Survival horror is dead. As a Capcom invented moniker, as a Capcom influenced control scheme and game structure. Probably, even as a major mainstream game genre (well, action-adventure subgenre, actually). Some argue, that it's concepts, it's mechanics are outdated. That you can't get more of it. Capcom says similar things. And you know what? To hell with Capcom. And i mean it in a very broad sense.

Richard Cobbett wrote a very nice editorial about "saving adventure games" last year. And i think a lot of points said about adventure games in that editorial hold true for survival horror games. Once a subgenre that pushed boundaries, influenced developers and players alike, that tried new things and experimented in storytelling and gameplay, it became nothing more than a self-parody. Always trying to be survival horror in tired mechanics, controls and story devices and not in the concept of survival horror. And it can only blame itself for that.

Itchy. Tasty.

Well, itself and the fans, obviously. Our constant desire to see "more of the same, but better" is a good enough motivation for developers and publishers to do exactly that - same things over and over again, though, unfortunately, sometimes missing out the "but better" part. And survival horror suffered the same fate. Resident Evil become so successful, everyone started using the same formula. And, after a while, formula became a gold standard, a template synonymous with "survival horror" itself.

But while the formula stayed the same, the game industry and player expectations changed. Something, which was great in 96, good in 00, became rather frustrating in 02. REmake and Resident Evil 0 are good examples of how older concepts in gamplay and controls worked bad with newer concepts. Old "tank" controls, inventory management, and action mechanics felt wrong in tighter spaces, deadlier and more resistant enemies, with characters moving and reacting in a more realistic slow and heavy way. Silent Hill could get away with older mechanics because: 1) the mechanics were more refined than RE ones from the start 2) there was still less emphasis on action and, if action was necessary, melee was still more important 3) in Silent Hill series gameplay was always the least important element. But Resident Evil games, as some other survival horror games, relied to much on gameplay mechanics to ignore the problems old formula presented.

Daddy, help me daddy!

The revolution, unsurprisingly, came from Capcom again. Survival Action. Survival horror's younger sibling with the same action-adventure roots, but more emphasis on action, where survival horror preferred adventure. Resident Evil 4 used lots of similar concepts REmake and Zero had, but complemented them with the overall gameplay structure. Where deadlier enemies, slower characters and the increasing need for action instead of avoiding enemies frustrated in Zero, they felt at home in RE4. But more importantly, RE4 felt fresh and innovative. Sure, it was a third person shooter mechanic, coupled with the old survival horror, coupled with some RPG elements not unlike those in Parasite Eve II. But the mixture was (while very far from perfect) really good and exciting. And it was what everyone wanted and needed.

Obviously, "survival action" has become a formula everyone tries to copy. And the once new subgenre also gradually becomes stale. Especially since, i might argue, that the original survival action formula was perfected in Dead Space and it's nigh impossible to top that today.

But more importantly, people started to perceive survival action as an evolution and a new version of survival horror, not as a sibling and complimenting subgenre. This, along with the state of survival horror was in, created a misconception that the once loved subgenre should be buried and forgotten. This is the situation we're still in, despite the more recent critical and commercial success of games, which can be characterized as survival horror. So, what exactly did these games do?

Are the faint sounds of footsteps those of survivors?

While survival horror subgenre is "officially" dead ever since 2004-2005, several survival horror games got released since then to critical acclaim. To name a few, Frictional games made Penumbra and Amnesia, Climax studios gave us Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Eden Games brought us, while hardly successful and more action-y, intriguing Alone in the Dark (2008) and i cannot ignore the recent success of Lone Survivor by Superflat games.

All of the mentioned games can be called survival horror, yet they are all different. Penumbra and Amnesia took the idea of a first-person adventure, added horror story and survival elements. They are, especially Amnesia, more story driven and as such, force survival on player much less, than one might expect, but still are survival horror games. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories works like a mix of third person adventure game and "cinematic platformer" games like Another World or Oddworld. Yet, it's a psychological horror story and you do try to survive. Alone in the Dark (2008) uses the overall template of survival action, but it's open world, platforming and even driving sections make it stand out, while the combat is something player can (and should) avoid most of the time, like in older survival horror games. And Lone Survivor uses the classic survival horror formula, but with a twist - the game is completely 2D, creating a very different experience.

Kill Yr Idols

And i feel there is a lesson to be learned from these games. A very simple lesson - the survival horror idea, which is an action-adventure game with focus on exploration, puzzles and item collection mixed with a horror scenario and the need to survive, can still work. But for it to work, one must learn from older games, not repeat the old formula. Which is the same problem the adventure games are now facing, as i've mentioned at the start. Everyone knows how to do a simple point-and-click game mechanic and think of some basic puzzles and item uses. Not everyone knows, that it's not what adventure games are about. You don't necessarily need "tank" controls or fixed camera angles for your character to feel vulnerable. You don't necessarily need manual aiming, just because it's a popular thing - autoaim worked perfect because action was less important, because it complimented the game feel, not just the controls. And, in fact, you don't even necessarily need any fighting or shooting mechanic in your game for it to be survival, or an action-adventure. It's not what survival horror is about.

And it was always the case. The very first Silent Hill was successful because it was completely different from Resident Evil. Influenced in lots of ways, sure. But very different and amazing on its own. Fatal Frame wasn't simply Resident Evil with camera. It wasn't the shower scene that made Parasite Eve II so amazing. Nor the scissors were the reason of Clock Tower success. And even in the decline of the genre mainstream popularity, it's not the dog or the girl clothes, why Haunting Ground is still remembered. Hardly, but not forgotten entirely, like dozens of "RE clones".

This is my last chance, my last escape.

Survival horror may never return to its past popularity. I even think, it shouldn't. But it can and should evolve, learning new tricks, while not forgetting old ones. Never using gameplay mechanics just for "the sake of the genre". Innovating and setting new highs once again. There are people who want to once again enter the world of survival horror. Good luck!

also on my blog

So, BioShock was, apparently, a very big thing. And i still don't get why exactly was that. Now, don't get me wrong, BioShock was a rather good, if frustrating at times, FPS "with a twist". It was nicely made, had several really good things about it but... That's about it. And the entire situation of BioShock's popularity really reminds me of Halo popularity - it seems that people consider BioShock is big simply because they were continuously told that it is big. But let me explain myself in detail.

When somebody's praising BioShock, more often than not, the biggest praise is given to the "clever story". But what's so clever or even good about it? It's yet another "failed utopia" setting (like there can be a successful one). yes, it does use concepts of objectivist philosophy in it and... i'm sorry, but so what? Is it the first game to reference or even base itself on some philosophical tenants? No. Is it the first game that uses real historical events as a reference for the in-game story? No. Is it the first game about utopia? Like i said, no. In fact, i don't even know how can anyone be surprised at the utopia-like story after the rather recent fall of Soviet Union - a symbol of the communist utopia (which also failed miserably, of course). There's nothing fresh in the story or it's presentation. Nothing really bad, yes. But it's bland and boring and hardly interesting to follow. And has no interesting twists or moments.

Yes, it doesn't. "Oh, what about that thing about that Atlas guy and the "would you--". No, it's not an interesting twist. The "you've been played" twist is so overused in... well, pretty much any storytelling art, that it's really hard to pull of in the interesting way. BioSHock fails to do that at least because it fails to establish any motivation for the player to be interested and invested in the story or characters. Really, can you remember any of the characters from the game? Ryan, obviously - he's always *there*. And it's, pretty much, the only reason to remember him - because we're constantly reminded of his existence. Is he interesting? No. Yet another idealistic and dickish stereotype of a guy with lots of money and\or power who thought he can do better than somebody else. Oh, hello Stalin, how's it going? You're totally unlike this guy, right? Oh, and Hitler's here too? And Napoleon? And Alexander the Great? Those are real life examples, you say? Okay, should i name most of the baddies in the Final Fantasy games, or you get the idea? Ryan is so two-dimensional, so bland, stereotypical and boring, i fail to understand how he can be considered a good character. Atlas/Fontaine - yet another stereotype, with examples from other stories and even game stories, and real life. Nothing really intriguing about him. His true nature reveal is not as predictable as it is simply "oh, so it's that guy after all. okay. cool." for the very same reasons, you don't care about Ryan - you're not motivated to care about any of this. Probably you also remember Tenenbaum, but i don't think it goes farther than "oh it's that science chick, who did the gene experiments and cares about little sisters". Which is, again, a rather bland stereotype of the "scientist with a change of heart and desire to make everything right".

Oh yeah, and the "twist" itself - what's so cool about it? I heard lots of "well, they explained a game mechanic through the story! that's so cool!" I'm sorry, they didn't. You, as a player, do all the stuff you're "kindly asked" to do because it's the *only* way to progress in the game. It's an old linear game design feature - restricting player game progress until he does something to progress the story. It gets an in game story explanation in "would you kindly". So what? Is it better than any other way of restricting the player, like some "hack the console", "talk to the character, so he opens the door", "find the new ability to progress further" thing? I don't think so. Is it using any game mechanic? No. It's a plot device explaining the plot device. Want some examples of using the gameplay to blow your mind? Use the usual player interaction, which he does by choice or because it's a common gamepleay mechanic, and then make a reveal about it. "Do they look like monsters to you" line in Silent Hill 3 makes you suddenly afraid of being a murderer. God of War 2 (of all games) pulls a similar thing with the "dark room fight" (hope you get, what i mean). Both Portals do similar twists to smaller degrees. Hell, even Braid's "metaphor for an atomic bomb" does that. Getting an explanation as to why you couldn't progress further in a linear FPS is "okay, whatever, like i care". Even the Ryan death scene is not interesting to watch - the game already used non interactive cutscenes, it's not the first time you're not in control of your character. There's nothing shocking, surprising or even new in that experience.

And the entire game is filled with that. Not bad, but ultimately forgettable moments. The message in the glass is the only truly amazing, inspired and unforgettable moment in the entire game. All the other stuff is similarly boring as the story and the characters. Game occasionally tries to be scary, and fails. Tries to amaze you with the wonders of the city itself, but only the art style can be interesting to look at, as the city locations themselves don't seem neither logical, nor very interesting. Most people's hobby seems to be running around and throwing around parts of their huge dictophones all over the place.

But i must agree that it's not a very bad shooter. Not very good either, as it tries to hard to pretend it's a survival horror like thing. And does it by making the playable character, his abilities frustrating to use. I know that the game was originally designed to be more of the System Shock kind of survival horror FPS game. But the final release was a streamlined shooter with magic/biotic/psy-powers. So why is the action still clunky? And, i'm sorry, even the sequel understood it and fixed it, making the game a much better FPS (with better story and characters. less pretentious and more interesting). Yes, there are some good moments in the game and, probably, the only interesting gameplay moments were in making traps for Big Daddies or other enemies. It wasn't new at all, but was actually exciting.

And there you have it. What's so big and good about BioShock again?

Also on my blog.

Recently, there was a lot of talk about the art games, the "nongames", mostly because of the release of two highly different "art games": Dear Esther and Journey. I heard lots of different opinion about this "type" of game and wondered about them myself. Interesting arguments brought up by Jim Sterling in his last week Jimquisition, or this post also added to my views on the subject. And while i don't usually think that assigning labels to games is a very helpful thing (as it is with music), i understand the necessity. Games like this, while hardly "experimental" today (as they were 5 years ago), are still a novelty. And given the fact that they differ so much, yet get labeled in a similar manner, it's not surprising people simply don't know what to expect.

And speaking of expectations - Jim (and lots of other people) seemed to expect Dear Esther to be something else. Jim even goes as far as to say, that we don't need games like DE at all, as they represent the earlier stage of evolution of "art games" and more recent ones (like Journey or The Stanley Parable) are the way to go. Thing is - i don't agree with that at all. In a Jimquisition video Jim likens DE like game with being in a museum. And... i think it's a fair and a very good comparison. And not a bad one at all.

I know that comparing is not always a good thing, but since the medium, and especially "art games" are still developing, it's easier to compare them to an established medium or... thing. So, let's say, that games like DE are art galleries. And i don't think any of the developers of such games will feel offended by the comparison. So, let's see: in an art gallery the artist may want the audience to see the paintings in a specific order, so they, in a manner, tell a story. So, there you have it: a linear experience. It may be partially non-linear, if you look at paintings in a different order than "intended". But the paintings and the story they tell stay the same. You can't touch the paintings, you can't talk to paintings. But you can walk the gallery at your own pace, look at paintings from any angle and, probably, in any order.

What's my point? My point is: art galleries or analogues has been there for a long time. And there are still people, who love that sort of thing. They didn't become obsolete with cinemas, they don't compete with theaters. Now, i personally don't like them - i never felt truly moved by paintings or pictures, and i doubt that i ever will. I just perceive things differently from the people who like that. But i know that there are people who like that, who pay money, to do that. And i'm completely fine with that.

So yeah, as a more "hardcore"-ish gamer i love game mechanics. Deus Ex: HR was my favorite game of the last year and i've completed it three times in a row, just because it was too damn fun. So much gameplay-only fun, i've not had for a long time. Yet, still i liked Dear Esther a lot. Like people loved Myst, despite the amount of the retarded "guess what it does and wander aimlessly" puzzles - for the feelings it evoked. In some. And for some it was just a waste of time. So, of course i'd love to play Journey, of course i loved Stanley Parable. But i don't think they are "better" than Dear Esther. They are different, despite being labeled as "art" or "experimental" games. They are quite ordinary most of the time, yes. Just like "next-gen" is 5 years like "current gen".

There are other things to consider in the... "genre", however. For example, some might think that some amount of interaction (in any form), might make a game like DE "better". And i think it may, in fact, make the game a lot worse. The Path being a good example. A very cool concept and style, very clever (for it's time) message. But the desire to frustrate the "usual" gamer (or a simple lack of game design skills) make the game really annoying. As such, the message instead of "it's easy and fun to turn from the "good" path and get into trouble" (to oversimplify it) becomes "it's frustrating and boring to wander aimlessly in the forest and is actually less frustrating to just get to the grandmother's house".

Another example might be wrong, because i've not played the game, but... Jim also likens the games to the Homefront criticisms. Again, i haven't actually played Homefront, but from what i've gathered it played like all the bad things in modern shooters multiplied by ten. That the player felt almost redundant in the game that wanted to play itself. Is it surprising that the game was criticised for that? Of course not. It was made around and promoted as an FPS, and action game. Of course all these things are bad for a full priced FPS. Games like that are called "action games" for a reason. However, i can't help but wonder if the game was received similarly if it was instead made as a story driven... i don't know, "experience". If it costed less. If it didn't force itself into the FPS mechanics but rather was built around the thing it was trying to be. Like Metro 2033 did. Or Cryostasis. Or Amnesia and Penumbra games. Like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Discarded or downplayed a "fail-state", focused on the good storytelling. Something, which, i might add, Dear Esther did when it was made into the commercial release from a free mod - discarded the things that went in the way (ability to die), upgraded the things that mattered (audio and visual).

I'm very happy, that all games mentioned in this post exist. Happy, that there's talk about them. Tha some people are happy with them. Some are not. I think that's where the medium truly develops. The variety (or diversity?). Niche games and genres. I'm really happy about it all.

Also on my blog.

Now, there's a lot of controversy around the ME3 ending. You probably know this even if you didn't know the series existed (if there's anyone out there who would fit this description). However, there's one possibility, strongly hinted within the game itself, and it becomes even more evident with this analysis, that ME3 simply does not have an actual ending for the story. Instead, it has a dream/hallucination filler ending. The one that throws the audience off track before showing them the actual conclusion (or leaving the actual events to the audience's imagination). The actual conclusion that doesn't exist yet. And, and you should consider this possibility, might be available later as a DLC. Knowing EA and recent From Ashes scandal, non-free DLC. So, let me rephrase it: there is a very strong possibility, that EA might sell you the ending to the game you bought. Yes, it sounds like a stupid and too daringly asshole-ish blunt rip-off strategy. So it fits EA quite nicely.

Of course, it might not happen. Or DLC might be free. And, of course, there might be very serious reasons for this possible turn of events, ones i can sympathize with, like the Impending Deadline of Doom. But nevertheless, let's think it happens. Have it been done before? I can think of any clear analogy. Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, for example, while being the end to the series, was a self-contained story. In fact, it has been considered an actual Baldur's Gate III, just released in Expansion Pack way. Two Legacy of Kain games finished on the obvious "to be continued" note, but still felt as self-contained story arcs of the bigger story. ObsCure II had a fake ending, but the actual ending played out right after the fake credits.

The closest example i can think of, in fact, is the situation with Half-Life Episodes. But even there the Episodes bring conclusion to the story arc which episode covers. The possibility of ME3 situation is such, that only the ending is missing. The last page of the book, where the butler did it. Last minutes of the movie where you find out who John G is. And it may be sold separately. It may not be, for all i know. But what will will you do, if EA sells you the ending to the game you bought?

P.S. The picture is taken from this video. Watch that channel, seriously. It's amazing.

P.P.S. Even funnier thing is, that a lot of game fans are practically begging EA to release the ending as a DLC. Just as planned, EA?

Also on my blog.

A video i should've done earlier.

Since its release in '99, Silent Hill inspired people to form communities around the series, to talk and wonder about the secrets of that mysterious foggy city. In 2001 i got into internet for the first time and, quite obviously, started searching information on the game i loved. Thus i too became a part of one such community. It was called Black Helix, and we spent hours sitting in the forum and discussing everything Silent Hill related. We argued about reality, we dreamed of what it would be to personally go to Silent Hill. Silent Hill 2 was already released, and still talked about a year after the release. After getting a PC version (i didn't have a PS2) i joined in the heated discussions about the story and the characters. My opinion, just as the opinion of any other member of the community, was "true" in a way, because Silent Hill 2 didn't have any straight answers. I believed that maybe the guilt of leaving the wife to die alone transformed into an imagined murder, and i still do. And i could - there was no trustworthy narrator, there were no clear facts, no definitive "truth" in the game. So, Silent Hill 2 journey was a personal one. Looking back - that was the best time to be a Silent Hill fan.

Everything changed when in the Silent Hill 3 trailers you could see pictures of Alessa, clear references to the first game. I still remember how one of the community members said during the discussion of the trailer: "Who cares what music plays in the trailer? Alessa was there - that's what's important!" Everyone started to expect an explanation to everything in the series. It was a happy thought at first: new info, new stuff to think about, new theories and topics for discussion. In fact, the only worries i clearly had back than were the moments of trailer with Heather mowing down enemies with a sub-machine gun. When i finally played the game, and actually liked it, my main criticism was still that of the amount of action. But as time passed, i suddenly realised that i wasn't really looking forward to new Silent Hill games. I wanted more after the first game, i wanted more after the second one. But now, i just didn't. Only later did i realise why - there was nothing more to find in Silent Hill. It was stripped of its mystery.

Before Silent Hill 3, the city itself could've been anywhere. Somewhere on Earth. Somewhere inside any person. It could've been a real place, it could've been a Limbo or Hell-like place. It could've been ever changing, or being exactly like we saw it in the games. It could've been a normal city, changed by the fog. It could've been just a figment of an imagination, waiting to become real round every corner. And suddenly, that mystery, that uncertainty about it was destroyed. The city was given a place, a purpose, a reason. The details were still fuzzy, but the limits to what it can and cannot be were set in fat glowing lines. Everything actually happened, because of some cult in a usually normal city of US.

The Room tried to change that a bit, but was still tied by the set rules. You already knew what could happen there and what couldn't. The "cult" story was still "true", the characters existed in the same way, they were mentioned in earlier games. It was still a game that "actually happened". Silent Hill: 0rigins worsened the situation by pulling George Lucas, and tying the series even closer to the "alessa arc". The Movie, while starting rather true to the game, devolved into a gore fest with a barbed wire rape and the obligatory Pyramid Head appearance. And do i even need to talk about Silent Hill: Homecoming?

But then, 0rigins developers had an idea. A perfect idea, the one Silent Hill 2 team probably had. They decided to make Shattered Memories different. Simply different. It felt a lot like a "usual" Silent Hill game, but wasn't the same. Like Silent Hill 2 was. It didn't follow any rules from previous games (except for the normal-otherworld transitions structure), it didn't follow the same overall storyline and "mythology". And, much more importantly, it questioned reality and made the players journey personal. In it's own way. And even while it did have answers in the ending, they weren't the "now you know everything, move along" answers. They left you with questions, ideas, topics to discuss with other people. And your opinion, your personal journey through the game, mattered.

For Silent Hill magic to work, it has to be left unrestricted. It has to be left without "mythologies" or "rules". It works when your imagination is a part of it. It works if we can think "Silent Hill can happen anytime, anywhere and with anyone." It's not a haunted mansion in the amusement park. It just is.

(originally in russian here)

Also on my blog.