This weekend, the New York Times published an article on Metal Gear Solid 4's war themes and cultural relevance. I am floored by this event (and honored to have been quoted), but what I have to show for it is an inbox flooded with hate mail because I appear to have insulted Halo by suggesting it's popular for its gameplay and not its story.
Whether or not I, as a critic, have a right to favor some games and disfavor others, is a topic for another time.
Last week, we hauled out the "Citizen Kane" chestnut, on the concept of a game that will one day shift our paradigm, open the doors for gaming to be an entertainment medium for many and not a few. And I said that while I love MGS 4, a real sort of pang of love, it isn't it.
But when gaming's Citizen Kane does make the New York Times, will we be too busy slagging the writer for being "too mainstream," seizing on some offensive detail in the text, or assaulting the credibility of the people quoted for comment to sit back and celebrate it?
Sadly, I'm pretty sure we will.
MGS4 is not Citizen Kane. But what it does do is attempt to marry gameplay and narrative in a fashion that bucks the trend. It's asking something different of gamers - and one of the things it asks is for us to sit still for a while. We've got probably the most sophisticated use of theme ever seen in a game, and we've zeroed in on cutscene length.
We've got eyeball-popping, finger-thrumming, balls-out stunning technical superiority the likes of which no one's yet been able to accomplish on the PS3, and our sticking point is three-minute installs.
As I said yesterday, when our Citizen Kane comes, we will never recognize it, if we're chafing against just this little shred of change. And, appropriately to the Citizen Kane analogy, we'll probably hate it.
Now, to be clear, I am not a universal MGS apologist. The cutscenes are too long, and what could have been one of the best game endings I've ever seen in my life was savaged by nearly-endless dialogue. I agree with my colleague Brandon Boyer who, when chatting to me this morning about my Halo slight, said: "I would probably argue that a game that doesn't need a separate app to try to piece together its dizzying array of piecemeal storyline is doing a better job of appropriately constructing its lore and universe (which is rich enough for a handful of novels, comics, and the interest of Peter Jackson)."
I'd never call the sprawling, convoluted MGS saga a perfect story. It's primarily informed by the nature and meaning of its gameplay, and possibly couldn't stand without it. But for what it's worth, I felt that every minute of the gameplay had a context and a purpose. I'm still avoiding any spoilers here at SVGL for the moment, but there is a later sequence, part of the game's finale, that I'll probably remember as one of the most meaningful action sequences I've ever played - that, and the fight that concluded MGS3. That counts, in my book.
Detractors complain that MGS4 doesn't feel like a game. It doesn't to me, either. And I wonder why we're so decided on what a game must feel like, must be, to be legitimate; it makes me feel as if we're holding all things new up against the signposts of the old, dismissing that which doesn't match up.
We'll never have a revolution that way.
[I don't know who did the epic picture at the head of this post; I found it on an image board. If it's you, or you know where it sources to, let me know.]
