Shadow of the Colossus...meh

[GundamSentinel]

I very recently bought Shadow of the Colossus because I had never heard a negative word against it (which, come to think of it, should have sent up a red flag right there), and all those glowing reviews make it all the sadder that I'm overall not pleased with it.

Many people have complained about the not too stellar controls, but you're right, not much bad has been said about it (and in my humble opinion, with good cause).

I would say that I won't spoil any of the story or anything, but there is precious little that I could spoil if I wanted to. The story in SotC is barely there, and this may be because I've been working the narrative sections of my brain extra hard recently, but I think the game suffered greatly for it.

This game has a different way of telling a story. Not just expanding on everything in cutscenes and conversation, but setting a scene and working from there. It is a simple story, true, but it gains in beauty because of that.

Add to that there is virtually no benefit from exploring the overworld and you're left with gameplay that is pretty much exclusively fighting these colossi.

Again, simplicity to emphasize the story. It is a story of loneliness and the landscape emphasizes that by being, well, empty. No sidequests or small enemies to kill. No, just the task that is yours to perform. This makes the task itself more dual, by (often) not having actually agressive creatures, and never purely evil creatures. This would have been more difficult to accomplish with other minor battles cluttering up your purpose in the story.

Once you figure out the method to beat each one (which at times can feel more annoying than challenging) there is pretty much no variation when you face them again which, as I mentioned, is nearly all you can do.

It's a puzzle game, seldom a combat game.

Oh, and the platforming and, God especially the horse, handle like crap.

It's not a platformer either. And the horse handles like a horse, not like a car on legs. Try correcting the horse less and you might find out that is is quite capable of finding its own way.

And what the hell is with calling numbers 11 and 14 colossi? That's ridiculous. That's like saying I'm successful with the ladies.

Those two are indeed the least fitting of the bunch. But perhaps, because they are actively aggressive, they are meant to create some contrast between the different colossi and make their nature a little bit more dual. They are all different, some agressive, some passive; some huge, some less so, but with a common origin.

So the only things this game has going for it is a unique premise and good aesthetics (which doesn't find its way into everything)

For an old PS2 game it looks terrific, the music is epic, and yes, it's quite unique in its setup. But these are really not the only thing, and serve to add to the emotional depth of the story itself.

So this game has let me down, and since my game budget is so slim, makes me upset.

It's simple, not everyone will like this game. People who prefer games with elaborate stories of intrique, conquest and romance might be put off by its, well, intentional emptyness... Personally, I think it's the greatest game ever. Ah well, to each his own.

 

[_Cake_]

Yeah I thought it was overrated but I didn't even like Ico. Just saying it's art is making an excuse for it not being fun.

Rubbish. Alessandro Manzoni or Fyodor Dostoevsky are far less "fun" reads than, say, Nick Hornby, but nobody's going to argue who's on a higher plane artistically. A movie like The Hangover is far more entertaining than a movie by Ingmar Bergman, but the latter is the superior artistic achievement. And by the exact same token, Killer7's controls and story-telling are far less intuitive than, say, MW2's.

HAHA watching shit you don`t like is just pretentious. If you wanna watch movies that don`t entertain you that`s your call. I play games for fun.

HAHA indeed. I thought I was conversing with an adult here, forgive me my mistake.

Nowhere did I say that the examples of "art" I listed are not enjoyable, by the way. All I stated was that on the surface, they were less readily entertaining/gratifying than certain other popular exponents of their medium. You see, I DO enjoy myself when reading Manzoni, but I also do many other things - learn, analyse, reflect, compare, observe.
And the thing is, all those acts deepen my enjoyment - up to a point where it easily surpasses the enjoyment I get from the instant-gratification stuff - it's just that I have to work harder for it than when I'm watching Terminator 2, which I still enjoy one hell of a lot.

The difference between he who listens to Schubert and he who listens to Billy Talent lies not primarily in the joy he gets, but in the effort he is willing to put into his entertainment. For an easier example - it's the same as spending lots of money and three hours in the kitchen to make a perfect red wine and thyme roast, or going to the next Burger King for a Double Whopper.

Seriously your gonna say that...
This might make your monocle and top hat fly off but unlike you I don`t care what music others like as long as they like it. The same goes for games. You said `A movie like The Hangover is far more entertaining than a movie by Ingmar Bergman, but the latter is the superior artistic achievement` admit it you like the hangover better, there are lots of great old movies out there but the stuff Ingmar Bergman is in is pretty boring and depressing. It`s not about being more mature, liking it doesn`t make you less intelligent it makes you honest.

Either way I`m done with you. You just wanna argue your talking yourself now.

 

[D_987]

So, at the end of it all, your well-thought out and well executed post didn't really amount to anything. Sorry. But, you've certainly shown yourself to be better than 90% of the user base, so that's something to be happy about. Grats!

Let me guess; you're also in this imaginary top 10%, right?

OT: To be honest it seems this thread is trying to descend into decent discussion but people keep bringing up the OP or arguing over opinion. The real question we should be asking is does gameplay itself matter when looking for art in games; or rather is gameplay the real art? For example, in Bayonetta the combat flows in a particular way, the player is actively encouraged, to improve their score / combo, to "play" with the enemies by performing more complex, but weaker attacks. Is that not in itself an artistic message (I'm sure if you wanted I could make something up about that meaning we should all take our time in life etc). Unlike what previous people have stated, art in itself does not have to create an emotional response; we just need to be able to take away an interpretation from it.

Yet people relate art back to drawings, and claim that this is the true way to look at art; as such video-games as a medium haven't really got a definition of what to look for as art - surly the gameplay, and the atmosphere; which is created through the music, graphics etc, is what creates the art in video-games. As a result, yes, SOTC is art - in that the atmosphere created offers a message, but at the same time the game itself; in its gameplay, is poor.

Which leads onto the other question we should be discussing - It's pretty much accepted that SOTC has some dodgy controls; yet some have argued that this is a result of making the player feel the characters desperation, and other arguments I've seen on this thread. At the same time, should gameplay be sacrificed for artistic message, especially in an interactive medium?

 

[Outright Villainy]

Man, I loved this game so much. Sure, I thought the platforming controls were a little stiff, and the odd colossus was a pain in the ass, but as an overall experience I found it peerless. It's one of the few that made me feel something, so for that I can't commend it enough.
Edit:

No, I DO like Beethoven more than Justin Bieber. And it DOES make me more intelligent.

You know, I agree with you on many points, but saying something like this completely invalidates what you say, as you sound like an elitist jackass. People don't need to look deeply into every facet of life, some people would prefer thinking more critically about books and films, and to them music is someplace they like to hear a catchy tune.
I personally love really progressive music, where it's like a puzzle trying to figure it out and the experience is more rewarding for it. I certainly wouldn't look down anyone for not doing that though, as much as I would resent someone looking down on me for not liking poetry that much.

 

[Koeryn]

Good job killing off the entire species, though. You monster.

Believe me, I felt quite bad after killing some of them.

Especially the flying ones. They never once did anything to harm you, not even as you stabbed them to death.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

You obviously don't pay attention, because I don't give a shit about justice, the weak or low content. I hate people who post "Well, that's just your opinion" or something similar. It's stupid, obnoxious and reeks of the worthless arrogance that clogs up this site. I'm not posting in this thread to be on topic, I'm posting to tell one of the many, many idiots who only post "That's only an opinion" to shut the hell up. Noone cares, you look like a dick, and I'm pretty sure the OP knows it's his opinion, because what the fuck else would it be?

To quote a guy who I seen recently posting his off topic opinion "Noone cares, you look like a dick" that's direct you know?

Anyhoo, I recently read the IGN review of SotC and it made it out to be rather good, but I couldn't seem to get past the idea that all I'd be doing if I bought it was repeating what is essentially the same battle with a couple differences to how to defeat them. But then I hear that it is a 'work of art' rather than a game, presenting the game in a minimalistic style. Is that what I want; a work of art?

I guess the only way to find out is buy and play for myself, eh?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Anyhoo, I recently read the IGN review of SotC and it made it out to be rather good, but I couldn't seem to get past the idea that all I'd be doing if I bought it was repeating what is essentially the same battle with a couple differences to how to defeat them. But then I hear that it is a 'work of art' rather than a game, presenting the game in a minimalistic style. Is that what I want; a work of art?

I guess the only way to find out is buy and play for myself, eh?

There is about ten hours of quality gameplay in there and 16 different bosses. This might be the worst thing ever for a kid who needs every game to last at least 100 hours and doesn't appreciate a more mature style of game but it holds up very well in terms of value and variety compared to some more recent single player games. An FPS or RPG can also be described as the same level over and over with minor variations in how to clear it.

I don't really care if this game is art or more art like than other games. Very irrelevant subject of discussion to me.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Good job killing off the entire species, though. You monster.

Damn. Portal 2 has memes and the game isn't even out yet. You monster.

Also I don't like these threads. Human are different, therefore not everyones going to like the same things. That being said I get the feeling this game is mostly been overhyped for you. People get the same feeling from Portal all the time, mostly because they've heard all the jokes before they play the game.

 

[Tinneh]

It's meant to be art. Art is subjective, and therefore it is likely for the game to be hit or miss for most people.

Good job killing off the entire species, though. You monster.

Wait, I've never played this game, could you beat the game without killing all of the colossi?

And as somebody above me said, congratulations on your opinion!

 

[Tinneh]

As opposed to you who chapions e-justice and defends the weak. Seriously neither of you have content to your post.

You obviously don't pay attention, because I don't give a shit about justice, the weak or low content. I hate people who post "Well, that's just your opinion" or something similar. It's stupid, obnoxious and reeks of the worthless arrogance that clogs up this site. I'm not posting in this thread to be on topic, I'm posting to tell one of the many, many idiots who only post "That's only an opinion" to shut the hell up. Noone cares, you look like a dick, and I'm pretty sure the OP knows it's his opinion, because what the fuck else would it be?

That wasn't very nice. And, you know some people have a superiority complex where they believe that their opinion is a fact, and anybody who doesn't believe it is thick in the head.

Disclaimer: I do not think the OP is thick in the head, I'm sure he's a nice person with good moral values.

 

[crimson sickle2]

I didn't really like Shadow of the Colossus either. The player couldn't really alter the story in any way and the landscape was kinda depressing with nothing in it.

 

[weker]

My earliest "arty" game was Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge way back in 1991, so I very much disagree with your post. In narrative media, one of the differences between art and something more prosaic is the author's trust in his audience and its ability to fill in the blanks. The ability of a master story-teller who, in merely writing "monster", creates an image in your mind which is far more terrifying than any hyper-detailed HD alien horror from Dead Space is the difference between what Ann Radcliffe calls "terror" and "horror". I mentioned Kleist before; he "describes" a rape scene in the middle of a raging battle, and the ensuing pregnancy, with just a dash. Your imagination, whipped to a frenzy by the amazingly detailed and emotional descriptions it had been fed up to that point, literally fills in an entire chapter in an instant. And it's one of the most powerful scenes in world literature, at least as far as those I've come across, especially since everything that follows is left ambiguous. Was the marquise raped? By whom? You don't know. And it's agony.

Imagine if Michael Bay had done something similar to SotC. You'd have had slow-motion flashbacks to catastrophic events eradicating life from its world, the colossi rising from the ground in flared-out 360° pan shots, a voice-over about how this "was a lush, fertile, joyous world, aeons ago", etc, etc. And I think that everybody here would agree that it would have been a poorer title for it.

It's not everyone's cuppa, and de gustibus DEFINITELY non est disputandum, but there is a difference between voicing your disappointment in it and declaring it to be an inferior title artificially held in high regard by nostalgic sentimentality. It calls my critical ability into question, and that, I very much DO resent.

1. I don't understand why you quoted me
2. Why the hell are you using Latin?
3. Why are your refereeing books these are games we are talking about the way a book and a game are constructed are totally different
4. Using Michael bay to describe a game which is not focused on his area is a bit out of context I could understand with a full on action game but this is slow moving
5. I bet you felt smart for writing a large section of text placing artistic references

i would recommend making your own topic because really you seem to have been waiting to post this for a while

 

[The Arc of Eden]

There is a little to do when not fighting colossi. there are fruit trees that extend your health and white-tailed lizards that increase your stamina. Also, beating the time trials gets you some new goodies to play around with (The funnest of which are exploding arrows). But my favorite easter egg is climing the starting tower. it's a little challenging but once you get it down it's easy. By doing this you can visit the ending place that you see when you beat the game, and you can also travel across the long bridge that you came in on.

Spoiler

If you try to leave a strong wind pushes you back. So much for live and let live right?

 

[Dexiro]

I would say that I won't spoil any of the story or anything, but there is precious little that I could spoil if I wanted to. The story in SotC is barely there,

Add to that there is virtually no benefit from exploring the overworld and you're left with gameplay that is pretty much exclusively fighting these colossi.

It's understandable that you didn't quite latch onto the story, it's not really clever or anything it's just meant to be subtle and kind of suprising when you realise what's going on.

As for the exploration you can actually improve your health and stamina by looking for certain objects. You can shoot the small glowing lizards and collect fruit from trees to improve whichever stat, i'd imagine them being pretty hard to find without a guide though because i could barely find them with one xD
The improvements are small but they do add up.

I'll agree that some of the smaller collosi are a pain in the ass too, or maybe i just have a thing for the giant enemies. Seems to me that they saved the best ideas for the beginning and end and dropped in the crappy one's mid-game.

Maybe it's just not working for you though, I can understand you being bothered by it's flaws if you're on a limited budget, that game tends to be super expensive!

 

[Aura Guardian]

I too found the game awful. It was very boring