Disappointing.

That is the word used to describe Metal Gear Solid 4 at Konami and Sony.

In just one months time, Metal Gear Solid 4 had dropped all the way down to #34 in terms of monthly sales. That is NOT GOOD.

Metal Gear Solid 4 only helped improve console sales for one month. After that, it was back down to usual.

Now, nobody at all ever mentions Metal Gear Solid 4, because the game has disappointing online play, and virtually no replay value.

The only reason the game scored so highly by all the early reviews was because of the contract that Konami forced the reviewers to sign in order to receive an early review copy of the game. The contract forced reviewers into a position where they were not allowed to let the annoying factors of loooooong loading "installs" and annoying 90 minute movie sequences be counted against the game.

The reviewers who waited for the game to be released before reviewing it may not have gotten an early copy from Konami, but they rated the game in a much better way that talked about the framerate dipping below 30 frames per second, the low resolution textures, the long load times and how annoying the "installs" were throughout the entire game, the boring storyline, lack of features, the poor online play, the lack of replay value, ect......

Actual gamers don't have to sign contracts, though. That's why Metal Gear Solid 4 had only 10 seconds of fame, and then was forgotten about.

incompetent story, incohearent dialogue, over-indulgent cutscenes; i don't see how the series could possibly get any worse if they decided to move in another direction. it worked wonders for Capcom with Resident Evil 4.

MGS4, despite impressive sales, wasn't the system seller Sony was hoping for. i've never read or seen so many high-score reviews for a game where the tone was overwhelmingly apologetic and/or defensive, as though they were trying to convince themselves more than anything. it came and went with little fanfare, yet a title like Bioshock which looks pathetic by sales comparison still has people talking more than a year later. now that's not a comparison of quality between the two, i'm merely pointing out how one title is viewed based on it's own merits (gameplay, story, controls, etc) whereas the other has become increasingly more reflective of it's director instead of the game itself.

but who can blame him for staying, really? MGS has given him rock-star status on both sides of the pacific, game journo's hang on his every word, his job is secure and he gets to call the shots. the only reason he'd have for wanting to give that up and move on is the tremendous amount of pressure and stress that comes with it.

P.S: Hey Chris, are we ever getting another GameTheory podcast? Just occured to me that it's been like a month since the last one and (after a brief run-through) people are going ape shit on the website, lol. any info would be great.

I wonder if without Kojima, the game will have that "typical" Metal Gear feel and balance. For me, these games have always been unique experiences with lots of good memories. A bit different from the Splinter Cell games - which are also great but tend to lean more toward being all-serious all the time.