Games

You Are Big Boss: Antagonism and Antagonists in the Metal Gear Universe

Like war, games are by nature centrally about conflict. The player has chosen to antagonize himself or herself for the sake of feeling the pleasure of conquering the game, which makes you not Snake, but Big Boss.


Metal Gear Solid V

Platforms: PC, Playstation 4, Xbox One
Developer: Kojima Productions
URL

After completing Metal Gear Solid V, I went hunting for some explanation of why the second half of the game appeared to be so chock-a-block and unfinished and why the game features so many endings. While figuring that out, I got the impression (though I could be wrong, I didn't read deeply enough to see if that was universally the case) that a number of players were not that happy with the “Truth” ending of the game.

Bizarre and outlandish as that ending is, it seemed to me personally to be the perfect ending to Hideo Kojima's work on this series of games, as it does bring his epic series full circle, connecting this final game he will work on to the very first game that he created in the series from the perspective of the full arc of his storylines, but more importantly to me, it is thematically consistent with Kojima's universe.

Kojima's Metal Gear Solid in addition to being a game about the nature of Cold War politics and modern warfare has always been obsessed with turning its perspective back on the player of the game. Through meta-theatricality, Kojima has very regularly turned a mirror back on the player, reminding that player that he or she is a part of the conflict in his games simply by holding the controller.

For me, the most obvious and explicit example of this idea comes in the first Playstation iteration of the game, Metal Gear Solid, during Solid Snake's battle with Psycho Mantis. Infamously, this battle is impossible to initially win, as Mantis is able to dodge all of Snake's attacks against him. The conceit of this sequence is that Psycho Mantis, a highly developed psychic, can read Snake's mind, and, thus, he is always able to foresee Snake's next attack.

After losing this battle several times, the game hints rather explicitly at a solution to this battle. The player (not Snake) is having his or her controller inputs read by Psycho Mantis (a metaphor of sorts for “reading” Snake's mind), thus, what one needs to do to win this fight is to unplug one's Playstation controller from port 1 of the console and plug it into port 2, then the battle can be won.

Such blurring of the boundary between the player's universe and the game's universe occurs once again in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty near that game's ending when the player's in game avatar, Raiden, suddenly dies for no clear reason and the game kicks the player into a familiar Game Over screen, a screen where you usually watch through a smaller window your character's death. However, the player, who is likely confused as to why Raiden just died -- after all, he may have been at full health -- will soon realize that Raiden is still actually quite alive and playable in that small window. The game and its digital antagonist are messing with not only Raiden's but the player's head.

In both sequences, the player is reminded that two worlds exist and coincide when playing Metal Gear Solid, the real world and the fictional universe of Metal Gear Solid. Not only are Snake and Raiden being antagonized by their fictional opponents, but, Kojima seems to want to remind the player, the game itself is antagonizing you, the player. After all, games (like war) are by nature centrally about conflict. The player has chosen to antagonize himself or herself for the sake of the “fun” of playing a game and feeling the pleasure of conquering it. Being antagonized, once again Kojima seems to remind us, is fun because we like the idea of taking the chance of losing for the sake of believing that we can eventually resolve a conflict, win the game, win the war.

Another tendency on Kojima's part (and, perhaps, this is an extension of his tendency to antagonize the player directly or to remind the player that he or she is being antagonized by the game, just as the game's protagonist is being antagonized by his enemies) is to play around a great deal with his audience's sense of who exactly the protagonist (and antagonist, in some cases) actually is in his games.

Once again, infamously Kojima antagonized players when he pulled a switcheroo on them in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. He had teased the game before its release with video of Solid Snake infiltrating a ship. Thus, players assumed that they would once again be taking on the role of Solid Snake in the Playstation version of Metal Gear Solid 2. Which was true, for about an hour or so of the game. After infiltrating that ship as Snake, players of Metal Gear Solid 2 then found themselves pressed into service as the game's “real” protagonist, Raiden.

Metal Gear Solid 3 would follow on the heels of Metal Gear Solid 2 with once again teasers that showed a character that looks like Solid Snake going on sneaking missions. That protagonist ultimately turned out to be what was assumed to be the first Nintendo game version of Metal Gear Solid's main antagonist and final boss, Big Boss, in this sequel set decades before any of the games in the series.

Since then, players have played as Solid Snake once again in Metal Gear Solid 4 and now seemingly as Big Boss once again in Metal Gear Solid V.

If it seems strange to shift the players sympathies between the series's major “hero” and the series's main villain throughout the history of the series, one should remember that Metal Gear Solid isn't set in a universe that is morally quite so starkly black and white as we might like. This is a universe that seems primarily concerned with war, and in war, it usually isn't so easy to attribute blanket moral values to one side or the other. There aren't really “good guys” and “bad guys” in war. There are people in conflict, sides with competing agendas, antagonizing one another because those agendas differ, grounded as they are on the moral authority of the goals or needs of nations.

And soldiers, well, soldiers aren't supposed to necessarily think about these things. They follow orders. They execute missions, as a player might in a video game, receiving their objectives from an external authority.

All of which returns us to the “truth” revealed in one of Metal Gear Solid V's endings, the “truth” that the player has not been playing as Big Boss in Metal Gear Solid V, but, instead, as, well, themselves. When the player character learns that Big Boss has left to build the “real” Outer Heaven and that the character that the player has believed was Big Boss is really a character that the player themselves designed during the introduction of the game, the player also discovers that he or she is the very first Big Boss encountered in a Metal Gear Solid game -- that is, the first release of Metal Gear way back in 1987 on the Nintendo Entertainment System. Note that the phantom "Big Boss" is looking into a mirror when he (and we) discover this about himself. Also note that the whole "Truth" sequence is played from the first person perspective, unlike any other sequence in the game, which is in third person. Kojima seems to want us to understand that "we" are looking into that mirror right now.

So, if the game is telling us, the players, the “truth” when it says that “you're Big Boss” in this moment, then we have also been the perceived antagonist of the series all along. After all, aren't all the played conflicts of the Metal Gear series very literally initiated by us, the players, who desire the pleasure of the antagonism that games provide us?

We buy the game, we load the game up, and we play it. We are the source of conflict in the Metal Gear universe, a fictional universe, of course, but one that springs into being only when we decide that we want to participate in conflict, good little gaming soldiers that we are.

So, yes, Kojima has ended the series with yet another absurd and outlandish plot twist, but one that emphasizes one of his own chief conceits in the series, the reminder that we are complicit in this virtual war that has been going on since 1987. We buy the game, we load up the game, and we play it because we are the real antagonist of the Metal Gear series, the architect of war. We are Big Boss.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image