History Headscratchers / SilentHillHomecoming

* What's the deal with the Smile post credits bonus scene? To get it, you have to get the good ending and collect all the photos (or beat the game on Hard mode) and the fact that you get this bonus scene as reward is confusing as hell. First off, when is it taking place? Its weird to take place after the game since Alex and Elle are seen leaving the town at the end, unless Alex decided to take a detour to his house for whatever reason. And even if you buy that, why is Josh's ghost still here? If you get the good ending you lay his spirit to rest right? Josh was around in the first place to get Alex to admit to what he had done so why is the ghost still here? What the hell are suppose to think of this scene? It's too off putting and creepy to be funny (like the UFO endings are random but they're joke endings) and it doesn't answer any lingering questions or bring any sort of coherent new information to the table. It's not a jump scare since nothing jumps at you so it's not a last minute gotcha thing. So, why is it here? To confuse the audience? Is that why? The fact that you have to do extra effort to get this bizarre scene tells me that the developers either had this scene planned for a different part of the game but they changed something and didn't know what to do with it so they just threw it in here. Or its here as a fuck you from the developers, you put all that effort for this nothing scene congratulations. I keep thinking about this scene whenever I think of this game and I can't figure it out. Why is it here? What's the point? What is it?!

* What's the deal with the Smile post credits bonus scene? To get it, you have to get the good ending and collect all the photos (or beat the game on Hard mode) and the fact that you get this bonus scene as reward is confusing as hell. First off, when is it taking place? Its weird to take place after the game since Alex and Elle are seen leaving the town at the end, unless Alex decided to take a detour to his house for whatever reason. And even if you buy that, why is Josh's ghost still here? If you get the good ending you lay his spirit to rest right? Josh was around in the first place to get Alex to admit to what he had done so why is the ghost still here? What the hell are suppose to think of this scene? It's too off putting and creepy to be funny (like the UFO endings are random but they're joke endings) and it doesn't answer any lingering questions or bring any sort of coherent new information to the table. It's not a jump scare since nothing jumps at you so it's not a last minute gotcha thing. So, why is it here? To confuse the audience?
The fact that you have to do extra effort to get this bizarre scene tells me that the developers either had this scene planned for a different part of the game but they changed something and didn't know what to do with it so they just threw it in. Or its here as a fuck you from the developers, you put all that effort for this nothing scene congratulations. I keep thinking about this scene whenever I think of this game and I can't figure it out.

* What's the deal with the Smile post credits scene? To get it, you have to get the good ending and collect all the photos and the fact that you get this bonus scene is confusing as hell. First off, when is it taking place? Its weird to take place after the game since Alex and Elle are seen leaving the town at the end, unless Alex decided to take a detour to his house for whatever reason. And even if you buy that, why is Josh's ghost still here? If you get the good ending you lay his spirit to rest right? And Josh was around in the first place to get Alex to admit to what he had done so why is the ghost still here?

[[folder:Say cheese?]

** More than enough time? Really? He has about two minutes, if that. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have any idea what to jam where. The fact that he doesn't even try is a little weird, but I think he's shaken by what he's seeing, what he's being asked to do, and maybe - just maybe - there's a little part of him that doesn't really feel a huge urgency to save her, anyway. I'm not saying he wanted her to die - his reaction to her death makes that pretty clear - but Silent Hill is kind of all about examining those deep, buried parts of your psyche that are ugly - the things you wouldn't want anyone to know. I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find that, with the way he was treated, Alex maybe didn't feel 100% enthusiastic about saving his mother's life, sort of in the same vein as, in ''SilentHill2'', [[spoiler: James telling Mary he killed her because he couldn't stand to continue watching her suffer - but when he realizes he has to be completely truthful with himself, that he can't keep running and hiding from the truth anymore, he admits, "No, that's not true. [...] The truth is, I hated you. I wanted you out of the way. I wanted my life back..."]].

** That adds another Fridge Horror onto itself that there eventually be no one else to sacrifice until each and every one is gone... Also, it could be that the families are starting to face a situation like Adam and Lillian's. They loved Alex but didn't want to show it because he was the family sacrifice, but when they lost Josh, they didn't want to lose both their children.

** I think it's the inverse, actually. They could have claimed Josh, but it was not an intentional sacrifice. A sacrifice is something WILLINGLY GIVEN. Josh bonking his head and then drowning isn't a sacrifice, it's a tragic death, and not counting towards the debt to the Gods. I believe it would be like taking roadkill and trying to pass it off as a meal.

** There’s nothing stated in the game saying that all sacrifices must be children, instead that the person must be a son/daughter of the current head of the family.While sacrificing Josh would be easier due to being smaller and weaker, it may have been an advantage to keep the youngest alive. Josh would be more impressionable to his family’s beliefs and can be taught/brainwashed easier that the fifty year sacrifice is a necessary part of his life (despite how morally wrong it is). This is opposed to Alex who, being older and wiser, would more likely question and renegade against the town’s traditions, choosing not to sacrifice his future child as a result. Also, since Josh meant so much to Alex having Josh killed would most likely anger Alex greatly that it would push him to rebel against his family. The youngest may have also been chosen by Adam to be kept alive so that Josh will live longer into the future (Josh was nine whilst Alex was eighteen during the sacrificial period). The reason could be down to the family’s preferences. Judge Holloway felt that she could bring her eldest daughter round to the family’s way of thinking whilst killing the youngest child who has not had much influence would make sense to her. Scarlet and Joey were killed because they were the only child of each of head of the family. For why Adam and Lillian would choose to kill the stronger and resilient Alex? It’s unknown how long the family had mistreated Alex throughout his life, but’s it’s made clear that they treated Alex horribly. According to his confession during Alex’s time in the Order’s church, Adam’s plan was to make his son’s life a misery so that he would be willing to end his life (this plan failed as while Alex hated his life, he wanted to escape to the outer world as opposed to choosing to die).

* If Alex was the intended sacrifice, why wait until he's clearly in his 20s and old enough/strong enough to fight back? Why ''not'' make Josh the intended sacrifice? Aside from the [[MSTKMantra "a kid isn't a believable Silent Hill protagonist"]] reason. He's younger, weaker, and easier to kill. Plus, it would match up with the others - all the other sacrifices were Josh's age, including Nora Holloway. Even Judge Holloway seemed to see the wisdom in choosing the younger/weaker one over the grown-up Elle.

*** I always assumed it was a "first-born" thing. Joey and Scarlet are only children, far as we can tell. Elle's older sister is missing, since she was marked. And Alex was supposed to be the one marked, but because Joshua died--the son they had to compensate for their eventual killing of Alex--it screwed the whole deal.

* I always assumed it was a "first-born" thing.

*** Does it really make sense for it to count as an 'incorrect' sacrifice? It wasn't the right kid, and it wasn't the right cause-of-death, and it wasn't ritualistic in anyway, but it's just ''assumed'' to be the ritual just because some kid of Shepherd blood fell in the lake?