I would welcome a direct remake

[Dr. Eggnog]

I thought their work excelled because of it. Because the graphics weren't the best, they had to really up the ante on the art direction. I think Silent Hill 1 is the scariest of the lot because the art direction was so magnificent. If the graphics were better, say, more SH2-like, I don't think the direction would've been so incredible, and thus we would have a pretty game with good graphics but no real heart.

But I like the art direction best in SH2 and think it had the most heart, and it had amazing graphics for 2001.

And Bishop, an 8-bit Silent Hill game!? It's an interesting idea actually. WIth the right colors, a camera like the old Final Fantasies and good Akira music I think I would actually like it.

[neonblack]

Lucky I'm not a game designer, then.

My post was in reply to the second paragraph of your previous post. As I said, from a purely objective perspective on visual art, yes, Silent Hill does look like shit. I'm not arguing that it isn't scary, or good for its time, or that the graphics harm the atmosphere. But better visual capabilities can not harm the design at all, unless the viewer has a personal preference for older technology.

I was also speaking from a purely artistic perspective as a viewer. To the viewer, I still feel the creative direction of the game - the visuals and sounds - are the most important and most obviously acknowledged aspect.

I agree, it wouldn't be wise from a business point of view, but as a fan of Silent Hill I wouldn't mind playing an updated version of the original. That's a slightly different subject though. Good, original ideas are hard to come by.

Sorry to come off so argumentative, Sasarai. I got a bit frustrated as I perceived you as being one of the many who have some nostalgic grudge against advancing technology, as I'm sure people who place more importance on the art and visual aspect may frustrate more dedicated gamers.

[Bishop Sasarai]

No need for apologies, neonblack. I know it sounds like I hate technological advancements for the games industry, but I don't hate them completely. My frustration really lies in two areas:

a) The games industry has become like Hollywood with remake after remake.

b) Advancements in technology aren't necessarily wholly auspicious. It requires more time and money to build one area for a PS3/360 game than it did before, but the acceptable time frame for release hasn't changed. As such - in my opinion, anyway - game quality as a whole has deteriorated.

Interestingly enough, a similar argument was brought up about six years ago in an old issue of PlayStation Magazine: That companies were making shorter games than before and that gamers were frustrated because of it. The example that the magazine used - rightfully so - was Devil May Cry 2.

[neonblack]

I concur. I also feel that game design has been losing steam as an artform - I can count on my hands the series that I feel are actually well designed and realized. It probably is because of the increasing cost of developing games. What I said was simply idealistic - and therefore perhaps unrealistic. Though, I have noticed that video games are becoming more widely accepted, and perhaps this will lead to more interest, more funds, and ultimately better game design. I suspect that game design has yet to reach its golden age.

I would much rather have original, new series than remakes, for sure.

[Ryoshockwave]

Games on the PS1 that are over 10 years old kind of do deserve to be remade...

So you want companies to waste time and money remaking all the good PSOne games? That wouldn't be very good for the games industry as a whole. I'd rather see many IPs over remakes. The industry is already flooded with remakes, and it doesn't exactly make for a good impression to an outsider.

No. I said they deserve to be. That doesn't mean I think they SHOULD be. Way to put words in my mouth..

Anyway- to me, Silent Hill seemed to come out a little too early. If it had come out for the PS2, not only would it have looked/sounded better, but they would have had a lot more space to add more areas and plot devices. Which is something I feel they probably would have liked to do, but didn't have the space originally (especially after seeing all those unfinished rooms- like someone else said- what could they have been for?)

Graphics are not always an important issue. In fact, in most cases I am perfectly fine with old games- but like people have pointed out in this thread- some of the monsters could really benefit from an upgrade to higher quality graphics. Sometimes I think that the graphics give SH an edge, and is one of the reasons it can be so scary; but when I look at the original concept art for the monsters and compare them the the in-game graphics, I feel like they could have done so much more if they had the technology at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I love Silent Hill the way it is now. It will forever be my first SH, a big part of my life, holding many memories from my younger days etc. But to be able to experience again as a remake? I think it really would be cool.

But I should add that I would want Team Silent to be the ones remaking it- I probably wouldn't want it if done by anyone else...

[Bishop Sasarai]

...If you think they deserve to be, wouldn't you agree that they should be? Don't they go hand in hand? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I don't like doing that to people - but usually if someone says someone, or something, deserves something then they'll usually want that thing to happen.

Remakes, in my opinion, should happen for shitty games that have a large enough fanbase to warrant a remake (which, hopefully, would tweak the gameplay, story, etc. as well as the graphics) or for games that have had limited release, can't be found, and have existing demand or will definitely produce demand due to direct/indirect popularity (such as the Persona enhanced port for the PSP).

Also, Team Silent is gone and won't be coming back. Japan also doesn't seem to have an interest in creating Silent Hill games anymore.

[Ryoshockwave]

Well, I didn't mean for it to come off quite like that.

And yeah, it's too bad that they gave up on the series. So far the American-made games have been okay, but they are feeling less and less like Silent Hill (in my opinion).

[Dr. Eggnog]

But Origins felt TOO much like old Silent Hill. It didn't feel fresh.

[SpaceProg]

I thought the ability for the Origins monsters in the streets to chase you and keep chasing you was pretty fresh. Also their speed was surprising. Imagine my surprise when I saw the first outside Patient Demon/Lying Figure. I was expecting to go up and smack it around, and it wander about like "Duurrh!" But no, it RAN up to me. I was like "Oh crap..."

[rm2kking]

Yeah, that was honestly a bit unnerving at first. Origins was quite fun.

[thathotel]

A silent hill 1 remake could be pulled off. For it to work they would have to keep the audio work, make a higher detail version of all the character models, and areas while not going out of their way to make the game look completely different. And make the game run at 60 fps. If the quality of the graphics can match SH3 then that remake would have something that the retelling and homecoming never have.

Buttom line, keep the look of the characters to match the CGI or make the enviroments look detailed then that's all what really needs to be done about the games graphics.

[ashatteredmemory]

You do know that 60 fps is quite unnessecary, cause we see things fluently (dont know if this is right word) at 24 fps, and even 30fps is beautifull. Things wont look nicer because of more frames, only more detail

[thathotel]

More detail+60 fps makes for something horrifying. Thus more enjoyable.Fine example is condemned 1 on PC.

[alone in the town]

You do know that 60 fps is quite unnessecary, cause we see things fluently (dont know if this is right word) at 24 fps, and even 30fps is beautifull. Things wont look nicer because of more frames, only more detail

Our eyes do only record at 24 fps, true . . . however, natural movement is much smoother than that, and our eyes know it. The difference between 30fps and 60fps on a screen is very noticeable, and even 60fps isn't as smooth as what we see around us. It's artificial. A screen that refreshes 60 times per second flickers very noticeably in our vision. A screen that refreshes 240 times per second will flicker, but not so as we can visually detect.

Since the framerate of video is lower than our perception of natural movement, it results in a latency between output and our eyes' input to the brain. The framerate of video does not translate well to the input capacity of the eye for this reason. Video framerate must be much higher than 24 frames per second in order to appear natural to our eyes at 24 frames per second.

[supperhater]

Harry: OMFG ROFL!! U LUK FUXIN STOOPID!
Romper: WEL U LUK DUM 2...
Harry: YEH BUT IM GETTIN AN UPGRAYD IN SH:SM. R U? PROBS NOT! LOL!
Romper: .......I H8 U. U ALWAIS BIN HORRID 2 ME.

lol that is seriously one of the funniest things ever.