Except it isn't pseudo-anything. That game has a purpose, as do all Suda51 games. The reason for this argument is that folks like infernovia don't understand that point/refuse to acknowledge it (made more apparent by his rebuttals which generally ignore what people have said to him). When a director has taken so much time and care in crafting his message and it's something unusual to see, I feel it's important for others to recognize it even if they don't like the end product.
To me it looks like infernovia understands what you're getting at, but thinks that Suda's 'point' is a bad one and he made it badly. Lets not get carried away here; just because it's arty and pretentious, that doesn't mean that its a good point and well made.
Except look at his last response to what I said (and hell, the ones before that). Just because he says he gets it doesn't mean he gets it. I get the fact that he didn't like the game, and even understand why, but that's not what I'm trying to explain to him.
I think you're the one who's being dismissive here. I respect and appreciate what Suda 51 has done with both Killer7 and NMH, but I think infernovia rebutted Suda 51's positions pretty well in his post.
It's not a one-sided argument, where Suda is right and the entirety of the game development community is wrong. It's a conversation with points to be made on both sides.
What, exactly, do you not think he's not getting? He acknowledges that it's supposed to be a pastiche and a parody, but he explains pretty succinctly why it's a bad one. Look, right here:
GTAIII's world was interesting and NMH was not interesting. NMH showed that if you make the world not interesting, it is not interesting. That if you did it wrong, it is actually going to be just bad.
He's saying that the parody fails because they've basically ignored all the stuff that makes the subject matter good in order to make the point that the subject matter isn't any good; but that's stupid.
You know I want to like this thread a lot, I mean it has some really interesting commentary and great ideas in it, but it just isn't that fun. Maybe if this thread was more fun people would begin to appreciate the message it is trying to get across.
Sometimes I feel like there should have been only one NMH game.
And it ends with Travis dying. Because despite the fact that he seems like a semi smart guy, he never really questions why he does what he does. We meet colourful characters who are assasins just like Travis, but unlike him, killing isn't everything to them. After seeing the way he reacts after Holly Summers death, you'd think he'd start asking himself the hard questions. But no.
If the game is supposed to be a critique on the lifestyle of an avid gamer/otaku, someone who focusses solely on one aspect of life too the point where nothing else exists. Then why doesn't it show how ultimately futile it all is.
I think this is because people just want to play a game killing dudes, with the continuous gratification that comes with an ongoing series. Rather than be faced with a strong message. Well it is already strong, but it's missing the cheery on the cake. Plus killing the player at end game is a barrier that I dont think any beat-em-up would break.
Now that I remember there is that scene at the end of the assasin finding Travis on the toilet
Edit: I'm aware there's another ending involving Henry btw.
About the ending:
I'm butchering the actual dialog here, but do you remember Travis's conversation with Death Metal at the very start of the game? That conversation established "going to paradise" as a euphemism for death. In the very end of the game, when Travis and Henry are in their locked-swords charge, they talk about finding the "exit to paradise". The game stops with both of them reeling back to hit each other in midair. They're both wide open, and you can tell from their stances that they're aiming for each other's necks. I think it was at least strongly implied that they killed each other-- it was the only escape they had from the endless cycles they were trapped in.
'course, the sequel's existence kinda threw water on that interpretation, but at least in the context of the original NMH on its own, I'd say you could make a strong case for Travis dying at the end (regardless of which ending you watch).
Kupi on
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
The pretentious pseudo-intellectualism some of you are exhibiting over NMH is pretty staggering.
The defensive insecurity you're showing over intelligent conversation is pretty staggering.
Defensive Insecurity? Seriously?
I am very secure with my view on NMH and it's rabid fanbase, who are actually the ones displaying some insecurity over enjoying a generally poor game.
You could convey that perspective then, if you so chose.
But all you did was try to kick the thread and the people who like that in the balls. Common causes for this *are* insecurity, exhibiting as a desire to make yourself look better than others without actually earning it.
I think you're the one who's being dismissive here. I respect and appreciate what Suda 51 has done with both Killer7 and NMH, but I think infernovia rebutted Suda 51's positions pretty well in his post.
It's not a one-sided argument, where Suda is right and the entirety of the game development community is wrong. It's a conversation with points to be made on both sides.
This is why going to the "games as art" issue is useful, despite how some people resent how it dodges issues. This isn't a debate where Suda 51 has a position. He created an artistic statement and put it out there. Rebuttal is an irrelivant concept.
These games are not easy to digest and are not as immediately fun as other games out there. I found a valuable statement in both Killer 7 and No More Heroes, but not everybody is interested in games making that kind of statement. This isn't an impass or something we need to *argue* about for goodness sakes. It just *is*.
Infernovia spent his last post point by pointing why NMH is not as good a sandbox game as GTA. I see how the conversation led him there, but it is wasted effort in the sense that it is designed to be a caricature of that game style with the depth of a thimble. He could have made as good an argument with three letters: Q E D.
I think we've summarized what the deal is with Suda 51. Seems people are lining up to just take cheap shots at each other now. If you don't want to take the time to engage with the thread beyond a one line insult I kindly ask you to step away from the thread.
I'd lock the thread now but I'd feel like a dick for admining myself the last word on the subject.
I think you're the one who's being dismissive here. I respect and appreciate what Suda 51 has done with both Killer7 and NMH, but I think infernovia rebutted Suda 51's positions pretty well in his post.
It's not a one-sided argument, where Suda is right and the entirety of the game development community is wrong. It's a conversation with points to be made on both sides.
These games are not easy to digest and are not as immediately fun as other games out there. I found a valuable statement in both Killer 7 and No More Heroes, but not everybody is interested in games making that kind of statement. This isn't an impass or something we need to *argue* about for goodness sakes. It just *is*.
This is where I disagree. I think one of the best things about "art games" is that it opens the way for discussion and disagreement. I think saying "NMH and K7 are art, and there's nothing more to be said on that subject" is boring, and it doesn't really support or inform the gaming community in any way.
I don't know about the individuals involved in this thread, but I personally have sat on the sidelines watching other posters "argue" about some hot topic in gaming and found it to be useful in forming my own opinions on a lot of topics. I doubt Mblackwell is going to change Infernovia's mind, or vice versa, but people reading this thread might come to a greater understanding of games as a developing medium by watching them hash out their points.
Infernovia spent his last post point by pointing why NMH is not as good a sandbox game as GTA. I see how the conversation led him there, but it is wasted effort in the sense that it is designed to be a caricature of that game style with the depth of a thimble. He could have made as good an argument with three letters: Q E D.
I don't think Infernovia was simply saying that NMH wasn't as good a sandbox as NMH, since that's an obvious observation that I doubt many people would disagree with. It was more like a defense of the "window dressing" that Suda 51 and a lot of the posters here decry as pointless, and it demonstrated how the aspects of that window dressing transformed the sandbox from a bland expanse that players must cross to reach the fun into something more substantial.
Now it's totally possible that you're just saying that the conversation has moved on from the original topic, and is better suited for one titled "Is No More Heroes an effective critique of Sandbox games?", and with that I'd probably agree.
What's odd about the argument, and what I see as not being noticed by someone like Infernovia is that we already acknowledge this same idea when it comes to movies: A crappy movie can have excellent window dressing, enough that it's completely watchable and even a good time. That doesn't in fact make it a good movie. The point was that NMH (and Killer7) were some of the first and only games to address games from that perspective of the gameplay structure. They are removing most of the pretty dressing in order to unobscure the underlying mechanics. The point is at least partially to say that we should rethink how we interact with games (and games interact with us) if the mechanic itself isn't fun without adding a coat of vaseline and a free chocolate sunday. NMH isn't meant to be compared to GTA in the way that Infernovia is comparing it.
Infernovia spent his last post point by pointing why NMH is not as good a sandbox game as GTA. I see how the conversation led him there, but it is wasted effort in the sense that it is designed to be a caricature of that game style with the depth of a thimble. He could have made as good an argument with three letters: Q E D.
Btw, I only did this to clarify that I do know what I enjoyed about GTAIII and used it to imply that the conclusions some people have gotten from NMH were either outright wrong or not an interesting criticism.
A crappy movie can have excellent window dressing, enough that it's completely watchable and even a good time.
That depends! You say the phrase window dressing, as if its just some accessory, but it isn't.
The question is, can a vulgar movie be interesting and fun. And the answer is yes, of course. Why? Perhaps they are funny in ways that the great movies are not. Perhaps the comedy routine is inventive, perhaps it is thrilling, perhaps its actors are more relaxed. It might not be critically acclaimed, but its still something people can have a good time. But the question is, what did we enjoy in it? And that is the only question.
But for a lot of movies that are thought to be good, the answer is that we did not enjoy it. We only enjoyed it because it talked about things that others tell me are important, etc. It might have been a horrible movie, and people still talk about it because it talks about art etc. Its people pretending to enjoy something, and then from this imagination taking down the enjoyable parts about good movies.
So lets talk specifics and put up some solid examples.
We generally become interested in movies because we enjoy them and what we enjoy them for has little to do with what we think of as art. The movies we respond to, even in childhood, don’t have the same values as the official culture supported at school and in the middle-class home. At the movies we get low life and high life, while David Susskind and the moralistic reviewers chastise us for not patronizing what they think we should, “realistic” movies that would be good for us—like “A Raisin in the Sun,” where we could learn the lesson that a Negro family can be as dreary as a white family. Movie audiences will take a lot of garbage, but it’s pretty hard to make us queue up for pedagogy. At the movies we want a different kind of truth, something that surprises us and registers with us as funny or accurate or maybe amazing, maybe even amazingly beautiful. We get little things even in mediocre and terrible movies—José Ferrer sipping his booze through a straw in “Enter Laughing,” Scott Wilson’s hard scary all-American-boy-you-can’t-reach face cutting through the pretensions of “In Cold Blood” with all its fancy bleak cinematography. We got, and still have embedded in memory, Tony Randall’s surprising depth of feeling in “The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao,” Keenan Wynn and Moyna Macgill in the lunch-counter sequence of “The Clock,” John W. Bubbles on the dance floor in “Cabin in the Sky,” the inflection Gene Kelly gave to the line, “I’m a rising young man” in “DuBarry Was a Lady,” Tony Curtis saying “avidly” in “Sweet Smell of Success.” Though the director may have been responsible for releasing it, it’s the human material we react to most and remember longest. The art of the performers stays fresh for us, their beauty as beautiful as ever. There are so many kinds of things we get—the hangover sequence wittily designed for the CinemaScope screen in “The Tender Trap,” the atmosphere of the newspaper offices in “The Luck of Ginger Coffey,” the automat gone mad in “Easy Living.” Do we need to lie and shift things to false terms—like those who have to say Sophia Loren is a great actress as if her acting had made her a star? Wouldn’t we rather watch her than better actresses because she’s so incredibly charming and because she’s probably the greatest model the world has ever known? There are great moments—Angela Lansbury singing “Little Yellow Bird” in “Dorian Gray.” (I don’t think I’ve ever had a friend who didn’t also treasure that girl and that song.) And there are absurdly right little moments—in “Saratoga Trunk” when Curt Bois says to Ingrid Bergman, “You’re very beautiful,” and she says, “Yes, isn’t it lucky?” And those things have closer relationships to art than what the schoolteachers told us was true and beautiful. Not that the works we studied in school weren’t often great (as we discovered later) but that what the teachers told us to admire them for (and if current texts are any indication, are still telling students to admire them for) was generally so false and prettified and moralistic that what might have been moments of pleasure in them, and what might have been cleansing in them, and subversive, too, had been coated over.
Because of the photographic nature of the medium and the cheap admission prices, movies took their impetus not from the desiccated imitation European high culture, but from the peep show, the Wild West show, the music hall, the comic strip—from what was coarse and common. The early Chaplin two-reelers still look surprisingly lewd, with bathroom jokes and drunkenness and hatred of work and proprieties. And the Western shoot-’em-ups certainly weren’t the schoolteachers’ notions of art—which in my school days, ran more to didactic poetry and “perfectly proportioned” statues and which over the years have progressed through nice stories to “good taste” and “excellence”—which may be more poisonous than homilies and dainty figurines because then you had a clearer idea of what you were up against and it was easier to fight. And this, of course, is what we were running away from when we went to the movies. All week we longed for Saturday afternoon and sanctuary—the anonymity and impersonality of sitting in a theatre, just enjoying ourselves, not having to be responsible, not having to be “good.” Maybe you just want to look at people on the screen and know they’re not looking back at you, that they’re not going to turn on you and criticize you.
Perhaps the single most intense pleasure of moviegoing is this non-aesthetic one of escaping from the responsibilities of having the proper responses required of us in our official (school) culture. And yet this is probably the best and most common basis for developing an aesthetic sense because responsibility to pay attention and to appreciate is anti-art, it makes us too anxious for pleasure, too bored for response. Far from supervision and official culture, in the darkness at the movies where nothing is asked of us and we are left alone, the liberation from duty and constraint allows us to develop our own aesthetic responses. Unsupervised enjoyment is probably not the only kind there is but it may feel like the only kind. Irresponsibility is part of the pleasure of all art; it is the part the schools cannot recognize. I don’t like to buy “hard tickets” for a “road show” movie because I hate treating a movie as an occasion. I don’t want to be pinned down days in advance; I enjoy the casualness of moviegoing—of going in when I feel like it, when I’m in the mood for a movie. It’s the feeling of freedom from respectability we have always enjoyed at the movies that is carried to an extreme by American International Pictures and the Clint Eastwood Italian Westerns; they are stripped of cultural values. We may want more from movies than this negative virtue but we know the feeling from childhood moviegoing when we loved the gamblers and pimps and the cons’ suggestions of muttered obscenities as the guards walked by. The appeal of movies was in the details of crime and high living and wicked cities and in the language of toughs and urchins; it was in the dirty smile of the city girl who lured the hero away from Janet Gaynor. What draws us to movies in the first place, the opening into other, forbidden or surprising, kinds of experience, and the vitality and corruption and irreverence of that experience are so direct and immediate and have so little connection with what we have been taught is art that many people feel more secure, feel that their tastes are becoming more cultivated when they begin to appreciate foreign films. One foundation executive told me that he was quite upset that his teen-agers had chosen to go to “Bonnie and Clyde” rather than with him to “Closely Watched Trains.” He took it as a sign of lack of maturity. I think his kids made an honest choice, and not only because “Bonnie and Clyde” is the better movie, but because it is closer to us, it has some of the qualities of direct involvement that make us care about movies. But it’s understandable that it’s easier for us, as Americans, to see art in foreign films than in our own, because of how we, as Americans, think of art. Art is still what teachers and ladies and foundations believe in, it’s civilized and refined, cultivated and serious, cultural, beautiful, European, Oriental: it’s what America isn’t, and it’s especially what American movies are not. Still, if those kids had chosen “Wild in the Streets” over “Closely Watched Trains” I would think that was a sound and honest choice, too, even though “Wild in the Streets” is in most ways a terrible picture. It connects with their lives in an immediate even if a grossly frivolous way, and if we don’t go to movies for excitement, if, even as children, we accept the cultural standards of refined adults, if we have so little drive that we accept “good taste,” then we will probably never really begin to care about movies at all. We will become like those people who “may go to American movies sometimes to relax” but when they want “a little more” from a movie, are delighted by how colorful and artistic Franco Zeffirelli’s “The Taming of the Shrew” is, just as a couple of decades ago they were impressed by “The Red Shoes,” made by Powell and Pressburger, the Zeffirellis of their day. Or, if they like the cozy feeling of uplift to be had from mildly whimsical movies about timid people, there’s generally a “Hot Millions” or something musty and faintly boring from Eastern Europe—one of those movies set in World War II but so remote from our ways of thinking that it seems to be set in World War I. Afterward, the moviegoer can feel as decent and virtuous as if he’d spent an evening visiting a deaf old friend of the family. It’s a way of taking movies back into the approved culture of the schoolroom—into gentility—and the voices of schoolteachers and reviewers rise up to ask why America can’t make such movies.
For me, in a game, if I say it is the style, story and themes, then I know that the best part of the game is just the atmosphere. Which people have been doing since ages and has already achieved great deal of complexity. So I really do not think that a solid premise of style and themes makes anyone a great developer. The ones that I watch for are the developers that create more enjoyable games, the mechanics.
Now, of course, we need to be aware of the atmosphere. Studios with a good sense of style and such are relatively rare (again, this is why I compliment Killer7's art etc). But I do not think that is how video games will gain prominence (for we need to rely on writer's tricks). The only question for me is,what things did I enjoy from this game compared to others. etc. For a developer to try to handhold me through it, and then I start seeing people discarding exactly what makes games fun as childish and not-important... that I cannot agree with.
And btw, these quotes are correct:
He's saying that the parody fails because they've basically ignored all the stuff that makes the subject matter good in order to make the point that the subject matter isn't any good; but that's stupid.
Not only that, but that all of the good things about the subject matter is pointless.
It was more like a defense of the "window dressing" that Suda 51 and a lot of the posters here decry as pointless, and it demonstrated how the aspects of that window dressing transformed the sandbox from a bland expanse that players must cross to reach the fun into something more substantial.
digest and are not as immediately fun as other games out there. I found a valuable statement in both Killer 7 and No More Heroes, but not everybody is interested in games making that kind of statement. This isn't an impass or something we need to *argue* about for goodness sakes. It just *is*.
I don't think anybody can argue that a statement has been made. I do think that it is arguable how well that statement is made and conveyed, no matter how much I like Killer7 and NMH. Whenever I write something satirical or parody something, I get a kick out of anybody who interprets it exactly wrong, but at the same time, I wonder if I wouldn't be happier if they got it exactly right.
Is a ham-fisted parody worse than a parody that almost nobody gets? I don't know. I'd like to say that I get it; I can certainly argue about the different ways in which I get it. Does that mean that I actually get it? I don't know. It seems like it could be a lot of sophistry on the part of all kinds of people (including Suda).
Ice Pick Lodge, a Russian game studio, is interesting in that they are at once exactly like Suda in that they seek a greater discourse through the medium of interactive games, but also exactly unlike Suda in that they aren't seeking to create a deliberately sabotaged experience. As such, their games often come across as buggy and frustrating rather than "poorly designed" and frustrating. They aren't afraid of touting the whole "games as art" line, and that may immediately turn some people away because they'll get the impression that Ice Pick Lodge is a bunch of self-important pretentious posers.
Infernovia, you keep ignoring the main point: He's addressing actual game MECHANICS. The fact that you like an atmosphere in a game enough to continue playing it has little to do with the underlying mechanics. Improved or altered mechanics (or simply already existing better ones) are better than covering up terrible ones. But the fact remains that if developers can simply fool you you're likely to continue buying the games, unless it becomes utterly clear to you what's going on under the surface. Maybe it doesn't matter to you either way, and that's okay I suppose, but the point of NMH doesn't really lend it to the comparisons you continue to make.
In the end the question is, other mediums have evolved, so why can't games? And why is it wrong for an artist to challenge you by exposing bare the absurdity of what games make you do? The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it crap as no one ever likes everything an artist does, and the message has still gotten across to a good number of individuals who will no longer view games with those types of mechanics in the same light. If we never recognize it, we can never change it.
For me, in a game, if I say it is the style, story and themes, then I know that the best part of the game is just the atmosphere. Which people have been doing since ages and has already achieved great deal of complexity. So I really do not think that a solid premise of style and themes makes anyone a great developer. The ones that I watch for are the developers that create more enjoyable games, the mechanics.
Now, of course, we need to be aware of the atmosphere. Studios with a good sense of style and such are relatively rare (again, this is why I compliment Killer7's art etc). But I do not think that is how video games will gain prominence (for we need to rely on writer's tricks). The only question for me is,what things did I enjoy from this game compared to others. etc.
So no, its not just the atmosphere. I have only been talking about mechanics.
Improved or altered mechanics (or simply already existing better ones) are better than covering up terrible ones. But the fact remains that if developers can simply fool you you're likely to continue buying the games, unless it becomes utterly clear to you what's going on under the surface.
The only one that is good at covering (or making people not care about) terrible mechanics is Suda and JRPGs.
You don't get to make blanket statements anymore. If you say GTAIII has bad game design, I want to know exactly what makes it horrible and what it is fooling me from. I already pointed out a bunch of mechanical aspect of GTAIII that makes it interesting, challenging, enjoyable.
In the end the question is, other mediums have evolved, so why can't games?
Evolved into what? Evolved into signifying that shit is art? That no music is music?
And why is it wrong for an artist to challenge you by exposing bare the absurdity of what games make you do?
I already know that a video game is mainly interacted by me pressing buttons and me finishing goals. As a sentient human being, I already realized this when I was 10 (actually, I think I was 6 when I first played video games). I don't need a game to tell me such simplistic messages.
The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it crap as no one ever likes everything an artist does, and the message has still gotten across to a good number of individuals who will no longer view games with those types of mechanics in the same light. If we never recognize it, we can never change it.
And yet you have yet to give me one example of anything it changed or anything you view as better. Whereas I have already pointed out what makes GTA III a good game, what makes DMC a good game, and how to improve them etc.
So no more blanket statements. Tell me exactly what type of game NMH is talking about, how they can be improved mechanically, and why they are drawn to a bad design and needs to be changed into something else.
digest and are not as immediately fun as other games out there. I found a valuable statement in both Killer 7 and No More Heroes, but not everybody is interested in games making that kind of statement. This isn't an impass or something we need to *argue* about for goodness sakes. It just *is*.
I don't think anybody can argue that a statement has been made. I do think that it is arguable how well that statement is made and conveyed, no matter how much I like Killer7 and NMH. Whenever I write something satirical or parody something, I get a kick out of anybody who interprets it exactly wrong, but at the same time, I wonder if I wouldn't be happier if they got it exactly right.
Is a ham-fisted parody worse than a parody that almost nobody gets? I don't know. I'd like to say that I get it; I can certainly argue about the different ways in which I get it. Does that mean that I actually get it? I don't know. It seems like it could be a lot of sophistry on the part of all kinds of people (including Suda).
Ice Pick Lodge, a Russian game studio, is interesting in that they are at once exactly like Suda in that they seek a greater discourse through the medium of interactive games, but also exactly unlike Suda in that they aren't seeking to create a deliberately sabotaged experience. As such, their games often come across as buggy and frustrating rather than "poorly designed" and frustrating. They aren't afraid of touting the whole "games as art" line, and that may immediately turn some people away because they'll get the impression that Ice Pick Lodge is a bunch of self-important pretentious posers.
That interview made me curious to play one of their games (can't say I have), because what they're saying is true. Video games are a new and interactive medium, it's only been in existence for the last 30ish years, so of course it hasn't had time to develop into anything distinct yet. I remember similar ideas being talked about during the development of Eternal Darkness (which, I think succeeded in some of the intended areas and failed spectacularly in others, but overall was a good game despite). But I like the idea of addressing the player as a participant even when the game itself is linear.
As far as people's interpretations of works and intentions coming across, in a lot of cases artists don't always end up with that original intention in tact. At least, I know I don't. Sometimes you end up changing things for the sake of convenience, time, or lack of materials, or sometimes your mood simply changes while you're creating something which then causes the work to turn out differently. So really, I think your message can never be conveyed completely in a way you expect.
Wow, this is seriously just going in circles. At this point you're either never going to get it or being purposefully ignorant.
lol, next time you say that, try to put some actual examples and maybe this would have any meaning. All you are doing is saying "you don't understand." That is, in fact, all anyone has been saying in this thread whenever they argue against me.
Someone should grow some balls and actually argue what the heck NMH is saying and what it is telling developers to do, instead of saying that it tries to say something and we need to change stuff. That is the only way we know the message is worthwhile.
So yeah, keep listening to these game developer with "intention" and those who "want to say something" thus never analyzing anything yourself.
infernovia on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Yes, but what is the analysis, what is the message? Is anybody going to spell it out for poor old me?
Several people already have over the course of the last few pages.
While I agree with some of what you're saying, you should really try to actually read the replies you're being given. To do otherwise would indicate you aren't interested in what other people have to say, only in seeing yourself type.
Yes, but what is the analysis, what is the message? Is anybody going to spell it out for poor old me?
That gaming is rife with worn, tired game play conventions that get dressed up in fancy production values and regurgitated over and over? That his game are working, interactive rebellion against this trend? Beck really got in the groove when he compared his games to punk rock music.
He's addressing actual game MECHANICS. The fact that you like an atmosphere in a game enough to continue playing it has little to do with the underlying mechanics. Improved or altered mechanics (or simply already existing better ones) are better than covering up terrible ones. But the fact remains that if developers can simply fool you you're likely to continue buying the games, unless it becomes utterly clear to you what's going on under the surface. Maybe it doesn't matter to you either way, and that's okay I suppose, but the point of NMH doesn't really lend it to the comparisons you continue to make.
Translation: He is saying stuff about video games, and thats why I like it. What stuff is it saying? I don't know! Apparently something is wrong with mechanics or something. And bad mechanics are getting covered up with good stuff. But what are the bad mechanics and what are the good stuff? Its all too obscure for me to care about.
It's had a huge impact on the industry, especially in Japan, but what Another World does really well is create subtext. (Some people think it's the first game that discussed homosexuality.) If you were to relate Another World to another one of Suda51's games, it would be Killer7. Killer7 is why I sort of dislike No More Heroes, but Killer7s reception is why No More Heroes needs to exist.
In other words, Suda has great style. Which I have never disagreed with.
Unlike Killer7's larger use of subtext to talk about why it hates videogames (rails are an incredible metaphor), No More Heroes shoves it's opinions down your goddamn throat.
But what about video games does it actually hate?
Again, NMH might actually analyze video games fine, but no one here is putting up what the analysis is. You would think that people would take away the biggest part of what they liked from NMH.
The difference is it didn't try to dress it up, because the point was for you to realize that the idea is a crappy one that's been dressed up to be marginally interesting.
As I already pointed out earlier, "the dressing it up" is exactly what made GTAIII interesting. But if GTA III is really dressing it up (you notice that he never clarified what the base mechanic is that he is dressing up), then what you need to tell me is why it is bad game design in the first place. I already pointed out why a sandbox is a good idea.
Btw, here is a hilarious one:
You know I want to like this thread a lot, I mean it has some really interesting commentary and great ideas in it, but it just isn't that fun. Maybe if this thread was more fun people would begin to appreciate the message it is trying to get across.
This is good stuff. Unfortunately, still does not translate to what we are talking about. Because here, we are using language so that we can get an idea. NMH on the other hand is a game that also tries to give an idea and apparently is failing due to no one giving a clear distinct criticism that they gained from NMH.
I understand that it changed the mod's perception on how he/she enjoyed GTAIII, but what exactly was it?
That gaming is rife with worn, tired game play conventions that get dressed up in fancy production values and regurgitated over and over?
And how should we improve it? What are the worn, tired game conventions that games use? Are you sure you are not talking about the aesthetics/style? And if it is the mechanics, again, should everybody not realize that 95% of games out there is simply a glorified maze simulator?
And are genres really even a bad thing? I certainly enjoy God Hand, DMC, Ninja Gaiden despite them using tired production values of beating enemies and bosses up to get to the finish line. I already see that, it is why I play the games after all. Because it also adds one of the most critical components, skilled play and challenge.
The only question is the last bit: how can games be improved? (btw, I still haven't gained any concrete examples for the other question which was what are the bad mechanics)
A clear, mechanical analysis of how games can be improved. No really, try it.
infernovia on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
The only question is the last bit: how can games be improved? (btw, I still haven't gained any concrete examples for the other question which was what are the bad mechanics)
A clear, mechanical analysis of how games can be improved. No really, try it.
What would that have to do with enjoying Suda51's games? Punk rock (I really like that analogy, Beck) wasn't about improving popular music. Socially aware punk doesn't offer any solutions for the most part. It just says, "Fuck you and your bullshit. Go kill yourself."
The only question is the last bit: how can games be improved? (btw, I still haven't gained any concrete examples for the other question which was what are the bad mechanics)
A clear, mechanical analysis of how games can be improved. No really, try it.
For Silver, I'd give Morishita a bit more to do. FSR would be easy to fix. Let Sumio choose where to go by pointing to it on the map of the island instead of making me run for 10 mintues. I suppose a faster jog wouldn't hurt either. If they had just done that, I'd probably be here singing the praises of that game. Killer7, I'm not so sure about. I'm going to give the game the second chance it deserves. From what I played though, if the game had less backtracking it would have been better. I haven't tried NMH yet, but I might pick it up when it comes out.
Is it part of the Silver Case universe?
Does NMH have Kill the Past?
What would that have to do with enjoying Suda51's games? Punk rock (I really like that analogy, Beck) wasn't about improving popular music. Socially aware punk doesn't offer any solutions for the most part. It just says, "Fuck you and your bullshit. Go kill yourself."
Sounds like a well thought out message to me! lol, thanks for clearing up all the bullshit.
For Silver, I'd give Morishita a bit more to do. FSR would be easy to fix.
Btw, I was talking about what Suda wants games to be, not what his games should be. It is clear what he wants his games to be (bad ones), you know since he made them.
I hate to add fuel to the fire here...but if you could go back and read my comment I made about absurdism it may help those who are interested in getting some possible answers to Suda's work. I dont mean to come off as some boorish philosphical snob, but by Suda's own admission Franz Kafka is his favorite writer....if that doesnt answer A LOT of questions then I dont know what will!
For those of you in this post that enjoy Suda's games but dont want to derive anything else from it: good for you.
For those of you who dont like Suda's games: thats fine also.
And lastly...for those of you who think the people in this post are thinking too deeply or pondering too much: The well is only a deep as you think it is and reality and perception are subjective truths...grab youre truth and hold on, and please dont let anyone change your mind.
Posts
It's not a one-sided argument, where Suda is right and the entirety of the game development community is wrong. It's a conversation with points to be made on both sides.
He's saying that the parody fails because they've basically ignored all the stuff that makes the subject matter good in order to make the point that the subject matter isn't any good; but that's stupid.
The defensive insecurity you're showing over intelligent conversation is pretty staggering.
Defensive Insecurity? Seriously?
I am very secure with my view on NMH and it's rabid fanbase, who are actually the ones displaying some insecurity over enjoying a generally poor game.
About the ending:
'course, the sequel's existence kinda threw water on that interpretation, but at least in the context of the original NMH on its own, I'd say you could make a strong case for Travis dying at the end (regardless of which ending you watch).
I like how you don't defend your position, just float it out there like a defacto truth. Good stuff.
猿も木から落ちる
You could convey that perspective then, if you so chose.
But all you did was try to kick the thread and the people who like that in the balls. Common causes for this *are* insecurity, exhibiting as a desire to make yourself look better than others without actually earning it.
猿も木から落ちる
This is why going to the "games as art" issue is useful, despite how some people resent how it dodges issues. This isn't a debate where Suda 51 has a position. He created an artistic statement and put it out there. Rebuttal is an irrelivant concept.
These games are not easy to digest and are not as immediately fun as other games out there. I found a valuable statement in both Killer 7 and No More Heroes, but not everybody is interested in games making that kind of statement. This isn't an impass or something we need to *argue* about for goodness sakes. It just *is*.
Infernovia spent his last post point by pointing why NMH is not as good a sandbox game as GTA. I see how the conversation led him there, but it is wasted effort in the sense that it is designed to be a caricature of that game style with the depth of a thimble. He could have made as good an argument with three letters: Q E D.
I think we've summarized what the deal is with Suda 51. Seems people are lining up to just take cheap shots at each other now. If you don't want to take the time to engage with the thread beyond a one line insult I kindly ask you to step away from the thread.
I'd lock the thread now but I'd feel like a dick for admining myself the last word on the subject.
猿も木から落ちる
This is where I disagree. I think one of the best things about "art games" is that it opens the way for discussion and disagreement. I think saying "NMH and K7 are art, and there's nothing more to be said on that subject" is boring, and it doesn't really support or inform the gaming community in any way.
I don't know about the individuals involved in this thread, but I personally have sat on the sidelines watching other posters "argue" about some hot topic in gaming and found it to be useful in forming my own opinions on a lot of topics. I doubt Mblackwell is going to change Infernovia's mind, or vice versa, but people reading this thread might come to a greater understanding of games as a developing medium by watching them hash out their points.
I don't think Infernovia was simply saying that NMH wasn't as good a sandbox as NMH, since that's an obvious observation that I doubt many people would disagree with. It was more like a defense of the "window dressing" that Suda 51 and a lot of the posters here decry as pointless, and it demonstrated how the aspects of that window dressing transformed the sandbox from a bland expanse that players must cross to reach the fun into something more substantial.
Now it's totally possible that you're just saying that the conversation has moved on from the original topic, and is better suited for one titled "Is No More Heroes an effective critique of Sandbox games?", and with that I'd probably agree.
Edit: Btw, I only did this to clarify that I do know what I enjoyed about GTAIII and used it to imply that the conclusions some people have gotten from NMH were either outright wrong or not an interesting criticism.
That depends! You say the phrase window dressing, as if its just some accessory, but it isn't.
The question is, can a vulgar movie be interesting and fun. And the answer is yes, of course. Why? Perhaps they are funny in ways that the great movies are not. Perhaps the comedy routine is inventive, perhaps it is thrilling, perhaps its actors are more relaxed. It might not be critically acclaimed, but its still something people can have a good time. But the question is, what did we enjoy in it? And that is the only question.
But for a lot of movies that are thought to be good, the answer is that we did not enjoy it. We only enjoyed it because it talked about things that others tell me are important, etc. It might have been a horrible movie, and people still talk about it because it talks about art etc. Its people pretending to enjoy something, and then from this imagination taking down the enjoyable parts about good movies.
So lets talk specifics and put up some solid examples.
To talk about this in depth, you need to understand exactly what is going on here. To do this, here is a great introduction to how the movie critics deal with it. http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael/trashartandthemovies.html
For me, in a game, if I say it is the style, story and themes, then I know that the best part of the game is just the atmosphere. Which people have been doing since ages and has already achieved great deal of complexity. So I really do not think that a solid premise of style and themes makes anyone a great developer. The ones that I watch for are the developers that create more enjoyable games, the mechanics.
Now, of course, we need to be aware of the atmosphere. Studios with a good sense of style and such are relatively rare (again, this is why I compliment Killer7's art etc). But I do not think that is how video games will gain prominence (for we need to rely on writer's tricks). The only question for me is,what things did I enjoy from this game compared to others. etc. For a developer to try to handhold me through it, and then I start seeing people discarding exactly what makes games fun as childish and not-important... that I cannot agree with.
And btw, these quotes are correct: Not only that, but that all of the good things about the subject matter is pointless.
We better make a hasty retreat, guys!
I don't think anybody can argue that a statement has been made. I do think that it is arguable how well that statement is made and conveyed, no matter how much I like Killer7 and NMH. Whenever I write something satirical or parody something, I get a kick out of anybody who interprets it exactly wrong, but at the same time, I wonder if I wouldn't be happier if they got it exactly right.
Is a ham-fisted parody worse than a parody that almost nobody gets? I don't know. I'd like to say that I get it; I can certainly argue about the different ways in which I get it. Does that mean that I actually get it? I don't know. It seems like it could be a lot of sophistry on the part of all kinds of people (including Suda).
Ice Pick Lodge, a Russian game studio, is interesting in that they are at once exactly like Suda in that they seek a greater discourse through the medium of interactive games, but also exactly unlike Suda in that they aren't seeking to create a deliberately sabotaged experience. As such, their games often come across as buggy and frustrating rather than "poorly designed" and frustrating. They aren't afraid of touting the whole "games as art" line, and that may immediately turn some people away because they'll get the impression that Ice Pick Lodge is a bunch of self-important pretentious posers.
Here's an interview with them:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/02/03/rps-interviews-ice-pick-lodge/
In the end the question is, other mediums have evolved, so why can't games? And why is it wrong for an artist to challenge you by exposing bare the absurdity of what games make you do? The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it crap as no one ever likes everything an artist does, and the message has still gotten across to a good number of individuals who will no longer view games with those types of mechanics in the same light. If we never recognize it, we can never change it.
The only one that is good at covering (or making people not care about) terrible mechanics is Suda and JRPGs.
You don't get to make blanket statements anymore. If you say GTAIII has bad game design, I want to know exactly what makes it horrible and what it is fooling me from. I already pointed out a bunch of mechanical aspect of GTAIII that makes it interesting, challenging, enjoyable.
Evolved into what? Evolved into signifying that shit is art? That no music is music?
I already know that a video game is mainly interacted by me pressing buttons and me finishing goals. As a sentient human being, I already realized this when I was 10 (actually, I think I was 6 when I first played video games). I don't need a game to tell me such simplistic messages.
And yet you have yet to give me one example of anything it changed or anything you view as better. Whereas I have already pointed out what makes GTA III a good game, what makes DMC a good game, and how to improve them etc.
So no more blanket statements. Tell me exactly what type of game NMH is talking about, how they can be improved mechanically, and why they are drawn to a bad design and needs to be changed into something else.
So moving on from that part of the conversation:
That interview made me curious to play one of their games (can't say I have), because what they're saying is true. Video games are a new and interactive medium, it's only been in existence for the last 30ish years, so of course it hasn't had time to develop into anything distinct yet. I remember similar ideas being talked about during the development of Eternal Darkness (which, I think succeeded in some of the intended areas and failed spectacularly in others, but overall was a good game despite). But I like the idea of addressing the player as a participant even when the game itself is linear.
As far as people's interpretations of works and intentions coming across, in a lot of cases artists don't always end up with that original intention in tact. At least, I know I don't. Sometimes you end up changing things for the sake of convenience, time, or lack of materials, or sometimes your mood simply changes while you're creating something which then causes the work to turn out differently. So really, I think your message can never be conveyed completely in a way you expect.
Someone should grow some balls and actually argue what the heck NMH is saying and what it is telling developers to do, instead of saying that it tries to say something and we need to change stuff. That is the only way we know the message is worthwhile.
So yeah, keep listening to these game developer with "intention" and those who "want to say something" thus never analyzing anything yourself.
Some of us like him for that.
Several people already have over the course of the last few pages.
While I agree with some of what you're saying, you should really try to actually read the replies you're being given. To do otherwise would indicate you aren't interested in what other people have to say, only in seeing yourself type.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
That gaming is rife with worn, tired game play conventions that get dressed up in fancy production values and regurgitated over and over? That his game are working, interactive rebellion against this trend? Beck really got in the groove when he compared his games to punk rock music.
How many times do we have to say it?
He's probably sitting back and laughing at everyone attempting to analyze his games.
In other words, Suda has great style. Which I have never disagreed with.
But what about video games does it actually hate?
Again, NMH might actually analyze video games fine, but no one here is putting up what the analysis is. You would think that people would take away the biggest part of what they liked from NMH.
As I already pointed out earlier, "the dressing it up" is exactly what made GTAIII interesting. But if GTA III is really dressing it up (you notice that he never clarified what the base mechanic is that he is dressing up), then what you need to tell me is why it is bad game design in the first place. I already pointed out why a sandbox is a good idea.
Btw, here is a hilarious one: This is good stuff. Unfortunately, still does not translate to what we are talking about. Because here, we are using language so that we can get an idea. NMH on the other hand is a game that also tries to give an idea and apparently is failing due to no one giving a clear distinct criticism that they gained from NMH.
I understand that it changed the mod's perception on how he/she enjoyed GTAIII, but what exactly was it?
And how should we improve it? What are the worn, tired game conventions that games use? Are you sure you are not talking about the aesthetics/style? And if it is the mechanics, again, should everybody not realize that 95% of games out there is simply a glorified maze simulator?
And are genres really even a bad thing? I certainly enjoy God Hand, DMC, Ninja Gaiden despite them using tired production values of beating enemies and bosses up to get to the finish line. I already see that, it is why I play the games after all. Because it also adds one of the most critical components, skilled play and challenge.
Please go read them.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
A clear, mechanical analysis of how games can be improved. No really, try it.
What would that have to do with enjoying Suda51's games? Punk rock (I really like that analogy, Beck) wasn't about improving popular music. Socially aware punk doesn't offer any solutions for the most part. It just says, "Fuck you and your bullshit. Go kill yourself."
For Silver, I'd give Morishita a bit more to do. FSR would be easy to fix. Let Sumio choose where to go by pointing to it on the map of the island instead of making me run for 10 mintues. I suppose a faster jog wouldn't hurt either. If they had just done that, I'd probably be here singing the praises of that game. Killer7, I'm not so sure about. I'm going to give the game the second chance it deserves. From what I played though, if the game had less backtracking it would have been better. I haven't tried NMH yet, but I might pick it up when it comes out.
Is it part of the Silver Case universe?
Does NMH have Kill the Past?
That is pretty much what I figured.
Btw, I was talking about what Suda wants games to be, not what his games should be. It is clear what he wants his games to be (bad ones), you know since he made them.
Suda 51 is the king of trolls in real life.
If he were to see this thread, he would be all "shuksheshfuru trorr ish shuksheshfuru!"
For those of you in this post that enjoy Suda's games but dont want to derive anything else from it: good for you.
For those of you who dont like Suda's games: thats fine also.
And lastly...for those of you who think the people in this post are thinking too deeply or pondering too much: The well is only a deep as you think it is and reality and perception are subjective truths...grab youre truth and hold on, and please dont let anyone change your mind.