Topic: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

[Adrock]

Yeah reimagining or reboot would be better terms. Basically this game is saying "We realize the SH series has been in a rut, let's give it a fresh new start". It is cleaning the slate without dumping everything that made Silent Hill, Silent Hill.

And what stopped them from doing that with a sequel? I guess this really comes down to semantics. I find there to be varying degrees of what constitutes a remake. If Konami was serious about rebooting the series, they could do so, very easily in fact. Start from scratch. That's it. Calling the game a "reimagining" is nothing more than PR word vomit. It's supposed to sound more impressive and dignified than a remake even though it's still a remake by definition. A step above a simple graphics update yet a step below a brand new game. Team Silent was too lazy/unavailable to write a new game scenario. I get it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Yeah it's hardly Silent Hill: Leon S. Kennedy Wii Waggle Pointy Edition, or Silent Hill Zero: part of the Konami 5 Plus 1

It's obvious what it is:  something Konami wouldn't have thought of on its own, and would not make on its own.

[Dirk Temporo]

And what stopped them from doing that with a sequel? I guess this really comes down to semantics. I find there to be varying degrees of what constitutes a remake. If Konami was serious about rebooting the series, they could do so, very easily in fact. Start from scratch. That's it. Calling the game a "reimagining" is nothing more than PR word vomit. It's supposed to sound more impressive and dignified than a remake even though it's still a remake by definition. A step above a simple graphics update yet a step below a brand new game. Team Silent was too lazy/unavailable to write a new game scenario. I get it.

It's no more a remake than the new Battlestar Galactica is a remake, and if you think that's a remake, then you're wrong.

You're suggesting that they completely change the game, at which point why would they even call it Silent Hill?

[GoldenPhoenix]

RE for Gamecube was a remake, it was still basically the same game but upgraded for a newer generation. Bionic Commando for PS3/Xbox 360/PC was a remake, upgraded for a new generation.

Silent Hill shares a setting and story with the first game and THAT IS IT. There is NOTHING wrong with that, like Dirk said, Battlestar Galactica did the same thing but it went a completely different route then the first.

Heck Zelda: OOT is more of a remake then this game is.

[Adrock]

You're suggesting that they completely change the game, at which point why would they even call it Silent Hill?

No.... I'm suggesting that they make a sequel instead. If Shattered Memories is so different from the original, why even bother revisiting the game? I call it laziness, you can call it a "reimagining" if you want.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the point of going back to the original and changing it so dramatically when, with a little more effort, they could have made something entirely new, instead of, let's say, 75% new. See, I'm simply not willing to see this as more than it is. Konami can PR the hell out of Shattered Memories, but it's still not Silent Hill 5/6 (depending on what you consider Homecoming). I'm pretty consistent with my opinion of remakes (and ports for that matter). I'll buy them on occasion, but I'll always prefer a brand new game.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

It could've been Silent Hill's "RE4" or RE 0.5 (brand new games), but instead it's REmake 3.11 for Workgroups.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I call it laziness, you can call it a "reimagining" if you want.

BSG is lazy. CONFIRMED

[ShyGuy]

I think keeping the protagonist from the first game is a response to people going OMGWTFBBQ over the character from SH:Homecoming.

[Morari]

And what stopped them from doing that with a sequel? I guess this really comes down to semantics. I find there to be varying degrees of what constitutes a remake. If Konami was serious about rebooting the series, they could do so, very easily in fact. Start from scratch. That's it. Calling the game a "reimagining" is nothing more than PR word vomit. It's supposed to sound more impressive and dignified than a remake even though it's still a remake by definition. A step above a simple graphics update yet a step below a brand new game. Team Silent was too lazy/unavailable to write a new game scenario. I get it.

It's no more a remake than the new Battlestar Galactica is a remake, and if you think that's a remake, then you're wrong.

Great, now you've really ruined all hope I had for Silent Hill!

[Adrock]

BSG is lazy. CONFIRMED

It did get canceled.....

I think keeping the protagonist from the first game is a response to people going OMGWTFBBQ over the character from SH:Homecoming.

Well, then, maybe they can "reimagine" Silent Hill 3 and have him not brutally murdered.

[GoldenPhoenix]

It did get canceled.....

Uh BSG lasted 4 years and ended on its own terms. The old one was canceled though.

Great, now you've really ruined all hope I had for Silent Hill!

I consider that praise for BSG consdering the source! So thank you for reaffirming my love for the new BSG.

Anyway there is NOTHING wrong with Silent Hill going back to the start to not only symbolize a rebirth of the franchise but puts people in a familiar setting. This is NO DIFFERENT from any Zelda, Mario, or any other franchise that revisit an old setting or theme to bring familiarity to it. Heck Silent Hill 2 was more of a remake of SH1 then this new one is.

[Adrock]

Saying it ended on its own terms is subjective. To my understanding, Battlestar Galactica has been in danger of being canceled for some time. Sci Fi (or should we start calling it Syfy?) renewed it for a 4th season and the producers decided to end it rather than gamble on there being a 5th season. I'm sure they would've loved to keep going. In any case, it was a throwaway comment. Way to take it seriously... you sure showed me.

Anyway there is NOTHING wrong with Silent Hill going back to the start to not only symbolize a rebirth of the franchise but puts people in a familiar setting.

No, not necessarily, but you're assuming that's what Konami is doing. So I guess that's really what we're disagreeing on. Here's the bit that I'm hung up on: Konami, who has said on a number of occasions that Silent Hill is too mature for Nintendo's kids consoles, suddenly has a change of heart and brings Silent Hill to the Wii. Except there's a catch: it's a remake and it's also coming to PS2 and PSP. You're clearly siding with Konami here, but I won't, not with their track record on Nintendo hardware for the past, what, 13 years...

I'm curious why you're fighting this so hard though. While I've labeled Shattered Memories a remake (which isn't necessarily an insult), I've also praised Konami for going above and beyond a graphics update. I'm only pointing out my own preference. As a Silent Hill fan, I'd be much more interested in a brand new game and I just can't see why the same gameplay mechanics in Shattered Memories couldn't have been applied to a sequel. And yet, like I've said before, I'm still mildly interested in it.

I'm curious to see just how different from the original Shattered Memories is. The gameplay is certainly different and I like that every locked door can be opened. It seems so minor, but I appreciate the attention to detail. There's a lot of potential to be had there. Also, if this game is designed to fit onto a UMD (Wii as lead platform or not), I wonder how big it can be. A UMD is like 1.8GB.

[ShyGuy]

Do you think reimaginings exist Adrock or is it just marketing buzz?

[Stogi]

This is so stupid.

[TJ Spyke]

There's a lot of potential to be had there. Also, if this game is designed to fit onto a UMD (Wii as lead platform or not), I wonder how big it can be. A UMD is like 1.8GB.

It's possible they created a smaller version just for PSP. Think of all the sports games that got released on the PSP and didn't affect the console versions.

[ShyGuy]

This is so stupid.

NO U

[vudu]

Does Sony still have the third party rule that any cross platform game must have exclusive content?

I think that only applies to late ports.  If all versions are being developed in tandem it shouldn't matter.

[Stratos]

Sometimes re-imaginings or reboots are beneficial to the series. Look at the Batman movies. They were going down hill fast. Instead of making a really good sequel they decided to start fresh with the characters and the universe. This allows you to include old fan favorites that may have been killed off before. Joker died in one of the original Batman movies. But many Bat fans agree he is an integral part of the Batman mythos. A reboot allowed them to bring him back in a form that fit the direction they were doing.

Were the creators of Batman Begins and Dark Knight lazy for choosing to reboot the series instead of continuing the films established events and time line?

[KDR_11k]

Are the movies actually a continuity? I thought they just made up closed scenarios for those with stuff taken from the comic books but no real continuity (besides not using the same villain as that would lack variety).

[broodwars]

Are the movies actually a continuity? I thought they just made up closed scenarios for those with stuff taken from the comic books but no real continuity (besides not using the same villain as that would lack variety).

Kind of: Batman and Batman Returns; Batman Forever and Batman & Robin; and Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Funny how they the Joker died in the original Batman, so they decided to re-boot the series and not kill the Joker, so the actor dies instead.
Maybe some things are just meant to be. Final Destination....


RIP Heath Ledger

[Stratos]

Funny how they the Joker died in the original Batman, so they decided to re-boot the series and not kill the Joker, so the actor dies instead.
Maybe some things are just meant to be. Final Destination....


RIP Heath Ledger

Agreed, RIP Heath Ledger. His Joker role saved me and still inspires me every day.

I always thought the four old movies were of the same continuity. Did they really not follow each other that closely?

[TJ Spyke]

Sometimes re-imaginings or reboots are beneficial to the series. Look at the Batman movies. They were going down hill fast. Instead of making a really good sequel they decided to start fresh with the characters and the universe. This allows you to include old fan favorites that may have been killed off before. Joker died in one of the original Batman movies. But many Bat fans agree he is an integral part of the Batman mythos. A reboot allowed them to bring him back in a form that fit the direction they were doing.

Were the creators of Batman Begins and Dark Knight lazy for choosing to reboot the series instead of continuing the films established events and time line?

I had no problem with Batman Begins other than the fact that the first 45 minutes of the movie sucked ass. I almost shut the movie off and sent it back to Netflix, luckily the rest of the movie gets better (although it still pisses me off that the Scarecrow is only on-screen for about 5 minutes total).

In general I do think it's lazy for studios to just do a re-make of the first movie in a series: Halloween, Friday the 13th, the new Nightmare on Elm Street. Why do horror movies seem especially guilty? I want a new Friday the 13th, not a mediocre re-make of the first (and I hate the term "re-imagining". Why not be honest and say "we are too lazy to come out with a new idea in the franchise and are just gonna re-do a earlier story").

[GoldenPhoenix]

Re-imagining or reboot can be very different from the original, just look at the new upcoming Star Trek. It is a reboot of the series and isn't some rehash of a previous story. It is not lazy to create something set in a familiar universe for the viewer (or in the case of video games, the gamer) to relate better to. The Zelda series is pretty much a re imagining of the same story with each iteration, does that mean its lazy?

[Stratos]

Re-imagining or reboot can be very different from the original, just look at the new upcoming Star Trek. It is a reboot of the series and isn't some rehash of a previous story. It is not lazy to create something set in a familiar universe for the viewer (or in the case of video games, the gamer) to relate better to. The Zelda series is pretty much a re imagining of the same story with each iteration, does that mean its lazy?

I like the rumors surrounding the new Trek about the old Spock being at the end of his life and he's remembering moments from the past. It's a conclusion of the old movies while being a 're-imagining' at the same time if that is true. Leonard Nimoy is in the film after all.

Some people would say the rehashing/re-imagining of Zelda is lazy. That one is pretty well divided as well.