It's overrated fedoracore and I'm glad the remake will make it mainstream and Ganker will stop liking it. That's right, there will be big titty boobagirls playing this from a hot tub on Twitch.
I blind bought this game for $20 because some dude on Gamespy was having a tier 10 spergout about how great it was in the Gamespy chat.
I thought it was pretty good myself. Others seem to agree. I think the fact it just gets more and more popular and more and more people push it speaks to the fact it is a quality work.
>I think the fact it just gets more and more popular and more and more people push it speaks to the fact it is a quality work
Those people didn't even play it.
Naw, that's Persona. SH can be finished in a couple hours on easy with a guide so it's not uncommon for people to just rush through it so they can get back to jacking off at pyramid head porn. Persona's fake fans I can understand a little, that's still 60 hours even on easy and being told what to do.
It's perfectly serviceable. I figured the fact it isn't mechanically complex contrntributed to its success. Like nobody is going to get filtered in Silent Hill 2 due to being unable to execute.
On one hand video essays are fricking everywhere and pseuds watch the shit out of them. On the other, the games aren't really that easy to acquire for normalgays, since Konami hasn't bothered to port them to modern systems or Steam, so they decide to watch essays about how the games are actually about circumcision. Honestly it's better that way. This franchise has more bad games than good ones, so I hope it fricking dies once again and never resurfaces.
Gameplay is hard, I've played 1-4 and origin, enjoyed them all. Recently went to play 1 again, it's hard if you're out of practice on tank control and old game mechanics.
Silent Hill was literally less popular than Pre-Awakening Fire Emblem despite a Hollywood movie, and 4 acclaimed entries that fanboys hype to the moon today. The second Silent Hill title was outsold globally than Fatal Frame which was a new IP with little fanfare in the west
It was outsold 20+ years ago. I'm saying the fact it's reputation grew over the years is due to it being good. Like I said, the game was already on sale when I played it.
It's reputation grew solely because of the Kojima PT demo on the PS4 that every Youtuber streamed on their channel, being cancelled instantly spiked it's reputation causing other Youtubers to go back and cover the other games in hopes it would inspire a popularity surge enough to cause a revival of the series.
It was outsold 20+ years ago. I'm saying the fact it's reputation grew over the years is due to it being good. Like I said, the game was already on sale when I played it.
I'm not so sure I agree with the sales. Silent Hill 2 had a greatest hits release whereas Fatal Frame did not, do you have numbers?
Oh god, you're that idiot who's been going around making ridiculous claims like Fatal Frame outselling Silent Hill, aren't you? Silent Hill 2 qualified for Platinum and Greatest Hits re-releases on Xbox and PS2 respectively, which requires a minimum of >400.000 sales to achieve and we already know that SH2 sold at minimum 1 million copies on PS2 alone. There's no Fatal Frame game that ever got Platinum or Greatest Hits releases. You're a filthy liar.
On the bright side, the fact that Ganker contrarians have to lie to make the game look bad kind of just proves the game is good.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Ignoring real criticisms while focusing on lying schizos kind of just proves the game is bad.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Oh. I don't argue on Ganker anymore. I only come here to laugh at schizos. I already know that I enjoy SH2 even if I think it's the weakest of the four. Go bug someone else if you want an argument.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I only come here to laugh at schizos
Said every weird moronic schizo on Ganker.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This is the most generic reply ever. You might as well have not posted anything at all.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I hope you're not the same anon who posted "I don't care about anything. I only come here to be moronic xD".
This it's like Zelda oot and ff7 the popularity just grew and grew but if you talk to those people they've never played it. I knew a girl who covered her rooms walls in Zelda shit, never played one. It was an eye opener
>sh4 >quality work
not after having to go thorugh all the levels over once i got to the end and the shitty hitboxes. serisously, it's especially bad in the train place where you have to go up/down escalators and enemies are sticking out of the walls.
and the graveyard level just sucks, so does the water tower, and the train level... and the hospital... and... sh4 just sucks
not really. but i will say the water tower had a creepy vibe i enjoyed even if i hated actually going through it.
the notes written by children were good and so were the creepy twin children that run around on their hands
>all these contrarians in the first 6 replies
Guess this is just the way it is on Ganker. Gotta troll all the time.
Game is awesome. If you're playing it expecting RE4 tier combat then you'll be sorely disappointed. Personally, I think it's a miracle that the combat ended up as good as it did when they were basing their approach to it on the first Alone in the Dark which is genuinely awful gameplay wise, even for its time.
>It doesn't even have inventory management
thats icky and too video gamey you stupid chud
silent hill 2 is a kino masterpiece about how my foreskin got stolen
Inventory management isn't an ironclad rule in survival horror first of all, and second of all the enemies' AI is perfectly adequate. You're referring to the lack of fast enemies which has nothing to do with AI. Most of SH2 takes place in tight corridors unlike SH1, so there's no need for flying pterodactyls, especially because you also have to escort Maria outside and there's a million different variables for 10-star runs.
Silent Hill was always geared more towards melee combat than Resident Evil, this is even more evident in SH2 because enemies stop and give you a small window to pummel them with your plank of wood, as opposed to grabbing you and biting you immediately within range which you would know if you actually played the games. You're not supposed to use your guns when facing a single enemy.
>Inventory management isn't an ironclad rule in survival horror first of all
Yes it is. >You're not supposed to use your guns when facing a single enemy
The game gives you near infinite ammo and healing items.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes it is.
According to who? You, anon on Ganker whose only knowledge of the genre starts and ends with Resident Evil. Gimme a break. It's not a rule. >The game gives you near infinite ammo and healing items
If you play it smart and conserve your resources, then no shit you're going to have a lot left at the end. This is what you morons don't seem to understand that there's this thing called escalation in most video games. In most every survival horror and even just action-adventures in general, you struggle with your resources only in the beginning and the middle maybe. By the end you should be able to "game" the game so good that limited resources stop being limited. 10-star speedruns also require you to plan your route and limit the time you spent scouring the maps for every item that you can pick up which is another thing that you don't understand. Old school survival horrors were made for speedrunning and picking up resources wastes time that's why they're spread out. Also, resources will always be more plentiful when playing on the lower difficulties, so start playing survival horror on their hardest difficulty which actually makes ammo scarce, even in OG RE2 which also had a good amount of ammo on Normal.
Image from a random Reddit post.
3 months ago
Anonymous
SH2 has no inventory management and a near infinite supply of resources. It's basically a walking sim.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>broken record
I graciously accept your concession.
>calling me a contrarian
Here's a contemporary review from what was the biggest gaming website at the time, stating that Silent Hill 2 was Fine but disappointing:
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/silent-hill-2-review/1900-2814382/
The Thing and The Shining were also universally panned by "professional critics" at their time of release. Since you're using reviews as the basis for your argument, the Metacritic score for SH2 is at 89 based on 39 different reviews, which is pretty wild for its time and for not being Resident Evil. Even the original RE1 sits at 91, but only based on 8 reviews.
For comparison, SH1 sits at 86 based on 17 reviews. So one site thought it was disappointing at the time, so fricking what? I'm reminded of this game magazine review that gave the game a mid score because he couldn't understand the story, which the shitposters on this board always claim isn't an issue with the game. Notice how nothing in that review lambasts the supposedly "terrible gameplay", but rather it's lack of innovation which is an entirely different issue altogether.
Not really, dead space is the only horror influenced by it. The demography who liked horrors was on PS2 but not on the next generation. The genre wasn't successful enough for AAA budget so it died and nu horror started as indie slop for streamers
3 months ago
Anonymous
Dead Space 1 and 2 did fine. Hell, 3 even did fine. Visceral got assfricked by EA, they forced them to make a game they didn't want to make, and then pulled the plug when DS3 only sold 5 million copies instead of 10 million. I don't even like Dead Space all that much but the story there is a sad one.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Condemned was tight too, think it sold well & though it was more of a shooter there was the FEAR games too. Plus there was deadly premonition, alan wake & I'll add that siren remake that really should've been a single game instead of episodic, it probably would've sold a lot more if not for that.
I'm so tired of seeing this "opinion" being parroted on Ganker. We get it, you're only into "elevated horror" Jordan Peele style. Or is it muh action? Newsflash, survival horror were always full of action.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Or maybe we just like diverse gameplay rather than the entire genre becoming RE4 ripoffs.........................
3 months ago
Anonymous
But as another anon pointed out in the thread
Not really, dead space is the only horror influenced by it. The demography who liked horrors was on PS2 but not on the next generation. The genre wasn't successful enough for AAA budget so it died and nu horror started as indie slop for streamers
only Dead Space were RE4 style survival horror. Or do you think OTS = RE4? There's no better way to limit your FOV than OTS outside of fixed camera angles which are never coming back outside of retro throwback indies. OTS is just the modern equivalent of fixed camera, they both do the same thing essentially. Notice how games like Arkham would immediately zoom out in a full 3rd person perspective when you're engaging enemies or running, but being OTS when walking only?
RE4, RE2R etc. doesn't do that, not even Siren Blood Curse did that even though the FOV was less restrictive in that one. They all obscure your view just like the old games did.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Minimum puzzles >Encouraged to hunt for treasures >Leveling up your equipment & HP bar >Hoards of enemies you're expected to mow down for currency
Pic unrelated, I'm talking about Onimusha. This stuff is what makes a game feel like RE4, not merely the camera angle.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The currency shit was also used in Fatal Frame. Does that game feel like RE4 as well, despite predating it by 4 years?
The puzzle shit I can understand, although aside from RE3 the puzzles were pretty braindead in classic RE.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not at all. Parasite Eve also doesn't feel like RE4. Because there are a multitude of criteria required, not just one thing.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I can see that, but usually the point of contention is about RE4 "encouraging combat" when both Silent Hill and Fatal Frame did it years before with the 10-star runs and Camera Obscura upgrade system respectively. It was never really a rule that you absolutely shouldn't engage enemies when you see them, you just needed to be smart about your resources and make appropriate judgment calls. Personally, I feel like there's room for both old school and post-RE4 type of survival horrors and I like them both for offering different things, while still feeling the same in some places like the clunky controls and obscured view.
3 months ago
Anonymous
RE4 is actually one of my favorite games of all time, but in no way is it a horror game. It's a survival action game.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>RE4 isn't horror
In what way isn't it horror exactly? Because it has some lighthearted quips here and there in the midst of all the disturbing human experiments and senseless violence and gore? Do you not think Evil Dead 2 is a horror film because it also has some comedy? Do you not know that horror comedy is a thing?
3 months ago
Anonymous
There are some horror parts to it, but I wouldn't say the overall game qualifies as traditional horror. I mean, just look at a majority of the Island section. It drops all pretenses of trying to be scary and turns into a corridor shooter.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're mentioning the last third of the game, but ignoring the other 2 thirds that outweigh the last part. It is true that the Island went overboard on the action and I think most people can agree on that. However, even the Island has the Regenerators which are definitely the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Also: >horror /=/ scary
I know they're called "scary" movies, but horror can also be about shocking and disgusting you, it doesn't necessarily have to be about frightening you. Most zombie movies are the visceral kind of horror. I was fricking repulsed by this one scene in Day of the Dead where a soldier was getting his head ripped off by zombies while screaming in agony and his larynx was getting stretched in the process so the scream turned high pitched near the end. It still sits with me all these years later, but not because it scared me, because it disturbed the shit out of me. Resident Evil has always been the "marketable" kind of horror, but that doesn't make it any less horror than stuff like Silent Hill, they just go for different things, but they still belong to the same genre of fiction ultimately.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Slow moving humanoid that dies if you hit its giant weak spot
Never got the appeal of regenerators
They're basically even less threatening zombies
3 months ago
Anonymous
If you accidentally shoot at its legs like on a blind playthrough thinking you can get to its weak spots on the back safely that way, it'll get fast as frickboy and it'll get pretty scary by then. Don't forget it can also stretch its arms out if you're too close which can be a real problem in the freezer especially. It's definitely one of the most threatening enemies in the game.
Anyway, Michael Myers did it first.
3 months ago
Anonymous
LETS ALL GO OUT FOR FROSTY CHOCOLATE MILKSHAKES
3 months ago
Anonymous
On my first playthru the rifle was my default weapon, and on subsequent plays I'd just spray & pray its chest to kill it. Does something happen if you shoot its legs? I either never tried or totally forgot
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I'm too lazy to find a GIF right now, but it slithers fast toward you on the ground if you shoot its leg off, although looking at a random video I found it doesn't seem to happen on Normal as intensely. I usually play on Professional.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, body horror can play a role for sure, but RE4 doesn't have enough of that. There's really only decapitations and the bug face melt (which, admittedly, is pretty good). I think you're confusing tension wrought from trying to survive in tense moments with actual true horror. The village, castle, and island segments aren't horror in the sense where you're scared to even take another step, but more on edge because you're just trying to survive.
The only parts I would consider horror like previous RE titles would be the bug sewer section and, like you said, the Regenerator segments. It isn't enough for me to qualify it as a "true" horror game, and more along the lines of action survival. Tense, yes. Scary? Not really.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Also, I'll be generous and throw in the "right hand" boss fight for another horror segment as well.
3 months ago
Anonymous
How are Regenerators and Las Plagas parasites exploding out of the heads of unwitting human victims not body horror? Jesus, I'm not even sure what to say here so hopefully you can realize how dumb this sounds on your own. Have you ever actually seen The Crazies which the village in RE4 was based on? That's a horror film also by George Romero. You're completely isolated and vulnerable to monstrous entities who are all looking to kill you in various ways. That's horror right there.
Also, there's no such thing as "true horror" this is one of the most pretentious things anyone can say about the genre. Only execution matters. There may be a lot of action, but Leon isn't Doomguy and I refuse to engage in good faith with anyone who can't see this.
RE4 was just a third person shooter though. Not to discount it, it's up there with my favorites in the genre for sure, but I don't really see it competing with "survival horror tirles".
Yeah, I know, but the market was so oversaturated with low effort "Resident Evil Clones" at the time and I've played through some of them already and I can understand why people got tired of them even after 5 years. The first Clock Tower game was pretty fricking good and the Pursuer mechanic would later be used by Capcom in RE2, albeit a little too short even with all its different endings, but Clock Tower 2 on PS1 (Clock Tower 1 in the West) was such a disappointment in comparison because it was trying to be like Resident Evil and it's one of those early 3D titles made by developers who couldn't think three dimensionally and were inexperienced with it. The controls are absolutely awful which is quite an achievement for a point-and-click game.
Saying SH2 doesn't explain its story is wild. I could understand someone who never played SH1 saying it didn't get explained why the place is like it is, since that's not really a focus of 2, but I don't really think there's anything SH2 presents on its own that it doesn't have a cutscene just to explain it. Maybe some people would get a little tripped up on Maria, that's it.
It doesn't really have any exposition. You're required to peace most things together on your own through dialogue and various text throughout the game. 99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk because Ito said so on his Twitter and this is where the bulk of this board's knowledge and understanding of the game comes from. Ito's Twitter and Youtube essays, but hindsight is 20/20 so we can pretend we were smart enough to figure this all out on our own on an anonymous basket weaving forum.
>99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk
Nah, I never thought that was directly relevant. It's more the scene where he sits down and says "I killed me wife". If that scene was missing and you had to piece together yourself what happened, sure. But he says it himself. He also pretty clearly talks about his guilt, him wanting to punish himself, the ending really explains a lot of this stuff. I can't imagine getting through both the tv watching and the pyramid head final fight and going "huh, wonder what this is all about?"
>99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk because Ito said so on his Twitter
I don't know that and as far as I'm aware he never said such a thing.
I wonder why Metacritic uses overall less reviews than Metacritic? Either way, I'm glad you brought this up because it brings up another issue that I have with review scores in general. Notice how Code Veronica is the highest rated Resident Evil game according to your metric along with Nemesis just below RE2. Both of those games are agreed upon by the majority to not be particularly great games, certainly not CV which is a masterpiece according to Metacritic too. Capcom were knocking it out of the park with RE games back then sales wise at least and everyone wanted to cash in on the survival horror craze. So RE games and by extension Dino Crisis got that "bonus" by journalists who thought they had to rate these games perfectly to reflect on the perceived perception of the public. Today this is also known as the "Dark Souls" or "Zelda" bonus, but it was just as prevalent an issue back in the day. Elden Ring and TotK both got super high review scores mostly because of the expectation of it all, not because they were particularly mindblowing games in themselves.
Hope I didn't accidentally summon that one schizo by using these examples.
MetaCritic has a specific number of approved journalists to uphold their "credibility", whereas Rotten Tomatoes and GameRankings both include almost every outlet. Nowadays the modern equivalent to GameRankings is OpenCritic which has tracked games from 2014-present
You would've been laughed out of any discussion at the time by aggregating scores like that.
Magazines at the time were 100% bought-and-sold reviews ffs. What next, you're going to cite Famitsu's score?
The point is that my view is IN NO WAY out of left field, trolling, or phony. You completely failed to address that.
You're the one who brought up reviews in the first place you disingenious piece of shit. Also, holy reading comprehension Batman. Did you actually read that review you dumb ape? That's not what a bought out review looks like. Apply yourself next time troll.
jfc, I'm saying that AGGREGATES include paid magazine reviews. aggregates that didn't even exist at the time, for good reason.
>You're just an epic contrarian!!! >I don't think so, here's a widely-read contemporary review that likely had over 5 million page views at the time that agrees with me. >Oh yeah??!? Well here's ANOTHER review that agrees with you! You look pretty stupid right now, huh??
3 months ago
Anonymous
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you can't trust aggregate scores because they might take reviews that were made years after release like with Rotten Tomatoes and movies, correct? I've just taken a look through the sourced reviews on the Metacritic page, which is only of the PS2 version btw, and there's no evidence that any of these reviews were made years later when SH2 got elevated to cult status so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here? I found one instance of a review from 2004 that praised it after the fact, which was still way before Youtube and the likes. Did you forget that Silent Hill 2 isn't a widely available game outside of the shitty HD collection that even haters would agree isn't the true way to experience the game? You keep refering back to your ONE REVIEW ON THIS ONE BIG SITE as your only argument, that's why I'm attacking it because you don't have any valid criticism, you're just using an external source of "authority" that you feel validates your view. You and Gamespot think the game sucks do you? Well, here's many more external sources of "authority" that DIDN'T share in that sentiment. Want me to BTFO you some more b***h?
3 months ago
Anonymous
You've completely failed to understand the point. >LOOK AT THIS NUMERICAL AVERAGE >uh, looks like you've let some shit mix into your average, buddy
That part has nothing to do with timing.
The point is that you are wrong about me being a contrarian, and you've failed 4 or 5 times now to address that at all, even a single word about it.
I don't need every reviewer ever to agree with me to prove simply that I'm not "faking" my opinion or farming outrage or whatever you think the goal of a contrarian is.
I've amply demonstrated (and so have you!) that "Silent Hill 2 is a disappointment" was a widely held, if not universal, opinion at the time. That is sufficient to BTFO you for all eternity.
3 months ago
Anonymous
All I'm seeing here is >no u
You don't have a point since you could only bring me one example of a supposedly "widely held opinion", so I've already addressed it plenty of times by now. The fact that you have the gall to call it a "universally held opinion" now too shows that you were pic related all along. Get bent homosexual.
Because modern Ganker have the attention span of a chinchilla and can't even understand the few dialogues in the game considering them as criptic and incomprehensible
Silent Hill 2 is an entry level contrarian game, a gane you don't actually play and pretend to be a fan of even though the gameplay is awful but contrarians care more for atmosphere or vibe
>but contrarians care more for atmosphere or vibe
the thing is its mostly empty hallways or square rooms like the one in your webm
silent hill 1 has better realized locations despite being a PS1 title
The remake will have a RE4make-like camera and combat systems, it will be a better game than the original, it will be popular among zoomers and streamers, the seething will be glorious.
James is too overpowered. Ten minutes into the game when you have 100 handgun bullets the monsters stop being intimidating.
The historical society / prison and hotel are the only good levels.
If you understand Japanese storytelling & culture the story is the most in your face tripe ever written.
Escorting Maria is a pain in the ass. Why the frick does Silent Hill 4 get shit for being an escort mission but not this game?
Laura is a brat who needs rape correction but none of the endings deliver this.
The puzzles are way too easy even on hard. Compare the music box puzzle to the first puzzle in SH3.
Antagonists are boring compared to the other three games and even other horror games on the PS2.
The enemy/level designs are mechanically lacking, that's for sure. But the aesthetics carry hard enough to more than make up for it. Still not a masterpiece, more like an 8/10.
Playing through this game right now, there are a lot of streets that are dead ends, are there objects that can easily be missed or is it fine if I just keep going
You can miss some ammo and healing items, but you'll find enough of those on the main path. There are some rather esoteric items that are needed for a specific ending, but they only show up in NG+.
Its been ages since I played the games but I remember liking 2 more than 3. The third game didn't really have anything that unsettled me as much as 2's freaky shit from the wierdo characters to the animations. The fact they railroad you with enemies in 3 desensitized me to the horror elements.
I never gave a frick about the story in these games so cutscenes being totally off the wall in 2 made them at least somewhat interesting but 3 it was like idgaf who these people are, it just dragged on.
I like 3 more as a video game. It is more of a railroaded experience, but I think it does much better evoking a sense of fight or flight with the enemy encounters. You can open a door in 3 and there might just be a dead end with like 4 dogs in there because frick you, or a pendulum closing in on you from the left and right because, again, frick you. 2 didn't have the balls (or the enemy types, really) to pull shit like that.
As a traditional survival horror game 3 definitely has it beat but I only really like silent hill because of the type of horror it is. I wouldn't go as far as to say combat could be removed & I wouldn't care but it's definitely of lesser importance to me. I much prefer resident evil for more combat focused horror.
3 went overboard with annoying stuff like being able to fall into holes and Pendulums and Slurpers. You can't honestly sit there and praise the Pendulums ear rape as a positive over any SH2 enemy.
>falling into holes
This was annoying, 3 does have too many bullshit instakill scenarios.
>Pendulums ear rape
SH3 was intentionally abrasive to the senses. Sometimes that falls back on loud noises like the Pendulums but it also refers to things like the overbearing, pulsating walls in the otherworld. It's a game that aimed to unsettle and disorient through very physical means, it doesn't lean AS heavily on the psychological implications as 2 does.
>SH3 was intentionally abrasive to the senses.
I'm one of the first people to defend the clunky combat of Silent Hill precisely because knowing what they were going for, but I can also understand why it might be too much for some people even knowing that. Not for me personally, although it certainly can get frustrating at times, but in a good way that only video games can be.
However, in spite of the above I still maintain that they crossed that line of it being frustrating in a good way to just being plain frustating with SH3 which are my biggest problems with that game aside from the story, the non-characters like Douglas who only exists to soften the blow of Harry's death [spoiler] and re-using SH2 levels like Brookhaven which Alessa has no connection to. The Pendulums are not scary precisely because they're so annoying and it's the same with the Slurpers which is a shame because Ito was at the top of his game here visually.
I could go on about the good and the bad, but I'll just end it by saying that despite all the bad I still think it's a solid 7/10. Good, just not great.
If only Konami had realized sooner that Japs generally only care for lighthearted shounenshit sooner and not tried pandering to them by forcing a sequel to a game that didn't need one and stupidly splitting the team in half to develop 2 games simultaneously.[/spoiler]
james was a fricking store clerk who probably was never in a fight before in his life. i don't know why people expect leon kennedy trained police combat. its just a sad story that isnt supposed to make you feel powerful at all thats why it works. also going to a silent hill game for the combat and not the puzzles is like playing bejewled for gore and shotguns.
Anita isn't a character but a caricature. It's not even her reprehensive actions that make her unlikable, it's that's she written in such a "how do you do, fellow kids" fashion. I checked out on her character the moment she started railing on about adults and "the system" like 2 minutes after she opens her mouth. I'd say Short Message has all the efficacy of an amusement park haunted house, but the Borley Mansion in 3 is genuinely a more effective horror walk-and-talk than this was.
>silent hill 2 is dogshit
I feel like I walked into a discord raid thread, what the hell is going on in here. I'm a genuine pretentious contrarian and I'd never be moronic to call any of the first 3 silent hill games bad.
Also people calling RE4 survival horror are morons, it's an action game through and through. You fricking roundhouse kick zombies.
Survival horror are action games too idiot. You think you're so smart for not acknowledging it as what it's own publisher and pioneer of the genre does to this day, but you have a surface level understanding of survival horror like the rest of the homosexuals on here.
>it's survival horror because the publisher says so
No. Publishers care about marketing, they are going to say the 4th entry is the same genre regardless of what they made for the sake of marketing and fanbase retention.
I dont call it a survival horror because calling it one just muddies genre distinctions, like calling portal a FPS because it's in first-person and you have a gun.
This doesn't make any sense. You're playing out a live snuff film ordered by a billionaire who derives sexual pleasure from it to kill everyone you see in graphic ways, but this isn't horror according to your big brained Gankertard? You're as dumb as the anon who claimed that RE4 wasn't horror at all in spite of everything present in the game.
Know what I think? I think you realize that Manhunt is a horror game about survival, yet not actually a survival horror, but you also realize that acknowledging it as a horror game would prove my point that you don't actually know what survival horror is because you can't explain why Manhunt isn't a survival horror despite fitting the Ganker criteria for the genre.
Roundhouse kicking or not, you still control like a tank, your aiming is shaky, you have a limited FOV, you have limited resources, limited inventory, you get staggered by one hit, melee combat and oh shit, there's still mandatory combat such as boss fights just like in the classics! But yeah, sure, survival horror were never action games and you should always avoid combat all the time except those times you can't because it's a boss battle!!
Well the gameplay and dialogue certainly aren't great
The gameplay is genuinely terrible.
What's so bad about it? Seems fine to me. Not one of the greats in terms of gameplay, but decent.
Proto movie game
It's overrated fedoracore and I'm glad the remake will make it mainstream and Ganker will stop liking it. That's right, there will be big titty boobagirls playing this from a hot tub on Twitch.
I wouldn't say it's bad, just that it's a disappointing sequel.
it was bad even back then moronic millennial which is why you've never played it yourself and only watch youtube videos about it
You weren't even a thought in your daddy's balls when this came out, zoomoid. You have no say in the matter.
I am not a israelitetuber watching amerimutt like you trannoid
I owned the original four games back on PS1 and PS2. Any more buzzwords you want to throw at me, moron?
>I owned
sold them to buy your HRT?
The remake will be, who the frick signed off on Bloober?
Eileen shaving
>sh4 pc rerelease still hasn't added all the hauntings
I don't get it.
I blind bought this game for $20 because some dude on Gamespy was having a tier 10 spergout about how great it was in the Gamespy chat.
I thought it was pretty good myself. Others seem to agree. I think the fact it just gets more and more popular and more and more people push it speaks to the fact it is a quality work.
>I think the fact it just gets more and more popular and more and more people push it speaks to the fact it is a quality work
Those people didn't even play it.
This. SH might be the one franchise I can think of where most of the fandom hasn't played a single fricking game.
Naw, that's Persona. SH can be finished in a couple hours on easy with a guide so it's not uncommon for people to just rush through it so they can get back to jacking off at pyramid head porn. Persona's fake fans I can understand a little, that's still 60 hours even on easy and being told what to do.
*laughs at you in 2hu*
The first movie is probably the franchise's commercial peak, save maybe the first game but that's a hard fricking maybe.
Why do you think this is the case?
The gameplay sucks.
It's perfectly serviceable. I figured the fact it isn't mechanically complex contrntributed to its success. Like nobody is going to get filtered in Silent Hill 2 due to being unable to execute.
On one hand video essays are fricking everywhere and pseuds watch the shit out of them. On the other, the games aren't really that easy to acquire for normalgays, since Konami hasn't bothered to port them to modern systems or Steam, so they decide to watch essays about how the games are actually about circumcision. Honestly it's better that way. This franchise has more bad games than good ones, so I hope it fricking dies once again and never resurfaces.
>This franchise has more bad games than good ones
I constantly forget the series continued after 4.
It's """""alive""""" again right now.
It's headcanon that he pulled out of his ass.
Gameplay is hard, I've played 1-4 and origin, enjoyed them all. Recently went to play 1 again, it's hard if you're out of practice on tank control and old game mechanics.
Silent Hill was literally less popular than Pre-Awakening Fire Emblem despite a Hollywood movie, and 4 acclaimed entries that fanboys hype to the moon today. The second Silent Hill title was outsold globally than Fatal Frame which was a new IP with little fanfare in the west
It was outsold 20+ years ago. I'm saying the fact it's reputation grew over the years is due to it being good. Like I said, the game was already on sale when I played it.
It's reputation grew solely because of the Kojima PT demo on the PS4 that every Youtuber streamed on their channel, being cancelled instantly spiked it's reputation causing other Youtubers to go back and cover the other games in hopes it would inspire a popularity surge enough to cause a revival of the series.
I'm not so sure I agree with the sales. Silent Hill 2 had a greatest hits release whereas Fatal Frame did not, do you have numbers?
Fatal Frame has never sold well, however Silent Hill 2 was declared a flop by the creator. Sales for the third entry sit at 710,000
Oh god, you're that idiot who's been going around making ridiculous claims like Fatal Frame outselling Silent Hill, aren't you? Silent Hill 2 qualified for Platinum and Greatest Hits re-releases on Xbox and PS2 respectively, which requires a minimum of >400.000 sales to achieve and we already know that SH2 sold at minimum 1 million copies on PS2 alone. There's no Fatal Frame game that ever got Platinum or Greatest Hits releases. You're a filthy liar.
On the bright side, the fact that Ganker contrarians have to lie to make the game look bad kind of just proves the game is good.
Ignoring real criticisms while focusing on lying schizos kind of just proves the game is bad.
Oh. I don't argue on Ganker anymore. I only come here to laugh at schizos. I already know that I enjoy SH2 even if I think it's the weakest of the four. Go bug someone else if you want an argument.
>I only come here to laugh at schizos
Said every weird moronic schizo on Ganker.
This is the most generic reply ever. You might as well have not posted anything at all.
I hope you're not the same anon who posted "I don't care about anything. I only come here to be moronic xD".
This it's like Zelda oot and ff7 the popularity just grew and grew but if you talk to those people they've never played it. I knew a girl who covered her rooms walls in Zelda shit, never played one. It was an eye opener
>sh4
>quality work
not after having to go thorugh all the levels over once i got to the end and the shitty hitboxes. serisously, it's especially bad in the train place where you have to go up/down escalators and enemies are sticking out of the walls.
and the graveyard level just sucks, so does the water tower, and the train level... and the hospital... and... sh4 just sucks
Room 302 is so good it makes up for the rest of the game
not really. but i will say the water tower had a creepy vibe i enjoyed even if i hated actually going through it.
the notes written by children were good and so were the creepy twin children that run around on their hands
Just think, this piece of shit came out during the same Generation that had RE4.
>all these contrarians in the first 6 replies
Guess this is just the way it is on Ganker. Gotta troll all the time.
Game is awesome. If you're playing it expecting RE4 tier combat then you'll be sorely disappointed. Personally, I think it's a miracle that the combat ended up as good as it did when they were basing their approach to it on the first Alone in the Dark which is genuinely awful gameplay wise, even for its time.
SH2 has shit gameplay even by the standards of survival horror games set by Resident Evil 1.
Here's your (You) pissant. It has way better gameplay than RE1 and it's not a debate.
>It has way better gameplay than RE1
You've played neither moronic homosexual
It doesn't even have inventory management and the enemies are all braindead moronic. Resident Evil 1 is way better.
>It doesn't even have inventory management
thats icky and too video gamey you stupid chud
silent hill 2 is a kino masterpiece about how my foreskin got stolen
Inventory management isn't an ironclad rule in survival horror first of all, and second of all the enemies' AI is perfectly adequate. You're referring to the lack of fast enemies which has nothing to do with AI. Most of SH2 takes place in tight corridors unlike SH1, so there's no need for flying pterodactyls, especially because you also have to escort Maria outside and there's a million different variables for 10-star runs.
Silent Hill was always geared more towards melee combat than Resident Evil, this is even more evident in SH2 because enemies stop and give you a small window to pummel them with your plank of wood, as opposed to grabbing you and biting you immediately within range which you would know if you actually played the games. You're not supposed to use your guns when facing a single enemy.
>Inventory management isn't an ironclad rule in survival horror first of all
Yes it is.
>You're not supposed to use your guns when facing a single enemy
The game gives you near infinite ammo and healing items.
>Yes it is.
According to who? You, anon on Ganker whose only knowledge of the genre starts and ends with Resident Evil. Gimme a break. It's not a rule.
>The game gives you near infinite ammo and healing items
If you play it smart and conserve your resources, then no shit you're going to have a lot left at the end. This is what you morons don't seem to understand that there's this thing called escalation in most video games. In most every survival horror and even just action-adventures in general, you struggle with your resources only in the beginning and the middle maybe. By the end you should be able to "game" the game so good that limited resources stop being limited. 10-star speedruns also require you to plan your route and limit the time you spent scouring the maps for every item that you can pick up which is another thing that you don't understand. Old school survival horrors were made for speedrunning and picking up resources wastes time that's why they're spread out. Also, resources will always be more plentiful when playing on the lower difficulties, so start playing survival horror on their hardest difficulty which actually makes ammo scarce, even in OG RE2 which also had a good amount of ammo on Normal.
Image from a random Reddit post.
SH2 has no inventory management and a near infinite supply of resources. It's basically a walking sim.
>broken record
I graciously accept your concession.
>calling me a contrarian
Here's a contemporary review from what was the biggest gaming website at the time, stating that Silent Hill 2 was Fine but disappointing:
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/silent-hill-2-review/1900-2814382/
The Thing and The Shining were also universally panned by "professional critics" at their time of release. Since you're using reviews as the basis for your argument, the Metacritic score for SH2 is at 89 based on 39 different reviews, which is pretty wild for its time and for not being Resident Evil. Even the original RE1 sits at 91, but only based on 8 reviews.
For comparison, SH1 sits at 86 based on 17 reviews. So one site thought it was disappointing at the time, so fricking what? I'm reminded of this game magazine review that gave the game a mid score because he couldn't understand the story, which the shitposters on this board always claim isn't an issue with the game. Notice how nothing in that review lambasts the supposedly "terrible gameplay", but rather it's lack of innovation which is an entirely different issue altogether.
Notice how people were looking for innovation in survival horror games as early as 2001. Now you know why RE4 was so groundbreaking.
RE4 killed horror games.
It was already a dead genre by 2005.
Wrong, because F.E.A.R came out during that time.
For a decade, yeah. Horror games have been better off since 2014 than they were the decade before.
Not really, dead space is the only horror influenced by it. The demography who liked horrors was on PS2 but not on the next generation. The genre wasn't successful enough for AAA budget so it died and nu horror started as indie slop for streamers
Dead Space 1 and 2 did fine. Hell, 3 even did fine. Visceral got assfricked by EA, they forced them to make a game they didn't want to make, and then pulled the plug when DS3 only sold 5 million copies instead of 10 million. I don't even like Dead Space all that much but the story there is a sad one.
Condemned was tight too, think it sold well & though it was more of a shooter there was the FEAR games too. Plus there was deadly premonition, alan wake & I'll add that siren remake that really should've been a single game instead of episodic, it probably would've sold a lot more if not for that.
I'm so tired of seeing this "opinion" being parroted on Ganker. We get it, you're only into "elevated horror" Jordan Peele style. Or is it muh action? Newsflash, survival horror were always full of action.
Or maybe we just like diverse gameplay rather than the entire genre becoming RE4 ripoffs.........................
But as another anon pointed out in the thread
only Dead Space were RE4 style survival horror. Or do you think OTS = RE4? There's no better way to limit your FOV than OTS outside of fixed camera angles which are never coming back outside of retro throwback indies. OTS is just the modern equivalent of fixed camera, they both do the same thing essentially. Notice how games like Arkham would immediately zoom out in a full 3rd person perspective when you're engaging enemies or running, but being OTS when walking only?
RE4, RE2R etc. doesn't do that, not even Siren Blood Curse did that even though the FOV was less restrictive in that one. They all obscure your view just like the old games did.
>Minimum puzzles
>Encouraged to hunt for treasures
>Leveling up your equipment & HP bar
>Hoards of enemies you're expected to mow down for currency
Pic unrelated, I'm talking about Onimusha. This stuff is what makes a game feel like RE4, not merely the camera angle.
The currency shit was also used in Fatal Frame. Does that game feel like RE4 as well, despite predating it by 4 years?
The puzzle shit I can understand, although aside from RE3 the puzzles were pretty braindead in classic RE.
Not at all. Parasite Eve also doesn't feel like RE4. Because there are a multitude of criteria required, not just one thing.
Yeah, I can see that, but usually the point of contention is about RE4 "encouraging combat" when both Silent Hill and Fatal Frame did it years before with the 10-star runs and Camera Obscura upgrade system respectively. It was never really a rule that you absolutely shouldn't engage enemies when you see them, you just needed to be smart about your resources and make appropriate judgment calls. Personally, I feel like there's room for both old school and post-RE4 type of survival horrors and I like them both for offering different things, while still feeling the same in some places like the clunky controls and obscured view.
RE4 is actually one of my favorite games of all time, but in no way is it a horror game. It's a survival action game.
>RE4 isn't horror
In what way isn't it horror exactly? Because it has some lighthearted quips here and there in the midst of all the disturbing human experiments and senseless violence and gore? Do you not think Evil Dead 2 is a horror film because it also has some comedy? Do you not know that horror comedy is a thing?
There are some horror parts to it, but I wouldn't say the overall game qualifies as traditional horror. I mean, just look at a majority of the Island section. It drops all pretenses of trying to be scary and turns into a corridor shooter.
You're mentioning the last third of the game, but ignoring the other 2 thirds that outweigh the last part. It is true that the Island went overboard on the action and I think most people can agree on that. However, even the Island has the Regenerators which are definitely the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Also:
>horror /=/ scary
I know they're called "scary" movies, but horror can also be about shocking and disgusting you, it doesn't necessarily have to be about frightening you. Most zombie movies are the visceral kind of horror. I was fricking repulsed by this one scene in Day of the Dead where a soldier was getting his head ripped off by zombies while screaming in agony and his larynx was getting stretched in the process so the scream turned high pitched near the end. It still sits with me all these years later, but not because it scared me, because it disturbed the shit out of me. Resident Evil has always been the "marketable" kind of horror, but that doesn't make it any less horror than stuff like Silent Hill, they just go for different things, but they still belong to the same genre of fiction ultimately.
>Slow moving humanoid that dies if you hit its giant weak spot
Never got the appeal of regenerators
They're basically even less threatening zombies
If you accidentally shoot at its legs like on a blind playthrough thinking you can get to its weak spots on the back safely that way, it'll get fast as frickboy and it'll get pretty scary by then. Don't forget it can also stretch its arms out if you're too close which can be a real problem in the freezer especially. It's definitely one of the most threatening enemies in the game.
Anyway, Michael Myers did it first.
LETS ALL GO OUT FOR FROSTY CHOCOLATE MILKSHAKES
On my first playthru the rifle was my default weapon, and on subsequent plays I'd just spray & pray its chest to kill it. Does something happen if you shoot its legs? I either never tried or totally forgot
Yeah, I'm too lazy to find a GIF right now, but it slithers fast toward you on the ground if you shoot its leg off, although looking at a random video I found it doesn't seem to happen on Normal as intensely. I usually play on Professional.
Yeah, body horror can play a role for sure, but RE4 doesn't have enough of that. There's really only decapitations and the bug face melt (which, admittedly, is pretty good). I think you're confusing tension wrought from trying to survive in tense moments with actual true horror. The village, castle, and island segments aren't horror in the sense where you're scared to even take another step, but more on edge because you're just trying to survive.
The only parts I would consider horror like previous RE titles would be the bug sewer section and, like you said, the Regenerator segments. It isn't enough for me to qualify it as a "true" horror game, and more along the lines of action survival. Tense, yes. Scary? Not really.
Also, I'll be generous and throw in the "right hand" boss fight for another horror segment as well.
How are Regenerators and Las Plagas parasites exploding out of the heads of unwitting human victims not body horror? Jesus, I'm not even sure what to say here so hopefully you can realize how dumb this sounds on your own. Have you ever actually seen The Crazies which the village in RE4 was based on? That's a horror film also by George Romero. You're completely isolated and vulnerable to monstrous entities who are all looking to kill you in various ways. That's horror right there.
Also, there's no such thing as "true horror" this is one of the most pretentious things anyone can say about the genre. Only execution matters. There may be a lot of action, but Leon isn't Doomguy and I refuse to engage in good faith with anyone who can't see this.
Forbidden Siren already did what Resident Evil 4 did years later, it was nothing new just a lot easier
RE4 was just a third person shooter though. Not to discount it, it's up there with my favorites in the genre for sure, but I don't really see it competing with "survival horror tirles".
Yeah, I know, but the market was so oversaturated with low effort "Resident Evil Clones" at the time and I've played through some of them already and I can understand why people got tired of them even after 5 years. The first Clock Tower game was pretty fricking good and the Pursuer mechanic would later be used by Capcom in RE2, albeit a little too short even with all its different endings, but Clock Tower 2 on PS1 (Clock Tower 1 in the West) was such a disappointment in comparison because it was trying to be like Resident Evil and it's one of those early 3D titles made by developers who couldn't think three dimensionally and were inexperienced with it. The controls are absolutely awful which is quite an achievement for a point-and-click game.
These homies really gave Extermination a higher score than Silent Hill 2?
Saying SH2 doesn't explain its story is wild. I could understand someone who never played SH1 saying it didn't get explained why the place is like it is, since that's not really a focus of 2, but I don't really think there's anything SH2 presents on its own that it doesn't have a cutscene just to explain it. Maybe some people would get a little tripped up on Maria, that's it.
It doesn't really have any exposition. You're required to peace most things together on your own through dialogue and various text throughout the game. 99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk because Ito said so on his Twitter and this is where the bulk of this board's knowledge and understanding of the game comes from. Ito's Twitter and Youtube essays, but hindsight is 20/20 so we can pretend we were smart enough to figure this all out on our own on an anonymous basket weaving forum.
>99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk
Nah, I never thought that was directly relevant. It's more the scene where he sits down and says "I killed me wife". If that scene was missing and you had to piece together yourself what happened, sure. But he says it himself. He also pretty clearly talks about his guilt, him wanting to punish himself, the ending really explains a lot of this stuff. I can't imagine getting through both the tv watching and the pyramid head final fight and going "huh, wonder what this is all about?"
>99% of Ganker only knows that Mary is in James' trunk because Ito said so on his Twitter
I don't know that and as far as I'm aware he never said such a thing.
GameRankings tracked all of the reviews at the time
>83 - Silent Hill - 48 reviews
>84 - Silent Hill 3 - 112 reviews
>84 - Dino Crisis II - 22 reviews
>85 - Resident Evil Zero - 89 reviews
>86 - Dino Crisis - 38 reviews
>87.4 - Silent Hill 2 - 51 reviews
>89% - Eternal Darkness - 133 reviews
>91.0 - Resident Evil Remake - 120 reviews
>91.1 - Resident Evil 3 - 43 reviews
>91.5 - Resident Evil - 12 reviews
>93.3 - Resident Evil CV - 65 reviews
>94 - Resident Evil 2 - 39 reviews
So Silent Hill 2 which was the peak was seen about as well as Dino Crisis and slightly above RE0
I wonder why Metacritic uses overall less reviews than Metacritic? Either way, I'm glad you brought this up because it brings up another issue that I have with review scores in general. Notice how Code Veronica is the highest rated Resident Evil game according to your metric along with Nemesis just below RE2. Both of those games are agreed upon by the majority to not be particularly great games, certainly not CV which is a masterpiece according to Metacritic too. Capcom were knocking it out of the park with RE games back then sales wise at least and everyone wanted to cash in on the survival horror craze. So RE games and by extension Dino Crisis got that "bonus" by journalists who thought they had to rate these games perfectly to reflect on the perceived perception of the public. Today this is also known as the "Dark Souls" or "Zelda" bonus, but it was just as prevalent an issue back in the day. Elden Ring and TotK both got super high review scores mostly because of the expectation of it all, not because they were particularly mindblowing games in themselves.
Hope I didn't accidentally summon that one schizo by using these examples.
*I wonder why Gamerankings uses overall less reviews than Metacritic
MetaCritic has a specific number of approved journalists to uphold their "credibility", whereas Rotten Tomatoes and GameRankings both include almost every outlet. Nowadays the modern equivalent to GameRankings is OpenCritic which has tracked games from 2014-present
You would've been laughed out of any discussion at the time by aggregating scores like that.
Magazines at the time were 100% bought-and-sold reviews ffs. What next, you're going to cite Famitsu's score?
The point is that my view is IN NO WAY out of left field, trolling, or phony. You completely failed to address that.
You're the one who brought up reviews in the first place you disingenious piece of shit. Also, holy reading comprehension Batman. Did you actually read that review you dumb ape? That's not what a bought out review looks like. Apply yourself next time troll.
jfc, I'm saying that AGGREGATES include paid magazine reviews. aggregates that didn't even exist at the time, for good reason.
>You're just an epic contrarian!!!
>I don't think so, here's a widely-read contemporary review that likely had over 5 million page views at the time that agrees with me.
>Oh yeah??!? Well here's ANOTHER review that agrees with you! You look pretty stupid right now, huh??
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you can't trust aggregate scores because they might take reviews that were made years after release like with Rotten Tomatoes and movies, correct? I've just taken a look through the sourced reviews on the Metacritic page, which is only of the PS2 version btw, and there's no evidence that any of these reviews were made years later when SH2 got elevated to cult status so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here? I found one instance of a review from 2004 that praised it after the fact, which was still way before Youtube and the likes. Did you forget that Silent Hill 2 isn't a widely available game outside of the shitty HD collection that even haters would agree isn't the true way to experience the game? You keep refering back to your ONE REVIEW ON THIS ONE BIG SITE as your only argument, that's why I'm attacking it because you don't have any valid criticism, you're just using an external source of "authority" that you feel validates your view. You and Gamespot think the game sucks do you? Well, here's many more external sources of "authority" that DIDN'T share in that sentiment. Want me to BTFO you some more b***h?
You've completely failed to understand the point.
>LOOK AT THIS NUMERICAL AVERAGE
>uh, looks like you've let some shit mix into your average, buddy
That part has nothing to do with timing.
The point is that you are wrong about me being a contrarian, and you've failed 4 or 5 times now to address that at all, even a single word about it.
I don't need every reviewer ever to agree with me to prove simply that I'm not "faking" my opinion or farming outrage or whatever you think the goal of a contrarian is.
I've amply demonstrated (and so have you!) that "Silent Hill 2 is a disappointment" was a widely held, if not universal, opinion at the time. That is sufficient to BTFO you for all eternity.
All I'm seeing here is
>no u
You don't have a point since you could only bring me one example of a supposedly "widely held opinion", so I've already addressed it plenty of times by now. The fact that you have the gall to call it a "universally held opinion" now too shows that you were pic related all along. Get bent homosexual.
Because modern Ganker have the attention span of a chinchilla and can't even understand the few dialogues in the game considering them as criptic and incomprehensible
>Soÿlent Hill 2
>Good
Its not bad its just not as good as 1
Yeah but who gives a frick what Ganker thinks.
Silent Hill 2 is an entry level contrarian game, a gane you don't actually play and pretend to be a fan of even though the gameplay is awful but contrarians care more for atmosphere or vibe
>but contrarians care more for atmosphere or vibe
the thing is its mostly empty hallways or square rooms like the one in your webm
silent hill 1 has better realized locations despite being a PS1 title
this looks like dark souls gameplay. this is just the japanese way of making games.
It's not bad.
It's simply not scary at all and there are like 4 enemy types in the game.
The guy behind sh1 left and it shows.
The remake will have a RE4make-like camera and combat systems, it will be a better game than the original, it will be popular among zoomers and streamers, the seething will be glorious.
So what? The original game is already popular nearly exclusively among either zoomers, streamers/youtubers, or ESLs.
Super Hexagonn and Vampire Saviors is the one you want, bro.
I mean, Vampire Survivors. I can't wait to play it myself.
You were right the first time, Vampire Savior is what we want
MARY, WHERE THE FRICK ARE YOU?!
James is too overpowered. Ten minutes into the game when you have 100 handgun bullets the monsters stop being intimidating.
The historical society / prison and hotel are the only good levels.
If you understand Japanese storytelling & culture the story is the most in your face tripe ever written.
Escorting Maria is a pain in the ass. Why the frick does Silent Hill 4 get shit for being an escort mission but not this game?
Laura is a brat who needs rape correction but none of the endings deliver this.
The puzzles are way too easy even on hard. Compare the music box puzzle to the first puzzle in SH3.
Antagonists are boring compared to the other three games and even other horror games on the PS2.
Frankly it's the worst of the quadrilogy.
It's not bad but it's more a movie than a game, playing it adds not too much for the experience, sh4 works as a game and that's why I like it more.
The enemy/level designs are mechanically lacking, that's for sure. But the aesthetics carry hard enough to more than make up for it. Still not a masterpiece, more like an 8/10.
Playing through this game right now, there are a lot of streets that are dead ends, are there objects that can easily be missed or is it fine if I just keep going
You can miss some ammo and healing items, but you'll find enough of those on the main path. There are some rather esoteric items that are needed for a specific ending, but they only show up in NG+.
The game is fairly linear, every building is a "dungeon" and you'll use items in that dungeon.
SH1 is pretty much the only one that requires you to actually explore the town, which is a pity. It's a nice feeling.
I loved that about sh1.
Downpour emphasizes it as well. Unfortunately, that's perhaps Downpour's sole positive quality.
Yeah its not great but the soundtrack is definitely masterpiece
Its been ages since I played the games but I remember liking 2 more than 3. The third game didn't really have anything that unsettled me as much as 2's freaky shit from the wierdo characters to the animations. The fact they railroad you with enemies in 3 desensitized me to the horror elements.
I never gave a frick about the story in these games so cutscenes being totally off the wall in 2 made them at least somewhat interesting but 3 it was like idgaf who these people are, it just dragged on.
I like 3 more as a video game. It is more of a railroaded experience, but I think it does much better evoking a sense of fight or flight with the enemy encounters. You can open a door in 3 and there might just be a dead end with like 4 dogs in there because frick you, or a pendulum closing in on you from the left and right because, again, frick you. 2 didn't have the balls (or the enemy types, really) to pull shit like that.
As a traditional survival horror game 3 definitely has it beat but I only really like silent hill because of the type of horror it is. I wouldn't go as far as to say combat could be removed & I wouldn't care but it's definitely of lesser importance to me. I much prefer resident evil for more combat focused horror.
3 went overboard with annoying stuff like being able to fall into holes and Pendulums and Slurpers. You can't honestly sit there and praise the Pendulums ear rape as a positive over any SH2 enemy.
>falling into holes
This was annoying, 3 does have too many bullshit instakill scenarios.
>Pendulums ear rape
SH3 was intentionally abrasive to the senses. Sometimes that falls back on loud noises like the Pendulums but it also refers to things like the overbearing, pulsating walls in the otherworld. It's a game that aimed to unsettle and disorient through very physical means, it doesn't lean AS heavily on the psychological implications as 2 does.
>SH3 was intentionally abrasive to the senses.
I'm one of the first people to defend the clunky combat of Silent Hill precisely because knowing what they were going for, but I can also understand why it might be too much for some people even knowing that. Not for me personally, although it certainly can get frustrating at times, but in a good way that only video games can be.
However, in spite of the above I still maintain that they crossed that line of it being frustrating in a good way to just being plain frustating with SH3 which are my biggest problems with that game aside from the story, the non-characters like Douglas who only exists to soften the blow of Harry's death [spoiler] and re-using SH2 levels like Brookhaven which Alessa has no connection to. The Pendulums are not scary precisely because they're so annoying and it's the same with the Slurpers which is a shame because Ito was at the top of his game here visually.
I could go on about the good and the bad, but I'll just end it by saying that despite all the bad I still think it's a solid 7/10. Good, just not great.
If only Konami had realized sooner that Japs generally only care for lighthearted shounenshit sooner and not tried pandering to them by forcing a sequel to a game that didn't need one and stupidly splitting the team in half to develop 2 games simultaneously.[/spoiler]
james was a fricking store clerk who probably was never in a fight before in his life. i don't know why people expect leon kennedy trained police combat. its just a sad story that isnt supposed to make you feel powerful at all thats why it works. also going to a silent hill game for the combat and not the puzzles is like playing bejewled for gore and shotguns.
I like The Short Message more than 2.
No you didn't.
I really did. Getting a protagonist who is an absolutely abhorrent piece of shit no sane person could defend was refreshing.
Anita isn't a character but a caricature. It's not even her reprehensive actions that make her unlikable, it's that's she written in such a "how do you do, fellow kids" fashion. I checked out on her character the moment she started railing on about adults and "the system" like 2 minutes after she opens her mouth. I'd say Short Message has all the efficacy of an amusement park haunted house, but the Borley Mansion in 3 is genuinely a more effective horror walk-and-talk than this was.
>caring about the opinion of chudcels on Ganker
>silent hill 2 is dogshit
I feel like I walked into a discord raid thread, what the hell is going on in here. I'm a genuine pretentious contrarian and I'd never be moronic to call any of the first 3 silent hill games bad.
Also people calling RE4 survival horror are morons, it's an action game through and through. You fricking roundhouse kick zombies.
Survival horror are action games too idiot. You think you're so smart for not acknowledging it as what it's own publisher and pioneer of the genre does to this day, but you have a surface level understanding of survival horror like the rest of the homosexuals on here.
>it's survival horror because the publisher says so
No. Publishers care about marketing, they are going to say the 4th entry is the same genre regardless of what they made for the sake of marketing and fanbase retention.
I dont call it a survival horror because calling it one just muddies genre distinctions, like calling portal a FPS because it's in first-person and you have a gun.
Let me guess. Survival horror is about avoiding combat and "limited" ammo right? So then why isn't Manhunt a survival horror?
Manhunt is survival but its not horror.
Re4 is horror but it's not survival.
Not complicated.
This doesn't make any sense. You're playing out a live snuff film ordered by a billionaire who derives sexual pleasure from it to kill everyone you see in graphic ways, but this isn't horror according to your big brained Gankertard? You're as dumb as the anon who claimed that RE4 wasn't horror at all in spite of everything present in the game.
Know what I think? I think you realize that Manhunt is a horror game about survival, yet not actually a survival horror, but you also realize that acknowledging it as a horror game would prove my point that you don't actually know what survival horror is because you can't explain why Manhunt isn't a survival horror despite fitting the Ganker criteria for the genre.
Roundhouse kicking or not, you still control like a tank, your aiming is shaky, you have a limited FOV, you have limited resources, limited inventory, you get staggered by one hit, melee combat and oh shit, there's still mandatory combat such as boss fights just like in the classics! But yeah, sure, survival horror were never action games and you should always avoid combat all the time except those times you can't because it's a boss battle!!
>dislike SH2
>SH2 piss and shit their pants in sheer rage
grow up