Posted September 30, 2009
Shadow of the Colossus manages to be a very impressive looking title on the PS2, and is extremely cinematic in its visual quality. It's a good example of how a game can benefit from running poorly. The animation is incredible - when I go flying off of one of the colossi the way my character bounces on the ground is thrilling. I love that sort of detail.
You say "fight a huge screen-enveloping boss" like it's nothing, but clearly it's one of the most important parts of the game. There are tons of "screen-enveloping" things in video games, but I think it's a given they don't all feel big. SotC accomplishes something by making you feel small, and there are a lot of things going on to make you feel that way. If you're going to brush it off like it's nothing, that's up to you, but it's definitely inarguable that something is being accomplished in a very effective manner.
Riding across the barren landscape on your horse is another big part of the game, and while this point is far more arguable I felt much more connected to the horse in this game than in any other with any other character. Sometimes just letting the horse trod along slowly for a while was a very rewarding experience, bringing with it a feeling of independence that I certainly don't feel that often. Having a large bird fly along side myself for just a moment as I charged toward the next massive boss was a nice added touch.
There's no way anyone is going to be able to make you appreciate this game if you are already so opposed to it, but I think you are throwing around your silly labels (pretentious, hipsters) without regard for what matters - the game. Are the games we are talking about art? Most definitely. But, neither one of them needs that label to be a good game, and the label of art is just a bonus on what I would call a couple of very pleasant gaming experiences. If either of the games seemed pretentious to you, I think it's safe to say you are playing them with a poor mindset.
I think that the "masses" are the very reason you are left with an unfortunate inability to play these games and enjoy them, based on what I've read, but there's no way I can back that one up.
You say "fight a huge screen-enveloping boss" like it's nothing, but clearly it's one of the most important parts of the game. There are tons of "screen-enveloping" things in video games, but I think it's a given they don't all feel big. SotC accomplishes something by making you feel small, and there are a lot of things going on to make you feel that way. If you're going to brush it off like it's nothing, that's up to you, but it's definitely inarguable that something is being accomplished in a very effective manner.
Riding across the barren landscape on your horse is another big part of the game, and while this point is far more arguable I felt much more connected to the horse in this game than in any other with any other character. Sometimes just letting the horse trod along slowly for a while was a very rewarding experience, bringing with it a feeling of independence that I certainly don't feel that often. Having a large bird fly along side myself for just a moment as I charged toward the next massive boss was a nice added touch.
There's no way anyone is going to be able to make you appreciate this game if you are already so opposed to it, but I think you are throwing around your silly labels (pretentious, hipsters) without regard for what matters - the game. Are the games we are talking about art? Most definitely. But, neither one of them needs that label to be a good game, and the label of art is just a bonus on what I would call a couple of very pleasant gaming experiences. If either of the games seemed pretentious to you, I think it's safe to say you are playing them with a poor mindset.
I think that the "masses" are the very reason you are left with an unfortunate inability to play these games and enjoy them, based on what I've read, but there's no way I can back that one up.
