MSX on 28/2/2008 at 21:24

---

Sure the game is probably a good year off, but I thought I'd take a moment to talk about the silent hill series with the new screenshots of 5 released: (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51526) here

Mostly because I'm really excited and have no idea why.

Origins is a spinoff. I'm not going to buy a sony gamegear for a spinoff.

Silent Hill 4 was a major letdown. I put up with the game till they decided it would be 'fun' to go backwards through all the areas you've already gone through only with different puzzles. If the areas were scary the first time I would have minded less. That was the last straw for that game and I can admit that I never finished it.

Four was bad, great, but when going back the series has been going sort of 'down hill'. I mean three was not too bad, but it was just sort of there. Scary, but it didn't really try to invoke any sort of major emotional response. Or failed miserably. One of the two.

Silent Hill 2 is what most argue is the best in the series. I disagree. While the acting is great, the game really loses a lot over silent hill one simply due to there being little exploration. Silent hill one really felt like a town. I remember wandering(or more accurately running around like a scared little girl) around that first area of town for hours looking for things. Where two was more focused and really directed you like your on a leash. While it is good for keeping the game focused, I feel it really loses something. Thats right, it loses playtime, I beat silent hill 2 in 5 hours. First try max difficulty. Yeah thats my biggest complaint with Silent Hill 2, it left me wanting more.

Sure, Silent hill one has terrible acting but it sort of gives it a campy horror movie charm. The voice acting on the PS1 was spotty at best. Google 'Jill sandwich' if you were not paying attention during that era. It can be forgiven. Honestly the bad dialog did a good job of weirding me out like an unexpected perk. Graphics were great for the time, the looming fog being another one of those unexpected perks. In a lot of ways silent hill was a beautiful accident as far as atmosphere goes. The game also has a good 10+ hours of gameplay, really ties you to the town and has some really challenging easter eggs. You also never knew what to expect. I think that might be the biggest reason it stands over two in my mind.

After that little recap, I guess I'm interested because I want to see more glimmers of the first. I'm going to have to go dig up my ps2 now.

Fragony on 29/2/2008 at 03:16

---

Well that doesn't get me very excited, looks completily bland and soulless. Origins is comming to the ps2 by the way, game is ok.

gunsmoke on 29/2/2008 at 06:35

---

You're kidding, right?

icemann on 29/2/2008 at 17:13

---

SH3 was worthy of existing. Excellent game overall. Though not on the same kinda scale as the first 2 games. Should have stopped there. That said the trailers I`ve seen of 5 look pretty damn awesome. Looks as nice gfx wise as Devil May Cry 4 which is awesome.

Madin on 2/3/2008 at 00:29

---

The series is in terminal decline. They need a RE4 style refresh to the whole series, they're finding it impossible to live up to the heights achieved via the first 2 games. I feel that part of the reason for this is the rigid adherence to the gameplay style made famous in the first game.

Origins is crap. Its not has crap as I thought it would be, but its still comfortably worse than the first 3 games in the series, if I played it on a TV screen, it would still be comfortably worse than the first 3 games.

The first Silent hill game is the best for me, by a tiny margin. It was billed has an alternative survival horror, and it regularly tops lists has the most scariest game of all time, talk about delivering. On the other hand SH2 rarely tops any lists, which takes nothing away from the formidable achievement.
uchI can't easily think up a game that has such a memorable cast of NPCs. I'd imagine that taken has a whole, the NPC cast in SH2 would easily make a top 10 list. Its miles ahead of HL2 for example, and thats considered a genre 'high' in terms of delivery and characterisation.
Indeed SH2 use of NPCs is a high that the series itself will never recover from, a big problem that I had with SH3 is that, in comparison to SH2, the NPC characters were flat and dull, very 2 dimensional. The fact that this applied to the main character as well was fatal.
My big problem with SH2 is that it was too easy. Its the easiest survival horror game I've ever played. The game makes no attempt to challenge a fan of the genre. I wonder if SH2 easiness goes towards boosting its credentials has a 'fan' favorite (I feel this also helped RE2 somewhat).
The best comedy moment for me, was when upon answering questions for a really simple quiz, you are rewarded with tons of ammunition and health supplies, I questioned the sanity of the play testers at that point.
Like RE2 I ended the game with hundreds of rounds of ammo.
A big factor in this was the uselessness of the enemies you faced. A survival horror basic, is not engaging enemies which can be easily avoided. SH2 slow, clumsy enemies were far to easy to avoid, and most of them offered little threat if they did manage to attack you. In comparison both Silent hill and SH3 had enemies which could keep up with you, and some which were faster.
Has the easiness of the game is countered by the brilliance of the story and the supporting cast, the dull enemy roster is countered by perhaps the greatest antagonist in any survival horror, the Pyramid head. The way that the enemy was handled was another master class from Konami, I still maintain that the pyramid heads introduction is one gamings great moments.

SH3 was polar opposite to SH2, which provided a few positives but many negatives. The difficulty level is set to obscene has default. The standard enemy roster is a high point in the series (Although 'that' enemy annoyed the fuck out of me as well!), ammunition and health pick ups are rare, and so you constantly feel in danger. The survival aspect is at an all time high has a result. The revolver packing nurses are one of the all time great survival horror enemies, and the opening level, set in the nightmare amusement park, suggested great things were in store in SH3. Sadly the piss poor NPCs, some strange story choices (I'm I supposed to believe that Harry from the first game, god killer, was supposed to have been murdered by some weak assed 'Freddy Kruger' alike? Fuck off, Harry would've battered that fucker to death using the couch) and the fucking subway level, work to pull a game that
promised so much, down.
The hospital level was a high point for me, one of the best survival horror levels ever made. The enemies, the katana, the normal-to-nightmare transition (one of the best WTF moments in the series), the mirror room, the mirror room, the mirror room.
I thought that the nightmare version of silent hill was handled superbly in SH3, almost on par with the first game (rarely better), I felt that the nightmare versions of Silent hill were weak in SH2 (some refer to it merely has 'dark' Silent hill), it reinforces that SH2 was going for a unique 'feel', it was probably purists such has myself's complaining that the 'dark' Silent hill was pansy, and insisting that SH3 revert to back to the twisted metal nightmare of Silent hill, that caused the distinct lack of evolution in SH3, that was present in part 2.
The perfect Silent hill game for me would have the strongest aspects from SH2 and SH3, including the often stunning graphics.
They need to do a remake of the first game, get the director and team that worked on it (if possible) and out do Capcoms Resident evil remake. It could also be used has a fitting end, a signing off, of the 'older' style of Silent hill gameplay, and pave the way for a new style (please note that I do not wish Silent hill to become a pure action game like Resident evil has).