Shadow of the Colossus = 7.8...

BCampbell

BCampbell

Staff Member
Registered
Jun 23, 2005
1,939
0
0
In a Volkswagen somewhere in upstate New York
home.nycap.rr.com
Okay, so if you haven't seen it yet, MyGamer's Shadow of the Colossus review is up. In a reversal of almost eveyr other gaming journalism source, it got an above average review, as opposed to uber-high scores. While most places gave it a 9 or higher (Gamerankings has it at an overall 92% average, which equals 9.2 on our rating scale), MyGamer's score is just 7.8. Good, bot not excellent. In fact, only one other site listed on Gamerankings so far gave it a lower score.

Do you think it deserved it? Or is Shadow of the Colossus easily Game of the Year 2005? Should it really have IGN's 9.7, GamingTarget's 9.6, or PSM's 9.5? Let's hear it!
 
Shadow of the Colossus is a pretty damn good game. I think looking at it overall, it is in the running for the game of the year. I agree with some points you made in your review (the lack of life in the world while searching for the different colossus) but I think that is more of a small part of it rather than a hinge to signify an average game.

The game play might not have been revolutionary, but by far the artistry and beauty of the game were. The story was solid and developed well (although I also agree that the character development was alittle weak). The gameplan- while simple in essence- tried to do something different. Each battle was meaningful and a puzzle to unlock. That's not the norm, and I think it worked well for this game and its artistic feel. Overall, I think this game should be in the running for game of the year.
 
Gameplay is a 9. Sound is a 10 for me. Curve is a 9. Visuals gets an 8 because I thought some parts looked muddy and bland. I'm not sure what I would've scored replay, but it would definitely be low. Once I finally beat the game I had no interest in playing it again, except for the last boss because I wanted to see the ending again. And that time attack is a joke.
 
Roger Ebert won the Pulitzer prize for his reviews, so there are instances of reviewing reviews. :p

Think of the possibilities of Nested Critical Analysis, where there is a review of the insights into someone writing about the insights of a person who interprets some given art!

Oh, and SotC deserves all the artistic praise it has garnered. It's also a fun game to play. The replay value does suffer a little, but the game is too important to bunch together with games of 7.something caliber, possibly even those in the 8 range. I do feel like they could have done more with the game, more interactivity. I feel Ueda will do something EVEN MORE special on the PS3.
 
Good comments, I like what people are saying.

First, Steve didn't actually review my review, he just rated it. I'd love to see a review of my review, though.

Secondly, I abosolutely agree that SotC is visually stunning and conceptually groundbreaking, but I just don't think those two things are enough to garner a very high score. I don't want to play concepts. I want to play fun, interesting games. SotC was fun and interesting... for all of a half hour, until I nearly fell asleep riding my horse through a barren wasteland.

It's about execution, and Colossus was not executed well. What was there was great, but it's like having to read halfway through a bad book before you get to the good parts. What was worse was that the boring parts of Colossus served no real purpose except to show off the landscape, which was there for no real purpose -- a classic example of artistry gone amok.

I hope we see more games as adventurous as Colossus in the future (most likely, we'll just see games ripping off the formula). I think going in a different direction can be great, if it's done right. Colossus was close, but not quite there. It's certainly not the game of the year, but it is is one of the more memorable games I've played in the last... year? two years? five years? Maybe even further back.
 
In my ideal mind, the landscape I think is an evocation of meditative space, where you're allowed the time and absence of distraction to think about what has happened in the game and what might happen (like what is your mission, why are you doing this, etc). Then that thinking soon evolves to other things in your life. The absence of a musical theme helps your mind to drift. Natural sounds are the only thing heard, which is familiar in real life. I know that it doesn't work when you're in the mindframe of wanting to just fight or advance the plot because there were a few times when I wanted to teleport to the next Colossus battle and keep going. Also, the lack of interactivity with the world, the lack of events, doesn't help the cause of just inhabiting that world for most. That's really what this game needed: to reward the player with something for exploring, be it items or more preferably sights that reinforced and elaborated the cosmology of the game. The idea that if you find something awesome somewhere, there might be something even more awesome somewhere else is what I would have liked to have seen (and it actually be true).
 
I understand what you're saying Roach. One review I read elsewhere said something to the effect that exploring is great because you can wander around and enjoy the scenery, finding spots where there are nice views. That may be an interesting, unconventional reward but that's not a game, and I didn't find it to even be particularly true.
 
But it's one of the best showings we have in video games so far. We're not quite there yet. Another thing about the absence of other things to do is that it focuses so much of your energy on ancitipating the next Colossi. The battle is where everything is expressed, and I thought it never failed in this. I found myself more invested in the dynamics of the fight.

But I concur. There needed to be more emphasis on exploration with such a grand world they built. They didn't need to put too much emphasis and add a bazillion side quests, just some.
 
i found the game alittle point less and i would probly give it a 4/10 myself. the whole thing to this game is stratagy...even though it basicly tells you what to do sometime....i couldnt get very far into the game i found it way to borring
 
I didn't actually play this game myself but I spent a lot of time watching a friend play. The game was alright. I like how each colossus is so very different. Other than that there does not seem to be much to the game. I mean it is sooooo minimalist. Without playing it I cannot really give a true review but it seems like I could take it or leave it. There was nothing that really grabbed me and persuaded me to give it a try myself. It was fun to watch my friend really get into though. After a while I felt really inclined to pick up my gameboy micro for entertainment. As a final comment... Definately different approach. Could be fun.
 
It seems any time someone makes a really different game, it suffers in length. That was the only problem with this game. You meet a colossus, you figure out how to kill it, and you do it. It's really exciting and the music gets you into it, but it's over before you know it.

Some of the battles were way too easy. As a result, I stopped starring in awe of the beasts.

If there was just more to do, I would think this was a perfect game. But I still think it's an awesome experience and hope more people try it because I think we need more games like this out there.
 
What I want to know is, do you guys think Shadow of Colossus is a work of art? This game for almost a year has been the video game industry flagship title to convince the general public and politicans that video games are more than just, well games. Do you guys think Shadow of Colossus succeded in proving that?
 
Definately not. It is very ambitious, however, and is a breath of air amongst all the cookie-cutter titles we're used to. To be honest, I don't think anyone needs to be convinced that games are anything more than games. They are primarily forms of entertainment, just like movies, music, books, etc. And, just as there are artistic aspects to those other forms of entertainment, there are artistic aspects to games. But we don't need a game that is a "work of art" to show this. That would actually be antithetical to the purpose; if we want games to be accepted, we have to show the general culture that games are first and foremost an acceptable form of entertainment just like music or movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom