Ishmael error?!

[A.G.]

Thing is though, Blade Runner brought things to the table that made it stand the test of time despite having isues. It had a very unique style and presentation. A better comparison of that film is actually to MGS2. The game, despite its flaws, became more appreciated over time and its brilliance shines more and more. Pre-MGS4 title actually aged remarkably well. They have a unique style that was uncompromising and thus it’s easy to continue loving them decades later. Starting with MGS4 Kojima wasn’t innovating. He was desperately trying to keep up with the changing industry. Things like a massive arsenal of weapons, recruiting Pokémon soldiers, base building and open world are not really part of the Metal Gear formula. Metal Gear, much like Die Hard, has a very unique and unforgiving formula. It’s rigid but that’s what makes it different from all other games. Starting with MGS4 he started to mess with that formula and it made his games less special. They were just attempts to get more acceptance from casual gamers. “Oh look at all guns MGS has now! Oh look at a base with stats you can have! Oh look at me trying to do open world!” The only saving grace MGS4 had was nostalgia and memorable moments. Truly memorable moments that shined. But MGS5 doesn’t have that. It’s been a couple years now and the game faded into time. Nobody really references it. It failed to appeal to casual gamers because it’s a mess from a basic game design perspective and is simply not finished. And it failed to appeal to many MG fans because of the story. So unlike Blade Runner, or older MGS games, this one will just be forgotten.

[fgdj2000]

Jan 7, 2018 11:32:56 GMT -5 A.G. said:

Thing is though, Blade Runner brought things to the table that made it stand the test of time despite having isues. It had a very unique style and presentation. A better comparison of that film is actually to MGS2. The game, despite its flaws, became more appreciated over time and its brilliance shines more and more. Pre-MGS4 title actually aged remarkably well. They have a unique style that was uncompromising and thus it’s easy to continue loving them decades later. Starting with MGS4 Kojima wasn’t innovating. He was desperately trying to keep up with the changing industry. Things like a massive arsenal of weapons, recruiting Pokémon soldiers, base building and open world are not really part of the Metal Gear formula. Metal Gear, much like Die Hard, has a very unique and unforgiving formula. It’s rigid but that’s what makes it different from all other games. Starting with MGS4 he started to mess with that formula and it made his games less special. They were just attempts to get more acceptance from casual gamers. “Oh look at all guns MGS has now! Oh look at a base with stats you can have! Oh look at me trying to do open world!” The only saving grace MGS4 had was nostalgia and memorable moments. Truly memorable moments that shined. But MGS5 doesn’t have that. It’s been a couple years now and the game faded into time. Nobody really references it. It failed to appeal to casual gamers because it’s a mess from a basic game design perspective and is simply not finished. And it failed to appeal to many MG fans because of the story. So unlike Blade Runner, or older MGS games, this one will just be forgotten.

It is true that Blade Runner simply did things no other movie at the time did, which gave it the edge. It actually inspired animes like Akira or Ghost in the Shell which in turn inspired many filmmakers from the late 1990s onward. Even Star Wars' Coruscant has some Blade Runner vibe, even though its probably more an homage to 1920s' Metropolis.

I give you that MGSV is in many respects behind the times - or at least not ahead of its time - and that it is a pretty big mess. I still think that the gameplay at its core is pretty great - from the enemy a.i. to the fluid control scheme to the bases and their design to the balance of power system to the mother base meta game to the fob multiplayer system. The first 5-10 hours are great, but it doesn't do anything significant after that. I think the reason why it didn't sell was that it is so reliant on the series lore on the one hand that it kept potential new players away, but on the other hand has so many story and pacing issues that it kept hardcore fans unimpressed. Not to mention that only the absolute hardcore fans kept playing the series past MGS4 and knew who Paz, Chico and Huey even were. I also think the marketing broke this game's neck. So much was spoiled. We knew every major sequence, every major bit of dialogue, every major feature of the game beforehand. Quiet as a buddy should have been a huge surprise, but was just told to us in a presentation more than a year before the game was released. Heck, the very fact that The Phantom Pain was MGSV shouldn't have been made public until the release of Ground Zeroes. 

If you ask me, the biggest issue for the games from MGS3 onwards were that Kojima didn't want to make any more Metal Gear games. He wanted to make some very different games, but was presumably pressured into making more Metal Gear games instead, even beyond a pretty definitive finale. My guess is he just stopped caring and just tried to make whatever game he wanted within the confines of Metal Gear. The absolute tonal inconsistency between the cheerful cartoony Peace Walker and the somber dark and depressing Phantom Pain is more than proof of that. 

[A.G.]

I agree with that. Ironically it’s why I like MGS4. The game very much reflected the state of the series and Kojima. And I guess to some degree us fans. Snake was tired, outdated and on his last legs. The game felt like the series stood up on last time for a curtain call. It wasn’t graceful, groundbreaking or even needed. But it did with heart and for that I can’t help but stand and applaud it.

[fgdj2000]

Jan 7, 2018 23:12:05 GMT -5 A.G. said:

I agree with that. Ironically it’s why I like MGS4. The game very much reflected the state of the series and Kojima. And I guess to some degree us fans. Snake was tired, outdated and on his last legs. The game felt like the series stood up on last time for a curtain call. It wasn’t graceful, groundbreaking or even needed. But it did with heart and for that I can’t help but stand and applaud it.

Yeah, definitely. Nothing else was needed. It was truly a Metal Gear game to end Metal Gear games. Kojima really left nothing open for a proper sequel. Characters died or lived happily ever after, the 30 year gap between MGS3 and MG1 was filled with new backstory and the main character was de-facto killed off. 

[Cerberus_0408]

Jan 7, 2018 15:54:33 GMT -5 fgdj2000 said:

I also think the marketing broke this game's neck. So much was spoiled. We knew every major sequence, every major bit of dialogue, every major feature of the game beforehand. Quiet as a buddy should have been a huge surprise, but was just told to us in a presentation more than a year before the game was released. Heck, the very fact that The Phantom Pain was MGSV shouldn't have been made public until the release of Ground Zeroes. 

But I feel this way about marketing and advertising, you MUST have some kinda promotion to sell a game. Spoilers are inevitable! sh*t happens when you're making trailers!

If you ask me, the biggest issue for the games from MGS3 onwards were that Kojima didn't want to make any more Metal Gear games. He wanted to make some very different games, but was presumably pressured into making more Metal Gear games instead, even beyond a pretty definitive finale. My guess is he just stopped caring and just tried to make whatever game he wanted within the confines of Metal Gear. The absolute tonal inconsistency between the cheerful cartoony Peace Walker and the somber dark and depressing Phantom Pain is more than proof of that. 

Hmm, I kinda agree. It's rather like the first Batman series being kid-friendly and yet cartoony while Nolan's version makes it a lot more negative and realistic.

[fgdj2000]

But I feel this way about marketing and advertising, you MUST have some kinda promotion to sell a game. Spoilers are inevitable! sh*t happens when you're making trailers!

That's true, but you can still work on the degree how much you spoil or even mislead your audience. Kojima was always an expert in this. And judging from what we've seen about Death Stranding, he still is.
The Christopher Nolan Batman Movies, particularly Batman Begins, also had great trailers, that didn't spoil major things. If I remember correctly, even Two-Face wasn't in any trailer, only Harvey Dent, and thus, that he actually turned into Two-Face for a brief, but very meaningful time, was a genuine surprise.
The Force Awakens also had a great set of trailers, that teased at what was in the film, but didn't give anything away.

Hmm, I kinda agree. It's rather like the first Batman series being kid-friendly and yet cartoony while Nolan's version makes it a lot more negative and realistic.

Well, the difference is, that the old 1990s cartoon (if you are referring to that one?) and the Nolan Batman films weren't the same narrative universe. I think it's okay to change the tone if you are reimagining an established franchise. Tonal shifts don't need to be inherently bad, tbh. Harry Potter start out as a bunch of enchanting children's novels (or films) and get darker and more serious with each installment.
In a way the radical tonal shift from Peace Walker to Phantom Pain made what little story there was much more hard hitting - if you grew attached to the Peace Walker characters that is. That was the most emotional part for me, learning all the fates of these characters.

Kojima even used this in MGS3. If you've seen Super Bunnyhop's video on that game, you know what I mean. The game is actually fairly campy and light-hearted in tone, but always weaves these dark underlying themes of Snake questioning his loyalty and pondering why The Boss defected in the first place, until the ending is just brutally hard hitting emotional torment. If the game didn't have this overall light tone, the ending wouldn't be as hard-hitting. See MGSV for comparison: the tone was dark and dreary all the time, and so the hard-hitting stuff in the end fell flat on its nose and wasn't nearly as tough than it thought it was.
(e.g. if you force the audience to kill their soldiers in the end, make sure they grow attached to them through more than just game numbers. Maybe some fun lighthearted subplot or side-story that shows the audience just how nice living on an oil rig with hundreds of soldiers, a half-naked parasite mutant, an angry pre-teen and a wannabe-cowboy can be )

[Cerberus_0408]

Jan 10, 2018 11:26:19 GMT -5 fgdj2000 said:

Hmm, I kinda agree. It's rather like the first Batman series being kid-friendly and yet cartoony while Nolan's version makes it a lot more negative and realistic.

Well, the difference is, that the old 1990s cartoon (if you are referring to that one?) and the Nolan Batman films weren't the same narrative universe. I think it's okay to change the tone if you are reimagining an established franchise. Tonal shifts don't need to be inherently bad, tbh. Harry Potter start out as a bunch of enchanting children's novels (or films) and get darker and more serious with each installment.
In a way the radical tonal shift from Peace Walker to Phantom Pain made what little story there was much more hard hitting - if you grew attached to the Peace Walker characters that is. That was the most emotional part for me, learning all the fates of these characters.

I meant the Schumacher and Burton Batman series. It really got hilarious and cartoony, ESPECIALLY in Batman and Robin. Compare that to Nolan's trilogy, where the story was a HELL lot more depressing.

[fgdj2000]

Jan 10, 2018 23:39:05 GMT -5 Cerberus_0408 said:

I meant the Schumacher and Burton Batman series. It really got hilarious and cartoony, ESPECIALLY in Batman and Robin. Compare that to Nolan's trilogy, where the story was a HELL lot more depressing.

It's actually a good example for another reason. The previous Tim Burton films Batman and Batman Returns and even Schuhmacher's own Batman Forever, albeit to a lesser degree, where all fairly dark films (even if they had some cartoony elements) and with Batman & Robin they jumped the shark and went over board tonally. Batman & Robin feels more like a 1990s remake of the 1960s show than a sequel to the 1989-1995 films, despite using some of the same actors.