Kojima disappointed with MGS4

Turns out PS3 isn't as powerful as he or his developers thought...

Forgive me a cruel chuckle: Heheh...Now forgive me a cruel, maniacal laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

I predict for Kojima's next interview, he'll say something like "Since we weren't able to achieve everything we wanted to with MGS4, we're going ahead with MGS5 even though we said 4 would be the last one. In addition to that reason for making a sequel, we also want more money."

I'm sorry, I just really hate this series and the sheer number of stupid people who insist it's the greatest video game franchise ever. Try something that requires you to move your thumbs a little, folks.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if they decided to ahead and make MGS5 if they were so disappointed with MGS4.

the series had it's high point in the 2nd game, and even that wasnt as desirable when released as it was when first seen in magazines...

when i pay

So, wait, he's just upset over the graphics? That's too bad, but no reason to think of the game as ruined or to knock MGS as a series.

There's another part about how the game is smaller at any one time than he wanted (RAM issue, not media format) and the system couldn't handle all the mechanics he planned for.

[quote=maian;841706]I think you hate every series to ever exist on a Sony console. And, I think the only reason you have for that is that you are a Nintendo fanboy. :)

Twilight Princess blows, Mario Kart has sucked since 64, Super Mario 64 wasn't that great and Mario Galaxy is better but still doesn;t have anything on Mario Bros 3. Wii has mostly bad games, my DS hasn't been played in 6 months. Sin and Punishment is better than any Starfox game despite being a fifth of the size and the horrific voice acting. In fact, Nintendo hasn't done anything amazing for about 10 years. Hell, their best devs Gamefreak, Intelligent Systems and Retro Studios are all second party.

Shadow of the Colossus is the shit.

Mmm, no, MGS is still a bad game.

I was talking to Shondronai. I actually don't think you're a fanboy at all, Speedy. :)

Either way, I'm not going to bother defending MGS, because I can see why a lot of people don't like it. It's just a different kind of game. But, bad? I wouldn't say that. MGS1 was indeed very simple, but take a game like MGS3, and...wow. MGS3 has A LOT to offer in gameplay, and it's brilliant.

[quote=Bebop;841746]This post is pure gold. It starts off with Big Boss and maian saying how Speedfreak is a Nintendo fanboyUhh... Might wanna read the thread properly. OH WAIT I GUESS I'M WRONG 'BECAUSE MOON LOGIC MORAN LOL'

[quote=maian]The only game where cutscenes, for the most part, overruled gameplay was MGS1.
Clearly you didn't play Sons of Liberty.

Wait, where did anyone even get the idea I was calling Speed a fanboy? Perhaps they didn't see that I was directly quoting and responding to Prince Shondronai's post?

I also don't recall me or Big Boss bashing Nintendo in any way, shape or form. You should read. :cookie:

[QUOTE=The X;841749]Uhh... Might wanna read the thread properly.

*re-reads*
*Main slams fanboy label on Prince for not liking MGS series and Big Boss agrees. In same post they agree that MGS is OMG TEH AMAZING AND KOJIMA IS ****

Lol still makes me chuckle

EDIT: Pfft Speedy, Prince? Whats the difference? Point still stands.

[quote=Bebop;841753]*re-reads*
*Main slams fanboy label on Speedfreak*
Reread. Again.

lol

lol your hypocritical behaviour still stands

[Quote=Hideo Kojima]All I know is cutscenes

Just for clarification, is this meant as a joke or was this an actual quote?

And I still question how. :cookie:

Let's see what I've said here:

Shondronai's a fanboy: Most of us will agree on this. I don't think Speedy's a fanboy at all, he's shown that.

I still think MGS4 will be great, although I can understand why other people don't like MGS. I never said anything close to "LOL MGS IS SO AWSUM BEST SERISS EVAR LOL" In fact, I haven't even mentioned other game series', which kind of refutes any argument you have of how I'm even getting close to bashing any others.

I think your innate stupidness still stands lol

Seeing as Kojima turned to game designing because he failed as a film maker it's no suprise that's where his 'talent' lies.

Actually, your first one was. After stating twice that I wasn't talking to Speedy, the argument then turned against me and big boss, where I then defended myself. And then you saw that I was right, and then retorted by saying you weren't even talking to me anyway.

Even though, I'm going to stop arguing, because I think arguments like this on message boards are stupid and mundane, and I feel dumber now for doing so.

He did fail as a film maker. He never successfully completed a film. By not suceeding he failed.

Where did you hear that? You are lying and you know you are.

[Quote=Wikipedia]While studying economics in college, Kojima found himself playing video games during his free time mainly games on the Famicom. Kojima cites Shigeru Miyamoto's Super Mario Bros. as the defining influence. In his fourth year in college, Kojima surprised colleagues by announcing his intentions to join the video game industry, despite initially having ambitions of becoming a film director.

And here is the source cited for the excerpt.

http://archive.gamespy.com/e32003/interview/gba/1002714/

It is true that he shot a few shorts with a friend on a 8MM, but as far to my knowledge he never seriously dabbled in film making before turning to game design.

Since we're demanding sources, were exactly is your sources for all your claims of his supposed failures in film?

EDIT: As well, apparently an interview on G4's old Icons show were some of this info came from, as well.

The only thing film related in the link you provided is when he says he is a "film lover" and he wanted to be a film maker "at one point". Hardly for or against either of our arguments.

As for my source I don't have one quite frankly. Not one I could locate tonightanyway. I remember reading this in an article many moons ago (I think about the amount of movie time vs game time in MGS2).

Yeah, I'm tired of listing the games on sony consoles that I've actually liked, too. Overall, though, I would say that I'm an anti-sony fanboy. Not really a Nintendo one, though, since I openly support the X-box brand almost equally with Nintendo's consoles. But I've recited my reasons for despising sony enough times on these boards to assemble a master thesis on the subject out of all of my posts. Enough about that.

Honestly, I wish that Kojima would just move on to movies. Make 'em all metal gear movies for all I care. I'm sure they'll sell extremely well. I just think the games take up valuable shelf space and development time and resources that could go towards something worthwhile, like a new Zone of the Enders or Castlevania, or anything.

too bad metal gear solid is actually a pretty great game, in terms of what a game is supposed to be, and not to mention MGO, which is sick and another reason to get MGS4.

Yeah, Kojima should just move onto movies. It's not like he's made a series that's one of the most well known and best selling of all time in the game industry. He really sucks at making games.

...I think 90% of the people who bash MGS played an hour or two of MGS1 or 2, and base all of their opinions on that. =/

I think the reason a lot of people don't like MGS is simply because it has a complicated plot. There are plenty of gamers who don't have the attention span for something more complicated than "kill bowser and save the princess!!"

the cutscenes are fun though, thats another reason why I love MGS, it's so cool to watch it and to play it. nothing wrong with that

when the cutscenes are so good, i really dont care

It's popular for all the reasons given by a multitude of users who already posted in this thread. You rag on the games continually, but I bet if you were pushed to recite the events of the first game or any of the others, you'd have no clue without scanning the Wikipedia synopsis. You've never touched the games, I'd wager.

I won't deny the first two games were frustratingly cutscene-heavy, but can you complain when the cutscenes are better than 90% of Hollywood blockbusters? The gameplay is far from shabby, too - speaking as someone who earned 100% completion on the XBox version of Substance, I thoroughly enjoy Metal Gear's style of play. MGS3 struck a fantastic balance between fun gameplay and cinematics, and achieved one of the most memorable storylines in a video game... or even, in any form of media. The boss battles were innovative, and none of them required me to flail a remote at my screen like a lunatic. The ending of Snake Eater evoked a ton of emotion, that I rarely, if ever, feel at the cinema. I know I'm not alone on that one.

Kojima was disappointed with MGS4 because it couldn't push out the high-detail environments and characters he wanted. That's not to say what's in the game is bad, it just didn't meet his ridiculously high standards - which speaks volumes about the quality of MGS4. To rag on Kojima for not realizing that his game couldn't achieve such a level of finesse seems ill-founded - he's a designer and writer, not a software engineer.

Care to tell us why the Metal Gear Solid series is ****, Bebop? All you're saying is IT'S CRAPPY AND POPULAR WAAAAAAAAH

[quote=Pit;841847]too bad metal gear solid is actually a pretty great game, in terms of what a game is supposed to be

What's that, a film?

[quote=Speedfreak;841885]What's that, a film?
No. Fun.

[quote=The X;841874]

I won't deny the first two games were frustratingly cutscene-heavy, but can you complain when the cutscenes are better than 90% of Hollywood blockbusters? The gameplay is far from shabby, too - speaking as someone who earned 100% completion on the XBox version of Substance, I thoroughly enjoy Metal Gear's style of play. MGS3 struck a fantastic balance between fun gameplay and cinematics, and achieved one of the most memorable storylines in a video game... or even, in any form of media. The boss battles were innovative, and none of them required me to flail a remote at my screen like a lunatic. The ending of Snake Eater evoked a ton of emotion, that I rarely, if ever, feel at the cinema. I know I'm not alone on that one.

Care to tell us why the Metal Gear Solid series is ****, Bebop? All you're saying is IT'S CRAPPY AND POPULAR WAAAAAAAAH

90% of that praise is about the cinematics and storyline, something that can be done better with a film (and for all intents and purposes is done with film). The one sentence where you speak about it's gameplay you don't describe why it's good other than "I beat it so I should know".

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the series. As a completely mental conspiracy theory the plot is fascinating. The high production values, interesting story and metric ton of easter eggs are just the heavy duty floor wax that smooths over the proverbial bowling alley. It's clearly theme over mechanics, and believe the the mechanics are awful. It doesn't ruin it as a product, just as a game.

Play one again and look out for:

- Not being told how to play the game apart from the most basic of functions
- Being ripped from the action on a constant basis by cutscenes and codec conversations
- the "look how f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking clever we are" 4th wall-breaking bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. Preventing players from progressing because of some obscure reference to the real world is terrible game design.
- dying because of something you did not expect and wasn't even hinted at. Never being told where you can actually get hints from.
- the controls.
- a stupid amount of gameplay options at any one time, all equally worthless because they overlap and have no particular significance over the other, so you're left feeling like you're muddling through rather than thinking you're a bada[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s secret agent who knows exactly what they're doing.
- realising the optimum strategy is "tranq everyone and walk through"
- forced to backtrack for no reason other than the story dictates it

The game is flawed, I'm willing to bet that most MGS fans know it and don't care. And so they shouldn't, it's certainly not the main reason to play it and it's certainly not the worst playing game ever. Hyperbole aside I wouldn't even call it bad. But it's definately not the most smooth, balanced and well-thought out gameplay experience either.

But more to the point, I'm just laughing at the devs either lying and taking so long to admit it or at Kojima for thinking some of that crap in the tech demo was even remotely possible.

[quote=The X;841886]No. Fun.

Films are fun.

Hey, it's not without its flaws.

[quote=Speedfreak;841888] - Not being told how to play the game apart from the most basic of functions
Twin Snakes or the PSX original? Snakes included codec-based tutorials on the lower difficulty settings, and if you're referring to the PSX version - games of that generation didn't use much in the way of tutorials. Manuals were still king. Super Mario 64, to my memory, dropped you into the world with no teachings.

[quote=Speekfreak]- Being ripped from the action on a constant basis by cutscenes and codec conversations
[quote=The X] I won't deny the first two games were frustratingly cutscene-heavy



[quote=Speedfreak]- the "look how f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking clever we are" 4th wall-breaking bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. Preventing players from progressing because of some obscure reference to the real world is terrible game design.
The codec number 'puzzle' was definitely jarring, but somewhat clever and unseen before. The 4th wall-smashing boss fight with Psycho Mantis was fantastic, though. It truly made the player feel the 'OH MY ****ING *** HE'S IN MY HEAD' sense that the characters had.
[quote=Speedfreak]- dying because of something you did not expect and wasn't even hinted at. Never being told where you can actually get hints from.
Such as? The codec has always been, in my opinion, a hint machine.
[quote=Speedfreak]- the controls.
Can't disagree, when it comes to MGS1. Especially on the PSX.
[quote=Speedfreak]- a stupid amount of gameplay options at any one time
Welcome to every stealth game ever.
[quote=Speedfreak]- realising the optimum strategy is "tranq everyone and walk through"
True, but unless you're touting the Bandana, that's not always an option. Half the fun in the game is creating your own strategies, anyway. The optimum strategy in every FPS is 'shoot everyone until they die', but it doesn't stop them from being enjoyable.

[quote=Speedfreak]But more to the point, I'm just laughing at the devs either lying and taking so long to admit it
Why would they admit it? What are they supposed to be admitting to, anyway? They're trying to sell a product.
[quote=Speedfreak]or at Kojima for thinking some of that crap in the tech demo was even remotely possible.Like I said, he isn't a software engineer.

Speedy & Bebop: At least it's got a little bit more than an amoeba of thought placed into it. Stories should make you think. It's sad when people totally overlook what a story is supposed to be in a game - sometimes it is even more important than the game play itself, in which the game play only furthers the story as a device and lets the user participate; whereas a film or book have no participation and follow a much more severely linear path. I mean seriously, you're trying to preach for balance but it just screams out like you're trying to stifle something because of your own distaste.

Don't like it? Don't play it. Let the artist do what he wants with his story, quit belly-aching as if you have some right as to tell an artist what to do with their work. Quit looking too deeply into things, quit trying to degrade him, just accept his vision as it is; because honestly there is not a thing you can do about it but ***** and moan about balance, which it doesn't seem you have a realistic grasp on. Outliers are inevitable, get over it.

And no, I'm not a huge fan of the series, so bugger off.

[quote=The X;841891]Twin Snakes or the PSX original? Snakes included codec-based tutorials on the lower difficulty settings, and if you're referring to the PSX version - games of that generation didn't use much in the way of tutorials. Manuals were still king. Super Mario 64, to my memory, dropped you into the world with no teachings.

In this instance I'm talking Twin Snakes and MGS2 Substance. Despite the VR missions I still felt like the best way to win was to force my tranq strategy through trial and error.

Super Mario 64 would actually teach you movies in the early levels where you needed to know it. Teaching you the game bit by bit is pretty much Miyamoto's trademark.


[quote=The X;841891]The codec number 'puzzle' was definitely jarring, but somewhat clever and unseen before. The 4th wall-smashing boss fight with Psycho Mantis was fantastic, though. It truly made the player feel the 'OH MY ****ING *** HE'S IN MY HEAD' sense that the characters had.

It was neat in a 4th wall way, but it was totally moronic as a gameplay mechanic. It wasn't a puzzle you could figure out on your own unless you expected more 4th wall crap (the last one being several hours ago). It's just different for the sake of being different.

[quote=The X;841891]Such as? The codec has always been, in my opinion, a hint machine.

You've seen the Metal Gear Awesome movies, surely? The lasers followed by landmines part is a great example. I died there because I didn't think to check the codec every five minutes because the codec was checking me every five minutes. I figure if it's constantly ringing they're gonna tell me what I need to know. The codec is kind of like the scan visor in Metroid Prime, but in Metroid the puzzles are actually solveable without using it. MGS will hide in the dark and kick you in the balls, then act like you're a moron for not expecting it.

[quote=The X;841891]Welcome to every stealth game ever.

Not at all. Splinter Cell multiplayer managed an array of weapons and gadgets that were not only diverse but they all had their distinct uses and tactics. I used about 1/10th of the mechanics available to me in MGS because that's all I needed.

[quote=The X;841891]True, but unless you're touting the Bandana, that's not always an option. Half the fun in the game is creating your own strategies, anyway. The optimum strategy in every FPS is 'shoot everyone until they die', but it doesn't stop them from being enjoyable.

I disagree. Creating new strategies for problems you already have a simpler solution for isn't fun, it's pointless. Devising a new strategy or style of play for something you're stuck on, the Eureaka moment, that's fun.


[quote=The X;841891] Why would they admit it? What are they supposed to be admitting to, anyway? They're trying to sell a product.
Like I said, he isn't a software engineer.

The guys who created the tech demo were the software engineers. Not that it matters, it's not like I'm a software engineer. I'm not even a developer, let alone someone with decades of experience.

A man doesn't need to be good at sneaking around kicking people in the balls if he has courage and a massive, evil-destroying sword.

They must have bought into sony's propaganda machine, then. "It'll be 30 years before the cell processor can be maxed out." That sort of thing.

Okay, as a huge fan, I won't lie. MGS1 and MGS2 were very flawed. Iffy controls, cutscenes overruling gameplay, and fairly limited strategies. Why do I like them so much? Because I'm an MGS fan. But no, I won't deny that the first two had a variety of flaws. For example, you may as well shoot yourself if you go on alert, because thousands of guards will come out of NOWHERE within a matter how literally two seconds. You can walk into a room, get spotted from behind, turn around, and somehow, three guards will have appeared. I love the two games, because I love the MGS series, a lot. But they are old, and I can recognize a lot of their flaws. (MGS2 is Hell to play on European Extreme)

Buuut...Metal Gear Solid 3 was perfection to me. In Subsistence they gave us a rotating, close up camera, much better AI, a mildly advanced CQC system, and tons of options and ways to clear every obstacle, with extremely innovative and brilliant boss fights. I've seldom had as much fun playing a game as I did with MGS3 on European Extreme. To me, it really defines the series. And from what MGS4 is looking like, it's doing the same thing, tenfold.

[quote=Prince Shondronai;841686]Forgive me a cruel chuckle: Heheh...Now forgive me a cruel, maniacal laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

I predict for Kojima's next interview, he'll say something like "Since we weren't able to achieve everything we wanted to with MGS4, we're going ahead with MGS5 even though we said 4 would be the last one. In addition to that reason for making a sequel, we also want more money."

I'm sorry, I just really hate this series and the sheer number of stupid people who insist it's the greatest video game franchise ever. Try something that requires you to move your thumbs a little, folks.

[quote=maian;841745]I was talking to Shondronai. I actually don't think you're a fanboy at all, Speedy. :)

Either way, I'm not going to bother defending MGS, because I can see why a lot of people don't like it. It's just a different kind of game. But, bad? I wouldn't say that. MGS1 was indeed very simple, but take a game like MGS3, and...wow. MGS3 has A LOT to offer in gameplay, and it's brilliant.

I may look a bit like a nerd here but here we go: the cpu was used to the max so he says, that only means he didn't quite get the interactivity or rendering he wanted. This has nothing to do with graphics, he never said the gpu was used to the max. prince shrondronai he said it was the last mgs with Snake in it not the last ever.

[COLOR="Yellow"]The thing about the Metal Gear franchise is that when i think back on what really made the games memorable; gameplay is the first thing that pops into my head. Pretty much every boss fight in MGS, the entire Tanker scenario in Sons of Liberty, fighting the Boss in Snake Eater, etc... It's those things that i remember because i think back on how much fun i had playing. Cutscenes and storyline come second. The main reason behind that is that i have such a blast playing through all those games that i sometimes lose track of what's going on in the complicated story so it takes a 2nd or 3rd playthrough to really get the what's going on.

The cutscenes may be long and over the top (though enjoyable i might add). But the stealthy gameplay is really where it's at. That's the way it's alway been with Metal Gear.[/COLOR]

[quote=Roger Smith;842042]Yeah, because MGS would be just as good without Snake as it is with Snake.
MGS3 and MGSPO don't have Snake in them at all, and they still manage to rock the house.

[quote=mis0;841940]Honestly, if it's "hiding" and "kicking you in the balls", and then mocking you, it sounds to me like you just aren't very good at it.

Again, got through the game with a non-lethal weapon. What I'm talking about is a single instance of laser tripwires in the entire game and the only way to even have a clue that they're there is to first get blown up by them. It's not a question of skill, the only thing I could have done is develop a habit of calling every frequency on the codec every 3 steps. But why do that when you can blitz through with trial and error and the 2nd gun you get in the game?

[quote=WillisGreeny;841954]Then take it from a guy who eats lunch with a software engineer every weekend to inform you that the likelihood of programmers fully understanding the limitations of new hardware in a couple days is impossible. Kojima bit off more than he could chew, which is a valid criticisim, and is why he's disapointed, but shouldn't be mistake to mean he lyed. Reading Kojima's statements, it sounds like the team ran into a snag with one of their implimentations in later development, and the team had to lower graphic detail inorder to free up system resources to resolve it. Could they have known what problems they would be facing at the begining? Not exactly, because the hardware was different, meaning things could be done differently from meshs to testures to exc exc...

Forget not understanding PS3 architecture, people who saw that TGS demo knew it was bullshit. You don't render facial hair with individual polygons, no matter how powerful you think the hardware is. It's a complete waste of time and resources.


[quote=WillisGreeny;841954]....FIRST OFF, Kojima spoke specifically about graphics not being where he wanted them...so it has a lot to do with graphics
SECOND OFF... the RSX @550MHz GPU was made to supplement the PS3's multi core. If the CPU got overwhelmed then chances are high it's because the GPU couldn't handle everything it needed to.

He didn't just speak about graphics, as I said earlier. If the GPU couldn't handle everything they wouldn't just pass it to the CPU, rendering graphics doesn't work like that.

MGS1, in the tank hangar. You do something, openn a door, flip a switch, can't really remember. It opens up a level...5 door? Anyway, it's a bigger door, and behind it is a small passage, with four or five laser grids.

[quote=Speedfreak;842098]
Forget not understanding PS3 architecture, people who saw that TGS demo knew it was bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. You don't render facial hair with individual polygons, no matter how powerful you think the hardware is. It's a complete waste of time and resources.


And the point you're making is that I don't understand this? Because, I was under the impression you were arguing whether or not Kojima lyed about how awesome he planned on making MGS4.

With the logic you're giving, zooming in would be impossible for most games. Depending on the perspective and focus of what you're painting to the screen, the quality of rendering can change. Impossible to show detail on a close up view? not at all. Show 7 screens of different close up views? That's a different story. People calling it bull **** cry "you can't render everything like that"... doi... No reason to.

[quote]
He didn't just speak about graphics, as I said earlier. If the GPU couldn't handle everything they wouldn't just pass it to the CPU, rendering graphics doesn't work like that.

... I said the CPU would be slown down, not that the CPU would become a graphic's card :cookie:

People unfamiliar with GPUs tend to think it works just like another CPU, which it doesn't. The CPU still transports data to the GPU, and the GPU still returns data back to the CPU, fully rendered/processed. The GPU's capacity and ability to grab components for itself to then render graphics is what gives it the "CPU" like quality, but it still gets help by the CPU when it gets overworked. The smaller and slower GPU you have, the more work the CPU has to do to exchange finished data with unprocessed data. The bigger and faster GPU you have, the less data the CPU has to transfer. SOOO if the CPU is slown down, it's likely the GPU was having problems aswell.

...then again, my guess is as good as any who doesn't work with the stuff.

As for the architecture of the PS3, It's multicore, which, like a lot of multicore processors, is still a very new hardware for programers. Another misconception people tend to have is thinking multicore somehow magically runs faster than singular...BUT that's only if the programers know how to manage multiple cores in their programing. It's still a very new technology, and programers are still taking babysteps with multithreading to try and figure out how to use it.

Well, I'm not trying to dispute that, but from my remembrance I don't remember them being completely invisible or anything. I seem to always remember something like black bars on the wall or something to indicate to you that something was wrong as long as you paid attention.

Plus, to me it is just common sense to check rooms like that with thermal goggles or something as I specifically remember a warning given by codec about suspicious things like that. I even remember a warning via codec about the trapdoors and those things were easy as pie to avoid.

Of course they are traps afterall, they won't be highlighted or completely obvious, but I rarely remember having trouble with things of that nature. Then again, I usually examined those room pretty well before hand and if I couldn't find away around I just left and decided to try later, maybe that is just me. It has been awhile, as well, I'll have to go back through the first one some more and feel around and this myself.

It was a giant, empty room with weird lines running across it. Of course you were gonna be wary. I think Speedfreak was just grasping at straws there.

I think Speedfreak was making a point that Metal Gear Solid is little more than a big game of trial and error, just like Splinter Cell. Sorry, I'll have to agree with him.

What the hell are you guys doing in the game to make the entire franchise about trial and error? Unless you skipped every forced Codec (which you should probably ****ing answer) only then is it trial an error because you chose to learn things without your ****ing team who is calling you because you are not the ****ing Czar of Right and don't magically know ****.

JUST. STOP. PLAYING. This game isn't meant for you.

[quote=The X;842279]It was a giant, empty room with weird lines running across it. Of course you were gonna be wary. I think Speedfreak was just grasping at straws there.

I don't remember weird lines, I don't remember anything visible at all. Maybe it's a Twin Snakes difference or maybe I'm remembereing incorrectly but there's still plenty of other pointless crap in the game that kills you when you least expect it. Slipping on birds[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it into the path of of a guard in MGS2, the stupid psycho mantis fight in MGS. Random claymores on the floor (I'm pretty **** sure no one warned me about that) that you'd only find if running around with thermal vision on, which of course you wouldn't.

It's not just the fact that it uses traps like this, Resident Evil does it throughout the entire game. It's just that if you don't catch it you die and restart the room.

Another thing, the game teaches you nothing. The VR missions and level design early in the game doesn't teach you jack. It got to the point where if I alerted the guards and they all came after me I found it quicker to just let myself die than to actually try to escape, not that there's much you can do to escape other than run back to some weird spot 5 rooms away and sit there for 3 minutes. All because half of the mechanics in a particularly tricky room I didn't even know about. Throwing empty clips, shooting pipes or fire extinguishers, grabbing them from behind? Why the hell would I want to even try that when a single tranq dart is so much safer?

Maybe I am terrible at the game, but considering the sheer variety of games I'm good enough at to at least get by without getting frustrated it's much easier to believe that the game is just designed badly rather than I have a huge skill defecit for one series.

[quote=Fate;842344][COLOR=skyblue]What the hell are you guys doing in the game to make the entire franchise about trial and error? Unless you skipped every forced Codec (which you should probably ****ing answer) only then is it trial an error because you chose to learn things without your ****ing team who is calling you because you are not the ****ing Czar of Right and don't magically know ****.

JUST. STOP. PLAYING. This game isn't meant for you.[/COLOR]

Okay, so there's two scenarios here. You go through the game listening to their calls and basically just do exactly what they tell you, which is stupid. Or you don't listen and you die, then know what to do from experience, which is stupid. Why even have the traps? There's barely any skill in avoiding them, it's just a case of whether you're willing to listen to the game's cast of talking heads.

When a game isn't meant for a player that's willing to play any game under the sun as long as it has good gameplay there's a problem.
But it's clearly not meant for them, it's for people who can't play a game of chess without some kind of motivation for taking white peices. Hence the majority of the budget going to the cutscenes between playing that actually take up more time than playing the game itself. The priorities of the game should be apparant here, there's no way you can have the best gameplay if it's not your top priority so why pretend it's got the best of both worlds?

don't worry, old snake

you're still manly to me

Never said it was a hard or bad thing to mix storyline with gameplay, just that in MGS it's clearly story over gameplay. Afterall there is more movie time to game time. MGS does not have the best stealth gameplay. Splinter Cell is better at stealth for instance.

There is more movie time than the average playing time. That is a fact maaaa boooooiii.

Not for me it's not with so many different playthroughs, but sure

Not, see you misunderstand. Average playing time is when...oh Christ forget about it.

Yeah, I know what you mean, which I already addressed earlier. You regurgitated an old statement, thought I'd have a little fun frustrating you a bit.:)

EDIT: Ok, this post was a personal attack on my part, meant in good fun, but it's probably against the rules

Post 79 pretty much said what I wanted to say. I honestly have no idea why Bebop or Speedfreak come in these threads.

You mean you have a hard time understanding the point of discussion in a discussion board?

"Hey, I think MGS is a really good game."

To this, I can easily see you, Coarse, or Speedy saying, "NO IT'S NOT, *****," complete with swaying heads and fingers, with at least one hand on hip and one leg hyperextended.

I only gave my opinion on the series when X asked for it BTW. Clearly you havent been keeping up with the thread.

[quote=Old_Snake;842505]Wait, wait, so now you're not liking the fact that there may be hints because you have to listen to the characters??? And if you're saying that listening to the codec tells you explicitly step-by-step what to say, that's incorrect, too. Usually it's hints, not total explanations. Of course, we have exceptions, Mantis battle being one, but usually you get overall hints throughout the game that can applicable to multiple parts. It's not like the game totally holds your hand the entire way through everything with codec hints and helps.

The problem I have is very similar to why I think Twilight Princess dungeons are awful. They will hand you the solution to the problem before you are even aware of one. In TP a dungeon would hand you a key, and then in the next room there would be a locked door. This gameplay "challenge" effectively cancels itself out, they might aswell have not put in a locked doorbecause theres no way you could not have the key. Same with MGS, someone calls you on your codec to tell you there are mines there, you do exactly what they say and get by easily, they might aswell have just not put mines or a codec call in.

But sometimes MGS will do the opposite, they'll have a challenge and a solution that makes no sense whatsoever, like the Mantis fight. It just frustrates you until you use the codec, then you get the solution and it becomes stupidly easy again. So why even have this stupid problem in the first place? It's like the only points on the difficulty curve are infinitely impossible or no challenge at all. Your exact path through this curve is defined entirely by codec conversations, either you have the solution beforehand or you don't...until you do. It's like a right-angled rollercoaster designed by a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking madman. That's not good game design, that's not even a game at all!

you suck at mgs we get it

[quote=Pit;842778]you suck at mgs we get it

I don't know about YOU, but I still need more convincing of how a game that many people have beaten and loved is actually crappy and impossible to beat.

[quote=Bebop;842817]Popular = good?Most of the time... yes. I know you're all OHHH **** THE MASSES ALTERNATIVE FOR LIFE, but when something gets popular, it's usually because it's of a good quality.

Just becuase something is popular doesnt it mean it becomes fact. So stop acting that just because you and your buddies like it it's perfect and everyone else MUST like it.

Alternative for life? Because I dont like Metal Gear I'm some emo Marxist kid or something? Do you ever try to use a sound logic or are you happy smacking your forehead on the keyboard?

This isn't the first time you've slammed something for simply being popular.

Duh duh I havent said anywhere it's rubbish for being popular.

Is it fair to assume then that you're interests are shared 100% with MTV and Nuts magazine content?

EIDT: Still waiting for you to answer my question. I'm most excited for to list the sut scenes you think trump recent Hollywood films.

To add to that, MGS3's ending was more thought-provoking and emotional than the several films I've seen, even if you didn't take your time to make Codec calls to get to know everyone better.

You can YouTube that, since you probably didn't play the game to the end (if at all). It probably wouldn't make sense to you, though, since it requires you piecing the entire story together.

[quote] This message is hidden because Bebop is on your [URL="http://www.vgchat.com/profile.php?do=editlist"]ignore list[/URL].That's better!

So you're not going to answer the questions I've asked you because you can't, and because you failed to be clear enough in your first argument?

So I win?

*puts another tally up*

I'm sorry, Bebop, I have a habit of skipping over your posts. My comment was merely hinting at the fact that you're commenting on a game you've never played. :cookie:

Okay, so let me get this straight here.

-You haven't played the games entirely, especially the latest installment of the series
-You comment that the scenes are good, but... you haven't played the installment with, in my opinion, the best scenes for the heart
-So, without fully experiencing the games, you say that the game (or games) can't be better than a movie just because you say so and can't possibly be seen any other way other than your own

I think X had it right there. You suck and I honestly don't know why I even bother with you.

I dislike coming to these threads anymore. I mean, guys, you know why I don't post in the sim battle board, or mmorpg section? It's because those particular things don't interest me. I'm not going to go to that section, disagree with the majority and bash people because their opinions differ from my own.

If you don't like the Metal gear series, and have no intention in playing them, or playing part 4, why do you bother coming in here to post and just start petty arguements?

So anyways, back to MGS4, doesn't the game look cool :cool:

I never start the arguments, just continue them. I came to the thread to read the news it was about and merely pointed out the irony in Big Boss' posts. The ****storm was created by the X.

Also whats the point of only coming to a thread where we're all going to simply agree. "Yes it looks good". "I think so too". Might as well not have a discussion board in the first place.

[quote=Bebop;842817]Popular = good?
You certainly like to oversimplify arguments that make you look stupid, and overcomplicate arguments so you can disagree.

If I want your opinion, I'll talk to Speedy.

Christ I havent played the card games or the original metal Gear either. Have you? Stop being anal. I've only ever discussed 1 and 2 in this thread. Saying MGS is just easier than MGS1 and MGS2. Quit ya *****in'

EDIT: Also MGS 2 is looked at as the best in the series.

[quote=Bebop]what do you mean by "good on a technical level"? I hope your not referring to graphics

[quote=Big Boss]When did I say anything about graphics? Now you're just trying to make stuff up and misquote me

Wow. Just wow.

I'm done with you. I can't be bothered to playground fight with someone who's reading capabilites are horrid. This stone is blood dry.

I havent misquoted or misunderstood anything you've said. My previous posts completly demonstrates how you've been acting. No matter what I say, you just don't get it whether intentional or not.

I ask you again to look at my previous post where I want you to clarify your **** poor argument, asking you if you were referring to graphics. Your response is "I WASNT TALKING ABOUT GRAPHICS YOUR MAKING STUFF UP!"

Such bizzare behaviour.

I'm going to give you a bit of advice, dude, 'cause you probably are starting to figure out about Bebop's posts: Don't argue with Bebop. Like, ever. If he talks to can respond here and there but don't waste your time elaborating.

This message is hidden because Old_Snake is on your ignore list

Thanks for the advice Fate. If anyone knows more about coming into a thread, misreading posts, and getting out of their fast enough to avoid reading a post that destroys your argument its you! :)

Well, according to Bebop, if your opponent puts you on their ignore list, then you've won! Good job!

Still waiting for Maian to post where exactly I sepcifcally spoke about Metal gear Solid 3, wheter pro or con, other than when I've said "I haven't played it."

Also, thats not how it works. X failed to answer a simple question that he used in his argument. he refused to answer it meaning he lost. Kind of like what youre doing now?

Bebop's questions were completely asinine and had no logical point to prove. At least with Speedfreak, you can understand where he's coming from, and he actually, you know, makes sense.

[quote=Bebop;842974]You seemed amazed and bewildered someone could not like something that millions loved. Do you not see a problem with that wickle argument of yours? I'm not oversimplifying or complicating anthing. That is what your post in question boiled down to.

I could go down each of my lines and explain, but why bother? I think you're a moron. Miso thinks you're a moron. Old_Snake thinks you're a moron. I don't have time for morons.

You seem amazed and bewildered that so many people could like something you don't. Do you not see a problem with that wickle argument of yours? If I said I didn't like a video game and 5 people quickly responded with reasons for why they did, I'd just shut up.

What's the point? Are you trying to convince us all not to like MGS? Videogames should be fun to play, and many people have found MGS to be fun. If you could convince me as to how MGS wasn't fun for millions then I'd listen, but you couldn't, so it's time to just move on.

[quote=The X;842820]Most of the time... yes. I know you're all OHHH **** THE MASSES ALTERNATIVE FOR LIFE, but when something gets popular, it's usually because it's of a good quality.

Popularity doesn't scale with quality, there's a certain cutoff point before which quality matters but after that it only appeals to enthusiasts. Stuff that's popular is stuff that is good enough to be liked and has a wide appeal. Chess is a better game than bingo, only a moron would argue otherwise. But not everyone wants to learn to play chess, some people just want to play a game and yell "Bingo!" and win prizes. That's why Bingo, at least in the UK, totally outclasses chess in popularity.

People like MGS for the crazy mix of like 5 different forms of media. It's a game film radio show graphic novel with collectables. It does the passive media very well (film, radio, book) and it does the game part well enough. Remove everything from MGS BUT the gameplay and it'd routinely get 50%ish scores, not that there's nothing wrong with that because that's not what it's trying to do.

So suggesting that MGS has all-round good quality or that it has great gameplay because it is popular is folly because there are many elements of the series that appeal.

I agree with Bebop on the following:
The game has far too many cutscenes for a game that is supposed to be an action game.
The cinematics sequences are not as good high quality as Hollywood.

I agree with Speedfreak on the following:
Take your pick: charge blindly and die, or pull out your codec and be guided completely through the game. When you played Ocarina of Time, did you constantly consult Navi once you got stuck? Was, "Directly after this dialogue I should see what Navi thinks I should do!" your thought every time some text showed up on the screen? I like action games, I like stealth games, but I don't like (a)being lead around by my hand like a child (WHICH IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF SCENARIO THE CODEC CREATES and (b)having to try a different strategy to overcome some new and rather random obstacle.

See, that's what made Splinter Cell a better action/stealth game, in my opinion. You were given all the necessary items and information to complete a mission before it began, but nothing completely obvious. The most you had to do was to occasionally change your goggles or hide in a corner until you realized a person's walking pattern.

[quote=Skitzo Control;843717]See, that's what made Splinter Cell a better action/stealth game, in my opinion. You were given all the necessary items and information to complete a mission before it began, but nothing completely obvious. The most you had to do was to occasionally change your goggles or hide in a corner until you realized a person's walking pattern.

I thought Splinter Cell was a lot better for every problem I have with MGS, but the story blew and frankly I can't understand what's fun about hiding from extremely predictable AI. But then it redeemed itself with the second game's multiplayer, which was like SUPER HIDE AND SEEK.

[quote=Pit;843732]I personally don't think it has too many cutscenes. That's one of the reasons why the series attracted me.

Point proven, thank you goodnight.

[IMG]http://www5c.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Ekantaku/mk/gazou/emu/finishhim.jpg[/IMG]

That was a surprisingly fun read.

And that ends that. :)

Unless everyone has started following my example, and they don't read a word big bird posts, anymore. metal gear solid sucks ass, and probably always will, as far as I'm concerned. And that ends that.

Must spread rep etc. Even if that was about a game I've never played, I would've liked reading it.

No, that's just my opinion. The logic and reasoning behind it lies in the stiff controls, unintuitive interface, unlikeable cut-scenes, wonky AI, wretchedly pig-headed director, and general state of un-fun that comes from sneaking around when you should be chopping your enemies' heads off with a huge frickin' sword or gunning them down with rail guns and bazookas, charging headlong into battle like a real man, which is what I, personally, find to be wrong with the series. If someone else would use other words to describe those features of the franchise, that's fine, I suppose, but I don't want to hear about it every time I walk into a game store and want to buy games that I will enjoy an infinite amount more than a metal gear game.

Well, no **** it's your opinion that the game sucks, but usually people at least attempt to give reasons instead of just saying 'It sucks, end'. Sorry to tell you, but when you throw stuff out like that you paint a target on your posts.

Don't know why you just didn't say all that in the first place or what even brought that on

Did you read his post at all? Your argument not only got completely owned by Big Boss, you gave yourself the coup-de-grace by making a complete retard of yourself just now! :cookie:

And about your post: That's really stupid reasoning to think a game sucks. It's perfectly fine if you don't like MGS for those reasons. But you're calling it a bad game. You're calling it a terrible series, and not well made, because the thing that makes games good is "charging headlong into battle like a real man".

That's stupid reasoning. With that logic, I can call Zelda a stupid, badly designed series because "sneaking and being clever" is the way games should be made. Clearly, Zelda's not made for that, which makes it fanboyism at its best.

I don't like MGS because it's not made by Nintendo, and everything I try to do in it always turns for the worst. I also don't like sneaking around, OR running around with a gun. I don't like the box art. Snake looks like my old boy scout master who would always forget his sleeping bag on purpose. Robots are cliches, and military secret weapons are even bigger cliches. I really don't like the box art. The game objectifies women, well actually, I like that part... Yeah, MGS isn't too bad.

Well then. At first I had an image of him walking into a game store and immediately being assailed by questions like "have you played the new metal gear solid?" and "isn't snake just so cool and funny?!" and he runs out of the store screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

But he just doesn't like the franchise. Or the system it's on. Or the game's producer/director/writer. ...Or anything else about the game. Makes perfect sense now. Oh, and he doesn't like the guy who made one of the best-written posts to grace VGC in a while. credibility down 10 points

Man... I really don't care to bash the guy, but
1. it's ridiculous, and
2. I've never seen another side to him.

Metal Gear Solid is a SOLID series.

*goes back to playing MGS1 on PS*

btw, imo, MGS has excellent character development, great characters to continue the storyline (**** you all I like Raiden), has a great story, excellent music, great gameplay, ****ing twists here and there, cinematics are fun to watch, and the writing is just amazing.

IT'S NOT JUST A GAME. ITS METAL GEAR.

I just saw that f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking mountain of a post. I'm gonna need a rope, some pegs and someone to carry my luggage, any volunteers? I'll scale it by the end of the week, but I wonder if anyone will care to look to my "owned by Speedfreak" flag on the summit.

EDIT: I know! perhaps I'll do it in chunks. Episodic content is popular these days, isnt it?

[quote=Big Boss;847164][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]There are three other ways to know where there are trip wires:

1. As stated before, they can be seen as an almost transparent set of laser tripwires.

2. They can be easily seen using the Thermal Goggles, which are available to you before reaching the laser tripwires if you explore the area before that point.

3. Smoking a cigar will expose a portion of the laser.

MGS is a very slow-paced game, but it's open enough that it doesn't force you to play it that way if you are the impatient type. Sure, you could die and find out the solution to some of the problems, but the game never teaches you to rush that way. The nature of the level design, enemy placement and codec intervention all point towards a tactical game of thinking before you act, where each new area is encouraged to be surveyed by the player before attempting to cross it. The game teaches the player that it isn't a matter of reaching the goal, but of how to reach that goal. It exposes dangers the first time around, so the player is later completely responsible for any dangers they encounter later. Then again...[/COLOR][/FONT]

Funny, those 3 solutions fit very neatly into the "MGS puzzle" moulds I described earlier.

1. Obscure clue that only someone with autism wouldn't miss
2. Awful game design. Why would you explore the surrounding area for something you didn't know you needed?
3. Solution provided by codec. If you call them the "puzzle" might as well not exist because they made it so ridiculously easy. If you don't call them you die.

I'm not what you'd call an impatient gamer. REmake on the hardest setting, Fire Emblem, WoW; they're all games you couldn't rush through if you tried (yeah there are superplays and powerlevelling, but bear with me here). Fire Emblem is harsher on your failures than any other game I've played, one mistake costs you about an hour's worth of gameplay, and I typically make 4 or 5 mistakes before I complete a mission.
As someone who enjoys this kind of play, why do I feel compelled to play MGS at a faster pace only to screw up constantly like a blind man in a hurdles race? Before you even read the rest of this post, I'd honestly like to know what your thoughts are on that question.

I can't pinpoint it exactly, especially since I haven't played the game in years and can't bring myself to again for the sake of this arguement. But I'm betting it has something to do with the following: it doesn't punish you hard enough and the gameplay isn't flexible enough to be different after retrying. Starting again after a failure is easy, to the point where dying is a mere inconvenience, and overcoming whatever killed you is completely trial and error. You can stumble through to the end of the game without ever getting better, the game simply doesn't have the balls to bar you from progressing any further if you suck too d[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]mn much. It's the epitomy of the modern video games difficulty curve, the story is so crucial to the appeal of the game that Konami just cannot afford to not let players see it. The new Alone in the Dark further evolved this concept by letting players skip levels if they can't get past them. Yeah, that's right, you can skip playing your

way to play the game wrong *******

It's not trial and error, it's getting past the areas and boss battles in different ways. If someone says "it's best to use stealth" and you decide to ignore advice given to you, it is entirely possible to get past whatever you're doing, but it's not recommended. You are not a tank, but if you can dodge bullets like Neo (I know I can and it drives Carlos insane) then you can flail about like a madman.

About the flexibility of the game: You obviously never faced The End in MGS3. Really, that's all I'm going to say about that. You are so wrong.

But now you complain that the consequences of death on a non-strategy/rpg game matter? You mean like how so many great games out there do the restart-in-general-area-after-death thing? That makes no sense to compare.

Lets be clear here, the only fanboys are the the ones who think these high end games are actually flawless. I can tear apart any recent "best game ever" you care to mention, be it Portal, BioShock or Super Mario Galaxy. I was pretty careful to state that I find MGS to be a pretty good game if flawed, so what's with all the defensiveness to any criticism levelled at it?

The game is not perfect, fucking live with it and be glad your fanboyism doesn't force you to defend something like Super Paper Mario.

Nah, I can dig Speedy's argument. I mainly just hate Prince's because it makes no sense whatsoever. Speedy, however, has actually has reason and evidence to back up his opinions.

And don't worry, I think there are tons of flaws in MGS, for sure. I can easily get enraged and start pulling my hair apart due to a variety of flaws in Twin Snakes. They're definitely there, but the good points about the series are enough to override them for me.

And if you ask me to list said flaws, I can.

... Speedy didn't like Devil May Cry? The 2nd game I can understand, but the 1st and 4th games were great. (I haven't played much of the third, so I can't say)

[quote=WillisGreeny;848852]... Speedy didn't like Devil May Cry? The 2nd game I can understand, but the 1st and 4th games were great. (I haven't played much of the third, so I can't say)

I never played the 2nd game, or the 3rd or 4th. I feel like a fucking retard playing the first, it's just mindless button-mashing constantly rewarded by red orbs; it's the electronic version of bubblewrap. Play something by Treasure and then go back and you'll see what I mean. Or maybe you won't, but you might understand a little anyway.

[quote=Pit;848640]Super Paper Mario is pretty fun.

We're not fanboys, btw, just expressing our love for the series we enjoy in a thread about SAID series.

I mean, we could say you're a fanboy because you pretty much bash the majority of the games(see, not saying everything) that's outside of a Nintendo console as is enjoyed by a lot of people. You don't like Devil May Cry, you don't like *** of War, you don't like Ratchet and Clank, you don't like Jak and Daxter, you don't like Metal Gear Solid, you don't like Gears of War, i mean, what the **** do you like then?

Fuck that shit, like I'm the first one to fling "fanboy" around in this thread!

Loving this logic though, I don't like five games (never actally played Gears, never formed an opinion on it) and I like some Nintendo games so that's where my loyalty lies? Nevermind that I've spent the past 8 months asserting that Nintendo haven't done anything awesome for about ten years and probably won't do ever again.
Remember where I said I can tear apart pretty much any game? Well that includes all the ones I like. Yeah, that's right, I can crticise something I like and still like it. I don't actually hate every game I criticise, just the parts about that game that I'm criticising.

The people who I'm calling fanboys are the ones that are so utterly blind to any flaws about their favourite that they can't accept one tiny peice of criticism. I can do that for pretty much all my favourite games (request a title if you're too disagreeable to believe me), so why is Maian the only one of all these MGS fans that can agree with at least one point on the 3 inch thick catalog of flaws that several people have posted? The guy's the youngest of all of them for God's sake.

Well, I will say, in my own defense, that most of the 'flaws' that's been pointed out by previous posters, I just don't see as flaws.

Like, for example, the whole 'too many cutscenes, too cinematic, too much talk' doesn't seem like a flaw to me in the slightest. It was all interesting to me, it never seemed to interrupt the gameplay for me.

The trail and error never seemed like a flaw to me, I was never bothered by it and have never been bothered by it

The whole thing that you stated from the beginning that I addressed earlier(trip laser discussion), I don't see that as a flaw, it never bothered me in the least.

The only real flaws I saw with the games were the camera (fixed in MGS3:S) and the AI (kind of fixed in MGS3), but I can honestly say I had no problems with the controls or the trail and error or the boss fights or basically any of the things pointed out.

Of course, though, by you're logic I'm just a stupid MGS fanboy who just throws a shell over myself and ignores these apparently purely-factually flaws. I mean I could care less if you find the flaws yourself and all, but I don't see them, I can see where others may feel that way, but I have never seen these things as flaws.

I would argue that you reckon since nothing in the game really bothers you then it's not a flaw. The thing about games, unlike any other media, is that you can objectively point out their flaws because games are essentially systems of logic that must adhere to certain rules, else the system breaks down.

I disagree. Like the trial and error thing, that may be a deadly flaw to someone ( know more then a few people who take this as the case), but not to someone like me. So why should I adhere to the 'fact' that it's a flaw if I don't see it as one. Like the trip wire thing earlier, you see that as flaw, but someone else may love the way it is setup, but yet, you must adhere that as a flaw.

On a technical level, I can agree, things like camera angles, graphics, framerate, I can see those indisputable flaws, but many of things that mention, I think are far too objective by an individual for everyone to adhere to being flawed

[quote=Speedfreak;849238]I would argue that you reckon since nothing in the game really bothers you then it's not a flaw. The thing about games, unlike any other media, is that you can objectively point out their flaws because games are essentially systems of logic that must adhere to certain rules, else the system breaks down.

If MGS's system is so completely flawed, why do so many people like it? Maybe one gamer's idea of flawed logic is another gamer's orgasim of genius. The game media is just as subjective as any other peice of art, since how the system should operate is not a constant, but molds to what appeals for gamers. Let's not forget what the system rules are for: What makes a game fun. If the game isn't fun for you, then the system wasn't meant for you. For Old Snake, the system worked great. Unless you're some higher power in the videogame universe, whatever your ideas about what a videogame should be is just as meaningless as Old Snake's, and to suggest you somehow have the foresight to see past subjectivity is ridiculous.

I can find a lot of flaws with MGS, even though I still love it. HOWEVER, almost all of those were fixed to a pretty fine point in MGS3. In MGS3, they were still kind of there, but not nearly enough for me to dislike it at all.

But, MGS1 and 2:

The AI is ridiculous. You get seen once, (which can very, very easily happen because of their inhuman sight and hearing), and guards explode out of every which corner. firing at you from everywhere. You may turn around in a room with no exits, and three more guards will be there. What? The FPS view is hardly efficient enough to take care of the guards, and the over the top auto aim reduces your fire to one guard only while you get gunned down by the others. Even on easier difficulties, the game was a living hell whenever you got spotted, simply because it wasn't programmed well enough to efficiently overcome it (It doesn't have to be easy, just not ridiculous).

Most of my other flaws lie in European Extreme difficulty, which most people don't bother to play. But in most instances, particularly MGS2, they just make the game completely absurdly difficult by implementing ridiculous things to make it so.

I would suggest that, instead of shortening the health bar to nearly nothing and never giving you a ration the whole game, to up the guard count to make sneaking harder. But on further reflection, MGS1/MGS2's AI is so terrible that that would be a hellish task. But, the main flaw in all of the game's European Extreme difficulties is the bosses.

In MGS1, they were far too easy. Nearly every boss was almost the same calibur of easyness as the rest of the difficulties, except for the occasional, not-balanced-at-all hellish hard ones, such as the Hind D. It took me hours to destroy that bastard. Why? Not because he maneuvered better. Not because the attacks were more strategically placed. It was because his health was ridiculously ginormous, and mine was tiny. To add onto the mess, two hits from the Hind would obliterate my health completely, while it took me literally 25 shots from the Stinger to take him down.

They added onto this in MGS2. Everything in European Extreme was just programmed as a result of what was probably, "Okay Bob, this is the hardest difficulty. How can we make it difficult?" "________" "Wow, that's completely ridiculous and absurd? How could any player do that? Oh well, I like it, it makes it hard!" I could list so many of the things that made MGS2's European Extreme unfairly balanced and cruel, but there's a lot on that list. But, the BOSSES.

Like the Hind D in MGS1, the bosses were never harder from a gameplay stance, they just had massive amounts of health that could only be depleted from a thousand or more hits. Literally every single hit to any of MGS2's bosses probably took half a centimeter of health on a three to four inch health bar, while in multiple instances, TWO hits to Raiden would take him out. Or, in the case of Olga Gurlokovich, one single shot with full health would kill you. Just try killing Olga without ever taking a hit. It's fscking HARD. So, the game didn't train you to find more creative ways to take out the bosses, it made you play them OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER until you found every single pattern the boss made, just so you could dodge their bloody hits.

However...all of this was solved in MGS3, as with all the other flaws I typically had in an MGS game. The European Extreme bosses still required a hell of a lot of hits to die, but Snake's health and stamina still retained their normal damage. Meanwhile, the tactics of the bosses often differed than usual, making them much harder than normal, requiring you to find more unique ways to take them out. MGS3's entire alert system was fixed, causing you to take out the trouble and duck into hiding until it was over, rather than being raped by a randomly appearing cadre of troops any time a ! sounded.

I guess that was my defense. :cool: And that's why I'm so pumped for MGS4. Pretty much everything I hated was fixed in MGS3. I had barely any problems at all with 3, so I can't even imagine how ***ly MGS4 is going to be.

It's a fact that MGS is broken and the controls are **** and there's a whole bunch of flaws. BUT, the game is fun and it's quirky and weird so you can look past it all and still enjoy the experience. But objectively the controls are some of the worst out there.

Careful, don't argue. We're fanboys if we do. :rolleyes:

I think it's just Twin Snakes, actually. :cool:

I haven't actually played MGS1 original, and I was playing through MGS2 today, and it wasn't really a problem at all.

Buuut, in Twin Snakes, gawd. Also, it was never a problem if I could just kill the one dude before he calls for help, but 90% of the time, because of Twin Snake controls, Snake would flip the guy over instead of actually grabbing him, which always made things very annoying.

You should make a note to play the original. The experience is entirely different.

Yes, that's what I've heard. Most fans prefer the original. My friend that only knew Twin Snakes MGS1 bought the box set, and said MGS1 was phenomenal compared to TS. I'll probably borrow that and Subsistence from him next time I see him.

[quote=WillisGreeny;849262]If MGS's system is so completely flawed, why do so many people like it? Maybe one gamer's idea of flawed logic is another gamer's orgasim of genius. The game media is just as subjective as any other peice of art, since how the system should operate is not a constant, but molds to what appeals for gamers. Let's not forget what the system rules are for: What makes a game fun. If the game isn't fun for you, then the system wasn't meant for you. For Old Snake, the system worked great. Unless you're some higher power in the videogame universe, whatever your ideas about what a videogame should be is just as meaningless as Old Snake's, and to suggest you somehow have the foresight to see past subjectivity is ridiculous.

- The answer to that question is right at the beginning of the thread, and I've restated it several times since then. I'm not doing it again.

- No, not really, because then it wouldn't be objectively flawed. What he likes in a game and what I like in a game may differ, I can certainly agree with that. For example, I wouldn't agree with the large amount of cutscenes being a flaw, but I have said I don't like them.

- No it's not, all games have fundamental laws that cannot be broken else they either stop being games or they stop being fun. There are even theories for optimum difficulty curves etc. It is this which allows you to objectively criticise them and it could even be what throws games permanently into the realm of science/maths rather than art. If you ask me that wouldn't be so terrible, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

- again, I think the game is pretty alright if flawed. I mentioned before that games I like or even love are objectively flawed. If you want my theory for why I think people like it despite the flaws then read my posts. I've stated all three of those points several times, what's the deal?

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;849388]It's a fact that MGS is broken and the controls are **** and there's a whole bunch of flaws. BUT, the game is fun and it's quirky and weird so you can look past it all and still enjoy the experience. But objectively the controls are some of the worst out there.

Vamp agrees with me in a thread that's over 8 pages long, surely that's worth something?

[quote=Old_Snake;849918]Here in, once again, lies the problem. Almost all of the things that you have criticized of the series has been pretty subjective. Once again, I revisit the wire trip situation (because that is the one we discussed and the one most fresh in my memory). You have stated this as a flaw because of the ways one most go about to solve this. It's fine to dislike this and all, but I don't see it as a flaw and others have stated they enjoy that aspect, but (according to you) they are flaws because that's the rules.



I don't think anyone has a problem with your points or understanding them, the main problem now is that you are stating that most of the 'flaws' you see in the game are technical flaws because they don't follow these apparent rules and then basically writing off those who disagree with these 'flaws' as just fanboys.

The flaws I described were technical flaws, where I got torn apart was the fact that my descriptions weren't accurate. Giving the player a puzzle that they a) cannot actually perceive, and b) cannot solve with the best of their knowledge, I'm sure anyone would agree, is flawed game design. The laser trap might not be guilty of this, that was just a poor example on my part due to not playing the game in years.

I wasn't the first person to accuse anyone of fanboyism in this thread, someone threw it at Prince for not liking the game and not explaining why. I found this to be hypocritical bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it since if I'm wrong about objectively bad game design and everyone's opinions on games is entirely subjective, why should he ever have to explain why he doesn't like it? So I'm asserting that if you can't see any flaws in the game you're probably a fanboy. The vast majority of games ever released have dozens of flaws, people just tend to love them too much to see them, which is pretty much the definition of a fanboy. You're the one that tacked on "stupid" to it, not me. I think it's perfectly human to turn a blind eye to something or someone's flaws if you like them, or maybe even like it/them more because of them.

Since the only people who completely disagree with me here are Rayden, Fate and maybe you I figure I'm pretty much done here. I'm certainly never convincing those two of anything and I've made my points as clearly as I can.

I'm not understanding you here:

1. You're saying there are technical flaws. Everyone knows this. You provide an example of something you see as a flaw that has nothing to do with the technical aspect. Everyone who doesn't see it as a technical flaw gets up in arms and you call us fanboys for not understanding what you're talking about. Then you say that the example you gave wasn't the best one, which means that you've yet to provide a serious technical flaw.

2. Most people know how Prince is when it comes to Sony, Big Boss, and anything that makes Sony money. It's not hypocritical to ask for solid reasons as to why Prince doesn't like MGS, considering the few he gives is "you should face your enemy like a man instead of running away like a pussy". Other people give legitimate reasons as to why they wouldn't like the entire franchise, even if the installments following have improved beyond the mechanics he makes fun of.

So what's the deal? What are we arguing about here?

I criticise for technical flaws and explain that it's fairly good anyway, people accuse me of hating. People call Prince a fanboy for not explaining his dislike for MGS, I assert that if you can't see flaws in your favourite games you're probably a fanboy, i.e. it doesn't matter what his reasons are because there's always enough reason. They're the two basic arguements.

I can understand why you wouldn't like the game. A game is a sum of parts, not just played piece by piece. Some people like yourself wouldn't like the game and there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect to come into an MGS thread and expect for people to see the "light" or something. :/

[quote=Old_Snake;850043]Except that's not how it is, this has already been discussed to an exhausted rate and I won't go into it again.

Read the last sentence in the part you just quoted, dude.



[quote=Old_Snake;850043] Why do you keep trying to bring up the fact that you weren't the first to use the fanboy term, did I say you did or anything?

It's also not hypocritical at all, I think most people, myself included have given reasons, I don't think many here have said 'MGS is awesome, story end' and, in my case, I was basically just defending series since a lot of what was being said was inaccurate or I disagreed with it.

I also already said I do believe there are technical flaws which you couldn't argue with, but some of the stuff you have stated haven't been that.

Because certain people keep implying that I'm saying anyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy and that is the basis of my arguement, when in fact they were the first to do exactly that.



[quote=Old_Snake;850043] This is your list of flaws from earlier, correct? Most of these have been discussed previously in the thread, so I won't go into any high detail (I went ahead and edited out the inaccurate ones, plus Big_Boss went way father then I ever could into all), but this list has some very subjective things on it, namely the 4th wall and functions one, but according to you, these are flaws because they violate some kind of set-in stone game design rules, but those who disagree that they are flaws or actually enjoy these things(In my case, the 4th wall thing) are simply fanboys, am I correct in this sum-up of things?

Funnily enough, yes, this is a fundamental game design flaw. All games take place in the so-called magic circle, the realm where the logic of the game has significance and outside of which is the real world. Forcing the player to think outside of the magic circle, the area in which they are playing is forcing them to stop playing the game, essensitially. You might argue that since this puzzle is part of the whole package then it can't possibly remove the player from the game and actually extends the game to real life. But the puzzle (which in itself isn't a game) adds nothing to the stealth gameplay, nothing to the storyline. It exists to make fun of the game itself, it's a 4ft high speedbump on a highway. This is wonderful as the collection of different media that is MGS, but as MGS the game it's pointless, jarring and frustrating. Which is why I say MGS appeals as a collection of media and not through it's core gameplay alone. Picture raw gameplay, with no storyline or theme whatsoever, interrupted by something like this, it would make no sense whatsoever. Its a fundamental game design principle that shit like this should not happen. Obviously game design fundamentals only apply to gameplay, which MGS quite specifically isn't limited to.

[quote=Old_Snake;850043] I specifically named controls as a technical flaw, I personally have no problem with them per say, but from progressing from other games it can be hard to get use to at times, I could adhere that is a technical flaw.

It's simultaneously an eye-of-the-beholder thing and an objective thing. That is to say there's only something wrong with it if someone finds something wrong with it. Lots of people did, so they obviously could do better with the controls. And yes, I am implying that every video game ever could do better with the controls.


[quote=Old_Snake;850043] You forgot Pit and I believe WillisGreeny has disagreed with you on this point;)

Yes, but not completely. Big Boss and Fate are the only ones, to my knowledge, who won't really accept anything I've said. That's why I'm not really trying to argue with them.

[quote=Old_Snake;850076]Sorry, but once again, I don't see this is a flaw in anyway, I completely enjoy it and thought it was pretty fun and cleaver when it's done. If these was a consist thing throughout an entire one of the games, maybe, but it's not, it's only done like once or twice per game.

I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but basically you're saying that one most adhere this is, in fact, a flaw because it violates the rules, am I correct? If it doesn't hinder the person in anyway or if they enjoy it, how can it really be a technical flaw.

I think you're misconstruing the flaw as something that ruins the entire experience, since MGS is so much more than just a game the 4th wall bits fit right in. While they might screw up the gameplay you've got about 6 other types of media to catch you. Put that kind of thing into Tetris, Chess or any other game that is literally just gameplay and you start to get an idea of why it's a universal game design flaw, it makes no sense and serves no purpose in the context of gameplay. If MGS was pure gameplay it would be much more of a problem, but while it's a game design flaw on one hand, on the other it's a handy story-telling tool.

Breaking the fourth wall isn't a game design flaw and should never be seen as so for the simple fact that it involves the player more directly, regardless of what game it is done in. If breaking the fourth wall is bad game design, what kind of future does the Wii have? Or anything else that involves something similar?

I'm going to pretend that was an act of charity to give me an excuse to not bother anymore, thanks.

Earthbound broke the 4th wall all the time, so is that game completely flawed aswell?
I think you're placing too much constraint on what a video game is allowed to be. Video games can't be just story telling tools?

man ibroke ther 4th wa;; fo gameing with mah sick traks and **** ufken sneakin aroun *****anzz

[quote=WillisGreeny;850354]Earthbound broke the 4th wall all the time, so is that game completely flawed aswell?
I think you're placing too much constraint on what a video game is allowed to be. Video games can't be just story telling tools?

Never played Earthbound, though I didn't really mean breaking the 4th wall in general is flawed game design. I think hinging whether or not you progress in the game at all based on a puzzle that the designer knows makes no sense in the context of the game is bad game design. But like I said, MGS is more than just a game, it's a multimedia peice of entertainment, where bad game design can also be a humerous peice of storytelling.

For the record I think games are completely incapable of telling stories. Show me a game you think tells a story and I'll show you a game that either stops the action sometimes to tell you one or manages to deliver completely disconnected gameplay and story at the same time. Creating stories, though, that's a different matter altogether...

EDIT: OH SHIT I FORGOT I LEFT.

Half-Life and Half-Life 2 never take the control of Gordon out of your hands. Plus Bioshock, obviously. Which uses a similar first-person technique.

[quote=Aioros;851767][COLOR=Yellow]What the fu[COLOR=Yellow]c[/COLOR]k? Bioshock, for example, told a great story continuously throughout the game without either of the problems you mentioned. And i do mean it told a story, not just created one. As does Metal Gear Solid.

I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say but I'm not liking this game design rules and flaws nonsense.[/COLOR]

The gameplay of Bioshock told a story of survival, that's about it. The story you're talking about was told through the opening cutscene, audio tapes and dialog between characters. None of those are gameplay. It didn't create one because if you put the controller down or simply refuse to act nothing in the story happens. You can't push the story in any way other than the 2 routes the designers marked out. That is not creating a story, that's choosing one of two possible options through arbitrary gameplay decisions. It doesn't matter if there's multiple routes in a game's story, not even if there's a million of them, as long as they're all pre-written by the designer the game is not creating them. And if a game is creating a story that means the story wasn't written beforehand, so it can't ever possibly tell a story.

If you want a good example of a game creating a story look at sports. I don't know if you follow any, but I know Big Boss is into baseball so go ask him to retell a dramatic moment in his favourite team's history. That's an epic story told through nothing but gameplay. There's also tabletop RPGs, which are basically systems designed to help with creating stories in a group.

See if you can find a problem with this fundamental law of games: the result player's actions must be discernable. Which is to say the result of a player's actions must be communicated back in a way that they can perceive and understand.

I'm not too sure how you're trying to define 'telling a story', but to me it's as simply as well...telling a story. Whether through cutscenes or dialog. Does it stop the action, yes, but if it's a good or engrossing story (like the MGS and FF games) so what? I don't see that as a flaw at all unless it consistently pops up in the middle of a firefight or battle or something of that nature. No flaw to me there.

I think you've got it reverse, Speedy. Most games tell stories, not create them.

Hey look! Colleges are teaching students how stories are represented in digital media.

[quote=MIT course description]The study of the structural properties of narratives that experiment with digression, multiple points of view, disruptions of time, space, and of storyline is complemented by theoretical texts about authorship/readership, plot/story, properties of digital media and hypertext.


[URL="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Writing-and-Humanistic-Studies/21W-765JSpring2004/CourseHome/"]Source [/URL]

Hey look! Magazines say something about video games having story telling techniques.
[quote=VanityFair Magazine]video games, a medium that increasingly overlaps with filmmaking

I think what Speedfreak's saying is that games can't "create" stories because the player always has to do something like press buttons. If the game were to really be creating a story, you'd be able to turn it on and not do anything else once it's started. And then it would create a story!

His second point (I think) was that to be a game it has to demonstrate for the player that he is having influence over the game. This means that it's not really a game when you just turn it on and leave it alone, thus games can't create stories. Is that right?

Hopefully this isn't somehow related to MGS, and hopefully he isn't trying to say that MGS doesn't even tell a story, or else I'll have to start defending the **** out of everything.

And not knowing anything about the true inner deep spiritual workings of games, I'd have to say that what Fate said seems right. I can't see games "creating" stories, but I see games "tell" them all the time. It's like how a book works. It doesn't create stories because it's always the same material, but you can read it and it will tell you a story.

[quote=WillisGreeny;852002]Hey look! Colleges are teaching students how stories are represented in digital media.



[URL="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Writing-and-Humanistic-Studies/21W-765JSpring2004/CourseHome/"]Source [/URL]

Hey look! Magazines say something about video games having story telling techniques.

[URL="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/03/lucas200803"]Source[/URL]

Hey look! More crap to suggest stories have a role in video games!


[URL="http://www.lingualgamers.com/thesis/story_video_games.html"]Source[/URL]

Yeah, there's a pretty wide variety of opinions in this field because game design has never been looked at this closely before. You could find plenty of opinions to the contrary and inbetween if you looked.

None of those really explicitly disagree with what I'm saying, and it doesn't seem like anyone here gets it either.

I'm not saying games as peices of software aiming to entertain cannot tell stories, I didn't get through to the end of Bioshock and ask "where was the story?". I'm saying games as Rules of Play defines it, "a system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" cannot tell stories.

Obviously video games, unlike more traditional games, are more than just a set of rules, objects and symbols; there's music, graphics and usually plot and dialog. But in my opinion they've come about from some kind of inferiority complex the industry has had, where they've just absorbed elements of other media into order to be more popular and attract people outside the current demographic. From basic video games like pong to more comic book and cartoon-like games like Pac-Man and Super Mario, then to sci-fi movies and novels all the way up the ranks of nerddom to movies. It's gotten to the point where half the designers in the world are utterly convinced that a game that looks like and behaves like a movie and offers the ultimate in escapism, basically the Star Trek holodeck, is the holy grail of game design.

IMO that's not only completely impossible but complete and utter nonsense, a quick glance the human race's favourite games shows that that's just basically a nerd's wet dream and not at all representative of what games can and cannot do. Games were never about escapism or plot before nerds got their hands on them, and it stands to reason that every single video game praised for having a good storytelling doesn't tell it with gameplay but with other disciplines, the written word, acting and cinematography, just used as context for that gameplay. I mean, would Final Fantasy VII tell you a story of a band of heroes against an evil empire if you removed all the text and cutscenes, or would it be reduced to a simple monster-killing, world-roaming, secret-finding game? Conversely, does Chess need plot and dialog to provide an adequate system to create a story of the battle of wits between two generals and their country's army? And would it be remotely possible to tell a pre-written story with Chess without compromising both player's freedom in the gameplay to the point where only one of the many possible stories occurs?

TL;DR: games as a system of rules cannot tell stories. Video games only manage to tell stories by emulating books and movies and shoehorning their principles into them. If games truly have the potential to be an art form then they will never grow as one until designers realise that games predate and are much more important than any other art form, and their individual strengths and weaknesses must be recognised and exploited instead of the strengths and weaknesses of other art forms imposed on them because they happen to make more money. Football never took over the world and transcended massive cultural and economic barriers to become the single most popular thing the world has ever seen by trying to emulate books, music or plays; video games will forever be a niche if designers think they do to achieve the same.


If this get's through to anyone I'll be pretty amazed, since I figure entire essays will have to be written for any of this to make sense to someone who doesn't spend a lot of their time reading about game design. I'm just throwing a lot of these out there to see what sticks without a huge amount of explanation.

[quote=Slade;852008]And not knowing anything about the true inner deep spiritual workings of games, I'd have to say that what Fate said seems right. I can't see games "creating" stories, but I see games "tell" them all the time. It's like how a book works. It doesn't create stories because it's always the same material, but you can read it and it will tell you a story.

Well maybe you didn't get everything wrong, the realisation is pretty damn close to my point even if the conclusion isn't. Tell me, is "the same experience every time" a property you'd expect from a game?

I understand what you're saying and from a certain standpoint I'd have to agree. Most games these days aren't just a system of rules. If you think about it, if you were to define anything in this world to the very core it would just be a system of rules. Everything would just be science and math. That's not what games are anymore. Games aren't something novel anymore and, to achieve heavy popularity, require more than just a set of rules. You can't tell me there's not a broader audience when the players of a sport have real-life drama spread all over the news. Some people will actually be compelled to watch said sport for the simple fact that real life is spread all over it.

I think whatever you're reading, though, has mixed up literal definitions of what "tells" a story as opposed to "creating" it. Games aside, a story is told in its own world and the reader/listener has no impact on the text, therefore he can't create his story in the world of the story once it has ended. People create stories once the source has been read/listened to, which is where fanfiction stuff comes in. You can only create stories in-game with emergent gameplay, but that's pretty difficult to do since you have to think beyond the mechanics of what the game is suggesting you do. If they have planned routes then you find one that wasn't planned at all.

Besides my fantastic knife fight with the sniper The End in emergent gameplay, I recall an instance when I first played Mario Kart for the 64. In Mario Kart, the rules were straightforward: don't get stuck and you'll win the race. One day I decided to play the game with my brother. I was a lot better than him so sometimes I would purposefully screw up in the middle of the race and pretend to dawdle. He would race normally and had no idea I was intentionally ruining my chances of winning. There were two maps that I dawdled too much in. In one Wario-themed map my brother noticed at the beginning of the race there was a very thin and low wall that connected to part of the track that was pretty far ahead. He suggested I try to jump over it to get ahead because I would never win and that's exactly what I did; we never raced on that map again. I discovered the second map and our favorite, Rainbow Road, had a similar exploit so we never raced on that map either. When we raced other people, however, we would use these points in the map to get ahead in a way that I hope the designers never planned for, considering they weren't particularly easy to do. I wouldn't have thought to tool around in a racing game, when the primary goal is to be first place, if it wasn't for my brother. Emergent gameplay from a racing game? I think so, even if it was just unassisted cheating. We created that story from a story we were told.

If you were to ask Big Boss about his favorite team in a baseball game, he could go on for hours about stats and whatever. (One time I found a list of stats he wrote when he was tabletopping baseball with his brother. They would battle with stats or something. I was kind of freaked out.) He could go on about the character he created and what he did to get his character a certain way, blah blah blah. All the game did was be a functional sports game with no story-- he created stories to tell by his personal feelings of the game and parallels to real life. In a way, it broke the fourth wall by involving him and his personal interests and it ended up meaning a lot more to him than to someone who just played the game and didn't follow the actual season on television or otherwise. Whatever he has to say about the game wouldn't necessarily be strictly mechanics; he'd tell you about his own self in the game and about unrealistic trades and about how an all-ace team wouldn't work in the real world, etc. He wouldn't tell you about the game, he would tell you about his experience. If there was emergent gameplay in his experience I apologize for saying this since it wouldn't be true: Since his story didn't have emergent gameplay, all meaningful stories told about the game would come from his experience playing it, meaning that there were no stories created in the game while he was playing it. I'm not sure if he had the capabilities to play differently because it was such a mechanical game.

The biggest problem here is that you're assuming that people perceive the game the same way and they feel the same way each time they play it. Some people don't like a certain genre but if you give them enough time they will learn to appreciate it. I'll give you a good example:

When I was playing the Metal Gear series I played most games on my own, meaning my experience was rarely hindered. I played as Snake (or Raiden) and I essentially became them. I drowned out all music and heard only words spoken. When Big Boss would put on the songs of the soundtrack for me to hear, I would truthfully say that I didn't remember where each song came from and under what context and surely he was offended. When I played the game again, the experience was wildly different because I became more daring in those subsequent plays and the music was so awesome! I became a ****ing stealth agent! It was the coolest thing ever.

At conversations around dinner, my boyfriend and I would often talk about games, game mechanics, stories, and anything else that might relate. I would tell him about my games and he would tell me about his. Our stories come from a fourth wall perspective and as a result it means a lot more to me when a designer touches on it, like Mr. Resetti from Animal Crossing. It actually means something to me. You're not going to understand because you're going on about a set of rules I don't want to follow.

Let's just agree to disagree and get on with it. My favorite series made by my idol will conclude next week. Just leave it alone, please.

[quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue]I understand what you're saying and from a certain standpoint I'd have to agree. Most games these days aren't just a system of rules. If you think about it, if you were to define anything in this world to the very core it would just be a system of rules. Everything would just be science and math. That's not what games are anymore. Games aren't something novel anymore and, to achieve heavy popularity, require more than just a set of rules. You can't tell me there's not a broader audience when the players of a sport have real-life drama spread all over the news. Some people will actually be compelled to watch said sport for the simple fact that real life is spread all over it.[/COLOR]

I won't deny some interesting aspects of sports occur outside of the game, but I think it's simply foolish to ignore the fact that the all these events revolve around a game. I'm not talking about stories about the players of these games while they're not playing, I'm talking about power struggles, epic comebacks, shocking defeats and all the associated emotions from being invested in a team and following them, and the retelling of the events of a particularly exciting game. All of this arising out of nothing more than the rules.
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue] I think whatever you're reading, though, has mixed up literal definitions of what "tells" a story as opposed to "creating" it. Games aside, a story is told in its own world and the reader/listener has no impact on the text, therefore he can't create his story in the world of the story once it has ended. People create stories once the source has been read/listened to, which is where fanfiction stuff comes in. You can only create stories in-game with emergent gameplay, but that's pretty difficult to do since you have to think beyond the mechanics of what the game is suggesting you do. If they have planned routes then you find one that wasn't planned at all.[/COLOR]

Emergent gameplay isn't all that difficult, and it's far more common than most people think. Emergent gameplay is just gameplay that emerges despite not being stated in the rules, for example bluffing in poker. It happens all over the place. Pretty much all the gameplay I ever think of creating is emergent.

And in fact, emergent gameplay isn't the name for a game creating a story, it's sort of a whole different concept. What creates it is called emergent narrative, which is the opposite of embedded narrative (dialog, cutscenes, anything pre-written and inserted). I'm not really sure whether emergent gameplay is necessary for emergent narrative, but it's something I intend on finding out. I'm betting on "no", for now, since I seemed to have that kind of experience while playing Sudoku, which is about as far from emergent gameplay that you can get.

A game creating a story is a very simple concept once you understand it, just as real-life stories are created basically through the laws our reality, and fiction is created through someone imagining those laws or even new laws and writing about their effect on imaginary objects or people, so can a game as a system of rules allow players to create a story through playing. In this way games are more like real life than fiction, as the events only become stories after they happen, either in memory or in a retelling. Modern games stifle this by imposing their own premade narrative. For example, in Zelda I can't create my own story about how I killed Ganon because there's really only one way to do it, the only stories I can create are, for example, where I got lost and eventually found my way again, or what items I picked up in what order. But Bioshock, despite quite frankly being in the gameplay department, let me create a particularly exciting story about when I tried to kill a Big Daddy through nothing more than mechanics. And that story would be just as great with none of the background story, because it's entirely seperate to the embedded narrative.
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue] Besides my fantastic knife fight with the sniper The End in emergent gameplay, I recall an instance when I first played Mario Kart for the 64. In Mario Kart, the rules were straightforward: don't get stuck and you'll win the race. One day I decided to play the game with my brother. I was a lot better than him so sometimes I would purposefully screw up in the middle of the race and pretend to dawdle. He would race normally and had no idea I was intentionally ruining my chances of winning. There were two maps that I dawdled too much in. In one Wario-themed map my brother noticed at the beginning of the race there was a very thin and low wall that connected to part of the track that was pretty far ahead. He suggested I try to jump over it to get ahead because I would never win and that's exactly what I did; we never raced on that map again. I discovered the second map and our favorite, Rainbow Road, had a similar exploit so we never raced on that map either. When we raced other people, however, we would use these points in the map to get ahead in a way that I hope the designers never planned for, considering they weren't particularly easy to do. I wouldn't have thought to tool around in a racing game, when the primary goal is to be first place, if it wasn't for my brother. Emergent gameplay from a racing game? I think so, even if it was just unassisted cheating. We created that story from a story we were told.[/COLOR]

I guess I didn't need to write any of the above since you apparantly agree that stories can be created out of nothing but game mechanics.
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue] If you were to ask Big Boss about his favorite team in a baseball game, he could go on for hours about stats and whatever. (One time I found a list of stats he wrote when he was tabletopping baseball with his brother. They would battle with stats or something. I was kind of freaked out.) He could go on about the character he created and what he did to get his character a certain way, blah blah blah. All the game did was be a functional sports game with no story-- he created stories to tell by his personal feelings of the game and parallels to real life. In a way, it broke the fourth wall by involving him and his personal interests and it ended up meaning a lot more to him than to someone who just played the game and didn't follow the actual season on television or otherwise. Whatever he has to say about the game wouldn't necessarily be strictly mechanics; he'd tell you about his own self in the game and about unrealistic trades and about how an all-ace team wouldn't work in the real world, etc. He wouldn't tell you about the game, he would tell you about his experience. If there was emergent gameplay in his experience I apologize for saying this since it wouldn't be true: Since his story didn't have emergent gameplay, all meaningful stories told about the game would come from his experience playing it, meaning that there were no stories created in the game while he was playing it. I'm not sure if he had the capabilities to play differently because it was such a mechanical game.[/COLOR]

Well shoot, I was hoping he'd just be a normal sports fan. I'm not really sure what to say about that example, it's not the kind of baseball I was talking about (the normal kind). Nevertheless, I did actually say ask him about a particularly dramatic game featuring his favourite team. That kind of drama would have arisen through just game mechanics.
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue]The biggest problem here is that you're assuming that people perceive the game the same way and they feel the same way each time they play it. Some people don't like a certain genre but if you give them enough time they will learn to appreciate it. I'll give you a good example:
[/COLOR][COLOR=skyblue]When I was playing the Metal Gear series I played most games on my own, meaning my experience was rarely hindered. I played as Snake (or Raiden) and I essentially became them. I drowned out all music and heard only words spoken. When Big Boss would put on the songs of the soundtrack for me to hear, I would truthfully say that I didn't remember where each song came from and under what context and surely he was offended. When I played the game again, the experience was wildly different because I became more daring in those subsequent plays and the music was so awesome! I became a ****ing stealth agent! It was the coolest thing ever.[/COLOR]

Yeah I guess I was being a dick before, a lot of the things I listed aren't objectively flaws. Nevertheless, I uphold the idea there there are game design principles through which you can pretty objectively critique any game. Though of course a game that abides by them might not necessarily be good, and like MGS you can get away with breaking a couple now and then (especially if they're doing it on purpose).
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue]At conversations around dinner, my boyfriend and I would often talk about games, game mechanics, stories, and anything else that might relate. I would tell him about my games and he would tell me about his. Our stories come from a fourth wall perspective and as a result it means a lot more to me when a designer touches on it, like Mr. Resetti from Animal Crossing. It actually means something to me. You're not going to understand because you're going on about a set of rules I don't want to follow.[/COLOR]

Mr Resetti appears according to a rule in the game's design when the player tries to cheat ;)
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;852114][COLOR=skyblue] Let's just agree to disagree and get on with it. My favorite series made by my idol will conclude next week. Just leave it alone, please.[/COLOR]

I'll agree to disagree when people get what I'm saying, which is pretty difficult when this stuff is so complicated, I'm the one explaining it and some people aren't actually interested. I've backed down when I can't see eye to eye before, but I don't wanna stop if there's a chance I can get an enlightening discussion out of it. This just actually got interesting so uh, no way am I stopping!

I'm not forcing you to post in this thread, and the discussion has left MGS almost completely so I don't really see a problem. Plus, over the past year or so I've not only realised a lot of my favourite games suck but also exactly why they suck, I'm too bitter over it to be nice about this one.

the beauty of this is that no one is wrong!

I just wish people would actually talk about the game rather than arguing what a game should be.

Like 5 minutes ago you wanted me to stop making fun of the game in a thread that I made specifically to make fun of the game.