Talk:Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

VR Missions ect

The section there, i'm gonna cut it into 3 (Well, 2) and see what it looks like, does anyone object? (The Bread 04:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)) and (The Bread 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Sanae Shintani credited on MGS??

About 2 day's ago, I played again MGS and I watched the entire credit roll. In one section of it, I noticed that Sana Shintani is being credited on the "Special Thank's" section of the credits. Does anyone of you know why is that?. --Zephir 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that the musican, if so it could be beacuse he helped with the music tracks used in the game Lombers 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No reference has been found about if Sanae Shintani participated on the soundtrack of MGS, though why she's being credited, remains a mystery. (BTW, she DID a collaboration on several tracks in the OST of Son's of Liberty) --Zephir 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese

What is the point of the Japanese disclaimer right next to the name. Anyone who is browsing the English version probably either speaks Japanese already and wouldn't need to know it or doesn't care because it's the English page. Not to mention that it doesn't even give any information. Doughboy 04:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a Japanese game. Granted, the English-language release comes first, but it's proper to at least mention the name of the game in the language of the developers. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

LGBT video game

Just wondering why this is listed as an LGBT video game amongst other things?

Where in hell was it listed as an "LGBT Video Game"!? O_o --Isequals 06:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

VR Missions and MGS Integral

I've reverted a change done by 138.238.83.42 that removed information on VR Missions and MGS Integral. May I remind the PC version is the PSX's MGS Integral, information that was removed with that edit. Neither VR Missions or Metal Gear Solid Integral are worth a separate article, so let's keep it this way. \ wolfenSilva / 15:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're a bit late for that. Metal Gear Solid: Integral, Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions, Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance. Should be considered. The info about MGS:Integral's also misleading, it suggests that MGS:Integral was a later bundled package, when in fact it was a complete re-release of MGS with a designer chat thingie and so on (see the article), and MGS:VR Missions/Special Missions were extractions of the VR training missions while ignoring the changes made to the main game. I'll make some tweaks.Sockatume 15:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now it makes more sense, since the prev. edit was a simple cut on the article. Thanks for clearing and improving the article. \ wolfenSilva / 16:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for highlighting the need for an edit. Sockatume 22:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentiment that VR Missions and Integral don't belong their own separate pages. If anything, I think there was enough content in those games (at least with VR Missions) to justify their own pages. If Substance and Subsistence get their own page, then why not Integral. Of course, rather than having two separate articles about the game, it would make more sense to have an article about Integral that also covers VR Missions and the PC version. At least it would keep the main MGS article less bloated. Likewise, the Digital Comic needs to get its own article too. Jonny2x4 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Substance and Subsistance have their own pages only because I've not merged them yet. Look at Subsistance's article; these non-articles are destined to become nothing more than lists of trivia, objects, characters, or stages. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Patriots Involvement

I added a little note on the Patriots involvement, rather, mention in MGS1. While I've not included any citations, it IS a note, one worthy of being mentioned. It IS found in the game, when Miller and Campbell talk to Snake (Second Elevator, in the Underground Base, past the Snowfield and the Blast Furnace, but before the Area in which you fight Vulcan Raven for the last time.) If anyone has the patience to check it out (Due to not believing me), feel free. - Caron, Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 - 24.57.33.92

"Music" section corrections

Regarding my corrections to the "Music" section: Norihiko Hibino had nothing to do with Metal Gear Solid (his first Metal Gear game was Metal Gear: Ghost Babel for the GBC). --138.238.225.175 16:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By gum, you're right. Chalk this up to half-remembered articles once again! Sockatume 16:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone listened to the "Main Theme" from the movie Speed? (it came out four years before MGS) Metal Gear Solid's soundtrack directly rips-off the main theme. --Navstar 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This? Stylistic similarities between the openings of the two, certainly, but it's a different melody and they play out differently through the middle and end (Speed's melody is kind of jazzed around, compared to the MGS theme which loops the main melody a few times, does a countermelody, then loops the main melody). Besides which, it's not the MGS soundtrack which shows similarities, only TAPPY's main theme which only appears on end credit sequences (and a third of end credit sequences at that). Sockatume 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

11/1 Correction

Metal Gear Solid: Integral was released in 1999, not 2000. It was the PC version of MGS (Integral port) that was released in 2000. --138.238.96.142 12:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quotes

Could we add a quotes piece to this please!! thanks

I've put a link to wikiquote on here, the quotes can go in that Sockatume 22:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voice actors

It would benifet the article to include a list of names of voice actors, as they are all clearly listed in-game, and many have done other VA work for cartoons and anime. --162.24.9.213 14:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That'd possibly be a good idea, but I think a link to the IMDB page on the game would be more useful, as it'd then allow people to look at what other anime/games/cartoons the actors have appeared in. Sockatume 18:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unique aspects

G'day,

I dont feel competant to really add this to the main article (I don't know where it would go).

But the most unique thing about Metal Gear Solid was Hideo Kojima's artistic ustilisation of the interactive nature of video games, ie playing with the medium of what a video game is (like Cinema did in the 1960's and 70's). Experimental design techniques like used in Metal Gear Solid dont really exist in todays video games because most try to avoid risks as much as possible due to high risk of failure in the industry at the moment. Very few games delve into this especially now, some of the earlier titles to do it were games like Takeshi no Chousenjou and Utsurun desu kawauso Hawaii e iku. But enough of the fluff, the examples that come to mind are;

1. Psychomantis make your dual shock controller rumble with his 'powers' and forcing you to switch controller ports so he can't 'read' you.
2. Psychomantis also can seemingly turn off your console when you fight him making the screen go black with the word 'Hideo' in the top corner of the screen intentionally made to look like 'Video' to make you think you have switched to an input channel. Then you hear, Psychomantis' laugh around you while in darkness.
3. Snake asks the Colonel, "What's her codec frequency?" (Meryl) The Colonel then says, "Uh . . . I forget. Though it should be on the back of the CD case." And on the back of the CD case on one of the screenshots is a show of Snake talking to Meryl with her frequency number visible.
4. Revolver Ocelot during the torture scene tells you he'll know if you use a controller with an -fire function.

- UnlimitedAccess 18:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look now (In "Cinematic presentation"). I thought I added about that a long time ago, but was probably deleted in the many edits since then. ^wS;? 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of that stuff sounds like "Breaking the 4th Wall" to me. TotalTommyTerror 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Movie Rights

Uwe Boll is apparently looking to get the movie-rights for the game. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Considering he chases any VG license that might be adapted to film, it's not worthy of a mention. ^wS;? 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Kinda crystal ball-ish, too. Him getting the movie rights would be encyclopedic (and bad news :P), but mere interest isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 18:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Boll has frequently voiced his interest in aquiring the rites for this game. When asked about it on one occasion, he confirmed that he was unable to secure the rites, he then went on to describe Grand Theft , Halo, and Metal Gear Solid as being 'more like movies than video games anyway.'

• I found an article on a website named Gamespot which claims that at E3 2006 a handout was produced by Konami which states they have struck a deal. Kojima says "I have received many offers to adapt Metal Gear Solid. It has taken a long time, but we have finally settled on an arrangement,False facts aside, a movie project is underway. I have finalized a Class-A contract with a party in Hollywood." He also specificaly says Uwe Boll will have nothing to do with the project, but there are very few details besides that. The link can be found here [1] - 15:02, 17 May 2006

Dates

What's the source for the dates of 2005 (cf. 2007/2009 in MGS2)? Chris talk back 18:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• According to the game manuals, Metal Gear 2 (Zanzibar) was 1999. The game script of MGS indicates that was 6 years ago (game script, Campbell: There was no way you could. It happened in Zanzibar 6 years ago. Only Snake and I know the real truth of what happened there). That places MGS in 2005 (dunno about February). The plant (MGS2) is two years after the tanker (game script, plant chapter Colonel: Snake, do you remember the sinking of that tanker two years ago?). The tanker is two years after Shadow Moses (MGS2 game script, plant chapter: Colonel: A Russian private army that was in line to work with the Shadow Moses takeover group, four years ago.. The tanker is 2 years before plant, Shadow Moses is 4 years before plant ergo Shadow Moses is 2 years before tanker). Therefore, MGS is 2005, the tanker is 2007 and the plant is 2009. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 21:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, in the MGS1 prologue (with Snake's conversations with Cambell about the mission) the secion about Meryl says that in 2005 she joined foxhound and was new at the time of the incident.

Dragosani 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Solid Snake mentions he is going to compete in the Iditarod trial, wich starts the first Saturday in March

Meryl's Father

Yes Octacon's ending is not official. But I think some parts of it can still stand. When Meryl died the Col. felt compelled to express this bit of vital information to Snake. When she lives like in the other ending there is really no point for him to exprees it. Octacon's ending is not like Snake tales were the events that happened are in a different time and space that has no link to the series. I think that part is good to know to anybody who is reading it so I am putting it back in, as is. I welcome any compelling arguments, for and against me putting it in there.

• Like I said, the ending is not canonical. You can't matically assume any bit of info in it is true because nothing in that ending actually happens in the game storyline. For all you know, he's lying to Snake. He couldn't pull off that lie if Meryl were there to contradict him. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily oppose you wording it differently, like saying it's possible he's actually her father (eg. "In the non-canonical ending, Campbell states that he is her father"). Off-topic, but it's helpful if you sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will matically print your usename and the time of the comment, like this -> -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that is different in that storyline is her death and of course the bit with Otacon. Meryl doesn't even know the truth since Campbell only got the letter a few days ago. "I didn't find out until recently I got a letter from her mother... my dead brother's wife... I was going to tell her after this operation was over." Maybe that's why her mother didn't tell her, she was waiting for her real father to tell her, face-to-face. And being that he had that in the back of his mind, her death brought him to tell Snake. Besides, there would be nothing to gain for Campbell to lie to him about that. (off-topic) Thanks for telling me about the tildes. I'm not really sure what I'm doing, so here goes. (Name? I have no name. 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

iven as the second game assumes the second ending doesn't that meant meryls ending is non-canonical?

No. In Meryl's ending both, Meryl and Otacon, survive.200.112.160.47 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture for Cinematic Presenation

Wouldn't a picture of a cutscene be more suitable for the first part of the cinematic presentation, if not that's fine. I was going to do it myself but I don't know how, plus I'm too lazy to look it up.(Name? I have no name. 07:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

That sounds reasonable, though since the cutscenes are all rendered in-engine, there won't be a big change from what it is now. I suppose someone could use a screenshot of the GameCube remake cutscenes, which, while still in-engine, also had extra FX added (such as bullet trails, etc.)Virogtheconq 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about this picture but I can't find a way to show it.

[[Image::http://www.metalgearsolid.org/gallery/pop.php?path=content/Metal%20Gear%20Solid/PSX%20Captures/008.jpg&cached=&margin=0&posx=240&posy=255&desc=13&cached=1]]. It shows up to the right like the rest of the pictures but its just shows the file name. Oh well, I tried. Agh forget it. That link is supposed to show the cutscene of snake going up in the elevater at the beginning, with the title showing. (Name? I have no name. 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

You have to save the file you want to upload to your own computer. Then use Browse... by Source filename: to find the pic on your computer. Under Destination filename: give the file a name that will be unique across the Wiki (like say: MGS intro elevator.jpg). Give it a brief summary and choose the licensing description that best suits the picture (In this case, Computer game or video game screenshot). Hit upload and tah-dah! -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't use a pic from The Twin Snakes. It has its own article, this one should really have pics from the PSX version. Too bad too, I can take a pic from Twin Snakes much more easily than the original. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Meryl's Frequency

In the scene where Baker tells you to search for Meryl's frequency on thye back of the CD case, it is styated in this article that the frequency could not be found within the game. However, if memory serves, if you call Campbell around five times, the frequency will appear in the Codec's memory. I unfortunately do not have the game on hand to test this, but if someone could verify this for me, I believe that this page should be edited. I would be grateful if someone could check on this for me. Also, if five times does not work, try ten to be safe. Either way, I believe I have done it before.
Mask 15:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-It just worked for me, took five tries. Thanks. -Juan

Use of FAMAS?

Can anyone confirm that the FAMAS is used by the NGSF soldiers in the game? I thought that they used AK 47s, but the FAMAS article says otherwise. Figured the info would be more easily found on this talk page than the FAMAS one -VetteDude 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Snake refers to the guards as carrying "Five five sixers and pineapples", with "five five sixer" referring to NATO standard 5.56 assault rifle ammo. Unless there's a CODEC call specifically pointing out which weapon they use, it's going to be hard to tell. One option would be to compare the weapon they're carrying with the FAMAS Snake recieves. This should be easier in MGS:The Twin Snakes, but of course that wouldn't be definitive regarding this game.

I have Twin Snakes version and they are Definitly FAMASs

I played the game myself last night (partially with this in mind) and in the scene where you catch Meryl in the bathroom, Snake asks if the FAMAS she stole from Jonny was functional. Since she aquired this weapon after taking Jonny's uniform (she obviously didn't have it with her in her cell), it is safe to assume that either the guards use the FAMAS or Jonny was specially equiped. Given his luck I would assume the first option.

Mask 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Meme-Gene-Scene

I am researching info on the Meme Gene Scene themes of the MGS Series. I wonder if anyone could give me some ideas on where to find some information on these concepts as they relate to the games. The research is going to a report I am doing for school, but if it is sufficient I may add it as some extra details for the Metal Gear Solid articles. Thank you for any help you are willing to offer.
HiddenMask 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

FA?

Does anyone think that this is Featured Article standards yet? If the concensous is yes, i'll put in a nomination. If no, does anyone have any sugestions as to what needs to be added? --The Halo (talk) 1:07, 3 March (UTC)

Formatting seems a little messy. Do we really need the cast section above the game version section? --maru (talk) contribs 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done the formatting. What do you think? I'm not sure what to do with the packaging artwork, it looks a little out of place all by its self. I've also got some trivia I can add (Units sold, Policenauts, 2001: A Space Odyssey links etc)if you think it's a good idea.

The Halo (talk) 22:25, 3 March 206 (UTC)

You are very right- the packaging needs to go. Why not put it in the infobox? The trivia might be a good addition, interspersed throughout the article. --maru (talk) contribs 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the packaging in the infobox, but it still looked a little clumsy, so i decided to put it under it, which i think looks okay. It certainly makes the picture look better (due to the fact that it is bigger, so you can now see what it really looks like). I'm collecting the trivia, and seeing where it can go in, but i was thinking, is the heading And The Moral Is... really in keeping with the rest of the article? Something more simple like Morals might be better?

The Halo (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2006

GA

Is the article evern up to good article status? (The Bread 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I don't think it's there yet. Many of the claims about its impact need to be sourced, and the cast section still needs to be de-table-fied. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile condensing the plot outline, it's good but a little bit too detailed. Something like the one on the MGS2 page would be nice, just an outline of key points from each act.--ThisIsMyUsername 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it's "Good Article" status, not "Articles about cool stuff" status. Things with interesting plots and an abundance of debate-able material like MGS are most susceptible to edit wars, speculation attacks, and sloppy additions and edits by fanboys and immature children. It doesn't make any difference how popular the subject matter is if the presentation is crap. Village Baka 07:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps its not up to GA status, but i don't really think the presentation is crap (The Bread 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

"Moral"

From the article:

Metal Gear Solid was one of the first video games to carry a definable "moral" and "meaning".

Excuse me while I whip out this wet sock loaded chock-full with Ultimas... MGS was certainly late to the party when at least five parts of the Ultima series prior to that had had deep-rooted ethicophilosophicoreligious discussions. If you allow me to counter a fanboyish assertion that the game had deeper meaning with another fanboyish assertion that the game had deeper meaning. =) Anyone to take a try at rewording this thing? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I didn't detect any hint of a "moral" in MGS. It made me think about stuff like genetics and nuclear proliferation, but there was no real moral. It sounds to me like this edit was made by a fanboy who wanted to convince that MGS has a deep story. I'll consider doing some tweaking. Village Baka 07:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section because it was OR. -Objectivist-C 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Similar Movie"

Anyone one else notice the similarity (name) of snake plisskin in the escape from New york/LA movies to MGS? Is this coincidence or is there some basis off the movies?

if i recall correctly, Solid Snake was in some way based off of Snake Plisskin, and the alias Pliskin is a reference to the character th1rt3en 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kojima himself has stated that Solid Snake was in part inspured by the Snake Plissken character.PurpleHaze 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

About the "Breaking the Fourth Wall" Section

The third bullet:

In both PS and PC versions, the Codec frequency for Meryl can only be found on the back of the game's box or jewel case. (This was initially commissioned in an effort to curb piracy, as without contacting Meryl, the player cannot progress in the game.) However, this trick could be side-tracked (possibly for those who lost their case) by calling Campbell via CODEC five times in a row. This puzzle is not completely original to Metal Gear Solid, as the MSX2 version of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake also required the player to look behind the game's packaging when Campbell changes frequency number.

Note the bolded line. Is it worth mentioning that something similar was done in StarTropics (look in the Copy Protection section)? StarTropics came out before Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (Mar 29, 1990 VS July 20, 1990) - the way the article is written it sounds as though looking for something external to the game was a new concept introduced in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake though I thought of StarTropics when I read it. If that wasn't the intent of what it was saying, the wording should probably be changed IMO... ok, enough rambling, I think the point is out there =)

MadLordOfMilk 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, though admittedly when I first read the line I originally took it to mean original to metal gear solid only within the context of the metal gear saga. I was thinking of changing the wording a bit to "This puzzle is not completely original to the Metal Gear series..." however, that only makes it sound worse. Lilinka 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its a puzzle i think hideo's initial idea was to stop people who pirated the game to progress further into the game

Although Star Tropics and Snake's revenge both came out in 1990, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure (from '89) used a 'grail diray' packaged within the game to get through some puzzles. My point is that there are earlier examples of that tactic, and they're all for piracy reasons (Lucasart continued to use such tactics). I think it'd be best to remove it, or simply mention that the game took advantage of this 'popular at the time' kind of copy protection. --Thaddius 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few nitpicks...

In the Plot Summary section, there are a few things that are questionable. In the paragraph starting "After a torture mini-game..." it states that "Otacon can't fight, but he finds a specially-colored bottle of ketchup, which Snake uses to fake a bloody death..." Is there anything in the game that indicates that the ketchup is "specially colored?" ketchup is already red, which is the point, and I don't recall anything indicating that there's anything special about the bottle.

At the end of the paragraph, it says of Snake's battle with Sniper wolf "Snake disables her..." This seems sort of misleading, as she's fataly wounded, not merely disabled.

"The Moral" section isn't cited, and also seems questionable. The idea of pushing a moral agenda in a game is hardly new. The original NARC game, for example, was very anti-drug. In addition, there were several games based around Christian theology, which carried a definite moral message. MGS may have been a lot more blatant about the socio-political message it was pushing, and that might be worth noting, but I don't think that the text as written is accurate right now.

I'd also like to see a citation to the critics that mark it as "the first video game to suggest to a wider audience that games could also function as works of art." 147.240.236.9 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Roy

In metal gear solid 1 the only gun you don't necessarily need is the FAMAS, you need the socom to fight Ocelot, the sniper rifle to fight sniper wolf, the nikita to disable the electric floor to get to grey fox (ninja) and the stinger missile to defeat the Hind D and rex. Although the FAMAS is useful against psycho mantis. Cadoor 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

if you call otacon again he mentions that he had to look around for the right colour and consistency.

Your probably right about sniper wolf.

on the contrary, whereas those games existed purely to push that message, MGS is an important game in its own right and hence is very important. it was also much more informative than those games on real world issues.

further, isn't super mario 64 more suitable for that praise? Every non-gamer i know is still in some form of awe over that game.

you can also skip the grenades and the socom suppresor as well as many various items. P.S. I recently beat twin snakes without the FAMAS. just a note.

Another quick note; In the Plot Summary section, Otacon is referred to as Dr. Hal Emmerich, PhD. If you include the "Dr", you don't include the "PhD" and vice verse

Plot Summary editing

I've just done some editing in the plot summary, mainly cleaning it up, but I removed a few details that seemed unnecessary (a plot summary only needs to say that snake escapes from the cell, the fact that the player has different ways of doing it is more of a walkthrough/gameplay issue) I've gotten as far as the line "Snake has finally reached the Underground Base where REX is kept" Any comments/complaints with what I've done so far? --ThisIsMyUsername 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The plot summary definitely needs a major overhaul. As it is right now, it reads more like a walkthrough than a plot summary. Jonny2x4 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I might go through and rework it, there's too much extraneous information. PurpleHaze 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just edited the summary a bit and tried to cut down a bit on the summary. Right now it's a matter of what's important and not...is it okay to summarize only the basics of the plot or should details be added in? PurpleHaze 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of the "Fox-" projects

I just noticed that someone changed "FOX-HOUND" and "FoxDie" to "FOXHOUND" and "FOXDIE" respectively. I hope no one minds if I change these back. Look at these pages and you'll find they are spelt that way:

http://www.metalgearsolid.org/show_features.php?id=652 http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/083101/p4_01.html http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/metalgear/ (official site)

--ChaosSorcerer91 12:56, 05 August 2006 (GMT)

You should probably change the name of the FOXHOUND article too then, that's the only reason I changed it. By the way, on the official site, I see FOX HOUND (most of the pictures, Story section) and FOXHOUND (Snake's bio), but have yet to see FOX-HOUND (only read the character bios so far). I would have to think that FOX HOUND would be the way to go, in that case, since the official site would supercede virtually any other source. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 13:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As a follw-up, the game, probably the canon source, spells the words as FOXHOUND and FoxDie (at least the Twin Snakes version, I can't find my video tape of the PS version, but my gut says it's the same). --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right about one thing. The game does spell FoxDie like that. But... I just took some screenshots from the game and they spell it like FOX-HOUND. Here, I uploaded four of them. You can get it at: http://img446.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foxhoundproofod3.png. The top-left is from Previous Operations under the original Metal Gear, the top-right is from the cinema roll that you get when completing the game. The bottom-left is from a codec conversation in the torture room, and the bottom-right is from the conversation with the DARPA chief. If you're 100% sure that Twin Snakes spll it that way, then we can spell it that way in the Twin Snakes article. After all, Twin Snakes, being a remake is technically non-canonical, despite the fact 99% of it is exactly the same. So this is what I propose: We spell it like "FOX-HOUND" on the "Metal Gear Solid" article and everywhere else. But, if you're sure that Twin Snakes spells is FOXHOUND, then we can spell it that way on the Twin Snakes article. How about that? --ChaosSorcerer91 15:10, 8 August 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, I dug out my copy of the game (videotape seems to have disappeared) this morning and checked it out. PS spells is with a hyphen, but TS without. Interesting. Even funnier, the picture underneath the Previous Ops screen uses a space. MGS2 and 3 also use no hyphen or space (MGS3 mentions FOXHOUND in the closing crawl). I'm pretty much content that any of those ways (FOXHOUND, FOX-HOUND, FOX HOUND) is correct at this point. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The second MGS4 trailer also spells it FOXHOUND (when Meryl appears, 10:30 in). --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually propose that it be spelled FOX-HOUND on this page, but FOXHOUND everywhere else, as later games in the canon (both in timeline and release date) use the latter spelling. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough I suppose. It's just it won't let me move it. Am I doing anything wrong? --ChaosSorcerer91 18:19, 8 August 2006 (GMT)

Plot Summary

Sorry to be a bore, but that's no moon (plot summary). It's the entire plot. You couldn't make it bigger without dumping the entire script. Anyone else feel it needs a severe abreviation, perhaps to a two-paragraph synopsis? I don't need reminding of the plot, and if I do I'll look up a walkthrough of it or play the game. Hyperspacey 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, dive right in. I think it needs to be shorter, too... I was the one who tagged it with {{plot}}. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 03:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Hey, me again. Choppety choppety... Hyperspacey 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Time Frame

I'm thinking about adding a section of the MGS 1 article, to prove it takes place in late February of 2005. And maybe a little known fact that Hideo Kojima is the same age as Solid Snake in all of the Metal Gear Solid games! Example: Hideo was born in 1963. Solid Snake was born in 1972. The first Metal Gear was released in July 7th of 1987. Hideo was 23 when it was released (born in August). The Outer Heaven incident in-game occurred in 1995, when Solid Snake was 23 himself! And if the the ages don't particularly match with subsequent games, remember Hideo began the story (and development) of the games on a year or two (or three) before release. Think hard on it, and if it sounds good (to you guys), I might put it in a trivia section or something. Stephen Mathis 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea, but maybe not a whole new section about it being in February. Perhaps you could put that under a bulletpoint in Trivia, but that's just my opinion. How much evidence can there be? --ChaosSorcerer91 14:36, 19 August 2006 (GMT)

I agree, that would be best put in the trivia section than anywhere else, it doesn't really merit it's own section. PurpleHaze 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEM! There isn't any trivia section! Considering that a lot of other game articles have a trivia section, I suppose I should create a section for this one. If it seems unwarranted, it can be changed at your leisure. Stephen Mathis 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally posted it. I revised it and revised it, and explained it as thoroughly as possible, just to make sure anyone could understand it. Let me know what you think! Stephen Mathis 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The race being this week means that the briefing (and start of the mission) takes place on February 26th, at the earliest. Since Snake also says next Saturday, there's a good chance it probably is actually the 26th, but that's not independently verifiable. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe that the exact date is not fully established. Snake saying "this week" meant that the race took place sometime within the current week, and had not occurred yet. "This Saturday" refers to the Saturday in the current week. "Next saturday" entails the Saturday next week. Otherwise, why didn't Snake say "There's a dog sled race today"? And you seem to be assuming that all Alaskan sled races begin on a Saturday, which, as far as I know, they don't. So I stand by my statement. Unless Hideo Kojima appears publicly saying "MGS 1 happened on Feb. 26th, 2005", (and unless he already did) I believe the exact date is intentionally left ambiguous.Stephen Mathis 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence me saying "likely" and "at the earliest" in my message. The day when you are most likely to say "next Saturday" in reference to something that happens "this week" is on the Saturday immediately preceding the one you're talking about. That's not even considering that some people actually do refer to the next Saturday to come as "next Saturday" (I don't, I do say this Saturday, but not all people do). But it is not clear, as I said. It could also be a translation error. I don't even know what you're saying about dog races. I'm not inferring anything about when races start, just the Iditarod. Look at the construction of the quote. Are you saying that Snake is actually talking about two different things between the "race this week" and "being in Anchorage next Saturday"? If that's true, then he may not even need to be in Anchorage for the Iditarod at all. Maybe he wants to go shopping. If, however, both sentences refer to one race (the Iditarod) that is both this week and (the) next Saturday, then the date has to be the 26th or later. If you take next Saturday to mean "two Saturdays from now" then Snake can't also be talking about "this week" at the same time. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I agree to disagree. He has to be talking about two seperate races. Because if you look at a 2005 calendar, Feb. 26th is on a Saturday, and March 5th is the next Saturday. To quote Naked Snake : "You're forgetting one more very basic thing." Let's say you're right. Let's say it is Saturday, Feb. 26th. How could he say "there's a dog sled race this week" and refer to the Iditarod (actually Snake never says he's actually participating in the Iditarod, the Colonel mentions it), which occurs the next Saturday, when it IS a Saturday (February 26th). Here's what you're forgetting: TWO SATURDAYS CANNOT BE IN THE SAME WEEK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. In some countries, a week starts on a Monday. In the U.S. and such, a week starts on a Sunday. Now, if you said it could be on 27th (a Sunday) at the earliest, and by next Saturday he could have meant the Saturday in the exact same week, there would be no real holes in your reasoning, I would be inclined to agree. Well, in any case, I'm not going to change what you put under the Trivia section, because we would just get a juvenile little game of "You changed what I put, so I'll change what you put" going. I hope I made you see reason, and you might reconsider, but until then I guess it can stay the 26th. But the only reason I'm leaving it that way is because, frankly, I don't think when the game takes place is that damned important for us to be arguing over.--Stephen Mathis 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1) could you please indent your replies in the generally accepeted manner (ie. one more indent than the post you're replying to). 2) Basically, you've just argued that there's really no firm evidence for anything in the section you've added. Maybe he's talking about different races. Maybe he's not talking about the Iditarod. Heck, maybe the colonel doesn't even know when the Iditarod is run. In addition to the non-sequiter I mentioned earlier, the fact that the races are exhausting for both the musher and the dogs is what leads me to believe that Snake doesn't actually plan on being involved in two races on consecutive weeks. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge MGS and Twin Snakes

Oppose: Twin Snakes is a remake, not a port of MGS. Dread Lord CyberSkull ?? 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge. TTS is substantially similar to MGS. The few significant differences can be dealt with in this article. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: First, differrent names. Second, slightly different plots. Third, different consoles, and finally, different graphics. They are not the same game, so seperate wiki's suits them, I think. Edenane 12:37 20 August 2006 (BST)

• I'm not sure any of those are good enough reasons. The name can be redirected. The plot is not different, just some of the action in the cinematics. Lots of multi-console games share a page. The fact that their graphics are different does not in any way impact the game. They are, in fact, substantially the same game. It's like arguing the 2004 Star Wars DVDs deserve their own articles, separate from the original movies, because they have new special effects and they're DVDs, rather than 35mm film. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Given that The Twin Snakes contains a fully rewritten script, gameplay liften entirely from the title MGS2, different controls, different bonus features, different voice actors, a substantially poorer critical response, limited sales, a different developer... well, we could extend this already over-long MGS entry further, but in my opinion it requires a different entry linked to from this article.

Also note that the title is considered by series fans to be nearly non-canonical in its depiction of many characters in cutscenes- Snake simply doesn't have the powers in TTS's cutscenes that he does in the canonical titles, nor do many other characters (arguably only Ninja survived the hyperactive update better off). And the fact that it is, essentially, a remake from scratch. Would a film and its remake be merged so readily?Hyperspacey 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some of your arguments leave me with the impression that you haven't actually played at least one version of the game. The script may be re-written, but not in any substantial way. The plot is identical. The gameplay is almost identical, save for a couple of things found in MGS2 (hanging, FPS shooting) which are not necessary to complete the game (though they help). The controls can't help but be different, as the controller is different. Also, neither the gameplay nor control scheme is covered in the article (nor should they be). The voice actors are entirely the same people, sans stage names. I don't see why the few differences can't be covered in this article. The only truly noteworthy change in all of TTS is the new direction in the cutscenes, and the reaction there to. Arguably, the NES version of Metal Gear deserves its own article more than TTS, it far outsrips TTS in terms of story and gameplay changes. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Having played the original over 40 times across all difficulty settings, both sequels, the entire VR training scheme, and the GC remake twice (both in something approaching utter annoyance), I believe I am capable of commenting in an informed manner. The MGS2 features completely ruin the gameplay balancing; without rejigging the environments, its possible for a player to clear entire swathes of the game in minutes that would take an hour in the original. The FP aiming especially destroys any tension when placed into the original-game environments. The GC control method makes holding up a guard farcical. The guard alert system in MGS2 requires a completely new set of hiding locations to allow the player to react successfully to a bodged sneak- they don't exist in TTS, save for some lockers dropped conspicuously into the original environments. The TTS article, if it is merged, must comment on the compromises made to the gameplay, control scheme and environments to shoehorn the new features into the title. If there is a merge to take place, it will, IMO, make the MGS article needlessly overlong, and it should be shortened considerably before the merge begins.Hyperspacey 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'd point out that neither the current MGS article, nor the current TTS article actually discuss gameplay, nor the compromises you mention. This may or may not be a problem for future correction. Secondly, one could simply say: The addition of several Metal Gear Solid 2 game elements, including hanging and first-person shooting, can be used to unbalance the game and make completing The Twin Snakes a much simpler task. However, other MGS2 elements like guard AI, can actually increase the difficulty of the game compared to the original. I don't think that's an overly long description. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge I was the one who proposed the idea of merging Twin Snakes with the article about the original. Yes, the game is a remake made by another developer, with added gameplay features and redone cut-scenes, but I don't see too many significant differences between the two to warrant a seperate article. Alot of the information from The Twin Snakes could easily be merged with the main Metal Gear Solid article. Also, the Metal Gear Solid comic book is a licensed adaptation and it doesn't get any special treatment, nor does the Digital Graphic Novel based on it. The GameCube remake of Resident Evil has more differences between it and the PS original and it doesn't have a separate article. Jonny2x4 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising the comics don't get much info, they just retell the storyline of the games note-for-note. And the Resi remake was just cosmetically altered, save for the Redheads and a minor change to the shark section, AFAIK. But I see your point, I just feel that the MGS article is in danger of becoming needlessly sprawling. Hyperspacey 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. REvil remake has completely redone character designs, areas, voice acting (not just a retranslation like Twin Snakes, but new voice actors too), a new monster (Lisa Trevor), cut-scenes (a character who gets killed off early in the original, actually manages to live longer in the remake to help the player out) and even new plot details. It's not just RE1 with prettier graphics, but a complete overhaul. Twin Snakes on the other hand, its just MGS1 ported to the MGS2 and lots of Matrix-like effects added to the cut-scenes. Jonny2x4 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Character design changes are superficial IMO, as are voice acting tweaks, cut-scene rejiggings and adding slight new plot details. If MGS:TTS only featured those alterations I'd happily merge it, but the additional (game-ruining IMO) features from MGS2 (the entire guard system is altered, for example, rendering the original environments near-useless when spotted, not to mention the inclusion of first-person aiming which renders the game farcically easy) deserve an article unto themselves. It couldn't play less like the original game if it tried. Plus, as I've mentioned, it's almost noncanonical in its treatment of characters. Hyperspacey 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Difficult one, there is a wealth of info related just to Twin Snakes that would not really fit with the MGS article, it's not just a remake, as Jonny says above there's all that stuff that's redesigned, look at, Sniper Wolf, Otacon, Meryl. There's also seperate production issues and stuff that wouldn't relate to MGs and would bulk up this article majorily

Actually, I was refering to the REvil remake, which is almost a complete different game from the original. On the other hand, I only see Twin Snakes as an enhanced GameCube port of MGS1 passing itself off as a remake. It's just a different depiction of the same storyline. The character designs aren't even that different. Jonny2x4 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(The Bread 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Oppose I'm not entirely sure, but I would have to say oppose. I think it is more than just an advanced port. An advanced port would just be the game slapped onto a Gamecube disk with upgraded graphics. This game is so much more. I've never actually played it myself, but I have seen people play it. I would probably say it is a remake and not a port, since there a bunch of new moves that you can do that have been taken from MGS2. Basically, the game has been literlly remade from scratch rather than just ported. I think that if it is totally knocked down and then built up again from scratch as this one has been, then it classifies as a remake. None of the levels are the same AT ALL, even not counting the upgraded graphics. In fact, the PAL key puzzle thing at the end it completely different. In Metal Gear Solid, you have to go back to the warehouse, and then go back to the underground base, and then all the way back up the cargo elevators to the blast furnace, and then all the way back to the underground base again. In Twin Snakes you just hang down onto a platform and shoot a blue pipe, and then do the same thing with a red pipe. Bottom line, it's not a port, it's a remake, and therefore I think deserves its own page. Metal Gear: Ghost Babel gets its own page; I think this is only proposed since it has the same storyline. Ghost Babel was a remake with a different storyline. But that's just my opinion. If someone can give me a good reason why it should be considered a port rather than a remake, then I will really be happy to hear it, and it might change my mind. --ChaosSorcerer91 10:29, 21 August 2006

Oppose While essentially the same game, they are different releases with a number of notable differences. The original MGS article is long as it is, and it would be extremely difficult to mention the differences between the game without confusing which is which, and keeping it at a good length. Overall, I feel a merge would make things very convoluted. The cutscenes, production and development, gameplay, and even critical reception are all notably different. In fact, I feel most of the Twin Snakes article practically compares the game with the original in terms of those issues. (For that matter, I feel the Resident Evil remake itself should have its own article, but oh well...). -- Shadowolf 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose or agree, I'll just say this. I've played the original MGS and Twin Snakes so many times it's ridiculous, as well as Resident Evil on PS1 (many times) and the remake for GameCube (a million times), and I'll say this. The RE Remake is more of a departure from its predecessor than The Twin Snakes is. It's even increased in length and new areas, monsters, and plot lines are added. Existing monsters behave differently, and have new attacks, much like the "new" genome soldiers from Twin Snakes. I could go on and on for DAYS, but I'll spare you and say this. If you don't decide to merge Twin Snakes with the MGS article (which now has reduced clutter thanks to moi...hehe), I'm going to go request the RE Remake be seperated from the Resident Evil article, as it is MORE of a remake than Twin Snakes is. As for new gameplay(and I'm just talking new moves the character can perform), the RE Remake has a brand-new defense weapon function, a new (for RE 1 anyway) quick turn feature, and...I think that's it. But if someone is arguing about the Resident Evil/Metal Gear Solid remake issue, and hasn't played all four games, I don't believe they can make an accurate argument. I don't mean to sound aggressive, but it's my opinion. In closing, Resident Evil for GC is more of a remake than Twin Snakes, and in the general public view (if you don't believe me, check the Web, you're on it), is a better remake than TTS. So, all I'm saying is, if TTS isn't merged with the MGS 1 article, the guys over at the RE 1 article are going to hear from me...

P.S. Neither game is a port, they're both remakes. In my defense, ports don't usually come six (in TTS's AND RE's case)years after the initial release...although I'm sure there ARE exceptions, there always are.Stephen Mathis 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to see about merging the article with a {{main}} tag left behind; if any significant facts were omitted, then the main tag will stay; if nobody cares, then it can be removed and the TTS article redirected. This may be a while, however. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I've played both versions back to back recently, and honestly consider them to be different enough to warrant seperate wikipedia entries. As of my entry, there are two users who officially support the merging of the articles and seven users who oppose the merge. Please do not merge the articles at this time, because there is not currently a consensus to do so. Dragonstrider 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The guy suggesting that he will merge them doesn't generally listen to the consensus, great to see you back though MIB. (The Bread 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

What's the point of even voting if your going to merge it anyway. Oh, I forgot oppose means the same thing as merge. My mistake. (Name? I have no name. 07:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

You're right, and with that I shall take down the merge tags (The Bread 09:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Not quite. I was going to do half of a merge; bring the important points here, but leave the original article and a {{main}} link to that article until the merge was deemed sufficient. The reason I'm proposing this is because the general consensus on the Subsistence merge was "It can't be done! Too much content!" until I went and did what I'm proposing here. After that, the objections pretty much evaporated.

Even if people still object, this article's section on TTS is pretty subpar anyway, and would benefit from even a merge-without-redirect. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Half merge?, most here want a no-merge and could you please point me to a WP guideline on half merges? And you shouldn't have merged Subsitence ect If the consensus was oppose (The Bread 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't think you understand what I did or what I propose to do. I'm suggesting that the main points of that article be summarized here because they are relevant to this article, as is typical with any use of the {{main}} tag. Nobody here is suggesting that this article not deal with TTS at all, merely that there's too much to say about TTS to fit it in this article. I propose to see if that is indeed the case; I'm agnostic on whether it's practical or not until I (or someone, doesn't have to be me) gives it a try. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do understand you, but only you three want a merge, whereas all the others don't, there is no point to this conversation if you're gonna ignore everyone as usual (The Bread 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

You're saying I'm just going to go ahead and merge. I just plan to merge the info here, and not redirect unless people are okay with the redirect after the merge. This is, as I understand it, not at all controversial. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's merged. I ditched the list of new weapons, the list of voice actors, and a bunch of totally unsourced waffle about "fan reaction". After I did that and condensed some redundancy, it fit in nicely. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to redirecting Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes at this point? Was there some fact that wasn't merged, or that doesn't fit into this article? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All the people up there oppose the merge. There are now 7 extra games + DGN + some other thing in the Metal Gear Solid article. It has become bloated with info on other games, there is more info on other games than there is on the actual game in question. I'm still unhappy with the fact you did what you did aswell, being that most opposed the merge. Reception is easily retrieved and sourced. If you (as you usually do) ignore me and the consensus and merge it anyway I will revert' †he Bread 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the problem that this article has been dominated by info from rereleases? Hmm. I admit I've put a lot more effort into the merged sections than the bulk of this article, but it still doesn't make sense to favor one rerelease/spinoff with its own article over another. How about splitting the spinoffs/remakes into their own single article, to which Twin Snakes would be redirected? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're speaking my language, but you don't have one page for 1933 King Kong, 1970's King Kong and 2005 King Kong, they're all re-makes, they all have their own page. Your idea is actually not to bad, but I would prefer for Twin Snakes to have it's own page and the others (which are more or less expansion packs) be merged into their own page, but i'm not totally opposed to having Twin Snakes in their if push comes to shove. †he Bread 06:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's not a lot to say about those movies that overlaps, whereas in this case, the critical response, production, story, gameplay; they all largely overlap, even in the case of Twin Snakes. I'm not opposed to someone splitting out Twin Snakes (or any of the others, frankly) again if they want to add some content that doesn't overlap. Twin Snakes, in particular, is right on the cusp; I wouldn't have merged it if there had been some sourced or sourceable info about its creation (other than such-and-such team worked on it) or critical reception.

I'm of two minds of a split for the remakes (what would it be named? Aren't we divorcing it from the necessary context in this article? Is this article really too long?), but let's worry first about the case of Twin Snakes.

Why don't you want Twin Snakes merged here? Do you think the current text merged here is too long for a merge, be it into a subarticle or this article, do you only have a problem with it being merged here, or is there some neccessary content missing? Comparing it with other examples isn't really actionable, because oftentimes those examples are dissimilar. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment this article is a jumbled bloated mess, there's more info on Remakes and ports and a stupid 3 line entry on Bleemcast! which i've been temped to remove for months, than on Metal Gear Solid, the production doesn't overlap, Twins Snakes was made when, 2004?, while MGS was release in '98. Twin Snakes was made by a totally different team except for Kojima executive producing (I think), I read the Twin Snakes website a while back and I'm pretty sure there's a ton of sourceable info on it's creation, IGN always has good stuff same for Gamespot. I've already told you why I don't want Twin Snakes here and refuse to do it yet again + most people don't want it merged

As for the page for portit could be called, List of Metal Gear Solid remakes or List of Metal Gear Solid adaptations or List of Metal Gear Solid expansions or List of Metal Gear Solid releases or List of Metal Gear Solid re-releases or List of Metal Gear Solid ports these are all I can come up with right now, but there are thousands of names it could have but they would include all the bollocks on DGN, Bleemcast, VR Missions ect, and soon no doubt someone will add a section on the movie. The info at this page should be Metal Gear Solid related, on it's impact and how revolutionary it was. Not a dumping ground for all the re-makes of the game they are loosley related to this game and have no effect on this one's sales of reception. †he Bread 06:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The information on production largely overlapped, since the bulk of it was listing voice actors (nearly the same in both cases) and design philosophies (same in both cases, since Silicon Knights was parroting KCEJ's style and work). If you wanted to write something sourced that was true for Twin Snakes and not for MGS, split them and then write it, but it's silly to split these based on some hypothetical thing someone could write in the future.

Right now, I think the fact that the remake section is overwhelming this article has less to do with too much prose spent describing the ports/remakes/spinoffs and more to do with the fact that the rest of this article is pants. I don't really think a split is necessary so much as we've got a B-class ports section surrounded by a Start-class article. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose : Metal Gear Solid does not need to be merged with Twin Snakes because while games such as Integral and the Asian and European versions of Solid are the exact same game, Twin Snakes is a remake with all-new cutscenes, new voice acting, new gameplay and items, and completely redone graphics because it was made for the Gamecube. (Ocelot4 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

This article currently covers all of the works which are redundant to this work, or which little in the way of verifiable info can be found (in the case of the radio drama, there). Twin Snakes has largely similar gameplay, the same story, the same cast, a briefly different creation, and neither article can or really should describe the graphics. My question to you is thus: what info do you think has been omitted? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another oppose, with yet more reasons not to merge; and I wouldn't go as far to call the ports section "B" Class, if anything it too is "start" class (I personally would have given this whole article a "Start" rating) and is what is stopping the rest of the article (the important parts) from getting any better. I will hold up the opinons of the masses and revert if you merge any time soon †he Bread 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it stopping the important parts from getting better? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Even though the two games are very simular, I think Twin Snakes should have it's own page because it is a seperate game on another console and not just a port. As others have said, this page is already big enough. I also think that there is enough information and trivia such as info on developers to warrant a seperate page.Jaboc 04:05, 18 October 2006

Merge: Although the opposition is large, the arguments are pitiful. Twin Snakes' differences dp not need a new article. To go into them is total cruft. Let's list the main differences:

• Different developer

Can be summarized in a sentence

• Graphical, aural, and gameplay remakes

Can be summarized in four sentences.

• Few new items

Mentioning additions is acceptable (and can be done in a sentence), but mentioning what is added is cruft. Something like "two new weapons and items" is fine, or even "tranquilizer versions of existing weapons".

We could also add a bit on about the reception and release dates. Putting this into perspective, it doesn't deserve its own article at all. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that. Sure, it's the same basic plotline, but that's really the only thing it has in common. It's not even canon in the series. It's a different game from a different developer for a different console, which just happens to follow the same story. Do not merge these articles in a million years. --ChaosSorcerer91

So tell me, if the plot is the same, what would we write about if it wasn't merged? We can't write about anything. There are no writable changes to the game. Sure, it may "deserve" it, but we're not a pet adoption agency. This is Wikipedia. There's no way the article can have sufficient revelant information, so it must be merged. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to add that although the majority of people are against merging, their arguments have no merits - they all say that since it's on a different console, with re-written graphics, it needs an article. No one has stated what exactly would be written in the Twin Snakes article that isn't already in the Metal Gear Solid article. There are a few things, but these can be summarized very easily. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

'I think that's a pretty idiotic and selfish to say TheEmulatorGuy. What is currently (or what WAS written in teh Twin Snakes artile before that stupid dunce ManInBlack merged them) is enough. The whole point of a debate is to see what is the most favorable point of view. And if you are to completely ignore this then you are going against logic and causing anarchy, which I believe is something to be frowned on. You have no idea what I am capable of when people don't listen to me. Because listen to me now; you are wrong. These two articles should never be merged. Now split them NOW! -ChaosSorcerer91

What was written in The Twin Snakes article was cruft. The only relevant information in the article was already in the original Metal Gear Solid article. The debate is to reach a consensus, and with no argumental merits, a consensus cannot be reached. Tell me, what exactly am I ignoring? There is no logic to ignore. The Twin Snakes has absolutely no use for a seperate article. I can see that you think I'm wrong, but the problem is that YOU HAVE GIVEN NO REASON. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the merge tags, I have a strange feeling of deja-vous, for what it's worth, the Oppose arguements still have merits, keeping the majority happy is far more important than sattisfying the minority's urge to merge, and treat Wikipedia like a beuracracy (which its not

†he Bread 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I still have major disagreements with this. Yes, the majority think they should remain seperates, but their REASONS for remaining seperate clearly violate what Wikipedia is not. Until someone presents a compelling argument, they're wrong. There has been a good argument for merging, but none at all for remaining seperate. However, it will make it easier for Metal Gear Solid to achieve GA/FA so I don't have a problem. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a better arguement than you, I've split, it's done. I'm archiving the talk, we'll start afresh. And it will be easier for this to get to GA/FA without any ongoing disputes

†he Bread 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Next Target: PLOT SUMMARY!

After creating a trivia section (where I believe much of the information of a less subjective nature belongs in that section), I have now set my sights on the plot summary. I'm thinking of deleting the entire thing and starting fresh, using the MGS 2 manual as a guide, which gives a bare-bones two paragraph summary of the events of MGS 1. I don't want to start deleting unnecessary text and pics and with you guys' consent, I'm not going to half-finish it either...it's going to be a serious change. I want to just give a bare summary, and have others build off of that if they wish. I just hope it doesn't get as big as the current one...Anyway, if I get the go-ahead...I'll do it. -- Stephen Mathis 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to give it a go myself, but knock yourself out. I'll check up on it when you're finished and see if there's anything I can do to make it better. Hyperspacey 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I always keep my promises...Whew! After what seemed like forever, I condensed about ten paragraphs of Metal Gear goodness into two. I know I left a lot out, but when I tried to mention one thing, I felt I had to mention another and so on. So I decided to give the barest of summaries to a game that is very, very difficult to summarize effectively. I kept the two pictures I thought had the most bearing on the subject matter, and deleted the one that, to me, seemed out of place. I fear some will be angered that I shrunk it down so dramatically, but then again the subject title of the section was Plot SUMMARY. Not Plot or ENTIRE PLOT. Anyway, everyone kept discussing about shrinking it, and it seemed no one was really doing anything, so I gave it a shot. Well, that's my defense, without using any invective for once. I hope you find ways to improve my article (maybe even by shrinking it further!) or add more details to it that make it less confusing...although confusion is a crucial part of the MGS mythos.Stephen Mathis 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, nice and neat. I took off the tag because it clearly isn't over-long or ambiguous anymore. Hyperspacey 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man. It wouldn't have been worth it without the praise. I appreciate it.Stephen Mathis 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid Forums

Okay this is getting ridiculous. Every time I had a new site in the external links at the bottom called, Metal Gear Solid Forums, it's been removed by some other person I believe. Now just what is your problem here? It's a site related to MGS so it deserves to be on the list for gods sake!

Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. The External Links section is for useful additional information from verifiably accurate sources, NOT unnofficial fan-service. Hyperspacey 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Game.com version

I added a bit about the Game.com version of this game, which was cancelled. I'm just wondering why it was removed. --Thaddius 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No reliable sources. I'm half-convinced that it's a hoax, possibly a desperation move by Tiger. All there is for evidence is a usenet post and some sketchy fansites. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's up there with the Game.com version of Resi 2 in the "was it every going to happen" stakes. Plus we all know it would've been rubbish. Anyway, yeah, no sources= no entry. Hyperspacey 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Resident Evil 2 for the Game.com WAS released. I can't really see Tiger claiming that they were getting a game without any pretence They would have been sued for that. Ah well. --Thaddius 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

the torture scene

i know that revolver ocelot says he can detect auto-fire controllers and in this artical it states that if the game reads an impovably high amount of hits that it will give you game over

but i am sure that ocelot is bluffing because the first time i beat the game by beating the torture scene i used an auto-fire controler and i had not problems at all this was the ps version of the game not twin snakes please clairify--Manwithbrisk 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cleared the game with autofire as well, but it's quite possible he only detects certain pads. I'll alter the article to remove the implication that he can detect pads (we don't know either way as of yet).Hyperspacey 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

GA/FA, anyone?

I'd rather not do it all myself, but I'm willing to help out if people want it to happen. -- Steel 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm [very] slowly trying to get it to GA myself. If you're willing to help out, a "Setting" and "Characters" section would be the first thing to do. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of those can be whipped up in about 3 seconds. I'll be happy to do it, but not at... *checks time*... 11:23pm. -- Steel 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed out with MGS3 so count me in, I'll get some reviews cited for you †he Bread 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Twin Snakes yet again

I went digging for something to imrpove the Twin Snakes article, but the more I fiddled with it the less happy I was. The sourcing is insufficient and the article was full of gameguide and fannish "criticism" waffle. I've redirected it here. If someone who objected to the merge would like to split it, feel free, but please leave the godawful version in the history be; start by sourcing what's already in this article (as it will help this get to GA/FA as well), then split it when you've got too much sourced info to use. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)