Do you think we can resurrect the survival horror genre?

[Mikejames]

Psychological/horror has always been a niche genre, which is a shame considering all they can do with it. What's scary is subjective, but I'd like to see more stuff that isn't afraid to play with your mind. Something that delves into into darker parts of the psyche has more impact for me than just trying to kill all the zombies you see.

Well I thought Silent Hill Downpour was a pretty great survival horror...

Hey, I enjoyed it.

Yeah, it lacked polish and didn't have the impact of some of its predecessors, but judging by its own merits I thought it had its moments.

 

[Studsmack]

A thread just in time for the Halloween season!

Speaking as someone who is currently working on a game like this, I can sympathize with a few developers though. It really is not easy to make a world and goal of a game and simultaneously not have frequent combat to slow the player down. You then have to resort to either puzzles or long cutscenes or some sort of collecting mini-game and those are just as easy to fuck up. Of course, some devs choose to slow the player down artificially with bad controls, and those guys I have no respect for, worst cop-out there is.

The way we're handling it, is through injuries (from the few times you do meet "the monster", if you aren't careful) and both puzzles and story-driving cutscene content. I find that to successfully make a game like this, if you choose to try and keep combat sparse, then the solution to not making the game a speedrun is a combination of different things. I don't like collecting minigames though, whether it is for ammo-purposes (or batteries --> looks at Alan Wake) or for some completionist agenda, I find them cheap.

And to the OP: This genre is having a renaissance right now. I don't know if you're aware, but there are several projects in the making.

First off, I applaud you, sir! The reason I think the genre is thriving through the indie outlet is because the genre itself appeals to that niche audience. Big publishers like EA (Dead Space), Konami (Silent Hill), and Capcom (Resident Evil) don't want to limit those games' audience to a niche market. EA with their multiplayer hard-on, Capcom with their quest to coax Michael Bay to gaming, and Konami... well, because Konami's being Konami.

The irony of it all is that these IPs all got their footing and recognition thanks to these audiences it's alienating. Ultimately, the problem is most (and I said most, not all) of us continue to throw money at these franchises for nostalgia factor.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

It seems like it's still around. Survivor Horror is like heavy metal: it's not dead, it just went underground. Indie devs are keeping it alive.

 

[omega 616]

We as a community need to all work together to rez one genre at a time, and Survival Horror is very low on the priorities list.
Platformers are most important.
Turn based strategies come next.
Point and Clicks after that.
If there's time, maybe we do survival horror.

After super meat boy I think the genre is rezzed.

Turn based never really went away 'cos it's never been that big, I think the series that got it big was FF and now that is moving away from turn based 'cos everybody complained about it.

Point and clicks? They should never come back! I'm going to mix a pen and an umbrella so I can make this laser gun work. They always turn into clicking everything on everything.

Survival horror has never really had a pulse, resident evil gave birth but even it got turned it a macabre version of uncharted.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

It needs big publishers to stay the fuck away, Dead Space was doing fairly decently, even if Dead Space 2 was leaning a little too far on the action side, it still felt kind of creepy at some points, which is about as much as I need to ask from my horror games. But then EA decided to get in there and demand that it attract a larger crowd.

Same thing with Resident Evil, RE 4 was a little too actiony as well but still had a great atmosphere and was fairly tense, but Capcom decided to just turn it into another generic shooter series.

Either AAA publishers need to just step back and let developers make their games, or we need to rely on the indie scene to provide our scares.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I agree that Resident Evil was a straight up action game, but at least for a part of it they kept an eerie atmosphere. The cemetery, the forests, the dark clouds, the old castle, the invisible enemies in the underground catacombs and all that. It was an action game and it was more fun than scary, but it didn't lose the atmosphere completely.

I didn't feel too much from it, to be honest. Just my viewpoint though. I feel the action was just too unbalanced to what I was used to from the series. I heard that Resident Evil 6 may return to some of the series roots, though whether or not that's true I won't know for a little while.

I have a quote for just this situation.

So, I just unlocked Ada Wong's story this morning and am currently halfway through Chapter 3 (of 5) of her campaign.

Boy was I surprised.

Ada's story is much more reminiscent of the Raccoon Trilogy than Leon's story is. To list a few examples: You have no AI partner and Agent Hunt is disabled, ammo is hard to come by as her weapons tend to use large amounts of rarer ammo (Ammo Box 50 using 50 handgun rounds, which comes in packs of 10 for example), a lot of the enemies have to be avoided because they're too numerous and too powerful to fight directly, there are a number of extremely arbitrarily locked doors that require puzzles, backtracking, or both to open (Such as a door that requires you to see the 'real' painting hidden inside of another and then using the symbolism present in the 'real' painting to replicate a picture using various panels), the old school RE camera kicks in at times, etc.

Just sayian.

'Course, this quote was from a while ago and I've since beaten all four campaigns on Professional difficulty. I liked Chris' the most in Normal, but liked Leon's the most in Professional. Probably because Leon's was easy because zombies are sad while Chris' was hard as balls what with every J'avo being some kind of super soldier from hell in Pro difficulty. There's also the fact that despite Chris being a Captain in the BSAA and having the most military-focused story out of the four, Chris has the worst weapons out of all seven protagonists for some reason. He lacks a heavy hitter (Having the weakest sniper rifle and no magnum, while the grenade launcher really isn't that good despite it's ammo being merely uncommon as opposed to rare-super rare), which makes it a huge pain to fight stronger BOWs. At least Piers gets the strongest sniper rifle in the game, so he has something...

Buuuut I'm getting off topic!

 

[Nouw]

I'd predict that at least one big company will see the phenomenon that slender became, and attempt to re-create that style of horror on a bigger budget.

Will they be successful? Hopefully. If a big company gets horror right and it sells, I might finally get some horror on consoles.

If it's priced at $60, don't expect it to be half as successful as Slender. Hell, if it's priced at all don't expect it to be as successful. Sure, it's going into the mainstream but I don't think people are ready to make that jump and commit money into having such an experience yet.

 

[Yopaz]

I agree that Resident Evil was a straight up action game, but at least for a part of it they kept an eerie atmosphere. The cemetery, the forests, the dark clouds, the old castle, the invisible enemies in the underground catacombs and all that. It was an action game and it was more fun than scary, but it didn't lose the atmosphere completely.

I didn't feel too much from it, to be honest. Just my viewpoint though. I feel the action was just too unbalanced to what I was used to from the series. I heard that Resident Evil 6 may return to some of the series roots, though whether or not that's true I won't know for a little while.

Oh you're right, there wasn't a action horror balance. It was an action game that had an eerie atmosphere. I think the atmosphere might not have seemed eerie since the action keeps you from stopping and analysing it. It's only in retrospect that I see it so it's not an effective eeriness.

 

[Dethenger]

I'd say games like Amnesia and Slender have already begun resurrecting it. Slender became viral and hopefully that encourages people to play other survival horror games. Part of Slender's success was that it was free and easy to access so I'd hold off making big-budget games for now.

Amnesia, definitely. Slender, on the other hand...

Atmosphere played a gigantic role on both games, obviously. But Amnesia (as I understand, having not yet played the game) has puzzle elements and actual gameplay. Slender, being more of a proof of concept demo (and therefore free of charge and easily accessible), was more atmosphere than gameplay. All you did was walk around and look for drawings while Slenderman chases you.
In that regard, Amnesia will help establish survival horror's place in gaming. It was a survival horror game. Slender, for better or for worse (probably worse), will contribute more to Slenderman as an IP than it will the survival horror genre, maybe pushing Hollywood to try and make a Slenderman movie of some sort.

OT:
Right now, if a AAA developer wants to make a AAA survival horror game, they'll be looking at games like the aforementioned Amnesia. Maybe they'll take Slender as it was meant to be: Proof-of-concept, and we'll see a much larger, hopefully better, depending on how well the developer handles it, Slenderman game in the works. However, it doesn't matter how skilled a AAA dev is at making survival horror games if they don't have the driving force to make it. Publishers need proof that survival horror games are popular enough to invest in. So if we want a truly scary AAA game, we'll have to prove to them we want it, but I don't know if the market for this is big enough to warrant a full-priced, AAA game.

It never died, it just evolved. Into action games with monsters and jump scares.

The problem with the survival horror games as a whole is that it is a niche genre that not everyone is into. I for one just can't handle them.

Not just video games, this applies to horror as a whole. I mean, unless you're really into this sort of thing, we essentially have one month a year set aside for horror (I purchased Amnesia in July, but I'm only getting around to playing now). I can't say you're planning to watch a scary movie this month, but I can say confidently you weren't planning to watch one in May.
EDIT: As it is, most people are only willing to even get a scary game if they can do so for cheap. You could get Amnesia and like six other games for seven bucks over the summer. Then you have games like Slender and SCP-087 that are entirely free. "Pants-shittingly terrifying" probably won't cut it for $60.

 

[Nouw]

I'd say games like Amnesia and Slender have already begun resurrecting it. Slender became viral and hopefully that encourages people to play other survival horror games. Part of Slender's success was that it was free and easy to access so I'd hold off making big-budget games for now.

Amnesia, definitely. Slender, on the other hand...

Atmosphere played a gigantic role on both games, obviously. But Amnesia (as I understand, having not yet played the game) has puzzle elements and actual gameplay. Slender, being more of a proof of concept demo (and therefore free of charge and easily accessible), was more atmosphere than gameplay. All you did was walk around and look for drawings while Slenderman chases you.
In that regard, Amnesia will help establish survival horror's place in gaming. It was a survival horror game. Slender, for better or for worse (probably worse), will contribute more to Slenderman as an IP than it will the survival horror genre, maybe pushing Hollywood to try and make a Slenderman movie of some sort.

I disagree. I think Slender has helped the genre by opening the eyes of the public and making them feel more comfortable with the concept of such a game. I'm already recommending games like Amnesia and Penumbra to my friends that enjoyed playing Slender. While Slender isn't a great innovation or a contribution to the genre, it will help in a less direct way. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Yopaz]

It never died, it just evolved. Into action games with monsters and jump scares.

The problem with the survival horror games as a whole is that it is a niche genre that not everyone is into. I for one just can't handle them.

Not just video games, this applies to horror as a whole. I mean, unless you're really into this sort of thing, we essentially have one month a year set aside for horror (I purchased Amnesia in July, but I'm only getting around to playing now). I can't say you're planning to watch a scary movie this month, but I can say confidently you weren't planning to watch one in May.
EDIT: As it is, most people are only willing to even get a scary game if they can do so for cheap. You could get Amnesia and like six other games for seven bucks over the summer. Then you have games like Slender and SCP-087 that are entirely free. "Pants-shittingly terrifying" probably won't cut it for $60.

I've never actually thought about that, but you're right, it is more of a seasonal thing and with movies this work just fine because people will watch it in theatres around halloween and network channels will send horror marathons around that time of the year. You've given me a new perspective on this.

 

[Yopaz]

I'd say games like Amnesia and Slender have already begun resurrecting it. Slender became viral and hopefully that encourages people to play other survival horror games. Part of Slender's success was that it was free and easy to access so I'd hold off making big-budget games for now.

What Amnesia has done is prove that low budget survival horror games can be successful. What Slender has proven is that people will download free stuff.

Amnesia cost about 360000 to make, which is about 5-15% of what the big companies spend on their titles. An AAA game would have to sell almost 10 times as many copies just to break even, while Amnesia did in fact manage to bring in 10 times more from sales compared to the cost that's still just about what it takes for an AAA game to cover the expenses.

I believe part of its success comes from the fact that it's a budget title. Quite a few of us wait for games to drop in prices before they buy them because paying the full price might not be worth it. I somehow doubt people would have been as quick to buy Amnesia if it had been sold for the same price as the newest Call of Duty. Selling at a third of that gives it an edge.

 

[FalloutJack]

Survival Horror needs to be less about sudden shocks and more about KNOWING that you're in deep shit and that there is something around the corner stalking you. It needs a good worrysome atmosphere that keeps you on your toes, but not one that isn't simply aggravating.

Spoiler: Allow me to explain why I think Extermination is a good survival horror game.

Okay, the acting is bad, but the situation is solid enough. What do we have? A research laboratory with a mysterious growing infestation which goes from a bit problematic to "WHAT THE HELL?!" as soon as your partner is transformed into a hideous mutant, his whole cell-structure re-written as though his body exploded from the inside, growing outwards into this...this thing!

Slowly, you learn that the infestation of little parasites - those things that've wandering around, spitting at you - are the carries of an infectious form of life that re-writes DNA upon reaching a critical infection level, giving you the concern of how infected you are in the game in addition to the things which you will face...which are other people who have been transformed into monsters.

So, you know going in that there are parasites and mutants, and that even the walls are starting to grow stuff, and that you are not immune yourself. You are trying to get to the bottom of this mess in a breeding pit at the bottom of the world. Nasty. Worse, and weirder, when you find out that water is a catalyst, so every time a monster goes over a puddle...it gets stronger.

Yes, the virus lives and propagates over most anything, but especially in liquids, hence people and animals turning into monsters. But then also...water literally acting on its own, even attacking you. Oh, and remember the fact that i said that the walls sstart getting fleshy-stuff on them too? And the floors and the ceiling? Well, the place slowly gets overtaken by this stuff as the game progresses. It drops in more parasites, makes obstacles, and also... Well, I don't know how it happened, but somehow it must've reached out and started growing through people, EATING THEM FROM THE INSIDE.

The whole game is {A} a rescue mission, {B} a mystery, and {C} a fight for survival in a hostile environment. And man, do I MEAN hostile environment!

 

[Nouw]

I'd say games like Amnesia and Slender have already begun resurrecting it. Slender became viral and hopefully that encourages people to play other survival horror games. Part of Slender's success was that it was free and easy to access so I'd hold off making big-budget games for now.

What Amnesia has done is prove that low budget survival horror games can be successful. What Slender has proven is that people will download free stuff.

Amnesia cost about 360000 to make, which is about 5-15% of what the big companies spend on their titles. An AAA game would have to sell almost 10 times as many copies just to break even, while Amnesia did in fact manage to bring in 10 times more from sales compared to the cost that's still just about what it takes for an AAA game to cover the expenses.

I believe part of its success comes from the fact that it's a budget title. Quite a few of us wait for games to drop in prices before they buy them because paying the full price might not be worth it. I somehow doubt people would have been as quick to buy Amnesia if it had been sold for the same price as the newest Call of Duty. Selling at a third of that gives it an edge.

While that is true, I was just trying to get the point across that Slender became viral and has piqued interest for the survival horror genre. I do agree with you that price and budge, i.e. money, is a big factor.

 

[Yopaz]

I'd say games like Amnesia and Slender have already begun resurrecting it. Slender became viral and hopefully that encourages people to play other survival horror games. Part of Slender's success was that it was free and easy to access so I'd hold off making big-budget games for now.

What Amnesia has done is prove that low budget survival horror games can be successful. What Slender has proven is that people will download free stuff.

Amnesia cost about 360000 to make, which is about 5-15% of what the big companies spend on their titles. An AAA game would have to sell almost 10 times as many copies just to break even, while Amnesia did in fact manage to bring in 10 times more from sales compared to the cost that's still just about what it takes for an AAA game to cover the expenses.

I believe part of its success comes from the fact that it's a budget title. Quite a few of us wait for games to drop in prices before they buy them because paying the full price might not be worth it. I somehow doubt people would have been as quick to buy Amnesia if it had been sold for the same price as the newest Call of Duty. Selling at a third of that gives it an edge.

While that is true, I was just trying to get the point across that Slender became viral and has piqued interest for the survival horror genre. I do agree with you that price and budge, i.e. money, is a big factor.

It's not only a big factor. It's the only factor. A publisher will consider the potential for profits before thinking that it will make consumers happy. They might look at the success of Amnesia (since that game actually made money) and think, "oh, Amnesia made almost 4 million dollars, that's about a 5th of what we paid when we developed Resident Evil 5, clearly it's not a safe investment to make a survival horror game at this time".

Survival horror is a genre that just doesn't adapt to the increase in development costs because it's a narrow niche. Survival horror might be able to live and thrive through the indie developers or Kickstarter projects, but nothing indicates we'll see it appearing in the AAA industry.

 

[alphamalet]

With the industry's current infatuation with action-oriented games, answer is no. If the industry smartens up, and people are willing to pick up a game that will make them *gasp* use an ounce of their intelligence, then it could make a comeback.

 

[Flames66]

I think The Dead Linger will make a good start at this, if they make it good.

 

[Something Amyss]

We don't need them to do it to their own work, we have EA for that. YAY! Cheapshot on EA this makes me popular on the internet right?

Unfortunately, they just make everything cover based and possibly first person.

 

[Something Amyss]

What made those games so good wasn't the action. It was the atmosphere.

The atmosphere that came almost entirely from the need to deal with graphical limitations and poor controls.

Why would you want to play something that resembles action game #65745847654545487549 anyway ?

Good question. Why would I? Do I, personally?

 

[Jdb]

I think Routine is survival horror's best bet. Let's see:

Takes place on a mysteriously abandoned moon base.
Non-linear exploration.
Enemies are robots.
No HuD. You'll have to be completely aware of both your character and surroundings.
Your only equipment is a multi-purpose tool gun.
No health packs.
Permanent death.