[CrimsonBlue]

But the villains don't make up the whole game. What do you think giant robots, cloning and genetic engineering, make-believe items and gadgets, flying saucers and the futuristic setting is?

Do the villains count more than these other elements? And why isn't super-natural science fiction? There's an equal amount of normal enemies as there is super-natural enemies. And the guards in the first MGS games are genetically altered to strengthen their hearing and eyesight. Isn't this science fiction?

In other words, you can't use the few fantasy elements that exists in the game to prove it's a fantasy game when there's at at least twice as many science fiction elements in the game. You can't just ignore these other elements and say "this counts as proof and this doesn't".

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

But the villains don't make up the whole game. What do you think giant robots, cloning and genetic engineering, make-believe items and gadgets, flying saucers and the futuristic setting is?

Do the villains count more than these other elements? And why isn't super-natural science fiction? There's an equal amount of normal enemies as there is super-natural enemies. And the guards in the first MGS games are genetically altered to strengthen their hearing and eyesight. Isn't this science fiction?

In other words, you can't use the few fantasy elements that exists in the game to prove it's a fantasy game when there's at at least twice as many science fiction elements in the game. You can't just ignore these other elements and say "this counts as proof and this doesn't".

Frankly, I wouldn't categorize it as fantasy or sci/fi. I think it has elements of many different genres, and is best described as an action adventure story, but with a more melodramatic bent. If you guys disagree, I'm not joking when I say I honestly don't care. I'm just trying to explain why my opinion doesn't make me "stupid" like mag thinks. Also, as you said, the setting isn't always futuristic in the MGS games. But there are sci/fi elements in all of them for sure.

EDIT: Allow me to clarify something... I just thought of a pretty decent example. The Indiana Jones movies. How would you describe them? Action adventure right? Though they're in the style of the serials of the 30's and 40's, they are action adventure stories. Now, just because every single Indiana Jones film has horrific supernatural elements and religious content, would we call them horror films or religious films? No one would. By that same token, I've honestly never heard the Metal Gear Solid games described as science fiction until this thread. Action adventure in the style of anime, American movies, comic books...now all of that I've heard. But science fiction? It was news to me. If that's the way you all think of the games, that's fine. But do any of you consider the Indiana Jones movies horror, supernatural, or religious films?

Got a new sig...

[Once A Villain]

Ha ha. I like it SamNMax.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

The cloak looks almost exactly like Predator. Cloaking effects in movies are generally just completely invisible, or you see the outline of the being's shape, like a bubble, but clear inside. Predator has these interior ripples, lines, whatever you want to call them. It was just an effect that made Predator different in 1987.

Not really. Just about every movie, television show, or video game with a cloaking device I've ever seen uses that ripple effect or something very similar. It's a standard cloaking effect.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Even Kojima knows where he got the idea. As he said, McTiernan is one of his favorite filmmakers (I have no idea why, but that's just the case), and he had a Predator figure on his desk as he designed MGS.

Oh, wow. He likes Predator. That certainly sounds like an admission of guilt to me. I'm sure he's the only designer guilty of that.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

What about the way he stylistically emulates Michael Bay constantly (and Bay isn't even a good filmmaker)?

What about it? It's a style that's used in a lot of action movies, which is exactly the style Kojima was trying for. And who really cares about that anyway? I mean, sure, good camera work can add a lot to a film. But the lack of it doesn't really take that much away. As long as it does what it's supposed to, who cares that it's not a totally revolutionary piece of cinematography?

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

What about the scenes I mentioned (and believe me, there are more), where the very dialogue, ideas, action, etc. are extraordinarily similar to other specific scenes from other specific films.

Yeah, it's really surprising that two men from the same country with similar backgrounds would have similar ideas on a topic. Especially a topic like war. I mean, that's such an unusual subject for storytellers to deal with.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I suppose now you're going to tell me that Solid Snake and Snake Plisken aren't similar at all, even though Kojima has admitted that's where Snake came from, and the two characters are almost identical.

Well, no shit, Sherlock! Of course Solid Snake is based on Plissken! You're not revealing any great mystery there. Everyone already knows it. That's not the point. If they were similar in anything more than the name and some general attitude that 90% of all action heroes have, you might be right about Kojima "ripping it off." But Solid Snake and Snake Plissken are two very different characters, in spite of the similarity of their names.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

The big chase scene down the tunnel where I recall, at least in the Japanese version, Liquid comes flying up behind him screaming, "SNAAAAAKE!!!!" I'm sorry, but I thought I was in an 80's action movie or a 90's straight to video film. It was just...cheesy. And it was cheesy in every movie that did it before Kojima did.

I suppose you'll never understand. You're like a woman that keeps going back to the guy that isn't good for her. She can be told what the guy's flaws are, but she won't acknowledge them, or if she does, she overlooks them. In this case, overlooking Kojima's flaws is fine, if you like him that much. But to deny them when even Kojima would readily admit his influences (probably not all of them since that would take up an entire notebook titled "The Kojima Style"), is just sad.

I never said that Metal Gear Solid doesn't have flaws. Sure, about the fourth time Liquid turned out to not be dead (along with his "SNAAAAAAKE!!!"), it was really cheesy. But that doesn't mean it was "ripped off." It just means it was lame. I'm well aware of the flaws in Kojima's work. But a lack of originality isn't one of them.

The truth is that there is no such thing as an original idea. We could make a similar list for any movie, video game, book, or other story ever made. Because every element in every story has been done somewhere before. It's how those elements are put together that makes a story original or not. If Metal Gear Solid had been about Snake going into New York, which has been converted into a maximum security prison, to rescue the president, then you might have a point about it being a rip-off of Escape from New York.

As it is, your entire list is made up of minor, irrelevent quibbles that have no bearing on the overall quality of the game. It's like people who say that the episode of Babylon 5 where Sheridan was tortured was ripping off 1984, when in reality, they were both based on standard, real-life torture practices (which is the same with the torture scenes in Metal Gear Solid). Or people who say that Star Wars ripped off The Lord of the Rings, when in reality, they were both based on Jungian archetypes.

Everything you're talking about is little more than blatant fanboyism.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

As I've mentioned (and no one has argued) where is the soft science fiction, where is any science fiction, in the villains? I'll quote myself again: "Hornet men, vampires, people who deflect missiles with their souls, and dead people who show up as ghosts and haunt you in a boss fight of sorts."

How is that NOT science fiction? ****, that's practically the definition of science fiction.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I'm just trying to explain why my opinion doesn't make me "stupid" like mag thinks.

You can stop putting words in my mouth now. I never said you're stupid. I said your opinion is stupid.

What I said about your opinion is that it makes you wrong. You're still wrong. Factually and inarguably wrong.

mag

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

Not really. Just about every movie, television show, or video game with a cloaking device I've ever seen uses that ripple effect or something very similar. It's a standard cloaking effect.

Since Predator? Perhaps. It's only standard to you because you were three years old when it was new. It might not bother me so much if every other part of Kojima's work hadn't been seen before, but as part of a collage of rip offs, it's bothersome.

Originally Posted by mag

Oh, wow. He likes Predator. That certainly sounds like an admission of guilt to me. I'm sure he's the only designer guilty of that.

It's only one of his many admissions. When you put them together it becomes an undeniable truth. But obviously, putting the facts together means nothing to you.

Originally Posted by mag

What about it? It's a style that's used in a lot of action movies, which is exactly the style Kojima was trying for. And who really cares about that anyway? I mean, sure, good camera work can add a lot to a film. But the lack of it doesn't really take that much away. As long as it does what it's supposed to, who cares that it's not a totally revolutionary piece of cinematography?

I care. I like originality in filmmakers, game designers, creators of any kind. I understand that Kojima was intentionally trying to do some of the sequences in a generic American action movie style, but what does that say about him? That he can emulate the work of others well? I'm not impressed by that, sorry. I want to know what Kojima can do that others can't do. What makes him special? Great creators leave a mark that can't be mistaken for anyone else's. Kubrick, Kurosawa, Welles, Bergman, etc. Kojima's work could be mistaken for any subpar filmmaker in the world (I say filmmaker because, let's face it, Kojima's games are 50% cutscenes and the cutscenes are pretty much movie sequences).

Originally Posted by mag

Yeah, it's really surprising that two men from the same country with similar backgrounds would have similar ideas on a topic. Especially a topic like war. I mean, that's such an unusual subject for storytellers to deal with.

Similar backgrounds? Just because they are both Japanese? That's sort of insulting. Kojima was born 53 years after Kurosawa. I happen to know about all there is to know (or that has been revealed to the public) about Kurosawa's background and I highly doubt Kojima has been through similar experiences. Kurosawa actually lived through wars that Kojima can only read about. Since I'm assuming you haven't actually seen any Kurosawa films, I should explain that I wasn't saying the ideas are the only similarity. It's the dialogue itself and what happens in the scene, it's as if he's actually making a tribute to Kurosawa. A lot of filmmakers do stuff like this, but when you're like me and you see it so obviously...it's a problem instead of a clever addition.

Originally Posted by mag

Well, no shit, Sherlock! Of course Solid Snake is based on Plissken! You're not revealing any great mystery there. Everyone already knows it. That's not the point. If they were similar in anything more than the name and some general attitude that 90% of all action heroes have, you might be right about Kojima "ripping it off." But Solid Snake and Snake Plissken are two very different characters, in spite of the similarity of their names.

So you understand that Kojima based Solid Snake on Snake Plissken, and then you say it's not ripped off?

rip-off (rĭp'ôf', -ŏf')
n. Slang.

Definition 4. Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else.

Originally Posted by mag

I'm well aware of the flaws in Kojima's work. But a lack of originality isn't one of them.

If you're that blind it can't be helped and you can't be reasoned with.

Originally Posted by mag

The truth is that there is no such thing as an original idea. We could make a similar list for any movie, video game, book, or other story ever made.

mag, you keep repeating things I've already said! It's not one or two or three things...it's that nearly everything in a work by Hideo Kojima is from a source that I'm overly familiar with. Now, the fact that you are not as familiar with as many films as I'm familiar with from as far back as I'm familiar with and from as many different countries as I'm familiar with...doesn't mean Kojima's work isn't ripping off other specific sources. It simply means that you don't have the background to catch it.

When it comes to stuff like the cloaking or the jeep scene or the occasional Michael Bay shot, none of that would bother me as much if it wasn't surrounded by other scenes that also blatantly rip off other sources. It's the combination of them all in quick succession throughout an entire MGS game, that's the problem. Look, I actually like the Metal Gear Solid 3 opening credit sequence. The Snake Eater song and the visual style. But I'm sorry, I'm the type that immediately said, "Ok, that's obviously a rip off of the Goldfinger introduction." The visuals AND the song make it blatantly obvious. You might have missed that mag, but it doesn't mean it's not there. And that's basically how I feel about almost every cutscene in a Kojima game.

Originally Posted by mag

How is that NOT science fiction? ****, that's practically the definition of science fiction.

What is scientific about ghosts? What is scientific about stopping missiles with the power of your mind or soul? That's better defined as "supernatural" or "fantasy". In your interpretation of science fiction it has nothing to do with hard or soft, it has to do with the "science" part having no meaning or bearing whatsoever. If that's the case, then why is that word there? Let's just call it fiction.

Originally Posted by mag

You can stop putting words in my mouth now. I never said you're stupid. I said your opinion is stupid.

What I said about your opinion is that it makes you wrong. You're still wrong. Factually and inarguably wrong.

Ok, well as long as you just think my opinion is stupid... I would think yours was stupid if it wasn't just "factually and inarguably wrong". Instead of being stupid, you are just wrong.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ha ha. I like it SamNMax.

+ rep to you. You can beat him, Villain. I know you can.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Since Predator? Perhaps. It's only standard to you because you were three years old when it was new.

It was in use before Predator. And dude, you're only like four years older than me. Which means you were seven when it was new. So I guess by your standards, you don't know what you're talking about either. Because God knows, there's no existing technology to allow us to view movies that were created in the past.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I understand that Kojima was intentionally trying to do some of the sequences in a generic American action movie style, but what does that say about him? That he can emulate the work of others well? I'm not impressed by that, sorry.

Did it ever occur to you that by giving the game the feel of a generic American action movie, he was actually trying to make a point?

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I want to know what Kojima can do that others can't do. What makes him special? Great creators leave a mark that can't be mistaken for anyone else's. Kubrick, Kurosawa, Welles, Bergman, etc. Kojima's work could be mistaken for any subpar filmmaker in the world (I say filmmaker because, let's face it, Kojima's games are 50% cutscenes and the cutscenes are pretty much movie sequences).

But Kojima's not a film maker. He's a game maker. And as a game designer, Kojima has a very original style.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Similar backgrounds? Just because they are both Japanese? That's sort of insulting.

Yes, it is sort of insulting that you would assume I'm making a racial statement. But I'll forgive you this time.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

So you understand that Kojima based Solid Snake on Snake Plissken, and then you say it's not ripped off?

rip-off (rĭp'ôf', -ŏf')
n. Slang.

Definition 4. Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else.

First of all, that's the worst definition of "rip-off" I've ever seen. "Based on" is not the same as "ripped off." If Solid Snake was basically the same character as Snake Plissken with the just the name changed, then we might be able to say it's a rip-off. But he's not. They're two completely different characters. The only thing they have in common is the name. That's the difference between being influenced by a work and ripping off a work.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Now, the fact that you are not as familiar with as many films as I'm familiar with from as far back as I'm familiar with and from as many different countries as I'm familiar with...doesn't mean Kojima's work isn't ripping off other specific sources. It simply means that you don't have the background to catch it.

No, what it means is that you're a rabid fanboy. And considering that you don't even know what the term "science fiction" means, I wouldn't go around touting my vast knowledge of film if I were you.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

But I'm sorry, I'm the type that immediately said, "Ok, that's obviously a rip off of the Goldfinger introduction." The visuals AND the song make it blatantly obvious. You might have missed that mag, but it doesn't mean it's not there.

Thank you for once again pointing out the blindingly obvious. Of course the intro was based on Bond! You'd have to have been living as a hermit for the past 40 years to have missed that. It was SUPPOSED to be reminiscent of James Bond! That's not a rip-off. That's what we call a "reference." You might have missed that Villain, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

What is scientific about ghosts? What is scientific about stopping missiles with the power of your mind or soul? That's better defined as "supernatural" or "fantasy". In your interpretation of science fiction it has nothing to do with hard or soft, it has to do with the "science" part having no meaning or bearing whatsoever. If that's the case, then why is that word there? Let's just call it fiction.

Science fiction is a story about the effects of real or imagined science or technology. The majority of science fiction is based on phenomena that would never be possible in real life. The science is imagined. Not real. Made up. Nonexistent.

The sequence with The Sorrow is strange, but certainly not enough to remove the game from the realm of science fiction. Especially considering that such an experience is entirely possible, since the entire encounter appears to take place in a dream.

Fortune? Psycho Mantis? Telepathy and telekinesis are common themes in science fiction. So I don't see what the problem is there.

The Pain? Still scifi as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

He has the ability to control large swarms of hornets at will. He gained this ability by allowing hornets to sting him for days on and on for months at a time, until the hornets came to believe that he was one of their number. As a result of this, his face is covered with weals from the stings. He is also said to carry a Queen in the pack on the back of his hips, using her sound to guide the hornets. Additionally, he carries a large array of vials on his vest, which he flings at enemies to guide hornet swarms at them.

It's not something that's possible. But, as stated, it doesn't have to be possible to be science fiction.

Let's face it. All of the villains in MGS are classic scifi bad guys. Everything in MGS is science fiction.

Originally Posted by SamNMax

+ rep to you. You can beat him, Villain. I know you can.

Don't encourage him.

mag

I don't know. I think you need to be discuraged more than him on this one.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

+ rep to you. You can beat him, Villain. I know you can.

He's already beaten, but this could still be drawn out another 20 pages knowing our history. Thanks for providing my cheering section though. Heh.

I didn't read any of the debate, but just know that mag is dangerous. He won't - can't accept defeat. That is his gift. That is his curse.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

It was in use before Predator. And dude, you're only like four years older than me. Which means you were seven when it was new. So I guess by your standards, you don't know what you're talking about either. Because God knows, there's no existing technology to allow us to view movies that were created in the past.

Yeah, but I watch those movies. You don't. You have an admitted bias toward older films. And could you please name the movies where this style of cloaking was used before Predator? If you can do so, I will stop giving Predator credit where none is due.

Originally Posted by mag

Did it ever occur to you that by giving the game the feel of a generic American action movie, he was actually trying to make a point?

No because he's not smart enough for that. In seriousness, I've seen plenty of work done in a certain style that is beneath the director just to make a point...Metal Gear Solid doesn't make the cut. Kojima loves this stuff, and you know it. One of his other favorite directors is Roland Emmerich (Universal Soldier, Independence Day, the Godzilla with Matthew Broderick, etc.)! I mean, COME ON! He appreciates this stuff. He reproduces it as a fan.

Originally Posted by mag

But Kojima's not a film maker. He's a game maker. And as a game designer, Kojima has a very original style.

I will take this as your admission that Kojima's work in the cutscenes (which seem like 50% or more of his games) is unoriginal, as I've said.

Originally Posted by mag

Yes, it is sort of insulting that you would assume I'm making a racial statement. But I'll forgive you this time.

Ok then I'll forgive you for ignoring what I said and trying to get away with this as your entire response.

Originally Posted by mag

First of all, that's the worst definition of "rip-off" I've ever seen. "Based on" is not the same as "ripped off." If Solid Snake was basically the same character as Snake Plissken with the just the name changed, then we might be able to say it's a rip-off. But he's not. They're two completely different characters. The only thing they have in common is the name. That's the difference between being influenced by a work and ripping off a work.

Name, voice, and attitude = Same. Same = rip-off.

Originally Posted by mag

No, what it means is that you're a rabid fanboy. And considering that you don't even know what the term "science fiction" means, I wouldn't go around touting my vast knowledge of film if I were you.

I have a vast knowledge of film and an understanding of the term science fiction. Amazing. You apparently possess neither.

Originally Posted by mag

Thank you for once again pointing out the blindingly obvious. Of course the intro was based on Bond! You'd have to have been living as a hermit for the past 40 years to have missed that. It was SUPPOSED to be reminiscent of James Bond! That's not a rip-off. That's what we call a "reference." You might have missed that Villain, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

It's a rip-off. An intentional, blatant rip-off. It was cool in this case. I enjoyed it. But it was a rip-off. Apparently you think that a rip-off requires a creator to try to hide what he has done. Sorry. It can be a "blindingly obvious" "reference" and still be a rip-off.

Originally Posted by mag

Science fiction is a story about the effects of real or imagined science or technology. The majority of science fiction is based on phenomena that would never be possible in real life. The science is imagined. Not real. Made up. Nonexistent.

The sequence with The Sorrow is strange, but certainly not enough to remove the game from the realm of science fiction. Especially considering that such an experience is entirely possible, since the entire encounter appears to take place in a dream.

Fortune? Psycho Mantis? Telepathy and telekinesis are common themes in science fiction. So I don't see what the problem is there.

The Pain? Still scifi as far as I can tell.

That stuff is fantasy for me. When you get into the realm of the supernatural and completely fantastic, you are no longer in the genre of science fiction. You forget, even if The Sorrow was a dream at the part you are referring to, he had already shown himself in reality on numerous other occasions. And he's dead.

Originally Posted by mag

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
He has the ability to control large swarms of hornets at will. He gained this ability by allowing hornets to sting him for days on and on for months at a time, until the hornets came to believe that he was one of their number. As a result of this, his face is covered with weals from the stings. He is also said to carry a Queen in the pack on the back of his hips, using her sound to guide the hornets. Additionally, he carries a large array of vials on his vest, which he flings at enemies to guide hornet swarms at them.

LOL! That was great. Ok, ok...I can't help it. A new genre idea for Metal Gear Solid. Comedy.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

I didn't read any of the debate, but just know that mag is dangerous. He won't - can't accept defeat. That is his gift. That is his curse.

SamNMax - I don't know if you've ever considered becoming a writer/novelist but I hope you seriously consider it. You're a damn good writer. I really like reading your reviews and those 3 sentences about mag, for some reason, were really compelling and dramatic to me.

Metal Gear Solid 2 sucked.

Originally Posted by Melanie68

SamNMax - I don't know if you've ever considered becoming a writer/novelist but I hope you seriously consider it. You're a damn good writer. I really like reading your reviews and those 3 sentences about mag, for some reason, were really compelling and dramatic to me.

I am considering it, thank you.

[SCRUGAtes13]

wow, this topic went red hot from the last time i was here, but i think that everyone is making good points. i think that one thing i was very impressed with in the metal gear solid trilogy was the great dialogue and vioce acting, mainly in the telecommunication sequences. i think that some of them are highly complex and intriquing, for example at the end of mgs2:substance when raiden is talking to the chief and rose on top of that famous building in new york, the dialogue is fantastic regardless of kojimas 'hack'-ness...

[mag]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

I didn't read any of the debate, but just know that mag is dangerous. He won't - can't accept defeat. That is his gift. That is his curse.

Well, if you think I'm the one who needs to accept defeat, I'd say it rather goes without saying that you didn't read any of the debate.

I can accept defeat when somebody actually proves me to be wrong. I can't accept defeat when I'm talking to a crazed fanboy who can only spout insane nonsense.

mag

[EvoG]

^Exactly, as Villain hasn't made one compelling argument to support his side, strickly miring it in opinion, and an inflexible and unreasonable one at that.

Conceding defeat, as mag put it, is reserved for those with good reason to, and there isn't one for mag yet.

Of course, I believe Sam was being facetious so...


Go get'em chief!


Cheers

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

Well, if you think I'm the one who needs to accept defeat, I'd say it rather goes without saying that you didn't read any of the debate.

I can accept defeat when somebody actually proves me to be wrong. I can't accept defeat when I'm talking to a crazed fanboy who can only spout insane nonsense.

mag

Ok, in that case, I'm waiting for you to counter my last post mag. Hop to it. Funny, what you said is exactly the way I feel about you. You're the crazed fanboy. How can you see me as a crazed fanboy? You're the very definition of a crazed Metal Gear Solid fanboy.

Originally Posted by EvoG

^Exactly, as Villain hasn't made one compelling argument to support his side, strickly miring it in opinion, and an inflexible and unreasonable one at that.

Conceding defeat, as mag put it, is reserved for those with good reason to, and there isn't one for mag yet.

Ditto for me. When you guys make a compelling argument, I will concede.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ok, in that case, I'm waiting for you to counter my last post mag. Hop to it. Funny, what you said is exactly the way I feel about you. You're the crazed fanboy. How can you see me as a crazed fanboy? You're the very definition of a crazed Metal Gear Solid fanboy.

There's not really much in your last post to to counter. All you did was repeat the same points that I've already explained to be wrong. In order for you to prove your point that Hideo Kojima is a hack logically (and I know that logic is something you hate), you would have to show what specifically in Metal Gear Solid is unoriginal and show that this results in the overall work as a whole being unoriginal.

Now you've done the first part. You showed that Metal Gear Solid has a lot of things that are derivative or based on other works. But I already knew that. Every work has those things. That does not mean that every work as a whole is unoriginal. And that's what you've failed to show. How is Metal Gear Solid, as a whole, unoriginal? Where's the connection?

If we wanted to, we could make a similar list for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. We could say, well, the theme of upper class people not having sex was already very common. And the tone and dialogue are very similar to other Victorian novels. And Austen uses the name Catherine, which is the name of half of all Victorian era heroines. But it would be wrong for me to say, based on those things (which are relatively minor contentions anyway), that the story as a whole is unoriginal while ignoring everything else as well as the influence that Austen had on the romantic comedy genre. Of course, I suppose now you'll argue that Pride and Prejudice isn't really a romantic comedy. It's actually a psychological thriller.

But you see the point. You can't say that Metal Gear Solid as a whole is unoriginal just because its individual elements have been used before. That's the same kind of thinking that says Star Wars ripped off The Lord of the Rings because they're both based on Jungian archetypes. By that standard, ALL stories are unoriginal, in which case Metal Gear Solid still is not special in that regard. And that's what makes you a fanboy--you demonstrate an overzealous attention to insignificant details, resulting in completely unrealistic definitions and ideas.

As it is, you haven't "beaten" me. You haven't done anything but beat us over the head with your opinion. That doesn't show that you're right. It just shows that you lack the ability for rational thought. And I'm not going to continue responding to you repeating the same points that have already been shown to be wrong. I know it goes against your conservative thinking, but you can't win a debate simply through repetition. If you come up with an actual argument, I'd be glad to respond to it. But I'm not going to just keep going in circles with you. If you want to know my opinion of your last post, go back a page to where I responded to the exact same points the first time.

mag