31 More Minutes Of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

Yes, we used this header image for the last video of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain [official site], but look at it! Diamond Dog and his eyepatch are just too adorable to pass up. As is the new video below. It’s an alternate playthrough of some of the same areas as the 40 minute presentation from last month’s E3, but despite its Japanese narration I watched all of it to glean a few more succulent details of Kojima’s approaching open world stealth game.

Here’s the video. I imagine an English version will be along in due course, and we’ll swap out the trailers when that happens.

The last video focused on a stealthy approach to a few infiltration and capture missions, but the playthrough above isn’t as simple as switching sneaking for shooting. There’s still plenty of tiptoeing around Afghan-set bases and knocking people out with non-lethal grenades, it’s just that Big Boss also makes greater use of his machineguns and, at one point, fires a remote-controllable rocket fist through a building’s window and into the back of an unwitting soldier.

Ground Zeroes was the first Metal Gear Solid game I played since the first PlayStation 1 release, but I’m itching to step back into it via the Phantom Pain. I think I was put off by the self-seriousness of MGS2 and didn’t realise that in the intervening years it had become the kind of game to have, say, a dog with an eye patch in it, a rocket fist, and a cardboard box you could use as a sled as well as a portable hiding place. It’s due out later this year.


  1. int says:


  2. Dominic Tarason says:

    Self-seriousness of MGS2? The one where you spend a decent chunk of the game cartwheeling nude through a cyberpunk battleship run by an evil, glitching AI, culminating in a ninja swordfight while Snake abuses the infinite ammo cheat item?

    There’s also a bloodsucking, immortal, water-walking supergoth villain called Vamp. He got the name because he’s bisexual.

    MGS2 was completely ridiculous. It just played it straight. Later games have just been a little more willing to wink at the player from time to time.

    MGS5 looks SO good though. A clear evolution of Peace Walker (PSP, remade for PS3), expanded into a full open-world game. I want it so.

    • death_au says:

      You forgot that Snake is pretending not to be snake so called himself “Pliskin”, the main bad guy has Doctor Octupus tentacles, the main character can’t tell the difference between the word “Node” and “Nerd”, there’s a rollerskating bomber called “Fatman”… Oh yeah, the Vulcan Raven shadow in the tanker mission being cast by a wind up toy in front of a dolphin torch… I could go on. That game was completely ridiculous. How could anyone take it seriously?

      • ffordesoon says:

        Many – I would even venture to say most – players don’t “get” that MGS has always been simultaneously and intentionally as absurd as it is serious, both because Kojima’s public persona vacillates between idiot savant, smirking troll, and mad genius, and because a lot of Japanese games in the PS1 and PS2 eras (and you have to talk about Japanese games in terms of console eras, for obvious reasons) were content to be only slightly less silly than MGS without a shred of irony. MGS1 was just as silly as the later (and earlier) ones, but a lot of people remember it as the last “serious” one, because it fit in with the general style and seriousness level of its contemporaries. Also because that was the one my generation played at the right age to completely miss how goofy it actually was (see also: FFVII, to a lesser extent Deus Ex).

    • jael182 says:

      Oh MGS2 maybe not be a completely serious game, but it is a genius one. The way that Kojima uses the power of the narrative a game has, is simple amazing. He uses the player as part of the narrative, and incorporate that, with a theme there is still relevant today. So yeah, the game has some “ridiculous” moments and characters, but they work within the game. I totally understand that so many people don’t like that side of the series, but if you pass that, you will see there is so much more to appreciate.

  3. LionsPhil says:

    That is an incredibly slow rocket-fist. It’s not even slow-motion bullet-time, because the bloke casually walks away from it.

    • Dominic Tarason says:

      Like the Nikita missiles in MGS, haha. I bet there’s upgrades to make it go faster, but being slow means you can use it to scout around corners and biff people in the face.

      Reach out and touch someone, y’know?

  4. JustAchaP says:

    The picture of the wolf always makes me smile :)

  5. Jericho says:


    That’s just silly as hell, but I love it so!

    Seeing these alt. versions of the the mission being played makes me giddy about the depth of tactics available, but I’m still concerned that the difficulty and mechanics of the game will make the majority of “cool” weapons/tools/tactics pointless save for the gag value. This was a problem in MGS3/4 and Peace Walker: There were tons of different weapons and pieces of misc. equipment, but only a very small selection of them that were actually needed to complete the games. For example, despite the ridiculous depth of researchable equipment in Peace Walker, most of the game could be completed using only the starting tranq pistol, smoke grenades, a heavy weapon or two for boss fights, and a few other misc. items for specific missions.

    I know that they’ve been playing with all of the equipment unlocked and fully customized for these demos, but I’m hoping in the final game that all of the equipment and weapons are balanced to the point where they all have their better uses, and that sneaking around with the WU tranq pistol for most of the game doesn’t end up becoming the default “best” option again. I mean, the sniping, rocket-punching, and other tactics look fun and I’m sure people will gravitate towards researching/gathering equipment that suites their own personal tastes, but I hope that “taste” isn’t the only real deciding factor. I’d love to see a post-MGS3 Metal Gear game where “tranquilize everything” isn’t always the best answer to every tactical situation. It’s looking like this game is going to be offering many more non-lethal tools and options, so that’s great, but the better the non-lethal options are, the less reasons to even bother with lethal weapons at all. And for a game that thematically seems to be focused on the repercussions of bloody vengeance, it would be odd if tranquilizing all of the opposition was still the superior tactic.

    I guess we’ll see how it turns out soon enough…

    • Dominic Tarason says:

      I’ve always considered the incredible freedom to play however you wish to be MGS’s strongest point, rather than a weakness. Yes, you can beat the whole game in the most professional and straight-laced fashion you please, but you can also play it equally validly using all manner of wildly improbable tactics.

      Did you know that in MGS3, when you capture live animals, you can throw them? Bombarding enemies through windows with live snakes might not be as practical as using grenades, but I will never NOT choose it over the ‘normal’ solution.

      • Monggerel says:

        “Optimal Strategy” is always a concern. The game rewards you for not killing enemies so you’re gonna try being nonlethal. Technically going on a half-stealthy murder spree is the most efficient way to play Ground Zeroes, at least if you’re timing how quick you do a mission. But the game makes you feel good about not killing (and there’s the high score) so you’re gonna avoid it. Probably.

        Which is a shame. Killing is fun, kids!
        (I will make that my epitaph if it kills me)

        • Qazi says:

          Snake is a nuclear demon now.

          Though Peace Walker required meticulous non-lethal stealth tactics to S rank every Op, even the super tough vehicle bosses, you needed to use all weapons equally to gain all the codenames.

          Even MGS4 micro-challenged you to collect every codename over the course of many playthroughs.

      • Jericho says:

        Oh, I appreciate the series’ move towards creative freedom in the later games, but I also appreciate tight mechanical designs within games.

        Using MGS3 as an example, I played around with just about every weapon and tool the game gave you, but in the end it was just playing around. Most of the “tools” are pointless gags. Fun, but ultimately a waste of time. The different camo patterns are a clearer example: A large majority of them are useless or redundant for the purpose of actually staying hidden. You start the game with Tiger Stripe, Splitter, and a couple of other general-purpose patterns that are pretty much all you need if you want to keep your camo index high. There are TONS of extra patterns to collect, but there’s no point other than for the sake of collecting them. The whole camo system of MGS3 pretty much ends up being pointless anyway since you can wear just about any clothes and remain hidden as long as you stay out of the LOS of the enemy soldiers.

        So with MGS5 I’m glad that it appears they put so much effort in to create content that will allow us to actually put all of our toys to good use, but I’m still getting the feeling that most of the weapon mods/upgrades and gadgets will end up being pointless fluff to a handful of truly useful basic items. Again, I’m not against pointless fluff as it can be fun to collect, but it does sometimes make it a chore to divide “stuff I actually need to play and beat the game” from “stuff that’s fun to mess with enemy soldiers with”. Thankfully it looks like the AI is a bit more advanced in MGS5, so hopefully some of the “distraction” tools will actually come in handy. Most of the time it’s better to avoid or tranq solders in an MGS game rather than kill or distract them. I’m just hoping the game lives up to the whole “the enemy adapts to your tactics so you can’t just headshot-tranq every soldier for the whole game” stuff. I’d love to see more complicated missions with enemies or objectives that force you to deviate from your “standard” or preferred tactics.

        • KenTWOu says:

          The whole camo system of MGS3 pretty much ends up being pointless anyway since you can wear just about any clothes and remain hidden as long as you stay out of the LOS of the enemy soldiers.

          I’m not sure about this. IMO it was really hard to stay out of enemies’ LOS when you can’t effectively observe their patrol routes because of really awkward third person view camera. And I’m talking about updated Subsistence version. So camouflages helped you to get closer to enemies and do it. That’s why I had a feeling that MGS3 was too focused on camo system and literally forced you to switch camouflages via in-game menu as often as possible. But I might be wrong, because I didn’t play the game much, i skipped it after few initial levels, because really weird camo / level design / AI balance completely ruined MGS3 for me.

          • Jericho says:

            You’re absolutely right that the game initially implies that players should constantly switch camo and face paint patterns to max out their Camo Index score in any given environment, and that it’s annoying to have to constantly go into the menu to pick new patterns when you move from area to area. However, the level design throughout most of the game gives you plenty of trees, ridges, rocks, and other obstacles that can completely block you from enemies vision. The AI still has the “vision cones” from previous MGS games, including a max vision range, and the Camo Index just modifies the amount of time it takes for the AI to spot you when you’re in their vision cone. But the UI doesn’t let you see the vision cones, so you just have to guess and generally not stand in front of enemies.

            Second to that, many of the maps in MGS3 include buildings, and several later maps are entirely urban or indoors. In those maps the camo is just about useless and you have to play the game just like you would MGS1/2, except that there’s no radar to see the AI vision cones. So in the end, the Camo System of MGS3 doesn’t really amount to much from a mechanical perspective. You can play the whole game and beat it just fine in a bright orange jumpsuit with a white Kabuki mask painted on your face. You’d get spotted a bit quicker if you stepped in front of an enemy, but otherwise the gameplay isn’t much affected.

            The poor camo system always bugged me in MGS3, but I still enjoyed the hell out of the game. I just ended up treating the camo more as role playing “dress up” options and collectables than anything else, though. From the look of the gameplay videos of MGS5 and the actual gameplay of Ground Zeroes, there is no camo system at all. They dropped it and the “look” of uniforms is just a cosmetic touch. This especially seems to be the case given that many of the “preorder bonuses” are just reskinned outfits and equipment. I highly doubt that the color of your BDU or gun makes any mechanical difference in MGS5, but I guess we’ll know for sure soon enough.

            Despite my reservations, I’m still really looking forward to trying out this game! I really can’t get enough of stealth games like MGS, Splinter Cell, and Hitman.

    • ffordesoon says:

      I think that’s why missions are infinitely replayable.

  6. Monggerel says:

    I understood the part where they said Spetznaz

    • XhomeB says:

      I understood the METAL GEAR SOLIDU part. I’m so good at Japanese.

  7. Snids says:

    Is this the one set in a haunted French bakery?

  8. Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

    Those titters are ridiculous.

  9. thekelvingreen says:

    As someone who likes Metal Gear Solid but is rubbish at stealth games, I like that this game seems to support different tactics.

  10. Raoul Duke says:

    Someone explain to me the desire people have to watch videos of gameplay of story-driven games like this?

    Wouldn’t you rather just wait and experience it when it comes out?

    • KenTWOu says:

      There was nothing ‘story-driven’ in this video walkthrough. This isn’t good old (or bad) MGS with pretty long codec conversations and cut-scenes. The game demo is suspicioulsy hollow from narrative stand point. I mean, there wasn’t a single specific dialogue between Boss and Miller, just tutorial monologues and pure gameplay.

    • thekelvingreen says:

      The video is illustrating the way the game’s mechanics work by showing how the same mission can be completed in different ways, and it’s not showing any substantial story content.

  11. Raoul Duke says:

    Also, I like how when I did a super quick flick through of it, I jumped straight to 15 minutes in and there were STILL credits on the screen. So Metal Gear.

    • thekelvingreen says:

      The video is showing four or five different ways of completing the same mission. The credits appear at the beginning of the mission, so you just skipped from one play to another.