Poll: How should combat be handled in Survival Horror Games

[FolkLikePanda]

Kind of like the old PS1 Resi games, where ammo is limited and combat is very sluggish and sometimes it is best to run away, though I think it should be that if you don't kill the enemies they are stronger when you return to the room at a later time making you having to plan strategically and tactically. Bit of skill wouldn't hurt though.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, I gotta go with Yahtzee on this one. The best type of combat in survival horror is no combat at all. Death should be instantaneous if you get snagged by a monster. This is the only way to truly instill the type of helpless fear that could make a survival horror game truly scary.

 

[natster43]

Combat in Survival Horror should either be looked down uppon or not rewarded usually, as in like 9 times out of 10 you should be leaving every battle at a loss. Combat should also be not mandatory for the most part, with only boss fights being mandatory. Also for the most part in games make them single player. Developers really haven't gotten a grasp of how to make a 2 player survival horror.

On a kinda related note it is kinda funny that people complain about how newer Resident Evils give too much ammo to the player, when last time I played Resident Evil 2 I killed almost every enemy I came across in the game and had ammo to spare.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I just want to point out that Resident Evil 1 coined the term 'survival horror'. It may not have invented the genre, but it defined it.

 

[Verex]

Depends on the game. All the players in Resident Evil are part of some special forces unit or genetically modified in some way. Combat should be easy and seamless. In other games, like Amnesia, the main character is not a trained individual. Combat should be harder and more improvised.

 

[DoPo]

Mix of A and C.

Thoroughly enjoying Amnesia right now, and really liking the way I have to just hide but wouldn't object to having a smaller enemy to throw a chair at, so long as defeating it wasn't the only option.

Don't make combat frustrating by making it sluggish, if you're fighting the controls more so than the enemy it's just going to break immersion, which is terrible for a survival horror game.

I'm with this guy. Although, I'm not opposed to having B instead of C, if more appropriate.

Yeah, I gotta go with Yahtzee on this one. The best type of combat in survival horror is no combat at all. Death should be instantaneous if you get snagged by a monster. This is the only way to truly instill the type of helpless fear that could make a survival horror game truly scary.

But also this. I don't think always having the option to fight is that good an idea. It doesn't convey "horror" well, it's more like "frustration" if all you have is tough fights. Or is Dark Souls considered survival horror for having those? Some fights may not be auto kills but they should be damn hard ones, nonetheless. Best have winnable fights a very situational thing - a matter of preparation, environment and a dose of luck - perhaps luring something to a trap and hoping the trap nails it or that it doesn't just run back to its buddies or whatever.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

Didn't really like any of those poll options.

I don't like it when games offer you no ability at all to fight back against enemies, and I think there should generally be some option available (something underpowered enough in normal situations as to never be considered a solution in itself) to fight back when that is the only remaining option. The key is to have players see fighting back as an absolute last resort in a desperate situation and used with the expectation that it may not work, but try desperately anyway. It is the resulting success against seemingly impossible odds that gives the experience the most weight and creates tension. This is how weapons should ideally be implemented in stealth and horror games. Prohibiting weapons completely or making the controls horrible is generally just a cheap way of dealing with the problem of having to balance weapons perfectly so that they aren't a go-to solution for the player.

I was just about to type something stupid and incoherent, but then I saw this, and felt relieved.

It doesn't really make sense to me to completely remove combat, because anyone can pull a trigger or wield a knife or at the very least throw stuff to slow the pursuer down. Player should be given a chance, no matter how slim, to save himself, if running away fails.

 

[kev8227]

When it comes to survival horror games I think having little to no ammo or resources are very scarce. I think that having that feeling of "oh shit I need to be careful of how I use my items" adds to the dread of being in a world where almost everything wants to kill you. Silent Hill 2 and some of Dead space 2 did this nicely (Hard Core mode until you figure out how to work the system) where if you mess up you paid the ultimate price death and or having to start over from your last save (which could set up back depending on when you last decided to save). I just think that there needs to be more tension in a survival horror game, RE4 was only fun on its hardest setting and Amnesia did a good job making sure you couldn't use conventional methods of defeating your enemy, and even if your own mind was attacking you. It just depends on what the developer does to make the game more intense, hopefully in Dead space 3 hardcore mode is unlocked at the start rather than having to play through the game once to unlock it, because doing that allows you time to figure out how the game works and kind of kills the added tension.

Anyway my two cents.

 

[GTwander]

Lemme throw this out there;

I liked the combat in Silent Hill: Homecoming.

It was tight, precise, and had some really good angles to view the monsters from (like, deep up in their kidneys with a ritual knife). The issue was that it did not belong in the franchise, but it worked *well*, so I find it hard to condemn it's use.

I find that the control and power to obliterate with superhuman accuracy isn't suited to survival horror, but it still works, so all it needs is a *reason* to be there. In Silent Hill's case, I've said for years (and years, and years) that the combat needs a "buildup of violence" - where the characters come to terms with their dark side and embrace the experience a bit - essentially agreeing that they belong there (a key point to the franchise itself).

Had the wonky controls of SH2 evolved into something much more precise (like Homecoming) through repeated use, I.E., the game knows you've been actively looking for monsters to slay, rather than avoiding them (we can do that?!), then it should reward the player with swinging that wooden plank around with extreme gusto (and perhaps even an ending where it portrays the character losing it because of his love for ultraviolence). James would have had moments where he stands over some mannequin legs, repeatedly bashing it, *without* the player's input, and then showing him revel in it - and it would TOTALLY be fitting to both the situation, and the IP.

End point; it can be put to use as an aside to "leveling / gaining in power" as well as a part of contextual narrative. It works.

 

[The Floating Nose]

I just loved the way the Survival Horror genre was before. To me, Left for Dead is NOT in any way a Survival Horror. Dead Space is barely one. I would love if the survival horror could just go back to it's roots. Im pretty sure that in today's industry, it would be considered fresh again. Because even in their Heyday, survival horrors were not massively produced.

Not gonna happen. All publishers are concerned with is action game #7546476546754564458458 that's gonna sell a zillion copies.

I know. I think i just like to convince myself that ONE DAY it could happen. Fuck This !

 

[Lex Darko]

I think combat in horror game really depends on the tertiary combat related aspects (considering primary and secondary aspects to be methods of combat and combat resources respectively) of the game. The type of environments the game is set in, the type of monsters in the game, and most importantly monster behavior. If the monsters in the game are passive until acted upon by the player then there's already incentive for players to avoid combat. Make aggroing a monster cause more monsters to appear and you reinforce the incentive to avoid combat. If you make it so killing a monster in one blow doesn't cause others to appear then you reinforce precise and accurate player combat.

Demanding players constantly run away from fast moving accurately tracking monsters can be a recipe for frustration. Demanding them to do it in the tight quarters of say a house or series of alley ways and then you have the blueprint for player frustration. Imagine left 4 Dead with no weapons.

On the other side having players need to constantly kill hordes of monsters every time they enter a new area will cause fatigue. (Alan Wake)

The trick is to find the balance. Have situations where combat makes sense and situations where combat appears to be a option but will only (almost certainly) delay death if the player doesn't run away.

The first Dead Space did combat well but in that game running away never felt like an option after you had weapons, outside of a few scripted moments. And most of the time you actually had to kill everything in the room to continue, so you couldn't just complete your objective and run; for me that killed the survival aspect of Dead Space.

I would think the optimal balance in general would be Dead Space 1 with an option (occasionally implied need) to run away, hide or distract monsters.

(No, I don't consider L4D a Survival horror game. I consider it a survival horror themed shooter. The difference being if the infected were replaced with terrorist that shot back the only thing player would need to do different would be to take cover from return fire. If you were to replace the Necromorphs of Dead Space with terrorist you wouldn't have to worry about ventilation shafts anymore.)

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think the most effective way of going about combat in survival horror is to keep the main protagonist as a normal, average man or woman who is a master of nothing. Sure, they can swing a bat or, shoot a gun but the combat should be frantic and not at all worth it when you can run the Hell away...like an actual person when presented with an interdimensional ghoul from beyond the veil of space and time. Why would I be afraid of anything if I'm a capable warrior god? Even if resources are scarce, a bad-ass is a bad-ass is not scary.

 

[Terminate421]

Id like a dead space method that didn't reward you with too much ammo. Make it TRULY possible to make every shot count. Also, make a cool down on telekenesis except in puzzles, to prevent killing with coffee cups.

I should just mod Dead Space 2 to do that...

 

[Geth Reich]

I feel the best solution would be a combination of C and D (which is pretty much what Dead Space did). Combat should be fluid and supported by a decent camera so that if you're skilled and alert enough, you can handle yourself in most situations. However! Supplies should be extremely scare, meaning that a checkpoint or storeroom should be a godsend instead of just "Cool, more grenades for my launcher" and enemies should be able to slaughter you without too much trouble.

 

[Geth Reich]

I think a good example here is when you play as Ashley in the Castle in Resi 4. Shes defenceless, however, she uses the environment to her advantage. She picks up burning lanterns, and chucks them at enemies, thus burning them. She is quick and small, and so can crawl under tables etc to escape.

Another example is the Clock Tower games, completely defenceless against overwhelming odds (a massive enemy always stalking you throughout the game), however, you can survive using your wits, environment and other means. Guns do have a place, and maybe they do in some horror games, just not all of them need it.




I rekon that games where you play a normal everyday person who has no military training or the like, should not be picking up bazookas, sniper rifles, machine guns etc and pwning everything (HELLO FARCRY 3), however, if they found a pistol or a knife, you'd hope they would be able to use them somewhat to aid them, even if a bit sluggish.

Ashley may have been completely incapable of even kicking a ganado in the shins but all the tension of her sections was removed by that bloody sliding puzzle! And I don't even have to mention the suit of armour.....

 

[FalloutJack]

Eternal Darkness is a rare and interesting gem. I feel that in horror, the only reason people die so often is because they're not genre-savvy enough. If we delve into the Zombie Survial Guide and World War Z, it is easy to note that you CAN overcome the zombies if you have the right head and some reliable equipment...or even if you're a nun with a candlabra. Horror that takes on the notion that brainpower can overcome a situation is viable and sometimes absolutely necessary.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Combat in survival horror games should be kept in both the categories A and B.

You should be able to fight back, but just enough for you to get away from the immediate threat. If you include no combat, where if you are discovered or attacked a few times and die, the experience becomes more frustrating and quickly breaks the immersion of the horror setting. Making combat abundant and flashy to the point of making it mandatory, you take away all the horror and suspense from the game and it quickly becomes another shooter with grotesque enemies.

There should be a horror title where you find and keep certain key items that will help you advance the game and double as make-shift weapons to defend yourself with. They can't kill the enemies, but it immobilizes them to the point where you can escape, hide, and proceed once they are gone.

 

[G-Force]

I'm curious what other games would you classify as C

 

[Smooth Operator]

If you have combat then make it fluid, but that doesn't mean the player should be able to kill things, zombies were supposed to be notoriously hard to kill yet they became the equivalent of rats in ye olden RPGs.
Keep them coming back up, keep them crawling after you, breaking down walls, gnawing on you bit by bit,... just keep pushing the impending doom feel and players will be flipping out.

 

[veloper]

Option A is required.

B is just shitty controls and the game will suffer for it.

C is merely a matter of increased difficulty and a great player will still mow through the monsters, laughing.

D is Doom. It's fun, but it's a straight shooter and not a survival horror game.