180°

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes - How not to Review

Gameskinny: "The release of Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes, the prologue to Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, will release on Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Reviews will be surfing their way through the net starting today, Monday, March 17, 2014. Do you ever wonder what is going on through the minds of a reviewer? Professional or not, every reviewer will have the unfortunate job of putting their own touch to the review with key points to backup their statements and score."

Read Full Story >>
gameskinny.com
PurpatraitorMGS3751d ago

As long as its fair. I want people's review to reflect the quality of the game. Not the length.

sonarus3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

I could care less if the game is unfairly reviewed I'm playing this as soon as it's available for download on ps4. You can label me a "rabid fanboy" or sheep who will allow Konami to apparently force me into giving them my money. This like of reasoning I find the dumbest, I have bought almost every Mgs game except for revengeance and peacewalker. I never once felt a mystical force dipping it's hands in my wallet, taking my money and giving it to Konami

If you don't want to play the game don't buy. There is no mystical means by which u are forced to purchase the game. If you succumb to such mystical forces you are an idiot

Yi-Long3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Will this have an option for the original Japanese voices?

If it does, I'll give it a try (once it comes down in price).

If it doesn't, then I couldn't care less about how good or bad it scores.

ZodTheRipper3751d ago

I called this Examiner review "a joke" yesterday and got lots of disagrees for that. Of course price and lenght are factors in a review but he left out the most important parts like gameplay, AI, graphics, sound ...basically everything that really matters. I'm glad that this article calls him out.

bmx_bandit3751d ago

When DRM, Origin and Always-on matters, why shouldn't length matter too?

2cents3751d ago

Sure, people should be allowed to give their opinions but the biggest issue with that review was that he gave the whole story away, even the ending. Which is just unacceptable.

No matter what issues he may have had with the length / price / content, he didn't have to ruin it for everyone else who were willing to pay into Kojima's pension fund.

Tdmd3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

I want people's review to reflect the whole product I'm expending money on: quality and length. This way I can make a conscient purchase, knowing up from exactly what I'm getting. They are reviewing an product, and it's length is an important part of it, which should not be overlooked.

dumahim3751d ago

I think it's fair to have game length have an effect on the overall score, although a very minor factor. For a lot of people, it is a measure of how much someone might enjoy the game and it's worth informing readers/viewers of what they are getting. I've played games I felt were too short and some that were too long.

Price though, should have no place in the review. Let the buyer determine what is too expensive. Reviews are rarely updated and there will be price drops later.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3751d ago
PhilJowns3751d ago

Length does matter! LOL!

Sorry but the game could be the highest quality in the World but if its over in between 30mins-2hours it has to be marked down on the pricepoint alone.

It should have been a demo or at least half the price it is.
This is purely Konami/Kojima cashing in on franchise.

KonsoruMasuta3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

But should it be brought down all the way to the lowest score possible like some other sites are doing?

A review at the Examiner gave it a 1/5. He didn't go in depth about gameplay, he didn't go in depth about AI, he didn't mention textures, nor did he mention anything else a review was supposed to mention.
In the comments of the article he even commented and said the gameplay was great and not bad in any way.

So if the length was the only issue, why did it get the lowest score possible? That's exteme. As a 1/5 should only be for the worst of games.

Oschino19073751d ago

Exactly and do any of these reviewers trashing it based almost solely on price (in which the value is subjective) ever intend to go back and edit their reviews once the price drops....

No, they rarely if ever go back and change it, so basically the review score is skewed towards a subjective value that changes over time and quickly in terms of when the other factors would diminish ccompared to competition...

Tdmd3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Maybe, if he thinks it is so short and so expensive that it qualifies as a scam (as he said so in the review). The Examiner reviewer was trying to both send a message that this is not ok, and to warn consumers about what is going on. The way I see it, he was not only brave, but also very consumer conscient - which is something I wholeheartedly appreciate. There will be dozens of reviews out there, so I don't mind if one or two of them focus on the fact that, despite it being a good demonstration, charge for it is not a good practice.

OculusRift3751d ago

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the glorious Skyrim 1-2 hours long with no side quests and just a straight play through?

MrTrololo3751d ago

Unless you speedrun through it. Nope

OculusRift3751d ago

Bro, it was 1-2 hours. 3 hours on first run..

NihonjinChick3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

I tried it once.

In a run without doing any side quest, it took me 5 hours. A 1 - 2 hour run seems kind of farfetched.

BattleTorn3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Okay, Skyrim (a extremely deep game) can be completed in a few hours doing speedrun.

But, how long is it on average, with the side quests?

And how long can you possibly take to complete MGS:GZ?

I'd wager a player could spend 80+hrs doing sidequests in Skyrim, and the average playthrough is well over 20hrs.

What about MGS:GZ - what's it's max?

If you do every side quest - what, 4-5hrs?

No where near compariable to Skyrim, of all games, if you ask me!!

djentman10173751d ago

More around 4-5 hours, but the game is still $60. Similar case to Ground Zeroes, really.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3751d ago
grailly3751d ago

yes, it should.
The problem really is sticking a score to the game at the end of a review. How should you score a great game that's way to expensive? You can't really...

TomRL3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

It is not up to the reviewer to comment on the business practices of the game. Mention the price and mention the length, yes. But to bring the review score down to 4/10 is lunacy. Length of game just doesn't matter when writing a review. It should only ever be mentioned. The reviewer should review the quality of a product with very little outside influence. We are the ones to decide, based on both the reviews and price whether we want it or not.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3751d ago
csreynolds3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

My take on this article.

"The length of a video game will always be justified by its quality."

Agreed, but you cannot simply overlook price. Whilst not a defining factor, price is still an important factor, and value for money is something many readers care about. If someone is interested in two games, but only has enough money to buy one, cost vs. content will play a big part in their decision-making.

"Before writing a review, explore everything the game you are reviewing has to offer. Complete it 100%."

Sorry to be cynical, but deadlines don't often allow reviewers the luxury of completing a game 100% before putting pen to paper. I will be very surprised if Erick doesn't put pen to paper/fingers to keyboard until he achieves 100% completion...

"It is unwise to sucker punch the game creators by telling readers not to buy their product."

I disagree. The purpose of a review is to provide subjective opinion as to why you would recommend or not recommend something to someone else. If a reviewer's PoV is "I would not recommend buying this game", that's their PoV. As the article states, "the decision is in your reader's hands" - the reader isn't bound contractually to comply with the author's opinion; it's just an opinion. I don't think a reviewer needs to be harsh about the subject of critique, or its creators, but if bad product is bad in your eyes you have a responsibility to be honest with yourself, and the readership that trusts you.

And finally:

"No one enjoys being told what to do."

Then may I ask, Mr Mattos, why you decided to tell people how not to review MGS: Ground Zeroes? Isn't that up to them?

KonsoruMasuta3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

I disagree that reviewers should factor in price. It is not a reviewers job to tell us whether or not it's worth our money. It's their job to tell us what the product offers us and tell us the good and the bad. WE decide whether or not it is worth our money, based on the things they tell us. A negative for a reviewer isn't always a negative for the reader.

And on the second point about length- Shouldn't they at least try to do most of what the game has to offer? The reviewer at the examiner only completed that main quest and gave the game a 1/5 for it's length. In the comments of his article he acknowledged that there were extra missions besides the main one but didn't play them. What sense does that make? How could he attack a game for it's length when he was the one who limited his own playtime? Wasn't he the one who ignored the extra content? Skyrim's main quest was 2-3 hours but that didn't make reviewers give it a 1/5. They knew that there was plenty of content on the side.

However, I do agree that reviewers should speak their mind on most of the issues they encounter within a product. It is important that consumers hear everything.

Oschino19073751d ago

Classic example of "if you play the game lame it will be lame, don't blame the game for YOU being lame".

csreynolds3751d ago

"It is not a reviewers job to tell us whether or not it's worth our money."

Isn't it? Then why is the most common MGS: GZ-related question put forward to reviewers "is it worth $30/£25"? Yes, ultimately the reader decides whether a product is worth the money, but does that make the reviewer's thoughts any less relevant, or significant? No. Is there value to be had in knowing the reviewer's thoughts on cost vs. content? Absolutely.

As for the point on length, I agree completely; reviewers should play most of what the game has to offer, but that isn't what Mattos is saying here, is it? Mattos is claiming games should be completed in full - "100%" - before reviews are started, which is unfeasible. I can promise you that the major publications/websites gamers place trust in do not complete a game they're reviewing to 100%...

wheresmymonkey3751d ago

In telling you whether a game is good or bad, we are basically telling you whether the game is worth your money/ worth playing.

Ground Zeroes is a tricky one. I don't agree with what the examiner did, because it was a knee jerk reaction and very unprofessional.

But there certainly are questions to be asked about the games price as compared to what you are getting for your money. Especially when something like Dark Souls II came out last week that costs the same price and offers far more content of a similar quality for the same price.

Baka-akaB3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

It's too easy to factor in value and price in a review , only when it's convenient , Aka a short and controversial game .

Where are those people caring about the customer in all the other blatant cases of wrongdoing from publishers ?

Incredibly enough some of the reviewers turned white knight are the very same that got no problem with issues like DLC misuses .

Either you care about those aspects all the times as the reviewer , and then kudos , or you dont and are just riding the "moral highground" coat tail

wheresmymonkey3751d ago

Well said my man. there are lots of things to consider when reviewing a game. Some game's it's simply not feasible to complete before finishing up a review, Often times Reviewers only get given the game a few days before release/embargo and reviews have a finite life span in terms of relevance and being able to get hits.

So the sooner you get it done the better. Something like Dark souls for example will not see any reviews by people that 100% it. Not even close. they may have done a single playthrough if they were lucky.

csreynolds3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Thank you good sir *bows*

I've been writing about video games since 2009, and I know from experience that in almost all cases you cannot play a game to 100% completion and publish a credible review within the relevancy window given to you by the publisher, or deadline given by the site you're writing for.

To this day, the only game I managed to review having hit 100% completion was LIMBO, and even that was pushing it considering how much thought I needed to put into theme, interpretation, meaning and so on.

djentman10173751d ago

To be fair, the side missions are vital parts of the game, not just for completionists. Like Peace Walker, the side missions are awesome, and from what I've seen, just as dense as the main mission, sans the plot details.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3751d ago
OrangePowerz3751d ago

It shouldn't be ignored how long the game is and that it tells only a tiny part of the full MGS5 story.

GZ is like the first few minutes of a Bond Movie before the title screen starts or like selling the Virtuos Mission part from MGS3 separate.

blackbirdi3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

stop defending kojima and konami
if the people buy this demo every company will selling us demos ....go to hell stupid people this practice are greedy and has no respect to customers i m big mgs fanboy but when it comes to this practice i m against ... your fanboysim is killing the industrie buy everything their release it damage only the gaming community

Rocky53751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Then you're part of the problem.

The reason we have micro transaction & F2P games in this day & age, is because people sunk cash into them & were getting flooded with this crap, its ruining the gaming industry.

If we allow this to happen then its only a matter of time before EA & Activision jump on board & from here on out its £30 for a bloody demo of a final game.

I can see it now oO. The next gen COD will be released this year with 2 maps, 4 guns & no single player for £30, is that what you/we want? Because I sure as hell don't.

iceman063751d ago

First off, I don't believe that one game can establish a trend. There are very few developers with the consumer equity of a Kojima. (and some of his is being used up on this) There are very few GAMES with the same equity. Therefore, IF this was attempted by a lesser developer/game, it would fail immediately.
What I am saying is that, though this might be a cash grab and a greedy practice, I don't think that this singular game will impact the entire industry as we know it. Regardless of whether it sells well or not. It is an extremely risky practice. As we have seen, this industry is not too keen on extremely risky ventures these days.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI3751d ago

I think the funny thing is that people seriously think this WILL establish a trend. MGS is a one in a million series, they could charge way more and it'll still be successful, whereas if any one else tried this, they wouldn't be successful.

On the other hand, people bitch about this, but buy a rehash of CoD and Battlefield every year for $60+ all their shitty dlc which is like almost $200 in value. I mean, BF4 is STILL broken after half a year. LOL At the very least I know spending $30 now on GZ, I'll at least be able to play the damn game and enjoy it.

Dudebro903751d ago

Call of duty 4: started a trend.

Gears of War : started a trend.

A single game can start trends

csreynolds3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

"I don't believe that one game can establish a trend."

Call of Duty. Enough said. There are countless others I could name, but this is one of the most obvious ones.

iceman063751d ago

@Dudebro90
CoD 4 was the game that established consumer equity. The same with Gears. It was NOT a trend until they sold several iterations. Nobody was chasing CoD4 after the first one. Most people thought that it was lightening in a bottle. It wasn't until repeated success that publishers started pushing devs to chase that success. Also, if we look at how risk taking (or lack thereof) has effected these games, you only need to compare their latest sales to see that consumer equity can be used up.
So, I won't go ballistic on anybody who chooses to buy this game. It's their right as a consumer, just as it's yours not to support it.

Summons753751d ago

Let's go back.

It's early Last gen and everyone was excited about 360 and Ps3, a game came out call Oblivion and it was great but before any of the expansion they put out HORSE ARMOR and it smashed expectations. People bought it, a simple useless item for a game.

Okay fast forward to today, we are getting DLC announced before games are finished, DLC shoved down our throats, and DLC just being content cut from a final game.

ONE GAME did all this, now we have a fraction of a final game (which should just be a demo since it is the tutorial level of the game) coming out and people are going to buy it. If this sells extremely well you can look forward to Activision, EA, CAPCOM, all the DLC abusers taking the demos we gamers should get for free like we always have and selling them for half the price of the full game.

If you're okay with a future of paying for the demos you've always downloaded for free then so be it but most gamers do not want that future.

iceman063751d ago

@Summons75..I remember the Horse Armor issue. I also remember the backlash that it caused. People were in an uproar. It takes years to establish a trend. So, that's what companies did (spearheaded by the internet connections that were available with the new consoles). It take adopters to set a trend. Not adopters of just ONE game, but several. THIS is the issue at hand. How many games, in an industry of hundreds, have the clout to pull this off. We aren't even sure that MGSV can. I just think it's WAY too premature to scream that this WILL ruin the industry.
I am not arguing for this business practice. I am simply saying that you can't tell people what to do with their money. Aside from die-hard fans, most people will see what they are getting and probably choose NOT to buy in.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3751d ago
die_fiend3751d ago

I don't buy COD games. Because I find them incredibly mindless. Which is probably why you're the one worrying about it.

You know that this DLC practice is bad and so do I. The unfortunate facts are that it's the masses who determine who buy it, not some venomous troll (you). So you squawking on here isn't going to affect anything at all. You think a few people not buying this game will just stop it? Newsflash, it won't.

And if I'm part of the problem, then great. But it's your problem I'm part of, nothing else.

TomRL3751d ago

You really don't understand the argument do you? Your intentions are honest, but the discussion is on whether the price and length should be factored in when creating a review. Which it shouldn't. Questioning the business practices of these publishers comes later.

djentman10173751d ago

It's simple. Don't buy it if you don't feel it's worth it. I feel it's worth it. It's DLC price ($20).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3751d ago
Show all comments (59)
140°

The Metal Gear series has sold over 59.8 million copies

300,000 Metal Gear games were sold during the first quarter of 2023, Konami has announced, bringing the total number to 59.8 million.

Read Full Story >>
metalgearinformer.com
FallenAngel1984402d ago

Still waiting on Konami to put the MGS Collection back on digital stores

Nyxus402d ago

I know right? And rerelease the games for current gen systems while they're at it.

just_looken401d ago

Do not worry they will give use those pichincko remakes for top dollar soon.

Metal gear solid 3 in the fox engine looked/ran amazing but was sealed away :(

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

Sarcasm401d ago

I know re-makes and stuff have been played to death this generation.

But damn I wouldn't mind an MGS4 remake

gold_drake401d ago

i played it quite recently and it holds up very well

CantThinkOfAUsername401d ago

It does, but a remake will be available on platforms other than PS3.

itsmebryan401d ago

I thought the series would have sold more over all these years and different releases.

Ready4nxtgen401d ago

Yeah I would have thought over 150 Mil. Something.missing here

Nyxus401d ago

Metal Gear isn't that big, and there hasn't been a new release in years. Also MGS2 and 3 are still missing from digital storefronts.

shinoff2183401d ago

5 mgs games in total if I'm not mistaken. 59 60 million seems about right. Mgs is dope to some of us but it would be hard for a lot of regulars to understand

ChasterMies401d ago

I would love to buy MGS4 but it’s still a PS3 exclusive.

JEECE401d ago

Although there are notable exceptions (GTA, certain first-party Nintendo games, Gran Turismo), as a rule games didn't sell as much in earlier generations as they have in the past few generations. So a lot of PS1-PS2 era titles that are viewed as seminal games didn't actually sell all that much by today's standards (yes, despite the large install bases of those systems lol). I remember a similar surprised reaction happening a few months ago when Square announced the total overall sales of Final Fantasy VII.

Deathdeliverer401d ago

Some of the best fun you can have online was the first metal gear online and to a lesser, but still fun to an extent, MGO2. The magazine, CQC, stealth, and tactical play Vs real players is just a blast. Not to mention playing Snake vs everyone? Amazing. The game will never be the same without Hideo, but Konami can definitely update what’s already there and take my money.

ceyoga401d ago

You wouldn't be talking about the OG MGO that was included with MGS3:S would you? It's rare running into another former player. Those were some of the best memories of any online game I had.

Deathdeliverer401d ago

Yes my man!! That seems like the BEST game that nobody played! Tranquilizer pistol, drag the body to a corner and lay a girly mag right by their head so they wake up and instantly get caught by the mag. You could get real toxic if you wanted at that point, but man that game was incredible! The only thing annoying was that damn Konami ID

P_Bomb401d ago

Did my part!

“You’re pretty good” 🫡

Show all comments (20)
220°

Kojima looks back on Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes on its 9th anniversary

Hideo Kojima: "After the launch, many people seemed to expect GZ to be a full game."

Read Full Story >>
metalgearinformer.com
-Foxtrot460d ago

People would have gotten “your intention” if you stated it from the beginning but people didn’t want smaller episode like MGS games.

He should have just focused on MGSV and work Ground Zeroes into that game instead

I_am_Batman460d ago

I don't remember there being confusion over Ground Zeroes being a full game. But then again I was just starting to catch up on the MGS series as a whole at that point so I might've not paid enough attention or simply have forgotten that there was confusion about it. I bet the whole Moby Dick Studios thing didn't help the casual observer understand what the hell was going on though.

I only got both MGSV games when Phantom Pain was already out and I kinda agree that it probably would've sucked if I had to wait one and a half years to pay The Phantom Pain after Ground Zeroes.

jambola460d ago

I'm sorry what now?
Who expected that?
If it was meant to be episodic or an experiment for that, the price should / would have reflected that

MadLad460d ago (Edited 460d ago )

To be fair, there really wasn't enough content to actually justify even the smaller price tag. It was still half the cost of a full game, yet a 20th of the content.

I can't stand these paid glorified demos.

CrimsonWing69459d ago

Honestly, it was basically similar to the FF15 Duscae demo. My theory is he was taking too damn long to make a game and Konami was like, “Sell what you got!” It just has kind of a scummy corporate “let’s sell this demo for half the price of a full game,” feel to it.

That’s just my take on it. I love Kojima and I love the MGS series, but this and 5 were the biggest let downs, ever. Clearly unfinished work forced out because, in Konami’s defense, Kojima was going over budget and taking forever on the project.

MIDGETonSTILTS17460d ago

Lol, I loved Ground Zeroes, but releasing that level at $40 during a dryspell for games at the onset of the new gen was an obvious cash grab.

I handed over my money happily, but plenty of non-diehard fans were understandably letdown by the scale of what $40 bought them.

Chocoburger459d ago

The price was originally $40 for the physical PS4 and XBO versions, but due to controversy it dropped down to $30 before launch. And as much as I love GZ, and even bought it twice, I do agree that $30 was too much. It should have launched at $20.

https://kotaku.com/konami-c...

staticall460d ago

I don't know how about anyone else. But i've bought it for $20 1 week after release (or $15, don't remember the exact exchange rate) and spent 24 hours beating every mission and getting all the steam achievements. I was 100% aware what the game was about beforehand though and i did enjoy every second of it. I knew it was a work in progress and it was probably the best and less restrictive game i've played in a long time (and controls were just perfect).

Even previous MGS games didn't gave me that much freedom as Ground Zeroes did.
Love stealth? Got you covered.
Want to speedrun? Here's the timer.
Wanna kill everyone? No problem, grab that AK then and let's party.
Wanna cause chaos? Just tell Pequod where to land.
Love to drive? Then go ahead.
Miss Raiden? Then play as him.

I wish they would continue MGSV, finish remaining chapters and add more missions as DLCs, there was SO many options... A poor man still can dream...

Show all comments (15)
370°

Metal Gear Solid V Is The Greatest Stealth Game Ever Made

Hideo Kojima was dealing with a hostile publisher who was pulling his team’s game apart at the seams in order to launch in some form of finished state, and it’s still downright masterful. Everything about it is mechanically focused and aesthetically nuanced, and not a single thing feels out of place or without purpose. Big Boss moves about each environment with a pace that provides the perfect cadence to use all manner of gadgets in whatever ways you like.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
Mobis-New-Nest631d ago

You are incorrect and I will be taking this time to correct you. The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker Forsaken Fortress is stealth that no game has yet to match. Having Link, crawl, sneak and hide under a barrel is innovative stealth that Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell, Thief and Tenchu wish they had achieved. I rest my case.

ChubbyBlade631d ago

Cardboard box beats barrel

631d ago
got_dam631d ago

Lol I see what you did there.

fr0sty631d ago

So tired of opinion pieces... I come here for hot news, not hot takes.

-Foxtrot631d ago

Shit Metal Gear Solid game though

It's boring, empty, repetitive

Great mechanics and gameplay but it's just so dull....

632d ago
Chard632d ago

I played it long after the hype had settled, and I had a blast with it. Strip away the disappointment over what it could have been, and you're still left with a great game

porkChop632d ago

The gameplay loop was phenomenal, no question. From a gameplay standpoint it's an incredible stealth game.

porkChop632d ago

"Hideo Kojima was dealing with a hostile publisher who was pulling his team’s game apart at the seams in order to launch in some form of finished state, and it’s still downright masterful."

Let's not pretend Kojima was entirely innocent there. The game was 5+ years into development, way over budget, and wasn't even halfway done. That's why Chapter 2 is so unfinished and Chapter 3 was scrapped entirely. He was wasting time micromanaging and second-guessing everything his team was doing, and little to no progress was being made. The same thing happened with MGS: Rising. That's why the game got rebooted as MGR: Revengeance and was handed off to Platinum. That's the only way the game was going to get finished. And yet after wasting millions on a scrapped game, MGR only went on to sell a little over 1 million units. It was a failure no matter how you look at it.

That's why Kojima was "locked away" in his office for the final 6 months of development of MGSV. So the team could actually piece together and finish the game. Was Konami just supposed to let Kojima spend more than a decade with infinite funds to make one game? Kojima isn't Rockstar, his games don't sell 170+ million units. At some point the game has to come out.

I get that Konami are a garbage company but they aren't solely responsible for what happened with Kojima. As much as I love his games and will always be a fan, MGSV was almost entirely Kojima's fault and I'm tired of people pretending that it wasn't.

MIDGETonSTILTS17632d ago

Sounds like mismanagement by Konami.

generic-user-name631d ago

Can you prove any of what you're claiming? Because I've seen Kojima build a studio and release a AAA game in 3 years with Death Stranding. All I'm seeing here are the same conspiracy theories that people like to believe to confirm their biases towards certain people, same with Neil Druckmann. For instance, MGSV may have been in development for a while but you leave out that he was also having the FOX Engine developed alongside it, an engine so good that MGSV ran at 60fps on a PS4.

He's gone on record disputing that he ever goes over budget on very rarely has to delay his titles.

"He was wasting time micromanaging and second-guessing everything his team was doing, and little to no progress was being made."

Where did you get this from?

631d ago
Workshyskiver632d ago

Best gameplay of the series hand down, its not even close. Worst story in the series hand down, its not even close.

Ezio2048632d ago

But that ending though with amazing music. The Man who sold the world.

1Victor632d ago

I can’t say it’s the best or the worse to me I stopped playing metal gear at the end of 4 the official end of the snakes saga and the best in my book was 3 snake eater excellent gameplay and excellent story telling giving us the reason for big boss to go and create his own country before the metal gear saga on the 4-8 bits consoles.

Show all comments (66)