No, I actually like that one. It only lends itself to a few puns and works fairly well for what he was. "Always enthusiastic, but burns out too fast." "He can never go the distance." "It's the same every time, he gets going then two minutes later BAM!, he's on the floor and out cold."

And I'll take this dead horse beating over the "discussion" with whatsherface up there, though both are tantamount to the same thing...Well, at least this is entertaining.

Ah crap, double post...Anyone know how to delete these things?

Your right, I know nothing, I am not going into a SW D20 game set in the NJO era tomorrow, I just don't understand you, its not that your totally wrong and don't understand what I am trying to say. I am responding your just ignoring me, and I don't understand what the point of arguing is if your going to ignore me. You insult me just as much, you have been just as pretentious if not MORESO from the very beginning and your text walls frankly move around in circles. The Force is not a catchall in the expanded universe, its simply expanded upon. If you can't understand the difference then its no wonder you get confused so easily.

But lets get back to the core of the issue ok? Point out these freaking flaws in the writing ok? Point to where it is in the series that you think that actual flaws rest. Is it in the complexity? is it in the 'fluff?' what is it? Frankly from the looks of it your splitting hairs. Heck your making my point for me "It doesn't explain why the Ylasmir block the force' well ok fine, Ill grant you that if you grant me that the MGS series spends quite a bit of time making SURE you understand how things are supposed to work. So with starwars your complaint is that you don't get enough fluff, with MGS its that you get too much. That sounds more like a personal issue with your ability to accept what is presented to you because its too much or too little rather than any inherent problem with the writing. You have decided that 'this much information is acceptable, too much more and its overkill too much less and its just a catchall cop out'.

I find it funny that your trying to peg the whole pretentious thing on me, and even funnier that your trying to tell a SW fangirl she knows nothing about the expanded universe. But it doesn't matter. You just come here to post some confused psudo-intellectual drivel and make yourself feel like a big man anyways.

What really kills me is that whole phrase about accepting mediocre explanations for science fiction when your accusing me of being pretentious. You have no idea what your saying anymore, its just a thin veil to try and cover up the fact that you don't like the writing and you don't get it so it must be bad.

The second I played this game, I thought "If Yahtzee ever reviews this he's just going to piss all over it." So I'm truly shocked that he called the characters well-rounded.

As for the story being poor, if by "poor" he means "verbose to a tiresome degree" then huzzah. If he means "boring dull nonsense" then pfeh. Looking past the endless explanations and loose story threads being spun together, at least the core of every scene kept me interested in what was happening and maintained that there was a purpose to the whole thing.

Arntor:

swytchblayd:
I got the feeling that this review was more of a whine-fest than anything >.> Definitely not Yahtzee's best piece of work...

By the way, why the hell should we be re-introduced to Raiden? Even if he wears a ninja suit and can cut down Gears with a vibrating sword, his face still makes me want to just punch him in the face. And that voice... maybe its just the US version, but he makes me laugh in the worst way every time his mouth opens. In my opinion, any MGS game that has that retarded asschild in it will most certainly always have a certain bad taste in my mouth >.< If what everything's being said goes true, then I'll stick to MGS3:SE as my all-time favorite... there will never be another like the original Snake. Never.

Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been realized or not, but there's been a lot of dirty naming going on here O.o I mean, come on... Solid Snake, Liquid Snake, Solidius Snake, Naked Snake, and now we have Old Snake... Hell, why not just rename Raiden 'Trouser Snake' and finally give him a title that suits his actual level of intelligence?

How about Impotent Snake?

I'll agree to the Raiden thing. Not even Hideo likes the guy, if the videos of Metal Gear Raiden trailer says anything (I would recommend them highly to a lover of Snake Eater. The sight of an aroused Volgin approaching Raiden (who, if you'll remember, looks just like Volgins lover) is hysterical).

As for Snake, the name originally came from a Kurt Russel character called Snake Plisskin. The solid was added because of the two states of a snake - a solid creature when it strikes, and a liquid creature when it flees.

And who the hell calls theirs Old Snake? If mine went dead, I'd probably just end up yelling "Snake.... Snake?.....SNAKE!".

Tempdude0:
"It's the same every time, he gets going then two minutes later BAM! He's on the floor and out cold."

I love this one because I can imagine this in-game as two guards are having idle conversation with each other after they've been alerted about an intruder.

Some female NPC
"He came really quickly through the gates and then disappeared!"

OK, lets get down to the blinding flash of the obvious. Some people may wish to cover their eyes.

All fiction is set outside of reality. That is why it is called fiction.

The legal systems in CSI do not funtion in the same manner as the ones here. The prosecution does not get as heavily involved in a legal case in New Yorks real legal system as they do in Law and Order. People who are as incapable of functioning as Monk generally are not able to be the greatest detective in the world.

Uh, I talk about what you've said point by point as they come up through reading your overly long diatribes. I fail to see the "ignoring" in that. Oh, so you're going to grant me something that was already established, how big of you. Do go on...Though the force wasn't expanded upon, it was used as a deus ex machina catchall in certain series.

...You seem to be misunderstanding "fluff" fluff is extra information not related to core concepts integral to a series. It serves to flesh out characters and the world around them. It frequently is in no way related to plot of the game/book, but is there as an attempt to make the reader/game-player forget that their reading about/dealing with fictional characters. Otakons love of anime is fluff, Snakes military training is not. Medics odd tendancy to know about movies is fluff, Volgin being a pervert is not, wich is surprising. You throw around terms that I don't believe you fully understand.

So fangirl, give me solid example from the universe you so love. I did it and I'm only a fan in a few cases. References people, references. Saying something doesn't make it so. Use actual examples in your argument and I won't think so little of you.

Yeah, pseudo-intellectual is a great term. It means you don't get what I'm saying. It means that my language, rather unrefined because I don't feel like talking in a formal matter, is beyond your comprehension. This is YOUR problem, not mine. I may be overly verbose at times just like the Metal Gear Series, but I never claimed to be succinct. In fact, I've referred to all my responces as "rants" which by definition are long winded.

...And once again, I get the writing. It's just not good. It's not punchy, it's not insightful, it's not the pinnacle of writing...I referenced the writer of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" what more do you want in regards to my level of comprehension? Do you want to know I read War and Peace? What will convince her highness of my ability to "get" the writing, aside from having to LIKE it?

Also, keep in mind my comprehension is such that I can keep pace with even the most nonsensical thing you've said, and the biggest indicator that I know what I'm talking about and that you don't is that I've yet to fall back on terms like "pseudo-intellectual" or to ignore the parts of your argument I can't actually answer. There aren't any I can't, but that's not the point. I get your arguments, they just lack substance, much like the game you love so much.

Furthermore, I stated earlier that I loved, LOVED Metal Gear Solid 3. Now, even assuming that as a baseline for what I can understand, your ravings don't even compare to Kojimas writing. He may be a talkative bastard and I may not like all his works, but you hold no candle to him even on his worst days.

And once again you fail to address my points. I'm even setting them up in easy to respond format and you STILL can't do it. I even gave you an itemized list for gods sakes.

To Indigo_Dingo, wasn't the the character in escape from New York? Oh, and I apologize for earlier hostilities. I'm more irked at Terra than you. You managed to keep a more level head throughout the conversation. I still don't think you get what I was talking about, but I'm going to let that slide because you've been, if nothing else, rather polite.

As for the "fiction" aspect, of course all fiction is set apart from reality. It's the extent to which they're set apart that's the issue. If set too close, Supermen should not be showing up and if set too far nothing need be explained realistically because of so alien a world. In the case of things like MGS, CSI, and Law and Order, we must make allowances for the sake of plot and entertainment. This only extends so far. As an example, aliens shouldn't be showing up in the MGS series. I guess if it was done well enough I could run with it, but that's be one hell of a feat of writing. In CSI, none of the group should suddenly be able to go "punisher" on crooks without ramifications. This is what I was ranting about earlier.

As to Arntor, I like that line...Personally, I was going for the scenes where he gets "killed" in each game, like with the narrator doing a voice over, but I enjoy your example.

OMFG! People don't like it when someone insults what they like! What next?! Needing food to live!

Yes, its fiction, the argument that is raging right now is if this fiction is bad because of the loopholes. Its going to have them, I am simply arguing that while bad enough ones can break immersion in a story for the most part the writing is what draws in the reader regardless of the loopholes, causing the reader to fill in the 'if this is true' blanks mentally by disregarding them or making assumptions. That is every science fiction story, and indeed most fiction stories. These 'catchalls' are simply a way of saying a copout excuse for why something works the way it does but in every work of fiction things work diffrenlty in real life and we can simply think of things as having bigger or smaller catchalls and more or less believable ones. That is why I am saying that it is not BAD writing to, for example, have an animal that blocks the force but nobody knows why. Maybe they don't know why. Maybe nobody has had a chance to get ahold of one long enough to dissect it or perhaps they have found nothing to warrant why, but it does. Now is it bad writing because "oh now we can't use the force" or perhaps is it better to assume that the reason is not given because they don't know or its not important to the story and they move on which is honeslty what people say MGS should do.

Thats actually a really good way to make my point. people are complaining about copout answers on the one hand, and then to the best of my knowledge answers that are over explained on the other. Its kind of a Goldielocks scenario and that is far more personal than anything else. Now if people have actual 'catchalls' within the MGS story such as the use of nano for all sorts of diffrent things, well then its all a matter of weather the person is willing to accept that maybe they play a major part or if they just want to think its a BS answer. I'm not saying writing can't be objective on some levels, in fact it has to. However Bad writing would be like Master chief who, at least in the games, shows little emotional depth and has a massive amount of obvious plot device on his side with nothing to distract from that fact.The fact that an in-game or in-story universe works on diffrent principals from our own is part of why it is fiction. I really just think its a matter of a persons tolerance for light or heavy fluff being translated into how good they consider the overall writing.

and no, your not setting up your points well, your blathering on in cricles.

And no, you don't have to LIKE the writing. You can hate writing and still accept that its not bad. Your not making a case for why the MGS series has bad writing, nobody has. All they have done is complained that it gives them what they feel is too much information which is not in itself bad writing, and on top of that all you have done is talk about catchalls, talked about problems with your inability to 'buy' the setting which you could simply accept is more personal than anything. You don't like it, thats fine, but you have made no case for why it is outright bad.

New rule. No-one can say Yahtzee was spot on unless they've played the damn game.

Ok lets just clear up the clutter and make this 'punchy' as you seem to like. What, besides the amount of talking, is it that you find WRONG with the writing? what is wrong wit the story or the way it is presented OTHER than the length at which things are presented?

Also the more I look at it the more I start to think it may not be as much a matter of hypocrisy on Yatzees part as much as the fact that he simply does not like to review games he does not want to play anyways and so just kinda cops out waiting for games he wants to get his hands on.

Indigo_Dingo:
New rule. No-one can say Yahtzee was spot on unless they've played the damn game.

Yahtzee was spot on the negatives (Beat in one sitting (good ole red bull)) like the cutscenes and cumbersome controls. Looks damn good though and pretty decent fun I just found no replay value.

TerraMGP:
Ok lets just clear up the clutter and make this 'punchy' as you seem to like. What, besides the amount of talking, is it that you find WRONG with the writing? what is wrong wit the story or the way it is presented OTHER than the length at which things are presented?

How ridiculous it is. (Halo is ridiculous too thats why I skip the cutscenes in both.)

That tells me nothing. You think its Ridiculous, you have already said your not a fan of fiction, that again is something subjective, its personal. That doesn't make it bad writing it just means you find it ridiculous because it doesn't SEEM to mesh up with our reality as much.

TerraMGP:
That tells me nothing. You think its Ridiculous, you have already said your not a fan of fiction, that again is something subjective, its personal. That doesn't make it bad writing it just means you find it ridiculous because it doesn't SEEM to mesh up with our reality as much.

Oh you mean wrong as in quality of writing ah I though you meant wrong story wise. Sorry. (It is good writing in that way.)

Yes, people are arguing the writing quality more right now. They are not talking about bad story just bad writing, and I don't see it. The only complaint that I have seen so far that I can even understand is that its not 'punchy' to which I simply say that is part of personal preference more than anything, Its subjective.

I've never played MGS4, but almost every issue brought up was one that I had with MGS3, so I doubt much has changed.

This just in. Brawl Still shit.

Ok, fine you chimed in with your opinion, just keep the whole thing with brawl out of it. You want to argue about that little gem of chaos management do it in the appropriate review thread dagnabbit.

See, what's funny is I'm not trying to insult their interests. Just like with Halo, I'm not going to say it's the most brilliantly written thing ever. By the same token, it's not that bad. They both fall into the "meh" category. It gets a bit dopey at times, but it's still fun. (Actually, I'm not a huge fan of the Halo gameplay/story, but that's more to do with me not being a huge FPS fan to begin with than with inherent issues with either.)

I just don't get why people can't see something objectively, realize it has flaws, and continue to enjoy it.

No, once again, that's not what catchalls are. They're poorly constructed plot devices and are in no way concerned with suspension of disbelief, which is what you're describing in the first paragraph. As for the why, no one knows how they do it. They just do...Because it's a plot point. That's where the force becomes a catch all. It's assumed that since the force is mysterious in it's ways that the writers don't need to explain why things work. At that point, it becomes a deuce ex machina/catchall. Where are you getting what you're saying? And as for "assuming it's not important" when a creature is found that can cut off the source of your powers, people with those powers are going to look into it. That's a given, and it's not fluff because it's directly related to the central plot. It's not a secondary plot, it's not background information for fans, it's tied to the MAIN STORY in the book.

As for Master Chief, emotional depth isn't necissarily bad writing depending on what you're going for with it. As for plot device, he's a cyborg/robot thing. His armor is absurdly powerful regardless. That's a plot device, yeah, but in a world where giant rings make death, robot exoskeletons aren't that far fetched.

As for saying "It has to be objective" what the bloody hell do you think people have been spouting about for 23 pages? Even fans find the game to be long winded and convouted. If people who aren't fans and fans can both see issue, it's there. That's objectivity in action. "Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" They like it, yet still see the problems. Bam, there it is. What are you looking for here?

And it's not over explained, it's ridiculously explained. It'd be like saying "Clowns did it." "Well, how?" "Nanomachines!" "I'm sorry, what?" "Clowns!" It gets fucking surreal, and not in a deep way...An odd, twisting, acid trip surreal. The only "over explanation" is in going over the same information repeatedly over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum.

I can't even go into the nanomachines. You have tiny robots that can control people and force them to do things and yadda yadda yadda, and yet people can deceive you and for some reason you don't just shoot a dart of the damn things into Snake and kill him. I reserve that last one as an extreme example because that would make the game insufferably hard, but you get where I'm going...Well, maybe not YOU, but some of the other people here do.

AND STOP USING THE WORD FLUFF INCORRECTLY CONSARNIT! Google it for gods sake. Here, I'll do it for you, right from the dictionary. "something inconsequential" Good grief woman, reading comprehension. I've only explained it, what, three times now?

As for punchy...That's the definition!"having punch : forceful, spirited b: vivid, vibrant" Long winded speeches don't have punch if they're filled with useless info, which is what invariably happens as speeches in the Metal Gear series drone on and on.

Furthermore, the bad writing comes from how set apart from reality it is. I've explained it before, but I'll give it another go. Metal Gear Solid is set in a reality similar to ours. We have been told gravity, most laws of physics, and the human body to react in the ways they normally would. If people suddenly start jumping fifty feet, deflecting bullets with feathers, and the human body can now turn 180 at the waist, then it's breaking the world it set up. Certain characters are exceptions if a reason is given, such as extensive surgery, and even psychic powers. Those are fine, if a little cliche. The problem, put simply, is when characters/objects/events start doing things that go beyond the reality already set up by the story itself. Have you heard me complaining about foxdie? Have you heard me complaining about Raiden and his inexplicable ressurections? Okay, the second one is off, but whatever. The point is that my basis for what is/isn't and should/should not happen is set up BY THE STORY INITIALLY. They set up the world, all they have to do is adhere to it.

I'm assuming the "Don't like fiction" is aimed at the other dude."

...Okay, to anyone else, just to get a guideline, are TerraMGP's responses making even a lick of sense? Really, I'd just like to have reasonable discourse but she keeps avoiding my points like the plague. Am I asking to much that people pay attention to each other when having a discussion? Really, I hit all her points, is it over the top to ask for the same? Honest opinions here, please, I'd actually appreciate it.

To Hawaiigm, I like it. It has problems, such as a low ceiling, a few over powered characters, and some crazy ass screens that make it hard to fight in. However, it falls into "Lovably stupid." Though the subspace emissary can kiss my ass...But that's for another thread.

Tempdude0:

I'm assuming the "Don't like fiction" is aimed at the other dude."

Yea its at me.

Just clarifying.

Wait, didn't you say you read the Halo books? It may not count as GREAT fiction, but it's still a work of fiction, or am I thinking of someone else?

Quit assuming your right with one definition of the word for crying out loud, thats annoying. your using one potentially correct definition of the word. I know exactly what fluff is, I am using it correclty.

Frankly though I don't have the tiem to respond to all of this, I have to get to bed. I will simply say that

You are totally wrong about detachment from reality being bad writing, its just that YOU don't like it. that does not make for bad writing it just makes it hard for you personally to accept it if it seems to be detached from reality. I have seen really good writing that has been VERY detached from reality and very bad writing that has explained everything about it in detail (alot of the Star Trek stuff comes to mind).

now how about this. You complain about HK talking in circles and writing poorly, so how about YOU shore up your rather confusing drivel into a summation of what you think it is. Your point from what I have read, as it has been, is more or less that you feel unless everything seems totally grounded in reality to you then its poor writing, well guess what the more you understand how the tech might work the more you realize its all BS in the end.

now quit being so OCD over defenitions when you know what the implied point is and that words usually have more than one, and as for punchy it can be as bad and annoying as 'droning', that again is opinion. Your quantifying punchy as good by definition, fine, Then Rambo and Sports pages are amazing works of literary genius. It is again personal preference and some people prefer to have dry and more drawn out explanations. Dry writing is not bad writing its just not what YOU prefer.

And yes the "don't like fiction" was aimed at him, not you. He stated that he did not like works of fiction.

Tempdude0:
Just clarifying.

Wait, didn't you say you read the Halo books? It may not count as GREAT fiction, but it's still a work of fiction, or am I thinking of someone else?

Yup I have. I don't like insulting people by not using their gift.

I'm using the dictionary. Are you calling the dictionary incorrect? Really now, that's just silly.

Once again, detachment isn't a bad thing...You know, it'd help if you actually read what I wrote. I've even dumbed down my diction a few times. I enjoy the Star Wars expanded universe. If I didn't have a reasonable ability to deal with breaks in reality I wouldn't be reading any of the books...And yet I have and I continue to do so. What a CA-RAAAAZY HAPPENING! Guess you misunderstand my simple statements about my personal preferences.

You...look, before I go further, I stated I was using the dictionary for definitions. If you want to be an asstard about it you can take your grievances up with Miriam-Webster. Just because some idiots, i.e. you, believe a word can be used in whatever manor you feel it fits doesn't make you right. That's why we have a dictionary. IT'S what decides on a definition...And yes, I realize it's debated by the writers of said dictionary, but I'm not even going to get into that. Waaaaay beyond what you're up for.

Continuing with that, "punchy" can not be bad. Sports and Rambo are not necessarily "punchy" The word means, ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY: "having punch : forceful, spirited b: vivid, vibrant" While "having punch" can be debated to a certain extent, forceful and spirited, vivid and vibrant cannot. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Check if you don't believe me.

As for a quick summation, fine. Here we go.

Metal Gear has mediocre writing because it tends to stretch suspension of disbelief to unheard of levels. Even within the world it sets up, certain events (anything concerning that cockwit Raiden) are beyond what could realistically happen. If ZE PATRIOTS!1! can get into peoples body and minds, there are no secrets...Period...Even ignoring that aspect, when a writer begins to re-tread old ground, he had better be doing either a recap for newbies or introducing new information a la retcon/actual storytelling. Doing neither, going over information repeatedly simply for the sake of going over it is filler, and filler is always bad. That's why it's called "filler". Look it up if you don't get what it means.

As for "Dry writing" I'm going to the dictionary again. I'm going to do your job for you just to point out how stupid you sound. "not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling b: wearisome, uninteresting <dry passages of description> c: lacking embellishment" There we go, dry writing is never good due to it's nature and if you knew that you wouldn't be referring to something you like as "dry" you monumental douche. Stop using terms you don't comprehend.

Also, Drawn out does not mean "dry" it just means lengthy. The ending to MGS 3 was lengthy, but it was so well done no one cared. It was LENGTHY AND PUNCHY! They aren't mutually exclusive. That means you can have both, just for clarification purposes.

And use OCD better. Obsessive Compulsive isn't the same as anal, well, not really, but subtlety seems to be lost on you, and I'm not even being anal in this case. I just want you to use words correctly. You're not even using slang, words meant to be interpreted by the tone of use. You're using words with fixed definitions. Get it straight.

You know what, I'll sum up my points, all of them, when you show me you can "get" my writing. Since you fail at basic reading comprehension, I doubt that will be any time soon. All you have to do is answer the questions I've asked of you. That's it. Check back, they're numbered/separated into individual points. Easy reading. Even a kid can do it. I laid them out like I was setting up a question and answer sheet for middle school students, so you can't even complain about their delivery.

As for anyone else, I'm still up for a reasonable discourse on the game. I'd honestly be interested in hearing about why you like such an expanded version of storytelling. It seems to be similar to "decompressed storytelling" that's used in comics, but I don't get the appeal of that either. Just please, respond in detail. I want a "why" not just another "I like it because it's good." or "I like it because it gives a lot of information." I want to know why such drawn out exposition is enjoyable. I'm curious.

As for shatnershaman, Oh...Well then I really have no comment. Though, uh, how DID those rings work anyway? All I know is they were supposed to kill things, and there's something called the flood...Yeah, I don't know. I've only caught bits and pieces here and there.

You press the button and it goes boom? I really don't know.

Fair enough. Honest question though, am I making sense? I'm just trying to establish that I do actually have a line of reasoning with my posts. On the same note, do Terras responses make sense? Same deal, I want to see if I'm the only one not understanding where they're coming from.

This actually goes out to anyone. I really am trying to get a baseline for whether or not either of us make sense. It's not a "do you agree?" thing, just "can you follow, and do the responses make sense given the information in the posts that are being responded to?"

wow just wow i bet this will reach 1k posts ;D

randomjoe333333:
wow just wow i bet this will reach 1k posts ;D

Why'd you think it wouldn't?

It might reach 1000, I just hope it's not this same argument going back and forth between Tempdude0 and TerraMGP for those next 200 posts. Maybe it's time to just agree to disagree?
I think people get too upset by Yahtzee's opinion sometimes. That's all it is after all, a personal opinion.

I love fanboiz, I really do. They make the Internet interesting. Brawl fanboiz just ramble on endlessly like idiots, and MGS fanboiz try to sound intellegent while rambling on like idiots. I sense another mailbag showdown soon.