tl;dr version at the bottom.
Survival Horror is one of my favorite video game genres. The feeling of being alone and helpless while at the same time fighting for your life is something very few games have been able to capture. Recently however many developers have lost sight of that because they slowly began to realize it is a niche genre; it doesn't sell millions of copies and it appeals to a specific audience because let's face it, not everyone wants to be scared in a video game. With Resident Evil 6 on the horizon Capcom looks to follow their previous success with Resident Evil 5 and to some extent Resident Evil 4.
Resident Evil 5 sold very well in 2009 but it was met with mixed reviews. Some people loved being able to play cooperatively with a friend while killing hoards of grotesque enemies and others felt like Capcom had completely abandoned what had uplifted the franchise in the first place. It was a fun game, sure but it wasn't Resident Evil. Dark and narrow corridors were replaced with open spaces and a lot of monsters. What's worse is that feeling of being alone was replaced with a friend who could pull you out of the fire at any given time. I wasn't afraid in Resident Evil 5, not in the slightest, and as a whole the game suffered. You could argue that Resident Evil 4 wasn't that scary because you had Ashley with you for most of the game. It's a valid point but the thing is Ashley couldn't shoot a gun. I hate escort missions as much as the next person but it did add an element of fear. If she died it was game over so you constantly had to be aware of your surroundings and her safety.
But who's to blame in all of this? Surely the critically acclaimed and best seller Resident Evil 4 had nothing to do with it. Well yes and no. The genre needed to go in a new direction but it also needed to go in the right direction. On paper Resident Evil 4 is a great 3rd person shooter with a mix of action and horror but it wasn't a great survival horror game. You were given an arsenal of weapons and ammo to dispose your enemies with and you could see what was right in front of you. Suspenseful? Yes. Scary at times? Yes. But being suspenseful and somewhat scary doesn't make a scary game. Having to watch over the President's daughter while facing the worst the game had to offer was scary but it wasn't enough. The problem here was that the game had an identity crisis but an identity crisis that laid down the foundation for future horror games to come.
Konami has also lost their touch with their ever-popular Silent Hill franchise. What was once one of the most frightening franchises in video game history is now a mere shadow of it's former self. You see survival horror was never meant to be mainstream (as much as everyone wants it to be) it's one of those genres that is met with a cult following. With Konami trying to mainstream their franchise and sell millions of copies they lost sight of what actually made these games good. Let's look back at Silent Hill 2, the game had clunky controls, a horrible menu screen, and suffered many graphical limitations; Hell the story itself was a mess. In short it was ugly but ugly was it's charm (just like the first Resident Evil). Where it lacked in tight controls and beautiful graphics it flourished in other places such as atmosphere, setting, and characters; the game was downright creepy. The fog was a much needed element in the game because it kept you from seeing what was up ahead (adding an element of fear) but it also masked it's graphical limitations (aka draw distances). Fast forward to 2012 and you have a dying franchise with games like Homecoming and Downpour. Not only were these games bad, they were hardly scary. Konami saw the recent success of Resident Evil and practically said they need to be more like them; which meant more focus on combat and game play and less on horror and atmosphere.
What was the biggest slap in the face with fans of the franchise was the re-release of Silent Hill 2 and 3 in HD. "But wait, re-releasing classics for current consoles is a great idea! You can't screw this up the blueprints are already laid out right in front of you." Wrong. While it was an excellent idea because let's face it those games needed a slight update, the execution was a disaster. You know when a game has problems when it needs to be patched just so it can be playable when you first buy it. But wait there's more! How about we change the voice actors from the originals too! Or even better, let's reduce the fog which kept the game's atmosphere in tact that also hid the really ugly spots! And where's the film grain? Do you see where I'm going with this? It's like Konami told their developers to re-release a game and the developers had no idea how to properly do it. Did they even play these games? The evidence shows it was highly doubtful.
Here's a tip for developers: When you re-release a game or remake it keep in mind of the direction the original was going for, change some things if needed but don't stray too far from what works. A perfect example is Resident Evil (REmake) for the GameCube. Not only was the original story line pretty much intact, it also underlined certain details that helped explain the later installments such as Albert Wesker's involvement and the creation of the Nemesis virus with Lisa Trevor. The game was also beautiful (but still scary) and it helped make up for some of it's downfalls. You were given a limited arsenal of self-defense weapons that you could use at your discretion for enemies that would get the jump on you in those tight corridors. The tank controls were still there but those controls were solely implemented to work with the fixed camera angles. Speaking of fixed camera angles, they were a nuisance but they also were a good idea for it's time. They helped with the pre-rendered backrounds by allowing them to remain detailed while at the same time keeping it far enough so that the player wouldn't easily see it's imperfections.
Some may even call it a movie-like experience where the audience couldn't easily see what was around the corner. And not being able to see what was ahead made it scary. And just when you veterans thought that you knew what to expect Capcom throws you a curve ball aka Crimson Heads or V-Acts. Remember that zombie you killed earlier? Did you blow off it's head or limbs? Did you burn it? I'm assuming you didn't your first time because of all the bullets you unloaded into it's rotten body, well good news that same zombie is back with a vengeance ready to tear your face off with it's new found claws and speed. Those guys were scary because not only were they dangerous but the only way you could be rid of them was through decapitation or incineration. Players had to manage their fuel wisely as they were in short supply and head shots were pretty unreliable unless you had a shotgun or magnum. A lot of people would say these mechanics were dated and overused but developers did have a good idea on how to scare the player.
And then there's Dead Space. This franchise has a lot going for it: it's dark, scary, visceral, and it plays games with the protagonist's sanity. You don't know what's real and what the protagonist conjured in his own head. On top of all of that these games play very well even by today's 3rd person shooter standards. But after hearing that EA plans on having multiplayer (which was in Dead Space 2) they are also going to have cooperative multiplayer. I'll say it again: cooperative multiplayer. Why do I need to play a scary game with a friend? I'm pretty sure I emphasized that being alone and helpless in a survival horror game is what helped with the element of fear. Once again these publishers fail to realize that when you establish a franchise that is supposed to be scary it needs to stay scary. We have enough 3rd person shooters out there we don't need any more games trying to emulate their successes. I didn't play Dead Space because I wanted to play another run of the mill 3rd person shooter. I played Dead Space because I wanted to feel fear in a science fiction/horror setting. When developers implement these kind of mechanics they also tend to lose focus, by which is the emphasis on a solid single player experience.
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair in which my high expectations for these games haven't been fulfilled. Resident Evil 6 and Dead Space 3 haven't even been released yet; but I'm already skeptical with the direction they've been going towards. Sure we have the classics of years past and the more recent Amnesia the Dark Descent but we need more than that. Developers need to step up and bring back the best that survival horror (and horror games in general) has to offer back into our homes. Niche genre or not, the gaming public has seen it's fare share of first and third person shooters.
tl;dr: With the emphasis on action and suspense, the survival horror genre is slowly decaying. Games aren't as scary as they used to be. The inclusion of co-op isn't helping.
Your thoughts and opinions? For more check out the link under my profile.
Survival Horror is one of my favorite video game genres. The feeling of being alone and helpless while at the same time fighting for your life is something very few games have been able to capture. Recently however many developers have lost sight of that because they slowly began to realize it is a niche genre; it doesn't sell millions of copies and it appeals to a specific audience because let's face it, not everyone wants to be scared in a video game. With Resident Evil 6 on the horizon Capcom looks to follow their previous success with Resident Evil 5 and to some extent Resident Evil 4.
Resident Evil 5 sold very well in 2009 but it was met with mixed reviews. Some people loved being able to play cooperatively with a friend while killing hoards of grotesque enemies and others felt like Capcom had completely abandoned what had uplifted the franchise in the first place. It was a fun game, sure but it wasn't Resident Evil. Dark and narrow corridors were replaced with open spaces and a lot of monsters. What's worse is that feeling of being alone was replaced with a friend who could pull you out of the fire at any given time. I wasn't afraid in Resident Evil 5, not in the slightest, and as a whole the game suffered. You could argue that Resident Evil 4 wasn't that scary because you had Ashley with you for most of the game. It's a valid point but the thing is Ashley couldn't shoot a gun. I hate escort missions as much as the next person but it did add an element of fear. If she died it was game over so you constantly had to be aware of your surroundings and her safety.
But who's to blame in all of this? Surely the critically acclaimed and best seller Resident Evil 4 had nothing to do with it. Well yes and no. The genre needed to go in a new direction but it also needed to go in the right direction. On paper Resident Evil 4 is a great 3rd person shooter with a mix of action and horror but it wasn't a great survival horror game. You were given an arsenal of weapons and ammo to dispose your enemies with and you could see what was right in front of you. Suspenseful? Yes. Scary at times? Yes. But being suspenseful and somewhat scary doesn't make a scary game. Having to watch over the President's daughter while facing the worst the game had to offer was scary but it wasn't enough. The problem here was that the game had an identity crisis but an identity crisis that laid down the foundation for future horror games to come.
Konami has also lost their touch with their ever-popular Silent Hill franchise. What was once one of the most frightening franchises in video game history is now a mere shadow of it's former self. You see survival horror was never meant to be mainstream (as much as everyone wants it to be) it's one of those genres that is met with a cult following. With Konami trying to mainstream their franchise and sell millions of copies they lost sight of what actually made these games good. Let's look back at Silent Hill 2, the game had clunky controls, a horrible menu screen, and suffered many graphical limitations; Hell the story itself was a mess. In short it was ugly but ugly was it's charm (just like the first Resident Evil). Where it lacked in tight controls and beautiful graphics it flourished in other places such as atmosphere, setting, and characters; the game was downright creepy. The fog was a much needed element in the game because it kept you from seeing what was up ahead (adding an element of fear) but it also masked it's graphical limitations (aka draw distances). Fast forward to 2012 and you have a dying franchise with games like Homecoming and Downpour. Not only were these games bad, they were hardly scary. Konami saw the recent success of Resident Evil and practically said they need to be more like them; which meant more focus on combat and game play and less on horror and atmosphere.
What was the biggest slap in the face with fans of the franchise was the re-release of Silent Hill 2 and 3 in HD. "But wait, re-releasing classics for current consoles is a great idea! You can't screw this up the blueprints are already laid out right in front of you." Wrong. While it was an excellent idea because let's face it those games needed a slight update, the execution was a disaster. You know when a game has problems when it needs to be patched just so it can be playable when you first buy it. But wait there's more! How about we change the voice actors from the originals too! Or even better, let's reduce the fog which kept the game's atmosphere in tact that also hid the really ugly spots! And where's the film grain? Do you see where I'm going with this? It's like Konami told their developers to re-release a game and the developers had no idea how to properly do it. Did they even play these games? The evidence shows it was highly doubtful.
Here's a tip for developers: When you re-release a game or remake it keep in mind of the direction the original was going for, change some things if needed but don't stray too far from what works. A perfect example is Resident Evil (REmake) for the GameCube. Not only was the original story line pretty much intact, it also underlined certain details that helped explain the later installments such as Albert Wesker's involvement and the creation of the Nemesis virus with Lisa Trevor. The game was also beautiful (but still scary) and it helped make up for some of it's downfalls. You were given a limited arsenal of self-defense weapons that you could use at your discretion for enemies that would get the jump on you in those tight corridors. The tank controls were still there but those controls were solely implemented to work with the fixed camera angles. Speaking of fixed camera angles, they were a nuisance but they also were a good idea for it's time. They helped with the pre-rendered backrounds by allowing them to remain detailed while at the same time keeping it far enough so that the player wouldn't easily see it's imperfections.
Some may even call it a movie-like experience where the audience couldn't easily see what was around the corner. And not being able to see what was ahead made it scary. And just when you veterans thought that you knew what to expect Capcom throws you a curve ball aka Crimson Heads or V-Acts. Remember that zombie you killed earlier? Did you blow off it's head or limbs? Did you burn it? I'm assuming you didn't your first time because of all the bullets you unloaded into it's rotten body, well good news that same zombie is back with a vengeance ready to tear your face off with it's new found claws and speed. Those guys were scary because not only were they dangerous but the only way you could be rid of them was through decapitation or incineration. Players had to manage their fuel wisely as they were in short supply and head shots were pretty unreliable unless you had a shotgun or magnum. A lot of people would say these mechanics were dated and overused but developers did have a good idea on how to scare the player.
And then there's Dead Space. This franchise has a lot going for it: it's dark, scary, visceral, and it plays games with the protagonist's sanity. You don't know what's real and what the protagonist conjured in his own head. On top of all of that these games play very well even by today's 3rd person shooter standards. But after hearing that EA plans on having multiplayer (which was in Dead Space 2) they are also going to have cooperative multiplayer. I'll say it again: cooperative multiplayer. Why do I need to play a scary game with a friend? I'm pretty sure I emphasized that being alone and helpless in a survival horror game is what helped with the element of fear. Once again these publishers fail to realize that when you establish a franchise that is supposed to be scary it needs to stay scary. We have enough 3rd person shooters out there we don't need any more games trying to emulate their successes. I didn't play Dead Space because I wanted to play another run of the mill 3rd person shooter. I played Dead Space because I wanted to feel fear in a science fiction/horror setting. When developers implement these kind of mechanics they also tend to lose focus, by which is the emphasis on a solid single player experience.
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair in which my high expectations for these games haven't been fulfilled. Resident Evil 6 and Dead Space 3 haven't even been released yet; but I'm already skeptical with the direction they've been going towards. Sure we have the classics of years past and the more recent Amnesia the Dark Descent but we need more than that. Developers need to step up and bring back the best that survival horror (and horror games in general) has to offer back into our homes. Niche genre or not, the gaming public has seen it's fare share of first and third person shooters.
tl;dr: With the emphasis on action and suspense, the survival horror genre is slowly decaying. Games aren't as scary as they used to be. The inclusion of co-op isn't helping.
Your thoughts and opinions? For more check out the link under my profile.
