Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Setting aside the themes of alienation and purpose that run through most of his games (because that is a can of worms) it’s hard not to say that Kojima's work, at least in the modern gaming era (call it PS1 and later), definitely put into practice some pretty wild stuff I'd certainly consider unorthodox and radical--it's worth juxtaposing the cinematic/filmic presentation and direction of Metal Gear Solid with your CO telling you, in-universe and in-character, to "Press the Action Button to..." while in the next sentence somebody else is going on about the “physical” limitations of your radar system. That didn’t happen then, it doesn’t really happen today, and when it does it’s clearly an homage to that sort of blurred-lines unorthodoxy that MGS, whole not creating, certainly made A Thing for a lot of people.

Metal Gear Solid 2 probably counts for a lot, IMO. To an extent it might have some "Seinfeld is unfunny" to it today, but when it came out there was just nothing like it as a downright subversive story and experience. Still kind of isn’t.

That isn’t, of course, to take away from the games you mention, because those are all great games. But Kojima’s stuff fits that description for quite a few reasons, too.

(Agreed that Minecraft doesn’t belong, though, and I am very familiar with it. ;) )

I agree all that stuff was interesting and innovative. Maybe we just disagree on how far you have to push expectations to be avant-garde. When I think of avant-garde I think of creators trying to push toward a paradigm shift or break as many rules as possible or be experimental. At their heart Metal Gear games were still action games but Kojima was innovative enough in how he presented the story and gameplay mechanics to the gamer that they felt like more than that. The Metal Gear games I played never felt experimental, they felt like exquisitely done versions of an existing genre.

The case for MGS2 being avant-garde:

Metal Gear Solid 2 was the sequel to Metal Gear Solid, one of the most celebrated action games of all time. In MGS you play as Solid Snake, a badass special forces operator. It would have been very easy for Kojima to make "Metal Gear Solid" again. In the sequel, it seems to be going that way, since you start out playing as Solid Snake again, but relatively early in the game you switch to playing as Raiden, a dude who kinda sucks compared to Solid Snake (he's a rookie, he's not cool, he whines, he loses his clothes, etc). Raiden represents you, the gamer, the person sitting in front of a screen play-acting at being a badass special forces operator. Raiden gets orders from the colonel and follows them unconditionally, without realizing it's a simulation; but that's exactly what you, the gamer, are doing. So in a way I think MGS2 is Kojima taking a jab at his own fans, the ones who didn't appreciate the anti-war message of MGS. I think there was an interesting meta-narrative that hadn't been done before in games, as far as I know. I know meta-narratives had already existed for a long time in literature, but the active user involvement in gaming adds another layer of meaning.

I would also say that the game had a pretty prescient understanding of memes and fake news, considering it came out in 2001.

http://archives.insertcredit.com/features/dreaming2/

This article by the incredible Tim Rogers, makes a really compelling case for why MGS2 is avant-garde, and why it’s so special.

Tim Rogers is a necessary function of the games industry. If he did not exist we would be forced to invent him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com