As for the 1st point, the fact that most reviewers didn't talk about the shortcomings about MGS V and its "unfinished ending" (i'm one of the few people that considers the game has an actual ending, not maybe for Liquid's and Psycho Mantis arc, but for everything else, just that the endings were made abruptly) tells more about those reviewers than the actual game, and the game should not be extra penalysed for that. And that's been my main critic about gaming journalism the last few years. 90% of them are just glorified average gamers that don't have the talent or criteria to actually make an optical, objective analysed review of each main point of a game. Most of them only say vague and generic comments that not explain nothing concrete about the game, and when a game comes that's so different from the usual structure like Death Stranding is, is when you see how awful and useless they are.
Right. I'm just thinking that if the criticisms they now mention in passing wasn't explored in their review, it's quite possible they didn't consider those factors during their initial evaluation of the game.
And that was the thing that mainly made me question if they had reservations, for whatever reason, to assess those (in their perception) negatives in their review. Though how I feel about the games personally also affects my outlook. If I would have rated them similarly, I wouldn't have thought some of tose reviews were odd.
I've just saw, just before posting this, the SkillUp review about Death Stranding, a guy who doesn't give a score, who needs to explain things to make you understand his point of view, and his review is sooooooooo much more well done than the Easy Allies, IGN, Game Informer, Gamespot ones....but he and people like him are mostly the minority here, because then, you can find too, youtubers that are going to trash the game after playing a couple of hours because it's fun to do and because they can't or just don't want to actually analyse the game, because they want the clicks, the likes and number of views. We live in a cynical and superficial world and in the end, you have to trust yourself more than anyone of those guys, and now is more easy than ever because almost every game can be watched or played with more accesability before actually buying it.
I've only seen two reviews from SkillUp, but I really liked his Nier: Automata review. And think it's the best one I've seen. And one of the best reviews I've seen anyone do. Only criticism towards it is that he used some unnecessary spoiler footage in the video.
I also watched his Death Stranding review. And I feel it did a good job of explaining the game to me.
For the 2nd point about Ocelot. Look, if he is acting in some way or another, calm or eccentric, and you don't know in the end how to feel about it, then it's Ocelot doing its job perfectly because he, doing one or thing or another, is a way to never know what is really going behind his mind, that's his job. He does what he considers is necessary to doing his job, that has been his character since the original MGS. As for Liquid seeing Ocelot from calm to crazy, since he was a kid to adult..., well i could explain that easily saying that from Liquid's perspective, war had a toll in Ocelot and he became more a more crazy about it, which would make sense in that world. He didn't knew how he was in MGS 3 either...As for him not been in the battelfield with you..., well Ocelot never was a soldier, he always was counter intelligence guy, a classical spy, KGB style. There was no sense to put Ocelot in the battelfied alongside you.
It's not that I disagree with how you rationalized Ocelot going back and forth between different personalities.
Though there are some things that should be explained by the game. And that's one of those things. That he became more mature as he grew up is intuitive. But after that... it's anyone's guess. I can also come up with plausible theories, like he placed himself under hypnosis to be in the mindset he was in back when he was a triple agent. Because he would again have to be a triple. That's possible. But this isn't one of those questions cleverly designed to be open for interpretation.
An example of that would be how the ending of MGSV is clearly meant to also make you think about the actions of a certain character in MG1 and MG2. And make sense of those actions. Because those things have been in question ever since Big Boss was first introduced in MGS3.
But this thing with Ocelot is not like that at all. It's more like Kojima forgetting what Ocelot was like in MGS1. Or didn't bother to even imply what caused the change. Even though it's very clearly in your face as soon as you think about it. And that's my issue with it.
As for his usefulness in battle goes, the first time we are introduced to him, he is a formidable boss (something he would continue being in several more MGS games) that can bounce bullets around corners. Says he will show Snake why he is called 'Revolver Ocelot', and then challenges a man who, in his own words, is a legend. Since he came out of that fight unharmed (well, he gets his hand cut off, but not by Snake), I'm sure he is much more skilled than the average soldier.
He was called a "ricochet genius" in regards to his gun fighting skills, so I think it would be interesting to have him on the field with that ability, hitting targets behind obstacles that you normally couldn't hit.
Or if you don't want him out on the field fighting, he could be out there infiltrating the enemy ranks, as he often does.
His part in the events of MGSV felt surprisingly underwhelming. Especially since no other game showed us how Big Boss and Ocelot became trusted allies. (Well, the canon is a bit iffy with Portable Ops). And this is probably the last we'll ever see of Ocelot.
As for MGS 4, I do wish I had a more personal attachment to it, and that it hit many of the same notes for me as the previous games. Maybe part of the reason it didn't was because I played it a few years later. But it felt like the magic wasn't there.
Last edited by Hiku - on 23 November 2019