Slashdot Mirror


The Survival of Survival Horror

Rich writes with this excerpt from GameTopius: "When it comes to pacing and combat, Resident Evil 5 is being compared to Dead Space, as opposed to its previous peers, Silent Hill, Clocktower, and Siren. This is understandable: Resident Evil 5 is joining Dead Space in a new quadrant of the survival horror genre. These games are akin to survival horror in their look and style, and sometimes in the trappings of their stories, but when it comes to gameplay, they are faster paced, and emphasize tighter controls and tactical decision-making, not the ability to use as few bullets as possible on hard-to-hit monstrosities. The reasons for these gameplay changes have been carefully examined by designers and gamers alike."

57 comments

  1. ...like by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    >

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  2. really, no Left 4 Dead? by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Informative

    Left 4 Dead is THE survival horror game.

    I can't really call RE5 survival horror when the main characters are zombie hunters by trade.

    Dead Space is definitely survival horror, but sci-fi flavored.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Left 4 Dead is THE survival horror game.

      I really enjoy that game but I wouldn't call it the epitome of survival horror. Unlimited ammo and the ability to essentially rez your friends near the end of each stage count against it as far as the "survival" bit is concerned. RE4 was a much better example of survival horror. You really had to watch your ammo and fight smart if you wanted to get anywhere.

      Really though I'm still waiting for a game to come out that looks at survival horror in the long run. I'd love to see a MMO or RPG-esque zombie game come out. Instead of worrying about the next thing to jump out at you around the corner (though you'd have to worry about that too) you would have to worry about things like having enough food and supplies to outlast the zombie hordes, or having to fight off other people from taking over your shelter. You could work with a team of other survivors to find a safe haven (i.e. clear this area of zombies and defend it). Since your supplies would constantly be depleting another aspect of the game would be leaving the safety of the shelter (while still leaving enough people back there to defend) would be going out into the world to find more. I'm sure there are all kinds of problems with a game like this and I don't know that anyone aside from myself would be interested in playing such a game, but it would be a nice change of pace from the "instant survival horror games" out there right now.

      PS - I just finished reading World War Z and The Walking Dead, so it may be somewhat unsurprising that I'd be interested in a game like this ;-)

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    2. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by rivendahl · · Score: 1

      I would certainly like to play a game like this. I play Guild Wars a lot as I don't like WoW. I wouldn't mind trying an MMO similar to GW where a small band of people go out gather supplies, salvage what they can, return and give to the greater good. Economy would be difficult, weapons would be hard, ammo and such, so perhaps a profession and barter system where one person specializes in making ammo and another in armor or weapons. It would be nice if it were also buy once play forever rather than monthly fees like GW. In fact, until GW I avoided MMO's because of the monthly fee.

      --
      ... there is nothing that has not already been thought ...
    3. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by ral8158 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...why don't you start playing expert mode, and we'll talk about unlimited ammo.

    4. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      Heh, maybe that is the issue. I have been playing on Normal. I'd still like to see a little more variety in my survival horror games though.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    5. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 1

      Left 4 dead on expert mode is a true survival horror game.
      Play with 3 buddies in a single darkly lit room and you'll see.
      Pretty soon you'll start panicking when you hear given zombie sounds, staying together will seem like a matter of _your_ life and death and you'll feel like every small section of a chapter is the last you'll be able to complete.

    6. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by centuren · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Instead of worrying about the next thing to jump out at you around the corner (though you'd have to worry about that too) you would have to worry about things like having enough food and supplies to outlast the zombie hordes, or having to fight off other people from taking over your shelter

      I had that experience playing Fallout 3 (PC, hardest setting), especially in the first 25% of the game. During that period, it felt like no matter how much I scrounged around for scrap to sell, I never had enough ammo, couldn't afford beds or a doctor, and the food I found had to be rationed for threat of radiation poisoning.

      Whenever I set off to a new destination, I basically crept along in the grass. It seemed like if I was attacked in route, I would usually not die, but then I wouldn't have enough health or ammo to accomplish my objective (or really survive at my destination at all).

      Eventually I built up a strong arsenal and collected some wealth, but until that turning point, I was constantly worrying about surviving in the long term. I actually started to think about how it would work as an MMORPG, much as you describe (I decided the major obstacle would be defending fortifications against attacks planned while most players are asleep).

    7. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a MMO or RPG-esque zombie game come out. Instead of worrying about the next thing to jump out at you around the corner (though you'd have to worry about that too) you would have to worry about things like having enough food and supplies to outlast the zombie hordes, or having to fight off other people from taking over your shelter. You could work with a team of other survivors to find a safe haven (i.e. clear this area of zombies and defend it).

      In those movies this is the mistake the protagonists make, thinking they can keep the plague outside their defended area indefinitely as long as they have supplies. But the disease is so virulent that a victim is assured of becoming a zombie and spreading it with just one bite, so there is no way to keep it out in the long term. No matter what you do the Red Death will slip into the castle eventually.

      I'm afraid that too many fans of zombie movies would recognize that scenario (and obviously Poe fans). If they tried to market a game based on that it would be shot down as cliche. Not everyone, but enough that it might not sell good enough to suit the company. I say "might not" because even if did sell just fine, the fact that it was criticized could scare the company enough to scrap before they got far into developing it.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    8. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Normal is super easy. I recommend that new players play one or two levels (not campaigns) on normal, then crank it up to advanced and never go back. Experienced FPS players who have someone to guide them around levels ought to just start on advanced.

      These days, I only bother playing Expert when I do Coop. Versus is where the big replay value's at, but if you can get some friends together IRL, Expert campaign is wonderful.

      It's like this:

      - Easy is unplayable. Ugh. Serously, the zombies do like 1 damage per hit, and there's NO friendly fire. The tank dies if just one or two people empty their Uzis into it, and can't possibly get close if you're paying any attention whatsoever, let alone actually hit you. Why bother?
      - Normal is easy enough that you can screw around and do dumb things intentionally and still win. Tank still goes down too fast, and even if you've already got one guy dead you should be able to take it with 3 before it hits you at all.
      - Advanced will punish you severely for screwing around too much, but legitimate mistakes (and a limited amount of screwing around) can usually be recovered from. Tank is now a threat, especially if you have Tier 1 weapons.
      - Expert allows for few or no mistakes, and absolutely zero screwing around. Mess up once and your team might well get wiped out and have to re-start the level. Tank is a monster and will haunt your nightmares.

      Some bonus advice: if you haven't started playing Versus yet, I'd recommend waiting until you feel like you've gotten what you want out of Coop; playing Versus for any length of time will ruin the AI infected for you, with the exception of the tank, by making them a total joke and non-threat, even on expert.

      Mind you, I'm not 'leet by any means, and I only rarely get sucked in to online games of any sort (the only other online FPS games I've gotten in to in a real way were RTCW:Enemy Territory, ST:Elite Force, and SW:DFII:Jedi Knight), so this isn't some godlike FPS player telling you to play on Expert because Normal is for wimps or anything. I think that a player of average ability should enjoy Advanced more than Normal, given the nature of the game, and after a while will be able to do OK in Expert, which is where the Coop play gets really good IMO.

    9. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Sparton · · Score: 1

      - Easy is unplayable. Ugh. Serously, the zombies do like 1 damage per hit, and there's NO friendly fire. The tank dies if just one or two people empty their Uzis into it, and can't possibly get close if you're paying any attention whatsoever, let alone actually hit you. Why bother?

      You're missing the point of why we have easy mode: it's actually more along the lines of "you win" mode. The whole point is to give people who aren't looking for any sort of challenge at all a chance to complete the game.

      The complaint about a game mode being too easy is a poor one only made by people who want a challenge... which isn't an excuse when there's 3 separate, harder tiers of difficulty.

    10. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      IMO, Normal mode fills that niche just fine: I'm not even that good, and I can run through a normal campaign with bots, hitting every car alarm, leaving bots behind to die if they annoy me, plowing through hordes rather than finding a corner, etc. and still only use a couple of health packs. The only part that requires any attention is the finale, and that's mostly to keep the bots alive so they can distract some portion of the hordes.

      I mean, it doesn't bother me that Easy mode is included--the more options the better, I say--but the only use I can see for it is if someone wants to be able to go run some errands without pausing their game, come back, and still be at full health. I'm not really sure why they left any damage in it at all, when it's effectively God Mode anyway.

    11. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that some will argue with me about the label, but for me Bioshock and F.E.A.R felt more like real horror than RE4/5. The new direction that RE4/5 has gone feels more like "Action+Zombies" to me,whereas the two above games to one extent or another really were creepy.

      In Bioshock, to be sitting there in the dark trying to take a breather because a Big Daddy just bitch slapped you into next week and you are nearly out of Plasmids and health packs, and having those damned spider splicers scuffling across the ceilings while one of the crazy religious splicers("We have forsaken you,oh lord!") wanders around the halls right towards you....THAT was scary. Hell all of Rapture felt like the whole damned place could fall down around your ears any moment and has this whole "stepford wife" creepy feel to it. Especially the Fort Frolic level with those creepy statues with the bunny masks.

      And the original FEAR, with the way Fetel and Alma would kind of just walk past you and disintegrate, or how reality would just twist? That was creepy. And that place also had a creepiness to it as well IMHO. The way you would walk into an office that looked like a slaughterhouse, complete with gore dripping from the ceiling, and the phone would have a message from the guys wife, nice touch. With RE4/5 I just don't feel at all creeped out. I feel more irritated with the controls than I do creeped out. It just felt more forced to me than anything. It is like after RE3 they really didn't know where to go with it and just decided to pump up the action while having stupid crap like not being able to run with a pistol.

      While I haven't had a chance to pick up L4D yet(Just picked up MOH 10th Anniversary for $20 so I'm too busy fighting WW2 ATM) and can't comment on it RE just don't feel scary anymore. The old ones were DAMNED scary. Even my sister got nightmares from that dog scene in the first one just from watching me play it for half an hour. Now THAT is scary! From looking at the demo RE5 just looks like RE4 in Africa to me. And since I didn't care for RE4 I think I'll have to pass. Too much action and not enough creep factor IMHO.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      But the disease is so virulent that a victim is assured of becoming a zombie and spreading it with just one bite, so there is no way to keep it out in the long term.

      Well, duh. Zombies are metaphors for death. We all join them in the end. Any zombie-hunting game where it's possible to "win" is missing the point from square one.

    13. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by cr_nucleus · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. Zombies are metaphors for death. We all join them in the end. Any zombie-hunting game where it's possible to "win" is missing the point from square one.

      Man, where's the metaphor ? A dead guy as a symbol of death ?
      It's just literally death, and it bites !

      Try a metaphor for people living their lives with a near zero level of consciousness or peer pressure or whatever.

    14. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Zombies are metaphors for death. We all join them in the end.

      I always took them to be a metaphor for powerlessness and despair. Once people start to feel they're powerless they can't escape it, and that feeling can spread to others. Survivors are those who refuse to be powerless victims. I've also heard the argument that zombies (at least in modern times) are metaphors for consumerism run rampant. Dawn of the Dead was a good example of this. The world starts to fall apart and where do the survivors end up? In a mall; a classic symbol of the consumer lifestyle. And they're essentially trapped there by their own choice. They have no ability to create new supplies and they know that at a certain point the mall will no longer be able to sustain them. Obviously there are differences between the original and the remake (no biker gang to ruin their sanctuary in the new one), but the idea of consumerism run rampant still fits.

      Then again I always hate reading too much into my zombie fiction ;-) Give me my poorly defended farm houses and overrun cities and I'll be happy.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    15. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Left 4 Dead is more a casual "shoot a hundred zombies a minute" type of game. I play it when I have 5 minutes to kill, choose a random level, and get shooting and pistol whipping like I'm a factory worker. It's not because it has zombies that it's survival horror now is it? Cause besides that Duke Nukem 3D is probably more like survival horror then, and actually scarier by the way.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    16. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Or zombies are a convenient excuse to provide the player with a target-rich environment and more gore than should realistically fit into the human body.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that too many fans of zombie movies would recognize that scenario (and obviously Poe fans). If they tried to market a game based on that it would be shot down as cliche. Not everyone, but enough that it might not sell good enough to suit the company. I say "might not" because even if did sell just fine, the fact that it was criticized could scare the company enough to scrap before they got far into developing it.

      I don't know, I think that watching things passively unfold on the screen (or in the pages of a book) and having a chance to do the defense your way against the zombies would be enough to bring a lot of people in. After all, we saw "badass guy runs around like a one man army killing hordes of bad guys to save the world" over and over again in action movies in the 80s, and people still loved doom and quake etc when they came out.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    18. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      Fallout Boy 3? Fallout boy Online? Not that horrifying except in Mad Max way

    19. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i always consider easy mode to be for the poor fucker who has no arms and is playing the game with one of those pointers you clench in your teeth.

      posting anon. in case he has mod points tonight

    20. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by naoursla · · Score: 1

      I want a multiplayer game for GTA4 where the city is filled with zombies and the first person to reach the helicopter at the airport wins (or multiple people who reach the helicopter before it takes off).

      There should be police barricades up and crashed vehicles blocking roads. Vehicles should take take more damage hitting things and hitting masses of zombies should slow you down more. There might also be other human NPCs who try to shoot at you.

    21. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by dikkietee · · Score: 1

      My boyfriend had NEVER played an FPS in his life, stumbled n00bishly through L4D on Easy, beat the campaign without a single death. To be fair though, L4D has an appeal to the non-FPS'er and has no tutorial mode, so a laughably easy mode is probably a good decision on Valve's part.

    22. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by TheSambassador · · Score: 1

      Honestly, there's a certain number of zombies that, when exceeded, turn a game from a "Survival Horror" to just a plain ol' action game.

      Left 4 Dead is a very fun, well-crafted game, but when I think "Survival Horror" I think of a game that isn't focused on combat but staying alive. This means painfully low ammo, little combat, and good use of tension. Left 4 Dead just throws you against X zombies who are all the same and then tosses in a few "boss" zombies here and there.

    23. Re:really, no Left 4 Dead? by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      There's a single player non-versus game in L4D?

  3. ah, they learn by girlintraining · · Score: 0

    ...not the ability to use as few bullets as possible on hard-to-hit monstrosities.

    *cough* like Half-life *cough*

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:ah, they learn by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      *cough* like Half-life *cough*

      Really? I honestly don't recall ever having to preserve ammo in Half-Life. Maybe it's just been too long since I've played it but...

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:ah, they learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't got very far, (haven't got to the surface yet) but you're constantly low. Especially on shotgun shells. It doesn't help that those are the only thing good for killing Vorts at this point in the game.

    3. Re:ah, they learn by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      Really? I honestly don't recall ever having to preserve ammo in Half-Life. Maybe it's just been too long since I've played it but...

      During the parts where you're still in the Black Mesa facility, there's never a shortage of ammo. Even the nuclear weapons are well-stocked. In fact, I remember thinking, "This game has WAY too much ammo."

      Then I got to Xen, and the ammo supply all but dried up.

      Through excessive use of the crowbar, I managed to still have a reasonable quantity of ammo left when I reached the Nihilanth. I ended up finally killing him by zapping him with the (infinite ammo) bee gun continuously for a minute or two after pouring all my ammo into him. (I imagine it's easier if, unlike me, you manage to survive his "teleport" attack; the rooms you get teleported to are full of ammo, the problem is just surviving the floaty death that comes with it long enough to teleport back.)

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
  4. Where are the Slashdotters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's Friday and all, but the last few articles have had bugger all comments. Is there some nationwide party going on that I'm missing?

    1. Re:Where are the Slashdotters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not that i know of bro. but i wonder where everyone is. is there a way to visualize instantaneous internet whois busiest?

  5. try Call of Cthulhu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For one of the nicer instances of the genre, try Call of Cthulhu. You spend a good half of the total game without *any* bullets or guns at all. Good atmosphere, although the graphics are no longer state of the art.

    Unfortunately, it seems there will be no sequel. It probably wasn't FPS-like enough to sell very well.

    1. Re:try Call of Cthulhu by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Devs imploded before it came out the door.

    2. Re:try Call of Cthulhu by darCness · · Score: 1

      The first half really was excellent, when they focused on story and atmosphere. The 2nd half that largely disappeared, and it got boring.

  6. Islam - because the Enlightenment is overrated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    R.I.P. Theo Van Gogh.

  7. No by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

    These new awful action games have absolutely nothing to do with Survival Horror anymore. They need their own genre title.

    Furthermore, if you're actually scared by these games... you're a lamer on a hilarious level. Don't play Silent Hill.

    1. Re:No by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Alone in the Dark was a survival horror.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:No by The+Orange+Mage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree on the lack of scare in these newer games, but I'd like to have my scares while having some semblance of decent controls. The genre essentially says "Here's the game, here's the archaic and awful controls with which we cripple you in order to make the game scarier."

    3. Re:No by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, RE has historically had crippling controls. Fixing their controls with RE4 and moreso with RE5 isn't a problem in and of itself, but I think the threat from monsters should have been cranked up correspondingly.

      Want to know a survival horror game? The first time I played Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six. I approached it as a first person shooter for about one minute; then I realized that one bullet from a unseen assailant can instantly kill me. From that point on, I crept forward as carefully as in any zombie-infested underground research lab. A survival horror game loses its horror if you ever get to the point of seeing a monster onscreen and thinking "I can kill that, no problem." A single zombie in the middle of an empty room should still make you nervous.

    4. Re:No by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's RE, not the genre. There have been survival horror games with pretty good controls; System Shock 2 comes to mind. (Of course, there's no way a control scheme like that could be made to work on a console.)

    5. Re:No by Swordsmanus · · Score: 1

      One thing I think that has toned down the scare factor in RE4 and 5 is the way the new "zombie" level enemies (which I'll refer to as Ganados) behave.

      Zombies felt no pain, were rotting, and wanted to eat you. Ganados flinch when shot by a 9mm, look fairly healthy, and generally try to bash you to death.

      Zombies required a shotgun or higher grade weapon with scarce ammo to stop in their tracks with a single shot. Ganados stop in their tracks when shot with anything. And if you shoot them in the right places, you can do a huge knock back melee attack.

      The Ganados seem more like "real" people, so they're more familiar, more predictable. The older zombies were unnatural and unrelenting. If you had 5 zombies coming at you and all you had was a 9mm, you were in deep shit. But if you now face 5 Ganados coming at you, you can more easily manage them by shooting them to slow them down, or you can shoot one in the leg and do a melee attack that knocks back your target. It might even knock back or daze other enemies.

      I'd like to see the next RE game feature the old unrelenting zombies (and hell, throw in the crimson heads from Resident Evil: REmake) with the new control and combat engine.

    6. Re:No by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I tried playing on the Wii (maybe that was my problem?), but when you're posioned and the cure isn't where it's supposed to be, I just gave up and haven't played since.

    7. Re:No by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Gandos ARE "real" people. Just controlled by a parasite. I was hoping RE5 would go back to the T-virus, I can't see why they couldn't. I've played 1-3 on the Wii (as GameCube games), and I don't recall anything that said the world was safe from the t-virus.

  8. System Shock 2? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Come on, SHODAN and her minions crept me out!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  9. Overanalyzing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it that hard to understand why this is happening? In a nutshell:

    1. Dumb down survival horror
    2. ???
    3. PROFIT

    We don't really have survival horror games anymore, we have plain old action games with The Scary(tm) included. They have done away with Hitchcock and replaced him with Paul WS Anderson.

  10. Survival Games by sesshomaru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Survival Horror, to my mind, was a combination of two types of games. The most obvious is horror. Zombies and other scary creatures wandering about. However, the presence of horror enemies does not necessarily make something survival horror.

    Take Painkiller. Painkiller is an old school First Person Shooter. You see something, and you shoot it. However, it was creative in the nature of it's scary looking and scary moving enemies. Since each level was different, not all stand out as horror, but the Asylum creeped me out enough.

    The thing about Painkiller though is that you are, yourself a scary, unstoppable killing machine. The game makes it easy to start up again where you died, you get tons of power ups and ammo, and your main weapon is an unlimited ammo flying cuisinart. This is actually not uncommon for games, or for horror themed games.

    Now, people are used to the original Resident Evil as survival horror, and it is, but there are more also more recent games that emphasize the other part of survival horror, survival.

    Take Haunting Ground. In Haunting Ground your character is essentially a completely helpless teenage girl with no really effective way of fighting the horror. The big game mechanic? Well, when a big, horrifying guy comes along, hide under some furniture and wait for him to give up in frustration and leave. You don't have an effective way to fight back.

    Now, the newer Resident Evils seem to have abandoned this to an extent. I haven't played 5, in 4 it is possible to run out of ammo. However... you do a lot more shooting than running in my opinion. At least I do... my approach to the original Resident Evil was to avoid using weapons as much as possible. Run past the zombies, try to avoid going dangerouse places... when dogs enter a room get to the door as quick as possible and don't go back unless you have too. For me a successful, "room run" meant I ran through the room without getting bit and without using up precious ammo. Shooting at something and missing, on the other hand was (for the game) annoying or even depressing, especially with rarer ammo for stronger weapons.

    The original Resident Evil was meant to evoke the feeling of the original Dawn of the Dead. Part of the fun of that movie was thinking about post apocalyptic survival. It wasn't just about scary zombies, it was about finding supplies and safe places to stay.

    Left4Dead is kind of a mix, I think it tries to evoke survival horror by requiring you to rely on your team, limits on some kinds of ammo and health, and the fact that attacking witches really isn't a good idea.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    1. Re:Survival Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to talk Survival Horror, check out the first Clocktower game. You're a teenage girl, you have limited power, and a mutant kid with giant scissors is chasing you (not to mention the giant mutant and the freaky ass mom that wants to kill you).

      True survival horror is in the puzzles. You should be frantically trying to find a way out, without any real way of defeating what is trying to kill you. If you can just fill everything full of lead, you won't be scared. If you have a gun but no ammo, you know you will eventually find ammo. If you have no gun, no weapon, no ammo, and no attack...well, you know that you'll have to be creative.

    2. Re:Survival Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never played clock tower did you...

    3. Re:Survival Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, that's all in the psychology. If you make me defenseless, then I know the game has been balanced around that fact. I won't even try to kill something, I'll just look for the solution that the designer had to come up with given that I cannot fight. It's usually easy to figure out when you have only limited possibilities. In a sense, you are not being chased by a scary thing, you are just playing against a timer. That's not really scary unless you let the imagery get to you. It's like watching a teen horror movie with the obligatory hot actress. You know the main character isn't going to die no matter how many close calls she has. So all you're really doing is waiting to see how she escapes, and maybe the guy with the knife can cut her shirt and make her boobs pop out. Fun but not particularly scary. You know what has to happen.

      On the other hand, if I do have a gun, and only limited ammo, it makes me wonder, am I supposed to kill this guy, or run away? The fact that you don't really know what to do adds suspense to the gameplay, it increases uncertainty and panic. You're not sure whether you should be focusing on your aim or looking around to find a way out. If you die, you restart again with the same uncertainty.

    4. Re:Survival Games by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Haunting Ground is said to be similar to Clock Tower III in the Wikipedia article.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  11. Re: The Survival of Survival Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think RE4 & RE5 are still survival horror, but it might depend on the difficulty level. On the higher settings you usually find less ammo and health. I play all my games on highest difficulty, I can't say I ever had what I call '*ammo crisis' or '*health crisis' in Dead Space and I did in RE5 and probably more in RE4. Sure, killed enemies leave goodies behind most of the time, but I hate how when you need ammo or health they leave money or not anything at all (cheap bastards). Dead Space was well done, and I enjoyed it, it was scary, but I was never in survival mode.

    I do think the first RE games where more survival, but (I'm a bit of an 'old' gamer) I've noticed games are getting easier and especially the last 1 to 2 years it's getting ridiculous. I'm genuinely disappointed in games that I just breeze trough in a few hours (like assassins creed or the gears of war series) It's all looks and no play, tailored to make people happy, that can't handle any challenges, with awing visuals and set pieces.

    * (meaning I had to play for a while with no or almost no ammo for any of my guns or/and with very low health and not finding any new, constantly dodging/running from enemies and using smart tactics to defeat them)

  12. The PATH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another kind of horror game
    http://thepath-game.com
    http://grandmothers-house.net
    http://tale-of-tales.com/ThePath

  13. Re: The Survival of Survival Horror by genw3st · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've noticed the same trend - except it hasn't been only within the past couple of years.

    Games have gotten ridiculously easy, yet I'm honestly not sure what they should do to help this. They could move all the difficulty settings up a notch - but then they might alienate an entire user base, possibly one primarily consisting of children. Perhaps the fact that controls and gameplay have become much more complex contributes to this. Playing Super Mario, with a total of 3 buttons, is nothing like playing the average Xbox 360 or PS3 game - lots of buttons, another dimension to control, more places to go, more things to do. But it does still stand to reason that games should at least OFFER a more difficult level of gameplay - games like FEAR 2.

    Perhaps part of it has more to do with my "evolution" as a gamer; maybe I'm simply much better in my ability to play games and execute the necessary tactics than when I was younger. Games HAVE become much easier - but as I mentioned, things have become quite complex and perhaps that evens out for younger or less adept gamers.

    Another thing that has become cumbersome is the fact that developers are starting to draw things out in order to make a little more money - which is a mixed bag. On one hand I like an entire sequel to play, but sometimes a storyline doesn't need to be stretched out over THREE titles (See: Halo). On the other hand I understand that they aren't making games for my enjoyment alone (or possibly at all), but rather it is simply their business. That still doesn't justify releasing the same thing several times on practically the same engine... even Half-Life 2 has become a huge cash cow. I would rather wait another 5-7 years for a new engine and new gameplay mechanics than pay $20-30 (making that a total of $60-90, plus the original cost of HL2) per EPISODE.

  14. Resident Evil 5 by josh6179 · · Score: 1

    I played the demo for RE5 and for me it doesn't advance the series from RE4 years ago; RE5 feels like RE4 will nicer graphics. I think Capcom missed an opportunity to further develop the genre they popularized. The control scheme from RE4 was definitely an improvement over past series but now 4 years later it just feels cumbersome and tedious.

  15. Re: The Survival of Survival Horror by Psychochild · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speaking as a professional game developer...

    Games have gotten ridiculously easy....

    There are many reasons for this. As you point out, one reason is that you're getting better at the types of games you enjoy. You also understand the conventions of the games you play. One time my sister-in-law was amazed as I was racing through a game it took her months to figure out. I knew what to look for while solving the puzzles based on other, similar games I've played.

    There has been a trend in development to make games easier to appeal to a wider audience. One problem you get with some games is that if you build them to be challenging to fans of that type of game, they tend to exclude less hardcore players and newbies. FPSes were like this for a while; unless you had developed precise twitch ability, you weren't going to be able to play the game very well.

    A difficulty setting is something that is really tough to balance out, though. The simplest way of modifying internal numbers (enemies get more hps, player does less damage, etc.) doesn't necessarily make the game harder, it just makes the game play differently. Truly changing the difficulty requires developing the game in a different way. In most cases, "harder" just means "less fair, easier to fail" which feels frustrating for a lot of players.

    MMOs also show this trend, too. My own game, Meridian 59, is pretty hard-core. It's also a PvP game, which has its own level of brutality associated with it. But, play M59 and then play WoW and you'll see a world of difference in difficulty (as well as graphics, UI, etc.)

    My thoughts,

    --
    Brian "Psychochild" Green
    MMO developer's blog
  16. Check out 'Pathologic' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might like Pathologic. It's a few years old now and had dated graphics even when it was released, but it offers some of what you're waiting for (and plenty more..)