Metal Gear Series: Chronological Order or Release Order? (Not a first time player.)

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I got the Metal Gear Solid: Legacy Collection for Christmas and I'm not sure which order I should play the games in. I have played the games before with the exceptions of Peace Walker and the two MSX games which I haven't played in full. So should I go in chronological order or order of release? Those orders are:

Chronological:
MGS 3, MGS Peace Walker, MG1, MG2, MGS1, MGS2, MGS4

Release:
MG1, MG2, MGS1, MGS 2, MGS3, MGS 4, MGS Peace Walker

Or should I go for a different order? Like putting Peace Walker between 3 and 4. And what about the graphic novels?

There was a poll here. It's gone now. Blame the forums being weird.

 

[Kitsune Hunter]

I would say go in chronological, that way you can get a better understand of the events and how it all began

 

[sethisjimmy]

I'd say play them in release order because game features are typically additive, so if you play a newer release first, you might end up missing certain mechanics when you get to past releases, especially when it comes to the MSX releases.

The stories are connected, but self-contained enough to not matter when it comes to chronology IMO. For example, most stories will be connected to eachother, but will feature one main character with one main goal with a definite start, middle, and end.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Both sound like a good way to do them. But game mechanics do change over time too. I think I will go in release order except I'll put Peace Walker between 3 and 4. Thanks for your opinions.

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

You forgot Portable Ops, it takes place between MGS3 and Peace Walker and, contrary to popular belief, it is infact cannon (although it is fairly insignificant to the overarching storyline, and was not written by Hideo Kojima so I understand why some fans leave it out. The same argument can be made for Ghost Babel and the comics).
Anyway, I tried playing the MGS games in chronological order a ways back, and I didn't think it was nearly as effective as release order, but I guess that could lend itself in no small part to having played them in release order initially, so obviously my perseption will be coloured as a result.

I'd say play them in release order, that way plot points like characters from MGS1 and 2 appearing younger in MGS3 wont be lost on you, that's what I think anyway; but no matter what order you play them, you're in for some great games either way!

 

[shogunblade]

Personally, play them in the order they came out.

Metal Gear Solid 3 has a lot of in-jokes that won't translate well if you play them chronologically, although it might make parts of Metal Gear Solid's 1, 2 and 4 seem funnier or more interesting, also the games play considerably different from one another. It's cool to see the journey of the game like the rings in a tree, seeing what every game had to bring up.

It's up to you, but my advice, go in Order of Release Dates.

 

[Hero of Lime]

For me, when a game series has a chronological order that may involve prequels coming out after the first game, I'll play it like that. So for me personally, I would play Metal Gear in chronological order.

Though it makes sense to play in release order too considering MGS 1 would feel and look lousy compared to MGS 3 if you were to go with chronological order. For you, I would suggest release order.

 

[SaberXIII]

Definitely release order, I'd say. I used to be into gaming a lot more than I am now, admittedly, but I think taking on a challenge like playing all Metal Gear games in one order or another is best done in release order, as once you've played MGS3, let's say, going back to the inferior gameplay of previous games might discourage you from playing them all. Some people don't find this a problem, though.

EDIT: On top of that, sequels will assume you have a basic understanding of what's going on in the first place, so they won't explain fundamental elements of the story properly in the prequels. The story is always complete if you go in release order, it just gets bigger.

 

[Hambers]

Going in chronological order you are gonna miss out on a lot of the references to older games that happened later in the series' timeline. The advantage is to see the progression of Big Boss from MGS3 through Peace Walker into his villain roles in the Metal Gears and his mythical status in MGS1,2+4.

This progression will be incomplete, however until the Phantom Pain's release (along with Ground Zeroes' to a lesser extent). The trailers imply The Phantom Pain will feature the big turning point for Big Boss. This mitigates the motivation for choosing the chronological order. Release order is the better choice.

You forgot Portable Ops, it takes place between MGS3 and Peace Walker and, contrary to popular belief, it is infact cannon (although it is fairly insignificant to the overarching storyline, and was not written by Hideo Kojima so I understand why some fans leave it out. The same argument can be made for Ghost Babel and the comics).

On the subject of Portable Ops, I played both that game and Peace Walker before MGS4 and was really strange to see MGS4 reference Portable Ops rather than the events of Peace Walker. Peace Walker's plot is more relevant and has more impact on the series lore, Portable Ops is rarely mentioned. However Portable Ops was the released immediately before 4, Peace Walker came later. In that case I'd say release order has altered the game's internal chronology and I believe had both PW and PO existed at the time PO would not have had even a fleeting reference.

 

[THeFraz]

I usually want to play them in chronological order, just because... idk, it might be interesting. As for having to go from good to "inferior gameplay," I don't think that argument holds. I think some people may or may not prefer different MG games for different types of gameplay, or see the pros and cons of them. Take MGS3: Robust combat, and many routes of going about a situation. However, I personally get a little tired of changing my camo and having to heal my wounds and eating. Sure that is the point of the game, but going into the menus takes me out of the game a bit. Compare this to MGS1. Simple combat, stealth, etc. I enjoy these elements because I feel they add to the pacing of the game better (the game isn't as slow... though they are stealth games, so it should require some patience, but I digress) than the loads of things to do in 3. That is my case for playing them in chronological order. And really, its only two newer games you play at first, and then its basically in release order till you jump from MGS2 to 4, which isn't too big a jump. Plus MGS4 is easy.

 

[The_Echo]

So should I go in chronological order or order of release?

Release order. Always always always release order.

You don't necessarily need to play Metal Gear or Metal Gear 2, however. There's a recap available in Solid. But I'd give them a shot anyway.

 

[verdant monkai]

Play the ones which are about big boss or Solid Snake in chunks.

Fuck chronological do whichever you like first. MGS V Ground zeroes and MGS V phantom pain will fuck up any order you try, and you dont need to have played big boss' games to enjoy or understand the solid snake games.

chronologically it goes
MGS 3/ MGS Peace Walker/ MGS V Ground zeroes/ MGS V the phantom pain/ Metal Gear/ Metal gear 2 solid snake/ MGS / MGS 2/ MGS 4/ MG Rising revengeance... (not sure if portable ops is before or after peace walker)

Big Boss/naked snake games

MGS 3, Portable ops, Peace walker, and now there's MGS 5 ground zeroes and MGS 5 the phantom pain.

Solid snake games

MGS, MGS 2, MGS 4

Play one of these blocks of games.

 

[Kennetic]

I played chronologically, but that was because I was only able to play MGS3 first. No, complaints here though, the series is awesome.

 

[white_wolf]

I'd say release order this way you can see the current events and then with prequels see how it all fit into the sequels.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I ended up going mostly in Release Order (except putting Peace Walker between 3 and 4) and I'm including the MSX games.

I played Portable Ops a few years ago and I like it. But I've lost track of where my PSP and Portable Ops are, Portable Ops was one of the few game for the system that I really liked. So I'm probably not going to play it. Weird that there wasn't a HD re-release of that too.

 

[stroopwafel]

I'd say definitely order of release. Most games in the series are self-contained, with the exception being probably MGS4. These games don't get made with a ton of sequels/prequels in mind so any interconnected narrative you're looking for consists mostly of retcons and fanservice. If you play them in order of release you see how the gameplay improved and how the series evolved, with the fanservice making a lot more sense. It will probably make your experience much more enjoyable.

 

[Envy Omicron]

I've played the series in both orders, and I prefer playing in the order of release, not only because of how the mechanics evolve naturally over time this way, but also because the stories of the earlier games start off much simpler and become more complicated, plus it's easier to keep track of retcons that take place in prequel games when you play the series in the order it was released in.

 

[BrotherRool]

I know this is a settled question, but the big reason why I wouldn't do chronological order yet is that Big Boss' storyline isn't finished. You'd be playing along with the story and then suddenly get stuck on a cliffhanger and jump into a completely different world (also the retcons between Metal Gear 2* and Metal Gear Solid V would be massive)




*I've heard that Metal Gear 1 doesn't really contain anything much of story at all. The whole series started as a giant retcon when Kojima decided to just pretend that everything had happened in MG1, including the existence of Big Boss.