To simplify what mikefile is saying. If you call a game Silent Hill: Origins, then it has to be about the origins of Silent Hill, not the origins of some random trucker who goes to Silent Hill.

If I were to write a story called Predator: Origins, you're going to expect it to be about the origins of the titular predator, not the origins of Jesse Ventura.

I am suggesting it to be changed to focus on Travis' Origins, which means it won't be a "prequel" to Silent Hill 1. Silent Hill 1 doesn't need a prequel, which is why I suggested to take away the Order crap and focus on Travis, possibly placing it a few years ahead of 1 to avoid any potential problems.

Just because it has "Silent Hill: Origins" doesn't mean it needs to focus on Silent Hill's origins. As your "points" said, it'd be a focus on his Origins, just like any other characters story.

That is what my original suggestion was about: showing the origins of Travis instead of when Alessa made Cheryl. Does that make sense or am I going to have to make a diagram?

~Drake

Everyone understands the point that you're making, and I agree that Origins probably would have been a better game if it did away with the cult stuff and just focussed on Travis's story.

Whilst that probably would have been a better game, it would no longer make sense for it to be called Silent Hill: Origins, the connotations of such a title are obvious, and anybody buying a game entitled Silent Hill: Origins is going to be expecting the origin story behind Silent Hill, not behind a random character who they've never heard of before the release of the game.

But Silent Hill: The Room doesn't deal with a room in Silent Hill. Silent Hill: Homecoming doesn't deal with a return home to a family in Silent Hill.

Names Don't Fucking Work That Way.



These are the same people who bitch that Shattered Memories isn't a perfect remake of SH1 and bitch about the lack of combat not because it makes the game unfun but because they didn't know they weren't getting weapons, despite it being a feature advertised on the box.

FUCK those people.

Yes, it doesn't need neccessarily to focus on the origins of another game. However, it also can't be related to Travis' origins. Why? It's the way it is. In SH developers always make freakin' psychological and philosophical complex titles.


Amen to that.


Er, not really. Origins only worked that way because (as we exploited the fact to death) it's a prequel to SH1. And because:

I completely agree. I can't believe that there are still people thinking that The Room title means "OMGWTF*FUCKING*MONSTERS*IN**SCARYROOM*HOLYMOTHERFUCKER!!". Or that Homecoming means... coming home, yawn... Amen to that, too.

Except that The Room does deal with a room which is directly influenced by powers stemming from Silent Hill (or at least from Walter, who's fucked-upness was derived from Silent Hill), and Homecoming does in fact involve the main character coming home, to find his own hometown infected by the power of Silent Hill. Regardless, neither of these titles carries such a conventional meaning as Origins.

Without the Alessa story, the game should not, and would not have been called Origins.




I'm referring to the connotations of the title, not people who don't research games before they buy them.

The room itself as it is does not really give any importance to the story. Usually, the titles given to SH engirdle the unit of the plot. I mean, the title has to point out the thing that somehow keeps the story evolving. The Room is referred in fact to the main incentive that gives Walter the strenght and reason to kill people: the Holy Mother/ mom.

Alhough Alex is coming back to his hometown, the title doesn't have nothing to do with it. Homecoming refers to the main event that influenced the cruel happenings that are in fact the reason that infected the town: The 150th anniversary of the Shepherd's Glenn foundation- important to the cult's history. Homecoming may also refer to Alex coming to terms with reality, a long awake after a good sleep in the

To deny the obvious meanings of a title, regardless of whether or not it has multiple meanings, is absurd. Yes, The Room does indeed refer to Walter's, um, raison d'etre if you like, but it clearly also refers to a physical room, just as Homecoming can refer to a number of concepts within the game, but also refers to Alex literally coming home.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. The point that I was making is that Origins, like titles such as "Revenge" or "Return" has certain connotations within storytelling that ought to be fulfilled within a story under those titles. Ergo, calling a game Silent Hill: Origins, and it not being about some key part of the origins of the series, is dumb.

Copout. 1) That's not true, and 2) it's tantamount to "X is true because of X."



*facepalm*

But they're not the defining end-all/be-all of the entirety of the plot, like with the whole Origins issue. Can you atleast attempt to read between the lines.



It's ultimately the same thing in this specific regard.



I'll remember that next time people bitch and moan that Silent Hill is supposed to defy expectations and break rules in order to be groundbreaking or whatever the fuck.

Unpleasable Fanbase.

Nor did I at any point say that they were. I am intimately aware of the complexities of all of the Silent Hill games, from multitudinous play throughs of each game, taking notes, and of course two years of discussion on this here forum. Don't be a dick. My point has nothing to do with whether or not every title in the series must directly describe some mundane aspect of the game without having any deeper meaning.

I understand that the title Origins can certainly refer both to those of Alessa, and as such the twisting of the spiritual power that inhabits the land of Silent Hill, and also of Travis. However, without the cult aspect of that, NOBODY WOULD HAVE CALLED THE GAME SILENT HILL: ORIGINS

Can you see the pitch?

A)Hey, Konami, So we're thinking of making a game called Silent Hill: Origins.

B)Oh cool, so it's gonna be about how it all began, you know, some kind of explanation about the strange power that the town seems to exert over those with darkness in their hearts, a reason for this world of nightmarish delusions come to life?

A)What? No, it's about a trucker with issues.

B)So why exactly are you calling it Origins?

A)Because it's about the origins of the trucker dude.

B)So, an origin story of some guy that nobody has ever heard of? Get out of my office.





No it isn't.




That's hilarious, you go Silent Hill, break those rules, defy those expectations, by having a poorly chosen title, that'll shake those fuckers up, we've got a poorly chosen title that's going to fuck up all the bigwigs at city hall!

Says you. I have three words to refute that: Liberal Arts Douchebags.

"Pfft, the Origins subtitle is ironic, dude."



You act like Konami gives that much of a shit considering how much of a trainwreck the development of Origins was.



Yes, it is. It'd be as simple as reading the back of the gamebox, like with Shattered Memories.



Cry more.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would try to argue against this. It's just common sense.

Why?
SH3 was Claudia's story more than Heather's, and SH4 was Walter's story more than Henry's. I don't see why SH:O can't be more Travis' than Alessa's.


Note: Origins is my least favorite game of SH. I'm just playing devil's advocate because.

Common sense can be wrong. Infact, Silent Hill has been known to do bait-and-switch promotions anyway, so why the fuck not make people think it's about the origins of the town and deliver a different story?

Yeah... seems to have worked out pretty well for em.

Because that would be a really dumb bait-and-switch, one that would only disappoint the fans. It would be supreme trolling.

I could see why they might feel the need to do so, though.

It was the first time development of the series wasn't done in-house at Konami, and they (climax or konami) likely felt they needed some sort of hook to get people to buy it. I'm not saying that's the best or right way of approaching something like that, but I can see marketing say it's a good idea.

It's a bit stretched, don't you think?I was just trying to say that SH titles most of the time don't indicate the obvious thing.
I really don't see the need for it- the issue is about such a simple thing. This isn't a mundane discovery.
It's really official that Silent Hill: Origins is about SH1's origins. Moreover, you've given no proof about why to "bait-and-switch" fans.
This is really just a simple fact. I mean, WTF?

Travis is a PAWN. Period.

These tiresome arguments have really reached the top of the unneccessary. So.. I vote for common sense.

I don't know, Silent Hill 3 pulled it off pretty fantastically.



You say that as if supreme trolling isn't a worthy goal in of itself.



So why can't Origins do the same thing and refer to something besides what you would obviously assume? You're contradicting yourself.



It's like you're entirely incapable of imagining what-if scenarios. It's only like that because that's how things happened in reality. If hypothetically Origins was developed without the Alessa story in mind, the above "simple fact" wouldn't be a fact. Are you dyslexic or something? I've been saying this for days now.



This won't be true if you take out the Alessa story. Goddamn, I bet you hated Shattered Memories because it wasn't a perfect 1-for-1 remake of the first game. This is basically where your logic is leading you.

Not at all! It's just brand recognition.

Have something familiar for long-term audience, but have it new enough that it is accessible to new consumers.