20.4.10

Tell me something I don't know.

Ico is an awesome game. It has a fantastic, immersive atmosphere. It has a simple, but well-told story. The gameplay makes sense. Aside from it's shortness (less than two hours on second playthrough here! Not speedrunning!) there is very little wrong with it. The only thing you really need to know before playing are the controls, which are easy enough to find in the options menu.

Which is good, because the manual is atrocious.

Sure, it tells you the controls. But it decided that it wasn't done talking, and went on to give you the story, characters, and every location in the game, in the order they are met. In a game which relies so heavily on story, with a sense of wonder and exploration (even if there isn't really any exploration), this is a bad move. I was lucky enough to get a copy without the manual. Knowing almost nothing about the game, I was awed by it. Upon later reading the manual online, I'm sure it would have had a lesser effect on me. Not much lesser, but I'll never know for sure.

I suspect what many people forget is that, like it or not, the manual is part of the game. As such, it should be designed just as carefully. Never mind the fact that few people will read it. Having a well-designed manual shows an attention to detail that gamers can respect.

Yes, I'm aware the manual for Sun on a Stick is a user-unfriendly text document, but my excuse is that it's five years old. My better manual design shows with The Underground. There isn't one. I decided to leave it to the player to decide what the goal is. Providing a manual would have compromised the game's design. Viewed in that light, it becomes rather obvious that a manual is a definite part of the game it is attached to. As such, it deserves to be considered in equal measure to other parts of the game.