6 Things I Learned Playing Metal Gear: Ground Zeroes

I bailed on the Metal Gear Solid series fairly early on in MGS2, as I found its frenzy of cutscenes both patience-testing and risible. Safe in my PC ivory tower of sneering youth, I was happy to dismiss anything that followed as bunkum, swaddled in unfiltered narrative excess that seemed to be its own fanservice. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, who knows? Part of me wouldn’t mind seeing how I felt about it all now these old eyes are less snobby than they used to be, but time, oh time. One thing I certainly lost sight of is that, somewhere underneath all the melodrama, MGS is supposed to be a stealth series. I’ve been hankering for a bit of ‘pure’ stealth lately, so when I heard the phrase ‘open world stealth game’ applied to last month’s Metal Gear Solid V prequel Ground Zeroes, I paid unexpected attention. Those are four extremely appealing words.

Deep breath. Embrace that which you believe you hate, Meer. So I did. And I’m very glad I did.

Here’s why:

1) It’s exciting. And the biggest contributor to that is exfiltration. Sneaking around a large military base, avoiding or taking out guards and trying to find a way to the cells is one thing, but trying to head back out with a rescued prisoner slung over your shoulder is another thing entirely. You move slower, you can’t see as well, you can only wield a pistol, you have to put your charge down to knock out unsuspecting guards, and most of all if you do get spotted the first thing the enemy shoots is the person you’re trying to save. Getting from A to B is stressful and high stakes, and that’s what stealth is about. The pay-off is great too: standing on the shore, waiting for the rescue chopper you’ve called in to arrive, seeing its lights eventually appear in the far-off fog, then seeing the dark shape attached to those lights, that shape become whirling noise all around you, then there it is: your saviour. You haul those you’ve freed into it, and it all seems to take so long and be so precarious, and it feels like a rescue.

2) It tells me almost nothing, which is perfect. I have to figure it all out, what gets me spotted and what doesn’t, what’s safe to use where and what isn’t, how to get out of trouble and how to get deeper into it, what I can get in, on or under and what I can’t, and even how to locate my objectives (in one case by listening to audio cues) myself. This approach could have been highly irritating, but the systems are precise and the logic logical – it all flows, it’s all tight, and working it out felt good rather than that I’d been thrown into the deep end as an act of cruelty.

3) I’m more brutal than I’d like to think. There’s this neat mechanic where, when you successfully sneak up on someone and grab ’em, you can kill ’em, interrogate them, make them call their mates over or knock ’em out. I always interrogate, which usually means they’ll tell me where bonus weapons or other enemies are, and then I murder them in cold blood. Usually in stealth games, I’m determined to be non-lethal – nobody thinks about the friends and family of a henchman and all that – but something about this game stops me from feeling that way. Maybe it’s the prison camp setting. Maybe it’s the Vengeful Retired Rock Band Bassist look of the protagonist. Maybe it’s just the amount of time I have to stay in this place – the risk of someone waking up and raising hell at a critical moment is too high. So I always kill. No survivors. Can’t take any chances.

4) Vehicles can be stealthy. One of the things I like I about Ground Zeroes is that the enemy doesn’t immediately ping into high alert, shoot everything mode if they spot you, at least presuming you haven’t brazenly walked straight into their eyeline. If they see movement from a distance, or catch a glimpse of something poking out from behind a wall, they’ll become suspicious and slowly wander over to investigate. The time this affords you is an invitation to ingenuity. You could you take advantage of their focus on the point they last saw something to sneak off to the side then come up behind them, you could climb high or drop low and hide under a shipping crate, you could headshot them with a tranq dart, or if you’re in the right place you can jump into a truck or jeep and simply drive away. At first this seemed ludicrous – a motor vehicle on a quiet interment camp is basically the opposite of stealth – but then it seemed only sensible. I needed to get away before the dude found me and raised the alarm. The fastest, most efficient way to do that was driving. Beats hiding in a bush for ten minutes.

5) It’s still bunkum. I don’t know the MGS story and Ground Zeroes didn’t do a lot to change that, despite an optional text-based ‘previously on…’ summary. It was a storm of gibberish and ridiculous names with no clear reason why a series newcomer would care. Fortunately, in the game proper the essential objective of ‘rescue these people from a horrible place’ did all it needed to on that front, and there were no major interruptions to my skulking about once it began. Unfortunately, after doing this there’s this big long cutscene full of terrible dialogue and terrible acting, with something like half a dozen false endings. I’m sure it matters a whole lot more to people who’ve spent good time with the series to date, but a motivator for a relative newbie to get involved it was not. Bunkum, I say! But bunkum attached to a really good stealth game.

6) I want to play it again. Specifically, I want to play the ‘side missions’ unlocked when you beat the 3-ish hour main game, which take the same setting and mechanics and remix it with different objectives. I’ve done a section of one so far, which immediately changes things hugely simply by being set in daylight rather than on a rainy evening. I feel so exposed! Any venture into the open becomes such a huge risk, and even if some element of that is purely psychological on my part – you can’t hide in sunlight – it’s still highly effective. The mission objective has also changed from rescuing prisoners into finding and killing specific targets, which is a straightforward but worthwhile tweak. No more simply avoiding spots that look too well-guarded – I need to go right into the lion’s den then shed blood without being caught. It’s not quite Hitman, but it’s certainly leaning in that direction.

In short: Ground Zeroes may be a short prequel game to the fifth title in a long-running series that’s drowning in its own plot, but it made me stop regarding Metal Gear Solid with derisive suspicion, and treat it as something important. This is fine, fine stealth. If full game the Phantom Pain gives me more of this I’m in. Though I’ll be skipping all the cutscenes I can.


  1. Monggerel says:

    Metal Gear, in all incarnations, is fucking garbage.
    It is stupid, ugly, distressing, frustrating, unpleasant, stupid, outrageous, self-absorbed, masturbatory, insulting, stupid, arrogant, hateful, ignorant, inelegant, stupid, obscene, bad-smelling, stupid, amateur, self-aggrandizing, stupid garbage.

    It wears its underwear backwards and drinks beer from a cup.

    I love it more than I can possibly articulate. I love it with all my heart and some of my brain.
    Well. Not MGS 4. Or 1. Or 3. Or really any of them besides MGS 2 and REVENGEANCE. Those two I really like. I guess… I kinda like Ground Zeroes? Certainly has solid (haha! fuck.) gameplay. Hopefully the same goes for the Phantom of the Painful Moby Dick Opera.

    • Henke says:

      Yup. I played all of them, and I lovehated them all. MGS3 has like a 1 hour long cutscene in the middle. It also has some amazing bossfights and ridiculous/awesome/baffling bits like the part where you climb the ladder.


    • ResonanceCascade says:

      Exactly this, except I DO love all of them. Even the less mechanically clunky (and therefore less charming) MGS4. This series excels at exploiting the power of a love/hate relationship.

      That said, Ground Zeroes is a very different beast, since it’s only fleetingly absurd and the game mechanics are actually as good as anything else out there. I enjoyed it, but I’m looking forward to jumping eye deep into the batshit again with The Phantom Pain.

      • Traipse says:

        That’s the thing, though — I don’t want a love/hate relationship with my games. I want a fulfilling, nurturing relationship where we respect and support each other. If you ignore me for long periods of time while you spout terrible exposition, I’m going to feel neglected and seek affection elsewhere.

        Okay, this metaphor is officially terrible now.

        Seriously, though… I had basically the same experience with the MGS series that Alec did. Fun gameplay, but I felt like I never got to actually play it, because every time I started getting into the rhythm of the stealthing and shooting, every time I started enjoying myself, it would throw in a long-ass cutscene about a magic vampire guy or a magic possessed-arm guy or NANOMACHINES DO EVERYTHING or some shit. I tried really hard to give a damn about the story — and I’m normally a very narrativist game-player — but I just could not do it. It was too badly written, too self-important, too completely divorced from the gameplay, too intrusive, and too often entirely pointless, and not nearly as clever as it thought it was. Not to mention all the action scenes that left me thinking “Boy, that looked like it would have been fun to play, if this had been a game.”

        As one can see from the posts above, even the series’ fans readily acknowledge how bad the story is, but seem charmed by it anyways. I don’t really see the charm in it, to be honest. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?

        • Frosty840 says:

          Various spoilers incoming.

          I’m assuming I had the same experience as you, in that the first MGS I played was the PC release of MGS2.
          Playing MGS2 is an often horrible experience that leaves the player feeling alienated and horribly confused.
          The thing is, and this may or may not redeem it in your eyes, this is actually deliberate.
          I learned (years later) that MGS2 actually runs as a kind of counter-narrative to the story of MGS1. It’s deliberately constructed to mirror certain situations and plot points from MGS1, lulling the familiar player into a sense of routine and pattern, and then suddenly reverse direction, doing the opposite of what’s expected and familiar.
          One of the themes of the MGS series is that the player is ultimately a pawn of forces not only out of their control but also largely beyond the character’s comprehension; certainly outside of the player’s understanding on their first playthrough. In any given situation, the MGS protagonist is both empowered —by being an undetectable whirlwind of death in amongst unprepared, inferior opponents— and yet utterly impotent —their stated mission is not the actual or intended mission, their actions often even counteracting the stated aims of the mission they believe themselves to be on.
          MGS2 is the MGS series at its most disenfranchising. The protagonist eventually comes to realise that he doesn’t even know who he is, due to a mix of childhood trauma and deliberate brainwashing. The game’s main antagonist and final boss is the protagonist’s own childhood father figure and is himself merely a pawn of forces greater than himself. The final boss battle is an utter exercise in futility, the boss himself is undergoing fatal cellular breakdown and will probably be dead within hours, the protagonist’s character would almost certainly be better served by sitting down and having a meaningful conversation with the guy, and yet both are forced into the fight anyway.
          There’s definitely an awful lot of the MGS story that is heavy-handed, melodramatic, anime-style bullshit, going through an extraordinary culture-clash between Japanese and US storytelling mechanics, and the theme of player disenfranchisement is, strangely enough, disenfranchising and often demoralising for the player, but it is all (as far as anyone can tell) deliberate on the part of the director.
          From that point of view, I’ve since forgiven MGS2 for being the absolute worst possible entry point to the series, and come to appreciate the games. In my experience, they’re worth a second, better-informed, look.

          • Sui42 says:

            Much of MGS2 is lost in translation, but there are honestly moments of game design genius in there. James Clinton Howell’s analysis of the game is well worth a read:

            link to deltaheadtranslation.com

            (shorter than it looks, most of the sections are relatively brief).

          • Frosty840 says:

            Thanks, Sui42. I think that might be the MGS2 deconstruction article that originally explained the game to me, but it’s been a few years and I didn’t know what I was searching for.

          • Traipse says:

            Thank you for the response! It’s good to get more context on the series’ storytelling, since you’re correct that my first experience with it was MGS2, and I went into it cold.

            I definitely see what you mean about the story being deliberately disenfranchising, and I think they did that aspect quite well. There are a couple great player-punching moments, like the initial reveal of Raiden. But that’s not something that necessarily turns me off in a game — there have been lots of games with player-punching moments where you learn that you’ve been unknowingly working against your morals or best interests, or where you realize the characters have knowledge the player doesn’t have. The “Would you kindly” scene from BioShock, for instance, or Haytham’s intro for Assassin’s Creed 3, or the reveal moment for Spec Ops: The Line. It’s a great storytelling technique.

            I think the issue is that there’s a big difference between disenfranchising the character — BioShock is a great example of discovering your character’s lack of agency, for instance, and it improves the drama considerably there — and disenfranchising the player, which is pretty much the shittiest thing a game can do to a person who’s investing their time in it. The MGS series seems to be all about disenfranchising the player directly, taking control away from you on an every-few-minutes basis to feed you superfluous exposition, having all the interesting things happen in cutscenes instead of in gameplay, and screwing with your expectations in ways that eventually become annoying rather than mind-blowing. The combined effect is that I feel unwanted as a player; that the game is trying very hard to play itself, and I’m just there to drive the character from beat to beat to beat until I’ve seen all the cutscenes.

            Re: MGS2, I think the plotline with Raiden realizing the flimsiness of his own identity, etc., could have worked in different hands. It’s not a bad setup, but it would require a less bland character. Someone I gave more of a damn about. Someone who didn’t spend the entire game alternately whining and saying “I don’t understand”. That wasn’t subversion, that was just sloppy characterization. (He got quite the character upgrade in MGS4, but they achieved it mostly by just not having him open his mouth, which was a relief.) I admire the ambition of the plot, and I can appreciate what they were trying to do — that was an excellent article you linked, by the way — but the execution just felt lacking. By the end, I was just slogging through the torrents of contrived “Mindfreak!” moments to get to the finish, because I had tried hard to get invested in the story, but there just wasn’t enough that worked there to get invested in.

            Eh. Maybe it’s merely a case of “It’s just not your thing, dude”. It just puzzles me, since I’m normally a very narrativist game-player, and this narrative seems to hook lots of people but not me.

        • Shigawire says:

          I think Stockholm syndrome, yeah. Being taken hostage by such terribad writing, having to sit through endless boring sequences..

          The writing is on par with Walker Texas Ranger, and the direction is as decent as an Uwe Boll film.

  2. RaoulDuke says:

    Oh my yes, I put 25 hours into it to S Rank everything on normal/hard + cassette tapes + XOF patches + rescue all prisoners/targets + bonus stuff.

    It has restored my faith in PC ports AND that games can be innovative/surprising/ultra-fun again, after my diet these last few years being mostly UbiSlop.

    Alec: Have you tried aiming, then rolling left and right, back and forth, like you are on fire [Has to be in the main GZ mission], the ensuing “thing” that happens is magical and why I play games.

  3. jezcentral says:

    Ironically, the fact it is three hours-ish long has made it more attractive to me. Time, oh time.

  4. lylebot says:

    I’ve never played an MG or MGS game until this, and I enjoy it a lot. I suck at it though, haven’t gotten higher than a C on any mission (haven’t put a whole lot of time into it either).

    I agree with #5 as well. The cutscenes meant very little to me and I did not much enjoy watching them. Fortunately the game itself is incredibly straightforward.

    • Echo_Hotel says:

      Abridged Previously on Metal Gear: Snake Sr set up shop as a Private Military in Central America gets caught up in a convoluted scheme to push some guy’s weapon system in Washington D.C. by launching a Nuclear Missile (always called a “Nuke” ) at the US. Snake Sr. foils plot keeps missile for self and uses it to declare independence from all nations for his organization.

  5. RARARA says:

    Hmmm… so after Revengeance and GZ, this tag will continue to be left unused…

  6. JMartinni says:

    It always hurts me a bit to read that someone skips the cutscenes in a Metal Gear title, disregards the narration completely… but at least you enjoyed the gameplay and didn’t complain about GZ being two hours long, so thanks for that.

    • Monggerel says:

      Now, skipping the cutscenes in REVENGEANCE is kind of like cutting your fingers off one by one.
      You just don’t do it. Even if you do, after a while you can’t do it.
      But MGS? Fucking hell Hideo I don’t want to hear about what food you dreamt about last night.

    • thaquoth says:

      I would say skipping the cutscenes in Ground Zeroes enhances the experience considerably.

      God what a gigantic load of bollocks the narrative in this thing is…

    • sinister agent says:

      MGS games have the worst writing of any game series ever, so I would openly encourage anyone to skip as many of the interminable, badly acted, atrociously paced and very often completely pointless cut scenes as possible.

    • iainl says:

      Personally, it just makes me want to know where they got their copy from; I could have sworn there was no way to skip the cutscenes in the first two MGS games, which is why I stopped playing them (I never did make it as far as meaningful gameplay in the second before giving up). It’s all so utterly tedious; I don’t play games to watch films, so skip every cutscene I can in every game.

  7. ghor says:

    (you’ve got two number fives there, Alec)

    Yeah, I kinda love this. It takes me back a little to what were possibly my most formative experiences when it comes to video games, which was playing the demos for Thief, Hitman and Deus Ex. A big area to travel around in, little hand-holding telling me what to do, and a desire to go back and try it again after having completed it.

  8. blainestereo says:

    In my opinion any person who doesn’t shed tears of joy after encountering MGS story in all its splendous stupidity is just a terribly boring bloke, sorry Alec.

  9. gruia says:

    was so impressed when I realized I finished the game so quick that I immediately fell in love with the game. a bit of the feeling you get from far cry 4 … without experiencing any game mechanics (and finding out how shit it all is)

  10. Hex says:

    Do I need to play Revengeance before this one?

    • Hideous says:

      Reveangeance is entirely unrelated to this game. Plus, Revengeance takes place after MGS4, in the 2020s or something – Ground Zeroes takes place in the late 1970s.

      • thedosbox says:

        Wait, so the games characters walk around with epic sideburns and ridiculous flared trousers?

        SIGN ME UP.

    • stahlwerk says:

      The timeline is (excluding the more obscure spinoffs):

      1960s-80s, with protagonist John aka Snake aka Big Boss
      MGS 3: Snake Eater
      MGS: Peace Walker
      MGS 5: Ground Zeroes
      MGS 5: The Phantom Pain

      1990s-2010s, with protagonist David aka Solid Snake, clone of Big Boss
      Metal Gear
      Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
      Metal Gear Solid
      MGS 2: Sons of Liberty (with protagonist Jack aka Raiden)
      MGS 4: Guns of the Patriots

      2020s, with protagonist Jack aka Raiden
      MG Rising: Revengeance

      • stahlwerk says:

        And thus my geek quota for 2015 is reached, have a nice year.

        • Philomelle says:

          Metal Gear Rising is actually set in 2018, so your geek credentials are hereby revoked.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        The original Metal Gear features Big Boss’ shocking betrayal: One time he tells Snake to go west, but THERE’S A PIT TRAP TO THE WEST.

      • DelrueOfDetroit says:

        You also forgot Portable Ops in between Snake Eater and Peace Walker. It is canon.

    • grom.5 says:


      I mean not for the continuity of the story, nor for any other reasons. But it’s a wonderful game so play it

    • Monggerel says:

      You must play it for the NANO- eh, well you know how this goes. It Has to Be This Way and all that crap.

  11. Hideous says:

    Metal Gear Solid is probably my favourite game series of all time – and that’s almost entirely due to the “bunkum” as you put it. Gameplay-wise, it doesn’t stand out massively, and without all the cutscenes you can complete most of the games in under 5 hours, but there’s just something about how seriously the game takes itself (when it really, really shouldn’t) that makes me so attached to it.

    Obviously it’s not for everyone, and there’s games I can’t get past the gameplay to enjoy the “bunkum” (Revengeance, dear god I can’t stand beat em ups) but overall, excellent games. Especially MGS3.

    Oh, and I’m surprised you clocked in at 3 hours – it took me 90 minutes, including cutscenes, which was fairly disappointing the first time around (having not realized it was all about the side missions). Though, obviously, you have not played an MGS game proper before, so learning curves may factor into it.

    • Hex says:

      Thanks for the reply.

      Hey, as an MGS fan, how do you feel about replacing David Hayter with Keiffer Sutherland? It seems like a horrible decision to me.

      I recall reading somewhere that the rationale is that they wanted a different voice actor to reflect Snake’s aging. ?!?!?! Unless DH has been in cryo-sleep whenever he’s not actively voicing Snake, I’m pretty sure his actual aging should coincide nicely with Snake’s.

      Hayter is 3 years younger than Sutherland!


      • Hideous says:

        I don’t mind the switch. It’s a bit strange to not have Hayter’s voice coming out of Snake, but at some point you have to start distinguishing between Big Boss and Solid Snake (possible twist being that Solid shows up in Phantom Pain, voiced by Hayter. that’d be nice.)

        • GameCat says:

          You’re a Kojima in a bad disguise, so your opinion about Sutherland doesn’t matter.


      • Premium User Badge

        Aerothorn says:

        I’m not going very far out on a limb when I say that Kojima isn’t an idiot, and that answer is PURPOSLY bunk. This is clearly an act, that Hayter is in on, that is going to pay off in MGSV. I will eat my hat if Hayter isn’t in it, playing Snake in some capacity.

    • Viroso says:

      I think MGS doesn’t take itself seriously. It’s very self aware, it knows it’s silly. What’s taken seriously by the game is Kojima’s the sci fi and the concepts he dreams up. But everything else in the series has a sense of humor that you don’t find in a lot of other games.

    • nearly says:

      I was right with you when you said there was something about how seriously the game takes itself, but then you said that it shouldn’t and I wondered if we played the same game(s). Metal Gear is notorious for huge B-movie plots that are very serious, dealing with nuclear annihilation, the idea of deterrence, balances of power, right and wrong, following orders, but also seriously juvenile comic relief like a dude constantly having diarrhea and/or shitting his pants. In one of the side missions here, you rescue the guy who is making the game, after which he dramatically puts his designer glasses on. I don’t think these games would be anywhere near as beloved as they are if they took themselves seriously all the time.

      Serious, yes, but I don’t think it takes itself as seriously as you seem to think.

  12. dangermouse76 says:

    What I learned was that at normal difficulty the games AI is not that smart. So you choke some one out they wake up or a fellow soldier wakes them up and they dont remember why they fell over unconscious on the floor. They dont raise the panic level ?

    The basic awareness of the soldiers is not good at normal difficulty. It’s fair to say I have not tried the other levels though.

    On a story level I cant take it seriously. It’s feels very convoluted to me. Fun in the moment but I dont care about the over riding story arc.

    • Hex says:

      As far as I can determine, the series story arc is simply that giant nuclear-missile-firing mecha-dinosaurs are bad, and bad people want them, so they can do bad things. And other bad people want Snake to blow up the dinosaurs. Which he does. Repeatedly.

      Is there really anything more to it than that?

      • dangermouse76 says:

        Well according to the reddit wiki thing I read explaining the actual plot across all the games and comics yes. But hey it does not bother me that much. Like I say it’s pap……pap I enjoy at the point of interaction.
        I aint gonna loose any sleep over it.
        Coherence isn’t a bad thing though right…..you know to try to be coherent ?

        Who’s buried in the grave………hmm hmmmmmmmmm ! ( I know BTW ).

      • stahlwerk says:

        The story of MGS 3 and MGS Peace Walker poses the important question of what the cold war would have been like had it been (not-)fought by basically superheroes.

      • sventoby says:

        That’s really only the plot to 1

    • dangermouse76 says:

      link to reddit.com

      The reddit plot thread with some errors but alot is there. It’s like the gilmore girls but with robots.

  13. John O says:

    I discovered this outdoor area that leads to a shack where trained monkeys write the stories for games. One of them developed a basic understanding of human motivations and they had to break his fingers. It was really sad. I usually knock out enemies because i don’t want digital blood on my fingers, but i try to kill every NPC that opens his stupid bloody mouth. The games never let me. Either the NPC are invincible or it results in the game resetting, and nobody explains why. Once i found an underground lair where they kept Italian horror movie script writers from the 70s. They were in perfectly good shape, but forced to draw compression artifacts on textures. I have to go now. Ubisoft pays me 0.3c for every idea i have for how virtual assassins can behave more like douchebags. I have to make quota, else i won’t be able to feed the cat. It’s gnawed off one thumb already and i need to be able to press the spacebar.

  14. KingFunk says:

    Since a Vita was the first Sony console I owned, the only MGS game I’ve played all the way through is 2 (I left the Vita on a train and lost my save for 3). This was at the wise old age of 31. That game broke my mind. I absolutely loved it, narrative and all.

    It is bonkers, but if you persist, there is excellent payoff IMO. I don’t want to spoil anything for those who haven’t completed it, but I’ll just say that it’s the only game which achieved the following for me:

    1. Upon completion, I then spent hours on the web reading various pieces of ‘linked’ philosophy
    2. I realised that Hideo Kojima had, to some extent, correctly predicted the future of the Internet
    3. It caused me to find out that Dawkins coined the word ‘meme’ and what it’s original definition was

  15. DrManhatten says:

    In short MGS5 is an audio-visual treat the best in its class for 2014. Nothing comes even remotely close. And that’s what MGS always has been about an interactive thriller movie

  16. ariaster says:

    Hideo Kojima is so ahead of the curve on so many little, but important details, there’s a reason the fanbase refers to him as The Prophet Kojima.

  17. himmatsj says:

    Three hour main game? This was my absolute first MGS and I got it done with in 72 mins, which included restarting the initial bit and adjusting settings. So it took me maybe right one hour, and I didn’t particularly rush either nor did I have foreknowledge of any objectives.

    But it is a great game, great optimisation and I await Phantom Pain with bated breath!

  18. J-Force says:

    We seem to have another RPS article showering Ground Zeroes with praise – I shall balance the bias with this:

    Note: it does not shower the game with praise, but a tirade of molten hate, for those who may be interested.

  19. Jalan says:

    I still greatly enjoy Snake Eater. Yes, the story was almost hitting its apex of Kojima’s patented brand of wackiness, but there was enough there to make up a wholly entertaining experience and I played it frequently. Ground Zeroes/The Phantom Pain looks like a similar experience, but taken to the next level, so I’m looking forward to buying both and playing them.

  20. drunkhamster says:

    Did they add an invert mouse option? The lack of that really put me off buying it at first, so I’m curious to know if it’s been rectified.

  21. vorador says:

    Few games i know that are more polarizing that the Metal Gear Solid series. People either love it immensely, or hate it with equal intensity.

    I personally enjoy them, but i wish Kojima would tone down the cutscenes. So many of them.