• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

After playing Portal 2, Ico seems really rather terrible.

ico sucks big time.
this game is one giant escort mission.
it cant get any worse.
well maybe if the game was one giant underwater level with limited oxygen supply...
 
PansenHansen said:
ico sucks big time.
this game is one giant escort mission.
it cant get any worse.
well maybe if the game was one giant underwater level with limited oxygen supply...
See OP? This is how to troll.
 
BocoDragon said:
Do you really think "flaws" are objective things? They're a matter of opinion.
When talking about controls layout and framerate issues yes I say those are objective.

Error said:
didn't bother reading the whole thread because the first couple of pages are full of shitty posts. dismissing his criticism which are pretty on-point IMO, just because he compared it to Portal 2?

Too bad for the OP that Team ICO games are sacred cows you simply can't criticize, even when the criticism is fair and backed up with solid arguments.

reminds of the sotc criticims

"the horse controls are cumbersome and weird" "but that's how a real horse feels like!"
"the world is barren and lifeless" "but that adds to the atmosphere!!"

A war you can't win, my friend.
ALLELUIA! Best was : "framerate problems" and "limited to 30fps", "but this was a wish of the creator to create even more struggle to fight!" :clapclap:
 
I haven't played Portal 2 but I am guessing that game is waaay better than the original in order for such level of praise to be attached to it because while I found Portal one a decent tutorial romp I never once considered it as anywhere near as good as most people seem to it was a fairly simplistic puzzle game with delusions of grandeur, I did like the final level though.

As for Ico haven't played that either but after playing SOTC I don't think I will willingly play another Team Ico game.
 
I couldn't play more than a few hours of Ico but loved Portal 2. I also echo your sentiments OP. I really liked the script of Portal 2, Wheatley and GlaDOS made the world feel very alive.
 
This whole thread:

TcAgP.gif
 
Every game with traps has a setting that shouldn't exist.

Why is Samus constantly finding her weapons and upgrades in places where there are ancient aliens trying to kill her?

I can totally understand not liking ICO, but you are on the losing end of history. ICO is and will continue to be considered fondly among last generation's games. For a 2001 game, it's freaking monumental. Think about what was released that year. GTA3, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Halo, Devil May Cry, Pikmin, and we're still talking about it 10 years later.

What does tell you?
 
Speevy said:
Every game with traps has a setting that shouldn't exist.

Why is Samus constantly finding her weapons and upgrades in places where there are ancient aliens trying to kill her?

I can totally understand not liking ICO, but you are on the losing end of history. ICO is and will continue to be considered fondly among last generation's games. For a 2001 game, it's freaking monumental. Think about what was released that year. GTA3, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Halo, Devil May Cry, Pikmin, and we're still talking about it 10 years later.

What does tell you?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/videogame-characters-denounce-randomly-placed-swin,293/
 
Speevy said:
Every game with traps has a setting that shouldn't exist.

Why is Samus constantly finding her weapons and upgrades in places where there are ancient aliens trying to kill her?

I can totally understand not liking ICO, but you are on the losing end of history. ICO is and will continue to be considered fondly among last generation's games. For a 2001 game, it's freaking monumental. Think about what was released that year. GTA3, Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Halo, Devil May Cry, Pikmin, and we're still talking about it 10 years later.

What does tell you?
Absolutely nothing apart from the fact that hype is pretty time resistant. Also, the games you actually quoted are a lot more technically impressive than ICO but I'm not sure that's what you actually meant.
 
Everything Valve makes has the effect of everything else in its category seem antiquated. To me, at least.

Nintendo has the same effect with its front runners.


Edit - I consider corridor FPS's and open FPS's two different categories. They really are quite different.

To give two examples:
Corridor FPS - Half Life 2
Open FPS - Far Cry/Crysis

The games just feel really different, and I think should belong in a different category.

Edit 2 - Corridor FPS's are more scripted. Enemy movements don't really change much during a replay. Open FPS's give you a lot more options. With usually a basic goal "Attack the base". But how? That's up to you, there are usually many different routes you can take to kill everybody in the base. You can go stealth, guns blazing, different directions, lure the enemies to you, grenades, hide in the weeds and do sniper shots, etc.

I would like Valve to do an Open FPS.
 
_dementia said:
tumblr_lslw812PA31r12z99o1_500.jpg


cute illustration

Idiotic picture which doesn't even get Chell halfway right. And in real life, Chell would just have used a Portal to get out of there, not blown out of there with a bomb or whatever. And that boy is going to get confused at anything more taxing than a lever 'puzzle'. She'll be the one leading him. And what kind of name is Ico anyway?
 
OP given this and your other thread, I'm assuming that you're an Art History major who has just been introduced to critical thinking but isn't sure what to do with it yet, am I close?
 
You're kind of missing the point of Ico. Ico's MECHANICS made you care for Yorda. The puzzles and environments were based around making you feel worried about Yorda when you were separated from her. The two of you are supposed to work together to escape from the castle, which is why a couple of the scenes are so touching. THIS is Ico's real strength, not the perceived cleverness of its sliding block puzzles. You care about Yorda not because of some script you're watching, but because you feel these emotions yourself, as a player. The puzzles just exist to highlight this relationship. The mysteriousness and loneliness of the setting simply adds to the effect.

The fact that a game was able to do this through its gameplay, not just through cutscenes, is something modern games especially have trouble with. I've played too many games where the climactic moments are just empty-feeling cinematics.

Yes, Ico has its problems and some of the puzzles frustrated the hell out of me at times. Its controls are clunky and many people think the graphics look horrible (I disagree). It isn't perfect. However, you can't say Portal 2 is perfect because it has no technical limitations. That's ridiculous. I guarantee someone in 10 years will come back and make a similar thread about how terrible the Portal games were, completely missing the context of the original games and why we liked them so much. Will that make them terrible? No.

You're perfectly allowed to dislike Ico, but we're also allowed to talk about why we love it so much.

Edit: Looks like my main point was made a couple of times a few pages back. Forgive me, but this thread is EXCEPTIONALLY hard to read without excusing myself every few pages to hit my head against a wall. I wanted to get my point out before it was tainted with forehead blood.
 
Is Super Puzzle Fighter fundamentally identical to Tetris because you stack blocks in both games? Yeah they're comparable, but liking one doesn't invalidate the others existence. I like Super Puzzle Fighter better, but It doesn't mean I can no longer appreciate Tetris. It certainly doesn't make the games identical because they share a short list of broad traits.

The assertion that Ico and Portal are fundamentally identical because they both have puzzles is really quite laughable. The fundamentals of the design of each game is strikingly different, the pacing, atmosphere, actual game-play and puzzle design, all very different.
the puzzles in portal are designed around core mechanics that Ico doesn't have and vice versa

The fact that portal contextualizes its puzzles is also a pretty weak argument for it invalidating Ico. The primary factor in the art of games is the game-play, having a better narrative layer somewhere in the mix can be worth while, but never necessarily. I can't see it ever being necessary, too many amazing games, that are incredible experiences with little to no narrative or justification at all have come out. With several games it's argued that the inclusion of too much explanation dilutes the purity of the game-play experience. I remember reading a story where Miyamoto said that he was upset with how much story was in Mario Galaxy.

Even still, justifying in terms of defending Ico's narrative. There is merit in mystery and leaving questions unanswered, especially with the deliberate atmosphere Ico was clearly building.

The games really aren't at all identical. Also, I finished Ico for the first time this year in the collection. Played a bunch of it when it first came out, but I was in 4th grade or so and could never finish it. I had a lot fun with it and I wasn't thinking while playing it "Man, Portal 2 did this so much better" lol cause they aren't doing the same thing.

Edit:
_dementia said:
tumblr_lslw812PA31r12z99o1_500.jpg


cute illustration

This picture is the best thing in the thread! Who did it?
 
jim-jam bongs said:
OP given this and your other thread, I'm assuming that you're an Art History major who has just been introduced to critical thinking but isn't sure what to do with it yet, am I close?

Not really. I'd rather not reveal too much about my real life but lets just say that I'll be the cat helping you out if you ever need to takeover a company.

As to the references to high art, it's basically just as a result of my interest in these things. For every hour I spend playing Portal 2, I spend 3 admiring the great works in the National Gallery and the V+A, or reading Aeneid. I find that being an admirer and participant of these works hypnotizes my conscious critical mind and frees up my right brain to make socio-poetic leaps, so when I see Portal 2 I flash to the great comedies of our time, like Le Roi des Champs-Élysées, and see the clear lineage between Keaton's performance and Merchant's; alternatively, I perceive games like Final Fantasy VIII as a semi-conceptual physical manifestation of orchestral pieces like Vivaldi's magnum opus, Le quattro stagioni.
 
Hylian7 said:
They have been putting out real "winners" of articles lately.

"Why Dark Souls will eat Skyrim's face."
"What Mario can learn from Catherine."

so i shouldn't be asking whats wrong IGN,
i should be asking What is wrong with gamers sense of humor?
 
I played P2 first and then Ico HD. Ico made P2 rather one dimension. Created in 2001, Ico is amazing because it combined art, music, story telling, animation, and level design into one mesmerizing package. There are a few annoying moments (e.g., water wheel puzzle) but Ico puzzles definitely are more than block pushing and invisible paths. These only form a very small part of the game. I suspect OP has not completed Ico yet when he wrote the post.
 
Your Excellency said:
Idiotic picture which doesn't even get Chell halfway right. And in real life, Chell would just have used a Portal to get out of there, not blown out of there with a bomb or whatever. And that boy is going to get confused at anything more taxing than a lever 'puzzle'. She'll be the one leading him. And what kind of name is Ico anyway?
Her appearance is completely right though.
 
Your Excellency said:
Not really. I'd rather not reveal too much about my real life but lets just say that I'll be the cat helping you out if you ever need to takeover a company.

As to the references to high art, it's basically just as a result of my interest in these things. For every hour I spend playing Portal 2, I spend 3 admiring the great works in the National Gallery and the V+A, or reading Aeneid. I find that being an admirer and participant of these works hypnotizes my conscious critical mind and frees up my right brain to make socio-poetic leaps, so when I see Portal 2 I flash to the great comedies of our time, like Le Roi des Champs-Élysées, and see the clear lineage between Keaton's performance and Merchant's; alternatively, I perceive games like Final Fantasy VIII as a semi-conceptual physical manifestation of orchestral pieces like Vivaldi's magnum opus, Le quattro stagioni.
WHAT? Keaton's demeanor and brand of comedy is the total opposite from Merchant (Wheatley). A deadpan, straight faced, mostly silent form of comedy, versus Merchant (Wheatley) which is heavily expressive and dialogue based.
 
After playing Portal 2, Portal 2 seems pretty terrible. There's just no sense of discovery, I get this "I've seen it all before" feeling, the puzzles aren't challenging, and the story and jokes are tired retreads. What a shame!
 
Your Excellency said:
Not really. I'd rather not reveal too much about my real life but lets just say that I'll be the cat helping you out if you ever need to takeover a company.

As to the references to high art, it's basically just as a result of my interest in these things. For every hour I spend playing Portal 2, I spend 3 admiring the great works in the National Gallery and the V+A, or reading Aeneid. I find that being an admirer and participant of these works hypnotizes my conscious critical mind and frees up my right brain to make socio-poetic leaps, so when I see Portal 2 I flash to the great comedies of our time, like Le Roi des Champs-Élysées, and see the clear lineage between Keaton's performance and Merchant's; alternatively, I perceive games like Final Fantasy VIII as a semi-conceptual physical manifestation of orchestral pieces like Vivaldi's magnum opus, Le quattro stagioni.
What we saw from Wheatley has nothing to do with what is considered signature about Buster Keaton, aside from being funny. Were you talking about Michael Keaton?
 
Traumnovelle said:
WHAT? Keaton's demeanor and brand of comedy is the total opposite from Merchant (Wheatley). A deadpan, straight faced, mostly silent form of comedy, versus Merchant (Wheatley) which is heavily expressive and dialogue based.

Not identical, but the fundamentals of the two are comparable and work off each other.
 
Your Excellency said:
Not identical, but the fundamentals of the two are comparable and work off each other.
If these fundamentals are so comparable, you might as well compare every comedian in history to Merchant. What is it about Keaton's deadpan expressions, his silence, or his very physical stunt work that compares to Merchant's voice performance of Wheatley? I think you are full of crap.
 
Does ICO become more fun as it goes on at all? Im 48 minutes in, and its a dull slog through boring town so far. OK, the castle thing is huge, but nothing about the atmosphere seems ground breaking for its time to me??

I'll press on (Im selling/trading in all my other games next week, I have no choice).
 
Charoncaori said:
You're kind of missing the point of Ico. Ico's MECHANICS made you care for Yorda. The puzzles and environments were based around making you feel worried about Yorda when you were separated from her. The two of you are supposed to work together to escape from the castle, which is why a couple of the scenes are so touching. THIS is Ico's real strength, not the perceived cleverness of its sliding block puzzles. You care about Yorda not because of some script you're watching, but because you feel these emotions yourself, as a player. The puzzles just exist to highlight this relationship. The mysteriousness and loneliness of the setting simply adds to the effect.

( ... )

Edit: Looks like my main point was made a couple of times a few pages back. Forgive me, but this thread is EXCEPTIONALLY hard to read without excusing myself every few pages to hit my head against a wall. I wanted to get my point out before it was tainted with forehead blood.

Don't even bother, Your Excellency won't respond to this line of reasoning. He's just trolling the hell out of everybody.
 
jim-jam bongs said:
OP given this and your other thread, I'm assuming that you're an Art History major who has just been introduced to critical thinking but isn't sure what to do with it yet, am I close?

After reading more of the op's posts, I'd have to agree with this assessment.

Though I'd rather put it more crudely and say he's akin to a monkey struggling with a basic logic puzzle. Round peg, square hole dude.
 
I think I agree with you, although I did enjoy Ico in it's time. Portal 2 is a much better puzzle game and has a much better "narrative," although it may be unfair to compare Ico and Portal 2 in this way. Ico is a nice little journey with a really cool universe to play in. That's about it.

EDIT: I don't agree with the statement that Ico is "terrible" though. I loved the game in it's time.
 
Hylian7 said:
Okay, we have to know the source of this image. Was it made specifically for this thread?
I doubt it. I just happened upon it on tumblr. No link to the original artist or anything :(
I'll try a reverse google image search

edit: ah, link above.
 
shagg_187 said:
IGN is hiring. You should work for them. They could use someone like you.

EDIT: After playing Battlefield 3, Doom seems really rather terrible.

So I've recently played Battlefield 3 beta on PC, and it goes without saying that it's a complete masterpiece, and pretty much one of the greatest works of man since Bernini's The Rape of Proserpina. Now I've been playing DOOM (in iPhone), which I've never played before..

And let me say this: having bathed in the glory of Battlefield 3, DOOM's flaws are major:


1. Why do all these intricate weapons even exist?

What Battlefield 3 did is explain why all the gadgets exist in their universe. It's because they were military weapons, designed to allow humans to battle out the enemies and to do things they couldn't before. We don't know EVERYTHING about the intentions behind the weapon caliber, but we know enough for it to make sense. The rest of the attachments are open enough to allow us to find out little details about it as we rank along.

In Doom, we're to presume that SOMEBODY spent loads of money and time pointlessly building this fortress full of scattered weapons. The game always feels completely and utterly artificial as a result.


2. There is no genuine 'movement' in Doom.

This is how you move in Doom: look for a key that you can do something with: i.e. W. Then press that key in the nearby finger. It helps because there is only one forward button to press it in, so essentially you can't get it wrong. One button, one keyboard. It's about as linear as movement gets, and so much of the game is like this.

If you see a stair, you climb up it, which takes you to a platform. At this point, there's no lateral thinking involved to get to the next platform, it's simply a case of pulling a lever/climbing a foothold. There's never a choice between a lever and a foothold, as the game is so simplistic and linear that it's practically on rails, and it pretty much directs you where to go itself.

In comparison, with Battlefield 3 you have to use your MOUSE to look around on how to shoot the jet. It's not a case of 'I need to push this W-key, oh obviously I do it with the keyboard that is sitting 2 inches away', it's a case of 'HOW do I keep these four I/O devices pushed down when there is only one screen, and even that button is pressed every time I try to bring it across the hands, and to make it worse I have to do it whilst avoiding the stinger missle. But I have at my disposal a joystick and some pedals which allows me to turn regular dogfight into HNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Essentially, you can't just sleepwalk through Battlefield 3. You have to use the ironsight. Not sleepwalk through the jungle.



3. When you get stuck in Battlefield 3, it's your own stupid fault playing a beta. When you get stuck in DOOM, it's the iPhone's shitty controls' fault.

Here's an example: there is a bit halfway through Operation Metro where you have gotten to a low platform in a crater. You need to attack two M-COM Stations on the opposite side of the field to progress. There's no way across. You spend half an hour looking over every inch of that field for the medics/snipers/campers that you forgot to spot. You don't find anyone, so you then you try using your knife to slice everything in the field. Doesn't work. THEN you finally figure out the retarded solution: you were supposed to hold E to plant the M-COM Station, and go under the crater to glitch under the map and take down enemies while you glitch. Now let me begin by saying this is the dumbest most retarded shit I have ever seen in my life. If DICE can fucking magically ban the servers, then why the fuck don't they just fix the crater glitch, leading me straight out of the entire ground? Also, where in the game was I supposed to find out that I'll get banned from beta for joining Caspian Border? This isn't lateral thinking, it's complete making-it-up-as-we-go-along. It's literally as if the level designers couldn't be bothered to think of a solution, so they pulled a "OH IT'S A BETA!". There's a few other examples of this in the game too.


4. All the other little things.


With Battlefield 3, it seems like they thought about EVERYTHING, to make it a perfect game. What no one ever mentions about Battlefield 3 is those amazing battlelog where you try and join the server but do it wrong, and DICE or EA laugh at you for your stupidity. It feels incredibly organic and genuine, and really brings you into the game. It literally feels like they're watching you the whole time. Like when EA says 'Quick Match', and you go the opposite way. In Bad Company 2, DICE would wait until you clicked in the search. In Battlefield 3, DICE's Community Manager made an annoyed comment about how you're ungrateful and need to grow up. The dialogue/AI in this game is just on a whole other level to other computer games. I love it when they say "Be Advised!". Doom is so utterly bland in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx2hpuuVEd8

Conclusion: Battlefield 3 is so good that it makes other shooters seem really rather terrible.

Question: Will there be another shooter in ten years time which makes Battlefield 3 seem really rather terrible?

Answer: No.
Post of the year.
 
PansenHansen said:
ico sucks big time.
this game is one giant escort mission.
it cant get any worse.
well maybe if the game was one giant underwater level with limited oxygen supply...
So you've never really played the game?
Or you just don't like these kind of games.
Well, the fact is.... you're wrong ;)
 
RooMHM said:
No, DooM has much better movement than any Battlefield :(
Not about his anti-Doom comments, about how ridiculous it is to say such things, just like this thread.

After playing Mass Effect 2, Contra seems pretty terrible.
 
Top Bottom