@dussck: Why isn't P.T. just a short, standalone game that's also a teaser? "[A] teaser that you can play" sounds suspiciously like a game. Are there things you can play that aren't games? Like, musical instruments are something you can play, but they aren't games. You can play with action figures, but I suppose that isn't a game. But both of these uses of "play" are different than what you're talking about. I'd be interested to know what more P.T. would need to do to be considered a game.

@dusker: You can see it as a game, but it was never meant to be a game. It was a trailer hiding in some interactive experience. They never designed the puzzles for pleasure, like games intend to do. The wanted something that was barely solvable (and it still got solved very fast, so it's still not bad enough gamedesign-wise).

It could've been a rush job as well like you said. In fact, I hope it was. They better spend that precious developing time on the actual game :)

The sole purpose of my hugh jackman photo will be to show a photo of Hugh Jackman, which it will at the end for a split second. The entirely unrelated third-person baking simulator before it is only the build up, the wrapping that hides the photo of Hugh Jackman; doesn't count.

The actual hugh jackman centerfold, which is currently in development, will maybe be nothing like the hugh jackman photo possibly.

It doesn't make me worried. It showed me that the series is in capable hands.

Cool that you don't feel that way, but maybe don't frame an opinion as something others SHOULD think as well.

@theht:

@hollitz: Why not? An opinion is just a belief. And we don't believe things that we don't think are true. And if something's true, why not convince others they should believe it as well? So long as you give some decent reasons for why you think the belief is true, what's wrong with that? It's not like I'm making bold claims without supporting my position. It sounds like you just believe that opinions aren't the kinds of things that could be generally true. That sounds obviously false, but that's fine.

I think you're extrapolating an awful lot from this. Most people are ignoring the fact that PT was frustrating and vague because it was intended to hide the reveal of the new game for as long as possible, which is something Silent Hills itself obviously isn't going to be concerned with, and they're focusing on the atmosphere and horror because that's likely the one element that will carry through to the full product.

There's absolutely no indication that any of the gameplay systems or mechanics of this thing are going to be present in Silent Hills; but it *does* show that the people making the game know how to be scary.

I kinda hope Silent Hills is an elaborate teaser for the real Kojima masterpiece, Zone of the Enders 3.

@grace_omega: Yeah, it's totally possible.

I want to point out again that I obscured my actual argument by talking about the "obtuse" puzzle design. The fact that the puzzles are arbitrary isn't really my worry (I don't like it, but it's not my central concern). I'm concerned with the design philosophy of forcing players to trigger specific, linear, scripted events by having to divine what the developer was thinking when they designed the game. Almost every step of that game is just some analogue of a monster closet or a cutscene trigger, and it isn't fun or engaging. What I want to happen, and maybe Silent Hills can do this, is that I play the game the way I want to play it, given the constraints it puts on me, and instead of having to understand what the game wants from me, I want the game to react to what I do. That's how, for example, a horror movie works. The characters in a horror movie are plagued by some entity, and no matter what they do, they can't escape. The characters aren't looking around for how to trigger the next scary thing, haha. It's just an unnatural way to play these kinds of games. I want to escape and survive, and antagonizing my enemy or trying to figure out what my enemy is doing, is not how I'd do that. If I were in the P.T. house, I'd smash the fucking window, and if that didn't work, I'd try to call for help, and if that didn't work I'd lie on the floor and cry. What I definitely *wouldn't* do is try to peek into the creepy bathroom with the crying fetus or walk around underneath the bleeding fridge. The only reason anyone finished P.T. is because they wanted to know what it was. I'm sure no one was like "I should look into the peep hole because that will lead to my survival!" Designers need to become better at anticipating what players will naturally do given a set of circumstances, and build games around those reactions and other various contingencies.

We need to make a distinction between demo and teaser. This was not a slice of the game itself and never intended to be. It's so basic (walking around the same hallway over and over) that I don't see how people can be confused about this.

People really, really need to fucking stop with the "Why you should..." topic titles / headlines.

@pekoe212: Well, we actually don't know whether this is a demo or a teaser. I think Kojima said that P.T. doesn't necessarily mean that Silent Hills will play like this, but I don't think he said it wouldn't play like it at all. I'm completely aware of the difference between a teaser and a demo, but I chose to make various conjectures about Silent Hills based on P.T. because I felt like it, haha.

Argument seems futile. P.T. was a brilliant piece of marketing. They needed to make something with a lot of punch but probably not a lot of time/money. So they built a small area that is reused over and over and looks amazing and delivers on the scares up to a point. The biggest scare seemed to happen in the middle of Patrick's quick look session, though it sounds like it might happen out of order for other people? I imagine they intended for that to be the point where most people would bail out of the game. The rest of it seemed to be there purely to give the more (crazy) eager people something to do and to delay the true purpose of the teaser. They didn't invest a bunch of time and money implementing all sorts of gameplay mechanics, an inventory, a world to explore etc. That wasn't the point.

The two take-aways I think are the graphics, which shows what a next gen console is capable of and what Silent Hills could potentially look like, and the type of scares, terror, and mind tricks they might use in a new Silent Hill game.

Simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. I think people are getting waaaay too hung up on what P.T. is.

@sravankb: Another way to say that is: "People should really, really fucking stop with the "Why you should..." topic titles / headlines." I'm not sure if you intended that or not, but it's a bit funny. It kind of seems like you shouldn't read those posts anymore. The "Why you should..." titles should, if the author is being genuine, tell you what you're in for. They state their conclusion in the title, and then argue for it in their post. If you don't enjoy arguments, maybe, like I said, don't read them? I might just not be very well versed on how the "Why you should..." titles are used as clickbait or for trolling.

So it's not a demo or a teaser.

If he can deliver a traditionally-built game that executes on its premise and promises better than Shattered Memories, which completely failed to execute on, then Kojima probably made an okay video game. There's room enough for his old-guard style as well as the new age of player-game-creator holy trinity superinteraction. Besides, being alarmist that a Silent Hill game might be bad is kind of a decade out of fashion.

It seems that you to want the game to be something it never was; it's best to look elsewhere for your emergent needs. Not saying that the final game won't be potentially innovative, as Kojima has proven that he has an eye for detail and unique game systems, but all signs point to Silent Hills being more gamey than what you want it to be.

@crembaw: Yeah, but what isn't out of fashion is being even partially convinced that a Silent Hill game will be good. So, if the alarmists are reacting to that, it might not be so old hat after all.

@thunderslash: Yeah, that's my worry. And, yeah, maybe I should look elsewhere. But at some point, someone has to put their foot down and say enough is enough to certain kinds of lazy design philosophies. And what better place to try and drum up controversy but at the announcement of a new Silent Hill game?

I can dig that. From my experience, Silent Hill and Kojima fans have significant overlap, so the announcement is probably giving them FAR MORE hope than is warranted. I like Del Toro, and I'm in a toxic love-hate relationship with Kojima, but we don't know anything about the team other than them. From that perspective, I can understand why this teaser might be disconcerting, even if they've said it does not in any way represent the final game.

I couldn't read your whole rant because you already seem to not understand what PT even is:

I have a confession: I haven't played P.T. I did watch Patrick's Quick Look (and I did have a real-life cockroach crawl up my leg during it) though, and I think that I've seen all I need to see to make the argument I'm going to make. But, there's always the chance that, having not played the game myself, I'm missing something. I really do hope I'm missing something, because P.T. has made me pissed off about its fan's inability to see it for what it is (remember: Patrick called it "brilliant"): a really confusing, shit puzzle game.

Your initial complaints were intentional on Kojima's part. It was not intended to reflect how Silent Hills will even play. It was intended to be vague what it even was and Kojima's hope was it wouldn't even be found out to be a teaser for Silent Hills for at least a week. It was cracked much sooner than anticipated. It was obtuse ("shit puzzles" to paraphrase what you said) on purpose.

So, thanks for sharing your uninformed thoughts on P.T. Since this will be on page 2 it won't really help anyone who actually believe the things you're saying, but who knows.

The fans love it because they do know what it is, and it's a step in the right direction for what Silent Hill should be. A psychological horror in video game form.

I read your post, I respect your opinion, and I disagree with almost everything you wrote.

That said, I think we'll both have to wait and see what happens when Silent Hills finally comes out. I don't know if I'd be wrong in saying we're both looking forward to it (for different reasons).

I thought it was incredible until the end and I'm not taking a thread with 'Bull-puppy' in its title seriously

Some games are designed to be worlds that you shape with your actions and decisions. Some games are meant to tell you something or give you a specific experience. I don't think it's wrong or bad or boring for a game to be one way or another. I can't agree that that alone makes a game objectively bad or worrisome.

@corruptedevil: what i'm REALLY hoping is it will conclude with a drunk, red-faced, squinting Dave Lang who proclaims pointedly, "There will never be another Zone of the Enders."

Only it's not the real Dave Lang and is just a puppet that resembles Dave Lang as an overstuffed blood sausage.

It was pretty, and was this "thing". Nothing more, nothing less.

As someone said earlier, It was an awesome way to announce a game.

@cornbredx: I'm calling bullshit on this. I'm not misinforming anyone about the facts. That Kojima intentionally made a shitty puzzle game (which, if you read more of what I wrote, is not really my primary complaint) doesn't mean it's not a shitty puzzle game. That I didn't mention Kojima's "intentions" is irrelevant (how many reviews rely on a designer's "intentions"?). I can also extrapolate anything I please from P.T. about Silent Hills, since Kojima hasn't given any specifics on how much or little P.T. deviates from his vision of Silent Hills (he said it's not representative of the gameplay, but how?). This is especially true since we don't have any other info to extrapolate from other than his interviews and P.T. itself.

I also conceded two other points as I've posted. First, that the way P.T. is designed as an easy (and lazy) way to make something difficult to crack, so perhaps that's the only reason it's built that way. And, second, that I maybe should direct my ire towards people who like P.T. as a standalone game, as opposed to at Kojima and the game designers.

Why should you direct ire toward those that like P.T. itself?

Kojima himself has walked on stage and shown concept art of ZOE3 (admittedly this was in 2012)

@corruptedevil said:

@ripelivejam said:

what i'm REALLY hoping is it will conclude with a drunk, red-faced, squinting Dave Lang who proclaims pointedly, "There will never be another Zone of the Enders."

Kojima himself has walked on stage and shown concept art of ZOE3 (admittedly this was in 2012)

I'm hopeful that Kojima's involvement in Silent Hills is a sign that Konami is giving him more leeway in being active in projects outside the Metal Gear series. (Yes, there was Lords of Shadow, but all he really did there was sign paperwork.)

@hailinel: Because, they should know better? Like, I can be critical of a prominent journalist who really likes something that I think is boring or lazy. Their opinions hold a lot of sway over general public opinion. Their public figures, after all, and they should expect their view to be scrutinized.

How dare you presume that personal opinion can be objectively "right" and "wrong". It's clear to me now that you're being entirely unreasonable.

PT will have nothing to do with Silent Hills.

Tho if it does, they better work on the puzzles.

@hailinel: Hiding behind language like "personal opinions", as if "personal opinions" aren't also something else, "beliefs", and pretending that they aren't connected to any facts about the world, is crazy. So, is it your "personal opinion" that "personal opinions" aren't "objectively" (whatever that means) right or wrong? If it is, shouldn't you just keep it all to yourself like you're telling me to? It seems way more unreasonable to me that we can't actually discuss whether a game is in fact good or bad. There are a lot of various game attributes that clearly make them better or worse. Perhaps you think it's a "personal opinion" that it isn't good or bad if the next Call of Duty is locked at 15 FPS.

It is certainly personal opinion to decide whether or not I like P.T. Whether you disagree with me or not is not my concern, so long as you don't overstep and start calling people wrong for disagreeing with you, or berating people for not agreeing with you. That's making demands, not debate.

It was an edit by the moderator. You can't swear in thread titles/ blog post titles.

@hailinel: Yes, whether or not you like a game is a personal opinion, and, of course, you can like whatever you want. I mean, it would be crazy if I tried to tell you what you actually like. The fact that you like it isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is whether or not it's a good game. The reasons for liking the game and the reasons for whether or not the game is good overlap. Since they overlap, I can easily be confused about what it is we're talking about. If I ever suggested that I was questioning whether or not you like the game, my apologies.

@dusker said:

You are the only person in this thread who is arguing that it's a game. The entire premise of your argument hinges on us believing it's a game, and nobody here thinks it is a game.

One thing I'll take from the teaser is how quickly the tension dissipates once you hit a roadblock. Up until then, the erm... game or demo or whatever, was doing a real good job of winding me up like a spring. Jump scares out of nowhere feel cheap but the ones in P.T. were lead up to quite well.

So, aside from the marquee names, are Team Silent on board with this as well?

Those puzzles were bullshit and the way they took Patrick (and me even sooner) out of the experience. But I do believe Patrick stated that clearly enough in Spookin.

Though thinking about it, the problem might be though our expectation of a game works. "Solving problems" style. If we were to let the experience flow as if all the rounds mattered, for immersions sake, it might have been more organic. Once I was taken out of the "magic" by them dumb puzzles it was honestly all I could think of: "Goddamn, imagine if it was you in there. And you go round and round a physically impossible loop around your house, while every time you might hear bad things and meet a horrible ghost" Cherry on top of the evil cake: "The only way out is solving a nonsensical puzzle" Seems like Hell alright.

@oldirtybearon: It barely matters how we classify it. Everything I've said is valid no matter what it is. Though, for the record, the only argument that's been put forward against P.T. being a game is that it's a "teaser". No one has explained why it can't be both.

For the record I agree with your points. I want the same thing for gaming.

Right now scripting "if-then" game logic is what everyone knows. It's what can be done quickly and to a budget. You can get fresh college kids and get them writing game scripting without too much effort. They might not even screw it up too bad.

It's what we are going to get for the foreseeable future. Maybe someone will come along and write the tools to make more dynamic game environments easily and cheaply. I'm not holding my breathe. Enough people like the static experience. There just isn't any momentum behind what we want.

@dusker: Why does it bother you that people liked P.T? Just reading through some of your replies saying "Maybe I should be directing my ire more towards them (for not realizing that P.T. isn't a very good game) then towards Kojima and co." or saying they should know better. If you just look around you can see people tell you why they like it, they liked the atmosphere or Patrick saying it put him on edge while playing unlike most horror these days.

@tourgen: This is interesting. Do you think it's a problem with how game engines are created? Like, that, for example, Unreal just isn't building this kind of advanced functionality into their engines because it's too difficult? Or is it mostly on the development side, with developers just trying to keep costs down and not wanting to take risks?

The only reason anyone has given for this not being a game is 'uh it's a teaser man'. That's not a valid reason. At all. A game can still be a teaser and a game, just like a short film (or fuck, even a feature length film) can still be a teaser and a film. This whole 'it's not a game it's a teaser' thing is a crock of shit that merely exists to shut down differing opinions, pretty much like you're doing.

But it's such a simple teaser in terms of structure that to argue we should worry for the actual game it's teasing is a stretch. It's one scenario that features gameplay that may or may not even be in the actual game itself. The key thing I took away from it is that the atmosphere is fucking terrifying, which is something I want in a Silent Hill game.

The weird thing isn't that people think that PT is an actual game.

The weird thing is that anybody would possibly believe that it's representative of Silent Hills gameplay.

I mean, Kojima is nuts, but he's not stupid. Silent Hills will be a third person survival horror game with gameplay revolving around combat. There is no way it's first person, there is no way it has no combat and is puzzle-only. The ENTIRE joke on PT was to spoof Slender-like indie horror games. Kojima said so himself.

So for those out there missing the point entirely, Kojima's big "fuck you" here was "I can do a Slender-like walking sim in my sleep and make it better than any of this indie crap, also I'm making a triple-A survival horror, so take your toys and go home". Agree or disagree with the point he's making, that's what it actually is.

For the record.

This. The only thing that i wouldnt be surprised carrying over is the atmosphere, and the monster lady.

@dusker: You're bringing a predisposition to your argument and generally ignoring the facts which most people are stating to you. This 'game' (read: interactive trailer) was designed to get people talking about a dead game series that even the fans had stopped caring about and really only open itself up to people who are streaming (a good way to take advantage of the current way that gaming coverage is consumed) and to show how good looking things are in engine and that the developers know creepy.

What it is not intended to do is show in any way what the actual gameplay will be like in the Silent Hills game as that is a game that won't be looking to obscure and tease itself as it's already in your hands. Your awful burger analogy doesn't stand in this instance, more like, you're looking at an advert for a burger place where a person says "if I don't have another one of those great burgers soon I'll die" then expires and your response is to think that the burgers will actually kill you if not consumed regularly.

Having read your first thoughts I really don't think you understand what you want and are tunneling way too hard on the idea that this teaser trailer they made that can be actually played with a controller is a 'game' if I was to call your post a novel that critiques the gaming industry and problems with development and marketing then complained it was too short, badly researched and full of opinion then everytime you came and said "hey buddy, it was only some thoughts in a forum post" and I replied "Fuck you it was an awful novel because I'm calling it a novel and comparing it in that fashion!" you'd notice I was being insane and calling an apple an orange, that's what you're doing in a pearls before swine kinda way.

What you've seen is a puzzle box to hide the reveal and an image of a guy I didn't recognise walking down a street, wait till we see actual substance before you condemn it eh?