Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain did a great deal in terms of moving the mechanics of the series forward; third-person control was less like moving a chess piece and more naturally human, the options to take cover and restrain enemies were far easier to initiate with helpful on-screen prompts, and the general world map changed dramatically: vast, open, mountainous regions provided play-spaces larger than that of MGS 4. There was more variety, more strategy and the stealth felt better than ever. That said, for anyone less receptive to this 'evolution' of Metal Gear, Phantom Pain felt like the mechanics of Far Cry 3 had been bolted on, and its many changes diluted (somewhat) the open-world promised. Afghanistan and Angola-Zaire were large environments split into many mission-sized portions, making the heralded Metal Gear Goes Open World! from the trailers feel like a hollow promise, especially as some missions only took place across self-contained areas, rather than miles of open terrain seen in other open-world titles. Theres no denying both games that make up the fifth instalment of this twenty-nine year old gaming giant changed Metal Gear for good; but did the content, story and setting from Ground Zeroes really lead to a better, more faithful game than what became The Phantom Pain?