Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Metal Gear Creator Explains "A Hideo Kojima Game"

Illustration for article titled Metal Gear Creator Explains A Hideo Kojima Game

If you have played any of Hideo Kojima's games, you have probably noticed the "A Hideo Kojima Game" title card. Other game designers have started using this type of crediting. The MGS creator, however, contests that he actually means it.


According to Kojima, he began using the title by his own accord. While Kojima points out that recently it is being used by others, the reason why he uses it is because he plans the project, designs the game, pens the script, directs the game and oversees the project.

Illustration for article titled Metal Gear Creator Explains A Hideo Kojima Game

"It is a statement that I am responsible for everything," Kojima adds. "I do not add this to games that I only produce."

Of course, he has not added "A Hideo Kojima" game to Metal Gear Solid: Rising or the new Castlevania title he is producing. Those are not Hideo Kojima games.

Illustration for article titled Metal Gear Creator Explains A Hideo Kojima Game

Japanese websites have been quick to point out one of Kojima's colleagues that has been using similar crediting. Dead Rising 2 is a "A Keiji Inafune Game". Inafune worked with DR2's developer Blue Castle Games and produced the title.


Inafune produced the first Dead Rising, but did not write or direct the project.

小島監督「"A HIDEO KOJIMA GAME"というのは僕が勝手に始めた名称です、最近は真似をされている人もいる様です」 ← [はちま起稿] [Pic]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


Just a quick question, Kotakuites:

Why is it that so many folks lambaste the story of the MGS franchise for being, "too confusing?"

It's really not. On the face of it, the story is no more complex than the average WEB Griffin novel—or Tom Clancy back before he got into writing serial pap. Sure, it uses some pretty questionable interpretations of genetics, meme retention and psychotherapy to get its message across, but when was the last time you knew a creative property to not bend the laws of reality around itself?

I refer you here to Inception, which I did not care for, but the wider world seems to have been hopelessly in love with. That film took so many of the laws of physics, science, neuroscience, etc., and ripped them to shreds so it could accomplish its aim that MGS is, by comparison, practically innocent—and yet people loved it and continue to lament the, "confounding," nature of the MGS narrative.

What am I missing?