If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you’re a fan of horror games, and if you’ve been gaming long enough, you’re likely nostalgic for the golden years of survival horror (late 90s, early 00s). That era saw the release of numerous genre defining games, including Resident Evil 2, Silent Hill 2, and Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly, among a myriad others. It was a great time to be a fan of the genre.
“Survival Horror” has become a controversial term as of late, as fans urge game developers and publishers to return longstanding franchises — the most recent example being the next Resident Evil — to their roots in survival horror. We’ve watched in horror as one major horror franchise after another has fallen to publishers’ futile attempts broaden the appeal of their games. Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Dead Space — the list goes on, and it’s more than a little depressing.
But when we ask game companies to make more survival horror games, what is it, exactly, that we’re asking of them?
Survival horror is generally described as a subgenre of horror in which the narrative, characters, exploration and puzzles are the primary focus. These games limit the player’s ability to defend themselves from whatever horrors are hunting them by making them feel helpless. This is usually accomplished by tossing players into an unfamiliar and often terrifying environment where they’re either unarmed or barely capable of defending themselves.
Conserving what few precious resources that are available, like ammunition and healing supplies, is crucial.
The problem with this genre has always been its limited appeal. Old school survival horror games were notoriously difficult, and that kept these games from finding a wide enough audience to justify the growing costs of game development. It’s difficult to justify spending potentially tens of millions of dollars on a game with limited appeal, and that’s why we’ve seen several survival horror series gradually turn into more action oriented affair.
This has inspired a number of arguments, even here on Bloody Disgusting, with fans of the genre arguing over what’s scary and what isn’t, what’s survival horror and what isn’t. It’s a ridiculous argument, seeing as horror is so relative to the person experiencing it. What I find scary might not have any real impact on you, and vice versa.
All of this is a terribly long-winded way of asking: should be retire the term “survival horror”?
The question was brought up by Game Informer, which asked if it’s time to finally retire survival horror, a term that has seen its definition gradually changed over time to better describe a genre of games that have evolved quite a bit since it was first coined by Resident Evil back in 1996.
They brought up some good points, some of which I’ve touched on above. And before anyone gets upset, the point of this discussion isn’t if horror is dead — because it clearly isn’t — the point is to open a discussion about whether or not this term should see continued use to describe a genre that has seen significant changes over the last two decades.
Let me know what you think. I’m genuinely interested in knowing what you think about the term and whether or not it’s become outdated. And if it has, what should we replace it with? Plain old ‘horror’? I’ve seen a growing number of games that refer to themselves as ‘weird fiction’, which I love. Or how about “tweedpunk robo-horror” — that may very well be my favorite genre term yet.
After you vote, you should check out our list of the remaining horror games of 2014 — it’s proof enough that this genre is still very much alive.
