You know how most survival games start you out ill equipped and jumping at the slightest sound and eventually you're armed with a double barrel shotgun and living in a 10 story castle? Well in this game you'd always be ill equipped and scared shitless regardless of whether it's daytime or nighttime. The best weapon you'd Be able to craft would be a bow and arrow and even then chances are you're gonna die. In the daytime you have to worry about big predators for the most part and at night the smaller stealthy carnivores come out some of the smaller ones can bend light around thier bodies and become invisible and they never attack from the front they always try to stay out of your field of vision and attack from behind. It's a first person game btw. Basically you're always running and hiding. So what do you think?
A way to revitalize the survival game genre
- Thread starter Madmatty
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sounds very tedious and like it'd get boring fast. If everything always sucks and you never really improve, why bother? The first 5mins of the game are the exact same to the last 5min. I mean just cut out the crafting and its Slender by another name
Oh, revitalising. Because a lot of survival games set you against zombies, right? 
Anyway, the game you're describing sounds a bit like The Long Dark and from what I've seen of that game, it's awesome. Granted, I've not kept up and my last information is from about two years ago now, but what it did was - you're in the middle of an abandoned village in the northern wilderness (Canada? Alaska?) and you have to survive. The main villains you're facing
- are the cold - you have to gather stuff to burn to keep yourself warm. If you're out of fuel or matches, you'll freeze.
- hunger - you have to eat to keep alive. You'll scavenge whatever is left to eat in the village, then you need to hunt.
- thirst - it's there but not that much of a problem - there is plenty of snow you can thaw for water. Only water being that if you don't boil the water, it's somewhat dangerous to your health. If you do boil it, though, you are going to be using up some of fire.
- diseases - raw meat, unboiled thawed snow - not very good for you. Food poisoning can be a problem, but you can contact stuff that might kill you if untreated, too.
- wolves - they are vicious - you either have to run and hide or kill them. Ammo is not plentiful, in fact, even if you do have ammo, you might want to save it up for hunting. Oh, and you can't really tank wolves, either - even if you survive being bitten, you might die of blood loss or a disease you contact.
It looked pretty good and it seemed like you never really get "powerful" - you might just build up a bit of supplies to let you last for few days without needing to scavenge and hunt.
The premise is that you were stranded there after a plane crash or something. At the time, there wasn't much else than infinite play, so I don't know if there is even a planned end goal but presumably you might need to get rescued.
Anyway, the game you're describing sounds a bit like The Long Dark and from what I've seen of that game, it's awesome. Granted, I've not kept up and my last information is from about two years ago now, but what it did was - you're in the middle of an abandoned village in the northern wilderness (Canada? Alaska?) and you have to survive. The main villains you're facing
- are the cold - you have to gather stuff to burn to keep yourself warm. If you're out of fuel or matches, you'll freeze.
- hunger - you have to eat to keep alive. You'll scavenge whatever is left to eat in the village, then you need to hunt.
- thirst - it's there but not that much of a problem - there is plenty of snow you can thaw for water. Only water being that if you don't boil the water, it's somewhat dangerous to your health. If you do boil it, though, you are going to be using up some of fire.
- diseases - raw meat, unboiled thawed snow - not very good for you. Food poisoning can be a problem, but you can contact stuff that might kill you if untreated, too.
- wolves - they are vicious - you either have to run and hide or kill them. Ammo is not plentiful, in fact, even if you do have ammo, you might want to save it up for hunting. Oh, and you can't really tank wolves, either - even if you survive being bitten, you might die of blood loss or a disease you contact.
It looked pretty good and it seemed like you never really get "powerful" - you might just build up a bit of supplies to let you last for few days without needing to scavenge and hunt.
The premise is that you were stranded there after a plane crash or something. At the time, there wasn't much else than infinite play, so I don't know if there is even a planned end goal but presumably you might need to get rescued.
I think survival games that have a defined end state could be really appealing. Whether it's timed instances or specific activities that need to be accomplished, it could add a sense of true urgency and difficulty in your interaction with the environment. This may not be the type of survival you're looking for (ala DayZ, etc.), but I think it could be very effectively done and could be really engaging.
The PvP element could be accomplished through a lobby of 20-40 players with NPC elements to add other obstacles and dangers for the player. It won't necessarily be structured as PvP, but a struggle for resources would lead to conflict (and obviously people who want to kill just for the sake of killing).
A shorter "survival" state could be a way to "revitalise" the genre.
The PvP element could be accomplished through a lobby of 20-40 players with NPC elements to add other obstacles and dangers for the player. It won't necessarily be structured as PvP, but a struggle for resources would lead to conflict (and obviously people who want to kill just for the sake of killing).
A shorter "survival" state could be a way to "revitalise" the genre.
Ah...I thought this was going to be a, 'let's bounce ideas around and share what our ideal survival game would be' kind of thread. Yours sounds like a very harsh hide-and-seek which could be great depending on the setting and how well the stealth system is implemented. I don't really get into stealth-survival but it sounds better than zombie-survival by a mile. I'm also concerned with the endgame: What are we building towards? What is the final challenge? Is there a carrot on the end of this incredibly evil looking stick?
The best survival game will make the player feel like character is an extension of themselves, and inhabits a believable, malleable world. The problem with the old school survival horror games is that they gimped the controls to make you feel "helpless", mostly due to technical limitations of the era.
Now, we have games like The Last of Us where your character has very context-sensitive behavior, and can actually sprint for his bloody life if need be. But lets expand upon that in terms of move sets where anything you think you should be able to physically do, is possible within the virtual play space.
It would be like combining the physics of Half Life 2, destruction of BF or Red Faction, and mobility of Solid Snake from MGSV, but even more dynamically and detailed. Environmental interaction is something that needs to catch up to graphics and other window dressing. Sure, it takes more time to flow graph all that out, but the final outcome will always be worth the effort because everyone appreciates attention to detail and more organic interaction.
Now, we have games like The Last of Us where your character has very context-sensitive behavior, and can actually sprint for his bloody life if need be. But lets expand upon that in terms of move sets where anything you think you should be able to physically do, is possible within the virtual play space.
It would be like combining the physics of Half Life 2, destruction of BF or Red Faction, and mobility of Solid Snake from MGSV, but even more dynamically and detailed. Environmental interaction is something that needs to catch up to graphics and other window dressing. Sure, it takes more time to flow graph all that out, but the final outcome will always be worth the effort because everyone appreciates attention to detail and more organic interaction.
How about this: Stop making them for a while and wait until someone talented comes along and does something well or completely different and does it good. That's all I got.
I fucking hated The Last of Us. It was dull as they come, and a lot of the reason I hated it was because t never actually let me loose, blow the shit out of things, and feel like a badass.
The limited ammo & resources, whilst plentiful throughout the game, were in quite short supply at any one time due to said inventory limit, so it became fiddly and crap having to switch weapons etc. even when you were fully loaded.
Realism is slowly killing games. So long as I'm feeling good emotion thenn I'm enjoying it. Tension, excitement, fear, revenge etc. Just make the game good and make me feel those emotions throughout and I'll enjoy it.
As others have said, always being limp would get repetitive IMO
The limited ammo & resources, whilst plentiful throughout the game, were in quite short supply at any one time due to said inventory limit, so it became fiddly and crap having to switch weapons etc. even when you were fully loaded.
Realism is slowly killing games. So long as I'm feeling good emotion thenn I'm enjoying it. Tension, excitement, fear, revenge etc. Just make the game good and make me feel those emotions throughout and I'll enjoy it.
As others have said, always being limp would get repetitive IMO
To each his/her own, so I?m not attempting to sway your opinion on the game, but it sounds like the issues you have against The Last of Us are definitive of the genre and what The Last of Us did so well. Survival Horror is about making every shot count (sparse ammo,) the dread you feel as you use your last healing resource knowing the worst is yet to come (sparse resources.) I can?t think of any Survival Horror game that ever reaches a point where the protagonist is let loose to ?blow the shit out of things and feel like a badass;? that is directly counterintuitive to the intent of the genre. Maybe you were expecting something different, a Dead Rising type of game maybe, but it just sounds like Survival Horror isn?t your bag.Danbo Jambo said:
It would have to be 2-3 hours long max.
After that, the constant running, hiding and not being able to get better equipment would get annoying and people would just turn the game off.
That's why all those games where you do nothing but run and hide are so short.
After that, the constant running, hiding and not being able to get better equipment would get annoying and people would just turn the game off.
That's why all those games where you do nothing but run and hide are so short.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I feel like the best way to make a survival game is to have your character well equipped at the start, but slowly have your supplies dwindling over time.
So the end of the world happens, and you start out with weapons, and food, and a house. Then as time goes on your food starts running out and you have to start scavenging, then you keep having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies because you're picking the area clean. Your tools start breaking and you start running out of ammo so you have to figure out how to replace them, eventually you have to move to another area, and the harrowing part is moving all your stuff.
Permadeath would have to be a thing to keep things interesting.
So it would basically be like being in a real life disaster situation. You start out prepared, but how long does it take until all your original preparation starts being meaningless?
So the end of the world happens, and you start out with weapons, and food, and a house. Then as time goes on your food starts running out and you have to start scavenging, then you keep having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies because you're picking the area clean. Your tools start breaking and you start running out of ammo so you have to figure out how to replace them, eventually you have to move to another area, and the harrowing part is moving all your stuff.
Permadeath would have to be a thing to keep things interesting.
So it would basically be like being in a real life disaster situation. You start out prepared, but how long does it take until all your original preparation starts being meaningless?
Exactly. Most zombie survivor games starts off with you badly equipped to face the undead. Giving you this false sense of security as supplies dwindle makes it feel like genuine survival. See Oregon trail as well for how surviving the trek feels likeDirty Hipsters said:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
It would also cut down on the "survival fatigue" where every time you restart you have to spend a few hours just knocking down trees and punching rocks to have enough materials to do anything.gyrobot said:
The most fun part of survival games is when you're somewhat equipped, but haven't gotten so far into the end game that actual survival has become trivial. My idea would get you to that mid-game "fun part" immediately, and it also wouldn't be punishing to start new games and maps.
I mean...we could get one that freaking finished for starters. What's killing the genre is the fast influx of half assed, perpetually unfinished products being thrusted at us. 7 Days to Die has been in alpha for...what...3 years? And still no sign of a beta in the future. I think DayZ is also still in alpha after three years.
Even AAA publishers hopped on the Early Access survival game bandwagon, with Sony advocating H1Z1.
Anyway, as someone who actually does love a well made survival game, I think your game sounds like it'd get very boring, very fast, even for survival game standards which tend to end up repetitive even with their progression systems.
Games have to have something to work towards dude, even if that's something as mindless as trying to get the best equipment in the game and keeping it for longer than 2 hours (ala DayZ), or just building a really awesome fort (what I tend to work for in 7 Days to Die).
Even AAA publishers hopped on the Early Access survival game bandwagon, with Sony advocating H1Z1.
Anyway, as someone who actually does love a well made survival game, I think your game sounds like it'd get very boring, very fast, even for survival game standards which tend to end up repetitive even with their progression systems.
Games have to have something to work towards dude, even if that's something as mindless as trying to get the best equipment in the game and keeping it for longer than 2 hours (ala DayZ), or just building a really awesome fort (what I tend to work for in 7 Days to Die).