In Defense of "Killer is Dead". ..

[chikusho]

If a feature is designed to be off-putting, and it succeeds in being off-putting, it is not a failed feature.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If a game is designed to be off putting, then the design is shit and the game is shit, even if it is "not a failed feature". A bad feature working as intended is not a good thing.

So what you are saying is that any movie that makes you sad, scared, or disgusted is automatically a bad movie?
Any painting that isn't pretty, any song that isn't melodious, any candy that isn't sweet, all of them fundamentally flawed ideas that were shit from conception?

 

[briankoontz]

Women should look like sex dolls in the James Bond universe because that's the world of James Bond. Everyone is an empty-hearted seducer in that universe. Dolls want to be used, and James Bond fulfills their wants, as is referenced by the Eurythmics with "Some of them want to use you, some of them want to be used by you". James Bond and Bond women are dark, empty, and cynical to fit their universe.

To say that this reflects badly on women in the real world is ridiculous - it's like saying that James Bond reflects badly on men in the real world. No sensible woman in the real world wants to be a sex doll and no sensible man wants to be James Bond. The real world contains real people and artistic universes contain artistic constructs designed to fulfill some artistic goal.

What are people so afraid of in the gigolo missions, that they might identify with James Bond?

 

[Ikasury]

if these things are SUPPOSED to make you feel bad, and its a crack at 'dark'/realistic James Bond i think i may have just found a reason to look it up, i like quirky niche things, and Suda definitely does that...

plus if people want to say that a 'good' game doesn't punish you or make you uncomfortable... *busts out laughing* DRAKENGARD!! XD

*drops mike*

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If a feature is designed to be off-putting, and it succeeds in being off-putting, it is not a failed feature.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If a game is designed to be off putting, then the design is shit and the game is shit, even if it is "not a failed feature". A bad feature working as intended is not a good thing.

So what you are saying is that any movie that makes you sad, scared, or disgusted is automatically a bad movie?
Any painting that isn't pretty, any song that isn't melodious, any candy that isn't sweet, all of them fundamentally flawed ideas that were shit from conception?

I think you're misunderstanding what we mean by the word "off-putting." We don't mean it as something vile, or disgusting, we mean it as being something that makes us want to no longer play the game, it is literally a thing that has put us off the game.

So no, a movie that makes you sad, scared, or disgusted is not automatically a bad movie. A movie that you don't want to watch, a movie that would make you want to get up and walk out of a theater is a bad movie, it's a movie that's off-putting, and it is a movie that has ultimately failed because the point of a movie is to be seen, just like the point of a game is to be played.

 

[chikusho]

I think you're misunderstanding what we mean by the word "off-putting." We don't mean it as something vile, or disgusting, we mean it as being something that makes us want to no longer play the game, it is literally a thing that has put us off the game.

So no, a movie that makes you sad, scared, or disgusted is not automatically a bad movie. A movie that you don't want to watch, a movie that would make you want to get up and walk out of a theater is a bad movie, it's a movie that's off-putting, and it is a movie that has ultimately failed because the point of a movie is to be seen, just like the point of a game is to be played.

Ok, so what you are saying is: "something that makes us want to no longer play the game", or basically "I don't like it so it's clearly unequivocally bad". If that was what you wanted to say, you should've just said so from the beginning. That way we could have just put your post in the opinion pile and move on with our day.

Some of the greatest horror classics in history has had massive walk-outs all over the world.
And who are you to decide what the point of a work of art is?
What if a film creator makes a movie that is supposed to make people stop watching it as a commentary on what he thinks his audience is supposed to watch?

What if a game that is a bizarre exaggeration on a popular character archetype has an _optional feature_ where the player is supposed to feel creeped out, and that part is so effective that it makes the player denounce the entire thing?

"It's bad because I think it is" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think you're misunderstanding what we mean by the word "off-putting." We don't mean it as something vile, or disgusting, we mean it as being something that makes us want to no longer play the game, it is literally a thing that has put us off the game.

So no, a movie that makes you sad, scared, or disgusted is not automatically a bad movie. A movie that you don't want to watch, a movie that would make you want to get up and walk out of a theater is a bad movie, it's a movie that's off-putting, and it is a movie that has ultimately failed because the point of a movie is to be seen, just like the point of a game is to be played.

What if a film creator makes a movie that is supposed to make people stop watching it as a commentary on what he thinks his audience is supposed to watch?

Then that wouldn't be a good movie. It would be a movie that accomplishes its purpose, but it's entire purpose would be to be a bad movie. Like I said before, just because something accomplishes the goal it sets out doesn't make it objectively good, because the goal may not be good, or the execution may not be good, regardless of the fact that it accomplishes the artist's goal.

 

[chikusho]

Then that wouldn't be a good movie. It would be a movie that accomplishes its purpose, but it's entire purpose would be to be a bad movie. Like I said before, just because something accomplishes the goal it sets out doesn't make it objectively good, because the goal may not be good, or the execution may not be good, regardless of the fact that it accomplishes the artist's goal.

The word you're looking for is "enjoyable". The word "good" is meaningless without first identifying the qualifying perspective.
"Accomplishes it's goal" is _the very definition_ of being "objectively good". That's a factual metric which you can immediately measure.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Then that wouldn't be a good movie. It would be a movie that accomplishes its purpose, but it's entire purpose would be to be a bad movie. Like I said before, just because something accomplishes the goal it sets out doesn't make it objectively good, because the goal may not be good, or the execution may not be good, regardless of the fact that it accomplishes the artist's goal.

The word you're looking for is "enjoyable". The word "good" is meaningless without first identifying the qualifying perspective.
"Accomplishes it's goal" is _the very definition_ of being "objectively good". That's a factual metric which you can immediately measure.

No, I would say that it's subjectively good, in that it accomplishes the goal of one person, the person who made it. Objectively it would fail on all the basic tenants of good film making.

You see, games, movies, any form or art of media, none of it exists in a vacuum. All art is meant for a single purpose, to bring an experience to people, that is the entire root of all art, it's a tool of entertainment, a distraction. Therefore the goal of art is to be experienced. As far as movies go, that means their goal is to be watched, or for games, that goal is to be played. There can be secondary goals within that, goals which are put their by the creator of that art, goals like teaching the viewer something, showing them a different point of view, etc., but that goal comes secondary to the goal of having people experience that art. Therefore if you've created something where the entire point of it is to NOT be experienced, or rather for it to only be experienced by a single person, it's creator, then it has objectively failed at its goal as art.

The goal of art is to be experienced.
The goal of the viewers is to experience the art.
The goal of the artist is to create an experience.

If none of these goals are met then how can you say that it succeeds? In fact, I would even go far enough to say that an artist who would actively create a work whose only goal is to not be experienced by people is not an artist at all.

 

[chikusho]

No, I would say that it's subjectively good, in that it accomplishes the goal of one person, the person who made it. Objectively it would fail on all the basic tenants of good film making.

Well, no, objectively it might fail within certain parameters.

You see, games, movies, any form or art of media, none of it exists in a vacuum. All art is meant for a single purpose, to bring an experience to people, that is the entire root of all art,

And being off-put is not an experience?

it's a tool of entertainment, a distraction.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Sometimes as part of a whole experience, sometimes actively rejected.

Therefore the goal of art is to be experienced. As far as movies go, that means their goal is to be watched, or for games, that goal is to be played.

Yeah, and a game that was played and then is no longer played _has been played_.

There can be secondary goals within that, goals which are put their by the creator of that art, goals like teaching the viewer something, showing them a different point of view, etc., but that goal comes secondary to the goal of having people experience that art.

The reverse is also true. The goal of teaching the viewer something can have secondary goals, which are put there by the creator of that art, goals like being enjoyable.

Therefore if you've created something where the entire point of it is to NOT be experienced, or rather for it to only be experienced by a single person, it's creator, then it has objectively failed at its goal as art.

And choosing to not experience a part of something is an experience within itself. Especially if one detail is so out of place that the whole is immediately overlooked.

The goal of art is to be experienced.
The goal of the viewers is to experience the art.
The goal of the artist is to create an experience.

If none of these goals are met then how can you say that it succeeds? In fact, I would even go far enough to say that an artist who would actively create a work whose only goal is to not be experienced by people is not an artist at all.

Well, all of these have been met in this instance.
Some other goals of art is that it's being reflected upon, analyzed or thought about, which this thread is fulfilling quite beautifully.
Finally, you don't have to be an artist to create art, but that's another matter entirely.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Well it seems to be getting publicity for the game so thats probably a good thing as its not like a Suda game tends to get a huge amount of the spotlight usually.

I havent played the game but I am tempted as soon as I saw the Alice in Wonderland sequences because I am a huge Alice in Wonderland fan I love the books.

As for the gigolo missions I havent seen any but unless its as bad as a lot of Biowares recent romantic efforts I will likely stomach it hopefully its just throw away trash and dosent bother trying to get me invested in it (because it usually fails there).

Whats the humour in the game like? I loved the humour in lollipop chainsaw but the actual gameplay was mostly pretty crappy except for the bosses.

 

[Adam Lester]

As for the gigolo missions I havent seen any but unless its as bad as a lot of Biowares recent romantic efforts I will likely stomach it hopefully its just throw away trash and dosent bother trying to get me invested in it (because it usually fails there).

Actually, you want to know what all of the butthurt is about? This is how a usual gigolo mission goes.

Woman: You're so awesome, Mondo.
Mondo: ...
Woman: You're so awesome.
Mondo: (stares at boobs or legs)
Woman: What are you looking at?
Mondo: This is for you. (gives off a present)
Woman: Thanks!
Mondo: (thumbs up)
-NEW EQUIPMENT UNLOCKED-

Every gigolo mission goes like this, no exceptions.

That's what people are flipping out about. That's what game reviewers are ignoring things like sound (okay, but didn't deserve a soundtrack), gameplay (good enough), graphics (I like em', they remind me of Killer 7), story (lol what story) and so on to verbally piss blood and call it the devil.

 

[Maximum Bert]

As for the gigolo missions I havent seen any but unless its as bad as a lot of Biowares recent romantic efforts I will likely stomach it hopefully its just throw away trash and dosent bother trying to get me invested in it (because it usually fails there).

Actually, you want to know what all of the butthurt is about? This is how a usual gigolo mission goes.

Woman: You're so awesome, Mondo.
Mondo: ...
Woman: You're so awesome.
Mondo: (stares at boobs or legs)
Woman: What are you looking at?
Mondo: This is for you. (gives off a present)
Woman: Thanks!
Mondo: (thumbs up)
-NEW EQUIPMENT UNLOCKED-

Every gigolo mission goes like this, no exceptions.

That's what people are flipping out about. That's what game reviewers are ignoring things like sound (okay, but didn't deserve a soundtrack), gameplay (good enough), graphics (I like em', they remind me of Killer 7), story (lol what story) and so on to verbally piss blood and call it the devil.

I just checked one out and you are pretty spot on with your description honestly the whole thing is cheesy as hell I was watching it half laughing and half going wtf.

I imagine these are sort of palette cleansers between the proper missions at least thats what it seemed to me and they seem as throwaway as I had imagined. Mondo got a drill arm upgrade in the one I saw which I wasnt sure whether to mildly chuckle at or facepalm.

I find it hard to think many people could be offended by such nonsense but I am not surprised some are I remember one guy got really offended in a party I joined in Warhammer Online a few of the people knew each other and so were using their nicknames apparently one was called Spud because he was from Ireland which he obviously didnt mind but this other guy went mental over it calling them racist and all sorts of shit eventually he got kicked as none of us could calm him down.

Its a shame some feel the need to focus on this one part to the detriment of all others I want a review of the game dammit not just the gigolo missions it happened with Dragons Crown where some just reviewed the art style, for gods sake I can see the art style whats the game like (pretty good imo killer rabbit boss ftw). Review the game dont tell me what I should think.

 

[MetalDooley]

the james bond defense is rubbish, with him its always a class act. bond is a gentleman..

What a gentleman

and the women in bond films aren't walking breasts.

Are you serious?There have been plenty of women in the Bond series over the years whos only role was eye candy to be seduced by Jimmy B

Thanks for the laugh though

 

[briankoontz]

the james bond defense is rubbish, with him its always a class act. bond is a gentleman..

What a gentleman

and the women in bond films aren't walking breasts.

Are you serious?There have been plenty of women in the Bond series over the years whos only role was eye candy to be seduced by Jimmy B

Thanks for the laugh though

Yeah - that's the point in Bond movies - the Bond universe is a nightmare world where nihilistic cynicism has taken over and all that's left is suspicion, intrigue, sex, and violence. To proclaim that women in this world are somehow immune to this is utterly ridiculous - a corrupt world renders all major players in such a world corrupt, just like every member of the Mafia is corrupt no matter how "good at heart" he or she may be.

The world of Bond is weaponized, and women in that world weaponize their sexual assets for strategic gain. That's true to the point and strengthens Ian Fleming's artistic construct.

My sense in these kinds of criticisms of art is that weak people who fear their own dark cynicism would prefer Suda 51 to not exist or to be made to "normalize" his artistic work, in order for their own fears of themselves to not be realized through his work.

The whole purpose of art in the first place is to help humanity, and "normalizing" Suda 51's work is just another name for neutering or destroying it, which is counter-productive to it's real value of helping to illuminate modern problems, just like Fleming's universe does.

Examine the life of Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, aka Carlos the Jackal, although a "terrorist" really a kind of low-rent version of James Bond, or examine the lives of undercover CIA agents as best you can. Fleming's work is an accurate nightmare version of what this kind of world can produce.

 

[Adam Lester]

I just checked one out and you are pretty spot on with your description honestly the whole thing is cheesy as hell I was watching it half laughing and half going wtf.

I imagine these are sort of palette cleansers between the proper missions at least thats what it seemed to me and they seem as throwaway as I had imagined. Mondo got a drill arm upgrade in the one I saw which I wasnt sure whether to mildly chuckle at or facepalm.

I find it hard to think many people could be offended by such nonsense but I am not surprised some are I remember one guy got really offended in a party I joined in Warhammer Online a few of the people knew each other and so were using their nicknames apparently one was called Spud because he was from Ireland which he obviously didnt mind but this other guy went mental over it calling them racist and all sorts of shit eventually he got kicked as none of us could calm him down.

Its a shame some feel the need to focus on this one part to the detriment of all others I want a review of the game dammit not just the gigolo missions it happened with Dragons Crown where some just reviewed the art style, for gods sake I can see the art style whats the game like (pretty good imo killer rabbit boss ftw). Review the game dont tell me what I should think.

It's because people seem to have this weird idea in their heads that being for civil rights in America means being perpetually offended and calling out people and various forms of media in this random manner while expressing a narrow-minded, black and white world view.

You know...as opposed to just supporting equality be it vocally, politically or physically.

 

[Thr33X]

Its a shame some feel the need to focus on this one part to the detriment of all others I want a review of the game dammit not just the gigolo missions it happened with Dragons Crown where some just reviewed the art style, for gods sake I can see the art style whats the game like (pretty good imo killer rabbit boss ftw). Review the game dont tell me what I should think.

Truth be told I've seen more offending things being done and said on TV and in movies, and unless it's completely out of context (like Sinead O'Connor tearing a picture of Pope John Paul II in half on Saturday Night Live for example) it's always been just regarded as "a part of the show".

So why then is a throwaway, optional side activity or an intentionally exaggerated art style meant to be a "part of the game" suddenly an element that ruins it?

This is what the gaming news media has become, a crock pot of oversensitive politicos and activists crying out for "justice". Game Informer's always been my go-to source for game reviews because they focus on the game elements and break down the total experience. They even have their little sidebars in every review if you don't want to read the whole thing that puts it all bluntly-Concept, Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, etc. Dragon's Crown got a solid 8 from them in this month's issue, and all through the review do you know where they mentioned the art style and exaggerated characters? The LAST PARAGRAPH. And it wasn't mentioned as a negative, merely as a "part of the show".

That's how it should be done.

 

[Roofstone]

For him, it's just another check mark on the "to do" list, he doesn't even seem to be enjoying himself.

I like to imagine him waking up one Monday morning, look at his schedule and go "Eugh... Sex day again. Damn Mondays."

OT: I.. I actually like the gigolo mode. It is fun, and entertaining.. Not because I necessarily like it, but because of what I stated above, and the quote.

That and it is Suda 51, so the fucked up women is something I just glaze over really. It is just there, it is always there, it is a Suda 51 game.

 

[Lieju]

Women should look like sex dolls in the James Bond universe because that's the world of James Bond. Everyone is an empty-hearted seducer in that universe. Dolls want to be used, and James Bond fulfills their wants, as is referenced by the Eurythmics with "Some of them want to use you, some of them want to be used by you". James Bond and Bond women are dark, empty, and cynical to fit their universe.

To say that this reflects badly on women in the real world is ridiculous - it's like saying that James Bond reflects badly on men in the real world. No sensible woman in the real world wants to be a sex doll and no sensible man wants to be James Bond. The real world contains real people and artistic universes contain artistic constructs designed to fulfill some artistic goal.

What are people so afraid of in the gigolo missions, that they might identify with James Bond?

It doesn't really play into the 'sexy super-spy', or 'a skilled seducer' fantasy, though.
If it tries to do that, it fails miserably.

You aren't being cool or mysterious, or even playing mind-games, you need to play a pathetic pervert who gets rewarded for staring at boobs.
And since the women act in a way that no-one ever would, it's just uncanny-valley-esque.

EDIT: I'm not offended at this, but I do think it's stupid and disgusting. Maybe the point of it is that it's disgusting and a violation of privacy? If it is it fails at making any point, and if it's supposed to a cool spy-fantasy, it fails at that too.

The whole purpose of art in the first place is to help humanity, and "normalizing" Suda 51's work is just another name for neutering or destroying it, which is counter-productive to it's real value of helping to illuminate modern problems, just like Fleming's universe does.

Suda 51 seems to be more about style over substance, really.
In what way do the Gigolo-missions help to illuminate modern problems, exactly?

The best I can think of is that it's a criticism of men expecting sexual favours for doing nothing and especially not treating the woman as a human being, while women are only interested in money, but it does this by making you play asa character like that and rewarding such behaviour?

Although I do get the feeling that Suda 51 might be making fun of his fanbase ('So this is what you want? To be pathetic?') but who knows?

But I'm certainly not a believer in art being immune from criticism.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

...I'm certainly not a believer in art being immune from criticism.

I guess that'd be why they have art critics?

Games can be art, sure, I don't think anyone is denying that. Art is subjective; it is literally whatever the artist says it is.

But that does not make all art 'good', or even, as you put it, "immune from criticism". Art's greatest strength and weakness is that it can only be interpreted by the viewing party. So while Suda may think he's creating art, we're certainly free to form out own opinions and interpretations regarding it. He might not even care, this could just be how he markets his stuff, I certainly don't know. But maybe this is like the Claptrap conundrum in Borderlands 1 & 2: they have successfully constructed an incredibly annoying character...on purpose...good work guys. The end result is STILL that there is an incredibly annoying character in the game.

I'm not going to get this game because I'm a woman and I think it's misogynist (which I honestly don't think it is, it's really too stupid to be carrying those kind of ideas properly anyways), I'm not going to get this game because it doesn't look very good. None of Suda 51's stuff has ever really interested me...honestly I think he's kind of a hack. The games of his I have played: Killer 7, No More Heroes, Lollipop Chainsaw just weren't very good...but I really wanted to like L-pop C-Saw, but I've beaten Bayonetta on Infinty Climax and Ms. Starling needs to go back to high school and retake some classes.

That's what ALL his games feel like to me, a retread of something better, but filled with "oh look how random and crazy this is" idiocy that's supposed to distract me from how tired and weak the game is. "Oooh, look how I push the narrative elements of story and..." No. Full stop. Different and/or unique does not equal interesting; being unable to structure a plot and narrative in cohesive way isn't avant garde, it's poor storytelling. I'M LOOKING AT YOU TOO, KOJIMA...AND MOST OF EVANGELION.

Well, that should guarantee 30 more pages of unrelated arguing.