Death Stranding reviews

[Casual Shinji]

Plus, we have so few games in the AAA landscape that don't revolve around combat, it's a breath of fresh air. You know what's boring, playing the 20th+ iteration of the same game over and over again, which is basically the AAA model right now. Another Souls-like or open world game, how exciting?!?!

Except this is an open-world and there is combat. And plenty of it, from the looks of it.

I'm on my last few pips of patience with Kojima: Metal Gear Solid 4 was shit, Metal Gear Solid 5: Phantom Pain was shit and one of the worst open-world games ever made (and not just because the game was unfinished). The more the guy gets let off his leash the worse he gets. Which is why Metal Gear Solid 1 was the best entry, because he still had some humility and couldn't just do whatever the fuck he wanted.

He's a very clever game designer, but he's also prone to extreme indulgence, and the glorification he receives from fans embeds this more and more as time goes on. Just the fact that he has all these big-name actors and even directors in his game feels like Kojima whipping his dick out and going 'Yes, YES, I'm so big and important!!!' Like everytime he tried to get Kurt Russel to play Snake instead of the guy who actually made him iconic in the West. And then replaced him entirely with Keifer Sutherland cuz 'Hollywood actor YAAAAY!'

We'll see, but I'm expecting this game to have interesting themes and ideas delivered in the most blunt and idiotic way, like every other Kojima game that isn't MGS1 (or pre MGS1).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Plus, we have so few games in the AAA landscape that don't revolve around combat, it's a breath of fresh air. You know what's boring, playing the 20th+ iteration of the same game over and over again, which is basically the AAA model right now. Another Souls-like or open world game, how exciting?!?!

Except this is an open-world and there is combat. And plenty of it, from the looks of it.

I'm on my last few pips of patience with Kojima: Metal Gear Solid 4 was shit, Metal Gear Solid 5: Phantom Pain was shit and one of the worst open-world games ever made (and not just because the game was unfinished). The more the guy gets let off his leash the worse he gets. Which is why Metal Gear Solid 1 was the best entry, because he still had some humility and couldn't just do whatever the fuck he wanted.

He's a very clever game designer, but he's also prone to extreme indulgence, and the glorification he receives from fans embeds this more and more as time goes on. Just the fact that he has all these big-name actors and even directors in his game feels like Kojima whipping his dick out and going 'Yes, YES, I'm so big and important!!!' Like everytime he tried to get Kurt Russel to play Snake instead of the guy who actually made him iconic in the West. And then replaced him entirely with Keifer Sutherland cuz 'Hollywood actor YAAAAY!'

We'll see, but I'm expecting this game to have interesting themes and ideas delivered in the most blunt and idiotic way, like every other Kojima game that isn't MGS1 (or pre MGS1).

Yeah, it's open world but that is actually the content of the game (it is a pick up and deliver game) vs the open world being there just for wasteful travel time to and from actual content. From the 2 videos I've seen on the game, it seems like participating in combat is actually a bad idea. It seems like combat is a very low percentage of your time spent in the game.

MGS4 was really entertaining on a B-movie level and the gameplay is still the best TPS gameplay to this date. MGS5 I never finished, and I doubt I'll ever finish it, way too much filler. Like I said above, MGS2 is his masterpiece IMO; MGS1 is the most well-balanced game. MGS3 is solid Bond-like game. There's really on one dud in there IMO. Kojima is no genius or anything but when so many games are retreads and made by committee/marketing, getting whatever vision from an actual creator is something you rarely get in the AAA landscape. Kojima does have the ability to make something special and even misses will be more interesting than looter-shooter #21, live-service #42, Ubisoft: The Game #33 or Battle Royale #9 (ironically MGS4's online component had the first BR mode). So yeah, just being average is more than you'll get just about anywhere else currently.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

and truth be told, he's way past his prime when it comes to video games as well.

The technical mastery of the medium on display in the game is undeniable. So how is he past his prime if the game looks and performs this well?

tl;dr? I have limited access to gaming sites over here.

60 positive, 11 mixed, 1 negative.

Because something can still be technically well-polished but also boring or uninteresting

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Huh...The only honest review has a rating that?s almost half of the next lowest? Dismissing someone?s work as ?irredeemable garbage?

Considering the fact that this $60 game has ads in it, it should immediately get a 0 rating.

Like the Monster plug and Riding with Norman? Ha, yeah well it?s definitely not the first from Kojima. If it was any other game I?d see it as a pure cheesebait, but considering this game also takes apparent jabs at contemporary culture it may have been intentional.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The reviews I've seen make it seem very much a Kojima game. Very slow and very much "The Journey" rather then the destination, but with a plot that's either overwrought or incomprehensible(don't count on learning much of how any of this works). It seems like it's a bit full of itself though apparently does have some touching moments.

That being said, it does sound fascinating, like a big budget game with arty pretensions and I'll probably end up getting it at some point. I'm just going to be aware of what it is and what it isn't. Also, have a month budgeted for this game because it's apparently a LONG game.

Yup, one thing certain is when you boot up a Kojima game for the first time, you know you?re in for a one of a kind ride that was hand crafted with utter care and artistry, for better and worse.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The general reviews I've seen are saying that the game is capitivating in its boredom as if playing the game to be bored is the point. And some people really like it and think it makes for an interesting experience. While others think making a game boring on purpose is fucking stupid.

I'm of the opinion of the second group. Purposefully making the game tedious and boring to enforce a theme of atmosphere and boredom to the player is a noble experiment but not one that I think is really worth it. Especially considering it boils down to a pretenious Fed Ex simulator for 40 hours. What action does exist is incredibly basic and pointless, and quite honestly I just don't get it.

This is gonna be a hard pass for me.

I think what he?s going for here is the technical, thematic and possibly emotional nuances in gameplay along the way though. It?s been stated the game is about fatherhood and bonding, so the delivery boy shtick basically just serves as a backdrop or vehicle (no pun) for developing all those finer points that hopefully resonate with the player over the course of five dozen hours. Knowing somewhat what to expect from Kojima, I?m far more intrigued by the ?how? than the ?what? or ?why?. This sounds like it?s by far his most back-loaded game ever, as in the biggest takeaways likely won?t be the most readily apparent aspects.

Definitely planning on it, but not til the majority of my backlog is squared away.

 

[Dalisclock]

Huh...The only honest review has a rating that?s almost half of the next lowest? Dismissing someone?s work as ?irredeemable garbage?

Considering the fact that this $60 game has ads in it, it should immediately get a 0 rating.

Like the Monster plug and Riding with Norman? Ha, yeah well it?s definitely not the first from Kojima. If it was any other game I?d see it as a pure cheesebait, but considering this game also takes apparent jabs at contemporary culture it may have been intentional.

The Japanese version of Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker had Mountain Dew and Doritos as edible recovery items. In the American version, they became bland name corn chips and soda drinks. Amusingly, the game also had MSF brand rations as well and Miller makes a bit deal about wanting to profit off the branding in one of the audiotapes(you know, because people really want to buy rations branded for a PMC).

Peace Walker was a wierd game, really, even for Metal Gear. It even had that hidden Monster Hunter crossover island(complete with bosses) you could find and battle.

But back to DS, I think it says a lot when I've seen like 30ish minutes of trailer footage so far and I'm still not really sure what the hell is going on. So maybe the goal really is to eat the BB for an upgrade?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, it's open world but that is actually the content of the game (it is a pick up and deliver game) vs the open world being there just for wasteful travel time to and from actual content. From the 2 videos I've seen on the game, it seems like participating in combat is actually a bad idea. It seems like combat is a very low percentage of your time spent in the game.

Then why have it there at all? I've seen that footage as well, and what it looks like is just the same third-person combat I've seen in other games, except worse because it doesn't appear to commit to it. If it wanted to commit to being a game that's not about combat and murder it should've not had any.

As for the open-world, I expect the same trappings I've seen in other games.

MGS4 was really entertaining on a B-movie level and the gameplay is still the best TPS gameplay to this date. MGS5 I never finished, and I doubt I'll ever finish it, way too much filler. Like I said above, MGS2 is his masterpiece IMO; MGS1 is the most well-balanced game. MGS3 is solid Bond-like game. There's really on one dud in there IMO. Kojima is no genius or anything but when so many games are retreads and made by committee/marketing, getting whatever vision from an actual creator is something you rarely get in the AAA landscape. Kojima does have the ability to make something special and even misses will be more interesting than looter-shooter #21, live-service #42, Ubisoft: The Game #33 or Battle Royale #9 (ironically MGS4's online component had the first BR mode). So yeah, just being average is more than you'll get just about anywhere else currently.

The only real difference between Kojima and other game directors/designers is that he's given carte blanche, and any amount of smart or interesting concepts he comes up with are drowned in his own self indulgence. It's similar to Rockstar, where the Houser bro's are granted a lot more freedom than their competitors, but then that freedom turns the final product into a bloated mess.

 

[bluegate]

Yeah, it's open world but that is actually the content of the game (it is a pick up and deliver game) vs the open world being there just for wasteful travel time to and from actual content. From the 2 videos I've seen on the game, it seems like participating in combat is actually a bad idea. It seems like combat is a very low percentage of your time spent in the game.

Well, when Kojima showcased the boss fight against the black cat like thing, he mentioned how it was just a small fry and how there would be more monsters to fight along the way.

I was expecting there to be a fair amount of combat.

 

[stroopwafel]

The general reviews I've seen are saying that the game is capitivating in its boredom as if playing the game to be bored is the point. And some people really like it and think it makes for an interesting experience. While others think making a game boring on purpose is fucking stupid.

I'm of the opinion of the second group. Purposefully making the game tedious and boring to enforce a theme of atmosphere and boredom to the player is a noble experiment but not one that I think is really worth it. Especially considering it boils down to a pretenious Fed Ex simulator for 40 hours. What action does exist is incredibly basic and pointless, and quite honestly I just don't get it.

This is gonna be a hard pass for me.

I think what he?s going for here is the technical, thematic and possibly emotional nuances in gameplay along the way though. It?s been stated the game is about fatherhood and bonding, so the delivery boy shtick basically just serves as a backdrop or vehicle (no pun) for developing all those finer points that hopefully resonate with the player over the course of five dozen hours. Knowing somewhat what to expect from Kojima, I?m far more intrigued by the ?how? than the ?what? or ?why?. This sounds like it?s by far his most back-loaded game ever, as in the biggest takeaways likely won?t be the most readily apparent aspects.

Definitely planning on it, but not til the majority of my backlog is squared away.

Tim Rogers, in his phenomenal non-spoiler review, called it something along the lines of ''a game where people wait in entitlement for their packages to arrive, sheltered away in ubiquitous asexuality while waiting for the delivery guy that is both more healthy and stronger than they are.'' xD He also had a really cool alternative title for the game, something with Bezos in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHUY-nVXKU

Anyways he really loved it. He appeared to have been actually flabbergasted when the credits rolled. I have similar tastes so that bodes well.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

To the discussion on why this game has combat. While I'm certainly not someone that likes to stick up for something that is likely pretentious as all hell, having combat allows you to create risk of failure. Something I've noticed with some horror games lately is that they are taking from the "walking simulator" genre style of gameplay. The problem with this style is that it can lead to people looking at a game from a meta perspective, with that kind of gameplay there is only so much they can do to make you fail and unless they send you back a long way after a failure, which can lead to frustration, failure is simple and easy to recover from.

I imagine the reason there is combat in Death Stranding (Based on what I've heard about it so far) is because without it the game would only be a very high budgeted walking simulator but without the scavenger hunt for story through items that walking sims give. Add to that that to have a game hyped up like this and to spend so much time and money on it only for it to be a walking simulator, one of the easiest genres to make, and it would probably suffer backlash from the get go.

Honestly, the most entertaining thing about this game is the vast reservoir of fantastic quotes we're getting from the reviewers, from the nauseatingly pretentious ones to the comedic gold like, "This is still a game in which you can equip and unequip your penis so you can piss out Red Bull."

 

[happyninja42]

having combat allows you to create risk of failure.

There are plenty of game mechanics you could use to provide a risk of failure, that don't rely on combat. The easiest would be to try and accomplish something within a limited timeframe, while obstacles of some type or another try and prevent you.

Given how many games have Pacifist achievements, and yet are still incredibly difficult games, I don't think it's mandatory to add combat for failure. I honestly think it's simply the easiest, low hanging fruit way of doing that. The one that requires the least effort.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

having combat allows you to create risk of failure.

There are plenty of game mechanics you could use to provide a risk of failure, that don't rely on combat. The easiest would be to try and accomplish something within a limited timeframe, while obstacles of some type or another try and prevent you.

Given how many games have Pacifist achievements, and yet are still incredibly difficult games, I don't think it's mandatory to add combat for failure. I honestly think it's simply the easiest, low hanging fruit way of doing that. The one that requires the least effort.

Indeed. I agree very much with this.

 

[Laughing Man]

Watched a video in which the guy basically says that you should ignore reviews of the game because Kojima was not making a game he was making a piece of art. That by its nature one persons perception and opinion of art is a deeply personal value and it is almost impossible to convey what another persons thoughts or feelings about a work of art will be. That you are best playing the game to get your own opinion or take away from the 'art'. He also mentioned that Kojima had earned his position to the degree that his work should be immune to review.

Or to put it another way exactly the sort of cr*p I knew people would come out with to try and justify this GAMES existence. Let me restate this is a GAME.

Games can be art but they cannot be exclusively art, the rationale behind that opinion is that unlike a painting or piece of music which require the end user to be utterly passive, beyond perhaps the recognition and mental processing of the art. A games art is only delivered through the direct interaction of the end user. If the end user is not driven to engage with the game then it doesn't matter what artistic intentions the game has, respective of the person to understand, comprehend or interpret any meaning, they will never prog4ess enough to get the full picture (so to speak.) If the person does not play or want to play the game then their is no art to be experienced. It only becomes art by the very act of being played.

So this game is not immune to review or criticism and neither is Kojima. This is still a game and as such it is bound by some very basic criteria; are the mechanics engaging or flawed, is the world / gameplay loop enough to engage the player and drive them forward, does it suffer from poor pacing or long winded time consuming mechanics and mission structure, does the gameplay have flaws or bugs.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Then why have it there at all? I've seen that footage as well, and what it looks like is just the same third-person combat I've seen in other games, except worse because it doesn't appear to commit to it. If it wanted to commit to being a game that's not about combat and murder it should've not had any.

As for the open-world, I expect the same trappings I've seen in other games.

The only real difference between Kojima and other game directors/designers is that he's given carte blanche, and any amount of smart or interesting concepts he comes up with are drowned in his own self indulgence. It's similar to Rockstar, where the Houser bro's are granted a lot more freedom than their competitors, but then that freedom turns the final product into a bloated mess.

Why does a game have to be totally about combat or have none at all? If there is a reason to fight say 10% of the time, why can't combat consist of 10% of the game? I don't get why a game can't have a little of something (combat or otherwise) if that's what makes sense for the game to have.

Open worlds being interesting to explore is always down to the intangibles for me. I can't really tell if the world will be engaging for me or not until I play it.

Very few game directors are allowed to make what they want in the AAA landscape, it's why every game is so similar to each other. I'll take a chance on something that was made with any kind of passion these days. There's way too much wackiness and cheese in Kojima's games for me to think that he thinks he's amazing or some genius, I never got pretension from his works yet. Whereas Dan Houser's work seems to me that he thinks he's some great writer when he's more of a hack than David Cage. Characters did nothing but spout politics in the time I played RDR1 and quite playing because of how boring it was. Max Payne 3's writing felt the same way, that it really thought it was good. Although from a gameplay perspective Rockstar's games are as safe as they come, they haven't evolved from GTA3 yet. RDR2 has realistic horse testicles and MGS5 has pooping horses, but in MGS5, horse poop had legit gameplay purposes (that I actually did use). Every MGS game feels very different gameplay-wise while every Rockstar game feels like every Rockstar game.

Well, when Kojima showcased the boss fight against the black cat like thing, he mentioned how it was just a small fry and how there would be more monsters to fight along the way.

I was expecting there to be a fair amount of combat.

I haven't watch a lot of footage of Death Stranding because I really don't watch much about any game. I saw enough that I was intrigued and kinda stop watching more footage after that. I do recall one video with combat so I do know it's in the game but literally all the prior footage was Norman Reedus delivering shit so I was pretty sure that was the main game. On the Laymen Gaming videos I recall Skill Up's brother being convinced there was way more to Death Stranding than we were being shown and Skill Up every time was like "that's the game, that's it" (the delivery aspect) several times and he ended up being completely right. Most people were just overthinking it.

Watched a video in which the guy basically says that you should ignore reviews of the game because Kojima was not making a game he was making a piece of art. That by its nature one persons perception and opinion of art is a deeply personal value and it is almost impossible to convey what another persons thoughts or feelings about a work of art will be. That you are best playing the game to get your own opinion or take away from the 'art'. He also mentioned that Kojima had earned his position to the degree that his work should be immune to review.

Or to put it another way exactly the sort of cr*p I knew people would come out with to try and justify this GAMES existence. Let me restate this is a GAME.

Games can be art but they cannot be exclusively art, the rationale behind that opinion is that unlike a painting or piece of music which require the end user to be utterly passive, beyond perhaps the recognition and mental processing of the art. A games art is only delivered through the direct interaction of the end user. If the end user is not driven to engage with the game then it doesn't matter what artistic intentions the game has, respective of the person to understand, comprehend or interpret any meaning, they will never prog4ess enough to get the full picture (so to speak.) If the person does not play or want to play the game then their is no art to be experienced. It only becomes art by the very act of being played.

So this game is not immune to review or criticism and neither is Kojima. This is still a game and as such it is bound by some very basic criteria; are the mechanics engaging or flawed, is the world / gameplay loop enough to engage the player and drive them forward, does it suffer from poor pacing or long winded time consuming mechanics and mission structure, does the gameplay have flaws or bugs.

We've been reviewing art just fine forever, it can be reviewed, criticized, critiqued, etc. Video games are no different, they are art (usually bad art). What drives a person to engage with a game is different on a per-player basis, it's not universal. There are no objectively bad or good games. There are several polished over decades tried-and-true game mechanics that totally disengage me from any game with them while many others can't get enough of them. Everything outside of technical aspects (framerates/resolutions/etc) and functionality (does it work) is pure opinions. Even if something is functional and the most functional version of that mechanic does not mean it will engage someone playing the game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Why does a game have to be totally about combat or have none at all? If there is a reason to fight say 10% of the time, why can't combat consist of 10% of the game? I don't get why a game can't have a little of something (combat or otherwise) if that's what makes sense for the game to have.

Because it can come across as trying to have your cake and eat it too, something Kojima has a history with. If Death Stranding is a game that's supposed to be a partial critique of how all games are about action and killing, seeing as the main character's name is Bridges and trying to reconnect rather than destroy, it feels a bit disingenuous to than have a combat system there at all. It could be done if the creator in question had some nuance, but let's be honest...

Who knows, maybe it'll actually work.

Very few game directors are allowed to make what they want in the AAA landscape, it's why every game is so similar to each other. I'll take a chance on something that was made with any kind of passion these days. There's way too much wackiness and cheese in Kojima's games for me to think that he thinks he's amazing or some genius, I never got pretension from his works yet. Whereas Dan Houser's work seems to me that he thinks he's some great writer when he's more of a hack than David Cage. Characters did nothing but spout politics in the time I played RDR1 and quite playing because of how boring it was. Max Payne 3's writing felt the same way, that it really thought it was good. Although from a gameplay perspective Rockstar's games are as safe as they come, they haven't evolved from GTA3 yet. RDR2 has realistic horse testicles and MGS5 has pooping horses, but in MGS5, horse poop had legit gameplay purposes (that I actually did use). Every MGS game feels very different gameplay-wise while every Rockstar game feels like every Rockstar game.

Every MGS pretty much felt the same as well, apart from maybe Peace Walker and Phantom Pain. MGS2 is even expressly about trying but failing at being MGS1. Even gameplay-wise it felt the same. It expanded on what came before, sure, but every game had the same action gameplay, the same enemy interaction, the same area transitons, the same method of storytelling etc. A big problem with this series as it continued was that it was too in love with its own iconography, both in terms of narrative and gameplay.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Because it can come across as trying to have your cake and eat it too, something Kojima has a history with. If Death Stranding is a game that's supposed to be a partial critique of how all games are about action and killing, seeing as the main character's name is Bridges and trying to reconnect rather than destroy, it feels a bit disingenuous to than have a combat system there at all. It could be done if the creator in question had some nuance, but let's be honest...

Who knows, maybe it'll actually work.

Every MGS pretty much felt the same as well, apart from maybe Peace Walker and Phantom Pain. MGS2 is even expressly about trying but failing at being MGS1. Even gameplay-wise it felt the same. It expanded on what came before, sure, but every game had the same action gameplay, the same enemy interaction, the same area transitons, the same method of storytelling etc. A big problem with this series as it continued was that it was too in love with its own iconography, both in terms of narrative and gameplay.

I obviously haven't played the game, but it makes sense to have some kinda of threats along the way. Bad effects of participating in combat can reinforce said message as well. Though giving the player the choice to determine when combat would be overall beneficial isn't a bad thing either.

The MGS series went from top-down non-shooter gameplay (basically just auto-aim in MGS1) to a full-blown 3rd-person shooter by MGS4. It's why MGS1 has aged well (it's still extremely playable) as it's not a shooter at all while Syphon Filter has aged horribly. Whereas current Rockstar games are just better looking GTA3s (Rockstar hasn't even come close to making anything near Mercenaries, which came out same gen as GTA3). MGS2 added so many different actions you could do (I don't even think you could hang from ledges in MGS1). MGS2 is far far more than just trying to be MGS1, it used the same structure but for a very specifically different purpose. MGS2 out-Bioshocked Bioshock before Bioshock was even a thing and also predicted society in the new digital age (the Patriots were right). MGS3 added CQC and Camo. MGS4 became a full-blown shooter while keeping everything from past games. MGS5 kinda became dumbed-down and more like every other TPS control-wise, but added an open world (for the worse IMO), the base and fulton recovery system (from Peace Walker though), more box abilities, etc. There's not many series that have changed more than MGS has over its iterations.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The MGS series went from top-down non-shooter gameplay (basically just auto-aim in MGS1) to a full-blown 3rd-person shooter by MGS4. It's why MGS1 has aged well (it's still extremely playable) as it's not a shooter at all while Syphon Filter has aged horribly. Whereas current Rockstar games are just better looking GTA3s (Rockstar hasn't even come close to making anything near Mercenaries, which came out same gen as GTA3). MGS2 added so many different actions you could do (I don't even think you could hang from ledges in MGS1). MGS2 is far far more than just trying to be MGS1, it used the same structure but for a very specifically different purpose. MGS2 out-Bioshocked Bioshock before Bioshock was even a thing and also predicted society in the new digital age (the Patriots were right). MGS3 added CQC and Camo. MGS4 became a full-blown shooter while keeping everything from past games. MGS5 kinda became dumbed-down and more like every other TPS control-wise, but added an open world (for the worse IMO), the base and fulton recovery system (from Peace Walker though), more box abilities, etc. There's not many series that have changed more than MGS has over its iterations.

Those are all pretty much added features instead of integral changes. The biggest change in MGS2 was the first-person aiming, but even that was present for a couple of weapons in the first game. The CQC in MGS3 was hardly any different from the punching/grabbing of the first and second game and didn't add any definite improvment. It only made interaction with enemies more convoluted and messy. The camo also slowed the stealth gameplay down considerably, and again was only an extention of what had come before. The best change to MGS3 was having free movement over the camera, and that only got added in the Subsistence version. And MGS4 had the weapons market I guess along with other added features that didn't make the combat any more efficient compared to simply taking aim and shooting dudes in the head. There were also active battles going on during gameplay, but that only made the game easier.

With each sequel it felt like you had to press more buttons to perform basic actions, until MGS5 finally decided to actually play like an action game that doesn't feel like you're controlling a cardboard cut-out that required four buttons to be pressed down in order to aim a gun around a corner. Your movement finally had a freedom and physicality to it, making it the first MGS since MGS1 that played well. It didn't feel like you had to constrict yourself into the control scheme. It created a much greater incentive to experiment with your options, because you didn't have that sword of Damocles hanging over your head at the thought of incorrectly pressing a series of buttons and instantly triggering an alert. But yeah, the open-world sucked.

 

[Kwak]

Tim Rogers, in his phenomenal non-spoiler review...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHUY-nVXKU

'"You can't just make a game that's like Solaris though. It would be too boring." Kojima furrowed his brow, like, that was a challenge.'

This is amazing, someone I wasn't aware of. He talks like xavier renegade angel.

metalmagerin3
4 days ago
"This review of Death Stranding, from what I'm hearing, seems to be the Death Stranding of reviews about Death Stranding."

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Well GiantBomb seems to have talked amongst themselves about that game and dig at the heart of the subtext I was getting from the other reviews which is that... it has some interesting systems in the way it's overall gameplay works but that the carrot is dangled not in front of you but ten yards away from you and the carrot isn't THAT good that getting to it is worth it.

Doesn't help that finally hearing someone say the very very VERY stupid names of the characters out loud made me wonder how much power Kojima has now that not a single person could get him to not literally name someone Die-Hardman.

I think the most apt comparison they had is that as far as story goes the game is acting as if it's built up a history with the player that it obviously doesn't have. The Metal Gear games had a long lineage for people to get invested in the weirdness and symbolism and stuff or at least put up with it but that this game hasn't earned that trust or tolerance that Metal Gear had with people.

Though another thing they said is that this game is as if Kojima heard about the Walking Simulator genre second hand without knowing the implications of that term and decided that he would make the magnum opus of Walking Simulators. And so he gave us The Postman crossed with Russian Kamaz Truck Driver.

I get the overall impression that this is a game that will live or die by how many people are just inerested in seeing what the game is outweighing the amount of people that will say they don't have time for something like this.