Sad to say I didn't like it

[SeparateWay]

I do agree that the first Silent Hill did a great job at creating a unique experience for game playing, but in the end I still favor 2 over the first

[Meltdown]

I love Silent Hill and its fans. SH is such a diverse world. Every game brought something unique to the series. I like how that diversity is reflected in the fan community...

Anyway, I'm such a huge SH1 fan. Ironically I got hooked on the series by watching the movie (when the movie first came out). I thought it was such a cool concept, and the monsters were all so... Interesting. So I promptly found an SH1 emulation for my old PC. To this day no game has impacted me as heavily as SH1. Which is saying a lot given the poor graphics. I mean, I had been used to games like Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and Halo 2. Normally I'm a bit of a graphics snob, but SH1 was different. Its storyline was so thought provoking and beautiful, and the monsters unlike anything I'd seen. I've never been so scared before or since. At the same time it was a really beautiful game. The snowy atmosphere, the transitions, and most of all; the characters. Lisa was such a beautifully tragic character, and her death scene was heart destroying!

So... After that incredible experience, SH2 was kind of a let down. I never even completed it. I liked the foggy atmosphere, but eh. The storyline just didn't grab me and beat me up like the original. Of all the SH games I've played since (and I've played them all), I'll say Origins was the only one that somewhat rekindled that fire. That's not to say I didn't enjoy most of them though. I loved Homecoming and 3. But none of them have effected me as much as SH1. Completing that was like...

My theater professor says that seeing a well executed play in a theater should be a moving experience. You should leave the theater a different person (even if its just a little different). I got the same thing from Silent Hill. Finishing that game.. I got the same feeling as when I see a fantastic play.

EDIT: Sorry for the long post but... Going back to the first page of the topic. I think its appealing that SH1 left a lot up to the player to figure out, think about. As one member mentioned, the camera never leaves Harry. It adds so much more realism not having to be baby fed the facts throughout the game. Oftentimes in any median of art, its the stuff you don't see that's the most beautiful.

[JohnDrake6]

On the control issues, some were deliberate and some were idiosyncrasies of the industry at the time. Many games were clunky, and I agree with the comment on the run controls, however, the combat was, I believe, designed to be tough. I remember reading in the original manual that came with the game that Harry would have difficulty shooting things far away (the implication was because he had no training). I could be misremembering this, because I played it when it first came out.

The innovative thing about it was what resulted in much of the story not being explained. My first playthrough I missed picking up maps, wandered in the dark, missed whole sections of the game and still finished. There were many different paths to take through the game and you could miss the whole drug angle or saving Cybil, but still get to the end. You would want to play again to figure out more.

Yes, the story wasn't fully fleshed out, a lot was vague and left to your own imagination to fill in the blanks, but there was a lot there - Cheryl was not possessed, from what I read into the the story, she was the reincarnation (or more properly, the result of the transmigration of half of Alessa's soul). Cheryl was not, technically, a complete person; Harry and his wife found her (as revealed in one ending) and the cult was keeping Alessa alive to maintain control of the rest of her soul so she could birth a god. Pretty intense if you ask me.

[monkeyme5]

Captain Hindsight where are you !!! (sorry southpark pun eheh) ok read most of this thread and yeah your right about pretty much well, everything! IF!!! you are unlucky enough to have started the entire series off with number two our most beloved and well treasured SH2. Ok, it may sound like im mocking you or maybe having a dig but im not seriously its just that well, its like saying ''mmmm these new and improved recipe chocolate bars are well tasty, I think I'll travel back in time and go back to eating the really old ones before they tasted this good mmmm'' - never gonna work. Fortunately for a lot of people back when SH1 was released they had never experienced or heard of SH and its intriguing multiverse of madness and was therefore able to accept it easier. The first time ever experiencing the thrill of pure psychological terror through gaming was let me tell you ''''BLOODY AMAAAAAAZIN'''' ... Im sorry to rub it in but I was there, I played the demo, I bought the game and well since then, its been a helluva rollercoaster ride so all in all I guess my point is ''DONT EAT OLD CHOCOLATE AND NOT EXPECT A BITTER TASTE IN YOUR MOUTH ''

[Brispir]

I actually liked the fact that the first Silent Hill game explained almost nothing. It makes you put the pieces together yourself, which gets the brain working. At the time, I was thinking the bad ending

REVEAL SPOILER

(where you find Harry in his Jeep imagining the whole thing just before he died as in Jacob's Ladder)

was the "correct" ending. Silent Hill 3, however, destroyed that possibility. I thought at the time Alessa and Cheryl were two separate souls with each having half of the god mentioned in the game. I also thought of the possibility that Harry had died and gone to hell, which was Silent Hill (the game DID say "Welcome to Hell" on the front I think). After SH3 and Origins, a lot was explained and left a lot less room open to interpretation.

Personally... even though I loved the games, I think the story itself would have been best if there was only SH1.

[samael21walter]

This is strange...the first Silent Hill is my favorite in the entire series, while the second one sits at about...5th in line? I think the first game nailed the atmosphere, and it really scared me a lot as a kid (and it still does now). Akira Yamaoka's tracks on this game are absolutely superb for the mood, while the other games take a more melodic approach (beautiful, but it makes the games a lot less frightening without as many aggressive tracks). The storyline to the game was meant to be hard to understand, and it was supposed to make you dig deeper and play it through multiple times. The environments in the first Silent Hill feel different than any other in the series, and the whole mood of the game is one of dread and constant edge-of-your-seat tension. I honestly wouldn't even dare to turn this game on when I was little. I think it's a shame that no other Silent Hill games were this frightening or even as mysterious. I don't get people who say Silent Hill 2 is the masterpiece of the series either. Sure, it had a good story, but it just wasn't scary. At all. It didn't make you feel any sort of fear, and it really felt nothing like the first game. I love SH2 as much as any other, but to compare it to Silent Hill and Silent Hill 3 is outright blasphemy in my opinion.

[what]

The storyline to the game was meant to be hard to understand, and it was supposed to make you dig deeper and play it through multiple times.

Hardly. There's nothing deep or even mysterious about the story in the first game. You play through the game having practically no idea what's going on and even Harry doesn't care much about any of it except what relates to him finding his daughter. A single playthrough lays most of it out on the table, because the final scenes pretty much tell you exactly what happened and why.

I can't speak for everyone but I consider Silent Hill 2 a masterpiece because it isn't straightforward horror. Horror loses its effectiveness every time you're exposed to it. Once you know what to expect, most of its impact is neutered. In that same vein, it's why I loved Shattered Memories so much; it didn't bore me with so much of that tired old Silent Hill horror I've been seeing for an entire decade. It told me a story and I found it fascinating, and that's the sort of thing that gets old only if one works very hard to make it happen.

Sound is the one area in which the first game excelled. It really did the most to make the whole town oppressive, as if the entire environment was your enemy and out to get you. I didn't mind so much that there were more melodic tracks in later games, but the noise tracks in those games were never anywhere near as sinister as those in the first.

[nur_ein_tier]

What what said. Silent Hill 1 is the only soundtrack I like, actually. I tolerate the others, but I liked SH1's. It was used well.

[Purramid_Head]

Hardly. There's nothing deep or even mysterious about the story in the first game.

I'd post the seriously guy but I'm on a cell phone.

Silent Hill 2 is a hellva lot easier to be right about. Before I read Lost Memories I was right on the money with it's symbolism. I mean, heck, the monsters themselves can't even call themselves a threat compared to one.

There was a lot more mystery in both 1 and 3 before I read LM and it's harder to gauge exactly what is going on. 2's symbolism is not even that hard to figure out since most of the information is handed to you upon playing with out reading Lost Memories. The 1st game was way better in terms of vagueness, depth, and mystery. You may personally detest 1, but my god, if I still had my posts from 2005 pre-LM for me, I could show you that I even figured out the tablets and who they represented and I knew barely nothing about Aztec mythos at the time. (The forum I posted on went bye bye, so I lost everything.)

One still has stuff that is a mystery. Most of 2's mystery has been dissolved. There was imo, much more depth in 1 than 2. After all, 2 was made to be a one shot story. 1 was not.

[nur_ein_tier]

well, sh2's story is more coherent, anyway. sh1 had lot of stuff in it, and you could dig into it or not. and that's why 1 is still my favorite.

[Purramid_Head]

Yeah, it was way more straight forward. For the record, Harry wasn't non-emotional, not just because of what he said but for example he looks at the Alessa photo and he reads it, in 1 and that's it. But it's revealed in 3 that he was experiencing emotion when he saw that photo. The game just doesn't say it for some reason.

[Augophthalmoses]

Yeah, it was way more straight forward. For the record, Harry wasn't non-emotional, not just because of what he said but for example he looks at the Alessa photo and he reads it, in 1 and that's it. But it's revealed in 3 that he was experiencing emotion when he saw that photo. The game just doesn't say it for some reason.

You could only convey so much in SH1 anyway with the graphical limitations and the canny voice acting.

[Purramid_Head]

That's what I was thinking. 3 had at least two wall's of text from Harry and he did react to his surroundings. It's just the limits of the game. He was no Henry.

[what]

I was, for the record, referring only to the game's story. The first game had depth in a lot of areas, but not so much in the story. By the time you finish the game, you know quite well what happened, why it happened, and the motives of everyone involved are simple and obvious. Only Alessa takes any real effort to figure out. The first game's mystery lies more in the details, in figuring out the mechanics of the universe and the religion. The story itself, though, is no challenge whatever.

Contrast that with the second game, which leaves a great deal more unanswered. There are still debates over basic themes such as why James did what he did, and a lot of differing answers to that question. None of the characters' motives are simple and each can be interpreted in several valid ways. There's no answer as to what is going on behind the scenes or why everyone was called there in the first place, and it took years for the community to reach an unsteady consensus on just a few of these questions. There's no doubt that the complexity of its story is vast compared to all of the Alessa-themed games, combined, and in large part that is why Silent Hill fora have been such thriving places for so long, it being the favorite entry for most people.

Regarding Harry, he's not emotionally stunted, he's dedicated. He still doesn't really give much of a shit why reality seems to be having a burrito diarrhea nightmare all around him. I don't think he even addresses the question in his letter to Heather. Which kind of makes him suspect as a writer, I say.

[Purramid_Head]

Idk how long you've been around in the community, but 1's story is not that easy to figure out compared to 2. 2 gave you information. F had been in the community for well at least ten years and said of the reference guide that he had made it BEFORE anyone knew much about SH1. Back in the days before LM. 1 tells you almost nothing, 2 tells you almost everything. The key to two is paying attention.


I can't figure out why you believe a man who killed his terminal wife because he had to nurse her ismore deep than a girl child who was physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally abused most of her life with a crazy religious mother and who was set on fire. Being a victim of multiple cases of child abuse myself and suffering my own psychological problems, I see that has having way more depth than some guy with marriage problems who had killed his wife over something like that. James seems a lot shallower in that regard and his complaints look stupid compared to Alessa's life being hell.

[what]

Idk how long you've been around in the community,

A hundred years.

but 1's story is not that easy to figure out compared to 2. 2 gave you information. F had been in the community for well at least ten years and said of the reference guide that he had made it BEFORE anyone knew much about SH1. Back in the days before LM. 1 tells you almost nothing, 2 tells you almost everything. The key to two is paying attention.

What doesn't the first game tell you? There's a little ambiguity about Lisa, some more about Alessa, and everything else is pretty much entirely obvious.

I can't figure out why you believe a man who killed his terminal wife because he had to nurse her ismore deep than a girl child who was physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally abused most of her life with a crazy religious mother and who was set on fire. Being a victim of multiple cases of child abuse myself and suffering my own psychological problems, I see that has having way more depth than some guy with marriage problems who had killed his wife over something like that. James seems a lot shallower in that regard and his complaints look stupid compared to Alessa's life being hell.

You're comparing the situations of the characters, but situations are only the tiniest part of the whole story. The second game immediately becomes deeper than the first when you ask yourself why. Why did Alessa suffer? The game tells us precisely why. In fact, why is never even a mystery because we find out why it happened about a half-hour after we learned that it happened at all. Why did James kill his wife? You'll never find a group of five people who all agree on what the answer to that is.

Basically, the second game is deeper because it is very open to personal interpretation. The entire effect it has is different from person to person. Ask the broadest question possible, "what is this game about?" and you'll never get one single answer. There are so many threads going on, and James' story is really just one small part of a larger series of events. You can't even begin to understand all of what's going on with James unless you take the time to understand all of the other characters, also.

The first game is a straightforward story all the way, in which the good guys and bad guys are all easily identifiable and pretty much everybody can agree on what the major themes are. It's possible to argue about which ending is real and what this or that is supposed to be, but there is very little to interpret about the story past a few ultimately minor details. And, Harry is just an unlucky chump who is really no different from Henry at all except that he has a personal stake in events.

[Purramid_Head]

I disagree heavily with you. "Open to interpretation" means a whole lot of things and if you think 1 doesn't have that, I think you're severally missing the point. All of 2's story was explained, 1 did NOT tell you what happened, not even to Lisa. Just like 2, if gave you clues. There's a reason why A) only so much of 2 can be discussed, and B) Lost Memories doesn't devote much to it. There's not much to say about 2. If you only love 2 in all it's greatness, why call yourself a Silent Hill fan if you fail to recognize any game in the series before or after because it doesn't live up to two's standards?

You fail to see other factors, including with Harry. Factors Aug and I were discussing. These factors are:

1. Limited budget. This was a new thing for Konami and since it was made to rival Capcom's Resident Evil series there was no telling if it would sell at all. Hence tank controls. 1 had to have a budget less than 2.

2. Graphical limitations. For it's time the graphics are fine. Compared to any game hence forth they're not.

3. No Silent Hill one and it's symbolism, no Silent Hill two.

4. 1 had some similar music to 2. If Yamaoka didn't experiment, you'd never get the track.


To me, 2 is a one shot story going nowhere. It's story can only go so for before it becomes incredibally boring. Despite what other's may believe, 2 had plenty of absolutes. To say it's more "open to interpretation" than 1 and sebsequent games would be a narrow minded logical fallacy. The games mean a lot to a lot of people. 1's story never ended, it continued through out ALL the games. That by logic, makes it more open for interpretation and having far more depth than 2. Hell, even Alessa's bugs are in 2.

[what]

Aww, I miss when you and I had these major Silent Hill ideological debates. <3

I disagree heavily with you. "Open to interpretation" means a whole lot of things and if you think 1 doesn't have that, I think you're severally missing the point. All of 2's story was explained, 1 did NOT tell you what happened, not even to Lisa. Just like 2, if gave you clues. There's a reason why A) only so much of 2 can be discussed, and B) Lost Memories doesn't devote much to it. There's not much to say about 2. If you only love 2 in all it's greatness, why call yourself a Silent Hill fan if you fail to recognize any game in the series before or after because it doesn't live up to two's standards?

All of Silent Hill 2's story was explained? I definitely don't think so. Only one of the four endings reveals the real reason James came to town. None of them truly resolve anything for certain, leaving all four endings to be interpreted as happy or unhappy. People ask themselves many questions about James' motives, whether the supporting characters are real or representations of James' personality. There's tons to say, but <i>Lost Memories</i> says little about it precisely because there's so many ways to interpret so much in the story that to give solid answers to most of them would cheapen the experience, and... well, go to the main page of this, or any other Silent Hill forum, and see which game's sub-forum always has the most posts in it, by far. It can't be accident or coincidence.

What I don't understand, apparently, is what in the first game is really all that interpretive? Konami already told us which of its endings they consider to be true. Some people dispute this (for no logical reason), but in the end, the only difference is that in one, a mostly useless character dies and in the other, she survives to never even be mentioned again. We don't know the true extent of Lisa's story... but whether Lisa is alive or was killed before the game and is a ghost in it? It isn't really important. Is the Woman in White God or Alessa? Big deal. The only things to interpret in the first game are all mere technicalities. There's nothing about the story, itself, which anybody disputes in any serious way. The fact that the game has direct sequels both explains why, and itself indicates that there isn't really much wiggle room. Silent Hill 2 could never have a direct sequel involving its characters without decisively closing most of the game's open doors (and, effectively, ruining much of the discussion which keeps the game so active on discussion forums).

To me, 2 is a one shot story going nowhere. It's story can only go so for before it becomes incredibally boring. Despite what other's may believe, 2 had plenty of absolutes. To say it's more "open to interpretation" than 1 and sebsequent games would be a narrow minded logical fallacy. The games mean a lot to a lot of people. 1's story never ended, it continued through out ALL the games. That by logic, makes it more open for interpretation and having far more depth than 2. Hell, even Alessa's bugs are in 2.

Silent Hill 2 has almost no absolutes... I don't even know where you get that. So much of the game is deliberately left unexplained for just this reason. I mean, I'm really shocked by that. Who's good and who's bad? The fat, unpleasant puppy-killer has a soft side and even if one cannot identify with him, one can understand what drove him over the edge. Even the game's most sinister and iconic monster is generally interpreted as an extreme version of tough love. Asking that question about the first game gives obvious and inarguable answers. If one insists that anybody in Silent Hill 2 conforms to black and white morality, one clearly hasn't paid enough attention.

Silent Hill's story goes on longer, but its sequel and prequel are much less interesting and, for the most part, rehash the entire basic plot of the first game (Prevent Alessa from Birthing God, Parts 2 and 3). I can understand why some people prefer this kind of story over the very different kind Silent Hill 2 offers, and depth of story alone doesn't make one game better than another to everybody, but by any conceivable means, the second game is an ocean compared to the Alessa games' lake in terms of intricacies, character study, and theme. Which, is really all I'm even talking about. The first game has definite advantages over the second in some areas, and overall, it's a better video game since it has better video game parts and it is certainly better in terms of being effective horror fiction since the second game really only treats horror as salad dressing atop a story which is really not conventional horror at all.

And, having said all that, my favorite game is Silent Hill, after Climax re-imagined it.

[Purramid_Head]

I see you being very ignorant to the themes of the other games, I'm not speaking of only 1 and 3 here either. Specifically, I'm sorry but 2 and some of it's themes are not as interesting and that game gets hell of boring fast. I played it last time after 1 and was goofing off. No absolutes? Bull crap. You can't interpretate as much with 2, it's story is wholly limited and there's a good reason Team Silent's focus was nevr 2 over all or continuing it's story. James never came back from Silent Hill and that is a fact.

Your logic for 2 is based almost entirely on your emotions and not logic. This is what I'm seeing. I'm also thinking you're merely using a persuavive argument. It's clear you're biased.

Depth of a game =/= how open for interpretation it is. As far as the black and white thinking of good vs evil, ALL Silent Hill's explore this concept and it was outlined in Lost Memories. To ignore it of 1 was because you refuse to see it, is a fallacy.

As for 2, I've been playing that game since it came out, which is 2002. Every year since there I've played thru the game a few times. The game gives me no scares. 3 does. Even the monsters are blahse. I'd love to stop hearing about how great 2 is, because I've gotten to the point of it being so uninteresting. When I started researching SH I used to think 2 was great, after I understood a lot of Alessa's story I see it being very inferior. If you only like 2, and maybe SM, why call yourself a "Silent Hill" fan? Specifically, almost any post you make about any other game outside those two is a complaint, usually about how inferior it is or how crappy it is. I sincerly don't understand you. You seem to detest almost everything outside of 2. Unless you're a masochist?

[captain crowbar]

I wish I could play one again.