Top
70°
6.0

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes Review

By making several smart additions to the stealth gameplay but abandoning nearly all the series’ trademark charm, Ground Zeroes is both the best and worst Metal Gear Solid game to date.

Read Full Story >>
pressplaytv.com
The story is too old to be commented.
peterdawa1332d ago

Seems like the reviewer had very different expectations for this demo. Infact it nearly feels like he wasnt expecting a demo and wanted to play a large part of the game. I think this was fantastic in showing us what to expect and had a lot of gameplay in it. I prefer this to the new infamous. I couldnt play the new infamous for hours but this I could.

sevilha821332d ago

Agreed,and by the way ...just the graphics and fluid gameplay without a inch of bugs or glitchs make it higher than a six.Maybe this reviwers are getting so usted to broken games that when they find a flawlles one they think it's bad.(joking)

KingKelloggTheWH1332d ago

This game was riddled with glitches though?

PressPlayTV1332d ago

We don't take how 'non-glitchy' a game is into account when we review something. We try to use More of the scale than most sites do :)

Thanks for reading!

WitWolfy1332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

This dude did know this was just a quick cash in from Konami to sell a demo disguised as a full game right?

I still say this should've been free from the start to build hype for the game.

peterdawa1332d ago

Konami was clear it was a demo. Its price should not affect its rating. The reviewer can rate the GAME and let you decide whether its worth the price. Gamers expect so many free things, You can opt not to buy and there is no problem with that.

WitWolfy1332d ago

Still is a dick move though. $30 for a 15 minute game is insulting. You can buy awesome games and DLC's for that price. Just my 5c

peterdawa1332d ago

I see your point. But i somehow put hours into it. I also think they should have added more content. However as a demo, that was some fantastic gameplay.

porkChop1332d ago

It's the reviewers OPINION. So if in their OPINION the game isn't worth the ridiculous price, then they have every right to reflect that in their review. Reviews usually take value into account.

starrman19851332d ago

I actually got around 10 hours out of Ground Zeroes, the people who complain it only lasted 15 minutes either didn't play it, or rushed it and skipped everything, including the way you're meant to play it, take your time and use stealth.

The actual "story" part of this took me around 2 hours, which admittedly (if you were only buying it for this) is a little skimpy for the £20 launch price. The other missions usually take around 30 minutes - 2 hours depending on play style and I think there were 5 extra missions including the platform specific DLC.

This game was probably one of the better games I played last year for quality etc. Definitely worth the much cheaper price of around £6-7.

F0XHOUND1332d ago

Play the game as a teaser, an introduction to V. And you will find a pretty awesome extended demo with a bunch of cliffhanger statements that just make waiting for V that much harder!

Its worth owning, wait for sales and its a solid $10 game.

csreynolds1332d ago

"It says a lot about what Kojima thinks of this entry’s campaign when it’s displayed on a mission select screen."

"I certainly don’t have a problem with short video games either, but this narrative simply felt incomplete."

It's statements like these that make me wonder what the author was expecting. Ground Zeroes (GZ) isn't really a game; it's a demonstration of what to expect from The Phantom Pain (TPP) in terms of visuals and gameplay. The narrative isn't meant to be complete. The missions aren't meant to be long.

I recently picked this up for £10 (I wasn't going to fork out £20-30 for it), and while I don't agree this should've been released as a chargeable product, necessarily, it's brilliant. It looks amazing, I really enjoy the new mechanics, and I want to buy TPP now - which is exactly what Kojima wanted gamers to feel like after playing GZ. Initially, I thought I'd play one mission and be done, but I keep going back over and over.

I think the reviewer loses sight of the fact that this title isn't supposed to be complete, or exist on its own, and it shouldn't be graded in such a way. It should be graded by its performance, its technical aspects, and whether or not it achieves its goal - to secure TPP interest. Based on that, I would give this game an 8/10.

PressPlayTV1332d ago

Hey thanks for reading! If you go farther in, my problems with the game actually aren't from the length of the campaign- (remember, I spent 60 hours getting a 100% completion in all modes!)- but there are issues with the game's systems that I couldn't forgive, mostly with the way it handles checkpoints and discourages you from using major features like reflex mode. It's also more punishing than it should be in many spots, more than previous MGS games, which I think makes it less fun overall.

As for the campaign, I actually _prefer_ shorter games- it's just that GZ's narrative didn't feel like a complete thought. I suppose the film equivalent would be the third Hobbit movie, where it feels like it doesn't stand up on its own.

I'm excited to play Phantom Pain as well, but I just feel there's no denying that Ground Zeroes is a pretty flawed experience.

Kyosuke_Sanada1332d ago

If EA pulled this crap, everyone would would have flipped regardless of the quality........