What I say here and now is what I'll say 10 years from now
Nah
Even I probably won't have the same opinion. And that's a good sign. Means we've matured and have different, wiser perspectives.
because the problem lies with inconsistiences I can't deal with
The inconsistencies you failed to mention in this post?
Second, don't put me in the circle of those who complained about Raiden in MGS2.
Was never my intention; I used the Raiden example to show how a collective disdain erupted from emotional response, only to make way for a proper reading years later.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed him from the get-go.
When did you start to play MGS? Because you seem to accept everything very easily. I will not. Details, yes, but this is too much.
The first MGS, on PSX. I've never played the original two MSX games. But none of that matters; the notion that I could only present you proper arguments or be an authority on something only if I manage to fulfill your parameters, is a logical fallacy. I could've started with Ground Zeroes of Guns or the Patriots, and that would change nothing about the validity of my arguments.
But don't assume I'll accept everything the series has thrown at me. I'm not a huge fan of Guns of the Patriots for instance; especially how they handled Ocelot.
What you see as "accepting everything easily" is merely my ability to enjoy themes and concepts despite any negative emotional responses I may initially have. (Which I definitely had, don't get me wrong. I'm still not a fan of the parasites, for instance. Even RE4 did that shit better with Las Plagas and they did with their tongues firmly in their cheeks in order to pull off something that cheesy properly.)
Realistic reasoning? Supernatural things do not need explanation, Fukushima perfectly knew this. To want to explain everything with science is madness and it started with MGS4.
Here, this is what I don't like about you: you call this "madness", in a very "this cannot be disputed" way, which is just ridiculous. I actually agree with you that the emphasis on realism is less enjoyable than the mysterious and supernatural element, however I understand that there are people who DO find the more realistic, psuedo-scientific reasoning more enjoyable. And I respect that.
You don't respect that. You uphold your own emotional reaction as the best and only correct one, which is proven by the way you label the realistic approach as obviously "madness".
It's a very toxic demeanor. You'll enjoy this game (media and art in general, actually) if you actively try to understand why other people might enjoy something you don't. Actually, that's what discussion should be about ideally: learning from each other through argumentation.
That applies to me as well, obviously.
Fortune deflected the missiles because she believed he could do it, I'm absolutely fine with it. Vamp was like a vampire, I'm fine. The Cobra unit are the emotions / status you feel on the battlefield, very beautiful. Was Kojima ok with this? Of course not, let's use some science and turn all of this in the most ridiculous stuff ever.
Again, I agree with you on that, ironically.
Even more ironic, however, is the fact that the main reason Kojima changed the origin of their powers, is to appease the fans who dislikes the supernatural element of the series. Your disdain is a product of Kojima catering to his fans instead of to his own vision.
TPP is Kojima catering to his own vision again. Don't be angry that he didn't cater to yours.
Now you're praising the man like the average MGS fan.
Not at all, I'm praising Kojima for making proper artistic decisions. Some of which I even disagree with, but I'm glad he does so. TPP is a much more coherent game than Guns of the Patriots because of it.
To say that to respect a storyline is bullshit put me and you on two totally different world.
I don't understand this sentence.
There's nothing to say, really. I don't care how old something is, if you make a new Star Wars or Alien or MGS I want things to fit, I want the writer to stick with what's known already.
You really are starting to sound more and more like a spoiled brat by repeating this "BUT I WANT THINGS TO GO THE WAY I LIKE" opinion. Excuse the insult, but man, your focus should be more on the quality of the individual product than it necessarily tying into existing canon perfectly. Congruency of canon is not the end, it's a means. The end goal is having a good product.
Kojima himself warned us ages ago that things might not tie in neatly, but that he didn't mind that as he needed to do certain things in order to make a great game. Bless that line of thought.
I'm disappointed becase Kojima changed things.
I know, we have established that.
You really need to learn to handle change. Change in general. It's for the best, in every aspect of your life. The comfort zone is where poison creeps in the easiest.
Change is good. Change is evolution. Evolution is improvement.
Doesn't work like that, it would be too easy.
It
does work like that, and ease has no bearing on the validity of an argument. Merely saying that something is "too easy" to be correct is again a logical fallacy.
This is a video game, not a film. In fact, managing to create context and connection through gameplay/the interactive element (you know, the very thing that makes a video game a video game in the first place) is not only the easiest way but also the preferred one.
You have no connection to Venom Snake because you haven't played as him yet. The idea that you can judge your connection to the avatar of a game solely because you've seen the cutscenes is, frankly, idiotic, as it proves that you're undervaluing the potential of the medium.
Check yourself, mate.
I'd care for Lara in TR2013 otherwise, but I don't.
Let's not drag other games into this. (Personally, I think the reason you're not invested in Lara is because she was in an overrated game that wasn't nearly as good as the game we're discussing.)
To get attached to a character you need a lot of lines, good lines, NPC around you, key moments, a real character arc and a cohesive story.
In a video game, none of those things are as important as mechanics and gameplay that allow you to experience pleasure and fulfillment through the avatar.
You are applying film logic to a video game character. Stop it. You cannot judge your connection to Venom Snake yet (a character meant to be played in order to understand the reveal properly) because you have. Not. Played. Him. Yet.
BB stole the identity from a man I don't know. I couldn't care less, really. But I cared more about Fox in MGS1, try to understand why.
*sigh*
The comparison is a mute one because you didn't actually play with Fox. Fox was just someone you saw in cutscenes. I'm glad you felt attached to him (that was the point) but the attachment we're discussing is a bigger, more important one: that of your avatar.
What you just did is called moving the goal post, bud. (A better comparison would be "but I cared more about Solid Snake".)
You are not very good at arguing properly, dude.
