So, I'm playing Shadow of the Colossus for the first time... [spoilers]

[Zevox]

...and so far, I'm not seeing why this game gets so much praise. :smallconfused:

I guess there's some appeal to a game composed entirely of boss fights, and the basic idea of a giant creature that you climb on to reach weak points to stab does make for a cool boss a time or two, but it's getting awfully repetitive awfully fast. It's like a game that came from someone mistaking an admittedly very good idea for one boss fight as an idea that could carry an entire game worth of them.

Okay, maybe I'm overreacting and the game gets better further in. So far I've just finished the fifth colossus. But so far, that's what I've seen. The first four were all very easy and very similar to each other. The fifth being a bird that you had to defeat while it was flying made for a visually more interesting change, and made it harder to stay on the colossus (I actually fell off a few times, something that didn't happen for the second or fourth, and only happened for the third because I made a big mistake at one point in my ascent), but the process was still basically the same. Considering there are sixteen of these things, meaning I'm almost a third of the way through, I would have thought that they'd be displaying some variety by now.

Also, maybe it's how my new TV meshes with the old game, but the game blurs something awful when moving at anything resembling a quick pace, and even standing still there's some blurriness to the image. Gets kind of annoying, and is especially awful in regions that aren't well-lit.

Zevox

[Tebryn]

I always thought the game was more about the artistic aspects and atmosphere than the gameplay. I don't think many people actually...praised the gameplay. But that's not really where the game shines and it doesn't try to hide it. I mean...not that an Appeal to Authority means much but it got overwhelmingly positive reviews from game maganizes to a Professor of Literature.

[Zevox]

I always thought the game was more about the artistic aspects and atmosphere than the gameplay. I don't think many people actually...praised the gameplay. But that's not really where the game shines and it doesn't try to hide it. I mean...not that an Appeal to Authority means much but it got overwhelmingly positive reviews from game maganizes to a Professor of Literature.
:smallconfused: How so? I really don't see anything special about the atmosphere. If anything the most noteworthy thing about it is how bland, even nonexistant it is. Everything is just kind of there, with nothing eliciting any real response, either from the lone character or from me. As for artistic aspects, I guess it looks nice, when I can see it (see the blurry visuals complaint in my previous post), but I don't see anything particularly special about it. I don't see at all how it would get praise for anything literary, since the story is well nigh nonexistant, and seems pretty obviously to fall under the category of stories that are just a thin excuse to embark on the gameplay. And I really don't see how the game would become as popular as it seems to be on that kind of basis alone.

Anyway though, I cleared three more colossi, putting me halfway through. The sixth was pretty much a rehash of the first four. The seventh was a sea serpent, and honestly very disappointing - I was only able to do anything to it because it stupidly stuck near the surface after I grabbed hold of it. The eighth actually changed things up though: it was the electric wall-crawling armadillo one, with its underbelly housing its weak points. That was a change of pace I was grateful for, since I actually got some use out of my bow for something other than getting the thing's attention (shooting its legs while it was crawling on the wall), and I had to use the terrain to my advantage, getting it to climb the wall so I could hit its legs and knock it on its back. Maybe if the rest show some variety like that one did the mostly-unimpressive first half of the game could be made up for.

Zevox

[Domochevsky]

Hm, wasn't part of the appeal how you basically murdered majestic creatures that wanted nothing from you for dubious reasons at best? Something about illiciting a "huh, kind of a bummer" reaction in the player. :smallconfused:

[Talyn]

I'm with the OP - after hearing nothing but effusive praise from, well, everybody on the internet, I got the game second hand and couldn't wait to try it out.

I found it pretty tedious, and gave it up after the fourth colossus. It seems more like a glorified tech demo than a game - they have a moderately cool mechanic with the "jump, hold on, jump, hold on, climb" mechanic, but then neglected to put sufficient story or character to make me care.

[tensai_oni]

Not the one for artistic minimalism, are you?

[Drascin]

Hm, wasn't part of the appeal how you basically murdered majestic creatures that wanted nothing from you for dubious reasons at best? Something about illiciting a "huh, kind of a bummer" reaction in the player. :smallconfused:

A bit, yes. You're murdering a bunch of things that did absolutely nothing to you, simply because a voice in the sky tells you to.

Basically what a lot of games boil down to, only SotC makes it a point and underlines it so you realize how downright assholish and psychotic you are being :smallbiggrin:.

But honestly, Zevox, you may simply not be its audience. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone likes everything. I personally was caught by the majesticness of the atmosphere very soon - but then, atmosphere is very important to me, much more so than mere plot. There's a reason I still hold Crystal Chronicles for the Cube was, to me, the best Final Fantasy by a country mile - it just has a kind of atmosphere none of the others manage to even approach.

[Tengu_temp]

SotC is not a game that creates atmosphere by blowing stuff up and flashing colors in your face every few seconds, or via melodramatic dialogue. Instead, it throws you into a huge, barren yet strangely beautiful world, with no company but your loyal horse. And, to contrast that, when a fight with a Colossus begins, the sheer size and power of the creature emanates from the screen - in comparison to you, an ordinary human who's not even good at swordfighting. And when you manage to latch onto the Colossus, suddenly everything goes epic! Especially if it's a flying one.

That doesn't mean this game is without its flaws. Sometimes the Colossi take too long to reach, some of them can get frustrating, and some are disappointing (especially the two very small ones). I like this game quite a lot, but I like Ico better.

As for the morality of stuff, it can get pretty ambigious at times but I never felt especially bastardy for killing Colossi. The fact that most of them attack you on sight without provocation, and only a few are docile, helps. I was wondering if I'm really doing the right thing at times, but
then it turned out the Colossi are not really separate beings, just shards of Dormin, and that they are malicious by their very nature. So yeah, you're not killing ancient guardians of anything or tragic beasts that are each the last of its kind, they're just parts of an ancient god who may or may not be evil.

[Zevox]

Hm, wasn't part of the appeal how you basically murdered majestic creatures that wanted nothing from you for dubious reasons at best? Something about illiciting a "huh, kind of a bummer" reaction in the player. :smallconfused:
If that's the intent, it's failing with me. It's done nothing to make me care about the one character, nor anything to make me care about the colossi, which is part of why I mentioned above that the story seems to fall under the category of "thinly-veiled excuse to engage in the gameplay." Heck, I can't say I even really think about the colossi as being alive - they're made of stone, so they're obviously not living creatures in any conventional sense, and they're somehow linked to those statues in the temple, so there's something weird about them in that regard.


A bit, yes. You're murdering a bunch of things that did absolutely nothing to you, simply because a voice in the sky tells you to.

Basically what a lot of games boil down to, only SotC makes it a point and underlines it so you realize how downright assholish and psychotic you are being :smallbiggrin:.
Maybe that just happens later on or something, but so far I don't see how it's doing that at all. I get told to go kill some monsters, I do so, that's basic video game stuff. Here's a challenge to overcome, go overcome it. There needs to be a little more to it to trigger questions of morality, otherwise every video game would trigger questions of morality.


But honestly, Zevox, you may simply not be its audience. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone likes everything. I personally was caught by the majesticness of the atmosphere very soon - but then, atmosphere is very important to me, much more so than mere plot. There's a reason I still hold Crystal Chronicles for the Cube was, to me, the best Final Fantasy by a country mile - it just has a kind of atmosphere none of the others manage to even approach.
Ooookaaay. Can't say that's the case for me, or that I even understand such an outlook (Crystal Chronicles? Really?). But even then, like I said, I don't honestly see this game as having any atmosphere at all really. It seems to be just a generic fantasy setting that happens to be rather empty other than a handful of giant monsters. In fact, "empty" is about the best word I can think of to describe what I've seen of the game so far. It's largely devoid of everything - story, characters, variety, excitement, challenge, the works. All of the things that I can normally think of to praise in a game just aren't there in this one.


SotC is not a game that creates atmosphere by blowing stuff up and flashing colors in your face every few seconds, or via melodramatic dialogue. Instead, it throws you into a huge, barren yet strangely beautiful world, with no company but your loyal horse.
Huge, I guess. Barren, yeah. "Strangely beautiful?" Not how I'd describe it, no.


And, to contrast that, when a fight with a Colossus begins, the sheer size and power of the creature emanates from the screen
:smallconfused: It does? Er, I don't see it. Sure they're big, but "their size and power emanates from the screen?" Not really.


That doesn't mean this game is without its flaws. Sometimes the Colossi take too long to reach, some of them can get frustrating, and some are disappointing (especially the two very small ones). I like this game quite a lot, but I like Ico better.
Honestly, the smallest one I've seen so far has been one of my favorite so far. The electric armadillo that I mentioned was the eighth was by far the smallest I've fought, and it was the first to actually mix up the formula and make me do something much different from the first to fight it.

Also, did two more. The giant turtle was the ninth, and also made me use the terrain to my advantage since I had to get it to stand over a big geyser to unbalance it, but it was disappointing that it was very easy to kill once I got up onto it since it had only one weak spot and was very ineffective at trying to get me off it. The tenth was the sand-worm thing, and it sucked because I had to use the horse when fighting it. It hasn't mattered until now because the horse has just been a means of transportation through the empty world, but I hate the controls for that thing. They're so unintuitive and annoying. I hope there's no more colossi that I need to use the horse while fighting...

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

It's not a game for everyone.
I love it.
But I can see how it could be better...
Namely, better graphics, an even bigger or more majestic world.
Also, making more Colossi, and making them bigger, harder and more aggressive.

The game is different, but it could be more simply by having more of what it's got.
I think I might be that it was made for PS2, rather than PS3.
When your character dies, there's no bone-crushing and blood-spatter, and when the colossus fall, they just keel over and drop.
Having them become wounded or go into seizures or bit fall off would go along way.
And their lack of intelligence sucks too-their more like animals willing to ignore you. Cunning and malignance would be nice.

And the contrived methods of beating them doesn't help either.
They just so happen to have an easy path up to them, or their terrain works against them?

Making it more scary would have gone a long way.


There's another one coming up that you haven't faced that's one of my favourites.
Tell me what you think.

[Drascin]

Maybe that just happens later on or something, but so far I don't see how it's doing that at all. I get told to go kill some monsters, I do so, that's basic video game stuff. Here's a challenge to overcome, go overcome it. There needs to be a little more to it to trigger questions of morality, otherwise every video game would trigger questions of morality.

Well of course it is basic videogame stuff. You really have no reason to do anything you do, except the game says so. Wander's doing everything a morally ambiguous mysterious entity is saying, without a word, why exactly?

And many games do get one to make oneself questions, intentionally or not. I have just finished Mirror's Edge, and there you have to fight with a bunch of cops. They are almost certainly convinced you're the bad guy here, and most of them are just doing their jobs, fooled by the government. Hell, the player's own sister is a cop. You can either knock them out melee or kill them with a gun, and the gun is a hell of a lot easier. But the game doesn't ever concern itself with it outwardly.

SotC just tries to get some doubts in you intentionally and with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, what with the fact your player character's model grows a little more shadowy every time you kill a boss, and that the sequences after killing the colossi are less "yay victory! Fanfare for everyone!" and more "yeah. You won. You very proud about that?"


Ooookaaay. Can't say that's the case for me, or that I even understand such an outlook (Crystal Chronicles? Really?).

Crystal Chronicles, really :smallbiggrin:. I can't think of an FF game with a more enchanting, intriguing atmosphere and world. Most Final Fantasies just have places as backdrops for the story. And the story is just not the most important part to me, among other things because taken on their own merits, game plots do tend towards the bad anyway :smalltongue:. My favorite "main" FF, for example, is FFVI, and much as I loved it the whole second part of it can be pretty well summarized as "a bunch of independent cool moments threaded by a terrible plot".


But even then, like I said, I don't honestly see this game as having any atmosphere at all really. It seems to be just a generic fantasy setting that happens to be rather empty other than a handful of giant monsters. In fact, "empty" is about the best word I can think of to describe what I've seen of the game so far. It's largely devoid of everything - story, characters, variety, excitement, challenge, the works. All of the things that I can normally think of to praise in a game just aren't there in this one.

Yeah, I think you really are just not the target, here. I know I many times stopped to watch the view from a cliff, or listen to the wind. I liked the place, and I liked having to find the colossi. I never felt like there should be "excitement" in the way - having mook monsters annoy me on the way would have just been a bother. It's not a Zelda game and doesn't try to be one.


The tenth was the sand-worm thing, and it sucked because I had to use the horse when fighting it. It hasn't mattered until now because the horse has just been a means of transportation through the empty world, but I hate the controls for that thing. They're so unintuitive and annoying. I hope there's no more colossi that I need to use the horse while fighting...

Yeah, clincher here. You and me couldn't be more different if we tried :smallsmile:. Personally, Agro would easily be best horse in any videogame ever.

And yeah, there is one further colossus that requires Agro's help, Phalanx. Just a warning. If you are so bored with the game, you really should probably drop it. If you don't like it, you don't like it! You don't have to like everything!

[Jahkaivah]

It has to be said, if he doesn't like Phalanx, there really is no hope for him.

[Zevox]

Well of course it is basic videogame stuff. You really have no reason to do anything you do, except the game says so. Wander's doing everything a morally ambiguous mysterious entity is saying, without a word, why exactly?
According to what little story there is, because he expects the entity to resurrect that girl he brought with him.


SotC just tries to get some doubts in you intentionally and with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, what with the fact your player character's model grows a little more shadowy every time you kill a boss, and that the sequences after killing the colossi are less "yay victory! Fanfare for everyone!" and more "yeah. You won. You very proud about that?"
:smallconfused: What do you mean "your player character's model grows a little more shadowy every time you kill a boss?" His character model hasn't changed at all. Do you just mean the little sequence with that dark energy from the colossi entering him? That's just confusing, not anything that would raise moral questions. And I don't see how the colossi's death sequences not being particularly exciting does that either.


Crystal Chronicles, really :smallbiggrin:. I can't think of an FF game with a more enchanting, intriguing atmosphere and world. Most Final Fantasies just have places as backdrops for the story. And the story is just not the most important part to me, among other things because taken on their own merits, game plots do tend towards the bad anyway :smalltongue:. My favorite "main" FF, for example, is FFVI, and much as I loved it the whole second part of it can be pretty well summarized as "a bunch of independent cool moments threaded by a terrible plot".
Weird. Personally, while I can't call Crystal Chronicles the worst FF game I've played, that's only because of how awful 8 and 10-2 were. Beyond "it's better than 8 and 10-2," I don't have any kind words for that game.


Yeah, I think you really are just not the target, here. I know I many times stopped to watch the view from a cliff, or listen to the wind. I liked the place, and I liked having to find the colossi.
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't ever do that. There's no point. I don't play games to admire the scenery, I play games for the story and gameplay, especially combat.


Yeah, clincher here. You and me couldn't be more different if we tried :smallsmile:. Personally, Agro would easily be best horse in any videogame ever.
:smallconfused: Wha-? But, you need to keep mashing a button to keep him moving at a steady pace. Turning him is a very hard to control, particularly since those controls get inverted if the camera isn't behind him. Near as I can tell there's no way to get him to slow down quickly either, you just have to wait for him to do it on his own or jump off and let him run off wherever he will. Epona in Ocarina of Time had better controls than this thing, and she was probably the first horse in a 3D video game.


And yeah, there is one further colossus that requires Agro's help, Phalanx. Just a warning.
Pity. Though at least it's only one.


If you are so bored with the game, you really should probably drop it. If you don't like it, you don't like it! You don't have to like everything!
True. Even so, it seems to be a pretty short game, and not a very hard one, so I may as well finish it. I rarely stop playing games without finishing them unless I truly hate them and am not getting any enjoyment at all (FF8) or another game comes out and distracts me. And I don't hate this one, I just don't think it has all that much positive to it. Which is a very strange thing to find after hearing nothing but praise for it online for I-don't-know-how-many years.

Anyway, two more down, putting me at 12 defeated. The eleventh was the small bull-like one, a nice (if frustrating) change of pace, but unfortunately marred by a couple of things. One, I had to look up how to use the torches against him, as I couldn't see the ledges on them that I was supposed to scale at all due to the lighting and aforementioned general image blurriness, which is terrible. Two, once you get on his back, his bucking provides you with only very narrow windows to attack, and uncharged attacks did nothing even when they hit his weak point. I'm still not sure how I found the openings I did that let me get partially charged attacks on him and win - it seemed like pure luck at the time.

The twelfth was huge minotaur-like one in the lake that shot electricity from its horns. Another nice change of pace, as it had me using the terrain again, and not to knock it off-balance like the other two, but to get it to expose its weak point to begin with. Though I wish that the swimming in this game had been explained at all - it was only because I got frustrated and looked up the strategy for this guy that I learned that I could dive underwater, which allowed me to avoid his attacks while swimming to one of the shrines I needed to hide in.

So far I'd have to say that the colossi since the eighth have been an improvement over the first half of the game, setting aside the sand-worm and my hatred for the horse's controls. I hope the remaining four continue that.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

What do you mean "your player character's model grows a little more shadowy every time you kill a boss?" His character model hasn't changed at all. Do you just mean the little sequence with that dark energy from the colossi entering him? That's just confusing, not anything that would raise moral questions. And I don't see how the colossi's death sequences not being particularly exciting does that either.
Start a new game and then look at the character.
Then look at your current one.
He changes, and will continue to.


One, I had to look up how to use the torches against him, as I couldn't see the ledges on them that I was supposed to scale at all due to the lighting and aforementioned general image blurriness, which is terrible.
Fair point. I simply led him to the edge and dodged.


Two, once you get on his back, his bucking provides you with only very narrow windows to attack, and uncharged attacks did nothing even when they hit his weak point. I'm still not sure how I found the openings I did that let me get partially charged attacks on him and win - it seemed like pure luck at the time.
THere's a ledge where you can run and shoot arrows with impunity and then jump on his back.
He takes you for a ride back into the temple and you can kill him there.


So far I'd have to say that the colossi since the eighth have been an improvement over the first half of the game, setting aside the sand-worm and my hatred for the horse's controls. I hope the remaining four continue that.
OOOH! The second next one is my favourite!
#14!
:smallsmile:


Wha-? But, you need to keep mashing a button to keep him moving at a steady pace.
I think it's because Agro's nearly impossible to kill, and especially on #8, if he's not there when you need him-life if you fail to climb on the turtle, it's bad.
So when the turtle's getting back up, and you're whistling and you hear those hooves, it's a relief.

[Lord Seth]

Well of course it is basic videogame stuff. You really have no reason to do anything you do, except the game says so.Is that really that "basic," though? Offhand I can't think of any video games that didn't provide a reasonable reason for what you were doing. Granted, in many of the older games that information was in the instruction booklet rather than the game itself, but it was there.

Heck, even most of the ones that did relegate it to the booklet gave some indication in the game, even if it was at the end.

[TheOasysMaster]

Man, I loved this game!

Combined with reminiscing about the game and this blog:
http://nomads-sotc-blog.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-07-31T18:42:00%2B10:00&max-results=7
I'm going to run it right here in the Playground!
:smallsmile:

[Zevox]

Start a new game and then look at the character.
Then look at your current one.
He changes, and will continue to.
...yeah, don't see any difference.


THere's a ledge where you can run and shoot arrows with impunity and then jump on his back.
He takes you for a ride back into the temple and you can kill him there.
Oh, I was back in the temple when I killed him, but he was still barely giving me time to do an attack.

Anyway, I've done three more. The thirteenth was the giant serpent-dragon in the desert (kinda reminded me of Rayquaza from Pokèmon, except made of stone and hairy). That wasn't bad. It must be the one you guys were referencing as requiring the horse, but at least there I didn't need to outrun it or do any precision moving as against the sand-worm, so it wasn't a problem there. And while it was still pretty basic for this game, it was at least a cool fight for how it went. Better than the other flying colossus.

The fourteenth I have a big problem with: it was the exact same monster as the eleventh. Not even similar like most of the first six, it was the same damn thing, just with a different method for breaking off its back armor. And I can't say I was fond of that method - it was obvious that I was expected to make it topple pillars, since that was the only thing I could do, but there was no indication what that would actually accomplish until the literal last second. And once its back armor was off it was an easier version of the eleventh, since I could stun it by getting it to run into one of the previously-toppled pillars. Rather sad to see one of these being literally recycled like that. At least up until now they've all looked different, even if the method for defeating them each was often similar.

And the fifteenth was the gorilla-like one in an arena/canyon area (not entirely sure what that structure was supposed to be). Pretty meh, just another of the biped types, and with one big problem: that last weak point, in its palm? I should never have been able to hit that. It should've just closed its fist around me the moment I jumped in there, and that would be that. I mean, really, why make a weak point there? Bleh.

So yeah, 13 was pretty cool, but the other two disappointed me. I'm heading to the last one now.

Zevox

[Hiro Protagonest]

...yeah, don't see any difference.

Are you colorblind? Your skin gets paler and your hair becomes darker, and at one point you get little horns.

[DukeGod]

Oh Malus =D
He's definately fun

[Zevox]

Are you colorblind? Your skin gets paler and your hair becomes darker, and at one point you get little horns.
No :smallannoyed: , and I don't see any of that. Even looking up close at him where I am now (facing the last colossus) there definitely aren't any horns on him, nor does his skin or hair seem different from the start.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

...yeah, don't see any difference.

No , and I don't see any of that. Even looking up close at him where I am now (facing the last colossus) there definitely aren't any horns on him, nor does his skin or hair seem different from the start.
Eh, its a subtle change-I didn't notice either.
Perhaps that's some of SotC's charm/weakness; too subtle.


The fourteenth I have a big problem with
Awwww.
:smallfrown:

What about the music? Surely you have something good to say about that!
:smallsmile:

If anyone's interested in a 3.5 SotC game, THIS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12497333#post12497333) is the thread!

[Yora]

It's very subtle. You probably won't notice it until the last quarter of the game.

What I did notice only halfway through the game is
In addition to every shadow that stands next to you when you are back in the temple, for every slain colossus there is also anover dove sitting by the altar.

The game doesn't explain anything, but I've seen very good explainations for almost any visual element that shows up somewhere. Except the doves. No idea what they represent. But since one appears after each colossus, they have to have a meaning.

[TheOasysMaster]

What I did notice only halfway through the game is
I got about half-way too.

Did you notice the symbols on the blocks lying around the ruins?

[Yora]

No, but I assume it's the one that is on the Colossi and
on Wandas Shirt

[TheOasysMaster]

No, but I assume it's the one that is on the Colossi and

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/sageapple/4Blocks.jpg
Hint: The bottom right one is a familiar place in the game.
:smallsmile:

These are the blocks are found all over the Shrine and throughout the game.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/074/a/7/HTP_Shadow_of_the_Colossus_by_jollyjack.jpg
Jollyjack is FUNNY!

[Yora]

The first one is the central element of the Sigil. The last one seems an overhead view of the last colossus location.

Since the Sigil is on the cloaks of Wanda and the Priest, and Wanda knows about the sword and got it in his possession, I assume he was a novice or guard of the Order that had bound Dormin. That way he knew about Dormin, the location of the Valey, the importance of the Sword, and had an opportunity to steal it. The priest knew what he planned to do and chased him with some other guards.
When I was at my parents for christmas, I remembered to take my PS2 Slim and SotC with me to plug it into the beamer with surround sound in the guest room. But the thing doesn't take HDMI and the beamer and sound system didn't take the primitive standard sound connections of the PS2.
SotC! On a beamer! With Soround sound! And I didn't think to to pack the optical sound cable I use at home! :smallmad:

[Zevox]

What about the music? Surely you have something good to say about that!
:smallsmile:
Uh, not really. I tend not to really notice the music in most video games, and this is no exception.


It's very subtle. You probably won't notice it until the last quarter of the game.
The last scene, actually. During that, yeah, he looks like a full-blown zombie and has grown horns. Before that? Nothing.

Anyway, finished it. The last colossus was all kinds of awesome. I'm not even disappointed that it just had one weak spot that I could easily take it from full to dead with upon reaching it, because reaching it was such a chore that I'd probably have been ticked if it had gone otherwise. Though certain parts of the ascent (the hands and arms) were extremely awkwardly handled, and there were times when it felt like the controls and camera were working against me to make it harder than it should've been. Still, very good, very memorable boss fight. Though I have to say that I'm not entirely sure what that thing was supposed to be - a tower with a humanoid torso sticking out of the top? :smallconfused:

The ending... eh, I guess it makes sense, up to a point. Does leave me wondering why the heck those guys didn't use this more permanent-seeming seal on the demonic entity before. Or why the girl came back, if the demonic entity was just using you the entire time. Or how the heck the horse survived its fall (that one in particular is a real head-scratcher). Or why the guy reverted to being a baby. Okay, yeah, that point where things stop making sense is pretty much the moment after the soldiers escape.

So, yeah, at the end, I guess I still don't see why the game gets the praise it does. Some of it is pretty darn good, yes, but it still ends up feeling like a few good ideas for bosses that were stretched out over far more fights than they should have been. This really feels like it should have been just one part of another game, not a game unto itself.

Zevox

[Reinboom]

This really feels like it should have been just one part of another game, not a game unto itself.

Zevox

A kind of fun task to do:
Get two PS2s. Put ICO in one and SotC in the other.

While going through the vast boring nothingness that is SotC with one controller in one hand, play ICO with the controller in your other hand.


Together, it reaches about a half a game. Almost.

Nearly makes either not fall short of being something. :smalltongue:

[TheOasysMaster]

Does leave me wondering why the heck those guys didn't use this more permanent-seeming seal on the demonic entity before.
I doubt it's permanent...
...the horn have been interpreted to suggest Dormin might use the boy to hitch a ride, and Mono, twisted by Dormin's power becomes the evil queen in Ico...


Or why the girl came back, if the demonic entity was just using you the entire time.
Lawful Evil or Neutral Good, honoring its word. Wander freed it, the girl comes back to life.


Or how the heck the horse survived its fall (that one in particular is a real head-scratcher).
Because he's unkillable!
:smallsmile:


Or why the guy reverted to being a baby
...more interpretations that they gave him a new body as an extra thank you for borrowing his body...


Okay, yeah, that point where things stop making sense is pretty much the moment after the soldiers escape.
When Mono takes him upwards into the tower?
Apparently, there was a more concrete ending, but the had or decided to make a more interpretable ending.
Word of God and common interpretations take it that Emon and the soldiers do their best to make sure Dormin doesn't completely escape.
But Dormin freed is able to hitch a ride in Wander, and escapes as the hero grows up, siring the line of horned boys who are doomed in Ico.
Mono is tainted either by the experience or Dormin's magic and becomes the evil queen in Ico, using the horned boys to gain immortality...

Eh.

[Tengu_temp]

ICO deserves to be played with your full attention. If you don't get attached to Ico and Yorda and if this game doesn't move you emotionally, then you don't have a soul.

[Zevox]

I doubt it's permanent...
The bridge that was the only entrance into the land he's imprisoned in was destroyed. That seems like it would've solved the problem nicely. Certainly wouldn't have allowed your main character to come in, kill the colossi, and release the demon.


[numerous references to ICO]
So, in other words, in order to understand what is going on in this game, I need to have played another? Eh. I'm not terribly inclined to do that. I played Shadow the Colossus because I'd heard of its basic premise (game composed entirely of boss fights with enormous monsters), was a bit interested by it, and heard a ton of praise for it, so I figured it would probably at least be good. ICO, I've only ever heard the name. And I hate to say, but Shadow of the Colossus didn't exactly leave me wanting more.

Besides, I've got a big enough backlog of games I have yet to play anyway, and almost all of the new games of 2012 that I'm interested in releasing within a month and a half of each other starting at the end of February, so I've got plenty to do for a good while.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

The bridge that was the only entrance into the land he's imprisoned in was destroyed. That seems like it would've solved the problem nicely. Certainly wouldn't have allowed your main character to come in, kill the colossi, and release the demon.
TRUE.
THough if one REALLY wanted in or out, they could do it. There is that long coastline with plenty of beaches.


So, in other words, in order to understand what is going on in this game, I need to have played another?
Ooooh, harsh.
But your point is valid.
Leaving it open to interpretations robs us of a concrete ending, which in your case doesn't aid your experience and in mind, still nags at the back of my head since I don't know, for sure.


but Shadow of the Colossus didn't exactly leave me wanting more.
Not even the time trials? Collecting all the items against the clock is pretty interesting.
Also, I gotta say, I'm impressed you went so far in a day...
...took me a week.
:smallsmile:

[TheOasysMaster]

A few last questions Zevox...

Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid or any of the games in the seriesÉ
How would YOU improve SotC-was it too easy, not compelling or believable or just not as good as you`d been led to believe

[Zevox]

Not even the time trials? Collecting all the items against the clock is pretty interesting.
Nah. I rarely enjoy anything that's given a time limit like that, and the game was repetitive enough that replaying it isn't exactly on my mind right now.


Also, I gotta say, I'm impressed you went so far in a day...
...took me a week.
:smallsmile:
*shrugs* It's a short and not very difficult game, and I had all weekend free. Played half of it yesterday, half today. The time stamp on my final save file (saved after the ending) was only eight hours.


A few last questions Zevox...

Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid or any of the games in the seriesÉ
How would YOU improve SotC-was it too easy, not compelling or believable or just not as good as you`d been led to believe

I have played Metal Gear Solid 3, but none of the others. That was a good game, if not really to my tastes in many respects (the realism-based healing mechanics, the hefty amount of camouflage-based stealth). I do intend on trying the rest of the series at some point, but it's one of many series that aren't too high on my priorities as-is.

As for the latter, well, all of those I suppose. It was quite easy, aside from a few segments, but that's not really the main problem. It's not compelling, no - there's far too little story to it for it to be compelling. Believability isn't an issue - it's fantasy, simple suspension of disbelief applies. As I see it, it's a game with little in the way of a story, so it needs strong gameplay to carry it. And as I said, while the ideas it uses for its boss fights make for a few great ones, they're stretched too thin by trying to make an entire game of nothing but them. It gets repetitive very fast, with only a few of the later colossi mixing things up. It either needed more variety to its gameplay and the bosses (you could nix most of the first seven, either the eleventh or fourteenth, and the fifteenth without losing anything), or more story to be more engaging.

Or honestly, it could've been just to be one part of a larger game - that's what it feels like. It doesn't tell us anything about the characters and little about the world, so nothing about it has any impact. If it were toned down to just a few of the colossi and used as an early or middle part of an epic RPG, I could completely understand that. Maybe then it would give me some idea who the main character is and why he cares so much about the girl, or exactly what he knew about the sealed land and the demonic entity going in, or who the girl was and why I should care in the least about her, or just what the demonic entity was and why I should care about it, or who those other guys at the ending were and why I should care about them.

Or, if the purpose was to make the whole endeavor morally questionable, do something to make it questionable. Make many of the colossi run from you and only fight back when cornered. Make them look like living creatures rather than magically-animated stone statues. Give me some backstory so that I know that the entity probably isn't trustworthy. Make the main character hesitate at some point. Something.

Zevox

[Callos_DeTerran]

I have to admit that I traded in my PS2 before I even heard about Shadow of the Colossus (Or Ico for that matter) but I've always heard a lot of praise for both and, like Zevox, the premise seems interesting for SotC...But once I've gotten past the praise, what I've heard about the actual game itself has been very disappointing.

You can call it minimalist story-telling, leaving it open to interpetation, and what not but...at the end of the day it leaves a rotten taste in my mouth as a writer to hear so much praise heaped on, from what I've observed, is nothing more then beautiful environments, a sequence of boss battles (especially when, from what I can tell from the pictures I've seen, a lot of the colossi are so similar visually), and the barest bones of a story. That doesn't strike me as art, it strikes me as lazy on the part of the developers when they could have done something amazing with the situation.

Is my opinion as valuable as someone who's played the game? No, of course not. I'm not claiming it is or that I'll never play the game because it sounds bad. I'd love to play it and give the game a fair shot to impress me...I just don't think it would which makes it a drain on my precious precious disposable income.

[Tengu_temp]

People, spoilers belong in spoiler tags.


So, in other words, in order to understand what is going on in this game, I need to have played another?

No. The only connections between ICO and SotC other than "they take place in the same world" and "SotC probably takes place before ICO" are sketchy and at most popular fanon, but not confirmed by canon. For example:

Wander starting the line of horned boys from Ico? Very possible and something I personally believe, but not confirmed by canon.

Mono becoming the evil queen? No, just no. There is no strong evidence for that, no weak evidence either, and its only purpose is to twist the relatively happy ending of SotC into something dark.

On a sidenote, Ico has a much different focus than SotC. It still doesn't have a lot of gameplay in the way it's traditionally understood, but rather than the world around you, it's about the bond between the two main characters and how they help and depend on each other, even though they don't even know each other's language. It's very heartwarming.

[Zevox]

People, spoilers belong in spoiler tags.
It's a seven year old game, and one without much to spoil. I'm not going to be all that worried about spoilers on this one, sorry.

Zevox

[Tengu_temp]

When someone asks to mind spoilers it's common courtesy to do so. And saying "it's old so it's okay to spoil it" is a fallacy.

If you want to discuss spoilers openly, put a [spoilers] tag into the thread name.

[TheOasysMaster]

Mono becoming the evil queen? No, just no. There is no strong evidence for that, no weak evidence either, and its only purpose is to twist the relatively happy ending of SotC into something dark.
Faaaaair point...

[Yora]

You can call it minimalist story-telling, leaving it open to interpetation, and what not but...at the end of the day it leaves a rotten taste in my mouth as a writer to hear so much praise heaped on, from what I've observed, is nothing more then beautiful environments, a sequence of boss battles (especially when, from what I can tell from the pictures I've seen, a lot of the colossi are so similar visually), and the barest bones of a story. That doesn't strike me as art, it strikes me as lazy on the part of the developers when they could have done something amazing with the situation.
The story is not really the point. It's as much important as the story in a Michael Bay movie. It is there, but that's not what the whole thing is about.

To me, SotC belongs to the same category as Portal or Mirror's Edge. It's visual and accustic art with an unusual gameplay element. None of them are narrative works of art. It's not what they do and not what you get.
You can like music even if the lyrics don't tell anything important.

[Airk]

The story is not really the point. It's as much important as the story in a Michael Bay movie. It is there, but that's not what the whole thing is about.

Except everyone seems to disagree with you and talk about how cool it is that there is this morally ambiguous voice in the sky telling you to do things that might or might not be a good idea.

And it is a cool idea, but the implementation is WAY too minimalist.



To me, SotC belongs to the same category as Portal or Mirror's Edge. It's visual and accustic art with an unusual gameplay element. None of them are narrative works of art. It's not what they do and not what you get.
You can like music even if the lyrics don't tell anything important.

I'm sorry, but the art wasn't that gorgeous and the gameplay wasn't that unusual.

I'm right in there with Zevox - this game gets a ton of hype, and I went out and played it expecting something magical, and it never happened. There were a couple of moments of "Wow! I'm clinging onto this massive thing!" (The first flying colossus, mostly) but those were RAPIDLY mitigated by "Ugh, it threw me off AGAIN, so now I need to climb and cling onto it again." The moment of cool needing to be repeated so many times killed it, and fundamentally, the game is extremely repetitive.

So to sum up:
#1: "Story" - bland, overly minimalist, but still one of the stronger elements of the game. Needed a lot MORE of it to carry things though, since fundamentally nothing happens between your arrival and the demise of what...colossus #9? I suppose the fact that I wanted to STOP pursuing the story because I sensed that something was "wrong" and had, truthfully, no attachment to the girl at all could be considered a "strength" but since no such option exists, it just made me want to stop playing the game.
#2: Visuals - okay, but I wouldn't have written home about them. Every once in a while a game makes me go "wow" visually, or look around for the sake of looking around, but again, this isn't the kind of thing that can carry a game. The sense of wonder at the environment wore off somewhere around the journey to colossus #4, when I started getting frustrated at trying to find my way through a maze with only "the exit is to the north of you!" as a guide.
#2a: Art Direction - okay, this was sincerely good.
#3: Audio - truthfully, I can't remember it at all.
#4: Gameplay - Repetitive and frustrating, with pretty poor controls, overall, that hampered what good there was to be found in the gameplay. Also, designed in such a minimalist way that I wonder how the hell anyone EVER found out about the fact that you can eat the lizards and the fruit, or whatever.

So overall, yes, the game has nice ambiance, but that's pretty much it, and that's just not enough to carry a game, even one of this length. All the praise this title garners is, IMHO, completely undeserved and all too frequently justified with "It's art! You just don't get it!" Which may be true, but if so, then it's not good art.

[TheOasysMaster]

So overall, yes, the game has nice ambiance, but that's pretty much it, and that's just not enough to carry a game, even one of this length. All the praise this title garners is, IMHO, completely undeserved and all too frequently justified with "It's art! You just don't get it!" Which may be true, but if so, then it's not good art.
As a fan of the game, I also consider myself objective.
I say the game is not for everyone.
I wouldn't say one 'doesn't get it' or even that those who do like it are a 'special class' of people.
I'll just say the game resonates with a few and falls flat with other for much of the same reasons.
Some will appreciate the minimalism and other will think, "I paid $10 for empty space and easy boss battles?"
I personally love the music and have the soundtracks with remixes, but others will find the music and its theme repetitive-which they are, the same overall theme is recycled in boss battles, and loops as long as you're on the colossi.
The lack of any concrete plot outside of the manuals, theories and wild-guesses has made a small community devoting hours of searching through game code and hidden areas to find another colossus or some sort of 'answer' while for others, it was too short a game not intense enough for the attention given.
For some, it's "Eh." and for others its "Meh," and for me its like, "This is one game I'll always have in my collection."

I think the difference between Shadow of the Colossus and saaaaaaay, hmmm, maybe The Matrix Path of Neo, is that one is a glitchy, rushed game that failed at all to live up to the phenomenon while the other is a matter of one's appreciations and assumptions on what a game or good story and entertainment should be.





Path of Neo was terrible. TERRIBLE.
Uuuuuuuuuugh.

[Lord Seth]

It's very subtle. You probably won't notice it until the last quarter of the game.

What I did notice only halfway through the game is
In addition to every shadow that stands next to you when you are back in the temple, for every slain colossus there is also anover dove sitting by the altar.

The game doesn't explain anything, but I've seen very good explainations for almost any visual element that shows up somewhere. Except the doves. No idea what they represent. But since one appears after each colossus, they have to have a meaning.Why does it "have" to have a meaning? Why couldn't it be something the developers threw in there just because?

[Eurus]

Why does it "have" to have a meaning? Why couldn't it be something the developers threw in there just because?

It doesn't have to be meaningful, but it's more impressive if it is. Personally I think the doves are part of the Dormin or Colossi just like the shadowy figures surrounding you when you stand; the way the Dormin speaks in multiple voices and all seems to indicate some kind of duality, so maybe it has light aspects and dark aspects.

What I really want to know is what the heck's up with that secret garden.

[Yora]

Since the game is so minimalistic, everything that they did put in is there for a purpose. If there were just some doves, I wouldn't think anything about it, probably just a symbol of purity and peace. But this way? Nah, I am very sure that someone made an intentional descision to put this in while leaving so much else empty.

The secret garden is not that special. It's just a small garden on top of the central temple that is seen in the credits to show that they won't just die two days later from thirst. However, there was a demo version of this game (I think on disk as a bonus to a playstation magazine) in which it was possible to climb up there if you knew the path and exploited some clipping errors. In the final game, this is no longer possible and people who tried to get there always failed, making the whole thing seem even more mysterious.

[TheOasysMaster]

In the final game, this is no longer possible and people who tried to get there always failed, making the whole thing seem even more mysterious.

:smallconfused:
It's possible to get to the top if you max out stamina and move FAST...
...getting to the top of the Shrine requires hacking-I don't think there's anything to stand on up there...
Also, getting up there might mean the game would have to render everything, so there might be a good reason its inaccessible.


Since the game is so minimalistic, everything that they did put in is there for a purpose. If there were just some doves, I wouldn't think anything about it, probably just a symbol of purity and peace. But this way? Nah, I am very sure that someone made an intentional descision to put this in while leaving so much else empty.
I agree with this...
In a game with so little, everything that is present has a greater importance than that which was left out.
It's called an economy of style.
The fact that there are 16 doves, 16 shades, 16 statues, 16 colossi helps a lot.

[Airk]

As a fan of the game, I also consider myself objective.
I say the game is not for everyone.
I wouldn't say one 'doesn't get it' or even that those who do like it are a 'special class' of people.
I'll just say the game resonates with a few and falls flat with other for much of the same reasons.
Some will appreciate the minimalism and other will think, "I paid $10 for empty space and easy boss battles?"
I personally love the music and have the soundtracks with remixes, but others will find the music and its theme repetitive-which they are, the same overall theme is recycled in boss battles, and loops as long as you're on the colossi.
The lack of any concrete plot outside of the manuals, theories and wild-guesses has made a small community devoting hours of searching through game code and hidden areas to find another colossus or some sort of 'answer' while for others, it was too short a game not intense enough for the attention given.
For some, it's "Eh." and for others its "Meh," and for me its like, "This is one game I'll always have in my collection."

I think the difference between Shadow of the Colossus and saaaaaaay, hmmm, maybe The Matrix Path of Neo, is that one is a glitchy, rushed game that failed at all to live up to the phenomenon while the other is a matter of one's appreciations and assumptions on what a game or good story and entertainment should be.


Sure. But considering the RIDICULOUS amount of hype and fanboyism surrounding this game, you'd really expect it to work for more people than it does. I consider it to be misrepresented on the interwebs. :P

[TheOasysMaster]

But considering the RIDICULOUS amount of hype and fanboyism surrounding this game, you'd really expect it to work for more people than it does. I consider it to be misrepresented on the interwebs. :P
Fair enough. Being objective, I wouldn't call it the greatest game ever made.
If I was Sony, I wouldn't have made it a Greatest Hit.
I would recommend it as a game worth playing simply for it being different, and as an example of how video games and story-telling work and don't work with audiences to produce favorable or not favorable responses.

I wouldn't put it on the same level as a Metal Gear Solid game, but I would put it on a list of games that a person would do well to have played.
:smallsmile:

Good?

[Airk]

Fair enough. Being objective, I wouldn't call it the greatest game ever made.
If I was Sony, I wouldn't have made it a Greatest Hit.

Eh. Here, amusingly, I get to disagree with you again. Sony's so-called "greatest hits" is really just their "hey, these games sold pretty well, and I bet we could sell more of them if we released them again at a budget price" collection. I mean, hell, it's in the illustrious company of Shrek 2, 50 Cent: Bulletproof, and SpongeBob SquarePants: Lights, Camera, Pants! So it's not exactly dragging the roster down in that respect. :P (There are also some actually good games in that list, but not nearly as many as you might expect from the name "Greatest Hits") Certainly, it's closer to deserving a "greatest hits" title than most of that list.



I would recommend it as a game worth playing simply for it being different, and as an example of how video games and story-telling work and don't work with audiences to produce favorable or not favorable responses.

I would recommend it for this purpose as well, but that's not a general purpose recommendation - in fact, I would hesitate to recommend a game on that basic at all unless I knew the person in question had an interest in the craft of game development and storyteller, either as a hobbyist/enthusiast, or as a professional. Otherwise, I have a tendancy to recommend games based on fun.



I wouldn't put it on the same level as a Metal Gear Solid game, but I would put it on a list of games that a person would do well to have played.


I'm curious as to what sorts of merits a game needs to be placed on that list.

[TheOasysMaster]

Certainly, it's closer to deserving a "greatest hits" title than most of that list.
So, wait, are you saying it does belong on the Greatest Hits? Because it sold we-I always assumed the Greatest Hits were games the fans lo-
Oh my god, I'm an optimist!
:smalleek:


I'm curious as to what sorts of merits a game needs to be placed on that list.
Basically how much fun I had.
How it changed my view of how games and storytelling can work or not work.
A combination of things.

MGS is a better all round game than SotC, but they're both on my list of games I'd suggest, and I have them right next together on my shelf.

[Saph]

I really liked Shadow of the Colossus, but Ico is better IMO.

That said, they're very different games. Shadow is much more about the beautiful scenery and the spectacle of the colossi, while Ico is all about the relationship between the two main characters. They both have that very distinctive lovely graphical style, though.

[Sila Prirode]

First, a point. I played the game two months after it was released. At that point in time, it was visually stunning. Huge landscape, wind, everything moving almost naturally, and other little details.

OK, now that I said that, let me continue with more important things:
The whole game being minimalistic is not really the point. For example, would you call a haiku a poem? Or Ernest Hemingway a prose writer?
There is a certain personal expression going on in SotC (and ICO as a matter of fact). You can see more of that in the third game (The Last Guardian), where they refined it, and made it into a fuller game.

Now, I have read the whole thread, and I noticed Zevox mentioned that he plays the game for combat and story mostly (forgive me for being lazy and not quoting it :smallsmile:). Which is a fair point, I mean, what are you going to play a game for, if not for the game itself? But I would to counter that with a question, why does it have to be a game for you to enjoy it?
This is the same thing as in other parts of the art world, there are things you will like, and things you won't, no matter how good they are. Like with music, I for example don't like modern metal subtypes, and yet I knew a plethora of bands that are almost worshiped for how good they are, even thought I can't listen to them for more then few minutes.

And lastly, some food for thought, if you would not call haiku a poem, what would you call it then? Shadow of Colossus is not a game, it's more of an piece of art, in digital form. I played it two times, and I hated the controls on horseback, it was repetitive, and kinda of lacking in some areas. But I loved absolutely every minute of it, and I would play it again as soon as I get my hands on this new remastered copy. Because it's a piece of art that I enjoyed, and would be happy to look at once again.

[Airk]

And lastly, some food for thought, if you would not call haiku a poem, what would you call it then? Shadow of Colossus is not a game, it's more of an piece of art, in digital form. I played it two times, and I hated the controls on horseback, it was repetitive, and kinda of lacking in some areas. But I loved absolutely every minute of it, and I would play it again as soon as I get my hands on this new remastered copy. Because it's a piece of art that I enjoyed, and would be happy to look at once again.

I cannot reconcile these two statements, and this is the sort of thing that hurts my brain about people raving about SotC (Particularly when they conveniently "forget" to mention the first statement). You CANNOT "love every minute" of something if there are parts of it that you HATE. These two things, they are mutually exclusive. It's fine to say that there are parts of the game you loved, and even that you "loved the game overall in spite of its flaws" but loving every minute of it? While wrestling with the repitition and horrible controls? Doesn't add up.

And uhm, I played it a bit late after its release, but certainly well before it became technologically dated, and the visuals weren't really that impressive. I'm generally not a harsh judge either. I think the game's downfall in the visual department was the fact that it had grand ideas that the PS2 was, frankly, unable to realize, so instead they come out looking blurry and muddy.

[Airk]

So, wait, are you saying it does belong on the Greatest Hits? Because it sold we-I always assumed the Greatest Hits were games the fans lo-
Oh my god, I'm an optimist!


It's unclear how many copies it "needs" to have sold in order to qualify, since Sony has changed the requirements repeatedly, but it looks like the requirement in the PS2 era was 400k copies. Which isn't bad, but it's hardly a huge hit, even by PS2 era standards. THAT Said, VGchartz says (actually, extrapolates, so who the hell knows) it moved 1.02 million copies...eventually. Which is solid, but even if you factor in the half a million of sales (probably to a lot of the same people) of the Ico & SotC collection, you're still coming up pretty far short of being a "major hit". Of course, it's also more than a number of much better games (Looking at you, Okami. Which truthfully, I consider better game-as-art than SotC.)

[TheOasysMaster]

Of course, it's also more than a number of much better games (Looking at you, Okami. Which truthfully, I consider better game-as-art than SotC.)
><
Oooooooooh, you went for the sucker punch!
:smalltongue:

[Saph]

I cannot reconcile these two statements, and this is the sort of thing that hurts my brain about people raving about SotC (Particularly when they conveniently "forget" to mention the first statement). You CANNOT "love every minute" of something if there are parts of it that you HATE. These two things, they are mutually exclusive. It's fine to say that there are parts of the game you loved, and even that you "loved the game overall in spite of its flaws" but loving every minute of it? While wrestling with the repitition and horrible controls? Doesn't add up.

*laughs* You know what he meant.

The Shadow/Ico games are really much more like a piece of art or an interactive story than a standard adventure game. Some people absolutely love them, and I'm one. Some people see absolutely nothing in them, and that's fine too. Either way, you're not likely to change the minds of the other side - it's all about how you perceive it.

[Sila Prirode]

The Shadow/Ico games are really much more like a piece of art or an interactive story than a standard adventure game.

Interactive story! Yes, God, I wrote that whole thing there because I couldn't remember how I called it last time we had this discussion, thank you very much.

And yes, I loved every minute of it, because when I'm playing a piece like that (game that I don't "play to win", but just to see it unfold) the controls are also part of the experience. Like old Contra on Nintendo, not having a save game was a feature, not a crucial part of game that is missing.

Have you played some other games like this? So I know where do you come from when I'm talking to you, I'm not trying to be offensive, just to understand your point of view better. For example Metal Gear Solid 4. It is more of a movie with controllable camera then game. And yet it is praised and played by many.

[Joran]

*laughs* You know what he meant.

The Shadow/Ico games are really much more like a piece of art or an interactive story than a standard adventure game. Some people absolutely love them, and I'm one. Some people see absolutely nothing in them, and that's fine too. Either way, you're not likely to change the minds of the other side - it's all about how you perceive it.

I liked Shadow of the Colossus because it was a sterling example of video games as art, in the arthouse sense of the word. That this was basically a video game created as artistic expression rather than a blockbuster manner of making money and entertaining people.

There are other games that are similar, like fl0w or fl0wer, but most video games strive for fun (which is not bad!) and for sales.

[Nero24200]

The Shadow/Ico games are really much more like a piece of art or an interactive story than a standard adventure game. Some people absolutely love them, and I'm one. Some people see absolutely nothing in them, and that's fine too. Either way, you're not likely to change the minds of the other side - it's all about how you perceive it.

I don't know about that. Compared to some of the games I've played recently SotC offers far better gameplay. When playing Skyward Sword for instance I find myself watching cutscene after cutscene after cutscene. I feel that particular game is pretty much on the rails, but the worst part is I consider that par for the course now in modern gaming.

It might have been intended to be an artistic piece primarily, but I found myself enjoying the gameplay a lot. I'm not sure if saying that is a compliment to SotC, an insult to modern games or both. It should be noted that I never played the game until a few years back, so I was already spoiled by modern game graphics. It was just so refreshing for a game to simply be "here's the premise, he's a weapon, go kill something if you want, or explore, whatever, just do something, kthxbai" instead of "cutscene, cutscene, corridor, cutscene, corridor, boss fight, cutscene".

[Yora]

And yes, I loved every minute of it, because when I'm playing a piece like that (game that I don't "play to win", but just to see it unfold) the controls are also part of the experience. Like old Contra on Nintendo, not having a save game was a feature, not a crucial part of game that is missing.
I love the horse controll! You do not control the horse, you communicate your intentions to the horse in a way similar how you do it in actual riding, and the horse does its best to follow your orders. Sometimes you have to repeat them because he doesn't always respond instantly. And Agro is a smart horse, so he keeps helping you when you let go of the reigns to concentrate on using your bow. He understands you want to ride alongside the colossus and will keep charging and evade minor obstacles (unless you head straight into a wall).
It's complete different from driving a tank.

This makes it feel a lot more like having someone with you instead of a vehicle.

[TheOasysMaster]

This makes it feel a lot more like having someone with you instead of a vehicle.
Made him more real. And when he responds perfectly, saving you, it was awesome.

[Jahkaivah]

I think the horse control is a classic example of the Marmite of the game.

[Sila Prirode]

I love the horse controll! You do not control the horse, you communicate your intentions to the horse in a way similar how you do it in actual riding, and the horse does its best to follow your orders. Sometimes you have to repeat them because he doesn't always respond instantly. And Agro is a smart horse, so he keeps helping you when you let go of the reigns to concentrate on using your bow. He understands you want to ride alongside the colossus and will keep charging and evade minor obstacles (unless you head straight into a wall).
It's complete different from driving a tank.

This makes it feel a lot more like having someone with you instead of a vehicle.

Yup. Which is the reason I loved it. But the thing is, they are still crappy controls. That doesn't mean they don't work, or they should be corrected, I would vehemently argue against that. But if this were a real game in all senses, that would be a sore spot.
Like I said before, in games like this, it is a feature, not a problem :smallbiggrin:

[Darklord Bright]

I think the core reason people sometimes come out of the game disappointed is that, like Zevox, they play games more for fun and challenging combat or an involved an ever-present narrative, as opposed to simply enjoying the art and sound direction of a game. Everyone enjoys the industry for different reasons, and some of us like the combat or the story and others of us just like to look at how beautifully something has been designed. The problem is, when someone goes into an artistic, minimalist game expecting "A great game" or occasionally "The best game ever!" they have different expectations depending upon what they enjoy in a game.

Basically, I think it's just that people expected SotC to be something it wasn't. It's a pretty and carefully crafted experience, but some people just don't find the end product engaging, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Sila Prirode]

I think it was mostly due to how game was highly praised. For example, when I first saw the real art of Pablo Picasso I was like "really, this is it?". Because you have come to except something mind-shattering, and what you got was something that was highly rated in it's time, and it has been done since then.
SotC was a deconstruction of sorts, a game where you got "like Zelda, but without the Zelda part". It inspired some people, opened some eyes, but it served it's purpose as a piece of art, so it's just a semi-good game now. For example, try playing Diablo 2 for some time (like, hour or two) and tell me what you think about it from today's point of view.

[Eurus]

]The secret garden is not that special. It's just a small garden on top of the central temple that is seen in the credits to show that they won't just die two days later from thirst. However, there was a demo version of this game (I think on disk as a bonus to a playstation magazine) in which it was possible to climb up there if you knew the path and exploited some clipping errors. In the final game, this is no longer possible and people who tried to get there always failed, making the whole thing seem even more mysterious.

Oh, it's quite possible to hit the top without cheating/glitching. Takes nearly maxed stamina and probably a couple tries. The trees at the top drop fruit that reduces your max stamina (to a minimum of your starting amount). I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a particularly weird allegory for the Garden of Eden or what.

[Joran]

I think it was mostly due to how game was highly praised. For example, when I first saw the real art of Pablo Picasso I was like "really, this is it?". Because you have come to except something mind-shattering, and what you got was something that was highly rated in it's time, and it has been done since then.
SotC was a deconstruction of sorts, a game where you got "like Zelda, but without the Zelda part". It inspired some people, opened some eyes, but it served it's purpose as a piece of art, so it's just a semi-good game now. For example, try playing Diablo 2 for some time (like, hour or two) and tell me what you think about it from today's point of view.

I get the same feeling from modern art, I understand it.

That said, it's not a deconstruction of sorts. I think the developers tried to tell the story of a boy who is willing to go to the ends of the Earth and willing to sacrifice his very soul to try to save someone he loves. There is a pretty neat story if you're willing to interpret it as far as these people do.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/924364-shadow-of-the-colossus/faqs/41817

There is a great deal of care in constructing the experience. They seek to tell a story and to evoke feelings and I think they totally succeed. I felt the feeling of "awe" as the Colossus rose from the ground. I also got that slight twinge of guilt every time I stabbed one, especially if it's one that didn't react aggressively at first. And finally I felt that uncertainty that I did the right thing after each time I killed the colossus and saw the cut scene of the tendrils entering my body, seeing the light, and then waking up in the temple.

[Sila Prirode]

That said, it's not a deconstruction of sorts. I think the developers tried to tell the story of a boy who is willing to go to the ends of the Earth and willing to sacrifice his very soul to try to save someone he loves. There is a pretty neat story if you're willing to interpret it as far as these people do.

I agree with the parts I cut out, but before reading that link let me do a quick reply. When I made that comment about deconstruction, I was thinking along the lines of gameplay values, and mechanics. Story, by itself, is great, and, actually, that kind of storytelling (a bit sparse, leaving a lot of blanks, and reading between the lines) is actually my favourite method for convenying happenings, feelings, sights and places. I should have probably said that in the first place now that you have mentioned it.
But nevertheless, if you try to enumerate all the mechanics that are present in "regular" adventures, you will find that SotC really has a lot less of them. It presents just the bare bones of a game, and in that way moves away from gameplay. That is why I compared it to deconstruction of a genre, they showed just what makes an adventure game, building block so to speak.

[Yora]

It isn't so much the story as the telling.

The story is really simple and not very creative. Allow me to quote Yahtzee here: "You are a hot young stud, you brought your questionably alive ladyfriend to a forbidden land in order to request that an imprisoned demon brings her back to life. Because these arrangements always work out beautifully for all concerned."

But the interesting part is that only for the very basic setup, the whole time there is no one providing exposition to the players that the characters should already know. You just follow Wanda around and watch what he is doing, but you can't ask questions and since everyone is clear about the details they don't talk about it. You just watch the whole thing and have to piece together your own conclusions about everything. And most importantly, nobody gives you any explaination who is right or wrong. Which is really nice for a change.
Nothing is more dissatisfying than being told that something is good or bad but not feeling that this is the right interpretation of what's happening.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You just follow Wanda around and watch what he is doing, but you can't ask questions and since everyone is clear about the details they don't talk about it.

His name's Wander.

[Zevox]

Now, I have read the whole thread, and I noticed Zevox mentioned that he plays the game for combat and story mostly (forgive me for being lazy and not quoting it :smallsmile:). Which is a fair point, I mean, what are you going to play a game for, if not for the game itself? But I would to counter that with a question, why does it have to be a game for you to enjoy it?
Um, because that's what video games are? I mean, honestly, how does a question like that even make sense? If it's a video game, it can't not be a game, by definition. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a video game, but something else entirely.


Shadow of Colossus is not a game, it's more of an piece of art, in digital form.
I don't see how that adds up at all. Shadow of the Colossus is a video game. By definition, it's a game. It has fairly good visuals for its time I guess, but that's all that I can think of that would cause me to consider it for the label of "art." Of course, I'm totally indifferent to the entire notion of "video games as art" to begin with, so I honestly don't care whether others apply that label to it, but that's what I see with it. And regardless of what you think of the whole "video games as art" thing you can't say that it's not a game.


I cannot reconcile these two statements, and this is the sort of thing that hurts my brain about people raving about SotC (Particularly when they conveniently "forget" to mention the first statement). You CANNOT "love every minute" of something if there are parts of it that you HATE. These two things, they are mutually exclusive. It's fine to say that there are parts of the game you loved, and even that you "loved the game overall in spite of its flaws" but loving every minute of it? While wrestling with the repitition and horrible controls? Doesn't add up.
Agreed, that does strike me as an inherent contradiction.


Interactive story! Yes, God, I wrote that whole thing there because I couldn't remember how I called it last time we had this discussion, thank you very much.
:smallconfused: Okay, now I'm just confused. How is SotC an "interactive story?" The only thing that comes to mind when I see those terms are the kind of games that Bioware and other WRPG developers try to make, attempting to let the player decide how the story goes. Shadow of the Colossus barely even has a story, much less an interactive one.


I love the horse controll! You do not control the horse, you communicate your intentions to the horse in a way similar how you do it in actual riding, and the horse does its best to follow your orders. Sometimes you have to repeat them because he doesn't always respond instantly. And Agro is a smart horse, so he keeps helping you when you let go of the reigns to concentrate on using your bow. He understands you want to ride alongside the colossus and will keep charging and evade minor obstacles (unless you head straight into a wall).
It's complete different from driving a tank.

This makes it feel a lot more like having someone with you instead of a vehicle.
Yeah, that's what I hate about it. When realism in a game gets in the way of good gameplay, especially good controls, it's the realism that needs to get sacrificed in my opinion, not the gameplay. There is no benefit to dragging the game down in the name of realism.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

Um, because that's what video games are? I mean, honestly, how does a question like that even make sense? If it's a video game, it can't not be a game, by definition. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a video game, but something else entirely.
Pretty epic point right there.


Shadow of the Colossus barely even has a story, much less an interactive one.
This is also true.
It's less interactive and more immersive.
You don't have a choice, or Wander has no choice-kill Colossi.
He can't leave.
Can't starve to death, it's either forward and upward. There's no alternate endings, and let's be honest, there are no secrets.

The player gets to move Wander through the motions that his character would take. There's no chance to ask questions because Wander doesn't care too.
His girl is dead. Demon made a deal. He's going for it.
It's not interactive.


There is no benefit to dragging the game down in the name of realism.
I think that's fair too.
Realism is to be appreciated, but being thoroughly entertained is the best part.

[Joran]

I don't see how that adds up at all. Shadow of the Colossus is a video game. By definition, it's a game. It has fairly good visuals for its time I guess, but that's all that I can think of that would cause me to consider it for the label of "art." Of course, I'm totally indifferent to the entire notion of "video games as art" to begin with, so I honestly don't care whether others apply that label to it, but that's what I see with it. And regardless of what you think of the whole "video games as art" thing you can't say that it's not a game.


It's most assuredly a game. The art is in that the artist had a particular experience that he wanted to create, an artistic expression if you will.

I think the reason why it's held up to be the epitome of "games as art", is because it strips away a lot of the artifice of other games to get at the core of how video games can tell a story. There's no random encounters, no side characters, no side quests, no score keeping. You wander through the forest to silence, looking at the desolate landscape until you get to the Colossus. Then a stirring theme sounds as the Colossus rises and you do epic battle. Then you kill the Colossus, a mournful tune sounds and your character gets impaled by dark tendrils, you see light + sounds, and then you wake up.


Okay, now I'm just confused. How is SotC an "interactive story?" The only thing that comes to mind when I see those terms are the kind of games that Bioware and other WRPG developers try to make, attempting to let the player decide how the story goes. Shadow of the Colossus barely even has a story, much less an interactive one.


It has a story, but you need to fill in the gaps yourself.

Wander wants to save this girl's life. He's clearly violated a ton of the rules, even defied the religion of his land for her. He's stolen the sword, rode his horse with this girl to this far away, forbidden land. Why? Who is she to him?

Who was Mono? Why and how did she die?

What's Dormin? Why was he/she/they imprisoned in the Colossi? Are they evil? Good? Neither?

These questions aren't answered in the game explicitly, but I'm pretty sure you had some kind of answer, when you were playing the game. It tells the story by having you control Wander, but otherwise, doesn't allow the player any control over the story.

[Zevox]

It's most assuredly a game. The art is in that the artist had a particular experience that he wanted to create, an artistic expression if you will.

I think the reason why it's held up to be the epitome of "games as art", is because it strips away a lot of the artifice of other games to get at the core of how video games can tell a story. There's no random encounters, no side characters, no side quests, no score keeping. You wander through the forest to silence, looking at the desolate landscape until you get to the Colossus. Then a stirring theme sounds as the Colossus rises and you do epic battle. Then you kill the Colossus, a mournful tune sounds and your character gets impaled by dark tendrils, you see light + sounds, and then you wake up.
Can't honestly say that I understand at all how that makes it an example of "games as art," but whatever I suppose. As I said, I'm completely indifferent to that whole matter anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter if I understand what you're talking about there.


It has a story, but you need to fill in the gaps yourself.

Wander wants to save this girl's life. He's clearly violated a ton of the rules, even defied the religion of his land for her. He's stolen the sword, rode his horse with this girl to this far away, forbidden land. Why? Who is she to him?

Who was Mono? Why and how did she die?

What's Dormin? Why was he/she/they imprisoned in the Colossi? Are they evil? Good? Neither?

These questions aren't answered in the game explicitly, but I'm pretty sure you had some kind of answer, when you were playing the game.
No, I didn't have any kind of answer to any of that. I was waiting for the game to actually explain some of that, i.e. for it to tell the story, as any storytelling medium would. It didn't, and this is part of what disappointed me. It's why I say that this felt like it should've been one part of a larger game, where stuff like that was actually explained. It feels incomplete.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

No, I didn't have any kind of answer to any of that. I was waiting for the game to actually explain some of that, i.e. for it to tell the story, as any storytelling medium would. It didn't, and this is part of what disappointed me. It's why I say that this felt like it should've been one part of a larger game, where stuff like that was actually explained. It feels incomplete.
It IS incomplete.
:smallfrown:

[Joran]

No, I didn't have any kind of answer to any of that. I was waiting for the game to actually explain some of that, i.e. for it to tell the story, as any storytelling medium would. It didn't, and this is part of what disappointed me. It's why I say that this felt like it should've been one part of a larger game, where stuff like that was actually explained. It feels incomplete.

Zevox

Well, they could have easily included flashback cut scenes where you see how Wander found Mono. They could have even had you play through those. But the director decided that he wanted to keep these ambiguous and have the player interpret those relationships.

Similarly, the director could have easily included a couple of random encounters on the way to the Colossi, included a more linear method of getting to the Colossi (I did get lost a couple times), to conform to video games norms but he didn't do that either.

However, I found the simplicity in storytelling an absolute match to the desolate landscape. But again, I can understand where you're coming from. Some people can derive entire stories from a painting. I prefer having it be a little more explicit, but for whatever reason, I was happy with Shadow of the Colossus.

[Lord Seth]

It has a story, but you need to fill in the gaps yourself.Which is exactly part of the problem. I generally dislike it when the writer expects the reader/player/viewer to do their job for them. They should be the one writing it, not the player.

[Zevox]

Which is exactly part of the problem. I generally dislike it when the writer expects the reader/player/viewer to do their job for them. They should be the one writing it, not the player.
Exactly. It's kind of like my problem with WRPG-style blank-slate protagonists: it's asking me to make up something myself and pretend it's part of the game when it isn't. Whether that's the personality of a Bioware main character or the details of Shadow of the Colossus' plot, that's not something I can see in any positive terms.

SotC's story isn't ambiguous from where I'm sitting, it's empty. It's more like an outline than a story, with far too little of the details filled in. It doesn't beg interpretation, as it gives too little to interpret anything from. All that could be done to fill it in is wild, random guessing. That's not something I can give any praise to.

Zevox

[averagejoe]

When someone asks to mind spoilers it's common courtesy to do so. And saying "it's old so it's okay to spoil it" is a fallacy.

If you want to discuss spoilers openly, put a [spoilers] tag into the thread name.

The Mod They Call Me: It is not only common courtesy, it is mandated under the forum rules. I haven't reviewed this thread for spoilers, or ruled on any instance. ICO spoilers would probably have to be spoilered regardless, as this is a SotC thread.

[Forum Explorer]

I liked this game when I played it. My cousin and I rented it and played it over a weekend. We had fun trying to figure out what had happened to the land and what was going on. So a minimalist approach can work but only if you're the type of person who will fill in gaps and world build around it.

[BladeofObliviom]

Relevant. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/924364-shadow-of-the-colossus/faqs/41817)

I thought it was a good read, anyway: It postulates a large number of things and estimates their likelihood, giving a surprisingly good idea as to what is going on.

[Lord Seth]

Relevant. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/924364-shadow-of-the-colossus/faqs/41817)

I thought it was a good read, anyway: It postulates a large number of things and estimates their likelihood, giving a surprisingly good idea as to what is going on.But see, that's exactly the issue I and Zevox pointed out. A player coming up with good ideas to explain things doesn't mean the game is good, it just means the player is good at thinking up things. It's again a case of them asking you to write the game for them.

[Yora]

Our point is, that it also doesn't mean it's bad. Getting the audience to start using their imagination and reflect on what happens is not a bad thing.

[Thiyr]

Most of what I'd want to say has been pre-said, so I'll refrain from that, but I will pop in to say this much: This is pretty much an extreme example of show, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell). Granted, the degree to which it is done starts to make how well this works obviously a matter of taste. I think it's a similar conundrum to poetry in general though. I remember a guy in a class I had once complain while dissecting a poem's meaning that the poet should have just plainly stated what they wanted to get across and leave it at that, plain, simple, and save us the time of bothering to figure it out. And if he was trying to read it on his own and came to it, I doubt he would have cared much, but because it was a class (and by association carried the implication of Importance in some sense), he felt the need to speak up. And I can't really say he was -wrong-, even if I disagree -so much-. Pretty much the exact same thing here. But if the goal was to get the audience to get a story without having it exposited to them, it's hard to say it didn't succeed. If that was enjoyable or not is a whole other matter.

[Airk]

Most of what I'd want to say has been pre-said, so I'll refrain from that, but I will pop in to say this much: This is pretty much an extreme example of show, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell). Granted, the degree to which it is done starts to make how well this works obviously a matter of taste.

The problem is that they didn't SHOW anything either. Like bloody well NOTHING HAPPENS for the majority of the game. Or rather, the same even happens like a dozen times - you ride out, kill a colossus, some dark streaks smoosh into you, and you do it again.

Where is this showing that we are supposed to work on? That was exactly my problem with this game - I didn't "get" the story. Or rather, I did, but it was simplistic, bland, and actively made me want to stop playing. I'm far more likely to sink my imaginative teeth into a world with more substance. I don't need to play a game that offers me the barest of bones of a story to start using my imagination - either give me something solid to work with, or leave me alone and I'll do my imagining without you, don't give me some halfassed framework and expect me to fill in the gaps for you.

And yeah, the fact that fans can make up questionably supported stuff about the game doesn't really mean anything - look at the Legend of Zelda series, for heck's sake. People are making up TONS of lore trying to fit all that stuff together even though the developer keeps saying "No no, it's just a bunch of different games!"

[Sila Prirode]

The problem is that they didn't SHOW anything either. Like bloody well NOTHING HAPPENS for the majority of the game. Or rather, the same even happens like a dozen times - you ride out, kill a colossus, some dark streaks smoosh into you, and you do it again.

Isn't this the whole point of games? Super Mario was the same, you would just jump around, sometimes on bad guys. Most of the Nintendo games didn't have much story (if they had one in the first place).
Point is, many people liked that the game was so simplistic. Not being told who to cheer for, where are you, why are you doing what you are doing, etc. That was the point, you didn't have to ask too many questions or wait for some turnarounds in story.
It's like a walk in the park, you don't except to many exciting things to happen while you are walking around. You are just there for a view, and some exercise, maybe even a snack on the way. Don't dismiss the simple things in life just because you don't enjoy them.

[Comet]

I'm not going to praise the story and environments in Shadow of the Colossus. They serve their purpose, but are nothing to write home about, in my opinion.

What would I write home about, then?

Firstly, the animations that go with the gameplay. Your character is not a master swordsman or veteran murder machine and it shows. He constantly stumbles around, barely manages to move about when the colossi are making waves yet somehow always comes out on top. Every piece of animation reinforces the notion of a very small man going against impossibly intimidating opponents. You feel simultaneously perfectly in control of this meek character, since the controls are very tight, but at the same time there are countless situations where you're just being thrown around like a little child. It's all very immersive. Plus you can stand up when riding your horse for maximum jumping dramatics which always looked pretty cool to me.

And then, the music. I liked it, a lot. It builds up slowly as you see these giant mountain-creatures rise to challenge you and maintains an atmosphere of dread as you stumble around their feet, trying to find an unfair advantage that would allow you to take down these things that are obviously so much more powerful than you. And then, when your little dude finally manages to grab on and climb the colossus with murder in his heart, the music explodes and you have no choice but to go aww yeah here I come get ready! Some tunes were obviously better than others, but the best of them really made me feel like a badass.

That's my take. The animations and gameplay really drive home the sense of facing overwhelming odds and the music tops it all off by rewarding you with a sense of bravery and triumph when you finally manage to begin your climb up towards whatever weak point you are intent on sticking your sword through.

It's all very epic, in the literal sense of the word, and does it without making the main character larger than life. Epic + relatable = a pretty thrilling ride, in my opinion.

[Zevox]

Our point is, that it also doesn't mean it's bad. Getting the audience to start using their imagination and reflect on what happens is not a bad thing.
No, that's not a bad thing. But when that's all there is to it, it doesn't make for a good story, and certainly doesn't make for a good video game. It makes for good setup for fan fiction, but that's about it.


Isn't this the whole point of games? Super Mario was the same, you would just jump around, sometimes on bad guys. Most of the Nintendo games didn't have much story (if they had one in the first place).
There's a big difference between the two. The Super Mario games have a flimsy story that's just there as an excuse to engage in the gameplay, but it's simple and doesn't require anything more than it has to be understood. It's basically a classic fairy tale: hero saves princess from dragon. Nothing to praise, but it's not supposed to be - as I said, it's just an excuse to engage in the gameplay. Shadow of the Colossus' story though obviously has a lot more going on in it, but just never explains what all of that is. The demonic entity and how it treated the main character, the dead girl and her importance, the guy turning back into a child at the end, it leaves you with a ton of questions which will never be answered, and for no good reason. This isn't like Inception, where the ending being left open to interpretation makes you ponder an existential question (is the main character still in a dream? More importantly, does it matter?), it's just pointlessly devoid of detail.

Also, I'd argue that the Mario games have more satisfying gameplay than SotC. They contain a lot of levels with different designs which challenge your platforming skills in different ways, gradually introduce new and harder enemy types to complicate things, and generally increase in difficulty over time. For Shadow of the Colossus most of the first half of the game is pretty much the same thing repeated seven times over, just once with a flying creature and once with a swimming one, and the few Colossi that require different approaches to defeat are all clustered in the middle. The difficulty is pretty static too, until at least the last Colossus, which does challenge your climbing skills and some timing skills as you approach while diving from cover to cover. Like I said, it winds up feeling like a few good ideas stretched far too thin, something I'd never say of Mario.

Zevox

[TheOasysMaster]

Shadow of the Colossus' story though obviously has a lot more going on in it, but just never explains what all of that is. The demonic entity and how it treated the main character, the dead girl and her importance, the guy turning back into a child at the end, it leaves you with a ton of questions which will never be answered, and for no good reason. This isn't like Inception, where the ending being left open to interpretation makes you ponder an existential question (is the main character still in a dream? More importantly, does it matter?), it's just pointlessly devoid of detail.
I think I see what you're saying...
With Shadow of the Colossus, Ueda pretty much told us,"There's something cool behind the curtain."
We played the game and got excited about whats behind the current.
Then, he didn't let us look.

And I mean he did not let us look: There is NOTHING there. People have ripped this game to shreds, searching through the code, and there is a load of SQUAT.

[Sila Prirode]

Well, and I'm speaking for myself here, I actually enjoyed that kind of treatment. It's like and ultimate hispter move: "Yes we have a great game coming off, many cool stuff, story to blow your mind, and so on. Oh what, you want to play it? No-can-do,sorry guys."
It showed me a kinda of attitude I didn't get from previous games I played, it was refreshing at that point of my life. That's what made the game so good in my opinion, it made you consider what do you enjoy playing actually? What are you interested in for real?
Like I said, I enjoy that kind of thoughts after I play the game, and honestly, it's nice when something puts stuff into perspective for you, or at least makes you think about stuff.

And as for the game itself, well, does it have to be good for it to serve it's goal? I think not. I did not like Inception, yet I saw it, thought about it for a bit, then went on. But for me that's still not a good movie. I suspect it's same for you and this game.

[Zevox]

It showed me a kinda of attitude I didn't get from previous games I played, it was refreshing at that point of my life. That's what made the game so good in my opinion, it made you consider what do you enjoy playing actually? What are you interested in for real?
I can't say I see how it does that. Perhaps simply because I already know the answer to such questions: gameplay, particularly combat, and story, particularly about engaging and interesting characters. I mean, it would be easy (if time-consuming) for me to explain in great detail why my favorite games of all time (Persona 3 and 4) are just that, and it would boil down to those two elements, especially the latter. So that's not a question that I would ever have to ask myself.


And as for the game itself, well, does it have to be good for it to serve it's goal? I think not.
That's something I do not understand. Especially because I still see no goal to the game.


I did not like Inception, yet I saw it, thought about it for a bit, then went on. But for me that's still not a good movie. I suspect it's same for you and this game.
Seems likely at this point. For all that I can criticize it, I don't think that Shadow of the Colossus is a bad game, but I do not think it is a good one either. And I cannot wrap my head around why it gets praise, especially given the arguments presented here for it. I guess those that simply like the look of it or the feel of the fights or who get drawn into whatever "atmosphere" they see in it simply have different taste from me, but the arguments about the story baffle me.

Zevox

[Sila Prirode]

I can't say I see how it does that. Perhaps simply because I already know the answer to such questions: gameplay, particularly combat, and story, particularly about engaging and interesting characters. I mean, it would be easy (if time-consuming) for me to explain in great detail why my favorite games of all time (Persona 3 and 4) are just that, and it would boil down to those two elements, especially the latter. So that's not a question that I would ever have to ask myself.

That's okay, you know what you like, and why you like it (also Persona rocks), that is good for you.



That's something I do not understand. Especially because I still see no goal to the game.
OK, then allow me to try to summarize it to you in one sentence: People were given a bare game with nothing but hint of gameplay, story and setting. They responed generally positive to it.
That to me was purpose of this game, and I think that it was a success in that regard.


Seems likely at this point. For all that I can criticize it, I don't think that Shadow of the Colossus is a bad game, but I do not think it is a good one either.

I cut the rest out because I think you'll be satisfied with this explanation: You said that you don't like this game, and you know why. Now, the fact that you can't say it's bad game regardless of that, means that for people that have different taste from you this is probably a good game.
Oh god, I mangled that sentence like a butcher :smallannoyed:

[Thiyr]

The problem is that they didn't SHOW anything either. Like bloody well NOTHING HAPPENS for the majority of the game. Or rather, the same even happens like a dozen times - you ride out, kill a colossus, some dark streaks smoosh into you, and you do it again.

I will repeat my response to this. Bold for emphasis


This is pretty much an extreme example of show, don't tell. Granted, the degree to which it is done starts to make how well this works obviously a matter of taste.

From these two points, you can gather that it is a) working off the absolute minimum of telling (none) and a maximum of showing (you do everything). Everything else is left to be interpreted/created/etc. b) This alone doesn't make it great for everyone.

And as far as nothing happening, I will say the same thing about Zelda: Go to dungeon, get something. After 3, you fail. Go to dungeon. Get 7-8 things. Succeed. Sums up a great many of the zelda games -right there-, but it's happening over the course of a series instead of a game, and you occasionally get some background noise of "man, [hint to dungeon X!/random chatter!]". From a gameplay perspective, telling us what we need to do, but from a plot perspective it will either be fluff (eew) or telling the audience something instead of letting them get it themselves ("Oh no, the castle is collapsing! get out of here before Falling Rocks damage your Precious Cranium and you take Coronary Damage!"). Narratively, it fills in pretty much a total of nothing outside of saying "Bad guy here, save girl." For reference, I've not played much past OoT, having not really enjoyed the series past that point, so I don't know if they added any kind of non-ignorable plot, but still.

By contrast, while the degree of withholding exposition isn't great for some people, it still leaves plenty of interesting holes if you choose to ponder them. mechanically, it shows you what you need to do more than telling (hit the glowing spot may be obvious, but I don't remember them saying "HIT THE GLOWING SPOT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE" outright), and the story for you has some bare-bones set pieces, enough to make it not plotless, but tells you to fill in the details from there. If we simplify to that degree without trying to fill it in ourselves, we may not be wrong, but that's not to say there's nothing there. We just haven't put anything there.

[Airk]

From these two points, you can gather that it is a) working off the absolute minimum of telling (none) and a maximum of showing (you do everything).

No wonder this didn't make sense to me before. That's not what "show, don't tell" means.

Show don't tell is seeing things instead of someone, yes, telling them. For example:

Telling:
Character B says, "Character A sure is SMART!"

Showing:
Character A does something that demonstrates intelligence.

For there to be "showing" in SotC, things would have to actually happen. The only thing the game DOES show us is that Wander is really interested in ressurecting his girlfriend. Sadly, unless I misremember, the game also tells us this, super early. It's nice that they do a good job of showing us this, and it's one of the few things that I can really say the game does well - clearly, the kid really is invested in the girl - but that's not really enough to make the game feel meaningful.



And as far as nothing happening, I will say the same thing about Zelda: Go to dungeon, get something. After 3, you fail. Go to dungeon. Get 7-8 things. Succeed. Sums up a great many of the zelda games -right there-, but it's happening over the course of a series instead of a game, and you occasionally get some background noise of "man, [hint to dungeon X!/random chatter!]". From a gameplay perspective, telling us what we need to do, but from a plot perspective it will either be fluff (eew) or telling the audience something instead of letting them get it themselves ("Oh no, the castle is collapsing! get out of here before Falling Rocks damage your Precious Cranium and you take Coronary Damage!"). Narratively, it fills in pretty much a total of nothing outside of saying "Bad guy here, save girl." For reference, I've not played much past OoT, having not really enjoyed the series past that point, so I don't know if they added any kind of non-ignorable plot, but still.

I actually haven't played a Zelda game since Zelda 2, but I'll say this for them: They are all about constantly evolving gameplay. After every dingus you get, you also get a new toy/gameplay element that you need to use. It's very gamey, but obviously it also works very well for a large number of people. In fact, it has come close to spawning its own genre, because that formula works just that well. It also keeps the game from becoming repetitive, whereas in SotC, the gameplay remains essentially exactly the same. Climb/grab onto colossus, crawl around, stab glowing bits. Some of them add a little variety to the challenge, but your tools never change. You still just have "grab, jump, climb, stab, shoot." It's almost more like playing some sort of elaborate and frankly time-sink-ish puzzle game. Because not only do you have to solve a bunch of (nominally increasing difficulty) puzzles using the same tools, but you have to GET to them, which, frankly, suffers from not being the focus of the gameplay.




By contrast, while the degree of withholding exposition isn't great for some people, it still leaves plenty of interesting holes if you choose to ponder them. mechanically, it shows you what you need to do more than telling (hit the glowing spot may be obvious, but I don't remember them saying "HIT THE GLOWING SPOT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE" outright)

Actually, the game DOES say "Hold up thy sword to reflect the light onto the Colossus. Its vitals shall be revealed..." (I just looked it up on Youtube) - fine, they gussied up the language, but they pretty much DID say "stab it in the glowing spot." They pretty much couldn't NOT do this. I don't criticize them for this, but neither should you put them on a pedestal for how awesome they were at "not telling" things here, because they pretty much DO tell you.



And the story for you has some bare-bones set pieces, enough to make it not plotless, but tells you to fill in the details from there. If we simplify to that degree without trying to fill it in ourselves, we may not be wrong, but that's not to say there's nothing there. We just haven't put anything there.

Actually, by definition, there is nothing there. Because it's not in the game, in the lore, in the canon, or whatever. You can feel free to praise the game for being thought provoking if you want, but if it is, it is thought provoking BECAUSE there is nothing there, not because we are beholden to put something in that space.

[Lord Seth]

Our point is, that it also doesn't mean it's bad. Getting the audience to start using their imagination and reflect on what happens is not a bad thing.But that's my point yet again: That doesn't make it a good game. You can impose the most interesting story in the world from your point of view, but that's your story, not the game's. I don't think you can use these grandiose explanations people came up to defend the game. You can use them to defend the players who came up with it, but not the game. That's the whole problem.

And you don't need a game to make someone start using their imagination. You can just give them a blank Microsoft Word document to do that. Defending Shadow of the Colossus--or anything for that matter--on the basis that it makes people use their imagination is like saying that a work is good because people wrote fan fiction for it. Even if the fan fiction is fantastic, that doesn't mean the original work is therefore good.
Isn't this the whole point of games? Super Mario was the same, you would just jump around, sometimes on bad guys. Most of the Nintendo games didn't have much story (if they had one in the first place).
Point is, many people liked that the game was so simplistic. Not being told who to cheer for, where are you, why are you doing what you are doing, etc.But you did know those in Super Mario. Maybe the early games didn't get those into the game itself, but they were in the instruction booklet. Let's look at the instruction booklet for Super Mario Bros:
One day the kingdom of the peaceful mushroom people was invaded by the Koopa, a tribe of turtles famous for their black magic. The quiet, peace-loving Mushroom People were turned into mere stones, bricks and even field horse-hair plants, and the Mushroom Kingdom fell into ruin.

The only one who can undo the magic spell on the Mushroom People and return them to their normal selves is the Princess Toadstool, the daughter of the Mushroom King. Unfortunately, she is presently in the hands of the great Koopa turtle king.

Mario, the hero of this story (maybe) hears about the Mushroom People's plight and sets out on a quest to free the Mushroom Princess from the evil Koopa and restore the fallen kingdom of the Mushroom People. You are Mario! It's up to you to save the Mushroom People from the black magic of the Koopa!Everything is explained to you right there. You're told who to cheer for (Mario), you know where you are (the Mushroom Kingdom), and you know why you're doing what you're doing (rescuing the princess to save everyone).

[Zevox]

OK, then allow me to try to summarize it to you in one sentence: People were given a bare game with nothing but hint of gameplay, story and setting. They responed generally positive to it.
That to me was purpose of this game, and I think that it was a success in that regard.
...the purpose of the game was for people to like it? That's kind of generic, don't you think? You could say that of any game.


(hit the glowing spot may be obvious, but I don't remember them saying "HIT THE GLOWING SPOT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE" outright)
Actually, it does. If you don't figure out how to kill the first Colossus on your own within a certain period of time, it starts telling you exactly what to do. Which is good, because never would have guessed that it was safe to walk right up to the thing's feet and jump on the back of one of its legs otherwise - most video games would make attempting something like that suicidal.


If we simplify to that degree without trying to fill it in ourselves, we may not be wrong, but that's not to say there's nothing there. We just haven't put anything there.
Um, no, that's exactly what it means. If there's only something there if you make it up yourself, then there's not actually anything there.

Zevox

[Sila Prirode]

Everything is explained to you right there. You're told who to cheer for (Mario), you know where you are (the Mushroom Kingdom), and you know why you're doing what you're doing (rescuing the princess to save everyone).

I was refering to the text i qouted when I wrote that. My second sentence about simplified game doesn't refer to Mario, but to SotC. I knew I should have put more space between that.

But more to the point, can anyone of you who don't like the game please answer to my previous question? Let me state it again so you don't have to scroll:
"What do you think about games with only bare plot and gameplay, but which tries to find a niche?" For non SotC example, Kamatari Damacy? Indie games in general actually?

[TheOasysMaster]

Okay, look, if one wants to convince Zevox that SotC is a good game, I don't talking about how awesome minimalism is will do the job.

[Zevox]

But more to the point, can anyone of you who don't like the game please answer to my previous question? Let me state it again so you don't have to scroll:
"What do you think about games with only bare plot and gameplay, but which tries to find a niche?" For non SotC example, Kamatari Damacy? Indie games in general actually?
I haven't ever played Kamatari Damacy - or heard anything other than the name of the game, really - nor do I play indie games, so I can't really say from experience. As conjecture, I'd wager I'd find them as puzzling and shallow as I did SotC, since they'd be lacking in the traits that I see as defining video games in general.

Zevox

[Sila Prirode]

I haven't ever played Kamatari Damacy - or heard anything other than the name of the game, really - nor do I play indie games, so I can't really say from experience. As conjecture, I'd wager I'd find them as puzzling and shallow as I did SotC, since they'd be lacking in the traits that I see as defining video games in general.

Zevox

Well that's your answer right there. You don't like SotC, because it's kinda niche game that doesn't strike that chords with you. And there is nothing wrong with that. Every taste is different and all that.
But aside from that, are you satisfied with our explanation of why we did like the game? We kinda got tangled up in semantics back there, so I'm not really sure.

[Zevox]

Well that's your answer right there. You don't like SotC, because it's kinda niche game that doesn't strike that chords with you. And there is nothing wrong with that. Every taste is different and all that.
But aside from that, are you satisfied with our explanation of why we did like the game? We kinda got tangled up in semantics back there, so I'm not really sure.
Some. Like I said, for people who talk about what they see as the game's atmosphere, or its visuals, or the "experience" of hunting down the Colossi, I just chalk those kinds of things up to different tastes. I really don't get the defenses of the story though. It seems to me that if you praise something like this for making people imagine what the explanations might be you could apply that to any story which has, say, inspired fan fiction (which is pretty much all that fan explanations for SotC's story are). Which, if the internet is any indication, is pretty much every story ever.

Zevox

[Sila Prirode]

I really don't get the defenses of the story though. It seems to me that if you praise something like this for making people imagine what the explanations might be you could apply that to any story which has, say, inspired fan fiction (which is pretty much all that fan explanations for SotC's story are). Which, if the internet is any indication, is pretty much every story ever.

Zevox

In all honesty, I think they are more happy with the fact that the story is left to player to fill, then with the actually filling in the story. It's like those choose your adventure books and games, most appeal in them comes from the fact that you are actively building up story, not just taking it in. And the end result doesn't really matter that much, if you had fun coming there. At least that's my view of SotC story.

[Neon Knight]

There has been liberal application of the term minimalist to SotC, but I honestly feel this is not an appropriate label for it. I would rather call it surrealism; it has more in common with David Lynch and his like rather than with Robert Bresson, Jim Jarmusch, and Jean-Pierre Melville. Its brothers are Twin Peaks and similar, not Broken Flowers, Mouchette, Ghost Dog, and Le Samouraï.

Comparisons to film styles are imperfect, of course, but I still feel surrealism is the better label.

[Comet]

People keep talking about how the story is great and the rest of the game is mediocre. I don't quite get it.

My problem with that is that the story could be told with about three colossi, nuances and all. Okay, maybe four to six if you want to be really gradual with it. Here are the main points I think the story touches on, correct me if there's more depth to it:


Wander's girlfriend is dead, will come back alive when you kill the colossi of the forbidden land for Dormin. There's a price, though unknown at this point. This is the beginning.

You kill some colossi, see a visible taint on your character. This could be as soon as the first few colossi, though in reality it only happens after the eighth or so if I remember correctly.

Your most trusted companion is Agro, your horse. Again, this could be established within two colossi at most.

And then the finale. You kill the final colossus, Agro makes her sacrifice and you run into Emon's shaman group back at Dormin's shrine. And then the plot twists come, with all it involves right through to the ending credits.

It's a good story but not very complex. So, keeping in mind that the gameplay seems to be less than popular here, how do you justify playing the game all the way through if the vast majority of the 'levels' (colossi) are, essentialy, filler as far as the story is concerned?

Just wondering here. I happen to like the gameplay a whole lot, repetition and all, which is why I played all the way through the game. The story was fine but definitely not elaborate enough to carry the whole game on its own, I felt.

[Cicciograna]

I'll give my 2 cents just for the sake of it and then I'll leave, I have been arguing about SotC with some of my friends for eons.

SotC is like a wonderful book: the pages are made with the smoothest and softest paper you've ever touched, the binding is sturdy yet elegant and pleasing to the touch, the writings are printed with a bright, black and high quality ink, the front cover has an exquisite and elaborate inscription threaded with golden silks.

But in the book there are only the first 3 chapters written by the author, and the rest of the pages blank. For you "to fill the gaps". You have the intro, a first rough description of the setting and of the characters, a small and weak hint of the plot, and nothing else.

Have fun writing your book, which incidentally you paid for at the bookshop. Oh, by the way, when you're bored you can just stop and feel the paper under your fingertips. It's really smooth, don't you think?

[Weezer]

The problem is that they didn't SHOW anything either. Like bloody well NOTHING HAPPENS for the majority of the game. Or rather, the same even happens like a dozen times - you ride out, kill a colossus, some dark streaks smoosh into you, and you do it again.

Where is this showing that we are supposed to work on? That was exactly my problem with this game - I didn't "get" the story. Or rather, I did, but it was simplistic, bland, and actively made me want to stop playing. I'm far more likely to sink my imaginative teeth into a world with more substance. I don't need to play a game that offers me the barest of bones of a story to start using my imagination - either give me something solid to work with, or leave me alone and I'll do my imagining without you, don't give me some halfassed framework and expect me to fill in the gaps for you.

And yeah, the fact that fans can make up questionably supported stuff about the game doesn't really mean anything - look at the Legend of Zelda series, for heck's sake. People are making up TONS of lore trying to fit all that stuff together even though the developer keeps saying "No no, it's just a bunch of different games!"

Actually a few months ago Nintendo leaked the official Zelda timeline that shows how all the games actually do fit together.

[warty goblin]

People keep talking about how the story is great and the rest of the game is mediocre. I don't quite get it.

My problem with that is that the story could be told with about three colossi, nuances and all. Okay, maybe four to six if you want to be really gradual with it. Here are the main points I think the story touches on, correct me if there's more depth to it:


Wander's girlfriend is dead, will come back alive when you kill the colossi of the forbidden land for Dormin. There's a price, though unknown at this point. This is the beginning.

You kill some colossi, see a visible taint on your character. This could be as soon as the first few colossi, though in reality it only happens after the eighth or so if I remember correctly.

Your most trusted companion is Agro, your horse. Again, this could be established within two colossi at most.

And then the finale. You kill the final colossus, Agro makes her sacrifice and you run into Emon's shaman group back at Dormin's shrine. And then the plot twists come, with all it involves right through to the ending credits.

It's a good story but not very complex. So, keeping in mind that the gameplay seems to be less than popular here, how do you justify playing the game all the way through if the vast majority of the 'levels' (colossi) are, essentialy, filler as far as the story is concerned?

Just wondering here. I happen to like the gameplay a whole lot, repetition and all, which is why I played all the way through the game. The story was fine but definitely not elaborate enough to carry the whole game on its own, I felt.
I've yet to find a game* where you couldn't excise about 50% or more of the gameplay without harming the narrative in the slightest. Granted I haven't played Shadow of the Colossus, but I'd be surprised if it were any different.


*Single exception: Digital: A Love Story.

[Lord Seth]

Let me state it again so you don't have to scroll:
"What do you think about games with only bare plot and gameplay, but which tries to find a niche?" For non SotC example, Kamatari Damacy? Indie games in general actually?Could you perhaps better define what you mean by "with only bare plot and gameplay, but which tries to find a niche?" That just seems like such a vague definition question.

[Sila Prirode]

Could you perhaps better define what you mean by "with only bare plot and gameplay, but which tries to find a niche?" That just seems like such a vague definition question.
Well plot and gameplay is fairly obvious I think, the game doesn't really provide much depth into either. And by niche, honestly, how many games have you seen that try to be all artsy in one sense or another? I have yet to find a game that tried to do similiar things like SotC (ICO and Last Guardian are both from the same guy). And I'm talking about all the elements of the game here, so let's name a few for your better understanding:
- simple gameplay: controls are not that hard, there are not to many variables (strenght of grip and health if I recall correctly), it doesn't feature many different gameplay elements
-story that has been only hinted on, no real character development
-very short in lenght, with not much iteration between

That, and other elements combined make for a fairly niche gaming experience.

[Comet]

I've yet to find a game* where you couldn't excise about 50% or more of the gameplay without harming the narrative in the slightest. Granted I haven't played Shadow of the Colossus, but I'd be surprised if it were any different.


*Single exception: Digital: A Love Story.

That's very true. Still, I find the story/gameplay ratio in Shadow of the Colossus exceptionally heavy on gameplay and not so much on story. You basically get story elements at the beginning, around the middle and in the end and everything else is pure gameplay with no new elements introduced into the narrative.

I suppose what I'm saying is I really have difficulty seeing anyone play through this game if they find the core gameplay unenjoyable. If it were a short indie game or something I suppose it would be more reasonable to force yourself to get through the gameplay to see the story bits at the end, but for a game of this length I'm just not seeing it.

[Lord Seth]

And I'm talking about all the elements of the game here, so let's name a few for your better understanding:
- simple gameplay: controls are not that hard, there are not to many variables (strenght of grip and health if I recall correctly), it doesn't feature many different gameplay elements
-story that has been only hinted on, no real character development
-very short in lenght, with not much iteration between

That, and other elements combined make for a fairly niche gaming experience.I think you just described Tetris.

[warty goblin]

That's very true. Still, I find the story/gameplay ratio in Shadow of the Colossus exceptionally heavy on gameplay and not so much on story. You basically get story elements at the beginning, around the middle and in the end and everything else is pure gameplay with no new elements introduced into the narrative.

I suppose what I'm saying is I really have difficulty seeing anyone play through this game if they find the core gameplay unenjoyable. If it were a short indie game or something I suppose it would be more reasonable to force yourself to get through the gameplay to see the story bits at the end, but for a game of this length I'm just not seeing it.

I honestly can't figure out playing through any game with unenjoyable mechanics for the sake of the story. The wheat to chaff ratio is brutal, and game stories are pretty much all the same brand of mediocre anyways.

[Eurus]

Personally, I quite enjoyed running through the Time Attack mode.

[Sila Prirode]

I think you just described Tetris.

Yes? I mean, yes I did, but what does that have to do with current discussion?

[Lord Seth]

Yes? I mean, yes I did, but what does that have to do with current discussion?Tetris is hardly niche.

But I was really more pointing out the fact that you defined things so broadly that even Tetris falls into it.

[Sila Prirode]

Tetris is hardly niche.

But I was really more pointing out the fact that you defined things so broadly that even Tetris falls into it.

But Tetris is a niche game :smallconfused: Puzzle game where blocks fall and you sort them. Or am I just confused, and you are making some other point that I'm missing completely?

[Lord Seth]

But Tetris is a niche game :smallconfused: Puzzle game where blocks fall and you sort them. Or am I just confused, and you are making some other point that I'm missing completely?Tetris was, if I'm correct, the #1 best-selling Game Boy game, beating even Pokemon Red and Blue combined and selling about 35 million copies on just the Game Boy (okay, so it was bundled for a while...point still stands). It's been put on a multitude of different consoles and is easily one of the most popular and recognizable video games ever made.

How the heck is that "niche"?

[Starwulf]

Tetris was, if I'm correct, the #1 best-selling Game Boy game, beating even Pokemon Red and Blue combined and selling about 35 million copies on just the Game Boy (okay, so it was bundled for a while...point still stands). It's been put on a multitude of different consoles and is easily one of the most popular and recognizable video games ever made.

How the heck is that "niche"?

just because something is popular doesn't mean it isn't a "niche" game. Hell, minecraft is the epitome of what I would call a "niche" game, and it sold 4million copies already!

definition of niche as it applies here: specialized market: an area of the market specializing in one type of product or service
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Tetris fit a niche in the market by being a a simplistic, yet entirely fun game. There was nothing that really came before it like it.

[Sila Prirode]

Looks like Starwulf beat me to it, but yeah, being niche doesn't mean you aren't successful! And SotC was fairly well liked by majority, so I think that Tetris comparison just proves a point, that you don't need to apply to mainstream ways to make and sell a good game. After all, you can't be liked by everyone, that would beat a whole point of humans being individual beings and all that jazz.

[Airk]

Looks like Starwulf beat me to it, but yeah, being niche doesn't mean you aren't successful!

I would argue that this is, in fact, completely wrong, unless you use a very restricted definition of "successful" - like "Did your game make a profit". A game that is niche, by definition, is not mainstream (Tetris IS - nearly everyone knows of it, and many, many people have played it in one incarnation or another.). A niche is by definition a fairly restricted segment of the market. When a game gets broad appeal (Such as that enjoyed by, say, Tetris) then it ceases to be a niche game, QED.

Additionally, I would like to firmly disagree with Warty Goblin that all game stories are the same style, or are mediocre. Just being able to make that statement shows a woeful lack of experience with the breadth of game stories that exist. (Tantamount to saying "All movie stories are pretty much the same" after watching a summer's worth of blockbusters.) The amount of "bad gameplay" one is willing to endure for the story depends strongly on a number of factors, including A) How bad the gameplay is and B) How "promising" the story appears. A nontrivial part of what kept me going through SotC was the hope that sooner or later, something interesting would happen. Sadly, for the most part, it didn't, and my disappointment in that regard is a nontrivial part of my distaste for the game.

Finally, I would like to scold Zevox for ignoring the indie scene; While there is, unsurprisingly, a huge amount of "chaff" therein, there are also a number of gems of both excellent gameplay (Mamote Knight, Hydorah, Space Pirates and Zombies), and quality storytelling (To the Moon, Aquaria (Which incidentally does the minimalist storytelling thing a thousand times better than SotC), Bastion, and so on.) Anyone avoiding this area of gaming is, at this point, missing out on lots of exceptional gems.

[warty goblin]

Additionally, I would like to firmly disagree with Warty Goblin that all game stories are the same style, or are mediocre. Just being able to make that statement shows a woeful lack of experience with the breadth of game stories that exist. (Tantamount to saying "All movie stories are pretty much the same" after watching a summer's worth of blockbusters.)

I play a lot of games, and have for a decent amount of time. RTSs, FPSs, TBSs, third person action games of several different flavors, citybuilders, various cultivars of RPGs, the odd platformer, some puzzle games, sims, the Sims, space sims, very occasionally a racing game, a couple of text adventures and some other stuff that doesn't categorize very well. While I haven't played every game ever made by any means, I've played enough of the things that I figure I've got a pretty accurate assessment of what's out there.

And I can make a very short list* of the number of stories I would consider actually good, without attaching the conditional "for a game" to the end of the statement. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of game stories that are perfectly enjoyable for what they are, which is simple little renditions of Hero Defeats Evil, but ones that stick in my head and really make me think, or are astonishingly well presented and executed, or got me to really emotionally engage in something? Hardly any.

It's not that I don't enjoy games, or that I don't think there are good, emotionally moving stories out there, just that the overlap is very, very small. If I want a story with interesting characters and some ideas and emotional heft, I read a book, watch a movie, listen to some music or go to a play, if I want to do stuff that be awesome I play a game. It's very seldom that the two coincide, and when they do the actual game part is more often than not ancillary or downright detrimental to what makes the story good in the first place.

* Witcher 1, Witcher 2, Far Cry 2, Digital: A Love Story, bits and pieces of Metro 2033 and about ten minutes of Elven Legacy. I'll take a mulligan on STALKER for sheer terror in a couple of parts.


The amount of "bad gameplay" one is willing to endure for the story depends strongly on a number of factors, including A) How bad the gameplay is and B) How "promising" the story appears. A nontrivial part of what kept me going through SotC was the hope that sooner or later, something interesting would happen. Sadly, for the most part, it didn't, and my disappointment in that regard is a nontrivial part of my distaste for the game.

Your A and B are a better way of saying what I said, since I tend to find the 'promise' of the story very, very low to begin with. Lots of disappointment has tempered my expectations.

[Zevox]

Finally, I would like to scold Zevox for ignoring the indie scene; While there is, unsurprisingly, a huge amount of "chaff" therein, there are also a number of gems of both excellent gameplay (Mamote Knight, Hydorah, Space Pirates and Zombies), and quality storytelling (To the Moon, Aquaria (Which incidentally does the minimalist storytelling thing a thousand times better than SotC), Bastion, and so on.) Anyone avoiding this area of gaming is, at this point, missing out on lots of exceptional gems.
Oh well, so be it. I've got plenty of games to play and enjoy as-is. I'm currently working on a backlog of unplayed games (which SotC was a part of) that I've gotten as gifts over the last couple of years since I find myself with a couple-month gap between finishing the games I got for Christmas this year and the release of the first of 2012's games that I'm going to be buying in late February, and I'm sure I won't finish that backlog by then. Plus I have so many other games on various systems that I'm interested in but haven't picked up yet that I actively keep a list of them on my computer so I don't lose track of them, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty on there that I'll probably never get to at all. As such, even if I had the inclination to look into "indie" games (and I don't), I don't believe I'd have the time for them.

Zevox

[Airk]

Because obviously, based on this thread, playing games in your backlog is such a great way of ensuring your gaming satisfaction...

[warty goblin]

Because obviously, based on this thread, playing games in your backlog is such a great way of ensuring your gaming satisfaction...

Speaking as someone whose backlog contains enough games to keep a person busy until approximately the heat death of the universe, you can find some real gems in there. I'm definitely happy I went back and gave Drakensang: River of Time a go for starters.

[Zevox]

Because obviously, based on this thread, playing games in your backlog is such a great way of ensuring your gaming satisfaction...
Considering the remaining games in my backlog are two JRPGs and an action game (Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata, and Devil May Cry 4), it likely is actually. Shadow the Colossus was an outlier there.

Zevox

[MLai]

When I first played ICO, it was the demo version on a Toys R Us monitor. Being the demo, it had none of the narrative cutscenes before game start. I just started as the little boy getting up in the middle of an abandoned stone hall. I had no idea about anything. Is this a dream? It sure doesn't feel real what am I supposed to do? Where am I? Wait who am I? OMG there's a button for me to call out for help! "Hallo? Halloooooo~!"

I loved that.

Then I bought the full game, and there was a cutscene explaining some (but actually not much) of my situation before game start. Some ppl may even feel the cutscene didn't explain enough. But while I was glad there was a storytelling cutscene, secretly I was actually disappointed that the sense of absolute mystery has been dashed. So the glowing girl isn't a figment in my dream? She's not an aspect of my psychology? Damn.

You can guess whether or not I liked SotC. :smallwink:
======================================

As for the criticism that nothing was happening for long stretches of SotC. My experience was... I was never truly bored. The aesthetics style was beautiful AFAIC; I was satisfied to ride through them without hacking through random mooks (which certainly would have destroyed "the mood").
======================================

As for the lack of the Zelda mechanic of "Get new tool/item X, unlock new gameplay controls Y"... In fact if you unlock the secret items available in SotC, you get the sense that Ueda was basically saying "See, I can do Zelda weapons too. I just choose not to."

I actually LIKE that. I recently watched someone play through Skyward Sword. Everything felt so gamey. Being a veteran gamer, all the gaming mechanics felt so blatant to me, as if I'm taking a college course on game design rather than being immersed in what's happening. The guy playing it was going on and on about how ingenious the designers are in refining the "Get tool X unlock game/area Y." I just felt bored because I felt detached from the hero's epic by the distractions he sees as ingenious game design.

I think I was spoiled by SotC, and was watching for some sign of that design ethos in Skyward Sword. Saw none. I don't think I can play Zelda games anymore, ever again.
======================================

A recent game on the X360 and PC, praised for its "minimalist" storytelling and artsy atmosphere: LIMBO.
======================================

An example of a fill-in-the-blanks character who everybody loved for being a template for the player's imagination, and who was universally reviled for being tampered with, with "game narrative": Samus Aran.

[Lord Seth]

An example of a fill-in-the-blanks character who everybody loved for being a template for the player's imagination, and who was universally reviled for being tampered with, with "game narrative": Samus Aran.I don't think many people complained about there being a game narrative in Other M. People complained about there being a bad game narrative in Other M.

[MLai]

Actually no.

The main complaint was not that the game narrative in Other M was bad. It was that it made everybody's heroine look bad.

What if Samus Aran really is a submissive little woman when it comes to human males? Maybe she's only brave when facing non-humans? Maybe she longs to be in an unequal relationship with an authoritarian daddy figure?

If you accept that about her, then Other M is narrated just fine. But ofc, NO ONE accepts that about her. After all, we've been identifying her as a blank-slate badass for so long, we've filled her up with all sorts of imaginary epic qualities.

[Thiyr]

Actually no.

The main complaint was not that the game narrative in Other M was bad. It was that it made everybody's heroine look bad.

What if Samus Aran really is a submissive little woman when it comes to human males? Maybe she's only brave when facing non-humans? Maybe she longs to be in an unequal relationship with an authoritarian daddy figure?

If you accept that about her, then Other M is narrated just fine. But ofc, NO ONE accepts that about her. After all, we've been identifying her as a blank-slate badass for so long, we've filled her up with all sorts of imaginary epic qualities.

Some would care to disagree about pretty much all of that (Minor language warning). (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/learning-from-other-m) The narrative of Other M -was- bad. in addition, the characterization -was- bad. I'd spell out why, but that video covers the reasons why pretty well.

[Zevox]

I have not played Metroid: Other M, but I will say that I have no praise whatsoever for Samus as a character in the Metroid games I have played (the Prime series). Because in those games, she had no character. She was a completely silent protagonist with even less personality than Link. Or the main character of Shadow of the Colossus for that matter - at least with him we know one thing he cares about, that girl. With Samus there's absolutely nothing known about her in the games that I've played besides that she's a bounty hunter.

Those games were still good, but that had nothing to do with Samus and everything to do with the gameplay - the exploration, platforming, shooting, power-ups, etc.

Zevox

[MLai]

I actually watched that Extra Credit eps about Other M a few months ago. I've forgotten how technically poor the game narrative was. But what I was really pointing at was the statement made at 04:58...

Penny Arcade: "Next, let's do a little talking about the story itself. The weird thing is, when you strip the plot down to its most basic elements, it actually sounds pretty awesome... Unfortunately, the execution of that story falls far short. And what we actually end up seeing is Samus' desperate need for approval from a male authority figure.."

I wasn't clear, and I meandered a little. My points were:

An example of a fill-in-the-blanks character who everybody loved for being a template for the player's imagination, and who was universally reviled for being tampered with, with "game narrative": Samus Aran.
#1: I did not say it had to be GOOD narrative. Samus' example was especially good because she was filled not only in a poorly-executed way, but was filled with socially unacceptable values.


The main complaint was not that the game narrative in Other M was bad. It was that it made everybody's heroine look bad.
#2: This I stand by. Penny Arcade's Extra Credits is not a knee-jerk Youtube rant video, so it's not "popular opinion." Popular opinion's first and most heartfelt reaction to Other M is "WTF did you do to Samus?!" not "This is a poorly executed story." I've seen the threads.


If you accept that about her, then Other M is narrated just fine.
#3: This statement is incorrect on my part, because Other M's narrative was technically poor. What I really meant is #1.

[MLai]

I have not played Metroid: Other M, but I will say that I have no praise whatsoever for Samus as a character in the Metroid games I have played (the Prime series). Because in those games, she had no character. She was a completely silent protagonist
Boba Fett has shown us that the JRPG's extremely-irritating motto of "Protag must be silent so that player can self-insert" actually does have some real life basis.

Like it or not, it obviously works for many ppl.

[Thiyr]

I have not played Metroid: Other M, but I will say that I have no praise whatsoever for Samus as a character in the Metroid games I have played (the Prime series). Because in those games, she had no character. She was a completely silent protagonist with even less personality than Link. Or the main character of Shadow of the Colossus for that matter - at least with him we know one thing he cares about, that girl. With Samus there's absolutely nothing known about her in the games that I've played besides that she's a bounty hunter.

Those games were still good, but that had nothing to do with Samus and everything to do with the gameplay - the exploration, platforming, shooting, power-ups, etc.

Zevox

The trick is, again, going based on actions rather than words. That she is a silent protagonist doesn't disqualify her from having a personality, it just means the actions have to show it. Admittedly, some of the bigger character moments for Samus in Super Metroid and Fusion, but that's not to say the Prime series doesn't have its moments as well. She's a bounty hunter, yes, but more as how to turn what she does into money and be legitimate as opposed to being just another criminal. Even if outside the scope of her given job, she's got a strong moral compass and will put forth a great deal of effort to make sure that harm doesn't come to the innocent. While she has no love for her enemies, she doesn't completely detatch herself from the deaths of all of her enemies, particularly the ones who had no choice in the matter. That's all just the prime series and me putting words to it on the spot.

That's not saying she's the greatest character in the world, but she's got a character, and one that's decently well defined. It's just never really spelled out in words for the most part. The big exception ends up being Fusion and Other M. Fusion does it a lot better overall, though, keeping things consistent overall.

edit: and i will grant you that popular opinion went with "what did you do to our character", but I think that's more because that was "fishslap to the face" obvious which covered up the bad storytelling.

[Zevox]

The trick is, again, going based on actions rather than words. That she is a silent protagonist doesn't disqualify her from having a personality, it just means the actions have to show it. Admittedly, some of the bigger character moments for Samus in Super Metroid and Fusion, but that's not to say the Prime series doesn't have its moments as well. She's a bounty hunter, yes, but more as how to turn what she does into money and be legitimate as opposed to being just another criminal. Even if outside the scope of her given job, she's got a strong moral compass and will put forth a great deal of effort to make sure that harm doesn't come to the innocent. While she has no love for her enemies, she doesn't completely detatch herself from the deaths of all of her enemies, particularly the ones who had no choice in the matter. That's all just the prime series and me putting words to it on the spot.
And I have no idea where in the Prime series you see any of that. The story of those three games pretty much just consists of her being sent to planets where weird things are happening and stopping the things that she stumbles over while there. Her motivations, thoughts about those she was killing, etc, I can recall absolutely no indications of. For all I know from those games she could've been just in it for the money the whole time.

Which, again, doesn't really matter, since Samus' character and the story were never important parts of those games anyway, but still.

Zevox

[Thiyr]

She's a bounty hunter, yes, but more as how to turn what she does into money and be legitimate as opposed to being just another criminal. Even if outside the scope of her given job, she's got a strong moral compass and will put forth a great deal of effort to make sure that harm doesn't come to the innocent

This is seen throughout Prime 2. She knew nothing at all about the Luminoth before showing up. She was there to save some GF troops and that was it. She finds out very, very early that they're dead. She can either sit around and do nothing, waiting for the ship to self-repair, or she can help out the Luminoth. She's not getting paid to do that, she had no reason to (well, she does, but that's backstory from other games so I'mma ignore it), but she does it anyway, without hesitation. This is seen in other games as well, though not within the prime series.


While she has no love for her enemies, she doesn't completely detatch herself from the deaths of all of her enemies, particularly the ones who had no choice in the matter.

Seen in Prime 3, specifically the other bounty hunters. She has no issues with killing the pirates (a long term enemy), she is obviously troubled by the deaths of the other hunters. Being incapable of watching one's death, and attempting to save another (despite having just been in a fight to the death with them) tells me it was clearly not just "oh, lets you and me fight now".


And while these may not be the main point of the game, I'd still say her characterization is an important aspect of the games. I certainly find it enjoyable, and as Other M demonstrated, even if it's subtle, when someone does something with it that's blatantly wrong, it can severely ruin the game.

[Lord Seth]

Boba Fett has shown us that the JRPG's extremely-irritating motto of "Protag must be silent so that player can self-insert" actually does have some real life basis.

Like it or not, it obviously works for many ppl.Holding up Boba Fett as an example seems really odd, considering he wasn't a protagonist, and for that matter wasn't even a main character.

[warty goblin]

Holding up Boba Fett as an example seems really odd, considering he wasn't a protagonist, and for that matter wasn't even a main character.

It's also a rather strange use of the term real life...

[Zevox]

Holding up Boba Fett as an example seems really odd, considering he wasn't a protagonist, and for that matter wasn't even a main character.
Nor was he silent. He had only a few lines, but that's because of how minor of a character he was.

Zevox

[MLai]

Are you trying to tell me Boba Fett ain't real? HUH?!! :smallfurious:

[Kish]

Yeah...

Boba Fett has shown us that no matter how little personality a character has, s/he can attract swarms of fans for no logical reason. And that is probably all that we can learn from Boba Fett.

[Lord Seth]

Yeah...

Boba Fett has shown us that no matter how little personality a character has, s/he can attract swarms of fans for no logical reason. And that is probably all that we can learn from Boba Fett.I think there's a logical reason. The thing about Boba Fett is that he seemed kind of cool, but he was really mysterious and we never found out anything about him. So he developed a fandom around wanting to know more about the guy, as we never found out anything in the films himself. It's like the Cigarette-Smoking Man early on in The X-Files...he says only a few words in the entirety of the first season, but because he seemed ominous and mysterious, people were curious about what his story was and why he was around, which made him popular and caused him to become one of the primary antagonists for the series.

[Zevox]

I think there's a logical reason. The thing about Boba Fett is that he seemed kind of cool, but he was really mysterious and we never found out anything about him. So he developed a fandom around wanting to know more about the guy, as we never found out anything in the films himself.
Pretty much. He had a distinctive look with his armor and helmet that helped make him memorable from the start, and seemed to be one of the most competent and skilled villains in the movies given his ability at tracking Han Solo was the key that allowed Vader to capture the heroes at Bespin. One of his few lines had him raising an objection to Vader to his face and with no fear in his voice in spite of the fact that he was just a lowly mook as far as Vader was concerned ("He's no good to me dead"), and he was the one that Vader specifically addressed with his "no disintegrations" order, implying that Fett had a history of using such potent measures. In short, he came across as a potentially very badass character even from what little was shown of him, which in turn attracted fans.

Zevox

[JadedDM]

In short, he came across as a potentially very badass character even from what little was shown of him, which in turn attracted fans.

And then he was killed, screaming like a girl, when he was accidentally knocked off a boat by a blind guy. :smallamused:

[BladeofObliviom]

And then he was killed, screaming like a girl, when he was accidentally knocked off a boat by a blind guy. :smallamused:

Someone isn't familiar with the Expanded UUUUniveeeerssse! :smalltongue:

[/YGOTAS reference]

[BladeofObliviom]

And then he was killed, screaming like a girl, when he was accidentally knocked off a boat by a blind guy. :smallamused:

Someone isn't familiar with the Expanded UUUUniveeeerssse! :smalltongue:

[/YGOTAS reference]