[Editor's note: Whoa, a promoted story that isn't related to the Monthly Musing theme?! That's right boys and girls, we still recognize brilliant pieces of work that deserve to be promoted. Such as this case where Cowzilla3 writes an eye-opening piece on what No More Heroes really represents. -- CTZ]
Videogames stories hardly ever confront the gamer, causing some sort of introspective look on the decisions they’ve made throughout the game and prompting them to not only take a look at what they are doing in the game but who they are as a person. Films, books and television all have a myriad of means of confronting their audience forcing them to think about their actions and the world around them. However, videogames more often then not supplant us in the role of hero and push us forward unquestioningly and linearly to a victorious end goal. Sure there have been the rare gems like BioShock or even Call of Duty 4, but even these games only confront the gamer's ideals and not the gamer themselves. This is why I am so chagrinned that Suda51’s No More Heroes is not getting as much attention for its story and characters as the aforementioned games do.
Maybe it is the fact that it’s on a “less serious” console. Maybe it’s because the story is just that strange. Maybe it’s because of the different artistic style. Or maybe it's the fact that the game wasn’t quite as big as others. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t seem like No More Heroes is getting the attention it deserves for its incredibly smart, confrontational and interesting ideas. So I’m going to do that here. There will be spoilers, but that isn’t really that important because as we will see, in the end it is not the story that makes the point but the game itself. Hit the jump to read on.
So what is the point of No More Heroes, you ask? The point, as I see it, is to challenge the perception of how games and gamers work. The point is to question our motivations for playing and beating games, prompting us to look at both ourselves as gamers and the ideas and ideals behind both games’ moralities and designs. Quite a hefty chunk for a game that looks like it’s a generation old, can be summed up in its gameplay as a “hack n’ slash” and whose primary character seems to have as much depth as the 2D-pixel-style graphics that surround him.
Maybe Travis Touchdown, the game’s protagonist, is the best place to start then because without realizing that he is one of the most complicated characters to ever grace a gaming console it is hard to accept that the rest of the game is really doing anything smart. Travis is shallow, but it is this shallowness that gives him his depth. When we’re introduced to Travis, his sole goal is to become the number 1 assassin in all of Santa Destroy and he’ll kill anyone who gets in his way. The opening of the game does nothing more then set us up to start killing, even excusing further details on the story because of the player’s short attention span. The point is made that he doesn’t care about the “why” of killing these people but simply that it would be cool to be the best and the gamer, despite not being told anything, agrees with him. In fact the only thing that really knocks him back when we are first introduced to the character is the cost of killing all these people.
It seems pretty straight forward and leads one to imagine a very traditional videogame character. Travis though is not just a traditional game hero, and here is where the crux of the game’s ideas are. Travis is a representation of gamers. Suda51 has created a character whose world functions like that of a gamer’s. As gamer’s, we start playing a game and killing easily. Much like Travis, our quest is often simply to be number one and we go through not really questioning the deaths of literally hundreds of people at our hands. The point of games is to win and even in games that challenge our morals like BioShock, in the end we are being propelled to destroy the 'big bad' and basically become number one. Thus Travis is us and we are Travis and as the game unfolds this becomes further confirmed and all the more troubling.
A look at the games world will help us to understand the connection between Travis and the gamer even more. Santa Destroy is comprised of a bunch of low resolution gray scale buildings whose main purpose are to house fights or distractions for Travis. The entire world is based around what Travis has interest in, there is literally nothing else. What is Travis interested in? What most young male gamers are: obsessively collecting objects (in this case clothes and models), killing bad guys, movies, the gym, sports and gorgeous women. If it doesn’t have to do with these things then it isn’t important to Travis and it doesn’t deserve anything more then an ugly gray building. Santa Destroy is a literal recreation of the self-centered world of a 20-something male and a comment on how this gaming generation views what is important in life. The inanity of the side quests throughout the game only emphasize this by creating a world that is both boring and uninteresting outside of Travis’ dream life. Whether or not poor game design can be excused for the sake of an artistic message is a subject for another blog but the point is that the entire game world is Travis’ world and thus, much like Travis represents us, his world represents ours’, as depressing as that may be.
So there we have the set-up. Travis is us, his world is ours and as it turns out when we’re gaming we have some pretty base instincts. This is all well and good but it hardly confronts us as gamers. In fact in the beginning of the game the commentary is far more satirical then it is confrontational. As Travis starts to rack up the bodies in cooler and cooler styles, the idea of simply killing everyone becomes more and more disturbing to Travis, especially when he realizes that being number one seems to have less and less meaning. Even more disturbing though is how this reflects upon the gamer himself/herself (though it’s debatable if a woman can see themselves reflected in Travis. If any women care to enlighten me I’d much appreciate it). If Travis is questioning all that he is doing in order to become number one, shouldn’t we then be questioning it too and not simply in this game but in gaming in general? As stated before, we are flung into battles to kill and win and become number one. But Travis suddenly asks why we desperately want to do this. What is the fucking point and why should we even care?
It becomes even more upsetting once Travis realizes that there really is no point. His wonton killing is leading him to the same inevitable conclusion of all games: winning. But being number one has kind of lost it’s shine after becoming bathed in the rivers of blood the game has spilled out. By the time Travis reaches the final boss, he is clearly continuing on not because he is interested in becoming number one but because it is simply the thing to do. This is then what we too do as gamers, pushing forward to the end of a game simply to end it because that is the path we have been put on. Thus when Travis’ true motivations are revealed they are glazed over in fast forward because his motivations didn’t matter, you got to number one. The outlandish story behind why Travis even started in the first place doesn’t truly matter, you’re at the boss and it’s over now. Despite not getting the big payoff of an explanation at the end of the game, what do we all do? We push on because, just like Travis, we’ve been set on this path and we want to win, despite how pointless even that now seems.
Does No More Heroes fall into its own trap then? Is the game cleverly pointing out that a gamer is usually simply killing his way towards being number one and then playing and ending in the exact same way? The answer to this is a very simple “no.” This is for two reasons really. The first reason being that we’d have to ignore the fact that the entire game itself is ironic, simultaneously critiquing games that are nothing but killing through levels and being that exact game itself, thus critiquing games via this irony too (again whether this is excusable in videogames is debatable but not discussed here). Secondly, if you’ve beaten the game on normal (mild) you know that this is not truly the end. The final battle takes place against yet another character with yet another absurd plot twist that doesn’t really matter. It is how this battle ends which truly defines the entire game.
Travis and his opponent, after a truly epic sword battle in which neither comes out on top, resign themselves to fighting forever as neither will ever win. Travis, despite the fact that he has fully realized that his fight to the top was both fake and pointless, is still fighting but having reached this point it is with a new realization that fighting was really the only point all along. Gamers would do the same thing, and do often do the same thing. Despite the killing having become pointless in terms of story and development, if the game went on we would go on with it in order to win. Travis has come to terms with this and realizes the only way out is to get a game over. As gamers we’re usually lead to a nice clean ending with the game designers holding our hands till the end of the story. When Travis realizes this isn’t going to happen in his game, that even now loose ends are popping up, finding “that exit they call paradise” becomes the only option to end the game. No more hero, no more game, no true winner, no true end.
Why did any of us start playing the game? Was it to unravel the mystery or be confronted in our ideals? I doubt it. We just wanted to chop people up with a light saber and Suda51 totally called us on it, and not just people who played
No More Heroes but all gamers. It’s incredibly refreshing to play through a game that moves beyond surface value and becomes art not just through looking gorgeous or
controls, but by challenging our perceptions. Because in the end, great art is something that not only moves us, makes us think and challenges who we are but also expands its medium and
No More Heroes does all these things wonderfully.
Contest:
10:08 AM on 03.07.2008 | 
I played through this game and I loved every second of it, but I never looked at it the way you laid it out. After reading this, I have an entirely new outlook on the game, because even if it wasn't what Suda was attempting, it's still pretty eye-opening. Bravo, sir!
And, not to nitpick, but I think Sweet = Easy & Mild = Normal. :)
I don't think it is out of bounds to say that a lot of the games short-comings (boring graphics, a not fully realized game world) are intentional to make a point about video games. This is the first game (that I know of) that makes a point about gamers and the games we play. This is a game that is bigger than itself.
Thanks man and fixed. I sat at my desk racking my mind between sweet and mild and couldn't remeber which it was.
@Count Grishnack
Yea. I was thinking of doing an entire blog on whether or not you can excuse poor game design, graphics, etc., etc. when an artisitc statement is being made. It is interesting becasue I don't think you can hold the same standards to a game as you would a film or painting becasue of the interactivity. Anyway, another blog, another time.
Seriously you hit the nail on the head. This is definitely one of my top 5 games of all time, and quite frankly I fear I'll never experience this level of awareness in a game again. I feel really bad for everyone who couldn't see past the facet of Santa Destroy, looking for just another Devil May Cry or short romp through fantasy world #349697.
I have yet to play the game, so you've kind of spoiled the surprise of the final battle for me. However, I do have to say, after this write up, I'm really compelled to go rent the damn thing, simply because I want to get that feeling of "I'm participating in an art. I'm not playing a video-game."
So, now I have to spend the last of my $10.00 renting No More Heroes. And it's all your fault.
Nomination seconded.
I guess to add to the conceptualization of Santa Destroy: If you consider Travis's journey through the game as one of awareness, one could factor in the fact that the world started to have more "stuff" in it as you went along. There were very gradually more cars and people in Santa Destroy as you progressed through the bosses. Nothing extreme though, it was very subtle.
I had similiar thoughts when playing the game (more in terms of the graphics blandness) but not to this extent. Throughout the game i found it hard to determine what was on purpose and what was poor design. For instance, the ridiculous, almost Turok (on the N64) amount of pop ups. I initially thought of it as the Wii's technical limitations creeping in but eventaully had a more poetic understanding. I think it represents the shortsightness of Travis and the player as he/we mindlessly rip through the 10 ranks. As you mentioned he/we don't question why we are killing and keep moving forward. Perhaps the inability to see long distances in the games overworld reflects this notion.
Yea, it's hard to draw the line where intentional fault and actual fault is with a game like this. But bad draw distance can hamper a games play so does the artisitc statement really warrent it when the gamer can't enjoy it? Or is the point to jar the gamer so much that he is forced to notice the fault and truly think about it? Unfortuantley I doubt there will be enough games that come that really do this to ever truly answer the question.
Also, I didn't really feel like I could relate to the character of Travis but his character did suck me in. I think it was more of the sense of competitiveness and blind desires that is just more associated with guys than anything else. I found him amusing and likable, and I fangirled over him for a few hours because he did seem like a lot of gamer guys (whom I am hopelessly attracted to, as well as all kinds of geeks).
If Suda51 truly intended the game to be like this and wasn't just pulling shit out of his ass by saying he made it as a commentary on games, then I think he's a fucking genius.
Favorite game EVAR! (Not really, but close.)
Thanks. It's interesting to consider how women see themselves reflected in games since even when females are represented in games they're hardly a realistic take on a woman. Or at least I think it's interesting, probably because I was a film major at a school dominated by women's studies so all we talked about was the "male gaze."
Actual scripted game/gamer conversations help solidify my point-
-->Travis telling me to press "A".
-->*SPOILER* That one boss that gets taken out by that other assassin (Henry?) and Travis gets AS pissed off as I did
--> Pixels EVERYWHERE.
When I started my second play through and was facing the first boss again, after hearing Travis's monologue end with "can't find the exit" repeated over and over again, I was floored. Suda 51 is fucking brilliant. Those who've seen the movie El Topo will also appreciate this game even more.
Travis must mow lawns and carry coconuts to save up money to exhorbitant amounts of cash to "play" the "game." What happens once he's hacked down the next hitman? He's got to do it all over again in order to "play" that next, new, fresh experience.
I'm currently at my mundane data-entry job. Why? In order to amass cashola. Why? To pick up Smash Bros. on Sunday of course! Why? So I can "play" again. And what will I do after that you ask? Well . . . I'll return to work on Monday, because once that experience is stale and over (although I doubt it'll happen quickly with Smash) and I'm #1, I've still got Persona 3 FES, Rhondo of Swords, Ninjai Gaiden 2, etc etc etc to worry about.
Truer words have never been spoken Cowzilla. I salute you.
There's clearly a lot to appriciate about No More Heroes and it's sad that many gamers decided to miss out on it. It's not an AAA game, but the combat, story, characters, controls and retro fan service are excellent.
I love Suda 51.
Punk is not dead.
"Chop dudes up with a lightsaber, wank off to recharge, collect action figures, rinse, repeat"? It reminded me too much of all the losers I've hung out with throughout my gaming adventures. The very idea of playing as a wapanese otaku just put me off the whole game.
Upon realizing that it was deliberate satire, rather than another mindless hack-and-slasher guaranteed to be worshiped by everyone but me (*cough*God of War*cough*), I may actually have to go out and play this.
Seriously, Travis's apartment creeped me the fuck out.
Also, what I found really interesting about Travis was, by the time he beats the second boss, he's already kind of regretting the whole deal, which REALLY got me interested in following his character: he's bothered by the system, and keeps going. I guess because he can't get out, right?
great game . . .
But you wanna be #1 don't you?
Thats hilarius.
Thanks everyone glad you like the article.
You are in the 1% that actually take the time to write something awesome and thought provoking. Good show!
My opinion may be a little premature, I only played it for an hour or two at a friend's house. Just wasn't impressed at all... it was funny, I laughed a few times, but I really had more fun watching it happen than actually playing it.
So did Suda51 actually make a game that is discouraging us from playing games? Or is it simply encouraging new kinds of games?
So, the answer isn't "a very simple no." That would be oversimplifying the point.
As to your second reason, if it is a "plot twist that doesn't really mean anything," wouldn't that prove that it is just about killing your way to #1 and not about the story or anything else. Please explain your ideas more thoroughly.
Personally, I find NMH not only a very fun/solid game, but one that has so many philosophical aspects to it. Just the other day I was reading a discussion in regards to how each one of the ten bosses could represent a video game company and how Travis represented Suda's "punk" style of work.
But this just blew me further out to water. Well done.
You should definetly play more it gets much deeper but yes it is still just a hack and slash but as my article said that was part of the point.
"The game didn't really push any envelopes, didn't really do anything new gameplay-wise."
While the gameplay didn' push to many new ideas (i loved swining the wiimote for finishing blows) it pushed the envelope in plenty of other places.
Next paycheck, this is the first thing I buy.
I'm not sure where you are refering to but if you're referening to his story being glazed over at the first final boss read the paragraph after that it says that becasue the game is an ironic comment on all games and becasue it isn't actually the last boss that it proves the opposite of that. Maybe you misread it because I think I'm arguing the point your trying to make. The real final boss doesn't send that message at all and the irony of the whole situation, in that we are playing through a game that is exactly the type of game it is critiquing, is what makes the point not just playing through to number one.
Reread the sentence:
"Does No More Heroes fall into its own trap then? Is the game cleverly pointing out that a gamer is usually simply killing his way towards being number one and then playing and ending in the exact same way?"
I'm saying that it does critique all other games including itself. When I ask if it fell into it's own trap by glazing over the final boss I'm asking if it fails at continuing its critique of gaming not saying that it isn't critiquing all gaming.
Hope this helps.
I'm actually going to re-read it later.