It makes sense- Phantom Limb will apparently have the same benefits, but will be much longer. Better not to waste 30 bucks on 2 hours and rather save up for 60 bucks for who knows how many hours.
Now, I haven't played Ground Zeroes, so I can't say he's right that it's short, but it has some sources of logic.
He said the gameplay is 8/10, but you're not getting your time's worth for the price asked, which I can honestly agree heavily with.
I sure as hell wouldn't buy it unless it was around $15
[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;44294115]It makes sense- Phantom Limb will apparently have the same benefits, but will be much longer. Better not to waste 30 bucks on 2 hours and rather save up for 60 bucks for who knows how many hours.[/QUOTE]
or just buy ground zeroes?
if you like metal gear and are not destitute i don't see why you wouldn't get it
regardless everyone i've spoken to who isn't a video game reviewer has said they've spent way longer on it than 2 hours anyway. you can blast through virtuous mission or the tanker or any part of mgs4 in like 20 minutes if you really want to... or you can try to get through the whole thing without being spotted, try it in different ways, try to find all the secrets and collectibles, and easily spend 4 hours on it. hell, you can blast through dishonoured in like 3 hours if you really want to but i know people who have sunk as much as 20 hours into that game
anyway all of this is totally ignoring the fact that a fuck tonne of work has gone into this and, from what i can tell, into the phantom pain, and that video games cost a ridiculously huge amount of money to make these days... so yeh i am very happy to spend $30 supporting that. i can't believe people are saying they should be charging $15 for something that is at least as long as any singleplayer from any recent fps, built on an entirely new game engine, that is managing to be ran on current-gen systems while still looking like one of the best-looking games ever made. it's been [i]six years[/i] since the last game. there is still a business to run here
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44294232]you can blast through virtuous mission or the tanker or any part of mgs4 in like 20 minutes if you really want to... or you can try to get through the whole thing without being spotted, try it in different ways, try to find all the secrets and collectibles, and easily spend 4 hours on it
[/QUOTE]
This can be said about almost any game out there. You can play most games in different ways to pad out the time you play, but it doesn't mean the majority of people will spend the time doing said things.
You need to account for how the majority of your playerbase will play the game, and work according to that instead of many little trinkets.
There isn't even really a reason to replay the game as nothing changes except for the sense of accomplishment by beating it stealthily or finding all the hidden goodies.
4 hours for $30 isn't even that great anyways.
[QUOTE=Mr. Zombie;44294260]This can be said about almost any game out there. You can play most games in different ways to pad out the time you play, but it doesn't mean the majority of people will spend the time doing said things.[/QUOTE]
i think it's somewhat different for a stealth-oriented game because play-style really does directly determine how long the game takes to play and how much fun you'll have playing it
although that's why i began my post with
[quote]if you like metal gear and are not destitute i don't see why you wouldn't get it[/quote]
because if you like metal gear and stealth games then i'm sure you're going to get a lot more out of it than a lot of middleground reviewers are saying they are
like i said, there's sections of mgs4 you can walk through with an assault rifle in 20 minutes, or you can spend 2 hours trying to get through completely non-lethally and without being spotted or something. that's nothing to do with "little trinkets" or collectibles or hidden gems or anything like that, it's just making the most of the gameplay mechanics on offer to you to get a satisfying play-through. obviously not everyone is going to want to do that or enjoy that... but then those people shouldn't be playing a metal gear game. it's a simple case of target market
so essentially what i'm saying is: if you like metal gear i am pretty certain you're going to get a lot out of this game so shelling out $30 for it, and supporting the devs in the process, isn't a big deal
[QUOTE=Mr. Zombie;44294260]This can be said about almost any game out there. You can play most games in different ways to pad out the time you play, but it doesn't mean the majority of people will spend the time doing said things.
You need to account for how the majority of your playerbase will play the game, and work according to that instead of many little trinkets.
There isn't even really a reason to replay the game as nothing changes except for the sense of accomplishment by beating it stealthily or finding all the hidden goodies.
4 hours for $30 isn't even that great anyways.[/QUOTE]
the majority of players are the ones that spend hours in one playthrough
that's how metal gear has always been
unless someone decides to just come in the series during mgs5 they'll have no idea who the characters are or what they're doing and will infact just run through it
then of course they'll be like "waste of money, beat it in like an hour gg no re"
it's like people are forgetting you can finish mgs4's gameplay in literally 4 hours if you're semi-competent and on a lower difficulty, if that. metal gear has always been like that. it's not even a case of speed-running
but everyone who plays them like that is totally missing out
people who are saying ground zeroes isn't worth it because of the price are the people who also didn't play the previous mgs games to its entirety.
[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]
i literally had a guy on facebook post, "why buy ground zeroes when i can just save up for titanfall??"
To be honest I don't get ProJared some times. I remember he had few gripes with MGR, one of which (the lack of a dodge button) was outright false, and he gave it a 4/10. Now, he insists that no-one should buy this game, yet he gives it a 8/10.
As a reviewer, it's his job to give some weight to his scores, but more often than not he does the exact opposite.
Here's the extended thoughts btw:
[video=youtube;AYgZ4M_EaTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYgZ4M_EaTY[/video]
He mentions his opinions on the narrative, the price tag, side mission worth, etc.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;44294447]To be honest I don't get ProJared some times. I remember he had few gripes with MGR, one of which (the lack of a dodge button) was outright false, and he gave it a 4/10. Now, he insists that no-one should buy this game, yet he gives it a 8/10.
As a reviewer, it's his job to give some weight to his scores, but more often than not he does the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]
On this though, I can understand why he'd rate it an 8 and say it isn't worth it- he said it was worth an 8 on the gameplay /alone/, which you would get in Phantom Limb and thus be a better purchase pricewise.
Again, not a devoted MGS fan, and while I can understand why people would think 30 bucks for 2-4 hours of gameplay would be fine, Ground Zeroes just isn't a purchase for me.
Finishing Metal Gear Rising on normal difficulty takes like 4 hours.
Metal Gear Solid 1 isn't really that much longer.
MGS4 is short as fuck if you take away all the cutscenes.
why do people justify a game purchase based on the hours it gives you? why not justify it based on how much enjoyment you got out of it? i haven't played GZ but MGR only took me about 5 or so hours to beat the story and i would've happily payed 40 or even 50 bucks for it because those 5 or so hours were really enjoyable and fun.
stick of truth also comes to mind. it's $60 which is KINDA steep but it's also one of my favorite games to come out this year and i think it was worth it. and it was only 10 or so hours.
Didn't he also give MG:R a 4?
[QUOTE=Zeos;44295271]Didn't he also give MG:R a 4?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's a real 4/10, not a average-review-site-7/10-equals-1/10 score.
[video=youtube;-WiPVSLgdDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WiPVSLgdDA[/video]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44295012]Finishing Metal Gear Rising on normal difficulty takes like 4 hours.
Metal Gear Solid 1 isn't really that much longer.
MGS4 is short as fuck if you take away all the cutscenes.[/QUOTE]
It's clear to me from both this post and your post in News Node (about how you beat MGR in half an hour, which is impossible) that you just pull numbers out of your ass.
MGS1 averages 11 hours on howlongtobeat.com, 8 hours rushed.
MGR averages 6 hours, 4 hours rushed, so at least you're closer on that one.
MGS4 averages 18 hours, 10 hours rushed, which sounds about right since there are 8 hours total of cutscenes.
And that's just campaigns. If you include extras (which are the main argument defenders keep using with Ground Zeroes), those numbers go way up. Ground Zeroes has been clocking in at about 2~3 hours WITH extras across multiple reviewers. The other MGS games aren't anywhere close to comparable with Ground Zeroes, and claiming that they're as short when you remove the cutscenes is wrong.
[QUOTE=Shugo;44295478]It's clear to me from both this post and your post in News Node (about how you beat MGR in half an hour, which is impossible) that you just pull numbers out of your ass.
MGS1 averages 11 hours on howlongtobeat.com, 8 hours rushed.
MGR averages 6 hours, 4 hours rushed, so at least you're closer on that one.
MGS4 averages 18 hours, 10 hours rushed, which sounds about right since there are 8 hours total of cutscenes.
And that's just campaigns. If you include extras (which are the main argument defenders keep using with Ground Zeroes), those numbers go way up. Ground Zeroes has been clocking in at about 2~3 hours WITH extras across multiple reviewers. The other MGS games aren't anywhere close to comparable with Ground Zeroes, and claiming that they're as short when you remove the cutscenes is wrong.[/QUOTE]
I've played 16 hours of MGR:R and that's with me just screwing around after beating the main story, the game doesn't get boring at all, it's pretty good.
[QUOTE=Shugo;44295478]It's clear to me from both this post and your post in News Node (about how you beat MGR in half an hour, which is impossible) that you just pull numbers out of your ass.
MGS1 averages 11 hours on howlongtobeat.com, 8 hours rushed.
MGR averages 6 hours, 4 hours rushed, so at least you're closer on that one.
MGS4 averages 18 hours, 10 hours rushed, which sounds about right since there are 8 hours total of cutscenes.
And that's just campaigns. If you include extras (which are the main argument defenders keep using with Ground Zeroes), those numbers go way up. Ground Zeroes has been clocking in at about 2~3 hours WITH extras across multiple reviewers. The other MGS games aren't anywhere close to comparable with Ground Zeroes, and claiming that they're as short when you remove the cutscenes is wrong.[/QUOTE]
you can speedrun mgs1 in a little over ~2 hours.
you can speedrun mgr in a little under ~1 hour.
you can speedrun mgs4 in under ~2 hours.
stop using price to justify the reasoning that ground zeroes is not worth the purchase because of its length.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;44295078]why do people justify a game purchase based on the hours it gives you? why not justify it based on how much enjoyment you got out of it? i haven't played GZ but MGR only took me about 5 or so hours to beat the story and i would've happily payed 40 or even 50 bucks for it because those 5 or so hours were really enjoyable and fun.
stick of truth also comes to mind. it's $60 which is KINDA steep but it's also one of my favorite games to come out this year and i think it was worth it. and it was only 10 or so hours.[/QUOTE]
The thought basically is kinda like the difference between buying a delicious candy bar or a nice meal.
The candy bar is fucking delicious and you'll love it, but it's a small snack and while you could probably buy a lot of them, you would feel your money was better spent on a nice or decent dinner or something that might fill you for longer, despite maybe not being as awesome as the candy bar.
I agree with you highly, cuz some of the shorter games I've played have been the most memorable, but for people who are concerned with money, wouldn't it make more sense to save your money for something like, say Skyrim which can last you like hundreds of hours? It's a subjective thing really based on your circumstances and what you're okay with. If someone really likes MGS and doesn't mind the length, they're gonna grab it anyhow.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44295637]you can speedrun mgs1 in a little over ~2 hours.
you can speedrun mgr in a little under ~1 hour.
you can speedrun mgs4 in under ~2 hours.
stop using price to justify the reasoning that ground zeroes is not worth the purchase because of its length.[/QUOTE]
And you can speedrun GZ in 5 minutes according to Konami themselves. It scales pretty much the same as the rest of the statistics, so what is your point here? Speedruns (especially world-record speedruns, which is what you're citing) have nothing to do with anything. Even in the other thread I said the 10-minute GZ speedrun doesn't mean shit. Why do people keep using unrelated statistics as a defense for GZ? GZ is around one to two hours long with regular gameplay. This is fact. The whole argument that keeps getting brought up is that the rest of the series is really short so picking on GZ's length isn't justified, but the fact is that the rest of the series [I]is not[/I] really short so that argument is invalid.
Your last line boggles my mind, though. Of course I'm going to use price and length as my reasoning against or for whether or not I should buy a video game. Why wouldn't I!? Those are major factors when considering a game's value and the precedent that a release like this sets for the rest of the game industry is unsettling. Ground Zeroes is a piece of a much larger, much more fleshed out game being sold for $20~$30 to cash in on impatient fans and bring in more next-gen adopters. I don't see how this can be denied. Kojima even said it himself in an interview!
I'm definitely not denying that it's probably fun and the gameplay itself is probably great. Loads of reviews, even the negative ones, confirm this. But this game is basically a demo. For $20. A $20 demo. I'm not going to let Konami know that this is a good idea by not buying it. It's an exploitation of a loyal fanbase. I'll wait for the full game.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44295012]Finishing Metal Gear Rising on normal difficulty takes like 4 hours.
Metal Gear Solid 1 isn't really that much longer.
MGS4 is short as fuck if you take away all the cutscenes.[/QUOTE]
Last time i played MGS4 rushed with most of the items took like 3:50 on the final stats of the game.
And Big Boss takes aprox. 3-4 hours.
[QUOTE=Shugo;44295789]And you can speedrun GZ in 5 minutes according to Konami themselves. It scales pretty much the same as the rest of the statistics, so what is your point here? Speedruns (especially world-record speedruns, which is what you're citing) have nothing to do with anything. Even in the other thread I said the 10-minute GZ speedrun doesn't mean shit. Why do people keep using unrelated statistics as a defense for GZ? GZ is around one to two hours long with regular gameplay. This is fact. The whole argument that keeps getting brought up is that the rest of the series is really short so picking on GZ's length isn't justified, but the fact is that the rest of the series [I]is not[/I] really short so that argument is invalid.
Your last line boggles my mind, though. Of course I'm going to use price and length as my reasoning against or for whether or not I should buy a video game. Why wouldn't I!? Those are major factors when considering a game's value and the precedent that a release like this sets for the rest of the game industry is unsettling. Ground Zeroes is a piece of a much larger, much more fleshed out game being sold for $20~$30 to cash in on impatient fans and bring in more next-gen adopters. I don't see how this can be denied. Kojima even said it himself in an interview!
I'm definitely not denying that it's probably fun and the gameplay itself is probably great. Loads of reviews, even the negative ones, confirm this. But this game is basically a demo. For $20. A $20 demo. I'm not going to let Konami know that this is a good idea by not buying it. It's an exploitation of a loyal fanbase. I'll wait for the full game.[/QUOTE]
what's the point of not buying ground zeroes, which is a prologue to tpp and ties tpp with peace walker, just because kojima is opting to release the prologue as a downloadable title to treat the mgs fans? apparently just because kojima decided to release ground zeroes as a game that isn't full-priced, will be taking feedback on the gameplay to tweak tpp, and is giving the fans something they've been waiting for 6 years, means it's not worth it to buy it because kojima is just "exploiting the fanbase"
[editline]20th March 2014[/editline]
i mean, if all you're going to do is just read or watch a walkthrough to find out what happens, why even bother playing the mgs series?
[QUOTE=Jetamo;44295422]Yes, but that's a real 4/10, not a average-review-site-7/10-equals-1/10 score.
[/QUOTE]
First off, reviews aren't averages they are grades, like how a 40/100 is still failing.
Secondly, that was a garbage review that gets everything wrong except length and maybe story.
[QUOTE=Shugo;44295478]
MGS1 averages 11 hours on howlongtobeat.com, 8 hours rushed.
MGR averages 6 hours, 4 hours rushed, so at least you're closer on that one.
MGS4 averages 18 hours, 10 hours rushed, which sounds about right since there are 8 hours total of cutscenes.
[/QUOTE]
Who's ass are they pulling these numbers out of? Who takes 8 hours to rush MGS1? And MGS4 rushed (not speed run, "second time playing the game and already seen the cutscenes" run) is like 5 hours, tops
MGR is about spot on though while simultaenously being the exact game that takes 5 hours to beat but is well worth its $30 asking price.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44295920]what's the point of not buying ground zeroes, which is a prologue to tpp and ties tpp with peace walker, just because kojima is opting to release the prologue as a downloadable title to treat the mgs fans? apparently just because kojima decided to release ground zeroes as a game that isn't full-priced, will be taking feedback on the gameplay to tweak tpp, and is giving the fans something they've been waiting for 6 years, means it's not worth it to buy it because kojima is just "exploiting the fanbase"[/QUOTE]
Because I don't feel that an hour-long campaign is worth $30 or even $20. Lots of reviewers agree. It's pretty simple.
Every review I've read also said that GZ is extremely light on the story so it's not even very valuable as a prologue. If I want GZ for the story value, I'll either wait until this hits the bargain bin for $10 or less or I'll wait for the inevitable dual-pack that has both GZ and PP sold together for a bundle price.
I'm also not going to pay $80~$90 for the "full MGSV experience". You do realize that'll be the total price if bought separately, right? It's ridiculous. In my opinion, it's like taking day-one DLC to the next level. It's a practice I don't want to reward, though I'm sure leaving my wallet out isn't going to dent the sales much on a giant name like MGS.
id imagine tpp is going to be l;ike 40-50 buxxx
obviously you're not gonna budge from your "i won't buy this game to support kojima's practice", even though you're still gonna buy it later on.
so whatever, enjoy not enjoying an enjoyable video game that has me wanting tpp even sooner than 2015.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44295967]Who's ass are they pulling these numbers out of? Who takes 8 hours to rush MGS1? And MGS4 rushed (not speed run, "second time playing the game and already seen the cutscenes" run) is like 5 hours, tops
MGR is about spot on though while simultaenously being the exact game that takes 5 hours to beat but is well worth its $30 asking price.[/QUOTE]
It's averaged across hundreds of user-submitted times. I can't think of a better, more fair reference point. Because the times people keep posting vary a lot, and are obviously watered down with technicalities (i.e. "if you skip the cutscenes, if you already beat the game 3 times, if you...").
Which is really ironic to me because before GZ came out and we didn't know exactly how much side content there was, every argument was always about how GZ's playtime was going to be padded out by hours and hours of side content that would more than justify the pricepoint. Then it actually came out and the argument shifted to "b-but the whole series is short, so GZ being short is okay!!!".
also the side missions weren't the main point of padding out hours and hours of gameplay, it's the replay value.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44296013]obviously you're not gonna budge from your "i won't buy this game to support kojima's practice", even though you're still gonna buy it later on.
so whatever, enjoy not enjoying an enjoyable video game that has me wanting tpp even sooner than 2015.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I feel like this is a Konami practice if anything. It's been known for a while now that they keep pretty much forcing Kojima to do this and that with the series (even though he wanted it to die honorably many years ago), so it's not far-fetched to think that Konami (and probably Sony and Microsoft) pressured him to release something early to help kickstart the next-gen consoles, which had really weak starting lineups.
And actually, I'm also gonna wait and stay skeptical about Phantom Pain too, because I personally don't like the direction the series is taking in its huge tone shift and strange choices like replacing Hayter. It really doesn't sit well with me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
