Shadow of the Colossus

[Team Andromeda]

Good spot with the Talos comparison TA, perhaps that scene wes the inspiration for the game itself. I remember thinking exactly the same thing when I first saw a colossus.

Yeah tell me about it.
Still to this day that part freaks me out inthe film. One of the greatest moments in film history, and this game just takes it to another level

[Concept]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61572

An enlightening interview with Kenji Kaido (Producer) and Fumito Ueda (director). Sounds like there will be light at the end of the tunnel for PAL users on the forum.

Anyone read Gamecentral's take on Colossus today? It's an interesting review, though one on the whole I disagree with. I feel they missed the point of the landscape's emptiness.

[Atticus]

Late to the party as my copy got stuck in customs. Not a lot to add to what's already been said really. It's matched expectations I couldn't help but have. Surpassed them even, in some ways. Only a little way in (dropped two colossi so far) and looking forward to the epic battles ahead.

[parkinho]

Anyone read Gamecentral's take on Colossus today? It's an interesting review, though one on the whole I disagree with. I feel they missed the point of the landscape's emptiness.

Missed the review (lost the TV remote ft: ), what did they say? The barren landscapes (imo) give a real sense of isolation and also intensify the battles.

Killed 3 colossi thus far, been spending a great deal of time exploring and simply experiencing the magnificent world in all its beauty.

[Concept]

Gamecentral gave it 7/10.

They bemoan the lack of characters or enemies to interact with in the environment, and that there aren't any platform sections to help pad things out.

This is apparently 'unforgivable', though it seems to me to echo Edge's old 'why don't the monsters talk?' Doom review comment.

To me the first two criticisms above are harsh aspects to criticise the game on. I can see where they're coming from... if you're looking for a Zelda-esque adventure then you're going to be disappointed. The whole point of exploration in Colossus is based on its aesthetic and your readiness (in my view) to surplant yourself in what it has to offer. That's where the reward for exploration comes from - Gamecentral say that's more or less shallow, yet I'd say it's simply a different method of fulfilling the desire to explore than the usual cliched norm of satisfying the player with collectables/trinkets and generic bad guys X, Y and Z. The whole reason the landscape is so big, empty and devoid of life is like you say to generate a powerful sense of isolation, loneliness and that you're tresspassing on a forgotten land.

They also criticise the lack of variety in the colossi, which I found odd, because I'd say it's the differences between the encounters which make them all memorable. Their main concern seemed to be that after you've found a way on to a colossi, the key to killing them is repeated over each. My counterpoint to that would be it's almost the same in every single other game out there, whether it be Ocarina of Time or Resident Evil 4. Once you've figured out a weak point on a boss, then the key to killing a boss is to focus on repeatedly attacking that weakpoint until they're down. These points can be represented by different situations/aesthetics, but the act of repeating the same formula remains. I'd say the seals of each colossi helps tie them together, and their diversity

->Open Spoiler<-

(flying, underwater, Giants, Underground, bull running, wall-climbing etc. give them a much needed sense of difference (not to mention their appearances/locations etc.)

I'm not criticising the review... it's well written and I can understand their points of view. I just don't happen to agree with it - but then a lot of games that Gamecentral are lukewarm to I usually enjoy a lot.

I remember them giving Killer7 7/10 for example.

[Dogg Thang]

Well personally I would completely disagree with their first few criticisms. Characters to interact with would get too scripted and reveal that it's just a game which isn't a good thing in something so immersive. And I have to say that one of my only criticisms of ICO was that the fights sometimes felt like they were only there to fill a gap or extend gameplay. Yes they reinforced that desire to save Yorda but I just felt that there were far too many for no good reason.

So adding monsters in for the hell of it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

However, I don't feel that the game was without fault. Like the reviewer, I was a little disappointed with the lack of variety in the colossi. There were a bunch towards the end that felt like slight extensions of the previous ones - and considering how impressive the first few were, I was also a little disappointed that they didn't seem to get much more grand and vast. When it came down to it most of them were simply about finding the right spot to get a hold of the creature.

Your counterpoint is valid for boss fights, Concept, but in SotC the boss fights are all there is. In your examples, the boss fights are simply an element of a far larger picture. To say that SotC was just 16 boss fights that you might find in the likes of Zelda or RE would do the game a disservice and yet may not be far from the truth. I don't know how to do spoiler tags so I'll skirt around the issue but I never read anything about SotC save the initial concept of fighting creatures so vast they are like a level in themselves (so I hadn't seen screenshots or movies or whatever). Only one Colossus actually filled that brief in my mind. The rest were boss battles - beautiful, fantastic boss battles but just boss battles all the same.

I would have actually made more of an issue out of the controls which I felt sometimes to be awkward. No more than many other games but the second you have to think about what your hands are doing you are taken out of the game. In a game so reliant on sucking you into the world, that felt like a problem at times in SotC.

But padding the game out? No, I'd prefer quality over quantity any day. Too many games feel needlessly padded out and SotC was fine just the way it was.

[Mr Fujisawa]

just finished the game

->Open Spoiler<-

I was shocked with agro fell, i felt terrible, also, the last boss was very frustrating at times, very, particuaraly as my pad seems to be on the ****ter and my grab and jump buttons would fail, and my index finger was killing me heh.

amazing ending, i almost got teary when agro appeared back, was very moving. im loving all the theories going round, its great that such interpretations are possible, amazing stuff. i really wanna get up to that garden now, but its late

[Concept]

However, I don't feel that the game was without fault. Like the reviewer, I was a little disappointed with the lack of variety in the colossi. There were a bunch towards the end that felt like slight extensions of the previous ones - and considering how impressive the first few were, I was also a little disappointed that they didn't seem to get much more grand and vast. When it came down to it most of them were simply about finding the right spot to get a hold of the creature.

It's the first few (which aren't puzzled based) that Gamecentral seem to be criticising. I'd say the three out of the last four colossi were incredibly vast

->Open Spoiler<-

(the mammoth desert dragon, the valley giant and of course the horned beast)

.

Your counterpoint is valid for boss fights, Concept, but in SotC the boss fights are all there is. In your examples, the boss fights are simply an element of a far larger picture. To say that SotC was just 16 boss fights that you might find in the likes of Zelda or RE would do the game a disservice and yet may not be far from the truth.

I wasn't entirely saying that. My point was that criticising the boss fights for following a specific formula seems to me to be an inherent criticism at the format rather than the games contained within it. Singling out Colossus in that way came over to me as slightly unfair. I'm not sure I agree with the mantra that Colossus is defined by its boss fights. My first run through the game took 25 hours, and 15 hours of that was simply taking in the landscape and exploring.

To put this into context... Colossus' critics strike me as the same kind of critics that strike out as Shenmue for being 'tedious', 'slow' and 'dull'. The best way to appreciate some games is to embrace escapism... enter the experience as a virtual tourist. I suppose that's why I enjoyed Colossus more than whoever reviewed it did, because I treated the game as visiting a foreign land and taking pleasure out of simply wandering about the landscape and soaking it all in, much as I might do in real life when exploring natural surroundings which interest me. A similar form, albeit in a different manner, presented itself to me in Shenmue (and several other games). You can call this appreciation or escapism shallow if you want... but I wouldn't say taking this approach is based on the premise of being a 'graphics whore'. A lot of it is adopting a different mindset to the traditional thinking which goes to a lot of in-game exploration - something which isn't quantifible by the advances in strict gameplay progression (building your character up/collecting things/justifying exploration on rate of progress), but instead on more basic human elements... such as the way in which a place makes you feel, think and want to explore. It's an instinctive urge that I think Colossus encourages very well.

I don't know how to do spoiler tags so I'll skirt around the issue but I never read anything about SotC save the initial concept of fighting creatures so vast they are like a level in themselves (so I hadn't seen screenshots or movies or whatever). Only one Colossus actually filled that brief in my mind. The rest were boss battles - beautiful, fantastic boss battles but just boss battles all the same.

That's all I knew of Colossus before I started it and I agree that

->Open Spoiler<-

the majority of the bosses weren't levels in themselves. I agree with you that the confrontations were more typically boss-like than I'd previously led myself to believe, but that doesn't make them any less memorable. The criticism that Gamecentral used seemed to focus on how those boss battles didn't work, whereas for me, they were some of the most memorable that I've ever encountered. Each to their own etc.

I would have actually made more of an issue out of the controls which I felt sometimes to be awkward. No more than many other games but the second you have to think about what your hands are doing you are taken out of the game. In a game so reliant on sucking you into the world, that felt like a problem at times in SotC.

I didn't mention the camera or control in the review I did of Colossus because they didn't favour negatively on my experience of the game. The main problem for Colossus (and it's something repeated playthroughs have underlined) is that it lacks technical solidity, which potentially indicates that it's going to have a harder time aging compared to ICO. I won't pretend ICO is using the PS2 to its limits like Colossus is, but even with it's lo-fi approach, everything remains constant. The frame-rate, clipping, collision, level of detail, odd texture flickering etc. simply means Colossus fails to possess the same overall solidity of the team's previous work, even though overall its a technically superior package.

If Gamecentral had criticised the game on the levels you suggest (control/camera/technical problems), then the review would have came across as more convincing to me, though I'd still find it baffling of looking at a game like Colossus in such a rudimentary fashion. To their credit a proportion of the review was based on examining the way the world was presented. The trouble is I think they may have missed the point a little.

Perhaps that's putting it wrong - it just obviously didn't affect them in the same way as it has with a lot of others, which is fair enough I guess.

But padding the game out? No, I'd prefer quality over quantity any day. Too many games feel needlessly padded out and SotC was fine just the way it was.

Me too.

[Concept]

Oh yeah...

Dogg Thang - See the blue S icon in the reply screen at the top? Click that to type in a spoiler, or use the html code it presents to do so.

[Dogg Thang]

Ah! Thanks for the tip on the spoiler tags. I've been wondering a while about that!

Yes, in terms of the way the world was presented it very much sounds like they were looking for a much more traditional game, which SotC was never going to be. Perhaps they saw the team's desire to adapt in order to have a commercial success as a sign that they would be regurgitating the usual game ideas we see all the time. If that had happened, I don't think the game would have been anywhere near as special.

Actually, so many of the team's interviews seemed to focus on that and the commercial failure of ICO that I couldn't help wonder - is there no room for art games? In film, we have huge blockbusters each year. Only a certain percentage of films attempt to become one of those blockbusters. However, in games, it seems to me that most (not all) companies are going for that blockbuster position.

It's like the Shenmue discussion - Shenmue was never going to be a Matrix-style blockbuster. Its film equivalent would have been shown in a limited run in small cinemas. Of course Shenmue is different due to the amount of money spent on it. But SotC (I have no idea of the budget) shouldn't have to be a blockbuster to be a commercial success.

I don't know where this is going except to say that maybe the desire to be a blockbuster can be counter-productive. SotC got it right in my opinion, and yet is being criticised for not having the elements of a different game. It's like criticising Garden State for not having enough explosions.

[Concept]

Ah! Thanks for the tip on the spoiler tags. I've been wondering a while about that!

Yes, in terms of the way the world was presented it very much sounds like they were looking for a much more traditional game, which SotC was never going to be. Perhaps they saw the team's desire to adapt in order to have a commercial success as a sign that they would be regurgitating the usual game ideas we see all the time. If that had happened, I don't think the game would have been anywhere near as special.

Actually, so many of the team's interviews seemed to focus on that and the commercial failure of ICO that I couldn't help wonder - is there no room for art games? In film, we have huge blockbusters each year. Only a certain percentage of films attempt to become one of those blockbusters. However, in games, it seems to me that most (not all) companies are going for that blockbuster position.

It's like the Shenmue discussion - Shenmue was never going to be a Matrix-style blockbuster. Its film equivalent would have been shown in a limited run in small cinemas. Of course Shenmue is different due to the amount of money spent on it. But SotC (I have no idea of the budget) shouldn't have to be a blockbuster to be a commercial success.

I don't know where this is going except to say that maybe the desire to be a blockbuster can be counter-productive. SotC got it right in my opinion, and yet is being criticised for not having the elements of a different game. It's like criticising Garden State for not having enough explosions.

I think the reason there aren't more non-mainstream 'arthouse' (not too fond of the term) games is because that high quality software requires fairly significant financial backing. Whereas great films can (sometimes) be made on shoe-strong budgets or through outside funding (such as private/Government investment), games are often at the mercy of publisher dictatorships. That isn't to say films aren't heavily dependent on production or distribution costs... but that there's more of a chance for non-mainstream works to flourish because the medium isn't completely rooted into the technical constraints that videogaming is. To achieve high-end results you need the resources (be it the right people, planning or technology) to achive something of good quality. In other mediums achieving this perhaps isn't entirely lop-sided on the requirement of finance to get off the ground... decent actors, production/technical staff may want to work on something or know the people to help at least start on something. If a developer wants to dabble, they often don't have that type of cushion to fall back on.

I suppose this is where digital distribution comes in to spur things on. Maybe if developers can control their own sales and generate income directly to them by cutting out the middleman, they may generate the finances to experiement and try the things they properly want more. Fumito Ueda, Kenji Kaido and the rest of the ICO team are in a very privledged position which I'm sure they're aware of. Obviously, there are some people at SCE in Japan that believe in what they're doing even if they don't achieve the sales to help recoup the development costs of their work... and that's an encouraging sign - the fact that someone, somewhere in Sony values critical prestige and the art of making a great game over the sales drive which dictate the development of many products.

Perhaps this is painting too much of an idealistic picture. As Fumito Ueda has said himself (and you pointed to in the interviews) the aim of Colossus is to make money - he's rejected calls of ICO and Colossus being strictly art as they exist in the commercial domain. Having said this, I do think there are people at Sony who can see the talent that exists in the ICO team and what they can achieve if they're given the time and resources to follow their vision.

Coming back to the Gamecentral review... I'm not meaning to be harsh. 7/10 isn't a bad score, and the review was upbeat in a number of places. I guess I just didn't agree on some points and when I was asked for a summary I emphasised my points too much.

I do think there are rooms for more soulful, personal games such as the likes of what we've seen in Shadow of the Colossus. However, the financing/distribution model has to change, audience diveristy has to expand, and publisher conservatism needs to alter. The chances of all three happening are clearly slim.

[Concept]

The Nico DVD that accompanied my Japanese version of Colossus arrived today.

Highlight to read spoilers.

As you all know

->Open Spoiler<-

the cover has been drawn in a similar fashion to the PAL and Japanese boxart for ICO. Inside there's a small inlay that's designed closely to ICO's PAL manual, in that it's etched/worn out.

With regards to the disc...

The menu is stylistically similar to the inlay in that it features an etched/worn out backdrop which fits in with the ICO/Nico/Colossus aesthetic.

The first part presents all the trailers that have been produced for the game, across three main territories (Japan, America, Europe). Most of you will have probably already seen many of these but since I stayed away from media on Colossus until its release, these were new to me. It was intriguing to watch the changes slowly progress from the early trailers to the later ones. For example... Mono having short hair (I presume they either changed this because she resembled Yorda too closely, or they intended to add extra hair at a later stage - I remember Ueda mentioning in an interview a while ago that they had trouble implementing long hair for Yorda). Anyway, the differences between the 2004 trailers and the later 2005 trailers are quite marked.

The second part of the disc contains the main attraction in the form of the internal pilot video used to present the conceptual vision for project Nico (which as we all know became Shadow of the Colossus). Put simply, it looks absolutely amazing, and uses many of the same sunlight effects that were implemented to convey the sky to the player in ICO, and to be honest, the sky in Nico's video is wonderfully vast. In some ways it appears (aesthetically) better than Colossus (the clouds, sunlight, open-plan environment), in others (such as animation/colossi skin/character detail) it looks worse. As for what happens... well it involves a bunch of horned riders (who look like the kin of ICO) that ambush a monster similar to the second colossi in Shadow, and bring it down in a desert that stretches on for miles. In many ways, it possesses a slightly different art style to the final game, and in certain aspects probably couldn't be properly realised on the PS2 - though it has upped my anticipation further for what the team are going to do with the extra power afforded to them with the PS3.

As well as this pilot video, there is another video featuring a collage of internal screenings which reveals the development of Colossus beyond its conceptual stages and into something that would resemble the final product. Numerous HUD/colossi changes are shown, as well as environments that were either altered or cut. Again, it's fascinating to see the constant level of refinement that the game went under all the way until release. The production looks like an organic process from beginning to end - planning appears to have been continually re-integrated while development progressed.

The third part of the disc contains high resolution artwork of the final release, focusing mostly on the environment and the colossi. As you would expect, a lot of the artwork shows off the game from a number of acute angles. Along with this are a separate set of pictures which present concept drawings and storyboards outlining character design/monster design/level design and specific cutscenes.

The last part of the disc is dedicated to ICO and features two Japanese TV trailers and one final special video.

Now... this is awesome. I had no idea it was going to be included, and in many ways, it's as interesting as the Nico pilot video.

ICO's initial CG video movies are shown, along with extensive development of the PSone game revealing how the environments looked on 32-bit technology and how they developed over from the PSone to the PS2. This is also intercut by further CG video movies designed to get over certain conceptual points throughout development. Interestingly, it shows ICO as Yorda, before the roles were reversed and numerious other states, such as when the lighting and extra effects were added. (Also, and this is me being geeky again, there's writing up the main character's arm in this video that looks similar to the writing placed on the third colossi's armour in Shadow).

Returning to the content... in particular you can see how the initial CG movies back in the late ninties found their way into ICO's final version. Remember how interesting it was seeing Shenmue's development on the Saturn? Well this is similar and goes on for longer in more detail, contrasting the differences between the PSone and PS2 preview versions that were initially in place. Again, like Colossus, you can see the ICO team are constantly refining their developments all the way through the process of making the game.

All in all... it's definitely a disc worth checking out if you're interested in Shadow of the Colossus and ICO. There aren't any making of documentaries (which I almost prefer because the lure of ICO and Colossus' world is that they're mysterious), so I can understand why many may not want to pay through the nose to get hold of it right now.

In terms of overall content the disc similar to the 'Lost Memories: Art and Music of Silent Hill' disc, but with slightly more video footage on. All in all, it's good stuff.

[wod]

does the japanese version have any english or is it full japanese ?

[Concept]

It's all in Japanese as far as I know, though there's not much in the way of text in the game apart from the end (I'm presently using a US PS2 and primarily picked up the Japanese release to obtain the Nico DVD, though I do intend to pick up a Japanese PS2 again before the release of Okami).

[wod]

thanks i get a usa copy as i not bothered about the dvd