Support NeoGAF

[deadmuffin]

So I have been playing Shadows of the Damned recently, fun game. But I realize that it is not the best. the animations can be clunky and the controls aren't really smooth, and it sometimes gets repetitive. But I still am loving it. I'm loving it because the story is cool, the character design is interesting, the background to each boss battle has me excited to find out more, and the writing is campy and a little funny.

Then I looked back and basically all of Suda 51's games have been all style and no substance: the story and characters are creative and cool, but the gameplay is lacking from being as awesome as it could be. Just like it no more heroes, basically you play the game the whole way through hitting one button and flailing the wiimote to kill a random enemy. Not the greatest gameplay design, but I still love it none the less.

So my question is, can you play a game whose controls are a little weird? Whose frame rate may be a little bad at certain points? Whose graphics aren't the caliber of God of War 3? Can you look past those things and enjoy a game because of the story, the characters, and setting being original and cool?

side note- another example is Brutal Legend. AMAZING CONCEPT, but come on, you can't jump? BAH.

 

[Uncompromisable]

If it's name is Killer 7, yes.

Shadows of the Damned was a personal disappointment. Average gameplay and average storyline/characters (muted suda vibe). I'd prefer it to be below-average gameplay and real acid trip than just average. Killer 7 is the ultimate experience and catches you off guard in every single way and moment. No More Heroes dumbed down the craziness a bit to be more marketable, but still kept Suda's signature intrigue and insanity, so I see it as a fair trade in order to keep his business afloat since Killer 7's awesomeness isn't economically feasible to maintain. But SoTD? Damn man...cliched, boring...

 

[Rahxephon91]

Yes these are my favorite type of game. stylish games with off kilter strangeness.

 

[Opiate]

I'm sorry, what represents the "style" and what represents the "substance" here? Because I'm not sure we agree on what the "substance" is. For example, I definitely consider controls to be a substantial, not stylistic, concern. Are you agreeing with that? I cannot tell.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I'm fine with lower-budget, less than uber-polished games if they're unique and creative and quirky. Those are the types of games I am most interested in, actually.

If it's name is Killer 7, yes.

Yep.

And Killer7 has plenty of substance.

Sometimes style is substance.

That too.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Sometimes style is substance.

 

[Neuromancer]

So my question is, can you play a game whose controls are a little weird? Whose frame rate may be a little bad at certain points? Whose graphics aren't the caliber of God of War 3? Can you look past those things and enjoy a game because of the story, the characters, and setting being original and cool?

Absolutely. In fact 9 times out of 10 I find these quirky B-grade games to be more enjoyable than their "AAA" counterparts. A little personality goes a long way.

I'm sorry, what represents the "style" and what represents the "substance" here? Because I'm not sure we agree on what the "substance" is. For example, I definitely consider controls to be a substantial, not stylistic, concern. Are you agreeing with that? I cannot tell.

Hmm that's a good point.

 

[revolverjgw]

Absolutely. You cited a good example in Brutal Legend. All I remember about the gameplay is that is ranged from inoffensively boring to actively annoying. All the metal cameos and references and humor and songs made it an enjoyable and memorable experience despite that. It was entirely about style.

There is nothing I like more than picking up a 5 dollar game in an overflowing bargain bin, knowing that it got mixed reviews, and just diving in. I appreciate almost all of them as long as they have some interesting setting or atmosphere or whatever, regardless of sloppy gameplay execution.

 

[Riposte]

Style over substance games can be enjoyable, but I think it is a prerequisite of having good taste to understand that is inferior.

I'll dedicate some time to a style over substance game, but most of the time if the game is shallow or bad enough, I'll drop it. (Then again, I have a drive to play overrated shallow games to the end, because I know I'll be challenged on it when I say my opinion.)

EDIT: I wouldn't call Shadows of the Damned a style over substance game. It is a good 50/50 example if you ask me.

EDIT: I guess it is a spectrum... where stuff like Flower and Heavy Rain at the bottom. Somewhere between that and Shadows of the Damned are games like LA Noire and Team Ninja games.

 

[Frankenstrat]

sure, I'll like it, but not as much as if the gameplay really worked better. Case in point: House of the Dead: Overkill. Rail shooter with some flaws, but damned funny and entertaining.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I'm pretty jaded but I'd like to think that I have the ability to shut off Critic Mode every once in a while to just enjoy things for what they are.

The game that falls into this category the most for me in recent memory is probably Rez. There's hardly any trace of a worthwhile "game" in that product imo but the atmosphere is fantastic.

 

[deadmuffin]

I'm sorry, what represents the "style" and what represents the "substance" here? Because I'm not sure we agree on what the "substance" is. For example, I definitely consider controls to be a substantial, not stylistic, concern. Are you agreeing with that? I cannot tell.

Im thinking style is more of a design thing, cool character designs, good/funny/intentionally cheesy writing, unique environments, cutscenes, etc

and substance is the controls, amount of weapons/upgrades/etc, diverse combo system, whatever. Like, I consider DMC to have more substance ,in all the shit you can make dante do, compared to no more heroes where you just slice with a single weapon.

I might still not be making sense, hopefully this helps

 

[kokujin]

Never have and never will be ok with it.This form of thinking is what has been killing the games industry.That's why older games are better, they had for the most part one thing in mind.

 

[Papercuts]

Depends, I guess. I don't consider something like Shadows of the Damned to be style over substance, I legitimately enjoyed that game through and through.

 

[daffy]

Child of Eden = no
Dynasty Warriors = yes

 

[StuBurns]

No, if the game design itself isn't compelling there is no game pretty enough to make me play it.

 

[Gravijah]

personally, i prefer subsistence over substance.

 

[Sophia]

I think you're confusing Substance with Quality, OP. Framerates and controls are not what I'd consider a style over substance choice.

 

[Opiate]

Im thinking style is more of a design thing, cool character designs, good/funny/intentionally cheesy writing, unique environments, cutscenes, etc

and substance is the controls, amount of weapons/upgrades/etc, diverse combo system, whatever. Like, I consider DMC to have more substance ,in all the shit you can make dante do, compared to no more heroes where you just slice with a single weapon.

I might still not be making sense, hopefully this helps

That makes sense, yes.

 

[Riposte]

If you really think about it "a style over substance game" is just another way to say "a game with little substance" or "a shallow game". Games with a lot of substance like Bayonetta and Deus Ex don't lack style in the slightest.

I'll still use the term to describe people's preferences(negatively). People who prefer God of War over Bayonetta for example.

EDIT: Confusing polish with substance would be a huge mistake too, lol.

 

[LiK]

SotD is not a good example, it may have some issues but it's a fun game that happens to have a lot of style like with all Suda games.

 

[kodecraft]

I'm fine with lower-budget, less than uber-polished games if they're unique and creative and quirky. Those are the types of games I am most interested in, actually.

This.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Sometimes style can be substance. Games like Bayonetta and El Shaddai would still be good, but nowhere near as charming without their unique style.

 

[Finaika]

Which games are style over substance? Uncharted? God of War?

 

[Gravijah]

Sometimes style can be substance. Games like Bayonetta and El Shaddai would still be good, but nowhere near as charming without their unique style.

those games are special all around. amazing music, interesting worlds and some of my favorite battle systems.

 

[deadmuffin]

true true, you have all convinced me, Shadows of the Damned was not a good example, but it was what sparked this thread idea.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Im thinking style is more of a design thing, cool character designs, good/funny/intentionally cheesy writing, unique environments, cutscenes, etc

and substance is the controls, amount of weapons/upgrades/etc, diverse combo system, whatever. Like, I consider DMC to have more substance ,in all the shit you can make dante do, compared to no more heroes where you just slice with a single weapon.

I might still not be making sense, hopefully this helps

I don't agree with your definitions, but I still say I would rather have a rough but intriguing game than a solid but derivative and boring game. The latter are everywhere (and they're fine for what they are). Games that actually intrigue me are rare.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I'm fine with lower-budget, less than uber-polished games if they're unique and creative and quirky. Those are the types of games I am most interested in, actually.

This. These type of games end up being way more memorable.

 

[Riposte]

I don't agree with your definitions, but I still say I would rather have a rough but intriguing game than a solid but derivative and boring game. The latter are everywhere (and they're fine for what they are). Games that actually intrigue me are rare.

But what actually intrigues you? Art design and novelty or depth through mechanics. Style and substance will basically come down to that in every day discussion. "Derivative" makes me think you rely on style more than anything else.

 

[Reveirg]

Yes, I believe that was the case of El Shaddai, which I played a few weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed thanks to its wonderful visuals, artistic direction and soundtrack, even though it had average gameplay.

 

[udivision]

*Jumps into thread*

personally, i prefer subsistence over substance.

Poisonally, i pwefer da aiiir.

*Jumps out of thread*

 

[Orayn]

On rare occasions, yes. The game has to be doing a very, very good job of it, though. That's not much that can compensate for bad mechanics and sloppy game design.

 

[randomkid]

Of course, style over substance is my MO I think. I can't enjoy a game that doesn't have a style I like.

Tons of games I love that mechanics-focused GAF would call terrible: Odin Sphere, Okami, El Shaddai, Raidou 1, Legend of Mana, Ni no Kuni, I could go on and on. Art and music are extremely fucking important to me, and videogames are great places to get my fix.

Of course, the best situations for everyone are your Yoshi's Islands and Warioware GBAs and SMT Nocturnes and Tetris Attacks, where the mechanics and the style are both amazing.

 

[Fjordson]

Absolutely. Stylistic elements can go a long way for me.

 

[Tain]

I'll play games that excel aesthetically and not mechanically on occasion. If the aesthetics just aren't great enough or if the mood isn't right, I'll drop the game. The games are usually one-off experiences that I would never consider replaying, and I'm generally happier when they aren't very long.

The best games have both, though, of course.

 

[jbueno]

If its by Suda 51, yes.

 

[Thoraxes]

I loved Madworld.
That game was some of the best $50 i've ever spent on a game.

 

[yamo]

I'm ok with Shyla Stylez over substance.

 

[Vaporak]

I'm not even sure how to answer this question. What's considered "style" and what's considered "substance" is based on what you think the purpose of any given game is. For example look at this:

Im thinking style is more of a design thing, cool character designs, good/funny/intentionally cheesy writing, unique environments, cutscenes, etc

and substance is the controls, amount of weapons/upgrades/etc, diverse combo system, whatever. Like, I consider DMC to have more substance ,in all the shit you can make dante do, compared to no more heroes where you just slice with a single weapon.

I might still not be making sense, hopefully this helps

Deadmuffin is arguing that the mechanics of how the game conveys it's content is the substance, and the content the artists working on the game create as the style. This is basically the opposite of what "style vs substance" is in cinematography. The mechanics of how the movie is put together is not the "substance" of a good movie, the substance is the narrative, characterization, and emotion message of the film.

 

[NullPointer]

Framerate rules my world. So does replayability (or length depending), depth, co-op modes, etc.

But...

Heavenly Sword is honestly one of the best games I've ever played. Was a pure joy to be in that world with those characters, those visuals, the music, everything. Yeah, even the stringy chaos hair.

I'd also throw in Too Human, which for me is one of the most broken games I've ever played. Every single aspect of the game is filled with design horrors and blunders, but yet, if you gave it time it'd sink its hooks into you. Was a great romp for that time and place. I guess thats substance over style though...

 

[Shig]

Yes.

Space Channel 5 pt. 2 is one of the best games ever made, despite being a glorified version of Simon.

 

[Night_Trekker]

But what actually intrigues you? Art design and novelty or depth through mechanics. Style and substance will basically come down to that in every day discussion. "Derivative" makes me think you rely on style more than anything else.

I tend to like anything quirky and out of the ordinary. Anything well-written or bizarre I'm always interested in. I usually appreciate games that (intelligently) push the boundaries of what a game "should" be. And I'm drawn to games that place an emphasis on a solid narrative (a quality one) instead of having action-based gameplay with a boring, predictable and unimpressive story that clearly exists only to tie set pieces together. That's not to say I don't love games of all types, even brain-dead action nonsense (I couldn't have been a gamer as long as I have if I hated those). But that's what's marketable and popular, and I'll never lack for that kind of game.

I guess a good shorthand would be to say I love Grasshopper's games. Sometimes they have control issues (Flower, Sun, and Rain for the DS has sorta wonky controls), sometimes they have great concepts that aren't executed as well as they could be (Samurai Champloo: Sidetracked's battle system is a great idea that comes off as too basic in design), and sometimes they control very well but they're very odd and polarizing (Killer7). I'm the first to admit you don't go to Grasshopper for amazingly polished, "AAA" games, but their games are usually more interesting than the latest best-seller to me.

And again, I don't agree that "substance" is "solid, exciting gameplay." That's sort of a given for a lot of high-budget games, and I don't consider that to be necessarily worthwhile on its on.

 

[Riposte]

Deadmuffin is arguing that the mechanics of how the game conveys it's content is the substance, and the content the artists working on the game create as the style. This is basically the opposite of what "style vs substance" is in cinematography. The mechanics of how the movie is put together is not the "substance" of a good movie, the substance is the narrative, characterization, and emotion message of the film.

Why do you think mechanics in videogames are the same thing as mechanics in movies? Movies in videogames, a.k.a. cutscenes, are all style.

(Also if you remove "message" and just have emotion then your definition of film substance works better.)

 

[Night_Trekker]

Why do you think mechanics in videogames are the same thing as mechanics in movies? Movies in videogames, a.k.a. cutscenes, are all style.

(Also if you remove "message" and just have emotion then your definition of film substance works better.)

(You aren't talking to me, but I will provide my two cents unasked-for anyway )

It depends on what you're looking for in games, I guess. Gaming as a form of storytelling is exciting to me. Gaming as "this is a fun activity" is one of my favorite hobbies, but if there wasn't a developer trying to provide a little more than just that, I wouldn't be as big a gamer as I am.

A cutscene that provides meaningful characterization to a game character isn't "all style" to me. That's valuable. A cutscene that has Snake launching off of a fucking missile to shoot Liquid's Hind with a rocket is nothing but style, and no sir, I don't like it.

This is a more complicated discussion that it seems to be, I guess.

 

[Vaporak]

Why do you think mechanics in videogames are the same thing as mechanics in movies? Movies in videogames, a.k.a. cutscenes, are all style.

(Also if you remove "message" and just have emotion then your definition of film substance works better.)

I don't think they're the same, I think they're analogous. And I also think a lot of people care more about mechanics in the video game medium than they do in the film medium. Whether that's a fundamental difference in how people view the mediums, or just a reflection of Videogames being very new I can't really say.

 

[BeautifulMemory]

No, which is why I am still hating on the DmC and not easily swayed by the new environment. Just smokes and screens

 

[IrishNinja]

Yes.

Space Channel 5 pt. 2 is one of the best games ever made, despite being a glorified version of Simon.

i cannot argue with this.

yeah, NMH (and what little i played of Shadows) fit that bill, but OP was already told about Killer 7. kind've hoping Silver Case or whatever we see next from Suda's more like that, but i'm down either way.

 

[Medalion]

Is this a thinly veiled thread asking if we're graphics whores or not?

 

[Riposte]

I don't think they're the same, I think they're analogous.

Really? I don't think so.

Players interact with mechanics and that doesn't exist in movies. I guess you could say it is the mechanics people see on the screen and interact with their eyes and ears. Seems too different to even really consider though. There is no "possibility space"(whether strategic or reflexive) to move around in movies and that is what games are all about, video or otherwise.

or just a reflection of Videogames being very new I can't really say.

Videogames are not new.

 

[MesserWolf]

I guess no .... I couldn't finish Okami in fact - great style but boring game.