By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What makes Shadow of the Colossus so special?

Tagged games:

 

How much do you like SotC?

5/5 Best game ever 20 43.48%
 
4/5 Top 100 games of all time 19 41.30%
 
3/5 Really good game 1 2.17%
 
2/5 Quite average 4 8.70%
 
1/5 A bit annoying 1 2.17%
 
0/5 Total failure 1 2.17%
 
Total:46
RolStoppable said:
hunter_alien said:

So, considering that the peer pressure existed several years later, hence millions liked it, it was one of the most important releases of the decade? I mean you are kind-off saying it was one of the most important games of the decade yet you try to make it sound overrated in pretty much every discussion that this game appears in.

The game didn't sell millions. The peer pressure was coming from other gaming journalists, so sales of the game were pretty much irrelevant to their decision.

Shadow of the Colossus had neither the sales nor the influence on other games to label it as one of the most important games of the decade, that's why its standing in the gaming community (including gaming journalists) is greatly overrated.

One could argue that it pretty much proved that current indei interaction-laking adventure titles could thrive in the industry. Also, there are plenty of games that sold comparativly shit by todays standards and yet they had a huge influence on the industry. First release of games like Doom, Populous, Tomb Raider and even Half-Life sold as much as a mid-tire IP would today, or for most AAA games those sales would be a dissaster.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to overblow the importance of SotC. I liked the game but IMO ICO and TLG are superios entries by a long shot. But I do consider it to be fairly influential especially that plenty of people were talking about it a decade later and this includes both fans of the games and game developers.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network

Everything. And Dat OST...



mZuzek said:

@bold that seems to be exactly what you're doing with your post.

I'm sure it's not exactly what you meant to say (...or maybe it was), but you did imply Nintendo games are all just about "turning your brains off and pressing the right buttons at the right moments", and it sounded quite ignorant. Apparently the brain can only be used to digest a narrative? I guess maybe solving a puzzle or understanding how to defeat a tough enemy is just "motor skills". I wonder if you've at least played Breath of the Wild, or any Nintendo game that isn't Mario for that purpose.

Edit: in fact saying Nintendo games are "shallow" is usually a reflection of just how little you allowed yourself to think otherwise, because most Nintendo games actually aren't shallow at all. They usually feature few commands, but that doesn't mean they're shallow, it just means they're more basic - but they usually go very deep with those commands. Do you think games like Super Mario Odyssey or Super Metroid are shallow? Watch a speedrun and then we can discuss. Even Nintendo's "simple" take on the fighting game, Smash Bros., is actually a much deeper and more complex fighting game than almost any other just because of the wide range of possibilities that can be created through few simple interactions.

Brain was probably the wrong word choice.  Imagination would be better.  I also never meant to imply that all Nintendo games are shallow, simply that many of them are.  I don't think that's disputable, it's something Nintendo does on purpose.  I'm not talking about mechanics, either, I think you can see that in the context.  I mention story and characters specifically.  None of what I said is about mechanics.  I believe that part was fairly clear.



 

hunter_alien said:

One could argue that it pretty much proved that current indei interaction-laking adventure titles could thrive in the industry. Also, there are plenty of games that sold comparativly shit by todays standards and yet they had a huge influence on the industry. First release of games like Doom, Populous, Tomb Raider and even Half-Life sold as much as a mid-tire IP would today, or for most AAA games those sales would be a dissaster.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to overblow the importance of SotC. I liked the game but IMO ICO and TLG are superios entries by a long shot. But I do consider it to be fairly influential especially that plenty of people were talking about it a decade later and this includes both fans of the games and game developers.

Your argument isn't well thought out, because you deliberately ignore the context of time to make your point.

Last edited by RolStoppable - on 02 February 2018

Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

pokoko said:
mZuzek said:

@bold that seems to be exactly what you're doing with your post.

I'm sure it's not exactly what you meant to say (...or maybe it was), but you did imply Nintendo games are all just about "turning your brains off and pressing the right buttons at the right moments", and it sounded quite ignorant. Apparently the brain can only be used to digest a narrative? I guess maybe solving a puzzle or understanding how to defeat a tough enemy is just "motor skills". I wonder if you've at least played Breath of the Wild, or any Nintendo game that isn't Mario for that purpose.

Edit: in fact saying Nintendo games are "shallow" is usually a reflection of just how little you allowed yourself to think otherwise, because most Nintendo games actually aren't shallow at all. They usually feature few commands, but that doesn't mean they're shallow, it just means they're more basic - but they usually go very deep with those commands. Do you think games like Super Mario Odyssey or Super Metroid are shallow? Watch a speedrun and then we can discuss. Even Nintendo's "simple" take on the fighting game, Smash Bros., is actually a much deeper and more complex fighting game than almost any other just because of the wide range of possibilities that can be created through few simple interactions.

Brain was probably the wrong word choice.  Imagination would be better.  I also never meant to imply that all Nintendo games are shallow, simply that many of them are.  I don't think that's disputable, it's something Nintendo does on purpose.  I'm not talking about mechanics, either, I think you can see that in the context.  I mention story and characters specifically.  None of what I said is about mechanics.  I believe that part was fairly clear.

You did use shallow in reference to Marth's comment about the game, not the story, so whatever misunderstanding was definitely caused by a poor choice of words. Imagination is still a bad choice though... I don't need a game to be story-driven for it to stir my imagination, in fact quite often it's gameplay focused titles that do (of course this can be different for each person).

Again, Nintendo games aren't shallow. They're basic, they give you few options, and that's a different thing altogether. Being shallow means there's little you can do with what you're given, Nintendo games usually allow you to do plenty of things with the few tools they give you - here's an example of just how seriously they take that mentality. Of course there are shallow Nintendo games, such as most Yoshi games or some of the 2D Zeldas or whatever, but it isn't a rule for most of them. In fact even when talking story, they do have a fair share of great narratives in the likes of Metroid Fusion or Mother 3, among others.

Just because the gameplay comes first doesn't mean the story can't be great, in fact I think Shadow of the Colossus is a perfect example of a game that has brilliant storytelling mostly through its gameplay.



Around the Network
mZuzek said:
pokoko said:

Brain was probably the wrong word choice.  Imagination would be better.  I also never meant to imply that all Nintendo games are shallow, simply that many of them are.  I don't think that's disputable, it's something Nintendo does on purpose.  I'm not talking about mechanics, either, I think you can see that in the context.  I mention story and characters specifically.  None of what I said is about mechanics.  I believe that part was fairly clear.

You did use shallow in reference to Marth's comment about the game, not the story, so whatever misunderstanding was definitely caused by a poor choice of words. Imagination is still a bad choice though... I don't need a game to be story-driven for it to stir my imagination, in fact quite often it's gameplay focused titles that do (of course this can be different for each person).

Again, Nintendo games aren't shallow. They're basic, they give you few options, and that's a different thing altogether. Being shallow means there's little you can do with what you're given, Nintendo games usually allow you to do plenty of things with the few tools they give you - here's an example of just how seriously they take that mentality. Of course there are shallow Nintendo games, such as most Yoshi games or some of the 2D Zeldas or whatever, but it isn't a rule for most of them. In fact even when talking story, they do have a fair share of great narratives in the likes of Metroid Fusion or Mother 3, among others.

Just because the gameplay comes first doesn't mean the story can't be great, in fact I think Shadow of the Colossus is a perfect example of a game that has brilliant storytelling mostly through its gameplay.

Now you're being pedantic.  You know exactly what I'm talking about but you want to argue over a supposed slight.  I've already explained what I mean.  Me saying many Nintendo games have shallow characters and story is no more belittling than someone saying ICO has shallow fight mechanics.



pokoko said:
mZuzek said:

Again, Nintendo games aren't shallow. They're basic, they give you few options, and that's a different thing altogether. Being shallow means there's little you can do with what you're given, Nintendo games usually allow you to do plenty of things with the few tools they give you - here's an example of just how seriously they take that mentality. Of course there are shallow Nintendo games, such as most Yoshi games or some of the 2D Zeldas or whatever, but it isn't a rule for most of them. In fact even when talking story, they do have a fair share of great narratives in the likes of Metroid Fusion or Mother 3, among others.

Now you're being pedantic.  You know exactly what I'm talking about but you want to argue over a supposed slight.  I've already explained what I mean.  Me saying many Nintendo games have shallow characters and story is no more belittling than someone saying ICO has shallow fight mechanics.

...and Shadow of the Colossus has shallow controls just in general. I can't really help it, the moment you say "Nintendo games are shallow" rather than "they have shallow characters and story", you're triggering my inner fanboy.



I think the sense of scale, you get from the collosi is unrivaled. The atmosphere is amazing and the story is low key, but lovely in its many moral grey areas.



RolStoppable said:

 

hunter_alien said:

One could argue that it pretty much proved that current indei interaction-laking adventure titles could thrive in the industry. Also, there are plenty of games that sold comparativly shit by todays standards and yet they had a huge influence on the industry. First release of games like Doom, Populous, Tomb Raider and even Half-Life sold as much as a mid-tire IP would today, or for most AAA games those sales would be a dissaster.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to overblow the importance of SotC. I liked the game but IMO ICO and TLG are superios entries by a long shot. But I do consider it to be fairly influential especially that plenty of people were talking about it a decade later and this includes both fans of the games and game developers.

Your argument isn't well thought out, because you deliberately ignore the context of time to make your point.

Really? I mean before those entrie we did have games that sold tens of millions of copies, but OK, I guess. No reason to discuss this any further.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

I gave the game back in it's day an 8/10 while Resident Evil IV an 9.5 and Okami 9.5.

Got a lot of hate for it but it did not amaze me that much.

The music is the best part and I scored it a 10/10 but story a 7/10 and gameplay 8/10.

It is a game I maybe spend a little more than 10 hours to complete it and going from A to B wasn't really fun for me.

The fights are amazing to experience but they were fast finished (if only the fights time are counted you probably don't much go much higher than 5 hours).

I don't think I was harsh, if their was more of a story, dungeons with common enemies, villages it easily could have been a 9-9.5/10