Support NeoGAF

[idolminds]

The ICO castle not making much sense as a real place actually makes some in-game sense. Its magic.

Spoiler

The castle collapses and the entire island sinks when you kill the Queen. Clearly she was holding it together and most likely "built" it.

But what about Portal? The parts of the game outside the test chambers were more gamey than the chambers themselves. Lots of pistons with no purpose, a severe lack of ladders or railings, deadly brown liquid flooding rooms, etc. I'm thinking of Portal 1 here since I haven't played the sequel, but was that fixed or addressed? Not to mention any place requiring "test chambers", especially one built entirely underground, is only going to have a handful of large rooms that would then be reconfigured and the subject returned to their cell between tests.

This is why its best to not overthink a lot of games. You are going to have to break from reality at some point.

 

[StuBurns]

Speaking of other action-adventure games, I'd love a Zelda game where you get a portal gun as one of the items. Or a Metroid game. Actually, all games should have portal guns in them.

Spoiler

Not really that last one

?

 

[soultron]

Speaking of other action-adventure games, I'd love a Zelda game where you get a portal gun as one of the items. Or a Metroid game. Actually, all games should have portal guns in them.

Spoiler

Not really that last one

I just started imagining Mirror's Edge mixed with Portal.

 

[Error]

It's not that I don't enjoy Team ICO games, it's that when a Team ICO games has flaws people simply masquerade them as some deliberate game design choice to help immersion or whatever.

I liked SoTC and thought ICO was decent, and I find it hard to disagree with his complaints about ICO in his post tbh.

Criticizing a game doesn't mean I automatically think the game is shit. I can enjoy a game full of flaws as long as they aren't game-breaking.

 

[StuBurns]

It's not that I don't enjoy Team ICO games, it's that when a Team ICO games has flaws people simply masquerade them as some deliberate game design choice to help immersion or whatever.

I liked SoTC and thought ICO was decent, and I find it hard to disagree with his complaints about ICO in his post tbh.

Criticizing a game doesn't mean I automatically think the game is shit. I can enjoy a game full of flaws as long as they aren't game-breaking.

So you're saying you don't believe the horse fighting your decisions is a design choice? You just don't believe they could make a horse that moves like a big black motorbike?

 

[AcceptableGhost]

I love the intense short-sightedness of the OP. No-no this game will hold up perfectly forever! 100 years from now Portal 2 will still be a shining beacon and games will never have changed at all! Plateu platau plataeuau!

 

[Famassu]

It's not that I don't enjoy Team ICO games, it's that when a Team ICO games has flaws people simply masquerade them as some deliberate game design choice to help immersion or whatever.

This isn't true. Most people do acknowledge the flaws/problems in both games, but they just don't think they harm the experience too much. And some things just come down to preference, something ICO & SOTC haters, for some reason, have SUCH a hard time understanding (like how some people hate the more realistic horse-riding in SOTC, whereas I and many others love it, or how "barren and lifeless" the world is; to me that creates an atmosphere of isolation and aloneness like very few games can, to others it might make the game boring).

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.

The fuck they are. First of all, the OPs arguments aren't solid at all. Second, you can criticize Team ICO's games. Yes, both ICO & SOTC have somewhat clumsy controls. Yes, jumping in ICO is somewhat of a bitch, at times. Yes, hanging onto a colossus might sometimes make the main character freak out making it impossible to stab that weak spot.

Some people just think that flaws like those are so minor or don't happen so often that they would affect their overall enjoyment of the games too much. No one is denying their existence, but people appreciate different things.

 

[soultron]

It's not that I don't enjoy Team ICO games, it's that when a Team ICO games has flaws people simply masquerade them as some deliberate game design choice to help immersion or whatever.

I liked SoTC and thought ICO was decent, and I find it hard to disagree with his complaints about ICO in his post tbh.

Criticizing a game doesn't mean I automatically think the game is shit. I can enjoy a game full of flaws as long as they aren't game-breaking.

It's a lot of extra effort to mistakenly create a huge and barren world. It would also take far less time to code a horse's movement controls to be perfectly straight with respect to the analogue stick's current orientation.

They are purposeful design choices. They didn't vibe with you and that's fine.

EDIT: Ueda explains Agro and her control mechanics, "The biggest issue was how to give expression to a real horse, which doesn't always obey. It's not like a car or a motorcycle, it won't always turn when you say "turn!" But on the other hand if it doesn't listen too much then it's stressful for the user. So we had to balance the two, to get reality but also playability."

EDIT2: Ueda, very briefly, touches on the environment, "People are afraid to get near this land. I also wanted to emphasize the lonely hero."
Also, logically, why would people be permitted in the Forbidden Land, where the Colossi roam? It wouldn't be safe. There are ruins scattered about the FL suggesting that people tried living there but either failed or retreated.

 

[leroidys]

Based on the OP's posts in this thread and example of "masterpieces", I would guess their age to be 16, or an immature/ignorant, pretentious 18 year old.

Yep. Just took his first real critical theory class and thinks that the idiot masses need his incredibly perspicacious thoughts about games and how they ought to be compared.

So, just another barely coherent rant that inevitably defaults to whining about the "gaf hivemind" when we don't immediately kneel before the OP and his sloppy, absurd analogies.

 

[Yoboman]

Would the OP like to explain, regarding Portal 2, why some of the

Spoiler

paint chambers from the 50s

in Portal 2 required the use of Portals to complete them? Logically they should have been completable without them right? What exactly was the purpose of the white paint/gel, that served no other purpose than to create portals from a device that hadn't been invented?

Have I ruined Portal 2 for you?

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Would the OP like to explain, regarding Portal 2, why some of the

Spoiler

paint chambers from the 50s

in Portal 2 required the use of Portals to complete them? Logically they should have been completable without them right? What exactly was the purpose of the white paint/gel, that served no other purpose than to create portals from a device that hadn't been invented?

Have I ruined Portal 2 for you?

I think it had been invented back then. You can see it on some of the signs in that area.

 

[Yoboman]

I think it had been invented back then. You can see it on some of the signs in that area.

They started Portal development at the same time as Black Mesa IIRC

 

[Glass Rebel]

They started Portal development at the same time as Black Mesa IIRC

You're misremembering then.

 

[Sibylus]

They started Portal development at the same time as Black Mesa IIRC

Whether or not that was once canon, he's definitely right on this point. The "backpack portal gun" can clearly be seen in outline on signage and is referred to on the very same.

 

[Your Excellency]

Jeeeesus Christ, you guys. This is not as outlandish a comparison as you're making it sound. Save your unfunny "hur hur madden seems terrible after playing halo" comments for comparisons that deserve them.

I agree with this.

Yeah, most "puzzle" gameplay in action adventure games are superficial, and they're more for the purpose of adding variety rather than challenging your mental logic skills. And when there's actually normal puzzles, they're typically the gamestopper kind. Again, breadth, not depth.

I don't agree with this. Portal 2 has balanced out the puzzles really well - it's obvious they've put a lot of time into testing it over and over again to make sure there are no bits which require you to go online for the solution (which would be shit), such that if you look at all the parts of the room/locale, you'll know where you have to get to, what tools you have, what surfaces you have, and can figure out a way yourself. But again, they're tricky enough to make you feel awesome when you get the solution. Of course, the music which plays when you get it helps with that, as does Wheatley's comments.

You're on your own with this, rpmurphy. The rest of the world kinda disagrees with you.

 

[Nose Master]

Such a troll thread. It is also starting to make me hate Portal 2.

 

[soultron]

Pretentious story aside, you should really try Braid, OP.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I love how the only post's the OP quotes are the ones either validating his opinion, or sticking up for his pretentious nonsense.

The two games have almost nothing to do with each other, sorry dude, you're just so wrong.

Entertaining thread though.

 

[soultron]

Such a troll thread. It is also starting to make me hate Portal 2.

It's a dummy thread. SCE is stepping up their viral marketing efforts.

 

[Your Excellency]

... that said, I think he actually has somewhat valid arguments in this one. Most of the posts criticising him have been very disappointing and actually of worse quality than any the OP made in the Catcher in the Rye thread. Not saying I agree with him on all counts, but there is stuff to engage with here.

Yep - it's lovely how everyone jumped on the bandwagon, without truly thinking for themselves. They saw my references to classic art and sculpture as pretentious (jeez, I'm sorry, I had a good upbringing, next time I'll reference Dancing With The Stars?) and wanted to look down their nose at me.

I get that Ico is all about the atmosphere/emotion and Portal 2 is about the puzzles/experience. But that said, Ico's puzzles are rather PS1-style in tone, whereas Portal 2's are just on their own level of clever+creative, and so the meat of Ico's gameplay (note: gameplay, not the 'experience') seemed to me to be rather basic as a result.

As to the question of whether I felt anything when playing Ico: Yes, it was nice the way the game always makes you worry about Yorda, and when you accidentally run off and solve a puzzle but you forgot to bring her along it gets pretty horrid when you hear her wimpering. I love the art direction (you know the streaming sunlight - was that added for the HD remake or did it always have that? Looks amazing). I think I would have liked the gmae to explain itself better - I only figured out the story by looking at the back of the game box, as I don't think the intro really explained what was going on.

But I'm of the following opinion: if the game wants to be action adventure, it needs more depth in it's combat. If the game wants to be a puzzler, it needs better puzzles. If the game wants to be exploration, it needs some cool secrets to find/explore (Ico has nothing in its rooms other than the puzzle blocks and a lever). I would never give it a 10/10 no matter how attached I got to the characters because the core gameplay never really excels.

Think about the key element of a true 10/10 game: Half Life 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, LittleBigPlanet, Portal 2. All of them excel at the gameplay aspects just as much as everything else: San Andreas perfected sandbox gameplay that you could play for 1000 hours and still not get bored. LittleBigPlanet, again perfected rich platforming gameplay. Half Life 2 was brilliant for exploration (much more so than Ico will ever be) and a true first person action adventure horror shooting puzzler experience.

Gameplay is king, people. It could be the most involving story ever, but if 90% of the game is PS1-lite, it's not going to be a 10/10 game. Gaming doesn't really work that way.

Portal 2 has shown us how incredible platform puzzlers can be. Half Life 2 has shown us how incredible action-adventure-exploration games can be. Like it or not, Valve have raised the fucking bar for everyone else on the playing field. Accept it.

 

[Limanima]

/Insert popcorn gif of your choice /

 

[Mush]

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING FOR FUCKS SAKE?

NOT EVEN A DAMN TAG OR TITLE CHANGE. SHAME ON YOU GAF.

SHAME ON YOU.

 

[-tetsuo-]

This dude is trolling y'all so hard right now.

 

[Your Excellency]

Can't speak for OP or anyone else, but one of the dynamics at play is whether or not Ico is a timeless classic, or just a great game for its time. If it's the former, we shouldn't have to make excuses for it not holding up after a decade.

Yep - and I'm of the opinion that Portal 2 is a timeless classic, not merely a great game for it's time.

I imagine a lot of the gaming press and the developers would agree with me right now.

 

[DukeTogo1300]

I don't agree with this. Portal 2 has balanced out the puzzles really well - it's obvious they've put a lot of time into testing it over and over again to make sure there are no bits which require you to go online for the solution (which would be shit), such that if you look at all the parts of the room/locale, you'll know where you have to get to, what tools you have, what surfaces you have, and can figure out a way yourself. But again, they're tricky enough to make you feel awesome when you get the solution. Of course, the music which plays when you get it helps with that, as does Wheatley's comments.

You're on your own with this, rpmurphy. The rest of the world kinda disagrees with you.

He said, "...in action adventure games...", not, "...in Portal 2...". He was pointing out that Ico, being more of an action-adventure game, should be expected to have a more casual approach to the puzzles than a puzzle-centric game like Portal 2. I happen to think Ico has more focus on puzzles than most action-adventure games, but still holds back so that other considered elements are allowed to shine.

 

[Your Excellency]

You described team ICO fans PERFECTLY. They even go as far as considering the flaws as qualities (framerate problems, wierd controls, etc...). You're not targeting the right persons I think.

They seriously do this?

So do any 'hardcore' Team Ico fans see the HD remaster as a bad thing? Very odd.

 

[herod]

OP, I agree with every point you make, the Portal 2 reference was unnecessary. Ico had a unique visual style that set it apart at the time but the gameplay is mediocre.

 

[hutna]

After playing Portal 1/2 I thought, "Wow that was really fun, but kind of easy."

After playing Ico I felt "Wow that was really fun and man I wish more games were like that."

I didn't make a judgement on the objective quality of each game based on the reaction I had to the other. One can arbitrarily make a comparison of any game to another, but that has little value unless you can tease some meaning out of either game or more importantly the experience of playing those games by doing so. It seems to me the OP has not done that.

I already feel like I've wasted enough of my life writing this post as this is a point that a giraffe who has never played a video game in its life should understand.

This post took 90 seconds to write.

 

[soultron]

Yep - and I'm of the opinion that Portal 2 is a timeless classic, not merely a great game for it's time.

I imagine a lot of the gaming press and the developers would agree with me right now.

How can anyone declare it a timeless classic when it was released this year?

 

[bede-x]

Valve are arguably the best developer in the industry.

You've got to be kidding. Take a look at the software released at one of the bigger companies like Nintendo or maybe even Sony and compare it to Valve's. You cannot possible mean a couple of Half-lifes and Portals(+ filler titles) compares to that. But maybe you mean something differently when you say "best"?

As for the topic itself it's comparing games that works due to different premises. Comparing them by only using Portal's premise, will inevitably make Ico seem flawed. You could make the same comparisons to Limbo, Flower or such like, but you'd be doing it wrong. That's like when you hear people complaining that Limbo is only two hours long, completely ignoring other qualities, because they adhere to some arbitrary metric every game must be constructed from in order to be worthwhile.

Interesting game design doesn't work from a unified standard no matter how often most triple A titles tries to make it seem as such, by following the same tried and (focus group)tested approach. It can be jarring by suddenly introducing a new mechanic the player hasen't seen before, completely changing the underlying flow chart that was previously established by the game. Like when you need to change controllers in order to defeat Psycho Mantis in Metal Gear Solid. It can be experimental and uncertain as to what a single element provides in and of itself to the greater whole. like when you suddenly have the option to fly around the volcano in Gradius or most of Superbrothers. Or it can work by engaging other senses instead of just relying on the game mechanics to carry the game. Like Ico. Not that the mechanics aren't sound, mind. But they work by supporting what the game wants you to feel, unlike say a typical platformer where the mechanics themselves are the centerpiece of the attraction.

And that's why the comparison to Portal 2 doesn't make sense. The games work due to different reasons. What makes one tick is different from what drives the other.

 

[Your Excellency]

I love the intense short-sightedness of the OP. No-no this game will hold up perfectly forever! 100 years from now Portal 2 will still be a shining beacon and games will never have changed at all! Plateu platau plataeuau!

Do you seriously believe that Portal 2 won't stand the test of time? You think the puzzles aren't going to be as clever and fun in, say, 20 years time when our kids are playing it? You think it's not going to be funny anymore?

Seriously, dude. Charlie Chaplin made The Kid in fucking 1921. 1921! That shit is almost a century old and it's still hilarious. You think Portal 2 - arguably the funniest computer game of all time - is suddenly not going to be funny after 10 or 20 years? The fact that you think that makes me sad.

 

[soultron]

Do you seriously believe that Portal 2 won't stand the test of time? You think the puzzles aren't going to be as clever and fun in, say, 20 years time when our kids are playing it? You think it's not going to be funny anymore?

Seriously, dude. Charlie Chaplin made The Kid in fucking 1921. 1921! That shit is almost a century old and it's still hilarious. You think Portal 2 - arguably the funniest computer game of all time - is suddenly not going to be funny after 10 or 20 years? The fact that you think that makes me sad.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Like it or not, Valve have raised the fucking bar for everyone else on the playing field. Accept it.

Hear that? We must accept it, he bolded it and everything.

"Validate me GAF, PLEASE!"

 

[NinjaBoiX]

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING FOR FUCKS SAKE?

NOT EVEN A DAMN TAG OR TITLE CHANGE. SHAME ON YOU GAF.

SHAME ON YOU.

Yeah, because that was a helpful contribution dude.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Think about the key element of a true 10/10 game: Half Life 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, LittleBigPlanet, Portal 2. All of them excel at the gameplay aspects just as much as everything else: San Andreas perfected sandbox gameplay that you could play for 1000 hours and still not get bored. LittleBigPlanet, again perfected rich platforming gameplay. Half Life 2 was brilliant for exploration (much more so than Ico will ever be) and a true first person action adventure horror shooting puzzler experience.

None of these games are in any way, shape or form perfect, but i give you a 10/10 for perfect hyperbole.

 

[StuBurns]

You've got to be kidding. Take a look at the software released at one of the bigger companies like Nintendo or maybe even Sony and compare it to Valve's. You cannot possible mean a couple of Half-lifes and Portals(+ filler titles) compares to that. But maybe you mean something differently when you say "best"?

No, I'm not kidding. I don't think anything Nintendo has made is as good as Portal, and in terms of consistency they're not even close. Yes, they've made some amazing games this generation, MP3, SMG1/2, but they've probably made ten shit games for every great one.

 

[Your Excellency]

Yeah, because that was a helpful contribution dude.

There's been a lot of that here lately. New set of juniors eager to impress?

 

[shadyspace]

Oh, I bet you read a lotta Gordon Wood, huh? You read your Gordon Wood and you regurgitate it from a textbook and you think you're wicked awesome doin' that, And how 'bout 'dem apples? And all that Gordon Wood business.

 

[Your Excellency]

None of these games are in any way, shape or form perfect, but i give you a 10/10 for perfect hyperbole.

So you wouldn't give any of them a 10/10? What game do you consider a 10/10 game?

If you say Ico I'm gonna have a heart attack.

 

[Flayer]

Portal 2 is a decent game but it's not that great or anything. If you're going to compare ICO to something it would be another 3D platformer. From this gen Enslaved is a good example.

I don't think the magic block puzzle in ICO is unintuitive either. If you look across you can see those stone gates that Yorda has been opening throughout so it makes sense to bring her close. If you got stuck on that it's more a case of you just not being good at problem solving rather than an issue with the game.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

There's been a lot of that here lately. New set of juniors eager to impress?

I was making he point that he was complaining about the length of the thread, presumably because it doesn't seem to be particularly constructive, while simultaniously contiributing to the non-constucrive nature of it.

Either make a valid point and complain, or don't complain; otherwise you're simply perpetuauting your own complaint.

 

[Your Excellency]

I was making he point that he was complaining about the length of the thread, presumably because it doesn't seem to be particularly constructive, while simultaniously contiributing to the non-constucrive nature of it.

Either make a valid point and complain, or don't complain; otherwise you're simply perpetuauting your own complaint.

Facepalm. You're perpetuating (perpetuauting?!) your own complaint yourself now. Can we just go back to talking about Portal 2?

 

[DukeTogo1300]

Do you seriously believe that Portal 2 won't stand the test of time? You think the puzzles aren't going to be as clever and fun in, say, 20 years time when our kids are playing it? You think it's not going to be funny anymore?

Seriously, dude. Charlie Chaplin made The Kid in fucking 1921. 1921! That shit is almost a century old and it's still hilarious. You think Portal 2 - arguably the funniest computer game of all time - is suddenly not going to be funny after 10 or 20 years? The fact that you think that makes me sad.

Well Ico, yes even its puzzles, were pretty engaging ten years ago. Compared to what was coming out around that time it was more than adequate in the gameplay department. You can't just smugly compare it to a game of today and declare it terrible.

That is especially the case with Portal 1-2. When Valve swooped up those independent developers and packaged their idea in their signature HL2-esque window-dressing, it was a truly new and mind-bending approach to first-person puzzling. If Portal had not happened, puzzles really wouldn't have been that much more amazing than what we saw in Ico. You can see this playing itself out with the way Portal 2 wasn't really able to add anything to the formula as groundbreaking as the concepts in the first Portal. I believe we are lucky we have this series, and I greatly respect it. It will reach a limit though, and you are already seeing fans of the series declaring the sequel redundant for not having new and comparably mind-blowing mechanics to add to what the first game offered.

Now, Chaplin. Yes The Kid is still every bit as funny as it ever was, but that is only something we can observe and state once it has been in existence for 90 years. It is odd that you use that to make a point, because The Kid is timeless for some of the same reasons people cherish Ico for. It wasn't just funny, it was touching, and the way Little Tramp meets this strange baby and forms a bond with it, then experiences separation from it, all but mirrors what you experience in Ico with Yorda. Ico told so much of its story silently too, almost completely without cut scenes, and was able to portray a lot of the bond with Yorda through gameplay. The game explored narrative in a way that is rarely done right in videogames, and for that it will be remembered.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Facepalm. You're perpetuating (perpetuauting?!) your own complaint yourself now. Can we just go back to talking about Portal 2?

I was talking about Mush! Dude, chill out.

 

[raviolico]

If you say Ico I'm gonna have a heart attack.

Ico

/thread.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Do you seriously believe that Portal 2 won't stand the test of time? You think the puzzles aren't going to be as clever and fun in, say, 20 years time when our kids are playing it? You think it's not going to be funny anymore?

Seriously, dude. Charlie Chaplin made The Kid in fucking 1921. 1921! That shit is almost a century old and it's still hilarious. You think Portal 2 - arguably the funniest computer game of all time - is suddenly not going to be funny after 10 or 20 years? The fact that you think that makes me sad.

Whether or not it stands the test of time is irrelevant. The point is you cannot make those types of statements a couple of months after a game out. Make them 10 years from now. How games have changed over even this generation makes saying kneejerk "FLAWLESS ETERNAL GEM" reactions like yours childish and useless.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Think about the key element of a true 10/10 game: Half Life 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, LittleBigPlanet, Portal 2. All of them excel at the gameplay aspects just as much as everything else: San Andreas perfected sandbox gameplay that you could play for 1000 hours and still not get bored. LittleBigPlanet, again perfected rich platforming gameplay. Half Life 2 was brilliant for exploration (much more so than Ico will ever be) and a true first person action adventure horror shooting puzzler experience.

LittleBigPlanet...Rich platforming gameplay...Does not compute.

The jump physics are screwed up in LittleBigPlanet. It's platforming controls are floaty and imprecise compared to genre classics like the various 2D Mario and Sonic games from the NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis. In LBP your jump is not high enough and you float at the top of your jump for too long. And considering that LBP is a game designed around jumping, its kind of a big deal.

LBP is just like Ico, a game that makes up for its somewhat lackluster gameplay mechanics with a lot of charm.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Yep - it's lovely how everyone jumped on the bandwagon, without truly thinking for themselves. They saw my references to classic art and sculpture as pretentious (jeez, I'm sorry, I had a good upbringing, next time I'll reference Dancing With The Stars?) and wanted to look down their nose at me.

I get that Ico is all about the atmosphere/emotion and Portal 2 is about the puzzles/experience. But that said, Ico's puzzles are rather PS1-style in tone, whereas Portal 2's are just on their own level of clever+creative, and so the meat of Ico's gameplay (note: gameplay, not the 'experience') seemed to me to be rather basic as a result.

As to the question of whether I felt anything when playing Ico: Yes, it was nice the way the game always makes you worry about Yorda, and when you accidentally run off and solve a puzzle but you forgot to bring her along it gets pretty horrid when you hear her wimpering. I love the art direction (you know the streaming sunlight - was that added for the HD remake or did it always have that? Looks amazing). I think I would have liked the gmae to explain itself better - I only figured out the story by looking at the back of the game box, as I don't think the intro really explained what was going on.

But I'm of the following opinion: if the game wants to be action adventure, it needs more depth in it's combat. If the game wants to be a puzzler, it needs better puzzles. If the game wants to be exploration, it needs some cool secrets to find/explore (Ico has nothing in its rooms other than the puzzle blocks and a lever). I would never give it a 10/10 no matter how attached I got to the characters because the core gameplay never really excels.

Think about the key element of a true 10/10 game: Half Life 2, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, LittleBigPlanet, Portal 2. All of them excel at the gameplay aspects just as much as everything else: San Andreas perfected sandbox gameplay that you could play for 1000 hours and still not get bored. LittleBigPlanet, again perfected rich platforming gameplay. Half Life 2 was brilliant for exploration (much more so than Ico will ever be) and a true first person action adventure horror shooting puzzler experience.

Gameplay is king, people. It could be the most involving story ever, but if 90% of the game is PS1-lite, it's not going to be a 10/10 game. Gaming doesn't really work that way.

Portal 2 has shown us how incredible platform puzzlers can be. Half Life 2 has shown us how incredible action-adventure-exploration games can be. Like it or not, Valve have raised the fucking bar for everyone else on the playing field. Accept it.

I'm sorry, I dont want to be rude or offend you but this post now makes you look like an arrogant and ignorant ass.

"Ico's puzzles are rather PS1-style in tone"

That's because Ico was a PS1 game!

Good God. Please kill this thread before I lose my mind since this is the point we've been trying to present since the very first post and you ignore it.

 

[Famassu]

Heh, it's rather funny seeing the OP saying Half-life 2 perfected anything, when Half-Life 2, in many ways, is like ICO. It excels in creating a great atmosphere and not adhering to the typical AAA cutscene-fests in its storytelling. Its gameplay, however, isn't perfect in any way. The platforming sucks, gunplay has been done so much better by shittons of FPS games and the vehicle sections are boooooooooring. These don't necessarily ruin the experience, but as a GAME it could be hell of a lot better.

 

[Majmun]

Obviously, they're both puzzle games, and obviously, Portal is better crafted in almost every regard. That's a hard pill to swallow for someone that's propped up ICO as some masterpiece.

ICO is a puzzle game?

I can't agree with that. Then I guess Tomb Raider, Zelda and Uncharted are puzzle games too...

ICO is an adventure with puzzle elements in it. Basically all adventure games have enviromental puzzels in them, but that doesn't make them puzzle games.

Portal is a puzzle game. It's easy to pick up, clear a room and go to the next one. It has stages. Ico's environmental design is totally different.