I've spent the last few days playing Silent Hill: Homecoming for an upcoming review at Variety. I'm not ready to say very much about it yet except for the little bit I say at my monthly feature for Kotaku that ran today. Be a little bit patient until I complete the review, because you can be sure I'll have quite a lot to say about it when all's said and done.
So remember a couple weeks back, I was talking about some of my best estimations, as a Westerner, of the differences between the Japanese approach to story, aesthetics and game design versus that of the West and how that's affected the games we see today as the West begins to predominate. We discussed the RPG genre as an example of where some of these differences have appeared -- I've used some of those same ideas in this feature, which covers the evolution of next-gen survival horror games into more action-oriented titles, wondering one thing: Does survival horror as we know and love it still exist?
Some of the commenters on the article suggested we need new definitions for "survival horror," and could potentially separate "action survival horror" from "psychological horror," or something. What do you guys think?
And, speaking of genre evolution, my colleague Stephen Totilo is re-evaluating the word "RPG," looking at the games we have today and which ones literally let you "play a role" -- what do you think of the idea of LittleBigPlanet, which lets you feel like a game designer, and Guitar Hero, which lets you feel like a rock star, as "role-playing games?" Either way, he and I both seem to agree that our traditional genre labels are becoming pretty useless.
Oh! I will say one more little thing about Homecoming. Remember when some screenshots came out and everyone got all worried because it looked like crap? Those screenshots are in no way representative of the final quality of the game's look :)
9 comments:
Even if we do change the name or make a distinction between Survival Action and Psychological Horror, it doesn't change the fact that Action is the main genre being looked in to and developped while psychological horror remains a thing of the past.
If your words are anything to go by, then perhaps SH5 will reinvigourate the psychological horror genre.
As I said in a previous post, the Western genre should definitely be redefined. The genre as a whole, is nothing more than a play on the remake of Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later in video game form. Relying on nothing much more than "boo scares" and gunning down scores of zombie-esque creatures. Silent Hill has done a good job on environmental suspense, slowly building up with little things, such as setting, music, and unseen elements.
In terms of the Resident Evil series, I couldn't really call them Survival Horror, as much as Survival Sci-Fi or Survival Cinema Verite. The whole "undead" part of the plot is explained as viral weaponry. Nothing mysterious about it. I prefer just not knowing what makes these undead creatures undead. And also not being able to see these things coming until the last minute.
The environments are also not creepy enough. Where are the bloody handprints of children on the wall? Or the screaming babies in the distance? Things are ten times scarier when it involves kids.
Maybe it is just a business decision to be politically correct and not be too scary, or maybe we as gamers have just become way too desensitized. I do know, as a gamer that I want to have the shit scared out of me when I play a "survival horror".
Maybe it is dead, but maybe it needs to be right now. Movies have taught me that genre success is largely cyclical. Everyone proclaims the death of Westerns, but Appaloosa is coming out, The Assassination of Jesse James won a lot of acclaim and the genre just refuses to die.
What will probably happen is that someone will read this column and keep it in the back of their heads when the decide to revive the classic survival horror game in a few years. Or Capcom will make Resident Evil 13 retro style like they did with Mega Man 9.
i have high hopes for valve's left 4 dead. i think they've got a novel idea and a good development team.
the co-op aspect is the most interesting aspect, imho.
Ah, semantics. Gotta love 'em. Totilo's post, although interesting, strikes me as something of an exercise in mental masturbation. He's technically right that there are many games where the player more literally adopts a role than in RPGs, but whether the term is well chosen or not, "RPG" defines a certain genre (or, at least, certain systems within a game) that is pretty clearly understood by people. We could just as easily call the games he mentioned "simulators," but how far would that get us?
Genre definitions, for all their numerous problems, are a useful shorthand for informed people to discuss their interests in a medium that has a lot of permutations. Whether it is music, books, movies or games, those genre definitions mean something by consensus, not by open interpretation.
So that brings us to "Survival Horror," which is already a funny genre, because when Capcom first used the term to describe Resident Evil way back when, I rolled my eyes. Resident Evil was so OBVIOUSLY an Adventure game, in my mind. But then I realized: Adventure games weren't selling. They were associated with a very deliberate, slow style of play. The worst examples favored a frustrating degree of randomness and pixel-hunting. It was a discredited genre in need of fresh blood (or braaaains) and maybe a fresh coat of paint helped with that.
All of which is a long, boring way of saying that we shouldn't get so caught up on the names of things. The real question is: are there still games that offer the kind of richer psychological horror that some gamers want, or is that style of gameplay now too niche to support a market? And if that gameplay style is dead (or, at least, comatose), where do all those gamers go next?
And you role play a Space Marine in Doom! And you role play a tripping plumber in Super Mario Brothers!
Totilo's column is garbage. Another of those "Let me make an outlandish claim back it up with some sketchy evidence and look how clever I am!" You read enough columnists phoning it in (Rick Reilley every week lets say)and you get familiar with the genre.
I'm much, much more worried about plot and atmosphere with SHV than look. The monsters we've seen seemed much more generic than previous titles, for one.
Psychological horror's still going strong, if you ask me. Leigh liniks to Chris's Quest in her article- he made the point a while ago that proper horror games tend to be uncommon when new consoles firsat come out due to their niche status, and pop up more later in the generation.
Of course, part of the problem is that Japan's got quite a bit of stuff we haven't yet. There's still no firm western release date for Project Zero/Fatal Frame 4, and I doubt we'll ever get Nanashi No Game, sadly. (The latter, I should add, looked incredible)
There's Cursed Mountain, Heavy Rain, The Woods, that un-named project from the Penumbra developers and possibly even Sadness in development, too.
I just found my way here after reading this post over at kotaku, I share your view that *survival horror* is more or less dead, and honestly I say RE4 was the final nail in the coffin.
I wish I didn't enjoy playing that game as much as I did, it was such a blast but to me, didn't have the hallmarks of a Resident Evil game.
Where was my ammo management? Where was the fight/flight mechanic?
Without too much tweaking, that game could have remained action orientated, but still retained those elements.
Thanks for a great read, and congrats on passing 500,000 visits.
Post a Comment