Actually it does. If Picasso announced he's gonna paint something new, you know it's going to be good. And that's for a reason. It's not just a random or shallow arrangement of stuff. It's a bold vision, delivered in a meaningful form.
What Ueda did with Ico and SotC is incredible on many many many levels. He is an artist first and foremost. Ico is a piece of art that no other game approaches even remotely except for SotC.
The simple fact that TLG is not out yet should clue you up on the fact that these games are not just there for show. They are released when they are ready, not when a arbitrary deadline has been reached.
So it's not abound blind faith. It's about complete and utter trust in the man behind these games. Unless his brain got some serious injury, I have complete trust in the fact that he will deliver something on par with his previous 2 masterpieces.
And I'm calling you "not a fan" because you seem blind to the artistic part of Ico.
i'm sorry if this reads very snobbish but I can't stand when people don't give Ico its due credit and go on on praising SotC.
I don't mind having a discussion, but I'm not sure why not liking Ico but praising SotC makes me "not a fan". I acknowledge the artistic merit of Ico. The game itself just does nothing for me really. I'm not sure what can be done to change that. By no means does that mean I can't acknowledge it's place in gaming history or view it as a relevant and important game. I don't like Picasso either for what it's worth, but I can appreciate his uniqueness and talent separately from my emotional indifference to the majority of his work. I'm more of Van Gogh fan personally
To use your example further, you can acknowledge an artists' talent, but not love every work they make. Or put differently, one work may resound strongly and another less so. If games are art (which I believe), and art is highly subjective based on personal or emotional responses, it can't be helped if something just doesn't resonate unanimously. Ico isn't a bad game or anything which I never meant to imply; quite the opposite as I intended to say, it's just not one that I adore personally or one that I relate to with on any profound level from my own experience. I can say objectively it is art however.
That is why I don't believe that everything Team Ico puts out is destined to be a knockout. Sure, they're not rushing. That's great. But we know nothing of this game or why it should be getting heaps of hype and praise with nothing more than a concept trailer that is exceptionally old at this point. Will it be good based on the pedigree? Well, we shall say that the likelihood favors their track record, but it doesn't guarantee that it will have been worth the wait. That may be unfair however, so let me say this- their track record does not mean that this game will resonate with anyone as strongly as those works did automatically.
It's the same reason I didn't just assume Bloodborne would be amazing despite the enormous talent involved, though the odds favored it to be excellent (and indeed it appears that way). A piece of art (or any sort of product) still has to be judged on it's own merits, not solely because the artist or producer has made talented works in the past. Not doing so gives a "free pass" to anything just because.
This may seem like an off topic example, but I loved MGS3. I assumed MGS4 was going to be a game I loved. It wasn't. Lesson learned. I can appreciate what it was trying to do, and it succeeded highly in some areas, but overall it did not resonate with me in context of the series as strongly as I figured it would. Kojima still remains a visionary in my mind however, and MGS4 an important game despite what I would consider a series of disappointing and egregious story plot lines in 4. But I didn't care much for Ground Zeroes, and though I will be there for Phantom Pain, I wait to be impressed rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.