Posted: 27 Jun 2010
Hey buddy, I noticed, hey buddy, I fixed it. (within less than 5 minutes)aj4x94 wrote:Can you please change the size of your avatar? It's against regulations, and taking up half of the screen!
Silent Hill Forum
https://silenthillforum.com/
Hey buddy, I noticed, hey buddy, I fixed it. (within less than 5 minutes)aj4x94 wrote:Can you please change the size of your avatar? It's against regulations, and taking up half of the screen!
I've seen so many people say this, and it still baffles me: why do people insist that a game called Silent Hill, presumably with psychological horror aspects (read: supposed to be scary, mindfuck plot dealing with peoples psyches) isn't "Silent Hill" enough? Without being annoyed at peoples' judging of the game from an early prerelease trailer, I'm honestly curious at what your idea of Silent Hill is.All I would ask is that they drop 'Silent Hill' from the title, no matter how many references are found throughout.
I would only request that they drop the name 'Silent Hill' if they made it into a co-op game, to clear up any confusion. As I've stated previously, introducing co-op to the series would completely kill any sense of 'Psychological Horror', as well as any chance at creating any meaningful metaphors, which would remove all aspects of being Silent Hill in my mind.Yuki wrote:I've seen so many people say this, and it still baffles me: why do people insist that a game called Silent Hill, presumably with psychological horror aspects (read: supposed to be scary, mindfuck plot dealing with peoples psyches) isn't "Silent Hill" enough? Without being annoyed at peoples' judging of the game from an early prerelease trailer, I'm honestly curious at what your idea of Silent Hill is.
Confusion? What? It's still going to be a Silent Hill game no matter what.Chrysaor wrote:
I would only request that they drop the name 'Silent Hill' if they made it into a co-op game, to clear up any confusion.
Excuse me, but how do you even know this?As I've stated previously, introducing co-op to the series would completely kill any sense of 'Psychological Horror', as well as any chance at creating any meaningful metaphors, which would remove all aspects of being Silent Hill in my mind.
Most of the time it's "Oh, it's not made by Team Silent," or "Origins/Homecoming traumatized me enough, I think the newer ones should be exactly like the first 3 so my heart isn't broken again."Yuki wrote:I've seen so many people say this, and it still baffles me: why do people insist that a game called Silent Hill, presumably with psychological horror aspects (read: supposed to be scary, mindfuck plot dealing with peoples psyches) isn't "Silent Hill" enough? Without being annoyed at peoples' judging of the game from an early prerelease trailer, I'm honestly curious at what your idea of Silent Hill is.
I had an actual rebuttal in mind, but, this.AuraTwilight wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
That is all.
I may have worded that the wrong way. Yuki believed that I didn't think that Silent Hill 8 was worthy of the title 'Silent Hill' whatsoever, yet I'm only of the opinion that no game should include 'Silent Hill' in it's title if it includes any form of cooperative play. So, I was simply trying to clear up the confusion.simeonalo wrote:Confusion? What? It's still going to be a Silent Hill game no matter what.
Maria also didn't include 'Holy shit! What the fuck?!', or 'Dude, there's some ammo over there.' in her vocabulary. If I recall correctly, she also didn't spend any time teabagging the lying figures after you've just finished beating them to death. See, I've never played a co-op game with one of my friends (or even online) where I've been able to be completely serious. Most of the fun of cooperative play, in my opinion, is that you can make jokes at the game's expense at every available opportunity. If you both take the game seriously, you might as well be playing with an AI partner. This effectively kills any attempt at psychological terror (though jump scares are still good fun with a friend).Excuse me, but how do you even know this?
There are tons of scary multi player games out there. Introducing co-op into the series doesn't automatically mean "Okay, this isn't a Silent Hill title anymore. Rename it, please. There isn't going to be any meaningful metaphors or psychological scares, so it might as well not be a Silent Hill title."
There were a vast amount of scares when a character was following you around. Most of Silent Hill 2 took place with Maria.
Thanks for the sweeping generalization. Perhaps you'll eventually realize that there are actually a few of us who have clearly defined reasons for disliking the direction of the newer games in the series, and not everyone who thinks this way is lazy enough to simply place all the blame on the developers without bothering to figure out why they dislike the newer games so much (aside from 'This doesn't feel like Silent Hill').Most of the time it's "Oh, it's not made by Team Silent," or "Origins/Homecoming traumatized me enough, I think the newer ones should be exactly like the first 3 so my heart isn't broken again."
SH1, SH3, SH4, and SHH are all games that have protagonists that share perceptions. Really, SH2 is the only game that really doesn't; it's not the standard.Having two players view the same thing simultaneously would also be a giant step backwards for the series. The concept of perception is lost. Silent Hill would become completely grounded in a certain sense of reality. Nothing could bend to either protagonist's psyche. The vast majority of symbolism would be lost entirely, as most of what you can sit and pick apart in a Silent Hill game exists because of one person's perception, past experiences, demeanor, and psychological state. This would no longer be possible with two people (unless they pulled a miracle and made the appearance and architecture of one player's world completely different from the other's. This would be so difficult to execute in any effective way that I don't think Konami would even consider it).
I believe that the experience that each protagonist goes through, aside from 4, is unique, despite having outward influences. The town always manages to shift itself in such a way that it ends up 'leading' a character where they need to go, oftentimes revealing important plot points through significant areas or objects as if it was intentional. I hardly think that each character's path is obstructed in the exact same manner, that the exact same objects are present in everyone's perception, or that areas are distorted in the same way.AuraTwilight wrote:SH1, SH3, SH4, and SHH are all games that have protagonists that share perceptions. Really, SH2 is the only game that really doesn't; it's not the standard.
Silent Hill: The Arcade is also one-off fan service that's considered just about as canonical as the graphic novels, with about the same level of quality put into the writing. I'm perfectly fine with a lightgun game breaking form, as by it's very nature, it already has.AuraTwilight wrote:Silent Hill: The Arcade managed to pick up on it pretty well. It's entirely possible that perhaps we could have two characters that share perceptions even if other characters don't, or they're forced to split up because one character can't follow the other, or something of those lines.
Okay, that makes more sense. I disagree somewhat (provided the co-op was done well), but thanks for clearing that up.I may have worded that the wrong way. Yuki believed that I didn't think that Silent Hill 8 was worthy of the title 'Silent Hill' whatsoever, yet I'm only of the opinion that no game should include 'Silent Hill' in it's title if it includes any form of cooperative play. So, I was simply trying to clear up the confusion.
I know you're saying this in the context of co-op, but I'd like to point out that this is exactly what happened with Harry and Henry.He is simply a person who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This may be characteristic of most horror in general, but for Silent Hill, it is very bad form.
I was actually saying that in the context of the importance of peripheral characters. Maria is acceptable, because she adds an unbelievable amount of depth to the game. Wheeler is not acceptable, because his character does nothing to further the storyline or change the context of the game. Unlike nearly any other character in the series, Wheeler doesn't add any poetic weight to the game, and his personality serves no purpose. He is simply a generic horror character. The only real reference to co-op in there was how drastically different the game would be if he was your constant companion, and how similar that would be to playing with a friend.Yuki wrote:I know you're saying this in the context of co-op, but I'd like to point out that this is exactly what happened with Harry and Henry.
Were you ever legitimately scared by Resident Evil 5? The only feeling that game really offers you is the same degree of tension that most action-oriented games do, slightly amplified because the manginas (yes, that was intentional) eventually have access to AK-47s and body armor, and you can't fucking move and shoot.Light Alessa wrote:I thought co-op would wreck games. However I finally decided to play RE 5 on the 360 the other day with my friend Ed, who is usually terrified of horror games, and you know what? It was amazing. The experience was made better by having someone help you in impossible situations. With Silent Hill, it would have to be done properly. Some games (such as the final spyro game) did multiplayer wrong, they gave you the whole screen, it would HAVE to be split screen for it to work.
Assassin's Creed is also in a completely different ballpark, where multiplayer would not be a hindrance to anything that the game is trying to achieve. Instead, it serves to make Assassin's Creed potentially better than before.AC3 is including multiplayer... They're embracing the fact some people want to play games together. Multiplayer should only be included as an option in SH8, however I would find it awesome if there were certain features (such as doors etc) that were unlocked on a second playthrough using the two player mode etc etc)
I'll be perfectly content with my 'sad and lonely existance' when the series dies off completely because people who put no real effort into understanding what makes the games have the effect that they do wanted to try something that would throw everything completely off balance.Light Alessa wrote:Whatever any of you say, This is Silent Hill. Don't like it? Don't come to this section, don't play the game, and go back to your sad and lonely existence playing the same 4 'original' SH games in your basement and never play a new SH game. Give it a chance.
Note most people who say this have never played the games and don't know much about the game beyond character names. Excuse me for not giving a shit what most people thing.Silent Hill: The Arcade is also one-off fan service that's considered just about as canonical as the graphic novels, with about the same level of quality put into the writing.
I am, but I disagree with your reasons for your opinion. Your complaints rely on your specific, potentially erroneous interpretation of Silent Hill.Besides, I thought you were against co-op in a Silent Hill game?
In fairness, this can be attributed to external factors, such as the console wars bullshit, and the fact that the fanbase was split by SH4 long before those games showed up, so they never even faced the same chance of bringing in the same fans.Silent Hill is in a very bad way. Origins, Homecoming, and Shattered Memories combined haven't even sold as many copies as either of the first two games.
I'll be perfectly content with my 'sad and lonely existance' when the series dies off completely because people who put no real effort into understanding what makes the games have the effect that they do wanted to try something that would throw everything completely off balance.
Silent Hill is in a very bad way. Origins, Homecoming, and Shattered Memories combined haven't even sold as many copies as either of the first two games. Adding co-op would be a fucking coffin nail at this point.
SH1 was a world created by Alessa in an attempt to destroy the world rather than bring about the god that she believed she would birth (and therefore actually did). SH3 was created by a combination of Heather and Claudia. SH4 was Walter's Dream world. He was the king in control of his castle. Homecoming had more issues than you can shake a stick at, but it did establish a collective creation of the otherworld based on the belief that god would kill them all or worse. Of those 4 games, only Homecoming didn't have a 'puppet master' in charge of the otherworld, and therefore there was a good reason for people to experience the same otherworld: it was created from another person's mind.AuraTwilight wrote:SH1, SH3, SH4, and SHH are all games that have protagonists that share perceptions. Really, SH2 is the only game that really doesn't; it's not the standard.Having two players view the same thing simultaneously would also be a giant step backwards for the series. The concept of perception is lost. Silent Hill would become completely grounded in a certain sense of reality. Nothing could bend to either protagonist's psyche. The vast majority of symbolism would be lost entirely, as most of what you can sit and pick apart in a Silent Hill game exists because of one person's perception, past experiences, demeanor, and psychological state. This would no longer be possible with two people (unless they pulled a miracle and made the appearance and architecture of one player's world completely different from the other's. This would be so difficult to execute in any effective way that I don't think Konami would even consider it).