Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 10 Dec 2019




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Author Message

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2007
Notes left: 5077
ginjajacob wrote:
By the way who is making Siren :shock:

Project Siren, and this is admittedly the reason I first looked at the series way back in 2003, has the same core staff as the original Team Silent (Keiichiro Toyama, et al). This, more than anything else, contributes to the related feeling the two series have.

Personally, I loved the original Siren's method of storytelling, especially the way it relied on the player's intelligence, much like SH2. I've finished that game 100%, and I still haven't figured out how all of the Archive pieces fit together, but I'm fairly sure that they actually do. I also love how, through implication, Siren [spoiler]turns out to be a time-travel story.[/spoiler]

Can't speak much for New Translation/Blood Curse, but I do like how it's retained the sense of detail from earlier in the series. For instance, Sol Jackson's script for his planned meeting with Melissa has this nice little bit where he continually crosses out and rewrites his first line. It's an excellent little detail for his character.

NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Origins was a copy of a copy of a copy. Felt like I played that game a million times the first time I put it in.

Arguably, we've been continually playing reimaginings of SH1 ever since 2003. SH3, Origins, and Shattered Memories are all new versions of the classic Cheryl/Alessa story. It's just that the latest one is the first to admit it upfront.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's almost like the old Star Trek movie rule: Every odd installment (in order of release) of Silent Hill is SH1. :P

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11384
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
SH3, Origins, and Shattered Memories are all new versions of the classic Cheryl/Alessa story


Lumping SH3 in there isn't really fair. Despite involving Alessa, the character and storyline dynamics are completely different, and doing their own thing.

_________________
BlackFire2 wrote:
I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Aug 2009
Notes left: 427
Last seen at: a land filled with things!
Kenji wrote:
Arguably, we've been continually playing reimaginings of SH1 ever since 2003. SH3, Origins, and Shattered Memories are all new versions of the classic Cheryl/Alessa story. It's just that the latest one is the first to admit it upfront.


Well ofcourse you have a bunch of games based on alessa. [spoiler]The whole alessa/the cult thing is what's mostly responsible for silent hill anyway.[/spoiler] ofcourse their gonna have continued focus on that. It is the story of the town after all.

_________________
-=Let's Positive thinking=-


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2007
Notes left: 5077
AuraTwilight wrote:
Lumping SH3 in there isn't really fair. Despite involving Alessa, the character and storyline dynamics are completely different, and doing their own thing.

I'm not so sure.

The main thrust of the story (Alessa is pregnant with God) is the same, the SH3 cast performs the roles of the SH1 cast (inasmuch as the Siren: New Translation cast combines roles from the original together in the new cast), and even the major revelations of SH1 are retold through Harry's notebook and notes. Indeed, the major revelations of SH3 are the major revelations of SH1 with some latter-day clarification and a bit of SH2ness sprinkled on top (Claudia and Leonard, the monster transmogrification question).

Of course, the developers covered themselves purposefully, using the circular motif of the fans and Halo of the Sun to basically justify everything in SH1 happening all over again, except Heather takes on the dual role of Harry and Cheryl. It's brilliant in that sense, since SH1 never really showed us Cheryl's feelings upon finding out she was part of Alessa, and SH3 allows us to have a glimpse of how she took that personally.

I'm not saying this to claim that SH3 was "lazy" or anything. Rather, I think it was an updated version of SH1 (with the technology of the PS2 and concepts carried over from SH2) that was cleverly put together as a sequel, since Konami does seem averse to straight remaking the first game. They did a clever job of it and I like SH3 no less, but I've really begun to feel that it was the first reimagining of SH1 for these reasons.

EDIT: As an additional side note, I'd like to bring up Burning Man's revelations of Producer Imamura's feelings regarding the series (a collection of loosely related stories) and the production startpoint of The Room (right after SH2). I'm not entirely sure, but this implies to me that SH3 was the added installment, instead of SH4 as is traditionally believed. It was finished faster and thus got the honor of being SH3.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:

Missing since: 01 Nov 2007
Notes left: 205
Last seen at: 谷間地九丁目、大阪市、日本
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team..


No it wouldnt, there is a video with Tom in it where he talks about this very point. I cant find it now as youtube is blocked at work. Infact he talks about this point in more then one interview.


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Aug 2009
Notes left: 427
Last seen at: a land filled with things!
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?

_________________
-=Let's Positive thinking=-


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:

Missing since: 01 Nov 2007
Notes left: 205
Last seen at: 谷間地九丁目、大阪市、日本
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


What a stupid post. What is the point of having a strong opinion about something you know little about? Then you get aggressive with somebody who asks a perfectly valid question. Your argument is weak because it's based on neither knowledge nor experience. You have little or no clue how the combat will pan out in SM. I never have an opinion of something prior to release I merely speculate. There is a clear difference.

In my opinion the combat wasn't one of the key components that made silent hill 1 scary. In my opinion, it’s settings, sound, atmosphere and most importantly the fact people hadn't played anything too much like it. Another thing about Silent Hill is that you get all of these experiences and feelings while playing it. For you to have a comparative opinion including a game you haven’t played doesn’t really solidify any kind of argument does it.
.


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Aug 2009
Notes left: 427
Last seen at: a land filled with things!
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


James: Eddie! Have You gone nuts?
Eddie: [faces James] I knew it. You, too! You're just like 'em James.
James: Hey, I didn't mean anything.

But seriously where'd all the hostility come from? Your the one insulting the teams hard work, calling their game design as a: "shallow and simply minded solution". How about instead of throwing your mouth around, You actually go and walk in their shoes. I fail to see how a lack of combat is a simple solution. It would have being easier for them to have kept the combat style of their last game (Origins) and finish the game like that risk free. They are taking a bunch of risks trying to make a good new silent hill game that doesn't focus on clunky combat controls as an aspect of "Fear". They knew what the fans were used to and they know not everyone would like the idea but they went for it because they wanted to try something new.

You've not even played the game so to put it frankly, Your not qualified to deem the lack of combat as shallow or simple just yet.

Your argument seems to state that the lack of fear in homecoming in relation to the overpowered nature of combat is what drove climax to steer away from combat. Yet the main problem I hear about homecoming is generally that it was too different for all the wrong reasons. Why in the world would climax take out combat to avoid that? The smartest sounding thing for them to do would be to stay with the old formula and not try anything new, After all that's what sells right? Of course it might have been predictable and all but hey the fans like the old games so much so why wouldn't they buy into another old style game?
They actually are trying to breath new life into this series and to perfect the art of the horror game. If it doesn't turn out good then so what? At least they had tried and not had made another lifeless horror game like so many of the them that crowd the bargain bins.

Also I've never gave negative opinions of games before they were released with the exception of kingdom hearts in which I was horribly wrong which is one of the reasons I find it idiotic to do it anymore. It's simply a matter of not dissing it until you've tried it.

Also you said if I do not like your opinions then don't read them yet usually when someone doesn't read all of the posts before posting he will then be ridiculed for not reading the entire thread.

Now of course I suspect that you will either do 3 things, You might find some kinda error in my argument and attempt to exploit to gain the upper hand in argument, You may also simply ignore what I say and attempt to gain the upper hand by downplaying my character in regards to: age and or mental capacity,Or You will retract your previous statement in an attempt to settle things down (Of which I find unlikely). If you choose to continue in your current negativity then please know that I am incredibly stubborn once I've been upset.

Now let us continue back on topic shall we?

*P.S. You say everyone is guilty of what I am preaching. So everyone is guilty of downplaying a game that hasn't been released? The worlds stranger then you think

_________________
-=Let's Positive thinking=-


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

ginjajacob wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


What a stupid post. What is the point of having a strong opinion about something you know little about? Then you get aggressive with somebody who asks a perfectly valid question. Your argument is weak because it's based on neither knowledge nor experience. You have little or no clue how the combat will pan out in SM. I never have an opinion of something prior to release I merely speculate. There is a clear difference.

In my opinion the combat wasn't one of the key components that made silent hill 1 scary. In my opinion, it’s settings, sound, atmosphere and most importantly the fact people hadn't played anything too much like it. Another thing about Silent Hill is that you get all of these experiences and feelings while playing it. For you to have a comparative opinion including a game you haven’t played doesn’t really solidify any kind of argument does it.
.


That perfectly valid question has been asked a million times genius (to the point in which its treated as rhetorical). I can have all the opinions I want, and since you have a hard time dealing with that displays your own insecurities. Oh and sounds, environments etc also make a game scary- no shit. But we were talking about its relation to combat (stay on subject jackass). I've watched plenty of trailers, game play sneaks and read enough interviews to form an opinion already. Just as you have formed your opinion as to how you think this game will be. Quit being a hypocrite and understand that people do not have to think as you do and can form conclusions however they choose.


Last edited by NothingLikeSleep on 27 Nov 2009, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


James: Eddie! Have You gone nuts?
Eddie: [faces James] I knew it. You, too! You're just like 'em James.
James: Hey, I didn't mean anything.

But seriously where'd all the hostility come from? Your the one insulting the teams hard work, calling their game design as a: "shallow and simply minded solution". How about instead of throwing your mouth around, You actually go and walk in their shoes. I fail to see how a lack of combat is a simple solution. It would have being easier for them to have kept the combat style of their last game (Origins) and finish the game like that risk free. They are taking a bunch of risks trying to make a good new silent hill game that doesn't focus on clunky combat controls as an aspect of "Fear". They knew what the fans were used to and they know not everyone would like the idea but they went for it because they wanted to try something new.

You've not even played the game so to put it frankly, Your not qualified to deem the lack of combat as shallow or simple just yet.

Your argument seems to state that the lack of fear in homecoming in relation to the overpowered nature of combat is what drove climax to steer away from combat. Yet the main problem I hear about homecoming is generally that it was too different for all the wrong reasons. Why in the world would climax take out combat to avoid that? The smartest sounding thing for them to do would be to stay with the old formula and not try anything new, After all that's what sells right? Of course it might have been predictable and all but hey the fans like the old games so much so why wouldn't they buy into another old style game?
They actually are trying to breath new life into this series and to perfect the art of the horror game. If it doesn't turn out good then so what? At least they had tried and not had made another lifeless horror game like so many of the them that crowd the bargain bins.

Also I've never gave negative opinions of games before they were released with the exception of kingdom hearts in which I was horribly wrong which is one of the reasons I find it idiotic to do it anymore. It's simply a matter of not dissing it until you've tried it.

Also you said if I do not like your opinions then don't read them yet usually when someone doesn't read all of the posts before posting he will then be ridiculed for not reading the entire thread.

Now of course I suspect that you will either do 3 things, You might find some kinda error in my argument and attempt to exploit to gain the upper hand in argument, You may also simply ignore what I say and attempt to gain the upper hand by downplaying my character in regards to: age and or mental capacity,Or You will retract your previous statement in an attempt to settle things down (Of which I find unlikely). If you choose to continue in your current negativity then please know that I am incredibly stubborn once I've been upset.

Now let us continue back on topic shall we?

*P.S. You say everyone is guilty of what I am preaching. So everyone is guilty of downplaying a game that hasn't been released? The worlds stranger then you think


First of all I can "deem" anything I want to simply because I have an opinion. Is that a difficult concept to understand? Can you wrap your head around that? You've made a lot of assumptions and predictions as if this is some kind of chess game (see that? a lot of assumptions and predictions and then pointing the finger at me for doing the same thing). Never did I say Climax is retaliating because of the SHH combat system. In fact, Origins combat system was just as bogus with the shit one could carry.

And yes, I'm convinced that 99% of people form opinions (whether positive or negative) about games (anything for the matter) before they experience it themselves, that's called human nature. Climax can put all the work and risk into this game that they want to, doesn't mean it has to be praised an adored by all.

Especially seeing as though we are talking in the Homecoming thread, you may have to close your eyes lest you read something that greatly upsets you! If you want the world to think like you that's fine, but don't expect it. The world is stranger than you think.


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Aug 2009
Notes left: 427
Last seen at: a land filled with things!
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Drainage64 wrote:
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
ginjajacob wrote:
I agree with Travis the story of Siren wasn't very good, but just imagine that combat system implemented in a Silent Hill game, I thought it made the atmosphere of the game was intense. Regardless of what people think of Homecomings combat (if good or bad) the majority would have to argee that it made the game less scary and put more power in the hands of the player, thus making the apprehension of coming events less scary.

It is also clear that they tried to move in the same direction as resident evil 4 and 5. My point is not that it was a worse combat system (however it was) but that, that style of combat in a survival horror game will lead to it being less scary. I think this is a key point Climax looked at when making SM.


Well then that would make Climax very short sighted and reactionary as a development team. Remember in Silent Hill 1 when ammo was more than abundant in the first half of the game? But then come the second half and around the battle with larva ammo became quite scarce. You wonder "oh no, should I restart the game or just keep going?" Then you had to manage your resources and utilize your melee weapons -you wondered if you would be able to survive the game long with little or no ammo. You didn't know- and that was scary.

In shattered memories it doesn't matter, you don't need ammo to defeat the game, so even if you are backed into a corner with low health, and without a weapon, you know that the game isn't over, because all you have to do is run and lock doors, windows etc.

Taking away combat is a shallow and simple minded solution.


Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?


Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.


James: Eddie! Have You gone nuts?
Eddie: [faces James] I knew it. You, too! You're just like 'em James.
James: Hey, I didn't mean anything.

But seriously where'd all the hostility come from? Your the one insulting the teams hard work, calling their game design as a: "shallow and simply minded solution". How about instead of throwing your mouth around, You actually go and walk in their shoes. I fail to see how a lack of combat is a simple solution. It would have being easier for them to have kept the combat style of their last game (Origins) and finish the game like that risk free. They are taking a bunch of risks trying to make a good new silent hill game that doesn't focus on clunky combat controls as an aspect of "Fear". They knew what the fans were used to and they know not everyone would like the idea but they went for it because they wanted to try something new.

You've not even played the game so to put it frankly, Your not qualified to deem the lack of combat as shallow or simple just yet.

Your argument seems to state that the lack of fear in homecoming in relation to the overpowered nature of combat is what drove climax to steer away from combat. Yet the main problem I hear about homecoming is generally that it was too different for all the wrong reasons. Why in the world would climax take out combat to avoid that? The smartest sounding thing for them to do would be to stay with the old formula and not try anything new, After all that's what sells right? Of course it might have been predictable and all but hey the fans like the old games so much so why wouldn't they buy into another old style game?
They actually are trying to breath new life into this series and to perfect the art of the horror game. If it doesn't turn out good then so what? At least they had tried and not had made another lifeless horror game like so many of the them that crowd the bargain bins.

Also I've never gave negative opinions of games before they were released with the exception of kingdom hearts in which I was horribly wrong which is one of the reasons I find it idiotic to do it anymore. It's simply a matter of not dissing it until you've tried it.

Also you said if I do not like your opinions then don't read them yet usually when someone doesn't read all of the posts before posting he will then be ridiculed for not reading the entire thread.

Now of course I suspect that you will either do 3 things, You might find some kinda error in my argument and attempt to exploit to gain the upper hand in argument, You may also simply ignore what I say and attempt to gain the upper hand by downplaying my character in regards to: age and or mental capacity,Or You will retract your previous statement in an attempt to settle things down (Of which I find unlikely). If you choose to continue in your current negativity then please know that I am incredibly stubborn once I've been upset.

Now let us continue back on topic shall we?

*P.S. You say everyone is guilty of what I am preaching. So everyone is guilty of downplaying a game that hasn't been released? The worlds stranger then you think


First of all I can "deem" anything I want to simply because I have an opinion. Is that a difficult concept to understand? Can you wrap your head around that? You've made a lot of assumptions and predictions as if this is some kind of chess game (see that? a lot of assumptions and predictions and then pointing the finger at me for doing the same thing). Never did I say Climax is retaliating because of the SHH combat system. In fact, Origins combat system was just as bogus with the shit one could carry.

And yes, I'm convinced that 99% of people form opinions (whether positive or negative) about games (anything for the matter) before they experience it themselves, that's called human nature. Climax can put all the work and risk into this game that they want to, doesn't mean it has to be praised an adored by all.

Especially seeing as though we are talking in the Homecoming thread, you may have to close your eyes lest you read something that greatly upsets you! If you want the world to think like you that's fine, but don't expect it. The world is stranger than you think.


Nothing said about homecoming would upset me in this thread. The games already released so ofcourse there will be Post-play opinions on the game. That's normal.

Now see my assumptions are simply what climax's thought process behind making the game with no combat is. Your assumptions are that the same except for one of us is approaching it with a negative mindset and one of us are approaching it with a positive mindset. Mine is to simply not call out foul at a game that hasn't even being released and yours is to assume less of it for it's combat system before it's even being played by yourself. The phrase "counting your chickens before they hatch" seems to be appropriate in this situation.

Also you can be convinced of 99% or 9001% percent but that's still not a total amount and that's also just your assumption.

Did I ever say that climax is "Retaliating"?

Now before we get to far off track I'll give you the original anchor. You provided a negative opinion on an unreleased game and I jokingly said "Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?" Although that would seem to be smart sense, it was instead somehow taking as an offense to you and inspired you to (as the kids say) freak out. You could have accepted that with a lot more maturity, but instead you to attack me directly with your argument. Is that hard to wrap your head around? Can you not take a joke? Whats so wrong with suggesting not to disregard something until you've confirmed it? Also might I ask, Where are you going with this argument anyway?

_________________
-=Let's Positive thinking=-


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 28 Sep 2009
Notes left: 475
Last seen at: Behind the pipes
*steps in*

Jeebsus! :shock:

You guys know you can leave some of those comments out so you don't stretch the page into oblivion right? :roll:

*steps out*


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19401
Last seen at: #lfk
Are you joking me off? This is still going on?

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 09 Oct 2009
Notes left: 175
awww, I wanted to see some bloodshed.


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Quote:
Now before we get to far off track I'll give you the original anchor. You provided a negative opinion on an unreleased game and I jokingly said "Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?" Although that would seem to be smart sense, it was instead somehow taking as an offense to you and inspired you to (as the kids say) freak out. You could have accepted that with a lot more maturity, but instead you to attack me directly with your argument. Is that hard to wrap your head around? Can you not take a joke? Whats so wrong with suggesting not to disregard something until you've confirmed it? Also might I ask, Where are you going with this argument anyway?


You can sum up anything you say in less than a paragraph if you omit all the clever and smart things you thought you could pull off. This is where I'm going with my argument: Shattered Memories in my opinion is going to suck a dudes dick. Don't like my opinion? Then suck a dudes dick. Can you wrap your mouth around that?

:? freak out


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Aug 2009
Notes left: 427
Last seen at: a land filled with things!
NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Quote:
Now before we get to far off track I'll give you the original anchor. You provided a negative opinion on an unreleased game and I jokingly said "Well it's not very fair to dis it until you've tried it, am I right?" Although that would seem to be smart sense, it was instead somehow taking as an offense to you and inspired you to (as the kids say) freak out. You could have accepted that with a lot more maturity, but instead you to attack me directly with your argument. Is that hard to wrap your head around? Can you not take a joke? Whats so wrong with suggesting not to disregard something until you've confirmed it? Also might I ask, Where are you going with this argument anyway?


You can sum up anything you say in less than a paragraph if you omit all the clever and smart things you thought you could pull off. This is where I'm going with my argument: Shattered Memories in my opinion is going to suck a dudes dick. Don't like my opinion? Then suck a dudes dick. Can you wrap your mouth around that?

:? freak out

*EDIT*

Actually I do have one more thing to say. I didn't realize that my first post was gonna anger you and I didn't intend to anger you in anyway before. I've calmed down and have realized that I was foolish for allowing the argument to go as as far as it has. Next time you have a contrary opinion I will avoid paying attention to it. Basically I'm sorry for causing such a scene and I won't bother you any further.

You may think I'm writing this for one reason or another contrary to my intent. I want to bury the hatchet and be done with it all. What ever else you may think about it is strictly your opinion and I respect the idea that you won't accept this at all.

I was approved to be a member on here when I signed up and I should have shown my gratitude by not becoming a problem for other users on the forum and I apologize if that's the case. That's all I have to say then :) back on topic

_________________
-=Let's Positive thinking=-


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 04 May 2006
Notes left: 236
Last seen at: Boston
dam...this was getting good too....I think to call sh5 a dissapointment would be like calling re4 a dissapointment. The graphics aren't as shitty and the gameplay is different than the originals. Sure the storys weren't very strong imo, but I wouldn't say it was dissapointing, it's still another sh experience and that to me is always a plus :)

_________________
Image
The only thing Columbus discovered was that he was lost!

Xbox-GhastlyGrinner
Ps3- Ghastly_Grinner


Top
   
 

Woodside Apartments Janitor
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jan 2009
Notes left: 1085
Last seen at: Greece
SasaYamaoka wrote:
This is going to solve your long and furious -guts and blood- debate if SH5 is good or bad. :?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyYZUhSeRYc
That just made my day! Thanks man. :wink:


ginjajacob wrote:
In an ideal world I would love a silent hill game with the Siren game engine. (obviously without the sightjack and seperation of chapters). All I am saying is that I would like a new Silent Hill on the PS3/XBOX 360 with the mechanics of Siren, I think reagards of story, Siren has done the best job of bringing the horror gaming genre to the next generation. I know it won't happen, be you can dream.
Amen! :wink:


NothingLikeSleep wrote:
Oh because you've never had opinions on something prior to its release? If you don't like my opinions then don't read them. Grow some balls and attack my actual argument because everyone is guilty of what you are preaching.
Dude, relax. Why start a fight over a simple LOGICAL question?

Damn, now I need to listen to the song again. :P


ginjajacob wrote:
In my opinion the combat wasn't one of the key components that made silent hill 1 scary. In my opinion, it’s settings, sound, atmosphere and most importantly the fact people hadn't played anything too much like it.
Ditto.


TheGhastlyGrinner wrote:
dam...this was getting good too....I think to call sh5 a dissapointment would be like calling re4 a dissapointment.
To me, RE4 was a complete disapointment too. Both SHH and RE4 are good games, but to stray so much from the path of each franchise is something that changes the games' identities. As RE4 feels NOTHING like the old RE games, so does Homecoming.

_________________
Image
Sega is paying close attention. Every vote, every facebook like counts. Keep spreading the word!!


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: