Mikami "I Probably Won't Play Biohazard 5"

[A-J]

having a camera follow around hideo kojima on a day to day basis would be fun for a while ...

[Biohazard EX]

Oh... Maybe they should do to Mikami what Mikami did to Resident Evil. Have the camera constantly be behind his shoulder, no matter what he does.

[Skunky]

I still think he just means he'll get irked everytime he plays a bit he'd have done differently.
I can see Miakmi's point. It must be hard to develope something and then see someone else take it from where you left it but differently to how you would have done it.

Exactly, Darkmoon.
There's so much over-reaction and misinterpretation in this thread.
I can understand where he's coming from. And since he's not actually played the game, he's not really in a position to criticize it anyway. He's just saying he dosn't really want to see it.

It's a bit like seeing an ex-girlfriend kissing another dude. She's no longer your girlfriend so it shouldn't matter but it does... It's just something you'd rather not see.

[Member_of_STARS]

Disagree.
Gameplay is usually defined as the interaction between player and game. A cutscene/narrative where the only form for "interaction" present is that of either pressing O to skip to the next line of dialog or SELECT(?) to skip the entire scene. That is hardly what I would qualify as any type of gameplay or actual even find mention worthy interaction.

The MGS franchise is much more heavy on narrative than actual gameplay, as long as you're not counting either your replay time or an inhuman amount of failure (usually only brought upon you through playing on a difficulty level of way higher than what your skills as a gamer really are capable of).

Unfortunately, the fact that this narrative has such high production values and over the top "taking itself too seriously" factor has made people give it a bit too much praise for the wrong reasons. ('cause quite frankly, the story/narrative is mostly just a piece of shallow garbage. Kojima's "stand alone" games are usually the ones that are good. Not only because they usually rip off so many elements from other people's intellectual property in such a way that Rainy Woods looks like pure original content, but also because there are usually some sort of fresh idea or clever adaption tossed into it).

If you truly think Metal Gear Solid 3-4 are really "that f-ing great" in terms of both narrative and game design, you might want to expand your horizon on the game and narrative front. At least if you want to be proven wrong, and evt. possibly realize that your "opinion" on the subject is most likely based solely on inexperience.

What? Inexperience? Youre the one trying to say that videogames should stay in the 80s where the pinnacle of gaming was Tetris. The majority of games nowadays offer an interactive movie like experience. If youre interested in button mashing solely, then how come youve been on RE boards for so long? It can hardly be discussions regarding how great it is to use 4 arrows and X to let the game autotarget zombies for you?

*Immersion*, does that mean anything to you?

'cause quite frankly, the story/narrative is mostly just a piece of shallow garbage. Kojima's "stand alone" games are usually the ones that are good. Not only because they usually rip off so many elements from other people's intellectual property in such a way that Rainy Woods looks like pure original content, but also because there are usually some sort of fresh idea or clever adaption tossed into it

Hahahaha! Now thats just a messload of pure bullsh!t. Are you the same kind of guy that goes to IMDB and votes 1 for Transformers because "its the worst movie ever"?

Jesus... What a dose of "elitism".

"Broaden your horizons." You must be joking.

-

Alzaire, thats an excellent perspective. But think about it this way. You can easily spot a terrible actor once you see how he plays the parts he doesnt like. Perhaps its the same with "artists" in the videogame industry?

[Carnivol]

Oh... Maybe they should do to Mikami what Mikami did to Resident Evil. Have the camera constantly be behind his shoulder, no matter what he does.

Suddenly you put the lives of a paparazzi chased celebrity in a new perspective to me.
I feel like I understand the invisible walls of gaming now

What? Inexperience? Youre the one trying to say that videogames should stay in the 80s where the pinnacle of gaming was Tetris. The majority of games nowadays offer an interactive movie like experience.

You might want to check out some Laserdisc games then, 'cause they offer about the same "movie like experience" with about the same amount of interactivity (sometimes even more "immersive", as they had a nice habbit of having death/game over scenes for most incorrect choices, instead of just slapping you in the face with the game over screen before you're even able to draw the conclusion that what you did might not have been such a clever choice).

The main difference between games of the 80s-90s and of today, is that they often heavily relied on gameplay and not narratives. And even the games with a heavy narrative had extra things butting in. Like how Origins games had storylines with multiple choices and plenty of freedom for the player to make choices even early on that'd play into effect as the story unfolded. Or how adventure games often had plenty of excellent humor tossed in and more modern games by vetarans, such as Tim Schafer, also come with fantastic gameplay (and not just the same old point and click interface that quite a lot of modern day FPS games now are so eager and excited about adopting).

If youre interested in button mashing solely, then how come youve been on RE boards for so long? It can hardly be discussions regarding how great it is to use 4 arrows and X to let the game autotarget zombies for you?

Button Mashing? (Did I ever say button mashing?)
Also, you forgot that you press R1 to aim.

*Immersion*, does that mean anything to you?

Certainly. But either you have a very simple mind (to be so easily "immersed") or you must have a totally different interpretation of the term in mind.

Hahahaha! Now thats just a messload of pure bullsh!t. Are you the same kind of guy that goes to IMDB and votes 1 for Transformers because "its the worst movie ever"?

I'm just quoting this to quote it.
If someone with a bit of insight in my movie habits wants to comment, I'll look forward to them doing so.

Alzaire, thats an excellent perspective. But think about it this way. You can easily spot a terrible actor once you see how he plays the parts he doesnt like. Perhaps its the same with "artists" in the videogame industry?

And here I thought that either meant just that the actor didn't like the job, didn't have the time (or adequate pay) to deliver a solid performance or just only works well for typecasting. Guess that means if you watch the original cut of Blade Runner, Harrison Ford is a pretty sucky actor. But if you watch it without the poorly delivered narrative, then he's a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid anything.

[Scott Green]

Who is this Mikami guy?

[Zombie Fred]

Mikami is the creator of Resident Evil, and the direction on 4 too.

[missvalentine]

is Jill still mikami's favorite character?

if she is maybe that's why he is so pissed about RE5 cause takeuchi might be killing her, i bet he wouldn't do that if he was making it.

[Member_of_STARS]

You might want to check out some Laserdisc games then, 'cause they offer about the same "movie like experience" with about the same amount of interactivity (sometimes even more "immersive", as they had a nice habbit of having death/game over scenes for most incorrect choices, instead of just slapping you in the face with the game over screen before you're even able to draw the conclusion that what you did might not have been such a clever choice).

I remember playing Congo, which you could say was somewhat similar concept. But those games lacked any form of proper gameplay that would utilize the hand-eye coordination of a player and relied on its puzzle setup. And while immersive back then, the videogame is more and more moving towards complete immersion in controlling the character with most of your senses (VR experience). This is why, with all the different hardware limited games you had in the 80s and 90s (even 70s), Tetris is one of the titles that stood out the most. Hand-eye coordination is not something one should ignore. Its the basis of fun. On the other end of the spectrum, there were you had the early Sierra Interactive games which concentrated solely on content, story, mystery. The inevitable result of those two is merging and what we see today.

You might not like it, but that doesnt mean a LOT of folks dont. The worlds most reknown titles today offer a complehensive story which gives the player a set of characters they actually care for, forming another layer of entertainment. That is where the immersion comes from. A clever button mashing game is not enough. You need a setting, location, reason and characters. Why do you think Tom Clancy novels sell like hot bunions (and subsequentally, the games), or HALO? Do you honestly think that its all hype around MGS? And what about the forgettability in RE4 past its only saving *****, the sub par gameplay which more experienced gamers ditch (obviously a cup of tea for the casual gamer)?

The main difference between games of the 80s-90s and of today, is that they often heavily relied on gameplay and not narratives. And even the games with a heavy narrative had extra things butting in. Like how Origins games had storylines with multiple choices and plenty of freedom for the player to make choices even early on that'd play into effect as the story unfolded. Or how adventure games often had plenty of excellent humor tossed in and more modern games by vetarans, such as Tim Schafer, also come with fantastic gameplay (and not just the same old point and click interface that quite a lot of modern day FPS games now are so eager and excited about adopting).

The games of 80s and 90s were limited by the media carrier and by the notion that the games in everyones home is pretty much an arcade machine brough to your house. Even in the 80s and 90s, you had quite a number of titles which were pretty much 100% story driven, an interactive movie, if you will. Youre describing a number of famous action titles but even today, all of the sequels to those (Doom comes to mind) have a comprehensive story. 3 lines in the game manual does not suffice.

Today, videogames are often seen as a form of escapism, and rightfully so. The two directions taken are community driven multiplayer option and a great cinematic experience. Both are not mutually exclusive and actually do not compete with one and other. So is it really honest to say that a cinematic game with cutscenes, likeable characters and a high immersion level from the setting and plot, is wrong? Hell no. Only if you are willing to disagree with your own self, to win an argument ;). Because really, why are you on a RE board if it isnt for the answers you seek from the story you experienced?

Button Mashing? (Did I ever say button mashing?)
Also, you forgot that you press R1 to aim.

1. Irony
2. R1 is insignificant since the point still stands, theres little hand-eye coordination needed in RE, the gameplay and experience does not come from maneuvering your character and taking out threats, it comes from the setting, gameplay elements unrelated to "shooting and scooting".

My point was ignored though. How can you enjoy RE for its gameplay, if its gameplay is so limited. Youre claiming that one does not need story, but RE obviously did because 3rd fixed perspective camera angles just do not offer that level of interactivity that even games of those times needed (Doom, Duke, even Wolf)

Certainly. But either you have a very simple mind (to be so easily "immersed") or you must have a totally different interpretation of the term in mind.

You dont have to have a simple mind to be easily immersed. In fact, this suggests that youre a two digit monkey yourself ;). Its the ignoramuses that have a hard time finding the plot to be immersive, those of us with a shred of imagination find it not to be that difficult.

I'm just quoting this to quote it.
If someone with a bit of insight in my movie habits wants to comment, I'll look forward to them doing so.

Meh. The point was that the nonsense you came up with to describe MGS plotline was the same kind of garbage that comes from the adolescent or immature folks that post on iMDB (biggest movie portal/site) when they try to justify that *any* summer blockbuster that racks up hundreds of millions, is worth 1 point out of 10 possible. They are basically trying to say that Michael Bay comes up with something worse than Uwe Boll (Im not a Bay fan).

Quite simply, you know MGS plot is detailed, well set up, but since you hate it, you dish it.

And here I thought that either meant just that the actor didn't like the job

What do *you* know about acting? An actor is a professional. He gets the job done. Just because the top AAA actors in Hollywood can *choose* their part to play *themselves* doesnt mean a lot of those folks spent their early years doing just that- acting parts they *didnt* like, *successfully*.

Catch the drift? In any form of professional creative field, you are often subject to delivering what the company asks you to. Its capitalism. You prove your talent and later, if you are good and successful enough, you can start doing the projects you want. Obviously Mikami had not proven himself in front of the CAPCOWs just yet.

Guess that means if you watch the original cut of Blade Runner, Harrison Ford is a pretty sucky actor. But if you watch it without the poorly delivered narrative, then he's a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid anything.

Narrative doesnt mean much. He was impressive on the screen in Blade Runner even in the first cut.

Even typecasting requires you to actually be good, unless were talking about Boll movies. Or those that end up below 4/10 in iMDB.

[randomwab]

Quite simply, you know MGS plot is detailed, well set up, but since you hate it, you dish it.

Well, no. It's detailed, but it's not set up well at all. Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, was a mess. The story was all over the place, and it pretty much attempted to retcon most of Metal Gear Solid 2. That's not what I call good set up.

[Member_of_STARS]

Well, no. It's detailed, but it's not set up well at all. Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, was a mess. The story was all over the place, and it pretty much attempted to retcon most of Metal Gear Solid 2. That's not what I call good set up.

How was it all over the place? It was set up in chapters, ditching the "One riot, one spartan" mentality but it wasnt all over the place. Snake chasing Liquid was the main theme and it followed it through well. It was deep, technical and detailed. The only retcon there was, was Vamps immortality and his ability to cling to surfaces but those werent retcons, those were explanations. Pretty much every villains abilities were explained anyway.

[Nomad9026]

Little late, but... Mikami won't play RE5, good for him! I don't care, I will.

[renvi]

who cares, its not like hes gonna make another RE

[HecRPD]

Mikami needs to come back and take his place as director of Resident Evil once again.
I think RE5 is gonna be better than 4.I personally don't like RE4.I own every other RE title except RE4.anyway Mikami is right.It's time for Resident Evil to reinvent itself.As a survival horror game.