Zero Punctuation: Metal Gear Solid 4

[Pastey Old Greg]

Once again, it's not about difficulty, it's just poor word choice on their part. Even on the most difficult of settings can you run about flailing your arms about and shooting willy nilly. I don't care that you're given the option to do this, but at no point are you REQUIRED to be stealthy. For a game to ever call itself stealth oriented it must once in a while shoehorn you into being at least a tad subtle. Incidentally, I never said anything in that portion about taking the game seriously. I don't, primarily because it doesn't take itself seriously half the time, but that's neither here nor there.

Just because you personally don't see the problems with long cutscenes doesn't mean they aren't a problem. You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying. It's not that people will watch them once and then skip them on subsequent playthroughs, it's that they want to skip them the first time because they're so god damned lengthy. Also, you've once again misunderstood what I was saying. It's not that the extras are an issue, it's that the extra information was thrown into the main portion of the game and NOT left as extras. Take the Tekken Tag Tournament reference. What if, between each round, you were forced to bowl. That would be tedious, boring, and serve no purpose whatsoever. That's how the cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid 4 are. They throw in extra shit that serves only to lengthen the cutscenes and are, at times, not actually related to what's going on or what will go on in the future, thus said information serves no point. You know, I don't think you're even paying attention to what I'm writing here. The story itself is the problem. It's poorly written and delivered in an equally grating manor...and you're focusing on a misinterpretation of what I've written, even when it's not related to what was written. Oye.

What I'm saying is that how they do it breaks immersion and lacks subtlety. Those are not selling points. They are, in fact, bad things to do.

Derp derp derp not bad guy hurr hurr hurr...He's set up as one until the inevitable quintuple agent angle is played. Regardless of what he is in the end, he was set up as a villain first and foremost and as such was meant to be imposing. This is where the tutu and power suit come into play. They look ridiculous. It's the Mike Tyson effect. Sure, you know he's going to kill you when you do it, but you just can't help but laugh at his voice. Same thing with the other examples. They're villains and bad and they're out to get you, oooooooooo scary, but they look like idiots which completely kills any fear or intimidation. Incidentally, I know the story. It doesn't negate the point I was making in the slightest. If Satan himself appeared before you and announced his intent to kill you, you would be far too preoccupied with the fact that this malevolent and powerful evil entity is wearing a frilly, pink, ballerinas costume to really register the threat.

That's nifty and all, but saying "Oh, you can skip them" doesn't make my point any less valid. So what if the option exists. On the first time playing you should WANT to skip the cutscenes. You shouldn't be tempted to go off and make a snack or read a book while it's playing because it drags so badly. Why do people think that the option to skip them means the cutscenes are fine? I can skip parts of Batman and Robin, does that make it a good movie? Oh, and playing the "stop bitching" card doesn't net you any points, it just means you can't make a good argument. Just because you don't have standards doesn't make something good, it just means you can ignore the problems it has. I've gone into that before, do I really need to explain the concept again?

Key word being ignorant...That's, not a good thing.

Why are you bringing up GTA 3? At what point did I bring that up, and not everyone has to like it, you lackwit. I'm tired of your shoddy understanding of basic writing. I even said that not everyone had to like it. Here's a solid example. Tolkien. Not everyone likes him. In fact, some absolutely hate his writing, but everyone seems to be able to understand what he contributed to modern fantasy and respect him for it. Even those who just believe he collected the ideas can admit that he at the very least made them more easily accessible to people. There, happy?

Once again, the point flies over your head. How often did you play between cutscenes, and what were the length of those cutscenes? How often were you just about to hop into something that looked like fun, or ran around a corner, or did something that appeared as though it would lead to doing things only to run into another mini-movie? That's what I meant by hesitant. Infinite options aren't needed, especially in a game like this. I'm not sure why you're equating the two when that wasn't anywhere near what I was pointing out.

Let me make it simple. The game leads you from place to place. Fine, that's the way these games run. However, instead of letting you play through most of it, it keeps interrupting you. Think about the whole "eat your vegetables" thing. "You watch your cutscenes, young man, before you can go out and play...And don't give me that look, they're good for you."

...Uh, fanservice isn't really meant as a good thing. It's used to describe something hollow or lacking that's done primarily for the sake of people already willing to put up with anything that's done by a particular game/show/whatever.

Skipping to the last part, yes, some like it and some don't. That doesn't mean you can't look at it without letting those feelings get in the way.

Moving on to Indigo_Dingo

And here's the rub, games really can't have universal appeal. Their very nature almost disallows this. The biggest stepping stone is in doing what people have done with writing. Moving to the point where you can separate personal preferences while deciding if it's well done. With games there really isn't a set criteria for "how to do things right." or at least "how not to do things." that take everything as a whole into account.

Moving on to Aries_Split

I'm not a big fan of Halo and have never played Gears of War. Just getting that out of the way first. As for why we "can't leave them alone." Well, and I know this is going to be hard to understand, but when people debate...That's talking about something, they may disagree. People will then explain why they believe they are correct. This area is here for the sake of talking about the video and the game itself. Do the math.

"You know what? Who gives a flying fuck? At the end of the day, the Batman and Robin fans will still be having an awesome fucking time watching one of the greatest movies ever made, and the haters will be scratching their heads, wondering why."

Here's to hoping that edit will make you realize just how idiotic you sound. I'm all for people liking what they like, but don't tout your taste as being super special awesome and don't play up the people who dislike it as idiots. It's possible to both understand AND dislike something.

Ha ha, referenced that terrible movie twice.

Wow, all the long-ass monologues are rubbing off on its fans.

 

[Sandoggg]

Once again, it's not about difficulty, it's just poor word choice on their part. Even on the most difficult of settings can you run about flailing your arms about and shooting willy nilly. I don't care that you're given the option to do this, but at no point are you REQUIRED to be stealthy. For a game to ever call itself stealth oriented it must once in a while shoehorn you into being at least a tad subtle. Incidentally, I never said anything in that portion about taking the game seriously. I don't, primarily because it doesn't take itself seriously half the time, but that's neither here nor there.

Do you want your money back because you wanted a stealth game? A stealth game in which there are only non lethal weapons and all roads, as open as they may look, are closed off, and the only paths you can take are those of air ducts and tunnels that you yourself dig? I?m sure there are plenty of people that can show you how to play if you want to learn. Not to mention that none of the previous MGS games have required you to play stealth. Why would they suddenly start now?
Also, in my opinion if a game locks you into one mode of play, that makes it less of a game. I?d presume that you hate games such as elder scrolls and GTA that let you do generally anything you want. What a travesty, freedom.

It's not that people will watch them once and then skip them on subsequent playthroughs, it's that they want to skip them the first time because they're so god damned lengthy.

Sorry, but I can?t accept this as a flaw. When so many people watch the cutscenes and enjoy them, there seems to be at least as many that dislike them. We know which categories you and I fall into, and this is where the fact that this is an opinion board becomes a bit more obvious.

Also, you've once again misunderstood what I was saying. It's not that the extras are an issue, it's that the extra information was thrown into the main portion of the game and NOT left as extras. Take the Tekken Tag Tournament reference. What if, between each round, you were forced to bowl. That would be tedious, boring, and serve no purpose whatsoever. That's how the cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid 4 are. They throw in extra shit that serves only to lengthen the cutscenes and are, at times, not actually related to what's going on or what will go on in the future, thus said information serves no point.

I can?t think of anything that?s unrelated.. Generally everything is relevant in the MGS universe. The only thing that I?m pretty sure I?ll never listen to again are Drebin?s codec stories of the BB Corps. Yeah, your example of the TTG fits better than mine, although you forgot the part about being able to skip it, after loading of course. But back to the cutscenes, I think the biggest room for complaint isn?t the relevance but the complexity. Call it what you will, complexity, mumbo jumbo, bullshit, it?s generally hard to understand until there?s a bit more clarification later, or perhaps even another playthrough.

What I'm saying is that how they do it breaks immersion and lacks subtlety. Those are not selling points. They are, in fact, bad things to do.

I?ll pull out the opinion card once more, as the only thing we can really conclude from these boards is again, some people appreciate it, some don?t. It?s too bad that aspects such as these simply stop your ability to play the game seriously. Maybe play through it again, and now that you know when they?re coming, skip them. Maybe then you?d enjoy it more?

Derp derp derp not bad guy hurr hurr hurr...He's set up as one until the inevitable quintuple agent angle is played.

It really sounds like you simply have no patience for a complex plot. Anything that you didn?t see coming from the start of the game is frustrating and unorthodox.

Regardless of what he is in the end, he was set up as a villain first and foremost and as such was meant to be imposing. This is where the tutu and power suit come into play. They look ridiculous. It's the Mike Tyson effect. Sure, you know he's going to kill you when you do it, but you just can't help but laugh at his voice. Same thing with the other examples. They're villains and bad and they're out to get you, oooooooooo scary, but they look like idiots which completely kills any fear or intimidation.

I really feel like we?re running into dead ends. You can?t make me agree that Solidus looks stupid, and I can?t convince you that he is badass (not near as badass as solid or liquid of course..) My initial reaction of having this ?third? clone being introduced was pretty upset, but despite my bias against him I think he developed his relationship with Jack very well and played his role accordingly.

That's nifty and all, but saying "Oh, you can skip them" doesn't make my point any less valid. So what if the option exists. On the first time playing you should WANT to skip the cutscenes. You shouldn't be tempted to go off and make a snack or read a book while it's playing because it drags so badly. Why do people think that the option to skip them means the cutscenes are fine? I can skip parts of Batman and Robin, does that make it a good movie? Oh, and playing the "stop bitching" card doesn't net you any points, it just means you can't make a good argument. Just because you don't have standards doesn't make something good, it just means you can ignore the problems it has. I've gone into that before, do I really need to explain the concept again?

I?ll assume you meant ?shouldn?t?. And I?ll agree with your statements and mention that I watched each cutscene through it?s entirety the first time through. I won?t deny that sometimes I just wanted to get back to the action, but it was never a feeling of boredom, it was an issue of what I wanted more. Alright, I can?t make a good analogy, but comparing a video game to a movie on these terms doesn?t quite fit. MGS4 is much more cinematic than the average game, although it doesn?t always have to be like that. As I said, at the moment I?m playing it just for the game. I?m getting emblems and costumes and having a good time playing the game and just the game. You can?t skip parts of a movie and.. do something other than watch the movie.

Key word being ignorant...That's, not a good thing.

But then how would I know? =P

Why are you bringing up GTA 3? At what point did I bring that up, and not everyone has to like it, you lackwit.

If you had read my entire post, you?d have noticed that before I replied to you, I replied to someone else about GTA3, sorry, it was on my mind. I had been off the boards for a couple days and replied to multiple people in my post. Take a deep break and stop letting the internet get to you.

I'm tired of your shoddy understanding of basic writing. I even said that not everyone had to like it. Here's a solid example. Tolkien. Not everyone likes him. In fact, some absolutely hate his writing, but everyone seems to be able to understand what he contributed to modern fantasy and respect him for it. Even those who just believe he collected the ideas can admit that he at the very least made them more easily accessible to people. There, happy?

I don?t think I even responded to that part of your post, as I said, I?m not analyzing every word you say in your posts, this thread has more posters than just you and I. Anyway, it didn?t even seem that post was directed at me. I?ve never read a Tolkien book, but I respect and admire him for obvious reasons. I actually started with the animated movies, and of course Jackson?s films were great. I think that MGS and GTA3 were a couple groundbreaking games. I also believe that if not for GTA3, Rockstar?s other releases (I don?t even remember their names) would have done better, but they were essentially the same game as GTA3 and no one cared.

Once again, the point flies over your head. How often did you play between cutscenes, and what were the length of those cutscenes? How often were you just about to hop into something that looked like fun, or ran around a corner, or did something that appeared as though it would lead to doing things only to run into another mini-movie? That's what I meant by hesitant. Infinite options aren't needed, especially in a game like this. I'm not sure why you're equating the two when that wasn't anywhere near what I was pointing out.

If the game is good enough that you want to keep playing and stop for nothing, you can generally do that. You don?t feel locked into playing the game how it was ?meant? to be played, yet you do when it comes to cutscenes. Why do you torture yourself so? Switch them around, get locked into the game for the gameplay, and lose it for the cutscenes. Both situations give you choices, and you pick the choice that you dislike. I understand that you?re trying to prove a point but I how can I agree when there are such simple solutions?

Let me make it simple. The game leads you from place to place. Fine, that's the way these games run. However, instead of letting you play through most of it, it keeps interrupting you. Think about the whole "eat your vegetables" thing. "You watch your cutscenes, young man, before you can go out and play...And don't give me that look, they're good for you."

Not many families let you skip your vegetables. MGS4 tried to interrupt me from playing and I punched it in the stomach, and ran into the next room. MGS4 used to stop me with new and interesting dialogues but now they?re something I don?t quite mind missing.

...Uh, fanservice isn't really meant as a good thing. It's used to describe something hollow or lacking that's done primarily for the sake of people already willing to put up with anything that's done by a particular game/show/whatever.

Nice of you to defend for this guy, he probably won?t be back anyways.
Service is service nonetheless, I?d rather have MGS4 than not, and if another Legacy of Kain comes out I?d be very grateful, the long story needs a conclusion. Would I accept a half-assed job? Probably. I used to be very into LoK..

Skipping to the last part, yes, some like it and some don't. That doesn't mean you can't look at it without letting those feelings get in the way.

Sorry.. I?m going to have to ask for a bit of clarification here lol, what feelings are we referring to? The feelings I have aren?t in you, and vice versa, there?s really not much we can do.

 

[Aries_Split]

"You know what? Who gives a flying fuck? At the end of the day, the Batman and Robin fans will still be having an awesome fucking time watching one of the greatest movies ever made, and the haters will be scratching their heads, wondering why."

Here's to hoping that edit will make you realize just how idiotic you sound. I'm all for people liking what they like, but don't tout your taste as being super special awesome and don't play up the people who dislike it as idiots. It's possible to both understand AND dislike something.

This made me laugh. How does that portray it as being idiotic? It simply furthers my point.

You may see obvious flaws, and you may care to criticize them. Go ahead. My point was simply being, whats the point in pointing out all the flaws of the game? The fanboys (myself included) obviously don't seem to be bothered, so what's the point even "debating" it? All your doing is posting longs walls of text that actually aren't saying anything.

Okay, we get it, you don't enjoy the game as much as everyone else. That's a one sentence thing, not a debate topic. The fact that you are trying to infer that it is a debate topic is ignorance and stupidity on your part.

If you understand the fact that some people have differing opinions, then why do you fail to grasp the obvious logic that maybe we don't see the cutscenes as bad. We see them as good? What part of that is too hard to comprehend in that mind of yours? Does it do anything else other than regurgitate your "opinion" as a long block of text?
Didn't think so.

 

[Tempdude0]

And it goes on and on and on and oooooon! Strangers, waitin, up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searching in the night....Sorry, little off there. What, I'm in a Journey mood.

Perhaps this is too hard a concept to grasp. I already stated that I dislike them calling a game with a few stealth elements a "stealth game" I don't care about freedom to go off to west Wilshire and butt fuck some guy with a dagger, provided there is an element of stealth to it. At least a large portion of a game should be devoted to the genre in which it categorizes itself. A point and click game is not a first person shooter. A driving simulator is not an adventure game. MGS is not a stealth game. Get it through your thick skull, a game that locks you into a mode of play that IT HYPES ITSELF AS LOCKING YOU INTO isn't a bad thing. I'm not even saying it has to do it 60% of the time. Hell, I think I'd be fine with about 50/50 or perhaps even less. All I'm saying is that it isn't a stealth game. As for the other games, they weren't stealthy either. The closest I've seen to "stealth" is that bit in MGS 3 where you run around without weapons...and by stealth, I mean run like a retard through the base, soaking up bullets like you've got the healing factor of Wolverine. This isn't stealth. You're not even arguing that it IS stealth any more. You seem to have prattled off on a tangent about other games DESIGNED to have you faff about.

"Sorry, but I can't accept this as a flaw. When so many people cut themselves and enjoy it, there seems to be at least as many that dislike it. We know which categories you and I fall into, and this is where the fact that this is an opinion board becomes a bit more obvious."

Sadomasochistic jokes aside, you're running another fallacy. Just because people like shit doesn't validate it. In fact, going back to that cheap shot, many people love sadomasochism and body mutilation. Does that mean it's a good thing? I somehow doubt it...In fact, I know it's not good. We all know it's not good. Even the people who enjoy it realize that it isn't a good thing, they just like it too much to care.

GAAAH! I understood it you twit, it's just idiotic. There is a time and place for when to talk about something, and what information would be appropriate at that time. Using another reference, if you're in the middle of a large war, describing a scene of unbelievable carnage, you don't zoom in on some guys boot. Oh sure, he may have been in the same unit is blah blah blah and as a result ties what's his face to yadda yadda yadda. That isn't when you go into it, and to be frank, I don't care if some dork who got shot was important to the background of a secondary character. It's not important to the main story. It's something I may want to go back and look at and go "Oh, he tied that in. Nice job." but I don't want it forced down my throat with the other information that is actually necessary to understanding the current situation.

If a big sign comes up during gameplay and says, with accompanying voice "YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME! THIS ISN'T REALLY HAPPENING AND THESE ARE JUST MADE UP CHARACTERS! YOU ARE NOW BREATHING MANUALLY!" then it's just opinion that it breaks the immersion. Yes, some people could ignore this, but that makes it no less blatant and no less disruptive.

Uh, no, it's badly hodgepoged together...and INEVITABLE means I was expecting another double agent shtick because he's already done it FOUR BLOODY TIMES! It's nothing new, and aside from making even less sense than the others it doesn't stand out as "complex"

Fine, whatever. I give up on the badass thing. Some people find hello kitty pants-wettingly horrifying, so I'll let this part slide. I still believe there's a way to gauge how ridiculous something looks, but since I can't actually come up with it, I'll concede that it's possible to interpret him as being awesome. You win on that point.

Here's the thing, with almost any other game the movie analogy wouldn't fit. MGS4 is one of the few games that attempts to be more like a movie. In a movie, during it, you shouldn't want be wanting to go anywhere. You should be fully immersed in what's going on. Even games like Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of WORDS WORDS WORDS don't make you long to get away from the cutscenes. This is the problem with them, they make you long for them to end. That shouldn't be popping up. You should be going, "Metal gear." "Metal gear?" "Metal gear!" "Bugger me!" As for skipping the movie and doing something else, yes, yes you can. You can skip it, play the game based on it, then go back to the movie. It's going to have the same feel as MGS4, part game, part movie, all clusterfuck!

It's not getting to me, I just descend to insult level when people go all stupid on me. I'm in no way actually irked by what people state. The amount of insults in a post just describes my respect for the person I'm attempting to converse with. Let's put it this way, you're below Indigo_Dingo and miles above Terra, god rest that 'tards soul wherever she may be.

You did, I respond to each paragraph written, in the order presented. As for other posters, separate them from each other in some way, it's not hard. Respond one by one....aaaand now back to GTA3. Look, the idea presented was that universal appeal is something that can exist. While only tangentially related to the conversation at the time, I used Tolkien as an example of something that shows a form of universal appeal in an attempt to promote the idea of objectivity.

...Oye. The point, again, flies over your head...again...I was talking about the cutscene heavy gameplay. I was leagues away from the "Stealth game derp derp derp" part of the argument. I even reference the cutscenes. What more do you want for me to put you on the right track? Hell, I'll hop back to it just for you, why not? The idea is that the choices it gives you go to such an extent that there isn't a penalty for doing something incorrectly. If you screw up on stealth, you don't die in a hail of gunfire and you're generally not that troubled. You're now slightly inconvenienced. Where's the draw to be stealthy? Where's the pulse pounding, paranoid twitching associated with being one bad step away from failure? There's no reason to ever do it that way, and even if you go that route, it isn't the same. Here's an idea, try to be stealthy in God of War. Now, I know that's not the point of the game, but bear with me. The feeling is the same. You try to be stealthy, sneak around, and suddenly you're in the middle of a fight. Oh well, guess I've got to kill them in a horribly violent way before I can go slink off back into the shadows. Same deal with MGS4. You screw up and all you have to deal with is what you would have had to deal with if you decided to run around like a dork.

Aaaaand we have the point I was getting at before. The game isn't supposed to be doing this. You even recognize it as a problem. Why is there a debate over this? Even the people who like the game are saying things like that. It indicates that the game is, in fact, doing something wrong.

I'm not defending him, I'm simply making a clarifying statement. Service and Fanservice are two different things, hence the reason for the comment. Oh, and just because you'd be all for a half-assed, fanservice out the wazoo job doesn't mean it would be good. It would just mean you'd like it. I have nothing against this, I, once again, just take issue with people saying that these likes of theirs are a good thing. You don't hear people who love "The Bouncer" attempting to defend it, do you?...Okay, I'm guessing SOME are, but the idea is that likes and dislikes alone do not denote somethings worth. Perhaps it's worth to YOU, but not it's worth as a whole.

The feelings I'm referring to are...let's put it this way. I like MGS3. I enjoy it like hell and found the end to be one of the most touching moments in a video game ever...This doesn't mean the game itself didn't have flaws, such as a plot that's borked out the ass, some truly terrible dialog, and overly long cutscenes. All this aside, I still love the game. I just realize the thing has flaws. That's the objectivity I'm talking about, the ability to look at something and ignore that niggling little voice inside that demands that the object of affection be validated purely because of personal taste.

To Aries_Split.

The point in debating it is that I'm attempting to get people to see things differently. I have not, EVEN ONCE, said that you shouldn't like something. In fact, I've stated that YOU SHOULD LIKE WHATEVER YOU LIKE, FOR WHATEVER REASON!!!11!1! I have however stated that your likes and dislikes do not denote quality. Do not confuse the two. I know ideas in general are scary and foreign to you, but try to at least understand that.

You seem to be running on cruise stupid, so let's get this straight. We're on an internet forum. For those of you too thick to know what a "forum" is, let me call up my good friend Webster.

"b: a public meeting place for open discussion c: a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas"

That translates to "you're a retard"

Let's get something straight here chief, unlike you, I know a thing or two about a thing or two. If you can't grasp why people are discussing things in a place designed for discussion, well then you just won the "stupid person in this thread" award. Considering some of the other special people around here, that's fairly impressive. Oh, and since other people seem to be relenting to the ideas I put forth, just as I relent to theirs, it means we're making headway. We're starting to agree on certain things. If we continue, the idea is that we reach a sort of understanding. An understanding that doesn't go something along the lines of "Everything is good because it's all opinion, maaaaaan."...Damn hippies.

...Also, how does it portray it as being idiotic? Did you even SEE that movie? Even by Adam West era standards it was painful. It's been hailed as one of the worst movies of all time. That's why I used it. Christ you're stupid.

 

[adafuns]

AWESOMENESS

Awesome Post is Awesome.

Also, if all the metal gear solid 4 fans are running around enjoying there game, why is it the Gears of War and Halo fanatics can't simply leave them alone? Instead they feel the need to criticize the game they love.

You know what? Who gives a flying fuck? At the end of the day, the MGS4 fans will still be having an awesome fucking time playing one of the greatest games ever made, and the haters will be scratching their heads, wondering why.

yea i hate halo's hype, though ive never played gears of war so i wont say anything.

msg series are one of my favorate videogame series ever. i love the characters, the story, and gameplay. yea its an interactive movie, and i like that, i like the long cut scenes and i like massive dialog.

i however do not like tediously long cut scenes and repetitive dialog. yes i am a msg fanboy who is dissapointed with msg4. the movie scenes were boring and not just because they are long but mainly because its repetitive as hell. never in the other previous msg games did i feel like skipping the cut scenes. man sometimes with the other games i play it several times and watch the cut scenes all over again.

yes the haters are scratching their heads wondering why you cannot see the faults in this game, and the answer to this is because most of the people who are defending the game are fanboys and fanboys come up with excuses to try to justify the faults in the game. i would know i am one sometimes, and they would not like to admit it but i bet these "haters" are fanboys of their own but for other things. i do the same things to the things i love. i try to think of excuses but in the end i just have to admit it that.......this sucks.

look, i like the story for mgs4, i like its clusterfuck and movie crap but, the damn game needs a good editing. fucking tedious and i know i myself am starting to also sound like that by pressing the subject but the damn game's cut scenes are ridiculous. the scene where meryl and her army are surrounding liquid, ohh it was cool........for the first 2 minutes of it then i was like " alright i get it, they are surrounded. i can see that!!!!". just one of the many examples that bothered me. if this game has some good editing this game would easily be one of the best games of all time(also a bit more gameplay wouldnt hurt).

edit to say:

tempdude, the game is tactical espionage action, not stealth. thief is a stealth game, if he gets caught, well hes no warrior. but msg is about using the best option in the situation. i dont think the creaters of the game ever said it was a stealth game, but i think the gamers just assumed thats the genre its in. is there even a thing as genres any more? games are getting to complex to be labeled easily.

 

[Copter400]

To everyone on this thread who has been arguing, for or against MGS4:

Man up, Nancy, it's just a fracken' review.

 

[Tempdude0]

tempdude, the game is tactical espionage action, not stealth. thief is a stealth game, if he gets caught, well hes no warrior. but msg is about using the best option in the situation. i dont think the creaters of the game ever said it was a stealth game, but i think the gamers just assumed thats the genre its in. is there even a thing as genres any more? games are getting to complex to be labeled easily.

It would be fair to think that, but it's literally in the title. Yes, I realize "stealth" isn't, but since espionage is, and I quote:

the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

It's fair to say the game is saying you'll be doing something stealthy, hence the act of spying. As for the genre issue, most games fall into multiple genres. The thing I was taking issue with was that it classified ITSELF as a "tactical, espionage" game and failed to deliver on the espionage aspect. Had it not tossed it into the title, I wouldn't even be talking about it. I'm not entirely sure why that aspect of my rant was picked up on really, considering I just took issue with their poor word choice.

Also, to the dude one post up, we've moved beyond referencing the review and have gone into just debating aspects of the game itself...Aside from the random 'tard or two, that is.

 

[Copter400]

Also, to the dude one post up, we've moved beyond referencing the review and have gone into just debating aspects of the game itself...Aside from the random 'tard or two, that is.

Oh, thank god. I thought you were all just whining. Pardon me. I'll show myself out.

 

[Sandoggg]

Perhaps this is too hard a concept to grasp. I already stated that I dislike them calling a game with a few stealth elements a "stealth game" I don't care about freedom to go off to west Wilshire and butt fuck some guy with a dagger, provided there is an element of stealth to it. At least a large portion of a game should be devoted to the genre in which it categorizes itself. A point and click game is not a first person shooter. A driving simulator is not an adventure game. MGS is not a stealth game. Get it through your thick skull, a game that locks you into a mode of play that IT HYPES ITSELF AS LOCKING YOU INTO isn't a bad thing. I'm not even saying it has to do it 60% of the time. Hell, I think I'd be fine with about 50/50 or perhaps even less. All I'm saying is that it isn't a stealth game. As for the other games, they weren't stealthy either. The closest I've seen to "stealth" is that bit in MGS 3 where you run around without weapons...and by stealth, I mean run like a retard through the base, soaking up bullets like you've got the healing factor of Wolverine. This isn't stealth. You're not even arguing that it IS stealth any more. You seem to have prattled off on a tangent about other games DESIGNED to have you faff about.

Alright, we?re coming to some ridiculous conclusions but here?s an attempt.
Metal Gear Solid 4, [Tactical Espionage Action]: Guns of Liberty, is a game that is not only fails to center around the idea of espionage action, but is a better game because of it.

Thus one of it?s fundamental ?flaws? becomes one of it?s biggest assets. That?s how I feel, I didn?t particularly enjoy playing naked Raided in MGS2, and I can?t for the life of me remember a scene in MGS3 where Naked (but not that way) Snake had to survive without weapons besides the first ten minutes or so. If you choose to, and many people do, you can turn this into a stealth espionage action game, but I suppose it could be a flaw that you really have to concentrate to make it a espionage action game. The fact remains that people do complete the game getting the Big Boss emblem, meaning that they were stealthy bastards indeed.

Sadomasochistic jokes aside, you're running another fallacy. Just because people like shit doesn't validate it. In fact, going back to that cheap shot, many people love sadomasochism and body mutilation. Does that mean it's a good thing? I somehow doubt it...In fact, I know it's not good. We all know it's not good. Even the people who enjoy it realize that it isn't a good thing, they just like it too much to care.

I agree that just people like shit doesn?t validate it, however what percentage of the sexually active population enjoy S&M, and what percentage of the people that went out and bought MGS4 actually enjoy it? Sorry, I?m still not accepting it.

If a big sign comes up during gameplay and says, with accompanying voice "YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME! THIS ISN'T REALLY HAPPENING AND THESE ARE JUST MADE UP CHARACTERS! YOU ARE NOW BREATHING MANUALLY!" then it's just opinion that it breaks the immersion. Yes, some people could ignore this, but that makes it no less blatant and no less disruptive.

So it?s blatant, and disruptive to some. Who knows, maybe it was their intention to break immersion. I?m sure you?ve read the little messages of advice while installing sections of the game.. Kojima might honestly think video games are unhealthy. Nevertheless, I?ll accept your verdict, stating again that I enjoy said ?disruptions?.

Uh, no, it's badly hodgepoged together...and INEVITABLE means I was expecting another double agent shtick because he's already done it FOUR BLOODY TIMES! It's nothing new, and aside from making even less sense than the others it doesn't stand out as "complex"

Ocelot is the only character to appear in all MGS games, and he is probably the hardest person to figure out. MGS2 was probably the most confusing game, and Ocelot really didn?t help. You didn?t know whose side he was on, how much he know about what, who was even in control. Thankfully, we have had two games since then to develop understanding for his character. I suppose in theory that if the first three games weren?t so confusing, then there wouldn?t have been so many cutscenes in 4 devoted to explaining everything.

Fine, whatever. I give up on the badass thing. Some people find hello kitty pants-wettingly horrifying, so I'll let this part slide. I still believe there's a way to gauge how ridiculous something looks, but since I can't actually come up with it, I'll concede that it's possible to interpret him as being awesome. You win on that point.

Cool.. just curious, which villain(s) from MGS did you find the most menacing in terms of looks?

You did, I respond to each paragraph written, in the order presented. As for other posters, separate them from each other in some way, it's not hard. Respond one by one....aaaand now back to GTA3. Look, the idea presented was that universal appeal is something that can exist. While only tangentially related to the conversation at the time, I used Tolkien as an example of something that shows a form of universal appeal in an attempt to promote the idea of objectivity.

Are you really critiquing the manner in which I reply to posters? Lol, I daresay I take more steps than you do, quoting paragraphs one at a time, original poster included, before writing a response to it.
I think we both believe that complete universal appeal is impossible.

The idea is that the choices it gives you go to such an extent that there isn't a penalty for doing something incorrectly. If you screw up on stealth, you don't die in a hail of gunfire and you're generally not that troubled. You're now slightly inconvenienced. Where's the draw to be stealthy? Where's the pulse pounding, paranoid twitching associated with being one bad step away from failure? There's no reason to ever do it that way, and even if you go that route, it isn't the same. Here's an idea, try to be stealthy in God of War. Now, I know that's not the point of the game, but bear with me. The feeling is the same. You try to be stealthy, sneak around, and suddenly you're in the middle of a fight. Oh well, guess I've got to kill them in a horribly violent way before I can go slink off back into the shadows. Same deal with MGS4. You screw up and all you have to deal with is what you would have had to deal with if you decided to run around like a dork.

When I went through the game in which I got both the bandanna and the stealth camo, every time an enemy got an ?!? above his/her head, it meant exit to main menu and go again from my last save. Albeit I did that run on ?liquid easy? because I didn?t want to go insane from failures(I have looked at guides for getting the Big Boss emblem and there was a warning saying getting this emblem may result in your never wanting to play this game again..). So in response to your claim that ?There?s no reason to ever do it that way,? I say that if you are going to a reward that REQUIRES it, then yes, there is indeed a reason. If you are an average gamer and are going to put MGS4 away on a shelf after your first time beating it, there is no reason. If you enjoy the game enough to try and master it, you are going to have to do a lot of challenging, annoying things.

Aaaaand we have the point I was getting at before. The game isn't supposed to be doing this. You even recognize it as a problem. Why is there a debate over this? Even the people who like the game are saying things like that. It indicates that the game is, in fact, doing something wrong.

See, quotes do indeed help. I write my responses in Word because I can?t deal with the small reply box, and I?m too lazy to go back and see what you?re referring to. You win this one, whatever it was.

And for the record? I thought the Bouncer was cool lol. Quirky, and the last boss fight got annoying, especially once you had to fight him four times, but I had fun and thought the multiplayer was cool too.

The feelings I'm referring to are...let's put it this way. I like MGS3. I enjoy it like hell and found the end to be one of the most touching moments in a video game ever...This doesn't mean the game itself didn't have flaws, such as a plot that's borked out the ass, some truly terrible dialog, and overly long cutscenes. All this aside, I still love the game. I just realize the thing has flaws. That's the objectivity I'm talking about, the ability to look at something and ignore that niggling little voice inside that demands that the object of affection be validated purely because of personal taste.

I agree that the bosses in MGS3 were much more creative and awesome than the bosses of MGS4? except the for epic REX vs RAY fight.. and the last boss fight which is amazing as well.. the BB Corps simply can?t compare to Cobra Unit. Personally, the biggest flaw (and the only one that I can remember)
By the way, in that Adam West Batman movie, were they trying to make it so bad it was funny, or did that just happen? It seems so over the top, so ridiculous, so terrible that they just HAD to do it on purpose? sigh. I think this is another case of ignorance is bliss? I really don?t want to know.. I?m just going to keep pretending. And yes, I own the movie. Best $5 I ever spent??

 

[Tempdude0]

...It's like people aren't even reading what I'm writing. I never said that aspect of it was a positive or negative in terms of how it affected gameplay. All I said was I dislike that it's referred to as one. That's it, the whole shebang. The entirety of that particular complaint was just that I disliked them calling it something it isn't. Why is this aspect even still being talked about. It was barely even in reference to the game. I just said the game hyped itself as something it wasn't. That the misdirection wasn't something to be admired. Stop trying to defend the damn game so hard and read what was written...and the part I'm referring to is immediately after Snake lost his eye and had to faff around on the base while attempting to get his items back.

If you agree that it's a fallacy, and that peoples love of something doesn't validate it, why does MORE people liking it suddenly make it do a 180 and become acceptable? More of the same thing is just that, more. Why does more of something make a fallacy less of a fallacy? Is there a magic point at which "more" transcends fallacy, a particular amount where it turns around and people go "Oh, it just hit that particular number. Guess fallacious arguments no longer apply, eh wot?"

...Thank you. That's all I've been going for. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy things, just that you should see them for what they are.

That's cool and all, but you dodged my point. Actually, scratch that, you added to it. The games, when put down in black and white with simple explanations still manage to pervert logic. That's what I was going for, and if I need a solid example of stupid writing, here's one. Possessed arm is actually hypnotism and nanobots.

None. I can't take any of them seriously because if they're not trotting out in some fashion reject uniform, they're making laughable speeches and are generally acting like twats. Not the scary kind either, the annoying kind. Every person meant to be intimidating came off as either goofy or "meh".

No, I'm not critiquing, I'm pointing out that there shouldn't be any confusion. It's forum posting. If all else fails, look back up on the page. I'd quote things directly, but it's not worth it. It's just as easy to respond to each paragraph as it comes up. In fact, I'd almost be happier if people stopped using the quotes. As for universal appeal, that depends on how one would define it...though yes, as far as video games go, there really isn't ever going to be universal appeal because of their very nature.

Yes, but that requires you to be a hardcore fan, or at least OCD for rewards. The point is that, during normal gameplay, there isn't any reason to be stealthy nor is there any consequence for not doing it. The rewards, being part of those nifty extra things I've mentioned, shouldn't have a bearing on gameplay unless specifically trying for them. The average game jockey isn't up for getting AWESOME REWARDS! and as such things of that nature shouldn't be counted. Just like the difficulty settings, we go for the baseline average, not the enthusiast.

"Not many families let you skip your vegetables. MGS4 tried to interrupt me from playing and I punched it in the stomach, and ran into the next room. MGS4 used to stop me with new and interesting dialogs but now they're something I don't quite mind missing."

I was responding to that. Since I respond to each paragraph WITH a paragraph, you can treat my writing as if it's numbered. The point was that the game was "interrupting" you...And the bouncer is a terrible game. I may like it, but it runs the gamut of "doing shit wrong"

In the Adam West era, Batman was being based on "golden age" comics. The goofy, laughable comics that you see at superdickery.com and places like that. So yes, it was intentionally over the top...Dear lord I hope you're not referring to "Batman and Robin" as the best $5 you've ever spent. If so, that's terribly sad.

 

[Sandoggg]

...It's like people aren't even reading what I'm writing. I never said that aspect of it was a positive or negative in terms of how it affected gameplay. All I said was I dislike that it's referred to as one. That's it, the whole shebang. The entirety of that particular complaint was just that I disliked them calling it something it isn't. Why is this aspect even still being talked about. It was barely even in reference to the game. I just said the game hyped itself as something it wasn't. That the misdirection wasn't something to be admired. Stop trying to defend the damn game so hard and read what was written...and the part I'm referring to is immediately after Snake lost his eye and had to faff around on the base while attempting to get his items back.

Alright, well I suppose we?ll put the close on this one as well. I suppose we?re at a point of agreement, but.. I suppose it?s more so a point of clarification. I had always thought that this was one of your listed ?MGS4 flaws?, so I spent my time trying convince you it wasn?t..

If you agree that it's a fallacy, and that peoples love of something doesn't validate it, why does MORE people liking it suddenly make it do a 180 and become acceptable? More of the same thing is just that, more. Why does more of something make a fallacy less of a fallacy? Is there a magic point at which "more" transcends fallacy, a particular amount where it turns around and people go "Oh, it just hit that particular number. Guess fallacious arguments no longer apply, eh wot?"

Just saying that at some point, you have to stop and wonder why so many people disagree with you. I?m sure that this has happened to everyone at least a couple times in their lives, when they have something that they believe to be true, whether it be a date on a schedule, some random fact, or whatever, and everyone they talk to claims something else. And of course, in the end, they were all right. The same thing could be happening here. Now stop trying to trick me into agreeing that this is a fallacy lol. You?re making assumptions I don?t agree with so we?re not even arguing on the same terms at the moment.

That's cool and all, but you dodged my point. Actually, scratch that, you added to it. The games, when put down in black and white with simple explanations still manage to pervert logic. That's what I was going for, and if I need a solid example of stupid writing, here's one. Possessed arm is actually hypnotism and nanobots.

I think it?s a bit weirder than that. I?m still trying to figure ocelot out.
?
Liquid Ocelot's personality was actually nothing more than the manmade product
of Revolver Ocelot's own drug use and autosuggestion.

Revolver Ocelot played the part of Liquid Ocelot in order to awaken Big Boss,
who had been kept in a comatose state by the Patriots' AI collective, to find
the whereabouts of Zero. He posed as a Liquid Snake doppelganger in order to
hide those intentions from the core AI, JD.

Once he had destroyed JD from the inside, his mission as Liquid Ocelot was
over. When his life was subsequently claimed by FOXDIE, he died as Revolver
Ocelot himself.?

None. I can't take any of them seriously because if they're not trotting out in some fashion reject uniform, they're making laughable speeches and are generally acting like twats. Not the scary kind either, the annoying kind. Every person meant to be intimidating came off as either goofy or "meh".

That?s too bad =\
I think my favorite was Vulcan Raven in terms of awesomeness. I guess most of them do lack that intimidation factor. There are no larger than life bosses in MGS, save for the Metal Gears themselves.

No, I'm not critiquing, I'm pointing out that there shouldn't be any confusion. It's forum posting. If all else fails, look back up on the page. I'd quote things directly, but it's not worth it. It's just as easy to respond to each paragraph as it comes up. In fact, I'd almost be happier if people stopped using the quotes. As for universal appeal, that depends on how one would define it...though yes, as far as video games go, there really isn't ever going to be universal appeal because of their very nature.

Well, I was trying to point out that you said my posts were unclear, whereas in my humble opinion, mine are more organized than yours. Again, opinions =P
Can?t get away from ?em.

Yes, but that requires you to be a hardcore fan, or at least OCD for rewards. The point is that, during normal gameplay, there isn't any reason to be stealthy nor is there any consequence for not doing it. The rewards, being part of those nifty extra things I've mentioned, shouldn't have a bearing on gameplay unless specifically trying for them. The average game jockey isn't up for getting AWESOME REWARDS! and as such things of that nature shouldn't be counted. Just like the difficulty settings, we go for the baseline average, not the enthusiast.

Getting the stealth camo and bandanna are reasonable tasks, especially since, as I said, you can do them on any difficulty. But yes, the emblems are truly a *****. Generally.

"Not many families let you skip your vegetables. MGS4 tried to interrupt me from playing and I punched it in the stomach, and ran into the next room. MGS4 used to stop me with new and interesting dialogs but now they're something I don't quite mind missing."

I was responding to that. Since I respond to each paragraph WITH a paragraph, you can treat my writing as if it's numbered. The point was that the game was "interrupting" you...And the bouncer is a terrible game. I may like it, but it runs the gamut of "doing shit wrong"

alright, the game interrupts you. Not many games are completely free of interruption from the time you turn on the system to the time you turn it off, and yes, MGS4 does it more than average, but it is a common flaw and one I have managed to work my way around. So I suppose in essence, yes, you win. The bouncer was good when I was in 8th grade anyway. Entertaining enough..

In the Adam West era, Batman was being based on "golden age" comics. The goofy, laughable comics that you see at superdickery.com and places like that. So yes, it was intentionally over the top...Dear lord I hope you're not referring to "Batman and Robin" as the best $5 you've ever spent. If so, that's terribly sad.

Lol, well I suppose that?s an acceptable explanation. And yes, I was saying that, although I wasn?t exactly serious about it. I do not, however, have any regrets about spending $5 on it. Other movies I?ve spent $5 on: Escape from New York, Riki-Oh: the Story of Ricky. And probably others that I can?t remember.

 

[Tempdude0]

...You essentially said it was a fallacy yourself, no tricking required there. As for the "so many people disagree with you" route, that just brings up the same old problems. Enough people like ANYTHING, that if one were to go by popular opinion than every single thing in the world would be awesome with sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and everything that's wonderful.

Going into his motivations isn't really the bad writing part...But what they hey, why not. Yes, all that is correct, and by god it's some of the loopiest writing I've ever run into. Even streamlined it's kicking suspension of disbelief upside the head. Oh, and you forgot the part where the original idea was that Liquids arm was taking over as a second personality because of Ocelots Parentage. Because of his father being the Sorrow, it was believed he had psychic powers and it was as a result of these that the second personality manifested itself through the graft....Which, incidentally, he ditched later on for an actual replacement. One wonders why no one picked up on that.

See, I'll agree that the Metal Gears can be intimidating, but I'm guessing that's only because they can't speak. Every villain that had the opportunity to be truly imposing killed the chance by opening their mouths. Thankfully, Kojima didn't go the "smart robot" route with those things.

I never said they were unclear. I was wondering why you were referencing things not actually related to what was being written. That's not you being unclear, that's you being disorganized. Incidentally, the only difference between our two posting styles is that you choose to use quotes.

And that's what I was getting at. Aside from the perks that you get that relate to being a fan, the casual player isn't going to care much. In fact, odds are good they won't even know about some of the extras because they can't be arsed to check.

Common flaw aside, yeah, I was getting at it doing it constantly. Interruption here and there is to be expected, but in the best games those "interruptions" aren't seen as such because they're handled well. As for the bouncer, go back and replay it at some point. It's entertaining enough, kinda...It just, well, you'd have to replay it.

That's terrible...At least Snake was an interesting character, so I can see that purchase. Though I have no idea what Riki-Oh is, despite it sounding familiar. To wikipedia/imdb I suppose.

 

[bluemarsman]

These posts have too many words. ONE THOUSAND!!!!11

 

[Tempdude0]

These posts have too many words. ONE THOUSAND!!!!11

Yeah, I know. I mean like, holy shit, paragraphs! What the hell is that?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

This guy said it all.

Wow, all the long-ass monologues are rubbing off on its fans.

 

[gasto]

I agree with some posters here, in that games should be more "interactive movie" than "game/movie". The MGS saga seems to follow the latter.

I haven't played MGS4, but seen the beginning of it, and right from the beginning you are presented with ~25 minutes of cutscenes, and that is plain bad game design.

When I think, "I want to play a game", I am thinking of interacting, not watching. If I just want to watch, I think of movies/videos.

The MGS saga is excellent, you just have to get acquainted with the long cutscenes.

A more interactive and thus better game could have been created with the same budget and talent, by turning most cutscenes into interactive scenes.

 

[Sandoggg]

...You essentially said it was a fallacy yourself, no tricking required there. As for the "so many people disagree with you" route, that just brings up the same old problems. Enough people like ANYTHING, that if one were to go by popular opinion than every single thing in the world would be awesome with sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and everything that's wonderful.

I?m not talking straight numbers, I?m talking ratios. And the fact that this is more along the lines of an opinion argument just makes it stronger.

Going into his motivations isn't really the bad writing part...But what they hey, why not. Yes, all that is correct, and by god it's some of the loopiest writing I've ever run into. Even streamlined it's kicking suspension of disbelief upside the head. Oh, and you forgot the part where the original idea was that Liquids arm was taking over as a second personality because of Ocelots Parentage. Because of his father being the Sorrow, it was believed he had psychic powers and it was as a result of these that the second personality manifested itself through the graft....Which, incidentally, he ditched later on for an actual replacement. One wonders why no one picked up on that.

Indeed.. I?m doing more research. And by that I mean talking with a friend who thinks he knows what?s going on. I?ll get back to you at some point.

See, I'll agree that the Metal Gears can be intimidating, but I'm guessing that's only because they can't speak. Every villain that had the opportunity to be truly imposing killed the chance by opening their mouths. Thankfully, Kojima didn't go the "smart robot" route with those things.

What did you think of the MGS bosses? For the most part they didn?t talk too much. Sniper Wolf was an interesting character, and as I?ve stated Vulcan Raven has been one of my favorites for a while. The fight with The Boss might not have been as dramatic as the one with Ocelot, but? idk. I?m not sure which one was better. They were both epic.

I never said they were unclear. I was wondering why you were referencing things not actually related to what was being written. That's not you being unclear, that's you being disorganized. Incidentally, the only difference between our two posting styles is that you choose to use quotes.

You?re lucky, I?m actually looking back a couple posts for something?
Alright, here?s what you said,
?and if the game/movie/book is truly great, even those who don't enjoy it can look upon it and go "Yeah, it's not my thing, but dammit...It's well done."?
And here?s what I said,
?Parents everywhere were cringing as GTA3 came into their homes. No one likes everything.?
As I said, GTA was on my mind and it was a good example of a game parents love to hate. I doubt they?d look beyond the car stealing and muggings long enough to say that GTA3 was ?well done?.

And that's what I was getting at. Aside from the perks that you get that relate to being a fan, the casual player isn't going to care much. In fact, odds are good they won't even know about some of the extras because they can't be arsed to check.

They SHOULD know about stealth camo and the bandanna? they were basic rewards in the first game, and have been obtainable in some way in every game so far. Unless MGS4 is their first game and they don?t know how to use the internet, those two items should be known. But whatever. This is not an argument.

Common flaw aside, yeah, I was getting at it doing it constantly. Interruption here and there is to be expected, but in the best games those "interruptions" aren't seen as such because they're handled well. As for the bouncer, go back and replay it at some point. It's entertaining enough, kinda...It just, well, you'd have to replay it.

I?ll consider replaying it sometime haha. First I?ve had the urge to play MGS 1 2 and 3. I don?t even have a PS or PS2 with me atm though?

That's terrible...At least Snake was an interesting character, so I can see that purchase. Though I have no idea what Riki-Oh is, despite it sounding familiar. To wikipedia/imdb I suppose.

Riki-Oh.. amazing. In that terrible way, of course. Where did you research take you?

 

[Doug]

Walls of text...Brain...willing self...to die...

I find it somewhat ironic in a debate about lengthly non-interactive sections (i.e. Cut scenes) we have these bloated text walls (i.e. lengthly non-interactive sections).

 

[Tempdude0]

Ratios fall under straight numbers. Where do you think a ratio would come from?

Just hit up the Metal Gear Wiki/Ocelot on wikipedia. It breaks it down as far as it can go...Which is sad, because in the plainest words it's still balls up.

I'll use MGS3 as an example because I'm more familiar with that...And by that I mean I've actually gone through it myself in addition to watching others play it. The Boss is as close as it gets to intimidating, but since she essentially expects you to kill her that aspect falls flat. Volgin grabs Snakes testicles in a manner NOT intended as torture, which, while creepy, isn't all that scary. That and all the monologuing he did. The Sorrow floats about and makes you feel bad. The Pain is bees, my god. The Fury, yeah, the outfit just kills any fear the flamethrower may cause. The End is crippled. I can't feel intimidated by a man in a wheelchair. Ocelot meows. All of them lose any intimidation due to either goofy outfit or monologues. Or, in the case of Ocelot, goofy outfit, goofy monologue, and he meows. Honestly man, that's like the antithesis of intimidating.

Fair enough, though the problem there is that GTA, all of them, aren't really "well done" I may enjoy them, but a children's wading pool puts their depth to shame. That said, GTA falls under the "games not being able to have universal appeal" thing. Either way, the reason I said disorganized was because you had originally referenced GTA in response to another person and had tossed it in the middle of a response to me. I was under the impression that you had somehow gotten mixed up again.

Let me clarify, I didn't mean stuff like that. I mean, say, getting the camo by tranquilizing all the bosses/not getting noticed/hitting all those frog things. I was referencing the crazy ass perks. Once again, just clarifying.

Sounds kind of like Fist of the North Star.

To Doug

In what way is it non-interactive? You're posting your idiocy, it can't be that non-interactive....Also, yes, ironic, if the word meant that.

1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity

Because this discussion is TOTALLY ironic...God people are stupid.

 

[Ryuuken]

In all honesty. I don't see why everyone throws a shit-fit over what Yahtzee says over certain games. You know you'll like it and no one will tell you otherwise. His reviews are more for humor appeal than critical review.

I'm one of the biggest MGS fans, and found this review to be hilarious. Even though I pointed some things out, I still found it hilarious.

Main Point: Don't take what Yahtzee says so seriously.