I don't disagree, but I also don't agree. These are two great series that really have no right being compared to one another, unless your Sony or Nintendo fanboys with nothing better to do then bicker at each other (and we all know you could actually just be playing which ever series you prefer).

Awwwwwwwww here it goes!

In the first place, I don't care if you don't want to talk to me and don't want to argue with me, you come into a topic where you know I'm participating, even on the periphery, and then take on the other side, chances are pretty good I'm goign to jump on you, especially if you take a stance which is patently ridiculous.

In the second place, your understanding of "apparently went over your head" has little to do with the actual meaning of the words or the intent behind them. You have admitted in this topic that you don't see the thematic progression in Shadow of the Colossus which proponents of the game see, ergo it appears that it went over your head! That does not mean you are dense, it just means you didn't see it. There isn't any shame in not seeing something that other people see! These...

These two statements aren't related! Not even tangentially! Never, ever, ever, ever get so hyperbolic as to claim to understand all arguments for a subject, because they are legion and they are terrifying. This is true of any subject, and especially true of a subject beset upon by nerds seeking out meaning. This is just wrong. To claim that a narrative is non-existent would be to claim that there is no story progression, no theme, and.... well, no anything at all, really.

I mean, I understand if you didn't "get" Shadow of the Colossus. That's fine. But th game was about many things, including the idea that we as players will do literally anything so long as it is our assigned objective, the idea that love can be a wholly negative driving force capable of horrible destruction, and about the trumphant supremacy of the human spirit. Shadow of the Colossus was quiet, but it was not empty. It was more full of ideas than any other game I've ever played, save only the works of Shigesato Itoi.

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to assign absolute values to a subjective quality, because here you are taking an objective quality (this game has a narrative) and claimign the opposite. You are arguing with reality. This means absolutely nothing when it comes to an acknowledgment of what the game was about. God only knows how many times I've watched Jurassic Park, and I could not begin to tell you all of what that movie is about. I would not even want to try. "Apparently went over your head" only denotes that there is the appearance that the point of your game went over your head. There is every appearance of this, especially given your own admittance that you didn't see the "becoming more evil" thing. I don't really know what this is about - are you suggesting that I am too upset because I chose to reply to you and refute the utterly ridiculous claim that Shadow of the Colossus has no narrative? Oh wow, you still missed the point on that one.

No, facts should be based on facts and opinions can be based on any number of things, I said that you can't hold one standard for yourself and another standard for other people - but we shouldn't get into this again because peopl being allowed to be happy with the PS3 was a point of contention. Well of course they're just qualifiers, but there's a reason that they are positive qualifiers. I mean come on!

And actually, yeah, "valid" is a necessary qualifier. An opinion which is not valid is an invalid opinion, by definition, which means that said opinion doesn't have the basis to be taken seriously. Clearly, and I have every rigt to tell you that you're wrong. And in this case, you are wrong. Objectively wrong. Completely totally 100% out-the-window wrong. I'd have to check but I think it's probably too late for this one! Okay it's really too late for this one. This is blatantly paranoid and very silly and I hope you get over this assumption. I don't care if you get banned. I'm here to argue the point that Shadow of the Colossus's success is not based on its appearance and its cult status, and that Shadow of the Colossus does have a very real narrative framework. These are not things that can be argued against with any semblance of legitimacy. I'm chill, but that doesn't mean I won't argue with you. And no, I'm not goign to just leave you be when you say things that are wrong. The visual style has a lot to do with its atmosphere and the communication of one aspect of the descent into evil (Wander's body becoming visibly corrupted as the game progresses), but the rest of it is inherent in the actions of the player, and the characters, and a realization of what exaclty it is that you, the player, are doing in this strange world. If it had been a DS game, I imagine they would have gone in an entirely different direction because Shadow of the Colossus couldn't be done on the DS. Hell, it could barely be done on the PS2. Thinking of Shadow of the Colossus as an action game is missing the point so spectacularly that I think you would need to aim at the moon to do more than that. It's an adventure game in terms of mechanics, but it defies even that genre classification if you want to get into it. Yes, I understand that you don't "get" the game. That's fine. Lots of people choose not to read games artistically, in the same way that people choose not to read books or movies or music artistically. It's why a lot of people don't appreciate Cormack McCarthy but millions of people read Anne Rice and Stephen King and J. K. Rowling - there's nothing wrong with reading books that dont have to be read in an artsy way, and there's nothing wrong with refusing to read other books in an artsy way.

But that doesn't mean there isn't anything there. That just means you aren't willing to look.

Ok majority of the people agree, ICO wins.

rafichamp said: Ok majority of the people agree, ICO wins.

That is not even close to what happened here.

Khuutra said: rafichamp said: Ok majority of the people agree, ICO wins. That is not even close to what happened here.

lol....true true.  Khuutra is absolutely right Rafi, we may be arguing for the case of Ico and SotC being spectacular games, but even we aren't agreeing with the OP.

Quick question, is Ico the game that people always complain about the controls of riding the horse?

Ico's the game where you constantly hold a girl's hand and lead her through stuff. You are thinking of Shadow of the Colossus. But they are both Team Ico games.

Torillian said: Khuutra said: rafichamp said: Ok majority of the people agree, ICO wins. That is not even close to what happened here. lol....true true.  Khuutra is absolutely right Rafi, we may be arguing for the case of Ico and SotC being spectacular games, but even we aren't agreeing with the OP.

hahahah Torillian you make me laugh, whats wrong with my statement? Im here to inform

I have yet to see anybody other than MM2 actually argue that any Zelda game, or Team Ico game, or anything else, is better than Link's Awakening. People are just saying this "franchise as a whole" crap. A few people have snuck in a little "Ocarina is the best" BS, but even they can't explain why it's better than Link's Awakening. Because nothing is. Nothing.

It's a Zelda game without Zelda, Hyrule, Ganon, or the Triforce, but with Shy Guys, Will Wright, and a jump button! The game is unstoppable. Even Aonuma says it was the quintessential isometric Zelda, meaning it's better than A Link to the Past. I find it hard to believe that anybody who thinks Link to the Past is the best Zelda has played Link's Awakening. I can at least understand the Ocarina fans, because they have some boner for the 3rd dimension at the expense of better gameplay and better story (like FF7 fans). But Link to the Past fans... you need to dust off your Game Boy and taste perfection.

The Ghost of RubangB said: I have yet to see anybody other than MM2 actually argue that any Zelda game, or Team Ico game, or anything else, is better than Link's Awakening. People are just saying this "franchise as a whole" crap. A few people have snuck in a little "Ocarina is the best" BS, but even they can't explain why it's better than Link's Awakening. Because nothing is. Nothing. It's a Zelda game without Zelda, Hyrule, Ganon, or the Triforce, but with Shy Guys, Will Wright, and a jump button! The game is unstoppable. Even Aonuma says it was the quintessential isometric Zelda, meaning it's better than A Link to the Past. I find it hard to believe that anybody who thinks Link to the Past is the best Zelda has played Link's Awakening. I can at least understand the Ocarina fans, because they have some boner for the 3rd dimension at the expense of better gameplay and better story (like FF7 fans). But Link to the Past fans... you need to dust off your Game Boy and taste perfection.

i have to disagree with you. i have played link's awakening and IMO it wasnt as good as either LttP or OoT. i can understand why you like link's awakening so much because it was an excelent input in the franchise. but simply saying that every zelda game ever made is below is just plain wrong.

i like OoT better because, i think, it had a better plot, dungeons, and gameplay. i didnt care that much for the jump button, and obviously neither did nintedno. i also like LttP more because it was just far better IMO. i thought there was more to that game than link's awakening. also shy guys and will wright should not have been in link's awakening.

i know your gonna disagree with me but i thought i might let you know that there are reasons why other zelda games are better.