HonestGamers Review // Silent Hill 3

What began as uncommon brilliance on the PlayStation, has degraded into a convoluted and senseless exercise in flexing visceral muscle while offering less and less in the way of engaging play. And the downward spiral began here.

[ArtsyGamer]

Silent Hill 3 is a fantastic game.
The industry has come a long way since then, and playing it now it does show some age, but it is still terrifying at points.
Just the soundtrack alone makes this game worthy of more than a 6, this reviewer has no grasp on this type of game.

[sobekflakmonkey]

I agree completely, the game was quite amazing it deserves a lot more praise than what it got.

[Warprincess116]

If people wanted to buy silent hill 3. They would have already done it by now. This game been out for like 7-8 years. Seriously what is up with people reviewing games that came out years ago.

[itsralf]

I'm more concerned about how fast the last eight years have passed. I can't believe it's been that long since it came out. /:

[Pozzle]

1. What's the point in reviewing a game that came out year ago?

2. SH3 is worth far more than a 6/10. It may not be perfect, but it's better than average and one of the last examples of a true survival horror title.
6/10 is borderline "shit game" territory. :(

[Temp]

I'd disagree with that. I'd argue that this review shows a great authority of the genre. I liked Silent Hill 3, but it was the middle game between the series at its peak (1 & 2) and its self destruction (4 especially and Homecoming).

Heather was easily the best protaganist of the series, but the rest of the game simply did not get into your head like the two before it.

All Silent Hill soundtracks are worthy of complete praise. That they dropped Akira Yamaoka from the new game just goes to show how little clue they have left.

I see no problem in retro reviewing either; I do it myself a lot. If someone wants to write about Dragon Age 2 or Thunder Force 1 on the Sharp X1, that's their call. Our ony choice is if we choose to read it or not.

[ArtsyGamer]

Silent Hill 1 and 2 deserve a 10, maybe a 9 at the least.
Silent Hill 3 was not that far of a drop off, 8 at the least. A 6/10 is harsh, and in no way shows a great authority of the genre.
I have played nearly every Survival Horror game available, and it is still one of the most memorable and haunting.

[Temp]

I've played as many, if not more, and while I would have given SH1 a ten a year ago, it would scrape an 8 after last month's reply; the game has aged heart-breakingly poorly. SH2 shifts its focus, but does not have the power of the original because the focus is somewhat broken; you're not walking into a unexplained word. Things make some sense now and this corrodes the effect.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. A 6/10 score is above average which SH3 is. I disagree with you despite sharing (at least) the same experience of the genre -- will you brush that opinion off as unauthoritive too simply because it differs?

[ArtsyGamer]

They should probably just preface these reviews as a current review of a retro game.
The game (When it came Out) was a testament to how great Survival Horror games could be.
If you didn't play the game in the timeframe when it was developed and released, it will not hold up exactly. If you review Pacman now, it may get a 4/10, but when it came out it was a 10/10.

[Temp]

What would the point be in reviewing a game on obsolete merits? None of us are likely to fall into a time/space tear that throws us back 20 years and wipes our memories of the advancements the media has made in the meanwhile. If playing a game now is painful, then because it wasn't X amount of years ago should be used as a crutch for its shortcomings. That's why reviews are date stamped.

Pacman is a great example because Namco knew it was outdated so brought it back up to date with Championship Edition. Otherwise, it's only place in today's market would, realistically, be nothing more than nostalgic.

[Yes_2]

@Temp: So you're basically saying that if classic games like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario 64, etc. are reviewed nowadays, they should be compared to games that come out in this generation, thus they should be given lower review scores?

That's bullshit. Games should be reviewed based on the year they were released and the technology that was available at the time. Not compared to games that are obviously more up-to-date and technologically advanced.

[emerald_rocker]

Come on guys, are you seriously comparing Silent Hill 3 to games like Pac-Man and Final Fantasy VII?

Whenever someone points out that a game has aged poorly (translation: it wasn't actually that great to begin with), bums are quick to bring up legendary classics and say "THESE GAMES MUST SUCK NOW, TOO". At no point in time was Silent Hill 3 *ever* at Pac-Man's level -- not during the year of release, and not today.

Reviewing games based on the year they were released is dumb for several reasons. Here are two:
1: You're not a time-traveler
2: You would have to FORGET EVERYTHING YOU'VE LEARNED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS ABOUT GAME DESIGN to do that.

Why would I listen to someone who intentionally misleads me? That's what "reviewing based on when it was released" really is -- lying.

A writer who isn't honest enough to assign a game to its proper place in the hierarchy of survival horror isn't worth my time.

[newn4gguy]

I think they're basing it off the merit this game deserves...and not what it was handed.

PACMAN is an industry staple.
FFVII is also...but it's not necessarily the best in the series. Most gamers would say FFVI has the best story and X or XII the best gameplay. Neither will be recognized as an industry staple though.

That being said, I agree with the rest of your statements.

[newn4gguy]

Silent Hill 3 is one of the best looking games on PS2. I'm not sure why someone would say otherwise.

The atmosphere, writing, music (obviously, with Akira Yamaoka and Melissa Williamson), and characters are all brilliant!

This is a great game.

[Alos88]

Dude, if you enjoyed it when it came out then you have no right to complain now.

[SomeOtherGuy]

What if you don't enjoy it now? We're not currently living in the time when it came out.

[Alos88]

I mean that if they enjoyed it when it came out, then it was good for it's time. Comparing it to modern games is just unfair and rather stupid really.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Right, but and they're not saying it wasn't great when it came out. They're saying it isn't all that great nowadays. Newer games and technology isn't what's hampering it, it's the fact that new developments in the medium have caused us to move on. Basically, it's becoming a less relevant game, not necessarily a lesser game. Selling a current review for a game based on what it used to be would be flat out dishonest.

[Temp]

I’d argue that it would be stupid to stick your head in the sand and pretend you’re enjoying something based on obsolete standards when, really, you’re not. It’s a fact that some media -- be it music, film or games, -- age poorly. To ignore that fact and award the game pity points because it was more impact in yesteryear may make the writer feel better, but it’s deceiving his audience.

Some games stand the test of time. X-Com was made in 1993 and is still today probably the best TBS on the market today. Some games do not and, while it’s entirely fair (and, in fact, would be very much unfair not to) credit them with what they did right in the day, ignoring how it plays in today’s market would be akin to dragging Babe Ruth’s corpse out of the ground, propping him up on base, then, when a flyball knocks his head off, awarding him MVP because he was awesome back when.

[Venoxn4g]

It's one of better true survival horror games, I enjoyed it a lot.. it's scary, haunting and breaking nerves adventure with good puzzles and good story.. how could it get 6/10 ????? maybe reviewer has to pull out a carrot from his as* ... (don't like to be immature, but review a great game in 6/10 is absurd) ... 8,8/10 easily

[SomeOtherGuy]

Ever heard of a difference of opinion?

[rmedtx]

I played the game when it was first released. I was a little bit disappointed with it but I think it deserves at least a 7.5 out of 10.

[Venoxn4g]

just got a little bit angry :) there are lots of worse games than this, but are getting at least 7 or 8 ...this is a classic

[sheepeater]

Again, I see trivialities over scoring and this makes me sad.

Kindegarden Lesson!

5 is half of 10. The pinpoint score for an "average" game is half the highest score available. As such, 5 is the actual average. A six is above a 5, meaning that though it's not flambuoyantly praising, a 6 is still a good score.

I'll never understand where this inflated scoring system came from, where 7 is perceived as average. THAT'S what's bullshit. I suppose it arose from mainstream developers blackballing mainstream reviewing sites into giving their games high scores rather than letting them review honestly. Shame that such conventions can't be overwritten.

[Picnic]

Silent Hill 3 is a funny old game. It's scary because of the atmosphere yet it's not as scary as it could be because some of the monsters aren't as imposing as they could have been. For instance, the first meeting with a monster in the mall has less of the bizarre and fearful dread that it could have because you have already experienced surreal horrors in the initial dream sequence. Also, it's not like the mall was bustling with people in the first place (I can only remember Heather and the detective being in it) so, when it closes it just seems to start with like it was when it was open. The game features some genuinely creepy environments (often purely because of your odd isolation rather than many actual enemies) with eerie lighting (e.g, very early on, the mall as it turns in to the otherworld which remains perhaps the scariest part until the later hospital). Silent Hill 3 sometimes looks like a visual precursor to Bioshock. The character models are impressive for the time (although the Resident Evil remake on the Gamecube had impressive ones too) but they sometimes talk at a lethargic pace. It's a lonely game of long, desolate or haunted corridors / locked doors, item hunting, backtracking around your immediate environment. It is not one that you will enjoy casually playing through - it is a bit intense. Yet some opportunities seem wasted - I thought that the first boss battle was going to be in some nightmarish labyrinth underground. Instead, it was a straightforward shoot out in an open arena. The construction site is underused. The pyschological significance of the monsters to Heather's character is not immediately apparent, especially when, like the nurses, they are re-used from the earlier games.
However the dark and enclosed nature of the game has its own psychological significance to your young female character although she doesn't let on enough.