Zero Punctuation: Metal Gear Solid 4
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I half liked the review to be honest.
I had no problem with the long cut sequences, for me they were a break from playing the game. And before anyone says anything, let me finish.
I didn't really find the long sequenced long, because the first time through the game i played it on hard setting. Therefore, the game IS a stealth game and not an action game. Not only that, but it was so hard that each section took like 3 hrs to do, so the long sequences were a welcomed break.
And, having not played the third game, only one and two. I missed out on storyline of the third game.
The recap 4 gave through the game was first class.
Even when i cleared the first and second game, I had NO idea of the endings. I was left confused. So the cut sequences filling in my lack of following a story was great.
Going back to the review. I came away from it learning nothing. All the reviewer did was complain, complain and complain some more. Lighten up i say. Give some info i can take away with from it. OK, the mention of long cut scenes etc. But all of it was said in a negative view. How about mentioning some good things about a game for once?
Anyone viewing would get the impression of you hating the games you review. Even when you like them.
I had no problem with the long cut sequences, for me they were a break from playing the game. And before anyone says anything, let me finish.
I didn't really find the long sequenced long, because the first time through the game i played it on hard setting. Therefore, the game IS a stealth game and not an action game. Not only that, but it was so hard that each section took like 3 hrs to do, so the long sequences were a welcomed break.
And, having not played the third game, only one and two. I missed out on storyline of the third game.
The recap 4 gave through the game was first class.
Even when i cleared the first and second game, I had NO idea of the endings. I was left confused. So the cut sequences filling in my lack of following a story was great.
Going back to the review. I came away from it learning nothing. All the reviewer did was complain, complain and complain some more. Lighten up i say. Give some info i can take away with from it. OK, the mention of long cut scenes etc. But all of it was said in a negative view. How about mentioning some good things about a game for once?
Anyone viewing would get the impression of you hating the games you review. Even when you like them.
Can't believe I'm registering to talk about a game I don't even own...Oye...Also, couldn't be arsed to read through EVERYTHING. Too many posts. I probably missed a few here and there.
Anyway, speaking as a man that has played a few games in his time I can understand where he's coming from in quite a few respects. I can't say anything about the controls as I haven't played it, but as far as the other things I can gripe about, I'll use MGS3 as a nice little parallel to some of the issues that seem to spring up with this game.
Now don't get me wrong here. I loved the game. It was quirky and a pain in the ass at times, but the story just won me over. That said, the cutscenes occasionally made me long for a book to read during them. Yes, I know they can be skipped, but I shouldn't have to skip them especially on the first play through. Hell, I loved Volgin and his crazy testicle grabbing action but despite that he still managed to bore me to tears in some of the subsequent cutscenes. If MGS4 follows this tradition, I can see why people have an issue with it. Once again, if you need to skip all the important crap for the sake of convenience, it's an issue. I fail to see how this is even debated.
As far as the ease with which it's played, a friend of mine LITERALLY ran like a chicken with his head cut off when he lost all his weapons. He may not have got the coveted NOT BEING NOTICED! trophy, but if you're going to hype stealth make it integral, not something you can just say "fuck it" and ignore...And no, it was on either normal or that slightly higher one, not easy. saying "PLAYIN' NOT AWESOME HARD MAKES YA NOT GET IT!" isn't valid as an excuse. If you can get away with stuff on the "normal" difficulty, the one most people will hit up, then that ends that debate right there. Just getting that out of the way.
The plot...Oye, you know, lets just use Ocelot as an example. As of MGS4 he was - SPOILERS ARE MOST LIKELY INVOLVED- The son of The Boss and The Sorrow who was born on a battlefield. His loyalties lie with GRUE, but not really as he's working for the CIA or FBI, I can't remember which, but not really as he's in actuality working for The Patriots and his arm was replaced after being hacked off by a cyborg zombie ninja with that of Snakes cloned brother and said arm is now taking over his mind because of the psychic powers inherited from his father, but oh, not really he's just faking, it was hypnosis and nanobots...
I don't care how you slice it, that's convoluted. I even LIKE the annoying jaggoff and his story makes my head spin a la Beetleguise. I get it, I really do, but dear lord that's such a clusterfuck. Perhaps we'd like to add in another clone, a female one, and she's from another dimension, but is really from this one and is in actuality a new kind of metal gear, but IN REALITY is a mass hallucination caused by a computer program intent on fueling the war machine and interacted with the environment through enslaved psychics, and time travel. It was actually developed as the first in a new breed of AI in the future but took over the world and returned to the past to kill itself in the most overly elaborate suicide since Neil Gaimans Sandman. Oh yeah, Kojima's got nothing on MY level of convolution.
The fact is that the game isn't terrible, but it has recognizable issues. Those issues will put some people off from the game.
And as for whomever keeps going ADD Durr hurr hurr, I managed to read the Lord of the Rings in a single sitting. LORD OF THE RINGS for gods sake, king of overly long and drawn out sequences. It doesn't make the books bad, it just makes certain sections tedious as bloody hell. Same with the hobbit. FUCKING PARTY, END ALREADY! That's about how people seem to perceive the cutscenes in this game. It expounds past the necessary level, past the overly necessary level, and runs sheer into the WEEEEEE, EAT DIALOG! level.
Also, yes, overly lengthy character and plot development is an issue. If you have four or five different characters beating you upside the head with the same information each time something new occurs, then yes, it's freaking annoying. If a character is wounded in battle, I don't need to hear about the exact size, shape, depth, color, and approximate rate at which it's bleeding. A simple "Ow, knife wound!" will suffice. The same can be said of anything where it drags on and on without end. Kind of like this post. Getting bored yet?
Finally, a game "just to play" can be anything. I fail to see why RPG's should be so prohibitive as to cull out casual people. A good deal of asshats managed to wade through FF7 and that can be just as obtuse, so the reasoning shouldn't really apply to such an ORESOME GAME! Incidentally, if the game is so great, it should MAKE US INTERESTED BECAUSE IT'S FRICKIN' SWEET. This isn't hard to get. The extra little details shouldn't comprise everything important. As owner of the Star wars guide to droids and someone who incessantly called Medic and Signit whenever I picked up food/weapons in MGS3, if either Lucas or Kojima had made that info vital to the movies/game it would have irked me. If I want to learn more, it's cool, but I don't want all the extra fluff to be necessary to understanding the story. Sometimes I just feel like ignoring the bastards.
Lim-Dul also made a valid point, you can like something that's bad. Hell, I happen to enjoy "The Bouncer" I realize that it's terrible on a number of levels, but I just love beating the ever loving crap out of things for about an hour. Does my enjoyment make it a good game? A resounding, no...But I enjoy it so even with it's flaws pointed out I should be able to say "Yeah, I guess it is kinda bad...But I like it." Everyone enjoys SOMETHING that's pretty crappy, but I fail to see why you can't just say you enjoy something despite it being essentially bad.
And to tack something else on, look back at his Psychonauts review you crazies that are going on about "Games as art" Just because they strive for something doesn't mean they don't fall flat. I may respect that they gave it a shot, but I would still give the writers for some of them a swift kick in the nuts as far as the end product is concerned. Intent only goes so far before it has to actually pay off.
Please keep in mind that from the tone of the review, it doesn't seem like he hates it or even proclaims it's a terrible game. He seems to be running for a middle of the road approach. It has redeeming aspects, but some of the issues just get to him too much. It's pretty understandable...And I resent the D&D comment. I play the hell out of that with my friends. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say the dialog in our games is more concise that that of some of the MGS cutscenes. Remember that word, concise? It exists for a reason.
Oh, and bugger me, the last cut scene is that long? Why? Is there any reason to have to sit through what is essentially a movie, or is it just...I don't know, why would you do that?
On an unrelated note, 4e took out nothing of the roleplaying aspect. I don't even like it and I manage to admit that. It's just as open as the previous versions. It's been made so that all the classes are more balanced, and I'm not exactly a fan of that, but aside from that I fail to see where it says I can no longer do stupid things like running up a wall and making a jumping attack at a flying object...Not going to go into the specifics...Actually, just tell me where the roleplaying is cut. I'm curious. You can still use every skill that was in 3/3.5, you just need a DM smart enough to decide on what needs to be rolled to accomplish it. Hell, I'm betting a creative DM could even manage to make lip-reading useful...Did anyone even use that?
...Did someone just reference the Silmarillion? Honestly? God, I know someone who's got the damn thing near memorized and even HE manages to admit it's one of the most dry and drawn out books he's ever read. You know what, I bet you read CAD, because WORDS WORDS WORDS is never a bad thing, other people are just too stupid to follow it. Actually, I'll top that. I read the phone book. Oh yeah, and you people saying it's a boring read and that it's dry just don't have the necissary attention span. It's too subtle for you.
Wow, tangent much? Props to anyone who actually manages to get through all that.
Anyway, speaking as a man that has played a few games in his time I can understand where he's coming from in quite a few respects. I can't say anything about the controls as I haven't played it, but as far as the other things I can gripe about, I'll use MGS3 as a nice little parallel to some of the issues that seem to spring up with this game.
Now don't get me wrong here. I loved the game. It was quirky and a pain in the ass at times, but the story just won me over. That said, the cutscenes occasionally made me long for a book to read during them. Yes, I know they can be skipped, but I shouldn't have to skip them especially on the first play through. Hell, I loved Volgin and his crazy testicle grabbing action but despite that he still managed to bore me to tears in some of the subsequent cutscenes. If MGS4 follows this tradition, I can see why people have an issue with it. Once again, if you need to skip all the important crap for the sake of convenience, it's an issue. I fail to see how this is even debated.
As far as the ease with which it's played, a friend of mine LITERALLY ran like a chicken with his head cut off when he lost all his weapons. He may not have got the coveted NOT BEING NOTICED! trophy, but if you're going to hype stealth make it integral, not something you can just say "fuck it" and ignore...And no, it was on either normal or that slightly higher one, not easy. saying "PLAYIN' NOT AWESOME HARD MAKES YA NOT GET IT!" isn't valid as an excuse. If you can get away with stuff on the "normal" difficulty, the one most people will hit up, then that ends that debate right there. Just getting that out of the way.
The plot...Oye, you know, lets just use Ocelot as an example. As of MGS4 he was - SPOILERS ARE MOST LIKELY INVOLVED- The son of The Boss and The Sorrow who was born on a battlefield. His loyalties lie with GRUE, but not really as he's working for the CIA or FBI, I can't remember which, but not really as he's in actuality working for The Patriots and his arm was replaced after being hacked off by a cyborg zombie ninja with that of Snakes cloned brother and said arm is now taking over his mind because of the psychic powers inherited from his father, but oh, not really he's just faking, it was hypnosis and nanobots...
I don't care how you slice it, that's convoluted. I even LIKE the annoying jaggoff and his story makes my head spin a la Beetleguise. I get it, I really do, but dear lord that's such a clusterfuck. Perhaps we'd like to add in another clone, a female one, and she's from another dimension, but is really from this one and is in actuality a new kind of metal gear, but IN REALITY is a mass hallucination caused by a computer program intent on fueling the war machine and interacted with the environment through enslaved psychics, and time travel. It was actually developed as the first in a new breed of AI in the future but took over the world and returned to the past to kill itself in the most overly elaborate suicide since Neil Gaimans Sandman. Oh yeah, Kojima's got nothing on MY level of convolution.
The fact is that the game isn't terrible, but it has recognizable issues. Those issues will put some people off from the game.
And as for whomever keeps going ADD Durr hurr hurr, I managed to read the Lord of the Rings in a single sitting. LORD OF THE RINGS for gods sake, king of overly long and drawn out sequences. It doesn't make the books bad, it just makes certain sections tedious as bloody hell. Same with the hobbit. FUCKING PARTY, END ALREADY! That's about how people seem to perceive the cutscenes in this game. It expounds past the necessary level, past the overly necessary level, and runs sheer into the WEEEEEE, EAT DIALOG! level.
Also, yes, overly lengthy character and plot development is an issue. If you have four or five different characters beating you upside the head with the same information each time something new occurs, then yes, it's freaking annoying. If a character is wounded in battle, I don't need to hear about the exact size, shape, depth, color, and approximate rate at which it's bleeding. A simple "Ow, knife wound!" will suffice. The same can be said of anything where it drags on and on without end. Kind of like this post. Getting bored yet?
Finally, a game "just to play" can be anything. I fail to see why RPG's should be so prohibitive as to cull out casual people. A good deal of asshats managed to wade through FF7 and that can be just as obtuse, so the reasoning shouldn't really apply to such an ORESOME GAME! Incidentally, if the game is so great, it should MAKE US INTERESTED BECAUSE IT'S FRICKIN' SWEET. This isn't hard to get. The extra little details shouldn't comprise everything important. As owner of the Star wars guide to droids and someone who incessantly called Medic and Signit whenever I picked up food/weapons in MGS3, if either Lucas or Kojima had made that info vital to the movies/game it would have irked me. If I want to learn more, it's cool, but I don't want all the extra fluff to be necessary to understanding the story. Sometimes I just feel like ignoring the bastards.
Lim-Dul also made a valid point, you can like something that's bad. Hell, I happen to enjoy "The Bouncer" I realize that it's terrible on a number of levels, but I just love beating the ever loving crap out of things for about an hour. Does my enjoyment make it a good game? A resounding, no...But I enjoy it so even with it's flaws pointed out I should be able to say "Yeah, I guess it is kinda bad...But I like it." Everyone enjoys SOMETHING that's pretty crappy, but I fail to see why you can't just say you enjoy something despite it being essentially bad.
And to tack something else on, look back at his Psychonauts review you crazies that are going on about "Games as art" Just because they strive for something doesn't mean they don't fall flat. I may respect that they gave it a shot, but I would still give the writers for some of them a swift kick in the nuts as far as the end product is concerned. Intent only goes so far before it has to actually pay off.
Please keep in mind that from the tone of the review, it doesn't seem like he hates it or even proclaims it's a terrible game. He seems to be running for a middle of the road approach. It has redeeming aspects, but some of the issues just get to him too much. It's pretty understandable...And I resent the D&D comment. I play the hell out of that with my friends. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say the dialog in our games is more concise that that of some of the MGS cutscenes. Remember that word, concise? It exists for a reason.
Oh, and bugger me, the last cut scene is that long? Why? Is there any reason to have to sit through what is essentially a movie, or is it just...I don't know, why would you do that?
On an unrelated note, 4e took out nothing of the roleplaying aspect. I don't even like it and I manage to admit that. It's just as open as the previous versions. It's been made so that all the classes are more balanced, and I'm not exactly a fan of that, but aside from that I fail to see where it says I can no longer do stupid things like running up a wall and making a jumping attack at a flying object...Not going to go into the specifics...Actually, just tell me where the roleplaying is cut. I'm curious. You can still use every skill that was in 3/3.5, you just need a DM smart enough to decide on what needs to be rolled to accomplish it. Hell, I'm betting a creative DM could even manage to make lip-reading useful...Did anyone even use that?
...Did someone just reference the Silmarillion? Honestly? God, I know someone who's got the damn thing near memorized and even HE manages to admit it's one of the most dry and drawn out books he's ever read. You know what, I bet you read CAD, because WORDS WORDS WORDS is never a bad thing, other people are just too stupid to follow it. Actually, I'll top that. I read the phone book. Oh yeah, and you people saying it's a boring read and that it's dry just don't have the necissary attention span. It's too subtle for you.
Wow, tangent much? Props to anyone who actually manages to get through all that.
Bottom line:
Your all just way too impatient and you should have known better than to get an HK title, especially the LAST game in his MAIN series, and not expect that much sheer depth and detail. Seriously thats the thing that kills me. If people think a story is bad just because its deep and has alot of detail then thats your problem and I'm sorry but to paraphrase someone else who made a brilliant comment on here before its like buying Madden 08 and complaining that theirs too much focus on playing the football (Madden is football right?)
and Tempdude0, you have proven my point. As a MASSIVE Tolkien fangirl I have to say that having any issues with things being long and drawn out in those books is just... well let me put it this way, I doubt you would get though my favorite book, the Silmarillion. If you somehow did it would be by forcing yourself. I can't remember ANYTHING being tedious in any of Tolkiens work.
Your all just way too impatient and you should have known better than to get an HK title, especially the LAST game in his MAIN series, and not expect that much sheer depth and detail. Seriously thats the thing that kills me. If people think a story is bad just because its deep and has alot of detail then thats your problem and I'm sorry but to paraphrase someone else who made a brilliant comment on here before its like buying Madden 08 and complaining that theirs too much focus on playing the football (Madden is football right?)
and Tempdude0, you have proven my point. As a MASSIVE Tolkien fangirl I have to say that having any issues with things being long and drawn out in those books is just... well let me put it this way, I doubt you would get though my favorite book, the Silmarillion. If you somehow did it would be by forcing yourself. I can't remember ANYTHING being tedious in any of Tolkiens work.
Wow I never knew I represented the 'fans' of yahtzee, lol. His points aren't uninteresting I have never played MG4 but I agree about the ridiculous amount of dialogue as I have played the first two games. Also it shouldn't affect fans of Metal Gear series that badly, if you like the games get over what he has said about it doesn't affect your enjoyment. I like Bioshock but I don't hate Yahtzee for pointing out the bad points about it! Rant over.yzzlthtz said:
My cousin bought a PS3 for MGS4 and loves it. I bought a 360 for Halo 3 and love it. He thinks Halo is FPS for retards I think MGS4 is a shitty blu-ray movie. Yet we still get along, don't see why others can't.
Too impatient again? That's your rallying cry Terra? Honestly. I just stated I read all of the LoTR books in a single setting. Name one activity that would take more patience and the ability to wait for a payoff. Well, without including reading The Silmarillian and The Hobbit in the same sitting in addition to the previously mentioned books. As for deep, you never commented on my brilliant masterpiece. I think my addition shows true depth, perhaps rivaling the writing skills Kojima himself.
That aside, you're a terrible troll. If you're going to even attempt to start crap at least work with points that can't be easily refuted. For instance, the Madden analogy is awful. Now, if you paid for madden and then got a team roster set up, got ready to play and then
were treated to an hour describing each players particular hight, weight, hair color, eye color, overall stats, what they tend to do in certain situations, what their favorite color is, their birthday, and their thoughts on life in general, then we could use that as a nice parallel.
Obscene amounts of information are neither needed nor add to the story. How about we have Snake going to buy groceries at one point while either he or a narrator describe each different item on the shelves. It doesn't make the scene more real, it makes it annoying unless they throw in a few references to things in the series or a couple of jokes. Even THEN it's going to border tedium unless they do something absolutely awesome.
Oh, and by your logic, I have the largest post containing the most writing, so I have the most well thought out arguments because I have more WORDS WORDS WORDS to back up what I'm saying which means it's good because more words means more good stuff and more good stuff means it's better and better things have more words....I could keep up the circular logic aaaaaallll day, it wouldn't make it any less retarded.
Howzabout this. You tell me why more words inherently makes a story more fleshed out. Why I need to know that a robot in the background during the scene where Luke is in the Bacta tank is an outdated stationary med droid and that the bipedal one next to it is one of the best money could buy, why knowing that Jabba's largest rival used to be a near corpulent Hutt that was poisoned by both Jabba and his uncle/aunt and that said poisoned hutts offspring Durga allied himself with the Black Sun crime syndicate and that this lead to the events of shadows of the empire is vital to understanding his character. Humor me by expounding on why knowing that Frodo's middle toe on his right foot had three hairs more than those of his other toes makes his character more real. Granted, I made that last one up, but nothing drives a point home like that particular level of absurdity.
Just as a tally, you have yet to say why:
1) The story isn't convoluted. I gave Revolver Ocelot as an example. Refute it, I dare you.
2) If the story is so bitchin' why doesn't it manage to capture our hearts and minds like that of the Lord of the Rings. Both are equally wordy, but I'm pretty sure most here could give a decent dissertation on the books. Why did THAT wordy come off as excellent and MGS's wordy come off as bloody annoying.
3) The 4e thing. It's the second to last paragraph. Just read it and respond. I'm not going to retype the important info again. You brought it up, so run with it.
4) As far as fans of Tolkien go, why is the Silmarillion considered painfully long and boring even by the most hardcore of fans, one of which I mentioned. The guy could go through the damn thing plot point by plot point and even HE said the book was balls...Though if that was the case I'm not sure why he read it so many times...Eh, fans. Whatareyagonnado?
5) A new point, do you think or just rephrase old posts? You have yet to address any points brought up by people except to make ad hominem attacks and point out they don't get it because they don't like it.
6) Oh, and detail does not make depth. Just because you pack as much information into a game/book/movie does not mean it gives it depth. It gives it info...That's it. It's the context of the information and the way in which it drives the player/reader/watcher to continue in their activity. To feel for the characters, to be in awe of the world around them, to drink in a rich setting, none of these require massive amounts of information, just the right amount to let us move around in it without being yanked back into reality. Take Neil Gaimans Sandman. Even by the end of the series we knew next to nothing about who Morpheus actually WAS as a being. That didn't make him a cardboard cutout. I'll even go so far as to say the raven in the books had as much characterization as Solid Snake. Yes, the BIRD managed to be on par with the main character of this series in terms of feelings associated with him. Three guesses which had more info to work with to make them more "real".
You see Shatnershaman, the reason for that is some people are twats who can't realize that different people enjoy different things. That comprehension of a subject does not denote love of it and lack of love does not denote lack of comprehension. They further cannot understand that you can love something even if it has flaws, even flaws so glaring as to turn others away from the series.
Apparently I lack the ability to converse outside of "rant mode"...huh.
That aside, you're a terrible troll. If you're going to even attempt to start crap at least work with points that can't be easily refuted. For instance, the Madden analogy is awful. Now, if you paid for madden and then got a team roster set up, got ready to play and then
were treated to an hour describing each players particular hight, weight, hair color, eye color, overall stats, what they tend to do in certain situations, what their favorite color is, their birthday, and their thoughts on life in general, then we could use that as a nice parallel.
Obscene amounts of information are neither needed nor add to the story. How about we have Snake going to buy groceries at one point while either he or a narrator describe each different item on the shelves. It doesn't make the scene more real, it makes it annoying unless they throw in a few references to things in the series or a couple of jokes. Even THEN it's going to border tedium unless they do something absolutely awesome.
Oh, and by your logic, I have the largest post containing the most writing, so I have the most well thought out arguments because I have more WORDS WORDS WORDS to back up what I'm saying which means it's good because more words means more good stuff and more good stuff means it's better and better things have more words....I could keep up the circular logic aaaaaallll day, it wouldn't make it any less retarded.
Howzabout this. You tell me why more words inherently makes a story more fleshed out. Why I need to know that a robot in the background during the scene where Luke is in the Bacta tank is an outdated stationary med droid and that the bipedal one next to it is one of the best money could buy, why knowing that Jabba's largest rival used to be a near corpulent Hutt that was poisoned by both Jabba and his uncle/aunt and that said poisoned hutts offspring Durga allied himself with the Black Sun crime syndicate and that this lead to the events of shadows of the empire is vital to understanding his character. Humor me by expounding on why knowing that Frodo's middle toe on his right foot had three hairs more than those of his other toes makes his character more real. Granted, I made that last one up, but nothing drives a point home like that particular level of absurdity.
Just as a tally, you have yet to say why:
1) The story isn't convoluted. I gave Revolver Ocelot as an example. Refute it, I dare you.
2) If the story is so bitchin' why doesn't it manage to capture our hearts and minds like that of the Lord of the Rings. Both are equally wordy, but I'm pretty sure most here could give a decent dissertation on the books. Why did THAT wordy come off as excellent and MGS's wordy come off as bloody annoying.
3) The 4e thing. It's the second to last paragraph. Just read it and respond. I'm not going to retype the important info again. You brought it up, so run with it.
4) As far as fans of Tolkien go, why is the Silmarillion considered painfully long and boring even by the most hardcore of fans, one of which I mentioned. The guy could go through the damn thing plot point by plot point and even HE said the book was balls...Though if that was the case I'm not sure why he read it so many times...Eh, fans. Whatareyagonnado?
5) A new point, do you think or just rephrase old posts? You have yet to address any points brought up by people except to make ad hominem attacks and point out they don't get it because they don't like it.
6) Oh, and detail does not make depth. Just because you pack as much information into a game/book/movie does not mean it gives it depth. It gives it info...That's it. It's the context of the information and the way in which it drives the player/reader/watcher to continue in their activity. To feel for the characters, to be in awe of the world around them, to drink in a rich setting, none of these require massive amounts of information, just the right amount to let us move around in it without being yanked back into reality. Take Neil Gaimans Sandman. Even by the end of the series we knew next to nothing about who Morpheus actually WAS as a being. That didn't make him a cardboard cutout. I'll even go so far as to say the raven in the books had as much characterization as Solid Snake. Yes, the BIRD managed to be on par with the main character of this series in terms of feelings associated with him. Three guesses which had more info to work with to make them more "real".
You see Shatnershaman, the reason for that is some people are twats who can't realize that different people enjoy different things. That comprehension of a subject does not denote love of it and lack of love does not denote lack of comprehension. They further cannot understand that you can love something even if it has flaws, even flaws so glaring as to turn others away from the series.
Apparently I lack the ability to converse outside of "rant mode"...huh.
I wonder how many people predicted this so called "review". I mean we all knew that Yahtzee, would give MGS4 the shitty stuff, beacuse: A. He only enjoys pointless FPS shooters like Serious Sam, the 1st Doom's and the bloody Painkiller series. and B. He despises games witch have to much story line.
Now I actually don't see the point in bitching around the "story telling" thing, beacuse that's what most games concetrate on, to give the player the "immersion", if the writers would stop doing that, then we would get dumb an pointless shit witch we could desribe with a two word's and not even playing the game, and the word would be "arcade shooter"; beacuse thoes games never had much story telling or anything. The 2nd thing is that MGS mostly uses story telling so the player could get interested, that's what made the series so popular in the 1st, place the unuqioe charcters and story telling. Plus we're forgetting that MGS4 is the end of the saga, so naturally it would be predictable that there would be allot of referance to the previous games, plus allot of cutscenes.
But still, bitching about such stuff as "to much story telling" or even "cutscenes" is the same thing is bitching bout a midget for been to short. He did't give us any good points an simply bashed the game (predictable thing) like he did with SSBB, so there wasn't much to expect. The review didn't give me a chuckel or even laugh, it was just another simple bashing of a game series Yahtzee despises, and will probably end in more "Yahtzee fans" vs "Yahtzee haters or fan boys" or in another mail bag showdown. Witch ever comes first. But since Yahtzee is a harsh game critic, who doesn't take any mercy on games, it'll be another pointless battle
Now I actually don't see the point in bitching around the "story telling" thing, beacuse that's what most games concetrate on, to give the player the "immersion", if the writers would stop doing that, then we would get dumb an pointless shit witch we could desribe with a two word's and not even playing the game, and the word would be "arcade shooter"; beacuse thoes games never had much story telling or anything. The 2nd thing is that MGS mostly uses story telling so the player could get interested, that's what made the series so popular in the 1st, place the unuqioe charcters and story telling. Plus we're forgetting that MGS4 is the end of the saga, so naturally it would be predictable that there would be allot of referance to the previous games, plus allot of cutscenes.
But still, bitching about such stuff as "to much story telling" or even "cutscenes" is the same thing is bitching bout a midget for been to short. He did't give us any good points an simply bashed the game (predictable thing) like he did with SSBB, so there wasn't much to expect. The review didn't give me a chuckel or even laugh, it was just another simple bashing of a game series Yahtzee despises, and will probably end in more "Yahtzee fans" vs "Yahtzee haters or fan boys" or in another mail bag showdown. Witch ever comes first. But since Yahtzee is a harsh game critic, who doesn't take any mercy on games, it'll be another pointless battle
So basically there's an abundance of bad writing, not enough stealthing, an abundance of bad writing, tedious controls for the action parts, did I mention an abundance of bad writing?
Yahtzee made that pretty clear, I think something like 4/5 of the entire review was about the incredible amount of endless badly written cutscenes.
I've never been into stealth games, the main reason being I haven't found one yet that doesn't have incredibly tedious controls. I like stealthing in FPS games, though, becouse the controls aren't as bad to do things you didn't meant to do (for example in Splinter Cell, dropping a stone you were holding instead of putting a knife in the guard's back) or not do things you wanted to do (in Hitman I often wanted to strangle a guard, but the buttons didn't work properly so I just kept walking until I bumped into him and was greeted by half a clip of SMG bullets). Tedious controls is what ruins games for me most of the time, so I won't bother with this game (not that I needed further confirmaiton for that).
This is a GAME. PLAYING THE GAME is what it's about, hence I think GAMEPLAY is the most important in a game, not just staring at pretty graphics. Why do you think Star Craft is still one of the most popular games of all time?
I can agree that this wasn't his funniest review of all time, but you can't say he's simply bashing the game because he dislikes storylines.
Yahtzee made that pretty clear, I think something like 4/5 of the entire review was about the incredible amount of endless badly written cutscenes.
I've never been into stealth games, the main reason being I haven't found one yet that doesn't have incredibly tedious controls. I like stealthing in FPS games, though, becouse the controls aren't as bad to do things you didn't meant to do (for example in Splinter Cell, dropping a stone you were holding instead of putting a knife in the guard's back) or not do things you wanted to do (in Hitman I often wanted to strangle a guard, but the buttons didn't work properly so I just kept walking until I bumped into him and was greeted by half a clip of SMG bullets). Tedious controls is what ruins games for me most of the time, so I won't bother with this game (not that I needed further confirmaiton for that).
Correction: He bashed the game for having too much BAD writing. Now, I can't really give you my own opinion on it, since I've never actually played the game and what I've seen didn't look that bad, that's just what Yahtzee was saying. Besides, it's a game! Yahtzee enjoys interactive storytelling, not games where it's just laid out in front of you (see the 'The World Ends With You' review). This is like a game where half of it is a real-time rendered war movie with a bit of actual gameplay in between, just to shake things up a little.Kanashe said:
This is a GAME. PLAYING THE GAME is what it's about, hence I think GAMEPLAY is the most important in a game, not just staring at pretty graphics. Why do you think Star Craft is still one of the most popular games of all time?
I can agree that this wasn't his funniest review of all time, but you can't say he's simply bashing the game because he dislikes storylines.
I don't get how he "fucking loved killer7" yet doesn't get the story of MGS. Killer7 was very confusing and took some thought to get the story at all. Way more thought than MGS IMO.
BTW, How is MGS badly written?
BTW, How is MGS badly written?