It really is hilarious the absolutely Olympic-level mental gymnastics people will do to try and take what was ultimately a technical/budget-centric decision and turn it into some kind of masterful design choice. Using a fixed camera allowed them to cut down on some of the geometry they would need to render on the PS2, saving performance and memory. Go look at Zealot Tormunds's videos about his third person camera mods for SH2/3. He shows a few of the areas where he had to go back and add in geometry because his mod allows you to see things you weren't supposed to, like missing walls or ceilings. Shit, even with his mod installed you can still see things in the bowling alley that were clearly done to save on rendering, like alcoves that lead to nowhere or a bowling pin that has the half you can't see missing.
I actually just played through the original again after going through the remake. I say this as a fan that played the original back in 2001 and has played it multiple times since:
The remake is much better.
- The camera in the original doesn't make the game more tense at all. It just makes it more difficult to see anything and to get where you're going. It adds frustration, not tension.
- As much as I dislike the combat in the remake, the original makes it seem like it was designed by Platinum. And no, don't give me that bullshit excuse that the unresponsive controls and bad aiming are there to make you feel less powerful. They're there because Team Silent in 2001 couldn't design a good combat system.
- Holy shit the original is like 1/3 the size of the remake, and it's worse off for it. So much of the original feels incomplete compared to the remake, like the remake is the intended director's cut of the film while the original is the shitty theatrical version edited by the studio.
- The voice acting in the remake is astoundingly good. Every member of the cast knocks it out of the park. While the OG is fine for 2001, it comes off as much more stilted and less engaging that the remake. "Oh, well it's supposed to be like that cause MUH DAVID LYNCH" is another bullshit excuse made by fanboys to hand wave away criticism. It completely kills the emotional weight of the story when most of the dialogue is delivered in a way that wouldn't pass muster in a mid-level anime dub nowadays. The cast of the remake, especially James, shows the FUCK up in comparison.
- The cut scenes are from another dimension in terms of direction, emotional impact, and quality compared to the ones from the original game. This should be expected given the 23 year age gap, but it's really hard to overstate how well done they are.
- The environments in the remake are chock full of so much more detail and feel like actual places, while the ones in the OG can often feel sparse and empty in comparison.
I'll even take my assessment a step further. Silent Hill 2 Remake is not only better than the original, it's the best Silent Hill game ever made and an absolute stone-cold classic of its genre. Bloober Team has pulled off one of the most unexpected surprises in gaming history, and my only hope is that Konami gives them to the green light to do remakes for SH1 and 3.
A lot of people just weren't around when Silent Hill 2 launched on PS2. It's an excellent game and one of my favourites of all time, but a great deal of its legendary status has been built up in the last decade by Youtuber essayists, often regurgitating the exact same talking points and fan theories. Analysis of the game became so trendy that it has frankly been done to death. There is literally nothing left to say at this point.
I suppose its only fitting that the Lakeview Hotel in the remake is modelled directly off the Overlook Hotel from The Shining - another thing that's been analysed to death.
Reviewers in 2001 had many of the same criticisms you point out now and for most it was a pretty definitive 8/10 sort of game. Great but not perfect. A lot of people even found it a little disappointing, particularly in Japan, which prompted Team Silent to rethink what they wanted to do with Silent Hill 3 (oh no, yet another example of the master auteurs reacting to outsider influence!).
I always share this video whenever people talk up SH2's combat as some sort of masterpiece:
While I agree with critics' assessment that the remake's combat is simplistic and gets repetitive (*both of these criticisms can be levelled against the original too), the general feel of the combat in the remake is
leagues ahead of the original. There is so much more weight and brutality to the combat now. The difficulty of the game is also balanced really well i'm finding, at least at the normal difficulty level.
Also regarding the camera, I remember that in the original the camera can be swung around James at any time with the L2 button. A lot of trendy Youtubers talk about the game having 'fixed camera angles', when that just wasn't the case - it was a chase cam that can be manipulated into a sort of over-the-shoulder cam. And why can it be manipulated? Well I think that comes back to what Masashi said about them not being completely happy with the functionality of the chase cam, so there are options for when the player's visibility suffers.
The chase cam can undeniably create some amazing camera angles at points eg. in the original Silent Hill when walking through the first dog alley (that one was good enough for the movie to copy), but they ended up committing to a lot of camera annoyance for the sake of those few moments.
Thanks for the gold!
That’s the best mask IMO. The other two masks don’t do that for me.
