Sooooo, only when a great amount of people support something will you agree with it? That's a weird way to live, but to each his/her own I suppose.
Edited:
And it's not obvious. At all. I thought the 15 part analysis kinda implied that.
Edited:
There are
god knows how many articles that come to the same conclusion, the latter link pretty much confirming everything discussed as the author conducted an interview with Kojima who pretty much said "yeah that's what happened." You can't look at all the evidence and just say "nah not enough people agree with it so it must not be true."
1) No I don't.
2) I was exaggerating.
3) Why not just present the latter link in the first place? It was the quote from Kojima I needed - despite that evidence I'm still a little dubious on the matter though.
I was able to present my ideas to Kojima, who confirmed that I am pretty much right about why he made Metal Gear Solid 2. His goal was, as he explained to me, “To make a videogame that told a story that could only be told in a videogame.” His first and foremost goal, he claims, was to “Use the medium,” which is, as he put it, “inherently postmodern.” The goal of the story the game sought to tell was to tell that story to the people of today, with no illusions of its surviving decades or centuries to leave an impact on a distant society. Even so, the gameplay, as he explains, becomes increasingly more challenging in such a way as to make the experience something round and fulfilling even to the player who skips all of the long, drawn-out dialogue sequences. The gameplay, says the man, was engaging merely because it could not be not engaging under his supervision.
The only quotes from Kojima are quite vague and I think the author might have been hearing what he wanted to hear, I still don't consider it solid evidence.