I'm not arguing for or against this being representative of anything, I am merely saying something can be both game and teaser.

A game CAN still be a teaser and a game, doesn't mean it HAS to be. Let's not stifle creativity just because some of us think it should still conform to the idea of a playable demo when interesting ideas could come from this kind of marketing.

You're telling the creator what his product is after he's already told people it's something else and then saying that people thinking differently than you are shutting down differing opinions after telling them that their creator given reasons aren't valid and can be ignored for the purpose of your argument in turn shutting down differing opinions yourself.

I'd call it a game and a teaser. You're interacting in a world and having to fulfill criteria to progress. Heck, it would've wound up on steam for $3.99 and nobody would even have this debate.

@goldone: Here is who I'm arguing against:

Developers, because I think P.T. isn't very good.

Other posters, for arguing that P.T. is good or that it's not a game or that it doesn't have any bearing on Silent Hills or isn't reflective of a problematic general tendency in game development.

Journalists, for not providing good enough reasons for liking the game because their opinions sway popular opinion.

If you like P.T., whatever, I don't really care that you like it. Live and let live. But surely I can say something if you're trying to claim that the game is good and I disagree.

Look, it's fine if you don't like it. It's also great if you are able to argue your reasons for why you feel that way in a clear and intelligent manner. But belittling those that don't agree with you only weakens your stance and prevents others from taking you seriously.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing over any more. At first I thought it was that you think Kojima will fuck up the series, then it was that you want Silent Hills to be procedurally generated, then it was that you don't want to play a game seeing Kojima's story, but instead your own, but now I think you're just arguing that P.T. is a game and not a teaser.

I get that in your own opinion Kojima is an old dinosaur who can't tell a story as good as the player... but from my perspective he's made some good games with some quirky stories that I enjoyed seeing, and Silent Hill as a series already really has hit rock bottom and can't get any worse than it has.

@hailinel: I haven't belittled anyone. Maybe I was a bit harsh when responding to people telling me I shouldn't talk about something being good because "there ain't no truth". But, I find that line of argumentation really disingenuous and have a hard time not responding forcefully to it. This is a product of dealing with the same line of argumentation in countless other, completely unrelated arguments, when the fact that there is a right answer is actually really important. I get that it doesn't really matter when we're talking about games, haha, but it's just that sort of thinking that gets my goat.

So what you're saying is it's bad when a game feels like a game? I see people say this all the time, but I don't understand how that's a bad thing. I play games to be entertained, not have a deep meaningful experience. Games are just that to me. Games. So if something takes me out of the immersion, whatever, it doesn't really hurt things for me. Maybe I'm just weird though.

It took me 3 goes, and I still don't understand your last sentence. But I think you're misunderstanding everything I've said. This being a game or not doesn't stifle creativity. The only thing that would stifle creativity is people saying that this being a game or not changes a single thing about it.

Regardless of whether or not you or I or anyone in the world thinks this is or isn't a game, that doesn't change a single thing about it. If you struggle to understand or digest an experience because you're (general 'you', not personally you) hung up on whether you're allowed to classify this as a game or not is a problem not related to the product itself.

That game won cause it was so scary( I played it) That I probably wont play Silent Hills. So OP you're fuggin wrong.

P.T. was made to be almost impossible to crack. I highly doubt the final game will be like that.

Let's just get back on track here. I'm trying to think how a more erm... interactive and organic horror game might take shape. Horror is obviously subjective and, to make something like the opening post suggests to actually work requires the developers to second guess the players.

That's a damn tricky prospect. You can certainly limit the things the player will think about. In PT you've only really got the doors, paintings, phone and radio to look at and touch so you can control things from that end. And some of the puzzle solving is downright obtuse. That's becoming something of a survival horror trope in itself. I hope they can do away with that.

@fluttercry: I completely agree with you, in certain circumstances. Like, I don't even really know what immersion is, exactly. Whatever it is, I don't want it when I'm playing DOTA, haha. I think I'm taking issue with P.T. because it's supposed to be a story where I'm in control. I mean, that's why I have control over the protagonist, right? So that I can make meaningful choices about what happens. But if all I'm doing is pixel hunting for triggers that move the game along some set path, I don't really care to play it.

But I also agree with the general point that just playing a game is great.

Nobody does. We should just change the title to "Here's why I don't like this thing I saw a video of."

The Dooms Day forecasting is completely unwarranted, and the amount of vitriol over something so insignificant is borderline adorable.

Hopefully in the future developers just stick to emailing their 60 second cut scenes to journalists when they want to announce a game just so unsound essays like this don't have to pop up.

@syz: I love you too.

You say you don't care that people like it, but then you say they're wrong for liking it, that doesn't strike me as live and let live. If you left out your general tone of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" then maybe what you want to discuss would be more productive.

Leaving out this whole game/teaser thing, it's an interactive product, meaning watching someone futz around in that world and doing that for yourself are two entirely different things. I know I enjoyed playing it, I got frustrated watching others play it.

You probably already realized this by now, but what Patrick called brilliant wasn't the teaser game, it was how the game was used to announce Silent Hills.

Well with that said, your opinion no longer matters. You said yourself you didn't have much to go on, but continue to presume how the game is going to be made just from from gimmick teaser. You then go on about how the game should be made to your personal preference, like your some game developing genius. Wait tell the game is actually developed and then criticize it on its flaws. While you wait learn how to not talk down to people.

Like others, i'm not really a fan of being told what to think by forum threads. Can mods or OP change the title to something a bit less incendiary please?

@newhaap: He didn't specify what was brilliant about it, actually. He also said "Because lemme tell you, P.T. is remarkable. It might consist of walking the same hallway over and over again, but I haven't been this shaken by a game in years." I don't think that he's talking about it as an announcement in that sentence.

@ripelivejam: I changed it because this is getting a bit out of control, even for me. I'm honestly not trying to troll anyone with this.

@dvsshark: I don't understand why I can't have a view about how games should be made without being a developer. Everyone working for GiantBomb does it all the time and none of them are developers (though maybe you just think that only certain classes of people should have views about games, like maybe only devs, journalists, people working the industry etc.)

A couple people have said this, but I'm not talking down to anyone and I'm not making this personal. I just raised a point, some people thought it was worthwhile enough to post about it, so I responded. I didn't personally attack anyone and I didn't make any claim to being an expert on making games. Anyway, maybe I'll just let this go if y'all are that upset about it.

EDIT: I also realized that flaming games is probably something people do on forums all the time and it's probably annoying. I don't frequent too many boards, mostly this and GAF, and I don't post very often. Point being, I'm not all too familiar with forum trends, but I've read enough to know that, upon reflection (and, probably, if I was more active here, earlier), maybe a bunch of what I'm saying just looks like what a million other people, who y'all don't like, are doing daily. And, I like to argue, and I don't take it personally, so sometimes I get a little out of hand. Anyway, all to say, I'd be happy to talk about something happier with all of you! And I mean it when I say that people in the GB community have been consistently the coolest internet people to hang with and play games with. I'd like to think I live up to that standard too.

This entire conversation is a moot point because the OP kind of missed the point of the teaser. It was designed to be an obtuse puzzle that would delay the announcement of Silent Hills and make it more hype. It has no bearing on what the final game will be, something that is explicitly stated at the end of PT. The worries about what Silent Hills will be are all valid, but when stated in concept of PT they are meaningless, and the want for more choice and less scripted games is a criticism that could be made of the wider games industry rather than calling SH out specifically.

@alexw00d: I think what people are getting at is not that this piece of work is completely separate from being a game but that the original intent wasn't to set out and fulfill what a lot of people would be looking for from a 'game' experience, they intended to create an ambient experience wherein streamers would unveil and promote hype for a reboot of the silent hill franchise not display the features of the game or deliver an experience that everyone can get along with. I'm saying that if we demand anything that game creators do in their creative medium needs to adhere to a strict tenet of this is what a game is and isn't and should provide then it limits their ability to do interesting things outside showing gameplay or scenes from the product.

The piece of work had an intent, to be an interesting way of revealing a project in the works, not to release a game per se. We can argue about how successful the piece was but I think the fact that people are talking about silent hill again is proof it's working on at least some level.

I don't know. People are probably going to tear me a new a-hole but I have been thinking about this and it's my chance to say it. I think most players (or at least the ones who post the videos of themselves playing) are terrible at puzzles. I came from playing a lot of point and clicks and much Myst (or myst like) puzzle games in my early days and even now (like The Room on the phone) I saved the video from my first play through (the raw footage at least. I was making a clip to put on facebook to catch my friends' interest) and watched it again recently. Honestly, the only things that gave me trouble are the R3 on the door which took my 10 minutes less then Patrick to realize I can zoom and the Hello transfer to the Hell message. That message I did need a walkthough on but stuff like the gouge picture I put two and two together. I don't know maybe I've played a lot of puzzle games with refusal to walkthrough it or I'm crazy but that's just my feelings on it.

@dusker It seems like you've been burying your head in the sand for three pages of this thread. As just about every other poster has said (and I'll reiterate now) this was an interactive teaser, a way to virally market and announce a new game. This teaser was developed with the sole purpose of creating intrigue and mystery, being purposefully obtuse in its design to delay the reveal of the Silent Hills trailer at the end and create mystery around the net as to what exactly P.T. was (obviously it partly failed at this as people solved it much more quickly than Kojima anticipated); it was also made to demonstrate the level of fidelity and atmosphere they'll be able to achieve in a next gen title. The gameplay of P.T. was not meant to be indicative of how Silent Hills will actually play as evidence by the statement at the end of the trailer.

I feel like you are making two different arguments, the first being that Silent Hills is going to play like P.T. and the second being that the type of gameplay shown in P.T. (pixel hunt, if i stand here then something happens) is boring, bad, shitty, all of the above, no matter what game it may be applied to. Arguing the first point is silly, everyone except you seems to have grasped what exactly they were trying to achieve with P.T. in regards to how it relates to Silent Hills, it seems your only argument here is Kojima hasn't out and out said "Silent Hills is going to play nothing like P.T." and he's not going to, the statements made thus far by him as well as the game itself indicate it enough. Until you either provide some compelling proof that Silent Hills is going to play like P.T. or concede that yes it was a marketing tool and SH won't play like P.T. then people aren't gonna debate you about the second point you are making, which I feel is actually an argument you can make and defend if that's how you feel.

@drsbaitso: I've done exactly what you're asking in some of my other posts. I said that I thought I should direct my criticism towards reviewers who claim that P.T. is a good (Patrick said "remarkable"), standalone game and/or other people who think it's a good standalone game (as opposed to just a game they happen to like). And, I take the point that, my view should probably be that, *if* Silent Hills is like P.T., maybe then we should be worried.

On the other hand, there are a few reasons we might believe that P.T.'s design philosophy will be present in Silent Hills. The first, and most obvious, is that Kojima has built this kind of game design into almost each one of his games. MGS is, in many ways, a walking cutscene trigger. Second, if Kojima had the technology to allow more reactive game design, you might expect that he'd include it in P.T. (he did, after all, create P.T. in the Fox engine). Why? Because, having savvy marketing sense, as Kojima does, you'd expect that, no matter what you say, people are going to pick apart P.T. and make conjectures about how it relates to Silent Hills. Introducing some cutting edge game design would make the teaser that much more forceful.

I'm much more interested in the second argument (as you put it) anyway. Silent Hills was just a convenient vehicle for it.

@dusker: I am sorry you said that the only Silent Hill game you played was Silent Hill: Shattered Memories.

Then you called it innovative but since you have not played number 2 then you would not know that there is basically the same tracking system in 2. Also a better amnesia story in 2, not wops I am not me, I am my daughter. Plus 2 had better monster design.

While I am curious of the new Silent Hills since it might either be a amnesia story or a good Silent Hill like 1-3.

When Sildent HIlls comes out its going to be a real video game which may or may not have some first person segments like SH4.

Don't get why people are judging it based on PT. Its a teaser. Like an ARG website or something but of a much higher quality.

@biospank: I didnt say it was the only game I played in the series. I've played 1, 2, Shattered Memories and Homecoming.

@dusker: OK, you praise Shattered Memories for some reason, and the same system was done in 2 and it was subtle with it, while Shattered Memories if you played it like a Silent Hill game you are somehow a sex addict or something else.

I am a fan of the old Silent Hill but I am curious about Silent Hills, maybe it can be the one new game in the series that does not put amnesia story(rip off of 2)and maybe it can have some creative monster design like the first games.

@dusker: I can't see how you can possibly compare MGS to this; the whole crux of your argument against this type of gameplay is that it is obtuse, giving you no indication as to what the developer wants you to do. In a game like MGS you are tasked with an objective and inevitably on the way to complete that objective cutscenes are triggered, the main difference being MGS is giving you direction on where to go and what needs to be done.

Ugh people.

This guy already said all that needed to be said 2 days ago. Thread over.

Besides, Patrick isn't the most observant gamer. I don't know about the average player, but the solution was very obvious to me in nearly every moment he got stuck. I mean, I'm no puzzle savant, but there probably is a base level of game literacy required to get everything out of it.

I find it odd that people are surprised about the random obtuseness of P.T. puzzles, when silent hill (and a lot of classic survival horror games) were famous for their absolutely nonsensical puzzles. Particularly in the case of silent hill, I always felt that sort of slightly surreal solutions added to the crazy atmospheric distinction of the game. This obscure, overly complex mechanics do indeed date back to old games, but they also added to the mysticism of the universe (something that games like the SOULS series have learned to capitalize upon). That said, I agree that P.T. was a bit too nebulous ( so much that up to today no one really knows in detail how to solve that final step). I don't particularly find it an enjoyable design solution, but it is definitely effective. And today, in a game such as Silent Hill and P.T., I'd argue effectiveness in engaging the audience is much more important than direct enjoyability. It aimed to become some sort of urban legend, and that, it very much accomplished. (in this sense, and in the true horror it provokes, it truly is brilliant)

However, I'd like to question a notion that you imply. I personally disliked the "reactiveness" of Shattered memories. It surprisingly took me out of the experience, it made me very conscious about how my decisions and actions made the game different, finally dampening the actual narrative impact of the game. It was not THE story, it was one of the possibilities. As much as I tried not to think about it, I kept wondering what I was missing. You seem to think that because you have control over a player, the only desirable solution is to make overt meaningful choices that provoke an explicit difference, when that in itself is extremely questionable.

If a meaningful story is being told in an effective way, the player can empathise with the character even when both parties are evidently not the same. If an author wishes to convey a specific narrative, then our ability to deviate doesn't necessarily provide a benefit to the experience. In fact, it can detract from the communion.

This is not skyrim ( and thank god ), where the narrative is diluted to the minimum expression and in it's place there's an ocean of fluff that gives the illusion of player control.

The thing is that even in the most linear of interactive experiences, actions are vital to the completion of a meaningful story. My decisions, picked from the game's universe of possibilities serve as a tool to deepen the engagement (which is all a simulation anyway). If overt decision making enhances the experience, then add them, but that is not necessary, sometimes the implicit moment to moment decision making is enough to make a player believe the experience is real (and if they are well designed, they can even have a deeper impact, like The Last of Us), and at that point it does not matter if there are simulated choices, or if you are simply following the ride..

Specifically in Silent Hill, you never play yourself. You very expressly play as someone else, full of secrets, fears (and crimes) which become a puzzle in itself. I'd say this is a cornerstone of the series (or at least something it has been trying to replicate since its birth). I would even say that I'd find it a bit counterproductive to add a lot of narrative agency, since part of the trip is jumping through the creator's hoops, trusting that the outcome will be worth it. In fact, I felt Homecoming suffered greatly from retroactively modifying your player story and background. It undermined it's impact, and made a lot of the game feel rather silly looking back, and even though I probably have more agency as Alex Shepherd than as Heather Mason, I was far more invested/terrified by her story than his.

Now! I don't know what this means for SILENT HILLS, I don't trust Hideo or Del Toro to deliver anything with any sort of subtlety. They are both bombastic and tend to fall into caricatures, which could very well defuse the lasting significance of the game. However, in the technical aspect, whatever it may be, I feel they are definitely in the right path to scaring the shit out of the players.

Something I noticed during another playthrough of PT (sorry, can't help it, it's all the Silent Hill I have right now :() is that the environment and the 'nightmare' you are trapped in is reacting like you are the killing father (the fetus baby monster for instance). Maybe the Norman Reedus character can inhabit the minds of other (dead) people and see their version of Silent Hill (explains the Silent Hills).
I also think breaking the loops (in 1st person) on some haunted places could be a thing in the final game. More like side missions in the open world of Silent Hill.

@sydlanel: I can completely relate to the feeling of "missing" something in games where my playstyle and/or decisions somehow influence the game world. It's why I save before I make decisions in almost every game and then immediately reload the save to see what else I could have done (Heavy Rain is a good example of this). It's also the reason I can't play Pokemon anymore (besides me being in my late 20s): because there are all these hidden stats that make it impossible for me to enjoy the game without obsessing over missing the "best" pokemon. I would guess that it's something game designers have noticed and capitalized on, such as the Clocktower series (and many others), who make playing through the game multiple times and finding different endings a formal element of 100 percenting them.

The way I played Shattered Memories was very much the same way I took the Myers-Briggs test: "game" the system and force a specific outcome. In M-Bs, it was because I wanted others to view me a certain way, or I wanted to convince myself I was a certain type of person. In Shattered Memories, it was that I wanted to see how everything ticked, so made sure that I did everything to guarantee a specific ending (in order to see how the game was digesting my decisions). In scientific studies they try to account for this by masking the study's true purpose to the participants.

So, I agree that having just any old reactive world isn't necessarily going to solve the problems (as I see them) that arise from more standard game design.

I guess part of my problem is that the way that games tell stories on the standard model doesn't make much sense. Why is it that I have control over anything about the game (especially control over the character) if none of what I do makes a meaningful impact? You can see the cognitive dissonance this causes in games such as GTA. Despite the fact that some of the characters you play as are supposed to be sympathetic, you can play them as sociopaths and cut down every civilian you see without any narrative consequence. The way certain games, such as P.T., solve this is just not allowing any meaningful decisions to take place. Additionally, isn't it odd that we, as players, control almost all of the physical movement and decisions of the character in a game story, but have no access to anything else about them (their secrets, fears, crimes etc.)? It makes sense in films, since we're on the outside, looking in on a story: we're not there. In games though, you can see how designers grapple with this problem all the time, by constantly making the player character have amnesia. This is a reaction to the anxiety created by giving control of a character to a player, not wanting the player to have any idea about what's going on, but also wanting a narrative justification for the lack of knowledge.

I don't know what the answer is. I see your perspective, and I agree that most games with reactive design and explicit storytelling haven't done a good job. But, isn't there a hypothetical game that does reactive design well? I'll go back to Left 4 Dead. That game is reactive, but, I'll grant, it's goals are different: it's promoting replayability and unpredictability. But it's reactive, and I'm never thinking about how what I do is digested by the game engine (like I did in Shattered Memories). I don't know why this is. Maybe it's because the systems in Left 4 Dead are too complex, so they don't feel transparent. Maybe it's because I know I can't miss anything in a game like Left 4 Dead that I'm going to play over and over again. Whatever is happening there, it would be very interesting to see it implemented well in a narrative setting.

As for Silent Hills, I agree that it'll probably be really fucking scary.

@dusker: I don't really know. I think we are just in a lowest-effort-gets-us-paid rut. The new Divinity game bucks the trend. Hopefully more games come along that continue to do this and help push the line forward on what is expected in a AAA game.

More complex interactive environments are cool and fun. The downside I guess is more open-ended player interaction with an environment may feel weird or disjointed when you combine it with a carefully & rigidly crafted story.

It's strange that the MGS series is a cutscene story but the gameplay has all of these little one-off odd and complex interactions possible. Melting ice cubes in MGS2... what the hell? I've always respected the series for it's gameplay efforts.