Shadow of the Colossus...meh

[Thick]

It hurts my head that people think "characters constantly talking" = story. I guess Hollywood has successfully reprogrammed a not insubstantial portion of the population to crave incessant and idiotic blockbuster dialogue. I blame Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, too.

I think 90% of films and games would be greatly improved by outright removing 50% or more of the dialogue. Not surprisingly, I love SotC's story. The subtle "turn" is extremely well done. How anyone could suggest the game has no meaning, when it very clearly illustrated the tragic downfall of a man who refuses to let go, is beyond me. Especially when the game forces you to literally "let go" at the very end.

The deep sea chasm size difference of dialogue between SotC and something like Metal Gear belies my complaint with the SotC story. There's like 10 total minutes of any spoken words at all over the course of a 4-5 hour game (excluding all the times you call for your horse), only 6 or so minutes of that time has any emotion in it at all, and those all come at the very end of the game. If there was so clearly a singularly correct interpretation of the story, than would the game really have been worse off if it gave me a couple more examples of Wander being unable to let go? Not constant gabbing, just a little emoting, like after every 4 colossi even or something. You could get away with like 15 or 20 minutes of spoken dialogue over the course of a 4-5 hour game. Writing a specific story and then stripping out elements of it to the point where I don't have to give a toss about the protagonist is art crossing into the realm of the presumptuous.

 

[GundamSentinel]

It hurts my head that people think "characters constantly talking" = story. I guess Hollywood has successfully reprogrammed a not insubstantial portion of the population to crave incessant and idiotic blockbuster dialogue. I blame Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, too.

I think 90% of films and games would be greatly improved by outright removing 50% or more of the dialogue. Not surprisingly, I love SotC's story. The subtle "turn" is extremely well done. How anyone could suggest the game has no meaning, when it very clearly illustrated the tragic downfall of a man who refuses to let go, is beyond me. Especially when the game forces you to literally "let go" at the very end.

The deep sea chasm size difference of dialogue between SotC and something like Metal Gear belies my complaint with the SotC story. There's like 10 total minutes of any spoken words at all over the course of a 4-5 hour game (excluding all the times you call for your horse), only 6 or so minutes of that time has any emotion in it at all, and those all come at the very end of the game. If there was so clearly a singularly correct interpretation of the story, than would the game really have been worse off if it gave me a couple more examples of Wander being unable to let go? Not constant gabbing, just a little emoting, like after every 4 colossi even or something. You could get away with like 15 or 20 minutes of spoken dialogue over the course of a 4-5 hour game. Writing a specific story and then stripping out elements of it to the point where I don't have to give a toss about the protagonist is art crossing into the realm of the presumptuous.

The subtlety and lack of dialogue strengthens the story and the emotion within. There weren't any things stripped out, but anything unnecessary was consciously omitted. The story is told by the quest, the landscape, the character's transition, even by the interaction with your horse, better than I have seen in any dialogue-rich game. I don't see any reason why more dialogue would make it a better game. Things that are not explained don't have to be explained as they don't serve the story. And because of the lack of interaction with other characters you can come to understand the protagonist's plight and reasons for doing what he does. This game without dialogue is like a machine that doesn't need a manual to show you how it works. It builds on inherent emotional response from the player.

 

[Thick]

I have no issues with your opinions, except with the handling of the horse. My guess is that you tried to control the horse like a car and got annoyed. The brilliance of the game is that the horse, like a real horse, controls itself. If you are on a narrow path, you don't have to control it at all; it just follows the path for you. It is amazing. One of my favorite parts of the game.

Yes, the horse thing has come up a few times and my frustrations with it warrant some clarification.

I liked that on a narrow path he was able to go without falling off or braining himself against a cliff without my constant input. I'll even buy that those self corrections or going over the slightest of steep rocks necessitated him to slow down. The thing that got me yelling at him were all the times he couldn't self correct around a single narrow tree and would come to a complete stop and probably turn around. It bugged the hell out of me that I needed to be in exactly the right place facing the exactly right direction (hyperbole, I know, but still a complaint)or Wander would just stupidly jump around instead of getting on the horse. All the times he would run a good 30 yards straight past and ahead of me when I called him. That seemed incongruous with the fact that these two had man-horse synergy enough to do horseback archery, no small task.

 

[Jumplion]

It hurts my head that people think "characters constantly talking" = story. I guess Hollywood has successfully reprogrammed a not insubstantial portion of the population to crave incessant and idiotic blockbuster dialogue. I blame Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, too.

I think 90% of films and games would be greatly improved by outright removing 50% or more of the dialogue. Not surprisingly, I love SotC's story. The subtle "turn" is extremely well done. How anyone could suggest the game has no meaning, when it very clearly illustrated the tragic downfall of a man who refuses to let go, is beyond me. Especially when the game forces you to literally "let go" at the very end.

The deep sea chasm size difference of dialogue between SotC and something like Metal Gear belies my complaint with the SotC story. There's like 10 total minutes of any spoken words at all over the course of a 4-5 hour game (excluding all the times you call for your horse), only 6 or so minutes of that time has any emotion in it at all, and those all come at the very end of the game. If there was so clearly a singularly correct interpretation of the story, than would the game really have been worse off if it gave me a couple more examples of Wander being unable to let go? Not constant gabbing, just a little emoting, like after every 4 colossi even or something. You could get away with like 15 or 20 minutes of spoken dialogue over the course of a 4-5 hour game. Writing a specific story and then stripping out elements of it to the point where I don't have to give a toss about the protagonist is art crossing into the realm of the presumptuous.

It's called "subtlety", something that (as much as I love MGS and it's story) MGS doesn't have

The emotion of the game comes from the gameplay itself, read the analysis of my previous post on this page, it's all with Wander and his stubbornness to let go.

 

[The Fat Captain]

Now this is more like it.

Actually, a lot of that was explained in the first cutscene of the game. Wander makes a deal with Dormin, a spirit that resides in the forbiden land that he went in. Dormin says that if he slays all 16 collosi that Mono will be revived, but there is a bigger price on that, and that price is Wander's own corruption and eventual death. Dormin is sort of a Lawful Evil [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil] in that at the end he posesses Wander (and the player takes control of him) but Mono is still revived.

Ok, but again this is the game telling you to go out a kill shit. In fact, it's even worse, because instead of the game telling you this with any degree of subtlety, it has a expositional character just outright telling you what you need to do, so there's even less focus on Wander and Mono's relationship.

Also linking a character to a tabletop character alignment doesn't help me think of it as art.

As for the horse, Argo/Agro, he is one of the only beings that interacts with you. Throughout the game it's just you, your sword, your bow, and your horse. Nothing else. Your horse becomes more than just a transport, he becomes your best friend. He comes to you when you call him, he is a bit stubborn when you want to move him like a real horse, and he always sticks by your side. When he finally falls to his death (supposedly), it's the loss of your only friend through thick and thin.

But hr's a horse, that's what horses do. Hr only stays loyal because Wander tamed and feeds Him. He's your best friend only to the extent that you have the ability to care for him.

The setting is exactly that, isolated and broken. It shows age, it shows that before it was full of life but now it's dead. The monsters could either have destroyed the cities or could have always lived on the land, but they to show age. They crumble, they creak and break down, until eventually you kill them.

I'm not sure how to word this, so apologies if it's confusing, but the scenery acts only as a graphical shorthand for being isolated and broken. 'Living, now dead' is merely a state communicated to us by the game, and it is that state that's supposed to mean something, not the scenery itself. There is no reason for the once thriving land to be dead, it just is.

You can't possibly tell anyone what "real" art symoblizes or if it has to symbolize anything at all. As much as it pains you that I'm saying it, art is subjective. That isn't to say that you aren't allowed to not enjoy the game, by all means you can hate it, but there's a fine line between saying "I don't think it's art, but other people probably do" and "I don't think it's art, therefore it isn't!" Anybody can make any analysis and claim that something is art (which pretty much invalidates my next part, but I still want to post it anyway), doesn't mean that it can't be.

Utterly false. If art was completely subjective, then everything could be art, and then by extension nothing would be art. Yes, facets of art are subjective, but there is an important key element that separates art from other things, and that thing is meaning. Art must have meaning, it must. If there is no meaning, then it isn't art but entertainment. If you find SotC entertaining, then that's fine. But claiming it to be art is an insult to any real artist.

If I sit on a couch and declare it a masterpiece, is it art?

If I held a frame above my head and declared the entire sky my work, is it art?

If I had an exhibition, and took all the guests out to look at the stars, is it art?

Actually, I think those three ideas may have undermined my point as well. Writin' dis shit down.

Anyway, I want to post an analysis of SotC anyway, so here goes. I don't take complete credit for this, a lot of this is from other analysis that I've read, but anyway;

Bloody hell and I thought my posts were long. I'm not going to reply bit by bit since we'll be here until we drop dead otherwise and worse, it'd probably break the forums.

First of all, don't compare SotC to Greek Tragedy. I mentioned before about comparing baubles to Picasso and essentially what you've just done.

Second, the land is Forbidden? That's. . . a pretty common video game tactic to make things seem ominous. So is the world dying, or just the bit that's forbidden? Makes the dying land even more pointless. Also, the 'I'm going to do anything to save my love because I love her oh yeah' thing is again a very common trait of video game protagonists.

The idea that a character trait is tied to an element of the control scheme is exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said that SotC didn't take advantage of the medium. Consider that point revoked.

Wander turning into a Colossus himself is an interesting thing. I like it, it implies a lot about the other Colossi that I never thought of before, but it's all a bit hamfisted, it's not symbolic of his transformation than it is the game all but spelling it out for you. I also like the overall implication that Dormin is actually just a massive **** and has been fucking with Wander from the start. More games need to have the balls to lie and cheat the player. But again, it was spelled out from the beginning. Dormin basically said 'hey dude you're fucked', there is no room for other ideas here. There's also the idea that 'reviving the dead = bad' that seems to be the default for our species. I find it kind of annoying, myself.

You've given me a lot to consider, I'm not quite as sure of my position as I was earlier. But I still feel that the game isn't open to interpretation enough, all the things that happen are quite obvious and lack much deeper meaning.

It hurts my head that people think "characters constantly talking" = story. I guess Hollywood has successfully reprogrammed a not insubstantial portion of the population to crave incessant and idiotic blockbuster dialogue. I blame Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, too.

I think 90% of films and games would be greatly improved by outright removing 50% or more of the dialogue. Not surprisingly, I love SotC's story. The subtle "turn" is extremely well done.

My point isn't that there is no story, just that said story isn't deep and meaningful like people like blather about.

Also, the opening and ending cutscenes are full of dialouge, which would seem to imply that the killing of the colossi is actually just busywork.

 

[obliviondoll]

Writing a specific story and then stripping out elements of it to the point where I don't have to give a toss about the protagonist is art crossing into the realm of the presumptuous.

It can also be part of what makes the game more of an artistic expression than a narrative one.

 

[The Fat Captain]

Clearly crappy modern romance has crippled your understanding of the concept that you're prepared to except SotC shallow drivel as unarguably better. Not your fault, but the fault of our era of action movies and shooty games.

As a writer of romance, I demand clarification! =P

Twilight. Enough said.

Just kidding. I was referring to schlocky love interests that get shoe-horned into action movies (see Avatar). I was referring to the fact that the way romance is treated in mainstream media has twisted our perception of it, to the point that we'll happily swallow equally shallow romances simply because there aren't any explosions involved. I think that's why Twilight is so popular.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I just quit the game before the halfway point. I couldn't take the main character's bullshit moral reasoning any longer than that.

 

[Jumplion]

(I'm sorry for my overly long posts, I'm just really bored today and want to get in a good ole fashioned debate)

Now this is more like it.

Your welcome.

Ok, but again this is the game telling you to go out a kill shit. In fact, it's even worse, because instead of the game telling you this with any degree of subtlety, it has a expositional character just outright telling you what you need to do, so there's even less focus on Wander and Mono's relationship.

Also linking a character to a tabletop character alignment doesn't help me think of it as art.

Just sort of added the "Lawful Evil" for no reason in retrospect.

This is just establishing the character of Wander. As I said, Wander is stubborn and doesn't want to let go, so when Dormin warns him about the cost and even tries to prevent him from making the deal, Wander doesn't care. If he could, he would break the second law of Thermodynamics if he could just for Mono.

But hr's a horse, that's what horses do. Hr only stays loyal because Wander tamed and feeds Him. He's your best friend only to the extent that you have the ability to care for him.

Okay, now you're just splitting hairs. You're saying "You're only caring for him because the character cares for him!" Well duh, the same could be said by many other games. "You're only killing the Locust because that's what they tell you to do", "You're only a Hitman because that's what Agent 47 is!", "You're only the legendary Link because that's what the game wants you to be!". It doesn't matter if the horse is just an extension because he's there, he's your horse just as much as he is Wander's

I'm not sure how to word this, so apologies if it's confusing, but the scenery acts only as a graphical shorthand for being isolated and broken. 'Living, now dead' is merely a state communicated to us by the game, and it is that state that's supposed to mean something, not the scenery itself. There is no reason for the once thriving land to be dead, it just is.

....yes? You're looking between where you're supposed to, you're saying that "There's no reason for the land to be dead except that's what the game is making us feel!". The same could be said for a movie "This place is only here because the movie dictates it so!" So, apologies if I don't get what you're saying, but what I'm getting at from you is that because it's already like that, there can't be a reason that it must be that.

Utterly false. If art was completely subjective, then everything could be art, and then by extension nothing would be art. Yes, facets of art are subjective, but there is an important key element that separates art from other things, and that thing is meaning. Art must have meaning, it must. If there is no meaning, then it isn't art but entertainment. If you find SotC entertaining, then that's fine. But claiming it to be art is an insult to any real artist.

If I sit on a couch and declare it a masterpiece, is it art?

If I held a frame above my head and declared the entire sky my work, is it art?

If I had an exhibition, and took all the guests out to look at the stars, is it art?

Actually, I think those three ideas may have undermined my point as well. Writin' dis shit down.

We could argue whether "art" is subjective, but however it happens it's turtles all the way down [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down]. No matter where we go with this particular argument, we're just going to be back at square one, so let's not go into this particular debate.

Bloody hell and I thought my posts were long. I'm not going to reply bit by bit since we'll be here until we drop dead otherwise and worse, it'd probably break the forums.

Hey, I was bored and I just felt like excercising my fingers

First of all, don't compare SotC to Greek Tragedy. I mentioned before about comparing baubles to Picasso and essentially what you've just done.

But there are many similarities, like the Tragic Flaw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_flaw] of Wander's stubbornness and inability to let go and the sprawling quest of slaying 16 (supposed) evils. It's like Odysseus's flaw that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Like I said, however, you could technically analyze anything and claim it to be "art", it's just an interpretation of mine. That's why I like literature at times, it's all so fun to interpret and put your own spin on it.

Second, the land is Forbidden? That's. . . a pretty common video game tactic to make things seem ominous. So is the world dying, or just the bit that's forbidden? Makes the dying land even more pointless. Also, the 'I'm going to do anything to save my love because I love her oh yeah' thing is again a very common trait of video game protagonists.

That may be, but it's presented in much more subtlety and emotional impact. You don't know the relation between the two characters, but you know that Wander will do anything to bring her back and the player is entwined with him. And it's only found that it's "forbidden" at the end of the game (maybe at the beginning, but I can't remember)

Wander turning into a Colossus himself is an interesting thing. I like it, it implies a lot about the other Colossi that I never thought of before, but it's all a bit hamfisted, it's not symbolic of his transformation than it is the game all but spelling it out for you. I also like the overall implication that Dormin is actually just a massive **** and has been fucking with Wander from the start. More games need to have the balls to lie and cheat the player. But again, it was spelled out from the beginning. Dormin basically said 'hey dude you're fucked', there is no room for other ideas here. There's also the idea that 'reviving the dead = bad' that seems to be the default for our species. I find it kind of annoying, myself.

What I'm getting from you is that "The game is only letting you think one thing, therefore it is not deep!" but my whole analysis disproves that (at least I think). I really don't get what you're trying to argue here.

I would argue that Wander turning into a Collosi is symbolic of his transformation as every death of a Collosus that you slay curropts you more and more. And keep in mind that this isn't the game "spelling it out for you". In fact, I only discovered these interpretations wwwwwaaaaayyyyy after I finished the game. It's not as if the game is telling you to feel, these are all interpretations that came along much longer after the game came out.

You've given me a lot to consider, I'm not quite as sure of my position as I was earlier. But I still feel that the game isn't open to interpretation enough, all the things that happen are quite obvious and lack much deeper meaning.

There is actually a helluvahlot of different interpretations out there, and many religious symbolism. For example "Dormin" backwards is "Nimrod" from the Old Testament and stuff, though take that how you will.

But I'm glad I could convince at least part of you. Regardless you are free to think whatever you want with Shadow of the Collosus, I was just bored and wanted to exercise my fingers.

 

[Zeromaeus]

Now this is more like it.

Actually, a lot of that was explained in the first cutscene of the game. Wander makes a deal with Dormin, a spirit that resides in the forbiden land that he went in. Dormin says that if he slays all 16 collosi that Mono will be revived, but there is a bigger price on that, and that price is Wander's own corruption and eventual death. Dormin is sort of a Lawful Evil [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil] in that at the end he posesses Wander (and the player takes control of him) but Mono is still revived.

Ok, but again this is the game telling you to go out a kill shit. In fact, it's even worse, because instead of the game telling you this with any degree of subtlety, it has a expositional character just outright telling you what you need to do, so there's even less focus on Wander and Mono's relationship.

Does the game need to focus on Wander and Mono's relationship? They establish pretty well that he's attached to her for whatever reason in that he stole the magic sword, entered the forbidden land, and made a deal with an evil god to get her back. He's devoted to her for some reason and is willing to sacrifice life, limb, and soul to get her back. That's significant enough me'thinks.

Also linking a character to a tabletop character alignment doesn't help me think of it as art.

Its the easiest way to say, yes Dormin is clearly evil, but he's up front about it. He's not trying to cheat you, he tells you what's what and you still go for it. I don't know what else to day here.

As for the horse, Argo/Agro, he is one of the only beings that interacts with you. Throughout the game it's just you, your sword, your bow, and your horse. Nothing else. Your horse becomes more than just a transport, he becomes your best friend. He comes to you when you call him, he is a bit stubborn when you want to move him like a real horse, and he always sticks by your side. When he finally falls to his death (supposedly), it's the loss of your only friend through thick and thin.

But hr's a horse, that's what horses do. Hr only stays loyal because Wander tamed and feeds Him. He's your best friend only to the extent that you have the ability to care for him.

When you care for a creature you tend to make emotional ties to said creature. all said, that horse is the only living creature you can interact with. I dunno. Whenever I get to that part of the game I can't stop thinking about the Neverending Story...

The setting is exactly that, isolated and broken. It shows age, it shows that before it was full of life but now it's dead. The monsters could either have destroyed the cities or could have always lived on the land, but they to show age. They crumble, they creak and break down, until eventually you kill them.

I'm not sure how to word this, so apologies if it's confusing, but the scenery acts only as a graphical shorthand for being isolated and broken. 'Living, now dead' is merely a state communicated to us by the game, and it is that state that's supposed to mean something, not the scenery itself. There is no reason for the once thriving land to be dead, it just is.

What? The land is isolated and broken to give the feel of a land being isolated and broken. You don't need to read much more into it, but you can. What civilization lived there before? What happened to them? Why is the land forbidden? Why is it that those who enter are attacked by your tribe? These are all questions that hang in the air as you play and complete the game, and in my opinion they only add to the experience. It would only detract form what I played if it were explained to me in detail by the guys who made it.

You can't possibly tell anyone what "real" art symoblizes or if it has to symbolize anything at all. As much as it pains you that I'm saying it, art is subjective. That isn't to say that you aren't allowed to not enjoy the game, by all means you can hate it, but there's a fine line between saying "I don't think it's art, but other people probably do" and "I don't think it's art, therefore it isn't!" Anybody can make any analysis and claim that something is art (which pretty much invalidates my next part, but I still want to post it anyway), doesn't mean that it can't be.

Utterly false. If art was completely subjective, then everything could be art, and then by extension nothing would be art. Yes, facets of art are subjective, but there is an important key element that separates art from other things, and that thing is meaning. Art must have meaning, it must. If there is no meaning, then it isn't art but entertainment. If you find SotC entertaining, then that's fine. But claiming it to be art is an insult to any real artist.

If I sit on a couch and declare it a masterpiece, is it art?

If I held a frame above my head and declared the entire sky my work, is it art?

If I had an exhibition, and took all the guests out to look at the stars, is it art?

Actually, I think those three ideas may have undermined my point as well. Writin' dis shit down.

Not gonna' argue this, but art is subjective. Just because you don't think its art, doesn't mean it is. Honestly though, not everything needs rhyme or reason.

Anyway, I want to post an analysis of SotC anyway, so here goes. I don't take complete credit for this, a lot of this is from other analysis that I've read, but anyway;

Bloody hell and I thought my posts were long. I'm not going to reply bit by bit since we'll be here until we drop dead otherwise and worse, it'd probably break the forums.

First of all, don't compare SotC to Greek Tragedy. I mentioned before about comparing baubles to Picasso and essentially what you've just done.

Second, the land is Forbidden? That's. . . a pretty common video game tactic to make things seem ominous. So is the world dying, or just the bit that's forbidden? Makes the dying land even more pointless. Also, the 'I'm going to do anything to save my love because I love her oh yeah' thing is again a very common trait of video game protagonists.

The idea that a character trait is tied to an element of the control scheme is exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said that SotC didn't take advantage of the medium. Consider that point revoked.

Wander turning into a Colossus himself is an interesting thing. I like it, it implies a lot about the other Colossi that I never thought of before, but it's all a bit hamfisted, it's not symbolic of his transformation than it is the game all but spelling it out for you. I also like the overall implication that Dormin is actually just a massive **** and has been fucking with Wander from the start. More games need to have the balls to lie and cheat the player. But again, it was spelled out from the beginning. Dormin basically said 'hey dude you're fucked', there is no room for other ideas here. There's also the idea that 'reviving the dead = bad' that seems to be the default for our species. I find it kind of annoying, myself.

You've given me a lot to consider, I'm not quite as sure of my position as I was earlier. But I still feel that the game isn't open to interpretation enough, all the things that happen are quite obvious and lack much deeper meaning.

It hurts my head that people think "characters constantly talking" = story. I guess Hollywood has successfully reprogrammed a not insubstantial portion of the population to crave incessant and idiotic blockbuster dialogue. I blame Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, too.

I think 90% of films and games would be greatly improved by outright removing 50% or more of the dialogue. Not surprisingly, I love SotC's story. The subtle "turn" is extremely well done.

My point isn't that there is no story, just that said story isn't deep and meaningful like people like blather about.

Also, the opening and ending cutscenes are full of dialouge, which would seem to imply that the killing of the colossi is actually just busywork.

[/quote]
Blargh. That would take forever to pick through. I don't understand why you try to say calling this similar to a Greek Tragedy is like comparing baubles to Picasso. It is set up like a Greek tragedy. It doesn't have the same scale or depth (in some cases), but it plays out like one. Also, I personally think Picasso's works are over-glorified. That's a discussion for a later date.

Why do you take pot-shots at it for following a handful of tropes. Tropes aren't necessarily a bad thing. They can be used to convey more than or as much as a detailed description when used correctly.

There is a story here. Some of it, however, comes form your experience with the game and how you interpret it thereafter.

I dunno. I just liked the game. Can't wait to play the next one...
(Waits quietly for the griffin to die)

EDIT: Attack of the counter-analysis!

 

[Thick]

It's called "subtlety", something that (as much as I love MGS and it's story) MGS doesn't have

The emotion of the game comes from the gameplay itself, read the analysis of my previous post on this page, it's all with Wander and his stubbornness to let go.

I have to put my hands up at the fact that I didn't put together your interpretation of the game, and I can't say what amount of that is from my personal retardation. If you got all of that from a single playthrough, that's pretty effin impressive...unless you were especially looking for things.

MGS's story is bad for different reasons. I can't help but think there is a difference between a good amount of subtlety and the game just not telling you anything; like how there's a difference between going on a diet and starving.

The subtlety and lack of dialogue strengthens the story and the emotion within. There weren't any things stripped out, but anything unnecessary was consciously omitted. The story is told by the quest, the landscape, the character's transition, even by the interaction with your horse, better than I have seen in any dialogue-rich game. I don't see any reason why more dialogue would make it a better game. Things that are not explained don't have to be explained as they don't serve the story. And because of the lack of interaction with other characters you can come to understand the protagonist's plight and reasons for doing what he does. This game without dialogue is like a machine that doesn't need a manual to show you how it works. It builds on inherent emotional response from the player.

Again, I may not be properly accounting for my level of personal retardation, but what I'm hearing from this is something along the lines of, "The lack of emotion heightens emotion, the lack of characterization heightens characterization." Does that mean that my lack of understanding heightens my understanding? The lack of subtlety in other games heightens their subtlety? Because I'm not sure it does.

It is heartening, however, to know that things like an interesting protagonist are unnecessary; means I have a lot less work to do

 

[Jumplion]

I have to put my hands up at the fact that I didn't put together your interpretation of the game, and I can't say what amount of that is from my personal retardation. If you got all of that from a single playthrough, that's pretty effin impressive...unless you were especially looking for things.

I believe I said that I read other people's analysis's of the game later on after I played the game. It wasn't several months if not years that I realized the huge depth that you could get into the game.

MGS's story is bad for different reasons. I can't help but think there is a difference between a good amount of subtlety and the game just not telling you anything.

But SotC does tell you things, but it's with subtlety. It's not that it's so subtle that it flies under the radar, it's the implying throughout the story that weaves the story together. So yeah, a little bit of your personal retardatoin (I keed, I keed)

That and it does have quite a few connections to the other game ICO, which unfortunately I haven't played.

Again, I may not be properly accounting for my level of personal retardation, but what I'm hearing from this is something along the lines of, "The lack of emotion heightens emotion, the lack of characterization heightens characterization." Does that mean that my lack of understanding heightens my understanding? The lack of subtlety in other games heightens their subtlety? Because I'm not sure it does.

I don't think you're getting it here. There is plenty of emotion in the game, but many of those emotions come from the player aswell, not just Wander and the game itself. Like the aforementioned "refusal to let go" being transferred to the player, the desolate wasteland that fuels the isolation of the player and Wander, the innocence of the Collosi themselves to the point where it's almost like you're wiping out an endangered species.

It's not "lack of emotion hightens emotion", whateverthehell that means, it's "Emotion of the game transcends to the emotion of the player."

 

[The Fat Captain]

This is just establishing the character of Wander. As I said, Wander is stubborn and doesn't want to let go, so when Dormin warns him about the cost and even tries to prevent him from making the deal, Wander doesn't care. If he could, he would break the second law of Thermodynamics if he could just for Mono.

But that's the extent of his personality. He's completely one dimensional.

Okay, now you're just splitting hairs. You're saying "You're only caring for him because the character cares for him!" Well duh, the same could be said by many other games. "You're only killing the Locust because that's what they tell you to do", "You're only a Hitman because that's what Agent 47 is!", "You're only the legendary Link because that's what the game wants you to be!". It doesn't matter if the horse is just an extension because he's there, he's your horse just as much as he is Wander's

Well maybe I'm nit picking just a tad. By the way, whenever I wrote 'you' in that paragraph, I actually meant 'Wander', which was my bad and probably confused my point somewhat. I meant that the horse is only a companion of Wander because Wander looks after it. It feels no loyalty beyond that. It wouldn't mourn if Wander died, it wouldn't stay if Wander lost the ability to look after it.

Also I don't think of any of those games as art either.

....yes? You're looking between where you're supposed to, you're saying that "There's no reason for the land to be dead except that's what the game is making us feel!". The same could be said for a movie "This place is only here because the movie dictates it so!" So, apologies if I don't get what you're saying, but what I'm getting at from you is that because it's already like that, there can't be a reason that it must be that.

Most movies aren't art.

But to actually clarify, what I meant was that the graphics don't SYMBOLISE death and decay, they merely INFORM the audience that those elements exist. The death and decay are not symbolic on there own, a symbol cannot symbolise itself. So what meaning does the death and decay have beyond being death and decay? Do they symbolise an aspect of our reality? The transition towards life and death? None of the things I come up with fit in with the larger narrative, which leads me to believe that there's nothing there.

We could argue whether "art" is subjective, but however it happens it's turtles all the way down [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down]. No matter where we go with this particular argument, we're just going to be back at square one, so let's not go into this particular debate.

I agree that art is subjective, just that 'art' as an overall concept must have a defining feature to separate it from other concepts. That feature being meaning.

But there are many similarities, like the Tragic Flaw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_flaw] of Wander's stubbornness and inability to let go and the sprawling quest of slaying 16 (supposed) evils. It's like Odysseus's flaw that he thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Like I said, however, you could technically analyze anything and claim it to be "art", it's just an interpretation of mine. That's why I like literature at times, it's all so fun to interpret and put your own spin on it.

There is a single similarity. It's not the same as a varied and expansive culture because it shares a single element.

That may be, but it's presented in much more subtlety and emotional impact. You don't know the relation between the two characters, but you know that Wander will do anything to bring her back and the player is entwined with him. And it's only found that it's "forbidden" at the end of the game (maybe at the beginning, but I can't remember)

It isn't presented at all. I didn't identify with Wander's quest because I didn't care what happened to any of the characters because the only one with any personality had only one personality trait.

What I'm getting from you is that "The game is only letting you think one thing, therefore it is not deep!" but my whole analysis disproves that (at least I think). I really don't get what you're trying to argue here.

I would argue that Wander turning into a Collosi is symbolic of his transformation as every death of a Collosus that you slay curropts you more and more. And keep in mind that this isn't the game "spelling it out for you". In fact, I only discovered these interpretations wwwwwaaaaayyyyy after I finished the game. It's not as if the game is telling you to feel, these are all interpretations that came along much longer after the game came out.

Transformation and corruption are themes, and Wander's turning into a Colossus simply illustrates that those themes are present. It is the themes, not the literal events, that symbolise a relevant concept beyond the work. I think it's obvious is because he's pretty clearly transforming into something else.

The reason you didn't see it at first is because people generally don't analyse while experiencing something. It is only after the experience has become a memory that we begin to analyse and seek the analysis of others.

There is actually a helluvahlot of different interpretations out there, and many religious symbolism. For example "Dormin" backwards is "Nimrod" from the Old Testament and stuff, though take that how you will.

Ok, but what relevance does the bible have to the work? What are they trying to say by putting the biblical allusions in there? It's pretty pointless to have bible references just because.

Does the game need to focus on Wander and Mono's relationship? They establish pretty well that he's attached to her for whatever reason in that he stole the magic sword, entered the forbidden land, and made a deal with an evil god to get her back. He's devoted to her for some reason and is willing to sacrifice life, limb, and soul to get her back. That's significant enough me'thinks.

Yes, that's clearly established. What isn't though, it why the player should care. The player begins the game in a default state of not caring, and it is the games job to alter that situation. Otherwise, it's just busywork.

Its the easiest way to say, yes Dormin is clearly evil, but he's up front about it. He's not trying to cheat you, he tells you what's what and you still go for it. I don't know what else to day here.

I meant it as a joke, actually. But now that you mention, Dormin came across less as evil and more as irritated that he has to deal with this shit too often. Ties back into the Colossi being former humans. See? They did something well at least.

When you care for a creature you tend to make emotional ties to said creature. all said, that horse is the only living creature you can interact with. I dunno. Whenever I get to that part of the game I can't stop thinking about the Neverending Story...

But I don't care for the creature. Wander does. Again, the players start not caring etc.

What? The land is isolated and broken to give the feel of a land being isolated and broken. You don't need to read much more into it, but you can. What civilization lived there before? What happened to them? Why is the land forbidden? Why is it that those who enter are attacked by your tribe? These are all questions that hang in the air as you play and complete the game, and in my opinion they only add to the experience. It would only detract form what I played if it were explained to me in detail by the guys who made it.

This game is so deep but you don't need to read too much into it?

It's not information about what the world was like that I care about, it's the meaning behind the theme of a dead world. Building atmosphere is all well and good, but it isn't an artistic endeavour so much as a technical one.

Not gonna' argue this, but art is subjective. Just because you don't think its art, doesn't mean it is. Honestly though, not everything needs rhyme or reason.

Why is it subjective? What makes it subjective? Do you actually understand what you mean by subjective or are you just regurgitating the usual internet excuse for crappy art?

Blargh. That would take forever to pick through. I don't understand why you try to say calling this similar to a Greek Tragedy is like comparing baubles to Picasso. It is set up like a Greek tragedy. It doesn't have the same scale or depth (in some cases), but it plays out like one. Also, I personally think Picasso's works are over-glorified. That's a discussion for a later date.

WELL I MADE THE EFFORT JEEEEEEEEEEZ.

What I mean by comparing baubles to Picasso is that I think that comparing a single video game to a huge chunk of a civilisations culture is kind of insulting.

And yeah, Picasso is SUCH a loser. He only, what, completely changed the way the entire planet viewed the merit and cultural impact of artistic endeavour? Fuck that guy.

Why do you take pot-shots at it for following a handful of tropes. Tropes aren't necessarily a bad thing. They can be used to convey more than or as much as a detailed description when used correctly.

There is a story here. Some of it, however, comes form your experience with the game and how you interpret it thereafter.

Because it doesn't do anything interesting with the tropes it uses. It just uses them straight out the packet like it's ready-bake bread mix or something. Also, I'm not saying there isn't a story, I'm just saying that it's not a very good one.

Jesus H. on a tiny bicycle if I put nearly this much effort into shit that mattered I'd probably be a billionaire by now.

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

What initially got me interested in Shadow of the Colossus was the method you slay the colossi. I've always had a hatred of hacking away at giants ankles untill they fall. So being able to scale them to deliver the killing blow was a revelation.

But once I started playing it I realised there was much more to it than that. I ended up spending hours wandering around The Forbidden Lands just exploring the environment trying to find clues as to what happened to leave it such devoid of human life. The ruins definitely hint at there being a grand civilization before whatever 'incident' happened.

I Have to disagree on Wander not being a good enough character to stir emotion. Enough of his character was revealed in the opening to make his slow change over the game affecting. The fact that he is in the forbidden lands in the first place shows that he has a love for Mono enough to steal an ancient mystical sword and travel to a 'cursed land' to revive her. When first confronted by Dormin he is told that there will be a price and he accepts that. So you know Mono is important enough to him that he would chose her life over his. Agro's sheer determined loyalty to him also hints that he has been Wander's steed for a long time. This also for me was reflected in the gameplay. I grew quite a bond to Agro over the course of the game. Possibly due to the fact that that was the only other 'character' with you throughout the game.

 

[Mariakitten]

The best way I can describe it is comparing it to minimalist art, its simple, its elegant, and you like it or you dont.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Interesting, you're the first person I have found who expressed dislike for the game. I am actually just about the begin playing it. I have high hopes, but I actually didn't enjoy Okami (another one of those PS2 games that everyone praises as Art etc) though I could see why people liked it and I could tell it was a great game it just didn't appeal to me, subjectively.

Hopefully I will enjoy SOTC... I'll be very sad if I don't because I have been meaning to play it for years.

 

[Jumplion]

But that's the extent of his personality. He's completely one dimensional.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

It wouldn't mourn if Wander died, it wouldn't stay if Wander lost the ability to look after it.

Also I don't think of any of those games as art either.

I wasn't saying that those games are "art", just proving a point. You can holler that "Andrew Ryan was manipulating you just because the developers dictated as such, therefore it is not as deep as people claim it is!" till the cows come home, but overall it's just splitting hairs to some kind of fallacy that I have no idea what it is.

Also, there is evidence that Wander and Agro/Argo do have extensive history together has Wander can barely handle a sword yet his horseback archery is superb.

Most movies aren't art.

Didn't say most were, again I was just providing an example.

But to actually clarify, what I meant was that the graphics don't SYMBOLISE death and decay, they merely INFORM the audience that those elements exist. The death and decay are not symbolic on there own, a symbol cannot symbolise itself. So what meaning does the death and decay have beyond being death and decay? Do they symbolise an aspect of our reality? The transition towards life and death? None of the things I come up with fit in with the larger narrative, which leads me to believe that there's nothing there.

I think you're looking past what I was saying, it's not the symbolism (I don't think I said anything about it symbolizing anything, just the feeling of isolation) in the "death and decay" of the land, it's the atmosphere, the tone and mood of the graphics/visuals that provide it's own unique feel to it. The land is barren and desolate, worn through time, possibly with civilization inhabiting it. It heightens the mystery and the isolating feel that Wander, and the player, faces while traveling from Collosi to Collosi.

There is a single similarity. It's not the same as a varied and expansive culture because it shares a single element.

I think I said it was "like" a Greek Tragedy, and to some extent it is, I stand by that. It has several archetypes similar to Greek Tragedies (The Oracle=Dormin, Lone Wanderer: Wander, Fair Maiden: Mono, etc...) but I'm no expert in literature so take what you will from that. I still stand by their similarities.

It isn't presented at all. I didn't identify with Wander's quest because I didn't care what happened to any of the characters because the only one with any personality had only one personality trait.

Well, that's what you got from the game. Obviously many people felt the way I have with the game. I want to restate, it's fine if you didn't enjoy the game to my level or anyone else's level, that's your right as an American! as a gamer. We're just in this for a friendly discussion.

The reason you didn't see it at first is because people generally don't analyse while experiencing something. It is only after the experience has become a memory that we begin to analyse and seek the analysis of others.

Personally that's what I love about analysing stuff, it's so much fun to go "Ahhhhh! That's what it meant! That's friggin cool." There are also many different connections with Team ICO's previous game, erm, ICO, with one of them being Wander transforming into a baby with horns similar to the boy with horns in ICO (the boys with horns are decendants of Wander, as confirmed by the director. Damn, I got to find that game).

Ok, but what relevance does the bible have to the work? What are they trying to say by putting the biblical allusions in there? It's pretty pointless to have bible references just because.

Eh, felt like jotting that in there, again in retrospect pretty pointless.

Yes, that's clearly established. What isn't though, it why the player should care. The player begins the game in a default state of not caring, and it is the games job to alter that situation. Otherwise, it's just busywork.

I think Tycho [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/6/8/] actually says it well.

I meant it as a joke, actually. But now that you mention, Dormin came across less as evil and more as irritated that he has to deal with this shit too often. Ties back into the Colossi being former humans. See? They did something well at least.

Hmm, interesting interpretation on Dormin, expand on that if you can. Like with any good essay, you need to back up your statements

Why is it subjective? What makes it subjective? Do you actually understand what you mean by subjective or are you just regurgitating the usual internet excuse for crappy art?

Even crappy art is art. [http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert] (Just felt it was relevant, take it how you will)

And yeah, Picasso is SUCH a loser. He only, what, completely changed the way the entire planet viewed the merit and cultural impact of artistic endeavour? Fuck that guy.

And thus, this proves that art is subjective. I personally hate modern art, things like a friggin' toilet, a crack on the floor, or even lights turning on and off have been given awards for being "art". [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible] Hell, to me Picasso just drew some random faces, I can respect his achievements, but fuck if I know how his "art" is supposed to be comprehended.

Because it doesn't do anything interesting with the tropes it uses. It just uses them straight out the packet like it's ready-bake bread mix or something. Also, I'm not saying there isn't a story, I'm just saying that it's not a very good one.

Jesus H. on a tiny bicycle if I put nearly this much effort into shit that mattered I'd probably be a billionaire by now.

Eh, I just want to drop this here. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShadowOfTheColossus] Take it how you will but it does show some of the tropes that it does use to an extent. Again, take it how you want.

EDIT: Oh, and if you have the patience this is a really good analysis of the game with multiple theories [http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/924364-shadow-of-the-colossus/faqs/41817]. Pretty cool I think.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

You have no understanding of the concept of 'minimalism'.

That's fine I guess, minimalism doesn't appeal to everyone.

But I'm sorry you didn't like it, because it's one of the best games ever made!!!