Talk:Metal Gear/Archive 2

unofficial sites
to those who keep posting Metal Gear Forever and Metal Gear Confidential as additional sites, please read WP:EL and WP:FANSITE, because they are NOT official sites. Don't be so damn stubborn as to keep putting them in. I don't want to go edit warring, but it would be appreciated if you never post them again. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the policy yourself. There are not rules stating that a fansite can't be listed as link, labeled as FANSITE. Neither site shows any illegal info or anything that violates the Fansite linking policy. And if you don't belive me, go look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupin_iii

Look at the fansites listed on the buttom of that page. OK? So shut the hell up. No policy is being violate here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing sites that you have been constantly trying to put in since last year are not somehow owned by you or have interest in getting put on the Wikipedia page. Please take a look at Links normally to be avoided #1, #4.


 * Consider why these sites should be linked and whether any of those two match any of the criteria here What should be linked


 * Also see WikiProject_Video_games/Sources which as a guide for most video game articles states: Fansites usually do not qualify as reliable sources. Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source is scattered, but the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source? provide a good summary. When checked against the requirements there, fansites do not pass. They have little to no editorial oversight, and may be self-published (i.e. the person hosting the website is also the one writing its content)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongsauce (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Flame all you want Mr anon, but those fansites are not seeing the light of day here in Wikipedia anytime soon, and please drop the Lupin III-has-fansite-links-so-Metal Gear-must-have-them-as-well argument. It's not working. Take those warnings on your talk page seriously first before you get funny ideas again about another push for those fansites. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I plan on adding more fansites as well as several are used by Konami to gauge Fan Input. This has been confirmed by Ryan Payton in his blogs. So believe me, I'll be adding more. You have no reason, AT ALL for not tollerating them. Fansites tend to be far more informative and up-to-date than Wikipedia. You have yet to prove me why the Lupin III fansites are allowed and the Metal Gear ones are not.


 * Add any more fansites and I'll arrange an IP ban for you and to have them permanently blacklisted so that you can't even write the URL on Wikipedia. I'll investigate how the Lupin III pages wound up with unverified fan-created material linked to them seperately. Hyperspacey (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't threaten me with a ban. I'll find ways around that, TRUST ME! And I'll give you until Monday to find an explanation for the Lupin Fansite links. If you don't come up with them, I'll put the fansites back on the article. And please do get an admin involved. Maybe he can tell me why is it that some articles on Wikipedia allow fansites while other do not. I will be MORE THAN happy to show you more examples, all over Wikipedia, that show fansite links; all of them are about as credible as the fansites I listed for Metal Gear. I look foward to seeing how you resolve this issue. Frankly though, not exactly sure why it's even an issue. Wikipedia is not official web... it's a fansite in itself. It's a fansite that allows people to add content at will. So, to ban fansites from being posted (under a label FANSITES, which right there states that it is not official web)seems rather hypocritical. But I'll play your game. Get the admin, research why other articles list fansites. I'll check back on Monday and see what you come up with. You don't have to do that... but if you don't give me a valid reason why those fansites can't be listed on the article, they will return on Monday. Have a nice weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an online user-editable encyclopedia with CLEARLY defined regulations for content. I'll dig out the appropriate battery of policies assuming you haven't read them all already, but I assure you, the rest of us will be deleting any added fansites long after you get bored of adding them. Also, just because one article has against-policy material does not validate it. There are fansites linked to all over Wikipedia, but that's more an example of the failure to reach a concensus over policy and implementing it than them being valid for addition. As a rule, fansites cannot be vetted for validity or importance for inclusion, whichm eans we either all people to include every damn fansite they want or have a blanket ban on them. Hyperspacey (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, while the Lupin fansites are among the most complete documents and resources on the Web for the films, the MGS fansites are something of a bad joke. The Snake Soup is basically Ravi Singh's private blog with a forum on it, MGC hasn't been updated in three months and doesn't even mention MGS4, MGForever is badly in need of updating. At a stretch The Unofficial Site could be included due to its good design, conciseness and completeness, but even then it's a Google search away from discovery. There's no point posting five websites up that list exactly the same information in descending order of usefulness. Hyperspacey (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe you should try visiting the site prior to passing judgement. Unoficial site has all the latest MGS news and updates on the weekly Payton blogs. The Snake Soup has a lot of great articles that fans enjoy that further enhance the MG expericen. Metal Gear Forever needs updates? LOL! It has more Metal Gear content than Wikipedia. What exactly is in "badly" need of?! And MGC... well, I gotta give you that one. But it does have some good downloads. You may want to look at those sites before running your big mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, a few pointers. Firstly, redundancy. If someone wants to know what's in, say, Ryan Payton's podcast there's a link to his podcast page in the article already. We don't need a link to a page summarising his podcasts. Secondly, does the site provide useful information? Having an epic number of MGS-themed downloads or lots of fanwritten discussion does not make a site a useful resource for linking to in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has links where the site linked to provides useful additional detail- NOT TO ENHANCE THE "MG EXPERIENCE". Hence why fansites rarely cut it and only well constructed information resources do. And even then you only need the one, best resource if you're including anything. So, at a stretch TUS makes the cut. Every other site has pretty much the same info arranged differently. Hyperspacey (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could give you that one, well pointed out. Though if you are looking at content, I don't really see how you would take TUS of Snake Soup of MGF. Both MGF and The Soup offer a lot more actual factual information. For example, MGF has a lot addition information to the game's developments and othe various events, like the 20th Anniversary Party. Something that even Wikipedia does not offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that information about the 20th Anniversary Party would be at best a passing note in any Metal Gear Solid entry. E.g. The first playable instance of MGS4 shown was at the MGS 20th Anniversary Party which even so is not very encyclopedic or in synch with Wikipedia's policies.


 * For several months I have been following this guy (63.161.203.12) as he attempted to both add these two links and attempt to argue that MGSPO was not part of Metal Gear canon. His additions to the articles where never very encyclopedic and he attempts to always revert several editors UNDOs of his changes before engaging in any type of discussion at all. See all the edits he has made and almost every single time it is for these two specific websites. Also he doesn't even attempt to get a consensus with other Editors on this issue and just starts flaming them if they don't agree. See his arguments about PO: here, here, and here.


 * Also I don't really believe his intentions for adding this aren't for his own personal gain of having those pages listed. Maybe I'm wrong but someone who doesn't have an interest in this would have just given up trying to add those links Strongsauce (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You do bring up good points, however, I think you're missing something. I browsed over the sites again, and they are offering a lot of great visuals. From rare screenshots to full art galleries. That's something that a mostly-text Wikipedia does not have. Looking at say MGF, I saw an early development screen of MGS1, or artwork of the MGS3 Shagohod that I've never seen before. In Ghost Babel apperently you can find the wreckage of the original Metal Gear tank from MG1. I had no idea. But the side shows the screen of it. That's just to name a few from MGF. Then you got the Unofficial site, massive galleries and tons of scans of stuff I've never seen. Music downloads (legal) and game clips. The information amount on that site is realitively weak compared to MGF, but it does offer a lot of other cool things I found. Snake Soup... yes, mostly opinions. So I may have to agree with you on that. But I still believe that there is some degree of value to at least a couple of those. Things that Wikipedia does not have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.150 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's MONDAY! I read over your discussions and also checked the LUPIN III page. So now instead of "fansites" it says "For Additional Information". So I tell you what, I want to see at least 2 sites added to the article as they seem to be fitting under the "For Additional Information" description. Metal Gear FOREVER and Metal Gear Solid The Unofficial Site. Reply to this, as I do plan on adding the two to the page today. Give me reasons (good and valid ones) not to. If the Lupin page can say "For Additional Information" and list 2 fansites (one all about content, basically a Lupin verion of MGF, and one all about news,basically a Lupin version of TUS) I see NO REASON at all not to list them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been very rude, demanding, and very uncivil in your discussions. Please stop using the Lupin III page as justification for linking these sites. You have tried adding these links on several occassions and have been shot down by several different editors. If you do not see "NO REASON" at all not to list them it is because you are basically ignoring the editors here.


 * In cases of dispute like this Wikipedia policies dictate that you come to a consensus with other editors before you put in changes that have been disputed. In general, fansites are not allowed (because they often not satisfy the requirements to be linked) and if another page has fansites that it is up to the editors who watch over that page whether or not they should be allowed or if they violate external links policy. Furthermore, many of these sites also fail this policy: Linking to copyrighted works, as I can see that the METAL GEAR confidential site you linked to contains scanned copyrighted artwork. If that is what you consider the "unique" material that is not provided on Wikipedia, then your argument falls flat there.
 * Note also at the very top of the Wikipedia Policy on External links,


 * Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).
 * In short, many of these fansites don't meet the criteria of inclusion as an external link since they don't offer anything Wikipedia worthy that is 1) not violating copyright 2) unable to be included into the wikipedia article due to some circumstance. Please stop bringing this topic back up as many editors who are watching this page will just revert your edits and possibly have to bring in an admin and waste his time.


 * For the record so you do not weasel your way out of saying no one disapproves of you adding these links, I disapprove of adding the links on the basis of those pages violating copyright, possible COI with the person and these some of these fan pages, and just failing the requirements of meeting external links policy Strongsauce (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you STILL avoid giving me a valid reason why the Lupin fansites are allowed. You are bluntly ignoring this because frankly you do not have a just reason. Further more, you brought up Confidential... fine. What about Metal Gear Forever? There are pleanty of things on it, information and visuals, that are not found on Wikipedia. The site violates no copyrights at all. What about The Unofficial Sites? The music and art screen galleries are something that is not offered on Wikipedia and non of that content violates any copyrights. Answer me these 3 questions please:

1. Why is the Lupin III fansites allowed and the Metal Gear ones are not when the level of content is very similar? 2. Why doesn't the Unofficial Site meet the fansite requirement when it offers a lot of non-informational media for further series understanding? 3. Why doesn't Metal Gear Forever meet the fansite requirment when it offers inormation and visuals that are not found on Wikipeida that furthers series understanding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also looked at the Link Policy. Let's take MGF as an example and run it through the list:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader? Yes. Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes, you get information that is not found on Wikipedia as well as a lot of visuals to support that information. Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Yes. The site has been around since 2001 and is the oldest operation Metal Gear fansite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well? What, you guys got no answer to that? You see! I've proven to you that the fansites do belong there. Perhaps not all of the ones I listed, but at least 2 of them. Still waiting answers to my questions... assuming you can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think almost all the editors have posted some link of some kind that have already provided answers to your questions. Lupin III, falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of your arguments for inclusion fall under, Fansites are not reliable sources. Strongsauce (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! You have not explained a site like MGF is not a reliable source. Does it have content that Wikipedia does not? YES. Is there any Copyright violations? NO. Is it any different in content that the Lupin Fansites? NO. What is your basis of the argument. You keep showing me the policy... and I don't see how MGF (or even TUS for that matter) violates it. Explain that to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems we are bogged down on moot points and details now so this will probably be my last post on the subject. I don't know how else to tell you other than to read those sections. Wikipedia should not be a repository of links and fansites should not be added just for the sake of adding them. All you need to know are provided in those links that other Editors and I have posted under this discussion:
 * Fansites are not notable and not a RS with very few exceptions that none of the sites (except maybe TUS) qualify for. They are just not notable in regards to the article subject. For example, Hideo Kojima's personal blog would be something that could be added as an EL (ignoring the fact that his blog is not a fansite) because the reasoning is is that his site is notable because he is the creator of the series. MGF would not qualify because it is not notable in regards to the subject matter. Being the oldest Metal Gear site (if that could even somehow be verified) does not make it an automatic inclusion into the article's contents. Just because a site may or may not have information that is not on Wikipedia does not mean that it is a valid link to place in the External links section.


 * Just because something exists does not mean that it is notable or should be on Wikipedia.


 * Also of note, in the future please sign your postings by adding ~ per WP:SIG at the end of your posts so SineBot does not have to do it for you. Strongsauce (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page
This page hasn't been archived in ~2 years. Any objection to letting MiszaBot handle this? Strongsauce (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, but leave out the most recent ones. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear for MSX2?
I remember playing Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 on the MSX (not MSX2). Is the information that both games were released for MSX2 correct? Daniel3ub (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Metal Gear 1 and 2 are both MSX2 games. They're even labelled as such on their packaging. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first paragraph needs cleaning up extensively. The part sentence a few lines down describing Metal Gear as

'usually a bipedal walking tank with nuclear launching capabilities'. I'm sure a much better description can be used and surely the word 'usually' falls under 'Weasel Words' or 'Glittering Generality'.

The sentence:

'The series is famous for its lengthy cinematic scenes and intricate storylines as well as its exploration of the nature of politics, warfare, censorship, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, loyalty, reality, subjective vs. universal "truths" and various other philosophical themes.'

is too convoluted, I'm sure it's ok to just to mention the overall themes of the game, such as memes, genes and scene, and possible mention all this later. --Uwaisis (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the description of the Metal Gear. Metal Gear should be desrcibe more than just a walking battle tank. It should be desrcibe as a symbol or a means to the end or something in that nature. Ronshied (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ronshied

Metal Gear Solid Mobile
How come no mentioning of Metal Gear Solid Mobile at all? Not only is it a new game released only weeks ago, but it takes place between MGS1 and MGS2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MGS Mobile - canon
About my recent edits to the article - yes it's really canon and not a spin-off, one proof of this is the Gametrailers MG retrospective, part six. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear 3: Revolver Ocelot
This was a rumor and has been confirmed to be fake. http://gamerush.zoomshare.com/files/news/002592_Metal_Gear_3_Revolver_Ocelot_confirmed_fake.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eidotemit (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn...That woulda been awesome. I don't think it should be included in the article. Unless there will be a section on Fake Games or hoaxes etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Games - About time you fixed it!
About damn time you guys fixed the Main Games. I've fought here for 2 years trying to get you to change the Main Games to just the 6 Kojima games. Proof after proof, documentary after documentary, you all fought me on it saying that just because Portable Ops has a canon plot means that it's on par with the main 6. Looks like you finally saw the light. Guess you can't argue 3 official documentaries forever, huh? LOL! Just keep your article true to the site:

http://metalgearforever.homestead.com/metalgear.html

And everything will be nice and accurate. Clearly some people already do since MGF is the ONLY site that breaks down the series, separating the main 6 Kojima games from the rest. I'm sure some will deny it, but it's nice to see that the site is used as a guide for some of you.

Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go again with that MGF crap and the six-main-games-only argument. Sorry kid, no dice. Guess you can't beat the MGS Database either. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Metal Gear SAGA Vol. 1? How about Vol. 2?  Have seen the Special Edition disk of MGS4? Three official documentaries that DO say it's only the 6 main games. It's fact. MPO was a spin-off from MGS3. A conon plot does not make it a "main game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Main games" in this article appears to refer to the games that are considered canon to the Metal Gear story. If "Main" irks you so much why not change the headers to Canonical games and Related games? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Canon does NOT eqaul Main. Main games are the ones that have UNIQUE game engines. MPO uses the game engine of MGS3, and thus is NOT a unqique game. It's a spin-off from MGS3. There are THREE OFFICAL documentaries that confirm that, including MGS4 Limited Edition. As such, Please STOP changing it. MPO is NOT a main game according to the official Konami material. It's a conon spin-off. Just like the new Star Wars Clone Wars movie isn't part of the main films. Same situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the point is that on this article you do not own the word "main". If the contributors of this article are in consensus for including all of the canon games under the "main" section, then that's how the article will be. If you disagree with that, discuss it on this talk page instead of just changing it and telling everyone they're wrong. I still suggest changing "main" to "canon" in the section header if you're against it. and please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made that header title change. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the anon: Look, can you just stop pushing the six-main-games argument and the edit warring? Strongsauce already argued with you months ago over this, and you still don't give up. Just let it go! --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing?  There is no arguing.  I'm giving you OFFICIAL FACTS!  The issue here is that you guys clearly do NOT own the 3 documentaries.  SAGA Vol.1 only talked about 6 games.  Vol.2 ommitted the events of MPO.  MGS4 Lmt. Ed. only covered the main 6.  Nobody is disputing that MPO is Canon, but it is simply not on par with the other 6.  The Main series is the series that Kojima wrote and directed.  I really don't understand how you guys argue that.  MPO is a spin-off, and that's the official word from Konami.   I was under the impression that Wikipedia was interested in FACTS, not the way you guys would like to see things.   Now, labeling category as "Canon" doesn't fix the issue.  You might as well then add MGS Integral to it.  It's canon.  Snake mentions his VR training (if you complete 100% of it) on the Heliport.  And since Integral was an expansion of the VR Training in the original game it makes it a canon installment.   You can't argue that!  If you label it "Main" then should only have the Kojima 6 in there.  If you label it "Canon" then you need to add Integral to it.  I'll play ball with you guys.  That's fine.  But MGS Mobile is ALSO a canon game.   So Integral and Mobile have been added to the list.  If you want it 100% factual, then you'll have it.


 * I fixed your edits in which you moved Metal Gear Acid Mobile instead of Metal Gear Solid Mobile, as well as made other fixes. Frankly I'm trying to find a compromise for the issues instead of edit warring. I do own Saga Vol.2 and the Limited Edition MGS4 disk however the information regarded in there is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned the MGS4 Database relays the canonical information, and that includes the events in MPO. Statements like "...[MPO] is simply not on par with the other 6 [games]" is not non-PoV. Also please sign your comments by placing four tildes ( ~ ) after your comment, thank you. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it irrelivant?! When you talk about Star Wars you talk about the 6 main movies and THEN the other stuff.  Now, a lot of that "other" stuff is very much canon.  But that doesn't make part of the "Main Series".  You own the Lmt. Ed. of MGS4?  Watch the dang "History of MGS" chapter then.  SIX games there.  Where is MPO?   Hm?  If it's on par with them, why was it not there?  Why was it not discussed in the SAGA DVD's?   Because it is a Spin-off!  It doesn't matter how things are "as far as YOU are concerned".  It matters how things are as far as Konami and Kojima are concerned.  You keep bringing up the MGS4 database.   Why?  You have a list on the page that talks about the canon order of games.   That's your reference to the canon (and you should add MGS Mobile to that BTW).   But why are you putting MPO in the same group as the other 6?   Why are you restating the same info side by side?   That's stupid.  The fact is that there are 6 main games.  Everyting else, canon or non-canon, is a spin-off.  That's the fact.  And being a confirmed fact (with 3 official documentaries), it should be reflected on this page.  Why are you arguing against things that are officially stated?  WTF?! 63.161.203.11 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, the Chronology Template (which I believe you are referring to) was created before the MGSM article was (correct me if I'm wrong). The template serves as a "quick link" box showing the chronology of the 7 games and is placed in the story/plot section of each game. It's a quick way to show the timeline information when discussing the particular game's story. Also there seems to be some conflict regarding whether MGSM is actually fully canon, beyond speculation and guessing, which is why I placed the tag on it. The Database also seems to contain no info on MGSM.
 * Secondly, that MetalGearForever site appears to refer to itself as a fan-site, which brings into question its reliability. (Stated below that it is not being used as a source. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Thirdly, the comparison to Star Wars is rather unnecessary because Lucas, the creator of the canon, decided to place roman numerals over what he considers the "main" films. That is irrelevant to how Kojima treats his games and media.
 * Lastly, the "Main" section has been changed to "Canonical", so unless you want it changed back there's no need to argue over what is considered "main". Also, please remain civil. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-oorRqXpE  That is the official 2008 MGS4 Limited Edition bonus disk.   There it tells you what the main games are.   Now, I suggest making a separate list that talks about the story, there you can include MPO.   But you should have the "Main Series" list that talks about the gameplay innovations each game created.  The reference to MGF is not proof, it's just showing you a place that explains WHY there are 6 games.  Read the MPO section and you will understand.  In any case, there is the video that supports what I'm saying. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, past consensus has been using the canonical games for the "main games" series, not what Kojima or Konami, or you, consider "main" to be. I've changed the header to better reflect that. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MG Film casting
Has there been any concrete details on the cast? User:NexusFactor has been repeatedly posting that Amy Adams has been 'confirmed' as Meryl (http://xtcgamer.webs.com/amyadamsinterview.htm)... when the source interview is no more accurate than quote, "That’s the kind of role that I want, so if they call me in and ask me I will definitely say yes," unquote. That editor has been reprimanded at least three times on his talk page. I'm not sure if gamingXTC would qualify as an RS, but we ought to gather more info somewhere else and unless there are other sources, let's get our keystrokes off from posting such info. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary Games
Why is Portable Ops under "Primary Games" and "MGS VR Missions" isn't? Both games are canon. Yes, the VR Missions is a plot installment. It is DIRECTLY referenced in MGS2 as it was the VR Training that Raiden undertook. If you are going to include Portable Ops as a Primary game you have to include the VR Missions game under that category as well. Here is the Proof. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGUu3qp4NEk    Starting at 1:35 you get the direct discussion and footage that proves the VR training was, in fact, a canon installment of Raiden training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.209.60 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to stop you, but you will need more than YouTube links to prove the validity of your argument. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also to examine the video: it states that Raiden underwent VR Training, but seems to be using the old footage as an example and not saying that you played as Raiden who went through the training in VR Missions. Similar to the graphical cutscenes found in the MGS games, like starting at about 4:00 in that video. There is no point in the story where there are cutouts of pictures floating around a black abyss that can be considered canon. The non-third party video source can be considered speculation. And again, Missions was a supplemental release and can be found in that section; you are placing duplicate information in the article. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More than YouTube link?! WTF?! Have you played the game?! Clearly you have NOT! Raiden specifically mentions the VR Mission that he undertook. FACT! He even mentions the numerical listing for the VR Missions, Weapon, Advanced, etc. I really can't believe what BS this place is! You list Portable Ops as a canon game but not the VR Missions! Heck, VR Mission was a stand-alone release in US! Do your danm research before arguing. There is no speculation here. Play the fucking games before you try and tell me what the facts are! You may not consider a YouTube video as a source, but that's irrelivant. MGS2 is the source, I just showed it to you on an available video upload. Get your shit together!


 * Portable Ops is in the MGS4 Database, VR Missions (the game) is not. The fictional VR missions that soldiers underwent is mentioned in the Database, but this is not necessarily referring to the actual game/expansion, nor is MGS2s cutscene. TH 1 RT 3 EN' talk ♦ contribs 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? Says who?! Those are YOUR words ONLY! And it's nothing more then speculation. The facts state otherwise. An official game shows footage and mentions specific mission numberings in direct reference to the character. That's a hell of a lot more valid proof than your ASSUMPTION. An MGS2 cutscenes shows the VR Missions disk footage, lists specific mission numbering from the game, and all in direct reference to Raiden. That's proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, don't hold the Database as the only valid proof, look at the games. There are some contradictions in it that are NEVER disscussed in the game. For example, Ocelot/Liquid takeover. The Database contradicts it self. One article says that Ocelot was just acting in MGS2. But another says that he had to replace Liquid's arm with a prosthetic due to conflicts in his psyche. So, the database is vague on key elements too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally, why is it changed to Primary Games? It used to say Canon Games. Primary does NOT mean Canon, not ever. There are 3 documentaries, one from this year, that state there are only 6 Primary games. Portable Ops is an MGS3 spin-off. If you call the section "Primary", remove Portable Ops. If you call it "Canon" than add VR Missions. Then it will be accurate. Not accurate according to me, but accurate to official Konami documents and documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To the threadstarter: Your incivility and insistence in pushing your argument will not take you places here in Wikipedia. Your behavior and hostile remarks against Th1rt3en and I only goes to show that you are not willing to accept consensus - and before you say what I think you will say, we're not the only ones who agree on keeping the Primary Games list the way they are. Oh and by the way, I've played the MGS games as much as anyone else who has this article on their watchlist, so don't come in here and try to boss us around, thinking that you've played the games and we never did. If you can't accept the status quo, stay off Wikipedia, you've done nothing but waste our time and you're getting close to the 3RR rap. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I could care less what you think about me. It does not change that I'm telling you FACTS! You disregard them. You claim you know the games, and yet prove otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

@ unsigned User 63.161.203.11 (lol): Why are taking this so personally? I personally agree with your idea of the main Games being the six done by Kojima. But why are you fighting so hard? even going so far as insulting other talkers? This is pointless. They have their views and you have your view. remember what Kojima said through Big Boss. "It´s about accepting the opinion of others." Which doesn´t mean, you have to agree. You think Kojima wanted the fans to fight about what is a main game or what is not? about what is canon or what is not? This is just an encyclopedia. One that reflects the common opinion. You made a suggestion. it was rejected. So what? You don´t have to like it, but accept it. And as I said before. I´m on your side. But I think you´re doing it the wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.211.12 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Supllementals and Re-Releases
I´d recommend, that Games like the Vr Missions or Twin Snakes or Substance shouldn´t stand as their own games. They are expansions or updates of other games and since every other game- series lists their expansions and updated versions below the original, Metal Gear should too. this could look like: and so on.
 * Metal Gear Solid
 * Metal gear Solid: Integral (updated version)
 * Metal Gear Solid: The twin Snakes(remake)

As for the never-ending fighting about what the Main Series is and what spinn-offs are, I have a suggestion of my own: Main Series would be the six Kojima Games and the ubdates, he was involved in (Integral, Substance and even The Twin Snakes). Spinn-offs would be the other Games produced by what is now Kojima Productions. (including Ghost Babel, Acid, MPO, Mobile). Other Games are Games and Versions not developed by Kojima or Kojima Productions, which to date include only Snake´s Revenge and the NES Version of the original Metal Gear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.211.12 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with that. The only think I disagree on is Twin Snakes. Kojima wasn't actually involved in making the game. Yes, he's listed as a Producer, but only because the game was a remake of what he originally created/directed. So, obviously he made managerial decisions. However, he was involved full-time with MGS3 at the time and did not actually participate in Twin Snakes development. The game should be listed as a remake, along with Metal Gear (NES). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Series Breakdown:

MAIN GAMES - Written & Directed by Kojima


 * 1. Metal Gear
 * 2. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake
 * 3. Metal Gear Solid (Integral/VR Missions)
 * 4. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty (Substance)
 * 5. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (Subsistence/Online)
 * 6. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots (Online)

EXPANDED UNIVERSE - Additional games that have Kojima's input and relate to the main series


 * 1. Metal Gear Ghost Babel - Alternate sequel to Metal Gear 1
 * 2. Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops - Continuation to MGS3.

REMAKES


 * 1. Metal Gear (NES)
 * 2. Metal Gear Solid The Twin Snakes

OTHER


 * 1. Snake's Revenge
 * 2. Metal Gear Acid
 * 3. Metal Gear Acid 2
 * 4. Metal Gear Acid Mobile
 * 5. Metal Gear Solid Mobile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to rearrange the listing, keep in mind it's a descriptive list, and will probably be better to keep things simple. I suggest something similar to how it is set up in the individual game articles, like:

Primary games and supplemental releases
 * MG (and NES version*)
 * MG2
 * MGS1
 * Integral & VR Missions
 * Twin Snakes*
 * Digital Graphic Novel
 * MGS2
 * Substance
 * Bande Desinée
 * MGS3
 * Subsistence
 * MPO
 * MPO Plus
 * MGS4

Related games
 * (*NES version if not used above)
 * Snake's Revenge
 * Ghost Babel
 * (*Twin Snakes if not used above)
 * Acid
 * Acid 2
 * Acid Mobile
 * MGS Mobile
 * Metal Gear Online
 * MGS4 Database


 * this fits into 2 simple lists. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is still MPO. MPO is not a Main/Primary game. Yes, it is canon, but it is a supplementary title. The MGS4 LE Edtion Documentary confirms that as such. Because MPO is based on the MGS3 Game Engine it is a continuation of Snake Eater and not a stand-alone game. If you want to include MPO in the main games list that it should be done this way:


 * Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (2004 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid Subsistence (2005 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops (2006 | PSP)
 * Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops Plus (2007 | PSP)

There are 3 official documentaries that state that there are only 6 Main Games. Yes, MPO is canon, no questions about that. But that does not make it a main game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus for this article has been that the games placed in the "Primary/Main/etc. games" section are those that are canon. Main is not specific enough for one to conclude that it means 'those directed by Kojima' or 'those shown in certain documentaries'. The section should probably be changed back to "Canonical games" to better reflect this, unless consensus changes. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The old discussion is heating up.^^ I myself would prefer MPO standing under the spinn-off-section. But I´m fine if it stands as a CANONICAL GAME. But I like the Breakdown, Th1rt3en did. And I would include the NES-Metal Gear and Twin Snakes as remakes into the Canonical/Main/Primary-List. I´d also include the mobile phone/PS2-versions of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 as sepperate Versions from the MSX2 Versions, since there where minor changes to gameplay as well es esthetical changes (Names, Character Motives).

So this would look like:


 * Canonical/Main/Primary Games:
 * Metal Gear (MSX2)
 * Metal Gear (mobile phone, PS2)(updated version)
 * Metal Gear (NES, DOS-PC, C64, NGC)(Remake)
 * Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (MSX2)
 * Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (mobile phone, PS2)(updated Version)
 * Metal Gear Solid (PS)
 * Metal Gear Solid: Integral (PS, PC)(updated Version; Japan only)
 * Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions (PS)(expansion; EU and USA only)
 * Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (NGC) (Remake)
 * Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (PS2)
 * Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (PS2, PC, XBox)(updated version)
 * The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2 (PS2)(suplementary behind the scenes database)(too long?)
 * Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PS2)
 * Metal gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)(updated version)
 * Metal gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (PS3)
 * Metal Gear Solid 4 Database (PS3)(supplementary database to the Metal gear Series)


 * Spinn-offs:
 * Snake´s Revenge (NES)
 * Metal gear: Ghost Babel (GBC)
 * Metal Gear Acid (PSP)
 * Metal gear Acid Mobile (mobile phone)(remake)
 * Metal gear Acid 2 (PSP)
 * Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (PSP)(if not included above)
 * Metal gear Solid: Portable Ops Plus (PSP)(if not included above)
 * Metal gear Solid Mobile (mobile phones)

I did not include the digital graphic novels because in my opinion they´re digitalized versions of comic book adaptions and as such I wouldn´t count them as games or supplementary media. they´re, well, sort of merchemdise. As for Metal Gear Online: I´d count it as the online Mode of MGS4, but not as a Game on it´s own. Has it really become available as a stand alone game, as it´s article states?

Finally as for the ongoing problem called MPO: I´d call it canonical games and include MPO. I think this should be the most satisfying solution for both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.226.134 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above breakdown. MPO is a spin-off, and is recognized as such by the official MG documetaries. The breakdown works out well and doesn't confict with any official sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But again, the past consensus for this article has been grouping the canon games together. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So do that? Nobody is arguing against MPO being a canon game. But if you want to put it up with the main 6 games, then put it along with Subsistence under the MGS3 umbrella. There is no desputing the fact that MPO uses the same game engine that MGS3 does, Snake even wears the exact outfit at the start of the game (prior to finding the sneaking suit). The character models, model archetecture, AI configuration... it's all the same. It's still a video game, so you can't just brush such factors aside. The game is a spin-off, plain and simple. If you wish for the canon games to be together then just use the model I provided earlier:

Main Series
 * 1. Metal Gear (1987 | MSX2)
 * Updated/re-released on Mobile Phones (2004) and PlayStation 2 (2006)
 * 2. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake (1990 | MSX2)
 * Updated/re-released on Mobile Phones (2004) and PlayStation 2 (2006)
 * 3. Metal Gear Solid (1998 | PlayStation)
 * Metal Gear Solid Integral/VR Missions (1999 | PlayStation)
 * 4. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty (2001 | PlayStation 2)
 * The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2 (2002 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance (2002 | PlayStation 2)
 * 5. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (2004 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid Subsistence (2005 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops (2006 | PlayStation Portable)
 * Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops Plus (2007 | PlayStation Portable)
 * 6. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots (2008 |PlayStation 3)
 * Metal Gear Online (2008 | PlayStation 3)

Remakes
 * Metal Gear (1987-8 | Famicom/NES)
 * Metal Gear Solid The Twin Snakes (2003 | Game Cube)

Other Games
 * Snake's Revenge (1990 | NES)
 * Metal Gear Ghost Babel (2000 | Game Boy Color)
 * Metal Gear Acid (2004 | PlayStation Portable)
 * Metal Gear Acid Mobile (2008 | Mobile Phones)
 * Metal Gear Acid 2 (2005 | PlayStation Portable)
 * Metal Gear Solid Mobile (2008 | Mobile Phones)

This is how it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Break for length

 * But MPO is a separate stand alone title, not a re-release, supplement, expansion, or add-on which is what your list implies. There is no actual way to define "Main" or "Primary" games, and probably no way to support that definition; whereas grouping by canonicity can be easily defined and supported with citations.


 * Discussion regarding removing MPO from the "main" list has been shot down repeatedly, as you should know: 1, 2, 3. Changing the list is not going to automatically change the consensus. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you say that it's not an add-on and that it's on par with the other 6. Then why is it not in the MGS4 LE Documentary? All 6 games are discussed in great detail, Kojima interviews, game development footage... the works. That disk represents the most recent OFFICIAL statement regarding the series. If you want to be accurate then you have to realize that MPO is not a main game. And yes, it IS a spinoff. The game engine is the same. Look at all the other games. Unique character archetecture, unqie AI configuration. Each game was built from scratch. MPO was not. Character movements, appearance, abilities... it's all copied straight out of MGS3. From a game design perspective it is not a "new" game. From a canon perspective there are, indeed 7 games. But you already have a canon listing for the games on that page, why do you repeat it under a "Primary Games" heading? Makes no sense. You got a canon grid, leave it as that. Further more, the Expanded games should be listed along with the originals as they are the same games. Be accurate to the official word on the what is main and what is not. The MGS4 LE documentary can't be debated. It does not focus on discussing just the plot but the entire game development process. From that perspective there are only 6 games and all else was a spin-off, including MPO. That's a fact, officially stated by Konami product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MPO is a supplement, and add-on to MGS3. It's no different than the VR Training that was added in MGS1 and MGS2. It's no different than Snake Tales that were added in MGS2. However, I do have another suggestion. There is another way to group things that will no conflict with any official documentation. This will focus on grouping the games not only by plot but by their game design as well:

Main Series - Written and Directed by Hideo Kojima
 * 1. Metal Gear (1987 | MSX2)
 * Updated/re-released on Mobile Phones (2004) and PlayStation 2 (2006)
 * 2. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake (1990 | MSX2)
 * Updated/re-released on Mobile Phones (2004) and PlayStation 2 (2006)
 * 3. Metal Gear Solid (1998 | PlayStation)
 * Metal Gear Solid Integral/VR Missions (1999 | PlayStation)
 * 4. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty (2001 | PlayStation 2)
 * The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2 (2002 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance (2002 | PlayStation 2)
 * 5. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (2004 | PlayStation 2)
 * Metal Gear Solid Subsistence (2005 | PlayStation 2)
 * 6. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots (2008 |PlayStation 3)
 * Metal Gear Online (2008 | PlayStation 3)

Supplementary Games - Direct connection to the Main series
 * 1. Metal Gear (1987-8 | Famicom/NES) - remake of "Metal Gear (MSX)"
 * 2. Metal Gear Ghost Babel (2000 | Game Boy Color) - alternate sequel to "Metal Gear"
 * 3. Metal Gear Solid The Twin Snakes (2003 | Game Cube) - remake of "Metal Gear Solid"
 * 4. Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops (2006 | PlayStation Portable) - continuation of MGS3.
 * Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops Plus (2007 | PlayStation Portable)

Other
 * 1. Snake's Revenge (1990 | NES) - unofficial sequel to "Metal Gear"
 * 2. Metal Gear Acid (2004 | PlayStation Portable) - no connection to series.
 * Metal Gear Acid Mobile (2008 | Mobile Phones) - no connection to series.
 * 3. Metal Gear Acid 2 (2005 | PlayStation Portable) - no connection to series.
 * 4. Metal Gear Solid Mobile (2008 | Mobile Phones) - no connection to series.

So, in this way you are being faithful to the game development side (and the official documentary layout) but at the same time you are not contradicting the canon aspect of it. That's 3 levels of classification. The main series, things that relate to it and supplement it, and then the leftovers.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-oorRqXpE This is Part 1 of the MGS4 Limited Edition Documentary. It's a 2008 official documenatry and the most recent source on what is a main game and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you are missing the point: the consensus for this article has been to group the games together by canon games and non-canon games, regardless of what "Main games" means. I'm all for merging the supplemental games into the first list to better organize, mainly because that's how it's dealt with in each game's article. Grouping by canonicity doesn't define which games can be considered the abstract description of "main". Who decides what's main? Hideo Kojima? Third party sources? Game cut-scenes? Documentarists? Fans? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is and what isn't a main game? Hideo Kojima and Official Documents, that's where the decision is made. Why are you listing what is considered Canon twice in the same article? That's stupid. But I guess Wikipedia "knows better" than an official documentary released by the people who made the dang series! Your biggest flaw is that fact that you think that the series is simple enough to be viewed as canon vs non-canon. Not the case! And had you actually played all the games in the series you would understand that. How many Star Wars movies are there? Hm? Gonna count Clone Wars? Yeah, exactly! There are 6! All else, canon or non-canon, is a spin-off, and extra. Same goes for Metal Gear. There are 6 games, everything else is derived from them. Canon vs non-canon is irrelivant. Main means and original game design, with an original game engine:


 * Ghost Babel - damn close to an original design, but heavily borrows design elements from MGS.
 * Twin Snakes - MGS2 game engine.
 * Acid 1&2 - The character motion and AI is from MGS2.
 * MPO - MGS3 game engine.

This is a video game series. Not a movie series, not a TV show, not a book series. As such, gameplay and game design are factors. Not just plot. The fact that the extent of your vision of the series is canon or non-canon is the proof how unqualified you are to make a judgement call on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I may not like it, count MPO in as a canon game (even if it sounds kinda weird; "oh, this is Metal Gear and wow they have canon and non-canon games. Hä?" ;) )
 * Well I think, this is quite losing the point. This is about changing the list, so people can immideately see, what is the Metal Gear Series of Video Games; and not about the old question of what the nmain series is. So I think keeping things as simple as possible is the key. It is not necessary to do an extra section for supplementary games. Otherwise you could keep the list as it is. And I actually do not agrre that MPO is an expansion or supplementary to MGS3. With your argumentation, Tomb Raider II-V would be expansions of Tomb Raider I, since they used the previous Engine as well. This could go one to Games like Fear Effect or Dino Crisis, where the Sequels are using the same engine as the original games.

Other Game Series go by this System as well, such as resident evil. And yes, MGS isn´t to us as fans just like every other game series, but this article should give newcomers an oversight on what the series is about. People see, that it´s not numbered MGS4 or MGS 3,5. People see, that it´s a handheld game and people even see, that it was not developed by Hideo Kojima. Or one could make a mark above the Listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.242.204 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't compare Metal Gear to other game series. It follows a unique formula.  Every main game was had a unique design, that's a trate that the series followed.  MPO did not.  End of discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.11 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to look at this as someone who has never played MGS games is reading the article. The main focus, in my opinion, would be to show how there are games that follow the specific storyline, and games that branch off into non-canon storylines. Acid, Mobile, Snake's Revenge, and Babel are branched off games, where MPO is part of the main storyline, and the NES Metal Gear and Twin Snakes are alternate versions of the storyline (with Twin Snakes being almost entirely faithful, which is why it's mentioned in the chronology section and template).


 * I would think that referring to main as those that Kojima worked on wouldn't work as well. The readers might not bother looking up his article. Nor do I believe that it is accurate to call MPO a spin-off title because it fits into the main storyline, some of which is mentioned in MGS4.


 * Also, could both/all ip users place four tildes (~) at the end of your comments to sign them. Thanks. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How can I make those tildes? 87.174.216.38 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)leroy (87.somewhat^^)


 * Tilde; it's next to the 1/! key on a standard keybaord; though it looks like you did it. Though you can actually also use one of the buttons above the text-box when editing a page (it's next to the crossed out 'W'). TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably should have just linked you here: Signatures. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes
I´ve made the changes, suggested in the topic above. I counted Metal Gear Online not as an expansion of MGS4, because it is a game on it´s own, which was initially packaged with MGS4. Yes, it s using the same engine as MGS4. However it is not related storywise to MGS4 and uses Maps from all the series, instead of just MGS4 and the character models of MGS4 are not reused (as in MGS3 and MPO). Also, I erased the Digital Graphic Novels, since they are digitalized Versions the Comics and neither a game nor a supplement game (such es Document of MGS2 and MGS4 Database). I hope, you agree. Furthermore i will shorten the description on the Expansions/Remakes as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.237.49 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you can't do that with MGO. Metal Gear Online is a part of MGS4. It's not "packaged" with it, it's actually part of it. It's on the same disk, same game engine... you can't do that. I will move Metal Gear Online up to MGS4 as the MGS4 article DOES include it. MGO was not a separate component in MGS3 or in MPO, so we can't make this separation.
 * In addition, please take a look at Portable Ops. Guys, the game is part of the MGS3 umbrella.  It should be listed under it, not by itself. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

About MGO. Given that argumentation, it should not be counted as a game on it´s own at all. In that case, i suggest it to be removed and treated as the multiplayer portion of MGS4, like it was in MGS3 and MPO. But look even at the back of the MGS4 package. It is even advertised as a "revolutionary online-game"(at least in the german version). What I want to say is, that Kojima Productions does see this game as a game on it´s own. And no, MPO is not an addition to MGS3. It´s a game on it´s own. From my point of view a spin-off, that happens to be part of the Metal Gear Canon, but consense says, it´s part of the "main-series". On the other hand, if you say MGO is an expansion of MGS4, because it´s using the same engine, then you would have to say, that MPO is an expansion of MGS3 and Twin Snakes part of MGS2. Ok, it´s ridiculous. My suggestion: Treat MGO as the multiplayer-portion of MGS4, if you don´t like it to be, wher it is now. Other opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.216.38 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, please look up the article of MGO, where it is called a "spin-off" multiplayer game, "bundled with MGS4". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.216.38 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I agree with this guy: http://metalgearforever2.homestead.com/expanded.html  There is more to a series than just canon or non-canon plot. It's silly to ingnore that notion. All portable games (and even the console Twin Snakes) are based on the technology, design, and (most importantly) success of the main games that Kojima directed. Ghost Babel was designed after MGS (and MG1 to some degree). Acid Series takes the character architecture from MGS2 (with some MGS1 design elements). Twin Snakes was based on the MGS2 game engine and MGS1 plot. MPO is no different. It's a spin-off from Snake Eater in every sense (plot, AI, Character Architecture, overall gameplay). That is exactly why official documentaries (such as the SAGA Vol. 1 and MGS4 LE) do not discuss anything but the Kojima 6 titles. Everything else is based on them. Those 6, on the other hand, are the actual original games. That's what it means to be a Primary/Main... whatever you wanna call it... game. From a design stand point there are 6 original creations and everything else is based on them and thus a spin-off. Official documentaries do confirm that. I see that as being a far more detailed way to present the series over just a simple canon/non-canon take. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The way that the games are organized in the list in this article, are by if they are canon to the main storyline or not. Not main, not director, not console, not game design, not engine, not characters, not gameplay, not title, not what fansites say. There are seven canonical games and they are the main bullets in the list under the "Canonical games" section. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the argumentation and I see it exactly the same way (but MPO still is not an expansion of MGS3!^^ The term spin-off fits much more). However dicisions have been made and if not at least a third or fourth party agrees, there won´t be serious discussions about that. (So, to anybody out there; if you see it the same way, say something ;)).Until then you and me will have to accept the majority´s way and keep our own view "alive" for us. (Well, after all, it´s just a game and as Big Boss said: "It is time for you, to put aside the gun...and live"). 87.174.244.180 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)leroy

Merging in Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon)
Kung Fu Man added a merge tag to Metal Gear (fictional mecha weapon) suggesting it be merged into this article. I think that's a good idea. While it will take a while to clean up and summarize the relevant plot information, it really is just a rehash of the plot of the series, with a lot of WP:GAMETRIVIA about the mechanics of the weapon. A lot of this stuff probably violates WP:PLOT, and the article itself probably violates WP:N. A merge is definitely appropriate, to preserve some of the information in a way that still meets our policies and guidelines. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

MGS Touch
They revealed that the next game in the series will be... Metal Gear Solid Touch for the iPhone and iPod Touch. -- Stormwatch (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Zanzibarland
Within the Metal Gear series the region Snake infiltrates in Metal Gear 2 is spelled "Zanzibarland" - one whole word, not "Zanzibar Land". Rather ridiculous, but nevertheless, the way the director intended it. Zanzibar Breeze (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

MGS TOUCH - What the hell people?! Follow your own damn rules!
It is downright amazing how much hypocracy this place craps out! Just amazing! Why isn't MGS Touch listed in the main games?! Give me one good reason! You put me down for telling you that Portable Ops is not a main game but then you turn right around and exclude MGS Touch! MGS Touch is OFFICIALLY stated to take place within the MGS4 universe. That means you HAVE to include it under the main games section, same as MPO. If not, you have to remove MPO from the main games section. How's about you kids start following your own damn rules and stick with it! 63.161.203.12 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who added MGS Touch originally, they might not be a regular on this page. If you have a citation that states the game is/will be canon, then go ahead and keep it with the canon list (not a "main" list), and add the citation. Also, please be civil.TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you ask ME for a citation when you Wikipedia already has a MGS Touch article that states, with a source, that it is set in the MGS4 universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the citation @ http://www.konami-digital-entertainment.co.jp/en/news/release/2008/1217/index.html :
 * KONAMI will make downloads of METAL GEAR SOLID TOUCH, DanceDanceRevolution S Lite, SILENT HILL The Escape and Frogger for the iPhone and iPod touch progressively available from late this month. METAL GEAR SOLID TOUCH is an original game that brings to life the world and characters of METAL GEAR SOLID 4 GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS (MGS4). With direct control through the touch panel, it's simple for anyone to move their alignment or switch to zoom mode. Each stage's location and characters are based on the story of MGS4. The initial download will contain 8 stages, with additional stages to be added later. There are many ways to enjoy the game as points earned by clearing stages unlocks images and wallpapers from the METAL GEAR series. DanceDanceRevolution S Lite, SILENT HILL The Escape and Frogger will be released prior to METAL GEAR SOLID TOUCH late this month.
 * The citation in the MGS Touch article states that each stage is based on the story of MGS4, not that it takes place in the universe. However it might be in the same boat as MPO+, though it's too early to tell. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "in the same boat" as MPO+. I remember the arguments you guys gave me to counter my request to boot MPO out of the main games list.  MGS Touch does NOT have the same gameplay as MGS4.  If you are telling me that MGS T belongs under the MGS4 banner than you should put MPO under the MGS3 banner.  63.161.203.12 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, it's not like MPO+. However there seems to be too little information on Touch out to determine how it'll fit with MGS4, whether just its characters and setting or if there will be a story connection. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should that matter? MPO fits in with the MGS3 story and even uses the same game engine.  And yet you list it as a main game.   Fact is, neither MPO nor MGS T belong in the same grouping as the main 6 games.  63.161.203.12 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. MPO is not listed as a "main" game, it is listed as a canonical game. "Main" no longer exists in the article since it's meaning can be ambiguous (i.e., main as canon? as those directed by Kojima? as those with a full story? unique engine? etc.). TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

News about MGS Touch
Back to Business: MGS Touch will be a tuned down remake of MGS4 as indicated clearly on the official Site. I think you can compare this to the Tiger Elctronics Remake of Snake´s Revenge or Acid Mobile.88.152.114.211 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just list all the games together?
I know this has been argued about for a while now. But don’t you guys feel that simple Canon/Non-canon Breakdown downplays some of the games? First of all, I would suggest listing all the games together. There are so many ways to look at the series that by simply saying 6 (or 7) games downplays the value of other titles. I suggest listing all the games together and ONLY labeling the ones that are outside the canon timeline. Like this:


 * 01. Metal Gear (1987 | MSX2)
 * 02. Metal Gear (1987 | Famicom/NES) – Remake of “Metal Gear”.
 * 03. Snake’s Revenge (1990 | NES) – Unofficial sequel to “Metal Gear”.
 * 04. Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake (1990 | MSX2)
 * 05. Metal Gear Solid (1998 | PSX)
 * 06. Metal Gear Solid Integral | VR Missions (1999 | PSX/Windows) – Expanded edition of “Metal Gear Solid”.
 * 07. Metal Gear Ghost Babel (2000 | GBC) – Alternate sequel to “Metal Gear”.
 * 08. Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty (2001 | PS2)
 * 09. Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance (2002 | PS2/Xbox/Windows) – Expanded edition of “Metal Gear Solid 2”.
 * 10. Metal Gear Solid The Twin Snakes (2004 | NGC) – Remake of “Metal Gear Solid”.
 * 11. Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (2004 | PS2)
 * 12. Metal Gear Acid (2004 | PSP)
 * 13. Metal Gear Acid 2 (2005| PSP)
 * 14. Metal Gear Solid 3 Subsistence (2005 | PS2) – Expanded edition of “Metal Gear Solid 3”.
 * 15. Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops (2006 | PSP)
 * 16. Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops Plus (2007 | PSP) – Expanded edition of “Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops”.
 * 17. Metal Gear Solid Mobile (2008 | Mobile Phone)
 * 18. Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots (2008 | PS3)
 * 19. Metal Gear Online (2008 | PS3) – Online component of “Metal Gear Solid 4”.
 * 20. Metal Gear Solid Touch (2009 | iPhone)

This will end the arguments once and for all. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It could work, and we can boldface the canon games or have a separate section to discuss the canon storyline. It could also be made into a sortable table. Or we could ditch the list altogether and write everything in prose, like the Halo (series) article. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't even need to Bold anything. First a list of everything that's in the series and then a list of the chapters of the canon saga:


 * 1964 - MGS3 plot
 * 1970 - MPO plot
 * 1995 - MG1 plot
 * 1999 - MG2 plot
 * 2005 - MGS plot
 * 2007/9 - MGS2 plot
 * 2014 - MGS4 plot

This way there is no more argument about main/canon games. You talk about the series as GAME SERIES and list everything that was made since 1987. Then you talk about the canon plot and the installments that compose it. I think this would work well. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what's the verdict on this? Are we going to change the format of the article? 63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, go ahead. Also, would The Document of Metal Gear Solid 2, MGS4 Database, and the Digital Graphic Novels be included on the list as well? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. That can actually be in a separate category as legit Supplemental material.  They are not actually "games".   Granted the Document of MGS2 has a few VR Mission previews, it's still not really a game.   That's just my thoughts on the subject.   63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally a solution! It will be bulky, but hopefully it will end all those ridicolus (sorry, I´m not a native speaker) obsessive and pointless discussions! And I agree about Document and Database not to be considered games. However I´d like to make suggestions: Do not include remakes oder expanded editions, since they´re only other versions of the games. Otherwise, to make the list truly complete, you´d have to add any version of any game. Including the mobile phone and PS2-Versions of the original Metal Gear Games, Metal gear Acid Mobile (which you forgot^^) and maybe even european or other Versions... This List would look like: It´s less a weight of games to someone not intruduced to the series, however it´s still a bulky peace. And, I´d remark, that the main storyline is told in the four Metal Gear Solid Games. So that younglings to the Metal Gear Myth know, where to start... 87.174.235.2 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Metal Gear
 * Snake´s Revenge
 * Metal Gear 2
 * Metal Gear Solid
 * Metal gear: Ghost babel
 * Metal Gear Solid 2
 * Metal Gear Acid
 * Metal GEar Solid 3
 * Metal Gear Acid 2
 * Metal gear Solid: portable Ops
 * Metal Gear Solid mobile
 * Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
 * Metal Gear Online (arguments on the previous topics)
 * Metal Gear Solid Touch

I´ve just seen the new List and I´m just fine with it. :)87.174.235.2 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical Question about Main Series
I think, the Article, as it is now, is much too bulky. There is so much information, that it is difficult to gain an overview for someone, who isn´t aquainted with the Metal Gear Series. So I have a Question about the Phrase "Main Series". Isn´t it simply the numbered Series? I think the phrase does not include all, that is canon, but even more the Essence. The Core. The Original Main Series was started by Metal Gear. The third installment, being the first 3D-Game and starting a new Storyline, was renumbered. And from that on Game 4 was numbered 2 and game 5 numbered 3. That is reasonable. And there really are such things as canonical Spin-offs. look in TV. A Spin-off series of any Show is Canon, but not part of the same Show. Why wasn´t MPO called Metal Gear Solid 4: Portable Ops and then followed by Matal Gear Solid 5: Guns of the Patriots?. ;) 88.152.114.211 (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what point you are trying to express here, but sorry boy this is not a forum. Take your discussions somewhere else. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it´s kinda obvious. I think, although the Way, the List is now may be satisfieing for all die-hard fans, who can´t agree on what a main Series is or not, it is quite horrible for anyone who doesn´t know Metal Gear and hardly the way, it should be for an Enzyclopedia.
 * Thanks for sending the Wikipedia is not Link.
 * Because, the way it is now, is not consensus, but democracy. Something Wikipedia is not. And so, I am trying to create a new perspective on things. And, Man, why´d you have to call me "boy"?^^ 88.152.114.211 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to give facts, PERIOD. The list shows all the Metal Gear titles. That is all that's needed. Those that don't understand the series breakdown should visit fansites for a more in-depth look. Sites like this: http://metalgearforever.homestead.com/metalgear.html   63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo, that´s your side, ain´t it? :D I actually like it, although you seem pretty obsessed with convincing everybody, that MPO is not a main game.
 * Back to Business. I think we should at least take out the updates and remakes to let the list loose some weight. Why I really dislike this List, because it completely lacks of structure. I mean, take a look at the Lists for Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, maybe even Doom, Forbidden Siren, whatever. They all have some structure and do not put all the games and their versions on one damn list. wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. And I think it should be handled with some profession and not on high-school-niveau. No encyclopedia lists a series with all its versions. Imagine you would take the Star Wars Movies and would put all the Versions of each film on one List and say, "This is the Star Wars Movie Series"!88.152.114.211 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The list did have a slightly better structure (one version seen here) but the current stacked full list was a compromise with another user who didn't like Portable Ops listed with the 6 console games. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I´ve read about that. I personally don´t like MPO to be listed with the 6 "Main Games", either, but that´s still better than the way, the list is now.88.152.114.211 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you don't like the way the list is, join a fansite (or make one). Wikipedia is here to give the facts, not break down opinions.  The list shows every Metal Gear game that has been released.   That is all that "a list of games" needs to be.   As for MPO not being a main game, I'm not trying to convince anyone.  I stated a fact that's been supported by 3 official documentaries now. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to give the facts. Just the facts? Don´t you think, it´s perpece is to give someone, who is unfamiliar with a certain Topic a clear overview of what that topic is about? As you said yourself, there are the Metal Gears Games, that form the Metal Gear Series and there are Metal Gear Games, that spun-off from that Series, based on it´s success. And why do we list Integral, Substance and Subsistence? There are merely Updates of some of the games, and are mentioned in their respective articles. Same goes for Expansions and Remakes, if they do not differ greatly from the original (like MGS Touch).
 * I think, Wikipedia should give someone, who is unfamiliar with the topic, an overview about which is which. Seriously, do you think, that the article, as it is now, serves this perpece?87.174.251.54 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be grasping the issue here. The whole separating and/or grouping the games did NOT work in the past because people could not agree on exactly how things should be grouped.  You got your opinion on it, I got mine, and everyone else got theirs.  So in order to stop the arguments I suggested simply listing all the games without any grouping.  As for people who are unfamiliar... too bad!  If they want to get familiar they should study the entire series and then form their own conclusions.  There is nothing here to argue, things are going to stay as they are.  If you are unhappy with that then I suggest building your own fansite to express your personal views. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * People did agree on the breakdown; just You desperately didn´t want MPO to be listed alongside the 6 Kojima Games! And now let me give you another Fact: Metal Gear ins´t a Series anymore. It´s a Franchise consisting of serveral Series, such as the orignal metal Gear Series, Metal gear Solid Series, the Acid Series... That´s not just an Opinion. And it is stupid to list all the games under one list! And it is even more so to List every version of each game. I would agree with you, if any other Article to a Franchise or Game Series in wikipedia would do the same. But none of them does. I´m sorry, but I believe it is you who is not grasping the issue here. But since you were never known for listening, but for pushing your "facts" through at any cause, I´ll save the Energy here. :_) I wan´t to hear other Opinions. Please.87.174.243.229 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the MPO issue is a fact and is backed up by 3 official documentaries. PERIOD! Second, Let it be! The idea you suggest is just clutter. Right now there is a list that labels and explains all the games in the franchise. That is all that is needed.63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, about MPO: I agree with you! As I said many times before. But in the End, it was listed alongside the others as a "canonical" Game. The canonical Games were those mentioned in the MGS4 Database. MGS Mobile did not belong to those, hence it´s canonical value is debateable. MGS Touch will be a retelling of MGS4 as you can see on the official site. You can even speak of a remake, although I like to think about it as another Spin-off, which makes use of the setting, character and story of MGS4.
 * Frankly, I think the way it is now, is clutter! I mean taking all the different games in the Metal Gear Franchise and some of their expanded Versions (nemaly those that have a diffirent subtitle) and listing them with no structure other then by release, that´s not clutter?87.174.237.34 (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why list updated Versions, Expansions, Remakes and Supllementals?
The title says all. I think in order to take some weight off the article (and because none each article to each series/franchise does it the same way), I suggest to remove Updates and Remakes and just list the original Games. It would look like this: About MGS Touch: Since it changes the genre, I´d suggest it to be listed as an original game, that makes use of the enviroments of MGS4 (musch like Resident Evil Survivor 2). But I think, it´s acceptable, not to list it, since it can be considered a Remake of MGS4. I wouldn´t bother listung the supplementals: Document and Database would be removed and the Digital Graphic Novels could be listed under the Adaptions-Comic-Topic. 87.174.243.229 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointless. The list is fine as is. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. It´s inconsequent. Integral & Co are no Games on their own. They are expanded Versions of other games, aren´t they? So, if we list those, then why do we not all the other versions? Why does for Example Imtgral have the right to be listed as a sepperate game unlike for example the mobile phone versions of the original Metal Gear 1 & 2, which also have several new features?87.174.235.97 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why list them? Simple. Because they exist and bear the name, 'Metal Gear'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you missunderstood.^^ Of course they exist and bare the name Metal Gear. So do the mobile phone versions of Metal Gear 1 & 2, the PC Verions of MGS etc. Technically they are just "Super Duper Special Editions" (whatever ya want^^) of other Metal Gear Games. Like MGS Integral is sort of MGS Directors Cut. I think it doesn´t make sense listing the Directors Cut of a Film on one List with the cinematic Version. Like you would say the Alien-Series consists of eight movies (since all of them exist at least in 2 Versions). However I don´t have a problem, of ya wanna do that. But then it would be inconsequent, if ya do not list for example the mobile phone MSX-Games, since they also differ from their original versions.
 * What I´m asking is, why can Integral be listed, while mobile phone Metal Gear 1 & 2 can´t? I´m glad to accept a reasonable explaination. :) 87.174.199.226 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Refit
Yoe know what? I´ve got to laugh :D After a year of fighting and arguing, editing and reediting...the list is back the way it was before! :D Hello, old friend, missed you! Whoever did it, great move! xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.239.197 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looks much better. The table really was only useful when grouping the releases by related games. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I really take offense to this change. I guess calling it "Core" means something different than "Main".  Seriously guys... what the hell?  This was the way I suggested doing it from the start and supported this claim by 3 official documentaries.  The notion was brushed off.  Now somehow you guys managed to justify removing MPO from the being grouped with the main 6 games.  Don't get me wrong, the way it is now is the way it should be, but I still have to say it's insulting to me.  Suddenly everyone is supporting the very change you argued against a year ago! 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First off this isn't sudden, from what I can tell the consensus has always been for listing the canonical games, regardless of the section title (main, core, etc.). Secondly, I've reverted the recent changes due to those complaints. For one, changing "canonical" to "core" undermines previous discussions and compromises. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good... now we're back to the pre-compromise set up. Lovely!  Let me ask you something, what is the point?   You aleady have the part that shows the canon events of the series.   Why would you make another list, on the same page, and label it "canon games"?  It's stupid!  You have a whole section of the continuity part of the series.  MPO is a product of MGS3, not an original game like the other 6.  And this is further proven by the MGS4 Limited Edition documentary.  Why does that not count?!  63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One shows chronology of release (listed with all released games), and another shows chronology of continuity (listed with storyline). What's the point of making a list according to an ill-defined ambiguous term rather than using an informative method? MPO is a game that falls withing the main storyline/canon/continuity, it is not in any parallel-universe, it is, it is covered in the MGS4 Database unlike the spin-off titles, and it is a separate and stand-alone title on a separate and stand-alone console. Why should those not count? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing MPO from the list and changing the "Canon games" label. MPO is a spin-off. Here is a link that shows the HISTORY chapter of the MGS4 Limited Edition Documentary. This is a 2008 documentary and is the latest official word on what is and what is not a main game. On part 1 look at 0:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-oorRqXpE  There is already a secion in this article that discusses the canon aspect of the series. There is no reason to do it twice. However, what is not being explained is that the series does, officially, consist of 6 games with everything else being either a spin-off, expansion, or remake. I fail to see why this is STILL an issue! 63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dispote having differences with 63.161.203.12 and dispite I once said otherwise, I strongly support that. MPO is not really dealt with in the MG Saga Vol. 2, although, granted, some screenshots are shown. Even in MGS4 it´s story doesn´t seem to be more than a "visualization of the Timeline in MGS3. And as was said before we HAVE a section that is dealing with the Canon and Continuity of the Series. It is not necessary to list canonical games. I mean what about MGS Mobile or MGS Touch? It is a retelling of MGS4, doesn´t that make it canon? What if more spin-offs will come, that will be canon? The List would increase in length drastically and grow into the same clutter as listing all the games into the franchise.87.174.208.76 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ 63.161.203.12: I suggest leaving it there as you have been bringing this up for months on end. I don't see why we have to list this by your own definition of Main? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is it about that "Existence"-Thing? What does it give the article? When I first read it, I didn´t know what this wants to tell. Meybe we should add some half-sentence of speculation or that it is believed to be a new game. Otherwise it is just confusing.
 * I imagine anyone who may have heard of the trademark could come here looking for answers. I could fit under related media section since there's not telling what the TM is for. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

About Metal gear Online: It is clearly advertised as a game of its own by kojima productions and (at least according to it´s article) reseived a stand-alone release. And consense previously was, that it should be counted as another spin-off. Why was that changed?87.174.208.76 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a bulk revert, feel free to move that back. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I make another attempt: How about clearing the supplements and remakes section? A problem are remakes. They are valid games on their own not just a "version" of a game. Or are they? Should they still be mentioned? There is a blurry line between some remakes and an expanded version. Maybe an expanded version has to use the same engine? Thoughts? Ideas? Critics?87.174.204.150 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider it done^:)87.174.204.150 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article would be less clutter.
 * It could be clearly sepperated into TWO simple sections, canonical games and non-canonical games.
 * No other game series lists various supplements or expansions to their games in a sepperate list.
 * The Expansions are mentioned in their respective articles.
 * There aren´t all the expanded versions listed right now at all.
 * That still doesn't solve the MPO canon/main listing though. And it seems like it would put us back to older versions similar to this one, or mentioning them with the full game would be similar to this version (which is more cluttered) or like this one (though I'm sure your version wouldn't be as cluttered as either of those). Removing the re-releases would leave the Digital Graphic Novels, Twin Snakes, Document, and Database. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I´ve done some thinking and ypu know what? Why are Document, Database and the Digital Graphic Novels listed as Games? Aren´t they related Media? The second Digital Graphic Novel is actually a DVD-Video, isn´t it?
 * My Suggestion would be to entirely remove the expansions. Maybe mention them in one sentence of the description of their games. Like this:
 * Metal Gear Solid: blablabla. An expanded version, Integral, was released the following year.
 * About remakes like Twin Snakes or Acid Mobile. How about sepperating in three sections: "Canonical games", "Non Canonical Games" and "Remakes". It would be a simple and clear sepperation. No ambigous phrases like "Main", "Spin-off". However, we have to be consequent. This concerns especially MGS Touch, which (as seen on the official site) seems to be a retelling of the MGS4 Storyline and should be moved either to "canonical games" or "Remakes".87.174.193.180 (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might work, with Twin Snakes and Acid Mobile being the remakes. And technically the first digital graphic novel IS a game, but I guess it would be better in just a Related Media or Supplements section. But it seems to early to know whether or not Touch will be canon. Unless there's a reliable sources, it'll just be crystal balling. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys want a solution? It's VERY simple. List them according to the way KONAMI has in 3 documentaries. Period! Forget this canon vs non canon, or how to sort the expanded editions or remakes. Three official Konami documentaries list The Series as 6 games with everything else being a spin-off. Canon or non-canon is irrelivant, especially since the canon chapters are already mentioned later in the article. List the 6 games together uner The Series and everything else as a spin-off. Games like Integral, Substance, and Subsistence should be mentioned in descriptions of the main games as they are the complete versions. They should not be listed separately. It's not a "personal opinion" listing, it's the way they are listed officially by the company that made them. Surely that's good enough for Wikipedia. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the MGS4 History section of KONAMI'S OFFICIAL MGS4 site (http://www.konami.jp/mgs4/us/top.html), Portable Ops is listed. Seems relevant enough to me. Did Konami actually make those documentaries, or just commission them? Did Kojima actually not talk about MPO or was the footage of it just left on the cutting room floor? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are speculating in regards to the cutting room floor. The FACT is that there are THREE official documentaries that show only 6 games.  MG SAGA Volume 2 is probably the best example of this.  The events of MPO are not discussed AT ALL, but they are briefly shown in the overall timeline.  That SCREAMS spin-off!  Especially given the fact that the documentary came out almost a year after MPO did.  Further more, both Volume 1 and Volume 2 were directed by Ryan Payton, the guy that played a BIG role in the development of MPO.  Now ask yourself, why would 2 documentaries that are made by the guy who worked so much with MPO not include it?  Why woudn't Kojima insist on it being included? Volume 2 came out in Japan first, in fact.  Even the 20th Anniversary package released in 2007 had MPO SEPARATE from the other games that were bundled together into a booklet casing.  And finally, you got the Limited Edition documentary.  Why would they cut out MPO?!  That makes no sense.  It makes a lot more sense that it was never put into the documentary same as all the other spin-offs.  And lets not forget that MPO was originally meant to be a separate title and was only made canon due to the poor sales of non-canon games.  MPO is a spin-off.  Should it be listed with the canon games?  Yes, but only in reference to the story.   And the article does that.  But just like Star Wars, no matter how much canon spin-off material is released, there are only 6 core chapters. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But how would this article benefit with listing the games according to appearance in documentary? Listing by canon shows the reader which games apply to the overall storyline. Listing games as main COULD confuse the reader. And listing games as main is still ambiguous at best. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

About MGS Touch: Isn´t the official site a reliable sourche? www.metalgearsolid.com leads you to the KojimaProductions page. From there on, you can´t miss it. If you want, I can try to message a link. But for now it can go as non-canonical, until more is known. About MPO: There are those games, that Hideo Kojima and his team did. The six games. And there are those that were produced with the intention to build on the success and be sold. So was MPO, where they thought "hey, they criticised the other games being non-canon. So, how about letting Mr. kojima write a story that will be canon! That way we can cash in better." MPO also doesn´t have the solo-sneaking mission gameplay, but features make-believe-squad-missions.^^ But I understand, that this is a rather vague discription, that can not be proved entirely. Therefore I suggested spperating clearly in canon and non-canon games. There is a clear definition. It also makes sense, because the story plays an important role in the Metal Gear Games. But still there are grey areas. What about MGS Mobile? It´s canonicity is neither confirmed nor neglated.87.174.234.74 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the MGS4 Database and the MGS4 website exclude MGS Mobile, and include MPO. I would think those would be enough to determine which games (prior to Database's release) contribute to the series's storyline. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get rid of the basic list (or split it into a different article) then rewrite the releases in prose. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this is getting more complicated than it should be. There is no reason to list the "canon" games because later on in the article you already show which titles make up the story of the series.  The early part should be about original titles vs Spin-offs.  The series evloved through 6 games.   Everything else was a biproduct of those 6 games.  It's exactly why MPO does not have a number, despite being set between MGS3 and MGS4.   The article should address the 6 ORIGINAL titles and the separately discuss the spin-offs (Ghost Bable, Acids, MPO, Mobile, and Touch).  The first part should not be discussed through the canon vs non-canon perspective because that part is already addressed when you talk about the plot later on in the article.  The first part should discuss the series from the development aspect.  Which is exactly the way official documentaries have done. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the meaning of main/original/etc. is still ambiguous. The docs show it one way, the official site shows it another way. I still say main refers to the canon games for this particular series. And there is nothing wrong with showing the canon games a second time, considering both sections provide very different information. I'm going to try and draft a prose version of the list and work on movie the list to a separate article which could be ordered by release dates. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand you. Why is it so ambiguous to you?  There is nothing "ambiguous" about the 6 Star Wars movies.  But it's a well known fact that it's not the only canon material.  But you don't see Star Wars the Clone Wars movie being listed a long side them.  You don't see the two TV shows listed a long side them.   There is nothing ambiguous about this.  There are 6 original games.  EVERYTHING else was a biproduct of those 6 games.  And you are right, there is nothing actually wrong with listing the canon outline TWICE, I just fail to see the point.  You are already stating the components of the canon later in the article.  Why not make it a point to tell people which games were the originals and which were the spin-offs?  I'm talking about listing them from a game development/history perspective, not according to plot.  The evolution of the series had nothing to do with Ghost Babel, Acid, or Portable Ops.  The gameplay and the design aspect was evolved through 6 games.  That's my point here.  There is nothing ambiguous about explaing the game design evolution.  When you list them, don't discuss a brief mission outline.   Talk about the evolution and the steps each one took forward from a design perspective, not plot.   You have a section for plot, let that be.  63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great for Star Wars, but this isn't Star Wars; it has different circumstances. The official sources provide separate info: the documentaries exclude MPO, the official website includes it. The games list is not a design or production section, its a list of releases currently separated by Canon (for canon games), Supplements (for those directly related to the canon games), and Spin-offs (for non-canon). If you want to show the production, rewrite the list in prose where you can actually detail the production of each game. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it's different then Star Wars? What are the "different circumstances"?  In both cases 6 chapters were developed by the series creator (Lucas and Kojima respectively).  From those 6 various spin-off material came out, canon and non-canon.  Star wars had TV shows and an animated move.  Metal Gear had portable games and digital novels.  There is no difference.  Get rid of the Canon label, there is no NEED for it because that aspect is already addressed.   Just put "The Series" and list the 6 games and their accomplishments.  For example, Metal Gear being the first stealth game, or Metal Gear Solid introducing 3D, voice acting, and cinematics.  This will show the evolution of the series.  In that description I would also mention the expanded version of MGS1, MGS2, and MGS3.  Not separately, but right in the description.  Like, "The expanded version of the game was released as Metal Gear Solid Integral".   Nothing more.   Then have a section that's labeled "Spin-offs".   There you can list all the games that piggy-backed on the 6 main games (Ghost Babel, Acid, MPO, etc.).  And you keep talking about the official site, look at the years on that timeline!  They are listing the years of the plots, not the game's release.  Stop thinking about this section as having anything to do with plot.  Seriously, you're so bugged down on the story...  it's already discussed in the article, NO NEED to do it TWICE. Let me try to make some changes and then see if it looks good to you.  OK?63.161.203.12 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Star Wars is irrelevant because other stuff exists. You keep talking about how the documentaries are official, why must we exclude the official site, regardless if it's showing a timeline or not? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because other stuff exists"? I'm not talking about the Star Wars article.  I'm talking about the actually similarity between the two franchises.  It has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia.  As for the official site, I'm not excluding it.  I'm merely pointing out that it shows the timeline according to plot.  You already have that on your page.  So, NOTHING is being excluded in that regard.  However, what you are excluding are the official documentaries that focus on the game production history, not plot.  My point here is to include BOTH, not just one, like you have. 63.161.203.12 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

break for length
Phew. I think, you´re right about the six games theory. I agree with you. But I was thinking about MPO and the series a lot recently. (More than I should facing my studys^^) I think MPO is not a spin-off just like the other spin-offs in the series. The Story was (or is claimed to be) written by Kojima. It is an essential part of the Metal gear Saga. Although it is kind of visualising the timeline at the end of MGS3. I think the problem is, we can´t agree on what belongs where, because we don´t really know, what the article should be about. Yes, about the Metal gear Series. But is it about the Saga? The evolution? The Release? In my opinion, we really should take one section, where we discribe the Evolution of the Series. No one can deny, that the series evolved without MPO in terms of gameplay and graphics and engine. MPO belongs to those games, that were created to fill the gap for the next "big" release. And so I sypathise with the idea of making a prose text detailing on the series development, maybe with sepperating the six games, that make up the series evolution, from the other games, that were side-products of that. It is evidensed by one simple fact, that the Metal gear Series gameplay development goes over canon or storyline: the numbering. Metal gear Solid was renumbered as one. Because of the jump to the third dimension. And MGS3 was numbered 3. Not MGS0, zero. Three. The Spin-offs also have an evolution. From an unofficial sequel (which I do not count as a spin-off but an unofficial sequel^^) to an alternate storyline, to even alternate gameplay, back to the action gameplay and an official canonical storyline up to a retelling of a canon-storyline (MGS Touch)). However the second section then can discribe the storyline and canonicity of the Metal Gears Saga. And if we do another article, which lists simply by release. we have to make thoughts about what we list. How much has an updated version to differ from the original to gain the "right" to be listed? Of course it´s nonsense to list MGS2: Substance three times because it was ported to three systems. However the NES Version and even the mobile phone version of Metal gear both differ in several ways from the original MSX2-version. That´s about what I had to say (for now) :) 87.174.192.118 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, I really don't care anymore. The hell with this article and this discussion.  I'm sick and tired of arguing in circles only to have things revert back to the way they were.  Seriously, this is just STUPID at this point.  There is no pleasing you guys.  Hey, who gives a a rats ass about THREE OFFICIAL documentaries!  Right?!  Let's just retell the Metal Gear canon TWICE in the same article!  Yeah, that's a good freaking idea!  Who cares about the way the series creator and the people that work with him arrange the saga.  By all means, let's just hammer the canon outline over and over in the same article!   Who cares about game development history, story is all that we'll base this "objective" article on!  I noticed that what I wrote yesterday was removed completely, even though it focused on telling how each game evoloved the series instead of RETELLING mission briefings... which AGAIN are shown later in the article.  Whatever!  It's pretty damn clear that the article will never change and continue to be inacurate.  63.161.203.12 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote?! I am on your side!!!!!!!!!! I said MPO is a spin-off!!! I did agree with your arguments!!! i don´t think MPO should be listed alongside the other six!! Amd I did not remove what you wrote.
 * But frankly you keep coming with the same argument of three documentaries. One of those three documentaries even mentions MPO and the official sites also mention MPO. Your problem is, you are taking all this way to personal. So you get angry and are in no way prepared to participate in the discussion in a reasonable matter and insult people by claiming they don´t know the series. You are in no way prepared to take a look from the other angle.
 * Calm down. This is about making an understandable article that gives people an overview on Metal gear, one of hundreds of franchises. No one wants to undermine you. People talk reasonable and you´re taking it personal.
 * But, I agree with you in every way. there were times I thought otherwise, but these are over. No I´m trying to concvince people reasonable. If I can´t, too bad. Then the article is the way it is. Maybe wrong. But hey, you still have MG Forever ;). i just have my cranky word-documents.
 * Sorry, I know, this isn´t a forum, but that was on my heart. If 63.161.203.12 has read it, you may remove it, if you wish.87.174.192.118 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking specifically to you. I know you agree on the MPO issue.  As for the comment of me stating the same things, well YEAH.  There are only so many facts to use in this circular argument.  Thirteen said that I'm disregarding the canon outline provided by the official site.  I'm not.  The article has that.  You guys don't like me bringing up the documentaries, but why?  Why is it ok to disregard what is stated officially?  The fact is, guys, the Metal Gear series is a clusterf*ck at this point thanks to the unending milking of the franchise, slapping the Metal Gear name on every piece of trash they can puke out.  MPO was no different.  It was a half-assed effort to chop down MGS3 graphics and gameplay into the PSP.  That is the reason why I stressed my side of the argument.  People should be made aware of the separation between the original titles and the "milking" spin-offs.  I'm sorry, I'm repetetive, but there are no other things to show.  2 out of those 3 documentaries discuss mainly gameplay development and history, with only lightly touching on the plot.  Why not do that in the article?  Have one part about the gameplay and series history, and a separate one for the canon and story progression.  Then EVERYONE will be happy.  All I'm saying is that if you choose to have a list of games, have the 6 "originals" separate from the spin-offs.  And that can be justified by at a 2006 and a 2008 official documentary.  Afterall, the article is here to provide official facts, right? 63.161.203.12 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He said it, guys. 87.174.223.150 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't understand why there are Canon and Spin-off groups. There is Canon vs Non Canon.  There is Originals vs Spin-offs.   But I don't see how you do Canon vs Spin-offs.  Especially when earlier in the article Portable Ops is discussed as a spin-off.  Why would you have the paragraph differ from the table listing? 63.161.203.12 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be mentioned as a spin-off; one there's not really a citation for calling it a spin-off, and two the MPO article doesn't even call the game a spin-off. I'm going to mark that (not remove it, theres bad enough edit war potential already). But also, why are you looking at it with 'vs'? We're trying to make an informative list and since the story is something people will look up, it makes sense to list games that are canon together. Whereas there's not so much to gain by listing the games by whether or not Kojima directed on the series page. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously dude, am I typing in a foreign language? I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp this.  If you have multiple lists and you separate something according to those lists, you do get a "vs".  People are interested in the story?  Well that's nice... YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT!!!!  That's the point of the STORY part of the article!  I'm not talking about sorting games according to Kojima.  I'm talking about sorting them according to production history and game development.   And yes, that is a valid way to explain things!  MPO is a spin-off, in EVERY way.  Gameplay, game design, and even in plot.  It's product of MGS3.  Same character architecture, same AI configuration, only in a graphically chopped-down system.  And, for the billionth time now, there are official documentaries that support just that.  You accuse me of not being fair and "ignoring" the official site.  How's about you take your own advise and stop ignoring official material as well!  You can a canon explanation of the game in the article.  Now you should discuss the game design history in the article.  It is a GAME series afterall and such things DO MATTER! 63.161.203.12 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the documentaries (or some reliable source) specifically say that MPO is all of those things you listed? Or do the documentaries just not talk about MPO and you interpret that as meaning that it should be separate?
 * You've been making this EXACT SAME ARGUMENT SINCE APRIL 2007: [1], [2], [3], (3.5), [4], (4.5), [5], [6], [7]. And time after time again, users don't agree with your reasoning; and you keep coming back, often uncivilly, demanding that your way is the only way to look at the issue. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you insane?! Seriously, your counterarguments are downright idiotic!  No shit the documentary doesn't say directly that MPO is a spin-off, so WHAT?!  It doesn't say that Ghost Babel is a spin off.  It doesn't say that Acid and Acid are not spin-offs!  But that doesn't stop you from labeling them as such.  Further more, how dare you argue with me on this when you obviously have not watched a single one!  If you did, you wouldn't be making these bonehead accusations!  And if you do want a direct quote, look at MG SAGA Volume 1 Documentary. "The Metal Gear Series consists of 5 ground-breaking games and a series of spin-offs.  The Saga comes to a close with the 6th and final game, Metal Gear Solid 4".   Right out of the documentary directed by Ryan Payton!  So you can shut up about the validity of my claims!  As for me making the same argument since 2007, NO SHIT!  You've been getting the article wrong wince 2007, so why does this come as a shock to you?!  The worst part in all this is how outright stubborn you are!  Instead of discussing BOTH, the game development history and the plot, you choose to discuss plot twice in the same article!  And then have the nerve to accuse me of only forcing my point of view.  Seriously, WTF!  Nobody is stoping you from having a canon listing in the article that coinsides with the official site timeline.  But on what grounds do you dismiss the game design history that's outlined by official documentaries?!  As objective as you always try to make youself sound I've come to understand that you're a hypocrite, and a closed-minded one at that! I'm the one that suggested having BOTH.  I'm the one that suggested having an overall, no separate list to accomodate all sides.   And yet you keep flapping your mouth that I'm forcing only my side of the argument!  On what grounds you were put in charge of this article I'll never know.63.161.203.12 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. What is the problem with sepperating MPO of the other six? And before you ask us the same question: especially 63.161... made it quite clear. Maybe a little emotional (sorry), but that´s because NOBODY is coming any closer to our side. And 63.161.... does not stand alone there with this "opinion". I think you guys really base this game series simply on canon. But this is (risking to repeat) never a matter in any franchise. For example, take any TV Series. It´s Spin-offs are considered canon in most cases, right? But are Stargate Atlantis Episodes listed in the same list as Stargate: Sg-1 Episodes? No. Does it make sense? Yes. It is the same with MPO. It expands on the prequel storyline of MGS3, but still isn´t an essential part of the MGS Series, but more like a visualization of both the timeline in MGS4 and some plot points in MGS4. But nuff said, I could write and write, but no one would listen. And the official site lists the games by their canonical chronology, so if ya wanna be faithful to that, list them that way. Amd btw who made the official site? Some webdesigner at Konami. :) 87.174.210.12 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

new break
I´m trying to find a solution. There are those, who do see MPO on par withe the other six and those who don´t. Solution: One list about storyline and continuity and one about the series evolution as games. A prose text could mention Spin-offs intettwined with the other six. And what do you think? If no Metal Gear Game had a story and you go just by graphics and gameplay mechanics, would you say MPO can be counted as MGS3.5? Or as spin-off from MGS3? You see, that way, we have an article, that talks about the evolution as a game series or franchise with 6 Games, each featuring improvements on the basic stealth idea of the original, and a bunch of spin-offs, mostly portable, that build on the success of the other games. Spin offs also have an evolution. From the non Canon Ghost Babel, a completely alternative in gameplay with Acid, up to storylines within the canocical universe (MPO, maybe Mobile). Then you have another article focusing on the Continuity and the storyline that spans seven games! It´s a compromise. Why would one not be satisfied with that? 87.174.198.23 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much opposed to grouping MPO based on things like game engine, "quality", director, or things like that. I still think the best way to portray the information is by canon and non-canon games. As far as canon for Mobile is concerned, the MGS4 Database and the MGS4 website both exclude Mobile, so its canonocity is speculation, at best.
 * Well we still seem to be going nowhere, we're still all pretty stuck on any final compromise. I suggest we take this over to WikiProject Video games and see what they have to say. What's everyone think? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's stupid that you want to discuss the canon TWICE in the same article. There is no freaking reason to do that. And it's not grouping according to "quality", it's a VERY SIMPLE case of Original title vs a Spin-off.  And MPO is a spin-off, like it or not! Take the current game descriptions (the brief mission oulines) and put them next to the games in the Canon chapter.  Then put back the descriptions I wrote about the gameplay and add them into the Series History chapter.  Seriously, why the hell are you so dead set on ignoring official documentaries and repeating the canon outline twice in the same article?  WTF! 63.161.203.11 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My Final Suggestion
I grow tired of arguing in circles, so this will be my final suggestion for this article. If you guys want the article to be informative and accomodate ALL the aspects of the series, you will take this advise. Here is how I would SUGGEST setting up the article:

Development History Start with a BRIEF outline of the pre-Metal Gear stealth genre and then the effects the series had on the general world of video games. No story elements should be discussed. The references for this section are MG SAGA Volume 1 and MGS4 Limited Edition documentary. The games covered here are:


 * Metal Gear (1987) - First full stealth game. Mention the updated release on the Mobile phones and the first official English translation in Subsitence.


 * Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake (1990) - The game introduced the radar system, greater abilites of both the player and the enemies, expanded radio use, and many stealth elements that became famous in the MGS games. Mention the updated release on the Mobile phones and the first official English translation in Subsitence.


 * Metal Gear Solid (1998) - First game to use cinematics, voice acting, and 3D gameplay. It can be stated that it started a new story arc that greatly expanded on the plot set by the first 2 games.   Mention the expanded edition, Metal Gear Solid Integral.


 * Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty (2001) - Heavy attention should be paid to discussing the graphics, motion capture, gameplay, and the introduction of a new protagonist. 2-chapter game.  Most successful game in the series.  Mention Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance.


 * Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater (2004) - First jungle-survival game.  Outdoor settings and environment interactions are vital to mention.  Can be mentioned that it was a prequel that greatly extended the MGS story arc. First game with Online content. Mention Metal Gear Solid 3 Subsitence as well as the introduction of Online gameplay.


 * Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots (2008) - Gameplay elements are important here. The controls were revised to a more Western-style gameplay.  Option to treat the game as a shooter.  Different format for the extensive weapon selection.   Metal Gear Online can be mentioned here as well.

Spin-Offs So you got the original games out of the way, the games that actually made an impact on the series and the world of video games. Now you can discuss the spin-off material that was BASED on those games. In fact, you can add other material that relates to it as well in here:


 * Metal Gear (NES) - the remake of the original "Metal Gear".
 * Snake's Revenge - the unofficial sequel to "Metal Gear".
 * Ghost Babel - the alternate sequel to "Metal Gear".
 * Document of MGS2 - an interactive documentary about MGS2.
 * Twin Snakes - a remake of MGS1.
 * Acid & Acid 2 - card games based on the Metal Gear series.
 * Portable Ops - canon continuation of MGS3.
 * Digital Novels - digital comics of MGS1 and MGS2.
 * MGS Mobile - Cell phone game based on MGS2.
 * MGS Touch - Cell phone game based on MGS4.

As you can see, all the spin-off material is rooted in one of the 6 main games. That's why it's Spin-off material.

Plot

Finally, we get to the 3rd section, one about plot. Put a brief description of the plot for each game. This section is supported by the official MGS4 website and MG SAGA Volume 2. Here you can put the outline of ALL the timelines:

Main Timeline


 * MGS3
 * MPO
 * MG1
 * MG2
 * MGS1
 * MGS2
 * MGS4

Alternate Timeline


 * MG1
 * Ghost Babel

Unofficial Timelines


 * MG1 (NES) - yes, it is separate. The manuals of the two games share plot points.
 * Snake's Revenge


 * Metal Gear Acid 1 and 2 - separate series.

So there you have it. Three sections. Everything covered and everything supported by official documentation. I don't see how this would not be an acceptable way of doing the article. If you choose to ignore this suggestion you can no longer call the article objective. This version looks at ALL the aspects of the series, not just ONE, as well as accomodates all the official support. 63.161.203.11 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, this list is great. What else do you want? I´m fine with just everything. Maybe the alternate timeline stuff can be made into one section about alternate storylines or stuff like that.87.174.211.23 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, you're still just trying to list the "main" games and exclude MPO, which I still disagree with. Which, once again, is why you should take this over to WikiProject Video games and ask them what they feel would be good for the article, since there's just not going to be a consensus between the three of us. And any alternate/unofficial timeline listing would be unnecessary and possible fancruft if more than just a sentence or two. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, it DOESN'T matter what YOU agree or disagree to. I'm sick at tired of watching you dismiss facts stated by the series creator.  You're right, we won't agree to anything because you're ignorant of anything besides plot.  How am I ignoring MPO?  Hm?  It's listed where it should be, a canon game according to plot.  But in game design it's a spin-off!  Why is it that difficult of a concept for your to grasp?!  You want final bit of proof, take the time to watch this:   http://g4tv.com/thepile/videos/37448/GDC-2009-Keynote-Hideo-Kojima.html    Kojima's speech from the GDC.  He talks about how he progressed the evolution of gameplay through the Metal Gear series.  It's an actual presentation on game design. The Metal Gear series evoloved through 6 games.  PERIOD!  That should be mentioned in the article and not just swept under the rug because YOU don't like it! Forget the God Damn plot already and talk about something else for a change! 63.161.203.11 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, civility everyone, please. After looking at the article, it's in my opinion that the list of games and other entries in the series is no longer needed.  As the section below this states, there is now a list article for the Metal Gear series.  This whole article should be in prose, including a section devoted to the canon series storyline.  That being said, the Storyline section as it currently stands in the article is pretty crufty and cites only a single source.  The source seems to be a blog written by the series creator and published by Konami, thereby establishing reliability, but the section and the article as a whole needs a lot more sources.  Nothing should be added to an article unless it includes an inline citation to a reliable source.  Otherwise, it's original research.  Take a look at some of the video game series FAs for ideas, especially Kingdom Hearts (series). —  Levi van Tine (t – c)  07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of media
just made List of Metal Gear media. I believe we can now work on turning this article's game's section into prose discussing all of the games. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting
I don´t know if or how it could improve the article, but I´ve found out some stuff:

While most of the Metal Gear Games were developed by Kojima Productions (and from what it was born), everybody might know that the NES games where made by another division at Konami. IF you go to the official site of Kojima Productions:

http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/

You might notice, that the Mobile Games are not mentioned, but MGS Touch in turn is (some games are mentioned on the japanese site only). That was sort of itching me and I found the answer: MGS Mobile was developed by Konami Mobile, another division at Konami, which is busy developing Mobile Games of their successful franchises.

http://www.konamimobile.com/

Acid Mobile was developed by GLU Mobile, which is also a mobile ohone games distrebutor.

As I said before, I don´t know, how it could improve he article (or if it could^^), but I think, it´s worth mentioning somewhere, somehow, who was involved in developing the games.87.174.171.98 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay History Changes
Per our discussion about the layout, here is summary of each of the main games from the development standpoint. These are the six games that shaped the franchise and are the basis for EVERYTHING elese, including all the portable games:


 * Metal Gear (MG) was released for the MSX2 in Japan and Europe in 1987. It was one of the first games to fall within the stealth game genre. A different production team radically changed the game for its release release on the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). “Metal Gear” was officially translated and released in US in 2006 as part of MGS3 Subsistence package.


 * Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (MG2) was released on the MSX2 in Japan in 1990. Most of the notable gameplay features from future games originated with this title. Snake could crawl in vents and under objects, make noise to distract enemies, use a radar system, and utilize an expanded communication system with his support team. The enemies were enhanced with an improved AI, wider field of vision, and the ability to detect noise other than gunshots or explosions. Many plot elements also made their way into future installments.


 * Metal Gear Solid (MGS) was released on the PlayStation (PS1) in Japan and North America in 1998 and in PAL regions in 1999. This is the first game in the series to use full voice acting, cutscene cinemas, and a 3D environment, allowing the usage of items and weapons such as a sniper rifle. MGS also began a new story arc that greatly expanded on the story of the first 2 games.


 * Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (MGS2) was released for the PlayStation 2 (PS2) in North America and Japan in 2001 and in PAL regions in 2002. The game features a new protagonist, Raiden. The game consists of two chapters, with Solid Snake only playable in the prologue mission. MGS2 introduced cutting-edge graphics, a compelling musical score by Harry Gregson-Williams, and a complex and philosophical plot that many felt transcended the video game medium. The enemy AI was restructured to reflect squad-based tactics of seek and destroy.


 * Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (MGS3) was released on the PS2 in North America and Japan in 2004 and in PAL regions in 2005. A prequel to the events of the previous games in the series, MGS3 is set during the Cold War and centers around Solid Snake's predecessor, Naked Snake. The game was the first in the series to introduce wilderness-survival tactics such as the concept of camouflage, hunting for food, and wound treatment.


 * Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (MGS4) was released on the PlayStation 3 (PS3) in 2008. The story centers around a prematurely aged Solid Snake (now called Old Snake) and his final mission. All of the plot elements from the previous games are tied together in a definitive conclusion to the “Solid” story arc. The game brought back all of the previous gameplay features as well as introduced several new concepts, including destructible environments and the ability to team up with allied units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.203.12 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good start, but what we should aim for is a) use of prose over list, and b) inclusion of information on all games, not necessarily ordered by canon or chronology. This is a good chance to write a development section of the series, which the article currently lacks. A good example would be like Halo (series) which is GA status, or some other large games series' pages as a guide. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good basically. But I´d think about approaching the Matter on a prose text format. Your´s is still a listing. Also, I´d discuss the Spin-offs maybe interlaced with the six games, so you also see, which spun-off from which.
 * Another thing: In the Continuity section, wouldn´t it be appropriate to also discuss alternate timelines? Ghost Babel, Acid, NES?87.174.236.122 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I´d say go loosley by release.
 * Meaning, not say, there was MGA, then MGS3, then MGA2, then MGS3 Sub, but rather MGS3 + expansion, MGA Series, (with MGA mobile being mentioned later).87.174.236.122 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction
In the paragraph mentioning the new teaser site for the next installment, when referring to the next game the phrase "following installment in the Metal Gear Solid series" was used. I felt this should be changed to "Metal Gear series" due to the fact it has not been announced this will be another "Solid" installment. It should also be noted that MGS4 was scheduled to be the last "Metal Gear Solid" game. Evidence is pointing to the new game being titled something different: Metal Gear _____ 5 (MG_5). 24.119.7.28 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back to Metal Gear Solid series if you deem it appropriate. 24.119.7.28 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say in all respects that your Metal Gear ___ 5 would be Solid Rising. As another thing to your statement, if it were Metal Gear ___ 5 that would not make sense since if it was Solid, then it would be 5. But since it wont be solid it would not be. But as the title is, It is Metal Gear Solid Rising. The statement "Next installment in the Metal Gear series" is more appropriate since it is the Metal Gear series as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The countdown is still going.
The article says the countdown game was revealed to be Metal Gear Rising, yet the countdown is continuing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What countdown? When I go to the website I am now automatically referred to: http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/e3_2009/index.html which has no countdown in sight. 24.119.7.28 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Character Discussion
This dicussion is about the characters paragraph. There needs to be more characters introduced in this article because readers who wants to find information about Metal Gear Solid series as a whole should have that information in the article. I did put a bit more of characters in the Metal Gear Solid 3 character section like Major Zero,Sigint, and Paramedic. I attend to put more down. what do you guys think? Ronshied (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Ronshied

Uploading character pictures
Does anyone have pictures of more characters in metal gear solid, mgs 2, mgs 3, and mgs 4. If so, can you please upload them to the wikipedia commons that way i can put them on the Metal Gear (series) article. Pictures of metal gear rex, ray, shagohad would be cool too. Ronshied (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Ronshied
 * Unless you got fair-use rationales for them, it would be ok, but unfortunately, the Metal Gear pics you seek of are already here and they are sufficient enough. Also, you don't have to put it your user name after the sig. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I seen those pics and they're sufficient but i went to this website www.boardsus.playstation.com and this guy had some incredible pics of the Metal Gear machines. I might try to get him to upload them to the wiki. Check out the pics. Thanks for the advice about the signature, and thanks for your feedback. Ronshied (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Games on Bed
I think it should be a more fitting image of all the Metal Gear games so the image to all the games looks clearer. I like the one now but for someone that doesnt know about the games might not be able to see all the games. Ronshied (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ronshied


 * We could use the one on the List of Metal Gear media page, or I could take another picture without the bed. Getting all of the Metal Gear games might be difficult, though an anon-user was going to take a more fuller picture with many of the rarer games too, but he never got a single image of all of them uploaded. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 01:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have most of the essential games apart from MGS1 on PS1 though I have twin snakes. Although I would imagine you both would be looking for a more full collection. I have MGS1 twin snakes, Mgs2, and substance, Mgs3, and subsistence, and im going to get mgs4 in exactly a month. If you wish I shall take a few pictures but as i said, I would imagine you would want a more full collection. I can purchase Mgs4 in a few days if you want me to take photos also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, an ideal image would probably show every game, or maybe just all of the original boxarts/game carts/CDs of the canon games including the MSX2 games. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you, hopefully someone that uses wikipedia has those MSX2 games. They're quite rare I believe. A total of seven games are canon I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently yes: MG, MG2, MGS, MGS2, MGS3, MPO, MGS4, and to be released: MGSPW and MGSR. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I do have Metal Gear Solid for playstation (I cant believe i was able to keep it since it first was released), I also got Metal Gear Solid 2: S.O.L, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, and Metal Gear Solid 4: G.O.T.P. I would take a picture of them but I dont hsve any of the inbetween games. I just have the core games I will try to go to a vintage game store for the MSX2 games, maybe i can order it or something. Thanks for giving feedback you guys, much appreciated. 71.63.151.147 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ronshied