ganpondorodf said:
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.
Not a single one of us would actually survive such an event in real life honestly "We wouldn't be very accurate, therefore we should be stone still at all times with no choice while shooting." is a silly argument. It's also something I never brought up all I said is that you should be able to move and shoot, not you should be able to do it with every weapon, or be very accurate doing it with any weapon you could do it with.
A far as the fixed camera angles thing which I never really touched on, I would argue that if people want to engage in cinematography they should do it in cinematics. Screwing up someone's motion due to an abrupt camera change does not do anything while the player is actually playing the game save annoy them. Now there is no problem in using a specific camera angle to highlight something occassionally but when it's the entire game then it becomes a problem. Switching the camera to show some baddie skittering across the floor is in fact cool, but these sorts of things should not be abused.
Iron Mal said:
snip
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).
The difference between someone with training and without training is A. Irrelevant to a game. B. Not important because anything a trained human being can do, someone who is not traimed can probably figure out naturally given enough time. The ability to move and shoot certain kinds of weapons is physically possible for human beings period full stop. It does not matter if the character is the average joe or the grizzled space marine you keep bringing up even though I never mentioned such a thing or talked about the fps' or tps' that typically feature grizzled space marines.
To finally put this non point to rest, the internet says hello:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHDgmWOkCE
http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/shootmv_070507/
Notice how that is a human being shooting in the video?
Now quick explain to me how a trained police officer part of what could easily be described as a SWAT team in the form of Chris Redfield doesn't know how to move and shoot with a pistol at least? He is afterall effectively a grizzled space marine and always has been..... (This is yet another reason why you should not be using this argument.)
Resident Evil: Outbreak on the PS2 used an infection mechanic it was actually kind of neat in that you had a limited amount of time to find healing items before you turned. Furthermore this game even had an online mode and was predicated on the idea of a small group of people helping each other to survive. It's a shame no one seems to remember this game.
The idea of using sound to attract enemies is to discourage shooting, and perhaps encourage some creative use of loud sounds to cause enemies to move to a desired location clearing the way for you while (hopefully) saving some precious handgun/shotgun ammunition. I also fail to see why a survival horror game could not be open world? (Which incidentally would lend itself to many of my ideas.)
This quote from an article speaks volumes I think:
2) Running With Scissors
Or knives, as the case may be. Really, why can't we walk with this thing? Why do I have to run up to within striking distance of an enemy, then stop, put away my weapon, and pull out my knife, just to get an attack in? As mentioned before, it makes sense not to allow the player to shoot and move at the same time, heightening tension, yadda yadda yadda, but the whole melee system just feels clunky. Why not just really restrict movement speed when you're wielding a knife? If you can only edge forward slowly it wouldn't ruin the balance of the game, but it would level the playing field. It's pretty frustrating how much of a disadvantage you can be at trying to get within knifing distance of an enemy. Not only is there the whole delay that's caused by having to stop then switch over to the knife – thus giving enemies the chance to get the jump on you, but if you judge the distance wrong and you're not close enough, you can still get hit by enemies while they're outside the range of your knife swipe. It all feels a little punitive – restrictions are fine, but decisions should be made in the service of gameplay, first and foremost.
I really don't know how brain dead you have to be to defend not being able move and shoot at least a pistol and then fail to realize that the same (moronic) argument can readily be made for not being able to move and knife people.
See the full article here. [http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/948/948761p1.html]
