Template talk:Metal Gear

Portable Ops no longer canon?

Chek this out: http://www.konami.jp/mg25th/truth/ It is an official Konami site apperently and they do not list MPO! Seems to me, it isn't canon anymore or at least not part of the Main Series. I think the template needs to be changed to reflect this. 91.19.223.161 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note how this official timeline (translated via google) fails to mention the san hieronymo takeover and simply mentions the establishment of Foxhound in similar fashion as it was mentioned in MGS3: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.konami.jp%2Fmg25th%2Ftruth%2Fchronicles.html

It'spretty official now: seems like MPO got thrown out of canon...178.203.28.133 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Kojima does not seem to view it as officialy part of Metal Gear canon. However, due to actual continuity (mentions in MGS4 and Database, "now we can leave all that crap in San Hieronymo behind..." in Peace Walker), I feel that it still has to be counted as canon on Wikipedia. Even if Kojima doesn't like it, he does acknowledge it. --AnddoX (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Database does have its continuity issues and as far as I remember, MPO is not directly referenced in MGS4 aside from some screenshots... Ghost Babel is actually mentioned in that game as well (look at the Five Seven description; it says something like "this is the gun Snake used on the Ghost Babel mission"); does it make that canon, too? Anyway, even if it still seems to be canon, I'd like to point out: canon =/= Main Series. As such I'd suggest to either move Portable Ops from the Main Series section in the template to the Spin-offs section or to reorganize the template into Canon and Non-canon sections and include Metal Gear Rising and possibly Metal Gear Solid Mobile in there (which I'm not so much in favor for, since a game series should be about more than simply continuity). Otherwise the template would simply be false... or at least a half-a**ed job (forgive the strong language for lack of a better term - I'm not a native speaker^^). 178.203.28.133 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Snake's Revenge

So why is the Snake's Revenge link being moved to "Related Articles" instead of "Spin-off Games"? Anyone looking for the article would most likely look in a section labelled 'games'. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Phantom Pain is a game too and it's in related articles. And Snake's Reveng is not a spin off, it was a game release under an entirely different context. Oh yeah, and "MGA2" is labeled so in the same fashion as "MGS2", so please do not modify it. --Anddo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Phantom Pain isn't a Metal Gear game, yet (read: speculation), but the information in the article heavily attributed MGS hence why it was added to the navbox under the Related section. Snake's Revenge is a game that exists as an unofficial sequel. The Spin-off Game name was condensed awhile back to keep the header short; it used to say something like 'Spin-offs, expansions, and other games'. Most importantly, this is a navbox, not any official list of sorts. Snake's Revenge should be in the spin-off game section for ease of navigation. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 01:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is no spin-off, so this makes the listing invalid. Also The Phantom Pain's status as a Metal Gear game has no relevance, but it is a game. A game that's in related articles, as Snake's Revenge will be. --Anddo (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the use of "spin-off" in the header is to keep the box small otherwise it would be more descriptive, it's not saying the game is an 'official' spin-off, nor should it: this is for navigation purposes. Phantom Pain is a related article due to the notable rumors surrounding the game that relate it to the MG series (which makes up about half the PP article currently); the game is separate otherwise and has no story connection. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Rising listing

I believe that we should start labeling Metal Gear Rising as a "main game". It does have placement in the canon, after all, so it basically has the same significant value as Portable Ops (which is listed). If no one is opposed to it, I will change it. Please provide opinions below. Thanks. --Anddo (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If its story is canon then I agree with the change. I guess if it turns into a full spin-off series down the line, we can give it a sub-section like the Acid games. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. If the game does receive a sequel, it will have to be a sub-series on the template. But I suppose there is no dispute for a move to main series now? --Anddo (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll even suggest to simply rename the sectioning into canon/ non-canon, as that is how the games are currently organized! Rising is a spin-off: it features radically different gameplay, doesn't contain the series name, is even developed by a different studio and was numerously called a spin off or different brand in the metal gear pantheon. The simple fact that the storyline is canon, doesn't suffice to declare it a main game! Meaning something along the lines of Metal gear solid 5! Take a look at any franchise with multiple spin offs, that are part of the canon, but still a spin off. 79.204.102.46 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the meaning of "Main" in this navbox really is whatever consensus determines it to be. However, I agree to changing the header to something like "Canon games" or "Main canon" or something similar. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I suppose. --Anddo (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, I feel that the definition of "main" is clear enough and appending the word "canon" is sure to inflame some trolls to edit war over inclusion. Calling it "main" gives us an out in the off chance that Social Ops or something turns out to be technically canon while certainly not filling the criteria for "main". Axem Titanium (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points as well. To be honest I'd like to see a consensus before any change. --Anddo (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is, what does qualify as a main game in your opinion. We need to pin down a term as vague as "main".87.177.68.96 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it doesn't need to be a game with the stealth genre, just in the main canon. --Anddo (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, I think a game series is about more than just how canonical the story is. You create a template (of gameplay) and in a sequel you refine it. At times something off-beat could make a cool game on it's own that hasn't necessarily anything to do with the original mechanic (like, uhm, making a game about a cyborg ninja, which is pretty much very different). Also they renamed the series from Metal Gear Solid to metal gear Rising, which is a clear indication that this is like Metal gear Acid a complete spin off. Now unlike Acid it might ("might") have a canon story, but this also diverges stylistically from everything known to the Solid series. High-tech cyborgs instead of gritty military enviroments. Jumping arround action hero over the top action instead of the grounded slow paced sneaking from the Solid series. Way back when the game even did have the "Solid" in the title and it was even developed people more closely associated with the Solid games, they said, the game would set a new standard that would go parallel to the Solid Series, so every couple of years you'd have either a Solid or a Rising game. Lastly, if indeed there were no more Solid games in production and the series just took a drastic design change (like for instance, Resident Evil 4), it would of course be different. But we still have Ground Zeroes in the works and even a possible MGS5. These are the games that continue the main series in my opinion, whereas Rising branches of into a new series, that is both related and canonical to the Main or Solid Series, but still not part of it.91.23.182.105 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on if Rising goes into "main" or "other" or "spin-off" or "turkey", but I do think that the category names should be "Main games" and "Spin-off games"/"Other games". Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so what if we just leave Metal Gear Rising in "Main Games" and just leave the template as-is for now, and if Metal Gear Rising develops into a series, we can sub-categorize it into the spin-off section. --Anddo (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why it is not a spin off or why categorizing a series into something as vague as "main series", yes. But as the list is now, it quite frankly is biased and doesn't reflect official facts.90.186.0.114 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can describe this as "bias". Far from it. There's a base for why MGR should considered a "main game". On the other hand, casting it into spin-offs will actually create a problem. It's fine the way it is now. --Anddo (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think, it can be described as very biased as long as no one can provide a clear explanation as to why it should be included as a main game while constantly being named a spin off from official sources, why everyone refuses to even try to pin down a vague term like "main" or why simply solving problems by the clear canon/non-canon categorization appears to be unaccaptable to some editors.91.23.186.86 (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)