Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Was Metal Gear Solid 2 right?

It was right about everything, I just needed a snappy title.

I’m going to do something I never normally do, and not only talk about the textual themes of a work, but whether or not they were right or wrong. I don’t do that very often despite it usually being considered the basis of analysis – the kind of analysis they generally teach in schools and is, more specifically, the current popular trend in pop culture analysis. Mostly I tend to focus on subtextual morality; these are the things the characters do, and this is the morality I believe those characters hold based on patterns I observe, and this is the collation of consequences they receive. 

It’s not often that I just look at the things characters say and argue the truth or falsehood of it. I’m willing to entertain the idea that I’m a paranoid cynic who refuses to trust anyone’s word; I’m equally willing to suspect that I’m pretentiously trying to invent meaning where none exists, although that’s considerably less likely at this point. But I think the main reason is that the abstractions most people play with are too generic to be useful. “Parenthood turns you into a better, more responsible person” is true for some people, burns out others, and warps the rest into monstrous narcissists.

But the ideas Metal Gear Solid 2: Guns of the Patriots plays with are very specific and, to my eye, still worth considering in 2025. In fact, people have been saying how prescient the game has been for two decades! Needless to say, SPOILERS for the game will follow, because I’m about to explore the big twists. That is to say, the big twist at the end of the game is that your character, Raiden, has been manipulated by artificial intelligence as part of a program to control information and manipulate people digitally. If you haven’t played the game nor have any interest in playing it, I recommend the following videos from the climax, which I believe can be understood out of context.

The first video is delivered by the villains, and thus needs to be taken with a grain of salt. In particular, I think the game wants us to reject the notion that there is no ‘self’ – not just because Snake, the hero of the game (though not its lead character) rejects that entirely, but because it’s barely true in the context of JD’s argument. Despite having no self, I have created a self? I think the more accurate way of looking at it is that Raiden has embraced what the game believes to be the worst version of a person – someone who embraced a convenient narrative, even as it was filled with holes. If Raiden doesn’t have a self, it’s because he chose not to have one.

The game is not arguing that people do not inherently have a self; it’s arguing that people who reject the self are the ones that people, organisations, and cultures like JD can take advantage of. The other ideas advanced by JD in this speech are almost uncanny in their prescience with current-day internet issues; in particular, people breaking off into little communities, sustaining otherwise unsustainable ideas, is very similar to the modern complaint about the internet creating bubbles.

They even manage to convey exactly why this happens: there are so many ideas and truths floating around the world now that one can get lost in a deluge of useless data. I disagree – and I’ll go into why later – but I’m sympathetic to the complaint that human beings simply weren’t designed to receive so much information, and particularly so much information about other people. I am as susceptible to and frustrated by doomscrolling as everyone else, and my particular complaint is that I keep looking up what some idiot in Denver thinks, even though I know it’s ‘junk data’ that serves me no apparent purpose.

In this kind of world, no wonder people retreat to ‘gated communities’, where they’re safely reassured that other people – ‘normal people’ – think like them, where there are no threatening ideas or people with bad, scary feelings, and sometimes they retreat even further into labels and self-images they seize from other people and use as armour. No wonder people grab onto one moral truth and then toss it aside the moment it becomes inconvenient1. I’m using mocking language, but I do this. 

I’ve been stressing the word ‘villain’ here, and that’s because I don’t think they present a positive moral example, nor are they intended to. One conclusion people often make from observing what I and MGS2 are observing is to side with JD — if not to try and control the flow of information to others, or even simply to oneself, but to high-handedly judge everyone else for being so stupid as to fall for it. JD has a clear-eyed, smug, superior hatred of Raiden in that speech, and it’s not even the victim of the attitudes it’s decrying.

These are understandable reactions; right now, there are concentration camps in the US partly because millions of Raidens thought people with blue hair were a good enemy to throw themselves against. So many things from the last decade, from masses trying to ignore a plague away to a collapsing economy and housing market to the rise of fascism have given people a desperate, life-or-death need to figure out how to control people. At the same time, it’s also a pressing need to work out how to do this without costing you your sanity or, worse, your soul. Most people seem to either give up and ignore it, or are burned up entirely, neither of which seem attractive propositions to me.

Luckily, Snake presents a third option, one that matches most comfortably enlightened people I’ve known: root your identity less in what you take from the world and more about what you put into it. By this, I don’t just mean what you materially take from the world; most of the craziest, least dangerous assholes I’ve known seem to spend so much time whining about the fact that they live in this kind of world and not another.

Snake’s argument is yes, your feelings are who you are and a helpful guide to decide which things you’ll continue sharing with the world. He argues that there is an internal self from which one can draw meaningful action to share with the world; not simply reacting, nor recreating old favourites (both of which leave you at the whims of others), but sharing yourself with others and watching that have an effect on the world. 

I’m a creative, so that’s the work I keep drawing on; essays like this have been my center of gravity for the world, in which I take things — not just movies and shows and books and games, but experiences and observations — and weave them together into something new (I’ve expanded further, even into things I never had much interest in, because I see things I can use but not in essays). Snake is a soldier, and his violence and technique is what he puts into the world, serving greater purposes like destroying Metal Gears.

When people say that human beings were not meant to have all this information, I think they’re unintentionally revealing their own weaknesses, or rather perceived weaknesses — human beings are endurance predators, where our strength above all else is a resilience that shocks our prey. A sufficiently organised mind is capable of processing any amount of information. This is what Metal Gear Solid 2 teaches us, and it’s a useful thing to hold onto in these trying times.

Want to support more great writing like this? Get exclusive member benefits like access to our Discord, early access to Media Magpies content, and more by joining our Patreon!
  1. I’m often struck by the irony of these behaviours at their most base form. Like people who call everyone an NPC or use the phrase “I support current thing”, like those aren’t also easy labels and tools for identity. ↩︎