Silent Hill 2 Remake Announced for PS5 and PC - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 19 October 2022 / 6,351 Views
Publisher Konami and developer Bloober Team have announced a remake of Silent Hill 2 for the PlayStation 5 and PC via Steam. It will be a console exclusive on PS5 for 12 months.
Composer Akira Yamaoka and art director and creature designer Masahiro Ito are returning for the remake. Bloober Team is known for The Medium, Layers of Fear, and Blair Witch.
Silent Hill 2 originally released for the PlayStation 2 in September 2001 in North America and Japan, and in Europe in November 2001. It would later see a release on the Xbox in December 2001 in North America and in 2002 in Japan and Europe, as well as PC in 2002 in North America and in Europe in 2003.
View the teaser trailer below:
Read the description to the trailer below:
Having received a letter from his deceased wife, James heads to where they shared so many memories, in the hope of seeing her one more time: Silent Hill. There, by the lake, he finds a woman eerily similar to her...
"My name...is Maria," the woman smiles. Her face, her voice... She's just like her.
Experience a master-class in psychological survival horror―lauded as the best in the series―on the latest hardware with chilling visuals and visceral sounds.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
I'm shocked they are remaking this before the first game. Part 1 deserves a remake more than anything.
I'm not super suprised they went with 2 as it's the one that's most highly acclaimed (though 1 is my personal favorite) and 1 did already have the loose reimagining that was Shattered Memories. But maybe if this does well they could remake 1 and 3 afterwards since those two are interconnected, unlike 2 which kind of does its own thing.
I completely forgot about shattered memories..
I can't remember the last time I ever cried for the announcement of a videogame trailer but... I'll cry now. ?
-THERE WAS A POST HERE... BUT IT'S GONE NOW, NINJA APPROVED-
Silent Hill 1 for PS1 would have needed a remake more desperately.
The shot of James looking at the mirror, his face in heavy shadow, is SO iconic! And it's especially compelling to me considering what happens later in the game. I'm sad the remake doesn't have his face in shadow.
Bombshell announcement but would have preferred sh1 to get the remake treatment 1st,
And I think bloober doesn't have much experience to tackle such a high caliber project...
I’ve never played a SH game, but I’ve been waiting for remasters or remakes to start the series. Can anyone tell me why they would be remaking SH2 but not 1?
Well from what i remember (Its been a long time since i played them on their original releases) technically other then the town the story's of the two games are not related. So you dont really need to play the first one to understand the 2nd and the 2nd is considered the best silent hill game by many fans. However i would of liked a proper remake of the first one too.
Looking forward to it. Looks great.
hype!. I played og sh2 a long time ago that I barely remember anything.
Yes!!!!
Looked amazing, if this is a sucess and bloober can make a good job maibe we can see konami coming back to gaming and letting studios do games with their ips
Lets hope metal gear solid is getting a remake by bluepoint and rumours are true.
metal gear solid remake could be amazing, from there make a new metal gear
In the mean time, Sony blocking AnB deal due to not being fair. But here is another paid locked exclusive.
Its good to see the IP return though. Ill be checking it out. SH2 was great.
so many double standards. hope i get a PS5 soon so i can play. wonder if Microsoft paid for Call of duty 1 year exclusive instead of purchase what would be said?
Owning a buisness and dedicating full resources towards it is different than purposely paying so no one else can play it. If Sony brought Komani, i wouldnt be complaining. Its theres.
Bethesda/Activision can already fund their own games, MS literally bought them to control where their releases go and to shift people towards game pass. Stop the double standards.
Control and profits is the purpose. However MS buying AnB isnt locking CoD out from PS. Infact Sony is already butchering other versions so the PS version is better.
The double standards start with PS.
Buying an established multiplayer series, multiple of them , to one day lock them out of other systems , is much worse.
Yet where is the proof they will lock CoD out?
That's exactly what's going to happen if sony's lead keeps growing stronger.
Last time i checked, CoD isn't leaving PS, regardless of the buyout. You are only assuming.
The whole point is MS buyout gives MS the power to remove it from playstation at will, and since they are direct competitors, they could very choose to utilise that power. That's the whole point of not letting MS gobble up lots of publishers, regardless of what they promise to do, they have the power to flip the switch and more or less buy large swathes of playstations audience from underneath them.
You are really, truly, spinning, here. I don’t think you actually believe this. I know you’re an Xbox fanb#%, but even that can’t blind you this much.
Bc he’s much more than just a fan of Xbox. He has extreme bias and self-imposed ignorance and delusion. It gets obnoxious, esp bc many times as he’s endlessly defending Xbox, he’s simultaneously attacking PS, which I’m a fan of. Usually I don’t say anything, but it was just too much this time. Wasn’t trying to be sneaky. I’ve never understood why using the word fanboy was forbidden, but I was trying to still respect the rules.
Oh give it a rest, as if Xbox doesn't have a dozen timed exclusives per year.
Warhammer
Stalker 2
Slime Ranchers
Cross Fore X
Valheim
Arc 2
....
Are just some of the top of my head.
MS went and bought out Bethesda and cancelled the PS5 version of Starfield/Redfall
Those are made more accessible for the public and was necessary for gamepass. Besides if I hear the Xbox crowd they rather see Sony buying 2 major publishers instead. Like Square and Capcom for instance and keep.all their games of Xbox and gamepass instead after the contracts are over.
Off course xbox fans would. They want to reduce this to a money war cuz they know they would end on top. They are pushing for monopolistic practices.
The question is would anyone expect if Sony purchase any publisher or dev that they would not make their games exclusive to Sony platform. If Acti/Blizz is up for sale and Sony bought them, what exactly do people think would happen. You cannot champion Sony purchasing Sega or Capcom like so many wish will happen then get critical on MS purchasing Bethesda or Acti/Blizz. So if you are going to play the game of locking content away from your competitor, you cannot complain if they have bigger pockets to do the same at different level. Its all a money game.
Of course they all do it, but Sony whinging about the AnB buyout meanwhile announcing locked timed exclusives is hypocritical at its best.
I don't want to turn every news story into an MS/Activision/Sony discussion, so this is the last I'll say on that topic...
Sony is obviously milking it a bit, they'll survive without COD/Acti, its simply them trying to protect their interests (putting resistance against the acquisition) which is fair since it is unprecedented (not a double standard because it is not equivalent)
Sony making 1 title exclusive =/= Microsft making an entire publisher exclusive. All 3 players partake in third party exclusives for individual titles here or there, there is nothing anti-competition about it as they can all compete on that field. ONLY Microsoft however can go around buying whole publishers (2 massive publishers in a row) controlling not just an individual releases but the entire franchises and all of the franchises owned by said publishers.
Only MS has gone out their way to own IPs which have a majority audience on a competitors platform. Sony securing individual releases that have never had much success on Xbox is not some mighty blow to MS (final fantasy for example, which has never sold much more than 1m on Xbox/Silent Hill has never had an audience on Xbox)
These are a very different precedents, and I think any of the big 3 owning major publishers is something the industry should steer from. Even if MS says they will keep xyz multiplatform, the point is at click of a finger they could control Playstations biggest annual seller, remove it from store and bloc future releases. They could go after EA, Ubisoft next... As a consumer I actually think I may enjoy Activision more under MS ownership (and I'm sure it'll go through) but I fully know this is something I don't really want normalised so its important it faces a huge challenge here so it doesn't continue or at least slows down.
Completely false. When Xbox had the Exclusive CoD deals on the 360, the Xbox had the bigger CoD audience. Claiming PS has the CoD audience is only proven by Sony moneyhatting the IP so it grows less on other platforms by hampering down the content on other versions etc. FF and SH cannot grow on Xbox if Sony continue to money hat the IPs.
Sony will do whatever it takes to avoid having competition. They dont want to compete with MS, they are literally paying to keep games off GP, they are trying to stop Xbox from growing from buying AnB. They continue to lock up IPs while complaining that Xbox might do the same thing.
Regardless what you choose to believe, the reality is all we need to see.
What exactly is false? COD is bigger on Playstation and has been since the launch of the PS4. The PS4 has almost doubled Xbox One in hardware sales, so of course it'll have the bigger audience which we also have objective figures for. Xbox dropped the ball majorily with the launch of the Xbox One and with the treatment of 360 towards the later half of its life. Lets not act like Sony moneyhatted them out of the competition or like sony is the reason they've struggled to release any first party content this year.
Marketing deals have nothing to do the discussion of "owning" IPs. Microsoft having a marketing deal for Assassins Creed Valhalla is not comparable with Microsoft purchasing Ubisoft.... Again Microsoft are the only ones buying IPs which have a majority audience on competitor platforms. You're clearly tunnel visioned and blinded by favouritism.
Agreed. He has a long history of pathological bias toward Xbox/against PS, but he seems to be stepping his game up, here.
Sony is by no means innocent, but there’s a definitive difference between how Sony and MSFT conduct their acquisitions, and Microsoft is 21x larger than Sony, so Sony can’t really play ball even if they wanted to use the same tactics.
That does not matter in business. Meaning that each company is using their resources to gain marketshare. Sony has a huge marketshare lead and they use that to bargain deals that MS cannot. MS has huge pockets so if any company or publishers comes up for sale they can outbid their competition. Its like you guys are talking about fare rules or something in business on this level when there is none. None of these companies is looking out for their competition and they all use their resources to the best of their ability to ensure their platform prevails over their competition. Sony money hat 3rd party content because they want to protect their marketshare, MS money hat content because they want to gain marketshare. Each company bolster their first party content for the same purpose. Each company fight based on their strengths and weaknesses. There is no love going here, they are both the same.
I agree with your sentiment, its why I think the activision deal will go ahead, but there is also a reality in that there are levels to this and not all actions are equal... which is why MS can't just throw half a billion at activision and call it a day. Sony or Nintendo can moneyhat a capcom game with little consequence or approval needed. Whereas MS is going through extreme lengths including creating a webpage to get this approved lol
I actually agree with you, here, and I’ve said similar things previously. It is certainly a business’ job to seek higher revenue and profitability, and unfortunately, morality is rarely involved. There is a difference between how Sony and MSFT do things, but to be honest, Sony’s been seeing this for years now, so if they remain “moral” in not following similar patterns, then they’re morons. .
I don’t really fault MSFT; I fault the system and governments. I don’t see how it’s fair for giant corporations to be able to buy whatever the hell they want without rules, bc it means they can automatically win just about anything they want if they’re willing to throw enough money into it. And with it this way, and MSFT being 21x larger than Sony and >40x larger than Nintendo, how is this a fair fight? MSFT literally has bought themselves into a winning position in just 2-3 years. It’s insane.
A lot of people found the Disney buyout of Fox wrong and anti-competitive due to its size and other reasons; yet, this is 1.5x larger than that deal. And the thing is, the Disney buyout really only strengthened Disney and got rid of one of 6 competitors. It didn’t actually take revenue from any of the remaining competitors. This deal is much larger, it directly harms MSFT’s primary competitor, AND there are really only three competitors (and could be argued only two, considering Nintendo really is in its own category), unlike the 6 in the Disney situation. This gives MSFT the option of taking hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from Sony annually with CoD alone. But even if CoD remains on PS, ABK has many other massive games besides CoD that they certainly will take away. And video games is Sony’s largest and most profitable division (compared to being one of MSFT’s smallest divisions).
Ultimately, if this is allowed to go through, purchases will without question become larger and larger for the MSFT’s, Apples, Amazons, Googles, and METAs, and how can anyone compete as the largest become only larger, swallowing more and more companies?
Very long response over. :)
