NY Times writes: "Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots isn't really my kind of game.
I play games because of the freedom they afford. In contrast to a book or a film or a theater performance, a game lets me decide what happens next, or at least lets me operate under the illusion that my actions matter - that within the bounds of the game system, my choices, conscious or not, will play the key role in determining the outcome of my entertainment.
Millions experience that freedom most fully in online games that involve other people. My favorite games provide a sort of social framework within which the players set their own storylines over weeks, months or years."
I believe MGS4 walks this line with great Skill, and only becomes unbalanced and leans more towards film on those few "WAY" too long cut scenes
Good review but fails mention anything about MGO.
He was fair at times, but I don't expect a Sandbox fanatic to understand the complexity of the MGS series.
Furthermore, he speaks as if the MGS is the first linear game ever made. Like he's never played FF series or... basically every game tells you what to do and where to go to some degree. Excluding Sandbox games of course.
MGS 4 is open enough. What would this guy say for linear games like Gears of War or Heavenly Sword ? Furthermore, many open world games seem to be very empty. I rather have a non open world game with a lot of details.