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."

Comments

...like

[TheRealMindChild]

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

Re:really, no Left 4 Dead?

[SirLurksAlot]

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 ;-)

Survival Games

[sesshomaru]

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.

Re:really, no Left 4 Dead?

[centuren]

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).

Re:really, no Left 4 Dead?

[SirLurksAlot]

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.

Re:No

[Haeleth]

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.)

Re: The Survival of Survival Horror

[Psychochild]

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,