Looking back, was it really that bad? Sure it was different and at times slow...

Looking back, was it really that bad? Sure it was different and at times slow, but it had a unique system and method of telling a story. The Room itself was one of the best and scariest storytelling designs in a Silent Hill game

Attached: IMG_6717.jpg (220x284, 15K)

I'm about to start my playthrough of 2 which will eventually lead to me playing 4 after 3. I can't wait to play it for myself. It really seems unique and the monster designs get to me more than any other in the series.

Attached: D57FofbXkAUIf6-.jpg (1200x675, 159K)

off topic question but do people play horror games like they watch horror movies? to be scared and on edge?

It was extremely clunky. It was scary and creepy and had a neat story sure but eventually you start to realise you just hate the mechanics of the game more than anything else and stop.

the lore and story is fucking great. henry is good protagonist for game like this because hes not the center of the story.

I do, yeah. That's most of the point, but it's also because they offer a unique setting that you don't normally see in other genres. Horror is a lot more effective through games than movies since you're the one making the decisions.

sh4 has a lot of drakengard vibe to it. it's so bad it's bad kinda thing.

adrenaline from tension, dopamine from release.

>but it started as something different then got reworked into SH
I liked it, would buy a remaster.

I heard that's false. It was actually all Konami. Konami wanted to push the cult idea. Team Silent just wanted more SH 2.