I thought he was a douche on both sides of the story.
SethPhotopoulos's forum posts
You'll be confused about why they are in that predicament because they don't explain it unless you actively search out the answers. You can view GZ as a flash-forward and play PW to see how they got there.
@liquiddragon: @razkazz: You guys are kind of discarding a lot of the content and then saying there isn't a lot of content because it isn't in the main mission. Kojima does add a lot of goofy shit that makes it worth it for me but I guess that's just how I feel about it.
I won't be playing it as I don't have a next gen system nor access to my PS3 but it's £25 here in the UK for the PS4 version (and that's regardless of whether you buy it on disc or digitally) and I don't get how people are totally accepting of that price point for a game, even with multiple playthroughs is still only a few hours long. Case Zero was exactly this and it was $5 and it was awesome because of its price point, length and what it gave you. I do have to wonder if this wasn't an MGS game, would people be so accepting? Let's create a scenario here where DR3 was coming out at the end of this year but for the launch of the XB1, we have a small area you can play in, you can see the new tech that's going to be in DR3 but it's the same price as Ground Zeroes. People would probably shit all over that game because despite Capcom's smart move to release Case Zero for $5, they've been extremely shitty when it comes to DLC that's on the disc, overpriced etc. Kojima himself said that Phantom Pain will be 200 times the size of GZ so where's the value here? It even barely contains much story at all so it's not much of a prologue either.
If it's length that bothers you I beat MGS1 in 4 hours when I got it. Same for 2. About 8 hours for MGS3 and 12 hours for MGS4. I played through every mission in Ground Zeroes and it took 6-8 hours which is more than what I got out of 1&2 and about what I got from 3 the first time I played it. It's also like $30 which is slightly more than half of what I payed for those games. Another way to look at it is that there are $30 blurays that have the same amount of content and are considered good deals.
People tend to look at things like "How many dollars per hour am I putting into this game." I think that's kind of a weird way to look at things especially since that's so black and white. There's a lot that goes into the games value like how much did you enjoy the experience. For me it was quite a lot and I'll probably play it even more. Another thing is I knew what I was getting. The fact that it is Metal Gear does help because I've always enjoyed the Metal Gear experience which isn't just the story, it's the crazy shit that lets me know that the designers have fun with it too. The console exclusive missions and the Kojima mission are definitely full of that. And It's also a good game. If it wasn't then it wouldn't matter how much money I put in it.
Though I'd be surprised if Phantom Pain doesn't have Ground Zeroes bundled with it in some way. I bet it's a pre-order bonus or a collector's edition version so if you're not that huge of a Metal Gear fan I'd say just wait. I on the other hand love Metal Gear enough that I feel justified with my purchase.
I don't regret my decision since I've played a shit ton of it on PS4. It's the same price on all consoles since the price got lowered before release.
Having an ADP of 9 and raising your shield, that's slow. Having an ADP of 20 and raising your shield, that's fast.
Is it really?
I think this may be misleading. 1. they are both naked except the shield, which isn't indicative of how most people actually play, I'd like to see animation comparisons at 50-70% equip burden. 2. it's things like the roll and dodge animations, as well as item usage that for me seem to be sped up and smoothed out considerably.
My adp started at maybe 9, I've since brought it to 20. Haven't noticed much difference with shield animations, but rolling multiple times and drinking estes does seem better. Also it may have something to do with stamina consumed and how fast you recover from being staggered, I'm not positive though.
The guy did ask specifically about shields so your second point shouldn't really be focused on this guy. Your first point seems odd because it can be assumed that a naked character would have the base stats therefore making it a better test for the speed of a shield raise.
I really enjoyed gone home and found the story entertaining and compelling. I don't care about social agendas or making games seem smart. I've taken in plenty of other non-game fiction and seen similar stories. Sucks to know that I'm wrong though.
I chose option B and killed Micheal and i feel a bit cheated as well. Not because i can't get 100% (although i was in the middle of the epsilon story arc and now that's fucked) but because the game (via Devon Weston) suggests that someone will die. Period. Nothing about Option C or anything leading up to it suggests that they would all band together and anyone that says that is being a complete dick about it.
I deliberately didn't choose C because I liked Franklin and didn't want him to die. I liked MIcheal the least so he was the one i chose. I didn't regret my decision being that i was looking through the guise of "1 of these 3 ppl had to die. Period" Then i come online to discuss endings and such and see that option C keeps everyone alive.
I'm not mad at the consequential nature of it to suggest that people may die but the game was completely misleading about the way it handled Option C.
Thinking about the game too hard leads people to think that Franklin would be killed. The dude stated that Michael or Trevor would die. Never said anything explicit about Franklin dying.