Starwars said:Yep. Excellent visuals, pretty crappy plot (reminiscant of the first game with quite a few changes) and acting that ranges from OK to shitty.
I thought it was worth watching though, since the visual design is such an important thing for Silent Hill. It's probably my favourite game-gone-liveaction-movie so far from what I remember.
Phantasmal said:So it sounds as if the only things they did right were the music and
I agree with this, it would be badass if they had remade the original a la the RE games.Basically Silent Hill is all about the first 2 games , with the first being the best survival horror game ever.
:!:Kaiserin said:I agree with this, it would be badass if they had remade the original a la the RE games.Basically Silent Hill is all about the first 2 games , with the first being the best survival horror game ever.
To me the fourth was far better than the third, the third was just a cheap recycle of the previous games.Phantasmal said:Not sure how people enjoyed SH3, to be honest. Obviously it was better than 4 and had the crazy shit going for it -- but it was just too in your face. They ruined the scares and fear factor by shoving way too many monsters in front of you. It didn't help when you had to backtrack quite a bit and put up with the annoyingly loud encounter music. You could just tell the series was going downhill from there on, I guess they wanted to get Resident Evil sales or something.
In theory the 4th was better, but I wouldn't agree with the execution. It had way too many nuissances that dragged it down. Lack of inventory space, constant backtracking, save system, god-mode ghosts, etc. Like people have said since it came out, the concept behind it was both original and very intriguing. But it shot itself in the foot with bad design, from all things mentioned down to too much combat and not much atmopshere. You can't have an SH game with nothing remotely scary either, even SH3 had its moments of 'holy shit this is nuts'.Kz3r0 said:To me the fourth was far better than the third, the third was just a cheap recycle of the previous games.
My exact thought, but the third left me with a sense of disappointment.Phantasmal said:In theory the 4th was better, but I wouldn't agree with the execution. It had way too many nuissances that dragged it down. Lack of inventory space, constant backtracking, save system, god-mode ghosts, etc. Like people have said since it came out, the concept behind it was both original and very intriguing. But it shot itself in the foot with bad design, from all things mentioned down to too much combat and not much atmopshere. You can't have an SH game with nothing remotely scary either, even SH3 had its moments of 'holy shit this is nuts'.