Talk:Survival horror

Regarding History

Am I mistaken, or is the actual loading text in Resident Evil "Welcome to the world of survival horror", not just "welcome to survival horror?"

That's right - I think the quote is used correctly in the Resident Evil article, but not here. I've fixed it. -Sean Curtin 23:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

BloodRayne

Can BloodRayne be classified as a survival horror game? I would personally categorise it under third-person shooters. It does not employ claustrophobic environments or puzzles, nor does it attempt to scare the player. Rather, it is more of an action game or third-person shooter, with horror elements. This page seems to include games very liberally, on the mere basis of horror elements. I would be perfectly happy to call BloodRayne "horror", but I think that "survival horror" is unsuitable. Zoggie50 18:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't know because I haven't played the game. You see, it's already a hard to classify genre, so we can only ponder. If you think the game doesn't belong to the list, I think it's alright to take it off. – Kaonashi 18:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the survival horror genre is defined by theme rather than game play style, making classification more difficult. I personally associate survival horror with slow-paced, third-person games in which the focus is puzzle-solving and trying to survive (hence the term, "survival horror") on a small amount of weaponry and ammo: i.e. the "Resident Evil mechanics" mentioned in the article. I do accept the beat 'em ups, role-playing games, first-person shooters and text adventure games mentioned in the article, but I feel that BloodRayne is more like Doom: i.e. a game that features survival horror elements, without actually being a survival horror. Zoggie50 20:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're right. For example, someone had added Zombies Ate My Neighbors to the Survival horror games category. I had to change that, obviously. Check talk page to see it. So yes, it's hard to classify and we can only use common sense with this. About DOOM, I don't know. Check the new DOOM 3 for example. I don't know about you, but I get a strong survival horror feeling from that. Sure, the ammo is pretty abundant, but the atmosphere is pretty much survival horror. That's what I think. – Kaonashi 20:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed: common sense is required. However, I personally think that it would be better to use the term with only those games that follow the Resident Evil format - such as Alone in the Dark, Silent Hill and Eternal Darkness - rather than to use the term more liberally to include games such as Doom and BloodRayne, as this is what causes confusion such as that over the Zombies Ate My Neighbors example you gave. Zoggie50 21:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RE: "Points to other genres"

About the following part:

"Other games such as the DOOM and Castlevania series include several survival horror game elements, but they also feature other strong characteristics that point to different, more suitable categories. For such reasons, the subjective nature of such discrepancies can make survival horror a difficult genre to classify."

Replacing this edit:

"Other games such as the DOOM and Castlevania series include horror elements, but these games are not typically considered survival horror because they do not attempt to elicit feelings of fear from the player. However, the subjective nature of such discrepancies can make survival horror a difficult genre to classify."

First of all, "point to different, more suitable categories" is grammatically awkward. Something like "...but are typically associated with other genres because horror is not the defining characteristic," would be better. Secondly, stating that Doom and Castlevania include several survival horror elements is inaccurate. While these games certainly have horror elements, they do not follow the definition of survival horror earlier in the page (themes of isolation, rationing of armaments that is much more strict than shooters, focus on puzzles, etc). Most survival horror games are rooted in the adventure genre (collect items, solve puzzles, advance the plot, occasionally fight), which is a very different approach than Doom or Castelvania.

Finally, neither Doom nor Castlevania promote fear in the player, one of the primary characteristics of the survival horror genre. One could probably argue that Doom 3 attempts to build fear and tension in the player through atmosphere, but I don't think that's true of the first Doom. Both Doom and Castlevania employ horror motifs (I mean, Castlevania is about attacking Dracula!), but unlike Silent Hill or Resident Evil, neither game seeks to build an atmosphere of fear by employing horrific elements.

I think we agree that Doom and Castlevania are not survival horror. I think the page should reflect that they are not survival horror because these games, while applying horrific motifs, do not conform to the characteristics we've defined earlier in the page. Waka

You got my point, and at the same time, you didn't. It should be clear that all I was trying to say with my contribution was that some elements on those games relate to survival horror (I'm about to explain), but they are obviously not usually seen as such. It was a disclaimer, something meant to broaden the reader's perception. I was trying to show people that it is a hard to classify genre, as we are already noticing here.

Castlevania and DOOM. Why I chose those games? Very simple. You seen very positive on your opinions, when you say those games tend more to the horror side, rather than survival horror itself. That's a way of seeing the situation, but pay attention to this.

In Castlevania, you're a man who ventures inside a gigantic castle alone, wielding just a godamn whip. He has to face Dracula alright (that's why he enters Castlevania in the first place), but there are also hordes of monsters of every kind. You can think of that as just plain horror, but it's still an extreme situation. You can't deny that.

In the DOOM series you're a space marine that has to get through futuristic bases in Mars and its two moons. Alone, after all the other marines died by unknown creatures. In the end, he gets to "Hell" itself. Sure, ammo is plenty and the atmosphere is more driven by action, but it was intended to scare people. The first versions may look like kid's stuff nowadays, but little changed from that to DOOM 3, besides graphics and amount of enemies the player face at the same time. It's still the same idea. However, if you didn't grow up playing it, you probably won't understand.

What I'm trying to say with this is that I didn't intend to prove anything with my contribution. Those games I cited are nothing but examples to show how difficult it is to classify such things. It was just to illustrate. They don't conform with most of the elements mentioned on that page (never said they did). The page doesn't imply that they are "genuine survival horror games". That's exactly the opposite of what I put there. I do believe the text I added doesn't sound innacurate at all, though. So yeah, my two cents. – Kaonashi 04:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understood the intent of your contribution, but I felt your choice of words was confusing and awkward. I think the point that not all games that include horror elements should be considered survival horror is certainly valid, and I agree that defining a genre that is primarily thematic is more difficult than defining one that is based on some sort of game play mechanic.

That said, I don't agree that either Castlevania or Doom have elements of survival horror. Perhaps they have a few, but the correlation in these games very, very thin. Castlevania, for example, has much more in common with other side scrollers (platformers, brawlers, etc) than with the description given for survival horror. You are certainly a lone character in the game, but then Mario is alone in his quest as well. We've listed "feelings of isolation" as one of the common characteristics of survival horror games, and simply being alone in the game world does not mean the game is purposefully designed to make you feel vulnerable and isolated. Castelvania certainly employs horror motifs, but so does Zombies Ate My Neighbors, which we agree is also certainly not survival horror.

As for Doom, I do not believe that any horror that may exist in the game is one of its the defining characteristics. While the mechanics of Doom 1 certainly have not changed much in Doom 3, I think it's clear that Doom 3 is certainly much more interested in delivering horrific themes than its predecessors. In all the Doom games, the defining characteristics have to do with the game mechanics (the first person perspective, the focus on shooting hordes of enemies, the "one man against an army" approach, the key cards, exploding barrels, etc), not the themes. There certainly are first person horror games (Call of Cthulhu, Echo Night, etc), but these are fundamentally different than Doom 1 and 2 because the defining characteristic of these games is horror rather than the game play mechanic they employ.

I think it's very easy to mistake horror elements for survival horror elements, but in defining this genre we need to make the discrepancy clear. I understood what you wanted to say with your contribution, but I felt that the statement could be made more clearly. -Waka

I disagree with this statement: "...These games are not typically considered survival horror because they do not attempt to elicit feelings of fear from the player." Fair enough in reference to Castlevania; however, I think that Doom 3 does attempt to elicit feelings of fear from the player. The first two Doom titles may not, but the third installment is definitely a scary game. Perhaps you should try playing it with headphones in a darkened room on your own.

Yes, the game may not feature any other traditional survival horror elements - puzzle solving, low ammo, slow pace, third-person perspective - but I think that it does attempt to elicit feelings of fear from the player. Zoggie50 20:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Doom 3 is horror, and I think that it tries very hard to elicit feelings of fear. I figured that my opinion on that topic was clear when I said "one could probably argue that Doom 3 attempts to build fear and tension in the player through atmosphere, but I don't think that's true of the first Doom," and "I think it's clear that Doom 3 is certainly much more interested in delivering horrific themes than its predecessors." The original sentence stated that Doom (as in, Doom 1) did not strive to promote fear, a statement that I think is true (and, based on your message, you apparently agree).

In any case, I removed the "promote fear" part because on second thought, I don't think that the promotion of fear is really a requirement for this genre. The sentence now reads "...but such games are not typically considered survival horror because horror is not the defining game play characteristic," which seems more accurate. -Waka

Sounds fine, folks. And yeah, I do agree that maybe Castlevania was a bizarre choice for that, but now that it's there and it's clarified, perhaps it's alright. It was just a disclaimer since the beginning.

Keep up. – Kaonashi 02:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doom Series vs Doom 3

Sorry to bring this up again, as it's really a minor point, but do you really think that Doom 1 and Doom 2 meet the stated definition of a survival horror game? I agree that Doom 3 is clearly horror, but Doom 1 and Doom 2 seem to be much more of a stretch. For example, we've noted lack of armaments and themes of isolation as characteristics of the survival horror genre, but Doom 1 and 2 don't really fit this description. Nor is horror really the defining characteristic of Doom 1 or 2. It seems like our list of survival horror games is more accurate if it only reads "Doom 3" instead of "Doom series." --waka 07:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it supposed to be "DOOM series" there? Well, nevermind them. You can change it back to DOOM 3, I don't mind. Seems like I'm alone on the argument, anyways. =P

But if you still want to hear my opinion, I believe DOOM 3 looks more like horror to us because of the realism. The older games might look like just some cartoony kind of thing because of the lack of technology to make things scarier, at the time. I think that, back in the day, those were id's best attempts on creating a horror setting, even if it still has a lot of action to it. About isolation, well, DOOM was always about a lone marine. About health, ammo and weapons being plenty, yes, the older (and even the new one) DOOM games were like that, and that won't change. It does go against most of the already known games in the survival horror genre. But I've said this all already.

Those are my two cents. But feel free to fix that. =] --Kaonashi 18:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the capitalization. A user named Fredrik went through a while back and replaced all of the capital DOOM references with "Doom," so perhaps that's correct. I understand what you are saying about Doom 1 and 2, but I'm concerned that including them means we basically have to include all first person shooters. I don't really know where to draw the line between the early Doom games and most other shooters. Like, there doesn't seem to be much difference between Doom and say Hexan, Duke Nukem, Serious Sam, or even Quake if our classification is "supernatural monsters" and "no other characters in the game." Doom 3, on the other hand, is clearly designed to provoke the player using horrific themes. A lot of it is certainly facilitated by the light and shadow of the graphics engine, but I don't think that's where it ends: Doom 3 often spawns enemies right behind you, and backstory (via the PDA system) also helps build tension. So... if you don't mind, I'll change it back to just Doom 3 for now. I think that gives reader a clearer idea of how to identify games in this genre. --waka 20:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)