Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
Jack and Rich review Metal Gear V and like all of their reviews I found it amusing and fun. Like Rich, the last Metal Gear game I played was on the NES and I wasn't really drawn to the rest. Many people loved the later Playstation games and there is an incredibly loyal fanbase for them. So much so that this review seems to have caused some Metal Gear fans to take shots at Jack in the comments. Video Game controversy isn't new but I often find it strange as people are essentially getting upset someone has an opinion about a game they don't share. Sure Jack and Rich are snarky as is the Red Letter Media way, but I didn't find it grossly offensive or insulting.
Jack and...
Jack and...
I've not played any of the modern MG games and only had limited experience with the original NES game (although it seems really awesome at the time).
I enjoyed Rich and Jack's review of the game, and the backlash of MG fan comments seems to boil down to "You don't understand Metal Gear games."
Which then brings up the question "When playing a game(or reading a book, or watching a movie), should you be able to enjoy the game on its own, or because each sequel builds upon the previous games(or books or movies), to really review the game, you should go back to the beginning to fully understand the current game?" (That was a long and convoluted question, I know)
I generally think each game should be able to stand on its own, but I can understand being frustrated with someone who doesn't "get it." I'd be annoyed with someone if they started watching Game of Thrones starting with Season 5 and then tearing it apart for not making sense, or not understanding how the previous seasons built up to it. But of course tv shows are different than movies/books/games that are usually self-contained stories.
Any thoughts?
There is no such thing as an "objective review." Our perspective paints everything we review and as such I am not sure how I can remove myself from myself on any piece of art. The only kind of objective review I can think of is one that simply lists facts because saying the game was "great" or "immersive" is all subjective. So when someone says they don't like something I love it's not a huge deal to me. I think people often intertwine themselves in the art they love and take all criticism as aimed at themselves or as they would a close family member. I think this covers more than gaming though.
"When playing a game(or reading a book, or watching a movie), should you be able to enjoy the game on its own, or because each sequel builds upon the previous games(or books or movies), to really review the game, you should go back to the beginning to fully understand the current game?"
Depends on the intent I suppose. If this is meant for new gamers to the franchise then sure, if it's meant for diehard fans then maybe not. In this instance I, most likely, won't pick it up for that reason and a few others.
This just helps support the view that reviews, and even aggregate review scores like Metacritic, aren't necessarily helpful to you. You can get some information from it to help decide if you'll like it, but don't be a slave to the score. In this case especially, you're going to appreciate the game more when you have the lore from the previous games.
SHOULD games stand on their own? That's up to the developers to decide. If you think of games as art (and with Metal Gear Solid, it's definitely more art than many other games-- 45 minute cutscenes, anyone?) then the artist paints with his or her own brush. Art is meant to be enjoyed, for the most part, but it is meant to be an expression of the artist.
So basically what Jon said. :D