Oh do tell me how these producers/directors of videogames are two of the most influential thinkers of the past 50 years?

Personally I think they influenced Jack and Shit and I think Jack just left the room.

Red:

It is essentially the same game with a different control system. Almost everything Kojima has done with MGS4 could have been done on MGS1 with blockier graphics and less sound fidelity. Kojima introduced the signature points of the series in MGS1: cinematic presentations, voice acting throughout the game, 3D stealth environments, massive boss battles, lengthy cutscenes, etc. etc.

Changes in the control system are what made MGS4 multiple times more playable than MGS1, which was the reason I never finished the game back in 98. Essentially what you've said yourself to be the key difference between Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy is changes in the control system. Granted controls make far more of a difference for an action platformer than a stealth action game, the controls were often a liability for the MGS series prior to MGS3 Subsistence. It took between 1998 and 2005 to bring the play system up to current standards. 

Most players were forgiving, but a large part of that had to do with being captivated by the story and the overall game experience. While I'm not in the majority, there were plenty of times throughout the MGS series (MGS, MGS2 and MGS3) that I wished there was a "skip game play" button so I could get to the next scene, when camera angles and clumsy controls became a liability. Players basically got around these parts through memorizing a section of the game (memorizing where enemies are, etc.), which is generally poor game design by modern standards when it becomes a requirement to get through.

Green:

3D, as you stated, was one of the largest transitions in gaming ever. It alone changed how games are viewed and how they are played. Even then, using the Mario franchise is a terrible way to back up your point. Play M64 then Sunshine then Galaxy. Yes, they're all platformers. Yes, they all involve Mario. The enemies are pretty much the same throughout. That's where the similarities end. The actual game portion of all three are drastically different from one another. Mario's always been about controls and Myamoto changes up those with every iteration of the series. When controls are the fundamental core of your game, changing them completely alters the face of the series.

I see similar development between MGS3 Subsistence, MGS4 and MGS Everything Else. Regular changes in controls from loose "watch dial" aiming, to precise FPS aiming, fixed camera angle to free roam 3D camera, loose "Snake on Ice Skates" controls to more responsive and precise (yet still room for improvement) movement/control response in addition to all the play mechanics that were added and improved upon over the years (cardboard box to menu controled manual camo to on the fly texture mapping camo).

But it's a point of view. People are going to take in what they want to see and forget the rest.

The big jump for MGS was the move to a 3D environment, with often broken, fixed camera angles and the additional production values that made it feel more like playing in an action film (musical score, voice acting, 3D cinematics, etc.). The controls were loose and inaccurate, which was par for 3D games in the mid-late 90s and left much room for improvement.

Orange:

This is an interesting phenomenon in Japanese development of games and it's interesting to see how companies like Capcom are trying to break out of that mold. Capcom did a good job of reinvigorating the RE series with RE4 but still, it's pretty much the same game (though without complete shit controls). I'm excited to see what they have in store for RE5, Capcom being one of the most progressive Japanese developers out there.

You might be disappointed by RE5 based upon early reports, at least from a game play perspective. The story and campaign will likely be better than RE4 given the series' trend of continually turning up the wick, but the game engine itself seems largely unchanged from RE4, which while functional, and only slightly less so without the aim assist provided by Wii style IR tracking, can hardly considered to be groundbreaking from a game play/mechanics perspective.

Most Japanese developers seem fairly content to keep developing relatively unchanged sequels to existing franchises so long as they continue to sell. From the global perspective of development, this is precisely why they have as a group, fallen behind in game design.

Blue:

FPS games have moved so far past the early iD games that they're almost unrecognizable when compared to their predecessors. RPG elements, vehicular combat, open-ended choices, sandbox-style gameplay... There's not a lot there to compare past "see bad guy, shoot bad guy". Again, a pretty weak argument to stand on. And that's not even bringing in games like Battlefield or Counter-Strike that completely changed how we play FPS games and how many people we play them with.

The earliest FPS games (Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Marathon) were primitive by comparison as I stated. Hardware didn't allow for more than a "rat in a maze" style of level design. Enemies were sprites and the only polygons used were in the construction of the 3D maze.

The FPS genre has benefited more than any other genre, with advances made in hardware development. FPS games as a genre on PC specifically sell hardware (video cards) as they are typically the most hardware intensive pieces of consumer used coding. Control schemes are tweaked with each generation to take advantage of advances in technology, and game play mechanics standards shift with each standard setting title, but the heart remains the same as it has since the early 90's.

Multiple play which progressed into online play didn't change the way the games were structured so much as the way they were played. If online play (which likely resulted in the most growth in the genre) is the biggest advancement, then the assumption would be that Halo 2 is the most groundbreaking game of the series?

I don't think MGO changed the way the MGS series was perceived, nor did it change the way most people played the game either, but it brought the same multiplayer online aspect to fans of the series.

Stanley Kubrick, Joseph Heller, The Beatles, (continue ad nauseum), they ain't got shit on Suda and Kojima.

*giggles*

Stanley Kubrick, Joseph Heller, The Beatles, (continue ad nauseum), they ain't got shit on Suda and Kojima.

*giggles*

What have you been smoking?