[QUOTE=Shugo;44296015]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...").[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but I was mostly talking about the rush times. Those are really off.
Hmmm I loaded up a new world in Minecraft and made a wood pickaxe in about ~58 seconds. I then closed it, having completed what I wanted from the game.
Minecraft game length: ~58 seconds.
i think when you think of the price of this game, and compare it to mgs2's tanker mission and things like that, you're not understanding the state of the industry today and the fact it's not 2001 anymore
look at the snowdrop engine, ue4, and unity 5. do you know why millions of dollars have been invested in making user-friendly game engines? because games cost [I]way too much[/I] fucking money to make right now, which is why we've ended up with a massive company publishing a 2-hour long prologue just so that they can break even and fund development of the full game
Isn't portable ops for PSP also like 2 hours?
Ground Zeroes seems to be the right gameplay length for me, I barely ever finish games because they're too long
A reviewer telling people to not buy the game, real fucking professional.
[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]
Those are speedruns with the aim of completing the game as fast as possible, GZ is 2-3 hours just playing the game normally. There's a big difference.
If this was any other game, no one at all would defend it. I like MGS as well, i completed MGS4 for the first time this week, but this being a popular series should be a reason for people to be against this, not a reason to defend it. I'm sure the gameplay is going to be great, but doesn't stop it being a demo that you have to pay for. I've seen people saying the tanker mission demo was similar, but you got a full priced game with that (ZoE), so it really isn't.
[QUOTE=spekter;44297624]A reviewer telling people to not buy the game, real fucking professional.[/QUOTE]
What? A reviewer can say to people not to buy a game and still be professional.
Maybe not in this case but you can generally say that about a game if you have good reasons.
[QUOTE=nightlord;44297666]Those are speedruns with the aim of completing the game as fast as possible, GZ is 2-3 hours just playing the game normally. There's a big difference[/QUOTE]
you can still finish mgs4's gameplay in less than 4 hours without really 'speedrunning'. if you just shoot everyone with a rifle you can finish most of the chapters in like 30 minutes
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44297717]you can still finish mgs4's gameplay in less than 4 hours without really 'speedrunning'. if you just shoot everyone with a rifle you can finish most of the chapters in like 30 minutes[/QUOTE]
It would still take a lot longer to finish the game because of cutscenes, though. Even with cutscenes GZ is about 2-3 hours.
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;44297673]What? A reviewer can say to people not to buy a game and still be professional.
Maybe not in this case but you can generally say that about a game if you have good reasons.[/QUOTE]
You're giving your opinion on a product, nothing more.
Telling people what they should do is to essentially disrespect your audience. People can make their own informed decisions not just blindly follow what others tell them to.
[QUOTE=Ramen;44296962]Hmmm I loaded up a new world in Minecraft and made a wood pickaxe in about ~58 seconds. I then closed it, having completed what I wanted from the game.
Minecraft game length: ~58 seconds.[/QUOTE]
It took me ~5 minutes to get where i want in Half-Life 2. Must be the games fault.
[QUOTE=spekter;44297624]A reviewer telling people to not buy the game, real fucking professional.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, all games must be recommended to people. Anyone telling people that Limbo of the Lost is bad are bad people.
[QUOTE=spekter;44297788]You're giving your opinion on a product, nothing more.
Telling people what they should do is to essentially disrespect your audience. People can make their own informed decisions not just blindly follow what others tell them to.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't telling people a product is not worth buying be their opinion.
And everyone's forgetting that the entire reason to play a Metal Gear Solid game is the plot, not the ~2 hours of gameplay in between. It's not Tetris where the gameplay is the entire point.
Though a 10 hour Metal Gear Solid experience is enough for me. Hell, I beat Metal Gear Solid 3 again recently and spent over 12 hours. I seem to be spending longer each time I play. It's probably because I really enjoy the game.
-snip-
[QUOTE=megafat;44297806]It took me ~5 minutes to get where i want in Half-Life 2. Must be the games fault.
Yeah, all games must be recommended to people. Anyone telling people that Limbo of the Lost is bad are bad people.
Wouldn't telling people a product is not worth buying be their opinion.
And everyone's forgetting that the entire reason to play a Metal Gear Solid game is the plot, not the ~2 hours of gameplay in between. It's not Tetris where the gameplay is the entire point.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between saying "I don't like this game for X reasons" and "Do not buy this game"
If the game had glaringly bad flaws and was practically unplayable ala Big Rigs then yes that would be fair to say. But some of us are getting actual enjoyment out of this despite the short playtime.
If you only count the time spent getting head-shots the completion time gets to around 30 seconds
Honestly whats this whole hoopla about finishing the game quickly? If you really want to get your worth out of a game you never just play it once.
[QUOTE=spekter;44297788]You're giving your opinion on a product, nothing more.
Telling people what they should do is to essentially disrespect your audience. People can make their own informed decisions not just blindly follow what others tell them to.[/QUOTE]
How is "You should buy this game because it's good" any different to "You shouldn't buy this game because it's short for it's money worth"?
[QUOTE=spekter;44298197]There's a difference between saying "I don't like this game for X reasons" and "Do not buy this game"
If the game had glaringly bad flaws and was practically unplayable ala Big Rigs then yes that would be fair to say. But some of us are getting actual enjoyment out of this despite the short playtime.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it's better than wasting anywhere from $30 to $60 on an absolutely horrible game, they're doing you a service and it's part of their job of being a reviewer. Even if it is a genuinely good game regardless, $30 is ridiculous to ask for it, there are better, longer indie games that don't ask even close to that. Unless you're really that stupid and think reviewer "professionalism" is giving every game a 8-10/10 despite the horrible flaws ruining everything.
[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]
This just in speedruns = actual game time
Since we are using speedrun scale you can beat ground zeroes under 10 minutes. MGS4 is roughly 12X longer as such than Ground Zeroes is on the speedrun scale. Since MGS4 was also double the price, lets put it on the same price scale as well. Per dollar MGS4 is 6X as long.
There's really no arguing against this. Ground Zeroes may be good but its pretty damn expensive considering how short it is, and how its basically just a demo for the Phantom Pain.
I'll just wait for Phantom Pain. If anything this is great marketing - release a very well received but very short overpriced prelude a year before your actual full game comes out, ensure max hype for the full game when people can actually buy a good value game for their dollar for the same experience.
I've done one play though and only got 11 percent completion. I completed all the side missions and saved all the prisoners. I also did a complete stealth without any kills.
After i completed the first run though it only showed me at 11 percent complete and it unlocked additional side-missions and new objectives. That being said there are different ways of getting in and around to objectives. Some more ballsy then others.
There is plenty of value in this game, I bought it for the PS4 and the framerate is orgasmic along with the visual and amount of shit that is going on in the map. I really enjoyed it, was slightly pissed when i completed it because i expected a bit more. Then i unlocked a bunch of additional shit to do so i wasn't upset for long.
If you like MGS you'll like this game and it will be a nice addition to your MGS collection. If you've never played MGS you may want to hold off till the full game comes out.
People need to remember that value is completely subjective term, some people it isn't worth it and to other it may be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
