Talk:Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Twin Snakes yet again

I went digging for something to imrpove the Twin Snakes article, but the more I fiddled with it the less happy I was. The sourcing is insufficient and the article was full of gameguide and fannish "criticism" waffle. I've redirected it here. If someone who objected to the merge would like to split it, feel free, but please leave the godawful version in the history be; start by sourcing what's already in this article (as it will help this get to GA/FA as well), then split it when you've got too much sourced info to use. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear; at the moment, we have zero referenced info. Please add references, then split when there's too much referenced info to fit here reasonably. Don't split the article until you can make it more than a stub that would shame Mobygames. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how it is, get poor old me to run around referencing the section, then have it thrown in the trash by splitting it again? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was supposed to be a challenge to Bread: Hey, I'll bet you can't come up with so much referenced info this can't help but be split! (I don't mind being wrong even a little when the encyclopedia is improved.) A bunch of people said there was too much info for TTS to be merged here; it's put up or shut up time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, STOP merging and splitting it. I want this to reach Good Article (let's face it, I'm doing most of it myself right). I can see merit in A Man in Black's argument, but I can't understand why The Bread keeps splitting it. Regardless, its presence in Metal Gear Solid creates an extra requirement for references, which just means extra work. Keep it split. Most want it split, and although I strongly disagree with the idea behind it, it makes everything easier. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We need references for what's here anyway, no matter which article it goes into. It'll be sorted by the time this goes to GA or FA in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing Twin Snakes, but i've got work in 30 minutes, give me till Sunday, if I haven't done enough by then, I'll stop opposing the merge and let you both wreck this and that article, and EmulatorGuy i'm splitting it because I personally like to be liked amongst the community (who don't want it merged) and because I have a better arguement (i'm not restating it). Can I trust you both to leave Twin Snakes until then?

†he Bread 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

Can anyone do a copyedit on the article? The second half of the story section is really the only importance. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

The sourcing as it is now is fine; however, I think just for the sake of simplicity and to cut down on the total number of sources, how much can we replace with citations from the game manuals of MGS and MGS2? I think at least some of the backstory and game mechanics are contained in those. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to cut down on sources. Multiple secondary sources are usually better than a singular primary source. You'd be wasting your time and I'd probably revert it. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources 23-40 are listings of quotes from the game script. Is this a wikipedia way of listing script lines, because I am fairly sure this is how you would list something of that nature in an academic paper. It seems that all of those should be replaced with a citation of the game or game script. If you do not want to just site Metal Gear Solid you could go find a link to the script dump. Either way is fine, but having that many quotes as citations looks like source inflation --October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.115.85 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

According to the GA criteria:

• well-written pass

This article is well written and easy to understand. There were a couple single line paragraphs in development, audio, and reception, but sometimes that is unavoidable. The character section gets a little caught up in names, but I suppose that's okay because of the seperate character article.

• factually accurate and verifiable pass

70 refs. All citied in the article. Nice job.

• broad in its coverage pass

I’ve done work with video game articles and even though I haven’t played this game, I have a good idea everything is there.

• be neutral in its point of view. pass

Great job here. I can tell that the writer liked the game, based on the reception section, but that’s no problem. I don't know if there's a way to better balance the review section with positive and negative reviews (because of the lack of negative reviews) but it would be good to try.

• must be stable pass

no edit wars here, just some vandalism that’s been taken care of.

• must contain images where possible, to illustrate the article pass

Rationale, caption, good placement for all.

Awesome job. You're pretty close to FA, and I suggest going for it. Work on to-do list, maybe a copyedit, then you're ready.--Clyde Miller 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll eventually get it to Featured Article, but this time I'm struggling to find references instead of finding time to write. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Is this gonna get nomed for FAC any time soon? I think that we should just put it up. It's the best way to find out what needs to be done, and if nothing needs to be done; it'll be an FA

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it up, seeing as I did 90% of the work on this article. I'm stumped about what to do with the article, I know Audio/Development/Reception sections need expanding, but I have no idea what to do to them. Why not, there's nothing to lose. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Integral

Added integral dates to the infobox. mickyfitz13^Talk 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hey guys. Added spoiler warnings before the plotline. UncleMontezuma 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there redundant to the title of the section

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are unneeded in cases where the title already informs the reader there is going to be plot revealed ("Plot"). This is a consensus between video game article editors, so the change may be unwelcome elsewhere too. It's sad that the movie WikiProject hasn't made the same decision, but I guess it's their decision. --Teggles 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bit long, isn't it?

I think the main article may be better if it were split into different ones. Anyone agree? UncleMontezuma 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. --- RockMFR 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think article is in pristine size. It's a bit unneeded; it ruins the flow for the person reading the article, and Wikipedia is not paper (so article size doesn't affect anything). What do you propose is split? --Teggles 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Last section is inane banter

I tried to edit it out but couldn't find the source. Any ideas?

Jpvinall 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

...I don't know...maybe the server hasn't loaded the new version. If you look in the history, it's already been removed.--Clyde (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Roll back

Latest roll back by me - if not in order, pleae revert. --Bhadani (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth game released?

"It is the fourth title to be released in the Metal Gear series (the fifth in the official canon)". This is a bit unclear. It suggests it's the fourth Metal Gear game to be released (true, counting Snake's Revenge) and the fifth canonical Metal Gear game to be released (surely an impossibility). Shouldn't it be something like "It is the fourth title in the series by release order, and the fifth in the series' fictional timeline." 80.193.211.68 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Including the first two, but not Snake's Revenge which was developed by someone other than Hideo Kojima, this is the third game released by Hideo Kojima (Konami I guess) and the third in the official canon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.146.210 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm not entirely sure what Canon means. However, I believe this was the 5th game released in the series (Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, Metal Gear Solid, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes), while also being the 5th game in the series' fictional storyline. (Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops, Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, Metal Gear Solid/Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes). DeGarmo2 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Canon means "considered in the main series"Ffgamera (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

huh?

"the fifth in the official canon?" the third right? --89.180.12.120 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Link change

would you be so kind to change the link-address of LINK #51 "www.mintinthebox.info" TO "www.defconsoft.co.uk" as the sites merged? A big feature about the Metal Gear Solid Limited Edition for PAL PlayStation 1 will be online soon. TraunStaa 09:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

This entry doesn't seem to be very well balanced. Was it written by fanboys? No mention of its utterly confusing and convoluted plot? The soap opera codec sessions than seem to go on forever? (Would such cornball conversation really take place during of a real mission?) --72.202.150.92 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know I was playing a game based on real life missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.167.127 (talk) 22:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is based on reviews from reputable and reliable websites. Very few provided any criticism, and I worked with what there was. None of them criticized what you criticized. It indicates that your opinion is not widely held, so it's probably never going to be written about. As a side-note, I'm confused why you criticized the unrealism of codec conversations when you ignored the fact that there is a cyborg ninja, telekinetic psychic, giant bipedal nuclear fucking mecha vehicle and many other impossibilities. --Teggles 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Localization and re-releases

PAL countries (Europe/Australia/New Zealand) got another re-release: ***UK: "Metal Gear Solid" (Platinum re-release) and "Metal Gear Solid: Special Missions" were released either in a longbox cardboard sleeve (games arranged side-by-side) OR in a double cardboard sleeve (the 2 games are piled on top of each other like a Burger - I hope you get the idea ;) ); ***ITALY: "Metal Gear Solid" (FIRST release!!) and "Metal Gear Solid: Special Missions" were released in a double cardboard sleeve. *****French, German, Spanish, Dutch releases are not confirmed right now so I don't add it here. Pictures will be done and will be up in 3 hours at www.defconsoft.co.uk ****Please add this info if you find it useful for the article**** TraunStaa 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Game Rating

Hey guys, i just checked the game rating when i was having an argument with my little brother, and the oflc actually rated metal gear solid as MA restricted (medium level violence) [1] I'm inexperienced at editing so i will let one of you do it 59.167.115.49 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been intentionally changed last year. I'll ask Teggles about it. --- RockMFR 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OFLC updated their rating system in 2006, which is why it shows on that site as MA. But the ratings board never rated it as MA, and the game was never published with an MA rating. It was only published with a M 15+ rating. --Teggles 00:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My box cover just says M, no mention of 15+, front or back. Archon Shiva (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cash ransom??

In the process, they acquire Metal Gear REX, a nuclear-capable bipedal tank, threatening the U.S. government with a nuclear reprisal if they do not receive a large cash ransom and the remains of the "legendary mercenary" Big Boss.

Can someone please refresh my memory. Where exactly does it say in the game that the terrorists demand a cash ransom? As far as I remember, they only wanted Big Boss's remains.

[The terrorists] presented Washington with a single demand and they say if it isn't met, they'll launch a nuclear weapon.

— Roy Campbell, briefing session

Campbell says this in the briefing session of the game. I believe the key words there are single demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk • contribs) 15:44, December 17, 2007

Initially, their only demand is Big Boss's remains. However, when you're listening in on Ocelot and Liquid talking in the card-key room, Ocelot will say something about "Big Boss's DNA and one billion dollars...", and after destroying Metal Gear, Liquid says "After I launch this weapon and get our billion dollars." So they must have decided on adding the ransom to their demands at some point throughout the mission. Oddity- (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Briefing, they talk about the ransom don't they?Ffgamera (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

EGM scores?

The article gives some contradictory data about EGM (Electronic Gaming Monthly) review scores. It first claims that "Electronic Gaming Monthly awarded Metal Gear Solid the Platinum Award (four scores of 10 out of 10), which was unprecedented at the time." - The source linked to for this no longer exists. (Although I seem to recall Super Mario World getting an equal score, back when anything 9+ was called 'Platinum' -- I can't source this, but the claim that no previous 4x10 score was ever given is unsourced as well in the EGM article). Then, the sidebar claims EGM gave it 9/10 (same as Edge) and the cited reference links to Edge as well. I assume that's just the Edge score twice.

Anyone can clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon Shiva (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and someone fucked up. MGS was the first game to ever get an absolute perfect score from EGM. The score from Edge has, indeed, been posted twice. I don't know who did this, but whoever did really needs to be more careful. Damn noobs... 47710- (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.154.193 (talk)

Fixed. --- RockMFR 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear 3 for the 3DO

I know for a matter of fact that prior to announcing Metal Gear Solid for the PlayStation, Kojima had earlier plans for a third Metal Gear game. Kojima mentions that he had plans for a "Metal Gear 3" in his mind in the liner notes for the Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake soundtrack, which was published in 1991. Not to mention the presence of early conceptual artwork of Snake, Meryl and FOXHOUND in the Policenauts Pilot Disk for the 3DO. The Japanese Wikipedia mentions that Kojima did confirmed that he was originally developing MG3 for the 3DO in Hidechan Radio, but the article doesn't state which episode. Any help? Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cover artwork

Instead of the logo, should we use the North American or PAL cover artwork for the infobox? The same goes for the Integral/VR Missions cover.Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAN Assessment

Hello, I'm your assessor for this article. I haven't had much time to give the article a thorough examination yet, but I'd like to point out some things that you guys might like to fix while I continue the assessment. Simply, the Reception section needs to be increased the same amount that the Plot section needs to be trimmed down.

I will give this article a full assessment in a few days. Good luck! Its a great article, and I believe it will do well. --haha169 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1. YIs it well written?
   1. YThe prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
   2. YIt complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
   3. Comment - Overall, good job. The intro and gameplay, and reception sections have great prose. The development section may need some work, ie. the Twin Snakes section of development, "While" is quite repetitive. Plot section needs serious prose check. I cannot pass this section yet. You did some great editing and revision here. The plot still isn't as good as it could be, but should be enough to pass GAN.
2. YIt is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a)Y provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout

   (b) Yat minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

   (c)Ycontains no original research.

   1. Comment Good job on the citations; usually one of the hardest parts of writing a good Wikipedia article. No Original Research and all cites seem verifiable according to WP:V as well as using correct formating. Good Job!
3. NIt is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) Yaddresses the major aspects of the topic;

   (b) Nstays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

   1. Comment - Sorry, the plot section goes into huge amounts of detail, and some things in the development section can do without. The reception needs serious expansion.
4. Y It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. YIt is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
   1. Comment I am assuming good faith and not failing this criteria. It was stable when I started assessing, but some problems arise. I believe that the problem won't raise its ugly head again, though, and I seriously hope not. This article would look good with a GAN - if only the nominator would please address my concerns. That is the last straw. An editor reverted all revisions to last one yesterday in order to re-check each edit individually. I see this as unstability and have failed this criteria. If this issue as well as others aren't resolved by tomorrow, I will fail this article.--haha169 (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On Hold - I can't pass this article just yet. I believe that with a hour or to of work, you can fix the entire article to match criteria. Above I've assessed the current revision based on the Good Article Criteria. The problems need to be addressed before I can pass it. --haha169 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, my biggest concern in this article is the plot. You trim it down, and I will almost certainly pass. Expansion on the reception section is also quite helpful. --haha169 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been a full day, and my concerns haven't even been responded to, except for an unfulfilled statement on my talk page. The reception section has been expanded - yes, but was COPIED WORD-BY-WORD from Brawl's page. It doesn't help that I am a major contributer on that article so I spotted it immediately. I'm not sure if it was vandalism or what, but my concerns need to be addressed ASAP, or else I will fail this article. --haha169 (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bole2, I'm assuming good faith with you right now, but when you added Super Smash Bros. Brawl's reception section to this ([2]), it caused a string of Cluebot issues as people attempted to revert your edit. You've just made the article un-stable as a series of reversions happened. Do not do that again. I am on the verge of failing this article. --haha169 (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) fixed. And don't fail it yet. Give me some more time. Buc (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't add brackets in the multiple times you use "[...]". Those brackets are uneeded. However, the reception section does look much better now - and all cites seem reliable. Fix the plot section, and most everything will be in order. Now, all I want is an explanation. What force possessed you to copy&paste Brawl's reception section into this article? --haha169 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the checklist above according to your recent edits. Good job, you should be proud of your work. I still think plot could be cut down a tiny bit, but more importantly, the reception section needs some more stuff. From what I hear, Metal Gear Solid was a big game, so there should be some more related to Reception. --haha169 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great expansion on the reception section. I am still a little concerned about the plot section. I'll wait a bit, see if it won't be improved. If it won't, I still might pass it. The article looks in good shape. --haha169 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done a ce on the plot section. Buc (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: YOverall, nicely done, especially the lead. The plot still needs a prose check, and the reception needs some quote re-arrangement and some minor work.

2. Factually accurate?: YPass

3. Broad in coverage?:Y Plot goes into too much detail, and so does the development on a lesser scale. But all important information is captured.

4. Neutral point of view?: YPass

5. Article stability?Y Pass

6. Images?:Y Pass

Really, if you fix the prose of the article, and trim the plot section, this article would pass FAC, no sweat. The organization is all there, you just need a serious copyedit to make the article encyclopedic. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— haha169 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

It gives a lot of useful info about the making of the game. Be there is is no credit given to how they know it. [3] Buc (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted information on MGS4

There was alot of information that was not about MGS but MGS4 so I removed it. Also didn't site sources and was speculative.Citizen erased (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have left comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive3 a while ago, but it does not seem as if anybody is monitoring that page. I will continue the review once these issues have been addressed, or a reply has been left.

Note that Metal Gear Solid has been listed for copyediting by the League of Copyeditors. Please note that someone should edit this page and leave a comment on what you require from the copyedit as the request will not appear on the League's main request page unless these comments are left.

G.A.S 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Graphic Novel

Should we leave the Digital Graphic Novel at the release history or should we add it to the "In other media"? The only reason why it qualifies as a video game in my view is due to the fact its a PSP game than anything else. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes

Seems like a good idea since it'smuch the same game. Buc (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel that the Twin Snakes article contains enough information to stay a separate article. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge If we were too merge the articles, we'd have to merge the "Gameplay", "Development" and "Reception" sections into the Metal Gear Solid article, and that's too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Most of the notable differences and development info are already mentioned in the paragraph in this article. The only thing that needs to be merged is the info about the game's reception.Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE These are two separate games. Gameplay differed quite a bit (hanging, lockers, first person weapon, holding up soldiers, dog tags, etc) Twin Snakes (dev by Silicon Knights) appeared only on gamecube years after MGS (developed by Konami) came out for PS1. This should not even be a discussion. Regards, Tunafizzle (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I took the initiative to warn the previous two vandals (see edit history). Please, next time, after you undo a vandalism appropriately warn the vandals. MuZemike (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG External Links check

This Featured Article has four dead external links, which can be found here. Please fix them as soon as possible. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The offical website is gone, PC Gamer link is dead. — Dispenser 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

VR Missions

Why does VR Missions redirect here and something like Twin Snakes get it's own article? There was alot of detail that could be given on VR Missions and it's only a slight footnote on the MGS1 page. --Patrick

VR Missions is a very small game that only has VR missions and no storyline of its own. Ffgamera (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Silent Hill demo

I noticed there is no mention of the Silent Hill demo that came with atleast the original PAL-version of the game. It was dropped from the Platinum version as far as i know. Did this demo come with the NTSC-U or J versions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.50.213 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NGamer Review

The NGamer review of Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes is referenced in the reception section of this article both in text and as a score at the side. If the articles on the two versions are now split, surely those should be removed from this article?

Kingdom of War Prequel Movie

Why are you guys trying to remove that, it's true. It's not advertising. -Syph- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.194.101 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fan production that appears not to have been covered significantly in reliable sources independent of the subject. — TKD::{talk} 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "appears not to have been covered significantly in reliable sources independant of the subject"??? Can you explain more? Thanks! -Syph- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.194.101 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources for information. Blogs, forums, and wikis generally don't count toward this, because anyone can add to or edit them. Where is this fan production mentioned, aside from the group's site itself? All I see from a Google search are mentions in forums and an addition to a Wikipedia article that has since been removed. This indicates to me that no reliable, third-party sources have covered this fan fiction, which appears to be two years away from release. Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources. If they cover the work significantly after its 2011 release, then we should, but not until/unless that happens. We aren't a crystal ball, and we aren't in the business of promotion. If our only sources are the creators of the work, that singular perspective prevents us from adhering to a neutral point of view. — TKD::{talk} 18:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Playstation Network release

Hello, someone wanna add something about the upcoming PSP/PS3 release of MGS1 on the Playstation Network? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.10.210 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bit about MGS soon coming to the European PS Store, since there is no source for this. Also, Konami has refused to comment on it, even though Mark Kebby of the PS Store has let us know through the European PlayStation blog that he has asked Konami about MGS, since so many people have been asking for it on the blog. Lars Holm (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Release History

There should be mention of the release as part of Gear Solid: The Essentials Collection? 71.228.220.209 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

USK 12

Why Metal Gear Solid is rated only USK 12 in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.128.189.250 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bleemcast

People, please stop adding Bleemcast under Release History! It is NOT a release. There was NO MGS release for Dreamcast! Bleemcast is emulator just like pSX, XEBRA, PSXeven or PCSX. Following this logic one could list all of those as separate PC releases and PSX2PSP.exe as PSP release. People, please think with your head! Besides, unlike most emulators, all it could do is run this single game (PSX release) and it didn't include game CDs - it couldn't possibly have as it is licensed program. If you want, mention it under Playstation release as emulator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.32.75 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3