Driving off the Map: MGS2 is genius

[CelesJessa]

So someone linked me to this (http://www.deltaheadtranslation.com/MGS2/DOTM_TOC.htm) the other day. It's a somewhat long read (I finished it in about an hour) but it blew my mind. It's an in-depth look at Metal Gear Solid 2, all of the connections and deep meanings and everything. It's hard to describe, so, if you're interested, I highly recommend reading it.


Also, that analysis taught me I am way not smart enough to play Metal Gear games and completely understand them.


Ironically,
At the start of the Plant Chapter, Raiden's Commanding Officer (C. O.) told him to access a digital node, to which Raiden responded: "Did you say nerd?" When Raiden accessed the node, the player had input his own name that later appeared on Raiden's dogtags. MGS2 bound Raiden to the player—a nerd—when Raiden accessed the node, and it bound the player to an actor who he didn't always like but who obeyed his commands, even when those actions violated Raiden's character.
Raiden had escaped the delusion that he was Solid Snake, and he had escaped the player's control over him as an actor. In a concluding cutscene, Raiden threw away his dogtags with the player's name chiseled thereon. MGS2 had ditched MGS1, and Raiden had ditched the player.
I always wrote Raiden's name into the node so... I KIND OF RUINED THE SYMBOLISM.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

As someone who reads many over-analysed deconstructions of random things this is a good attempt but has got nothing on this: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

[Ryong]

I read some of it and I can't see if it's genius or some full-powered symbolism paranoia a la that one analysis of Portal where, among many other things, the portal gun is a manifestation of feminity, what with being a non-phallic gun that causes no direct harm by creating vaginas.

So yeah.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Read this fucking sentence:

MGS2 compounded the narrative reversal of MGS1's forms when its cyborg ninja helped Snake subdue Raiden.

I don't know what else to say.

[CelesJessa]

I read some of it and I can't see if it's genius or some full-powered symbolism paranoia a la that one analysis of Portal where, among many other things, the portal gun is a manifestation of feminity, what with being a non-phallic gun that causes no direct harm by creating vaginas.

I would think that too, but this is Kojima. Kojima eats this stuff for breakfast, so I wouldn't be surprised if all of it was true.

Also, I think I heard that Kojima actually read that analysis himself and was glad someone got it. Also, looking at his credentials it looks like he's done freelance work for Kojima Productions before. Wow.

It makes sense to me!

[The SSB Intern]

I always wrote Raiden's name into the node so... I KIND OF RUINED THE SYMBOLISM.
I wrote down that I'm a 23 year old woman living in South Africa....

I still think it kinda works.

[Aeria]

It seems like the article is basically saying "Metal Gear Solid 2 is the same as MGS1, but different," and then goes to use every instance of similarity and difference to mean something. Some of the similarities could have just as easily been differences, and I'm sure the article would have drawn other conclusions as per the meaning of said events. My point is: just as with English students, he's making up connections that aren't really there.

Now, not everything he says is made up, but for some of them there are far more plausible reasons. For example: there are sniper battles in both games, but they operate differently. The largest contributing factor to this is a gameplay concern. Boss battles have to be interesting, and cannot be the same throughout the series. There are sniper battles in MGS3 and MGS4 as well, and they are both different from the battles in the first few games. Now, of course there are connections to be made (most obvious: Sniper Wolf and Crying Wolf), but to completely ignore or discount Kojima's capacity as a game maker and story teller is like ignoring the black thunderclouds when you're trying to figure out why it is dark outside.

[Magus]

MGS2 is genius

Does not compute.

The "node v. nerd" thing is giving Kojima way too much credit. Sure he might have been referring to the gamer as a nerd but it's actually just that Kojima wanted to make a pun on node. This is not high art, though the end of the game at least meets the incomprehensibility requirement for high art.

I'm all for, like, doing literary analysis of video game plots, but you have to start with a good game to do it to. I wanted to do one for Mother 3 (and Earthbound by extension), and someone on GameFAQs did one for Shadow of the Colossus (at least concerning Dormin). But MGS2 can rot in the watery grave of non-literary canon works for all I care.

[CelesJessa]

Does not compute. (etc)

D-did you read any more than just the part I quoted?


Oh well I thought it was pretty good, and they made quite a few interesting connections that I had never thought about before. And I don't think MGS2 is as horrible as you do apparently so...

[Jagos]

What's stopping you from doing the one on Mother 3?

Do you realize how many of us love that game? I would buy a new DS just for it.

[Solid Snake]

I always thought MGS2 was somewhat underrated.

That being said, I do think the author is stretching a bit with some of his theories. I think the general theme that MGS2 seeks to subvert MGS1 tropes is certainly true -- heck, Snake's lecture about "cultural memes" reveals that point -- but I have a hard time believing that, for example, Olga's design as a boss was deliberately intended to contrast with previous MGS bosses, or that Kojima (being Japanese and all) deliberately intended a connotation with "nodes" and "nerds," or that Raiden covering his genitals was anything but a necessity to ensure the game could be sold to minors.

(The real problem with MGS2, in fact, is that the game's interactivity was at odds with Kojima's desire to exploit themes that -- in a way that almost reminds me of Brian Clevinger -- invoke jokes upon the player / reader, in which the player / reader's expectations and hopes are thwarted. With novels those kinds of plots can be heralded as brilliant literature that causes the reader to think deeper about life and the universe. In videogames, however, most casual gamers are just looking for a cheap thrill following genre conventions, and we're not looking for a philosophy lesson to blow our minds. We want our action, we want our plot twists, and we want everything prepackaged in a way that is immediately accessible. MGS2's jokes on the player merely damaged the player's ability to connect to and adequately care about the character he was controlling, and it certainly didn't help that Kojima never bothered to even attempt answering the questions he posed before the credits rolled. Even a precusory, introductory explanation as to what the hell was going on during that convoluted endgame sequence with the Campbell AI would have helped a lot.)

(But the difference between novels and videogames as mediums, and the difference in readers' and player's expectations when confronting those mediums, helps to adequately explain why MGS3 is a much more popular videogame than MGS2, whereas if both stories were portrayed in books, MGS2 would have gotten rave reviews and MGS3 would have been trashed as a generic James Bond ripoff.)

But, back to my main point:
MGS2 is clearly a deep game. It's just that every insignificant decision made in the context of MGS2's narrative was not made with a grandiose theme in mind. That's the one pitfall the author of this MGS2 critique runs into. He's analyzing minor gameplay and plotline decisions that Kojima really didn't think that much about.

[Aeria]

But, back to my main point:
MGS2 is clearly a deep game. It's just that every insignificant decision made in the context of MGS2's narrative was not made with a grandiose theme in mind. That's the one pitfall the author of this MGS2 critique runs into. He's analyzing minor gameplay and plotline decisions that Kojima really didn't think that much about.

It is conceivably POSSIBLE that Kojima did, in fact, carefully construct every seemingly insignificant detail, spending hundreds of hours micromanaging all of the programmers and artists and the rest of his crew, but it is really unlikely. I agree with Snake.

And, while I think MGS2 is the weakest of the four, it's still a solid game. Pun totally intended. (And yes, I know there are more than four games)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah my point was while this all could possibly be true I, alongside probably every literary arts graduate ever, could write something similar about every videogame ever produced. Doesn't make it true.

Kojima might read it and say "Yes someone finally got it!" but is he really going to respond "No, this game was just about shooting people and sneaking around."

[ZAKtheGeek]

Yeah my point was while this all could possibly be true I, alongside probably every literary arts graduate ever, could write something similar about every videogame ever produced. Doesn't make it true.

Kojima might read it and say "Yes someone finally got it!" but is he really going to respond "No, this game was just about shooting people and sneaking around."
Well, I guess he could say, "My games are not this shallow. Look closer."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That too. It doesn't matter either way. The author died a long time ago anyways.

[Magus]

D-did you read any more than just the part I quoted?


Oh well I thought it was pretty good, and they made quite a few interesting connections that I had never thought about before. And I don't think MGS2 is as horrible as you do apparently so...

I skipped ahead and looked at what they thought of the ending (I mean, by God, if anything's ripe for an explanation it's the ending), and they weren't even very accurate about how Kojima was "denying the player catharsis", since it overlooks that Raiden kills like, 10 Metal Gear Rays before killing the big boss at the end, or that the player got to kill a bunch of soldiers with swords. Perhaps entirely within the realm of the metaphors of the plot, the player is "denied catharsis" (whatever such a nebulous term means--the writer defined it as not being able to kill Revolver Ocelot, but this is a bit more easily explained by a plot device to further sequels than a purposeful attempt to deny the player catharsis), but Kojima himself would probably be the first to point out at the player is interacting with the medium and thus the fight against Solidus is fulfilled entirely by the player and acts as catharsis. If anything, I'm far more interested in what Kojima did with MGS3's ending, where the player is forced into an inescapable situation to kill a good character. There's no way out of it and Kojima makes you pull the trigger yourself (or unwillingly forces you to by putting the event on a timer, anyway). Sure, Raiden is forced to kill his father, but it's about as meaningful as Snake killing Big Boss, who has become corrupted/evil, or even less meaningful, since Raiden was adopted and manipulated. Solidus becomes a straight-up villain, himself used in turn but more than willing to use others while this manipulation of himself remained unknown.

Whatever MGS2 did, MGS3 did better, is my main point. I'm not saying that MGS2 doesn't beg to be analyzed but at a certain point the writer is either clutching for straws to make literary analysis or the devices Kojima used pale in comparison to later work he's done. It also ignores whether or not MGS2 was simply too many things crammed into one work--the metaphors, themes, and messages become mangled almost beyond comprehension when there are so many of them. The introduction of incomprehensible things like AIs ruling the world through internet censorship makes it about impossible to even understand the plot in the first place, let alone interpret it.

[Mirai Gen]

Whatever MGS2 did, MGS3 did better, is my main point.
You pretty much won mine and CJ's heart with this sentence.

Cause whatever criticism can be levied against MGS4's redundant dialog and pointless action scenes or MGS2's incessant talking-heads in-depth explanation of what S3 is, MGS3 pretty much shows Kojima can be absolutely brilliant.

[Magus]

I haven't played MGS4 yet but everybody levels so much criticism at it I'm not biting at the champ (I have yet to get a PS3, anyway). But it seems as if people enjoyed it more than MGS2, which as much as I might criticize it, I beat like, five or six odd times back when it came out.

But yeah, MGS3 did everything pretty much right, it's hard for me to think of anything that it did wrong (should've been able to have quick-set camouflage buttons or some other device to make it quicker, there, there's one).

EDIT: Oh, and the original game (that I paid like 20 bucks more for than the much better Subsistence version the next year, annoyingly) had a horrible camera system for what was required in the game's game play, what with no radar, so if that hadn't been fixed MGS3 might be a very different beast in the realm of quality. But they fixed it and all was right with the world.

[Kim]

I haven't played MGS4 yet but everybody levels so much criticism at it I'm not biting at the champ (I have yet to get a PS3, anyway). But it seems as if people enjoyed it more than MGS2, which as much as I might criticize it, I beat like, five or six odd times back when it came out.

I've always said: In MGS2, you're playing as Raiden and wish you were Solid Snake. In MGS4, you're playing as Solid Snake and wish you were Raiden.

Biggest problem the game has is trying to solve a bunch of unsolvable plot threads in one game, and as a result you get a much higher dosage of TALK TALK TALK DRAMATIC PLOT TWIST THAT I WILL TALK TALK TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

In all honesty, if you ignore or just mindlessly roll with a lot of the stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, you can have a silly good time of it.

[Ravashak]

Kojima might read it and say "Yes someone finally got it!" but is he really going to respond "No, this game was just about shooting people and sneaking around."
I remember an interview with a movie director, where the interviewer asked something in the lines of "at the end of the movie, this happened, making that symbol, was that intentional?", to which the director answered "As of now, it was intended".

That said, I haven't played MGS2, so I can't make real comments about the game itself.

[CelesJessa]

I've always said: In MGS2, you're playing as Raiden and wish you were Solid Snake. In MGS4, you're playing as Solid Snake and wish you were Raiden.

Huh, I never really felt that way about 4. I loved how they portrayed Snake in MGS4, it was so interesting to play a character who wasn't, by all intents and purposes, the super-strong unbeatable hero you got used to Snake being in all the other games.

And I don't know how much of Raiden's "I AM THE LIGHTNING" I could handle. Personally, as odd as it sounds, I kind of liked Raiden better back in 2, before he was having homoerotic sword fights with Vamp.

Biggest problem the game has is trying to solve a bunch of unsolvable plot threads in one game, and as a result you get a much higher dosage of TALK TALK TALK DRAMATIC PLOT TWIST THAT I WILL TALK TALK TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
Actually, my biggest problem the game had was the lack of humor. I always enjoyed the MGS series for being able to be serious and goofy at the same time but 4... not so much. Yeah I know it was more serious than the others but... I'm the type of person who goes out of my way to find the croc cap in MGS3 and then calls everyone on my Codec JUST to see if someone has something amusing to say. There was very little of that kind of thing in MGS4 (lord knows I tried).

Although as far as the talktalktalking, good lord the very end... that killed me. (although not NEARLY as bad as the talking at the end of MGS2, holy crap I was hoping I would fall asleep or something to make it go faster.)

Kojima might read it and say "Yes someone finally got it!" but is he really going to respond "No, this game was just about shooting people and sneaking around."

That is true, but... I dunno, even though some of it seems like it might be stretching it a bit too far, I always got the impression that Kojima was a little bit nuts and spent way too much time making his games lolmeaningful, so I would totally buy a lot of this stuff was intended, at least in some way shape or form.

EDIT: although, now that I think about it, I'm someone who spends waay to much time sitting in class and learning about crazy works of art that are nuts but have some crazy meaning that you have to have a doctorate in insanity to understand, so this kind of thing totally seems reasonable in comparison.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

EDIT: although, now that I think about it, I'm someone who spends waay to much time sitting in class and learning about crazy works of art that are nuts but have some crazy meaning that you have to have a doctorate in insanity to understand, so this kind of thing totally seems reasonable in comparison.

Have you not played the classic art student game of taking a relatively shit piece of art and infusing it with meaning similair to the masterpieces? It's a common timewaster around our parts.

[PyrosNine]

The real genius of all Metal Gear Solid is that the "metal gear" of the game isn't really the giant mecha, as "Metal Gear" is more of a term to mean a powerful weapon that can change the face of the earth: All Metal Gears can launch nukes, which worked as a threat in MG 1 and 2, but in MGS we're shown that the Metal Gear is nothing more than a fancy tech toy and hardly the most dangerous thing shown.

IN Metal Gear Solid one, Foxdie, or more importantly, the human genome, was the weapon. Research and development could create supersoldiers based off a powerful soldier, and also create a virus that can kill specific people based on their DNA. Furthermore, the issue that if mankind can engineer people's genes, then they can also control men's destinies through their genes as well.

In Metal Gear Solid 2, the "metal gear" developed is a joke as far as warfare, and the giant one that crashes into New York is only part of the real danger: the SSS, or Selection for Societal Sanity: The Patriots, by way of nanomachines and controlling all computers, are able to censor thoughts and ideas on levels unimaginable, to the point that even US, the player, are under their control. They manage to manipulate the entire scenario of MGS2, with variables, to desirable results. The thought that went through your head near the end should be: what can save mankind now? La Li Lu Le Lo seems harmless, but it's much more realistic and much more menacing than Newspeak, and it's possible that by the time of MGS4, only the surviving players of MGS2 actually know anything about what happened on that day, with all information directly under the Patriot's control.

In Metal Gear Solid 3, while there is no metal gear per-se, but a giant crab bot that can also launch nukes, the real metal gear is the Philosopher's legacy, that with it's limitless wealth had the power not only to create everything that attacked you, but also to create the Patriots as they are in the time of MGS2, and that all that pointless melodrama that claimed the Boss's life was just to obtain it for America.

In Metal Gear Solid 4, the Nanomachines are quite clearly the Metal Gear, as they not only control you, but also every army in the world, and that some soldiers are dependent on them to just carry on and keep fighting in the face of soul crushing eternal war. With these, the Patriots can force the PMC wars to go on and create a powerful economy, can crush any resistance thanks to the skills given to those with SOP being greater than those without it, and the fact all SOP soldiers can be shut down at the flick of a switch. In this future, instead of luck, or awesomeness in one's blood that makes one a super soldier or hero, its' nanomachines: The most powerful figure fought isn't particularly skilled or has magical powers, but has just been wired to be effectively immortal, a pale mockery of the unwilling to die so easily nature of Liquid and Volgin.

In the Acid series, not so much, probably Memories for the first one, and Kaballah metaphors and Clones for the next.

In the Portable Ops, it's Big Boss himself, as we see him rise to power and create Foxhound, a force so powerful that it leaves echoes well into the future.

[BloodyMage]

That too. It doesn't matter either way. The author died a long time ago anyways.

Doesn't the fact that the creator of the game is willing to stand up and say 'Yes, this is what the game is about' directly spit in the face of the death of the author? What the player thinks that the game is about can be wrong. If Kojima wanted the player to look at his work and take their own meaning from it, then wouldn't he have said something like, 'That's one way to look at it'. To say 'Yes, someone finally got it' means that you can take your own meaning from it, but it's wrong. There is a hard answer to what this game is about. What the reader feels and experiences doesn't give the game meaning, because as the end of the game points out, the meaning can be faked and what the player feels and experiences can be manipulated. For example, Raiden can't be the next Solid Snake, he can't be Jack the Ripper and he can't be the Patriot's puppet. He can't be what everyone expects of him, or wants him to be. He can't even accept the name he was given. He has to create his own name and his own identity. In the same vein, we can't give identity or meaning to MGS2. Its creator has to be the one to give it its meaning.

Coincidently though, I've only begun reading that Driving the Map article, so I could be wrong.

[Kim]

Doesn't the fact that the creator of the game is willing to stand up and say 'Yes, this is what the game is about' directly spit in the face of the death of the author?

No. The message that a story conveys can be wholly separate from the one the author intended to convey. I believe Fifth used the example that if J.K. Rowling said Harry Potter was about triumphing due to hard work and whatever, she would still be full of shit because no, Harry Potter is about the Chosen One defeating the Big Bad with no special effort needed on the part of the hero. He probably put it better than I did.

Also, if you write a game just to write a game, and someone sees all these little cool ideas and themes in your game that you didn't put in there because you are honestly not quite that good of a writer, are you really going to say "No, my game is shallow and stupid and that stuff is there because I thought it'd be cool. No other real reason."? No, you're going to say, "Yes, my game is the greatest piece of modern literature! I am brilliant! BRILLIANT!"

Some of these things could actually be true, I haven't read it, and don't really intend to because I'm not a huge fan of the MGS series, even though I do enjoy the games, but never underestimate the ability of the fan to read far too much into something, and the author to take credit for deep themes that aren't there.

[PyrosNine]

Morte d'author is when the author's intentions are spoken and clearly evident, and the alternate interpretation goes straight against what the author meant, because the creator of these interpretations believes that the author's unintentional "creations" trump whatever the author was trying to do. So therefore, the creator of this interpretation treats the author as "dead" in terms of relation to the work, and not a viable source of input for interpretation, freeing them to apply interpretation without interference from the author or creator.

The idea of the "death of the author" is highly controversial and almost a loaded term in some circles due to it being used for a variety of purposes, including the ones that involve Wizard of Oz being about Communism, and some seeing it as free license to say "bugger all against all logic and reason against my argument, this is how I see and how you should see this work, no matter what the author says."

It only applies, only, the interpretation is against what the author themselves said, otherwise the author is both alive and supporting the argument, and if the interpretation uses as many reoccurring elements of the work to support their interpretation as the author wrote into the book to support the author's own meaning.

The essay says nothing not said in most reviews and common interpretations of the Metal Gear saga, and is only particularly novel in that it attempts to define and dissect the "mess with the player" aspect of the game series more than just stating the game breaks the fourth wall. It's greatest failing is that it focuses primarily on MGS2, when the writer's "maps" are also clearly prominent, due to the essayist's attachment to that game in particular.

In MGS, the stated design goal of every game was to break the player's expectations about the game, through a design of meeting then subverting them, and Kojima has expressed enjoyment in doing these things repeatedly, on the same level as Suda, and the extent that he has tried to do so has always amused players. In MGS2, they did it to the extent to make the player uncomfortable, and their intention to do so is clear from every single detail of the game, as to code Raiden's nature being a detriment to gameplay for a segment and to decide that a battle that was quite winnable from a gameplay point of view to be lost no matter how well the player succeed would require a great amount of forethought and planning from developers who would otherwise say that it was unnecessary and would save a few weeks of effort to not code it in.

In other words, the essay says nothing new but says it much more clearly, one could say the game is about nothing but secret agents, hiding, gunfights, and giant robots, but the actual gameplay features heavy amounts of the creator messing with you.

For the essay to say it's "genius" is enough to get plenty of people up in arms (especially the people who don't actually read essays and then comment heavily upon them), but a good understanding of a game's inner workings does improve one's enjoyment of them and if Kojima's design is not genius then it's certainly clever.

Against allegations that the essay uses details too minor or insignificant to support a claim (digging too deeply), it actually does that very little and brings up valid points, perhaps only with a bias for choosing less than obvious material due to the author being a Metal Gear fan and assuming that every player was quite aware how much the game held the first game in your face. The weakest points are only when he ascribes more meaning to new gameplay elements (first person perspective) that were more likely an improvement of the game engine than a plot or design choice, though they do create the effect mentioned. They certainly do not nullify or detract from the essay as a whole, either.

A bad essay would have probably used elements that players hated as a sign that Kojima was actively mocking them intentionally, like how hard the swimming level was as an indicator that Kojima was digging on the fact that most gamers are out of shape and can't swim to save their life, or that Fortune was unbeatable because the greatest challenge to nerds was a girl.

I found that the essay matched my recent thoughts playing and beating the game a year ago, at actually around this time, where I noticed how jarring it was that while I could have easily taken on 100 Rays and won, Raiden gave up, and yet he had a good reason for quitting at that point and I was intellectually and morally in the wrong for wanting him to continue, and any bad feelings at the end (other than feeling that the game was too short) was that everything the AI's said was true, and that I the player was just as guilty of it as Jack was. That uneasy feeling that you'd been played like a harp, not just subtly, but masterfully, worked just as the essayist described about including the player in the drama, making the game one of the most immersive games out there without using VR or Wiimote controls.

[BloodyMage]

No. The message that a story conveys can be wholly separate from the one the author intended to convey. I believe Fifth used the example that if J.K. Rowling said Harry Potter was about triumphing due to hard work and whatever, she would still be full of shit because no, Harry Potter is about the Chosen One defeating the Big Bad with no special effort needed on the part of the hero. He probably put it better than I did.

If J.K. Rowling says that Harry Potter is about triumphing due to hard work then that is what Harry Potter is about, because she's the author and if you're going to read a work of literature that she created then you should also take from that created work what her intentions were. You're free to dispute how well J.K. Rowling succeeded in presenting themes of triumph through hard work, in which case it'd be fine to point out how Harry is very much the chosen one, and seems to succeed by luck a lot of the time. To say, 'no, that's not what this game/book/film is about' however, is disrespecting the creator and the created work because you presume you have the power to decide what this piece is about, which you don't.

Also, if you write a game just to write a game, and someone sees all these little cool ideas and themes in your game that you didn't put in there because you are honestly not quite that good of a writer, are you really going to say "No, my game is shallow and stupid and that stuff is there because I thought it'd be cool. No other real reason."? No, you're going to say, "Yes, my game is the greatest piece of modern literature! I am brilliant! BRILLIANT!"

You could also refuse to comment. You could, as I previously said, confess that the cool idea is one interpretation. If Kojima is doing what you said he'd have shot himself in the foot anyway because if people continue to come up with theories and interpretations, like they always do, he can't turn around and say, 'yes, that's true, my game is that great'. Writers have plenty of ways of getting out of making absolute statements that it makes little sense for Kojima do admit that this one article has gotten everything right. Besides this is Kojima we're talking about, and his games do tend to be convoluted and glued together by huge themes. It could very well be that this article has gotten everything right. Whether his makes him brilliant, or how well we think these themes were present is entirely up to the player, but that's different from giving it an completely new meaning based on your interpretation.

[Mirai Gen]

you presume you have the power to decide what this piece is about, which you don't.
Don't we? I thought the entire point of literature and creative prose and art was to have it mean different things to the interpreter.

If someone wants to talk about how M Night Shamaramadingdong's Signs was all about how everything happens for a reason, even if that reason makes no sense early on, I'm perfectly valid to say it was fucking stupid because the aliens came down butt-ass naked to a planet covered 70% by something they're deathly allergic to.

For me story triumphs meaning in creative fiction, and that's why I hate Signs. Hell I even like Harry Potter, even the last one, regardless of meaning. That's my choice. Saying the creator's say-so makes it somehow makes my opinion wrong does me disrespect.
For the essay to say it's "genius" is enough to get plenty of people up in arms (especially the people who don't actually read essays and then comment heavily upon them), but a good understanding of a game's inner workings does improve one's enjoyment of them and if Kojima's design is not genius then it's certainly clever.
Yeah I think that for each misstep Kojima makes he does do at least three things wonderfully. I'm not the biggest fan but proclaiming him a genius probably gives him a bit more credit than he really deserves. He's got fantastic storytelling, if a bit convoluted and bloated by #4, but his games are always very consistently excellent and keep you on your toes.

[BloodyMage]

Don't we? I thought the entire point of literature and creative prose and art was to have it mean different things to the interpreter.

If someone wants to talk about how M Night Shamaramadingdong's Signs was all about how everything happens for a reason, even if that reason makes no sense early on, I'm perfectly valid to say it was fucking stupid because the aliens came down butt-ass naked to a planet covered 70% by something they're deathly allergic to.

For me story triumphs meaning in creative fiction, and that's why I hate Signs. Hell I even like Harry Potter, even the last one, regardless of meaning. That's my choice. Saying the creator's say-so makes it somehow makes my opinion wrong does me disrespect.

If someone wants to talk about the meaning of Signs or their interpretations of the film, then it's perfectly reasonable to dispute their reasoning because when it comes to the material they're as much in the know as you are. If M. Night Shyamalan wants to tell you what the movie is about, who are you to dispute it? He wrote it, if anyone should know what it means it should be him.

Maybe that's just because I'm of the opinion that all films/literature/games should have a specific direction, even if that direction is shallow or ridiculous. So long as you don't know the direction then it's fair game to guess what the meaning or interpretation is, which is why so many people spend so much time dedicated to trying to figure out what Shakespeare's plays are about. If the creator tells you what it's about though, then you have to accept that. You don't have to like it but you should accept it.

Making your opinion wrong doesn't do you any disrespect, because it didn't require any effort on your behalf. Most forms of art take a lot of time and hard work, a fact I'm sure you can appreciate, and you should respect the fact that they knew what they were writing. There are exceptions, of course, but it takes a lot of hard work to write something, whereas to read it and think something critical is fairly easy. That's why the creator's say-so affords more respect than your opinion.

[Kim]

To be fair, in this thread we aren't so much saying we see a meaning in it that is different than the author's and ours is right. We're saying there is no meaning in it and the author's just going "Yeah... totally... That's... That's what that means." *shifty eyes* to a fan reading far too deep into it. There is a difference between attributing no meaning to something and arguing that the meaning you have attributed is right.

And like I said, the author of that essay could be right, but don't be dismissive of the possibility that they aren't and Kojima's just saying they are because it makes his games look so much deeper.

[BloodyMage]

That's a fair point, and it could well be that they are wrong and Kojima is just trying to cover his ass, but considering that this is Kojima, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, and not because the man is a genius or revolutionary. I wouldn't be surprised because considering MGS2 there was clearly a point trying to be conveyed, so it more a question of understanding what that point was, as opposed to figuring out if there was a point at all.

So, I do think Kojima isn't making something up to make him sound good, but it is possible.