Talk:Metal Gear Online

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just a small question[edit]

Should it be mentioned in the expansion pack section that the expansions are named after DNA parts? it fits into the original game series pretty well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.156.50 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Basically because only a gene is part of DNA. "Memes" are the functional equivalent of "genes" for thoughts, ideas, mannerisms etc, i.e. replicating units. Both are discussed in Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.235.221 (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Surely it's irrelevant to a summary whether there was a beta test or, on the grounds of being technical and specific, the game is region-locked? Going to change. Rushyo (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start or B-class?[edit]

This article appears to be at least Start-class, possibly even B-class at a stretch. Anyone else concur? Rushyo (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from this, I believe MGO is at least one of the newly created C-class articles and is probably worth B-class now. Anyone want to pitch in with comments? -Rushyo (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOP[edit]

The article refers to SOP yet that something that they havnt revealed yet, just the name(kojima report stated it wasnt Standard Operating Procedure). Should it be in the article? John.n-irl 12:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan payton had said it in like two interviews. Yes it exists. They havent said what SOP stands for cause he not allowed to say the name.--Hitamaru 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOP stands for Sons Of the Patriots.

Do you have a reliable source to confirm this or are you just speculating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date?[edit]

December 07? Any news on that date, that cant be correct since MGS4 has been pushed back, i know there different titles but will MGO really be released this early? John.n-irl 12:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to remove the relese date, cant find a source for this anywhere except couple of places(forums...) which are basing it on wikipedia, 1up/gamespot/yahoo games all put unknown/TBA for a date. If anyone knows the correct info please put it up(i wanna know! :))John.n-irl 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
June 12th 2008, it ahs already been released. Ffgamera (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.P. Engine?[edit]

Back again...cant find any proof that the engine is called S.O.P. That just appears to be a game mechanic not the engine. Hate to take stuff out but it just appears to be wrong. If it is however it should be in the MGS4 page aswell since its the same engine. John.n-irl 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MGS4 hAS been pushed back to june and mgo is coming as a starter pack along with it so it wont be out in time for xmas =[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.222.118 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?[edit]

Why is this up for deletion?

I've been putting a hell of a lot of effort on this page, updatihg it daily. Can I hae some reason to it being deleted?

SuperBorisOnAPlane 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not up for deletion, it has been merged because it does not need its own page. —Ocatecir Talk 11:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any news on exclusivity? keep hearing about 360 port, anyone know the "truth"? :) John.n-irl 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... no? The magazines and Blogs are making a ton of money off these rumors.--Hitamaru 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlacKDraGoN_: there is not any chance of that happening. metal gear solid is staying ps3 exclusive hideo kojima said so himself in an interview i watched the words come from his mouth, he besically said in nicer words that the 360 sucks, not by bashing the 360 but just saying the ps3 is basically a moster =p

Chances of MGS4 or MGO coming to the 360 are pretty slim, but I remember way back when Resident Evil 4 was released on the GameCube and the leader of that game said he would have "his head cut-off" before it got ported to the PS2. I'm pretty sure it got ported and I'm pretty sure the guy didn't commit suicide.

Also, with the famed Itagaki who was the lead of the Ninja Gaiden series actually didn't do the port to the PS3 and later came out saying it was a disgrace. Some higher up in Konami could easily say "hey you random guy, we like money so go make a team of developers and port Metal Gear against Kojimas wishes". Anything is possible and people can have a change of heart. mcnichoj (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay[edit]

When the section talks about enhancing skills, it mentions "tomfoolery". This may be the name given during the beta, but what exactly would that entail? Would that be laying traps such as magazines? please clarify what "tomfoolery is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogueFox (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC) BlacKDraGoN_: there is not any chance of that happening. metal gear solid is staying ps3 exclusive hideo kojima said so himself in an interview i watched the words come from his mouth, he besically said in nicer words that the 360 sucks, not by bashing the 360 but just saying the ps3 is basically a monster and a sexy beast at that =p[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MG Online 07.jpg[edit]

Image:MG Online 07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Heck it's been brought up on that discussion page that it isn't even really known where the image is from since as they said "MGO doesn't have seprate packaging from MGS4." So is that from a fan site or something? 98.193.232.86 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

In the latest PlayStation Magazine, it has been reported that MGO and MGS4 will release together. Not seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.8.105 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ut the text in here, iv heard that its a slightly ambiguous aricle John.n-irl (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want the full text, here ya are:

Metal Gear Solid 4 + Metal Gear Online. Separate entities? Really? It didn't make too much sense, but now we can officially confirm that MGO will be an integral part of MGS4. That's right, the two products are conjoined into one supreme MGS package. The integration of the two games is a major, but no brainer for franchise fans wondering why they were separate entities for so long.

The rest of the article was just deteails about various aspects of MGO's gameplay, maps, number of players, number of weapons, & skills.

So how about we delete this article or merge it with the MGS4 article?--The Virginian (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGO is now being touted as a seperate game, but it comes with MGS4. So stay on its own or combine the two? john.n-irl (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MGO will come with MGS4 with apparently only 5 maps. They are still planning a separate releaes of MGO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongsauce (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MGO and MGS4 were released on the same disc on June 12th, 2008. Ffgamera (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Intro[edit]

As this game nears release, it has become clear what this game will involve and contain. I think we should discuss here a possible merge with MGS4 now, rather than nearer the point of release. I am of the opinion that it should stay an independent article, as MGO is being marketed as two games, with MGS4 containing the starter pack, and more DLC to follow. however I can understand the reasoning behind a merge, also, if we could keep the currently agreed intro as-is until some discussion takes place? Opinions? John.n-IRL 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid has an online feature. It is not a seperate game. Following konami's "novel" language and marketing is too Positive-POV and treats wikipedia like an advertising.
Dozens of games have DLC that expand the game, that doesnt make what is included to start a "starter pack". Calling it a "starter pack" is a method to intice sales of DLC, and wikipedia isnt an advertisement for the producer.
Merge with MGS4 Wageslave (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

A lot of the criticism seems to have been "added in" by the editor who added this section not keeping with WP:NPOV, "The rush to get Konami ID's has crippled the Konami ID site. The site has been at a literal standstill since the day the beta download was placed on the PSN. While some have been able to navigate through the near impossible registration process, the majority of players have been riddled with error messages, inaccurate error messages telling user's that their emails are in use by another account (even when they're not), and quite often the server connection timing out" seems to be written from the editor's own insight and improperly sources the Kotaku article. Also using this article just so the editor could write in the part regarding "red tape" since the article only makes brief mention about MGO.

I have rewritten the article to just mention Kotaku and their complaint about not being able to use just the PSN ID. Strongsauce (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 key points that need to be made, and it should be in a Seperate Criticism section.
A) Konami distributed broken keys.
B) Konami's Beta Key server crashed.
C) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account beta play.
D) Konami has angered users by requiring a unique online account (post beta) for online play.
Relating to A
Title: Konami ID Dojo: Oops, We Mucked Up The Digits
"Konami klusterfuck kontinues! In this edition of Konami ID Dojo, we bring word of incomplete digit codes issued with the pre-order DVD, which was due to a printer error."
[1]
Relating to A & B
Title: Kojima not so thrilled for MGS4
Direct quote (the first sentence): A lot of people have been unhappy lately with all the red tape that must be severed in order to get into the Metal Gear Solid Online beta.
[2]
Relating to A & B
Title: Some MGO Beta Keys Invalid? Some keys appear to be missing key letters
"While it wasn't possible to create Konami IDs because the portal and website are down, it appears that there's a much larger problem – some beta key owners don't have a full key to acquire the beta files"
[3]
Relating to A & B
Title: Konami.net crashes with MGO launch
"we had to register for a Konami ID. Ok, fair enough, problem is, the DAMN SERVER CRASHED. After several frivolous attempts at creating an account and always receiving one of several error messages"
[4]
Relating to B
Title: Konami ID Dojo: Site Down, Fix It Time
"Bringing you all the latest ID clusterfuck news, today's update is quite exciting. No, it's very exciting. So many people are trying to access the portal site, that Konami's servers are buckling"
[5]
Relating to C & D
Title: Konami The Metal Gear Online ID Clusterfu*k
"you're going to need not one ID, but, you ready, two other separate IDs. That's right! Your PSN name is apparently worthless...Your PSN name doesn't mean jacksnot in MGO. You must sign up for two other IDs — one gives you access to "various Konami products and services" and the other is your "GAME ID." Didn't think it was possible to make something sillier than Wii Friend Codes, but Konami has done just that."
[6]
Relating to C & D
Title: Metal Gear Online Requires Separate Konami ID
"Lack of standardized online doesn't bode well for a robust PS3 online service...Most gamers likely feel a great sense of weariness at the prospect of being forced to sign up for yet another email account, web login or profile page just to be able to access some variety of digital content -- but what if that login was necessary in order to play Metal Gear Online?..Those who do have a key to the Metal Gear Online beta will log on after June 19th to be greeted with a signup not just to Sony's online Playstation Network but also also to Konami's internal "Konami ID" system -- a completely separate online entity not affiliated with your existing Playstation 3 username or identity in any way"
[7]
Relating to A
Title "Konami replacing botched Metal Gear Online beta codes"
" Unfortunately, there are a number of Snakes-in-training who dropped a Lincoln to secure an incomplete beta code, due to a printing error at Konami HQ"
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/19/konami-replacing-botched-metal-gear-online-beta-codes/#thankYou
Relating to A & B
Title "Konami ID Site Woes and Workaround"
" hoping to quickly jump online and begin the Metal Gear Online beta quickly found themselves frustrated by the process that is required to sign up. Gamers who pre-ordered the MGS4 limited edition were given a code which was supposed to give them access to the beta. To their surprise, some of the codes distributed to those who pre-ordered were 3 alphanumeric characters short of an acceptable code...what can only be described as an utter folly...the web team behind the website have the site set to time out as rapidly as you can hit refresh.
http://2opgaming.com/2008/04/20/konami-id-site-woes-and-workaround/
The part that you identified as "writen from an editor's own insight" was not -- save for the presumptive "rushed" quip which should be omitted -- it was simply poorly sourced. I would also like to suggest that two sources for each point be included (as I've provided here) so that Positive-POV sanitation of the article doesnt occur. Ample sources help guard against such behaviour.
I would suggest that (1) A Seperate Criticism section is restored and (2) These 4 issues be covered. Regarding 2; Perhaps Criticism should be handled in two sections like the following.
Section: Criticism
SubSection: Online Multiplayer Beta
SubSection: Unique Konami-IDs
Wageslave (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, no. The number and server issues are minor issues in reality. The only real issue could be the game not using the PlayStation Network, you cant push for this to become a bigger problem than it is. Servers crash all the time, its not a huge issue. John.n-IRL 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The rush to get Konami ID's has crippled the Konami ID site. The site has been at a literal standstill since the day the beta download was placed on the PSN. While some have been able to navigate through the near impossible registration process, the majority of players have been riddled with error messages, inaccurate error messages telling user's that their emails are in use by another account (even when they're not), and quite often the server connection timing out" The whole sentence reeks of POV. Using words such as, "literal standstill", "near impossible", "been riddled with error messages" are all weasel words used to reflect Konami in a harsher light for something that happens quite often to game companies. Should these problems be noted? Maybe. But definitely should be done in a neutral POV tone. Also consider that Wikipedia frowns severly on naming a section, "criticism", so the title needs to be more neutral; such as, "Problems during prerelease rollout" or something similar. Also keep in mind this is a "beta test" of the game, not an official rollout so again giving Konami such a severe lashing out just because a beta test didn't run smoothly seems to run counter to the point of them beta testing. Strongsauce (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I conceed that material should not be included, instead, directly quote the material above.
Just to note, that wasnt done by wageslave(me), but done by this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Online&diff=206661054&oldid=206632893
Wageslave (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to reconsider? Including this material is within wikipedia policy.
Wageslave (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your going to have to explain what your point is im afraid, just because you can source something does not mean its worthy of inclusion. John.n-IRL 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even discussing this, as Strongsauce says, its a beta, designed to find flaws in the system. Them finding flaws shouldn't really be worth mentioning. Stick to the main issue, PS3s lead exclusive game this year(maybe) not using PlayStations own network. John.n-IRL 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about more than the "beta". That is why I made the argument above clear. Points A&B&C relate to the beta, D does not. Including commentary on the beta process is relevant and within the scope of the article, it meets notability requirements and is amply cited.
Wageslave (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya wageslave :) Isnt the 2OpGaming ref a private blog, would it pass reliable sources?

Yeah, possibly - I'd be willing to conceed that. Though, I'd imagine you'd accept the others as corroborating 2opgaming's POV. While it is private, its not really unique. Wageslave (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im still unsure as to how notable the missing numbers issue is, or the slow website(it is a beta after all), however I think some comment on the decision to not use the PSN should definitely be mentioned. Does any other game(with online features) not use PSN? John.n-IRL 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Konami's failure to distribute proper codes is well documented and is relevant and significant.
Konami's servers havent been slow, but have (as the citations note) failed. Not slow, but crashed.
I concur that Point D needs documentation.
Wageslave (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is "well documented" does not make it notable. Its a beta, betas are conducted to find errors in the system. The (featured)Halo 3 article does not mention the problems during its beta, nor does the COD4 article. John.n-IRL 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Added the 1up.com and Wired citations to provide context. Wageslave (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wageslave's vandalism[edit]

I have had to undue the removal of this section twice. I would request the other editors help monitor this behaviour.

You've been adding criticism pages to unreleased Metal Gear game articles for a while now, despite being asked by multiple users to stop. It's obvious that you've got some sort of agenda by trying to slant these articles into the negative, despite most of your sources being opinionated, knee-jerk journalism. Please stop it. HitotsuOne (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Online&oldid=207250522

Wageslave (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, I've done had to do it again.
Hitotsuone; you'll see extensive discussion of the matter above. The material is well within Wikipedia policy, without a doubt - it is notable and relvant. To exclude it would be a positive-POV slant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Online&oldid=207251908
Wageslave (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only person vandalizing the page here is you, Wageslave. You've been doing it on more than one Metal Gear page and have ignored several warnings and requests to stop it. I'm going to keep reverting your edits to prevent the article from having this clearly negative slant you're aiming for. HitotsuOne (talk)

1) Changing my edits on the discussion page is against policy, please cease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metal_Gear_Online&oldid=207253191
2) The section is well discussed, and belongs in the article.
3) If you remove it again, I will file a WP:3RR violation on the matter.
Wageslave (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did observing WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF become uncool?--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Additional discussion has been taking place on hitotsuone's talk page;
"I would ask you to please stop removing the section regarding the beta. The material is relevant, notable and well cited. There is much discussion on the page there, if you follow the article's edits, you'll see that I am not solely responsible for that paragraph. It has been a very well discussed paragraph, and it should remain. Please stop removing it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HitotsuOne
See the now removed edit here Wageslave (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wageslave (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Harassing a user on the discussion page is against policy, please cease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metal_Gear_Online&oldid=207252881
2) You have ignored multiple requests on various pages to cease adding needless criticism for an unreleased product.
3) Since you've insisted on reverting the article multiple times, I have just filed a WP:3RR on the issue.
HitotsuOne (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGS4 online multiplayer[edit]

I believe the first sentance to be incorrect. MGS4 is not a MMO.

A MMO "is a video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world."

MGS4 does not have a "persistent world", and it does not support "hundreds or thousands of players". Matches are spawned on demand and support 16 people.

It should read; "is a forthcoming online spinoff"

Wageslave (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say MMO? John.n-IRL 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click the link, its been added thusly; online
Wageslave (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say MMO in this article? I must be missing it. John.n-IRL 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the link for "online" points to massively multiplayer online when it should like to online_game :)
Wageslave (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah cool, couldnt see it. Changed it, minor changes like that dont really need discussion. John.n-IRL 01:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a change I made earlier, and it was undone. Thanks.Wageslave (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "spinoff" but "feature"[edit]

The first sentance reads; "is a forthcoming online spinoff"

In the context of products (which this is), it means "A spinoff-product, is a product deriving elements of design , branding or function from an existing product, but which is itself a new distinct product."

MGS4's online multiplayer is not a "new distinct product", it is included as a feature with MGS4.

I believe the sentance should be corrected to read: "is a forthcoming online feature" or "element" or "game-type" or somesuch.

Wageslave (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iv already opened a discussion on this, where you voted to merge with MGS 4. Other users on other talk pages have already indicated the policies you may be violating. Stop pushing your point of view in this article, wait for a consensus between other editors please. John.n-IRL 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question of merging or not is secondary. At present, the article is inaccurate (see above). It can therefore be changed while the question to merge is settled. Please, WP:AGF, I am not "in violation of policies".
Wageslave (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before. And there is a limit to the assumption of good faith. And yes it is not my place to say you have violated policies, I am only saying that it is possible you are. John.n-IRL 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We just need to wait and see how they plan on releasing MGO and whether it gets its own separate release. As far as I know from reading about MGO, the MGO in MGS4 is a "starter pack" and there will be a standalone version but that is all up in the air. Even assuming that there won't be a standalone version, that still doesn't prevent MGO from having its own article especially if it makes the MGS4 article more manageable and easier to read. As for the word spinoff, I would agree that we don't know enough and maybe just saying "version" would be better for now since we know so little about the future outcome of this will be. Strongsauce (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should reflect what we know now. Are there any citations in the article for "there will be a standalone version"? I concur that spinoff should be removed in any course. Wageslave (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A standalone version was the original design of the game. John.n-IRL 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it is not the design now, the language should change - right? Wageslave (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Edits[edit]

Ok, so things here are getting a little out of hand. Couple of issues still may need to be addressed but it is becoming impossible to follow the discussion page here. If you want to repond to someones post, please do so after it, not in the middle of it. John.n-IRL 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native resolution[edit]

I have seen many articles, including this one, incorrectly state the games display resolutions as their native resolutions. Consoles are not like a PC where the resolutions the game renders in changes when you change resolutions. Native resolution would be the resolution in which the game is internally rendered and is fixed. The display resolution would be whatever mode it displays in, after the console upscales or downscales the image appropriately. MGO has a native resolution of 1024x768, to which the closest 16:9 resolutions is known as 665p. It's display resolutions are those listed, plus 1080i and 1080p. Thinkharder (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverts regarding region/language locking[edit]

So far I've only been able to find verifiable (and, in fact, unverifiable) sources stating that MGO is language-locked. If someone can verify this otherwise please do WITH A VERIFIABLE SOURCE. A quick French and German google search for copies of MGO brings up only English screenshots. Personally it sounds unlikely to me too but remember: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -WP:Verifiability. The existing citation states outright: "If you need to play games with your friends, you must purchase the same language version." -Rushyo (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't "state outright" any such thing. You're treating a bad Japanese translation as a credible source when the games journalist on the page clearly states in ENGLISH that it's REGION locked. Quit reverting the edits!

See User_talk:212.251.124.43 for further discussion on this. As for reverting the edits, you can note I've merely been reverting reversions that had no justification. The language-locked reference has been the status quo for a while and was justified at the time. -Rushyo (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Level Three Alarm[edit]

I may be foolish, but in the article it mentions a level three alarm being set off when a person gets close (Stealth Deathmatch) What is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Checkhead (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Stealth Deathmatch, when two players are close to each other, they both hear a repeating clicking sound. The rate at which these clicks are heard (far-in-between, common, rapid) represents the distance between the players(far, close, near-by). Thus, players have a "three level alarm-indicator" of enemy presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.251 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking of the article[edit]

As it stands right now I feel like this article should be remade from the ground up. There is far too much talk about the gameplay of the game and not enough about the development of MGO and the reception of the game from media outlets.

Personally I think it would be better if the article talked about Metal Gear Online as a WHOLE, starting from the MGS 3 incarnation and working its way through the Portable Ops implementation and finally to MGS4's. Also the article really has to talk about the development of the game, why Kojima was interested in bringing Metal Gear to the online realm, what challenges were faced during the development, et cetera, you know, the crap that is in EVERY video game article.

Finally, the article should talk about the impact of the game, what do people think of MGO? What does the media think about it? This is all really key stuff, not the stuff that's currently in the article talking about specific gameplay nuances. -ChewyLSB (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?[edit]

How can there be no criticism for this game? Even people that love it, hate it.

Half the players are glitchers. When you play Survival, at least 3/4 of the players are glitchers, and there is ALWAYS someone using a lagswitch.

The hit ratio is distorted, according to the developers, to "keep the game from becoming a spray-fest". Which basically means if you shoot an enemy in the head on full-auto, at least 3/4 of the bullets will have no effect.

Reporting people for glitching, shooting through walls, or using a lagswitch has NO effect either, even if you include video and screen captures of the offending player.

The experience system is completely retarded. Getting 4 kills and 3 deaths in a round may give you double negative experience, or it may not. There is hardly any consistency. One bad game can cause you to get double negative experience and make you lose your level, and it will literally take you 3 times as long to get the level back.

The automatching system for Survival will generally only put you with a team that has an average level at least 4 levels higher than your teams, which means even on the EXTREMELY rare occasions that the other team isn't glitching and shooting through walls, you still have almost no chance of winning.

Yet the normal autmatching system functions as it should, gathering players that are within a range of your level.

It's honestly one of the most infuriating games ever.

The developers are more concerned with releasing expansions than with banning cheaters, and it ruins the whole experience. The same 4 or 5 teams win survival every week, and no matter how many time my friends and I have reported those teams for using lagswitches, with video, no action is ever taken.

Even if a team over uses a lagswitch and causes YOU to be kicked from the game, you will be penalized and prohibited from logging in for a half hour.

It seems like the whole game is designed to cater to the players that wish to use exploits, and to hell with the rest of us.

Go ahead and search youtube for mgo glitchers. Every single one of those players has been reported, and every single one still plays, and still wins survival.

98.231.94.63 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Well its supposed to be an article about it not a review of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.207.154 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Championship 2010 section - bias and poor quality of writing[edit]

This section seems to have been written by someone who has an agenda about the results of the tournament mentioned in the section. It reads like an accusation rather than a balanced and relevant discussion of the tournament. In addition the quality of the writing is not up to par. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.225.143 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metal Gear Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Metal Gear Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metal_Gear_Online&oldid=1203982671"