Talk:Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots/Archive 7

LittleBigPlanet

LittleBigPlanet's online mode has so many levels designed to allow the player to easily acquire Trophies

Is there a source available for this? I may have missed something, but I'm pretty sure it isn't specifically mentioned that there are so many levels about getting trophies - just that some dude (the spamming Liquid) is spamming levels. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to add this in

The page is semiprotected, but I feel that we should add this. In the Awards section, under the 2008 Gamezine awards, could someone add in Overall Game of the Year? The proof of this can be found in the link: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/gamezine-s-2008-game-the-year-$1258471.htm

I think that we should note that they did by a readers poll, they asked users what was the best gme of 2008, and MGS4 won with 35% of the votes. This is also included in the article above.

Thanks!

Also, I have found another Game of The Year award from joystik.com (not Golden Joystick): http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/01/joystiqs-top-10-of-2008-metal-gear-solid-4/

Could someone please add that in?

Already done (also, don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages, per the talk page guidelines!) haz (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But now i just found more awards from other sites. Seriously, the awards MGS4 won are starting to become very lenghty...

From VGChartz (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2718&a=2 and http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2715) I found their awards and their reader awards, could someone please add this in the following format:

VGChartz Game of the Year Awards
Editor's Choice:
Best Overall Third-Person Shooter
Best Overall Graphics
Best PS3 Third-Person Shooter
Best PS3 Action-Adventure Game
Best PS3 Graphics

Readers's Choice:
Best Overall Third-Person Shooter
Best Overall Graphics
Best Overall Musical Score
Reader's Overall Game of the Year
Best PS3 Third Person Shooter
Best PS3 Action-Adventure Game
Best PS3 Graphics
Best PS3 Musical Score
Reader's PS3 Game of the Year

Thanks!--GreatSnake666 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if VGChartz' GOTY awards are notable - the reader's choice ones definitely aren't. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Other article have them, VGChartz is a real and notable site that gives game awards. And why aren't the reader's polls notable? They're just as important as editor awards as they allow us to see what the reader's opinion is about the game. Also, many articles have them. Although it would be much better to put them in, i guess it would be okay if we didn't(although is still think we should). At least put in the editor awards.

Thanks! --GreatSnake666 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reader's choice awards can be manipulated by bots and such, so only critic awards should ever be considered notable. As regards VGChartz, I have a hard time respecting a group of awards that game Best Racing Game to Mario Kart Wii while ignoring Race Driver: Grid and Burnout Paradise. I think I'll bring it up on WT:VG though. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GOTY awards are just opinion, so I hardly think it's fair that you're justification for not including VGChartz awards is that they gave MKWii racing game of the year. Personally, and I'm sure millions would agree with me, I found Mario Kart to be far more entertaining than any other racer this year. However, as Wikipedia currently does not consider VGChartz a reliable source, that should probably be enough reason to exclude their GOTY picks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! Yeah, my comment on Grid etc was way too WP:POV. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess its okay not include VGChartz's awards. But what is the reason that Wikipedia dosent consider it a reliable source? I would really aprrecite it if someone told me! Thanks!--GreatSnake666 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think (I'm not 100% sure) it was because VGChartz' stats aren't accurate - they're more like informed guesses (again I might be completely wrong). It's somewhere in the archives of WT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i did a little bit of research on them (I don't know why im obsessing over this, I'm just bored right now and have nothing to do). I see how you think Vgchartz isn't reliable. Thats their sales charts! Many have criticized them for sometimes making educated guesses. However, there awards are picked by themselves. How could they be making informed guesses of things the awards they picked themselves. So you see, if we were to post their posted sales of this game, it would be open to little question, but since its about the awards they picked, thats not the case.
And since they actually are a trusted and famous site (more info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vgchartz), it would be the right thing to post their Game Awards. Hoped That Cleared Things Up a Bit! Thanks!--216.232.248.67 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, myself, I wouldn't actually have any problem with including their GOTY picks because, as you said, it's their sales stats that are considered unreliable, not their news (indeed, it was VGChartz that "confirmed" the 360's price cut to $200).

However, I think the higher ups over at WP:VG wouldn't like to include their GOTY, because sales stats are the main focus of VGChartz, not gaming news; i.e. there gaming journalism is still considered questionable and/or sub-par by the Video Game WikiProject. You'll probably have to discuss it over there. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe their gaming news may be questionable. However, since their awards were made by themselves and not researched from other sites and posted on theirs, it is not open to any controversy.
I really dont think that even the superiors at WP:VG would have problems with that. Even if VGChartz's main focus is with sale charts, it is still permissable to put their wards up here. Hey, we even put MTV's game awards up, and they normally have nothing to do with video games. But I'll ask the higher-ups at WP:VG anyway. But I seriously don't think they would be still objecting to VGChartz awards.--GreatSnake666 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just got the green light. Adding the awards in. Leaving the Readers' Awards out for now, however.--GreatSnake666 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many awards! Please don't add anymore! The article will get too big! Ffgamera (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You could probably snip out the reader rewards and just go for the ones from the industry, that'd cut it down a bit. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I really don't see any need for a linebreak between the giver of the award and the titles of the awards; all it doesn is make the section twice as big for no reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling PS3 Game

On the bottom line of the introduction it states, "becoming one of the best-selling games for the PlayStation 3". It should be corrected to "becoming the best-selling game for the PlayStation 3". Go to the PS3 article, it states that the best selling game is Metal Gear Solid 4 with more than 4 million units sold; if you want a source, its here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mgs4-sells-over-4-million-copies

The second best selling game is Motor Storm with 3 million, so this is the clear best selling game! So please change this! --Andychole (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures from Konami, http://www.konami.co.jp/en/ir/ir-data/meeting/2009/0514.pdf MGS4 @ 4.75M Magasin (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I removed the tags, rewrite and cleanup do not seem to match the article --PS3 Addict (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused about sentence in the debriefing

"Snake is at the cemetery standing at the grave of Big Boss"

Is he not standing infront of the grave that belongs to Frank Jaeger/Gray Fox? That seems to make more sense.

• No its Big Boss's. he goes back there in the ending and the actual inscription ont he grave is shown.

//The Albino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.232.230 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is Big Boss's grave. It says on the stone "A Patriot forever loyal to the flames of war lies in Outer Heaven" or something like that. Ffgamera (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section

The awards section is missing several awards and the many nominations it got from IGN. Also, there's no mention to the Gamefaqs 2008 awards it got (Such as PS3 game of the year, Game of the year runner up) and the IGN reader's choice awards, just to mention a few things.

-Linseed

Joystiq awarded Metal Gear Sold 4 2nd place in their top 10 games of 2008, not 1st as the article says. I quick check of the source reveals this.

• Awards - Prose?

Okay, who keeps turning the awards section into a prose format? Seriously, it looks much better in a list!

It helps us see all the awards easily, instead of scrambling through the sentences finding each individual one.

Please dont change it into a prose format, it looks much better in a list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.248.67 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not supposed to look good. It's supposed to be easier to navigate. We don't want a page that's unnecessarily long Ffgamera (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, it is now un-categorised, but it is still in the same list format. Not prose. Ffgamera (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Game of the Year PS3Center.net

Hi, just wanted someone to mention in the awards section that metal gear solid 4 got game of the year award from Ps3center.net

Source: http://www.ps3center.net/article/207/5/ps3centernet-2008-game-of-the-year-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazhaider (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should add it in ad "Game of The Year", but rather "PS3 game of the year". That site is only about PS3 games, and even other XBOX exclusive awards have been put up on wikipedia, so it would only make sense to put this one up also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.248.67 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS3centre not notable, only sites with Wikipedia articles with some relevance in the press in that section, please. If we include every GOTY from obscure website out there the section will become too long and also violating Notability guideline. --PS3 Addict (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just put "Game of The Year Awards" section and list the PS3center award among the others. I believe the game won IGN and Gamespots game of the year as well. PS3Center is a growing site and I dont see why we cannot merely list them, the site just re opened a few months ago and gets quite a few unique visitors from what im told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.51.83 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't added several awards and nominations, if this were a movie, it would receive much better treatment.The IGN's reader's choice awards, for instance, haven't been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.48.88 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's got enough treatment, we don't want the section to be too big. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BigbossSNK...

Here's the changes you're trying to make and why they're wrong:

• Changing 'The game eschews the overhead camera of earlier Metal Gear games for a full-rotation, third person camera' to 'The game eschews the overhead camera of earlier Metal Gear games for a full-rotation, third person view.' This isn't a good change because we called it a camera the first time, so we should the second too for consistency.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We should actively try to use different wording for "camera" within the same paragraph, or we end up using camera 3 times within one tiny paragraph. (see how it doesn't make for fluid reading?)

"Third person view" is a common enough phrase to not cause any confusion while reading the sentence.BigbossSNK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't think it's necessary, though. 'Changes an overhead camera to a full-rotation third-person camera' makes more sense than changing the word for no reason other than because you can. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • The change is meant to improve the flow of reading, it's not there just because I can make it.BigbossSNK (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • But it doesn't. It just makes the sentence more confusing. When you're talking about the same thing from a technical perspective, you use the same term throughout for clarity. It's only when writing something like fiction that you try to vary words purely for the sake of varying words. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • The flow of reading is always a consideration, unless you're writing a technical manual, where you have to be absolutely exact. This is not the case when we're just talking about a game's camera system. As to whether or not the paragraph reads better as is, you're free to ask other people's opinions. My money 's on avoiding 4 iterations of "camera" in a 3 line paragraph. BigbossSNK (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • No it isn't. The key concern in an encyclopedia article describing an engineered item like the gameplay mechanics of a videogame is technical accuracy. You want the reader to leave with a clear description of a thing. This means you should always aim for clarity over the kind of needless flourishes used in other kinds of writing. This means that if it's been referred to as 'camera' the first time, it should be referred to as 'camera' every subsequent time. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • A video game's camera system is not an "engineered item". It's a part of a program, and that's completely different from the kind of engineering that requires absolute precision (mechanical engineering). As is, the content is absolutely clear to the reader. Ask for a dispute resolution if you're so adamant it's unclear.BigbossSNK (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Of course it's an engineered item. Description of gameplay is description of the technical qualities of a designed object. And given the only person arguing against the consistant use of the word 'camera' is you, I don't really see why I should be the one to ask. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I can only ask for a dispute resolution if there's a finalised version of the changes I need to make, for the article to be considered for an A list, as I plan. BigbossSNK (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • That's nice. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the note that Octocamo is a development of a previously used mechanic. I don't see any reason not to point that out.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You said it's a development from Metal Gear Solid (contra-factual, MGS had no camouflage index, only incorporated in MGS3).

Secondly, it's not necessarily an "automated" technology. It can just as well operate in Manual mode, maintaining a single appearance.BigbossSNK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I said 'The previous Metal Gear Solid game.' The previous game in the Metal Gear Solid series is 3, not 1. And automation refers to removing the cumbersome mechanic of having to pause the game to change camos, which was actually often cited as one of the worst things about the camo system in 3. Perhaps 'streamlined' would be a better word here.Herr Gruber (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Let's change it to "The OctoCamo suit mimics the appearance and texture of any surface, streamlining the camouflage changes necessary for stealth missions". That way no reference to MGS3 is made (which is kind of misleading anyway since it's a completely different technology) while establishing it's functional role.BigbossSNK (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • But the whole point of that sentence was to point out that it's a development of the camo system from MGS3 with a more streamlined interface. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • There's no reason to reference MGS3 in regards to the camo system. A lot of people haven't played MGS3 and won't know what that means. If there is going to be a reference to OctoCamo being an advance from MGS3's camo system, let it be made in the development section.BigbossSNK (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I must admit to being amazed by the doublethink in that argument. A lot of people haven't played MGS3, so we shouldn't explain that a key mechanic in the sequel is a streamlined version of one that originated in that game? That's a good reason for including it, in fact. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • There's no "doublethinking" (whatever that means) about it. Since a lot of people haven't played MGS3, it's best to avoid references to it altogether. If you have a source that MGS3's camo system was used as a basis for the OctoCamo, list it in the development section.BigbossSNK (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • It's not a good idea to avoid referencing a game's own prequel in discussion of that game. If a lot of people don't know about it, then it's worth including; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain data, after all, not omit it because it's not known by many people. Also, where the hell did you get the idea it's not widely known? MGS3 sold just under 4 million copies, that's hardly unknown. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • The inclusion of unnecessary data can be confusing to the reader. MGS3 is MGS4's prequel, and that's obvious even from the listbox with the Metal Gear saga titles. If you have a source that claims OctoCamo is an advancement from MGS3's camo system, provide it. BigbossSNK (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The source would be that they work in the precise same way except one has a more streamlined interface. You don't need sources to prove things that obvious. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Changing 'Scope' to 'Binocular' mode regarding the Solid Eye. While it does call the mode 'binocular mode,' scope is more correct as an explanation to someone who hasn't played the game, since the Solid Eye itself is a monocular and you don't grow a second one in binocular mode.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Binocular mode" conveys that the Solid Eye serves the function of Binoculars, which for most readers means zooming in and out. Any possible ambiguity is about how the function is performed (monocular or binocular vision)

"Scope mode" connotes a riffle's scope, causing ambiguity as to what its function is (Does Solid Eye relay data from a rifle's scope? Does it mean I don't have to customize rifles with scopes when I aim?)

Since gameplay refers to function, I'd rather that be clear, hence use "Binocular mode".BigbossSNK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Possibly call it 'telescopic zoom mode' or something. Binocular is just as potentially misleading, since it suggests he can somehow wear it on both eyes at the same time.Herr Gruber (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Binocular mode is what the game itself calls it. The ambiguity you mention has no real bearing on function, on the game's gameplay, certainly not enough to warrant steering away from the source material. I maintain my point and hope you agree it's truer for people who will eventually play MGS4.BigbossSNK (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The game itself might use an unclear description, but that doesn't mean we should follow suit. That would be like saying 'Snake fights frogs' because the game calls them frogs. You kinda need to clear up that frogs are people in this sense, same applies to the monocular binocular. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Firstly, it's explained that the FROGs are Liquid's personal army (and not "frogs", like most military outfits FROGs are capitalized, eg FOXHOUND). The readers are smart enough to understand Liquid isn't using an army of toads for his personal protection! Secondly, this is the gameplay section, and as I've stated, the distinction between monocular and binocular has no bearing on GAMEPLAY. BigbossSNK (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It has bearing on description. The zoom mode is part of a monocular which does not turn into a binocular to create it; for a person who hasn't played the game, it's confusing language. Again, this is technical description; we want all terms as accurate a description of what's in the game as possible. If that means not using the word the game does, we shouldn't use that word. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • The person who hasn't played the game isn't going to read the sentence and think "Hey, is that Solid Eye a monocular or binocular device?". Simply because whether it is or not is an aesthetic issue, and not a gameplay issue. Apart from that, the game's own description stands, and noone else has ever complained.BigbossSNK (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • No, the most clear description stands. That would be that it's a monocular device with a zoom capability. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Then make a page dedicated to the Solid Eye item and describe exactly as you like it's innards. This is the Solid Eye's gameplay function article, and as such, a Binocular mode is clear enough as to what the function is.BigbossSNK (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • No. 'Binocular mode' is a poor description of a monocular's function. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the note that MkIII exists: you want to have the whole paragraph talk about MkII in the singular, and then suddenly add in, totally unexplained, that there's something called MkIII in the game as well. Everything that applies to MkII also applies to MkIII, so that's where it belongs in the paragraph, not at the very end.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So when you know that there's a robot called Mk.II, and there's another robot called Mk.III, all based on the same prototype robot, that causes confusion as to what Mk.III is?BigbossSNK (talk)

• • The issue is that every single thing that applies to MkII also applies to MkIII, so they should be introduced together at the start of the paragraph, not one at the start and one at the end. They're both robots made by Otacon, they both offer CODEC functions, etc. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • The way I wrote it, Mk.III is implied to have the same functions as Mk.II. Both because they are based on the same prototype and because they are only a version number away. The paragraph sounds much cleaner with Mk.III at the end. If you introduce both robots on top, you're bound to talk in plural all the way down, which just doesn't sound as clean to the reader. Again READABILITY is the deciding factor among even solutions.BigbossSNK (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • But it isn't more readable. By my count, there are at least six things in the game that could be called Metal Gear and four that actually are (Rex, Ray, Mk.II, Mk.III, the other two being Haven which is an Arsenal Gear and the Gekkos). You should introduce both subjects of the paragraph at the start, that's just common sense. 'This game features thing A and thing B. Thing A and thing B have the following qualities' makes vastly more sense than 'This game features thing A. Thing A has the following qualities. Thing A and thing B are based on thing C.' The latter structure implies that thing B's only relation to thing A is being based on thing C, and the rest of the paragraph only applies to thing A. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Mk.II is available in 4 acts, Mk.III in 1. Its presentation in the paragraph is proportional to its screen time. It is implied to have the same functions as Mk.II, and that's fine, since the paragraph intends to give a short and readable description of GAMEPLAY functions, not enumerate Snake's robotic sidekicks.BigbossSNK (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Seriously, what kind of argument is that? There are two objects with the same properties. The paragraph should be structured to reflect that, not some ridiculous non-point like how much 'screen time' one or other object has. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Articles shouldn't focus on characters all on equal terms. Main characters get more attention in the game, the same should happen in the plot and gameplay sections. You probably just aren't aware of Wikipedia's policies on the matter.BigbossSNK (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • You're being ridiculous. We're describing two things which have the same properties. You're trying to use a paragraph structure which sidelines one for no reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • First off, Mk.III isn't "sidelined" by being included in the last sentence. Second off, there's no confusion as to what its function or design is.BigbossSNK (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, there is. There's confusion because you're deliberately using bad paragraph structure due to a hideous misinterpretation of WP:UNDUE. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the note that MkII and III carry Snake's equipment. Even in the very first cutscene, we're introduced to the idea that MkII is there to carry things. Omitting that entirely from the article is ridiculous; it's an important part of the reason Mk.II and III exist at all.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph isn't there to explain why Mk.II and III exist. It's there to explain what their function in gameplay is : CODEC, menu screen, stun etc. Whether Mk.II carries the items or it creates a wormhole to a distant universe and gets them, has no bearing on the function itself. If you want to explain that Mk.II carries the items, add that to the Mk.II page, cause here we're only discussing GAMEPLAY functions.BigbossSNK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd argue that being an excuse for a gameplay function to exist still belongs in an explanation of the traits of a specific thing; the pause menu is supposed to be a physical part of Metal Gear, that's as relevant as the Codec being part of it. The notes about carrying equipment just relate to it's gameplay function as pause menu and shop. The mechanic itself is rather obviously a joke at the expense of Snake's bottomless pockets in previous games; even the two guns it hands Snake in the cutscene wouldn't fit inside it. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Not to mention the metal drum and Rocket launcers :P . The reason I'd like to avoid cramming that detail in is that the reader doesn't gain anything by it. If Otacon didn't mention Mk.II moves the items, I'd never have known about it. Would have been a different deal if you bought items and Mk.II spent some time actually delivering them. Then it would have been a gameplay function. As is, I can instantly perform any transaction and customization, select items just as I could in any other Metal Gear game. BigbossSNK (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, but the obvious problem is that all that also applies to Mk.II's Codec function; if Otacon didn't bring it up, you'd probably never have noticed that it's supposed to always be that screen on the side of Mk.II. Given the Codec is a pause menu function, it's really no different to the shop mechanics and not invalid to point out that the Metals Gears are the excuse for these functions. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • I didn't say it was invalid, just irrelevant to the GAMEPLAY section. It can be absolutely relevant in MK.II's page.BigbossSNK (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You're going in circles here. Justify why it shouldn't be mentioned but the Codec feature should. The Metals Gears are relevant to a gameplay function. This is worth including in the short description of them as a small note. You're acting like I'm trying to insert a whole section on it. A handful of words is not going to suddenly make the article explode. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Justification: The CODEC plays a gameplay function (Snake gets help on what to do through CODEC messages). This has gameplay value to the person reading the GAMEPLAY section. The conjecture that Mk.II transports the items has no gameplay value to the player. As I said, from a gameplay perspective, whether Mk.II transports the items or creates a wormhole through space is irrelevant to the reader of the GAMEPLAY section.BigbossSNK (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The store plays a gameplay function. Snake gets guns from the store. This also has gameplay value to the person reading the gameplay section. Mk.II is the store interface and the reason the thing is supposed to work. I really can't see the reasoning behind any of your objections, you seem to just be objecting for the sake of objecting. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Then if you want to add something, it's that it can be used to buy weapons. That is the gameplay function, and it's part of the in-game menu. The conjecture that it carries the items isn't part of gameplay.

And finally, the reason I object is that I see you bloating the article with information irrelevant to the section, when you should be adding such details into the generic page of each character/ item/ technology. Wikipedia isn't a repository of irrelevant information, but a categorized and useful data source for any one interested. if someone wants a description of gameplay functions, he'll read the gameplay section. If he wants an analysis on how the game designers justify the function, he can read the article specific to the character/ technology.BigbossSNK (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It's relevant information. It's used to buy weapons by providing a link to an arms dealer. Simple, easy, concise. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Insisting on using the word 'namesake' regarding Snatcher. Namesake is the wrong word here because it's confusing: 'the namesake robot from Snatcher' is the Snatcher robot, not Metal Gear.Herr Gruber (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.BigbossSNK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot edits

I see some changes in the plot section, some are superfluous, some are blatantly incorrect. Please discuss them here before editing.

MGS4-> Metal Gear Solid 4 There's no reason to reiterate the game's full name on each section. The beginning paragraph says it is abbreviated to MGS4. Keep it simple.

• No. There's too many acronyms in the article as it is. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The reader is intelligent enough to remember the acronym for the main article! (unless you think the reader is an idiot)BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • There's no point contracting series titles into acronyms in a plot summary that's already full of them by necessity. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PMCs comprising the majority of nations' armies -> PMCs similar in scale to national militaries PMCs aren't "similar" in scale. They now comprise 60% of nations armies. 60% is a majority.

• But your wording isn't clear as to whether they comprise the majority of every nation's armies, or comprise the armies of the majority of nations. The key point is they're large in scale. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You didn't say the were "large" in scale. You said "similar" in scale to national militiaries, a fallacy, since PMC actually ARE the nationaly military (at least at 60%).

• • • No, because they're private companies. The reason they're PMCs is they're not national militaries. That's what the 'private' part means. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And, the original passage is clear enough, since we are talking about numerical penetration, not some kind of statistical survey.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

battle capacity -> battle performance Nanomachines don't directly influence performance (ie don't make one stronger or more fit), but they do regulate whether one will feel pain or not, (ie his capability to perform even in adverse situations)

• Um...So you agree with my wording. Well done. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • No, you write "battle performance" (incorrect, see above), I propose battle capacity (correct, as above)BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No, because you agreed that they improved the 'capability to perform.' Or performance. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SOP system -> shortened to SOP or "The system" Sons Of the Patriots has each relevant letter capitalized in the previous sentence. The reader is intelligent enough to realize where the acronym stems from.

• Explaining acronyms is always a good idea. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The reader is intelligent enough to realize what the acronym is, without bloating the sentence.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's nice, but we'll explain it anyway for clarity. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Meryl, Jonathan and Johnny -> Rat Patrol 01: Left to right, Ed, Meryl Silverburgh, Jonathan and Johnny Sasaki. The reader is intelligent enough to understand that the picture is of the Rat Pt 01 team, as it lies just left of the paragraph introducing them. "eft to right" is unnecessary, as that's the obvious notation. Character's last names aren't relevant to the picture. If any addition is to be made, let it be made in the main article.

• Clear captions are useful: deliberately making them vague is not. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The reader is intelligent enough to link a photograph of Meryl and her crew to the already mentioned in the article team. Using the full names of characters in a photograph is superflousBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Disagree. It's a unit photo, you'd use full names for a real one. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He -> After encountering PMC troops and bipedal "Gekko" unmanned vehicles, he This is a summary of the plot, not a retelling of gameplay. This information is unnecessary to the reader.

• Wrong. Your summary includes no description of what a Gekko is. Since it's their first appearence, it's a good point to establish what they actually are. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Not at the plot summary, do so in the Gekko's page. Just as we don't explain what Metal Gear Rex is. BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Don't be stupid. The summary needs an explanation of any specific terms used in it. It's pointless saying 'there are Gekkos' without ever bothering to say what those are. Asking people to navigate all over the place to get basic information is a good way to make an article hard to read. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mk.II on site -> Metal Gear Mk.II, Mk.II has already been introduced in the gameplay section. Just as you don't greet people you know with their full name, we shouldn't reintroduce characters with such superfluous abandon.

• Hair splitting. 'On site' is completely unnecessary. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • If it's hair splitting, why change it from the original author's intention?BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Why not? I was rewriting it and typed the full name reflexitively. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

his ally -> who was his ally Unnecessarily bloats the sentence.

• No, it's important to establish the past tense in that instance. She was his ally. She isn't currently particularly fond of him at all. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The way you wrote it doesn't make a distinction between present and past (which ultimately is meaningless, as they team up 10 mins afterwards). It only bloats up the sentence.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes it does. She was his ally at Shadow Moses. Saying 'his ally' implies she was the only one. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They avoid peril -> They succeed in escaping the structure They aren't hunted by the structure, hence they don't escape from it. Also, they don't actually escape the structure, they just end up in its basement.

• They escape from the structure. 'They avoid peril' gives no indication of what they actually do. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neither does it have to. The plot point is that noone gets hurt. Besides, as I wrote, they don't actually escape from the structure, they just get to its garage.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Which is escaping from the part they needed to escape from. They then leave entirely, thus completing their escape from the structure as a whole. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

split up towards Liquid's camp -> split up, heading towards Liquid's camp Unnecessarily bloats the sentence.

• No. 'Split up towards Liquid's camp' is an ugly sentence. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Aesthetic considerations should be discussed before edits. What you consider ugly is perfectly fine to me.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No they shouldn't. Copyediting shouldn't require every sentence to be discussed in nausiating detail because of one extremely petty editor. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

four frenetic cyborgs wreak havoc on -> four powerful soldiers in manned exoskeletons slaughtering Snake doesn't witness any soldiers at the time. He only sees 4 cyborgs. He doesn't know if the exoskeletons are manned or not.

• So what? We're writing a plot summary, not an account from Snake's perspective. Also, the B&Bs aren't cyborgs any more than Snake himself is, they're just wearing fancy armoured suits. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Factual error: Remember how they all have wires hanging from them when they exit the suits? That means they were in interface with the machines, hence cyborgs.

Also, while this isn't a retelling of the story from Snake's perspective, the player also doesn't to what extend these cyborgs are human or not until Drebin imparts that information. Hence, a plot pointBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Interfacing with a machine hardly makes you a cyborg in the MGS world, given everyone is full of microscopic machinery to begin with. Also, back atcha; the player doesn't know the B&B Corps are human at all until speaking to Drebin. Regardless, we're trying to write things clearly here, not from Snake's perspective, so there's no problem explaining what B&B are when they first appear in the writeup. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PMCs -> PMC soldiers Otacon and Snake call them PMCs, no need to stray away from the source material.

• Yes there is. It makes the meaning clearer. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The reader is inteligent enough to realize the referenced PMCs are the PMC soldiers.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Regardless, it makes more sense to call them PMC soldiers, because that's what they are. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rat Pt -> Rat Patrol The character has been introduced. Unnecessarily bloats the sentence.

• No it doesn't. 'Pt' is not a normal appreviation of Patrol. Too many abbreviations in a paragraph makes it ugly and hard to follow. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The Rat moniker is individual enough to carry the acronym.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No it isn't. It's also an abbreviation, not an acronym. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

to begin collapsing -> to collapse or behave erratically No one collapses in the camp. Based on the 4 possible emotions MGS4 soldiers have, they begin laughing, crying, raging or screaming. Same goes for Rat Pt 01. Rewatch the cutscene if you aren't certain.

• Yes they do. Plenty of soldiers fall to the ground, some vomiting. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Falling to the ground does not constitute collapsing. The soldiers are dysfunctional, but still sentient.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Falling to your knees constitutes collapsing, let alone falling to the ground. Collapsing is not, however, a term for experiencing a psychotic break as you seem to want to use it. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

will -> desire Desire has sexual connotations. Will does not.

• Will sounds like willy, if you're going to be pathetic. 'States his will to...' is also needlessly flowery. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • >_> Liquid's will has been a mainstay of the Metal Gear Saga, with connotations spreading even to Nietzsche's Superhuman, and the will to change the world. Desire just doesn't do the plot point justice.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But 'will' doesn't make as much sense in context. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

one of the cyborgs -> one of the exoskeleton-equipped soldiers B&B core don't equip the exoskeleton, like Snake does with his items. It's part of them, initially. Hence, cyborgs.

• They're not cyborgs, they're wearing exoskeletons. They are thus equipped with them. It's no different from saying a unit of soldiers are equipped with boots or uniforms. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • There are wires hanging from each and every Beauty after they exit the exoskeleton. Meaning they had interfaced with it. Meaning cyborgs.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No, meaning interface. Everyone in MGS has at least some form of that. Cyborg brings up images of something that's visibly part machine; it's not an accurate description of the Beauties. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

no named reference to cyborg -> Laughing Octopus Snake doesn't learn the cyborg's name until much later on

• It doesn't matter. We're describing the plot, not writing a first-person narrative. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The information the player has up till that time is shared with Snake. Thus, a plot point, as till that point, the player doesn't know exactly who or what the cyborg is.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Still doesn't mean we shouldn't say who it is. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and Vamp -> Who along with Vamp Unnecessarily bloats the sentence.

• And makes it read more clearly. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Adding "who is/ are/ were" on every sentence does not make it clearer.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But it does for this one. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

turning the local Rebels against him -> is attempting to turn the local Rebels against him They aren't just attempting. They do it. The Rebels are your enemies at the start of the act.

• No they don't. The Rebels are hardly difficult to get on your side at the beginning of the act, and those are the ones that witnessed it. It's 'attempting' because it doesn't necessarily work. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Start the act and look at the rebels with the Solid Eye. Their names are in Red, meaning enemies. If they spot you, they cause an Alert. Whether you later on make them neutral has no bearing on what Octopus and Vamp did. This is simply contra factual.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Stop using 'contra factual,' it's utterly meaningless. The fact is, they're trying to turn them. Whether they succeed or not is up to the player. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No screenshot captioned reference-> Clockwise from top, Screaming Mantis, Crying Wolf, Raging Raven, Laughing Octopus. It's already mentioned in the article. No need to bloat up the screenshot caption

• What is? There's nothing about which is which. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You added a list of who the Beauty and the beast corps is in the screenshot caption. Captions are meant to be small and unobtrusive. BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But not at the expense of being informative. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

biological weapon -> weapon of mass destruction This is ridiculous. At the risk of sounding harsh, you either don't know what the words mean or you're drunk. Snake will become a biological weapon, like Anthrax, not a weapon of mass destruction, like a nuclear warhead.

• But the important aspect is he will cause mass destruction. It's clearer. Also, back atcha on not knowing what you're talking about; biological weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Contra factual is clearer? The game itself references it as biological weapon, and it fits that definition, while absolutely not yours.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • 'Weapon of mass destruction' includes nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weaponry. The active point is that Snake will not simply become a biological weapon, but a ludicrously potent one. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

who is in fact Eva and the surrogate mother -> who is in fact Eva, who turns out to be the surrogate mother two sentences starting with who, within 6 words. poor use of English. Furthermore, the original sentence claims "who is in fact", meaning the rest is information conveyed after the meeting.

• The 'and the' makes no sense from a grammatical standpoint; she is not Eva and the surrogate mother (which structurally implies she's two seperate people), she is Eva, a person who is the surrogate mother. 'Turns out' is because this has never previously been established. Also, a comma doesn't denote seperate sentences. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It's perfectly clear English.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No it isn't. And given you keep using nonsense like 'contra-factual,' you are not one to lecture. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

besting the Beauty -> defeating her Already used "defeating" for another beauty. Mixing it up keeps it readable

• Unnecessary linguistic florishes do not make things readable. Go read the manual of style; articles should be clear and concise, not full of meaningless florishes of prose.Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • A full page synopsis becomes more readable by mixing words up. The manual of style isn't written in stone, nor does it suit all situations.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • No, it does not. All writing should be clear and concise. You do not make something readable with silly alliteration. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

unfazed by a battalion of ships -> unfazed by a large military unit The primary danger to Liquid is from the ships, with their large caliber weapons, not the rifle carrying footsoldiers.

• There are boats, helicopters and soldiers present. He isn't fazed by any of them. Also, it's a flotilla of boats, the vessels aren't ships and you can't have a battalion of naval vessels anyway. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Battalion: a large indefinite number (princeton's definition)BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's a nice, completely incorrect definition in context. In military terms a battalion is a unit of infantry. We're talking about a military unit. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No reference to SOP results -> rendering his opponents helpless; as a result, his forces easily defeat them The effects of SOP are apparent from the SOP destabilising test in Act 1. Saying that Liquid defeats the forces is contra factual. The units can't be defeated if they don't enter battle, moreover since Liquid only stays there for a few moments before leaving.

• The problem is your version provides no explanation of what happens to get from Liquid destabilising the system to there being a fire to throw Solidus into. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "The forces provide little resistance and Liquid..." solves the issue much simpler.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But they don't provide any resistance, so that would be wrong. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

throws Big Boss's body to the flames -> throws Big Boss' body onto a burning boat Unnecessarily bloats the sentence. Is there a reason we must say that it's a boat, and not just flames? Does it shed light on some plot point later on?

• You talk about 'the flames' as if we've established a source of fire somewhere along the line, but we go straight from 'destabilises SOP' to throwing Solidus into a fire. Where the hell did this fire come from? Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • See aboveBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • See what above? We still don't establish any 'flames' that way. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Eva follows to try to save it -> Big Mama follows to try to save it By saying that Eva (by her MGS3 pseudonym) tries to save Big Boss's body, the connection they shared in MGS3 is referenced.

• But we've called her Big Mama for the whole rest of the paragraph and do so again in the next sentence. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And just because we do, it's better to keep avoiding the same words, since the identity is clearBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • It's also better to avoid needlessly using a different name for someone halfway through a paragraph for no reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

extensive burn injuries -> extensive burns. Snake actually has injuries, covered by bandages in Act 4's mission briefing. "Injury" also denotes he got physically hurt during the incident.

• Burns are injuries. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Injuries indicates Snake is hurt considerably during the fire, burns does not.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • It's the same thing; the word 'injuries' is superfluous. All burns are injuries. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To this end-> to achieve this goal Unnecessarily bloats the sentence

• And also sounds better. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Aesthetic edits should be discussed first. It's perfectly good english and sounds fine.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • As does the replacement, so there's no need to contest it. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MGS -> Metal Gear Solid Same as above, acronyms don't need to be expanded unless there's a reason.

• It's a title. The game is not called MGS, and the synopsis already has far too many acronyms. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Acronym's shouldn't be expanded needlesly in a plot summary. They bloat the section with no benefit, considering the listbox of Metal Gear titles is right there.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • They should always be expanded if they're titles unless there's a pressing reason not to, actually. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

holds off suicide Gekko -> holds off a force of Gekkos fitted with self-destruct systems the game calls them suicide Gekko, the reader doesn't need a definition for what they are exactly. Their threat is obvious as is.

• Yes they do. The reader needs to know what the hell is going on in the game. That's the point of the section. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Knowing there's a threat from Gekko is a plot point. Knowing that suicide Gekko are armed with self destruct mechanisms is relevant in the Gekko page, not the Plot summary.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • It's relevant to both. The summary needs to explain why Snake is trying to hold them off. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No reference to Raiden and Vamp's battle location -> kills Vamp atop Rex Unnecessarily bloats sentence. Not a plot point.

It's necessary to establish what's actually happening in the scene, actually. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • We've already established what's happening. Where exactly in the hangar it's happening has no relevance to the plotBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • It does, actually. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Raiden ends up pinned under the hangar's rubble -> Raiden ends up pinned under a pile of rubble as the tunnel leading into the hangar collapses The hangar complex is what collapses (with the tunnel outside a part of it). The sentence was clear, the rest is unnecessary bloat.

• Nope. Not only does your version misuse a posessive [the rubble belonging to the hangar pins him?], it doesn't say what caused this rubble to exist in the first place. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • That's where "ends up" comes in indicating that there are circumstances leading to Raiden being pinned under the hangar's rubble. (Please learn to spell "possesive" before insinuating you know how to use one)BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Says you who uses phrases like 'solves the issue much simpler?' Oh, it is to laugh. 'Ends up' isn't good enough because we have no idea where this rubble came from. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

who cut off his arm -> who cuts off his arm the rest of the sentence refers to the present. This part breaks from the present intentionally, to denote the sequence of events.

• But it isn't necessary to do so. Raiden cuts off his arm in order to help Snake. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Present tense connotes it's happening in real time. Past indicates event's aren't in the sequence they are read, which is the case in this sentence.

• • • I'm amused you claim to know how a possessive apostrophe works and then come out with something like 'event's aren't.' Pfft. Regardless, it's unnecessary to change tenses; the narrative is describing what Raiden does to help Snake, so can all be in present tense. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

sneaks into the control room -> makes his way to the control room\ "Makes is way" is already used before, mixing it up improves readability.

• But isn't accurate. The player doesn't have to sneak there, so the wording should suggest Snake goes there. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • In fact, the cutscene shows Snake sneaking very carefully in the control room, where FROGs ambush him. Whether he used stealth to get there isn't relevant as a plot point.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Regardless, it's a needless statement. Snake makes his way there from the deck, the newer version describes the whole action rather than just one tiny part of it. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Snake is also aided by Raiden -> Snake collapses and is rescued by Raiden. Contrafactual, Snake doesn't collapse, and he certainly isn't rescued. Raiden just holds off the FROGs.

• Of course he collapses. He's on his knees about to have his head cut off when Raiden shows up. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And that's what aided by means. He isn't rescued by Raiden, because Raiden only stalls the FROGs, just like Meryl does.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • He is rescued by Raiden, because he would have been killed if Raiden hadn't showed up. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

no reference to the locale -> a tunnel filled It isn't a tunnel, simply because warships don't have tunnels inside them!

• It's a tunnel full of microwave emitters. What else are you supposed to call it? Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • At best a corridor, a passageway. A tunnel just doesn't magically appear onboard warships.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Outer Haven is hardly a normal warship. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Snake has to traverse on his own -> is left for Snake to traverse on his own Unnecessarily bloats the sentence. Focuses on the location, rather than Snake where the section should be focused.

• Your version doesn't flow well. 'The last part of the way [...] Snake has to traverse on his own' is ugly wording. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Aesthetic edits should be discussed before made. I believe it to be fine wording.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's nice for you. And no, they shouldn't. Go read up on what Wikipedia considers copyediting; editing for better style is part of it. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

just before all hope is lost -> just in time to prevent Rex's railgun, now fitted to Outer Haven, from firing it's not just the railgun that's at stake. Snake would be dead as well, from the Scarabs and oncoming FROGs. Same stands for Meryl and Johnny who are out of ammo. The previous sentence summarizes those elements.

• The point is to stop the railgun firing. 'Just before all hope is lost' fails to convey what's actually supposed to be happening to make all hope be lost. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It's already been discussed with full clarity what's at stake. Your version doesn't convey Meryl, Raiden or Snake's peril, while the earlier version indicates it.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But none of that actually matters. If they all died to stop the launch, they'd have succeeded in their mission. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

grinding the war economy to a halt -> forcing the war economy to grind to a halt Unnecessarily bloats the sentence

• And also makes it gramatically correct. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It's perfect English http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grinding+to+a+halt BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Not in context it isn't. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The FOXALIVE virus is the conceptual counterpart to FOXDIE and preserves the energy and resource networks modern society requires to function properly. - > NOTHING??? Vandalism

• The sentence is hideous and adds nothing to the story summary. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Aestetic considerations should be discussed before edits. It does add that FOXALIVE preserves modern society as we know it, ushering the new age Snake vows to see offBigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But it doesn't do so in a manner that actually makes sense, and it's an unnecessary addition. We don't really need to know it didn't destroy the world, we can tell that by omission, really. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Snake -> Snake It's emphasized that OLD Snake is triumphant, because during the showdown, various personas of Snake are seen fighting.

• But it's a needless addition. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • It's a single word, with the above described purpose.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • But Snake is always Old Snake. That's what we've been using 'Snake' as a shorthand for for the entire article. There's no point suddenly dragging the full name out. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

newest plan -> plan The patriots devised many plans. This yet to be implemented plan needs to be denoted as such. A better change would be "latest plan"

• So what? We don't refer to any of their other plans, only one is important. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And we need to make it clear that their plan is still in the first implementation stages. Hence, "latest" plan.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's pretty clear from the fact that it hasn't happened. It's their plan. It's the only one discussed or implied to exist in the rest of the summary. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

but not before he and Snake ameliorate -> sharing a final moment making amends with Snake Poor syntax. Sharing, making together doesn't read well. Better to say "not before he and Snake make amends"

• Regardless, it beats using a word you have to dig out a dictionary for. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • First off, you can use google to define anything, if one doesn't know english.

Seconsly, your version is too repetitive "Sharing... making". "not before he and Snake make amends" sounds good.BigbossSNK (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • You might note I admitted the change was largely to get away from the word 'Ameliorate.' And googling is digging out a dictionary. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BigbossSNK (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Grow up you two, you're arguing over semantics. Both of your make note of WP:OWN. And if you can, don't reply to each other's sections, instead compose complete replies to each other. The segmented replies make the discussion impossible to read. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll make that the last one. I really don't have time to argue every word I change when copyediting an article, let alone BigbossSNK's ridiculous demand that I run every change by him first as if it's somehow his article. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know about growing up and all, but I agree that these two did take this plot discussion wayyy too far over little technicalities. I do think it's good to help to the discussion to make this Wikipedia article the best that it can be, but we don't need to dissect every single sentence. I do think that some good points were made by each at certain points (for example: I think it is important to note the actual location Vamp is killed) but this discussion is so old that I don't really know how much of it is relevant at all anymore. DeGarmo2 (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR CLEANING REQUIRED - "STUPID" USERS KEEP EDITING!

Guys this article need a major re-do I already super-edited it twice but ppl keep scr**ing it up with pointless and cliched blabber. We need another "Registered users only may edit" tag. I'm gonna edit the junk out. Bahahs

I just re-edited the article to make it shorter. Bahahs

Everyone just leave the plot part alone and make it shorter.

Ever heard of SUPER-summarizing? Bahahs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kojima Productions' Next Teaser Online

"As previously threatened, the Konami's Metal Gear Solid team has kicked off a storm of pre-E3 announcement hype online. Kojima Productions has launched the teaser web site for the developer's next project today.

What does it tell us? About as much as the print ad running in the newest issue of Famitsu, showing only a grassy field under a thick blanket of clouds, with a fence and sparse forest on the right and left, respectively. No reveal date, as shown the print teaser.

The only other real information is provided via the site's meta keywords, which include "Hideo Kojima, MGS, METAL GEAR, NEXT, game, konami, kojima game, KJP, Kojima Production." The site refers to the product as only "Kojima Production NEXT."

Whatever the Metal Gear team's next project is, already pledged to be announced at E3, it's almost guaranteed to have clouds."

http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/next/ A Candela (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC) is anyone on here A Candela (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Those 360 fanboys got something to crow about after years of insisting MGS4 will be on their fave console.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mask Teaser page

Not sure why my edit on this was removed... any explanation or reasoning... ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot and stars (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sequel section

Hi.

I think the only reason why this article has a sequel section is because there wasn`t going to be one, now that it has been announced and an article on RISING exist, the section could (should?) be deleted, don`t you think?. Zidane tribal (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no information if will be a sequel, a prequel either a spin-off. Removing section for blantant speculation. Sources for MGS Rising in development do not endorse the fact of game being a MGS4 sequel. --Ciao 90 (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit I don't have a source, but I could have swore I read somewhere that Kojima considers the upcoming Metal Gear Solid game for PSP as a "True-MG5". It does have Snake and completes the one missing part of the story. Don't know if that actually constitutes a sequel. Is the other MGS PSP game (which has major story elements from the MGS storyline) considered to be part of the MGS line or is it just MGS 1,2,3,4? Just thought I'd add that in there for whatever it's worth. DeGarmo2 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i hate to say it...

But the NA box art is dull compared to the EU Box art.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very yes. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but people might get angry if you change it. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference. In fact, we might run into a neutrality dispute. Bahahs (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We already had this argument before. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Limited Edition availability

Well, i dunno about the rest of North America, but i've seen the Limited Edition everywhere that they sell games. Zellers, Walmart, Futureshop, Best Buy, last Gamestore, ETC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.158.224 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the sales confirmed since April '08 or March '09?

The PDF file reporting Konami's sales of Metal Gear Solid IV said in chart, "April '08-March '09".

Should we not be using the most recent date instead of the older one? I'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last Best Hope of Humanity (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)