There are so many things wrong with that review, it's not even funny. Let's break it down:
Generally, you want to use present tense when you are critiquing anything.
Metal Gear Solid has always been a story of duty in the face of obsolescence, and if this is really it for Kojima’s chapter – and who knows, maybe the entire series – his duty has been fulfilled.
That sentence is not only a run-on sentence, it's awkward providing no background to what it's saying. It's really what? And why is it called a "chapter?" "His duty"? Who's duty? Fulfilled? what was his duty in the first place? MGS has always been about duty, but it's always duty to who? Who is Snake loyal to? Is it really to the US? MGS3 has raised these questions for MGS4 to follow. Who are the "good guys?" What IS duty? This sentence raises a lot more question than it answers. It doesn't play as a part of a review because it's neither opinion nor fact. It's just a useless sentence that is poorly worded, awkward, and unnecessary.
Kojima has, of course, admitted to the game’s failings.
Failed. For those of you who don't know what happened. Kojima meant that as modesty. Kotaku mis-translated his words.
The greatest is the size of its maps, each venue split between several zones, themselves divided by loading screens.
So..the greatest "Failings" is that the maps are big with a lot of different ways to tackle objectives?
So your objective, rather than something tangible and relevant, often becomes just a marker on the HUD which doubles as a reset point for enemies, making escapes unduly easy.
While it is a marker on the HUD, you don't have to use it. If you want to be "immersed," then just don't use the Solid Eye. Besides, that's actually there to help players who can't remember what the previous cutscene said. Or for players who don't play it in 1 sitting, so can't remember where to go. Just like when Otacon helps you solve puzzles, this is meant to help players who need them. And I am very glad that they did this. Nevertheless, this sentence fails mostly for its first part. Apparantly the reviewers don't pay attention to cutscenes and skipped through them, because every objective corresponds to the story. Every objective reveals something significant. Well, every objective so far that I've played.
Again, there's grammatical errors in that sentence as well. "Objective" should be plural, there are more than 1 in the game. It should be "rather than being.." There should be a comma before "which." Using "which" creates ambiguity. Is the HUD the reset point? Or the objective? Or the marker?
And it creates a sense of restlessness, allowing you all the time you want to explore but giving the levels little space to explore themselves.
What creates restlessness? Objectives? What's allowing time to explore? Who's giving levels little space? But I thought the maps were big? Little space to explore themselves? What the hell does that mean? Spaces explore themselves now?
Technology aside, the problem is that MGS4’s agenda, unlike that of its predecessor, is not its own.
Technology? When did you even talk about tech? The agenda is not its own? Awkward sentence again. Do you mean that the agenda is not ..the agenda? Or the agenda is not MGS4? What is the agenda? What are you talking about?
Not content to just rekindle memories of Metal Gear, the game insists on physically revisiting them, veering this way and that, back and forth in time, the fates of its characters wrenched in improbable directions.
So..MGS4 is being faulted for going beyond revisiting memories by revisiting memories? So instead of having players experience the past (which many needs to because MGS is a very deep series), the reviewer just wants some cliche flash back moments? I'd rather play it, than hear it. That's the whole point of playing games: to play scenes, or else, if you just want "rekindle" images, go watch a movie. "Improbably directions?" MGS is fictional... How is this a fault? Are you saying Gears of War is more probable than MGS, because I never heard this when they were reviewing any fantasy games?
An entire game could (and someday might) plug the gap in Raiden’s backstory, the Patriots’ one-time pet project returning as a Frank Jaeger-style cyborg ninja.
What does this even mean? So the reviewer doesn't know if the story actually fills in the questions behind MGS? Do the reviewers actually pay attention to the story at all? "The story COULD do this, but it might not...we're not really sure." "Someday might?" The game is FINISHED. How can this game "someday might" do something different than what it's doing now? And another ambiguous line. Is the Patriots' one-time pet project Raiden's backstory? The backstory IS a ninja? And that's a comma splice, which makes little sense.
And while few would begrudge the return of Metal Gear Solid’s classic bosses in the animalized form of The Beauty And Beast Unit, the shadow of MGS3’s Cobra Unit looms large.
Why would people hate bosses? Please provide details. This is another ambiguous sentence. So are you saying while few would begrudge the return of classic bosses, some would begrudge the cobra unit? Or are you trying to say 2 sentences that do not relate to each other at all.
That game felt like a dialogue between Kojima and the player, a determined blend of action, cinema and podcast.
Replace "that" with "the." And ..every game is a dialogue between the game maker and the game player.
In contrast, MGS4 feels more like a genie struggling to find enough goodies in the lamp, slave to the demands of everyone but itself.
In contrast to what? MGS4 in contrast with "the game", which is MGS4? That's a horrible analogy. That analogy claims that there isn't enough depth within MGS universe to present to the hype of the gamers. But the reviewer, i think, is claiming that MGS4 didn't deliver its promises. And another ambiguous part. So..the lamp is the slave? or goodies? or genie? or MGS4? And isn't a game SUPPOSED to be a slave to the demands of everyone? Prince of Persia is a perfect example of saying "screw the fans, we're going whereever the game is supposed to go." And PoP2 failed miserably because of that.
This review reads like a person who has never played the game, making biased opinion based on nothing. Almost nothing actual is said. Every sentence sounds like PR marketing sentences, full of fluff, no substance. It is probably the worst review I've ever read.
Edit: I am playing the game right now, and it's really good. If GTA4 is a 9.5 in free roaming genre, MGS4 is a 9.5 in stealth action.
<message edited by rbrtchng on Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:37 PM>