Shadow of the Colossus
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
It's a great game for everyone.
Unless you count stabbing giant creatures as too violent for your 7 year old. It's a beautiful game overall. With an Ueda story, so it's pretty vague but deep. (maybe you're son won't appreciate the story, but he'll likely find the colossi rather awesome).
I'd say its a must have for every PS2 owner.
Unless you count stabbing giant creatures as too violent for your 7 year old. It's a beautiful game overall. With an Ueda story, so it's pretty vague but deep. (maybe you're son won't appreciate the story, but he'll likely find the colossi rather awesome).
I'd say its a must have for every PS2 owner.
Oninotsume
Newcomer
A second that
I agree. At first you and your son might be taken aback by the kind of gruesome stabbing sound and the somewhat sad deaths of the colossus, but if you continue to play through the story you'll find that not everything is as it seems.
Overall it's a must own, must play video game for any video game fan.
I think your seven year old son will have no problem with what violence there is, but I doubt he'll be able to appreciate the amazing story, which is really a love story. (You'll have to explain it to him
)
I agree. At first you and your son might be taken aback by the kind of gruesome stabbing sound and the somewhat sad deaths of the colossus, but if you continue to play through the story you'll find that not everything is as it seems.
Overall it's a must own, must play video game for any video game fan.
I think your seven year old son will have no problem with what violence there is, but I doubt he'll be able to appreciate the amazing story, which is really a love story. (You'll have to explain it to him
)Try it at least, it's definately something that needs to be experienced.
In somewhat related news, ICO (re-released lately) was at N. 6 on the "chart" of PS2 games in GAME shops yesterday. Quite amazing when you think about it.
In somewhat related news, ICO (re-released lately) was at N. 6 on the "chart" of PS2 games in GAME shops yesterday. Quite amazing when you think about it.
I haven't picked it up yet (just released), but from all impressions its not overly violent. Its main gameplay theme is violent (killing Colossus) but its not gratuitous.
SOTC = #1 in UK
ICO = #23
http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015
Latest charts:london-boy said:
SOTC = #1 in UK
ICO = #23
http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015
Nicked said:
Oh right, i was talking about the "chart" section in the shops themselves...
SoC is too complex and has subtle moral issues that your son will not understand. A child that young should not play it. It's rated TEEN here in North America.
Neopets: The Darkest Faerie or Ape Escape 3 would be better choices, but most likely less appealing to you.
Neopets: The Darkest Faerie or Ape Escape 3 would be better choices, but most likely less appealing to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
I say it would be fine. Though, there IS a part in the game..that emotionally...made me VERY sad. I don't know how a 7 year old would cope with this event. Other than that though, taking down the colossus is VERY fun and (with some colossus) requires you to do alot of thinking.
It also has great replay value. I recommend it for both you and your son.
It also has great replay value. I recommend it for both you and your son.
I bought this game over the weekend and have just defeated 2 Colossus.
So far, I haven't quite understood why this game has been championed by many review sites as having "great graphics for the PS2".
I am mostly familiar with PC 3D graphics... and therefore I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me why this particular game can score higher than, say, any of the "Ratchet" series for great PS2 graphics.
Does this game's acclaimed "great graphics" have anything to do with its big world/landscape? Or are we talking about clever use by the developer of the PS2's texture/memory limits and we are really talking about good texture artists?
So far, I haven't quite understood why this game has been championed by many review sites as having "great graphics for the PS2".
I am mostly familiar with PC 3D graphics... and therefore I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me why this particular game can score higher than, say, any of the "Ratchet" series for great PS2 graphics.
Does this game's acclaimed "great graphics" have anything to do with its big world/landscape? Or are we talking about clever use by the developer of the PS2's texture/memory limits and we are really talking about good texture artists?
The shimmering is kinda of bad, and the texturing is not that great, but I thought it had a lot of neat effects that made it stood out. The fur, the massive environments, the grass, dust, bloom lighting (have kinda mixed feelings about that one), and the environmental look, that made the graphics feel realistic. Certainly the Colossi are impressively rendered.
I think Rachet 3 has prettier graphics, but more cartoony looking.
I think Rachet 3 has prettier graphics, but more cartoony looking.
Because when the main character hangs on one arm from the fur of a moving colossus, he moves like a boy hanging with one arm from the fur of a moving colossus. Or when [SIZE=-1]Agro walks down the steps in the intro it moves like a horse walking down steps. I don't know a single PC game that does this. ([/SIZE]Or console, for that matter)Reverend said:
Sure, the aliasing is horrible, the framerate varies wildly and the textures aren't exactly high-res, but who can criticize trivialities like those when faced with such artistry?
I think the game got so much prestige mainly due to its artistical take. It really did set a mood. Though, if you don't get this feeling from the game you probably do end up dislikeing it. Which is why SotC is the type of game you either hate or love.
I'm not so sure if SotC is very kid-friendly game.
At least make sure you don't
kneel at the foot of the shrine where the girl lies and take a peek.
I think I saw a beaver there.
Could be a furry colossus too, like the end boss.
Don't really know as I haven't yet finished the game.
Also, if you start having erotically-orientated dreams about scaling the furry belly of a colossus, it's not good for you.
At least make sure you don't
kneel at the foot of the shrine where the girl lies and take a peek.
I think I saw a beaver there.
Could be a furry colossus too, like the end boss.
Don't really know as I haven't yet finished the game.
Also, if you start having erotically-orientated dreams about scaling the furry belly of a colossus, it's not good for you.
Also let's not forget the most amazing part of the graphics, most amazing because of the way they pulled it off on little old PS2, Fur shading. Sure, it's not done with pixel shaders, but it looks bloody amazing, and it even has a part in the gameplay (it's the only surface you can "grab" on to, which is needed to climb the giants).
The fact that Fur, HDR, large environments and huge charaters, LOTS of particle effects and fabulous animation (for the most part) are there all together at the same time, is what i think makes this game one of the most taxing on PS2, and it really shows in the framerate at times. The style also helps a lot.
Most other games in comparison look like silly cartoony games.
The fact that Fur, HDR, large environments and huge charaters, LOTS of particle effects and fabulous animation (for the most part) are there all together at the same time, is what i think makes this game one of the most taxing on PS2, and it really shows in the framerate at times. The style also helps a lot.
Most other games in comparison look like silly cartoony games.
Reverend said:
I wrote a nice long reply to this and then the board ate it... bah.
Anyway, we're probably all agreed that HDR = "High Dynamic Range", but as far as I am aware, there is no standard definition of how dynamic your range has to be to qualify. Does it have to be 16 bit? Does Nao's technique qualify? Do we need floats?
Also, there is no clear definition of which bits of the rendering need to use HDR for us to be able to say "we're using HDR". Textures? Shaders? Compositing? My monitor?
If we use a GPU manufacturers marketing department, they'd probably say "HDR throughout the whole pipeline" - which is all very nice, but probably unnecessary and not actually that helpful a definition anyway. SotC certainly doesn't do this - the PS2 would certainly struggle to implement HDR at this level, being based around decidedly non-HDR friendly hardware. And until we get new HDR monitors, all HDR solutions will need to map down to a decidedly non-HDR output format anyway.
However in the real world I feel we can be more pragmatic and assume that HDR need only be used in part of the rendering to give a significant advantage to the quality of the output. In this case, SotC certainly *is* using HDR, as it composes the final image from several other images using varied exposure levels along with a kind of tone-mapping and bloom effect. It's not used with the ease or overall ability that a modern GPU could do it, but it's still making use of a higher dynamic range of brightness to produce the image.
HDR is IMHO hyped with justification. It's a significant improvement in the way we render images and will result in far more subtle and "real" looking images, as well as opening up a host of interesting special effects and such-like. Sadly at the moment all it's being used for is over-bright lighting and blurry light-sources. Just as soon as people get bored of that, I think we'll start seeing it's potential be realised.
Similar threads
