Why Good+ Ending is My Canon Ending (spoilers)

[Jonipoon]

Uh, yes it does; because in those films the time loop is the direct focus of the plot that is superobvious and not some vague interpretation of what's going on. It's a pretty stark difference.

I actually went into more detail in this thread where I explain more about my stance on time loops in Silent Hill.

If we count P.T. as part of the series, that's actually the only one that features true looping.

[alone in the town]

Uh, yes it does; because in those films the time loop is the direct focus of the plot that is superobvious and not some vague interpretation of what's going on. It's a pretty stark difference.

I agree the difference is stark, I don't agree that it is meaningful. It is not necessary that the plot makes you aware and constantly reminds you of a concept, for it to be seen there and for it to potentially explain something, for someone. Vague interpretations are fun. It's why I still give a damn. It doesn't need to be canon, or anything. It fits, it makes sense, I can believe it (or at least, accept it grudgingly), and so I do.

[The Adversary]

>I like the Bad ending most out of them all, if Harry is actually being forced to endure all that over and over again.<
I agree, to an extent. While I like the Bad ending, I feel it's a bit cheap and, honestly, cliché. Like, this was almost the expected outcome—that Harry even references he "could have had a car accident, and now [is] lying unconscious in a hospital bed," should have been a warning for us all. But I also suppose the Bad ending is likely the most common one to receive on a first playthrough. It was certainly mine.

Of course, the problem with that is it makes it so none of the stories afterward (or before) can even imaginably happen, because it was all Harry's Jacob's Ladder. And that's a problem for (people like) me.

[Burning Man]

One way to look at the endings is from Alessa's perspective. It wouldn't be that different from Heather's perspective as we're dealing with mothers of god in both cases. When Alessa (Incubator) disappears in Bad and Bad+ endings, Valtiel could be recycling her, and hence Harry is forced to repeat the cycle with her resurrection. On the other hand, in the Good endings, Alessa doesn't actually disappear as she remains fallen and motionless on the Seal of Metatron.

I compared the scenes of Good and Good+. It could be a rendering thing, but Good's Alessa seems more transparent than Good+'s Alessa at the end. It's also in Good+ that Alessa uses her power to stop the fireballs raining down momentarily (telekinesis?) to let Harry and Cybil escape. As Alessa remains motionless on the Seal of Metatron, the angle we last see her is different, too. In the Good ending, the Seal is pointing to 11, 11:30 maybe. As the camera pans out, it also rotates the the Seal counter-clockwise toward 10:30. This scene almost gives the illusion that time is being rewinded if not just for dramatic effect. In the Good+ ending, the Seal is pointing to 4:30 and remains focused at that angle. A possible interpretation is that 4:30 is the end of night and beginning of morning.

Good:
https://youtu.be/903vE87pA2s?t=145

Good+:
https://youtu.be/6NFmnXUiezk?t=187

(Credit to Youtube user Marcus)

[The Adversary]

I checked the videos and Alessa is in the same position in both endings, she's just shown from different angles.



Not sure you can use the camera angle as an interpretation of time manipulation.

[Burning Man]

The camera being its own character is not exactly a new theory. This could be taken as an extension to that idea. I would say the change in camera angle here is deliberate. The other parts of the scenes that Good and Good+ endings share are recycled. But, here, they shot the scene from a rather noticeably different angle.

Perhaps, in relation to this, the Good ending's final moments of Harry looking up at the camera is in the middle of the night. In comparison, Good+ with Harry and Cybil picking up the baby is dawn.

[alone in the town]

Of course, the problem with that is it makes it so none of the stories afterward (or before) can even imaginably happen, because it was all Harry's Jacob's Ladder. And that's a problem for (people like) me.

>imaginably

Challenge accepted.

I would have dropped the original Bad ending from the first Silent Hill, right onto the player's lap, the moment Heather finds Harry dead in their apartment in Silent Hill 3. It would have been canon, that would have been the end of the game, and everyone could just die mad about it.

[DinoNerd89]

Of course, the problem with that is it makes it so none of the stories afterward (or before) can even imaginably happen, because it was all Harry's Jacob's Ladder. And that's a problem for (people like) me.

>imaginably

Challenge accepted.

I would have dropped the original Bad ending from the first Silent Hill, right onto the player's lap, the moment Heather finds Harry dead in their apartment in Silent Hill 3. It would have been canon, that would have been the end of the game, and everyone could just die mad about it.

Going for maximum chaos? I love it!

[Disrupticon]

I accept the concept of looping experience to be the only way Good+ makes any sense narratively. I don't love it, and I still don't really care for that ending. I never even cared that much about Cybil as a character or felt any extraordinary urge to save her, you spend literally five entire minutes in her company before that encounter.

Now, with Silent Hill 2, on the other hand, I believe much more strongly that James may experience his nightmare over and over again. Not only does it provide the most satisfying resolution to the argument over which ending is canon (none of 'em!), it also lends itself well to the concept of hell being not just suffering, but endless and pointless suffering, which either may be broken if the penitent finally does things the right way, or reinforced by continuing to repeat the punishment even if the penitent learns from the experience and does things right. The idea here makes sense internally as well as on a meta level.

I don't like applying this to the first game quite so much, because Harry isn't in hell because of anything he did wrong. Honestly, I like the Bad ending most out of them all, if Harry is actually being forced to endure all that over and over again. It's the one really unique outcome, and it forces you to entirely re-evaluate everything that actually happens. It actually lends itself well to the exercise of interpreting everything and everyone's actions in more circuitous and metaphorical ways. Honestly, I kind of wish they never made a direct sequel, because I would be a Bad ending stan. Maybe I will be, anyway. Fuck canon. : )

It's imperative to point out that both the Maria and Rebirth endings also trap James in a loop of sorts (if you believe the ritual works, whether by actual magic or simply the town materializing his intentions is irrelevant). The town produced a simulacrum of a perverted idealization of Mary based on James' hangups during the last months of his marriage. If we accept that the Maria in her respective ending is just another simulacrum that immediately falls ill - leaving James to relive the same experience with Maria, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Mary that James tries to conjure during to Ritual of Resurrection of the Deceased would also fall ill immediately. The town isn't sentient (at least not until Downpour), but it does seem to show a sense of cyclical recompense that wouldn't let James off the hook that easy.

I'm very much of the same stance of Silent Hill 3 as a direct sequel being a mistake. Going back through old interviews you can tell the team were hesitant on the idea but pressure from Konami management after the success of the first 2 games forced their hand and they had to scrap some of their ideas . Unfortunately what we are left with is a poorly told half story about bodily agency and autonomy during an especially vulnerable time in one's life, railroaded by an even more poorly told revenge story (the kind of which TLoU Pt. II's most vocal critics seem to give a pass for some reason).

If Silent Hill 2 broke franchise conventions, Silent Hill 3 is what created them - and you can only add so much rusted industrial window dressing before to try and scare people with before the question arises of what it's really in service of.

Coming back to the idea of Silent Hill 2 taking place along a cyclical timeline. I've seen the littered James corpses strewn around town alluded to as evidence of this, but this just raises further questions of why we don't see any more corpses beyond the opening stages of the game.