So here it is -- my review of Silent Hill: Homecoming at Variety. Thus far from chatting to people, I've gleaned that I think a bit better of it than many of my colleagues do, though Mike McWhertor's much more measured assessment of the title at Kotaku is the only actual other review I've seen.I'm surprised at how defensive I feel of what Double Helix has achieved here, and I fear it might lose too much in over-zealous comparisons to the rest of the series. Perhaps I'm so (pre-emptively!) defensive because I perceive fan sentiment for the original trilogy to have raised the bar for Homecoming on all fronts so high that some of the subtler, more intriguing victories it achieves will be lost in waves of whining over anything vaguely different or new. We've had an entire console generation -- and then some -- to masticate the first three Silent Hill games, and because of that, I think we're forgetting some things.
Read my review, and then let's talk, fan to fan, about Homecoming, shall we?
1. You will probably dislike Homecoming's combat... It's more complex than what you're used to, it's more difficult, and you will have to do it somewhat more often. But lest you forget, you disliked the previous trilogy's combat, too. "The combat was supposed to be bad" is an angle we have selected to defend the technical flaws of a series we love against lame reviewers who tried to make technical flaws a reason to overlook its singular successes.
Let's quit fooling ourselves. Clunky combat adds to the fear, we said, and while it's definitely true, I'd like to ask the designers of the original Silent Hill whether making the controls crappy was an intentional design decision -- nobody sets out to make bad controls, period. Improving the combat does not miraculously transform it into an action game. Don't worry, Homecoming's combat is clunky too. ...but when has combat ever really played a role in whether you like Silent Hill or not?
2. Its plot is less obscure... Previous Silent Hill games begged twenty-page dissertations on their symbols and themes. It's fun to discuss and debate, but at the end of the day, you're not going to get a clear answer about why, at the end of SH2, there was no difference in function between the "scarlet egg" and the "rust-colored egg."
As we've been discussing, the Japanese horror approach tends to favor raising questions while the Western approach tends to favor answering them. We've also agreed that Japanese entertainment in general likes to pastiche together elements that evoke response without needing them to mean anything or inter-relate wholly. Being able to connect the dots does not ruin the game. And while some of it is overt, it's also layered -- there is plenty to wonder about and hyperanalyze, and rest assured that I myself will be indulging in hyperanalysis aplenty over the next few weeks. ...but at least it all makes sense, and you'd be surprised at how much more immersive that is.
3. Its pacing is more traditional... You are used to gigantic areas, a billion locked doors, and areas that felt like distinct stages governed by their own tangential objectives that sometimes appeared to have a symbolic relationship to the main story (Heather Morris in the hospital, James Sunderland in the room with the hanging nooses) -- and sometimes didn't (Stanley Coleman was scary, but what'd he have to do with anything, really?). This made the experience feel disjointed and surreal, which served the series. Homecoming is still disjointed and surreal, never you worry. But largely, everything you do in it has relevance to either the subtext or main plot of the story... and this makes it scarier. The smallest things around you become frightening if you can invest them with meaning.
4. Yes, it visually resembles the movie... but the only good thing about the movie was that it looked and sounded, superficially, just like the game. I am not seeing an abandonment of the root visual lexicon by any stretch of the imagination. Major visual cues specific to the movie alone are precisely two, and yes, one of them is Pyramid Head. I'm actually rather stunned that, reading comments and concerns around the web, one of the predominating anxieties is that Homecoming's Pyramid Head looks more like the movie's than like SH2's Pyramid Head... but is this really preferable to this, anyway? [Edit: I actually thought of a couple more movie-things in the game, but still, it's non-disruptive.]
In other words, fans, you will find things to quibble with in the fifth installment of the Silent Hill franchise. But why do you really want to quibble when you could also enjoy this game and make new discoveries, too?
And Here Comes The Rant...
I feel that we -- both reviewers and audiences -- get so hung up on certain minor debates with important titles that we miss their accomplishments. Most of the discussion around Metal Gear Solid 4, for example, hinged on criticizing Hideo Kojima's aggrandizing, overburdened directorial style. And it's a fair criticism, but wouldn't it be also fair to note that the late-game "microwave hallway" scene and the visceral, psychological impact it evokes deserves to be one of the most memorable moments of the year, or that the all-female, emotionally traumatized Beauty & Beast unit is one of the most interesting slates of villains we've seen in the comparatively short history of our medium?
Stuff like that is all there in any game if you want to look -- and it saddens me when I see that what we most want to do is to nitpick, make self-referential comparisons, and grab quick and easy answers on whether something is "good" or "bad," or "better than" or "worse than" what we're used to. Especially when we were all too happy to criticize "what we're used to" in the days when it was still new.
We end up idealizing our past, and that's unfair to our present and cruel to our future. Unable to come to a definitive answer to disagreements about certain aspects of BioShock or GTA IV, for example, we banish them from our vocabulary.
We wait years for some of these games, and make constant, steep demands of the industry for where it "should go" or what it "needs to do" that approach obnoxious entitlements -- and yet misguided nostalgia often makes us entirely unwilling or unable to embrace steps they take in the right direction. Reviewers are jaded, consumers are perpetually unsatisfied, and nobody ever wins. And that's a shame.
We want things from games, we expect things, and that's fine. But have we forgotten that we love them?
Critics should be critical; I'm not suggesting people should stop raising complaints when something doesn't strike them right. But I definitely feel that we -- again, both reviewers and audiences -- have created a culture wherein we are deliberately searching for things to dislike, issues to take up arms over. And the discussion and debate that's taken place here at SVGL in the last week just about genre definitions and combat design mechanics demonstrates, I think, that there is not always a "right answer," there is not some universal standard-meter that starts at one hundred percent and just keeps dropping for every flaw we find.
This is an especially salient point when we're discussing Silent Hill, which proved arguably better than any other series that one man's flaw is another man's feature. So as you read other reviews and critical scores for Homecoming in the coming week, I'd like you to keep a couple things in mind -- first is that I really like the game, and if you read this blog, you clearly think my opinion counts for something, even a very minor something.
I'm not telling anyone to buy a game just because I like it (even when I often say so, jokingly). If you're on the fence about Homecoming, as I sense a lot of people are, read a lot of reviews, think about your own tastes and come to your own opinion.
Which brings me to my second point. Unfortunately I feel I'm "preaching to the choir" by saying this to the excellent readers of this blog, but nonetheless -- just because one person might levy certain criticisms, against Homecoming or any other game, that doesn't necessarily mean you won't like it -- even if those flaws are legit and not subjective at all.
You can fault the review lexicon we currently have, you can fault our demanding gamer culture, you can fault the readers who still demand "objectivity" from us as if a reviewer, ideally a gamer something like yourself, could truly posess any such thing.
And to illustrate my second point, I'll leave you with excerpts from reviews of our beloved Silent Hill 2 back when it came out, as something to keep in mind when you remember just how much you love that damn game -- and when you're comparing Homecoming reviews to your fond memories of 2. Many of these quotes were extrapolated from 8 to 10-rated reviews, by the way.
...And Reflection
"Instead of the brain-bending adventure with scares and gore that I had so desperately hoped for, it turned out to be a sloppy, monotonous bore that nearly put me to sleep." -- Game Informer
"Silent Hill 2's gameplay mechanics are no different than those of any other game ever slapped with the 'survival-horror' tag. You'll whack legions of the same four or so enemy types, using the same familiar array of blunt objects, pistols, and shotguns; get Medallions A, B, and C; put them in Statue D, which opens Door E; walk through Door E; repeat until numb. You'll fight awkward camera angles as much as freaky bad things... fans of the original will be disappointed that not much is new." -- GamePro
"The action, though, is simply repetitive, as even the most common creatures must be bludgeoned repeatedly to 'kill' them (and there are a lot of creatures)." -- Next Generation
"The pacing can be a little languid at times, and the combat and movement controls could use some tweaking. Also, this game feels a little linear and lacking in extras when compared to the original." -- GameCritics
"Flawed, frustrating and contrived, but as an experience it's one of the most emotionally engaging games in existence." -- GamesRadar UK
"Silent Hill 2 doesn't break any molds or revolutionize the survival-horror genre in any particular way..." -- IGN
"Silent Hill 2 is a much prettier, somewhat smarter but less-compelling game than the original... The game's storyline makes more sense in the end of this sequel than it did in the original, but unlike in that game, it never creates the pressing need to understand it in the first place." -- GameSpot
----
...Just sayin'.
(And lest you think I'm being prejudiced against Silent Hill 2, here's a reminder that I love it still. And even though I've outlined why I think Silent Hill 4 is the weakest, I found a few key things to like about it, too.)
44 comments:
I wonder if the fact that I never got around to playing a Silent Hill game would make me like this game more or less. On the one hand, I don't have any grand expectations, based on experiences with past titles; but on the other hand, I don't have the luxury of being accustomed to the clunky controls from previous iterations (though I'm more than familiar with the clunky controls of the earlier Resident Evil games).
I do enjoy a good survival horror game (if that's what we're still calling them these days), but I'm also doubtful as to how much more the genre has to offer. I don't know if I'll ever again experience that feeling of gleeful dread that I felt when I played Resident Evil for the first time. I wonder if it's possible for me to look past the survival horror tropes and clichés, and actually be pleasantly surprised.
I always ignored the reviews for genre games. Same things happens when I read random reviews for fighting games. The reviews just aren't useful. Glad you liked it though. I have to wait to see if the PC version will be obtainable.
I hoped the combat wouldn't be clunky. Getting Up had pretty fun combat. Hoped it might be like that. I know that would be silly but I still hoped.
I tend to be very forgiving of a game's flaws if I've invested any amount of interest in it, which can be an interesting position to take within the Silent Hill discussion culture that I have taken part in (on again and off again). I love all of the games in varying degrees; I in fact really enjoyed The Room in terms of atmosphere and story, although it is nearly as painful to play as Rule of Rose (whose story also rivals any seen in a Silent Hill game). I even enjoyed the film, despite its blatant diversion from canon and its awkward dialogue. So, I have been optimistic about Homecoming through the up and down waves of interest on the web.
I agree with you that people should, first and foremost, seek to enjoy things that they play or watch. Being able to enjoy the high points can even make one more objective about the low points; yes, combat has ranged from tedious to barely bearable depending on which SH game you play. Yes, sometimes a new plot element discards a theory that may have been more interesting than the new accepted interpretation. I play the games to put myself in a particular psychological place, where I can dissociate from everyday reality and be pleasantly disturbed, and if the game accomplishes that, I call it a success.
Fantastic article. It reminds me of a good perspective to keep when I think about the games I like, or MIGHT like, but then blow-off because of ridiculous expections, or rose-coloured lenses for a past game that never really existed.
Nice article, I'm really looking forward to play Homecoming this week, ever since I saw footage of it being played at E3 I was pumped for it. I also saw the intro and felt like it had a Jacob's Ladder feel to it. The somewhat negative reviews can't stave me off and I'll be visiting the ol' Silent Hill in just a short time.
I take issue with your suggestion that the Beauty & Beast Squadron was one of the most interesting cadres of antagonists in the history of narrative gaming, because, uh, I found them really boring.
If you take a look at FOXHOUND in Metal Gear Solid, you'll notice a social dynamic amongst the members, as well as roles each member fills within the larger purpose of Liquid Snake's plan -- Revolver Ocelot is Liquid's right hand (ha ha) and responsible for interrogation; Vulcan Raven is a mild precog (presumably involved with planning somewhat) and the heavy weapon guy both in terms of his chaingun and responsibility for the base's tanks; Psycho Mantis manages the psychic conditioning of the genome soldiers; Sniper Wolf is responsible for the organic component of Shadow Moses' security (the guard dogs, or guard wolf-dogs, or whatever you want to call them) as well as I guess contributing her knowledge of sniping to any plans they made to deal with possible sniper infiltration on the part of the US government (also she's sleeping with Liquid, which is not a progressive position for the only girl on the team to fill, but enh), and Decoy Octopus is important to ensuring Snake gets decoyed. They function as a unit and do things other than act as bosses.
The members of Dead Cell are sort of deliberate copies of FOXHOUND, and there's fewer of them so each takes on more jobs within the process of holding the Big Shell hostage, but each at least has a distinct personality and at least one has an agenda distinct from the rest of President Sears' plan.
I never played MGS3. My copy is in the mail. I understand it's similar with at least a few of the Cobras, though.
The members of the Beauty & Beast Squadron are interchangeable in role, with the exception of Screaming Mantis who turns out to be Psycho Mantis wearing a new body, and they never talk to each other or are shown doing anything other than hunting Snake, with, again, the exception of Screaming Mantis who's doing the same thing Psycho Mantis did in MGS.
I understand what Kojima was trying to accomplish. He clearly didn't have much use for new characters -- he wanted to wrap up the stories of the characters that already existed. The B&B Squad work as bosses, as they're supposed to.
But they're neither interesting nor particularly deep. The best you can say about them is they're functional in the role Kojima wrote for them.
(I also think the sources of their trauma and its expression through Drebin is ludicrous even above and beyond the standards of ludicrous established by Kojima elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. And I say this as a fan of MGS4.)
The only election that matters this fall is whether Pyramid Head gets elected homecoming king.
Just a couple tiny little grace notes for my favorite post here in a couple months (that's not backhanded criticism by the way--it's a comment on how very much I liked this piece).
1: long setup, minimal punchline--forewarned!
I can't really stand survival horror, I think. That is, RE1 on the Cube got ejected from the tray 3 or 4 different times when I couldn't figure out how to kill--and I'm not kidding--the first zombie. I spent some hours with Code Veronica on the Dreamcast, and was having fun until the combination of seriously annoying give-up-your-pistol-puzzles and lots-of-zombies (sure wish I still had my pistol) made me go off to play something else.
(Can't remember why I quit playing Dementium--I was digging it. Probably my distaste for 1st-person games got on top of me there.)
All that being said, I loved Silent Hill in the theatre. Let me amend that. I loved the imagery in Silent Hill in the theatre. I neither know nor care a whit about the game franchise, and I readily acknowledge that the film had hella flaws. Nevertheless, I rode home from that film seriously unsettled by some of what I'd seen, and if that's not a mark of success for a visual medium, I dunno what is.
(This is just meant as a data point for those who're embedded in SH fandom, most of which, I gather, despised the movie. For the record, I also found the first Resident Evil movie a minor triumph of genre filmmaking, before any exposure to the games.)
2:
lastgunslinger anticipated this point. As a Marxist, I use the word "criticism" and the ideas it's related to a bit differently than most. For me, the word refers to a process of analysis, investigation, inquiry (etc.) which applies absolutely as much to a celebration as a demolition. One of the big failings of my game-writing project, I think, is that I just don't have much interest in writing about games I don't like...
I mean, everybody knows you make way more progress tearing down bad ideas than by elaborating good ones...
3,
In terms of fairness of criticism (in both senses), you absolutely have to be rigorous. I don't know anything about Kojima, so I'll talk instead about Suda 51. Killer7 and No More Heroes each have a small handful of moments that are intensely affecting or intensely interesting (usually in a formal way). And any worthwhile piece of criticism will note that.
Both also have some absolutely pointless dreck. And any worthwhile piece of criticism will note that.
But to be really worthwhile, a piece of criticism will have to note that the absolutely pointless dreck always precedes the affecting / interesting parts. (I have a strong suspicion that Suda 51 does his first levels before he does the rest of the games: they're always technically inferior to the remainder of the proceedings, and never seem to boast the stuff he's good at.)
And a properly worthwhile piece of criticsm will note that asking somebody to wade through dreck to get to the good stuff is kinda...well. You pick your term.
So maybe it's fair to ignore Kojima's awesome stuff at the end of a game that he's, by many accounts, made inaccessible and offputting for much of the beginning?
Anyways.
My problem is that there's still been no review that answers my own questions about the game.
It wasn't just that the previous games had a primarily psychological plot (exepting Origins, about which I've heard nothing to encourage me to play), it's that the extent to which they adopted that psychology was quite exceptionally subtle.
Silent Hill was never just about surrealism- it was about surrealism that deliberately reflected the symbolism of the fears and hang-ups of the protagonist or antagonist with every baffling clue, warped monster design or choice of area. Although Homecoming may well create an effectively warped atmosphere, everything I've seen suggests that the monster designs and so forth are chosen simply to be twisted and strange rather than to link back specifically to the main character's neuroses; and that approach to me is symptomatic of the kind of thing that wouldn't make it a good Silent Hill game.
I wouldn't say that Western horror is necessarily about always answering questions at all, merely the mainstream Hollywood element of it- in fact, the very unexplained mystery aspect that earlier Silent Hill games draw upon is take from Western culture, be it directors like David Lynch or writers like the little-known Robert Aickman. Traditional Japanese horror is, in fact, an entirely different beast and much more closely tied up with Shinto. What I'm trying to say here is that I'd suggest Homecoming having a more starightforward plot is not necessarily a sign of it changing to a Western developer, but a sign of it becoming more mainstream, which while it might increase the potential audeicne is less likely to appeal to me, as I believe it's impossible to create the same atmosphere of unease with a neat, everything-explained plot. Hell, Jacob's Ladder didn't have one of those.
Most of the reviews of the game so far have seemed exceedingly sketchy on these kinds of points- only IGN and your own have adressed the psychology issue at all, and they came down on opposite sides of the fence.
What I'm asking, I guess, is not whether this would be a good game taken on its own merits, but whether it has the subtlety and subtext previous entries have always been known for.
"The members of Dead Cell are sort of deliberate copies of FOXHOUND"
I think that was the point, considering that the Big Shell was supposed to be a recreation of Shadow Moses
I don't disagree with your main point that it's easy to get hung up on minutiae when reviewing an otherwise decent title, but MGS4 is not a great example of this for me. During the microwave hallway sequence you mentioned, I wished I cared as much as the game wanted me to, because it was done well. But at that point, the entire experience had been straight-up ruined for me by Kojima's excesses. I just wanted it to be over.
In fact, here's the flipside of the problem you mention: When critics want to like something so badly that they're willing to overlook glaring flaws, which they wouldn't forgive in another title. Not that I'm accusing you of this! Reasonable people can always disagree. Just saying that it cuts both ways. And ultimately, what someone chooses to criticize -- or forgive -- in a game reflects his own criteria for what makes a game enjoyable.
Justin -- that's what I wonder, too. Silent Hill definitely has a formula, and I consider Homecoming successful because of the ways it serves and/or improves on the formula, but I'm unsure of how to come at it as if it were a disparate entity. Actually, I just got done talking to a reviewer who was largely unfamiliar with the series but positively reviewed the game.
Corey -- I know, WTF is the deal with the PC version? Konami passed the ball to Valve in the last article I read, but the Steam site has absolutely no info on it, not even in the "coming soon" section.
Lastgunslinger -- Rule of Rose sucks as a game. But I still absolutely love it. This is sort of the point I'm making here; Rule of Rose does a couple of things very very well, things we could learn from and enjoy, but most people read the bad reviews and never went near it.
Stephenls: Fair enough, actually; I can't disagree. I just thought it was really conceptually intriguing -- MGS4 reinterpreted so many of the series' classic thematics through the lens of present-day standards, that I thought re-upping the series' villains as beastly women was super neat, or at least worthy of more examination than it was given.
Fat Contradiction: I liked that about the movie too. I mean, it was heavy handed and sort of missed "the point," but imagery-wise, I thought it was kind of a treat.
Ben: Did you read my review? I think I've said the word "subtext" too many times, actually. The answer to your question is yes, the symbolism's there, and in more depth than I've yet seen it given credit for.
Mitch: Totally agreed -- I wrote about (and got flack for) how Smash Bros. Brawl was treated way too kindly because it had Pit and Link in it. And yet I definitely cared about things in MGS4 that didn't strike others at all because I love the series -- if you consider Snake's my favorite video game hero and that I have a history of maintaining that opinion, you can see how I'm coming into it with less than a clean slate.
Yeah, I probably liked MGS4 more than others did because, as a fan, I wanted to like it -- but shouldn't satisfying a fan's wants be an important item on the list of goals for a sequel?
My point, mainly, is that what critics and audiences like and dislike is way more subjective than anyone wants to admit, because gamers are still hung up on the idea that there is a right way and a wrong way to make a game, a relic of a time when games were much simpler products.
I mean, to an extent, there is such a thing as a bad game, but even that might have ideas of merit in there that currently get overlooked because of our culture's lynch mob tendencies in particular. And while it's also probably true that burying a game's successes is in itself a flaw, I still think the way we receive games in general is too cynical, too negative and too black-and-white -- which definitely applies to your flip-side situation, too.
I've seen lots of reviews of Homecoming now, and they're very schizophrenic; one review says the graphics are mainly poor, another one says they're some of the best out there today. One review says the puzzles are too obscure, the other says they're too easy. One of the reviews says the melee is too easy and there are too many health items, and another one says the melee is too hard and there are not enough health items.
Of course it's fine for critics to differ, but it's not fine when reviews are still being framed as technically-rooted, objective criticisms that are factual rather than opinion.
I think what we need to do is let critics establish themselves as individuals, with "critical personalities," so to speak, people that the audience can get to know and therefore judge how like or unlike that reviewer's taste is to theirs, providing a context for their opinions.
Question not entirely related to the topic:
When you play a game that comes out on multiple platforms, which platform do you play it on, and why? Which platform did you play this one on?
Thx!
~Savid
Savid -- do you mean when I play it or when I review it?
I almost always prefer PS3, to be honest, and the largest reason is something really simple -- the controller. I never quite got used to the "feel" of controls on 360 and continue not to prefer them even though I play on there plenty.
I also almost always find PS3 versions of things look a little better and are more stable, but I'm also aware that might be an entirely fallacious perception influenced by my subtle favoritism.
It also depends on the game, though. I prefer to play most FPS titles on the Xbox 360, because I do like that controller's triggers better. Because it feels "heavier," I feel more "armed," I don't know. Also, I might be subtly associating each console with the marketing buzz their makers try to associate, or with the reputation they've gained in the web space.
It also depends on if I have knowledge of which console the game was developed on first or tailored more closely toward.
As far as reviews, though, a lot of times it just depends on what platform the review copy I'm sent is for. I can't always ask for which platform I want, or sometimes I forget to ask. In the case of Silent Hill, I reviewed it on Xbox 360 because that's the code that was given me. I have a debug 360 but not a debug PS3.
So in general, I don't often have a choice. When I have a choice, I try to pick the platform I feel the game is better suited for feel-wise, even though I recognize it's probably an arbitrary determination. And when all things are equal, I choose PS3.
In fact, I'm going today to purchase the PS3 version of SH5. Silent Hill is traditionally a PlayStation series to me, and I wanna play it on there for my second playthrough (I'm gonna try to get the worst ending).
"Rule of Rose sucks as a game. But I still absolutely love it. This is sort of the point I'm making here; Rule of Rose does a couple of things very very well, things we could learn from and enjoy, but most people read the bad reviews and never went near it."
I find this an interesting statement. Does a game have an obligation to be good AS a game in order to be worth playing? I tend to think so. On the other hand, as an aficionado of bad cinema, I can certainly see the argument that you can sometimes learn more from something bad than from something good. Maybe it comes down to the difference between what my obligations might be as a designer and what someone playing for entertainment and love of the medium should have to endure?
First some background but then some questions:
I never played Silent Hill, but I saw the movie and thought it was boring. (I do agree that the designs of all of the villains and creatures were pretty spectacular). I always wanted to play the Silent Hill games, but my playstation was always occupied by a new Resident Evil. I appreciate horror in all of its forms (print, film, games from America, Europe and Asia).
Does Homecoming ever get boring? Is it a game that a complete newbie can pick up and enjoy? Is there a certain mindframe that I could get into that would augment my enjoyment of Homecoming, aside from playing an old Silent Hill game?
I love that you brought up the old reviews. Nostalgia often clouds our perceptions of games, and it's easy to forget what the reviews sounded like back in the day, before the those games got canonized and sanctified.
I'm glad MGS4 got brought up, too, because I felt like that game did some really interesting things with the gametelling that got overlooked because of the over-the-top melodrama. The return to Shadow Moses Island was especially enthralling for me as a commentary on how far games have come in addition to the commentary on the changing role and importance of technology in the world, as well as touching on other themes of the game and the series as a whole. And then the catharsis/sellout moment when you actually get to control Metal Gear Rex. You've spend all this time fighting against the thing being used, and yet you resort to it yourself.
Sorry, I'm done gushing. I just think it's unfortunate we let the overdone cutscenes (which did make excellent use of cinematographic techniques throughout) overshadow all the other important, fresh and well-executed things the game did very right with its narrative.
I loved the first Silent Hill, but never really got into 2, and kinda stopped trying from there. Maybe I'll give Homecoming a shot. I've been itching for a good survival horror lately, and horror-themed action RE4-style isn't really cutting it for me.
Julian -- exactly. We look back on "the good old days" as if it was this nebulous time when games were perfect. They weren't; we were just more easily pleased, perhaps, having not yet developed this culture of hypercriticism. I think the advent of widespread internet use where we could form anonymous mobs had something to do with it.
re: MGS4 -- I think the parallels and commentary contained in the game OTHER than its nebulous, often muddied war allegories were super fascinating, and you never saw that kind of thing get covered.
The Shadow Moses bit was amazing.
And yeah, MGS4 "undoes" a lot of the series' crucial values and it's thought provoking -- I like the post-Vamp scene where you're supposed to help Otacon START a Metal Gear rather than stop its launch, and I like the game's most-final scene because of the reversal of traditional interaction there, too.
The old reviews are a good point. I remember back on the one big Silent Hill forum at the time (either at neo-evil.com or evil-online.com) there being a lot of fan backlash against SH2 because it didn't have anything to do with the original storyline, or that it wasn't as dark or gory. Then, when the fanbase grew due to people who either came to appreciate SH2 or never even played SH1, there was backlash in the third game because it did relate directly to the first game.
I think part of this might not even have to do with hypercriticism in games now, but just with the fact that sometimes age is required to define a good piece of media. There are a large number of film classics that were poorly reviewed when they first came out. Classics have to have qualities that stay in the memory of their audience, and on first impression those qualities can be drowned out by other aspects or a differing public sentiment.
Hey Leigh,
Yeah, that was a perfect response, thanks. :D It was just out of sheer curiosity.
Keep 'em comin'!
~S
I'm feeling kind of bummed, and here's why:
I just finished my second playthrough of MGS4. Even though it was my second time through, I didn't skip a single cut-scene. I wanted the full experience of the game, all over again. I'm enthralled with it. I love it. But I'm sure I would love it all the more if I had been following the series all along. While I did play all the way through MGS, I only did so the one time, ten years ago, and my memory of the details of that experience are hazy at best.
For various reasons, I never got around to playing beyond the first hour or so of both MGS2 & MGS3, and now I'm afraid it's just too late to do so. I've tried, many times. And in each of those attempts I've given myself a pep talk. "Enjoy these games for what they are," I've told myself. "Don't let the lack of camera control, the dated graphics, or frustrating combat mechanics deter you." But to no avail. I just can't do it. I don't know what that makes me. A snob, maybe? Am I just spoiled? Or maybe it's a side-effect of being in my mid-30s. Maybe I just don't have the patience anymore.
But wait. I downloaded Mega Man 9, a game with graphics and gameplay from over 20 years ago, and I'm having a blast with it. Even though I want to throw the controller at my TV screen out of frustration sometimes, I still keep playing it. Is it because it's not a game with a long, convoluted story that I'm eager to get through, so it doesn't bother me as much when I fail to advance to the next stage? That seems the most likely reason, but there's probably more to it than that. As frustratingly difficult as Mega Man is, there's nothing frustrating about the gameplay itself: you run; you jump; you shoot; and those mechanics work precisely as they should within the game's world.
And now there's Silent Hill: Homecoming, and I'm feeling like I'm in the same boat as with the MGS series. I never played Silent Hill. I'm a huge horror fan, especially the surreal, psychological variety, but I think that after wrestling with the unruly combat controls from Resident Evil, I just wasn't willing to put up with a game that reportedly had even worse combat mechanics than the RE series. And this was way back when the first Silent Hill was released. So, what hope is there for me now, being the gaming snob that I am? On the one hand, I think this new Silent Hill game is something that I might really enjoy, and on the other, I think "why bother?" I've gone this long without delving into the Silent Hill universe, why start now?
And so, I'm bummed. Bummed that this may be a sign that I'm getting old and growing out of gaming. Bummed that I'm maybe not as "hardcore" as I'd like to think I am. Bummed that I may have missed out on some really terrific gaming experiences, and that it's probably too late to go back. Hmmm...there may be some metaphors here that Kojima would appreciate.
"In other words, fans, you will find things to quibble with in the fifth installment of the Silent Hill franchise. But why do you really want to quibble when you could also enjoy this game and make new discoveries, too?"
I actually love that statement. So few gamers play that way anymore. People don't want to make new discoveries about anything anymore, least of all gamers. I'm also surprised at how the reviews are being handled for Silent Hill: Homecoming. It's easy when something on the scale of GTA comes out, but this franchise & it's genre is specifically setup to start causing a ruckus over the next few years (another being the stealth genre).
It is showing that gamers are starting to finally grow, but it also shows the limits of their entire collective perception. When so many of us lean on the laws of objectivity and subjectivity, too much is lost in between. Well, it's finally starting to show as these questionable genres start to flourish.
Personally I take the optimisitc side to this (which is rare for me), because I think the survival horror and stealth genre are on the verge of POSSIBLY seeing a lot of growth over the coming years.
I haven't played SH:H yet, but I'll be picking it up sometime this month. It's nice to see that I'll have plenty ground to cover blogging about such issues myself. To offer a comment on that MGS example(being it's my favorite franchise), I'll just say that MGS4 handles itself very well as a game, and as a part of a larger series. I still haven't read a review that directly addresses aspects like the Shadow Moses retread other than a passing positive comment. People tend to get lost in the fact that they simply can't enjoy things such as the MGS series and degenerate to just intelligently bitching about it.
It's just being nitpicky as you pointed out. Most people are just simply not willing to "dig" insight out of games anymore. Like "matt" above me said, he reconized Rule of Rose as an extremely flawed game, but he dug some genuinely impressive aspects out of it for himself.
I also like the fact that you pointed out that gamers tend to put the past few decades of gaming on a pedestal when they shouldn't, but I'll stop there for now. I just wanted to point that out.
~sLs~
The problem with the Internet is every jackass with a computer can suddenly publish his opinion like it matters.
...
Wait a sec...
I wonder how much of it has been the influence of the internet as you said, and how much of it is simply the passage of time. We tend to forgive older games their foibles more readily than we do newer ones, which makes us more receptive to the compelling bits they might contain.
IIRC, there was a huge backlash against MGS2 when it came out because people felt like it was a rehash of 1, resented not playing as Snake, etc. But now, I'm hearing people call it the only game in the series that surpasses MGS1, and talking about the way that it played with our expectations and relationships with the game as a breakthrough. I wonder what people will think of MGS4 in 10 years...?
Justin: That's weird you should mention that RE1 had better combat mechanics than SH1, because I felt the opposite at the time. I got to the snake boss in RE and simply gave up. The fact that I couldn't see my enemy despite the fact it was in plain sight ruined the combat experience for me. In SH, I remember not feeling like I was fighting the camera. Yeah the combat itself was clunky, but because I could at least look at what I was clubbing properly, even if I couldn't really SEE it, I felt like I had a fair chance. Maybe that was just me.
Julian -- Like I said, I never did play Silent Hill or any of it's sequels, so it's quite possible that I would have preferred the combat in those games to any of the RE games (prior to RE4). But I allowed myself to be swayed by the opinions of reviewers at the time, who claimed that SH had horrible combat controls, and never bothered to find out for myself.
"its" sequels, not "it's". grrr!
Justin - Sorry I wasn't very clear, I did understand that you never played it, it just struck me as odd that it got reviewed that way. I hadn't realized that it was seen as having worse combat, because at the time I thought the combat was a huge step forward and wasn't very plugged in to reviews etc.
I played Silent Hill before I ever tried Resident Evil, and while I beat SH several times right off the bat, I absolutely despised RE precisely for its combat. The biggest issue was that SH had auto-aim for its weapons, and RE had manual aiming, which is really only acceptable (to me) if there is direct control of the camera. The dialogue, in the first game at least, was fairly laughable, too. Not that SH's was good, but either the mood or the delivery of the lines kept it from being inappropriately funny.
I've been told I should try the later RE games, but I am a continuity completist myself, and if I can't get past the first game (even the remake of the first game I couldn't stand) I can't play the rest if the story is connected. I am very forgiving of gameplay, too, so even among games with horrible combat, RE is the only game I have outright refused to play anymore.
Lastgunslinger, if you have access to a Wii you really should try Resident Evil 4. Not only is its gameplay exemplary, tying with or possibly edging out Metroid Prime 3 for the title of Best Action-Adventure-Exploration Game On The Platform, but it's almost entirely divorced from past Resident Evil games in terms of plot.
I have to second Stephen on RE4. It really is an excellent game that expands on the Resident Evil lore, yet stands on its own merits in terms of gameplay, as well as narrative. It is pretty far removed from the creepy, claustrophobic, stuck-in-an-old-mansion roots of the series, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I feel the series has moved forward in ways that it had to, in order to keep from going stale. I think it's analogous to the tonal shift between the movies Alien and Aliens.
Oh, and Stephen, I enjoy your reviews in Vice Magazine.
Wow those silent hill 2 review quotes were great, thanks for digging those up, I don't think I will ever think of reviews the same.
Aren't you forgetting Silent Hill: Origin's for the PSP? That was developed outside of Japan.
I'd get the new one, but there are just too many other games coming out this month I've gotta have, bad timing.
The appeal of wandering around in the dark with the world's most ineffective flashlight lost its novelty circa SH 2. The world that SH games exist in has changed; yet the games have not, which is both a blessing to fans, and a curse to non-fans. There were far fewer games to choose from (not to mention platforms to play them on) when the first SH shipped. Gamers are busy these day. Too much play, not enough time, etc. We simply don't have the bandwith anymore to spend an hour staring at a vague squiggle symbol, trying to decide if it's representing "wind" or "rain," all in the name of figuring out these damned obtuse Silent Hill puzzles anymore. Which is exactly the sum and substance of my review of Homecoming on Crispy Gamer:
http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2008-09-30/silent-hill-homecoming-xbox-360.aspx
Does that make me a bad gamer (or game fan)? Or a more discerning one?
As always, mad respect, Leigh.
Scott Jones
Crispy Gamer.com
Scott,
It makes you a gamer who is decisive about your own tastes. Still others of us call it "atmospheric horror" and like our dark hallways and teeny flashlights. Genre thing, maybe.
"Gamers are busy these days. Too much play, not enough time, etc. We simply don't have the bandwidth anymore to spend an hour staring at a vague squiggle symbol..."
Who do you mean by "gamers"? If you mean "people who play video games," then I think you might be generalizing too much. Yeah, we have an overloaded release slate to play through in order to stay up on things, but there is a consumer out there who buys one or two titles every few months and prefers to be able to lozenge it for a while. This consumer also may tend to stick to a few favored genres and franchises, and enjoys taking time to puzzle.
I think you did the right thing by writing a review from the point of view of your own tastes instead of some nebulous standard to which games are now too complex and diverse to be evaluated against.
But I think where reviewers err is to present that subjective opinion as a universal one that must apply to all areas of an audience that's highly multifaceted.
I also think that we as reviewers (and I do this too), often tend to fail to factor in two key things: a. who is this game's intended audience? and b. what might this game's objective have been both from a technical design standpoint and from the standpoint of an entertainment experience, and how well did it achieve it?
Anyway, I think we can serve our audience best by embracing reviews as individual opinions. If your claims here are facts, then that makes you wrong in my eyes, and then only one of us is correct. But if they're opinions, then we're simply not in agreement. Much better!
Mad respect to you and Crispy, too.
L
Uhh, "to which games are now too complex and diverse to be evaluated against?"
"against which games are now too complex and diverse to be evaluated." Yay grammar!
You're right, of course, Ms. Leigh. We can't possibly write for all the people all of the time.
I've never tried to write from the perspective that my opinion is the one and only. At the end of the day, it's merely an opinion. Of course, it's an opinion that's informed by the fact that I play 20-30 hours worth of games each week.
And it's an opinon that's based on multiple demos of Homecoming (hands-on and otherwise), and around three weeks of playing a near gold build of the game, during which I had plenty (and I mean plenty) of time to formulate my thoughts and mull things over.
Am I the intended audience for Homecoming? I'd like to think so. I was an early adopter of the series, but became increasingly disenchanted with it. (And was hoping this Homecoming would be a comeback of sorts.)
I'd never review, say, a Japanese RPG, because I've never been able to play one to completion. Just not my thing.
In rare cases do reviewers have to stomach genres that they're not familiar with. But I personally try hard to never let that happen. It does readers a disservice.
As for what the developers intended... Well, I have mixed feelings on this front. I'm pals with plenty of developers, and I know how hard these people work, and how much love they pour into what they do. And I always try to remind myself of this fact before I sit down to write.
That said, I can't review a game based on what a developer intended (and how well, or poorly, they achieved what they intended).
What those fine people at Double Helix "intended" has absolutely no bearing on the experience I'm having in my living room. What they intended matters for beans if the game ultimately still stinks.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. You're truly wise beyond your years.
-jones
Fair enough, Mr. Jones! The funny thing is -- and I had this same issue when I seemed to be the only one to really adore MGS4 -- I can't really disagree with any of your criticisms. They just didn't comprise the whole of the experience for me.
It's actually sort of personally challenging for me to have been one of the only two or three out of the entire games press to like Homecoming, and I've mulled over my decisions tons and tons today.
But I stand by my review! I still think Homecoming's a pretty fine game, and I am glad to have read a lot of forum threads today written by SH fans who are also enjoying it a lot. It surely is flawed -- but to a very similar extent as its three predecessors, which hindsight has ensconced for many as beloved classics with a precious place in fandom.
I think a lot about Suda51, who is widely renowned for his creations even when you could rip his games a new one from a critical standpoint.
I also think about games that are technically perfect, practically, that I shelved and utterly forgot after the first playthrough.
And "wise beyond my years" makes me sound wonderfully young! I'm now old enough that I don't tend to disclose how many years I have, at least.
Thank you for disagreeing with me so constructively and politely. I appreciate your thoughts.
L
Of course you should stand by your review, Ms. Leigh! I'd never try to convince you otherwise.
As for going against the grain: I confess, I loved The Force Unleashed dearly for some utterly inexplicable reason. (http://www.crispygamer.com/columns/2008-09-24/dissenting-opinion-star-wars-the-force-unleashed.aspx)
My critics hat tells me that I shouldn't; the game seemed to dole out a reason to dislike it every five minutes or so. But I got rid of my critics hat ages ago. I think our job, as game reviewers, is to write as honestly as possible--nothing more.
At the end of the day, we like what we like, even if that means sometimes going against our better judgment. In situations like The Force Unleashed for me (and MGS 4 for you) reviews aren't an opportunity to say, hey, the rest of you are wrong. Instead, they become an opportunity to explore why a particular game worked its voodoo on me.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. We should do this more often.
Happy Thursday.
-jones
I feel that personal taste is ultimately going to determine each player's take of the game. (and while this is an absurd analytical cop out) I can not find another reasonable assertion when talking about this series.
For me, the original Silent Hill presented a complete, innovative, and effective product in every way it's immediate sequel was an idiotic, regressive waste of $50. (in the same way that I felt the movie captured the visual style of the franchise, but was an utter failure as a _movie_ ((not just a silent hill asset)) due to poor pacing, weak story, and tepid characters)
For me, for no more reason than my personal taste, I demand solid controls for any title I play. Subsequently, improving the user's control experience does not justify another romp through the franchise, unless that user experience is actually on the level with other quad-A titles currently on the market.
does survival horror really still exist
that article right there was like my sort of bumping into you
i read it and loved it
could not agree with you more
was such a pleasant read that i went on and made a thread about it in the clinically biased gametrailers.com
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=567549
the aberrant gamer sundering the mind
then i bump into this somewhere in the internet and oh my god
you rationing the water ending to be the true ending blow me away
first because i got the same ending on my first play through
second more importantly what you had to say regarding it absolutely made sense
i mean if you play the game as the game encourages you too
your bound to get that ending or in other words play it as a gamer
coming home
and now this
to be honest here i never found my views on gaming to be so similar with another person
especially on the internet
but this struck a chord with me
you seem to be fighting for the same thing as me although in a much more polite and dignified manner befitting a writer as such as yourself
or in other words people acting like bitches
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39975.html
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39973.html
take those two comment sections as an example
i went as far as giving my own personal email ad to talk some sense into this guy
but no luck
ignorant people will always find something to bitch about
i mean i am not a crazed silent hill fan boy but as you have clearly stated in your article people pointlessly find things to whine about
i would be so happy if you commented on any of those threads or even replied to my comment
you can't imagine
definitely looking forward to more articles from you
KEEP ON FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT
WOMAN
[we] have created a culture wherein we are deliberately searching for things to dislike, issues to take up arms over.
I think this is the result of the internet.
For example I used to be negative towards a lot of things - to the point where people were calling me a grumpy old man at 25 years of age - but now I feel like a goddamn hippy full of love and unwarranted optimism, compared to 90% of people who post on message boards.
I think the biggest issue with games is despite growing in popularity, despite every game having in-game advertising of one sort or another, games are still priced the same, and that is a ridiculous amount of money compared to books, film, TV and music.
If games were more affordable, people who review them may not be so it picky - but at the end of the day it is our job as a reviewer to convince you where to spend your money.
@FunkyJ:
"I think the biggest issue with games is...games are still priced the same, and that is a ridiculous amount of money compared to books, film, TV and music."
Look at all the effort that goes into making a video game, compared to a novel, a music CD, and even a movie). Demanding that games lower their price will mean a lowering in quality as well.
GTAIV had a 100 mil budget, but look at its Metacritic score, and the public acclaim (and sales) it's gotten so far. I'm not saying that bigger budgets (and thus, more expensive games) are necessarily better, but if you want cheaper games, the games themselves will necessarily be inferior to what people nowadays are used to. Teams of hundreds of programmers and designers plan games for months if not years; they deserve their piece of the pie.
I do agree that some games are priced quite high, especially when compared to books, movies, etc. but I've never heard of a reviewer complaining about how much he or she paid for a game in their review.
Alright, you address some criticisms there, but your loving defense of the plot is what leaves me stumped. I haven't finished the game yet (just entered the Penitentiary) but what pulls me out of the atmosphere - beyond the dozens of game-crashing bugs and the nonsensical puzzles - is the fact that every character is so goddamn retarded.
I'm a Psychologist, I'm allowed to use the word. RETARDED.
Their actions and dialogue make no sense - their flourishing town now has about 5 people in it, with various monsters and things running around, and no one acts in any way realistic or identifiable. Alex himself is a complete dickhead who, upon climbing down the never ending hell to reach the good doctor, doesn't seem too disturbed by all of the horror, carrying on a normal conversation as if massive hell-maze-labyrinths leading out of doctor's surgeries are, y'know, a normal everyday thing. If everyone was freaking out (ala the previous games) I could buy it, but this is just ludicrous.
(Also, I'm well aware that one of the endings has Alex in an asylum the whole time, which explains my gripe here in the most sackless way possible. Hooray, it was all a dream!)
The plot suffers for this - I don't believe in what's happening because they don't sell it realistically or satisfyingly. The shoddy combat and horrible bugs (I'm playing on the PS3 version, for the record) and overpowered enemies and blah blah are not nearly as important to me as the plot, which - although intriguing to me, what I've played thus far - doesn't convince me. (Also, I've fairly sure Officer Darkie was axed several scenes ago in the police station - with the gigantic Siam falling on him, with the roof - but he just rocked up again with the boat, so black people must be immune in the world of Homecoming. Actually, wasn't Elle splattered up at the end of the sewer level? Ahh, never mind, I'm sure the endings will explain it.)
A security guard’s job responsibilities vary with the size, type, and location of the employer. Our Security Company provides security guards trained in the following industries: export houses, hospitals, schools, departmental stores, buildings, unconstructed houses, residential complexes, independent houses, shops, merchandise, money and equipment. http://www.servelsecurity.net/
I have to discuss Silent Hill 5’s combat. I just can’t help myself. I’ve long considered how combat should fit into a Silent Hill game, and in a more general sense, how combat should fit into any psychologically intense survivor horror game. In more action-oriented survivor horror games, such as Resident Evil, the goal of combat is simple; to produce an adrenaline rush. Videogames in general lend themselves to such a goal. But in Silent Hill, that is not enough. Aside from the adrenaline rush, the combat also needs to inflict some kind of mental uneasiness. Combat in a Silent Hill game needs to be dreaded. Even successful combat scenarios should leave the player uneasy about the next encounter. Every future encounter should begin with a slight stab of fear and despair.
So how the hell does one accomplish this? Quite frankly, it seems like one of the hardest puzzles for a game developer to solve. On the one hand, combat cannot be too easy. What is there to dread if enemies can be easily dispatched? On the other hand, they can’t be too hard. Frustration is not a suitable replacement for dread. It’s a delicate balance made worse by the fact that players vary greatly in skill level. Up till now, I feel this conundrum has been ill-handled by the Silent Hill series. To solve the problem of varying skill levels, it seems as though the developers dulled the combat experience to its most simplistic form, perhaps hoping this would narrow the potential diversity of player’s play styles into a predictable, singular experience that wouldn’t waver much from player to player. Not only are player’s actions very simplistic and limited, the enemy’s actions are as well. While this may help to fine tune the experience for a diversity of players, it inevitably leaves the combat in a dull, monotonous state.
Another excuse for earlier Silent Hill games was that, in a survivor horror game, it makes sense for the player to be less capable. They say the sense of impending doom is heightened if a player is somewhat ill-equipped to handle the combat. I always thought this was a copout. I see no problem with having a more capable protagonist if the enemies are able to match that capability. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting they license Superman to star in the next game. I’m simply suggesting that the true capability of the character matters little. It’s the perceived capability that matters. Whether combat involves mindlessly bashing ghosts with a pipe as they mindlessly bash you back, or delicately maneuvering around the ghost with a pipe, reacting to his attacks and his movements, almost, if you will, caught up in some type of demented rhythmic dance, whatever the case, you’re STILL just a man with a pipe. The true complexity and capability of the protagonist matters little as long as it is matched by the enemy, and the perception of being ill-equipped is there.
So how does Silent Hill 5 hold up in this regard? Amazingly! Well, eventually. Some critics have faulted the player’s inability to block or quickly escape from a failed combat scenario as a detriment of this game. I say they’re wrong. I think that going toe-to-toe with the enemy, with your only defense relying on your knowledge of the enemies attacks, rhythms and weaknesses, requires a sense of intimacy with these gruesome beasts that most of us would like to avoid, and that’s a good thing. If one was to see some half-man-half-spider creature in real life, their first instinct would probably be to run. Silent Hill 5 occasionally lets you run, but more often than not, it forces you to study and familiarize yourself with these demonic beasts, a painfully pleasurable experience that, once mastered, leaves behind a sense of disturbed satisfaction that I’ve never felt in any other game. To be so close and so intimately acquainted with these creatures is almost more disturbing than being killed by them. It may sound a bit sappy, but inevitably combat in Silent Hill 5 plays out less like a fight, and more like a bloody ballet, a rhythmic dance where victory only means darker familiarity with the creatures you would otherwise prefer to avoid. I found it undeniably satisfying. Being able to block attacks or escape quickly in a doomed situation would mitigate the need for this familiarity, and would act as a crutch. Since the familiarity is the most satisfying result of the combat as it is, I wouldn’t recommend any crutch to the actual combat itself be added.
Unfortunately, the pleasure doesn’t come right away, because the familiarity doesn’t come right away. It takes study and experience. That wouldn’t be a bad thing itself, but the game doesn’t make that easy. Quite to the contrary, it almost seems as though the developers expected the player to gain this familiarity almost immediately. Very little help is given to the player in understanding his enemy. But even more unfortunate, and what is probably an even greater cause of frustration for the player, is that the punishment for failure is high. Not only is health just as scarce at the beginning of the game as it is at the end, but often failure is punished by massive backtracking. And this is where I believe the game could use a crutch. Not in the combat itself, but in the event of combat failure. I’m utterly convinced that when people say they were frustrated with the combat in this game, it probably wasn’t the combat itself that frustrated them, but rather the high cost for failure. The developers would do wise to increase the amount of health one receives at the beginning of the game and whenever a new monster is introduced, up the number of checkpoints to lessen the amount of retracing one has to do just to arrive back at the point of contention, and perhaps give the player a little more knowledge of each enemy before tossing them into the mix. In fact, why not lessen the amount of damage the enemies do when they’re first introduced and up it as the player gains familiarity with these creatures.
Personally, once I got past the initial frustration with combat punishment in this game (which required I restart 90 minutes into the game when I realized I had no health stored and was ill-equipped to continue), I found the combat itself to be more satisfying than any other Silent Hill game I’ve played, far closer to reaching the goals I outlined above. If the next Silent Hill game could simply downplay the tedium of combat failure, I think we’d have a solid winner on our hands (at least from a gameplay perspective).
Post a Comment