[PS3] Cooking Guide: Can't Decide What To Eat? PROTIP: THIS IS THE MGS4 THREAD

Originally Posted by INDIGO-1

Spoiler:

His aging is accelerated because of his genes. Exactly how Solidus in MGS2 was a clone of Snake and Liquid, but was much older. So the answer to your question is Yes.

Spoiler:

Solidus isn't a clone of Snake or Liquid, they are all clones of Big Boss. They age faster because the genes used to create them came from Big Boss when he was in his late fifties.

Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist

Spoiler:

Solidus isn't a clone of Snake or Liquid, they are all clones of Big Boss. They age faster because the genes used to create them came from Big Boss when he was in his late fifties.

Spoiler:

Yeah, I meant Big Boss, not Liquid or Snake. Not sure why I typed it.

Spoiler:

I like being sneaky and using spoilers to redundant story plots.

Originally Posted by Cel

Spoiler:

I like being sneaky and using spoilers to redundant story plots.

Spoiler:

Snake hides in a box.

Originally Posted by Cel

Raiden is gonna cut Ocelot's arm off, (again). You heard it here first.

That would be the coolest shit ever :biggrin:

Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist

Spoiler:

Snake hides in a box.

!

Anyways, though the Liqiud Ocelot part of the trailer speaks volumes, I'd still like a clever little power struggle between them...
But I guess I can settle for just the knowledge of what he/they did after stealing the Ray.

!

Who's footprints are these!?.......

o:
.........o:

.............o:
..................o:

..........................o:
...............................o:


........................................o:
..............................................o:

Rofl... I know this is old news but:

"When rumors appeared that Uwe Boll expressed interest in a Metal Gear Solid movie, Hideo Kojima responded in his audioblog HIDECHAN "Absolutely not! I don't know why Uwe Boll is even talking about this kind of thing. We've never talked to him. It's impossible that we'd ever do a movie with him."
-Wikipedia on Uwe Boll.

I've never seen a film by him, and never will probably, but... was his films as bad as Dungeons and Dragons?

I don't know if post or not but Kojima say:

Quote:

it uses the in-game engine for cutscenes. But when it switches to gameplay the graphics are changed with different renders than those used during cutscenes. That's how it's been this entire generation on EVERY console, and it's not going to suddenly change with the next gen.

Originally Posted by RYU

I don't know if post or not but Kojima say:

Practicaly, every game that uses the real-time engine to run the cut-scenes do this, including Resident Evil 4.

Originally Posted by Cel

I've never seen a film by him, and never will probably, but... was his films as bad as Dungeons and Dragons?

Never seen Dungeons and Dragons. But I did see "House of the Dead", which Boll directed, and that was a heap of crap.

Other video game movies he directed are "Alone in the Dark" and "BloodRayne." Never seen "Alone in the Dark" and considering how this is the first I've heard of there being a "BloodRayne" it must have bombed.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/

bloodrayne was so much lol it can get.
Happy Kojima turned the idiot down.

Uwe Boll is the master of screwing game adaptations up.
I saw most of his films and there was only one I like and that was : Heart of America.

the only good movie he made.

omg that's him who did house of the dead, alne in the dark and dungeon and dragon?

ROFL! those movies are so bad!! total piece of shit XD I never seen so bad adaption and now I know why Kojima was so angry when he said that XD

Was it just me or were the E3 trailers better than any movie you've seen in a while? I certainly haven't seen any good movies in a great long while. With the move into the next gen with more realistic graphics, would movie adaptions of games even be necessary? It seems redundant to me when games are starting to match the production value and surpassing the entertainment value of movies (even from just the story side of things. Some game story lines kick Hollywood's ass).

To bring back that old argument from earlier in the thread, I think that one day games will be considered the ultimate form of entertainment, and while movies will always be made, they will be considered secondary. I personally think that movies have somewhat reached the limit of what they can do, where as videogames are a relatively new form of entertainment and the possibilities are greater. Example: what do you think action movies will look like 20 years from now? Probably the same as they do now. However action games 20 years from now will be a whole new animal. Who knows, maybe we'll be playing Metal Gear: Grey Fox on the holographic Sony-Nintendo PS6 wearing a Wii-suit. Or maybe Halo 9 on Exxon-Microsoft X-Matrix. Yeah, my money's definitely on videogames becoming the dominant form of entertainment in the future.

NO, NO. Don't bring that argument up again. That one guy's gonna steer this ship in that direction for, like, seven pages again.

It really depends: I think interactivity won't be met as a positive thing by people as a whole anytime soon. Yes, certain games are cinematic, especially, particularly the MGS series. But sometimes, you just wanna sit there and watch an experience wash over you, as opposed to button-press your way through it. Both forms of media will always have their advantages. Films haven't reached their 'full potential' yet because CGI's been thrown in the mix. Computer animated stuff's gonna get more real too, just like games will as you mentioned.

However, you talk about looks and then dominance in the media world, do you mean in terms of which kinda people will buy more or which will be objectively better?

What I mean by movies reaching their limit is that there really isn't much movies can do to seriously impress audiences any more (well, not the ones that have been watching movies their whole lives at least. There's always going to be mindless masses which are impressed). The overproliferation of CGI has jaded audiences. People aren't going to go see the "next big movie" if it's the same thing they've seen 1000 times before. The only way for movies to continue to succeed is if they bring new stories that to the table that people are interested in, but there's only so much creativity out there and the well will dry up eventually. You know the saying "there are no new stories, it's all been done before". I find that to have some truth to it. Of coarse, you're always going to have people that do want to see the same thing over and over again, which is why movies will never go away. Are there still some new and interesting things that can be done with movies? Yes, but eventually everthing will have been done. There will be nothing left to impress, excite, or motivate people to go see a movie. When that happens, games will take over as the dominant form.

Games have a deeper well of creativitiy to draw from since there are more things that go into a game than just plot. When I say "dominant form of entertainment" I mean in terms of what most poeple do for fun. In the future people won't flock to the movies every weekend to see the latest blockbuster, instead they'll buy/download the latest game and play away. I'm not saying it's going to happen any time soon, maybe 60 years down the line. But eventually it will happen. Of coarse you'll always have people that are too lazy to play games, the ones that don't want to think and just want to watch something. For them movies will still be made.

Another thing is, what's the point of watching some guy shoot some villains a million times on screen when you can live that same experience just as realistically in a game?

I'M BACK BITCHES, I HEARD MY NAME BEING CALLED HAAAAAAA HAHHAHAHAHA.

edit: ahem, but on a more serious note. At least you guys see what i'm talking about now. Thank you, that is all.