Zero Punctuation: Shadow of the Colossus

[Warforger]

Yes I am saying you suck at dawn of war. All the things I mentioned aren't thing that only gold level players grasp, its the basics that everyone knows. Stuff that noob guides cover. If you can't grasp the basic stuff then you must not be very good at this game.

Which weren't actual strategy. The only actual strategy is between T1 and T2 after you've establish economy it quickly fades away, and with the games focusing on getting to T3 the strategy is quickly extracted. Again most of the posters have been telling me that I have the play gold level to experience strategy, which again is NOT a point in its favor.

PS. I've played hundreds of online DoW matches

That doesn't matter if you play badly with other people who don't know how to play.

I don't even know why I am talking to you to be honest. Your "all rts games are crap except this one." attitude is classic fanboy behavior. So is just ignoring basic strategy in a game just because you can't seem to use any. Obviously you aren't here to discuss anything, but rather to troll against any game that isn't Ground control.

I avoided comp stomps and I've played a multitude of players ranging from noobs to pro's. No I am not, my point is that these RTS's are more like Real Time Spammers then Real Time Strategy.

I'm not a troll in the basis that trolls just post to piss people off, some people are pissed off when they see people they don't agree with.

 

[redarmyagent]

words words words

words words words

Gee guyz arguing with total strangers about which one of you is better at a video game when neither of you have ever played eachother is super cool.

Easy solution to your problem: PLAY EACHOTHER. I don't care if its just one match, 2 out of 3, or whatever. But it'll settle this argument a lot more certainly than "LOL NO U SUK MOAR"

 

[Pandora92]

Man I REALLY need to hurry up buy an old PS2 controller, I have so many games left over for that console that I've wanted to play for so long now, but none of my old controllers work and I always put off buying a new one.

 

[moose_man]

I could only beat the first Colossi, my horse backed me into a corner for the second one and I couldn't shoot.

 

[mik1]

I hate it when people hate something so popular that they began to start talking about it like their opening up an argument. I don't care if you don't like starcraft2. And yes it is very satisfying to destroy your enemy.

And if you remotely like rts's get starcraft2 because it is the best one ever. And rts's never get boring because in any other type of game you can beat it a million times with the same experience. Every rts match is different. So you can play your favorite game today and you can play your multilayer fps's using the exact same strategy over and over but sc2 wont die for a very long time.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Nice review, I think I have to dust off that mean ol VCR again.oh and also:
I agree with Yathzee on the SC2 part.
I personally can't get into RTS myself.
The only one I really liked was Age of Empires 2.
But only because I used to spam E-mc2 troopers and Big Daddys and crush everything in my way.
Yes I enjoyed cheating, so grill me.
And I definitely won't get SC2

 

[sketchesofpayne]

They need to make 'Shadow of the Colossus HD'. Don't change it, don't mess with it, just bump it up to 1080p.

 

[geldonyetich]

I never played Shadow of the Colossus. And yet, I figured a piddling thing like playing games for some 27 years makes me a gamer. I tear this title from my heart!

Sheesh, the PS2 has turned out to be a definitively awesome platform all around, when I think of some of the remarkably diverse and excellent experiences I found o nit.

Ico was not one of those remarkable experiences. That game was naughty; it actively defied being played. I traded it in soon after buying it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Say what you will of Starcraft II to and the entire RTS genre, at least they're games. Not like this grab and stab series of what are essentially quick time events.

Shadow of the Colossus=Colossal Fail

I was about to launch into some frenzied rebuttal about how no part of SotC even resembles a QTE.

Then I got to the part with the incredibly lame play on words, which reads like the opposite of a film critic trying to secure his one-liner for a movie poster, and it became apparent that I really wouldn't have to debate this person.

SC2, as most RTS games, eventually boils down to pure economics. Yes, I can micro my attacks to some extent in an attempt to eek out a few more kills (or even half-kills) here and there, but that's hardly the driving force of the game. Every unit and structure is just a stand-in for the resources I spent to create them. At some point I just see one collection of crystals and gas fighting another collection of crystals and gas. The game ceases to function as a test of skill or creativity and starts to take on the shadow of business - complete with constant, time-based stressors and incessant micromanagement. Worst of all is my distance from these forces, friend and foe alike. I've got no real investment in any of them beyond the economic. For me, the game becomes so detached and, well, capitalist.

I know it's possible to enjoy the game without turning it into a job (optimal build orders, APM in the 200-300s), but it seems an irresistible temptation for me. There's little reward for creativity or thinking outside the box (as established by all the best players well before I arrived), and that's just not my bag. Anyone who can get into the whole "running a miniature version of America, complete with hilariously irresponsible military spending" is welcome to their jollies, though.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

They need to make 'Shadow of the Colossus HD'. Don't change it, don't mess with it, just bump it up to 1080p.

\

I did read something about a Team Ico Collection coming to PS3, so that might happen pretty soon.

 

[Kurt Horsting]

For something that he says he doesn't hate, he sure goes out of his way to say how unimaginative and cowardly all the supporters of the genre are. And how the games of said genre are unimmersive and boring. Since he is basing his previous experiences on rts with games like Red alert, Halo wars (why review that and not touch sc2 is beyond me), Rise of nations and Brutal Legend one can sympathize with his stance on RTS. Idk... to me, sc2 was something with a quality and charm that was beyond its genre and was way too damn good.

To me it's like him not playing paper Mario just because he loathes jrps. If he didn't make the exception in the first place he would miss out of a niche that he enjoys. Besides, there is a good amount of his viewer-ship that would just like to see him rip into the sc2 cause of people like me (only rts I ever liked was sc and sc2).

I'm more disappointed more then anything else. He'll play shitty games like Demon's souls (I fucking beat that POS, and if i heard the entire staff was publicly raped then killed, I would SMILE.) or Boarderlands but not touch sc2 because he doesn't play the genre. It would just be interesting to see what he thinks of it. Oh well... like they say, you can show a Game critic a good game, but you can't make him review it (or something like that...)

 

[Bobbity]

In my opinion, this is easily your funniest review since Alan Wake, so good job! I never actually played Shadow of the Colossus, but I loved Ico, and I'm definitely getting The Last Guardian.

*Proffers arbitrary Starcraft 2 opinion*
I haven't actually played the game, because it just looks like Gears of War from above, and that game was totally nonsensical in the first place. However, I can definitely see where you're coming from. Every time I play an RTS, I get through the training levels and then immediately start cheating, because I don't like:
a) Waiting for another generic troop to spawn so that I can go over and smack the other generic troop in the face.
b) Being in a position where I can't directly influence events, and cannot actually go over and personally smack the other player/generic troop in the face.
c) Putting a good half an hour of effort into a map only to be rushed and have to start over.

Anyway, good work!

 

[alliedlama]

Yeah, I'm really glad you reviewed this. It makes me wanna go start playing it again.

 

[Spinozaad]

Amusing review.

I agree with the SC2 opinion. Because I don't give a damn about the entire game. Grand Strategy Games are infinitely better.

Although, to be fair, those games are infinitely more suitable for the Armchair Hitlers among us.

 

[SnipErlite]

They need to make 'Shadow of the Colossus HD'. Don't change it, don't mess with it, just bump it up to 1080p.

Ohhhh that would be fucking, fucking awesome. Mmm just imagine how sexy it would look..... *sigh* just a pity that any remake they would potentially ever do would change the game somewhat.

Hm. Oh yeah OT I suppose: SoTC is brilliant, annnnd yeah.

 

[Firerush]

once again I ask, why all the discussion about a game he's not reviewing.

but on another note, I think that Yahtzee is starting to fall into the same bad habits he's accusing video game makers of. What habits are those, well doing the same thing over and over again just because he knows it will get him viewers, readers, and stirs up people to get all the comments he's getting here. In the past, I loved his reviews because while he ranted, he often had something positive to say unless the game was actually bad with no good features worth mentioning, like Turok or the most recent Alone in the Dark, heck even when he said that HAZE wasn't a good game he admitted that HALO fans would like it and at least it was functional, now all he does is complain.

Personally, I think this series has jumped the shark, and did so during the Arkham Asylum review when he blatantly named himself a "Praiser by Exception" which meant that he officially decided to stop mentioning the good stuff in his reviews. Yes this review is an exception, except that it's technically a retro review and in my opinion doesn't carry as much weight as his reviews of current games (I do give full weight games he ends up reviewing late because of the stupid Australian censorship laws).

I guess we should have seen this coming as far back in his Bioshock 1 review when he mentioned "If my Psychonauts review taught me anything it's that nobody likes me when I'm being nice to a game" but back then he at least mentioned all the good stuff at the start and end of his review thus starting and ending on good notes.

I will continue to watch in hopes that I see a change, and mostly to hear his opinions just in case he offers some more balanced reviews, but I may stop watching regularly altogether if this continues.

 

[Firerush]

For something that he says he doesn't hate, he sure goes out of his way to say how unimaginative and cowardly all the supporters of the genre are. And how the games of said genre are unimmersive and boring. Since he is basing his previous experiences on rts with games like Red alert, Halo wars (why review that and not touch sc2 is beyond me), Rise of nations and Brutal Legend one can sympathize with his stance on RTS. Idk... to me, sc2 was something with a quality and charm that was beyond its genre and was way too damn good.

To me it's like him not playing paper Mario just because he loathes jrps. If he didn't make the exception in the first place he would miss out of a niche that he enjoys. Besides, there is a good amount of his viewer-ship that would just like to see him rip into the sc2 cause of people like me (only rts I ever liked was sc and sc2).

I'm more disappointed more then anything else. He'll play shitty games like Demon's souls (I fucking beat that POS, and if i heard the entire staff was publicly raped then killed, I would SMILE.) or Boarderlands but not touch sc2 because he doesn't play the genre. It would just be interesting to see what he thinks of it. Oh well... like they say, you can show a Game critic a good game, but you can't make him review it (or something like that...)

Or even play it.

I agree with everything you say here, he even admitted to liking, nay, loving Final Fantasy VI despite hating the installments that followed it, and you're right, he might just find a niche he enjoys on some level, plus he would review a real and functional RTS (Console RTS and hybrids like Spore and Brutal Legend are either poorly functional, not enough of an RTS to count, or both) and probably make it so people would stop ranting so much about his refusal to play RTS games in the future. And hey, he might at least like the story since he rarely has to keep certain units alive in the campaign and the cut scenes are quite immersive for an RTS game, he might even sympathize with Raynor, A sullen friendless drunk who spends most of his time in the bar and plotting the downfall of the local government.

Why should he review a genre he doesn't like, quite simply here's my rule for stuff like this: Try something at least once and make sure you try a piece of that something that is regarded as prime good example of it and if you still don't like the thing after that, feel free to *****. Prime good examples for video games include: JRPGs--Final Fantasy VI, Shooters--Painkiller and Bioshock, Action-Adventure--Psychonauts, Heavy Action--God of War I, Action-Platformer--Prince of Persia The Sands of Time, Survival Horror--Silent Hill 2, and do I even need to say what a prime good example of RTS is?

That's what I think.

 

[Redgethebat]

I swear, I'm the only human in existence who doesn't like this game. It's not a bad concept, I just found it poorly executed, unpolished, and incredibly unimmersive. The worst part for me was the controls. I can't begin to describe how bad the controls are. It feels like your controlling a 100 year old rusty robot with a broken leg. On a unicycle. And your horse isn't much better. The horse was very stiff and... off. Not to mention the way you got it to move by pressing X. Zelda Twilight Princess, that game had good horse controls, and it was on the gamecube! Controls can make or break a game, and this felt like you were playing as a drunken Leper. That, and bad controls, for me at least, will completely ruin the immersiveness of a game. The entire time I was playing this I always was conscious and aware of me playing the game. I was never immersed into the experience.

Also, the graphics... I see what it was going for, and what it was trying to accomplish, and what it did do at some points, but for the most part it feels too unpolished to pull it off. It's not due to technology limitations, I've seen games that pulled off that look before hand.

I do really like the concept of this game. If it had been properly refined and worked on for a few more years it could be one of my favorites. But as it stands, it just ugly, unimmersive, and... un-not-broken... yeah...

 

[WaffleGod]

SC2, as most RTS games, eventually boils down to pure economics. Yes, I can micro my attacks to some extent in an attempt to eek out a few more kills (or even half-kills) here and there, but that's hardly the driving force of the game. Every unit and structure is just a stand-in for the resources I spent to create them. At some point I just see one collection of crystals and gas fighting another collection of crystals and gas. The game ceases to function as a test of skill or creativity and starts to take on the shadow of business - complete with constant, time-based stressors and incessant micromanagement. Worst of all is my distance from these forces, friend and foe alike. I've got no real investment in any of them beyond the economic. For me, the game becomes so detached and, well, capitalist.

I know it's possible to enjoy the game without turning it into a job (optimal build orders, APM in the 200-300s), but it seems an irresistible temptation for me. There's little reward for creativity or thinking outside the box (as established by all the best players well before I arrived), and that's just not my bag. Anyone who can get into the whole "running a miniature version of America, complete with hilariously irresponsible military spending" is welcome to their jollies, though.

I think you didn't play enough (good) RTS games. Or you simply didn't play them like they should be played. And for SC2 not giving enough room for creativity. Tell me a game that does better then SC2 in terms of creativity and can be played competitively. If you don't see the creativity in SC2, doesn't mean it isn't there. I can assure you, there's more to the game then meets the eye.

OT: yes, SoTC was good, but I didn't find it THAT good. And I don't quite know why Yahtzee reviews this game when there's SC2 to review. Isn't it your job as a reviewer to review games... Even though you think/know they're complete shit? As others already stated, I find it odd he reviews fucked up shitty "make a quick buck" games, but avoids certain really good games like the plague... Afraid to become too mainstream?

 

[SubstanceTV]

I swear, I'm the only human in existence who doesn't like this game. It's not a bad concept, I just found it poorly executed, unpolished, and incredibly unimmersive. The worst part for me was the controls. I can't begin to describe how bad the controls are. It feels like your controlling a 100 year old rusty robot with a broken leg. On a unicycle. And your horse isn't much better. The horse was very stiff and... off. Not to mention the way you got it to move by pressing X. Zelda Twilight Princess, that game had good horse controls, and it was on the gamecube! Controls can make or break a game, and this felt like you were playing as a drunken Leper. That, and bad controls, for me at least, will completely ruin the immersiveness of a game. The entire time I was playing this I always was conscious and aware of me playing the game. I was never immersed into the experience.

Also, the graphics... I see what it was going for, and what it was trying to accomplish, and what it did do at some points, but for the most part it feels too unpolished to pull it off. It's not due to technology limitations, I've seen games that pulled off that look before hand.

I do really like the concept of this game. If it had been properly refined and worked on for a few more years it could be one of my favorites. But as it stands, it just ugly, unimmersive, and... un-not-broken... yeah...

You are not alone my friend. I never understood what the big fuss was surrounding SotC. Out of curiosity I tried the game myself. Little did I know what would await me. I will wholeheartedly agree, the story elements and setting were nicely done. But setting is like the parsley to my porterhouse steak, it makes for a great looking presentation, but does little to affect the taste of the meat. And in this case, the meat of any game is the game play. This is where SotC fails miserably. From the on foot controls, to the horse controls, to it taking a solid 74 hours to traverse the landscape to get from boss to boss. On that note, SotC was basically a big boss gauntlet made artificially longer by a horse riding scene that would make Lawrence of Arabia tired.

Graphically the game had some good ideas, but failed to pull them off. I'll applaud them for what they tried to do and the scale this game presented. Though sometimes you need to know your limits, and in the case of SotC, they did not. The game runs at 30 frames per second if you are by yourself on your horse. The second an enemy or Colussus comes on screen, the framerate tanks to a snails pace. Sometimes it would slow to 5 frames a second making it unplayable. I find it ironic that Yahtzee complains about games that are brown and gray, when that?s what this whole game is! Brows and grays. Pot. Kettle. Black.

This game gets a free pass because of the recent trend I like to call, ?OMG STORY!? in which a player will ignore bad game play in light of a story, of which there are thousands of things called ?novels? that pull story off a hundred times better than any game could hope to. Which leads me to the most disturbing point, when did we stop playing video GAMES for GAME play? When did we become so obsessed about why we're doing something that we can?t just play a game. Remember Contra on the NES? That story was about as generic us vs. them as you could get, but it was one fun game because it played well. Are we so pathetic that we need some deep motivation to press an ?A? button? Story is a good thing, and in light of playing Mass Effect 2, I love a good story. But it is only an accent to the main attraction of game play.

Now if only Yahtzee played games for game play we might get a review of SC2 or something similar. Instead he waxes poetically about flawed games with poor game play that are good simply because they give him a warm fuzzy feeling about a story. Playing a game like SotC is like having a bowl full of parsley with a 2 oz. bone dry steak. Yum.

It's time for some Contra now.