Did somebody say metal gear?
Like how in the first game Snake tells Meryl that if she hesitates, "...you're worm food," but the entire series is built upon Big Boss not shooting his mentor in the face on the bridge in MGS3.I'd describe your average Metal Gear Solid plot as a bad story that's been told well. When you examine alot of the details for each of the games, especially 3, alot of the details don't make an awful lot of sense and alot of developments only work out if the characters happen to be really fucking stupid, but you don't really care at the time because you're being attacked by a motherfucker who shoots bees out of his mouth like goddamn bullets.
All the stories are bad, 3 is the most fun.While most people like 3 the most in the MGS series, I still standby 2 being the best. 3 was in a somewhat awkward transition between 'pac-man' and open-world stealth, where as 2 was pretty much the pinnacle of pac-stealth. For every neat moment with emergent gameplay you get in 3, there's multiple spent navigating through slow menus to equip the optimal camo and cure your wounds. 2 also had a much more interesting story full of insane twists and a final hour that's basically Japan's equivalent of Planescape. 3 does manage to provide a much greater emotional punch towards its end though.
All the stories are bad, 3 is the most fun.
And yes, I know all about the VR theory shit. It's still just repeating things scifi authors were writing in the 1980s.
Every idea in the game is regurgitated from a better writer.VR theory is irrelevant to what MGS2 is actually about. I don't even know why people act like VR theory is some super secret thing - it's a pretty obvious theory to think up before you even finish the game.
Every idea in the game is regurgitated from a better writer.
If you look at video games yes.I guess? I mean if you want to play this toddler-tier game, we can look at almost any piece of media and trace the majority of its thoughts and ideas to 'better writers'.
Maybe not exactly, but plenty of works covering everything interestingNothing else in vidya, nor any other medium offers the combination of all the ideas present in MGS2.
Which is basically the least interesting topic you could ever cover in a video game.Also no 'better writers' tackled the subject of player agency over character avatars to this degree that I'm aware of.
If you look at video games yes.
Maybe not exactly, but plenty of works covering everything interesting
Which is basically the least interesting topic you could ever cover in a video game.
*take away player control*
"turns out you never had any control to begin with, aren't I clever mr player?"
Now if you actually gave the player agency, and then exploited that in some way to make a point, that might be interesting. Kojima almost does this with MGS3 and the dead people you killed along the river.
there is no meryl in the first game. metal gear solid is the third game, ffs.Like how in the first game Snake tells Meryl that if she hesitates, "...you're worm food," but the entire series is built upon Big Boss not shooting his mentor in the face on the bridge in MGS3.
there is no meryl in the first game. metal gear solid is the third game, ffs.
I'd describe your average Metal Gear Solid plot as a bad story that's been told well. When you examine alot of the details for each of the games, especially 3, alot of the details don't make an awful lot of sense and alot of developments only work out if the characters happen to be really fucking stupid, but you don't really care at the time because you're being attacked by a motherfucker who shoots bees out of his mouth like goddamn bullets.
True, but other better writers have managed to be more novel.Nah, if you look at every medium - ever. All human achievement is iterative, just a fact of life bruh.
I've played the game through twice.Firstly, starting to really get the impression that you missed a few important things, or didn't play the game itself. Regardless - I am actually quite interested in what "plenty of works covered everything interesting" I would like to actually partake in them if they're worthwhile.
Again I don't find this interesting. Why does Raider represent the player the at the beginning, but not the end? What does this say about anything? You only have one choice in MGS2, keep playing or stop. There is *no* agency at all. So there is no reason for Raiden to ever represent the player because the player is never actively participating in events.And here lies the heart of the problem - that's not what happened in the game at all. I was referencing Raiden's arc as a character - how he starts off as a literal "jack" into the game's world, and how he wears dogtags with the player's name before discarding them at the end of the game - see also how he transforms from nerd slipping on bird poop who played a bunch of VR missions (very obviously representing the player) to his own character complete with mega edgy tragic backstory.
I used the report feature to ask for a thread split since we were wildly off topic.idk how this became it's own thread, but it's definitely the greatest thread to ever grace the codex.
still stupid. use the normal names, otherwise it's bound to just be confusing thanks to the portable games, remakes, and non-mgs mg games.
Video game players are dumb though, so I guess you have to really beat it into their heads.
I'll just leave it here
(...) Even structurally the story has problems. If you want a arc of Raider transforming from the player into himself, it should happen slowly over the course of the game. Instead it's the usual act 3 Kojima exposition dump. It's no so much an arc as it is a character cliff.
After writing all this, my biggest problem with the game's story is not it's content, but the over explaining. Video game players are dumb though, so I guess you have to really beat it into their heads.
I didn'tBut memes always existed.
The massive amount of exposition used by Kojima is tiresome.
I still managed to survive MGS4's cut-scenes, lol.