I should have made that point clearer. The TL;DR is that though I loved the art direction and visual look of DS from day one, I found the gameplay too confusing and, frankly, a chore. I just didn't get it. This was hardly surprising as I was obsessed with Sekiro and other Souls-like games, where storytelling takes a backseat to boss fights. I also think that being such an inexperienced gamer was a significant factor in me not getting or liking DS when I first played it.
But returning to the game months later, somehow, it just clicked. I got it—or at least I got it more than I had the first time. And the further I progressed through the game, the more impressed I became; I came to love the fact that it was so different from anything else I had played. I still found Kojima's writing painful and trite at times (and still do), but having learned more about Kojima's backstory and the MGS series, I now see the dialogue and plot as more of a feature than a bug.
> I now see the dialog and plot as more of a feature than a bug.
This is the dilemma. And I think this has become the standard way of resolving this dilemma, to assume that, in some mysterious holistic sense, the terrible parts are a mysterious ingredient of the greatness. I honestly don't know. Maybe they are? If they are, I want someone to try to explain how. But if they're not, then this widespread, playful, winking affection for Kojima's flaws are genuinely troubling. Because it reflects an even wider-spread phenomena: the ways in which the audience for video games has internalized their deepest flaws as being, not just tolerable, but somehow necessary.
I love this conversation! I think there are truisms here for all media: the extent to which we contort ourselves to not only accept flaws but see them as some form of higher authorial intent that we're just not "on the level" to understand. That's certainly true of films both high- and lowbrow. Ditto TV, fine art, etc. You can find examples across all of creative where people accept the authorial intent of dumb decisions or weaker execution in the greater collective piece. I don't honestly know where I stand on that, but I do think it's a valid and worthwhile debate.
None of this is meant to discount what you're saying about gaming specifically. I think gaming for many younger people is one of the earliest art/cultural mediums they attach to — and for those that didn't grow up as fully enmeshed in gaming, the harder one to discern. It's a much newer medium compared with novels, TV, film, stage, art, etc. — all forms of craft that have also evolved in how they are created, consumed, and critiqued. From all parts of the audience, high and low, influential and otherwise, we're all still figuring out the best way to assess, evaluate, communicate, and critique these works.
As for the dialog, I think some people legitimately love the cadence, and I don't think it's troubling that they do anymore than I fault someone for really loving or really hating a Rothko, or David Lynch production. For sure, there is idolatry that exceeds common sense, but I don't know if I'm ready to consider that an ill as much as just an evolving conversation.
I think it's possible to square the circle of thinking that Death Stranding is an excellent game AND that much of the dialogue is terrible. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that I consider that the bad writing as necessary; DS is a good game despite the trite script, not because of it.
It will be interesting to see whether the same can be said of Death Stranding 2: On the Beach—and as for the Death Stranding movie that's supposedly in the works, that's a whole other matter; I am not hopeful but time will tell.
BTW, I appreciate this discussion. Thanks for the comments.
I missed the part where you explained why you changed your mind.
I should have made that point clearer. The TL;DR is that though I loved the art direction and visual look of DS from day one, I found the gameplay too confusing and, frankly, a chore. I just didn't get it. This was hardly surprising as I was obsessed with Sekiro and other Souls-like games, where storytelling takes a backseat to boss fights. I also think that being such an inexperienced gamer was a significant factor in me not getting or liking DS when I first played it.
But returning to the game months later, somehow, it just clicked. I got it—or at least I got it more than I had the first time. And the further I progressed through the game, the more impressed I became; I came to love the fact that it was so different from anything else I had played. I still found Kojima's writing painful and trite at times (and still do), but having learned more about Kojima's backstory and the MGS series, I now see the dialogue and plot as more of a feature than a bug.
Oh, and one other reason I changed my mind: I love the soundtrack https://mbh4h.substack.com/p/video-game-music-soundtracks-outer-wilds-zelda
> I now see the dialog and plot as more of a feature than a bug.
This is the dilemma. And I think this has become the standard way of resolving this dilemma, to assume that, in some mysterious holistic sense, the terrible parts are a mysterious ingredient of the greatness. I honestly don't know. Maybe they are? If they are, I want someone to try to explain how. But if they're not, then this widespread, playful, winking affection for Kojima's flaws are genuinely troubling. Because it reflects an even wider-spread phenomena: the ways in which the audience for video games has internalized their deepest flaws as being, not just tolerable, but somehow necessary.
I love this conversation! I think there are truisms here for all media: the extent to which we contort ourselves to not only accept flaws but see them as some form of higher authorial intent that we're just not "on the level" to understand. That's certainly true of films both high- and lowbrow. Ditto TV, fine art, etc. You can find examples across all of creative where people accept the authorial intent of dumb decisions or weaker execution in the greater collective piece. I don't honestly know where I stand on that, but I do think it's a valid and worthwhile debate.
None of this is meant to discount what you're saying about gaming specifically. I think gaming for many younger people is one of the earliest art/cultural mediums they attach to — and for those that didn't grow up as fully enmeshed in gaming, the harder one to discern. It's a much newer medium compared with novels, TV, film, stage, art, etc. — all forms of craft that have also evolved in how they are created, consumed, and critiqued. From all parts of the audience, high and low, influential and otherwise, we're all still figuring out the best way to assess, evaluate, communicate, and critique these works.
As for the dialog, I think some people legitimately love the cadence, and I don't think it's troubling that they do anymore than I fault someone for really loving or really hating a Rothko, or David Lynch production. For sure, there is idolatry that exceeds common sense, but I don't know if I'm ready to consider that an ill as much as just an evolving conversation.
I think it's possible to square the circle of thinking that Death Stranding is an excellent game AND that much of the dialogue is terrible. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that I consider that the bad writing as necessary; DS is a good game despite the trite script, not because of it.
It will be interesting to see whether the same can be said of Death Stranding 2: On the Beach—and as for the Death Stranding movie that's supposedly in the works, that's a whole other matter; I am not hopeful but time will tell.
BTW, I appreciate this discussion. Thanks for the comments.
a game where the poetics outweigh the game loop