General Survival Horror as a genre?

[russident]

I can relate. If you have a merchant, then your game has an economy. And earnings in such games are related, among other things, to killing enemies who drop currency. This motivates you to kill even more enemies, which does not quite correspond to the idea of survival. In the old horror titles, enemies were not the player's goal, but were an obstacle to their goal. Sometimes running away or letting yourself get hurt was the best decision to avoid fighting and wasting resources. With economy and merchant, we just have a fundamentally different design. You can know that you will meet the boss in this zone if you go there, and you will go there because they death will be beneficial to you.

However, it's not that I don't like this type of design. If I didn't like this approach, I wouldn't like Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil Village. I just perceive them as a different type of horror games. It doesn't make much sense to criticize an artist for drawing an apple, because you wanted to see a pear.

One positive I can say about the Duke is that he's actually a character who is central to Ethan's quest. As opposed to just selling you things, he is vital to your quest through the information he provides, and he seems to, for whatever reason, be very familiar with everything that's going on with Lady Dimitrescu and whatnot. But I think he is infected too, as he doesn't seem to fully understand why he is the way he is. Or he would remember how that occurred.

Completely agree. I really like the Duke as a character, although before the game was released, I only counted on a function with a superficial "camouflage".

His interesting parts for me, in addition to the plot role, are his relation to Roman culture. Designers don't choose clothes for characters just like that, so sometimes the things that characters wear can give you good food for thought. Speaking of the Duke, my eye caught both his Roman hairstyle and his dirty Roman cloak, which is called the paludamentum. It is red in color and is tied around his hips, which some patricians could do. And even the emperors also wore cloaks in this way. Like them, the Duke also sometimes speaks in Latin.

However, the Duke clearly could not have been born before our era, because he is actually a Frenchman who sometimes speaks some French lines (he also pronounces Dimitrescu with a French accent) and has a French coat of arms. The French are a Romance language group, so from a demographic point of view it makes sense anyway, but such specific design decisions rather gives us reasons to think that the Duke is not a modern Frenchman, but someone who could have come from the time of Romanization.

Even more interestingly, among all four founders, only one of them actually has a title. And I'm talking about Cesare. In the Japanese version, he is called Duke Cesare. You know, like Cesare Borgia, who was also a duke. And Cesare is the Italian transcription of the name Caesar.

Could the Duke have been Cesare? This is a good question to think about.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

Yep. I prefer Biohazard, but The Evil Within sounds better than... Psycho Break!? LOL.

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay, so I'm making two posts before I go to bed and that's all I can do for now.

It's also more fitting to describe re games as " action-adventure " which is a real genre that wasnt presented as a marketing term before by devs rather than " survival horror " which was a marketing term that become " sub genre " by fans who didnt even create the games.

Before I get into the meat of my argument, I will say this: Action-adventure are a huge part of survival horror. However, to say the games are action-adventure reduces the horror aspect, as many people associate RE with horror, due to the inclusion of zombies, monsters, and a spooky location in most games. So when you put action-adventure into horror, you get survival horror, and when you remove some of the limitations of survival horror, you get action horror.

I feel that you are giving the creators of the games the seat of God when it comes to what happens to the games, as if they should control every aspect of what the games are and what they should be. This isnt a bad thing, as sometimes people try to say things like, "when you release it, it belongs to the fans" and then think game developers should listen only to what fans want, and then whine when they want to try something new. But to say that the games cant be something because thats not what the developers made it to be feels a bit wrong. The audience plays a huge role in the shapening of a franchise, and even whole genres. If the audience doesnt like something, it usually wont be repeated and will be ignored. However, if the audience likes it, they will then focus on it and look for it in other media. They will categorize based on this, so then other franchises will start to focus on this categorization to appeal to these fans. There is a huge amount of psychological and cultural aspects that should be looked into when pop culture is involved, and the creation of survival horror is no exception.

I dont mind survival horror being described as a sub genre in a subjective way but when the franchise is presented as " survival horror " to public in an objective way, then this becomes a problem. That statement shouldnt have presented as a marketing term in the 1st place then. It should have been created by fans alone without devs saying anything about it before the release of the game. Then saying " X is a survival horror game. " would have been more fitting. As of now; it doesnt.

I dont quite get your argument. Capcom wanted to use something that made its games seem brand new, even if by some measures they werent. So they created a brand new term. This was very successful, and influenced many people. They then saw other games like RE, and when they tried to categorize them, the first thought that came to their mind was "survival horror." Capcom chose a genius term to describe their game at the time, and fans loved it so much they focused on the term, and to call the games anything else seemed weird. As such the sub genre became known as survival horror. It doesnt really matter who came up with the term, it matters who gave it meaning, and that was the fans using their love of RE.

I see what you mean about re6 but that makes the game's fate even more tragic. It doesnt feel fair to present " survival horror " as a sub genre while not presenting " dramatic horror " as a sub genre at the same time. These decisions feel inconsistent.

Unfortunately, it isnt inconsistent. Capcom chose a term to separate it from previous games, which was smart, however they dont get to decide what becomes a sub genre and what doesnt. It still depends on the audience and their perception. If they dont view it as drama horror, then it cant be one, and if they dont have similar games to categorize it with, then it would be a game in its own sub genre. However, I would love to see drama horror. Maybe something like the story is the major factor, and the gameplay can vary drastically with few similarities, and the horror comes from what is happening in the story. Unfortunately, when I start going over ideas involving this it just starts to sound like psychological horror, or a sort of Life is Strange game style, where it becomes an interactive movie.

I hope ı'm not coming off as annoying btw, ı just care about small details as much as ı can. This discussion is fun.

You arent, this is a fun topic to debate, but I do feel you are a bit stubborn on the idea that survival horror cant be a real thing because its not specifically stated by the developers.

Now then, on to the new discussion involving merchants.

I think I am alone when I say this, but I have never really liked merchants being in survival horror games. But I can kind of understand it with Days Gone, as there's people holed up in safe zones and there's not a lot of things, which is why they have like a trading system going on where it's like, "If you scratch my back, I will scratch yours". You know? So you're basically looked upon as being the guy who does the jobs others hate, so their job is to help you out and you do your part for the communities. So that makes sense.

I don't like it in Resident Evil as much though, but I do think Days Gone is a way harder game in general. Even on the lowest difficulty, a horde you encounter can be absolutely terrifying. But in the RE universe, I always liked the idea that you got ammo through actually looking for it. I don't like how in the newer RE games, everything is there in plain sight, apart from finding it in drawers. But it's kind of obvious you're going to check the drawers anyway. But in the old games, you have to check people's corpses, or just click around until it would say, "Will you take the acid rounds?" It was way different. I kind of prefer that to how in the RE2 remake, you have a room where you get the ammo. It's just not the same.

One positive I can say about the Duke is that he's actually a character who is central to Ethan's quest. As opposed to just selling you things, he is vital to your quest through the information he provides, and he seems to, for whatever reason, be very familiar with everything that's going on with Lady Dimitrescu and whatnot. But I think he is infected too, as he doesn't seem to fully understand why he is the way he is. Or he would remember how that occurred.

Like the zombie in Day of the Dead, he still acts like a person to an extent, because he can understand things. So you gave the zombie an identity. It's rather cool, in fact.

I understand. The idea of survival doesnt really hit much when all of a sudden there is a character who provides you with essential gear. I do thin it reached a sort of balance in 4, because you can only buy so many healing items, you cant buy ammo, and it relies on you collecting resources. However, then the interview mert20004 provided becomes very important when it comes to the goals of survival horror. When enemies drop ammo and resources, it provides an incentive for combat. Survival horror tries to deincentivize combat as much as possible while leaving it an option. Therefore, 4 becomes less survival horror and more action horror. And I agree, the older way felt like you were actually looting, looking where someone before you had missed or where something was left behind in a rush. Now it just feels like it was placed just for you. I really like the Duke, and he is such an enigma because you cant understand what his real goals are, or if he truly means it when he says its for customer satisfaction. I think he actually does understand, and if he was infected that just raises the question of if he is a failed experiment, judging by his appearance, or if he is simply overweight because of his indulgences that he can partake in because of his wealth and connections. When you see him holding the jar of the cadou, he seems to be intrigued by it, and then that itself raises the question of how he got it, unless he and Mother Miranda were working together in some fashion, which makes sense since he brought outside resources into the village, something Miranda probably relied on.

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean action-adventure games? There arent any survival horror games.

I disagree, see earlier comments for details.

I dont mind monsters dropping loot upon defeated. This makes fighting them much more satisfying and enjoyable. With re4; capcom wanted a new change for the franchise by focusing on action more than adventure. I like the treasure system of re4, ı like how you can combine some of them with each other. It's alright in re5 but looking back; it doesnt have the same depth as re4's treasure system since you cant combine treasure items with each other.

I like skill system in re6 too. I have reached max number of skill points, that was so satisfying. I prefer re6's skill system over rerev2's. With rerev2's; you cant disable them once you unlock nor you can use them in creative ways. With re6; you can disable some of them and you can use them in creative ways. They feel more like fun toys that are interesting to try while in rerev2; they feel more like necessity. Re6 also has no hope difficulty that disables skills and points value are doubled. Rerev2 doesnt have the same difficulty with same mechanic.

There isnt anything inherently wrong with reqarding you for fighting enemies. However, then this becomes an incentive to fight, which reduces the survival horror factor, and pushes the game into action horror. Without the deincentivization of combat, the games are no longer survival horror, which is totally appropriate for what Capcom was trying to go for with 4-6.

The franchise is about biohazards. Since in japan; the franchise is called " biohazard " which is the actual name of the franchise. That name is more fitting than resident evil anyway. Resident evil name only fits to re1, it doesnt fit to others cause they take place in a larger scale so biohazard is a better name for entries, especially for re6 which takes place in the largest environments when compared to previous ones.

True, Biohazard is the intended name and would have been a great way for the series to have a relevant name for their franchise. But copyright issues are a mess, and unfortunately, if you want a franchise, changing the name midway wont be a good idea.

Yep. I prefer Biohazard, but The Evil Within sounds better than... Psycho Break!? LOL.

Agreed, it sounds more fitting going from a story perspective and adds a sense of dread when combined with the box art.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[ZenlightenedOne]

I completely agree with this. Horror is a subjective topic to begin with. Different people have different fear triggers and may not find a particular subject scary. Idk why games are judged by a category or type, they should only be judged by how good they are as a game

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[jillnero246]

I dont like survival horror statement that much either. I feel like it's exaggerated. For example; I think Leon's campaign in RE6 balances action and horror well. The other campaigns also have horror moments too but I like Leon's most. It's not a brainless generic action game like I've seen people claim; it's a lot deeper than people give credit for.

I checked your last statements, you posted very fascinating things about the game. I'm still shocked people say RE6 is the worst RE game LOL, I cant believe this happened within fanbase.

I'm thinking of creating a separate thread for this reply but ı want to wait before doing this cause ı would like to know if ı should do one.

I think you should. This is an open forum, feel free to post your thoughts in any way you want.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I'm back for the debate.
First off, I want to address this:

However re6 is a different case. It shouldnt be included in " survival horror " sub genre; the fans should had been more passionate and made " dramatic horror " as a sub genre while including the game in it. Due to this; ı cant care much for " survival horror " statement, ı will continue including all re games in action-adventure genre which covers them in a broader way.

You are saying you dont care for the term survival horror because a different marketing term didnt take off as well as Capcom hoped. This is a little illogical. When survival horror was first stated, the term itself took off with fans, not only because of the game. It sounded great, and through public discourse it was spread far and wide, and the popularity of RE definately helped. However, drama horror doesnt quite have the same "oomph" as survial horror, and it didnt take off, with the general reception (which was definately somewhat tainted by negative reviews from people expecting a completely different experience then what was given or alluded to) affecting the popularity of the term as well. I dont think your argument holds much water here, unfortunately.

It definitely is inconsistent. Re6's reception never made sense to begin with and people dont care about the game at all while trying to downplay it as much as they could. People should have been more open minded and made " dramatic horror " as sub genre. The whole game became a unfortunate victim to negativity back in the day.

I gave up hope at getting another game like re6 where the devs would use " dramatic horror " statement for it.

It isnt inconsistent just because you dont like the way a game was received by the general public (even if it was unfair for the game). Even if the public were huge fans of RE6 and it blew up, that doesnt mean drama horror would have become a sub genre, it likely would still have been classified as action horror because its the only game I know of that would go into the drama horror category, essentially a game by itself. Also, I have no doubt that one day the action filled games will have some sort of comeback, once general demand becomes high enough.

What ı tried to mean is people like to force their opinions as facts without any objective statements. I understand " survival horror " being stated as sub genre however it's still not a real genre like ı've seen people claim. Action-adventure is an actual genre and it covers all re games in a broader way. Including spinoffs btw which are also games, some of them being even canon. I hope you didnt forget them, especially outbreak games and chronicles games which are important storywise.

You cant really treat it as objective because categorization is always subjective, depending on information available. Even the categorization of horror, comedy, action-adventure, and romance are all subjective. We put them in these categories because of similarities, though some can be put in one or another based on your perception. An example would be The Burbs, featuring Tom Hanks. It can be percieved as either a horror movie about a murderous family across the street, or a comedy about three neighbors trying to investigate the oddballs across the street. Both action-adventure and survival horror are treated as sub genres, yet it is your subjective opinion that survival horror isnt one. Your argument for why it cant be one could easily be used to say why it is one. "I understand why people dont call it a sub genre, however it is a real one unlike I've seen some people say." And of course action-adventure applies to all of the RE games. As ive stated before, action adventure is an essential core pillar of survival horror, however it can be used for action horror as well. The horror aspect blends with action adventure as well as certain gameplay mechanics to create either action horror or survival horror. Also, I didnt forget the spin offs, I have most of them on my shelf, but I would say the chronicles games should be classified as rail shooters, the gameplay mechanic in them overtakes everything else.

My statement doesnt reduce horror and ı never said horror isnt important. Also putting action-adventure into horror doesnt always result in " survival horror " . For example dmc1. I'm gonna mention this game cause it was supposed to be one of re4's pre builds. It became its own franchise despite being in similar style to resident evil while having horror elements. However it's classified in hack and slash sub genre instead of " survival horror " . I know why they did this cause it would be too sudden for the franchise to make a dramatic change like that at that time however that statement is still wrong. There could be other examples too.

DMC is also classified as hack and slash partially because it pretty much invented the whole genre. It can easily be classified along with Bayonetta, God of War, Castlevania Lords of Shadow, and Dante's Inferno because they all share the same over the top action gameplay where the characters easily dominate on the battlefield. And of course putting action adventure into horror doesnt just create survival horror, you have to take gameplay mechanics into account. Deincentivizes combat? Survival horror. Incentivizes combat? Action horror.

As for " action horror " ; that's a meaningless statement. I dont remember it being mentioned by devs at all, it cant become a sub genre due to this. So unlike " survival horror " and " dramatic horror " which are statements that are mentioned by devs; " action horror " has no meaning.

Just include re4 and re5 in " survival horror " and re6 in " dramatic horror " groups. That would be more fitting though ı would still classify all re games in action adventure genre.

Action horror is not a meaningless statement, its essentially survival horror where you want to fight as many enemies as possible, essentially rewarding you for fighting. I cant put 4 and 5 into survival horror because they dont deincentivize combat, it openly pushes you into fighting. Kill Popokarimu, beat Wesker, and defeat the mob in the alley at the beginning in 5 and the game gives you gems as rewards, along with the gold weaker enemies drop like in 4. The games even put enemies into the direct path in most of the game, forcing you to kill them to keep going. The only time survival horror does this is with a boss fight. And again, just because devs dont mention it doesnt mean it doesnt exist or it doesnt have meaning. The meaning comes from the usage in the community, dont feel like explaining neologism again, just go back to that comment for the explantion or just google it.

Was that for biohazard only? Or for evil within too?

I was originally referring to Evil Within, but it would probably go for Biohazard too. I dont mind calling the series Resident Evil, it sounds so campy and fits the feel the first game gave in character dialogue and whole style overall.

 

[Caffeine Addict]

I don't really enjoy horror games where you cannot fight at all. But it makes sense if it's spooky, because bullets won't hurt ghosts. I guess it depends on the rules they establish within that medium, because maybe one game allows for it. But in general, you have to evade, rather than confront.

I personally prefer games with zombies and creatures, because then your goal is to learn of their behaviour, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. This means you can still use weapons, but it's about knowing what works the best for that certain foe.

This is why I like The Evil Within 2, as you have a variety of game styles. Sometimes it's about avoiding the threat, others about not fighting at all, but laying traps, and the odd shooting segment. So it doesn't get too tedious.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[Ouroboros]

I disagree. I think " dramatic horror " term is much more interesting than " survival horror " term. It has much more interesting meaning in my eyes. What do you mean with " oomph " btw? Can you explain that more if possible?

By oomph, i mean that the term has more impact. When a regular person hears dramatic horror, they either think theatrics or an emphasis on story. When a regular person hears survival horror, they think "A fight for survival". You dont have to agree on that, its very subjective and not important to the discussion.

It would become a sub genre, why wouldnt it? It's possible that games like re6 would have been released within the franchise and " dramatic horror " term would have become much more popular caused it would be used more. With re6; capcom wanted a new start while still following from past games' stories cause re5 ended an important plot point by killling wesker. However re6's reputation was ruined and the series wont follow from re6's loose ends anymore.

Action filled games are still released within gaming, ı was talking about long running franchises releasing games while using " dramatic horror " term as marketing.

As of now; re6 is still one of a kind. Tell me; which games are similar to re6? I've seen people comparing the game to call of duty or gears of war but that doesnt make sense. Re6 is nothing like those games. I dont think it's similar to vanquish either. I dont even play those franchises nor ı'm interested in them.

Not necessarily. It depends on the general reception of the term itself, too. Like i said before, even if the game blew up, its entirely possible people wouldnt like the marketing term. And true, more games could have been created to fill the possible sub genre, however it could have also been true that 6 was the last game they wanted to do action with outside of Rev2, since it was a love letter to the series as a whole. To have a second game like 6 would have reduced its value, and it would no longer have been a great love letter. 6 does have gameplay mechanics similar to Call of Duty when it comes to shooting, and I can definately see similarities to Vanquish, with the sliding, over the shoulder shooting and gameplay style in general. 6 is a one of a kind game, but to categorize it by itself seems a little much.

Action-adventure is an actual genre. " Survival horror " is a sub genre according to some people. Genre and sub genre arent the same thing. I dont have to consider " survival horror " as sub genre cause it's not the franchise's actual roots like people claim. The franchise's actual " roots " is action-adventure since that's a genre. The franchise never went away from its roots due to this.

Again, you are being objective in a subjective area. Its not some people, it quite possibly most of the entire gaming community. Its called the roots of the series because people associated the marketing heavily with the game itself, and this affected how people see as the origin of the series. And to be fair, the series in a way did leave its roots. It abandoned fixed angles, tank controls, limited saves, a wide array of puzzles, back tracking, and multiple endings.

What about outbreak games? They are in similar style to previous fixed / dynamic camera angle games. They have plenty of differences compared to past entries though.

The outbreak games still had all the essentials of survival horror. The only major differences from previous games was mulitplayer, combining random items into weapons, a viral gauge, and it broke the chapters up into scenarios. Other than these changes the gameplay was almost the same.

So it's survival horror then? Ok no need for " action horror " term; just put those 2 games in survival horror group. Again if you want to use that term; then it's your choice but ı think it's redundant.

I dont know if i should have worded it differently or if you are being facetious. I said action horror is essentially survival horror where you want to fight as many enemies as possible. Another way of putting it is Survival Horror + Incentivized Combat = Action Horror. Please dont cut off a quote off mid sentence you remove context, you made it sound redudant.

It's a different case though. " Survival horror " became a sub genre cause it was said by devs and the fans liked it so they made it one. " Action horror " wasnt said by any dev before. Sure re4 was a drastic change for the franchise, but this change didnt just happen with that game. It started as early as re2. People think the old games are same just cause of fixed camera perspective or controls even though they have plenty of unique differences from each other.

It doesnt matter if it wasnt said by a dev before, in this case the term was come up with by fans. The devs do not decide everything. Re4 was an extremely drastic change from previous games. While 2 and 3 did have unique aspects and changes compared to 1, the overall feel of the games were the same, with similar enough gameplay mechanics, design, and animation to be categorized together.

I wouldnt have minded if re4 devs used " x horror " for marketing. ( X can be any word. I'll leave that to your imagination. ) Sure they could have but they probably thought it wasnt the right time or something like that.

With re6; the devs were trying to improve in a way that's even more unique when compared to past entries. So using " dramatic horror " is one of the reasons for that.

If people want to use that term; then it's their choice. But it's not even a sub genre nor it can become one for the previously explained reasons. Due to this; it's meaningless

Those reasons you gave dont affect whether something becomes a sub genre or not. Bringing it back to noir. No director or producer EVER uttered the word noir when describing their movies before the term was created. Yet people were deeply impacted by the French critic who described the movies as such. They didnt call RE4 x anything because they didnt have to. The marketing was the name of the franchise. Resident Evil had already proven itself through multiple hit games. RE6 didnt really need the marketing either, however the reception of 5 did cost them a bit, so they tried with dramatic horror. Unfortunately it did not take off, both the term and the game itself. Due to these reasons, your argument is meaningless.

If I sounded a bit confrontational or overly aggresive at the end there, I apologize, however I felt it was appropriate to word it that way as a response to the end of the last quote I used.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why wouldnt they like marketing term if re6 blew up? I dont get it. I dont think re6 is anything like call of duty. Reorc is much more similar to cod if anything. Re6 is very unique product. Calling re6 " cod clone " is no different from calling re1 as a " sweet home clone " .

A game can have horrible marketing and still be a great game. Im not saying 6 did, but even if a game is recieved well, it doesnt mean the marketing had any impact. In the case of 1, we can tell the marketing worked because people are still using the term today. The game does take after Call of Duty in one way: Combat. The combat in RE6 feels more like a shooter game than the original, though I would personally rank the combat closer to Vanquish for the reasons I stated earlier.

No cause action-adventure is an actual genre. Survival horror is a sub genre for people. Fans are associated with small things rather than things that are more important like biohazard which is the actual identity of the franchise. The series never went away from its roots for the previously explained reasons.

Again, you are getting caught on subjectives. You say action adventure is a real genre while survival horror is a sub genre for people (I going to assume you mean some people?). Gameplay is an integral part of a game, otherwise it isnt a game, its an interactive movie like Life is Strange. While the Biohazard is the literal identity of the series, the things that make up that identity are the things that went into it. The title and major plot point are but a few of the roots of the tree that is Biohazard/Resident Evil. The originals gameplay, dialogue tone, atmosphere, etc. have all been changed as time went on. Those roots were pruned and then new roots were grafted on, then an attempt was made to reattach the older roots.

I think you should have worded differently. You didnt need to use " survival horror " term when talking about action horror. My intention wasnt to be rude either but ı apologize if ı came off unintentionally. But like ı said; you dont need to use " action horror " term. Just say re4 and re5 are in survival horror sub genre, just in different terms.

Action horror is the different term for them. Again, survival horror tries to make you avoid combat, while action horror rewards you for it. Its a dichotomy to separate the two on intention of combat. Also, you're fine, I apologise for being harsh, it just looked disingenuous, and I'm used to people being like that intentionally in politcal debates.

But the devs are still the one who make the games. They pretty much set the rules. You forgot recv btw which is also a mainline entry.

They make the rules of gameplay and story. They cant affect how the general audience percieves a game. Thats affected by a myriad of factors, including marketing, general reception, creativity, blah blah blah the list goes on for a while. I didnt forget CV, I felt the point was made with the first three games.

So how does something become a sub genre then?

The same way a genre is created. Enough similarites in a group of media are established, and fans categorize based on that. Once a large enough percentage of the audience either acknowledges the term or use it when describing the media, it becomes a genre/sub genre. A creator of media can surely creat a genre/sub genre by creating such a unique piece of media that other creators will try to make media similar to it to attract the market for it. Once enough are created, they are categorized. For example, social deduction games. The first social deduction game was Mafia, created in 1987. However, the term was not used to describe the game until later when more of the games in the genre came out, and people started referring to as social deduction games because of how the games are won.

It definitely did since they were making a very unique product. Using " dramatic horror " term was the right call.

What I mean is the game didnt require it. They were trying to compliment it with a unique marketing term. There is a possibility that if the game blew up, it would be praised for the term, however we cant know because its already over with. If a new game came out labeled as dramatic horror, then it would have a second chance, but who knows when or if that will ever happen.

 

[mert20004]

.

 

[Ouroboros]

They list these games in " survival horror " genre ( Despite the actual genre for the franchise being action-adventure. ) which isnt even a real genre. After thinking; ı can understand " action horror " being stated as sub genre. And ı admit, ı think " action horror " sounds more interesting than " survival horror " and ı feel like for marketing, they should have used that for re1 in the 1st place.

I dont think Capcom knows about action horror, nor the differences between the two. The line is very, very thin and can be confusing, plus it may be they want to market the game using the same term since it worked so well for them. Action horror does sound appropriate for quite a few of the games, though for the first 4 (1, 2, 3, CV) I cant see the term as being appropriate. In the first three, you are almost required to save ammunition, though 3 does turn this down a bit with the gunpowder system, and in CV there are areas with infinite enemies, such as the graveyard, and its better just to run. Out of the 4 of these, only 3 is close to action horror, yet it still deincentivizes combat, even offering you an out if you dont want to fight Nemesis because of how tough he is to fight (not counting the places you can get him stuck on). Action horror offers rewards for fighting, even making it mandatory to progress outside of boss fights. By these reasons, I cant consider 4, 5, and 6 survival horror. And I cant think of the first RE as actionesque either. There arent many action elements other than combat.

How is re6's combat similar to call of duty exactly? Do ı even need to mention camera perspectives which is one factor that makes them very different from each other? I used to think it's similar to vanquish but after thinking about it; no re6 isnt similar to that too. It's a very unique within gaming industry

Its though of as similar because of how fast paced the action is. Its not exactly one for one in similarity, it just has faster action than what was deemed the standard in previous games, even feeling more fast paced than when fighting gun wielding majini. Its similar to Vanquish in terms of accessibility of the environment. You can slide, dash, melee, shoot, get behind cover, target enemy weakpoints, and the feel of the story is somewhat similar to the story, but not very much.

But action adventure is an actual genre. The magazines for re1 used that genre for the game. I dont get " pruned " word. Are you trying to say that in a bad way? Basically the franchise progressing shouldnt have happened and they should have released the same game over and over instead of trying to improve while being more fresh in the process? Should ı get that?

Biohazard is the main identity of the franchise. I didnt say gameplay doesnt matter either. Sure they changed slowly starting with re2 but this made sense.

But anyways; survival horror / action horror becoming a sub genre is a fact caused it happened. What's not a fact is people using those terms to describe the franchise's genre which doesnt make sense cause the actual genre of the franchise is action-adventure.

I meant pruned as a metaphor. They took the elements I was referring to off the series for the newer games and then added on new parts, like taking the branch of lemon tree and grafting it onto the branch of an orange tree. I was using trying to use a metaphir appropriate for the situation since we were talking about the roots of the series. I wasnt meaning to imply you were devaluing the gameplay, I was just saying that the title and plot are not just the identity, there are many other factors. The genre of Biohazard/Resident is by most acounts horror. Sure there is action, but just because a horror movie has explosions and people running from gunfire, that doesnt make it an action movie. Action-adventure, once again, is an integral part of survial horror. By saying the games are action-adventure, it leaves out the horror. Survival horror implies you need to fight to survive the horror, action adventure imples fighting to survive while exploring, which I would describe the newer Tomb Raider games as. Before you say it, I'm not trying to say you are devaluing the horror, I'm only saying that describing the games as action adventure is not fully appropriate.

Thanks. I admit ı'm not actually too big on genres / sub genres. When ı play games, ı care about the fun factor 1st and foremost and see if they are entertaining. I also care about story and characters a lot. However ı had to create this thread cause " survival horror " term annoyed the hell out of me due to how it's used to describe the games. That's not a good thing.

If ı remember correctly; before buying re6, ı wanted to check some video footage and see how the game is. I've seen people having difficulty on the game not to mention the monsters looked threatening at that time. So ı played on the easiest difficulty 1st so that ı can adapt to the game better after learning it. I went with this decision due to l4d2 which ı also played in the same way though ı played re6 a lot more than that game.

Fair enough, I play the games to enjoy the story, regardless of how many people say that no one does that. If it annoys you, you dont have to call the games as such. However people sometimes do things that annoy you, and when that happens just ignore them (hint: if you want to ignore everything I've said on this thread, go ahead). Butthat does push people away when you do that, so just be careful of how you act when it happens. When I played RE6, the only thing I knew about it was a poster I had seen for Damnation in GameStop, saying you could get a copy with the game. I didnt play the game until maybe 2 or 3 years later, and I went in completely blind. Its a hell of a lot of fun, and I had a blast.

It required it and it makes re6 much more deeper than other entries in the series, at least for me. The game could have lost some of its meaning if that term wasnt used for marketing. I really like that term and ı'm getting the feeling that you're trying to downplay the game with these statements.

Im not, if anything I'm overplaying it. The game is good on its own merits, and the marketing was in the title itself: Biohazard/Resident Evil. True, the term does distinguish the game from the rest of the series, and the game did need marketing to say that. Im only saying the game went above what was necessary, and thats a good thing.

I think we are getting close to the end of the debate, though we may need a few more posts to decide that, lol. At least 6 has more love than Dragon's Dogma. STILL WAITING ON THE SEQUEL FOR THAT, CAPCOM! But thats a different discussion for a different forum, lol.