And my point is that it doesn't make it an interactive movie.  If I made a game with 100 hours of gameplay, and 200 hours of cutscenes, does it make my game an interactive movie?

You are wrong in obstinately calling MGS games 'interactive movies' and you are wrong on what a 10 at IGN means. 

From IGN themselves, in the GTAIV review:

"A "10" is not a score we give out very often. In fact, the last time we gave a 10 to a console game was Soul Calibur in 1999. A 10 doesn't mean a game is perfect -- it means a game is pushing boundaries, expanding a genre, and doing many things to a level so far above and beyond its competitors that they overshadows any flaws. Certainly, GTA IV has some issues, the most noticeable being the occasional flaw in the cover system, but there are many more pieces of GTA IV that are better than anything I've seen from a game in the past decade. We don't give 10s often -- just to games that merit the score."

For further proof consider that there are differences among console versions hidden within that 10 score:

"For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud."

Why would you work with such huge numbers? The 2 hours of gameplay vs. 6 hours of non-interactivity is an actual in-game scenario.

The answer is still yes.

@Loud_Hot_White_Box: What part of that contradicts my assertion that a 10 is, and I'm quoting me, "this game is rated as highly as possible"?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

If you are saying that you can't have a score better than the best score, then you are correct.  But because you said "A 10 means this game is as good as can be," that made me think that you meant what you said.  A game rated 10 could be better...for instance less pop-in, better loads, better graphics on Soul Caliber, whatever.  10 doesn't mean the game can't be any better.  But if you ONLY meant to say that 10 is the highest score, then that is correct.

The operative assumption in your argument is that I'm talking solely about IGN, which is not the case. For many places, a 10 is only given out to games which are considered "perfect". Ludicrous and unwieldy, yes, but still true.

The operative word in my prior statement was "or". Namely, 'A 10 means "this game is as good as can be", or "this game is rated as highly as possible".'

The "or" implies that it is one of these two definitions which applies in any given scenario, not just one.

Ok, and all I was saying was that the clause before the "or" doesn't make any sense.  Not just by IGN's definition, but philosophically, because we all can instantly think of improvements for any game, regardless of whether it's been issued a 10 score.  You seem to admit as much by saying it would be "ludicrous and unwieldy"..we are in agreement on that.

I did think you were just talking about IGN's 10 score because of the context of the thread beginning with the initial quote from IGN asking if they could give a game an 11.  Turns out we are not in disagreement now that I know that you yourself don't actually think "A 10 means this game is as good as can be"... I guess you were just saying that some sites seem to think that.

Then we have reached an understanding!

It is time for cake.

I repeat (I also add one word):

- What is a video game?

- What is an interactive movie?

- How are the titles in the MGS series not video games?

Keep in mind that your answer should include facts, not just opinnions.

I don't mean any insult to you. It is just that a lot of people throw the "fact" that the MGS series is an "interactive movie" around these days.

If the MGS series is an "interactive" movie, then the questions that I have provided should actually help towards proving your argument. I have read some of the responses that people have given to you and I must say I agree with some of them. I don't care if MGS4 had one hour of gameplay and 15 hours of story, the length of gameplay does not change something from a "video game" to an "interactive movie".

You said: "The entire hinge of my prior argument was that there's more movie to it than there is game." Well, my friend, this could apply to ALOT of fucking games! A speed run through Resident Evil 4 takes less than two hours dude!