Template talk:Metal Gear chronology

Piping wikilinks and alternate timeline inclusion

There is no need to pipe wikilinks since there is no need to conserve space and may cause confusion since the series switches between "Metal Gear" and "Metal Gear Solid" (when in chronological order).

The alternate timeline is also unnecessary as this template is used to show the canon game order. I don't believe that all of the side games fall into one timeline. The main navbox contains all of the side games and other game articles.

Also, do not claim that a revert of your edit constitutes as vandalism. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if the titles get too big then they will be piped but I did so to match the style of the rest of the chronological templates like the Halo, Metroid, Castlevania and Banjo-Kazooie chronology templates. Plus we already know it's Metal Gear or Solid plus wouldn't really matter if Solid as it's all Metal Gear series. --Victory93 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, you just changed the Halo Chronology template to have the pipe trick right after making that comment. In any case, it's also a matter of the chronological template jumping between Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid titling. Secondly, it's a matter of how readers will know the game title: Metal Gear Solid 2 or Sons of Liberty. It's also a way to stop confusion altogether. By using "Solid Snake" as the title, someone may read it as "Metal Gear Solid Snake" or "Metal Gear Solid: Snake" and not Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there already a set chronology for the upcoming Metal Gear game? --Victory93 (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 5 inclusion

Can anyone please be so kind as to provide a genuine source for a timeline placement for "Metal Gear Solid 5"? It was to my knowledge that the only thing we know about the title is that it exists, although the user Soffredo seems to claim the contrary. --Anddo (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A note to add, any source that says that "Ground Zeroes is a prologue to MGS5" does not explicitly say anything about MGS5's place in the timeline. Just that it's a prologue. For all we know Kojima may mean prologue in the sense of gameplay. --Anddo (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

I can agree that the numbers aren't intuitive, but they exist, are official, and are used elsewhere (say video titles for gameplay). I found this page to be less useful doe to the omission of the full game titles. If the consensus is that the numbers make it too confusing, then perhaps have multiple lists or a table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.47.39 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Revengeance

It's canon. Putting that rather explicit admission aside, I've read the interview I assume TJD2 is claiming as evidence to the contrary, and in it, Kojima does not state that it is in a parallel universe, but a parallel story. BIG difference. Getting "this is in another universe" from that phrasing is OR on TJD2's part; The same passage can also be translated as "side story", as in "canon, but not tied to the main ongoing storyline", much like how the Sonic series has games like Sonic Battle and Shadow the Hedgehog that are treated as spinoffs but still canon and have had their events acknowledged in games that have followed, or even how Kojima has since stated on one of his podcasts that Portable Ops is in a sort of "B-canon" (suggesting that events depicted in the game happened, but if something from later titles contradicts it, defer to the newer material). The story was written by KojiPro and, being the last in the timeline, Revengeance does not contradict any of the other games, and likely will not unless a new canon Metal Gear set during that era is developed and explicitly writes Revengeance out. Until TJD2 started trying to remove Revengeance from the list (repeatedly, since as far back as September), only one other anon user has attempted to do so with no sourcing whatsoever. No other editors have had any issues with listing Revengeance as canon, so it's ultimately on TJD2 to make a case why its current standing should be overridden. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I don't see how the quotation can be twisted to explicitly state Rising isn't canon. I think there is broad general support for inclusion on this template. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Note, how Kojima clearly avoids saying that it is a definitive continuation of MGS4. It is actually very reminiscent of George Lucas and how he used to talk about how the STAR WARS expanded universe was a kind of parallel universe to his own main star wars universe. Same goes for MPO, especially in the famously misquoted twitch interview, where he first says, that it is partially canon (which is the part, which is often quoted) and then rephrases his answer, saying that there is a clear seperation between his own games and the ones he only produced. And again in the lead up to the release of MGSV he makes it clear numerous times that the canon saga consists of his 8 games. So, until Konami makes an official announcement on the future of the Metal Gear franchise and how it will treat previous installments in terms of canon, I strongly suggest, that this list should reeflect Kojima's opinion - at least for now. 91.23.134.155 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The person who said "Rising is canon" is a producer at Konami. Peace Walker, MGS4, and the MGS4 Database all acknowledged the events of Portable Ops. And since Kojima isn't at Konami anymore, his word isn't exactly final anymore at this point. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this type of argumentation is getting us nowhere. Which producer? If you don't remember his name or his stance and can't find that one out, it proves just how insignificant the producer is/was especially when Kojima, who didn't just create and oversee the series for pretty much all its life, but who also was in charge of the series when MGR was produced. Peace Walker has one sentence in the entire game "Finally, we can leave all that crap at San Hieronymo behind." I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can interpret this as anything but tongue-in-cheek. MGS4 only uses some of Ashley Wood's artwork in EVA's and Ocelot's powerpoint-presentations. Also, the Solar Gun from Boktai and the Five Seven from Ghost Babel make appearances - does that make those games canon, too within the MG Universe? And the MGS4 database wasn't only full of contradictions, but has also since been taken from the PlayStation store and is no longer available and therefore outdated, just as information in - say - the Star Wars Encyclopedia from 2008 is now outdated. We've had multiple official timelines since - including several in the actual MGSV game - that go out of their way to omit either MPO and MGRising. Even the official guide to MGSV has no mention of MPO or MGR, at all. Sorry, you are blinding yourself. And yes, Kojima isn't in charge anymore and once Konami makes some official announcment or releases a new timeline which includes these games, it'll be a whole 'nother matter. But until then matters stand in accordance with the most recent information on the series. 91.23.166.243 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

well, it's been 6 years since this conversation was held. and there have been new things recently seen at konami. so first things first, there have been numerous leaks about a potential batch of metal gear games getting remastered, with the solid trilogy (1-3) would get a remaster. with the metal gear douology (the first game from 1987 and it's sequel, "Solid Snake" as a bonus if you buy the trilogy bundled). amidst this whole talk of metal gear games getting a potential comeback on modern systems, was a new konami game shop that had all of the steam games, but that's not important, what is actually important is the "metal gear games" game category on the said site. on it there is a number of games from the franchise, and the number says "17". counting all games in the mainline saga comes to 9 games, add canonical spin offs to the said saga (Portable Ops, Rising and Survive), that's 13 games. sprinkle in some of the other major non-canonical spin offs (Snake's Revenge, Ghost Babel, and the Acid Duology), that's 17 games. it looks like Konami is planning to port all canonical and non-canonical games to sites like steam, epic games, and consoles like playstation and xbox. so in other words, the future is bright for the Metal Gear franchise, port wise. only problems i can see is the port of metal gear solid 4, as that game was made for the CELL processor, but i hope they can figure it out. and that's pretty much it. thanks for coming to my 6 year late ted talk. 81.190.172.230 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Survive

It's definitely not a Metal Gear game, but it does deserve its own spot in the chronology if Konami recognizes it as a Metal Gear title. Since it takes place in an alternate area, where would it go on the list? —FrostyBeep —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

from what i've heard, the majority of Survive takes place 400 to 4000 years into the future, as we learn in-game, so i would put it after Rising. 81.190.172.230 (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Template's Existence

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_16#Template:Metal_Gear_chronology.

Big question - should this template really have been spared from deletion in a recent discussion? Some editors raised what they thought was valid points, and the nominator withdrew on the belief that was the case. But I am not certain they were justified, and that the nominator withdrew the discussion too soon. What do you think:

• YES
• NO

GUtt01 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think:

• You could have provided a link to the discussion - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 2
• This isn't suitable for an RFC
• TarkusAB should not have prematurely closed the discussion after contrary opinions been expressed. Cabayi (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur the closing of this discussion, as well as the reopening of the TFD discussion. Alsee (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)