Hall of Greats Compendium



  • @dipset Personally I agree about Skyrim, but I think that Silent Hill is really an outstanding game and an achievement in horror. That being said, I think the difficult thing is that horror is so subjective. Everyone admires a different branch, so it can be hard to present it to a panel of people who may have very varying horror interests, and probably makes it one of the most difficult genres to get into HoG.



  • @happygaming

    I recently played Silent Hill 1 & 2 for the first time a few years ago, and I really like both games, but if you play them back to back like I did, it's impossible to ignore how much SH2 rehashes a lot of the design from Silent Hill 1. I honestly find the first game is more original and the sequel is more of the same. For example, the apartment complex in SH2 is basically the exact same location and plays the exact same as the school in SH1. Both parts are long drawn areas of the game.

    Then in regards to the HoG's arguments for it, they keep arguing how amazing the storytelling is but this argument is woefully choosing to ignore extremely bad voice acting and dialogue. I don't disagree that the plot and setup is really thoughtful and I appreciate how the enemies and locations all feed in on the themes of the game world, but that doesn't mean the game isn't full of bad cutscenes.

    I just think it's a hard sell for Hall of Greats. Especially when there are multiple Resident Evil games in there and those games are the prototype for classic survival horror. You already have the crowning achievement represented so its hard to say, "well this one is also one of the greats" when the game it took most of its ideas from is already in the HoG's in the first place.



  • @dipset

    I've been revisiting the old inductions over the last week or so, and I think something that also makes it difficult for Silent Hill 2 is like, how you mentioned, that it doesn't reinvent the game from the original (also one of my favorites though). I think it is similar mechanically to a classic Resident Evil, but I also think the way it prioritizes certain elements over others really turns it into its own thing.

    Looking at Resident Evil 4 and Remake, those are both games that are a peak of their respective styles, and managed to change something dramatically that the industry took note of. Silent Hill 2, with nothing against 3 or 4, was basically the peak of an excellent and unique franchise that only went downhill afterwards, and the industry just didn't really take a lot of inspiration from how it played. Even thematically, there just aren't a lot of psychological-horror games with stories told in quite the same way.

    There are a lot of games that have come out which we can clearly trace a trajectory from, and Silent Hill 2 just unfortunately didn't inspire those in the same way that things like those Resident Evil games did. I don't think that makes Silent Hill a worse game, but I do think it makes it harder to look at from a global or broader historical perspective as an inductee into the HoG.

    As far as horror theming goes though, I definitely recognize I'm slightly biased; I lean way more towards Silent Hill theming and pace than Resident Evil for my personal tastes.



  • @happygaming

    Yeah and like the Allies too, I almost feel bad for criticizing a game that I genuinely like such as Silent Hill 2, but in terms of being objective about the "electability" of the game, I think we laid down a case why it's a hard sell, despite it being a pretty damn good game.

    I think the next person that brings it needs to sell the game in the context of it belonging in the Hall of Greats as opposed to just complimenting the story itself.

    Per Skyrim, that game will never get in. I would take Oblivion over Skyrim personally, but I just don't think any single of the Allies will sell Skyrim as The open world RPG to get in, especially now that The Witcher III is in.



  • @dipset said in Hall of Greats Compendium:

    @happygaming

    Yeah and like the Allies too, I almost feel bad for criticizing a game that I genuinely like such as Silent Hill 2, but in terms of being objective about the "electability" of the game, I think we laid down a case why it's a hard sell, despite it being a pretty damn good game.

    I think the next person that brings it needs to sell the game in the context of it belonging in the Hall of Greats as opposed to just complimenting the story itself.

    Per Skyrim, that game will never get in. I would take Oblivion over Skyrim personally, but I just don't think any single of the Allies will sell Skyrim as The open world RPG to get in, especially now that The Witcher III is in.

    I agree that Skyrim is a hard sell but I think it deserves it. Not only is it hard to articulate why Skyrim is a 'great', but unlike Silent Hill 2, it's not universally agreed to be the iterative peak of the series at release. If Skyrim was Oblivion but better, it would be easier to argue, but in many ways it's worse.

    I don't really find the Witcher 3 very comparable to Skyrim. They seem vastly different design ideologies. One is "explore and interact with the world that you find". The other is: "here are stories, play through these stories as you see fit".

    It's this difference that is in part why I think it is a Great. No game lets you do anything quite like Skyrim does.



  • Also, HBomberguy released a great video this weekend about Fallout: New Vegas. It does a really good job of articulating why the game is so good. I'm mourning that it'll never get brought to Hall of Greats.

    Youtube Video



  • @hazz3r

    Yeah I hear what you're saying. Bethesda-style open world RPGs are kinda like their own genre for that matter and I feel like any great RPG recommendation should include one of either Morrowwind, Oblivion, or Skyrim (in which I'd elect Oblivion). I guess in the context of HoG, it might look like any RPG nominee should be up to The Witcher III's standard.

    This here is a really good way of putting it though:

    One is "explore and interact with the world that you find". The other is: "here are stories, play through these stories as you see fit".

    I feel like The Witcher series in general is just unravelling plots and your decisions affect those plots whereas TES is like "You just stumbled across our shady back alley thief cult that meets in the rain at 2am. Congrats! You are a thief now."



  • @hazz3r

    Yeah, I don't think Skyrim is a bad game. I do think that for it to be inducted though, the memes and irony that it's picked up over the past decade are going to have to be put aside, and that's going to be a difficult task. I especially think about that with Jones starting his induction speech by saying he was 'bringing it unironically'.

    It really is very different to The Witcher 3 too like you were saying, with Skyrim having that emphasis on the exploration side. I think personally that's why I prefer one over the other, but it also may be a point of why it's a difficult sell; I can't go back to Skyrim. Like Breath of the Wild, with that core philosophy of 'explore and go where you want' I've found going back to either game a difficulty, but still retain positive memories of playing both. Those memories are going to just vary drastically because of the open ended nature of the game.

    While I admire in the presentations people talking about the zeitgeist of coming into the office to hear about what everyone did the night before, I don't know that that's enough. However, I don't know how to present the game in positive ways beyond trying to recount that freedom and open-endedness.



  • @hazz3r At least Skyrim has more character and intrigue than in many Ubisoft open-world games.



  • @jdincinerator said in Hall of Greats Compendium:

    @hazz3r At least Skyrim has more character and intrigue than all Ubisoft open-world games combined.

    Completely agree! 😄