Halo Fanboy said:
This response had nothing to do with what I said. You can't adress a game's design without adressing mechanics and you didn't do that.
I suppose I simply disagree with the stance that game mechanics represent the entirety of the experience. Climbing a beautiful and ancient creature with the intent to destroy it makes a far different impression on me than climbing a simple platformer ladder to murder another cliched copy of Bowser. The impact of scaling and stabbing depends, for me, entirely on what I'm scaling and stabbing. Action without context is what's meaningless.
Well the culmination of the game for me was the fight with Malus, the tallest colossi to climb yet. After that, everything else seemed like an anti-climax. And I don't fail to grasp the theme, I just don't accept it. I'm cautious of any message that isn't clearly spelled out.
It was very clearly spelled out, friend. If you don't let go, the game doesn't end. Until you accept your failure and your fate, the story remains unfinished. They could have just as easily showed wander tumbling into the light during a standard cinematic cutscene, but they didn't. They felt the player should be the one to let go. That's not an accident. That's pretty transparent design.
How can you choose "the tallest colossi" as the culmination of a game in which your character ultimately dies? Isn't the death of the protagonist the culmination by default? It is for me.
DMC's possibility space and the flexibility of its encounters make SoTC look shallow by comparison. The games aren't as different as you think they are, you figure out the best way to defeat an enemy and then execute it. The comparison isn't invalid at all. Are you just annoyed that I compared a game you like to something else?
I enjoyed DMC. The game was fun. It was also atrociously written and directed, with copious amounts of anti-wit and ineffective sarcasm. The gameplay traded on largely unnecessary flash and spectacle; you could defeat all of the enemies without resorting to even 25% of the acrobatics in Dante's arsenal. I can appreciate the style and the options, but it's so far removed from the minimalist approach of SotC that I cannot fathom how you compare the two games with a straight face. They're third person action/adventure games, and that's pretty much where the similarities end. The idea that both games can be condensed down to "figure out how to beat enemy and execute" ignores, once again, all context. You might as well declare cops and bank robbers the exact same because both sides are trying to shoot their way to whatever goals they've set out for themselves.
In case I didn't make my self clear I'll explain what I meant. The primary Action in DMC is fighting and the primary actions in SoTC are climbing, shooting stabbing etc. I wasn't trying to imply the two games actions are the same (they actually are pretty similar.)
You and I are both typing a lot of words, but the end results seem to be pretty divergent.
On game design as mechanics: Mechanics in a game are allways primary while everything else (graphics, music, story) are secondary. Hence: "Wander will be unable to hold on to a surface when the grip meter runs out" is a bigger aspect of the game than "Wander is destroying beatufil and unique creatures."
Couldn't disagree more. The mechanics of SotC are simple by design; they are meant to fade into the background so you can focus on the content rather than "am I pulling off the optimal combo to increase my score multiplier and style rating". The acts of climbing, stabbing, riding the horse, etc. correspond with the brush strokes of a painter.
That sounded a lot more pretentious than I wanted it to. Point is: the play mechanics are not the central purpose of every videogame by default. They absolutely are the main attraction in DMC, so I can understand why that game would be so attractive to someone who places a premium on that aspect of the experience. For me, quality, restrained writing, unique tone, and original presentation represent enormous priorities in gaming - and so SotC stands heads and shoulders above DMC in my particular pantheon.
On Messages: You even admit that messages are subjective and therefore up to interpretation. Messages are based almost soley on the recipient which means games and art are an extremely poor way to give a message when compared to merely typing or saying a message like we are doing right now. And when I said that the messages of game designers are worthless I meant that I have no more reason to trust the messages of a game designer than I do any random person on the internet. If most messages are crappy then I don't feel the need look for them.
If a message is crappy, you're being subjected to mediocre or poor art.
The absolute clarity of a plainly written message is what makes it so completely meaningless as an artistic experience. The act of discovering the message for yourself is what gives it meaning and, I'd argue, power. That's why books, films, poetry,
and videogames that blurt out their themes in overlong expository sequences (MGS4...) are considered poorly written. As Yahtzee says, you're supposed to weave exposition into the narrative, and for videogames that narrative is partially authored by the player through the game's mechanics.
As far as trusting the message is concerned, that's really up to personal taste. If you derive no meaning from SotC's theme of "letting go", maybe you haven't experienced that sort of obsessive desperation at any point in your life. It might not apply to you in any way, and you might not be interested in empathetic extension of yourself such that you might understand how it applies to others. All well and good - totally your prerogative. But that's not exactly a failing of the product or the medium, especially when there's some pretty sound analysis behind the interpretations.
It's definitely not your failing either. You're just not using games for the same thing as others, which is perfectly fine. Some people read only trashy romance novels or symbol-less sci-fi. Some people listen only to pop music. They're not interested in finding greater meaning in these particular formats. To each, his/her own.
On Games and Art: Games as I already explained are mechanics. Art is aesthetics.I don't min good art being a part of games and I really dislike everytime someone says something like "graphics don't matter" but IMO art should always be secondary otherwise the game will probably suck.
Sort of a different argument there. If a game maker focuses on imagery, thematic depth, presentation, and similar artistic content to the detriment of control, balance, gameplay depth, and similar play mechanics, you could very well have a shit game on your hands. Or you might not - depending on the player.
As I've grown older, and seen more than my fair share of well-tuned platformers, fighters, shooters, and so forth, I'm finding that the "less important" artistic elements take on greater importance. If a game presents me with a compelling moral drama (ending in tragedy or catharsis) and foists crucial acts upon me with convincing interaction, I'm going to be enthralled. It's the rarer experience.
Anyways, the combination of disparate artistic elements into a carefully crafted whole necessarily creates another artistic expression. You wouldn't dismiss a film as a series of still images with occasional music and literature, so why do you dismiss a videogame as a series of still images with occasional music, literature, and player interaction? It's really the exact same thing with a single additional element. That element admittedly overshadows all the others in the great majority of videogames, but not all of them.
One final bit in my overlong rant that my own mother wouldn't bother reading:
Games like Shadow of the colossus (yes, i'm being cliche, but it's easy to talk about) show how games can offer meaningful experiences using tools unique to it's medium.
We shouldn't shy away from holding up SotC because detractors have grown weary of the example. It's widely considered the best ammunition we have in this debate. There's no sense putting anything other than your best foot forward - especially when the validity of your argument requires only a single successful case study. This is one instance where the exception cannot prove the rule.
Besides, there's a reason why Yahtzee reliably points to this game whenever he references the artistic merits of the form. He's not right about everything, but he's obviously very passionate about this medium, and he wouldn't be tossing out SotC as his shield if it wasn't up to the challenge.
