/r/truegaming is a subreddit dedicated to meaningful, insightful, and high-quality discussion on all topics gaming.
"The golden age" of survival horror is exactly what is killing it.
I love that every new horror game announced is primarily described by its similarity to either Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Amnesia, or Dead Space. Because apparently anything that isn't analogous to those 4 is some supposedly horrific cancer that's killing survival horror?
I just read about a new game described as: from the creator of Resident Evil 4, a game that combines the atmosphere of Amnesia and the action of Dead Space.
The PC remake of Dementium 2 promises the "haunting experience of Amnesia" with a "claustrophobic Silent Hill-like atmosphere and soundtrack!"
Here's an actual quote about another one: "Some say Dead Space is becoming too action-oriented, like Resident Evil. Routine is what you would get if you crossed Amnesia with Dead Space."
If you look at just about any site's list of top anticipated horror games of 2013, they proceed to (of course) feature Dead Space 3, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs. Nothing unusual there, those games look fantastic! Except that a good amount of the other members of the list invariably will proceed to whack off the magic four.
So many people seem taken with this idea that there was once a golden age of survival horror, and that the now-feeble genre is in its dying throes. The only reason for any stagnation is that we're not moving on. That's not to say that there aren't fantastic new horror games coming out. What's tragic is that they have to use old giants as crutches when it comes to marketing themselves. Games on Kickstarter and Greenlight make this painfully apparent.
We've got this singular obsession with a small few fantastic games we once enjoyed, and respond with outrage to anything different. There are only so many times we can remake Silent Hill 2 without all once-fresh ideas drying up to nothing. I can't understand why it is that horror fans seem to hate everything new. Look at what happened to Silent Hill 4, a game that was objectively excellent, when it broke pace with the traditional Silent Hill formula (menu style, unkillable monsters, an ally for part of the game.) These changes did not make the game worse in any way other than that they were different, as they were a distinct, additive part of the game's atmosphere. Silent Hill: Downpour was similarly panned despite that it was a great game; one of its critics literally said that his negative attitude toward the game was a result of it not having any of the characters from ~~~THE ORIGINAL GAMES~~~~*. (Nevermind that the "Original Games" had no real relevance to one another.)
Though to a much greater extent than we dislike things that are dissimilar, similar qualities greatly appeal to us and help sell a game. We're using old elements as shorthand for quality. The original Silent Hill is known for having a good soundtrack, so whenever a new horror game has effective soundtrack, we call it "Silent Hill-like." It's not "good--" it's Silent Hill-like!
Entire games aren't quantifiable into abstract terms like "action," "atmosphere" and "tone." If something is dark and you hear noises in the background, you could analogize it to literally any horror game. People just pick Amnesia because it is an artificial way of making their game sound good. "My game uses sounds effectively!" just doesn't sell as well or sound as good as "Remember that one time you played that game and thought it was awesome? Well this is just like that!"
I'm not saying it's impossible for a game to be good without leaning on industry giants, there are plenty of fantastic horror games that have come out over the years. My issue is that we're using similarity to these giants as selling points. You don't see "REMINDS ME OF WUTHERING HEIGHTS" and "DISTINCTLY A ROOM WITH A VIEW" on the front of new books in the romance section of a bookstore. Gritty action movies can be compared to Tarantino films, but still exist outside of that archetype.
I can't help but think less of a person for bemoaning "the death of survival horror" and craving "the games of the golden age." It's dying because we're telling developers we want the same 4 games each time. The fabled golden age IS what is killing survival horror.
The problem, as I see it, is that you can have a horror mentality or a survival system, but rarely both together. Often, gameplay depends on a cause and effect system, and guns/weapons are the cheapest, easiest, laziest way to convey that. I press X, character swings weapon, weapon hits enemy. Cause: effect.
I'm good at games, as are most of us here in r/Games. Give us a gun with 10 shots and, unless the game cheats us, we can put down 8 opponents. Far from realistic, yet perfectly in line with the universe that gaming has built up. So, as soon as I have a means to defend myself in a game, I can defend myself - and that greatly detracts from the horror.
Gaming was built on a number of genres and their particular trends. Needless to say, first-person shooters were pivotal to gaming's mainstream success. FPS' have certain tropes; one of which, the worst is that you will start with a handgun and end with a nuke. This is entirely contrary to survival horror. I can't become more powerful because this is the opposite of a learning curve... I become less terrified as the game progresses.
How do you fix this? An FPS title is about empowerment. Survival horror is the opposite, the gradual loss of strength. So reverse the FPS trope. Send me in to the haunted mansion, with a full tactical team and a full loadout of equipment. I want an assault rifle, shotgun or machine gun - whatever my chosen class is. Grenades, bit of C4 and a handgun.
As shit goes down, as it's want to do in survival horror, I spend a mag of my primary weapon realising I can't kill the beasties. Suddenly, I'm forced to run. Suddenly, I'm forced to hide. By the last level of the game, I have a handgun, if I'm careful; a knife, if I'm not careful. Suddenly, the game is truly terrifying.
Sure, if you replay the game, you know when to run and when a primary weapon should be used carefully. You know that ammo won't be dropped off a zombie (why the fuck do zombies carry ammo?!). But like most survival horror games, the value is not in replaying it and knowing where the scares come from. For a purist run, that game will fuck with everybody's heads. The first time through, you'll mess with a lot of people. "I started with a rifle, why the fuck aren't I finding any ammo?!" You're in an old, creepy, haunted mansion, my friend: shotgun ammo isn't going to be in any old pots sitting around.
There's a huge problem with a negative power curve based on the player's consumption of their own materials: it's ridiculously hard to convey.
Unless you specifically outline that your "power" is gone once you use it, you will get a large percentage of player that uses all of their ammo and equipment in the first portion of the game and then is perplexed as to why they have nothing left. Then they will put down the game, say that it sucks, and move on. The Roguelike feature of having to play a game first and fail miserably before being allowed to learn isn't something that appeals to a lot of people.
If you do distinctly tell the player that their resources are limited, then you've Resident-Evilified your game. Players can and will go through the game running away from or past all enemies they can, essentially turning your "horror" game into a "run away and figure out puzzles" game. It'll end up in much the same way as Doom/Quake games where no one uses the BFG until the final boss of the game when they know for certain that they can't be hurt from using too much ammo.
The bottom line is that negative power curves aren't fun for most players. That's why even Resident Evil has you get a pistol and a shotgun, they just make the enemy's power curve right along with you (OMG DOGS AND LICKERS OH MY). Unfortunately, you'll always have the war between people that want "run away and solve puzzles" and "scary monsters but I get to blast them all" and there isn't much of a middle ground that actually works. Of course if you do reproduce that middle ground, you've just made the same game all over again. The survival horror genre doesn't have a lot of room for gameplay variation, and we've kind of experienced it all.
I've spent my morning shower contemplating this. It's an incredibly good point, one that I neglected.
I can only think that it's time to implement and improve Amnesia's fear system. Part of why the Amnesia monsters were terrifying was their own appearance, the way ambience and sound built up to their eventual "reveal", but also the way the player character reacted when he saw them. Even a glimpse would have him packing shit and the whole "Boog-a-dah-wahhhh!" reaction, I think, very much rubbed off on the player.
The solutions are twofold:
the insanity bar, though mostly concealed, was entirely pointless - cockroaches on screen were the height of the problem. Though it made a big deal about your sanity, they didn't do anything with that. There'd need to be some... penalty. Maybe System Shock 2-style apparitions, or you'd see monsters that aren't actually there (I suddenly like this idea, because it can quickly result in the player wasting their limited ammo, as a penalty for seeing but never fighting the monsters).
Amnesia built sanity around monsters and darkness. Fuck the dark: you have a shotgun, you're not afraid of the dark. Focus on monsters and now you have a motive to use your weapon. Rather than simply lighting up a lantern to dispel your budding insanity, you need to kill monsters or shoot your gun - probably the former. How does someone in a tense, frightening situation regain their composure? Blow the motherfucker's head off.
Now there are two mechanics at play.
On the one hand, the player knows their supply limitation. "We can't give you an ammo drop while you're inside," says the departing pilot, "But there's a cache on the far side of the building. Be careful, though: it's a long way, so use your ammo wisely." On that curve, they have to be tender with their supplies. Of course, they could skip through the game, dodging (when they can - some monsters are not so easily eluded) or sprinting to avoid confrontation. The problem is, Mr Spec Ops knows that shit is behind him now. He's seen some fucked up, abnormal creatures and it's playing on his psyche. Yeah, he's got full ammo, but-- wait, what was that? Am I seeing shit?
He hasn't used any ammo. He's gamed the system! Except he's now made the game scarier for himself. He's on edge, hearing voices, seeing things that aren't there, so how does he combat his growing insanity?(and gradually decling accuracy-- damn it, in a cold sweat, it's hard to keep that rifle steady!) Time to go on the offence. Time to peak a few weak zombies to slay, for the boost to his morale. Or, perhaps it's worth picking a bigger monster - it might cost more ammo to kill, but it would grant him a far greater morale boost.
There are variables that can be used. Sanity could have a permanently detrimental effect for those who think running past everything is a legitimate option; it might simply break the character's mind entirely. Alternately, the monsters could, a la Amnesia, patrol and pursue as best they can. Hiding can temporarily block the loss of sanity, but it also stalls the player's progress and might even let patrols build up around them.
It's about striking a balance: Give them a reason to avoid fighting and to legitimately fear the enemy (limited munitions and sanity effects), but also give them motive to take the offence when they can (reducing the sanity effect, but at the cost of ammo).
This was a really good post. Some great ideas. I'm curious if you have played Eternal Darkness before? It has a sanity bar that is used heavily throughout the game.
I haven't played it. I know of it, read a lot about it, and I'm currently going through a Let's Play. Does the sanity bar kill you in that game, or does it only do the mind-fuckery?
ZombiU is a decent example on why you shouldn't tell them that resources are limited. You can get a crapload of flares, molotoves, and pistol ammo early on by revisiting an alleyway right off of the sewer entrance of the map. No risk involved.
Yet all people do is use the cricket bat because they think they are going to end up with nothing permanently and get bored. This is a result at being told that weapons and ammo are extremely scarce, which isn't particularly true throughout the game.
I think you just described my perfect survival game. I'm told Resident Evil is similar to this, but I can't play that game due to the forced perspective and god-awful controls.
I think the forced perspective adds to the tension of the game. It wouldn't have been nearly effective without it, imo. That's why RE4 never once scared me, made me jump, or anything.
And I feel like I'm the only person on the internet that actually doesn't mind the controls. :*(
Actually (and despite me hating those awfull controls), the controls are also what makes old Resident Evil frightening : you can't move while shooting, you can't 180°-headshot zombies in a quarter of second... etc. The player feels defenseless against its opponents because of those awfull controls : you could have a shotgun with a lot of ammo, but 4 zombies in close quarters were terrifying because you knew you weren't able to shoot them in time.
I have maybe 15-20 years of FPS / TPS / ARPG practice, if you give me a shottie or a handgun with really responsive controls, I will not fear anything as long as I have ammo (to be fair, a good melee attack with good controls are enough to take a lot of ennemies down) and trust me, I will not waste a lot of bullets. In consequence, you can't make me fear in a game if I have both. Old REs made me lack both : not a lot of ammo, and, more frightening to me, not being sure to be able to use it as I would want to.
Controls were actually part of the frightening experience.
Agreed. But it was nice once you got the trick of "flicking" the directional pad or analog stick and could perform headshots at least half of the time.
I just don't think anyone should pass on the older RE games simply because of the controls and the "forced perspective".. which I'm fairly certain was a design choice.
I friggin loved the old ones. Oh my god they were so good, I just want another RE like that with memorable nemesises, pun intended.
First off, cool username. Great song. Great album. One of my personal favorites and why I play bass.
Secondly I am inclined to agree. RE just hadn't been the same since 4. I liked RE4, but I didn't love it. I couldn't stand RE5, though.
Unfortunately, I was thinking of exactly Resident Evil when I wrote it. Later games in particular, but the early ones are just as guilty. Early games start you with barely anything and you depend on looting or finding gear. Hell, the last action someone does is throw you a rocket launcher, utterly killing the fear factor.
It becomes almost a joke later. They are so absolutely set on how games should work - start with handgun, find everything else - that it starts to detract from the experience. Gods know how many times the BSAA sends their elite counter-bio agents in to dangerous areas with nothing but a handgun and the hope that African villagers carry spare ammo or leave sniper rifles lying around.
I'm talking a full kit at the start, and the ultimate conservation of ammo. Maybe not the entire game, but certainly enough to challenge preconceptions that fate has left ammo exactly when and where you'll need it.
Have you checked out the reboot of RE1 for the gamecube?
I finally got over my issues with the controls, sat down and played through the entire thing. And? It's probably the best final act I've played in a game for a long time. It's not just the final act, either, though, the entire game is all about atmosphere (through the forced perspective, often you can only see a zombie in a mirror) and pacing (through the awkward tank controls, you can't easily out maneuver the enemies, you have to figure out how to best the controls first) and it pulls off both with a great degree of finesse.
Yeah, I tried several times to get through the GC remake, and couldn't get the hang of the controls. I feel like a survival horror game using awkward controls and forced perspective as a method to build tension might be effective, but it just pisses me off. In a realistic close-combat situation, you need to think and act fast, and when the controls and camera angle get in your way, that's not what I'd call a good experience.
I can understand that totally.
I recently got RE6 and at one point in Ada's campaign you have to run away from a spotlight. Which would be fine, except that the camera angle is fixed, and there are things in your way on the narrow walkway you're running along, making a rather miserable experience of the whole thing.
I don't know if you've played DayZ, but even in it's super buggy and unfinished state it managed to get both the survival and the scary aspects right if you let yourself be immersed by the game.
Every potential confrontation is very tense and I get really nervous like I don't get in any game. The thought of dying and having to start over again is truly terrifying.
My first experience with DayZ:
Checked out ARMA 2's tutorial to orient myself with the controls. Turns out, ALL THAT SHIT GOES STRAIGHT OUT THE WINDOW. My survivor's having a seizure, flailing about, ripping his pack open, trying to figure out how to get over a fence, and just kinda having a bad time. I do eventually make it over the fence, only to realize that there's a magnificent swarm of zeds now swarming towards me.
That kids, is the story of how I spent 2 hours running to Electro, only to be shot in the leg and eaten by zombies.
Yes, like I said it has many bugs and the engine itself doesn't help, especially if you're playing ArmA for the first time.
But when you learn how to overtake/ignore the bugs it can be amazing.
It was far more fun with a small group, but I haven't played in quite some time. Waiting for DayZ standalone.
omfg this is brilliant.
if anyones seen ' the gray' (movie) it plays out similar to what the above poster wrote about. he starts with a sniper rifle and ends with much less then that.
You just described, almost exactly, the unlockable HUNK scenario of resident evil 2, you start off with 2 herbs and limited ammo, and must make it through 20 rooms of progressively harder monsters without dying. It's why I think RE2 is the best of the entire series.
r/truegaming*
Not sure why you're being downvoted--do the people here not realize we are in r/truegaming, and not r/Games, as OP said?
I would pay $60 American dollars to play this game. That would be fucking amazing.
What did we ever do to you...
As far as I'm aware Amnesia never marketed itself as being anything like Silent Hill or Resident Evil and it has done perfectly fine. All it takes is some gameplay vids to get people intrigued\excited about horror games.
It does suck that reviewers can't see past those old games, but I bet now they will compare new horror games to Amnesia and Dead Space (I personally never found Dead Space to be an effective horror game, but that's just my opinion).
I think, if anything, we are in another "golden age" of horror games. Slender is another good popular example.
What bugs me is that when people claim to have the "effect of Amnesia with the action of Dead space" it's just marketers throwing buzzwords around. Amnesia is so effective exactly because it isn't Dead space or Resident evil. Most of the tense moments come because you can't kill anything and are forced to run and hide. If you had a revolver the game would be much less scary and in my opinion much worse. Dead space and Amnesia while both being "Horror" are about as different in mechanics and implementation as you can get.
Gaming as a medium is still young enough that people often try to emulate things without fully understanding why they work. The current horror games are really just seeing what works and running with it (With some exceptions). Why do you think the Resident evil 5 and 6 are so lambasted by the gaming community? Because the developers took the exact wrong lessons from 4. I wouldn't call it a golden age until people really start understanding what makes horror, horror.
Thing is, I wouldn't even class resident evil 5 and 6 as being a part of the horror genre at all. What I meant was that there has been quite a few really good ones recently, but until those there hadn't been many.
I think with Amnesia's success, devs are going to really start trying to create proper horror games now that they know if CAN be done. hopefully they take some lessons from it and expand upon it with new ideas etc instead of just making clones.
And I generally hate buzzwords of any kind :P
Dead Space isn't horror, it's just startling.
I can't stand horror at all, but I can play Dead Space just fine.
Dead Space is not meant to be super scary, but it's supposed to be incredibly creepy and have jump scares.
Perhaps they can get around this by giving you a gun but making it unable to harm certain enemies? I recall a very terrifying section in the game Arx Fatalis where you're chased by an invulnerable monster. A similar thing was done in the Oblivion total conversion Nehrim: At Fate's Edge. The sudden onset of helplessness in an otherwise traditional game was very disconcerting, even without the incredibly creepy atmosphere in games like Amnesia.
That was actually one of the few things Dead Space did well; an enemy that you can't kill, only slow down, in a game where ammunition is (ostensibly; I never had this issue, to be honest) scarce is a great fear-inducer.
I'm not saying it's impossible for new good games to make it. I'm saying that comparisons will be drawn, and those comparisons will get it more attention than anything else.
I agree with your point about how Amnesia and Dead Space have become the new comparison norms. If Silent Hill was the old prototypical survival horror and Resident Evil was the old prototypical action horror, Amnesia and Dead Space have replaced their respective spots in the world of oversimplified comparisons. ;)
I absolutely believe that this is the golden age of gaming. Kickstarter, Greenlight, Desura, Half Life 2 mods (Check out Nightmare House 2!) We have so many wonderful avenues for new games to get out there that are more than the "safe" releases that the mainstream industry has been pushing out for years now.
I will definitely have to check out this Nightmare House 2 when I get home from work! Sounds great just based on the name haha. I completely agree with you there. I feel like it took an india game (Amnesia) to really give the horror genre a good kick up the arse. Publishers don't want to risk pushing out "risky" titles, but indie games can do what they please (which is amazing!).
But yeah, I think horror games can only get better, but certain elements have remained in the games since the days of Resident Evil and Silent Hill, but I feel like they are almost needed (ie. Vulnerability of the protaganist, limited resources, puzzle elements etc) so I think perhaps comparison is unavoidable.
Also many people still consider Silent Hill 2 to be the best horror game ever made, which further forces people to make that comparison.
I think as long as we see games that try to imitate others (such as silent hill) fail, while the ones trying something new succeed (Slender, Amnesia) then things will improve. Whether that happens or not is another matter entirely.
This is the reason I was so glad Amnesia succeeded. I played Penumbra shortly before Amnesia was released and thought it was one of (if not the best) horror game I had ever played. I then desperately wanted Amnesia to succeed in becoming popular because I knew that if that succeeded, it would let publishers see that there is a market for these kinds of games, not just clones of other successful ones. And hopefully it will convince other devs to try new things in the genre.
Indie game developers are a very effective bridge for putting out new ideas. I agree wholeheartedly about industry giants going with "safer" games. Slender (which I personally hate, but that's irrelevant) did very well and got picked up by a larger studio, which is putting out a sequel with much higher production values.
Ah I didn't know that! Yeah Slender isn't a great game by any means, I just liked the idea behind it. But more so, I liked the fact it was made. Says to me that interest in horror games is on the rise again.
Youtube has a huge part in it I believe. Amnesia for instance was marketed solely through reviews and youtube vids, as the team had no money left to spend on marketing by the time the game was done. Slender is the same in terms of how it gained popularity.
I think people have to see a horror game in action to really get a feel for it. And more importantly, they need to see people genuinely getting scared while playing it :D
Check out Cry of Fear. Great Half Life (1) horror mod.
I agree about Dead Space... I always felt it was a sci-fi action game until people started calling it horror.
Just to try to convince you of Dead Space's awesomeness (and other people who claim Dead Space isn't "true horror"):
I think Dead Space (especially the first one) was a great horror experience. The atmosphere of that game was simply fantastic. Very claustrophobic, isolated, and that's not even mentioning the sound design. Very few games have matched Dead Space 1 in terms of being able to scare me out of my wits with audio alone [to new players: make sure you play Dead Space with headphones, preferably surround sound, but stereo works fine]. I like to think of Dead Space as the true sequel to Resident Evil 4 (I know the whole point of this thread is to not compare games to other games, but hear me out). Whereas RE5 went off on a more action-oriented path, Dead Space had very similar gameplay and game-feel to the classic RE games, especially 4. It is the true thematic RE5. This is reinforced by the Dead Space team admitting to basically hero worshiping the early RE's. My one complaint is that the "survival" aspect of survival horror is kind of lacking, and ammo is plentiful and health is not much of an issue. This is easily remedied by turning up the difficulty though. The devs made sure to tailor the difficulty scale to make higher difficulties more "survival-esque" if you will.
Dead Space 2 was also a very good horror experience, but was lacking in a few departments. The claustrophobic atmosphere was still there for certain sections, but overall it was kind of gone. The sound design was still fantastic, but in my mind it can't hold a candle to the first game; Dead Space will forever be my standard for sound design in horror games. Also, Isaac felt a little too much like a juggernaut. The first game had this problem too, as I mentioned, but in the sequel it seemed accentuated. Ammo and supplies are just too readily available. They also basically doubled the amount of weapons available, which isn't really what you want from a "survival" horror game. But again, as with the first one, raising the difficulty pretty much alleviates this issue.
The story for the series is also pretty compelling. It's created a nice little mythology for itself and I'm curious to see where they go with it. Dead Space 3 is definitely a must play for me, if for no other reason than story. DS3 looks like it might be going the action route as RE5 did, especially with co-op integration, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and try it out. They seem to be replacing crushing darkness with blinding light, which is an interesting design decision that could really work well if implemented correctly, but I think it'll be difficult to do. Kind of like walking on a razor's edge, design-wise.
So yeah, there's my spiel about Dead Space. I really like it :D
EDIT: proofreading and basic editing
Slender is a very mediocre horror game. I do not see how you believe that it's a good example of another "golden age" of horror games.
Its the popularity of the game i was pointing to, not the quality of the game itself.
I admire your passion, and I agree with a lot of what you say here. The problem I think is the entire concept of a "golden era" of gaming for any particular genre.
I think what you have is people who remember this insanely great personal experience they had with a specific game, and there upset they can't manage to get that exact feeling back with a new game.
I never understood this attitude myself, but there you go. Honestly with the explosion of things like Steam, Kickstarter, OUYA, etc. Gaming is branching out in so many great directions that I might as well call "this" the golden age of gaming.
Yes! You make an excellent point about how current distribution practices make THIS the golden age!
Just look at how many indie games are currently available on the services you mentioned. (I'd also check out Desura!) Even 5 years ago, it was virtually impossible for a new indie game to make it out there. And now they're all over the place! They're truly the future for new ideas in games, as they're able to experiment and gamble with innovations that the mainstream industry wouldn't touch. (Not to fault them on this; "safe" games are safe investments, and as businesses it's most reasonable to go with safe investments.)
Now, gaming is no longer limited by the financial restrictions of the past. I'm so very excited to see the new ideas pouring out! Recent indie horror games (e.g., Nightmare House 2) have trumped many of the big-name titles that have come out recently.
This will make me sound like a fanatic, but it's absolutely magical, and I'm so excited to be part of this era!
Same here.
I've never bought the concept that an indie game is any better simply because it's indie, but I do think that variety is the spice of life. The more options we have, and the easier it is for smaller companies to publish their games can only benefit gamers everywhere.
"Indie" doesn't mean better. Plenty of indie games are garbage. The ease of entering the market nowadays means that we just have a huge influx of new games. Some of them will be fantastic (e.g., Faster than Light) and others will be comically terrible (e.g., Garshasp.) The important part is that they've blown the market wide-open for new ideas to get in.
I lol'ed at the AMA yesterday - "I'm American McGee, head of the largest western-style indie game studio in China"...
He's almost ninja like in his subtly.
Comment deleted by user
I have to disagree.
The "golden age" concept itself is so vague because it can't even be defined? What exactly qualifies a stretch of time as a "golden age?" The games you listed are all good games in their own right, but I can't see it as enough evidence to declare a golden era.
Which is an opinion your entitled to, but a lot of people might take a different view. Gamers have such wide-ranging tastes that trying to define a golden era for one genre, or specific game type is impossible because they are always going to be a large chunk of the gamer population who enjoy the games you dismiss as not being worthy. I suppose if you were simply trying to define a golden age of gaming for yourself specifically, that would be different because the only criteria would be your personal experience.
Dead Space and Amnesia both came out recently and were well received. I don't know what you mean by "golden age." And you do generally see something similar in criticism of other genres. Moon and Prometheus were compared to 2001. Looper was compared to Back to The Future. Bridesmaids was called "the female hangover."
I think the problem with "survival horror" in video games is that for some odd reason we classify survival horror games on the basis of setting and plot rather than gameplay, whereas every other game in an easily classifiable genre is identfied based on what well-known gameplay model it tries to execute, and judged on how well it executes and expands that model. But for "survival horror," there is no relative model. What gameplay is a "survival horror" game meant to have? Does it have to be a TPS? IS it just and "adventure" game with intentionally crappy controls? Does that mean Metroid's not "survival horror"? Without any way to know what to expect other than "atmosphere," people tend to compare to previous greats of the "genre."
(To be clear, I'm not saying every game must be forced into one of a few distinct categories based on gameplay, but when you lump a bunch of games in with each other for no real reason, of course people are going to make comparisons.)
There's more to the classic survival horror than shoddy controls and particular settings.
I think the setting of the classic survival horror has to have a few key features:
limited or non-existent resources for defending yourself, forcing you to run from enemies some percentage of the time
non-linear game play with puzzle solving
complete lack of hand holding. You wander aimlessly and can easily screw yourself over.
The non-linear puzzle solving works in concert with the limited resources to create something magical. You know you need some kind of item to get past a puzzle, but you don't know where it is. You know there is a room with a bunch of monsters that you didn't kill, and you have to consider returning to it and searching for that key item. You don't even know if the item is in that room, and you don't have the ammo to kill the monsters, so returning to it is a hard choice.
These sorts of choices were common in the classic survival world and that sort of thing is rare in modern horror. My favourite memory of Amnesia is when I left the wine cellar panting with horror, only to later realize I'd missed one of the key items that was hidden in there. "You mean I have to go back!? Nooooooooooooooo". If it were modern horror I'd probably have killed the wine cellar monster so returning would be a breeze, or followed a series of objective markers from key item to key item and would never have missed that item in the first place, and this moment would have been lost.
Comment deleted by user
Seriously. OP makes some good points, but all I could think while I read the post was, "If you think survival horror's stuck in the past, try being into JRPG's."
Many RPG types have suffered the same fate. I was always a fan of the top down fallout/planescape: torment type RPG and while a ton were produced between 1997 and 2003 Almost none with the exception of the dragon age games have been produced recently.
Heh, agreed.
Some good ones are coming. Fire Emblem Awakening looks really good at least.
I get your point though. Not a lot of good ones have released recently. I'm still looking forward to Lightning Returns to finish my FFXIII series. If you're into the series you might as well check out the last one. I feel that if Square-Enix isn't making any RPGs then hardly any JRPGs get pushed out. I don't hear too much of other Japanese companies making too many RPGs.
I think that many games have benefited greatly from advancing technology. Shooters especially-- nobody ever talks about "the golden age of shooters" because they've gotten strictly better with time in terms of responsiveness, realism, and other important mechanics. You don't see people calling Spec Ops: The Line "Perfect Dark with psychological elements!" even though Perfect Dark was huge back in its day.
Platformers have not benefited much from technology's advance. 3D platformers (e.g., Sonic Adventure 2 or the Pacman World games) have not done nearly as well as mock-2D games like Donkey Kong Country Returns! Because there's no inherent advantage to technological advance, platformers are largely sold on the ideas and mechanics behind them-- much like puzzle games.
The current trend in platformers is a mock-vintage, retro format. A lot are indie games that can't afford to animate much else, which is totally fine by me. Indie games are carried on the strength of their ideas and not on anything secured by their budgets (e.g., graphics, sound, etc.), so there are tons of developers able to get their platform games out there. I think that a big reason for their aesthetic is economic necessity, but platformers have always been made-or-broken by their mechanics.
While I agree with your comments about survival horror, I've played more games that genuinely frightened me over the past year that I have in my life. Mainstream horror is stuck in a rut, indie games on the other hand... it's something else: Dungeoneer, Ib, Slender, SCP Containment Breach....
Kickstarter, Greenlight, HL2 mods, etc. have absolutely opened the door for indie developers to get their products out there. While industry giants have incentive to make "safer" games, indie developers can really branch out with new ideas and innovations. And it can really pan out! Slender got picked up just recently by a larger studio for a sequel, for instance.
no shit?! Ah that's brilliant
Although, part of the draw of that game is that it's bare bones and cheap. Wonder if it'll work as well with all the extra spit and polish...
http://youtu.be/tenpLSKU-9U Cheers :)
CTRL+F "SCP Containment Breach", have an upvote :)
A few points:
Thanks for mentioning Silent Hill 4. Fantastic game that gets completely shat on for straying from the Silent Hill formula, which I've always found enfuriating since it has one of my favourite stories in any game I've ever played. Not to mention how well it handles tension and pressure.
Completely disagree with your point about Downpour. I really do like Downpour but the negative reception didn't just stem from a "lack of familiarity" and your counter-point that it was just "a great game" doesn't really hold any weight either. Despite having noble intentions, the game chugged like shit, had infuriating glitches (bloody fishing rod), a few boring areas (the mine especially) and a terrible ending-determinant system. I thought the frustrating criticism was when it was actually shat on for not conforming to the style of newer games and labelled as outdated.
Dead Space is an extremely poor example of a horror game because it's so action-orientated. Not to mention it doesn't really have any detractors as of yet.
Honestly, I think survival-horror is, at present, quite a niche genre and underdogs like Dementium II are simply using the bigwigs as frames of reference to try and engage people who only have a vague interest in survival horror. Would I be more likely to look into a game that compared itself to Amnesia/Silent Hill? Hell, of course I would. That's an unfortunate truth and it's always going to help things sell.
I'm pretty sure the issue with riding coattails is present in almost every game genre (most notably gritty military shooters and gritty 3rd person military shooters)
Perhaps most importantly, the reason for stagnation doesn't only lie with gamers craving "the golden age". Making an original IP is incredibly difficult in itself now that games have become so expensive to make. Now take horror, a genre that even in its prime wasn't extremely popular. Imagine trying to market a new horror IP in this day and age! Guillermo Del Toro's inSANE is the absolute best example of this. Even with his name attached to it it's still been canned and he's still looking for new developers. Your points are perfectly valid but there are plenty of other reasons for the decline/obscurity of survival horror that lie with developers and publishers.
Or because those are fantastically popular games which the majority of gamers (i.e. potential customers) at least know about, if they haven't actually played them.
I only played my first Resident Evil game a few months back but even before that if you'd described a game as being "like resident evil" I would have known what you meant.
Sure you do. Maybe not compared to those books in particular but books get compared to other, more well-known books because people want to know what to expect when they buy something.
It was the same with open world/sandbox games for a long time. They were all "like GTA but...".
If you move a little away from these archetypal games in a console direction, you will find some really good (japanese) horrors like Fatal Frame or Corpse Party.
I'm enjoying ZombiU at the moment, it's the first survival horror I've enjoyed since RE 1 & 2. The atmosphere is thick, intense and really makes you think and plan as you move around. It's not a perfect game by any means but damn is it stressful and fun at the same time.
I finished this game last night and I completely agree with you. I have described this game as first person RE2 without the puzzles.
Edit: as soon as I submitted I realized that I am guilty of what OP was saying. Sorry OP I really like your thread and I will try to do better
I think that's a bit of a testament that what OP is saying definitely has some truth to it. I can understand people comparing games to give others a general gist of what its like, but sometimes its best, but certainly not easiest, to just try describing it in your own words.
Definitely agreed.
And also, most of the times when you die in ZombiU, it's probably your fault - I know that the reasons I've died have ranged from:
being in the water when zombies are near (hands are busy holding up your backpack, so virtually defenseless)
being stupid enough to shoot a kamikaze at a close range
not equipping a medipack or any health item to heal myself
almost stupidly missing the swings of my cricket bat
dropping a mine in close proximity to yourself
tossing a grenade, only to have it bounce back off a wall and nail you
carrying a gun with little to no ammo
It emphasizes that once you're properly prepared, you're able to take on almost anything that tries to kill you.
Plus when you get a little bit too scared (like I did during the Tower of London), you can always run back like a little bitch to the safe house. Retreating can be great for many reasons.
This element of survival horror in ZombiU just works because it caters to not only the brave, but also the weak who are trying to be brave.
This is wonderful to hear, thank you! I went to a WiiU press event this summer and remember loving the hell out of ZombiU. I don't have the money to pick up a WiiU yet (broke college student), but I'm really excited to hear that the full game is just as good as the demo!
No worries, that's just my experience with the game so take it with a grain of salt.
I couldn't really afford a WiiU either but I got everyone to chip in at Xmas and I paid the difference. I either got it then and wait for the games I want or potentially not until next Xmas—which I didn't like the sounds of! Good luck, I hope you find a way to get one soon.
ZombiU is probably the only or one of the only true survivor horror games to he released since RE1 and 2. When I think of survivor horror now I think of ZombiU. It really puts you into that position of helplessness that you would be in if it was actually real. You wouldn't just grab an AK and start mowing zombies down. You hardly ever have a gun and you'd have to rely on melee weapons (like the handy dandy cricket bat).
Your characters permanently dying and being able to kill their zombified corpse to get your stuff back is a really nice touch. ZombiU is so underrated. I've heard people complain that survivor horror is dead and they trash the elements of ZombiU that make it a perfect example if a survivor horror game.
Why confused me the most is how does condemned not get to the top of this list? Insanely atmospheric, great story, horrifying scares second to only Amnesia, and yet it doesn't get mentioned as a top horror game? This I will never understand. Maybe it's just because the franchise seems to be dead.
Totally agree. And spoiler alert: In the 2nd one you fight a fucking grizzly bear.
Crossposting this from the r/survivalhorror post, posted to the wrong one.
The "fabled golden age" is not what's killing it, nothing's killing it, it's alive and well, it just, unfortunately in my case, took a path that I, and fans of earlier survival horror titles, disagree with. This is not going to stop Dead Space 3 or Amnesia: Machine for Pigs from selling well. Both of those franchises have brought a lot of people to the survival horror genre.
You mention this a few times, but Silent Hill is one of the franchises that does actually have an iconic sound to it. It's a mixture of haunting melodies with industrial dissonance. Akira Yamaoka did a fantastic job on each of the soundtracks and it's not surprising to see them mimicked.
The entire purpose of this sales blurb is to try and hook people in, regardless of their familiarity with the genre. If they said that Routine was Rogue crossed with Echo Night: Beyond, would you know what I was talking about? Would you imagine that people who are not die-hard survival horror fans or indie enthusiasts to be "sold" on the idea? I don't, but you can be sure as shit that if someone says "Amnesia meets Dead Space" they know what to expect.
Barring the literal HD remake, Silent Hill 2 is a game that has never been replicated. It's flawed in many ways, but what it does well, it does extremely well. I've never known another game, even a Silent Hill game, that has come close to capturing the same kind of mood, atmosphere, characters or setting. If you know of a game that does, I would absolutely love to hear about it, as that's pretty much my holy grail, but it's not something I'm aware exists.
I'm sorry, but it's not objectively excellent, that's your subjective opinion. Silent Hill 4 was panned more than it should of been as it is actually a good game that took a fresh approach to the franchise (mostly because it wasn't originally intended to be a Silent Hill game), but it's endgame was horrendous. Not only did it recycle environments (but backwards! woooaaahhhh!), but it forced you to do it while on an escort quest. And the less said about the burping nurses, the better.
Silent Hill 1, 3 and Shattered Memories all had characters in common. 1 and 3 being directly related, SM being a reimagining.
The entirety of this post is bemoaning the death of survival horror because of marketing. The genre is not dead or even dying, it's just changed.
Also, your definition of the "Golden Age" spans such a long timeframe here. Amnesia was released 2010, Dead Space was 2008, Silent Hill was 1999 and Resident Evil was 1996. That's 14 years, spanning 3 console generations. The tropes have changed over that time, 10 years ago it wouldn't have been uncommon to see Alone in the Dark in that list, or perhaps Clock Tower or any number of hugely successful survival horror games.
This sounds like less a problem with a specific 'golden age' of horror (you mention games released in a 12-year window) and more a problem with lazy marketing.
Gaming as an artistic medium is still very young. We haven't properly defined genres, and strangely enough, horror is the one genre that isn't defined by the mechanics used.
However, I will point out a small personal opinion here: Dead Space is in no way a horror game. It's just an action game with a horror soundtrack.
Comment deleted by user
Dead Space may not be strictly horror, but it does create a sense of tension and foreboding with its use of atmosphere, soundtrack and pacing, involving a lull in the action. That tension is ramped up if the player is playing a difficulty that is appropriate to their skill level, allowing ammo to be scarce, health to be low, but not actually dying too frequently, as nothing kills the tension quite like reminding the player that it IS in fact a game, and have nothing to worry about. Throw on top of that the occasional regenerating/invincible enemy, and the tension is palpable, and therefore I would classify it, at least partially, as a horror game.
Dear Esther fits nicely under the genre "sleep aid". It literally put me to sleep twice while playing it.
Thechineseroom is working with Frictional to make A Machine for Pigs, hopefully they can redeem themselves.
I heard they were more than just working with Frictional. I think they've developed the whole thing.
You really hit the nail on the head. I wrote a response to famousninja that expresses the same point. Also, famousninja's argument about genre is brilliant! Thank you for showing it to me.
Horror is pretty subjective, even in movies. Slasher films are described as horror, but I don't find gore to be particularly scary; gross, and nasty, but not scary. What scares me is what I don't know, or can't see. I find ghost and hallucinations to be scary. Serial Killers are scary because they exist, but in movies I feel like they aren't that creepy compared to reading about them.
I can see that dead space is action-like, but can also see why it's described as horror (Atmosphere, and gross monsters, and a more powerful entity that can't be seen.) So it's like you said, it's a genre that isn't based on it's mechanics exactly. But I feel that atmosphere and sound are some of the best things that the genre has going for it.
I think what's being forgotten and is missing now is the survival aspect. Take RE4 for example, it's much scarier the first time through, why? Well because I actually had to worry about running out of ammo. But the second time it's all about shooting them up with the Tommy gun. Being vulnerable or having no escape or alternative to danger is possibly the only universal thing that can scare people. It's part of the reason Amnesia was so terrifying. You couldn't shoot the monsters, you had to hide. It was like being a kid and needing to hide under your covers, with no option but to hide and hope for the best.
In my opinion the downfall of modern horror games is that they've forgotten how to appeal to our psychological fears, and go for more jump scares. RE isn't scary if I have guns out the wazzu and partner, it's scary being alone, and being surrounded by sounds you can't distinguish. Amnesia is scary for you have two enemies, the dark and the monsters. I find that psychological fears are much more powerful than physical fears, like blood and guts.
I see where you're coming from with Dead Space, and I really like your point about how horror is not mechanistically defined. :)
My opinion on it is this. As you play an action game, you get increasingly proficient at the game's controls. You level up your guns and character and learn more advanced maneuvers to keep you a step ahead of your adversaries. You progress by increasing your control over the gameworld.
Horror games function by taking away that agency. You can't fight, bullets are scarce, monsters are too strong. You are out of your element and have to depend on your wits to survive. The success of the horror game is dependent on maintaining tension. You cannot ever be made to feel comfortable.
I played the Dead Space games on the highest difficulty, and still felt like I had mastered the gameworld fairly early on. I didn't have any real sense of panic, as I had learned how to fight efficiently with the guns I'd learned to use best. The logic behind the horror of Dead Space was that you were dropped into an absurdly terrifying world full of intrigue and monsters. You were a stranger forced into action, and had to desperately fight to turn the tide when you were clearly on losing ground.
That quickly passes. You get your gun. You level up your suit. You get more guns. You level up your guns. If you stick with the Plasma rifle, which is pretty much all I ever needed, you level it to max before you're halfway through the game.
After that, it's a simple formula of walking into rooms and blasting off limbs, and formulaic is the worst thing a horror game can be. It began to rely heavily on jump scares just to break that monotony, like it knew it had lost.
I thought Dead Space was a great action game, but it very quickly stopped being a horror game.
Well, if you define it that way then you've already won your own argument with yourself. It's basically circular reasoning. Dead Space is not a horror game because horror games do things differently than Dead Space. I'm not really convinced.
IMO Dead Space = M-Rated Metroid. There is tension and isolation, but it's not like survival horror or anything where you're more hopeless and barely able to survive.