Silent Hill Zerorigins

[davidn]

I'm not totally sure where the tradition for doing "Zero" entries to a series, the logical step backwards from the first to represent a part of the story that happens before it, came from. Certainly the first prequel that I heard naming itself this way was Ring Zero. The Cube series started off with Cube, then Hypercube when it added an extra dimension, then Cube Zero (which really should have been called Square). I'm sure there are many others. Silent Hill Origins was called Silent Hill Zero in Japan, but they clearly thought that nobody else would get it and they tacked "rigins" onto the title to form the odd hybrid that it eventually ended up with.

The game opens with CB radio speak that might as well be in a foreign language ("20/20, ten pints right. Keep the hens in the henhouse") that introduces Travis, a trucker who rather overoptimistically decides to take a shortcut through Silent Hill in the middle of the night. While a-truckin' down the road he sees a cloaked figure in the mist ahead in much the same way as the first game, slams his brakes on and comes to an emergency stop in an impressively short distance of about a mile and a half. After getting out, he sees nobody there, but when a distressed figure appears in the mirror he flees into Silent Hill, a mistake unmatched by even the most dim-witted protagonists in the series yet. To cut a long story short, he then finds the Gillespie house on fire and saves the smouldering Alessa, starting the events that began the series in the first place.

For some reason I had heard a lot of things about this game that caused me to have low expectations of it. The average score from players on Gamefly was around 6/10, Yahtzee's review of it was fairly scathing (but then, when isn't he), and I had mentioned because of those that when I started playing it I was expecting it to be (quote) a bit rubbish. But I've been pleasantly surprised - for everything that's been said about it, I honestly think that it's the closest to classic Silent Hill that the series has managed to come since the second game. It might be just because I'd been so alienated by the complete departure that was Silent Hill 4, but it's oddly nice to see the familiar things again - having to hunt around darkened buildings (sometimes in a ghastly alternate dimension) with rooms that have been stricken with some sort of Dutch Door Disease, trying to find the rooms you can enter and then working out gradually how to escape in between running away from half-seen apparitions with heads on their bottoms and legs growing out of their ears. Lisa the nurse is back as well, with a new voice actress who's merely sub-par instead of wallbangingly appalling.

A new addition to the gameplay comes in the form of being able to switch between the light and dark dimensions via the use of - and I will probably have this game to thank for playing on and fully awakening another thing I've always found unsettling - mirrors, which show the wrong reflection and will transport you between the worlds when they're touched. This makes the possessed world become more a fact of exploration than something that you're forced into by the plot, and instills a new sense of dread in you, that in order to progress you're going to have to visit it voluntarily. In fact, because of the way that the worlds are now used as part of the general puzzle in this way, with some parts of the scenery being subtly different (for example, you have to knock a key down a drain in the light world and then switch to the dark one to pick it up, because in the dark world the grate on the drain isn't there) I find myself wondering if somebody on the team had played through Trilby's Notes, which itself took an enormous amount of inspiration from the Silent Hill series and used two parallel worlds in this way. It's a nice thought, anyway.

As for things that might have prompted the negative opinions that I've seen... well, it's true that as far as the story goes, Travis doesn't seem to have a whole lot of reason for being in Silent Hill. Unlike other people who were searching for others (or themselves in time paradoxes), he doesn't seem to have quite strong enough a connection to the place to really want to find out what's going on as much as he does - his first objective is to see if Alessa is all right, but at the stage we're at he seems to have forgotten about that and is following clues to seemingly irrelevant places like a demented Treasure Hunt with Anneka Rice. I would certainly have started finding a way out when the second location that the game directed me to was a giant abandoned sanitarium. And some of the combat feels a bit strange - there seems to be an encouragement to use melee weapons like in the fourth game, except those weapons break faster than most of my webpages.

This is offset, though, because as far as inventory management goes, Travis seems to be completely opposite from the dimwitted Henry in the fourth game, who had difficulty carrying more than a couple of playing cards around. Instead, he seems to have a jacket that easily rivals my own, and is able to haul around multiple TV sets, filing cabinets, golf clubs, a couple of hatstands, bottles and sticks of various sizes and still have room left over for a few guns if throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the nightmarish apparitions around him doesn't put them off enough. Ammo is not rare either - in the fourth game you had an irritating choice between clogging up your severely limited inventory space and using weapons that were totally useless, but after experiencing that, not feeling that even the basic pistol is too good to use on anything and has to be saved up is very welcome.

And the part that I pined for in the fourth game: the puzzles are back. No half-hearted sticking cards in marked places on a wall this time - instead you get properly demented ones like having to feed horrible-looking dolls different coloured pills according to what mental disorder they represent to open a desk drawer for some reason and a very Myst-like episode with an iron lung. There isn't a choice between putting them on Dipstick, Normal or Completely Bloody Impossible modes like in the second and third games, so it looks like you only get the one set this time - but what we've seen so far are at just the right level, just difficult enough to make you feel clever about working them out afterwards.

If there's one thing that I think has been wrong with the series for a while it's the bosses, because the games' combat was always awkward by design - it's meant to make you feel like your characters were fragile and really didn't know how to handle weapons. But during fights with large monsters, the result is generally that you had a direct mutually exclusive choice between shooting and trying to run away, meaning that boss fights are exercises in standing still and pounding away while checking your life force every so often (and the stylistic choice of using red-amber-green for your health, only absent from the fourth game, means that I always have to have someone on hand to tell me how my state looks). In this one, movement seems a little more free - at least, I defeated our latest boss just by shooting all the shotgun ammo I'd saved up at it while continually walking backwards - but it still seems like something that could work rather better. I've actually heard that the team doing the next game said that they had replaced the boss fights with things that were more "Zelda-style", which sounds like possibly a good idea but puts strange images into my head of Harry Mason spinning round on the spot madly with the Master Sword.

Comments

[kjorteo]

Regarding prequels: sometimes they're a quick way to cash in on a franchise already had a definite ending, especially if popular characters you want to use again happened to die in the climax. The Castlevania timeline has it that Dracula is absolutely finally really and truly killed forever in 1999. Two games have been made with this in mind--Aria of Sorrow was the one that established it, and Dawn of Sorrow is its direct sequel. Both have "Dracula really is dead, what now?" as the central key ideas to, if not the entirety of their plots. Meanwhile, they've gleefully included Dracula in at least two proper games since then (possibly more if you count the cell phone versions and such) just by setting them in the middle ages.

Sometimes they can also happen because the "before" version of a character who underwent a major character change somehow becomes massively popular, significantly moreso than the "after" version. Legend of Zelda games have more or less been made in reverse chronological order because everyone loves Ganondorf and no one really even remembers Ganon anymore, except for as a temporary One-Winged Angel form Ganondorf sometimes takes in multi-stage endboss fights depending on which game we're talking about. Even my own work has elements of this--I made a certain story or two as (among other reasons) an exploration of what Sara was like before she became a demon, and ended up liking the result so much that I will happily retcon the whole demon thing out of existence the second I figure out how to handle the eventual much-later elements that rely on it. (As it stands, every picture of her you see without giant wings and a prehensile rat tail is essentially her Ganondorf form. You probably didn't even know that because it's so strongly taken over!)

[kjorteo]

Technical correction. Not that you care if you haven't played the games, but just for the sake of nitpicking....

"The Castlevania timeline has it that Dracula is absolutely finally really and truly killed forever in 1999 ... Meanwhile, they've gleefully included Dracula in at least two proper games since then (possibly more if you count the cell phone versions and such) just by setting them in the middle ages."

Actually, there have been a total of four games counting the one cell phone one (I forgot Curse of Darkness.) Curse of Darkness (PS2) is set in 1479, Portrait of Ruin (DS) is set in 1944, Order of Shadows (cell phones) "takes place in the late 1600s, sometime before the events of the NES Castlevania; however, it is a side story, and thus, not part of Koji Igarashi's official timeline," and Order of Ecclesia (DS) "takes place after Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, sometime in the mid 1800s."

Anyway, my point that they killed off Dracula for real in 1999 and just started setting games before that so they could keep using him stands.

[rakarr.livejournal.com]

That is something that has annoyed me about (some of) the Zelda games for a while. Everything is Ganondorf Ganondorf Ganondorf Ganondorf Ganondorf GanondorfGanondorfGanondorf!!! I thought he fit Ocarina of Time like a glove, but I don't even like him that much.
I've actually noticed that Nintendo just likes to copy and paste its formula for Zelda and claim it's revolutionary, of late (ignoring for the moment that this is Nintendo's reason d'etre). Twilight Princess was an enjoyable romp but really did nothing for me. One or two new and mildly interest items don't really make up for the overall mediocrity. And was the final boss completely pointless, or what?

Of course, it's made the fans and those are the people who will continue to support this trend. Hell, I myself will probably keep picking up the new Zelda games even if I'm not wholly satisfied, because they do continue to present quality gaming, and a sense of anticipation that is hard to match.

[kjorteo]

Well, there is one reason Twilight Princes is enjoyable if not groundbreaking.

[starfishchris.livejournal.com]

Is it a furry fail because he's not human enough?

(Not played TP, being away from the Wii for very long periods of time does not help this, either)

[kjorteo]

Actually, it's a furry fail mostly because it's a screenshot from a certain NSFW flash game. If you fail, you, um, turn into a furry.

[davidn]

Is this that one that you got me to play with the Manticores (helpfully you told me that it isn't for people who don't like sudden shocks just after I died the first time)? Although I don't actually remember any endings in that one that didn't involve manticores.

Yes, I know. I'm catching up with my LJ comments. (I can save time posting another one, though - I've only ever played one Zelda game through, Link's Awakening, and I have no idea about any of what you said above! However, if Twilight Princess has that in it...)

[kjorteo]

That one with the manticores is perfectly SFW with the exception of one or two implied scenes (in which you get Manticored before anything actually happens) and it came out well before Twilight Princess, so no.

It's a...um...oh, I may as well just admit it. It's one of those smutty hentai flash game involving Link and Midna, where "game" is taken to mean "thing where you cycle through various versions of the act to try and get the "pleasure" gauge up." If you just sit there looking stupid without doing anything for long enough for the gauge to go completely negative, you...um...fail, and turn into a furry. (And once you've embraced your inner furriness, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that clicking on the wolf instead of the "restart" button on this screen leads to an...alternate version of the game....)

Using my sad Bulbasaur icon because admitting I actually know all this doesn't put me in the best light, I'm sure.

Edit: Oh, and on the other game, what about the ZZT ending? That didn't involve manticores, though admittedly it was a little hidden.

[davidn]

Out of everything we've talked about, this is what you're most hesitant to mention? Thanks for the tip ;) The manticore one isn't SF my W if it causes me to scream out loud when I get a shock ending, although if Loud Man over the partition is once again shouting down the phone to someone about the last time he had sex, then I'm not sure everyone would notice any noise from my side of the wall.

I did eventually get to the ZZT section of the game under your instruction, but I don't remember getting to anything that I remembered as an ending, more a sort of drifting around in an eternal limbo of passages as an ASCII face not understanding what was happening or having any idea what to do. It was rather like the community, in fact.

[kjorteo]

You know I'm open, but there are some entertainment-related things that are just slightly embarrassing to admit you've seen and enjoyed! Professional wrestling, x-rated flash games involving nonhuman Zelda characters, Helloween music videos....

[rakarr.livejournal.com]

I didn't find myself salivating over either Link or Midna as a lot of people did. It was an interesting gameplay element, but still not as wonderful as it was anticipated to be, I think.
(I sound highly critical in all the posts I've made here. Like I said, I'm hard to please.)

[rakarr.livejournal.com]

I hope this doesn't rain on your parade, so to speak, but I found that the game started out with promise but was ultimately rather disappointing and unfulfilling, especially when compared with other games in the series.
There are numerous annoying things, too, like the sheer breakability of everything you pick up, causing you to want to use only your fists, and like enemies successfully executing grab moves from halfway across the room.

Although better than Silent Hill 4's, I didn't find the puzzles in Origins to be nearly as in-depth as those in the other games. Usually they involve the level design and the way the dark and light realms interact, which I did like. And I have to say, there is one level in particular that I really, really enjoyed and I think screamed classic Silent Hill.

Overall it is a good game that does some good things, but is simply disappointing, by its end, as a Silent Hill installment.
With that said, I really hope you find something to like about it, or at least enjoy your time with it.

[davidn]

I have been enjoying it so far - though I have no doubt that my view of it is heightened by coming from the rather confusing and confused Silent Hill 4, and remembering the worst bits of SH3 before it.

We've now just completed the theatre stage (strange, isn't it, that the Silent Hill games almost have this distinct concept of levels that have been out of adventure-type games like it for ages?), and there have been frustrating moments - the largest being just how many hits you can take from the upside-down puppets once their strings have been cut - but your stopping power seems to have returned back to where it was in SH1 and 2, where you could definitely knock down and then finish off the monsters, compared to SH3 where you were given a submachine gun and they just never died, or SH4 where the safest option was just to run away (and I still do this out of habit). It's weird that the things you can pick up break quite so easily - a hammer shouldn't fall to bits when put in contact with an undead nurse's head - but at least the supply of them is plentiful and you don't feel like you're wasting critical ammunition.

I would probably have liked the option to ramp up the difficulty in the puzzles (the piano puzzle from SH1 is perhaps my favourite moment from them ever), but again I've liked the ones I've seen so far. I though the iron lung puzzle was a lot more in-depth than it really was, though. I've also noticed that they're often presented in very different ways from before - instead of cryptic poetry to decipher, there are little notes everywhere that say things like "Mike, remember you can't raise the safety curtain without the stage lights on, that bulbs A+B can't exceed the wattage of D, which is half as much as twice of what's missing from C. And tell that electrician I want a word with him".

I hadn't been aware that the developers were different in Origins (I thought that only started in SH5) until I started, but a lot of things I'd heard about it made me have low expectations and this has exceeded them so far. It seems like they've just experimented with changing a couple of things from the older formulae that I preferred, and the effect to me is that it's certainly a lot closer to the Silent Hill that I know than the last game in the series I played.

[rakarr.livejournal.com]

Your post has got me thinking about Origins with more generosity than usual, and remembering it a fonder light. Being something of a fussy purist when it comes to a beloved series like Silent Hill, and being especially critical when new developers take over, I was somewhat unforgiving of it. But, as the last time I played it was, I think, in the halcyon days of last Christmas holidays, maybe enough time has passed for me to give it another try.

I tend to espouse that developers should try to at least make one game in a familiar format, to get a feel for how things work before going off half-cocked to make changes, and I think they tried to stay faithful here. I think in this case the problem is that they stayed faithful without really having an understanding what they were remaining faithful to, so a lot of it felt like it was thrown in during failed attempts at emulation or for pointless fan-service (I also note the pointless protagonist). I'm impossible to please, no?

But, as I said, it is a good game and enjoyable to play. The levels are fun to explore and solve and, perhaps most importantly, they are creepy and intimidating. I do agree that there is a pervasive Silent Hill feel, which is perhaps why I was so disappointed when it didn't meet my expectations in other areas. Overall it is worth picking up again, I think.

However, I have almost no desire to try Silent Hill 5.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

Mathematician's point:

A hypercube can be of any dimension, one speaks of the n-dimensional hypercube.

So, really, the sequel should've been hypercube 4: tesseract. The prequels could've been hypercube 2: square and hyperdube 1:line.

Ideally the last could simultaneously function as hypersphere 1: line segment, leading to two series with a common prequel.

[kjorteo]

Or Hypercube 1: Timecube. There are four simultaneous 24-hour Cube movies.

[davidn]

There are what - four of them? Simultaneous? This makes less sense than ever now. I've only seen the first two.

[kjorteo]

No, not really. I was just making a reference. :)

[davidn]

Oh. I understand it now. Who said I was quick? I mean, the maths explanation above made my head spin round even more than the second film (which I think is my favourite of them because it's less intense, even though as it stands it's... not very good. I prefer the camp element of it, I think.)