Look, the guy just said that MGS4 isn't his kind of game and they're going in an opposite direction... so what?

For some people GoW is great and MGS4 terrible for the reasons outlined by CliffB - for others its the opposite and GoW is dumb as hell and shallow and MGS4 is a deeper experience.

I like variety and I don't like the idea all games try and adhere to a single template. I'd prefer to see both GoW and MGS4 on the shelves rather than two almost identical games.

Anyway - Half Life and Portal kick both their asses! Their, now you have something else to argue about!

Reasonable said: Look, the guy just said that MGS4 isn't his kind of game and they're going in an opposite direction... so what? For some people GoW is great and MGS4 terrible for the reasons outlined by CliffB - for others its the opposite and GoW is dumb as hell and shallow and MGS4 is a deeper experience. I like variety and I don't like the idea all games try and adhere to a single template. I'd prefer to see both GoW and MGS4 on the shelves rather than two almost identical games. Anyway - Half Life and Portal kick both their asses! Their, now you have something else to argue about!

 

 I concur!

It was a subtle snipe at Hideo and MGS designed to get exactly what its getting here. Inches

All that CliffyB managed to do is take every 17-year-old's wet dream, and parlay that into a game. That's all he'll be known for is taking every cliche and stereotype imaginable, and thrusting it into a game, and passing off the idea as his own. He wishes that he could be on the same tier of developers as Hideo Kojima, or Miyamoto, Gabe Newell, etc. Just stick to making your cookie cutter game Mr. Blezenski. I'm sure there are many testosterone driven kids ready to buy your game.

DTG said: HappySqurriel said: Although it is rare for me to agree with Cliffy B. I do agree with him here (although he said it in a kind of douche bag way) ... The fact is that the way Metal Gear Solid tells its story is inflexable and passive, and is (potentially) outdated when you compare it with other games like Half-Life or Bioshock.   It's so annoying when people compare MGS to those shallow games. Tell me how you could possibly express these very same philosopohical ideas unaltered via gameplay. You can't. snipped for length

First off, I'd hire a better writer. That is a painful read for me. Secondly, I would put it through out the game rather than one massive chunk. Have the points strewn throughout different spots in the game rather than crammed all into on mega-dialogue that will have half your audience rolling their eyes and not paying attention by the end of it (N.B. this point has nothing to do with how well written, or how good the point is but more a commentary on average attention span of humans). After that I would do it Half-Life style rather than pure cut scenes to simply keep the interactivity (the unique strength of the medium) somewhat there.

 I would find that much more enjoyable, and hell perhaps even be able to sit through it. I detest cut-scenes because it means I can't play the game for a very long period of time. Before the fanboys start in, this has nothing to do with my patience or desire for speed. My favorite genre is turn-based strategy games in the vein of Fire Emblem or Masters of Orion 2. It has more to do with me not being in the mood for a movie when I play a game, and not in the mood to play a game when I watch a movie. Kojima's method of mixing large portions of passive and active entertainment is just not something I can get behind. I enjoy a good book (even well written philosphy books), movies, and games. I detest it when they are thrown together in some horrible mish mash that does not play to the respective medium's strength.

 Your personal experience will almost certainly vary, and thats fine. There is nothing inherently wrong with any method of story telling. Popularity will dictate how wide spread it becomes, and from the looks of it cinematic games will survive. If thats your thing, great. If it isn't, well there are a billion other games out there that may suit your tastes better. One method is not better than the other in anything other than a critical analysis which is meaningless to the end-user. To claim one way is the best, or even only way is ludicrous. There is a million ways to tell every story, and someone will love everyone of them.

Kyros said: I don't know what game you're playing, but there is absolutely no driving in Half Life I think he talks about Half-Life2 which contains driving. But his assessment is false IMO, both Half-Life(1+2) and System Shock2 (I refuse to talk about Bioshock, Shodan FTW) really excel at telling a story ingame. The cool thing about them is that you find out the story for yourself in bits and pieces, instead of being force-fed everything in a 45min cutscene. Of course getting told everything is easier but its much more immersive that way. (I love cutscenes btw, but short AWESOME cutscenes like Blizzard does them)

 

 Half Life 2's story is extremely simple and straightforward compared to that in the MGS games (especially MGS4). You have very few characters in HL2 and the entire plot is one dimensional and so it doesn't require anything but simple conversations, whereas in MGS4 we have dozens of main characters each with their own backstory and sub plots and individual points of view and so third person cinematic storytelling is mandatory.

Bioshock is somewhere in between, it uses audio tapes which you have to actually sit still and listen if you want to understand anything, so it is basically a more complex multidirectional story than that in HL2 but without the professional cutscene direction from MGS games.

At the end of the day, fact is that MGS4 is in a league of its own concerning storytelling and production values. It is an action game with an RPG caliber story and storytelling and frankly, i have yet to play an RPG with these kind of mind blowing production values. Maybe FFXIII, though i doubt it.

Eh yes this is true, but I would argue that telling a story with dozens of main characters with their own subplots is the basic PROBLEM of MGS4. If the only possible way to tell the story of a game is to have 6 hours of dialogue perhaps the story should be pruned .

And I like multiple parties, viewpoints and even subplots Lord of a Ring was a good example of the feeling of a whole breathing world you can create with a complex setting like that. That doesn't change the fact that an Action game with a third cutscenes has a problem as a game.

And I don't want to discredit the production values of MGS4 it looks amazing, the technology looks cool (the walkers are great), the atmosphere is amazing etc. pp. But I think Japanese story telling has some problems. Look at Baldur's Gate2 or Planetscape Torment for a good story progression in an RPG without hours of cutscenes (Yes you talk a lot in these games but you have some control and its never longer than a couple of minutes)

The people who like cut scenes have self selected themselves and bought the game, those that havent, haven't.

But in any case if you want to hear the story but not the full story you can't skip the cutscenes, you don't know whats filler or whats not.

I think he was saying that including a story is an outdated way of developing a video game. No story + decent graphics + insane amount of hype = GeoW. Maybe he should take some notes from Hideo.

I do have to say that it is passive entertainment where you have to spend 1 hour watching cut-scenes