The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

"Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" is a "bad" game.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 69232
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




With the controversy surrounding games as good or bad, I propose a resolution around a controversial game. "Ground Zeroes", is not a "bad" game, and I will endeavour to show that it is an at least "average" game. Burden of proof lies on the AFF (Pro), but as the NEG (Con), I will bring my own reasoning to the table as well.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Case
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Def+ Attack and Closing

Due to the nature of the game, I would like the voting to be non-bias, voting should not be swayed by voters personal opinion on the game, but rather, who provides the better argument and defends/attacks successfully.


Metal Gear: Ground Zeros is a game that is not a full game. It was released as one but was not a complete game. Most Metal Gear Games would take days to finish do to the caution that you have to take when choosing paths and choices that will effect whether or no you're going to make it. First things first, They took away the spotted sound which was the thing that made Metal Gear. Metal Gear Ground Zeros ruined a good franchise by getting ride of most of the stealthy stuff that was the game. They replaced being stopped with you have a ten-second slow motion period to boop the guys in the head with that pistol in your hand. That is why this game is a disappointment to those who waited a long time for this game. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


As I strongly believe that MGS V:GZ to not be a "bad" game, I must negate the resolution. Before I begin I would like to offer some definitions and that will come into play during today"s debate, they are the following.


1. of poor quality or a low standard.

2. not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.


an activity that one engages in for amusement.

Both of these words and their definitions come from the Oxford Dictionary, and hence ,are legitimate in their merit and value. In order to disprove, my opponent must first explicate how these definitions and words are not fitting for debate on the resolution, but since both words are explicitly in the resolution, he would be hard pressed to disprove them.

I offer three contentions to my case, and in order to disprove my case, my opponent must refute them. This should go without saying, but due to the nature of the internet debate I find it necessary to explicitly state it so.

I will now begin.

Cont. 1: The price of the game does not determine it"s inherent value.

The biggest complaint about GZ is the fact that it was released at "39.00 (on current consoles. I won"t get into the price of last generation because the price difference would only cause complications that wouldn't help either of our cases), the price of the standard video game being "49.00. Although it was lower than the average going price, it was still met with poor reception on the consumer level. However, the price of the game itself does not make it have less value. The game is realised on many consoles and has a complete set of 100% achievements and trophies, a thing that most arcade games don"t have. You can look at a game such as Counter Strike: GO for the Xbox and you will see that it is a smaller price and offers less achievements, a whole U33; the amount of GZ. Even if you truly believed that the price tag of a game increased it"s value, then why is it that new games from other games are inherently broken on launch? Is "49.00 what you would pay for a game whose textures and game mechanics are broken? (See Assassin"s Creed Unity)

Cont. 2: It is on par in many aspects

The Fox Engine is very impressive, and although the pricing of it isn"t stated, it most likely wasn't cheap. Kojima productions had to create a whole new engine, a practice many other companies ought to do. Many companies today only build off prior engines (see Dice's "Frostbite" and Infinity Ward's "IW") but instead, Kojima Productions has to create their own, one that I would say is more interactive and spectacular than either Frostbite and IW. In the sense of engine and graphics, it is on par with others in the industry making the game at its worst "mediocre" but certainly not flat out "bad". The controls are comfortable and are just an improved version of the last entry in the MGS franchise: Peace Walker. Peace Walker was met with good reception, and one of its better points was it's good controls in comparison with the other portable MGS, "Portable Ops". Ground Zeroes' controls are just PW's with more console upgrades such as FPS mode and more detailed menus. Shooting feels good and powerful but fair, and the game eliminated a lot of the awkward transitional movement from other entries (you know how Snake would just move unnaturally when you went from sitting to standing? That stuff). Because the game works well and has good graphics, I would say that it is not of poor quality or standard, than a game that suffers from both, such as Portable Ops.

Cont. 3: Critics don't say it is that "bad".

What is a game supposed to be in the end? Entertaining and maybe a little more. MGS: GZ does both and therefore cannot be a bad game. A bad game is something so bad it is universally hated, such as Sonic "06. The game is generally panned because the game is terrible flat out and received a less than average score on metacritic, a 46. MGS: GZ received a 75 which is in my opinion "not great" but most certainly "no bad" in my eyes. Sure it could have had a longer mission, but the game's engine and capabilities are boast worthy or any stealth game to date. Even though it is missing some aspects of your "classical" MGS signature niches, doesn't make the game bad in any respect. It is fun and provocative towards the standards of story, something that Metal Gear has always been about. I"ll admit, I wish they kept the life bar to give a heightened sense of tension (especially that going on a Big Boss killing spree is now completely viable) but to make up for it you die pretty quickly. It may be a little thin, but it certainly doesn't pack some heat to the party, and so the game is anything but simply "bad" in terms of standards.

Notes: The prices are actually the GBP (Great British Pound) because I am currently living in London. The system keeps rejecting the pound symbol and instead places a " instead. My apologies if there is any confusion.


Go to this link right here for a review:
Debate Round No. 2


Gahere forfeited this round.


RetroToast forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Sigh, my apologies for not responding to the earlier round. I was out of my country for a while and didn't find the time to type a response. But I do now.

I would first like to state the obvious, that Nerd Cubed is but one "reviewer" who is unprofessional and scathing to listen to. Nonetheless, he brought up some of my points on the price and mechanics. He claimed he did enjoy the mechanics with the exception of the reflex mode. I do have a rebuttal for this because the game is not meant to play that way. In order to get the highest score in the game you HAVE to turn reflex mode off, heavily increasing the difficulty and bringing back the great tension we all know and love from an MGS game. SO, I have explained why reflex mode is just a way to play the game in a more action orientated way, but a true MGS fan would have turned it off from the start. Furthermore, Nerd Cubed complained a lot about the price, but I have already shown that price does not dictate the quality of the game and so that attack is invalid as it does not explain "why" the price should be a deciding factor in the score of the game. Lastly, I do have one major point to address, the failure of my opponent to speak his own words. My opponent has only quoted one source, a source that I would deem un-credible thanks to his profuse language and heavy intent to be "funny" as opposed to actually giving an actual review. After seeing the video, I somehow got the sense that my opponent had not only taken all of his points from the video itself, but most likely had never played MGS: GZ in the first place. So not only is my opponent taking his attacks from a single source while I take my attacks from personal experience and the combined reviewer ship of metacritic, my opponent has no right to dictate the games worth because he himself hasn't played it. My opponents laziness of just linking a video is a poor gesture for debate, so my opponent must lose this round.

To clarify, I have refuted the two logical points that Nerd Cubed presented, I have shown that my opponent has only used one source which is inferior to my own, my opponent is promoting unfair debate by linking a video and not cohesively explaining his reasoning and most importantly, above all else; I have assumed enough data to infer that perhaps my opponent hasn't even played the game at all. If my opponent wishes to beat me, he should use the power of his own mettle than that of a "humorous" Youtuber who's opinion isn't that note worthy to begin with. All my points stand because my opponent has not refuted them and I have pointed out the many flaws with my opponents method and ideals. This debate can only have one winner, and that is to go to the NEG.


Exactly, I have not. It's not like I was taking this seriously. I just decided to pick a random debate to practice from myself and my opponent. I am not one of the most experienced debater unlike you. You hold a strong argument that makes no relevance to society now and has passed this game to wait for the next Call of Duty.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RageDebate12302 1 year ago
Really RetroToast? You know nothing of MGS
Posted by RetroToast 1 year ago
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
I haven't played it so I can't debate, but MGS 4 should have been the end. It ties up everything and ends nicely. Anything more is just profit mongering.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, a link for the main round's argument... Make your own argument, and then provide a link, right now it's sourcespammed in, giving no one any reason to read it. Sources mainly for con refutting said link, even while it was not needed (more people need to attack links).