THE PATRIOTS!Indigo_Dingo said:
I must applaud you guys, 22 pages already is quite impressive.
Zero Punctuation: Metal Gear Solid 4
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I must applaud you guys, 22 pages already is quite impressive.
I'd say this shit is becoming somewhat bananas... some of us like MGS4, some of us don't and some of us, myself included, wish Hideo Kojima would insert his head up the anus of the nearest donkey... I guess some conflicts will never be resolved, especially on Internet forums.
YES, now you understand. I still don't get why you emphasized MGS having bad writing just because it was set in an ALTERNATe reality...or maybe it is our own reality with the Patriots covering it all up. After all, they have done it before....THE PATRIOTS DID IT!mspencer82 said:
I'm fairly sure that he was referring to it as a catchall. In other words, take anything not clearly explained in Star Wars and it's "uh...the Force, lol." and in this game it's "Uh...Nanomachines did it, lol" As it stands, catchalls aren't exactly the bees knees when it comes to writing because it leaves room for the writer to get exceedingly lazy in their explanations.
For the record, I don't believe anyone said it had bad writing based on it being in another reality, they said it had bad writing wholly based on the merits and flaws of the writings themselves, hence the lack of comments about cyborgs and crazy people with powers not existing. We accept that there's a reasonable level of unbelievability. Since the world is set up to run as though these things exist we excuse them. It's when things go beyond suspension of disbelief that issues arise. Take the Superman movie. Spoilers if you haven't seen it.
"Alright, we've got a guy who's super strong, can fly, has LAZER EYES! and is nigh invulnerable. He can do this because he's a Kryptonian, an alien, and he gains these amazing abilities from our sun. His weakness is kryptonite. It saps his strength and makes him loose all superhuman abilities. How much there is can affect how fast it works as well. The more there is, the faster it works."
"Alright, I guess I can work with that...But here he's lifting an island riddled with kryptonite, some of the crystals being larger than his body, and flying it off the planet. I thought it weakened him."
"Well, it does...But not this time."
"Why?"
"Uh...Kryponian, lol."
For the record, I don't believe anyone said it had bad writing based on it being in another reality, they said it had bad writing wholly based on the merits and flaws of the writings themselves, hence the lack of comments about cyborgs and crazy people with powers not existing. We accept that there's a reasonable level of unbelievability. Since the world is set up to run as though these things exist we excuse them. It's when things go beyond suspension of disbelief that issues arise. Take the Superman movie. Spoilers if you haven't seen it.
"Alright, we've got a guy who's super strong, can fly, has LAZER EYES! and is nigh invulnerable. He can do this because he's a Kryptonian, an alien, and he gains these amazing abilities from our sun. His weakness is kryptonite. It saps his strength and makes him loose all superhuman abilities. How much there is can affect how fast it works as well. The more there is, the faster it works."
"Alright, I guess I can work with that...But here he's lifting an island riddled with kryptonite, some of the crystals being larger than his body, and flying it off the planet. I thought it weakened him."
"Well, it does...But not this time."
"Why?"
"Uh...Kryponian, lol."
I'd almost be disappointed if this did not lead to a mailbag showdown 2. Still seems like people get to anal when Reviewers knock their game... lol
And I supposse that a parallel universe similar to our own is totally impossible, because it ignores the fundamental laws of MsSpencer82.mspencer82 said:
I'm not sure if Yahtzee will ever do a mailbag showdown 2. There are some stupid pro-MGS4 answers in this thread, but they aren't as numerous as those in the SSBB's thread. Either way, he could take advantage, make a video about it and get his paycheck, without actually answer any valid answer here.GlenRice41 said:
I don't see any relation between "decyborgification" and "nanomachines". Are you sure you're being critical and not just a little bitchy and childish?mspencer82 said:
The thing I find funny about catchalls is that they ALWAYS appear in sci-fi, always. Its more a matter of how obvious they are. A good example is star wars. The force is not the catchall most people think it is, they have a setup for how sabers would work and how hyperspace would work and so on, its just the whole "Well, its far more advanced" thing. Its the setting that happens in a futuristic era. In a way each bit of tech lends itself to helping justify the others. "Well they can repel away from a planets gravitational pull, so I can't imagine putting a cage around some plasma would be that hard" and so on. Problem is that for some people its just easier to see that more futuristic setting and accept the physics defying tech as OK because it seems so far away. MGS is set more in the here and now and as such it seems too close to home for some people to really accept that things may be diffrent. But that is why its fiction. Its all fantasy and you have to go into any work of fantasy with the mindset of 'well this is not real and you have to give it some leeway because of that when reading'. Truth is that any work of Sci-Fi is going to break the bonds of normalcy or else its not Sci-Fi. Having tech that may be impossible or highly improbable with what we know now is kind of the point regardless of what Era it is set in. MGS series is no more or less guilty of that than anything else, and the lack of understanding of genetics is no worse than, say, the lack of understanding for physics in most Star trek series.
Both of those anime were, in my opinion, brilliant. Its far more complex and interesting than the sitcom-style everything is always resolved easy to swollow fluff cartoons we usually get stateside. People need to stop mistaking their own dislike for more dry and complex writing as bad writing.haruvister said:
Reading the last update in FullyRamblomatic, I don't think he'll make a second review. "I'm not even going to explain why that shit pisses me off".Indigo_Dingo said:
Enders Game. There, a series with no catchalls, and as far as the "it's more advanced thing" they don't use that as often as you think. Have you read much of the expanded universe? The lightsabers aren't even plasma, I just said that because it's what they would realistically be, not KILLER LIGHT that inexplicably ends. Even ignoring that, all you're saying is that it falls victim to the same crappy writing that other series fall to. A catchall is NEVER a good thing...Regardless, my points have, once again, been ignored in leu of talking about something random only tangentially related. Not only that but...Wait, Star Trek physics? Aside from the first season they've attempted to at least be as close to correct as possible. Hell, they're anal retentive in that department. At least pick your references better, oye.
Also, and I hate to agree with Mr. "absence of logic" up there, but both Ghost in the Shell and Appleseed were well done. I can't say anything about the recent Appleseed, but as far as Gits and the first Appleseed are concerned they've both got the ability to tell an intricate plot similar to that of the MGS series. That said, at least Ghost in the Shell falls victim to similar problems that plagued the Metal Gear line. Exposition got over the top long at times and it required you to stretch your suspension of disbelief to some pretty absurd levels when concerning the laughing man. Despite this, boredom was never an issue and most dialog was important as opposed to "fluff that'd be nice to know but why dear god are you bringing it up now?"
To VeryOblivious, I'd have to agree. I doubt he'd make another review on this. With SSBB, the fans were rabid but most of the issues come down to personal opinion. If you don't like the controles or the characters seem to small or what have you, nothing can change that. It can't be explained away. There isn't any deus ex machina when it comes to gameplay problems. The MGS series has issues that can be pointed out that are objective. You can like something and still realize something has issues, but this isn't one of those cases. People who love the game can't be arsed to at least admit it has issues. Hell, as a fan of Kingdom Hearts, the Eragon book series, and numerous other "things with problems" I fail to see why they NEED it to be so awesome. Shit, why does your enjoyment need to be backed by THIS IS AWESOME AND HAS NO FLAWS! Why not just say "Yeah, it can be long and convoluted, and the gameplay may be off at times...but fuck it, I still love it." What's so difficult about that? Seriously, answer me that.
Also, and I hate to agree with Mr. "absence of logic" up there, but both Ghost in the Shell and Appleseed were well done. I can't say anything about the recent Appleseed, but as far as Gits and the first Appleseed are concerned they've both got the ability to tell an intricate plot similar to that of the MGS series. That said, at least Ghost in the Shell falls victim to similar problems that plagued the Metal Gear line. Exposition got over the top long at times and it required you to stretch your suspension of disbelief to some pretty absurd levels when concerning the laughing man. Despite this, boredom was never an issue and most dialog was important as opposed to "fluff that'd be nice to know but why dear god are you bringing it up now?"
To VeryOblivious, I'd have to agree. I doubt he'd make another review on this. With SSBB, the fans were rabid but most of the issues come down to personal opinion. If you don't like the controles or the characters seem to small or what have you, nothing can change that. It can't be explained away. There isn't any deus ex machina when it comes to gameplay problems. The MGS series has issues that can be pointed out that are objective. You can like something and still realize something has issues, but this isn't one of those cases. People who love the game can't be arsed to at least admit it has issues. Hell, as a fan of Kingdom Hearts, the Eragon book series, and numerous other "things with problems" I fail to see why they NEED it to be so awesome. Shit, why does your enjoyment need to be backed by THIS IS AWESOME AND HAS NO FLAWS! Why not just say "Yeah, it can be long and convoluted, and the gameplay may be off at times...but fuck it, I still love it." What's so difficult about that? Seriously, answer me that.
I love the expanded universe, but its more a matter of frustration at people for saying things are bad when they just don't get them. Its frustration to listen to people rant about how horrid the writing in something is because its too dry. And yes, every science fiction book, even enders game, uses catchalls. Every book works on theoretical and often incorrect assumptions about how physics work. I won't go into how sabers are supposed to work here, but I will say that its just frustrating to hear people say "Well the writing is long and I find it boring and it says alot of things that arn't just up front so its really bad". Do you kind of understand why its annoying? I'm sorry but EVERY Science fiction book works on assumptions to some extent.Tempdude0 said:
In the end though my argument is simply that people are mistaking fluff heavy writing for bad writing. Now if this was a D&D book I would be ticked off at alot of fluff, but overall I tend to think of good integration of a large amount of fluff is a GOOD thing. Its just not something everyone likes, but its not bad.
...I...Are, you you honestly that thick or are you just dicking around? The point is that the very things you love about it are the problems with it. You may love them to death, just like some Narutards love Sasuke, but your love of all things shitty doesn't mean it's good. It's just what you like.
There's my point. You like what can objectively be called "bad" or "trying" or "annoying" or whatever. Why not just admit it? I don't care if you like those aspects, believe me, I understand what it's like to enjoy something with problems, but I do care that people have to tout the things they love as being awesome and beyond reproach. Being good and being enjoyable mustn't always go hand in hand.
Why can't you admit you like the crappy aspects. No, don't tell me you love it and blah blah blah and that makes it good. It makes it ENJOYABLE and specifically to you/others who enjoy the same thing. Why must your love be contingent on it being good? With the exception of a few vocal people, most here, even OTHER FANS can admit to seeing the problems with this game. They can see the issues and still love it.
Why is it that Indigo_Dingo, Jumplion, TerraMGP and miscellanious people not on this page that I can't be arsed to go find must defend to the death these things as being great but only if your one of those people that "get" it. You know, a hip, jazzy, super cool, neat, keen, and groovy cat. It's in the fridge, daddy-o! Are you hip to the jive? Can you dig what I'm layin' down? I knew that you could. Slide me some skin, soul brother!
There's my point. You like what can objectively be called "bad" or "trying" or "annoying" or whatever. Why not just admit it? I don't care if you like those aspects, believe me, I understand what it's like to enjoy something with problems, but I do care that people have to tout the things they love as being awesome and beyond reproach. Being good and being enjoyable mustn't always go hand in hand.
Why can't you admit you like the crappy aspects. No, don't tell me you love it and blah blah blah and that makes it good. It makes it ENJOYABLE and specifically to you/others who enjoy the same thing. Why must your love be contingent on it being good? With the exception of a few vocal people, most here, even OTHER FANS can admit to seeing the problems with this game. They can see the issues and still love it.
Why is it that Indigo_Dingo, Jumplion, TerraMGP and miscellanious people not on this page that I can't be arsed to go find must defend to the death these things as being great but only if your one of those people that "get" it. You know, a hip, jazzy, super cool, neat, keen, and groovy cat. It's in the fridge, daddy-o! Are you hip to the jive? Can you dig what I'm layin' down? I knew that you could. Slide me some skin, soul brother!
just to poke a third party opinion.Tempdude0 said:
Why does your; inability to comprehend/taste/playing style Automatically mean a game is bad.
why do you feel the need to attack to death those things as being bad?
im off now, this thread reminds me of why i stay away from featured content.
I got the feeling that this review was more of a whine-fest than anything >.> Definitely not Yahtzee's best piece of work...
By the way, why the hell should we be re-introduced to Raiden? Even if he wears a ninja suit and can cut down Gears with a vibrating sword, his face still makes me want to just punch him in the face. And that voice... maybe its just the US version, but he makes me laugh in the worst way every time his mouth opens. In my opinion, any MGS game that has that retarded asschild in it will most certainly always have a certain bad taste in my mouth >.< If what everything's being said goes true, then I'll stick to MGS3:SE as my all-time favorite... there will never be another like the original Snake. Never.
Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been realized or not, but there's been a lot of dirty naming going on here
I mean, come on... Solid Snake, Liquid Snake, Solidius Snake, Naked Snake, and now we have Old Snake... Hell, why not just rename Raiden 'Trouser Snake' and finally give him a title that suits his actual level of intelligence?
By the way, why the hell should we be re-introduced to Raiden? Even if he wears a ninja suit and can cut down Gears with a vibrating sword, his face still makes me want to just punch him in the face. And that voice... maybe its just the US version, but he makes me laugh in the worst way every time his mouth opens. In my opinion, any MGS game that has that retarded asschild in it will most certainly always have a certain bad taste in my mouth >.< If what everything's being said goes true, then I'll stick to MGS3:SE as my all-time favorite... there will never be another like the original Snake. Never.
Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been realized or not, but there's been a lot of dirty naming going on here
I mean, come on... Solid Snake, Liquid Snake, Solidius Snake, Naked Snake, and now we have Old Snake... Hell, why not just rename Raiden 'Trouser Snake' and finally give him a title that suits his actual level of intelligence?Uh, never said the game was bad, just mediocre. If I did, I apologize, rectify said statement, and now clarify that I don't feel it was terrible. I feel the writing was bad though. I understand why some people like it. I stated I understand their enjoyment of it. I repeatedly stated I understand their enjoyment. I even went so far as to say I could relate. However, if I see people chuckling at monkeys throwing shit and the audience is comparing it favorably to D. H. Lawrence, I get miffed. They clearly aren't on the same level. One is D. H. fucking Lawrence and the other is monkeys flinging poo.
The same case is here, when a writer goes to egregious lengths to tell a story than that writing is bad...or at least mediocre. The good aspects of said story get lost in the sheer amount of information being thrown at the watcher/reader.
I attack these people because they nitpick what they'll respond to. If a person makes a statement and you're going to respond, attempt to work in most of what they've said, not a single sentence taken out of context. That's not debating and it boils down to an ego-wank. You can't ignore the context nor entire points for the sake of convenience if you're attempting to make a counter-point. Unless you're a politician, then it's par for the course.
As for staying away from featured comments, if I actually got a well reasoned response that took all points made into account and there was some attempt at an actual dialog I wouldn't make personal attacks. They don't add anything save to illustrate my lack of respect for people who keep taking pruning sheers to other peoples arguments.
You want a debate, fine and dandy, I love debates...But I'm not going to sit around and argue in a respectful tone with people who can't be bothered to respond to what people are ACTUALLY saying. It's pretty simple.
Oh, and Terra replied again. Goody...In order:
1) Do tell what the catchalls in Enders game are, I'm curious. Please, I'm not even being sarcastic this time. I'm honestly curious where you're picking this up.
2) I said nothing about assumptions, at least get what I'm saying straight. Well, you may be referring to my "suspension of disbelief" line, but then...thats what I said. Everything requires suspension of disbelief to a certain extent. It's when this suspension is stretched to the breaking point where things go sour.
3) ...You'd be ticked off at the writing if it was a book, but not a game? The book relating to D&D, the most fluff heavy thing I can think of in existance. That's confusing to the point I don't even WANT to know.
4) Do you read what I write or just catch a glimpse and go tangent mode?
That list would have been last post had I noticed your comments. Eh, c'est la vie. That said, the last one was pretty much entirely in response to Indigo_Dingo.
Oh, and trouser snake would have lent itself to way too many insufferable puns and penis jokes. Most people dislike the guy already, he doesn't need anything else terrible added to his character...Ha ha, thunder down under. There, that's a free one that could have been used if he had been called that...And now I need to wash.
The same case is here, when a writer goes to egregious lengths to tell a story than that writing is bad...or at least mediocre. The good aspects of said story get lost in the sheer amount of information being thrown at the watcher/reader.
I attack these people because they nitpick what they'll respond to. If a person makes a statement and you're going to respond, attempt to work in most of what they've said, not a single sentence taken out of context. That's not debating and it boils down to an ego-wank. You can't ignore the context nor entire points for the sake of convenience if you're attempting to make a counter-point. Unless you're a politician, then it's par for the course.
As for staying away from featured comments, if I actually got a well reasoned response that took all points made into account and there was some attempt at an actual dialog I wouldn't make personal attacks. They don't add anything save to illustrate my lack of respect for people who keep taking pruning sheers to other peoples arguments.
You want a debate, fine and dandy, I love debates...But I'm not going to sit around and argue in a respectful tone with people who can't be bothered to respond to what people are ACTUALLY saying. It's pretty simple.
Oh, and Terra replied again. Goody...In order:
1) Do tell what the catchalls in Enders game are, I'm curious. Please, I'm not even being sarcastic this time. I'm honestly curious where you're picking this up.
2) I said nothing about assumptions, at least get what I'm saying straight. Well, you may be referring to my "suspension of disbelief" line, but then...thats what I said. Everything requires suspension of disbelief to a certain extent. It's when this suspension is stretched to the breaking point where things go sour.
3) ...You'd be ticked off at the writing if it was a book, but not a game? The book relating to D&D, the most fluff heavy thing I can think of in existance. That's confusing to the point I don't even WANT to know.
4) Do you read what I write or just catch a glimpse and go tangent mode?
That list would have been last post had I noticed your comments. Eh, c'est la vie. That said, the last one was pretty much entirely in response to Indigo_Dingo.
Oh, and trouser snake would have lent itself to way too many insufferable puns and penis jokes. Most people dislike the guy already, he doesn't need anything else terrible added to his character...Ha ha, thunder down under. There, that's a free one that could have been used if he had been called that...And now I need to wash.
ok, lets just reply to these in kind.
1. Please tell me how you explain the tech in ANY Sci-Fi without ending up at a catchall. If nothing else you have the universal catchall of "well, its Science fiction". It may not always be clearly defined but honestly even in works like starwars 'the force' is only a fan-assumed catchall. My point is that unless you can explain ALL of the physics about it to a reasonable extent, then the assumption that things work is the catchall. Do you see what I am saying?
2. I'm asking why some works seem to create that much more suspension to you. At this point I would have to say its more of an objective thing than anything, how open your mind is willing to be and how well you know the subject matter. Thats more personal than a flaw with writing.
3. Because I pay for crunch with D&D books. If I am paying that kind of money for a game book I want the tools to write my OWN characters and campaigns and more crunch. Fluff in those cases beyond simple flavor text is really simply just filler in my mind.
4.Yes I do.
1. Please tell me how you explain the tech in ANY Sci-Fi without ending up at a catchall. If nothing else you have the universal catchall of "well, its Science fiction". It may not always be clearly defined but honestly even in works like starwars 'the force' is only a fan-assumed catchall. My point is that unless you can explain ALL of the physics about it to a reasonable extent, then the assumption that things work is the catchall. Do you see what I am saying?
2. I'm asking why some works seem to create that much more suspension to you. At this point I would have to say its more of an objective thing than anything, how open your mind is willing to be and how well you know the subject matter. Thats more personal than a flaw with writing.
3. Because I pay for crunch with D&D books. If I am paying that kind of money for a game book I want the tools to write my OWN characters and campaigns and more crunch. Fluff in those cases beyond simple flavor text is really simply just filler in my mind.
4.Yes I do.
Lost is...well, odd, though considering it's not supposed to take place in normal reality I give it a whole bunch of leeway. It goes so far that it's more of a fantasy series, and fantasy can always just fall back on "it's magic" which would be weak writing. As for "normal reality" The MGS series takes place in a reality that is similar to our own with the addition of super-science. All other aspects of reality are essentially held to. In addition to all that, Lost is still going, so until most of the questions are answered I can't say much about it aside from it being a head-trip. That, and I don't really follow it so I can't argue anything about it.
1) Uh, nooooo, because that's not what a catchall is. As far as the tech in Enders Game, it was all pretty much computers. Relatively advanced ones, but considering they were essentially playing a realtime strategy game in 3-D, I don't see where the "Sci-fi" in that aspect is considering we have things like that now..just not in full 3-D. Once again, point out the specific ones you obviously know about, because if you didn't have one in mind you wouldn't have made the statement...Or did you not know what you were talking about and just wanted to make a smart ass comment?
2) That's "subjective" you're looking for there chief, and the initial amount of suspension is created at the start of the series. Take Dick Tracy as an example. We can accept a few goofy people here and there, but no one superhuman ever showed up. A few with remarkable abilities perhaps, but no "leaping small buildings in a single bound" If someone did this, it would break the established tone of the series. It's not that difficult.
3) Eh, whatever. I said I didn't want to know and really, I meant it. Your explanation is sufficient, I suppose, but considering the D&D BOOKS (read, not rulebooks) are meant to be fluff and should be held in the same regard as the storytelling in MGS 4 I'm still somewhat lost.
5) I doubt it, what with you not actually responding to my first question and just going off on a barely related tangent.
1) Uh, nooooo, because that's not what a catchall is. As far as the tech in Enders Game, it was all pretty much computers. Relatively advanced ones, but considering they were essentially playing a realtime strategy game in 3-D, I don't see where the "Sci-fi" in that aspect is considering we have things like that now..just not in full 3-D. Once again, point out the specific ones you obviously know about, because if you didn't have one in mind you wouldn't have made the statement...Or did you not know what you were talking about and just wanted to make a smart ass comment?
2) That's "subjective" you're looking for there chief, and the initial amount of suspension is created at the start of the series. Take Dick Tracy as an example. We can accept a few goofy people here and there, but no one superhuman ever showed up. A few with remarkable abilities perhaps, but no "leaping small buildings in a single bound" If someone did this, it would break the established tone of the series. It's not that difficult.
3) Eh, whatever. I said I didn't want to know and really, I meant it. Your explanation is sufficient, I suppose, but considering the D&D BOOKS (read, not rulebooks) are meant to be fluff and should be held in the same regard as the storytelling in MGS 4 I'm still somewhat lost.
5) I doubt it, what with you not actually responding to my first question and just going off on a barely related tangent.