[mag]

Originally Posted by EvoG

Just to add my disagreement to the assesment that Kojima is a hack, as he is one of the few brilliant designers in our field, but, and this is a big one, he listened to his fans.

I think it's also important to note that Kojima knows when NOT to listen to his fans. With each new MGS game, he's taken the series in very bold new directions. And despite the protests of fans at not being able to play as Snake in MGS2 or at MGS3 taking place in the 1960s, the series turned out to be much better for it. And MGS4 looks like it's going to do the same thing. If Kojima had given fans exactly what they wanted (or at least, what they thought they wanted) we'd have three near identical clones of MGS1 with progressively better graphics.

Which is another reason why it's ridiculous to say that Kojima isn't original. Because each game in the series takes the story in a completely different direction. Every Metal Gear Solid game simply bleeds creativity.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Then you've just been striken to think of me as ludicrous.

I think that much has already been established.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Seeing as how it's a game, the gameplay is my primary interest.

Seeing as how the story is part of the game (especially in MGS, which has done the best job of any game I've ever seen of blending gameplay and storytelling), I think it's rather unfair to discount the role of the story when judging the quality of the game. The story was one of the things you were complaining about, after all.

Besides, even if we're just talking about gameplay, I think MGS holds its own against Splinter Cell quite well.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

The atmosphere is more realistic and the things that happen in SC are much closer to life than the far fetched "intrigue" of MGS.

I don't see why that matters at all. MGS is a scifi story. It's not a military documentary. It's not supposed to be realistic.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Hmmm... I disagree, but not completely. The thing is, I was playing Metal Gear back in 1987 (ah, little seven year old me...) and if you want to consider that the birth of the "stealth action genre" then fine, yes, Kojima was a pioneer. But honestly, that game was too simple to be the father of the genre as it exists today. I remember it perfectly, right down to the glorious translations ("The truck have started to move!"). It was a fun game, but a stealth game in 3D is so much more dynamic and exciting that I consider the 3D "stealth action genre" to be the real innovator here. And the game that really invented that was probably Tenchu (it was the first I remember playing anyway).

Basically, I agree with you that Kojima deserves credit. In a sense, he did invent the genre. But the real leap forward (like Half-Life in the FPS genre) was Tenchu in my opinion. Granted, MGS was already in the making at that time and would be released a mere seven months later, but Tenchu beat it to the punch, and one could argue that it had equally good gameplay.

Obviously, there were other stealth games being made at the time. But if you ask anyone who knows about games to name the one person who most influenced the genre, I can almost guarantee you they'll say Hideo Kojima. He really is the father of this genre.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

That's an emotional reaction though, to plot, not gameplay. If that's how you want to judge MGS against SC, that's fine of course. But I think it's a bit unfair. Splinter Cell is much more about gameplay, less about plot. It makes no attempt to have an epic ending or storyline.

As I said, it's a matter of what you're looking to get out of the game. Which is why I don't consider either one to be better than the other. The plot is part of the game. You can't say that we can't compare plots just because that's a point on which Splinter Cell is weak. If we're going to compare these games, then we should compare the whole games.

mag