Talk:Shadow of the Colossus/Archive 5

Spoilers
Hey, shouldn't the story (especially the end) be covered by spoiler tags? I'm going to cover it with spoiler tags. I sure as hell wouldn't have liked the end to be spoiled for me.TheSOB 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not. Read the talk archive first. Schicksal 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The section is clearly marked "Plot", as is the sub-section "Story". Why would someone read these sections and not expect a comprehensive overview? That's what we're here to do. Ryu Kaze 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So...I'm confused. Wikipedia has a "Spoiler" tag so people will be aware of spoilers, yet in a section that contains spoilers, there's a debate as to whether to use it or not?  I don't really understand why this is an issue in the first place.  I think a lot of you Wikipedians make mountains out of molehills sometimes when it comes to this website. :) 13:56, 22 October 2006
 * I would agree. The vast majority of other pages for videogames, films, books, etc. have spoiler warnings. Someone might think that as they are not present in this case that there are therefore no spoilers. For the sake of uniformity they should be used. Hinges 15:04 18th January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that most gamers will go look at the basic plot(like the one on the back of a videogame box)on here to get the idea. Then there would be a spoiler line below that telling all the spoiling stuff.--Animasage 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care what's been going on in this article's talk page - stuff like this is exactly what the spoiler tags are for, and this is how the vast majority of similar articles use them. If I wasn't such a WP noob, I'd add them myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.22.121 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree: spoiler tags should be included; and it seems the majority of posters above agree. From skimming the archives, the only relevant thread I saw was this, which ultimately didn't have any apparent conclusion, anyway, as far as SotC is concerned.  Now that this article is FA, it is even more likely that people will read this whom may not intend to discern the spoilers.  I'm going to be bold and add the tags in. Er, since there are big warnings on the main page not to insert spoilers -- I am reading the talk page but I have yet to be convinced why the tag should not be included.  I highly recommend that the regular editors of this article reconsider this stance and perform the necessary modifications.  I do not see what harm comes with including the warning. --Thisisbossi 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to also agree; I was reading through hoping to avoid any spoilers whatsoever... but expecting spoiler tags to hide the plot because that's what I find everywhere else. Plot and Story headings a sub-headings made me suspicious, but I still expected any spoilers to be marked accordingly. Estel (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * to Ryu: I would definately read them and not expect a comprehensive overview if there were no spoiler tags. Perhaps I just want a general idea of what the game is about. Please add spoiler tags.Ziiv 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was skimming this article and found out what happens at the end of the game with no warning. I'm used to seeing spoilers so, when I didn't see one, I proceeded through as if it wouldn't reveal everything.  This is the first article I've read that needed a spoiler alert but did not have one so I ask that one be put in place for people, like myself, who've not played the game but just wanted to know the gist of the concept. SailorAlphaCentauri 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, just had the ending revealed (and some might say ruined) for myself simply because I've come to expect spoiler warnings for actual spoiler content in all Wikipedia articles. For those of us who value the art and enjoyment of video games, it's like having the end of a book revealed to us. This article needs tags. I was unable to find the debate about it, but anyone suggesting they should not be included they way they are in book and movie articles has no platform to stand on, in my opinion. Please add some spoiler tags. Being a FA, it's bound to be seen by many people who have no played the game and possibly plan to. --S.Reemas, Feb. 22, 2007 (74.64.17.195 talk )

I apologize for the double-posting, but I found the archived Spoiler Warnings debate in case anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/archive13#Spoiler_tags

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning/Guideline_status

It's interesting to note that the entire "debate" is just a handful of the same people saying, basically, "Spoiler tags make us unlike Encyclopedia Britannica!" and clearly ignoring the other ways Wikipedia differs from the old model of an encyclopedia and what those differences mean to the public who will be accessing it. Even more importantly, the debates *do not* seem to have come to a consensus, were never put to a vote (again, as far as I saw), and removing the tags *does not* have the support of the majority of the community (at least as far as those two pages show). All that said, this article needs them. Already, the number of people who have stated it here matches the number of the most vocal people in the "debate" who believe that, universally, no article needs them. --S.Reemas, Feb. 22, 2007 (74.64.17.195 talk )


 * OK, I changed my mind (again) and out of good faith I have added in the spoiler tags. Even the comparable Ico has them, as do numerous other examples of entertainment-related topics.  The conversations found by S.Reemas likewise did not appear to reach a consensus.  I see absolutely no reason why spoiler tags should not be included and I fail to understand how they can take away from the article in any way. --Thisisbossi 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler tags are a manual of style guideline; they are not a policy, and this article's primary editors felt that they were unnecessary. For the same reason that we don't make sweeping changes to grammar and spelling variations, as well as other MoS issues, I feel that the spoiler tags need to be removed. This article was elevated to featured status by those who did not excersize the spoiler warning aspect of the manual of style, and it needs to be respected. And please do not quote WP:OWN; this is nothing to do with that. On the other hand, I understand many may feel that this page is being seen by many people who have not played this game, but when they scroll down to the "plot" section and see a wall of text, I think anyone with common sense will realize that they must read with caution. But the debate has been beaten and certain projects have agreed not to use them, and, like I said, it is important to respect that. People against spoiler warnings don't go to other areas and remove tags, and I believe the opposite should occur. &mdash; Deckiller 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:VG's style guidelines, spoiler tags are to be decided on a case by case basis (presumably because there is no clear consensus there to use them or not). However, based on the fact that this article has gone without spoiler tags for at least 6 months and even passed FA without them, it is apparent that a spoiler tag is not necessary, at least in this case. It seems that the "everyforum.com" culture has degenerated people's minds to the point that they must use spoiler tags as a crutch to avoid using their brains to process basic English words such as "plot" and "story". Axem Titanium 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not deride Wikipedians whom hold a different opinion than your own and assume good faith. A plot or story does not necessarily indicate that an article will include spoilers.  Also, just because an article has reached FA status does not mean that it is perfect -- there is always room for improvement, otherwise we should just fully protect all FA's.  Please provide a reasoning of how spoiler warnings take away from the article. --Thisisbossi 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are just a few arguments; more have been made over the years and I can dig them out if you'd like (although I've found it impossibly difficult to change anyone's mind, especially on Wikipedia):
 * Wikipedia is not censored, as shown by what Wikipedia is not and the content disclaimer available at the bottom of every page.
 * Spoiler tags add nothing to the article. It's quite plainly obvious that a Wikipedia page about a topic is going to have spoilers on that topic. If you don't want to be spoiled about it, why would you even come to read it?
 * Spoiler tags break the flow of the article by clearly marking where spoilers can and cannot be. Limiting the article in such a way would force the editor to rearrange the article to its mutual degradation.
 * Spoiler tags are inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler? Where is the line in a game beyond which information is considered a spoiler? Is there such a line? The opening scene of a game wouldn't be a spoiler to someone who's played it but to someone who hasn't bought it yet, it is a huge spoiler.
 * Granted, I don't expect you to change your opinion on this issue, these are the reasons why they have been excluded until now. Axem Titanium 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that because spoiler warnings a case by case basis - and for months this article's primary editors who elevated it to FA, as well as the FA voters/prmoters, felt that they were not needed - people should be accepting this article as having no spoiler tags. &mdash; Deckiller 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the points. I do not see the relationship between spoilers and censorship, though -- no information is being hidden; it is being denoted.  I agree that spoiler tags do not add to an article, but I feel that they avoid taking away from the subject for  unsuspecting users.  For your third bullet: I completely agree and must admit that I never really thought about that, but it seems that with this article, subjects which could be deemed spoilers are confined to one section.  I could see how this could be a significant issue elsewhere, though.  Lastly, for the fourth point: yes, this is also true, and another point I did not consider; but it's something that I feel could benefit from further elaboration regarding the use of spoiler tags, rather than nixing them altogether.  I still feel that users may lose the mystery should they read this article before trying the game (perhaps they are reading it solely to acquire more info before they spend money on the game), but I have said what I wish to say and am taking this one off my watchlist.  Slainte! --Thisisbossi 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Axem Titanium: On the first point, spoiler tags in no way hide or restrict information. Readers can choose to read if they wish, and censor themselves if they choose.  On the second point consider who the reader is most likely to be:  Someone who does not know about the game and is looking for general information.  If they're interested in a video game they do not know much about, they in all likelyhood do not want the ending spoiled for them, thus articles that contain spoilers throughout the text are useless for them.  What is the point in having an article about a form of entertainment if the entertainment itself is ruined by reading the article?  As far as your fourth point goes, I have noticed that in almost all other articles which cover topics which could possibly contain spoilers, all portions which contain any plot at all are placed in spoiler tags, thus removing any confusion over what is and is not a spoiler, and without restricting the editors in any way.Ziiv 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was away during the time the rest of the discussion took place and was unable to reply before the tags were removed. However, the issues raised to remove the tags again don't seem to be based on a broad perspective of what they actually do. This isn't about whether they make the article "technically" better or worse in anyway. It's about taking into account the fact that Wikipedia articles aren't written solely as an exercise in technical proficiency, but to serve a purpose for the readers. Thus I feel we should be considerate to our potential audience whether we deem them lacking in the "common sense" required to skip spoilers they might not want to see or not. Spoiler tags are not "censorship." Nothing is being omitted; on the contrary, they provide a diplomatic way to completely disclose information that others might have an issue with exposing (the ending to a movie that has just premiered, for example). The argument that they "add nothing" to the article is again, in my eyes, misguided as I don't feel it's about the article, per se, but about how you present it to the reader, taking into account that people are *not* accustomed to reading about new movies and video games in encyclopedias (something editors might forget now that it's so prevalent). Spoiler tags "breaking the flow of an article" is another non-issue, considering they are determined necessary on a case-by-case basis and, if an editor were so inclined, can be put at the very top of the article to denote spoilers throughout and then left to the reader. The most baffling to me is the point about the tags being "inherently POV". For one, that argument could be made about just about anything, including what is note-worthy enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place. Secondly, the tags simply denote that spoilers (as commonly defined) are present throughout the following text. They don't state a specific fact or sentence alone is a "spoiler", but that an entire sub-section *might* contain things that could spoil the movie/video game/book for the reader *as determined by the editor(s)*, obviously, the same way all the information deemed "note-worthy" was determined *by the editor(s)*. There is nothing wrong with that. And if it should at any point be contested, well, that's why anyone can edit these articles--multiple viewpoints will police the supposed "inherent" POV just fine. I'm not registered and don't have a talk page, so I don't believe it fair for me to re-add the tags without giving people the opportunity to respond directly. I do hope, however, that someone who is registered (or even better, someone who is actively working on this article--as we know, being a FA doesn't mean it's "perfect.".) sees this and takes the initiative to act if they see fit. I also hope there is someday a more definitive discussion of the issue. --S.Reemas, Feb. 27, 2007

Whoever would read such a lengthy looking description of PLOT and STORY and not expect somekind of spoilers is a cretin. Spoiler tags are ugly. Use your common sense instead. 80.221.43.100 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you guys write so small?!!!!! TheLightElf (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Colossi
So what happened to the list of colossi that I found so interesting? Pteren 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a table with the #, appearance, names of them but someone removed it.--Animasage 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I reuploaded it because I never got a message saying anything wrong with it.--Animasage 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Such things are usually shunned on in featured articles (primarily during their candidacies), so it was removed by Steel most likely to ensure nobody gets upset and thinks it's "trivia". &mdash; Deckiller 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deckiller is quite right, this would have been killed in the FAC had we not removed it before. IIRC, it was removed because there was no official translation for the names and people were edit warring over spellings. -- Steel 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if someone had said this the first time around I wouldn't have wasted my time thinking it was a glitch.--Animasage 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They did. "(We tried this before. It didn't work.)" -JC 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see.Pteren 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the names from that list were all fan inventions anyway. Or I'd _really_ like to see the actual source. During development, they had simple names among the staff (like "lion", "minotaur" and such), but no official names other than "First Colossus", "Second Colossus", etc. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shown in a movie
I saw The Pursuit of Happyness and I think I saw this game in a trailer, possibly the Don Cheadle-Adam Sandler film, Reign Over Me. Any verification?
 * Downloading now. Must see for myself. - !Malomeat 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. They were fighting the 13th colossus. Pteren 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the 5th. - 201.10.18.76 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was wrong.Pteren 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was the 5th. For those who wonder it is the movie: "Reign Over Me"..personally I think this game is okay..but the Movie was GReat!!!!206.113.142.245 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ^-This was by Me!!!TheLightElf (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection
I noticed that if in the search "Wander and Giant Statue" is searched it will not redirect to this page. Seeing as how it's the Japanese name shouldn't it redirect here? Or is there a specific reason it does not? Darth harbl 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Kafziel Talk 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wander and Giant Statue" is just a terrible (and unofficial )translatino of the Japanese title, really... 'Not sure as to why it should be acknowledged... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On The Dormin Reviving Mono
I disagree with that aspect of the article on how Dorming "kept his end of the bargain and revived Mono." If you recall from beating the game, Dormin was a creature of evil, who made it plainly clear that they were only "using" Wander. They never had any power, nor intention to, ever revive Mono. That is, it is the nature of evil to give false promises to serve its own end.

Now, this part is overellaborating; my personal assertion is, that "some mysterious force" took pity on Wanders efforts, seeing the hopelessness of it, and they were the ones that revived Mono. To add support to this theory, please do well to remember, that Shadow of the Colossus takes place on a "Sacred Land." The idea that some other force besides Dormin revived Mono is not far fetched. Besides, in myth, in legend, in fairy tales, "Sacred Lands" are often attributed the ability to bring the dead back to life.

Again, I insist; Dormin was a creature of evil. Please edit that part of the article. Out of respect for the integrity of the article, and the effort put in by whoever wrote it, I did not put this stuff in on the page itself, nor did delete the sentence in which it said Dormin brought Mono back to life. There is something else I need to add.

Shadow of the Colossus is, very much, like a Greek epic, but with a Celtic/Scottish music and orchestral style of sorts. Or rather, an orchestral style derived from Celtic Music. As for the Colossi themselves, and the land itself, the game is basically a synthesis of Asian culture. At one point in their history, all Asian peoples lived like the Native Americans. That is, their religion was rooted in Shamanism, they had beliefs in "sacred lands" and such.

You could say that Shadow of the Colossus is a synthesis of all Asian myths from across the globe, from Tibet, to the Americas. For example, the hero Wander, is a horse archer. The Mongols, the Turks, the Tartars, the Huns, even the Manchus, all these Asian peoples were famed horse archers. Wander's outfit, ressembles clothing worn by South American Incan peoples. The structure of the Colossi does indeed ressemble Mayan and Aztec architecture. Even Wander's horse Agro, has a stocky, sturdy built, and if I had to name a breed, Wander's horse Agro looks like a Central Asian pony very similar to the ones used by the Mongols, and other peoples of the Central Asian steppes. The architecture of the various ruins looks like a synthesis of both ancient Greek Ruins, and Mayan, Aztec, and Inca buildings. Don't forget Wander's Shaman-like Mask, and of course the Shaman Mask worn by Lord Emon himself.

As for the story itself, the selfless love and devotion of Wander towards Mono, is a theme (and tenet actually) of Asian culture. Please do well to remember, that Asian culture is collectivist. All Asian culture; from Tibet, all the way to South America. Even native american peoples had a collectivist culture. Selfless sacrifice towards someone you love is not just a staple of Asian culture, but it is also expected. In a way, the game "Shadow of the Colossus" is the creator's expression on what he feels Asian culture is, that is, selfless sacrifice for those you love in the face of all suffering. The Colossi, being, arguably and by all rights, a force of nature, could be said to represent life. He basically took the thoughts, and essence, of all Asian descended peoples, and expressed it in a game. Every Asian culture can be said to have contributed something to the game. Even the "Sacred Land" itself, in which the game takes place in, looks a lot like Mongolia and parts of Tibet. In fact, where anyone to travel back in time, and show this game to Turkish, Mongol, or any Central Asian peoples, they would be familiar with a lot of aspects of it, and they would identify with the hero readily.

I don't know how the game did on the Asian Market, but, if I am right about it being a synthesis of all Asian culture, I am betting it has attained a cult status over there, and sold far better there than it did here.

Whatever the case; I am forced to disagree that it was Dormin who revived Mono. Please revise that aspect of the article.

206.63.78.90stardingo747
 * I don't know why you needed to say so much. All that's necessary is to say that the game offers no elaboration on how Mono awakens. It doesn't say that Dormin does it, and it doesn't say that someone else does it. I'll try to rephrase it.  Leebo  T / C  15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dormin is said to have the power to revive the dead. Dormin says that Mono can be revived if the Colossi are defeated. Wander defeats the Colossi. Mono is revived. Is there something there that doesn't point to Mono being revived due to Dormin's power? If you add anything else in, you're making even broader assumptions... While yes, you can change the wording so it avoids expressing explicitly that Dormin revived Mono, I don't think there's any point. Dormin keeps its word, as far as I can see. It is much less of a stretch to believe that Dormin keeps its promises (like many other spirits in mythology, even including the "evil" ones, like djinn) than to believe it's some other sacrificial power. In addition, I'll point out that it's not "Sacred Land", it's the FORBIDDEN Land, and it's forbidden because Dormin is there and it is Dormin who has the power over the dead, as explained in the opening. Dormin may or may not be evil --- I think it has a bit of both, since it is, after all, many, like legion... But you can't just say "Dormin is evil, so didn't revive Mono.  It was some other force that did it." without any kind of in-game indication of such, and expect anyone to really believe you. :) (Hopefuly I didn't get too ranty here, sorry if it's hard to read) -JC 08:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. Lord Emon is shown as your enemy - he is trying to stop you.  Thus, your only way of telling what Dormin REALLY is... is through one of two ways.  First, Lord Emon - who you can't necessarily trust, since he (or his group of people) is responsible for sealing Dormin away in the first place, so obviously he is biased against them.  However, the other way, is through the actions.  Dormin warns Wander from the beginning of the price he might pay, and Dormin also says explicitly that he is borrowing Wander's body at the end (not stealing it, but actually borrowing it)... Mono reviving without EXPLICIT mention of it being on Dormin's part still very much implies it.  Ockham's Razor, please.  Let's look at the facts.
 * my 2 cents: of course, taking an almighty being out of one's head to explain something is quite a bad idea. i'd say dormin did it before being killed (if it was killed after all), at the time or a little after being reunited. why? because mono and wander would give them their offspring - which would be interesting even if dormin weren't killed (it could have his offspring from mono through deity ways). - capi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.134.96 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its quite amazing how everyone reads into the game differently; its like a magnificent piece of poetry. In fact, I'm sure we could all make vague connections to some of the themes in SotC and Dante's Inferno, but we won't go there just yet. I do concur that, unless the Wikipedia community (and fans of the game en masse) can be provided with prove that Mono was revived through any other force other than Dormin's (I don't think the power of love will cut it, somehow) then we should assume - as the game heavily implied via dialogue throughout - that Dormin fulfils Wonder's wish to have his beloved restored. Unfortunately for the community, however, the above writer also points out something many people have not previously considered: If Dormin is omnipotent, as both the actual article, fans of the game and Dormin itself claims, then why is it restricted to one set of plains? Surely it would have dominance over whoever and whatever 'wandered' into its 'domain', then? And how was it originally shut away? I understand these are points purposely left open so we can argue about it, but it really is important when it comes to assuming that Mono is revived by Dormin. After all, if he can be contained in the body of 16 colossi by man, then could he really bring back the dead? Melaisis (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Colossi Titles
I'm not sure who came up with the idea of giving titles to the screenshots, but those aren't referenced, and most of them are debatable. For instance, why is 13th called boar, when it clearly has claws. Or why are they all capitalized as if they are proper names? And who in the world decided that they could add a bunch of images to a featured article in the first place? Tani unit 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I do know that the 11th (13th is Phalanx, which flies) is closer to a saber-toothed tiger, as it has claws, a thin tail, and even meows much like a tiger...  so it's hardly a boar at all.  -JC 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure these name aren't official at all. I'm removing them. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mono
How can Mono be voiced if she doesn't say anything? That doesn't make any sense. --84.109.19.254 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * She does. On the teleporting bits. Fskn (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many &lt;ref&gt;s
I have to ask, why are there so many references in the article? I haven’t actually counted, but there seem to be at least one (sometimes three or more) for every sentence or two. It’s kind of ridiculous to see a separate reference for each detail of gameplay… couldn’t the vast majority of them simply cite the game itself? —Frungi (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)