The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index The Gamer's Quarter
A quarterly publication
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index -> Club for the Study and Appreciation of Interactive Audio Visual Media
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ketch
.
.


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

Okay, I'll admit first of all that I've only got to the third fourth colossus so far (and don't plan on playing it further).

http://www.fourfatchicks.com/Reviews/Shadow_of_the_Colossus/Colossus.shtml

"From a scientific perspective, Colossus is a platformer focused on exploration and punctuated by white-knuckled combat between your character and sixteen immense monsters—the only sixteen encounters you'll have in the game. But its heart lies in its examination of the selfish human capacity to blindly do harm for the benefit of friends and loved ones without a thought for consequences. Any of us would strangle a puppy, murder ten strangers or burn the Mona Lisa to save the life of our mother, or husband, or son. Someone who didn't know our loved ones would call us criminal, but for the perpetrator it is a small price to pay. In the end, Shadow of the Colossus is an allegory for misguided perspective."


"Ico was a platformer in the Prince of Persia vein; an insensitive person would call it a jumping puzzle game. Shadow, though it has platforming elements, doesn't fall into an established genre—not even a broad one like "action." The best word to describe its play style is introspective. It is a muzzy, dreamlike world: very consciously crafted to leave you alone with your thoughts. Shadow of the Colossus can teach you a lot about yourself. Ironically, this game is much more about senseless cruelty than the Grand Theft Autos of the world. You are left for hours to ponder in solitude a cruel, complex, yet obvious question: how far would you go for someone you love?

And yet unlike Grand Theft Auto, where you always have a choice, in Shadow you do not. If you refuse to kill these creatures, there is no game. That was done quite intentionally; it asks you to do something evil and then forces your hand. You'd almost be justified in resenting it, but at the same time, that's the whole point.
"-

"

You have to watch Shadow of the Colossus very closely, because much of the interim story is told in the graphics, not the narrative. Your character undergoes a marked physical deterioration as you advance; what had been a good-looking young man evolves into a scarred and ghastly apparition. The girl, meanwhile—though still a corpse—is becoming more and more radiant with each passing Colossus. There are millions of subtle visual changes that tell the story without the need for cutscenes. Frankly, though, this game is probably a little too subtle for its own good."



Ketch says:
----Okay, there is more in Steerpike's review, but it makes me wonder. I mean first of all do we need a game to tell us this kind of thing? I don't think so. But, maybe these are just the first steps towards games incorporating more thematic resonance in the "play-scenario-way things pan out-characters etc.". Like having a GTA game which plays more like "Road to Perdition" or any number of other games. It also highlights one of the other problems. Games are games, and are generally meant to entertain. We have established some fairly easy ways to entertain people in action games, and most of them are highly escapist action-movie style ways. Like being able to drive really fast and crash without dying, or having thousands upon thousands of enemies. Most games are still B-Movies in this way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

Most games are B-movies in that regard, yes. But there are quite a few pointing ahead in other directions. The thing is, I like Sleepaway Camp and B-Movies sometimes. But generally I need to be in the right mood and need to know when to turn my brain off. Anyways, this strikes me as hazardous:
Ketch wrote:
Okay, I'll admit first of all that I've only got to the third fourth colossus so far (and don't plan on playing it further).

You are making me cry and you also don't explain why!
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
dessgeega
loves your favorite videogame
loves your favorite videogame


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 6563
Location: bohan

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuck the mona lisa.

uh, i'll post on topic at some point.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
david
.
.


Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 170
Location: b, md

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

Ketch wrote:
... first of all do we need a game to tell us this kind of thing? I don't think so. But, maybe these are just the first steps towards games incorporating more thematic resonance ...


Do we need a game to tell us? Why shouldn't an interactive visual game-like thing suggest moral complexity? "Games are just for entertainment" is like saying "asses are just for sitting." Hopefully that makes my point!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
dhex
Breeder
Breeder


Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You are making me cry and you also don't explain why!


it gets kinda boring after a while, especially once you figure out where this is going. it's very pretty, though. i think i gave up around seven or eight.

a little moral complexity is nice, even if it's mostly projected in the overactive minds of players.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Updated the banners, but not his title


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:38 am    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

david wrote:
"asses are just for sitting."


They're also for shitting!

-Wes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
dhex
Breeder
Breeder


Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

though i can think of a really good reason why games shouldn't bother with moral complexity:

1a) there's enough dedicated folks who will find moral complexity in nearly anything anyone puts out (see: us)

1b) a form designed largely for teens isn't going to be able to handle more than one or two shades anyway, so why not concentrate on making better games than striving for some sort of watermark better left to more mature and capable mediums?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ketch
.
.


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:16 pm    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

david wrote:
[Do we need a game to tell us? Why shouldn't an interactive visual game-like thing suggest moral complexity? "Games are just for entertainment" is like saying "asses are just for sitting." Hopefully that makes my point!


Well, I am a big advocate that games should become more interesting and complex thematically, I was just questioning the obviousness of what it seems to suggest (at least according to Steerpike). As I said, this game is just one of the baby steps of moral ambiguity complexity in the medium. See also - Deus Ex, + Resident Evil 4*

*inadvertently, this game can also be read as the adventures of a psychopath who breaks into a mentally challenged mans house, kills him (with provocation) and then massacres the rest of the villagers who try to get him in revenge. Who is the biggest monster, the villagers or the mass-murdering hero?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Updated the banners, but not his title


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:55 pm    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

Ketch wrote:
the adventures of a psychopath who breaks into a mentally challenged mans house, kills him (with provocation) and then massacres the rest of the villagers who try to get him in revenge.


Now THIS is a game!

Seriously though, nearly all action games ask the player to commit acts of violence against real or imaginary creatures without any consequence or consideration of morality. I think part of what Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid 3, and, with enough of a stretch, Grand Theft Auto try to do is either provide a negative consequence or moral question as an intentional dichotomy to other games. You can probably hear the rumblings of post-modernity in what I'm saying, but really I think that Shadow of the Colossus probably began by adding a focus on action to the Ico template and the thematic concept probably came from that.

-Wes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

SuperWes wrote:
I think, with enough of a stretch, Grand Theft Auto try to do is either provide a negative consequence or moral question as an intentional dichotomy to other games.

Bullshit. GTA does NOTHING to present a negative consequence. If you get caught guess what? They let you out of prison with no warning, presumably later that day. If you DIE you get let out of the hospital. If you die while getting chased by the cops you get out of the hospital. If you are getting chased by the police you just paint your car and *poof* no more cops.

Also, I believe that this is all looking a bit too deeply into SotC from a purely gameplay perspective. The point of SotC is that you are supposed to know where everything is going, you understand that you are not doing the right thing yet you keep doing it anyways. Then you get to the end of the game and you reflect on what has transpired, you have a wider perspective on the scope. Things shift, perspectives change, and you are let in on what has been going on.

Fuck, I am going to argue the shit out of this:

"much of the interim story is told in the graphics, not the narrative."

They apparently don't understand the narrative of videogames. The narrative is what is going on within the interactions of the world in a game. The story is what is explicitly said or explained. Videogames have so few words inside its language that learning the one or two that there are is important. But, aside from improper useage, they are right. Most of the story is built by the player, their choices and actions--without story--create a narrative. SotC understands that the strong point of interactive medium of videogames is the narrative it creates and uses it to its advantage.

“our character undergoes a marked physical deterioration as you advance; what had been a good-looking young man evolves into a scarred and ghastly apparition. The girl, meanwhile—though still a corpse—is becoming more and more radiant with each passing Colossus. There are millions of subtle visual changes that tell the story without the need for cutscenes. Frankly, though, this game is probably a little too subtle for its own good.”

How is this being too subtle for its own good? If anything games need to take full advantage and embrace their ability to be subtle than any other medium. In games the decisions are being made by the player themselves, and by doing this most of the story should be told within the narrative that player creates. This should involve many and more subtleties. It is good that this site notices it. Many people notice it. It shows the strength of games as a story telling device.

“But its heart lies in its examination of the selfish human capacity to blindly do harm for the benefit of friends and loved ones without a thought for consequences. Any of us would strangle a puppy, murder ten strangers or burn the Mona Lisa to save the life of our mother, or husband, or son. Someone who didn't know our loved ones would call us criminal, but for the perpetrator it is a small price to pay. In the end, Shadow of the Colossus is an allegory for misguided perspective.”

This is true, but it seems like they drop the point. With SotC you start out playing a game. The game sets the mood and perspective of you doing the right thing. The reasoning all seems sane for what you are doing and why. You start with this. Slowly over time you begin to wonder if perhaps you are not doing the right thing. To nail this home you have the end of the game. Are there subtlties, yes. Is the overall story and narrative suble? No, not really. The direct consequence is firmly stated after the defeat of each colossus. If you failed to grasp that these are hurting you overtime and you may not be performing the best task in the world, well the end of the game will shout it at you.

So it is an allegory for misguided perspective, but I can’t decided if that is too shallow an explanation.

No, I figured out why it is sitting wrong with my: because the person who wrote this is trying to use bigger words and make games out to be smarter than they are. What a game can do is produce empathy for a main character more than any other medium. For example: have you ever been telling a friend or family member about your playing of a game? Do you ever say (using SotC as an example): “Then Wanderer jumps down and slams his sword into it!!” I am sure some people do, but most will replace Wanderer (or any main character) with “I” themselves.

So the “misguided perspective” is not what the game is trying to describe, it is just a tool or device of the plot. The game leads you in the direction that you feel you have no other way to go (and really, you don’t unless you decided like dhex or Ketch to stop playing). This perspective is the only one you have to go on. It is not trying to justify the actions of the Wanderer, it is just there to make you perform them and then judge/evaluate them from your own perspective afterwards. SotC is never tying to say: “See serial killers in a new light!”

Now, I am all for reading into things way too far, and yes, as an example of misguided perspective SotC works. Were you going to attempt to explain how another person might do something you would lynch them for and everyone in the room played SotC you could draw many parallels. But seriously, SotC just uses the tools that it has to create one of the best narratives, and then stories that any game has. It is exciting and a bit deeper than most stories that are told in game: it is a step in the right direction.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Updated the banners, but not his title


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Re: SOTC- examination of plot. SPOILERS. Reply with quote

Shapermc wrote:
SuperWes wrote:
I think, with enough of a stretch, Grand Theft Auto try to do is either provide a negative consequence or moral question as an intentional dichotomy to other games.

Bullshit. GTA does NOTHING to present a negative consequence. If you get caught guess what? They let you out of prison with no warning, presumably later that day. If you DIE you get let out of the hospital. If you die while getting chased by the cops you get out of the hospital. If you are getting chased by the police you just paint your car and *poof* no more cops.


So you see no difference between killing people and getting the cops sent after you and killing people and having no consequence? There's a negative consequence, and that consequence is that you can no longer explore freely without having to avoid the cops in the process. Yeah, it's fun to run from the cops, but if's hard to complain about a video game actively trying to be fun!

-Wes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mr. Mechanical
Friendly Stranger
Friendly Stranger


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 1276

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaper wanted me to comment but there's not really much I can add after his massive post there. I guess I'll say a few things anyway.

The first thing I'll say will sound rather bold. Shadow of the Colossus, or more importantly it's story, is not subtle. It tells it in a subtle manner using the medium of gameplay itself, which is what's remarkable about the game. The story itself is a kind of romantic tragedy hero epic and it's pretty clear from the start that that's what it's trying to say. You start out seeing a guy on horseback carrying a corpse up the side of a mountain. You soon find out that this guy thinks he can revive her using forbidden magic of some sort. Obviously he cares for her, or at least he cares for her enough to try to attempt to bring her back from the dead. That's empathy right there, from one character towards another, and it's explained to you with minimal use of static cutscenes and cheesy, hamfisted dialogue. The rest of the game follows in the same manner.

The second thing I'll say is that I don't think moral ambiguities of what is "right" or "wrong" are actually present in the game itself but in the people playing. To me the things experienced in the world of the game just are. It is of course a static story with a beginning, middle, and end, like any other story told in the last five thousand years. I think all this emphasis on the morality of the situation is placed there because this story happens to be interactive, otherwise it would be just another tragic love epic like the ones of old. It might be "wrong" to use forbidden magic according to the village elders that are chasing after the wanderer to stop him before it's too late (and for good reason too if we're going by how the game ends!), yet it's perfectly "right" in his own eyes as he sets about his task of taking down the colossi. As the people playing we merely sit outside this contained vacuum of supposed "morality" as mere spectators, watching the events unfold as they happen. Of course we happen to put ourselves in the place of the main character because that's how we're interacting with the game, so his plight becomes our plight, but I think it a little disingenuous to try to determine if the game is actually saying anything about what's right and wrong in a given situation based on that experience. If this were a story written on parchment a thousand years ago would we be placing this same kind of emphasis on it today? Probably, but in a different direction. We'd be using the story to ask questions about things like the human condition and whatnot, but we wouldn't be trying to determine if the story itself was actually trying to say anything special as a story. Because that's what this game is, and what most games are or aspire to be: Stories.

A moment ago I said the story was not subtle, and it isn't. You don't have to play for very long to get an idea as to how things are going to turn out at the end. I knew by the fifth or sixth colossus that the wanderer was going to get bitten in the ass at the end for his actions. Does that make his actions themselves inherently bad or wrong? Not really. Perhaps in the eyes of his elders he was breaking the rules by unwittingly (or not?) releasing a demon that someone a long time ago obviously struggled to contain. However, he did it out of love (assumingly) and so in the eyes of most following the plot his actions are justified even though they produce consequences of a rather dire nature. The girl is saved in the end but is trapped in the forbidden land and the wanderer gets his dues for releasing the demon which ultimately means they can not be together in the way that they may have previously wished. Romantic tragedy hero epic, see.

None of this means it isn't a good story. I certianly liked it on a literary level because a lot is left to your own interpretation. So that's where all this stuff about morality comes from, but I don't put much stock in it because the game itself was such a great experience. Like I said, the narrative is told through the medium itself. The gameplay and presentation pretty much tell you all you need to know about the game. It is a step in the right direction, but probably not for the reasons most people seem to think. It's not about making games that leave moral questions wide open, that's for stories. It's about making games that present their narrative through a unique use of the medium at hand, and that is where Shadow of the Colossus excells.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GilloD
.
.


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a lot to say on this topic, but I've also got a paper due in 2 hours, so real quick:

I think what the game did so splendindly was to attack it's own meta-narrative. I'm reminded of that moment in Clerks (God help me) when whatshisface questions the nobility of the Rebel mission. The moment you turn on a game, it's you versus them (In most cases). Who are 'they'? You're always the hero. And in this case, right up until those last moments, you still are. The game is steeped in a kind of mystery that I mistook for mystcism my first go-round. It's actually a kind of speculative warning, the whole thing is saying "Hey. Wait. Hold up". To reveal that the enemy was NOT the enemy at the last moment was a lovely touch and a nice sign of maturity in the medium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ketch
.
.


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also of interest in relation to Shadow of the Colossus, are Manhunt (uggh) and God of War which both seem to have a similar thing going on, ie. accept? or at least put up with the acts of cruelty that the main character is perpetrating or stop playing.

How much of this was intentional (especially in relation to the very exploitative Manhunt) is debatable though. In Manhunt, I wanted to be given the option to knock people out, or destroy the cameras rather than play into the director's hands.

What Ico and SotC do well is what Half-Life did well, progress story via sight/sound and have you discover it in-game.

--Also of prime importance is the role of the player in the interaction / narrative, the player chooses how to react to the things, but the game restricts their options to an extent.

Some notes:
1. I didn't buy Shadow of the Colossus, because the gameplay seems a bit too dull I'd rather have a few more active challenges to overcome whether environmental (ice floes?) or in terms of creatures. That said I have to say that the pacing of Shadow of the Colossus reminds me most of a Western Film, long periods of build-up followed by short explosions of activity. And I didn't gel with the story/ characters, although I can appreciate it intellectually.

2. I didn't buy Manhunt, because a. it is sick, b. exploitative c. very repetitive d. I played 90 percent of it on rental despite this.

3. I didn't buy God of War, because it seemed a little juvenile, and I didn't like Kratos as a character, also there were too many battles and I hated the bit where you have to shake people off when hanging from a wire, I thought the controller would break.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ketch I agree with you on all notes, but half of "1".

Esp. note "3"
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
GilloD
.
.


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ketch: On 1, I think the game appeals to a very particular subset of gaming. I'm not going to split it into the smart/dumb kids as seems to be the game in most corners of the internet, but I am strongly reminded of "Lucky Wander Boy". It's a book about a game with a mythical 3rd level, where the player wanders a desert for hours and hours. There are rumors that you can find a mirror which displays the player's face, but... You get the idea. The actual quality of the book aside, I think SotC is a fantastic exploration of game and game theory, unleashed upon an unwitting public. I loved every minute of SotC. I remember in the mid 90's, a sort of pre-Second Life called AlphaWorld (Now running under the moniker Active Worlds?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Worlds). There was no running economy, no games to play, no objects to collect. It was just build and explore. The world was so substantially huge and without always-on internet, users were nomadic,leaving behind chunks of half-built castles. If you weren't gathering around the spawn point, chances were you just wandering some imaginary satellite of civilization. The goal was amorphous and self-defined.

I started an article on GTA:SA pompously titled: "GTA:SA and the dynamic manufacture of dramatic tension OR How I learned to Shut Up and Love the Panopticon". The idea was that GTA:SA was such a leap, size-wise, over it's predecessor that the player was forced in many instances to invent Carl's story. Late game, there are several attempts to fill the space with chit-chat, but some of the drives are long enough to run the talk track through. GTA:VC and GTA:3 are both smaller games, wherein nearly every location is untiltarian or, at least, purposeful. GTA:SA had so many side alleys and little farms and homes to invade that in many ways the official narrative became an afterthought. I'm not going to say that we roleplayed Carl the way we thought he should be, but certainly we invented little narratives to explain why he was cruising Los Santos at 4 AM.

I feel like SotC is almost the opposite of that, but conceptually-kin. SotC is packed with an absence of narrative and it's flat, featureless landscapes (and characters) reject that kind of webspinning. It was like a giant, visual zen koan. You either played it and basked in it or you got bored (and I can't blame you).

A lot of people, myself included, clambor for more of this type of gameplay. We've got slow films and preponderous novels, epic songs and hundred page poems, where's the pretentious video game? SotC is maybe the thing which comes closest to that. The problem is that video games are primarily a commercial art with commercial interests at hand, moreso than film or literature or music. The problem, I think, is two-fold. One is image: The old "Are video games art?" debate rages only in our circles. To much of the world, video games are still kid's toys and a trip to EB or GameStop is not going to change anyone's mind. Even most frothing at the mouth fans are hard pressed to come up with something more meaningful than the ham-fisted and unlikely FF7 (Or FF8! HE CATCHES HER IN SPACE. THERE'S LOVE. I CRIED.). The other problem is that to play a game you need a 100$+ console, plus a $40+ game. Most gamers, for that kind of money, want Kratos slicing off heads and setting Romans ablaze (Me? I just thought it was a boring game). And who's to blame them? I want action for my 50$. I still expect explosions and guns and magic spells and airships and big-breasted heroines and battle armor with spikes. SotC was a diversion, a beautiful piece of work that elevated the form higher and more beautifully than anything else is like to do. But if I had to play it every day? I adore the MoMA and I've been there countless times, but every single time I'm glad to walk out the door. My legs are sore, my head is full, my eyes are tired. I want sugar and blood!

It's a question of what we want games to do. And at this point in the cycle, I don't think we have the audience to have our cake and eat it, too, so to speak. Indie films have their crowd, indie rock has it's crowd, smaller books have their crowd. And while "indie games" have their own convention, I think that "art" games, like SotC, don't have the kind of following to justify their development at this point in time. As it becomes a more popular medium for developers, I don't doubt we'll see more games like SotC, but as a commcercial product, it's unlikely to see a game like this come more than once or twice in a cycle.

Feel free to dissect this as you will, I wa strying to stay on track, but I'm not always good at that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GilloD, man! Have you played Morrowind? I would recommend Oblivion, but I have not played it. The game basically rewards the player for going off and building their own narative. I spent over 250 hours playing Morrowind, I spent mabey two of them on the "main quest." I highly recommend it to you based on the way you talked about GTA:SA
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
GilloD
.
.


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShaperMC! I kind of fell of the planet for 2 months there. I'm graduating in a week which explains most of it. Ugh.

Anyway, I played Morrowind on PC and ADORED it, but never quite got all the way through. One thing that bothered me (Aside from the System Reqs), was how many of the quests felt either broken or incomplete or kind of "thin". But I loved wandering around into those dungeons with the ancient technology to find out about the past. I picked it up cheap for the XBox maybe 2 years ago and just kinda went "Eh". As I get older and feel the need to "do" something, I have less and less patience for the non-linear. I'm dying to play Oblivion, though.

I think I loved GTA because there was so much to do even when there was nothing to do, if that makes any sense. And SotC's "off-quest" moments were heading towards colossi, which was in itself an "on-quest" moment, maybe it's that duality that I found so appealing? Hmph.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ketch
.
.


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GilloD wrote:
GTA:SA had so many side alleys and little farms and homes to invade that in many ways the official narrative became an afterthought. I'm not going to say that we roleplayed Carl the way we thought he should be, but certainly we invented little narratives to explain why he was cruising Los Santos at 4 AM.

I feel like SotC is almost the opposite of that, but conceptually-kin. SotC is packed with an absence of narrative and it's flat, featureless landscapes (and characters) reject that kind of webspinning. It was like a giant, visual zen koan. You either played it and basked in it or you got bored (and I can't blame you).
.


Sort of off-topic:

GTA could become more like Elite in this respect, but it needs to be LESS freeform! It probably would need to give the player more 'goals', ie. making money to buy better hardware* BUT it should leave it up to the player how to make that money. To have other characters that interact with the player's character, maybe giving him missions or asking for things. Little stories would emerge from the relationships that the player's actions create. Ie. If he keeps robbing certain stores they would start to post more guards, the more often CJ gets in trouble the police could put out wanted posters (so CJ needs to lie low for a few days so the AI forgets and removes them). So the story would emerge from the interaction between needs and A.I response.

*does the levelling up of CJ work like this, from what I've heard not really because it is just to get by certain missions / 'roleplay'.

Likewise, what if SotC had the mini-games (eating, fitness etc) of GTA:SA, but all they did was improve the character's stats so he would be better at fighting the colossii?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lackey
.
.


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 1107
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It sort of does. There's the Geckos to hunt that imporve your grip, and various kinds of fruit which increase your health. Plus your grip is improved every time you defeat a collosus. Not exactly mini-games, though.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a lot of things you can do in the world of SotC, like fly with a bird. Though the reward is usually just playing and not in "gaining" anything from it.

I think if there were minigames, levels, and bonus that the game would honestly be ruined.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
sharc
.
.


Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: hey my fishhook caught some plate mail Reply with quote

i always thought that some hunting would mesh well with the game. if your health didn't just spontaneously regenerate, or if it took much longer for hit points to "grow back," then you would have to hunt some deer in those amazing forests, or do a spot of fishing at some lake. so long as it was kept a strictly utilitarian function, it could be a rewarding sort of interaction with the environment without turning into a zelda game.

needing to hunt and eat to recover from your battles would also make your presence in the forbidden lands that much more disruptive and hostile. perhaps that would be shoving it in the player's face a little too much though, i dunno.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ketch
.
.


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shapermc wrote:
Though the reward is usually just playing and not in "gaining" anything from it.
I think if there were minigames, levels, and bonus that the game would honestly be ruined.


Yes, it seems to me that this is one of the defining features of ICO/SotC that you are rewarded with audio-visual treats, ie. more cool things to look at (the castle, the landscapes, the Behemoths). They try to keep things as 'minimal' as possible in terms of weapons etc.

As Tom Bramwell said in the Eurogamer review of Psychonauts:

"The platform game isn't underneath the funny; it is the funny. It's impossible to talk about the way Psychonauts looks, plays and feels without wandering back to the way it makes you laugh, as the two are inextricably linked. You don't play to get to a joke, like you do in Jak & Daxter. You play and laugh."


Here in SotC, you are rewarded by having stunning new environments /creatures unlocked, instead of being given a new nik-nak/ tool / hearing a Zelda fanfare. Now to build on this, maybe they could go down the route of "grabbing a hawk" which is just like jumping on the roof of a GTA taxi BTW. So that to play the game you would be rewarded for interacting with the creatures / environment. Ie. there would be secret passageways covered with vines, so you would need to pull the vines off- then you could explore the crypt hidden behind it.

Ie. It would reward you for being observant and noticing the features of the environment with more awesome environments.


Imagine if there were a game like Ico/SotC but filled with secrets that worked like this (ie. the secret garden etc). That would be a fun exploration game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scratchmonkey
.
.


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 1439

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of a SotC-style game with now Collossi or really anything to do except run around a large area exploring is actually fairly appealing to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kirkjerk
.
.


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1227

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:09 am    Post subject: SotC and ambiguity Reply with quote

First off, i have to admit I am SO frickin' starved for game time that I'm not sure when I'll sit and play through a game again. (Though I might force it when Libert City Stories comes out on PS2... I just can't get enough of decent mission and story overlayed on a fun sandbox world like that, and I wonder if they'll throw in the multiplayer, not that the PS2 is much of a multiplayer machine)

So that said...I didn't manage to beat the first Colossus, though I've only tried twice, and I'm not sure if I'm going to come back to it. I loved Ico, though, and I understand I'm missing out on both an impressive sense of scale graphically, as well as interesting and well-developed moral story.

When I try to put my finger on why it doesn't work for me, I think it's actually the *visual* ambiguity that puts me off. I hate how hard it was for me to see what's grabbable, i.e. the moss, and in general where I could get to. I guess that's part of the point of this game, and I acknowledge I can be a bit of a wuss gamer. (Also, maybe its made worse by using a front video projector that can sometimes saturate an already saturated game?)

I know it sounds like I need to much handholding, but unless Collossus is more free form than I give it credit for (I know some of the challenges have more than one solution), i guess I like the visual clarity to be on par with the clarity of what you have to accomplish, game-mechanic wise.

Relative to Ico, it might be amplified by the more complex control scheme... knowing I might have to grab, duck, roll, spin, etc w/o being able to see clearly which one applies, or sure how I'll execute it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index -> Club for the Study and Appreciation of Interactive Audio Visual Media All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group