Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots – Second Opinion

"For example, Solid Snake is still constrained by artificial barriers that many other games of the current age have left behind."

It seems that Japanese game developers just have different ideas about game design. Perhaps the threshold of one's suspension of disbelief is culturally determined?

While I think MGS4 is a superb game on pretty much every level, I'm not going to argue with your criticisms of the game because most are valid to some degree, though mainly subjective. However I do think the following comment needs addressing: With the amount of horsepower under the PS3's hood, why can't Solid Snake walk up mildly sloping hills and interact with his environment outside of specifically prescribed actions?

Saying that is like playing Halo, looking at the mountains in the backdrop of a level, and then saying "Why can't I go there?". The things you see around the play-area are there purely for realism and authenticity.

I'm not trying to sound patronising, but I think it's pretty clear that MGS isn't a "free-roaming" game, and that most non-free roam games will have similar 'problems' of the like you have commented on. It's called linear gameplay.

I watched "Escape From New York" last night, as it was on TV. I had never seen it before, but I remembered reading somewhere that Kojima got inspiration for the character Snake from this film. (A terrible movie, by the way)

Boy, was I surprised at what I saw. For the next hour, I witnessed "Metal Gear: The Movie." The main character's name in the movie is actually Snake! He wears an eye-patch, the gun looks like it came from the metal gear universe, and all the talk of corporations and war fit in perfectly with Kojima's vision. If the movie genre had a name, it would be called tactical stealth espionage. Needless to say, I was rather taken aback that one of my idols suddenly transformed into a copycat. All elements of Snake's character were taken from that movie. The only thing that Kojima seemed to add to the universe was the Metal Gear itself, which only really serves the purpose of being a stand-in for a Nuke.

I wonder if he had to pay licensing fees to take a character so fully and transfer him to a series spanning 20 years.

Crofto, I agree with your point about game objects that are outside of play area simply being there for immersion. However, the way the game space is designed needs to leave little ambiguity about what can be interacted with and what not. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I read your Halo analogy correctly, you are talking about a "backdrop" or "skybox". Skyboxes always appear very far away from the playfield, so there is no ambiguity about whether or not they can be interacted with.

On the other hand, it sounds like Brad is talking about actual geometric pieces in close proximity to the player - boxes, crates, slightly sloped terrain, etc. I think it's fair to say that players should expect to interact with these items. After all, if Solid Snake can crouch down and hide inside a cardboard box or a metal barrel, hang on ledges and do other acrobatic maneuvers, it is reasonable to expect him to be able to mantle over other such storage containers and walk up gently sloped hills, provided these items are right up next to the player and don't appear to be miles off in the distance. It is especially reasonable given the fact that other games have already set the standard to where the player can mantle over low obstacles and walk up slopes. So it doesn't sound like your analogy holds.

You are right about MGS being a relatively linear game, but is linear gameplay really what we should be striving for? Within the different levels or play-fields it is good game design to give the player different ways to pass obstacles. In other words, give the player interesting choices, because that is what differentiates games from other media and makes them fun. Brad's point is that MGS4 doesn't give the player interesting choices. Instead, it forces the player to make certain choices, as evidenced by his example of an endless stream of enemies because he didn't trip the right trigger.

The ultimate in not giving the player interesting choices are non-interactive cutscenes. When the time spent being non-interactive dwarfs the time spent being interactive, the "game" ceases to actually be a game.

Lost Planet: 8.5
MGS 4: 6.5
spooky.....

No, it's not a terrible movie. It's a pretty good movie. It's part of John Carpenter's early awesome streak. Yeah, it's kind of joyless and dated, but it's still well made and Kurt Russell is great in it. Plus any movie that has pre-Scientology Isaac Hayes playing a guy named The Duke automatically has class.

I don't think you're giving Kojima enough credit. He did take the gravel-voiced Snake and some general structural cues from Escape from New York, and the Colonel from Rambo (both of whom are really more like iconic 80's action movie archetypes that he, as a slightly Tarantinoid postmodern film geek, is "quoting"), but out of that he managed to make his own thing by combining that with a quirky, distinctively Japanese sensibility.

Also, John Carpenter contributed a blurb to MGS2 talking about how much he thought it rocked, so I don't think he's very mad about the homage.

Shame about MGS4, though. I'll still play it, but I kind of wish it'd never been made.

I'll admit, it wasn't exactly a superb example, but it was the first one I could think of. Basically, what I was trying to say is that you could say something like "the doors don't blow off via rocket fire" to dozens of other linear games, so it seems unfair to direct that as a criticism towards MGS4.

Those comments make it sound as if the reviewer is expecting an experience akin to Grand Theft Auto, rather than a linear stealth-action game.

I appreciate what you're saying, and fully accept that certain obstacles in MGS4 should be viable for realistic interaction. For example, there are a few ledges in MGS4 that could easily be climbed over by Snake considering the amount of moves he otherwise can perform easily. There's no denying that some more work could have been done in areas like that, but for ledges/obstacles that are clearly out of the main-objective field, I think it's fair that the developers shouldn't have to make them interactive just to keep curious players happy. I mean, why put in the animation to climb a ledge that leads absolutely nowhere?

Also, actually not being able to interact with things that "seem" interactive surely confirms that you're heading in the wrong direction anyway?

I dunno, wasting development time adding animations for things like climbing sloped hills and leaping over containers that add absolutely nothing to the game (from a progress standpoint) doesn't seem appropriate from my perspective. But that's my opinion.

I don't think I can agree with that: I think MGS4 offers plenty of variation within the confines of its linear nature. I don't think Splinter Cell offers such large play areas that support different play styles, does it? If you want to criticise a game for being too linear, then Splinter Cell should be it, not MGS.

MGS allows you to kill enemies by force; kill them by stealth; stun them; sneak past them; aid either PMCs or militia to further your own ends; multiple choices for getting past areas (e.g. crawling through a vent, or over a roof via ladders) and much more. That's more than enough interesting choices for the player, surely?

Obviously you're forced to make certain choices sometimes, but again, this isn't Knights of the Old Republic, it's a stealth action game!

This can be put down purely to how long you play the game, but for me, and general play-times I've seen going around, the average gametime is roughly 20 hours. That's 7 hours cut-scenes and 13 hours of gameplay, which pretty much says the exact opposite to what you just said.

Again, I'm not trying to gloss over some potential issues MGS4 has; I'll agree that some more interactive elements would have been nice (even some VR Missions would have sufficed), but otherwise MGS4 offers enough gameplay to keep it from being an actual film, or even a hybrid of film/game.

Ok Brad I know you like to rag on games a lot, and sometimes I agree with you, but some of your complaints about Metal Gear are foolish.

I could name any game in every genre and say, Why can't I go there? Even the biggest games have boundaries. I can go to the edge of the map on Oblivion and see everthying just past me but for some reason I can't go there.

Not to mention the biggest point this is a linear game if you don't like linear games, why are you chosen to give the second opinion? To stir up the pot would be my guess.

Again you diss the non-interactive cutscenes. Did you expect something different from Metal Gear? I fail to see what your expectations for this game are.

I guess the answer would be have a play space the size of Oblivion have the amount of cutscenes Half-Life does in other words you don't want this to be a Metal Gear game and for this I'm glad you are only reviewing and not making games.

My expectations for Metal Gear were the completion of the story with long sometimes over done cutscenes(cool nontheless). A game that would improve the core gameplay elements of both stealth and shooting which this game did even more than I expected. The ability to shoot in this game is as good as almost any shooting game. I can play it like Gears, Call of Duty or use the tried and true stealth gameplay of Metal Gear.

The freedom of this game is amazing in the almost infinite ways that you can play it. I'm sorry you don't like the Metal Gear games, but the way you completely skip over the great parts of this game, which is the vast majority and harp on the negatives which to me seem to be your dislike of the genre are silly, you sir should not be reviewing this game.

That's fair. I admit I haven't played the game, so I don't know what the play time to game time ratio is. I was just taking the cutscene scenario to the extreme to make a point. However, I did play all the other MGS games, and even though I know the time spent playing the game was more than the time spent watching cutscenes, I often the cutscenes felt unbearably long.

Moreover, despite the high production values of the cutscenes, they are quite often utter crap when compared to even an average movie. The dialogue was often just atrocious (e.g. "Snake, do you think love can bloom on the battlefield?"). Every point was illustrated through a long dialogue, followed by a long flashback, and then more dialogue, so nothing was subtle. More often than not, I felt like I was being lectured to instead of watching characters make interesting choices and observing the consequences, and being allowed to interpret meaning on my own. Yes, the boss fights were really cool most of the time (definitely some awesome ones in MGS3), but seriously, does every boss *have* to tell me his life story when I defeat him? Realistically, no one would do that. I'd love to see a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 that did the MGS cutscenes, cause they are that laughable.

For all the totally sweet gameplay moments I had in previous MGSs, I often felt exactly what Brad describes in this latest edition: several elements of the games are very outdated. The most obvious example is the 2D overhead cameras, which were extremely frustrating, especially since many N64 and PS1 games had friendly 3D cameras (and yes, Splinter Cell had way better camera control).

I have to question whether or not MGS games are *that* great, when many gameplay elements seem like they are just catching up with games that are already out. The camera *finally* is fully 3D now? Fine. I can aim and shoot similar to every other shooter out there? Fine. I can upgrade my weapons by purchasing them from a dealer, just like many last generation games? Fine. How do any of these elements push the envelope? What makes MGS4 stand out?

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments.

i'm not going to say too much, but i would like to clarify a few things.

1> when i wrote about the level of interactivity, Odofakyodo had it right in saying that i was talking about Snake's immediate surroundings-- it wasn't some sort of complaint that i couldn't walk into the horizon or somesuch. i'm not knocking the game because it's not a sandbox like GTA... it just seems to me that in a "tactical espionage action" game, Snake should be able to climb over *all* boxes in the room, not just the ones that lead into the next section.

in another example, what about applying physics to objects in his immediate area? if a grenade goes off, why doesn't the stack of boxes it detonated next to fall over? we're at a stage in game development where games (linear or not) are able to integrate different elements for a more convincing, engaging experience. MGS4 ignores practically all of the advances made since the PS2, and as a result, the quality of the gameplay feels decidedly last-gen.

i mean, it's obvious Kojima pumped up the graphics, but i'd like someone to show me where else in the game any real advances were made. if you dropped down the graphic quality, this could have easily ran on the PS2.

2> talking about gameplay variation... it's in there, but only in the same sense that it is for Splinter Cell. to me, choosing whether to shoot an enemy or to knock him out isn't really that significant. it's not really a point i'm going to spend a lot of time on since it's quite clear that MGS4 is a focused, directed experience which is fine in some situations, but the philosophy is somewhat misapplied here. my review covers it pretty well but in a nutshell, it (again) hews too closely to last-gen design concepts.

3> i finished the game in about 16 hours, though i didn't exactly have a stopwatch next to me. if the cutscenes come in at around 7 hours, that leaves 9-ish of gameplay... that's a pretty unhealthy ratio, IMO.

and finally, i would just like to again state that i actually am a fan of both Kojima and the series, it's just that MGS4 whiffed on so many levels that it's hard for me to really take it seriously. IMO, ending the series with Snake Eater would have been perfect... the emotion and gravity of Snake at the end when he realizes what he's done to the Boss and what's been done to him is a powerful, emotional high point in characterization and direction. the only scene that comes even close in MGS4 comepletly drops the ball, and the rest of the game is so wonky and off, it's like watching Phantom Menace and comparing it to Empire Strikes Back.

sorry for the lazy SW reference, but i'm tired and it's been a long day. ; )

6.5 for this game is a joke. Okay, it could have the worst gameplay and lack of innovation ever, but just based on it's graphics and sound alone it starts with a 7. If it was only about innovation and new gameplay structures all the time then we would see very simple very low budget games getting 10/10 across the board.

Face it, we all love good graphics, sound and production, on this level this game is a leader and a bench mark for cinematic experiences in games. It is like a summer blockbuster, no one is going to hail Independence Day in the hall of fame but it was a fu**ing fun ride at the time that 99/100 people enjoyed.

6.5/10 is disgraceful, shouldn't be allowed from a critic as personal opinion is a major factor in that score as it would get higher than this baed on my reasons in the first paragraph.

Pathetic

you must not have any real idea of what site you're at, or what my preferences are a reviewer.

BTW, if you have some of those low-budget games with innovation and new gameplay structures handy, please send them my way.

I'm relatively new to this site. I've only read the reviews of a couple of games, GTA IV and Metal Gear. While the critiques put forth by the writers are fantastic and incredibly well thought out, ultimately we are talking about video games. As an artistic medium, video games lack the sophistication of film, literature, and fine art. Which seems like a paradox considering that it is comprised of all those elements. Ultimately, video games are comprised of images and sensory elements that form a reified "experience" of something.

At least for me, playing video games is about achieving a certain amount of self-gratification, akin to watching pornography. As long as these mediums achieve their purpose peripheral details, lighting, acting, plot, etc. make no difference. So before we take these games, and consequently the reviews too seriously, lets take into account that ultimately its about satisfaction. If jenna jameson blurts out the wrong name, the make up guy forgets to blush away a pimple, or if the story of an rapidly aging super-spy clone has a couple of plot holes, take it with the grain of salt inherent to the self-gratfying somewhat ridiculous medium you are consuming.

Logically, doesn't this mean that everything else in a game - design, gameplay, ai, controls and ui, etc - make up only 30% of what the score should be based on? That seems a bit skewed to me. Shouldn't graphics and sound be more like 30% of the judgement, maybe 50% at most?

The point Brad was making about MGS4 is that not only does it lack innovation, in several respects it doesn't even catch up with current-gen games, and he provided multiple examples of this. Personally, I saw a similar pattern with previous MGS games.

You're not making a great case here. ID4 averages a 6.4/10 on IMDB and 62% on Rotten Tomatoes. Transformers, another summer blockbuster special effects extravaganza, averages 7.5/10 on IMDB and 57% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Review scores aside, I personally stand by my previous statements that despite the really high production values and immense care that Kojima puts in the cinematics, their quality pales in comparison to average movies. Thus, I think we should think about what we really want to put up on pedastals: C-rate movies or engaging, player-configurable experiences that take advantage of what the gaming medium has to offer that movies do not.

First of all, every review score is based on personal opinion (unless the reviewer was paid off! :P). Secondly, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion, as long as you can back it up with evidence and observations that support it, which Brad did.

This is just not true. I wrote an article for teens, "Are Videogames Art?" dated in 2003, that compared great works of art to videogames.

So you don't watch movies to be gratified? All forms of art provide some degree of gratification, which is why we are drawn to them.

A game with cinematic allusions...but full of plot holes and bad dialogue.

Marketed as next-gen...but an archaic game design premise.

Bizarre, confusing, esoteric...but that's ok cos he's an auteur?

Many contradictions in the MGS universe and it was good of you to raise them, Brad.

Kojima appreciation has almost become a badge of honour among game journalists. I'm glad someone finally has the guts to point out that he's good but not that good.

funny to see these critics... I don't play mgs4 yet, but i can say that IT IS NOT ANOTHER FPS games... time ago fps where only on pc (and in majority, believe me or not, for the usa market) then if you want to go around and waste your time with all these game (they are all the same thing) nobody tell you nothing... it's a shame to read all these critics on to this game... lot of people is happy to see ALL THESE FANTASTIC GAMES coming out (FPS) ... i'm not... games like mgs4 are good games... could be also gears of war, but not gewo 2 that is the same thing with more weapons new maps and,, oh yes new finishing moves... amazing.. every game that is for both system (ps3 and 360) looking more and more worse and i'm very sick to see these games.. hope to see big games like mgs4, and hope to return to play good games and not only fps,

p.s. 360 is made for fps... play your game(s)

p.s.2 sorry for my language,,, I don't speak a good english

you are really an asshole dude.

Simple statement: isn't Hideo Kojima a fan of irony?

(Hint - Ending)

Odofakyodo says...

(Quote)
The point Brad was making about MGS4 is that not only does it lack innovation, in several respects it doesn't even catch up with current-gen games, and he provided multiple examples of this. Personally, I saw a similar pattern with previous MGS games.

Games are for entertainment, if you are going to mock a game for its chosen genre then why play that game in the first place? If you don't like cut scenes and cinematic games then you shouldn't even play this game as you are slating the game for its own boundaries it has created, not because of lack of innovation but because of the developers choice. They decided to spend there time on the aspects of the game that they felt were priority, and I agree with them. MGS4 is not a game that is trying to wow new gamers to the series with new gameplay innovations, it wants to concentrate on the amazing things it is good at and 'reward' fans of the game with all the things they expect and even more in this case. On this level the game is a huge success.

You know what you are playing before you put this game in the system. It is like cooking some eggs for your self and then complaining that they taste like eggs, why cook them in the first place if you don't like them!!! Gran Turismo doesn't get slated for sticking to the same formula, GT doesn't want to go down the Burnout route or whatever 'next'gen' racing game is heading as it sticks with what it is good at. Same as MGS4.

Also 'next-gen' is a load of crap, it is a phrase for expectations with the new consoles basically. On this basis how can you tell me that MGS4 lacks behing other games? I will be open for examples of games in a similiar genre.

I think the first review of this game demonstrates my point with knowing what to expect with the game. The reviewer gave the game an 8 even though he personally thinks it's a 9. He didn't let his opiniion of personal like give it a 9 but Brad lets his personal opinion give it 6.5. Nuff said!

I read your article its very intersting, I'm not saying video games are incapable of being works of art, I said as an artistic medium it lacks the sophistication of other types of art. In your comparison, where is the video game Guernica, where is the Anna Karerina? Simply put, there are no video game equivalents.

You are right, all forms of art do provide a degree of gratification, but not all that gratifies is art. My comparison to pornography highlights this point, b/c like porno films, video games have all the elements to become complex works, but instead they seek to emphasize the gratification aspect. Just by reading your article I know you will continue to argue your point, but the reality is that as an art from video games leave much to be desired. Can they get better as art? Sure. Will they? Probably not.

If I get this straight, Jesus, your argument is this:

Video games will never be as sophisticated as other art forms because they appeal primarily to self-gratification.

I agree with you that video games are generally not as sophisticated as other art forms. You may even be correct as to your reason. However, even if that is true, you have provided no evidence to support the claim that this will always be the case. Other art forms--drawing, painting, writing, etc--have existed for thousands of years of human history. In constrast, video games have only been around for about 50 years or so. They are still in their infancy. In fact, Chi suggested this in his article (last two paragraphs). He even proposed two things that had to happen in order for video games to mature as a medium.

To say that video games as a whole will never be as sophisticated as other art forms seems quite a monstrous assumption, given that 1) They could be around for thousands of years, if not forever; and 2) There are already popular video games out there that contain deep and complex use of gameplay. Chi mentioned several in his article. There are many others. Sim City, for example, has quite a deep and elegant rule set that allows the user to build complex creations, each of which can have its own unique personality. For all their faults, even MGS games have some great artistic use of gameplay. Take "The Sorrow" boss fight in MGS3, for example, which really made me reflect about the way I was playing the game (nearly all the ghosts had had their throat slit). Heck even Tetris has its own simple, abstract elegance. Simple creations can be great works of art. Why should Tetris be any less valid than many Cubist paintings?

The problem here is that your premise is the wrong one. i don't think David or myself would be comfortable working from a position believing solely that "games are for entertainment."

it's true that entertainment is a large part of it, but like any other art form or medium, they can be more than simple pastimes or sources of gratification. Kojima himself has done more than most to prove this concept, which is a large part of why i found MGS4 so disappointing.

If i can be perfectly frank, you don't seem to grasp what it is we're critiquing in these reviews. we're not criticizing the fact that cutscenes exist, or that the devs felt the story was important -- rather, we're discussing the quality and craft, the choices in direction and writing.

if you liked what they did, more power to you -- that's your opinion, i can respect that. however, disagreeing with choices and raising points of criticism is the very basis for reviewing. if you're going to accept whats presented without really examining and considering what's been done, then why bother reading reviews in the first place?

all reviews are a personal opinion. that's just a core truth central to all reviews. when you find a review without any personal opinion, please let me know-- i'd love to read it.

Steve, there's a point Brad alludes to, and I agree with it, that the game's cinematics fall short even within the boundaries it set for itself. While technically impressive, there are too many ham-fisted moments to be simply explained away under the rubic of irony.

Auteurs don't just do weird stuff, they are in true control of their craft. Sometimes I feel MGS has taken on a life of its own, that even Kojima struggles to make sense of it all.

Throwing paint at a wall and calling it postmodern...does not qualify as makes me hesitate to call it art!

This is what I love about reading reviews on this site and the comments subsequently; there are a lot of reasoned arguments going on that almost always make me think about elements of the game experience in a way I hadn't before. While I often find the reviews to be on the pessimistic side, I don't know if I can say I've ever read a point raised that didn't have merit, they're usually just something I didn't see as a big problem myself.

Indeed there seems to always be someone saying to stop taking videogames so seriously and just enjoy them as a low form of art, but I commend the GameCritics staff for always having high standards and pushing for them. No harm can come of this, and if there are any developers out there who read a GameCritics review they'll probably get a lot more out of it than the majority of other reviews (GTA4 for example). Kudos for encouraging the movement towards deeper, more artful games, rather than being part of the "games are just dumb fun" problem (sure, some can be, but let's not dismiss the whole medium like that). That sort of thinking is in large part why games aren't taken seriously by the mainstream political public who seem to just look at the needlessy violent mass-commercialism games and draw the conclusion that videogames are nothing more than dangerous "murder simulators" and why we still have those types of games and a market for them.

Also the staff is always polite in addressing often harsh criticism and at the same time manages not to come off as acting superior. A tough tightrope to balance!

I don't agree with score at all. But of course that is my opinion. I'm here to tell others that this review doesn't do the game justice at all. Especially if you are a "fan" of the MG/MGS universe. Brad here says he's a fan of the series. I really do wonder that.

As a fan, what did you seriously expect from this game?

I'm sure the mass majority of fans expected closure for the MGS universe as there was so many questions that needed to be answered. And you know what, MGS4 answered pretty much everything.

You say that ending the series with MGS3 would have been perfect. Are you completely nuts?!?! This is the proof that you shouldn't be reviewing it as a "fan". Instead you should be reviewing this as a regular gamer who enjoys MGS. As a fan, meaning you enjoy the game more then a person who just likes it per say, you would know about the storylines in MG/MGS. If you do know the storyline then how on earth could the ending of MGS3 end the series? MGS3 talked about who Big Boss was and how he came to be. But it did not provide any closure for Solid Snake, nor did it tell us what happened after MGS2. MGS2 left so many people wondering what is going to happen. I agree that MGS3 is very emotional and amazingly done at the end. But MGS4 has very emotional moments as well. Crawling through the microwave tunnel, boss fight with Liquid Ocelet (this fight alone was so amazing and emotional - one of the best boss fights ever, if not THE BEST), Solid Snake shown about to shoot himself, Octacon and Sunny have a conversation about where is Snake, Big Boss appearing and telling Solid Snake it's time to rest, Big Boss saluting The Boss again. I mean there is a crap load of emotional moments in MGS4 if you are a fan of the series. They might not compare to that one peak moment in MGS3, but there are more.

Also, the story of MGS4 is very hard to get at first and there are forums out there dedicated just talking about it. But if you read through the MGS database which you can download off the PSN, that helps sum up a lot of the questions that MGS fans have about the story. If you truly GET the entire story in MGS4, it is just as good and emotional as MGS3.

Anyway, this is my opinion that Brad here is MGS bandwagon follower. Once he fails to understand the story he jumps off it, shoots it down, and thus dislikes it.

For those out there who are fans, I'm sure you've already played the game and love it. Solid Snake got an awesome send off, which was the whole point of this game. He spent his entire life fighting and the ending couldn't have been more fitting. Rest well David, you've earned it.

I think you're missing the point here. I agree that it is presumptive of me to say "never" will a game be as sophisticated, i guess you can call me a pessimist. I can't draw for shit, but i make a stick figure sitting by a crappily drawn tree. Now we can argue about what "art" is or is not, and you can say what you want about my crappy drawing but it is art in a most simplistic form. However, to call myself an artist on par to Picasso or Rembrant would be ridiculous.

That's my point with regards to video games, I'm not saying it's not art I'm just saying as art it leaves much to be desired. I love playing Metal Gear games, I love how close to an interactive film it can be at times (Despite the disconnect from "immersion" Brad mentioned). But if i'm judging it as i would a film, well, anyone who's ever played knows how weak the dialogue is in all games. I love RPGs for the deep immersion and the sythesis of story, and gameplay but I can tell you the plot of most of these games' stories are cliches: One-dimisional characters, troubled past, flimsly love story, save the world, etc.

I know when judging different art forms you have to take different elements into account. When judging video games it comes down to one element: Gameplay. Ultimately, its about having fun while playing a game. You don't sit down with a game and say "Man, this story about a Space Marine fighting religious aliens, is deep. I wonder what the developer is saying about our society?". I'm not dissing games, I love them, nor am i dissing gamers, I am one. I'm just saying as art games are a very simplistic, low form of it.

As a departure point for this LONG reply (I apologize, I got on a roll), it is encouraging to me to hear you say that gameplay is the most important element when judging a game. I think with any piece of art we need to judge it on its own terms. When you say "if i'm judging it as i would a film", then it doesn't meet your expectations of great art, my response is "Why would it?" You are judging it by the criteria that you judge a film, when it is not a film. It is a game. I do not judge a book by the same criteria as a painting, so why would I judge a game by the same criteria as a film?

I don't mean any offense, but I don't think you being completely consistent in your application of criteria by which to judge games as works of art. Your analogy with drawing the stick figure doesn't hold because you are comparing a drawing to other drawings, whereas when you judge games you seem to judge them by the same or very similar criteria that you use for film. To further illustrate the point, you state that games lack complex character development and have poor dialogue, and are therefore simplistic and low. Yet, you consider the works of Picasso and Rembrandt high, sophisticated art, and yet they do not contain complex character development or great dialogue. Judging video games, Picasso, or Rembrandt by the same criteria you would a film does them all a disservice because it ignores the strengths of the media in question.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of different media. Obviously books, film, photography, painting, etc all have their strengths and weaknesses. And so it is with games. The questions that gamers and game critics have to answer are "What are the strengths and weaknesses of games?" and "What criteria should we be judging them by?" Only to a certain extent do I think it's valid to judge them by the same criteria as many other media because, as you suggested earlier, video games use film, text, sound, etc as tools. But these tools are a means to an end - they are a way to convey information about the true strength of video games, what people commonly refer to as "interactivity". Instead of just observing and interpreting the content of the medium, the user actually gets to configure what the generated content actually is.

That is a POWERFULLY different thing than pretty much all media that have come before. With all older media, there was only one author of content or story: The maker (writer, sculptor, director, composer, etc). Video games have not one but TWO other authors: The user and the machine itself. The maker can enable the user to make choices and influence the resulting content, and the machine can use rules set up by the maker to modify input from the user to create content that neither the maker nor the user intended (I would call this the "emergent" gameplay that is often spoke of).

So your question "I wonder what the developer is saying about our society?" makes a valid point about Halo. I don't think the developers were intending to make too many deep observations about our world. Whatever observations there are, they certainly were not worried about making them very sophisticated. However, none of this means that games won't end up making extremely powerful observations about all kinds of things, intended and unintended by the developers and users. I think it's more likely that, given the extreme newness of the medium, we have much to look forward to, as developers learn what can actually be done and how people respond to it. We just need to train our minds to accept games for what they are good at doing and what only they can do.

Why do you seem to dismiss the ability of games to generate fun as not being great art? Doesn't great art have a strong aesthetic appeal? Wouldn't the sensation of fun be considered a strong aesthetic appeal? Why is the enjoyment one gets from having fun less valid than the feeling one gets from looking at, say, the statue of David?

and you are really a "figlio di puttana sucaminchie impalato bastardo con quella zoccola di tua madre succhiacazzi incuneata di una madonna stronza malata di cancro al culo" DUDE

now go to translate this... pezzo di merda...

thanks mr deepthroath,,,, do you call deeptroath because you like dix?

First off, the game is not full of plot holes. If you feel it is, it is because you gave up trying to understand it. The games ties up so many loose ends and answers many questions people had.

Tell me all those plot holes you have found and I bet I can answer them all. You should really try to download the MGS database and READ it before making accusations that a game is full of plot holes.

Like most people who rant, get your facts straight.

And do you ever wonder why people appreciate Kojima's work so much? Maybe because people really do like his stuff??? You seem to like pointing out bad things just for the sake of it since so much people give him praise. Kojima isn't like many other arrogants creators who praise themselves. He is always humble and honest and that is a quality that many people admire him for.

I want you and Brad to list all the condictions in the MGS universe. I want to see every single one myself and see how LEGIT they are.

I am not offended, although i must point out that you are proving my point

The true strength of video games is interactivity, not art. User generated material is as much art as tracing a picture or using pre-fabricated stencils to make drawings. The means you described are what forms art, and games in general are deficient in most of them (minus sound perhaps). So if you say game developers use art as a tool to make games fun, i would agree whole heartedly. But the end, as you say, is interactivity not art.

Before you try and call it interactive art, realize you are subjecting it to stricter analysis. I don't want to know if its only fun now, i want to see how good the story is, how good the voice acting is, how good the cinematography is, etc. Within the context of judging video games we can use these aspects and say a game is great and unrivaled. Within the context of actual art, we see deficiencies or cliches in most of these artistic aspects. If games have certain artistic elements then when judging it as art we must take those elements into account. I'm not judging games on one artistic aspect, story or dialogue, i'm taking everything into account. Obviously its most comparable to film, so i take cinematography, story, sound, acting into account. The unique element to videogames is interactivity, who's artistic value is completely dependant on how well the other artistic elements are executed.

You can take me to task for saying "never will a game be as sophisticated as art..." but the fact remains that at the moment there is only simple artistic value in video games.

Thanks Brad for your reasoning. I am thankful for you offering very analytical and detailed reasoning to your review and that is why people like me come onto this site for.

I still feel though that technical and supported arguments aside that games need to be judged on the overall package and experience and not dismantled and dissectted into pieces, which is how I feel the negative criticism of this game comes across.

Personally I think 6.5 is a low score as although MGS4 may not be perfect it offers more and has a lot more going for itself than the majority of 'next-gen' games released on the 'experience' it provides us with. If nothing else it is a very memorable game, that can not be said of many in the last couple of years.

I'll admit my post was fairly vague and you were right to call me out.

Plot holes was the wrong word. How about farfetched or ridiculous? But that's a matter of taste. I doubt a database will change that.

FYI: This is a good discussion.

By saying "User generated material is as much art as tracing a picture or using pre-fabricated stencils to make drawings," I think you are drastically shortchanging the potential of the medium. In terms of both complexity and how many choices the user has at his disposal, there is very little comparison between, say, a city built in SimCity and a stencil drawing. The former has been constructed based on a vast array of parameters and decisions and the structures of the results can give fairly deep insights into the person who played the game. For example, the trade-offs that a person has made in building his SimCity city reflect certain values that a person holds. The person may have chosen to have a dominant industry at a cost of less housing, fewer parks, and increasing pollution. Or a person could choose to keep his city as small as possible, artfully crafting every building. These are reflections of real values that translate directly into "real" life. The created product--the city--is fairly sophisticated art, in my view.

When you say that "the true strength of video games is interactivity, not art" and "But the end, as you say, is interactivity not art", my immediate question is "Are the two mutually exclusive?" That is, cannot interactivity in and of itself be a form of art? Must art be something tangible or produced? If so, cannot the game itself--meaning the content and rule set created by the developers, and not just the results produced from one instance of playing it--be considered a piece of art?

I think so, and I think Chi made a good case for it in his article. He names specific characteristics of art and shows how a variety of games meet them:

-Art is a means of self-expression. Video games are expressions of the developers, and can be used by players as a tool for self expression.
-Art has the ability to change the way we look at the world. Video games do this, although some are better than others.
-Art is sometimes pure visual form and beauty. Clearly many games do this. I would argue that there is not only a visual beauty, but beauty in the way many games have rule sets that work quite elegantly together.

What I meant in my earlier post about judging games on their own terms is that we need to judge the rule set itself as something that is valid art. Just as things like foreground, background, color, shape, and texture make up the different elements of a painting, so the different rules that make up a game's logic make up the most important elements of a game. Essentially, it takes an "artist" to create and implement the game elements, using many different instances of play to refine those elements.

Jesus is talking about how games currently are and Odofakyodo is talking about the potential of medium of videogames.

Jesus doesn't believe that games can elevate themselves, but if everyone thought like that, we'd all be watching 3-D movies and jumping out of chairs and there would be no Citizen Kane and Godfather.

Chi's right i am being closed minded on the subject of its futre developement. The film comparison is a bit off though. Motion pictures began exclusively as a new form of visual art, akin to photography. Later we saw the advent of newsreels and during the spanish-american war, there were shots of maritime battle that were actually staged in a tub. Soon afterwards it evolved to the point of containing narrative stories. But i digress, videogames may in fact have the a simlar impact artisically. Only later in its developement did film become synonymous with mass entertainement, unlike videogames. Again, i repeat, i am not saying that games are strictly speaking not art. What i am saying is that as an artistic medium it is weak.

Can I just make my point on this subject. A few of you have referred to games as 'art'. This is a load of utter bull****. Yes games can be very artistic in nature but to consider them art is taking your self to serious.

Entertainment over powers any ideals of art ten fold with games. I don't subscribe to the idea that many gamers play games to admire it as 'art'. Games are interactive in nature so are different to all other mediums. Nearly every gamer buys and plays a game for sheer enjoyment and 'entertainment' not to add to his 'art' collection.

Seriously I agree that many games can be very artistic and creative, but the fact is that new graphics will always make old games look dated very quick. I don't think any one looks back at Mario 64 and thinks of its artistic nature nor for FFVII. People look back at these games and think wow they were bloody good games I enjoyed playing them.

the same thing has been said about every form of media humanity's ever created, yet it hasn't stopped people's creativity and ideas from being expressed in ways that are later considered with greater respect than they were at the outset.

Are games art now? i'd say yes, but in a very early, formative stage. it's literally happening before our eyes.

will they be widely considered as art later? undoubtedly. any other attitude is just shortsighted and ignorant of the patterns repeated over and over throughout history.

I'm not saying they have no art representations at all, all I am pointing out is that they are a form of past-time and entertainment before all else. 99% of why games are bought are to play and not admire.

This is the very soul of what 'games' are and this will never be changed unless computer generated content is used for art only then this will eb a seperate concept, but as long as we are 'playing' them on consoles etc they will always be games and therefore always be entertainment.

It is not short sighted, as I said maybe computer driven art will thrive more in the future but not on a console my friend.

Stevo, your argument is just plain flawed. You are saying "Most games are purchased for entertainment, so therefore they are not art". By that same logic, you would have to claim "Most books are purchased for entertainment, and therefore are not art" and "Most movies are for purchased for entertainment, and therefore are not art." Hell, I could even say "Most paintings are purchased for entertainment, and therefore are not art" because let's face it, people enjoy looking at paintings and appreciate them for the visual form and beauty, giving them pleasure--and that is entertainment. So, you have failed to explain how something that entertains cannot still be art. I would say that most, if not all, art entertains to one degree or another.

Odofakyodo says:
"Most books are purchased for entertainment, and therefore are not art" and "Most movies are for purchased for entertainment"

Well done you are correct I am saying that movies and books are not art. You have hit it on the nail, they are both for enetrtainment or to kill time.

Anyway, forgetting the 'art' or not art argument, my main point is that even if they contain many artistic attributes they are bought for entertainment, full stop. Don't start comparing them against books or movies to prove your point because art has very wide criteria and can be labelled upon many things. Lets just talk about games shall we? As I said entertainment first before anything, probably over 90% of the reason for why games are played. Therefore the art arguments are inmaterial.

So going back to the review, lets base our opinions on this criteria. If you care so much about art then knock your self out and buy a painting. I know I will get a response saying I am short sighted blah blah blah, but the FACT is that games have always and will always be played for fun/entertainment etc. Hence the label 'games'.

Just to clarify, I may of said that games are not art, but this does not mean that I don't appreciate that there are many artistic attributes to them. I am just saying that as a whole a game is an entertainment product and the art part is just a small proportion of what makes it what it is.

Of course 'art' entertains in some form but you are going off in the wrong direction with this. No one wants a definition of art as we are all capable of picking up a dictionary. Art is art and games are games if you look at it in black and white. If I say to someone, 'Do you want to see my art collection?', I think they will expect paintings or objects not a copy of Halo 3 and MGS4.

When we start sitting back and admiring games as a work of art instead of recognising the quality of a game based on the enjoyment it has provided (and yes art can be enjoying...), that will be a sad state of affairs and I with probably millions of other 'gamers' will no longer be hanging around. As I mentioned in a previous point, if the art idead expands, it will be as a seperate genre or media type to games as we know.

Most people would disagree with you here, and that doesn’t even include the many people who make professional livings breaking down the artistic elements in movies and books.

Furthermore, you conveniently ignored my statement, “Most paintings are purchased for entertainment, and therefore are not art,” which is the logical conclusion of the argument you are making. You also ignored my question: Why is something whose primary purpose is entertainment not eligible to be considered art?

How so? Once again, you fail to answer my question and explain your position: Why is something whose primary purpose is entertainment not eligible to be considered art?

Again, you imply that something whose value is mostly seen as entertainment cannot be considered art, but you haven’t answered the question as to why this is so.

OK, at one point you say “art has very wide criteria and can be labelled upon many things” and then you say “Art is art and games are games if you look at it in black and white”. On the one hand, you give art a broad umbrella under which many things fall, and on the other you restrict games from residing under that umbrella. But you give no explanation as to why that is the case, other than the idea that “games are for entertainment, not art”.

Pretend I am a complete idiot for a minute, and humor me: What is the definition of art? Then, please explain how it applies to paintings but not to video games.

These sentiments are in line with your earlier statement that “the art arguments are inmaterial”. I completely disagree, and I would venture to say so do most game and interactive media theorists like Gonzalo Frasca, Espen Aarseth, and Celia Pearce. The purpose of the “games as art” discussion is to give games enough respect with academia and the general populace so that genuine theories can be formed about them. They can be deconstructed into more basic elements, and the knowledge gained from such efforts would be tremendously useful in building better games. This has happened with nearly every other “entertainment media” or art form, so as Brad alluded to, you are ignoring "the patterns repeated over and over throughout history."

As an example, you have likened games to movies in calling them both entertainment and not art. But if you know film history, then you know that after movies gained acceptance as a legitimate art form and film theory developed, they were incorporated into programs of study at major universities. The result was a monstrous evolution in the medium to the extraordinarily sophisticated films we see today. The major players during this period were Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, and Scorsese, guys you just might have heard of. After this happened, films got better and more people started seeing them.

I feel like I’m talking to a wall because the points I’m making are not being responded to. So far in this discussion no one has addressed any of the historical evidence that’s been presented. No one has addressed any of the points Chi made in his article. And you have ignored the obvious flaws that can be seen by extrapolating your own “entertainment cannot be art” logic.

So I ask again: What is art? How does your definition of art apply to paintings but not to games? Why can’t the primary purpose of a piece of art be to entertain?

Lets add a bit of context to this argument, an architect can build the most beautiful building in the world. We would not call the building art, we would call it a fine work of architecture. Video games can be impressive and breathtaking in their own way, but when trying to judge games as art we may be going outside of the proper context.

A challenge, then! :D Give me a definition of art that encompasses drawing, painting, and sculpture (or whatever you would consider art) that does not apply to architecture. I believe this would clarify much.

Are you saying that b/c Architecture involves drawing, painting, and sculpture this means it is art?

I really hope you're not making such a simplistic argument.

Guitar hero has music, an instrument, and requires skill to perform well. So by your simplistic (not to be offensive, just pointing out a major flaw) reasoning b/c i play guitar hero i am a musician? Please tell me i misunderstood your point.

I also hope you're not thinking that i can possibly give an "objective" definition of art. Many much smarter than me have tried and not been successful in giving a truly "objective" definition of a complex idea that encompasses not just separate aspects. Such as drawing, painting, sculpting or whatever you would consider art but the the amalgamation of all these aspects with their expressive meaning both to artist and observer. when taking a truly wholistic look at video games as art, at least right now, there is little artistic significance.

My intent was not to make the argument that because one form is composed of another it must be art (although I think that is not a terrible line of reasoning, it is not one which I wish to pursue at the present time). My intent is to get a definition of art, "objective" or otherwise. And yes, people have come up with definitions of art that are successful. I don't care if it's from the dictionary or elsewhere, but there must be some definition of art that you accept in order to label something as art or not. You can't call something "X" and something else "not X" without having an idea of what "X" is. I think if we have said definition then we will be able to identify these "aspects" of art in things such as drawing, painting, etc. (and yes I have a definition of art that I find acceptable, but I prefer to hear your own unfluenced by mine).

Odofakyodo, you are really boring me with your 'art' definitions and what be. It seems like you would rather talk about art rather than video games my friend?

Maybe you are a frustrated painter and therfore in the wrong site? I have not met your detailed arguments about what is art, and art can be enjoying blah blah blah because as I said you are going in the wrong direction with this. You can simply mince your words with the art arguments to make everything sound contradictionary by going off point and using all sort of examples.

To summarise, games contain art implications as do movies and books, but games are always going to be considerably more entertainment orientated. I would suspect that the vast majority of games designers and developers see there games as this (bar some exceptions).

DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT ART IS A VERY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE OVERALL EXPERIENCE OF A GAME?

Art is the very experience of the game. Entertainment is one aspect of the art. Analyzing the art of a game is to breakdown the whole experience and not just whether it is fun or not. If you think that Kojima is simply trying to entertain you and nothing else, than you've completely missed out on why so many people consider his work genius.

There are many other ways to look at the games we play that can be enriching to us. I talk a little about this in my review of Dynasty Warriors 6.

Wow. Just Wow. Did you even read what I wrote in my last response to you? Do you even understand what it is we are arguing about here? I explained exactly why I thought it was important for games to be considered art.

Thanks for dismissing my arguments off-hand as being “in the wrong direction”. Again, did you even read what I wrote? Heaven forbid I make a coherent argument and support it with pesky examples! For the record, I’m actually a programmer for a game company.

No, I do not agree. I have explained my position pretty well, I think. I have directly addressed the points you’ve made. You, on the other hand, have pretty much ignored all of my points. I have asked you very specific questions and you have not responded to them, so unless you actually go back and read what I wrote and answer the questions, you should consider this conversation over, because frankly, it’s not a conversation when you don’t answer my questions or address my points.