Metal Gear Solid 4 release date + MGO beta + DS3 PS3 bundle

[Soygen]

Originally Posted by Kiksar

but I'm probably in the minority that will be labeled "haters" because it's not as good as many people seem to think.

No. You don't think it's as good as many people seem to think. That would be the proper wording.

Anyway, subtlety has never been the style of the writing in MGS. It's always been absurdly over the top to the point of being cheesy.

[Mist]

I think I spend too long trying to figure out what the story was instead of realizing that it's essentially impossible to figure out.

[Lenas]

Except that it's not.

Edit - unless you haven't played the first three.

[Kiksar]

Originally Posted by Soygen

No. You don't think it's as good as many people seem to think. That would be the proper wording.

Except my opinion is informed and mostly unbiased so I have the internet high ground!

But seriously, hardcore praise for games like this from people who hate on Uwe Boll movies and can't appreciate the absurdity in them confuses me. This game has some dialogue as bad as any in Uwe's movies. People still hold games and movies to very different standards but the reasons for that aren't what they used to be. There's no excuse for MGS4 having as much poorly written bullshit as it does. They had the budget and the talent exists, it's just a matter of effort and good taste. And you can argue good taste all you want, but I don't feel like many people would say that MGS4 is on par with a decent movie in the way of writing.

GTA4 had better writers and for the most part better voice acting, though I've talked a bunch of shit about that game too. I'd actually rather play MGS4 and think the art for it is almost all better, but they each got a few things right.

I'm not trying to hate on these games so much as to make a point that consumers don't hold them up to proper standards. The sooner that happens, the faster the progression towards games that hold up to all other forms of visual entertainment/art. Instead of, "wow, that was better than what's in most games" the standard is, "wow, that was just good". It's a bit idealistic to expect that from the average consumer and probably won't ever happen on a mass scale (it's a problem in the entire entertainment industry) but I think it's worth arguing for.

I'm very aware of the technical limitations of games, so that's not the point. I'm talking about creative/quality content and art. It's good people are enjoying the game, I think parts of it are really good, but it's not there yet and should be critiqued for improvement rather than fully praised.

[Soygen]

Originally Posted by Kiksar

Stuff.

I can get on board with that, but at the same time I have to give lots of praise to games that are above and beyond the average in the industry. And MGS4 is definitely one of those, in my opinion.

[Kiksar]

Originally Posted by Soygen

I can get on board with that, but at the same time I have to give lots of praise to games that are above and beyond the average in the industry. And MGS4 is definitely one of those, in my opinion.

And I can agree to that, but I still like to laugh at it and upset my roommate by calling it bullshit while he's playing.

[Jenison]

Originally Posted by Kiksar

It isn't all bad though, some of the humor doesn't fail. The hard surface stuff pretty much all looks amazing, skin shaders have some of the common problems but it could be a lot worse. There are parts where I think the lighting could use some love, but overall they seem to have one of the best art teams that's ever done a really big budget game. That's a big compliment, complaints aside.

I've recommended it to people but I'm probably in the minority that will be labeled "haters" because it's not as good as many people seem to think.

I'm really curious where you think the lighting could be improved? do you have a specific example? The reason I ask, is because I think the lighting is one of its strongest technological points.

two examples of what I think make the lighting stand out.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

1. The second act during the 'night' part. The moon light just looks great on the environment.
2. The ending with Raiden and his ex-wife. The particular moment i'm thinking of is when hes looking down at his son. That stood out as I was watching for the first time as a really high quality moment for the lighting.

two areas where I didn't think the light was on-par was the Microwave scene and the tunnel leading up to it.

The skin while agreed is not perfect, its probably the best I've seen in a game. Esp with the sheer number of characters that were in a scene. The 'Breifing of Outter Haven' is a great example. Close ups of Octacon and his sweater I think were top notch.

however, I thought Mae-Ling and Naomi's skin was god awful. They both looked like porcelain dolls. But hey...its an anime effect I think.

I would have liked to seen more face muscle movement. Their faces seemed a little bland. Only eyebrows and eyelids changing shape. But honestly, I can ignore all of these things. the game play is fluid. Combat controls are 10x better then in previous MGS.

And if I had a choice, to watch recent Indiana Jones or just the cut scenes in MGS4...id take the cut scenes. The camera work and scene angles are really movie cinema quality. Indiana Jones was written and directed by some of the best in the business (according to some).

[Zarcath]

however, I thought Mae-Ling and Naomi's skin was god awful. They both looked like porcelain dolls. But hey...its an anime effect I think.

I was too busy staring at Naomi's exposed breast jiggle to notice.

[Jenison]

Originally Posted by Zarcath

I was too busy staring at Naomi's exposed breast jiggle to notice.

touche

[Mist]

Originally Posted by Kiksar

Except my opinion is informed and mostly unbiased so I have the internet high ground!

But seriously, hardcore praise for games like this from people who hate on Uwe Boll movies and can't appreciate the absurdity in them confuses me. This game has some dialogue as bad as any in Uwe's movies. People still hold games and movies to very different standards but the reasons for that aren't what they used to be. There's no excuse for MGS4 having as much poorly written bullshit as it does. They had the budget and the talent exists, it's just a matter of effort and good taste. And you can argue good taste all you want, but I don't feel like many people would say that MGS4 is on par with a decent movie in the way of writing.

GTA4 had better writers and for the most part better voice acting, though I've talked a bunch of shit about that game too. I'd actually rather play MGS4 and think the art for it is almost all better, but they each got a few things right.

I'm not trying to hate on these games so much as to make a point that consumers don't hold them up to proper standards. The sooner that happens, the faster the progression towards games that hold up to all other forms of visual entertainment/art. Instead of, "wow, that was better than what's in most games" the standard is, "wow, that was just good". It's a bit idealistic to expect that from the average consumer and probably won't ever happen on a mass scale (it's a problem in the entire entertainment industry) but I think it's worth arguing for.

I'm very aware of the technical limitations of games, so that's not the point. I'm talking about creative/quality content and art. It's good people are enjoying the game, I think parts of it are really good, but it's not there yet and should be critiqued for improvement rather than fully praised.

The games are basically the crazy japanese comic book version of American foreign policy, with soap opera style plot twists like babies switched at birth. They're not really supposed to be realistic, and they're still translations, basically, high budget translations but still translations.

[Kiksar]

Originally Posted by Jenison

I'm really curious where you think the lighting could be improved? do you have a specific example? The reason I ask, is because I think the lighting is one of its strongest technological points.

I don't have a problem with their lighting engine, I have issues with some of their lighting choices. There have seen several areas that I felt were too evenly lit which tends to flatten things out and usually weakens the mood, mostly indoor areas. It's nitpicky, but a critique based on most of the game being really solid artistically.

Originally Posted by Jenison

The skin while agreed is not perfect, its probably the best I've seen in a game. Esp with the sheer number of characters that were in a scene.

Yeah, the skin isn't bad, it's a bit of a technical limitation. When translucency and good sub-surface scattering are cheaper to render or systems/computers get powerful enough to do it practically in real-time there will be a big improvement in human skin and other organic surfaces in games, but the artistry will still be a big part of it.

Originally Posted by Jenison

I would have liked to seen more face muscle movement. Their faces seemed a little bland. Only eyebrows and eyelids changing shape.

Facial animation is partially a technical issue too, though not entirely. Muscle deformation and skin creases based on additional normal maps of the face in its extremes (mouth fully open/eyes opened wide, mouth pressed shut/eyes scrunched closed) can be animated by fading the maps in and out based on masks that are driven by the face's blendshapes. That's one way, anyway. But on top of being a lot of extra work per character, one of the biggest bottlenecks these days is texture memory and the extra maps needed for all of that suck up even more.

So again, I don't blame them for things like that, it probably wouldn't have been practical to implement based on the sacrifices they'd have to make to free up the texture memory and whatever else I'm not accounting for. I just like to see talented people doing interesting things as best as possible within the technical limitations. There isn't much limiting better story telling methods and better writing/voice acting in games.

Originally Posted by Jenison

And if I had a choice, to watch recent Indiana Jones or just the cut scenes in MGS4...id take the cut scenes. The camera work and scene angles are really movie cinema quality. Indiana Jones was written and directed by some of the best in the business (according to some).

I don't want to argue with the lowest common denominator in mind! Indiana Jones 4 sucked ass, regardless of medium. I like Spielberg and would argue that speaking strictly in terms of direction, Indiana Jones 4 was better. But we can just agree that it was lame and retarded and isn't worth the comparisons.

[Kiksar]

Originally Posted by Mist

The games are basically the crazy japanese comic book version of American foreign policy, with soap opera style plot twists like babies switched at birth. They're not really supposed to be realistic, and they're still translations, basically, high budget translations but still translations.

It's true that they aren't meant to be entirely serious, I'm not objecting to a game like MGS4 being lighthearted. It's an issue of quality and making things interesting as opposed to failed/cheap humor and contrived bullshit, of which there is plenty here. There's Indiana Jones, and then there's Indiana Jones 4 (to keep the theme from above).

[wild_whiskey]

Originally Posted by Kiksar

It's true that they aren't meant to be entirely serious, I'm not objecting to a game like MGS4 being lighthearted. It's an issue of quality and making things interesting as opposed to failed/cheap humor and contrived bullshit, of which there is plenty here. There's Indiana Jones, and then there's Indiana Jones 4 (to keep the theme from above).

I'm not trying to hate on these games so much as to make a point that consumers don't hold them up to proper standards. The sooner that happens, the faster the progression towards games that hold up to all other forms of visual entertainment/art.

Kojima set out to make a story that could only be told through a video game - it's not meant to be taken in from the same perspective as film. Video games typically do require a large stretch of your imagination and to a degree, require your forgiveness to be validated. Kojima constantly tugs and toys with how characters and players interact with each other - something that can only exist in a video game. He doesn't even attempt to be subtle in the plot. It's ridiculous from the get go and it's as much a parody on modern entertainment as it is a valid attempt at postmodern storytelling.

There's a disconnect with many people, because at some points (the beginning) it seems entirely believable, but as the story unravels you realize how ridiculous it all is, and I hate to pull the "its in the genre" card, but it's true. Read any postmodern literature and you'll see parallels everywhere. This may not validate it for you, but having read Pynchon and Murakami books for years, I appreciate the style. There are plenty of other video games out there that try to take themselves seriously but never reach their ambitions. GTA4 is a good example.

You mentioned how it lacks any subtlety, but you're looking in the wrong place. The subtlety is there, but it's in the symbols and the allegories. The "what ifs" Kojima presents on the smaller scales, like the involvement of PMCs, the complete authoritative power of government during wartime are all poignant, and the latter is an example of a point that is better told when there are parallel levels of control (the director over the player, the player over the character). MGS is also the first gaming series that really brings the characters and nails in the component of video games - that characters depend on their players.

The quality is there, man. You just have to go in realizing that in many ways its a satire, and the point of the story isn't just to find out who's who's clone.

[Kiksar]

Originally Posted by wild_whiskey

Kojima set out to make a story that could only be told through a video game - it's not meant to be taken in from the same perspective as film.

I'm glad you brought this up. My comparison of games to film was it terms of writing, I should have clarified. I am very much a supporter of playing to and discovering the strengths of each medium. I'd like games to get to the point where they are as legitimate for expression as film is; not the same as, but on the same level of.

That said, I don't think that Kojima has done very well with his goal. Instead of exploring story telling methods that play specifically to the medium (separated from film mainly by interactivity), he's relied heavily on over-long cut-scenes and phone calls. The interactivity worked into those things is amusing, but generally isn't groundbreaking (moving the projected image around while people are pointing at it during briefing is really, really funny for some reason though).

Without derailing this into a Valve versus the world thread, they have done a much better job developing a story delivery method that couldn't be duplicated in any other medium. Always maintaining interactivity and never removing the player from the character was one of the better ideas that anyone's ever had to do what Kojima was trying to. I think Kojima got caught up and made an overcomplicated mess that isn't as clever as it tries to be.

As far as the rest of your points and the idea that there's more satire involved than I'm giving credit to, I respect that you presented the point instead of calling me a retard but I don't know that I buy it. Was Beowulf (the animated movie, not the poem) satire? I sort of think it could have been, and I have no problems with Neil Gaiman as a writer, but I don't know if I'm willing to give it that much credit. If it was it was much better for it, but somehow I don't think it was meant to be. If it is almost entirely satire (basically of itself), I'd concede that it's kind of funny, but I still don't think the quality of what's there is as good as it should be given the circumstances.

[wild_whiskey]

That said, I don't think that Kojima has done very well with his goal. Instead of exploring story telling methods that play specifically to the medium (separated from film mainly by interactivity), he's relied heavily on over-long cut-scenes and phone calls. The interactivity worked into those things is amusing, but generally isn't groundbreaking (moving the projected image around while people are pointing at it during briefing is really, really funny for some reason though).

The really important thing to note is that the interactivity is important as a formal element, not as a narrative element. That is, the interactivity itself is what is significant and what's being played on. The character's existence and how they live in their world as video game characters is what Kojima is exploring. MGS asks, "what do they do when they're not being played? What would their bedrooms look like?" It's an exploration of the formal existence of video game characters, and I see it as a kind of parody on the personality that the game designer affords the player, and as reflected in the narrative, the personality that the Patriots afford soldiers. What MGS doesn't ask is, "how to make you feel like you're in the action by putting you in the driver's seat even during the cutscenes." Other developers do a good job of that. The one you named is a perfect example.

But, the comparison to Valve is an apples vs. oranges comparison. I'm not going to claim that KojiPro is better, but what MGS attempts to explore is simply different, and has higher personal value, to me, for its significance in reasons mentioned above. Valve has really mastered a method of storytelling and I think they're top-notch designers and writers in every respect. The video gaming world needs its fair share of Half Lifes its MGSs, just like the literary world needs its McCarthys as much as it needs its Pynchons.

I think Kojima got caught up and made an overcomplicated mess that isn't as clever as it tries to be.

This is a fair criticism. The game starts out as a solitary man making his way through a familiar warzone scenario on a straight-forward assassination mission. The game closes with a futuristic graveyard-like computer room, a strut on a gigantic armored vessel off the coast of Alaska, and two men in a graveyard who are practically undead. It sounds kind of silly, but I believe that's because it's meant to be. This style of storytelling is certainly nothing unusual in Japanese literature. A LOT of the directing and style is basically parodic of American spy cinema, a kind of Japanese appropriation of it. Off topic example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Funny you bring up Beowulf, because I think I actually did read reviews where critics said that its such a parody of itself that it comes across as funny and thus increases its values and merits. I haven't seen the movie and I'm not going to defend it (personally it looked like absolute shit), but interesting that some of the same arguments were being made.

There's not much else for me to say.. You make many valid points, and if you can't get into the storyline, then you can't. However, I think there are some areas where more credit is due. I don't get the chance to go this in depth over MGS often, but as you can tell I enjoy the debate.