What began as uncommon brilliance on the PlayStation, has degraded into a convoluted and senseless exercise in flexing visceral muscle while offering less and less in the way of engaging play. And the downward spiral began here.
In a career spanning interview, I speak to the creator of the Silent Hill, Siren, and Gravity Rush franchises about his 30 year time within the industry, what his thoughts are in making the transition from working for a AAA publisher to essentially becoming an independent, whether he’d be open to working on new iterations of the franchises that he’s renowned for, whether he’d be open to collaborating with any of the horror greats in the games industry, and what his long-term goals are for the next 30 years… Enjoy!
Interesting read, although the questions should have been more focused, and I think Gravity Rush, at least the first one, is fairly dark. Never got into the sequel.
I loved both games. There are pervasive themes of darkness worked in, but they're very vibrant games and Kat (history withstanding) is a very light-hearted character in a world that has its dark moments, but it's very generally upbeat, especially in comparison to Siren and Silent Hill.
Wait, dude made all 3? Wtf? Dude has a knack for cult classics like damn
"So most of the games that I’ve worked on have been new IPs, even though I’ve made different franchises and stuff. But I want to note that every time I make a new IP, my resources are pretty limited, and they’re limited by the company that I’ve worked for. So in that sense, Silent Hill, Siren, and the first Gravity Rush game, I think that we were striving to achieve something new, as opposed to making a big budget videogame. So I feel the need to do that every 3, 4, or 5 years. And I keep making new games, so going individual, like going indie right now, for me, I don’t really feel limited, I feel that it suits me more. So it feels like I’ve got an advantage, because I know how to work with limited resources."
That's encouraging. I really hope Sony would approach Toyama-san for a Gravity Rush sequel.
Cultured Vultures: We’ve rounded up the most well-aged PS2 games out there, just in case you’ve been meaning to revisit some childhood memories, or even if you’re checking out the PlayStation 2 for the very first time.
id throw haunting ground into the mix. it still looks fantastic.
but i still dont quite understand why we never got a dragon quest 8 remaster for ps4. even the damn 3ds got one.
Silent Hill 3 was straight up sorcery. It has better hair animation than most modern games, which is wild to me.
TNS: “Nightmare fuel to say the least, check out the 10 most terrifying Silent Hill monsters, and what they symbolize.”
Silent Hill 3 is a fantastic game.
The industry has come a long way since then, and playing it now it does show some age, but it is still terrifying at points.
Just the soundtrack alone makes this game worthy of more than a 6, this reviewer has no grasp on this type of game.
If people wanted to buy silent hill 3. They would have already done it by now. This game been out for like 7-8 years. Seriously what is up with people reviewing games that came out years ago.
1. What's the point in reviewing a game that came out year ago?
2. SH3 is worth far more than a 6/10. It may not be perfect, but it's better than average and one of the last examples of a true survival horror title.
6/10 is borderline "shit game" territory. :(
I'd disagree with that. I'd argue that this review shows a great authority of the genre. I liked Silent Hill 3, but it was the middle game between the series at its peak (1 & 2) and its self destruction (4 especially and Homecoming).
Heather was easily the best protaganist of the series, but the rest of the game simply did not get into your head like the two before it.
All Silent Hill soundtracks are worthy of complete praise. That they dropped Akira Yamaoka from the new game just goes to show how little clue they have left.
I see no problem in retro reviewing either; I do it myself a lot. If someone wants to write about Dragon Age 2 or Thunder Force 1 on the Sharp X1, that's their call. Our ony choice is if we choose to read it or not.
What would the point be in reviewing a game on obsolete merits? None of us are likely to fall into a time/space tear that throws us back 20 years and wipes our memories of the advancements the media has made in the meanwhile. If playing a game now is painful, then because it wasn't X amount of years ago should be used as a crutch for its shortcomings. That's why reviews are date stamped.
Pacman is a great example because Namco knew it was outdated so brought it back up to date with Championship Edition. Otherwise, it's only place in today's market would, realistically, be nothing more than nostalgic.