[QUOTE="Gemini_Red"]
[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
i.e. "I don't really like Silent Hill's storyline or it's gameplay, so it's a good thing they replaced it."
The first Silent Hill's storyline is superb. Combat in Silent Hill games was never supposed to be "good." It was there for getting by, not for taking everything out.
hakanakumono
Um, don't put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it and that is not what I said.
The first SH plotline was suitable enough for the game, but in retrospect that is all it was: suitable.
Superb? If we were talking SH2 we'd be on the same page, but superb for the first game? A bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong it was good enough for what it was, and had some very moving scenes. I still consider Lisa Garland to be one of the most tragic characters in the history, but that doesn't change the fact that the plot in general was rather flat. As for combat, I know why it was there. I spent more time running than fighting, which is why I still wonder what problem people have about it being removed for Shattered Memories.
And Carnage, give me a break. Until I state that Silent Hill Kart Racer is acceptable, let's not take my words to the land of extremes. Everything that makes for a SH game was in Shattered Memories: Creepy town, reality shift, psychology, unique characters, and a solid story. What changed was the combat and instead of rust red fences and blood, with have frozen hell. The change in direction is not as dramatic as people claim. Not saying the game is perfect. Danger time and safe time was WAY too predictable, as opposed to previous titles that kept you constantly on edge. So the sense of tension was greatly dimished, but really I felt that was the only real significant slip up.
Combat was a huge component of Silent Hill gameplay. The games featured challenging foes, and fairly weak protagonists creating a situation where the player runs on desperation from health item to health item, similar to the classic RE games (but ultimately different in execution). Without combat, it isn't Silent Hill gameplay; it's an offshoot of Clock Tower. Instead of replacing gameplay with different gameplay, it's better for the series to improve upon what was. By replacing gameplay, you're destroying not only a key component of the Silent Hill experience, but you're also diminishing variety within the market. The same thing happened to RE4.
Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 are both deep, personal stories full of symbolism, strong writing, and realistic human characters. If Silent Hill 2 has an edge over the original game, it's not by much; they're both two two strongest stories of the Team Silent games.
If you don't want combat in Silent Hill and you don't want the original story of Silent Hill, then it's safe to say that you don't like Silent Hill much at all, and that's why you find it so easy to replace it. It's the same thing with what RE has become; "well it was never scary/fun/etc anyways so it's good that they made it different."
Now we've gone from putting words in my mouth, to making assumptions. You're on a roll. This will be my last reply in regards to this subject. We have varying opinions on this, which is fine and to be expected. Ultimately this will just continue to be a roundabout discussion that won't really go anywhere. That said it is mildly annoying that you are making assumptions about what I am expecting and want from the SH series, based on my view of Shattered Memories when all it really comes down to is I just enjoyed the damn game, despite the differences.
Did I say I didn't want combat? No. I said it wasn't the best feature in SH, and that is true. It's also NOT safe to say I don't like SH at all based off the fact I found the plot of the first as merely so-so. That remark was incredibly ignorant. SH2 had very little in common from the first in regards to story, and I liked that one the best of the series. So based off that your statement still applies? Sure, go ahead and run with that if you want.
Again SH2 we agree with in regards to symbolism, strong writing, and realistic characters, but SH1? Sorry, but some of things are a mixed bag. I didn't find Dahlia to be realistic at all. Truthfully I thought she was more of a stereotype and I groaned whenever she was on screen. Kaufman came off as rather flat most times too. For a town in peril he seems rather apathetic and a lot of times spoke in a dull monotone. That's the VA's fault, but it represented Kaufman poorly. The writing I didn't find very strong. Creative at some points for certain, but those points weren't enough to carry it. Symbolism...yeah it was there on a minimal level, but by and large it was all cult and conspiracy. It was a good first go by Team Silent, but they upped the ante so much with the sequel and even #3 as well. 4? Eh...but to be fair that wasn't supposed to be a SH game originally.
Combat was a component. A huge one? Arguable. Almost every game in the series(save for Homecoming) consisted of main characters with no experience, or I'm guessing very little experience in using a firearm. I doubt most were practicing melee combat in their backyards as well. A vast majority of enemies you had the option of fight or flight. Combat was sometimes required(tight hallways, small rooms, bosses) but not essential. Shattered Memories worked fine without, and without spoiling anything it was essential in the way the plot unfolded. Did I say Shattered Memories is the way combat should be handled from now on? Nope. It worked for that entry in the series. Most things in SM won't ever be seen again. Not because they were bad, but because trying to duplicate it will mean people will see what kind of game it is all too early. In regards to combat as merely so-so as it is in the first three, It's the format I'd prefer in future titles. From 4 on the combat only got worse.
Log in to comment