Introduction – What the franchise meant to me
Growing up with social problems, video games were an escapism from anxiety and helped me cope with loneliness. Many franchises meant a lot to me, mostly from Nintendo as the Super Mario, Legend of Zelda and Metroid games have all given me wonderful memories. I grew up with the Nintendo entertainment system, Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64.... However, there were one franchise that made me buy a Playstation 2 instead of a Nintendo Gamecube: Metal Gear Solid.
 |
| "Kept you waiting, huh?" |
When I was first introduced to the games, I was intrigued by the cut scenes and the graphics...and in time I slowly fell in love with the characters, the soundtrack and of course: the story of each game. The introduction of Metal Gear Solid, The twist of Metal Gear Solid 2, the emotional ending to Metal Gear Solid 3 and the satisfying conclusion of the MGS-saga in Metal Gear Solid 4 will probably never leave me and it became one of my inspirations to either become a game designer or story developer one day. Over the years, other games would inspire me: like Shadow of the Colossus or Pokémon, However Metal Gear Solid still had a special place in my heart and whenever news of a new installment of the franchise were unveiled: I was always excited!
Then, I played the two latest games: Peace Walker and Phantom Pain. I was curios as to how these prequels (or sequels to prequels) would serve the franchise, since I considering Portable ops a satisfying conclusion to the arc of Big Boss, and a good segway to Metal Gear Solid 4; so I wondered what more there was to explore about the man which would set motion to future events of the series. I first played Peace Walker...and honestly was pretty much disappointed but ignored it as I thought the game served as an intro to Ground Zero/Phantom Pain. Then I got my hands on the next games, and once again I was disappointed. By all means: the gameplay and presentation (at least in Phantom Pain) were amazing so you couldn't call it "a bad game"...but for a long time I still felt there was alot missing, things earlier games had that these games didn't. After some reflection, re-reading books on storytelling and even watching video essays on popular films, I finally got what was missing for me and decided to write this essay. With the help of Christopher Voglers work "The Writer's Journey" (1998) and "Creating Emotion in Games" (2003) by David Freeman , I'm going to present the flaws of the narrative. I have two main issues with the later prequels: characters and plot. I'm going to start with characters, since there is a lot of ground to cover in this subject and it is important to deal with it before we begin with the plot.
Part 1: The characters
Hideo Kojima
did an amazing job creating so many memorable and well written characters. They
have followed us as interesting side characters, intimidating bosses or
intriguing villains that have all played a big part in the character arc of
both Solid Snake and Naked Snake.
Of course not all characters have to play a big part in the Hero's Journey, however if your movie/book/game doesn't have any characters that play their part in a grand narrative...you're simply wasting them, and worst of all making the story less interesting. That's why we need to discuss Peace Walker and Phantom Pain: How do the characters interact with Snake? What traits do they have? What role do they play in the narrative?
The
side characters – The importance of archetypes
In
"Writers Journey" (1998), Christopher Vogler discusses several
archetypes that are present in narratives. The most common and useful include:
Hero: often
the protagonist, the one that will bring change, etc.
Mentor: the
one that teaches or gives a gift to the hero in different ways.
Threshold
guardian: the first obstacle for the hero, to test their resolve.
Herald: the
one coming with the call of change or who motivates the hero.
Shape
shifter: the one bringing doubt and suspense to a story.
Trickster:
the troublemaker/clownish sidekick bringing humor to the story.
Shadow: the
one bringing a challenge to the hero.
Ally:
allies/friends helping the hero on their journey.
Here we can
easily point out characters from earlier games in the franchise: Snake as the
hero, Campbell as a mentor, EVA as the shape shifter, Liquid as the shadow,
Otacon as the ally, Big Boss as the shape shifter and even Ocealot works as a
threshold guardian. Often these archetypes are combined to make the characters
even more interesting, but it only works if the combination serves a purpose
for the story. This is where I will bring one of the best examples the
franchise has offered us: The Boss. The Boss first serves as a mentor,
guiding the player trough the basic game mechanics and even teaches Snake that
it's important to be loyal to oneself, as a foreshadow of what would come.
However, then she shape shift, and betrays Snake, to becomes the shadow
that not only hurts him emotionally, but also forces him to fight her
to save the world. Yet again....she shape shifts and it turns out that she was
all along an ally, that not only saved the world, but helped
Snake realize the faults in the government he works for. To just combine
archetypes for the sake of it would ruin a character, however Kojima created a
character with several archetypes; that each in their way helped the story
become more intriguing, emotional and memorable. I could go on with other
characters from earlier installments, but now it's time to discuss the side
characters of the two latest prequels.
Peace Walker, in my opinion, lacks character archetypes that are portrayed interestingly. Closest thing would be Paz and Zadornov, as they both work as allies, shape shifters and shadows as the story progress. However, they don't appear in the game that much and sadly both of them lack enough character traits to make them interesting (more on "traits" later on). Moreover the focus of the plot seems to be more between Big Boss and the AI of The Boss, which in my opinion sounds great on paper...but was a wasted potential. The AI only share fragments of the characteristics of The Boss, and don't even connect with him. There is simply no chemistry to make me invest in the story (frankly, even Boss seems to be as disappointed as I am that the mentor/mother-figure he loved is just a computer now). Other than that, the rest of the characters may be archetypes needed in a good story but they aren't used that well: Hot Coldman serves only as a shadow, Chico is merely an ally, Huey is also just an ally, Cecile is simply an ally...and so forth. Some play their part in a bigger role, others simply show up and are never seen again; thus making them completely pointless for the story. I'm not going to act like there weren't any pointless characters in the earlier installments, but they at least didn't take up that much space and/or got in the way of making us invested in the story. So in conclusion: the side character of Peace Walker, is a major disappointment.
Phantom Pain, to be fair, is an improvement when it comes to character design and actually made me more invested in the story. First of all: we get to see familiar faces as we met an older Ocelot, which in turn is not only an ally but also works as an mentor for Venom Snake...in the after credits they even throw in a moment that makes him a shape shifter. Kazuhira also shows up, also as a mentor, an ally and a shape shifter. Even Huey finally gets a more interesting mix, while being a ally, a shape shifter and a shadow. But sadly, from there on I was only disappointed. The femme fatale sniper, Quiet, may be an ally and a shape shifter but sadly she seems to be more of an eye candy than purposely created to push the story further in a interesting direction. Sure her shape shifting plays a part, but could as well been made by someone else, as she has a lack of connection with Venom Snake to make her part essential to the story. Code talker, again, had potential as a mentor and an ally, but played little part in the story other than exposition. He didn't bring any emotion to the story. And sadly...other than that the fact there aren't any side characters even worth mentioning, the ones who are left only play their archetype and ad nothing more to the table.
Peace Walker, in my opinion, lacks character archetypes that are portrayed interestingly. Closest thing would be Paz and Zadornov, as they both work as allies, shape shifters and shadows as the story progress. However, they don't appear in the game that much and sadly both of them lack enough character traits to make them interesting (more on "traits" later on). Moreover the focus of the plot seems to be more between Big Boss and the AI of The Boss, which in my opinion sounds great on paper...but was a wasted potential. The AI only share fragments of the characteristics of The Boss, and don't even connect with him. There is simply no chemistry to make me invest in the story (frankly, even Boss seems to be as disappointed as I am that the mentor/mother-figure he loved is just a computer now). Other than that, the rest of the characters may be archetypes needed in a good story but they aren't used that well: Hot Coldman serves only as a shadow, Chico is merely an ally, Huey is also just an ally, Cecile is simply an ally...and so forth. Some play their part in a bigger role, others simply show up and are never seen again; thus making them completely pointless for the story. I'm not going to act like there weren't any pointless characters in the earlier installments, but they at least didn't take up that much space and/or got in the way of making us invested in the story. So in conclusion: the side character of Peace Walker, is a major disappointment.
Phantom Pain, to be fair, is an improvement when it comes to character design and actually made me more invested in the story. First of all: we get to see familiar faces as we met an older Ocelot, which in turn is not only an ally but also works as an mentor for Venom Snake...in the after credits they even throw in a moment that makes him a shape shifter. Kazuhira also shows up, also as a mentor, an ally and a shape shifter. Even Huey finally gets a more interesting mix, while being a ally, a shape shifter and a shadow. But sadly, from there on I was only disappointed. The femme fatale sniper, Quiet, may be an ally and a shape shifter but sadly she seems to be more of an eye candy than purposely created to push the story further in a interesting direction. Sure her shape shifting plays a part, but could as well been made by someone else, as she has a lack of connection with Venom Snake to make her part essential to the story. Code talker, again, had potential as a mentor and an ally, but played little part in the story other than exposition. He didn't bring any emotion to the story. And sadly...other than that the fact there aren't any side characters even worth mentioning, the ones who are left only play their archetype and ad nothing more to the table.
I have now
presented archetypes and concluded that the lack of good archetypes/potential
mixes is one of the things bringing down the characters of Peace Walker and
Phantom Pain. However that isn't the only thing bringing down the characters,
as while we discuss the villains of the franchise we need to discuss character
traits and how to use them.
The villains
– The importance of traits
In his book,
"Creating emotion in games" (2003), David Freeman discusses in one
chapter the importance of making characters interesting and making them more
than what their archetype is. To make a major NPC interesting, he creates
something called a "character diamond" (Freeman, 2003, page 46). He
explains further that it's always good to try to give your character at least
four different traits, one for each corner of the diamond. A example of a
diamond would look something like this:
These traits work as major facets of the characters personality and guides his/her actions plus how they speak, except for appropriate emotions depending on the situation (Example: being betrayed makes him/her angry, even if the anger is not one of the core traits). It's important to see this diamond as a form of blueprint for the character, since these traits are in fact what make a character interesting! Also important to note: That a major NPC can have 3 or 5 traits to be interesting, but no less (it makes them one dimensional) or more (makes them too complex). Just remember: the traits must govern how the character sees the world, how she/he thinks, speaks and acts.
If we look at all of the earlier Metal Gear Solid games, there are a bunch of bosses with distinct personalities and traits. Let's look at one of the classic bosses from the franchise: Psycho Mantis.
How would his potential character diamond look like? Something like this:
1. Telepathic (can read minds, move objects with his mind)
2. Sadistic (couldn't help to toy with Meryl before the fight)
3. Breaks the fourth wall (Checking memory card, knows there is a controller)
4. Burdened with a tragic past (his father hated him, village burned down)
If we were
to discuss a villain from the same game, we would have to look at Liquid Snake's
traits:
1. High level of intelligence (speaks several languages, has incredible knowledge of genetics)
2. War veteran (Served in the Gulf War, so he got plenty of experience)
3. Aware of his mortality (seeks the genes of Big Boss to improve his own genes and wants a cure to "fox-die")
4. Follows his "genetic identity" (aka, he believes he can be nothing but a soldier and a succesor to Big Boss).
Not only are these traits used properly as we see them whenever Liquid confronts Snake, but they are also traits that can be shown in many different ways (which Kojima does successfully in several moments in the game). Another good example of a villain would be if we look into Gene, the villain of Portable Ops:
1. Underwent experiments (enhanced speed, strength and charisma)
2. Manipulative (only cares about his ambition, makes soldier kills each other for show)
3. Misanthropic (looks down on human life, only sees the world/humankind for its violent tendencies)
4. Ambitious (wants to create a nation for/by soldiers, to control history)
1. High level of intelligence (speaks several languages, has incredible knowledge of genetics)
2. War veteran (Served in the Gulf War, so he got plenty of experience)
3. Aware of his mortality (seeks the genes of Big Boss to improve his own genes and wants a cure to "fox-die")
4. Follows his "genetic identity" (aka, he believes he can be nothing but a soldier and a succesor to Big Boss).
Not only are these traits used properly as we see them whenever Liquid confronts Snake, but they are also traits that can be shown in many different ways (which Kojima does successfully in several moments in the game). Another good example of a villain would be if we look into Gene, the villain of Portable Ops:
1. Underwent experiments (enhanced speed, strength and charisma)
2. Manipulative (only cares about his ambition, makes soldier kills each other for show)
3. Misanthropic (looks down on human life, only sees the world/humankind for its violent tendencies)
4. Ambitious (wants to create a nation for/by soldiers, to control history)
I could go
on with more characters from earlier games in the franchise, but you get my
point. Now it's time to discuss the traits of some of the bosses and villains
of Peace Walker and Phantom Pain.
Peace Walker, first of all, has a lack of human bosses: tanks, metal gear, shagohod, Helicopters etc can't have traits and makes no connection with the player. Considering the bosses in earlier games, this is a huge let down as every game before had several memorable characters Snake fought. However there are villains we can discuss; Hot Coldman for instance, has a diamond like this:
1. Cunning (as he was involved in plans that came to be Snake Eater)
2. Believes in nuclear deterrence (Believes that only with nukes, there can be peace)
3. Devoted to his project (willing to harm/kill those that stand in his way)
This character sure has potential and his two first traits could've been explored more throughout the game, but sadly we barely see Hot Coldman most of the game. His character could've gained more with some more clashes with the protagonists’ ideals (more in this later when I discuss "polarity"). As we said earlier, a character with only 3 traits can be interesting but sadly those 3 traits are not used properly in this narrative.
Phantom Pain suffers from the same problems: even if Quiet shows up as a boss, she's the only character that acts as a boss, since the other "bosses" are once again either elite soldiers or vehicles/robots. But how would Quiets diamond look like? Something like this:
Peace Walker, first of all, has a lack of human bosses: tanks, metal gear, shagohod, Helicopters etc can't have traits and makes no connection with the player. Considering the bosses in earlier games, this is a huge let down as every game before had several memorable characters Snake fought. However there are villains we can discuss; Hot Coldman for instance, has a diamond like this:
1. Cunning (as he was involved in plans that came to be Snake Eater)
2. Believes in nuclear deterrence (Believes that only with nukes, there can be peace)
3. Devoted to his project (willing to harm/kill those that stand in his way)
This character sure has potential and his two first traits could've been explored more throughout the game, but sadly we barely see Hot Coldman most of the game. His character could've gained more with some more clashes with the protagonists’ ideals (more in this later when I discuss "polarity"). As we said earlier, a character with only 3 traits can be interesting but sadly those 3 traits are not used properly in this narrative.
Phantom Pain suffers from the same problems: even if Quiet shows up as a boss, she's the only character that acts as a boss, since the other "bosses" are once again either elite soldiers or vehicles/robots. But how would Quiets diamond look like? Something like this:
1. Barely talks (hence the name, plus whenever she speaks it spreads a lethal virus)
2. Skilled sniper
3. photosynthetic (gets her energy by absorbing sunlight and drink rain trough her skin)
The photosynthetic aspect sounds more interesting on paper than it actually is, since they compare her powers to another boss called "The End", that was also photosynthetic. But by comparing her to an old man that is heavily clothed, it becomes very clear that the most interesting trait she has is used solely as fan-service, and other than that they never mention that trait again. Besides, The End was interesting because the photosynthetic part was just a small detail. His whole diamond is:
1. Over 100 years old (an age which brings experience, skill and wisdom)
2. Skilled sniper (called "the father of sniping")
3. Photosynthetic
4. Connected to the nature (could control and speak with the forest)
Not only are all of these traits very interesting on their own, they also make great combinations with each other and are used fully in the boss fight...making it one of the most memorable fights in the MGS-franchise! With the right combinations, even a simple trait as "skilled sniper" can become MUCH more interesting. Anyways, let's get back to Phantom Pain and finish this chapter off by discussing Skull face and his traits:
1. Skilled assassin (managed to kill historical leaders and make it look like natural causes)
2. Brilliant strategist (lures Venom Snake again and again into his traps)
3. Victim of war (allied bombing gave him his hideous scars and seeks revenge for his loss of cultural identity from occupation)
These traits
are in fact interesting, the last one specifically serves as a motivation for
his goals to end English culture to dominate most of human civilization, and
thus reverting different cultures to their original languages. This makes him
into a villain with both philosophical and cultural ideals, something you
rarely see! But sadly, the first trait is only used as back story, and once
again we don't see enough of him to see his ideals work against that of Venom
Snakes ideals. There is a lot to talk about in his back story but we don't see
him take enough action to make him interesting as a main villain. I will give
you this: he would've been a really good side character, maybe even on the
level of Revolver Ocelot! But not interesting enough to be the antagonist.
As you can see, the two latest games offer little in the character department even if there are some small exceptions like Skull Face. Yet we're far from done as there is one more major thing left to discuss: the stories these games offer us.
As you can see, the two latest games offer little in the character department even if there are some small exceptions like Skull Face. Yet we're far from done as there is one more major thing left to discuss: the stories these games offer us.
Part 2: The story
As you noticed in the earlier chapter, I mentioned that traits are only as good as you allow them to be and it requires a good story/narrative to make the most of them. For example: it would not be interesting to see a killer clown (1. psychopathic, 2. Skilled juggler, 3. tragic back story and 4. Immortal) in a game set in WW4, on a battlefield on the moon, as the traits serve little purpose in the setting and will not do much in working with other characters. And how does a story about WW4 affect this killer clown, what will happen after all the challenges? Is there any polarity to make things more interesting? It's time to discuss how the components of a good story have played out in the earlier games of the franchise and how they add up in the two later prequels.
Character
Arc
According to Christopher Vogler, a character arc is a term used to describe the gradual stages of change in a character (The Writer’s Journey, page 205). There is one important thing a good story is supposed to bring: change. What would Star Wars be if Luke didn't get in touch with the force? What would Blade Runner be if Deckard didn't understand the authenticity of replicant life? Sure, it would probably still be entertaining in a visual or action-packed way, but not as interesting or even important to us, since whenever a character goes through an important/rough/epic ordeal...there is bound to be change. That is, if the story is done well.
Sure, I'm not going to act like the earlier games executed Snake's character arc perfectly as there could be more stages of development. Video games do have a long way to go when it comes to storytelling. However, you could definitely identify a character arc in the earlier MGS games!
Metal Gear Solid 3 for an example: we first get to know Naked Snake as a skilled yet politically naive soldier who believes his country works for what is the greater good. He shows great loyalty to his superiors. Through the course of the game he starts to question the government as he's ordered to kill his mentor/mother figure, The Boss. In the end he succeeds in his mission, and with it becomes Big Boss, but gets to learn how she only died because she stayed loyal to a government that simply didn't value her life after all the sacrifices she had done in the past.
Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops takes another step in Big Boss' character arc: still questioning his government, Big Boss retired but is pulled into a terrorist conflict that could launch the world into a nuclear war. During the course of the game, he takes control of his own military unit and fights, not only for the world, but also his brothers in arms. He learns that, once again, his government has tried to use this terrorist conflict for their own purposes and gets the offer to join them. This time, he finally learns that his loyalty doesn't have to be with any world government, instead he decides to be loyal to himself and not live the life his old mentor did.
According to Christopher Vogler, a character arc is a term used to describe the gradual stages of change in a character (The Writer’s Journey, page 205). There is one important thing a good story is supposed to bring: change. What would Star Wars be if Luke didn't get in touch with the force? What would Blade Runner be if Deckard didn't understand the authenticity of replicant life? Sure, it would probably still be entertaining in a visual or action-packed way, but not as interesting or even important to us, since whenever a character goes through an important/rough/epic ordeal...there is bound to be change. That is, if the story is done well.
Sure, I'm not going to act like the earlier games executed Snake's character arc perfectly as there could be more stages of development. Video games do have a long way to go when it comes to storytelling. However, you could definitely identify a character arc in the earlier MGS games!
Metal Gear Solid 3 for an example: we first get to know Naked Snake as a skilled yet politically naive soldier who believes his country works for what is the greater good. He shows great loyalty to his superiors. Through the course of the game he starts to question the government as he's ordered to kill his mentor/mother figure, The Boss. In the end he succeeds in his mission, and with it becomes Big Boss, but gets to learn how she only died because she stayed loyal to a government that simply didn't value her life after all the sacrifices she had done in the past.
Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops takes another step in Big Boss' character arc: still questioning his government, Big Boss retired but is pulled into a terrorist conflict that could launch the world into a nuclear war. During the course of the game, he takes control of his own military unit and fights, not only for the world, but also his brothers in arms. He learns that, once again, his government has tried to use this terrorist conflict for their own purposes and gets the offer to join them. This time, he finally learns that his loyalty doesn't have to be with any world government, instead he decides to be loyal to himself and not live the life his old mentor did.
(These two
examples were important to make, since these stories make for excellent
examples of how to use polarity in your story. More on that soon)
Polarity
According to Vogler, a story needs a single theme (a spine) to unite it all into a coherent work (The Writer’s Journey, page 315). However it also needs a two-ness, a dimension of duality to create and make room for potential progression/action. There are several examples: a simple one would be if the hero wants to save the world there must be someone who wants to destroy it. A more complex one discusses different positions in the society, like the underdog Rocky gets the chance to fight the heavy weight champion Apollo Creed. It's not by any means necessary to have two polarities struggle against each other to make a good story, but many times it has helped to make a story more interesting. You can find polarity in the earlier Metal Gear Solid titles, especially in the two first prequels!
Metal Gear Solid 3: Naked Snake and the Boss serve as polarities in many ways. To name two examples: one is a tired veteran that has started to question her loyalties while the other wouldn't dare to question his government and one has been named "the mother of our special forces" while the other is a product of her legacy. Although these examples may not be the most interesting, they sure serve as passable polarities and helps makes the story more interesting.
Portable
Ops probably
even brings an even more interesting polarity between Big Boss and Gene: one is
an authorian leader while the other is a more democratic leader. Why this
single example makes it more interesting than the polarities of the earlier
game, is that we truly explore this throughout out the game: While Big Boss
cares for his comrades and gets recruits with his idealistic charisma, Gene
uses his enhanced abilities to gather troops to his cause...and he gladly kills
them to obtain his goals or to simply demonstrate his power. Gene even presents
his plans of creating a nation for soldiers and gives Big Boss an offer to join
his cause....with Boss refusing, citing that Gene has "phony ideals",
and believes an nation for soldiers should give more freedom and respect to its
recruits. Thanks to the polarity and how it's used, the character arc of Big
Boss becomes much more interesting and the plot itself serves as an explanation
of how he later would make such a mark on history and get so many followers
(more on this later on in the chapter "Purpose").
And now we come to the later prequel games.
Peace Walker, has no polarity worth mentioning. There is no clash on polarizing ideologies or characters that are connected/similar but have turned out in two different ways....as Hot Coldmans ideology barely has any impact on Big Boss' character arc and there aren't any similarities between them that make us question what makes them alike. Again, there could've been some polarity worth mentioning between Boss and Big Boss (Man/machine) but again: AI Boss is just shoved sideways most of the plot. It's plain and simple: one wants to nuke the world, while our hero doesn't (which doesn't make sense as he later on would threaten the world with nukes). We have seen this before in the Metal Gear Saga, but at least there was something more to the story of each game (identity, loyalty, leadership etc).
Phantom Pain, does actually have SOME polarity thanks to Skull Face. As both Skull Face and "Big Boss" (I know, I'll get to it) are highly skilled soldiers that have affected the course of history incredibly. But while one of them has been hailed as a legendary soldier and inspired soldiers all over the world, the other has stayed in the shadows and only been known to his superiors/grunts. In other words: in some ways, you could argue Skull Face is an underdog, and in other narratives he could've been the hero (like Rocky). However, 2 things stop this polarity from becoming interesting:
1. As mentioned before, there is a lack of interaction between these two characters
2. ..."Big Boss" is actually Venom Snake, an impostor revealed at the end, making the polarity in theory non existing.
It isn't easy to create an interesting polarity that matches the theme of the story. However, one should still try go beyond "destroyer and savior of the world" since polarity is a great way to properly explore themes or craft excellent character arcs. Speaking of themes, time to discuss how the earlier games used settings with the story’s theme!
And now we come to the later prequel games.
Peace Walker, has no polarity worth mentioning. There is no clash on polarizing ideologies or characters that are connected/similar but have turned out in two different ways....as Hot Coldmans ideology barely has any impact on Big Boss' character arc and there aren't any similarities between them that make us question what makes them alike. Again, there could've been some polarity worth mentioning between Boss and Big Boss (Man/machine) but again: AI Boss is just shoved sideways most of the plot. It's plain and simple: one wants to nuke the world, while our hero doesn't (which doesn't make sense as he later on would threaten the world with nukes). We have seen this before in the Metal Gear Saga, but at least there was something more to the story of each game (identity, loyalty, leadership etc).
Phantom Pain, does actually have SOME polarity thanks to Skull Face. As both Skull Face and "Big Boss" (I know, I'll get to it) are highly skilled soldiers that have affected the course of history incredibly. But while one of them has been hailed as a legendary soldier and inspired soldiers all over the world, the other has stayed in the shadows and only been known to his superiors/grunts. In other words: in some ways, you could argue Skull Face is an underdog, and in other narratives he could've been the hero (like Rocky). However, 2 things stop this polarity from becoming interesting:
1. As mentioned before, there is a lack of interaction between these two characters
2. ..."Big Boss" is actually Venom Snake, an impostor revealed at the end, making the polarity in theory non existing.
It isn't easy to create an interesting polarity that matches the theme of the story. However, one should still try go beyond "destroyer and savior of the world" since polarity is a great way to properly explore themes or craft excellent character arcs. Speaking of themes, time to discuss how the earlier games used settings with the story’s theme!
Setting
and themes
To make the themes fit better with the story, one should consider using the right setting to make the themes more relevant to the protagonist. Look at Blade Runner for an example: one of the themes in this movie is examining humanity. Therefore, setting a story in the future where technology has come to great lengths to create artificial life, makes the question "what makes one human" more interesting. Sure we could set it in today’s society or in a fantasy environment; however it's still more interesting to see how our own technology will, in the future, make humans look more into themselves. Will we hate it? Will we change? Let the audience think about it (because dear god, more movies need to make us think).
To make the themes fit better with the story, one should consider using the right setting to make the themes more relevant to the protagonist. Look at Blade Runner for an example: one of the themes in this movie is examining humanity. Therefore, setting a story in the future where technology has come to great lengths to create artificial life, makes the question "what makes one human" more interesting. Sure we could set it in today’s society or in a fantasy environment; however it's still more interesting to see how our own technology will, in the future, make humans look more into themselves. Will we hate it? Will we change? Let the audience think about it (because dear god, more movies need to make us think).
Metal
Gear Solid 3
deals with themes of loyalty, a soldier’s duty and how politics’ changing
nature means that there will never be such a thing as an "eternal
enemy". These themes fits very
well with the Cold War: an era defined by drastic political change, soldiers
sacrificed and forgotten in covert ops, a world split in two and how many
scientists, soldiers and civilians betray their countries and defect. In other
words: a whole world in a long and dramatic identity crisis....and Big Boss
gets to experience it on a personal level.
Most of these themes are carried over to Portable Ops, but this time it's set during the later stages of the Cold War: a time when America and the Soviet tried to slow down the arms race; people would see that the cold war would not last much longer but also wonder what awaits them if the war actually ends. In other words, a new era was about to begin and the conflict between Big Boss and Gene serve as a form of allegory of this new beginning: no longer would one choose between "east" or "west", but follow a new and true calling. Hence the themes and the setting play of each other very well.
Peace Walker, honestly, uses its setting pretty well. It does incorporate the theme of nuclear deterrence and mentions how ironically nuclear warheads are in fact the reason the world is at "peace" in the Cold War. There are discussions between the characters of how this rivalry between the US and the USSR affect even small countries, like Nicaragua, and in some ways likens the effect Big Boss has on the local guerilla with Che Guevara. The only problem I actually have with the games themes and setting is that it should've been used before the setting and themes of Portable Ops. It feels messy to have a game discussing the end of the Cold War and how it would affect the soldiers, then to have the next game discuss nuclear deterrence and the effects the foreign politics the super power has on the third world. If it were switched around, I would actually say Peace Walker used its themes and setting very well!
Phantom Pain, however, never mentions or discusses the setting or uses it to explore the themes of the story. In fact, could’ve might as well have been played after the Cold War and would still look pretty much the same. There are soviet soldiers present, but it was never discussed how they affect the local population, or how the soldiers themselves see their future in Afghanistan. It could might as well have been soldiers of the Mujahedeen or any other tribal militia. Same thing applies when Big Boss goes to South America and Africa: no actual discussions are presented about the actual settings; they are just simply road blocks to progress the story. Even Skull Face's goals doesn't necessarily fit the Cold War...in fact, it would probably be more interesting to see him tackle native languages and nationality after the Cold War, since it was then nationalism flourished, and once again different ethnic groups would struggle for dominance. In short, the setting is there....but never properly used.
And before
we go to the final part of "Plot", I must address: it's not needed to
fully use the setting to make a good story. However once you made a game that
did so; you are more or less obliged to continue to do so with its sequels.
And now for the last part, "purpose"
And now for the last part, "purpose"
Purpose
This is the main reason I decided to write this essay. This is for me the primary reason that the later prequel games of the franchise are the weakest from a story perspective.
This is the main reason I decided to write this essay. This is for me the primary reason that the later prequel games of the franchise are the weakest from a story perspective.
I remember
way back, when I listened to Doug Walkers review of Star Wars Episode 2:the attack of the Clones. After going through the flaws of the
film, he finishes of with mentioning something his brother said: "What's
the point of this film and the last one?", in which he meant that you
could might as well skip Episode 1 and 2 to go directly to Episode 3 to
understand the backstory of Darth Vader and even how the Emperor took control
of the whole galaxy. The two first episodes simply had no purpose
to the actual story, they only brought up small details that we could've picked
up with Episode 3.
It was then
that I realized the same thing goes for the Metal Gear Solid Franchise: the
story of Big Boss could've...no, should
have ended with Portable Ops.
Since the story of Metal Gear Solid 3 has the purpose of telling us from where the legendary soldier Big Boss came from, where he got his skills and what made him start questioning the government he fought for so long; It even bring more light to the origins of the illuminati-esque organization called "The Philosophers" and what their goals were. While Portable Ops even play a bigger part: the origins of Foxhound comes to light, we finally understand what makes Big Boss completely break of from his government and where he got the funds that laid the foundations of "Outer Heaven". We finally get to meet Frank Jaeger and we get to witness the end of the Philosophers and the beginning of The Patriots. Both of these prequels gave us the most important parts of Big Boss' past and the rest was explained in Metal Gear Solid 4.
Peace Walker and Phantom Pain are on the other hand redundant story wise. We know why Big Boss would break from any form of organization/government, we already know how he could create his nation of soldiers, we already know he and Zero would stay rivals until death....there is, in other words, nothing of importance presented in these prequels. Closest thing would be the Venom Snake-twist, which in my opinion we could do without. So to completely understand Big Boss' origin, his character arc and how he founded Outer Heaven, you just need to play the two first prequels.
One would probably think "So it's in other words fan service...but isn't that a good thing?", which I would reply: yes, it's clearly meant to be fan service for the MGS-fandom...but sadly it's not good fan service. Proper fan service would've given us something that longtime fans of the franchise would enjoy; I will later on present better examples of fan service in the chapter "What it could've been".
So this is it, nothing more to write about? Nope, got time for the last stretch.
Since the story of Metal Gear Solid 3 has the purpose of telling us from where the legendary soldier Big Boss came from, where he got his skills and what made him start questioning the government he fought for so long; It even bring more light to the origins of the illuminati-esque organization called "The Philosophers" and what their goals were. While Portable Ops even play a bigger part: the origins of Foxhound comes to light, we finally understand what makes Big Boss completely break of from his government and where he got the funds that laid the foundations of "Outer Heaven". We finally get to meet Frank Jaeger and we get to witness the end of the Philosophers and the beginning of The Patriots. Both of these prequels gave us the most important parts of Big Boss' past and the rest was explained in Metal Gear Solid 4.
Peace Walker and Phantom Pain are on the other hand redundant story wise. We know why Big Boss would break from any form of organization/government, we already know how he could create his nation of soldiers, we already know he and Zero would stay rivals until death....there is, in other words, nothing of importance presented in these prequels. Closest thing would be the Venom Snake-twist, which in my opinion we could do without. So to completely understand Big Boss' origin, his character arc and how he founded Outer Heaven, you just need to play the two first prequels.
One would probably think "So it's in other words fan service...but isn't that a good thing?", which I would reply: yes, it's clearly meant to be fan service for the MGS-fandom...but sadly it's not good fan service. Proper fan service would've given us something that longtime fans of the franchise would enjoy; I will later on present better examples of fan service in the chapter "What it could've been".
So this is it, nothing more to write about? Nope, got time for the last stretch.
Part 3: Other topics and Conclusion
I have now covered characters and story, but still, I can't finish of this essay like this. Not only because it would be an abrupt ending (like Phantom Pain had), but I feel like there are some other details and disclaimers left to mention to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings!
I have now covered characters and story, but still, I can't finish of this essay like this. Not only because it would be an abrupt ending (like Phantom Pain had), but I feel like there are some other details and disclaimers left to mention to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings!
Storytelling – cassette tapes and why they should be banned
"But Stendhal! There is more to the characters than you have written in this essay! If you go into the pause menu and play the cassette tapes you learn more of them!"
Yes, that is actually correct! You get more character traits and more back story if you take your time and listen to the endless amount of cassette tapes. That's why you play a game right? To pause the gameplay, click through all the cassettes to get some exposition and extra details on the characters and the setting of the world?! ...I would not agree.
I remember when I played Final Fantasy XIII, and was so incredibly disappointed that I actually had to pause the game and read up some of the history of the world to actually understand what happened after just a couple of minutes of story.
 |
| Two games, one flaw |
Look at earlier Final Fantasy games, like Final Fantasy IX: sure there was exposition but it was in game, there were events and incidents the player had to go through that gave us insight of the worlds and societies that exists, and most of all: the story took it's time to discuss deeper themes until we got to know the characters properly, like any great narrative has (Lord of the Rings, for instance). If the story writers of Final Fantasy XIII insisted to put so much text in the game, they could have as well written a book instead of designing a game.
So; even if there would be details in the cassette tapes that makes the setting more relevant or characters more interesting...it is a grave error to the storytelling in video games if I have to interrupt the gameplay to actually understand what the game wants to say. Correct story design should make use of the gameplay to tell the story.
 |
| An example to follow |
What it could've been
I mentioned earlier that if the later prequels are meant to be seen as fan service, they could've been done better.
I believe one thing they could've done: have one or two games where the focus of the story is not on Big Boss. His most important character arc and backstory has already been explored, and even if there would be more to learn, it wouldn't be necessary to make him the protagonist of the game. A side character, like mentor or ally, perhaps, but not main character. "But if not Big Boss, who?".
One idea would be if the game was still a tactical espionage game as Peace Walker/Phantom Pain; in other words, same gameplay and same interface, but instead of Big Boss going into these missions, it's one of the most loyal soldiers that ever served under him: Frank Jaeger, aka Grey Fox
Not only does he have interesting traits, but he is also biogenetically enhanced and skilled so he would work well as a power fantasy protagonist. Moreover it would be interesting to see his character arc: how did this soldier, with lack of any identity or sense of belonging in this world, come to be so close to Big Boss that he would betray his closest friend, Solid Snake? This also opens up so many paths story wise: we finally get to see firsthand how he would adopt Naomi as his sister after killing her parents, how his battle style differs from when he becomes a cyborg in the early 2005, his first encounter with Solid Snake....just one of these things could work well for a game! And what about side missions, how about he gets to meet future members of Foxhound on the battlefield, like Sniper Wolf? Or what if Sniper Wolf is a playable character...or a main character in the sequel?
I could go on, but what I'm trying to say is that at the end of Portable Ops: Big Boss had nothing more of interest, his backstory was finished. If Kojima focused on a character connected to Big Boss, it could've become something more interesting.
And now,
it's time to wrap up this essay.
Conclusion: Hideo Kojima
Phew, it's been a long read...hasn't it? Sure, there were a lot of negative things as I had to make an honest and critical study of the two later games. From a storytelling standpoint...they aren't simply that good. If you enjoyed the games, keep enjoying them and don't let me take that from you! I wanted to present why I didn't enjoy Peace Walker/Phantom Pain as much as the earlier games. I still love the Metal Gear Solid Franchise and have a tremendous respect for Hideo Kojima.
Phew, it's been a long read...hasn't it? Sure, there were a lot of negative things as I had to make an honest and critical study of the two later games. From a storytelling standpoint...they aren't simply that good. If you enjoyed the games, keep enjoying them and don't let me take that from you! I wanted to present why I didn't enjoy Peace Walker/Phantom Pain as much as the earlier games. I still love the Metal Gear Solid Franchise and have a tremendous respect for Hideo Kojima.
Might sound weird to say after writing a 6 000+ essay critically reviewing his two latest works in the franchise, but here are my two reason this particular game designer is still an inspiration to me:
1. Konami: Hideo Kojima knew himself that one day, he would run out of ideas and wouldn't be able to keep the story and characters as fresh as in the first games. That's why he actually tried to leave the franchise behind and get into new projects. In fact, at first, Metal Gear Solid 3 was supposedto be his last game. However, he agreed to also work on Metal Gear Solid 4 because his fans begged him to (some even sent death threats!). This he agreed to do as he could finally tie the knot and end the story for Solid Snake, which he did brilliantly. That was supposed to be the end of his involvement with Metal Gear Solid. However Konami wanted the franchise to continue and he was forced to continue to work on Peace Walker and Phantom Pain. You recall how I discussed that Peace Walker/Phantom Pain were kind of similar to Star Wars Episode I/II, that the story served little purpose? Well, here the main difference is that not only are the games stories more competent, but also Kojima, unlike Lucas, had to make the story under pressure and didn't want to be any part of it to begin with. George Lucas on the other hand...had all the motivation, resources, tons of Yes-men etc., and STILL made two widely criticized movies. One cannot help to still admire that Kojima could make the products he did under the circumstances. Any other game designer might have given us games barely playable! Even if they don't hold up to the earlier games, there were at least some characters, ideas and designs that had something going for it. Therefore, I still hold lots of respect for this game designer and can't wait to see what games he will cook up next.
2. The franchise itself: Whenever I talked about the flaws of Peace Walker/Phantom Pain, I kept on going back to the brilliance of the earlier entries of the franchise. How memorable the characters were, how the stories made a much bigger impact on you, how the settings were used exceptionally...I always came back to those games and realized more and more how well made they are. Sure, the storytelling is dated and now new games like The Last of US’s gives us better examples how games can tell stories in a more pleasant way. But writing this essay made me realize what a big leap forward Metal Gear Solid took story design back in the day, how it inspired so many game designers (including me) to make games and to create stories and worlds that no one has experienced before. I could write another essay that mentions all the reasons this franchise is amazing and has struck a chord with millions of gamers all over the world, I could discuss anything: the themes, the characters, the mechanical designs, the philosophies, the story and even the movies that inspired every detail of the games! However, I don't think that's going to happen. First of all, it would be much longer than this essay, and it would take too much time to write, considering I got other essays to write and cosplaying to do. Second of all...or most of all: many of you that have read this essay already know how amazing this franchise is, maybe even been affected by it. I can then imagine you already have an impression worth writing about, bring your own perspective to it all! Heck, maybe even write an essay to respond to this essay? Or maybe an entirely independent essay that talks about the graphical aspects, and how they inspired you? Or all the movie references film buffs would love? To anyone of you that wants to give us your perspective, new perspectives...please, do it. I don't think it's enough to just buy the games to truly enjoy them: I think we should analyze them, discuss them and make something out of the enjoyment you've felt!
 |
| Some write texts of what they enjoy while others make costumes...I do both! |
Creating something is the best way to, not only show your love or passion, but to also broaden our horizon for others whether it is trough with ideas, memories or inspiration. Hideo Kojima did it for me, and very likely for all of you reading this essay.
Reference list
Vogler, C. (1998). The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Third
Edition. Michigan: Sheridan Books
Freeman, D. (2003). Creating Emotion in Games. San Francisco: New Riders.
