Gameplay is kin-

Combat is awful in all of them. 3 mostly loses points for its linearity but 2 loses points for forgetting to design more than one enemy that can conceivably be a threat.

2's themes and morals are better but the characters are simply tools to convey these messages and don't have much characterisation besides what's immediately relevant for the plot or their symbolism.

3's story is less tight and a bit more nonsensical and ridiculous but because of this it can spend more time developing individual character personalities. Probably the best example is the prevalence of Heather's personal commentary on things VS James'. You get hints of James' mental state from time to time but you see way more of Heather's personality from multiple different angles. I can remember from a funny bit of interaction dialogue that Heather was a heavy smoker in her adolescence and had only recently quit before the events of SH3. I can't remember such personal anecdotes about James or other characters from SH2.

Claudia and Vincent are also more classically-designed "personality-driven" antagonists than Maria was in SH2, where again she mostly exists as a symbol and not a "human being" (of course, this is due to her backstory but still there's a clear focus on function over form in SH2 whereas 3 is the reverse, if that makes sense). You also see this in Douglas VS Angela, Eddie and Laura.

You could write a thousand different stories with different tones and different focuses etc using the characters of SH3 and have it make sense but you can't do the same with SH2's characters without a lot of extrapolation and speculation of their personality traits.

Attached: fa1483e3fc6f1e5a9526793f512521927c0a4e2d_00.gif (320x146, 983.65K)

3's the peak of Silent Hill

2 is not nearly as scary as 3. The horror is a lot more subdued to the point that it's just disturbing in 2 VS actually scary in SH1 and 3.

You're right. It doesn't have the best story. It's actually an ongoing embarrassment that this game is taken so seriously.

2 is at least as linear as 3.

Nonsense. 2 has no substantial "themes and morals". It's like talking about the "themes and morals" of Drive. It's dead-simple but resonates with people because the stuff it aims for rings true. Largely because of the simplicity. The game's not Buddenbrooks. James is not complex. He's just not explicitly revealed to you all at once. Silent Hill 2's strength is in playing this stuff out at a game's pace. If it were reduced to a movie or writing it would be terrible.

Also the subtext of 3 seems to have flown entirely over your head. No surprise, this is Any Forums.

Series is dead OP, time to move on.

btw which version of shattered memories is the best to play? I read that the PS versions are worse compared to the wii version, but is that true or just nintendofags blowing hot air as usual?

Attached: 1652424043515.jpg (1704x927, 340.75K)

You're a dumb cunt.

-g
Silent Hill 2 had great gameplay, even if its combat wasn't the best.
It does a lot of subtle and invisible things to affect your ending that are tied to how you play the game

Silent Hill 2 the ultimate video game pseud idol.

>It does a lot of subtle and invisible things to affect your ending that are tied to how you play the game
This mechanic is very interesting especially if you don't tell people about it going in. I always like seeing what endings my friends get their first blind playthroughs.

You're right about that but you're still a dumb cunt.

Yeah.
It's interesting because it's not really telling you what kind of person the player is but it's the game interpreting what kind of person James is based on his actions.
It's a bit like how in split brain experiments, they'll tell the right half of a person's brain to do something, and then ask the other half why they did that and it'll fabricate a reason for it.
The game is interpreting James' character based on the actions the player took. The player may be making their choices for any number of reasons but the game is writing its ending based on the story you've written up to that point

And you call people 'dumb cunt' in writing. Are you an Australian suburbanite by any chance?

Which ending is canon in your mind?

Attached: Death_message_to_james.png (1024x768, 1.32M)

>turn off flashlight
>FUCK that radio noise

Oh yeah, it's SH time

It is the most fitting description for a halfling mongrel such as yourself.

Leave is the most satisfying to me but that's just because I enjoy redemption stories.

A good story isn't measured by how good it's themes or morals are in relation to other stories. There are shitty suicide stories and there are good suicide stories. Period.

Like this user says > stories became good when the fictionalized things they talk about ring true to the spectator, reader or player. And that's accomplished by investment and empathy, not themes.

Also, the town itself is James' antagonist, not Maria. The same for Heather, Claudia may be a villain but the main thing that opposes heather's journey (her true antagonist) is Silent Hill or it's power.
On the other hand, Maria is not a human being, she is an illusion created by James' desires and fears, it makes sense that she isn't as human as you might expect her to be.

As this user says, a story becomes good when the things it fictionalizes becomes true to the one who is reading, playing or watching the story. Themes and how quirky characters are has nothing to do with it.

filtered hard

Oh shit i repeated myself twice, I am a retard and I need sleep.

In water

That's right. You are a retard. Hence, your point has been invalidated and I stand triumphant.

I won.

what about SH 4 and the rest of the series

I am the smartest poster on Any Forums and the only white person who understands Silent Hill.