Try our new beta!Click here

sweetSWAGGER (User)

  • Contributor
  • 10 bubbles
  • 5 in CRank
  • Score: 13700
"Do your research and take your dollar seriously. That's what makes us fans, not fanboys."

What survival horror means to me

sweetSWAGGER | 1144d ago
User blog

A lot of fans hate RE6. I'm not one of them. I've played, beaten and love the game for the original ideas that it puts forward. Now, as a fan myself I can see where the hate stems from: Capcom going back on their promise to go back to survival horror. I don't quite remember whether or not Capcom stated RE6 would "go back to the series' roots", but if they did, they weren't lying; they just failed at their meager attempt. But, in regards to RE6, and with an open mind, I can see why the action fans are defending this game; its an engaging, fun experience if you're willing to look past all its shortcomings. In the end, that's what depresses me to a point where I literally want to cry myself to sleep:

Resident Evil 6 is not quite the awesome, over-the-top action game that it clearly wanted to be, and it's not at all the atmospheric, slow-paced, survival experience that it tries to fool long-time fans into believing it is.

No, Resident evil 6 is a cash-grab, plain and simple. Capcom tried to appeal to the survival horror fans, sure, but only in relation to how many they believe there are, as apposed to the number of action/shooter fans. Put those odds on a scale, and it becomes quite clear the direction that RE6 would take, hence why one could say that Resident Evil 6 is merely a horror-flavored action game. Well, why not just appeal to the action/shooter/multiplayer fans with a big budget spin-off game, and appeal to the survival horror fans with a smaller, numbered game? Sounds simple right? I mean, they were already going in that direction if you look at Resident Evil: Revelations (3DS) vs. Resident Evil: Operation Racoon City (home consoles). However, its when you attempt both (Resident Evil 6), that you end up ruining it for mostly everyone. A mistake on Capcom's part. As an open-minded fan of survival horror, I have nothing against linear action games. They're fun, fast, instant experiences. Where I do take issue, is in the arguments I've found online that try to refute survival horror, and even attempt to disregard it entirely.

The argument has been made that RE6, despite abandoning its original genre, needs to be judged on its own merits, and I agree with that 100-err... %50. Although I do agree that you must (especially as a professional reviewer) judge every game based on its own strengths and weaknesses, that only partly applies when you're dealing with sequels. One must be able to balance whatever merits the sequel has with an open-minded analysis of the game as it stands on its own. Some people can do that, some people can't, and some claim that they can but clearly cannot. Now, you can argue about how non-profitable or "un-fun" survival horror is, and you can even attempt to argue that it simply doesn't work anymore, mainly because we've all grown up, and that the effectiveness of a survival horror game depend on its graphical presentation (which would degrade with time). The latter would be, partially, a weak argument. Although it has become harder to scare us with age, the "old graphics" card will only get you so far my dear, ignoramus.

Graphics are only a single element of what makes survival horror scary; they, alongside excellent sound design, art direction, and environments merely create half of the experience; the atmosphere itself. The sense of urgency, high stakes and player decisions constitute the other half of the experience; the strategy. The "high-stakes strategy" is what engages nail-biting gamers like me while the atmosphere merely grounds us within the game's world. Games like Dark Souls and Xcom: Enemy Unknown are perfect examples of high-stake games available on home consoles. Both games put great emphasis on strategy with high-stakes, and neither of these 2 games are survival horror games (although Dark Souls easily could've been). With survival horror (and high-stake strategy games in general), there is actual weight to every decision the player makes, big or small. Every decision yields rewards and consequences that can mean the difference between success and failure, whether immediate or hours from now.

Whether or not I'll make it to that new room, or that I should even attempt the effort and just back-track to a safe room to save my progress first, is MY decision to make, and is why I adore Survival Horror. Should I clear out this room of monsters, or save my ammo for what could be ahead? This kind of second-guessing and even paranoid decision making reflects that of a traditional top-down strategy game. The game puts the player in charge like a real-time strategy game would, putting great emphasis on quick decision making, and micro-managing resources. However, the game also grounds the player within the world itself like a 1st/3rd person game, creating a sense of vulnerability within the player: their every decision no longer affects countless units, they affect the player's own safety and survival. That, and the game's atmopshere constantly toys with the player's sense of well-being, making them question every noise in the distance, every shadow that their flashlight can't reach. It's a dark, cruel world that you've been thrust into. Will you survive? Will you make it out alive?

The game doesn't care.

and that's why I do.

Nicaragua  +   1144d ago
Heres my take on it.

The survival aspect must come from a gameplay element which means you have something to lose. In the orginal RE games save points where few and far between, using them had a cost (typewriter ribbons), and ammo was scarce which punished your mistakes. As you metion modern games like Xcom and Demon/Dark Souls punish the player for making mistakes and this gives the games the tense atmosphere.

The horror aspect of fighting the unknown and being out of your depth just adds to the tension.

Unfortunately all the recent RE games massively fail to deliver either of these things. The survival aspect has gone due to frequent save points and an abundance of ammo, and the horror is non existant due to the overused zombies, massive slimy mutants, and pantomime villains. Having been a fan of the early RE games i’d be happy to see capcom kill the franchise off as its become a bit of a turd.
sweetSWAGGER  +   1144d ago
I was going to include a quote from one of the Xcom devs regarding success coming from the game allowing you to fail, but I couldn't find it. Glad to see that it wasn't necessary.
Jaunty  +   1144d ago
If only the Resident Evil developers looked at Dead Space 1 and 2.... They have proven it is possible to create a modern survival horror game. Sadly it doesn't sell much and that's the reason why Dead Space 3 will be more action-oriented..

BTW it reminded me of this article.. I laughed at this, they really don't have a clue what gamers want.
MeatAbstract  +   1143d ago
I thought the first Dead Space had some mild scares and a decent atmosphere but really, I don't find Dead Space to be that scary. You get a lot of guns, a lot of ammo and you become a unstoppable killing machine.

They're well polished, well made games, they just don't appeal to me as 'survival horror's.
Games4M - Rob  +   1144d ago
Good article and interesting that you mention Dark Souls as being almost a survival horror game. Thinking about it I would say that Dark Souls really is survival horror, some of the stages are really creepy and the fear element comes from the fear of dying and losing all your hard earned souls - especially on your first play through when you dont know what is coming around the next corner.
Jaunty  +   1144d ago
Agreed, Dark Souls has some jump scares. The first time slime fell on me was really scary haha
sweetSWAGGER  +   1143d ago
WeskerChildReborned  +   1144d ago
The only way for Survival Horror to come back to the RE series is to actually build it to be a Survival horror, RE6 looked to be more action than anything.
SilentNegotiator  +   1144d ago
I think we're going to need new, up-and-coming, mid-sized, independent developers to make real survival horror. "Survival Horror" games that aren't DLC-friendly, zombie shoot em ups are considered "niche" by big, dumb corporate publishers these days.
sweetSWAGGER  +   1143d ago
Let's wait and see what the father of Resident Evil will do with Project Zwei. The simple fact that it's Shinji Mikami is enough to guarantee an authentic, true-to-form survival horror experience. And even if his game isn't all that I'll still support the crap out of him JUST to help send that much-needed message to Capcom and the rest of the industry.
e-p-ayeaH  +   1144d ago
I don't think Capcom should be addressed when it comes about Survival Horror because it never had anything to do with it.

Just certain people that were responsible for directing the games like Shinji Mikami are the ones that made that happen not publishers by any means.After he left Capcom the franchise was bound to fail to meet up fans expectations.

If you lose the mindset for certain kinds of games its bound to fail that even happened with call of duty!
#6 (Edited 1144d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
wuzhishan001   1143d ago | Spam
MacDonagh  +   1143d ago
There's a reason why survival horror has not been so prevalent this generation and it's because gaming has changed. Game development costs are rising, pressure to follow on the coattails of far more successful franchises to account for the expenditure, gamers' collective lack of desire for new IPs, and the fact that the survival horror genre has all but died in this current generation cycle. If you look at the figures, the survival horror market just doesn't have a wide enough demographic.

It makes a lot of business sense to appeal to as wide as a consumer base as possible.
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney  +   1143d ago
lol Amnesia: Dark Decent, Amnesia: Machine for pigs & now Outlast(madee by ex Ubisoft and Naughty dog devs).

"Morin told the Penny Arcade Report he wants Outlast to be a true horror game. He said he’s seen too many “action shooters with a horror setting” try to pass themselves off as survival horror, and he doesn’t want to follow that example. He wants to make a game that echoes sentiments of Amnesia and The Shining."
Good thing cod sells like crap on pc. So they can make different games.

Dead space looks like a pure action game now and is co-op just EA said it's to scary..
#8.1 (Edited 1143d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MacDonagh  +   1143d ago
@Shutupandtakemymoney PC is the platform that pushes genres forward and there is a healthy collection of horror games on the PC like the ones that you've previously mentioned. Unfortunately, the PC platform is tethered to the consoles because that's were all the money is which has resulted in games that have been bastardized to work on consoles with recent examples such as Battlefield 3, Crysis 2 etc. It's probably due to there being less piracy on the consoles, even though all the current-gen consoles can be pirated with the help of a google search. I remember reading that destructoid article you mention in your post and remembering being completely unsurprised by it. EA haven't been doing well for a long time and they have always been thinking about the bottom line more than anything else.

What has really struck me through this entire current gen is the lack of truly frightening experiences you can have on a console. The Silent Hill series has been well and truly buried. Dead Space is gonna go that way too. Resident Evil bores me now and they should've dropped the whole Umbrella thing years ago. I managed to play Project Zero 4 and that was a solid game, but it never even got released over here.

Is there even a market for survival horror games anymore? Maybe not on the consoles, but perhaps the next-gen will provide what we need.

I only have one hope left, but as the Russians say: "Hope dies last."
#9 (Edited 1143d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login