September 23, 2014
 This topic has been pinned, so it's probably important
Read from the start:
Link to newest part:

For those who aren't familiar, Mr. Wolfe's META GEAR is a Metal Gear Solid fansite filled with analysis and opinion. This Steam Group Discussion board is the most official place to talk about it, so feel free! Or if you want to ignore this, fine! Be a jerk!

I am curious what you gus think though. Was I too harsh? Did I get any details wrong? Do you think it's a fair assessment, or just a few months too late for it to be relevant to the overall discussion anymore?
< >
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
Threedogg Oct 8, 2014 @ 4:52pm 
I do think you're being a little harsh at times, or I just look at the game in a different way. In terms of content GZ was exactly what I expected it to be. From watching trailers I thought to myself: "Right, it's the opening prologue of the game, just like the tanker and virtuous mission. It's gonna be a simple objective, Snake gets screwed over, and what happens sets up the main game. Same concept we've seen in 2 and 3. I always expected it to be short, regardless of price. I had a feeling it was going to provoke the response it got coz people were naturally expecting a bigger game. I've never judged it as a full game of any kind though which is what you're trying to do. When I think about how I rate ground zeroes I always think "Do I enjoy this as much as the tanker or virtuous mission, is this as good as those?" I just see it as the short prologue, the intro to the story, and intro to the new gameplay style.

I do think it has some issues, it isn't as polished as Kojimas games usually are, more random glitches and bugs than you'd usually see. The picking up soldiers/weapons issue and cover issues are annoying and seem lazy and and too westernish almost or something. I think it's more than just bullet drop though that effects difficulty. It's the way the soldiers move when patrolling, also the way the move after being shot is more diverse than previous games and makes it more difficult to get a head shot after an initial body shot. The way soldiers move their heads around when in caution and they think they see you makes it trickier dealing with them. You find yourself wasting ammo easier trying to get shots off. When they use their flashlights to inspect when in caution makes them harder to see. But yeah, Snakes shaking hands, the bullet drop, and the soldiers varied stances and reactions add alot to the gameplay for me. The way they move the searchlights around also, it isnt robotic and the same all the time, it seems random the speed they move the lights around which is nice. Everything just seems less systematic while still being more or less scripted, I like it.

In terms of story, I really enjoy it so far, despite some va and some sillyness. I like the opening cutscene alot, the skull face/big boss mirroring is really intriguing to me and I like the way it's done, you know this from the analysis i made. Portraying SF as if he's Snake etc... The two intros for both characters. The final scene with the medic.... I enjoyed gathering the hints and all the foreshadowing. I thought you were a little harsh on the tape gathering not making sense, it didn't bother me at all. Overall I've just really enjoyed it, but I think we really need TPP to judge it as well, as so much of what happens is foreshadowing and will relate to what happens in TPP. I also like how the side ops contain little details and hints about the story too. It feels like V will all about the player piecing together the story and figuring it out more so than other games which I like.

The thing is I don't view the game at all as an average gamer who isnt an mgs lunatic. If I was just the average gamer buying GZ for $40 I'd be like wtf is this ripoff most likely.
Last edited by Threedogg; Oct 8, 2014 @ 5:02pm
Threedogg Oct 9, 2014 @ 3:28am 
The fact that the game was spoiled in trailers just kind of took away most of the excitement. I think the response would have been better if we hadnt seen as much. Imagine if the tanker was sold like GZ and we saw the opening scene a thousand times before playing, we saw most of the other scenes in trailers and saw various gameplay demos showing off all the mechanics, we already pretty much knew exactly what gz was without even playing it
Hey! Thanks for responding Threedogg.

In gameplay you raise good points about the flashlights, moving the head, and reactions. I didn't really factor that into things, but those are nice subtle ways of making the headshot routine harder. Don't they use flashlights in the daytime too though? I seem to remember laughing at that. And I suppose if you shoot enough, limited ammo could be an issue too. I have to say though, over the years I've concluded that I'll never be impressed with silenced tranquilizer headshots in an MGS game. To me it should be about cover, timing, misdirection, and "sneaking through" enemy territory, not systematically giving them zzzzz

The reason I don't judge GZ as a prologue -- and thus why I judge it harsher -- is because if it was simply the Tanker Chapter type of prologue, I'd have to judge MGSV (GZ + TPP) as a $100+ game that got released in a highly cynical and lame way. Which might very well be the most accurate way to judge it, since they do call both of them "MGSV" and it's supposed to be one overall game I suppose. I'd rather judge both separately, since -- despite what Konami tried to pull off -- it was hyped up as a game worthy to stand on its own.

I have to say though, this is one of the first times I've really "criticized" a Metal Gear game, which was interesting compared to simply "analyzing" and trying to understand what was being attempted. One of the reasons it took longer to write is because I needed to figure out how I personally felt about it, and what my standards were. Usually I'd just explain the logic of the design without tossing in my own judgment. And yes I did try to look at it as both a fan of the series, and from the average gamer's perspective who might be considering a purchase.

I had fun writing it though, hopefully it at least does a good job setting up some of the standards that I plan to use when judging The Phantom Pain.
teknx Oct 10, 2014 @ 9:16pm 
I have mixed feelings about Ground Zeroes. It was pretty much spoiled in previously released trailers (which leads me to believe that GZ being released as a separate title was an afterthought). Also the price point was too high though many people got more than 30+ hours out of it. The more casual gamer who wanted to play the game for the story and ending would have been left sorely disappointed and understandably so.
My next point doesn’t tie in exactly with GZ, but speaks to a bigger issue I have with games being revealed too early. Our first glimpse of MGS V was in 2012 and the game is set for release some time in 2015. That would be almost 3 years of waiting (excluding GZ) for the full title. Some might say that gives Kojima time to market the game and expose it to more people. But the way I see it, the longer the game is not in our hands, the higher the expectations will be when it finally comes out, which may be hard to live up to with all the hype. There is also the factor of overexposure and eventual fatigue that sets in from having to wait for so long. A part of me would have liked to be kept in the dark about TPP from the beginning and surprised by Kojima at E3 2015 announcing on stage that The Phantom Pain is available for download right now (ala PT) but that’s unrealistic in a gaming industry that spends probably as much on advertising a game as they do developing it.
Ground Zeroes’ release did have some obvious benefits not only for the fans of the series, but also for the development team. Firstly, for the fans -- the ability to play MGS V albeit in a limited fashion and get hands-on experience to see that the game really looks that good, has great controls, and is fun to play. Many players have praised GZ for its playability and controls compared to previous MGS titles.
For the developers, they were able to get an enormous amount of feedback that will inevitably make TPP a much better title. One stark example of invaluable feedback is the ridiculous amount of dialogue coming from Kaz in GZ. Thankfully, Kojima has acknowledged this issue and stated it will be fixed in TPP. Had GZ never come out, I’m afraid to think how such excessive dialogue could have become a real point of annoyance for gamers.
Hey thanks for replying Teknx! Yeah the spoilers were a big deal to me, because even the base layout was no longer something to discover!

You're right about expectations too. It's dangerous to market a game for such a long time, and although something like Grand Theft Auto V managed to become the bestselling anything ever, who is still excited about it? It didn't live up to expectations.

I hope the feedback they got will make The Phantom Pain much better. If TPP really perfects the controls, AI, and fixes some annoyances (without adding more) I can appreciate GZ for that. But for those who hoped to get a full $40 worth out of GZ itself and not be a "beta tester", that's not very cool.

Anyone else have thoughts? I wonder what other people think of GZ nowadays?
< >
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
Per page: 15 30 50