Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Game logo

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

Plot section

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

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

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

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

"Clear" templates

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

{{clear}}

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

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

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

Make this page semi-protected

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

You need to put in a request at WP:RFP. However, requests for page protection are usually only granted if the page meets certain conditions, and I don't think this one does. There are lots of edits, but the page has largely stabilised in the past few hours since certain editors have been blocked from editing for unrelated reasons.

Besides, semi-protection only prevents edits from unregistered users (IP editors), and we haven't seen much of that. Move protection might be in order, but again, the page has stabilised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

First person citation

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

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

Well I hardly see the need for the issue if either way the presentation length is confirmed, with a solid source. Even though it isn't third party, it's actually the only source we have confirming the exact information. I believe this stands as an exception, then, as it's the man himself confirming it. -MGZ editor (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't stand as an exception, because it cannot be independently verified. And given Kojima's love of screwing with his audience's minds for fun, he's hardly a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

RE "Exact Information": It's preferable to use independently verifiable but less 'definitive' information over definitive but not independently verifiable (and therefore potentially completely wrong) information. To conjecture a more extreme example, if a country's Chancellor says he or she is maybe allocating $10-20 billion to healthcare and some random blog says it's $14 billion, we'd much rather have the vague number because it's better to be confident in the $10-$20b than have less confidence in the $14b. One is merely vague whilst the other is potentially (inadvertently) lying. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hayter's involvement

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

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

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

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

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

Well the authoritative source was actually his blog but regardless we're not referencing Twitter, we're referencing a third-party. No issue with independence there (although Kotaku is a bit of a rumour mill, might not meet WP:RS). -Rushyo ^Talk 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG accepts Kotaku as a reliable source (WP:VG/RS) czar · · 04:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Diamond Dogs.

Removed the Diamond Dogs from the plot summary. As the only source was the trailer, we really should refrain from stating absolutely or implying that Diamond Dogs was formed after his coma. Yes, it was shown in the trailer, but the trailer also showed scenes from both The Phantom Pain and Ground Zeroes, so its also just as likely that Diamond Dogs was formed BEFORE Big Boss was in a coma. Until it is confirmed, absolutely, in a reputable source, that the Diamond Dogs were formed after his coma, we keep it out. Miller appearing in The Phantom Pain likewise should not be mentioned either, since it's speculation right now. For all we know, Miller may only appear in the Ground Zeroes portion and be completely absent in The Phantom Pain portion. Don't forget that trailers have had a history of switching scenes/dialogue around. The "Jack the Ripper" trailer's internal Monologue is a notable example of this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Two games confusion

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

I agree. There is not enough information yet to say whether or not MGSV is one game or two, whether Ground Zeroes is a separate disc or not. We should not split or move anything until we know for sure. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Put me down for agreeing, too. There is no hurry to split the articles, if splitting them is even necessary. We only have a minimal amount of information to work with, and several contradictory sources to boot. Once more information emerges, we can reassess and make an appropriate decision. Until then, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep everything in one article. It's always better to split an article at a later date than it is to merge two articles into one.

At the end of the day, despite the uncertainty, the contradictions and the differences of opinion that have arisen from it, there is one thing that just about every single source agrees on: Metal Gear Solid V is Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain. They are two parts of the one whole. Whether separate or together, they are both a part of the same overall game. That is the point that Kojima and Konami have emphasised above all else, so there's clearly a reason for that. So for the time being, I think the article should remain with Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain together, rather than separate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If they are given separate releases, they are effectively separate games, even if they are part of the same overall game. Look at the Kill Bill movies. Besides, Kojima made it pretty clear that GZ and TPP are released separately in the G4TV interview, and even he hinted at them being separate releases with his comment about that gameplay footage he showed at GDC being a tutorial (which is shown either separately from the game story or is placed before the game's story, including the prologue). This along with separate comments from either Konami as a whole or Jay Boor means that they are separate relesses. There are plenty of examples of games that afe both the same overall game and yet separate games at the same time. Just look at Sonic the Hedgehog 4, for example. Same overall game, two different games at the same time. There are also expansion packs to old computer games, for another example. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To touch up on this, I believe that Kojima claimed GZ was to serve as a prologue to MGSV. This statement in itself confirms that the two are separate, otherwise he would have said that GZ was the prologue in MGSV. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Weedle McHairybug, in the GameTrailers interview, he said he is in no position to comment on how they will be released when he was asked if they would be released separately, together, of if GZ would be made available both separately and with TPP for the sake of players who missed it the first time.

SOCOM Warrior, you cannot infer anything from Kojima's comments that he doesn't actually say. Especially when he is speaking through a translator, who may have chosen to use the word "to" instead of "in". Even if that is taken from Kojima himself, saying that GZ is the prologue to TPP is actually the gramatically-correct way of phrasing it, and so could reasonably be taken to mean that GZ will be released separately to TPP, or that GZ will be released on the same disc as TPP, or the GZ and TPP will be released together on separate discs in the one case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"We can't comment just yet on how these things will be distributed and sold, but what we can say is that Ground Zeroes will come first." 4:10 Source. By the way he implies their differences, there is no reason to have these articles combined. Sonic 4 was a great example of how one game can be split into two articles, as two parts released separately. GZ and TPP started out as two articles anyway, we can combine them once we confirm that they are in fact one package.

To add to that, Kojima has confirmed that the hospital section of The Phantom Pain will serve as the tutorial of the game ("The hospital section serves as a tutorial, after which the game proper begins" 1), where you learn to move and get used to the controls. Since Ground Zeroes is before The Phantom Pain, why would they include a tutorial right after finishing the GZ portion, if they were the same game? This only further justifies the need for a split. They're clearly two different games. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this whole "not enough evidence to split because we don't know enough" thing does not make sense, because the articles were not originally combined, therefore by that logic someone combined the articles prematurely. If we're talking about preserving them in the state they were in originally because we don't have enough info, the articles should be split in the first place. Second, we have far more evidence and reason for supporting splitting the two pages than we do keeping them combined. The two games were explicitly stated to be separate, the were announced separately, and Kojima referred to TPP's gameplay trailer as a tutorial for that game, which of course doesn't make sense if it and Ground Zeroes are the same game. It's more than clear that they are the same overarching story story, split in two games. Kojima has never even said they are the same game to the extent that they are literally on the same disk and have the same gameplay, he stated that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain make up Metal Gear Solid V, there's a difference. Kojima even said when Ground Zeroes was first announced that it would serve as a prologue to MGS5.

Furthermore, in terms of reasoning for splitting, the article obviously has several deficiencies due to the two being combined, as I keep saying, the Gameplay section is not one bit accurate and shows why the two should be split from that standpoint. We know nothing of The Phantom Pain's gameplay beyond that it has an open world, yet the article is stating comments on Ground Zeroes' gameplay as referring to The Phantom Pain, which is not at all true and we don't have enough evidence to support it. But, because Phantom Pain is being treated as the same thing as Ground Zeroes, there is no way around it. This alone shows that the two should be split until more is known.

So, we basically have nothing to support the articles being combined right now. It's wrong on its face because the articles were combined prematurely without this apparent "consensus" we need to split them, and without enough evidence to support combining them. You're basically holding the page hostage by suggesting the splitting of the page be held to a different standard than the combination of it; and beyond that, we have far more evidence supporting splitting them than having them combined in the first place. It's pretty clear what side of the argument makes the most sense here. Suzuku (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The two games were explicitly stated to be separate

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

the were announced separately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So basically what you're saying is that even though all signs have pointed towards the two being separate, the fact that the articles originally started off separate and were on multiple accounts confirmed to be separate by both Boor and Kojima, it isn't enough to restore the articles to their original forms, all because of your cherrypicking? To be honest I don't see very many others who are "in favour of keeping them together" either. The facts (and sources) have been placed in front of you, and yet you continue to argue against the more favourable approach, due to your personal opinion. I advise you read up on WP:OWN. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that because we have two sources that have the same person - Kojima - saying two entirely different things, we cannot give more weight to one source over the other. You cannot pick and choose which sources you use and which ones you ignore because they're inconvenient. You say that both Boor and Kojima have confirmed that there will be two separate games, and yet you are totally ignoring other sources - most notably the GameTrailers interview - where Kojima refuses to comment on the way the games will be released. That's a contradiction, which you have continually failed to acknowledge, much less address. You can't ignore it just because it doesn't support your argument, least of all when that same source is being used to support other, unrelated parts of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point, and you're misunderstanding what we've been saying. Kojima never contradicted himself, he simply stated that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are two different entities. The way they were to be distributed, although unclear, is irrelevant. To again mention Sonic 4, that game is split into two separate parts but is overall the same game. Therefore we have made two separate articles for it. It doesn't matter how the two games will be distributed in the end, as Kojima has already expressed the different attitudes he feels between the two. Take for example the critical proof above where I mentioned that TPP is confirmed to have a tutorial at the beginning hospital level. This is indisputable evidence towards the distinctive nature of both games, otherwise there would be no need for two tutorials in the same game. Please take note of this before you respond, because any opposing statements you make beyond this would be ridiculous. All signs point towards a split. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And following up on what SOCOM Warrior stated, beyond all those facts, the articles were ORIGINALLY split. Therefore, this whole "consensus" thing is inherently a double standard because someone combined the articles without enough evidence to do so. If we're supposed to be neutral, the articles should be split until further notice because that's how they originally were. Right now you're just holding the article hostage for no plausible reason. Therefore, if you don't come up with a decent response for the above, the articles should be split until further notice. Suzuku (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that settles it, then. If no one provides a logical reason against the separation of Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain by the end of the day, I will assume that consensus has been reached and will work on splitting the articles. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anything is settled. I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach, especially because it's easier to maintain consistent information on a single page instead of two. There are at least two other editors who agree with me. At best, there is no consensus to re-split the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think that we should have a "wait and see" approach I completely agree, 100%. Which is why I'm still restoring the articles. It started out as two to begin with, and after all the evidence for the games being independent (as noted above) this solidifies the need to split them and "wait and see". The consensus will have to determine reasons for why the article should be merged this time, as it was done prematurely by another editor before. The articles will simply be restored to previous revisions, with new content intact. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, separating the pages makes keeping up with info easier because, as I've said repeatedly, aspects of the Ground Zeroes gameplay is being referred to as Phantom Pain, which we don't know yet. Splitting just makes the most sense right now no matter how you look at it, objectively. Suzuku (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll revert the articles now. If anyone has a convinving argument for the merging of the articles take it to the talk pages of the separate articles. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus anywhere here. There are 3 editors opposed to the split. There are 3 editors for the split, one of which has been blocked numerous times for sockpuppeting. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm for the split as well. It just seems like it makes the most sense right now, because we know different information about both of the the titles. If it turns out they are the same game, then we could just merge them together again, hopefully with more info then. Le Rusecue (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

We know different stuff about each of them but the most commented is that the two are "Metal Gear Solid V." Every section mentions each part of the Metal Gear Solid V making. Just every announcement one title has it will also comment about the other. Heck, it could be similar to Tanker-Big Shell and Virtuous-SnakeEater where the real story begins in the latter so it seems a waste of space to have split them.Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tintor2, I suggest reading the entire conversation before doing something. We've been through this. Resplitting the page. Suzuku (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that I have any interest in joining this discussion, I do urge everyone to calm down. I am confused also about the nature of the two projects and am not sure whether or not we should have one or two articles at this point. SOCOM Warrior and Suzuku, though your input is much appreciated, your bold actions here are a bit overzealous. Just because they have been merged earlier does not automatically mean they should be split however. Please come to true consensus before deciding what to do. --Soetermans. T / C 12:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Kojima also used to refer to Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker as Metal Gear Solid V (and personally I think he should have stuck with it, but hey...). I wouldn't put too much stock in the title given. My opinion leans heavily towards keeping them split, largely because up until very recently they've been dealt with seperately by independent sources and so that's how we're having to source information. Trying to source historic information about one game which is potentially two seems pretty much impossible, since everyone will just argue over the source ("Oh, that referred to Game A's mechanics, which isn't confirmed in Game C, so we can't include it." "But Game A IS Game B IS Game C" "That's WP:CRYSTAL! Game C was Game A anyway." "Nu uh, Game C was Game B first", etc.) -Rushyo ^Talk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, after being banned a billion times over reverting an article so we can reach consensus, I can still safely say I stand by my point. Still though, it seems that even after most of us lean towards the split, someone here (rather it be Prisonermonkeys, Axem Titanium, Tintor) is going to feel entitled. It appears that the page is on lockdown, really. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do as well. I just don't see a logical reason that holds enough ground to keep them merged. As I keep saying, this whole consensus thing does not make sense right now because it's essentially a double standard, and everyone keeps ignoring this because in their opinion the pages should be merged. If there is consensus needed to split, there should be a consensus needed to merge as well, because someone just did that without enough evidence.

Furthermore, as Rushyo said, we've been getting separate information on both games, which I've brought up before. You can see the problem this causes just by reading the gameplay section. Gameplay elements that were stated as being a part of Ground Zeroes is being used as being indicative of gameplay in Phantom Pain, which we don't know at all to be true, the only thing we know about Phantom Pain is that it has an open world. The only way to remedy that is by referring to Grond Zeroes separately from Phantom Pain, which alone brings into question the validity of having the pages merged in the first place.

Finally, Kojima has never stated the game are the exact same thing, in the same packaging, with the same mechanics, etc. He's said they both make up the MGSV in terms of the story. Ground Zeroes serves as a prologue to Phantom Pain, and Phantom Pain is the main thing. As I've stated before, when Ground Zeroes was first announced Kojima said it would serve as a prologue to MGS5. Making up the same story and being the same game are two completely different things. If we merged game articles based on the fact they made up the same story, then all the .hack//sign articles would be merged. When you get down to it, we've had Boor, Konami, and Kojima tell us they are two separate games now, on top of everything I've said prior.

Unless someone can provide solid, irrefutable arguments to everything I've stated above then the pages should be split. Suzuku (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Our argument has been solid, so that's not the issue. It all boils down to a matter of invalidating WP:OWN and choosing personal opinion over logic or true consensus. These editors don't actually seem to care about reason. We've provided the facts above, thoroughly, yet they don't listen. I'll attempt to split them again in the near future, but it's likely that I'll be struck down like I always do. Rest assured I have article integrity in mind in order to provide accurate information to readers, so I'll keep standing by my decision to split them until we reach true consensus. Unjustified bans won't stop that. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And we've been at this for days, and we even wait hours and days to split the page specifically asking someone to provide a decent enough argument against what we said before doing so. No one does, so we split the page, and then someone merges them again just because. This is ridiculous. A consensus can't be met if only one side are legitimately putting out arguments for their stance, while the other just sits back, let's the thread be merged without responding to anything we've said, and insists on re-merging them when we try to split them because no one is giving us a good reason not to in the Talk page. Suzuku (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely rejecting the opposing side's reasons and evidence doesn't mean your position is correct. Prisonermonkeys and others have repeatedly presented counterarguments to your points, to which you generally respond "nuh uh, doesn't count". I know I'm tired of expending effort to write words to counter everything you bring up and I imagine Prisonermonkeys, Tintor, and others are also getting tired of being repeatedly told that our perspective doesn't apply. That's why no one has been responding to you for the past few days. I'm guessing that no one is being physically harmed as a result of letting this article stay merged for a few days/weeks until more information about the game or games is released. Furthermore, all new information is centrally located so multiple pages won't have to be updated with each new piece of info. I will gladly support a split when Kojima says, in no uncertain terms, that MGSV:TPP and MGS:GZ are completely different games that will be sold separately. He has not said that yet. P.S., @Socom Warrior, see WP:ROPE. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so presenting evidence and argument now is the equivalent of "nuh uh doesn't count"? All I've done is reply to their supposedly sound reasoning for keeping the articles merged, and every time I do they completely ignore parts of it or reply with asinine arguments like this:

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

Go over and read the entire conversation, and show me where what I've said amounts to "nuh uh doesn't count". The reason I continue to reply is because I know for a fact I have a sound argument, and no one has yet to actually provide a legitimate response to it. Keeping the threads merged makes absolutely no sense unless you're looking at it from the perspective of "well they were merged when I started paying attention to them, so why not". Again, the reasoning to split the threads far outweigh the reasoning for keeping them merged, which from what I can tell is based off of a bunch of misconceptions and double standards, which I thought Wikipedia looked to avoid and based actions solely on the amount of evidence and logic given.

As for keeping the information centralized, that makes no sense because the games have been announced, referred to, and talked about separately for months. It makes no sense by Wikipedia standards to have info that was specifically referring to Ground Zeroes as referring to Phantom Pain here. As you all keep saying, we don't have enough info to do that, and all the info we do have points to the exact opposite direction.

Do not gerrymander what I've been doing into a case of "nu-uh it doesn't count". All I've done here is lay out a solid case for why the articles should be split, and the only thing I'm getting from basically 3 people is the exact thing you accuse me of. Suzuku (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

here, I'll break the tie. Split them into two articles. Until there is confirmation that they are one in the same (like Metal Gear Solid 2) , we should treat it like they are two separate games (like Kill Bill Vol 1 and Vol 2) . This has been nothing but petty arguments. Ground Zeroes was treated as a separate game. TPP was announced as a separate game. I don't see why we are fighting over it. Split them into two, and until we get final release dates, then we can merge if they end up being the same game. Deelite310 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There was never a tie. It's 5 people for splitting the page, and only 3 against it. With you, it is now 6-3. Considering there has been no discussion in over a week, it appears the consensus is to split, as again, there have been 6 people who have voiced for it being split and only 3 against. I'll give 24 more hours, after which I'm splitting. Suzuku (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, splitting. I gave it two days. Suzuku (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Normal protocol is a week at least, not two days or whatever you deem suitable. If you cannot produce clear information that they are two separate games, and apparently you can't given the length of this discussion, then you have no reason to split it. It's not a fan site and it isn't a newspaper, there is no deadline to anything here, the only thing that matters is accuracy, and copy/pasting an older version of the page and restoring a bunch of outdated and intentionally removed information is NOT accurate, it's lazy and bordering on disruptive since you now seem to expect someone to go refix your 'work' for you.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Read. It has been over a week. I gave the final warning two days. As for removed information being there again, you'd have to point out exactly what you're talking about, because the article is exactly the same as it was before the split aside from Ground Zeroes info being removed and the gameplay and premise being updated to reflect that. The Development section is exactly the same.

Also, again, as I keep saying, this "if you cannot provide clear info the two are separate you can't split" thing is a double-standard. The articles were split and someone merged them without enough info to proved they were the same exact game and no consensus. I keep saying this, but I have not seen anyone actually provide me with a logical argument for why this is not the case and it simply gets ignored when I bring it up. Suzuku (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Amongst other things, you did revert the infobox back to its old version, which does not follow WP:VG. See the diff: per guidelines we don't use "technical director". Also, in the gameplay section it is back to "nothing is known...", which should be avoided also, we write what we DO know, not what we do not know. I would've edited it myself, but I don't want to see it getting merged and split again. --Soetermans. T / C 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What Soetermans said. Additionally, they've said that Ground Zeroes is the prologue to the Phantom Pain, not a prequel, not two games, the prologue. Virtuous Mission was the prologue to Operation Snake Eater, the Tanker was the prologue to the Big Shell. That someone created an article the instant Ground Zeroes was announced and someone created an article the instant The Phantom Pain was revealed does not serve as evidence of them being two separate games, and as stated, if this is the case it should not be at all remotely difficult to provide a clear, unambiguous statement saying such. Occam's razor and all that. Even anecdotally, Konami are not capable of producing two AAA games, announcing them around the same time and having them effectively compete against each other for sales. But regardless of all that, is the issue that you've responde to the comment but have as of yet failed to restore the content prior to your split, and split them properly, instead of the copy paste job as explained by Soetermans above.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Kojima also stated that the gameplay segment he showed was the tutorial of TPP, which makes it unlikely that GZ and TPP were indeed supposed to be the exact same game on the exact same disc. If it were, why would they bother with a tutorial for a segment of the game that quite clearly took place AFTER the gameplay from GZ? Did Operation Snake Eater or the Plant Chapter have a tutorial session in the beginning after completing the Virtuous Mission or the Tanker Chapter, respectively? Heck, Jay Boor even said they were separate games, as did the official MGS page managed by Konami. At best, its episodic, like Sonic 4. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To put the final nail in the coffin, the Metal Gear official site lists Ground Zeroes and Metal Gear Solid V as two separate games. ServiceGhost (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging with Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes

I don't see why there's still a separate article for Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes, when Kojima has made it clear that it's a component of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. Even if Konami plans on distributing Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain episodically, there's still pretty depended on each other as part of the same work. The Japanese MGS5 website (the one that actually matters) uses imagery from Ground Zeroes and even has the original GZ trailer is posted on the site. Not to mention the GDC and E3 trailers show events that could only happen in the Ground Zeroes portion. It also seems odd that Konami is heavily promoting MGSV, while completely neglecting GZ. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Metal Gear Solid official site shows TPP and GZ as being two different games. If they wanted to ensure they were the same, they would have made sure they were the same. And besides, its not the first time he marketed two separate games as being MGS5. He did the same with Peace Walker and Rising, even though those two games were clearly different. And as for the trailers, both MPO and MPW had scenes from MGS3 in their Japanese trailers as well, yet its obvious they were completely separate games. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean the Konami of America's MGS website, which isn't very reliable (since it's only purpose is to advertise and sell the games for Konami's overseas divisions). Kojima Productions' website (the actual developers of the game) has no website for Ground Zeroes, but a website for Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (which covers everything Ground Zeroes-related, including the PAX 2012 trailer, hell the original splash image was the same one used for the GZ poster). Even Ken-ichiro Imaizumi (KojiPro's Senior Producer) clarified that Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain (the titles of the first two trailers) are the sums of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (the game's actual title). The fact that the GDC and E3 trailers used scenes from both, Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain, should've been reasons enough for leaving them merged. This isn't like Rising and Peace Walker, where they were announced as parallel but separate projects, GZ and TPP are clearly different portions of the same product. A merging should be made until Konami clarifies how they're going to distribute the different portions separately (assuming they're still going to do such a thing at this point). Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't realized it yet, but Kojima's aiming for TPP/GZ to be developed in America primarily, not only having Americans voice the characters, but even do the motion capture work. If anything, Japan's going to be getting the dubbed version. MGS being a primarily Japanese product ended with Peace Walker/Revengeance. They even established a studio in America specifically for developing those games. So yeah, the American website counts in this case. And if that's not enough, the Facebook and Twitter accounts for the site even specifically quoted Kojima's twitter when stating they are separate games. Besides, if they were the same game, please explain why Kojima referred to the hospital segment of the game (obviously taking place after Ground Zeroes) as the "tutorial" for The Phantom Pain during the GDC conference? There's no way it can be a tutorial if it and Ground Zeroes were the same game, as the player would have already been acquainted with how to move by that point. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To me it is still unclear whether or not it is a single game, two entirely different games or more like a The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages / Pokémon Red and Blue kind of situation. Reliable sources keep on saying different things, which goes to show that they don't know either. Does Hideo know? Who knows. Psycho Mantis, he knows.

In the mean time, I suggest we just wait and see, because this discussion has been going for a while now, with the article being merged and split again. Maybe the article "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and Ground Zeroes confusion" can be made one day. --Soetermans. T / C 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest KP Alert podcast just clarified that Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are both portions of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which further confirms Imaizumi's early tweet, which is even more reason to merge both articles. To answer Tweedle's post, Konami of America (or more appropriately KDE America) is just the division that is in charge of publishing the games in America. Kojima Productions are the ones actually producing the game and their LA division in charge of all the motion capturing is technically a separate division from Konami of America. Ultimately KojiPro's word should trumps all over KDEA's and if their MGS5 website covers both titles (GZ and TPP) as the same product (MGS5), then this article should reflect that by merging the Ground Zeroes article into it. Also, the Big Shell chapter in MGS2 had a tutorial portion as well, despite being preceded by the Tanker chapter, so it's not that odd for the TPP chapter of MGSV to have one as well even after the player has gone though GZ. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So was Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Episodes I and II, and they still were considered different enough games to be different articles. And no, MGS2 did not have a tutorial at all in the Plant Chapter. The tutorial (where they explain how to use equipment in the player's possession) was all in the Tanker Chapter. Heck, the Snake Eater chapter didn't even have a tutorial chapter at all. Another thing, if they were giving false info of this magnitude, the communications officer responsible would have been dealt with like how CBS dealt with Dan Rather during the Killian Documents Controversy in 2004 (in other words, fired.). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you're not even a Metal Gear fan. You don't know what you're talking about. Like usual. The Plant Chapter did have a tutorial if the player replayed the mission separately after finishing the game. Anyway, Kojima confirmed on his Twitter page that they are both the same game. https://twitter.com/HIDEO_KOJIMA_EN Jonny2x4, I agree with you that the pages should be merged. --68.45.180.241 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he said that the two together make up MGSV. He also said the exact same thing with Peace Walker and Metal Gear Solid Rising, saying they both composed MGS5, yet were his personal 5, and the modern 5, respectively, yet it was more than a little clear that they were two different games. We need a LOT more than just that, since he's already pulled off something like that once before. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying also, time will show the wiser. It is still too early to tell what the actual plans of GZ and TPP are, and I think we all know that Hideo probably has a couple of aces up his sleeves. Though I'm against merging right now just because some sources here or there say this or that, I'm afraid the argument "article X is like this, article Y should be too" is invalid (besides, I don't see why there should be several articles on Sonic 4, they're both fairly small articles, and could be easily merged, but that's a different discussion). But again, just wait and see.

And whether or not Weedle is an actual fan of Metal Gear is besides the point, 68.45.180.241 (and "You don't know what you're talking about. Like usual." isn't particularly civil). I edit a lot of VG articles, and I don't own an Xbox 360 or decent gaming PC for that matter. We all edit Wikipedia just to make it a better encyclopedia, not just because we're fans of the subject of its articles (not that those two are mutually exclusive though). --Soetermans. T / C 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We can't just declare that they are the same game yet. We honestly should at least wait until they start announcing release dates before we do anything relating to merges. Even Kojima has made contradictory claims on whether they were separate or not (case in point, the GDC showing of The Phantom Pain regarding the hospital sequence). Plus, since he said the same thing about Peace Walker and what was then called Metal Gear Solid: Rising, despite the two games clearly being different even back then, we can't even rely on Kojima's claim that they were the same. And for the record, he never actually said they were the same game, just that they make up MGSV. Until he says, explicitly, that they are the same game in those exact words, we keep them separate. It saves up a lot of time that would otherwise be undergoing constant moves because people can't make up their mind. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, 68 might be right. There's a link to Examiner that basically states they are two chapters and one game. Would post the link, but for some reason Examiner is a blacklisted site. Still wish that Kojima didn't claim that Peace Walker and Rising were both MGS5, though. Still, err on the side of caution for now, as Examiner is a blacklisted source, and journalism sites have been wrong before (an example being that some journalism sites claimed Raiden was in Montenegro in Revengeances prologue instead of Africa). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kojima never said Peace Walker and Rising were "both MGS5", he simply said they were competing projects to determine the future direction of the franchise after MGS4. Either way, nearly every evidence provided by KojiPro employees (including Kojima himself, who barely mentions GZ after MGS5 was unveiled) shows that GZ and TPP are two portions of the same MGS5, so I'm going to be bold and merge the two articles already. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, guys, we might have to split it back now, as now Kojima may have gone back on that claim: In Computer and Video Games, he told the interviewer regarding whether GZ and TPP were going to be released separately that KP is currently undecided: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/414360/interviews/e3-interview-kojima-on-mgs-5/ "CVG: To clarify, will Ground Zeroes be part of The Phantom Pain or released separately?
Kojima: So you can think of it that Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is the big game and within that the first prologue to it is Ground Zeroes. As you saw in the trailer, The Phantom Pain provides a vast world where the player can really go anywhere and get lost. But for past Metal Gear fans used to a linear experience it would probably be hard for them to get used to that without having a prologue and a way to get used to it. So Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes is an interpretation to really give them a very short, smaller version of that scale. In The Phantom Pain there are real-life day and night cycles but in Ground Zeroes the weather doesn't change and it's at night time. This is to help the past Metal Gear fans to get used to the fact that it's now open-world.
CVG: But will it [Ground Zeroes] be released separately?
Kojima: We can't talk about how we're going to release it because we still haven't decided yet." Emphasis mine. It's back to square one, guys. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As somebody who's seen this article get merged and separated over and over again, I think we really need to keep the two pages seperate, as they originally were, until we receive explicit confirmation that they're one and the same. Be that confirmation from either Kojima or an official Konami press release, but right now things are just so indecisive that I think the issue should be dropped until a clear cut answer is delivered in some form. -Mr. Mittens (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, even the Metal Gear Wiki is debating this right now, however the general consensus is that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain each merit their own article. Perhaps we should have a vote? 134340Goat (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If we are, I'll cast the first vote: No, we should keep them split apart until it is absolutely confirmed beyond any doubt that they are released together. As noted earlier, Kojima basically admitted that there is no decision yet as to whether they will be released separately or if they will be released together. That quote, taken directly from the director, Kojima, outweighs that Tweet, so even if they are the same game, we have to keep them split until its explicitly confirmed without doubt that they are released separately. If we have them be together, we're effectively implying they are released together, which isn't confirmed in any way. If splitting's not an option, I suggest we take the route of Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages and have the title be Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain so its clear that while they do share the same article, and are technically the same game, it is for the moment considered potentially different releases at least. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, and then we're ignored. Well, at any rate, I think at least this line should be changed: "On March 27, 2013, the true nature of these two projects was revealed at the Game Developers Conference, where Kojima announced that Ground Zeroes serves as a prologue to The Phantom Pain and these two titles form one whole work". This is wrong, given a more recent statement from Kojima. He said that he did not actually no yet whether or not Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain will be released separately or sold together. Here is the source confirming this. 134340Goat (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This page should reallllly be split. Just going to reiterate that. Again. 134340Goat (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Today there was a live showing of Ground Zeroes footage. 1 2 3. Take that as you will. ServiceGhost (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yet more proof that they're still two distinct titles. Even if they're on the same disc, they're treated as two games. Just because MGS2 and MGS3 were on the same disc for the HD Collection, does this suddenly make them one game? It's just like that, except with a new release. If any of us are long time Metal Gear fans, we all should know how odd Kojima is with this stuff. 134340Goat (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The TGS demo of September 21, shown here, revealed a title screen labeled "METAL GEAR SOLID GROUND ZEROES - PRESS START BUTTON" at the seven second mark. I'd also like to iterate that Konami's official website mentions both a "METAL GEAR SOLID: GROUND ZEROES" and a "METAL GEAR SOLID V: THE PHANTOM PAIN" separately and that the two games are listed individually on the official Metal Gear Solid website. The proof is right in front of you. Even IF they're part of one game, Ground Zeroes is still being advertised extensively as its own experience. ServiceGhost (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to cite the existence of the Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I and the Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II articles. This is essentially the same relation but even less cohesive. ServiceGhost (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Amputees in fiction

Why is it whenever I list this page in Category:Amputees in fiction, it gets removed. The trailers, gameplay videos, and infobox image itself explicitly depict Big Boss as having lost his left arm! Smijes08 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it's amputees in fiction. As in people, the characters. Not the game. The Big Boss article already has the category. -Phailin (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ground Zeroes needs to be a separate article.

It's confirmed as standalone [1] (just announced today). It used to be a separate article, and I feel it should still be. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 15:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You have my support there. It's also implied confirmed in many other sources, including statements from people inside Konami. I've started a discussion about it on the Video Game WikiProject talk page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Ground Zeroes needs to be a separate article now. Multiple sources have confirmed Ground Zeroes will be released separately from The Phantom Pain. [2] [3] [4] According to these articles, Ground Zeroes will be released in Spring of 2014, at $30 on PS3, PS4, Xbox One and Xbox 360.--Linuxrox (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally have a confirmation. People were banned for separating the two. Phailin (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact the articles were merged with no evidence supporting it shows how ridiculously bias this whole thing was and we still turn out right. Suzuku (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's all in the past, yet I'm discontent that through all the stubborn attitudes and nepotistic bans, where we provided FULL proof through logic and reasoning, only an official confirmation could get through their heads. This closes a long chapter in a one-sided attack where junior mods had managed to manipulate yet another fruitless situation. Despicable, but I'm glad we've reached its conclusion. Thank you for the support, Suzuku, you'e among few legitimate editors. Phailin (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Suzuku for being one of the few mods to actually do your job instead of acting biased. I mean that wholeheartedly. Honestly, it really should not have taken this long (I would have reverted the merge myself, but that didn't work when I tried that). The fact that there were about as much sources saying they were separate games as there were sources that were the same game (possibly even moreso with the former than with the latter), not to mention Kojima himself stating that he wasn't sure whether they should release them separately or together, should have been a very big clue to split them until it was confirmed to be the same game (meaning, both being on the same disc and being on the same exact menu, not just saying they both compose the same overall game like he claimed with PW and MGSR being MGS5). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice how the stubborn-headed editors/junior mods who were fighting against the split decided to go quiet all of a sudden. No one will admit to their mistakes, we were at a point where we could revert two split articles (that eventually turned out in our favor, through reasoning and logic) like adults and yet some sort of Cronyism had taken over regardless of our combined consensus. You see the length of this talk page? The whole chunk of it is this very discussion. That should never be the case, it was a simple revert away until we reached confirmation. Disappointing. Sorry for dwelling on this so long but anyone would be upset over needlessly harsh repercussions based on something so trivial and so easily solved. Phailin (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Release Date Edit War Plz Stop

I'm not trying to start or engage in one here. I keep Daily tabs on this game for 2 years now and when I find a good lead i fix it. And theres some old links here that can't be used anymore that im trying to take out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulZMarsh (talk • contribs) 07:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't own this article nor do you have the right to subvert WP:SPECULATION policy. Speculative sources are unverifiable and prohibited on Wikipedia.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Konami has stripped Kojima's name from this game.

This is awkward.

So, should we still credit it to Kojima Productions, then, or have Konami listed as developer too? It seems as if they may have been assimilated into Konami somehow... ViperSnake151  Talk  16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Coverart

The coverart is not accurate, Hideo Kojima is not credited on the cover. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain

I think that it should be mentioned that there is a missing mission- No.51 "Kingdom Of The Flies" in MGS:TPP which should've been the real ending of the game. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.168.231 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Firstly, Twitter isn't really a realiable source. It should only be used as a supplementary source.

Secondly, I see no confirmation that Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain are, in fact, separate games. This is what Kojima has said:

"Ground Zeroes" is a prologue of "MGSV". 9 years after that event will be "The Phantom Pain". MGSV is constructed w/ prologue and main game "TPP".

So, if I'm reading this right, Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain will form Metal Gear Solid V together. Think back to Sons of Liberty, and the way it was structured, with the "tanker chapter" and the "plant chapter". The tanker chapter served as the prologue, and the plant chapter was the main body of the game. It is my understanding that Ground Zeroes will be Metal Gear Solid V's equivalent of the tanker chapter, and that The Phantom Pain will be the equivalent of the plant chapter. They are two parts of the one game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

They are separate games. Aside from Kojima's twitter post, we also have it from the words of Konami director of public relations Jay Boor. See here: http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/27/the-phantom-pain-and-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-are-two-separate-games/#6eJtQjLEJ9DWuyBo.99/ I'd revert it myself, but the edits make that impossible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say that's questionable. It doesn't really clarify anything. Until such time as they make an official announcement that the games will be released separately, I think everything should stay together. After all, it has already been established that they have their own self-contained storyline between the two. At thhe very least, there should be a consensus before we make any changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it questionable? Boor explicitly stated that they were two separate games, Boor is also a high ranking member of Konami, and so is official word. What more do you need? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Boor's comments are contradictory. On the one hand, he refers to them as being two separate games. On the other, he calls GZ a prologue, and TPP as the main game, and many secondary sources have drawn parallels to the tanker and plant chapters of SOL. Furthermore, are these two games going to be released separately, like Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue? Or will GZ be sold separately as a prologue, and then shipped again with TPP? Are the two stories completely independent of one another, or do they have their own esoteric storyline that means GZ has to be played in order to understand TPP?

So, what more do I need? Let's start with answers to those questions before we start considering the separation of the article into two individual pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Kojima's comment about it being "one game" is contradictory as well. He claimed that GZ was a prologue to TPP, yet TPP's beginning was a tutorial, which doesn't make any sense since by that point, people would have gotten the basics down anyway from the prologue. Besides, just because he claimed that they were together "MGSV" doesn't mean that they are one game. Don't forget, Peace Walker and Rising were at one point called by Kojima to be consecutively MGS5, yet it was pretty obvious that they were two separate games. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well lets wait for a confirmation they are two different games. The game could start with Big Boss recovering from his coma and then remembering Ground Zeroes.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Except we had a gameplay demo on Ground Zeroes, so I doubt that would be it. Prologues generally don't occur until before the main story. Anyways, CrunchyRoll and Joystiq confirmed that they are two separate games, and the latter mentioned that Konami itself stated it via update, so that makes three sources claiming this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So Metal Gear Solid V is like the .hack series? I wonder if there is enough weight to split them without making stubs.Tintor2 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Konami confirmed via their Metal Gear Solid Facebook page that they will be two separate games ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151327888170986&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=1&relevant_count=1 ) The page is age protected (your age on Facebook must be set to over 17) to access the photo. I would say that this is similar to Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 - two chapters, but over two games. Deelite310 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and they quoted Kojima's twitter as well. It's a darn shame that Facebook and Twitter, even those that act as official outlets of information for games, aren't counted as sources on Wikipedia, since we definitely would have sourced this. Still, that makes at least five sources stating that they should be split apart. I think the official Facebook page was run by Shinji Hirano, if an image from Facebook is anything to go by. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Shinji Hirano was the President of Konami (US), so I doubt that he ran anything on Facebook. Like many other companies, Konami has a dedicated Social Media team, and they are the ones that maintain and post information to the Konami and it's brands, Facebook Pages/Accounts. In the end, the Siliconera article seems to be legit enough. Its 2nd source (not direct) confirming what Konami has stated through several of their sources. Deelite310 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, thought he ran the MGS Facebook page due to this post released before Peace Walker's release: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=400768045985&set=a.381327975985.168167.285152375985&type=3&theater Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. A man who barely speaks English, running a Facebook page? ^_^ That's why companies hire people to do that type of work for them. Konami runs about 30 facebook pages, and this is man that has to run a business, and go to meetings nearly every hour of the day. Anyway, we are getting off-topic. Deelite310 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd, it worked for me. Well, in either case, might as well quote the post: "IT’S OFFICIAL—METAL GEAR SOLID: PEACE WALKER HITS THE STREETS! And our President himself, Mr. Shinji Hirano, helps launch it in properly-rugged snake style! Thank you for your incredible support, Solid Snakes. Now let the Legend of Naked Snake begin! http://www.konami.com/mgspeacewalkerpost — with AdrIanoo AcosTaa, Erick Abraham, boooo and Edison Parada." Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are not familiar with launch press releases, and launch events. That post was made by the Social Team, not Mr. Hirano himself, and he was speaking to the launch of the game, not maitaining a Facebook page. Again, off topic. Deelite310 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

.....So are we going to split the two or not? There's enough evidence to support splitting them. Having them combined has caused several problems with the page, the most obvious of which being the gameplay section, which is referring to quotes about Ground Zeroes as being indicative of Phantom Pain. Suzuku (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I just split them now. At this angle it doesn't seem like either are stubs now, does it? -MGSV editor (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of God!

I'm all for being bold, but almost every edit I have seen from you has made the page worse, and this is the crowning glory of it all. All we have managed to do to date is establish that Kojima and Konami are treating these as two seaprate but inherently-interlinked games, and if you watch the interview with Kojima in the GameTrailers interview, you will see that hey don't even know how the games are going to be released.

You need a consensus before making these changes. Please get one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear the consensus is to split, you're the only one arguing against it. Beyond that, you just ruined the page again yourself. We finally got some order to it and you reverted back to that horrible mess. Having these two combined creates several problems for the page, the first of which being the Gameplay section, where you have comments on Ground Zeroes' gameplay as referring to and being indicative of the Phantom Pain, which just isn't the case. The only thing we know about the Phantom Pain's gameplay is that it is an open world game. Everything else was made as a comment on Ground Zeroes. Furthermore, they are clearly two seperate games that make up an overarching story. It was explicitely stated by Boor that they were two separate games, they were announced separately, and we have far more evidence and reasoning supporting that they are two separate games rather than one and as such there is not enough evidence to support the the two articles being combined.

Speaking of which, you talk of a consensus on the pages being split, but there was no discussion on whether the pages should be combined in the first place, they just were. As such, to be completely neutral, the articles should be kept in their original state, which was split, until a consensus is actually reached on whether to combine the two or not. Suzuku (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It was confirmed by multiple sources, Kojima himself, that the two games are separate. There's no reason not to revert the articles into their split forms.SOCOM Warrior (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay then if someone doesn't come up with a better argument for not splitting the pages I'm doing it in an hour. Suzuku (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there's any valid excuse not to restore the articles. If you're splitting, I support it. SOCOM Warrior (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted ending

I've just removed the deleted ending subsection from the plot. I'm talking about this:

In a third, final secret mission, released in unfinished form on the collector's edition versions of the game as a video, Eli, since confirmed to be a clone of Big Boss- a prepubescent Liquid Snake, is seen to have occupied an island with Sahelanthropus and released the last English strain parasites. Since it does not work on children, he has effectually created an isolated society with no adults. As Big Boss, wearing a gas mask, comes to return the children to the base, eradicate the parasites and take back Sahelanthropus, Cipher agents arrive, wanting Sahelanthropus for themselves. They are quickly annihilated by Eli piloting the mecha. In the end he is only subdued by the collective forces of the Diamond Dogs which the player has amassed throughout the game. After realizing Eli has entered puberty since and become infected by the parasite after all, Big Boss abandons him, ordering them to napalm the island on his departure. However, The Third Child appears and removes the parasite from within Eli, guiding him to safety. Eli vows to surpass his father as he departs with The Third Child, unaware that he has just been bested by a double.

The reason is simple: it's a final secret mission, released in unfinished form on the collector's edition versions of the game as a video. It is part of the collector's edition, as what apparently is a work-in-progress. For whatever reason, the developers decided not to include it into the game. Not just the regular editions of the game, it isn't featured in the game at all, because it is a video and not a mission. The same could be said how BioShock Infinite changed during its development. Or that, originally, Dead Cell had different members. A game like Far Cry 4 does have different, hidden endings, which are present in the game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that this is still canon and part of the story. Its events are acknowledged in the timeline that appears after the credits, and it fills in some important holes in the story. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be canon and part of the story, but apparently it isn't part of the game. In the end, the article is about the game The Phantom Pain, not about the enormous and often confusing storyline of Metal Gear. Besides, we can't go explaining what has changed over the years either. --Soetermans. T / C 18:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Still, it's being covered and discussed by reliable sources ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), so it's worth covering on the page in some capacity. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it can be worked into the development section, that it was changed during its development. --Soetermans. T / C 08:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's really no different to Quantum of Solace. The film ends with James Bond confronting the man who betrayed Vesper Lynd. After making his peace with it, he walks away, and the film ends. However, an epilogue was filmed that saw Bond confront two villains, White and Haines. It was ultimately cut from the final film, and is not mentioned in the Quantum of Solace. I see no reason why this case is any different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But this ending IS mentioned in Phantom Pain. Even if the mission itself was not finished, the game treats it as part of its narrative. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How is the ending mentioned? Besides the collector's edition video, does this part of the story appear in the game in some way? Because if it does, why mention at all that it is a secret mission in an unfinished state, that can be seen as a video that's only available to see on the collector's edition? --Soetermans. T / C 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The mission itself is only in the Collector's Edition video, but during the ending timeline that appears like in all the other MGS games, the very first section (1984, the year this game takes place) states "Eli establishes his Kingdom of the Flies in Africa." These are the events depicted in the Collector's Edition video, thereby firmly establishing them as being part of the Metal Gear timeline and the game's narrative. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If it only appears in a video in one edition and is separate from the main game, then we cannot establish its canonicity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So despite the fact that the video is part of a version of the game, its events are alluded to in the game itself, it features word-for-word what is described in said allusion, and even according to multiple reliable sources fills important holes in the game's narrative, we're still going to leave it out. I strongly disagree, but my opinion obviously isn't worth much around here, so whatever. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're going to leave it out, because it's not considered canonical. Not unless Kojima says otherwise. How do you know that it wasn't cut because of a planned DLC release, or a Metal Gear Solid 6? Mere allusion is not enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if it part of the story, it isn't part of the core game, plot-wise. I don't see a problem with mentioning it in the development section, but we can't treat it as plot. --Soetermans. T / C 08:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New consensus on infobox fields

This mostly concerns @Wrath X: and @Dissident93:: guys, you both have to stop editing and discussing through edit summaries over tiny bits and try to come to an angreement.

The other day I started a new discussion at WT:VG to get some new input on the infobox. I agree, the syntax guide wasn't clear before. I don't know if the syntax guide has been updated yet, but it's clear that new consensus has been reached: no more than three entries per any field.

Also Wrath X, in your edit summary you point to WP:NOTBROKEN, but you realise that Shuyo Murata isn't mentioned at all at the article on Kojima Productions? I wouldn't call that a decent redirect at all, because the reader wouldn't find any information whatsoever about the linkable name Shuyo Murata. --Soetermans. T / C 09:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make that rule, if you have a problem with it then discuss it with the administrators or whoever made these rules. As stated in WP:NOTBROKEN, one reason to not fix redirects is "Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see Redirect with possibilities)". Murata doesn't have his own article but if the link is used enough times it may encourage editors to make an article. Many links without articles work like this. Moreover, the link redirecting to Kojima Productions at least tells the reader that Murata's notability is connected to Kojima Productions. One more thing, the game has four writers: Kojima, Murata, Inamura and Tamari. It wouldn't be fair to list the first three but leave out Tamari as all four writers are credited equally. If maybe one of these writers are credited as lead writer then sure add him and omit the rest; BioShock Infinite also has four writers, which exceeds the infobox limit, but one of them is credited as lead writer, thus the lead is listed and the rest are omitted. This is not the case in The Phantom Pain; there is no lead writer among these four. Thus, all four are omitted per template. I understand that Kojima is pretty famous and he's the creator of the franchise. But the game credits him equally with the other three writers, thus all four writers should be treated equally. Besides, Kojima is primarily notable for being the designer and director of the Metal Gear series, and he is already listed as those in the infobox. -- Wrath X (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You realise that we make the rules, right? The top of WP:R reads "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", so we as editors can still decided if we should deviate from that guideline. Shuyo Murata redirects to Kojima Productions because of a AfD discussion; the page in a nutshell bit of WP:R reads: "Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles". The page reached is Kojima Productions, Shuyo Murata is now an alternative title to Kojima Productions, which doesn't make sense. We can also look up how many links there still are to Shuyo Murata. Not a lot, and they pretty much all involve either Metal Gear or other Kojima titles. The reader can already come to the conclusion that Murata is connected to Kojima in some way, as he is mentioned in the infobox of a Kojima video game in the first place. It would be the same thing to make Kazunobu Uehara link to Kojima Productions.

Concerning writers, the syntax guide says:

writer

The popular names of the game's writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers.

1. If a single person is credited as "Scenario director" or "Scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Lead writer";
2. If there is a person credited as "Scenario concept writer" or "Original concept", also list that person here;
3. List no more than three people in this field.

It doesn't say anything that we should drop the field in its entirety if there are four writers. I, on the the other hand, don't think it harms the infbox if there are four writers listed. --Soetermans. T / C 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't say to drop the field entirely, but at the same time it's not right to omit a writer from the group since the entire group are credited equally. Either all four are listed or all four are omitted. If the infobox sticks to the template's "List no more than three people in this field", then the four writers should be omitted rather than listed.

Also it's funny that you say you don't think it harms the infobox if there are four writers listed. On September 9, I added all four writers in the infobox, even noting "These are the four lead writers; either all four are listed or all are omitted". Then the next day you reverted my edit citing Template:Infobox video game. Now our positions have somewhat reversed.

As for the redirect, you make good points. But you can't guarantee that they won't make an article about Murata again in the future. Moreover, the reader can indeed come to the conclusion that Murata is connected to Kojima Productions in some way, it's obviously in the infobox, but the redirect link to Kojima Productions indicates that he is notable mainly for Kojima Productions. Honestly, if the redirect page is useless then it should be deleted entirely.

-- Wrath X (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I suppose you're right we've changed opinions somewhat. So much for coming to a consensus! Anyway, I'm afraid I don't agree with your (if I may call it that) "all or nothing" stance. Since Wikipedia's guidelines isn't set in stone (and neither is the VG infobox syntax guide), I don't think having four writers listed is an issue. I'll try to incorporate some of Murata into the Kojima Productions article later. --Soetermans. T / C 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I'm trying to say is if you're going to list the writers then don't list one, two or three but list all four writers as they are credited equally. The alternative would be no writers listed at all, hence all or none. Of course, four writers conflicts with the template, hence why I ultimately went with none listed instead of four listed. Problem is if we make exceptions for this game others will make exceptions for other games, rendering the template somewhat inconsequential as a guide. -- Wrath X (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's suppose to be used as a general guideline for 90% of articles. What the template is really trying to prevent is adding 9 writers, 10 artists, all 12 composers, etc. Having four is something only you have a problem with, as other GA/FA ranked articles have had that without any controversy for years. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I've request multiple times that Wrath X help the discussion regarding the new infobox guidelines, but he hasn't for some reason. None of these edits would be controversial if VG project members would agree to a new, updated standard. Even Wrath X said it's only a problem because he's just going off the current infobox doc, and not the new, but not official currently, guidelines that people have no problem with. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fulton Introduced in Portable Ops, not Peace Walker.

This article states that the fulton recovery system was introduced in 2010's Peace Walker. That is incorrect. It first appeared in 2006's Portable Ops. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.246.16 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand from googling "fulton recovery system portable ops", the Fulton recovery system allowed the player to escape any mission in Portable Ops online mode. While it made its first appearance in Portable Ops, it did have a different gameplay function. --Soetermans. T / C 10:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Snake or Big Boss

I've noticed that this article is not written consistently when referring to Snake/Big Boss. Sometimes he's referred to by one name, but elsewhere the other name is used. The article needs to refer to him by one OR the other (with a note to explain the presence of a second name).

Personally, I think the name Snake should be used. Even though he has earned the title of Big Boss and accepted it, he is still referred to as Snake throughout the game, as evidenced by the gameplay footage. This is the same logic that is used in the PO, PW and GZ articles, and all three of those games are set after Snake becomes Big Boss. Hence I think the trend should continue here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this on the Ground Zeroes' article's talk page. Most agree that Snake is the correct name since that is how he is referred to in game.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think about it, they are both the same, the men call him Big Boss while Miller, Ocelot, and Huey call him Snake. (With the occasional "Big Boss" Benners88 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cut ending

Recently it was revealed that the game is missing its ending. The Episode, Episode 51, is seemingly missing according to various articles. There are incomplete bits and pieces in the Collectors Edition Disc of it. Should it be mentioned? DarkKyoushu (talk) 13:10, 09 September 2015 (GMT)

It is part of the game so I am with you in this. Benners88 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion below. --Soetermans. T / C 07:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite Error

Is someone able to edit the "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Gamespot" defined multiple times with different content" error? I'm confused as to why it is there. Lacon432 (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Two ref names were both called "gamespot" so that's why. I added a "2" to the second occuring of "gamespot". --Soetermans. T / C 13:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks! Lacon432 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Character reception before release

Does the criticism of the character 'Quiet' post-launch belong in the reception section? See this section for attempted resolution. samtar ^(msg) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The character was controversial prior to its launch, and that controversy continued following the launch. All of it relates to the representation of women in video games, which is a notable issue right now. Especially when Kojima has previously faced criticism for the same thing. Moving it from controversy to criticism marginalises the issue, violating NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy has not continued following the launch. The mainstream gaming press has not highlighted the issue in their reviews of the game, and only one individual source has been posted to cite controversy. Issues regarding Quiet's depiction are subjective and opinion based. While representation of women in games is an issue, it should be discussed or elaborated on outside of specific game pages unless it is a core theme of the game or presented by the game. It has no factual bearing on the game itself as Quiet's depiction whether good or bad is down to subjective opinion. The controversy section is there to outline the broad reaction to Quiet as a character as an event that occurred, and no one is disputing that. However, it is not there to highlight individual opinions of any one person (or editor for that matter) or source material. The original paragraph only gave one reflection of Quiet as a character and as such cannot be a neutral point of view regarding Quiet's depiction. Likewise, the lines regarding Paz refer to another game entirely. I explained my edits but I have been accused of "attempting to remove criticism of Kojima" as an ulterior motive. The paragraph in question regards a Polygon article, and is almost entirely repeated again in the reception section of the page. I proposed it remain there but be removed from the controversy section as criticism of a character post-release belongs under reception of the game as a whole. This point was largely ignored as far as I can tell. The controversy section is not a talk page for Quiet as a character. The reception section is there to highlight important elements of the overall review. It's pretty clear frankly that an individual opinion on Quiet's depiction is being pushed on the article, despite there only being 2 paragraphs out of 20 describing the Polygon author's issue with Quiet. So is 2 paragraphs of one individual review continued controversy? I don't think so but evidently someone does. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not highlight individual opinions. It draws attention to specific instances within the game that were considered contriversial. I have since updated the section to be more specific in this regard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It highlights an individual opinion by specifically mentioning the author by name and his individual reaction to Quiet's depiction. No other reactions are presented so why is one review significant? It's also an incomplete explanation, her lungs are burnt inside and out in the opening of the game which is why she has to breath through her skin. Hence why no other characters need to wear less clothing as their lungs were not destroyed. There's probably no need to have this in as I'd argue at best it's discussing the main plot of the game, and at worst it's spoilers. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

An explanation within the plot does not negate the controversy. Especially considering that Skull Face sustained similar injuries and is likewise kept alive by parasites, but appears fully-clothed.

Also, you cannot remove content because you consider it to be a spoiler. See WP:SPOILERS as to why. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't add the explanation, you did. I didn't say it negated the controversy either. Skull Face's burns did not destroy his lungs, hence he does not need the parasites to sustain him through photosynthesis. He sustained those injuries when he was young and was working in a weapons factory. He then recovered in hospital, and afterwords began working for the CIA etc. He did not receive the parasites until he started working with Code Talker at which point he started wearing that mask to hide them. I'll leave it upto you if you want to add it in but I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with it. It's plot, it affects Quiet's depiction from a story perspective but like I said it's not a section for discussion or opinions of Quiet's depiction unless it's relevant to the controversy as a whole or as an event. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant. The source clearly states that Quiet is given a very different treatment compared to the male characters in the game. The fact that Kojima took the time to explain it does not negate the way Quiet is treated differently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

>It is relevant.

Why? It has no factual bearing on anything regarding the design of Quiet or her depiction or the controversy surrounding it. It is simply one person's opinion of how she is portrayed. That is all. It is not significant either because other female characters in the series as a whole have been given similar treatment. So this is not a significant case regarding the character's treatment or design.

>The source clearly states that Quiet is given a very different treatment compared to the male characters in the game.

Not disputing what the source says. It's just not relevant or new information. Her design has been unchanged since the controversy.

>The fact that Kojima took the time to explain it does not negate the way Quiet is treated differently.

Never said it does. You added the story explanation to the article which is inaccurate by the way as I mentioned. I have corrected it, other characters have working lungs. Quiet does not, hence she uses photosynthesis and breathes through her skin. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment There is already a section about the depiction of Quiet in the "Controversies" section and this is sufficient. Information about Quiet doesn't need to be plastered everywhere, as it gets redundant and removes focus from other areas. If anything, reviews of the game that emphasize Quiet's depiction should just be included in the "Controversies" section. If there wasn't a section already dedicated to Quiet, then I'd support including criticism in the reception section. However, this is not the case and the focus should stay on reception of the game, instead of re-hashing areas already addressed in other sections. I'm not watching this page, just offering a comment. Ping me if you think it's necessary that I respond.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a thought but why not make an article on Quiet and move a majority of the criticism in that page? GamerPro64 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Not disputing what the source says. It's just not relevant or new information. Her design has been unchanged since the controversy."

And that's the controversy: the way she is depicted in the game despite previous criticisms of Kojima's depictions of women. Arguing that it's not new is a non-argument because of previous criticisms; there was no change despite the criticism. And you can't argue that it's not relevant because it's part of an ongoing issue. Removing that content implies that the controversy stopped, which it did not. You have misrepresented the issue, and given your over-reliance on storytelling explaining the costume, it's pretty obvious that you're trying to remove criticism of the game from tge artucle.

You also need to familiarise yourself with the way a consensus is formed. You must not remove that content until such time as you have a consensus. Any subsequent reversions will be referred to 3RR. And given the number of reversions you have made on a subject with discretionary sanctions in place, you are almost certainly looking at a block. Your ONLY choice here is to follow protocol if you want any chance of retaining your editing privileges. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. If you'd like a response on this RFC, it would serve you well to provide some background (the most relevant sources, the suggested implementation, the main arguments for and against). I'd like to help, but not if it means reconstructing the RFC's rationale for myself. Please {{ping}} me if you do, as I'm unfollowing the page. – czar 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I can oblige that (though it may take a bit of time to extract the main sources from the article).

The controversy surrounds Quiet, the only major female character in the game. Her costume consists of a bikini, torn tights and utility belt. It was initially controversial because Kojima described her creation as "erotic", but later amended it, saying he meant "sexy" and wanted to encourage cosplay. Kojima had previously attracted criticism for his treatment of women in Ground Zeroes, where a character has a bomb inserted into her vagina (which is never actually seen), and audio recordings in the game that imply she was raped while being interrogated.

Within The Phantom Pain, Quiet's appearance is explained as being because she performs photosynthesis and breathes through her skin; wearing clothes would suffocate her. Most critics found this ridiculous. However, other characters, both within the game and the wider series, have the same ability.

Within the game itself, Quiet is also subject to a prolonged attack by a group of Soviet soldiers who attempt to gang-rape her and half-drown her into submission. She fights back and kills the lot of them.

The main argument for inclusion is centred on two points: one, that the criticism aimed at Quiet did not stop with the game's release, as almost every single critic took issue with it on some level; and two, Kojima was previously accused of including sexualised violence directed at women, and the attempted gang-rape scene continues this trend.

The arguments against inclusion claim that the game provides an explanation for Quiet's appearance, negating the controversy; that there is only a narrow range of sources provided, and an absence of alternative arguments that concentrate on the positives; and that the section only repeats the "reception" sub-section. People arguing for its removal have not addressed the gang rape scene.

Hope that helps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked through a number of the MGS5 Quiet results in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and here are my thoughts. (1) Remove the Controversy section. We try to avoid "controversy" sections as "controversies" themselves are not a major category of the game's coverage. Konami/Kojima should be covered in the Dev section, and the others should be trimmed down and included in the Reception section. If something has received so much coverage as to warrant more than a single paragraph, consider giving it a level three subheading. (2) The paragraph on Quiet's depiction should be limited to what critics have said in the context of Phantom Pain. If they bring a previous scene or backstory into their articles, mention it. There are certainly enough articles written specifically on Phantom Pain's depiction of Quiet to warrant at least a paragraph. (3) We take our cues from reliable sources—coverage in this article should be proportional in weight to its degree of coverage in the media. Any argument here should be about source proportionality/weight. I can suggest sources if asked. Hope this helps.  – czar 04:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I would suggest that it's an issue of due weight. The Quiet issue is certainly controversial as it relates to the ongoing social issue of the depiction of women in video games (I teach a unit of work called "Virtual Worlds" and we spend two weeks looking at the issue alone). By comparison, a doctor threatening to sue Kojima over the supposed use of his likeness is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Due weight to MGSV or just as an issue in general? The page is not here to communicate issues regarding the depiction of women in video games.

If every single critic took noteworthy issue then why is that not represented in the article? Only one individual source is mentioned so far. Majority of reviews gave the game high praise and only mentioned Quiet briefly. The VAST majority of the rest of their reviews go on to praise the game. The focus of the majority of the reviews has not been Quiet, and other characters have been mentioned as much as Quiet in some cases. The Polygon article referenced Quiet in 2 out of 20 paragraphs, I have not looked at others but there was not a substantial outcry regarding the depiction of the character. The part about Paz is also somewhat biased given that the character Chico was also raped. Sexual themes have been present throughout the series, Quiet has not been the first character to be raped in a Metal Gear game. I hope that addresses your point on the almost gang rape scene.

It seems to me so far the majority of parties have suggested either flat out removing the controversy section or as others have mentioned limiting it to the reception section or putting the information on the character's page (if it existed). Specifically myself, Brandmeister, CZAR and GamerPro64. Scoobydunk suggested that information about Quiet need not be plastered everywhere but supported the controversy section. Given that can we agree to limit specific criticism of Quiet as a character to the reception section but keep the pre-launch controversy section as a compromise? You could expand the reception section regarding the Polygon article to encompass what was mentioned in the controversy section if that helps. That way her depiction still gets the paragraph as it was in the controversy section, but is just simply moved to reception. Seems far more appropriate given that the source in question is actually a review and not a dissection of Quiet as a character. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"The VAST majority of the rest of their reviews go on to praise the game. "

That does not invalidate the points about Quiet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not seeing the point of contention. Propose a specific addition formatted with appropriate sourcing. It doesn't make sense to have a "pre-launch controversy section", especially if it concerns the prequel more than Phantom Pain. The controversy sections need to be dismantled and redistributed into the rest of the article. I don't think there will be any opposition to that. Once it's done, you can discuss any elements that need to be added/removed, and you can propose specific edits/steps here if there is disagreement. – czar 06:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — Given its connection to the wider issue, I don't think the section on Quiet could be dismantled so easily. The other three issues, sure; they could easily be distributed into other parts of the article (or even cut entirely). But at the very least, the section on Quiet should be re-organised as a sub-section. I just think that the issue is too big to warrant merging it into the rest of the article, and I think that doing so marginalises the issue of representations of women in video games. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Try merging it first (under the rationale to avoid dedicated Controversy sections) and anyone interested can correct if something is missing, as laid out above. – czar 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — you would agree, then, that there is something substantial enough to merit inclusion, then? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I said above that I saw several articles in a basic video game reliable sources custom Google search that covered Phantom Pain's depiction of Quiet in a non-cursory fashion. Yes, they should have proportional weight in the article—I didn't think anyone was arguing otherwise. – czar 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@czar — I only ask you because I want 86.40 to be crystal clear on the issue. He wanted to remove the section on the reception of Quiet entirely, and I felt that this implied that the controversy had ended prior to or with the game's release, which I feel in turn misrepresents the issue. Given his tendency to delete absolutely everything that he disagrees with and his edit-warring, I was left with the distinct impression that he was trying to remove criticism of the game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. 86.40 clearly said above that they're fine with the merge ("her depiction still gets the paragraph as it was in the controversy section, but is just simply moved to reception"). I'd strike the captious parts of your previous comment if it were my own, as I'd be primarily focused on the next steps. – czar 07:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys I have not wanted to remove the reception of Quiet entirely at any point and have not touched any wording regarding her depiction outside the controversy section. I have repeatedly stated that time and time again but you seem to believe I'm trying to censor the article despite my attempts to reach a compromise. Given the suggestions like I said, I propose we merge the paragraph regarding Quiet in the controversy section into the reception sections. If anything is missing from the reception section regarding Polygon's review, we can add it in. This gives Quiet's depiction as an issue due weight while leaving the controversy section to be dismantled as suggested seeing as mixed bag controversy sections should be avoided https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Controversy.22_section

Can we agree to this? 86.40.31.62 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Trim to one or two sentences. It should not be removed but that single author's opinion is absolutely not significant enough to devote 135 words to. (WP:UNDUE) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, especially when it's not clear how many reliable sources share the same view. Brandmeister^talk 11:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, so it would seem the majority agree now that one reviewer's opinion should not be given more weight than others. So I think it's fair to say we've reached a consensus on that. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering (WP:UNDUE);

- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The Polygon review as stated before does not focus on Quiet, it mentions her for two of twenty paragraphs. Looking at other reviews which gave the game sweeping praise there is little to no significant outcry against the character. If there was then Quiet should probably have her own page. The reaction to Quiet post-launch therefore carries as much weight as a reviewers reaction to any other character.

Polygon is a reliable source and so elements of the review should be highlighted in reception like it's done for EVERY other game article. If Prisonermonkeys insists on highlighting Polygon's comments about Quiet in "Reception", so be it but that isn't really what was highlighted in Polygon's review which gave the game a 9/10 score.

The article at this point looks like a mess. I feel both myself and Prisonermonkeys should step away from it at this point and allow others to clean it up. It reads like an "off-topic" discussion after the Music section. The part about Quiet's abilities and why other characters wear clothes is incorrectly explained, her lungs were destroyed. Thus other character's attire is irrelevant because they can still use their lungs to breathe, unlike Quiet. Not that any of this needs to be discussed on the actual article. There is also far too much usage of commas in these paragraphs.

The article is about the game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, it is not a platform to highlight individual opinions, hearsay, or scandal from the media unless it is relevant to the game specifically. If those things affect the game (not the industry) in some way they are relevant, otherwise criticism and overall reception of elements of the game should go in the "Reception" section. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can justify removing the attempted rape scene as giving undue weight to a source, considering that the source specifically pointed to this scene as an example of that controversy and the previous criticism levelled at Kojima for the inclusion of sexualised violence.

This appears to be little more than an attempt to remove any criticism of the game. It happens a lot with gaming articles—dedicated fans try to get the criticisms removed and misrepresent the game. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The article does not look like a mess. You can yell and scream all you want, you can't twist WP:UNDUE to have the criticism removed. Feel free to walk away though; I've seen a lot of experienced editors editing the article and so far nobody had the same idea as you. Even with other editors joining in, nobody so far said it should go in its entirety. --Soetermans. T / C 10:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to represent the opinions of editors—it is to document the events as accurately as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. WP:VNT czar 06:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

People have directly said the controversy section should be dismantled entirely and quoted Wikipedia sources to support that. I'm the one yelling and screaming am I? Seems to me I'm making varied points based on logic and reason while trying to reach a compromise or consensus, other people have somewhat supported that to varying degress. While you seem to just yell and cry that I'm trying to "remove criticism" with little to no engagement in the points either myself or other people have brought up. NUMEROUS other editors have suggested merging the controversy section or removing it altogether. Other's have made edits and supported that Quiet certainly doesn't deserve an entire paragraph explaining her appearance, yet these have been undone almost instantly and more has been added to the paragraph despite no consensus on that being reached.

Tell me this, if I'm trying to "just remove criticism" as some ulterior motive, why haven't I removed part of EGM's review, Game Informer's review, or the part regarding the controversy about the paywall Konami was going to implement? Why have I focused on one sole paragraph, containing one sole opinion, from one sole person, cherry picking two paragraphs from a 9/10 review of 20 paragraphs? Maybe.. just maybe, I see a problem with letting one person's opinion represent a consensus on a subject? Can you understand that?

Let's just call a spade a spade here, some clearly believe this page should discuss and highlight the subjective opinion (specifically Polygon's opinion) of one character's appearance in MGS5 because it is relevant to a social issue outside the game itself. Ask yourself, does that serve the purposes of Wikipedia or the purposes of a specific POV fork? Is this page in it's entirety an encyclopedic entry about MGSV or a platform to highlight an individual opinion? Consider that only one opinion has been represented and highlighted here regarding this issue above any others. When another opinion was highlighted it was dismissed.

Anyway, I think I've made all the points I can on this and cited a few Wikipedia sources to support them. Others have supported the idea to some degree too. I have also tried to reach a compromise regarding the issue.

Despite this, the two main arguments I seem to hear are "the controversy is still ongoing" or "the controversy is relevant".

There is one.. goddamn.. source in that section. ONE. In what twisted reality does that constitute ongoing controversy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."[1]

Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a POV-section or criticism-section to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material.

Further to the above when presenting a controversy section;

For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources.

Quiet's depiction post release has not been what I'd call "broadly" covered in this case. Nor have various positions been represented or given due weight.

Once again, I'm not moving to remove anything. Nearly the exact same thing is already in the reception section.

Anyway I'm sure all of this will be roundly ignored like my previous points, good luck pushing your agenda onto other articles without any other viewpoints being represented. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What "agenda" do you think we have? And what's your "agenda"? Fact of the matter is, you removed the entire paragraph several times. [12], [13], [14], [15]. Because of these actions, you've were warned several times, and there was a discussion at WP:AN. Opinions are subjective, controversies are subjective, the entire reception section is based upon subjective material. In the end, you're still more than welcome to come up with another source. --Soetermans. T / C 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The reception section is balanced though, sources are given appropriate weight. That's the glaring issue here that I've tried to get across and form a consensus on. Removing content to restore balance, especially considering I've explained my edits, falls well within Wikipedia's policy for content removal. If the paragraph in question was regarding one sole sources opinion on the 51st mission there would not be such debate, not that it would be in the article.

The reason this has been heavily debated is because some editors believe the page should contain selected opinions relating to female depiction issues that are irrelevant to MGSV as a game. MGSV has relevance to the issue of the depiction of women in video games, but it is not the case that the depiction of women in video games as an issue has relevance to the game itself. At this point, I don't know why you're trying to boil this down to simple vandalism or criticism removal. I've put forward a lot of reasons for why the paragraph does not give due weight to the issue to start with, and arguments as to why that the paragraph simply should not be there to start with considering unfocused controversy sections are essentially treated like trivia sections now. I'd speculate as to why but I'm not here to accuse people of anything, I'm here to be objective. Like I said, I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in Reception with the rest of the reviews. Putting it in it's own section gives it undue weight, as only one review (that I am aware of) makes these complaints about her. If it's so important, put it at the top of the Reception section, but giving it it's own section is borderline POV pushing.Skeletos (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, I guess someone already did that. So now we have TWO sections referencing a SINGLE PARAGRAPH from ONE review from ONE site. Get rid of one, I don't care which, but having both is unacceptable ans well as redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I've already pointed out, you removed the paragraph repeatedly, and you have been warned about your actions. You're not here to accuse people of anything? You've already accused us of having an "agenda" and you say "it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". How is that not an accusation? Either way, I haven't edited the article since September 26. --Soetermans. T / C 06:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Soetermans, I think you have me confused with someone else.Skeletos (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Skeletos:, I was talking about the IP user. --Soetermans. T / C 09:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing content is allowed if a good reason is given. Removing a paragraph is certainly allowed. You saying "you removed x" over and over again means utterly nothing. I gave reasons for it. Regards an agenda to this page that certain people are pushing what I meant was I'm not going to go accusing individual people of anything because it's off-topic honestly. Same deal with people owning the page by reverting edits with no reason given as to why. Any reason I've given has been seemingly brushed off. Despite almost now a page worth of voices, examples, other people agreeing there's some validity, etc.

I've looked into how other good pages have dealt with this, example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dishonored#Sexual_objectification_and_violence_not_mentioned, it certainly seems to me that unless there is a large impact it is not even worthy of a mention, especially if there is not widespread consensus on it.

At this point I've really failed to hear any other argument to keep it in other than "it's regarding female depiction in video games so it's relevant", relevant to whom and what exactly? MGSV? Hardly.86.40.31.62 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There was no "controversy." There was a single person who thought that the character was some how sexualized and demeaning to real women, a person who expressed mental difficulties. Don't forget that Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, the mere opinions of one or a hand-full of people should not be given weight. Damotclese (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A person who expressed mental difficulties"? I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you questioning the mental health of the writer of the piece? --Soetermans. T / C 05:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned here by a bot - That piece of information seems relevant to that specific section of the page, nor does it seem important enough to create an entire new page for. I would add that it might not be a "controversy" per se, but I think its a sweeping generalization to say only a "single person" thought the character was over sexualized. I am sure any male or female could look at "Quiet" and say, "yea that's a bit much." Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment When approaching this subject, I think it's important to realize that some things in art are made to be controversial on purpose. I can't speak for Kojima, but the Metal Gear games are no stranger to controversy, and definitely approach topics that the public deems taboo, and seems to push more whenever the public pushes back.

I mean, Take a look at Manet's Olympia painting, when it was unveiled the depiction and context caused both awe and disgust, which the artist expected. Regardless (and perhaps because) of controversy, The painting went on to be celebrated as a masterpiece, much like MGSV. Of course, Quiet is just a part of the portrait, but a part of it nonetheless. Just my two cents. --BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternate solution/No Broadly agree with @Damotclese and 86.40 that these type of controversy sections can stray close to advocacy, especially wrt representation of women in games. Looking at the current article, there are only two accepted sources which contain or reference criticism of Quiet as sexualised which are McWhertor's Aug 27 review of MGSV and Kojima's 9 September response to criticism. McWhertor's review is 4 days prior to launch which I would consider post-development (part of the usual spate of pre-launch review copies being sent out) and the other is over a week post-launch. Unless anyone has other RS to add, I don't think either of these warrant the "Controversy" section to be located under "Development" and thus it should be moved wholesale to "Reception." This would cut down on some redundancy there and more accurately reflect the utilised sources.

Regarding the reception section itself, I think some biased wording exists in McWhertor's Polygon review vis the line "McWhertor was also highly critical of the overt sexualisation of Quiet" Reading the review McWhertor was neither "highly critical" (his only criticism of sexualised women was one paragraph of a 2000 word review) nor did he describe Quiet's sexualised depiction as "overt", I believe he was referring to any sexualisation of female characters in a general sense (the end of that paragraph briefly discusses sexualisation of other female characters). Separate to the above change of merging the "Controversy" section here, I propose the following line:

"McWhertor was also highly critical of the overt sexualisation of Quiet, feeling that it was unnecessary to the point of undermining the character and her role in the story."

be replaced with

"McWhertor was also critical of the sexualisation of Quiet and other female characters, feeling that it was unnecessary to the point of undermining the characters and their role in the story." Vynwood (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, cheers. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Venom Snake

Okay, we need to talk about spoilers. As I was playing the game, I came to this page to get information on Metal Gear Online, and as I hovered over the Venom Snake link I saw that it didn't list to Big Boss' article but rather "List of Metal Gear characters" and that was literally all I needed to come to the conclusion that Venom Snake wasn't Big Boss. You guys need to hide that better.. I took proper precautions to avoid spoilers but you don't expect to be spoiled by the summary of the game. Just some friendly advice from a concerned citizen. Mandon94 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic, @Mandon94:, thanks to your spoiler I know now already a huge plotdetail. Anyway, Wikipedia can't be spoiler-free. See WP:SPOILER for details. --Soetermans. T / C 13:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It is ironic, although to be frank it's a given that you'll be more at risk for spoilers on the talk page of the game than the summary. Or so I would have thought before coming here. Oh well.. I guess we're both sort of victims of the mishandling of this page when it comes to spoilers. I get that wikipedia can't be spoiler free, but why should spoilers be found on the summary section of the game? I'm just saying, that's the one place in an article that should be safe. 24.67.141.49 (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The one place in an article? So the development section can have spoilers, in your opinion? A summary of the story can easily have spoilers of course, but feel free to edit in such a way that it still makes sense without that spoiler. --Soetermans. T / C 12:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Misc. review

Drive-by review:

1. The two non-free posters are overkill. I don't see how they're supported by the WP:NFCC. A screenshot would make sense in their stead.
2. The reviews template is overloaded. It should have far fewer reviews listed and max out maybe at 10. The reviews from the less prestigious sources, or the ones that provide less variety, should just be scrapped.

 czar 02:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)