Support NeoGAF

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Yeah going to wait for a price drop. Kinda hurts saying that being a huge MGS fan but I can't justify that price while there are so many games out there I still need to play.

Polygon is obviously biased... sure i was snarky... but the fact they cant EXPLAIN why both consoles get a 5.5 pass while other multiplatform games get better scores because of graphical differences is wild... they explain that they only got to review with PS4 debug, but STILL list an XB1 score equal to PS4... and instead answering my final post... they give me this:

pretty sure im over Polygon at this point... well im MORE over it...

lol Oh boy. I'm done with Polygon never clicking a link from there again.

Egoraptor from Game Grumps reviews it under the effects of a Ghost pepper

lmao

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Not sure this is worth the price, regardless of reviews.

Also, why is anyone still surprised about Polygon's reviews? Next up for them, a 6.5 for Infamous: SS.

 

[Zombie James]

If you're in the business of giving separate scores for each platform, how in the fuck is this even possible?

 

[Calcaneus]

I don't get it, are the two versions of the game different enough that having the same score isn't possible?

 

[Dead]

If you're in the business of giving separate scores for each platform, how in the fuck is this even possible?

dat polygon

 

[HTupolev]

If you're in the business of giving separate scores for each platform, how in the fuck is this even possible?

The really funny thing is that on Metacritic, the Polygon score has been applied to the PS4 version but not the XB1 version.

So in a way, Polygon's review is actually the reason that the XB1 version is currently rated higher on metacritic than the PS4 version. Judging by the current reviewers and their ratings on the XB1 version, applying Polygon's review would probably push it to a 73 or below, puting the PS4 version in the lead.

 

[Sami+]

edit - ah, sorry, wrong thread. Thought this was the OT.

 

[rawd]

If you're in the business of giving separate scores for each platform, how in the fuck is this even possible?

The PS4 decimal is bigger than the XB1

PS4 wins again

 

[Shawn6661]

EDGE - 9

 

[raven777]

EDGE - 9

wow 9 from EDGE?

I am really surprised the highest scores are both from EDGE and Eurogamer.

 

[JonCha]

EDGE - 9

Read this, taken aback by their review to be honest. In a good way.

 

[Nymphae]

Imagine if the Tanker prologue from MGS2 was sold seperately with a bunch of side missions for 30 bucks. You'd get a similar product as Ground Zeroes. I just finished the main mission of GZ, and it didn't feel like I finished a game. It felt like I finished an hour long teaser for The Phantom Pain.

I would have bought, played, and loved the Tanker chapter for $30 bucks.

I mean shit, that's essentially what I did. I bought ZOE for that fucking demo, and that was more than $30. And ZOE was not that great. Loved the tanker demo though.

 

[rvy]

EDGE - 9

 

[ekim]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/20/metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes

The Guardian - 5/5

As the game makes clear over and over, these are legally non-people, stateless individuals that nobody wants and nobody is coming to save – except in a video game. They are non-people being gradually broken-down because that's what this place exists for; the ground-down zeroes of Ground Zeroes. It is surprising, and not a little depressing, that all people want to talk about with this game is the running time.

Exceptional good written review.

 

[Batzi]

I was actually surprised that EDGE would give the game a high score. They gave MGS4 an 8.

On a side note, even though GZ is just a prologue, it literally puts MGS4 to shame in every way possible.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

How did this get 75% metacritic?

Is there no video game journalistic integrity?

 

[BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!]

How did this get 75% metacritic?

Is there no video game journalistic integrity?

I agree. Should've been 90% at least.

 

[Danny 117]

I agree. Should've been 90% at least.

Nice.

What's there is solid (pardon the pun).

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

How did this get 75% metacritic?

Is there no video game journalistic integrity?

My opinion is that I got value out of the game on my first playthrough. Why not judge for yourself and stop relying on aggregate review sites?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

My opinion is that I got value out of the game on my first playthrough. Why not judge for yourself and stop relying on aggregate review sites?

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

 

[Sub_Level]

How did this get 75% metacritic?

Is there no video game journalistic integrity?

Mechanically there's some pretty solid foundation being set with GZ. It takes the best aspects of MGS4's Act 2 and applies it in a more well-realized fashion. At it's worst, GZ feels like a barebones casualized splinter cell clone. At it's best, it's an incredibly dynamic stealth experience demanding both planning and on-your-feet decision making that can be made more rewarding with optional objectives, multiple routes to take, and of course the option to turn off casul settings all while reveling in the crazy huge, weird, and intricate Metal Gear story saga spanning a quarter-century's worth of games.

 

[NotMyRealName]

How did this get 75% metacritic?

Is there no video game journalistic integrity?

high ratings = journalistic integrity. Got it.

edit - oh wait, you meant... i see. disregard this.

 

[Sub_Level]

high ratings = journalistic integrity. Got it.

He was implying that 75% was high. You've got it mixed up unless you forgot a /= in your post.

 

[CambriaRising]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

This is incredibly stupid. It's pretty clear that you actually don't know anything about the game.

 

[Roto13]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

Thank god you're not a reviewer. Any reviewer who reviews a game based on price is someone who shouldn't have a job.

 

[Sub_Level]

Thank god you're not a reviewer. Any reviewer who reviews a game based on price is someone who shouldn't have a job.

Respectfully disagree there, price should definitely be one factor.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

I have got over 6 and a half hours out of the game and am not finished. I absolutely think price should be a consideration but, as it turns out, it's still a great deal for what you do get.

Better than the value propositions of some other titles, indie and AAA.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

That's not a fair representation of the game and it's clear you have an agenda, so your mind is set in stone.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

Hear, Hear.

Spoiler

I'm one of them

 

[Roto13]

Respectfully disagree there, price should definitely be one factor.

Nonsense. Price is not part of the game. It is completely irrelevant to the quality of a game. It's also completely different depending on where you live and when you buy a game. Ocarina of Time didn't suddenly get better when it stopped being $100 and Tomb Raider is no better or worse as a free game on PS+ than it was as a $60 game at retail this time last year.

 

[Sami+]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

Man, I would have loved to see your reaction when this game was the best selling PS3 game four years into its life.

 

[Radec]

9 from edge huh.

Wat.

 

[The Silver]

Nonsense. Price is not part of the game. It is completely irrelevant to the quality of a game. It's also completely different depending on where you live and when you buy a game. Ocarina of Time didn't suddenly get better when it stopped being $100 and Tomb Raider is no better or worse as a free game on PS+ than it was as a $60 game at retail this time last year.

if people choose to review games as a "buyer's guide"(nothing wrong with this) for their audience then you best believe that the price is gonna be factor.

The question as to whether a review should also function as a buyer's guide is up to the individual reviewer.(as seen by the wide range in scores GZ has)

There's an audience for both sides, just find a reviewer who fits you best.(or be like me and don't give a shit about reviews)

 

[Dead]

EDGE - 9

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/20/metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes

The Guardian - 5/5



Exceptional good written review.

Probably the two most on point reviews of GZ Ive read.

 

[Roto13]

if people choose to review games as a "buyer's guide"(nothing wrong with this) for their audience then you best believe that the price is gonna be factor.

The question as to whether a review should also function as a buyer's guide is up to the individual reviewer.(as seen by the wide range in scores GZ has)

There's an audience for both sides, just find a reviewer who fits you best.(or be like me and don't give a shit about reviews)

The very idea of reviewing a game the way you'd review a toaster is completely disgusting to me. It shows a lack of respect or appreciation for the entire medium.

 

[MormaPope]

Because it should be panned by critics on principle.

This would be like releasing a major blockbuster movie, but only have it end up being 20 minutes in length, end abruptly, and directly lead into a "sequel" that will pop up later this year.

It's anti-consumerist and takes advantage of innocent, naive, and deluded fanboys.

Yeah, it can't be that people love the design of Ground Zeroes, so much so they play it for more than 10 hours.

When it comes to this debacle, one group seems to open to discussion about the gameplay and design itself. The other group throws around toxic assertions left and right for no apparent reason really. The "I'm the most moral and prideful consumer, I only pick the purest consumer items" bullshit so fucking whack.

 

[The Silver]

The very idea of reviewing a game the way you'd review a toaster is completely disgusting to me. It shows a lack of respect or appreciation for the entire medium.

When games cost upwards of $60 all that shit goes out the window.

 

[nasanu]

This is such a well crafted game, its a shame that some say they will refuse to play it because they don't want to spend the price of a 40min dinner excluding drinks on it (or less than the price of two drinks in an Australian nightclub).

Screw the missions, its just a pleasure to explore and exist in the game world. I happily pay the price to support quality development. Software like this is so rare I don't mind if there is a premium on it.

 

[WrenchNinja]

so well crafted that it doesn't even have bosses

 

[SquiddyCracker]

so well crafted that it doesn't even have bosses

Because by the looks of it (yes, by the looks of it, because it's so short I've managed to see the entirety of the game via recorded footage) that's because it was crafted as an introduction to a larger game. It's an introduction to the characters, to the new mechanics, and ends abruptly as if you're about to start the next chapter.

As for the "game" bit, it may be great (though plot and pacing-wise you could objectively pick it apart), but a videogame is also a product - and when judging a product, price is of course an important factor (or more specifically, price/content ratio).

But then I guess this doesn't matter to the target audience of this game, who are probably strong enough fans to be willing to pay the price - which is why Konami did this in the first place.

 

[nasanu]

As for the "game" bit, it may be great (though plot and pacing-wise you could objectively pick it apart), but a videogame is also a product - and when judging a product, price is of course an important factor (or more specifically, price/content ratio).
.

But there is more to enjoy in a few hours of MGS GZ than in 100 hours of the crap that is the rest of the next gen lineup. People keep talking about ripping off consumers, the way I see it paying $60 then being forced to play through weeks worth of horribly boring gameplay is a complete ripoff. I should be paid to do that, not have to pay for it.

$30 for an experience I'll actually enjoy is and will always be far better than paying $60 for a game that makes me wish I was cleaning my room instead.

 

[lordxar]

I was not doing $40 but $30 was OK, not ideal but passable. Yes the main story only took me about an hour with a C grade. I've spent another forty minutes or so on a couple side missions. For me to actually get all the trophies I bet I could spend a few more hours. First, I suck at stealth and second get distracted on destruction in open world games. Let me just say the AA guns are awesome fun! Was this ultimately worth $30? I'm still not sure. Its a cool distraction to be sure and something to do kind of casually so over time it may pay off. I'm not huge on MG or stealth in general but so far its been fun.