Microtransactions: Pirating the Novel and Memberships and Twitter

May 16th, 2009

Pirating the Novel

There’s a .txt file that resides in a folder on my desktop ironically labelled ‘Desktop’. This text file has a list of three things; my backlog of games to buy, current-gen games I need to buy when they hit the cheap and an exhaustive list of second-tier titles that I’d like to invest in, if time allows. I sometimes swoon over this list, as well as that sheet of ‘Games to Complete’ that I sometimes refer to; the one above my monitor. Sometimes it’s better to envision yourself enjoying these games/write about them rather than actually go to the labour of playing them. Hmmm…

Anyways, I was running through my list and came across an aggravating tick of a game. I love the thrill of collection and bargaining, infact I have a couple of eBay titles qued up right now awaiting the snipe, but some games no matter where you find them refuse to budge from their steep price tags. One of those is Metal Gear Solid Digital Graphic Novel for the PS P. Ever since I first spotted this in store – and by golly, what a surprise! – it’s remained fixed at $AUD50+. It’s $20/30 (not sure what the going rate on PSP games is nowadays, always cheaper than DS though) shy of a full price title, yet in reality, this is a mostly non-interactive experience, similar to those interactive DVD games, so why the premium? Furthermore this title was blessed with an ultra limited released and overall lack of publicity – you had heard of this game before right? So Digital Graphic Novel puts me in a tight spot, difficult to find and when you do it’s top dollar.

So then I decided to go to YouTube to see if I could find some video and save myself the $50, and sure enough I found a 16-part playlist (woah – almost 3hrs!) that now resides in .mp4 on my desktop, next to the ‘Desktop’ folder.

ocelot-mgs-digital-graphic-novel

I’m morally split on the decision though, I mean, if I choose to watch these videos, will it be a form of piracy? A devious, devious sin that I avoid as much as possible. Truth is, I will watch the videos, but more concern lies in the classification of this activity. These videos are on a free to view website and openly available. If one classes MGS DGN as a game then therefore watching the video is the same as watching a play through and there’s nothing wrong with that at all. Games are interactive media and there is a layer of interactivity involved which I’d be missing out on, so no worries, right? Then again, I don’t think there will be any glimpses of gameplay in the video (ie. the player will just watch), so in that case we’re effectively watching a long cutscene which makes up the bulk of the game. Now if this is the case then what percentage of Metal Gear Solid 4 (ie. the cutscenes) is available online? Well there’s no doubt a montage of that stuff too, so probably a good chunk, therefore what exactly does this all mean? And what’s fair game?

One could also make the same claim for Linger in Shadows, the PS3 interactive short.

Memberships and Twitter

I recently ranted on about pissant membership groups within the blogging community in a post that I dare not upload in fear that you’ll hate me more than my Australian spelling of colour. Embedded within the article were some rather fantastic (if I do say so myself) musings on Twitter’s role in all this kerfuffle. Take a read;

“Twitter, is the fertile soil to plant, grow, share and trade cultural norms – the medium in which is used to emit and transfer. In fact Twitter is more than just the medium, it’s the ideal medium. The social networking element keeps tweeters in touch on a minute-by-minute basis while not binding them to any real time conversation. The tight word count moderates each sentence making it low fluff and straight to the love. The response system flaunts replies to people within the same network. This whole setup is ideal for users to flirt and trade ambiguous nudge, nudge, wink, wink commentaries among each other, and then transmit their dialogue to onlookers. It’s a contained system, built around the utterance; a distilled cultural transmitter. As said to death in the cultural studies field, language = culture. Therefore Twitter’s composition is a fantastic, quantifiable way to observe memberships groups validating their cultural identity between one another. It’s in Twitter that I draw much of my reasoning as it’s a transparent model to view this culture.

When I cruise through other people’s Twitter pages and observe the small talk, I’m often baffled at what’s actually going on. People declaring their membership roles or attempting to grow their seed, by throwing strings of replies to others. It’s a society alright. A society where people are constantly stating their roles and relationships. To “fit in” people have to acknowledge the presence of a membership group, whether they’re in it or not. And with only 140 characters to play with, you need to be discrete about this, which is where the love letters, and ultimately masturbation comes into play. In Twitter, if you want to be part of the elusive membership group you have to wank it all up on an open stage, and therein lies my frustration, as the audience member of that stage.”

Wow, witty and a valid contribution to the language, tech and culture fields. How do I do it?

Metal Gear Solid Novelization Break down (Part #2 Tangible Differences)

May 12th, 2009

liquid-snake-art-drawing

Finally, Part #2 is just a run down of all of the differences between the Metal Gear Solid game and novel. As mentioned in part #1, author Raymond Benson occasionally deviated or intervened with the core plot, this post is a breakdown of all those changes, large and small. Some changes such as general narrative techniques are discussed in my review of the novel.

Spoilers from the entire series below

Les Enfants Terribles Chapter

The most significant difference between game and novel starts right at the beginning. The very first chapter of the book takes place at Snake’s birth; the Les Enfants Terribles project. The United States President is requested to witness the birth at a secret underground bunker in Mexico. Jim Houseman is also present, and the mysterious Dr Clark (ie. Paramedic) is discussing the procedure with Houseman and the President. The President is rather stressed by the whole ordeal. He seems disapproving of the project and states that he inherited it from the former president. The base (located specifically in the Carlsbad area) has been used for experiments before. Regarding the twins, Clark states that “neither is better, one is just dominant”. The President chose the dominant twin (Liquid) to stay in America, Dr Clark didn’t follow his wishes. The future of the remaining Big Boss cell samples were left in doubt.

Arrival – First Meeting with Ocelot

-the novel depicts Snake taken captive at his home before being brought into meet Colonel Campbell and Naomi on the submarine. This as well as the complete mission briefing is sliced in as Snake’s thoughts before being fired towards the missile base.

-Snake requests Master Miller be taken out of retirement to aid him on this mission, the third chapter details the murder of Miller at his home.

-the codec is actually strapped to Snake’s wrist, like a watch

-Snake comments on the rats at the facility

-Snake doesn’t digest cigarettes in his stomach, rather he steals them from a guard

-Snake takes a Socom pistol in with him though, it also already has a suppressor

-Snake also uses chaff grenades as a method of distraction (irrelevant to the security cameras)

-and has a penlight on his shoulder

-the book name troubled security guard and reoccurring staple Johnny Sasaki, where he isn’t named in the game until the credits

-Ocelot actually discusses his first meeting with Big Boss as in MGS3

-brief interludes of Naomi’s actions, this occurs several times in the novel, where she cries or thinks to herself, often after Ninja enters and exits the main storyline

-after Ocelot retreats, the (cut scene) sequence with Snake and Ninja is extended significantly, Snake uses his infrared goggles and Snake swinging off girders

-after the battle, the narrative ponders post-traumatic stress and how Snake has improved his senses since the events of the MSX titles

Ocelot Battle – Mantis Battle

-Snake wishes to himself that his sneaking suit would blend into the background; lame MGS4 joke

-the mine detector is now the ArmsTech Pathtracker 3000

-many references to Master Miller drills and techniques, goes into specifics of these techniques and the mentality behind them, another commonly occurring difference in the novel

-in the snowfield, the novel talks about the pain Snake is going through and the frosty weather

-Snake receives the level 3 key card from the gunner in the tank

-extended backstage discussion with Ocelot, Liquid and Raven at the end of the battle

-brief conversation between guards in the Nuclear Warhead Storage Building

-the codec watch has a built in camera that Snake used in the storage building

-Snake receives first call from Master Miller who tells him that he’ll need to acquire the Nikita missile launcher

-guard in B4 of Nuclear Storage Building is at his desk, not patrolling

-electrified switchboard is on the left, not right

-the Ninja attack on Otacon’s offices is extended, has a bit of dialogue and the guards getting coffee

-Snake takes Pan Card 4 from wounded soldier

-Otacon doesn’t hide in locker, he hides in another room

-a reference to Otacon’s sister (MGS2) is made

-Meyrl is found complete in her underwear and also has her own sniper rifle

Mantis Battle

As in the graphic novel, the Mantis battle is completely reworked. For starters, the Commander’s Room has a different arrangement and a quick cut to Otacon sneaking around preludes the battle. The key difference is how Mantis creates a series of hallucinations for Snake such as making his gun holster feel unbearably hot, tricking Snake with a fake Master Miller and leading Snake into a theme park (Kiddie Land) that he visited in Oregon as a child. This eventually takes Snake into a hall of mirrors area with Big Boss pleading for the deactivation codes and bursting in front of Snake. Snake breaks out of the hallucinations and defeats Mantis by forcing him to multi-task and then pulling his gun from the holster and shooting Mantis, accompanied by silly taunts (“Game Over Freak”). *cringe* *cringe* *cringe*

Mantis then peers into Snakes future and reveals a scene where Snake has a gun in his mouth (MGS4).

Mantis Battle – Hind D Battle

-the layout of the cavern is different

-Snake flashbangs the wolves (they’re not called Stun Grenades)

-Snake uses Meryl’s sniper rifle instead of retreating to the armory

-once Snake believes he has “defeated” Wolf, he walks to the vase of the Communications Tower to check and is then captured, Meryl’s body was taken away later (instead of when Snake returned from the armory, which didn’t happen in novel)

-Wolf put her arm in a sling

-Ocelot’s torture chamber dialogue is different

-Ocelot says that Johny used to be a technician before brain washed by Mantis (this is reference to his role in MGS4)

-Snake escapes captivity by clinging to the ceiling rather than hiding under the bed/using tomato sauce

-Snake spots two of Donald Anderson’s bodies

-Miller pre-emptively spills the beans on a mole within the unit

-Deepthroat warns Snake of the planted bomb rather than Campbell

-Snake finds a rope at the base of the Communication Tower

-alarm goes off at the 5th floor rather than at the entrance to the tower

-page 206 contains a 9/11 reference

-the Hind D battle is surprisingly short 1-2 pages

Elevator Action – Metal Gear Rex

-the lights in the elevator where Snake is ambushed go out

-no codec discussion on weight within the elevator

-Snake exits the elevator at the 8th floor, what ever happened to that broken stairwell?

-Snake spots a parachute on the snowfield

-Sniper Wolf is hiding in a tree, instead of behind it

-Miller doesn’t use dates to prove Naomi’s narrative about her father is false

-Snake tries to shoot down Vulcan Raven from top of containers with PSG1

-ends up blowing Vulcan up with C4 and Claymore mines that leaked from one of the broken containers

-slight suggestion of the Patriots involvement on p238 “It couldn’t be…”

-guesses made with models numbers to the various pieces of Metal Gear Rex

Metal Gear Rex – End

-Snake literally climbs MG Rex with the aid of wheely stairs and jumps from Rex’s head to the raised platform by the control centre

-the whole layout of the Control Room is changed, basically as in “final battle”, no stairs or rails at all, just an empty room, control centre, moat and Rex

-spotlight from the control room

-Snake has to literally swim around the sludgy moat

-Snake over hears conversation on supposed hostages being held in an underground bunker by guards when heating the key, asks Otacon about it

-he also picks up the Stinger from within the underground base

-Snake also wears heat resistant gloves

-an electronic transmitter is what changes Liquid’s voice to Miller’s

-no gas released in the control room

-Liquid pilots Rex during the big reveal, the conversation is completely different and not held on the platform

-Snake again adopts “Master Miller tactics” through the battle with Rex

-Snake and Grey Fox have conversation in the hall/entrance to the control room rather than behind a large shipping container

-the Grey Fox sequence is replayed out, in different sequence

-Wires are attached from Meryl to the time bomb

-Snake doesn’t recover his sneaking suit, instead taking a fur coat from one of the guards

-After Liquid dies, Otacon appears and they open this hidden bunker with the hostages in by using C4

-Campbell tells Snake that Meryl is actually his daughter (MGS4 reference)

-Corney interplay between Campbell and Snake is added at the end

Posted in Analysis | Comments (0)
Tags: metal gear solid, novel

Analysis of MGS4′s Camera Perspective System and How It Fosters Unique Playing Styles for the Player (Essay)

April 11th, 2009

This year I enrolled in an elective course about video games. The largest chunk of assessment for this course (50%) is the “Research Essay”. Strangely it’s positioned mid-term, I guess because the next best piece of work is the always hazardous group presentation task. Anyways, being the enthusiastic student I am, I’ve completed the essay well ahead of schedule. Simply put, the essay was designed to carve up a huge chunk of the holiday break, and I wasn’t going to just idly sit by and let it proceed.

We had a handful of questions for the assignment, let’s see; intellectual property and user-generated content, social ills and video games, violence and games, the effect the Wii has on the games industry and finally “why is X game fun”. I chose the last one because it’s essentially demanding game critique which is a great free ride of an essay, particularly one of 2500 words, merciless.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is the game I wish to “critique” for the essay, but before I get down to business, I scrutinize the hell out of the innocent assignment question. I kinda regret fussing so much about it now. I should present the question in full if the rest is going to make sense;

“While people clearly play games because they are fun, we still have only a rudimentary understanding of the particular pleasures that games offer us. Pick a particular game or game genre as your case-study ‘text’ and critically analyze how its form, structure, elements and other modes of engagement work to provide pleasure to its player or players.”

Lastly, I know this piece drones a little and surprisingly the dull tone is irrelevant to the academic make-up. I just didn’t enjoy writing it and I think the text reflects that. I was also sure to let the teacher know that the preface was not some rude stab at them, although it’s partly (ok, fully) implied by the text. Anyways, that’s enough from me, the complete piece can be found below:

Problematic Beginnings

Dissecting the forms and functions of a video game, in the aim of understanding how it can be pleasurable to a player is undeniably a tremendous task. Tremendous because it’s either highly problematic, impossible or the task is simply invalid – it really depends on which way you slice it. Whatever the case, it’s important to address our methodology and any underlying issues with the request given, so that our analysis is both transparent and credible.

The activity that we’re being asked to participate in is formally titled games criticism. At the current time, the process of games criticism lacks any standout methodology at which to apply, furthermore it’s debatable whether such a thing as games criticism actually exists , let a lone a single critic (Klosterman, 2006). Whatever the case, little progression in this area can be made due to the stalemate that game criticism continually finds itself in (Lui, 2008).

There have been many attempts at formulating a methodology to critically assess games both in and outside the academic sphere. Some have concluded with mixed results (Consalvo & Dutton, 2006), created a new lexicon of vocabulary (Terrell, 2009), relied on the gathering of pre-existing knowledge (Battle, 2008), while other approaches do little but point out the obvious (Konzack, 2002). Whatever the case, the form of approach and understanding is yet to be developed, which makes this undertaking more than problematic for a student of this medium.

We can of course (and ultimately have to) try our hand at this, but explaining how a game is pleasurable to all is simply an impossible task, that or the question (and subsequently any results to come out of it) is invalid. Anything can be pleasurable, the mundane can be pleasurable (Erdelack, 2009). A company such as Blizzard has turned routine work into a pleasurable activity for millions through World of Warcraft’s corporate metaphor of the real world (Rettberg, 2007). Ultimately though, pleasure is a subjective thing. In his widely respected The New Games Journalism manifesto, Kieron Gillen states that “In videogames there is no ‘there’. You’re either sitting in front of your PC or slumped in your front-room, controller in your hand. It’s all happening inside your head….You’re experiencing something that simply doesn’t exist.” (Gillen, 2004). He follows “This makes us Travel Journalists to Imaginary places. Our job is to describe what it’s like to visit a place that doesn’t exist outside of the gamer’s head”. Kieron is saying that the experience of playing games is highly personal and therefore any such pleasure received by the player is deeply tangled in their life experiences. What we are being asked to attain is something we simply can’t, it’s in the player’s head, jumbled within those experiences. Furthermore the question implies that our results are absolute for all people, but as can be seen by the above argument, there are no absolutes, such as that of what the question is hoping we answer. Any attempt at defining an absolute answer on behalf of all players, all people, can only be inherently generalized to the point of falsehood.

Lastly, what exactly defines pleasure anyways? The term is so vague that anything can be claimed as being pleasurable without proper justification. One would need to narrowly define the word first before they could possibly begin investigation.

Some Solutions

This paper will (at least try to) circumvent these issues in several ways. Firstly the term pleasure will be narrowed and specified, secondly there will be no attempts of objectivity. This paper will only reflect that of the author’s interpretation of the game in question. The only way I could speak on behalf of everyone is if I remove myself from everything that defines myself, which I cannot do, so in similar vein to cultural research I don’t claim the results to be objectively conclusive, rather that of my own interpretation, skewed by my own experiences. Methodology shall be derived from that of fundamentals discussed the above referenced examples of criticism, as well as methodology of my own. Lastly, the game in question is particularly deep, with a wealth of mechanics and systems drawn from twenty years of series history, as such I shall be focusing on a concentrated segment of the game.

Now, We Start…

With all of these niggling issue brought to the forefront, we can now begin the analysis. My game of choice is Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots for the Playstation 3 home console. This game, developed by Kojima productions and published by Konami, saw a highly anticipated release last year (2008) on the Playstation 3. The game’s tremendous hype and critical reception, had many commentators discussing whether this was famously the “Citizen Kane of video games” (Abbott, 2008) (Suellentrop, 2007). Much of the high criticism from the enthusiast media appears largely unfounded, and hype driven. Amongst this though, one thing is certain, MGS4 provides the player with a wealth of options for tackling the game. It provides inverted freedom to that of say Grand Theft Auto III (Frasca, 2003), offering the player a wealth of mechanics, allowing them to perform a vast range of actions, yet confining the game space to a non-open world area. The game is a magnificent stumbling beast, a kitchen sink of ideas that match and clash a every avenue (Abbott, 2008).

I wish to explore arguably the most incremental system of mechanics in MGS4, the system that infers many of the industry’s most popular forms of contemporary play onto the player.This paper will explore how the game’s core camera perspectives (and supporting systems) create different play conditions for the player, which in turn encourage varying play styles, and hence foster the element of exploration within the player.

MGS4 offers the player four camera perspectives, I have labeled them; normal, third person auto, third person manual (over the shoulder) and first person. I will now discuss each of the perspectives individually, focusing on how they create different modes of play for the player, concluding by relating this back to the element of exploration.

Normal (CQC) Perspective

The Normal Perspective (NP) is MGS4‘s default looking angle where no weapons are readied (L1). This is the only mode where full analogue control of Snake (the game’s protagonist) and the camera is provided. You control both of these freely with the dual analog sticks. You also have complete functionality of the non-offensive game mechanics such as climbing, crawling leaning against walls and objects, camouflaging with the chameleon-esque sneaking suit, as well as inventory items. Snake can also use all forms of CQC – close quarters combat, essentially anything involving physical contact with an enemy unit in the game. The CQC library is quite diverse including strangleholds, enemy shields, dragging bodies, de-equipping enemies and throws to ground. The majority of weapons have their own CQC functions too, usually a simple knock with the weapon itself. All of the above are exclusive features of the NP.

On the flip side, Snake can’t fire a single bullet in this mode. Pressing the attack button (R1) will either result in a quick jab or a CQC move dependent on the weapon equipped and proximity to the nearest enemy. Since you don’t have to hold down the L1 button (using the index finger to press) to ready a weapon (doing so will result in jumping to another mode) you’re hands are freed up a little, giving you more control over Snake’s movement. This is facilitated for with variable movement, where Snake can run, walk and sneak depending on the pressure placed on the analog stick. The camera in this mode maintains a 3rd person perspective, providing the widest field of vision.

MGS4 can be played as an action or a stealth game, and these four perspective each accommodate varying points on that spectrum. Since the Metal Gear series is traditionally a stealth game, the default perspective forces one to play in such a way. I found that this perspective best accommodates for a more passive playing style. Perhaps the most important contributor to this is the fact that Snake can’t fire a single bullet. Unlike in the other modes where the camera is concentrated on a fixed position/object, the NP allows the player to find their own focus. As such, a free camera encourages you to explore your surroundings a little more carefully, fostering a slower, more methodical style of play – ie. stealth. Another significant contributor is the sneaking suit, which changes texture dependent on what surface you are leaning against. This form of camouflage is ideal for hiding. On top of this, once camouflaged, you can also play dead, lowering the risk of being spotted. The supporting maneuvers such as hiding in lockers, dragging bodies, hanging off ledges are also indicative of a stealthier playing format. Hence, this mode is designed for stealth.

Third Person Automatic Perspective

The Third Person Automatic Perspective (TPAP) is very similar to the NP featuring the same 3rd person viewpoint, yet the perspective and Snake’s movement is fixed and central (respectively) to the circumference of the enemy unit. To enter this mode hold down the L1 button and the nearest enemy is automatically snapped to, the right stick toggles between multiple enemies. An icon appears top centre of the screen confirming the perspective. Snake’s now walks at a single, slower pace, much slower than in NP, and movement is refitted so that he strafes left or right and closes in and out around the circumference of an enemy. As with all of the perspectives to follow, Snake cannot perform special maneuvers in TPAP, such as dragging bodies, hiding in lockers or camouflaging. When Snake bumps into a physical object, the game reverts back to the normal perspective.

Although TPAP centers a targeted enemy, Snake’s repertoire of weaponry is limited to only the basics; pistols, sub machine guns and riffles. CQC and scoped rifles cannot be used, neither can the railgun, explosive peripherals (ie. grenades) and other miscellaneous items. Each of the former require manual aiming.

Locking onto enemies is handled automatically, meaning that you cannot aim for specific parts of the body. Furthermore, almost all weapons that can be used in this mode are rapid fire weapons. The cumulative effect of these features enforce a run-and-shoot style of play. Between this and the manual perspective (as detailed below), the player is forced to choose between sacrificing manual targeting for field of vision or the other way way around. TPAP is less conservative as targets are locked on via the body, hence requiring more ammunition to down.

The lock-on component constricts the free movement, reverting to a digital movement pattern defined around a sphere (with the enemy in the centre). This removes the obstacle of movement for the player, allowing them to concentrate more on the shooting, but with a wide camera, on the environment also, keeping an eye of the surrounding environment at the same time. It’s a balance between attacking and hiding.

I used this mode accordingly, to scout out the ensuing action, while being aware of the surrounding environments. Ideal for situations where explosions are going off, but you still need to put up a fight. Sometimes, this mode felt like more of a panic mode, it’s easier to hit an enemy, but at the expense of bullets, only used in desperate situations.

Third Person Manual Perspective

Third Person Manual (TPMP) is an over the shoulder perspective (with Snake on either the left or right hand side) that requires manual aiming of all weapons. To enter this mode, hold down L1 to ready your weapon and then press the square button to toggle across. Movement is slow as with TPAP, but this time the camera it isn’t centralized around the enemy, so when the player nudges the analog stick forwards, Snake walks straight ahead, not towards the nearest enemy. Camera control is limited to either a left or right hand swing (R3). With the camera tucked in, you feel closer to the action, a reticule is present as well, which indicates where you are shooting.

The weapon set is fully fleshed out in this mode, everything is available with the exception of CQC. Although for some peripheral items that need planting, the camera will pull back. Still, the game allows you to execute those moves while in TPMP.

Manual aiming demands greater skill of the player to land a shot, it’s facilitated by the closer camera, yet unlike the previously discussed perspectives I found myself refusing to stay in this mode for long periods of time, simply because it tunnels the player’s vision. Instead I found myself popping and stopping between this and the other perspectives, using it in a peripheral nature. I’d scout out an enemy unit in NP, lock on in TPAP and then bring the camera in (TPMP) for a manual shot. As you can see, there is greater risk in TPMP. The closer camera removes the environmental distractions, peeling off another layer as we move away from modes facilitating stealth play to those closer to action.

First Person Perspective

The First Person Perspective (FPP) places you in Snake’s eyes, limiting the view even further to just what is dead in front of you. To enter FPP you must first press L1 to launch into TPMP or TPAP (depends on what’s toggled) and from there press triangle to enter first person. The camera is obscured somewhat by the weapon being held, which draws your eye into the centre of the screen, for lining up shots. Making the FPP stress the centre of the screen, the field of vision is now at its most narrowest. The camera also jumps into first person automatically when crawling through vents and tight places. When utilizing scoped weapons such as sniper riffles and rockets, this perspective takes the imagery of the inner scope. All weapons can be used in this mode, but no CQC.

This perspective is on the farthest end of the spectrum (action), which perhaps explains why it requires such an effort to reach – you need to enter through the previous third person modes to reach FPP. My time spent in FPP was even shorter than that of TPMP as it’s tighter and riskier still. The scopes make FPP the premier option for taking specialized shots. Their visual representation (and zooming mechanics) are indicative of this too. I enter this mode in the hope of taking head shots or from sniping from a distance. The two motives can be radical from one another, either slow and steady or quick and rushed. The perspective stresses accuracy and now, even a decent perspective of the landscape is non-existent. Everything lends itself to shooting, the polar opposite of the pacifist default perspective. I only enter this mode with the objective of shoot to kill.

Conclusion

As the above analysis has shown, MGS4‘s four modes of perspective each provide the player with various options for tackling the given situations on a spectrum ranging from stealth to action. Like layers of an onion, the further you move along, the further the supporting mechanics of one side tear away, revealing that of the other.

The pleasure in all this? Again, I think it’s far to general to simply state that such mechanics provide pleasure to the player, rather, I feel that the freedom provided by this system of complicated mechanisms allows the player to play to a style they see fitting – freedom, perhaps. That, and also explore this rather technical yet versatile “swiss army knife” approach to gameplay. Each perspective garners a different play experience, and toying with the complexities of each of them, realizing the games complex mechanics and then testing them within the variables of this interactive playground (which we haven’t even began to discuss!), I find to be an adventure in itself.

References

Games

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots 2008, Hideo Kojima & Kojima Productions, Konami

Reference List

Abbott M. (2008). Apples, oranges, and parallels. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/06/apples-and-oran.html

Abbott M. (2008). Kojima and the theory of everything. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/07/kojima-and-the.html

Battle K.(2008). Zarathustran Analytics Synopsis. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/zarathustran-analytics-synopsis1/

Consalvo M. & Dutton N. (2006). Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton

Erdelack W.(2009). In Praise of the Mundane. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://versusclucluland.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-praise-of-mundane.html

Frasca G. (2003). Sim Sin City: some thoughts about Grand Theft Auto 3. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0302/frasca/

Gillen K. (2004). The New Games Journalism. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://alwaysblack.com/blackbox/ngj.html

Klosterman C. (2006). The Lester Bangs of Video Games. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0706KLOSTER_66

Konzack L.(2002). Computer Game Criticism: A Method for Computer Analysis. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05164.32231

Lui, C.K (2008). Why game criticism doesn’t exist. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.gamecritics.com/why-game-criticism-doesn-t-exist

Rettberg S.(2007). Corporate Ideology in World of Warcraft. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://retts.net/documents/rettberg_corp_ideology.pdf

Suellentrop C. (2007). What “the Citizen Kane of Video Games” Really Means. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/2179398/entry/2179795/

Terrell R. (2009). Critical-Glossary. Retrieved 10 April 2009, from http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/critical-glossary/

Posted in Journals | Comments (6)
Tags: essay, metal gear solid

« Older Entries