GamePro: MGS4 'one of the greatest games ever'

by Christopher Grant { May 28th 2008 at 10:24AM }

Though forum rumors indicate that Metal Gear Solid 4 is racking up an impressive average review score from European outlets, the only "on the record" review (read: tracked in Metacritic or Game Rankings) thus far belongs to PlayStation Official Magazine UK which awarded Kojima's opus a perfect 10/10. Of course, some moaned about how unsurprising it was to see an "official" magazine dropping tens on a PS3-exclusive so, in the interest of presenting an opposing viewpoint from a non-European multiplatform outlet, we direct your attention towards GamePro's review.

Like POM UK, GamePro isn't being stingy with the praise, pinning a glowing 5/5 review on MGS4's lapel, while calling it "one of the greatest games of all time." Oh, but it doesn't stop there. Here's just a handful of our favorite bits:

"This is videogame storytelling at its absolute best, and represents a new high watermark for the craft, easily surpassing the superb BioShock and the subversive Grand Theft Auto IV."
"MGS4 has that effect on players, effectively blurring, if not erasing, the line that divides games and cinema. It's an absolutely remarkable achievement."
"But if you have access to an HDTV, MGS4 will show you the bleeding edge of video game graphics."
"It sets new standards for graphics, sound, gameplay, and storytelling, and it may be years before it is equalled, let alone surpassed."
"You will not play a better game this year – maybe even this decade."

Check out the entire review in this month's GamePro which, we presume, should be on store shelves or in your mailbox any day now.

[Thanks, Kris]

Tags: GamePro, Konami, Metal-Gear-Solid-4, MGS4

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

Ross Miller @ May 28th 2008 10:26AM

Here's a question: BioShock was a game with a low difficulty curve – there was very little penalty for dying, rendering the focus then on the story because anyone could progress far into it.

So what's to be said of the Metal Gear Solid 4 story if the difficulty curve is high enough (without some 'easy mode' or other backup device) that it shuts out many people from enjoying the narrative? That's something I want to see answered. Or, y'know, buy it and play it to no end and answer it myself :)

PojoMofo @ May 28th 2008 10:40AM

That is a good point Ross,

I am hoping that there is something for everyone in MGS4. I hope the story will be structured to where the newcomer can pick up on whats going on, but the MGS vet will know maybe more of the subtleties of the story that a newb might not pick up on.

Gameplay and graphics should be top-notch from the medai explosion that I have seen though

copa @ May 28th 2008 10:58AM

Clearly it would be a problem. Most people aren't going to finish GTAIV, but that game has a rich sandbox mechanic to fall back on that retains a broad appeal to less hardcore players.

It sounds like Kojima has hit the ball out of the park with MGS4, nailing the gameplay mechanics and variety of level designs.

But high difficulty curves and 90-minute cutscenes are the sort of thing that will keep MGS more of a niche product.

I applaud Kojima for staying true to his vision, but as a game designer he should make some concessions to the notion that hour-long political speeches and ridiculous difficulty are not entertaining for a lot of people.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 28th 2008 11:19AM

Kojima hasn't really had this issue. Since the series resurrection, he's had a wide variety of difficulty settings and accomidations for those who just want to kick back and enjoy the narrative. One of the most obvious concessions is the one I'm taking advantage of right now in MGS3, entitled the EZ GUN. It takes your camo coverage up to 80% automatically, gives you the laser sight, slows your stamina use, and features unlimited ammo. On Easy, it's also fairly easy to "get away" from enemies but in hard, once you're caught, you're caught for good.

Kojima will find some clever way to accomidate the casual player without insulting them. Just don't expect to rank well online.

Ubiqutous Oxymoron @ May 28th 2008 11:30AM

I for one appreciate as the game as an art form develops, evolves and crosses over many boundaries and styles of story telling.

I welcome the notion of hybrid cinematic games, play for a bit, take part and generate the narrative, sit back experience the developments, its like playing a game and going to the cinema at the same time.

I know i may not always want to experience this, it i want to play TF2 i will, If i want to put on Blade Runner, the final cut (ps3 Bluray) i will.

games like this do nothing but advance video gaming culture.

pre-ordered on amazon.

would like to throw in some bait as i have used up all of my intelligence quota for today writing the above paragraphs

but i don't think I'll sink to it, I'll just leave the Xbots to harvest their tears to water cool their 360's

Shagittarius @ May 28th 2008 12:08PM

copa, asking a designer to water down their game for mass consumption is exactly whats wrong with Nintendo and where the industry could be heading.

Bastard11 @ May 28th 2008 12:16PM

This game is not made for those people.
I don't know what this obsession with making everything accessible to everyone is about but it compromises quality in a lot of products.
This game was made for fans of the series.. it is the "end" and not a chapter meant to bring in new players.
Why then is it so important to you that there is an easy mode and shorter cutscenes to keep the ADD people interested enough to complete the game?

Arturis @ May 28th 2008 12:17PM

@copa

Once again I would like to point out that the 90 minute cut scenes are an internet rumor, and a false one at that. When that rumor hit, I immediately asked one of the editors here that has completed the game (I happen to work for GamePro) and they confirmed that, while some of the cut scenes are trademark Metal Gear "extensive", none of them reach 90 minutes in length.

copa @ May 28th 2008 12:46PM

Internet rumor? Really, Arturis?

The '90-minute cutscenes' were reported in an article by PSW magazine, a dead-tree publication, by people who have actually played the game.

So if there are other people that have played the game and disagree specifically with the 90 number, that's fine, but several other journalists who have played it have stated on gaming podcasts that there are insanely long cutscenes.
_______________________________

@shag

It's a balancing act, Shag. MGS2 minus the 45-minute sophomoric diatribe at the end was a masterpiece.

If that scene had been edited down to five minutes, and still communicated the core concepts, you might call it 'dumbing down' the game. I would have called it masterful editing and a sign of maturity.

tmacairjordan87 @ May 28th 2008 12:58PM

Keep in mind "insanely long" by most people's standards is anything that stops these ADD people from shootan tings for more than 10 minutes.

snarfoogle @ May 28th 2008 12:58PM

I'm going to agree with Fidious. MGS1 and 2 had the 'Very Easy' and 'Easy' difficulty, and MGS3 introduced the EZ Gun and, if I recall correctly, the 'Super-Duper Easy' difficulty. The only thing stopping MGS4 from reaching a large audience is 1. the video game medium, 2. the storyline which builds off 3 previous games and 3. not as many people own a PS3 rather than a 360

Shagittarius @ May 28th 2008 1:07PM

I think as far as games go the length of the cut scenes ultimately don't matter much, at least not to me. Some games keep you going because of the story but you would never continue playing a plain awful game just because it had a good story.

I would disagree with those that tell you video games should be more like interactive movies. I would disagree with those that tell you cut scenes should be completely removed from the games. As a medium its nice to not have these self imposed limitations.

Ultimately the same rule of game design that has existed from the dawn of game design still applies. No matter how many rules you have about what a game should or shouldn't be, what makes or breaks it is if it turns out to be enjoyable as a whole.

This is up to the designers, not marketing, sales, or market pressure. Game designers are still not properly respected. It seems to me that there are very few companies in the industry that really believe a great designer is a requirement for a great product.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ May 28th 2008 1:09PM

@tmac.

Ok stop. Stop.

It isn't because the cutscenes are too long it's because:

1. It's a fucking video game.

2. We've come such a long way in terms of story telling that now games can tell their story with players still having control of the game. So can you please tell me why Kojiima still thinks it's 1998 and thinks it's a good idea to stick long cutscenes in his games? There are plenty of ways he could have told his story, making long cutscenes isn't one of them.

MN Guy @ May 28th 2008 1:37PM

I don't think it is difficulty curve keeping MGS from the masses. The games have had settings to make them easy. They are fairly accessible. The last titles came out on the most accessible console with highest install base. The game is big in Japan.

The bottom line is that most Americans don't think the games are all that fun, quite frankly. I have enjoyed each and every one of them, but had more fun with games that weren't as well made.

It just gets boring for some people doin' all that sneakin'. It is a game that requires some serious patience.

Arturis @ May 28th 2008 1:49PM

@copa

A rumor can start from any source, but once it starts circulating around the internet it can (and will) be referred to as an Internet Rumor. But honestly, we are nit picking semantics at this point.

What is relevant is the fact that this specific "dead tree magazine rumor" is false. Yes, there are long cut scenes, there always have been in the Metal Gear series and at this point it is considered a hallmark of the series. And I agree with Shagg that there are better ways to tell the story nowadays then to take the control out of the players hands for extended periods of time. Technology and story telling methods have evolved beyond this. I was simply pointing out that the quoted "90 minutes" is, and has been, an exaggeration.

John @ May 28th 2008 7:07PM

@ Vegeta

Apparently, after establishing the series as one of the most successful video game franchises, he is right, and you are wrong. But we should believe you right? I MEAN PLEASE, you obviously know better!

Dan CiTi @ Jun 1st 2008 8:23PM

There has always been a very easy, easy, normal, hard, & extreme modes in MGS games MGS4 is no different(and european extreme in MGS3 & 4). Difficult is not a problem.

FOXHOUND @ May 28th 2008 10:33AM

Again... I'm happy to see the high score and amazing reviews as a huge MGS fan; but because this seventh generation of gaming has let me down more than any other, I'll go into playing the game with a "skeptical" mindset of the reviews thus far... especially coming from Gamepro.

PROTIP: To like mudkips, like mudkips.

Poisoned Al @ May 28th 2008 10:39AM

Quite. Gamepro has all the credibility of someone scrawling on a toilet wall how big his cock is.

Which is still higher then Gamespot's.

StrangeBum @ May 28th 2008 10:53AM

If I remember correctly, I thought that Gamepro went through some huge redesign to try and garner some credibility again. From what I can gather from what you are saying is that it didn't do shiat for them.

Sucks too, I use to love Gamepro when I was a kid, it's just that as I grew older I wanted to get a more personal review from the person behind the magazine's pages. That's part of what I love about joystiq, each poster has a very unique style and feel to their posts.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 28th 2008 11:29AM

I don't have any problems with Gamepro, it's just not my style of magazine. It carries itself almost too "ZOMG! Dis game be AWESOME!" Reading the magazine always comes off, in my head, with a heavy nasal drawl of "Nu uh, Link could totally beat Cloud in a sword battle" kinds of conversations you overhear at a Game Crazy while you're busting through their classic plastic sales. It's not the part of gaming culture I enjoy.

I prefer Play Magazine but that's because I'm an artist and enjoy the nice illustrations, balanced focus on western and eastern gaming, and the fact that they publish post mortems which I normally have to track down on Gamasutra.

As for credibility, credibility goes as far as the reviewer, period. As hired guns, they really don't have preferences beyond personal bias and frankly speaking, everyone has a personal bias. But regardless, calling any magazine's integrity in question is weaksauce when they give a high score. You may not agree with the score, but 9 times of 10, the disagreements scattered upon the internet are people who didn't want to like the game regardless.

Poisoned Al @ May 28th 2008 10:36AM

"This is videogame storytelling at its absolute best, and represents a new high watermark for the craft, easily surpassing the superb BioShock and the subversive Grand Theft Auto IV."

Maybe it's my repressed fanboyisum kinking in, or mayby my crushing skepticism, but I instantly thought "bollocks" when reading that. I just have an inkling that that's only something you would say if Sony was handing you a large sack filled with money.

Phranctoast @ May 28th 2008 10:43AM

If that was the case, they should have chosen a 360 exclusive title to compare the story.

D_Average @ May 28th 2008 10:49AM

Sony may be taking that check back. He forgot to mention the acting was "Oscar Worthy".

LaughingTarget @ May 28th 2008 2:16PM

Relying on non-interactive cut scenes can never reach a point to overtake BioShock, which did all storytelling without once deciding to take control of the game away from me. Cut scenes will always be inferior to a fluid story development.

Mromson @ May 28th 2008 10:37AM

I'm REALLY curious about who will give MGS4 a score below 9/10

WRE (PSN: WorstReviewEver; Gamertag: HaloKissesBoys; Wii Friend Code: 4204-4590-6106-3583) @ May 28th 2008 10:42AM

Gerstemann would've. *tears up*

Haggard @ May 28th 2008 10:37AM

Why would you even bother to review a game if you're going to give it a score out of five? And WHY must metacritic insist that 5/5 = 100%?

Mromson @ May 28th 2008 10:41AM

Because 5/5, 10/10 and 100/100 100% is the same value?

Phranctoast @ May 28th 2008 10:42AM

I hear ya. Theres a big difference between a 5/5 100% and a 4/5 80% game. -20% seems too much for a "not perfect" game.

voodoo_craig @ May 28th 2008 10:44AM

Don't be a fool, a score is a summary of a review and shouldn't even be necessary. You wanna know how good a game is? Read what they say or play the game.

Personally a five-star scale is the perfect way to grade a game, it's simple, more honest than other gradings (How often do we see reviews below 50%? Does this mean most games are better than average? Then shouldn't average be higher?) and a perfect score doesn't imply a perfect game.

Mromson @ May 28th 2008 10:47AM

Up the magazines to decide what score system works for them. 4/5 is by all means 80%. If you wanna go higher, 4.5/5.0 works. And not like it hurts the overall metascore anyways.

Haggard @ May 28th 2008 11:57AM

So you're saying a game with a 70% score is as good as one with an 89%? Both would get 4/5.

LemonJoose @ May 28th 2008 3:05PM

I agree that no more than a 5-point scale is needed to communicate anything as subjective as the overall quality and entertainment value of a videogame. In general, anything that gets a 4 or 5 is something I may be interested in. 3 or less I will normally skip, unless I have a good reason.

A difference of less than about 10 points in a 100-point rating scale between two games reviewed by the same publication is mostly just random subjective rating noise. Most 100-point rating scales are really in effect only a 40-point 60-100 rating scale the way most reviewers use them. A score from 0-59 means a game is utter crap. We do not need 59 rating points to fool ouselves that we can accurately tease apart fine gradations of crap. In the 5-point scale, you just give those utter crap games all a 1 and move on.

koehler83 @ May 28th 2008 10:44AM

They posted a host of new screens on the PS Blog, all of which display at over 1100 pixels high, giving very good evidence that MGS4 will run at 1080p. Very exciting.

Check out the screens if you havent already.. they're pretty amazing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157605269016774/show/with/2526324708/

Brian Fantana @ May 28th 2008 3:32PM

If you believe thats what the game will look like on yours or any ones TV, you're a fool. MGS 4 won't be in 1080p, you'll be able to upscale to 1080p from 720p, but thats it. Just look at Halo 3's screenshots and compare them to the actual game. MGO didn't look even remotely close to those.

iag25 @ May 28th 2008 10:43AM

So what about those 90 minutes of cinematic ?

Hyams @ May 28th 2008 11:02AM

They've been debunked.

vanuslux @ May 28th 2008 10:44AM

After reading GTA4's reviews then playing it for myself, that was all the proof I needed that reviews are nearly useless these days.

koehler83 @ May 28th 2008 10:45AM

That was bull. A whisper of hearsay without a shred of evidence. Actual gaming media publishers debunked that rumour immediately. The ending cutscene is apparently around 45 minutes long though. Nothing wrong with that imo.

Savok @ May 28th 2008 10:49AM

Unless your console decides to have a DRE in that time.

Leilock @ May 28th 2008 10:45AM

I am glad for this, since it makes me feel a bit better about the library of the system, and I know the day I purchase a PS3 I'll really enjoy it. MGS 1-3 were solid (no pun intended). However, as a 360 owner, I still haven't found enough exclusives to pull me to the system. This may be good, but what will i play in a month when I'm done? If the next year introduces more games like this to the library some 360 owners might finally break down and go cross platform.

NATO_Duke @ May 28th 2008 11:24AM

Believe it or not, many of us 360 owners went cross platform a long time ago. I, and many others, play all three consoles of this generation. (Corporations aren't loyal to you, so why be so darn loyal to them exclusively?)

I am pretty excited about how this game is being received. The PS3 needs a title that makes you really proud to have the machine in the first place, and this looks like it may be the one to justify the purchase for me. Up until now I haven't really been excited for many PS3 titles.

Leilock @ May 28th 2008 11:35AM

I agree that you shouldn't close your mind to other systems out of loyalty, but i don't think I'm the only one that isn't made of money :) PS3 is the priciest system on the market out of the box, and as you said there haven't been alot of games up to this point to get excited about.

Kudos on being an early adopter, cause you get to experience this game on launch day. For the rest of us rubbing pennies together though, it takes a few more good games to make the purchase enticing. For me (though it's a PSN game) Little Big Planet is a huge selling point, along with whenever the next Final Fantasy game comes out of it's hole (and hopefully doesn't see it's shadow)

NATO_Duke @ May 28th 2008 11:59AM

Honestly, FF was the main reason I got the PS3 - even though it seems to be a long time off. When I bought it my gf was so pissed. She hates it. She playes the 360 all the time, but sees the PS3 as a waste of money sitting there, as I haven't really enjoyed many games on it. I need some AAA titles like MGS & FF to show it wasn't a waste.