Talk:Metal Gear

June 2004

There is a LOT of stuff straight out of the manual towards the bottom. I'd suggest whoever put it there clean it up... --Alexwcovington 08:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This whole artical needs an overhaul, I will try to do some improvments later omegamogo 11:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just fixed a bunch of stuff on the article. Most notable is my extension of the MGS2 section. I wasn't completely sure if it should be, or how much. Even with the way it is now, I'm not completely happy with how it looks. Of course anyone's welcome to extend the article some more.--FDIS 12:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Metal Gear book...

I have (or had) a book some years ago, that was based on the first Metal Gear NES game. I haven't played through the game myself, but it reads very much like a story-style walkthrough (in a similar vein to the first DooM novel). It also lists occasional gameplay hints. There was at least one other book from the same publishers, based on the Shadow Warriors/Ninja Gaiden game on NES. Anyone have the Metal Gear one and care to mention it in the article?

Oh man, I had one of those. I had the Ninja Gaiden one too. There was also a Castlevania one I think. I remember some bits but I don't have the book handy at the moment... --Golbez 08:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Metal Gear book...

The book you're referring too is the "Worlds of Power" novelization written by Alexander Frost. It's based more or less on Konami of America's inaccurate "interpretation" of the first game's storyline (as depicted on the instruction manual), which means that Vermon CaTaffy is the villain (as opposed to Big Boss in the actual game's narrative). Even at that, it takes even more liberties with the plot (FOXHOUND becomes the "Snake Men") and reveals Solid Snake's real name to be "Justin Halley" (a revelation made dated by Metal Gear Solid). It's definitely non-canon.

There was also a series of Metal Gear Solid Drama CDs released in Japan.

Chinaman, Old Boy (MGS2)

I'm familiar with these characters, however they were cut from the game at a fairly early stage of production (Chinaman's abilities merged into Vamp, for example). I'm curious as to where in MGS2 itself we're told about them; they weren't discussed in story segments, and I don't recall them being mentioned in the option CODEC conversations, although I didn't listen to all of those. Sockatume 19:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While neither, Chinaman nor Old Boy are mentioned in the actual game, in the version of the script featured in The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2 (2002, PlayStation 2), they're mentioned on scene P010_06_M02 (Vamp encounter 6/Movie demo 2)

Images of Dead Cell members stumbling around on a battlefield. Vamp carries a wounded in his arms. The deaths of Chinaman and the Old Boy.

Thanks, that's canon enough for me. Sockatume 20:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MGS4

Kojima just released details on MGS4. A big septych of the major characters has been shown, with returning characters being Snake, Raiden (holding, presumably, Olga's baby), Vamp, Meryl, Otacon, and Revolver Ocelot, as well as Big Boss (included figuratively, perhaps), and a woman in a cloak (not sure, it looks a bit like Fortune). --YoungFreud 23:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone added it to Metal Gear Solid 4 when Famitsu scooped it a few weeks ago. Sockatume 19:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jack Sears

Though Jack was trained by Solidus Snake, it is also stated that so were many other children. This implies he did not adopt the child officially and no other referene is made to him sharing Solidus' Name. Also George Sears would seem more like a Public Name developed for use for the president George Sears by the Patriots! Therefore why is "Jack Sears" listed as a possible future member of Philanthropy -- The Pain

Thanks for pointing this out; I would have missed it otherwise. I'm deleting all of the "Possible Future Operatives" since it's nothing but speculation. --DoubleCross 05:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Raiden doesn't have full name. He's simply named Jack, period. I heard that in the early drafts of the MGS2, Raiden's full name was something like "Jack Braningan" or "Raiden Braningan", but I don't believe it's supposed to be canonical either way (or else, it would've been mentioned in the games.) Jonny2x4 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

The very first Metal Gear fansite to cover the full series and set the standard for all fansites to come after it. doesn't really ring of NPOV, now does it? --Threatis 04:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sort of fixed. --FDIS 04:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

AFDed article merged with this one

Meme gene scene had an AFD debate that failed to get consensus for deletion. As an editor, I've merged the article with this one instead. I've moved the discussion from its talk page here. If anyone wants to look at the article before it was redirected, here it is. Johnleemk | Talk 12:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

From original talk

This article strikes me as a little dubious. There's no source for this information. It it a phrase common in some community? Is it something from the game designers? Is it just something one guy made up that sounded interesting? From the content, I'd guess the latter. --William Pietri 12:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the matter, but i've read a few interviews with the games creator, and have also participated in multiple online discusion forums about the games in question, and i've never heard the 'Meme Gene Scene' idea put forth. It is an interesting little pnumonic... but at best it would be a backronym. The game producers don't often put out definitive statements about what the MGS games 'mean'. And summing each game up in one word is definantly not in their style. That, and 'scene' is really stretching it.Bigmacd24 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I got here through the AfD discussion, and while I don't feel qualified to vote on the matter there, I am almost sure I've heard this before. I want to say it was from an interview with Kojima explaining the E3 2003 trailer for MGS3. I say this, of course, with no authority. Even if it is factually correct, the thing is a little bit crufty... Tom Lillis 09:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid (PSP)

This is not a metal gear acid game, it is a metal gear solid game for psp that is currently in develpment, see this externeal link IGN news article on MGS:PSP as well as the article Metal Gear Solid (PSP) please do not change it to acid, that belongs in non-canon spinoffs and is already listed. Solidusspriggan 09:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI its called MGS:Portable Ops.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 13:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

MGS3

Technically a prequel, isn't it? It's listed as a sequel in the "the Games" section.

It is a prequel in game-history but a sequel in release dates.

Meme-Gene-Scene

I am researching info on the Meme Gene Scene themes of the MGS Series. I wonder if anyone could give me some ideas on where to find some information on these concepts as they relate to the games. The research is going to a report I am doing for school, but if it is sufficient I may add it as some extra details for the Metal Gear Solid articles. Thank you for any help you are willing to offer.
Mask 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This Meme-Gene-Scene thing, is it for real? :?

Fractious Jell (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Real as in Hideo Kojima mentioning this? Yes. This website(English translation) look at the first pic on the right. Had a hard time finding a reference to this. Strongsauce (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• Metal Gear (series) → Metal Gear … Rationale: Unneeded disambiguation page. I think it's pretty obvious that anyone who searches for Metal Gear on wikipedia is looking for info about the game. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Metal Gear (series). Jonny2x4 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I moved this page to Metal Gear (series) because many of the inbound links were for the first game, Metal Gear, instead of the series as a whole, and a few were for the Metal Gear weapon itself. When you've got two common alternate possibilities, that's when you use a full dab page (instead of a notice at the top of the page). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Counted as oppose, therefore not moved. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

La-li-lu-le-lo

What is this bullshit about hearing receptors? I have never heard this by anybody official, in fact the only place I ever heard of it was on a fan bbs. I'm removing it, unless someone can provide official source for it.--FDIS 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Games in the series

The chronological order of the games is very messed up. Someone should fix it. It is at the bottom of the page.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Non-canonical" games

It doesn't seem to be explained why Ghost Babel and Acid are "non-canon". I don't think it's safe to make that judgment unless those games explicitly contradict the main series storyline, and if they do, it should probably be explained why. The Ghost Babel article also states that the game is non-canonical and set outside the main MGS continuity, but gives no justification why. -- Asterphage 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Ryan Payton about Ghost Babel and MGA1+2.

Ghost Babel and the Acid games were created in something we call the "parallel universe" of MGS. This gives directors like Shinta Nojiri more freedom in creating exciting scenarios for Snake to overcome. I'm toying with the idea of doing Metal Gear Saga Vol. 2, featuring the games from the parallel universe. I even joke around the office that I'll name it Nojiri Saga Vol. 1.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/mgs3subsistence/news.html?sid=6145169 Jonny2x4 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sniper Wolf

In MGS she talks about being saved by Big Boss, but i'm pretty sure she never states (nor does anyone else) that she served at Outer Heaven. I may have missed something though. (The Bread 11:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

It'll probably be in Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops. The Haunted Angel 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This page lacks any sources. I'm simply adding sources that I know. If anyone wants to change them to better ones, or remove them, feel free to do so. 75.4.16.114 06:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're linking a fansite that is hardly a reliable source. Please stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how some of my citations have been linked to an unreliable source. An example, from this article: "In 2004, mobile phone ports of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 based on the original MSX2 versions were released in Japan; they feature (among other changes) new game modes and items."

This needs a source, despite me, as a fan, knowing that it is true. So I find one source which states this fact, within two pages:

thesnakesoup.org/?section=mg2&content=main#cell thesnakesoup.org/?section=mg&content=main#cell

These pages state that the cellphone versions are based on the MSX2 games, released in Japan, and state the additonal features. There are other sources that verify this as well. 75.4.16.114 06:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then use the other sources. thesnakesoup.org isn't a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I ask, how is it not? 75.4.16.114 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a personal fansite, which is called out as non-kosher in WP:RS#Evaluating reliability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal website it may be, but WP:RS#Evaluating reliability says:

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources.

Which means that my citations typically are "not Kosher." However, in this case, the source clearly states the facts that need to be cited in this article that has no citations at all. 75.4.16.114 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, allowing a minor fansite to advertise itself does not accomplish the goal of getting this article cited to reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you believe I run that website, you are mistaken. The website opened rather recently, and I have found it filled with information that can be used as a source for certain uncitied facts in this and other related articles. I believe I'm helping our policy of Wikipedia:Citing_sources by making sure that: 1) Nobody challenges certain facts and 2) to encourage further citations. I have providied some citations I have no found on any site but The Snake Soup, in regards to the Game.com port. 75.4.16.114 06:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not a reliable source, so we can't use it as a source. Additionally, these citations amount to advertising for a minor, apparently-new fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It would typically not be reliable. In addition, the website has been up since 2003, but closed down early this year and opened up last week. As for your claims for advertising, any citations can be considered advertisements. There are links to several fansites under External Links / Unofficial Sites which was not used to cite anything in this article, thus, clearly more subject to "self-advertising" than my citations, which were used to prove certain facts in this article. 75.4.16.114 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still a minor fansite. We can't trust it for any claims that aren't substantiated by reliable sources, and for those claims that are substantiated by reliable sources, we should just use the reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, technically speaking, I can delete at least 75% of this article, on the basis of there being no sources at all, because some facts can only be proved by "minor fansites" including a few listed below for purposes that are somehow non-advertising. 75.4.16.114 06:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything that can't be sourced to a reliable source or uncontroversial observation of the games themselves should probably be removed, yes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame, due to the basis of the source being unreliable due to it being labeled as "personal," which should be overlooked on rare occassions (which the word, "typically," suggests) such as this one.

In addition, should I delete the unofficial links below? They all are categorized in the same bin as The Snake Soup - personal sites. 75.4.16.114 06:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal sites are notoriously unreliable. And I already got rid of all the fansites, again. I clean them out every few weeks or so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your stand on this belief in regards to fansites as reliable sources, but there are certain fansites that are actually, truly, reliable. I find the Snake Soup to be reliable on all but some editorials, which are obviously opinionated, in addition to metalgearsolid.org, known as THE Unofficial Site. Both sites were recognized by Konami. Snake Soup even was featured in an issue of the Official PlayStation magazine a year ago. Despite both sites being "personal," they still state facts besides their articles and messageboards. The Game.com thing is real - I saw a video of it. However, I can't cite myself as a source. The snake soup has a page in regards to it. I have found other sources on non-personal sites, but they casually mention it being a posibility. The Snake Soup actually has screenshots from the video I have seen. 75.4.16.114 07:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to readd the citation for the Game.com part of this article. This is not out of any disregard to your stand, and if you still feel that it should absolutely be removed, then feel free to do so again, but mention why, especially with the source being pretty reliable despte it being a "personal site." 75.4.16.114 07:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added it. Once again, you may remove it if yous till feel that it must be taken off. I still believe that this is one of those rare instances where a personal site has to be used as a source, due to it containing more than a mere mention. I can understand you contesting to me posting several citations to this source due to it being a fansite, but allowing a couple should not be a big deal, unless it is to prove something that is actually false or has no truth behind it (ie: "Nintendo is homosexual" claims on X-Box and Sony fansites). 75.4.16.114 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that The Snake Soup even had it's own Wikipedia article. While I do not feel that fansites such as the Snake Soup should have a Wiki article about them, the fact that one was made and mirrored onto About.com [1] should just start to show it's significance. Again, feel free to remove my citation if you must... 75.4.16.114 09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I could create a Wikipedia article about my personal site, and if it lived long enough, About.com would automatically mirror it. That wouldn't lend my site any more credibility. The fact that there was an article, but there no longer is an article tends to show that the site is not considered noteworthy (and got AfD-ed). The ultimate reality is that any facts on a fan site should show up on a more credible site (like Kojima's blog or a game news site), or in a something like a magazine or newspaper article. That other place is really the one that should be cited. Otherwise it's really no more credible than me saying, "I heard back in the 80s that Tiger Electronics was going to do an LCD handheld Metal Gear game", Photoshopping a "prototype", and then having that appear later in this article, referencing my site. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, the "citation" even says that it might be a hoax. As someone who works with Photoshop for a living, those screens wouldn't be nearly as tough to fake as the writer would seem to think. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The ultimate reality is that any facts on a fan site should show up on a more credible site (like Kojima's blog or a game news site), or in a something like a magazine or newspaper article. That other place is really the one that should be cited." "That other place"? 75.4.21.82 06:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The reputable sites would be "that other place." For example, if IGN or Gamespot had an article that confirmed the Game.com rumour (they don't), you'd cite IGN or Gamespot. You wouldn't cite the fan site, you'd cite the game news site. Anything you find on a fan site might be useful for looking for more info, but it is not reliable without other confirmation. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through a bit, adding and cleaning up references (and asking for some). I've only done to about the end of the "Film" section though. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm fine with that. 75.4.21.82 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thesnakesoup.org/?section=articles&content=wiki Hydra150 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

that guy is right. wikipedia doesnt put its foot down anywhere but unreliable sites and the source is (snake soup) valid. why discriminate? 75.43.122.97 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with people like A Man in Black? Just because thesnakesoup.org isn't official site or anything in the likes of high authority, doesn't mean their information is false. Maybe, if you try and confirm their info yourself, you will be proven how bad you are judging fansites. Has it ever occured to somebody that maybe sites like IGN, gamefaqs or gamespot may have false information? [65.94.16.249]

Ravi Singh says on The Snake Soup: "A Man In Black isn't stupid or anything. Fuck, with all the stupid shit people try to put into articles on Wikipedia, it's no surprise people like A Man In Black doesn't trust fansites." So really, even he knows why fansites are not considered as reliable because most of them are fans being fans while others like Snake Soup are rarely found.

75.19.63.116 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ManInBl?ck, stop being such a dick. TheSnakeSoup is a highly reliable source and I can confirm all of the information I have read so far, being a big Metal Gear fan. Why the hell would anyone make a fan site and put bad information on it on purpose? What would be the point? So that fans of a game can read about stuff they would have already known not to be true?

Re: IP 65.94.16.249 -- It's not because it's false; it's because we don't know it to be specifically true. A citation is put in place to assure the reader that the information is true, from a source that only in the most extenuating circumstances could be wrong. The issue is reliability to the reader — not to the fan who wrote it. Fansites (unless they manage to get an interview with someone in the know) simply aren't reliable enough. Who knows? Maybe the site in question is completely accurate, but that citation doesn't assure a normal reader because the majority of fansites do get things wrong. The Fwanksta 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Family

I'm gonna post this here as no-one reads the discussion for Template:Metal Gear character.

I reckon we should add a family coloum to the info-box, in theory it would stop people removing content about the characters relatives. Lots of the characters are related (either by blood or by name)

Any thoughts people

(The Bread 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

That would be a mess. This infobox is already overlarge, and relations in this series (which are already convoluted) are better handled in the text when they're relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AMiB. Also note: characters related by name are fairly apparent ;) --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This

I think this line is pretty fishy

Metal Gear Solid retcons the storyline of the early games, by revealing Solid Snake's heritage as a genetic clone of Big Boss,

It doesn't exactly retcon, Snake knows he's Big Boss' son at the start of MGS, but he didn't know that he was a clone i'm gonna change it

(The Bread 04:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Snake being related to Big Boss is never mentioned until Metal Gear Solid. So yes, it retcons.

- 75.24.239.189 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A retcon is if they said, Snake's father was a friend of Big Boss' in MG2, and then in MGS they stated that Snake was a clone of Big Boss without explaining the former friend link. What happens in MGS is that in MG2 Big Boss tells Snake he is his father, but then in MGS Snake finds out that Big Boss is his father in some ways, but in reality he a clone

†he Bread 05:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I said "related" as in, Big Boss doesn't even mention Snake being his "son" in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. I'm speaking on behalf of the original Japanese release, the fan-translated English version, and all versions of the "re-release" in Subsistence. Thus, since Metal Gear Solid claims that Big Boss told Snake of their relationship in Zanzibarland, which he does not in any way do in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, it's a retcon.

- 75.24.239.189 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear games in chronological order

I added this section after reading the "Time periods of GTA games" in the Grand Theft Auto article. I felt the article for the Metal Gear series deserved a section devoted to citing the time periods of the official canonical games in the series, considering all the "non-canonical sequels and spin-offs." Feel free to alter or delete this section if you feel it doesn't belong or wastes space in an otherwise large article. DT29 20 September 2006

Torture Test

They saying "Ocelot in Metal Gear Solid telling the player that he'll know if the player is using an auto-fire controller during the torture test. He isn't bluffing, for if auto-fire is used, the life gauge will immediately empty" is incorrect. as I have personally used an auto-fire controller for the test and nothing happened (except the life guage being filled as expected from an auto-fire controller). Im gonna change this if noones gonna tell me otherwise

Solid Snake is Old Snake

I deleted the first of the supposed three possibilities of who the younger Snake could be in the trailer, and I'm going to add another. Old Snake is Solid Snake, and this is shown on a wallpaper given out by Kojima Productions themselves! This is shown here: http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/english/pic/dl_img/mgs4_e3/snake_1024.jpg. I'm adding another possibility because the Young Snake could possibly be the result of Snake's new Octocamo, as Snake's gray hair can be seen out of the mask clearly in the trailer before they show the face of Young Snake.

Breaking the fourth wall

If the following can be verified, then it fits the article:

Breaking the fourth wall

In nearly all of the Metal Gear games there has been contact (noticeable or not) with the player. This has made the Metal Gear series somewhat unique in video game history. Examples of breaking the fourth wall include:

• Big Boss calling Solid Snake in Metal Gear after his unmasking as the leader of Outer Heaven telling him to stop the operation and switch off the MSX. This trick was also repeated in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty when the Colonel says to turn off the game console.
• Ocelot in Metal Gear Solid telling the player that he'll know if the player is using an auto-fire controller during the torture test. He isn't bluffing, for if the game detects an impossible number of button inputs, Snake's Life Gauge will immediately empty (some versions of the game may or may not detect rapid-fire, though).
• Dr. Drago Pettrovich Madnar's remark in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake that Dr. Kio Marv was an avid video game fan and played on a MSX, which Solid Snake recognises is "the legendary worldwide computer", adding humourously that apparently "some freaks still use it today". This is also recognised at the end of the game when Colonel Campbell (in possession of an MSX cartridge that Marv hid his secrets in, which Snake found) uses the cartridge in an old MSX he has. The secret is Marv's signature on the boot screen of the system (mirrored as "VRAM 01K" instead of KIO MARV) when Campbell loads it.
• Parts of Psycho Mantis's speech to Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid also break the fourth wall. In both the original PlayStation version and the GameCube remake, Mantis reads the player's memory card and tells the player how well he or she has played the game in a variety of ways. Mantis also comments on other Konami games if their respective save files are detected on the player's memory card. He then asks the player to put the controller on the floor and proceeds to make it 'move', as if through telekinetic power, using the controller's vibration function. Directly after Mantis asks you to put down the controller, Solid Snake turns to the camera and assuringly nods at you.
• Some of the Colonel's confused words of wisdom to Raiden after the infection of GW with Emma Emmerich's virus can also be interpreted as advice to the player.
• After Raiden reencounters Solid Snake inside Arsenal Gear, Snake tells him that he has infinite ammo and points at his bandanna, referencing the Infinite Bandanna item from the first Metal Gear Solid. This could also hint that the ending in which Meryl does not die (in Metal Gear Solid) is the canonical ending, as the player would receive the Infinite Bandanna if they've managed to save Meryl.
• In Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, the player must defeat The Boss and finish the game in order to receive The Boss' "Patriot Pistol" as an additional bonus item at the beginning of the next playthrough. If Snake contacts Sigint, his weapons and technology specialist, during the next playthrough whilst holding the Patriot Pistol, Sigint will ask how Snake came into possession of The Boss' Patriot Pistol if she is still alive and currently using it, herself. Snake will simply tell Sigint that he "Worries too much about the details."

Regards Loudenvier 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Portable Ops - part of MGS3

You should not list Portable Ops as a stand alone installment in the cannon. It uses the MGS3 game engine and as such should be classified as an addition to that installment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.161.203.18 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not a stand-alone game because it uses the same engine? How does that make sense? Portable Ops is not an expansion pack but a stand-alone game, period. 84.134.235.18 10:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it's NOT! Portable Ops was uses the MGS3 game engine (graphics, character models, movements, AI)and as such can't be seen as a stand along title. It is further confirmed so by the Metal Gear SAGA DVD that there are ONLY 6 installments. (both SAGA DVD versions confirm this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it uses an existing engine doesn't define whether or not its a "stand alone" installment whatever that definition may entail. In video game terminology, a "stand-alone" game is a game that does not require any previous game for it to work. For example, Starcraft: Brood War is not a stand-alone game since it requires you to have the original Starcraft game for it to work. Also see Homeworld: Cataclysm. Hence this does not meet your standard of "not a stand-alone" since you do not need MGS3 to play Portable Ops.

Your second argument is anachronistic since _if_ Hideo mentions this in the DVD commentary (I don't have the DVD so I can't verify what he said on the DVD) then you can argue that the DVD was filmed was way before Portable Ops came into existence. So at that point in time 6 is the correct number. Facts change, people change.

Also, this game can't be considered a "spin-off" since it has been explained that this game takes place 6 years after MGS3 so hence it must be "canon" and not a spin-off. Also your last sentence of your edit seems to contradict this whole argument when you say it is a "cannon[sic] spin-off" which really sounds like a big oxymoron.

Finally, this article on PSP IGN literally says the game is canon: a legit Metal Gear Solid game.Strongsauce 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are COMPLETELY wrong on this and I will be happy to prove you wrong on all your points:

Fact 1: MPO was made cannon as a last-minute decision based on the poor sales of the Acid games.

Fact 2: There is such thing as a Cannon Spin-Off.

Fact 3: Both the 2006 US version of the Metal Gear SAGA documentary and the 2007 Japanese version only discuss the main 6 games, without MPO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Game.com

Please include the game.com fact. It is noteworthy of having it. The info is real. Look at the game.com article here at wikipedia. It talks about Metal Gear being planned on it.

Insufficient lead?

Does anyone else think it's too small? Especially as it is the Metal Gear series. Ashnard _Talk 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

MGS Themes

So these are the MGS themes right? Metal Gear Solid 1 - Gene Metal Gear Solid 2 - Meme Metal Gear Solid 3 - Scene Metal Gear Solid 4 - Sense

I find those themes to be very correct. But should there be anything more about it?

Super Smash Bros. Brawl stuff

There's this part that says Snake along with the Shadow Moses Island, Game Over Theme and MGS4 Love Theme are going to be included in SSBB. While Snake and the MGS4 Love Theme are 100% confirmed, I am not sure about Shadow Moses Island and Game Over Theme so, do you think I should remove them until they are confirmed or something? Thanks in advance. Nightmare77 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing them since nobody has disagreed. I will add them when they are 100% confirmed. Nightmare77 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Portable Ops - Expanded Universe

I made a change to the article in regards to what is said in the official MG SAGA documentaries. "The Metal Gear Saga consists of 6 groundbreaking games and series of spin-offs", direct quote. Don't delete it as it is a documented fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New template

I created Template:Metal Gear. It may need some work, but it includes everything on the two current templates, and some articles I thought were useful (like the creators). I'll add it to the main article and hope the editors of the Metal Gear articles will use it, too. I think it's better to have one unified template than two (or three, as I've seen elsewhere).--Nohansen 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While I definitely like the template I think it may/may not open up an old can of worms Strongsauce 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an abridged version? What happened there, how did it turn into one of the "lamest edit wars" ever?--Nohansen 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I wasn't there during the whole affair the only thing I got out of that was A Man In Black did not want MGS4 in the template because at the time there was only a trailer for it. So it involved people trying to get A Man In Black to come to consensus about it. Just a lot of time wasted on trivial things. Strongsauce 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP Changing the Portable Ops info!!!

OK, whoever it is needs to stop changing the Portable Ops info. It is NOT one of the main games, it's a spin-off! 2 official MG documentaries confirm that now. Further more, just like with Star Wars, Metal Gear has 6 main installments that were written and directed by Hideo Kojima. Then, in addition, you have tons of what qualifies as Expanded Universe. Read up on all the material released for Star Wars outside the feature films. This includes shows, comics, and even other movies (which also saw a theater release). To me this shows that people who look at Portable Ops as being on par with the main 6 would have to say that there are 8 Star Wars movies including The Ewok Adventure, later renamed Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure, and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor. But there aren’t, there only 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling MPO part of the "expanded universe" is silly. You also have a talk page which explains to you that you need to stop spamming your own personal Metal Gear Solid website.

You are also using a source, "Metal Gear SAGA" that was released before they even considered making Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops. And the way you edit the section is not up to Wikipedias MOS. You don't cite your references in the main article, you are suppose to use <refs> to valid sources.

Also see here [2] which has IGN stating that it is in fact part of the "official canon." Also see [3] where Ryan Payton calls MPO a direct sequel, and set in the MGS universe. Please stop reverting to your edit and please stop spamming your Metal Gear website in the article. Strongsauce 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Get your facts together instead of arguing with me. The Saga DVD came out in US in March of 2006 and MPO was released only a several months after. As such, they already knew about it since the first official trailer was shown in May 2006. And hell, they talked about the 2008 MGS4 in the DVD as well. Further more, the Japanese version (different content) came out in July 2007, and it left out MPO as well. So instead of fighting with me, why don't you look through the site you so desperately trying to call "spam". You might actually learn something about the series.

Speaking of which, you can use my site as reference for the SAGA DVD. I'll be putting up the Japanese version there soon as well. Check the Supplement Section to get your facts about the official Documentary. There is your MPO source link right there!

First off, there is no need for you to call me an asshole [4] or a dumbass [5].

Second off the DVD was _announced_ in January of 2006 [6] and they probably didn't start filming the DVD in Jan of 2006, they probably had to do most of the filming in 2005. MPO wasn't even announced until May 9, 2006 at E3 2006[7] and not even released until Dec 2006.

The reason they talk about MGS4 is because they have been developing that game for a very long time. In fact a trailer announcing MGS4 was made at E3 2005 [8] which is why they are talking about MGS4 on the DVD.

Also where is your source/verification that the Japanese version had different content? If it had different content does that mean they RE-interviewed Hideo Kojima and then he again said that MPO was not part of the "official canon" ?

Since you just admitted that the website is your own personal website. You are violating WP:EL under Links normally to be avoided Rule #12. Furthermore adding the "Japanese version" of the DVD is just going to further blacklist your site since Wikipedia will not allow sites that redistribute copyrighted work to be linked.

No where in your reply do you bother to comment on the two links I gave you to show you that MPO is an official direct sequel to MGS3. Even an employee who represents Kojima Productions, Ryan Payton, considers MPO to be an official sequel [9].

Strongsauce 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a moron you are! MPO had a trailer out in May of 2006! You better bring more than your "probablies" to this debate, clown! And I never said I will have copyright stuff on my site. If you would bother to look at it instead of just running your mouth like a dick, you will see that I merely talk about what's ON THE DVD. Don't waste my time, and don't change things you know nothing about. Learn aabout the series before you talk to me, fool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.208.7 (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously guys

does it really need to be mentioned that pliskin is solid snake in disguise???

you would have to be sooooo dumb not to realise

--S02178 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)S02178

What's a "pliskin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.116.54 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

pliskin is a character in mgs2

its basically just snake in disguise —Preceding unsigned comment added by S02178 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Iroqoius (sp) Plisken is a reference to Kurt Russell's "Snake" Plisken from the movies "Escape from New York" and "Escape From L.A.". I'm pretty sure that's mentioned somewhere in the various Metal Gear articles. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sons big boss.JPG

Image:Sons big boss.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

unofficial sites

to those who keep posting Metal Gear Forever and Metal Gear Confidential as additional sites, please read WP:EL and WP:FANSITE, because they are NOT official sites. Don't be so damn stubborn as to keep putting them in. I don't want to go edit warring, but it would be appreciated if you never post them again. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the policy yourself. There are not rules stating that a fansite can't be listed as link, labeled as FANSITE. Neither site shows any illegal info or anything that violates the Fansite linking policy. And if you don't belive me, go look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupin_iii

Look at the fansites listed on the buttom of that page. OK? So shut the hell up. No policy is being violate here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing sites that you have been constantly trying to put in since last year are not somehow owned by you or have interest in getting put on the Wikipedia page. Please take a look at Links normally to be avoided #1, #4.

Consider why these sites should be linked and whether any of those two match any of the criteria here What should be linked

Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites which as a guide for most video game articles states: Fansites usually do not qualify as reliable sources. Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source is scattered, but the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source? provide a good summary. When checked against the requirements there, fansites do not pass. They have little to no editorial oversight, and may be self-published (i.e. the person hosting the website is also the one writing its content) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongsauce (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Flame all you want Mr anon, but those fansites are not seeing the light of day here in Wikipedia anytime soon, and please drop the Lupin III-has-fansite-links-so-Metal Gear-must-have-them-as-well argument. It's not working. Take those warnings on your talk page seriously first before you get funny ideas again about another push for those fansites. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I plan on adding more fansites as well as several are used by Konami to gauge Fan Input. This has been confirmed by Ryan Payton in his blogs. So believe me, I'll be adding more. You have no reason, AT ALL for not tollerating them. Fansites tend to be far more informative and up-to-date than Wikipedia. You have yet to prove me why the Lupin III fansites are allowed and the Metal Gear ones are not.

Add any more fansites and I'll arrange an IP ban for you and to have them permanently blacklisted so that you can't even write the URL on Wikipedia. I'll investigate how the Lupin III pages wound up with unverified fan-created material linked to them seperately. Hyperspacey (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't threaten me with a ban. I'll find ways around that, TRUST ME! And I'll give you until Monday to find an explanation for the Lupin Fansite links. If you don't come up with them, I'll put the fansites back on the article. And please do get an admin involved. Maybe he can tell me why is it that some articles on Wikipedia allow fansites while other do not. I will be MORE THAN happy to show you more examples, all over Wikipedia, that show fansite links; all of them are about as credible as the fansites I listed for Metal Gear. I look foward to seeing how you resolve this issue. Frankly though, not exactly sure why it's even an issue. Wikipedia is not official web... it's a fansite in itself. It's a fansite that allows people to add content at will. So, to ban fansites from being posted (under a label FANSITES, which right there states that it is not official web)seems rather hypocritical. But I'll play your game. Get the admin, research why other articles list fansites. I'll check back on Monday and see what you come up with. You don't have to do that... but if you don't give me a valid reason why those fansites can't be listed on the article, they will return on Monday. Have a nice weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online user-editable encyclopedia with CLEARLY defined regulations for content. I'll dig out the appropriate battery of policies assuming you haven't read them all already, but I assure you, the rest of us will be deleting any added fansites long after you get bored of adding them. Also, just because one article has against-policy material does not validate it. There are fansites linked to all over Wikipedia, but that's more an example of the failure to reach a concensus over policy and implementing it than them being valid for addition. As a rule, fansites cannot be vetted for validity or importance for inclusion, whichm eans we either all people to include every damn fansite they want or have a blanket ban on them. Hyperspacey (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, while the Lupin fansites are among the most complete documents and resources on the Web for the films, the MGS fansites are something of a bad joke. The Snake Soup is basically Ravi Singh's private blog with a forum on it, MGC hasn't been updated in three months and doesn't even mention MGS4, MGForever is badly in need of updating. At a stretch The Unofficial Site could be included due to its good design, conciseness and completeness, but even then it's a Google search away from discovery. There's no point posting five websites up that list exactly the same information in descending order of usefulness. Hyperspacey (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe you should try visiting the site prior to passing judgement. Unoficial site has all the latest MGS news and updates on the weekly Payton blogs. The Snake Soup has a lot of great articles that fans enjoy that further enhance the MG expericen. Metal Gear Forever needs updates? LOL! It has more Metal Gear content than Wikipedia. What exactly is in "badly" need of?! And MGC... well, I gotta give you that one. But it does have some good downloads. You may want to look at those sites before running your big mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, a few pointers. Firstly, redundancy. If someone wants to know what's in, say, Ryan Payton's podcast there's a link to his podcast page in the article already. We don't need a link to a page summarising his podcasts. Secondly, does the site provide useful information? Having an epic number of MGS-themed downloads or lots of fanwritten discussion does not make a site a useful resource for linking to in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has links where the site linked to provides useful additional detail- NOT TO ENHANCE THE "MG EXPERIENCE". Hence why fansites rarely cut it and only well constructed information resources do. And even then you only need the one, best resource if you're including anything. So, at a stretch TUS makes the cut. Every other site has pretty much the same info arranged differently. Hyperspacey (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could give you that one, well pointed out. Though if you are looking at content, I don't really see how you would take TUS of Snake Soup of MGF. Both MGF and The Soup offer a lot more actual factual information. For example, MGF has a lot addition information to the game's developments and othe various events, like the 20th Anniversary Party. Something that even Wikipedia does not offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that information about the 20th Anniversary Party would be at best a passing note in any Metal Gear Solid entry. E.g. The first playable instance of MGS4 shown was at the MGS 20th Anniversary Party which even so is not very encyclopedic or in synch with Wikipedia's policies.

For several months I have been following this guy (63.161.203.12) as he attempted to both add these two links and attempt to argue that MGSPO was not part of Metal Gear canon. His additions to the articles where never very encyclopedic and he attempts to always revert several editors UNDOs of his changes before engaging in any type of discussion at all. See all the edits he has made[10] and almost every single time it is for these two specific websites. Also he doesn't even attempt to get a consensus with other Editors on this issue and just starts flaming them if they don't agree. See his arguments about PO: here , here, and here.

Also I don't really believe his intentions for adding this aren't for his own personal gain of having those pages listed. Maybe I'm wrong but someone who doesn't have an interest in this would have just given up trying to add those links Strongsauce (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You do bring up good points, however, I think you're missing something. I browsed over the sites again, and they are offering a lot of great visuals. From rare screenshots to full art galleries. That's something that a mostly-text Wikipedia does not have. Looking at say MGF, I saw an early development screen of MGS1, or artwork of the MGS3 Shagohod that I've never seen before. In Ghost Babel apperently you can find the wreckage of the original Metal Gear tank from MG1. I had no idea. But the side shows the screen of it. That's just to name a few from MGF. Then you got the Unofficial site, massive galleries and tons of scans of stuff I've never seen. Music downloads (legal) and game clips. The information amount on that site is realitively weak compared to MGF, but it does offer a lot of other cool things I found. Snake Soup... yes, mostly opinions. So I may have to agree with you on that. But I still believe that there is some degree of value to at least a couple of those. Things that Wikipedia does not have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's MONDAY! I read over your discussions and also checked the LUPIN III page. So now instead of "fansites" it says "For Additional Information". So I tell you what, I want to see at least 2 sites added to the article as they seem to be fitting under the "For Additional Information" description. Metal Gear FOREVER and Metal Gear Solid The Unofficial Site. Reply to this, as I do plan on adding the two to the page today. Give me reasons (good and valid ones) not to. If the Lupin page can say "For Additional Information" and list 2 fansites (one all about content, basically a Lupin verion of MGF, and one all about news,basically a Lupin version of TUS) I see NO REASON at all not to list them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been very rude, demanding, and very uncivil in your discussions. Please stop using the Lupin III page as justification for linking these sites. You have tried adding these links on several occassions and have been shot down by several different editors. If you do not see "NO REASON" at all not to list them it is because you are basically ignoring the editors here.

In cases of dispute like this Wikipedia policies dictate that you come to a consensus with other editors before you put in changes that have been disputed. In general, fansites are not allowed (because they often not satisfy the requirements to be linked) and if another page has fansites that it is up to the editors who watch over that page whether or not they should be allowed or if they violate external links policy. Furthermore, many of these sites also fail this policy: Linking to copyrighted works, as I can see that the METAL GEAR confidential site you linked to contains scanned copyrighted artwork. If that is what you consider the "unique" material that is not provided on Wikipedia, then your argument falls flat there.

Note also at the very top of the Wikipedia Policy on External links,

Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

In short, many of these fansites don't meet the criteria of inclusion as an external link since they don't offer anything Wikipedia worthy that is 1) not violating copyright 2) unable to be included into the wikipedia article due to some circumstance. Please stop bringing this topic back up as many editors who are watching this page will just revert your edits and possibly have to bring in an admin and waste his time.

For the record so you do not weasel your way out of saying no one disapproves of you adding these links, I disapprove of adding the links on the basis of those pages violating copyright, possible COI with the person and these some of these fan pages, and just failing the requirements of meeting external links policy Strongsauce (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you STILL avoid giving me a valid reason why the Lupin fansites are allowed. You are bluntly ignoring this because frankly you do not have a just reason. Further more, you brought up Confidential... fine. What about Metal Gear Forever? There are pleanty of things on it, information and visuals, that are not found on Wikipedia. The site violates no copyrights at all. What about The Unofficial Sites? The music and art screen galleries are something that is not offered on Wikipedia and non of that content violates any copyrights. Answer me these 3 questions please:

1. Why is the Lupin III fansites allowed and the Metal Gear ones are not when the level of content is very similar? 2. Why doesn't the Unofficial Site meet the fansite requirement when it offers a lot of non-informational media for further series understanding? 3. Why doesn't Metal Gear Forever meet the fansite requirment when it offers inormation and visuals that are not found on Wikipeida that furthers series understanding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also looked at the Link Policy. Let's take MGF as an example and run it through the list:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader? Yes. Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes, you get information that is not found on Wikipedia as well as a lot of visuals to support that information. Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Yes. The site has been around since 2001 and is the oldest operation Metal Gear fansite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well? What, you guys got no answer to that? You see! I've proven to you that the fansites do belong there. Perhaps not all of the ones I listed, but at least 2 of them. Still waiting answers to my questions... assuming you can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think almost all the editors have posted some link of some kind that have already provided answers to your questions. Lupin III, falls under Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of your arguments for inclusion fall under, Fansites are not reliable sources. Strongsauce (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! You have not explained a site like MGF is not a reliable source. Does it have content that Wikipedia does not? YES. Is there any Copyright violations? NO. Is it any different in content that the Lupin Fansites? NO. What is your basis of the argument. You keep showing me the policy... and I don't see how MGF (or even TUS for that matter) violates it. Explain that to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems we are bogged down on moot points and details now so this will probably be my last post on the subject. I don't know how else to tell you other than to read those sections. Wikipedia should not be a repository of links and fansites should not be added just for the sake of adding them. All you need to know are provided in those links that other Editors and I have posted under this discussion:

Fansites are not notable and not a RS with very few exceptions that none of the sites (except maybe TUS) qualify for. They are just not notable in regards to the article subject. For example, Hideo Kojima's personal blog would be something that could be added as an EL (ignoring the fact that his blog is not a fansite) because the reasoning is is that his site is notable because he is the creator of the series. MGF would not qualify because it is not notable in regards to the subject matter. Being the oldest Metal Gear site (if that could even somehow be verified) does not make it an automatic inclusion into the article's contents. Just because a site may or may not have information that is not on Wikipedia does not mean that it is a valid link to place in the External links section.

Just because something exists does not mean that it is notable or should be on Wikipedia.

Also of note, in the future please sign your postings by adding ~~~~ per WP:SIG at the end of your posts so SineBot does not have to do it for you. Strongsauce (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

This page hasn't been archived in ~2 years. Any objection to letting MiszaBot handle this? Strongsauce (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but leave out the most recent ones. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear for MSX2?

I remember playing Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 on the MSX (not MSX2). Is the information that both games were released for MSX2 correct? Daniel3ub (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph needs cleaning up extensively. The part sentence a few lines down describing Metal Gear as

'usually a bipedal walking tank with nuclear launching capabilities'. I'm sure a much better description can be used and surely the word 'usually' falls under 'Weasel Words' or 'Glittering Generality'.

The sentence:

'The series is famous for its lengthy cinematic scenes and intricate storylines as well as its exploration of the nature of politics, warfare, censorship, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, loyalty, reality, subjective vs. universal "truths" and various other philosophical themes.'

is too convoluted, I'm sure it's ok to just to mention the overall themes of the game, such as memes, genes and scene, and possible mention all this later. --Uwaisis (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)