This review contains spoilers
I pretty much unanimously dislike multiple endings in video games, but the more I think about Silent Hill's, the more I appreciate them. The "worst" ending is still the one that hits the hardest for me. Something about the immediacy of the smash cut to credits with no catharsis whatsoever genuinely gets me emotional, especially when paired with the reveal that Harry has been unconscious in his car the entire time, experiencing the same endless torture as Alessa in his nightmare search for his daughter. Unsurprisingly, this was the ending I got the first time I played through the game, simply because I wasn't optimistic enough to attempt to save either of the side characters, which is the beauty of it. If you believe that Michael Kaufmann is still alive or that Cybil is curable, then they actually are. The player's personal expectations are what end up shaping how the story concludes, which makes Silent Hill feel like one of the strongest examples of an interactive ending out there. And if you think about it, the whole game is about manifesting these expectations. There's no logical reason for Harry to believe that Cheryl is still alive on this hell of a vacation. Likewise, the whole kerfuffle happens because Dahlia Gillespie puts the most unfulfillable expectation possible on her daughter, birthing a literal god. It all comes together when assessing the gameplay, considering hardly anything in Silent Hill is actually scary. Instead, the horror stems from the stuff you can barely make out. Having to squint through fog, darkness, and PS1 graphics to discern anything at all means that your brain has to work overtime and ends up expecting the worst. And, as we all know, the mind is the most horrifying place there is.
5 Comments
Thanks, and I hardly remember anything about 2. I need to replay it soon.
Never really thought about the player's agency in that way, but it makes sense. The problem with my dumb bad garbage brains is anytime I know there's multiple endings I just look up how to get the "best" one and commit to that, but this makes me want to go back to Silent Hill with a more fluid approach.
If you don't mind me asking, why in particular do you not like games having multiple endings? I definitely don't like the way some games do it where you have to do some specific arbitrary thing in order to get a satisfying ending, or how some games have a 'true' ending that you're clearly expected to go for instead of the others. If done well though, I feel multiple endings add replay value and can lead the player into thinking about their decisions over the game.
I agree with you, it's just that I've played very few games that do do them well. In my experience, games with multiple endings tend to have obvious big decision points that are the only moments that factor into determining which one you'll get, and then everything besides the ending remains the same from playthough to playthrough. To me, that makes them have the opposite of their intended effect, as it feels like nothing you do matters aside from a few telegraphed binary choices. For that reason, I've always preferred games that make your decisions have smaller and less predictable consequences outside of the ending. It's also why Silent Hill's work so well- it's such an oddball game that it's completely believable that it would introduce major characters just to have them die or disappear without doing anything.
Of course, I'm probably just playing the wrong games. I don't have much experience with WRPGs, which, from what I know, put a lot of emphasis on this kind of thing. I really need to get around to Disco Elysium.
Of course, I'm probably just playing the wrong games. I don't have much experience with WRPGs, which, from what I know, put a lot of emphasis on this kind of thing. I really need to get around to Disco Elysium.
MalditoMur
1 year ago