My thoughts on the game

Ten years after the original game and Harry's still searching for his daughter.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Slow White
Just Passing Through
Posts: 21
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Location: The Southside of Chicago, Japan

Post by Slow White »

Jack Frober wrote:Shattered memories has ZERO challenge. Sh2 and SH3 even had difficulty setting for puzzles while SM's idea of a puzzle is finding a key with basically HUGE arrow pointing at it and saying "HERE DUMBASS". I miss my poem puzzles lol *sniff*.
Those weren't puzzles, those were interactive versions of pressing X in front of a jacket or closet in the old games. Why do people still think these small segments are puzzles?

@Aura, you're too kind *blushes*
User avatar
Jack Frober
Gravedigger
Posts: 488
Joined: 21 Sep 2009

Post by Jack Frober »

That's actually right. Doesn't help it though.
This young man never had a bummer in some 33 LSD trips. Every one of them was a delight, everything under control. He needed only to snap his fingers and down he came, anytime. But on voyage 34 he finally met himself coming down an up-staircase, and the encounter was crushing.
User avatar
AuraTwilight
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 11390
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
Contact:

Post by AuraTwilight »

Those weren't puzzles, those were interactive versions of pressing X in front of a jacket or closet in the old games. Why do people still think these small segments are puzzles?
Right. Let's be fair here, the actual puzzles are the Gumball Machine, the Bridge Lowering, the Astronomy and Art rooms, the Gift Card Shop, etc. If you consider those, it's not that the puzzles are easier, they're clearly up to par if you honestly think about it; they're just sparser, and don't have you running around for keys, which is ultimately just distracting and forcing you to needlessly backtrack and see shit you've already seen.
I kinda liked having to pull the actual handles and shit in order to open containers lol.
Damn right. I still want that fucking cookie, Michelle.


The true horror of Silent Hill D:
Whatever, you dudes need to chill. So he doesn't like the game whoop-de-fucking-doo.
It's not so much that he didn't like the game so much as it is that he was completely unfair to it and obviously decided he was going to hate it before he even hated the game. That review didn't read like a review done by someone who gave the game an honest chance.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

Even if the first 4 silent hills didn't scare you I think its easy to tell which ones are more disturbing. I mean slurpers>rawshocks Babies in the wall>echoes
just sayin 8)
pj
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 264
Joined: 02 Dec 2008

Post by pj »

....unless you're afraid of actual things that exist in the real world, and not just boogeymen and googly monsters
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

yeah cuz rawshocks and echoes exist in the real world :lol:
pj
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 264
Joined: 02 Dec 2008

Post by pj »

......the rawshocks and echoes didn't even exist in the video game's plot.

Just, y'know. Think about it.
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

It could be argued that the monsters in sh2 and 3 don't exist in either...
User avatar
paladin181
Subway Guard
Posts: 1541
Joined: 15 May 2008
Gender: Male
Location: Right behind you

Post by paladin181 »

Slow White wrote: A lot of the monsters posed no real threat in the old games because you had enough room to just run right by them and go on about your way.
Ironically, I've been making this argument for a while now for people who were whining about another SH game... >.>

Enemies that are finally a threat are good.

I'll say my piece again (stated in a different thread). SH:SM was a decent game. It wasn't bad. If not for the cheapened feel (to me) that was using the characters that were already there and reinventing them as opposed to giving us a new story with new characters, I'd love it even more. The game wasn't scary to me. Raw Shocks seemed to be rather generic in nature no matter how I acted... They changed some, but generally they were all the same (a variety of Raw Shocks at a given time would have gone a LONG way in this game for me. Lumbering hulks who are slower, but stronger, speedsters, spiders, flying raw shocks.. These are all very real fears for a lot of people).

I generally liked SM. I'll play it again. But overall, it wasn't a good SH game to me, nor was it a good use of the characters or potentials they had. The game lost me about 1/2 way through with the "we-have-the-same-names-but-aren't-the-same-people-so-find-out-what's-next-lol" plot. Good stuff, but made less because the story lacked the ability to help me identify with the characters on their own, but rather depended on my preconceived notions of who these people were. That in and of itself is my biggest complaint of the game. Not that they warped characters we love, but that they felt they had to try to do so to sell a game.
Image
=====================================================
|.My Avatar is larger than yours because I'm a cult subscriber.|
=====================================================
Escapist
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 223
Joined: 29 May 2009
Location: Colombia

Post by Escapist »

SPRINGS02 wrote:It could be argued that the monsters in sh2 and 3 don't exist in either...
Excellent way to say you missed the pj's point entirely.
But overall, it wasn't a good SH game to me, nor was it a good use of the characters or potentials they had.
It's funny to think that actually the only character we really get to know is Cheryl. Hell, every character is just a way to know more about Cheryl >.>

So I also don't understand why people complain about the lack of symbolism. I'd say it's the Silent Hill with most symbolism of the series.

And no, you don't need a wheelchair in the middel of a hall to make symbolism.
User avatar
paladin181
Subway Guard
Posts: 1541
Joined: 15 May 2008
Gender: Male
Location: Right behind you

Post by paladin181 »

We actually get to know a lot about Harry by proxy. Cheryl lives this memory as a way of remembering who her father really was. While he's busy learning about Cheryl, we're busy learning about him (us), as evidenced by the different tapes. Harry is actually the one we see in the ending tape, and through our behavior, we make him who he is which, depending on which ending you want to accept (doesn't really matter in the long run which you like) that is who Cheryl discovers her father to be.
Image
=====================================================
|.My Avatar is larger than yours because I'm a cult subscriber.|
=====================================================
pj
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 264
Joined: 02 Dec 2008

Post by pj »

paladin181 wrote:We actually get to know a lot about Harry by proxy. Cheryl lives this memory as a way of remembering who her father really was. While he's busy learning about Cheryl, we're busy learning about him (us), as evidenced by the different tapes. Harry is actually the one we see in the ending tape, and through our behavior, we make him who he is which, depending on which ending you want to accept (doesn't really matter in the long run which you like) that is who Cheryl discovers her father to be.
The only purely concrete information we get about Harry is the last 20 seconds of the tape we see at the end of our individual play throughs.

Kauffman says it at the end: "You never knew him, and you never will." Cheryl can't remember who her father was because she never got a chance to really know him, and thus its impossible for us to learn about him from her memories.

Escapist's point was that everything we learn about every real character in the game, including the real Harry and Dahlia, is seen through the prism of Cheryl's memories and her own personal perspective. Since the plot revolves around the fallacy of memory, and Cheryl's memories are proven to be unreliable, everything we experience in the game ends up telling us more about Cheryl than it does any of the other characters.
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

Escapist wrote:
SPRINGS02 wrote:It could be argued that the monsters in sh2 and 3 don't exist in either...
Excellent way to say you missed the pj's point entirely.
How?
User avatar
AuraTwilight
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 11390
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
Contact:

Post by AuraTwilight »

Because SH2's and SH3's monsters do possess and existence, for starters.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

SH2 monsters were manifestations for james, and in SH3 its argued that the monsters are really order members. But regardless whether they exist or not in the games plot it doesn't change which ones look and sound more disturbing.
User avatar
Catch22
Subway Guard
Posts: 1725
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Location: Canadiania

Post by Catch22 »

SPRINGS02 wrote:SH2 monsters were manifestations for james, and in SH3 its argued that the monsters are really order members. But regardless whether they exist or not in the games plot it doesn't change which ones look and sound more disturbing.
What one finds disturbing is subjective.

And you're still missing the point of pj's post. He wasn't talking about the rawshocks, he was talking about the real situations presented in the game that could actually happen in real life, like the death of a loved one and subsequent denial. These things are more frightening than evil undead babies because they can, and do, actually happen.

Or at least that's what I took from it; perhaps I'm off the mark. Either way I stand by that viewpoint.
Last edited by Catch22 on 28 Jan 2010, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

I see what your sayin Catch, but for me thats not really disturbing because its everyday stuff that happen to regular people, the kind of stuff i can hear about on the news. I think something has a better chance of being disturbing when its unknown.
User avatar
Catch22
Subway Guard
Posts: 1725
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Location: Canadiania

Post by Catch22 »

SPRINGS02 wrote:I see what your sayin Catch, but for me thats not really disturbing because its everyday stuff that happen to regular people, the kind of stuff i can hear about on the news. I think something has a better chance of being disturbing when its unknown.
You make a good point. The unknown has always been disturbing to most people. Humans are inherently frightened of novel entities, and even more so when those entities pose a threat. And what you don't see is always more frightening than what you do see. That's why I found the off-camera creature in the prison in SH2 so disturbing; it was the one in that small hallway of cells. It would groan, and James would stare in its direction as he walked by. That, more than any other creature in that game, fucked with my head.

But I think that losing someone you love can be incredibly traumatic. There's a difference between hearing it on the news and having it happen to you. Rarely have I been effected by such loss, knock on wood, but one has to think about which would be more psychologically destructive--seeing a deformed and dangerous creature, or losing the one you care about most. However... whether this translates in the game is another story, and you have every right to say that it didn't effect or disturb you. That's the game's fault and not yours, of course.
User avatar
SPRINGS02
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 3865
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Location: i'm sick of these monkey fighting snakes on this monday to friday plane.

Post by SPRINGS02 »

^well said I definitely agree losing a loved one would mess me up alot more than seeing something horribly disturbing( but seeing something extremely disturbing could probably mess me up a little also) And i also agree about the monster in SH2 I remember feeling really uncomfortable and uneasy in that part of the prison...
User avatar
AuraTwilight
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 11390
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
Contact:

Post by AuraTwilight »

I'm the opposite. Shattered Memories is the only game that scared me at all. I guess the other games are unscary pieces of drek by this reasoning.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
Post Reply