Misplaced Pages

Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:34, 2 April 2013 editSuzuku (talk | contribs)887 edits →Two games confusion← Previous edit Revision as of 14:16, 2 April 2013 edit undo198.91.223.178 (talk) →Two games confusionNext edit →
Line 230: Line 230:
:::''I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach'' I completely agree, 100%. Which is why I'm still restoring the articles. It started out as two to begin with, and after all the evidence for the games being independent (as noted above) this solidifies the need to split them and "wait and see". The consensus will have to determine reasons for why the article should be merged this time, as it was done prematurely by another editor before. The articles will simply be restored to previous revisions, with new content intact. ] (]) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC) :::''I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach'' I completely agree, 100%. Which is why I'm still restoring the articles. It started out as two to begin with, and after all the evidence for the games being independent (as noted above) this solidifies the need to split them and "wait and see". The consensus will have to determine reasons for why the article should be merged this time, as it was done prematurely by another editor before. The articles will simply be restored to previous revisions, with new content intact. ] (]) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Exactly. Also, separating the pages makes keeping up with info easier because, as I've said repeatedly, aspects of the Ground Zeroes gameplay is being referred to as Phantom Pain, which we don't know yet. Splitting just makes the most sense right now no matter how you look at it, objectively. ] (]) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC) ::::Exactly. Also, separating the pages makes keeping up with info easier because, as I've said repeatedly, aspects of the Ground Zeroes gameplay is being referred to as Phantom Pain, which we don't know yet. Splitting just makes the most sense right now no matter how you look at it, objectively. ] (]) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::Okay then. I'll revert the articles now. If anyone has a convinving argument for the merging of the articles take it to the talk pages of the separate articles. ] (]) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


== Make this page semi-protected == == Make this page semi-protected ==

Revision as of 14:16, 2 April 2013

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...

Entry number

This article says it will be the ninth entry. However, it will be released after Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. This would make it the tenth entry. Or are we counting Revengeance as non-canon? 134340Goat (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the navbox and you will see that Rising is referred to as a spin-off on Misplaced Pages. Cheers! --AnddoX (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a spinoff, but Kojima did also confirm it takes place in the Solid canon. Canonically, it's the last entry however.
Surely though if it's canonical, and Metal Gear, that makes it the ninth game in the Metal Gear series.--210.56.81.185 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Since the game is confirmed to be open-world, should that to be added as a genre in the side box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.252.5 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Multi-platform

I've edited out the section of the article that claims the game will be on PC. The reason for this is because of the reference supplied. Although the title of the article is "Confirmed: Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes is current gen - set for PS3, Xbox 360 and PC", if you read the body of the article, you will see this:

"Speaking at Penny Arcade Expo, Kojima said the game is currently running on a PC but that the footage was indicative of what the PS3 version will look like, while indicating it's likely to be released for Xbox 360 and PC."

"Likely to be released". This is by no means confirmation of the game appearing on PC, so we cannot include it in the article, and we cannot use the article as a reference to claim that the game will appear on PC. To do so is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, PC is only speculation - running a PS3/X360 debug game on PC does not guarantee a PC release (all games are made using PCs). See also the trailer credits: Official Trailer Credits - Platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikzilla90 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Page content

Please be aware that this is not good enough for a Misplaced Pages page. All it does is recount the contents of the gameplay demo shown at PAX, which is nowhere near enough for a Misplaced Pages article. It also contains original research, making it unencyclopaedic. Just because something is known, that does not make it notable enough for inclusion on a Misplaced Pages page, so describing the events of the gameplay demo and calling it a "plot" is ridiculous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think we may need to consider adding more reliable sources and more coverage of the game's development and history than just recounting the contents of the gameplay demo shown at PAX. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That's precisely what I am saying. Right now, the focus of the article is the contents of the gameplay demo. It would be the same as if someone created a Misplaced Pages page for a film, and most of the article was taken up by a description of the trailer, which is not acceptable. The article currently fits a criteria for deletion because it the forcus is all wrong. The fact that a gameplay demo was shown at PAX is notable enough to be mentioned; the contents of that demo are not enough. We have no way of knowing if what was shown in the demo will be in the final game at all, or if it was written specifically for the demo and will be removed from the final release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Things are okay now but User:AnddoX could revert this once again.Tintor2 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently he already has. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And I have reverted it back. Anyone who wants to make a case for the article to be expanded back is welcome to do so. I'm a reasonable guy, and can be persuaded. I'm not so stone-headed that I'll insist that the page remains as is irrespective of any argument of consensus. Indeed, it appears that there is a preliminary consensus to keep the page in its reduced format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This MGS wikia community has really reliable information about Metal Gear Solid:Ground Zeroes. Just saying :-) --Paprikazzz (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's only the "Metal Gear 25th Anniversary; Official announcement of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" section that actuallly has information regarding Ground Zeroes. The other is post MGS4 plans regarding the franchise.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, fan-wikis fail WP:RELIABLE.

But any external links they provide could be useful as sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. There's tons of external links for reliable information we could use for this page's benefit. I ran across this as well. I'd really like add more content to this article but lot of us seems to disagree with that idea... --Paprikazzz (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem was that all the content was added without sources to begin with. I could source the few gameplay details using a GameSpot preview, but I was unable to source the plot since no official explanation regarding it was given. When I replied to the wikia comment, I meant that it used various sources to cite sentences which could also be used here if they are reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently some debate over precisely what this page should contain. I have attempted to instigate a discussion of this on the talk page, but none of the editors involved are interested in discussing it, and are instead reverting the page back and forth. One the one hand, we have this version of the page; on the other hand, we have this version of the page. The purpose of this RFC is to open up the page to the wider editing community to find the best way forward for the page, given the lack of discussion to date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

TBA in the release dates section

Lately, there's been a disagreement whether we should use TBA for the release dates parameter of the infobox, which is being added on by an IP and has been repeatedly reverted. As I do not want to escalate it into an edit war, I am taking the WP:BRD route and opening a discussion here to see if others can voice their opinion on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding TBA is a typical form of WP:CRYSTAL. The article states that it is an upcoming game, without a set release date readers should understand that it is an upcoming game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see any harm. It's better than leaving it blank. --Anddo (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Phantom Pain Trailer

I think we have to mention the trailer of Phantom Pain game, it is a viral trailer about a new Metal Gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.22.91 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless Kojima confirms it is from Ground Zeroes we can't mention it here.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Would a "See also" link to The Phantom Pain suffice? Since there's a lot of discussion about the relationship of the two, it seems like that would be appropriate, even if not mentioned in the article itself. th1rt3en.talk.contribs 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Readers can already link to The Phantom Pain article by using the navigator box from Metal Gear in its "Related" part. Knowing Kojima it's impossible to predict this. Phanthom Pain could turn out to be another game.Tintor2 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there's no verifiable information to confirm that Phantom pain is MGS5/MGS:GZ/new IP/etc., but at the moment the reaction and discussion about Phantom Pain is related to MGS:GZ. As such, a see also link seems to be a good inclusion, in my opinion. WP:SEEALSO suggests that the section can be used "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Phantom Pain is related at the moment, even if it turns out to be a complete lie. th1rt3en.talk.contribs 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First person citation

"The sources provided contain remarks by the director of the game himself. Please see WP:Party and person"

You're missing the point User:Ground Zeroes editor. We tend to shy away from first person sources on Misplaced Pages. There are some exceptions, but that's why I explicitly cited WP:SELFSOURCE, which outlines this isn't allowed if the quote affects a third *party* (i.e. GDC). There's no preference for first-person source over independent third person citations, it's generally the other way around, hence reverting the change to first person. -Rushyo 10:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I hardly see the need for the issue if either way the presentation length is confirmed, with a solid source. Even though it isn't third party, it's actually the only source we have confirming the exact information. I believe this stands as an exception, then, as it's the man himself confirming it. -MGZ editor (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't stand as an exception, because it cannot be independently verified. And given Kojima's love of screwing with his audience's minds for fun, he's hardly a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain

Kojima confirmed via twitter, that Ground Zeroes is a speparate game from MGS 5: The Phantom Pain ( Kojima Twitter ). Should we consider in separating out the two, and move Ground Zeroes content to it's own article? Deelite310 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Twitter isn't really a realiable source. It should only be used as a supplementary source.
Secondly, I see no confirmation that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are, in fact, separate games. This is what Kojima has said:
"Ground Zeroes" is a prologue of "MGSV". 9 years after that event will be "The Phantom Pain". MGSV is constructed w/ prologue and main game "TPP".
So, if I'm reading this right, Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain will form Metal Gear Solid V together. Think back to Sons of Liberty, and the way it was structured, with the "tanker chapter" and the "plant chapter". The tanker chapter served as the prologue, and the plant chapter was the main body of the game. It is my understanding that Ground Zeroes will be Metal Gear Solid V's equivalent of the tanker chapter, and that The Phantom Pain will be the equivalent of the plant chapter. They are two parts of the one game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/27/the-phantom-pain-and-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-are-two-separate-games/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.94.112 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

They are separate games. Aside from Kojima's twitter post, we also have it from the words of Konami director of public relations Jay Boor. See here: http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/27/the-phantom-pain-and-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-are-two-separate-games/#6eJtQjLEJ9DWuyBo.99/ I'd revert it myself, but the edits make that impossible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I'd say that's questionable. It doesn't really clarify anything. Until such time as they make an official announcement that the games will be released separately, I think everything should stay together. After all, it has already been established that they have their own self-contained storyline between the two. At thhe very least, there should be a consensus before we make any changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
How is it questionable? Boor explicitly stated that they were two separate games, Boor is also a high ranking member of Konami, and so is official word. What more do you need? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Boor's comments are contradictory. On the one hand, he refers to them as being two separate games. On the other, he calls GZ a prologue, and TPP as the main game, and many secondary sources have drawn parallels to the tanker and plant chapters of SOL. Furthermore, are these two games going to be released separately, like Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue? Or will GZ be sold separately as a prologue, and then shipped again with TPP? Are the two stories completely independent of one another, or do they have their own esoteric storyline that means GZ has to be played in order to understand TPP?
So, what more do I need? Let's start with answers to those questions before we start considering the separation of the article into two individual pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, well, Kojima's comment about it being "one game" is contradictory as well. He claimed that GZ was a prologue to TPP, yet TPP's beginning was a tutorial, which doesn't make any sense since by that point, people would have gotten the basics down anyway from the prologue. Besides, just because he claimed that they were together "MGSV" doesn't mean that they are one game. Don't forget, Peace Walker and Rising were at one point called by Kojima to be consecutively MGS5, yet it was pretty obvious that they were two separate games. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well lets wait for a confirmation they are two different games. The game could start with Big Boss recovering from his coma and then remembering Ground Zeroes.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Except we had a gameplay demo on Ground Zeroes, so I doubt that would be it. Prologues generally don't occur until before the main story. Anyways, CrunchyRoll and Joystiq confirmed that they are two separate games, and the latter mentioned that Konami itself stated it via update, so that makes three sources claiming this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
So Metal Gear Solid V is like the .hack series? I wonder if there is enough weight to split them without making stubs.Tintor2 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Konami confirmed via their Metal Gear Solid Facebook page that they will be two separate games ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151327888170986&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=1&relevant_count=1 ) The page is age protected (your age on Facebook must be set to over 17) to access the photo. I would say that this is similar to Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 - two chapters, but over two games. Deelite310 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and they quoted Kojima's twitter as well. It's a darn shame that Facebook and Twitter, even those that act as official outlets of information for games, aren't counted as sources on Misplaced Pages, since we definitely would have sourced this. Still, that makes at least five sources stating that they should be split apart. I think the official Facebook page was run by Shinji Hirano, if an image from Facebook is anything to go by. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Shinji Hirano was the President of Konami (US), so I doubt that he ran anything on Facebook. Like many other companies, Konami has a dedicated Social Media team, and they are the ones that maintain and post information to the Konami and it's brands, Facebook Pages/Accounts. In the end, the Siliconera article seems to be legit enough. Its 2nd source (not direct) confirming what Konami has stated through several of their sources. Deelite310 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hm, thought he ran the MGS Facebook page due to this post released before Peace Walker's release: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=400768045985&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=3&theater Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work. A man who barely speaks English, running a Facebook page? ^_^ That's why companies hire people to do that type of work for them. Konami runs about 30 facebook pages, and this is man that has to run a business, and go to meetings nearly every hour of the day. Anyway, we are getting off-topic. Deelite310 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Odd, it worked for me. Well, in either case, might as well quote the post: "IT’S OFFICIAL—METAL GEAR SOLID: PEACE WALKER HITS THE STREETS! And our President himself, Mr. Shinji Hirano, helps launch it in properly-rugged snake style! Thank you for your incredible support, Solid Snakes. Now let the Legend of Naked Snake begin! http://www.konami.com/mgspeacewalkerpost — with AdrIanoo AcosTaa, Erick Abraham, boooo and Edison Parada." Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you are not familiar with launch press releases, and launch events. That post was made by the Social Team, not Mr. Hirano himself, and he was speaking to the launch of the game, not maitaining a Facebook page. Again, off topic. Deelite310 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
.....So are we going to split the two or not? There's enough evidence to support splitting them. Having them combined has caused several problems with the page, the most obvious of which being the gameplay section, which is referring to quotes about Ground Zeroes as being indicative of Phantom Pain. Suzuku (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't split them - all it's going to do is create two stub articles, and the existence of each is going to depend so much on the presence of the other that they might as well be merged. And despite the way various sources claim they are two entirely spearate games, or that one is an extension of the other, and so on, all of them agree that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain make up Metal Gear Solid V together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I just split them now. At this angle it doesn't seem like either are stubs now, does it? -MGSV editor (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of God!
I'm all for being bold, but almost every edit I have seen from you has made the page worse, and this is the crowning glory of it all. All we have managed to do to date is establish that Kojima and Konami are treating these as two seaprate but inherently-interlinked games, and if you watch the interview with Kojima in the GameTrailers interview, you will see that hey don't even know how the games are going to be released.
You need a consensus before making these changes. Please get one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear the consensus is to split, you're the only one arguing against it. Beyond that, you just ruined the page again yourself. We finally got some order to it and you reverted back to that horrible mess. Having these two combined creates several problems for the page, the first of which being the Gameplay section, where you have comments on Ground Zeroes' gameplay as referring to and being indicative of the Phantom Pain, which just isn't the case. The only thing we know about the Phantom Pain's gameplay is that it is an open world game. Everything else was made as a comment on Ground Zeroes. Furthermore, they are clearly two seperate games that make up an overarching story. It was explicitely stated by Boor that they were two separate games, they were announced separately, and we have far more evidence and reasoning supporting that they are two separate games rather than one and as such there is not enough evidence to support the the two articles being combined.
Speaking of which, you talk of a consensus on the pages being split, but there was no discussion on whether the pages should be combined in the first place, they just were. As such, to be completely neutral, the articles should be kept in their original state, which was split, until a consensus is actually reached on whether to combine the two or not. Suzuku (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It was confirmed by multiple sources, Kojima himself, that the two games are separate. There's no reason not to revert the articles into their split forms.SOCOM Warrior (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay then if someone doesn't come up with a better argument for not splitting the pages I'm doing it in an hour. Suzuku (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like there's any valid excuse not to restore the articles. If you're splitting, I support it. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Game logo

I have removed the game logo that was included in the article, as I am not confident that it is free to use. It has been taken directly from an IGN article, and an insufficent rationale has been given for its use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Plot section

The "Plot" section of this article should be known as a "Premise" for the time being.

The reason for this is because a "Plot" section implies that there are extensive details - usually a full recount of the game - available for inclusion. Take BioShock Infinite as an example; now that it has been released, the has a full write-up of its story. Obviously, this is not available here; we know virtually nothing about Metal Gear Solid V, and so "Premise" is the better way to describe the section, because "Premise" suggests that there are only enough details for a general overview.

Furthermore, a "Characters and setting" subsection is not appropriate at the moment. Subsections are only really supposed to be used when there is so much information out there that is necessary to understand the story, but cannot be condensed into a plot section. Again, BioShock Infinite stands out as an excellent example of this, because readers need to understand the nature of its setting in order to understand parts of the game, but trying to work this into plot section would simply slow everything down; explanations of the setting would distract the reader, making them less likely to be able to follow the story as they wallow through the exposition.

Therefore, given the current state of this article, a "Premise" section is probably the best way forwards. By comparison, the article on Bungie's Destiny is at a similar level to this page. It contains a "Premise" section because there is not enough information for a "Plot" section, so the same holds true here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Clear" templates

As you edit the article, you will probably notice "Clear" templates. They look like this:

{{clear}}

These have been included for a reason, and that reason is to make the page more readable. Sometimes, images and infoboxes - like the poster and the chronology template - get added to articles in such a way that they take up more space than the corresponding text alongside it. When this happens, the rest of the article is automatically wrapped around it, as is the case in this version. Scroll down to "Development", and you will see two images on opposite sides of the article with the text of the article spread around them. This is very awkward, and makes the page difficult to read.

The solution to this is to use the clear template. This will make the text "wait" - it will automatically add in however much blank space the aritcle needs to reach the bottom of the image or the infobox before allowing the next section to begin. This may look awkward, but it actually makes the article more readable. As the article evolves, and more content is added, the amount of white space will automatically decrease to the point where it is no longer needed because there is enough content in the section to push the next section down.

However, until that time comes, please leave the clear templates where they are. Removeing them will only make the article more difficult to read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Two games confusion

This GT interview tried to clarify the nature of the two titles. Shortly, Kojima is unable to announce how are the two of them going to be distributed while Kenichiro Imaizumi told the writer the two are the same game. There is also some other stuff that could be integrated to the article like Diamond Dogs' meaning, Moby Dick and Hayter, etc. Hope it helps. I believe we should not spilt this article until Kojima can confirm how is Metal Gear Solid V going to be distributed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is not enough information yet to say whether or not MGSV is one game or two, whether Ground Zeroes is a separate disc or not. We should not split or move anything until we know for sure. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Put me down for agreeing, too. There is no hurry to split the articles, if splitting them is even necessary. We only have a minimal amount of information to work with, and several contradictory sources to boot. Once more information emerges, we can reassess and make an appropriate decision. Until then, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep everything in one article. It's always better to split an article at a later date than it is to merge two articles into one.
At the end of the day, despite the uncertainty, the contradictions and the differences of opinion that have arisen from it, there is one thing that just about every single source agrees on: Metal Gear Solid V is Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain. They are two parts of the one whole. Whether separate or together, they are both a part of the same overall game. That is the point that Kojima and Konami have emphasised above all else, so there's clearly a reason for that. So for the time being, I think the article should remain with Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain together, rather than separate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. If they are given separate releases, they are effectively separate games, even if they are part of the same overall game. Look at the Kill Bill movies. Besides, Kojima made it pretty clear that GZ and TPP are released separately in the G4TV interview, and even he hinted at them being separate releases with his comment about that gameplay footage he showed at GDC being a tutorial (which is shown either separately from the game story or is placed before the game's story, including the prologue). This along with separate comments from either Konami as a whole or Jay Boor means that they are separate relesses. There are plenty of examples of games that afe both the same overall game and yet separate games at the same time. Just look at Sonic the Hedgehog 4, for example. Same overall game, two different games at the same time. There are also expansion packs to old computer games, for another example. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
To touch up on this, I believe that Kojima claimed GZ was to serve as a prologue to MGSV. This statement in itself confirms that the two are separate, otherwise he would have said that GZ was the prologue in MGSV. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Weedle McHairybug, in the GameTrailers interview, he said he is in no position to comment on how they will be released when he was asked if they would be released separately, together, of if GZ would be made available both separately and with TPP for the sake of players who missed it the first time.
SOCOM Warrior, you cannot infer anything from Kojima's comments that he doesn't actually say. Especially when he is speaking through a translator, who may have chosen to use the word "to" instead of "in". Even if that is taken from Kojima himself, saying that GZ is the prologue to TPP is actually the gramatically-correct way of phrasing it, and so could reasonably be taken to mean that GZ will be released separately to TPP, or that GZ will be released on the same disc as TPP, or the GZ and TPP will be released together on separate discs in the one case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"We can't comment just yet on how these things will be distributed and sold, but what we can say is that Ground Zeroes will come first." 4:10 Source. By the way he implies their differences, there is no reason to have these articles combined. Sonic 4 was a great example of how one game can be split into two articles, as two parts released separately. GZ and TPP started out as two articles anyway, we can combine them once we confirm that they are in fact one package.
To add to that, Kojima has confirmed that the hospital section of The Phantom Pain will serve as the tutorial of the game ("The hospital section serves as a tutorial, after which the game proper begins" 1), where you learn to move and get used to the controls. Since Ground Zeroes is before The Phantom Pain, why would they include a tutorial right after finishing the GZ portion, if they were the same game? This only further justifies the need for a split. They're clearly two different games. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all, this whole "not enough evidence to split because we don't know enough" thing does not make sense, because the articles were not originally combined, therefore by that logic someone combined the articles prematurely. If we're talking about preserving them in the state they were in originally because we don't have enough info, the articles should be split in the first place. Second, we have far more evidence and reason for supporting splitting the two pages than we do keeping them combined. The two games were explicitly stated to be separate, the were announced separately, and Kojima referred to TPP's gameplay trailer as a tutorial for that game, which of course doesn't make sense if it and Ground Zeroes are the same game. It's more than clear that they are the same overarching story story, split in two games. Kojima has never even said they are the same game to the extent that they are literally on the same disk and have the same gameplay, he stated that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain make up Metal Gear Solid V, there's a difference. Kojima even said when Ground Zeroes was first announced that it would serve as a prologue to MGS5.
Furthermore, in terms of reasoning for splitting, the article obviously has several deficiencies due to the two being combined, as I keep saying, the Gameplay section is not one bit accurate and shows why the two should be split from that standpoint. We know nothing of The Phantom Pain's gameplay beyond that it has an open world, yet the article is stating comments on Ground Zeroes' gameplay as referring to The Phantom Pain, which is not at all true and we don't have enough evidence to support it. But, because Phantom Pain is being treated as the same thing as Ground Zeroes, there is no way around it. This alone shows that the two should be split until more is known.
So, we basically have nothing to support the articles being combined right now. It's wrong on its face because the articles were combined prematurely without this apparent "consensus" we need to split them, and without enough evidence to support combining them. You're basically holding the page hostage by suggesting the splitting of the page be held to a different standard than the combination of it; and beyond that, we have far more evidence supporting splitting them than having them combined in the first place. It's pretty clear what side of the argument makes the most sense here. Suzuku (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The two games were explicitly stated to be separate

They have been presented as two parts of the same whole. The size of each part relative to the other remains unresolved, as does the way they will be presented. We have multiple contradictory references, with Kojima claiming different things in different interviews. We have no way of knowing for certain at this point.

the were announced separately

We have a reference in the article explaining why they were announced separately - Kojima wanted to assess industry and public reations to the Fox Engine, but he felt that if he announced a new Metal Gear game at the same time, it would colour opinions.

Kojima referred to TPP's gameplay trailer as a tutorial for that game, which of course doesn't make sense if it and Ground Zeroes are the same game

Unless, of course, TPP introduces new gameplay elements that aren't included in GZ - elements which could easily be a direct result of Big Boss' physical condition at the start of TPP.

Kojima has never even said they are the same game to the extent that they are literally on the same disk and have the same gameplay

And at the same time, he has never said that they are not the same game.

But, because Phantom Pain is being treated as the same thing as Ground Zeroes, there is no way around it.

If this is as serious an issue as you claim, then the article could easily be rewritten without needing to split it. However, I am not sure precisely what you are referring to here.

we have far more evidence supporting splitting them than having them combined in the first place

Except that you haven't addressed the contradictory references at all. You point to one reference where Kojima says the game will be split in two. That's fair enough, but how do you explain the other references where he says he is in no position to comment on the way the games will be released? You keep saying "we have all this evidence in favour of doing this", but you are consistently ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts it.

It's pretty clear what side of the argument makes the most sense here

If it is so clear, then why are there so many editors in favour of keeping them together? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that even though all signs have pointed towards the two being separate, the fact that the articles originally started off separate and were on multiple accounts confirmed to be separate by both Boor and Kojima, it isn't enough to restore the articles to their original forms, all because of your cherrypicking? To be honest I don't see very many others who are "in favour of keeping them together" either. The facts (and sources) have been placed in front of you, and yet you continue to argue against the more favourable approach, due to your personal opinion. I advise you read up on WP:OWN. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that because we have two sources that have the same person - Kojima - saying two entirely different things, we cannot give more weight to one source over the other. You cannot pick and choose which sources you use and which ones you ignore because they're inconvenient. You say that both Boor and Kojima have confirmed that there will be two separate games, and yet you are totally ignoring other sources - most notably the GameTrailers interview - where Kojima refuses to comment on the way the games will be released. That's a contradiction, which you have continually failed to acknowledge, much less address. You can't ignore it just because it doesn't support your argument, least of all when that same source is being used to support other, unrelated parts of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point, and you're misunderstanding what we've been saying. Kojima never contradicted himself, he simply stated that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are two different entities. The way they were to be distributed, although unclear, is irrelevant. To again mention Sonic 4, that game is split into two separate parts but is overall the same game. Therefore we have made two separate articles for it. It doesn't matter how the two games will be distributed in the end, as Kojima has already expressed the different attitudes he feels between the two. Take for example the critical proof above where I mentioned that TPP is confirmed to have a tutorial at the beginning hospital level. This is indisputable evidence towards the distinctive nature of both games, otherwise there would be no need for two tutorials in the same game. Please take note of this before you respond, because any opposing statements you make beyond this would be ridiculous. All signs point towards a split. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And following up on what SOCOM Warrior stated, beyond all those facts, the articles were ORIGINALLY split. Therefore, this whole "consensus" thing is inherently a double standard because someone combined the articles without enough evidence to do so. If we're supposed to be neutral, the articles should be split until further notice because that's how they originally were. Right now you're just holding the article hostage for no plausible reason. Therefore, if you don't come up with a decent response for the above, the articles should be split until further notice. Suzuku (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And at the same time, he has never said that they are not the same game.

This is flagrant gerrymandering and completely asanine. Konami, Boor, and Kojima him damn self have said they are separate games, it's inherently implied that they are not the same and offers a hell of a lot more evidence for them actually being separate as apposed to supporting them being the same just because he didn't say they were not. What Kojima has explicitly said, and comments from both Boor Konami support, is Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain make up MGSV in terms of story, with Ground Zeroes acting as a prologue, but they are two. separate. games. Again, when Ground Zeroes was first announced Kojima said out right that the game would serve as a prologue to MGS5. You have half a leg to stand on and just resorted to gerrymandering to make a point. If this doesn't show the articles should be split then nothing will to you.

If this is as serious an issue as you claim, then the article could easily be rewritten without needing to split it. However, I am not sure precisely what you are referring to here.

Just read the gameplay section and you will understand what I'm talking about. The only way to rewrite that is to refer to Ground Zeroes as its own separate entity, and that alone puts into question the integrity of having the two articles combined. It doesn't make sense.

Except that you haven't addressed the contradictory references at all. You point to one reference where Kojima says the game will be split in two. That's fair enough, but how do you explain the other references where he says he is in no position to comment on the way the games will be released? You keep saying "we have all this evidence in favour of doing this", but you are consistently ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts it.

First of all, I have addressed those comments, which by the way are more of you not understanding the context of them than them being contradictory, in two ways. I stated that Kojima has never said the games are on the same disk and packaged together, just that they make up the same overarching story of MGSV, which you replied to with that asinine argument that I addressed above. Second, I said that even if the evidence supporting the games being separate were 50/50 as you suggest, which it isn't, the articles should still be split on the grounds of that's how they were originally. You can't say we need a consensus to split them AGAIN when someone combined them without enough evidence or a consensus to do it in the first place. It's a double standard. The articles should be split until proven otherwise on the same principles you're using alone.

If it is so clear, then why are there so many editors in favour of keeping them together?

I don't see a ton of editors supporting the pages be combined. You're the only one adamantly arguing against them being split, with absolutely no legs to stand on, and maybe two other editors chimed in and said they supported it without actually considering all the variables. Again, it's clear what side of the argument makes the most sense here. Suzuku (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that settles it, then. If no one provides a logical reason against the separation of Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain by the end of the day, I will assume that consensus has been reached and will work on splitting the articles. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe anything is settled. I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach, especially because it's easier to maintain consistent information on a single page instead of two. There are at least two other editors who agree with me. At best, there is no consensus to re-split the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach I completely agree, 100%. Which is why I'm still restoring the articles. It started out as two to begin with, and after all the evidence for the games being independent (as noted above) this solidifies the need to split them and "wait and see". The consensus will have to determine reasons for why the article should be merged this time, as it was done prematurely by another editor before. The articles will simply be restored to previous revisions, with new content intact. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, separating the pages makes keeping up with info easier because, as I've said repeatedly, aspects of the Ground Zeroes gameplay is being referred to as Phantom Pain, which we don't know yet. Splitting just makes the most sense right now no matter how you look at it, objectively. Suzuku (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay then. I'll revert the articles now. If anyone has a convinving argument for the merging of the articles take it to the talk pages of the separate articles. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Make this page semi-protected

The page seems to be a mess due to the overflow of edits. Making the page semi-protected could possibly improve the page? Soffredo (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to put in a request at WP:RFP. However, requests for page protection are usually only granted if the page meets certain conditions, and I don't think this one does. There are lots of edits, but the page has largely stabilised in the past few hours since certain editors have been blocked from editing for unrelated reasons.
Besides, semi-protection only prevents edits from unregistered users (IP editors), and we haven't seen much of that. Move protection might be in order, but again, the page has stabilised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hayter's involvement

Perhaps I'm just in denial, but I think we need to remove the following sentence from the article:

David Hayter, who has provided the English-language voice for Solid Snake (and later Big Boss) since 1998's release of Metal Gear Solid, has stated he will not be reprising his role for Metal Gear Solid V.

I've looked at the reference and the claims the article make are all based on Twitter posts which are not supposed to be allowed as references on Misplaced Pages (see WP:TWITTER). Furthermore, the article explicitly states ...this could be all another round of Kojima misdirection...

I think it needs removing or rewording to sound less definitive.

Prawn Skewers (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories: