Survival Horror

I wanted to create this thread cause it deserves to be created.

Why do people care so much about " survival horror " to begin with? It was just a marketing term back for re1, it never had any objective meaning while not being a real genre at all. Like what does " survival " word even mean? Try to survive? Well you do that in all re games you play, both mainline and spinoff. Doesnt this make all re games " survival horror " ?

With re6; the devs have used " dramatic horror " statement for the 1st time and " dramatic " word is much more meaningful than " survival " word. What that statement means is they wanted to focus on story, drama, characters and emotions with the game more than previous entries. It's more easier to describe " dramatic " word than " survival " word which is quite vague.

I also dont get the " I'm a fan of survival horror. " statement. How can people be a fan of a term that is meaningless to begin with? " Action " and " horror " words arent meaningless so saying " I'm a fan of action. " or " I'm a fan of horror. " is fine but saying " I'm a fan of survival horror. " is quite awkward.

People also care so much about action and horror as well as stuff like exploration, inventory management, decision making etc.

Like all re games have action elements and all re games have horror elements. It was always a mix of these 2. No re game in the series is " %100 action " or " %100 horror " . You cant measure action and horror with percentages like that anyways, ı tried to do this in the past cause ı've been wondering about survival horror and ı regret it.

As for " exploration, inventory management, decision making " ; these are terms created by fans, not by devs. According to " fans " ; all re games must have insane focus on these. If it doesnt; apparently it's not a " real re game " cause it isnt " survival horror " .

Take re6 for example. This is the most bullied game in the series and ı've seen people criticising the game just cause it doesnt have " exploration, inventory management, decision making " even though it does. It's just that the game is extremely streamlined in these aspects which makes sense storywise if one thinks about it. However people dont seem to care and make awkward statements about the game instead.

Stuff like:

1. It's a good game but not good re game.

2. It's so bad it's good.

3. You can enjoy it but it sucks.

4. You can only enjoy it in specific way.

5. You can only enjoy 1 or 2 campaigns while disliking others.

6. It's not re and you're not a fan if you like or enjoy it and say it's good.

I've seen these statements for re6.

I've also seen people who care so much about " survival horror " trying to downplay story and characters at the same time. This is done the most for re6's drama as well as story and characters. With statements like " Who cares about story in re games? " or " Who cares about characters in re games? " . These statements are said just to exaggerate that meaningless term. Apparently devs do since they've been hiring writers to work on the games' story scripts. The only times the devs didnt seem to care about story are remake and re4. In terms of the laziest one; ı have to go with remake cause it's a recreation of re1 but no writer is hired. With re4, the devs hired a writer ( haruo murata who previously wrote outbreak games. ) who wrote separate ways portion. Remake still didnt get the same treatment to this day. Odd since remake is presented as one of the best by fans. I said this cause of the " Re4 ruined the franchise! " statement even though remake didnt have a writer hired either. That statement doesnt make sense.

I just feel like the devs made a big mistake by using that term to market re1, that caused players to make wrong statements about the franchise since the start.

Objectively; re games are about biohazards, NOT survival horror. Cause the franchise's actual name is " biohazard " and in japan, that's how the entries are called. Makes sense really since capcom is a japanese company and og japanese script is more canon than official localization which is filled with mistakes.
 
Resident evil has always been action-adventure series, not " survival horror " series.

Speaking of re6; ı've also a statement like " ultimate horror entertainment " said for the game. What's wrong with that anyways? It lives up to its name. If it wasnt " ultimate horror entertainment " ; then ı wouldnt have played the game for more than 6000 hours. I dont even skip cutscenes cause they are so entertaining to watch.

As of now; ı have more than 6500 hours on steam.
 
I think part of it was because Resident Evil was the first game to be called survival horror, though not the first survival horror game. Capcom coined the term when they created the first game, so ultimately it would become part of the series' identity when they created the sequels using the same gameplay. Remake is praised highly due to the fsct that when compared to 4, it focused on the aspects that many fans were used to, due to it being in most if not all entries when Remake came out. Survival horror has to be one of the most loose genres of games, due to the fact that not all of the cores of it have to apply for the game to be survival horror. Those aspects you listed are some of these core ideas, but they are a common theme for most if not all survival horror games, though some focues on different aspects rather than a balance of them. For example, Left 4 Dead can be called a survival horror game due to fact that combat is something you want to avoid thanks to the hordes of zombies and tougher creatures, yet it also gives you infinite ammo for the pistol and there are checkpoints where you can pick up ammo for most weapons. It has some inventory management but its mostly deciding what three weapons you want to carry and what type of healing item you want. Resident Evil has changed throughout the years, yet its always contained a large aspect of survival horror throughout each entry, not counting Umbrella Corp. Resident Evil 6 has a few of the core elements, but they are kind of subtle when you arent looking closely. While combat is sometimes essential, sometimes you have to make choices to either make combat easier or earn more prizes. For example, Bloodshots and Chrysalis. If you shoot zombies with red eyes in the head, then you have to deal with a tougher enemy, but you earn more points. In tougher difficulties it would be something you would want to avoid since it hits much harder than regular zombies, and you have to use more ammo to kill it than on easier difficulties. However, it also lacks much inventory management similar to Left 4 Dead. While yes, the games are about biohazards, that is more of the lore/setting. People are more focused on gameplay when it comes to Resident Evil (I dont like it either, I love the story and background stuff but people either ignore it or want scares instead) since the first two games put the story in the background mostly so that players would focus more on what they wanted to do, and then it eased more into the story until 4, when the story is saved for small cutscenes here and there, then ultimately jump into the story in 5. I think it would be a bit unfair to say the games have always been action adeventure, since most of the ganes dont focus too much on actual action. Sure, 3 started incorporating action aspects into the game, but it still falls under horror thanks to the monsters, body horror, scares, and general uneasiness players get when first playing through the dark halls or hearing a strange noise, like in the sewers in 4. The survival aspect has been eased for a few of the games, but it is still there in all of them in some manner.
 
Outlast can also be called a survival horror game, because hide-and-seek is the protagonist's means of survival in horror.

Resident Evil 6 can be called a survival horror game, because it has some mechanics and design features from previous horror titles.

But if you put these two games together, it is unlikely that you will say that they are similar. They are dramatically different. That is why there is no sense in the phrase survival horror. It will be fairer if people evaluate each game individually instead of criticizing it because it does not correspond to someone's ideas about a genre that does not exist to begin with.

I've written about this before, but the developers of BIO2 expected that the game could divide the community. I'm talking about the original, of course. Kamiya is not a fan of horror, so he made the game more cinematic and easier to open doors for new players. Some fans considered this a departure from the niche charm of the first game and its idea as a game that is designed to scare.

The phrase survival horror is only the motto for the Resident Evil series, including even Resident Evil Village. For Capcom, the first Dino Crisis was a panic horror game, not a survival horror. These are not genres. Capcom even has its own names for camera perspectives and so on.

People have come up with such a genre themselves and have been arguing with each other for years about what this genre should do and what it should not. This is just wrong on many levels.

This is similar to the situation with Team Silent, which also does not exist. The gaming community is built on lies.
 
so ultimately it would become part of the series' identity
But the series' " identity " is biohazard. In japan, that's the actual name of the franchise. If it isnt; then why arent the entries released in japan called resident evil too? " Survival horror " isnt the identity of the franchise.

Remake is praised highly due to the fsct that when compared to 4, it focused on the aspects that many fans were used to, due to it being in most if not all entries when Remake came out.
I'm aware of the reasons why remake is praised highly. Yes; it's very faithful to re1 but that faithfulness smells more like a laziness rather than a creativity in some aspects, especially storywise. As for gameplay; while ı like the new stuff it brings to table, ı just feel like re2, re3 and recv bring much more interesting things, more interesting than remake.

While combat is sometimes essential, sometimes you have to make choices to either make combat easier or earn more prizes. For example, Bloodshots and Chrysalis. If you shoot zombies with red eyes in the head, then you have to deal with a tougher enemy, but you earn more points. In tougher difficulties it would be something you would want to avoid since it hits much harder than regular zombies, and you have to use more ammo to kill it than on easier difficulties.
Those are good points. Though bloodshots are kinda easy to counter, especially their leaping attacks once you master it. As for chrysalids, you forgot to say that you can destroy them, they are weak to electricity, like sherry's stun rod. However if you let the monster emerge from it, you can kill that too and they will drop skill points. There's a special decision making section in chris' chapter 5. If you prevent neo umbrella j'avos from pulling down levers, you can pull them down later and the monsters that emerge from it will be easier to handle.

While yes, the games are about biohazards, that is more of the lore/setting.
It still matters though. Story and gameplay are equally important. One doesnt matter more than the other. Story can add horror aspects too.

For example;


" Actually, there were more than a few times when I thought about putting a lead bullet in my head out of despair. "

Isnt that a horror aspect? It says that leon was losing his hope to save sherry back in re2 which makes sense cause leon was a depressed rookie cop at that time. Makes even more sense if you take his backstory with his girlfriend into account. He wanted to save as much people as he could and tried to take leadership. The game's files deepens re2's story.

People are more focused on gameplay when it comes to Resident Evil (I dont like it either, I love the story and background stuff but people either ignore it or want scares instead) since the first two games put the story in the background mostly
Yeah the fanbase unfortunately cant look into the franchise deep enough, they arent open minded really. As for fixed camera angled games, they couldnt make use of story compared to later entries cause of limitations at that time.

I think it would be a bit unfair to say the games have always been action adeventure
They definitely were. Some magazines even describe the games as action-adventure. Sure the old games focused more on adventure rather than action but combat still mattered too as well as other action elements. The " action " aspect of classics are downplayed.

Sure, 3 started incorporating action aspects into the game
You mean increasing action elements? If so, it started with re2. Remember, we need to look from both gameplay and story perspective, not just one while ignoring other.


" --: But I think Resident Evil 2 is different from the original Resident Evil that Mr. Mikami directed. This time, I felt more of Mr. Kamiya's color in it.

K: Yes, the original Resident Evil is more orthodox horror, in Resident Evil 2, I put the atmosphere of action movie. It appeals to more people and showy. Also, I always like the entertaining Hollywood movie style, so it is simply what I wanted. "
 
Outlast can also be called a survival horror game, because hide-and-seek is the protagonist's means of survival in horror.

Resident Evil 6 can be called a survival horror game, because it has some mechanics and design features from previous horror titles.

But if you put these two games together, it is unlikely that you will say that they are similar. They are dramatically different. That is why there is no sense in the phrase survival horror. It will be fairer if people evaluate each game individually instead of criticizing it because it does not correspond to someone's ideas about a genre that does not exist to begin with.

I've written about this before, but the developers of BIO2 expected that the game could divide the community. I'm talking about the original, of course. Kamiya is not a fan of horror, so he made the game more cinematic and easier to open doors for new players. Some fans considered this a departure from the niche charm of the first game and its idea as a game that is designed to scare.

The phrase survival horror is only the motto for the Resident Evil series, including even Resident Evil Village. For Capcom, the first Dino Crisis was a panic horror game, not a survival horror. These are not genres. Capcom even has its own names for camera perspectives and so on.

People have come up with such a genre themselves and have been arguing with each other for years about what this genre should do and what it should not. This is just wrong on many levels.

This is similar to the situation with Team Silent, which also does not exist. The gaming community is built on lies.

Cowboy Bebop is a sci-fi noir. It has elements from noir movies and shows with the setting of outer space. However compare it to Casablanca and you are unlikely to say the two are similar. So therefore the noir genre makes no sense according to your logic. While Capcom may have created the term survival horror it has developed its own meaning through repeated use of special elements that fans recognize it for today. Perhaps it would be better to classify it as a sub genre. At one point the horror genre was just horror. However as time went on and people started adding unique florishes to their movies, it created many different sub genres, including horror comedies, horror drama, pyschological horror, etc. For horror games, survival horror started in 1982, with Haunted House for the Atari 2600. While the developers did not call it survival horror, after Resident Evil was created and when the sub genre of survival horror was formed, Haunted House became recognized as a survival horror game. It doesnt matter if its been created by fans or not, its a generalized way of categorizing a group of games that people tend to enjoy if they enjoyed other games in the same group. In my first reply I was wrong about a few things, but after doing some more research I will now correct them here. I was wrong about-action adventure, I looked more into it and action-adventure is an essential part of Survival Horror, which separates it from regular horror games such as Five Nights At Freddy's. Outlast is less survival horror and more pyschological horror, due to its focus on unsettling the player, despite having survival horror themes. Silent Hill also falls into psychological horror. With Left 4 Dead, while having action horror elements, I would say it still falls into the survival horror sub genre due to the fact it limits ammo for the more powerful weapons leaving you to rely on a pistol or a melee weapon, meaning you want to manage your weapons well so you can manage the tougher enemies.

But the series' " identity " is biohazard. In japan, that's the actual name of the franchise. If it isnt; then why arent the entries released in japan called resident evil too? " Survival horror " isnt the identity of the franchise

I didnt say the identity wasnt biohazard. Biohazard is the name of the series, so that is the identity of the series. However, survival horror is a part of its identity in the same way that brown hair or pale skin are part of my identity. If I dyed my hair or got a tan or changed the way I talk, my identity would change, as people are used to seeing and hearing me one way.

As for chrysalids, you forgot to say that you can destroy them, they are weak to electricity, like sherry's stun rod. However if you let the monster emerge from it, you can kill that too and they will drop skill points. There's a special decision making section in chris' chapter 5. If you prevent neo umbrella j'avos from pulling down levers, you can pull them down later and the monsters that emerge from it will be easier to handle.

I didnt forget, I figured I had said enough with the Bloodshots so that readers can recognize for themselves the same mechanic with the Crysalids.

It still matters though. Story and gameplay are equally important. One doesnt matter more than the other. Story can add horror aspects too.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasnt saying the story wasnt important, it absolutely is. It sets up the setting, which is absolutely essential for a horror game. However, the setting doesnt decide the sub genre, those elements are in the gameplay. We weren't disagreeing, we were talking separate issues.

You mean increasing action elements? If so, it started with re2. Remember, we need to look from both gameplay and story perspective, not just one while ignoring other.

I stand by most of what I said. Yes, RE2 started putting action elements into the story, however the gameplay itself was the same as the first. 3 was the first game to really incorporate action into the gameplay, adding the dodge and quick choice systems. So when it comes to survival horror, which includes action adventure in the gameplay, 3 is when it really started to lean towards action horror.

They definitely were. Some magazines even describe the games as action-adventure. Sure the old games focused more on adventure rather than action but combat still mattered too as well as other action elements. The " action " aspect of classics are downplayed.

I was mostly wrong on this. Survival Horror uses action adventure to separate itself from psychological horror games.
 
Cowboy Bebop is a sci-fi noir. It has elements from noir movies and shows with the setting of outer space. However compare it to Casablanca and you are unlikely to say the two are similar. So therefore the noir genre makes no sense according to your logic.

If you want to use my logic, you should say that Casablanca, Cowboy Bebop and even Seven are representatives of the same genre called "criminal pessimism", which was actually a marketing motto.

It doesnt matter if its been created by fans or not, its a generalized way of categorizing a group of games that people tend to enjoy if they enjoyed other games in the same group.

And such a category as "survival horror" is simply abstract. Even on your description of "psychological horror" and "survival horror", there are many alternative opinions. There is no general consensus on this subject, since for some BIO2 and Silent Hill are not survival horror, and for others, on the contrary, yes. There is no cultural institution that could regulate such things.

At the end of the day, it's just comical. Capcom still uses its motto for its Resident Evil games, but people who have their own empirical idea of a genre say that Resident Evil Village is not a survival horror game.
 
And such a category as "survival horror" is simply abstract.

Except its not. Survival Horror focuses on the action-adventure aspect of the Horror genre. It utilizes puzzle solving, item managment, combat, and exploration in the gameplay. Games that do none of these or don't focus on these aspects are not survival horror. I think you are getting caught on the word "Survival" and treating that as if thats the entire idea of what the genre is about. when its actually a sort of hybrid between horror and action. Outlast has a goal of survival, but with no combat, item management, or puzzle solving, very little actual action, and instead having you focus solely on running away from the enemies who are meant to disturb you (not disturb like get in the way, more like they are repulsingly grotesque), it places it in psychological horror. There is a general consensus on what Survival Horror is, however some of the exact details are subjective due to its unique nature as a hybrid of action and horror.

but people who have their own empirical idea of a genre say that Resident Evil Village is not a survival horror game.

That depends on what games they play. If they dont view Village as Survival Horror because it doesnt feel like past survival horror games, then they probably dont know what the definition of Survival Horror is.

.

This is the most agreed upon general consensus when it comes to the term Survival Horror. To say there isn't any general consensus whatsoever is entirely untrue.
 
Survival Horror focuses on the action-adventure aspect of the Horror genre.

Well, most horror games are action adventure games because they use action mechanics, unlike point-and-click games. And Outlast as well.

I think you are getting caught on the word "Survival" and treating that as if thats the entire idea of what the genre is about.

Of course, this is the idea of many developers who made these games. They used different means to convey this survival experience. But people have made a whole genre out of the BIO formula.

it places it in psychological horror

Only Outlast is not a psychological horror, because there is no psychology in it to begin with. This is a game about animal fear, where the game scares the player with such subgenres of horror as body horror.
 
Well, most horror games are action adventure games because they use action mechanics, unlike point-and-click games. And Outlast as well.

That means they have elements of Survival Horror, not that they are Survival Horror game. Just because a character tells a joke in a Drama doesnt make it a comedy, and a nightmare sequence doesnt make a Comedy a Horror.

Of course, this is the idea of many developers who made these games. They used different means to convey this survival experience. But people have made a whole genre out of the BIO formula.

Th BIO formula itself was inspired by previous Survival Horror games while adding its own twists. Not all Survival Horror games are based on the BIO formula. For example, Dying Light, Dead Island, Fatal Frame, and Alien Isolation.

Only Outlast is not a psychological horror, because there is no psychology in it to begin with. This is a game about animal fear, where the game scares the player with such subgenres of horror as body horror.

I dont think you know what psychological horror is. Animal fear is pyschological, its the entire concept of fight or flight. Body horror activates this system through the uncanny valley effect. "This person/animal looks like a person/animal, but something is very, very wrong, and it probably wants to hurt me." Its why when a human is designed very strangely or poorly in an animated movie, it unsettles us. However, the type of horror doesnt settle what the game itself is. Pyschological tries to scare you into running away or hiding, using your own mind against you, like with the Blaire Witch game, while Survival Horror typically tries to let you run away or fight back, though it will restrict your resources for fighting back or make combat undesirable, like Dyling Light with its noise system and tougher enemies at night.
 
That means they have elements of Survival Horror, not that they are Survival Horror game.

And which element can belong to survival horror? Resource management and backtracking? Before BIO, these elements were in many games that are not related to horror. The goal behind these mechanics is important. The context itself. If you don't have a goal to scare a person, you don't do horror.

Th BIO formula itself was inspired by previous Survival Horror games while adding its own twists.

Yeah, like that horror series called Alone in the Dark, where you dress up as Santa Claus to get past funny dwarf chefs. You call such games this way retroactively, without taking into account that they did not have the same goals as BIO.

One of the important ideas in the survival concept embedded in the BIO is a limited number of saves and save rooms, but in Alone in the Dark you can save the game at any time. I have mentioned only one difference, but it is already enough for many people to have a debate about genre boundaries.

For example, Dying Light, Dead Island, Fatal Frame, and Alien Isolation.

And Outlast, yeah.

Animal fear is pyschological, its the entire concept of fight or flight. Body horror activates this system through the uncanny valley effect.

Then Resident Evil is also a psychological horror. Any horror is then psychological, because it scares us.

Outlast is a game in which a character escapes from the physical threat of material victims of experiments by an international organization with pocket underground laboratories.

Silent Hill, Jacob's Ladder and other psychological horrors are distinguished by a psychological trap in which the characters fight for their sanity. Donna's house is a psychological horror, because Ethan sees the embodiment of his fears and anxieties, but the battle with Marguerite is not a psychological horror, because she scares us with a physical threat and disgusts us with her grotesque body.

But even such a thematic difference does not prevent many people from calling Silent Hill a survival horror game, because psychological horror, like folk horror, gothic horror, body horror, and so on are only themes.

Silent Hill uses tools in the form of mechanics and design elements that were used in BIO, but there is a huge gap between these games. BIO is designed to give the player catharsis. Alien: Isolation prohibits you from dominating the source of fear. Silent Hill shows you a psychological trap. And so on. These are completely different games that set different goals. And it seems to me incorrect to categorize them as "survival horror".
 
And which element can belong to survival horror? Resource management and backtracking? Before BIO, these elements were in many games that are not related to horror. The goal behind these mechanics is important. The context itself. If you don't have a goal to scare a person, you don't do horror.

Action games like Call of Duty have resource managment, but they typically dont limit the resources in the way a survival horror does. Usually action games give the player enough to fight with and keep enemies back. Survival horror games give you a finite amount and you have to decide whether you want to use it or save it for worse situations. Backtracking is an element of exploration, though not necessary. Exploration typically apples to free or semi-free movement in an environment to find hidden elements or alternate paths around undesirable ones. However, when applied to horror these two elements become the core pillars of the sub genre.
Yeah, like that horror series called Alone in the Dark, where you dress up as Santa Claus to get past funny dwarf chefs. You call such games this way retroactively, without taking into account that they did not have the same goals as BIO.

One of the important ideas in the survival concept embedded in the BIO is a limited number of saves and save rooms, but in Alone in the Dark you can save the game at any time. I have mentioned only one difference, but it is already enough for many people to have a debate about genre boundaries.

It doesnt matter if they had different goals, they still fall under the same category. Mario and Spyro have very different goals, yet both are in the platforming sub genre. While you can incorporate resource management into the saving sytem, it doesnt mean that survival horror games have to. RE7 and 8 have no resource management for their saves (at least on easier difficulties for 7, if I remember), yet both are most definately survival horror.

And Outlast, yeah.

I intentionally didnt include Outlast because it doesnt allow any form of action, instead forcing flight upon you. Alien Isolation has multiple areas of shooting enemies and repelling the xenomorph, allowing the fight reflex to be realized. For survival horror games comabt and action are important aspects.

Then Resident Evil is also a psychological horror. Any horror is then psychological, because it scares us

In the most generic, simplest terms, yes all horror is psychological. So is all happiness, sadness, anger and every other aspect of the human mind. That doesnt make Resident Evil a psychological horror game. Psychological horror games focus almost entirely on the fear of what might me be there. Is there an enemy behind that door? If I do this will I be chased? Did I just see something move? How can I escape? In Survival Horror you dont have to focus on these aspects, you can instead fight back or use an item you found earlier to aid your escape, like a smoke bomb or a flash grenade.

Outlast is a game in which a character escapes from the physical threat of material victims of experiments by an international organization with pocket underground laboratories.

Silent Hill, Jacob's Ladder and other psychological horrors are distinguished by a psychological trap in which the characters fight for their sanity. Donna's house is a psychological horror, because Ethan sees the embodiment of his fears and anxieties, but the battle with Marguerite is not a psychological horror, because she scares us with a physical threat and disgusts us with her grotesque body.

While a psychological trap can be an important aspect, they are not unique to or are required in a pschological horror game. Amnesia is a great example. You are faced with a physical threat from the gatherers and brutes, yet the themes and atmosphere heavily impact your psyche, and when they start to chase you, you instinctively panic and go into flight mode. This is also present in Village, true, but that doesnt make the game itself psychological horror. It has a section of psychological horror, and the gameplay changes only for that one area. Everywhere else is survival horror. Just because you used a nail to make a wooden hammer doesnt make the hammer metal.

But even such a thematic difference does not prevent many people from calling Silent Hill a survival horror game, because psychological horror, like folk horror, gothic horror, body horror, and so on are only themes.

To be honest, Silent Hill does stump me on where to put it since i have seen very little gameplay, and you may have got me with that one. While those forms of horror are only themes, psychological horror can be given its own section due to the fact that gameplay can revolve around it. Body horror is very hard to have an entire game revolve around it, so it has to be incorporated into horror games as an element of the horror.

Silent Hill uses tools in the form of mechanics and design elements that were used in BIO, but there is a huge gap between these games. BIO is designed to give the player catharsis. Alien: Isolation prohibits you from dominating the source of fear. Silent Hill shows you a psychological trap. And so on. These are completely different games that set different goals.

All the games you just mentioned allow you to fight back. It doesnt matter if its temporary, you get some sort of relief. Other than Silent Hill, which I believe to be somewhat of a tossup at the moment, Alien Isolation and Resident Evil can still be put together into the same category because they both share the core aspects of the sub genre of survival horror. You are allowed to fight back in a limited manner, exploration is incentivized, and the resources for fighting back are scarce compared to action games.

On an unrelated side note, this is a lot of fun. Debating this issue reminds me of the virus debate, regarding whether they can be classified as living things or not, and I cant get enough.
 
So before ı continue; ı want to say that ı didnt play many of those other franchises you mention so ı dont know much about them. However ı played left 4 dead games and ı became a re fan with re6 through left 4 dead 2. It's been a while since ı played them however ı cant really disagree with the statements you say for them.

But ı dont think ı would call re games " survival horror " games or re6 as a " dramatic horror " game. Again this is not a real genre, it was a marketing term for re1. With re6; this new special term was used for a new specific goal. I dont think " dramatic horror " statement was used in a game before re6 so this makes it one of a kind.

I would call re games " action-adventure " games, this is much more fitting since that's an actual genre unlike " survival horror " which isnt a genre.

When ı continue discussing this topic, ı'm planning to only discuss re games cause ı've spent the most amount of time in this franchise. I dont have any experiences with other franchises other than left 4 dead ( Which ı dont remember that well. ) but if you want to discuss them; feel free to do so.

However, survival horror is a part of its identity
Action and horror are part of the franchise's identity, not " survival horror " . Cause they are actual genres unlike " survival horror " .

so that readers can recognize for themselves the same mechanic with the Crysalids.
Alright. I still wanted to explain the mechanics of chrysalids just in case.

However, the setting doesnt decide the sub genre, those elements are in the gameplay.
But story can add action and horror elements too. Again we shouldnt discuss this with only gameplay, we need to discuss the story elements too.

however the gameplay itself was the same as the first.
It wasnt, it had some differences. You can upgrade your weapons when playing as leon. Isnt that technically an action element which would increase action and escalation? Try to decapitate a zombie with leon's upgraded " boomstick " and compare it to re1's shotgun when you try to decapitate a zombie with it in that game. It destroys the monster in a much more insane way when compared to re1's shotgun.

There's also zapping system of a and b scenarios. This is more of a streamlined version of character decision making system of re1 when it comes to barry and rebecca. Between both systems; ı would say re1's is more effective at horror even though ı like re2's scenario system more than re1's. Not saying this as a bad thing btw, just pointing out that re2 is more streamlined than re1 but ı find this as a good thing and more enjoyable change. The reason for this change is to focus more on story in a different way than re1 which is more vague in this aspect due to parallel scenarios.

T-103 tyrant which appears in b scenario is also new. That's technically an element which would increase action too. Though it would also increase horror depending in some sections, like how he breaks one of the walls during the journey.

Just some examples.

When ı say re2 is more action oriented / escalated sequel than re1, ı dont want to only include gameplay. Story equally matters too. This was even confirmed by kamiya with that interview.

I also want to say that horror doesnt always have to mean " scary " . Since people can be affected by different things while also not be affected by some things as well. Personally ı dont find re games that scary though they still have plenty of horror elements. Some aspects are creepy but " scary " word would be going a bit too far. The reason for that is ı replayed them a lot during my free time so ı dont get affected by them that much nowadays.
 
But ı dont think ı would call re games " survival horror " games or re6 as a " dramatic horror " game. Again this is not a real genre, it was a marketing term for re1. With re6; this new special term was used for a new specific goal. I dont think " dramatic horror " statement was used in a game before re6 so this makes it one of a kind.

I would call re games " action-adventure " games, this is much more fitting since that's an actual genre unlike " survival horror " which isnt a genre.

While it began as a marketing term, it became a genre through repeated use of the elements of the game through which it was coined. At the time it came out your argument would make much more sense, however now that it has been established through precedent in different series post Resident Evil, it has developed into a real sub genre. A great example of a fan made genre would be noir. The frst film considered to be noir was created in 1941, however the term itself was created in 1946 by a French critic. This term was disregarded and wasnt treated as a real genre at the time, but years later the term became recognized and covered quite a few movies of the time. Also, action survival is an element of survival horror, they are not mutually exclusive.

Action and horror are part of the franchise's identity, not " survival horror " . Cause they are actual genres unlike " survival horror "

Action and horror are pretty much what make it survival horror. Its a hybrid of the two genres but with certain core elements that separate it from action horror. My previous paragraph applies here too.

But story can add action and horror elements too. Again we shouldnt discuss this with only gameplay, we need to discuss the story elements too.

Yes, the story is very important as that is what what decides the main genre. I am not disagreeing with you, but there is no reason to argue this because its already obvious that the genre of Resident Evil is horror due to the story and the setting. I'm focusing on the gameplay because that is the distinguishing factor when it comes to what is survival horror and what isnt.
It wasnt, it had some differences. You can upgrade your weapons when playing as leon. Isnt that technically an action element which would increase action and escalation? Try to decapitate a zombie with leon's upgraded " boomstick " and compare it to re1's shotgun when you try to decapitate a zombie with it in that game. It destroys the monster in a much more insane way when compared to re1's shotgun.

True, I had forgotten about that. However, outside of the weapon upgrading the gameplay mostly stays the same. The T-103 fights arent really revolutionary aspect, they are essentially a boss fight you are allowed to run from. Its the same as fighting a boss from the first game: shoot until dead. Re3 allowed dodging and using the environment to fight the Nemesis, so that would be a better argument for an increase in action.

When ı say re2 is more action oriented / escalated sequel than re1, ı dont want to only include gameplay. Story equally matters too. This was even confirmed by kamiya with that interview.

Again, I understand the story matters. I am not in any way trying to downplay it. However the series' story is obviously in the horror genre, and the atmosphere plays in to the setting to confirm this idea. I am not focusing on the story differences of the two games because RE2 does put more action into the story, I agree. However we are discussing the idea of survival horror, which is a sub genre distinguished by the gameplay. We dont need to focus on the story because the story doesnt help in distinguishing the gameplay elements in this case.

I also want to say that horror doesnt always have to mean " scary " . Since people can be affected by different things while also not be affected by some things as well. Personally ı dont find re games that scary though they still have plenty of horror elements. Some aspects are creepy but " scary " word would be going a bit too far. The reason for that is ı replayed them a lot during my free time so ı dont get affected by them that much nowadays.

Obviously. Horror is subjective, and as such people who have been exposed to certain scares are not as susceptible to being scared as someone who hasnt played the series. When I first played Revelations, I was terrified from the beginning, and the ventilation body scared the crap out of me. But now it doesnt do anything because I expect it. Someone who is afraid of spiders or snakes may be terrified of the Black Tigers or Yawn, but someone who isnt will just see them as giant animals.
 
it became a genre
So what's the exact time it " became " one? Which franchise made it one? Is there a source by devs? And if it did; wouldnt that be awkward? Why would a term used to promote a game became one when it wasnt intended to be called a genre in the 1st place? If that's the case; why wouldnt the devs of re6 make " dramatic horror " as a genre too then?

I checked the survival horror wiki page you posted. It never explains which franchise made it an actual genre nor gives a reliable source about this.

The T-103 fights arent really revolutionary aspect, they are essentially a boss fight you are allowed to run from.
For its time; it kinda was for the franchise. And it's not easy to run away from it without taking damage. Not to mention; if this is done, you wont be able to get the loot drop from the monster. Without t-103's loot drops, the game would be harder. I always defeated the monster in b scenarios cause ı've been wondering what he drops.

which is a sub genre distinguished by the gameplay.
Did the devs give an objective explanation about this? I wouldnt trust wiki or tvtropes sites' explanation for " survival horror " or " action horror " . After all; they can be edited by anyone.
 
So what's the exact time it " became " one? Which franchise made it one? Is there a source by devs? And if it did; wouldnt that be awkward? Why would a term used to promote a game became one when it wasnt intended to be called a genre in the 1st place? If that's the case; why wouldnt the devs of re6 make " dramatic horror " as a genre too then?

There isnt an exact time unless you consider when the term was coined as the creation. Becaue it was marketed using this term, and then used for following games, fans started thinking survival horror whenever they heard Resident Evil. As time went on, people started noticing similarities between Resident Evil and other games, and began categorizing games both conciously and subconciusly due to the marketing. During the discussions between individual fans on the elements of these games, the sub genre slowly formed until fans came to a general consesus: A horror game with action elements, which typically 1.) Give the player a choice between fight or flight, 2.) Incentivize exploration by providing rewards or extra resources, 3.) Deincentivize combat by limiting resources, and 4.) Incorporates puzzle solving into its gameplay (this would include inventory management, as adjusting to your needs uses problem solving skills). It wasnt used as a genre because it was used to market the game as something new, even if it used mechanics from previous survival horror games. However fans liked the term, so they used it and it formed over time through repeated use in discussions. There cant be an exact time because it wasnt formed by one or two people or groups. My noir argument applies here too because there was no exact time when it became a genre, it just became one during discussions of noir films and the reviews of French critics. The devs of RE6 didnt create the sub genre of drama horror because of several reasons. Firstly, there is the reception of the game. Didnt do well in the general audience, so they werent really looking too closely at it. Secondly, it already fits into the sub genre of action horror very nicely. It doesnt do anything to separate itself from other action horror games. Thirdly, it could be that in the future people will add more sub genres, one which could be drama horror. However, until there is a general discussion amongst horror fans on what this new sub genre is and what separates it from the other sub genres, RE6 will remain action horror.

I checked the survival horror wiki page you posted. It never explains which franchise made it an actual genre nor gives a reliable source about this.

Again, no franchise made it a sub genre. It began as a marketing term and become one through general discussion and comparisons. I cant do anything about it not being a reliable source, and not too many other sites go into depth on what it is. But I can include a link here for an article on the history of survival horror.


For its time; it kinda was for the franchise. And it's not easy to run away from it without taking damage. Not to mention; if this is done, you wont be able to get the loot drop from the monster. Without t-103's loot drops, the game would be harder. I always defeated the monster in b scenarios cause ı've been wondering what he drops.

True you can get loot, however tou have to weigh that decision based on whether you think you have enough healing, enough ammo, enough time, think you can avoid getting hit, or if the risk is greater than the reward. A new player might decided its better to run, while an experienced player will know the reward and is therefore more willing to make that choice.

Did the devs give an objective explanation about this?

I wouldnt expect them to, since they didnt create the sub genre. It became a agreed upon idea in the audience, and when it became widely used did it become recognized as a dub genre.

When I started debating this issue, I didnt think I would have to argue on the concepts of neologism, but what do you know. Google didnt set out for people to call searching something "googling," nor did Coca Cola set out for people to call soda beverages "cokes." These words were not created by the companies for marketing, instead the words were derived from the names of the brands, which were marketed. However these words formed through popular use and have unique definitions through the repeated use by consumers in their everyday discussions. In this manner, the sub genre of survival horror was created through the discussions of games including and similar to Resident Evil, all because Capcom wanted a special marketing term. I want to keep arguing, but its almost 1:30 here and I'm tired, so I'll come back tomorrow.
 
Sorry couldnt reply for a while; ı've been busy.

Ok so survival horror is a " sub genre " then. Alright, ı forgot to read that. It's still not a real genre though since those 2 statements are different things. 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.

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 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.

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.

After posting this; ı have to go again. I may not be able to reply to this for some time.
 
" Right. You don’t want a system like in RPGs, where the player purposefully tries to kill enemies for items and gold.

Sugimura: That’s why I was also against the idea of having the Tyrant drop bullets when he’s defeated. We must not give players a reason to seek out fights with enemies. Unlike many other games, the enemies in Resident Evil don’t drop gold or experience. In Resident Evil we’ve sought to convey a terror free from such impurities, and I think that has been the key to its success.

Kamiya: I didn’t want to give the Tyrant those bullet drops either. However, defeating him uses up a lot of ammo, so it was done out of consideration for beginners. Finding the right difficulty balance is tough. Personally, I think Resident Evil 2 was too easy. But when you take into account new players, I think this was the right thing to do.

Sugimura: That will probably continue to be an issue for us. If we’re going to preserve the true character of Resident Evil, we may not be able to continue to "open the gates" to new players like that. "

Russident recently posted this to project umbrella re:digest server. Might as well share it here.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom