Well of course as a commercial demo it was never going to be praised. But the + are big + and the - are not that important. The Technical aspect, the gameplay, the fact it looks fun and they are looking forward to see more.

I find it very encouraging. I might rather get GZ in the final version of MGS5 in bundle with the The Phantom Pain, which i believe even more now it will be a great great game. Unlike this big demo we are really going to get value for our money.

Seems Famitsu review does praise it, as they rated it 38/40 (10/9/9/10).

I guess it will divide a lot of people. I expect to see lots of  bad reviews because their judgment will only be focused on the fact it's a big demo and they want to sanction this policy. And on the other side the ones who are going to judge it on the gameplay/graphics side and will give it a good score for that.

So what i meant to say is that i don't expect to see a consensus of praises and a good metacritic score.

PS: I like your avatar xD

I agree with you Wright. The cammo index gameplay was a chore, and the bandaging mini game even worse. The game bored me so much at the start that i never went further and sold my ps2 version. 

It wasnt until recently that i forced myself to play the HD version on my vita and discovered an enjoyable game. Very MGS and with a dramatic unravel, but it never quite gripped me like MGS2, even despite the trolling with main character.

They are both good in their own way, but MGS2 was released at the beggining of a gen and MGS3 at the end. Meta scores tend to drop at the end of gens cause gfx arent impressive anymore.

I can understand that. MGS2's graphics were unbelievable for their time.

It's also $15-20 in Japan and the cost of the game doesn't influence the review score in Japan.

And that's how it should be. Because someone buying the game a week, a month, a year later will definitely not pay full price, but the score won't change. Some will even get it for free (rental services, borrow it from a friend) so value shoudln't affect the score like that. Hell, some are filthy rich and wouldn't care if it cost $100 as long as it was a good game. But not everyone reads reviews. They look at metactitic and assume that it's a bad game. 

Of course, I don't hate on MGS3. I liked it, a lot. It has some good sequences (like infiltration with the Scientist costume) and ace boss battles. But overall I found it less enjoyable than MGS2.

I agree with your last statement a lot, too.

I find this a bit ridiculous.  You can't base a review on the assumption that "someone somewhere down the line might be playing this for 'free'" or "0.1% of our viewers don't mind paying £100 for a game so we'll review it not based on price".

The content of the review should explain what the game is like.  Honestly, in an objective way with subjective comparisons to other games that do things similarly.  In that way you can judge what the game itself is like.  Then the score should reflect the the actual outcome of the whole package, including whether or not the value is reflected in the content you're getting.

Otherwise, indies would never be games which scored anything past a 5/10, because they're often good games subject to the fact that you're not paying $60 for them (and some would be good games even for $60, but that's besides the point).  If you placed all games on an equal footing then they'd hardly ever be able to match up.

In my opinion, of course :P

25 minutes ? lol if true