Okay, so it has happened. Solid Snake is now a non-issue. For those of you who have completed the game, you know all the secrets, you've seen 6-8 hours of cutscenes, and you've got the save file that makes your MGS database complete. Good for you. So now, I want to take a step back and wonder if we're really giving the Metal Gear Solid game a pass that it doesn't deserve.

When Metal Gear Solid first premiered on the PSX it was unlike anything I had ever seen before. It had great strategies, great content, and even a great story. It also had a (comparatively) small amount of cutscenes. As time has moved on, the MGS series has gotten better and better and evolved into the great final compilation that we see before us. But does it really deserve a 10? An "A"? Would we be that nice for other games?

In the house that Kojima built, I think I've heard too many, "oh well that's just how a Metal Gear Solid game is supposed to be," which doesn't seem to make any sense. I like the series, but I've been honest with other people and warned them against this game if they aren't familiar with the series and aren't ready to not only get down and challenging, but also relax and watch some six hours of cutscenes. Would a game like this, especially as a new IP, really get this score? It's kind of like critical reviews in other mediums, we find ourselves giving this game more than it deserves. Is it horrible? No. But having said that, there are many games with lower scores that have pulled off a successful stealth story in a much better way.

I guess this just goes to show that no medium is safe. Just like the Steven Speilburg's of movies, there are the Kojima's of video games: a hit even if it's slightly a miss.