Shadow of the Colossus...meh

ajemas

New member
Nov 19, 2009
500
0
0
Thick said:
tellmeimaninja said:
Good job killing off the entire species, though. You monster.
Believe me, I felt quite bad after killing some of them.
I think that's why some people might have enjoyed it more than you. It is important to remember that liking or not liking a game is just an opinion. On the whole there were positive reviews Shadow of the Colossus, but that doesn't mean that everybody has to like it. You mentioned that you didn't like the controls on the horse. Some of the reviewers might have not been as bothered by that and enjoyed the fights more than you.
Also, in reference to your above quote, the feelings that are envoked during the game might have had a larger impact on others that played it.
In short, it is totally understandable that you don't like a game that others do. That is just how things go.
 

Dr. Danger

Let's Talk Lobotomy
Dec 24, 2008
341
0
0
I feel like the plot is minimal to encourage the use of the player's imagination.

And there isn't just one specific way to beat each colossi. There are methods I've seen on youtube that I didn't even dream of trying.

The reason the horse was hard to handle is because it was so realistic. In reality, a horse would not always follow your precise commands.

It's clear to see that Shadow of the Colossus endeared itself to me.
 

Thick

New member
Feb 10, 2009
191
0
0
/yawn. Sorry for being away so long, had to sleep. =)

Archangel357 said:
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.
Boom! This.

Amazingly detailed and emotional descriptions are exactly what it takes to engage the imagination in a meaningful way. The problem with the story in SotC is that even in the opening, which establishes that there is a connection between Wander and Mono, Wander delivers the line in dead-pan gibberish (please don't hate me if this is Japanese, but I've heard Japanese and that didn't sound like Japanese)

Also, not directed at you, it needs to be decided whether the story is minimalistic or deep, because it can't be both. Calling a minimalist story deep is disingenuous because it's as deep as what you attribute to it. If I am presented gaps to fill in, I could just as easily imagine that he wants to resurrect Mono because she owes him a lot of money or she killed his granny and he was actually the one who killed Mono in the first place and wants to bring her back so he can kill her again. I mean, that's not the direction my imagination went, those aren't as deep and might make less sense than love given the lengths that he goes to over the course of the game, but greed or rage are just as emotionally plausible given that was just can't tell what the nature of the relationship between those two are: good, neutral, or bad.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
OK, the only thing I think I can contribute here is my own opinion of the game:

Right, let's get this out of the way: I think it's really overrated. That's not to say that I found it to be crap, in fact, parts of it were quite good. But parts of it were shite. As summarized here:

PROS:
1. Nice boss battles(obviously).
I really like the plot twist that the Skylight of Doom was actually evil, and the Collosi were good. I liked the part where Wander goes all Zombie on them and he looks really creepy. It was very cool to see the main character (Who's lack of characterization suggests that he's a somewhat Freeman-esque "Player Surrogate"....Christ, I'm a nerd...) being put in that position of total corruption. I liked that part alot. Unfortunatly, that's really all I liked about the ending. I know what you're saying. "But if you liked the way the story ended, then what could you possibly have to complain about the ending?" I'll tell you: The stupid, unneccesary, gameplay. WAIT. Let me explain that. In a bit.

CONS

1. The structure. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason this game had to be an open world game. I know people are going to tell me that it was meant to cause me to have feelings of isolation, but that doesn't matter because I DIDN'T. All I felt was that this was pretty shameless gameplay-lengthening tactics, and every now and then I might think to myself something along the lines of, "Ooh! Pretty!" That's it. That was my experience with the game, and don't try to convince me otherwise.

Like I said, I really enjoyed the ending-storywise. I'll even let the whole "Horned Baby" thing go because I never played Ico, so I probably wasn't supposed to get it. Again: I LIKED THE PLOT. I just wish it hadn't been padded with useless gameplay segments. Don't get me wrong: I like it when games let me play through things that could have cutscenes. In fact, I think that the future of gaming involves leaving cutscenes behind completely, in favor of constant gameplay. But here, it's just sloppy. You can't actually effect anything! In the first one, you just hit a bunch of dudes for an inordinately long amount of time, and then watch a cutscene that is in no way effected by your actions. In the second one, you VERY SLOWLY fall towards the pit at the end of the room. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the animations were good, but they aren't. So we get to watch as Wander does a back-flip, stands up, does a back flip, stands up, does a back flip, and stands up OVER AND OVER AGAIN until he finally reaches the pool. Maybe the point was to make players think they could change their fates, only to realize that they couldn't, but there are a lot of better ways to do that. As it is, it's just awkward.
 

The Fat Captain

New member
Jul 13, 2010
11
0
0
MatsVS said:
You make an attempt at eloquence, but it still rings hollow. At the end, you're still just complaining that not everything is explained to you. Leaving these questions open to interpretation is a great part of the appeal. Having the mysteries of the world spelled out would lessen the impact for anyone who put any thought into it. And the idea that all art needs to reflect "the real world" (read: society) is faulty as well. In fact, I'd argue that the art which is introspective, which SotC is, is often the more powerful.
Point 1: Not explaining things is all fine and dandy, but there's a profound difference between explaining and reason. I don't want the broken world explained, I just want there to be a deeper meaning than looking nice. I don't need to know why heroman and sleepygirl are in love, I just want their relationship to have a point beyond 'they are'. No words are necessary, showing a few seconds of an intimate moment between them, maybe as a reward after each fight, would have given both cemented their relationship in my head and given deeper purpose to the battle. Most importantly, it would really have allowed for alternate interpretations, rather than the one that exists now.

Point 2: In fact, I think too much is explained. The way is it, the so-called 'emotional moments' are really mechanical. We feel bad for the horse not because his character is established in any way, but pretty much because the game told us to. We're killing the colossi not to save our love, but the protagonist's. There's a key difference here, because we aren't rushing to save someone we care about, we're doing because that's what we're supposed to do. The game constantly goes 'you love this lady, go kill things. Now your horse died, feel sad'. They are fake emotions that the game is manipulating you to feel, rather than encouraging you to interpret your feelings as you naturally would. I will give it some credit though, the colossi doe seem innocent right from the start and the sadness invoked at their needless deaths is a lot more genuine.

Point 3: Introspective art is less art than it is a circle-jerk. Art for it's own sake is nothing more than pointless self-indulgence.

Point 4: Your argument is basically 'you're an idiot'.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
The Fat Captain said:
Point 1: Not explaining things is all fine and dandy, but there's a profound difference between explaining and reason. I don't want the broken world explained, I just want there to be a deeper meaning than looking nice. I don't need to know why heroman and sleepygirl are in love, I just want their relationship to have a point beyond 'they are'. No words are necessary, showing a few seconds of an intimate moment between them, maybe as a reward after each fight, would have given both cemented their relationship in my head and given deeper purpose to the battle. Most importantly, it would really have allowed for alternate interpretations, rather than the one that exists now.
This is basically same as what you stated earlier.

The Fat Captain said:
Point 2: In fact, I think too much is explained. The way is it, the so-called 'emotional moments' are really mechanical. We feel bad for the horse not because his character is established in any way, but pretty much because the game told us to. We're killing the colossi not to save our love, but the protagonist's. There's a key difference here, because we aren't rushing to save someone we care about, we're doing because that's what we're supposed to do. The game constantly goes 'you love this lady, go kill things. Now your horse died, feel sad'. They are fake emotions that the game is manipulating you to feel, rather than encouraging you to interpret your feelings as you naturally would. I will give it some credit though, the colossi doe seem innocent right from the start and the sadness invoked at their needless deaths is a lot more genuine.
Actually, I was. From this, we can only surmise that I was able to suspend my disbelief to a greater degree, and thus also attain greater emotional satisfaction. Fair enough.

The Fat Captain said:
Point 3: Introspective art is less art than it is a circle-jerk. Art for it's own sake is nothing more than pointless self-indulgence.
Up until this point I found your posts to be interesting and to some degree challenging. I see now, however, that your ignorance is ugly, and regret that I ever afforded you anything but disdain. Good day.
 

The Fat Captain

New member
Jul 13, 2010
11
0
0
MatsVS said:
This is basically same as what you stated earlier.
You misunderstood my original post and now you're disregarding my clarification. Classy.

MatsVS said:
Actually, I was. From this, we can only surmise that I was able to suspend my disbelief to a greater degree, and thus also attain greater emotional satisfaction. Fair enough.
That is not what suspension of disbelief is. 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.

MatsVS said:
Up until this point I found your posts to be interesting and to some degree challenging. I see now, however, that your ignorance is ugly, and regret that I ever afforded you anything but disdain. Good day.
You couldn't think of a counter-argument, so you decided to insult my intelligence again. I don't think I'm the ignorant one here.
 

Grey_Focks

New member
Jan 12, 2010
1,969
0
0
not entirely surprised this has become a troll thread...people are idiots, who enjoy internet arguments, I'm afraid.

OT: I actualy agree with you, OP. I thought it was good, but a rent at best. Then again I like Halo, CoD, Battlefield and Counter Strike, which apparently makes my opinions on games invalid.
 

theaceplaya

New member
Jul 20, 2009
219
0
0
tellmeimaninja said:
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.
Cant we put our differences aside? For science?

OT: I get the 'meh' feeling when I play it, but personally, it's an absolute BLAST watching my friends play. That's just me though.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
As beautiful as it was, I found SOTC to be one of the most frustrating games I've ever played. The camera and platforming seemed to annoy the shit out of me as they were both pretty irrational.
 

Chancie

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,050
0
0
It's a shame you didn't enjoy it, but opinions are opinions. :) Not everyone will like it.

Personally, I thought the lack of story didn't hurt it one bit. You (or Wander, I suppose) go through all of that to reach the ending, and the ending itself is absolutely beautiful to me. It was amazing and emotional and I was in complete awe as the credits rolled.

It's definitely a unique game and either it's your cup of tea, or it's not. There doesn't seem to be much in-between with people who play it.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
The Fat Captain said:
You couldn't think of a counter-argument, so you decided to insult my intelligence again. I don't think I'm the ignorant one here.
If there is an actual argument to counter and not just a malicious lashing-out towards a rich and beautiful artistic direction, then I shall gladly retract my statement.

Also, there's a difference between the clarification of a point, and just retyping it in a more verbose fashion.
 

The Fat Captain

New member
Jul 13, 2010
11
0
0
MatsVS said:
If there is an actual argument to counter and not just a malicious lashing-out towards a rich and beautiful artistic direction, then I shall gladly retract my statement.

Also, there's a difference between the clarification of a point, and just retyping it in a more verbose fashion.
You're absolutely right. I never intended to have a civil discussion on the artistic merit of a piece of work at all. I evilly and deliberately said mean things about it because I'm a big, nasty troll!

I'd like to thank you, though, because I also said:

The Fat Captain said:
But if I ever ask for any reasoning behind labelling it as art, no one seems to be able to give me an answer. They just regurgitate these replies without thinking. No one knows why the game is artistic, they just look at it and assume it is.
A point which you've done a fantastic job of proving absolutely correct. Instead of actually explaining why you feel the way you do, you've just whined and griped about how I'm wrong.

You've also created a fallacy, as instead of debating the game, you've taken the fact that I repeated myself and attacked that, instead of my actual points (you do the same thing when you accuse me of being verbose). I repeated myself because you felt I needed things explaining to me by the game, I clarified that I wasn't, and reiterated my statements in conjunction to help you gain a better understanding of my position, which would have allowed you to actually refute my argument because that's how debate works, but you decided to act like a prat instead.

Also I'll be as pretentiously wordy as I damn well feel like, thank you very kindly.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
I wish I came earlier in the discussion, but oh well. I do want to give a "analytical" approach to it, an interpretation taht I've hear before which I thought was brililant. But first, some debate;

The Fat Captain said:
Art consists of more than being pretty. Someone mentioned that the character gets dirtier and paler the further you go, and that this represents his corruption. Why is he becoming corrupted? Well because he's killing innocent gigantic monsters, of course! But again, why? Oh right, he's killing them to save his lover. Who is his lover? Um . . . Why does he think murder will bring her back? Let's see. . . Why the hell does everyone love that bloody horse so much? He doesn't really do anything except transport you from one meaningless fight to another, there is no other interaction with him. Is everyone except me secretly a horse fetishist? There is no reason for any of these things. They just happen.
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.

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.

Same with the scenery. People go on and on about how deep and isolated and meaningful the broken world is. But what does the broken world represent? Why is it broken? It represents itself, and it's broken because it is. That's all. Same with the monsters, they're just monsters, nothing more.
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.

This is because nothing in the game symbolises anything that's outside the scope of the game. Real art reflects reality, it shows us what's wrong, or what's good, or even just what the artist feels, about the world around us and ourselves as people, alternatively, it can takes our reality and show it to us in a different light. SotC symbolises only things that are in SotC, and it's pointless because of it. And don't tell me that art is subjective and that you can say whatever you want is art, because that's stupid and you are wrong but is a entirely different discussion.
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.

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;

(Spoilers obviously)
I personally loved Shadow of the Collosus. It's one of the few games that made me cry and made me genuinely care for the characters involved in it, mainly Wander. It's a story about tragedy, almost like a Greek Tragedy with the hero's Tragic Flaw.

At the start of the game, Wander goes to a forbidden land, which right away shows his commitment. He goes inside an old temple where he meets the spirit Dormin, an old being that probably has been in the land as long as the land has lived. Wander makes a deal with Dormin, saying that he will do whatever it takes to revive the dead girl, supposedly his love depending on your interpretation. Dormin at first warns him of the risks, even saying "Isn't it against human law to revive the dead?" and Wander just says "It doesn't matter." So Dormin agrees to the deal, stating that Wander must slay 16 Collosi that roam the land and the girl will be revived, but there will be a higher price to pay on top of that.

So, Wander, and his horse Argo/Agro, go along to the first Collosus. Here is where Wander's tragic flaw comes into place; his inability to let go. From the first Collosus to the last Collosus, Wander never lets go and in turn the player never lets go either. The game teaches you to hold R1 for dear life, only letting go when you absolutely have to. Let go and you will fall. Let go and you will fail. Let go and you have to start over. Basically, never let go. This fits in with human nature, people just don't want to let go, they want to hold on as long as they can.

As the game goes on, and Wander is still stubborn, he becomes more and more corrupted. After every slaying of the Collosus, dark stringy things come out and merge with Wander. No matter what you do, after every Collosus those thing will come after you, and every time Wander is a little more curropted. By the end of the game Wander transformed from a firm, moderately healthy looking man to a sickly, deranged monster. Many of the Collosi aren't even agressive, even after you attack them. They do everything they can to shake you off, and occasionally try to crush you, but other than that they just continue on their merry way trying to ignore you. And yet you still murder them, all for your "supposed" love.

Finally, at the end of it all, Wander's stubbornness as well as the player's is what ultimately leads to his downfall. Wander can't let go of Mono, he loves her to much (depending on your interpretation) and as a result of that the player wants what's best for him to. But at the end, people from Wander's tribe come in and attempt to kill him, but he has essentially become a Collosus himself (he starts bleeding the same inky blood the Collosi have), and then Dormin posseses him. You'd think that this would be it, right? You are finally the huge creature that you have slain, you are supposed to be this all powerful being that no mortal can slay! And yet, when you take control it's nothing like that. You are in the eyes of all the Collosus that you've slain, everything is blurry, the controls are all mixed and matched, and the tribesman easily outrun you. You try to kill them but no matter what they escape.

Finally, as the (supposed) priest of the group makes a magical portal in the small well in the shrine, Wander turns back to his normal self. And this is the part where the game did it for me. In the last scene of the game, the player is still in control of Wander, but the vortex is sucking him in at the same time. Now, the player can still control Wander. The player can still hold R1 to the little cracks in the floor and on the walls. The player can even walk up to the bottom of the steps up to the altar where Mono rests. But not any further. The player, and Wander, could theoretically stay in that room indefinitely. But eventually you have to give. Eventually, both Wander and the Player have to let go. Nothing you ever do will revive Mono, she will still be dead and you will be sucked into the vortex. You have to let go.

And so finally, the player releases R1, and Wander lets go of his stubbornness and learns to let go. As he's sucked into the vortex, Mono still lies on the altar as she was in the beginning; Dead. Nothing you could have ever done would have changed that, and Wander's reluctance to let go and move on with life caused his ultimate downfall.

A bittersweet ending for sure, but wait there's more! At the end of the credits, Dormin had kept his promise (lawful evil) and Mono is revived, dazed and confused. She finds a baby with horns (like in ICO but I haven't played that yet) in the well of the shrine, supposedly Wander symbolizing his second chance at purity. Again, a bittersweet moment but still.

Anyway, that's one analysis that you can go with. I'm not providing a TL;DR version because if you can't have the patience to read my whole post then don't bother. But I personally loved Shadow of the Collosus regardless what people think of it. I just wanted to share this one interpretation that some people have done already.

Thanks for reading!
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
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.

Also, some people apparently think every detail of every relationship needs to be completely fleshed out for a story to make any kind of sense. That's gotta make for some heavy reading, following characters (as you would have to) from fucking birth to death.

"Okay, he loves her, but why does he love her?" "Okay, they kissed, but why did they kiss?" "Okay, they kissed because they had a lovely time at the fair, but why did they go to the fair?" "Okay, the fair is the primary social gathering for their village and the highlight of the season, but why... is it that?"

"Things that aren't.. can't be!"
"Why?"
"Because then nothing wouldn't exist!"
 

Thick

New member
Feb 10, 2009
191
0
0
MatsVS said:
Also, there's a difference between the clarification of a point, and just retyping it in a more verbose fashion.
Without trying to join in on this dispute you're having, isn't the clarification of a point necessarily saying the same thing in a more verbose fashion? Going into more detail about what you said in order to make it more clear is going to take more words that get around to the same conclusion.

And on a similar point:

The Fat Captain said:
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
 

CyanideDream

New member
Jun 10, 2010
9
0
0
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.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
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.

Also, some people apparently think every detail of every relationship needs to be completely fleshed out for a story to make any kind of sense. That's gotta make for some heavy reading, following characters (as you would have to) from fucking birth to death.

"Okay, he loves her, but why does he love her?" "Okay, they kissed, but why did they kiss?" "Okay, they kissed because they had a lovely time at the fair, but why did they go to the fair?" "Okay, the fair is the primary social gathering for their village and the highlight of the season, but why... is it that?"

"Things that aren't.. can't be!"
"Why?"
"Because then nothing wouldn't exist!"
Yes! Someone else knows the "letting go" interpretation of the game! Personally, I found that very powerful especially considering my trouble with me "letting go" of my mother. It's human nature to want to keep things the way they are, but obviously things can't be that simple.