Silent Hill 2 the Obligatory Remake | Review

This trend of publishers "remaking" their legacy IPs of the past is not going to stop or even slow down. It'll probably accelerate until they are literally out of source material. And the reason why is that we, as gamers, are in depression both creatively and economically. We have long past the point of running out of new ideas. We are now actively avoiding new and original design concepts because the risk involved is simply too high. Even if a developer, like Konami, wanted to make original Silent Hill games, they no longer have the staff nor the ability to justify any untested ideas to their shareholders. Capcom are the same way, just in a less desperate situation overall. This is a reality that everyone involved in gaming seems to recognize deep down, whether consciously or unconsciously. 

So the new meta has become to take established games of the past and to leverage their reputation to market a new fleet of safe, accessible, commercially viable "remakes." Capcom have been extremely successful in doing this with Resident Evil, so it makes complete sense that Konami would follow the formula for their own Silent Hill series. 

What seems to be lost in the conversation around these remakes, or maybe purposely ignored, is the artistic legacy of the original games is not being respected and is often actively belittled in the marketing of the new game. Gaming has never been too bothered about artistic integrity, but when it comes to critical analysis of games like Silent Hill 2 Remake, I think there needs to be a more holistic discussion of the debt these remakes owe their source material it terms of their overall design, rather than just treating the original game like a costume that the latest Last-Of-Us-Like can slip on and then pass itself off as somehow representative of the original game. 

Ironically, the only backlash Remakes ever seem to face is when they change the story and aesthetic elements of the original game, rather than the core gameplay systems and level design. In fact, the more the new remake eliminates the unique aspects of the original (like fixed camera angles and tighter pacing, in OG Hill 2's case) the better. And if the new elements of the remake are under-developed or fairly basic, like this remake's are, then that's fine too because it's all a net improvement anyway, right? 

The challenge I've come up against, that I think a lot of other reviewers more critical of these remakes face, is that just talking about the topic generally is cute and everything, but what really matters is taking these concepts and actually applying them in real game reviews. Some sort of method of analysis needs to be developed, which I demonstrate the best I can in this review, because otherwise every other gaming outlet (most of them literally owned by IGN now) will just treat the remake as a product and declare it a masterpiece for following the remake formula so well. 

The most coherent standard I can think of when it comes to my Remake reviews is to hold them up to what they should faithfully represent and build upon from the original game (including its unique mechanics) and also how well the "modernized" elements of the game hold up on their own terms, without the excuse of "being faithful" to the original game. None of this is faithful, let's be honest. So if it's not faithful, at least make it good.