Talk:Metal Gear/Archive 3

Don't see the point

I fail to see the point in having a feature that allows us to edit pages if those Legit edits are defaulted, Due to "claims" they aren't sourced or reliable, even though facts are presented as clear as day, A bit like the edit I added 3 times on this article about how David was giving us an update on how things are progressing in the movie of MGS, well sorry that its a YT video but thats the only place it has it on, I fail to see how you class something out of the mouth of the actor who is in the damn games as nonfactual or otherwise, people spend hours trying to help this site only to have their legit edits removed.

This is what I wrote

In April 2009, David was interviewed about the movie and he claimed that he had been in talks with Hideo and Mike Deluca and said that things are "much better" than it was back when David's script was rejected. He said he would love to be involved and he is ralling to change the idea of the film to CG Only.

I'm afraid that this is the only source as it was done by a game video interviewing website which does not do text articles. I mean come on if your going to nitpick then disable editing for members or guests because we don't spend hours looking for stuff for here only to be shoved aside by so called "experts" Everything more or less on this website is opinionated. Barretto24(talk) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

'Don't see the point?' Then get out of wikipedia and go to some fansite. Bloody whiner. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Barretto, i'm sorry you haven't gotten a civil response.
  While it does pay to become familiar with policies such V, what we respect is not expertise per se.
  I, for instance (like Rush Limbaugh) know i'm an expert on everything (tho, unlike me, he is of course mistaken). But my expertise doesn't buy me diddly-squat except when i have a source that backs me up.
  What we're trying to do is not to organize everything on the Web that we're convinced is true -- Google comes as close as can be hoped at that, and we can't replace it -- but to organize established knowledge. Journalism is "the first draft of history", but we aren't journalists, and we run in a pack that is far behind theirs. Why we do is not a simple matter, but V is one of our oldest and firmest policies. It doesn't make everyone flock to edit here, but enough of us do, and the policies work well enough that we're Wikipedia, not any of the other *pedias you can think of, nor are they WP.
  That doesn't make jerks of the other 'pedias, nor of those who don't edit here, but WP does better at being what it is than any candidate to replace it. Things do change, but V is not likely to be one of them.
  --Jerzy•t 08:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  

Rising

metal gear solid rising is not part of the main series. even kojima himself has said this. also to clarify kojima himself has said that metal gear solid peace walker is metal gear solid 5. so if you could fix that it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.199.79 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make that edit yourself? --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Metal Gear (series)" vs. "Metal Gear"

Re Metal Gear (series) and Metal Gear

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no objections; moved Stifle (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Metal Gear (series) → Metal Gear — Since the launch of the first game Metal Gear has developed into a wide series consisting of numerous games, a sub-series, novels and graphic novels. Thus Metal Gear is now more commonly referred to as a series rather than as simply the first game. The move is also supported by the disambiguation section of the naming conventions for the series. Hence the first game should be moved to Metal Gear (video game) and the series page should be moved to Metal Gear. An example of how this has been done before is that Final Fantasy directs to the series page while the first game, Final Fantasy is under Final Fantasy (video game) KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Metal Gear → Metal Gear (video game)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reversal of move

The duly performed move discussed above was reversed a week or so later, without comment, by a editor who edit-summarized, puzzlingly, and dismissively twd colleagues,

moved Metal Gear to Metal Gear (series) over redirect: I don't agree with this move at all

(Apparently that colleague didn't stop to think about the meaning of "this", as it appears a coherent summary would have referred to, e.g.,

the previous move in the opposite direction from this one

thus using "this" to refer to "what i am doing right now" and to "the action to which this summary will be attached".)
Reasonable collegiality, a requirement for Linus's Law to do its job, entails that when an action is approved via discussion on a relevant talk page and carried out by consensus, its reversal is subject to similar scrutiny. (In particular, in the spirit of AfD discussion policy, ""Ah don' like it!" is not a reason, and ignoring it is justified.) I will restore the consensus-based move if requested before reasonable progress has been made toward retroactive consensus for the current situation.
--Jerzy•t 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My reasons for supporting the move are stated above. Apart from Final Fantasy several other game series articles adopt the same format namely, Kingdom Hearts, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, Onimusha, Ace Attorney, Monster Rancher and Shin Megami Tensei: Persona. KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the move, and continue to lack an opinion; I simply moved in accordance with an uncontested request. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Argument against the move

I was the one who made the decision to move back the "series" article to Metal Gear (series). First of all, I dislike the whole "popularity contest" mentality behind the decision to move the Metal Gear 1 article to Metal Gear (video game), but have Metal Gear (series) moved to Metal Gear. Wikipedia users who edit video game articles give preference to series over first installments for some reason and I always disagreed with that idea. Most film-based articles, with few exceptions, give preference to the original film in the series (like Terminator, and Die Hard) and then include a disambiguation notice at the beginning of the article for the rest of the franchise. The same thing applies to novels. When I search for a title,

Per review of the relevant diffs result, the immediately preceding unfinished sentence is thus in the edit that added that 'graph and the succeeding two, and not a mutilation by a later edit.^{--Jerzy•t 10:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)}

Yes, I know there are video game franchises that have the main title redirect to a franchise article, but some of the examples mentioned are not good ones. The first games in the Ace Attorney and Onimusha series respectively were Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney and Onimusha: Warlords. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona is another bad example, since the first game was titled Revelations: Persona in English and Megami Ibunroku Persona in Japanese and only the sequels and remakes were titled "Shin Megami Tensei: Persona". The first game in the Uncharted series was Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. The first installments of all those series I've mentioned don't share a completely common title with their sequels at all since they also had subtitles that distinguished them from later installments. As far as counter-examples are concerned, I could mention Metroid and Super Mario Bros. (both first installments in which the sequels are arguably more popular titles). At the very least, Metal Gear 1 should have redirect to Metal Gear (video game) and not Metal Gear (series) and the editor making the move overlooked that.

The following struck-thru material is not only a non sequitur for most readers, but is also off-topic on this talk page.^{--Jerzy•t 10:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)}

As for me claiming ownership of the article, not at all. That's just putting words in my mouth. However, [E]ditors who make great contribution to an article should be informed when there's a decision to move an article, but that's just my opinion. There was no real vote against or in favor of the move, so there's no real consensus at all. I'm going to bring the subject at WP:VG to know what they think.
Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

One small point, I don't think Super Mario Bros. is a good counterexample. The reason the series page is not at that title is that not all the games in the series use Super Mario Bros so the series article is at Mario (series). If ever game in the series was at Super Mario. Bros the series article could very well have been called Super Mario Bros. You have also not explained why you are not counting other relevant discussions such as Final Fantasy, Kingdom hears, ect that set a precident for this move.--76.69.170.230 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to have a disambiguation at Metal Gear when it only concerns a few articles from the same series. Metal Gear is a series with more than 3 games as well as other related media, so per WP:VG naming guideines it should be the main article. It's not a popularity contest so much as Metal Gear (video game) is part of the Metal Gear series. And as for Metal Gear (weapon), it could arguably be merged with Metal Gear (series) due to its in-universe nature.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• You've heard from 2 admins that your claim -- that the move you refer to in this section's title was procedurally wrong -- is unfounded. There's now in progress a reconsideration of that move, on its merits, and based on 7 years experience as an admin, i counsel all involved that

distracting attention from the arguments on the merits (as opposed to procedural issues) for the configuration one prefers, by arguing closed procedural matters, does one's own position a disservice, since the cogency of the argument counts at WP and its bulk does not.

--Jerzy•t 10:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• • In that case, feel free to move Metal Gear (series) back to Metal Gear. I'll admit I overreacted a bit over the page move. At the time, I wasn't aware there was a trend to give naming preferences to series over first installments. While I don't necessarily agree with that idea, if the WP:VG guidelines supports, I guess I got no choice but to support it. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page need to be moved

The article was successfull moved but the talk page is still at Metal Gear (series) can someone please move it to Talk:Metal Gear which is current a redirect to the talk page for the first game thus making it the page people will go to when they hit the discussion tab on the series article.--76.66.188.97 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The move announced in the only edit of this IP clearly refers to the 2010-02-22 15:46:20 one renaming Metal Gear (series) to Metal Gear. Examination of the deleter's contribs & the deleted revisions shows that a participant in this discussion tagged the Dab Metal Gear with

{{db-move|Metal Gear (series)|Unnecessary disambiguation - only differentiates between articles in a single series.}}

and that the move was done with deletion of the existing 6 revisions of Metal Gear.
The use of that tag inherently stated that the deletion constituted "Uncontroversial maintenance..." and more specifically that the deletion is needed for "performing [an] uncontroversial page [move]". That user may have been too ignorant of Dab to realize what "unnecessary disambiguation" means, but they knew (or were reckless if they did not) that the proposed move was controversial, and knew or should have known that an admin would not grant a db-move unless misled about the fact that a discussion of the naming of the pages in question was in progress.
I am reverting the rename (i.e., i am renaming Metal Gear back to Metal Gear (series) and undeleting the revious revisions of the Dab Metal Gear, of course without prejudice to the questions that are the subject of the current discussion. I am not going to the one to call the result of that discussion, but don't imagine that its process can be bypassed with impunity.
--Jerzy•t 07:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Just for clarity of the muddied record, the archive that was until a few moments ago Talk:Metal Gear/Archive 1 spent the 14 months prior to the recent move at Talk:Metal Gear (series)/Archive 1. Since that Dab pg is a new page this month and has always been a Dab, it seems clear the archive was stranded there in a botched move, and i have just moved it to Talk:Metal Gear (series)/Archive 1 where it plausibly may belong.
--Jerzy•t 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it disambiguated?

It seems pointless. That there happens to be two other articles that use this name, one of which being an in-universe object that only fans would recognize, the other being one of the less notable entries in the series [I'd venture to say that the four Metal Gear Solid titles far surpass it in notability], I don't understand why a series that has only grown in popularity since Metal Gear Solid must be kept disambiguated to avoid confusion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

EXPANDED UNIVERSE

Would it make sense to categorize some games as EXPANDEd UNIVERSE? Portable Ops, Peace Walker, and Rising take place between existing chapters and have all the qualities of Expanded Universe material. Plus, unlike the main 6 games, they are not numbered. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don´t see how this would improve the article. We have a section that discusses the games and we have a section about the storyline and each game's place in the continuity. Is information really needed on which games are considered the core installments and which just filler? 87.174.214.131 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Archive 1 on a similar discussion. That didn't prosper, and proposing certain installments in the series as 'expanded universe' material is ludicrous at best. What matters is many of the games have been recognized as canonical. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Games Section

Updated Games Section to include info on the hand-held games. I also suggest to change/ trim the last paragraph with all the information about a goods page, Peace Walker and Rising. Peace Walker is out. Also, to avoid any redundant discussions, I tried to avoid terms like "main series" and "spin-offs" as they are unclear and everyone has hins own preconception on what is what. 87.174.217.130 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Axem Titanium (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Metal Gear (series) → Metal Gear

• Per the final result of the above discussion, it seems like there are no more objectors to this move. Mostly procedural, but just for show, the reason to move is that the series as a whole has overtaken the popularity of its first title so the series article should occupy the base space, per WP:VG guidelines. Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Axem Titanium (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• See All pages with titles containing Metal Gear. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What are you getting at? Even if there are 80+ articles with "Metal Gear" in the title, you don't think the series from which all of them are derived is the most important? Axem Titanium (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I have changed page Metal Gear into a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support move per precedent at Street Fighter, Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy – the latter of which is a featured article. AJCham 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  And per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games): If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)". AJCham 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portable Ops is noncanon. Sections should be updated.

“Peace Walker” was released with the same “missing link” advertisement slogan as MPO. It has a very similar plot structure and setting; Big Boss getting over his trauma of killing the Boss while building a unit in Central America to fight the CIA and their creation of Metal Gear. On top of everything two key parts of MPO, Gene’s funds and two Metal Gear prototypes, are completely omitted in MPW. All evidence points to the fact that “Peace Walker” and “Portable Ops” can’t exist in the same timeline. Here is more evidence:

> The beginning of MPW summarizes the events of MGS3, recapping how Snake saved the world from a nuclear war by assassinating The Boss and was given the title of Big Boss. It states that he disappeared after the award ceremony. The events of MPO are not mentioned in this forward even though during that mission Big Boss prevented a nuclear strike on the United States. This is the first indication that MPO is no longer canon as Metal Gear games always reference the events of previous installments. > At the start of MPW Big Boss is stationed with his “Soldiers Without Borders” in Columbia. Their base is a broken-down shack with a leaky roof. Miller confirms during the opening scene that they really need the money to expand and build a solid base. This conflicts the ending of MPO where the main antagonist Gene gives Big Boss a record of all the funds, personnel, and equipment he had to build Army’s Heaven. These funds are not mentioned in MPW and Big Boss’ mercenary group is broke. > The only mentioning of MPO comes right after clearing the first area where Miller makes a comment, “We can finally forget that crap in San Heranymo”. This has to be a nod to the fans because it makes no sense to be anything else. Miller was not involved in the events of MPO and has no reason to make that statement as Big Boss wasn’t building a mercenary company back then. And if the events of MPO were canon, preventing a nuclear strike on US and forming FOXHOUND is hardly deserving of such a dismissive line. It’s clear that this was a nod to the fans, indirectly booting MPO out of the canon. > The final, and perhaps the most convincing, evidence comes in the conversations between Big Boss and Huey regarding Metal Gear. When the time comes to build their own bipedal weapon ZEKE, Huey suggests using the name Metal Gear. Big Boss replies with, “Granin’s work”? Clearly the name triggered the memory of meeting Granin during MGS3 and when he was shown the blueprints for Metal Gear. Somehow it didn’t bring up the memory of destroying two Metal Gear tanks only four years prior; two tanks that were also built by the CIA and used in Central America.

204.17.31.126 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing this! These are not opinions, these are FACTS! According to Peace Walker, the events of MPO never happened. Peace Walker is the latest official game from Kojima himself! Therefore this is a fact. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, AG. I agree, that Kojima made MPW most likely to replace MPO. I agree, that they both cannot coexist in the same canon. That is my personal opinion, that is your opinion and there are others that share that opinion, possibly including Kojima himself. Yet, we do not know, how Kojima stads to the issue. We can speculate, we can theorize, but in the end, we have to guess in that matter. And we have to rely on ofiicial statements. There was never a clear official statement, that confirms MPW as a replacement of MPO. There is no statement, that clearly states, MPO is not part of the canon anymore. Wikipedia cannot represent personal opinions, however obvious they seem to us as facts. Fact is, officially both MPO and MPW are still considered canon, no matter how many contradicions there are. Wikipedia should represant this official fact. 87.174.200.225 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there are considerable inconsistencies between the two PSP iterations and no statements have yet been made whether one replaces the other, I've added a note in this articles continuity section.87.174.214.54 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This has started to get very annoying... Anyways, to address the issue:

Just because it barely references Portable Ops doesn't mean that it replaced it. Otherwise, you might as well argue that Metal Gear Solid 2 was replaced by Metal Gear Solid 4 just because the events of the Manhattan Incident were barely even mentioned, despite having a similar time frame. You might as well also say that the events of Metal Gear Solid 4's reasons for Big Boss leaving were also replaced in Peace Walker, simply because Big Boss seemed to react with confusion and unfamiliarity to Paz's statement about why he left Cipher, even though he should know what she's talking about because he himself was one of those two men in her story. So, please, if you're going to say that Peace Walker "replaced" Portable Ops, you either need an official statement from one of its creators, or edit the Metal Gear Solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 articles to reflect how some aspects were "replaced". I might as well also point out that Metal Gear Solid 4 also contained references to MPO, which means if MPO is non canon, then MGS4 is non canon either, since not only would it not be canon by proxy, but EVA's "backstory" involving Big Boss's split from Zero's patriots was even contradicted in Peace Walker (since Big Boss's reaction when he heard the story implied that the story never even happened.). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Just one more thing: As food for thought, if they truly wanted to remove Portable Ops from canon, they would have done it a long time ago, meaning it wouldn't have been included in Metal Gear Saga Volume 2's ending timeline or the credits, it wouldn't have had stills appearing in Metal Gear Solid 4, the entire thing about the History of The Patriots would have been entirely rewritten so as to not include any references to Portable Ops (such as Zero being the founder of The Patriots, The Boss being set up to die because they feared her charisma, etc, etc.), they wouldn't have made any mention of The Boss aside from things purely from Metal Gear Solid 3 in Peace Walker, they wouldn't have included references to Portable Ops in the Database, and they certainly wouldn't have included it on the official site around the time of Peace Walker's creation. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you got me wrong. I'm not actually saying MPW is officially a replacement of MPO. I just point out that with those two games it's not like some continuity issues that got mixed up. MPW aside from a single line is bluntly ignoring MPO. And that line about "leaving that crap at san hieronymo behind", come on, what does that mean? Hm? when else was MPO mentioned?? At the end of MPO Snake was eager to find out about the guy who staged Operation Snake Eater out of revenge as it seemed to me, because he learned in MPO that her death was staged from the beginning (whereas in Snake Eater it seemed like an adjustment to the plan that wasn't originally intended), in MPW when Coldman reveals himself to Snake, he seemed not particularly interested in it, even though just 4 years ago he learned, that this guy staged The Boss' death in cold blood. Also what happened to all that money, gene gave him? How about naming "metal Gear ZEKE"? At the time the concept and name of Metal GEar was relatively new unlike later games. Snake finds it worth mentioning he heard the term before. but not that he faought one weabon in a major crisis just 4 years earlier, no, he heard someone designnin a weapon like this a full decade earlier, without it ever being finished. This to me is as if they take MGS4 and let Ocelot be simply Ocelot without posing the Liquid Ocelot persona. This would be like doing MGS4 without Raiden, Rose or Vamp. Surely you could explain they are absent, somwehere else. Ocelot got somehow rid of Liquid's Arm. But it seems very odd. This wouldn't be an inconsistency, it would be ignoring something, that heppened before.

Now, about Konami's reasons for remaining both games canon. Not that they care. What they care about is making money. Back in 2005 (when MPO was announced), there was no portable Metal Gear game, that was canon. Something many fans wanted to change. So Konami/ Kojima Productions decides to give them what they want and finally decide to bring out a canon MGS on a portable console. This was the major selling point of the game. F***, the reason, why I bought this, was that it was a valid continuation of MPO. But what if they now would decide to make it non-canon respectively? They would essentially say "hey, we've been lieing to you, this actually isn't canon, suckers!! :P" At least this is how some may pick this up. Of you'd realise, you've been screwed by a company, would you buy products again? Some say yes, some say no. But for Konami, it's better to just keep their mouth shut and keep on developing games (and MPW was great!)

Buttom line: MPW is still canon, I accept that. There have been continuity issues before and MPW also messes with other MGS games, agnowlegded. But it completely ignores MPO, as if it never happened. And this discrepancy should relly be mentioned somewhere. Or maybe it would help to do special section about continuity problems. But this ingoring of the previous game, ignoring every aspect of it (in terms f storyline) and still calling it canon seems an oddity worth mentioning to me.87.174.189.191 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not officially one, then don't add it in. It's that simple. I don't add in stuff like how MPW ignored MGS4's account about how Big Boss and Zero parted ways completely, to the extent that even Paz's reference to the account seemed like complete news to Big Boss, and I don't add in how Metal Gear Solid 4 replaced MGS2/MGS2 is no longer canon just because Solid Snake somehow doesn't remember the previous two times Liquid Ocelot emerged and acting like Liquid possessing Ocelot was the first he heard of it, so why should something like that be added in? It's nothing more than original research.

Plus, if they truly wanted to replace it, guess what? They wouldn't have even included Coldman mentioning that he set The Boss up to die, since that in itself is a reference to Portable Ops. As for wanting to find the guy who set her up, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall him EVER mentioning that he intended to find the guy. He only asked in a furious tone for the man's identity, to which Gene denied, and they then dropped the subject altogether. Heck, Big Boss didn't even mention the whole "Deviously Cunning Strategist" to Campbell in their phone call.

And for the record, they DID have Metal Gear games on the PSP before MPO: Ever hear of Metal Gear Ac!d and Metal Gear Ac!d 2? Those were also not counted as canon. Heck, Metal Gear Solid Mobile was a Metal Gear Solid game, and that was considered non-canon anyways. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research please. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Were you talking to me or to anon? I'm asking because I was trying to keep it off. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP, sorry for not making it clear! Thanks! Fin©™ 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, the whole bunch might be too abigious. Maybe it would make more sense to have an article of inconsisencies in the Metal Gear Franchise. But just for the record: I Know about Acid and even Ghost Babel, which is why I pointed out, that in 2005 there was no Portabe Metal Gear, that was canon. Let's not start with Mobile, shall we^^ 87.174.250.32 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There will be no such article here anytime soon. What, you're going to create it? Full of OR and opinionated mush? Please don't come around here and try to spin another yarn about PW's non-canonicity - we weren't born yesterday, and just so you know, there was an anon years ago who tried reiterating that the Metal Gear canon revolved around only the console games...and he got wikiwhipped. So if you ever try to reinsert your opinions anywhere in the Metal Gear article, it's coming off. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Stay cool, fella. I have no intention of starting such an article. And I'm not arguing about MPW's and MPO's official stance in canon. Neither was the other anon. Back then it was about how to organize the Metal Gear Games. What is main series and what is not, how you define spin-off etc. Which led to the current list of Metal Gear Media eventually. So I would not consider him being "wikiwhipped". A consensus was established. Just as was here. I admit, I went the wrong way with directly inserting the info, but otherwise, a suggestion is not heard arround here. 87.174.200.158 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do and don't even call me names as if we're cool with each other. From what BS you're trying to pull, we don't. It doesn't matter. and you don't consider what happened to him wikiwhipped? Obviously you don't know the whole story. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea of a general continuity issues thread. The Metal Gear canon is pretty much fucked up by now - good job Kojima! A topic for all the 9 main games chronological by their releasedate and how they changed/ignored subjects from the previous games would be helpful. This topic could be very useful informations and that way no game has to be declared non-canon - we just state the existing issues.--Amscher (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno what you understand under the term "wikiwhipped". If it's some kinda official term for establishing some consensus, then it seems he indeed got wikiwhipped. All of them. Or "us" for that matter. I guess since I actually took part in this discussion, I indeed have no idea what happened. Was too much into my own business or what.... Seriously, cool off! No point in getting so worked up about something like canon. Oh, sorry. I forgot not to tell you what to do. Would it be ok, to count that as an advice? As for Amsher's suggestion. Would make sense. could be helpful. But I do agree with Eaglestorm, that it won't help if the article was full of original research. Listing the tiniest tidpits of changed canon or even just seemingly changed canon doesn't help. There would be an endless list and half of the points on that list in constant dispute, as most of the apparent contradictions (Peace Walkers technology) can also be talked away with some effort.91.19.230.67 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Overview Section needs some clean-up

The Overview Section treats Peace Walker as if it has not yet been released. I would shorten it a bit and inlude it in line with the hand-held games, so that you basically have the structure homeconsole games - hand-held games - unreleased games with Rising and naked Sample in the latter part. 87.174.211.241 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Metal Gear Online

Shouldn't there be, at the very least, a mention of Metal Gear Online? Veni Vidi Vici 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Be our guest!91.19.209.61 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

MGS HD Collection

I propose that an article for the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection be created. The game was annonuced back in June and I'm surprised that there's been no article since then. Please take my proposal into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the HD remastering, it doesn't require a full article. When the Essential Collection was released years ago, was an article dedicated to it? No, and this doesn't warrant one either. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eaglestorm. It's just another rerelease, that can be dealt with in the individual articles. And it has been added to the List of Media. 91.19.214.28 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A Metal Gear Solid HD Collection article has recently been created (not by me). Do you think that it should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already been redirected. If we're going to build such an article, then the Essential Collection would need to have one as well, so no, No, NO ARTICLE! --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Heard him :) 91.19.224.57 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Games Section

Hey, Liked, how you guys pepped up the Games section. Just two things.

• I don't recall anybody ever stating that Peace Walker is a sequel to Portable Ops. While the story picks up after MPO and there are also huge gameplay similarities, it still doesn't technically make it a sequel. The New Clone Wars show isn't a sequel to the old one. It is just very similar and takes place in the same time period and is equally canon. Maybe someone should find a reference to PW being called a sequel to MPO, otherwise it seems like Original Research.
• I see the games are discussed by plot. But I think it might be better to discuss games from a gameplay perspective. Make a difference between console games and hand-held games, similar how the List of Media goes about. This would showcase, how the portable games developed from non-canon spin-offs with very different gameplay to fully-flegded entries in the series and it's main story arc.

178.203.16.232 (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In terms of story Peace Walker really seems to be more a sequel to Snake Eater than to Portable Ops considering the use of plot elements. I'm not sure about how to make a gameplay section for the franchise as every game differs (even in follow-ups like Sons and Liberty and Snake Eater), so I'll later see if I can do something.Tintor2 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Most games often focus more on previous games that aren't directly before it. Case in point: Metal Gear Solid 4 seemed to focus more on Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid's plot elements, whereas Metal Gear Solid 2's plot elements are either largely ignored for the most part, or directly contradicted (an example of the latter is Snake's reaction to Liquid being behind Outer Haven as though he was shocked that Liquid survived and apparently didn't even know about Liquid possessing Ocelot through his arm until Roy Campbell telling him, despite Snake witnessing Liquid assuming control over Ocelot twice beforehand). Anyways, San Hieronymo was referenced in Peace Walker, so it is pretty clear enough that it was a sequel to that game too. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much the story-perpective but the game developing perspective. MGS3 is a sequel to MGS2 becuase it was developed after it, expanded the gameplay stuff etc. The Acid Games are for instance not sequels to Ghost Babel, even though they take place in a parallel universe as well. Peace Walker takes place after MPO and does build on some of the stuff MPO did (actually quite a lot I admit), but it never was once announced as MPO2 or wasn't even called thus in early developement (there it was called MGS5 mind you). Again this is not about story perspective, but game developing perspective. Rising will not be a sequel to MGS4, but rather a spin-off focusing on side elements of the main series (namely cyborg ninja gameplay). MGS5, if it is indeed another chapter about young Big Boss, will not be a sequel to peace walker from a game developers perspective, but a sequel to MGS4. That's the line of thought here. enough? ;) 200.83.198.123 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Toys

A Metal gear themed Risk game was announced at comic-con 2011.

https://www.usaopoly.com/games/risk-metal-gear-solid-limited-edition

It should be mentioned. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MGS 5

The UK edition of PS Magazine due to release November 29, contains a interview with Kojima-san, a teaser of such interview is already in the website, in there Kojima-san mention the plan to create a proper MGS 5, and while i`m by no mean saying this deserves a mention before publishing or an article after, i think such statement at least should keep Metal Gear Solid 5 for redirecting to Peace walker. Zidane tribal (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Metal Gear Solid 5 should be redirected to Metal Gear or possibly Metal Gear#Games as Peace Walker has not been called Metal Gear Solid 5. Already did it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Snatcher Part of Timeline?

Would the Hideo Kojima video game Snatcher be considered as part of the official canon? I've played the game, and numerous references have been made to the Metal Gear series. The Metal Gear Mk. 2 even makes an appearance and they even go as far to talk about "the Metal Gear menace that took place in the late 20th century" (i.e. the events that took place in the first Metal Gear game). Does any of this place Snatcher in the timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's common that games from the same director contain references to other ones such as Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Unless the storylines are proved to be connected there is no proof to add it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)