The ultimate failure of the Survival horror genre

[shadow skill]

A few weeks ago I came across this article [http://www.destructoid.com/how-survival-horror-evolved-itself-into-extinction-114022.phtml] discussing how in the author's opinion the genre had evolved itself out of existence. Upon reading the article I could not help but think 'It has less to do with the genre 'evolving itself out of existence' and more to do with the fact that the genre has always be predicated on illogically crippling the player." Does it really make sense for a player to be unable to move and shoot at the same time? Now I know there are some who think that this sort of thing is a defining characteristic of the genre and not having it would destroy the whole thing, but I would argue that those who subscribe to this idea have no idea what "survival" actually means in the first place.

It is decidedly uncreative to simply take away player motion to give the illusion of difficulty. It actually demonstrates that the genre has always been predicated on gimmicks rather than a solid premise. I find it surprising that almost no one has seen fit to make shooting a problem beyond ammo conservation. Imagine a situation where shooting actually attracted more of the enemy; it would make having infinite ammo all but irrelevant even if you did have it, because as much as you shoot, the enemy will just keep finding their way to you.

This (The sound of gunfire attracting the zombie hordes.) would mean that in addition to conserving ammunition you would have to think of which weapon to use, and at a minimum where to use it. If you have to go looking for medical supplies have fun because in the zombie Apocalypse the hospitals will be equivalent to Hell since that is where people who were attacked and (un)forturnately survived the initial assault would go. It might also be interesting to include things like infection (Which has been done a few times.), breaking bones, etc. When your major defining characteristic is the inability for the character to move and shoot you have a problem that is not going to go away by just saying "That's what makes game X, X." The people making the big name "Survival horror" games have realized on some level that their gimmick is just that, a gimmick hence the apparent failure of the genre to be truly long lasting.

It does not have to be this way though, if developers stopped thinking "How can I restrict the player" and started thinking "How might someone survive this scenario" the genre would be off of life support and back on top.

Thoughts? Flames? Death threats?

 

[Sensenmann]

I agree with this post.

Dead Space was quite a good Survival Horror, but there was no ground between shooting and running at the SAME TIME. Would have been nice to not be just walking. Also I have yet to see a non restrictive Survival horror FPS not set in radioactive environments.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Survival Horror in general relies on a player being consistently aware of just how vulnerable they are. The moment a player does not consider their situation precarious, all sense of dread is lost and the game fails to scare, relying instead on sudden noise and movement to startle the player.

Doom 3 and Dead Space demonstrate this concept well. In Doom 3, so long as you had a good supply of health, armor and chaingun ammo you never fear a trip down the darkest and spookiest of corridors because you are secure in your safety. Once that chaingun runs dry and you're reduced to your shotgun and assault rifle suddenly places where you once walked with confidence you creep along. Once that health starts to erode, your progress becomes a crawl as you constantly switch between weapon and flashlight and leave nothing up to chance.

Dead Space on the other hand desperately tries to be scary and ultimately fails not only because of pacing, but because the player is far too well equipped to meet the challenges present in the game. Even the lowly Plasma Cutter has the ability to quickly dispatch almost any foe you encounter, and health and ammunition are abundant. Thus, the frequent encounters with the necromorphs lose any sense of horror, and players develop a routine for dealing with the problems (take out a leg, rotate gun, take out an arm, then move on to the next room).

Without vulnerability, atmosphere and pacing are irrelevant because the player knows that they can meet the challenges ahead without effort, and confidence is quite simply the antithesis of fear.

 

[Kyuumi]

Who cares, a game is a game, if you enjoy the actual game, then keep damn playing it, if you don't then throw it aside. Who cares what genre it is, as long as its good.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Some good ideas really, perhaps I AM ALIVE will address these issues, it does seem to be going for a real survival approach, as far as I can tell.

 

[shadow skill]

Who cares, a game is a game, if you enjoy the actual game, then keep damn playing it, if you don't then throw it aside. Who cares what genre it is, as long as its good.

Why are you posting here? When you say it's because you have an opinion on the subject at hand take a look at your own words.

I would also like to add that the lack of scares comes up often with the newer games in this vein but does no one else find it ironic that "survival" is the first word in "Survival horror" does it not imply that "survival" is the primary mechanic "horror" being secondary?

 

[Trivun]

I wish I could make a comment about Left 4 Dead as this seems to be moving towards a more desirable form of gameplay with regards to survival horror (especially teamwork and realism). However, having bought the game yesterday I find myself unable to play due to EXTREME lag (caps simply for emphasis). Hopefully a patch will soon be released to sort this out. As for the topic in question, the best thing developers can do is try to make the games as realistic as possible (aside from the obvious fact that unless 28 Days Later and Resident Evil got their science right, a zombie apocalypse isn't going to happen). Have the effects as close to realism as possible, for example restrictions are only limited to the extent of possible human activity and such activity is only stopped or slowed by effects of injuries or fatigue on the character. The best situation would be a virtual reality style game where you are literally inside the game (kind of like The Matrix, except dying in game simply returns you to the real world). Of course, we are generations away from this sort of technology (although there are various devices on the market now that can get us closer to that state of play, including a helmet that shows you the view of the character themself), but this idea could be used as a potential basis for the sort of things developers should consider. How would we react in a real life situation if zombies attacked? (Oh, sorry, we're meant to call them all The Infected now, no-one says 'zombie' anymore). This is what they need to consider if the survival horror genre is, indeed, to survive (no pun intended).

 

[shadow skill]

Sommeone needs to try and replicate The Most Dangerous Game. That my friends is the blueprint for the survival aspect of Survival horror. I imagine such a recreation would lend itself to online play as well as it would be just two people and a large forested area. One player being the hunter and the other the hunted.

 

[Iron Mal]

I think that most of the problems that survival horrors have had in recent years can be solved quite easily.

Stop remaking Resident Evil 4.

In short, stop making third person shooters with dark rooms and sinister looking bad guys while slapping the label of 'survival horror' onto it.

I'm fully aware that many people loved Resident Evil 4 and it's 'innovitive gameplay' but I still think that that game alone was the deathblow to the whole horror genre.

 

[shadow skill]

I think that most of the problems that survival horrors have had in recent years can be solved quite easily.

Stop remaking Resident Evil 4.

In short, stop making third person shooters with dark rooms and sinister looking bad guys while slapping the label of 'survival horror' onto it.

I'm fully aware that many people loved Resident Evil 4 and it's 'innovitive gameplay' but I still think that that game alone was the deathblow to the whole horror genre.

I do not believe it fair to say that a single game was the death blow, not when the changes made to the game merely exposed the inherently flawed mechanics behind the previous games. In reality I do not believe that any of the "Survival horror" games were ever about survival at all. What they were about was needless restrictions being placed on the player to create the illusion of difficulty. It's the difference between Super Ghouls and Ghosts being "hard" because you cannot save the game, and the recent Ninja Gaiden games being hard because the enemies require skill to defeat without you getting rocked.

 

[J-Man]

Es tee ay el kay ee ar made a good stab at it. Mod it, and you have a top-of-the-line survival horror game.

 

[Iron Mal]

I do not believe it fair to say that a single game was the death blow, not when the changes made to the game merely exposed the inherently flawed mechanics behind the previous games. In reality I do not believe that any of the "Survival horror" games were ever about survival at all. What they were about was needless restrictions being placed on the player to create the illusion of difficulty. It's the difference between Super Ghouls and Ghosts being "hard" because you cannot save the game, and the recent Ninja Gaiden games being hard because the enemies require skill to defeat without you getting rocked.

I said that Resi 4 was the deathblow since it was seemingly the game that started the craze of every new survival horror having to be a blend of a famous horror movie and Gears of War.

The changes that were made to Resi 4 did highlight some of the problems that previous Resident Evil games had while turning it into an action-heavy third person shooter at the same time thus rendering any comparison completely and utterly pointless (this is like saying that FFVII exposes the fact that Doom had a crap story).

Most of the problems which people seem to have with classic SH's are things which, in my opinion, add to the experience and the general horror atmosphere.

First, fixed camera angles. Some say that it results in you fireing blindly at an off screen enemy but I say that it also adds to the feeling of paranoia and danger that is normally present in horror (it gives you that feeling that you're being watched).

Next, the inability to fire and move at the same time. How many people writing on here can fire a shotgun and run around with stability and precision? Being semi-useless in a fight adds to that critical feeling of vulnerability (why should I be scared if I'm a shotgun wielding space marine?).

From the looks of it you simply dislike survival horrors (fair enough, they're not for everyone), this does not mean that they are 'flawed' and filled with nothing but 'illusions' and 'needless restrictions', it's just that you're being somewhat unrealistic in your expectations.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

Well, if we foused on what made the original alone in the dark good, and turned that into GOOD 3D, we might be on a winner. Kinda sucks how they just screwed up with the new one.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Some good ideas really, perhaps I AM ALIVE will address these issues, it does seem to be going for a real survival approach, as far as I can tell.

Can't wait to see this game, it looks amazing and really innovative in the articles I've read about it..

Then again so did Alone in the Dark...

 

[shadow skill]

Look, saying that it needs to go to make room for being able to walk\gun at the same time is just doing the same thing as the people who are trying to hold onto it. You're both trying to say "it NEEDS to be like this or else" and you're not leaving ANY ground in the middle for ANYTHING.

What you do here is; leave each game to their own devices. Resident Evil does theirs FINE, other games do theirs in their own way. That's.. it really. It's like JRPG and Western RPG. Stop bitching that yours is right and play yours.

Did you actually read the article I linked to and what I wrote or did you just decide to complain without reading? When people can make a convincing argument that the genre has all but ceased to exist because the player was actually given freedom it means that something is indeed very wrong with the genre itself. I cannot think of any other genre of game that literally stops being what it is just because you change a camera angle or allow freedom of motion. I highly doubt a Soccer game would stop being a soccer game if it was turn-based or used a fist person view for example.

Someone in another thread (possibly on another site even.) pointed out that FEAR botched the psychological bits because they where seperated from the gameplay. He or she argued that they should have been mixed into the combat elements more directly like having the Replica soldiers morph into monsters in the middle of a firefight. I would take this one step further and say that they should have apparitions that can actually harm you so that the player never really knows when not to shoot. (Yes I know some of the apparitions can hurt you in FEAR 2 which is a good sign.)


Iron Mal:

The changes that were made to Resi 4 did highlight some of the problems that previous Resident Evil games had while turning it into an action-heavy third person shooter at the same time thus rendering any comparison completely and utterly pointless (this is like saying that FFVII exposes the fact that Doom had a crap story).

This is the entire point of the thread, the changes between RE3 and RE4 are not really major changes (Save perhaps the buying of ammo.)but RE4 is pretty much in a completely different genre because of them! The reason for this is the focus on player restriction rather than what it takes to survive a given scenario.

Next, the inability to fire and move at the same time. How many people writing on here can fire a shotgun and run around with stability and precision? Being semi-useless in a fight adds to that critical feeling of vulnerability (why should I be scared if I'm a shotgun wielding space marine?).

Where did I say your aim would be perfect while running? Please tell me where I said that. I did say that one might try adding an infection mechanic to a Survival horror game, I did say that one might try having the act of firing a weapon attract more enemies forcing the player to think beyond simple numerical values when deciding to shoot.

Oh and one other thing, being a trained space marine with a shotgun is not going to matter one bit when you are faced with a horde of enemies coming at you from all sides. If the game is done correctly one type of weapon is not going to make you a god no matter how "skilled" you are.

 

[shadow skill]

No death threats, no flame, but just one thing.
You are wrong.
Here's why.

About the problem of not being able to walk while shooting.
The problem is indeed not that they couldn't make it so, but it is that they didn't want to. Not because they wanted to cripple the player, but because they wanted you to use the regional damage feature they spent so much time and money inplementing in the game.

Thing is, they have to be doing something right since their game (RE4) is getting copied non-stop. Dead Space, SH5 and blah blah blah.

But the point is that if they don't want you to run and shoot is because...
A) They don't want to change their control scheme.
B) It would sway away from te genre they want their game to have.
C) It would ruin the gameplay and break other game mechanics such as regional damage.
D) They are satisfied with having to stand to shoot, and so are many other people.
E) They don't make this game to please FPS target audience. They make this game to appeal to audiences that like the survival horror genre.

So yeah, maybe you like moving while you shoot, but then, RE is based on regional damage targeting (you can't have that mechanic and have the guy run around while he shoots) and second, you probably prefer FPS's to Survival horror.
Also, of 10 games that come out, 9 are FPS, so I'd really appreciate if the last game that isn't a FPS wasn't asked to be one.
RE is a game intended for consoles, that's why they decided not to make it a FPS, and that's why they decided to make it the way it is. It is not designed for a mouse and keyboard, but for a single analog stick, and they didnt want you to aim automatically. They wanted you to make the aiming, because shooting a kneecap or a head does make a difference in that game.

Besides, walking while shooting is not a fun element, it's not even a gameplay element.
Have you ever said "This game is good because I can walk and shoot at the same time" ?
Or "I hate Onimusha cause you can't jump". Or "I hate Gears of War because you can't jump on mushrooms".

Except you are wrong because allowing player movement should not magically change the genre in question which your argument implies. That simple fact invalidates this entire wall of text.

Harhol:The answer is call of duty. If you are going to move and shoot and try to aim you will move slowly. You can still move quite fast and shoot a pistol so long a you don't try to aim. Your (non)counter argument demontrates a lack of creative thinking on your part..