Ground Zeroes seems like a rather confusing game. In fact the entire Metal Gear Solid V situation left me confused for months before Ground Zeroes actually released, with contradictory information about the link between Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain appearing seemingly weekly. I know it’s a situation somewhat akin to Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, but Prologue had the advantage that it wasn’t narrative driven.
Confusion aside, the real problem for me is the length. While I’m on board with games of any length, the 90 minutes that Teflon pegs the game’s main mission at in his review does seem overly short. I mean you can lump in the cutscenes, that only seems fair given how much a Metal Gear Solid title relies on them, and add on the side missions, but even then it doesn’t seem like there’s really enough to justify the cost.
On the more positive side of things, Tef was impressed by the variety of ways you can “infiltrate and explore” Camp Omega, saying that the game’s “real joy will come [from] using this area as your personal playground”. He praised the way you’re given “multiple routes and options for getting from one place to another”, avoiding the various patrols and watch towers as you go.
The game’s graphical presentation received praise too, with Tef calling it a “graphical tour de force for the FOX Engine and PS4”. He also highlighted the way that the game’s time of day and weather, elements that shift in the side missions, really effect it’s look, as well as the way they alter how the game plays in these missions. Playing in “blazing sunshine as you go in to plant a series of explosives on some AA guns” obviously has a very different look to “the rainy darkness of the main mission”, and it seems these differences are really reflected in the gameplay.
However, it seems like the game’s length really held it back for Tef, as he only rated it as a 6/10. Here’s what he had to say as he wrapped up his review:
Splitting Ground Zeroes back into a separate release was always going to be contentious. Thankfully, there is a lot more gameplay and depth than the early reports of the main mission’s length suggested and it’s full of potential for exploration, fan service and Kojima’s particular brand of hackneyed allegories.
Unfortunately, there is still too little primary content to justify the £29.99 price tag or even the £19.99 digital pricing for PS3/360, so I can’t recommend this to anyone but a die hard MGS fan.
As per usual, it’s now time to ask you what you thought of this prequel to The Phantom Pain. Would you rather it was included with The Phantom Pain like the oil tanker sequence in Metal Gear Solid 2, or do you think that there’s enough here to justify a stand alone release? Are you getting value for money from the game, or do you think it needed to be a little longer for the money you paid?
If you want to share your opinion all you need to do is drop us a comment below, remembering to tack on a rating using our Buy It, Sale It, Plus It, Avoid It scale so that we can sum up the community’s opinion in Monday’s WeView Verdict.