Comment on After getting Silent Hill 'back on track,' Konami wants to make it an annual franchise

• NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  What parts of Silent Hill did you reflect on? What parts made you think, this is a really good Silent HIll game?

  Or as other people have put it: If it had a different name, would it have mattered?

  source

  • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Um, the part where it was fun and creepy? And drenched in symbolism. I don’t know what you’re asking.

    I think you’re implying that they made a game called f and then called it Silent Hill f, but I don’t think that’s even remotely true. I don’t even know where to go with that.

    We may as well ask if Ocarina of Time isn’t a good Zelda game because the 3D elements stray too far from the core experience of having crazy pink hair. Would it have mattered if that game was instead called “Golden Billy Wets His Willy in Medieval Japan”?

    source

    • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yes they basically made a game called f. Really nothing to with Silent Hill. Not the game play, not the story, not the presentation. No inner narrative horror, no lynchian underpinnings. It switched from internal to external pressures for the character.

      In a way, I suppose that’s fine. Its a story in a different lens, not really a Silent Hill lens, but ok lets go with it.

      Then they changed the gameplay. This is not a silent hill style at all. Forced repetition and combat loops. Stamina. Arena style game play. Well there goes the psychological and horror aspect AND they didnt even do it very well.

      If you want to compare old video games, it is like Doki Doki Panic. Mario 2 in name only.

      source

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        James Sunderland’s external pressure was his wife’s disease. What are you talking about?

        The stuff that you’re saying isn’t there is, if you’re paying attention.

        And the game’s combat style is plenty Silent Hill.

        • It’s tense, creating a lot of “dropped keys” moments.
        • Your resources are limited, creating waves of dread and relief as you teeter between safe-ish and extremely vulnerable.
        • It sucks, lmao got’em.

        These are the 3 underpinnings of all Silent Hill combat systems. Every title has them.

        I am kidding, though. Once you understand what Silent Hill f wants you to do, the gameplay is actually quite fun. I beat it on its super hard mode; not as difficult as you would think.

        Not to mention, all of the fighting in this game, I get why people are frustrated, but it serves a narrative purpose. Hinako’s defining character trait is rage. The game compels you diegetically to rage with her.

        And I feel you about to say “Silent Hill isn’t Doom Eternal,” but anger is a pretty dark emotion, I do actually think it’s worth exploring.

        The main problem I have with this line of thinking is that I don’t think you leave any room for experimentation. It’s just grievance politics, basically. “This isn’t a Silent Hill game” doesn’t really mean anything, what it means is “it wasn’t what I wanted,” which is fine, but I think you’re trying to dress that opinion up in fancier clothes than it deserves.

        For example, Doki Doki Panic is a Mario game. Not only was it made by the Mario team, using their Mario lessons, but it’s the codifier for a ton of modern Mario staples. Shy Guys, Bob-ombs, Peach’s float ability all debuted in Doki Doki Panic. You can’t really separate it from Mario history; it’s deeply entangled.

        source

        • -> View More Comments