Shadow of the Colossus

Shadow of the Colossus is another attempt by Sony to produce a game with a unique artistic vision. It does not appear to have been motivated by a desire for sales – this could never be a mass market game – but rather as a gift to the Hardcore gamer, to generate goodwill towards Sony. In this regard, the game succeeds admirably, delivering an established play pattern (bosses) in an extremely polished package. Fumito Ueda and his team are to be commended for their work on this game, but this is not to say that there is not also room for criticism. 

Emotions

The game is emotionally narrow, delivering chiefly awe (wonder and fear) and fiero (triumph over adversity), with the usual suspects of excitement and relief coming along for the ride. Indeed, delivery of fiero is the only reason to bother with a boss battle, which is a tired mechanic only surviving on the back of game-literate players having a great desire for fiero; witness Clive Thompson’s sermon extolling the virtue of the fiero of bosses (although he does not use the word himself).

This narrowness actually serves to heighten the experience of the game in many respects, and should not necessarily be interpreted negatively, but it comes at the cost of the player gradually becoming inured to the emotions being focussed upon.

The awe of the game is at its strongest when one faces the first colossus, specifically when one uses the L1 button to frame the camera such that the avatar’s and colossus’ heads are both in shot. The impact of this moment is tangible. However, as one makes one’s way through the sixteen colossi, the impact diminishes. Although there are several truly exceptional beasts the player is forced to slay, there are also many which feel about the same quality as the best bosses found in other games. Perhaps some players were able to sustain the feeling of awe longer than others; I would be interested to hear different viewpoints. 

The diminishment of the awe of the game is all the greater because the player’s experiences in the world of the game are emotionally flat. Boredom, and occasionally frustration, are the key feelings many players will get riding around the somewhat repetitive landscape. The luckiest players are those who can find some beauty in the desolation of the surroundings or who, like me, are so in love with animals that simply riding a beautiful horse is in itself a satisfying experience. Nonetheless, even satisfaction and fleeting moments of beauty are not enough to break up the pacing of the game which is essentially back-to-back bosses.

These bosses are remarkable and, unlike other games, each uses the same basic subsystems such that the player rapidly improves in their capacity to tackle these foes. There is much fiero to be gained in defeating them, heightened by a beautiful if slightly repetitive orchestral score, and some players will also experience a certain sadness and regret in killing such beautiful beasts. However, fiero is rarely delivered in large doses without the player having to struggle through a considerable volume of frustrations, and this game is no exception. I personally found this rapidly killed any sympathy I might have for the colossi – I became resigned to killing them, because it was the only choice afforded me and anyway, they annoyed me. 

The game does afford more protection against frustration than most; the avatar is significantly more indestructible than any other I have been given to take into battle against arbitrary bosses. Indeed, one rapidly learns that this is a “rough and tumble” game – even more so than the recent GTA games. One can fall huge distances, survive being punched in the face by a hundred ton giant and always has the option to hide away and heal up to full health. This was perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of the game for me, as I relaxed into letting myself be thrown around like a rag-doll. It made me wish (as I often do) that more games afforded great latitude to the player in terms of their survival. It is sad and incongruous that the game still uses killzones to bound some of the play areas, especially as it is not always possible to understand why one great fall takes but a fraction of the player’s health while another is (defined as) fatal.

Gameplay

The main task of the game is to solve the puzzle represented by each colossi, then climb and slay them. It becomes second nature after a while. Placing puzzles directly on the spine of the game like this narrows the appeal of the game, but given the game’s intended audience this isn’t a problem. It’s a nice touch that a sequence of hints is provided to bail the player out if they get stuck, although usually these verbal hints merely tell players what they have already worked out. Still, even this is helpful, as it reassures the player that they are on the right track. Anything to alleviate the frustration of play should be seen as an asset. 

Associated with this is locating the colossi, which is carried out via a somewhat clunky compass system, in which the player must hold their sword up to the light and move around until the beams focus on a particular point. This adds challenge where none is strictly necessary; if the game was interested in a wider audience, it would have made more sense to simply have the light from the sword point to the path forward when it is held up in this way. Since it is not, it is less of an issue, but it is quite telling to watch players in a shop try and work out what is going on when they activate the sword compass. Unmitigated confusion is the most common response. One can argue that since the audience for this game is going to be enjoying challenge, adding more challenge is an asset. To this I must ask: did anyone find the compass operation rewarding? I am open to the idea that they might.

Speaking for myself, I preferred to use the sword compass as an orienteering guide. I would take two readings in separate locations by conferring with the map, and use this to point out the location of the next colossus (a skill I learned from CB radio “foxhunting” games in my youth). I found this much easier than co-operating with the sword compass, but it did mean I had to use the game map which is perhaps the worst game map I’ve seen in recent years. The map is sufficiently unclear to begin with, without the strange clouds which clear away only temporarily when the player explores. 

I find it incomprehensible that the other half of the gameplay is “secret”. Indeed, I am grateful to Jack for telling me about the fruit and lizard tails (which serve as power ups, thus making the game easier) as I have no way of knowing if I would have discovered this feature otherwise! I consider it to be very bad form to hide (i.e. never tell the player, even in the manual) the mechanism by which the game can be made easier. All games are improved by granting the player the capacity to adjust the game difficulty to wherever they are most comfortable – whether at higher or lower difficulty. I can see no justification, beyond mean spirited denial, or an attempt to provide a small additional fiero payoff for players who “discover” this feature, for not stating this game element somewhere, at least in the manual.

Given how large and dull the game landscape is (although I personally entertained myself for many hours just riding around and mentally cataloguing the flora and fauna of this curiously spotty biome), why hide from the player the only two activities that can be performed? Shooting and collecting fruit, and hunting white-tailed lizards. (Not counting grabbing hold of birds and fish for a free ride). My enjoyment of the game reached a comfortable space only after being pointed towards these “hidden” tasks, providing a logistical backbone to the play, and also allowing me to control the game difficulty a little better. 

The horse, Agro, while undoubtedly one of the better horses in games thus far, is a curate’s egg. On the one hand, it is beautiful to look at, the controller’s rumble feature is used to great effect, and the capacity to negotiate narrow trails by simply holding the X button and letting Agro guide himself through is enormously satisfying – one of the few places in the game design that the player has been afforded a certain luxury. On the other hand, insufficient motion capture animations were taken for mounting the horse, making this procedure rather annoying in its exactitude. I also was disappointed that while there are animations for hanging from the horse, one cannot grab hold of Agro as he runs past and then pull up into the saddle (or indeed mount neatly from a jump). These disappointments are minor, but they hurt what otherwise is one of the stronger features of the game.

Ultimately, Shadow of the Colossus attempts to deliver its artistic vision on a backbone of gameplay which is old and familiar. No matter how impressive the colossi may be, we are in little doubt that what we are experiencing is a supremely polished rendition of old familiar play, rather than anything new. Since what makes the game worthwhile is the unique experience of play, which is wonderfully realised, this need not be problematic. Still, the result is a game whose artistic vision can only be received by players who are already game-literate; already experienced gamers. I long for a game whose artistry is open to all comers; a game which can truly bury the ludicrous notion that games cannot be considered art once and for all. This is not that game.

Play Specification

The following is my play specification for the game; apart from various complaints that I will discuss at length below, this is a neat piece of game design: the gripping mechanics work superbly well and mark out the climbing elements of the gameplay as exceptional, and for the most part the toolkit the player is afforded feels surprisingly well rounded despite remaining completely static throughout the game. 

Shadow of the Colossus (Sony, 2005)
Specified by Chris

Move (walk, run, roll, swim - stick; swim underwater – R1)
Climb (climb up, climb across, hang on for dear life - R1 plus
              stick for movement)
Jump (horizontal, vertical, hanging, directed - Triangle)

Ride (walk, trot, canter, gallop - X;
           horse-jump – context sensitive;
           stand on horse,  hang from horse, jump from horse,
           full stop, quick start – special)
Call (shout, whistle – X; used to call horse, or to lure colossus)

Attack (swing sword, stab sword when hanging - Square in
                Sword context)
Aim and Shoot (Square in Bow context)

Look (at colossus ‘twin head view’ - L1; at horse – hold X;
             look from side to side ‘vista view’ - L1 with no colossus;
            zoom – L2)

Navigate (map reading - Start;
                     sword compass – Circle in Sword context)

Crouch (and restore health faster - R1)
Pick up (fruit or lizard tail – R1)
Forward roll (required just twice in the game – R1 + Triangle)
Comfort (Circle must be in Hand context and standing
                   in correct position, annoyingly)
Switch Context (D-pad although also context sensitive) 

The following is my structural specification for the game:

(16 | Briefing. [Navigate World][Cross Area][Defeat Colossus].)
                             [Find Tree][Collect Fruit]
                            [Find Temple].[Hunt Lizard].

Control Criticisms

Before I go any further, I want to discuss what I feel is unnecessary complexity in the control scheme. Putting aside the issue that Ueda-san obviously wanted to make this game in a certain way, I nonetheless want to attempt to ‘fix’ what I see as a careless error in the interface design.

There is no value in there being three selectable contexts – Sword, Bow and Hand. The game would be improved by ditching the Hand context entirely. If this was done, the D-pad would simply toggle between Sword and Bow, with the advantage that any player would know what hitting the D-pad will do. (Although I’m sure some players quickly get to grips with the three states, this certainly has not happened with any of the players I have watched play the game, or with myself, even after some twenty hours of play). 

Why do we not need the Hand context? It does two things that I can ascertain. It allows one to comfort Agro using Circle (a hidden feature), and it is automatically selected when one picks up a fruit or lizard tail. Now since picking up items is context sensitive there is no reason for the Hand context to exist for this functionality. (In fact, I question the need for the pick up to be manually triggered at all – why not pick up fruit and lizard tails when you are in the correct position?)

As for comforting Agro, there is no reason for the player to hit Agro with their sword, and indeed doing so has no effect except to produce an incongruous tinny noise. Once again, there is no need for a Hand context at all: the Square button could comfort Agro as a context sensitive action whenever the player is standing nearby. 

I therefore conclude that the Hand context is entirely unnecessary and could be removed from the interface design completely, improving the game a tiny amount at practically no development expense.

While we’re picking at the loose threads of the interface design, I want to suggest that the Forward Roll verb is superfluous, and actually faintly annoying. It is used twice in the game – once in the tutorial segment, once in the final Colossus. However, I have frequently seen players trigger the Forward Roll by mistake (and done so myself) because Jump and Climb are used constantly throughout the game, and hence it is easy to trigger the Forward Roll accidentally while trying to climb. 

I strongly advocate avoiding overloading controls (multiple functions on a single control) except when context sensitive (and uniquely demarked) or as part of a game such as a fighting game in which arcane control systems are part of the challenge of play.

Lastly, I want to note that the swinging of the sword (Square in Sword context) actually does nothing much at all in the game (except being one way of killing lizards). You don’t use it to fight colossi (you stab them). This actually means that it would be possible (but not necessarily desirable) to do away with the contexts entirely. Square could be sword, activating the sword compass if not hanging on, or stabbing otherwise; Circle could be bow. I mention this as another example of how this interface could be simplified; it is debatable whether this particular change would be an improvement. Doubtless different players would have very different opinions, according to how patient they were with the context system. I believe if there were only two contexts, such that pressing the D-pad would have unambiguous effect, this would actually be sufficient. 

Conclusion

Shadow of the Colossus is a triumph of minimalist game design, stripping away much of the conceits of a typical platform-action game and focussing on a handful of core strengths. The game asks the player to walk a particular line; those that manage to do so without experiencing excessive frustration are treated to a unique and marvellous experience. Others are left feeling they would rather watch the game than play it. 

This is a master class in videogame bosses; I would love to believe that there would be no need to make any more bosses in the wake of this game, but of course, they are the well-charted fiero mines of the Hardcore gaming community, and will be with us for some time to come. At the very least, I hope that other game designers will note how focussing on just a few key subsystems and working upon those produces a more satisfying game (and a more satisfying boss fight) than throwing in every idea one can think of with no regard for how they will fit together.

Like any masterpiece, Shadow of the Colossus has flaws. But many of these flaws are chiefly problems endemic to the games industry as a whole, such as an obsession with both killing and fiero. Indeed, this is a game which could be seen as the pinnacle of pre-existing game conventions; a highly refined product which fails to deliver any significantly new play, but instead offers a polished gem of a more familiar kind. But as with any jewel, be careful not to cut yourself on the sharp edges.

Comments

[Patrick]

You're fair in your criticisms. I see Shadow as a sort of eulogy of the spatially oritented, fiero obsessed age of age design, even if that age isn't yet dead and buried. The real genuis of this game is how the minimalisms makes the gameplay largely (though perhaps it could have been moreso) transparent to the framing context, which if you let it soak into the experience, is quite harrowing. The notion that these beasts are innocent and your mechanical killing of them is actually an instrument of evil, all in the name of humping some dead girl, well, thats not something you get in your everyday shooter. Making characters (the collosi) into levels themselves, it seems to me, is the very limit of what spatial design can do to push into the interpersonal relations.

[Jason Scott]

Good lord, what crap.

Pardon my coming into the conversation so late, but what you've essentially done is composed an arbitrary meta-language of interaction with all activities not related to survival and then, having created this invisible set of standards, started retroactively applying them to previous works and then judging flaws or diminished aspects based on their ability to fulfil your cabalistic guidelines.

I realize you guys have been up to this for some time now, but I finally sat down with FeedDemon and scrolled through your junk. Like some sort of puddle of lame, I thrashed around a bit and have come out muddy, unenlightened and dismayed.

It's good to know that gaming has degenerated to the point that academics can walk the boiler room and talk about things in a nicely sterile pseudo-vocabulary, poking and prodding things, while ignoring social, economic or motivational factors entirely. Way to go.

Is there a way you can prepend these posts with some sort of word that I can use as a flag to ignore them? Maybe something like SPECIFICATION: LEISURE SUIT LARRY, so I and others can quietly click on the "ignore" button and get on with having fun?

[Chris]

Jason:

I'm afraid your viewpoint comes across rather incoherently. If you have any criticisms of any of the matters discussed here, we'd be delighted to hear them - we enjoy discussions about game design theory and practice.

If you are just looking for an argument, though, you might do better to go to one of the many gaming forums; most are full of people happy to engage in verbal sparring. If you just can't stand abstract discussions about game design, I would suggest ignoring us and doing something you enjoy instead.

Whatever you decide to do, if you want to comment here we would appreciate it if you tried to be polite about it. Thank you.

[Chris]

Patrick:

I can't resist noting that you've chosen to interpret the relationship between Wander and Mono as being romantic or sexual in nature. Are you sure you're not projecting? :)

I think this is one of the more successful ambiguous elements in the game story. Because she could be his sister, mother, or victim... there's a lot of room for interpretation, and that sort of ambiguity is hard to achieve.

I'm certainly interested to see what Ueda-san and his team make next.

[Patrick]

I heard it from Matt Sakey.

[Michael Samyn]

Tip for a much nicer play experience: increase the saturation level of your television set to make Shadow look like Ico! :) There's colours hidden underneath the dreary fog!

[Chris]

Michael: I'd be very interesting in hearing how you took to Ico and/or Shadow of the Colossus, if you get a spare moment. I know you had issues with the latter, but not what they were. Best wishes!

[Ben]

Actually, the inclusion of the sword swing is a fantastic touch and really personifies the game's entire approach. Here's a game where you have to (surprise) kill things, but it tries to introduce empathy in place of indifference when you kill one of these creatures. Including the sword swing, as impotent and unused as it is, makes the playe character more real—he's got a real sword, and he's ready and able to do some killin'.

The fact that you never use that strike to kill anything, a strike that is most commonly seen in such 3rd-person action games, subverts the convention, while making the overhand stabbing motions seem more tangible as well (since you've got a sword, not a dedicated overhand-stabbing device).

I agree that much of what makes Colossus so special lies in its execution, in details that make you think about why the designers purposefully put them there framed in an artistic context, instead of a more commercial mindset.

[Chris]

I actually use the sword swing to kill lizards, but this is often unsuccessful - most commonly resulting in hitting rocks instead. :)

But I fully accept your point. The game is the way it is - I'd have it no other way. Still, in attempting to write game criticism (which isn't something we see much of), I have to write critically.

Thanks for the comment!

[Michael Samyn]

Hi Chris,

I described my feelings about Shadow of the Colossus somewhat on our forum (http://tale-of-tales.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=374). In general, it seems to me that this is a typical "darker, more mature" game, as Auriea and I -after the PoP marketing speak- tend to call those games that had brilliant early versions and that turned into much more old school childish game-like experiences later (Ico, Black & White, Silent Hill, Prince of Persia and even The Sims are examples of this sad trend). Very often the sequels dropped all the things that were interesting in the first version and expanded on the weakest and least appreciated aspects of their design (most often combat and competition).
In general, we feel that the future of interactive media lies in a large diversity of forms of interaction. Games are only one of many possible ways in which you can be entertained by interacting with a computer. So moving away from games is considered smarter then moving back to them.

Ico still stands very lonely at the top of interactive entertainment. Which is ironic since it has several flaws that shouldn't be too hard to overcome. For a design team with the proper focus and talent, it wouldn't be so hard to make a game that is better than Ico. But it hasn't happened. The industry is simply not interested in expanding and maturing the medium.
I hope Mr. Ueda realises his mistake and/or refuses to obey his masters next time around. There's plenty of people who can make combat games. Ueda's talents lie elsewhere. I hope he gets the chance to use them again.

[Chris]

Thanks for this Michael; always interested to see where you stand on these issues, since you more than anyone I've met are passionate (perhaps occasionally militant...) about fusing art and games. :)

I think you're a little harsh upon Shadow, and perhaps a little too generous to Ico, although I believe I completely understand the motivation which underlies this from your perspective, seeing how it connects with your own work.

I personally do not rate Ico as highly as you. I have great respect for the game, but boy-o-boy I did not need the barriers to enjoyment it threw in my path. I so loved the first hour or so of play, but underneath the hood a decidedly ancient horror (linear puzzle chains) lurks.

I personally found the relationship between Wander and Agro to be at least as interesting as the relationship between Ico and Yorda, and in this regard (being a game and yet having an interesting relationship within it!) both games are quite unique. It helps that Agro is slightly more co-operative than Yorda, although the use of rumble in Ico to express Yorda was quite exceptional.

With regards to the systematic murder of the beasts in Shadow, at least this is a game which portrays these slayings in a tragic light. Many players, including myself, feel strangely guilty about killing them (at least at first...) - not many games can make such a claim. Is the achievenemt of making players feel *guilty* about killing not worthy of note? (Compare, for instance, God of War).

Both Ico and Shadow strike me as being descended from pre-existing patterns of play, both lovingly rendered with many nice touches. I wouldn't characterise Shadow as more of a 'step towards games' because Ico typifies a very game-like experience to me just as much as Shadow - just a different type of game (in fact, an older form of play, since pattern bosses are much younger than environmental mazes with puzzles).

Unlike you, I don't get the impression that Ueda-san was forced to make Shadow - I think he wanted to. Both Ico and Shadow strike me as reflecting the same kind of game design process; one that begins with established play, then takes a different stance upon it and refines this as best as is possible. I for one am interested to see which direction he travels next.

Thanks again, and best wishes!

[Michael Samyn]

It's true that the feeling of guilt when killing the creatures is rather unique. But I find the fact that the game forces you to kill them, purely sadistic (a tendency that I have noticed in other Japanese games as well -Animal Crossing included- so I think it's a cultural difference).
From the moment that I saw a picture of these creatures, long before the game came out, I wanted to start a campaign to urge players not to kill them. This choice, however, is not supported by the game. As a result, when I'm playing, I'm rooting for the Colossus. I want my avatar to die. And that's never a good sign for any game design (unless you do it on purpose as we will in our next game, 144 ;) ).

I agree that both Ico and Shadow have a very conservative game structure. But while I think of Shadow as a perfection of this structure, Ico strikes me as a game that tries to distract you from this structure all the time. Yorda's unwillingness to collaborate, the sheer beauty of the place, the joy of controlling Ico, the interaction between the characters, even the story, all work together to slow you down, to move your thoughts away from the structure underneath it.
If you "play to win", you won't enjoy Ico much. But Shadow can only be enjoyed if you "play to win". That's why I think Ico is superior. Far from perfect, but a clever compromise, in my opinion.

That being said, it still takes a gamer to enjoy Ico. I have witnessed first time players play Ico recently and they didn't share our appreciation for it so much. For them it was first and foremost a game. It probably takes familiarity with games as systems to be able to ignore them and enjoy the experience despite of its game aspect.

I think the joy that comes from a game as game is immature or at least trivial and superficial. This is the reason, in my opinion, why games cannot break through to a real mainstream market. Non-computer games have not been able to reach a penetration level on par with pop music and cinema (give or take the odd fad). So there is no reason why computer-based games would. People will never be as passionate about a trivial game as they are about a story that touches them emotionally.

I'm not saying that all games should become high art. I'm saying that as long as they don't loose or reduce their "gameness", they don't stand a chance of becoming truly popular.
The few games that did reach popularity beyond others (Myst, Sims) did so because they offered another type of pleasure than the one that comes from playing game-games.

[Chris]

"It probably takes familiarity with games as systems to be able to ignore them and enjoy the experience despite of its game aspect."

I think we are agreed that this is the basic problem that most games striving to be art have at the moment: one must be game literate to enjoy them. What we need are games which work "artistically" with an arbitrary audience, and this is a decidedly non-trivial problem! :)

Take care!

[Ravick]

Well. Personally i think Shadow of the colossus was a game that i got addicted to easily. Even though its only about an amount of five hours of game play. (More of you had that much trouble with it..) But the bosses..As the name. Were just colossal. Nothings more fun then climbing up something that big to slay it. If this game was out for the best games awards, This would easily take the boss battle awards. The game is just epic. The music is wonderful and suits the mood of the battle. The only thing i did find wrong with it..For a 2005 title the charater dev. Could have been abit better..
But yeah this is intended for older gamers..I mean. Blood shooting out into the air, people being sacrificed and a demonic colossus..I found the ending was..Terrific. I can't even explain how i feel about that. It was just so unexpected. Amazing. Just Amazing..Over all i personally LOVED this game. And will continue to play it till a better one comes out.

[Serenade]

I didn't feel 'guilty' when i killed the colossus. I loved the satisfaction got from slaying each and everyone. And some of these bastards weren't so nice..So why would i be feeling guilty?

[Fuzzle]

Honestly, i enjoyed shadow of the colosuss much more than ico. The sheer feeling of: "What the HELL am i supposed to do to kill this thing." was way more satisfying than "Where do I push this box?" or "Follow me or else you're going to get your ass beat".

Shadow of the colosuss is the best combat game ever. Ueda created an experience like no other. I felt good playing the game. I felt sorry for the giants, but then i realized, ive killed thousands of creatures in games without any real purpose. In PacMan, i ran to the dherry just so i could eat the ghosts. In mario, I burst into the stage ready to kick some bombs around and to jump on some flying turtles. To not kill the colosuss is pointless. You bought the game, and in this game, you are (arguably) the enemy. Deal with it.

[Chris]

Fuzzle: I too enjoyed Shadow of the Colossus more than Ico; after initially loving the set-up of Ico, it gradually bored me with its "old school" puzzling. But I feel if you didn't get to experience any guilt at killing the Colossi, you perhaps missed out, as this was perhaps the most original aspect of the game.

Thanks for the comment!