Question About One Of The Endings

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Yeah, he kills Napier in the showers in the beginning of the game. Even if it wasn't there, I think Sewell even says something along the lines of, "I let you in with that guy who killed your kid just so you could get revenge." or something like that. That's not exact, but it was something like that.

That's just a manifestation, no matter what in the first chase sequence you still hear Frank saying "Murphy, run!" when you first see the void.

I don't know why you said that after my post, but okay. I was just telling Drew what happens in that ending...

I don't believe that Murphy killed Frank, but what if Frank was saying, "Murphy, run!" in order to get Murphy to not side with Sewell? That line could have been used in another context, perhaps. You also see Frank beaten up before he stabs him with the shank. Sewell could have easily started to beat him up while Murphy was contemplating, and Murphy gives in and finishes the job. I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't say that just because he said, "Murphy, run!" disputes that ending.

[DMChristensen]

Honestly, the ending where Murphy kills Frank just makes no sense in the context of the proceeding game. He has absolutely no reason to actually do it. Murphy's whole thing is that the one murder he did was justifiable and he still feels messed up about it. If he's going to work up the nerve to kill someone he cared about in order to close a deal, why not just kill Sewell to get out of doing it? It was to save Coleridge's life, he'd back him up, right?

One murder? Murphy didn't even kill Napier. He just fucked his shit up badly.

Pretty sure he killed Napier. It was addressed several times throughout the story.

[TheWeepingBat]

Here are ALL 6 Endings to clear everything up in case you haven't seen them yet. Obvious *SPOILERS* ahead...
http://youtu.be/Du0gsYtqoAA

I couldn't stand Ending F Reversal. To me, it was the only weak ending.

[Yuki]

Honestly, the ending where Murphy kills Frank just makes no sense in the context of the proceeding game. He has absolutely no reason to actually do it. Murphy's whole thing is that the one murder he did was justifiable and he still feels messed up about it. If he's going to work up the nerve to kill someone he cared about in order to close a deal, why not just kill Sewell to get out of doing it? It was to save Coleridge's life, he'd back him up, right?

One murder? Murphy didn't even kill Napier. He just fucked his shit up badly.

Pretty sure he killed Napier. It was addressed several times throughout the story.

It's said in at least Ending A that he did NOT kill Napier. He started to, couldn't finish it, and so Sewell had to complete the job. In ending C (Full Circle), he killed both Frank and Anne.

[AuraTwilight]

Er, you're talking about Frank Coleridge, Yuki. Pat Napier is the man Murphy murders in the beginning of the game, because he raped and murdered Charlie.

[The Adversary]

No, Murph doesn't kill Napier. He tries to, dishes out 9,998 damage, but never actually finishes him off. Sewell has to come in and do it for him.

I suppose my biggest complaint with SILENT HILL: DOWNPOUR, and only really in terms of discussion, is that each ending affects the whole story itself. Meaning—we don't have one DOWNPOUR, we have several considerably different stories. Now, then, we have to preface every discussion with something to differentiate which version of the story we're addressing, until, of course, we have a grand unifying explanation of which events are and are not true.

Although, rewatching the endings, the only major changes are in endings C-F. In both A and B, Sewell actually kills Napier, not Murph, which, in terms of "correctness," suggests endings C-F aren't simply because they set the precedent that Murph isn't capable of killing another person, even if he believes they deserve it.

[Bogeyman]

Er, you're talking about Frank Coleridge, Yuki. Pat Napier is the man Murphy murders in the beginning of the game, because he raped and murdered Charlie.

That's not absolute.In some endings (i can't remember exactly but one of the them is the "Forgiveness" for sure) Sewell states that Murphy never finished Napier so he had to come in,finish the bastard and clean the mess.

[Yuki]

Er, you're talking about Frank Coleridge, Yuki. Pat Napier is the man Murphy murders in the beginning of the game, because he raped and murdered Charlie.

No; I'm talking about Napier. Look at endings A and B again: Sewell mocks Murphy for being unable to finish the job with Napier (and then even start the job with Frank).

No, Murph doesn't kill Napier. He tries to, dishes out 9,998 damage, but never actually finishes him off. Sewell has to come in and do it for him.

I suppose my biggest complaint with SILENT HILL: DOWNPOUR, and only really in terms of discussion, is that each ending affects the whole story itself. Meaning—we don't have one DOWNPOUR, we have several considerably different stories. Now, then, we have to preface every discussion with something to differentiate which version of the story we're addressing, until, of course, we have a grand unifying explanation of which events are and are not true.

Although, rewatching the endings, the only major changes are in endings C-F. In both A and B, Sewell actually kills Napier, not Murph, which, in terms of "correctness," suggests endings C-F aren't simply because they set the precedent that Murph isn't capable of killing another person, even if he believes they deserve it.

Not to mention that Murphy also tries his damnedest to save children, and at no point during the game does he actively attempt to kill Anne (barring the option to not save her when she falls in the beginning). Him killing Frank kind of goes against what we know of his character; hell, he gets into prison because he steals a car, not because he hurts anyone.

[Droo]

Do people go to jail for a long time in the USA for something as insignificant as stealing a car? You wouldn't go to jail for very long in Canada, if at all, for that.

[Bluebolt77]

Do people go to jail for a long time in the USA for something as insignificant as stealing a car? You wouldn't go to jail for very long in Canada, if at all, for that.

Wasnt it a cop car that he stole? I do believe here in the USA some squad cars have weapons in the trunk. I bet that could factor in heavily, especially if it was one of the squad cars carrying an assault rifle, etc. That's the only way I can see him getting put away for a long amount of time.

Edit: After searching online a bit it seems a common sentence is 2-3 years for grand theft auto in the USA.

[The Adversary]

Not only did Murph steal a cop car, he sent them on an eight-hour chase. Tag on reckless endangerment, speeding, fleeing from the police, and who knows what else. I'm no lawyer, but I've been watching a lot of Law & Order lately, and none of that ends up well.

[Bogeyman]

Do people go to jail for a long time in the USA for something as insignificant as stealing a car? You wouldn't go to jail for very long in Canada, if at all, for that.

It wasn't just one count of grand theft auto.From a document found in the game we can say for sure that Murphy was charged with stealing a patrol car,resisting arrest and evading.They might have even charged with more than that.So yeah,the sentences stack hence the long-time imprisonment.

[Wigeke]

Er...Silent Hill already addressed this in the Orphanage scene: Napier's murder was NOT justified. Even if he was a sick fuck that deserved what he got, Murphy did not have the right to kill him, and the murder didn't do anything to bring Charlie back; it was a disservice to his memory. Instead of trying to honor his loss, he threw his whole entire life down the shitter to get vengeance, and ultimately he makes Charlie indirectly responsible for the murder of Frank Coleridge; even if he didn't kill Frank himself, he made his death possible in exchange for his personal, selfish vengeance.

Yeah. The boogeyman fight is symbolic of this, he appears in the exact same place as Charlie drowned, it's basically saying that the boogeyman was born from Charlie's death.

[Droo]

Do people go to jail for a long time in the USA for something as insignificant as stealing a car? You wouldn't go to jail for very long in Canada, if at all, for that.

It wasn't just one count of grand theft auto.From a document found in the game we can say for sure that Murphy was charged with stealing a patrol car,resisting arrest and evading.They might have even charged with more than that.So yeah,the sentences stack hence the long-time imprisonment.

Well, yeah, of course they stack. But the theft would, I expect, be the most serious of the charges. If GTA only gets you 3 years how could the others result in a prison sentence long enough for Coleridge to be a vegetable for years before Murphy's transfer?

[The Adversary]

Murph was imprisoned in 2006, and the game takes place in October 2011. That's only five years. That reckless endangerment charge, and who knows how many other laws he broke along the way, would probably amount to that.

[KiramidHead]

Wasn't something mentioned in a preview about Murphy's sentence being extended?

[Droo]

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression he had been in prison for a long time.

[PoemOfTheLastMoment]

I knew this was gonna happen! I had a hunch that your actions would affect the narrative of the game through it endings. I havent played the game myself but that kinda deviation in the story undermines the strength of the plot. I mean, instead of one story, we now have 5-6 different continuties that are almost completely different from the other. What's worse is that this gimmick was already done in the suffering and it's sequel. Look at Silent Hill 2, it has multiple endings but none of them contradict the other.It's just unfortunate.

[swedish]

Has anyone else noticed how Ending B ends up with both Anne and Murphy repeating their mistakes? Not only is it hinted that Anne seeks revenge for her father at worst, but it's implied that Murphy decides to end his own life. "There's someplace I gotta be," is what Murph says when Anne asks where he's going, as Murphy wades into the water behind the truck. Sater says the exact same lines before we see him jumping off into the falls. The contrast between the sunshine and rain in Ending A and B alludes to this even more, as if both Anne and Murphy are never able to fully "escape" Silent Hill because they both didn't quite "get it," despite being returned to the real world.

What does this have to do with Murphy not learning his lesson? I suppose it's because he never is able to cope with losing his son; after acknowledging that killing Napier wouldn't bring his son back and involving two innocent lives in his quest for revenge, perhaps he wants to connect with his deceased son the best way he can: by being dead himself.

[The Adversary]

>instead of one story, we now have 5-6 different continuties that are almost completely different from the other.<
That's really not the case at all, and you should probably reserve your unwarranted judgment until playing the game.