Silent Hill Shattered Memories Review





It's safe to say that I am a Silent Hill fan. When the first game came out, I thought it would be a Resident Evil clone but I was way off with that theory. Since then, I've played through each game released in the U.S., on all the systems, enjoying each one in their own way. And yes, I actually dug Silent Hill 4 in different ways. Naturally, you would think that I would totally have enjoyed Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Well you're right, I did enjoy it…oh wait, NO I DIDN'T! This lack of combat, overuse of sexual tension, crappy controlled, boring characters, lack of exploration game was a total bitch slap to the series.

In Silent Hill Shattered Memories, Climax was looking to do a "reimaging" of the original Silent Hill game. That said, fans and newbies will find the story to be interesting. All that really is needed to know is that Harry Mason is searching for his daughter, Cheryl, in the ever so evil city, Silent Hill. Being that storyline is important, there's really no point to go into details of the story as it's better to discover it on your own. I will say that the story is interesting and does have a deepness to it although it comes in such small bites that you're never really satisfied with it until the very end. I felt that I wasn't driven by the story to beat the game, but rather wanted to simply get the game over with.

Now let's talk about the gameplay, or should I say, "lack of any gameplay" gameplay. What we have with SHSM is a point-and-click adventure game. Yup, that's right, no survival horror here. You can break down the gameplay into three elements; "exploring", "evading", and "psychological". And yes, the quotations are there for the sake of sarcasm because these three things are not fun, exciting, and barely playable.



"Exploring" is what you'll be spending most of the time doing in the SHSM, and it's very disappointing. Maybe the developer, Climax, was making the game with the weakest system in mind, the PSP, but there's no exploration.

In all the Silent Hill games, there have been various locations to go through and see how the town screws with you. With this game, you're completely locked into to a small path that has only a few rooms/building to explore. I find it funny that Silent Hill 4: The Room, a game about how a guy's apartment is haunted and he can't escape it, has more exploration than this game.

Going through the areas is where you find the various puzzles that thankfully, are unique but there seems to be too few of them or maybe I’m used to puzzles being more complex as in the previous games. There are also the "scare" moments that you will mainly find while going through the different areas. However, these "scare" moments are really nothing but a loud noise that makes you jump the first few times. Sadly, these are the only times you'll jump while playing the game.



Next, "evading" or as it is being called, the chase scene. With no combat in this game, that's right NO COMBAT, the only action you have comes from these chase scenes. In another disappointment, when Silent Hill changes into the "evil" Silent Hill, the game changes from exploring to a segment of the game where you run around a few building trying to avoid monsters.

Even though I said "monsters", the enemies are several of the same monster that runs after you using only the one attack that they have. That one attack, a hug, has only one counter measure that Harry can do and that's a push. Yup, a goddamn push. With a game that had several firearms, melee weapons, and a foot to the head to kill the bad guys, this game has sunken to a new low violence-wise.

Some people are saying how this is "revolutionary" or how violence was not a big part of Silent Hill, but it's always been a part of the game. Killing screwed up monsters has been part of the game because it sets the mood. The mood being that an average Joe gets pushed to the edge by an evil city that takes the fears of that individual and manifests them into walking abominations.

I mean come on, let us remember that the most memorable non-major character of the series has been Pyramid Head in Silent Hill 2 who killed people in horrible ways and raped mannequins. It's one thing to take away the gore and violence, but the horror and suspense in this game is on par with a Are You Afraid of the Dark marathon. What we have is a game that has lost all survival horror gameplay elements, and has become a point-and-click game with a chase mini-game mixed in.



Then we come to the final segment designed to enhance the tension of the game. From the beginning, you're warned that the game "plays you as much as you play it" with its use of "psychology". Yeah, that's a bunch of crap. Here's what it boils down to. At the beginning, and throughout the game, you are given various questions and exercises designed to figure out YOU, the player. Your answers then change up the game in many ways from the characters' actions and dialogue to the multiple endings.

At first, it's a surprising on how it noticeably changes up the game. That surprise dies quickly as your next choices don't make any recognizable changes. Are there differences that are the result of your choices? Yes, of course, but you wouldn't know it until you play through again to see how your answers change everything. The results, in the end, are not that much different than the standard moral choices found in most RPGs today, just disguised in the form of psychological tests. As with everything else regarding the gameplay, it's a big disappointment.

Presentation in SHSM is the only positive aspect of the game, or at least, it's not as bad as the rest. Graphics are mediocre with the only thing to note of is the character models which are pretty good being that the game is designed for the hardware with the least power. The city is simply bland to look at without any of the creepiness that the previous games did so well (with the exception of SH4 where the game doesn't really take place in Silent Hill).

Audio is the strength of the game as it has a cast of voice actors that really make you feel for the characters, and the soundtrack is another classic of the series. With the return of composer, Akira Yamaoka, and series vocalist, Elizabeth McGlynn, the music plays well with working to enhance the mood of the game. Problem is everything else doesn't help to create a mood for the music thus making the soundtrack more of a worthy purchase than the actual game.



In conclusion, this game really sucks. From the lack of gameplay, less than thrilling storyline, and absence of any horror, you have plenty to pick from on why to dislike the game. Silent Hill fans be annoyed that everything they've enjoyed in the previous games is gone, and anyone else shouldn't even bother with the game.

With the first playthrough coming in at around 6 hours, the next playthroughs can be completed in half the time. But save yourself the effort and watch the intro, cutscenes, and endings on YouTube. Silent Hill Shattered Memories is a perfect example of an idea being redone by people who think they know better than the fans, putting it along the lines of movie video game adaptations.



- O.G.

article id: 810 | poster: OG



Latest Comments
31 comments
View: By Date | By Name    Order: Ascending | Descending

id: 223
RFTR on 03/01/10 07:12:52
such a retarded reviewer doesn't worth a constructive feedback.
id: 222
James on 03/01/10 04:00:24
@ RFTR - Nice constructive feedback
id: 221
RFTR on 02/28/10 12:54:13
This reviewer is a fucking dick
id: 106
T.H. on 12/31/09 09:40:55
This is a completely unprofessional review. If you are going to aspire to provide content to a website for a living then you need to put your personal feelings aside. As a Wii title, this game is solid. The gameplay is inventive. Yes, it is a departure from the series of which I am a fan. I'm on my 2nd play through on the game and enjoy the ambience and the general creepiness. It's unfortunate that this review is actually registering on other more 'professional' websites as a credible source. Someone needs to put on their big boy pants if they are going to pursue journalism.
id: 104
O.G. on 12/30/09 03:54:06
I'm all for doing something differently. I love what Capcom did with RE4 and 5 in comparison to the other RE games because they gave the series a good swift kick in the ass. On the other hand, SHSM diminished everything for the sake of adding the "psychology" part of the game. Storyline, characters, and the twist itself is such a huge letdown not even worth the comparison to the other HS games. especially SH2. The horror is not there in any which way. I've read the supporters of the game and rarely did anyone say "i was scared at this part". How do you take the game that redefined survival horror and not make it scary? Then we have the "big" change to the gameplay which is NOTHING. They took away combat and substituted it for a different camera angle. Again, you want a game where running away is suspenseful and scary, go play some Clock Tower. And what was this all exchanged for? A psychological test that's nothing more than a spitting out of choices that were made throughout the game but billed as "the game is playing you". Fallout 3 almost as much variance with the choices you make than this game and I don't see that game as having some sort of insight on a person's psyche. I also love how the fans of this game view the test results as being very spot on. These shmucks are probably the same people that think John Edwards gets all those questions right on the first time without realizing he asked 100 questions beforehand.
id: 103
Griffin on 12/30/09 00:39:56
I am not saying that you should give the same score as other critics on the interenet(I mean, god no, that would be the last thing I would like to see; another IGN clone). But however, it's the obvious bitterness against the game is very frustrating, and no matter how much you deny it. Several accusations you make about the game itself directly points that you are just another fanboy, trying to complain about anything and everything to prove your point how your favourite game franchise got ruined because of a game that tries to do thing differently. I'm sorry, that is just how I see this review is, no matter how much you try to deny it.
id: 101
O.G. on 12/29/09 11:58:55
Once again, people are critical about my review because I did not give the same score as all other reviewers, which I explained in the review. We have a non-scary point-and-click game with a mini-game added to run away from monster. And people never want to question that statement but instead rather focus on what I said about graphics. I'm able to take off my Silent Hill fanboy goggles and realize that even though this game has Silent HIll in the title, it is not a worthy addition to the franchise.
id: 100
Griffin on 12/29/09 02:54:27
And yes, I do realise I post my comment four time. My net browser really hates me.
id: 97
Griffin on 12/29/09 02:35:37
"It's safe to say that I am a Silent Hill fan." That one sentence, and I understood everything what this review stands for. Yet again, a game that is universally considered "decent" is smashed by a hypocritical fanboy who won't stand anything that is called "different". This is also a paradox comparing to the other review found on this site. For example, you gave No More Heroes a 9.3. While it is indeed a good game which I really like, the game is more considered 7.5-8.0, which I can understand easily. This only proves how heavily opinionized your reviews are and the reason why I consider scoring system to be obsolete and unreliable. If a review is consist nothing but your own unjustified opinions (example: "Graphics are mediocre". excuse me, what?) about the said product, it's better to just not write it at all for it only serves as a waste of time(thanks, now I just wasted ten minutes of my life). It's just equally as bad as any review that does nothing but praise the game. You are not being funny or "Extreme" by making this review(put is simple, you are not Yahtzee). Also, those unfunny gag pictures that you've propably wasted more time doing than any other review, only enchances the fact that you are a fanboy who is blinded by his own self-righteous views and stopped thinking rationally. To put it short; This review sucks, because of your unfair, self-righteous and hypocritical fanboyism. This can serve as another example of how you should NOT make a review. Oh, and don't try to give me that "It's just his opinion" as an excuse. It does not work if the said opinion is illogical and unjustified.
id: 95
Alex on 12/26/09 05:08:34
I just finished playing this game and all I have to say is that I'm utterly amazed how great SHSM is. The graphics are top notch for a Wii game with truly intriguing atmosphere (I simply LOVE the flashlight system!) and game controls. They really took the most out of the wii controlling potential. Some people say this ain't survival horror? I think this is EXACTLY the purest form of survival seeing there is no way you can defend yourself from the monsters, but instead you must run for your life to survive! I'd say this if anything, is a survival horror game. (You shouldn't compare this game to the previous games in the series - that's a crucial mistake) Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but seriously I really loved this game and it kept me entertained throughout the clever, eerie storyline. A little message for the reviewer: You can dislike a game, but at least you should do it professionally and well-mannered instead of making your best efforts to try and make the game look bad in your and others' eyes.
id: 91
WiiFTW on 12/24/09 12:43:31
Silent Hill is 1 of the best Wii-titles and one of the best games i've ever played i would give'm a 9.0 That would be a fair I had a lot of fun and now i'm on my 6. round
id: 84
Recession Gamer on 12/22/09 23:02:40
Critics need to be unbias, sure this review is in their own opinion but if all critics let their emotion and biases get the better of them then how credible can they be? Gamestats looks a variety of reviews and when you see their numbers there should be a reasonable range or average. This score just off sets the other reviews. So should a gamer rent or buy this game for $$$$ buying a game others consider "a good buy" or trust this review that says "this game really sucks"?
id: 77
O.G. on 12/22/09 00:40:45
First off, it's not the "Silent Hill team" at work here. It was Climax which explains so much. Anyways, Mario 64 was much different than the previous games, but it was an "improvement". What Climax did was a "fuck up". Not only that, they took away what the horror and replaced it with a stupid personality test. And if there's any game that has a lack of gameplay, it's not Final Fantasy, it's this crap of a game. It's a goddamn point-and-click game with a mini-game that has you run around.
id: 74
James on 12/21/09 15:45:29
@ iraq: I guess that is why there are multiple gaming sites because if everyone had the same opinion about every game that came out, what would be the point of having more than one review? It seems to me that you are taking this review as a personal insult based on what you have typed. If you are going to start throwing around things like "someone who doesn't know anything" its best to back that up with something other than your emotions. Any website that uses a rating system is always going to be biased to the reviewer's opinion of a game.
id: 72
iraq on 12/20/09 20:29:27
who the ruddy h cares if the game conforms to some copy and paste survival horror genre. The point of video game development is not to retread the same trodden ground over and over. Thats nintendo mario ground for the last X years. Do you remember back when Mario 64 came out and changed everything? That game was not like the mario games before it, either. The Silent Hill team did something innovative with this game, and sure the game aint perfect, but hating it just because you hate innovation and wanted them to repackage Silent Hill 2 and rename it, thats bogus. You should stick to reviewing Final Fantasy #4737 and its completely linear "lack of gameplay" interactive movie. This is a terrible review by someone who doesn't know anything about game design, fun, or a real job
id: 71
Everyview.com on 12/19/09 20:29:39
I think O.G. was just offended by the game being such a huge departure from the series norm. Were I to review the game I'd have trouble giving it an 8.0. The puzzles are offensively easy and after a quarter of the way through the game you won't get scared any more. That said, there's still a lot to love. I'd say 7.5, which is considerably higher than OG, but I'm not a huge fan of the series either so maybe I'm just not as sensitive.
id: 62
O.G. on 12/17/09 07:56:00
First the tone of this review is part of the disgust I have for the game. They stripped away everything that Silent Hill was built upon and told me, the FAN, that "Oh Silent Hill wasn't about horror, it was about psychology." No the game was about freaking you out in various ways, not just a loud sound when you get close to an item. Second, there are two Wii reviews in the works, RE Dark Chronicles and Super Mario Bros. Wii. Yes I'm not the biggest fan of the Wii but I play wherever the good games are. Third, the majority may like it, doesn't mean I have to. If I can find faults in a game that bring the game down and the positives are not so "positive" to me, then I have present that as a problem with the game. Finally, it is a pitiful game because it's barely a game with nothing redeeming about it except for a few gimmicks that hope to sucker in people thinking that they're getting a new experience.
id: 61
Scott on 12/17/09 06:07:28
The fact that you have played all of the other Silent Hill games is irrelevant to your overall credibility as a game reviewer... What makes me, and others, question your credibility seems obvious... First, the unprofessional, sarcastic, and trollish language and tone of the review... Second, looking at your list of reviews, O.G. hasn't reviewed any Wii game for over 3 months, which makes me wonder if there is some "system bias" going on here... Third, the overwhelming majority of reviews from various sites rate the game more than twice as high and the average scores from gamers on any of these sites (hundreds of rankings in total) rank the game 8.5/10 or higher... Fourth, you argue that this game is "just pitiful" and and "utter failure", a 3.5/10. Yet you rank Hell's Kitchen a full point higher at 4.5/10... At least you were "spot on" with the review of Hell's Kitchen... For Shattered Memories, however, your review was "just pitiful"
id: 56
O.G. on 12/16/09 20:49:13
And it's a shame that my score apparently dictates my credibility being that I've played through all the Silent Hill games. One needs to just look at my other reviews and see that I've been spot on with my views. If anything, my comments on the graphics are generating the most controversy yet my remarks about a complete lack of gameplay seem to be just fine.
id: 54
Scott on 12/16/09 17:55:31
O.G., Gamepro gave the game a 5/10 and 1up gave the game a 7/10... Both are considerably higher than a 3.5/10... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, sure... But, excluding your review, there are 15 reviews listed on gamestats... 3 rank at 9.0 or more, 5 rank at 8.0 or more, and 4 rank at 7 or more. In other words, 80% of the reviews (12 out of 15) are coming in at more than double the "just pitiful" review you wrote for the game. The other three come in at 4.0, 5.0, and 6.25... Again, all are more than your review... You can see why people might not feel your review is the most credible of the reviews out there???
id: 53
O.G. on 12/16/09 16:23:56
Esco, G4 isnt the only one. Gamepro and 1up both gave a bad score to the game as well. The scores are all over the place with this game which is clearly shown by metacritic and gamerankings.
id: 52
Esco on 12/16/09 16:18:04
OG, what he's pointing out is that the majority of critics, not just IGN, has rated this game very highly - are you going to state that they all lack credibility? You're entitled to your opinion, but truth be told, it's rather childish, if not downright hypocritical of you to actually say a comment like: "BTW, the last thing I'm going to put credibility in is the choices of IGN. They're high score of this game is further proof of this." That's quite literally the same as saying: "IGN has no integrity, as proven by disagreeing with me, and the fact that most other critics agree with IGN means nothing." Unfortunately for you, one of the only critics to agree with you is G4, which, of all sites to contain numerous game reviews, is possibly the one with the lowest amount of integrity.
id: 51
James on 12/16/09 13:21:48
lol @ MadMax "Maybe one of your 5 members on the forum will disagree?!?" Hey, gaming websites aren't started over night! Maybe you should be our 6th forum member? lol
id: 49
O.G. on 12/15/09 19:48:09
Wait, so graphics are the big deal here, not the fact that the gameplay is horrible and it's far from being survival horror? Nice job on that graphics whore. And yes, they're mediocre. The environments are hardly detailed, character models are aside from the face are lame, and the whole flashlight effect is hardly worthy reason to say the graphics are good. BTW, the last thing I'm going to put credibility in is the choices of IGN. They're high score of this game is further proof of this.
id: 47
MadMax on 12/15/09 17:24:24
Deiser, yes, yes he is. IGN nominated this for "Best Graphics Technology" at e3 2009 and this kid calls the graphics "mediocre"? Clearly he has no idea what he's talking about. This review carries about as much credibility as the rest of the website. Maybe one of your 5 members on the forum will disagree?!? Please... stop pretending to be game reviewers and go finish your school homework.
id: 46
Steve68 on 12/15/09 16:07:18
...People all have their own opinions. They are entitled to that, but it becomes a problem when they try to use it as some form of reasoning or justification to force their own subjective view of how things should be onto others. That's not exactly happening HERE though, now is it? I think the review is fine, if a bit trollish in it's choice of picture captions and wording. I think the ire of you people who are offended by the review should put it to better use protesting the greater issues with our world. This is just petty. Sorry if I offend anyone.
id: 43
James on 12/15/09 15:37:55
I'm not sure why other websites rated this game so high. Everyone is entitled the their own opinion I suppose....
id: 41
Deiser on 12/15/09 08:06:05
MadMax: So this guy is a moron simply because he hates the game for understandable reasons and because he didn't rate it as high as IGN and the like? Do you even realize how stupid that reasoning is? Shin: ...I don't see why you're taking a review so personally. Get over it.
id: 39
MadMax on 12/15/09 06:45:03
This reviewer is a moron who obviously doesnt get it. Check out metacritic for the other reviews. IGN gave this a 8.6, eurogamer a 9 and destructiod a 9.5.
id: 38
Shin on 12/15/09 06:11:50
Dude what the hell is your problem? This is a great game and deserves a higher score. How about you play the game with an open mind you dick!
id: 36
James on 12/15/09 04:24:34
I think all the Silent Hills are boring and lame, so this comes as no surprise to me.











Want to advertise on the site? Send email to ads (at) original-gamer (dot) com.

We're looking for writers. Send an email to og (at) original-gamer (dot) com.