After Konami's controversial release of Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeros, Jay takes aim at the company for its shady business practices and its treatment of journalists.
(These views do not represent the views of Gamers-Association as a whole.)
Gamerant
It’s crazy to think about, but the release of Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain is finally here. The game is easily one of the most highly anticipated games of the entire year, despite the recent behind-the-scenes issues between Hideo Kojima and Konami, and many gamers will be flocking to game stores to pick up the next chapter in the twisted, complicated universe that is Metal Gear.
With Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain releasing across PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, and Xbox One, we thought it would be fitting to take a look back at the games that led us to this point, and rank the entire franchise, in order to see which game holds up as the best and is the epitome of tactical espionage action.
Ranking from my perspective is
1. MGS 4 Guns of patriot (the only exclusive metal gear)
2. MGS 3 Snake eater
3. MGS 1
4. MGS 5 phantom pain
5. MGS 2
Catch up on some interesting facts before The Phantom Pain is released
The Metal Gear franchise’s storyline has been equally lauded and hated for its depth, characters, and links to real-world events. Unfortunately, the overall storyline features a number of inconsistencies that have required some creative retconning on Kojima’s part. He wasn’t, after all, thinking about working on Metal Gear for nearly 30 years in 1987.
To help catch everyone up, here's a chronological summary of the events of the Metal Gear games.
I think it's just some glorified demo which should have been free/came with TPP.
That said though, I'm hoping to hear any news about it coming bundled with TPP.
I know I will get disagrees for this post, but I'll jump in...
The biggest problem with Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes is not the length per se, but the continued misinformation surrounding the game.
"Konami’s first dishonest act occurred when it tried to sell a two hour game for $40. "
Ground Zeroes was ONLY $40 on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. The last-gen versions were $30 and the digital versions were as cheap as $20. However, we saw a lot of people take the two extremes (highest price non-CE version and CAMPAIGN length) and make a defense out of them.
As far as the game dropping in price, which only affected the next-gen version, was probably due to poor preorder numbers. Thats not surprising, since I doubt many would pay $10 - $20 more just for better graphics.
"The fact that Konami ever intended to charge $40 for Ground Zeros is downright insulting to the gamer. A two hour game does not warrant a $40 purchase. In fact, it doesn’t even warrant a $30 purchase. "
Sadly, this deals more with the hypocrisy in the gaming community than anything else. Why you ask? Well, off the top of my head I can think of two games that fall into very similar, but totally different situations.
The first is Tearaway, which is considered by many to be the best PlayStation Vita game. This title can TOTALLY be completed in 2 hours if you don't spend a lot of time exploring, getting every collectible, being artsy fartsy and just want to complete the game (this is probably close to how the GI writer played GZ). In fact, some people have gotten the platinum in around 8 hours, which is the same as doing everything the game has to offer. Now, I am not saying Tearaway is a bad game, I am just saying it isn't a long game and it's one that is largely defined by how enjoyable the experience was. The real question becomes, would people have the same outrage towards Tearaway if the game had this negative stigma or is that game special for some reason?
Another game with a similar tale is Metal Gear Rising, as that could be completed in about 2 or maybe 2 hours 40 minutes with cutscenes and cost $60. Sure, it has VR missions, just like GZ has side missions and other things to do, but people have to remember that most of this fiasco came from people seeing a time and a value and nothing else.
Long story short, I have no intention of playing GZ ( I don't like stealth games ), but I've heard many people note that the GI time was based off doing the campaign and even speed running the game in "25 minutes" like I've seen some articles claim only supposedly comes to like 20% game completion. In either case, it means nothing to take a stand against one game. If you think games should be longer, then attack every game that doesn't meet this standard, not just pick your battles here and there.
Meh. I've been hearing there's a lot of replay value with this so I don't see why a short campaign should be such a concern.
I was really looking forward to this and was just about to hit the purchase button but i did not allow myself. I really just took a thought and saw all my friends and streams saying finishing in 20 mins, and was like not happening. Ill wait for the actual game next year.
Still want Pc Version!!!