Slashdot Mirror


Survival-Horror Genre Going Extinct?

Destructoid is running an opinion piece looking at the state of the survival-horror genre in games, suggesting that the way it has developed over the past several years has been detrimental to its own future. "During the nineties, horror games were all the rage, with Resident Evil and Silent Hill using the negative aspects of other games to an advantage. While fixed camera angles, dodgy controls and clunky combat were seen as problematic in most games, the traditional survival horror took them as a positive boon. A seemingly less demanding public ate up these games with a big spoon, overlooking glaring faults in favor of videogames that could be genuinely terrifying." The Guardian's Games Blog has posted a response downplaying the decline of the genre, looking forward to Ubisoft's upcoming I Am Alive and wondering if independent game developers will pick up where major publishers have left off.

166 comments

  1. That's just what they want you to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And then an other genre comes flying out of an air duct or dark corner!

    1. Re:That's just what they want you to think by mewshi_nya · · Score: 0

      I gotta admit, that was hilarious.

      I love survival horror games. Fatal Frame is amazing, although I can't play it long...

      Same with Silent Hill 3. The Silent Hill games are a masterpiece, much more than Resident Evil. There's a *great* story, a theme, creative monsters, the environments are beautiful.

    2. Re:That's just what they want you to think by Jerek+Dain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then an other genre comes flying out of an air duct or dark corner!

      I would say Left 4 Dead fits that bill nicely. It has some of the survival horror basics, but in a fun, fast-paced, co-op, action way.

      --
      Conversations tend to be so much more civil when there's a chance the other person might snap and kill you.
  2. Actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    wondering if independent game developers will pick up where major publishers have left off.

    Two different roles.

  3. Gaming article composition Algorithm by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How to make a gaming article when you have no original material:
    a.) roll a d6

    b.) According to the result, choose one of the following:
    1.) PC
    2.) Adventure
    3.) Single Player
    4.) Survival Horror
    5.) DRM-free
    6.) Windows-only

    c.)Insert result in following sentence: Is this the death of $getrandomstring() gaming?

    1. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what language uses a $ *and* parentheses for a function call?

    2. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by theilliterate · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is this the end of Zombie Shakespeare?

    3. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 1

      None. It's a hypebole. Laugh.

    4. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      In what language is "hypebole" a word. And in what language is using fake code-like prose a hyperbole?

    5. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just because you don't get the joke in the first place doesn't mean you will if I explain it to you

    6. Re:Gaming article composition Algorithm by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Alas, poor Yorick, I certainly hope not!

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
  4. Change is difficult by pizzach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if I 100% agree. I a lot of people complain immediately when they don't get the standard fare. A number of these same people are responsible for the Playstation DualShock controller not changing in any really noticeable way for 10 years. The result: Resident Evil 5 is turning into a Halo style first person shooter.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:Change is difficult by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Funny

      A number of these same people are responsible for the Playstation DualShock controller not changing in any really noticeable way for 10 years.

      The DualShock was never much good in the first place.

    2. Re:Change is difficult by mollymoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The analog sticks on the DualShock 3 are a good 2mm further apart than on the DualShock 2. If you turn it upside down you'll notice the L2 and R2 buttons are now pseudo-triggers to ensure your fingers slip off them at a crucial moment even more easily than before. It only took me a several minutes of careful side-by-side comparison to notice those differences. The DualShock 3 is revolutionary I tell you, revolutionary!

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  5. Same problem as movies. by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    True horror/fright can only be produced by ones imagination. While Hitchcock understood this and did a decent job of using it only books ever get it right. Instead today as with movies you mostly get sub-par lighting that hides things from your view.

    Remember the mess that Doom3(?) was that you couldn't hold your shotgun and flashlight at the same time? The game imposed a limitation on you that felt forced and limited the submersion.

    One game that got it right; Thief. The suspense of trying to sneak, and then panic heart-attack when you step on a squeaky floor!

    I have played Alone in the Dark, and many others in the genre but none have ever had me wound-uptight as Thief did.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Same problem as movies. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uncertainity is a good source of fear IMO, in a game it's not that scary when you see a huge monster stand in front of you, it's scarier when you know there's a sniper hiding somewhere in the area. Having to react to an event that can happen any time (enemy found between the rubble or something) or dying very quickly induces fear, it doesn't work when the enemy isn't dangerous enough (so you could take a hit or two before reacting and still be fine) or when you have enough advance warning (e.g. a long time between spotting the enemy and it attacking you).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Same problem as movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      System Shock 2

    3. Re:Same problem as movies. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The chainsaw people in RE4 did a good job of giving me panic attacks. The game even tells you they're coming -- but since its nearly impossible to kill them without being well-prepared early in the game, knowing they're coming, or even from which direction doesn't help you avoid death the first few times.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Same problem as movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think you know what a panic attack is. Just sayin' :-)

    5. Re:Same problem as movies. by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, was by the same people as Thief (and even used the same engine).

      Even Thief 3 did a pretty good job at horror with the Cradle, though the rest of the game wasn't really up to the standards of the first two.

    6. Re:Same problem as movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System Shock 2 was produced by the same company as Thief but was developed by a different team.

    7. Re:Same problem as movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System shock 2 raised the bar in several generes.

      rpg, fps, and horror. And so far no single game has ever done that since.

      then you look at how old ss2 is now. and it's pretty sad how many games have failed to live up to the system shock legacy.

    8. Re:Same problem as movies. by try_anything · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also doesn't work if dying means you respawn one or two minutes earlier in the game. Call of Duty single-play mode is like this. I realized this when I realized that I never paused the game when I wanted to answer the door, talk on the phone, or get a drink from the fridge. I just left my guy standing there, and if he died, so what?

      When save points are so frequent, dying doesn't even impede your progress through the game unless you do it five times in a row. As a result, to make the game challenging, there have to be individual segments that are INSANELY challenging, which just makes you angry. You only get scared if dying once is a big deal. If dying twelve times in a row is what it takes to get a gamer's attention, he doesn't get scared. He gets angry.

      So, you go through the entire game never being scared. You're just bored, moderately engaged, or angry depending on whether the difficulty is too low, about right, or too high.

      Games that let you choose your save points, like the original Doom and Doom II, were much scarier, because you would limit your saves out of pride, and you'd also get caught up in the game and forget to save and then GAAAH I'M ABOUT TO DIE AND THIS IS REALLY SERIOUS! You panic about dying because it took half an hour of good play to get where you are, and if you die, you lose it all.

      If (like me) you were normally too proud to save in the middle of a level, it meant that there was a great buildup of suspense through the level, because you had more and more to lose the further you got. In checkpoint games, it doesn't matter where in the level you are, so there's no buildup and climax, no arc to the game at all except what they can build up artificially through tacked-on story elements.

    9. Re:Same problem as movies. by greedom · · Score: 1

      Replying to B5 geek, Doom 3 certainly was not my favorite game but it did quite well and the fact that you couldn't hold your flashlight and a weapon at the same time was placed in the game like that on purpose to add a sense of strategy and additional frights as things jump out of the darkness or you could shine your flashlight into the corner and see it jump out as you struggle for your weapon. Thief is not a survival horror game at all and I can't say I've ever played Alone in the Dark. Personally I don't think survival horror games are going extinct, just because of the slew of them being released right now.

    10. Re:Same problem as movies. by log0n · · Score: 1

      No way... with Doom 3, the lack of shotgun&&flashlight totally added to the immersion. You couldn't fire while seeing what was headed toward you - and the resulting firefight freak out panic fest totally made you crap your pants. And it did this because it got into your head, under your skin. A la immersion.

      I really have a hard time believing people who claim Doom3 wasn't good/didn't scare/whatever. Yeah, it had exactly 0 replay value. And playing it a 2nd time sucked (unless you're a real fan).

      But the first time it was played, it completely crushed. It scared the shit out of people. And it was able to do this because of people being immersed in it. The atmosphere created, the methods for fighting - it all set up the right suspension of disbelief.

    11. Re:Same problem as movies. by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure you have it right here, I think you're conflating two different concepts.

      There's two different types of fear at play here:
      1. The type of fear of the situation being depicted.
      2. Meta-gaming fear, where you are afraid of losing something you worked hard for.

      The first comes from immersion, the second comes from having personal stake in the game. A movie can be scary even though you're not actually worried about personally losing anything, but rather more from an empathy for the terror of the situation. A bet in blackjack in Las Vegas can be scary, but not because the situation is inherently horrifying, but because if you don't win the bet everything you've worked so hard for is lost.

      Building up the meta-game fear of loss of progress can actually be pretty damaging to the situational fear. When the stakes become too high, players can't get into the situation and appreciate the terror, because they have to be pulling themselves out and keeping cool, trying to pull cheap tricks on the AI to make absolutely sure they don't die and lose half an hour of progress. Worse yet, if they do lose the progress, now they already know everything that's going to happen, and they're meta-gaming playing optimization tricks just to blast through it, ruining the immersion.

    12. Re:Same problem as movies. by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      I find System Shock 2's spiritual successor, Bioshock, is one of the scariest games I've played in a long time. It's not fear of you (your character) getting killed, but it's so immersive - a story you care about, atmospheric environments the noises the Splicers make and the weird things they say make the whole thing distinctly creepy.

      As far as being concerned about my character, I find Metal Gear Solid games affect me the most. Just lying under a truck while the enemy wanders past can be remarkably tense. Less so in MGS 4 on the easier levels, which you can almost play as a regular FPS. Bored of sneaking? Just pull out an M60 and go Rambo. Then get a 25 minute cut scene where nothing happens apart from lingering shots of Naomi's tits.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    13. Re:Same problem as movies. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For me the last two good scares was F.E.A.R and Bioshock. Walking along feeling big and bad in Fear and then hearing that little "zzzzt" noise that let you know those fast moving invisible bastards were around, that was scary for me. And the first time I went after a Big Daddy was extra scary for me because I engaged by total accident. I was chasing a splicer and was going to pop it with my electro plasmid and finish it off with my pistol when I flew around the corner and fired my plasmid...and completely missed the splicer and hit the Big Daddy square in the back. When that big bastard turned around with those red eyes I knew what a bunny must feel like when looking at a grizzly. Now THAT was scary.

      So I don't think the genre is dead so much as we have evolved away from the "cheap scares" of using the controls and camera angles to ramp up the spook factor. But as the author pointed out in trying to switch from the cheap scares style to something more modern some of the old favorites are losing their way. But I think that just makes room for new games that won't be tied down with the legacy of the original RE or SH. I personally can't wait to see what kind of new scares the game designers come up with.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Same problem as movies. by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      For me it was those sniffy things that walked slowly and regenerated themselves (found later in the game), but then would massively jump at you if you blew one of their legs. The chainsaws certainly helped, but those sniffy things were truly scary.

    15. Re:Same problem as movies. by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Bloomin' kids! I still remember Doom 1 scaring the shit out of me the first time round, when one of the invisible demon things pops out of seemingly nowhere in front of me.

    16. Re:Same problem as movies. by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's been said in this thread (I browse really high [low?]), and has definitely been said anytime anyone in here brings up "scary" games, but System Shock 2 did the same thing, brilliantly. Some scary stuff in that game.

    17. Re:Same problem as movies. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Those invisible bastards weren't scary to me, I had no problem seeing them but I was cursing my guns for not dealing enough damage to actually kill them. They seemed to have tons of hitpoints (then again this was the highest difficulty but I think normal grunts didn't get much of a HP boost, at least they usually go down in a few shots).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    18. Re:Same problem as movies. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If they figure out how to break the game they'll probably do it anyway, whether they risk losing progress or not. The whole point of a game is to beat the game, to become good enough that you win. Then again recent games seem to have lost that goal with single player modes that are so easy anyone can beat them with enough persistence and looooong campaigns where the story is the only thing that could hold your attention.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Same problem as movies. by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I agree. Visually, they were frightening as opposed to just merely alarming. They moved quickly and spastically, and of course the sound of that chainsaw really resonates with me, being of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre generation.

    20. Re:Same problem as movies. by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your account of Doom 3's flashlight. How many people can operate a shotgun (or better yet, chaingun) holding a flashlight?

      I like Left 4 Dead's flashlight, which follows the direction your weapon is pointing, so you cannot see while reloading or doing a melee attack. (I know l4d isn't exactly survival horror).

    21. Re:Same problem as movies. by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me a space marine can't jury rig a way to attach a flashlight to a shotgun? And even if the future was bereft of all kinds of tape, wire, string, strips och clothing and glue, he could still put the damn flashlight in his mouth.

    22. Re:Same problem as movies. by try_anything · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The kind of fear you're talking about is great, but I rarely get it from games. I treasure the memory of playing an "Aliens" mod for Doom. "Keep it tight, people." "Check those corners... check those corners!" You can't see anything, but you can hear the aliens breathing. Then SHRIEK they're in your face. It got to the point where my heart was going a mile a minute the whole time, and it took me a long time to calm down afterwards so I could sleep.

      Unfortunately my success at finding good horror games (and horror movies, for that matter) is so low that it isn't even worth trying anymore -- one good game in ten means paying hundreds of bucks to find a good game, plus the frustration of sitting through so much garbage.

      So, yeah, I do like the second kind of horror you're talking about, but I've kind of given up on it.

      As for immersion, I agree completely. Few modern games are really immersive. Note to game designers: There's nothing realistic about looking at a bush and not being able to figure out whether you can step over it, or looking at a tree and not knowing whether there's an invisible corridor that will prevent you from ducking behind it. Nobody in World War II died while trying to take cover behind a pile of sandbags that were un-jump-overable for the sole reason that they marked the edge of the battlefield. Level designers need to stop putting visual verisimilitude over everything else and once again start considering the verisimilitude of the whole experience.

      One aspect that all immersive games share is that you can almost always predict how objects and terrain will affect your movement. Gosh, just like in real life! That's actually more important to immersion than making the terrain look realistic. If you're examining every rock and bush as a game construct instead of perceiving it as a "real" object, then you're going to see the monster, scary noise, or eerie apparition as just another game construct. You think, "Well, here's a new game object. Looks like a werewolf. Let's figure out how to interact with it. I'll start by walking towards it and seeing what happens. I'll probably get killed, but I might as well be systematic if I want to figure out how it works." That's not an immersive experience :-)

      "Hmmm, there's a toddler sitting on the floor of my living room finger-painting with blood."

      Immersive game reaction: "What... the... FUCK is a mysterious toddler doing in my house? Whose blood is that!!?"

      Non-immersive game experience: "I wonder if I can jump over him?"

    23. Re:Same problem as movies. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You must have better eyesight than me, because while I had no problems tracking them once they moved, locking in on them before that was a royal PITA for me. And I also had the "why won't you die!" problem with them. I finally got decent at one-on-one with them using the shotgun at point blank range, but 1 second off on your timing and you was going to be hurt bad. But if there was more than one and they tried to gang up on me, that was when I was doing a Predator and firing like mad trying to drop somebody, anybody before they just beat me into the ground.

      And that brings up a good point. For me to be scared in a game there actually has to be some risks. Too many of the games are now either giving you one or two "BFG" style weapons that as long as you have ammo for it is a turkey shoot, or they give you so much ammo on your regular weapons you can shoot more rounds than a Rambo movie and never run out. That is why I think Fear and Bioshock worked for me, because the invisible guys had speed and stealth and like you said were damned hard to kill, and even with the decent weapons in Bioshock a Big Daddy can still bring the pain if you aren't careful.

      But I think that what made RE and SH scary for me wasn't so much the cheap scares(although the dogs through the stained glass in RE was a good one) but the "Oh crap I am nearly out of ammo!" feeling I had throughout the game. It is kind of a shame that on most games nowadays you have to crank it up to "super extreme hardcore" difficulty just to get that same out of ammo feeling because they go so overboard with the rounds. But I agree trying to drop those invisible bastards was a nerve racking experience due to their toughness.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Same problem as movies. by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      I treasure the memory of playing an "Aliens" mod for Doom.

      Exactly the same here. That mod was the one and only game that actually managed to scare the living shit out of me. *grins and goes in search of the files*

      --
      home
    25. Re:Same problem as movies. by trdrstv · · Score: 1

      It also doesn't work if dying means you respawn one or two minutes earlier in the game. Call of Duty single-play mode is like this. I realized this when I realized that I never paused the game when I wanted to answer the door, talk on the phone, or get a drink from the fridge. I just left my guy standing there, and if he died, so what?

      Yup. That was my issue with Bioshock. It "tried" to be scary, but had no cost to dying. The ONLY time I got worried was when my health meter kept getting shrunk, but once that part of the game was over it went back to 'meh'...

    26. Re:Same problem as movies. by Haoie · · Score: 1

      Make your player character helpless and you've got fear.

      Give them enough weapons to vaporise a city and you've got a shooter.

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    27. Re:Same problem as movies. by neverhadachoice · · Score: 1

      I had the same experience with AVP2. The sound of those bastard xenomorphs breathings .. ticking ... their light footsteps .. I've never been scared in a game like that before, never. You don't even see a single alien for the first 20 minutes of the game, and but you see the proof that they've been around and you can hear them. By the time you finally see one, you've been dreading the moment for so long you practically douse yourself. AVP3, please.

    28. Re:Same problem as movies. by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      So I don't think the genre is dead so much as we have evolved away from the "cheap scares" of using the controls and camera angles to ramp up the spook factor.

      Atmosphere, suspense, and being forced to fight desperately for your life against manifestations of your character's subconscious is cheap scares, while shootan' monsters with sci-fi weaponry is an 'evolution' because they are hard to kill and bump mapped?

  6. Left4Dead?! by Doches · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm...What about Left4Dead? I fail to see how the genre can be 'dying' if it includes a wildly popular new release? I mean, I guess you could argue that Left4Dead isn't similar enough to to qualify as a member of the genre -- but it seems like a perfectly valid (and, frankly, awesome) way to evolve the genre. Oh, two more words:

    Dead Space.

    Maybe you've just got a really, really narrow definition of what qualifies as 'survival horror'?

    1. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't know anything about Left4Dead, but while I don't agree with the argument, Dead Space is in support of this argument: it's taken, along with Biohazard 4, as being "the future of survival horror", while actually not being survival horror at all; they're both action games in which you are, quite frankly, a pretty substantial badass compared to your opposition and there's little to no shortage of materiel.

      You may as well call the Halo series survival horror, because the Flood are portrayed as kinda creepy.

    2. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In l4d you're really not much better off than any of the many thousands of zombies you have to kill, to say nothing of the special zombies that are stronger than you.

      This is then balanced by the fact that theres 4 of you, and you're hopefully smarter than the zombies so you dont put yourself in a fair fight against them.

      its a stretch to call it survival horror but it does fit, as it is far easier to die than to survive and there are plenty of OH SHIT A STALKER SOMEONE GET HIM OFF ME moments. Forcing it to coop is a great idea since not only does it let you balance it based on the premise of needing teamwork, but you enable a level of combined fear when you and your friends are all one hit away from dying and trying to bait each other and other coop-only situations.

    3. Re:Left4Dead?! by MBCook · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think you could easily add Dead Rising to the genre, as well as the (hopefully) forthcoming Alan Wake. What about the recent Alone in the Dark game?

      While not a big genre at this point, games are still being made. Things are changing too. RE4 was a big step above the previous games. Dead Space is outside the standard mold since it's in space. Dead Rising was very different from the standard "I'm all alone and once in a while something jumps out at me" game.

      I'm really hoping Alan Wake comes out soon and is good. It sounds so interesting.

      As all games have been evolving to various levels, perhaps the old strict definition of a survivor-horror game may not fit, but you could make a good argument the genre isn't totally dead. It seems to be getting some shooter blood, but it's still there.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:Left4Dead?! by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention FEAR 2: Project Origin which is coming out early next year.

    5. Re:Left4Dead?! by TheSambassador · · Score: 1

      Left 4 Dead may be wildly popular, but I don't know if I'd even call it survival horror. I'm pretty easily freaked out (to the point that I won't go to horror movies with my girlfriend), and Left 4 Dead has yet to actually scare me.

      If anything, I'd put it into just an Action/Shooter genre. You don't have to conserve ammo at all, and the moments that are supposed to "build tension" are really just moments where you know that thousands of zombies are going to come out of somewhere.

      FEAR on the other hand scared the bejeezus out of me. If I decide I want to push my heart closer to a heart attack I'll definitely be picking up FEAR 2.

    6. Re:Left4Dead?! by p0tat03 · · Score: 2

      Neither Left4Dead nor Dead Rising are survivor horror games - both are *parodies* of survival horror games. Neither L4D nor Dead Rising have any truly scary moments, and instead use the zombified landscape as merely a backdrop.

    7. Re:Left4Dead?! by jasen666 · · Score: 1

      Dead Space is awesome. And creepy as shit, if not outright scary at times. They did an excellent job at it.
      Although I'm sure it can be argued that it is more a scary FPS than a true survival horror.
      Still an excellent, scary game.

    8. Re:Left4Dead?! by Sloppyjoes7 · · Score: 1

      "What about Left4Dead?" "Oh, two more words: Dead Space."

      It seems to me that you didn't read the article, or didn't understand it.

      The point is, these games aren't "survival horror."

      If you have grenades, awesome powers, machine guns, fast running speed & jumping, great aim, etc... You have a First/Third Person Shooter.

      In Silent Hill, you couldn't freeze time, and use a "triple-barreled automatic military rifle" to blow apart an enemy. I don't see how the new "survival horror" games differ from Half Life or Halo. You run around shooting stuff.

      In survival horror, you're scared of what's around the corner, because you're a slow, weak, human. When playing RE4, I felt like a butt-kicking awesome military expert pumping lead into anything that moved. When playing as Harry in SH, I couldn't see, I couldn't aim well, and I was horrified that any monster might approach me.

      So, yes, the article argues that the new "survival horror" is killing the authentic classic "survival horror."

    9. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As others have said, Dead Space was not a survival horror game, it was a third person shooter and a pretty poor game at that. It's a pretty sad state when people think games like this are good. Standards certainly have lowered in recent years.

      The first thing that annoyed me about it was the fact that your character takes up a full 1/3rd of the screen. People try to make excuses about it making the game more "immersive" but that's a load of crap. If they wanted it to be more immersive they could have just made it first person view. The way it is now it's just obnoxious since you can't actually see anything.

      The second thing that annoyed me were the horrid controls. Sluggish mouse movement, sloppy camera control (why does the mouse make the camera rotate around the character instead of just making him turn?) and that you have to use two buttons just to fire your weapon (why wouldn't he always have his gun drawn?).

      The next thing that annoyed me was the low quality of the voice actors. Wooden acting, badly written dialogue and paper thin plot are all present. Certainly nothing new in this area.

      The last thing that annoyed me was the low quality of the visuals. This game looks like it was cranked out of a Russian development house (if you've ever played one of those low quality Russian made games, you'll know exactly what I mean by this). Everything from the terrible design of the main character's suit to the uninspired enemy models and generic metallic "tech" environments that all look exactly the same was poorly done.

    10. Re:Left4Dead?! by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      The way the summary puts it, survival horror is defined by bad controls and camera angles, which means Dead Space qualifies as the best example of the last half decade. The ridiculous over-the-shoulder camera angle which doesn't give you any more spacial context than first person but blocks up half the screen with your back is something that annoys me, as is that moving the mouse in aim mode moves the gun before the head making aiming awkward. Dead Space wasn't a terrible game, but the whole third person thing just seemed like a contrived way to show off those holograms while making the game more frustrating and less immersive.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    11. Re:Left4Dead?! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      Left4Dead is definitely not survival horror. Survival horror implies a very real, very high risk of death if you screw up. Left4Dead you can just spray and pray forever. It's a shooter, not survival horror.

    12. Re:Left4Dead?! by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      I thought it suffered from "Doom 3 Syndrome". The first couple of hours were pretty creepy and/or scary, but after that, I sort of fell into the game's rhythm and could usually figure out what was going to happen without too much fuss. It's still not a bad game, but if you're still that scared of it by the time you get through Chapter 4 or so, then you're probably the type of person who was afraid of the muppet monsters.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    13. Re:Left4Dead?! by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      FEAR wasn't scary, really. Overdone, scripted, japanese little girls with super-gore effects just don't phase me, I guess. The ending was well done, but still not scary. Now STALKER, there's a scary game.

    14. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... FEAR had an ending?

    15. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, sounds like someone got fired from EA and is now bitter. Don't worry schnookums, we won't tell anyone you right shit code. *smirk*

    16. Re:Left4Dead?! by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      What? A smoker or hunter kills you in one hit if your allies don't save you.

    17. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left 4 Dead is not a survival horror game. Take out the special zombies and the game could be beaten by a one-player, with bots, without firing a shot.

      No joke, I messed around with the PC demo, turned off the special zombies and played through the two demo levels without firing a single shot with bots with no trouble at all.

    18. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because I am able to form my own opinion and conclusions automatically means I have some deep rooted reason for disliking the game other than the fact that it's crap.

      Go back to reading Gamespot, sheep.

    19. Re:Left4Dead?! by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      You have a First/Third Person Shooter.

      I seem to recall pretty much all "Survival Horror" are third person shooters. And Dead Space follows the formula of survival horror. Not to mention there's a new Silent Hill, Blood Siren, and the upcoming RE 5. I even believe there's an upcoming Fatal Frame coming for the Wii as well. So claiming survival horror is dead is not very well researched.
      However, I completely agree that Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead are not survival horror.

    20. Re:Left4Dead?! by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      Ever met a tank on expert? Do you have an expectation to survive the endgame on expert?

    21. Re:Left4Dead?! by Draek · · Score: 1

      As others have said, Dead Space was not a survival horror game, it was a third person shooter and a pretty poor game at that. It's a pretty sad state when people think games like this are good. Standards certainly have lowered in recent years.

      Not really. Let me show you why.

      The first thing that annoyed me about it was the fact that your character takes up a full 1/3rd of the screen. People try to make excuses about it making the game more "immersive" but that's a load of crap. If they wanted it to be more immersive they could have just made it first person view. The way it is now it's just obnoxious since you can't actually see anything.

      Replace "character takes up a full 1/3rd of the screen" with "camera stays fixed at an odd angle", and you have an excellent description of every Resident Evil game up to 4.

      The second thing that annoyed me were the horrid controls. Sluggish mouse movement, sloppy camera control (why does the mouse make the camera rotate around the character instead of just making him turn?) and that you have to use two buttons just to fire your weapon (why wouldn't he always have his gun drawn?).

      I'm sorry, were you talking about Resident Evil again? ohh, no, it didn't even *have* camera control.

      The next thing that annoyed me was the low quality of the voice actors. Wooden acting, badly written dialogue and paper thin plot are all present. Certainly nothing new in this area.

      I knew it, you *are* talking about Resident Evil.

      The last thing that annoyed me was the low quality of the visuals. This game looks like it was cranked out of a Russian development house (if you've ever played one of those low quality Russian made games, you'll know exactly what I mean by this). Everything from the terrible design of the main character's suit to the uninspired enemy models and generic metallic "tech" environments that all look exactly the same was poorly done.

      Yup, Resident Evil alright.

      So no, standards haven't lowered, and we can safely consider Dead Space a member of the survival horror genre. Clunky visuals, third-rate voice acting, stupid dialog, horrid camera angles and nauseating controls are the staples of the genre, even moreso than zombies. In fact, I think TFA says something pretty similar to that.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    22. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares what TFA says? It's just their opinion and one that I don't share. Dead Space is a third person shooter. If it's survival horror, then that means Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Tomb Raider, Alien vs Predator, Riddick, Far Cry, etc are survival horror too and we all know how ridiculous that is.

      Dead Space and Resident Evil were both bad games, but other than that they were nothing alike. If you had a point at all, then it wasn't a very well thought out one.

    23. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead SPACE, not Dead Rising. If you say Dead Space is a parody or doesn't have scary moments, you're just plain wrong.

    24. Re:Left4Dead?! by neverhadachoice · · Score: 1

      this severely adds to the fear aspect of it. especially in the first few minutes of Death Toll or the end-game of No Mercy. you never know when or where a smoker or hunter is going to come from, and unless all four of you are paying attention to save one another, you're thoroughly boned. on top of that, the sheer terror of coming up on a boomer when you're low on health and ammo, in a poorly defendable spot, and in panic you shoot it while it's close to you and get covered in bile, attracting the hordes - you hear the screams and can hardly see, panic sets in, you fire wildly into the crowd, half the time hitting other survivors .. that game scares the crap out of me.

    25. Re:Left4Dead?! by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      Umm...What about Left4Dead? I fail to see how the genre can be 'dying' if it includes a wildly popular new release? I mean, I guess you could argue that Left4Dead isn't similar enough to to qualify as a member of the genre -- but it seems like a perfectly valid (and, frankly, awesome) way to evolve the genre. Oh, two more words:

      Blasting your way through an army of monsters is not the defining feature of a survival horror.

      Dead Space.

      Maybe you've just got a really, really narrow definition of what qualifies as 'survival horror'?

      RTFA

    26. Re:Left4Dead?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried to play Versus or hard level in Left4Dead?

      If you screw up, you're a goner!

    27. Re:Left4Dead?! by $1uck · · Score: 1

      The first few times through l4d scared me as much as any videogame has ever scared me. After many replays it loses that effect, but that is going to be true of anything. Watching the same horror movie 20 times is going numb you to it. Left for dead is definitely horror-based and the point is to survive. You can't just walk through the game.

  7. Silent Hill wasn't fixed perspective like RE was by Optic7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Silent hill wasn't fixed, pre-rendered perspective like resident evil was. That's one of the reasons why I never got into RE, but I loved Silent Hill. SH was also so much creepier and suspenseful than RE.

    Another thing, isn't Left 4 Dead somewhat of a survival horror game as well? It's one of the top games right now yet there's no mention of it.

  8. It's Evolving by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point early on in Resident Evil 4, you encountered a door. Leon promptly kicked it open with his boot and you ran into the next room. It was a statement. The entirety of Resident Evil 4 was a statement. That statement was, "Survival Horror has Evolved". The evolution could be seen early on in games like Resident Evil 3 and Dino Crisis 2. Games like Dead Space are continuing that evolution. The genre is changing, not dying.

    If you want a genre that is truly going extinct, just look at RPGs. I'm still waiting for any half decent one to come out in the PS3. It's depressing when you think back to the genre's boom time of 1997-2000.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:It's Evolving by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Fallout 3 is more than half-decent. It's downright decent.
      But I agree with the general sentiment. RPG is the genre that's dying, not survival-horror.

    2. Re:It's Evolving by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for a high-quality console RPG the likes of Neverwinter Nights (the first one) with a multi-character party system (for switching or multi player).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:It's Evolving by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The genre is changing, not dying.

      I'd call that dying if most of what made that genre is gone. Sure, RE4 has still the zombies and herbs, but none of the suspense and none of the puzzles. Its a shooter with zombie theme, not a survival game with better controls.

      There is of course still evolution going on, newer games reuse older concept, improve on some of them and stuff, but there is just to much being left out to be ignored.

    4. Re:It's Evolving by geek · · Score: 1

      I'd kill for a good ole hack and slash. Presently waiting in Diablo 3. It seems like the genre died after the Diablo/Baldurs Gate days with pretty much nothing being released since then worth a damn. I really wish someone would develop something decent (someone other than just Blizzard).

      RPG's though are evolving into MMO's. They'd rather get a monthly fee from you than make a classic hack and slash. This is probably why almost every MMO released since WoW has been utter trash.

    5. Re:It's Evolving by bonch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fallout 3 has a lot of the same problems Oblivion did. Also, the writing and voice acting can sometimes be quite bad, and the plot sort of rushes and falls apart embarrassingly once you reach your father.

      It's also breakable. I killed Burke before he could kill the sheriff Simms. When Burke died, Simms promptly disappeared in front of me, and all NPC scripts still acted like he had died. That's when I knew I was playing a typical Bethesda game.

    6. Re:It's Evolving by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Yes, RPG gaming on the PS3 has truly faced Oblivion. What will the Fallout of this be for RPG fans!?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    7. Re:It's Evolving by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Fallout 3 was such a joy and disappointment at the same time. It's a fun game, but it's marred by so many bugs, poor writing, and inconsistencies that it routinely jars you out of your immersion.

      The art style is beautifully done - and then they throw you in identical subway tunnels for half the game. Even a slight amount of original exploration might break quests... They are like BioWare, a lot of great ideas, but they don't seem to have the technical chops to pull it off. At least Mass Effect was just slow, not broken.

    8. Re:It's Evolving by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      Oblivion is just Fallout with swords, and Fallout is just Oblivion with guns.

    9. Re:It's Evolving by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 1

      Mass Effect is an incredible RPG. I haven't played Fallout yet, but I have heard only good things. Much like survival horror, the genre is evolving. They are much more action based than turn based these days.

    10. Re:It's Evolving by Harinezumi · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's still SRPGs. For the PS3, Disgaea 3 and Valkyria Chronicles are both very much worth playing. And speaking of the 1997-2000 boom, they just released a new Fallout game!

    11. Re:It's Evolving by ConanG · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's not got its problems. I was just responding to the poster who is waiting for a halfway decent RPG on PS3. I don't think it's anywhere close to the best RPG ever, but I do think it's at least decent.

    12. Re:It's Evolving by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Mass Effect was great, but if they don't make a LOT of improvements, Mass Effect 2 is going to be a hell of a lot less interesting.

    13. Re:It's Evolving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed the heck out of Mass Effect (though I seem to recall that exploration rapidly became pointless), but it was very short and pretty much just KOTOR lite. As you say, lots of improvement necessary.

    14. Re:It's Evolving by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you want a genre that is truly going extinct, just look at RPGs. I'm still waiting for any half decent one to come out in the PS3. It's depressing when you think back to the genre's boom time of 1997-2000.

      More specifically, the turn-based RPG. There have been plenty of RPG/FPS fusions like Oblivion, but the turn based RPG is nowhere to be found.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:It's Evolving by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      The exact same thing happened to me in Fallout 3, but my roommate managed to kill Burke without Simms dying or disappearing, and there was even dialog from Simms about the whole ordeal. That particular event has horribly buggy scripting or something.

    16. Re:It's Evolving by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      If anything, it sounded like Fallout 3 took actions to avoid being broken.

    17. Re:It's Evolving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RPG's though are evolving into MMO's. They'd rather get a monthly fee from you than make a classic hack and slash. This is probably why almost every MMO released since WoW has been utter trash.

      Also, almost every MMO before WoW.

    18. Re:It's Evolving by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      While I do enjoy turn-based RPGs myself; I think a big part of the reason that they are "disappearing" is because the technology has evolved enough that stats and situation can be easily (in real time) be turned into a chance of success of the action in real time. In the old days, particularly with consoles, RAM and storage was so small that doing such calculations while maintaining high quality (for the time) graphics was extremely difficult.

      Additionally, moving in real time opens the game up to a larger audience, meaning better sales. In a game such as Oblivion and Fallout 3 the player doesn't necessarily need to be a big RPG fan in order to do well; they can pick a pre-made class and then just need to be good at working in a first-person perspective.

      All of that said, if you're looking for a good turn-based RPG for the PS3, Valkyria Chronicles is a lot of fun; though it does mix in some first-person aiming and a bit of real-time third-person action, it is still based on the one turn, one action concept. Or if you want pure turn-based action, Persona 4 was just released for PS2, while I'm not a fan of the series (the whole "day at a time" bit bores and frustrates me a bit) it might slake your thirst for turn-based RPGs.

    19. Re:It's Evolving by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>but the turn based RPG is nowhere to be found.

      Fallout 3. VATS. :p

      I basically refuse to use it for this reason. I don't want a turn-based RPG fly in my FPS RPG soup.

    20. Re:It's Evolving by Aldhibah · · Score: 1

      If your looking for some Hack and Slash entertainment in line with Diablo or Baldur's Gate I recommend "The Witcher". The most recent release cleaned up some of the illogical dialog and improved the frame rates. It is probably the game I enjoyed the most since Gothic 2.

    21. Re:It's Evolving by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      Fallout 3 is buggy, and it has its problems, but it's not as breakable as you say. I killed Burke before he could get a shot off on the sheriff, and Simms just walked out the door. When I went up to him afterwards, he thanked me and said he must be getting slower in his old age.

      Fallout definitely has a lot of bugs (important people disappearing randomly like that) and annoying decisions (traders being mauled by Deathclaws because it's "realistic") but they did think it through somewhat.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    22. Re:It's Evolving by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      Oblivion and Fallout are just Adventure with graphics.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    23. Re:It's Evolving by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      The main problem with RPGs is that if the game doesn't have Final Fantasy in the title or some other established name no publisher is going to give it the time of day unless it's an MMO, or more Action based. You have the old school of turn based RPGs thats dieing, Action RPGs (Bioshock, Dead Space, Fallout 3 etc), and the new school of RPGs that are MMOs. They are effectively still turn based, but at least things are a little smoother now. There is no excuse to keep turn based RPGs like FF around. They were turn based originally because of HARDWARE LIMITATIONS!!! Seriously...the old guard of RPGs needs to go...of course this is coming from the guy that just beat Lost Odyssey a while back...

    24. Re:It's Evolving by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      At some point early on in Resident Evil 4, you encountered a door. Leon promptly kicked it open with his boot and you ran into the next room. It was a statement. The entirety of Resident Evil 4 was a statement. That statement was, "Survival Horror has Evolved". The evolution could be seen early on in games like Resident Evil 3 and Dino Crisis 2. Games like Dead Space are continuing that evolution. The genre is changing, not dying.

      Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds are still here. Dinosaurs are nonetheless extinct.

    25. Re:It's Evolving by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      They were turn based originally because of HARDWARE LIMITATIONS!!!

      That's not a valid reason to change it. I prefer turn-based RPGs, simple as that. I don't give a damn if it was hardware limitations or because some guy was doing it on a bet, that's the way I like them, and if the turn-based RPG ever entirely disappears, odds are I'll stop playing RPGs altogether.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    26. Re:It's Evolving by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Why wait? Books have just as linear a progression without a $60 pricetag.

    27. Re:It's Evolving by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Books aren't as fun as a well-done RPG. I'm sorry you dislike turn-based RPGs, but that's no reason whatsoever to call for their extinction. I don't like real-time, highly open-ended RPGs all that much (they're OK, but far from ideal), but it would be asinine for me to act as if my preference is the One True Way and say everyone should fall in line. Both styles have room to coexist here.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  9. Don't worry by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Survival horror isn't going extinct, it's just waiting for the next sequel... and this time it's gonna be personal!

    --
    God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
  10. Have they looked at Left 4 Dead? by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maximum PC reviewed Left 4 Dead and rated it a 10/Kick-Ass. Doesn't sound like the genre is doing that bad.

    1. Re:Have they looked at Left 4 Dead? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      agreed. This genre needs more like L4D.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Have they looked at Left 4 Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the genre really fucking doesn't need more like L4D.

      Left 4 Dead is a co-op shooter with a horror theme. Period. It is NOT survival horror. If something is horrifying, you generally don't have buddies around to save you, cause you're by yourself. If something is SURVIVAL horror, you're scraping by, trying desperately to SURVIVE the horrors by yourself, usually with little to no powers/weapons.

      When you start getting into the realm of arsenals and friends, it becomes less survival and less horror and more co-op shooter.

      Left 4 Dead is a great game, don't get me wrong. It's a hell of a lot of fun to kick some zombie/survivor ass. But it's hardly survival horror.

  11. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because a couple of series that are notorious hallmarks of the genre arguably jumped the shark, it does not mean that the genre is necessarily in trouble. I don't know what specifically occurred in their development, but I do know the names drew a lot of attention. It's hard to avoid people coming in thinking 'it's pretty good, but we need to tweak it'. I have observed it in all sorts of long-standing products in all industries, some people manage to get a share of control that think they know what the customers would want better than the customers or the people who originally captured said customers' attention.

    That said, I'm not sure what I would compare to Silent Hill (I didn't think overly much of RE, except to agree that RE4 dispensed with what few aspects of RE I found frightening). Left4Dead is a fun game, but it isn't quite comparable. Without a substantial narrative, it just isn't scary to the degree or type that Silent Hill has historically been.

    I think the original Silent Hill team stepped away as they realized they were pretty much out of ideas on where to take things.

  12. not for me by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think most people are like me after playing regular FPS games. I don't get scared, I just get motivated and angry. They're like "oooh, are you gonna make it out alive" and I'm thinking "umm yes, and I'm gonna drive this motorcycle so far up that zombie's ass he'll be farting exhaust fumes. Then I'm gonna go BOOM HEADSHOT, BOOM HEADSHOT! Then I'll scream 'THAT'S RIGHT BITCHES!' and then break out the window all actiony and we'll see what's what then! You can't intimidate or scare me!" It's really either that or actually act really scared and freaked out about whether or not you're going to survive the entire game and who the heck wants to feel like that for like 8 hours? You could just walk around New York City alone at night for free to feel that, and most people tend to avoid that feeling. So if they'd just let me scream "****ing zombies, DIE!" and give up trying to scare me, it'd be fine but then that's not really survival horror.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:not for me by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you've been modded funny, but I think that's actually quite insightful. Left 4 Dead has proven that "die zombies die!" type of survival horror can be immensely popular - even more so than traditional scare-your-pants-off games like Silent Hill.

      I know when I pick up a controller after a long day of work I don't want to be scared out of my mind - same reason why I have no great love for horror movies. If they were somewhat interesting in terms of story, sure, but like most horror movies, they are not - just a lot of pseudo-scientific Freudian psycho-babble by game designers who think they know horror. Yes, this applies to Silent Hill - they have perfected the art of scaring you, but not so much the art of writing a compelling storyline that isn't full of juvenile metaphors that's so thick you can cut it with a knife.

      So given the choice between run-and-gun fun with my friends mowing down hordes of zombies, vs. playing a game with a dumb plot and too many "LOOK, WHATS THAT SKITTERING IN YOUR PERIPHERAL VISION?!" moments, I choose the former.

    2. Re:not for me by doctorzizmore · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but I think you can admit that there is room enough in the world for both kinds of games. I'm a person who genuinely enjoys survival horror, and I think that video games in theory can be infinitely more scary than movies. Having a personal involvement with the safety of your onscreen avatar can make even the most mediocre survival horror game ten times scarier than a great horror movie (which is probably why the stories in Resident Evil have been pretty worthless). I actually agree with the destructoid article that traditional survival horror games have disappeared (the last Silent Hill was actually very 'traditional' but it felt too much like a PS2 game with a heavy coat of polish). We can't go back to those crummy controls and camera angles, because people won't stand for it anymore and they shouldn't. But now we just need to wait and see if the developers can figure out new and better ways to scare us. Which is why i'm looking forward to playing Dead Space soon.

      --
      People in bamboo houses shouldn't throw pandas...Jesus said that! -Ninja
    3. Re:not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of people enjoy being scared and freaked out. Its part of human nature.

      I think your reaction to survival horror games says more about the quality of the games (and their ability to scare) than you think.

    4. Re:not for me by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It's really either that or actually act really scared and freaked out about whether or not you're going to survive the entire game and who the heck wants to feel like that for like 8 hours? You could just walk around New York City alone at night for free to feel that

      Of course you'll have a bad impression of New York if you only focus on the pimps and the C.H.U.D.s.

    5. Re:not for me by Philotic · · Score: 1

      ...juvenile metaphors that's so thick you can cut it with a knife.

      Worst metaphor ever.

    6. Re:not for me by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      well I'm also a guy so I like getting angry and violent with zombies too lol. Aliens in Halo trying to kill me is like "ohhh it's on now" but creepy, scary looking zombies trying to kill me AND make me feel scared, it's more like: "it's soooo on! It's beyond on! DIE DOUCHEBAG ZOMBIE BITCHES! YOU DON'T SCARE ME!" The only real competition for that on the anger level are computer players in UT04 giving an actual challenge and then killing me and saying some actual, auditory bullshit like "YOU WHOOOOOORE" For you non-UT players, they actually do say that. That tends to get me in the FPS spirit real fast lol. I've been known to hunt them back down, point blank them with a flak cannon, and then scream "WHAT'S UP NOW, BITCH? AAAAAAHHH" and then bite some keys off my keyboard in celebration
      and in response to the first replier, yeah I actually was mostly serious, I just post things in an entertaining manner :D

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    7. Re:not for me by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      Erm...am I the only one that sees it as being really simple? Take a look at F.E.A.R.; granted, there's a mix of action and horror, but the horror portions of the game are scary/creepy because you can't harm Alma (at least, not until the end of the game) but she can harm you. I think that horror games, if they want to continue to be about genuinely being scary should focus on this aspect.

      Call of Cthulu did something similar for much of the game, to similar results; you either couldn't kill everything after you or you simply couldn't kill certain creatures. The lack of physical safety was combined with audio and visual hallucinations for a heightened scare factor. In short, Call of Cthulu went back to what made survival horror scary, a lack of ammo/ability to kill things with simple physical force. Condemned 2 was similarly structured as well; most of the game your only defense is whatever blunt object is handy.

      Really, nothing says that modern-day developers can't just make you feel physically threatened in the game by restricting what you can physically harm or by making ammunition scarce.

  13. Survival horror, not action horror by FrostDust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason games like Res. 4, Silent Hill Homecoming, and Left4Dead aren't proper survival horror is that your first reaction to seeing an enemy is to kill it. In the original Resident Evil or Silent Hill, killing everything in your path would result in you running out of ammo quickly, and/or taking massive injuries due to bashing them up close in melee.

    While you could interpret survival horror as being about, as the name implies, surviving scary situations, the genre is supposed to achieve this by making you feel vulnerable and desperate. This was achieved, as stated before, by limiting your supplies so much your were forced to sneak around and avoid enemies, or by making you dread the situation, fearful you could be overwhelmed at any moment.

    Silent Hill achieved both of these rather well, especially with the radio and flashlight. Keeping the flashlight off prevented enemies from finding you, but you could barely see. The radio would keep you on your toes, looking around frantically for the enemy the that is there, but you can't yet see. The general inhumanity and psychological implications of the monsters, as opposed to the zombies of Resident Evil, also added to the creepy atmosphere.

    Going through with the attitude you could kill everything would easily get you killed. Survival horror is about surviving because you do so against all odds, not because of good combat skills. So, as the genre evolves into action horror, it is definitely not the same as survival horror.

    1. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      While you could interpret survival horror as being about, as the name implies, surviving scary situations, the genre is supposed to achieve this by making you feel vulnerable and desperate. This was achieved, as stated before, by limiting your supplies so much your were forced to sneak around and avoid enemies, or by making you dread the situation, fearful you could be overwhelmed at any moment.

      I had a similar experience playing Fallout 3 at max difficulty. The enemies were much stronger than I was, ammo was limited, and the only way to survive was stealth.

    2. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason [Left4Dead isn't a] proper survival horror is that your first reaction to seeing an enemy is to kill it.

      Unless its a witch or a boomer at close range.

    3. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by tibman · · Score: 1

      I promise that if you had the best gun, extra med kit, drugs, and a grenade(or molotov, if that's your thing) that even with all that.. you couldn't run through any L4D level alone. Keeping your team alive is the key to survival in the game. If Normal difficulty is too easy for you, move up! I promise you can get more out of the game if you scale up the difficulty. Turn down the lights and play alone in the dark, that helps too. I personally dread Boomers.. there's nothing like getting puked on.. you can't see for one and you can hear the hoard of zombies coming for you. I try to hide in a corner and blast anything moving (it's hard to see with puke all over your face, btw) More often than not i end up incapacitated or dead if the team is busy fighting off a Hunter or something. It's easy to run out of ammo on the more difficult settings too.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    4. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left 4 Dead is survival horror, but with plenty of ammo (and plenty of zombies). Survival is health management across the team (4 human players is required for advanced play).

      And it certainly is a horror game.

    5. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I like the first Dino Crisis. It is impossible to kill every dinosaur in that game a lot of the time you were stuck tranquilizing them and praying they wouldn't wake up while you were still searching the area.

      And lets not forget that Dino Crisis 2 was just an arcade shooter. I got bored from that really quick.

    6. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Agreed - L4D can achieve the "against all odds" feel with Expert difficulty, despite the fact that you actually must kill a majority of the enemies to have a chance (running past hordes only works in select situations).

    7. Re:Survival horror, not action horror by $1uck · · Score: 1

      you'll never run out of pistol ammo. That would make the game a bit more tricky/interesting if pistol ammo was a limited resource.

  14. Self-publishing by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think that by "indie game developers", the article meant "indie game developers who self-publish their PC titles". Are you thinking of consoles, whose makers have historically had policies against smaller publishers?

  15. fallout 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems pretty horrific to me, but I am a wuss..

  16. Bring back the old franchises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is going dead because there are no quality games being made for this genre.

    The Silent Hill series was great, but they stopped making games after SH3. SH4 was a different game with last minute changes to include the Silent Hill universe and had mixed reactions from fans, SH Origins and SH5 were not produced by KCET and had completely different American and European development teams. They both paled in comparison to earlier games in the series and reeked of shoddy effort.

    RE4, while a wonderful game and hugely successful, blended survival horror with the action of an FPS. Capcom showed they could certainly make next-gen survival horror games with traditional elements like Resident Evil 0 and RE: Remake, but they seem to have no intention of making more games of that type.

    Fatal Frame became more action oriented as time went on and the series is dead. Siren filled a very niche market and the new games appeal to some, but definitely not others.

    For survival horror to get back on its feet, Konami needs to make traditional style RE games in parallel with the new model that RE4/RE5 use. God knows I'd buy both types. Konami needs to regroup the people involved with Silent Hill 1-3 and make a new game themselves, without farming off the rights to talentless developers with only a handful of poorly made games under their belt.

    Survival horror is a genre that can come back at any time, providing somebody puts the effort into it. Other than Capcom keeping things going with RE5 (and its fun but untraditional stylings), there really isn't much more.

  17. L4D Is "fun" by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

    But it is in no way "scary." I sure laugh my fuckin ass off though.

    They're talking about the death of truly suspenseful, terrifying games. Games with a pace so painfully slow, and fearful satisfaction so rare and powerful that you're afraid to turn the system back on. In all honesty that genre died a long time ago.

  18. SHODAN! by antdude · · Score: 1

    How about System Shock 2? I got scared in that immersive game. DOOM 3? Aliens vs. Predator series?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  19. Re:Silent Hill wasn't fixed perspective like RE wa by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 1

    Did you play RE4? Specifically on the GameCube? The graphics, at the time, were VERY good, and the game is the epitome of a survival horror. Truly, a polished game. If you have the Wii, pick up the RE4 for the Wii, as it has the contents that appeared in the PS2 version, which weren't in the GameCube version.

  20. Make up your minds by Trojan35 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really don't get it. Everyone complains that games are the same. They're all the same. There's nothing new.

    Then, we get some really cool games coming out. We get GoW which takes 3rd person shooters viable (okay, so it's not that different). Stepping further outside genres, we get GH & Rock Band, a whole new way to enjoy music and video games. Going further, we get Ban & Kaz from Rare, which is an amazing vehicle/puzzle/action game. We get Dance Dance Revolution. We get the Wii and motion-sensing remotes. We get Wii Fit. And then we also get user-input games like LittleBigPlanet. All of these have either created new or revitalized old genres. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more that have been amazing.

    And now everyone's complaining that people aren't playing the old stagnant genres as much? It also ignores how successful games like Left4Dead have been? Or shoot-off genres like Dead Rising?

    This is stupid.

    1. Re:Make up your minds by ConanG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget World of Goo! That's a pretty original game.

    2. Re:Make up your minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though I think it was still unusual enough for its time to be called innovative, DDR not only followed a long train of rhythm games (there's a reason BeMani is not called DanDan or something like that), but even the dance-on-a-pad-with-impact-sensors thing was done first by Bandai in '87 with Dance Aerobics. GH and Rock Band are innovative in packaging, but like I just said the rhythm game genre is very old and they don't bring anything new to the table beyond a new shape for the controller. Wii Fit is a dumbed-down rhythm game with good marketing (though the balance aspect isn't explicitly tested in any other game I'm aware of).

      LittleBigPlanet is a new thing, but it's a different kind of new thing; I'd even argue that it's a toy rather than a game, but it's a toy with an emphasis on making games with it.

      You've already partly covered Gears of War; it's a minor change in camera effects and makes it easier to remember what your character looks like. More to the point, though, third-person shooters have been viable for a long, long timeâ"Biohazard and Silent Hill did the third-person thing (if not the shooter thing), and Tomb Raider did both. It brings nothing new to the table in that sense.

      Of course, not everything has to differentiate itself via modified gameplay; Doom II was amazing, despite being almost identical, gameplay-wise, to Doom. Prince of Persia II: The Shadow and the Flame was significantly more advanced than Prince of Persia, but there were no fundamental changes; nevertheless, it was an amazing game.

      Actually, I think I might know what the issue is; I suspect people believe that improving gameplay is somehow "stronger" than improving other aspects of the game. For example, take a game that is considered amazing because of its story; do you believe that if you make another game with the same story, that means it'll be good? But yet when a game comes out with a good cover mechanic, what's the response? Everyone needs a cover mechanic! Not that I don't like cover mechanics (I'm a realism fan), but the train has left the station; cover mechanics no longer differentiate by themselves, they need to support the rest of the game in some new way or the developer should find a better way to spend his or her time.

      So a bunch of companies come in, take a bunch of gameplay improvements that have already been done, don't add anything new (no new gameplay improvements, no new story of particular interest, no new experience, etc.), package it into a game, and ship. The problem is, a lot of the companies that do this are the most visible ones: Microsoft (the Halo series), Bethesda (Oblivion, Fallout 3), Rockstar (GTA games other than 1 and 3), so on and soforth. Add in all of the smaller unoriginal games from no-name studios, and you have a lot of very visible crap, even if there are a decent number of diamonds mixed in over time.

    3. Re:Make up your minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      the dance-on-a-pad-with-impact-sensors thing was done first by Bandai in '87 with Dance Aerobics.

      Yep - it eventually became a standard Nintendo accessory called the Power Pad and there were a ton of clones.

      LittleBigPlanet is a new thing, but it's a different kind of new thing; I'd even argue that it's a toy rather than a game, but it's a toy with an emphasis on making games with it.

      It is not new, even slightly. First off, it's a generic side scroller. Nothing new there. It has a physics engine - which isn't really new to the genre, as even the original Super Mario Bros. had some very simple physics-based puzzles. It has a level editor - nothing new either. Games with level editors have existed on the PC for ages. Some SNES games had very simple level editors and I know several PlayStation games (as in PS1) contained level editors.

      The only thing new about LittleBigPlanet that I can think of is that Sony seems to think people will pay $2 for costumes for their in-game character. And even crap like that isn't really new.

    4. Re:Make up your minds by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Then, we get some really cool games coming out.

      The problem isn't these "new cool games coming out", but those new cool games being cloned and sequeled to death. Resident Evil 4 made the over the shoulder view popular, Gears of War added cover mechanics and all that was cool and fresh. But then we got Uncharted, GTAIV, Dead Space, Gears of War 2, Resident Evil 5 and so on, all repeating that *exact* mechanic. I don't care about playing "Gears in the City" and "Gears in the Jungle" and "Gears in Space with Zombies", I already have played Gears. Game mechanics don't get any fresher when they are repeated over and over again, especially not when that repetition happens in the same year or even in the same month.

      The same thing happened with Guitar Hero, rhythm games weren't anything new by then, but it added a nice twist and gained mass appeal, that was cool, but then you got endless sequels, a fork with drums, a sequel that cloned the fork with drums and another game that did the drum thing and then of course a sequel to the first drum one and so on. I don't need that many games that focus around the exact same topic.

      In the Resident Evil 4 case there is also another problem: What once was survival horror is now a shooter, sure its a third person shooter, but still a friggin shooter, as if we didn't already have enough first person ones floating around. So instead of more genres, we now have less.

    5. Re:Make up your minds by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      If I am interpreting "cover mechanics" correctly, Gears of War definitely did not invent that. Also, reducing GTAIV to "a fps with cover mechanics" is ridiculous.

      The fact is, the number of shitty/unimaginative games that comes out doesn't matter. It is the GOOD games that get attention, become popular, etc., and should be used as the measure of the health of the industry/genre. As long as good survival horror games are coming out, the survival horror genre is doing fine.

    6. Re:Make up your minds by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      Everyone complains

      This is your mistake. Not everyone complains; it is merely that when one group is complaining, the other group is satisfied and silent.

  21. Re:Silent Hill wasn't fixed perspective like RE wa by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I had a Wii and RE4 for it. I was talking about old RE games vs. the original Silent Hill. Since the article summary talks about those and fixed cameras.

  22. Clock Tower! by ardor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can Clock Tower be missing here? Particularly the very first one running on SNES, which still gives me the creeps, even when watching youtube recordings of its gameplay (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7N8Q69--Ws). This game is VERY VERY scary.

    --
    This sig does not contain any SCO code.
  23. No, don't bring back the old franchises by despisethesun · · Score: 1

    The genre may or may not be dying, but I would like to see more brought to the table than rehashes and sequelitis. I get that people liked RE0-3, but the last thing I want to play is RE27, fundamentally unchanged from RE1.

    --
    This poo is cold.
  24. I've got some hopes for this one... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They Hunger was a good Half-Life mod, and they're working on a new one with the Source engine: They Hunger: Lost Souls. They haven't updated their progress in a while, but I still have hope.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  25. If you're not dreading every monster encouter, by Nautical+Insanity · · Score: 1

    then all you're doing is running some unpaid pest control service.

  26. I wouldn't even break it up like that.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    If you have grenades, awesome powers, machine guns, fast running speed & jumping, great aim, etc...

    An easier way to separate FPS from survival horror games... in a survival horror game, it's impossible to kill every enemy you can find. You've got to run from / avoid a fair percentage of them if you want to survive.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:I wouldn't even break it up like that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, by that yardstick Silent Hill 2 isn't Survival Horror; it's difficult, but once you're familiar with the game the fact that all of the enemies you don't have to kill anyway are restricted to melee weapons (and the fact that you have one yourself) means you can in fact kill every single enemy in the game.

      Well, ok, every enemy that doesn't kill itself. Anyway, the point is that while I think you're on the right track, the way you state it is too restrictive.

  27. And tomorrow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Destroyoid is running an opinion piece looking at the state of the first-person shooter genre in games, suggesting that the way it has developed over the past several years has been detrimental to its own future. "During the nineties, first-person shooter games were all the rage, with Quake and Unreal using the negative aspects of other games to an advantage. While mindless play, repetitive combat and bland color palettes were seen as problematic in most games, the traditional first-person shooter took them as a positive boon. A seemingly less demanding public ate up these games with a big spoon, overlooking glaring faults in favor of videogames that could be genuinely exciting." The Conquerer's Games Blog has posted a response downplaying the decline of the genre, looking forward to Epic's upcoming Unreal Tournament 2110 and wondering if now-independent game developers will pick up where major publishers like popcap have left off.

  28. Indy devers indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My small independent team is working on a few! survival horror titles right now.

    I'd say that as the bigger publishers continue to congeal, all the creativity will be left to the little guys.

  29. The Penumbra Series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I just finished playing through Penumbra: Black Plague. It's sort of a combination between resident evil-style survival horror, without guns, and half-life 2 FPS physics puzzles. It's got some really neat angles, including a virus in your brain that develops an alternate personality, and an alien hive-mind. I can really reccomend it for all survival horror fans.

    -- Surreal Puppet

    1. Re:The Penumbra Series by DavoMan · · Score: 1

      bump :)

      --
      Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
  30. Hello? WoW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The genre isn't going extinct, its just... evolving!

  31. Going extinct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or going reverse?

    Campfire seems interesting - if it ever comes to life.

    http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44373&mode=thread&order=0

  32. The Road by antic · · Score: 1

    I want to see the book (and soon to be movie), The Road, made into a game. That'd be survival horror. The main character runs most of the course with no more than a couple of bullets!

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  33. Not dead... just waiting to pounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just finished Deadspace, and I don't think the genre's dead -- but I think the standard's been raised.

  34. LeftFEARful?! by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    Fear and it's two expansion packs are already out.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  35. They all sucked after Alone in the Dark anyhow. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Ok, I lie but god damn that game had it right and the formula hasn't had to change much since, so people think it's stale, when it's just an old but tested game type.

    Look at Dead Space, same as AITD, it has a control and battle system just clunky enough to antagonise you but not enough to hate it and jumpy stuff.
    I think it's a bloody fantastic genre and if I wasn't such a pussy I'd still be playing it.
    (As I've gotten older, I've become MORE scared than I used to by these things, I literally can not play Dead Space, period - more than 5 minutes and I have to quit)

  36. Re:Silent Hill wasn't fixed perspective like RE wa by Canazza · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't call Left 4 Dead a horror game. It's more of an Action Survival game (there is very little that will make you jump out of your seat)

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  37. Possible cause for decline... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Why play a game when you can look at real horror any time you turn on the News??? Endless war in the middle-east, up to our collective hinnies in terrorist assaults, an environment that looks more and more like an unflushed toilet, and a global economy that makes the environment look good... Fighting unwashed mutants is looking less and less like an escapist activity, and more and more like a proper survival training.

  38. Dead Space by wazzzup · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else find Dead Space creepy more than a few times? The audio did a spectacular job of creeping the player out.

  39. Independent games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of independent games... The last decent horror game I played was from a small developer. Check out Penumbra. There are three games in the series. Really great atmosphere and creative use of physics. On top of that, they all have Linux versions. You can check out demos at http://www.penumbragame.com/
    I see the second game at Gamestop sometimes.

  40. Have No Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new splatterhouse is in the making...

  41. What the hell by BigJClark · · Score: 1


    Fear, deadspace, Left4Dead.. all great shining examples of recent survival horror, not to mention the silent hills, resident evils and doom clones.

    Dare I say it, but survival horrors are still lurking behind every corner ;)

    Well, not every corner...

    --

    Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
  42. Zombie Panic: Source by Rutefoot · · Score: 1

    Zombie Panic: Source: A free, third party online HL2 mod that can be downloaded via Steam is another horror 'option'. I guess you could call it an alternate to L4D. Certain maps really do retain the horror feeling to a certain degree and there generally isn't enough ammo to go around.

    You'll often find yourself using filing cabinets and desks to try to barricade yourself into house. As your fellow survivors fall, you run out of ammo and the zombies increase in numbers you'll be forced to retreat into that last room, or to the roof of the house. There you will make your last stand with whatever weapons you have left. A pistol with a few remaining rounds, a wrench, a chunk of wood with a nail in it, a computer keyboard, etc

    This is made all the more stressful by the constant parinoia that one of your fellow survivors barricaded into the room with you has been infected with the zombie virus. As the survivors dwindle down you face conflicting emotions. You now have one less person to help you barricade the room, but the pistol with 4 rounds you pick up from their body may help you survive just a little longer.

    The only thing limiting the horror feel is the fact the game doesn't end when you get killed by a zombie. You become a zombie yourself whose job is to go after the remaining survivors. Any tension that had been built up while running from the zombies very quickly turns to ...well, almost comic relief.

    Let me tell you, as a zombie it is incredibly amusing to watch the survivors scramble to reinforce their barricade to try and keep you out unaware that one of their own is about to tear them apart with their bare hands.

  43. Survival Horror dead?? by chriskovo · · Score: 1

    Ummm hasnt this guy played left 4 dead? The game rocks(well as long as you have a cordinated team at least) This guy should get off his soap box and try it out.

  44. If you can survive melee with all the creatures... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    it's not (IMO) survival horror. In what horror movie can any of the characters survive hand-to-hand against large numbers of the (aliens/mutant plants/zombies/whatever)?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?