431 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

Who wants updated infographics?

 

 

 

http://imgur.com/a/pd2aw

[TheChris92]

Well to be fair the enemy in Ground Zeroes does have a fairly far view distance and the distance at which they spot you does change whether you are standing crouching or crawling (and with the weather apparently), however you can't make the view distance too far otherwise it would not be much fun if the guard on the other side of the base spots you the moment you step out into the open.

I know, it wasn't like I was saying the opposite. I was merely pointing out that there is no excuse for the AI being thick anymore as much as we were less lenient on it back then. 
 
 
 

 

The ammo for the tranq gun is limited in Ground Zeroes (though you can find more around the base) so I would say it is a pretty safe bet to assume that it would be the same in Phantom Pain, however it is not so much the tranq gun but the fulton recovery device allowing you to permanently incapacitate an enemy and remove any trace of them from the map, I am just hoping there are things in place that discourage heavy use of it.

I ran into enough ammo to put the entire base to sleep, so yeah, ammo was never a problem at all. The rounds I initially carried were already enough to put most of them out of commission.
 
 
 

By the fact that you were saying that it was the "action" elements that turned these games into heavily scripted games that did not allow the stealthy approach, that is what you were saying right? I mean that is what I got from "If you start designing an action game, it ultimately alienates the stealth, usually it will lead to scripted scenarios where it is not even possible to be stealthy"

I can see what you are saying here, you see games that have made the switch to a more aggressive style of gameplay and noticed they have also become more linear and restrictive and assume that it was the inclusion of "action" elements that caused this? You are pointing your gun at the wrong target here as there is something else these games share that is a far bigger culprit in the dumbing down of the industry, cinematic storytelling. The culprit here is not the inclusion of action elements but a desire to tell a cinematic story and have gameplay look and feel like you are playing a movie which requires heavily scripted set pieces that funnel the player into the next scene.

But how is my beef with the action approach to gameplay, in anyway supporting, a negative attitude toward granting the player more options to play with? I was saying the opposite in the very first line, and welcome more freedom as long as it doesn't detriment from the stealth.
What I was also saying that is that the mindset of modern stealth games shares a recurring pattern of having an action game 'in-mind' with included stealth elements, as opposed to the opposite.
The heavy action-based combat and less encouraging stealth approaches is evident in the examples I provided, but also in Metal Gear, in say Guns of the Patriots -- Ammo is never scarce because of Drebin, stealth becomes impossible when the game throws Geckos at you, along with the Dwarf ones who are even more impossible to avoid without incapacitating them in some way, which is already hard with the big ones. The on-rails-shooting sections, which are also present all over the place in Splinter Cell Conviction. I was, in fact, also pointing out the tendencies of games wanting to be more cinematic too, as being part of the problem, I mean sure -- Metal Gear isn't an action game in the vein of Metal Gear Rising or Bayonetta but Metal Gear has always been cinematic and the cutscenes were never the problem, as much as the dumbed down stealth was.
It is true, however, that the initial brainstorming of wanting the game to be even more cinematic is a support beam for my beef with the whole
 
 

Ground Zeroes already does a fairly decent job of it, don't see why Phantom Pain would not do just as good a job if not better?

It's also not open world in the same essence as that of Phantom Pain. It was tight, instead of a vast open world of empty space, it's a giant base with lots of different warehouses, guard patrols, entry ways etc, ala Groznyj Grad, I liked it. It's sprawly and it feels big without necessarily being big. I didn't mind that. I like open world games that grants the game a sense of tangible bigness like say Zelda Wind Waker.

Evidently, I don't know how Phantom Pain is gonna handle its open world just yet, but if any other modern open world game is anything to judge from; I'm not holding my breath on that part.
I'm obviously still open minded on it all.

There are plenty of ways Ground Zeroes encourages a stealthy approach and I have no doubt Phantom Pain will as well, from not being able to complete certain objectives while enemies are alarmed to the fact that more enemies flood into the map as soon as you are detected, you will certainly have an easier time of things if you can remain undetected as you wont have as much enemy artillery pointed your way, not to mention the ranking system that rewards the player (hoping they do away with it in Phantom Pain) for remaining undetected and not killing people by giving them bonus stuff like extra weapons and whatnot for subsequent playthroughs.
 
Remaining completely undetected should be difficult to do, if it were easy it would not be much of an achievement, but I do agree it should not be impossible.

There was nothing stopping me from capping all the guards with a silenced weapon, beyond my own integrity and measly ranking system. That's not what I'd call ideal encouragement. Some might say it's enough, I, however, would want it to mean something more evidently. I don't think we disagree on this though.. entirely, anyway.

[Queen Skadi]

I know, it wasn't like I was saying the opposite. I was merely pointing out that there is no excuse for the AI being thick anymore as much as we were less lenient on it back then. 

 

You did talk about the enemy not being able to see 2 feet in front of them so if you aren't talking about view distance then what? What exactly do you mean when  you say "thick"? Thick AI as in badly programmed, as in the type of AI where you would commonly have an enemy stare at the floor spinning in circles in he middle of a firefight or Skyrim leveles of stupid where you can shoot them in the head causing them to yell "WHOS THERE!?!?!?" then after 30 seconds go "hmm must have been my imagination" all while there is a massive arrow sticking out of their forehead? Or thick as in the type of enemy that is easily exploited and fooled by stupid tricks like hiding beside your horse or the carboard box trick?

 

 

Pretty sure it is a design choice, Metal Gear has always gone for more of a James Bond henchmen style AI where you can drag bodies around with your cloaking device turned on and the enemy will freak out because they think the ship is haunted. It is a conscious decision made making it easier for the player to exploit the enemy and have them react in interesting and often entertaining ways and while it does make the enemy come off as more than a little thick it has always been a part of the series quirkiness.

 

But how is my beef with the action approach to gameplay, in anyway supporting, a negative attitude toward granting the player more options to play with? I was saying the opposite in the very first line, and welcome more freedom as long as it doesn't detriment from the stealth.
What I was also saying that is that the mindset of modern stealth games shares a recurring pattern of having an action game 'in-mind' with included stealth elements, as opposed to the opposite.

 

It is the idea that action elements can somehow be detrimental to the stealth elements, while this may be true if the developers decide to neglect the stealth elements in favor of creating a more action oriented game, however in a game that has the budget to do both I don't see how action and stealth elements would not complement each other and not provide a much more complete experience.

 

The heavy action-based combat and less encouraging stealth approaches is evident in the examples I provided, but also in Metal Gear, in say Guns of the Patriots -- Ammo is never scarce because of Drebin, stealth becomes impossible when the game throws Geckos at you, along with the Dwarf ones who are even more impossible to avoid without incapacitating them in some way, which is already hard with the big ones. The on-rails-shooting sections, which are also present all over the place in Splinter Cell Conviction. I was, in fact, also pointing out the tendencies of games wanting to be more cinematic too, as being part of the problem, I mean sure -- Metal Gear isn't an action game in the vein of Metal Gear Rising or Bayonetta but Metal Gear has always been cinematic and the cutscenes were never the problem, as much as the dumbed down stealth was.
It is true, however, that the initial brainstorming of wanting the game to be even more cinematic is a support beam for my beef with the whole

 

The examples you provided weren't really examples of how action game elements detract from the stealth elements but rather the developers wanting to be Hollywood movie directors by creating a more "cinematic" experience, the mandatory on rails vehicle chase sections aren't really an example of anything other than an attempt to mix up the gameplay a bit and provide an "exciting" chase sequence because the plot demands it. Metal Gear Solid games have always had sequences and boss battles where stealth isnt an option however that does not mean that the games don't still heavily encourage the stealthy approach for most of the game.

 

Yes the Metal Gear Games feature a lot of cutscenes and dont have the same problems the other games you mentioned have but the problem is not having cutscenes between gameplay sections but wanting even the gameplay sections to look and feel like a movie as well which requires heavily scripted set pieces where the turrorists burst through the window or the building collapses at just the right moment and the gameplay funnels you through linear sections in order for the developers to make everything happen they way they want it to happen.

 

Elements like Drebin though have no effect on the stealth aspect of the game, you were still able to complete the game stealthily despite the existence of Drebin so I have no idea what you are getting at here unless you are trying to say that elements that make the agressive approach viable somehow make stealth impossible? While I must admit I was not a huge fan of how the store system in MGS4 made it so you had an infinite carry capacity for ammo provided you had money it is still a fairly big stretch to say that elements that make the aggressive approach easier make it impossible to be stealthy.

 

It's also not open world in the same essence as that of Phantom Pain. It was tight, instead of a vast open world of empty space, it's a giant base with lots of different warehouses, guard patrols, entry ways etc, ala Groznyj Grad, I liked it. It's sprawly and it feels big without necessarily being big. I didn't mind that.

 

There is nothing that says a base like the one contained in Ground Zeroes can't exist as part of a larger open world space, obviously there are probably going to be more than a few large empty open spaces but so long as they also contain tightly designed bases and areas to explore I will be happy.

 

There was nothing stopping me from capping all the guards with a silenced weapon, beyond my own integrity and measly ranking system. That's not what I'd call ideal encouragement. Some might say it's enough, I, however, would want it to mean something more evidently. I don't think we disagree on this though.. entirely, anyway.

 

Well there was the limited durability on the silencer, the mess it leaves behind and the fact that it will put the base on alert if any guard happens to discover that mess, leaving a mess that can be traced is not ideal when infiltrating an enemy base so I would have thought that incentive enough to take a less aggressive approach, I suppose they could also take a leaf from previous metal gear games where if certain enemies did not check in via radio every few minutes they would send a team to investigate.

 

What sort of encouragement were you hoping for though? To me every approach should have it's pros and cons with certain approaches being more effective than others depending on the mission parameters and the conditions and base layout, but no approach should be universally favored over the others.

[TheChris92]

You did talk about the enemy not being able to see 2 feet in front of them so if you aren't talking about view distance then what?

Indeed. In regards to Metal Gear Solid 1, 2 & 3 where that was the case -- I was inferring that Metal Gear Solid's attempt to being quirky doesn't excuse the AI for being thick anymore, i.e. the hiding on the side of the horse. You could forgive the old games for having a more arcadey approach, to stealth gameplay, because that was years ago and games are different now. Today? Not so much. (I'm implying there's no excuse for having the AI being consciously thick)

 

Pretty sure it is a design choice, Metal Gear has always gone for more of a James Bond henchmen style AI where you can drag bodies around with your cloaking device turned on and the enemy will freak out because they think the ship is haunted. It is a conscious decision made making it easier for the player to exploit the enemy and have them react in interesting and often entertaining ways and while it does make the enemy come off as more than a little thick it has always been a part of the series quirkiness.

Uhmm.. okay. But it's not really their deadpan reactions to finding Snake's porn magazines, or quirky announcements of every discovery they are making I was talking about; It was the inability to get suspicious over a horse without a rider, which any sane person would have seen through. In fact, in the old games, the cardboard boxes would usually never work (as I mentioned before) because the guards were still smart enough to at least investigate. It is true, however, that if you somehow manage to not be found out with your box, and the box would suddenly not be in the same spot as it were a few seconds ago, whenever they come back to check again and they don't seem to care -- That just seems like a quirky example of game logic overriding everything else -- Like how in Assassins Creed 1, if you pressed down a button, to have Altair put his hood down while riding his horse a bit slow, then the guards wouldn't come after you, whereas if you don't and just ride at a consistently faster pace they'll be incredibly suspicious; Most likely they'll come after you. I think we can agree on that point of it just being the thesis of the game's quirky logic, or something.
 
 

It is the idea that action elements can somehow be detrimental to the stealth elements, while this may be true if the developers decide to neglect the stealth elements in favor of creating a more action oriented game, however in a game that has the budget to do both I don't see how action and stealth elements would not complement each other and not provide a much more complete experience.

That is, however, how the game is going about it -- Examples like Snake consistently carrying an M4 whenever the game shifts from cutscene to gameplay, even if you previously had a tranq pistol or something else equipped so you'd find yourself having to switch out your equipment all the time, it grants the underlying impression that the game kinda resents you for using anything else. If anything, when there aren't any cutscenes rolling in 4, there are a lot of sections, both on-rails vehicle sections, along with the 'funneling through linear corridor sections' shooting a bunch of Frog soldiers while fleeing the scene with RAT Patrol -- In contrast to previous games, it felt like the game was emphasizing on the fast-paced-action approach, over stealth, especially with the introduction of tighter shooting mechanics. There's also the enemy layout -- Specifically the Geckos in Guns of the Patriots -- It's next to impossible to get past them at Outer Haven without putting them down with the Tranq, as the game consistently sends waves of guards at you while you're trying to open up a door that takes 30 secs to get open.
In fact, the entire Outer Haven section, as little gameplay as there was, seemed to be entirely dedicated to a shootery-action approach as opposed to stealth.

I've said before that I do have hopes for the Phantom Pain doing it a lot better.
 

 

The examples you provided weren't really examples of how action game elements detract from the stealth elements but rather the developers wanting to be Hollywood movie directors by creating a more "cinematic" experience, the mandatory on rails vehicle chase sections aren't really an example of anything other than an attempt to mix up the gameplay a bit and provide an "exciting" chase sequence because the plot demands it. Metal Gear Solid games have always had sequences and boss battles where stealth isnt an option however that does not mean that the games don't still heavily encourage the stealthy approach for most of the game.

While you may have a point here -- Cinematic and action tend to go hand in hand, specifically in games that are 'proclaimed' as 'action' games. Although, it is true, that the issue for wanting a stronger cinematic experience exists for almost any unique type of a sub-genre, sometimes it'd be hard to distinguish self-proclaimed horror games from your average third person shooter.
But I feel this particular subject of discussion is going in circles at this point as it seemingly narrows down to 'what defines an action game' in the vein of 'what defines an RPG' etc.
 

 

Elements like Drebin though have no effect on the stealth aspect of the game, you were still able to complete the game stealthily despite the existence of Drebin so I have no idea what you are getting at here unless you are trying to say that elements that make the agressive approach viable somehow make stealth impossible?

It doesn't make it impossible, no -- It does, however, make it obtuse. The key word is "encouraging stealth".

 

There is nothing that says a base like the one contained in Ground Zeroes can't exist as part of a larger open world space, obviously there are probably going to be more than a few large empty open spaces but so long as they also contain tightly designed bases and areas to explore I will be happy.

Maybe, maybe not -- We'll see.
 

 

Well there was the limited durability on the silencer, the mess it leaves behind and the fact that it will put the base on alert if any guard happens to discover that mess, leaving a mess that can be traced is not ideal when infiltrating an enemy base so I would have thought that incentive enough to take a less aggressive approach, I suppose they could also take a leaf from previous metal gear games where if certain enemies did not check in via radio every few minutes they would send a team to investigate.

The durability was never an issue either, especially not in Snake Eater, as guards and enemy outposts would usually always carry unlimited supplies of both ammo and suppressors. In Ground Zeroes I'd at least find more than enough of them to take on the entire base, in the small weapons room, inside the main base. My initial equipment loadout, however, would usually always suffice to take out the most crucial guards. I never had much of a problem at all.
 

What sort of encouragement were you hoping for though? To me every approach should have it's pros and cons with certain approaches being more effective than others depending on the mission parameters and the conditions and base layout, but no approach should be universally favored over the others.

The kind of encouragement where stealth is ideal over going in guns blazing, which I feel should be the priority in the game that largely is a stealth game over being anything else --- In your regular third persons shooters, or other type of 'action'-based games, you can have your mandatory stealth elements but they are at best superficial and shouldn't necessarily be the ideal approach over the other.

[Queen Skadi]

Indeed. In regards to Metal Gear Solid 1, 2 & 3 where that was the case -- I was inferring that Metal Gear Solid's attempt to being quirky doesn't excuse the AI for being thick anymore, i.e. the hiding on the side of the horse. You could forgive the old games for having a more arcadey approach, to stealth gameplay, because that was years ago and games are different now. Today? Not so much. (I'm implying there's no excuse for having the AI being consciously thick)

 
Uhmm.. okay. But it's not really their deadpan reactions to finding Snake's porn magazines, or quirky announcements of every discovery they are making I was talking about; It was the inability to get suspicious over a horse without a rider, which any sane person would have seen through. In fact, in the old games, the cardboard boxes would usually never work (as I mentioned before) because the guards were still smart enough to at least investigate. It is true, however, that if you somehow manage to not be found out with your box, and the box would suddenly not be in the same spot as it were a few seconds ago, whenever they come back to check again and they don't seem to care -- That just seems like a quirky example of game logic overriding everything else -- Like how in Assassins Creed 1, if you pressed down a button, to have Altair put his hood down while riding his horse a bit slow, then the guards wouldn't come after you, whereas if you don't and just ride at a consistently faster pace they'll be incredibly suspicious; Most likely they'll come after you. I think we can agree on that point of it just being the thesis of the game's quirky logic, or something.

 

Ok whatever, I can admit that the horse thing might look a little silly but in the grand scheme of things it is not the most absurd thing to ever be featured in a Metal Gear game, in the end it does not bother me and I can't really see myself using D Horse much anyway.

 

That is, however, how the game is going about it -- Examples like Snake consistently carrying an M4 whenever the game shifts from cutscene to gameplay, even if you previously had a tranq pistol or something else equipped so you'd find yourself having to switch out your equipment all the time, it grants the underlying impression that the game kinda resents you for using anything else. If anything, when there aren't any cutscenes rolling in 4, there are a lot of sections, both on-rails vehicle sections, along with the 'funneling through linear corridor sections' shooting a bunch of Frog soldiers while fleeing the scene with RAT Patrol -- In contrast to previous games, it felt like the game was emphasizing on the fast-paced-action approach, over stealth, especially with the introduction of tighter shooting mechanics. There's also the enemy layout -- Specifically the Geckos in Guns of the Patriots -- It's next to impossible to get past them at Outer Haven without putting them down with the Tranq, as the game consistently sends waves of guards at you while you're trying to open up a door that takes 30 secs to get open.
In fact, the entire Outer Haven section, as little gameplay as there was, seemed to be entirely dedicated to a shootery-action approach as opposed to stealth.

I've said before that I do have hopes for the Phantom Pain doing it a lot better.

 

I think you might be reading a bit too much into the cutscenes. I can't remember if they were pre-rendered or real time but even if they were real time it require a whole different set of animations depending on which gun was being used and I am sure you get the picture.

 

As for the odd section emphasizing action over stealth, so what? I think the biggest problem here was the linear nature of the levels the that limited the number of viable approaches, and with most of them emphasizing the stealthy approach having the odd section and set piece devoted to action isn't such a bad thing, is there no room for variety?

 

That being said with Phantom Pain being far more open and allowing for a greater variety of approaches and playstyles can only be a good thing.

 

While you may have a point here -- Cinematic and action tend to go hand in hand, specifically in games that are 'proclaimed' as 'action' games. Although, it is true, that the issue for wanting a stronger cinematic experience exists for almost any unique type of a sub-genre, sometimes it'd be hard to distinguish self-proclaimed horror games from your average third person shooter.
But I feel this particular subject of discussion is going in circles at this point as it seemingly narrows down to 'what defines an action game' in the vein of 'what defines an RPG' etc.

 

I think it is more a case of the cinematic presentation favoring action than the 2 going hand in hand as I am not sure you would go to the movies to watch a guy hiding behind crates and avoid vision cones, that said you don't need a cinematic presentation and scripted set pieces to make action gameplay interesting, you just need to give the player the tools to create their own chaos.

 

It doesn't make it impossible, no -- It does, however, make it obtuse.

 

Perhaps if your only reason to be stealthy is to conserve ammo, I would have thought a degree of self preservation and not setting off alarms that cause more enemies to flood the area would rank higher on the list?

 

That said I don't think Drebin will be making a return so it is not something that needs to be worried about in Phantom Pain.

 

 The durability was never an issue either, especially not in Snake Eater, as guards and enemy outposts would usually always carry unlimited supplies of both ammo and suppressors. In Ground Zeroes I'd at least find more than enough of them to take on the entire base, in the small weapons room, inside the main base. My initial equipment loadout, however, would usually always suffice to take out the most crucial guards. I never had much of a problem at all.

 

Yeah the silencer durability was never more than a slight annoyance, you could usually get through the missions in Ground Zeroes without even needing a replacement and I think you can easily get replacements in Phantom Pain, still hopefully there is an upgrade for unbreakable silencers in Phantom Pain.

 

The kind of encouragement where stealth is ideal over going in guns blazing, which I feel should be the priority in the game that largely is a stealth game over being anything else --- In your regular third persons shooters, or other type of 'action'-based games, you can have your mandatory stealth elements but they are at best superficial and shouldn't necessarily be the ideal approach over the other.

 

I am pretty sure there is already plenty of encouragement to take the stealthy approach in most missions, from not being able to interact with mission objectives while the base is under alarm to assassination targets making a run for the hills as soon as you are spotted, if you can remain undetected things will certainly go a lot smoother, not sure what more encouragement you need than that?

[Queen Skadi]

So I heard all the soldiers you rescue or abduct from Ground Zeroes will join you in Phantom Pain? Does that include Kojima?

[Galbrant]

From what I recall only POWs and VIP Targets like The Finger and the Eye, Kojima, The agent you get the first recording and the bald agent with the real recording.

[General TSAR]

What he said, if you get a message saying "X is extracted", he'll show up in TPP as a starting Diamond Dog.

 

Speaking of Ground Zeroes, I finally got 100% on it, whoo I guess.

[TheChris92]

Haha, I remember when I beat the Side Ops with those assassins -- I decided to extract them and couldn't believe it was actually possible, yay!

I do imagine Kojima will probably return in Phantom Pain as a R&D specialist like in Peace Walker, whom you can recruit.

[General TSAR]

Oh yeah Renegade Threat, good times.

 

Also good on Ground Zeroes for humanizing the targets.  

[General TSAR]

Interesting fact for those who don't know: There's a rather unique mechanic in the game called the Revenge System, basically the game adopts to your play-style: You like headshots? Everyone has helmets. Stealthy? More surveillance equipment and/or guards. Going Rambo? More armored soldiers with big guns. 

[SmilesJA]

I wonder what happened to Chico?

[NKnight7]

Interesting fact for those who don't know: There's a rather unique mechanic in the game called the Revenge System, basically the game adopts to your play-style: You like headshots? Everyone has helmets. Stealthy? More surveillance equipment and/or guards. Going Rambo? More armored soldiers with big guns. 

 

I pretty much always aim for the head, that'll make replaying missions difficult I think. I'm excited though for more security, when it comes to stealth games I love disabling all of the security before going after the enemies themselves.

 

​

[Dread-Reaper]

I wonder what happened to Chico?

Spoiler

There's a theory that Chico is Quiet

[General TSAR]

I wonder what happened to Chico?

He's dead I think.

 

It would make sense for the theme of Ground Zeroes (futility).

[SmilesJA]

Spoiler

There's a theory that Chico is Quiet

 

I think that was debunked.

[Queen Skadi]

From what I recall only POWs and VIP Targets like The Finger and the Eye, Kojima, The agent you get the first recording and the bald agent with the real recording.

 

I think I got em all then, 

 

Ground Zeroes

- 4 POWs in main prison area + 1 in the west refugee camp

 

Eliminate the Rogue Threat

- Glaz

- Palitz

- 2 POWs in main prison area

 

Intel Operative Rescue

- Kojima San

 

Classified Intel Acquisition

- The informant

- The Bald soldier

- 3 POWs in main prison area

 

Destroy Anti Air Emplacements

- 3 POWs in main prison area

- the captured spy in the boiler room cage

 

Any I missed? Also anything else that transfers from Ground Zeroes other than the sneaking suit you get for just uploading your GZ save to Phantom Pain? Bonuses for S-ranking missions?

[General TSAR]

 

 

3 weeks left peeps. 

[General TSAR]

Here's a rough guesstimate of the size of the African map.

[Galbrant]

I think I got em all then, 

 

Ground Zeroes

- 4 POWs in main prison area + 1 in the west refugee camp

 

Eliminate the Rogue Threat

- Glaz

- Palitz

- 2 POWs in main prison area

 

Intel Operative Rescue

- Kojima San

 

Classified Intel Acquisition

- The informant

- The Bald soldier

- 3 POWs in main prison area

 

Destroy Anti Air Emplacements

- 3 POWs in main prison area

- the captured spy in the boiler room cage

 

Any I missed? Also anything else that transfers from Ground Zeroes other than the sneaking suit you get for just uploading your GZ save to Phantom Pain? Bonuses for S-ranking missions?

I think you've found everyone, but about whether mission score and completion percentage unlocks anything in Phantom Pain I don't know.

[General TSAR]

JunkerHQ on Twitter has been sharing some of their impressions via Twitter. The info below is taken from his translations.

 

• The attendants spent about 40 hours playing the game, over the course of 3 days.
• Missions can be replayed at a higher difficulty once you have completed the story.
• One Dispatch Mission has the player sending the Combat Unit to blow up factories, which also affects the supply chain in the field (as a result the outposts won’t be able to get supplies such as helmets, body armor, shields and night scopes).
• Some Dispatch Missions reward you with money or materials for new weapons.
• One of the articles praises MGSV for its technical side: a solid performance in every respect with short loading times and a stable frame rate (the journalists played on PS4).
• He also writes the game has the best lighting he has ever seen, sunlight is realistic without appearing ‘blown-out’.
• The writer praises the quality of the cutscenes as well, the camerawork in particular, which is full of nice little touches.
• Snake controls better than in Ground Zeroes, and enemy movements have improved as well, same goes for their behavior and reactions to alert phases (they now offer more variation).
• One writer states the game ‘betrayed expectations’, in a good way.
• The game still has the unique MGS charm, and the increased freedom results in more opportunities for it to present itself.

[General TSAR]

You guys ready for eye candy?

 

[Galbrant]

Looking forward to have Stefanie Joosten as Quiet as my buddy in the game.

[TheChris92]

Looking forward to have Stefanie Joosten as Quiet as my buddy in the game.

I get it!

[Althix]

D.D.