Wikipedia has had to lock down the Silent Hill 2 Remake page after repeated vandalism from editors who refuse to accept that the remake of Konami’s seminal horror game released to critical acclaim earlier this week.
Outright lies around the games reception and metacritic score - including one edit that said the game had “received the worst reviews imaginable” - means the page has now been put into a semi-protected state to stop unregistered users from making wild, unsubstantiated claims, including one that said Eurogamer had awarded it 0/5 stars when, in fact, it got top marks.
It’s unclear what’s motivating the edits, although its presumed by some to have been fuelled by the nauseating discourse that the game is “woke” because of changes made to the characters facial features and clothing.
Alternatively, it may stem from some fans’ dismayed that Silent Hill 2 has been remade by Bloober Teamor, indeed, at all.
Why? The original didn’t go anywhere, and they’re just screwing us out of possible remakes my faking bad press. So far, I’ve heard that they knocked it out of the park and I hope it’s true.
Give me my SH4 remakethey’re just screwing us out of possible remakes
Bro don’t make me like them T~T
People should really stop doing that kind of bullshit. If you didn’t like the remake post your opinion somewhere, but trying to falsify others scores is a douche move.
The people doing this kind of bullshit are either children or fascists. They aren’t interested in “healthy debate” with you. They are lashing out at the Great Woke Bogeyman.
Honestly we should be relieved that the time these brainrotted fascists spend vandalizing Wikipedia isn’t spent sending rape or death threats to the developers, which is usually how these witch-hunts on “woke” go.
But it’s ok when companies pay for their review scores from ‘professionals’?
You think Konami paid for this game to have good reviews? I havent seen a bad review yet from any reliable outlets so uhhhh, that’s a lot of bribery
Nobody was suggesting that.
What about it?
Ok I’m sorry. I mean I’d do it again but I recognize it’s wrong.
Are Steam review scores paid? Because it sure sits on “overwhelmingly positive” right now.
But it’s not good enough that I have opinion. You must have no opinion or I’m losing!
Of course it’s forever-toddlers throwing a tantrum about “woke” again.
God forbid the vast majority of normal people don’t agree with whatever pathetic rationalisation they have ended up with in their gullible little minds.
I think it’s nice to see the popular gamer rhetoric getting it wrong this time i.e. non Kojima remake = bad.
Hopefully it leads to more nuanced discussion in the future?
Never got that. A remake and its original counterpart can co-exist - one doesn’t make the other worse or the other way around. What’s the issue?
It’s not about the original being overtaken; these specific losers are mad because they had declared it “woke trash” before it came out, because of the redesigns of Angela, and are pitching a hissy fit that the game is actually good.
Huh, what’s wrong with the redesign? Haven’t heard of anything
They made her look like an actual teenager, which somehow equaled “making her ugly” to these weirdos.
This is why we don’t have nice things
Aside from wiki drama seems like a bunch of nothing with good reviews from Steam and it seeming to not have any drama people would be aware of if it wasn’t for the article. Without it people wouldn’t know about the wiki stuff with how quickly it was dealt with.
Not seeing any drama on /r/silenthill too.
The silent hill wiki folks sure are a rowdy bunch. This one’s pretty tame for them though, it’s decidedly lacking in rants about circumcision.
I get why some people are mad at the facial changes, I personally think it’s unnecessary, but if the game is good who cares. But making up false reviews to bring down a game just because you disagreed with how they handled something is crazy.
Point of clarification: the article was semi-protected, and “locked” is an oversimplistic description of it (understandable, since a lot of people who report on Wikipedia don’t really understand how it works). Technically there’s a way to lock a page such that only the Wikimedia Foundation staff can edit it, but realistically, full protection (i.e. only administrators and those above them can edit it) is probably the closest thing to a proper “lock” that ever gets used.
Semi-protection (the grey lock with a little person in it) just means that you need to be autoconfirmed (technically confirmed works too, but that system is basically disused). If you’re autoconfirmed, that means you’ve made at least 10 edits on Wikipedia and your account is at least 4 days old – an extremely low bar to clear that largely keeps out spam from IP addresses and sockpuppet accounts. The semi-protection on this article is set to expire in three days.
There’s also extended protection (the blue lock with an ‘E’ on it) that you’ll generally see on highly contentious topics such as ultra-high-profile political figures, enormously contentious disputes between nations (Russia–Ukraine, Israel–Palestine, and India–Pakistan, to name a few), and then some miscellaneous ones like ‘Atlantic Records’ and ‘Whopper’ (the latter was because Burger King launched an ad which is designed to trigger your Android device to read out the first part of the Wikipedia article, making it red meat for vandals). This requires an account to have at least 500 edits and be at least 30 days old.
I don’t know what it is, with this need to shit on every single movie or game before it even comes out. There are people who cheer for this stuff to fail, it’s absurd . It goes hand in hand with this other issue, when a game is released people will either love it or be called “unplayable shit”. Nobody has an in between anymore. Just cause some games aren’t a 10/10 masterpiece, it doesn’t mean they’re shit.
