Badfish wrote:
...The problem is that few games have really gotten it right.
I wasn't talking about games specifically, more so this whole plan it out fad. A zombie outbreak is unlikely, so it isn't practical, and it was only mildly amusing in Red vs. Blue, so it isn't highly amusing when tards on the internet fuck it to death. Nobody cares that you (people in general, not you as in Badfish) have an emergency plan. Nobody cares that you think you're prepared. You're not special. You're not clever. I get it. You like zombies. Do it quietly.
Badfish wrote:
Take Dead Space for example, while not a bad game it still wasn't anything too special or interesting(remote controlled saw blade is still one of the best ideas ever).Again it's not a bad game just a bit played out.
Actually, I thought Dead Space was terrible. The parts with the zero gravity were fun, that was it. The rest was cheap jump scares, with annoying combat stringing the plot together. I get that in a horror game, combat is supposed to be scary, but I didn't feel that this was a horror game at all. It was just bland.
Badfish wrote:
When you take a game that got it right however (say Resident Evil 4) it does what a survival-horror game should do.It installs panic, worries, paranoia, and fear on the player. All the emotions that distinguishes a survival-horror game from a FPS.
I liked RE4. I did not, however, feel paniced, worried, paranoid, or afraid. The amount of weapons, the ease of combat, the ridiculous scenarios, and the hilarious dialogue were not scary. They just made it feel like a mediocre action movie. And why can't a survival-horror game be an FPS?

Badfish wrote:
There's no 'going through the motions' on a good zombie game. You could never just sit and play RE5 half asleep you HAD to pay constant attention (partly because of Sheeva).
I played Left 4 Dead, which is arguably a good zombie game, and the whole time I was just going through the motions. And RE5 put me to sleep in seconds. It had none of the charm that the 4th had. As I said, I liked RE4 a lot, but it sure as hell wasn't a horror game.
Badfish wrote:
When you take a game like Halo you can get bored of it very quickly if you have beaten the game before.
How is that different to a horror game? I tried playing through Dark Corners of the Earth a second time, and I was just bored. I already knew what was going to happen, what was the point? I played through the first Halo about half a dozen times, and it was reasonably entertaining through each. It's repeditive, sure, but it works.
Badfish wrote:
But who really knows? Survival-horror can go down the shit hole quickly and become the new Sonic if companies don't start to pay better attention to what they're making. I still have hope with games like Left 4 dead 2 and Dead Space: Extraction.
Don't say "But who really knows?" It makes you seem like you don't. Doesn't do wonders for your argument. It's unfair to compare a genre, survival-horror, to a single franchise, Sonic. I don't have anything to say about Left 4 Dead 2 or Dead Space: Extraction, but if they're anything like their predecessors, they'll be highly popular, pretty monotonous, and not particularly terrifying.
Badfish wrote:
What I'm trying to say is there's still hope and there are still some great ideas out there, but developers need to set there priorities straight when it comes to survival-horror not action.
Again, I wasn't talking about video games when I made my original statement. I just think the zombie fad has gone a little too far. It's a little lofty (and pretty hollow) to claim that there are still great ideas out there without putting any forward. I agree that survival-horror games are too action orriented, as I said about Resident Evil and Left 4 Dead.