGST is more a remake of MGS4 (since it´s based on the actual game) than DGN is a "remake" of MGS1 (since it´s based on the Comic Adaption).

http://www.touch.konami.net/mgst/pc/

As for sub-sections. I think this find of list to make several sub-sections. Maybe giving the Acid-Series it´s own section. But look below.87.174.249.202 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MGS Touch seems fair to go into supplements/remakes, we can always change it when it comes out if necessary; I'll move it over there as well as put back the apps. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Listings

I´ve been thinking and I have a suggestion on the listing arguments. Why don´t we go by straight facts. We know there are the old 2D Metal Gear Games, we know, that there are the Metal Gear Solid Home Console Games, we know that there are the Acid Games and other portable games based on Metal gear Solid Series. Why don´t we list them like this? After all this is a list of Media and has the perpece to list just about everything. To keep some order we could just sepperate it bit by bit. I know it is a totally new idea and It´ll take time to befriend with it. It could be like this:

EARLY GAMES:

MSX2-Series (MG1-2)

NES-Series (MG, SR)

MODERN GAMES:

MGSolid Series (MGS1-4)

MGAcid Series (MGA1-2)

other portable games (Ghost Babel, portable ops, etc.)

It´s just a rough concept and open for changes. Maybe we can list the NES Games as unofficial games. As for the many expansions and remakes, I drew some inspiration from the Resident Evil Article. The ignore expansions and declare remakes as ports. Well think about the idea, do not haste and if you don´t like it, let all of us know why and how it could be improved.87.174.249.202 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That would roughly look like this:

anon 87's listing

-Early Games-
--MSX2--

• MG
• MG2

--NES--

• MG (NES)
• SR

-Modern Games-
--SOLID--

• MGS
• MGS2
• MGS3
• MGS4

--ACID--

• MGA
• MGA2
• MGAM

--HANDHELD--

• MGS (GB)
• MP
• MPO+
• MGS DGN
• MGSM

I don't think that's the best way to organize them (also MPO is still technically Metal Gear Solid so that would be a bit conflicting). Another way would be to group by similar game, like the early table version that was in the MG Series article, roughly:

13's listing

--Canon--

• MG
  • MG (NES)
• MG2:SS
• MGS
  • MGS: Integral
  • MGS: VR Missions
  • MGS: Twin Snakes
  • MGS: DGN
• MGS2
  • MGS2 Doc
  • MGS2: Substance
  • MGS2: DGN
• MGS3
  • MGS3: Subsistence
• MPO
  • MPO+
• MGS4
  • MGS4 Database
  • MGS4 Touch
  • MG Online

--Spin-off/Non-canon--

• Snake's Revenge
• MGS (GB)
• MGA
  • MGAM
• MGA2
• MGSM

With each new game-grouping separated by a {{-}}. This would cut down on sections too. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to act as the owner of either this or the Series article. My main reason for acting somewhat like one was A) a big objection to separating MPO, B) anon 63's lack of consensus based on using the same/similar arguments for a year and a half, and C) anon 63's lack of civility.

I just want to make the articles better :). So my apologies if I've seemed a bit totalitarian. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for explaining. I appreciate it :)
I think the biggest disagreement is MPO :). I understand it is a canon game and it makes some big plot revelations and gave hints to the then yet to be released MGS4. And it even included some gameplay features of MGS4 (movng while in first person view, the MGS4-like radar). I´m somewhat divided on that issue myself. But I think to a game series is more than just the storyline. I think that a sequel to video game must build and improve on gameplay mechanics, the engine and graphics rather than story.
If you have a game called "Super Dooper Killer" featuring a character named Killer. Then they make another game called "Super Dooper Killer: The New Mission" with the same engine, additional movement abilities and a new story featuring Killer. And then a third game is released called "Super Dooper Killer 2" with a new game engine, the all new Mega Shooting Moves and featuring a new hero, called Butcher, isn´t then "The Lost Mission" a spin-off, that is expanding on the original game as well as exploring side elements of the story? Like "Whatever happened to Killer before Butcher took over"? I think it is similar with MPO. The game explores, what Naked Snake did after the events of MGS3. However if you play MGS4 after MGS3, the big gap is filled without open questions (at least not more then if you play MPO). Similar with the early games. They are "whatever happende to Solid Snake before shadow Moses" by that definiton. Technically the whole MGS Series is a spin-off from the early Metal Gear Series.
I think a Game is primarily about gameplay. Story is somewhat of a side element (that is heavily explored in MGS) and I think this is best evideced in the possibility of giving a full numbered sequel a story that takes place long before the first game. MGS3 is the sequel to MGS2, greatly expanding on the gameplay of the precurser, although the story takes place before even MGS1 and therefore can be considered a prequel.
So I believe that the central focus on any video game series should be the gameplay, not the storyline.
That is the reason, because of which I object MPO being listed with the other games.87.174.249.202 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You can not just use words like 'early' and 'modern'; these terms are only relative, and are not appropriate for use. Andre666 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They were just provisional :). At least the "Modern". The Metal Gear Series and Franchise really started with MGS. So I think early could be appropriate for the MSX2/NES Games.87.174.249.202 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from regarding the whole sequel vs spin-off argument, and it's not entirely moot. However, what I'm unconvinced of is mainly: why would separating be more valuable to the reader than by keeping the canon games together? Considering that a read could be a Metal Gear expert, or someone who never heard of it and stumbled across the page. Is main--spin-off (for example) going to be obvious as to what separates them?? Is canon--supplement--non-canon going to be obvious for the separations? I think that's what we need to look at for the listings.

And on the subject of new game engines: On List of The Legend of Zelda games, Majora's Mask is listed as a Main game despite not having a new engine. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... is this ever gonna end? Look, if you want to list them as Canon, then you need to remove the NES version of Metal Gear because it had enough changes that conflict with the plot (ie the lack of Metal Gear TX-55 in the game). Further more, you need to list them in canon order: MGS3, MPO, MG1, MG2, MGS, MGS2, MGS4. I'm not even going to bring up my old argument as it's clear that gameplay history groupings have been dissmissed. I do find it ironic that the listing includes the SAGA DVDs and yet disregards their content in the article layout. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I added in a blip in the Notes regarding the changes, but a separation might work. BTW, do you have any info on the MG Saga DVD that came with the 20th anniversary release, or on the Radio Dramas that came out in Japan? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio Drama's are non-canon. They continue the story of Solid Snake, Campbell, and Mei Ling after Shadow Moses. But that's all I know. As for the SAGA DVD, the one that came with the 20th Anniversary set is actually the same one that was released as Volume 2 in US. It covers the background plot of series, but only the events of MGS3, MG1, MG2, MGS, and MGS2 are covered. The chapter about Solid Snake does show the events of MGS4. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New example

This is what a grouped-by-game version might look like. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The list reminds me somewhat of the street fighter article with the Street Fighter II Series etc. and here the Metal Gear Solid 2 Series :D. THis list might work, however, it seems a bit bulky. It might hit people a little bit in the face with all it´s information on small space. The points that are wothy of improvement in my opinion:

• I still suggest to turn Intergal, Substance, Subsistence and MPO Plus into notes on their original games boxes, like An expanded version was released in Japan, called "Integral". It would un-clutter it a little bit. Again I draw inspiration of the Resident Evil article, where the director´s cut of the original game for instance is not sepperately mentioned , either. Also the Tomb Raider (series) article mention expanded versions that way. Remakes can be listed below the original games, I´m fine with that.
• A classic: the Digital Novels. I know, they are technically games, but they are even more digital versions of the graphic Novels. I think the article should reflect that. First the comic books were made and then they were digitized and some "game modes" were added. But the way the article handles it now, the digital graphic novels seem unrelated to the comic book adaptions.
• Another Classic: Document and Database. They are not games. Both are works, that give background information to the series. One is a document on the making of MGS2. It could be a book, but it was released on a PS2 DVD-ROM. MGS4 Database is an encyclopedia on the Series. It coul also be a book, but it was released as downloadable content for the PS3. I think, if I woul read the article, I´d wonder, why something is listed as a game, while it is technically not. It might confuse some people and let it seem unprofessinell.
• Another thing: The Acid Series. I think it has become it´s own full spin-off series and could be further sepperated. It neither retains the action-oriented gameplay, nor does it contribute nor connect to the main storyline, nor the canon.

Except of the things I mentioned above, I think the list is fine.^^ About MPO: I´ve made my viewpoint clear, but I also accept, that storyline do play an important role in video games, especially in the Metal Gear Franchise.87.174.239.130 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an updated version

I would say that Int, Sub, Subsis, and MPO+ should stay as separate boxes, since they are stand alone titles with significant additions (VR missions, Snake vs Monkey, Infinity Mission, etc.), whereas I'm not sure if Metal Gear's US release should be separated. Though either way would work for MG-US, I find it similar to MGA Mobile 3D. And of course we still have the MPO differences, but let's see where this leads us. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, there is no need to have Metal Gear NES listed twice. If you separated it from the original MSX then you should remove it as a version in the MSX description. The date on the NES version is wrong too. It came out in the winter of 1987 in Japan on the FamiCom (Japanese NES). Second, if you are listing MGS Touch under MGS4, why not list MPO under MGS3? There are 2 reasons to do so. One, in gameplay architecture MPO is basically MGS3 on the PSP. Same AI configuration and same character architecture. Second, the plot is never referenced by official sources separate from MGS3. MGS4 or the SAGA documentaries don't even mention the plot events of MPO. So, the game exists as a spin-off from MGS3 in gameplay and in story. As such, I would list it under the MGS3 umbrella. Even the MPO packaging advertises MGS3. I think that would make a bit more sense. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing it twice was suggested by anon 87 due to the radical differences of the game, i'm going to change it back to one entry.

At the moment, MGS Touch seems to be based directly off of (or feature) the settings, story, and characters of MGS4 so it's being looked at as a supplement, until further information, but it could go either way. MPO however has its own separate canon story, which is why it's under the canon games section as a first title.

The plot is referenced in the MGS4 Database and the official website ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The NES Metal Gear SHOULD BE separate from the MSX. It's not a canon game. As proof, MGS4 Database lists certain bosses that DO NOT appear in the NES version. Neither the "SuperComputer" nor Twin Shots are listed in the Database. That makes the NES version of Metal Gear 1 non-canon and it should not be listed in your canon section. Further more, if it is a canon, why have you not switched the order? If we're going by Canon, you should have MGS3 first. I'm really having a lot of problems with the way things are done. First you guys insist on ONLY going by the plot and then you don't do so 100%. As for MPO... it doesn't bother anyone that the game is set between MGS3 and MGS4 and does NOT have a number?! That screams Spin-off. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While Integral is basically the same game with bonus content, the NES Metal Gear is a vastly restructured game. To compare it with a building: It uses the same stones, but arranged them completely diffirent. It´s not just added enviroments, but also objects and rooms were moved around.

As for Integral & CO I apologize. Since this is a list of media, I think it is appropriate to list them sepperately. But maybe under a new Expanded Versions Tagline. I was a little tirde last time and forgot about that^^. What about the mobile phone versions of the original Metal Gear? They´re also stand-alone titles with significant additions. What is a stand alone title in you opinion. A new Subtitle is not a criteria for a stand alone title.

I believe, there´s a general problem on what the list should reflect. Being a list of media, I´d suggest to break the franchise down as much as possible. I hink I´ll do a list in one of those days, but I´m not familiar with the editing systems here, so it might take a while.

However I do not think that MPO is connected to MGS3 other than being a spin-off/ direct sequel. Listing it as part of it gives the impression of it being an expansion of sorts. An orignal game engine is not a requirement for being an original game. Technically Resident Evil 2 and 3 would be expansions of Resident Evil 1 oder Tomb Raider II-V expansions of Tomb Raider I or Twin Snakes an expansion of MGS2 by that definition. Maybe we should take this to some officials in wikipedia. I think in the end, it is a matter of opinion. To judge a game series by gameplay or plot. I understand, why people want to list MPO alongside MGS1-4 and I think at least Th1rt3en seems to understand, why me and anon 63 do not want to do that, since we want a list that reflects the gameplay developement.87.174.252.253 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

anon 87´s suggested listing

Here my suggestion for a listing method. I think it is a middle way. Below it are some explanations on points that are quite different of elderly listings.

anon 87's suggested listing

MAIN GAME SERIES

• Early Games/ original Series
  • Metal Gear (MSX2, mobile phone, PS2)
  • Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (MSX2, mobile phone, PS2)
• Metal Gear Solid Series
  • Metal Gear Solid (PS)
  • Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (PS2)
  • Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PS2)
  • Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (PS3)
• Portable Games
  • Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (PSP)
• Expanded Versions/ Expansions
  • Metal Gear Solid: Integral (PS, PC)
  • Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions (PS)
  • Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (PS2, Xbox, PC)
  • Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)
  • Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Plus (PSP)
• Remakes
  • Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (GC)
  • Metal Gear Solid Touch (mobile phone)
• Multiplayer Games
  • Metal Gear Online (PS3)

OTHER GAMES/ SPIN-OFFs

• Metal Gear Acid Series
  • Metal Gear Acid (PSP, mobile phone)
  • Metal Gear Acid 2 (PSP, mobile phone)
• Other Portable Games
  • Metal Gear Solid (GBC)
  • Metal Gear Solid Mobile (mobile phone)
• Unofficial Games/ Versions
  • Metal Gear (NES, PC, C-64, GC)
  • Snake´s Revenge (NES)

for OTHER MEDIA

• Appliciations
  • The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2 (PS2)
  • Metal Gear Solid 4 Database (PS3)
• Printed
  • Comics
    • Digital Novels
      • Metal Gear Solid: Digital Graphic Novel (PSP)
      • Metal Gear Solid 2: Bande Dessinee (DVD)

What I tried to do with this list, was to give a quick overview on the entire video game franchise. In order to do that, I broke the franchise down as much as possible instead of bringing to many pieces under one roof. Example MPO: Instead of saying “it is a main game, as it is part of the storyline” or “It is a spin-off, it doesn´t feature the same home console gameplay”, I tried to separate it, so you can say both. Someone sees, that it´s part of the main storyline, but can also realize, that being a portable game, it is yet different from the home console games. It is the reality in between and anyone can interpret it.

I reintroduced “Main”, because there are the games, that form the main storyline. To anon 63: One of your three official documentaries shows images of all the main games of the Metal Gear Series in the ending credits. Among them is MPO. Undeniebly. The first of your documentaries was produced when MPO wasn´t even announced. And the third is titles “external perspective”, indicating, it wasn´t produced in-house. So I made the compromise of separating 7 games into 2 old MSX2 ones, that form the original series, 4 Home console MGS Games and 1 portable game. I incorporated Metal Gear Online in this list because, simply, it feels right^^. It was developed by Hideo Kojima and is heavily based on the Main Games. The entire series. Then there are expanded versions and then remakes. I think those are quite clear.

There are also other games. Games that are not part of what is considered the main storyline and series and are spin-offs based on a good idea. I started with the Spin-off, that managed to form a series on its own: First (all) the series, then stand-alone-games games. As for MGA Mobile: I think, it can be viewed as a port. If you look into the article abour Video game remakes, you´ll find a term “demake”. MGA was demade to make it rum on the limited hardware. But also a remake section could be created. The NES Games were unofficial games, meaning, they are not considered part of the franchise officially. If you look on the official site at the systems, on which the original Metal Gear was released, the NES is not mentioned. On the OFFICIAL site! And the article states, that Snake´s Revenge also is not considered to be an official game in the series.

Finally, I moved Document and Database to Other Media, since they simply are not games. Neither technically, nor actually. Same with the Digital Graphic Novels. The first may include a “seek-in-the-artwork”-game, but it still is just a digital version of the graphic Novel. A motion comic. It is not based on Metal Gear Solid – The Game, but Metal Gear Solid – The Comic. I think, this should be reflected in the article and the list of Media. 87.174.252.253 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I´ve written this before I´ve seen, what the article has become. I think it is great so far, but there are still conflicting things (MPO issue, Acid Mobile under remakes). But it is much better now. Still consider my proposal. ;) 87.174.252.253 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what we have right now is an excellent compromise of versions! Doesn't put too much emphasis on canon while it's still there, good separations/sections, etc.; of course there's still some gray-line material (Acid Mobile, like you said, and DGN being a game) but I think it still gets the point across. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, the list as it is now, is acceptable. I suggest now focusing on references and things like that (as you said). When this is done, discussions about listings can continue.87.174.189.185 (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

MGS2 DGN --> MGS2:BD

Metal Gear Solid 2: Digital Graphic Novel does not exist... There is Metal Gear Solid 2: Dande Dessinee. The first Bande Dessinee was renamed for western Markets into Digital Graphic Novel, but since the second was never released outside of japan, it was never renamed. I think the name should either be changed or this fact should be mentioned in the box (since the different names might confuse some readers).87.174.184.182 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - titles flipped. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 14:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What's with the new layout?

You know what guys, I find the situation laughable at this point. You kept telling me how we need to avoid making too many groupings only to go and build FIVE! Why in the blue hell do you separate MG and MGS games?! It's the same series! This is the part that gets me. It's unacceptable to do the main game vs spin off breaking, but it's fully acceptable to do this?! Well, I'll go your route. Show me some official backing for this separation. We can ignore the official documentaries as evidence... fine... lets see the official backing for this layout. I think this is the worst idea yet. And you still list MPO with the main games. Why? You have a group labeled "Spin-offs". MPO is a spin-off! Is the game design considered to be a main game? No (MG Saga Vol. 1 and MGS4 LE). Is the plot considered a main installment? No (MG Saga Vol. 2 and MGS4). Hell, it's set between MGS3 and MGS4... it's a "Solid" game but it's not numbered! It's a freaking spin-off. What more evidence do you need? Being a spin-off does NOT mean it can't have a canon plot. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The layout is set up for ease of navigation; it doesn't have to follow any 'official' sources on the condition that it still provides correct information. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... is that your new rule? 'Cause I seem to recall you throwing a conniption fit when I supposedely didn't accomodate the listing shown on the official website. And five subcategories isn't "easy navigation", especially when you're making a completely useless MG vs MGS break. What's the reasoning for it?! 2D vs 3D? Why does that need a break? According to what source or rational? As for your "correct information" bit... correct according to what source? And it what way? The FACT is that if you were to merge MG and MGS games back into a single listing and move MPO into the Spin-off category the information will still be correct according to multiple official sources. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not my 'rule' that's my reasoning for accepting it. Andre666 (talk · contribs) made the change and I felt it was a good compromise, even though it doesn't detail that the Acid series is a spin off, or group together the DGNs, which I why I didn't revert/change/challenge it. I suppose that the separation would be fore titles: the first two games only have Metal Gear, while the next 5 games (and, yes, MPO) have Solid, and the Acid series has Acid. This may not be the best way to show the data, but it certainly is the closest to having a consensus. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I´m getting harsh on this one, but you call that a compromise??? Im my list MPO was part of the main series, but still sepperated from the other four. That was a compromise. Now it is listed alomgside the other four home-console games!! If you go by that, Mibile and Touch are also "Solid" Games. MPO is a spin-off. It may be part of the series from a story point of view, or a canon point of view. But Metal Gear is a GAME series. A list should reflect the evolution of the game series. There are the six games and maybe there will be a 7th game (MGS5). EVERYTHING ELSE just spun-off those games, whether portable games, remakes, turn-based card game spin-off series, alternate sequels or interquels. MPO is unique in that it is the only one of those spin-offs to feature a confirmed canonical storyline. nothing else. Why I am emotional: How can people just ignore that a stone is falling down on the ground? 87.174.242.26 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that it's a good way to separate series without divulging too much into the canon of the series? Frankly, we're never going to agree on MPO's listing, let's face it, so we need to find an alternative. We could list everything together in order of release date, or group by related games, similar to the one I made up, or just list by first console, regardless of the game/canon/'main'/etc. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No Th1rt3en, the reason why we'll never agree is because you don't even have a position to speak of. You contradict yourself in every single argument we had. First you complain that I don't follow the official website listing, and yet ignore official documentaries and even make the statement now that "there's no need for official support". Then we got the groupings... You had a problem with there being too many, but it doesn't stop you from making 5 here! TWO to describe a single set of games at that! And all this WITHOUT official backing. Now you don't want to "divulge too much into the canon"... REALLY?! So then on what possible basis is MPO still listed with the main games?! Seriously, pick a freaking side and stick with it! Discussing this with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Oh, and I love the suggestion of listing everything together... OMG! We did that and it prompted this second page which is a complete waste of time. Group by related games? What wonderful idea! I really wish I thought of that!!!! Hello! McFly! What do you think we're trying to do? Why don't you explain to me why MPO is a main game to you. And no, you can't talk about the plot. Let's have it! Because if plot is your ONLY argument (and I know it is!) then when you list MPO under Spin-offs you can put in the description "The only canon spin-off in the series" to solve the problem. That would justify the content on the official site nor contradict all other official sources. Now, what you CAN do is put Ghost Babel and MPO together into a separate category. You got the 6 console games directed by Kojima. That's Group 1. Then put the 2 portable spin-offs that were written and produced by Kojima. Both games have relevance to the main games, one being a spin-off and the other being an alternate sequel. Taht would be Group 2. Acid series is Group 3. And then Remakes/Expansion would be Group 4. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you even pay attention to any of the comments?:

1. Andre666 (talk · contribs) changed the non-grouped table on the series article back to the grouped list. Not me
2. He also created this article, which is not unheard of to keep a series article down in size. Not me
3. He also made the most recent change to the list separated by series. Not me, I merely felt the new list was still fine.
4. For the sixth time: I do not list the games as "MAIN", I list them by CANON.
5. Rebuttal: If official documentaries is your ONLY argument, then when you list MPO under canonical series you can put in the description "The only handheld game in the series" to solve the problem.
6. About 95% of your edits regarding Metal Gear (series) and this article (for about 18 months) have been to separate MPO from the other 6 canon games, disregarding any consensus (even before I was actively editing the article), cherry picking the documentaries as the only valid source for the information, are usually uncivil with every comment, and have been doing almost nothing to help improve the actual quality of the article.

You've stated that the documentaries are the only "official" source. Untrue. You've stated that plot is an invalid argument for grouping games. How so? You've stated that "main" games should be separated from spin-offs. Why? What constitutes main other than what's talked about in some of the official sources and what's left out?

You're not helping solve the problem by going back to your same 18-month old argument every time you're disagreed with, because it's not sufficient enough (by a long shot) to be the determining factor. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?! You got some nerve! When have I EVER said that the documentaries are the "only" source?! When have I ever said that plot is an invalid way of grouping games?! How about you stop pulling things out of your a$$ and stick to facts! I have NEVER made these claims! My point was that documentary layouts SHOULD be considered and not bluntly ignored like you do. And that plot is not the ONLY way to group things. See, I'm willing to bet that you actually know very little about the Metal Gear series and likely have never played the games nor watched or read official materials. And do explain exactly what is insufficient about my argument but ever so "sufficient" about yours! Do tell! I'm trying to make the article relflect both the plot and the game history layout and mentione/accomodate as many official sources as possible. You insists on blindely following plot ONLY! So save your critique and focus more on youself, pal! Yes, it has been an 18-month argument. But that's only because the person in charge of the article knows absolutely nothing about the series the article covers! So yeah, it's hard to win that battle! What pisses me off the most is that you dare to critisise me when you bluntly ignore facts and purposely focus on only one aspect of the series! And even then you fail! Listing the games according to canon you purposely ignore the canon order! You have a very limited knowledge of the series and a close-minded point of view that makes the article incomplete. This is EXACTLY why I suggested that the article should be divided into two parts. One that talks about the gameplay development history and then the other about the plot evolution. You CHOOSE to ignore that and only focus on plot. If that's the case, then it should be f*cking obvious which one of us is "invalid". 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think one of these days, someone is gonna shoot the other one dead :D. Ease of, Guys. By the way, it´s me, anon 87, with a different PC. Although anon 63 is certainly not in control of his temper at all, he has a point. I think it is fully valid to judge a work of fiction by it´s plot. If Metal Gear was a series of feature fils, I would fully agree with listing the games by canon. Games are also works of fiction, but more so, they are electronic entertainment. What makes a Video Game a video game is not a cinematic plot narrative, but the fact that you play a game. And a sequel to a game is in most cases a sequel by plot, but it also features improvements in gameplay. But of course if a game is successful and the sequel is still in developement, new games are created based on the previous game to cash in. Those games usually do not largely improve on the previous conceot or they try new genres (as with Acid). I think, that a list about a GAME series should not primarily reflect the plot or wht is part of the storyline and what isn´t, but rather the "evolution" of the gameplay. And a handheld game is a brach from a home console game. A handheld has other specifications and gameplay has to be designed to be playable on the bus-trip to work. A console game on the other hand has can take hourlong missions, work on the presentation and meet other expectations/ requirements. I think, a GAME series article shuld primarily reflect that: Gameplay Developement/ Evolution. But I am glad to here, why you guys say a game series article should be listed differently. I have got an open ear for that (apparently unlike anon 63).91.19.240.100 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but i think what makes Metal Gear unique is its storyline and plot. Metal Gear has obviously been a very cinematic-esque series, and all of the canon games tie in closely with one another. I remember playing MGS2 for the first time (having never seen MGS1 at the time) and not understanding a lot of the things they would talk about in the cutscenes (FOXDIE, Shadow Moses, etc.). And to compare it some of the other lists. List of The Legend of Zelda games jump between console and portable games, List of Metroid media merely separates by series (according to title). Metal Gear, in my opinion, is one that works when considering it by plot.

I think that once we get the last few references, and maybe a new image of media, we can put this up for featured list nomination and see if anyone has any concerns about the article listing and any suggestions for changing it. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 14:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor. Please do not submit this list to WP:FLC for feedback about topic-specific things. Ask around at WT:VG first. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By that I had meant that if there were a problem with the listing (once at FLC) it would likely be commented upon, or just rejected due to it. I was never planning on submitting it to FLC specifically for that reason, just figured it would likely come up when there. It's currently under WT:VG peer review, though with little feedback so far. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen my name mentioned a few times, and don't like it. I should not be to blame for anything... I created the article and simply moved things around a little bit to begin adhering to various offers of layout changes. I personally agree with simply main games, spin-offs etc exactly how I set it out originally, but have only been making small changes to fit others' choices. Leave me out of this please, and can you seriously sort this out?! Look at other similar lists (e.g. Final Fantasy, Metroid, Mortal Kombat, StarCraft and Castlevania, on which this list was based!) and come to a consensus, rather than going back and forth; create some options and put them to a vote. Andre666 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to throw your name around like that, I just hate it when I get attributed with things I didn't do. I was never trying to blame you for anything, so sorry if it came out that way. You did a great job with the initial list too. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. I have just noticed something – if MGS: Portable Ops is not a 'main series' game, then how come they released a remake (MGS: Portable Ops +)? This suggests, to me, that it in fact is a main series game. Also, think about the releases so far... forgetting the early Metal Gear games, the MGS titles have been released like so: game, sequel, game (just so happens to be a prequel), sequel, game, sequel? However, upon writing this, it does appear odd that MPO has not been numbered and has been released on a portable console. I have moved it to spin-offs for the time being. Andre666 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it listed in spin-offs. For one, it just seems weird to have Portable Ops Plus--the expansion--on the list before MPO. Seems like the expansion should always come after the original title. As far as the numbering goes, I believe that MPO was originally going to be non-canon, then somewhere during development they decided to make it canon. If that's true than the lack of a number is likely from the different gameplay. In either case, I prefer to look at "main" meaning which games fall in the "main" storyline (i.e. canon) which is why MPO was always listed between MGS3 and MGS4. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 13:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... just WOW! First of all, MPO PLUS is not a remake! Yet another reason why you should not be in charge of this article as you CLEARLY don't qualify. MPO+ does NOT contain the actual game. It's an add-on, same as MGS VR Missions was. It's basically an expanded Online mode with only repetetive "Infinity Mission" as offline content. Do your homework!. Second, once again it all boils down to YOUR personal opinion about the plot. And that is the main reason I've come to dislike you so much. So you got fascinated by the plot... how f*cking nice... Why not discuss the gameplay design in the articel as well? Why only one?! Why not talk about BOTH! Doesn't an objective article deserve to have BOTH aspects of a game discussed?! Seriously, what the F*CK?! Why are you being an a-hole about this when there is absolutely no harm done in discussing both aspects?! Why just ONE?! Outside of your personal, Metal Gear-uneducated opinion, give me a good reason! Andre is correct in moving it into Spin-offs and it should be there. The only thing keeping it out of it's proper placement is the bonehead discisson making of Thirteen! You have no basis for only observing plot! And you have proven now that you don't deserve to be in charge of this article! Your only reasoning for any of this is YOUR PERSONAL opinion. You completely avoid making the article objective and covering all aspects. Seeing how you can not be objective on the matter, you should not be making any calls about article layout. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility please? It gets harder to even bother to respond the more uncivil you get; I'd rather it not go any further. It's fine being angry, but just keep your cool. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As for MPo Plus being named before the original: It is possible! to move the expanded versons/remakes section below the Spin-offs-Section. If you are going to list this by canon, then at least make it without comprimise: do not sepparate into canon/ spin-off, but canon/ non-canon. I see, where you are coming from and I think it is reasonable, but I still think, it is more appropriate to make a game-series/-franchise article reflect gameplay-issues, rather than plot.87.174.227.229 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Horrible Image!

I don't know who added that crappy "games on the blanket" pic, but it's horrible! It's an embarrassment to the article to have such a poor image in use. Here, you can use my personal collection:

• http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j304/ArsenalMGF/P1010621.jpg
• Other product images: http://mgarsenal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=heaven&action=display&thread=4406 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The top one has a glare that's not much better than the blanket. But there's nothing wrong with it if you want to upload and add it.

How about this: since you have a large collection is there anyway you can take a new picture for each major section? It'd be nice if you could get a collective picture with one example of each entry in it.

a) games, b) applications/dvds, c) books, d) albums

^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can indeed to that. I have just about all of them. Well, not the NES ones... In any case, I would be willing to make a quality group photo of all the games in each category. However, we have to agree on this. Surely after all this you don't expect me to group MPO along side the other games, especially within my own collection. I tell you what. I'll take the first photo tonight and we'll pick up the conversation about it tomorrow after you get a chance to review it. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest make one photo per major section, basically one "games" photo with all the listed games, canon/non-canon/main/spin-off/remakes/supplements/whatever. That way it covers any changes that the list might have in the future. Then make one for the Saga DVDs and, including the DGNs and Document in there too. The CD one you already took should work for that section. And I donno what books you have. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? You are calling the image "horrible" simply because you don't like the blanket?! The image is fine, it illustrates its point perfectly. Andre666 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I call the image "horrible" because it hardly has any games shown on it. If you want the article to look presentable you should show more versions in the image. 24.56.10.108 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I took a few shots:

• Main games: http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j304/ArsenalMGF/MAIN-GROUP.jpg
• Supplements: http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j304/ArsenalMGF/SUP-GROUP.jpg
• Spin-offs: http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j304/ArsenalMGF/SPN-GROUP.jpg

I would also be open to taking photos of figures and other memorabilia. Provided we can reach an agreement of the layout and use of the pics. 24.56.10.108 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion

Since I doubt we'll ever agree to a compromise on the MPO/listing issue, how does this sound:

Since we have both this article and the Metal Gear (series) article, why don't we just split it? One lists/talks about the games by canon, the other lists/talks about the games by development? Any thoughts? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As you often says: "Might work!" ;) But I really don´t know. I think, as this is a list of media it could be sepperated into as many different sub-sections as needed.

Like

• • Early Games
    • MSX2-Series
    • NES-Series
  • Solid Series
    • Home Console Games
      • MGS1-4
    • portable games
      • Ghost Babel
      • MPO
    • expanded versions
      • Integral

or even

• • • expanded versions
      • MGS1
        • Integral

The Gameplay Developement and plot could be BOTH explored at the series article.

In that case, I´d suggest to leave the continuity section in the series article largely as it is and expand greavely on the Gameplay Developement Prose Text. I think, this might even work as a prose text loosely by release.87.174.227.229 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There would not be an argument if we simply list both sides of it. I don't see why that's a problem. Hell, the Canon listing can go first in the article, I really don't care. Here:

• Section 1: Canon outline of the series. Listing all SEVEN canon games with a BRIEF mission overview.
• Section 2: Gameplay History listing of the 6 "main" games with a brief description of the technological advancements they made.
• Section 3: Spin-offs and re-releases. All other portable games and main-game expansions listed together.
• Section 4: Other material, such as the diginal novels and official documentaries.

Now, what is wrong with a grouping like that? It would be easy enough to follow. It will be objective, covering both the plot and the game design history. And most importantly it satisfies both sides of the MPO debate. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)