I don't think Death Stranding will be as good as people are hoping

Feb 2, 2009
8,241
1,034
800
It’s like most Sony exclusive games, OVERHYPED AF. Mostly it’s about story and graphics. Not really about gameplay. More like a movie.
1. You don't know what the game even is yet, let alone have any information about the story-sequence to gameplay ratio.

2. Not that seemingly matters because we have people here slagging off MGSV for not having enough/the right kind of story! Whilst ignoring the fact that its gameplay was overwhelmingly favorably received.

3. As to Kojima's "value" to the project. There is an example of what a Kojima-less MGS title looks like: MGS: Survive. How well did that do in comparison to its predecessors and what great things did it bring to the table that weren't inherited from Phantom Pain?
 
Last edited:
Likes: MGHA
Nov 23, 2017
700
540
190
It’s like most Sony exclusive games, OVERHYPED AF. Mostly it’s about story and graphics. Not really about gameplay. More like a movie.
Sadly for you, those "overhyped" games receive a lot of praise and good review scores. Overhyped and movies are the only insults people can come up with for obvious reasons. lol
 

Terenty

Neo Member
Nov 21, 2018
29
27
90
It’s like most Sony exclusive games, OVERHYPED AF. Mostly it’s about story and graphics. Not really about gameplay. More like a movie.
I can agree with the part that Sony's biggest games are mostly shit or mediocre safe products (Gow, Spider man, uncharted 4), but Kojima isnt like that, he is the complete opposite. The man always tries to do something new, his whole game design philosophy is never repeating the same thing, thats why ppl are excited
 
Last edited:
Jun 6, 2015
1,147
131
300
Sounds like hating to me....
It only seems like hating because you attribute the quality of games with his name attached manly to him when the reality is he has never been trusted with full control on a game when he was at konami and was constantly checked and balanced to lesson or remove poor decisions.

That doesn't mean he hasn't come up with good ideas that were implemented, just that people shouldn't base the possibility this is near guarantee to be good based on his track record.

The game could still be good but I think some caution is needed. People give him the entire credit for his Konami games which is misleading since a large reason why the games were good because there were other talented people there balancing things.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,753
860
1,700
It only seems like hating because you attribute the quality of games with his name attached manly to him when the reality is he has never been trusted with full control on a game when he was at konami and was constantly checked and balanced to lesson or remove poor decisions.

That doesn't mean he hasn't come up with good ideas that were implemented, just that people shouldn't base the possibility this is near guarantee to be good based on his track record.

The game could still be good but I think some caution is needed. People give him the entire credit for his Konami games which is misleading since a large reason why the games were good because there were other talented people there balancing things.
One should not think that just because he is at the helm that the game will be good, but you portray someone who not only stumbled into success in the past, but did so kicking and screaming trying to f-it all up lol.

Of course he was working with others and did not make those games alone, but I think you are underselling him short.
 
Feb 2, 2009
8,241
1,034
800
It only seems like hating because you attribute the quality of games with his name attached manly to him when the reality is he has never been trusted with full control on a game when he was at konami and was constantly checked and balanced to lesson or remove poor decisions.
Yeah riiiiiight, looking at Konami's output you can see their corporate oversight really improving stuff! Lets face it Metal Gear is the one major franchise that didn't get run into the ground over the last 20 years! (well at least until MG:Survive LOL)

In fact the only exec who even tried to drag franchises like Silent Hill and Castlevania back from the brink was Kojima.
 
Last edited:
Oct 1, 2006
3,094
2,423
1,090
If it is half the game MGSV is (which is itself half a game), I'll buy a PS4/5 for it. MGSV is plenty flawed, but it is still incredibly addicting for me, and I love that MGS atmosphere that the trailers have dripped with.
 
Aug 29, 2007
6,968
359
910
40
Land of the OKC Thunder
This thread is something else lol. Im not a playstation guy and I dont plan on getting one, but im still intrigued by this game and would love to try it out. I think Kojima is kind of a dick to be honest but can also admit he is good at what he does. If the game is bad however ill be the first to criticise it. I wish they would set a release date already. Is the consensus that the game is likely to come out by the end of 2019? E3 will tell all im sure, well whatever sony decides to do while E3 is going on.
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Yeah riiiiiight, looking at Konami's output you can see their corporate oversight really improving stuff! Lets face it Metal Gear is the one major franchise that didn't get run into the ground over the last 20 years! (well at least until MG:Survive LOL)

In fact the only exec who even tried to drag franchises like Silent Hill and Castlevania back from the brink was Kojima.
That’s not fair to Survive. Whatever non remake metal gear Konami wouldve put out, it would have gotten a negative reception.

And what’s up with dogging all these non Kojima metal gears? Ghost Babel, Revengeance, Ac!d, Portable Ops are all good to great Metal Gears. Shit, at least Survive HAS a story.
 
Last edited:
Mar 19, 2014
1,694
39
305
I can't believe this is a thread..... Sure, you might worry about how crazy the story is.... But gameplay? Come on man. That is by far the least of my worries from a Kojima game.
 
Jan 21, 2018
490
390
220
Republic of Catalonia
It only seems like hating because you attribute the quality of games with his name attached manly to him when the reality is he has never been trusted with full control on a game when he was at konami and was constantly checked and balanced to lesson or remove poor decisions.
You are literally just pulling shit out of your ass.

This is some next level hating here: "Kojimbo was crazy and everything good in his games were made by other people who kept him in check".

Sure pal.
 
Jan 21, 2018
490
390
220
Republic of Catalonia
That’s not fair to Survive. Whatever non remake metal gear Konami wouldve put out, it would have gotten a negative reception.

And what’s up with dogging all these non Kojima metal gears? Ghost Babel, Revengeance, Ac!d, Portable Ops are all good to great Metal Gears. Shit, at least Survive HAS a story.
Survive has a very simple & mediocre story, perfect for dumb western audiences, which I guess it's what people who claim that Metal Gear games don't have a story want.

And besides that, the game is shit.
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Survive has a very simple & mediocre story, perfect for dumb western audiences, which I guess it's what people who claim that Metal Gear games don't have a story want.

And besides that, the game is shit.
I disagree. And nice job throwing all western audiences under the bus since they most likely would agree with you.

Edit: and there’s only ONE metal gear game that can be criticized for not having a story. Let’s not make up arguments that don’t exist.
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Just cause you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there... I can lay out MGSV's story for you if you want.
That won’t be necessary. Thanks! Also, try not being condenscending when your favorite game is being criticized. I will repeat again, only ONE metal gear game can be criticized for not having a story. Nowhere in that statement did I give my thoughts on said game, but glad you recognized it was mgsv.
 
That won’t be necessary. Thanks! Also, try not being condenscending when your favorite game is being criticized. I will repeat again, only ONE metal gear game can be criticized for not having a story. Nowhere in that statement did I give my thoughts on said game, but glad you recognized it was mgsv.
Well, you said the game can be criticized for not having a story, and now you turn heel when someone offers to explain that there is in fact one.

Nice!
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Well, you said the game can be criticized for not having a story, and now you turn heel when someone offers to explain that there is in fact one.

Nice!
Hjunklay, you’ve come into a lot of metal gear threads, even making your own...you’ve boasted about how many hours you’ve played, and how mgsv is great. All power to you. Unfortunately for you, I have twice as many hours as you and have done 4 mgsv runs in one siting (granted, I’ve always stopped at ep 32 cause 18 hrs is a long time to stream without breaks). So, please, curb your elitsm. I’m just not interested in your opinion of mgsv’s story. At least, not in this thread. If you want to debate the story of mgsv, we can go into your rttp thread from a few months back.
 
Hjunklay, you’ve come into a lot of metal gear threads, even making your own...you’ve boasted about how many hours you’ve played, and how mgsv is great. All power to you. Unfortunately for you, I have twice as many hours as you and have done 4 mgsv runs in one siting (granted, I’ve always stopped at ep 32 cause 18 hrs is a long time to stream without breaks). So, please, curb your elitsm. I’m just not interested in your opinion of mgsv’s story. At least, not in this thread. If you want to debate the story of mgsv, we can go into your rttp thread from a few months back.
Well, after you then, sir. I'll be sure to reply to any posts you make on that thread when you do decide to go there.

Also, pretty cool knowing I strike enough of a nerve that you know my post history. =D
 
Last edited:
No, after you. Im not going to look for your thread. And it’s you that is dying to explain mgsv to me.

Edit: you can also pm me
Well, you're the one postulating MGSV can be criticized for not having a story. It's a valid point, which I'm debating you for.

You're the one that suggested taking this elsewhere, if you're unwilling we can do it right here. I prefer to discuss publicly in discussion boards. That's what they're for after all...
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Well, you're the one postulating MGSV can be criticized for not having a story. It's a valid point, which I'm debating you for.

You're the one that suggested taking this elsewhere, if you're unwilling we can do it right here.
Im not a fan of derailing this thread that had nothing to do with mgsv.
 
Im not a fan of derailing this thread that had nothing to do with mgsv.
It has something to do with Death Stranding, the upcoming game from the same name behind MGSV. And the incorrectly perceived quality of one aspect of MGSV is being used to speculate Death Stranding's likely quality, seems like a pretty natural progression to the conversation...
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
It has something to do with Death Stranding, the upcoming game from the same name behind MGSV. And the incorrectly perceived quality MGSV is being used to debate Death Stranding, seems like a pretty natural progression to the conversation...
You really want to tell me about your thoughts on mgsv, don’t you? Funny you won’t pm me about it. Also, pretty funny you wont bump your thread that is easily accessible to you than it is for me.
 
You really want to tell me about your thoughts on mgsv, don’t you? Funny you won’t pm me about it. Also, pretty funny you wont bump your thread that is easily accessible to you than it is for me.
I won't PM you because I want to discuss this publicly so other people can chime in and I also believe this should be done here because we were not discussing MGSV's story for MGSV's story sake. This is tied to this Death Stranding discussion.

Nothing funny about it, all I see is you deflecting...
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
I won't PM you because I want to discuss this publicly so other people can chime in and I also believe this should be done here because we were not discussing MGSV's story for MGSV's story sake. This is tied to this Death Stranding discussion.

Nothing funny about it, all I see is you deflecting...
No one is stopping you man. But keep imagining.


Btw, who’s deflecting?
de·flect
/dəˈflekt/
verb
gerund or present participle: deflecting
  1. cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
 
Last edited:
No one is stopping you man. But keep imagining.
Cool, then let's do this:

Edit: and there’s only ONE metal gear game that can be criticized for not having a story. Let’s not make up arguments that don’t exist.
This whole thing about MGSV not having a story is complete hater BS. The game has all of the trademark Metal Gear story beats. They're absolutely not in the same place they've always been, but they're all there.

You have Skull Face as the main villain with an apparent simple plan: sell nukes to small nations in order to undermine the world's super powers. His plan, in true Metal Gear fashion, has more to it than meets the eye: he's a victim of colonization and wants to give every tribe and every race a fighting chance against any and all invaders.

Which leads to the ambiguity in Metal Gear's villains. Not only is Skull Face's plan ultimately good (though his methods are highly questionable) but the the secondary villain is also left very ambiguous at the end of the game.

Metal Gear's secondary villains usually overshadow the main villain in cunning and power - a role which is usually occupied by Ocelot. MGSV's secondary villain is particularly special since it's
Big Boss himself.

Ocelot is still being Ocelot, even though his on your side. In a classic Metal Gear move, he's revealed to be deceiving the player at the end of the game to help the secondary villain.

Quiet, as sexualized as she may be, is one of the strongest examples of gameplay-driven storytelling. At the end of the game, in the originally released version, she makes her own decision of leaving you. For good, forever.

Huey has an amazing story arc where he's revealed to be yet another villain in the game. A pathological liar, someone working from within your own organization.

And these are just some of the examples that come to mind, MGSV gives us a superb cast of complex characters that constantly add to the depth of the apparently simple story of catching the bad guy with the nukes that destroyed everything we built.

So, no, MGSV can't be criticized for not having a story. It does have one and a pretty great one at that.

It can be criticized, however, if you didn't like the story, which is fine.

But saying "I don't like Kojima's writing" is a completely different statement to "Kojima can't write".
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Cool, then let's do this:



This whole thing about MGSV not having a story is complete hater BS. The game has all of the trademark Metal Gear story beats. They're absolutely not in the same place they've always been, but they're all there.

You have Skull Face as the main villain with an apparent simple plan: sell nukes to small nations in order to undermine the world's super powers. His plan, in true Metal Gear fashion, has more to it than meets the eye: he's a victim of colonization and wants to give every tribe and every race a fighting chance against any and all invaders.

Which leads to the ambiguity in Metal Gear's villains. Not only is Skull Face's plan ultimately good (though his methods are highly questionable) but the the secondary villain is also left very ambiguous at the end of the game.

Metal Gear's secondary villains usually overshadow the main villain in cunning and power - a role which is usually occupied by Ocelot. MGSV's secondary villain is particularly special since it's
Big Boss himself.

Ocelot is still being Ocelot, even though his on your side. In a classic Metal Gear move, he's revealed to be deceiving the player at the end of the game to help the secondary villain.

Quiet, as sexualized as she may be, is one of the strongest examples of gameplay-driven storytelling. At the end of the game, in the originally released version, she makes her own decision of leaving you. For good, forever.

Huey has an amazing story arc where he's revealed to be yet another villain in the game. A pathological liar, someone working from within your own organization.

And these are just some of the examples that come to mind, MGSV gives us a superb cast of complex characters that constantly add to the depth of the apparently simple story of catching the bad guy with the nukes that destroyed everything we built.

So, no, MGSV can't be criticized for not having a story. It does have one and a pretty great one at that.

It can be criticized, however, if you didn't like the story, which is fine.

But saying "I don't like Kojima's writing" is a completely different statement to "Kojima can't write".
Right, the only two people with a story arc are Quiet and Huey.
Then you just noted down things that happen in mgsv. Not a story. What is the 3 act story arc of mgsv? No, im not asking about ch 3’s peace. I’m asking for you to tell me, what is the 3 act Hero’s journey? Telling me what happens in mgsv is the eauivalent of me telling you what I did today. Not every story follows the hero’s journey structure, but when mgsv follows the first two acts, failing at its act 2 and never producing its act 3, it can’t fit in any other catagory. Mgsv is incomplete. I know you don’t feel that way, but it’s true. I’m not talking about ep51 or ch 3. As it is, its a game that plays really well, without a story driven narrative.
I don’t know why you bring up Kojima’s writing, but ok, let’s go there too. He can’t write. He’s got some good ideas, but they’re hardly ever executed well.
 
Right, the only two people with a story arc are Quiet and Huey.
Then you just noted down things that happen in mgsv. Not a story. What is the 3 act story arc of mgsv? No, im not asking about ch 3’s peace. I’m asking for you to tell me, what is the 3 act Hero’s journey? Telling me what happens in mgsv is the eauivalent of me telling you what I did today. Not every story follows the hero’s journey structure, but when mgsv follows the first two acts, failing at its act 2 and never producing its act 3, it can’t fit in any other catagory. Mgsv is incomplete. I know you don’t feel that way, but it’s true. I’m not talking about ep51 or ch 3. As it is, its a game that plays really well, without a story driven narrative.
I don’t know why you bring up Kojima’s writing, but ok, let’s go there too. He can’t write. He’s got some good ideas, but they’re hardly ever executed well.
You're telling me that Snake's story of revenge against Skull Face, everything around it, and the repercussions of those events are not a story.

You're just delusional...

Snake has his base destroyed, Venom achieves revenge, Venom learns about an extremely shocking parallel that makes him (the player) question whether he killed the right man.

That's a pretty solid arc in my mind.

Again, the story is there, you just don't like it. Call it like it is.

Don't understand why MGSV detractors need something to be wrong with the game if they didn't like it. It's OK if you didn't like it.

I'm not trying to make you like it.

I'm simply pointing out you're all going a little far in saying the game doesn't have a story when it's right there...
 
Last edited:
Likes: #Phonepunk#

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
You're telling me that Snake's story of revenge against Skull Face, everything around it, and the repercussions of those events are not a story.

You're just delusional...

Snake has his base destroyed, Venom achieves revenge, Venom learns about an extremely shocking parallel that makes him (the player) question whether he killed the right man.

That's a pretty solid arc in my mind.

Again, the story is there, you just don't like it. Call it like it is.

Don't understand why MGSV detractors need something to be wrong with the game if they didn't like it. It's OK if you didn't like it.

I'm not trying to make you like it.

I'm simply pointing out you're all going a little far in saying the game doesn't have a story when it's right there...
You just summed up chapter 1. You avoided my question. And then you insult me cause we don’t share the same opinion. Perhaps forums aren’t the right place for you.
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Snake has his base destroyed, Venom achieves revenge, Venom learns about an extremely shocking parallel that makes him (the player) question whether he killed the right man.

That's a pretty solid arc in my mind.
You summed up act 1, then you included your own head canon. What is the hero’s journey 3 act arc of mgsv?
 
You summed up act 1, then you included your own head canon. What is the hero’s journey 3 act arc of mgsv?
The reveal of the parallel between Venom and Skull Face happens at the end of Chapter 2. After said Chapter 2 works very hard to establish the river of shit Venom goes through because of the secondary villain.

So, no, I didn't just "summed up act 1".

And I've been telling you the three arcs repeatedly, stop trying to win this discussion and actually listen to what I have to say. That will help...
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
The reveal of the parallel between Venom and Skull Face happens at the end of Chapter 2. After said Chapter 2 works very hard to establish the river of shit Venom goes through because of the secondary villain.

So, no, I didn't just "summed up act 1".

And I've been telling you the three arcs repeatedly, stop trying to win this discussion and actually listen to what I have to say. That will help...
No you haven’t. You’re filling in plot holes with head canon.
 
No you haven’t. You’re filling in plot holes with head canon.
Sure, pal... Sure.

At least it's now pretty clear you're deliberately hating on MGSV's story despite evidence to the contrary and using that notion to try and speculate why Death Stranding may or may not have a good story.

All things considered, Death Stranding will probably have a great story. Even if not a very accessible one. Just reach out if you need any help with it when the game comes out.
 
Last edited:

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Sure, pal... Sure.

At least it's now pretty clear you're deliberately hating on MGSV's story despite evidence to the contrary and using that notion to try and speculate why Death Stranding may or may not have a good story.

All things considered, Death Stranding will probably have a great story. Even if not a very accessible one.
I didn’t mention one thing about Death Stranding, nor do I care to speculate on a game that’s not out. Maybe, you’re delusional. You wanted an open debate because you had an agenda. Then you accuse me of trying to “win”. This came, after you insulted me. I’m not even hating on mgsv or what you perceive to call its story.
 
I didn’t mention one thing about Death Stranding, nor do I care to speculate on a game that’s not out. Maybe, you’re delusional. You wanted an open debate because you had an agenda. Then you accuse me of trying to “win”. This came, after you insulted me. I’m not even hating on mgsv or what you perceive to call its story.
Sure, man. It's OK.
 
Last edited:
Jun 6, 2015
1,147
131
300
Yeah riiiiiight, looking at Konami's output you can see their corporate oversight really improving stuff! Lets face it Metal Gear is the one major franchise that didn't get run into the ground over the last 20 years! (well at least until MG:Survive LOL)

In fact the only exec who even tried to drag franchises like Silent Hill and Castlevania back from the brink was Kojima.
Who still had a check even during the Silent Hills thing. (Also that Castlevania line is a bit misleading.)

I have no idea why you're denying that Kojima has a historical verifiable record of being checked by multiple people during ALL his games. All I'm saying is the assumption that the game is going to automatically be good because of Kojimas "track record" should be toned down and a bit of caution thrown in, is all I'm saying. It could still be good but IF it wasn't the amount of people throwing his name around at a much higher caliber than its actually worth would hurt fans opinions of him immensely.

The issue is everypone puts almost all credit on Kojima when some issues gamers have had with his games have been the result of Kojima. Some ideas that would have been implemented if he had full control removed due to checks. The closest Metal Gear where he had a good level of control was MGSIV. But it still has balances. Kojima has good ideas and bad ideas and one of the reasons why some of his games ended up pretty good is because there was a balance on his bad ideas.

He's still a good developer I never said otherwise. He's been in the industry for awhile so he's not clueless.

This is some next level hating here: "Kojimbo was crazy and everything good in his games were made by other people who kept him in check".

Sure pal.
Which isn't what I said but if you'd prefer to be a liar in order to dismiss my point you can, it just doesn't make you look good.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,883
1,800
240
lol when this game comes out can we have a safe space to discuss without people trying to blow our minds that Kojima is a pretentious hack?

maybe we can have a dedicated Kojima is a pretentious hack thread and folks can just go wild in there.
 
Likes: Hjunklay
Feb 2, 2009
8,241
1,034
800
Who still had a check even during the Silent Hills thing. (Also that Castlevania line is a bit misleading.)

I have no idea why you're denying that Kojima has a historical verifiable record of being checked by multiple people during ALL his games. All I'm saying is the assumption that the game is going to automatically be good because of Kojimas "track record" should be toned down and a bit of caution thrown in, is all I'm saying. It could still be good but IF it wasn't the amount of people throwing his name around at a much higher caliber than its actually worth would hurt fans opinions of him immensely.

The issue is everypone puts almost all credit on Kojima when some issues gamers have had with his games have been the result of Kojima. Some ideas that would have been implemented if he had full control removed due to checks. The closest Metal Gear where he had a good level of control was MGSIV. But it still has balances. Kojima has good ideas and bad ideas and one of the reasons why some of his games ended up pretty good is because there was a balance on his bad ideas.

He's still a good developer I never said otherwise. He's been in the industry for awhile so he's not clueless.



Which isn't what I said but if you'd prefer to be a liar in order to dismiss my point you can, it just doesn't make you look good.

All game making is collaborative, oftentimes the best ideas come from uncredited sources and the worst stuff from the most high profile. However the proof in the pudding is the quality of the end result and consistency of achievement, and in that regard Kojima deserves his props.

There's a thing called "product ownership", its essentially where the buck stops when receipts are tallied at the end of release. If your project fails to sell or gets critically mauled then somebody gets to carry the can regardless of whether it was provably their fault or not. Kojima due to his position (exec/producer, director) and prominence has a very high level of product ownership on everything he's involved in, and an enviably near-perfect record of success.

The point though is that If you are in that position you know how closely your stock is tied to performance, which encourages taking an autocratic "hands-on" involvement. Which in turn is why talentless schmucks in positions of responsibility are so utterly toxic to game development regardless of the talent and pedigree of the team involved. A bad producer will fuck a project hard . I've seen it happen personally on far too many occasions.

I'd expect Kojima too be extremely hands-on with anything that bears his name, he's too much of "brand" in himself not to take that tack. Now given that pretty much everything he's ever done seems to turn out pretty damn well, that suggests to me his creative instincts and vision are on-point.
 
Likes: Hjunklay

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
All game making is collaborative, oftentimes the best ideas come from uncredited sources and the worst stuff from the most high profile. However the proof in the pudding is the quality of the end result and consistency of achievement, and in that regard Kojima deserves his props.

There's a thing called "product ownership", its essentially where the buck stops when receipts are tallied at the end of release. If your project fails to sell or gets critically mauled then somebody gets to carry the can regardless of whether it was provably their fault or not. Kojima due to his position (exec/producer, director) and prominence has a very high level of product ownership on everything he's involved in, and an enviably near-perfect record of success.

The point though is that If you are in that position you know how closely your stock is tied to performance, which encourages taking an autocratic "hands-on" involvement. Which in turn is why talentless schmucks in positions of responsibility are so utterly toxic to game development regardless of the talent and pedigree of the team involved. A bad producer will fuck a project hard . I've seen it happen personally on far too many occasions.

I'd expect Kojima too be extremely hands-on with anything that bears his name, he's too much of "brand" in himself not to take that tack. Now given that pretty much everything he's ever done seems to turn out pretty damn well, that suggests to me his creative instincts and vision are on-point.
But he wasnt hands on as a producer. In fact, it’s the opposite. According to Ryan Patton or MecurySteam guys, he barely does anything with the games his produces. This is all documented in interviews.
 
Feb 2, 2009
8,241
1,034
800
But he wasnt hands on as a producer. In fact, it’s the opposite. According to Ryan Patton or MecurySteam guys, he barely does anything with the games his produces. This is all documented in interviews.
Thats the best sort of producer! You want someone who facilitates and promotes, but doesn't get in the way and micro-manages so as to have their "giant robot spider in the third-act" moment.

Obviously degree of involvement is going to be both circumstantial (as in are they handling multiple projects) and situational (how invested they are), and in the case of Castlevania it was a point where he had to take control of Peace Walker as he felt the project wasn't going well. Kojima had a lot on his plate around that time, especially after his 2011 promotion within KDE.

In games its not unusual for individuals to work themselves to death on single projects, so with all the different "hats" he ended up having to wear in his last few years at Konami, I'm sure his involvement was definitely not consistent across everything bearing his name. What matters though was the MGSV turned out to a highly positive reception and sales as good as could be reasonably expected, and the P.T. demo was a left-field sensation.

He went out of Konami very much on top.
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
Thats the best sort of producer! You want someone who facilitates and promotes, but doesn't get in the way and micro-manages so as to have their "giant robot spider in the third-act" moment.

Obviously degree of involvement is going to be both circumstantial (as in are they handling multiple projects) and situational (how invested they are), and in the case of Castlevania it was a point where he had to take control of Peace Walker as he felt the project wasn't going well. Kojima had a lot on his plate around that time, especially after his 2011 promotion within KDE.

In games its not unusual for individuals to work themselves to death on single projects, so with all the different "hats" he ended up having to wear in his last few years at Konami, I'm sure his involvement was definitely not consistent across everything bearing his name. What matters though was the MGSV turned out to a highly positive reception and sales as good as could be reasonably expected, and the P.T. demo was a left-field sensation.

He went out of Konami very much on top.
I agree, those are the best producers. And I agree, he had a lot on his plate after MGS4. He started PW right afterwards, Fox engine and MGSV right after that. It’s a lot of work. Let’s not forger ZOE 3 was being planned as well at one point. Maybe he was working on that too, maybe not. My only point is that let’s not include games he produced as his games, the same as we don’t say certain movies belong to certain directors cause they produced them. No one is calling Batman Forever a Tim Burton film. Did he help get those games green lit because his name was attached? Hell yeah. But the quality of those games stand on their own.
 
Feb 2, 2009
8,241
1,034
800
I agree, those are the best producers. And I agree, he had a lot on his plate after MGS4. He started PW right afterwards, Fox engine and MGSV right after that. It’s a lot of work. Let’s not forger ZOE 3 was being planned as well at one point. Maybe he was working on that too, maybe not. My only point is that let’s not include games he produced as his games, the same as we don’t say certain movies belong to certain directors cause they produced them. No one is calling Batman Forever a Tim Burton film. Did he help get those games green lit because his name was attached? Hell yeah. But the quality of those games stand on their own.
it just goes to my point about project ownership though, there's always a risk of reputational damage by association. Which Kojima has really never had to deal with despite having his finger in many pies. That's part of it though, with all projects being calculated gambles the money will always favor luck over ability. You can get great reviews but if your work fails to break even that's a major strike against you. Its almost like a superstition.

Make no mistake if Death Stranding turns out to be a dud, it'll be a massive blow to Kojima. He's got enough of a name to get a follow-up most likely even if its a creatively daring misfire, but the constraints will be a lot heavier in terms of budget and creative control. He's insulated to a degree by his ability as a promoter and showman (his trailers are always eye-catching, and P.T. was a triumph), but its a fickle business, especially at the top-end where he's used to working.

To be honest I only really mentioned Castlevania as an exception-proves-the-rule example of Konami's failings as custodians of its own brands. No one under Kojima would be dictating to him on MGSV, so if interference came it was from the highest level of executive power, and if they were willing and able to stick their oars in on a Kojima joint, what chance would creatives with less swing have?
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,446
117
430
New York
it just goes to my point about project ownership though, there's always a risk of reputational damage by association. Which Kojima has really never had to deal with despite having his finger in many pies. That's part of it though, with all projects being calculated gambles the money will always favor luck over ability. You can get great reviews but if your work fails to break even that's a major strike against you. Its almost like a superstition.

Make no mistake if Death Stranding turns out to be a dud, it'll be a massive blow to Kojima. He's got enough of a name to get a follow-up most likely even if its a creatively daring misfire, but the constraints will be a lot heavier in terms of budget and creative control. He's insulated to a degree by his ability as a promoter and showman (his trailers are always eye-catching, and P.T. was a triumph), but its a fickle business, especially at the top-end where he's used to working.

To be honest I only really mentioned Castlevania as an exception-proves-the-rule example of Konami's failings as custodians of its own brands. No one under Kojima would be dictating to him on MGSV, so if interference came it was from the highest level of executive power, and if they were willing and able to stick their oars in on a Kojima joint, what chance would creatives with less swing have?
I think IGA had plenty control with Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness. I don’t think DS will be a dud. But, you did make me think of something. The reaction to MGS2 hurt MGS3’s sales. Historically, MGSV could hurt DS’s sales. I can’t see that happening. Konami has built so much bad press that they have taken most/all of the blame.
 
May 20, 2018
750
741
265
My honest impression of the game is that they let Kojima do whatever the fuck he wanted without ever telling him no on anything. All of the weird shit in the game just tells me the man went mad and put whatever weird and shocking imagery he could come up with.