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)

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. --Anddo (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Problem: Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance is a spin-off game (clearly not a "main game")and should be listed as such, even though it's canon. If you'd like to see Rising listed along the other Canon games, simply change the sections into Canon/Non-canon.91.23.186.86 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Check out ign; they call it a spin off: http://www.ign.com/wikis/metal-gear-rising-revengeance

Check out gametrailers: they call it a spin-off: http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/25895/metal-gear-rising-revengeance-slashing-into-stores-this-february

Check out this site. I don't know how reliable they are, but they are even saying something about outside the main series canon. THough I'm sure they did not mean continuity canon, more like what I'm trying to say: http://www.giantbomb.com/metal-gear-rising-revengeance/61-26801/

Rising is a spin-off. It's not part of the main series. Even though it's canon. The listing as it is now is wrong. I suggest to either keep Rising within the spin-off section or simply rename the sections "Canon/ Non-Canon". Problem solved.91.23.186.86 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, in this interview Kojima himself (!!) not only calls rising a spin-off, but also seperates it from the "Mainstream" series, which will continued with Ground Zeroes: http://me.ign.com/en/feature/7036/Hideo-Kojima-Talks-MGR-FOX-Engine-and-Phantom-Pain?mobile=1

The template, as it is now, is false! It should EITHER keep to the Main/ Spin-off categories and adjust Rising's listing accordingly OR rename the sectioning into Canon/ Non-canon and keep Rising, but also include any other game that might turn out to be canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.101.184 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, on the Metal Gear Wiki, take a look at the section on MPO's stance in canon: http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Portable_Ops#Stance_in_the_canon

Now, it still is canon, but also, according to this site, Kojima stated, that MPO also is a spin-off and not part of the Main series, dispite being canonical. Now, of course, the actual source of that statement should be found and referenced. But if it can, MPO should also be put under the spin-off section as well.79.204.101.184 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations

The navbox is getting saturated with the words "Metal Gear" and "Metal Gear Solid" and is starting to look like a wall of the same words. I think we should discuss moving back to an abbreviated format for sequels, spin-offs, and other games.

My suggestions:

1. First in a title series (Metal Gear/Solid/Rising) gets the full name (Metal Gear Solid)
2. Subsequent Sequels that use a colon should have the main title abbreviated and the subtitle displayed in full (MGS2: Sons of Liberty)
3. Non-numbered colon titles should omit the "pre-title" and just use the subtitle (Portable Ops)
4. Non-colon titles should use the entire name (Metal Gear Online)
5. Non-canon games with colons should also be just the subtitle, since that's likely to be the more common name (Ghost Babel)
6. Series with their own lines and headers are open to whatever works best (Metal Gear Acid)

Of course there would be exceptions as something like Metal Gear - MG2: Solid Snake - Metal Gear Solid - MGS2: Sons of Liberty could be confusing to some, but overall I think it would clean up the navbox and focus more on making the links easier to navigate.

Thoughts? _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 02:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this for now. --Anddo (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem with abbreviations is that they're inconsistent and require something as complicated as the 6 rules you've made above to govern them. Navboxes are for the common reader who may not know what certain abbreviations mean and hinder the ultimate purpose of a navbox: easy navigation. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Let's reach a consensus right now. I'll revert it.--Anddo (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately having about half the text repeated is just as hindering, and that's my big issue with the current setup. Considering that there is no common rule for the current titling and subtitling, I doubt there will be one rule for abbreviations. For instance there are currently Metal Gear titles, Metal Gear Solid titles, Metal Gear Acid titles, non-MGS titles, MGS-but-not-sequel titles, Metal Gear Rising title, and multiple games with the same subtitle (MGS Mobile and MGA Mobile). I think that the best approach would be to figure out what's the most self explanatory way to condense the titling. Using headers (Acid series) works well as does using the more common name (Ghost Babel), but I also think abbreviating sequels works too. It's not too difficult to a certain what those abbreviations stand for. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with th1rt3en. Writing ut the full title everytime seems cumbersome. I think sectioning would work pretty good. Similar to what we've done at the List of Media Site. Having a canon section, divided into the numbered games, unnumbered games and a non-canon section.79.204.101.184 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So further suggesting this for the first box:

Metal Gear - MG2: Solid Snake - Metal Gear Solid (The Twin Snakes) - MGS2: Sons of Liberty - MGS3: Snake Eater - Portable Ops - MGS4: Guns of the Patriots - Peace Walker - Ground Zeroes - Metal Gear Rising

I think that MG/MGS is really self explanatory. "MGS:" can go with PO, PW, and GZ if that would keep things more consistent, but I think that only using it for the numbered games better emphasizes those games. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm okay with this. --Anddo (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, and then with the next section:

Snake's Revenge - Ghost Babel - Metal Gear Solid Mobile - Metal Gear Online - Metal Gear Solid Touch - Metal Gear Arcade - Social Ops

It's a bit tricky with the switching between MG and MGS, but we could also do: Mobile, Online, Touch, Arcade. Or: MGS Mobile, MG Online, MGS Touch, MG Arcade.

And with the Acid series, since it has its own header: Metal Gear Acid, - 2 - Mobile

Suggestions? Thoughts? _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to do with the spin-off section, but to be honest I think it should be left alone. I don't really have a problem with abbreviating them too but the issue at hand is only really affecting the "Main games" since there are numerous titles in the category, and leaving them as "Metal Gear Solid" all the time is indeed repetitive. But the spin-offs... eh, not so much. I don't really oppose the idea, but I feel as if the spin-offs are just better looking as-is. --Anddo (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll just change the main series's games for now. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Canon/Non-Canon vs. Main/Spin-off

Since Rising gets pushed around a little these days, here is the matter: whether a game is part of the canon or not doesn't mean that it is a spin-off or main title. Kojima himself stated several times that Rising is a spin-off and not part of the main series (see references in the entries of the section Metal Gear Rising listing). Therefore, for Rising to be listed as a Main Game is factually wrong. Why can't the sections be canon/ non-canon? Then you could have Rising in the Canon section together with the Main Series games. However, if you want to keep Main/Spin-off, stick with it and make it right and do not include spin-offs as main games, please. Otherwise the list is biased and factually wrong.87.177.85.86 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's because the current consensus is to treat "Main" as meaning "Canon (and remakes)", and "Spin-off" as meaning "Non-canon, supplemental, and spin-off games" more or less. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough. So why not rename the sections as precisely that?87.177.69.230 (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think, that sounds reasonable. If no one opposes, it should be done.87.171.180.94 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the canon/non-canon change. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 02:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it then. Since there appears to be consensus about that.87.177.64.129 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This should be kept as Canon Vs. Non-Canon. It helps people understand such a long, tedious timeline alot easier, especially for those who don't know the series.

I'm against the "Canon/Non-Canon" classification. It implies that the only important aspect of these games are the storylines and nothing else. MGR is a sequel to MGS4 in the same sense that Super Mario Kart is a sequel to Super Mario World. Sure, MGR is set four years after MGS4, set in the same continuity and has Raiden as the protagonist, but it's a completely different game from the mainline Metal Gear titles and made by a separate studio with its own creative staff. MGS PW and MGSV are more natural follow-ups to MGS4 in the sense that they're still stealth action games and produced by the same staff.

MPO's case is a bit more complicated, I guess you could make a strong case as to why it should be considered a main title, since Konami practically promoted it as such during its release. However, MPO was produced by a separate team within KP (as Kojima outlines in this presentation), it's not included in Truth timeline hosted by KP's websites (which only lists seven titles in Kojima's Metal Gear canon) and even Kojima himself has gone to declare it that MPO is a spinoff/side-story, which implies it's not an essential game in the series. MPO was also a vastly different game from the mainline titles (even compared to PW), with a system more focused more around online play, and production values were very low compared to the other games. Jonny2x4 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I'm against the whole "Main" heading because it's very ambiguous. Why does being canon not count as being 'main' while at the same time there are no non-canon 'main' games? What specifically defines a 'main' game? Is there a consensus for it?

The use of Canon is better, in my opinion, because it's easily defined, understood, and navigated within. Someone interested in canonicity can easily jump between games in the full navigation template. The idea that the template implies what's important for a game is irrelevant because the point of the template is navigation, not some sort of rating system. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've always been against using the word "Canon" in anything, especially navigation templates. The term reeks of fanboyism, cruftiness, and lack of professionalism. At least with "main" vs. "other", it's a firm editorial decision and you're not hiding behind scraps of quotes to support your "rightness". Axem Titanium (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Then what constitutes as a "main" addition to the series? And is that easily identifiable by users and editors? Perhaps there are enough links that it constitutes a total redesign of the template rather than just separating games into two poorly defined sections. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 03:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, it seems pretty clear that Kojima Productions' current canon identifies seven games as the main entries in the Metal Gear series, which are the games covered in the "Truth" timeline and included in The Legacy Collection (the two MSX2 games, MGS1 through 4, and Peace Walker, in other words all the games directed by Kojima). Add the upcoming MGSV to that count and that makes up eight main entries. Portable Ops seems to be considered semi-canon nowadays (it's only mentioned as a footnote in the Truth timeline, Sean Eyestone said it was not a main entry, Kojima himself considers it to be a side-story/spinoff and most tie-in products have been omitting it). Even the new issue of Action Game Side has a retrospective that only covers the eight Kojima games, with a bonus article about Rising and how it departs from the stealth action system of the main series in favor of a sword fighting one. Jonny2x4 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The debate of whether Metal Gear Rising should be considered a "main" game is tricky. Most of the other spin-offs didn't receive such a large amount of marketing. MGR got TV commercials, posters alot of merchandise and it was one of the most hyped games of the year. Not only that, it has a soundtrack that's been released through most of the main music outlets. Even though it was developed by a different studio and has a different style of gameplay, it's still part of the main storyline and has the potential to be referenced in any future MGS game that might take place in the future. That's just my opinion though. I'm not sure if the people who are insisting on classing at a spin-off is just against the games existence in the first place, but we need to be logical about it.

Snake's Revenge, Portable Ops, Peace Walker and the numbered Metal Gear Solid games

Is it possible to put Snake's Revenge in the canonical spin-off games since it is set 3 years after the events of Metal Gear even though Hideo Kojima had no involvement in that game whatsoever? Also, can we count Portable Ops and Peace Walker as canonical spin-off games to the main series since Peace Walker has the same style and gameplay Portable Ops has even though Hideo Kojima had no involement in Portable Ops? Also, will it be easier to put the numbered Metal Gear Solid games only in the main series as well as the two early Metal Gear games since MGSV: The Phantom Pain is on the way? 86.142.117.246 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because Snake's Revenge contains a reference to the original Metal Gear doesn't mean it's canonical – Metal Gear 2 made it pretty clear that Snake's Revenge is no longer in continuity. Ghost Babel is set seven years after Metal Gear, but no one ever tries to work that one into the series's chronology. —Flax5 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Snakes Revenge is not canonical. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake was developed parallel to SR and completely branches off storywise. None of the other games ever reference anything from SR storywise, Big Boss never was a robocop like cyborg etc. Keep in mind that the story described in Snakes Revenges Manual is not the story within the game itself. So any mention of Ayatolla being the bad guy of the the game is simply false. I agree that Portable Ops should fit into the canonical spin off section. But I think Peace Walker should be included in the main series. While it is not a numbered installment, there are a cpuple of the things to be noted. 1. Hideo Kojima has developed the game himself together with the team from MgS4; many of those have been working on every other installment in the main series. It's not like Portable Ops, wheere the B Crew was working on the game with vague and supervisorial input by kojima and other key staff members. 2. Gameplay wise the game evolvves from MGS4. The mechanics are very similar, but for the comarade system and motherbase. While portable ops had similiar features, they were not as refined and polished as in peace walker. Also this system apparently will carry over to MGSV. 3. The game was about to be given the 5 in the title. It was obly for being a psp game, that it wasn't numbered. 4. The story and many of its characters are immediately picked up by MGSV. Unlike Portable Ops, where the events were only vaguely alluded at in MGS4. here many characters introduced in PW will play important roles in MGSV and Big Boss makes a giant leap in his developement from his naked snake persona to his Bog Boss persona. Unlike MPO where he was still pretty much Solid Snake 2.0. Peace Walker, while not being a game in the numbered series, should be included in the main series. Portable Ops belongs rigtfully in the canonical spin offs section. Whereas Snake's Revenge should not be associated with the terms "canonical" or "main series". 87.177.124.231 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth thinking about organising the games by storyline/character, similar to Template:Assassin's Creed? That might help bypass the confusion over whether certain games should be considered "main" or "spin-offs". —Flax5 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that. Why don't we section things based on names and/or related gameplay? Since we can't agree on using 'canon' or 'main'. For instance:

Including Ghost Babel and Snake's Revenge under Metal Gear because they both serve as alternate sequels and have similar gameplay to the original series. Touch could also be included with Online and Arcade. Thoughts? _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Per the Assassin's Creed template, I was thinking something more along the lines of this. There really are a lot of ways this could be handled. —Flax5 22:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the way it's been done by splitting the games by series e.g. "Solid series" and "Rising series" etc. That breaks the Metal Gear franchise down quite well and makes things a lot clearer. However, I think it might be a an idea to name Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 as "early games" as calling them "Metal Gear" games might cause confusion. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidsnake1211 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No real opinion on the "early games" idea, whatever we decide on works for me. I like Flax's template though I worry that not having the numbered games sequential might hinder navigation. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this discussion. I really disliked the version that was live so I reverted it. It had way too many short lines with two or fewer links, it implied weird things like the possible existence of future Rising games (for example), and the contents of the "Metal Gear games" sublist was just strange (Snake's Revenge AND Ghost Babel in the same line?). Flax5's version is slightly better but it also suffers from being supremely confusing for new readers. Whereas Assassin's Creed games are all released sequentially, Metal Gear's timeline makes numbering go all over the place. As a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter, I would ask "why does the first line skip MGS3? Why is MGS2 all the way down there? I've heard of the Metal Gear Solid series but what is the 'Big Boss series'?" It's important to remember that the MAIN purpose of a navigation box is navigation and extensive hemming and hawwing about what is "canonical" or "deserves to be a main game" ultimately hurt the understanding of the end user. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just keep it simple and use something like the one below?:)

I don't disagree with this division into these three lists, but your use of the term "chronological" is confusing to me. Chronological generally refers to putting them in fictional chronological order, which is what Template:Metal Gear chronology does. I wouldn't be opposed to this organization if we come up with a better word than "chronological". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many good suggestions here. However, I would like to point out that the Metal Gear series is an unparalleled author-driven series. Hideo Kojima like no other has maintained a huge amount of creative control over the series whereas other game series have changed the people in there staff. The Resident Evil creator was only directly involved with the remake and Resident Evil 4. In western games you sometimes have different staffs working in the main series, such as in Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed (Assassin's Creed III was already in developement, when Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Revelations were made). As I was saying, Kojima Productions themselves seem to agnowledge that, as the upcomin Legacy collection only contains the 7 Kojima-helmed games, the aforementioned timeline, and so on. I think the Kojima helmed Projcts should be highlighted above the other games.

The Other (provisional) Games section could then be divided into chronological and non-chronological games. Twin Snakes could also be moved to the other games section, since it was build from the ground up (unlike MGArcade, which as a port) with little involvement of Kojima. But it might create confusion, because it's a remake....

91.23.180.114 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to suggest, to add Snake's Revenge as a related game, as it is not really part of the series. No involvement of Kojima at all. It is an unofficial sequel. 91.23.180.114 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)