Post by Martin Stett on Jan 10, 2024 15:55:58 GMT
So I've been having a bit of an argument about Metal Gear Solid 2 recently. I've spoken with somebody who found the game well-made, but who was pissed off about the bait-and-switch marketing and storyline of the game. You see, you play MGS2 as superspy Solid Snake (the hero of Metal Gear Solid), until.... you don't. Around 2-3 hours into the game, there's a major shakeup and Solid Snake is replaced by a brand new character that we've never met before called Raiden.
The gameplay remains almost exactly the same (Raiden's flip is slightly faster than Snake's roll, IIRC), but story-wise, the game goes into a completely new direction. The game's marketing never once mentioned Raiden, and everything in promotional materials focused on Solid Snake. Raiden is never mentioned before suddenly showing up and taking over the role of protagonist.
This guy is understandably pissed about this, calling it a con-job. He says Kojima tricked us into thinking that we'd get Solid Snake, making us pay for one product and giving us something else entirely. He argues that if we pay for a Denzel Washington movie, we shouldn't have five minutes of Denzel at the beginning and then the whole rest of the film is some D-list actor nobody has ever heard of.
When I look at MGS2, I see something that challenges the audience, by deliberately setting up a story to go one way and then going somewhere else, forcing us out of our comfort zones. The gameplay is still MGS sneaking stuff. The character of Solid Snake is still a major supporting character after Raiden takes over (to use the Denzel analogy above, it would be like Denzel disappearing for twenty minutes before showing up in a supporting role as the D-list actor's mentor who helps out through the rest of the movie, ending with second billing - almost a co-lead). And most importantly, the game references the marketing and assumptions of the players explicitly. The game takes on a VERY postmodern bent, explicitly talking about the game's marketing and Raiden's position as the hero of the story, with characters holding discussions about what a player wants out of a video game - specifically a sequel to the mega-hit Metal Gear Solid.
I look at the game and see the bait-and-switch being used for artistic purposes. Kojima was trying to make a point, and used these tactics to talk about propaganda, marketing, male power fantasies, social media, etc. etc. Now, whether or not one likes the story of this game - and whether or not one thinks that the bait-and-switch was necessary - is aside from the point. There was an artistic reason for the decision to trick us into thinking we were playing as Solid Snake.
However, does that artistic reason matter if you're paying good money for a product? As I said, the core gameplay and genre remains the same. Snake still appears through much of the game. At what point does it become a scummy con-job instead of a valid artistic maneuver to hide what your story is "really about?"
The gameplay remains almost exactly the same (Raiden's flip is slightly faster than Snake's roll, IIRC), but story-wise, the game goes into a completely new direction. The game's marketing never once mentioned Raiden, and everything in promotional materials focused on Solid Snake. Raiden is never mentioned before suddenly showing up and taking over the role of protagonist.
This guy is understandably pissed about this, calling it a con-job. He says Kojima tricked us into thinking that we'd get Solid Snake, making us pay for one product and giving us something else entirely. He argues that if we pay for a Denzel Washington movie, we shouldn't have five minutes of Denzel at the beginning and then the whole rest of the film is some D-list actor nobody has ever heard of.
When I look at MGS2, I see something that challenges the audience, by deliberately setting up a story to go one way and then going somewhere else, forcing us out of our comfort zones. The gameplay is still MGS sneaking stuff. The character of Solid Snake is still a major supporting character after Raiden takes over (to use the Denzel analogy above, it would be like Denzel disappearing for twenty minutes before showing up in a supporting role as the D-list actor's mentor who helps out through the rest of the movie, ending with second billing - almost a co-lead). And most importantly, the game references the marketing and assumptions of the players explicitly. The game takes on a VERY postmodern bent, explicitly talking about the game's marketing and Raiden's position as the hero of the story, with characters holding discussions about what a player wants out of a video game - specifically a sequel to the mega-hit Metal Gear Solid.
I look at the game and see the bait-and-switch being used for artistic purposes. Kojima was trying to make a point, and used these tactics to talk about propaganda, marketing, male power fantasies, social media, etc. etc. Now, whether or not one likes the story of this game - and whether or not one thinks that the bait-and-switch was necessary - is aside from the point. There was an artistic reason for the decision to trick us into thinking we were playing as Solid Snake.
However, does that artistic reason matter if you're paying good money for a product? As I said, the core gameplay and genre remains the same. Snake still appears through much of the game. At what point does it become a scummy con-job instead of a valid artistic maneuver to hide what your story is "really about?"
