A little late for Halloween, but...
Silent Hill 2
Haunting Ground
Rule of Rose
Eternal Darkness
Of course the first resident evil is by far the best.
Then silent hill.
original psx versions.
Then you could try the sequels but they arent as scary.
Then the genre got overused and commercialized by the Japanese, and most new games are stupid, and not scary at all. But I hear Dead Space is somewhat scary...
The first four Silent Hill games are definitely my favorites. Also, resident evil 2 and 3, and even 7 (even though it had a boring ending, it was still a decent comeback).
I can't wait remastered of resident evil 2 on ps4
I legitimately question whether or not I'll be able to play it, I'm a huge bitch when it comes to horror games.
As others have previously mentioned, the mainstay Silent Hill and Resident Evil games are classics, but I have a particular soft spot for RE4, though I'm hesitant to actually call it a horror game since it leans so heavily into the action.
But I definitely enjoy the fact that it embraces a lot of a those derpy 70s horror tropes.
Spoiler warning:
Silent Hill.
Resident Evil 2. I'm not a big fan of horror games (or horror genre in general), but RE2 is a classic I can play and beat at least once every year.
Resident Evil, Blood, Doom, not sure if Doom counts, but the game has Halloween/horror themes.
Silent Hill (2 and 3).
And despite its poor reputation, I really like ZombiU. The setting is great and I love the constant feeling of danger knowing that if you're not careful enough, you can die anytime.
Not gonna lie, being a college student has to be the scariest one of them all.
If RE 2002 is a remake then RE2 2019 and RE3 2020 can't be remakes, yet most people call them that. Funnily enough Capcom never marketed any of these games as remakes. The word "remake", "remaster", "reimagining" never appears in the title of the game(s) and the 2002 GC game never marketed itself as such either. RE 2002 should be called a remaster if we want to call the last 2 games remakes. Remaster would make sense, because the game hasn't been altered in fundamental ways unlike the games released in the past 2 years. You cannot compare RE2 2019 to OG RE2. Only the story and characters are similar, most mechanics and features have changed. Not just changed in the sense they added a new level like in RE 2002 or changed some of the side stories around or remixed puzzles, RE2 2019 is nothing like the classic game. People need to stop calling games like Dark Souls Remastered a "remaster", because it really isn't one same as most shitty "definitive" ports. They're lazy cash grabs. While RE2 2019 was great, I'd have liked a proper remaster/remake more. Give use the old game, but with fancy graphics and the option to switch between first, third and fixed perspectives. I know that'll never happen because it makes no financial sense, but oh well. I'd love to also have an updated version of RE1 just like that. I loved the 2002 version and would like to see it in proper 3D with fixed angles and in first person.
Last edited by Jazzmarazz; 6th-July-2020 at 16:37. Reason: double post
Remaster doesn't make sense if the game was rebuilt, regardless of how close to the GC versions you think they are. The recent Crash games aren't remasters, those games were rebuilt.
Remastered games are essentially cash grabs because yes, they're ports with graphics more suited to the target platform. Remakes have more time put into them. But yes I do agree with you about RE series having pov switch, sorta like TES/Fallout games have had for years.
Survival/horror games and first person in particular go very well together. Look at Alien Isolation.
I've commented about RE needing first person for years, RE4 is a legendary favourite for many people but Leon's body is just filling the screen.
RE7 was good for fp but I didn't enjoy much else about the game tbh.
Spoiler warning:
https://youtu.be/SUSBee3mG7U?t=45
As a friendly reminder M$ calls Halo MCC a remaster too. One reason you might argue that's the case if because you can switch between old and new on the fly and old is just.. well old, but at a higher resolution. Either way, my point is the lines are blurred when it comes to the terminology and people just say whatever they want. Really my point is you cannot call RE 2002 a remake if the most recent games are also called remakes. RE 2002 and OG RE are very, very similar. Yes some puzzles have changed, they added the crimson head and changed a side story among other changes, but the majority of the game stayed the game. Fixed camera angles, limited resources, same overall puzzles, story, dialogue and so on. The feeling of the game is the same. You cannot say the same for RE2 and RE3 from 2019 and 2020. These games are not anything like the originals outside of the story and characters and general ingame locations.
Again people just use whatever terminology they want to use. If you say X isn't a remaster then I can say "well M$ said it is" or "crash person PR guy" said so. Or was it the guy who wrote the script for the presenter? I am just annoyed how people call RE 2002 a remake when it was never officially called a remake as well as calling the most recent games remakes. The most recent games cannot, physically, be remakes if RE 2002 was a remake.
Either call RE2 2019 a reimagining or call RE 2002 a remaster. But both cannot be remakes.
Sorry for going off, but it just annoys me. We could argue about remaster terminology used in music and film making, but as for video games no one seems the wiser. Everyone just keeps using whatever they want.
In my opinion which is proven fact certified by the lord above himself, a remaster should be an updated looked for an old game which included new assets, new engine, basically everything about its appearance should be new. A remake has an updated appearance as well as changed gameplay. That might be a new mechanic, new weapons and weapon calculations (RE2 remake has adaptive difficulty, just like RE4 and most other modern day REs), new layouts for levels and item locations. New personalities for characters, changes to the story and how it unfolds. As for reimagining, IMO that's like a remake but with even more liberties. Basically if you were to take Escape from Monkey Island and instead of it being a point n click adventure it's a 3D platformer now where you're a space pirate.
We're never going to get a proper conclusion to what's what, but I sure as shit know that lazy ass ports with often worse visuals aren't "remasters" nor "definitive" editions. Dark Souls Remastered could've been a remaster if they had updated ALL assets and not just redone particle effects and broken ankles.
Oh and as for first person, yes. I think it's the definitive way of experiencing a horror game. I love RE 2002 and I think third person and fixed camera/fifth person can work, but first person is king. First person fixed RE3 "remake" for me. It's still a rather meh game, but not having the dike on the left side of your screen really helps. I am not a fan of new Jill at all. She's an annoying character just like Claire from last year's game. Leon's personality change made sense, he's the somewhat helpless rookie, but it seems all the female leads are badass now, because "woman stronk". I hope RE8 will do well and it won't just be a lukewarm RE7.5. I also hope someone will make an FOV changer ASAP because the default viewmodel of that game seems as bad if not worse than RE7. I don't want the gun to take up 1/3 of my screen.
Fatal Frame 2: Crimson Butterfly. is my favorite horror games