Re-imagined Silent Hill Announced

Konami has announced that a new Silent Hill game, titled Shattered Memories, is due out this fall for the Wii, PS2, and PSP. "While the game shares its twisting plot with the original PlayStation game, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories takes a different path in many, many ways. Characters can be approached but will offer different responses and be found in different places, while new clues and gameplay paths can be followed." The Wii version will make full use of the Wii Remote, taking the role of both phone and torch, as well as being used to "pick up, examine and manipulate items to solve puzzles along the journey." According to the Opposable Thumbs blog, the choice not to develop for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was due to the development costs associated with those consoles.

Comments

Why re-imagine?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The only reason to "re-imagine" an old product is to gain the loyal fanbase of the previous product. But if it is really such a departure from the old product, why not establish it as its own franchise? And if it isn't really such a departure, then why not just call it the latest version?

What really fried my tomatoes was the way Battlestar Galactica "Re-imagined" totally crapped all over the original series. Whatever you want to say about the "story arc" or "quality of writing", it simply wasn't anything like the original Galactica. The only thing that tied it to the original series was the names of the characters. The rest, completely unrelated crap.

So why not call it something else? If the concept is so good, take it out on its own. Don't try to leverage an old product and rape the memories of the fans of the original.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you want to say about the "story arc" or "quality of writing", it simply wasn't anything like the original Galactica.

Thank the gods.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Haeleth]

Oh, please. Retelling an existing story in a new way is something humans have been doing for as long as stories have existed! It's a basic practice of all cultures.

Are you really going to argue that (for example) Shakespeare's Hamlet would have been better if he'd called it something different to avoid "raping" the memories of the fans of the previous Hamlet play he was reimagining?

If you don't like the new version, the old version still exists. Your memory is only "raped" if you choose to mess with it yourself in your desperation to find something to be outraged about.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[anss123]

Thank the gods.

I hear ya. The original BSG made me cringe... so campy. Cowboy Planet! Heh.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[ubrgeek]

It's true. I miss the thoughtful and poignant role Daggit played, binding together the plots and characters and making it truly a space opera. ;)

Re:Why re-imagine?

[pizzach]

Simple. When people hear re-imagened on a Nintendo console for a horror franchise from the PS side, they think of the Resident Evil remake which was incredible. Marketing really, using someone elses success as a spring board for your own.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[fastest fascist]

Don't try to leverage an old product and rape the memories of the fans of the original.

At least they're pretty honest about it: Silent hill: Shattered Memories

Re:Why re-imagine?

[elrous0]

Yeah, just the character names. Oh that and the story, the show's focus, the entire premise, whole plotlines from specific episodes, and the complete mythology. But, aside from that, totally unrelated.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[HiVizDiver]

Seriously. I grew up watching the original series, and I have to say, it was pretty crappy. I love the "re-imagination".

Re:Why re-imagine?

[elrous0]

What, you DIDN'T like the episode where they hung out in the cheesy space disco and traded cute quips about a week after their entire civilization and everyone they loved had just been wiped out? You DIDN'T like the cute kid and his robot dog?

How could you complain about that when compared to the cheeseball new series and its "adult conflicts," "real emotions," "ongoing character arcs," "sense of actual desperation," and other such silliness?

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Sockatume]

"Names of the characters" and unrelated trivialities like the premise, the antagonist, the antagonist's "inside man", vehicles, and military structure. I doubt they could've called it "Space Squadron" and got away with it, really. They would've had countless gormless internet users raging at them for "shamelessly ripping off BSG and creating a piece of shit" or something.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[j_166]

"Oh, please. Retelling an existing story in a new way is something humans have been doing for as long as stories have existed! It's a basic practice of all cultures."

Yes, but bitching about those retellings of those existing stories is something humans have been doing for nearly just as long as stories have existed.

Archaeologists have unearthed cave paintings in Altamira that were basically retellings of nearby existing cave paintings, but with minor details changed, such as the Star Deer being female instead of male, as it was in the original. There is also archaeological evidence that points to primitive screeds being carved by a caveman on pottery in the basement of his parents' cave that tells of how much better the original Altamira cave painting was, ending with a cryptic admonishment against the younglings that were apparently trespassing on the primitive patch of soft grass in front of the dwelling.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[unfunk]

that sir, is pure gold.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Steauengeglase]

Like bearded men in sealed trains, hatted men in ice boxes should be avoided at all costs.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Daravon]

Sometimes the re-imagining isn't drastic. While it is a money grab (no point denying it), it's also a good way to make an old title available. Don't forget that there's a lot of people that might not have played the original when it was released (too young, no interest, etc), but now have an interest in the franchise. The problem for these people is that you can't find the original.

Update the graphics, move some stuff around, add some bonus crap (extra game paths, hidden areas) and release the game. This also gives incentive to people who played the original to repurchase.

Wild Arms was released this way. Same story, but a bunch of bonus stuff (changed dungeons around, added features that were introduced in sequels) that makes the replay enjoyable for veterans, and makes the game a little less of a PITA to play for newbies.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Theoboley]

"but now have an interest in the franchise"

<p> wouldn't it be just as easy to buy the original?</P>

Re:Why re-imagine?

[IcyNeko]

So say we all

Re:Why re-imagine?

[mattack2]

Not necessarily. Even with eBay, the original may be really really expensive, but a re-imagining or re-release might be more widely available.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Theoboley]

Most i've ever seen SH1 on ebay was 50 bucks, thats a used black labeled PS1 version of the game.

Re:Why re-imagine?

[Theoboley]

On second thought... that is rather expensive.

Re:You must choose between

[__aaclcg7560]

You're not re-imagining this correctly. That's Silent City and Raccoon Hill. Coming soon to your favorite demon-possessed, zombie-infected video game console.

I guess...

[__aanaom1261]

...having a lower production cost is finally more important than being 3rd-party friendly.

Re:I guess...

[RogueyWon]

Depends. This is a remake of an old game, from a franchise which has, even by a relatively kind assessment, been struggling for a couple of years now. The economics of this particular game are going to be odd. Silent Hill: Homecoming, which was released for the 360 (and PS3? - I can't remember) wasn't exactly a roaring sales success. The franchise's brand has been harmed as the games have picked up a (sadly well deserved) reputation for stagnation and sloppy production values. This is due, I suspect, to the rather chaotic nature of the development of the games from Silent Hill 4 onwards.

Re:You must choose between

[Thanshin]

You're not re-imagining this correctly. That's Silent City and Raccoon Hill.

You forgot Tom Clancy's Silent Racoon.

Yes, the first mission is in Hill City.

SH-Origins

[valentingalea]

It's from the guys that did the PSP/PS2 Silent Hill Origins... so don't expect much:(

Re:SH-Origins

[Walpurgiss]

They really should consider just making sure their Silent Hill PSX code runs right via PSN classic distribution, and then sell that for $5 or $10.

It might even be cost effective, since the only cost would be Sony's tube tax, and a few guys to test it out and make some changes if necessary.

Compared to a whole rewrite, including mob placements and plot adjustments, it should be dirt cheap.

Re:SH-Origins

[RogueyWon]

Actually, I think I'd rather have a re-imagined version. The original was a great game (as was number 2. 3 was ok and I try to pretend that everything since then doesn't exist), but it has aged quite badly in some respects if you play it now.

For starters, the PS1 graphics are just plain nasty. More seriously, the controls feel dismal to somebody used to more recent offerings. You don't have the options for directional, as oppposed to rotational, movement that you have in the later games and you can tell that the game was designed for a controller with only one analogue stick. A new version (preferrably available reasonably cheap - $30 or so) with touched up graphics and modernised controls would be highly welcome.

Re:SH-Origins

[Mr2001]

You don't have the options for directional, as oppposed to rotational, movement that you have in the later games and you can tell that the game was designed for a controller with only one analogue stick.

I think you mean no analog sticks. The PlayStation didn't have a single-analog controller.

Re:SH-Origins

[RogueyWon]

Yes, good point. I'd forgotten how primative the original PS1 controllers were. And, of course, while more civilised controllers soon became available, PS1 games had to be designed to be able to work on the most basic controllers right throughout the lifespan of the console.

Re:SH-Origins

[Sockatume]

Not exactly. Origins was originally being developed by Climax Studios' LA branch, who were unceremoniously sacked around the game's original release date amidst rumours that the project was falling apart. It was brought across to Climax's UK branch, reworked over about 18 months, and published. So I have to wonder if they'll do better with a cleaner slate.

Re:SH-Origins

[Sockatume]

That said, many games only just barely worked in a token way without analogue sticks (FPSes, most of the racers, flight games), and there were some analogue-only titles. It didn't hold people back too badly.

Zack and Miri make a videogame

[InsaneCreator]

A re-imagining? With all male cast?

Re:You must choose between

[GrumblyStuff]

Yeah, but 2010 version is almost out. It's got the updated roster!

PS2 and PSP

[vix86]

The summary mentions that this will be coming out on the Wii, but the article also mentions that it will be co-released on the PS2 and PSP as well, with the familar SH control system. The last generation consoles just keep on living it seems.

what does it really mean??

[nimbius]

get ready to import old C libraries and save a ton of money on new voice actors, 'cause this titles getting "reimagined."

Centralia Pennsylvania

[Gnaythan1]

I never played silent hill, but liked the imagery, and heard from someone it was based on a small town that had an underground coal mine catch fire.

I did some research and found out such a place really existed. Ever since then, Centrailia Pennsylvania has fueled many of my role playing game settings. Appaerently it caught fire many years ago, and has been burning ever since.

Wow.

Re:Centralia Pennsylvania

[Sockatume]

The place with the coal fire was the inspiration for the movie (hence in that film it's smoke, not fog, everywhere), but not the game.

Re:Centralia Pennsylvania

[RogueyWon]

To be fair, though, the movie was one of the least bad game adaptations I've seen. It was a solid 4/10, maybe even a 5/10. That puts it miles ahead of most other adaptations. It even had a couple of genuinely creepy sequences. Sure, it doesn't really fit with the canon established in the games all that well, but there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.

Re:Centralia Pennsylvania

[Theoboley]

My friends and I literally bust out laughing when the lady at the end gets torn apart by those hooks. Everyone in the theater was looking at us like we were nuts

Oooh good times.

Re:Metamoderate?

[elrous0]

Noticed that too. I also can't seem to submit tags anymore (no "submit" button).

Re:No combat in the game - point and click?

[RogueyWon]

Siren: Blood Curse on the PS3 has sections where the player controls characters who are completely unable to fight back. In many ways, Siren has taken over the mantle of the best traditional survival-horror series around, since Resident Evil became an action game and Silent Hill started to self-destruct with its fourth installment. What's interesting about the Siren games is that you control multiple characters for various sections of the game. Some are physically fit adults, who may even have experience with weapons, while others have disabilities, or are pre-teens, rendering them far more vulnerable to foes and entirely reliant upon either avoiding detection, or running away if spotted.

Not too surprising,

[Steauengeglase]

given that the entire series has been a "retelling" of the movie Jacob's Ladder.

Not that I'm knocking it. Personally I'm glad that they are at least trying to get the series back on track. It has certainly needed it.

No and no.

[Cathoderoytube]

Silent Hill officially ended with 3. That's when the creators decided to finish everything up and that was that. I see no reason to continue playing the series. I know other people play it for the horror atmosphere, but even then it took a nose dive when it was taken over by a different developer. I'm no fan of bringing back stories that the creators decided to finish or are unable to continue for some other reason. Say as a result of being hit by a truck for example..

Re:No and no.

[djnforce9]

I have to agree with you there. Silent Hill 4 just felt outright different than the other 3 and I didn't find it as scary nor enjoyable (the invincible ghosts being one of the most annoying additions ever). The 5th installment I couldn't really try to its fullest extent because the PC version was ridden with audio bugs (e.g. sound being stuck in left channel only) ruining the scary atmosphere. It was also more "combat based" (including quick time events) rather than a being weak, helpless, and scared character like in Silent Hill 1-3. I have not tried silent hill origins though but I heard it was just more of the same (although it was nice to know how Silent Hill's current state originally came to be). It is kind of cool to have the original remade with what is likely a graphical upgrade (and of course new paths to keep things fresh). What made the original Silent Hill so scary was the "sound" but the graphics just couldn't deliver what the audio was building up towards (e.g. that hanging corpse at the end of the alleyway near the beginning is a good example of what I mean as it was not as horrifying as you would expect) due to the limitations of the PSX hardware. Since this is geared towards Wii, PS2, and PSP as opposed to PC, Xbox 360, and PS3, I won't expect a "high definition" remake but it'll certainly look better than the original version and could potentially scare you even more by providing more vivid visuals than what the PSX delivered

Re:No and no.

[RogueyWon]

You might be interested to note that Silent Hill 4 wasn't actually even developed as a Silent Hill game, but rather as a stand-alone title just called "The Room". The decision to stick a Silent Hill label on it, while sticking in a few references to the other games in the series, was made very, very late in the development process. And oh boy does it show.

The end-result was a "lose-lose". The reputation of the Silent Hill brand was damaged quite seriously, while the fact that people came to the game itself with a specific set of expectations meant that its strengths (which were modest but real) ended up overlooked and it was probably judged more harshly than it would have been as an original IP.

Re:No and no.

[Gizzmonic]

That's why I play video games...so I can pretend to be weak and helpless! In real life I'm a Formula 1 race car driver who moonlights as a secret agent.

Re:No and no.

[seventhevening]

I've heard that multiple times, but I still question it. There are places in Silent Hill 2 that feature the words "There was a HOLE here but now it's gone". It really seems to be a pretty strong nod towards the "hole" from Silent Hill 4. Additionally, 4 didn't seem as different as people tried to make it out to be. It seems to obey the mythology MUCH better than 5 did, and it seems to just explore things in a new way. Really Silent Hill 5 and Origins are why I'm dreading this game. Origins borrowed heavily from the movie and didn't take the series any new direction. 5 just ignored the mythology of the games and mucked stuff up.

Re:No and no.

[seventhevening]

Well, I sure you already know from experience, Mr. Secret Agent Formula 1 racer, but a room full of shambling corpses isn't very scary if you have a flamethrower, machine gun, and military training.

In horror, atmosphere and a feeling of helplessness is pretty important. Although I'm sure you've never felt fear in your life, Mr. Bond.

Re:No combat in the game - point and click?

[donaldm]

I have not played the PS3 version of Siren. I think I was turned off by the original PS2 version which I found to be interesting in concept, the graphics excellent and quite different to other survival horror games, but I found the game boring after a while that I lost interest. While this is my perspective other people did like it which is fine by me.

As for a new Silent Hill well I liked the original game on the PS1 and some of the other PS2 releases but once you start to get lots of versions the franchise IMHO start to go downhill. This is not to say that all franchised games steadily go downhill there are some which may actually be much better than the original. Of course deciding if a game is good is up to the player, many players will love a particular franchise while others hate it.

Actually the article is quite interesting going as far as stating that cash strapped developers are also targeting the PS2 and the Wii rather than target the PS3 or the Xbox360 because these machines target the Hi-Def TV demographic. This never ceases to amaze me since the same companies will target PC's which have at least the display equivalent of 720p since the late 1990's so stating that Hi-Def is too expensive to code for is just a cop-out.

Still since I have a BC PS3 I may buy this game and enjoy the the unscaled game on my Hi-Def TV. Actually I find that many PS2 games do look even better played via a BC PS3 to a HDTV so much so that the game is much more fun to play, however I have always stated that a good game with good graphics is normally a good game, while a good game with excellent graphics is an above average game but a poor game with excellent graphics is a game that stinks.