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

TheDoc

Have no intention of buying this and not really following it. Is it a sort of beta release for a new upcoming MGS title, or just a completely isolated release to showcase MGs on next gen?

I loved the early MGS titles, but only ever got around to playing 1 and 2.

PIcked up a PS3 there last year, is there any MGS titles worth buying for PS3?

I think that had they included a €10 off code or voucher for the final game with this it would entice far more people to pick it up. I really want to play it but I'm not prepared to pay €30 for a demo. People keep saying that there's so many side missions but all they do is reuse the location and asserts from the main game and can be done in under 15 minutes. €30 for a game that can be cleared in under 3 hours just seems like a cash grab. It's a dangerous precedent and while I believe that a game should only be as long as it needs to be that doesn't apply here. I've no issue with paying €15 for a 90 minute indie title but I do when it's the prologue to a AAA title that will set me back a further €60 a year from now.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Have no intention of buying this and not really following it. Is it a sort of beta release for a new upcoming MGS title, or just a completely isolated release to showcase MGs on next gen?

I loved the early MGS titles, but only ever got around to playing 1 and 2.

PIcked up a PS3 there last year, is there any MGS titles worth buying for PS3?

MGS Collection is great, includes MGS2, MGS3 Snake Eater (Epic) & Peace Walker i think.

Gamer Bhoy 89

I regret selling off my PS3 because now I really want the Legacy Collection after playing GZ. I might just re-buy the HD Collection on 360.

Retr0gamer

ironictoaster wrote: »

I kinda felt empty after completing ground zeroes. I really don't see what the phantom pain can add to the MGS universe since MGS4 tied everything up.

If it's not a pile of ****e like MGS4 then I'll be happy.

Burky126

TheDoc wrote: »

I loved the early MGS titles, but only ever got around to playing 1 and 2.

Definitely pick up the legacy collection for MGS 3,it's the best one! A whole different ball game than 2.

Azza

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If it's not a pile of ****e like MGS4 then I'll be happy.

Can I thank this post more than once.

Ape Lincoln

I got the Legacy Collection recently. One disc is the HD collectiok and the other is MGS 4 Guns of Patriots. The first MGS and VR Missions is a download code - you should be able to get these on PS1 in Rage for a tener and check Xtravision for HD collection and Patriots secondhand.

I finished GZ main mission in 18 minutes. Thoroughly dissapointed with the game, not because of the length or sparse story but the gameplay just didn't excite me. There's things from the MGS 4 gameplay that they removed, peaking around corners for instance is a pain in the ass and the camera is v. annoying.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If it's not a pile of ****e like MGS4 then I'll be happy.

If you hated Patriots that much then you will probably hate Ground Zeroes.

SouthTippBass

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

I finished GZ main mission in 18 minutes. Thoroughly dissapointed with the game, not because of the length or sparse story but the gameplay just didn't excite me. There's things from the MGS 4 gameplay that they removed, peaking around corners for instance is a pain in the ass and the camera is v. annoying.

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!

Retr0gamer

From what I heard of GZ it lets you play around in the world and have fun, exactly what mgs4 was missing so I'm hoping its good when I get around to it.

ironictoaster

Retr0gamer wrote: »

From what I heard of GZ it lets you play around in the world and have fun, exactly what mgs4 was missing so I'm hoping its good when I get around to it.

I'm surprised how well an open world works with this game, I was quite hesitant after seeing the E3 trailer last year. It's not like other games that say its open world/free to complete the mission the way you want, but in reality it's just linear in disguise. I'm looking at you hitman absolution!

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

From what I heard of GZ it lets you play around in the world and have fun, exactly what mgs4 was missing so I'm hoping its good when I get around to it.

Not sure what MGS4 you were playing;
I spent nearly 4 hours in one section in MGS4 messing around, sneaking, sniping, shooting down helicopters, getting factions to fight each other etc..

Retr0gamer

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not sure what MGS4 you were playing;
I spent nearly 4 hours in one section in MGS4 messing around, sneaking, sniping, shooting down helicopters, getting factions to fight each other etc..

Which is fun. When it lets you do that. There's maybe 3 or 4 tiny areas that let you do that and even then the amount of gadgets you have to play around with is severely reduced so that it's no where near as fun as previous games. After the first 2 chapters that completely dries up.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Which is fun. When it lets you do that. There's maybe 3 or 4 tiny areas that let you do that and even then the amount of gadgets you have to play around with is severely reduced so that it's no where near as fun as previous games. After the first 2 chapters that completely dries up.

There is a total of 70 weapons nearly all with custom parts.
The gadgets include; The Metal Gear Mk. II, The OctoCamo, The Solid Eye, Cardboard Box, Drum Can, Signal Interceptor, Camera, iPod, Playboy Magazine & not to mention about 7 different types of grenades which is very close to Snake Eaters count. I could go on all day with the amount of flexibility in the combat.

There are 5+ areas (come on there not tiny) in Acts 1 + 2.
GZ Map is small probably accounts for 2 areas max.
If only you could disable the cut-scenes after first play-through in MGS4

Retr0gamer

And nearly all 70 of those weapons pretty much do the same thing, spit out bullets and only change in their rate of fire and damge per bullet. Yawn. Other MGS games had a much smaller selection of weapons but were more interesting.

Again the fact you can list all those gadgets says something. It's a big step back from previous games and their uses again are no where near as interesting as previous games. There might be 5+ areas in those chapters but they are pretty small and only a few are interesting to play in. When the human enemies disappear the enemies that replace them are boring with less scope to play around with them. Boss battles were mediocre as well.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And nearly all 70 of those weapons pretty much do the same thing, spit out bullets and only change in their rate of fire and damge per bullet. Yawn. Other MGS games had a much smaller selection of weapons but were more interesting.

Again the fact you can list all those gadgets says something. It's a big step back from previous games and their uses again are no where near as interesting as previous games. There might be 5+ areas in those chapters but they are pretty small and only a few are interesting to play in. When the human enemies disappear the enemies that replace them are boring with less scope to play around with them. Boss battles were mediocre as well.

Think personal opinion is taking precedence here, All the weapons were interesting and all with customization. You may have enjoyed it more to find the weapons yourself in the other MGS games rather than have the drebin shop and chose the type of weapon you wanted. Probably where we differ.
MGS4 has a near equal amount of gadgets as MGS3.
Boss battles I admit I preferred them in Snake Eater (The best) and MGS 1,
although I really enjoyed VAMP, Metal Gear Ray, Screaming Mantis & Liquid Ocelot.

The 3 possessed woman bosses were not great.

Retr0gamer

In previous MGS games each weapon had it's on little quirks and each had a purpose in the game and a role that defined it.

In MGS4 nearly all the weapons fulfil the same role making them mostly redundant.

MGS4 might have had the same amount of gadgets as MGS3 but they weren't as interesting to use. In the other games there were far more systems to interact with and play around with that gave the player a lot of options and choices.

MGS4 seemed to go with a quantity over quality approach but without the underlying systems it meant the player actually had less choice in how they approach situations.

I also found liquid ocelot one of the worst boss fights in the series. There's no point bringing up the nostalgia argument (in my opinion it was pathetically forced just like Chapter 4 and therefore failed in that regard). As a boss fight it just didn't work and was utterly ridiculous.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

In previous MGS games each weapon had it's on little quirks and each had a purpose in the game and a role that defined it

Agree up to a point, I enjoyed finding the weapons in the older games where it could be used in the particular upcoming scenario. In MGS4 however I explored endless ways to beat a particular section by experimenting with the weapons which I really enjoyed.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

MGS4 seemed to go with a quantity over quality approach but without the underlying systems it meant the player actually had less choice in how they approach situations.

Can't agree at all, choice was limitless again relating to my point above.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I also found liquid ocelot one of the worst boss fights in the series. There's no point bringing up the nostalgia argument (in my opinion it was pathetically forced just like Chapter 4 and therefore failed in that regard). As a boss fight it just didn't work and was utterly ridiculous.

The nostalgia point is so valid, dismissing it is not. This was Solid Snakes final farewell and battle against his arch Nemesis. Slightly cliched but a great way to finish the game. The fight between them was always going to happen and would have been wrong if it didn't. Same as the Metal Gear fight in Chapter 4.

ancapailldorcha

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Agree up to a point, I enjoyed finding the weapons in the older games where it could be used in the particular upcoming scenario. In MGS4 however I explored endless ways to beat a particular section by experimenting with the weapons which I really enjoyed.


Can't agree at all, choice was limitless again relating to my point above.


The nostalgia point is so valid, dismissing it is not. This was Solid Snakes final farewell and battle against his arch Nemesis. Slightly cliched but a great way to finish the game. The fight between them was always going to happen and would have been wrong if it didn't. Same as the Metal Gear fight in Chapter 4.

I barely remember experimenting at all in MGS4. There were a few nice touches they added to the game but the thing was so short that there was barely any time to use them.
I agree with Retr0gamer regarding weapons and gadgets. I'd rather have one of each types as opposed to 20 assault rifles that barely differ from each other at all.
The game was so focused on nostalgia that it forgot it was a game. The Shadow Moses section was pitifully short. I enjoyed the final boss battle but I felt like the game was shouting "Remember the original MGS!!" over and over again.

Retr0gamer

I'd much prefer if the final boss fight was actually fun and not a load of terrible slow motion cutscenes. In that regard it utterly failed. Unfortunately it was the worst out of all the boss fights which were pretty dire as well.

I'm dismissing nostalgie because it was cheap and forced and for me wasn't effective at all. No point having a climatic boss fight like that when there's absolutely no tension in it and it was so ridiculously over the top. Compare that to MGS2's excellent final fight or MGS3 where the fight with the boss brought all the mechanics you learnt throughout the game wonderfully together. It also managed to make me care about the two participants. MGS4 was... I'm not sure what it was but the controls were wonky.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I barely remember experimenting at all in MGS4. There were a few nice touches they added to the game but the thing was so short that there was barely any time to use them.

If you didn't invest time in replaying said chapters then experimenting with said weapons never happened. If you had barely any time to use them then you only played through it once from the sounds of it. Every assault rifle sounds different, looks different, feels different and can be customized in different ways, I'm not sure what else your looking for.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd much prefer if the final boss fight was actually fun and not a load of terrible slow motion cutscenes. In that regard it utterly failed. Unfortunately it was the worst out of all the boss fights which were pretty dire as well.

I'm dismissing nostalgie because it was cheap and forced and for me wasn't effective at all. No point having a climatic boss fight like that when there's absolutely no tension in it and it was so ridiculously over the top. Compare that to MGS2's excellent final fight or MGS3 where the fight with the boss brought all the mechanics you learnt throughout the game wonderfully together. It also managed to make me care about the two participants. MGS4 was... I'm not sure what it was but the controls were wonky.

When isn't MGS over the top???? Hideo Kojima does this in nearly all of his scenes for all of the games.

Retr0gamer

M!Ck^ wrote: »

When isn't MGS over the top???? Hideo Kojima does this in nearly all of his scenes for all of the games.

There's a balancing act. It's the difference between me laughing at the strangeness of the final act of MG Rising and me playing MGS4's final boss and thinking 'this is so f*cking stupid'.

Then again if it actually worked as a decent boss fight I would have been happy. It wasn't even a fight, it might as well have been a QTE.

tok9

You could probably argue the first 3 chapters (Maybe only 2 actually) were good in MGS4 and even the last few had some moments but overall the whole game had a whole lot of tying stuff up and nostalgia which wasn't really necessary.

The biggest problem was in those last few chapters there was no experimentation really. It was extremely linear and you didn't really have a choice in what way to play. It would be like Motorbike chase.. boss fight.. small stealth area.. microwave bit... boss fight. Trying to remember it now but you know what I mean.

I still enjoyed it as a fan but it's easily the worst of the MGS games I've played.

I reckon I'll get Ground Zeroes this weekend and I'd be surprised if I didn't really enjoy it.

ancapailldorcha

M!Ck^ wrote: »

If you didn't invest time in replaying said chapters then experimenting with said weapons never happened. If you had barely any time to use them then you only played through it once from the sounds of it. Every assault rifle sounds different, looks different, feels different and can be customized in different ways, I'm not sure what else your looking for.

They might look, sound and feel different but they perform in virtually the exactly the same manner barring slight differences in damage output and rate of fire. Yes, I only played it once because the thing is so heavily reliant on nostalgia, gimmicks and horrid cutscenes that there's no reason to go back to it. Metal Gear Rising is about 4 hours long but the first thing I did when I beat it was to up the difficulty and run through it again. Same with MGS3. Why? The gameplay is excellent. It's also excellent in MGS4 but there's so little of it that it's not worth revisiting.

Burky126

tok9 wrote: »

You could probably argue the first 3 chapters (Maybe only 2 actually) were good in MGS4

I'd go as far to say the First act was the only decent one.I thought the setup for 4 was incredibly promising.Old Snake's monologue,the Middle East setting,AIs taking part on the battlefield which was foreshadowed in MGS2,meeting Meryl and the Rat Patrol team.Then how it ended,revealing Liquid Ocelot.Good start.

Act 2 wasn't bad...the first B&B wasn't terrible since it appeared to be an interesting gimmick but that got old after the first lengthy codec call with Drebin shoehorning backstory.Very badly done.

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.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They might look, sound and feel different but they perform in virtually the exactly the same manner barring slight differences in damage output and rate of fire. Yes, I only played it once because the thing is so heavily reliant on nostalgia, gimmicks and horrid cutscenes that there's no reason to go back to it. Metal Gear Rising is about 4 hours long but the first thing I did when I beat it was to up the difficulty and run through it again. Same with MGS3. Why? The gameplay is excellent. It's also excellent in MGS4 but there's so little of it that it's not worth revisiting.

There are 3 assault rifles in MGS 3; AK-47; AMD-65 & XM16E1, they are all carry the exact same attributes you speak of below I have played MGS3 to death, this argument of over the assault guns being identical is nonsense it's a video game at the end of the day, unless you want to hold a real assault rifle in your hand and determine the difference.

Retr0gamer

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

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.

ancapailldorcha

M!Ck^ wrote: »

There are 3 assault rifles in MGS 3; AK-47; AMD-65 & XM16E1, they are all carry the exact same attributes you speak of below I have played MGS3 to death, this argument of over the assault guns being identical is nonsense it's a video game at the end of the day, unless you want to hold a real assault rifle in your hand and determine the difference.

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.