Ground Zeroes

>What the fuck was Kojima thinking trying to make Metal Gear Solid open world?
I dunno, but probably the same exact thing that every other retard who fell for the open world meme thought. Breath of the Wild, Final Fantasy XV, The Witcher 3, etc. The open world genre will not be sated until it ruins every franchise.

DEMON
EDITION
NEVER EVER

>the open world genre will not be sated until it ruins every franchise.
This. They're all so obsessed with nonlinearity, but camp omega gave you lots of options and managed to be nonlinear without being a pointless open world full of meaningless shit to collect.

Literally every major base can have surveillance cameras in MGSV.
That's why there's a Sabotage: Surveillance Cameras combat deployment for your combat team. Guess what?because you were probably sending your guys to sabotage them, you also never got to see any cameras.

anarchist can suck my dick,but damn this song is kino.

I've deffo come around to the idea that TPP should;ve been 7-10 GZ's with some setpiece locationss(Selanphtropos for example). OPwen World was just not a good move and while it worked in PW it didn't belong on a home console release with the intros etc,

>generates two barren desert terrains that won't hamper performance due to object clutter
>plops down a couple bases and populated them with AI NPCs
>"aaaand done with the gameplay! Now we can shoot a bunch of cutscenes featuring men speaking to each other mere inches from each other's faces! God I love directing mov- I mean video games!"

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 42K)

>a bunch of bases
The supply depot doesn't count being too small, nor does OKB Zero with how linear it was.

There were only three bases that approached the scale and depth of the GZ base (Mfinda oilfield, the stockade in Afghanistan, that Afghan cave even though more than half of its interior goes unused, and maybe even the African estate with Code Talker) but nothing, could match the level of depth they gave Guantanamo, and even that had less depth than the set pieces in the others prior.

Is it just me, or does GZ even look better than TPP? I really liked the rain effects and how you could see and hear the droplets impact the soldiers' ponchos.

Attached: 311340_20190810212533_1.png (1920x1080, 1.31M)

Actually I'll trade the cave for the base camp.
That base camp and Mfinda were the only outposts you could really start to compare with Omega, but even still they're not as well designed.

I think I had more fun playing GZ than I did TPP.

I would argue OKB Zero definitely counts. It's broken up into multiple sections which make it linear, but you have an outdoor section where you advance uphill, an open courtyard section, a section with a lot of enclosed alleys and indoor areas and then a section with vertical sections along the side overlooking another small courtyard.
Sure, you go linearly from one section to the next, but you had quite a bit of different game play styles there with how you got through each section.

can the fox engine really not handle more than like 10 dudes at once?

Camp Omega mod in MGS V when?

What would be the point? The two games are almost identical mechanically, but GZ doesn't have all the overpowered gadgets. Literally just play GZ, it's better in every way but it's length.

It can, at least in PES
I think they fine tuned it in MGSV to be able to run on old gen consoles

>I think they fine tuned it in MGSV to be able to run on old gen consoles
Why does EVERYONE insist on holding back their game for the sake of consoles? Why not let your game reach it's full potential on PC and make a full on 10/10?

The point would be to have another terrain with the ability to complete side ops and other things

oops meant for

Konami
Pretty sure Kojimbo begged them not to

>TPP's bases were rarely as in-depth as Camp Omega
>the few large areas were either incredibly underplayed as a one-and-done deal without doing more interesting things with them or simply just didn't have much depth in terms of options for stealth or combat
>a couple dozen separate weapons of death and carnage but less than a dozen decent non-lethal options, and enemies start developing counters for almost everything short of gas and CQC, only expounding on MGSV's problems
>mission variety in TPP is 'destroy this thing' or 'kidnap/fulton this person/thing', missing the mark that GZ set forth, which also hammers on the issue of TPP's focus on grinding/base building demanding you fulton EVERYTHING until your shit's built up enough to not give a fuck
>open world between everything is just barren, and the only things you'll encounter are wild animals, radiomen walking from base to base, or the occasional truck unless there's scripted vehicles in a mission heading somewhere; otherwise it's nothing more than a shitty timesink to pretend there's more to the game than there really is

>beneath all of this are excellent controls and great gameplay ideas that don't even remotely get to meet their full potential compared to the fucking demo

The intro cutscene to Ground Zeroes is definitely far and away the best cutscene in MGSV.

Just spoke with Konami, they told me its coming.

It's also getting a Switch port.

Source: My dad works at Nintendo

why did you greentext all of this? why didn't you just write it out like a normal person? this is annoying as fuck to read now.

That said I agree with you. I will say that Camp Omega is overrated, it's good but it's not great. There's so much missed potential here, there should have been interiors, and many of them, all we have are shacks with nothing in them but ammo. I remember funnily enough being a little disappointed in GZ when it came out because camp omega wasn't detailed enough, like it looked pretty and the actual mission design was really solid, but I wanted so much more out of that area and what we got just felt a little meh compared to what it could have been.

Then TPP came along and suddenly GZ looked like the greatest thing ever.

The sad thing about Ground Zeroes is that it isn't just the main mission that is far better than anything in TPP, but the side ops in GZ were actually good in terms of mission design, I mean I'm not a fan of how they were put in there and how they're all fictional events that don't matter, but if I ignore that part and just look at the design, those missions were fucking good and had a ton of replay value.

Attached: Metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes-2.jpg (1920x1080, 2.03M)

It bothers me too much that every single side-op in TPP ended up being nothing more than resource or soldier grabs. Besides the gunsmith shit at least, which in and of itself is dragged out for no good reason to make a joke about the student of the student of the gunsmith.

Ground Zeroes isn't an unfinished piece of shit, that's why, even if its a 2 hour demo, its still more polished/complete than TPP.

Yeah, a simple renaming of the missions would have at least made TPP feel less bullshitty.

For example add a category EXTRA OPS, and put all the side ops in there, and then make some of the MAIN OPS into side ones, ones that have no fucking story and where nothing happens. I don't know why that game had so many missions, a majority of them nothing fucking happens, just the same drivel at the start of every fucking one "uhh, yeah, Cypher is totally transporting some goods and uh, it'd be bad so, we gotta go through this for the 15th time, btw Cypher is involved"

off the top of my head I can remember like 8 missions in the game, 5 of them were ones written by Kojima that were big story moments, and those were all the best ones.

Only in Yea Forums and out of contrarianism.

Except those missions are not sideops, they don't have the structure of one.
Those missions are the equivalent of the filler missions in MGSV, those with no story.

>those missions were fucking good
They have about the same variety a Call of Duty game does, but I guess reaching the standards of COD is an achievement for a franchise made up entirely of movies which has always discarded gameplay in favor of endless cutscenes.

the snatcher mission was based fag

>Ground Zeroes isn't an unfinished piece of shit
Why do people treat GZ as it's own thing?
It's literally a level that was cut from MGSV and sold apart.
You can even see the part in MGSV where the GZ level was supposed to happen.

because there is a console market

GZ has different feeling gameplay/overall tone. That's why.

Pretty much. That side op "Destroy the Anti-Air Emplacements" was fucking tense as shit and incredibly satisfying to pull of 100% stealthily.

Yeah, running around the base which was emptier than usual, marking people and killing the ones with different skeletons.
Mind blowing stuff.
The only reason MGSV's gameplay stands out is because the gameplay standards of MGS have always been subpar.

honestly mgs4 gameplay was better than v gameplay, even if you barely get to see it.

>GZ has different feeling gameplay
Complete bullshit, it's literally the same except you are confined to a camp and you don't have shit like knocking on walls or being able to customize your loadout.
It's still a casualized piece of crap with unironic health regeneration.

Of course the COD generation the populates Yea Forums in 2019 loved it.

It hurts me that Kojima intended for Camp Omega to be playable in TPP as bonus content or even basically slapping the prologue basis of it straight into TPP. But development issues fucked it up royally.

>It hurts me that Kojima intended for Camp Omega to be playable in TPP as bonus content
Why?
It would have made no sense whatsoever, it's not even part of the leaked script.
Of all the things missing in MGSV (which aren't many), I have no idea why people cling to that shit so much.
What the fuck did you expect it to happen in Camp Omega again?

I never said I "love" it. I just said it has a different feeling to TPP. It is nowhere near my favorite game or MGS at all.

>It's still a casualized piece of crap with unironic health regeneration.
Why are you playing MGS like a shooter? You're not supposed to be getting shot at.

Because in this game, unlike previous MGS games, getting shot at is not a threat.
You are not in any danger, hell, the game actually becomes easier and faster if you run and gun.

Are you implying I need a story reason to want more content and things to stealth through instead of dealing with shitty FOBs that have dumbed-down AI?

That's what MGSV should've been. Decently sized sandboxes that can be tackled in multiple ways instead of a huge open world.

No

It's the best demo.

Shadow Moses > Big Shell > Tanker > Tselinoyarsk > Middle East (MGS4 ACT 1)) > South America (MGS4 ACT 2) > Camp Omega > Costa Rica > Southern Europe (MGS4 ACT 3) > Afghanistan (MGSV) > Africa (MGSV)

Fucking ACT 3 setting has more soul than anything in TPP

Ground Zeroes was the natural step forward after Peace Walker, The Phantom Pain is not, that was a step down and I will forever be mad about it.

MGS without it's narrative is nothing, the gameplay is too shallow to stand on its own.
That's why i'll always wonder what was the point of giving us a free roam option in MGSV, it should have been the list of missions and that's it.
The open world was structured exactly like Peace Walker, AKA just random bases made for the levels to happen in, and I don't remember that game having a free roam option.

god i wish mgs1 got a non retarded remake

Open worlds sound amazing on paper but they're so expensive to make that you already run out of money or are too busy dealing with glitches that you can't add any of the nuance that would make them amazing and instead you will have to copy paste content or make redundant locations at best.

Do MGSfags get some sort of dopamine shot by posting this exact same post in every MGS thread?

It's something everyone agrees with, simple.
Look at Hitman and how every level feels so distinctive in comparison to the shit you see in open world stealth games.

>Decently sized sandboxes that can be tackled in multiple ways instead of a huge open world.
But that's exactly what TPP is.
The missions are just pieces of the map, they are limited to an area.
It's just you idiots go on free roam mode and then wonder
>WOW THERE'S NOTHING TO DO
instead of doing missions.

GZ didn't have a free roam mode, TPP shouldn't have had any either.

The problem with Hitman is that it reuses the levels multiple times.
I don't understand this kind of lazyness, just doing 5 maps and then having 100 missions happen in them, instead of making 100 levels.
And if you can't, you make 50.
Maps should never be reused.

90% of TPP's missions is running through the empty ass open world, to get to the rescue random prisoner #90 mission.

Ground Zeroes was pretty fun to play even if the plot was garbage.
MGS 1 has very shallow gameplay but in 2 you already start having enough nuance in the mechanics to make just playing the game enjoyable. MGS 3 took things even further and 5 on paper embraces a lot of ideas to make the gameplay the main attraction. Problem is, the franchise has always had a lot of plot, but 5 didn't so fans who wanted a plot were heavily disappointed specially with how good the trailers were looking.

>90% of TPP's missions is running through the empty ass open world
No, they are limited to small zones.

>to get to the rescue random prisoner #90 mission.
You mean side ops?
Those are not main missions, and in fact, they should be removed.
MGSV would improve vastly by removing the free roam mode, the roaming around Motherbase, the FOB system and side ops.

This is all I wanted. It's retarded that I managed to get more time out of GZ than TPP.

5 also simply didn't have enough unique or varied content to really make great use of the gameplay.

Ground Zeroes had an outstanding ratio of variety to content. Granted it had very little content, but it set an expectation which Phantom Pain didn't even try to fill. They couldn't even be bothered to recycle all the mission types from GZ into TPP. That's fucking lazy. You could still get 30-40 hours out of this arguably 3 hour demo.

>The problem with Hitman is that it reuses the levels multiple times.
GZ does the same. As long as you can get enough variety in a single level I don't really mind that it's the same level, the Snake tales in mgs2 were pretty fun for example and they were just variations of the normal levels but more challenging.
With Phantom Pain a lot of missions were in different locations but the level layout and mission objectives felt redundant and they didn't offered anything that made them felt truly unique.

The trailers were nothing but a compilation of cutscenes with a random song playing in the background, the only reason you were hyped was that it was about an MGS game.

>Maps should never be reused.
I don't think so. You can strike a good balance of having multiple levels but also adding alternate versions of the levels that give a nice twist to the mission.

>GZ does the same.
And that's why it falls apart, it's pure laziness, even more considering it was $40.
You don't reuse content, even less in a Triple A game, period.

MGSV's open world could have easily have had a couple more maps, and all of them more detailed than previous MGS games, if the developers weren't a bunch of talentless hacks who are too used to simply making cutscenes.

MGS1 and 2 both got a lot of mileage out of backtracking as well, to the point that Twin Snakes adding in cheesy methods to bypass backtracking for a sniper rifle or for heating and cooling the memory shape alloy card kind of missed the point of why they were there in the first place.

Just dropping in to remind you that it's been 4 years and you're still seething.

It falls apart because it's just one level. Great for a demo but nothing that should cost that much money.
>MGSV's open world could have easily have had a couple more maps, and all of them more detailed than previous MGS games, if the developers weren't a bunch of talentless hacks who are too used to simply making cutscenes.
I doubt it. I bet most of the resources were spent in actually crafting the open world and making it work.

If i dont use any people and stealth all of V is it fun?
I feel like you get way too many advantages anymore, it use to be the opposite.

>I bet most of the resources were spent in actually crafting the open world and making it work.
I really doubt it, I bet most of them were spent on making it, and then realizing they had to make PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, which, even in the empty open world we have, run at 20 FPS at the native resolution of the PS Vita.

Triple A game developers are held to very low standards nowadays, they should be pushed to achieve more, which they easily could if they stopped being lazy, entitled idiots.

GZ is just one level. If you had a decent amount of levels and then on top of that different versions of them then there wouldn't be an issue. Charging for something that ends in less than 2 hours and in which the other missions don't add anything to the plot is pretty damn stupid for a series that's famous for it's never ending plot.

NO
MGS1-4 are great games
MG5 is shit not because it is a bad game but because it abandoned everything that made MGS great from boss battles, female characters, mission structure, music and so on
fuck kojima

Attached: kojima faggots.jpg (828x825, 245K)

It's a demo, not a game, and it's inferior to the actual game.

>female characters
>characters in general
Every single character in MGS is an overused archetype.

I don't think the issue is laziness. It's a mix of having to do more with tech that demands more. Compare MGS 4 and it's linear levels that can be finished pretty quickly, that's way easier to add than a stupid massive open world.
If anything they failed for being too ambitious and not knowing that open worlds are a death trap for game designers that can never be truly deep due to how much development issues they bring.

4 was shit also.

>If anything they failed for being too ambitious and not knowing that open worlds are a death trap for game designers that can never be truly deep due to how much development issues they bring.
Sounds to me like they should start hiring actual talent instead of anyone that shows up at their door.
Lack of ambition is what doomed MGSV from the start.

I've thought about this a lot. Phantom Pain had a lot of big, explorable bases. But none of them were as enjoyable as Ground Zeroes, and I'm really not sure why. The most memorable stage in TPP was the one where you recognize Code Talker, and it wasn't even that great.

>MGS 4 apologist
Die

Hah, you fucking wish.
I still like it more than I like MGSV though, and why? because at least 4 is a fucking metal gear game, no matter how retarded that story was, I still feel like I'm playing a Metal Gear game, not a confused open world game poorly imitating metal gear. FUCK Peace Walker and FUCK MGSV, MGS lost its identity when it went from tactical espionage to being about recruiting armies and fucking grinding.

Also say what you will about MGS4, ACT 1 and 2 have not only solid settings, but the concept of sneaking around on a battlefield is executed very nicely and I actually really enjoy playing those sections.

Back when the Fox Engine was being made, Kojipro was hiring staff and the demands were pretty high so no, they weren't just hiring anyone. The level designer was also pretty vocal about the way modern stealth games tackle stuff and his design philosophy was way more ambitious than what just works, and it shows with Camp Omega which is pretty well designed. The full game has shit level design for most missions somehow so I don't think the guy just became an idiot all of a sudden.
Lack of ambition would've been doing more of the same, instead of going for the most expensive and difficult to make type of single player game.

>but the concept of sneaking around on a battlefield is executed very nicely and I actually really enjoy playing those sections.
Pffffft. Yeah, I also love having enemies that spot me only to do nothing since they're programmed to keep fighting the never ending militia enemies in half of the areas in both act 1 and 2.
MGS 4 has excellent ideas but the most awful execution with any single one of them.
Don't even bother arguing with the retard. He has no idea how game development works, just another retard who think "game bad because dev is dumb durr hurr".

Considering the leaked script and how few content is actually missing, i'd say lack of ambition is a problem.
You could set the game anywhere you wanted, it's the Cold War, and you choose just some random patch of land in Afghanistan and Africa?
You could do anything, and you just limit it to two maps?
The big bad Metal Gear is literally an upright REX?

The amount of weapons, gear, outfits, levels and maps, everything points out at the people who made MGSV being bored as hell.
Developers should be able to do more.
And the fact that people seem satisfied with GZ, or that they don't want them to improve and instead to go back is probably one of the many reasons why developers don't even try.

I'm not saying the concept was executed flawlessly, but it was executed in a way that I found fun and engaging. I've had way more fun playing and replaying ACT 1 and 2 of MGS4 than I ever had with MGSV.

I know I'll replay MGS4 in the future, and I know I'll have fun dicking around in act 1 and 2, I can promise you that I will never touch PW or MGSV again, I have zero desire to ever replay either of them.

You should play games that were made thinking of them being played instead of being watched.
No MGS game has any replay value.

>I know I'll replay MGS4 in the future
Sorry about your brain damage

Kojima is too good at making demos because P.T. is the greatest horror game there will ever be and Ground Zeroes is the best stealth game there will ever be.

Well, agree to disagree, user.
MGS has always had replay value because the gameplay since day 1 has always been dynamic, you're not being railroaded along a path, how you sneak around the enemies is up to you, and if you're caught you have to deal with the consequences, to me that creates a constant tension in the air and makes replaying the games fun, because the same thing doesn't happen every run.

Also, I highly value story, setting, and characters in video game, I especially value games that are as autistic as MGS get about details and context, Kojima (back then) really wanted good excuses for why the player was doing something at any time in those games, if it was as simple as going down an elevator and finding a scientist, he made sure that the scenario was rich with context and story. I could see why some would hate that, but I don't.
Cheers. I'll replay 1, 2, 3 and 4 for as long as I live, I imagine. 4 slightly begrudgingly so, but I enjoy it enough that I'll still do it.

>Also, I highly value story
Then why do you even remotely appreciate MGS 4, the game that raped the series' storyline past the point of no return? Man, you really are retarded.

That's like saying "why should I ever watch Die Hard again, there's no rewatch value".

I didn't know video games are defined as 'has replay value'.

Ground Zeroes is the best 20 minutes of MGS next to the Tanker intro.

He should honestly try and make an anthology style game.
A bunch of separate smaller things with strands connecting them

Did you read anything I said about MGS4? I was talking about the concept of sneaking around on the battlefield and how I enjoyed that in ACT 1 and 2, the only comment I have made about MGS4s story is that it's retarded, maybe you should read before you spew needlessly angry posts at me?

What's the matter with you? what have I done that warrants your complete shit tone?

It was just a tightly designed experience in every way, which MGSV was the polar opposite of. Shame really.

It wasn't tight at all, I still remember spending 15 minutes just taking prisoners to the heli.
GZ and TPP are pasionless work, even more than the usual MGS.

It takes 3-4 minutes perhaps to deliver all the prisoners, which you don't have to do at all, and you get very well performed voice lines that come with rescuing them. You just sound like a jaded asshole, user.

>I still remember spending 15 minutes just taking prisoners to the heli.
It takes 5 minutes max, you were just poorly planned.

No, I simply demand more from games as time goes.
I don't care that Triple A have gotten worse, no one should lower their standards.

It sounds like you're asking them to lower standards because being able to carry people was a good feature of the game that forced you to use different strategies and also 99% of the time completely optional.

>different strategies
What?
You could still use the tranq gun, and not being able to go prone didn't change much.
Not to mention that carrying those prisoners wasn't based on skill, since the road to the landing zone is pretty much empty, is just a timesink.

>being able to go prone didn't change much.
Yes it did, it increases the risk massively because you can't simply dive if you get spotted and you need to worry about whether to leave the prisoner behind at certain spots. Whether you like it or not is subjective but an extra feature to the game definitely doesn't worsen its quality. They made the fulton available if that was your preferred method too.

>They made the fulton available if that was your preferred method too.
I'm talking about GZ.

In neither of them is this a threat because they have very short spotting distances and there's a ton of cover, specially in GZ.

>strands connecting them
so like, a strand-like system? That's very innovative, wouldn't you agree?

Attached: image.jpg (1280x720, 135K)

It truly is, you might even call it an entirely new genre of video game.

No, you still had to look out for guards while you delivered the prisoners. If that 5 minute section of an introductory mission is enough to ruin the game then no game can satisfy you.

He seemed pretty tired of mgs from what TPP shows. Felt like he just threw a bunch of themes and ideas together and sprinkled MGS around sparingly

how can it be shit, it took everything from mgs 1-3 and made it into HD

>Did you read anything I said about MGS4?
I read you saying you value story highly and then being an apologist of MGS 4

>what have I done that warrants your complete shit tone?
You implied MGS 4 is less of a piece of shit than MGS V, which implies MGS 4 isn't the biggest piece of shit in the Metal Gear series, which is dead wrong and needs to be addressed.

There was barely no gameplay and the story got even more stupid than it already was, and not in a positive way. How can you even ask that ? Mixing a bunch of shit in a blender and throwing it into a bowl doesn't suddenly it make it not shit

I do value story, which is why I love MGS1, 2 and 3. I like MGS4, I have a million problems with it, but ultimately I cannot simply just hate it. I played it on release day 11 years ago now, I was frustrated and disappointed as hell after that first playthrough, but with time and replays I've found things that I do enjoy about it.
Also nah, MGS4 is way better than V is.

Gotta say though, you have such a passive aggressive and shit attitude that I have absolutely zero desire to discuss or argue any further about this dumb shit.

>I like MGS4, I have a million problems with it, but ultimately I cannot simply just hate it
Utterly disgusting. It continues to baffle me that there are retards that cry their eyes out at the utter betrayal that was MGS V yet are willing to look away when MGS 4 did the exact same fucking shit a decade earlier.

MGS 4 concluded the story horribly with shallow fanservice only brainlets would blindly appreciate.
At least MGS V was a retarded side story in a prequel that never needed to be made. MGS 3 completely spelled out everything that needed to be spelled out about Big Boss.

>MGS 3 completely spelled out everything that needed to be spelled out about Big Boss.
Peace Walker* FTFY

Nope. Peace Walker was already fucking stupid.

imagine taking video games this seriously. imagine seeing things as black/white as this, are you autistic by any chance?

also, unlike MGSV, MGS4 is an actual Metal Gear title, it has the Metal Gear identity. MGSV may also have a bad story, but it also lacks an identity, it's a shitty open world game, with shitty missions, a padded campaign that is fucking 50 hours longer than it should be, it traded cutscenes for hours and hours of tapes (this is not a fucking good trade off).

MGS has been a part of 2/3rds of my fucking life, I have an emotional attachment to what that series was, MGS4 to me still feels like it carries that identity despite the fact that it's got a shit story. Am I excusing how dumb that story was? no, I can like things about it without making excuses for the story.

MGSV means nothing to me, that game has no soul, that game has nothing, it is a game where talented people made Snake control really really well, and then they fucked up the rest of that entire game.

Why did you have to remind me about MGSV.

>imagine taking video games this seriously
Ironic coming from >unlike MGSV, MGS4 is an actual Metal Gear title
Nah. It raped the series story, it raped nearly all of its characters, it had no stealth gameplay worth a shit from halfway Act 2 onward. It's not a Metal Gear game any more than Peace Walker or V or Portable Ops. Hell, Ghost Babel or Acid. Hell, Ghost Babel is more of a Metal Gear game than 4, by miles.

>muh soul
V and 4 have the exact same amount of soul. Which is to say none.

Attached: ObjectivelyCorrectMGRankings.png (1798x1408, 2.41M)

based

Survive should go into Retardian

gonna go with a based on this one

Survive is bad for what it represents, but as a product and a spinoff it's not bad. Just not remarkable.