Yeah, but saying that there is two cutscenes in proximity of an hour and a half is a kind of gross exagguration as the second longest cutscene isn't even an hour long.

I guess the whole argument is moot, though, if the point is that the cutscenes are way too long for most, and 70 minutes, or even 50 minutes, is way too long in the same way that 90 minutes is way too long.

I wonder if this game is going to be the PS3's first exclusive 9/10. 

Well look at the bright side, the game couldn't be any worse than MGS2 right?

MGS games are always a solid success, there's no doubting that, all we can do now is wait and see what the fans think once the game is officially released.

Considering the fact that I think MGS2 is by far the best game in the franchise I would be ecstatic if MGS4 was on par of that game. In some respects it is which is what makes MGS4 a large step back in the right direction after the minor disappointment that MGS3 was for me. On the otherhand it is quite different from MGS2 which the part of the game that I have some issues with.

It depends why you disliked MGS2 though. Because it was convoluted? MGS4 is just as if not more convoluted than 2 but thanks to a better and more clear presentation it doesn't come off as vague and incomprehensable. If it's the preachiness then MGS4 is pretty much on level with 2. If it is Raiden then well...You'll love what MGS4 did to him.

The only real problems with MGS4 is the massive amounts of fan service which may be a detriment of the storyline. The fact that I think MGS4's storyline is massively bloated and I never considered MGS2's plot to be might tell you something. The storyline here is utterly massive in terms of characters and plot threads to a point of unnecessity. Kojima could have arguably cut out half the cast (I'm somewhat exaggurating here) to focus more on the characters that "matter" (which of course is debatable). Some of the retcons outright contradict at least something in each game as well. While other story decisions will simply piss people off.

No serious journalist should have reviewed this game until at least playing it twice and really dwelling on what the storyline adds up to. This could be a perfect 10 game or a 7 depending on how in depth you go and what your preferences and expectations are. It's definitely not a game that will gather unanimous love like the first MGS did.

The gameplay is simply amazing though, no arguing there.

MGS2 had stale gameplay, uninteresting characters & villains, poor plot, poor delivery.

I appreciate this split night and day whether or not people love it or hate it so I won't chastize you for loving it. I also remember one of the biggest complaints people had with 2 was its lengthy and frequent cutscenes, that's why I largely suspect this game suffering from that. But who knows. I'm sure fans will be split both ways on this game too.

The worse thing that could happen for this game though would be for people's current impressions remained the norm: uncertainty, reservations and mild confusion on what to make of the game.

I would disagree on MGS2. Most of your complaints are ones I would direct toward MGS3 which I think is a stark downfall in the series quality along with MPO. Of course this relies too much on subjective preferences to be worth arguing.

I disagree however that the worst thing would be if people remained divided about MGS4. Most great works of art have always divided public opinion and it is that ambitious, uncompromising vision that makes for a profound experiences for few even if for alienation by others (or many). It's usually the mild pieces aiming to please everyone that fail to produce any profound impact in people because they appeal to everyone on a certain level yet to no one on a greater merit.

I would rather take a game like MGS4 that does what it wants to do uncompromising, regardless of mainstream opinion than a watered down game that aims to appease the general masses as did MGS3. 

Kojima said from day 1 that this game is for the hardcore fans that were there from day one until today and appreciated every game in the series for what it set out to do. Playing MGS4 it is quite obvious that though Ryan Payton did try to make some ammendments for newcomers to the series the storyline is very much dependant on previous knowledge and acceptance of Kojima's style. Bringing the same arguements we have heard since 1998 about long cutscenes is redundant considering that this is about Kojima's vision and millions of fans obviously love the games for what they are.

I would assert that MGS3 was the better game with more intuitive espionage gameplay, more interesting villains (no gay magical vampires, fat men on rollerblades or Dr. Octopus Clones). Plus I like many feel Raiden was a waste in MGS2, but then again, as you and I have already concluded, this will be a note of irreconciliable dissagreement between the two schools of fans.

Either may, Twin Snakes is by far the best MGS game in my personal opinion, a truly flawless game.

Though, I wasn't attacking MGS4 because of what it did, but rather was using that to push the point that the series is now fast losing mass appeal by making it even more tailor-made to the hardcore fans. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of personal opinion but the fact remains that this game risking cutting off the gamer base needed to sustain such a massive project, Konami will most likely have to port the title to the 360 if they can't make a satisfactory amount off of MGS4 in the first initial sales rush. As a 100 million dollar plus investment this game is above and beyond the development price of your typical HD game, even eclipsing the ridiculous price tag of GTAIV.

so may be 60min

I recall reading several months ago that the development budget was at 70 million USD at the time which is likely to have increased since then. Where do you get the information that the budget has now passed 100 million?

I too am a fan of Twin Snakes though MGS fans almost universally detest it. You're right that MGS4 doesn't do anything to appeal to outside the hardcore fanbase of the franchise and from a business only perspective that is a failure on Konami's part. From a gamers perspective however it's commendable that Kojima chose to follow his own vision despite it likely placing limitations on the mass appeal and marketability of his title.

It boils down to the argument of whether you consider games to be capable of being art or if they are inherently bound to the confines of an entertainment product.

I have to ask you though why you consider MGS3's villains to be more interesting than MGS2's while ostensibly pointing out the ridiculous nature of Vamp by saying "more interesting villains (no gay magical vampires, fat men on rollerblades or Dr. Octopus Clones"). MGS3's cast of villains was inarguably the most unrealistic and "out there" band of baddies in the franchise.

If by interesting you mean that MGS2's villains were too bland then I point you toward MGS1 which contained a cast made up of primarily ordinary men and women (minus Mantis) and is the game most based on reality. My problem with the Cobra unit doesn't have to do with their characterstic but rather the fact that we recieved no background information on these people and nor did they go through the slightest of character development. They felt like throwaway characters.

BTW: Will you be picking MGS4 up and if so, when? 

Onimusha, where did you get 100 mil dev cost from?