The Last Of Us the new model for modern Survival Horror?

#1 Posted by Sarnecki (693 posts) -

What do you think? Given the fact that Resident Evil and Dead Space are constantly devolving into action games, and the last time Silent Hill made any significant changes was in the excellent Wii game, is The Last of Us the new triple A gameplay model for the genre while Amnesia holds down the old Silent Hill fort?

#2 Edited by Make_Me_Mad (3078 posts) -

It seems like most of the 'horror' part of the game will come from making you want to keep your sidekick safe, instead of worry for your own character. Not a bad idea, as it lets you have a more action-y character, but it's definitely a departure from the more realistic, less able characters from the Silent Hill/Fatal Frame style classic horror games. That said, if it's good I'd be alright with it, but it's hard to see it working unless every horror game from now on includes someone for you to look out for.

#3 Edited by xyzygy (9953 posts) -

I don't think Dead Space is devolving. I think it's getting better. I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier. Dead Space can't be touched in terms of atmosphere IMO.

The standard of survival horror is still Silent Hill 2. No other game has come before it and no game has come after it. If a game makes me feel emotions the way SH2 did, then I will consider it a worthy successor to the survival horror genre. I definitely don't see TLOU being that.

#4 Posted by sBlacksmith (77 posts) -

I think the game should probably come out first.. and be played and stuff.

#5 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@sBlacksmith said:

I think the game should probably come out first.. and be played and stuff.

I agree.

#6 Posted by Solh0und (1765 posts) -

I would say more survival than horror personally.

#7 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier. 

Pretty much. 
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas. 
#8 Posted by Sarnecki (693 posts) -

That's incredibly reductive, too much so I think. The zombie design is both hilarious and funky weird and friggin terrifying, which is specifically why I throw this into the survival horror genre. They're that bizarre.

#9 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

i don't think we know enough about it yet to say anything meaning full about it.

#10 Posted by Yummylee (21556 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier.

Pretty much.
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas.

Yes, much like how Alan Wake was just another Remedy game and Alan Wake himself was basically Max Payne with a tweed jacket.

#11 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier.

Pretty much.
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas.

Yes, much like how Alan Wake was just another Remedy game and Alan Wake himself was basically Max Payne with a tweed jacket.

Exactly! Except AW did add an actual atmospheric form of psychological horror over the actiony orientation of Max Payne.
#12 Edited by Yummylee (21556 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier.

Pretty much.
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas.

Yes, much like how Alan Wake was just another Remedy game and Alan Wake himself was basically Max Payne with a tweed jacket.

Exactly! Except AW did add an actual atmospheric form of psychological horror over the actiony orientation of Max Payne.

Oh, c'mon, you can't actually agree with what I said. I understand you're trying to make my reply backfire in my face, but you can't honestly believe Alan Wake is just Max Payne but with a tweed jacket. I know I certainly don't, as I also don't believe that Joel is just Nathan Drake with a beard. Also Ellie isn't Joel's daughter, FYI.

And while I was being semi-serious in stating that Alan is 'just' another Remedy game--as you yourself further elaborated--it also contains its own aesthetic while still exuding a lot of familiarity because of Remedy's easily distinguishable style. Much like how Last of Us, while will look familiar to an Uncharted in some areas, will no doubt still manage to build its own identity. The gameplay alone is naturally much more different than Uncharted, introducing a stricter, more survivalist nature of combat rather than the rampant gun-ho action of an Uncharted game.

My point is: Why be so negatively redundant EDIT: fuck, I mean reductive...

#13 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

Dead Space never was survival horror. No fixed camera angles, no tank controls, no collecting cranks. Dead Space is a horror game, not 'survival horror'. Survival horror is a very specific thing. Amnesia also is not survival horror. Neither is FEAR, Condemned or The Last of Us.

Survival horror is a genre. Horror is a theme. Any game can have a horror theme, you can make an RTS, an MMO, or even a third person shooter. Just because a game has horror in it, does not make it survival horror.

Also, I'd say Last of Us relies on suspense more than dread. More of a thriller than a horror.

#14 Edited by GunslingerPanda (4714 posts) -

@Sarnecki said:

What do you think? Given the fact that Resident Evil and Dead Space are constantly devolving into action games, and the last time Silent Hill made any significant changes was in the excellent Wii game, is The Last of Us the new triple A gameplay model for the genre while Amnesia holds down the old Silent Hill fort?

Did you see the E3 demo? Last Of Us looks like another promising survival idea that's been turned into shoot-shooty. Admittedly I sort of switched my brain off when it became a cover-based-shooter, so I may have missed something.

#15 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

@GunslingerPanda said:

@Sarnecki said:

What do you think? Given the fact that Resident Evil and Dead Space are constantly devolving into action games, and the last time Silent Hill made any significant changes was in the excellent Wii game, is The Last of Us the new triple A gameplay model for the genre while Amnesia holds down the old Silent Hill fort?

Did you see the E3 demo? Last Of Us looks like another promising survival idea that's been turned into shoot-shooty. Admittedly I sort of switched my brain off when it became a cover-based-shooter, so I may have missed something.

I'm confused. From everything I can tell, shooting is no longer acceptable in video games. What would be better? If you only used melee weapons? If there were no enemies at all? What is it that you actually want from this third person action game.

Like Brad suddenly turning off his brain when there was an armed confrontation in Watch Dogs... are we that pumped up about melee combat? Brad already saw the guy take out two guards with his baton and didn't have a problem with it. Did he think this super expensive action game was actually just a puzzle game? I just don't get it.

When did gamers stop wanting their action games to have... action in them?

#16 Posted by jjnen (661 posts) -

More like survival thriller. I'd like to think that as their goal.

#17 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

Survival sure horror I don't know desperation is horror in my mind so maybe , and I think people are confusing action with 'military shooters' this game while got tense at some point in the demo didn't feel like any action game you weren't shooting guys with an Ak-47 or fast reloading while moving from cover to cover , if you actually pay attention Joel's health was about 1/4 when the last guy punched him so I'm pretty sure you won't be Nathan Drake-ing all of the enemy encounters in the Last of Us , if you want a game where you can solve all of your problems by talking then go play the Civ games but don't ask action games to stop having action in them.

#18 Posted by Marz (5649 posts) -

didn't seem scary to me.  

#19 Edited by pyromagnestir (4302 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@GunslingerPanda said:

@Sarnecki said:

What do you think? Given the fact that Resident Evil and Dead Space are constantly devolving into action games, and the last time Silent Hill made any significant changes was in the excellent Wii game, is The Last of Us the new triple A gameplay model for the genre while Amnesia holds down the old Silent Hill fort?

Did you see the E3 demo? Last Of Us looks like another promising survival idea that's been turned into shoot-shooty. Admittedly I sort of switched my brain off when it became a cover-based-shooter, so I may have missed something.

I'm confused. From everything I can tell, shooting is no longer acceptable in video games. What would be better? If you only used melee weapons? If there were no enemies at all? What is it that you actually want from this third person action game.

Like Brad suddenly turning off his brain when there was an armed confrontation in Watch Dogs... are we that pumped up about melee combat? Brad already saw the guy take out two guards with his baton and didn't have a problem with it. Did he think this super expensive action game was actually just a puzzle game? I just don't get it.

When did gamers stop wanting their action games to have... action in them?

Only having melee weapons might make things interesting, but I guess it'd need a specific story caveat or different setting to explain.

I think what other people here are complaining about is that in survival horror games of yore, shooting was ineffective, and ammo was scarce, which added the horror. Nowadays, with the actioning up of various horror games, all you have to do is shoot dudes. Tension is lost.

What they want is horror. Tension. They don't want action games. They want survival horror games.

I'm with them. I don't like RE4 at all. But I loved the RE remake. I want more games like that.

As for Brad and watch dogs, that's a different thing entirely.

Online
#20 Posted by Shookems (474 posts) -

From the demo it seemed like they are attempting to achieve some real tension in combat sequences. Whether or not they pull that off for the entire game remains to be seen, but I have high hopes. Their level of success will come down to how vulnerable they make the characters feel. If every encounter feels like a life or death situation, I think the last of us will very much play like a new take on the survival horror genre.

#21 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

@pyromagnestir said:

@Brodehouse said:

@GunslingerPanda said:

@Sarnecki said:

What do you think? Given the fact that Resident Evil and Dead Space are constantly devolving into action games, and the last time Silent Hill made any significant changes was in the excellent Wii game, is The Last of Us the new triple A gameplay model for the genre while Amnesia holds down the old Silent Hill fort?

Did you see the E3 demo? Last Of Us looks like another promising survival idea that's been turned into shoot-shooty. Admittedly I sort of switched my brain off when it became a cover-based-shooter, so I may have missed something.

I'm confused. From everything I can tell, shooting is no longer acceptable in video games. What would be better? If you only used melee weapons? If there were no enemies at all? What is it that you actually want from this third person action game.

Like Brad suddenly turning off his brain when there was an armed confrontation in Watch Dogs... are we that pumped up about melee combat? Brad already saw the guy take out two guards with his baton and didn't have a problem with it. Did he think this super expensive action game was actually just a puzzle game? I just don't get it.

When did gamers stop wanting their action games to have... action in them?

Only having melee weapons might make things interesting, but I guess it'd need a specific story caveat or different setting to explain.

I think what other people here are complaining about is that in survival horror games of yore, shooting was ineffective, and ammo was scarce, which added the horror. Nowadays, with the actioning up of various horror games, all you have to do is shoot dudes. Tension is lost.

What they want is horror. Tension. They don't want action games. They want survival horror games.

I'm with them. I don't like RE4 at all. But I loved the RE remake. I want more games like that.

As for Brad and watch dogs, that's a different thing entirely.

Survival horror is not the end all be all of horror. It's merely one genre in a host of others that deal with the elements of horror. There are ways to build tension beyond making the player character ineffectual. In fact, I've written in the past how making gameplay concerns require intense verisimilitude-breaking rationalization and exploiting the machine makes narratives less impacting. The way to play Resident Evil was always to save, run through the next areas to see where all the zombies and sneak attacks come from, die eventually, then replay and use that knowledge to exploit the system. That way you can do it without wasting bullets, herbs or saves because you 'might need them'. That's all that happens when you do those mechanics. All the tension is meaningless because the player breaks the narrative in half in order to guarantee progress. Seeing something twice is the end of horror.

The one game that really played like an old survival horror game in the last few years is Silent Hill Downpour. Which Patrick thinks is trash and will ultimately be a massive commercial failure. For all the "we want survival horror" it certainly seems like video game enthusiasts actually don't want it. They seem to want companies to spend 40 million dollars making a survival horror game, but don't actually want to play it. You can say "well that game was bad"... it kind of seems like they're all bad according to the last ten years. Maybe that has more to do with the genre and not the specific games?

That's all meaningless anyway, because The Last of Us is not a survival horror game, just like Dead Space isn't survival horror, and FEAR isn't survival horror, and Amnesia isn't survival horror (I found Amnesia scary until I needed to just quicksave my way through it, nothing's scary the third time you do it). This is not a survival horror game, demanding that it should be is nonsense. I want a racing game but I'm not being reasonable when I complain there are no good drift events in The Last of Us.

#22 Posted by Jimbo (9804 posts) -

Melee kills > Stick to cover > Headshots.  Maybe the game itself isn't like that, but what they showed was.  Didn't seem like a new model for anything. 

#23 Posted by Hailinel (24429 posts) -

The Last of Us seemed heavily scripted, and I'm not sure how easy it will be to break the flow that was in the gameplay demonstration. Can human enemies die from head shots, or will they magically absorb bullet after bullet, with some only dying when a particular scripted event occurs?

#24 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

The Last of Us seemed heavily scripted, and I'm not sure how easy it will be to break the flow that was in the gameplay demonstration. Can human enemies die from head shots, or will they magically absorb bullet after bullet, with some only dying when a particular scripted event occurs?

One of the guys he shots in the demo dies from just one shot or at least dropped to the floor so no , also in wich shooter do guys don't die from direct headshots? (not counting robots and armored enemies of course) and I don't think is heavily scripted at all we don't know much about how weapons works or even much about the combat I bet he could have deal with those bandits in a more stealthy way also E3 Demo.

#25 Edited by pyromagnestir (4302 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

Survival horror is not the end all be all of horror. It's merely one genre in a host of others that deal with the elements of horror. There are ways to build tension beyond making the player character ineffectual. In fact, I've written in the past how making gameplay concerns require intense verisimilitude-breaking rationalization and exploiting the machine makes narratives less impacting. The way to play Resident Evil was always to save, run through the next areas to see where all the zombies and sneak attacks come from, die eventually, then replay and use that knowledge to exploit the system. That way you can do it without wasting bullets, herbs or saves because you 'might need them'. That's all that happens when you do those mechanics. All the tension is meaningless because the player breaks the narrative in half in order to guarantee progress. Seeing something twice is the end of horror.

The one game that really played like an old survival horror game in the last few years is Silent Hill Downpour. Which Patrick thinks is trash and will ultimately be a massive commercial failure. For all the "we want survival horror" it certainly seems like video game enthusiasts actually don't want it. They seem to want companies to spend 40 million dollars making a survival horror game, but don't actually want to play it. You can say "well that game was bad"... it kind of seems like they're all bad according to the last ten years. Maybe that has more to do with the genre and not the specific games?

That's all meaningless anyway, because The Last of Us is not a survival horror game, just like Dead Space isn't survival horror, and FEAR isn't survival horror, and Amnesia isn't survival horror (I found Amnesia scary until I needed to just quicksave my way through it, nothing's scary the third time you do it). This is not a survival horror game, demanding that it should be is nonsense. I want a racing game but I'm not being reasonable when I complain there are no good drift events in The Last of Us.

Well, maybe that's how you played them, but that's not how everyone played them. Although how they were designed did add to that, as I do remember dying from time to time and then running through stuff the second time and having the knowledge of where the zombies would be and what not making my second time through far more efficient. But not everyone games the systems of games quite so... intentionally as you seem to be describing. I try to play them more... naturally? I guess. If you get what I'm saying.

And seeing things twice does end jump scares, but not all tension from the old survival horror games came from jump scares. Feeling ill equipped to handle the situation added a tension that didn't go away, for me. I never found jump scares particularly scary anyways. What I liked was entering a room, seeing an exit, only there is a zombie in the way. How do I get to that exit? That's where the tension was, for me.

The problem with survival horror is that it's niche. It wasn't always, of course, for a brief time when the mechanics of games were different, and the tech was different, and gamers were accustomed to different things it did quite well. Nowadays it seems corporate thinking is that only a Silent Hill type flagship of the genre can even risk making a 40 mil survivor horror game and have it pay off. However, the problem is they go too far back. They are too rooted in tradition. They bring back everything almost exactly as it was almost as if they discovered the game in a time capsule and polished it up a bit. So only the niche fans care, and they complain because the jump scares aren't as scary as they were, or the mechanics are no longer acceptable, or they over corrected too much and now it's too actiony and not tense enough, but still it's just backwards enough that the "mainstream" audience doesn't want it. And the game doesn't sell well because there are so few of them around anymore.

I think there's a balance somewhere in there that no one has discovered yet. A mainstream game could strive for this balance if it wanted, but most of them don't seem to have any interest in trying. The Last of Us is a game that looks like it may strive for that balance at times. The demo, however, showed the pendulum swinging pretty far to the action side. Not that it puts me off, or whatever. I'm still interested in the game. And I understand the idea that a small demo is probably not representative of the whole game, which is a concept some people seem to have a hard time grasping. But we are in a time where most games start with a base of, lots of shooting, and add more and more shooting instead of trying to figure out something else interesting to do.

To tie this all back in to Brad's Watch Dogs comment, having a game try to figure out a way to make moment to moment action interesting that isn't just shooting a bunch of dudes would be nice.

Online
#26 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier.

Pretty much.
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas.

Yes, much like how Alan Wake was just another Remedy game and Alan Wake himself was basically Max Payne with a tweed jacket.

Exactly! Except AW did add an actual atmospheric form of psychological horror over the actiony orientation of Max Payne.

Oh, c'mon, you can't actually agree with what I said. I understand you're trying to make my reply backfire in my face, but you can't honestly believe Alan Wake is just Max Payne but with a tweed jacket. I know I certainly don't, as I also don't believe that Joel is just Nathan Drake with a beard. Also Ellie isn't Joel's daughter, FYI.

And while I was being semi-serious in stating that Alan is 'just' another Remedy game--as you yourself further elaborated--it also contains its own aesthetic while still exuding a lot of familiarity because of Remedy's easily distinguishable style. Much like how Last of Us, while will look familiar to an Uncharted in some areas, will no doubt still manage to build its own identity. The gameplay alone is naturally much more different than Uncharted, introducing a stricter, more survivalist nature of combat rather than the rampant gun-ho action of an Uncharted game.

My point is: Why be so negatively redundant EDIT: fuck, I mean reductive...

But where was I being negative? Did I say Uncharted is bad? No, Uncharted 2 is one of my top all-time favorite games. Did I say that the fact that Last of Us feeling like an Uncharted 2 "realism" mod (based on the demo) is a bad thing? Also no, resemblance is not a bad thing. 
The OP calls it a horror game that will replace Dead Space, so I'm telling him that I doubt it will actually be a horror game, but rather an Uncharted 2 realism mod (heavier, grittier survival-of-the-fittest melee combat, inventory management, and so forth), which is fucking FANTASTIC. The demo was so intense and awesome. 
 
And by the way, Alan Wake is the spiritual successor to Max Payne. The molonogues, the style, all the Max Payne references, Barry's voice actor, McCaffrey voicing the light dude (Zane?) and giving you chills whenever he spoke in his Max Payne voice, the noire-slash-horror environments, being a third person shooter with explosive shooting mechanics that make your packs of enemies disperse and fly across the room (using a flashbang felt exactly like throwing a grenade in MP, the effects felt identical). 
 
And that's not a bad thing either. Except AW was actually a horror game, whereas Last of Us doesn't really look it.
#27 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

@pyromagnestir said:

Well, maybe that's how you played them, but that's not how everyone played them. Although how they were designed did add to that, as I do remember dying from time to time and then running through stuff the second time and having the knowledge of where the zombies would be and what not making my second time through far more efficient. But not everyone games the systems of games quite so... intentionally as you seem to be describing. I try to play them more... naturally? I guess. If you get what I'm saying.

And seeing things twice does end jump scares, but not all tension from the old survival horror games came from jump scares. Feeling ill equipped to handle the situation added a tension that didn't go away, for me. I never found jump scares particularly scary anyways. What I liked was entering a room, seeing an exit, only there is a zombie in the way. How do I get to that exit? That's where the tension was, for me.

The problem with survival horror is that it's niche. It wasn't always, of course, for a brief time when the mechanics of games were different, and the tech was different, and gamers were accustomed to different things it did quite well. Nowadays it seems corporate thinking is that only a Silent Hill type flagship of the genre can even risk making a 40 mil survivor horror game and have it pay off. However, the problem is they go too far back. They are too rooted in tradition. They bring back everything almost exactly as it was almost as if they discovered the game in a time capsule and polished it up a bit. So only the niche fans care, and they complain because the jump scares aren't as scary as they were, or the mechanics are no longer acceptable, or they over corrected too much and now it's too actiony and not tense enough, but still it's just backwards enough that the "mainstream" audience doesn't want it and the game doesn't sell well because there are so few of them around anymore.

I think there's a balance somewhere in there that no one has discovered yet. A mainstream game could strive for this balance if it wanted, but most of them don't seem to have any interest in trying. The Last of Us is a game that looks like it may strive for that balance at times. The demo, however, showed the pendulum swinging pretty far to the action side. Not that it puts me off, or whatever. I'm still interested in the game. And I understand the idea that a small demo is probably not representative of the whole game, which is a concept some people seem to have a hard time grasping. But we are in a time where most games start with a base of, lots of shooting, and add more and more shooting instead of trying to figure out something else interesting to do.

To tie this all back in to Brad's Watch Dogs comment, having a game try to figure out a way to make moment to moment action interesting that isn't just shooting a bunch of dudes would be nice.

I understand there's the right balance to difficulty and resource management so that it doesn't override the narrative, but reinforces it. Those old games took it too far for the most part. The amount of times I finished a sequence in Resident Evil to go "man, I wasted too much herbs and ammo, I'll never be able to finish the game now" and reload a save despite succeeding in the boss fight broke that game. Conversely, Silent Hill 2 is largely regarded as the easiest Silent Hill game, the enemies are slow and clumsy, it's easy to avoid fights, yet it's also the scariest. Because the player can think less about mechanics and inventory management, the seams of the game are blurred out by the narrative and setting.

I also agree that survival horror is niche. People forget that the reason why Resident Evil was popular. Here's two quotes from IGN...

With stunning visuals (that still rank amongst the best in gaming today), a fantastically told story, great puzzles and high-octane gunplay, it's easily one of the best titles of this console generation.

Never has a game combined excellent graphics with heart-stopping action and a great story in such a way as to create an almost cinematic adventure. You really do feel like you're participating in a movie. It's amazing.

One of those is from 1996 talking about Resident Evil, the other is from 2009 talking about Uncharted 2. People forget that Resident Evil was a showpiece in the same way Last of Us is now. And even back then, people hated the inventory management aspects, and were excited to blow up monsters with shotguns and stomp them into red paste. No one had ever seen a game that looked like Resident Evil before, they had never toted around rocket launchers to blast Hunters with. You can say what we need is that nebulous "innovation" but that's easier said than done.

I think it's interesting that I played through Resident Evil the original while legitimately dying twice... I played through Resident Evil 4 dying 62 times (which the game is so pleased to tell you at the end). I found every death or reload in the original to be annoying and reinforcing the mechanics of the game, I found the deaths in RE4 to reinforce the narrative of the game, that high danger and suspenseful action (though yes, a few repeated QTE deaths were annoying).

What I'm actually excited to see is indie devs pick up the survival horror genre (remember, Amnesia and FEAR and Dead Space are not survival horror). The one thing I never do is ask a game company to throw money into a fire for my entertainment, but an inspired indie dev might be able to fulfill that niche while doing something they love. One of Ryan Payton's stated influences for Republique was old survival horror mechanics. We'll see how that does critically and in terms of commercial success. If there's really these markets there for survival horror, isometric RPGs, turn based strategy, we should see those games be successful and grow into something sustainable for developer and consumers.

#28 Posted by oraknabo (1457 posts) -

I don't understand why people interested in this game talk about it like it's the first disaster survival game ever. I know the previous ones were fairly obscure, but I can think of 5 off the top of my head that already defined this no-horror survival type of game:

S.O.S. & Septentrion - Out of the Blue were both Posiedon Adventure-style sinking ship games.

Disaster Report & Raw Danger were PS2 games about a sinking artificial island. They are stiff on controls and have framerate issues, but do a pretty good job simulating the stress of survival.

I Am Alive was basically Ubisoft's attempt to do the same thing Naughty Dog is doing here, but with the Assassin's Creed engine. It wasn't a great game and focused a little too much on climbing and had a bad shooting mechanic, but wasn't bad enough to not be compared to this game.

#29 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4714 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

The one game that really played like an old survival horror game in the last few years is Silent Hill Downpour. Which Patrick thinks is trash and will ultimately be a massive commercial failure.

Dead Space isn't survival horror, and Amnesia isn't survival horror.

This is not a survival horror game, demanding that it should be is nonsense.

Who cares what Patrick thinks? He's just some dude. He's employed for getting news scoops, not for being an Opinion Expert.

I don't think you know what Survival Horror is then.

To be fair, I think the OP's a bit of an idiot for using the term "Survival Horror" here. Just "Survival" would fit better. Nothing about The Last Of Us looks like Horror. However, I feel deflated as fuck by the E3 demo because the game initially looked like it would be some interesting game about just purely surviving; but now it looks like just another shooty shooty game. If the player character had died when taking that shot then it would look slightly better, instead he just shrugs it off with some stupid remark, almost like he's taking a shit.

#30 Posted by CaptainTightPants (2834 posts) -

I have to wait until they show some combat against the mutant guys.

From what they have shown so far, it really could just be another Uncharted game. Cover based shooting, melee executions, highly scripted.

There is nothing they have shown so far that I would call horror or that evokes tension.

I'm hoping they do make enemies a force to be reckoned with, that a single enemy is dangerous.

Whatever though, it was a small demo, and I was disappointed with it, but I would like to see more.

#31 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

@GunslingerPanda said:

@Brodehouse said:

The one game that really played like an old survival horror game in the last few years is Silent Hill Downpour. Which Patrick thinks is trash and will ultimately be a massive commercial failure.

Dead Space isn't survival horror, and Amnesia isn't survival horror.

This is not a survival horror game, demanding that it should be is nonsense.

Who cares what Patrick thinks? He's just some dude. He's employed for getting news scoops, not for being an Opinion Expert.

I don't think you know what Survival Horror is then.

To be fair, I think the OP's a bit of an idiot for using the term "Survival Horror" here. Just "Survival" would fit better. Nothing about The Last Of Us looks like Horror. However, I feel deflated as fuck by the E3 demo because the game initially looked like it would be some interesting game about just purely surviving; but now it looks like just another shooty shooty game. If the player character had died when taking that shot then it would look slightly better, instead he just shrugs it off with some stupid remark, almost like he's taking a shit.

I actually know exactly what survival horror is. It's not 'a scary game where you try to survive', it refers to a very specific set of gameplay tropes. Amnesia is closer than Dead Space or FEAR to the core survival horror experience, but only because it features collecting cranks. There were horror games before 'survival horror' was ever invented, there have been horror games after. Remember, survival horror is a gameplay genre, horror is a theme. A shooter or a racing game are genres, mystery and sci-fi are themes. I can make an action horror game as easily as a mystery P&C adventure game, a sci-fi platformer and a fantasy puzzle game. Hell, you can make a traditional survival horror game that isn't even horror, as long as it features those gameplay mechanics.

If you want to just reduce all games down to their core gameplay mechanic, you're just going to make yourself unhappy. Last of Us is 'just another shooty shooty game' just like Tetris is 'just another puzzle game' and Mario is 'just another platformer' and God of War is 'just another action game' means that BioShock, Portal, Rayman and Zelda aren't worth playing. Maybe that's how you feel, in which case I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems but games ain't one hit me.

And 'it would be better if the main character died every time he took damage'. I'm no longer sure you're being intellectually honest.

#32 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Saying Amnesia is not survival horror is pretty hilarious, what else is it then? You are merely surviving, you cannot fight back, you are surviving in that horrible castle.

Assuming survival horror means the game has to have super outdated mechanics and tank controls is ridiculous.

and yes The Last of Us looks like another third person shooter so far with forced "co-op"

#33 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4714 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

And 'it would be better if the main character died every time he took damage'. I'm no longer sure you're being intellectually honest.

I'm just bored of every fucking game character being Superman and surviving hundreds of shots. That's incredibly boring to me. I'm far more interested by the kinds of games that could be created by forcing the player to avoid combat through fear of death. But hey, even Metal Gear is a shooter now.

I can't think of any witty ways to integrate Jay Z lyrics :(

#34 Posted by JCTango (1361 posts) -

@Sarnecki: I think The Last of Us is more of a survival thriller than a survival horror type of game. You're on edge most of the time while you try to keep yourself and your partner alive. I don't think fear is exploited in the game to the extent of horror.

#35 Posted by DeF (4864 posts) -

I think this should be revisited AFTER the game is out and we know how much "horror" there actually is.

#36 Posted by oraknabo (1457 posts) -

You guys should really try Disaster Report if you ever get a chance. It really felt like a survival horror game with all the supernatural stuff removed. It was incredibly rare to have a gun in the game and even when you did, it was hard to get any ammo for it. While you encountered other people and weren't always sure if you could trust them, it wasn't like the whole world was filled with bands of roaming raiders for you to gun down. I'm fine with a little Mad Max in my Fallout games, but I think a game like this needs to be about navigating a dangerous environment a lot more than worrying about conflict with other people all the time.

Maybe I missed something watching the demo, but it looked like they basically entered someone else's territory for no reason and just started a fight with them. Maybe the hotel was the only possible way to where they were going, but maybe they could have asked to pass through? Offered something or reasoned with the people inside. I hate any game that instantly sets other humans up as bad guys you have to take out. Even just a way to stealth past this part or find a more dangerous path with no people in it would be nice. Maybe in the full game those options will be there. Who knows?

#37 Posted by Brodehouse (9898 posts) -

@Sooty said:

Saying Amnesia is not survival horror is pretty hilarious, what else is it then? You are merely surviving, you cannot fight back, you are surviving in that horrible castle.

Assuming survival horror means the game has to have super outdated mechanics and tank controls is ridiculous.

and yes The Last of Us looks like another third person shooter so far with forced "co-op"

But that's what 'survival horror' is. It's a ludicrous name for a specific kind of game. It's an action-adventure with very specific tropes. You can shuffle some in and some out and still have it be 'survival horror' but Amnesia is one too many pieces shuffled out (and is far closer to an adventure game than an action-adventure). It still involves picking up cranks, but that's not enough. I don't want to get all prickly and authoritative, but survival horror does not mean 'its scary and you have to survive'. Metroid is scary and you have to survive, Metroid is not survival horror (though survival horror and 'Metroidvania' are both action-adventure). Uncharted had the sequence that everyone calls 'the survival horror' part, but it's still purely an action game that just got scary. FEAR is a first person shooter that is scary and you have to survive but it's still a first person shooter. Condemned is a first person action game, not survival horror. The Dunwich Building in Fallout 3 is fucking creepy but that's still an action RPG.

Horror is a theme. Survival horror is a specific gameplay genre, like 'sim racer' or 'rogue-like rpg'.

#38 Posted by Jimbo (9804 posts) -
@Brodehouse said:

If you want to just reduce all games down to their core gameplay mechanic, you're just going to make yourself unhappy. Last of Us is 'just another shooty shooty game' just like Tetris is 'just another puzzle game' and Mario is 'just another platformer' and God of War is 'just another action game' means that BioShock, Portal, Rayman and Zelda aren't worth playing. Maybe that's how you feel, in which case I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems but games ain't one hit me.

You don't need to reduce that far to be able to apply it to what they have shown of The Last of Us. The differences between God of War and Portal are effectively... well, everything about them. If The Last of Us does have a USP which sets it apart from a game formula which is currently being hammered into the ground by everyone and their dog, then I don't think they're doing a great job of showing what it is.  The gameplay loop they showed in the conference could have come from a dozen other existing games (magic melee kills until you fuck it up > headshots > repeat). So he didn't have 160 spare bullets on him, but he still had enough to be sloppy as fuck with them and still kill half a dozen guys without doing anything out of the ordinary.
 
They should spend more time showing me what the differences are and less time showing me why it's the same as everything else.
#39 Posted by AssInAss (2621 posts) -

The new model for survival games is I Am Alive, even if it's not the most polished game. We have yet to see on The Last of Us, since it's not out yet.

The deliberate survival mechanics like incredibly limited ammo, stamina bar to just climbing, inventory management of food and drink, unique combat puzzles, not being allowed to use your knife anytime, sacrificing precious health kits for survivors.

From what I've seen of Last of Us, it seems to be more lenient on those survival aspects and is going for the more cinematic approach, but who knows. Maybe the bigger budget allows them to bring a level of challenge and complexity absent in recent Naughty Dog games.

#40 Edited by Yummylee (21556 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Yummylee said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@xyzygy said:

I don't really see this game as being any bit scary, it's just going to be another Naughty Dog game except grittier.

Pretty much.
It's Drake but with a beard, his blond girlfriend has become his daughter, and it takes him a little more effort to punch dudes out of conscious. Also, zambies instead of freak gorillas.

Yes, much like how Alan Wake was just another Remedy game and Alan Wake himself was basically Max Payne with a tweed jacket.

Exactly! Except AW did add an actual atmospheric form of psychological horror over the actiony orientation of Max Payne.

Oh, c'mon, you can't actually agree with what I said. I understand you're trying to make my reply backfire in my face, but you can't honestly believe Alan Wake is just Max Payne but with a tweed jacket. I know I certainly don't, as I also don't believe that Joel is just Nathan Drake with a beard. Also Ellie isn't Joel's daughter, FYI.

And while I was being semi-serious in stating that Alan is 'just' another Remedy game--as you yourself further elaborated--it also contains its own aesthetic while still exuding a lot of familiarity because of Remedy's easily distinguishable style. Much like how Last of Us, while will look familiar to an Uncharted in some areas, will no doubt still manage to build its own identity. The gameplay alone is naturally much more different than Uncharted, introducing a stricter, more survivalist nature of combat rather than the rampant gun-ho action of an Uncharted game.

My point is: Why be so negatively redundant EDIT: fuck, I mean reductive...

But where was I being negative? Did I say Uncharted is bad? No, Uncharted 2 is one of my top all-time favorite games. Did I say that the fact that Last of Us feeling like an Uncharted 2 "realism" mod (based on the demo) is a bad thing? Also no, resemblance is not a bad thing.
The OP calls it a horror game that will replace Dead Space, so I'm telling him that I doubt it will actually be a horror game, but rather an Uncharted 2 realism mod (heavier, grittier survival-of-the-fittest melee combat, inventory management, and so forth), which is fucking FANTASTIC. The demo was so intense and awesome.

And by the way, Alan Wake is the spiritual successor to Max Payne. The molonogues, the style, all the Max Payne references, Barry's voice actor, McCaffrey voicing the light dude (Zane?) and giving you chills whenever he spoke in his Max Payne voice, the noire-slash-horror environments, being a third person shooter with explosive shooting mechanics that make your packs of enemies disperse and fly across the room (using a flashbang felt exactly like throwing a grenade in MP, the effects felt identical).

And that's not a bad thing either. Except AW was actually a horror game, whereas Last of Us doesn't really look it.

Your overall reductive attitude towards Last of Us was by itself a negative reaction I'd say. It's going to look like 'a Naughty Dog game', that much is understandable, but that doesn't excuse the notion you have that ''Oh, well Joel is clearly just Drake with a beard''.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.