By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Moving away from tank controls hurt the survival horror genre.

You guys should all play Silent Hill: Downpour.



Around the Network

what you need to understand is tank controls came about because the saturn and playstation, at the time of launch, didnt have analog sticks.
when the dualshock version was eventually released, all they had done is mapped the digital movement to the sticks and added rumble support, because the framework wasn't there to do anything more exotic.

but, since the game was wildley popular, people re-used the same control scheme despite better controller options being available.

 

Frankly i'd rather have a resident evil 1/2/3 style game again than any other resident evil game.



KylieDog said:
Egann said:

My problem was that Parasite Eve 2 completely ruined tank controls for me. Adding a "press Square to target the nearest enemy in your line of sight" was very intuitive and nowhere near as fidgety as oldschool Resident Evil. Aya felt like she was wielding some really heavy weapons. Jill just felt clunky.

It's sad but mostly true.

Every classic RE since RE: Director's Cut has had a target nearest enemy option in control options.   So exactly one RE game, the first.

Not really the same thing. In Resident Evil it was more an auto-aim feature. Aiming in classic tank controls is effectively impossible, so if you pointed the gun close to the general direction, the computer corrected the aim. Parasite Eve had a targeting reticle, and not only could you select which enemy you wanted to shoot with the second analog stick, but pushing the aiming button could actually spin the character around if all the targets were behind.

The last bit really changes gameplay. They have very similar controls, but Resident Evil 2 is tedious to play and Parasite Eve 2 has a smooth action-game ebb and flow to it.



Egann said:
KylieDog said:
Egann said:

My problem was that Parasite Eve 2 completely ruined tank controls for me. Adding a "press Square to target the nearest enemy in your line of sight" was very intuitive and nowhere near as fidgety as oldschool Resident Evil. Aya felt like she was wielding some really heavy weapons. Jill just felt clunky.

It's sad but mostly true.

Every classic RE since RE: Director's Cut has had a target nearest enemy option in control options.   So exactly one RE game, the first.

Not really the same thing. In Resident Evil it was more an auto-aim feature. Aiming in classic tank controls is effectively impossible, so if you pointed the gun close to the general direction, the computer corrected the aim. Parasite Eve had a targeting reticle, and not only could you select which enemy you wanted to shoot with the second analog stick, but pushing the aiming button could actually spin the character around if all the targets were behind.

The last bit really changes gameplay. They have very similar controls, but Resident Evil 2 is tedious to play and Parasite Eve 2 has a smooth action-game ebb and flow to it.

Let's not forget the tap up while aiming to pull off headshots.



Experimental42 said:
Intrinsic said:
Nope, disagree. The player becoming overpowered killed the genre and nothing else.

A weak character, limited resources and enemies that can kill you in one or two hits is the bread and butter of survival horror games. if they made a game with mario graphics and characters and put a player within those gameplay mechanics even that would become scary.

All survival horror games slowly turned into Gears of war or something.


Players became overpowered through better controls though. RE2 had ways of becoming laden with high tier ammo, similar to RE4, but that didn't completely remove the fear factor. For example the tbfp RE2 playthrough: Even though Pat had become super powered with his ammo, he still fell prey to lickers and naked zombies, which probably wouldn't have happened with the RE4  control scheme.


You need to recognize that there are ways to make games suspensful and frightening without shoehorning in poor controls. If not, games like System Shock, Stalker, Cthulhu, The Thing, Condemned, Amnesia and Metro wouldn't work.



Around the Network
bouzane said:


You need to recognize that there are ways to make games suspensful and frightening without shoehorning in poor controls. If not, games like System Shock, Stalker, Cthulhu, The Thing, Condemned, Amnesia and Metro wouldn't work.


I'm not saying to shoehorn in "bad" controls. I'm saying that the elements that made Resident Evil and Silent Hill the standouts of the survival horror genre were directly brought about by technological limitations. Since those limitations are now gone, games have moved away from those mechanics without, for the most part, finding ways to recreate the dread from those mechanics.

Many would be survival horror titles give the player too much control over the situation by making them too capable, be it in combat, movement, or stealth abilities. Showing the creatures off too much is another flaw. Monster/enemy designs just aren't as frightening when they can be seen. Silent Hill was terrifying because you couldn't see enemies at a distance but you could sure as hell hear them out thanks to the radio. The disturbing sounds of the unseen gave early games their horror.

That's the reason why games like RE4 are almost completely lacking in horror. Those enemies might as well just be regular pissed off villagers and dogs, with the title just made into a spy game. Outside of those creepy regenerators, there's nothing scary about the enemies at all. They might as well be genome soldiers for all the fear they inspire. especially when you can absolutely wreck them with a handful of bullets, a trusty knife, and fighting moves that make Chuck Norris envious.



We should probably come up with a distinction between horror and survival horror. A game can inspire horror and not be survival horror. Slender is a great example. It's a well done horror game that uses real terror and dread. I wouldn't classify it as survival horror though because it doesn't have a form of combat, inventory management, or rationing system.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there's RE4. It have combat and inventory but it's way overpowered, and the "scariness" comes from jump scares or enemies pretty much waving their arms around and yelling at the top of their lungs "hey guys look at me I'm suuuuuuuuper scary, did you see the bug monster I have for a head now!? Boo!" instead of doing anything actually scary.



Not really.. When there is interest in making a good survival horror game, we get games like Amnesia, Dead Space 1 & 2 ( fuck Dead Space 3) and other games which don't have tank controls, but still manage to be scary!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Experimental42 said:


I'm not saying to shoehorn in "bad" controls. I'm saying that the elements that made Resident Evil and Silent Hill the standouts of the survival horror genre were directly brought about by technological limitations. Since those limitations are now gone, games have moved away from those mechanics without, for the most part, finding ways to recreate the dread from those mechanics.

Many would be survival horror titles give the player too much control over the situation by making them too capable, be it in combat, movement, or stealth abilities. Showing the creatures off too much is another flaw. Monster/enemy designs just aren't as frightening when they can be seen. Silent Hill was terrifying because you couldn't see enemies at a distance but you could sure as hell hear them out thanks to the radio. The disturbing sounds of the unseen gave early games their horror.

That's the reason why games like RE4 are almost completely lacking in horror. Those enemies might as well just be regular pissed off villagers and dogs, with the title just made into a spy game. Outside of those creepy regenerators, there's nothing scary about the enemies at all. They might as well be genome soldiers for all the fear they inspire. especially when you can absolutely wreck them with a handful of bullets, a trusty knife, and fighting moves that make Chuck Norris envious.


You essentially are saying that though, you and a few others are effectively agreeing to handicap the player, in todays gaming that's just bad design and wouldn't help revive the genre at all. RE4 is a different kind of Horror focusing more things like anxiety and dread most of the enemies aren't scary because the situation you're in is scary, like with all other RE games once you get the hang of it you know how to deal with situations.

The player getting more control over the situation was always going to happen for progression as the old tank controls were because of the state of 3D gaming at the time, non of that can take off today especially as the are Horror games that have been fine with out that, the player has always been overpowered in Horror games even in the old RE games. No offence but part of the reason developers aren't willing to try and adjust with the times is because of things like this, the developer themselves know this design can't work today so when fans are demanding it it's just sending the wrong message so they go more action like in RE5 and RE6 to try and appeal elsewhere, you should be asking for designs that fit around the new gameplay style while maintaining the atmosphere and suspense not old dated designs.



KylieDog said:
AZWification said:

Not really.. When there is interest in making a good survival horror game, we get games like Amnesia, Dead Space 1 & 2 ( fuck Dead Space 3) and other games which don't have tank controls, but still manage to be scary!


Statements like these out the people who have no clue what survival horror is. 

Horror is a visual theme only, it can be applied to any gameplay genre.
Survival horror is a gameplay genre.

Dead Space has a visual horror theme, its gameplay is not survival horror at all.

OK, thanks for correcting me!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---