You really can never go home again.

Posted by ASandoval on October 14, 2008 under Games | 4 Comments to Read

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell a fellow patron of gaming that I’m working towards being a video game journalist. The term has something of a stigma these days, due to a misconceived notion that we’re out to wave our fingers in the face of the game community, telling them that they don’t really like the games that they do. “Not true!” I usually exclaim. Aside from the fact that the general business of publication makes it the exact opposite (It’s amazing how an all expense paid trip along with free booze can make even the worst games seem like amazing blockbusters), the finer rules of criticism are outlined to give a general overview of the thing that is being critiqued. I’ve openly stated many times how awesome Astyanax for NES is, but really it’s a horrible game. The sprites are nearly as big as the screen, you get knocked back almost 90% of the time into pits and the colors make everything a discernable mess. But I like the game, for my own reasons (shadows of nostalgia not withstanding) yet would probably have a hard time recommending the game to anyone else.

That’s not to say the stereotype doesn’t exist in some capacity. In some cases it’s probably just a bad reviewer who takes things about the game more personally than he or she should. Other times though, it’s harder with certain games or genres to really make a critical opinion without considering the audience. I suppose that’s the reason why Silent Hill: Homecoming was doomed from the start.

I like Silent Hill: Homecoming a lot, both as a fan of the series and as a standalone game. I got a lot more out of it than what is probably its most nearest cousin, Resident Evil 4. On the surface, both games do a lot of the same thing to make it easier. The combat is streamlined, letting you take care of the aiming. Movement is made easier by letting you turn the character with the left analog stick. In contrast, Resident Evil 4 is more focused on action, something that’s been slowly taking the series over from the beginning. It starts out genuinely terrifying at first, when you’re overwhelmed by crazed villagers, but as you fight the same enemies in the same rooms repeatedly, collecting more ammo and health items than you’ll know what to do with, using a character who has a roundhouse that would make Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse jealous, the trademark tension of the series kinds of dies down. Silent Hill: HC on the other hand, has very limited ammo and health items along with enemies placed intentionally in ways to keep the tension and pacing satisfying. American developers Double Helix even took the time to help streamline the puzzles, making them just difficult enough that most average people shouldn’t have much trouble figuring them out and continuing on their way without interrupting the game’s pacing, rather than nearly eschewing them altogether in the way Resident Evil 4 did.

So why is Silent Hill: HC getting hammered on the internet when Resident Evil 4 was praised as being the game of the year it came out?

I don’t know if there’s any way I can be impartial to this, so I’m going to break it down from my opinion the best I can. Horror games are a niche genre; they appeal primarily to the people who liked them despite nagging controls and back tracking to swap a wooden crest with the real deal. In saying that, I’m not trying to defend outdated game mechanics as being good, they annoyed me then and they annoy me now, but I am saying that these games live and breathe on the tension and immersion that they create. It’s something more powerful and endearing than any game quirks, and makes looking over them fairly easy. Resident Evil 4 forgoes this entirely by reworking the series into something everyone can appreciate. I respect that, even as one of the many fans of the former series who were left, well, a little butt hurt by Capcom’s decision. This only looks to continue into Resident Evil 5, as the producer has admitted that the game probably won’t look much like survival horror at all once you have another player with you.

Silent Hill is a different story, however. Double Helix understood that survival horror, and the series in general, has rules. So combat is carried out against terrifying monsters who work more on patterns than AI, the game plays slower than Resident Evil, and you have to fully explore the environment to make sure you have all the puzzle items needed to progress. It makes all the improvements to the series while still feeling like an entry to the game; something fans of the genre who still cling to familiar horror territory like Fatal Frame are likely to appreciate.

So what do the reviewers want? Because Silent Hill: HC refuses to be the Meta game, something that can appeal to all types of gamers, it becomes chastised before taking into consideration the improvements that were actually made. And yet, it’s the reviewer’s job to be as unbiased and objective as they can. Is this possible, judging the game for its merit as a play thing before looking at it for the community it was made for? I honestly don’t have an answer. I’d like to see the issue addressed however, because the aforementioned stereotypes about game journalists as bitter elitists is a hard one to swallow.