Does a 90 minute game deserve 9/10’s?
If you’re a fan of Metal Gear Solid and can’t quite wait to get your hands on Ground Zeroes, it might be worth waiting for a pre-owned copy or something in the bargain bin, as some gamers are complaining about the game length, beating the main story mission in less than 2 hours.
Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes has just come out to certain parts of the world and it’s getting some fantastic reviews from certain publications, with both Edge Magazine and Eurogamer giving the game a score a 9/10. Multiple large gaming sites have given this game other great scores, with little mention of it’s short play through time. Even with a bit of negative criticism due to it’s short length, the game still has a Metacritic score of 75/100 (as of March 20th, 2014).
Now, I understand that MGS Ground Zeroes, if anything, is an introduction to Metal Gear Solid V: Phantom Pain, but even then, it’s a glorified, expensive demo, having to pay $29 US or $49 AUS (Thanks, Australian games industry).
When did it become OK to make a game this short and slap that high of a price tag on it? Now, it’s understandable that it’s cheaper than your average AAA-title, but the length of a game like this should almost be online only, and significantly cheaper.
Take Dead Rising 2: Case Zero for example. It was a short intro into Dead Rising 2 and was priced at $4.99US on XBL Marketplace. Now, you normally wouldn’t expect much from a downloadable title that costs 5 bucks, right?
A $5 game on XBLA is DOUBLE the length of something that costs at least SIX times as much. How is such a high price tag justified for such a short game, that could technically be called a demo or an introduction to Phantom Pain?
If you base your gaming purchases on reviews, one would assume this is a must-buy, but these review scores don’t pass on things like value or length of time required to complete said game.
©2013 Yvan Zivkovic