Ico's Creator Says The Game "Wasn't Good Enough"

Illustration for article titled Ico's Creator Says The Game "Wasn't Good Enough"

Fumito Ueda, the driving force behind PS2 classics Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, doesn't think as highly of his team's last two games as you might.


While many gamers regard the titles as two of the greatest games ever made, Ueda says their almost-cult status is a problem, not something to be cherished.

"The fact that Ico and SOTC didn't sell well is because they weren't good enough. They didn't have enough to appeal to users", he tells Edge Magazine.

"The Last Guardian wants to learn from this. I'm making the game so that it's appealing, with the hope that many people will give it a try and love it."

You'd hate to see what he says about shit games.

The Last Guardian is the third game from Ueda's Team Ico, and will be out on the PS3 at the end of the year. Be sure to read Ueda's thoughts on whether video games can be art.

Ico And SOTC "Weren't Good Enough", Says Ueda [Edge]

Click here to visit our Last Guardian timeline!


Hmmm, I think the problem here is that he is linking 'like' with 'good'. It's hard to say something is good. You could just say that it is liked by many. Something being liked by few doesn't mean that it is bad.

For something to be good, it has to do things well. For a game, the controls, the difficulty, the pacing, the setting. Both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus do these okay. Nothing special.

What Ico and SotC are highly rated on, are the subjective areas. It's all related to emotional attachment and engagement. Can something be good at getting emotional attachment? No, it depends entirely on the person. Can it be engaging? That's different, it requires genre, setting and user all combined.

Lets take Super Mario (as we always do). Is it engaging, not really. Is it fun? Yeah, sure it is. Is it emotionally attaching? No, not at all really. Does it control well, yes. Is the difficulty well implemented, yes. Pacing and Setting? Average. Pacing isn't really a factor.

There are factors that make games good. Those factors are different from making games well liked.

So, do we need games to be fun to be good? No, not really. Sim City, Civ, Tetris, Puzzle Quest. I wouldn't call any of these 'fun'. I would call them engaging. And these kind of games get much more play time.

Ico and SotC are okay games that rate highly on subjective areas. People like them. But that doesn't mean that they are that good. But not that they are bad either.

I understand what he is saying. And this is the case with lots of games bar a few. If people said that Ico had great controls and was a lot of fun to play. Perhaps it would be a different story. But then again, fun is subjective too. It's complex to simply rate a game good or bad if it is liked.

My personal opinion. I played both but finished neither. I thought Ico was a little boring and SotC has poor controls and mistakes were frustrating to make. So yeah, they aren't 'good' games for me. But for those that 'like' them, they are some of the best.

Also "You'd hate to see what he says about shit games." That made me laugh, I don't know why. Just a well used obscenity.