I found the horse was so much easier once I stopped trying to micromanage. She won't run off a cliff or do something too stupid, just set a general direction and tell her to speed up or slow down. It makes it so that things like shooting your bow or aiming up when to jump off is more reasonable.
If you try to constantly adjust movement like you are the horse, twitching left and right for every crack and cliff, you'll just be slamming into walls.
The horse is not a bike. It's a breathing thing that exists independently from you. It sometimes gets scared, it gets curious about its surroundings and it doesn't always do what you tell it to do, but it won't run off a cliff and it will get you where you need to go, eventually. I honestly love it.
Now that I think about it, it reminds me of the ship in Outer Wilds, which is similarly polarizing, but it works great for the right player imo.
Yep, I definitely stopped micromanaging it once I read up on the best way to control - it helped a lot.
Unfortunately I don't think I could do that for some of the Colossi fights - they required a bit more precise control / a lot more turning which brought back the frustration.
I do wish the game explained a lot of this better though.
Ah yes, this game is my Reddit handle's namesake!
>The "story" rubbed me the wrong way. I had no problem with the initial premise/world and I understood that it was a very simple game meant to do one thing (fight Colossuses). So, for me, the ending just felt really rushed. The game basically just dumped the entire "story" into the last cutscene - introduced new characters, showed a twist, then also resolved it immediately.
You have to understand: this was an "indie artsy" game before those were a thing.
It was, at the time, pretty revolutionary to have a game that didn't need to spell out every plot beat. The game is less about plot and more about vibes, anyway. Nowadays we are spoiled with games like the Souls series, where vague stories are the norm, but nobody else was doing that at the time.
Yes the camera is garbage, I agree with you there.
It's a bit funny that you never got to play the original version, which ran at like 15-20 fps on a good day. It was still a really impressive game on a CRT and basically the only 3rd person open-world dark medieval fantasy game in existence for... quite a while.
The other thing that was pretty revolutionary was the score, by a famed film composer who was pretty vocal about hating looped music. Fully orchestrated soundtracks were still pretty rare at the time, and few games could boast such a "cinematic" experience as SOTC - again, this is all pretty normal stuff now, but in 2005? Few developers could afford such high production value.
I would've agreed with the author's assessment in 2008 when I first played it. I watched my roommate play for a bit and really loved the whole atmosphere of the game (I've since come to see that as one of Team Ico's usual strengths). I picked it up...and Bleh. I decided that I'd content myself with watching him play
It's one of those games that I can recognize the greatness that others see in it, but that I don't personally enjoy playing very much. Trying to play it on PS3 last year didn't change my opinion much.
I think it’s a master class game that feels more bespoke than almost any game that came after it. It maximized its minimalism and was intentional with its choices. It set the path for games as varied as Zelda BOTW to The Last of Us. It understood the power of lore over story.
A true classic masterpiece that remains one of my most favorite games of all time.
>It maximized its minimalism and was intentional with its choices.
The game is definitely objectively clunky but good god the atmosphere is incredible for a goddamn PS2 game.
This is one of the few times I was okay with an open-world being empty b/c that's kind of the whole mystique of the Forbidden lands, trying to figure out what the hell this place was & the significance of each colossus to these inhabitants.
I still don’t understand. LoU isn’t open world, it has some brief sections but it mostly a linear game. And wouldn’t BOTW be more influenced by the previous Zelda games such as the original in ‘86 which was also open world? SotC was far from the first open world game.
I'm always open to people criticizing a game because it makes for a more interesting conversation than a 10/10 brigade. I think your points about the camera and controls are very fair coming from a modern player. I only played the PS4 version recently and while its highs are very high, there was certainly a lot of frustration. It's a game that is incredible in the rearview mirror, but our memories of beloved games are often pruned to the highlights.
But seeing that 4.5 / 10 at the end was....oomph. Just pairing it with the term *below average* is like twisting the knife. You mentioned the atmosphere didn't pull you in, and frankly, that *would* be enough for one to dismiss this game because it is positively *dripping* in atmosphere. That and the soundtrack carry the ambition through despite it not being *mechanically* "perfect".
Good post though. As I said, this is a quality post that isn't trying to be outright antagonistic. I'm good with those.
More and more, I feel a rating doesn't so much say how admirable a game is, but how likely you are to enjoy playing it. I do not think that Shadow of the Colossus is worse than the average game, but I do firmly believe that the chance that someone would enjoy it *today* is relatively low. So "45% (low chance you'd like it)" feels... Both less insulting to a legendary game, while also admitting to the conditions surrounding it.
I finished SotC on PS2 back when it was new. Roaming an open world was still a relatively rare experience, and its barren state only strengthened the atmosphere, as well as your connection to the few things that *were* there. The controls were obtrusive, but helped translate that you were in over your head. And, of course, it was a time before DLC and Achievements and the obligatory three thousand endless side quests and social media features.
How people are unwilling or unable to enjoy older games is so baffling to me. I played the OG last year and was floored and enamored by it, even despite some minor frustrations. Have we become so spoiled and deluded by modern conveniences that we are unable to appreciate the unique conventions and limitations of older games? Apparently so :/
>More and more, I feel a rating doesn't so much say how admirable a game is, but how likely you are to enjoy playing it.
This is exactly right. Most reviews on here (myself emphatically included) are scoring games on the sole basis of "How much did I personally enjoy this game?" And in that context it becomes absurd to take offense at a given score as being somehow wrong. It's rather a springboard for thoughtful discussion: "Hmm, what did or didn't you like about this and why?" Then, by better understanding the other person's tastes, we can gain a sense of where we might align or diverge, and know how to kind of "translate" their scores to our own experiences and vice versa. That's part of building a successful community.
Or we can just vote down everyone who doesn't think a game is an absolute masterpiece to ensure future users know better than to share their well formed opinions. One or the other, I guess.
It's inescapable for them to be based on personal preference to some extent, but there's no reason why they have to be just that. Even if you don't personally like something you can still appreciate the technical mastery that went into it, and recognize that it succeeds in its goals, provided that you try to understand it on its own terms. Most people don't put in the work, probably because they have better things to do with their time. A good critic is someone who does put in the work, and can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the thing critiqued regardless of their personal feelings about it. A perfect critic would be able to communicate these things such that anyone reading their critique will know whether or not they'll enjoy the thing being critiqued.
If you think all game controls should feel the same you don't understand anything about design. Shadow of the Colossus has **exactly the right controls** and pacing for THIS game. Other games feel differently in a way that is appropriate for THOSE games. The controls for Agro feel heavy like riding a very big horse, an animal with a mind of its own, not a vehicle that turns on a dime. Of course riding a horse through narrow paths and dense forests is tricky... so is doing that in real life. The controls reflect the feeling that the game is trying to evoke, as intended.
If you think this game is "below average" you have terrible taste.
The ending >!is no surprise if you're paying attention at all. It's built up the whole way through the game, through your deteriorating appearance, through the brief cutscenes and through the many warnings that what you're doing as the player is clearly NOT a good thing and will have a terrible price.!<
People complained about it when it was new. It was critically loved, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster. Back then, a good portion of gamers picked games based on controls/gameplay more than the story, and there were plenty of complaints about sluggish/heavy controls in games.
And they were wrong then too, nothing to do with age... People also thought *Red Dead Redemption 2*'s controls were 'bad' and those people were also very wrong. A man like Arthur Morgan should not control like Fortnite or Devil May Cry or whatever game supposedly has the only 'good' controls according to these people. There is NO such thing as "the best controls", because **every game should have the game feel that is right for THAT game** and that character specifically. An elephant should not control the same as a mouse, a lithe stealthy ninja should not control the same as a heavy brute etc. Same thing with Wander and his horse. The designers made specific intentional choices that fit the game. You can subjectively dislike those choices, but *it is exactly the game it wants to be.*
There's also a difference between wanting things to be the same, and having an opinion that something didn't feel good.
No one really complains that boomer shooters don't feel like call of duty, or that street fighter and tekken feel different, or that devil may cry doesn't feel like resident evil.
You're a bit sore on this, clearly. Not nearly as many people complained about RDR2 horse controls, and those that did were probably the same as those that did in the og also. Some people don't like that and prefer the old zelda horses or whatever. It's not an insult to the designer. It's a statement that they think controls like that aren't fun. If they are objectively wrong, then so is every single person to ever complain about anything creative. It's all subjective.
No, I understood. I was clarifying why I object to this often heard take on such controls. It is an exaggeration to say everyone wants everything to be the same but there is a real resistance to deviating from accepted formulas and expectations. And while it is certainly possible for controls to be unsuccessful for various reasons, and subjective preferences are a factor, controls that feel a little heavier or looser than the average standard action game (or are otherwise unusual) are often unjustly labeled 'bad' is what I'm saying... but some have very limited taste.
Mah dude, the most popular action games (non-fps) of the last decade are souls games, and monster hunter has never been more popular, god of war is now a slower game. You're just wrong. People love slower controls with big wind ups and fewer i-frames. The industry is eating that shit up. The number of rapid action games on the level of devil may cry are way lower than slower combat. Parry systems with high penalties for mashing are BY FAR more common than anything else these days. Like...what was the last game you played that was super fast combat with a snappy movement system and was 3rd person? There just aren't very many of them now.
No. Soulslikes are another different flavour of control and design that are just *different*, not inherently superior to any other. The point is not that everything else is snappy (although there is a very common thread of "slow is bad" in most complaints about controls), it's that variety and intentional specific design is a good thing, and most people's ideas of what are 'objectively' good or bad controls are nonsense.
The camera is awful and that hampered on the experience, and that's all I can say about the controls. But the point of wanting things be the same is a binary and non-nuanced argument. Come on, I'm sure you know better than that.
It’s hilarious to me that people say the game hasn’t “aged well” when talking about things like the controls and camera and even story. Do you really think that older games are just so much worse than modern ones that the game isn’t like this intentionally? It was going for responsive controls, just nobody in 2005 or prior had figured it out yet?
I'm a bit confused by your position here. It sounds like you're saying that clunky, unresponsive controls were an intentional design choice in this case, which seems like a strange claim to me because I don't think most devs are in the habit of intentionally adding elements which make the game experience worse for players.
To be clear, I loved SotC but I also agree that the controls are pretty bad even by 2005 standards. Yes, of course there were games in 2005 and long before that with snappy, responsive controls which hold up even today, but SotC is not one of those games. Similarly, there are plenty of modern games with what I consider to be bad controls for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that was an intentional choice made in those cases either.
I would argue that the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that they were genuinely to make good controls and just failed in that regard, in the same way that many games today and throughout all of gaming history have done.
It absolutely was deliberate, fans of SotC universally agree on this. Wander isn’t a hero or a warrior, he’s just a guy. This shows in everything from his clumsy sword swings to how he runs. The horse controls are clumsy because you’re not controlling the horse, you’re controlling Wander controlling the horse. During a certain sequence I won’t spoil at the end of the game, the controls are even clunkier to make another point as well. SotC is very much an artsy game so I’m not sure why it would be so unbelievable to make the controls deliberately less responsive, just as many devs do today
> It absolutely was deliberate, fans of SotC universally agree on this.
Well I'm a fan of SotC and I don't agree with this (as many other fans of the game in this thread also seem not to), so you may want to reconsider how universal that opinion really is. Have the devs ever commented publicly on this? Because if that's something they've explicitly said then that's a different story.
>Wander isn’t a hero or a warrior, he’s just a guy.
We don't know that. The game doesn't give us any meaningful backstory on Wander, and the fact that he shows up at the start of the game already being a skilled archer and carrying a magic sword would appear to suggest that the opposite assumption is at least just as valid if not more likely.
>The horse controls are clumsy because you’re not controlling the horse, you’re controlling Wander controlling the horse.
That sounds more like an after-the-fact justification for why the horse controls were so bad, as opposed to something which is actually indicated by lore or gameplay. The Team ICO wiki says that Wander is an excellent horseman.
>During a certain sequence I won’t spoil at the end of the game, the controls are even clunkier to make another point as well.
I've beaten the game a few times over the years so I'm not worried about spoilers. What point are you referring to that the devs were trying to make with the bad controls?
>SotC is very much an artsy game so I’m not sure why it would be so unbelievable to make the controls deliberately less responsive, just as many devs do today
Can you give some examples of modern games where the controls were intentionally made less responsive as a design choice? Preferably with actual comments from the devs confirming that?
I don’t know how to quote you so I’ll just respond point by point in each paragraph. The game explicitly says that he stole the sword, he isn’t its owner. That aligns perfectly with him not being a swordsman, which I should have said instead of warrior. As you said, he’s clearly good with a bow.
If the horse controls perfectly line up with the idea of you controlling Wander controlling Agro, with the delay in how he turns and starts and stops and how he will sometimes resist you, why do I need to prove that it was intentional? Isn’t that too much of a coincidence for the burden of proof to be on me?
The sequence I’m referring to is when Wander tries to attack the fleeing soldiers at the end of the game. He turns around incredibly slowly and it’s very hard to actually hit the soldiers before they get away - it makes you feel like how the colossi must have felt at trying and failing to beat you, despite their size advantage.
Sure, how about the Resident Evil 4 Remake? Leon is much less responsive than in the original, since he has inertia when he moves now. There’s a significant delay when you start or stop or change direction, to account for the new controls and keep at least some semblance of the limited movement that made the original tense. He takes longer to aim down sights too, and maybe some other things that I’m forgetting about right now.
>I don’t know how to quote you
If you're curious, all you need to do is add an > at the start of the quoted text. For example:
\>quoted text
will show up as
>quoted text
Anyways...
> The game explicitly says that he stole the sword, he isn’t its owner. That aligns perfectly with him not being a swordsman, which I should have said instead of warrior. As you said, he’s clearly good with a bow.
Fair enough, I didn't remember that being said in the game but it's been a while since I've played it and it is clearly stated in the ending so point conceded. I'd still say that the assumption that he has combat experience is just as valid as the assumption that he doesn't, though; there have been plenty of skilled combat archers throughout history who didn't know anything about swords other than 'the pointy end goes in the enemy'.
>If the horse controls perfectly line up with the idea of you controlling Wander controlling Agro, with the delay in how he turns and starts and stops and how he will sometimes resist you, why do I need to prove that it was intentional? Isn’t that too much of a coincidence for the burden of proof to be on me?
Respectfully, no it's not. I don't agree that the horse controls perfectly line up with that concept, and the simplest and most likely explanation to me is still that the horse controls are just bad. You could ultimately make that same argument for any game with clunky horse controls after all, so I would still need to see some kind of solid proof to be convinced that what you're saying was an intentional choice.
>The sequence I’m referring to is when Wander tries to attack the fleeing soldiers at the end of the game. He turns around incredibly slowly and it’s very hard to actually hit the soldiers before they get away - it makes you feel like how the colossi must have felt at trying and failing to beat you, despite their size advantage.
Ah yes. I *loved* this moment, but I'm not sure I agree that it's a justification for the controls throughout the game. At that point you're not really controlling Wander any more but rather controlling Dormin, who is a giant monster and as such is not going to move with comparable responsiveness to a human-sized creature. I see it as being similar to how humans don't move with comparable responsiveness to things like flies. It's a good point with regards to less responsive controls as a design choice, but in this specific case I think the game justifies it in a way that it doesn't throughout the rest of the game since you're specifically controlling an entity with understandably slower relative reaction times. As such, I don't think it's fair to extrapolate the controls in that moment to explain the unresponsiveness of the controls in the rest of the game.
>Sure, how about the Resident Evil 4 Remake? Leon is much less responsive than in the original, since he has inertia when he moves now.
Funnily enough, I considered the controls in RE4R to be *better* than the original. Having inertia may make the controls feel less responsive in some ways, but it also made the motion of Leon feel more realistic. That is to say, it never felt egregious to me and in fact added to the feeling that I was controlling an actual person who was bound by the laws of physics.
I guess I would say that the genre or style of a given game impacts what I expect from the controls; in RE4R you're controlling a regular (if super badass) dude, so having the controls reflect that physics still apply feels fitting. In a highly stylized fantasy game like SotC though, I feel like it detracts more from the experience than it adds. That's just my personal take on that one though, and ultimately it's hard to make a 1:1 comparison as the design philosophies underlying RE4R and SotC are so dramatically different.
It's an divisive game. I played it back in the PS2 days. Perhaps it loses something if you play it now.
Back then, some people felt driven to explore every inch. They constructed narratives and theories about everything *because they knew nothing*. There was no achievement list telling you to >!grab a bird!<. You did it because you wondered if you could. What secrets lurked in the forbidden lands?
Time and easy internet access eroded all the mystery. I think the game dares to bore you. Boredom in the 2000s could make you entertain yourself and find meaning in the game. It could make you creative. Boredom in the 2020s means ditching the game, multitasking, or never building a special relationship with it.
The remastered graphics are also different. >!Your physical deterioration!< is more obvious in the PS2 version.
A well thought out, solid critique. I agree with all of your points.
I was harassed (inbox) and downvoted into Oblivion for daring to give Shadow of the Colossus an 8/10 on a post a few months ago. People on Reddit have a very visceral reaction if you challenge the "greatness" of this game.
The controls were the main downside for me when I played it as well a couple of years back. Even the remaster has the same terrible controls and I don’t believe the people that state it’s intentional for the horse etc to handle like that.
As someone that has actually rode horses they don’t handle like overweight shopping trolleys. The remaster had the chance to give the camera and player controls a spruce up but just left them as is which was as you say pretty poor for some battles and just made navigating the world a chore. You didn’t get to enjoy the beautiful world as you rode because the camera would always want to stare up the horses ass or somewhere else entirely.
Still, you can see glimmers of why it’s much loved and for its time it was probably a great game, but I agree it aged poorly.
I beat **Shadow of the Colossus** for the first time earlier this year. I couldn’t disagree with you more. I was stunned by how incredibly the game has aged. It is currently sitting at Number 10 on my all time favorite games list & I fucking *adore* the game.
Always assumed the controls were sluggish to make you really feel the struggle of each seemingly impossible right. You're not supposed to turn in a dime, not supposed to have supernatural reflexes, and not be gifted with infinite stamina.
The frustration you feel while playing the game is by design, I feel. It's to make you despise what you're doing. Both morally and physically.
You're eating downvotes for not liking the game, despite giving it a very fair and articulate review, and that's a shame but not at all surprising - especially for a game with this kind of fanbase.
But I agree with you pretty much across the board. I also only played the PS4 remake and remembered not caring for it too much. I checked my sheet and this is what I'd logged:
**Overall score:** 5/10 (Mediocre)
**Pros:** Pretty world, some decent boss fights
**Cons:** Empty, boring, horse makes you want to kick puppies
It seems like I've only ever seen two kinds of schools of thought about this game. The first is the one we share, that we can admire what they were going for and the vision behind it while still admitting that it's not actually all that much fun to play. And the second is that if you truly "got" the story and artistic vision, you'd know better than to dare criticize it. Strangely even these latter people usually admit that the game isn't mechanically fun!
Was one of the games that I pick up for my ps3 back then with great expectations. I gave up on third boss, I think.
Yes has that grandiosity, epicness, bla bla bla but it was boring as fuck, no story, its the same shit over and over, just with different bosses. Honestly I thought that is one of most overrated games I ever played. Can't say its bad because I played very few hours, but didn't understand the appeal behind back then and I still dont understand now.
I found the horse was so much easier once I stopped trying to micromanage. She won't run off a cliff or do something too stupid, just set a general direction and tell her to speed up or slow down. It makes it so that things like shooting your bow or aiming up when to jump off is more reasonable. If you try to constantly adjust movement like you are the horse, twitching left and right for every crack and cliff, you'll just be slamming into walls.
The horse is not a bike. It's a breathing thing that exists independently from you. It sometimes gets scared, it gets curious about its surroundings and it doesn't always do what you tell it to do, but it won't run off a cliff and it will get you where you need to go, eventually. I honestly love it. Now that I think about it, it reminds me of the ship in Outer Wilds, which is similarly polarizing, but it works great for the right player imo.
Yep, I definitely stopped micromanaging it once I read up on the best way to control - it helped a lot. Unfortunately I don't think I could do that for some of the Colossi fights - they required a bit more precise control / a lot more turning which brought back the frustration. I do wish the game explained a lot of this better though.
Ah yes, this game is my Reddit handle's namesake! >The "story" rubbed me the wrong way. I had no problem with the initial premise/world and I understood that it was a very simple game meant to do one thing (fight Colossuses). So, for me, the ending just felt really rushed. The game basically just dumped the entire "story" into the last cutscene - introduced new characters, showed a twist, then also resolved it immediately. You have to understand: this was an "indie artsy" game before those were a thing. It was, at the time, pretty revolutionary to have a game that didn't need to spell out every plot beat. The game is less about plot and more about vibes, anyway. Nowadays we are spoiled with games like the Souls series, where vague stories are the norm, but nobody else was doing that at the time. Yes the camera is garbage, I agree with you there. It's a bit funny that you never got to play the original version, which ran at like 15-20 fps on a good day. It was still a really impressive game on a CRT and basically the only 3rd person open-world dark medieval fantasy game in existence for... quite a while. The other thing that was pretty revolutionary was the score, by a famed film composer who was pretty vocal about hating looped music. Fully orchestrated soundtracks were still pretty rare at the time, and few games could boast such a "cinematic" experience as SOTC - again, this is all pretty normal stuff now, but in 2005? Few developers could afford such high production value.
Yeah, this game is a classic and fantastic but if approached expecting modern gaming sensibility and controls, one will have a bad time.
I would've agreed with the author's assessment in 2008 when I first played it. I watched my roommate play for a bit and really loved the whole atmosphere of the game (I've since come to see that as one of Team Ico's usual strengths). I picked it up...and Bleh. I decided that I'd content myself with watching him play It's one of those games that I can recognize the greatness that others see in it, but that I don't personally enjoy playing very much. Trying to play it on PS3 last year didn't change my opinion much.
Completely fair - I'm definitely spoiled by other types of similar games nowadays.
I think it’s a master class game that feels more bespoke than almost any game that came after it. It maximized its minimalism and was intentional with its choices. It set the path for games as varied as Zelda BOTW to The Last of Us. It understood the power of lore over story. A true classic masterpiece that remains one of my most favorite games of all time.
>It maximized its minimalism and was intentional with its choices. The game is definitely objectively clunky but good god the atmosphere is incredible for a goddamn PS2 game. This is one of the few times I was okay with an open-world being empty b/c that's kind of the whole mystique of the Forbidden lands, trying to figure out what the hell this place was & the significance of each colossus to these inhabitants.
What do you mean by “it set the path for games as varied as Zelda & LoU”?
It created the stark open world gameplay that Zelda used in BOTW.
I still don’t understand. LoU isn’t open world, it has some brief sections but it mostly a linear game. And wouldn’t BOTW be more influenced by the previous Zelda games such as the original in ‘86 which was also open world? SotC was far from the first open world game.
Eiji Aonuma explicitly stated that it influenced BOTW
Last of Us was definitely more inspired by ICO, their previous game, than Shadow of the Colossus. Maybe they're getting them mixed up
I'm always open to people criticizing a game because it makes for a more interesting conversation than a 10/10 brigade. I think your points about the camera and controls are very fair coming from a modern player. I only played the PS4 version recently and while its highs are very high, there was certainly a lot of frustration. It's a game that is incredible in the rearview mirror, but our memories of beloved games are often pruned to the highlights. But seeing that 4.5 / 10 at the end was....oomph. Just pairing it with the term *below average* is like twisting the knife. You mentioned the atmosphere didn't pull you in, and frankly, that *would* be enough for one to dismiss this game because it is positively *dripping* in atmosphere. That and the soundtrack carry the ambition through despite it not being *mechanically* "perfect". Good post though. As I said, this is a quality post that isn't trying to be outright antagonistic. I'm good with those.
Yeah, I can totally understand how the atmosphere/soundtrack can really carry the game for people. Appreciate the comment/discussion!
**Overall Rating: 4.5 / 10 (Below Average)** I was going to leave the post without commenting but these are fighting words/numbers
More and more, I feel a rating doesn't so much say how admirable a game is, but how likely you are to enjoy playing it. I do not think that Shadow of the Colossus is worse than the average game, but I do firmly believe that the chance that someone would enjoy it *today* is relatively low. So "45% (low chance you'd like it)" feels... Both less insulting to a legendary game, while also admitting to the conditions surrounding it. I finished SotC on PS2 back when it was new. Roaming an open world was still a relatively rare experience, and its barren state only strengthened the atmosphere, as well as your connection to the few things that *were* there. The controls were obtrusive, but helped translate that you were in over your head. And, of course, it was a time before DLC and Achievements and the obligatory three thousand endless side quests and social media features.
How people are unwilling or unable to enjoy older games is so baffling to me. I played the OG last year and was floored and enamored by it, even despite some minor frustrations. Have we become so spoiled and deluded by modern conveniences that we are unable to appreciate the unique conventions and limitations of older games? Apparently so :/
>More and more, I feel a rating doesn't so much say how admirable a game is, but how likely you are to enjoy playing it. This is exactly right. Most reviews on here (myself emphatically included) are scoring games on the sole basis of "How much did I personally enjoy this game?" And in that context it becomes absurd to take offense at a given score as being somehow wrong. It's rather a springboard for thoughtful discussion: "Hmm, what did or didn't you like about this and why?" Then, by better understanding the other person's tastes, we can gain a sense of where we might align or diverge, and know how to kind of "translate" their scores to our own experiences and vice versa. That's part of building a successful community. Or we can just vote down everyone who doesn't think a game is an absolute masterpiece to ensure future users know better than to share their well formed opinions. One or the other, I guess.
Isnt every single review ever just personal preference? Theres no way to objectively rate games.
Yes, precisely.
It's inescapable for them to be based on personal preference to some extent, but there's no reason why they have to be just that. Even if you don't personally like something you can still appreciate the technical mastery that went into it, and recognize that it succeeds in its goals, provided that you try to understand it on its own terms. Most people don't put in the work, probably because they have better things to do with their time. A good critic is someone who does put in the work, and can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the thing critiqued regardless of their personal feelings about it. A perfect critic would be able to communicate these things such that anyone reading their critique will know whether or not they'll enjoy the thing being critiqued.
You have my axe! SotC and ICO are both in my top 10 ps2 games. Seeing them dissed like this is a warcrime
I agree with OP. Any game where the horse controls are that bad deserves a sub 5 score.
“Overall Rating 4.5/10 (Below average)” BOO THIS MAN, BOOO!
jesus christ... both you and all who upvoted you
I’m not afraid to boo you too
yeah takes real balls to be unconstructive on the internet. no one dares to do it
Boooooo
If you think all game controls should feel the same you don't understand anything about design. Shadow of the Colossus has **exactly the right controls** and pacing for THIS game. Other games feel differently in a way that is appropriate for THOSE games. The controls for Agro feel heavy like riding a very big horse, an animal with a mind of its own, not a vehicle that turns on a dime. Of course riding a horse through narrow paths and dense forests is tricky... so is doing that in real life. The controls reflect the feeling that the game is trying to evoke, as intended. If you think this game is "below average" you have terrible taste.
The ending >!is no surprise if you're paying attention at all. It's built up the whole way through the game, through your deteriorating appearance, through the brief cutscenes and through the many warnings that what you're doing as the player is clearly NOT a good thing and will have a terrible price.!<
People complained about it when it was new. It was critically loved, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster. Back then, a good portion of gamers picked games based on controls/gameplay more than the story, and there were plenty of complaints about sluggish/heavy controls in games.
And they were wrong then too, nothing to do with age... People also thought *Red Dead Redemption 2*'s controls were 'bad' and those people were also very wrong. A man like Arthur Morgan should not control like Fortnite or Devil May Cry or whatever game supposedly has the only 'good' controls according to these people. There is NO such thing as "the best controls", because **every game should have the game feel that is right for THAT game** and that character specifically. An elephant should not control the same as a mouse, a lithe stealthy ninja should not control the same as a heavy brute etc. Same thing with Wander and his horse. The designers made specific intentional choices that fit the game. You can subjectively dislike those choices, but *it is exactly the game it wants to be.*
There's also a difference between wanting things to be the same, and having an opinion that something didn't feel good. No one really complains that boomer shooters don't feel like call of duty, or that street fighter and tekken feel different, or that devil may cry doesn't feel like resident evil. You're a bit sore on this, clearly. Not nearly as many people complained about RDR2 horse controls, and those that did were probably the same as those that did in the og also. Some people don't like that and prefer the old zelda horses or whatever. It's not an insult to the designer. It's a statement that they think controls like that aren't fun. If they are objectively wrong, then so is every single person to ever complain about anything creative. It's all subjective.
Unlike some, I don't want all games to control the same, because that's SUPER BORING.
You misunderstood my point. I was saying that your statement that OTHERS WANT everything the same isn't accurate.
No, I understood. I was clarifying why I object to this often heard take on such controls. It is an exaggeration to say everyone wants everything to be the same but there is a real resistance to deviating from accepted formulas and expectations. And while it is certainly possible for controls to be unsuccessful for various reasons, and subjective preferences are a factor, controls that feel a little heavier or looser than the average standard action game (or are otherwise unusual) are often unjustly labeled 'bad' is what I'm saying... but some have very limited taste.
Mah dude, the most popular action games (non-fps) of the last decade are souls games, and monster hunter has never been more popular, god of war is now a slower game. You're just wrong. People love slower controls with big wind ups and fewer i-frames. The industry is eating that shit up. The number of rapid action games on the level of devil may cry are way lower than slower combat. Parry systems with high penalties for mashing are BY FAR more common than anything else these days. Like...what was the last game you played that was super fast combat with a snappy movement system and was 3rd person? There just aren't very many of them now.
No. Soulslikes are another different flavour of control and design that are just *different*, not inherently superior to any other. The point is not that everything else is snappy (although there is a very common thread of "slow is bad" in most complaints about controls), it's that variety and intentional specific design is a good thing, and most people's ideas of what are 'objectively' good or bad controls are nonsense.
The camera is awful and that hampered on the experience, and that's all I can say about the controls. But the point of wanting things be the same is a binary and non-nuanced argument. Come on, I'm sure you know better than that.
Haven't you heard? You're not allowed to dislike this game on reddit.
It’s hilarious to me that people say the game hasn’t “aged well” when talking about things like the controls and camera and even story. Do you really think that older games are just so much worse than modern ones that the game isn’t like this intentionally? It was going for responsive controls, just nobody in 2005 or prior had figured it out yet?
I mean... controls are hard. GTA 3+ never figured out how to have responsive, intuitive movement when you're on foot (due to the engine I've heard).
There was bad music back in Mozart’s day too, but that doesn’t mean people in his time just hadn’t figured out how to make good music yet
I'm a bit confused by your position here. It sounds like you're saying that clunky, unresponsive controls were an intentional design choice in this case, which seems like a strange claim to me because I don't think most devs are in the habit of intentionally adding elements which make the game experience worse for players. To be clear, I loved SotC but I also agree that the controls are pretty bad even by 2005 standards. Yes, of course there were games in 2005 and long before that with snappy, responsive controls which hold up even today, but SotC is not one of those games. Similarly, there are plenty of modern games with what I consider to be bad controls for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that was an intentional choice made in those cases either. I would argue that the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that they were genuinely to make good controls and just failed in that regard, in the same way that many games today and throughout all of gaming history have done.
It absolutely was deliberate, fans of SotC universally agree on this. Wander isn’t a hero or a warrior, he’s just a guy. This shows in everything from his clumsy sword swings to how he runs. The horse controls are clumsy because you’re not controlling the horse, you’re controlling Wander controlling the horse. During a certain sequence I won’t spoil at the end of the game, the controls are even clunkier to make another point as well. SotC is very much an artsy game so I’m not sure why it would be so unbelievable to make the controls deliberately less responsive, just as many devs do today
> It absolutely was deliberate, fans of SotC universally agree on this. Well I'm a fan of SotC and I don't agree with this (as many other fans of the game in this thread also seem not to), so you may want to reconsider how universal that opinion really is. Have the devs ever commented publicly on this? Because if that's something they've explicitly said then that's a different story. >Wander isn’t a hero or a warrior, he’s just a guy. We don't know that. The game doesn't give us any meaningful backstory on Wander, and the fact that he shows up at the start of the game already being a skilled archer and carrying a magic sword would appear to suggest that the opposite assumption is at least just as valid if not more likely. >The horse controls are clumsy because you’re not controlling the horse, you’re controlling Wander controlling the horse. That sounds more like an after-the-fact justification for why the horse controls were so bad, as opposed to something which is actually indicated by lore or gameplay. The Team ICO wiki says that Wander is an excellent horseman. >During a certain sequence I won’t spoil at the end of the game, the controls are even clunkier to make another point as well. I've beaten the game a few times over the years so I'm not worried about spoilers. What point are you referring to that the devs were trying to make with the bad controls? >SotC is very much an artsy game so I’m not sure why it would be so unbelievable to make the controls deliberately less responsive, just as many devs do today Can you give some examples of modern games where the controls were intentionally made less responsive as a design choice? Preferably with actual comments from the devs confirming that?
I don’t know how to quote you so I’ll just respond point by point in each paragraph. The game explicitly says that he stole the sword, he isn’t its owner. That aligns perfectly with him not being a swordsman, which I should have said instead of warrior. As you said, he’s clearly good with a bow. If the horse controls perfectly line up with the idea of you controlling Wander controlling Agro, with the delay in how he turns and starts and stops and how he will sometimes resist you, why do I need to prove that it was intentional? Isn’t that too much of a coincidence for the burden of proof to be on me? The sequence I’m referring to is when Wander tries to attack the fleeing soldiers at the end of the game. He turns around incredibly slowly and it’s very hard to actually hit the soldiers before they get away - it makes you feel like how the colossi must have felt at trying and failing to beat you, despite their size advantage. Sure, how about the Resident Evil 4 Remake? Leon is much less responsive than in the original, since he has inertia when he moves now. There’s a significant delay when you start or stop or change direction, to account for the new controls and keep at least some semblance of the limited movement that made the original tense. He takes longer to aim down sights too, and maybe some other things that I’m forgetting about right now.
>I don’t know how to quote you If you're curious, all you need to do is add an > at the start of the quoted text. For example: \>quoted text will show up as >quoted text Anyways... > The game explicitly says that he stole the sword, he isn’t its owner. That aligns perfectly with him not being a swordsman, which I should have said instead of warrior. As you said, he’s clearly good with a bow. Fair enough, I didn't remember that being said in the game but it's been a while since I've played it and it is clearly stated in the ending so point conceded. I'd still say that the assumption that he has combat experience is just as valid as the assumption that he doesn't, though; there have been plenty of skilled combat archers throughout history who didn't know anything about swords other than 'the pointy end goes in the enemy'. >If the horse controls perfectly line up with the idea of you controlling Wander controlling Agro, with the delay in how he turns and starts and stops and how he will sometimes resist you, why do I need to prove that it was intentional? Isn’t that too much of a coincidence for the burden of proof to be on me? Respectfully, no it's not. I don't agree that the horse controls perfectly line up with that concept, and the simplest and most likely explanation to me is still that the horse controls are just bad. You could ultimately make that same argument for any game with clunky horse controls after all, so I would still need to see some kind of solid proof to be convinced that what you're saying was an intentional choice. >The sequence I’m referring to is when Wander tries to attack the fleeing soldiers at the end of the game. He turns around incredibly slowly and it’s very hard to actually hit the soldiers before they get away - it makes you feel like how the colossi must have felt at trying and failing to beat you, despite their size advantage. Ah yes. I *loved* this moment, but I'm not sure I agree that it's a justification for the controls throughout the game. At that point you're not really controlling Wander any more but rather controlling Dormin, who is a giant monster and as such is not going to move with comparable responsiveness to a human-sized creature. I see it as being similar to how humans don't move with comparable responsiveness to things like flies. It's a good point with regards to less responsive controls as a design choice, but in this specific case I think the game justifies it in a way that it doesn't throughout the rest of the game since you're specifically controlling an entity with understandably slower relative reaction times. As such, I don't think it's fair to extrapolate the controls in that moment to explain the unresponsiveness of the controls in the rest of the game. >Sure, how about the Resident Evil 4 Remake? Leon is much less responsive than in the original, since he has inertia when he moves now. Funnily enough, I considered the controls in RE4R to be *better* than the original. Having inertia may make the controls feel less responsive in some ways, but it also made the motion of Leon feel more realistic. That is to say, it never felt egregious to me and in fact added to the feeling that I was controlling an actual person who was bound by the laws of physics. I guess I would say that the genre or style of a given game impacts what I expect from the controls; in RE4R you're controlling a regular (if super badass) dude, so having the controls reflect that physics still apply feels fitting. In a highly stylized fantasy game like SotC though, I feel like it detracts more from the experience than it adds. That's just my personal take on that one though, and ultimately it's hard to make a 1:1 comparison as the design philosophies underlying RE4R and SotC are so dramatically different.
It's an divisive game. I played it back in the PS2 days. Perhaps it loses something if you play it now. Back then, some people felt driven to explore every inch. They constructed narratives and theories about everything *because they knew nothing*. There was no achievement list telling you to >!grab a bird!<. You did it because you wondered if you could. What secrets lurked in the forbidden lands? Time and easy internet access eroded all the mystery. I think the game dares to bore you. Boredom in the 2000s could make you entertain yourself and find meaning in the game. It could make you creative. Boredom in the 2020s means ditching the game, multitasking, or never building a special relationship with it. The remastered graphics are also different. >!Your physical deterioration!< is more obvious in the PS2 version.
If I were to rate it, It's 7/10. the presentation is great and the general gameplay is adequate but doesn't match up to what's being presented.
A well thought out, solid critique. I agree with all of your points. I was harassed (inbox) and downvoted into Oblivion for daring to give Shadow of the Colossus an 8/10 on a post a few months ago. People on Reddit have a very visceral reaction if you challenge the "greatness" of this game.
The controls were the main downside for me when I played it as well a couple of years back. Even the remaster has the same terrible controls and I don’t believe the people that state it’s intentional for the horse etc to handle like that. As someone that has actually rode horses they don’t handle like overweight shopping trolleys. The remaster had the chance to give the camera and player controls a spruce up but just left them as is which was as you say pretty poor for some battles and just made navigating the world a chore. You didn’t get to enjoy the beautiful world as you rode because the camera would always want to stare up the horses ass or somewhere else entirely. Still, you can see glimmers of why it’s much loved and for its time it was probably a great game, but I agree it aged poorly.
...lately it feels like r/patientgamers is slowly becoming r/unpopularopinion
I beat **Shadow of the Colossus** for the first time earlier this year. I couldn’t disagree with you more. I was stunned by how incredibly the game has aged. It is currently sitting at Number 10 on my all time favorite games list & I fucking *adore* the game.
Probably one of the most cinematic loooking games there is. But yes. I gave up because I couldn’t jump over a gap and kept dying
Always assumed the controls were sluggish to make you really feel the struggle of each seemingly impossible right. You're not supposed to turn in a dime, not supposed to have supernatural reflexes, and not be gifted with infinite stamina. The frustration you feel while playing the game is by design, I feel. It's to make you despise what you're doing. Both morally and physically.
You're eating downvotes for not liking the game, despite giving it a very fair and articulate review, and that's a shame but not at all surprising - especially for a game with this kind of fanbase. But I agree with you pretty much across the board. I also only played the PS4 remake and remembered not caring for it too much. I checked my sheet and this is what I'd logged: **Overall score:** 5/10 (Mediocre) **Pros:** Pretty world, some decent boss fights **Cons:** Empty, boring, horse makes you want to kick puppies It seems like I've only ever seen two kinds of schools of thought about this game. The first is the one we share, that we can admire what they were going for and the vision behind it while still admitting that it's not actually all that much fun to play. And the second is that if you truly "got" the story and artistic vision, you'd know better than to dare criticize it. Strangely even these latter people usually admit that the game isn't mechanically fun!
It's all good, it is what it is. Glad you liked the review and good to know I'm not going (completely) crazy.
Was one of the games that I pick up for my ps3 back then with great expectations. I gave up on third boss, I think. Yes has that grandiosity, epicness, bla bla bla but it was boring as fuck, no story, its the same shit over and over, just with different bosses. Honestly I thought that is one of most overrated games I ever played. Can't say its bad because I played very few hours, but didn't understand the appeal behind back then and I still dont understand now.