Zero Punctuation: Silent Hill: Downpour

Nazrel

New member
May 16, 2008
284
0
0
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
I am surprised to hear him say positive things about this game since from what I have seen from other reviews there's been a lot of negative things that have been mentioned. Still his general opinion of the game seemed to indicate that he didn't like it very much so *I think I might give this one a miss.
If you read the details, the complaints in most reviews amount to "This sucks because it's a survival horror game." without the writer realizing that's what they're complaining about... and some choppiness in the Xbox version... and all but 3 monsters looking pretty generic.
Actually I have read reviews complaining about the combat, the story and the environment, but thanks for pointing out that I have read different reviews than you.
I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... but you brought up the combat, showing you have no idea what I was talking about. I guess I could have been clearer... but given this is a forum for a video that explains a least the combat part of that concept... I really shouldn't have had to.

The disempowerment of the player is a major aspect of Survival horror; I looked through as many reviews as I could find and this aspect factored heavily into the complaints of quite a lot of them, oblivious to the fact this is a defining characteristic of the genre.

For the sake of accuracy I guess I really should have said "many complaints in most reviews."

I assume they're confusing things like "Dead Space" and "Left 4 Dead" with survival horror.

Whether we read the same reviews or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't discount the trend.
Bad combat is not a defining feature, but you're right, it's a trend. Emphasizing survival by any means necessary, make even generic monsters hard to beat in order to keep the tension up.

However bad story is not a defining feature for a survival horror. When someone reviews a survival horror game and complains about the story they are not complaining about the game being a survival horror game.

Also the environment is fucking essential for a survival horror game. When they are complaining about that being bad they are complaining about the game NOT being a survival horror game.

In short, 2 of 3 of the complaints I have seen have not been a defining point for survival horror thus not all complaints are about the game being a survival horror.
No, bad and or no combat is a defining feature of the genre. Homecoming for example was not a survival horror.

The trend I mentioned wasn't the combat being in the games, it's them being panned for it.

As for story and environment...I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... like I already said. Ergo the revision above to "many complaints".

Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, there is no trend of the issues they bring up in there regard being antithetical to the entire genre.

But the environment is most certainly not anti-survival horror though, you might make the argument it's the opposite of how a silent hill game should be; going with the more surreal and dynamic approach, as opposed to the more traditional oppressive and stagnant kind dread of the original games.

P.S. By stagnant I mean a feeling of stagnancy. I'm not calling it a stagnant approach.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
I am surprised to hear him say positive things about this game since from what I have seen from other reviews there's been a lot of negative things that have been mentioned. Still his general opinion of the game seemed to indicate that he didn't like it very much so *I think I might give this one a miss.
If you read the details, the complaints in most reviews amount to "This sucks because it's a survival horror game." without the writer realizing that's what they're complaining about... and some choppiness in the Xbox version... and all but 3 monsters looking pretty generic.
Actually I have read reviews complaining about the combat, the story and the environment, but thanks for pointing out that I have read different reviews than you.
I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... but you brought up the combat, showing you have no idea what I was talking about. I guess I could have been clearer... but given this is a forum for a video that explains a least the combat part of that concept... I really shouldn't have had to.

The disempowerment of the player is a major aspect of Survival horror; I looked through as many reviews as I could find and this aspect factored heavily into the complaints of quite a lot of them, oblivious to the fact this is a defining characteristic of the genre.

For the sake of accuracy I guess I really should have said "many complaints in most reviews."

I assume they're confusing things like "Dead Space" and "Left 4 Dead" with survival horror.

Whether we read the same reviews or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't discount the trend.
Bad combat is not a defining feature, but you're right, it's a trend. Emphasizing survival by any means necessary, make even generic monsters hard to beat in order to keep the tension up.

However bad story is not a defining feature for a survival horror. When someone reviews a survival horror game and complains about the story they are not complaining about the game being a survival horror game.

Also the environment is fucking essential for a survival horror game. When they are complaining about that being bad they are complaining about the game NOT being a survival horror game.

In short, 2 of 3 of the complaints I have seen have not been a defining point for survival horror thus not all complaints are about the game being a survival horror.
No, bad and or no combat is a defining feature of the genre. Homecoming for example was not a survival horror.

The trend I mentioned wasn't the combat being in the games, it's them being panned for it.

As for story and environment...I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... like I already said. Ergo the revision above to "many complaints".

Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, there is no trend of the issues they bring up in there regard being antithetical to the entire genre.

But the environment is most certainly not anti-survival horror though, you might make the argument it's the opposite of how a silent hill game should be; going with the more surreal and dynamic approach, as opposed to the more traditional oppressive and stagnant kind dread of the original games.

P.S. By stagnant I mean a feeling of stagnancy. I'm not calling it a stagnant approach.
I dare you to quote me where I said Silent Hill Homecoming was a survival horror game.

I did say that bad combat isn't a defining part of a survival horror, but I said that making the protagonist weaker than his opponents. Like never having the supplies you need to emphasize that you can't fight, or my favourite no combat at all. However I will let you have this one

The point I as trying to make in my last post was that you said all complaints about Silent Hill Downpour was that it was a survival horror game. Yes, you did say ALL. Now I can accept that bad combat can be counted as one, since it adds to the feeling. However bad story is a genuine complaint which doesn't define a survival horror game. An eerie environment is what you should expect from a survival horror game. Also there are complaints about the game not being scary. Now complaining about the lack of horror in a survival horror game... it sounds almost like they are complaining about it not being what it's sold to be.

I mentioned 3 major complaints. Only one of them was about the game being survival horror. Thus ALL the complaints are not about the game being survival horror. I don't think I can make it more clear.
 

Nazrel

New member
May 16, 2008
284
0
0
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
I am surprised to hear him say positive things about this game since from what I have seen from other reviews there's been a lot of negative things that have been mentioned. Still his general opinion of the game seemed to indicate that he didn't like it very much so *I think I might give this one a miss.
If you read the details, the complaints in most reviews amount to "This sucks because it's a survival horror game." without the writer realizing that's what they're complaining about... and some choppiness in the Xbox version... and all but 3 monsters looking pretty generic.
Actually I have read reviews complaining about the combat, the story and the environment, but thanks for pointing out that I have read different reviews than you.
I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... but you brought up the combat, showing you have no idea what I was talking about. I guess I could have been clearer... but given this is a forum for a video that explains a least the combat part of that concept... I really shouldn't have had to.

The disempowerment of the player is a major aspect of Survival horror; I looked through as many reviews as I could find and this aspect factored heavily into the complaints of quite a lot of them, oblivious to the fact this is a defining characteristic of the genre.

For the sake of accuracy I guess I really should have said "many complaints in most reviews."

I assume they're confusing things like "Dead Space" and "Left 4 Dead" with survival horror.

Whether we read the same reviews or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't discount the trend.
Bad combat is not a defining feature, but you're right, it's a trend. Emphasizing survival by any means necessary, make even generic monsters hard to beat in order to keep the tension up.

However bad story is not a defining feature for a survival horror. When someone reviews a survival horror game and complains about the story they are not complaining about the game being a survival horror game.

Also the environment is fucking essential for a survival horror game. When they are complaining about that being bad they are complaining about the game NOT being a survival horror game.

In short, 2 of 3 of the complaints I have seen have not been a defining point for survival horror thus not all complaints are about the game being a survival horror.
No, bad and or no combat is a defining feature of the genre. Homecoming for example was not a survival horror.

The trend I mentioned wasn't the combat being in the games, it's them being panned for it.

As for story and environment...I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... like I already said. Ergo the revision above to "many complaints".

Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, there is no trend of the issues they bring up in there regard being antithetical to the entire genre.

But the environment is most certainly not anti-survival horror though, you might make the argument it's the opposite of how a silent hill game should be; going with the more surreal and dynamic approach, as opposed to the more traditional oppressive and stagnant kind dread of the original games.

P.S. By stagnant I mean a feeling of stagnancy. I'm not calling it a stagnant approach.
I dare you to quote me where I said Silent Hill Homecoming was a survival horror game.

I did say that bad combat isn't a defining part of a survival horror, but I said that making the protagonist weaker than his opponents. Like never having the supplies you need to emphasize that you can't fight, or my favourite no combat at all. However I will let you have this one

The point I as trying to make in my last post was that you said all complaints about Silent Hill Downpour was that it was a survival horror game. Yes, you did say ALL. Now I can accept that bad combat can be counted as one, since it adds to the feeling. However bad story is a genuine complaint which doesn't define a survival horror game. An eerie environment is what you should expect from a survival horror game. Also there are complaints about the game not being scary. Now complaining about the lack of horror in a survival horror game... it sounds almost like they are complaining about it not being what it's sold to be.

I mentioned 3 major complaints. Only one of them was about the game being survival horror. Thus ALL the complaints are not about the game being survival horror. I don't think I can make it more clear.
I never said you said Homecoming was a survival horror game. I was giving an example of a game that disqualified itself as a survival horror do to it's mechanics.

I did indeed imply that all the complaints were about it being a survival horror game in my original post... well I used "amount to".

I then corrected myself in my second post, I then reiterated that correction in my third.

Why are you still talking about the story and environment? I already said that the complaints about the story and environment, though I may or may not agree with them, do not amount to complaining about the genre.

How about I clarify my original post:

The mean score value of this game has been driven down by a repetitive complaint about an aspect that is indicative of the genre.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
Nazrel said:
Yopaz said:
I am surprised to hear him say positive things about this game since from what I have seen from other reviews there's been a lot of negative things that have been mentioned. Still his general opinion of the game seemed to indicate that he didn't like it very much so *I think I might give this one a miss.
If you read the details, the complaints in most reviews amount to "This sucks because it's a survival horror game." without the writer realizing that's what they're complaining about... and some choppiness in the Xbox version... and all but 3 monsters looking pretty generic.
Actually I have read reviews complaining about the combat, the story and the environment, but thanks for pointing out that I have read different reviews than you.
I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... but you brought up the combat, showing you have no idea what I was talking about. I guess I could have been clearer... but given this is a forum for a video that explains a least the combat part of that concept... I really shouldn't have had to.

The disempowerment of the player is a major aspect of Survival horror; I looked through as many reviews as I could find and this aspect factored heavily into the complaints of quite a lot of them, oblivious to the fact this is a defining characteristic of the genre.

For the sake of accuracy I guess I really should have said "many complaints in most reviews."

I assume they're confusing things like "Dead Space" and "Left 4 Dead" with survival horror.

Whether we read the same reviews or not is irrelevant, because it doesn't discount the trend.
Bad combat is not a defining feature, but you're right, it's a trend. Emphasizing survival by any means necessary, make even generic monsters hard to beat in order to keep the tension up.

However bad story is not a defining feature for a survival horror. When someone reviews a survival horror game and complains about the story they are not complaining about the game being a survival horror game.

Also the environment is fucking essential for a survival horror game. When they are complaining about that being bad they are complaining about the game NOT being a survival horror game.

In short, 2 of 3 of the complaints I have seen have not been a defining point for survival horror thus not all complaints are about the game being a survival horror.
No, bad and or no combat is a defining feature of the genre. Homecoming for example was not a survival horror.

The trend I mentioned wasn't the combat being in the games, it's them being panned for it.

As for story and environment...I would have shrugged and said "fair enough"... like I already said. Ergo the revision above to "many complaints".

Regardless of my own opinion on the matter, there is no trend of the issues they bring up in there regard being antithetical to the entire genre.

But the environment is most certainly not anti-survival horror though, you might make the argument it's the opposite of how a silent hill game should be; going with the more surreal and dynamic approach, as opposed to the more traditional oppressive and stagnant kind dread of the original games.

P.S. By stagnant I mean a feeling of stagnancy. I'm not calling it a stagnant approach.
I dare you to quote me where I said Silent Hill Homecoming was a survival horror game.

I did say that bad combat isn't a defining part of a survival horror, but I said that making the protagonist weaker than his opponents. Like never having the supplies you need to emphasize that you can't fight, or my favourite no combat at all. However I will let you have this one

The point I as trying to make in my last post was that you said all complaints about Silent Hill Downpour was that it was a survival horror game. Yes, you did say ALL. Now I can accept that bad combat can be counted as one, since it adds to the feeling. However bad story is a genuine complaint which doesn't define a survival horror game. An eerie environment is what you should expect from a survival horror game. Also there are complaints about the game not being scary. Now complaining about the lack of horror in a survival horror game... it sounds almost like they are complaining about it not being what it's sold to be.

I mentioned 3 major complaints. Only one of them was about the game being survival horror. Thus ALL the complaints are not about the game being survival horror. I don't think I can make it more clear.
I never said you said Homecoming was a survival horror game. I was giving an example of a game that disqualified itself as a survival horror do to it's mechanics.

I did indeed imply that all the complaints were about it being a survival horror game in my original post... well I used "amount to".

I then corrected myself in my second post, I then reiterated that correction in my third.

Why are you still talking about the story and environment? I already said that the complaints about the story and environment, though I may or may not agree with them, do not amount to complaining about the genre.

How about I clarify my original post:

The mean score value of this game has been driven down by a repetitive complaint about an aspect that is indicative of the genre.
I am still going on about the story and environment because you originally said that reviews boiled down to complaints about Silent Hill was the fact that it's a survival horror. I gave you 3 reasons and you kept on with your groundless claim. Now let's get the numbers: 33.333% is about the game being a survival horror. 33.333% is about the game having a bad script. 33.333% was about the game not being a horror game.

I would have left it with that, but you even made a claim that if I had read the reviews rather than checking scores I would have known that the complaints were about it being a survival horror game. You basically told me that I hadn't read the reviews. Then when I said that I had simply read different reviews you still wouldn't accept that. Now I present 66.666% worth of complaints that are not about it being a survival horror. A statistician will tell you that 33.333% is not most. You are wrong. That is the point I am trying to make. Admit it or not, I don't want to discuss this with someone who ignores two thirds of the debate in order to push his own point ahead.
 

Jennacide

New member
Dec 6, 2007
1,019
0
0
Astro said:
Jennacide said:
I'm pretty sure someone did take all the best ideas from Silent Hill 2 and make them into a totally different IP that is actually scary. I'm not sure if you've heard of it or anything, it's totally underground. And it's called AMNESIA.

FFS, just cause Silent Hill went to shit lately, the genre isn't dead. Amnesia was pee your pants scary, and Alan Wake was a good game, though signifigantly less scary than Amnesia.
Amnesia and Silent Hill are only superficially alike, they're both totally different. Amnesia certainly didn't take the best ideas from Silent Hill either, it took good ideas from Call of Cthulhu, executed them better and paired them with some mediocre pseudo-Lovecraft writing and characters, presumably because they would've felt bad for totally copying instead of just partially copying.
Genre is more about stylistic themes and inner workings than pure gameplay bones. Nobody would try and contest that Skyrim and Dragon Age are both RPGs, even though they play drastically different. The same goes for Amnesia and Silent Hill. They play different, but they're both clearly survival horror.
 

way2sl0w

Resident COD Fanboy
Jan 29, 2012
153
0
0
Damn! Another missed opportunity to make Yahtzee eat his own arse. Oh well, there's still the hope that Silent Hill: Book of Memories will do the job.

edit: Nevermind, just read the preview for Book of Memories. It's going to be top down view and coop with action focus.
 

Okamipsychonaut

New member
Mar 30, 2010
81
0
0
Yeah, it STUNS me that the monsters are so boring and unscary...and the first appearance of a monster was so unimpressive. The character design and the dialog is fine...and the environment is great. The creators said that rain or water was a super important theme, but aside from the downpours in the city itself...I noticed nothing....Bioshock had way better water stuff in minor scenes. The...whatever it is....red light vortex thing that seems amorphous....makes it ridiculous that you are pushing down cages to impede it's process as the vortex seems to be not solid and can move through the walls and encompass entire areas. I quit playing a while ago...after the next run from the vortex scene after the radio DJ scene..and have not picked it up since.... I even went and played some KOTOR and Psychonauts and bought Thief: Deadly Shadow and saw the influence on Elder Scrolls steath movement...and played some Uncharted 3(good, but not as good as 1 and 2) and played through Dead Money and Old World Blues , and have yet to put Silent Hill: Downpour back in my machine. Read and weep Vatra. You could have delayed the game...asked an subjective as hell opinion of a geeky as hell psychofan.....but getting bored making this game is so crappy after the whole contest to draw a cemetery carving and other facebook content that made us look forward to this game...which seems as though it was content to be a minor game in the wake of Mass Effect 3 et al. So sad.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
To be honest, if they are going to do Silent Hill I think it's time for a back to the basics creator. See, the first "Silent Hill" was intended as a stand alone work and I think that for all the praise SH2 received (and despite the censorship) it was where the series kind of started to go wrong.

See, SH1 was pretty complete in of itself, not only did it have a story defining why the hero was there, but it also got into the driving force behind the entire town. It doesn't end with some slap up with your character's delirium traumas, but with a battle against a fallen angel.

While SH1 left a lot of questions unanswered, the series could have ended right there with the driving force dead. To my knowlege they never bothered to explain why the town is still doing what it does, and really I'd imagine that the protaganists, especially the more capable ones, would get it together at some point and realize they are being F@cked with and instead of jumping through the hoops, start looking for whatever is behind it all (not just the part messing with them) for an attempted reckoning.

If I was doing a new Silent Hill game, I'd probably break the repetitive mould the game has sunk into (with rare exceptions like "The Room"). I'd probably start it out with what you'd expect, but then at a point have the protaganist decide "F@ck this" and stop playing by the rules. Even if he's not superman, if he's presumably strong enough to potentially survive this scenario in general (after all you are playing this), he stops following the bread crumbs and starts looking into what's up with the whole place, in a fashion most of the protagsnists really haven't done.

See, I get the whole "horror" thing, but one thing to understand is that there is a point where denial gets rather stupid, and after the second or third time something had lead you into trippy death traps and monsters following the voice/image of a loved one or whatever, you'd imagine the protagnist would decide "F@ck that" especially if they realized they were trapped in the town (which is a point many critics tend to forget, when in Silent Hill, all the roads out of town are blocked off or fall into misty abysses).

It's a problem when psychological horror tends to forget psychology and how people might react to some of these situations. To be honest most people would probably break down and self destruct into a blubbering mess of monster chow in the face of something like Silent Hill, but a video game protaganist capable of exploring it and working on some of these puzzles controls their fear well enough where they are probably going to realize their strings are being pulled and resent following that path.

See "Homecoming" didn't bother me because of the combat interface, what kind of got me about it was that our hero could be sitting here fighting these horrible monsters, and then run into someone he knows and then just walk up and strike up a conversation about the past. Seemingly totally detached from everything else that just happened. I might have missed it but I don't remember him, or anyone else saying to a backround character "hey, you know I just beat a bunch of horrible demon things to death... why aren't you monster chow?".

For that matter with the noise being made stealth is a foregone conclusion. I am surprised more Silent Hill protaganists don't bother to try and do things like chop through some of these blocked doors with their fire axes (which are intended for the job). It seems that only occurs to them in very specific places where the game requires it, as opposed to the door to say a supply room that seems like it might have stuff you need in it. :)

I dunno, I was impressed by "Deadly Premonition" and it's sandbox approach to things. I'd like to see a Silent Hill game with modern technology and a similar degree of freedom. I mean for sure, give the character a reason for being lured there (or accidently being drawn in), but allow independant investigation and exploration, and start tying some of those threads together, if the driving force from SH1 somehow survived, it might be time for a rematch.
 

Hiroshi Mishima

New member
Sep 25, 2008
407
0
0
Yahtzee's thoughts and admissions about him being unable to truly call himself a "fan" of Silent Hill these days and thinking about what Sonic's fans have put up with.. I gotta say it made me think about how I've see the Metroid series the last few years, and to a lesser degree, MegaMan and Castlevania. Well, and Sonic, too, but it's less than I think the 3-D fails and more than I think the continuity and character development fell a bit short after Sonic Adventure 2. Heroes' gameplay wasn't very enjoyable and Shadow the Hedgehog retconned a buncha shit. Then the series just collapsed afterwards. The DS RPG and The Black Knight weren't that bad, though.


In regards to my original point, about Yahtzee's feelings for Silent Hill as a series reflecting my own about Metroid.. I feel like the series has been taking steps in the wrong direction with each of the new games since.. well, since Prime. I'll be the first to admit I LIKED Prime, and I don't think that it in of itself is a bad game. I do, however, think it started the series down some bizarre roads.

What made Metroid (and when I say that, I largely mean Super Metroid and possibly Metroid 2) fun was the way you were all alone on a hostile and alien world where you had to explore to survive and be pretty decent at wall-jumps if you wanted to sequence break. It was also the first game in the series (and hell, one of the first in general) to feature gameplay which was both fast-paced and have lots of action without difficulty factors that'd break pacing or bring the game to a halt. Speed-Running became popular largely due to the way Metroid played.

With Metroid Prime, I didn't feel the same isolation or atmosphere, nor did I think the gameplay was the kind I'd want to play over and over, unlikes Super Metroid and quite a few other games out there (like Symphony of the Night or Mega Man X). It also started the trend of having more focus on 3-D titles with an emphasis on FPS gameplay, which isn't my favourite genre.

Then you had MZM which took Super Metroid and dialed the speed-factor up to 11, so you started going by so fast you hardly had time to stop and enjoy the areas. The artwork became a bit cartoonier, almost anime-ish, and it introduced the horribly designed Zero Suit which tossed aside Samus' character as a strong female game character (rare in the early days of gaming) and turned her into just another eye-candy; she now takes the suit off quite frequently which wouldn't be a problem if she actually wore normal clothes.

And then Corruption, where everybody BUT Samus spoke showing how silly the idea of a silent protagonist is when they can't express themselves, she didn't even have body-language or facial expressions except when she threw up in that one scene. Only for her to NEVER SHUT UP in Other M, which also drove her character right into a grave developmentally speaking. I can't even play Fusion without seeing shades of Other M anymore, and I used to love the game.

I really think Nintendo needs to retire Metroid and try some of these ideas in a new series, or give it to somebody who knows what the fuck their doing. And that brings me back to what Yahtzee was saying about how hard it is to stay a fan of a series when it continually disappoints or takes a step forward only to fall backwards again.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,913
736
118
You know, my favourite western developed Silent Hill is still Shattered Memories. Actually, it's my second favourite Silent Hill period. And one reason why i like it so much is because it doesn't even try to be particulary scary. Before you accuse me of blasphemy: I enjoy good horror just as much as anyone else but after all the B-movie cheesiness of Homecoming i'm glad that they decided to go for a atmospheric, character driven mystery with SM. I'm not saying that it was perfect or that the chase sequences were well implemented but it was still a really good game with a great plot and great atmosphere and i think it was a step into the right direction. Downpour is obviously trying to find a middle ground between action, horror and mystery but it never really comes together. The story and the characters aren't bad but they are kind of underdeveloped, the combat works well but the emphasis on it is too big and while it makes an effort to be scary it hardly is. There were some nice ideas in there, i liked the bigger focus on exploration and the inclusion of Sidequests but it's still just not that good.
 

HeroKing89

New member
Nov 9, 2009
45
0
0
Okamipsychonaut said:
Yeah, it STUNS me that the monsters are so boring and unscary...and the first appearance of a monster was so unimpressive. The character design and the dialog is fine...and the environment is great. The creators said that rain or water was a super important theme, but aside from the downpours in the city itself...I noticed nothing....
You mean other then the fact that monsters always appeared more in droves the heavier the rain got or that the otherworld almost always seemingly appearing when water started to pour into the room? Also it isn't rain that is important, but the downpour. Look again at the beginning where Murphy attempted to kill Napier when he turned on the shower to hide his crime.

The...whatever it is....red light vortex thing that seems amorphous....makes it ridiculous that you are pushing down cages to impede it's process as the vortex seems to be not solid and can move through the walls and encompass entire areas.
You missed the symbolic nature of these like a champ. Its suppose to represent Murphy sacrifices in order to get at his goal and his avoidance of the truth of the matter. That's why the red light slows down, because Murphy keeps making sacrifices in order to avoid facing his problems.

You also just missed out on the best part of the game, nay one of the best parts in the series, The Monastery.
 

Mikejames

New member
Jan 26, 2012
797
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
You know, my favourite western developed Silent Hill is still Shattered Memories. Actually, it's my second favourite Silent Hill period. And one reason why i like it so much is because it doesn't even try to be particulary scary. Before you accuse me of blasphemy: I enjoy good horror just as much as anyone else but after all the B-movie cheesiness of Homecoming i'm glad that they decided to go for a atmospheric, character driven mystery with SM.
I can agree with this. Shattered Memories is a pretty good example of how much I think plot can make a game. The story was really a driving factor, and it's probably in my top three Silent Hills.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
.....and I still have not played Silent Hill 2. I did however track down a copy. Maybe I'll give it a whirl soon but I need to complete Demons Souls before the server goes down forever (so about a month).

heh, went off point there, but I do agree completely. Horror or rather scary situations work best when you don't exactly know what's coming. There used to be a game on Playstation, some first person shooter but you were in a sewer I think (present - slightly future) and the monsters could open doors. It was creepy hearing the echoing sound of a door opening by itself every so often, even after you thought you had cleared a room.. just.. wondering what the hell was still lurking around behind you.. somewhere..
 

Astro

New member
Feb 15, 2012
64
0
0
Jennacide said:
Astro said:
Jennacide said:
I'm pretty sure someone did take all the best ideas from Silent Hill 2 and make them into a totally different IP that is actually scary. I'm not sure if you've heard of it or anything, it's totally underground. And it's called AMNESIA.

FFS, just cause Silent Hill went to shit lately, the genre isn't dead. Amnesia was pee your pants scary, and Alan Wake was a good game, though signifigantly less scary than Amnesia.
Amnesia and Silent Hill are only superficially alike, they're both totally different. Amnesia certainly didn't take the best ideas from Silent Hill either, it took good ideas from Call of Cthulhu, executed them better and paired them with some mediocre pseudo-Lovecraft writing and characters, presumably because they would've felt bad for totally copying instead of just partially copying.
Genre is more about stylistic themes and inner workings than pure gameplay bones. Nobody would try and contest that Skyrim and Dragon Age are both RPGs, even though they play drastically different. The same goes for Amnesia and Silent Hill. They play different, but they're both clearly survival horror.
Then considering you're arguing against me saying that Amnesia and Silent Hill are only superficially alike, I guess that means considering they're both in the same genre every survival horror game is like Silent Hill 2 and Amnesia.
 

Vinny Andreotti

New member
Sep 9, 2012
2
0
0
My take on "Silent Hill: Downpour" as well as a brief retrospective of "Silent Hill 2":

http://vinnyandreotti.blogspot.com/2012/09/silent-hill-downpour-vs-silent-hill-2.html