nkarafo
Member
Hear me out before you torch me alive. Originally, i fully played these games on PS2 when they were released. Playing Silent Hill 2 in 2001 was a very "next-gen" experience for me. I don't think there was any other game at the time where you control a light source that casts shadows from both characters and the environments. Soft shadows on top of that!
Anyway, both games impressed me a lot back then. And i always remember SH3 as the creepiest game i ever played. The alternate hospital theme is stuck in my mind since then.
But i never re-played them. So i decided to do just that right after the final PC enhanced version for SH2 was released. And i thought the timing is good since the SH2 Remake is so close.
I played the PC versions. For Silent Hill 2 i used the enhanced edition of course. By far the best version of the game. The same applies for SH3 as well, although there isn't such an elaborate mod as this, it still has a couple of of extensive enough mods that pretty much fix all visual issues when you play on a modern PC, plus they fix the low quality sound of the PC version. Which makes it the best version in the end, although there is no HD textures mod for it like there is for the emulated PS2 version.
Anyway, i replayed them both and i though... eh, they are not as good as i remember them.
Don't get me wrong. The art direction is still top notch. The atmosphere is still second to none. The music is still timeless. And the creepy factor is still up there, especially in SH3. No complaints here.
But they are also video games and when it comes to gameplay/game design, i feel they fall short. My biggest issue is the level design, which is not very good in either game. Most of the time you explore empty boxy rooms and labyrinthine corridors with only a few interesting/detailed/memorable areas to break the monotony. But most of the time you spend exploring way too many long corridors filled with way too many doors on both sides that don't open. And because of the way the (very helpful) map works in these games, you really want to check every single door. For every 1 door that opens (or is locked for later) you have to check 6 or 7 that never do. The sound effect of the broken door knob will forever be etched in your brain.
Keep in mind that i'm talking about the indoor "dungeon" areas, not the outside "open world". I never expected to be able to enter many buildings. That's true to modern games as well.
I guess i have to blame old tech and standards, many games seem to had their fair share of boxy rooms/empty corridors back then. Hence the "haven't aged well" part. I didn't have that much of an issue in 2001/2003.
Speaking of that, there's also the issues with the camera. Personally i rarely complain about bad cameras in games but in SH2/3 they really do get in the way. The games play like Resident Evil, with tank controls (which is fine) and some pre-set camera positions but it's not static. Unlike RE, here the camera moves and most of the time it's controllable but those camera controls are very awkward. And whenever a new scene loads the game has the tendency on focusing at the front of your character instead of the back... You know, so you can see things in front of you? There are many instances where the camera struggles to move behind you as you manually try to move it while blindly running to the unknown.
Oh and the 3D models in SH2 are a bit awkward both in looks and animations. Especially the way James looks when he runs. But in SH3 the models are vastly improved.
I didn't mind the combat. And the puzzles were OK (played on medium difficulty).
I think the upcoming remake is, at least, doing a good job fixing those issues (from what i have seen so far in one gameplay video). The level design now feels much more interesting with many more detailed/handcrafted indoor rooms and there should be no camera issues.
Do you agree with this? Also, do you care? Because they are horror games after all and they still nail all the aspects that matter in the genre (atmosphere, sound, lore, creepiness, etc).
Anyway, both games impressed me a lot back then. And i always remember SH3 as the creepiest game i ever played. The alternate hospital theme is stuck in my mind since then.
But i never re-played them. So i decided to do just that right after the final PC enhanced version for SH2 was released. And i thought the timing is good since the SH2 Remake is so close.
I played the PC versions. For Silent Hill 2 i used the enhanced edition of course. By far the best version of the game. The same applies for SH3 as well, although there isn't such an elaborate mod as this, it still has a couple of of extensive enough mods that pretty much fix all visual issues when you play on a modern PC, plus they fix the low quality sound of the PC version. Which makes it the best version in the end, although there is no HD textures mod for it like there is for the emulated PS2 version.
Anyway, i replayed them both and i though... eh, they are not as good as i remember them.
Don't get me wrong. The art direction is still top notch. The atmosphere is still second to none. The music is still timeless. And the creepy factor is still up there, especially in SH3. No complaints here.
But they are also video games and when it comes to gameplay/game design, i feel they fall short. My biggest issue is the level design, which is not very good in either game. Most of the time you explore empty boxy rooms and labyrinthine corridors with only a few interesting/detailed/memorable areas to break the monotony. But most of the time you spend exploring way too many long corridors filled with way too many doors on both sides that don't open. And because of the way the (very helpful) map works in these games, you really want to check every single door. For every 1 door that opens (or is locked for later) you have to check 6 or 7 that never do. The sound effect of the broken door knob will forever be etched in your brain.
Keep in mind that i'm talking about the indoor "dungeon" areas, not the outside "open world". I never expected to be able to enter many buildings. That's true to modern games as well.
I guess i have to blame old tech and standards, many games seem to had their fair share of boxy rooms/empty corridors back then. Hence the "haven't aged well" part. I didn't have that much of an issue in 2001/2003.
Speaking of that, there's also the issues with the camera. Personally i rarely complain about bad cameras in games but in SH2/3 they really do get in the way. The games play like Resident Evil, with tank controls (which is fine) and some pre-set camera positions but it's not static. Unlike RE, here the camera moves and most of the time it's controllable but those camera controls are very awkward. And whenever a new scene loads the game has the tendency on focusing at the front of your character instead of the back... You know, so you can see things in front of you? There are many instances where the camera struggles to move behind you as you manually try to move it while blindly running to the unknown.
Oh and the 3D models in SH2 are a bit awkward both in looks and animations. Especially the way James looks when he runs. But in SH3 the models are vastly improved.
I didn't mind the combat. And the puzzles were OK (played on medium difficulty).
I think the upcoming remake is, at least, doing a good job fixing those issues (from what i have seen so far in one gameplay video). The level design now feels much more interesting with many more detailed/handcrafted indoor rooms and there should be no camera issues.
Do you agree with this? Also, do you care? Because they are horror games after all and they still nail all the aspects that matter in the genre (atmosphere, sound, lore, creepiness, etc).
Last edited:
.
