Hello, SVGL friends -- long time no see! Busy as always, with some labors of which you'll hopefully see the fruit quite soon; the news pace has been picking up over at Gamasutra, too.
I'm still getting a lot of mileage out of Bayonetta, but Twitter followers know my favorite game in the universe right now is No More Heroes 2. I reviewed it at the AV Club, so those of you who have been waiting for more formalized thoughts from me besides "if you don't love it you probably just shouldn't ever talk to me again" and "no seriously listen this game is fucking brilliant"can read something that's hopefully a little more professional here.
I think that, according to scale, this is the overall highest rating I've ever given any video game that I had to score. No More Heroes had a mindblowing idea with a few weaknesses in its execution; those weaknesses didn't bother me as much as they seemed to bother others, but nonetheless I can appreciate a sequel that provides watertight solutions to previous flaws.
Speaking of which: I passed on Mass Effect 2; it's not the kind of experience that interests me. I don't really care for the "space opera" vein of science fiction, and I'm a little fatigued of dialogue trees. I can praise the first Mass Effect, which I did play at least for a good chunk of time, for how well-done it is, but I can't say I enjoyed it. Fortunately, there is Gamasutra's Chris Remo to offer you some thoughts on the ways Mass Effect 2 aimed to address the weaknesses of the original.
Back to No More Heroes 2. I've heard a lot of people say they feel that the newer, tighter trip to Santa Destroy loses some of the character that the first one had. Over at the Brainy Gamer, Michael Abbott has a thought-provoking articulation of this point of view. The perspective raises a couple questions for me.
I've always praised creative spirit over technical execution, maybe more than a professional reviewer ought. I'd always prefer a risky, high-impact experience with a lot of rough edges to a polished, fluid one that doesn't really shake the paradigm or feel artistic. I like distinctive auteurs, and Grasshopper's Suda51 is on my very short list.
I wonder if we've come to associate creativity with visible flaws? Does something with clumsy bits in it seem scrappier or nobler? Is there really a loss of "character" visible when something's streamlined or polished? Do we need to see the creator's errors to understand their vision and spirit?
One of the reasons I'm such a big fan of Hideo Kojima's is his self-awareness. He knows his cutscenes are too long and that his sense of humor is weird, and he knows how critics feel about it. Yet he won't change -- in fact, much of the time in Metal Gear Solid 4, the elements for which his direction is most often criticized are exaggerated in a way that feels intentional. Therefore, Kojima's work is a dialogue between himself and the players. They have a sense of "knowing" him because they know how he expresses himself in games.
Suda51 also has a distinctive identity, and a pattern of being behind games that are beloved for their concepts but encounter critical difficulty because of execution issues. Did we come to associate those design shortfalls with the "identity" of the creator? Because critics who like his work found themselves having to champion its "character," flaws and all, could it be that in a well-executed No More Heroes game, we no longer recognize the visionary?
When an offbeat independent band suddenly produces an album that's too polished, fans are likely to say they prefer the older, more distinctive material because it had more character. Same principle at work here?
For what it's worth, I am not on the side of the fence that sees any kind of character loss in No More Heroes 2. As I said in the comments on Brainy Gamer, I really think the issue is simply that something can only be new once, and it won't feel the same the second time.
21 comments:
The rough edges of an artwork are important to me because they give access. They feel sort of empowering, like, "Oh, hey, a person made this." Sometimes the perfection of form can be utterly alienating. I feel that way with most of Stanley Kubrick's films. Peter Greenaway too. They both have striking and peculiar visions, but they seem so inhuman in their perfection. I'd rather a director who tipped their hand a little more. Maybe it's just the long aftereffects of punk, the liberation of the idea that you can make media yourself. I loved that flash game from a year or two ago, where you played stick figures enacting the final moments before a nuclear bomb goes off (I'm afraid I can't remember the title). And you just had to do all these utterly mundane minigames in five seconds, while Scott Joplin played on the soundtrack, and no matter what you did you'd then see a picture of a mushroom cloud. That was one of my favorite computer games in years, even though the whole experience lasted maybe six minutes. It was utterly hilarious, giddy, and very, very personal. Like a letter from the creator to me. This isn't a universal truth--there are some apparently perfect, formally spotless things that are also gut-wrenchingly immediate and awesome. Game-wise I think of Mario 64. But in general I think it's indicative of the moment we live in that flaws are interpreted as virtues. Michel Gondry wrote a book about that recently, didn't he? And in general its something I hope for more of in games. I remember feeling so intensely sad playing The Simpsons game from EA, because it felt as if almost all of the roughness had been sucked from The Simpsons, leaving only this utterly smooth surface.
Here's an interesting anecdote, whether or not it relates directly to what you're talking about in this post is up in the air. Anyway, the day of release I watched a youtube review of the game against my better judgement. I made one comment about the video, "Wow, Naomi's had some work done!"
When I played the game the next day, I had one of those moments that I love about this game and its predecessor. I went to Naomi's to see if I could buy anything and she said: "I know what you're thinking, and the answer is no!"
I thought of this when I read about Hideo's self-awareness.
Glad you're enjoying this game as much as I am.
I finished No More Heroes 2 last night after roughly three days of marathon play and I can safely say I'm sad that it's over. It could never end and I'd be a happier man. I loved the original and its creative spirit, but some of its weaker design decisions were a hurdle for less patient gamers, which hardly helped the game in an age were gaming fans seem to be less patient with flaws then ever. No More Heroes 2 retains the same creative spirit of the first, but offers a much improved gameplay experience as well. It's not losing any of it's character, what it is showing, however, is that Suda51 and Grasshopper Manufacture are finally on their way to making games with the gameplay chops to support their lofty and unique ideas.
Given your recent praise for Demon's Souls, presumably you played on "Mild" and not "Sweet"?
I immensely enjoyed the first game, which I finished on "Mild." It was often hard, but didn't feel really brutal until the final fight or two. I have also enjoyed this one, but on "Mild" difficulty many bosses have seemed enormously difficult; even the first was frustrating. Not unfair, but cruelly hard. The "character" of the game seemed mostly intact, but the change in balance has made it more difficult for me to enjoy. I dont' feel like a punk rock badass when I barely squeak out a victory after multiple deaths. At rank 4 I'm ready to quit and start over on "Sweet." This change in balance does change my perception of the game and its character.
I think the loss of the overworld (as crappy as it felt) and more overt use of the supernatural and breaking the fourth wall (both in cutscenes and with gimmicks like the "8-bit" minigames) do make this feel more like a "game." (Brainy Gamer touches on the loss of the bike, I see.) It disconnects the weird love/hate identification we gaming otaku feel with Travis. The lingering scenes with Sylvia narrating also change the tone of the game. It is less punk rock and more David Lynch.
For better or for worse, the character has changed, and not just because it is more polished or lacks novelty. I like it, but it feels different.
Oh, and not that I've played it, but calling your game No More Heroes is punk as fuck. Are there, in fact, any Stranglers songs in the game?
you simple just can't please some people. Especially In a era where everybody wants flashy HD graphics and movie games with boxed in worlds.
Some times I wish they would just give me Top gear 2 with a million tracks and online play. Fuck GT5.
1.) Thank you for writing about NMH2. It's nice knowing that someone else out there is playing the game while everyone else is busy gushing over Mass Effect 2. No disrespect to ME fans, but NMH deserves some of that love.
2.) When the first NMH came out, there was a lot of discussion around whether design problems are excusable when they're an intentional component of the game's theme. The barren open world and tedious side jobs of the original were fully intentional commentaries on the lengths us gamers are willing to go to get our fix. Mowing lawns as Travis to earn money to get into the next ranking battle conjured up memories of mowing lawns as a kid to earn twenty bucks toward my next NES cartridge.
The point you make about equating rough edges to auteur vision and the point about not being able to be surprised twice in a row are valid ones, but I think there is still a sense in which nixing the open world and making the side jobs more fun-- fixing the game's design problems, in other words-- actively fight against some of the game's themes.
I've always thought it was really interesting that the only real 'auteurs' gaming has are coming out of Japan. You mention both Suda and Kojima (and there are of course many others), but are there really any unique American or European devs out there besides titans like Will Wright? It doesn't seem that way. I can only think of a small handful.
I am not a huge fan of NMH but it's always intrigued me for its sharp sense of personality.
I like the first game a lot better, mostly because the glaring control issues are more of a problem in the second game. The sequences where you have to fight while leaping around make me wonder why they bothered including analog control at all when the movement is clearly digital along 8 plans. Some fights remind me of PSX launch games in their lack of polish and sheer frustration.
That being said, I like the game, but I'd really like to punch Suda in the mouth, just once, for being unable to figure out how to make a character control properly. If amateur Flash authors can make a game with solid controls, what's Grasshopper's excuse?
Grayson - off the top of my head, Spector, Molyneux, Jonathan Blow, Edmund McMillen, Terry Cavanagh, Vic Davis, Nikolay Dibowskiy. Kim Swift as a potential future one, though her move to Airtight doesn't fill me with confidence.
Your post, as always, made me think quite a bit. A disclaimer first, I haven't played NMH2 yet (don't have a Wii anymore :( ) so what I'll say about this particular game is pure speculation but let's go with it.
One of the "flaw" from the first game was the whole open world environment where you could drive around from mission to mission but that you ultimately couldn't change or really interact with. Of course, looking back, we can see that it was a truly conscious choice on Suda51's part. It was a statement about a certain trend back then to have open world in games for no real reasons.
What can often be perceived as flaws in his games (and are on a purely mechanical level) are also statements about certain things in gaming. NMH2 removed the open world not because it was bad in the first game, but because it was not relevant anymore. In the wake of all those "faux retro" games coming out, Suda51 probably decided to change all of the mini-games from the original game to their 8-bit form.
It's not about excusing flaws for games that are trying something innovative, it's accepting what can be perceived as flaws from a mechanical or gameplay perspective when they are also statements. Killer7 is another great example of this.
@Greyson
Not really. Sean pointed out a few occidental "auteurs" but that whole idea of video game authorship is an whole other problem and it's every member of the holy VG trinity of Gamers-Press-Industry that need to change how they see the place of the "author" in video game design.
On to topic of flaws adding character, you may want to check out the Japanese concept wabi-sabi, an aesthetic system that values the transient, incomplete, and imperfect as beautiful. Which is to say that, no, you are not alone in feeling this way about flaws.
"When an offbeat independent band suddenly produces an album that's too polished, fans are likely to say they prefer the older, more distinctive material because it had more character. Same principle at work here?"
Nail on the head - some folks feel they have more cred when they champion the flawed. And when those flaws are ironed out, there's nothing left to get behind.
Granted, there's the distinction of when something feels over-produced...
I'm one of those folks who could not stand No More Heroes, character aside. So I'm really glad they are trying to make a better game that retains its uniqueness.
Kevin --
I think there's a little more to the phenomenon than you're letting on. What people tend not to realize is that it's striving for perfection that "gets us off" as an audience, not the achievement of perfection. The latter is always (when it can even be accomplished, that is) a major letdown.
Leigh, bearing in mind your article on GTA from a year ago, "Anti-Feministing", I'm curious about your views on the treatment of women in Suda 51's games, particularly No More Heroes 2. I'm a huge fan of both the game and the director, but I can't help but be unnerved by the representations and treatment of women in the game. What particularly disturbed me was finally getting to play as Shinobu, but constantly having to hear her called a skank and whore. It was as if the game couldn't bear to let you control a powerful woman without her being sexually humiliated. I like the game, so this isn't some broad-based attack from an anti-game pundit. I just found certain elements to be disappointing.
And no, I'm not asking you for your take because you're a woman. I'm asking because you're a huge fan of the game and because you've written thoughtfully about the subject matter in the past. I'm not expecting a view on the behalf of all women everywhere. I know that's one of your pet peeves. ;) Your defense of Bayonetta actually heightened my enjoyment of that game.
Personally, I felt that NMH2 tried to become something it was never meant to be. And since the fist game was pretentious, No more heroes 2 manages to be the most pretentious thing in the whole entire universe.
Ever.
When it comes to value of "flaws" in creative mediums it seems to be a matter of intent, making what is and is not a flaw highly relative. An artist doesn't have to aspire for the same goal with each piece, leaving a lot of room for mobility. That said, judgments are usually based on in-genre comparisons. If say, a punk band whose music has a reputation of being raw and dirty (you know, punk music) produce a slick studio album, they might be able to pull it off, but it's all in the context of the way they present it. It might not appeal to the original audience, but that doesn't mean the previous work was better, but rather that people retain loyalty to a subculture in which they feel they are a member.
NMH and NMH2 (haven't played them) bring satire into the argument which opens another set of qualifiers for what is intentional. Few games seem to be as wholly sarcastic as NMH(2), in a way making that the defining factor of the game more than it being an "action" title. That's as far as I can speculate not having played them though.
There's a comment from Jacques Barzun that's worth mentioning in regard to works of art - that the pleasure is greater when the style is fresh but flawed, than it is once the style has been perfected and the talent is "on tap".
Of course not everyone feels that way, especially critics, but I think the same point can be applied to (some) video games.
I feel like such an outcast. I enjoyed the first game, both for its "game" and "meta-game" portions, and really like the second game for being so damn fun, in my humble opinion.
Perhaps the expiration date of gaming freshness is different per gamer?
Thank you for bringing up this game! I had just finished a rant about nintendo's wii and how the gems are games that they make and not games on multiple consoles. I had honestly forgotten about how much i enjoyed NMH, coupled with SSBB, and NSMB...Nintendo does have some great things going for them. They show a great blend of being able to balance a game, only when its theirs in my opinion. I read one post and im going to continue to read, thank you!
That was quite an interesting criticism and analysis of the creative bit and the editing of the game.Yes it is really done very well.
Post a Comment