I believe so.
Horror is a theme , and is perfectly possible to have many variations of it (seventh guest could be considered, puzzle horror, for example). Horror is a broad genre.
Survival horror is a specific sub genre where the struggle for survival is not only a main mechanic(like many non-horror games), but a key element in how the horror is delivered to the player.
right on the goddamn head
for example evil within for me is SURVIVAL horror
you start with a pistol and a melee attack, (i havent gotten to far in so excuse me if im wrong) the game is VERY stingy about ammo drops and you feel the weight of using a bullet
i remembered there was a dock in one area and i thought "wow i wonder if theres a easter egg refering back to the resident evil 4 lake easter egg
and then it hit me i only had 3 bullets and didnt want to waste them shooting the goddamn lake
this was a long drawn out way of saying the difference for me is in horror your thinking about whats coming up next but in survival horror the game makes you focus on whats going on right then in the moment
"Survival" as a genre sub-type means that players have to work with limited resources to achieve their goals. Not being able to "survive" is a possibility, which means player might have to retry the level and waste less ammo and spend less medkits in the process (or something along these lines).
Edit: Of course, it can be argued that many different types of games feature situations where player (or his intergalactic civilization) is poor and miserable, but survival games epitomize it and become "scrooge simulator" (and not the rich duck kind).
I think the difference is where the horror stems from. In a horror game your helpless against the creature or environment so naturally the horror stems from these things. In survival horror the horror stems from your need for necessities, what am I going to do once I'm out of bullets or what am I going to do once the batteries in my flash light die.
The way I see it, the main difference between Horror and Survival Horror is your ability to fight back. In a Horror game, like Amnesia, you're expected to avoid any and all conflict with the spooks out trying to get you. In a Survival Horror game, like Silent Hill, you're given the tools to combat whatever evil they toss at you, but it's still meant to be spooky.
I think its important to mention that those tools are usually very limited. Instead of being helpless right from the start like Amnesia, I think survival horror thrives on the feeling of being prepared one moment, but having one mistake take all of your safety nets away from you.
Amnesia is a survival horror game, but it can be said that all survival horror games are horror games, but not all horror games are survival horror. Horror just means the game has scary themes, for example bioshock.
I consider "Survival Horror" a classification for games where player-agency is de-emphasized, like Amnesia, Slender, and a lot of other indies. These are games where you are trying to survive, not fight back. "Horror" games are action/FPS with horror as the style and mood, like newer Res Evils/Silent Hills, L4D, etc. While games don't necessarily classify themselves along those lines, that interpretation seems better rooted in the history, and more intuitive in speech.
Agreed! This is how I differentiate survival horror and horror games. And there is a difference because I can play horror games, but am terrified of survival horror games :)
I see it as the opposite.
Survival Horror is a genre where the fate of the player depends on himself instead of the game magically protecting him/her around, keeping enemies away, keeping their resources always plenty, etc. Instead, everything that affects the player's success is given to the player to take care of, hence Survival. There are other Survival games that aren't Horror though.
Also, Amnesia and Slender are not Survival Horror, they're just Horror.
survival horror is an engrish term japanese marketers came up with for resident evil.
horror is a theme and there are horror games of all genres - third-person action games like resident evil and evil within, adventure games like sanitarium, etc.
to further clarify - the vast majority of games are survival games. because if you don't survive you can't win. survival is a meaningless modifier - imagine "survival FPS" or "survival fighting". the only reason to use the term "survival horror" - out of habit, because you like how it sounds, out of respect for the OG of horror games (yes I know resident evil wasn't the first horror game, but it was the one that launched the theme into popularity)
I watched a video that Alan Torres, a freelancer for Kotaku made about how mods vastly improved Mass effect Andromeda for him. The video is a couple months old now but in it he said: "Mass Effect Andromeda is pretty good with the caveat heavily modding it helps". Which makes me wonder: What other "bad" game benefited from being modded?
I'm not just talking about quality of life mods, like the Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch for example, because who can argue against that? I'm more or less asking for mods that improved the game for you overall.
The first (and only) game that I heavily modded was Fallout 4. What I installed made up for the short comings that the game has. I have quest mods, new weapon mods, multiple follower mods, new and unique follower mods, dialogue mods even one that totally transformed my home base Sanctuary into something truly spectacular. The various mods made the game from a strong 7 to a strong 10 easily.
I thought this would be a good place to ask, apologies if it’s too simple of a question.
I swear everywhere I look I see people complaining about the Witcher 3’s combat. “It’s awful”, “the story is good but the combat is terrible”, “the gameplay was enough to put me off the game”, “the controls are clunky”. It goes on and on, but I never really see a decent explanation for this.
After playing a few different combat systems that were somewhat better than your standard game (namely I enjoyed metal gear rising’s combat, DmC5’s combat, and obviously dark souls combat). It’s clear that the Witcher 3’s combat is quite simple, but when you burn down any games combat system, it (with the exception of a small amount of games) usually ends up being the usual simple mechanics of dodge, block, parry, light attack, heavy attack, etc, with a few different supporting systems. This is exactly what TW3s combat is, and it never felt clunky or terrible to me. Again I know it’s nothing special, but I can never understand the amount of hate it gets, anyone care to explain it to me?
I'm playing Horizon Zero Dawn and it...feels like I've played this before. We've got Witcher 3-style semi-procedural animations, the AC stealth mechanics where you can kill 10 guards and just hide in a bush, a bunch of dialogue choices that don't make any difference, the GoW-style ability tree. And this isn't to hate on the game, I think the execution is fantastic and the stealth and robot fights in the game are super satisfying.
All that said, the core thing about this game was discovering new dinosaurs and fighting them. But I explored too much of the world, I've stopped seeing new robots, and now all the "wow" moments in the story aren't even hitting anymore because I've done these fights before. We had all this hype for the main metropolis and it's literally a lifeless backdrop. The story keeps splitting into paths and losing its momentum.
I'll try to find the motivation to get back into the game and focus on finishing the story, I know there are more robots left to find. But this game would have been much better executed like God of War -- a linear experience with tightly controlled pacing, where you can really feature the new enemies and mechanics, and giving players the chance to explore after the fact. In any case, this genre needs to die and be reborn as the BotW genre.
I visited YouTube gaming out of curiosity and I saw ark was trending with 70k viewers and all the top channels and I mean literally all but like 2 of them are japanese and each channel has 10k+ - 5k+ viewers.
I remember this game getting such bad reviews years ago and I heard it got popular after some updates but I never imagine it got this popular let alone with the japanese audiences.
edit : for the record, no this wasn't a while ago here's a screen shot I took just minutes ago of it trending in Japan https://i.imgur.com/LdpwyIa.png with 60k+ viewers, it seems like its dropped 10k in the last hour in terms of viewers but it was at 70k earlier.
It’s been on my mind for quite a while now. PlayStation were the ones who pioneered high quality mobile gaming with the PSP. But ever since the vita became irrelevant as the new generation came about. The Nintendo switch has become more successful than the Vita and the PSP ever was.
Also do you think Sony will try and make another portable gaming device? What do they need to do to compete with the switch?
Have you noticed that no one like ever brings up the topic of a double A dev? Its honestly pretty weird, as the classifications are just either indie or triple A; black and white with no gray area; that gray area being the games that have more staff and funding than an indie game, but doesn't have enough to meet AAA standards. Many times, I see people just classifying these AA games/devs into indie studios, really blurring the lines...
This makes it really hard to nail down what an double A game/dev implies, as even some of studios call themselves indie studios when they are already past that point. So, I want to get a conversation going about this topic, with some questions to better gauge where people stand on this. You don't have to answer all or any of them, as there are here merely as a jumping off point.
What do you consider is the minimum/maximum size is of a double A dev?
What are some devs that should be considered 'AA'?
What are some games that should be considered 'AA'?
Do you think that having double A devs/games classified as indie devs/games ends up hurting the indie scene?
Like for example, while I can't give you like a size that I think is that a double A studio, I will say the game that comes to mind that applies to the AA group is Remnant From the Ashes. Its definitely much higher budget than an indie studio, but definitely lacks that content and overall polish of a triple A game. Its not bad by all means, but its a perfect example of the what the AA market provides.
This post is just some food for thought so I'd love to hear what you think!
I know many people are interested in ps5 and xbox series x and want to upgarde from ps4 and xbox one later this year
.. As the hardware is really good , the games that are shown are coming 1 to 2 years later
Halo infinite for delayed
Deathloop got delayed
spiderman miles Morales ( dlc ) it is not a full big spiderman game as first part was
demon souls is kind a remake
horizon forbidden west's are coming but in 2021 / 2022 but is same as old game
4k 60fps is questionable for many games
project athia that looks awesome is still just a project don't know it will ever release
hellbalde 2 by Microsoft is awesome but they didn't show anything , looks like it is not coming during launch
The other games that have massive appeal and audience such as call of duty black ops cold war , far cry 6 , Assassin creed Valhalla , Cyberpunk 2077 are available on other platforms also nvidia launching new gpu looks like these titles will play better on those gpu and pc
Also there is no proper information about which old gen games will get patch for xbox series x , ps5 and how it will improve the graphics and performance nothing is shown
no price is given
// I think both gaming machines will be awesome for everyone , but I think they didn't show anything Interesting , groundbreaking as the hardware is really great on next gen gaming
may be next gen gaming will make sense in late 2021 or 2022
What do you think ? How much are you excited and interested ?
I've watched my step dad, my dad, my ex and a few other people who aren't used to 3D games play. So this is just what I've observed from watching their hands.
When I game, the left analogue stick is almost always pointed forward. I use the camera to turn and the left stick just keep me moving. Think of it as a car. The left stick is just acceleration, the camera is steering.
People who are new to 3D games don't do this. They try to move left and right with the left analogue stick which is a lot harder to do in combination with keeping the camera steady than if you were just using the left analogue stick to move forward and the camera to turn.
So if you see someone struggling, share that with them. Keep the left stick forward, move around using the right stick. Turning the camera to look left and right while you're moving forward will cause your avatar to move in whatever direction you're looking. Change direction with your eyes, not your feet.