Metal Gear Solid 5 (Ground Zeros] ....completed in 2 HOURS!

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if having 3 near identical assault rifles was overkill then what do you call 70 of them?

I never once said it was overkill. I think there are people here dragging in arguments about MGS4 which I never discussed and are implying that I am in total defense of the game as a whole.
Lets get the facts correct; there are not 70 assault rifles in the game, there are 70 weapons in the game which I clearly stated, there about 15 assault rifles, then there are sub machine guns / pistols / shotguns / rifles / missile launchers and all function in different ways.

Deleted User wrote: »

I love the mgs series but retr0 is spot on. Far too much ham fisted nonsensical cut scenes(even for a mgs game)far too many weapons and gadgets and hardly any gameplay.
The boss battles are rubbish compared to previous games and all the nostalgia in the world can't cover up the lack of actual quality gameplay.
I've only replayed it once or twice, I've lost count of how many times I've replayed mgs1/mgs3.

I also could not stand some of the overlong cut-scenes and I have already stated that I wish there was a way to disable them on second play-through but as far as game-play is concerned I have outlined the reasons why I enjoyed it and in particular the sections that I mentioned in my original posts.

Burky126 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind MGS4 if the cutscenes were any good,which looking back on now,they weren't. It doesn't justify the short gameplay.

To point out also; MGS 3: I myself have beaten the game in under 5 hours (total game-play only, skipping cutscenes), I could hardly manage 6 with MGS4 when skipping cut-scenes.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Take Resident Evil 4, for instance. Look at the 4 handguns (exclude the magums). They obviously have common attributes, being handguns but each gun feels completely different and are suited to different play styles. I never got the AMD-65 in MGS3 but I remember both the AK and the M16. I remember the AK-47 was horribly inaccurate when the trigger was held down while the M16 felt more refined. That's fine. It's this COD style of doing things which annoys me.

Here is the AK in MGS4, depending on which way he moves, if he is crouched or prown, if he burst fires or sprays. This is no way a COD style of doing things.

brady12

Played through all side missions today.. Going through everything again now on hard..' Here's to you ' is some song I could listen to it al day.. Kohima simply a genuis

brady12

*kojima

ancapailldorcha

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Here is the AK in MGS4, depending on which way he moves, if he is crouched or prown, if he burst fires or sprays. This is no way a COD style of doing things.

I was referring to the massive selection of generic, near identical weapons though that was the least of the game's problems.

B.A._Baracus

Yeah. MGS4 wasnt the best. There was just something missing from it or it just didnt gel together. Easily the weakest out of all 4 metal gear (console) games.

Ape Lincoln

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Polar opposite. I have clocked over 5 hours with GZ and still not finished, loving it. I thought MGS4 was so bad I just quit about halfway through. The camera in GZ is perfect imo, not sure what difficulty you had with it, it was seemless for me. There was never even a moment that I couldnt see what I was doing, or couldnt place the camera where I wanted it.

So yeah, there ya go!

The cover system in GZ is utterly dire. Instead of pressing an action button to enter cover, you have to walking towards the wallx container or whatever. They removed the ability to roll though the dive button is nice but unfinished - you dive and when you move the left stick Snake stands up, urgh. When carrying a body and crouching the camera goes all wonky.

SouthTippBass

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

The cover system in GZ is utterly dire. Instead of pressing an action button to enter cover, you have to walking towards the wallx container or whatever. They removed the ability to roll though the dive button is nice but unfinished - you dive and when you move the left stick Snake stands up, urgh. When carrying a body and crouching the camera goes all wonky.

Sorry, I disagree. I found the cover system in GZ to be more smooth and natural, instead of having to press a button to enter cover, Snake just does it for me himself. True, I haven't used the dive much, so I'l have to check out what you are saying about the left stick. I had no wonky camera problems when carrying bodies either.

SouthTippBass

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. I found the cover system in GZ to be more smooth and natural, instead of having to press a button to enter cover, Snake just does it for me himself. True, I haven't used the dive much, so I'l have to check out what you are saying about the left stick. I had no wonky camera problems when carrying bodies either.

Think what he is pointing out is that you have to hold down the analogue towards the wall, once you let go of the analogue he no longer sticks to it and it's just awkward.

SouthTippBass

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Think what he is pointing out is that you have to hold down the analogue towards the wall, once you let go of the analogue he no longer sticks to it and it's just awkward.

Eh, I'm confused. Are we playing the same game here? My Snake dosent do that, he sticks to the wall all by himself, no need to hold the analog stick towards it.

Otacon

Zavvi have MGSV:GZ for £19.99

SouthTippBass

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Eh, I'm confused. Are we playing the same game here? My Snake dosent do that, he sticks to the wall all by himself, no need to hold the analog stick towards it.

By leaning towards the wall with the analogue pushed forward he sticks tighter to it but once you let go he doesn't. By sticking to the wall he can move from either end like the old games and veer around the corners like you used to have to in the old games. Its just awkward the way it's implemented. It's hard to explain, a video demo would make more sense.
I understand what you say when he automatically gets close to it but he does not lean against it.

SouthTippBass

M!Ck^ wrote: »

By leaning towards the wall with the analogue pushed forward he sticks tighter to it but once you let go he doesn't. By sticking to the wall he can move from either end like the old games and veer around the corners like you used to have to in the old games. Its just awkward the way it's implemented. It's hard to explain, a video demo would make more sense.
I understand what you say when he automatically gets close to it but he does not lean against it.

Ok, I'l have to check that out at the weekend.

I picked this up for my ps4 today, just finished the main mission and I enjoyed it. It looks fantastic, the gameplay is good fun.
My only complaint is Kiefer Sutherland, his voice is just wrong. Fortunately he doesn't speak much, although I imagine this will change in the phantom pain.

Ape Lincoln

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Eh, I'm confused. Are we playing the same game here? My Snake dosent do that, he sticks to the wall all by himself, no need to hold the analog stick towards it.

As Mick said, it's a bit hard to explain. Out of curiosity did you play the previous two games? Snake Eater and Guns of the Patriots? I thought the cover system worked much better in those games. In fact overall movement of Snake was better. I'm struggling to see anything in the Ground Zeroes that's new or improved or worth writing home about. Admittedly I'm playing it on PS3.

With this new "diving" to the ground thing you can make Snake appear to fly by jumping off of a high surface. Looks a wee bit daft.

Ape Lincoln

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

As Mick said, it's a bit hard to explain. Out of curiosity did you play the previous two games? Snake Eater and Guns of the Patriots? I thought the cover system worked much better in those games. In fact overall movement of Snake was better. I'm struggling to see anything in the Ground Zeroes that's new or improved or worth writing home about. Admittedly I'm playing it on PS3.

With this new "diving" to the ground thing you can make Snake appear to fly by jumping off of a high surface. Looks a wee bit daft.

Again the diving would make more sense if Snake stayed prone but he just automatically gets back up so it's just gimmicky and serves no real purpose towards the actual game-play.

SouthTippBass

M!Ck^ wrote: »

By leaning towards the wall with the analogue pushed forward he sticks tighter to it but once you let go he doesn't. By sticking to the wall he can move from either end like the old games and veer around the corners like you used to have to in the old games. Its just awkward the way it's implemented. It's hard to explain, a video demo would make more sense.
I understand what you say when he automatically gets close to it but he does not lean against it.

Hey, I had a good blast of GZ last night and I tried this out. Nope, Snake can't get any closer to the wall, once I get close enough Snake snaps to cover but thats it. Pushing the analog stick won't make him get any closer. Although I do understand the peek system a little better now for messing around with it, and I think it works fine.

SouthTippBass

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

As Mick said, it's a bit hard to explain. Out of curiosity did you play the previous two games? Snake Eater and Guns of the Patriots? I thought the cover system worked much better in those games. In fact overall movement of Snake was better. I'm struggling to see anything in the Ground Zeroes that's new or improved or worth writing home about. Admittedly I'm playing it on PS3.

With this new "diving" to the ground thing you can make Snake appear to fly by jumping off of a high surface. Looks a wee bit daft.

I'v played Metal Gear Solid (amazing) Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly the worst game I'v ever played) Metal Gear Solid 3 (In my top ten best games ever) and I got halfway through Metal Gear Solid 4 before giving up. It wasn't bad, but it just couldn't hold my interest.
Ground Zeros is an open world Metal Gear game that actually works extremely well. I think thats worth writing home about. In fact, I think the open world format works so well for the game, that it would be hard to imagine Metal Gear being anything else from now on.

Kerplunk124

#TeamKiefer
I just can't imagine Hayter's voice suiting the direction that the game seems to be going

nullzero

SouthTippBass wrote: »

I'v played Metal Gear Solid (amazing) Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly the worst game I'v ever played) Metal Gear Solid 3 (In my top ten best games ever) and I got halfway through Metal Gear Solid 4 before giving up. It wasn't bad, but it just couldn't hold my interest.
Ground Zeros is an open world Metal Gear game that actually works extremely well. I think thats worth writing home about. In fact, I think the open world format works so well for the game, that it would be hard to imagine Metal Gear being anything else from now on.

Hang on a minute, MGS 2 pissed a lot of people off but it was a brilliant game with solid mechanics and in a industry of cloned crappy games it took risks, risks that had mixed results but if more games took the risks Kojima took in MGS2 you'd have a.much more interesting games industry.

2Mad2BeMad

SouthTippBass wrote: »

I'v played Metal Gear Solid (amazing) Metal Gear Solid 2 (possibly the worst game I'v ever played) Metal Gear Solid 3 (In my top ten best games ever) and I got halfway through Metal Gear Solid 4 before giving up. It wasn't bad, but it just couldn't hold my interest.
Ground Zeros is an open world Metal Gear game that actually works extremely well. I think thats worth writing home about. In fact, I think the open world format works so well for the game, that it would be hard to imagine Metal Gear being anything else from now on.

I loved metal gear solid 2 dunno why alot of people hated it, Personally one of my favourite metal gears

I also liked 4 too some extent, those cut scenes were killers though, I wouldn't even call them cut scenes I'd call them episodes

Timmyctc

MGS2 is the best received MGS game fwiw. Got hours of enjoyment from it. Felt the story was god awful. Lalelulilo, Shalaskahalshalsahsa etc etc. The Plant part was really good but Kojima lost the run of himself with the story. And the ending made absolutely no sense because of the deleted scenes post 9/11. Great gameplay and mechanics though. MGS3 & MGS1 the pick of the bunch though.

SouthTippBass

Hey, sorry guys, I understand there is a lot of love for MGS2, but that game just didn't do it for me. The opening tanker mission was really interesting, but the rest of the game was just terrible, running from one identicle location to the next, back and forth back and forth through the same environments. There was some moments in there all right, with hints of greatness, but only fleeting. Then that ending, wtf? Didn't make a lick of sense, and just confirmed what I was feeling through most of the game, that I wasted my time.

Ape Lincoln

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I loved metal gear solid 2 dunno why alot of people hated it

One reason: Raiden!

Personally, I loved MGS2 at the time. I had only played MGS1 in about 2000 a few years after it came out so MGS2 I played as soon as it was released and I really enjoyed it. In hindsight it's not great and I've always looked at it as a kind of remake of the first one but it includes PS2 gen gameplay ie. FPS etc.

I've not looked at much reaction towards Ground Zeroes outside of this thread and a review in the Guardian but is the overall reaction positive? I can't really see what other people are seeing in it. How is it 'open world'?

Burky126

nullzero wrote: »

Hang on a minute, MGS 2 pissed a lot of people off but it was a brilliant game with solid mechanics and in a industry of cloned crappy games it took risks, risks that had mixed results but if more games took the risks Kojima took in MGS2 you'd have a.much more interesting games industry.

It's only now I appreciate MGS2 more.There is way more than meets the eye than what most detractors think. Granted,there is a lot of problems with its storytelling and character development but the last thing you can say about it is that it's a generic 'mess.'

It strived to create a new narrative that hadn't been seen in games before that was bold and subversive,a slap in the face towards the expectations a video game sequel was and still is, meant to accomplish. The backlash it recieved is evidence that audiences still have an immature perception of video games,wanting just the same experience that they're used to but with more violence and less of what made MGS so great top begin with. This is evident with the relevation that the Big Shell was a recreation of Shadow Moses as revealed by Ocelot and in the Arsenal Gear section of the game,were the game literally deconstructs itself and you end up gunning down Tengu soldiers with Snake.

Kojima used MGS2 as a mouthpiece to vent some of his frustrations with being forced with death threats to do the sequel in the first place and wanted to break familar conventions with games.

For 2002,this was a highly ambitious idea that unfortunately went over many people's heads.

It was a flawed experiment but it made MGS2 all that more interesting.

snausages

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri goes over a lot of the same themes MGS2 did years later.

SouthTippBass

Burky126 wrote: »

It's only now I appreciate MGS2 more.There is way more than meets the eye than what most detractors think. Granted,there is a lot of problems with its storytelling and character development but the last thing you can say about it is that it's a generic 'mess.'

It strived to create a new narrative that hadn't been seen in games before that was bold and subversive,a slap in the face towards the expectations a video game sequel was and still is, meant to accomplish. The backlash it recieved is evidence that audiences still have an immature perception of video games,wanting just the same experience that they're used to but with more violence and less of what made MGS so great top begin with. This is evident with the relevation that the Big Shell was a recreation of Shadow Moses as revealed by Ocelot and in the Arsenal Gear section of the game,were the game literally deconstructs itself and you end up gunning down Tengu soldiers with Snake.

Kojima used MGS2 as a mouthpiece to vent some of his frustrations with being forced with death threats to do the sequel in the first place and wanted to break familar conventions with games.

For 2002,this was a highly ambitious idea that unfortunately went over many people's heads.

It was a flawed experiment but it made MGS2 all that more interesting.

Its great to be ambitious, break conventions, be a trailblazer or whatever, but MGS2 just wasn't fun, that's what the problem was.

Burky126

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Its great to be ambitious, break conventions, be a trailblazer or whatever, but MGS2 just wasn't fun, that's what the problem was.

It has the exact same gameplay as MGS except it had added features which included a much needed improvement to first person. Was that in itself what you found to be the problem or was it certain sections in the game? Bosses?

My only gripe with the gameplay was the Emma sections of the game. Navigating through the underwater sections made me quit the game on my first run through. Also had a problem with the Fatman boss.Good idea,bad execution.

snausages

MGS2's plant section had lots of padding, backtracking and was just plain boring outside of boss fights.

Burky126

snausages wrote: »

MGS2's plant section had lots of padding, backtracking and was just plain boring outside of boss fights.

The only backtracking was mainly done through Shell 1,which had variation between each room.The bridges connecting them contained events or new elements (the ciphers,mines,guards on lookout patrol.) Like MGS,it tried to make the most of the elements that were included due to the size of the disc.

Shell 2 is hardly explorable yet people complain that Shell 2 was a wasted opportunity.If Shell 2 was fully explorable in the game,you'd probably have to do more backtracking!