Talk:Silent Hill

Seperate pages

This page needs some revision. It would be best to make each one its own seperate page, with links between them. Also, their exist other things entitled "Silent Hill." There is a song by that name, and I would imagine there is also possibly an actual place

I think it's only a good idea to split this page into several articles if there's anyone willing find and add such content. I do like Silent Hill, but I know I don't know that much about it to make this article much better. Splitting this into other articles would be a bad idea if there isn't enough new content to add. About a song with that name, I'm not sure. And about an actual place, I've never heard of that. The town in the game is supposed to be located in the US, but it's fictional. That's a fact. There might exist some place called "Silent Hill" somewhere, but it's probably just unknown to most people. A Google search won't help. Too many results regarding the games themselves to get anything else. – Kaonashi 18:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mary

Mary complains about how the hospital is keeping her alive forcibly, and how every day is a misery. How is that wanting to be alive?

Character section formatting

Someone please edit my character section of Silent Hill 2. I can put in content but I'm not very good at format. - Endlessmug

Hi Endlessmug,

I've rolled your changes back because I don't think they are necessary for the page, nor do I think that they meet the content guidelines. Perhaps this information would be more relevent to a Silent Hill 2-specific page? What does everybody else think? --waka 05:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should make a Silent Hill 2 page. - Endlessmug

Inspiration for Silent Hill

I've watched a couple of Japanese horror movies recenetly (Dark Water, The Ring, The Grudge etc.) and I'm wondering if these, or the books they are taken from, has had any impact on the SH series. The author Kôji Suzuki, apparently the 'Stephen King of Japan', has written some horror, I'm sure Team Silent used some stuff from him. I was espically pondering on Dark Water and the water that suddenly drips from the hotel's walls and ceiling at the end of Silent Hill 2. Anyone who can verify any connections?

I spoke briefly with Akria Yamaoka about this exact topic at the Game Developer's Conference this year. He gave a talk about the atmosphere in Silent Hill (the slides are here (Powerpoint Format)), and one of his points was that Silent Hill was explicitly created to mimic what he called American Modern Horror. He sighted Stephen King, H.P. Lovecraft, and David Lynch as examples of inspiring American horror authors. He mentioned, however, that since he and his team are Japanese, the Japanese approach to horror probably made it into the games unconsciously. He went on to speak about some of the differences in approach between American and Japanese-style horror. When I spoke with him after his talk, I asked him how he felt about modern Japanese popular horror, such as The Ring and The Grudge. His response was that he felt that The Ring was quite Japanese, as the true horror of the situation isn't ever really revealed and all of the violence and even the antagonist are largely absent from the screen. The Grudge, on the other hand, he found to be more American, as it was much freer with its clear depiction of the antagonists (the cat-boy, etc). So my guess is that the movies you mention are similar to Silent Hill because they are both influenced by traditional Japanese culture, but I do not think there is a direct connection between the movies and the games. Also, Silent Hill 1 predates original Ring movie (both came out in 1998, so Silent Hill was probably in production for at least a year before that). Finally, I've heard (from someone--now I can't remember where) that the "Stephen King of Japan" monkier for Suzuki is fairly inaccurate. That's second-hand knowledge on my part, though. --waka 04:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I really wish I could have seen that presentation, it seemed very interesting.

Comics

Just wondering if we have any sources to back up the recently-added statement that Paint it Black is regarded as the best of the Silent Hill comics. I've not read the comics and I have no idea, but do we have any source for this anywhere? --waka 23:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samael

Samael was never present in Silent Hill, as many non-Japanese fans believe. Dahlia, the old woman in the first game, lied about the Seal that Harry possesses, and it is in fact the Seal of Metatron (which reappears in Silent Hill 3). The confusion arose from poor translation in the game from Japanese to English, and in fact God was only referred to as Samael one time in the game. Both Samael and Metatron are taken from the Kabbalah.

I removed this text because I don't know what it means. The information seems interesting, but the grammar isn't clear. Why isn't Samael present? Does this paragraph suggest that Samael is actually Metatron? Or that the Flaros, being the Seal of Metatron, had something to do with Samael not being present? Or is it trying to say that something other than Samael is responsible for twisting Silent Hill around? What exactly was poorly translated? Just saying that there was a translation error is confusing; please provide some context about what sort of text was misleading. What's the relevance of referring to God as Samael once or more in the game?

The information stated here sounds very interesting and relevant, but the way it is written is very confusing. Could somebody clean up the text and re-add it? Until then, I'm removing it in the interests of maintaining clarity in the article. --waka 21:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and clarify it. It's here because it's a main misconception in Silent Hillology. A lot of people talk about Samael's influence in SH 2-4, when in fact he's not even there.Loui Da Boss

A main misconception outside Japan is that the angel Samael was the main protagonist in the first Silent Hill and therefore had some influence in the following installments. In fact Samael was never involved in the incidents surrounding Silent Hill. Dahlila, the old woman in the first game, lied about the Seal that Harry possesses and the various Marks found around the town, calling them the Mark of Samael. It is in fact the Seal of Metatron (which reappears in Silent Hill 3). The confusion arose from poor translation from Japanese to English at the end of the game, where the last boss is faced. The creature that causes the disturbances in Silent Hill in the first game, Incubus, and in the third is a physical manifestation of the god that a cult in Silent Hill worships. The history of the cult and the god they worship is revealed in Silent Hill 3. Whether it has had an impact in Silent Hill 2 and 4 is debatable, but there is a Mark alike those found in the first game at the end of the second, so it is possible that the god's influence is still present throughout the series.

How is this then?Loui Da Boss

Sounds much better. One point to clarify: it's commonly mistakenly understood that Samael is the protagonist of SH1? Don't you mean antagonist? People believe that Samael is the enemy, not that Harry is actually Samael, right? Also, I'm still not clear what the poor translation was. What did the English version say, and where was it wrong?

Also, I performed some minor edits for grammatical clarity. I hope you don't mind:

A common misconception outside of Japan is that the angel Samael is the main protagonist in the first Silent Hill game. However, Samael is actually never involved in the incidents surrounding Silent Hill. In the first Silent Hill game, Dahlila lies about the Seal that Harry possesses and the various Marks found around the town, calling them the Mark of Samael. The Seal is in fact the Seal of Metatron (which reappears in Silent Hill 3). A poorly worded translation from Japanese to English at the end of Silent Hill also added to the confusion. The creature that causes the disturbances in the first and third game, Incubus, is a physical manifestation of the god that a cult in Silent Hill worships. The history of the cult and the god they worship is revealed in Silent Hill 3. Whether this creature exerts influence in Silent Hill 2 and 4 is debatable, but a Mark similar to those in Silent Hill 1 is present at the end of Silent Hill 2, suggesting that the god may play a role throughout the series.--waka 16:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A common misconception outside of Japan is that the angel Samael is the main antagonist in the first Silent Hill game. However, Samael is actually never involved in the incidents surrounding Silent Hill. In the first Silent Hill game, Dahlila lies about the Seal that Harry possesses and the various Marks found around the town, calling them the Mark of Samael. The Seal is in fact the Seal of Metatron (which reappears in Silent Hill 3). A poorly worded translation from Japanese to English at the end of Silent Hill also added to the confusion. The creature that causes the disturbances in the first game, Incubus, and Silent Hill 3, is a physical manifestation of the god that a cult in Silent Hill worships. The history of the cult and the god they worship is revealed in Silent Hill 3. Whether this creature exerts influence in Silent Hill 2 and 4 is debatable, but a Mark similar to those in Silent Hill 1 is present at the end of Silent Hill 2, suggesting that the god may play a role throughout the series.

Yes, sorry, antagonist. I'm not too sure about what the exact translation problem was, check out this site, at the end [1]. I edited your text about the difference between the boss in the first and third game, because it is not called 'Incubus' in the third. I'm not sure what it is, but it's definitely not Incubus, or the 'Winged Demon' as it is also refered to. If you've played both, I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.Loui Da Boss

Oh ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say there about Incubus. How's this for a final version (minor revision for flow):

A common misconception outside of Japan is that the angel Samael is the main antagonist in the first Silent Hill game. However, Samael is actually never involved in the incidents surrounding Silent Hill. In the first Silent Hill game, Dahlila lies about the Seal that Harry possesses and the various Marks found around the town, calling them the Mark of Samael. The Seal is in fact the Seal of Metatron (which reappears in Silent Hill 3). A poorly worded translation from Japanese to English at the end of Silent Hill also added to the confusion. The creatures that cause the disturbances in the first and third games are a physical manifestation of the god that a cult in Silent Hill worships (in the first game, the creature is named 'Incubus'). The history of the cult and the god they worship is revealed in Silent Hill 3. Whether this creature exerts influence in Silent Hill 2 and 4 is debatable, but a Mark similar to those in Silent Hill 1 is present at the end of Silent Hill 2, suggesting that the god may play a role throughout the series.

If you are happy with it, go ahead and post it back to the page. Thanks for the clarification! --waka 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I appriciate the help.Loui Da Boss

Samael vs Metatron

This section of text is apparently somewhat contentious:

The mark that appears throughout Silent Hill is that of Samael's, NOT the mark of Metatron. The Mark of Samael is a triangle within a twin circle that is filled with symbols - the mark we see in the games - whilst Metatron is a series of interconnected circles and lines that bear no resemblance to the mark we actually see. Numerous game guides released actually name the mark as that of Samael as well. This does not necessarily prove that Samael is encountered in the games, only that it is his symbol seen throughout Silent Hill. In Silent Hill 3 however, one of the characters says things that suggest he does not see any actual difference between the Devil and God, and since Samael is regarded as Satan himself (i.e. the Devil) and the cult appear to worship him as a God, it seems very likely. The confusion between the two marks likely arises from the fact that Harry, in Silent Hill 1, uses Metatron as a means to combat the power of Samael. Metatron is a symbol of good, whilst the mark of Samael is a symbol of evil. Therefor Metatron is a weapon to combat Alessa, who wields the power of the Cults God, Samael. This symbology, the power of light and dark fighting one another, and of light prevailing, is common in Angelic and religious writings.

It was recently replaced with:

The mark that Harry encounters throughout the original game is, in fact, the Seal of Metatron/Metraton. The Seal of Metatron is a pair of concentric circles, and inside that, a large triangle and several symbols, and is said to seal away the powers of evil. The second symbol, seen in Silent Hill 3 and 4, is known as the Halo of the Sun. It is designed similarly to the Mark of Metatron, being two concentric circles, but filled with three circles in a triangle pattern, the internal circles standing for Life, Death, and Rebirth. The confusion between the two marks likely arises from the fact that Harry, in Silent Hill 1, is told by Dahlia Gillespie that the Seal of Metatron is the Mark of Samael, in hopes of decieving Harry. The Halo of the Sun is the true symbol of the Cult, better known as "The Order."

Now, since there are no references to back up either of these arguments, I've (again) removed the entire section. To replace it, I think somebody needs to: 1) come up with references (or proof; in game screenshot?) to back up their side of the argument, or 2) rewrite this paragraph to suggest that there is some debate about the nature of the Seal that Harry encounters.

--waka 18:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Silent Hill 5?

Nothing in this article has mentioned Silent Hill 5 even though it has its own article. Is this purely based on rumors? ~ Hibana 23:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That article has obviously been canned and as yet, no concrete news has surfaced about a fifth installment.

it is confirmed: http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/1631/ Scix 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It's been "confirmed". But nothing more than speculation about the game really exists (plot/story/characters etc.) TotalTommyTerror 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fan-Crazed

All right, this page is seriously one of the worst examples of getting nailed by fan sites. As fan sites themselves can either be found through a web-search and are not official, I think we should remove all fan links from the wiki page.

There are numerous other wiki pages that follow this rule as what tends to happen is that everyone and their dog with a geocities shrine likes to tag the external links page with their own site.

I move for the deletion of all fan related websites from the external links, they tarnish the objectivity of the page. TotalTommyTerror 17:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you here, this page needs major work and really deserves a better overview. However, I feel that some of these fan sites are superior to the official sites in a lot of way and fansites, when they're done with a level of professionalism and respect for the source material, can be far more useful and extensive than any other type. A lot of the links definitely shouldn't be linked from here (or anywhere else for that matter, especially some of the awful 'fanart') or they need new descriptions if they remain. I've added subcategories to better facilitate this change and keeps things organized in the mean time. Bloodofox 19:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the fan sites should be removed. We should, however, keep links to sites ("fan" or no) that contain valuable information about the games. The Translated Memories site, for example, is a valuable resource. But I'm all for removing 99% of what's there now, and creating a policy to quickly remove such edits in the future. Everybody and their brother has a Silent Hill forums site, and they don't need to be linked to from here. --waka 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

All fan sites removed. I think it would be unfair to make an exception for one, as it should be an all or none rule. TotalTommyTerror 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fare or not, I think some of those sites are extremely valuable resources for these games. I'm sure they garner more visitors than any of the official sites. Some of them should definitely stay and be listed.--Bloodofox 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Then consider a way to reword their inclusion so it becomesmeaningful, and not just a links list that folks'll put their vanity sites onto.Scix 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need to either come up with a really explicit policy or cut all of the links. Fighting with people about which links fit and which do not would be hell. One thing we could consider is actually using some of the information from the useful sites in the main article, then linking to them under the References section rather than the External Links section. Then we could blow away all the external links other than the official ones. --waka 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that a reference page is a good idea. A lot of the more obscure info here was culled from the major fan sites and they are, indeed, used commonly for reference. --Bloodofox 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless any of the sites are actual journalistic sites then they don't belong. It would be wrong to include some fan sites just because they have more information and exclude others because they might not be up to par. I wouldn't however be opposed to include a site (fan or official) that included something useful such as published interviews with producers.

We do not however, need to be linking a site just because it has scans of the instruction manual or a more detailed story synopsis. There's plenty of non wiki ways to find that kind of information. And if the game synopses here were more detailed it would eliminate the need for those kind of links. TotalTommyTerror 15:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the definition of "actual journalistic site" vs "fan site" is going to get us into trouble (people will argue that their site contains as much authentic journalism as the next, etc), so my suggestion is that we reference sites that actually have obscure information, be they fan sites or no. If the quality of the page can be increased by referencing something on some site (and I agree it's not worth creating a reference link for information that is readily available via google), I don't mind linking to a "fan site." I think we agree that our major goal here is to omit the horrific number of sites with Silent Hill forums and the like. --waka 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice touch with the google link, Waka. I hate to see it come to that really, but it's only a matter of time before the fanboys say "Me too." TotalTommyTerror 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese spelling

Throughout this article's history some people have deemed it necessary to delete the Japanese spelling of Silent Hill. But as it is after all a Japanese game I think in all fairness it should be present on the site.

Agreed -- though it always looks like (???????) to me. Perhaps if it were mentioned, rather than just inserted as a parenthetical? Scix 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it the way it is now, as it's consistent with the Wikipedia standards. --waka 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Created Article Pages For The Games!

I've just created the articles for the four games in the series. Please feel free to edit them! Just to let you know enjoy! Empty2005 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Evil vs. An Evil

I re-inserted the references to evil on the Silent Hill page. After re-reading the NPOV guidelines, I don't see any problem. There's a big difference between using "evil" as a moral judgment and using it in reference to a metaphysical or supernatural force in a fictional context. So, for example, including a line in the Hitler article, stating that he was "one of the most evil men in history," would be completely inappropriate (even though many people might agree). But talking about THE evil of Silent Hill--where the term is obviously used to denote a specific power or force--is not a problem. In fact, I think using other terms comes out convoluted and confusing. However, I did leave out the link to the Wikipedia article on "Evil," since it deals with moral evil, not evil as a supernatural force (that link was my fault to begin with; I should have read the article more thoroughly before I linked it).

The problem with this is that by using the term evil you're making a clear judgement from your pint of view about whatever "force" there is. This judgement is left up to the player and is extremely vague - The term is inherently loaded with morality, theological dualism and is an inappropriate descriptor for a neutral article or anything neutral for that matter - There are many other descriptors you can use without such a problem. Term removed. :bloodofox: 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"by using the term evil you're making a clear judgement from your pint of view about whatever "force" there is. This judgement is left up to the player and is extremely vague"

Um ... not really, no.

There's a lot in the Silent Hill games that's left to the player's interpretation, but I don't think the underlying nature of the forces operating in the town is one of those things. I don't remember it being explicitly stated in the games, but on the other hand, I've never seen any great, heated debate on the topic either. It seems pretty clear that the force in Silent Hill is "evil" (flayed bodies, monsters tearing people apart, a cult sacrificing little girls to bring their god into the world, a god who, interestingly enough, closely resembles some depictions of Satan--Baphomet, more accurately--but you get the idea). Evil is intentionally written into the story.

We have to distinguish here between discussing real world topics and discussing fictional worlds. They're two different things. Saying the forces in Silent Hill are evil is like saying Darth Vader is evil. Calling Darth Vader evil in an article shows no bias and does not violate neutrality: in the world of Star Wars, this is simply a fact.

Neutrality in an article means that the author does not include his own judgments, opinions, personal values, etc. (or cherry pick his information so that the article supports his biases). He tries to relate the facts with as little bias as possible. An author saying the forces in Silent Hill are "evil" is not "making a clear judgement from [his] point of view." He's simply relating an established fact of this fictional universe. You're right, the word "evil" is "inherently loaded with morality, [and] theological dualism." But this morality and theological dualism was very specifically written into the world of Silent Hill by its designers. (As a matter of fact, I would argue that a discussion of Silent Hill without the concept of evil undercuts the substance of the game.)

To put it another way: Silent Hill itself is not neutral. So let's put the evil back (where it belongs)!  :-)

Silent Hill itself is totally neutral. It is a place of great spiritual presence, but there is nothing whatsoever that suggests that the town itself is evil, or that it has any sort of consciousness or will of its own. All of the wickedness that we see in the games is ultimately perpetrated by people, and can always be traced to specific individuals. People like Dahlia and Claudia and Walter commit atrocities in the interest of reviving God. Never is it insinuated that their God physically or mentally compels them to do any of it. Given that God has proven to be quite fallable in each incarnation, it's hardly a stretch to believe that God is a product of these people, and not the other way around. Even in Silent Hill 2, which does not involve the Order, there is no evidence of a blanket sentience. Silent Hill is merely a place that hosts a very peculiar kind of spiritual energy. It is never activated randomly. Every time we see Silent Hill's surreal side, there is a person responsible for that happening.

There definitely is evil in Silent Hill, but it's the Order that is evil, not the ground they hold sacred.