Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain

So far, reviews are pretty split. Examiner gave it a 1/5 in their review and also had an article up explaining why this is a scam. Curiously, both articles were taken down.

Famitsu gave it 38/40 which is less than the perfect score they gave MGS3 and 4.

Gamekyo have it a 4/10. Apparently, they beat the main story in 25 minutes rushing through. I've heard a few other accounts saying similar. There are 4(?) side missions (and they boil down to fedex missions) which extends this to 1:30 hrs. All these missions take place on Camp Omega (which we've all seen a ton of already). I've read one account of someone being able to do an 18 minute speed run.

A lot of people are also talking about how this is some of the most convoluted MGS story aspects they've ever encountered, but I've always liked that about MGS.

Most also agree that this is basically a glorified demo that should not be a $30 game. Even $10 is apparently pushing it, because its the same length as the MGS2 demo (and leaves off on a really bs cliffhanger apparently).

Also disappointing is how much they nerfed the mechanics:

Before you start piecing together its detailed systems, you'll notice that the basic mechanics and design have been minimized since MGS4, a decision that's sure to be divisive. You no longer have a camouflage percent dictating how hidden you are, so you'll have to rely on trial and error to gauge the effect things like darkness and shrubbery have on your concealment. Snake also doesn't have a "stamina" or "psyche" meter this time around, nor does he have a radar. Instead, players must zoom in with binoculars to "tag" enemies, making their movements visible even behind walls.

The good news is that it takes work to unlock the console exclusive missions meaning you'll have to do a lot of searching and hunting. That will add some replayability. The entire game has a ton of tactical elements bring a great amount of replayability to the entire experience too.

In a lot of ways, there's really a lot to Ground Zeroes. Its small scale is more than compensated for by its robust depth, but its conclusion is anticlimactic, despite its bombastic and lengthy denouement cutscene being exciting in and of itself. Indeed the biggest issue with Ground Zeroes isn't its length: it's a lack of closure.

So Ground Zeroes is hardly essential, but it accomplishes what it set out to do in giving players a taste of how a more open-ended Metal Gear adventure might feel. Its wealth of strategies and secrets unearth plenty of tactical treasure for those willing to dig - something the premium price deviously encourages. Those expecting a full game are going to be disappointed, however - Ground Zeroes does feel like a very expensive demo. But it's also a very, very good one.

Can't they just give a review on the experience itself for what it is, and then do its value for money separately? These reviews aren't really going to tell me anything except that the game is too short I'm thinking.

I agree, but there is a limit. $30 for a 25 minute story and 4 side missions (3 fedex style, one action oriented) is kind of something they should report. It shouldn't effect the overall score, but it should be a pretty big point to mention. I'm too much of an MGS fanboy to not get this no matter what the reviews are, but it still feels like a haymaker to the nuts.

I dont think nerf is a good word for the gameplay mechanics.

They clearly changed the mechanics because they didn't make sense. Removing the stealth meter is not nerfing it. In fact, I would suspect it would be harder without the meter telling you that your alright.

How is removing your radar nerfing? Or, having to find darkness and shrubbery instead of relying on a meter? Tagging enemies and then allowing you to see through is nerfing but mostly every game does it now.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
So far, reviews are pretty split. Examiner gave it a 1/5 in their review and also had an article up explaining why this is a scam. Curiously, both articles were taken down.

The "review" was a joke. It was about a paragraph long and spoiled the ending.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this. I saw a playthrough of the Deja Vu mission and it took the player 40 min to complete it even though he had already done so previously.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I dont think nerf is a good word for the gameplay mechanics.

They clearly changed the mechanics because they didn't make sense. Removing the stealth meter is not nerfing it. In fact, I would suspect it would be harder without the meter telling you that your alright.

How is removing your radar nerfing? Or, having to find darkness and shrubbery instead of relying on a meter? Tagging enemies and then allowing you to see through is nerfing but mostly every game does it now.

Switching from a life bar and psyche gauge (both of which you had to keep an eye on/keep control of, and both of which were given to bosses too) to regenerating health is a pretty big downgrade.

Removing a radar is not nerfing, admittedly. Especially when you can pull up the map in real time, which is like controlling when your radar is on screen or off. I can live with this one.

Tagging enemies and slo-mo whenever you get caught to kill them if your quick are also massive nerfs. Luckily, these can both be turned off, so this isn't terrible.

Overall, a lot of their choices take away from the stealth more than they add to it.

It might a cool mechanic with the gauge but it's not considered nerfing.

Just one and a half more hours until gamestop opens!

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Just one and a half more hours until gamestop opens!

lol I would appreciate a full report of the length of the game. Its cheap enough but I would like to have an idea what I would be paying for.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
lol I would appreciate a full report of the length of the game. Its cheap enough but I would like to have an idea what I would be paying for.

About 70 minutes for me doing a nonlethal no alerts play-through on normal.

That's just the main campaign though. Plenty more to do after

Comparatively, 70 minutes is spent on deciding a name and face for a Skyrim character. So far, not worth the money. I also heard some rather surprising and disappointing spoilers regarding the ending.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Comparatively, 70 minutes is spent on deciding a name and face for a Skyrim character. So far, not worth the money. I also heard some rather surprising and disappointing spoilers regarding the ending.

Another way to look at it is that you spend 30 dollars to own a bluray movie for 1:30 hrs of entertainment.This game is justified because of all the unlockables and side content in my opinion. I've spent hours looking for the XOF patches alone (I haven't even touched the side missions, I'm just searching ground zeroes for the patches). Camp Omega has been a blast to explore too. I think this game will stretch well into 8-10 hours, and it really does have tons of replayability.

I also remember Vanquish being a 4 hour 60 dollar game, and no one docked it for that. That game didn't have any replayability at all.

Reviews for this game have been pretty good too. The majority of the reviews that dock points are for reasons like the length, but they usually mention the replayability which is through the roof.

I wasn't sure if this was a wise choice when I bought it, but this was worth every penny.

I think one of the issues is that it's clearly a money grab. So the campaign is 70 minutes long.

Then why isn't it part of Phantom Pain? Hell, some games turtorial/prologue campaigns are that long.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Another way to look at it is that you spend 30 dollars to own a bluray movie for 1:30 hrs of entertainment.

Good point.

The issue seems to be that people seem to be in accordance with the standardized pricing of video games, and use game length (for a single playthrough of the campaign) to measure a game's value against it, which imo is a reflection of the flaws in how people perceive value in games.

H4H (hour for hour), a MGS game simply offers a far greater experience than anything else out there. Hollywood movie like production values, extremely original, epic, emotional and intriguing storytelling, and inventive and highly polished gameplay. It's a level of art and entertainment beyond pretty much any other series out there.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Good point.

The issue seems to be that people seem to be in accordance with the standardized pricing of video games, and use game length (for a single playthrough of the campaign) to measure a game's value against it, which imo is a reflection of the flaws in how people perceive value in games.

H4H (hour for hour), a MGS game simply offers a far greater experience than anything else out there. Hollywood movie like production values, extremely original, epic, emotional and intriguing storytelling, and inventive and highly polished gameplay. It's a level of art and entertainment beyond pretty much any other series out there.

Not really. I don't come from European royalty so I don't buy full priced Blu-Ray discs. I buy media when it's on sale or the price has come down, or I Red Box.

Replaying a game to "be really good at it" is kind of a lame replay value method for a series that has built a reputation on story building.

I agree.

It's a cash grab. The technology and assets would are probably being used in Phantom Pain as well. Ten years ago, this game would of been part of Phantom Pain but Konami knows that people will pay $30 bucks to play it. This should be $15 bucks at most. Some Mass Effect DLC is longer than it.

Also, the Blu Ray analogy is not a good one. In most cases, the people who pay $30 bucks for a Blu Ray have already seen it. They know what they are getting and are buying the movie because they want to watch it again.

EDIT: If EA did this, or done it already, people would flip their shit. Especially for a well beloved franchise like Metal Gear.

it is really $30 this game elsewhere?

**** were getting ripped off here, We're paying $50 for it.

I simply care more about the quality of experience than I do the length. I would happily pay the same price for Portal 1 that I would for a Halo game. In fact I would argue that there is more value in Portal 1 alone than the entire Halo series.

To those who have now played it, would you say the Tanker chapter of MGS2 is longer?

Edit - Or even the Virtuous Mission in MGS3 or Act 1 of MGS4?

Im interested in hearing this argument about Portal 1 > Entire Halo franchise.

PS - Normally I would buy a MGS without any hesitation, but I spent over a thousand bucks spoiling myself with tech goodies and I can't convince myself to pay for it. I'll probably just rent it now and buy it a later time when the price drops. And I think it will drop pretty fast.