Would you prefer SH1 or SH3 next?

[jdnation]

I like the enthusiasm, but bringing up "demake" and retro and then talking about "realistic graphics" seems to hurt the point you're trying to make.

The camera mode is an interesting area for discussion. That one developer from Bloober Team talked about the challenge in supporting the over-the-shoulder angle compared to the classic third-person, fixed-camera angle. Accordingly, supporting the fixed-camera angle would have been easier because the developer had full control over what the player sees, whereas the implication seems to be that the over-the-shoulder angle necessitates her having to give attention to everything the player might be able to see.

So, adding support for both angles seems to be a lot of effort. It also means that Konami would need to spend twice the amount of Quality Assurance resources to test both cases.

Haha, true. But in this case the retro-feel in my opinion, would come from the limited number of environmental furnishings and maintenance of the old level design. Bloober filled their environments with more "stuff." I wouldn't add more to the environments, I'd simply remodel only whatever was already there, and texture and light them realistically, in that light would bounce realistically based on the conditions set by the color scheme and mood of the original. I'm hoping the realistic visuals, but lack of accompanying real world clutter, and real physics from unreal light sources, would create an uncanny feeling of a dreamlike or stage-play feeling, where you feel the environment is staged or "fake", more appropriately artificial, but the details on what is already there are convincingly photoreal!

So for example, the Church, would remain as bare as it was, same altar, Crucifix, complete with a lone table and Bible, and dreary grey. There would be no fancy 'beautifying' or modernizing it outside of the bare minimum. So the player will still be able to explore without getting too lost in detailed decor as things would be more obvious. I'd also not have the floating X interaction icons. They would be forced to look for things to interact with. It all looks real, but anyone who has set foot into any average Church can feel that something is missing, like as if this is just a barebones set for a play, or an older gen's worth of videogame assets...

I hope I can convey it well, but essentially it should all ferl prop-like, similar to Borley's haunted mansion. Whatever exists in that space is something you feel was put there by design, specifically to mess with you in particular. It should feel wrong.

[leftshoe18]

I understand your intention, but I feel like that would (and in my opinion should) be met with the same reaction to Homecoming's underdetailed environments. Instead of making it feel dreamlike, it instead makes it feel unengaging and empty. The more realistic the graphics are, the more believable the environment has to be, or you risk the player losing immersion.

[Lifetolifeless]

The original by miles, for me. Aside from FF6, I can't think of a retro game that I want to see remade more than Silent Hill.

[jdnation]

I understand your intention, but I feel like that would (and in my opinion should) be met with the same reaction to Homecoming's underdetailed environments. Instead of making it feel dreamlike, it instead makes it feel unengaging and empty. The more realistic the graphics are, the more believable the environment has to be, or you risk the player losing immersion.

Yeah, it's a risk, and you wouldn't know whether it works or not until you tried it. But it would then be an easy fix by simply adding more assets afterwards. I do think the minimalism would at least work after a transition to Dark SH. Proper art direction would be key. Homecoming was a mixed bag, technically and artistically; even the character models were subpar by the gen's standards. Having fewer assets would work if you gave everything absurdly higher detail and extremely polished high res texture work to the point of modeling even little things that would have otherwise been flat, and made use of 3D scanning, and avoiding asset reuse outside of replenishable inventory items. As there are fewer things and smaller draw distance, the rendering budget will have room for higher res highly detailed models.

I'd also create highly detailed animation for Harry, even in combat that would be very real to the point of deliberately making reaction times, recovery and swings and reloading and firing slightly varied and unpredictable, but maintain the original's enemy numbers and give them generous enough idle/cool down states before attacking again, but I'd remove telegraphing their attack using the same base animations for something more procedurally physics based. That can of course risk leading to awkward model breaking things, so some limitations would be necessary. And I'd also add in and alter animations as the game progresses. Harry will behave more tired in combat if he's been running a lot rather than walking. Also, no dedicated dodging other than strafing.

This I'd hope would lead to moments of player panic, yet not be as difficult to get through as it looks. Ideally every encounter will be slightly unpredictable, due to player character and enemy movement alone. Sorry, speedrunners.

[Lifetolifeless]

I’m building a procedural character animation system on the project I’m working on right now. Been iterating on design for going on six months, and it never occurred to me to have animations “degrade” over the course of a game, as the character takes abuse and sustains injuries.

Such an approach wouldn’t meet the goals of most mass market games, but for something like Silent Hill, that’s a fucking brilliant idea, jdnation!

[jdnation]

Thanks!

I'd always had this thought, that typically a game's difficulty increases with newer and more difficult enemies, alongside character progression where the player gradually get more powerful or has a bigger arsenal.

But what if you broke convention, and narratively the player grew less powerful whilst the bulk of enemies remained the same without scaling? Like say, your knight lost an arm, denying him two handed weapons, or a leg injury reduced your speed? Thus, difficulty is progressively increased by depowering the player instead, such that the earlier enemies now became more threatening rather than losing the fear of them because you could steamroll them with ease and leveling up.

This would force the player to change tactics and be smarter about encounters with the benefit of past familiarity about the enemy patterns that remain near constant. Devs could also introduce new weapons and ways of playing, or compensate for every handicap with something more strongly defensive or offensive that still forces player adjustment and adaptation. Putting the survival back into survival horror. So there will be a design loop of loss > period of careful survival > new mechanic discovery > period of aggressive comfort - and repeat.

Animation systems changing to reflect fatigue or injury would be very useful, and by design should unpredictably shock and frustrate the player, but be obvious to the player as to why, and therefore they make decisions on when to take riskier actions that may affect a hidden stamina bar. You may be sluggish and more prone to tripping and falling against the environment if you are tired or haven't healed when engaged or fleeing from the vicinity of an enemy alert to your presence, creating those tense panicked scenes you see in horror movies, and maybe if you're lucky, you'll trip right before a creature lunges at you and they miss!

This is why I think more photorealistic graphics will help sell this realism. There will definitely be gamers who'll hate this, but I do think many are open to this and more unconventional mechanics, and it is a way that Silent Hill can separate itself from Resident Evil. So long as that frustration is balanced with adequate time to recover and recalibrate with the aid of early or appropriate visual and verbal cues, I believe it'll click for a lot of people and even make for interesting streams.

Rather than thinking that a SH1 Remake means "BIGGER" levels, "New" locales and weapons, fancier cutscenes and more dialogue and story and monsters, I'd rather they scaled back on that trend by innovating in other ways atop the old bones.

[Burning Man]

You should look into Fear & Hunger if you're not already familiar with the series. Some damages to the character, like losing a leg, are permanent. And, your character stats will reflect that.

Though, I'm beginning to think that the game you're describing is no longer a "Silent Hill game."

[Chris Sunderland]

Every since I played RDR2 I've always wanted a survival horror game with that level of interaction and animation combine that with your character taking damage and keeping it I think you could have a winner.

[Droo]

Red Dead 2 is too big for its own good. What's the point of a gigantic map if there's nothing to do in it?

It's definitely very ill suited in scope for the horror genre.

[WaffleMaker]

Red Dead 2 is too big for its own good. What's the point of a gigantic map if there's nothing to do in it?

It's definitely very ill suited in scope for the horror genre.

Quite the interesting phenomenon. Horror tends to be reserved, claustrophobic, self contained.

[The Adversary]

A full open world wouldn't work for a Silent Hill game. SILENT HILL 2 is already a fairly large map with little to do outside of explore for the sake of exploring. And, even then, the only things you really get to do are check out a motor home and Neely's Bar. Cool.

If the map is going to be expanded, then there needs to be a reason for it. That means more buildings and houses that aren't necessarily required to advance the story, like in SILENT HILL.

As for what I want and/or expect from a potential remake of the original game (taken from the now-closed thread):

The one thing I have a feeling that would be excised from the story is the PTV subplot. While I enjoy it personally, it has been completely disregarded in literally every future installment outside of a brief appearance in ORIGINS — and even that was only to show Lisa using it, something we already knew from SILENT HILL.

[Burning Man]

>The one thing I have a feeling that would be excised from the story is the PTV subplot.

Isn't... PTV quite integral to the story, though? I believe that was why Officer Gucci and the mayor were killed.

[leftshoe18]

I don't think the main story of Silent Hill would suffer at all with the PTV stuff removed as it's only really important to background information.

[Burning Man]

I don't know. With that line of thought, I feel like we can remove so much more if it's only to tell the main story. Silent Hill 3 was kind of like that. It is arguably the simplest and less interesting entry in the series in terms of plot.

I think Midwich Elementary would be gutted for sensitivity reasons.

[leftshoe18]

I don't know...

The PTV stuff is so inconsequential that I often forget it's even in Silent Hill 1 until I see it mentioned online or I'm replaying the game.

[The Adversary]

>Isn't... PTV quite integral to the story, though? I believe that was why Officer Gucci and the mayor were killed.<
The PTV subplot lets the audience know Dahlia and Kaufmann are shady people, that drugs are used in the Order's rituals, and that Alessa can kill just by wishing it. I'm sure there's a way to assert that Alessa has strong powers and abilities without the introduction of a highly localized drug.

PTV is also used to finance the cult's practices. We also know from SILENT HILL 3 that Vincent used the power of money to finance the recent restructuring of the Order — specifically he "used contributions of devotees [...] to expand the cult" (Silent Hill Chronicle). So, here again, PTV isn't exactly necessary.

And if PTV were really so important to the story, I'd think it would have been brought up at least one other time in the series outside of showing Lisa high on it and a couple rails in a sketchy motel room.

[Burning Man]

>Isn't... PTV quite integral to the story, though? I believe that was why Officer Gucci and the mayor were killed.<
The PTV subplot lets the audience know Dahlia and Kaufmann are shady people, that drugs are used in the Order's rituals, and that Alessa can kill just by wishing it. I'm sure there's a way to assert that Alessa has strong powers and abilities without the introduction of a highly localized drug.

PTV is also used to finance the cult's practices. We also know from SILENT HILL 3 that Vincent used the power of money to finance the recent restructuring of the Order — specifically he "used contributions of devotees [...] to expand the cult" (Silent Hill Chronicle). So, here again, PTV isn't exactly necessary.

And if PTV were really so important to the story, I'd think it would have been brought up at least one other time in the series outside of showing Lisa high on it and a couple rails in a sketchy motel room.

There are plenty of Silent Hill subplots that don't get mentioned ever again in subsequent games. By that logic, "Born From A Wish" can be removed.

If you have to change the plot points you listed just to remove references to PTV, it already implies that PTV is integral to the story. Excised subplots should have very little impact on the story.

[The Adversary]

Not really. 'Born From A Wish' reveals information on the nature of Maria's existence. PTV reveals that Dahlia and Kaufmann bad.

[leftshoe18]

^ Which is also already made evident through other evidence within the game. Completely removing it from SH1 changes almost nothing about the game.

[Burning Man]

^ But to what end, though? What is the point of removing PTV references?

If a Remake is developed with respect to the source material, PTV references should remain. It's relevant to the SH1 plot.