Combat.

[xbriannova]

In the original Silent Hill, Harry Mason does not seem capable of dodging nor blocking and if I'm not wrong neither was James Sunderland and Maria capable of any of that. This was rectified in Silent Hill 3 when Heather Mason was made capable of blocking and dodging as SilentWren said. In Silent Hill 4, Henry Townshend couldn't block, but he could dodge far better than Heather ever could. Silent Hill: Homecoming took this up to 11 and made vast upgrades by giving Alex Shepherd the ability to dodge and roll like never before.

I feel that depending on the nature of Murphy, he should be allowed to block and dodge. If he's a real hard-core ex-convict then by all means, give him all that, but if he's just some average joe put in prison after being falsely convicted then I guess his ability to fight should be more crude. I'd like to add though that by crude, I don't mean that he won't be capable of dodging or blocking, but his methods won't be the best. Like what Yuki said, people don't just stand there and let themselves get whacked.

Anyway, my take on the best combat system of a new Silent Hill game is as followed:

- There should be much fewer monsters and not hundreds literally for you to fight with. Each encounter should be a very memorable event.

- Ammunition should be more limited, seriously. There should only be enough for say half the total number of monsters in-game. This is a survival horror game, not a shoot-em-up or action FPS. It's impossible to be scared if you have like 500 pistol rounds, 300 shotgun shells and 200 rifle slugs on your person.

- Firearms should be made far more effective and realistic, but taking into account ammo levels as said above (If there's 200 monsters in total, give say 400 bullets if it take 4 bullets on average to kill a monster). It takes a bullet or 2, or several (if he's lucky) to kill a man, not a dozen. In a way, firearms are like shortcuts in dealing with monsters.

- In melee, players should be given the opportunity to block or dodge attacks (Think Condemned: Criminal Origins for blocking and Silent Hill 4 for dodging, except with better realism)

- Melee should be more brutal.

- Enemies should not all be easy to deal with through combat, giving rise to...

- The possibility of using running and stealth as solutions to an encounter. (Think Silent Hill 2, 3, 4 and even SM for chase sequences and Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and sequels for stealth, though I expect much less gymnastics and kills made from the shadows.)

[Silent Fantasy]

S. It's impossible to be scared if you have like 500 pistol rounds, 300 shotgun shells and 200 rifle slugs on your person."

SH1 - 3 for me. lol though mainly 1 and 2. its possible in 3, but only with bullet adjust.lol

[Tillerman]

I agree that ammo should be limited. Guns should be powerful enough to kill most monsters, but the ammo limitation should force you to choose carefully when to use it.

I also think that melee should be very hard... it should be expected that you will take damage if you attempt to melee a monster. And I also think it's better if combat feels a little awkward... I like feeling like my character is not a combat expert, but a regular human being.

[stopped_clock]

^ I completely agree with this.

If I play the game on any difficulty level higher than easy then I expect there to be a challenge.

I like the route that they are taking with the weapons in this game, it brings Condemned to mind. One of the reasons that Condemned is so damn scary is that every fight is a challenge, your weapons can break, and bullets are scarce enough to be a very precious commodity. I'm hoping that Downpour handles combat in much the same way.

For me, the scariest games are the ones with the right mix of atmosphere and threat. Take Fatal Frame for instance, the atmosphere is claustrophobic, surreal and dark, but that alone will only make the game spooky. The game only becomes scary because of the level of threat posed by each and every ghost encounter.

Conversely, SH2 has fantastic atmosphere, but simply isn't scary because nothing ever presents any kind of challenge in terms of combat, each and every enemy can be put down with no risk to James at all. There's no threat, so for me, there's no fear.

[Doctor Eggnog]

Well I thought SH2 was the scariest one. Having a threat doesn't make a game more scary to me, just kinda more intense and frustrating, in fact it distracts me from the scary elements of a game.

On the Normal difficulty, I feel like I should be able to kill every enemy in the game and just barely scrape by if I retry bosses a couple times. I dislike the SH games where I have to run away a lot, like 3. Being easy doesn't really damage a games fear factor for me at all, just takes the emphasis more off the combat. For me it's always been the enviroment and atmosphere that makes a SH game scary, and maybe the monster sound effects. For me, realism also helps in the scare factor. SH2 felt the most realistic to me, and somehow that made it get under my skin more.

As I've always said, the less combat gets in the way of everything else in a Silent Hill game, the better. If the game is scary, the combat will be scary. If it's not, then it won't be.

[clips]

Well I thought SH2 was the scariest one. Having a threat doesn't make a game more scary to me, just kinda more intense and frustrating, in fact it distracts me from the scary elements of a game.

On the Normal difficulty, I feel like I should be able to kill every enemy in the game and just barely scrape by if I retry bosses a couple times. I dislike the SH games where I have to run away a lot, like 3. Being easy doesn't really damage a games fear factor for me at all, just takes the emphasis more off the combat. For me it's always been the enviroment and atmosphere that makes a SH game scary, and maybe the monster sound effects. For me, realism also helps in the scare factor. SH2 felt the most realistic to me, and somehow that made it get under my skin more.

As I've always said, the less combat gets in the way of everything else in a Silent Hill game, the better. If the game is scary, the combat will be scary. If it's not, then it won't be.

I completely agree with this.....you don't need excessive combat to make the game dreadful and terrorfying....creepy atmosphere and disturbing imagery goes a long way than having tough enemies. I too don't really like the aspect of running from enemies, because i generally like to kill all enemies in a particular area so i can explore the area without any interference.

[Monster]

I don't really get why the breaking weapons thing is a solution to the combat. I think what they should do is simply give you one melee weapon that you can upgrade as you go, discarding the old one. Then you would have one gun with limited ammo, and maybe a shotgun with even more limited ammo. Basically, they should make it so you arent carrying around a small arsenal like in SH3, but rather like what a single person could reasonably carry in real life. Just three weapons representing three different levels of combat power, then make you figure out strategies for using them, like for example there might be an enemy so tough that it would be too risky to try and kill it, but you could stun it with a shotgun blast and run. Sh4 definitely had the right idea, making you conserve your ammo for later.

Really all they need to do for the player is make the combat more fluid and realistic, just take the combat the way it was and try to make it less stiff, like for example the player should be able to break out of an attack instead of being locked into place while performing it, then maybe have quick dodges and blocks or a move that accomplishes both.

[stopped_clock]

That's fair enough, but I'd say to you guys to just play it on easy then. That way you shouldn't have to worry about combat getting in the way. I require threat in order to feel fear, so I tend to play SH games on hard, because I want to get the best experience out of it that I can. I don't find that combat gets in the way of the story, since to me the combat is a part of that story, I can't feel fear for a protagonist who's basically just walking around a town that's about as dangerous as a haunted house attraction (obviously a regular one, Borley is dangerous as heck). This is why SH:SM is just not scary (It's a great game, but it's fail at fear).

[xbriannova]

S. It's impossible to be scared if you have like 500 pistol rounds, 300 shotgun shells and 200 rifle slugs on your person."

SH1 - 3 for me. lol though mainly 1 and 2. its possible in 3, but only with bullet adjust.lol

Yep, thanks for helping me to add. It's 1 and 2 that did it all wrong with the amount of ammunition. I mean, they can't be serious. Just watch one of those Let's Plays of those games and you'd get what I mean (I recommend Agentjr and L0rdvega). The problem's somewhat solved in Silent Hill 3, though it still doesn't feel right. In the middle of the game you'd accumulate alot of ammo but expend most if not all of it only at the end. I think Silent Hill 4 was nearly there.

I agree that ammo should be limited. Guns should be powerful enough to kill most monsters, but the ammo limitation should force you to choose carefully when to use it.

I also think that melee should be very hard... it should be expected that you will take damage if you attempt to melee a monster. And I also think it's better if combat feels a little awkward... I like feeling like my character is not a combat expert, but a regular human being.

So yep, basically, close-quarters combat should be realistic- So if you're playing as just some guy from the office who have little to no experience in fighting except from grade school days and television, then there should be that tension that you're pretty much screwed even if you need to try your best to overwhelm that monster that has cornered you. However, it shouldn't be so difficult to the point where it becomes a major turn-off.

Keeping with the idea of realism to assist with the suspension of belief, I think you caught my drift that guns should be able to settle problems very quickly... Except that the otherworld's very keen on toying with you by providing just enough ammunition or less. It's like a shortcut to your monster problems, except that if you keep using it to shoot indiscriminately you're going to have trouble when you run into an even bigger problem at the end of the day, be it in the form of stronger, larger freudian abominations or a more populous group of monsters.

^ I completely agree with this.

If I play the game on any difficulty level higher than easy then I expect there to be a challenge.

I like the route that they are taking with the weapons in this game, it brings Condemned to mind. One of the reasons that Condemned is so damn scary is that every fight is a challenge, your weapons can break, and bullets are scarce enough to be a very precious commodity. I'm hoping that Downpour handles vcombat in much the same way.

For me, the scariest games are the ones with the right mix of atmosphere and threat. Take Fatal Frame for instance, the atmosphere is claustrophobic, surreal and dark, but that alone will only make the game spooky. The game only becomes scary because of the level of threat posed by each and every ghost encounter.

Conversely, SH2 has fantastic atmosphere, but simply isn't scary because nothing ever presents any kind of challenge in terms of combat, each and every enemy can be put down with no risk to James at all. There's no threat, so for me, there's no fear.

Although I don't really like the weapon breaking system in SIlent Hill origins. Reminds me of another weapon breakage system in System shock 2. It's unrealistic that even sturdy weapons like crowbars and sledgehammers would break after a few whacks. Not to mention, it's a lousy gameplay mechanic that way. Also, it makes our weapon seems more expendable such that we won't feel rewarded upon securing a good weapon- I'm sure many Silent Hill gamers get attached to their hard-earned weapons... It's should either be made such that there can be both breakable and unbreakable weapons. Like in Silent Hill 4. Man, they really got it right. Flimsy things like golf clubs and wooden planks should break overtime while sturdy bone-breakers like your steel pipe should last throughout the game. Though, this can only work if it has gameplay value.

Well I thought SH2 was the scariest one. Having a threat doesn't make a game more scary to me, just kinda more intense and frustrating, in fact it distracts me from the scary elements of a game.

On the Normal difficulty, I feel like I should be able to kill every enemy in the game and just barely scrape by if I retry bosses a couple times. I dislike the SH games where I have to run away a lot, like 3. Being easy doesn't really damage a games fear factor for me at all, just takes the emphasis more off the combat. For me it's always been the enviroment and atmosphere that makes a SH game scary, and maybe the monster sound effects. For me, realism also helps in the scare factor. SH2 felt the most realistic to me, and somehow that made it get under my skin more.

As I've always said, the less combat gets in the way of everything else in a Silent Hill game, the better. If the game is scary, the combat will be scary. If it's not, then it won't be.

You sure? Because it's hard to be scared if say Pyramid head goes down in one bullet along with everything else. He won't be that menacing nemesis he's supposed to be if he's so easy to dispose. Although, I guess horror is a very subjective thing. The matter's to make a Silent Hill game that's scary to everyone...

For your case, I guess the problem's solved as there are multiple difficulty levels. You could just play easy and there you have it. Now, regarding combat getting in the way- I was thinking about having fewer encounters, but tougher ones that are more memorable not just for fear factor, but the act itself of overcoming such a beast, whether it be by fighting it, running away from it or sneaking past it. Penumbra's a good example of this. Monster encounters are brief, especially in the sequel, yet they truly added to the gameplay. It was truly a pleasure overcoming those obstacles... Would this work? It doesn't have to be tougher by the way in the sense that it'd kill you multiple times.

Well I thought SH2 was the scariest one. Having a threat doesn't make a game more scary to me, just kinda more intense and frustrating, in fact it distracts me from the scary elements of a game.

On the Normal difficulty, I feel like I should be able to kill every enemy in the game and just barely scrape by if I retry bosses a couple times. I dislike the SH games where I have to run away a lot, like 3. Being easy doesn't really damage a games fear factor for me at all, just takes the emphasis more off the combat. For me it's always been the enviroment and atmosphere that makes a SH game scary, and maybe the monster sound effects. For me, realism also helps in the scare factor. SH2 felt the most realistic to me, and somehow that made it get under my skin more.

As I've always said, the less combat gets in the way of everything else in a Silent Hill game, the better. If the game is scary, the combat will be scary. If it's not, then it won't be.

I completely agree with this.....you don't need excessive combat to make the game dreadful and terrorfying....creepy atmosphere and disturbing imagery goes a long way than having tough enemies. I too don't really like the aspect of running from enemies, because i generally like to kill all enemies in a particular area so i can explore the area without any interference.

Eh yep, I think I've addressed this. Too many enemies would turn the game into an actionised sequel. Look at what happened to Resident Evil man.

I don't really get why the breaking weapons thing is a solution to the combat. I think what they should do is simply give you one melee weapon that you can upgrade as you go, discarding the old one. Then you would have one gun with limited ammo, and maybe a shotgun with even more limited ammo. Basically, they should make it so you arent carrying around a small arsenal like in SH3, but rather like what a single person could reasonably carry in real life. Just three weapons representing three different levels of combat power, then make you figure out strategies for using them, like for example there might be an enemy so tough that it would be too risky to try and kill it, but you could stun it with a shotgun blast and run. Sh4 definitely had the right idea, making you conserve your ammo for later.

Really all they need to do for the player is make the combat more fluid and realistic, just take the combat the way it was and try to make it less stiff, like for example the player should be able to break out of an attack instead of being locked into place while performing it, then maybe have quick dodges and blocks or a move that accomplishes both.

Hmm by limiting the player to only 3 weapons, it kinda simplifies the game too much, reducing the tactical factor of the game. Even if those weapons can be upgraded overtime. Also... Upgrading weapons. If it's like the system in Silent Hill: Origins or Silent Hill: Homecoming where you get weapons that are simply better than the previous weapon it replaces, 'upgrading' it, then I feel that it's going to have a negative impact on the horror atmosphere as for some, it makes the player feel more powerful, especially so when the upgrade allows you to overcome monsters with relative ease. Secondly, such a system is normally associated with action games, so it'd actionise the game somewhat.

I'm kinda fond of an inventory system from Silent Hill 4, but maybe it could be revamped a bit? Because it's still unrealistic. For example, a key could take up as much space as a pistol or a mannequin arm. Perhaps there should be a compartmentalised inventory system, meaning, it'd allow players to carry certain numbers of each type of item, or of each items of a certain weight class. For example, 5 small items, 3 larger items and one big item with 2 guns and 2 melee weapons? This way, you won't be able to carry 13 guns or only be limited to carrying 13 small trinklets like keys or hairpins.

Regarding breaking weapons, I think I've addressed that .

[Doctor Eggnog]

Actually just playing on an easier difficulty doesn't really change how the game is set up in terms of the amount of focus on combat. You have to run from way more enemies in Silent Hill 3 on Easy than Silent Hill 1 and 2 on Hard due to lack of ammo. I didn't think SH1 had too much ammo. SH2 went a bit crazy with it, but I did like that how many supplies you had was kinda based on town exploration.

I agree that 3 weapons doesn't sound like enough. 2 to 3 guns and 3 to 5 meele weapons is about right for a Silent Hill game I'd say. Let's not go nuts but have some variety. People can be tactical in terms of choosing what weapon to use in what situation, I kinda liked that about 3. The katana didn't just "replace" the steel pipe. The pipe was better at preventing the nurses attacking you than the katana. That was actually pretty cool.

I really wouldn't mind another limited inventory system though. Gotta say as much as SH4 disappointed me, that was one aspect that never bothered me and felt more realistic, although more action focused since they have you switch weapons on the fly. Didn't like that. Going to a menu to select things never broke the precious "immersion factor" that developers seem to care so much about these days.

[EmilietheStrange]

I'm pretty sure that I already voiced my opinion in this thread a while back, but I'm just not keen on having to run away all the time. I like to kill things. It doesn't matter if I'm playing Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Condemned, or even Super Mario. If I see an enemy, I want to kill it.

For Downpour, I want to be able to kill most monsters, but they should be balanced. Some should be easy to kill, some medium, and others that are almost impossible to melee without taking damage. I'd be okay with two guns in a SH game, maybe a handgun and a shotgun. But as others have said, ammo should be limited. Personally, I liked the firearm inventory in homecoming, you could only carry what, 24 bullets at a time? I wouldn't mind seeing that return.

[Monster]

Hmm by limiting the player to only 3 weapons, it kinda simplifies the game too much, reducing the tactical factor of the game.

The tactical factor is provided by the monsters and how you would deal with them. I think Silent Hill should be simplified to make the experience as fluid as possible. Simplify the inventory so there are no menus to break up the experience. You health is indicated by the physical appearance of the player and controller vibration. Gather info by zooming in on it like in Shattered Memories. A simpler, more streamlined game would be more immersive. In the original games, the inventory was like a little room you could hide in and stop time. If you really want tactical, then why not let the game be a little less forgiving?

Also... Upgrading weapons. If it's like the system in Silent Hill: Origins or Silent Hill: Homecoming where you get weapons that are simply better than the previous weapon it replaces, 'upgrading' it, then I feel that it's going to have a negative impact on the horror atmosphere as for some, it makes the player feel more powerful, especially so when the upgrade allows you to overcome monsters with relative ease

It wouldn't be any different from SH 1-3 where you start off with a chunk of wood, then upgrade to a lead pipe, etc. The only difference would be that you lose the previous version, because the idea is that you have just these three basic weapons that can each be upgraded. My main point is that while it was fun to have a huge inventory full of flamethrowers and submachineguns and crap in SH3, it wasn't necessary and probably detracted from the experience.

Secondly, such a system is normally associated with action games, so it'd actionise the game somewhat.

I'm talking about making your weapon inventory smaller though, and you would still have to use strategy to deal with monsters, in my ideal game you couldn't go around killing every monster, that would be too costly. This game would have incredibly tense moments where you would be hiding from an unkillable monster as it searches for you, sort of like in SHSM but there would be a point to it because you could actually hide successfully and escape.

[stopped_clock]

This game would have incredibly tense moments where you would be hiding from an unkillable monster as it searches for you, sort of like in SHSM but there would be a point to it because you could actually hide successfully and escape.

So Clocktower then?

[Tillerman]

Several people have said that they don't like the idea of being forced to run away or hide... they want to be able to kill every monster in sight. I can understand that point of view... monsters can be a great annoyance when you want to explore an area. But if we're going to make all the monsters easy to dispatch, then why even bother having monsters? Just to slow the player down? IMO this is not good game design.

Here's a better solution: just have less monsters. Keep them threatening, but don't try to cram them into every room, as so many of the previous games have done. Then the annoyance factor isn't so bad. And to add to that, if monsters are scarcer, they will also be scarier... the less chance you have to get used to them, the better.

As so many have said and I agree, Silent Hill should not try to be an action game. It doesn't need that many monsters. Combat is not it's core gameplay... it's true gameplay is exploration combined with suspense.

[xbriannova]

Actually just playing on an easier difficulty doesn't really change how the game is set up in terms of the amount of focus on combat. You have to run from way more enemies in Silent Hill 3 on Easy than Silent Hill 1 and 2 on Hard due to lack of ammo. I didn't think SH1 had too much ammo. SH2 went a bit crazy with it, but I did like that how many supplies you had was kinda based on town exploration.

I agree that 3 weapons doesn't sound like enough. 2 to 3 guns and 3 to 5 meele weapons is about right for a Silent Hill game I'd say. Let's not go nuts but have some variety. People can be tactical in terms of choosing what weapon to use in what situation, I kinda liked that about 3. The katana didn't just "replace" the steel pipe. The pipe was better at preventing the nurses attacking you than the katana. That was actually pretty cool.

I really wouldn't mind another limited inventory system though. Gotta say as much as SH4 disappointed me, that was one aspect that never bothered me and felt more realistic, although more action focused since they have you switch weapons on the fly. Didn't like that. Going to a menu to select things never broke the precious "immersion factor" that developers seem to care so much about these days.

Hence my disagreement that we shouldn't have as many enemies as there were in a Silent Hill game. Difficulty should not be diminished though because of this.

Although regarding menu, I've gotta say I really hate the kind from 1-3. You could really pause time that way, heal and reload in literally no time at all. It's like as though they've got superpowers. If you could do this, then some of the horror and tension would be gone, because there's always this safe way to prevent yourself from dying from that fatal strike, or from having to reload in front of a monster. Why bother running or panicking when you could just hit the menu button and pump yourself up full of bullets and health drinks? This problem gets worse when it's paired up with the insane number of bullets and health drinks problem. You're pretty much invulnerable this way, like God- And if you're God, then you have nothing to fear, no matter how many Demons are sent at you.

The best compromise is to have a more intuitive menu system that wouldn't slow you down as much as the menu in Silent Hill 4 did, but at the same time does not offer the time-bending advantages that previous menus did. Dead Space had a menu like that and it worked pretty well, don't it? But of course, since it isn't the future, we won't have a holographic projection pop up before us... Maybe something easy to control with the push of a few buttons so that while it still takes time to switch your weapon or whatever, you will still be able to do so while running away or during the heat of battle. At the same time, no time-stopping superpowers for you .

The Katana and the steel pipe in Silent Hill 3 are just fine. I was talking about Silent Hill: Origins and Silent Hill: Homecoming. You get better versions of your weapons as you progress into the game which replaces entirely and I mean entirely which means you won't get your old weapon back. Destroys the mood of the game. You want to upgrade everything? Try playing Deus Ex. XD

It's fine having similar weapons but different performances. Look at Condemned: Criminal Origins. They have all manners of weapons but each have different atrributes. I guess this is one part that Silent Hill seems to be doing okay until the non-Japanese developers took over.

I wanted to quote everyone and share more, but for some reason the edit window keep scrolling up whenever I type or so much as move my mouse. Any way to solve this?

[Doctor Eggnog]

Hm, I guess if going into the menu being eliminated would make a game have more horror and tension to some I suppose it wouldn't make or break the game for me. It's just that for me, the horror of a Silent Hill game never came from the gameplay, that's more for Resident Evil. Tension, intensity, and frustration are different from fear to me. But if it works for other people, I suppose I could accept it.

[stopped_clock]

Tension, intensity, and frustration are different from fear to me. But if it works for other people, I suppose I could accept it.

Well, frustration is the fear killer. Games can go from scary to just annoying in no time at all when they get frustrating. So the key is to balance the challenge, you want the monsters to be difficult enough to provide some sort of threat, but not so difficult that it becomes tedious.

Obviously that line between fear and frustration is different for different people, but then that's why you have difficulty levels.

[Tillerman]

Also, why does it necessarily have to be frustrating if you can't kill every monster? Maybe stealth can be an interesting alternative. Even running can be interesting sometimes if it isn't overdone like SM. If the number of monsters is kept relatively low and you aren't constantly being forced to do these things, I think the frustration level should stay low for most people.

[stopped_clock]

Less frequent but more challenging enemies is the way that I would like to see the series go, basically the total opposite of Homecoming. That game's enemies were far too numerous and way too easy to dispatch which made combat feel like a chore.

[Skele]

^i must have shit memory or something, cos i remember there being a lot of enemies in SH3 and SH1 as well, probably even more than what Homecoming had (at least SH3). anyway i agree, the enemies were pretty easy in Homecoming, but i cranked it up to Hard and told myself not to use the knife, and that gave a me a good challenge... and if i got tired of fighting, i just ran past the monsters.

as far as Downpour goes, i hope there's a good amount of monster encounters. i love combat so on my initial playthrough i'll want to kill as many, and every single monster i can. however on later (speedy) runs, i'm sure i'll do more running and stealth.