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

jenjenten

:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/04/metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes-is-two-hours-long-report/

30 euro for two hours??????????.....how much will gamestop charge....59.99 i bet, lol.

calex71

I wasn't expecting a huge amount but I was expecting more than 2 hours, as said it would depend on how it was played, ie pure stealth or guns blazing.

I would also be expecting it to be a little more like peace walker where all the ex-ops took 2 or 3 times the time the main game did and and tonnes or replay.

Still I'll wait to hear a full breakdown of whats in it.

danthefan

The record time for MGS2 is well under 2 hours, for example.

And it's not MGSV, it's MGSV:Ground Zeros. The full game will be releasing at some point in the future.

Having said that, doesn't seem like great value.

weemcd

SETTLE

this is unconfirmed and this is Ground Zeros not MGS5.

sensationalist isn't the word. Thread title needs changed.

jenjenten

weemcd wrote: »

SETTLE

this is unconfirmed and this is Ground Zeros not MGS5.

sensationalist isn't the word. Thread title needs changed.

fixed.

Retr0gamer

Sure skip the cutscenes and mgs4 is barely 2 hours of content, even less if you only count good content

super_furry

Sounds like something along the lines of Gran Turismo 5 prologue.

Magill

Seems like a bit of a cheap move. If its only 2 hours with most of that being cut scenes and radio convo's like the usual MGS games, i could see a lot of people being pissed off.

Wouldn't be suprised if it was suppose to be part of the actual game, like how they did MGS2 and the whole prologue... then saw the $$$$

Would rather wait until the full game is released anyway before playing it, hopefully its reasonably priced at that stage !

Kirby

People like to exaggerate. I'm sure a normal playthrough of it is more likely 5-6 hours.

I love a good speedrun as much as the next guy but that's when I know a game inside and out and am skipping stuff andtrying to go fast. On my first playthrough I take my time.....like most people.

Witcher

Probably ran through it on Liquid Easy like n00000bs:pac:

K.O.Kiki

jenjenten wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/04/metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes-is-two-hours-long-report/

2 hours of GAMEPLAY, or 2 hours on the GAME CLOCK?
This came up before when some publications said Vanquish was too short (hint: they were dead wrong).

Additionally, that's the main story - and for a cinematic adventure, I have no problem with it being the length of a movie.

30 euro for two hours??????????.....how much will gamestop charge....59.99 i bet, lol.

If you looked at the article, you'll see it's $20 on digital download.

Why the hell would you buy from Gamestop?

calex71

If other sources are to be believed they quote Kojima as saying "internal testers can speed run it in 5 minutes"

This will likely get a massive price cut close to the release of Phantom Pain or even come bundled.

Edit: Actually there will be a a fair bit of content in this going by the achievement list.

http://www.xboxachievements.com/game/metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes/achievements/

Retr0gamer

They should have made ZoE3 and bundled it with it

Otacon

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They should have made ZoE3 and bundled it with it

I usually hate this type of thing but under the circumstances...

FYP

Gunmonkey

So, looking at my Steam clock I played Bioshock Infinite to completion in about 5 hours, and that was on hard difficulty with a fair few restarts. Time to completion =/= quality of game.

Does it elaborate on how a 2 hour run will play? Is it going from objective to objective, completing the story as fast as possible with per-learned knowledge (item locations, objectives, vehicle locations)? Is there much unexplored from the map this way? This will be the part of MGS5 set in the military base at night if I'm remembering right, that place looked pretty big and lots to explore. If they add in stuff like the Dog Tags from MGS2 or the Kerotan Frogs in 3 then there's a bit more to challenge yourself with.

Retr0gamer

2 hours with no side quests apparently.

I heard Oblivion couild be beaten in 2 hours or less if you just did the main plot line.

johnny_ultimate

Mass Effect 2 only had a couple of hours of main narrative (three missions if I recall correctly?). The rest was all technically sub quests.

Anyway, there's never been any suggestions other than this being a short prologue. I'd imagine most players will take two or three sittings to play through it as long as they're not rushing through it. No-one's forcing anyone to buy it, and they've only been upfront about what you're getting.

There needs to be more lean AAA games IMO anyway. I'd actually welcome seeing smaller, shorter but big budget games released at a lower price. I've played 10 hour long games that still feel badly padded (oh hai Tomb Raider)

richymcdermott

Sure mgs gameplay has always been short , the game excels in its game design to take different approaches to learn the game and try to gets the different emblems.

I am going to buy it and play it more than once and get full enjoyment out of it like the other games in the series

snausages

I've no doubt it will be a very short game. That's fine with me tbh but it's not great value at that price.

I wouldn't call any of the games barring the first maybe excellent examples of game design. MGS2 and 4 were pretty horrid at points.

Wooden Jesus

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/448282/metal-gear-solid-v-new-ground-zeroes-details-emerge/

"Konami speedrunners have completed the game in five minutes"

cloud493

Some people can play through Pokemon X in 12 hours. I took 130 hours

K.O.Kiki

Wooden Jesus wrote: »

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/448282/metal-gear-solid-v-new-ground-zeroes-details-emerge/

"Konami speedrunners have completed the game in five minutes"

Speedrunners are insane though, and like using glitches.

No way will you finish it in 5 minutes on your first go.

thorbarry

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sure skip the cutscenes and mgs4 is barely 2 hours of content, even less if you only count good content

There is good content in there!!

2Mad2BeMad

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Speedrunners are insane though, and like using glitches.

No way will you finish it in 5 minutes on your first go.

but its very possible that we could finish it in 2 hours

I don't mind spending 15-20e on it, I'd feel the game would be worth it for that price like an arcade game
but with better graphics
but no way am I paying anything more then 20, why bother releasing such a short version of the game when mgs is normal quite long(at least with cutscenes it feels that way)

Wooden Jesus

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Speedrunners are insane though, and like using glitches.

No way will you finish it in 5 minutes on your first go.

It must be an easter egg that you can kill a boss very early on.
Im not too bothered about time as long as the game has good replayability and maybe some online

Kirby

calex71 wrote: »

If other sources are to be believed they quote Kojima as saying "internal testers can speed run it in 5 minutes"

This will likely get a massive price cut close to the release of Phantom Pain or even come bundled.

You can speed run Ocarina of time and Mario 64 in a few minutes too and they are 30 hour games. I wouldn't read too much into it.

snausages

The side missions are going to be pretty inconsequential I think. I also get the impression that most of the important story moments of GZ have already been spoiled by trailers. But then again if this follows the structure of MGS2 and 3 then the prologue will likely be the most interesting part of the game story wise. Especially if Phantom Pain is open world.

God, I just don't know about this game. I don't give a **** about the Patriots or Metal Gear anymore. I didn't really like MGR but I'd prefer a sequel to that than this tbh.

Retr0gamer

snausages wrote: »

TI didn't really like MGR but I'd prefer a sequel to that than this tbh.

Get out of here!

snausages

^For not liking Rising or not being hyped for this?

Retr0gamer

snausages wrote: »

^For not liking Rising or not being hyped for this?

For not liking rising

the groutch

Angry Joe will have a good old rant about this, having completed it in

snausages

Retr0gamer wrote: »

For not liking rising

I found it floaty and weird. I liked the parry mechanism, that's it.

Napper Hawkins

Wasn't pushed with Rising, myself.

Would love another proper MGS, like MGS 1 or 3. Hopefully 5 is at least better than 4.

K.O.Kiki

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

[...]why bother releasing such a short version of the game when mgs is normal quite long(at least with cutscenes it feels that way)

Part of it will be financial (Konami's not in the best shape, and this will help their funding long-term).
The other is story:

At the end of Ground Zeroes, Big Boss is put into a coma for 9 years. For the player, waiting for a year for Phantom Pain will hopefully give some of that feeling.

Burky126

Just recently the game had an open boot camp with invited guests.They tweeted their reactions to their experiences so far.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/12/metal-gear-solid-v-impressions-filter-from-boot-camp-not-a-two-hour-game-best-stealth-yet/

Some quotes mentioned.

I’d like to point out that this game is not a 2 hour game… Ground Zeroes is a great demonstration of the FOX Engine.

Finished GZ for the first time in about 90 minutes. Total game completion? 9%. I think that tells you all you need to know.

After completing the main mission and a side mission in 4 hours the game says I’m at 10% completion. Sounds good to me

So yeah, the main mission of Ground Zeroes is short. BUT, you really are not going to find and discover everything in 2 hours.

snausages

Is anyone really expecting the side-stuff to be that interesting though? It's just going to recycle stuff from the main mission I bet.

K.O.Kiki

snausages wrote: »

Is anyone really expecting the side-stuff to be that interesting though? It's just going to recycle stuff from the main mission I bet.

How about you stop moaning and either buy it, or just leave the thread?

COYVB

Gz might well be the last time I ever engage with a mgs game. I've tried and tried but cannot understand why people like them at all. Ice never found them to be anything other than awful on every level.

New gen, new engine, new chance though. If it's the same floaty weightless feeling and awful writing and narrative though I'm just giving up

tok9

I'm just debating whether to wait for it to drop to about 20 euro or buy it at launch. I'll definitely pick it up at some stage since I'm a big fan of the series.

COYVB, while I'm sure GZ will be a bit different with some of the new features (Spotting etc) I can't see it changing your opinion.

MGS3 is one of the best games of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation and one of my personal all time favourite games.

snausages

tok9 wrote: »

I'm just debating whether to wait for it to drop to about 20 euro or buy it at launch. I'll definitely pick it up at some stage since I'm a big fan of the series.

COYVB, while I'm sure GZ will be a bit different with some of the new features (Spotting etc) I can't see it changing your opinion.

MGS3 is one of the best games of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation and one of my personal all time favourite games.

Play-asia have next gen versions for 25 euro if you buy the Asian version. It's in english apparently: http://www.play-asia.com/paOScore/19-71-99-15-ground+zeroes.html

I'm buying it, but I'm pretty sure that when they say a single run gets you 10% completion that the other 90% will be stuff like playing on extreme, dog tags style collectables, some hidden areas etc. There won't be much meat in it. That's not a massive deal at the sub 20 euro price but at some of the other prices it's going for it's lousy value.

landsleaving

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

How about you stop moaning and either buy it, or just leave the thread?

STOP DEBATING AND CONSUME!

On the game itself, it has to be better than 4 - surely someone told Kojima that he quite literally lost the plot for that game. Possibly under the couch, or in a drawer somewhere.

I'd be quite happy with a 3/4 hour game with solid gameplay and a decent plot. Hopefully it makes something approaching sense. And if this is the prologue to 2 in a standalone package, good, that was the best bit of that game by some distance.

richymcdermott

COYVB wrote: »

Gz might well be the last time I ever engage with a mgs game. I've tried and tried but cannot understand why people like them at all. Ice never found them to be anything other than awful on every level.

New gen, new engine, new chance though. If it's the same floaty weightless feeling and awful writing and narrative though I'm just giving up

story wise you either love it or hate it like serial experiments lain or many other storys in any medium but mgs are far from awful by any means. Game play may be short but its some of the best gameplay in videogames..period. it has the most pin point detail and always has been a head of its time. the structure of the level design and enemies is far more advanced in its time than many other games when each instalment was released.

I do not mind if someone criticises the story but don't sit there and say its awful on every front. that is ludicrous and total non sense

snausages

richymcdermott wrote: »

story wise you either love it or hate it like serial experiments lain or many other storys in any medium but mgs are far from awful by any means. Game play may be short but its some of the best gameplay in videogames..period. it has the most pin point detail and always has been a head of its time. the structure of the level design and enemies is far more advanced in its time than many other games when each instalment was released.

I don't know about that. For me MGS has always been like the GoW of its genre. Stupid and fun with lots of appeal but not very deep. Thief/Splinter Cell is more like the Ninja Gaiden/DMC of stealth.

Retr0gamer

Metal Gear Solid is strange. It's like it's a stealth game made for the arcades. Not surprising considering it's made by Konami and some of the best arcade developers of all time are working on it. Even the bosses feel very like the bosses of an old Konami arcade game.

It kind of moved away from that with MGS4 and was a much worse game because of it.

richymcdermott

snausages wrote: »

I don't know about that. For me MGS has always been like the GoW of its genre. Stupid and fun with lots of appeal but not very deep. Thief/Splinter Cell is more like the Ninja Gaiden/DMC of stealth.

not very deep ?

:eek:

hold on just a second while the older games of splinter cell, cant talk much about theif since I am not a pc gamer are solid stealth games they do not offer as much detail than metal gear solid. splinter cell is one trick pony , you take out lights you move in the shadows.

you can go back to the MSX games with metal gear 1 and 2 and see its masterclass design and then go to ps1 which at the time was ground breaking.

Mgs is anything but stupid and fun , its thoughtful and sublime in its gameplay.

your outside in the cold for awhile you sneeze , guard hears you
step in a puddle guard hears you

you did not see sort of detail on consoles at the time.

move along to mgs 2 back in 2001

holding up soldiers at gun point making them drop their items they are carrying
shooting their walkie talkies so they can not call for back up
you hide in a box solider will check to see if you are hiding in their
soldiers would check lockers and such also

splinter cell enemies are one dimensional and did not offer near the level of intelligence as metal gear solid 2.

Metal Gear Solid 3 is the pinnacle that I yet seen matched

Retr0gamer

It's no Thief in fairness :P

richymcdermott

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's no Thief in fairness :P

Troll alert :pac:

krudler

richymcdermott wrote: »

not very deep ?

:eek:

hold on just a second while the older games of splinter cell, cant talk much about theif since I am not a pc gamer are solid stealth games they do not offer as much detail than metal gear solid. splinter cell is one trick pony , you take out lights you move in the shadows.

you can go back to the MSX games with metal gear 1 and 2 and see its masterclass design and then go to ps1 which at the time was ground breaking.

Mgs is anything but stupid and fun , its thoughtful and sublime in its gameplay.

your outside in the cold for awhile you sneeze , guard hears you
step in a puddle guard hears you

you did not see sort of detail on consoles at the time.

move along to mgs 2 back in 2001

holding up soldiers at gun point making them drop their items they are carrying
shooting their walkie talkies so they can not call for back up
you hide in a box solider will check to see if you are hiding in their
soldiers would check lockers and such also

splinter cell enemies are one dimensional and did not offer near the level of intelligence as metal gear solid 2.

Metal Gear Solid 3 is the pinnacle that I yet seen matched

Ah now, MGS is a dumb as a bag of hammers for the most part, bosses who fire killer bees out of themselves and an immortal vampire are not the stuff of serious espionage games. It's the silly aspects of the series I prefer, when it's trying to lecture players about the nature of war and nuclear arms it's all so po faced you can't take it seriously, it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

COYVB

richymcdermott wrote: »

story wise you either love it or hate it like serial experiments lain or many other storys in any medium but mgs are far from awful by any means. Game play may be short but its some of the best gameplay in videogames..period. it has the most pin point detail and always has been a head of its time. the structure of the level design and enemies is far more advanced in its time than many other games when each instalment was released.

I do not mind if someone criticises the story but don't sit there and say its awful on every front. that is ludicrous and total non sense

I didn't say it was definitively awful on every level, I said I found it to be so. Big difference

richymcdermott

krudler wrote: »

Ah now, MGS is a dumb as a bag of hammers for the most part, bosses who fire killer bees out of themselves and an immortal vampire are not the stuff of serious espionage games. It's the silly aspects of the series I prefer, when it's trying to lecture players about the nature of war and nuclear arms it's all so po faced you can't take it seriously, it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

who saying otherwise ?

supernatural element in mgs I love the most about the franchise, I am merely talking about the stealth elements and level of detail , not realism

the series is the pinnacle of espionage games , even with the heavy usages at times of supernatural

Timmyctc

COYVB wrote: »

I didn't say it was definitively awful on every level, I said I found it to be so. Big difference

Well noone can ever really say anything is definitively awful on every level though. You can't rightly say that Games like MGS1, 2 and 3 have no redeeming features without being aware you are lying. Even games I despise I can acknowledge their strongs points and where others would enjoy them etc.