Talk:Survival horror/Archive 1

Devil May Cry?

I do not personally believe that Devil May Cry belongs in the Survival Horror Genre, as DMC lacks some major points of Survival Horror. ___________________________________________________

1. "Though most commonly associated with the Resident Evil mechanics described above, games where the player is made to feel underpowered, generally fighting alone for the bulk of the game, with limited supplies (especially ammunition and health (hence "survival"). Survival horror game

Dante (The Main Character) is by far not underpowered against the regular enemies. Boss Battle are not counted. His guns have unlimited ammunition, but all medical items are limited.

2. "Other games such as the Doom and Alien versus Predator series include horror elements, but give the player a sense of being very powerful. Such games are not typically considered survival horror because the "survival" aspect is not present. Survival horror game

I consider that DMC is situated in the same category as Doom and AvP. They all include elements of survival horror, but at the same time give the player a character who is not considered to be "weak". DMC does have a certain element of "Survival" in the game, but it does not play a major role as it does in Resident Evil or Alone in the Dark, for example.

3 "The game also features some puzzle-solving and exploration elements retained from its survival-horror beginnings, but these are downplayed; Devil May Cry puts emphasis on action." Devil May Cry

The Wikipedia Article clearly states that DMC has all the characteristics of a Survival Horror Game and even a history, as it was originally meant to be a Survival Horror game, But its emphasis is clearly on enjoyable (this can be debated) action. Therefore it cannot be counted as a Survival Horror game.

4"However, in prototype status, it proved to be too different from the Resident Evil series and the survival horror genre in general." Devil May Cry

This is the final point. Even though it is borrowed from the original wikipedia Article (I dont know how "legal" that is in this kind of a debate, but I'll try.) it clearly states that it was "too different" from the original concept of a "Resident Evil" game and from the genre in total. ___________________________________________________

I also did a bit of search on the web:

• Gamespot quotes DMC as a "Fantasy Action Adventure" game.

• Gamespy quotes DMC as a "Action, Adventure" game.

• IGN does not specify the genre, but it does not comment it as a "Survival Horror Game" in its Review or Game Page

___________________________________________________

That is it. The "Survival Horror" part should be removed from the game description and DMC should be removed from the Survival horror game article. Arctic-Editor 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 Poor example?

The article lists Resident Evil 4 as a primary example of surivial horror but I'd say it falls less into the lines of survival horror as it contains plenty of ammo, your character performs super human stunts, spends a lot of timing shooting and almost no time conserving ammo (you're encourage to kill and collect money/ammo) and the upgrade system/the merchant removes a portion of the *finding guns to survive* style of a lot of Survival Horror games. I'm not saying it's not mostly a survival horror game I just feel a lot more games would be more suited as a true example of the genre maybe even a past resident evil or silent hill --KaL YoshiKa 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I already brought this up somewhere down the bottom, but yes, I agree. Resident Evil 4 is much more similar to Devil May Cry than anything else. At the very least, it certainly isn't a "prime example" of the survival-horror genre. Gamer Junkie 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur; 'Resident Evil 4' is not a good example of the genre at all. I am not too concerned with unlimited ammunition as an issue as circumstances in the storyline might contribute to the unlimited amount, but any game that demands players to spend money in order to survive should not count as survival horror. Furthermore, I cannot recall any real atmosphere in the game; forgiving the fact that what little atmosphere was drowned out by the non-stop action and the idiocy of each character in their personality, dialouge and appearances, there is little to no atmosphere that runs the length of the game. I personally would like to see it be removed from the list as I don't feel stuffing a game with action and sprinkling blood on the top makes a game horrific. Mairebleu 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Resident Evil 4 IS a survival horror game, just an action-oriented one. Sure, Leon is a laser-dodging, monster-eyeball-stabbing badass, but the game's atmosphere is definately one of fear, tension and isolation. Plus, it still has a lot of "survival" elements, like mixing herbs and whatnot; it's not like you can walk over a health kit and magically be healed. And there's plenty of horror - Really, anyone would be freaked out if they were trapped in a crusty old shack as dozens of crazed villagers attack. 63.3.0.129 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind everyone's personal rules, what do gaming journalists refer to it as? QuagmireDog 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Let's see now, these are PS2 version reviews, all pulled from the first few reviews listed on the Gamerankings page:

• Gamespy: Third-Person Action Adventure [1]
• Gamespot: Since its debut on the PlayStation in 1996, the genre-defining Resident Evil series has had its ups and downs, though it's always remained at the forefront of survival horror games. Yet it's not enough to call Resident Evil 4 one of the high points of the series, because this is probably the single greatest horror-themed action game ever created. [2]
• IGN: Horror Survives It truly delivers next-generation gameplay -- right now -- and it redefines what developers are capable of not only in survival horror or shooters [3]
• Gamepro: Capcom managed to produce a top notch action game that not only stayed true to the Resident Evil franchise, but also a title that hopefully ushers in a new era of survival horror gaming. [4]
• Gamezone: The graphics are beautiful, the monsters are unreal, and the gameplay is the most action-packed a survival/horror game has ever been. You're not always running, but you're constantly on the move and constantly in fear. [5]

They're good sites with good reviews and they're virtually all singing from the same hymn-book - RE4 is survival horror evolved. QuagmireDog 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have to fix your links, I tried going to all of those links and not a one showed up. However, seeing how I've access to the internet, I decided to look up a few of the reviews and hoped to find a few of the following words: terror, atmosphere, scary, shock, creepy and suspense (I didn't bother with the word horror because it would've mostly applied to the listed genre of the review). Of the reviews I found, few of these reviews actually used these words in context, but not once did they ever use a DIRECT example. Even a high school freshman is taught that in order to stress your opinion, you must use explicit examples in order to prove a valid and lucid point to your audience. For example:

Greg Kasavin of Gamespot wrote: "Of course, effort alone isn't enough to make a game like Resident Evil 4. This is the result of an extreme level of talent on multiple fronts, and you need look no further than the presentation--as demonstrated by the graphics and sound--for proof. Resident Evil 4 perfectly and constantly evokes a suffocating, scary atmosphere, yet it's one that's rich with intrigue." [6]

The only proof he supports with this claim adheres all to the word 'suffocating' early in the review as he describes the uniqueness of the enemies. As for them being terrorizing, atmospheric, scary, shocking, creepy and suspenseful, it's not stated there. Enemies that are suffocating to the player branch out into various categories: challenging, obnoxious, intelligent and over-all human. None of which can truly apply to being the above... unless you apply your opinion to it.

And thus proves my point: why should one trust the professionals to judge and define a game's genre when they prove that they are not looking in the right places? The judging of the AI alone is enough to denote personal experiences from the game, but all of which come down to the majority of what you oppose. The personal rules and opinions of the players, the consumers who actually care about what they buy and play, must apply to the content.

Try doing a word search and juxtapose how many times you find the original search words terror, atmosphere, scary, shock, creepy and suspense - everything that should be in a Survival Horror game - compared to the word action - the one thing that shouldn't inundated a Survival horror game - when reading a Resident Evil 4 review. 'Survival Horror evolved?' More like regressed. Mairebleu 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you put a lot of effort into your argument, but I don't find it very convincing. The thesis of section you quoted fits the definition of the genre that we've defined on this page--I don't really see any conflict in his main message. Picking at syntax seems like you are struggling to find a contraction where none exists. Also, per your point about professionals being untrustworthy, I'm afraid I have to ask: what makes you (or me, or anybody else on Wikipedia) any more qualified than those guys to write this stuff? At least they do it for money and are paid because somebody values their opinions, which per Wikipedia's notability policy, makes them "more right" than any of us. I think it is fair to say that Resident Evil 4 is faster paced and puts more emphasis on action than previous games in the series has, but I don't think that precludes it from being Survival Horror any more than Super Mario 64 is precluded from being a platformer because it is in 3D. --waka 00:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

QuagmireDog, if we were to create a "survival horror evolved" article, then perhaps this would fit. As it stands, I suggest we steer well clear of such controversial additions as the game in question. There are many titles in the Resident Evil series that the majority of the fanbase can agree are survival horror themed, but Resident Evil 4 is certainly not one of them, as we've already proven above (and further below) this conversation. I'd imagine this debate will continue to no avail for either position should we place this title in the article. I have already made my position clear, and if we're listening to the professionals now, perhaps we should go with what Capcom, themselves, had to say. The back cover of my game (Australian release) says "Forget zombies. Forget Raccoon City. Forget survival horror." I think that's about as professional as a perspective gets. Gamer Junkie 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not discussing this with you sooner, I had decided to leave the project due to a few issues but have since returned.

There is no authorative definition of survival horror, if there was it'd be in the article and these discussions wouldn't happen. Since there is no hard definition of survival horror, we use the games widely regarded as survival horror in order to classify the genre. Journos take these games and write articles of their own about them. The term itself is out in the wild and subject to change - nobody has power over its usage.

Reviews from gaming journos are reliable sources, player opinions aren't. If it isn't from a reliable source then it can't be used to build this article or any other.

As far as whether or not RE4 is bona fide SH, there are multiple reliable sources saying it is, some of which are supplied above. The links don't work now, but they did at the time and the quoted text is copied and pasted without alteration. It was incorrect to state that all reviews say the same, they do not. That means that many more reliable sources need to be dug up, showing differences of opinion, from which we should be able to hammer out some agreeable wording.

Capcom's "forget survival horror" is a slogan. It could speak volumes about their dead-horse flogging of RE spin-offs or the generally mixed reviews of games classed as SH just as easily as it could simply be a statement of "it ain't SH". I was aware of it before making my previous post, I'm not going to cast the idea away on the strength of it.

I'm working on two articles right now, and I swore I wouldn't take on too much at once when I came back. When I've finished off with them, I'll return and start bringing back sources. With enough sources here, we should be able to decide on whether it should be mentioned at all, and in what capacity. QuagmireDog 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, no rush, I've got a few things to take care of myself. However, it would appear Capcom are releasing a title designed to capitalise on Resident Evil 4's success. It's called Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, and it's an RE4-styled action remake of the franchises earlier titles. So answer me this: Why remake survival horror games in the RE4 style if RE4 is survival horror? Technically, the previous titles current style of gameplay should be sufficient, should it not? Gamer Junkie 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate 'boxes' here: The 'Survival Horror' style of gaming (and use of the term) which Capcom ushered in with Resident Evil, and the now widely used term as a genre which is used to describe games similar to the early RE games (such as Silent Hill, Rule of Rose and Fatal Frame), horror games with survival elements, or indeed games which the game industry/press chooses to refer to as survival horror.

Remaking the earlier games in a more action-orientated way to resemble their own smash-hit which has garnered huge praise and sales is .. well it's not surprising. There won't be massive queues of people wanting to buy games with a creaky and outdated control scheme, fetch quests, auto aiming and other problems widely attributed to SH games. But then our definition is not about game mechanics, old or new, it's what the industry and the press says about the genre and what they collectively term individual games.

Have Capcom released statements along the lines of "survival horror is dead, we're forging NEW games"? I wouldn't be surprised if they were. However, this is several years too late if Capcom wish to claim rights to the term survival horror - it's no longer theirs to do with what they wish. The term hasn't solely represented Capcom's games for a good number of years. To that end, whilst we can certainly cite any of these details if they are made explicit, in relation to Capcom's games, we're not asking their permission to label games as survival horror. That remains with the wider view. Strenuous denial of the label can be noted, but outright banishment from the genre relies on the gaming press' use of the term or not.

Likewise, if other developers start copying RE4's mechanics closely and these games are widely labelled survival horror? The same thing, if that's what they call it then that's what it is. The net result is we're where we are now - cite sources, discuss any potential problems. If the industry and the press turn around and say "survival horror is 'this', and survival horror is dead", then it's that and it is indeed dead. Whether that happens or not I've no idea - we're at a very unpredictable (but exciting) time for the genre and it could go anywhere from here.

What I do know is that: Come what may, there is going to be more information to add to the article. The text here does not represent a fraction of what we can say about the subject. There are many more citations out there waiting to be had, many of which could be buried within SH game reviews, which will only come to light when the countless SH game articles are being brought up to standard. If we continue to try and present readers with reliable, citable info we can't go far wrong. I hope this is a more useful answer. QuagmireDog 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate what QuagmireDog has so expertly described: we should select games to talk about in this article based on the definition of the genre that we've provided in this article. Any game that fits that definition is worthy of inclusion in the article, regardless of marketing slogans, the origin of the survival horror term, etc. If there are games that fit our definition and are not survival horror, that suggests that our definition itself is lacking. In the case of RE4, I think it clearly fits the definition provided in the article, and by that justification alone is worthy of inclusion. I also think it's a particularly good game to include in the article because it gives us an opportunity to show the reader how varied the survival horror landscape is. --waka 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem. While some would be tempted to call it a variation, others will quite simply say that the game is well and truly off the mark. As I'm not the person re-writing this article, I won't be the one choosing the games we add and, ultimately, I'm leaving the decision to those who are. I'm simply saying that, while some will agree that Resident Evil 4 is survival horror, ALL will agree that Resident Evil 2 is survival horror.The question is why bend over backwards in an effort to convince those who will not agree with one title's inclusion, when those same people will agree unquestionably with another title which is just as brilliantly made and valid to the genre as the former?

QuagmireDog, I understand what you are saying, but it might be a tough call convincing people that the game's developers don't even know what type of game they've made, and I'm still unsure why we'd elect not to mention the earlier titles in the series to begin with. Gamer Junkie 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Gamer Junkie! I think you hit the nail on the head with that! Don't mean to suck up, but that sounds much more convincing: why argue for the one game that is met with resistence than the ones that are emmidately admitted.

I feel that my only concern now is people's current perception of atmosphere; I know I can't change how everyone preceives atmospherics, I'm just hoping that people can recgonize atmospherics. Such is a topic that seems to be dodged quite often in regards to Resident Evil 4 is a sense of atmosphere that is not lost amidst action both in game and during cut-scenes, both of which in RE4's case smothered any and all atmospherics, yet I often feel like I'm the only person who feels this way. Think about how many action-horror based movies have come out as of late: none of which supplied a thick or rich atmosphere due to a rather obnoxious inundation of pretentious action sequences. Is ANY of that scary? Does anyone think kicking off heads adds to atmosphere? It really feels like the movie media is trying to implement that, but none of that seems right; why conform to something you know is wrong to begin with just beacuse it's fun or has a similar name? Mairebleu 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Mairebleu

Any Help?

I'm trying to remember the name of an old game that doesn't appear on anyone's list and it's driving me crazy. I think it was made around the same time as Alone in the Dark I and had similar gameplay, except you could customize your character's strenths in 4 major catogories like Strength or Magic, and about 8 subcatagories within that. You were a private eye trapped in a house full of monsters, and you'd find magic books and objects, clubs, guns, armor, and the like, while learning about the bizarre history of a family whose members were into some evil magic and trying to kill each other. While exploring the house, there was a portal to an insane asylum where the sister wandered around with an ax, a portal to other dimensions, and all kinds of bizarre demons. Does anyone have any clue what I'm talking about?

Could this game be Dr Hauzer for the 3DO machine?

Can you tell us the system you were playing it on (PC, etc)? Was the graphical style like Alone in the Dark (3rd person with 3D characters and fixed cameras)? Did it come on CD-ROM? --waka 19:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was first person, PC, and I think the name might have had the word Legacy in it somewhere. I'm not certain, but I think it came on 3.5" floppies.

Are you thinking of Realms of the Haunting? --waka

No, it was before that. The screen setup showed your character's picture on the left side, where you could add items and armor etc. to him, and the view of the screen was POV from a window to the right. You could gain experience through successful attempts to kill things or break down doors, and add it to your intelligence or magic or health or other attributes and skills.

When you say this was first person, do you mean it was real-time animated (that is, you can see the walls moving around when you move, like Doom), or was it more of a point-and-click affair? What you are describing sounds like Uninvited or Might and Magic. How old was this? Early '90s? Mid '80s? Early '80s? Do you remember how fast the computer you played it on was (386, etc)? --waka 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was closer to point and click--the monsters moved fluidly, were animated, and would come towards you and attck if you stood still but you moved between fixed spots in the game as opposed to moving smoothly like Doom. This would have been made in the early to mid 90's. No video clips or actors in it.

Ok, it's gotta be The Legacy: Realms of Terror. 1993 by Micropose. Right? --waka 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

YES!!! That's it! That has been nagging at the back of my head for months. Thank you. You sir, are both a scholar and a gentleman.

say... whay aren't doctor hauzer and overblood here? the first game was a 3DO import that predated resident evil and had some similar puzzle elements (as well as riverhill soft's unique 3D engine that was tweaked for overblood). also, anyone here ever play waxworks, the classic pc game from horrorsoft? i'd consider that in the "survival horror" genre... there are also a couple of famicom and super famicom rpgs (madara, madara 2, raprus no ma, etc.) that definitely fit this theme. one minor problem here (and on other lists i've seen) is that people are using resident evil as the base for their discussion, but it was only the first game to USE the term "survival horror" (and the first sh game many played), not THE first survival horror game.

g.

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. Danikolt (Talk) 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. Danikolt (Talk) 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. Danikolt (Talk) 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 seem 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. Danikolt (Talk) 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)

That he did, but I never agreed with such an action. Too much for nothing. The manual of style might say something like that, but I've never seen anyone ever corrupting a title to conform with those guidelines. Also, the manual of stile is not a bible, in my conception. It should be undertood as something to aid people on their decisions on Wikipedia, but those aren't strict rules. As for being the right name or not, I still place my bets of "DOOM". That's id's name of choice nowadays, so that's enough for me. I also like it better, so that's why I refer to the games that way. =]

About the other games you mentioned, perhaps you're right. I've never seen it that way. DOOM isn't exactly special. It only popularized the FPS shooter genre, since it came up with several features that hadn't been used before (not even on Wolfenstein 3D).--Kaonashi 21:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First game?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Friday the 13th for the Commodore 64. This was the first real Survival Horror game I played. You played a random character in a small town and were surrounded by a dozen other people...one of which was secretly Jason. Every few minutes, there would be a scream as Jason murdered someone. You had to try to visit various homes to find out who it was and kill them. It had the absolute creepiest music for the time. --WillDarlock 22:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though Friday the 13th for the C64 is predated by Halloween on the Atari 2600 (Halloween came out in 1983, Friday the 13th in 1985), it remains one of the earliest horror games ever. There was also a NES version in 1989, but it was quite different than the C64 version you mentioned. Feel free to add it to the list if you like, I think our definition of the genre certainly describes it.--waka 04:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good article.

Ground 12:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stuff

There isn't enough mention of the method of gameplay. For example, it's barely mention the main goal isn't to fight but to run whenever possible. Also the types of ideas in puzzles [collect a key, unlock a door, etc]. Also the explaination is too narrow, as in just "claustrophobic" rather than more descriptive, and say, "darkness". I've been trying to make an improvement here, and I think it's important that my edits are retained. Haoie 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing here is that it's not just about running whenever possible. It depends on the game. If you run whenever possible on Parasite Eve, for example, you'll never level up, and that will make things impossible later in the game. Of course it's not always possible to run either, but you get my point. That should also be considered.--Kaonashi 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Still I want to add a new section called gameplay style to encompass what the general idea of survival is. It'll focus on things like necessary conservation of ammo/health due to scarcity, common types of puzzles (eg locked doors needing keys, or using 1 item to get another item to get another item, etc), the idea of running or just avoiding whenever possible in many games to prevent danger, different kinds of scare techniques, etc. And incidentally, Parasite Eve 1 is more like RPG, less like horror [few horrors involve leveling up or random battles]. PE2 as you probably already know is a lot more survival esque. Haoie 08:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that we've defined this genre to be a thematic genre, not a mechanical one. Game play is not what defines survival horror games, it's the horror element. Consequently, it's very hard to make any broad sweeping statements about "survival horror game play." You can talk about ammo conservation if you are thinking of Resident Evil, but that mechanic isn't really applicable to games like Fatal Frame or The Suffering or Echo Night or Siren. You can talk about running away for a game like Clock Tower, but that mechanic certainly isn't shared by Silent Hill, Doom 3, Alone in the Dark, D, etc. Even "darkness" is a difficult motif to claim all survival horror games share: the Resident Evil series is very well lit compared to something like Silent Hill, and some games like Obscure actually have large daytime outdoor missions. My point is that this group of games share common thematic elements but not necessarily common game play elements, so a game play section seems sort of superfluous. I think you'd have to cover each mechanic (fixed camera vs 3D? ranged combat vs melee? focus on combat or exploration? puzzle solving or no?) for each game, and then the article really wouldn't be a general overview of the genre any longer. --waka 15:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Waka. The defining key element here is the theme. There was some big, confusing discussion about something like this up there on this page. As for Parasite Eve, it is not more like RPG and less like horror. On the very contrary. Parasite Eve is a science-fiction horror thriller. What we have on it that makes it different from more classic survival horror titles is a slightly different approach on gameplay. The RPG elements you talk about make presence in the gameplay. More specifically, in the battle system. You don't see a lot of RPG elements elsewhere (though maybe the large amount of menus make people remember of RPGs). The rest is still a lot like other survival horror games. In the battle, you have an active time bar, and you have to wait until it builds up in order to use items, switch weapons, use powers, flee, and attack (with possibility of choosing targets). That does remind a lot of Final Fantasy. No wonder, since it's Square we're talking about. However, that's as far as the RPG style on this game goes.

But sure, a new section talking about the "rules of the genre" sounds good. Just keep in mind you must take some care when talking about this. Remember what you read here if you decide to write it.--Kaonashi 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The other thing I was going to mention was light gun games like House of the Dead. What about them? Haoie 00:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Light gun games are fine, but I don't think they really fit into the survival horror definition. I don't think that horror is the "defining game play characteristic" in a game like House of the Dead--I think defining characteristic is shooting stuff with a light gun. That said, the House of the Dead series in particular certainly has lots of horrific imagery, but I guess I'd still exclude it because you could swap all the art out with some different theme (like they did with Ninja Assault) and it would still be pretty much the same game. I think that the point of defining this genre is to categorize the few games that actually employ horror as the central element of the game. --waka 18:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. I do agree that games like the House of the Dead and the Gun Survivor series are pretty much like any arcade shooting game (in the vein of Virtua Cop), but I'm not sure. I guess there could be a mention about them here, since they do have something to do with this all, but maybe not. I think it's not all that important anyway.--Kaonashi 02:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There's just not enough mention about how these games are meant to scare you though 1 means or another [surprises, disturbing events, feeling of vulnerability] for the most half. In the whole story the word 'fear' only appears once, and 'scare' doesn't appear at all. I mean, that's the whole point of horror.

I don't disagree with you, I just think that such a section is going to be difficult because the variety of methods is so wide. Also, I don't think that promotion of fear in the player is a strict requirement for this genre... clearly some games like Illbleed are meant to be more humorous than scary, but that doesn't stop the theme from being horrific. However, the topic of how games can be used to scare players is a very interesting one, and it is pretty unique to this genre, so I don't think it would be bad to have a brief section. Since there is already plenty of information available on horror movies, we should probably concentrate only on those aspects that are unique to video games. I think that to do this correctly, we're going to have to identify five or six popular games and explain the mechanics they employ. The adventure game page does something like this with its history section. This genre is rife with innovation, so we need to carefully pick a few games that show how wide the range of styles is. I don't think we should just study games that were popular. My vote for the five most interesting (in terms of promotion of fear in the player) survival horror games is:

• Silent Hill series, esp. Silent Hill 2 - use of psychological stress to induce fear; themes of isolation and claustrophobia; force feedback, etc
• Resident Evil series - artificial feeling of vulnerability created by heavy rationing of ammo, health, and saves; monster designs reflect strength of protagonist
• Hellnight / Clock Tower (The First Fear), or any of the Clock Tower series - utter feeling of vulnerability caused by lack of ability to defend oneself against the antagonist; constant looming threat of death.
• Siren - tension created by fuzziness of antagonist's perception: player is forced to choose hiding spots that seem to be safe, but some ambiguity in the depth and range of the enemies perception keeps the player on edge. Also, threat of failure is very high.
• Fatal Frame series - use of highly vulnerable protagonists compounded with purposefully ineffectual-looking weapon; focus on traditional Japanese concepts of ghosts and haunting.

I think we should just pick a few games, explore them in the page, and note that these are simply a sample because the genre itself is wide and varied. --waka 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove the games list?

What do you guys think about removing the list of games from this page and just linking to the category instead? Seems like it would tighten up the article, and then we wouldn't have to maintain two lists in two places. --waka 19:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't remove the list. It's the only connection the reader will have between the genre and the titles themselves. You can think of the categories as another list, but those things are different. That's also located at a different place. A link to that will never have the same effect of a list on the body of the article. Maybe you think all the discussion in regards to the definition of the genre here and "what game is survival horror and what isn't" is a good reason to remove the list and end this, I think it isn't. The list doesn't need to be perfect and 100% accurate. There's a note right there explaining people that. I know, because it was me who put it there.--Kaonashi 02:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Should probably keep it. Don't know if some others should be added though [like the aforementioned light gun titles]. Haoie 03:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other. Perhaps we can add some context to the list. The First Person Shooter page is really nice because it lists a select number of games that tie into the other information (history, etc) documented on the page. The Platformer page has something like that as well, and it's very nice. The Fighting game page has even separated out a list of fighting games, though the list lacks context and isn't as informative as the FPS or Platformer pages. One of the other things that many other genre pages contain is a chronological list or map of the evolution of the genre. I'd like to add something like that... what do you guys think? --waka 04:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my call that we change the games list to be a shorter list of significant games with more commentary and make another page or rely on the survival horror games category for an exhaustive games list. I think we should have a few games that were pivotal to the development of the genre listed with in-depth commentary. The category should be used as an exhaustive list of games within the genre. The fighting game article has a whole separate list of fighting games, the first-person shooter article has a very in-depth history section with specific game examples, as well as a list of "Selected important games in FPS development," and a separate page containing List of first-person shooters. The Platform Game article also has separated an important games list and an exhaustive List of platform games, and even the music game and puzzle game articles have separated their games list from their main article. I think we should do the same, and I'll even volunteer to make the changes. --waka 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with that. Despite the boundaries of survival horror being somewhat blurred, it remains a sub-genre of action adventure with a couple of exceptions, there are not many survival horror games and a game featuring horror is not by definition survival horror either. This page should reflect the core similarities of SH games and offer some of the obvious examples. Even with a seperate list, I'd suggest that we keep it to games which are widely regarded as SH and omit any almost-but-not-quites. When I came here yesterday I noticed that Shadow Hearts was, for some bizarre reason, listed as SH. Eh? Same goes with others on the list. Is there not a horror game category? If we're going to talk about a wide-reaching genre or method of identification then surely that'd be a better jumping-off point then everything remotely horror-related being lumped into SH? Anyways, I'd fully support the suggestion you posted in Sep 2005 Waka, to list and break-down a handful of games to give readers a handle on what SH is. QuagmireDog 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still up for it, but I don't want to make the change if it's just going to be reverted by somebody who disagrees. So a year and a half later, does anybody still disagree with this approach? --waka 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that was fair warning. If a survival horror category exists then that would be a better place for them. QuagmireDog 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. Eyes open, brain on. The usefulness of the list is extremely debatable, however since many games have already been featured in the article, those entries can be removed. I'll do so, making sure that they are already in the SH category. At least then, the remaining games are at least those not already in the article. Eventually the need for a half-complete list will vanish, but in the meantime it can be shrank somewhat. QuagmireDog 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The list is unnecessary. We only need a couple - a few at most - notable exceptions regarding the genre. If people want to keep the list, it can be moved to a "List of survival horror games" article, as per the norm. Personally, I don't think that's even necessary, though. Gamer Junkie 05:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Media

Is survival horror really only applicable to games? I have always used it for books, movies etc that fir the feel and mode. Scix 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like other media already have their own horror classifications (like film has the slasher, the thriller, the gore-fest, etc). I'm not sure how applicable the term is to other types of media. Also, the page points out that survival horror games make a concentrated effort to induce fear through interaction, which is something other media cannot claim. --waka 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What about, then, for example, the movies and comics based on the games? Scix 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, pretty tricky. Is the Resident Evil (movie) movie a horror movie or an action movie? What aspects of themes of isolation, ammunition rationing, or puzzle solving are present in Alone in the Dark (movie) ? I think it's better not to pollute the phrase with other media. --waka 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How about at least a mention that Survival horror has inspired works in other media? Do you think that would clutter things unduly? Scix 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine to me. Why not just make a See Also category? --waka 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I started something along these lines ... hopefully I (or others) will recall more examples. D'you think the wording is unclear? Scix 01:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up your edits to move the list into a paragraph and added a couple of links. Looks good to me! --waka 14:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I guess, since all we have listed are adaptations it is more sensible to treat them as such. I know there are other works inspired by but not actual adaptations of, but I am having a hard time remembering now -- I rather wish I'd written it down when I first had the thought. Still, an adaptations section, int he interim, makes sense. Scix 18:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion

Could Maniac Mansion be classified under this genre? It seems to have a lot of the requirements: A hanuted mansion, various tam members that you can shift through, a puzzle solving structure, multiple routes and endings, etc. Does it warrant a mnetion?

I think it fails the "horror is the defining game play characteristic" requirement of our definition of the genre. There's some discussion above about other games with elements of horror that do not meet our definition (Castlevania, etc). --waka 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I think the Alien: Resurrection game on PSone definitely fits into the category. Basically it's scary as hell, you get bugger all ammo, in essence it's a survival horror.

That's fine, but I don't think that the article itself is improved by increasing the number of games in the list (not that I have any problem with Alien: Resurrection). There's some discussion above about removing the games list and relying only on the survival horror games category, and I'd like to reiterate my feeling that we do not need a long games list in the main article. See my new comments above. --waka 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Darkness: Not Survival Horror

When the director of a game says it isn't surivival horror, it means that it isn't survial horror! Denis Dyack himself has stated that the game is not Survival Horror game and is not intended to be as he himself put it "You're not trying to survive and there's always plenty of ammo"

First, do you have a source you can site for this quote? Second, Dyack's definition of "survival horror" may be different than the one listed here. Many people associate the term with Resident Evil-style gameplay, as that game coined the phrase, and saying that Eternal Darkness isn't the same as Resident Evil is fair. However, the page here at wikipedia has chosen to employ a broader definition of the term, one that is flexible enough to include games like System Shock, Doom 3, and other games where ammo rationing is not a game play mechanic. Regardless of Dyack's comments, Eternal Darkness fits the definition described in the page. --waka 04:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that you don't think the list should be large and yet you keep ED on the list and site Doom 3 yet it is clearly stated in the definition that Doom 3 does not fall into the catagory because it horror is "not the defining game play characteristic"

• Here is the link. - Denis Dyack Interview
• Here is another

ED actually encourages you to fight rather than run because doing otherwise causes harm to the player.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here, as your first sentence is confusing. I think your argument is that we should not include Eternal Darkness on the Survival Horror page because Dyack has said in interviews that the game is not survival horror. But in the links you've provided, he's clearly saying that ED is not Resident Evil, which is a statement that I think everybody here can agree with. However, the page here at Wikipedia has chosen to define this genre based on the themes common to a range of horror games, not just Resident Evil. If you read the page closely, you'll notice that we are careful to point out that this genre is a thematic genre, not a mechanical one. That means that regardless of game play style, if a game's "defining game play characteristic" is horror, we can safely include it within this genre. Eternal Darkness is clearly a horror game, and even if we set aside the insanity effects and Lovecraft influence, I think it's pretty obvious that the main theme of this game is horror.

Now, our definition may not jive with Dyack's: if we were to define Survival Horror in only Resident Evil terms, then his statements would probably apply to this page as well. However, with the definition given on this page for this genre, Eternal Darkness is an excellent fit. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about Doom 3... the page lists Doom 1 (the original DOS game) as not being survival horror, but I have no qualms about including Doom 3 in the list. As I stated above, I think it clearly is designed with horror in mind. And as for reducing the size of the list, my reasoning here is that having an exhaustive list is less valuable to readers than having one that is short but detailed. Even in the short list, I'd include Eternal Darkness because it represents a strand of this genre that remains fairly unique and innovative.

I'm sure that I haven't managed to convince you, but before you remove the link from the page again, perhaps we can have some other people chime in. Anybody else here have an opinion? Is the Survival Horror page more valuable with the Eternal Darkness link removed? --waka 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Master Deusoma

Hi, I removed your edits because they added more words to the article without actually adding any content. I didn't see any information added that wasn't already there, except that you included Undying in the list of example FPS horror games and suggested that Castlevania had some elements of survival horror (see the lengthy discussion on this topic above). If there was something more specific that you wanted to say, please put it in; your edits appeared to be rather superfluous to me, but maybe I missed a point you wanted to make. --waka 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Project Firestart

This article misses another heavy influence on the genre that came four years before Alone in the Dark. It's Project Firestart (1989) by Dynamix for Commodore 64. The game was partialy redesigned to ride the wave of popularity of movie Aliens but contains all the elements of the clasic Survival Horror game. The "no escape" situation (main character is on a spacestation and his ship was blown up after docking), thick horror atmosphere, and puzzles. Runing away and geting around oponents is encouraged and in some cases imperative. Game has multiple endings both good and bad. If Resident Evil was influnced just a bit or not at all by this game Resident Evil 2 is a straight copy with zombies, more fighting and more complicated puzzles. Sadly this gem is mostly overlooked ot puted down for reasons unknown to me.--Carnex 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

well, given that no one remembers the game probably because they didn't have a commodore 64 (remember, a LOT of gamers' first experience with the genre was with resident evil), it's pretty obvious why firestart is overlooked. i had to do a bit of research on it and yes, there are some interesting similarities. BUT remember, there's really no such thing as a totally original idea in any genre. watch it! the terror from beyond space, followed by planet of the vampires and then alien and your jaw will drop at how you're getting basically the same film in the 50's 60's and 70's...

Newer said that it was original. It took ideas from here and there. Added a pinch of originality and rolled it a brand new package. Cooked it a bit to reach perfection (not really) and released a game that made old things seem so new and new thigs leave you with jaw permanently stuck to your room's floor (at least that was the expirience of my brother and me when we played it in long gone year of 1989.) Point was that this game took all the known elements, added a very few new ones and rolled it out in a sleek new-style cinematic package with storytelling cutscenes, multiple endings and various twits and turns during gameplay. To tell the truth I am on a some type of crusade to show people some games that preceded their beloweded "oh so original" games.--213.137.122.154 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting move: "Survival horror game" to "Survival horror"

Is there any reason why this article is called Survival horror game? While it's certainly a gaming genre, it may give readers the impression that there's a game named "Survival horror", whether there is such a game or not is irrelevant as this article is talking about the genre. I think this article should be renamed/moved to simply being Survival horror. --Remy Suen 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time!

Is there any interest in this? I think it should either be switched to 'Survival horror' or 'Survival horror games'. 'Survival horror game' at the moment does not really sound right nor grammatically correct. --Remy Suen 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support moving to Survival horror. QuagmireDog 08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Remy Suen 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4

Resident Evil 4 can hardly be considered a "Survival horror" title. It's a shoot 'em up action game from the get go. Does anybody else agree? Even the back cover of the game itself says "Forget survival horror." Gamer Junkie 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Deep Fear not on the list?

I may be the only person who will admit that they actively own and plays this game to this day, but am I the only one that thinks it should count in the Survival Horror game list? I know the game is a bit mixed: there is an unlimited amount of ammunition available, but unlike other games on th elist, Deep Fear actually has a thick atmosphere and enemies that don't fight as humans would, nor is there a heavy emphasis on action; the human characters actually act human. Is there else anyone here that agrees? Mairebleu 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd list it. It's basically a Resident Evil clone, so I can't see how we could exclude it. That said, I don't like the games list in this page: I think it should be moved to its own page like List of notable survival horror games or something. --waka 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Onimusha series horrific??

I cannot help but express confusion as to the selection of Onimusha being on the survival horror list here as I fail to see the real atmosphere of any of the fantasy/action games. For too long many people have considered any media with immense blood shed and creatures involved in the shedding as horrific, but when such creatures are capable of wiping out cities worth of people using human weapons and silly wall-running moves, one can't help but wonder why a series such as this would truly be considered horror. The description of the game itself even admits the action often eliminates what horror would be in the game, so why is it still here? I propose that the Onimusha series be removed from the Survival Horror category as it is not a good example of the genre. Anyone else concur? Mairebleu 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you, but the genre definition is so subjective that maintaining the list is almost futile. See the discussion about Castlevania we had above. Another reason to move the list out of the main page. --waka 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs an sourced definition of the term

As it stands, the entire article looks like OR. A major problem lies in confusion of how specific of a genre this really is. It's been stated before that the Alien vs Predator isn't survival horror, but nobody can convince me that the human missions aren't the very essence of survival horror. The way the genre is classified in the article is horrible anyways. Comments such as "The player's goal is generally to escape from an isolated house or town that is inhabited mostly by zombies and/or monsters through fighting and puzzle solving." seem to specifically only be talking about Resident Evil. Perhaps we should rework the article to be for horror games in general, and have a good section be for the "survival" horror type. "Survival horror" is pretty much a synonym for any scary game anyways. --SeizureDog 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already an article regarding the definition of horror? I'm not exactly sure how you'll go about sourcing the term "survival-horror." I'm not even sure there is a universal term or category for the subject. Gamer Junkie 07:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that no definition of 'survival horror' is going to please everybody. I mean, even seemingly straight-forward genres like Adventure Game and Platform Game undergo a lot of edits to the genre definition. I agree that what we have now is rather poor (though I think that the second paragraph is a little better than the first), but it's also the result of many edits and reverts. Any definition that you come up, even if it is sourced, will be contentious with somebody, so I think that's a route we should avoid. Instead, I think it's probably better to provide common themes (as the second paragraph does a bit) and a few explicit examples rather than an exhaustive list of games in the genre (see discussion above). I think this will give the reader a better idea of what to expect from the genre than some definition carefully worded to include everything. --waka 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as there's a list at all, it'll be exhaustive. No matter how much you trim or cut a list, additions will always find their way into the article because everybody has an idea of what survival-horror is and everybody has a game that fits that idea. Either the list has to go entirely, or it has to stay the way it is. Gamer Junkie 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal discussed above involved creating a new page for the exhaustive list (comparable to the List of platform games or List of first-person shooters) and then limiting list on the survival horror page to a few games deemed important to the history of the genre. These games would include detailed commentary about their role in the evolution of this genre, much like the History section of the Adventure Game page. I agree that we'll never be rid of an exhaustive list, but I think we can get away with moving it to another location (or relying on the survival horror category) and improving the commentary in this page. --waka 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but the anti-"cruft" bureaucrats would likely seek to merge it all back into this article again as soon as such a page was created. Gamer Junkie 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't try to have just one definition. Example: "The definition of survival horror is vague and open to some debate. Some feel that survival horror covers any video game with horror elements,[cite] while others feel that the game must met certain prerequisites in order to qualify, such as a feeling of underpowerment,[cite] an emphasis on exploration,[cite] etc." --SeizureDog 12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Our definition should be what reputable sources tell us it should be. If those sources differ in opinion then that difference should be noted. A lot of discussion on this page is argument over what is original research and personal opinion - all aspects of the article (and games defined as survival horror) should come from sources, not our individual preferences. QuagmireDog 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-Life

I always felt that Half-Life seemed like mixture of sci-fi and survival horror. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.52.161 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

---

It may belong under Action horror, if the focus of the article does end up getting split between both survival and action horror. Another possibility is adding a list of "other games with horror elements" to the end of the article, such as on the Stealth game article.

Ubersuntzu 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article starts when the personal opinion stops

Guilty as charged, my considerations of what defines SH were about my personal opinions, not on the wider view. The same problem is preventing this article's growth, causing work and disagreement and ignoring the fact that WP is a tertiary source and does not welcome original research. My opinion of the exact nature of SH carries no weight, the same goes for every contributor. Nobody here is acting in a professional capacity as a survival horror expert, if it ain't citable it ain't usable.

That being the case, I suggest we start as we mean to go on - basing our definition of survival horror on sources. No strict definition need not be an issue - simply cite different opinions as Seizure Dog pointed out in the topic above.

The list of SH games is classified as 'examples'. We already have abundant examples of survival horror within the article body, this list is redundant. There is a category for these games and that's exactly where they should be. The list being there encourages games to be dumped in which may then have to be removed - causing arguments, or shown to be SH by review searches etc (time consuming). It duplicates information, draws contributor time away from the article itself and is the source of many games of sillybuggers. As soon as I'm back I'd like to add them to the cat and then do some work on the article.

In terms of looking back and classifying pre-RE games as survival horror, this should be done with sources stating the fact or a definitive definition of survival horror (which nobody has found).

The same goes for classifying PS1 era and onwards games as survival-horror or defining games as being influenced by survival horror - have reviewers or developers said so? If so then we have encyclopedia material, if not then you've got something to talk about on your favourite gaming forum.

I've quickly inserted a single ref in two places, the same ref will be suitable for more cites, see WP:FOOT for details of citing using the footnote style. QuagmireDog 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're one of those editors who actually goes out and searches for sources, too, rather than deleting everything and simply telling everybody else to go fetch. You know, "assume good faith" and all that. Frankly, I'm growing tired of editors who blank 2/3's of an article because it's not up to standard, and then expect other editors to go about bringing it up to standard. If you actually intend to assist in the process, then I welcome such input. Gamer Junkie 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the intention isn't to make noise then vanish, hand out shovels or drive a cleaver through the work of others and leave empty space instead. It's gradually dawned on me that my own assumptions on the nature of Survival Horror have no place in this article (or talk page), and that I should be digging up sources to do that. Looking up the page at discussions over individual games, the same problem arises. Conversations go more like "well I think that.." instead of "this source states that... therefore I think that..". Likewise, what defines a survival horror game or a 'proper' survival horror game probably differs with each person. Checking them against our own definition of the term does not give a definitive answer, it does cost time however. As I said, I am guilty as charged with that myself.

What I'd thought of doing was rounding up as many sources as possible and using them to cite. Once the sources are in the article, the information is there to be slowly digested (the article that has been used as a reference already is a whopper in its own right), the article can then be gradually remodelled to reflect the sources and our interpretations of them, the info filtering through and filling out the article. That way any unsupported text becomes more and more obvious, requiring a cite of its own or eventual removal.

I'm looking forward to working with you all on this. QuagmireDog 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I hadn't expected to be back anywhere near as soon as this, but that hasn't turned out to be the case. QuagmireDog 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know. Start whenever and wherever you please. I'm going to try to find some sources over the next couple of weeks, but finding third-party sources regarding the definition of survival horror will likely be difficult. Gamer Junkie 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I need sleep else I'd be doing it now, but I've found several sources which substantiate a lot of what's being said in the article - now I've actually seen the material on the web it's obvious that the article has been written with a lot of care and attention and just needs the citations. I'll add them ASAP. One example is a Fatal Frame 2/Project Zero 2 interview on IGN - the leader of the project states point-blank that the object was to have a vulnerable player-character, backing-up the article text and Chris' article from the SH Quest. It's all good. QuagmireDog 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the survival horror game articles

I was thinking, since this talk page has shown just how controversal and opinioned this really genre is, maybe we should require that we cite articles that we're putting into Category:Survival horror games with a reputable source calling it survival horror. That category can serverly undermine this article if the wrong articles start creeping into it. For instance, is Nightmare Creatures really survival horror? Or just action horror? Also, the games in Category:Psychological horror games really need to be cited, as I'm suspicious right now as to if that's not just OR. And even if it's not, it may be too small to have on its own. Remember that we do have a Category:Horror video games for non-survival, but still horror themed games. --SeizureDog 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nail > Head. I think it all needs doing. I'd come to the conclusion that the way of doing so with the least meowling and hissing would be to cite and shore-up the SH article as much as possible, then to start checking each of the listed games. If they needed reviews stating that they're SH then I could add them to each one, ensure they're in the category then remove them. That way the job is done. On a brighter note, most of what is here on the SH article is going to be citable and/or rewritable so that it fits in, it's just the obscure and retrogames which are going to be problematic. QuagmireDog 10:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still committed to doing that, but it takes time for me to do these things (slow and steady wins the race). We'll get there eventually. Thanks and congrats to the contributors who wrote the article, you've provided an excellent base to improve survival horror's showing on WP. QuagmireDog 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)