Considering one of the common refrains about the most famous game in the series, Silent Hill 2, is that the combat being crap is an important part of making you feel like a regular guy way out of your depth, I'd say they have right to feel concerned. There's a serious incongruity between "horror game" and "detailed combat system". > "Hopefully they pull a Bloober and prove me wrong." Is this a Gen Z reference I'm too Millennial to understand? _Is this what getting old feels like?_

Nah, bloiber is a game company. They made the Silant hill 2 remake which, at first, people thought would be fucking garbage but was actually very, very good. So, to translate, they believe that this will be negative but have said so in the past before being proven wrong. Particularly with the company Bloomberg and their Silant hill 2 remake

Bloober Team is the studio that did the Silent Hill 2 remake.

Just because it has a dodge button doesn't mean it's soulslike. Didn't Silent Hill 2 Remake have very similar combat? What's the problem?

What a waste of time of an article. I love people reporting on the game having "souls-like combat" and the only actual concerning detail they bring up is degradable weapons. I watched the footage, there's a dodge and a counter, which can make it a little bit souls-like, but that's about it.

There also is a counter, and IGN person who reported on the game said something along the lines of "Unless you played a game like Sekiro, you may find the timing challenging." this combined with the absence of guns is why people are referring to it as a souls-like, I think.

>Considering one of the common refrains about the most famous game in the series, Silent Hill 2, is that the combat being crap is an important part of making you feel like a regular guy way out of your depth, I'd say they have right to feel concerned. There's a serious incongruity between "horror game" and "detailed combat system". I agree, and this was precisely the issue I had with some of the more recent western-developed SH games, like Homecoming. They give the player *too much* agency, for a franchise that was built on making the most of limitations (both technical and strategical). I have similar complaints with recent Resident Evil games for the same reasons. That said, SH:F already seems to be a pretty major departure from the franchise, so maybe they're trying to gauge reactions to possible avenues for spinning-off the series to other genres with its own "rules" and design.

The Remake still has too much combat in it. Way too much. The game showers enemies at you compared to the original. Which is very against how the original game was, not only from an enemy count standpoint, but from a mood and theme standpoint.

As a SH fan myself, Silent Hill will always be best when the peak optimal way to play the game is to never engage in combat, except when a boss battle forces you to engage in combat. In the original SH2, even the tutorial fight was optional. You could get the plank and then just leave without fighting. Technically speaking, even boss battles don't need to be fought. The bosses will defeat themselves after a certain amount of time. Thematically speaking, this is way better than turning every random person that wanders into Silent Hill into a super soldier mass killer by the end of each game. It also keeps the tension high. Combat every 2 seconds becomes tiresome and does not allow tension to build in the player. Silent Hill could build tension without enemies even being spawned in, but a good day to ruin this is to litter the game with combat encounters.

> maybe they're trying to gauge reactions to possible avenues for spinning-off the series to other genres with its own "rules" and design. They already did this with Silent Hill The Arcade, the Japan exclusive visual novels, the Japan exclusive mobile phone dungeon crawler, and Silent Hill Book of Memories.