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

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. Bad: 1. of poor quality or a low standard. 2. not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome. Game: 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.