I think we're basically agreeing, but failing to communicate. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that complex concepts are not negative writing values. I'd agree that this is generally true. I'm really talking about the way in which they are presented.

I don't imagine a reviewer would complain that the situations are complex if the telling was elegant. Notice Rocketpig's comment above about the scene from Space Oddity: the scene he described is complex and amazing and simple all at the same time to him, but to another viewer it might just be a guy removing expansion boards from a blade-style server and rendering it dead.

The beauty of employing techniques like that to show your story is that the viewer will take away what they're capable of: you don't have to simplify the story for a simple explanation, but you aren't spoon feeding it either.

This reviewer can kiss my ass. 'Casual' mags shouldnt review games, they should leave it to the professionals.

(And i use the term 'professionals' loosely')

Complex wouldn't bother me. Convoluted would, but that isn't mentioned here.

well I think we actually agree yes..

a classic example of a complex story told bad and way too hard to follow is the story of Final Fantasy Tactics.. the game is notorious for that actually.. but still one of the best games I know of course.

Why are they considered less professional than another gaming mag? Why shouldn't this new magazine review games based on what they expect their readers to enjoy or not enjoy? Just because their readers prefer a different style of game does not even come close to discrediting their review. This is no different than core gamer magazines reviewing casual games.

I'd welcome complex storyline. But I hope it won't be unnecessarily convoluted. It happens often in Japanese cinema or literature---making story overly-cryptic and quasi-philosophical so that it sounds like interesting when in fact it's not. It's an old trick exploited by many no-talent ass writers (not saying Kojima is).

The only thing I know about MGS4's story is from its trailer. But I wasn't too impressed with the monologue:

>> War has changed.
>> It's not about nations, or ideologies.
>> It's not even about profit, resources, or ethnicity.
>> It's an endless series of proxy battles,
>> fought by mercenaries and machines.
>> War, and its vast consumption of human life,
>> has become a rational, well-oiled business transaction.
>> War has changed.
......
>> And he who controls the battlefield, controls history.
>> War has changed.

This script alone is weird. It says war is not about profit then later says war has become a business transaction, which is supposedly about making .... profit (if not what else business is for). Many proxy wars have been fought in the 20th century (maybe not in the in-game world but how do I know), and throughout the human history war always has been about "control" and in this sense technology hasn't changed anything fundamentally.

I don't know, but this kind of seemingly-incoherent narrative just bothers me and because of this I usually can't immerse myself into in-game stories.

LOL at that intro. Not only does it contradict itself, it says nothing of interest and tries to talk up a concept that a high school sophomore should be able to grasp without much difficulty.

Well who the hell complains a story is too complex? Only somebody with a small brain or ADD. That kind of reviewer should stick to reading NUTS magazine.

Yet another person who thinks quality and complexity are the same thing and an elitist to boot.

Is the common denominator here really so shallow?