Comment on Why do new Silent Hill entries attract so much negativity?
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
For me, it looks like a good game. But doesn’t look like Silent Hill. Because of this it comes off as a game that was made and had the SH name slapped on it for street cred. That never works well in any case I’ve seen. Usually ends up the worst rated in a series.
memo@feddit.it 8 hours ago
Genuinely curious, why does it not look like SH? Is it because of the japanese setting? Because other than that it looks heavily focused on proper psychological chaos. I think we’ve got to give developers some form of freedom if we want to see this series advance!
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Silent Hill is more than just psychological chaos, most any modern horror game does that much. The Japanese setting doesn’t really help, it would make it harder to adapt to the IP, but it could have been done in a way that it wouldn’t have been an issue.
I’ll have to rewatch the trailer to give you more specific points, but it seems combat might be more prevalent than it should, veering more to the Resident Evil brand. The shifted world didn’t make much of an appearance in the trailer, but from the glimpses it seemed tame and not really all that horror-esque.
Being a bigger fan of the first two games than any of the rest, i see them as the standard, the fog and mist, not being able to see everything clearly so that odd shapes and shadows mess with you is also something I am missing in the new game.
It may be a great game. I just don’t see it as a SH game.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
IMO, hit stop in the combat. Also, the camera perspective puts too much emphasis on combat.
At its core, the peak way to play Silent Hill was to engage in combat as little as possible. This makes sense both in lore and for the player of the game:
In the game lore, protagonists in Silent Hill are “Everymen.” Just an average person. Average people do not generally have combat experience or training, and thus an average person put into a Silent Hill scenario, will more likely want to run away than engage in combat with a weapon they are not familiar with. They may be so unaccustomed to combat with a weapon they may injure themselves or waste all the bullets or break the weapon due to lack of training in combat. Additionally, Silent Hill has generally focused on people with some sort of dark past, with the exception of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th game. The 3rd game’s original plot apparently did give the protagonist a dark past, but Konami felt it would.have been too much and thus changed the plot significantly. Some elements of the original plot still remain, but are reworked into the new, different plot in the game currently.
For the player, combat felt bad, and generally posed more risk than reward (trade potentially losing a lot of health in a fight just to not have to walk around the enemy) as in Silent Hill, killing enemies doesn’t reward the player with anything other than having one less enemy to avoid. They don’t drop health or items.
SH2 remake, and in fact Homecoming and Downpour fall victim to this overemphasis on combat, and it is primarily the fault of the over the shoulder camera. The combat feels good and fun, and thus it makes the player want to do it more. This resulted in more sales because the mainstream audience seems to only like playing one kind of game. Unfortunately, it also resulted in the IP losing its identity.
The story looks fine, but calling it a Silent Hill game when it gives no indication of connecting to the town of Silent Hill is concerning. Every Silent Hill game previously connected to the actual town in some way. If f doesn’t do this, then nothing separates it from being a generic horror game with the Silent Hill name slapped on top.