jimmypython
Member
WTF
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MGSV: Ground Zeroes reviews! (Famitsu goes first!)
- Thread starter Batzi
- Start date
WTF
NullPointer
Member
I'm uncertain about reviews for this game.
Don't reviewers like short, potent games that they can play through and put aside so they can work on their next assignment? This game comes with two big issues (two sides of the same coin) that don't seem to be the things that reviews cover well: Value for the asking price, and replayability/longevity. Makes me wonder how these outlets are doing their reviews - are they specifically trying to 100% the game? Or just the main mission with a dabble of side missions?
I'd put more stake in GAF reviews a month out honestly.
Don't reviewers like short, potent games that they can play through and put aside so they can work on their next assignment? This game comes with two big issues (two sides of the same coin) that don't seem to be the things that reviews cover well: Value for the asking price, and replayability/longevity. Makes me wonder how these outlets are doing their reviews - are they specifically trying to 100% the game? Or just the main mission with a dabble of side missions?
I'd put more stake in GAF reviews a month out honestly.
ZeroMaverick
Member
Some well likely peg it for price and replayability issues
BobTheFork
Member
I replayed MGS1 recently and blasted through it in about 4 hours. It's a shame they charged full price for it back in the day
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
What is VOOT
I am really curious how reviewer are going to approach this game.
I could see many of the popular sites (IGN,gamespot, EDGE, Eurogamer, etc.) bashing this game for the length vs. price and give really low score, or they feel the replability is worth the price and give it a high score.
Couple of sites who broke Embargo really bashed the game and gave extremely low score (1/5, 4/10) so I wonder how many other places are actually going to do that.
I could see many of the popular sites (IGN,gamespot, EDGE, Eurogamer, etc.) bashing this game for the length vs. price and give really low score, or they feel the replability is worth the price and give it a high score.
Couple of sites who broke Embargo really bashed the game and gave extremely low score (1/5, 4/10) so I wonder how many other places are actually going to do that.
Virtual On Oratorio Tangram
Examiner's review was a joke and ridiculous.
Read this: http://www.gameskinny.com/5tejc/metal-gear-solid-v-ground-zeroes-how-not-to-review
It is ridiculous, but his opinion on the value the game presents is valid. It's very possible he deems it a rip-off, and at least some reviewers should mention that possibility.
I don't expect a favorable critical reception, in any case.
Wishmaster92
Member
I heard that review was very spoiler heavy, i advise people not to read examiner's review.
IcyRhythms
Member
Has Famitsu played Titanfall?
I would never review a game based on its length but that's just me. Quality is why I buy games. Length? not so much.
Saying things like "I hope the game doesn't sell" is the stupidest thing I have read in a while and should not be something to be written/said in a review.
My first though. This is an hour long. Its a demo and should have been free, or at least packed in with another game, but definitely not pay to play for something as empty as this.
You kind of have to though when its only an hour long, and has some side stuff to do but not much. That really should effect the score.
Can anyone remind me why they are now reviewing demos? Has anyone done this before? This is not the full game and youll be watching the credits an hour after you get home. Did they review the MGS2 demo? I believe that was around the same length or possibly even longer than this.
theprodigy
Member
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
Because they shouldn't be. 4 hours? Ludicrous.
I would absolutely review a game considering length regarding perceived value.
If I cut out the best 3 chapter segment in Uncharted 2, packaged it for $30 and sold it, it might be absolutely fantastic to play, but might only last for one hour and 42 minutes. It could be of the best quality, but still leave a reviewer feeling ripped off.
"I hope it doesn't sell" ... well, I don't disagree with that, but I wouldn't say it as 'virtriolically' and I wouldn't say it in a review, but I don't much like the idea of this type of experience proliferating, especially if it's because of people not knowing what they're buying well enough.
They can, why not? You're not forced to buy at full price.
Get over it. A lot of great games are much shorter than that.
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
And what might they be?
Look, fair enough they charged less for the next gen editions, but £25 is still a lot for a 4 hour game thats really only has 1 level that is quite bland.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Ground Zeroes has yet to prove whether it's great enough to be that replayable, though.
If it releases and it's as replayable as Metal Gear Rising, then yeah, they'll have made something special. But the odds of that are slim to none. KojiPro isn't Platinum, especially when you consider the last two games they made were Peace Walker and MGS4.
Meatyhooks
Neo Member
How does this further the conversation?
Vincent Alexander
Member
Game can be as short as they want to be. And I can rent said games as much as I want to.
How does this further conversation? Or this? Or this? Or this?
I think this length argument is a red herring. We are really all talking about value.
Does Ground Zeroes present reasonable value? Some reviewers disagree. Some GAFfers disagree. And, obviously, I'm sure some agree.
Within 90 minutes of starting the game, most players see the credits. So yeah, the length should be considered in gauging its value, with regards to it costing $30. It doesn't automatically make it a bad game, but it could easily lesser someone's opinion of it as a good game.
I can sort of understand some of those, but XIII-2??!
Gotta be a typo, or trolling from the poster that put in the block of text.
Coffee Dog
Banned
By reminding everyone that Famitsu is entirely full of shit.
NullPointer
Member
Ground Zeroes *is* a small sample of The Phantom Pain. Its a demo. A premium demo, but a demo. It has one ~90 minute main mission and takes place in a single environment and doesn't even have a platinum trophy for chrissakes.
But regardless, is it truly replayable? More than we'd expect from a free demo? Is there real meat on these bones? I'm still completely unclear since nobody has seemed to have had it for long enough to really say. Previews we've gotten show reviewers enjoying the main mission and a side mission or two and wanting to go back for more - but will that be satiated in an additional day or two? Who knows?
Its a demo, but its possible that its worth the price. If it has plenty of opportunities for interesting replays I might jump in.
A lot of those great games aren't especially replayable, either.
Ground Zeroes hasn't proven it's anything yet. It's not out yet. It might suck (probably not) but people who just write it off because they buy games by weight need to seriously get over it.
Except not really at all because Ground Zeroes isn't going to be in The Phantom Pain. It is not a sample of The Phantom Pain because it is not part of The Phantom Pain.
You might as well say InFamous Festival of Blood is a demo for InFamous 2, and that would actually be closer to the truth because at least Festival of Blood uses part of the InFamous 2 map.
NullPointer
Member
It is literally the beginning of The Phantom Pain, pushed up and polished for earlier release. And nobody knows whether it will be included with TPP when it releases. At least as far as I've seen.
MAXIMUM DENSITY
Neo Member
Exactly what I was thinking. Hahaha
Coffee Dog
Banned
Then I would have to ask you what those games are. There are some amazing short games out there whose core gameplay mechanics are strong enough to justify many playthroughs, but I can't think of any short amazing games that aren't good enough to be replayable.
I'll buy Metal Gear Rising at $60 because I know that the game mechanics are good enough that I'm gonna be replaying this game for years; Personally, if a game isn't good enough to replay, then I'm not going to be dropping any sizable amount of cash on it.
Wow, you really haven't been following any of the news about this game at all, have you?
Replayability and quality are not the same thing. I can't see myself playing Brothers again but it was still a fantastic game.
Rogue Agent
Banned
Well, it was released as a demo
of what the Phantom Pain will be like. It serves a similar function even if they end up not bundling it with the main game.
nstration
Ground Zeroes is part of the MGSV narrative, and was part of the game before being separated into a different product. Festival of Blood is a side-story.
I mean, if we're being serious about the comparisons, it's clear that Festival of Blood and Ground Zeroes aren't commensurable in terms of being a 'demo'. Festival of Blood, like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, was DLC that saw a standalone release. I don't agree that Ground Zeroes is a demo. I think it has the typical, expected demo content + padding.
Coffee Dog
Banned
It's just how we personally value things, I suppose. I tend to find that I'm up for replaying just about anything that I enjoy and feel has high quality, so I tend to equate the two.
I REALLY hope critics don't review the game based on its price. It's an argument that becomes irrelevant five years from now when the game's in bargain bins for $5, or on a Steam sale (hopefully... ) for $2.50. And that Examiner review has got to be one of the most pathetic and disgusting things I have ever read. I hope the man who wrote that review is fired -- yes, I do think he should lose his job for this.
Could you imagine if fucking film critics acted this way? "I paid $10 for my ticket, which was way too much. The movie? Oh it was good, but who cares, $10 is way too much. 1/5" Really pisses me off.
EDIT: Wow, that Game Skinny article basically said everything that needs to be said.
Could you imagine if fucking film critics acted this way? "I paid $10 for my ticket, which was way too much. The movie? Oh it was good, but who cares, $10 is way too much. 1/5" Really pisses me off.
EDIT: Wow, that Game Skinny article basically said everything that needs to be said.
WrenchNinja
Member
Festival of Blood wasn't an hour and a half long and cost ten bucks.
I agree. Took them probably twice as long to write the article than finishing the game.
Brilliant.
NullPointer
Member
That's disanalogous.
*Dark Knight spoilers*
It's more like "I paid $4.38 for a ticket, sat down and got comfortable, and all I got to see was Joker robbing the bank and
killing his goons