Playing the Devil's advocate

[Gorgoth]

Initially I was going to make a separate thread about the following topic, where I would address some pretty common misconceptions about the design of Silent Hill and game design in general.
However, Seeing how some of the opinions in this thread reflect exactly what I would have written about,
I might as well talk about it more directly right here, even if it‘s only semi-related to the original topic.

The characters are the point in any bit of literature, game, or movie. Sure you'll have a "reaction" to it, but you can't truly feel the pain of the character. Ever. It isn't real, for one thing. Second, it's a character-driven story. It's not a "player-driven" one (Shattered Memories was in a way, but I digress).

Games like Dead Space are designed to scare the player. The creatures hold no symbolism to Isaac at all. In Silent Hill's case, the world and the creatures are character-specific.

Going back to the idea that the Silent Hill atmosphere and monsters reflect the character and are not simply there to scare and scar the player, wouldn't it be logical to say that we might be holding the creatures to an unfair standard? The monsters and creatures of the original 3 Silent Hills were all reflective of the torment psyches of a handful of characters. As such, we shouldn't expect the monsters of Downpour to be at all similar to them.

I am all about fear of the unknown. Its what freaks me out the most. But perhaps Murphy's tortured mind is just vastly different than James' or Alessa's. Therefor his monsters/world take on a very different feel, even if its not quite as mysterious and foggy as games past.

That's a good point. And except for one ending, Murphy didn't kill anyone (well... one of those is supposed to be a mistake). James killed his wife. Alessa is just messed up beyond belief because of how she grew up. The only thing really messed up about Murphy is that somewhat recently he found out his child was killed. He's pain isn't necessarily violent in nature. Even when he tried to get himself into prison to kill someone, he couldn't do it.

Exactly. Murphy's past isn't nearly as tormented as Alessa, James, Heather, or even Alex. Perhaps this is reflected in the less abstract creatures and environment in Silent Hill?

Some of you point out that maybe Downpour couldn't and shouldn't be as disturbing as other titles because Murphy has a less traumatic past than the other protagonists, and that his mind could be vastly different from theirs. There's even an argument that the player's experience is secondary to that of the character's. Basically you’re saying that Downpour couldn’t have been as disturbing because the story didn’t allow it.

First of all...

REVEAL SPOILER

Finding your child murdered may be the absolutely most traumatic event any parent could possibly have been subjected to, not to mention having witnessed the death of two other men.

Second, I think you grossly underestimate how fundamentally prison can change a man for the worse. If anything, this alone should have made Murphy's otherworld worse than most of the other protagonists'.
...But whatever, let‘s just go with what you’re saying here.

Let us now, for the sake of discussion, say that the story in Downpour absolutely didn't provide the foundation necessary for some actual disturbing visual content. What then?
Well, then they should have just changed the story!

Yes, that's right.
If the story in Downpour didn't support the same level of disturbing imagery that some of us have come to expect from the series, the developers should have changed the story to better provide for it.

Before you hastily respond to this statement, there’s a few things you need to keep in mind:
Storytelling is an iterative process. The first draft is never considered a finished story...it has to be constantly revised and rewritten to better serve the intended theme and experience.

Likewise, game development is an iterative process, not a linear one. It’s not so that a long-established story dictates how the game looks and plays. Rather contrarily, the story is usually one of the last things to get completed after more important factors like gameplay mechanics, level design, and art direction has been nailed down.

Take the Uncharted series, for instance. The developers designed the levels and the essential experience long before they even knew how it would fit into the story, or even if it would fit with the story.



00:50 - 01:36.
“I think what would surprise people, is that when we set out to figure out what we’re gonna do with each new game, a lot of it is driven by practical concerns (...) and then we kind of write the story around that.”



00:10 - 00:56.
"Sometimes a level is designed long before we have any clue of what the story is."

This is the norm, not the exception. It’s basic Game Design 101.

Now, at this point you’d think maybe Silent Hill would be an exception to this rule, but you'd be wrong.
I can pretty much guarantee that in virtually every installment, especially the originals, the developers had an idea of what kind of imagery and experience they intended for the player before they had a complete story.

The same goes for the overblown concept of symbolism too. When Masahiro Ito & co designed some of the series’ most iconic creatures, they were more concerned about what worked than what the specific symbolism would be, and it shows at times. If you take a closer look at almost any given installment, you will definitely find imagery that doesn’t necessarily relate to the protagonist’s predicament.
In fact, most of the “symbolism” we have seen throughout the series could easily have been retrofitted to fit the imagery, rather than the imagery being tailored to some specific backstory.

Don’t believe me? Well, then check this out:



17:30 - 18:43.
The design of the iconic lying figure came first, by pure chance.
The specific symbolism of “restraint” and “pain”, was just tacked on later.
Also, the inspiration drawn from Francis Bacon influenced the imagery of the game right from the very beginning. The venereal horror was there before the story was fully fleshed out.

28:45 - 29:33.
(about the prison scene) "the point was to confuse the game players, to get them thinking that maybe, after all, she was Mary." Notice how there's not one word about how the protagonist should feel. Why? Because the player experience was more important than how the protagonist felt.

Yeah, you may like to think that every minute little detail in the games has been symbolical of some long-established character backstory. If, however, you pay attention to some of the concepts they outline throughout, you will see that they definitely figured out how they wanted the player to experience the game before any specific notions of story and symbolism came about. Again, it’s basic game design.

But don’t get me wrong here...

The story and symbolism will always be a vital part of the final product that is silent Hill.
But, in the process of designing an effective game, there’s bigger, more important concerns that must be addressed first, such as gameplay, art direction, tone, atmosphere, and overall player experience.

Bottom line is, it shouldn't be so that the game can't have disturbing imagery because "the story doesn't allow it". Story, imagery and experience should affect each other mutually, especially if that game is Silent Hill, where the disturbing imagery always has been such a vital part of the complete experience.

But let’s not kid ourselves here...
Like I said in my initial post, the problem here wasn't really the story. The developers just didn't understand how to make the game disturbing. If they had understood how to do this, they would have made the game more disturbing regardless of story.

[Shadedarkan]

You are exactly right in this. You explained very well my own issue with the Translated Memories information where the developers try to create symbolism and links between the games where there weren't any originally. That takes away from my love for the series.

I'm sure that if Downpour was the first game in the series that someone played they would find the game fairly disturbing. I think most of us have just been spoiled a bit by Team Silent, our one-sided memories of prior titles and general nostalgia. Do I like Downpour as a Silent Hill game? No. I will always stick by that, but if I don't try to classify it into the series it is a very nice game on its own.

I've heard talk that the story wasn't well executed to support the different endings. While I would agree that the story wasn't well executed by the dialogue, the story does support its multiple endings very well. My personal issue with the story is that there isn't one. There are events that define next to nothing about what is going on, but fit into any of the endings. While playing the game it doesn't feel like a story is unfolding. It feels like I'm being given a heap of facts that could imply any number of things, but can't be used to understand anything until after the ending tells you the story. It just feels like the story lacks substance or 'staying power', I guess.

[Meltdown]

@Gorgoth, in defense of the "Murphy isn't as twisted" theory.. Maybe I should rephrase. Perhaps Murphy's past is just as corrupt and miserable and generally messed up as James' or Alessa's, but again. They are all different people. I could chalk it up to something as simple as, Murphy's mind isn't as creative as James' is. But the point is.. Whether it be his past or his thought-process and personality, I think either one could serve as justification for the creatures being different and otherwise not like the abstract monsters of the previous games. Because keep in mind, there were some monsters in the original 4 that aren't all that abstract or thought-provoking.

For example... Pyramid Head. His name says it all. He's a guy with a pyramid on his head, and his weapon is a large knife. What's abstract about that?

As for the rest of your points.. I do agree. I think the background and history of Murphy is far less interesting and unique as, say, that of Alessa. I mean the prison angle is kind of neat.. But not that out-of-the-ordinary. A lot of people got to prison. Not many girls are the victims of cult burnings and incantations. Hell, as traumatic as losing a child is.. A lot of people lose someone close to them. This being the centennial anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, just think of all the hundreds of people who lost someone close to them on this night a hundred years ago. Its truly tragic. But Silent Hill has never been just about the tragic, the violent, or the obscene. Its been about truly psychotic individuals, mysterious drugs, cults, and twisted folk stories come alive.

[keeps]

the making of SH2 is fascinating.

[Gorgoth]

In defense of the "Murphy isn't as twisted" theory.. Maybe I should rephrase. Perhaps Murphy's past is just as corrupt and miserable and generally messed up as James' or Alessa's, but again. They are all different people. I could chalk it up to something as simple as, Murphy's mind isn't as creative as James' is. But the point is.. Whether it be his past or his thought-process and personality, I think either one could serve as justification for the creatures being different and otherwise not like the abstract monsters of the previous games.

...and missing the point entirely.

Seriously, after that long post you still think this is about dumb old Murphy?
At this point I usually would have suggested that you read my last post again, but I might as well just express myself a little more clearly this time. I really do hope you will forgive me if I put this a little bluntly:

I don't give a fuck about Murphy's past. I don't care about his past, his mind, his personality, how "tormented" he is, how "creative" he is or any kind of dumb symbolism. It's not relevant, and I don't want to hear another word about it.

This is about game design. It's about what's physically in the game, and whether it works or not.

(...) Silent Hill has never been just about the tragic, the violent, or the obscene. Its been about truly psychotic individuals, mysterious drugs, cults, and twisted folk stories come alive.

No. You could get that in any other story-driven fantasy game.
The whole point of Silent Hill, a psychological horror game, is first and foremost to scare and disturb the player. In that regard, the actual in-game content, what makes the game scary, is more important than some vague explanation as to why the scary things are there.
You can have all the cults and character backstories you want, but if the game isn't scary it has failed as a horror game, and if the game isn't disturbing it has failed as a Silent Hill game.

Finally, The whole argument that "Maybe the creatures looked bad because of Murphy's past" is just a really lousy excuse. I'm fine with having some depth to the story and all, but justifying bad game design choices with "Murphy's past" is just apathetically excusing the developers for doing a bad job.

I'm sorry if I couldn't sugar coat this a little more, but the fact is that you can't just use some vague mythology to excuse bad game design. That's just not how it works.

[Avianna]

I completely agree that the game wasn't as disturbing as the first ones that we've grown to love and you're right, theme comes comes before story. I think that this game in particular was trying to so hard to get out of the shadow of the first few that maybe it missed some of the disturbing in its quest to find a new path.

Tomm stated in an interview that he wanted to prove that Silent Hill didn't have to be rusty and gritty. Maybe when trying to head away from that imagery he lost a lot of the original appeal of that imagery. Rust and dirt are easy to associate with blood and death. Water is a harder demon to tackle. And in trying to do so, they may not have caught the same vein as the original games did when people compare the two.

It also might be subjective in some ways. What you find disturbing might not be the same as what someone else does. And that's not to say you're wrong (THE GAME IS TOO DISTURBING *stomps foot*) but it is something to be thought about.

I do agree that it could have been more disturbing than it was. I really do. But I don't think that this means its not at all or that all the scares are straight forward.

Also, I wanted to defend the story/theme argument I had before a bit (even if at this point we're already stated that story comes 2nd). I was trying to say that although its is a VERY TRAUMATIC experience to loose a child, that doesn't mean that every person goes through tragedy the same way as say Alessa or James (Which was way more violent in nature).

(BTW I love that you go out of your way to post all the video footage. It makes this entire thread so interesting)

[Gorgoth]

Someone else seems to agree with me on quite a few points:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... l-Downpour

What's funny (at least the way I see it) is how he seems to address the exact same things I did.
He thought this was the best western developed SH title, giving praise especially to the exploration element. Also, just as I have been talking about, he considered the scare factor to be one of the bigger disappointments, mentioning the creatures in particular:

03:55 - 04:07
"The monsters are more irritating than scary, mainly because they're just dudes. They're not grotesque, twisted monstrosities that stumble around like someone tied their knees to their tonsils, they're just dudes trying to punch you with their dude fists and their screechy dude wives."

He even shared my dislike for the visual style (something I haven’t addressed in this particular thread):

03:44 - 03:50
"The otherworld as a whole is just too loud, brightly lit and overdone. It reminds me more of Alice: Madness returns than any Silent hill Game."

No, this is not a response to any one particular among you, I just thought it was a funny coincidence.

[poorjack]

I linked this article to Vatra's Twitter. They seem to be interested in what the fans have to say through social media, so here is to hoping.

[Avianna]

Someone else seems to agree with me on quite a few points:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... l-Downpour

Yatzhee <3

And just cause I wanted to make sure we were clear: I do agree with you to an extent. I'm just trying to make sense of the frame of mind they were in when they designed the game. That could help us draw a conclusion as to why its not as scary/disturbing as the original games. Because I personally don't think they didn't try.

I think the best thing we could do at this point would be to, as PoorJack just did, kinda flag their attention and give them a little fan shoot out to the thread. Its a pretty good critique without being to pushy.

[Gorgoth]

Just cause I wanted to make sure we were clear: I do agree with you to an extent.

Don't worry. I get what you're trying to say. And again, These posts aren't really aimed towards any of you, I just address some various issues when I see an opportunity for it.

I'm just trying to make sense of the frame of mind they were in when they designed the game. That could help us draw a conclusion as to why its not as scary/disturbing as the original games. Because I personally don't think they didn't try.

Of course not! The developers did their very best. I bet they even poured their hearts into it.

Like I said, there was a lot of things Downpour actually got right, like the mythology and symbolism, something any "casual" developer might have ignored. Overall, Downpour was full of little touches that showed how they genuinely care about the series.

Now, you say that you want to make sense of what frame of mind they were in when they designed the game, and why the game wasn't as scary or disturbing as the original games.
Actually, you have already identified a part of it:

I think that this game in particular was trying to so hard to get out of the shadow of the first few that maybe it missed some of the disturbing in its quest to find a new path.

This is part of the problem, for sure, but it's not all of it. You could very well make drastic changes to the series and still make it feel the same. Take the Siren series, for instance. It's a completely different franchise, and yet it feels more like Silent Hill than most of the new Silent Hill games.
No, the real problem is primarily that the developers didn’t fully understand the horror aspect.
I know saying this might seem a little dismissive, so I'm going to elaborate:

While the old games felt very much alike, each of them employed a different type of horror. This involved slightly different visual styles, different pacing, different approaches to game design etc.
SH 2, for instance, had a slow pace and a depressive, brooding atmosphere. The otherworld was filthy and worn down, but always felt very grounded. It was subtle, if you will.



SH 3, on the other hand, was more gory and intense, and had more action to its pacing. Here, the otherworld was darker, bloodier, and treaded a fine line between realism and surrealism.



Finally, SH 4 had cleaner, yet more bizarre imagery than the other titles. Also, this time around, the separate otherworld segments were ditched altogether in favor of a slower, more gradual escalation of horror.



But, while they all had their differences, perhaps some more than others, they all felt very much alike, like they were a part of a whole. The reason the original developers (a revolving door of people, by the way) managed to make each of these approaches so effective, was because they all intimately understood how this type of horror works. That way they managed to make something that was different from the previously established, but not so different that it became something else.

Now, here's what happened with Downpour.

With Downpour, the developers wanted to make something new and different. The reason for this was, as they themselves put it, that the players had become too familiar with the style of the old games. As such, they wanted to do something new with Downpour to keep the game unpredictable and scary.
In short, they wanted to make a game that looked and played differently, but that still managed to retain the disturbing qualities.
This was a good decision, because a franchise has to evolve to stay relevant.

Here's the problem: The developers didn't know enough about this genre of horror to successfully make these changes.

Since they didn't know enough about what made the original games work to begin with, they also didn't know what was "lost in translation" when they changed things. Thus, the developers simply changed way too many of Silent Hill's defining characteristics, not knowing that the original developers did what they did for a reason.
And I'm not just talking about the otherworld or the creature designs here either. A lot of it has to do with smaller, less obvious factors, like lighting, texturing, color palette, post processing, sound design, level design, game mechanics, pacing etc.
Basically, since the developers didn't know enough about this particular genre of horror, they simply changed too much, turning Downpour into something else entirely.

So, in conclusion, the reason Downpour wasn't as scary isn't because the developers didn't try hard enough, or just because they wanted to do something different. It's because they didn't know how to make something that was different and keep it disturbing.

After all, it’s not like they actually tried to make it less scary, right?

[Gorgoth]

PS.

It also might be subjective in some ways. What you find disturbing might not be the same as what someone else does (...) it is something to be thought about.

Yes, that is true. People have different perceptions of what is scary and what is disturbing.
But, there are also some things that are universally unsettling.


'sup.

Creating effective horror is all about tapping into the stuff that's universally unsettling. You won't scare everyone, but you can get the majority.

Why do you think the classic SH creatures were so twitchy, hmm?

[OneFreeMan]

PS.

It also might be subjective in some ways. What you find disturbing might not be the same as what someone else does (...) it is something to be thought about.

Yes, that is true. People have different perceptions of what is scary and what is disturbing.
But, there are also some things that are universally unsettling.


'sup.

Creating effective horror is all about tapping into the stuff that's universally unsettling. You won't scare everyone, but you can get the majority.

Why do you think the classic SH creatures were so twitchy, hmm?

As a person arachnophobia that scares the shit out of me.

[Q. Valintyne]

Here's the problem: The developers didn't know enough about this genre of horror to successfully make these changes.

It's their first go at it. Konami wasn't shitting gold when they first started as a company. In fact, they sold and repaired jukeboxes. Konami's first foray into horror was Castlevania. It wasn't exactly met with universal acclaim. Some don't even regard it as being a "horror" game. Konami did a lot of licensed in their earlier years until they established a few franchises (Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, and the many Bemani games). Vatra hasn't quite found their niche yet; you can't blame them for their first entry lacking some inspiration.

Since they didn't know enough about what made the original games work to begin with, they also didn't know what was "lost in translation" when they changed things. Thus, the developers simply changed way too many of Silent Hill's defining characteristics, not knowing that the original developers did what they did for a reason.
And I'm not just talking about the otherworld or the creature designs here either. A lot of it has to do with smaller, less obvious factors, like lighting, texturing, color palette, post processing, sound design, level design, game mechanics, pacing etc.
Basically, since the developers didn't know enough about this particular genre of horror, they simply changed too much, turning Downpour into something else entirely.

I'd say that is a subjective opinion. The original design director for the Downpour project, Brian Gomez, is a big fan of the series. In fact, he mentions that there were a lot of things he wanted to do for the series that Konami "simply wouldn't let [him] do." Who knows what kind of game Downpour could've been? We'll never know (unless Gomez can funnel his ideas into a new IP elsewhere). The remaining team may not have had that great of a grasp on horror, but can you honestly blame them?

The lighting, texture, and all of the other technical stuff you mentioned can be limited by the development team's resources. They're still an up and coming team; they're not going to have all of the tools that a highly regarded developer has.

So, in conclusion, the reason Downpour wasn't as scary isn't because the developers didn't try hard enough, or just because they wanted to do something different. It's because they didn't know how to make something that was different and keep it disturbing.

I'm not going to demean them and say that they "don't know how" or they are not capable of greatness, they're just not experienced. You can't blame a developer for not having more games under their belt. They'll get better with time.

Why do you think the classic SH creatures were so twitchy, hmm?

Because of this.

[devil hunter]

Yes, that is true. People have different perceptions of what is scary and what is disturbing.
But, there are also some things that are universally unsettling.


'sup.

Not necessarily, there are people who are not afraid of spiders at all, sorry, but horror is subjective. And yeah, they took the twitching from Jacob's ladder. Some people may not find that scary at all, btw.

[KiramidHead]

Not necessarily, there are people who are not afraid of spiders at all, sorry, but horror is subjective. And yeah, they took the twitching from Jacob's ladder. Some people may not find that scary at all, btw.

Yeah, I find Jacob's Ladder to be more surreal than scary.

[Q. Valintyne]

Not necessarily, there are people who are not afraid of spiders at all, sorry, but horror is subjective. And yeah, they took the twitching from Jacob's ladder. Some people may not find that scary at all, btw.

Yeah, I find Jacob's Ladder to be more surreal than scary.

Same here. I didn't enjoy it any less because I wasn't "scared." I've never been scared of a game much less Silent Hill). The intro (and demo) of Silent Hill 4 did scare me, but I was much younger then.

Horror is subjective. That's not really an opinion.

[Gorgoth]

Vatra hasn't quite found their niche yet; you can't blame them for their first entry lacking some inspiration. (...) I'm not going to demean them and say that they "don't know how" or they are not capable of greatness, they're just not experienced. You can't blame a developer for not having more games under their belt.

First of all, I have already pointed out how the developers did a pretty good job considering this was their first take on the series. Like I said, there was a lot they did right, and I have been giving them credit where credit's due throughout.
But, as the title of the thread implies, I'm not exactly here to play nice. Downpour had some aspects that I really didn't like, and I'm just pointing out why I think it ended up that way.
No, I can't realistically blame them for being inexperienced, but I can blame them for not doing a little more research into this genre and the series they happen to be working on.

They'll get better with time.

They certainly have a lot of potential, but another question entirely is if Konami will let them develop another title. Considering some of the bad decisions Konami has made recently (marketing, anyone?)
I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up changing developers again.

The original design director for the Downpour project, Brian Gomez, is a big fan of the series. In fact, he mentions that there were a lot of things he wanted to do for the series that Konami "simply wouldn't let [him] do." Who knows what kind of game Downpour could've been?

As for what Gomez may or may not have wanted to do, I don't really care. Who knows, maybe he had some bad ideas and got turned down for a reason. I can only judge the game for what it ended up as.
Either way, I am very, very careful about mentioning any specific names whilst discussing this, and you guys should be too. None of us knows exactly who did what on the title or what kind of conflicts occurred behind the scenes, and it's not something I'm going to speculate on.

The lighting, texture, and all of the other technical stuff you mentioned can be limited by the development team's resources. They're still an up and coming team; they're not going to have all of the tools that a highly regarded developer has.

I really don't agree on this one. Yes, a game can be limited by it's budget, but a strong artistic vision can compensate for that. Also, there's no reason for why the development team, equipped with the pretty up-to-scratch Unreal Engine, couldn't make textures more akin to what Team Silent did ten years ago on inferior hardware. A color palette doesn’t exactly have a price tag either.

Besides, it's not like Downpour was limited by it's budget if you think about it. None of us expected Downpour to be on the grand scale of Uncharted or Modern Warfare. On the contrary, some fans wanted the game to be even simpler, more intimate and claustrophobic. I myself thought they were a little too ambitious tech-wise, and that they should have played it a little more safe in some areas.
Also, If budget was an issue, there were plenty of ways for them to better allocate their resources. Take the otherworld for instance. They could easily have saved resources by dropping the chase sequences and recycling the existing environments, just like they did in the old games.

(As a side note, I think the whole otherworld was just a sneaky way of saving resources and padding the game's length to begin with. People complain about going through the same levels twice in SH 4, but in reality that's also what you did in SH 1-3)

Why do you think the classic SH creatures were so twitchy, hmm?

Because of this.

Okay, I'll admit that I expressed myself a little clumsily there. My bad.
The head shaking thing is obviously from Jacob's Ladder.
What I really was thinking of was how several of the creatures throughout the series have moved and behaved a lot like insects/arachnids. Creatures like the Lying figure, Slurper, Pendulum, Valtiel, and the ghost of Cynthia all tended to scurry across the floor (and walls) in a very spider-like manner.

Also, let's not forget the numerous creatures that have had a very prominent visual insect/arachnid/parasite theme, such as the Creeper, Puppet nurse, Hanged scratcher, Bloodsucker, Twinfeeler, Floatstinger, Mothbat and Greedy worm. The Swarm, Needler, Asphyxia and Amnion from Homecoming also comes to mind. Like I said, the original developers often based the creatures on stuff that’s universally unsettling, such as insects, diseases, disfigurement and death, because that’s what typically scares the majority of people.

As for the whole discussion of whether horror is subjective or not, I'm just not going to say another word about it. I could probably argue about it until the cows come home, but in doing so I would probably end up derailing the thread completely.

Anyway.

This thread has gotten sidetracked enough already.
At this point I think we should just drop any further criticism of the development team and any discussion about the subjective nature of horror, and just focus on the actual game again.
There's a few more things I’d like to talk about before I call it quits.

[devil hunter]

Am I the only one who thinks that the stuff about horror being subjective should get its own thread?

I find it more interesting than talk about how Downpour did stuff differently, or how it wasn't survival horror enough, or how it wasn't scary or how they didn't do SH stuff like Team Silent did.

Those are all nit picks for me, I personally enjoyed the game, don't really see the point in losing time how it wasn't as disturbing as TS game or not Silent Hillish enough.

I mean it's just a game, plus I don't want same stuff all the time.

[MurphyPendleton]

Am I the only one who thinks that the stuff about horror being subjective should get its own thread?

I find it more interesting than talk about how Downpour did stuff differently, or how it wasn't survival horror enough, or how it wasn't scary or how they didn't do SH stuff like Team Silent did.

Those are all nit picks for me, I personally enjoyed the game, don't really see the point in losing time how it wasn't as disturbing as TS game or not Silent Hillish enough.

I mean it's just a game, plus I don't want same stuff all the time.

It has got to be my favorite game of the series... i agree completely with what you are saying here. And has a fan of the entire series I speak my mind by saying that I will enjoy anything they throw at me

[devil hunter]

Some people say that Downpour's Otherworld was not unsettling or scary and then bring up the Otherworld from 3 for comparison.

That's not good in my opinion, because they're different, a lot. They probably had something different in mind for Downpour's Otherworld, there are different themes and stuff like that.

I personally, didn't found every Otherworld scary, the scariest ones are from 1 and 3. If people want something like that, then you'll get something like Homecoming's Otheworld, I want something different. We can't have old stuff with ever new game, what is then new in the "new" game then?

Some Otherworlds were unsettling, some were scary, some were weird, some were either scary, unsettling or weird only in certain places etc.

I think that the feeling of "weirdness" is what they were going for in Downpour, that's what I think at least. There are a lot of times when I wondered what the hell was going on.

Let's take the Centennial Building Otherworld, for few examples. The whole prison stuff when you're stuck in the jail cell, the part where you're walking on the clock hand, the cages that fall down and reveal clock mechanism, not to mention the part where you avoid the clock mechanism, those blades that move fast.

Why was the clock face positioned that way, why is a clock face there anyways? It felt like you're exploring a clock, it had those little mindfuck moments, at least one of them made you say "what is going on?". I don't understand the people who say that it didn't had weird imaginery, it had, maybe it's not something you would expect, something like in SH 3, instead you have something new.

Someone wrote it nicely, that person said that this Otherworld not only made the character feel insane, but the player too.
Do I even have to mention the music you can hear on the radio, in one Otherworld there's even some old furniture and music on a gramophone. You have a special kind of atmosphere that way and it fits nicely.

That's why I think it's unfair to compare them, they both are really different and have different atmospheres.

Downpour's Otherworld is different, that's a good thing. It's not scary, but that's not a bad thing, it invokes other feelings. It's not SH 3's Otherworld.

I'm sorry but this thread is one big personal opinion. Some may feel the same way, some may not.
It's not the game's fault that it didn't give you what you wanted, what you thought you'll be getting. You wanted a scary Otherworld and fucked up imaginery like in SH 1 and 3 for example. Well you got some weird imaginery and a weird Otherworld. It does not fit your tastes, it's not what you expected, there's really no need to make a thread where you compare it to other SH games and say that it wasn't more like that.
Some people like the stuff they did in Downpour, some not.
I don't think we need to bring up stuff like maybe they didn't knew how to make it scary, they didn't had experience in survival horror games.
Like with horror, this is all subjective, some love the stuff Downpour did and some maybe don't like it, but don't mind it.