Fight or Flight? Discuss combat (or lack of) here

[Xerophan]

To me, and many others I assume, the idea of being helpless is terrificly terrifying. Not being able to defend yourself, other than running away, of course, is something that makes a lot of games truly scary. However, like the mirror scheme from origins, I believe this should only be done in one SH game. Unless, of course, it proves to be absolutely loved by every single SH fan out there (and I'm almost positive that will not happen).

[Xerophan]

Also remember that Clock Tower and Haunting Ground both to an extent allow you to fight the enemy directly, it's just that fighting is too dangerous to really be feasible. But at least you get the choice.

I really wish they would do something like Clock Tower. The only one of that series I've played is the Struggle Within, but it was extremely frightening, being that running and hiding were the best choices, and nerve-wracking ones at that. I never did find out how to evade/attack the enemies when cornered, though (I played it when I was like 13 or something).

[purplefungus]

Well, what will keep me alive!

[GioGio]

I prefer combat, I would like to find the usual weapons, The Handgun, Shotgun and the Rifle, I don't think I will enjoy a non combat SH game, (though I can't really say till I play it) but I prefer combat.

For example, Clock Tower was a fair game, but I hated the no combat except for the bow.

I hope SM has combat

[Shacknasty]

Well, to me it's like RE going into the direction RE4 went. Sure RE was always about action, but RE4 just sucked the horror aspect out of the franchise if you ask me. It just doesn't feel like how RE should be.

This seems somewhat similar to me. I'm all for innovation for the series, but this seems to be the wrong way of doing it.

Especially if they want the game to actually sell...games like Clock Tower and Haunting Ground are great, but let's face it: they didn't sell all that well.

Hell, true horror games like Silent Hill, Fatal Frame, Siren, etc. are pretty much niche genres these days. They don't bring in the big bucks like say Gears of War, Halo, Dead Space, etc.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[Made In Heaven]

In the first SH game if you put the game on hard then you can not just go runing and guning or you will run out of ammo after the first few encounters leaving you hords of monster do deal with.

It is quite possibly one of the reasons why I keep dying in SH that and I forgot what to do mostly since I haven't played the game in more then a year. Depending on how many monsters were too close to me I would panic and end up running which would get me killed because the pack mobbed me all at once.

I can see this situation in SM it just depends on how smart the enemy AI is and if there will be breathing room to learn their movement patterns I just hope that there are not some sections where you absolutely have to sneak by in order to proceed or instead of actual boss fights you get the boss roaming the building/area that you are currently in.

I think that was Team Silent was going to have Pyramid Head be like originally until they scrapped that idea still from the impressions of SM from reviewers that got at a chance to sit down and play was positive.

So far so good I guess.

[the windmill]

Flight!!
It'll add a lot more atmosphere to the game and intensify the feeling of being defenceless. I mean it never was realistic to simply beat up a demonic creature. But now you'll have to react the way you would in real life!
That's an awesome idea.. hm.. perhaps SH:SM is going to be the most frightening game ever.

[NothingLikeSleep]

The atmosphere during a chase scene is clearly redundant.

[Koshercrackers]

It may have been said before, but I think that a semi-lack of combat (there is combat, but it's so risky/difficult to implement that it's implausible) would do nicely.

[Revolverhawk]

Which do you prefer?

Silent Hill: Shattered memories is all about defense. There is no fighting (the horror, the horror!)
Anyway, my question is: do you like this change?

Personally, I like the idea of running and hiding. It makes you feel less empowered and vulnerable.
I think it will make the game even scarier (and realistic) if done correctly, but some people are obviously not so keen on this change of style.
The only thing I'm going to miss, is the steel pipe , otherwise, bring on the running and hiding!

I personally think it makes it less realistic. If you were running from monsters and you found a knife, you would equip it. Same for a steel pipe. Granted, you are not likely to find a gun just lying on a sidewalk, but you would find a weapon. Shattered memories looks like it is going to be an action-heavy title focused on running away rather than storyline and character development. If they would give us some weapons and let us kill monsters, we could rely on storyline for fear instead of our fear of the monsters. Instead, being rendered powerless, we will be totally dependent on our fear of the monsters. There won't even be any creepy bloodstained walls to scare us.

So in conclusion: All you people saying that "taking combat away will allow them to focus on storyline" don't get it. There is still ACTION. Killing a monster instead of running away from it don't take more or less programming to achieve. However, because it is possible to kill monsters, players become less afraid of them. That FORCES game developers to rely on good storyline/character development, and it FORCES them to create proper atmosphere, if they want to achieve horror. Resident Evil is not a horror game, it's just an action adventure game. they didn't bother. But when you can't kill your enemies, it is too easy for developers to RELY on your fear of the monster, rather than atmosphere or storyline.

In short, Shattered Memories looks like the opposite of what everyone says it will be: an action heavy title with little in the way of atmosphere or storyline. there will be still be ACTION (running away) and it looks like the developers will rely on that too much, as opposed to storyline, atmosphere, or character development.

"This is a game that's 50% action," said Barlow. He didn't say how much of that action was fleeing. But Hulett felt the need to address concerns he'd seen on the Internet about combat in general"

http://kotaku.com/5210589/silent-hill-s ... t-a-remake

50% action? I think it's entirely possible that making it impossible to kill the monsters is going to cause them to rely too much on the moonsters for fear.

[DrainDeimos]

Um, there is a difference between offensive action and defensive action. Perhaps you are "not getting" that important difference.

Anyhow, I like the removal of aggressive combat and think it will serve this type of game really well.

[Revolverhawk]

I think you would at least pick up a knife if you found it just in case. While most people would run away if they could, most people would also carry a weapon if they found one in case they were backed into a corner.

Secondly, in terms of creating fear, there is only one difference between "offensive" and "defensive" action: the presence of Offensive action forces you to use storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development to achieve fear, since you would logically be less afraid of something you could kill.

"Defensive Only" means that developers can skimp on everything BUT the action, since monsters you can't kill are inherently more scary. Developers can get by skimping on all the "art" aspects of a horror game by making monsters invincible.

Of course, I am not saying that they WILL, just that they could. It's entirely possible that they will pay full attention to storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development. However, there will be just as much action, and it's the sort of action that can allow a game maker to get away with sub-par storytelling.

You need to PRESENT the game really well to make me afraid of a situation where I can kill all the monsters. You don't need to try as hard when the monsters are unkillable. I am worried they won't bother trying as hard as they could in those aspects. There is a very good chance they will put everything they have into it....but it's also possible they will skimp on the "art" in favor of just chasing you with unkillable monsters.

[Enika]

I could go with either. I think that as long as they continue to make the monster encounters interesting and unpredictable, I could go with either. I'm interested to see how this goes. Removing combat to me seems like an interesting idea but something that could be easily screwed up, so I hope they take their time with the system so that it's balanced.

[DrainDeimos]

I think you would at least pick up a knife if you found it just in case. While most people would run away if they could, most people would also carry a weapon if they found one in case they were backed into a corner.

Secondly, in terms of creating fear, there is only one difference between "offensive" and "defensive" action: the presence of Offensive action forces you to use storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development to achieve fear, since you would logically be less afraid of something you could kill.

"Defensive Only" means that developers can skimp on everything BUT the action, since monsters you can't kill are inherently more scary. Developers can get by skimping on all the "art" aspects of a horror game by making monsters invincible.

Of course, I am not saying that they WILL, just that they could. It's entirely possible that they will pay full attention to storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development. However, there will be just as much action, and it's the sort of action that can allow a game maker to get away with sub-par storytelling.

You need to PRESENT the game really well to make me afraid of a situation where I can kill all the monsters. You don't need to try as hard when the monsters are unkillable. I am worried they won't bother trying as hard as they could in those aspects. There is a very good chance they will put everything they have into it....but it's also possible they will skimp on the "art" in favor of just chasing you with unkillable monsters.

So, from what I gather, you are worried that the developers are going to slack on the storyline /atmosphere/pacing/character development because they chose to optimize game play as a tool to craft horror.

That doesn't really follow because the effort put into one thing doesn't necessarily effect the effort put into the other. I mean likewise, I could say that I am worried that too much combat in a game might have a negative effect on the horror because if the developers aren't bothering to optimize the action towards the goal of crafting horror what guarantee do we have that they will take the storyline/atmosphere /pacing/character development seriously. See? That doesn't work because it assumes rather than follows.

On the other hand, I can say that a game with too much combat might not be as scary for the simple reason that game play elements that increase a player's aggression can desensitize them. Lack of offensive options is simply more efficient at getting the player in a frame of mind that would be more sensitive to horror. The skinner box is telling you to choose flight over fight so get ready to be scared.

From what I can tell, the new psyche profile system is probably going to blow the original methods of storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development away. So, we don't need to fret about that yet.

One more thing. I don't agree with segregating game play outside of artistic expression. Interactivity can and should be acknowledged as an art form. The psyche profile alone shows that game play has just a big a role in crafting storyline/atmosphere /pacing/character development as graphical style, set design, sound design, camera composition and scripting does.

[Revolverhawk]

I didn't say it WOULD reduce the storyline/atmosphere/pacing/character development. I was worried developers might focus on making the monsters scary, and deriving fear from monsters chasing you, rather than from the other aspects of horror. I also said that it's entirely possible they would do it perfectly. I just don't know.

[Alessyl]

Fight. I love being scared of SH monsters while wailing on them. The whole no combat thing is not for me, considering how I died the first time I ran into Scissorman in the first Clock Tower.

[Revolverhawk]

Fight. I love being scared of SH monsters while wailing on them. The whole no combat thing is not for me, considering how I died the first time I ran into Scissorman in the first Clock Tower.

I agree. Being able to kill monsters OR run away from them lets me set it at my own pace. Always running away is just tedious, and in my case it would make the game less immersive.

[DrainDeimos]

Fight. I love being scared of SH monsters while wailing on them. The whole no combat thing is not for me, considering how I died the first time I ran into Scissorman in the first Clock Tower.

I agree. Being able to kill monsters OR run away from them lets me set it at my own pace. Always running away is just tedious, and in my case it would make the game less immersive.

Killing everything on screen is also tedious. We've been doing it in the majority of games since the NES. Don't we ever get bored with it or is Western society so vicariously violent that we don't know anything else?

Maybe we should look at current trends and the video game politics surrounding the dying survival horror genre by consumption from aggressive action games.

[Video Gamer]

The nice thing about past Silent Hill games was you could sneak around, choose your fights, for the most part. I'm going to miss that.

[cascade88]

I always loved being able to fight. I didn't neccesarily try to kill everything in my path, but I do like the option of having something to defend myself with. That said, as far as Shattered Memories goes, I think it's going to definitely be scarier to be defenseless. I like the idea of being panicked while playing, but again, my preferred method is to at least have the option of fighting if I need/want to.