My character analysis/theories *spoilers*

[Avianna]

Gee, how many people asked Ito about some SH stuff and nobody complained about revealing something.

I know right. Team Silent made an entire behind the scenes documentary on how and why they made Silent Hill 2 the way they did and I've never seen someone complain about that. I guess that's why I feel like its silly to be so impatient with Tomm about making a few posts on a forum.

[Augophthalmoses]

Well, I have nothing else to add that Avianna, Yuki, and devil hunter haven't already said. However...

but no; now we have a concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism? and if tomm really wanted people to know that the monocle man was jp, why didn't he just make it more obvious?

You could pedal the same argument towards the games "Team Silent" worked on since there is quite a bit of obscure imagery in those games as well.

[Shadedarkan]

Lol, this wouldn't even be an issue if Downpour weren't so young. He just hasn't gotten tired of the theorizing to be ready for answers. That's my professional opinion.

[Q. Valintyne]

....Tomm came in here to help some people out with their theories. He didn't come in here to give "concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism." So he made a mistake in saying something that could possibly 'ruin' someone's interpretation of something. I don't understand why you gotta jump all over him about it. Its a video game. He's human and makes 'mistakes.' My goodness...

This. I like the fact that Tomm actually bothers with the fans, you know? It's pretty meaningful to me, at least. I think having this kind of relationship with fans and players is a good thing for a creative director and developer.

Well, I have nothing else to add that Avianna, Yuki, and devil hunter haven't already said. However...

but no; now we have a concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism? and if tomm really wanted people to know that the monocle man was jp, why didn't he just make it more obvious?

You could pedal the same argument towards the games "Team Silent" worked on since there is quite a bit of obscure imagery in those games as well.

And this as well. People don't complain about Team Silent. Ever. It's like, an unwritten rule amongst the community. (complete sarcasm here)

[devil hunter]

and it's pretty shitty when you came up with a neat idea about something and then told you're wrong. here i was thinking that some of the symbolism in this game was meant to be ambiguous because things like the monocle man could mean different things to different people (like previous games). but no; now we have a concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism?

Forgot to comment on this but wasn't the correct symbolism in every SH game, even TS ones? We know exactly what monsters represent. It's not really ambiguous, they don't really mean different things to different people. Hell we have Book of Lost Memories that says what monsters represent and other stuff.

[Kamoc]

You realize that you can still theorize about other symbolism/unintentional symbolism, right? Just because we know Tomm's version doesn't mean we have to abide by it; I do, because I'm a firm believer in the Word of God trope, but plenty of people believe they have no say over their creation once it's published.

that's an interesting idea. but, as i've said before, the mere fact that tomm said something about it will force the conversation to revolve around his comments (especially when he makes it so black and white). this isn't necessarily a horribly bad thing; it's just negating a lot of the conversation, which is detrimental to the apparent ambiguity of the game. but at the end of the day, it's his choice. all i'm doing is voicing my opinion that it's hurting, not helping.

Because saying something like this doesn't sound like you take the game to seriously at all.

And ending your argument by mocking mine doesn't sound snide in the slightest either.

i like how you try to mock me for taking the game "to seriously" multiple times, but when i do exactly what you're doing that makes me a snide jerk. how about we both understand that we have different feelings about the issue, explain ourselves, and move on? i don't think that's too much to ask. especially considering that i was nothing but polite until you came in and started preaching from your high horse.

I understand you want for him to not say anything, but he has every right to join in the conversation with the rest of us.

it'd be one thing if he was speculating along with us. that'd be great! but he isn't. what he's doing is explaining pieces of the game that do not need to be explained. the monocle man being jp was not something the plot hinged on. in no way did that knowledge hinder your understanding of downpour's events. to me, that moment in the game was so powerful because of how many different ways you could view it. knowing the black and white truth of who the monocle man is cheapens his scene and shoves it into a box labelled "jp".

And to have someone come into a thread and claim that someone trying to voice an opinion, no matter how involved they are in a project, if just disrespectful and in a way is becoming overly offensive of the game.

how was i being disrespectful to anyone but you, the person who showed no respect for my opinion in the first place? who was i being disrespectful to by merely voicing my opinion?

I respect your passion. It would be nice if you respected Tomm's right to join in the conversation.

again, it'd be great if tomm was speculating with us. but he isn't: he's speculating for us. and that kinda bites.

Gee, how many people asked Ito about some SH stuff and nobody complained about revealing something.

i'm quite surprised no one else has gotten upset about this. i mean, i asked ito about whether alessa was blown up in a boiler explosion, but that was because it's a huge plot point. also the evidence for that is in a note that's only available in a few versions of sh1 so it's just odd to think of it as canon. but that gets into the whole "is origins canon" argument and blah blah blah.

but what good does telling everyone "sh3 is based on sh1's good ending" do? all that did was piss people off. besides, sh3 seems to accomodate for both good and good+, so telling everyone that there's a canon sh1 ending was kinda silly.

Lol, this wouldn't even be an issue if Downpour weren't so young. He just hasn't gotten tired of the theorizing to be ready for answers. That's my professional opinion.

i'll agree with that, but it really depends on what's being theorized. if it's a huge plot point (ie: boiler fires, whether murphy killed napier in ending b, etc), it'd be nice to know. but if it's deliberately ambiguous (ie: monster analysis, multiple dimension theory, etc) then it just stifles the conversation and ultimately cheapens the product.

anyways, i'm not the only one who feels this way. i talked to brian gomez about this and here's what he had to say:



at the end of the day, all i'm doing is painting a big "CAUTION" sign for tomm. i completely understand that it's his game to do with as he pleases, but i don't think it's a good idea to explain some of these mysteries away. #my2cents

[devil hunter]

I'm just wondering can new devs do anything without getting criticized?

But I'm going off topic now, so I will stop.

[Shadedarkan]

I don't know what anyone is talking about with the 'Team Silent Gods.' The first thing I did on this site was bash their Translated Memories content. I still continue to criticize their ability to shamelessly change what started out as nothing into something more to feed the fans. But then, that's only my professional opinion.

[Kamoc]

Forgot to comment on this but wasn't the correct symbolism in every SH game, even TS ones? We know exactly what monsters represent. It's not really ambiguous, they don't really mean different things to different people. Hell we have Book of Lost Memories that says what monsters represent and other stuff.

i'm talking more about sh2's prison creature than pyramid head or the nurses, but it does suck that the book of lost memories explained a good portion of the game away. though it doesn't explain exactly what the monsters represent. for instance, it doesn't explain why pyramid head switched from using his great knife to a spear, nor does it explain why there are two pyramid heads at the end.

[Shadedarkan]

Forgot to comment on this but wasn't the correct symbolism in every SH game, even TS ones? We know exactly what monsters represent. It's not really ambiguous, they don't really mean different things to different people. Hell we have Book of Lost Memories that says what monsters represent and other stuff.

i'm talking more about sh2's prison creature than pyramid head or the nurses, but it does suck that the book of lost memories explained a good portion of the game away. though it doesn't explain exactly what the monsters represent. for instance, it doesn't explain why pyramid head switched from using his great knife to a spear, nor does it explain why there are two pyramid heads at the end.

No, because the game more or less explained that for us.

[Kamoc]

which is my point.

[Shadedarkan]

which is my point.

Heh, heh. Just pointing out your point before someone goes into a spiel about it.

[devil hunter]

which is my point.

I think someone mentioned before that Monocle man might represent JP, so the game explained it for us well, since some people figured it out.

[Avianna]

Spoilers tag for Off Topic argument with Kamoc.

REVEAL SPOILER

Okay, let's review the series of events because I'm not understanding where it started to come off that I was being disrepectful of your opinion on when I was preaching.

tomm, do you really have to come out and tell us whether we're right or wrong about things? part of the fun of silent hill games is coming up with theories behind what's going on. hell, the series was built on ambiguity.

it's just that, what's the point in speculating about anything if you're just going to tell us what happened?

Okay, so this one is okay. Its kinda like asking "Tomm, would you please not post stuff here?" I ignored this post because you have every right to say that it bothers you. Whatever, no harm no foul.

and it's pretty shitty when you came up with a neat idea about something and then told you're wrong. here i was thinking that some of the symbolism in this game was meant to be ambiguous because things like the monocle man could mean different things to different people (like previous games). but no; now we have a concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism? and if tomm really wanted people to know that the monocle man was jp, why didn't he just make it more obvious? the fact that it was this weird vague thing that seemingly came out of nowhere made it really interesting. it was fun talking to people about it and reading theories. now it's not nearly as fun to talk about because someone's just going to bust out tomm's quote. no analysis required.

i wasn't aware people were speculating to come up with the canonical answers. all along i was under the impression we were speculating because thinking about these games is fun when you're allowed to play around in the ambiguity.

hell, tomm himself said the sh2 theory where angela came to silent hill to kill her brother and mother was neat. i happen to think that the theory where mary's body is inside the trunk of james' car the entire game is really interesting. the silent hill games are made better with theories and analysis. it defeats the entire purpose of having vague monsters when you just come out and explain what they're all about.

Now this post talks more directly about what he did wrong and why you don't like it. You talk about how fans will use his posts in arguments. How 'Shitty' and 'Cheap' him sharing his thoughts are. You claim that he makes a list of correct symbolism. His post lists the following:

• We are close in some monsters understandings and not other
• Monocle Man is JP/Sad we didn't see Coins in mine
• The text in the extra gallery is not written by him or the other writers we know
• Napier is killed in most ending except A (B is a mistake)

For a concrete list of symbolism, seems to me he only said one thing about definite symbolism. The rest was just clearing contextual things up. And when you do talk about it, it kinda comes off rudely via how you word it.

People were generally asking and he answered. A mistake that some will read it and it will be cheapened? Sure I guess. But worth a long post about how it angry you are about it... I'm not really sure why. That's why I piped in. Mostly because I'm tired of people giving Tomm a hard time for trying to be helpful with fans.

....Tomm came in here to help some people out with their theories. He didn't come in here to give "concrete list of what's "correct" symbolism." So he made a mistake in saying something that could possibly 'ruin' someone's interpretation of something. I don't understand why you gotta jump all over him about it. Its a video game. He's human and makes 'mistakes.' My goodness...

You can see that I've posted in the thread before about other things related to the topic. So its not like I came in here on a high horse to point you out of the crowd and make an example of you. I just wanted to point out how rude your posts comes across to Tomm.

I see now that 'My goodness..." could come across disrespectful. But I was more meaning it to be sarcastic (which wouldn't be the first time on the board that my sarcasm didn't come off right).

just pointing out he made a mistake. i'm "jumping all over him about it" because, as i've made clear, it's detrimental to the game if he keeps doing what he's doing.

and i completely understand that this is "just a videogame". i think it's funny you're assuming i think that this isn't the case. my goodness...

Here's where you kinda mock my sarcasm. I know that you aren't doing this to be sarcastic. You use words like detrimental in reference to a video game but say that you don't take them seriously, which to me, doesn't really compute.

as i've made clear, it's detrimental to the game if he keeps doing what he's doing.

Because saying something like this doesn't sound like you take the game to seriously at all.

my goodness...

And ending your argument by mocking mine doesn't sound snide in the slightest either.

I understand you want for him to not say anything, but he has every right to join in the conversation with the rest of us. In fact, as a fan, I invite it. Not many games really care, but also hold their ground on how strongly they feel about it. I think its almost commendable. And to have someone come into a thread and claim that someone trying to voice an opinion, no matter how involved they are in a project, if just disrespectful and in a way is becoming overly offensive of the game.

I respect your passion. It would be nice if you respected Tomm's right to join in the conversation.

Because of your "My goodness..." seeming to mock me, I got upset, but tried to keep my cool. I restate my anger over how you reacted to Tomm and how I viewed it as disrespectful and then make sure to tell you that I RESPECT your passion (ie you asking Tomm in the first post why he would post that and to not do so).

Because saying something like this doesn't sound like you take the game to seriously at all.

And ending your argument by mocking mine doesn't sound snide in the slightest either.

i like how you try to mock me for taking the game "to seriously" multiple times, but when i do exactly what you're doing that makes me a snide jerk. how about we both understand that we have different feelings about the issue, explain ourselves, and move on? i don't think that's too much to ask. especially considering that i was nothing but polite until you came in and started preaching from your high horse.

I've explained a bit above why I said what I said in that post. I wasn't mocking you. I was pointing out how the words and phrases you used seemed very serious business from my end of the interwebs. I've already pointed out how I felt you were not being polite. (High Horse talk at the end of this argument; but on one note 'ouch')

I understand you want for him to not say anything, but he has every right to join in the conversation with the rest of us.

it'd be one thing if he was speculating along with us. that'd be great! but he isn't. what he's doing is explaining pieces of the game that do not need to be explained. the monocle man being jp was not something the plot hinged on. in no way did that knowledge hinder your understanding of downpour's events. to me, that moment in the game was so powerful because of how many different ways you could view it. knowing the black and white truth of who the monocle man is cheapens his scene and shoves it into a box labelled "jp".

This is where he may have made the 'mistake' you were so angry about. Someone said/asked that they thought he was JP and he confirmed it. Like I said before, it seems pretty trivial to get overly angry about it like your 2nd post in this thread seemed to suggest. BUT AGAIN, that's just how I read it.

And to have someone come into a thread and claim that someone trying to voice an opinion, no matter how involved they are in a project, if just disrespectful and in a way is becoming overly offensive of the game.

how was i being disrespectful to anyone but you, the person who showed no respect for my opinion in the first place? who was i being disrespectful to by merely voicing my opinion?

Yes, you were being disrespectful to me. And I was genuinely trying not to be mean spirited. I'm still not sure how what I said was directed towards your opinion as much as it was directed towards how it kinda comes off douchy to Tomm.

I respect your passion. It would be nice if you respected Tomm's right to join in the conversation.

again, it'd be great if tomm was speculating with us. but he isn't: he's speculating for us. and that kinda bites.

True. What he said affirmed what someone had already hypothesized. But you can make your own opinion on whether or not that's how you interpret it. Which is a conversation for a different thread of thought (which we can discuss if you like, but frankly I'm kinda tired of explaining myself at this moment... and I'm sure you're tired of me too. So it might be best to leave that alone for a while since we've already butted heads in the last few days)



I'm on no high horse about this. You pointed out you didn't want Tomm to contribute. And I pointed out that he only said one thing 'wrong' and that he has the right to be involved in the games fans. I'm not sure when my Browless-self came in on a 'holier than though' steed because I don't own one tbh.

You're right though, we can agree to disagree. I am sorry I got mad about how the situation was being treated. I will not stand, however, to be told I am being disrespectful, when that was never my intention. I try very hard to be respectful of other people's opinions. I'm sorry if it did not come off that way.

I'm just wondering can new devs do anything without getting criticized?

But I'm going off topic now, so I will stop.

No, they can't. That's what makes me the most frustrated about arguments like this.

I don't know what anyone is talking about with the 'Team Silent Gods.' The first thing I did on this site was bash their Translated Memories content. I still continue to criticize their ability to shamelessly change what started out as nothing into something more to feed the fans. But then, that's only my professional opinion.

Admittibly, I'm only overly active on this forum when a game has come out or if they are talking about fan content. I agree with this and disagree at the same time. All I want to do is learn more about the Silent Hill universe, but I think you're right... it would be nice if games told more and there wasn't need for books. Its kinda a double edged sword for me.

Overall I just WANT ALL THE KNOWLEDGE!!

[Yuki]

You realize that you can still theorize about other symbolism/unintentional symbolism, right? Just because we know Tomm's version doesn't mean we have to abide by it; I do, because I'm a firm believer in the Word of God trope, but plenty of people believe they have no say over their creation once it's published.

that's an interesting idea. but, as i've said before, the mere fact that tomm said something about it will force the conversation to revolve around his comments (especially when he makes it so black and white). this isn't necessarily a horribly bad thing; it's just negating a lot of the conversation, which is detrimental to the apparent ambiguity of the game. but at the end of the day, it's his choice. all i'm doing is voicing my opinion that it's hurting, not helping.

Except that's absolutely not how you phrased it. Besides, that won't force the conversation around it; theoretically it could also go "I know the interpretation is officially [x], but I saw it as [y]". Hell, even after it was officially stated that Angela in Silent Hill 2 was definitely sexually abused, I saw threads on other forums continue to debate the fact.

Additionally, as has already been stated, the other creators also published materials for their games, taking away a measure of ambiguity.

it'd be one thing if he was speculating along with us. that'd be great! but he isn't. what he's doing is explaining pieces of the game that do not need to be explained. the monocle man being jp was not something the plot hinged on. in no way did that knowledge hinder your understanding of downpour's events. to me, that moment in the game was so powerful because of how many different ways you could view it. knowing the black and white truth of who the monocle man is cheapens his scene and shoves it into a box labelled "jp".

If people don't understand it and want to know the intent behind it, then there is no reason why Tomm should not explain what the thoughts behind it were. Again, if you dislike it, you can always say "I know the official interpretation is [x], but let's discuss this theoretically as if it had never been stated, because I found it to be more obviously [y]." Plus, not only has Tomm stated the intention--and not everybody abides by the idea of Word of God, as I previously stated--but he also pointed us in the right direction with the mention of the coins.

If you don't like it, feel free to come up with a new thread for unofficial interpretations. I'm positive others here would enjoy it; I know I would.

[Shadedarkan]

Just to say, anyone that speculated that Monocle Man was John was going off of some pretty small information. Not saying they are wrong or anything, cause they aren't. I'm just saying, you only see the thing for three seconds, its face doesn't even look close to John's and it has a spotlight in its eye. Unless the game is messed up for most of us and the 'coin' has some wicked reflective or light emitting properties that is definitely a spotlight. Up to that point the only thing anyone could guess it to be is John. He plunges to death down there, throws some coins into the cave and he's the train operator (I mean, we aren't controlling the thing so he makes sense right?).
It could definitely have been much clearer, but you really aren't sure. The only thing you can be sure about is that nothing else in the game can be it.

[Aerith]

^ERROR made good points about knowing it was JP. He noticed that the monocle looked like the coins JP threw off the ledge.I didn't notice that initially, but I see it now that I know it's there. I will say that the evidence towards JP was much stronger than it was for the possibility of any of the others.

[Shadedarkan]

^ERROR made good points about knowing it was JP. He noticed that the monocle looked like the coins JP threw off the ledge.I didn't notice that initially, but I see it now that I know it's there. I will say that the evidence towards JP was much stronger than it was for the possibility of any of the others.

That has to be some video issues then. On my screen the coins are golden in color, look like the game tokens actually. In the cave the thing in its left eye is completely white and emits a lot of light. Not directional light either. I've tried turning down the brightness in game and on my monitor to no avail. I looked at a couple videos online too and they show up with his monocle being bright white also. I can see the confusion if he was supposed to be easier to recognize.

What are we all playing on? I'm on PS3 and I've noticed a lot of rendering differences in color, texture, reflectiveness and smoothness of the stuff in game compared to the XBox. I think the XBox is displaying the game much more accurately than the PS3.

[Aerith]

^I'm on PS3, as well. It is a bit difficult to tell. To be honest, I haven't seen the coins that Tomm referred to in an earlier post within the Devil's Pit. I looked for them and simply couldn't find them, unless I didn't look hard enough.

[Avianna]

I had my doubts on whether it was JP or not when I first did it because I didn't see that face had talked when the voice over happened at the end of the ride. So I thought it was another voice over like "Murphy Run!" (Which later is attributed to Frank)

But the 2nd time I played through, before this post, I thought it had to have been JP because the train is his story. Everything leads up to you going on the train, which is a part of his story. So I assumed the 2nd time around that it was him. Still didn't see the coins, but I inferred it because it was the train ride and he was guilty of killing kids on it.