You just told me something about it. The only thing I need to know, really.
Yes, for reasons that I already mentioned before, and will discuss more on below.
That defeats the whole purpose. The series is named Silent Hill because it takes place in, and/or is about, Silent Hill.
Then it’s not Silent Hill. Why give it that name and pass it off as part of the series? Just be a whole new game, a whole new IP with its own future franchise prospects, don’t try to incorporate it into an existing IP as a marketing gimmick.
Yes, but all tying back to Silent Hill and what happened there. The idea is that it is the nucleus of the phenomenon.
Not really. The whole implication behind the series is that this is the only area where supernatural energies can be harvested and/or magnified to manifest physically, insofar as anything ever “physically” happens in the games. Every entry, people are surprised at supernatural occurrences taking place. The idea is that three different sources of paranormal phenomena are working in tandem to cause Silent Hill to be what it is. This is treated as new and unique, like it happens no where else, and has never happened anywhere else. Anytime it goes anywhere else, it is all because somebody living in that new place has ties to Silent Hill, and the power of the town reaches out to them and corrupts the place where they are.
Yes, exactly. That’s the point; I want to go back to Silent Hill. There hasn’t been a true sequel since Downpour, and Downpour changed things enough to be its own unique entry that we haven’t had a familiar sequel since Homecoming. It’s time for a classic-style revisit, once again.
No, because if it is both A) not in Silent Hill, and B) not connected to Silent Hill, or the lore behind it, then it really has nothing at all to do with Silent Hill. It’s just a horror game with another game’s title put on it in an effort to sell better.
