Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 18 Nov 2017




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
Poll ended at 11 May 2012
Yes. 50%  50%  [ 11 ]
No. 36%  36%  [ 8 ]
I don't know. 14%  14%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 22
Author Message

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
KingCrimson wrote:
How would it have made its way into his unconscious mind if he didn't see that figure someplace?


I talked about this when I mentioned how Silent Hill isn't like Ghostbusters. You don't need to have the image of the monster in your subconscious, but rather, only the emotion and feelings needed to call it.

My points are:
"The Pyramid Head outfit was the guise of the executioners" is not "the executioners wore helmets."
"When James visited the town, that figure overlapped with his desire for punishment." is not "James went to the Historical Society."

It's not a fact that the Valtiel sect wore helmets, that James visited the Historical Society, that Misty Day is truly a literal real historical painting, or that a person needs to have the image of the monster in their subconscious in order to manifest it. These are all misconceptions I'm trying to disprove.

Cyrus wrote:
What we are (or were) arguing about is whether the Bogeyman in Silent Hill: Homecoming is Pyramid Head from Silent Hill 2.

Then I guess neither of us can prove anything. However, you said that they have "different names" but I showed you sources in which Bogeyman is labeled as "Pyramid Head" which is why I'm hesitant on separating them. I can't prove the Bogeyman is the same monster from SH2, but I can show you that he shares the name "Pyramid Head".

The entire point of this was to make you less assertive because you initially said "Pyramid Head and the Bogeyman aren't the same entity." as if it were a fact. But as long as you understand the other side and realize that it's not a fact, my job is done and I hope you learned something from this.

The Pyramid Head article is not meant for Pyramid Head solely in SH2, it's meant for everything referred to as "Pyramid Head" and related to Pyramid Head, if that makes sense.

AuraTwilight wrote:
Your posts just come off as pretty antagonistic and defensive when people disagree with you, calm down.


I'm actually a really kind and generous dude in real life, I just sometimes come off as standoffish during debates. I don't like people labeling me as a tyrant and I hate it when people make judgmental statements about me (happens on the wiki, sometimes).

You said "there's a mural in the prison of two Pyramid Heads on the gallows" but look back at the photo on page 2, and you'll see that they're actually triangles. Meaning they could also be red hoods... so point taken.

And I'm being contrarian so that we don't go around stating nonfactual things. If you hear something over and over again, you begin to believe it. I want to unravel people's core misconceptions about the series. Stuff that seems "obvious" to you may not be so obvious to other people, and just because something may seem obvious, it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1626
Cyrus Hanley wrote:
@ Soulless-Shadow: Travis was in the Real World when he rescued Alessa from the Gillespie House.

I forgot why I mentioned that... >_< I think it may have been because someone was saying that the painting in 0rigins wasn't reliable because things can change in the otherworld, but if Travis saw it while in the real world then the painting is reliable and proof of...I don't know...something... *mumble mumble*


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
And I'm being contrarian so that we don't go around stating nonfactual things. If you hear something over and over again, you begin to believe it. I want to unravel people's core misconceptions about the series. Stuff that seems "obvious" to you may not be so obvious to other people, and just because something may seem obvious, it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.


This statement doesn't really excuse much when you've demonstrated a severe lack of research-conducting. Just sayin'.

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


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3219
AuraTwilight wrote:
I can do the same for any of Nanaya's statements.

Thank you, Aura.

And for the record, I didn't post the sources because they had already been referenced and directed to previously in the argument. And also because my post was designed to end my part of that argument, not continue to argue with it.

As I said, I'm done arguing this with Alex. I've been in this argument before and I've concluded it's a fruitless endeavor once someone shows they will argue their opinion despite the evidence. Same reason I am done with the whole Twin Perfect thing. They will refuse to admit when they are wrong and try to twist the evidence in order to cast doubt on it to claim "but it COULD mean something else". That kind of arguing will always lead to a dead end. The only winning move is not to play, etc.

However, to clarify one thing that was misunderstood.
Alex420 wrote:
By the way, Tomm isn't a "developers", he's a "developer" and there's a big difference between "I personally Pyramid Head should have been exclusive" and "Pyramid Head is exclusive". Somehow one man equals "developers" to you.

I was talking about the developers of SH2, not Tomm. And the source for that is the several multiple times they said "Pyramid Head is a manifestation of James" or "Pyramid Head is exclusive to James" or "the image of the executioner overlapped with James sense of guilt", and so on. If you need to see those sourced physically in front of you, Aura has that covered. If you still won't accept that, then whatever.

... now, onto the other confrontation happening here...
JKristine35 wrote:
@Nanaya, Perhaps I should have been more clear. Yes, I understand you said it was a possibility, that's what I've been debating. But the fact is they said "Pyramid Head", not "a creature like Pyramid Head", or "Pyramid Head-like", so it's not a possibility at all unless you add unsaid words to their sentences and assume what they're saying doesn't match what they're thinking. In fact, at least one of those quotes was ridiculously specific about it being the same monster lifted from SH2 and brought to SHH. That's like someone referring to their son as "Greg", only to later reveal his name is actually "Steve", but he looks so much like a completely different kid named "Greg" that his own parents decided to call him that. Considering those quotes came out after the release of SHH, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't call him by his finalized name, unless "Bogeyman" and "Pyramid Head" are the same thing.

All I was doing was suggesting two alternatives to taking those examples given as meaning "it's the same creature as SH2". Those two alternatives were "all the different creatures are called "Pyramid Head", despite being differen things" and "they are calling it Pyramid Head outside of the game because that's the name attributed to the image and they want people to know for sure who they are talking about".

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, which is what you said I did. And neither of these things require them to say things they didn't. I'm saying that this isn't a nail in a coffin like you said and giving two examples of interpreting them differently. I'm not sure why this upsets you so much. If you reread my posts here, including the one you originally responded to saying I put words in their mouth, you'd see that I agree that they probably meant them to be the same creature. But quotes supporting that doesn't end the argument, as they could be taken differently and, my main point, it's irrelevant anyway.

Quote:
To say there's no less than 3 different monsters who all look and act the same in the same series really sounds silly to me. Nurses maybe, because everyone fears illness to some extent, but something as unique as PH? That many people could not have just happened to manifest the exact same thing. Sure, PH was originally intended to be exclusive to James, but that was changed. As much as it may have been a shitty move, he still appears multiple times in one canon timeline to different people, which is concrete evidence that he no longer belongs to just James. Tomm may have regretted putting him in SHH, but nowhere does he say it's not the same PH in the game, just that putting him there was a bad idea (which it was, imo).

Please read the entire conversation happening. As we have said many times, and we have known long before Homecoming came out, Pyramid Head is NOT a unique design in the canon of Silent Hill. It's been confirmed that James based the appearance of the creature on executioners of Silent Hill's past. It's not out of the question that other people, especially people steeped in SH lore like the characters in Homecoming, would manifest a similar looking creature as their own "executioner". It makes a lot more sense to me than saying "Pyramid Head was born from James and exclusive to him in SH2 but somehow later appeared to other people as a slightly different looking form of himself somehow".

That's what this whole argument has been about. No matter what the Homecoming developers intended at the time, it's very possible to take the content of Homcoming in a way that makes the Pyramid Head in Homecoming (and all other canon appearances of a similar creature) a completely different creature than the one in SH2. This would return things back to the original developers intent for the Pyramid Head in SH2, as well as what the current developers think is should be. I still have no idea why some people are opposed to this.


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1684
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
Why do I have to be upset or angry to disagree with you? Am I not allowed to post a disagreement with you unless there's steam coming out of my ears? And how does not agreeing with what people have said previously count as not reading the thread? I posted about it being silly to me that there are multiple manifestations because I've read the retorts and I still think it's silly. I don't even see the point in trying to debate with you, since you keep assuming I'm ignorant of the thread's content and have personal feelings about the matter. :?

ETA: So there's no hard feelings: my apologies if I came off as attacking you. I merely wanted to point out that I just don't see how it's a possibility that they all meant something different than what seems obvious, and that I believed it meant adding words to their statements. It was just a debate, not an argument.


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3219
JKristine35 wrote:
Why do I have to be upset or angry to disagree with you? Am I not allowed to post a disagreement with you unless there's steam coming out of my ears?

I never said you were angry. All I said was I didn't understand why what I said upset you. I didn't mean "fuming with anger" by the word "upset". I just meant that I don't see why you had any kind of negative reaction to what I said. You kept saying that I was putting words in their mouth, twisting what they said, and refusing to listen to you. I don't get it. All I said was that I don't think the quotes provided end the argument. How did I do any of those things and why do you "disagree" with this?

Quote:
And how does not agreeing with what people have said previously count as not reading the thread? I posted about it being silly to me that there are multiple manifestations because I've read the retorts and I still think it's silly. I don't even see the point in trying to debate with you, since you keep assuming I'm ignorant of the thread's content and have personal feelings about the matter. :?

Because to me it honestly didn't seem like you had read everything in the thread. It's not a matter of disagreeing or thinking it's silly that Pyramid Head's image was based on the image of SH's executioners. That's just what happened. You said Pyramid Head was a unique image. It's not. The SH2 devs said that, not me. And it seemed to me that you thought I was trying to say the Homecoming devs intended it to be different, when I said the opposite. I meant no offense by implying you didn't read the entire conversation, but most of the things I was going to say in response were things that were already said several times and I felt like they were ignored to focus on me apparently putting words in peoples mouths. :/

Quote:
ETA: So there's no hard feelings: my apologies if I came off as attacking you. I merely wanted to point out that I just don't see how it's a possibility that they all meant something different than what seems obvious, and that I believed it meant adding words to their statements. It was just a debate, not an argument.

I don't take anything that happens in a debate like this personally. It's something I care about, but it's still just video games. I'm not going to get personal about a disagreement. If I did, then I'd never have any friends ever, because my tastes are not very often in the majority. So, no, there are no hard feelings here. I don't really understand your reaction to what I said, but I'm not going to take it personally. And I hope you feel the same.

I seem to have to say this a lot... :(


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
AuraTwilight wrote:
you've demonstrated a severe lack of research-conducting


I only asked for a link to an interview, and now all of a sudden I don't do my research? Just because I disagree with some statements here, it doesn't mean I don't do my research. It just means I do not believe your "proof" is "proof."

NanayaShiki wrote:
If you need to see those sourced physically in front of you, Aura has that covered. If you still won't accept that, then whatever.


You claim the Valtiel sect wore helmets and that James visited the Historical Society. The sources given were bad sources. They're Book of Lost Memories statements whose points have been exaggerated or taken in an opposite direction.

NanayaShiki wrote:
This would return things back to the original developers intent for the Pyramid Head in SH2, as well as what the current developers think is should be. I still have no idea why some people are opposed to this.


...You just did it again. Tomm Hulett is a current developer, not a current developers. People are opposed because Homecoming's developers have referred to the Bogeyman as Pyramid Head, their names and roles have already become synonymous among fans, and it risks making the series more convoluted.


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3219
Against my better judgement, I'll prove myself a liar and try one more time. Alex does seem to have toned the hostility and authoritative tone, so I'll give another response.

Alex420 wrote:
You claim the Valtiel sect wore helmets and that James visited the Historical Society. The sources given were bad sources. They're Book of Lost Memories statements whose points have been exaggerated or taken in an opposite direction.

And apparently I was the one putting words in other peoples mouths. :roll: I'm pretty sure I never claimed anything about the Valtiel sect. I claimed only what is known, that the ancient executioners wore the same outfit that Pyramid Head wears. You can nitpick that "maybe not the whole outfit", but I'm going by what was said. That it wears that outfit. If they wanted us to take "he wore the outfit plus a bunch of other stuff", I feel they would have said that. I'm not going to argue a "what if" without any basis, which is what you are doing.

There is nothing exaggerated or in the opposite direction about the things in Book of Lost Memories. You are talking your own personal interpretation of what you read as fact and claiming our interpretation is wrong. Again, pointless argument. No side will budge.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they clearly say that James based the appearance of his personal punisher on the ancient executioners. And that Pyramid Head's outfit resembles theirs. There is NOTHING saying that the helmet means it is the same creature James encountered. However, what IS said is that Pyramid Head's appearance is based on a historical figure of punishment. If James could come up with that image by the historical figure overlapping with his own guilt, so can someone else.

There is NOTHING in the games themselves or in the statements by the SH2 developers that makes it impossible for Homecoming Pyramid Head to be a different creature from SH2 Pyramid Head.

Quote:
...You just did it again. Tomm Hulett is a current developer, not a current developers. People are opposed because Homecoming's developers have referred to the Bogeyman as Pyramid Head, their names and roles have already become synonymous among fans, and it risks making the series more convoluted.

Tomm Hulett is the producer of Downpour. Tom Waltz is the writer of Downpour. They make a heavy chunk of the creative force in regards to mythos and canon of Downpour, and qualify as being called "developers". And furthermore, Tomm Hulett is the face of Silent Hill right now. He represents Konami to us when he speaks in interviews. He makes the canon. He is an important part of the series. His opinion matters.

You can't disqualify what these people think by saying "maybe other people involved in the series feel differently". Give me examples of major creative forces in the writing and canon of the series thinking differently than Tomm Hulett and Tom Waltz regarding this and I'll reassess what I said. Until then, I stand by my statement. Current developers of Silent Hill feel that Pyramid Head of SH2 is exclusive to James Sunderland.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
I only asked for a link to an interview, and now all of a sudden I don't do my research? Just because I disagree with some statements here, it doesn't mean I don't do my research. It just means I do not believe your "proof" is "proof."


Well, it's also because it seemed like you had never read Translated Memories in anything like recent memory, since it's an official source of information and answers a lot of your inquiries straight out of the gate.

Quote:
You claim the Valtiel sect wore helmets and that James visited the Historical Society. The sources given were bad sources. They're Book of Lost Memories statements whose points have been exaggerated or taken in an opposite direction.


You just called an official source a bad source, and you think anyone else in this thread is doing poorly at presenting their case and evidence?

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


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
NanayaShiki wrote:
Alex does seem to have toned the hostility and authoritative tone.


Are you kidding me?
What did I say in my previous post that was the least bit hostile?
Seriously, stop trying to make me look like a tyrant. It's not me, it's you who sees me this way. Maybe you're just looking at my Alex Shepherd avatar and vision me talking in a rough, gruff interrogative voice. Maybe I don't need to tone down, maybe you just need to grow a bit of a spine.

NanyaShiki wrote:
I'm pretty sure I never claimed anything about the Valtiel sect. I claimed only what is known, that the ancient executioners wore the same outfit that Pyramid Head wears.


This is you one page ago:
"And yes, the old executioners wore the helmet too." - Nanaya

I give good reasons as to why the Valtiel sect probably never wore helmets: Another Crimson Tome and the photograph tell us that they wore red hoods, not helmets. And wearing helmets is troublesome and unproductive for the purposes of killing people and worshiping an angel.

Whenever I refute you saying "we know that James visited the Historical Society three years ago", you also avoid talking about it.

NanyaShiki wrote:
However, that doesn't change the fact that they clearly say that James based the appearance of his personal punisher on the ancient executioners. And that Pyramid Head's outfit resembles theirs. There is NOTHING saying that the helmet means it is the same creature James encountered. However, what IS said is that Pyramid Head's appearance is based on a historical figure of punishment. If James could come up with that image by the historical figure overlapping with his own guilt, so can someone else.


I agree with this, but I still think there's a distinction between the red hood and the helmet.

AuraTwilight wrote:
You just called an official source a bad source, and you think anyone else in this thread is doing poorly at presenting their case and evidence?


Book of Lost Memories is a great official source, but it didn't prove what you were trying to say, which is why I called it a bad source. I'll quote myself:

"The Pyramid Head outfit was the guise of the executioners" is not "the executioners wore helmets."
"When James visited the town, that figure overlapped with his desire for punishment." is not "James went to the Historical Society."


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3219
Alright, I'm really done with this now. I was correct when I said it was pointless and would just be going in circles.

Alex420 wrote:
Are you kidding me?
What did I say in my previous post that was the least bit hostile?
Seriously, stop trying to make me look like a tyrant. It's not me, it's you who sees me this way. Maybe you're just looking at my Alex Shepherd avatar and vision me talking in a rough, gruff interrogative voice. Maybe I don't need to tone down, maybe you just need to grow a bit of a spine.

Case in point? You are being hostile, and you were being authoritative back when I first replied to you too. You literally said "I am right and you are wrong and if you disagree then deal with it". And I'm not exaggerating. That was what you were saying. And I am not the only person who have pointed this out to you, so it's clearly not me.

Quote:
This is you one page ago:
"And yes, the old executioners wore the helmet too." - Nanaya

I give good reasons as to why the Valtiel sect probably never wore helmets: Another Crimson Tome and the photograph tell us that they wore red hoods, not helmets. And wearing helmets is troublesome and unproductive for the purposes of killing people and worshiping an angel.

Yes, the Valtiel sect wore red hoods. Hell, maybe even some executioners wore red hoods. You are making this too complicated in order to make you sound more correct.

The bottom line is we know that some form of old executioners in the town's history wore the same outfit as Pyramid Head. A helmet is a big part of someone's outfit. It's the centerpiece of this outfit. If they meant "the outfit except for the helmet" then they would have said so. The executioners looked just like Pyramid Head.

And now I am done. Have a fine day, sir.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Book of Lost Memories is a great official source, but it didn't prove what you were trying to say, which is why I called it a bad source. I'll quote myself:

"The Pyramid Head outfit was the guise of the executioners" is not "the executioners wore helmets."
"When James visited the town, that figure overlapped with his desire for punishment." is not "James went to the Historical Society."


Come on, man, it's deductive reasoning. The red pyramid is the most indicative aspect of the outfit; do you really think that line was talking about the damn gloves and apron?

And James visited the Historical Society with Mary three years ago. If the painting exists in the real world (which Origins confirms it does), then he saw it.

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


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
NanayaShiki wrote:
You literally said "I am right and you are wrong and if you disagree then deal with it".


I did not. (denies)

NanayaShiki wrote:
And I am not the only person who have pointed this out to you, so it's clearly not me.


Cyrus and Ryantology never told me to stop being so hostile, and I had an epic debate with Cyrus, yet he never once said "Alex, you're being so hostile and defensive, you need to tone down your attitude." So yes, it clearly is just you and Aura.

In any case, see ya later then.

AuraTwilight wrote:
And James visited the Historical Society with Mary three years ago. If the painting exists in the real world (which Origins confirms it does), then he saw it.


The Origins painting doesn't necessarily confirm anything because we don't know what the true nature of it is. It could just be a simple easter egg. Origins was created like 6 years after SH2 was, so it doesn't reflect original intent.

After Maria's death, the town begins to grow increasingly unnatural. An example of this is the new message in Neely's about James going to hell, and the letter given to James by an unknown person. Misty Day is just another example of this strangeness, as I see it.

And even if the painting is real and has been in the building for an entire 3 years (which I doubt), it doesn't necessarily mean that James had to have seen it in order to manifest Pyramid Head.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
The Origins painting doesn't necessarily confirm anything because we don't know what the true nature of it is. It could just be a simple easter egg. Origins was created like 6 years after SH2 was, so it doesn't reflect original intent.


1) Travis wasn't yet in the Otherworld when he was rescuing Alessa, so we can probably trust what he's seeing

2) You have given NO reason why we should doubt the existence of the painting AT all. Occam's Razor, man.

Quote:
And even if the painting is real and has been in the building for an entire 3 years (which I doubt), it doesn't necessarily mean that James had to have seen it in order to manifest Pyramid Head.


If the painting exists, James has seen it. Many other things in the Historical Society are familiar to him. He knows the town. He's explored it 'all day' with Mary.

And um...have you ever been to museums? Exhibits can hang for many years. Especially in a Historical Society. Not that it means anything because the entire town is reflecting the Silent Hill of Three Years Ago that James and Mary remember, as proven by the very existence of the Lakeside View Hotel.

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


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
Does Travis have to necessarily be in the Otherworld for strange stuff to occur? I don't think so.
Even if the painting exists, I don't know why we should treat it as historical, and not as an easter egg or a psychological mindtrick.
Anyhow...

AuraTwilight wrote:
Many other things in the Historical Society are familiar to him.

Such as...

AuraTwilight wrote:
He's explored it 'all day' with Mary.

I thought he spent the entire day "staring at the water."

AuraTwilight wrote:
The entire town is reflecting the Silent Hill of Three Years Ago that James and Mary remember.

When James and Mary visited the town, it was foggy, covered with tons of monsters, was completely desolate, had blood drawn on walls, corpses lying about the streets, all the stores were abandoned, and the street lights were malfunctioning?

I wouldn't say it's the entire town, just the Lakeview Hotel (which we later learn was another huge illusion.)

AuraTwilight wrote:
as proven by the very existence of the Lakeside View Hotel.

You mean the Lakeview Hotel.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Does Travis have to necessarily be in the Otherworld for strange stuff to occur? I don't think so.


It's a good point against it. If you're going to posit that it's some supernatural shenigans just to show off a painting that has no relevance to Travis, the burden of proof is on you. You're expecting other people to prove a negative.

Quote:
When James and Mary visited the town, it was foggy, covered with tons of monsters, was completely desolate, had blood drawn on walls, corpses lying about the streets, all the stores were abandoned, and the street lights were malfunctioning?


And you say you're not being antagonistic in your argument.

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


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
AuraTwilight wrote:
supernatural shenigans


You mean shenanigans.

And I don't think it's a good point at all. Silent Hill is a supernatural series.
Weird stuff can still happen in the real world, such as the subway ghost and the mannequin room in SH3. There's also the entire mall level of SH3 (prior to Heather's elevator descent).

AuraTwilight wrote:
And you say you're not being antagonistic in your argument.


So listing examples to help support and strengthen my argument is "antagonistic" now? Don't be so insecure, I'm just trying to prove my point.
I was just showing you how absurd it is to think that the "entire" town is reflecting their vacation days. You just seem a little rusty when it comes to Silent Hill.

Anyway, I feel like this topic went off on a complete tangent. :roll:


Top
   
 

Moderator
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 11052
Last seen at: In the anals of forum history
Alex420 wrote:
And I don't think it's a good point at all. Silent Hill is a supernatural series.
Weird stuff can still happen in the real world, such as the subway ghost and the mannequin room in SH3. There's also the entire mall level of SH3 (prior to Heather's elevator descent).


His point is that just because supernatural things are possible does not mean you can explain everything that way. There has to be supporting evidence which is relevant to the subject in a specific way. Is the painting real? It is in a place with other paintings. It has an actual title and represents a real event. All of the obvious evidence suggests it probably is real. If you're going to say it's not, you're going to have to come up with more than 'supernatural things are possible'. That is a cop-out and it explains absolutely nothing.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
So listing examples to help support and strengthen my argument is "antagonistic" now? Don't be so insecure, I'm just trying to prove my point.
I was just showing you how absurd it is to think that the "entire" town is reflecting their vacation days. You just seem a little rusty when it comes to Silent Hill.


No, you're being antagonistic. You're deliberately misrepresenting a point to make it look stupid, and then calling me "rusty" on my knowledge in order to discredit my argument. You've been doing this with several other people, insinuating and implying that they're ignorant, making things up, using bad sources, or generally are getting too emotionally involved in the thread.

And for the record, the entire town of Silent Hill 2, monsters and fog aside, is clearly evocative of James' nostalgia. Not just the Hotel, but several rooms in several buildings are made to seem old or untouched since his last visit, and the entire Baldwin Mansion is essentially a museum to Ernest's happier days with Amy. If one didn't no better, you would think everyone in town died the second Mary and James concluded their visit.

Quote:
All of the obvious evidence suggests it probably is real. If you're going to say it's not, you're going to have to come up with more than 'supernatural things are possible'. That is a cop-out and it explains absolutely nothing.


to add on to this reply, the supernatural phenomena of Silent Hill has RULES. For the most part, we understand how it works. We can predict it's behavior, and we can reason out why different supernatural events are happening. They have a cause and an effect. And most importantly, they PRIMARILY exist in a plane of existence removed from the real world.

You're proposing that some painting is fabricated out of nothing and exists in the real world because ___, and this painting represents a monster that James apparently made up entirely by himself and based this painting on it, but Origins takes place atleast ten years before SH2, so I guess James' imaginary Pyramid Head painting...went back in TIME and...uh...lol supernatural things are possible.

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


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
Ryantology wrote:
Is the painting real? It is in a place with other paintings. It has an actual title and represents a real event.

So we're talking about Misty Day now?
No, Misty Day in a place with other photographs. It's a macabre painting among average looking real-life photos which to me is very out-of-place. But at least you understand that it "represents" an event and that it's not necessarily 100% accurate.

Ryantology wrote:
If you're going to say it's not, you're going to have to come up with more than 'supernatural things are possible'.


Whether or not the painting is real is less of the matter, but what's more important is whether or not it's historical. If you have differing opinions, fine, but all I'm saying is that you shouldn't use it as a set-in-stone example.

AuraTwilight wrote:
You're deliberately misrepresenting a point to make it look stupid

Because frankly, no offense, I really think it is stupid.
And I still don't get it. You said "several buildings are made to seem old or untouched since his last visit." but I disagree. Care to provide some examples?

AuraTwilight wrote:
We can predict it's behavior.


Image

You mean "its", and no, we really can't.
Silent Hill's supernatural side is extremely unpredictable.
For the most part, Silent Hill does whatever the heck it wants and doesn't like abiding to rules.

AuraTwilight wrote:
You're proposing that some painting is fabricated out of nothing and exists in the real world.


I'm proposing it's either an unreliable painting or an easter egg to SH2.
The painting was never actually supposed to be this noticeable, but when I captured it via emulator for the site, I increased the contrast dramatically making it extremely noticeable. This is how noticeable it's actually supposed to be in-game:

http://i39.tinypic.com/rwosrc.png

Combine that with the PSP's original small resolution and wham: all you get is an vague outline. Origins' developers intended it to be very obscured painting.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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: