• Welcome to the Devil May Cry Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Devil May Cry series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

The "Rules" Of "Survival Horror"

Isn't the whole point of horror to, y'know, scare/horrify you? Therefore wouldn't the point of a survival horror game be to survive in a situation that's scary and horrifying? That stuff is pretty self explanatory - you can't really make a definitive set of rules, although I agree that those types of games shouldn't be easy to complete. However, if you want health regeneration, weapon/ammo pickups etc., then perhaps just have those things in a lower difficulty setting for the game. A lot of games turn certain 'advantages' and 'features' off when you up the difficulty, where's the problem with doing the same thing with a survival orientated game?
 
And how is that now a good point when i've said that earlier & repeatedly.
Oh, it's very simple. It's because in his post he mentioned Mikami's interpretation of SurvHorr which lead me to realize for all the discussion the topic of this genre while even using games as examples of what works and doesn't, nobody's actually mentioned their favorite games in the genre nor what of them they find appealing about titles and for all the talk of what on that list does or doesn't belong that no one's brought up what they think is an ideal survival horror has or doesn't, just about mechanics, camera angles, ammo count and more gameplay talk.

Aside from those three rules stated by the podcast people on the post from Blackquill no one's mentioned, specifically what they want out of a horror game. Is it creatures, is it atmosphere, is it disgusting imagery, disturbing concepts? What? Nobosy's mentioned Their interpretation of a HorrSurv, just what they want out of the game mechanics and a vague discussion about just having horror in general.

So, no, you didn't bring up the same points as him and therefore you didn't make me think of it.

Isn't the whole point of horror to, y'know, scare/horrify you? Therefore wouldn't the point of a survival horror game be to survive in a situation that's scary and horrifying? That stuff is pretty self explanatory - you can't really make a definitive set of rules, although I agree that those types of games shouldn't be easy to complete. However, if you want health regeneration, weapon/ammo pickups etc., then perhaps just have those things in a lower difficulty setting for the game. A lot of games turn certain 'advantages' and 'features' off when you up the difficulty, where's the problem with doing the same thing with a survival orientated game?

Then that would be Ju-On for the Wii. It's a game where your objective is to make it as far as you can. You're trapped in certain locations with Sayako and you teleport to different areas as you progress. You can't win this game, you simply survive longer each time you play, there is no goal to safety at the end. I've never played it since I've never owned a Wii, I will once I own one.
 
Last edited:
My views on horror are a bit more broad. Survival Horror doesn't always scare me. RE1 isn't a frighting game to me but man do I get a kick out of it, out of the whole experience, and I do consider it a horror title. But that's not saying much since I still apply the term to other titles. I consider DMC1 and Bloodborne horror games; the fact that there is action is irrelevant because I found myself actually scared when I play those games, not with DMC1 anymore, but the first time, in a dark room and with headphones, yeah, I found it scary. Rule of Rose, another favorite of mine in the genre, isn't scary at all, but I qualify it as a horror for it's unsettling nature.

Like I said before, horror is a very broad genre, it's not just fear for your life that can make a quote on quote horror experience.

Games like RE4, for example, aren't scary but I consider it horror because it delivers a tense experience. The first time I played it I was actually shaking and my heart was pounding trying to survive when I first got into the village. To actually trigger fight or flight instinct in a game is hard to do so props to it. Unfortunately once you've experienced it in one game it's not likely to happen again. Games like Bloodborne, The Evil Within, and Alien Isolation do the intense experience very well.

Silent Hill starts out telling you exactly the kind of horror it is. Fear of the blood leads to fear of the flesh. It's the type of horror we call psychological, because it studies human fears that originate in the psyche and not in something more primitive, like the fear of the dark or predatory creatures. These are fears of the dreaded things of the mind and the flesh. Fear of the rotted, a hell of steel, rust and blood, of tortured creatures.

Lovecraftian horror doesn't seem to translate well in to video games. The idea of cosmic horror is to learn of the absolutely minuscule scale and impact that is man and humanity, that there is something more powerful and infinitely older living in the darkness, something hostile, and no amount of technology or knowledge can make man equal to the oldest forces of the universe. Fear of the cosmic, of the immensity of the universe, and the Lovecraftian lore form this genre and ironically the closest a game's gotten to represent that is Bloodborne, thought there are still horror games based on the Cthulhu Mythos, though I hear not many get it right. I'm not big on this one and I don't seek it out but after playing Bloodborne I have more interest in it.

Rule of Rose is not about what's frighting, it's about what's twisted. Not all horror games focus on what can frighten a person but rather focus on twisted ideas, behavior, or concepts, sometimes human and sometimes not. This is still horror, though not necessarily the scariest of horrors. It won't keep you up at night nor will you be scared to be alone after, but it can leave lasting impact because it can be as powerful as a drama.

Biological horror is big in Japan. It's the idea that the body will degenerate or advancement will create horrors of the body. Resident Evil and Parasite Eve are good examples but it's more about disease, mutation or the decay of the body through nature or man's actions. Outlast might be a better example, from what I've seen.

Of course there also atmospheric horror, which depending on the title might be the opposite of survival horror since it doesn't mean you can actually die. I've heard they're out there but I've never played them, games that focus on creating a frighting experience through ambiance and atmosphere but you don't actually die, you just move through it, like a haunted house. P.T. might've qualified if there wasn't that one instance where Lisa can kill you, though I've heard you don't actually die in SH Shattered Memories you don't actually get killed by the creatures, they just take you back to the beginning of the level, since they are the representations of the daughter's psyche and she doesn't want to hurt the father. Those aside, though, I've only played a few games where the atmospheric horror is the focus; plenty of them have atmosphere but few make it the focus, like Daylight, but I know they're out there.

These are the ones I personally go out of my way to play but of course, like film, there are plenty of other sub genres, or themes in horror but games tend to have a mix of more than one. There's the creature games where the creatures a where the horor comes from be it zombie/vampire/demons/aliens, the serial killer, paranormal/supernatural/occult, Japanese themed ala Ring or Ju-on, ghosts/spirits, Gothic, teen slasher just became a thing, and others I can't even think of.

Like I said, it's a very broad genre.
 
Isn't the whole point of horror to, y'know, scare/horrify you? Therefore wouldn't the point of a survival horror game be to survive in a situation that's scary and horrifying?
Which brings up another issue:

Horror is subjective.

What scares one person will not appear scary to others and vice-versa.

The problem is when someone disapproves a game as being "horror", simply because that game doesn't personally scare him.
For example, someone plays Alien: Isolation and due to personal preference, does not find the game scary and therefore discredits it as a "Survival Horror" game.
It'd be okay if it was delivered as a personal opinion but such person usually will state it in a way that sounds like a "general definition" and expects everyone to agree.

The theory is "adding restrictions will make the game more tense and scarier" but usually, it works against the game where it only makes it annoying and inaccessible to certain players.

Fatal Frame is a good example of a horror game that doesn't screw you over with "you can't do this, you can't do that".
Despite having "non horror" features like upgrade points, ammo resupply, shop system in later games and combat-oriented gameplay, the game stays scary and creepy purely through atmosphere and presentation.

If developers depend too much on heavy restrictions to create tension and fear, then I see them as being bad at their jobs.
 
Which brings up another issue:

Horror is subjective.

What scares one person will not appear scary to others and vice-versa.
You know, that's funny because there are no movies that scare me anymore. Video games are the last venue of horror I have left to get genuine scares. Books, movies, music, art. Only video games can get to me now. I'd welcome a movie that makes me keep the lights on but nothing really impacts me like that anymore.
 
Survival horror
So all you can do is copy/paste descriptions from somewhere else to back up your own words?

Which goes back to what I said earlier.
Everyone insists on their own rules.
Can you prove that what you pasted is something generally accepted by everyone, players and developers alike?

Otherwise, we're back to square one and all that copy/pasting and color-coding was for nothing.
 
Shinji Mikami the creator of ResidentEvil & The Evil Within himself even agree with a few aspects of what SurvivalHorror is, aspects people here has already pointed out.
Don't make me repeat myself.

Can you prove that Shinji's concept of "Survival Horror" is universally accepted?
If you can't, it's just as I said: nobody can agree on an actual list of rules or guidelines and everyone insists that their definition is right.

And from my experience, whether people accept the things Shinji Mikami says is random to begin.
Some people reject the things Mikami says because he was the one who got tired of the classic style Resident Evil and carried out the changes seen in RE4, stating that he only started feeling tense and scared when playing the newer format.

just because you don't wanna accept that different people has many of the same ideas
It goes beyond "accepting different ideas".

The "Survival Horror" label was nothing more than the byproduct of typical Japanese packaging and marketing practice, which very few people were aware of.

That's the difference between the two of us.
I know the label's origins and didn't get deluded by it.
You're getting carried away by it, completely unaware of where it came from.
 
Vampire...

I have my own tastes when it comes to horror -- non-gore tastes, but there's still a certain style all the same.

You and I are both free to pursue our different avenues, and our ideal suspense/horror games would both be just fine in spite of that.

Does this mean that my ideal game is NOT true horror or true suspense? Maybe, maybe not. All I know, is that that would be enough for me.
 
@Goldsickle
Put Vampire on your ignore list.
@VampireWicked
Did you seriously just copy and paste and entire Wikipedia page on to a post?

This has just gotten well beyond the bound of out of hand. Ignore list, move the conversation along, or simply act civilized but enough spouting. Neither of you win this argument and leave it at that.
 
Wow put me on the ignore list like i provoked him or something.
I gave him exactly what he asked for, no i didn't copy an entire wiki page i gave him a bit of information. No one is being uncivilized here, there's no heated argument, no name calling, no insults.
A difference in opinion & that doesn't always equal uncivilized behavior.
You think that's all it takes for things to get unpleasant? Name calling and insults. There is a wall of orange text covering most of this page, that's taking making your point too far so let it go and move the conversation along.
 
Did i say that's all it takes.
So because i provide what he asked for, I gave an abundance of information so he'll have no doubts, you suggest to him i be placed on ignore like i'm some troll harassing him or something.
If i have broken the rules or trolled & harassed him then fine suggest ignore, but a difference in opinion & because i posted alot of information you point me out like i'm in the wrong & we were squabbling like vicious dogs. Just wow.
There is a giant wall of bold orange text taking up more than half of this page, how's that not trolling? You've taken making your point way too far. Dancing around the rules doesn't mean all this hasn't crossed a line where it's become detrimental. I feel like a teacher who has to deal with the one kid in class whose parents never say no to him.

I'm not asking you to stop the conversation you're having and moving it along. I'm not asking if you could or that you should, I'm telling you. I don't know why it's so crucial for you to win this argument to go to these lengths but drop it. And don't respond, just move it along.
 
It's not Shinji Mikami's concept of SurvivalHorror, it's a few of the many general concepts used by others that make up the definition of what's considered SurvivalHorror.
Still waiting for proof that what Shinji said is taken as Gospel by the general audience.
Like I said, I've met a lot of people who don't give a s*** what Shinji says.

Not to mention a few of the members here who posted in this very thread & the list in your starting post, the list you said yourself
Those people themselves couldn't agree with one another.
What I posted were recurring rules but nowhere did I say that they're all on the same page.

The origins of the survival horror game can be traced back...
And once again, more copy/paste nonsense.
You can't think for yourself.

Furthermore, the stuff you copy/pasted are just a bunch of opinions from various columnists, authors and journalists gathered together, a lot who aren't even involved in game development.
What's important isn't the Wikipedia article but the sources.

You can make copy/paste, edit texts, color-coding, screencapping with highlighting. etc. all you want but they don't mean anything if you can't come up with a good argument.
 
Still waiting for proof that what Shinji said is taken as Gospel by the general audience.
Like I said, I've met a lot of people who don't give a s*** what Shinji says.


Those people themselves couldn't agree with one another.
What I posted were recurring rules but nowhere did I say that they're all on the same page.


And once again, more copy/paste nonsense.
You can't think for yourself.

Furthermore, the stuff you copy/pasted are just a bunch of opinions from various columnists, authors and journalists gathered together, a lot who aren't even involved in game development.
What's important isn't the Wikipedia article but the sources.

You can make copy/paste, edit texts, color-coding, screencapping with highlighting. etc. all you want but they don't mean anything if you can't come up with a good argument.
Lord...

Mate, you are also exasperating the issue here. I can't force you to put VW on your ignore list but this circular argument is filled the better part of one page and it's become obvious that the two of you have reached an impasse where neither of you will see eye to eye and there is no getting around that nor is there finding common ground so if you're not going to add to ignore then just let it go and understand that there are those whom there is no changing their minds, just a VW will not change yours. Live and let live. This isn't a debate worth keeping going forward with and reading your posts I can't imagine you're very happy about having to present your point of view over and over again.
 
Back
Top Bottom