Survival horror is dead. As a Capcom invented moniker, as a Capcom influenced control scheme and game structure. Probably, even as a major mainstream game genre (well, action-adventure subgenre, actually). Some argue, that it’s concepts, it’s mechanics are outdated. That you can’t get more of it. Capcom says similar things. And you know what? To hell with Capcom. And i mean it in a very broad sense.
Richard Cobbett wrote a very nice editorial about “saving adventure games” last year. And i think a lot of points said about adventure games in that editorial hold true for survival horror games. Once a subgenre that pushed boundaries, influenced developers and players alike, that tried new things and experimented in storytelling and gameplay, it became nothing more than a self-parody. Always trying to be survival horror in tired mechanics, controls and story devices and not in the concept of survival horror. And it can only blame itself for that.
Itchy. Tasty.
Well, itself and the fans, obviously. Our constant desire to see “more of the same, but better” is a good enough motivation for developers and publishers to do exactly that – same things over and over again, though, unfortunately, sometimes missing out the “but better” part. And survival horror suffered the same fate. Resident Evil become so successful, everyone started using the same formula. And, after a while, formula became a gold standard, a template synonymous with “survival horror” itself.
But while the formula stayed the same, the game industry and player expectations changed. Something, which was great in 96, good in 00, became rather frustrating in 02. REmake and Resident Evil 0 are good examples of how older concepts in gameplay and controls worked bad with newer concepts. Old “tank” controls, inventory management, and action mechanics felt wrong in tighter spaces, deadlier and more resistant enemies, with characters moving and reacting in a more realistic slow and heavy way. Silent Hill could get away with older mechanics because: 1) the mechanics were more refined than RE ones from the start 2) there was still less emphasis on action and, if action was necessary, melee was still more important 3) in Silent Hill series gameplay was always the least important element. But Resident Evil games, as some other survival horror games, relied to much on gameplay mechanics to ignore the problems old formula presented.
Daddy, help me daddy!
The revolution, unsurprisingly, came from Capcom again. Survival Action. Survival horror’s younger sibling with the same action-adventure roots, but more emphasis on action, where survival horror preferred adventure. Resident Evil 4 used lots of similar concepts REmake and Zero had, but complemented them with the overall gameplay structure. Where deadlier enemies, slower characters and the increasing need for action instead of avoiding enemies frustrated in Zero, they felt at home in RE4. But more importantly, RE4 felt fresh and innovative. Sure, it was a third person shooter mechanic, coupled with the old survival horror, coupled with some RPG elements not unlike those in Parasite Eve II. But the mixture was (while very far from perfect) really good and exciting. And it was what everyone wanted and needed.
Obviously, “survival action” has become a formula everyone tries to copy. And the once new subgenre also gradually becomes stale. Especially since, i might argue, that the original survival action formula was perfected in Dead Space and it’s nigh impossible to top that today.
But more importantly, people started to perceive survival action as an evolution and a new version of survival horror, not as a sibling and complimenting subgenre. This, along with the state of survival horror was in, created a misconception that the once loved subgenre should be buried and forgotten. This is the situation we’re still in, despite the more recent critical and commercial success of games, which can be characterized as survival horror. So, what exactly did these games do?
Are the faint sounds of footsteps those of survivors?
While survival horror subgenre is “officially” dead ever since 2004-2005, several survival horror games got released since then to critical acclaim. To name a few, Frictional games made Penumbra and Amnesia, Climax studios gave us Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Eden Games brought us, while hardly successful and more action-y, intriguing Alone in the Dark (2008) and i cannot ignore the recent success of Lone Survivor by Superflat games.
All of the mentioned games can be called survival horror, yet they are all different. Penumbra and Amnesia took the idea of a first-person adventure, added horror story and survival elements. They are, especially Amnesia, more story driven and as such, force survival on player much less, than one might expect, but still are survival horror games. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories works like a mix of third person adventure game and “cinematic platformer” games like Another World or Oddworld. Yet, it’s a psychological horror story and you do try to survive. Alone in the Dark (2008) uses the overall template of survival action, but it’s open world, platforming and even driving sections make it stand out, while the combat is something player can (and should) avoid most of the time, like in older survival horror games. And Lone Survivor uses the classic survival horror formula, but with a twist – the game is completely 2D, creating a very different experience.
Kill Yr Idols
And i feel there is a lesson to be learned from these games. A very simple lesson – the survival horror idea, which is an action-adventure game with focus on exploration, puzzles and item collection mixed with a horror scenario and the need to survive, can still work. But for it to work, one must learn from older games, not repeat the old formula. Which is the same problem the adventure games are now facing, as I’ve mentioned at the start. Everyone knows how to do a simple point-and-click game mechanic and think of some basic puzzles and item uses. Not everyone knows, that it’s not what adventure games are about. You don’t necessarily need “tank” controls or fixed camera angles for your character to feel vulnerable. You don’t necessarily need manual aiming, just because it’s a popular thing – auto-aim worked perfect because action was less important, because it complimented the game feel, not just the controls. And, in fact, you don’t even necessarily need any fighting or shooting mechanic in your game for it to be survival, or an action-adventure. It’s not what survival horror is about.
And it was always the case. The very first Silent Hill was successful because it was completely different from Resident Evil. Influenced in lots of ways, sure. But very different and amazing on its own. Fatal Frame wasn’t simply Resident Evil with camera. It wasn’t the shower scene that made Parasite Eve II so amazing. Nor the scissors were the reason of Clock Tower success. And even in the decline of the genre mainstream popularity, it’s not the dog or the girl clothes, why Haunting Ground is still remembered. Hardly, but not forgotten entirely, like dozens of “RE clones”.
This is my last chance, my last escape.
Survival horror may never return to its past popularity. I even think, it shouldn’t. But it can and should evolve, learning new tricks, while not forgetting old ones. Never using gameplay mechanics just for “the sake of the genre”. Innovating and setting new highs once again. There are people who want to once again enter the world of survival horror. Good luck!