Soystation 5 General
- rabidtictac
- Posts: 20324
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
I said it was a good game. But like RE4, it contributed to the death of the genre because of its popularity.
Re: Soystation 5 General
But RE5 is that and MORE. Yet it doesn't make it instantly good. So obviously that's not it. With approach of tedium being a point of a game, you're not getting shit better than TEW or shitty and unbalanced games.
Some busy work, like inventory management? Sure. Tank enemies for the sake of filling tedium quota and force "survival" part? Well, no.
When Dead Space came out, genre was already fucking dead. RE5 is proof of that.rabidtictac wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:04 amI said it was a good game. But like RE4, it contributed to the death of the genre because of its popularity.
- VoiceOfReasonPast
- Supreme Shitposter
- Posts: 47642
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:33 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
Good thing we have modern and streamlined experiences like Five Dicks At Freddy's to continue the legacy of survival horror.
Autism attracts more autism. Sooner or later, an internet nobody will attract the exact kind of fans - and detractors - he deserves.
-Yours Truly
4 wikia: static -> vignette
-Yours Truly
4 wikia: static -> vignette
- rabidtictac
- Posts: 20324
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
Okay, that's actually a good point. It's not merely tedium, but the combination of a stiff challenge with a number of strategic options that all have their own downsides. There isn't really one single, optimal way to play classic survival horror games unless you're a speedrunner with l33t skills.Guestfag wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 10:14 amBut RE5 is that and MORE. Yet it doesn't make it instantly good. So obviously that's not it. With approach of tedium being a point of a game, you're not getting shit better than TEW or shitty and unbalanced games.
Some busy work, like inventory management? Sure. Tank enemies for the sake of filling tedium quota and force "survival" part? Well, no.
SpoilerShow
Imagine you come across a group of zombonis in a classic RE game like RE1, RE2 or even RE3. Let's say you have a pistol, some rounds, an herb and a first aid spray. There's a group of zombies right in your path and you can't avoid them. Here are your options:
-run past them anyway and take the hp loss, hoping it's not too much and you can keep going until you find more healing
-run past them all and use your first aid spray, tanking your score and wasting an item that would be more efficiently used against bosses (if you're going to use them at all)
-run past them all and use the herb, knowing that herbs aren't weighted drops and every Green Herb you use by itself gives a greater chance you'll reach lategame with a big pile of red herbs in the item box/game world that can't be used at all
-gun the zombies down and hope the amount of ammo you have is enough to take them out and you won't need your gun in the next section
-lure the zombies to some other part of the zone where you hope you can slip past them without taking any damage at all, sacrificing time on the gamble this might be possible and you won't get bit doing that
-knife them all (if you're a masochist)
All of these choices have their pluses and minuses. You might say "but most of these choices don't involve combat! I wanna shoot shit! Muh 720 noscopes!" Yeah, survival horror is all about balancing your resources against the challenge you face, and in that respect, nonviolence is favored sometimes. But not always. With zombies, there are many nonviolent options. Not quite so many when Lickers and Hunters enter the mix. Suddenly, you have to think a lot faster about whether or not you truly can avoid damage, or if taking the ammo loss is better.
RE5 is tedious in a bad way. In RE5, here are your options for dealing with a group of black jogger zombies:
-kill them all and loot the weighted drops
-don't kill them and die
You can't avoid combat because the zombies move as fast as you do and the other enemy types (dogs, fliers, bugs) move faster than you. Levels are mostly comprised of large arenas that won't open until every enemy is dead anyway. And then there's RE5 lategame, where every zombie has a fucking AK and hitscans you across the map.
The inventory "management" is pointless because it doesn't service anything. It doesn't matter what your character is carrying because you can just kill shit and it will drop whatever you need. You can even abuse this (iirc) between missions by dropping all your ammo in the between-mission storage thing and then going into a new stage.
Games like The Long Dark and Darkwood are close to the spirit of survival horror, even if they have more daily upkeep/bar management than a normal survival horror game.
In summary, I would say that what defines survival horror compared to other types of horror games (action horror, walking sim horror etc) is resource management. You need to receive enough resources for there to be meaningful management of them, but not so many that combat/progression becomes trivial. Not enough resources and you get walking sim horror. Too many resources and you get action horror.
-run past them anyway and take the hp loss, hoping it's not too much and you can keep going until you find more healing
-run past them all and use your first aid spray, tanking your score and wasting an item that would be more efficiently used against bosses (if you're going to use them at all)
-run past them all and use the herb, knowing that herbs aren't weighted drops and every Green Herb you use by itself gives a greater chance you'll reach lategame with a big pile of red herbs in the item box/game world that can't be used at all
-gun the zombies down and hope the amount of ammo you have is enough to take them out and you won't need your gun in the next section
-lure the zombies to some other part of the zone where you hope you can slip past them without taking any damage at all, sacrificing time on the gamble this might be possible and you won't get bit doing that
-knife them all (if you're a masochist)
All of these choices have their pluses and minuses. You might say "but most of these choices don't involve combat! I wanna shoot shit! Muh 720 noscopes!" Yeah, survival horror is all about balancing your resources against the challenge you face, and in that respect, nonviolence is favored sometimes. But not always. With zombies, there are many nonviolent options. Not quite so many when Lickers and Hunters enter the mix. Suddenly, you have to think a lot faster about whether or not you truly can avoid damage, or if taking the ammo loss is better.
RE5 is tedious in a bad way. In RE5, here are your options for dealing with a group of black jogger zombies:
-kill them all and loot the weighted drops
-don't kill them and die
You can't avoid combat because the zombies move as fast as you do and the other enemy types (dogs, fliers, bugs) move faster than you. Levels are mostly comprised of large arenas that won't open until every enemy is dead anyway. And then there's RE5 lategame, where every zombie has a fucking AK and hitscans you across the map.
The inventory "management" is pointless because it doesn't service anything. It doesn't matter what your character is carrying because you can just kill shit and it will drop whatever you need. You can even abuse this (iirc) between missions by dropping all your ammo in the between-mission storage thing and then going into a new stage.
Games like The Long Dark and Darkwood are close to the spirit of survival horror, even if they have more daily upkeep/bar management than a normal survival horror game.
In summary, I would say that what defines survival horror compared to other types of horror games (action horror, walking sim horror etc) is resource management. You need to receive enough resources for there to be meaningful management of them, but not so many that combat/progression becomes trivial. Not enough resources and you get walking sim horror. Too many resources and you get action horror.
- Kugelfisch
- The white ghost
- Posts: 46465
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
Dead Space never was in the genre. It's a horror-themed action shooter with some light puzzle elements and a pretty cool Space Hulk/Event Horizon story.rabidtictac wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 4:04 amI said it was a good game. But like RE4, it contributed to the death of the genre because of its popularity.
Survival Horror died, just like the Adventure genre, because there wasn't much left to do with it and a lack of innovation.
SpoilerShow
Centuries of blood becomes erased!
I am the white ghost!
- rabidtictac
- Posts: 20324
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
Adventure genre didn't die, it just morphed into walking sims and gay-ass virtue-signalling.
- Kugelfisch
- The white ghost
- Posts: 46465
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
No it didn't. Adventures are still around, just irrelevant. Walking Sims are just that. Those didn't evolve from anything. They are just a symptom of free game engines allowing some art school faggot to slap some gay shit together and market it to tumblr.rabidtictac wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 11:56 amAdventure genre didn't die, it just morphed into walking sims and gay-ass virtue-signalling.
You look at a 3rd person action shooter, see its horror theme and incorrectly assume it replaced Survival Horror.
Resident Evil having become an action shooter series appears to lend credence to that notion but it's mistaken. Those have been around forever and will be around forever.
Survival Horror didn't die because they all just became action games, it died because nobody knew what the fuck to do with it. It's just a fairly shitty genre that is just as simple as a shooter but doesn't remain fun through newer iterations of the same thing.
Let me put it like this: How many of the tank control, classic Survival Horror games during the genre's golden age were actually good?
SpoilerShow
Centuries of blood becomes erased!
I am the white ghost!
- Old Black Man
- Champion of Lawlhalla
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:54 am
Re: Soystation 5 General
All of them. Especially Overblood.Kugelfisch wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:49 pmLet me put it like this: How many of the tank control, classic Survival Horror games during the genre's golden age were actually good?
I’m getting too old for this shitposting.
- VoiceOfReasonPast
- Supreme Shitposter
- Posts: 47642
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:33 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
Alone in the Dark.
That's not morphing, that's false advertising. Classic adventure games were puzzle games at heart, and the only thing puzzling about walking sims is how the hack dev team got such a big budget.rabidtictac wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 11:56 amAdventure genre didn't die, it just morphed into walking sims and gay-ass virtue-signalling.
Autism attracts more autism. Sooner or later, an internet nobody will attract the exact kind of fans - and detractors - he deserves.
-Yours Truly
4 wikia: static -> vignette
-Yours Truly
4 wikia: static -> vignette
- rabidtictac
- Posts: 20324
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm
Re: Soystation 5 General
RE1, 2, 3. Arguably CVX. Maybe Dino Crisis 1. REmake. Silent Hill 1, 2 and 3. I'm sure there must be a couple others but yeah, not a ton. Not a ton of good collectathon 3d platformers either. I'll buy that it's a hard genre to make work but not that the genre is shit or anything.Kugelfisch wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 12:49 pm
Let me put it like this: How many of the tank control, classic Survival Horror games during the genre's golden age were actually good?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests