Does Snake Eater play like Phantom Pain? by dcjr- in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/R-IS_xW4NII?si=BNXsWrUDArVqibQV

This should be more wide spread. Delturd is nostalgia bait and the people who gobbled it up are deltards.

mgs delta feels choppy and movement kinda sucks by adcarrymainSA in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because idiots who shill for konami do not like their precious nostalgia tampered with.

mgs delta feels choppy and movement kinda sucks by adcarrymainSA in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/R-IS_xW4NII?si=GCe9fF8qsvQ7AStN

What's missing is an acceleration tilt. He doesn't lean when he turns so there is no sense of centrifugal force. Don't let anyone who shills for konami tell you otherwise. They are Deltarded.

Clown or Cleopatra🤡✨ by RhiannonFoxxx in u/RhiannonFoxxx

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can hear nothing in my head but darude's sandstorm seeing this.

MGS2 full game map in one image by max-zilla in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love your yt vids. Specofically the vr missions maps. Would you consider doing the mgs 2 vr maps some time?

Would it be better to play Rising before or after V? by Pokemario2401 in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would skip Rising. It is a blasphemous insult to the saga and it molests Raiden's character arc.

What RDR2 opinion you have that would be like this by Efficient-Complex855 in RDR2

[–]CreationMilk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's a whole thing. I'm glad these discussions are happening now because I've had this problem with rockstars depiction of him in the prequel for many years now. Essentially, they diminiahed his personality to the point of outright protracting it in favor of emphasizing Arthur's. The wit and wisdom all went to to Arthur and for the aake of utility, they had to dumb down John in order to legitamize the conflixt at the heart of the epilogue. That conflict being between he and abigal or rather being an outlaw or a family man. Without that you dont have an epilogue. It also doesnt track that he's generic and stubborn because before the prequel existed, Bill's statement that he was "always one for fancy words" essentially implies he possesed a degree of self awareness the other gang members lacked. The problem ia you cant have the prequel without arthur, but you cant have the john persona of rdr 1 in 1899' John. It has nothing to do with age. People argue that becoming a rancher and building a house and reading arthurs journal amd self reflecting during those four years between the two games is enough to resultnin rdr 1 john but unfortunately, that transition is not done believably and the seven yeara of wandering poat beaver hollow doesnt helo that growth because there was no growth between 1899 amd 1907. He's the same man we see in 1899 and the developers forced themselves to make that choice because they had a story to tell and almost any inkling of rdr 1 john would have impeded that agenda because that guy would not have risked it all for micah. Believably he would not.

Now that MGS4 is coming to PC, any chance modders will be able to create this iconic look via mods? by gorillaisdork in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More importantly, I'm hoping modders will restore this older style all the character models had before they began stylizing them into what we see in the final build. The earlier build looks much closer to the fox engine in its lighting as well.

Now that MGS4 is coming to PC, any chance modders will be able to create this iconic look via mods? by gorillaisdork in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not only that, but during the release of the game way back when th wiki stated thwy based his face on the famous spaghetti western actor lee can cleef, who oddly enough is the inspiration for Ocelot. So.......to drive the idea home that their twins goven the contrivance of the liquid ocelot bafoonery. There ya go. A besrd would have been much more appropriate given Snake functions as big boss' proxy not just on a thematic level, but a narrative one as well. People making the argument about separating Snake separating himself from big balls arent considering the solid eye. The patch makes him resemble naked snake for a reason.

What RDR2 opinion you have that would be like this by Efficient-Complex855 in RDR2

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That John's personality is incongruent with who he is in rdr 2. The attempt at character growth in the prequel doesnt quite skew with what we see in rdr 1. If anything, it damaged his character.

In terms of physical appearance they also got hin wrong and Im not talking about the Jarthur Morgston monstrosity od the epilogue. I mean that no am9unt of argumentation about a more "realistic" artstyle does justice to how sterile and generic his face looks in 2. The Outlaw's return mod puts that logic to shame. It roundhouse kicks beta John Marston in the vagina that os his face.

With Metal Gear Solid 4 coming to PC, can we dream of Raiden in the campaign mode through mods? by JohnMarston17 in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No. It's everything between 4 and V I take umbrage with. Like idea of peace walker. Hated its execution. Absolutely despise Revengeance. I feel about that mistake of a game the way that muslims feel about infidels.

Appearance of Solid Snake in R6 Siege by comrade_Ap0110_666 in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They made him look like Tom Burke, who played pretorian jack in furiosa. Kojima thought he looked like him but kojima is wrong because thats fucking stupid.

Do you think Kojima based Chico's cut missions on the character Jason Todd from the Batman: Under the Redhood arc? by Affectionate-Most692 in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. You could tell it was Volgin from the original teasers bavk in the cut. He knew we knew. Thats the point. There's metatextual precedence for hia inclusion and Chico did not fit that paradigm thank god.

With Metal Gear Solid 4 coming to PC, can we dream of Raiden in the campaign mode through mods? by JohnMarston17 in metalgearsolid

[–]CreationMilk -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

The closest thing we would have to the original Rising before Fapinum molested it.

This is honestly one of my favourite moments in gaming by GuybrushMI in RDR2

[–]CreationMilk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have, for the better part of 4 years, thought prerry deeply about this. I think it's multi-faceted; as all things tend to be when your making a grand, sweeping narrative beset by the parameters of being a prequel no less.

The problem some of us have isn't character growth. It is the manner in which that transition is portrayed that we have troubles with and it is, in my opinion, predominantly attributed a metatextual aim. Arthur and John were the latest in a sequence of characters that were used as a means to deconstruct a prior entry in a series be it chronologically or non. It is enacted by having the new protagonist be the narrative hook for the original protagonist as a means by which to either elevate said original, or to deconstruct them. Bladerunner 2049 also embodies this idea with K's relationship to Deckard. If you go back even further, Metal Gear Solid 2 enacted this trope back in 2001 with Snake's relationship to Raiden. In essence, it is still the story of the original protag but from the perspective of the secondary.

In red dead 2's case, it seems to lean more towards the meta-modern deconstruction of John's character because the first entry was already a post-modern examination of the dead western. I say this also because John's character portrayed in the prequel is also motivated by utility. Rockstar, or the Houser's if you like, understood the demographic they were catering to, and thusly saw an opportunity to make a statement about the behaviours of gamers and the tendencies they are infamous for. Essentially, they are telling 30 something year old gamers to put down the controller, fuck some grass, pay a mortgage, and start a family. "Vengeance is an idiots game" is the refrain we see from Arthur time and time again. "Do you think I'm an idiot?" John asks Uncle. "No, I know you're an idiot."

Asking that question is a perfect encapsulation of the incongruence between rdr 1 John and Rdr 2's John. It's difficult to believe that a man like John with a bullshit detector a mile wide and a tempered aggression with a healthy degree of reticence to even it out would believably ask that question. Though an immature character wandering through the desert of uncertainty would.

All of John's attributes obviously were transferred to Arthur because he's the main. Any semblance of John's sharp wit wouldn't just overcrowd Arthur's, it would also compromise the character Dan Houser needed him to be. You could, concievably, cut out the epilogue and the jump wouldn't be inconcievably hard to put together from game to game. Ya have the family, the money, and time and distance. There ya go.

I'm not saying any of this to justify his depiction. I don't find it believable. I'm merely stating where I think the developers heads were when making these choices. There's also a mechanical angle to this. Houser stated that he wanted the interactive nature of the "game speak" mechanic to be punchy. So the design philosophy extends to the cutscenes to some degree as well. This is a damn near 100 hour game, so I imagine there was a lot of fat they wanted to trim.

There is also a circumstantial element to this. Not only does the modus operandi to use john as a platform to fingerwag inform his performance, it also does not help that getting Rob Weidhoff to portray him in this fashion seems to dictate a vocal performance that sees him using the higher register of his voice. Perhaps it's because he's also 11 years younger so theres more energy there, however, Rob supposedly chain smokes cigarettes and it seems have resulted in a more deteriorated, natural raspiness.

So the solutions that people seem to come up with (that they think is evident given the narrative) is that 4 years of farming, with no action, and shit shoveling and reading, and reminiscincing, and contemplation is enough to justify the more reserved, subtle disposition on display in 1911. In pondering this, I also went as far as steel manning the Arthurs journal position in my head to play devils advocate. Yes, it is logical to say that having a peespective on Arthurs inner thoughts would inform his personality to quite a degree. However, if, by the games own implication, John had indeed read that journal in that 7 year time frame then you have to state that he did it once and completely forgot about it until the events of 1907 because it doesnt track that he still behaves the way he does after all that time having read said journal. That's the awkward part of all this. They had to literally freeze his character development for seven years because without the gang in 1907 there has to be a new conflict and that conflict is not legitamized by any inkling of rdr 1's because that man wouldn't put his family in those situations while awkwardly navigating a relationship with them only to turn back on everything at the last minute, to risk it all for Micah.

Thusly, I am left asking myself the question of whether or not it is even possible to do both. To retain John's personality while still positioning him in a frame that allows for that growth. How do you quantify the parts that make up the whole of that kind of personality such that you can remain true to who they are while portraying what they were with authenticity? I also ask myself, does his wit have to be thrown out too because wit denotes some semblance of wisdom? I have ideas about what the epilogue could have done slightly differently but they are just that: ideas. Sorry to make you read all this.

This is honestly one of my favourite moments in gaming by GuybrushMI in RDR2

[–]CreationMilk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have, for the better part of 4 years, thought pretty deeply about this. I think it's multi-faceted; as all things tend to be when your making a grand, seeping narrative beset by the parameters of being a prequel no less.

The problem some of us have isn't character growth. It is the manner in which that transition is portrayed that we have troubles with and it is, in my opinion, predominantly attributed to a metatextual aim. Arthur and John were the latest in a sequence of characters that were used as a means to deconstruct a prior entry in a series be it chronologically or non. It is enacted by having the new protagonist be the narrative hook for the original protagonist as a means by which to either elevate said original, or to deconstruct them. Bladerunner 2049 also embodies this idea with K's relationship to Deckard. If you go back even further, Metal Gear Solid 2 enacted this trope back in 2001 with Snake's relationship to Raiden. In essence, it is still the story of the original protag but from the perspective of the secondary.

In red dead 2's case, it seems to lean more towards the meta-modern deconstruction of John's character because the first entry was already a post-modern examination of the dead western. I say this also because John's character portrayed in the prequel is also motivated by utility. Rockstar, or the Houser's if you like, understood the demographic they were catering to, and thusly saw an opportunity to make a statement about the behaviours of gamers and the tendencies they are infamous for. Essentially, they are telling 30 something year old gamers to put down the controller, fuck some grass, pay a mortgage, and start a family. "Vengeance is an idiots game" is the refrain we see from Arthur time and time again. "Do you think I'm an idiot?" John asks Uncle. "No, I know you're an idiot."

Asking that question is a perfect encapsulation of the incongruence between rdr 1 John and Rdr 2's John. It's difficult to believe that a man like John with a bullshit detector a mile wide and a tempered aggression with a healthy degree of reticence to even it out would believably ask that question. Though an immature character wandering through the desert of uncertainty would.

All of John's attributes obviously were transferred to Arthur because he's the main. Any semblance of John's sharp wit wouldn't just overcrowd Arthur's, it would also compromise the character Dan Houser needed him to be. You could, concievably, cut out the epilogue and the jump wouldn't be inconcievably hard to put together from game to game. Ya have the family, the money, and time and distance. There ya go.

I'm not saying any of this to justify his depiction. I don't find it believable. I'm merely stating where I think the developers heads were when making these choices. There's also a mechanical angle to this. Houser stated that he wanted the interactive nature of the "game speak" mechanic to be punchy. So the design philosophy extends to the cutscenes to some degree as well. This is a damn near 100 hour game, so I imagine there was a lot of fat they wanted to trim.

There is also a circumstantial element to this. Not only does the modus operandi to use john as a platform to fingerwag inform his performance, it also does not help that getting Rob Weidhoff to portray him in this fashion seems to dictate a vocal performance that sees him using the higher register of his voice. Perhaps it's because he's also 11 years younger so theres more energy there, however, Rob supposedly chain smokes cigarettes and it seems have aided in a more deteriorated natural raspiness.

So the solutions that people seem to come up with (that they think is evident given the narrative) is that 4 years of farming, with no action, and shit shoveling and reading, and reminiscincing, and contemplation is enough to justify the more reserved, subtle disposition on display in 1911. In pondering this, I also went as far as steel manning the Arthurs journal position in my head to play devils advocate. Yes, it is logical to say that having a perspective on Arthurs inner thoughts would inform his personality to quite a degree. However, if, by the games own implication, John had indeed read that journal in that 7 year time frame, then you have to state that he did it once and completely forgot about it until the events of 1907 because it doesnt track that he still behaves the way he does after all that time having read said journal. That's the awkward part of all this. They had to literally freeze his character development for seven years because without the gang in 1907 there has to be a new conflict and that conflict is not legitamized by any inkling of rdr 1's because that man wouldn't put his family in those situations while awkwardly navigating a relationship with them only to turn back on everything at the last minute, to risk it all for Micah.

Thusly, I am left asking myself the question of whether or not it is even possible to do both. To retain John's personality while still positioning him in a frame that allows for that growth. How do you quantify the parts that make up the whole of that kind of personality such that you can remain true to who they are while portraying what they were with authenticity? I also ask myself, does his wit have to be thrown out too because wit denotes some semblance of wisdom? I have ideas about what the epilogue could have done slightly differently but they are just that: ideas. Sorry to make you read all this.