The ultimate failure of the Survival horror genre

[Arcane Azmadi]

You can't necessarily argue that the inability to attack while moving is even an integral part of the horror mood. The Silent Hill series has allowed you to attack while moving ever since its inception (unless you're using a rifle or extra-large melee weapon) and it generally doesn't make much difference, you're still crapping yourself in combat. On the other hand, the inability to move and fire in Resident Evil seems more a technical limitation since you need to be able to aim manually (up and down in the original games, precise targetting in RE4). You need to be careful about complaining about technical limitations, otherwise you might as well ask why Silent Hill has so many broken locked doors in it (which would, if you asked them, cause the programmers to scream at you "how many bloody empty rooms do you want us to code, huh?!")

Camera is an interesting issue. How many people felt a chill run down their spine the first time they started playing Silent Hill and the camera cut to a hi-angle shot which swung around Harry as he ran around that back-alley corner towards the dead end where the monsters drag him down in the opening? Purely a cinematic shot, since it's just an empty alley, but it's genuinely disturbing- it throws you off balance and gives you the horrible feeling you're being watched. This effect was notably replicated earlier in Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare (no, not that horrible modern screw-up, the one from LAST generation) in a shot where while walking around the outside of the mansion the camera cuts up to a corridor INSIDE the mansion looking down on your position through a window. If that doesn't unerve you, nothing will. On the other hand, we have games like Doom 3. Being an FPS, Doom 3 obviously has no camera, which means you can only see what's directly in front of you- very inconvenient when a Trite or a Maggot has crawled down the wall behind you. After 4 years after its release I still play it occasionally and I'm still constantly swinging my gun around checking and rechecking every corner as I creep along, no matter how big my arsenal gets. Technically, Resident Evil 4 attempted to recreate this effect with the "over the shoulder" camera angle, only deciding to keep the protangonist in the shot at the same time (since Leon is a character in his own right, not just a faceless avatar for you to project yourself onto in the same way as the Doom marine).

Of course, as has been suggested, the key to horror is helplessness. I neve really felt scared during Parasite Eve 2 because the ability to immolate my enemies with devastating bursts of Parasite energy (and the fact that the basic types of ammo were infinite) never made me feel helpless enough- at least, not until the endgame when the most powerful enemies in the game suddenly spawned everywhere and even then I was more nervous than actually scared. On the other hand, I was rarely that scared in Resident Evil either, although this was because I could evade most of the zombies if ammo became scarce- although being forced to count every bullet certainly added to the tension, you handled it in a clinical fashion. One of the examples of what IS scary in Resident Evil? Nemesis- being chased from room to room by a recurring boss who actually attacks you outside of boss fights (yes I know his fights are all scripted, but still...) You can drop him if you have enough ammo, but he'll still be back and he's a deadly opponent every time you meet him, making you feel genuinely threatened by him. On the other hand, you have to be careful when attempting to make the player "feel helpless" that you don't do so artificially- the most egrarious example I can think of is the Fatal Frame series. I'm not saying it's not scary (it's terrifying) but attempts to promote the horror element by emphasising that "rather than a gun-toting soldier, you're just a little girl with a camera" miss the point that the ghosts aren't trying to wrestle you to the ground and eat your entrails, and that a grenade launcher wouldn't have any effect on them anyway so a camera is all you need. From the ghosts' perspective, you ARE packin'!

Finally, let me mention one game which I think IS truly terrifying, and is regularly overlooked on scary game lists (probably because of its frustrating design choices)- Siren/Forbidden Siren. I never actually played too much of this game, largely because it scared the living piss out of me to the point where I just couldn't go on (also because the puzzles were so damnnably obscure I felt I'd never beat it unless I practically played it with FAQ in hand, which kind of ruins the mood). The most nightmarish part is the enemies- the shibito. Basically Japanese zombies, the twist is that they cannot die. A lot of the time your character doesn't even have a weapon (since you control several different characters over the course of the story) but even when you do the shibito can only be stunned at best (although there is an exception when you shoot one causing it to topple into a well, although that's actually a highly obscure puzzle solution). Even worse, if you have a gun firing it DOES actually attract other shibito in the area, which can potentially make matters worse. Fighting is therefore not the answer (one of the things that actually turned me off the game was a mission where I had to be forced into combat with a shibito to proceed), but stealth (your usual recourse) is made difficult by the camera (which actually does a reasonable job of restricting you to what your character would be able to see, although a lot of it is technical problems). This is solved by the game's main gimmick- sightjacking, allowing you to locate the shibito by tuning into their vision to see where they're looking. Putting yourself behind the groaning, panting, bloodthirsty gaze of a zombie is a disturbing experience which can really freak you out, especially when you're jumping around between several of them, trying to work out the timing for you to creep from one piece of cover to the rest. Finally, the aforementioned fact that the game allows you to control several characters at once should make one thing self-evident- DON'T get too attached to them, the game can be very cruel...

 

[inkheart_artist]

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.

I really can't agree with that being said of Dead Space I was only getting the feeling of survival horror in it for the first hour when I was getting used to shooting off the limbs. After that, it felt like I was a hired alien exterminator trying to clear an infection off of a ship. it was so formulaic, easy and repetitive how you killed them. Shoot a leg off, shoot and arm off- dead. I could do it for just about every creature in it, it even worked in spirit for the crawling aliens.


As far as shadow skill, you had a few good points, the gunshots attracting monsters sounds like a good idea actually, however I think it is actually realistic for someone to not be able to shoot and walk at the same time, even professionally trained gunmen can't shoot with much accuracy while moving. My ideology of what makes a survival horror a survival horror, is taking a normal person, one who doesn't know how to really defend themselves from life or death attacks and throwing them in a horrific situation they're not prepared for. I think if you want to make someone be able to move and shoot at the same time in a game and still make it frightening the person has to have true to life detriments- like poor aim, fatigue, difficulty seeing, ect. ect.

in my latest venture into survival horror -Dead Space- the guy you played as was just too good doing what he did for it to ever be frightening, he had so many useful gadgets he never had to worry about dying if you employed even a bit of strategy. His aim was dead on and it was rarely ever shaken from being so and his guns were good at killing the monsters pitted against him as well. I never had a problem with ammo, you got so much of it that the ammo conservation aspect was the same as any action first person shooter, you could even buy the stuff if you were gungho about squeezing rounds off.

When I play a survival horror, I want to feel like I am, in my frail weak glory, being attacked by horrific monsters who can easily dispatch me and theres nothing I can really do about it but run or get creative in a bind.

 

[barryween]

I think having characters that die permanintley is a good idea, Like in Heavy rain.

 

[Mister Benoit]

Dead Space had me scared for a little bit, but thats only because i'm scared of toasters, and well many enemies in Dead Space just pop up. Having a game be scary from beginning to end would be quite an achievement.

 

[USSR]

I think Fear 2 will turn out to be a great survival horror game.

I'm glad somebody brought up FEAR. because I wanted to make a point about the difference between Survival Horror and flat out Horror games. FEAR is more in the latter category.

When I think of "survival horror" I always think of third person perspective, a protagonist who controls like a tank, and solving complex puzzles in inappropriate locations. I think that's what the original poster is talking about, that very specific genre that spawned games like Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame, etc. All great games for their time, but the control scheme and method of limiting player movement to increase the difficulty seem rather outdated by today's standards.

Games like FEAR and Dead Space are to me, a natural evolution of the horror genre that thankfully leave the principles of "survival horror" behind.

Well then, your thinking of survival horror doesn't really match many games, so you're just cutting off so many games out there, and what the hell does third person have to do with survival horror?

"Survival horror is a video game genre inspired by fictional horror films in which the player's primary objective is to survive and/or escape a threat typical of horror fiction, usually zombies or supernatural beings of some sort."

F.E.A.R., or First Encounter Assault Recon, is a survival horror first-person shooter. The game's story revolves around a supernatural phenomenon, which F.E.A.R.?a fictional special forces team?is called to contain. The player assumes the role of F.E.A.R.'s Point Man, who possesses superhuman reflexes, and must uncover the secrets of a paranormal menace in the form of a little girl.

"Inspired by fictional horror films"--We all know what inspired Alma

"player's primary objective is to survive and/or escape a threat typical of horror fiction"--You have to survive, and discover secrets of Alma, and what happened to begin with, then escape.

"usually zombies or supernatural beings of some sort."-- In F.E.A.R, the majority of enemies are ghosts.

So I think I've made my point pretty clear that F.E.A.R is a survival horror game.

 

[USSR]

I think Fear 2 will turn out to be a great survival horror game.

I'm glad somebody brought up FEAR. because I wanted to make a point about the difference between Survival Horror and flat out Horror games. FEAR is more in the latter category.

When I think of "survival horror" I always think of third person perspective, a protagonist who controls like a tank, and solving complex puzzles in inappropriate locations. I think that's what the original poster is talking about, that very specific genre that spawned games like Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame, etc. All great games for their time, but the control scheme and method of limiting player movement to increase the difficulty seem rather outdated by today's standards.

Games like FEAR and Dead Space are to me, a natural evolution of the horror genre that thankfully leave the principles of "survival horror" behind.

Well then, your thinking of survival horror doesn't really match many games, so you're just cutting off so many games out there, and what the hell does third person have to do with survival horror?

"Survival horror is a video game genre inspired by fictional horror films in which the player's primary objective is to survive and/or escape a threat typical of horror fiction, usually zombies or supernatural beings of some sort."

F.E.A.R., or First Encounter Assault Recon, is a survival horror first-person shooter. The game's story revolves around a supernatural phenomenon, which F.E.A.R.?a fictional special forces team?is called to contain. The player assumes the role of F.E.A.R.'s Point Man, who possesses superhuman reflexes, and must uncover the secrets of a paranormal menace in the form of a little girl.

"Inspired by fictional horror films"--We all know what inspired Alma

"player's primary objective is to survive and/or escape a threat typical of horror fiction"--You have to survive, and discover secrets of Alma, and what happened to begin with, then escape.

"usually zombies or supernatural beings of some sort."-- In F.E.A.R, the majority of enemies are ghosts.

So I think I've made my point pretty clear that F.E.A.R is a survival horror game.

Majority of enemies are ghost? THEIR CLONE SOLDIERS have you even played FEAR?

Sorry, I got caught up in my own typing, yes the majority are soldiers, but a good bit are ghosts you have to deal with, and the plot is focused on a Paranormal/Supernatural effect towards the player.

You know what I meant, and the facts I posted remain the same.

 

[shadow skill]

A recurring theme here seems to be the idea that being able to move and shoot implies accuracy while shooting. There is no reason for a characters aim to be perfect while moving. In Fps games typically you can reload while moving what most games don't do is put your weapon into a position that causes your vision to be blurred preventing you from setting up a shot while reloading. Black does this, it's one small detail I wish more games would steal. Also it shouldn't matter if the character you play has training with a weapon or not, do people honestly think a lone soldier is in a much better position to actually survive the zombie apocalypse? I mean sure his or her survival rate might be -1 instead of -4 for the regular person but it really is not that much of a difference and has no bearing on a game. If we want to argue about trained vs untrained people using firearms I would have to say that a gun would be all but useless because the untrained individual would just shoot the ceiling even if he or she was standing still.

I certainly would imagine that in most cases those with military or even police training would have a better chance of surviving the initial onslaught, but then again anyone not in a major city has a hell of a better chance than anyone in a city during the outbreak scenario itself. At the end of the day being forced to stand still while shooting is not realistic by any stretch, having shit accuracy while moving and shooting however is. It enables the player to control his own individual space without requiring that he or she be absolutely defenseless while doing so. Really would people stand still while shooting one zombie, while another comes at them from the side or god forbid from above, behind or below?

I think part of the assumption here is that your character will always be shooting to kill a zombie rather than simply shooting to simply stun in order to clear a path so your character can run like hell out of a tight spot. Let's say the zombies are of the 28 days later variety. Hitting one of the infected in the chest with pistol fire might not stop an infected but it could stun it lon enough for your character to start sprinting to get away. or like Arcane says you can move and club someone as long as the weapon isn't heavy.

Arcane: I highly doubt that the standing still and shooting thing is in response to a technical limitation on the part of the older RE games.* It's just a design decision that they made like the fixed camera angles that they used in DMC. It would not have been impossible to allow the player to shoot forward only when moving, but it was definitely easier for the developer to do what they did for the first game, but this doesn't explain the next four or five games.

It is kind of like saying it's ok not to have the option to use the analog sticks in fighting games even though we have had analog controllers for twelve years now.

*With the possible exception of the very first game. Only because the dualshock did not exist when the game was released on the playstation. They even released a Dualshock compatible version of RE2 a few months after RE2 came out.

 

[USSR]

I think Fear 2 will turn out to be a great survival horror game.

I'm glad somebody brought up FEAR. because I wanted to make a point about the difference between Survival Horror and flat out Horror games. FEAR is more in the latter category.

When I think of "survival horror" I always think of third person perspective, a protagonist who controls like a tank, and solving complex puzzles in inappropriate locations. I think that's what the original poster is talking about, that very specific genre that spawned games like Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame, etc. All great games for their time, but the control scheme and method of limiting player movement to increase the difficulty seem rather outdated by today's standards.

Games like FEAR and Dead Space are to me, a natural evolution of the horror genre that thankfully leave the principles of "survival horror" behind.

Really you found FEAR scary? serioulsy? FEAR is just another FPS noting scary about it and yes i have played FEAR and FEAR 2
and if anyone thinks FEAR 2 will be a survival horror game...you fail SO hard

Ok, now the person I'm trying to prove wrong, I will stick up for.

Let me get this through your thick, bashed out skull,

F.E.A.R is "supposed" to be scary. It tries to be, and that is a fact. And I'm sorry if a typical dumbass walks in and thinks an opinion overrides a fact, you are sadly mistaken.
Oh and one more thing, F.E.A.R. 2 isn't out yet, so don't stick up for yourself there, saying that you've played it.

And no, the demo doesn't count.

 

[Calax]

A recurring theme here seems to be the idea that being able to move and shoot implies accuracy while shooting. There is no reason for a characters aim to be perfect while moving. In Fps games typically you can reload while moving what most games don't do is put your weapon into a position that causes your vision to be blurred preventing you from setting up a shot while reloading. Black does this, it's one small detail I wish more games would steal. Also it shouldn't matter if the character you play has training with a weapon or not, do people honestly think a lone soldier is in a much better position to actually survive the zombie apocalypse? I mean sure his or her survival rate might be -1 instead of -4 for the regular person but it really is not that much of a difference and has no bearing on a game. If we want to argue about trained vs untrained people using firearms I would have to say that a gun would be all but useless because the untrained individual would just shoot the ceiling even if he or she was standing still.

Just gonna throw this out there, but I think that any weapon you shoot, other than maybe a pistol, while moving under your own power would unbalance you to the point where you'd fall over or at least stumble, which negates the reason for running and shooting. It'd be much easier to stop, point, shoot, run again rather than run and shoot at the same time.

I think the reason games like MGS and deadspace have you walk is because it's much easier to balance yourself and account for kickback on a weapon when you're walking. When you run you have different balance and are much easier to knock over.

As to the training. I was referring to the fact that in most survival horror games that I've played the characters, by the end of the game, are zooming around with rocket launchers and grenade launchers. I personally think that those weapons require at least SOME training for you to be accurate (and not to mention not killing yourself because you don't aim properly).

 

[AgentNein]

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..

Survival horror isn't a full on genre like the platformer or the adventure game. It's more or less a subgenre, originally stemming off of the adventure game with elements of horror (taken from movies and literature) and elements of action games.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with a genre (especially a subgenre) being pretty specific as to what defines said genre. To compare, let's look at the genre of the roguelike. It's a subgenre built on some pretty specific qualifying factors. What exactly is wrong with this?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that at least part of your arguement is that because survival horror seems to be a dying genre, it must mean that it's doing something wrong that has to be corrected. Sadly things aren't this simple, sometimes good franchises/genre's don't survive simply because they're not giving the majority of gamers what they're looking for. Let's look at the 2d platformer for instance! It's certainly seen better days, does that necessarily mean there's some deficiency in the genre?

 

[LesIsMore]

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'll second that motion, and also add my own request: stop ripping off System Shock 2.

 

[stiver]

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'll second that motion, and also add my own request: stop ripping off System Shock 2.

would you people stop bitching over re4 already? Re was always a zombie shooter at heart just with a shitty camera and aiming system.So they fixed that with re4 and it is better than any other RE game

Any RE fan will tell you RE2 was the best in the series.

 

[N-Sef]

To me, the ultimate failure of the Survival Horror genre is the fact that your character can defend themselves well with guns. Silent Hill introduced the fact the person you are playing as is just a regular old joe, Alone in the Dark did the same thing before it. You cannot be scared in a game where you have ultimate power over the very force that is trying to kill you, it kills the tention and eventually makes the whole encounter laughable.

The Clock Tower series as well as its spiritual successor, Haunting Ground, are survival horror games which cast you as fragile schoolgirls who obtain no weapons and have to hide from their enemies using the environment. Horror in games works when the person/thing/force that is hunting you is nigh unstoppable, when you dread the encounter. Not when you pray there is another monster around the corner so you can get more ammo out of them to take on the next unscary boss.

 

[shadow skill]

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with a genre (especially a subgenre) being pretty specific as to what defines said genre. To compare, let's look at the genre of the roguelike. It's a subgenre built on some pretty specific qualifying factors. What exactly is wrong with this?

Is Super Ghouls and Ghosts a Rougelike because you cannot save? Is Izuna not a Rougelike because you can save? Even in that incredibly niche genre of the Rouglelike one is able to make more changes without a game ceasing to be a Rougelike than you can to these alleged Survival horror games before they become entirely different games. It's kind of ridiculous that saving,freedom of motion, real time combat, etc can be introduced into a Rouglike and it will retain it's Rougelikeness.

Yet these supposed Survival horror games all but collapse as soon as you remove a nonsensical retriction. Just not having weapons to fight with makes more sense than what some of these games do, heck the concept of permanent death as unfun as it is, is infinitely more logical than being arbitrarily glued to the damn floor when attacking. Heck let's take the fighting genre, typically the moment you add multiple opponents a fighting game turns into a beat em up this is of course a natural evolution. The interesting thing here is that it is indeed possible to have more than one opponent on the screen at a given time in a fighting game. Most wrestling games have modes where you take on multiple opponents at the same time; they are not any less fighting games than a one on one fighter, and they cannot be considered a beat em up either.

A strategy RPG is still an RPG ,as is an action RPG, or a turn based rpg, a shooter is still a shooter whether it is top down or 2d, or 3d, first or 3rd person.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that at least part of your arguement is that because survival horror seems to be a dying genre, it must mean that it's doing something wrong that has to be corrected. Sadly things aren't this simple, sometimes good franchises/genre's don't survive simply because they're not giving the majority of gamers what they're looking for. Let's look at the 2d platformer for instance! It's certainly seen better days, does that necessarily mean there's some deficiency in the genre?

If you have not noticed yet deficiency comes into play when your genre disappears as soon as you start to move away from what can only be described as gimmickery. No other genre or subgenre I can think of ceases to exist in the way "Survival horror" does when this happens. It cannot even lay claim to the concept of limited ammunition because shooters have been doing this for a long time. You have always had to pick your shots carefully lest you end up in a tight spot as soon as the ammo drops become scarce. The absolute last thing you want is to be stuck with a pistol while some big monster is charging you. Though it is true that this concept is more pronounced in Survival horror games.

 

[Iron Mal]

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.

Hmmm...I think you have misunderstood what I was saying.

You keep repeating your point of 'player retstricion' (just using a semi-advanced piece of terminology doesn't make your arguement any more valid), what you claim is restricting the player is seen by others as ways of making you more vulnerable (and thus increasing the tension and drama of the situation).

Trying to fire some weapons while running would be next to impossible for even experienced soldiers (never mind ordinary civillians), if you tried to fire a shotgun while moving then the recoil would send you off your feet (in my experience you have to brace yourself before each shot). Since you are normally playing a normal, scared person in the middle of a horrific situation it would be unreasonable to expect them to be on par with the army (most of the combat and survival success is supposed to be down to luck and a large amount of running away).

About your idea of a infection/lure mechanic, these deas would sound alright to some but they could potentially make things too complex (where do we go from there?). If you were infected every time a zombie bit you then the game would become more tedious than horrifying as you make the round trip to cure yourself on a bi-minutely basis. And seeing as most SH's are single player... would you please explain how using yourself as bait would lure zombies away from you?

Being a grizzled, veteran space marine would well and truely undermine the horror aspect of anything for the simple reason of it giving no reason for us to sympathise for the protaganist (FEAR lost me around about the point I took control of a mute, bullet time wielding special forces operative with a crappy flashlight). Granted, if things get chaotic then even a soldier would be sweating but that's the thing, Survival horror's generally don't have masses of enemies anyway. Look at games like Resi and Silent Hill, there weren't too many enemies but they were pretty hard to kill, very dangerous and you didn't always know when they'd pop up (the first Alien movie was easily the scariest even though, and probably because, there was just one monster lurking around somewhere).

Again, I think you're largely expecting Survival horrors to conform to the standards of First Person Shooters (in which case, thank you making the brilliant observation that Silent Hill 2 is not like Red Faction).

 

[ganpondorodf]

I think that the first post in this thread raises some interesting points, but I still kinda disagree. As someone's already said, not many of us in real life would be able to accurately fire shotguns while running around.

As for the argument that you're being artifically weakened (fixed camera-angles, inability to move and shoot etc), it's kind of just a style thing. In horror movies, you're constantly screaming at the characters; "DON'T GO INTO THAT ROOM", knowing full-well they will even though in real life you'd never dream of it. It's just a stylistic choice in the genre which I think works... The Gamecube remake of Resident Evil was probably the scariest game I've played.