| Khuutra said: Sorry, I can't take that request seriously when it comes from a person who throws around the word "opinion" like it's going out of style. Look, MGS3 is a prime example (though MGS2 is a better one). If you really lock down and play this game, you can beat it in, what, two hours? Maybe an hour and a half? That's actual gameplay, mind you. We'll say 90 minutes if you're really quick, though I'm betting many can beat it much faster. The game has two hours of cutscenes. Two hours - maybe more. You can check that out in Subsistence if you balk at the idea, one of the special features in that version is watching all of the cutscenes as a movie. When you throw in your radio conversations it ramps up considerably, to about five hours of non-interactivity. Maybe six? I'm not sure, I would never try to record it in its totality. There is far more non-interactive content in these games than there is interactive content. I don't see how that can readily be argued by anyone. |
I repeat (I also add one word):
- What is a video game?
- What is an interactive movie?
- How are the titles in the MGS series not video games?
Keep in mind that your answer should include facts, not just opinnions.
I don't mean any insult to you. It is just that a lot of people throw the "fact" that the MGS series is an "interactive movie" around these days.
If the MGS series is an "interactive" movie, then the questions that I have provided should actually help towards proving your argument. I have read some of the responses that people have given to you and I must say I agree with some of them. I don't care if MGS4 had one hour of gameplay and 15 hours of story, the length of gameplay does not change something from a "video game" to an "interactive movie".
You said: "The entire hinge of my prior argument was that there's more movie to it than there is game." Well, my friend, this could apply to ALOT of fucking games! A speed run through Resident Evil 4 takes less than two hours dude!
