I wouldn't mind it as long as there's more frequent/better combat and enemies and less pulling floating pallets around small bodies of water.

You know, I never was. But I've always had kind of a soft spot for MGS1, and over the years I gradually developed one for Snake Eater as well. Phantom Pain was supposed to be the continuation of that story, and Ground Zeroes was was enjoyable, so little by little I got hype. It didn't hurt that PP had an amazing (albeit frustrating and non-interactive) intro and a seemingly interesting direction. It put on a really good face.

It's like a girl who seems really funny and smart when you first meet her but then you go back to her place and she's got the complete Friends box-set and she suggests you binge-watch it together starting right then and there.

In all seriousness though, now that I think of it Wizardry 4 is probably the hardest game I've ever played. I was trying to be a bad motherfucker and play it without a guide. I didn't get anywhere. I didn't do anything. For five or six hours. That was the first area of the game. Really good though if you can devote all of your waking hours to it.

Dragon Age: Origins was pretty tough to get through since I threw up every time I heard the dialogue or engaged in combat or did anything, really. Non-stop puking. Almost died IRL, actually.

Well, yeah. Of course I'm using absurd and offensive generalities. It's what I do, after all. But take, for example, the 10/10 review of MGSV on this very website. Peter Brown.

"When it comes to storytelling, there has never been a Metal Gear game that's so consistent in tone, daring in subject matter, and so captivating in presentation. The Phantom Pain may be a contender for one of the best action games ever made, but is undoubtedly the best Metal Gear game there is."

There are lies in that sentence. The editors of gaming sites would have us believe that it's all a matter of opinion. It's not. There is such a thing as objectivity in the arts. If you raise your hand in class and say "Shakespeare is shit" you're wrong. There is no circumstance in which you would be right. Likewise, if you hold up Nicolas Sparks as a great writer for all time, you are also wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion. Not everyone gets a say.

Peter Brown said that MGSV was consistent in tone; that is absurd. Anyone who's played it knows so. He said it is the best Metal Gear game there is. Objectively, it isn't. It's unfinished. Nor is it a contender for one of the best action games ever made. Nor is it daring in subject matter. So, what we have there isn't a bad opinion, but, rather, lies. Outright deceit.

I'm not saying Mr. Brown is a liar by nature, necessarily. But, when you've spend a few days at a Konami-hosted review event eating from the publisher's hand while rushing through their unfinished, barely stitched-together game, those kinds of lies take root in your mind and then roll very easily off the tongue or off your fingertips onto your keyboard, as the case may be. Perhaps they aren't your lies, originally. Still false, though.

Not all game critics are bad. Not all game critics are morons. But every single major game critic who plays by the publisher's rules is part of a toxic system and, in most cases, helping to promote the publisher's agenda at the expense of the gamer and their own supposed "art."

Real criticism is an art, not a product review. Gaming "critics" are in fact just shills for the industry, running lemming-like with their fellows to the same foregone conclusions. The laughably low ethical and artistic standards of "gaming criticism" mean that critics whine and beg like dogs for the opportunity to play the major publisher's games, allowing corporations to control the media narrative. Thus, we have review events, review embargos, and the occasional busted payola, in addition to sites packed with advertising that undermines the very points these so-called critics are supposed to be making in their reviews.

This leads to disasters like the Metacritic scoring for Fallout: New Vegas, a game that is so obviously superior to its predecessor as to completely shame and diminish Bethesda's efforts forever, which was nevertheless poorly received by morons who lacked both the time and the mental tools necessary to appreciate it, resulting in the hardworking and committed developers who produced it (Obsidian) missing out on their bonus after creating one of the greatest RPGs of all time, simply because some spoiled product reviewers felt that a few easily patched technical issues overwhelmed the sheer genius of its design.

Of all fields of criticism, no matter how bastardized the others have become, gaming criticism is at the bottom of the barrel, breaking through, and digging fast. The hivemind culture and "product value" mentality of game critics means that they will flock to a game that is undeniably very poor in certain key areas (Fallout 3, for example, and now its sequel apparently) simply because of the "pedigree" of the studio.

Metacritic is nothing but a gallery for the fecklessness and idiocy of the gaming "critic." You will never see so many supposedly intelligent people lavish heaps of praise on a moldy turd as you will on that worthless site. Thousands of years from now extraterrestrials will look back on the archived pages of Metacritic and vomit up their space-food in disgust. It is an infected gash in the asshole of humanity.

Poor bastards. Rooting around in the muck of that unfinished game, looking for something to vindicate their fandom. I was doing the same thing up until about a week ago when the denial stage finally ended.

In terms of presentation, Witcher 3. Bloodborne also had moments where I felt the visuals had truly reached another level. As far as gameplay goes, well, that's tough to say. Both TW3 and Bloodborne are built on previous games. They are the result of iteration, not innovation.

But maybe looking for the "a-ha moment" in gameplay is a mistake. Perhaps what next-gen really means is edging a formula closer to perfection. BB and TW3 certainly fulfill that expectation.

The Phantom Pain, on the other hand, had some stunning visual sequences and even some nice innovations but felt like a step backwards, overall, because it did not fulfill its potential. So maybe "next-gen" is just a matter of preference, ie, we tend to think of the better games as more progressive, whether they really are or not.

Yeah, I told myself the same lie up to a certain point. "It's all part of Kojima's master plan, it's all going to come together in the end." It's bullshit, man. The story sucks. If you can prepare yourself for that, ignore the microtransaction shit, stay offline to avoid the forced tutorials, and focus on the gameplay, you could have a good experience.

1. Majora's Mask

2. Resident Evil 4

3. Fallout: New Vegas

4. Planescape: Torment

5. Morrowind

6. Dark Souls

7. BioShock

8. Twilight Princess

9. Warcraft III

10. Wind Waker

----

Pretty good. Would only have to swap out five or six of the top ten, and none would drop past twenty.