https://youtu.be/uuCzWJ-_SK4

The above link is to a Youtube Video that points out an apparent easter egg regarding what Konami did with Kojima. I'll of course mention it here, but the video definitely merits a look, MGS fan or not.


Kojima's Voice: Heard, But Not Understood?

You know that moment in a film (or even real life) when someone gives a last message but it isn't clear what exactly they're saying? Or maybe the message is entirely missed until well after they're gone? Well it seems that such is the case with Hideo Kojima. This trailer for Metal Gear Solid 4 shows a watermelon box that clearly says "NO PLACE FOR HIDEO" on it. When we first saw this, most of us likely thought little of it, but now it begs the question, was Hideo Kojima trying to tell us something?
If you'd rather skip the video, here's a still shot:


Then there are suggestions that a quote in PT was a reference to this happening. http://www.gamerassaultweekly.com/2015/05/could-p-ts-ending-have-hinted-at-kojimas-departure/

This one seems entirely possible given Kojma's comment a few years back that he wanted to Kill Snake in Patriot Guns (apologies if I got the name wrong, this interview was the only time I ever heard of the game), but was forced to keep him alive, betraying artistic integrity to satisfy people (paraphrased). He also said on various occasions that he always said that each MGS would be his last, so it seems he'd been forced to keep the series alive for years, despite his wishes to end it. If so, this quote from PT fit perfectly, and indeed Kojima is known for putting secret messages in his games.


Conclusion

If nothing else, it seems undeniable that Kojima meant something with the Ground Zeroes side mission in the video listed at the start, and with the comment "The marks may be erased, but the memories will always be with you". And the No place for Hideo box seems a definite message about Konami edging him out as well. What do you think?

A series should end when it's supposed to end. Even if it means killing the main character. Unless the author is given enough time to work it out and make a new, better ending. But never if he's forced. Now, what I would do is I would say, that if you want to end a series but pass it onto a friend, or person you know can handle it, then do what you were originally going to do, ie kill your main character, then give your sucessor the rights and say. "Here ya go, just don't wreck my canon please!"

Though I could see the fans raging about that. In the past, fans have rejected really good writing just because they don't understand it. (Zant in Twilight Princess. Mephiles in Sonic 06.) It's always a pain explaining to people what was going on in a story too. Ah well.

Sword legion : True. And you have to appreciate a writer who knows when to end a story, as most tend to just keep dragging their stories on and on until it's completely dead and betrays the story's original intentions. Fans may rage, but in the end they'll appreciate it far more than the story being dragged on for too long.

Also I fixed that link to the article discussing the PT quote. Be warned: if memory serves it has some strong language. Just skip down to the quote and it's explanation if you wish to avoid the language.

I think its a hidden message.  Hideo seemed always ready to get rid of Snake. He made him age-rapidly AND replaced him with a Bishonen in MGS 2. He says it was to "see Snake from a different perspective" yeah, right. Konami is scared to move on without Snake after the U.S. revulsion of Raiden.

Eirinn :

Ah, thanks for that.

Hey, you know how I'm a big Sonic fan right? Even of Shadow the Hedgehog's big game?

Actually. Bringing Shadow back to life is one of the biggest complaints fans make to this very day because of how Shadow was originally supposed to die, and pretty much did in his debut game. They only brought him back due to the fans love of him as a character.

I've always wondered if they were justified in their actions of doing so or not. I mean, there are pros and cons. And in story building, there are some lines you definitely don't want to cross, but how much can you compromise on account of. . . . well. . . a good idea. I mean, closing something, but then reopening it due to popularity.

What's the proper approach then?

Honestly? I loved how Shadow came back, and I even thought it was done well. (The original Story didn't technically kill him, but it was fairly unlikely that he would be able to come back. Plus the reason that they brought him back was because of popularity.

I mean, it was handled. . . well in my opinion.

But others didn't like it. Probably because they know that the only reason he was brought back was because of popularity.

What do you think about such a situation?

Also, character are brought back from death too often in media- almost as much as they are killed. I consider that a problem. Gaurdians of the Galaxy plz.

endings : Agreed. I mean I haven't played the original Metal Gear Solid since the late nineties, and a messed up disc kept me from starting the second part of the game so I may be wrong, but didn't they almost imply that MGS was supposed to be Snake's last mission? Again, I have no idea how that ended or if I even remember correctly.

By the way, could you toss an answer to the following question in between some spoiler tags for me? I know Merrill could live or die in MGS: which ending turned out to be canon? I'd go back and play it to see, but I heard MGS had nudity in it, and that's not my kind of thing.



Sword legion : Honestly as long as he was never actually shown dead, I think bringing him back (even by popular demand) should be fine so long as it doesn't compromise where the story was meant to go in later installments, and as long as the return can make sense.

I wonder if the return from the dead that we see too often in media is because writers and directors/developers are afraid to not give the fans the characters back. and are more willing to sacrifice their artistic integrity --and at times even canon-- to satisfy people who were upset by the character's death.

Eirinn : I think...could be wrong, its been years.. MGS had about as much nudity as Snake Eater, which the instance(s) of mention are being in unmentionables. Which is to say, none, but some fanservice underwear shots?