Author Topic: Shadow of the Colossus (Read 22183 times)

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #50 on:** October 28, 2006, 12:16:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
"The visuals really hurt it for me because I truly dislike poor framerates, they ruin my interaction with a game (which is why I really disliked PD for N64). "

Ouch no Perfect Dark love from VG. Maybe I'm a fanboy but Perfect Dark is one of my favorite games of all time. Hell I bought a 360 just to play PD0(which wasn't 1/10 as awesome as PD).

Anyway SotC was a good game, but I felt it could've been more. I thought Ico was better, but both are just kind of bland. Nothing is going on to convey how epic everything is. A game that tries to be all cinematic needs a cinematic touch like engaging music, and some other stuff moving in the world other than your damn character (lizards and crows don't count). I always felt riding Epona through Hyrule in OoT was epic and it was just the cool music and the sound effects of Epona and Link. But I am a Nintendo fan for a reason, and I'm sure some of that fanboy in me tends to cloud my judgement a tad bit when observing other games.

My thoughts exactly on SotC, it never felt epic . Reasons for me disliking Ico were a bit because of my own personal taste, I really do not like having to protect a character in games and find it tedious, not to mention the repetitive shadow creatures!

SixthAngel · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2006, 12:02:53 PM »

I just got this game and have only beat the second Colossus. I think it is a great game so far but I want to do something besides just fight the big monsters. It is a game of constant climaxes and no build-up, I think it would benefit a lot if there was something to do besides ride from colossus to colossus. (unless I haven't gotten to it yet.)

SixthAngel · « **Reply #52 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:49:59 AM »

After beating the game and reading everyones impressions here I am surprised that when I played I had no framerate problems. It ran smooth all the time. I looked around and people say that old ps2s run with a worse framerate. Is this true and if so what exactly did Sony change in later models to improve it?

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #53 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:59:05 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
After beating the game and reading everyones impressions here I am surprised that when I played I had no framerate problems. It ran smooth all the time. I looked around and people say that old ps2s run with a worse framerate. Is this true and if so what exactly did Sony change in later models to improve it?

That is weird, I have the PS2 slim and encountered some bad framerate problems. My only guess is that DVD reading problems could cause problems, not sure though. It could just be the hardware used in it.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #54 on:** November 13, 2006, 04:45:20 PM »

Just picked up the game today, and the game seems to have framerate blahs, but they are steady so it's hard to really notice...That said, I loved the first boss battle (all I've done so far), but holy crap are the controls awful...Particularly for the horse...

ShyGuy · « **Reply #55 on:** May 12, 2007, 04:51:37 PM »

Hahaha bump from the pits! This is an interesting game that is really boiled down to its very essences. Nothing extraneous here.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #56 on:** May 12, 2007, 07:42:40 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Hahaha bump from the pits! This is an interesting game that is really boiled down to its very essences. Nothing extraneous here.

Its essence being a game to big for its hardware britches that is hampered by some of the most inconsistent framerates around.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #57 on:** May 12, 2007, 08:53:48 PM »

Didn't seem too terrible to me. The colossuses (colussi?) were supposed to be really slow right?

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #58 on:** May 12, 2007, 09:01:04 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Didn't seem too terrible to me. The colossuses (colussi?) were supposed to be really slow right?

You didn't know the jerky framerate? I'll admit the game had great art design, but the framerate ruined it for me, I wish they would have waited and released it on PS3.

darknight06 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:00:24 PM »

Framerate issues sound like the game does a lot of streaming that the poor drive can't deal with too much.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #60 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:04:09 PM »

I donno, framerate has never been a big deal to me. Probably comes from playing PC games on underpowered systems back in the day.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #61 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:07:14 PM »

If the screen has a relatively slow framerate, that's fine with me, so long as it is with good reason. That's a pretty pansy of a reason to avoid a game in most cases, and always seemed like a shabby excuse to complain to me.

That said, I've never played the game, but it looks like a great idea, but I tend to make Nintendo's games my top priority in most cases, and I don't even get to all of them, so I didn't get enough time for the game.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #62 on:** May 14, 2007, 08:45:55 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
If the screen has a relatively slow framerate, that's fine with me, so long as it is with good reason. That's a pretty pansy of a reason to avoid a game in most cases, and always seemed like a shabby excuse to complain to me.

That said, I've never played the game, but it looks like a great idea, but I tend to make Nintendo's games my top priority in most cases, and I don't even get to all of them, so I didn't get enough time for the game.

I've always hated poor, inconsistent framerates I would much rather have a game with less visual kick with a steady framerate then one overly ambitious with a poor framerate. It ruins the fun for me, not to mention it gives me a headache.

Svevan · « **Reply #63 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:49:20 AM »

Framerate in SotC is a problem in some of the really big bosses - the last one is the worst for framerates and gameplay, so there's no reason to play it other than to see the amazing ending.

I submit that a game is more than the sum of its parts. I do not snub my nose at bad graphics or story, why should I therefore snub middling controls or framerates? If any of these elements are so terrible as to detract from the experience, then the game may be flawed. I don't believe that's true in SotC at all. The controls in SotC are beautifully difficult to master, turning the colossi into terrible mountains. (I've maintained for years that the bad controls in Resident Evil games prior to number 4 were brilliant, and RE4's new controls aren't that much better. Bad control is a part of the aesthetic.)

If I believed that every part of a game must be good, that is, when I played a game I honestly said "These graphics are good, the controls are good, the gameplay is good, the sound is good, ergo, this game is good" then I am not looking at the game at all. I have not asked why the game exists, what its purpose is, what I am supposed to gain from it. If I ask this I may find that the game is intended not to be simple but complicated, not fluid but scary. I may also see that the game's story and presentation are ten times more important than its length or depth. Tough pills for Nintendo fans to swallow, I know.

As for framerates, I don't know how anyone who ever played the N64 could ever criticize framerates and call them a deal-breaker. Banjo-Tooie (and sometimes Kazooie), Perfect Dark, Vigilante 8, Blast Corps, Turok 1 and 2, Winback, Body Harvest, Castlevania, Bad Fur Day, Jet Force Gemini, Pilotwings, Starfox 64, even the two Zelda games! Each one of these had framerate issues, some worse than others (Nintendo was pretty good at avoiding them, others were not). System limitations did not keep these games from being beautiful and compelling, even though they were at times very difficult to play. I propose that SotC has better framerates than any of the Rare games (minus Blast Corps) I have mentioned.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #64 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:48:31 AM »

Evan, those were the N64 days where 3D was still relatively new, it is inexcusable to have poor frame rates in this day and age (BTW I hated Perfect Dark because of the frame rate). SotC had some of the most inconsistent frame rates last generation and it felt like I was playing the game in slow motion most of the time, I think you are being WAY too lenient in regards to it. Even the vast majority of reviewers have commented on the poor frame rate, including those that loved the game. Regardless I think the game is overrated, it isn't complex, and basically boils down to "stab the monster in the weak spot", along with getting really repetitive down the line. It was a one trick pony that should have been put down far sooner.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #65 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:04:19 AM »

Those N64 games were arguably top-of-the-line for their time, for their hardware, venturing into infant tech territory (3D as opposed to 2D; 2D had little problem displaying at constant 30fps or 60fps).

Once we jumped to a whole new generation of technology (ps2 era), the obvious shortcomings of fluidity and poly output should have been RESOLVED, provided a developer puts a sufficient amount of work into tech-resource budgeting (when the game asks for more than the hardware can safely accomodate, we get a performance hit -- all too common).

Allowing yesterday's simple performance problems be present on today's platforms is inexcusable. It's like receiving a written report that hasn't been spell-checked and doesn't satisfy the word count. Being forgiving of these shortcomings in an age that touted "unparalleled" and "superior" technology is ironic and SAD.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #66 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:17:56 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Those N64 games were arguably top-of-the-line for their time, for their hardware, venturing into infant tech territory (3D as opposed to 2D; 2D had little problem displaying at constant 30fps or 60fps).

Once we jumped to a whole new generation of technology (ps2 era), the obvious shortcomings of fluidity and poly output should have been RESOLVED, provided a developer puts a sufficient amount of work into tech-resource budgeting (when the game asks for more than the hardware can safely accomodate, we get a performance hit -- all too common).

Allowing yesterday's simple performance problems be present on today's platforms is inexcusable. It's like receiving a written report that hasn't been spell-checked and doesn't satisfy the word count. Being forgiving of these shortcomings in an age that touted "unparalleled" and "superior" technology is ironic and SAD.

I agree 100% with that. A game like Shadow of Colossus felt like the developer was trying to do too much with the hardware, and not enough balancing. There is no doubt in my mind that they could have sacrificed some of the polygons, and had the same, if not greater impact. God of War comes to mind when i think of a visuals that look quite good but also have a fairly steady framerate.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #67 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:43:18 AM »

I'm with Evan on this one. I've played too many N64 games for some small framerate issues to bother me, and I don't see how it can bother most of you if you had one that you played a lot too.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #68 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:55:41 AM »

Ironic how there weren't many N64 games in the first place. We were all stuck playing the same sluggish games. Not a reason to give up and settle for less.

For a reflex-intensive gamer like myself, poor framerates are completely undesirable since they adversely affect timing and control.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #69 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:56:50 AM »

Remember Super Smash Bros?

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #70 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:00:09 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Remember Super Smash Bros?

Yeah that a pretty smooth framerate. Your point?

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #71 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:05:00 AM »

Yeah and I remember it took forever for people to move around in that game, smooth framerate and all. Leave your reflexes at the door.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #72 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:25:07 AM »

Uhh, go back and play a four player battle in Saffron City, and tell me again that it has a smooth framerate.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #73 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:49:26 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Uhh, go back and play a four player battle in Saffron City, and tell me again that it has a smooth framerate.

Go back and play stages other than Saffron City (I don't even recall that being all that bad). Doesn't matter though because Melee is far superior.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #74 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:53:36 PM »

I used Saffron City because that's the last level I played anytime recently and I remember pretty heavy slowdown. My point was that most of us loved the game then when there was slowdown, and don't even remember it now. Then there's huge games with much more impressive graphics that have similar or smaller quantities of slowdown, and we call it game-breaking. Sure, it isn't the best looking or playing thing to happen, but it certainly isn't going to ruin playing the game unless you let it.

News:

Author Topic: Shadow of the Colossus (Read 22183 times)