Shifting Gears

I'm changing around the way I do things on this here blog. Previously, I archived the review posts as if they were published on the release date of the game, but I've now shifted that around so that new posts will be archived normally, as I post them. But to keep that list of games in some kind of easily-searchable order, I'm making a new page where the reviews will be listed in alphabetical order. It should be over on the right of the blog. —>

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

Full disclosure: I never played Metal Gear Solid 2 at or even near the time of its release in 2001. I played it once in 2008, then again seven years later in 2015. So my view is going to be slightly skewed in that it's very hindsight-heavy.


MGS2 is a very weird game. Not just because of the story and the style, but because it seems to be a game stuck between two generations. While certain aspects of the game (visual detail, cinematic quality, sound) are fantastic by even PS2 standards, the basic gameplay in MGS2 is essentially the same as it's been since the original Metal Gear from 1987... which is more than a little bit problematic.


Gameplay

Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 took the top-down 2D gameplay of Metal Gear 1 and 2 and brought it into 3D. However, despite the fact that MGS's world was made in 3D, and to some degree behaved like a 3D world, the gameplay largely remained 2D. In MGS, the player is finally able to move in any direction (with a dualshock controller), but all the environments in MGS are made to accommodate a 4-directional gameplay style. Most areas are Pac-Man-like groupings of structures with perfect right angles. Even when there are multiple vertical levels of geography, the game seems to behave as though they didn't exist. If the player is on the bottom floor of a room and an enemy is on a catwalk above him, the two characters can't easily interact. You can look upwards (by using binoculars in first-person mode), but you can't shoot upwards. It's counterintuitive and frustrating. Unlike so many other 3D games of that era, like Super Mario 64 or Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear Solid never really behaved like a proper 3D world—it was basically a 2D game given some extra depth.

Metal Gear Solid 2 takes Metal Gear Solid's gameplay to a more advanced level, thankfully—but it only goes so far. Gone is the 4-directional gameplay design, for the most part. Environments are somewhat more realistically laid out. The world behaves more 3-dimensionally, in a multitude of ways. This time, however, the problem isn't that the game isn't truly 3D; it's that the controls aren't built for that.

The controls for MGS2 are still based around the idea of a top-down 2D game, for the most part. Very little in the controls even acknowledges the 3D nature of the game. The biggest 3D element of gameplay is the addition of a first-person combat mode, but the player can't move in first-person mode. Furthermore, the game seems to know just how limited it is, and builds challenges around testing those limits. It's almost as though you're encouraged to try to break the game or find clever ways to get around its problems.

It's hard to know whether the problem lies with the game's stubborn design or if it's just out of date. MGS2 tries to merge aspects of a shooter with a 3rd-person action game, and there weren't too many games in 2001 attempting that. Plenty of games in the 15 years since have found ways of making it work brilliantly—Uncharted, Splinter Cell, etc.—but MGS2 may have been made before those gameplay advances were discovered. One aspect that absolutely is without redemption, however, is the camera.

The camera, as with every Metal Gear game prior, is completely fixed when not in first-person mode. This means that in many situations, you literally can't see where you're going. For a game that prides itself on gameplay requiring precision, this isn't acceptable. There were plenty of action games made years before MGS2 that had controllable cameras, and it's not as though the PS2 doesn't have a second analog stick available for just that purpose. It legitimately hurts the game.

Ultimately, MGS2 tries to do everything—stealth, exploration, 3rd-person combat, 3rd-person shooting, first-person shooting, item collecting, even a tinge of platforming—and only somewhat succeeds at all of them. Fortunately, the stealth and exploration aspects are both the strongest elements and the most common ones, so most of the gameplay works—and sometimes it works brilliantly. It might not be a timeless masterpiece, but MGS2 is certainly good.


Story / Presentation

Metal Gear is known for its trademark "bizarre" style, with over-the-top characters and ideas, with similarly OTT performances from the actors to match. It's ridiculous, but it works for what it is.

The most controversial aspect of Sons of Liberty is the fact that most of the game is played from the perspective of a new character, Raiden, rather than Solid Snake. Raiden is rather androgynous and somewhat naive, in contrast with Snake, who's so masculine it's sometimes funny. For my money, I actually like Raiden. If Snake is a gun—dirty, masculine, precise-but-brutal—then Raiden is a sword—sharp and agile. He and Snake have a good balance, and Raiden's perspective adds something interesting to the Metal Gear storyline.

For the first 75% of MGS2, the story is actually rather low-key, mostly hinting at the greater narrative rather than actually showing it. It's intentional, of course, and that last 25% is just crazy.

The story of Metal Gear is about as convoluted as can be, and MGS2 brings it to a level of near-insanity. If you've ever seen the "Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design" episode of Community, imagine the plot from that—except nothing in the story is a joke. It's one layer after another of conspiracies of conspiracies secretly built upon conspiracies. By the end of the game, the player—and the main characters—are left wondering what any of it all means. It's certainly interesting, but it almost feels a bit too focused on trying to give the audience a head trip.

Does it work in the end? Well, yes, considering that this isn't the last game in the series. It's got a rather big cliffhanger. If this were actually the end, then no. It's really interesting, but it's not a self-contained story.


I'm honestly not sure what to say about Metal Gear Solid 2. Its gameplay doesn't hold up well in hindsight, but it's still good for what it is. And it's hard to ignore the level of obvious ambition in the game, both in terms of gameplay and cinematic narrative. It doesn't succeed at everything it's trying to do, but it does so much that that's not as damning a statement as it would be for almost any other game. In a lot of ways, Sons of Liberty doesn't work the way it's supposed to, but at the end of the day I really do enjoy it.


8/10