Games NOT Beaten 2017

Anything that is gaming related that doesn't fit well anywhere else
User avatar
Xeogred
Next-Gen
Posts: 14387
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: KC

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Xeogred »

Exhuminator wrote:Image

Silent damn Hill

Well folks this was my third try since 1999 to beat this game. Every time I walk away with the same sense of "meh". Don't get me wrong, I understand that the original Silent Hill is historically important in its genre, and spawned a popular franchise. And yes, Silent Hill had stupendous graphical power given its platform. Indeed, Silent Hill accomplishes tremendous atmosphere using the PS1's limitations creatively to render a fog laden nightmarescape. And absolutely, Silent Hill has a very interesting premise with a unique concept. The game has chilling backdrops, creepy enemies, and a pretty nice cafe. There's just one problem; Silent Hill is not fun to play. Nope. It wasn't fun to play in 1999, and it hasn't gotten any better in the 18 years since. I say this as someone who enjoys a decent survival horror from time to time.

So in Silent Hill, you're expected to wander around aimlessly, groping yourself against locked doors incessantly, desperately in search of keys. You are constantly hounded by enemies, which are not fun to fight, due to a piss poor combat system. Silent Hill supports the DualShock controller, but still forces its player to use tank controls. Tank controls in a fully 3D environment by the way, meaning the camera is not fixed. It practically feels like you're controlling a drunk man with impaired hand-eye coordination the entire time. Often the player is accosted with nebulous puzzles having solutions best described as byzantine. You're expected to constantly reference maps, but a map takes a good two to three seconds to load every time you push the map button. And that's the game folks; wander drunkenly, fight badly, endure inane key hunts, beat your head against "puzzles", and stare at slow loading maps. Until you die that is, and lose a half hour or more of progress due to sparse save points.

I put four hours into Silent Hill this time, making it to the hospital. That's the furthest I've ever made it in this boring excuse for a horror game. I had zero fun the entire time. Zero. Literally zero. I pushed buttons for at least 240 minutes and had no return of entertainment to speak of. Why did I bother? Because Silent Hill is lauded to this day, considered a classic even. Thus I feel I should play through it, before moving on to the rest of the series. But once again, I am reminded why I never beat Silent Hill. It's because Silent Hill is the opposite of fun. Perhaps worse yet, Silent Hill is not even particularly scary. The best ideas in Silent Hill were ripped right out of Hellraiser. I supposed I can understand why gamers of 1999 were impressed with Silent Hill. The phenomenal graphics (relatively speaking), the Hellraiser chains and body bags, and a sinister plot. None of that matters when the core gameplay is horrendously banal. Silent Hill's insipid "game design" can die in a fire. A hospital fire. I looked at a walkthrough, and you know what I had ahead of me next? A fucking sewer maze. No thanks. Ack ol' boy, you can keep this one.

Ack just sneezed.

From the man who likes King's Field and circling enemies for some slow motion slaps ... :P

Your second paragraph and issues with the game doesn't give me much hope in you maybe enjoying 2-3 either, since they still have funky tank controls, you reference maps a lot (I love this), lots of locked doors, etc. 2 especially, the initial hotel area is the hardest level to navigate but it's easy from there. The PS2 games are certainly easier on the eyes and still look incredible to this day. There is also FAR less enemies around and combat, it's a lot easier and more ideal to just bypass enemies and run away. Not a lot of boss battles either and they're handled a lot better.

2 is entirely self contained and can be played on its own.

3 is a loose sequel to the original, but it's not really critical at all.

There's a lot of fans I know of that love the series but still can't get into the original. There's still a chance you'll enjoy the others, who knows. If you even care at this point. Different strokes for different folks. I played Silent Hill 1 in 2014 for the first time and loved it. It's way cooler than Hellraiser for my money too, but the comparisons are sound. 2 and 4 have the better and more original stories. 2's otherworld is an entirely different concept too, so that Hellraiser underworld isn't a main staple or anything. Just in 1/3.
User avatar
Exhuminator
Next-Gen
Posts: 11573
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:24 am
Contact:

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Exhuminator »

Xeogred wrote:2 is entirely self contained and can be played on its own.

3 is a loose sequel to the original, but it's not really critical at all.

I'm still interested in trying 2 and 3. I know SH2 is where the series really took off in a mainstream way. SH1 is more of a cult classic.

Ultimately I just lost patience in SH1's hospital, wandering up and down floors, trying dozens of locked doors until you hit the unlocked one. Finding butt loads of plates that I knew went to some ludicrous "puzzle". The school had already aggravated me enough with that crap. Especially as after you explore the whole school in the normal world, then you had to re-explore the whole school again in the silent world. And then the developers pulled the same stunt with the hospital! That's just asset reuse for the sake of longevity, and the way it's implemented wasn't fun for me at all. Especially when coupled with all the other control/interface/design issues SH has.

Who knows I might love 2 and 3, but I'm done with 1. Three strikes it's out.
PLAY KING'S FIELD.
User avatar
Segata
Next-Gen
Posts: 2498
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Segata »

But dude Silent Hill 1 is absolutely loaded with Kindergarten Cop references.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BoneSnapDeez
Next-Gen
Posts: 20137
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by BoneSnapDeez »

I tried Silent Hill back when it was released. Hated it. Hated Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Crash Bandicoot and Metal Gear Solid as well. Didn't understand the PlayStation hype at all. Everything was so slow and clunky and ugly compared to what I had been playing on "inferior" 16-bit systems. Eventually warmed up a bit to Final Fantasy VII, but as for those others.....nope.
User avatar
Segata
Next-Gen
Posts: 2498
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Segata »

BoneSnapDeez wrote:I tried Silent Hill back when it was released. Hated it. Hated Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Crash Bandicoot and Metal Gear Solid as well. Didn't understand the PlayStation hype at all. Everything was so slow and clunky and ugly compared to what I had been playing on "inferior" 16-bit systems. Eventually warmed up a bit to Final Fantasy VII, but as for those others.....nope.

REmake is great, however. I'm not a fan of MGS and think Crash is trash. Tomb Raider is meh. Final Fantasy VII isn't even the best FF on PS. That's FFIX. FFIX HD cleaned up fairly well and has aged the best of the 3.
Image
Image
User avatar
Exhuminator
Next-Gen
Posts: 11573
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:24 am
Contact:

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Exhuminator »

BoneSnapDeez wrote:I tried Silent Hill back when it was released. Hated it. Hated Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Crash Bandicoot and Metal Gear Solid as well.

Well you know my opinion of Silent Hill. I didn't care for the original Resident Evil on PS1 (REmake on GameCube was great though). I've never liked the original Tomb Raider (too clunky I agree). Final Fantasy VII is like a 7/10 at best. I can't stand Crash Bandicoot, he's a shit mascot and his games suck (the kart racer was OK I guess). However, I adored Metal Gear Solid and had a great time with it.
PLAY KING'S FIELD.
User avatar
Xeogred
Next-Gen
Posts: 14387
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: KC

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Xeogred »

Image
User avatar
laurenhiya21
Next-Gen
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:20 pm
Location: Wash-a-ton

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by laurenhiya21 »

I didn't particularly enjoy Silient Hill either. I can't exactly remember what I didn't like, but on my backloggery I wrote: "it's kind of frustrating running around, doing puzzles that don't make sense". Just from that I think I say that it wasn't a positive experience.

I somehow managed to beat it though. Not quite sure why I bothered if I wasn't liking it so much.
Image
User avatar
Exhuminator
Next-Gen
Posts: 11573
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:24 am
Contact:

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Exhuminator »

laurenhiya21 wrote:I somehow managed to beat it though. Not quite sure why I bothered if I wasn't liking it so much.

I started considering playing via a walkthrough once I got to the hospital. I was thinking, "This is an important historical classic in the literacy of survival horror, I should push through and finish it as a scholarly endeavor." But then a different thought kicked in, "The emperor is naked, this game sucks, fuck it."
PLAY KING'S FIELD.
User avatar
Ack
Moderator
Posts: 22475
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Games NOT Beaten 2017

Post by Ack »

Exhuminator wrote:wander drunkenly, fight badly, endure inane key hunts, beat your head against "puzzles", and stare at slow loading maps.


Did you just describe Quest for Glory?
Image
Post Reply