When building a fire, tinder refers to any easily combustible materials. Tinder Talk is meant to ignite discussions with short, provocative opinions.
Ground rules: Your opinions, pushback, and thoughts are welcome, but be nice to your fellow commenters.
Ever notice how the bar for what counts as “survival” in games has dropped lower than a limbo stick at a backyard barbecue? A few years back, it seemed like people were more vocal about the “survival” tag being slapped on anything with a hunger meter or a flimsy crafting system. Sure, there were always the cheerleaders on Steam and YouTube, but you’d see plenty of skeptical comments on Reddit.
These days, though, there’s a noticeable shift. Players, especially on Steam, are pushing back against the trend of dumbing games down to the point where “survival” feels more like a boring simulation. It’s like the criteria for being a survival game have become laughably simplistic:
- Food: Magical or not, if it restores HP or fixes a broken leg, it’s suddenly “survival.”
- Crafting/Building: It counts, even if it’s just making a stick or building a shack. Never mind that MMOs, RPGs, and countless other genres have had crafting since forever.
- Zombies: If the game has aggressive AI zombies, indie developers will swear it’s a survival title.
- Avoiding Death: Trying not to die? Congrats, you’re playing a survival game. Sounds like every game ever, right?
Isn’t there supposed to be some real complexity or hardship involved in survival? The term implies a struggle, overcoming adversity, and dealing with scarcity. If a game showers you with food and weapons, trivializing any potential threats, what sets it apart from your run-of-the-mill adventure or action game?
Survival, by definition, should involve a certain level of grit and challenge. But with this lowered bar, we’re left wondering:
What the hell happened to the essence of survival in gaming? 🤔
