Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes

Entry number

This article says it will be the ninth entry. However, it will be released after Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. This would make it the tenth entry. Or are we counting Revengeance as non-canon? 134340Goat (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the navbox and you will see that Rising is referred to as a spin-off on Wikipedia. Cheers! --AnddoX (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a spinoff, but Kojima did also confirm it takes place in the Solid canon. Canonically, it's the last entry however.

Surely though if it's canonical, and Metal Gear, that makes it the ninth game in the Metal Gear series.--210.56.81.185 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Since the game is confirmed to be open-world, should that to be added as a genre in the side box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.252.5 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Multi-platform

I've edited out the section of the article that claims the game will be on PC. The reason for this is because of the reference supplied. Although the title of the article is "Confirmed: Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes is current gen - set for PS3, Xbox 360 and PC", if you read the body of the article, you will see this:

"Speaking at Penny Arcade Expo, Kojima said the game is currently running on a PC but that the footage was indicative of what the PS3 version will look like, while indicating it's likely to be released for Xbox 360 and PC."

"Likely to be released". This is by no means confirmation of the game appearing on PC, so we cannot include it in the article, and we cannot use the article as a reference to claim that the game will appear on PC. To do so is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, PC is only speculation - running a PS3/X360 debug game on PC does not guarantee a PC release (all games are made using PCs). See also the trailer credits: Official Trailer Credits - Platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikzilla90 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Page content

Please be aware that this is not good enough for a Wikipedia page. All it does is recount the contents of the gameplay demo shown at PAX, which is nowhere near enough for a Wikipedia article. It also contains original research, making it unencyclopaedic. Just because something is known, that does not make it notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia page, so describing the events of the gameplay demo and calling it a "plot" is ridiculous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think we may need to consider adding more reliable sources and more coverage of the game's development and history than just recounting the contents of the gameplay demo shown at PAX. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what I am saying. Right now, the focus of the article is the contents of the gameplay demo. It would be the same as if someone created a Wikipedia page for a film, and most of the article was taken up by a description of the trailer, which is not acceptable. The article currently fits a criteria for deletion because it the forcus is all wrong. The fact that a gameplay demo was shown at PAX is notable enough to be mentioned; the contents of that demo are not enough. We have no way of knowing if what was shown in the demo will be in the final game at all, or if it was written specifically for the demo and will be removed from the final release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Things are okay now but User:AnddoX could revert this once again.Tintor2 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he already has. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted it back. Anyone who wants to make a case for the article to be expanded back is welcome to do so. I'm a reasonable guy, and can be persuaded. I'm not so stone-headed that I'll insist that the page remains as is irrespective of any argument of consensus. Indeed, it appears that there is a preliminary consensus to keep the page in its reduced format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This MGS wikia community has really reliable information about Metal Gear Solid:Ground Zeroes. Just saying :-) --Paprikazzz (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's only the "Metal Gear 25th Anniversary; Official announcement of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" section that actuallly has information regarding Ground Zeroes. The other is post MGS4 plans regarding the franchise.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, fan-wikis fail WP:RELIABLE.

But any external links they provide could be useful as sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. There's tons of external links for reliable information we could use for this page's benefit. I ran across this as well. I'd really like add more content to this article but lot of us seems to disagree with that idea... --Paprikazzz (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that all the content was added without sources to begin with. I could source the few gameplay details using a GameSpot preview, but I was unable to source the plot since no official explanation regarding it was given. When I replied to the wikia comment, I meant that it used various sources to cite sentences which could also be used here if they are reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently some debate over precisely what this page should contain. I have attempted to instigate a discussion of this on the talk page, but none of the editors involved are interested in discussing it, and are instead reverting the page back and forth. One the one hand, we have this version of the page; on the other hand, we have this version of the page. The purpose of this RFC is to open up the page to the wider editing community to find the best way forward for the page, given the lack of discussion to date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the information is merely personal observations made by a Wikipedia editor watching a trailer/video, then it should not be included. If the observations can be verified by a reliable source, for example, if an IGN editor wrote up a preview and it contained the information, then I believe at that point that it would be warranted to include in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• The content should not be included if the information contains personal observations. However, if we can verify this with a reliable source, it would be warranted to include it within the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

TBA in the release dates section

Lately, there's been a disagreement whether we should use TBA for the release dates parameter of the infobox, which is being added on by an IP and has been repeatedly reverted. As I do not want to escalate it into an edit war, I am taking the WP:BRD route and opening a discussion here to see if others can voice their opinion on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding TBA is a typical form of WP:CRYSTAL. The article states that it is an upcoming game, without a set release date readers should understand that it is an upcoming game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any harm. It's better than leaving it blank. --Anddo (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Phantom Pain Trailer

I think we have to mention the trailer of Phantom Pain game, it is a viral trailer about a new Metal Gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.22.91 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless Kojima confirms it is from Ground Zeroes we can't mention it here.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Would a "See also" link to The Phantom Pain suffice? Since there's a lot of discussion about the relationship of the two, it seems like that would be appropriate, even if not mentioned in the article itself. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Readers can already link to The Phantom Pain article by using the navigator box from Metal Gear in its "Related" part. Knowing Kojima it's impossible to predict this. Phanthom Pain could turn out to be another game.Tintor2 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's no verifiable information to confirm that Phantom pain is MGS5/MGS:GZ/new IP/etc., but at the moment the reaction and discussion about Phantom Pain is related to MGS:GZ. As such, a see also link seems to be a good inclusion, in my opinion. WP:SEEALSO suggests that the section can be used "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Phantom Pain is related at the moment, even if it turns out to be a complete lie. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It was said by Hideo Kojima at GDC 2013 that Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain will be both part of MGS V (sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0qhPoT4coOI#t=503s in japanese english dubbed) Soyel.lg (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

PC

I don't see PC listed on the side box. Shouldn't it be listed?

http://www.ign.com/games/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/pc-109819

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/366056/confirmed-metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-is-current-gen-set-for-ps3-xbox-360-and-pc/

http://uk.ign.com/games/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/pc-109819

--Zeno McDohl (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are uninformed. The IGN listing in particular is false. The game is still listed for the four platforms on the main site as well, we need direct first-party confirmation to confirm a PC listing. --Phailin (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources are good and I have not found any source slightly relating to Kojima that would say it is enroute to PC. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Snake or Big Boss?

Right now, there is some dispute within the article as to whether the main character should be referred to as "Snake" or "Big Boss" in the plot sub-section.

The main argument in favour of referring to him as Big Boss stems from the way he accepted the title at the end of Peace Walker. In terms of the over-arching series' narrative, this is probably most correct.

However, characters within Ground Zeroes - particularly Chico - refer to him as Snake. Kaz calls him "Boss", but if we look at the over-arching narrative, Kaz always calls him Boss, regardless of which title he prefers. If he does use a title, he uses Snake.

But perhaps most tellingly, the title card used to introduce the character when he first arrives at Camp Omega reads "SNAKE". Given that he is referred to as Snake, introduced to the character as Snake and that this article only deals with the events in Ground Zeroes rather than the series' narrative (Peace Walker and The Phantom Pain are mentioned, but only to put Ground Zeroes into context as to its place in the series' continuity), then the most appropriate name for the character is Snake. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Influences

Per a 4gamer interview (in Japanese), Kojima lists George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four as one of his influences in MGS5. If anyone wants to start a section or paragraph on how Kojima wrote his story, here's something to start from. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion between Reception and Sales

Shouldn't this part of the entry "Despite her praise for the game, IGN's Lucy O'Brien was extremely critical of some of the narrative elements. While applauding Kojima for his willingness to explore darker themes in the game, O'Brien found the execution to be distasteful and poorly-conceived, opining that the sexual violence inflicted on Paz Ortega Andrade reduced her from being a complex and conflicted character to a plot point, providing nothing more than the basis for Snake's motivation in The Phantom Pain. O'Brien was also critical of the inclusion of a collectible tape recording where Chico, an underage boy, is forced to have sex with Paz, as the scene used rape as a weapon against Paz and as a reward for Chico.[65]" be on the Reception instead of being on Sales? It doesn't make sense for a personal opinion from a journalistic piece to be on Sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.206.73 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

About that Hospital cutscene...

Seriously, the article talks about a cutscene in an hospital, but I didn't see any. What is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.180.106 (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

---

At the end of the Ground Zeroes mission, towards the end of the cinematics, Big Boss wakes up in a hospital after having been in a coma for 9 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.245.129 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit #636170244: "Don't start with me."

This one.

• The main character of the game is referred to as "Snake". Not Big Boss. There is a discussion above pertaining to this oft-reverted nuance of the article. An editor even added a footnote to the article explaining this.
• The "Side Ops" text is patently false to anyone who views gameplay footage on YouTube. Just watch the first few seconds of any mission -- Snake is supposed to be infiltrating a base in Cuba, not the main game's Camp Omega.
• Wikipedia generally disavows unsourced text, let alone several paragraphs of it. This game's story contents sorely needs sources. (WP:VERIFIABILITY)
• Nobody owns this article. If there is an editing dispute, it will be "started" on this talk page. (WP:OWNER)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Open world

Could this game be considered open world?ECW28 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208224458/http://metalgearsolid.nl/?p=4571 to http://metalgearsolid.nl/?p=4571
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902084914/http://uk.gamespot.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/previews/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-shows-off-fox-engine-shine-and-possible-open-world-elements-6393924/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/previews/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-shows-off-fox-engine-shine-and-possible-open-world-elements-6393924/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122015109/http://www.youtharabia.com/gaming/one-on-one-with-hideo-kojima/ to http://www.youtharabia.com/gaming/one-on-one-with-hideo-kojima/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MCX360":

• From Pro Evolution Soccer 2014: "Pro Evolution Soccer 2014 for Xbox 360 - Reviews". Metacritic.
• From Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance: "Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance for Xbox 360 Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved February 19, 2013.
• From Metal Gear Solid HD Collection: "Metal Gear Solid HD Collection for Xbox 360 Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved 2013-05-27.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515102539/http://saudigamer.com/2013/01/19/hideo-kojima-meeting to http://saudigamer.com/2013/01/19/hideo-kojima-meeting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215034654/http://www.at7addak.com/en/Articles/226681/Features/PS3/Hideo-Kojima-Interview to http://www.at7addak.com/en/Articles/226681/Features/PS3/Hideo-Kojima-Interview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225202222/http://www.metalgearsolidtv.com/2013/02/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-may-not.html to http://www.metalgearsolidtv.com/2013/02/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-may-not.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"They played us like a damn fiddle!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect They played us like a damn fiddle! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § They played us like a damn fiddle! until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)