Which do you honestly prefer?

[Brionf]

As a storytelling device, the nightmares are actually kind of freaking ingenious, in my opinion, if you think about them in the context of their meaning in the "real world" of the game (the therapy session). I think its unfair to call them one-note.

I think you misunderstood me. It's cool that they relate to the story... but I meant that nightmares are one-note in terms of *game mechanics,* not story. That there was only 1 monster used ad-nasuem, that they all had identical art design, that they all consisted of one gameplay element which was repetitively forced upon you. That's one-note. I feel that's lazy game design, especially opposed to SH1.

He probably thought about Cronenberg, so I'm sure he'd take your suggestion and politely disagree. He wanted to think Hitchcock and he thought Hitchcock. In any case, why do we just want more experiences like SH2? We've been there with this series. If you want to go back, go back and play them. SH:SM wanted to show us something else.

I want something new too, I just want it to be scary. SH1 was an effective horror game for it's time, but I'm glad they took a bold new direction. I just wish they had put more thought into that direction. Also, using Hitchcock as inspiration is a good idea, but does it really lend itself to a game with monsters? If they really wanted to take that route, perhaps it would've been better to just not call it a Silent Hill game and just remove the monsters. Let's be honest, lots of people feel like the nightmares are an annoyance, even people who like the game.

The fact that I waved the remote to point my flashlight, the fact that I had to hold the remote to my ear to hear calls, the fact that I had to throw the monsters off with my arms, the fact that I had to zoom in to read things off of the environment instead of off of a separate, static screen, all worked together to create a seamless experience that pulled me right into the game's world.

So in other words, the fact that you mimic the actions on screen make you feel like you're part of the game world. Okay. I get where you're coming from, I think that's cool too... it's a bit gimmicky, but cool. Some things worked better than others, like the flashlight and cellphone. Still, is that the sole reason that SM "immersed" you? Would that mean you find most Wii games immersive, and have never experienced that before the Wii? Seems like there's got to be more to it than that...

Also, isn't that immersive because it's an element of realism, mimicking the actions on screen as if you were there?

And I just disagree that there wasn't much to do in the exploration sequences. There weren't items to collect or points to accumulate or monsters to kill, but there was plenty to do, especially if atmosphere is as important to you as you say it is.

Atmosphere is important, but it's not something to do... it's a backdrop. There has to be a game in the foreground to compliment. In exploration, there is lots to see, but very little to *do.*

LOL, if we're going to be comparing dialogue here, then SH:SM really has no contender whatsoever. The dialogue in the past SH games has been almost atrocious in comparison (although SHH's dialogue was alright at times).

I don't particularly agree. I cringed at some parts of SM, like the scene with the couple arguing in the car, more than I ever remember cringing at any other SM. The characters were pretty bland, except Dahlia. Not saying the others are works of genius either, but there's a language barrier so they at least have an excuse. I hold American written games to a higher standard. SM's dialogue felt more natural for an American speaker, but it also seemed to bring a lot of the cliches of American writing, whereas the Japanese SH's had just plain weird dialogue at times.

However, SM has a lot of plot and story depth, I grant you that.

Again, you're assuming immersion is a response to my fondness for the story. In this case, it was the other way around--it immersed me first.

Okay, so you believe that story and realism are not elements that immerse you. Understood. That narrows it down.

Well, it bothers you because that's not what I was saying. You assumed a whole lot to get to that conclusion, and it was pretty much wrong.

Don't be offended, think of it as more of a hypothesis than an assumption. My hypothesis was that you like the game, and because you like it you allow yourself to be immersed, therefore you consider it "immersive." I was guessing that it was the story or realism that contributed to this.

So you say this is wrong. Great! The reason I'm hypothesizing is because I'm really curious about the answer... if I am wrong, I would love to be corrected. So if you don't mind, could you explain a bit more about what in particular makes the game "immersive," besides just the wii-mote interaction?

Was it *only* the wii-mote that made the game immersive? If there is another element that makes the game immersive, what do you think it is? Or are you not sure, is it something you just feel? Hope I don't come off as too demanding, but I am very interested in this topic, about what makes a game "immersive," and this is an excellent chance to talk about it.

[pj]

As a storytelling device, the nightmares are actually kind of freaking ingenious, in my opinion, if you think about them in the context of their meaning in the "real world" of the game (the therapy session). I think its unfair to call them one-note.

I think you misunderstood me. It's cool that they relate to the story... but I meant that nightmares are one-note in terms of *game mechanics,* not story. That there was only 1 monster used ad-nasuem, that they all had identical art design, that they all consisted of one gameplay element which was repetitively forced upon you. That's one-note. I feel that's lazy game design, especially opposed to SH1.

And I felt like it was unique and refreshing game design. I've played enough games where I wander around bashing monsters with a stick. I've only played one game where I had to run for me life through frozen hellish landscapes from sentient creatures that pursued me relentlessly through rooms, over walls, and under things.

Maybe it just isn't a gameplay mechanic that appeals to you. But it sure as hell isn't "one-note," at least not anymore than the previous SH games were.

He probably thought about Cronenberg, so I'm sure he'd take your suggestion and politely disagree. He wanted to think Hitchcock and he thought Hitchcock. In any case, why do we just want more experiences like SH2? We've been there with this series. If you want to go back, go back and play them. SH:SM wanted to show us something else.

I want something new too, I just want it to be scary. SH1 was an effective horror game for it's time, but I'm glad they took a bold new direction. I just wish they had put more thought into that direction. Also, using Hitchcock as inspiration is a good idea, but does it really lend itself to a game with monsters? If they really wanted to take that route, perhaps it would've been better to just not call it a Silent Hill game and just remove the monsters. Let's be honest, lots of people feel like the nightmares are an annoyance, even people who like the game.

Look, bud. I've said this to you in, like, fifty posts so far. I'll say it again.

They. Put. Thought. In. To. This. Direction.

Its just not a direction YOU want or like. That doesn't mean there's not any thought or effort or that its not effective, it just means its not something YOU agree with.

Which officially makes you no longer a part of its target audience.

I don't find any appeal whatsoever in ads for pantyhose or sports commentary talk shows. But that doesn't mean thought and effort didn't go into creating those ads, it just means I'm not part of the target audience.

Such is the case here, with you and this game. You keep presenting what you wanted out of it as if that's an objective reason for why the game is or is not successful. And its not.

Honestly I don't know what to even make of your comment about Hitchcock and monsters, but considering that the monsters turn out to not even be monsters at all, yes, I think a Hitchcock inspiration lent itself fantastically to this game.

And again, I'm not sure why the fact that some people didn't like the nightmare scenes determines anything. Lots of people enjoyed them, myself included. Lots of people think Citizen Kane is boring. Lots of people hate sushi. These things are opinions.

The fact that I waved the remote to point my flashlight, the fact that I had to hold the remote to my ear to hear calls, the fact that I had to throw the monsters off with my arms, the fact that I had to zoom in to read things off of the environment instead of off of a separate, static screen, all worked together to create a seamless experience that pulled me right into the game's world.

So in other words, the fact that you mimic the actions on screen make you feel like you're part of the game world. Okay. I get where you're coming from, I think that's cool too... it's a bit gimmicky, but cool.

The thing is, you really don't get where I'm coming from, evidently. Its not just that you mimic the motions. Also, I fail to see how its "gimmicky," which, by the way, is as much as buzz-word right now in the wider world as "immersion" is in the video game world.

The reason its effective and immersive--and simultaneously, the reason its not a gimmick--is because the controls are natural.

Some things worked better than others, like the flashlight and cellphone. Still, is that the sole reason that SM "immersed" you? Would that mean you find most Wii games immersive, and have never experienced that before the Wii? Seems like there's got to be more to it than that...

Most wii game's controls aren't natural, at least the ones I played. SH:SM's controls fit seamlessly into the game's atmosphere, story, and motifs. It was a perfect, natural fit. That's the difference.

And I just disagree that there wasn't much to do in the exploration sequences. There weren't items to collect or points to accumulate or monsters to kill, but there was plenty to do, especially if atmosphere is as important to you as you say it is.

Atmosphere is important, but it's not something to do... it's a backdrop. There has to be a game in the foreground to compliment. In exploration, there is lots to see, but very little to *do.*

Again: that depends on what you're looking to *do.* In the case of this game, the atmosphere is not a backdrop, because the details in the game's atmosphere hold most of the clues you need to piece together the narrative.

I found plenty to *do* because the environments were so detailed that on my first play through I found myself literally scouring every room from corner to corner, zoomed in. I wasn't collecting points or items, but I was deciphering each environment. Then I played through the game a second time doing the same damn thing because now that I knew what was actually going on, each environment had completely new meaning.

So, again: you didn't find anything to do because you were looking for something else that wasn't here. I found plenty to do because I was looking for meaning in each of the environments, which is clearly their entire raison d'etre, considering this game's production value and attention to detail.

LOL, if we're going to be comparing dialogue here, then SH:SM really has no contender whatsoever. The dialogue in the past SH games has been almost atrocious in comparison (although SHH's dialogue was alright at times).

I don't particularly agree. I cringed at some parts of SM, like the scene with the couple arguing in the car, more than I ever remember cringing at any other SM. The characters were pretty bland, except Dahlia. Not saying the others are works of genius either, but there's a language barrier so they at least have an excuse. I hold American written games to a higher standard. SM's dialogue felt more natural for an American speaker, but it also seemed to bring a lot of the cliches of American writing, whereas the Japanese SH's had just plain weird dialogue at times.

However, SM has a lot of plot and story depth, I grant you that.

....if you're really trying to say that the previous SH titles had better dialogue than SH:SM, then I'm honestly just not interested in furthering this part of the discussion. I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk, but the dialogue in the past SH games was just plain bad. It wasn't "weird," it just plain wasn't natural.

Again, you're assuming immersion is a response to my fondness for the story. In this case, it was the other way around--it immersed me first.

Okay, so you believe that story and realism are not elements that immerse you. Understood. That narrows it down.

I'm not sure how you don't understand this, but there isn't, like, a secret formula to immersion. Or quality. Or scariness. Different things pull these things off in different ways. There's no "narrowing it down," because SH:SM did it in a way that's completely unique to itself.

Its like anything else in the creative process, a collection of elements that comes together and adds up to more than the sum of its parts. If you keep trying to dissect it like you're trying to do, you're going to find yourself continuously disappointed.

Well, it bothers you because that's not what I was saying. You assumed a whole lot to get to that conclusion, and it was pretty much wrong.

Don't be offended, think of it as more of a hypothesis than an assumption. My hypothesis was that you like the game, and because you like it you allow yourself to be immersed, therefore you consider it "immersive." I was guessing that it was the story or realism that contributed to this.

I'm not offended, but, dude, this is entertainment. There's no "hypothesizing" here, its not freaking science. If you try to narrow down the reasons why anything creative is successful in a scientific manner, you're never going to get anywhere. That's the exact kind of thinking that leads to derivative BS like the Disney animated films of the late 90's and early 2000's, or to SH:0 and SH:H.

So you say this is wrong. Great! The reason I'm hypothesizing is because I'm really curious about the answer... if I am wrong, I would love to be corrected. So if you don't mind, could you explain a bit more about what in particular makes the game "immersive," besides just the wii-mote interaction?

Well, for one, no, I can't give you an answer that you're looking for. Because this isn't science. Its not like Climax mixed one part wii-mote mechanics to two-parts atmosphere and three parts story and concocted a great immersive experience. It works because all of the elements were carefully calibrated to specifically serve this one particular story. Its not because of "wii-mote interaction," and the more we talk the more I grow convinced that you're approaching this in entirely the wrongest way possible.

Was it *only* the wii-mote that made the game immersive? If there is another element that makes the game immersive, what do you think it is? Or are you not sure, is it something you just feel? Hope I don't come off as too demanding, but I am very interested in this topic, about what makes a game "immersive," and this is an excellent chance to talk about it.

Dude. There isn't some sort of secret thing that automatically makes a game immersive. If there was, every single game ever would utilize it, considering that immersion is one of the key parts to any interactive experience.

It changes for every single game, story, movie, album, or book, because every single creative thing in existence is trying to say something different and unique from a different and unique point of view. So the creators always have to go back to the core and think about what they're trying to say, and think about what the best way to say it is, before they can make it immersive.

Its clear to me that Climax was smart enough to realize this with SH:SM, and its clear to me that a lot of careful, deliberate thought went into the planning and design of their game in order to achieve the exact things they were trying to achieve. But that doesn't mean the things they did here would work outside of this game.

This is a fact of the creative process. If you don't accept that, nothing I say can help you. And considering how scientifically you're trying to approach this stuff, something tells me its just something you don't get.

And for the record--and I brought this up in my previous post, but you kind of ignored it and just ran with the wii-mote bits--I think the fact that I had to zoom in to read things off of the environment was the single smartest, most immersive design choice of this game. And if we're going to talk about the wii-mote at all, the fact that I had to hold it to my ear to hear the phone calls was infinitely more important than any of the other "wave" motions I had to do with it.

[Brionf]

And I felt like it was unique and refreshing game design. I've played enough games where I wander around bashing monsters with a stick. I've only played one game where I had to run for me life through frozen hellish landscapes from sentient creatures that pursued me relentlessly through rooms, over walls, and under things.

Well, it is kind of unique. I was looking forward to it too, and I think it could have really worked for me if there was more variety to that expeirence.

Its just not a direction YOU want or like. That doesn't mean there's not any thought or effort or that its not effective, it just means its not something YOU agree with.

You're 100% right. Saying "I wish they had put more thought into it" is a bad choice of words on my part.

The reason its effective and immersive--and simultaneously, the reason its not a gimmick--is because the controls are natural.

What do you mean by "natural?" Isn't that just another way of saying "realistic"?

Its like anything else in the creative process, a collection of elements that comes together and adds up to more than the sum of its parts. If you keep trying to dissect it like you're trying to do, you're going to find yourself continuously disappointed.

Not at all. I've given it some thought, and I think I have a pretty good understanding about what makes a game immersive, for me. It's a combination of a couple of things: realism, in order to make you feel like you are really "there;" An interest in the world, so that you will want to immerse yourself in it. These are things that probably help you feel like you're a part of the game world. Then again, depending upon how you use the word "immersion," I suppose you could just mean that you're totally focused on a game. In which case, being immersed simply means you are taking a game seriously. I guess it all depends on how you use the word... such a bothersome word.

But anyway, I'm not trying to scientifically define what is immersive... I'm just trying to analyze my own feelings and understand them. I find the original SH1 more immersive than SM, and I want to be able to understand and communicate why. Don't you think that's important? I'd also like to understand why *you* feel the opposite of how I do, that was the point of my questions.

We should probably stop talking about this now because it's not really what the thread is about.. also I wont have a lot of time to post this week so I'll be bowing out of this thread. I'm thinking about posting a thread next week about what makes a game immersive, and I think it'd be great if you could participate and we could discuss this further.

[pj]

The reason its effective and immersive--and simultaneously, the reason its not a gimmick--is because the controls are natural.

What do you mean by "natural?" Isn't that just another way of saying "realistic"?

No, not really.

Its like anything else in the creative process, a collection of elements that comes together and adds up to more than the sum of its parts. If you keep trying to dissect it like you're trying to do, you're going to find yourself continuously disappointed.

Not at all. I've given it some thought, and I think I have a pretty good understanding about what makes a game immersive, for me. It's a combination of a couple of things: realism, in order to make you feel like you are really "there;" An interest in the world, so that you will want to immerse yourself in it. These are things that probably help you feel like you're a part of the game world. Then again, depending upon how you use the word "immersion," I suppose you could just mean that you're totally focused on a game. In which case, being immersed simply means you are taking a game seriously. I guess it all depends on how you use the word... such a bothersome word.

But anyway, I'm not trying to scientifically define what is immersive... I'm just trying to analyze my own feelings and understand them. I find the original SH1 more immersive than SM, and I want to be able to understand and communicate why. Don't you think that's important? I'd also like to understand why *you* feel the opposite of how I do, that was the point of my questions.

We should probably stop talking about this now because it's not really what the thread is about.. also I wont have a lot of time to post this week so I'll be bowing out of this thread. I'm thinking about posting a thread next week about what makes a game immersive, and I think it'd be great if you could participate and we could discuss this further.

Haha, shouldn't be a surprise after the rambling discussion we just had, but I'd love to participate.

[ww_andi]

this discussion has become far too massive for me to keep up

what is going on

[Dogg Thang]

Basically Brionf doesn't like Shattered Memories.

[cascade88]

this discussion has become far too massive for me to keep up

what is going on

Just far more elaborative discussion about which Silent Hill people preffered better and why.

Basically Brionf doesn't like Shattered Memories.

Well, from what I gathered, Brionf doesn't think it was as affectively scary as the other Silent Hill games, and he explained why he doesn't think so.

[Touch Coma]

The original was truly great, but it didn't hit me emotionally like SM did. I think thats all it had over the original other than visual capabilities.

[Escapist]

Shattered Memories lacks of the kind of scaries people are used to.

Did the Raw Shocks scare me? No. Did the Nightmare quests scare me? No. Did the little black shadows scare me? No.

I'm a guy who people would say has a normal life: I had loving and caring fathers, good relationships in my teenager days, etc. So, after learning the end of the plot and think a while about it, I honestly couldn't be more scared in my life.

[ww_andi]

lol the raws scared me the black shadows scared my wife

we are all different in what scares us


now if you wern't scared at all

i am going to assume you played it in a very well light room

or have balls of steel

[cascade88]

Shattered Memories lacks of the kind of scaries people are used to.

Did the Raw Shocks scare me? No. Did the Nightmare quests scare me? No. Did the little black shadows scare me? No.

I'm a guy who people would say has a normal life: I had loving and caring fathers, good relationships in my teenager days, etc. So, after learning the end of the plot and think a while about it, I honestly couldn't be more scared in my life.

At first, the Raw Shocks kind of scared me. It was more of a surprise, or startled scare. I said it in a different thread, but, the thing was, I glanced up toward the ceiling in one of the chases, and saw one of them above me, on piping(?) or something. I hadn't expected them to be above me, and I had a jolt of panic that I hadn't expected hit me. The same goes when I noticed they way they could slink down ledges in front of me, it kind of creeped out for sure. However, by my third and forth playthroughs, it was, dare I say, getting old?

Now, as for the other part, the ending didn't "scare me". It made me feel emotional, almost painful inside--it made me cry--but it didn't really scare me the way, say, seeing Pyramid Head (or the Locaine Twins >.>) did. Maybe part of it comes from the fact that my own father is already dead; he died when I was seventeen--in an automobile accident, actually. Maybe for some reason, that made my reaction be one of grief over the thought of what happened to Cheryl, rather than a fear of "My God, what if I'd lost/lose my dad suddenly?" I already did. Not at such a tragically young age as Cheryl, but fairly young no less.

Of course, no matter what kind of game, personal aspects (such as my own, in this example) will play a factor in what scares you more, generally speaking. That's why, after a few playthroughs, I have to say that if I, myself, want a scarier time, I'd have to go with the original game. Again, that's just me. Who knows? Maybe SHSM hit a little close for comfort, and so in the end, I'd rather be more detatched, playing through a game with cults and demons, which aren't real, while some of the elements of Shattered Memories are.

[Dogg Thang]

Shattered Memories lacks of the kind of scaries people are used to.

Did the Raw Shocks scare me? No. Did the Nightmare quests scare me? No. Did the little black shadows scare me? No.

I'm a guy who people would say has a normal life: I had loving and caring fathers, good relationships in my teenager days, etc. So, after learning the end of the plot and think a while about it, I honestly couldn't be more scared in my life.

I totally agree with this. The whole cults/demons/gyromancy stuff just seems a little funny to me. The simple losing of your father in a car crash thing, and how well it unfolded, resonates far more with me. It stayed with me long after I first finished, just as SH2 did - SH2 was in my head for months after I stopped playing.

But the story of SH1 did not.

That said, I'm replaying SH1 now (just got to Nowhere) and, man, the atmosphere of that game is superb. I'm not sure it's ever been rivalled. What it does beautifully is in building the oppression. On the streets of Silent Hill after coming through the Green Lion, it's almost unbearable. It's like somebody is just beating me over the head.

And that's why I voted SH1 initially and why I still stick with it. When actually playing it, that game just creeps me out.

Though the school outstayed its welcome...

[Jack Frober]

So in the end; Can we just agree that it's pretty pointless to compare these fucking games so much? SM is not a remake and makes all these discussions moot.

[Lord Summerisle]

I have to vote the first Silent Hill myself, the first game had such a well written storyline, strong atmosphere, great cast of characters, a memorable soundtrack, and a near-perfect mix of action, adventure and challenging puzzles for the gameplay.

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories is a great game, don't get me wrong, but I personally just wasn't as compelled and riveted with the story and gameplay with it quite as much as I was with Silent Hill 1.

[cascade88]

So in the end; Can we just agree that it's pretty pointless to compare these fucking games so much? SM is not a remake and makes all these discussions moot.

Well my point with this thread wasn't to exactly compare, just to say which one everyone likes better, for whatever the reason. How does differing opinions make a discussion moot?

[pj]

^Yeah, its actually been a pretty good discussion, IMO

[Jack Frober]

How does differing opinions make a discussion moot?

Cause it's apples and oranges. Not green apples and red apples.

[cascade88]

How does differing opinions make a discussion moot?

Cause it's apples and oranges. Not green apples and red apples.

So... that means you can't discuss why you liked one better than the other? That's like saying I can't discuss why I like, well, oranges more than I care for apples.

[Catch22]

We must all think alike. We must be hivemind.

Join us. Together we will love the apples.

[NeoAquarius12]

Okay, I only read the first and last pages... man, how these chats change so quickly. lol.

I like the original one boatloads more. I mean, SHSM is a good game, but I don't feel like it is something I could live without. If knowing what I know now, I could never play it and I would not miss it. Of course, I like that I have the ability to pay it. SH1 was a life changing game though, shattering my ideas of this world. Okay, maybe not THAT mindblowing, but you know what I mean.