# Talk:Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

Developer is Climax not Knami, and the magazine was Nintendo Power, not Official Nintendo Magazine or whatever (the cited link says this too).VatoFirme (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Climax is lame and has yet to update their own site to reflect ths. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 17:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is it considered a spin-off and not in the main series? It's basically a remake of Silent Hill 1 with the addition of being customized to the player which is appropriate considering the realm of Silent Hill appears different to each character even in the main story. Kiwisoup (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The main Silent Hill series incorporates elements from SH1 (Harry, Alessa, Dahlia, Lisa, Kaufman, Samael, and various locations) which are almost certainly going to be changed in Shattered Memories.  We cannot yet say for certain whether or not SHSM will even fit into the established series at all. Gustave the Steel (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The section heading is "Plot." Hmm, I wonder what it could contain. Perhaps... the plot? Yeah. Reverted. Takua108 (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a small section on the main page explaining the differences between the Wii, PSP and PS2 versions. For instance on the Wii version, you use the Wiimote to solve puzzles, listen to the character's mobile phone, etc. Basically, these are minor differences unique to each version. And even graphically. On the Wii there are larger draw distances, more detailed textures and visual effects that are missing in the PS2 or PSP versions. Some buildings and enemies in these versions have either been moved around or eliminated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikminister (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 

SM apparently failed to chart in America. Any other info? --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

5th on PS2 and 11th on Wii in the UK. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uk-charts-heavy-rain-is-number-one --Mika1h (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the source posted by Lenin and McCarthy reliable? Is this the official site of Nintendo? Hula Hup (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Third party. Your call on reliability. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No, no, I just asked if it's the official Nintendo site out of curiosity. Hula Hup (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For "Gameplay" and "Plot": [1] Hula Hup (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
For "Reception": [2] Hula Hup (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
[3]. The ref describes the game as "one of the best PS2 horror games", as a "horror gem" and as "one of the most underrated horror titles on the console". It says that the PS2 port "occasionally suffered framerate issues". Not sure if the bit "fans take issue with the fact it isn't terribly scary" could be included at all. Anima Sola (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs expansion, as it lacks the key gameplay, development, and reception elements, and a brief mention of the game's endings. Sources are required here per WP:LEAD.
In "Gameplay", would drawing a comparison between puzzles be excessive? For example, comparing a complicated puzzle requiring much thinking to a simple puzzle. I don't know.
"Development" also needs expansion, as is somewhat scrawny; check out this interview I found months ago and also this and this (just quickly scanned them, so don't know if they contain stuff already covered, though they have multiple pages, so chances are there's something good in them). If the section's enlarged enough to make space, a free image could be added, perhaps one of Yamaoka. Also, what about a sound sample representative of the game's atmosphere or songs in "Audio"?
Source 44 may be unreliable.
"Reception" needs to be expanded, too, to include other negative comments, if there are any, of course, and the game's featuring on best-game lists. Here are some reviews and a list, apart from the IGN list posted in the topic above by me (again, note that I haven't thoroughly checked all of them, so accept my apologies if any just repeat what's already written in the section without adding anything new): [4] (which should be cited with Template:Cite video), [5], [6], and [7] (the latter criticizes the game's checkpoint feature).
Hope I helped and ideas and objections welcome. Hula Hup (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Reception" needs paraphrasing because it contains a large amount of direct speech; quotes should be used sparingly, probably to explain something hard to explain through indirect speech. Hula Hup (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
More material for "Reception" (also suggested on Silent Hill's talk page by me): [8] and [9]. Hula Hup (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
For "Development": [10], [11], [12], [13]. Hula Hup (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, wonderful work tracking down all those super helpful RSs!
Lead: I respectfully disagree. It says that "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." At this point, I can't really see anything that would be (or is likely to be) challenged. Maybe the reception elements? Everything is sourced later on, anyhow. Perhaps I'm overlooking something?
Gameplay: You mean like a mention that there's a range of puzzle difficulty besides the simple key-finding ones? Does the example give the wrong impression? Hm. What does anyone else think?
Audio: Honestly, I'm having a really difficult time finding RSs for the audio section. And yes, the credits ending scene can be used to cite that McGlynn was a co-voice director. Yet, I can't help wondering what she meant by "one of a kind bonus stuff"?
Reception: Is always the most difficult part... I don't want to overemphasize the opinions of Videogamer.com, and the GameTrailers video review is (I think) just a video version of the written review. Not to mention that Source 3 is really vague about what the reviewer/staff member found scary about SHSM. Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you! I'm really happy to help. :) This article is yours, I've done minor things.
Lead: I see. Well, it seems that the reception bit is indeed probably the only challengable part, as it describes personal opinions. Cases regarding personal POVs are very sensitive, as we know.
Gameplay: I meant a comparison like this, but now I realise it'd possibly be excessive detail. Referring to the puzzle difficulty selection is also excessive detail, maybe? I don't know. According to WikiProject Video games, the section should contain only the gameplay's most prominent traits.
Audio: I'll watch the credits scene and see what I can do, I think it indeed cites her voice directing work.
Reception: I agree with you that it's the trickiest. It needs a lot of attention, even a minor wording mistake could make an opinion appear as a fact. OK, we omit the GameTrailers video. I haven't watched it, but I trust you. You mean that no more VideoGamer content should be added? Link 6 pans the checkpoint feature; some more criticism other than the one targeting the game's duration should be added to avoid making the article overemphasising the positively received elements. What do you believe? If you plan to continue working on the section, remember the IGN list far above in "Suggested sources", it's kinda like the Gamasutra top 10 overlooked games list, as its subtitle reveals ("forgotten Wii gems").
Is there any source that you believe adds nothing/repeats what's already covered? Hula Hup (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
For "Reception": [14] (on an award won by the game for its audio). Site reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Hula Hup (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
In "Audio", I guess the track listing table serves no actual purpose. It is unencyclopedic trivia which doesn't help readers better understand the section, probably needs to be removed per WP:WHIM. Hula Hup (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
After a marvelous copyedit by Baffle gab1978, it looks like just the direct quote issue is left. Wonderful progress, everyone! Let's see. Gameplay, release, & plot are devoid of direct quotes, and there are a few in development, but there are more in reception, most notably the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Hmm. I'll take a look at the ones in Development, they seem like they can be paraphrased.
Also, we have Harry being referred to as "Harry" and "Mason". I think we should pick one for consistency. I don't really mind either way, but don't the other articles call him "Harry"? Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There's also a minor difficulty: some IGN references feature a lowercased value ("ign.com") in their "Work" field and certain refs don't have a filled "Publisher" field. Indeed he's referred to by his first name in the other SH articles. Only some finishing touches left before we can submit for GA review. A major expansion and clean-up has occured over the last months, so there're many chances that it'll pass, I guess. Hula Hup (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just nominated it and wish good luck. Hula Hup (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Several words and phrases in the article are jargon entirely unknown or unclear to readers who are not familiar with certain fields. Examples are terms related to video games ("first-person", "video game graphics", "video game producer", "game demo"), psychology ("psychotherapy", "psychological test"), fiction ("frame story", "zombie"), and film ("voice acting"). We should also always bear in mind that a vast portion of the readers are foreigners and/or non-native speakers of the English language, an example being me. On second thought, I realised some links were indeed excessive, like "text messaging" and "psychiatrist", but some should desperately link to their explanation. Thank you and please forgive me for not starting a discussion here from the beginning. Hula Hup (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with this statement, but not necessarily with the examples provided. Problem is when an article is using way too many wikilinks (per WP:OVERLINK), like having a link every two or three words, jeopardizes readability. If we had a wiki link for every single "jargon" word in every single game article, no article would be readable, so articles in my opinion should be handled on a case by case basis. The editor should make a selection of which words better deserve a linking; these should be either closely game-related (to the specific game), or rather obscure terms/jargon. Which means if I had to make a choice, in an overwhelmed with links article, I would probably leave terms like 'zombie', 'voice acting', 'psychotherapy' unlinked, cause the 95 out of 100 readers are familiar with these terms. Worst case scenario, if you are among the few that does not comprehend their meaning, there is a wikipedia search box. Because if we linked them too, one, then, would debate that other words should have been also linked; 'gameplay', 'puzzle', 'exploration', 'installment', 'development', 'atmosphere', 'platform', 'profiling', 'interaction' and I could go on forever. I should also note that a link should appear only once inside the article. So, as I said, I generally agree, but we should distinguish which terms are indeed closely-related to the article and useful to link, and if they are too many to make the article hard to read. Feel free to add any links, as long as they are not excessive in the ways described. Thank you for the co-operation to make these articles even better. Punkalyptic (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The guideline says that, if helpful for readers, a link can be repeated at the first occurence after the lead. Hm, except "puzzle", "exploration", and "atmosphere", which are very common everyday words, yes you are right. Let me list the jargon I think are the murkiest to readers without knowledge of fields mentioned above or of older age: "ports", "framing", "first-person", "over-the-shoulder", "zombie", "baseball bat" (the sport is highly popular in the States and less in other territories, like Europe, where soccer is the dominant sport, and could also very easily be confused with rugby union, a sport popular in Anglophone countries, according to the respective article; etymology doesn't help too ("base" + "ball"), in contrast with the cases of football or handball, where one can at least understand that they're played with the feet and hands, respectively. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Following a suggestion on my talk page, I am doing a B-Class assessment on the article.

Referencing and citation - looks good
Coverage and accuracy - looks good criterion met
Structure - nice work
Grammar and style - no errors or typos anywhere
Supporting materials - looks perfect
Accessibility - very accessible
Hope this helps. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This first paragraph should be edited (by someone more skilled than myself) to remove its plot spoiler.  
THE FIRST DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH IN A GAME OR MOVIE'S WIKI SHOULD NOT SPOIL THE PLOT TWISTS OF THE ENDINGS!!!
Someone please fix this.  
As for all of you, like myself, who'd like to play the game before having this ruined, AVOID THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee Bellwether (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 

There is a guideline on spoilers in articles WP:SPOILER. I think that would be beneficial to read that. Also, we do not need any disclaimers. If you need help, there's always the immensely helpful help desk for newcomers. Hope that helps, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silent Hill: Shattered Memories/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hahnchen (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I would probably refactor the lead to have the gameplay better explained, which is currently split up between the two lead paragraphs.  If it's first person, then of course the player character is unseen - you should instead just state that they are unidentified until the game's end.  I assume that "completion of psychological tests which alter in-game elements while in the first setting" means that the tests in the first setting affect the elements within the second setting.  You should make this clearer in the lead.I like how you've set out the reception section to focus on individual aspects of the game instead of just listing review quotes.  I think you have over emphasised the individual writers over the publications they represent.  Reading through this section, you'll come to a reviewer's name, such as Gilbert, and then you'll have to scan back to figure out who he's writing for.  Introduce the writer once, but after that, just refer to the publication name.  No one really cares that it's Gilbert, but that it's GamesRadar.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The gameplay screenshot is terrible.  It's way too low resolution to show any meaningful information about the games presentation and gameplay.  SDTV is 640x480, you could scale that down to a quarter at 320x240 without any scaling artifacts, that would still be way low resolution, but effective enough.  I'm unconvinced that the screenshot you've chosen is indicative of the gameplay, I'm expecting an over the shoulder flashlight monster cam shot instead.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A few other issues.  Why is the reviews infobox hidden?  What does GameRankings give you that Metacritic doesn't already?  You don't need two places to give you a near identical overview of the critical reception.  No one cares about fan reaction in forums.  Why include the Edge and ONM review scores if you never visit their opinion in the text?  What are the Milthon awards?  I don't think the See Also section is helpful.One thing missing, which you probably want for an FA push is sales data - release issues, and that the game turned up in "overlooked" lists suggests that it did poorly commercially - but there was no confirmation of that in the article.Despite these minor issues, it passes the Good Article criteria.  The points raised above are fairly minor, and they shouldn't take long to fix.  As someone who has never bothered with the Silent Hill series, I found the article approachable, interesting and fairly comprehensive. - hahnchen
According to the official site (link provided in the source), the Milthon Awards is an event held in France, where various awards are given to video games. Shattered Memories' award was handed out by the Minister of Culture of France, an important achievement for the game that should be mentioned. Hula Hup (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not that it shouldn't be mentioned.  It's that you should explain what it is, in the text, or write the article at Milton Award so readers understand the context. - hahnchen 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I gave an explanation because I thought you didn't know what it was. Yes, a clarification should be provided in the article. Hula Hup (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I dissent on the removal of the GameRankings scores because the site doesn't have exactly similar scores with Metacritic, so citing only 1 source of aggregate scores could be considered sticking to a point of view, and on the removal of "See also" because I cannot see any plausible reason at all, as its addition is optional and doesn't contravene any policy or hinder the article's reability in any way. About "Reception", I'm not overwhelmingly sure that substituting reviewers' names with the names of the publications they write for is correct because a website or magazine cannot "say" or "dislike" or "criticize", they are not humans; such phrases are very frequent, but wouldn't using people's names be more, let's say, accurate? I don't know. Agree with everything else. Hula Hup (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
GameRankings says the same thing that Metacritic do, they do the same thing that Metacritic do.  They both aggregate reviews and come up with a composite figure.  They may do it slightly differently and have marginally different scores.  Readers just want to see an aggregate they can trust, they don't need two, and both GR and Meta are reliable sources.  It's a way to make sure that the reception section they're reading follows the critical consensus.  I don't mind keeping both when it's an older game, which may have come before the days of Metacritic wide coverage, but in recent games, the two just overlap.
The writers represent the publication that they write for.  Whoever wrote the review for Gamespot dictates Gamespot's point of view, their editorial team has approved it.  I don't have a problem with introducing the writer, you could argue that for individually notable writers like Charlie Brooker, that their opinion trumps the publication that they write for, but for the vast majority of writers, it should be obvious that people only care about what Tim Turi says, because he's saying it at Game Informer.  Regardless of the human/non-human status of publications, they clearly have a voice.
I didn't think the See Also section was useful because it seems difficult to see why those links are as relevant as the links in the text.  The first link in the article goes to survival horror which should cover it.  Why are those games covered?  Why not Amnesia: The Dark Descent for example? - hahnchen 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You probably have a point, concerning the notability of the reviewer. The current links in "See also" link to subjects much more closely related to the subject in question, while the link to survival horror's article or links to other genres' articles only provide very general information without focusing on the most emphasised shared characteristic of the subject in question and other similar subjects; the vast majority of horror games feature, for instance, the elements of the flashlight and puzzle solving, but only certain center on combat evasion. Amnesia is a good suggestion and hadn't been added up to now because I didn't know it emphasised combat evasion. Hula Hup (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hahnchen! Thank you for taking the time to review, and thank you for your kind words (the format for the reviews was suggested by Maxim in the GAN review of another SH article, so I can't take the credit:) ). I haven't found anything about SHSM's sales, with the exception of the UK sales ranking that another editor noted on the talkpage. But yes, it does look like it didn't do too well, doesn't it? With the exception of the screenshot, which unfortunately I will have to leave to another, more skilled editor to replace, I hope I have addressed your concerns. If not, please tell me. I'm unsure what to do about the "see also" section, however. I understand Hula Hup's reasoning behind it, and yet I also see its limitations. Also, I think it could be cleaned up a little, since one line is basically repeated three times. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The Nintendo Everything article posted on the game's talk page by Lenin and McCarthy is unreliable, I guess, because the source is not contained at all in the project's list of sources, not even as unreliable (when a source isn't mentioned at all it's unreliable, right?). The Eurogamer one posted by Mika1h should be added in "Reception". I've added some more related items in "See also", but I'm open to a removal of the section if we can find a logical reason, though I haven't come up with one by myself up to now. Could you give an example of what you think would be a limitation? What would you suggest to avoid repetition in the descriptions? I've noticed that a dead link previously present in the article has been removed, so I believe these are the remaining tasks before trying A class (gradual ascension is safer, I believe, to avoid a quick fail at FAC, which would be quite bitter, especially after all this nice collective try during the latest months): in "Gameplay", replacement of the image with a better one and provision of a very brief explanation of how the static works (remember that it's a staple of the series along with the flashlight, which is mentioned); in "Reception", provision of refs for some unsourced release dates; and finally, a brave (no, I'm kidding:P) ref clean-up over the whole length of the article to take care of the disgustingly common trouble with the "Work" and "Publisher" fields; the vast majority of the refs are OK, so it'd only take a quite short time. We are getting close!!! Hula Hup (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, moving the list from the GAN page to here. 

Add sales  Done
Replace screenshot  Done
Ref look-over and possible clean-up for consistency
Re-read to make sure article is understandable
Add voice actors (perhaps?)
Can anyone think of anything else to add? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:GAMECRUFT, inclusion of the voice actors is appropriate only if "mention of the actors is an important factor of the article" or if the "cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a film." I'm sure everyone agrees that the most crucial point here is the addition of the sales. I'll look for screenshots. Hula Hup (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
For "Reception": [15]. Hula Hup (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
For "Development": [16] (some interesting info on the absence of load times and pre-order sales). Hula Hup (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
For "Reception": [17] (best-of list also mentioning the game's low sales towards the end). Hula Hup (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
For the same section: [18]. Hula Hup (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources 1-3 been added. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66WsF8jnt?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/silent-hill-shattered-memories-review to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3177239&p=44
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028162655/http://au.gamespot.com/news/silent-hill-composer-departs-konami-report-6241873 to http://au.gamespot.com/news/silent-hill-composer-departs-konami-report-6241873
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://au.gamespot.com/wii/action/silenthillshatteredmemories/news.html?sid=6259095
Added archive https://archive.is/20120716131508/http://palgn.com.au/nintendo-wii/15787/silent-hill-shattered-memories-review/ to http://palgn.com.au/nintendo-wii/15787/silent-hill-shattered-memories-review/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Shattered Memories is on PC. Here's the Steam Page: [19] Shattered Memories Fujimotofan235 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)