The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The game that took horror/survival in an entirely new direction. Silent Hill earnt a great deal of respect, especially having followed in the footsteps of the legendary Resident Evil series. As is always going to be the case, comparisons were immediately made between the two, even though Silent Hill was never going to be anything BUT a completely different style to Resident Evil.
Konami hit a nerve with the gaming industry, and introduced a whole new element to the horror/survival genre with the concept of more intricate participation on the part of the player. The game drew real emotions from the player, and created a superb atmosphere which many people found to be genuinely disturbing.
The follow-up to Silent Hill was something I waited some time for, and from initial announcements regarding it's development this was going to be, for me, one of my all-time favourite games. A bold statement to make having not actually played or indeed even seen the game, I knew that I'd enjoy the game because the style in-which the first one was developed had earnt Konami my utter-most respect.
Having finally been able to get a copy of the game, I sat down and embraced myself in the Silent Hill experiance for two days solid during my weekend break. Then, every spare second of my daily routine has been spent working through the game, examining it in detail, with no emphasis on rushing through to the end. Much like Metal Gear Solid 2, it really is worth spending a little time enjoying the game in it's entirety rather than just working through to the end for the enjoyment of completing the game.
First impressions were that the game truly did live up to my expectations and would go on to earn a place in any "Top Games of 2001" list that was compiled. However, the game has one problem.
We have always complained about games that are far too linear to test the mind. In some instances, this linear approach is fine, but in a serious game with an in-depth story, and an intention to portray an atmosphere right up there with the very best horror films, it is usually expected that the player has some control over the story. In Silent Hill 2, this is NOT the case. You are constraint to a path almost completely dictated by the developers. Aside from an odd occasion where it is possible to solve one puzzle before another, you are led through the entire game without much opportunity to feel any sense of altering the story.
HOWEVER...what Konami have managed to do, and do superbly at that, is create a lack of care. You really aren't particularly bothered by the fact that the game is very linear and prevents you influencing the story, because the way the game pulls you into the story is enough interaction to dis-regard any sense of storyline constraints. The fact is, the game isn't hindered in any way due to the linear approach.
Granted, a slightly more open approach would be a great benefit to any future Silent Hill games, but there's really little to complain about with the fact that the game runs in a traditional linear-puzzle style.
My point is, if a game is successful in accomplishing it's goals and engages the player in the storyline, then the fact that it is somewhat linear is irrelevant. Just as in some cases great game-play can make up for appaling graphics, if a game can create an atmosphere that draws in it's player, then whether or not you feel you are influencing the storyline CAN be over-looked.
This isn't to say that just by having a good storyline a game can be completely linear, but in the case of Silent Hill 2 I wasn't particularly disturbed by not feeling that my actions influenced the overall storyline.
When is 'Linear' accepted? When the experiance of playing a game really does prove worth £35+.
Konami hit a nerve with the gaming industry, and introduced a whole new element to the horror/survival genre with the concept of more intricate participation on the part of the player. The game drew real emotions from the player, and created a superb atmosphere which many people found to be genuinely disturbing.
The follow-up to Silent Hill was something I waited some time for, and from initial announcements regarding it's development this was going to be, for me, one of my all-time favourite games. A bold statement to make having not actually played or indeed even seen the game, I knew that I'd enjoy the game because the style in-which the first one was developed had earnt Konami my utter-most respect.
Having finally been able to get a copy of the game, I sat down and embraced myself in the Silent Hill experiance for two days solid during my weekend break. Then, every spare second of my daily routine has been spent working through the game, examining it in detail, with no emphasis on rushing through to the end. Much like Metal Gear Solid 2, it really is worth spending a little time enjoying the game in it's entirety rather than just working through to the end for the enjoyment of completing the game.
First impressions were that the game truly did live up to my expectations and would go on to earn a place in any "Top Games of 2001" list that was compiled. However, the game has one problem.
We have always complained about games that are far too linear to test the mind. In some instances, this linear approach is fine, but in a serious game with an in-depth story, and an intention to portray an atmosphere right up there with the very best horror films, it is usually expected that the player has some control over the story. In Silent Hill 2, this is NOT the case. You are constraint to a path almost completely dictated by the developers. Aside from an odd occasion where it is possible to solve one puzzle before another, you are led through the entire game without much opportunity to feel any sense of altering the story.
HOWEVER...what Konami have managed to do, and do superbly at that, is create a lack of care. You really aren't particularly bothered by the fact that the game is very linear and prevents you influencing the story, because the way the game pulls you into the story is enough interaction to dis-regard any sense of storyline constraints. The fact is, the game isn't hindered in any way due to the linear approach.
Granted, a slightly more open approach would be a great benefit to any future Silent Hill games, but there's really little to complain about with the fact that the game runs in a traditional linear-puzzle style.
My point is, if a game is successful in accomplishing it's goals and engages the player in the storyline, then the fact that it is somewhat linear is irrelevant. Just as in some cases great game-play can make up for appaling graphics, if a game can create an atmosphere that draws in it's player, then whether or not you feel you are influencing the storyline CAN be over-looked.
This isn't to say that just by having a good storyline a game can be completely linear, but in the case of Silent Hill 2 I wasn't particularly disturbed by not feeling that my actions influenced the overall storyline.
When is 'Linear' accepted? When the experiance of playing a game really does prove worth £35+.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
The game that took horror/survival in an entirely new direction. Silent Hill earnt a great deal of respect, especially having followed in the footsteps of the legendary Resident Evil series. As is always going to be the case, comparisons were immediately made between the two, even though Silent Hill was never going to be anything BUT a completely different style to Resident Evil.
Konami hit a nerve with the gaming industry, and introduced a whole new element to the horror/survival genre with the concept of more intricate participation on the part of the player. The game drew real emotions from the player, and created a superb atmosphere which many people found to be genuinely disturbing.
The follow-up to Silent Hill was something I waited some time for, and from initial announcements regarding it's development this was going to be, for me, one of my all-time favourite games. A bold statement to make having not actually played or indeed even seen the game, I knew that I'd enjoy the game because the style in-which the first one was developed had earnt Konami my utter-most respect.
Having finally been able to get a copy of the game, I sat down and embraced myself in the Silent Hill experiance for two days solid during my weekend break. Then, every spare second of my daily routine has been spent working through the game, examining it in detail, with no emphasis on rushing through to the end. Much like Metal Gear Solid 2, it really is worth spending a little time enjoying the game in it's entirety rather than just working through to the end for the enjoyment of completing the game.
First impressions were that the game truly did live up to my expectations and would go on to earn a place in any "Top Games of 2001" list that was compiled. However, the game has one problem.
We have always complained about games that are far too linear to test the mind. In some instances, this linear approach is fine, but in a serious game with an in-depth story, and an intention to portray an atmosphere right up there with the very best horror films, it is usually expected that the player has some control over the story. In Silent Hill 2, this is NOT the case. You are constraint to a path almost completely dictated by the developers. Aside from an odd occasion where it is possible to solve one puzzle before another, you are led through the entire game without much opportunity to feel any sense of altering the story.
HOWEVER...what Konami have managed to do, and do superbly at that, is create a lack of care. You really aren't particularly bothered by the fact that the game is very linear and prevents you influencing the story, because the way the game pulls you into the story is enough interaction to dis-regard any sense of storyline constraints. The fact is, the game isn't hindered in any way due to the linear approach.
Granted, a slightly more open approach would be a great benefit to any future Silent Hill games, but there's really little to complain about with the fact that the game runs in a traditional linear-puzzle style.
My point is, if a game is successful in accomplishing it's goals and engages the player in the storyline, then the fact that it is somewhat linear is irrelevant. Just as in some cases great game-play can make up for appaling graphics, if a game can create an atmosphere that draws in it's player, then whether or not you feel you are influencing the storyline CAN be over-looked.
This isn't to say that just by having a good storyline a game can be completely linear, but in the case of Silent Hill 2 I wasn't particularly disturbed by not feeling that my actions influenced the overall storyline.
When is 'Linear' accepted? When the experiance of playing a game really does prove worth £35+.
Konami hit a nerve with the gaming industry, and introduced a whole new element to the horror/survival genre with the concept of more intricate participation on the part of the player. The game drew real emotions from the player, and created a superb atmosphere which many people found to be genuinely disturbing.
The follow-up to Silent Hill was something I waited some time for, and from initial announcements regarding it's development this was going to be, for me, one of my all-time favourite games. A bold statement to make having not actually played or indeed even seen the game, I knew that I'd enjoy the game because the style in-which the first one was developed had earnt Konami my utter-most respect.
Having finally been able to get a copy of the game, I sat down and embraced myself in the Silent Hill experiance for two days solid during my weekend break. Then, every spare second of my daily routine has been spent working through the game, examining it in detail, with no emphasis on rushing through to the end. Much like Metal Gear Solid 2, it really is worth spending a little time enjoying the game in it's entirety rather than just working through to the end for the enjoyment of completing the game.
First impressions were that the game truly did live up to my expectations and would go on to earn a place in any "Top Games of 2001" list that was compiled. However, the game has one problem.
We have always complained about games that are far too linear to test the mind. In some instances, this linear approach is fine, but in a serious game with an in-depth story, and an intention to portray an atmosphere right up there with the very best horror films, it is usually expected that the player has some control over the story. In Silent Hill 2, this is NOT the case. You are constraint to a path almost completely dictated by the developers. Aside from an odd occasion where it is possible to solve one puzzle before another, you are led through the entire game without much opportunity to feel any sense of altering the story.
HOWEVER...what Konami have managed to do, and do superbly at that, is create a lack of care. You really aren't particularly bothered by the fact that the game is very linear and prevents you influencing the story, because the way the game pulls you into the story is enough interaction to dis-regard any sense of storyline constraints. The fact is, the game isn't hindered in any way due to the linear approach.
Granted, a slightly more open approach would be a great benefit to any future Silent Hill games, but there's really little to complain about with the fact that the game runs in a traditional linear-puzzle style.
My point is, if a game is successful in accomplishing it's goals and engages the player in the storyline, then the fact that it is somewhat linear is irrelevant. Just as in some cases great game-play can make up for appaling graphics, if a game can create an atmosphere that draws in it's player, then whether or not you feel you are influencing the storyline CAN be over-looked.
This isn't to say that just by having a good storyline a game can be completely linear, but in the case of Silent Hill 2 I wasn't particularly disturbed by not feeling that my actions influenced the overall storyline.
When is 'Linear' accepted? When the experiance of playing a game really does prove worth £35+.