User Review : Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes

Ups

• Graphically Amazing
• Shows Potential for an Open World
• Lots of Room for Growing Strategies

Downs

• Incredibly Short Campaign
• Missions Become Repetitive
• Graphics are Noticeably Muddy in Day Cycle

That's One Expensive Demo

Yes, I know you probably have seen that joke on the internet about a dozen times over, but believe me when I say that this is no exaggerated description. I bought Metal Gear Solid V with some cautious reservation because of what I have been reading and hearing about it. I am here to tell you guys that every positive and negative thing about Ground Zeroes is pretty much true. Before I get hazed for the score I have given this game, please read forward and know that I am a fan of Metal Gear Solid, but that I am first and foremost being brutally honest in my experiences and impression with the game. Remember that this is to keep you informed on a possible purchase in the future.

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes partners you up with Snake once again and follows the events of Peace Walker on the PSP. At this point in his life, Snake as Big Boss is beginning to build up his organization to begin his own operations. The year of 1975 offers a very trying time for Snake as he has to infiltrate a base known as Camp Omega to rescue two former comrades known as Chico and Paz. Snake must extract both prisoners from this American black site on Cuba.

The obvious burning question that comes to mind for Ground Zeroes is, "How long is the main campaign?" I am both saddened and disappointed to report that I beat what I will now put in quotations the "main campaign" in forty minutes. That was my quick run-through and not including cutscenes. My stealth run-through garnered almost an hour of gameplay without the cutscenes.

With the "main campaign" of Ground Zeroes clocking in at a significantly less time frame than a direct to DVD Disney movie, I can't help but think that the "main campaign" has nothing more to offer me. Sure, there is replayability in developing new strategies and trying your hand in the Hard difficulty, but it quickly wears off as you go to the same areas while memorizing the same enemies' patterns and getting used to the same routines. Score chasers and hardcore Metal Gear Solid enthusiasts may find solace in this, but I hesitate to say that the content matches the price.

The same could be said about the side missions that are unlocked after beating the "main campaign". Side Ops offers four different missions that take place at Camp Omega. The core difference being that the missions take place while the sun is still visible. There is some enjoyment at first with some missions, but it once again falls into mundane repetition. Camp Omega is still the same map over and over again with little differences. You may have to assassinate two rogue agents or rescue a VIP while providing fire support from a helicopter, but in the end it's a by-the-numbers map that becomes predictable. Unless you want to challenge yourself in Hard mode or top your last score you will not find a reason to go back to any of these missions.

Unlockables you earn after completing said missions are accessible from the main menu. They offer more insight into the very lightened story with some added characterization for Paz. You can also find a summary of events to fill you in on the situation should you have missed out on Peace Walker.

Visually, Ground Zeroes is fantastic. The Fox Engine is something to truly marvel at with its graphical prowess. There is no pre-rendered deception here. What you see is what you get. The first cutscene to gameplay transition is seamless. The graphics hold up well when the player is in control, too.

Doing a comparison between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions to the PS4 and Xbox One versions, there is a bit of a noticeable difference between the two console generations. In my opinion, the PS4 and Xbox One versions are slightly better looking and smoother than the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. What I can only describe as a hiccup in the graphics is some parts of the environment in Camp Omega when it is day. The core mission with the constant rainfall is spectacular, especially with the lighting effects of the search lights going against the blanket of darkness. However, certain areas are muddy and low in resolution during the day cycle. Even the foliage can be blatantly seen as pixelated during the day.

What should be noted about the gameplay is that this not your standard Metal Gear Solid game. There is stealth and action to be sure; however, the presentation offers more exploration in terms of tactics and usage of various equipment. You can go in guns blazing and pilfer whatever you may from supply sheds and enemies, but the drawback is that there will be a seemingly never-ending barrage of enemy combatants willing to put you down. Stealth is more rewarding as you can gather more intel and take your time around the base by surveying what may be helpful. These approaches offer different dialogue in both the main mission and Side Ops missions with new details being revealed that you would otherwise not have known before or new items to use in your battles.

One such notable item is your binoculars. No longer will you have the scanner at the corner of your screen to let you know where enemies are and how far they can see. Rather, your binoculars allow you to mark enemies so you can follow their movements throughout the base and listen in on conversations. You will also notice that your Codec is not as accessible as it acts more like a standard two-way communications set where you are strictly in contact with Kazuhira Miller back at Mother Base who can provide you with help or information about your mission and specific items you highlight. Another handy tool in your arsenal is the helicopter. Not only are helicopters used for extracting both yourself and friendlies, but they can also provide fire support when needed.

Enemies in the game are more alert than ever. Given that you cannot know how far they can see, you must rely on what you have available to you to keep track of them. Close Quarters Combat (CQC) returns with the usual tricks (like knocking enemies out or killing them), but with the added incentive to interrogate enemies. They can provide you with camera and enemy positions or information pertaining to the mission. Be wary, though, that even in Normal mode it takes quite a few bullets to down these soldiers. Hard mode even offers more struggles as you can be spotted more easily and have a rougher time in combat.

Snake has a new trick up his sleeve when being spotted by an enemy soldier. An alert status will appear and time will slow down in a "reflex" mode. You will then have the opportunity to neutralize the threat before the situation worsens. Another change is that of regenerating health. No rations or medical kits are available anymore as Snake can shrug off wounds by taking cover during combat. Snake can also leap to cover and while in prone position roll from side to side for more cover or tactical options.

Sound quality is really good. Weather conditions, weapons fire, footsteps, and music are clear. As for voice acting, some of it is really good, while other performances are questionable. Not because they aren't good voice actors, but because of a lack of lines. For instance, I can't really say that Keifer Sutherland as Snake gave a good or bad performance. He doesn't really have a lot of lines to work with here. Cutscenes and dialogue (aside from messages you get in-game) are condensed. There are no extensive conversations or long cutscenes like in previous Metal Gear Solid entries. So, voice acting can be of great quality or average depending on one's first impression per character.

All in all, I'm rather torn about this game. There is some quality to Ground Zeroes. Then again, it didn't earn the joke of being called an expensive demo for nothing. The thought that has me spiraling with debate is whether or not this is a game that I can recommend given its lack of content and game length, but with its potential in strategy, graphics, and open world concepts for a Metal Gear Solid game. Then the price also has to come into question.

I believe that my final verdict on this game would have to be chalked up to just calling it average. It's graphically fantastic and offers flexible gameplay. The open world concepts give players new options and impressions on where the next part of Metal Gear Solid V can go. The problem that I have with Ground Zeroes is that it is nothing more than an expensive demo of what we can expect from The Phantom Pain that also grows mundane with each replay of every mission. If you are a hardcore Metal Gear Solid fan, I say go for it, but if you have any kind of hesitation about this game, wait until it lowers by about ten dollars. Hopefully, The Phantom Pain will be more of what we can expect for another installment in Metal Gear Solid and that whatever price it is given will match up to the content provided.

Score

7.0

Graphics

Again, the Fox Engine is fantastic. It is an impressive piece of work that shows real potential in the new generation of consoles. The only issue is that the graphics don't hold up well during the day in the Side Ops missions.

8.0

Sound

Good to great quality to be found here. Voice acting may be a hit or miss depending on one's opinions, but it was rather satisfying.

7.0

Gameplay

Flexible options and combat allow gamers the chance to really dig in their heels and use different strategies to get around the map. New equipment is extremely helpful. However, replay value is questionable given that it is the same map with limited missions available.

5.0

Fun Factor

Yes, price does play a part. I do not believe this game is worth thirty dollars with both the lack of content and me feeling that I felt done, yet unaccomplished when I finished everything. Ground Zeroes had a lot of potential, but it just squandered that. I have no desire to go back to this game.

Overall

6.0

[Greysturm]

I think you are being a bit harsh on your score for graphics, sound and gameplay but otherwise i can agree with your assesment of the game.

Its really a game for those that wanted to play a next gen mgs without having to wait till the phantom pain is ready.

[Ilovetheps5]

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to pick this up. Did Ground Zeroes progress the MGS storyline at all? Or do you think this will be necessary to understand The Phantom Pain's storyline? I didn't read too much of the review just in case there were spoilers in it.

[BiggCMan]

Well you can just look up an entire playthrough of the game on Youtube, as there are only 2 major cutscenes in the main mission that progress the story.

Yes it is necessary for the Phantom Pain, as it basically ends at the beginning of that game. However with how quick you can get to it (for me it took about 1 hour and 40 minutes), then you may want to consider just watching the cutscenes online.

There's also lots of tape recordings that are very interesting to listen to, gives you some info on what happened during the space between Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes.

Anyways, I thoroughly disagree with this person, a 6 is absolute nonsense. Price should not affect the score of the game at all.

The game plays absolutely amazing, like a true next gen game. The graphics are absolutely mind blowing, the plot, however small it is, is extremely deep and emotional and disturbing, and the extra missions after you finish Ground Zeroes are extremely fun and quite long I might add.

They take me about an hour each, and there are 6 of them, so tell me that 10 hours for this game at 20 or 30 dollars is really that terrible? Hell no, not when we have games like Walking Dead, Journey, and Flower that are just about the same.

[Ratty]

MGS3 and especially Peace Walker are more necessary I think. It's like BiggCMan said though, there are only two major cutscenes that progress the story.

Don't let the bad reviews get to you. GZ is no demo. Whoever says anything to the contrary either hasn't played it or was planning to rip on the game from the beginning.

It's only not worth it if you only play the GZ mission and don't continue from there. There's five other missions and collectibles. I played around 4 hours, two missions and I'm only at 13% total completion.

[TuxedoMoon]

Played the game myself, beat the main campaign in less than an hour on my first play through. The graphics are amazing and the Gameplay (controls) is great. Everything works. But the fact that Kojima is charging $30 for a demo is ridiculous. Why not pack it in with Castlevania LOS2? They could've gave out special editions that had the Ground Zeroes Demo.

@BiggCman

"Anyways, I thoroughly disagree with this person, a 6 is absolute nonsense. Price should not affect the score of the game at all. "

Price does matter when it comes to a game. When you put your money down on a game, you expect to get your money's worth. The value of $30 is different for a lot of people. If you're loaded, then $30 is nothing. If you're not, well that wasted $30 will fill you with regret. Would the score be a little higher if the demo was free? Most likely.

"The game plays absolutely amazing, like a true next gen game. The graphics are absolutely mind blowing, the plot, however small it is, is extremely deep and emotional and disturbing, and the extra missions after you finish Ground Zeroes are extremely fun and quite long I might add. "

I agree that the gameplay and graphics to this demo was great. It was a great tease of what's to come. I didn't get a chance to play through peacewalker yet, but the plot is way too small to be considered anything deep. The extra missions are questionable interms of fun.

"They take me about an hour each, and there are 6 of them, so tell me that 10 hours for this game at 20 or 30 dollars is really that terrible? Hell no, not when we have games like Walking Dead, Journey, and Flower that are just about the same."

So, those 6 missions take you about an hour each to complete. That's 6 hours total, not 10. I honestly don't see how you can say that ALL these missions take about an hour when the Kojima mission alone was about 10-15 minutes long at most. 6 hours isn't too bad for $20~30, but remember that this is a METAL GEAR SOLID game. People have expectations when it comes to a franchise and the reviewer EXPECTED a long and epic campaign, not a 45 minute demo with a cliff hanger ending. If this game was marketed as a DEMO and not as a legit game, then maybe he would've gave it a higher score?

The Walking Dead has multiple scenarios which racks up replayability more so than MGS:GZ. Journey and Flower were never at $30 to my knowledge. Both games were downloadable games that showed off what the PS3 can do as well as offer a unique experience.

[imtheman2013]

Why would the reviewer have expected a super long game? Kojima specifically said that this was a prologue to The Phantom Pain. Also, many sites came out and said that the main campaign mission was only about two hours long.

And as for the game being marketed as a "demo," that wouldn't be accurate to what this game is. It IS a game, whether anyone likes it or not. Demos serve as small slices of full games, not games that contain story and scenario of their own, which Ground Zeroes does. If this were a demo of The Phantom Pain, then why am I not in Afghanistan or some other setting from that game, playing a small portion of that title? Answer: because this isn't The Phantom Pain's demo, it is, however, its prologue. I've never played a "demo" that's lasted me 10+ hours, which Ground Zeroes certainly has, especially if you're an MGS fan and a completionist. To me, the price of $30 for current gen, and $20 for last gen (which is what this reviewer could have paid for his/her copy), is completely justifiable. And I can assure you, I am not "loaded."

Also, Journey cost $15 dollars at launch, and based on how the player explores and whatnot, I'd say that it has a maximum of two and a half hours of gameplay. Ground Zeroes, I point out again, is $20 at launch for last gen hardware. That's $5 more than Journey. Both games are well-crafted and extremely fun. Ground Zeroes lasts MUCH longer than Journey, yet so many claim that it's not worth it... which, honestly, blows my mind.

[HonestDragon]

Well, I can't say that this wasn't unexpected. I knew there would be people saying how wrong I am in the comments or defend the game because it's a next-gen Metal Gear Solid game. To some who have commented so far...

@Greysturm

I disagree with you. If I was being harsh in my scores, they would reflect a more below average numerical score. Also, if people want to play a next-gen Metal Gear Solid game, then I believe it's best to wait for The Phantom Pain instead of paying thirty dollars for a sliver of what is to come. This game is twenty dollars at best.

@BiggCMan

Judging from your picture, I figure you wouldn't like my review and would always assume that any negative point or given actual analysis on price equating to content is automatically wrong. A six out of ten is not nonsense. It's an average score. Regardless of Ground Zeroes being the first entry of Metal Gear Solid into the new consoles, it is not worthy of anything above average or perfect due to a lack of content and a short campaign. I'm not the only person who believes that.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

@One_Eyes_Wizard

"Whoever says anything to the contrary either hasn't played it or was planning to rip on the game from the beginning."

Oh really? Even knowing that Ground Zeroes was complete by Game Informer in two hours, I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Trying it my self, I did beat the campaign quickly. Also, people are saying that the demo for MGS2 lasted longer than Ground Zeroes and was in Zone of the Enders. Kind of tells you how much different this would be if Ground Zeroes was included in Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 (which it should have been).

[evolutionbeats]

First of all...Zelda: Ocarina of time, which is considered one of the greatest games of all time, can be completed with a speed run in 15 minutes! 15 minutes!!!!

But that is obviously not how you are supposed to play the game.

And the same can be said for MGS:GZ

It's because you're stuck on "completing"....I&am p;#3 9;ve put 4 hours just into playing the main mission...using different tactics, vehicles, weapons, etc....anyone saying this game is not worth the money simply does not like the gameplay, it has nothing to do with being "too short"...if you enjoy Metal Gear Solid, and the gameplay, the 5 missions and unlockables will provide you many, many hours...I've already put in over 8 hours and haven't even unlocked the last mission yet....it's so much fun!!! don't let the negative reviews sway you people

And just for people saying it's a glorified demo...it's not...nowhere close....and even if you have that argument, think of this:

The Just Cause 2 demo on ps3 logged over 100 hours on my ps3...yes...a demo...a sandbox world where you can approach the situation many different ways WILL last you many hours and is always fun to return to

[HonestDragon]

"First of all...Zelda: Ocarina of time, which is considered one of the greatest games of all time, can be completed with a speed run in 15 minutes! 15 minutes!!!!"

"But that is obviously not how you are supposed to play the game."

I looked into that and found out that such a feat is only possible when exploiting the game through specific programs and glitches. Yes, that is not how to play Ocarina of Time. Which begs the question, why bother using it as an example when it is known that Ocarina of Time has to be beaten with such exploits and is much longer than what speed runners do to "complete" the game?

"And the same can be said for MGS:GZ"

That is after beating Ground Zeroes once. At that point, you know where everything is and what to do and can then beat it faster. That doesn't make good replayability. It just shows how little there is to do regardless of the gameplay options you have. Whatever strategy you found, a few dozen other players found it as well and probably on their first try.

While the gameplay itself is well done and refined, there's no excuse for how this game was made available to gamers. Dead Rising 2: Case Zero cost five dollars and was a prologue that can last as long as or longer than Ground Zeroes. Zone of the Enders had a Metal Gear Solid 2 demo in it that lasts longer than Ground Zeroes. Konami and Kojima could have done this better. Both they and every gamer who has voiced their opinion about Ground Zeroes knows this to be true.

[Number-Nine]

graphically amazing? only 1 issue? a 7?

[HonestDragon]

Ah. Let me clarify that very quick. While the graphics are amazing, muddy and pixelated textures are noticeable in core moments in the game. Particularly during the day is when it's commonly seen. I love the rain the main mission has (I'm a sucker for rain in video games when it's done well) as it compliments the environment. The hiccups that can be seen revolve around those issues. Like I said, though, the PS4 and Xbox One versions look much better.

[Luke_fon_Fabre]

If it was free, what score would you give it? Because that's what score reviewers should give it.

Price shouldn't count into reviews. We're aware of the price.

[HonestDragon]

What if Ground Zeroes was free? I would probably score it an eight instead. I was really bummed when you didn't get to participate in that final assault in the game. I was anticipating a transition, but it didn't happen.

Beating a free game in an hour would be okay with me, but the problem is still the existing price. I disagree because reviewing a game comes with the territory of recommendation. Brink, for example, is short and was priced at sixty dollars. Had I reviewed that game, I would have not recommended buying it at sixty dollars. Just like I don't recommend buying Ground Zeroes at this time for what they are asking for in price.

[Luke_fon_Fabre]

That's up to consumers though. They know it's expensive for it's price.

A review simply judges quality.

A film reviewer doesn't complain about a short film because it's short.

A television reviewer doesn't rate a show lower because the price for cable recently increased across the board.

[coolbeans]

@Luke_fon_Fabre

"A film reviewer doesn't complain about a short film because it's short.

A television reviewer doesn't rate a show lower because the price for cable recently increased across the board."

False equivalence for both of these examples. When it comes to short films, you can either watch a bunch of Oscar-nominated ones back-to-back in theaters for the average ticket price or just pay mere cents on the dollar for one short film depending on the outlet you digitally download from.

With television, the variables are different because they're focusing on one show on one channel in which the viewer's TV subscription is based on getting HUNDREDS of channels at a set price. That'd be ridiculous for any TV reviewer to determine whether one drop in the bucket was/wasn't worth the raised cost in satellite or cable.

"That's up to consumers though. They know it's expensive for it's price.

A review simply judges quality."

For games, I don't see anything harmful in also taking value into account. The up-front investment is much higher.

[Luke_fon_Fabre]

@coolbeans I still think video game reviews are way too based on value, especially with Ground Zeroes where almost every reason I see for negative reviews is simply the value. I don't believe that's what a review should be about, since at some point, the price will be irrelevant.

For my example about short films, I said nothing about the price.

My example about television was off though, I will admit. A better statement would have been, "A television reviewer doesn't take into account the price of a season of a show on amazon."

Obviously, we disagree, but I feel like I have a valid point about video game reviews.

[evolutionbeats]

So paying $60 for games like God of War, Southpark Stick of Truth, or even Infamous Second Son (which is the same game over and over just updated graphics)...which give you about 5 hours of gameplay each....is ok?

But a game with incredible replay value for $30 has the internet in an uproar?

I don't get it :/

Also Kojima stated, so many times before release, that the game would be short prologue...so once again

I don't get it :/

For anyone who wants a REAL review:

I've put 7 hours into the game and am only at 25% completion

DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE FOOL YOU

I'd pay $20 for games like these every time, instead of paying $60 for some re-hashed "Triple A" title that you can complete in one day

[HonestDragon]

"So paying $60 for games like God of War, Southpark Stick of Truth, or even Infamous Second Son (which is the same game over and over just updated graphics)...which give you about 5 hours of gameplay each....is ok?"

Under five hours? Every mainstream God of War game takes an average of eight to ten hours of completion. South Park takes much longer at fourteen to fifteen hours. Infamous (which has only three titles) can match up with South Park's main game completion time. So, yes, that is okay.

"But a game with incredible replay value for $30 has the internet in an uproar?"

Replay value that is artificial in the long term. Gamers have to willingly play the same mission over and over again with Side Ops missions losing their luster after the first playthrough. Open world games offer you different ways to play, yes, but comparing Ground Zeroes to other open world games shows that it is vastly barren of both time and content. Comparing Ground Zeroes to other Metal Gear Solid games on console shows that it has a lot to live to up to. Plus, people forget that this game was forty dollars on PS4 and Xbox One.

"Also Kojima stated, so many times before release, that the game would be short prologue..."

Yet there are people out there who managed to beat the main mission under thirty minutes on their first try. Then some tried it again and beat it in less time. Youtube can prove that. At most, I would have expected at least three to four hours for thirty or forty dollars that spans more than one mission in the main game.

"For anyone who wants a REAL review"

That is just insulting. What you're saying essentially is that my playthrough and opinion is inferior to your playthrough and opinion. So, screw me, I'm wrong? I guess ignorance is bliss.

"I'd pay $20 for games like these every time, instead of paying $60 for some re-hashed "Triple A" title that you can complete in one day"

Every time I see this being the slogan for gamers making excuses for the game length on Ground Zeroes, I think about what Angry Joe had in his review (and he was more harsh on this game): "We Want Less! We Want Less!" Is that honestly the kind of thing you want to support? Do you want game companies to charge you thirty or twenty dollars for barely an hour of a main campaign that takes place in one visual area? Ground Zeroes should have bundled with Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 as a demo or had the retail price of ten dollars.

[BinaryMind]

"Also Kojima stated, so many times before release, that the game would be short prologue...so once again."

If Kojima said before release that the game was a piece of shit would that excuse the game from being crap on release?