Talk:Shadow of the Colossus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alright then. Let's talk about the large and small section.

I thought it was nonsense and removed it, but apparently it deserves to stay in. That was the first edit I've made to the article, so I apologise if there was a discussion about this in the past where you agreed to keep it in. Having said that, I'd like to know what makes it significant. -- Steel 11:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think large-and-small is a big concept of the game. Considering that the Shrine of Worship is basically a huge version of the Save Shrines, and that there are lizards and birds around, which have Colossi analogs, and that Wander and Agro even have Colossi analogs, it's rather interesting. Add to that the fact that there's a humongous, colossal tree, to analog with the ordinary-sized ones that can be seen, I'm almost certain this large-and-small comparison is intentional.
However, I can't confirm that; does any of the making-of or design web sites or so on suggest that this relationship was intentional, or important? It might be good to cite at least some kind of verifiable source. I'm a big fan of including whatever is appropriate to the article, and I do think this is perfectly viable to include, but it does need something to stand on... -JC 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because there's big versions and small versions of things in a game doesn't make "Large and Small" a theme. For example, the player travels across many different types of terrain in SotC (desert, forest, etc). But that doesn't mean that "contrast" is a theme. To take another example: in Zelda, there are large and small gorons. Oh my God, Large and Small must be a theme in that game too! I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Like you said yourself - none of this has been confirmed, so even if it is a theme, it should be killed per Wikipedia:Verifiability until there's evidence from the developers. -- Steel 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been three days, and no-one has given any more reasons why this should stay. I'm removing it on the basis that it's unintentional and made up by fans - which it is until the developers say otherwise. -- Steel 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point of the verifiability thing. It need not be that the developers have said that the large and small theme was intentional. There need only be a published (electronic or paper) source for it, examining the matter. Use this. The large and small theme is -- regardless of whether or not it was intentional -- something that is most obviously there, and is certainly notable. I think this section should be restored. Ryu Kaze 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it already was. Well, nevermind. Ryu Kaze 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone else following this, take a look at my talk page and Schicksal's talk page for further discussion. Anyway, I still think the Large and Small section cannot stay as it is. Saying "The birds and Avion are both flying creatures, and both can carry Wander through the air." is not evidence for a large and small theme. A few vague relationships between the small animals and the colossi does not make large and small a theme. To take Zelda as an example again, there are fish in the sea of Majora's Mask, and there's also a fish boss. That does not make large and small a theme in that game. It is not "obviously there". And the FAQ that you provided essentially confirms that it's made up by fans. Also, regarding the FAQ, please read WP:RS, specifically, the following:

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Summary: There is no significance in the relationship between the fish and the fish colossus, and that information does not belong in the article.-- Steel 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I came across a bit confrontational. It was not my intention. -- Steel 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Steel's right, while there are large and small objects in the game, it doesnt make it a prevelant theme.--Awesome Username 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't really been paying attention to the article recently. I'll give you my input(yes/no) on each entry in this section to help cut it down/rewrite it.

• Agro and Phaedra both have an equine configuration. questionable, i'd have to play again to see how similar looking they really are, but i'm going to say no
• The birds and Avion are both flying creatures, and both can carry Wander through the air. this is interesting, because you wouldn't think the small birds could carry a man, although they can in the game. should probably be rewritten.
• The fish and Hydrus are both aquatic animals, and both can drag Wander around underwater. see above
• The lizards and Kuromori are both reptilian in nature, and both land on their backs and struggle to right themselves when dislodged from walls. yes, their animations/behavior are very similar, which helps to support a theme
• The tortoises and Basaran also share physiologies. would have to look again
• Wander has many counterparts among the colossi: Valus, Gaius, Barba, Argus, and Malus are all humanoid, although Malus, with its huge stone 'skirt', is more likely a counterpart to Mono. Valus, Gaius, and Argus carry weapons in their right hands. should be rewritten and merged into some kind of "general similarities"
• Just south of Dirge's cave is a mesa featuring a dead tree the size of a colossus: a stark contrast to the smaller fruit-bearing trees found throughout the land. yes, the tree is seriously huge, it's one of my favorite sights in the game
• Also in that cave tiny Bats can be found which could be seen as small versions of Dormin* would have to play again
• The save points around the world are miniature versions of the Shrine of Worship. yes

Schicksal 13:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing here is original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I'd still like to see a reliable external source which says that large and small is a theme. Unfortunately, FAQs don't qualify due to, as it says on WP:RS, "no one stands between the writer and the act of publication". -- Steel 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, what I am doing is giving you my input on revising the section, as you said you wanted to do. We've been over this. That section does not need to be cited. It's a theme. Do you honestly think it's required by the developers that they say "yes, we do this and we meant it to mean exactly this" for a Wikipedia article to be published? A theme is not something that the developers necessarily even need to have intended. You are going to wait a long time before a reputable publication puts out an article based on the (mind-numbingly obvious) theme of Large and Small in Shadow of the Colossus. Either rewrite it like you said you were going to do or just leave it alone. Don't harm this article due to wanting to follow the letter of the Wikipedia law. There's a lot of articles about things that are impossible to cite - go file AFDs on them instead of trying to remove a section about the relationship between large and small in a game where a little man fights a bunch of huge giants. Schicksal 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, it is imperative that we source the information we add to articles. This so called theme is not mind numbingly obvious, and even if it was, we would still need an external source. Please read WP:V:

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

I am doing just that. Challenging and trying to remove unsourced fan speculation based on a few vague relationships between animals and colossi. Please understand, this is rule is absolutely crucial for Wikipedia's reputation as an encycopedia. -- Steel 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What of the other gameplay info in the article, then? The plot summary, character analyses, and other gameplay info? I don't see citations for them. The problem with no original research is that people tend to take it to extremes, such as you have here - when it's a rule meant to protect clearly false and damaging information from being spread. That guideline was not written with a video game article in mind. I don't appreciate your quoting of that guideline to delete this section when other sections in the same article could also be perceived to be in violation of it. The section is not even well written - you could have made an excellent point to delete it due to the fact that many of the correlations are obvious and a relationship between large and small in a game about colossi is to be expected - but instead you want to delete it based on perceived violation of a rule. This makes me think that you aren't really deleting it because you want to improve the article, you just don't like the section. That is OK, but it is really preferable to rewrite or somehow integrate the info with the rest of the article rather than obliterating it.

Please understand, this is rule is absolutely crucial for Wikipedia's reputation as an encycopedia. If Wikipedia's reputation hinges on this one rule, then we are really in trouble, because click the random article button a few times and you'll end up with a few articles that are mostly uncited, and feature user-written descriptions of their subjects. Wikipedia does however have a reputation as a site where you can find relevant/useful info on just about anything, and please don't take away from that by removing this section rather than trying to improve it/integrate it. Thanks. Schicksal 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's Summer and I have a lot of free time. Let's find a source for everything in this article and remove the bits we can't verify. As it says on my user page, I've been looking for something to do here. You're welcome to help, Schicksal. We could even get this to be a featured article if we all pitch in. -- Steel 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to publish unverified original research. I don't quite agree with the lenghty plot summary, but that's more of a style choice for the WikiProject, not me. Character analysis is pushing it, as there's no analysis. As for other gameplay info, the list of Save Points probably should get cut, and the list of Colossi is nice, but not necesarilly appropriate for an encyclopedia article. At least all of that is based on evidence from the game, and manuals, not personal interpretations.

Sadly, the relationship between large and small isn't based on anything concrete in the games. It's more or less the personal analyses and research of people who had nothing to do with the creation of the game. WP:NOR and WP:V both apply here. The claim has not been verified, and while if it is verified, unless the cretors specifically go into depth listing these relationships, that list is also original research. That'll have to go.--Toffile 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I never disagreed with that list being original research. I merely don't feel it's right to kill the list when so many other things in the article suffer from the same problem. That is all, I have no problem with that list getting deleted, as long as other items in the article are also heavily revised/deleted by the same yardstick. Schicksal 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, asking you to examine the entire article for violations is hardly a strawman. A strawman refers to setting up a weak argument and then attributing that argument to the opponent. That is not the case here. Don't patronize my efforts by attributing logical fallacies to me. Steel's argument was perfectly valid, however it applies just as much to the rest of the article as it does to that one section. Anyway, I would be glad to help once we get started on thoughts to improve this article rather than cut it up. Schicksal 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outlining the plot of a game is using the game as an implicitly cited primary source. So is listing or noting the appearance of things in the game. Neither of these are defined as original research. Anyone else can buy the game, play it, and support or refute the text on the page; in this manner, they're no different than citing e.g. books. You can't click on a URL to confirm a book reference, yet books are one of the strongest reference types available.

But when you start "introduc[ing] an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" (WP:NOR) — that's when you get into original research. — Wisq (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Yeah, so now we're all best friends I think it's time we took a look at the article to see what can go. I also want to get everything referenced, possibly up to featured article standard depending on whether I get any assistance. Anyway, my suggestions,

Description. This can be cut down and added to the introductory paragraphs.
Story. Possibly cut down depending on the response here.
Characters. Not sure what to do about this.
Colossi. I quite like that table, though I'm open to suggestions.
Extras. Instruction manual/strategy guide stuff. Got to go.
Connections to Ico. I think this section is important. In fact, it's the reason I first came to this article. Must be sourced though.
Large and Small. Is that going now?
European version. Staying.
Wander vs Wanda. Cut down to one sentence and added to European version
Japanese packaging. At the moment that's just stuck on the bottom of the article with no real purpose. Maybe European version could be changed to Regional differences and stick the Japanese packaging there.
Early development as Nico. Possibly cut down to one or two sentences and moved elsewhere.
Viral marketing campaign. Random website spreads false rumours. This can go.
External links. Cut down per WP:EL

Comments? -- Steel 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The description is alright, but should be cut down. Story is way too long. Characters section seems unencyclopedic. Colossi table is pretty good information, and its easily verifiable. Not really unnecessary gameplay info, as the names of the colossi aren't in the game, they were released by the media. Extras should be removed. Connections to Ico should be sourced a little better but yeah. Delete L+S, compress WvW into european version section. Japanese packaging is out of place where it is. Nico section is relevant but there is probably too much info on it in the article. Viral marketing campaign will have to be discussed. External links, there's too many, currently.

I mostly think the article has too many unencyclopedic parts, and elaborates far too much on them. Care should be taken to not cut down the article to stub length, but it's way too bloated as is. Schicksal 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there. I'll remove the Extras and L+S sections then, you OK with that? I'm currently looking for a reliable website which dictates the story, though all I'm finding are reviews. I'll find a site with that colossi table on it too. -- Steel 22:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out the Final Fantasy X article. The story section in that is only slightly longer than the one here, yet FFX has much more story than this game. The plot summary here is definitely too long. -- Steel 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

I've added a load of websites to my sandbox. At some point I'll sift through it all and reference that description section, unless someone else does it first. Also, the Connections to Ico are proving hard to find a source for, so I'd appreciate assistence on that. -- Steel 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, another quick note. The Final Fantasy X people have used lines from the game to source their story info. We could easily do the same. The game script is easy enough to find. -- Steel 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Characters Section

After doing some revision with the "Story" section (mostly shortening it and making it more concise), the Characters section is starting to bug me more and more, as it contains a lot of redundant information. It's hard to figure out what to do with it. I've often considered just cutting it down into a very short "voice actors only" section on several occasions, but then we'd lose some information (particularly for Dormin) that really needs to be in the article.

Any way you look at it, the Characters section needs a complete overhaul. That, plus we could really use a section discussing interesting points and examples of Dormin's mysterious dual nature. Any ideas? Comments? (Constructive) criticism? Onlynameicanget 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The story section can be cut down dramatically. See the Final Fantasy X article - the story section there is only slightly longer than ours, but FFX has masses more story than this game. Indeed, this point was also raised in this game's (not very active) peer review. After the story section's shorter, the characters section should end up not repeating what's already been said... if you get me?
I've been working on getting everything in the article sourced by reliable sources, and I have an alergy to far fetched fan theories, so try and avoid adding stuff which could be seen as original research.
When I have the time, I'll go through the game script and the various reviews/previews for this game to get the story section referenced. -- Steel 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a lot of games also have a Gameplay section. I guess I'll get round to that sometime too. -- Steel 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The chars section is hugely overblown, especially in comparison to the FFX article, which is on a game with vastly more backstory than this one has. Nuking it down to voice actors only and integrating Dormin into Story is probably best. Schicksal 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More about the cleanup

I removed two images from the story section, as it was a bit cluttered. The one of Wander holding his sword can be added to the Gameplay section when it gets written. The map was nice, and could well be included, just not in the story section because I think one image is enough for that. -- Steel 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Names

Why is the information on the table that shows information about the Colossi constantly changing? I remember Gaius was known as the "Earth Knight" now it states it was known as the "Earth Truth" and also Malus was at first called "Grand Gigas" and is now "Grand Superior", why does someone keep changing the names? I know that this information came from an instruction booklet or something but why is the information constantly changing?

Those are simply translations of the Latin names, and people are coming up with better translations. :) -JC 03:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone is changing the names and needs to cut it out! Can someone please cite a source here to end this whole ordeal Kara Umi 08:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That table needs to be sourced or it has to go. As it is, it's basically original research. -- Steel 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the latin names have been sourced at one point. The rest is original research. The table itself isn't really appropriate, but I can't think of how else to have info on the colossi. Schicksal 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. -- Steel 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

Do we really need one of these for every section that contains a spoiler? Seems to me like we only really need the one in Story. Schicksal 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They're having a massive discussion about spoiler tags down at the CVG talk page. May as well wait and see what decision they come to. -- Steel 19:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Disc Cover images

Something needs to be done there. Either a frame that separates them somehow (an individual frame for each image), or resize them and make them go down in a row, or kill the extra images. Right now, the three of them mushed together look like, well, crap. I would do it myself but we need consensus on the final look, and I don't really know if the options I listed above are doable with wiki's code. Thoughts please Tani unit 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the JP art is gorgeous and should remain on the page. Schicksal 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps following Ico article's example we should select just one cover art and drop the rest. I see no need to have all three of them considering how minimal the differences are. I would also like to see the japanese original art as the one selected. Tani unit 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I have the PAL copy and think the US cover is the worst of the three, I think the US cover is best suited for the infobox. I'll check with the WP:CVG and see if they have recommended guidelines on this. -- Steel 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I kind of thought you guys would like that change a bit more. I based the cover art pictures off of the way they are arranged on Final Fantasy X, a featured article that I look to as a really good example of how a video game article should be done. This time around I structured the images in order of the game's release (US, Japan, Europe), but we can easily change that. It seems that the most-liked cover is the Japanese cover, so I guess I'll make that one predominant. -- Onlynameicanget 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, I did that. I also realised that having the Japanese cover as the biggest is probably best, because it's the only cover showing a possible scenario in the game. Not only is Agro present with Colossus #1 in the US and PAL covers, both aforentioned covers show the entrance to the Forbidden Lands right next to #1. Plus, I think the US and PAL covers compliment each other nicely together. What do you guys think? -- Onlynameicanget 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess Final Fantasy article is a good example to go by. Although having a white background with centered graphics (in FF's case) certainly helps the covers not to look as crowded :), but I think in this current form the infobox looks fine. Besides, having the cover image from the country of origin as the predominant one seems fitting. Me like. Tani unit 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think having the Japanese cover as the main image is unsuitable for the English Wikipedia. Indeed, the CVG suggested using the US cover. Having said that, I'm not going to make a huge fuss about this. I've fussed enough already over this article. -- Steel 09:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

News

Any news on a sequel/other iteration of the story? 68.225.240.87 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no.

And there are game sites for this sort of questions. Tani unit 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reception/Crticial response

Along with the Gameplay section which has now been added, this is an area which we do need to cover. I'm currently gathering sources, though I could use suggestions on what could be included here. So far:

• Review scores + media opinion
• Sales figures (Both in comparision with ICO and other similar games)
• Awards
• Issues with the game (Many reviews comment on the annoying camera, for example)

If all goes well we could really beef out the article with this section. On an unrelated note, has anyone found a source for the Connections to Ico? I haven't managed to :( -- Steel 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I thinks sales figures for both games would be especially interesting.

As far as connections to Ico I haven't had any luck either. Will keep looking though.

edit: i was trying for a while to find a source for the bit about Ico being the descendenat of Wanda, but the best I can do is this interview, where this confirmation is hardly as definitive:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70286-0.html?tw=rss.culture

Wired News: Is there any connection between the worlds of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus?

Fumito Ueda: There's no specific connection as far as a timeline. But, both games exist in the same world.

WN: But you've said the baby we see at the end of Colossus is the first 'baby born with horns' referred to in the backstory of Ico.

FU: Yes. I wanted to give some idea to the player, after you complete the game, that there was a connection to Ico. That's why I put in the baby with the horns. If somebody goes all the way through the game, I wanted them to be rewarded.

I'm starting to think that this definitive confirmation about the descendent may have been a rumor. Will keep looking though.

Tani unit 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What's annoying is that everything in this section is highly speculative. Internet forums have had huge discussions about all of this. It's all open to interpretation making it hard to source, if what is in the article is even correct. -- Steel 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an IGN article where they talk to some guy from SCEA about the connections to Ico. Bad news? It's for IGN insiders only, and you need to subscribe to see it. -- Steel 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Roar of the Earth" merge

We should merge Roar of the Earth into the article. The RotE article is very stubby, and we can easily fit the track listing back into Shadow's article without taking up a lot of space; just look at what these guys did, as an example. Besides, the soundtrack really needs to have a significant place in the article anyway; it is arguably one of the game's strongest elements, and it just doesn't deserve the footnote-like mentioning it has currently. What do you guys think? -- Onlynameicanget 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people like the soundtrack so I guess it wouldn't be hard to find some GameSpot/IGN coverage on it. I was initially sceptical about listing the tracks, since it doesn't really add anything to the article, but since the Half Life article is featured, I guess it couldn't hurt to do what they did. -- Steel 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We could, but the reason the soundtrack has it's own article in the first place is because people complained that the Colossus article was too big hence the separation. I have no problem with rejoining them though, seeing as Half-Life and Ico articles have done it. Tani unit 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article won't be too big when we cut down the characters section and get rid of the Colossi table. -- Steel 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ico connections

Allright, the unsourced parts are as follows:

* At the end of Shadow of the Colossus, Wander/Dormin is shown to have become a baby with horns. Ueda has confirmed this to indicate that Wander/Dormin sires the line of horned boys, of which Ico is a descendant.

- Nothing definitive on this, interviews I found confirm they exist in the same world, and Shadow is a prequel with now specific timeframe mentioned, but we can safely assume that they don't immediately follow one another. Ico being Wanda's descendant is confirmed, sort of.

*The shadowy figures that surround Wander after he defeats a colossus are of a similar design to certain ghosts that rise to challenge Ico; this may be a hint that these spirits have the same origins.

- They look similar enough, but I have seen no mention of that in the interviews, and haven't looked for any reviews stating that. Will have to look further.

*In Ico, immediately after releasing Yorda from her cage, the player comes to a long bridge with a statue at the nearest end. The statue is of a man with horns (one is broken off), who is wearing a tunic and has a hair-cut similar to Wander's. Some in-game features may simply be hints to Ico and not story related.

- Seems self-evident enough, does it really need a reference?

*The way the Shadows stand around Wander in a circle after he defeats a Colossus is also similar to how the shadows encircled Yorda during Ico's ending.

- Far too POV and incidental. Doubt it should be even mentioned.

*Clothing, and designs on those clothes, are of a similar style. This includes Ico and Wander's tunics looking very similar and Yorda and Mono's dress looking very similar. Some fans have found a beach that looks very similar to the one shown in Ico's ending.

- Reinforces Ueda's point about the design team unintentionally giving the games the same feel and look. Alos reinforces the connection as far as the setting goes. Confirmed by the same interview as the very first point.

What do you guys think? Tani unit 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it, although it seems obvious, is original research at the moment. Also, I've heard that Wander doesn't father a line of boys, as in Ico each boy is sent to that castle place before he can reproduce. I am reluctant to say this, but the whole section may need to be significantly cut down. -- Steel 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, ignore some of that. -- Steel 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Put "Citation needed" tags on anything that you think needs to be referenced, and I'll try to dig up some dirt on it. Actually, that applies to the whole article! :P -- Onlynameicanget 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything. -- Steel 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done for connections section. I will look through the rest of the article tomorrow, hopefully. Tani unit 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if any (paper) strategy guides have been made for this game (by Nintendo Power or whatnot)? Those things usually have "secrets" chapters which might list some of the connections to Ico. -- Steel 11:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was the BradyGames guide. I don't own it though. Schicksal 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked around on GameFAQs and apparently it doesn't have anything about the connections in it. Pain. -- Steel 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of us, as a wikipedia user, could inquire directly with team Ico or Fumito Ueda himself. Small chance but who knows. Shure would get some things cleared up. Tani unit 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to do that if I knew how to get in touch with them. -- Steel 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

His article lists http://fumi.to/ as his semi-defunct personal website, with ued@fumi.to

as his email. Could be worth a shot. Tani unit 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Viral Marketing Campaign

This has been bugging me for a while. Do one non notable website's bogus claims deserve such a large section in the article? I'm in favour of getting rid of the entire section myself. -- Steel 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we could keep it as a short one paragraph summary, with no pics.

For instance something like this:

In October 2005, a viral marketing campaign was launched to promote the game. A website called Giantology.net posted links to several websites claiming that remains of five giants resembling certain colossi had been unearthed or discovered in various parts of the world.

We could also mention that compared to Ico the game received a lot more promotion and advertising. I'm pretty sure I could even find the article to source that.

edit: - got it Tani unit

I think this should go into the Reception paragraph after the sales figures. How's this;

The game, unlike Ico, received far more exposure, due to Sony putting it's weight behind a massive advertising campaign. (ref the kikizo article here). It was advertized in game magazines, on TV and on the internet, including a viral marketing campaign that was launched in October 2005. A website called Giantology.net posted links to several websites claiming that remains of five giants resembling certain colossi had been unearthed or discovered in various parts of the world.

Some speculate that Ico's sales figures could have been much better if similar advertizing effort was made before it's release. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59445). Tani unit 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts unexplained

Is there an explanation why my edits to this article this morning were reverted? They were fairly careless, as both grammatical errors and prose polishing were undone along with the changes to the infobox and the removal of the review table.

I'd be willing to better explain any edit, but I'd appreciate it if someone would ask instead of blindly reverting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made to the genre paragraph are poorly worded and do nothing to improve the meaning. The image use was discussed earlier on this talk page (see Cover Images section). Also, I would like you to explain the removal of the ranking section. While your efforst to improve this article are certainly appreciated, but you'd be better for reading the entire talk page, and mentioning it in the talk page before removing sections from the article. Tani unit 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly my problem that you don't see the reason for reverts. Like I said, the changes you made are poorly worded, the removal of the table is unexplained, and the image use was addressed earlier. Further reverts to your own edit from you will probably be considered vandalism at this point, so I suggest you explain yourself on this talk page. Tani unit 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, please knock off the blind reverting to an older version. You've removed uncontroversial grammatical corrections further down the article twice now.

As for the cover image, I am raising a fuss, and I'm raising it now. There's no need to have three fair-use images illustrating one game, and in this case the NA release is even the first release, making things simple. It's the best-selling version, it's the first version, and it's the first English-language version.

As for the genre thing, let me take another crack at it. I'm not happy with either version right now, and I think something closer to the original would be better, you're right. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the review scores sections because this isn't GameRankings, and repeatedly the CVG project has decided not to add lists of review scores or links to Gamerankings, favoring instead descriptive prose quoting from cited reviews. This article already does the latter, but really doesn't need to do the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, dialogue. I can see the logic behind removing the scores, so I have no problem there. As far as the images - there are no strict guidelines to the cover use with international releases, and there are articles (such as FFX) that use multiples. Also, it could also be argued that the game's country of origin is Japan hence the Japanese cover is most appropriate. But we'll discusss that later. Why exactly are you dissatisfied with genre paragraph? Tani unit 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be argued that the game's country of origin is Japan. However, the NA release is still the first release, and this is still the English-language Wikipedia. The Final Fantasy WikiProject (and their ugly FFX table, ew)'s style doesn't really trump WP:FUC; you may want to read WP:FUC #3 in particular, which counsels the use of as few fair-use images as possible, and to a lesser extent #8, which counsels against decorative use of fair-use images.

My objections to the genre paragraph are strictly grammatical. "Because of this (what "this" is is a bit vague), Shadow of the Colossus is regarded (by whom?) as both ("is regarded as" feels terribly awkward) an action-adventure game and a puzzle game."

I filled in some of the gaps on that sentence, and came up with "Because of this mix of different genres, Shadow of the Colossus has been described as both an action-adventure game and a puzzle game." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain release date tramples the country of origin. Is there a a guidile that specifies this? Also, English-language wikipedia does not equal NA wikipedia, so that logic is not without a fault either.

As far as the paragraph - how about this; Each colossus has a weakness, which must be found and exploited in order to win the battle. This type of gameplay does not fit any particluar existing genre, hence Shadow of the Colossus is regarded as both an action-adventure game and a puzzle game. Tani unit 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Custom is to use an English-language cover. When there's some debate over which English-language cover to use, generally the first-release cover or the best-selling cover is used. The Japanese cover flunks all three standards, there.

"Is regarded as" is the annoying bit of grammar. I'd be happy ditching the genre nonsense entirely; I think they're arbitrary categories with little meaning, but I'm also aware that not everyone feels the same. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say "Since each colossus has a weakness which must be found and exploited in order to win the battle, the gameplay of Shadow of the Colossus blends both action-adventure elements and puzzle elements."  ? -JC 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm deliberately trying to stay neutral here, so this post isn't aimed at anyone in particular. I'm just going to explain my viewpoint.
The changes to the intro paragraphs were good, I think. I liked the wording: "Shadow incorporates both puzzle and action-adventure elements, as the player must both figure", etc. I wasn't happy with the wording before and that change was definitely an improvement.
As for that review table thing, I think it was Onlynameicanget who created that, and because featured articles The Wind Waker and Majora's Mask use them, so it can't be a bad thing.
Onto the boxarts, I personally want the EU cover to be used. Not just because it's the cover of my game, but because I think the green is nicer aesthetically than the red/brown of the NA version. Incidentally, featured article Final Fantasy X uses all 4 different covers in the infobox. -- Steel 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're ignoring the fair use criteria here; they are binding policy. These images are so close that separate images aren't needed for identification, and these are fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Steel and I have recently decided that the best change to make to the infobox are as follows: to show the PAL cover predominantly (satisfying the requirement of having an English cover for the English Wikipedia) and having the two covers underneath it. We also felt that the caption was largely unnecessary, and that it pointed out what could be plainly seen before.

Just a heads-up. We don't want any offense to be taken for anything we're doing, and apologies in advance if this reverts an edit made recently to the infobox, but we're about to submit the article for a formal peer review, and would appreciate it if the article remains as stable as possible during that time. Thanks in advance. --Onlynameicanget 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

With three images, it violates WP:FUC #3 and #8. The fair-use rules are not subject to compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, why has the FFX article not been corrected? And why is there suddenly a ridiculous caption there? Schicksal 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How is the caption ridiculous? (The caption is a new feature recently added to {{Infobox VG}}, and we really should have a caption for any fair-use images whenever possible.)

It was ridiculous in that it read horribly; the new wording is a big improvement, though. Schicksal 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The FFX article will be corrected; I've brought it up at the FFX featured article review to see if there are any extenuating issues. Rest assured that that article will also be changing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

The caption feature is a brand new feature of {{Infobox VG}}, which is why you don't see it in other articles yet. We really should be using captions for fair-use images whenever possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, the old caption was waaay too long, you're right. I shortened it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this one?;

The cover of all major releases shows the protagonist along with the first colossus, emphasizing the immensity of the creature.

Tani unit 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the minor releases don't? ;D

Jokes aside, are you suggesting that instead of the current wording, which is "The Shadow of the Colossus cover emphasizes the hugeness of the colossus compared to the protagonist"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer the current wording. -- Steel 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I replied while you shortened it. Although I would still rather replace "hugeness" with a less clunky synonym. Tani unit 01:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mekka lekka hai, your wish is my command. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sugoi! Tani unit 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review time?

We seem to have settled the few remaining issues, and nobody's edited this article for a bit, so I take it that nobody can see anything majorly wrong with it. I think it's time for a proper peer review prior to its FA nomination. -- Steel 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say ideally we should settle the colossi table issue (stays/changes/goes) before then.

I'll look through the article and see if there is anything else.

edit: Yep, I think the rest of it looks good.

Tani unit 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You actually may be right about discussing the colossi table beforehand. Just when I thought everyone was happy with it, we get this. What might be best is if we get rid of the table and write a paragraph or so on the colossi and add it to the characters section (But then that section would need renaming to "significant biological organisms" or something) -- Steel 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think that may well be the best option. -- Steel 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that of all four parts of the table only one is actually from a cited source is reason enough to get rid of it imo. I think we can leave the section as "Characters" and add the colossi in it. If Dormin can be considered a character, I don't see why colossi couldn't. Tani unit 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't see why we couldn't just leave colossi separate as they are right now anyway. Tani unit 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment we have 3 lines of text on the colossi, most of which is already mentioned elsewhere. Suggestions on what to write about them anyone? -- Steel 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The colossi are armored - and often enormous - creatures that seem invincible, but each has its hidden weaknesses and habits. Each colossus has remarkably different anatomies and affinities, ranging from simple giant humanoids to fierce predatory animals, and each is located in a unique lair.

(for a bit of a description, I'm trying to find citable sources for this) Their bodies are a fusion of organic shapes and architectural elements, always having fur somewhere on them, which the protagonist can use to his advantage in order to scale them. Most colossi lay dormant and ignore the protagonist when he trespasses on their territory, but some will attack on sight.

Often, the environments in which the colossi are fought must be fully utilized to the player's advantage to reach or reveal a colossus's weakness.

Tani unit 00:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. We should be able to get a good beefy paragraph out of this after all. -- Steel 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Final version;

The colossi are armored - and often enormous - creatures that seem invincible, but each has its hidden weaknesses and habits. Each colossus has remarkably different anatomies and affinities, ranging from simple giant humanoids to fierce predatory animals, and each is located in a unique lair.

Their bodies are a fusion of organic shapes and architectural elements, reminiscent of Mayan, with some of the parts weathered or crumbling, giving them an ancient appearance (ref http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/games/reviews/15173/). All of them, even those that are aquatic or aerial, have areas covered with fur which the protagonist can use to scale them.

Often, the environments in which the colossi are fought must be fully utilized to the player's advantage to reach or reveal a colossus's weakness.

"Most colossi lay dormant and ignore the protagonist when he trespasses on their territory, but some will attack on sight."

Tani unit 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Implemented the changes. Unless there are second opinions, I'd ay the article is ready to be peer reviewd. Tani unit 03:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The page looks a lot nice. You guys have done very good work condensing the information. Something that needs to be addressed, though, is that references are supposed to go after punctuation marks. I'll go ahead and fix that. By the way, would you guys be interested in me doing a copyedit of the page to help tighten the prose up? I'm one of the major contributors to the Final Fantasy X article's FAC, and am currently a main contributor in the FAC of Final Fantasy VI, FAC of Final Fantasy VIII and Chrono Trigger's FAC, so I have experience with game articles and FACs. Just let me know here. Ryu Kaze 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I really feel like the prose does need a fresh pair of eyes. Other things that should be addressed for the sake of organization are the implementation of citation templates within the references and the removal of the "listing" within the "Characters" section. There typically shouldn't be sub-headers for individual characters, particularly in a situation where we have so few characters. The Colossi should be moved into a sub-header under "Characters", though. If possible, we need some more information on the game's audio (particularly its development, and some info on the fictional language used in the game) and "Roar of the Earth" should become "Audio" with information on both the in-game implementation and the soundtrack itself. I realize that the page isn't in Peer Review yet, but the purpose of my comments is try helping before this article gets to the more formal and harsh processes to come. Ryu Kaze 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this a good idea. By all means work on the prose, meanwhile I'll see what I can find for the sound portion of the article. There's gotta be some info out there. Thanks for helping btw.

Tani unit 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad I've got some consent to help out. I didn't jump straight in to make changes because I realize you guys have put a good bit of effort in here and I didn't want to impose unless you wanted me to, my intentions being in good faith or not. I would certainly like to assist with this page as long as you guys have no objections. You're welcome, by the way.

By the way, some more things I've noticed and will probably be touching on: there's a lot of invisible comments within the sections and we need better illustration with images. If something's suspected of being original research or should be removed, we should address the matter here right away and get it taken care of. If they're forgotten but still imbedded in the page's text, it will affect Peer Review and FAC as a result of lessening the page's overall quality and bloating its size (even invisible text counts toward page size). I see an image set up like that as well. On the matter of images themselves, there should be more examples of gameplay. There's a fairly decent image of using the sword to gather the light, but what about an image of actual combat with a Colossus (preferably preparing to stab a glyph), or an image that serves as an efficient example of scenery, given that there aren't any illustrations of that here? Why an image of Emon, but not the Dormin, by the way?

The "Connections to Ico" section actually is full of a good bit of original research. Where we can't cite something here or where it isn't particularly relevant, we need to exclude it. We've got verifiability for the most important parts anyway (Ico's ancestry and the games being in the same world). The rest is extrinsic and should be removed. I'll go ahead and get started on fixing up. Ryu Kaze 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, do whatever you want to the article to make it better. It's best that problems are taken care of now as opposed to the peer review. -- Steel 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Steel. Will do, and thanks. Let me know if you have any concerns about anything. Ryu Kaze 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've got the references fixed up, but in addition to going over the prose and finding some new images (by the way, Tani, thank you for getting some more audio info) there's some more we need to do. Specifically, we need development info. The "Early development as Nico" section should be part of this new overall "Development" section. I know I've seen tons of information in interviews (most of which we link to from here, I believe) that talks about ideas they implemented, why they chose to implement, and even some of the hows of it all, so there's plenty of info for us to create a thorough development section, which every video game article should have. Ryu Kaze 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on doing that, or is it a task for us? (Note: I have absolutely no problems doing it myself, but I won't be able to get it done for a few days) -- Steel 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that, but it'll be a little bit later today. There's a lot still to be done here, but I think it'll go pretty quickly. A day or two of dedicated work should tighten everything up. Ryu Kaze 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile I'll find and post (here) a few articles of relevance, so you guys can go through them and choose whatever is necessary. The article is starting to shape up quite nicely indeed. My only other concern is with one of the screenshots (below) which I feel is not of adequate quality (aesthetically). Mono is hardly visible aside from the mass of her dress, and compositionally it's not very good. I realize that this probably is the least protected image, so ideally it needs to be replaced by another user-made screenshot, so perhaps someone could make one.

Tani unit 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, that pic of the third colossus is also very low quality. -- Steel 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think [1] one might work better for Wander and Mono. I am open for suggestions as far as the colossus image goes, although that one I don't really have a problem with. Tani unit 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the image of the three is pretty terrible. I'll try to get us a better quality version of the same shot so we can include all three characters, but if we can't, then that one of us just Mono and Wander would probably suffice, though I think this one would be even better. I also don't have any issues with the picture of Gaius, by the way. It emphasises that Wander should be screwed well enough. Ryu Kaze 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Or would you guys prefer this one for the colossus image? Ryu Kaze 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you think that colossi pic is alright, so I won't kick up a fuss about it. -- Steel 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'm willing to change it, though, as there probably are better ones. This one's pretty good. I got us a good image for showing off the glyph, by the way. Ryu Kaze 01:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the colossus image that is there is good because it shows off the scale.

If you look carefully it has a glyph as well btw, on the Gaius's abdomen. As far as the Wander/Mono image this one looks great, I think we should put it in. Tani unit 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be more images of the Colossi, more images of the Colossi should be usedUnknown Dragon 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There's alimit to how many images we can get in under fair-use. Ryu Kaze 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I know but still, I think that at least one or two more pictures of other Colossi would help, and I know the reason why that image of the third Colossus is of poor quality is that that picture is from the "Beta" version of the game, I can tell because Gaius (Colossus #3), has a third stub/horn on the top of his head, it doesn't have that in the final version.Unknown Dragon 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This pic is my preferred choice. It shows off the scale pretty well and is higher quality than that other one. Though, like I said, I'm not going to kick up a fuss. -- Steel 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely like yours better Steel, but the possible issue here is the vertical orientation of the image. What about this one? It doesn't show thw hole colossus, granted, but it's horizontal and it certainly conveys a sence of scale. Either one of those would be fine by me. Tani unit 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use that one because that colossi doesn't actually exist in the game (At least, not in my game. Did they change #2 for the PAL release?). -- Steel 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the same one as in your pic, Quadratus from an early build (yours is too btw, compare it's eyes to the ones in other screenshots). It's surprising to me how many people don't realize it's the same colossus. I guess to avoid that sort of confusion we shouldn't use my pic. Tani unit 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Steel's is better for the reasons already mentioned, but because it's a vertical image, it would probably be unsuitable. If we can get something similar that's more balanced, though, it would probably be a better choice than the Gaius image. Ryu Kaze 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Section break

I'm working on finishing up my copyedit (only two more sections to go, though I need to expand "Development"), but I'm concerned about the list of tracks from the game. I fear it's going to be considered a bit trivia-ish, like the cast list that Final Fantasy X once had, but I'm going to leave it in there and let Peer Review or FAC tell us what they think. Ryu Kaze 14:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the track list, I think Onlynameicanget got that idea from featured article Half-Life 2. -- Steel 14:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. The thing is, FACs go through phases, usually changing every other month. Sometimes they demand more and sometimes less. Lately it's been a case of a demand for more, though, thankfully, so I'm not too concerned. As long as we're comprehensive on everything else, we'll be fine, regardless of whether or not we have to lose the track list. I'm going to need to go back and work on the gameplay section a bit more, though, so that we do meet comprehensive standards. Ryu Kaze 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up: someone's probably going to call fair-use #3 on the presence of the PAL version's cover ("The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately"). Ryu Kaze 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Little as possible" is very subjective, and it is directly related to the section it was added too. But if you think it's a no-no, get rid of it. -- Steel 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it in there until someone suggests that it's unnecessary. Lately, there's been quite a bit of cracking down on more than one image cover, so I just thought you should be expecting it. Personally, I like the use of all the regional covers, but that fair-use stipulation usually is the death of them. Ryu Kaze 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done with copyediting the prose. The Reception section was really good before I even touched it, but the Awards needed to be de-listed and turned into prose. While on that subject, we've got a bit of a problem there: the last few have plenty of references, but the first few have none. I've been trying to find some references for that info, but haven't come across any, so if you guys know where that information came from, please add it. If you have the specific magazines in question, that would be even better, and you could make a cite book reference for it. Ryu Kaze 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do it, but without a reference for these things, we're going to have to lose three mentions in the awards. Ryu Kaze 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty much done making adjustments. Unless someone else comes along with more suggestions, I think it's ready for Peer Review. It will probably actually be a good thing to leave a thing or two that we're not totally sure about in there so it's apparent to us and them that Peer Review or FAC is improving or approving the article. Ryu Kaze 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that we now have the Japanese cover art back in. There's no way that all three versions are going to get past Peer Review, mustless FAC, guys. We're definitely going to have to drop at least one of them, if not both the PAL and Japanese versions. Even Final Fantasy X recently had to remove its extra regional covers. An argument could possibly be made for the relevant inclusion of the PAL cover, but I doubt it. While it's relevant to the subject matter, it doesn't exactly convey anything of particular value that the NTSC U/C cover doesn't. I'm going to go ahead and drop the Japanese cover art. I'll leave the PAL version to see if it survives Peer Review, as I mentioned earlier, but I know that all three of them don't have a chance. Ryu Kaze 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Just now there was an image of a penis on the top of the page, but I could not find anything in edit history or in the code, and now it's gone seemingly by itself. Anyone know what exactly happened there? Tani unit 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

People were adding the pictures to the Nihongo template which is used at the beginning of thousands of articles (inc. this one). See the history to Template:Nihongo. -- Steel 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Butchering a Colossus

This article has been going through too many drastic changes, it used to be filled with such rich information about the game but as I see it, as more new information is added, other valuable information disappears, such as the description for both the characters and the Colossi are no longer as rich with information as they used to be.Unknown Dragon 02:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only things disappearing from the article are either fan speculation, OR, or things that cannot be sourced. Overall the article is being brought to wikipedia's standards in accordance with guidelines. I'm not really shure what valuable information you think is missing, but if it's something specific by all means post it here for discussion. Tani unit 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, I see that the player controls are no longer present, also, the names and locations of the different shrines that are featured in the game are gone too. Why are these being taken out?Unknown Dragon 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Because this is gameplay information that is reserved for gamesites and walkthroughs. This article serves as an encyclopedic entry about the game, not a gamer's resource for controls or gameplay tips.

All of this was removed months prior to this wave of editing, and is discussed in the archives. Tani unit 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the information about the different Prayer Shrines taken out? And also, what about the data about the Fruit Trees and lizards? I mean they play an important role. Also, may I ask, is it impossible if we can use the chart again for the Colossi? I mean, it should only feature the basic facts, like the time-trial data, their names, and what kinds of creatures they were meant to be? If it isn't I understand, just asking. Also, just asking but what happened to the viral marketing section? Unknown Dragon 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The shrine, fruit tree and lizard information was removed because it was very strategy guide-esque, which is not what Wikipedia is for. The table of the colossi was unsourced and people argued over both their names and what they looked like, so it had to go. The viral marketing campaign section was cut down significantly because one non-notable website's reaction to the game didn't deserve that amount of text.
Hope that's explained everything -- Steel 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I just stumbled upon by accident

Shadow of the Colossus is going to be released as part of a "Greatest Hits" list according to some website. Reliable source? Worth mentioning in the Reception section of the article? -- Steel 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly worth mentioning. I've been hearing this for the last month or two. Apparently it's supposed to be happening at the beginning of August. I'll see if I can find a better source for it, though. Ryu Kaze 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Found a mention of it by GamePro, but it links to one of the other less reliable sources. GamePro's own article on the matter is only a few days old, and mentions that they've sent a request to Sony to confirm or deny the matter. I guess we might as well just wait a few days to find out if it's true or not before adding it. Ryu Kaze 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Steel 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing Content

OK, so I have to disappear for a few months, and everything changes. I suppose that kind of thing happens. I would appreciate it if someone could summarize the rationale behind the recent changes to the article. I am pleased that the gameplay information has been removed, and I'm pleased with the improvement that's taken place in the story sections (I haven't read through every line yet), but I'm frowning at the disappearance of useful things like the names of the colossi. (I've always said the list of save points should disappear, but a previous group of editors kept overriding me. Good work, whoever deleted that stuff.) What would you all consider to be confirmation of the information that once appeared in that table? I can't agree with the notion that it should be considered "original research" because it's not like someone just invented names for them and thought it would be good to put them on the article. They came from somewhere, even if that "somewhere" is an obscure pre-release magazine. This, then, would be reporting what others have discovered, which is very Wikipedian. If this has already been discussed at length on another page, I apologize for not doing enough looking around. Perhaps someone could point me at the previous discussion.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, a lot of "stuff" has appeared in the article, notably in the plot section. I'm happy to have this information in the article, but many things that appear in this section are repeated elsewhere (sometimes in exactly the same words). Unless there's an outcry, I'd like to go through and weed out repeated information.

And since I'm still sort of on the topic of cited sources (in my head, at least) I question the validity of citing "the official game site" as a source of information when the official game site is a jumble of Flash presentations and very (very) little informational text. For example, the official site is cited (heh) as a source of information for the speculation(!) that the shadowy creatures from Shadow of the Colossus may(!) be the same as those appearing in Ico. Personally, I think they have only superficial resemblances, and suggest the line be rewritten or cut.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 07:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, welcome back Zork, it's been a while.

Basically you will want to read through the current archive page (if you haven't already), most of the changes are reflected there, colossi table removal included. Essentially only 1/4 of the table was a cited sourse, the rest was translations/people's take on representation, which by definition is original research and people kept making chages to translations as well. Leaving just the cited names would be good, but none of us seem to have any ideas as to how to go about implementing those. As far as the shadowy creatures I belive currently the article states they are "related" to shadows in Ico, either via the storyline or simply as a nod from the creators.

Either way it is not implied that those are the same creatures. Hope that clears up some of your concerns. Tani unit 10:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the changes that have been made are more in line with the requirements of a Featured Article, which is what we're pushing the page toward. That's why a lot of the trivia, gameplay info and other cruft has been dropped, the list of characters turned into prose, and the Connections to Ico section reduced into a few citable, non-OR bits of information (though I wasn't here for some of it, admittedly).

Long story short, this page is closer to becoming a Featured Article than it's ever been. As for the use of the official site for citing sources, which country's version of that are you looking at? The PAL territories' version is very informative, and that's the one that is being cited (perhaps that should be specified). Also, as Tani said, the article doesn't suggest that the shadow creatures are the same, merely that they're related. Though, in all honesty, I think we could lose the line and the article wouldn't suffer for it. The rest of that paragraph is the only important part.

As for your final inquiry, if there is redundant information, yes, it should probably be fixed. I'm not sure where it is, though, but I'll go back through and give it a look. Ryu Kaze 11:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've found a few instances of redundancy and fixed them. Ryu Kaze 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the U.S. site, being that's where I live. It's one of those solve-puzzles-to-unlock wallpaper images type sites. Sigh. I'll scope out the PAL version. And, yes, if a particular version of the official site is being referenced, then that's the one that we should link to. Thanks for the welcome!
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review time? — part II

The other section is a little further up the page and already has enough discussion under it. Does everyone (including you, ZorkFox) feel that the page is now ready for full Peer Review, rather than CVG Peer Review (which provided few comments at all)? We've been sitting on it for two or three days now, and I think the page is ready to go if everyone else does. While I'm sure there's one or two things we'll be called out on (references won't be one of them, thankfully; those are one of the last things you want to be told is lacking), we'll iron out any other problems a lot sooner when fresh eyes have been inspecting the article. Ryu Kaze 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, you're more experienced with peer reviews than the rest of us, is there *anything* in the article which they're likely going to complain about? -- Steel 12:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Any article is a good candidate for WP:PR at any point in its life. Go right ahead to PR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Steel, the only thing I would say we'll definitely be told to change by PR or FAC is the inclusion of the PAL boxart. There's a variety of other sytlistic comments we might end up receiving before all is said and done, but those are harder to predict. We've got good info here and a solid presentation, but there might be something in the wording that makes sense to us just fine, but that we're told might sound confusing to someone else. That's why PR is so helpful, really. When you're already familiar with the subject matter and have been working on the page for a while yourself, things don't sound complicated at all and it's easy to overlook some things, but a fresh perspective can help tighten sentences, clarify things, etc. Just really simple things that all come together and help strengthen the article. Like AMIB said, a PR can be helpful at any stage in an article's life, but if you're shooting for FA, they're definitely useful to tell you if you're on the right track.

We'll only know what we'll hear once we get there, I guess. I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to get it started since you were working on it first. Ryu Kaze 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, we've been talking about the peer review for ages and I think it's time we just got on with it. I'll set it all up myself in the next half hour or so, if I may. -- Steel 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete agreement. Full speed ahead. Ryu Kaze 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colossus image

Finally found us one similar to the other one Steel had, but that isn't vertical: [2] Ryu Kaze 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with vertically orientated images anyway? -- Steel 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy-paste from the Peer Review discussion for the benefit of those just following the talk page:

"Sometimes nothing, but people are often uneasy with them because of potential layout issues. Personally, I don't mind using them. If they screw up the layout on someone's monitor, usually it can be expected that they'll post on the talk page and say 'That vertical image really screws up the layout on my monitor'." Ryu Kaze 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice: we've decided on this image. Ryu Kaze 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colossi

I wanted this info on the main page - why is it being removed? If these are not the proper names then somebody should at least put up the right ones. I found this info on gamefaqs and thought it was correct.

These are the various names for each colossi. The latin names were used in a Japanese gaming magazine.

(1) Proper name: Valus Latin name: Minotaurus Colossus Translation: Minotaur Colossus

(2) Proper name: Quadratus Latin name: Taurus Magnus Translation: Taurus Major

(3) Proper name: Gaius Latin name: Terrestris Veritas Translation: Earth Knight

(4) Proper name: Phaedra Latin name: Equus Bellator Apex Translation: Elite War Horse

(5) Proper name: Avion Latin name: Avis Praeda Translation: Bird of Prey

(6) Proper name: Barba Latin name: Belua Maximus Translation: Great Beast

(7) Proper name: Hydrus Latin name: Draco Marinus Translation: Sea Dragon

(8) Proper name: Kuromori Latin name: Parietinae Umbra Translation: Wall Shadow

(9) Proper name: Basaran Latin name: Nimbus Recanto Translation: Storm Echo

(10) Proper name: Dirge Latin name: Harena Tigris Translation: Sand Tiger

(11) Proper name: Celosia Latin name: Ignis Excubitor Translation: Flame Guardian

(12) Proper name: Pelagia Latin name: Permagnus Pistrix Translation: Great Sea Monster

(13) Proper name: Phalanx Latin name: Aeris Velivolus Translation: Air Sailer

(14) Proper name: Cenobia Latin name: Cladeds Candor Translation: Destruction Luster

(15) Proper name: Argus Latin name: Praesidium Vigilo Translation: Vigilant Sentinel

(16) Proper name: Malus Latin name: Grandis Supernus Translation: Grand Superior

• This is trivia, which isn't necessary on Wikipedia — especially in a featured article. — Deckiller 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• If the names of the characters in the game are trivia then what is the names of the songs doing on there? I really think that the colossi's names are important information that people would expect to learn on this page. Maybe I'm an idiot. Thanks for telling me why at least. --Ian Alexander 03:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had small edit wars over the names and translations of the colossi, and since we have no official source for any of this, there way no way of determining who was right. Without a source is can't be added per WP:V anyway. The colossi's names are most certainly trivial and unimportant. Nowhere in the game are the names given, they have no impact on the story or gameplay and I only realised they had names after seeing this posted on GameFAQs. The song list has actually been removed per concerns raised at FAC. -- Steel 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article!

Congratulations, and a huge thanks to all involved! The progress this article has made ever since its informal peer review in early July has been nothing short of astounding.

I've archived all of the talk from the page into Archive 4 to give us some room. Again: great work, everyone! --Onlynameicanget 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa.... when will it be sen on the front page? -- Psi edit 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first we need to write up a request for it to appear on the front page, which is the next step for the article. Even then, it may take a while for it to be added to the queue. I remember it took quite a while for Final Fantasy X's article, for example, to go on the front page - either that or they submitted the request long after it was featured. --Onlynameicanget 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made that box thing here (Note, I had to comment out the image due to fair use in userspace and all that). I'd personally like to request September the 18th. -- Steel 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus the image, the example box you made sounds good. As for a front page day, as I mentioned before, October 18^th would be best since it's the first anniversary of the game's release. I know you'd like to see it appear on your birthday (a fine present that would be), but when specific days are requested, Raul wants to see it based on something relevant to the work itself. For some current examples, User:Monocrat is pushing Excel Saga for October 7, that anime's anniversary, while User:Peirigill is requesting All Saints' Day for the Gregorian Chant (this connection is obvious, I think). Ryu Kaze 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what Raul wants. I guess it's not as if my life depends on it appearing on that date in September. -- Steel 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

October 18th sounds good to me. --Onlynameicanget 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

*Burps* -- Steel 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome job everyone. Hope I was helping more then getting in the way. Great learning experience that. Tani unit 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were helpful. Thanks for the compliment. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen. -- Psi edit 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had any time to work with Wikpedia lately, so it was a GREAT treat to come back and see Shadow of the Colossus on the front page! Congratulations, everyone! Huzzah!
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Video games should be banned from FA status. They make such boring FAs. I mean its cool that you guys make up-to-wiki-standards articles, but its much easier to make a NPOV up-to-standards article with video games, because there isn't much to them, so there ends up being all these video game FAs. Its dissapointing to see a video game FA. Brentt 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I was glad to see one of my favourite games pop up as an FA. And besides, this game borders on art. Scratch that, it is art.SeriousCat 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Brentt, but on a different basis. You cannot disqualify something from being important or valuable simply because you feel it's not a challenge or it's information so finite that it's a cinch to whip up an A grade page on it. There's no reason to discredit real and honest work and passion just because you don't think it's significant, and you should be glad there's pages like ICO. It shows that Wikipedia is unique, that it truly is a place for anyone and everyone to come together and hammer out a page that wouldn't even exist otherwise. Holier than thou attitudes and reservations on relevance on something that you do not understand completely (which goes for everyone) is a sign of your own close mindedness and discriminatory biases, you are not an avatar of academics, and if you were, you would respect this page and it's same veined cousins as you would respect any other well written page. Whether or not ICO is relevant is a moot point, no one person can decide or is deserving to decide. On another basis, video game FA BRING IN NEW BLOOD. Video games FA reaches an audience that would not be obtained by featuring WWII or Supernovas, and this brings in new people into the Wikipedia, and possibly into the Wikipedia fold of contribs. On this note, common courtesy and respect for all the pages, even the silly ones about Spongebob or mundane like diodes, will make Wikipedia a better place.Antsam 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your opinion is in the minority, as it should be. I have little interest in video games (or moralistic engravings, for that matter), but it's still fascinating to see what a unique game did differently from others, and how it fits into the development of its field (the Ico link was similarly interesting). You'd profit from learning to enjoy the feeling of diving into an unfamiliar field and learning a little part of it, but if that's not you cup of tea, simply don't read it. 216.52.69.217 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Actually, I was wondering whether it might be interesting to put a short note into the article that the obvious inspiration was the biblical fight between David and Goliath. ----

Yes, it seems highly analogous to biblical stories.

Deleted "Difficulty" Section

Got rid of some vandalism.

Vandalized Again?

Someone put a very disgusting picture on it.. Can someone clean it up, I'm not much of a writer :s -Stevenbranton

'Centered around'

I've noted some objections to the term 'centered around' being correct. Two citations from dictionary.com[3]:

Dictionary.com usage note: 28. Although sometimes condemned for alleged illogicality, the phrases center about and center around have appeared in edited writing for more than a century to express the sense of gathering or collecting as if around a center: The objections center around the question of fiscal responsibility.

American Heritage Dictionary usage note: Usage Note: Traditionally, the verb center may be freely used with the prepositions on, upon, in, or at; but some language critics have denounced its use with around as illogical or physically impossible. But the fact that writers persist in using this phrase in sentences such as The discussion centered around the need for curriculum reform, a sentence that 71 percent of the Usage Panel accepts, suggests that many people perceive center around to best represent the true nature of what they are trying to say. Indeed, in an example like A storm of controversy centered around the king, the only appropriate choice seems to be around. Still, if one wishes to avoid the phrase center around, the phrase revolve around is available as an option. Since center can represent various relations involving having, finding, or turning about a center, the choice of a preposition depends on what is intended. There is ample evidence for usages with each preposition listed above. The Panel accepts all of these uses except the one with at. Seventy-seven percent reject the sentence The company has been centered at Atlanta for the last five years. See Usage Note at equal. Hrimfaxi 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many (if not most) other game articles contain plot spoiler warnings

Most of the other game pages contain a warning for plot spoilers. I do not see why this page should be different from the majority of pages. I also do not think it is superior because I expect to be warned if it is a full divulgance of the story or a simple overview. For instance, I do not expect the back cover of a book to give away the entire story, just what it is generally about. I personaly made the mistake of reading the ending on this article when I did not want to, and while one could argue that I was simply careless or stupid, I ask, if saying that a section of the article is about the story is enough of a warning, why is there a spoiler warning template at all? Why do most other game article use it in an almost identical context? Why change the previous policy: is something on Wikipedia hurt by a spoiler warning? Is simple, minor (alleged) redundancy such a crime if it prevents (what I will call for lack of a better term) injury to a reader? I think this needs to be reexamened, and if you do think that a spoiler is truly unnessisary, they you should probably remove the spoiler warning in all instances of its occurance and perhaps disable the template itself. For now I am not personnaly planning to add a spoiler warning as I do not want an edit war more than anyone else, but I really think it should have one and the subject definately needs evaluation.

Also, I think that the fact that people frequently (relatively speaking) make the "mistake" of adding a spoiler warning ought to be telling about the decision not to include the warning and about how much sense it actually makes to users. -Oniamien

The use of spoiler warnings is contested. People are trying to remove it from every article, there's a request for comment around somewhere on it. As far as this article goes, isn't it obvious that there are going to be spoilers there? Bear in mind the section is titled "Story", not "Synopsis" or "Plot Overview". To be honest, though, Wikipedia's content disclaimer announces in big letters that articles contain spoilers and that should be enough. -- Steel 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Steel said. The subject has been in constant evaluation since people began using spoiler tags here. Many people think they're absurd given the content disclaimer, the encyclopedia's purpose to inform and the fact that no other professional encyclopedia (which is what we're trying to become) uses such tags. Of course, many others do not, and so there is conflict on the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously an issue much larger than just this article but since we're here... Would it, then, be good (or, at least acceptable) to have a separate "Synopsis" section? I'm a regular Wikipedia user (read: fanboy) and was caught off-guard by the spoilers. Nklatt 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Colossi"

Colossi is an incorrect plural spelling for the word 'colossus' (see the Wiktionary entry: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Colossus), analogous to the frequently used incorrect plural spelling of the word 'octopus', 'octopi'. Its correct plural spelling is 'colossuses'.

The reason for the spelling seen in the game is likely either an artistic license, or a misconception on the part of the game's translator(s).

I find myself unable to add this piece of relevant info into the article without degrading its readability. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the written word than myself would be inclined to add it?

Damn FAs, they're just so damn hard to improve. -FrostyBytes 10:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally held that both "colossi" and "colossuses" are a valid plural form of the word. In Latin, at the least, "colossi" may actually be the correct spelling, assuming — as many do — that it is a second declension Latin noun. Given that the game's developers gave each colossus a Latin title, it's probable that "colossi" was the intended spelling for the game. It should remain as such for this article, especially since it is a valid rendering of the word (and the spelling used invariably in the game itself). Ryu Kaze 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, dictionary.com says that "colossi" is the preferred plural... I should look into it more, I'm a strong advocate of "octopuses" over "octopi" , since the truly "correct" spelling is "octopodes" but that is terribly pedantic. How does Greek make "kolossus" plural? -JC 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My Greek go-to guy says that "kolossos" plurals to "kolossoi". Either way, as the "colossi" of the game are their own unique creatures, I think for the article that the in-game spelling is the best fit, regardless of etymology. -mordicai. 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm inclined to agree, though I still think it'd be proper to add at least some reference to this matter of different plural spellings, perhaps something as little as the wikification of a single appropriate word. -FrostyBytes 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, on cursory glance, I don't see any easy wikilink to make that could side-step the issue. Even then, a semantics argument is only going to be of so much interest, especially when the verdict is still out on the "proper" pluralization. If colossi wasn't just as valid as colossuses, I could see the value of an aside, but I think as it stands there doesn't need to be any edit on the subject-- unless you can think of an elegent way to put it in without it sticking out like an extra left foot. -mordicai. 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-Industrial Iron Age"

There has been quite a bit of discussion up above on this subject, but I think a new thread is due here. It seems that there might be a bit of a revert war brewing, & I'd like to head that off with a discussion here; best case scenario being that we can come to a conclusion on the subject.

Firstly, my opinion is (obviously, from my initial reversion) that the statement be included. I could be copacetic with the removal of "traditional" from "traditional fantasy world," but the fantasy world bussiness seems pretty straight forward to me. Giant colossi, talking gods, living shadows, magic swords... As to the issue of "pre-industrial iron age," I think the sentence is pretty clearly stating a level of comparative technology. It isn't saying, as there seems to have been confusion in the past, that it is set in a historical setting on Earth. If several editors are having trouble reading it that way, or disagree that it is reading that way, perhaps the diction does need an overhaul. To me, the whole sentence (how small a thing to have contention over!) adds much needed information to the "setting" part of the article. An observation about that setting is not "fan-fic" or any such. The terms are neutral & anthropological. --mordicai. 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree I don’t personally think there’s anything wrong with it but the keyword there being "Personally" and as you and I don’t own wikipedia we have to acknowledge that this is a "two enemy camp situation" and the other half of the community thinks it would be best to remove the information reason being it seems to be unsourced (if one could please prove me wrong) and or unrelated. And the only way to solve these types of situation is to refer to the rules and in this case my friends I have to say camp number 1 wins in accordance with WP:V and adherence to the five pillars I remove the disputed section. And I am open for talk here always, thanks Singing guns 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone if I may add this is quoted from wiki rules section WP:V Please read all parties invloved. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". That clearly states a source not a in game ref wich can be argued over and challanged which is the case, in such a case all editors must be Bold and take action, thank you Singing guns 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that "pre-industrial iron age" isn't anything more than succinct description. I think we can all agree with pre-industrial, yes? There are no cars, or gun, or asembly line made clothing or anything of that ilk, yes? Pre-industrial isn't a time, or a reference to the real world. It is a statement of technology. Same with iron age; we're not talking about Earth's Iron Age here, but rather a level of technology consistant with swords & arrows....which are the weapons we see in the game, yes? Everything in the game, in the setting as is shown, fits with the description "pre-industrial iron age." Which is the key here; description. Not a statement of some historical time period or anything like that. It is the use of anthropological terms to explain the world the game is set in.

See:

• Pre-industrial society
• Iron Age

--mordicai. 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with keeping it. The game itself is reference enough to such a claim. It may be based on a Primary Resource (the game itself), but that's all you need when you're making a direct observation. It isn't considered "Original Research" , as there's no conclusions being drawn from it or such - it's just stating what style the game is in. Describing isn't the same thing as unsourced material :P -JC 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How weird it is to me that this statement is so controversial that edit war after edit war is created by it. Anybody have any theories on why it is the source of so much argument? --mordicai. 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been an issue since before the article acquired the 'featured' status. I can only guess that to some people tying the game to a real historical period somehow seems insulting. Tani unit 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the thing; it isn't being tied to a real time period; pre-industrial & iron age are descriptions, not times. If the terms were an attempt to place the game somewhen in the real world, I would probably agree with the objection-- but they are not. --mordicai. 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here. It isn't me who has a problem, i'm just theorising as to why people keep fighting over it. Some people just don't get the difference. Tani unit 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Why is the one column format better than two? Two columns takes less space and it stays as readable as the one column version. --Mika1h 15:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The amount of space two columns saves as opposed to one column is very small. One column is much more user friendly and is worth an extra six or so lines in the article. -- Steel 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought featured articles were supposed to be well written

I quote: "This confusion results from a failure to account for the Japanese language lacking an 'er' phonetic. A common compromise is to use an 'ah' syllable instead, in an effort to simulate a non-rhotic 'er' phonetic when transliterating foreign words into Japanese." Didn't anyone notice that "phonetic" isn't a noun? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.145.19.66 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

How would you rephrase it? Also, making a generalization on one minor, perhaps subjective issue is very questionable. — Deckiller 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the correct linguistic term in this case is "phoneme". If someone with a linguist's background can confirm, then we can simply substitute words. 216.52.69.217 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

–noun 5. (in Chinese writing) a written element that represents a sound and is used in combination with a radical to form a character. - dictionary.com. Assume this would apply to Japenese writing as well.212.56.97.238 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word "sound"? 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with using "critter" when you mean "dragonfly"?  ;) A more precise term exists, so a good encyclopedia should use that term. Especially when it can directly wikilink to the "phoneme" article for anybody who doesn't know the word already.216.52.69.217 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.69.217 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

But "phoneme" isn't necessarily what's meant here. Japanese doesn't just not have an "er" phoneme, it doesn't have any sound (or phone if you want to use the technical term) that sounds like "er". I also don't see how substituting an "ah" sound for an "er" sound can be called either a compromise or a "simulation of a non-rhotic 'er'" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms). --85.178.37.83 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what was meant: The creator of the game, who is a Japanese person, created the character and named him "Wander". However, the Japanese language doesn't have an "-er" phone, phoneme, phonetic, sound, syllable, or whatever you want to call it. So they use a the "ah" phone, which gives the effect of an English pronunciation of "Wander" with a non-rhotic "er" phone. That is to say, it is pronounced as someone from London UK or Tenessee USA would. Is this still not clear? This is coming from someone who considers US Midwestern English to be the standard, where the "er" at the end of Wander would be pronounced with a fully rhotic R. Perhaps that's the source of the confusion. 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dormin as Lucifer

Apart from the obvious figure of the horned shadow, could the concept of Dormin be based on Luciferian imagery? Note that Dormin first "appears" to Wander in the form of a light from above, as per famous Satanic "deception". In fact the voice could either be construed as directly demonic or ironically, even that of God given its source. When Dormin finally takes form, it appears as though they have deceived Wander into sacrificing his "soul" in his deal to save Mono.

Franck Drake 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Something Extra for the spoilers...

Both the opening and final cinematic elements of the game involve a hawk(?) or other bird of prey flying against a darkened sky. I might also suggest that it actually makes the game seem like a loop as the intro sequence plays right after the ending... Franck Drake 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suck...

This game looks like it sucks. It probably does not, but just by reading the first article no dungeons, towns, people or monsters, this game dosn't look that great... --TheGreenLink 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this talk page is for discussing the article and improvements to the article. This is not the place to discuss the game itself. ShadowHalo 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Play it and you will know why it needs to not have those things.- solemn_edifice

Literal translation of Kyozou

Yesterday I tried to offer a more literal translation of the Japanese title Wanda to Kyozou, which would be "Wander and Giant Statue". That is literally what kyozou means. It's a compound of two kanji- kyo, meaning huge/giant/immense etc. and zou which in this context means statue. I don't know if my edit was reverted because someone objected to it, or if it was simply lost in the vandalism/rv mess. If anyone has any objections, I'd like to hear them. Druff 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, since no one spoke up, I'm going to edit it again. Please leave any future objections here. Druff 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that 巨像 is a word used in the names of colossi in history and in Japanese and Chinese encyclopedic articles. The Colossus of Rhodes, for example, uses these two characters, and we can assume the two characters appeared after the statue's constuction. *kaburicho 02:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards Box

Wouldn't it be easier to read and better looking to make a table of road up awarrds and major reviews next to the reception section than have a crushed together hard to read paragraph that lists mostly nominations? Notice that other games like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Twilight Princess have boxes that are alot clearer for awards to get the idea. Stabby Joe 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to them, but I know other editors are against them. Regardless, I'd rather we didn't use "but other articles which aren't FAs use them!" as an argument. – Steel 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They aren't featured for other reasons actually, and besides I never said better for the other articles, I said clearer, as it is clearer to read. Find it odd people are against them since they are clearer and make the page more presentable than a listed paragraph structure. Stabby Joe 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

...Huh. Something about the table format just rubs me the wrong way. I think it might be just that it makes the article look a lot more like a "review site" than an encylopedia article. While I find your argument sound, User:Stabby Joe, something about the actual presentation sticks in my craw. Maybe the table is just more intrusive to the over-all article than a paragraph is. --mordicai. 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's more readable and presentable than a string of sentances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Secret Weapons

I noticed that there is no section that describes the unlockable weapons in "Shadow of the Colossus". Is it that users don't want to spoil the secret of those weapons, or is it O.K. to put them in the article? WaterMan90 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ok to add a section on special weapons that can be unlocked in the game. If there is any concern about spoilers, that's why the spoiler tag was invented. You'll have to add the section though, I haven't finished all the time trials yet. -- Guitarmankev1^(TALK) 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not ok to add a section on special weapons. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, a game guide or a FAQ. – Steel 11:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steel. A "secret weapon" section veers into FAQ territory, & compromises the tone of the article. --mordicai. 13:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I won't add it. Thanks for your comments. WaterMan90 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirteen or sixteen colossi?

The article states that Wander fights sixteen colossi, but the summary of the plot describes an ending after Wander defeats the thirteenth. Are they not all available in story mode? What gives? grendel|khan 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are 16 throughout the course of the story. I also got the impression from the way the plot was described in the article that there were only 13 but I have elaborated a little to ensure that this mistake cannot be made going forward. ...in America! 14:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are short cutscenes after the 4th, 8th, and 12th colossus battles. In the story section, the article jumped to "last" after describing the cutscene after the 12th. It did not say "thirteenth", but I could see how you might misunderstand it. As Antisora said, it's now "sixteenth" instead of "last". Leebo ^T/C 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Like a Greek Epic

Does anyone want to agree with me when I say that playing this game feels much like a mix between a Celtic folktale and a Greek epic? I must say that the music is extremely Scottish/Irish, and the Colossi are reminiscent of Greek/Roman monsters of myth? Elaborate.

More people have linked them with Aztec/Mayan etc. Stabby Joe 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact the art seems to be inspired in Toltec. Ok. many people may think it's very similar, but believe me it's very different. 189.145.100.70 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue on glitches

I seem to have encountered a glitch in the game while proceeding towards the 2nd colossus and the rider and the horse freezes, but the camera can be moved, and found after a google search that there was this issue with the game for different players approaching different colossi. should this be mentioned in the article. Idleguy 04:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edge magazine comments

I thought that the single quotation taken from the Edge review didn't really give the right impression - the review was actually a lot more balanced and thoughtful than that one statement implies. I left it in the article, but I added what I think is a more interesting Edge quotation to use to represent the range of the critical discussion of the game - one of from the magazine's recent "The 100 Best Videogames" special issue. Here's the full version of what I added:

"But then you find yourself in a fiction of unquestionable thematic richness, of riveting emotional power, whose fundamental artistic qualities are completely fused with its interactivity. Shadow of the Colossus's stature as something worth discussing (in ways that the critical mainstream restricts for examples of other media) is entirely dependent on it being a game, and not a book or a film."

There's also this one from the same article, which contained a line I also considered adding:

"At all points, Shadow of the Colossus delivers its artistic vision through your agency as a player, your active involvement facilitating its main themes - isolation, struggle and loss - all compounded by an aesthetic of great depth and unity."

Also, compared to the original Edge review, the retrospective gives a slightly different view of the clumsiness of the Agro controls:

"He doesn't always obey. Momentarily frustrating as this may be, the sense of Agro resisting your agency makes him your one source of companionship."

--Nick R^Talk 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

game engine?

I see in this article mention of the graphics and the negine. But what I don't see is any mention of which engine Team Ico used on this game. Does anybody have any info on this? SOADLuver 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they use their own engine. Check this article about development of Shadow. --Perplexing 08:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Media

While its not on the same level as trivia, its still loosly the same rather minor infomation which is discouraged here. I have agreed this with Steel, one of the few active edittors left on this page that its rather minor and quite trivial info and isn't required. Stabby Joe 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I confirm the above. – Steel 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by Godzilla?

Thats what this link says:

http://

teamicogamers.blogspot.

com/2007/10/

shadow-men-interview-with-fumito-ueda.html

(put link together again because wiki won't let me post the real link, its perfectly fine site)

Worth noting? Stabby Joe 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock

I just reverted the article after someone blanked the entire thing. I think that someone who knows how to or who has the authority should lock this article to prevent any more vandalizism. If no one has done it by the time that I actually figure out how to, I'll do it myself. --Absurdity 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Main Page articles are not protected. Spiesr 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Well, that's the first time I've heard of it. Abuse seems to be a pretty frequent issue with featured articles and they've been locked in the past. Anyway, thanks Extreme Unction for semi-protecting it. --Absurdity 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article... again?

Correct me if I'm wrong... hasn't this already been a featured article back in 2006? ARBlackwood 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't get enough of SotC Old m 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized

This page links to images of Adolf Hitler. It is being rapidly edited and vandalized.

User:Jarex

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ffm ^yes? 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said, I tried to undo the vandalism, but forgot how to revert. I was just afraid if my IP would get blacklisted. 129.74.231.169 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to notice alot of vandalism on the daily FAs..

"The four stages of cruelty" article was vandalized several times when it was on the front page the other day. SeriousCat 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey, guys. I just thought I'd let you all know that I've resized four of the images on this page to ensure that they meet fair-use criteria. This change was sparked by the more intensive analysis of what is and isn't fair-use that's been going on lately, an example of which can be seen in Final Fantasy VII's FAC. I don't want any FA articles losing their status over this, or any good images being deleted. So if you guys have any articles you watch regularly, look into the sizes of their images. We don't want to lose any good material unnecessarily. Ryu Kaze 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does an image's size affect fair use? SeriousCat 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was believed that we could further justify fair use if the images we were using were not of a high resolution. It's certainly mentioned in the various templates for screenshots - Estel ^(talk) 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not size, but resolution that's important. If we knock down the resolution, but keep it the same size, that's fine (basically, resize the image to be small, and then blow it up again, losing detail (resolution) in the process). We want to avoid high-resolution images since they could arguably be not appropriate for fair use. -JC 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

the adittion

Ok there was an adittion below the "plot Summery" which I deleted. First of all of course we have been through this as unfortunate as it seems for better or for worse SOTC shows almost no backstory what so ever. And its understandable that Fans would like to add there own "Speculation" and theory's. Its also understandable that they would like to input game Info that would belong more in a "Game FAQ" however it isent appropriate for a Encyclopedia like wikipedia. For those reason I have deleted. What was written was pretty good I hate to have to bump someone's hard work but it goes without saying ^^ Kara Umi 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting; it was never seen as a problem, even after a rigurous FAC. Moreover, it describes the setting of the game, which every video game FA and fictional FA does. It's far from speculation, because it's sourced. — Deckiller 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Things like "he presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is speculation of course we dont know wether there has been a human settelment or not could dwarfs or elfs for all we know :) (Deleted) "The level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Of course we dont what the manner of comparison we should make to the game world and this one unless there is an official or clear distinction between them which there isent (Deleted). I would say the arcit compares more to babylonian style "Trepid Structures" i thought once the shrine looked like a babylonian ziggirut once but dident add my speculation. And Finnaly "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" Of course there could be other ways (deleted) Kara Umi 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We're given no indication that dwarves even exist in the game's world, so, no, I don't think we can say "Well, dwarves might have made it". There's also the fact that the Dormin directly state that Wander/Emon's people are the ones who sealed them, so I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that humans have been there. As for the accessibility of the region, it is shown to only be accessible through that cleft. You can't go assuming things that aren't indicated by the game. However, I'll reword some of the paragraph to be more vague.

You need to understand that you can't unilaterally decide to remove a large amount of content, especially from a selected featured article. If you think there's an issue, you bring it up on the talk page so it can be discussed and adapted as necessary. You don't just outright remove it. Ryu Kaze 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Kara, saying "the game" shadow of the colossus is redundant :) — Deckiller 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Kara, you didn't understand the line about the architecture. It was saying that no single culture's style is represented, not that you can't pinpoint cultural influences. The place would be an anthropologist's wet dream if it actually existed. Off the top of my head, I saw Aztec, Mayan, Babylonian and Indian influences in the place, but there's more than that. Anyway, I'm still adjusting the wording. I'll let you know when I'm finished. Ryu Kaze 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what, by the way again, how do the three sentences you brought up warrant deleting an entire section? Especially the parts that were referenced? Please tell me you're not going to claim that it's speculation that the place contains deserts or claim fault with the word "man-made". I am not replacing that with "dwarf-made" without some darn good reasoning for doing so. Anyway, I'm finished adjusting the wording some. Give it a look. Ryu Kaze 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly prefer the original wording ("only accessible via" versus "only known entrance"), it reads much better in my opinion, and is hardly inaccurate considering this is an article about a game. Schicksal 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This is a game. It is therefore limited to what we are shown or what is suggested. If there was something else that leads there, we would have been shown or given a hint. Until Ueda makes something else that suggests otherwise, the region is only acessible via the small cleft in the mountains. That sentence I'm changing back. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Kara, I want to apologize if I was too harsh. We all just put a lot of hard work into this article, and it was upsetting for somebody to come in and start changing things up without even talking to us about it first. Ryu Kaze 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here; Ryu and myself are clearly burning out. — Deckiller 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu I can see how you would be against the warrant to delete the things you have yourself written no matter how inappropriate or unfitting of an encyclopaedia they are. The reason they will be deleted again is it does not belong in Wikipedia these are mere Speculation or wishful thinking on ones part. I decided against deleting the entire section until we can have a nice warm round up here :)

But I have instead removed the things that were not necessary and frankly not appropriate either. Nor do they follow the wikipedia Encyclopaedia "Form" that is usually upheld and I encourage you to take that in my mind as I wouldn’t say this is the first time. So again No writing’s like this "the presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is defined as "Speculation" and until the game reveals other wise or Ueda clears things up or we will have to see what that madman has in store for us in the future we cant be so Sure. "level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology. And your theory about the architecture is simply that theory. Someone else might be offended by it as this is theory in other words a hundred other people can have there own "theory" about it and claim you to be wrong, I could say "rather the Eskimo people were responsible for the architecture and a hundred others could say no it was the ancient biscuit scouts (lol) in other words its speculation. And this "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" I don’t see to much trouble from it I guess we could let fans take a jab at this personally its been my belief but I will show more sincerity towards your section again and let it fly until someone else has a problem with it, because after all this is wikipedia open for everyone.

hehe relax iam sure you didn’t mean to be harsh ^^ though I don’t think you were. And iam sorry for not having enough time to reply to you as you can see in my first paragraph I didn’t have time to even write a decent reply. This all falls down to the previous problem we had, we introduced a solution which was to input a "Theory" section for fans to scribble in. You’re welcome to try that if you like I will certainly support you in it but until that "Speculation" and Theory's without a viable source or cite indicating such it will be deleted, take a look at the section now and tell me what you think Ryu oh and no way iam burnin out to ^^ Kara Umi 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing speculative about "The presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicates that the area was once a settlement". Obviously someone built them. As far as humans go, aside from the Dormin, all "higher level of thought" creatures we have seen in the SotC/Ico world are ordinary humans (and even then, the structures were obviously designed in proportion to humans). The Dormin were sealed by humans (specifically, Emon and Wander's people). Even the shadow creatures were once human (the PAL site states that once a creature ventures outside the mortal plane, all mortals can see of them is a shadow). In any event, the line reads "was once a settlemnt", not "was once a human settlement". Ryu Kaze 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should probably think a bit more on what is or isn't speculation. Structures have to be built by beings, they don't just spring up out of nowhere. To build said structures beings have to "settle" there. Get my drift? And saying that the level of technology present is comparable to the Middle Ages is not speculative. We're not saying that the game took place in the Middle Ages. It's simply a way of explaining the technology level present in the game to the reader. As in, they use bows instead of guns, horses instead of cars, etc. If you can think of a better way to express that, do so rather than deleting it. I think we would all appreciate it if you considered your edits a bit more, possibly by trying to reach a consensus on this Talk Page, rather than removing content from the article on the basis that it's "speculation" (which I can safely say it is not). Schicksal 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting. Ryu Kaze 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a line that reads "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages), I think this should satisfy everyone. Ryu Kaze 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just got back from my summer vacation so iam sorry for not getting a chance to respond sooner. Ryu you can edit and change the page but the fact is you can’t change what speculation means and you can’t change what is'nt appropriate for a Encyclopedia. "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages)" isn’t the world's setting nor is it what Ueda wanted. There are other people who all share different idea's about the setting because obviously it is a very fertile ground for creative thought. But then again that’s creative thought. If I was to reference Wander as being similar to Mongolians for there love and life with there horses and architecture for being actually similar and drawn from Babylonian style structures and the shaman society of Amon is that of ancient three kingdom's Korea in that respect Iam pretty sure I would be speculating. I’m insulted ^^. if you can paste down your speculation (wishful thinking) Ryu then why cant I? Well its simple onther person won’t agree with us he would say no Eskimo land is the right setting and onther would say no mars is the correct setting and onther would say hell no your all wrong it's mighty Neptune’s domain lol. And they can do that why well because you pretty much did it yourself here. I have an itch to do this also we both seem to be very well passionate about this story. But this is not what wikipedia is for we have gone through this alot and it seems this article always takes the front in this.

I guess I could let go the other points there’s no need to take it further however this thing about being in the middle ages sound like cocka mania sorry to say but just doesn’t fit as its speculation. There is no Official or even a hint that leads to this impression. And of course again Ueda has wanted to point out that his world is original and that "He did not draw from mythology" in that respect what you say is speculation and a loose one at that. There that part wil be deleted, again Kara Umi 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. Your analogies are thoroughly inapplicable. The purpose of that sentence is to establish understanding of the technology displayed, and, thereby, contribute to an understanding of the setting. Thus, why the sentence uses the word "technology" and not "time period" or "era". There was nothing speculative in that sentence about the fantasy world setting and the technology. "Fantasy world" does not mean "Set in the Middle Ages on Earth". The technology we see is consistent with what we would expect to find in our world's Middle Ages: horses instead of cars and planes, swords and crossbows instead of guns.

The sentence was a straightforward assertion that several individuals who reviewed the game have also claimed. If Ueda didn't intend to create a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages, then he failed at whatever it was he was trying to do, because a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages is exactly what he created. You have offered nothing to refute this but wild analogies that aren't conducive to your argument, and accusations of "speculation" where no speculation is present. If you're going to continue to argue this matter, you need to actually provide some evidence for what you've claimed. Find us 1) evidence that this is not a fantasy world setting (impossible, unless you want to argue that it's set on Earth, in which case you'll be taking the same stance you're accusing us of taking) and 2) evidence that the technology displayed isn't associated with that of the Middle Ages (not worth arguing).

You claim to have played the game, but I'm finding this claim increasingly doubtful, because the clothing and technology we see in the game are not what we see in modern day settings, nor even what we would expect to find during an Industrial Revolution setting. Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ex-Nintendo Employee has provided a good compromise as far as terminology goes: "...comparable to that of pre-industrial iron age human development". Ryu Kaze 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology.

I think you need to learn that what people say is true is not necessarily truth; for example, it's far too much of a coincidence that 'Dormin' happens to be 'Nimrod' spelled backwards and the Dormin's story happens to mirror parts of Nimrod's, regardless of what Ueda claims. Even so, we're not talking about that: what's being discussed is the general appearence of the world in the game. In the game, what we see is a world where humans are armed with swords as their primary weapon and ride on horses, and where the most high-tech projectile weapon seen is a crossbow. This means we can determine the minimum level of technology that exists here to state the setting. Yes, maybe they're all actually a bunch of cosplayers from modern-day Detroit who fell into a wormhole, but there's absolutely nothing to support that assertion and it doesn't change that the general level of development seen in the game is much lower.

Nobody is saying that the story is set on a medieval Earth, or that everything in the game is directly from European medieval technology including the archetecture. What is being said is the level of technology we see is consistant with the level of technology we had at that time; much as the compromise is saying that it's reminiscent of the iron age. Much like we might say Laputa: Castle in the Sky is reminiscent of late-Victorian fantasy technology or Steampunk: that doesn't mean that the leader of Pazu's country is Queen Victoria or that Pazu is English, only that the setting is consistant with the steampunk genre. Hrimfaxi 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, IIRC what Ueda actually said was that SotC draws from no single mythology, which is true; while there are aspects of some myths present [Nimrod / Dormin, the similarity of the Colossi to Golems regarding the signs that must be destroyed to stop them, the similarity of several Colossi to Mayan idols, the first Colossus being a minotaur and so on], the plot is based on no single mythology and instead creates one of its own influenced by several existing ones. In any case, Ueda's world is not entirely unique because it borrows obvious elements from our own; particularly, horses, humans, swords, crossbows, and longbows, as well as lizards, birds, trees, tortoises and so on. That is how we can make a statement on the level of technology represented; because these objects are from the real world. Unless you're seriously claiming Ueda somehow invented swords and there is no specific real-life era when swords, crossbows and horseback riding all appeared together, the statement that the setting is similar to that era is valid and requires no additional sourcing. Hrimfaxi 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu you really need to calm down, I can understand if you’re angry at me challenging your edits but guess what this is wikipedia and in a community built project this is the result you’re going to get people who don’t agree with your views or your contributions. You’ve edited the section which I approve of this version. I have been very lenient and agreeable in letting some other things which I really don’t agree with. The fact of the matter is your speculating the argument you present of "why then not input cars existed" serves also to contradict your original argument. Listen I haven't to much time for this my summer vacation was actually my burial in collage work ^^'. And that means me going to have to be away for a while hopefully by then it would have been settled if onther member sees the same mistake you’re making. Oh and telling me "I bet you haven’t played the game Yuh Ha" is really hysterical but childish. Iam going to give you time to cool down you really need it, you seem way to driven on promoting some agenda which explains your deranged behaviour. In any case gotta go cya soon Kara Umi 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be deliberately provocative or obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kara, what? Seriously. "Lenient"? Your permission isn't required to ensure that the article is informative. This isn't about people being annoyed with you for disagreeing. This is about your arguments making no sense while you build a straw man to tear down in order to justify absurd accusations. Disagreements are going to happen, yes, but in a situation such as this, one person is going to be wrong while another is right. Given that you're throwing around claims that I'm trying to do exactly the opposite of what I have repeatedly explained to you that I am trying to do, it's a pretty darn good chance that you're the one in the wrong.

By the way, how exactly does my argument contradict itself when it remains consistent? Compare my first comment on the matter of the similar technological setting with my last comment:

First comment

"Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting."

Last comment

"Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. ... Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on."

This is consistency. Because it's consistent.

As for my comment regarding your experience with the game, your argument pretty much amounts to "We don't see horses in this game instead of cars, or swords and crossbows instead of guns"... because that is all that we have been claiming here. If you're disputing what we're claiming, there's not much else you could be saying. You're the one who somehow concluded that we're trying to use the article to write a fanfic in which this game is set on Earth during the Middle Ages. Again, try to understand the concept of establishing a sense of setting for a reader who has never heard of Shadow of the Colossus. Ryu Kaze 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why there is any more of an argument- the article doesn't speculate by saying "the game takes place during", it merely states the level of technology shown in the game; this is encyclopedic. We're writing not about a time period, but about a specific setting- that is, the game features technology that correlates with the Iron Age, thus we see the horseback and crossbows. Again, it's not about pinning down a "time", but establishing a setting so that a reader who hasn't played the game can understand it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, basically, he either knows he has lost the argument, and is still trying to back up his side (which, as someone who studies law, I can tell you is pretty crap; there are flaws and contradictions all over the place), or he doesn't know how to argue properly, i.e. that you aren't necessarily right and you have to listen to other people.

Kara. What you are intending on putting down is extremely ambiguous. The other side are putting down what is shown on screen, and what is known, nothing more, nothing less. It is not speculation. They are completely right; it is comparable to the middle-ages, not set in it. For all we know, it could be set in the far, far future, however, no-one has definitively said this, as it would indeed be speculation. From what I can tell, you are trying to say something to the effect of "The technology is that of the middle-ages," while at the same time claiming that that is what your opposition are doing and what you are not doing. You are very wrong. Ryu is absolutely correct in his argument, which is that what is being put down is that which is known, and not that which is speculated to be true. Please listen to them. 86.132.155.103 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dormin=Nimrod?

I noticed that Dormin backwords is "Nimrod". It says in the Bible that Nimrod was the person who built the tower of Babel. Anyone else see a connection between this and the size of the Shrine of Worship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.235.247 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you that Nimrod was probably inspiration towards the character of Dormin.

I think Dormin is a pun on Doorman, myself. 'Cause he sort of controlls the temple. 66.63.86.156 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Dormin is Nimrod, not just for the name, but because of many coincidences:

The biblical Nimrod was killed and cut on many pieces that had been spread through his land, almost the same as the 16 colossus that are pieces of Dormin's power.

After Nimrod's death (biblical), his wife Semiramis proclamed him the Sun God. In the game Wander talks to the sun light through a hole in the ceiling and it's the sun light that guides him to the colossus.

Nimrod (biblical) was represented much more taller than other people on ancient sumerian and accadian tables.

Nimrod (biblical) was represented with corns, simbol of strenght and power. Some believe that these corns are the ancient mark to represent the class of hunters. The same corns can be seen in the end of the game, when Wander become the shady colossus.

The garden in the top of the Sanctuary of Worship represents the Garden of Eden, the fruits up there decrease your life, a representation of the forbiden fruit in the book of Genesis.

The topography of the terrain where the game is played, looks like some kind of natural catastrophe happened recently, like a "Great Flood" and caused the most of geografic accidents in this land. Nimrod lived 2 generations after these biblical event. Betum 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you're probably right. Japanese video game studios have a long-established fondness for Hebrew mythology and the Kabbalah. Influences and notions from biblical texts and other ancient belief systems are frequently mined for ideas for Japanese-made games in fantasy settings, to such an extent that American game developers are now beginning to ape the practise. For instance, witness Final Fantasy VII and the link between the character Sephiroth and the Kabbalic Sephirot. Kasreyn 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent been on for a long time and didn't have a login when I wrote the first entry of this Dormin=Nimrod? discussion so its nice to see some people responding to it.

The shrine of worship looks like it was unfinished. The entire world is not dry yet.(Look at the size of the ocean) The girl that he brought with him on Agro could have died in the flood. --Bochero 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

17th Colossus - Fake or True?

Come on people, share your thoughts! I have yet to beat the game totally, but if I were to find a 17th colossus I would be amazed. - Xfa

Sign with 4 Tildes. - !Malomeat 09:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xfa. I have seen no evidence of a 17th colossus. You might be wondering why someone has reverted your edit, about now. The big reason I would thing is that Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture or rumor. Mentioning it here in the Talk page, as you did, was good, but it probably would have been best to post here first. If the rumor was true, or could be cited from a reliable source, it might warrent inclusion; asking on a talk page if someone can substantiate a rumor is better than posting it to the main article. Just something to chew on. --mordicai. 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by both the creators and people checking the disc that there's no such thing. 125.239.16.170 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I beat the game a year and a half ago,but have played it through again very recently.I am very very sure that there is not a 17th colossus. Sugreev2001 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)