Survival Horror: Life and Undeath of a Genre (Self Posted) - Videos for the 97.4%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpBnKUDo1G8&t=1s This took far too long to make. Let me know what you think, if you have any criticisms or if I made any factual errors.

Hard to agree that Amnesia-like games are not Survival Horror when they're considered to be the best addition to the genre in recent years. How is it not "Survival" if you're even more likely to die given that you can't fight? Besides, "no resource management"? Amnesia has you managing your sanity as well as your lamp fuel. This is a major issue with the video in my opinion, and that's a shame because you did a good job with the rest.

I think it depends on how you define "survival Horror". I think it's important to make a distinction between games like Resident Evil and games like Amnesia because they play very differently. If you consider any horror game where you survive "survival Horror" then pretty much all horror games are survival horror making the subgenre useless. With Resident Evil 7 it does have some action but unlike Re6 it isn't all action and does spend a lot of it's time trying to scare you. For example it has fewer enemies make makes it that when you do fight enemies they are a lot more scary. It creates dread by making each enemy something to be nervous over, this is do to a combination of atmosphere and limited resources.

If you can't fight back it's not survival, it's just avoidance. A key part of survival horror is giving you the means to protect yourself, but at a cost that makes using those means a meaningful decision.

It seems to me that you're generalizing horror films by equating them all with slashers. I think this is an issue because slashers are usually meant to be more fun than they are scary. The victims are usually unlikeable specifically because they want the audience to be cool with them dying. It's to defuse the horror. I think your point falls flat as a result. Comparing Silent Hill to something like Jacob's Ladder would've been more fitting since one inspired the other and they both try to accomplish similar goals. I'd also argue with your point that being put in the character's role automatically makes the game scarier. I'd argue the opposite in fact. The player character can never really be killed, your progress is just set-back (at worst) before you get to try again. I've often found that putting side-characters in peril is more stressful for me, since unlike the player character they might actually die permanently and that's a much bigger loss than just having to restart from a save point.

I always considered survival horror to be a horror game that actually has a lot of consequences and is not charitable if you make mistakes, whether or not you can fight back. I accept this is possibly a fairly semantic debate at this point though.

The first game described as survival horror was Resident Evil, it literally starts with the tagline "Enter the Survival Horror". It is a game where horror is the main theme but you spend a fair amount of time killing zombies and late on fighting bosses. The first game of that style was Alone in the Dark, which was grandfathered into the genre description, and in that game you eventually get a double barrel shotgun to fight the monsters. Similarly the Silent Hill games are often considered the best survival horror games and in those you get tons of weapons and guns with hundreds of bullet. The weapons are shit, but they're still a vital part of the gameplay. The thing that separates survival horror from horror is that in a survival horror you can fight back and the main tension comes from the stress of managing resources. Amnesia skirts the line of survival horror but the fact that you can't fight back disbars it from qualifying as a survival horror IMO.

What would Amnesia be considered if not survival horror in your opinion? I suppose if there was a new sub-genre classification for those types of games, it'd maybe be a bit clearer which is what.

Just a horror game. It's all about being spooped. IF you want to be fancy you could call it a 'psychological horror' but that's really all horror as horror is a psychological phenomenon.

Survival horror in my eyes is a genre where you can fight back but you really don’t want to. Like in RE and Silent Hill where fighting is clunky making fighting tense and a move of last resort.

I don't get where you people get that "Survival Horror needs to have some fighting back". According to whom? TVTropes tried to define Survival Horror and they mention this: Examples of Survival Horror games: Metro 2033, Manhunt, Silent Hill, ZombiU; overwhelmed protagonist(s), oppressive atmosphere and a need for careful management of resources (ammo, health, etc.). Examples of non-Survival Horror games: Halo, Doom, Half-Life 2, Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead and so on; despite grim prospects and scary content, just about any fight can be won at a gain and there is always enough ammo and supplies on hand to win most scenarios. They have a comprehensive list of Survival Horror games and both Amnesia games are in it. Let's be honest here, if some people know their genres, it's fucking TVTropes. It's that or trust the definition of... who, exactly? Wikipedia also agrees with this. The player character is vulnerable and under-armed, which puts emphasis on puzzle-solving and evasion, rather than the player taking an offensive strategy. They tend to de-emphasize combat in favor of challenges such as hiding or running from enemies and solving puzzles. So, once again, I'd really like to know where you guys got your own definition from.

Listing Metro as a survival horror? Really? TVTropes is not a website I would go to for genre definitions at all. Also this is kind of an important part of the description from that wikipedia article: The term "survival horror" was first used for the original Japanese release of Resident Evil in 1996, which was influenced by earlier games with a horror theme such as 1989's Sweet Home and 1992's Alone in the Dark. The name has been used since then for games with similar gameplay, and has been retroactively applied to earlier titles. Hey look, that's exactly what I said. Also every part of that wikipedia article mentions combat being disincentivised or discouraged, which is to say it's always possible. the player is unable to fully prepare or arm their avatar. several factors to make combat unattractive as a primary option limited number of weapons or invulnerable enemies Aside from that I've only ever seen people refer to games where you can fight back as survival horror. Games like Amnesia I've only seen described as horror games.

Wikipedia clearly lists Amnesia as Survival Horror. I know this is a logical fallacy but whatever, all I ask is for you guys to give me your source.

My only source is playing survival horror games since 1997 when I played the first Resident Evil. Everyone I talked to about those games agreed that Amnesia and similar games weren't survival horror because they focused on an entirely different type of fear than Resident Evil or Silent Hill. I don't lend much credence to wikipedia definitions as a whole because the examples listed are as subjective as the opinions of the people who could be bothered writing the articles. And yeah my idea of what is and isn't survival horror is subjective too, but I don't feel the need to look to some bullshit 'authority', for lack of a better word, to get the definition. Saying "Well this website run by a bunch of randos who can't agree on anything says X is a survival horror" isn't exactly a compelling 'source'.

Justify your opinion whatever way you want, I've looked it up, and Wikipedia and TVTropes agree with my definition while you try to argue however you can that your claim that has no source whatsoever is just as valid as one backed up by people of different groups who actually have some authority and make some sense. You're free to disagree but that's your opinion, we're both used to disagreeing with each other by now.

This is and will always be subjective (same as any genre definition) but for most its the resource management part that is important. Managing items which almost always involve ammo and having this recourse management be the core of the gameplay is what’s most important. Because this is subjective different people will come up with different definitions but we have to look at Resudent Evil and see how it differs from other games. Given that Silent Hill came in the wake of RE and was influenced by it while sharing core characteristics it’s easy to say they are in the same genre. Amnesia and it’s like do not share these same similarities unless you count simply being horror as a requirement but doing so would also make the definition too broad.

Amnesia and Resident Evil have a lot in common, it's wrong to just pretend they don't. I haven't played Amnesia in a while but I'm gonna try to remember a few points: They have inventory management (limited inventory slots? can't remember) They both focus on finding items within the environment, and often under pressure They also have a lot of puzzle-solving under pressure Doors are a pivotal gameplay element: they can save you or alert enemies, and enemies can break them. Exploring is a major part of the games, and more so, going back and forth to use items in the correct places and unlocking doors and new areas. You can hide and run away from your enemies in both games and are often encouraged to do so. The documents scattered in the games often hold important clues Different endings Amnesia is quite literally Resident Evil without guns, if you forget the narrative context. Nowhere is it written that Survival Horror games need to have guns or weapons. Besides, Penumbra, the direct predecessor to Amnesia, had weapons and you could kill enemies with it, and it's exactly like Resident Evil. It could easily be argued that Amnesia has more in common with Resident Evil than Silent Hill. But would that really be the point?

There is very little inventory management. At most you hold a puzzle item or a light. Most other modern horror games don’t even have that.

You are right. I was thinking of going into detail about horror movies changed and diversified but thought about it and didn't want to go on too long about a side note. As for what's scarier seeing or being the character I guess that comes down to how invested you are. During the split second fear responses of a horror game while I consciously know I am not in danger, it actually doesn't feel that way when suddenly a horde of monsters is behind you (at least for me). Also going upwards of an hour back in progresses is something that really terrifies me.

Resident Evil 1 coined the term survival horror, and it's idea was: you enter a room and you're ambushed by monsters, what do you do in that moment (oh my god oh my god)? Shoot or run? Silent Hill 2 redefined it, made combat simple and avoiding danger became even simpler and the fear was replaced with "what if the worst monster is yourself and your love for a woman who can die miserably?" Others buried the genre with knock offs which played either like action games or like crappy adventure games until everyone lost interest and then xbox live and halo happened and then modern warfare happened and we're still waiting for that open world Resident Evil game because that's the only way to sell an AAA game now, apparently. I never liked Amnesia because it didn't have characters and was too introverted for my taste, but it's hard to argue that these games really tap into that "oh shit what do i do" fear emotion and therefore a continuation of survival horror. These games do get old after awhile, though. And as always with horror games, they really are not for everyone.

You trust Wikipedia and TVTropes why, because of the implicit air of authority those sites have? Chances are people here have more experience than the people who write those articles. Argument from authority is pointless when we are in all but name primary sources on the topic.

I don't get this reasoning. One side has Wikipedia and TVTropes backing them, the other side has nothing. I understand not liking TVTropes but Wikipedia? This is the first time I've ever seen it being questioned as a source, and the fact that it's in a case when it suits the side that has no source whatsoever, makes it even worse. This is the equivalent of: "I have children and I bet those scientists don't, they can't tell me that vaccines don't cause autism because I know better from experience!" This is as hypocritical as it gets. Also you'd just be flat-out wrong that people here probably play more games than the people who write those articles. If you want to get down to it, then I also have a massive amount of video game experience and I actually have sources to back me up, that good enough?

Wikipedia isn't a source at all. You can put on wikipedia anything which, and only which someone else has published basically anywhere else. TVTropes has no source requirements and basically anyone can write anything there, then duke it out with other editors whose view is correct. Neither of them have any 'inherent' authority. Who has authority on vaccines? Medical scientists who study diseases and vaccinations. Who has authority on video game genres? By default, nobody, but who else deserves it other than dedicated and experienced game hobbyists? Not comparable. Where do genre labels come from and how do they end up on wikipedia pages? For games, they're little more than marketing terms on the storefront set by publishers without any guarantee of their accuracy. I can easily find obviously misgenred games, but is it invalid to disagree with that because someone typed that label, published the text somewhere and wikipedia quoted it?

Well now you're making sense and this is a reasoning I can get behind. But don't neglect the fact that the Wikipedia and TVTropes articles have also been written by experience game hobbyists, because they wouldn't make much sense if they weren't. Anyone can write about a subject they don't know about, but it will be obvious that it's bullshit. On the other hand, there's no reason why game hobbyists wouldn't write those article or correct them. That is why I lend credence to them. But if you disagree with my opinion and you don't trust my sources, well there's nothing that can be done.

You don't know who writes the articles, what their background or reasoning is. I've seen countless articles written by people with only a very superficial understanding of the topic, or referring bad sources. Regardless, if you want to bet that it's only the experts that write those articles, then fine, not worth trying to convince you not to. But that doesn't make an appeal to those sites' authority a legitimate argument.

What's rude is that I've been asking for sources for the claims you guys put forward and I didn't get a single one except "I know because I play games".

Nobody is a "source" on genres. All it comes down to is experience and arguments.

Okay that's fine. We agree to disagree then since we both have our own experience.

Write a college essay with Wikipedia as a source if this is the first time you heard someone not trust it.

I know how to use and trust Wikipedia, thanks.