Post by macecurb on Dec 13, 2017 3:39:07 GMT
So, that's an absurd statement. And, for those of you not familiar with the games themselves (Going to exclude everything but the numbered games, for simplicity's sake), that probably is going to take a lot of backstory to understand.
For the time being, I'm not actually going to bother trying to summarize the series because... That would be difficult. I swear I'll get around to it eventually.
That having been said, though:
Metal Gear 1 and 2 are actually not very notable in this capacity. You play as Solid Snake, a spec-ops kinda soldier who ends up infiltrating a few facilities owned and operated by the bad guy du jour, Big Boss. Both were fairly good stealth games. At the end of Metal Gear 2, Solid Snake kills Big Boss. Think of these games as backstory for the rest of the series.
Metal Gear Solid is the beginning. It is the anchor point from which the rest of the series is created. There is nothing, in a meta sense, deep about Metal Gear Solid 1 unto itself. It was well-made, it was well-done, it was good.
Metal Gear Solid 2 is where things get weird. It is, as even those of you unfamiliar with the series might know, a big-budget sequel to the first game that largely attempts to derail, deconstruct, and subvert the pattern that the first game set. It delves into some really interesting ideas, and I'm just going to let Super Bunnyhop cover this one. Or maybe PCGamer. In my mind, this is the point where Kojima (The series' director, or, by some standards, Auteur) got tired of MGS. "I don't want to make another one, so how about I make one that people will hate?"
Metal Gear Solid 3 is where things get back to comparative normality, but, in my mind, it's also where things actually get weird. Y'see, MGS3 is a super-commercial, play-it-safe-prequel to the previous games, starring a young (and very likeable) Big Boss before he becomes a villain. It's campy, it's fun, it hits you in the feels in a way that you really wouldn't expect a schlocky, by-the-numbers sequel to. I will note, it's arguably one of the best games of all time, full stop. In my mind, this is where Kojima got cynical about MGS. "I don't want to make another one, so how about I make one that people will find derivative?". Kojima, though, is a perfectionist. Which comes back to bite him in the ass with...
Metal Gear Solid 4 is basically just a long-winded attempt to wrap up and cut off every single plot thread that had been introduced thus far. In that, it succeeded, although the attempt was not necessarily well-received. Things that were just weird or magical in previous installments got handwaved away by "nanomachines", both Big Boss and Solid Snake (the two main protagonists so far) get killed off. In my mind, this is Kojima saying "Fuck you, I'm not making another one. Everything ends here, everyone dies here. No more sequels!".
And because there was no more opportunity for sequels (Aside from Revengeance, which, despite being good, doesn't really count), Konami instead opted to force Hideo Kojima into making a prequel about how Big Boss became a bad guy after MGS3. In a broad sense, Kojima shrugged and said, "you know what, fuck it. I'm going to spend five years making the best stealth game ever, and then start worrying about the story". And thus came about...
Metal Gear Solid V, The Phantom Pain. A game in which the main character loses an arm right off the bat and gains a cyborg prosthetic. But the phantom pain doesn't ever go away... I could go into much more detail, but suffice it to say that this game is considered unfinished on a story level. The phantom pain and resulting confusion experienced by several of the characters is broadly mirrored by players' feelings of confusion and being given half a game. Gamesradar explains this better than I ever could.
So... What do you think? My initial feeling was that, on some level, there's an exploration of postmodernism and intertextuality that can be gleaned from the massive, unwieldy mess of plot that is Metal Gear Solid.
For the time being, I'm not actually going to bother trying to summarize the series because... That would be difficult. I swear I'll get around to it eventually.
That having been said, though:
Metal Gear 1 and 2 are actually not very notable in this capacity. You play as Solid Snake, a spec-ops kinda soldier who ends up infiltrating a few facilities owned and operated by the bad guy du jour, Big Boss. Both were fairly good stealth games. At the end of Metal Gear 2, Solid Snake kills Big Boss. Think of these games as backstory for the rest of the series.
Metal Gear Solid is the beginning. It is the anchor point from which the rest of the series is created. There is nothing, in a meta sense, deep about Metal Gear Solid 1 unto itself. It was well-made, it was well-done, it was good.
Metal Gear Solid 2 is where things get weird. It is, as even those of you unfamiliar with the series might know, a big-budget sequel to the first game that largely attempts to derail, deconstruct, and subvert the pattern that the first game set. It delves into some really interesting ideas, and I'm just going to let Super Bunnyhop cover this one. Or maybe PCGamer. In my mind, this is the point where Kojima (The series' director, or, by some standards, Auteur) got tired of MGS. "I don't want to make another one, so how about I make one that people will hate?"
Metal Gear Solid 3 is where things get back to comparative normality, but, in my mind, it's also where things actually get weird. Y'see, MGS3 is a super-commercial, play-it-safe-prequel to the previous games, starring a young (and very likeable) Big Boss before he becomes a villain. It's campy, it's fun, it hits you in the feels in a way that you really wouldn't expect a schlocky, by-the-numbers sequel to. I will note, it's arguably one of the best games of all time, full stop. In my mind, this is where Kojima got cynical about MGS. "I don't want to make another one, so how about I make one that people will find derivative?". Kojima, though, is a perfectionist. Which comes back to bite him in the ass with...
Metal Gear Solid 4 is basically just a long-winded attempt to wrap up and cut off every single plot thread that had been introduced thus far. In that, it succeeded, although the attempt was not necessarily well-received. Things that were just weird or magical in previous installments got handwaved away by "nanomachines", both Big Boss and Solid Snake (the two main protagonists so far) get killed off. In my mind, this is Kojima saying "Fuck you, I'm not making another one. Everything ends here, everyone dies here. No more sequels!".
And because there was no more opportunity for sequels (Aside from Revengeance, which, despite being good, doesn't really count), Konami instead opted to force Hideo Kojima into making a prequel about how Big Boss became a bad guy after MGS3. In a broad sense, Kojima shrugged and said, "you know what, fuck it. I'm going to spend five years making the best stealth game ever, and then start worrying about the story". And thus came about...
Metal Gear Solid V, The Phantom Pain. A game in which the main character loses an arm right off the bat and gains a cyborg prosthetic. But the phantom pain doesn't ever go away... I could go into much more detail, but suffice it to say that this game is considered unfinished on a story level. The phantom pain and resulting confusion experienced by several of the characters is broadly mirrored by players' feelings of confusion and being given half a game. Gamesradar explains this better than I ever could.
So... What do you think? My initial feeling was that, on some level, there's an exploration of postmodernism and intertextuality that can be gleaned from the massive, unwieldy mess of plot that is Metal Gear Solid.
