Yes, I have seen Apocalypse now though I'm not sure if it was the Redux version. However most of the dialogue minus the one with the French only lasted a couple of minutes until they moved on to the next scene. Like I said, name me a movie with a 1 hour scene similar to MGS2's devoted soley to the exploration of philosophical themes. The last 10 minutes of 2001 was extremely subtle and so I really can't consider it on level with MGS which lays it's philosophy out to you in words. School books and the education system rely directly on words and concise explanations to impart knowledge, if text books began being subtle implications of things they would be mostly useless in education. It's the most effective way of presenting knowledge and teaching someone.

Yes, I have seen Apocalypse now though I'm not sure if it was the Redux version. However most of the dialogue minus the one with the French only lasted a couple of minutes until they moved on to the next scene. Like I said, name me a movie with a 1 hour scene similar to MGS2's devoted soley to the exploration of philosophical themes. The last 10 minutes of 2001 was extremely subtle and so I really can't consider it on level with MGS which lays it's philosophy out to you in words. School books and the education system rely directly on words and concise explanations to impart knowledge, if text books began being subtle implications of things they would be mostly useless in education. It's the most effective way of presenting knowledge and teaching someone.

So now anything that DOESN'T explain it to you in long, drawn out terms doesn't count?  That hardly makes sense.

Tell me; what do you think of the following short story (in it's entirety)

Now tell me: What is the point of the story?  What is a potential backstory, and why should you (and I do, at least) feel sad upon reading it?

Because most people would be able to answer all of the above questions, and that is only from 6 words.

Contrast that to a longer method, which would be something like this (spoiler'd because it is obviously only my interpretation of the piece, which is obviously not encompassing nearly as much as the original did.  This was done on purpose, because that's basically what DTG is saying is 'good' writing):

I know which I consider better writing; and I see every reason why Hemingway's version should not only be able to be compared to my version, but should also be able to be declared unambiguously better.  Would you care to explain?

Plaupius said:

That's a great example, another one that I really like is this story by Augusto Monterroso:

"When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there."

Sure, it's not as deep in meaning as Hemingway, but it's funny :)

So now anything that DOESN'T explain it to you in long, drawn out terms doesn't count?  That hardly makes sense.

Tell me; what do you think of the following short story (in it's entirety)

Now tell me: What is the point of the story?  What is a potential backstory, and why should you (and I do, at least) feel sad upon reading it?

Because most people would be able to answer all of the above questions, and that is only from 6 words.

Contrast that to a longer method, which would be something like this (spoiler'd because it is obviously only my interpretation of the piece, which is obviously not encompassing nearly as much as the original did.  This was done on purpose, because that's basically what DTG is saying is 'good' writing):

I know which I consider better writing; and I see every reason why Hemingway's version should not only be able to be compared to my version, but should also be able to be declared unambiguously better.  Would you care to explain?

DTG does not prefer depth. He prefers everything right on the surface. Sadly, this means he will only understand philosophy in the form of a definition. Having characters in a story who's actions make people think about their own actions and about the actions of others makes for a true story with depth. When a story instead must tell you what the actions mean, then it is likely that the actions actually imply no such thing. It is the desperate act of a storyteller who faces the possibility that his or her characters may not be examples of the philosophy they lecture about. So, this form of storytelling is a crutch. DTG, however, prefers this because he does not wish to think about the characters. He just wants Kojima's philosophy lesson. The characters actually being good quality models of this philosophy is unimportant to him. Much like the same phenomena in anime, he eats up the lectures and uses them as his basis for what makes good storytelling.

This makes movies like Apocalypse Now (and Heart of Darkness, the book on which it is based) lost on him as the characters themselves require examination to determine what the writer is saying. In exploring those characters, the reader might find different views on humanity. This does not invalidate written philosophy. It is another mechanism by which we can explore the human condition. However, attempting to insert textbook style philosophy into a work of art is the work of someone that wants their work to mean more than it actually does. Many people take this as a sign of brilliance since it relieves them of the critical thinking necessary to analyze deep characters. Of course they don't realize that someone played a shell game with them and diverted their attention away from the characters themselves.

I give that post a 9.8. 

DTG does not prefer depth. He prefers everything right on the surface. Sadly, this means he will only understand philosophy in the form of a definition. Having characters in a story who's actions make people think about their own actions and about the actions of others makes for a true story with depth. When a story instead must tell you what the actions mean, then it is likely that the actions actually imply no such thing. It is the desperate act of a storyteller who faces the possibility that his or her characters may not be examples of the philosophy they lecture about. So, this form of storytelling is a crutch. DTG, however, prefers this because he does not wish to think about the characters. He just wants Kojima's philosophy lesson. The characters actually being good quality models of this philosophy is unimportant to him. Much like the same phenomena in anime, he eats up the lectures and uses them as his basis for what makes good storytelling.

This makes movies like Apocalypse Now (and Heart of Darkness, the book on which it is based) lost on him as the characters themselves require examination to determine what the writer is saying. In exploring those characters, the reader might find different views on humanity. This does not invalidate written philosophy. It is another mechanism by which we can explore the human condition. However, attempting to insert textbook style philosophy into a work of art is the work of someone that wants their work to mean more than it actually does. Many people take this as a sign of brilliance since it relieves them of the critical thinking necessary to analyze deep characters. Of course they don't realize that someone played a shell game with them and diverted their attention away from the characters themselves.

I give that post a 9.8.