Let's just agree to disagree, it's not worth getting honestly upset over.
Though, to answer the last, I like most of the Silent Hill games, but the two I mentioned are the only ones I really love. The others were, to me, merely decent games I played a few times and talked about some and just really didn't prove to have the same staying power to me. I'm critical of the game because it has flaws which are obvious to me, but I do like it, in fact, I loved it enough to play its sequels. Honestly, I liked the first game a lot better when it didn't have direct sequels and prequels, which served to not only take away a lot of the mystery but also fed me so much more of the Alessa story than I ever cared to know (and, honestly, more than was interesting to know) and thus somewhat soured the original for me. That's why I don't mind that the story of James and co. can't be continued; one game was enough, and why I'm perhaps being unfair to the first game a little bit. Before Silent Hill 3, the first game was vastly more mysterious; not over little things like whether or not Lisa was a ghost but what the hell was even going on and how was it possible? Did Harry make it out with the baby or did he die in the accident? Was he trapped in a perpetual loop of time, doomed to repeat everything forever? Now, we know all the answers to these questions and it's one of the reasons I don't like the third game very much. You say the Alessa story could grow, and indeed it did, but I have only ever felt that all the extension to that story added nothing I cared about. The third game went into great detail on the religion, which I know interests you plenty but it just seemed pointless to me, because for all the detail, Claudia's aims (if not her motivations) were pretty much identical to Dahlia's, and we didn't need to know anything about the religion to understand Dahlia's aims. Also, it seemed incongruous to me that a religion so steeped in central American religious concepts came to flourish and meld with Christianity in a part of the world so distant from central America. Then there was Origins which was perhaps the biggest failure of a prequel I can possibly imagine. At least the third game had some development, even if that development was misdirected. Origins merely played out parts of the first game's backstory pretty much as the first game told it to us. Woo hoo.
Now THAT does make sense. To me, there's not much else to say about 2. It's been so beaten to death. I've only been here since 2005 and I'm just kinda getting blahse. I enjoy the game though. I love James's character and all. It just seems so overrate which is unfortunate.
To answer your question, this is just my speculation, but it seems to me all the Aztec/Mayan stuff is merely a suppliment of Native American tribes here for the game.
I do remember the days when there was no sequel and I agree, it was very confusing. I see your point of view much better when you put it in that regard. For most people, the more you know about Silent Hill the less you're scared and the less impact it has. I can see why you'd love 2 over everything from this stand point.
Eh, 2 is gorgeous. Doesn't have to just be a concrete sorta plot. As I said before I believe the first two games complement each other very well. What those games established has not been exceeded in scope/depth/spiritual release by any of their successors and won't ever be. 3 fleshed out some more elements a bit, as did 4, though it had grown to a point of departure that could no longer be controlled and brought an end to the original phase of the title/property.
Before Silent Hill 3, the first game was vastly more mysterious; not over little things like whether or not Lisa was a ghost but what the hell was even going on and how was it possible? Did Harry make it out with the baby or did he die in the accident? Was he trapped in a perpetual loop of time, doomed to repeat everything forever? Now, we know all the answers to these questions and it's one of the reasons I don't like the third game very much.
I felt this way too for a long time and I had a lot of disdain for 3... but where we differ is I'm not fond of the post-movie games, especially not SM which feels like its goal may have been to be a profound antithesis, so I sort of got over my misgivings with 3 and grew to appreciate a lot about it and only take what I could really use from it. It's from a more positive / less ruined person's perspective with the theme of reincarnation and the abstract stuff inside this is rewarding to ponder for me because it is in line with where the story started/ended. Knowing more details about stuff going on no longer made me feel like something was being ruined, it was just like "ah yeah whatevs".
You just reminded me Keeps, I think they intended to end with 3. I don't think they realized SH was going to blow up as it did. Maybe, that is what is disappointing to you and What, why you two tend to think it revealed too much. Knowing this I think you guy's can garner a healthier perspective. 3 was TS's real last stop.
i imagine im not making much sense in my last post, sorry 'bout that. i feel awful at communicating.
but yeah i like 3 quite a lot nowadays, i dunno, the more i think about it the more i like it... there is a lot to it and it's a lot of fun. i've gushed about it before to friends when particularly excited about certain things irl.
And that makes sense concerning the team! Conceptually it is what occurred in terms of it being a more self-aware game on a lot of levels. Comes full circle about things and seems even fanservicey outside of the plot with its extras and things. :) ahh! i adore these games.
You're talking about different things. Facts and vagueness (possible facts that could lead to a certain result). But they're both there. For me SH is more about what it leaves you with once you're done playing. That being mostly feelings and thoughts. It does have a backstory that can be researched and backed with objective arguments but I don't think that's the main point. One will say "How did Lisa get there?", another "So dramatic", another "Why did she end up there" and so on. It's just artistic. And art is interpreted differently by different people. In other words, you get what you want to get or better give your one tone to it or focus at a different aspect but still make sense in the whole universe of the game and your own universe. It's good to know the actual story when it's spelled out but it's not necessary. You can theorize and be wrong and mess with your head but still make sense. I liked both 1 and 2 but for different reasons.
Sorry if this adds more to the fire, but I really think 2 was the simplest of the Silent Hill games as far as what is open to interpretation. Sure, you have the monsters that can be a little vague, but the character histories and motives are easily defined in the game. Especially since James, Eddie, and Angela basically come out and say what fuels them. Just had to get that out there.
I think the simplicity is one of the things people like about it. Many people I talk to say that 1 and 3 are confusing, for instance. I can understand both sides of that argument. If you're not used to some of the darker subject matter regarding cults and foreign concepts of demonic things, etc. then you won't know what the hell is going on in 3, for instance. But 2? It's so easy to grasp and so elemental. My mother loves SH2's story, and she doesn't even play video games post-SNES.
I loved SH2's story, just thought the presentation was off. I honestly think it could have been brought out better..it feels like a movie, not enough time to really let everything sink in before it's over. Then again, almost every SH game is too short.
I agree for the most part, but SH2's story presentation is pretty amazing for a video game tbh. It's the only game I've ever played where the experience via the story outweighs any gaming flaws for me.
samael21walter wrote:Sorry if this adds more to the fire, but I really think 2 was the simplest of the Silent Hill games as far as what is open to interpretation. Sure, you have the monsters that can be a little vague, but the character histories and motives are easily defined in the game. Especially since James, Eddie, and Angela basically come out and say what fuels them. Just had to get that out there.
Yeah, I agree. Most of 2 has been analyzed to death and to me it had no where near the depth of the other games such as 1 and 3. On the surface it looks like 1 and 3 have a bunch of absolutes, it works the opposite in 2 imo, where it looks like it doesn't have a lot of absolutes. But when you dig into both you find out the opposite is true.
samael21walter wrote:I loved SH2's story, just thought the presentation was off. I honestly think it could have been brought out better..it feels like a movie, not enough time to really let everything sink in before it's over. Then again, almost every SH game is too short.
Yeah, it did feel like a movie to me too. It has a very dream like quality.