You don't have to go very far to find a large group of people that find a large amount of anime stories to be visionary and genious.  People have a habit of mistaking complexity for art and depth (I think Rocketpig is fond of saying this).  What makes Kojima a bad story teller is that he has to tell you all of his ideas.  He can't work them in.  At some points, his characters literally spout philosphy.  This is where he fails.  There are no layers to the message.  Layers come when the actions of the characters and the decisions they make are left up to the viewer/player/reader to explain.  Kojima can't do that though.  Artistic media doesn't tell you why, it asks you why.

Don't bring up the huge fanbase argument.  Dane Cook has a huge fanbase and if I hear someone compare him to Richard Pryor then someone needs to die. 

Neat.  I'm expecting more from this generation than past ones in that area.  It was just a nitpick of mine to go with the current theme of problems with cutscenes.

I don't mind people who hate cutscenes.  I don't mind people who love cutscenes.  I like a balanced approach where the developer regards cutscenes as a tool to improve the game and not mindless filler or use in order to tell the story of the movie they wished they'd made.

Also, I could make a game like MGS4 however I choose not to.

No. It's already been confirmed that this is the last Metal Gear Solid Game

http://kotaku.com/gaming/e307/metal-gear-solid-4-is-ps3-exclusive-+-last-in-series-277361.php

You haven't played Planescape, have you? It does explain immortality, it's implications, and goes into depth for it; only the developers tried to show it naturally, and not convoluted (which is what MGS2 was like). In the beginning it is explained roughly (or rather, naturally) the immortality of the Nameless One. the player then will experience death, rebirth, loss of identity, immortality; and he will see the impact of the Nameless One's past, who he was, what he did, the evidences he left. The sporadic gain of memories from past lifes will leave the player wondering more about him, without ever having his questions fully answered.

Yes I have played the game, but your point about it explaining immortality through the gameplay sequence of death and rebirth was false.The game actually explained immortality through pages and pages of vast dialogue. It baffles me that you would even mention Planescape as a game that has compact storytelling presented through its gameplay when it has the largest script ever written for a video game.

Not having fully answered its questions isn't a demonstration of good storytelling. Hell, MGS2 had more loose ends than any game out there. It's simply a style of storytelling not a matter of quality.

Widely perceived as better by who? The only thing KotOR2 improved on was the general flow of combat.

The characters were not that much better at all. Heck, when I first saw Carth I was like "Hey it's Atton!" and then he introduced himself as Carth. I was like, "Wait, what?"

You see, I had the distinct pleasure of playing Knights of the Old Republic 2 BEFORE the original. Which means I was able to enjoy KotOR2 quite a bit and it was indeed a good game. Upon playing the original KotOR, I kept getting the "Been there, done that" feeling and I slowly realized that almost every game element minus maybe Kreia had been borrowed from the original.

The "Surprise, you're Revan!" plot was lame in both though.

Kotor 2 is better percieved by hardcore RPG fans, and I concur. This reminds me of a thread about this a few weeks ago on Gaf, and Kotor 2 then was talked as being the best by most.

Both games have many bland characters, but Kreia was one of the best characters I've ever seen. Her ideologies were consistant from beginning to the end, and the reasons she gave for the story twist baffled me, not only by being unexpected but because it also made so much sense.

Anyway, both are nowhere near as good as Baldur's Gate 2.

EDIT: let's just agree we disagree