What I think should happen with Silent Hill

[devil hunter]

I know that, I was just pointing out the fact that SM did have originality.

[Mothersdecent]

Saying SM was original is like saying MirrorMirror was original.


It just isn't.

[what]

You know, you're right. What was your favorite part of Shattered Memories? Was it the part where you don't find a cult engaged in child abuse and drug trading, or was it the part where Harry doesn't shoot a god to death?

Shattered Memories is almost certainly more original than the first game, which is really just a creative pastiche of Rosemary's Baby, Jacob's Ladder, with countless other bits taken from famous horror movies. It's an unabashed love letter to American horror, and as effective as it is, almost everything in the game is very obviously derived from other sources.

Say what you will about it, but there's very little original in Silent Hill.

[Q. Valintyne]

It was an original approach to an established story. I'm not going to argue whether or not this was a good gamble or not (because that's clearly subjective), but the psyche profile thing was never before seen in a Silent Hill game. Heck, total lack of combat had never been implemented until this entry. Like I said before, I'm not going to argue whether or not that was good or bad.

I think it's funny that your GIF is of Walt Disney's Snow White (when that wasn't even an original story when this adaptation was made).

Disney's Snow White was still a unique and original take on the tale. No matter what you say, really. Just like Snow White and the Huntsman is a unique take on the Snow White lore (and original in its own right).

There is no excuse for Mirror Mirror, however.

[Mothersdecent]

Call SM creative, inspired, clever, etc but not original because it just doesn't apply to it.

You know, you're right. What was your favorite part of Shattered Memories? Was it the part where you don't find a cult engaged in child abuse and drug trading, or was it the part where Harry doesn't shoot a god to death?

Shattered Memories is almost certainly more original than the first game, which is really just a creative pastiche of Rosemary's Baby, Jacob's Ladder, with countless other bits taken from famous horror movies. It's an unabashed love letter to American horror, and as effective as it is, almost everything in the game is very obviously derived from other sources.

Say what you will about it, but there's very little original in Silent Hill.

You're right.. Silent Hill was so unoriginal, it didn't create a cultural phenomenon or become the epitome of survival horror.
No movies or games were based on it, it was a flop.

[what]

Oh, come on. Resident Evil did far more to bring horror videogames to the cultural forte and, just like the first Silent Hill there was barely a single thing about it which was original. A basic understanding of American horror fiction is enough to give one a clear understanding of this fact.

That's not to say that being original is more important than taking a novel approach to an established idea. This is why both the aforementioned games were successes. Shattered Memories, unfortunately, cannot win over everyone. Some people claim it's too original to be considered a Silent Hill title and others that it isn't original enough.

You can always tell when someone has never played Shattered Memories, or was unable to understand what they saw, when their criticism of the game is "it's too much like Silent Hill".

[Purramid_Head]

You know, you're right. What was your favorite part of Shattered Memories? Was it the part where you don't find a cult engaged in child abuse and drug trading, or was it the part where Harry doesn't shoot a god to death?

Shattered Memories is almost certainly more original than the first game, which is really just a creative pastiche of Rosemary's Baby, Jacob's Ladder, with countless other bits taken from famous horror movies. It's an unabashed love letter to American horror, and as effective as it is, almost everything in the game is very obviously derived from other sources.

Say what you will about it, but there's very little original in Silent Hill.

While this is true, Sm similarly done to other non-horror movies. Though I can't think of which ones off the bat. But I def know the twist has been done before. Almost all games take some thing from movies or tv. In this day and age it's logical that those things would be an influence on the game market. There's nothing wrong with that. But I don't find either to be original really. Both take from rl concepts as well.

[Mothersdecent]

Oh, come on. Resident Evil did far more to bring horror videogames to the cultural forte and, just like the first Silent Hill there was barely a single thing about it which was original. A basic understanding of American horror fiction is enough to give one a clear understanding of this fact.

That's not to say that being original is more important than taking a novel approach to an established idea. This is why both the aforementioned games were successes. Shattered Memories, unfortunately, cannot win over everyone. Some people claim it's too original to be considered a Silent Hill title and others that it isn't original enough.

You can always tell when someone has never played Shattered Memories, or was unable to understand what they saw, when their criticism of the game is "it's too much like Silent Hill".

Except there was nothing original about RE, it's was just the basic premise of cops caught in a virus breakout and zombies epidemic, which is much more appealing to the general public because it's a simple premise.
SH actually took a risk in telling a tale like no other in a video-game in it's time, far more complicated for the average gamer back in the day, that's what caught everyone's attention, on top of being scary as hell.


Also i never fucking said SM was anything like SH, stop putting words in my mouth. All i said was that it based it's premise on it, instead of basing it on a completely new idea and setting, this alone makes it unoriginal, but note that unoriginal =/= Bad, SM sucked imo, for other reasons.

[Q. Valintyne]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but realize that Silent Hill was made solely to capitalize on Resident Evil's success. That's a pretty common fact. There was nothing original about Silent Hill, either.

Original gaming mechanics and original story are two separate beasts. SM was original in the former aspect, but the story was still a unique take regardless of the quality of said take.

[Augophthalmoses]

SH actually took a risk in telling a tale like no other in a video-game in it's time, far more complicated for the average gamer back in the day, that's what caught everyone's attention, on top of being scary as hell.

It still doesn't change the fact that when all is said and done, that game still borrowed heavily from many different sources. Just because it's a more unique take at horror in the realm of video games doesn't negate the fact it's still composed of a combination of numerous ideas from various horror works (or even genres outside horror). Besides, Silent Hill was born out of Konami's desire to compete with Resident Evil and they obviously took some inspiration from that series which you can see primarily in the control setup which is incredibly similar to Resident Evil barring some changes/additions. The overall basis of Silent Hill's story still was a little more out there than Resident Evil, yes. But it was still primarily a horror experience. Dad goes to Silent Hill with daughter. She's gone. You have to look for her in a town filled with crazy monsters. Oh, and they all come from this cult wanting to usher in their god. Not exactly a gigantic, sophisticated stroke of creative genius, but it worked for a horror experience and providing a decent story. Plus, you still had weapons, health, and ammo to help you fight monsters which was one of the big draws of Resident Evil and part of what made that game so fun and tense.

They have more than their share of differences, but they do share some parallels as well. While the developers had differing goals and approaches of reaching those goals for Resident Evil and Silent Hill, they share one universal idea that made both franchises immensely popular and distinct in their own respective ways: by looking into various forms of entertainment for inspiration.

Also i never fucking said SM was anything like SH, stop putting words in my mouth. All i said was that it based it's premise on it, instead of basing it on a completely new idea and setting, this alone makes it unoriginal, but note that unoriginal =/= Bad, SM sucked imo, for other reasons.

Therein lies the problem: you recognize that the game did indeed borrow SH1's basic premise, but fail to see that it told a completely different tale from the original. And it practically is based on a new setting. True, the town in SM is still named Silent Hill and many locations from the series are borrowed. But at the same time these locations are nothing at all like the ones portrayed in previous games and they have different bearing on the characters and/or overall plot.

As a matter of fact, that's kind of one of the negatives I have with the game. It wasn't the same region as the previous games. There was that lack of the mythos from the original town and surrounding areas that kinda disappointed me. That and the town could have used more interaction, better puzzles, more things to do and look at.

this alone makes it unoriginal, but note that unoriginal =/= Bad, SM sucked imo, for other reasons.

Then what do you think about SH3? It borrows a lot of the plot elements of SH1 since it's a sequel to that game, and in many ways reiterates a lot of things that were more or less hinted at in the first game such as the cult desiring to summon god to usher in paradise.

Point is the series wouldn't be what it was today if wasn't for it borrowing other established ideas and tropes from other works. I love the games just as anybody else, but they aren't the end all, be all pillar of originality that you try to doll them up to be. It comes apparent with more and more posts you make that you have this deep fanboyism for the first four games. And I don't people at all who favor those games more. But when your love of those games makes your criticism of the rest of the series more inconsistent and unfounded, that's when it starts creating problems.

[devil hunter]

Well of course SM is going to be based on SH 1. It's a reimagining. It maybe has an old basic story and characters, but the new story they made is original, name other SH game that has story like this.

When I said that SM is originals I mean that certain aspects of the game are original for this series. If we're gonna compare it to other horror games, movies etc. then going by that logic SH series as whole is not original AT ALL.

[what]

I'm not even sure it's proper to say Shattered Memories is based on the first game. In terms of story, they share almost nothing in common after about three minutes or so. They both take a premise--man in search of daughter--and Shattered Memories takes this in a completely different direction almost at once, never again straying anywhere near what happens in the first game. Past that, they follow a parallel of places and people, but the connections between the two never go beyond that. That's not even accounting for how both games have entirely different gameplay as well as having entirely different stories and approaches to storytelling.

Really, Silent Hill 2 does the same thing, in that it takes a variation of the first game's premise--man in search of wife now, rather than daughter--takes a left turn right away and goes off on its own direction. It doesn't even change the gameplay. What a fucking ripoff.

[Mothersdecent]

There's a difference in taking inspiration from multiple sources to create something new out of that, the best of them do it, that is how you create good stuff, and straight up copying as in taking the same premise, basis, story progression, key events and characters which is what SM does.
As to SH3, i never said it was original, however, it is a continuation of SH1 and it's bound to share similarities and with good reason for being so closely connected.

@what i'm not even gonna waste my time replying to your post, sh2 even slightly similar to sh1?? Um no, lets not resort to delusion to prove our points.

[Augophthalmoses]

Horrible logic in that post and I'm only going to address the two most important ones.

There's a difference in taking inspiration from multiple sources to create something new

Except it still isn't exactly new. You're still a father looking for your daughter in an abandoned town filled with monsters using tank controls derived from Resident Evil. The premise isn't a stroke of creative genius nor is the story. Perhaps in the realm of video games is seems "more original" because 3D survival horror games were starting to come into their own. But none of this changes the fact that the ideas that influenced the original game have been around in movies and literature for hundreds of years.

and straight up copying as in taking the same premise, basic, story progression and characters which is what SM does.

And you have a flawed idea of what copying is. SM does take the basic setup of SH1, but the storyline becomes completely different and the progression of it is nowhere near identical to the original. Less so, considering the story moves at a much faster pace due to the game being stripped down severely in terms of gameplay and the simplified puzzles holding you up less than in the previous games.

The characters share the same names, but beyond they bear very minimal similarities to the characters in the original game. Lisa still has her name, but her appearance is nothing like she was in SH1 and her personality is different as well. Kaufmann is still a "doctor" I guess you could say. But he's not some doctor at a regular hospital secreting hording some burned girl for a crazed cult. He's a therapist who established his office in a lighthouse building and is helping a client.

Aside from the shared character and location names, the basic setup of the story taken from the original, and the main twist of the game's protagonist being yet another case of a mental dilemma there aren't many similarities.

SH2...it takes a basic premise shared by SH1: Looking for a lost, loved one in town and makes its own story about. A pretty similar goal to SM only they each tell a different story. However, the main way in SH2 is similar to SH1 is in the gameplay. It's pretty much a copy and paste of SH1 with very minimal additions made to the formula aside from improved controls and being able to combine multiple puzzle items together. Which is one of the reasons why SH2 is one the games I replay less than many other games in the series (save SM). The gameplay doesn't make an attempt to evolve much.

[devil hunter]

I guess SH 4 can be original and innovative but SM can't.

[Q. Valintyne]

Alan Wake seems to be a combination of Silent Hill 1 & 2. That's only from an observation I made from the back cover today. He's an author looking for his wife. I have not played this game, so don't attack me for anything.

My point is there is nothing truly original anymore. There never will be. There are only so many ways you can twist a story. Augo is right, really.

and straight up copying as in taking the same premise, basic, story progression and characters which is what SM does.

This leads me to believe that you've honestly never played SM. The premise is the same, but the story is completely fucking different. Trust me. The ending was an honest surprise to me (and actually, it was a pretty original twist). To say that they are exactly the same is plain rubbish. Shit, they don't even take place in the same year.

I played SM before playing the original game. I loved them both. They are definitely not the same.

[NarooN]

There's a difference in taking inspiration from multiple sources to create something new out of that, the best of them do it, that is how you create good stuff, and straight up copying as in taking the same premise, basis, story progression, key events and characters which is what SM does.

This right here shows you never even played the game, let alone even bothered watching a playthrough on youtube at the least. Besides sharing the same premise, the game is completely different in pretty much every way. Especially the endings, which aren't anything at all like SH1's and shows the true reason why SM was going on.

[Mothersdecent]

Ok SM is original, it's took everything about SH1 and twisted it to make it different and that is why its original.
Good job climax for being so innovative. Even though other games have done much more to actually come up with brand new ideas and basics but it's irrelevant because SM took another game's story and made it it's own.
What is considered original nowadays anyways.. right?

[The Gentleman]

What is considered original nowadays anyways.. right?

Welcome to post-modernism.

[Augophthalmoses]

But it's okay for SH3 to take SH1's plot and reiterate a lot of the things that were already talked about or implied within the first game, right? For some reason that game gets a pass for taking a rather unoriginal route with its concept of making a sequel to SH1.

But SM isn't allowed to take SH1's basic setup and make a separate game about it. Yeah, with each post you make it's becoming pretty clear your criticisms aren't really understandable and are just looking to bitch about something else a Western developer did just for the sake of bitching.

For some Japanese developers are just free to do whatever they want. They can sequel, prequel, and borrow whatever ideas they want. But the very second a Western developer follows suit "it's copying/being unoriginal/blah blah blah". Just some the same Japanophile mindset rearing its head yet again. It's crystal that you're too stuck in your close minded paradrigm of bias to listen to any kind of reasoning when its comes to originality in the Silent Hill series. The same thought processes you keep conveying is just "the first four games were the second coming of Christ, perfectestest, bestestestestestest games evar!" and any game not made by the original, Japanese developers is just doomed to "being broken, shitty copycats!' according to your rationale.

Furthermore, given how your posts about SM are rather non descriptive, lacking in elaboration, and don't seem to progress beyond saying "SM was just copying SH1" and the lack of things you've had to say about Downpour since it came out other than basic "it sucks" opinions, I'm willing to bet you haven't even played some of the games you claim to despise so much.