So what makes a survival horror game "good"?

[Johnny Novgorod]

Honoring the term "survival horror" is good enough: make it about survival, and make it about horror. Limit, limit, limit. Ammo, health, saves, combat, everything. Limited resources = resourceful player, focused on survival through careful resource management. Don't randomly generate items to cater to the player's needs, don't work in an autosave feature, don't throw in more stuff than you really need. And of course make it scary: build an atmosphere, let the player immerse into the story, release a threat now and then.

 

[alphamalet]

But I am actively saying I hate things that built the genre. These are the reasons I have not dived into the genre greats that help build survival horror to what it is. Any game that has to make itself "harder" with a shitty camera and clunky controls has no place being called a "good" game. Even in RE4, which is my favorite RE by the way, I have died way more because the camera and controls colluded to have me run directly into an enemy when I am trying to run away. It just feels cheap. I didn't die because my skill was lacking, I was unprepared, or I made a tactical error. I died because the camera did not let me see all of the situation and the controls failed to understand what I wanted to do.

I'm going to be blunt with you. If you have not played/don't like Silent Hill, Resident Evil of old, or Fatal Frame, then what qualifies you to comment on the genre or say what it is doing wrong? It seems to me that you don't like survival horror, and are ignorant of what it has accomplished in the past.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

A good survival horror game is one that makes me scared for myself or scared for the character I'm playing as. I think the brilliance of the game Corpse Party is that it gives you all these nice sweet moments between characters, all so it can turn around later and stab you in the gut as you watch bad things happen to them.

I've only ever played two video-games that I can describe as being horrifying and not just scary, Corpse Party, as I said, and The Witch's House.

 

[lacktheknack]

It must scare you.

...Uhm... it must grip you until you finish (or abandon it for being too frightening).

<spoiler=How to scare someone (because horror is more than jumps and atmosphere>
Method One: Jumps
A method that involves showing an image, or placing the player in a dangerous position very suddenly, often with a loud noise.
Pros: A well-delivered jump scare is still scary, and it requires the player to keep their guard up.
Cons: A continuous string of jump scares is exhausting and often irritating, and they don't properly affect a lot of people.
Game with Good Use: Outlast

Method Two: Atmospheric
A method that uses motifs, (non-)subtle imagery, consistent sound design and thematic elements to create a threatening and disturbing world space for the story to play out in.
Pros: Method is well-beloved, heightens the effect of all other methods.
Cons: Very difficult to do well.
Game with Good Use: Silent Hill 2

The above two methods are the only ones that many gamers on this very site will admit exist. It seems silly to me to try to cram all the various scare methods into two specific concepts, so let's expand a bit.

Method Three: Unknowable
A method that appeals to the player's fear of what they don't know. Common sub-examples are religious horror, cosmic horror and Lovecraftian horror.
Pros: Allows for inexplicable occurrences to go unexplained, often very disorienting.
Cons: It's difficult to do well and players not predisposed to it are often left entirely unimpressed.
Game with Good Use: Call of Cthulhu

Method Four: Paranoia
A method that makes the player fear dangers that are not there.
Pros: Raises the player's guard, often makes the player more likely to look around quite often (allowing for more imagery to be noticed).
Cons: Surprisingly few players are predisposed to it, and those that aren't often claim that the game involved is "entirely not scary".
Game with Good Use: Slender

Method Five: Panic
A method that places the player in direct and sudden danger where they must react with skill to survive. Often accompanied by loud, dissonant music and screen shaking. Usually results in a chase or stealth sequence.
Pros: Near-universal appeal
Cons: Very exhausting
Game with Good Use: Amnesia: The Dark Descent

Method Six: Obscured Vision
A method that simply makes it difficult to detect dangers. This is done through darkness, fog or static camera angles.
Pros: Very simple, easy to use effectively.
Cons: Can be very annoying if overused.
Games with Good Use: Silent Hill

Method Seven: Shock
A method that uses horrific enemies, set-pieces, props and viscera to jar the player.
Pros: Simple to do
Cons: Not very effective by itself (must be used with other methods)
Game with Good Use: Silent Hill 3

Method Eight: Vulnerability
A method that that designs each scenario to be survivable, but the player will be ill-prepared to deal with them. Often done through withholding ammo, health items, weapons, or hiding spots.
Pros: Nearly universal appeal.
Cons: Difficult to balance well.

The most important thing to remember is that everyone is affected by different methods. So if you get into an argument about whether a game is scary or not, look back at this list and see if you can figure out what the game does well and whether you care or not.

For instance, I think Silent Hill 2 is a total snooze while Silent Hill 3 is not. See if you can figure out why.

 

[Sarge034]

I'm going to be blunt with you. If you have not played/don't like Silent Hill, Resident Evil of old, or Fatal Frame, then what qualifies you to comment on the genre or say what it is doing wrong?

I'm going to be blunt with you. Because I don't like it.

The fact is that I have played as much as I could stand of some old survival horror games. I have played some new survival horror games. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I am a paying consumer that has opinions.

It seems to me that you don't like survival horror, and are ignorant of what it has accomplished in the past.

I don't like the shitty camera and controls no, but to say I am ignorant to what it has accomplished is quite arrogant. Do you drive a Model T? No? Then it seems to me that you don't like cars, and are ignorant of what it has accomplished in the past.

This is a discussion thread that just asked what people would like to see in a survival horror game. This ^ is not discussion. Feel free to drop your thought, and inquire about other ideas, but don't attack people for having an opinion that differs from yours. It just comes off as petty and insecure.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm going to be blunt with you. If you have not played/don't like Silent Hill, Resident Evil of old, or Fatal Frame, then what qualifies you to comment on the genre or say what it is doing wrong?

I'm going to be blunt with you. Because I don't like it.

The fact is that I have played as much as I could stand of some old survival horror games. I have played some new survival horror games. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I am a paying consumer that has opinions.

It seems to me that you don't like survival horror, and are ignorant of what it has accomplished in the past.

I don't like the shitty camera and controls no, but to say I am ignorant to what it has accomplished is quite arrogant. Do you drive a Model T? No? Then it seems to me that you don't like cars, and are ignorant of what it has accomplished in the past.

This is a discussion thread that just asked what people would like to see in a survival horror game. This ^ is not discussion. Feel free to drop your thought, and inquire about other ideas, but don't attack people for having an opinion that differs from yours. It just comes off as petty and insecure.

Yeah, you're a paying consumer with opinions... and so is he.

And some opinions ARE worth less than others in various cases. Imagine if someone who played mostly war shooters had just as much sway on how sim-strategy games work as the sim-strategy enthusiast. Imagine if someone who only played RPGs had significant sway over how a point-and-click adventure game was made.

Similarly, your suggestions:

I believe any game that tries to make itself harder by limiting the camera or the control scheme is cheap at best and a failure at worst.

- The game should limit resources so that you can kill all the enemies if you use skill, ie RE4 on pro mode. Shoot them in the leg and knife until you can't knife any more.

- The game should utilize large groups of reasonable enemies in place of unrealistically sturdy opponents. IE 50+ zombies on screen at one headshot a piece as opposed to 10 zombies at 5+ headshots a piece. I'm lookin at you RE6. >.>

- The game should have the proper ambiance, and no. Corridors with no light and just a flashlight don't count because...

- Jump scares should not be the only form of horror utilized.

- The game should be in first person. I'm just not afraid something is sneaking up on me when I can see it without turning around.

- Lastly, if there is a co-op option it should dramatically increase the number of enemies to rebalance the game equation. I do enjoy me some co-op survival horror but the games don't cope with the extra firepower and the teamwork, which is a force multiplier.

...are directly incompatible with much of survival horror. "Amnesia: The Dark Descent" is celebrated as a paragon of survival horror, it's only compatible with three of your suggestions.

Silent Hill is another classic, and it only conforms to TWO of them.

You're mixing up "survival horror" with "horror shooter". And make no mistake, they're two different things.

You say you don't like Silent Hill, old Resident Evil, or Fatal Frame. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, you do NOT like survival horror. Next you'll be telling me that you also don't like Slender, Amnesia, Penumbra or Clock Tower. I feel safe in saying this, because they ALSO don't conform to your ideals.

Not every survival horror fan has to like all of these games (Slender is a popular punching bag), but to like NONE of them? Yeah, between that and your assertion that "all enemies should be killable", you're not a fan of the genre, end of. You like horror shooters. Go play those instead.

 

[Vladdie93]

I understand some of your reasons, but they don't really delve into what makes a good horror game rather than what happens with modern horror games that aren't scary.
I'd like to look at what makes things scary in particular, and why they are scary. Focusing on that should help everyone understand what needs to be done to keep survival horror alive.

To me, these things I have stated need to happen for me to consider the game really enjoyable, so I don't see what you mean. And while I agree with most of your points I take issue with parts of #3 and #4. I believe the enemies need to be powerful enough to give you pause. Whether it be a hoard of enemies, or strategically placed "advanced" enemies there has to be something to make the player question if they truly want/need to engage that/those enemies. However, I feel boss enemies are just a cheap way to police resource hoarders and punish those who don't. So you have enough ammo and health stashed to survive all of the lesser enemies? Well, let's just make them use it all on a non-optional boss so the slate is clean. And that is a great segue into my issues with #4. I believe survival horror desperately needs to go open world and with it all encounters need to be optional. The player should choose to fight or run. A less skilled player or a player running low on resources will disengage most enemies and simply try to survive. While more skilled and better equipped players will likely opt to plow through enemies to explore hidden or protected parts of the world. And if there was a sneak mechanic shit would get real. Fucking ghosting monsters one at a time but if you were spotted, fight or run? Up to you, player.

To start off, your original statements.
See, what I mean is that your statements were "Game can't be X" and "Game can't do Y," which is all fine and good form a personal perspective. However, it doesn't answer the original question you posted, being "what makes a horror game good?" The qualities you represent show what a bad horror game is in your eyes, but we need to focus on a base for all standards to partake so that we know what can truly make a "good" horror game.

As for your current arguments, I disagree. I think that there are many ways to overwhelm the player (or give them pause) and that don't keep spilling out ridiculous amounts of ammo. in RE4, the lake monster boss has you throwing harpoons you have in the boat. At El Gigante, the game gives you ammo in shacks, and before when you're walking around trying to find the lever to get past the arena. It gives you the ample supply to try and overcome the monster, but it doesn't mean it's not scary.
As for games with overwhelming monsters that you can't beat, note that your inability to beat them is perpendicular to what you are typically given. Pyramid man can kill you in one shot if he does it right. Regenerators are ridiculously strong, and in the original game you would only face one at a time and be forced to avoid it with no way of slowing it down. Even Stasis had little effect on it. The point is that the player needs to feel overwhelmed by enemies.

As for your #4.... NO. Just a flat out NO.
I understand some of the idea behind open world horror games, but with that open world limits control. If people are given the option to do whatever they want, they'll merely do something that leads them back into their comfort zone, turning a survival horror game into just another sandbox.
For this, I'll use Dead Island.
Dead Island tried to be an open world horror game, and had many of the elements for it. Breaking weapons were a nice touch, powerful enemies were aplenty, and the forced exploration in a world with monsters ready to kill you was a good idea. However, that really limited their ability to try and scare people because of a few reasons.
A) They had time to think about what to do. Instead of forcing them to think on their feet and be distracted by fear, it gives them too much ability to just calm themselves down, turning it into an action game.
B) No ability to plan out the scares. Sometimes you'd run into a few zombies, sometimes it'd be just one big one, or a few small ones, or a few big ones. They couldn't plan it out as well and give something that really scares you because they have no way to figure out where you're headed or what you're going to do. In fact, at one point in the game I just drove around the jungle and found only 2 zombies because the game wanted me to be back near base completing other missions.
C) If they're like me, they'll just use to Overpowered cars and crash through all the zombies, making any possibility for horror completely impossible.

Overall, survival horror and open world aren't nearly as good (To be fair though, Dying Light looks interesting enough to give it a chance. However, horror is best done when you can plan it out and control all the situations because it doesn't allow the player that chance to think. They need to be forced to do things or not do things that get them out of their comfort zone. Otherwise, they'll just stay in their comfort and avoid all the scares.

 

[josemlopes]

I understand some of the idea behind open world horror games, but with that open world limits control. If people are given the option to do whatever they want, they'll merely do something that leads them back into their comfort zone, turning a survival horror game into just another sandbox.
For this, I'll use Dead Island.

Dead Island isnt a horror game, if it is then so is Dead Rising and State of Decay.

Even STALKER (a game that also even isnt a horror game) can show how an open world game can be scary and how the confort zone can barely exist (with areas where there is none of it and are necessary either for the story or for the need of finding ammo/health).

 

[Vladdie93]

I understand some of the idea behind open world horror games, but with that open world limits control. If people are given the option to do whatever they want, they'll merely do something that leads them back into their comfort zone, turning a survival horror game into just another sandbox.
For this, I'll use Dead Island.

Dead Island isnt a horror game, if it is then so is Dead Rising and State of Decay.

Even STALKER (a game that also even isnt a horror game) can show how an open world game can be scary and how the confort zone can barely exist (with areas where there is none of it and are necessary either for the story or for the need of finding ammo/health).

Sorry. I saw it on Wikipedia. Shouldn't automatically think this is true.

However, I'm going to stick by the point that an open world game does not have that same ability to scare because it doesn't have the ability to control what happens. This doesn't necessarily mean you have to squeeze players down a tight linear path like a Haunted Mansion Disney Ride, but it does mean that you need to know where the player is going so you can set up the scary event properly. If there's so much around you and no order to how you're seeing it or what you need to focus on, it's all going to become a jumbled mess. You're not going to be able to build up anticipation and tension as high in a game with limited structure.

PS, I unfortunately haven't played Stalker (because I own a mac), but "the need for finding ammo/health" is something slightly scary but not necessarily required for horror. In games like SH2 where you had limited bullets but could use your 2X4 or metal pipe an unlimited amount of times, it wasn't something that scared you because of limited resources. It was what you had to use the resources for that scared people. As for health, yeah it can scare, but it's not that they're low on health or that there are limited health packs that scare people. It's the anticipation for something bigger that will require more health that scares them.

 

[alphamalet]

snip

This is what you said, right here:

These are the reasons I have not dived into the genre greats that help build survival horror to what it is.

It just seems to me that to comment on what a genre of games is doing wrong, you should have at least played the notable games of the genre.

Now OT:

I see that you keep saying that survival horror should be based on skill, and the way you seem to define skill is how proficient you are with knee jerk reactions on a controller

However, survival is about skill, so I believe it should be possible to score all 50+ headshots a walk out like a boss.

This is NOT survival horror, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. You shouldn't be "scoring 50+ headshot" or at any point in time feel like "a boss." You are supposed to feel vulnerable, and you are supposed to have a limited means of fighting. This is often done by making movement and attacking feel cumbersome (as it would be if you actually tried to navigate or defend yourself the way video game protagonists does in real life). It is meant to be the antithesis of the action hero "boss" control schemes and the tone of action games. I don't think anyone is arguing that terrible camera angles should be preserved, but there have been games that utilize fixed camera angels brilliantly (see Fatal Frame). Again, it seems to me that you don't like survival horror. What you seem to like is action games with horrific atmospheres, and that's fine.

 

[josemlopes]

I understand some of the idea behind open world horror games, but with that open world limits control. If people are given the option to do whatever they want, they'll merely do something that leads them back into their comfort zone, turning a survival horror game into just another sandbox.
For this, I'll use Dead Island.

Dead Island isnt a horror game, if it is then so is Dead Rising and State of Decay.

Even STALKER (a game that also even isnt a horror game) can show how an open world game can be scary and how the confort zone can barely exist (with areas where there is none of it and are necessary either for the story or for the need of finding ammo/health).

Sorry. I saw it on Wikipedia. Shouldn't automatically think this is true.

However, I'm going to stick by the point that an open world game does not have that same ability to scare because it doesn't have the ability to control what happens. This doesn't necessarily mean you have to squeeze players down a tight linear path like a Haunted Mansion Disney Ride, but it does mean that you need to know where the player is going so you can set up the scary event properly. If there's so much around you and no order to how you're seeing it or what you need to focus on, it's all going to become a jumbled mess. You're not going to be able to build up anticipation and tension as high in a game with limited structure.

PS, I unfortunately haven't played Stalker (because I own a mac), but "the need for finding ammo/health" is something slightly scary but not necessarily required for horror. In games like SH2 where you had limited bullets but could use your 2X4 or metal pipe an unlimited amount of times, it wasn't something that scared you because of limited resources. It was what you had to use the resources for that scared people. As for health, yeah it can scare, but it's not that they're low on health or that there are limited health packs that scare people. It's the anticipation for something bigger that will require more health that scares them.

It wasnt just the lack of ammo/health that was scary, it was the fact that for you to find more you had to explore the area instead of going along the right path, and when the area looks like some scary ass abandoned facility crawling with monsters its kind of hard to not spend a few minutes wondering if its worth it.

Even in the more open world parts of the game being ambushed in the middle of a pitch black night by creatures is scary as hell since you never know if something is following you.

These are 2 example videos of STALKER being scary, the key here is that a lot of the game isnt all that scripted so you really cant predict when the creatures are preparing to attack (like in Dead Space where after 2 hours you already figured it out that if there is a vent nearby something is going to come out of it).


The second video is slightly edited but you get the idea

 

[Soundwave]

I understand people have a hard time with the controls in old third person fixed camera angle survival horror games. I could even see why people could call those control schemes "bad". Why people would think they are necessary for the genre is beyond me though.

Also, not to sound like "that guy", but I really didn't/still don't have any trouble with those control schemes myself. I mean, I couldn't beat the "Survivor Tofu" game mode in RE:2, but I *did* beat it with Hunk a few times.

Now, obviously the important aspects of a survival horror games is the experience itself. Do you feel guilty every time you miss? For every hit that you *could* have avoided but didn't? If not, then you either need to challenge yourself more, or pick another genre of game (that sounds harsher than I mean it, but I can't think of a more succinct way to get the point across). This is the difference between a "survival horror" game and a "horror game".

 

[FoolKiller]

Less is more... just like this comment.

Think about it.

 

[Vladdie93]

It wasnt just the lack of ammo/health that was scary, it was the fact that for you to find more you had to explore the area instead of going along the right path, and when the area looks like some scary ass abandoned facility crawling with monsters its kind of hard to not spend a few minutes wondering if its worth it.

Even in the more open world parts of the game being ambushed in the middle of a pitch black night by creatures is scary as hell since you never know if something is following you.

The second video is slightly edited but you get the idea

Here's the thing:
I've seen those same experiences in horror games with linear stories. The only reference I used for DS was that Regenerator thing, because I thought that was scary. However, I used it for no other references because the rest of it was a bad example of scary.
I would probably push closer to Silent Hill 2 to show my point.
SH2 is a linear story progression, but has you exploring small and cramped areas over and over for a set period of time, using new items you found to try and get what you need. It was extremely unpredictable despite being quite linear, and still gave you pause in finding resources because that meant going out of your way to go in even more dangerous areas to try and get it.
HOWEVER, while I think it's interesting how Stalker did it, It's not something that I would say is required for horror games, or even proves that sandbox horror is more effective to linear horror.
See, the Stalker footage kind of fell under the same premise I had for Slender: The Eight Pages. Wandering around a dark forest with a bunch of creatures can be scary, but you could always just run away back into a comfort zone and ignore it. It wasn't really that scary because you have the ability to just say "No, you know what? I don't want to deal with the enemy. I'll just move somewhere else."
I think that true horror should force you to confront something truly terrifying and not give you the comforting option. True horror forces you out of circumstance to do the opposite of what you would want to do. I think being forced to head-on face a challenge rather than just thinking "Hey, I can tough it out and find something"

Here's the kind of thing that I think is truly scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcB3cD2VyM

Wanting to fight an enemy, but being unable to, and being forced to run for an unknown (to you) period of time in the hopes that you'll survive.
That's what's scary, and it's scary because there's no second option. You can't just pause and think about it for a few minutes, you need to make quick decisions NOW, otherwise you'll die.

 

[LAGG]

I understand people have a hard time with the controls in old third person fixed camera angle survival horror games. I could even see why people could call those control schemes "bad". Why people would think they are necessary for the genre is beyond me though.

Also, not to sound like "that guy", but I really didn't/still don't have any trouble with those control schemes myself. I mean, I couldn't beat the "Survivor Tofu" game mode in RE:2, but I *did* beat it with Hunk a few times.

Now, obviously the important aspects of a survival horror games is the experience itself. Do you feel guilty every time you miss? For every hit that you *could* have avoided but didn't? If not, then you either need to challenge yourself more, or pick another genre of game (that sounds harsher than I mean it, but I can't think of a more succinct way to get the point across). This is the difference between a "survival horror" game and a "horror game".

All agreed.
The controls in old REs were pretty fine and people come a say "survival horror needs bad controls", makes no sense.
And yes, "horror game" and "survival horror game" are different things, but it seems to be a source of confusion for a lot of people.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

When my body is tricked into thinking my actual life is in danger and reacts accordingly (sweaty palms, pumping heart, shaky grip) then I know it's a good horror game. Of course I get a similar reaction with high difficulty and fast enemies on any game, but coupling them with gruesome death animations and a lack of recovery items can't hurt.

 

[Sarge034]

Spoiler: lacktheknack

Yeah, you're a paying consumer with opinions... and so is he.

And I would welcome the discussion of those opinions... if (s)he actually stated them. I asked what people thought makes a good SH game. Instead of saying "I like the way they are, and here is why" (s)he decided to simply attack my views.

And some opinions ARE worth less than others in various cases. Imagine if someone who played mostly war shooters had just as much sway on how sim-strategy games work as the sim-strategy enthusiast. Imagine if someone who only played RPGs had significant sway over how a point-and-click adventure game was made.

But they already do... All large games fight over the people who play a bit of everything. As such games are changed slightly to open up the player base. In the current environment no game can live on the hard core niche crowd alone. Even Dark Souls drew in the "casuals" and the "dude-bros" because it became the popular thing to have. Those who don't fight for that slice of money tend to stay small and never really become fully realized.

Similarly, your suggestions:...are directly incompatible with much of survival horror. "Amnesia: The Dark Descent" is celebrated as a paragon of survival horror, it's only compatible with three of your suggestions.

Silent Hill is another classic, and it only conforms to TWO of them.

You're mixing up "survival horror" with "horror shooter". And make no mistake, they're two different things.

You see, I think they are only incompatible with the current dogma. Nothing ever grows when it stagnates into a comfort zone. Perhaps it will take more work, but I think it's do-able. Using only jump scares is just lazy, so to instill real fear the game would need the ambiance, set up, and execution (or not). A first person perspective inherently makes you paranoid. I don't know if you have played it but Splinter Cell Blacklist drives my point home in its' MP. The spies (predators) get 3rd person so they can have better situational awareness and you can't sneak up on them. The mercs (prey) on the other hand are in 1st person so you have to constantly worry about your back. This is where the co-op sections come in. Mercs have a tendency to use heard dynamics. As in one person will be in front to set off any ambushes while the other three are clumped up watching each other's backs and are at the ready to help the point man. These same paranoia driven actions appear in L4D, and you get tons of resources in that game. So yes, I guess my ideas won't work in the "O shit, all I can do is run games", but not all survival horror games have to be that way either.

You say you don't like Silent Hill, old Resident Evil, or Fatal Frame. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, you do NOT like survival horror. Next you'll be telling me that you also don't like Slender, Amnesia, Penumbra or Clock Tower. I feel safe in saying this, because they ALSO don't conform to your ideals.

Not every survival horror fan has to like all of these games (Slender is a popular punching bag), but to like NONE of them? Yeah, between that and your assertion that "all enemies should be killable", you're not a fan of the genre, end of. You like horror shooters. Go play those instead.

But you are missing the point of why I couldn't get into them. Personally, I would love to play the old REs, but the camera and controls are so god awful that I physically can't. And, as I stated in my op, when asked about new survival horror games hard core fans will often reply that the tanky controls and old cameras need to come back.

Spoiler: Vladdie93

To start off, your original statements.
See, what I mean is that your statements were "Game can't be X" and "Game can't do Y," which is all fine and good form a personal perspective. However, it doesn't answer the original question you posted, being "what makes a horror game good?" The qualities you represent show what a bad horror game is in your eyes, but we need to focus on a base for all standards to partake so that we know what can truly make a "good" horror game.

Really? What constitutes a good day? Being healthy OR not being sick. Being alive OR not being dead. The airplane lands safely OR the airplane doesn't crash. To say what something CAN'T do is to give it guidelines for what it CAN do. So for me to say a game CAN'T only use jump scares is the same as saying the game must use a variety of ways to scare the player. That is atmosphere, suspense, build up, jump scares, paranoia, ect, ect.

As for your current arguments, I disagree. I think that there are many ways to overwhelm the player (or give them pause) and that don't keep spilling out ridiculous amounts of ammo. in RE4, the lake monster boss has you throwing harpoons you have in the boat.

Infinite harpoons, btw.

At El Gigante, the game gives you ammo in shacks, and before when you're walking around trying to find the lever to get past the arena. It gives you the ample supply to try and overcome the monster, but it doesn't mean it's not scary.

On normal the ammo given is almost enough, on pro you had better been saving for that fight. This is what I was saying about bosses being there to police resource hoarders and punish those who don't. I had quite a bit of ammo up to that point because I was knifing a lot specifically to save ammo on my pro run. Well you can't initially knife that boss, so guess what? All that ammo I had saved because I was skillful and forward thinking enough to do so was taken from me to even the playing field again. I take issue with that type of lazy difficulty reset.

As for games with overwhelming monsters that you can't beat, note that your inability to beat them is perpendicular to what you are typically given. Pyramid man can kill you in one shot if he does it right. Regenerators are ridiculously strong, and in the original game you would only face one at a time and be forced to avoid it with no way of slowing it down. Even Stasis had little effect on it. The point is that the player needs to feel overwhelmed by enemies.

And you can do that without it feeling cheap. I liken those types of enemies to the boulders in RE4. They are no longer enemies. They are an unstoppable force to drive you from point A to point B until you get to where the devs wanted you to be. Then the enemy decides you are not worth the time or, more insultingly, you are forced to fight it and you can suddenly hurt it. Just like Salizare's right hand in RE4. All you can do if you don't have special unlock weapons is run and then you're trapped in the room and suddenly you are doing damage to him. To make an enemy like that completely negates the player's skill.

As for your #4.... NO. Just a flat out NO.
I understand some of the idea behind open world horror games, but with that open world limits control. If people are given the option to do whatever they want, they'll merely do something that leads them back into their comfort zone, turning a survival horror game into just another sandbox.
For this, I'll use Dead Island.

I have to stop you here. Dead Island was neither open world or survival horror. It was just... a thing. A thing that had a good base idea but shat itself in execution.

Dead Island tried to be an open world horror game, and had many of the elements for it. Breaking weapons were a nice touch, powerful enemies were aplenty, and the forced exploration in a world with monsters ready to kill you was a good idea.

I don't know if you ever played DI, but I need to set you strait on some stuff. The weapon system was unbelievably broken due to the attempted RPG elements. Weapons broke far too quickly in the beginning to compensate for the skills that prolonged weapon life. All power enemies become more dangerous the closer you get to them. Normally this would be a good thing, but in a game mostly about melee weapons it is bad. Some even hurt you when they died if you were too close, like say in melee range. The power enemies were either by themselves, or surrounded by every zombie on the map (those were the ones by quest shit, whoda thunk?)

However, that really limited their ability to try and scare people because of a few reasons.
A) They had time to think about what to do. Instead of forcing them to think on their feet and be distracted by fear, it gives them too much ability to just calm themselves down, turning it into an action game.

I had the opposite experience. Due to the lack of open world elements if a hoard decided it wanted me I very rarely got away. Now, this was in the city where you could go into a total of 10 building I think it was.

B) No ability to plan out the scares. Sometimes you'd run into a few zombies, sometimes it'd be just one big one, or a few small ones, or a few big ones. They couldn't plan it out as well and give something that really scares you because they have no way to figure out where you're headed or what you're going to do. In fact, at one point in the game I just drove around the jungle and found only 2 zombies because the game wanted me to be back near base completing other missions.

That was just poor execution. Halo ODST got the shit right. In the Semi-open world segment the enemies were programed to dynamically patrol the city. If you had killed everything in a sector they would send a strike team to secure that point and double the patrols in the surrounding area. If you engaged a patrol for a bit other patrols would avert their route to assist. It was dynamic and functional but most importantly, it felt right.

C) If they're like me, they'll just use to Overpowered cars and crash through all the zombies, making any possibility for horror completely impossible.

Because all open world games have cars...?

Overall, survival horror and open world aren't nearly as good (To be fair though, Dying Light looks interesting enough to give it a chance. However, horror is best done when you can plan it out and control all the situations because it doesn't allow the player that chance to think. They need to be forced to do things or not do things that get them out of their comfort zone. Otherwise, they'll just stay in their comfort and avoid all the scares.

I have to disagree on a fundamental level. What stories (beside the glitch stories) do you hear people tell about Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Fallout NV? Because I hear stories like how someone was fighting a dragon and a giant got involved. But it was actually the dragon that hit the mammoth and agroed the giant, so the pc got a giant ally for that fight. But after the dragon was dead the inevitable betrayal occurred and the pc was forced to slay his once cohort giant. There was a moment of silence after the fight. Shit like that just can't be scripted. I tell you just put dynamic patrol AI in and see what kind of shit will happen. If you don't expect the scare it is even scarier when it does happen. IE cazadores chasing nightstalkers into an ongoing fight between me and Legion elite assassins. I cried as I reloaded my save when they all got involved.

Spoiler: alphamalet

It just seems to me that to comment on what a genre of games is doing wrong, you should have at least played the notable games of the genre.

Do I have to try to breath under water to know it is bad to do so? The reason I have not played these games (and I would very much like to play all of the early RE) substantially enough to have been considered "delved into" is because of what the genre is doing wrong from my perspective. I just don't like the current dogma. And if it is not clear enough, I have tried on several occasions.

Now OT:

I see that you keep saying that survival horror should be based on skill, and the way you seem to define skill is how proficient you are with knee jerk reactions on a controller

Quite the opposite in fact. If I were advocating "knee jerk reactions on a controller" I would say the game could have nothing but QTE. I am not. I am saying the player should be able to determine the outcome of a situation by their skill. Not their perceived skill, not the devs skill, but their actual skill. And skill is not just being able to manipulate the controller. Skill is finding resources, setting up the situation to favor them, planning, and swift execution among other things.

This is NOT survival horror, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre.

No, this is just not the current dogma of the genre. There is no reason the genre should stagnate. Especially when there are so much cooler places it can go.

You shouldn't be "scoring 50+ headshot" or at any point in time feel like "a boss." You are supposed to feel vulnerable, and you are supposed to have a limited means of fighting.

Why not? If you have the skill, found the resources, and manipulated the situation to your favor why should you not be able to engage a group that large? And if you are supposed to be so powerless, so vulnerable, how is the story supposed to progress? I know for a fact that in the old RE you have to shoot some barrels, kill some zombies, and fuck up some bosses. That is not simply surviving the situation. That is not running away. Yet the old RE are heralded as examples of old school survival horror...

This is often done by making movement and attacking feel cumbersome (as it would be if you actually tried to navigate or defend yourself the way video game protagonists does in real life).

Ok, fact check. Have you ever tried to move while aiming a firearm? Depending on the type of firearm, optics, distance to target, and terrain you can actually move rather quickly while still delivering accurate and consistent fire. At the very least my feet don't become stuck to the floor when I pull up my firearms...

It is meant to be the antithesis of the action hero "boss" control schemes and the tone of action games. I don't think anyone is arguing that terrible camera angles should be preserved, but there have been games that utilize fixed camera angels brilliantly (see Fatal Frame). Again, it seems to me that you don't like survival horror. What you seem to like is action games with horrific atmospheres, and that's fine.

And my main point of the control schemes was that it seems these games need to have a poor control scheme to sandbag themselves and seem harder than they really are in order to make the player fearful. This is not good game design. This is not the game being scary. This is the player worrying that if they run into a monster the controls will prevent them from getting away. It is lazy and a crutch these games have relied on far too much. And if it is a staple of "true survivor horror" then no, I don't like survival horror. So I'll continue to want something that I perceive as "less shitty" than the current dogma of survival horror.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

The whole concept of horror in any form seems to have died a death in recent years with perhaps the exception of in books. I haven't seen a 'horror' movie that scared me, i haven't played a 'horror' game that was anything more than a few jumpy bits waiting for the inevitable boss to jump out but i have read 'horror' books that were really horrible and disgusting.

I think the problem is that you can't show many of the things that makes a book scary in a computer game form. Psychological horror is impossible because you aren't the character on the screen, you are a person watching events in the comfort of your own home with a beer and some chips. You can't have babies getting raped and eaten in games because that would be straight censored. You can only elude to sexual violence for the same reason. The horror comes from your own imagination, not from what is visually displayed. When you can see everything in glorious colour, there isn't anything scary about it at all.

So on that basis i would argue that there isn't really any game you can call survival horror. Survival yes. Horror no.

Maybe we need some text based games to invent the genre...i'm pretty sure i could disgust anyone with my imagination but only if you, the player/reader, are left to fill in the blanks yourself. Tell someone your going to break their kneecaps with a screw driver and they are going to be pretty scared. Tell them your going to use this screw driver to hurt them and they will be shitting bricks wondering what you might do.