When you see scores for Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes this week, don't be surprised if they're lower than anticipated. Length is a serious issue.
I seriously just wish that websites would act mature and judge the game for what it is, not for what it should be. So what if the game's short? Stop whining about it. Enjoy the time that you had playing the game, an then review that. It's that simple. (Clearly, not simple enough for most sites to understand, though. Lol)
Actually, it really isn't that simple and "judge the game for what it is, not for what it should be" is a huge part of reviewing anything. I mean, if this was true, then a lot of complaints would be rendered invalid. Like, Ninja Gaiden 3 originally only had a sword (versus previous games that had several weapons). Now, are you going to tell me that I can't complain about this, that this is irrelevant because I am not allowed to review it for "what it should be"? Same sort of deal here. It's a perfectly valid complaint to say the game is underwhelming if you don't think it has enough content and vice versa. The important thing is not what you say, but why you say it. I mean, if this is a game I can get all the trophies / 100% and finish all the story in a couple of hours, then I think the claims are perfectly valid. I also think it's immature to take off 5+ points for being short, but I would accept a review in the 6/7 range if they found it underwhelming / not worth the price. However, this is one of the problems we have in the industry. When games do something deemed extremely wrong, the game usually becomes an example for what people think and gets extremely low scores that might not be completely grounded.
A game review is a recommendation. I think most reviewers will have a hard time recommending that their readers purchase something if, deep down, they feel like it's overpriced. I disagree with you whole-heartedly. Value is an important part of the equation.
I think people should know by now whether or not they should buy the game. It's common knowledge that the game is short. If that bothers you then skip buying the game. If your a mgs fan and want to spend 30 or 20 dollars on it then buy it.
Although the price of the game is disappointing i don't think it should be the main reason for all the low scores it is getting. It may be short but there is no denying the high quality of the game regardless of length. It didn't cost Kojima & Konami nothing to make the game, the budget had to come from somewhere. So some of these low review scores harping on the price is a little unfair knowing the majority of these reviewers got free copies to do so. If you are a fan of MGS people are gonna buy it, for those who are new to the series the price of the game may be a detterent. If so wait for the Phantom Pain 2-3 years from now.
Never was big into MGS 1-3 but I did play MGS4 from beginning to end & it was fun,was curious about GZ but after learning it was just a 1 to 4 hr demo I bought FF-X,X-2 HD & Yaiba NGZ & I'm having a blast.I would think if you're going to spend 30 & up for a game it should be well worth it especially the length of playing the game.
You can beat the game in 30min, so I just watched it on YouTube, now I know how GZ ended.
I beat the main mission in 90min. Following that was a 45min mission, Then 16min, And then 40min mission. I might be forgetting one, and I don't have Deja Vu unlocked. But I plan on beating these many more times. Spent all day on this game and love it. Not saying it's for everyone, but the quality of the game is high. And the replay factor (for me) is very high. It's the best stealth game I've play in a very long time.
Mgs2 demo was free and you can play that a pretty good amount of time, imma wait till this game is cheap.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.