Style over Substance? A Tale of Two Games

Written by Andrew Hiscock

Editor's note: Many gamers are on a never-ending search for substance in their games. Andrew takes a look at two Wii offerings -- one that's all about the creator's ego, and another that captured not only Andrew's attention but his imagination as well. -Jason

Style over substance. It's an old adage, and perhaps one that's best applied to discussions of video games. While a large movement's trying to figure out what games mean as art (myself included), we can all admit that many don't achieve such recognition. In fact, the market's swamped with product that doesn't even bother to aspire to art.

But sometimes they do. I've taken on two games both rife with style, both that aspired to be more than the sum of their parts. But where one fails spectacularly, the other sets a new bar for interactive entertainment.

No More No More Heroes
No More Heroes was billed as the first foray into some serious gamer-focused action for the family-friendly minigame provider that is the Wii. The game came with a thud and went out with a whimper, and similar titles are falling to the same fate.

And thank goodness for that.

That may be harsh, but after playing No More Heroes, I'm of the firm opinion that this game's exactly the type that does not need to be made anymore. And it's not because it's an incredibly violent game on the Wii. Heck, the console could use a bit more balls.

No, this game is an absolute train wreck of style. And power to Suda 51 for taking the initiative, if not delivering the execution. Everything single nook and cranny is filled with Suda's patented style: otaku trappings, wrestling masks, edgy character design, ridiculous names, slick interludes and cut-scenes, and above all, the over the top überviolence.... You name it -- it's in there.

There's nothing to the game beyond this. The combat's simple, and the open-world gameplay's boring and not-so-open. Perhaps the greatest insult is the character progression. Instead of any sort of customization, you receive a linear set of improvements that you must go out and find, which is simply an additional step to acquiring them (assuredly for the purpose of "open worldiness"). That's fine. Sometimes games are more style than substance, and I can appreciate that.

The true crime in No More Heroes is that the style is so pervasive and disconnected among its parts that to make any sense of it is exhausting and a nuisance.

The design philosophy's readily available between the lines: "I am Suda 51, and whatever I think is cool goes in this game." So what if the story's a farce, the wrestling connection makes no sense, all of the baddies exist for no other reason to exist, and the humor's solely sexual in nature and will appeal to young men who just discovered masturbation?

So what is right. The game is an embarrassment to play. More appropriately, you have a tremendous amount of "wahjah" for the producer (a Shawn Elliott term referring to embarrassment by proxy), kind of like watching an American Idol contestant that truly believes in themselves fail miserably, only to refuse to understand why they didn't make it to Hollywood.

But what can you expect from a man who has branded his company as a "Video Game Band" and inscribed its logo with the asinine statement "Punk's Not Dead"? To call oneself punk, especially in this day and age, it's impossible to be punk, by definition of what punk is (individual, non-conformist, etc). This is an appropriate metaphor for the game.

World of Good
While No More Heroes has been relegated to bargain bins the world over, your $15 will be put to better use in the WiiWare store, where a small independent game takes style and develops substance from it.

If you've followed video games for any length of time, World of Goo has surely crossed your radar. Aside from being an independent favorite, it's a critical darling, and justifiably so. Where No More Heroes develops an inconsistent style based on the whims and cool factor of an individual, the style of World of Goo propels the game, provides meaning, and adds to the substance.

The game is summarized simply: a bridge-building game using flexible bits, with additional mechanics thrown in for variety. And the design offers a fantastic amount of depth while providing cleverly designed puzzles.

Oh, another one of those games.

But where similar "simple but deep" concepts are a dime a dozen, World of Goo establishes a mysterious and friendly-macabre world where these building blocks are given life and purposes. Unlike a Tetris, where the goal of the game is maneuver through the mechanics, World of Goo gives life to puzzle completion.

Instead of solving a puzzle or completing a task, the aesthetics, the music, and the humor all combine to inspire the player in the role of gentleman tinkerer in Tom Waits' barn or exacting artist on the set of Tim Burton's latest stop-motion project.

The style allows the player to become explorer, discoverer, experimenter, and dreamer in an entirely different world.

World of Goo proves that art allows us to experience something different and worthwhile. No More Heroes proves that art is more than slapping your name as writer and producer at the end of the opening credits.

Comments (20)

I'm with you, Andrew. I don't care how good a game looks if it's no fun to play. Movies often have this same style-over-substance issue.

Still, cold retail reception for the first game hasn't stopped Suda 51 and Ubisoft from readying No More Heroes 2 for the beginning of next year. Hopefully they learned a few lessons.

Brett Bates , September 12, 2009

On the sales front, NMH has sold 440,000 copies worldwide.

Strangely, the World of Goo demo failed to enchant me. I think I was victim of buying into and absorbing too much hype.

Adalberto Herrera Jr , September 12, 2009

Good call on comparing World of Goo to a Burton flick, I have used that comparison as well when describing that game!

I have yet to try No More Heroes, but now I think I will stay away...

Lance Darnell , September 12, 2009

I love World of Goo! Luckily, it's also available for PC and Mac for the same price. Also, the soundtrack is available as a free download.

I never played No More Heroes, but every video I saw of the game in motion I thought, "That doesn't even look fun." I guess I'm glad I never spent any money on it.

J. Cosmo Cohen , September 12, 2009

Oh and I thought of this later, but a great term to describe Suda 51 is self-indulgent. Kojima suffers from the same thing.

J. Cosmo Cohen , September 12, 2009

Re: NMH

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the game as junk. It's a mess at times for sure, for mostly gameplay elements that merely serve as chores between the story.

But the story and style is what makes the game intriguing to play. It drips with style, and Suda51 makes me feel like I was in the hands of an Auteur, rather than a programmer. Moments like the fake out boss battle (around #5 or #6), using the Wii mote like a cell phone as you're taunted before every boss battle, or the Fast Forward through of the Final Boss's speech, are all unusual and unique little touches, that kept me coming back for more, because I couldn't wait to see what was next.

Travis is a unique character, in a way he's living out every gamer's virtual real-life fantasy, kicking-ass with a light-saber while being taunted and lured by a beautiful woman promising sex. If he keeps killing she promises to reward him. But in the meantime, his life is pathetic, he's surrounded by toys and videos, but has no real connections to the outside world and his home life is centered on his cat. He's not a cold-hearted killer, but he wants to be, and yet, he never gets there. He even flashes brief moments of vulnerability before some of the sadism thrusted before him.

I've always thought Suda51 would make a better film director, because he knows how to manipulate the audience and give us unique, if not crazy characters, even if it all doesn't always seem to make sense.

In light of an industry that seems centered on having space marines, busty heroines, or pubescent protagonists, in every title, Suda51 gave us a title that focused on a mortal, somewhat nerdy, unemployed 20-something, openly chasing his ultraviolent fantasy. Tell me, is that not at least a bit more individual, non-conformist, etc. than most other games nowadays?

VicViper , September 12, 2009

I'm with VicViper - I can't help, but feel like Andrew had a strangely unusual problem with No More Heroes, while I agree that certain aspects of the game failed because it tried to do something it simply couldn't do well, it wasn't ultimately a bad game.

The game tried to demonstrate a lot of things for the sake of making a point, the problem was, it didn't function as an aspect of the game. Example: Game's Hub space/side jobs.

Suda 51 isn't successful because he's a hack, but because he really tries to do some pretty interesting stuff. I'd argue that NMH has more soul then World of Goo, but I'd agree, as a game, WoG is a more successful a product.

Carlos Castro Reyes , September 12, 2009

My argument wasn't that I was mad with the gameplay. I was mad with the style. I thought it was aimless, ridiculous, uninspired, uninteresting, and above all andmost importantly, purposeless.

Andrew Hiscock , September 12, 2009

The same style that you hate is the same thing I loved. It's reminiscent of a B/Grindhouse movie. I was more aggravated at the open-world parts, and the stiff animations...

NMH is a love or hate thing, but I disagree with the notion that it's the kind of game that doesn't need to made anymore. That "ego" is what I liked about the game.

Suriel Vazquez , September 12, 2009

Andrew Hiscock needs to go to hell and die. Games like No More Heroes need to be made if only to fuck with gamers' preconceptions and utter reliance on conventions. The game purposefully thumbs its nose at expectations, sometimes to its betterment, sometimes to its detriment, but always creating something much more interesting to play than everything else on Wii. I don't care if it has the stink of an auteur, can you honestly name another videogame which unmistakably reflects the personality of its director? The only one I can think of is Braid, which is a sad state of affairs for a maturing medium.

No More Heroes does have a wholly imaginative and original style, you just don't like it. This article is a lot like the arguments I hear for why Tarantino shouldn't be allowed to make movies, but even those who malign his art should respect his role in the ecology of film, he uses conventions in a way which spotlights their incredibility, he scours the palette from which film-makers have to draw from, he forces originality from others.

Lastly, to correct your factual error, No More Heroes was a modest success in America, hence the sequel. You should take more care when off-handedly insulting cult favorites.

Marcus Mattern , September 13, 2009

-2

Damn Marcus, is this how you react when people question your vies and opinions? Harsh!

Andrew Hiscock needs to go to hell and die

Andrew DID die and go to hell, but he did so to attain the coveted boat that ferries lost souls across the river Styx. He defeated Cerberus, a few Cyclops and a large evil bull before grabbing the boat and pulling it out from the underworld. He was trying to ensure that no more people would die and go to hell - for no boat means no more people going to hell!! After a long ascent Andrew finally reached the surface again. Sadly, people still die, but Andrew did more than anyone else to try and save our souls from a lifetime in hell, and I love him for that!

(this story may not have happened -ed.)

Lance Darnell , September 13, 2009

Marcus, please cool it down a little. You can disagree with Andrew, but there's no reason to tell him to go to hell and die.

Brett Bates , September 13, 2009

Andrew Hiscock needs to go to hell and die. Games like No More Heroes need to be made if only to fuck with gamers' preconceptions and utter reliance on conventions.

I don't rely on conventions and I support games that innovate. I've written several times here that I don't like that video game publishers force feeding us the same derivative crap over and over. I also did not like No More Heroes. Last time I checked, Andrew and I were entitled to both have and voice out opinions here. Feel free to disagree, but how about we remain civil about it?

If you feel so strongly about what you consider to be the sad state of affairs in the video game industry, there are more constructive ways to make your point, like writing your own article.

Jay Henningsen , September 13, 2009

I won't resort to insults. Or even responding to insults. But I will make a statement absent of any factors errors.

Marcus, while making claims that the game was original and imaginitive failed to explain how it was original or imaginitive. He also failed to mention how the style, regardless of qualities, was useful during the course of NMH. I have yet to see an argument concerning the game where there is substance to go along with the style.

Marcus also makes the mistake that I respect Taratino, or that I assume that anything with an auteur is good because it has an auteur.

Also No More Heroes relies on convention. Plenty of it.
I also can't insult games, because they don't have feelings.

Marcus, live long and prosper.

Andrew Hiscock , September 13, 2009

That was suppose to be factual errors but my spellcheck is wonky

Andrew Hiscock , September 13, 2009

As far as punk not being dead and that declaring such makes no sense because punk is not something that can be belonged to and not a movement that can die-- I think that in all likelihood Suda is on the other side of this one. He's deploying the "punk's not dead" trope ironically.

I played the Japanese edition of No More Heroes, which has the same English voice track as the U.S. Version, but doesn't have the blood. I imagine I would have found the blood tedious. I can't say I loved it in the trailer that's been shown of the sequel.

I feel like there's a lot to like in No More Heroes. The choice of character is interesting. The incredibly simple mechanic of having the game wait for you to press "A" to flip on the beam katana was glorious.

Fetishizing 8-bit graphics and blaxploitation and kung-fu movies is a big part of the design direction of the game, and it is a cliche. It's not super-meaningful, it is a bit boring-- to me, that is.

To get Travis as a character, you're sort of supposed to understand why all of this stuff fits in with Travis' fantasy and understand that the fantasy is a ridiculous hodgepodge of conditioned responses, just like the power fantasies that gamers respond to generally. If you don't actually find the influences that Suda draws from in order to make this point appealing in themselves, then that might not click; you might spend your time saying “this shit again?” You don't have to share Travis' fantasies in order to enjoy the game, but you do have accept them as part of his character in order to make peace with the game's attempts to both capitalize on their cachet and lampoon Travis' pathetic motivations towards sociopathic behavior.

Now, I think that's interesting, but I'd admit that somewhere around
the fast-forwarded conversation with the blonde lady-wrestler, I was kind of like "f this story." But I continued to play. I did end up feeling like it was downhill from there.

I don't really mind that the story be parodic-- I would say that World of Goo is also a parodic farce, in a more Douglas Adamsy tradition, if you get to the endgame.

Luke Winikates , September 14, 2009

Everything Andrew hated about the art and style: I loved because it works so well as a game. No More Heroes is quite possibly the best anime game ever made and it has all the anime trappings that most American fans know and love: completely violent bloodshed, psuedo baffling story, interesting looking characters that add nothing to the story line. (this doesn't count the works of Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki).

I wanna get with this whole 'games should have more meaning' movement and that developers should try for more art-like games. But here's the thing: that's not why developers are there. They make video games because it's what they're good at and what they love. Suda 51 makes compelling games with a striking style, not a compelling piece of art that happens to be a game.

While I can't forgive the 'open-world' lameness, it didn't bother me. This game had some of the most viscerally charged combat I haven't seen since God of War. And this was before third parties could figure out how to make games on the Wii that actually weren't waggle fest.

I know the article also talked about World of Goo-which I loved as well, but I never finished it the gameplay just seemed like a chore to me in the later levels.

Kenneth Wesley , September 14, 2009

There are some very great comments in disagreement. While I stand by my original article, the last two comments especially, but all in general, are very enlightening, and it will take a while to digest them properly.

Andrew Hiscock , September 14, 2009

This is a bit late, but I think most of the arguments that Andrew's article invite come from a misunderstanding regarding what he means by style and substance, which he defines in the article, but not very clearly.

Some commenters have picked up on the issue of substance, elaborating on its meaning in this article, and most of the comments dance around the substance issue, but most of the comments also seem to construe game substance as being the same as cinematic substance.

I suggest they are not, starting from the simple premise that a game at its core does something fundamentally different from a film, or else most of us would be writing for CelMob.com instead.

This is not to say that one medium cannot attempt to use the abilities of the other, in fact, rich media projects, even high Art, tend to masterfully weave elements from different forms of media to reinforce and explore a core idea (though this is not a requirement for great Art, if present it is a likely indicator). At this point I refer to Raph Koster and Scott McCloud in their respective books, A Theory of Fun and Understanding Comics, regarding game substance.

Andrew acknowledges that both NMH and Goo both have style. To be specific, visual (which can be studied through screenshots), cinematic (which requires a review of the visual portrayal of motion, or vidcaps), and narrative style (simply put, the presence of a story and how it is told by its characters). However, what Andrew refers to as substance in a video game does not seem to come from any of these elements, which, to him, are classified as "style", at least when it comes to games (and I agree with this distinction).

Andrew refers instead to the mechanics of the gameplay, a phrase that is probably as old as the mid-1990s (ancient WWW) in video game journalism/reporting/reviewing/writing. Andrew asserts that NMH has weak gameplay, that the interactions and the mechanics that are meant to support those interactions are shallow, nonexistent, and/or don't work well with each other. By contrast, he finds Goo to be well designed at least where gameplay interaction is concerned.

If it helps, try to play the games while ignoring what Andrew (and I) consider style: play the games in black and white if you can, turn off the sound if it has nothing to do with the game, don't follow the story, and if you can, imagine away or ignore the visual shapes created by the art lines of the avatars, game objects, environments. Consider only what is necessary for the games to be interactive with goals, which is to paraphrase what Koster says about one of the defining features that set games apart from other media. Looking only at the game mechanics, what would you say about how much the games are worth to you?

Andrew takes the discussion further by asserting that the style in NMH does little to enhance the gameplay, implying that the style was hacked onto the gameplay, or vice versa, without much thought to integration, while Goo melds the style onto the gameplay, to the point where he says that the gameplay comes out of the style. To that last point I disagree, even without having played the game (I haven't played either game, but I see them around). I prefer to take the perspective that game substance comes first and style second (and hope that designers do the same), but in Goo's case, the designer has apparently done so much work to let one inspire the other that Andrew can make the easy "mistake" of seeing the style as the egg before the chicken. It's not a point I need to argue, just a friendly adjustment to perspective.

This has not commented on what Andrew actually thinks of the styles of either game, just what Andrew considers substance vs. style. Now the final questions follow. Is substance or style dominant in either game? Does substance or style depend on the other in either game, or can they be divorced from each other and still work? If they do depend on each other, are they cohesive to the point of being indivisible from each other, without killing the dominating form of "game"?

The last question takes us out of the comment by leading us into the bigger question of what you, personally, are looking for in a game, and what you may consider are the art elements that define a game as art object. Koster and McCloud hint at the way, that elements that originate from and are defined by a medium "belong" to that medium, and other media that employ those elements are merely "borrowing" from that medium as it employs its own defining elements, which it respectively owns. In other words, this is a question of what defines a medium, in our case, a game, and a consideration of how important other elements are to a game's Art when a game borrows them from other media.

Jonathan Betonio , September 22, 2009

An adjustment: When does a product framed in one medium, say, a title made to be run on a game console, which implies that it is a game, becomes a product in another medium, such as this same title that most people would agree is more like a movie with some gameplay? I made the mistake of implying that all products made to run on a game console are games; this is not true, especially in an age where any personal computer or current-gen game console can be a general-purpose media device.

Andrew considers NMH and Goo as games in his article but finds that the former falls into the category of film more than game (and a type of film that Andrew apparently dislikes), while the latter does just fine as a game.

Jonathan Betonio , September 22, 2009