First of all I am a very big fan of survival horror games. When Konami first announced about a portable Silent Hill game, I was blown away the very moment I read it. Now, after finishing it for the first time I still can't believe I have a complete Silent Hill adventure in the palm of my hand wherever I go. Everyday since I ordered my copy from ebay I've logged on gamespot to see how much it will score. I finally received the game and I was blown away by it. Graphics were pure eye candy, sound and music were amazingly creepy and the gameplay was old school Silent Hill, just like I wanted it to be. Some new minor tweaks to the Silent Hill formula were really interesting like the mirrors thatyou use totransport to theOther World ,Travisnot being able to run all the time, caffeinated drinks and disposable melee weapons. It all fited well and I was very satisfied with this game. Until Kevin VanOrddecided to give Silent Hill 6.5. And for what reason? Because it didn't mess around with the Silent Hill formula. No next-gen survival horror elements, it just recycles all the previous silent hill games. And that is true of course. But what I don't understand is why does a game absolutely needs to expand on its predecessors' formula in order to be fun? unreal Tournament 3 didn't changed the formula but it still got an 8.5. Of course this is another subject, don't think that I'm a UT hate boy it's just an example. Silent Hill Origins is just more of the same old school survival horrorgameplay which is one of the genres that doesn'tproduce much games recently. People see its score and another game's score, let's say Lord of the Rings Tacticts or Coded Arms and think that SH0 is on the same par as those ones while it is a way better game than those. Did mr VanOrd thought of these? I think not. It's just injustice to underrate(Silent Hill Origins)and overrate (Halo3)games....