Forums > Game Talk > Where have all the horror games gone?
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/8/2010 11:58 PM · Permalink · Report
Every time Dead Space is mentioned, I start kicking and whining about how much I hate it. I found it to be boring and repetitive, but, most of all, not a real horror game. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the last proper horror game ever released was Condemned: Criminal Origins. I do have arguments to back that up, but quite frankly I can't write worth two shits in my native language, let alone a language I taught myself by watching subtitled movies and reading songs lyrics with a dictionary on one hand.
Luckily, someone much smarter than me just said pretty much everything I've been itching to say on the subject; and added a couple points about storytelling in gaming in general which I couldn't agree more with. Go ahead, give it a read and then come and discuss.
(And yes, this is the same guy that makes Zero Punctuation, but give it a chance before you set your phasers to bitchy because he doesn't like The Witcher or whatever. He's talking seriously here, and when he does it turns out he comes up with some rather interesting ideas. The fact that a guy makes a living out of bashing games by making penis jokes doesn't mean he's not a smart person with interesting things to say. You know who started with the same kind of gig? Erik Wolpaw. The same guy who later co-wrote Psychonauts and Portal. So there. Just read the artical already.)
Lain Crowley (6629) on 6/9/2010 4:02 AM · Permalink · Report
I tend to skip over any of Yahtzee's dame design diatribes, and this doesn't look any different. From playing the games he's made it's pretty easy to see that he's a good storyteller, and a bad designer.
Having the "scary" music on all the time is a terrible idea from every perspective. Surprising the player just increases the number of shocks in the game and does nothing to enhance any kind of horror. The other two problems are common to all video games and have been brought up thousands of times before.
The real problem with making a horror game is that, like most genres, it's pretty hard to translate the particulars into video games, but unlike other genres the flubs stand out a lot more. The number one issue is that video game characters make terrible horror protagonists. Look at how the heroes and heroines of Friday and Elm Street movies dealt with their antagonists. Now imagine Jill Valentine fighting Freddy. Imagine Sam Fisher fighting Jason. Video game protagonists are freakishly competent killers, and horror needs enemies you can't just kill.
Siren did that, and everyone hated it for it (not unfairly). Fatal Frame had a good idea, but Tecmo doesn't seem terribly interested in keeping that franchise alive after what happened with 4. The original Resident Evil tried to do this with limited ammo, but players just got better at conserving their ammo to kill the things they really want to kill. Mikami tried to balance it in later entries so that the game restricted your ability to kill without becoming unplayable, but he finally threw up his arms in defeat and let you kill everything in RE4.
The only way to save horror games, and in my opinion games in general, is to finally man up and kill off power fantasy protagonists.
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/9/2010 5:04 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--] Having the "scary" music on all the time is a terrible idea from every perspective. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--] I actually thought the same thing, but even that would be better than what we have now. Making a big deal of every monster appearance destroys any atmosphere in a game. It makes it predictable and ultimately ridiculous. It's one of the biggest flaws I see in Dead Space, and even more so in Cursed Mountain. To quote Croshaw: "effects that work in movies to heighten one-time thrills should not be programmed into a game to happen every time a certain thrilling event takes place". And that's something developers need to f'ing burn into their damned heads.
If you ask me, music -"scary" or otherwise- is something horror games can do perfectly without. Again, Condemned is an excellent example. It does have some sort of soundtrack going on, but it's mostly a subtle white noise of sorts, and the true star in terms of atmosphere-building are the environment sounds.
Cryostasis takes it even further and has no soundscape at all, which turns out to work wonderfully for the whole idea of loneliness the game is all about.
Also, while I do agree with this ...
[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--] The only way to save horror games, and in my opinion games in general, is to finally man up and kill off power fantasy protagonists. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--] ... I think you're bringing up the worst possible examples for this particular subject: To me, any horror game where the player is using extremely powerful weapons already started with two wrong feet. Resident Evil (and I mean any title of the series) is the sort of horror game I refuse to consider "proper" horror, nevermind how many zombie dogs they throw at me >=(
Oddly enough, you avoid to mention the universally-accepted example of a perfect protagonist for a horror game: The guys from Silent Hill (the first two, of course).
micnictic (387) on 6/9/2010 3:14 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--] The only way to save horror games, and in my opinion games in general, is to finally man up and kill off power fantasy protagonists. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--]
The idea is promising, but why not kill all these useless protagonists in general? My most terrifying gaming experience so far remains the old System Shock 2, where the main character is hardly defined as a human being. No vita, no emotions, no speeches: he's nothing but a blank space to project your own ego on. And I think that's good, since I tend to identify with myself a lot more than with Jill Valentine or Edward Carnby. For that matter: don't you think it's strange that most survival horror games choose a 3rd person perspective?
Adzuken (836) on 6/9/2010 3:27 PM · Permalink · Report
I believe that the reason horror video games aren't very effective is because of control. I don't mean control scheme, but rather the knowledge that you're playing a video game the outcome of which depends solely on your proficiency. When you play a game, you're in control. Whether the protagonist lives or dies depends on how you play. As long as you're confident in your abilities, video games can't really scare you, they can only hope to creep you out or startle you.
I feel that if the player gains too much confidence, the horror is gone. For example: in Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, you knew you were perfectly safe as long as things weren't frozen over. In Doom 3, you knew you were safe whenever you were in ventilation shafts. In F.E.A.R. you knew that you could only be hurt in gunfights. An effective horror game would never let the player feel safe, or in control. I think this is sort of what Yahtzee meant when he brought up music. As long as you didn't hear any intense music, you knew you were safe.
There are a lot of simple ways developers could remove control from players. I'd like to see a Demon's Souls or Heavy Rain-style auto-save system, where the game saves constantly and forces you to deal with your mistakes. Being able to load a checkpoint or previous save removes a lot of the danger. There should also be no safe zones. The player should never feel safe. Likewise, making weapons unreliable, or removing them entirely would remove the player's confidence to deal with threats.
But I'm just spewing out what comes to mind. I'm not even sure if I'm being coherent. What do you guys think?
Daniel Saner (3503) on 6/9/2010 11:25 PM · Permalink · Report
Sounds good, but who is going to do it? I don't see any chance of something like that selling.
God forbid a game these days provides predefined spots in which to save progress, instead of a one-button quicksave and quickload function. It will be criticised as being unfair and outdated, because apparently jumping back and forth through time has become a player's right. Make an enemy impossible to kill? The game is instantly said to be unfairly bending the rules and cheating on its player.
It just seems to me that a real big-budget horror game is incompatible with the mainstream expectation for games to be linear and beatable for everyone. If you put the player's success in genuine jeopardy, as would be required, you will put off the largest part of your potential customers becuase they are not willing to try again, or put themselves into the game and think about the situation.
Also, comparing to the movie world, it seems that genuine horror (as in Hitchcockian "I won't go to bed tonight") is currently out-of-fashion, and the notion of "scary" has been replaced by zombie blood splatter. Not that that's actual "horror", it just currently seems to overshadow the genre.
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/10/2010 5:23 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]Also, comparing to the movie world, it seems that genuine horror (as in Hitchcockian "I won't go to bed tonight") is currently out-of-fashion, and the notion of "scary" has been replaced by zombie blood splatter. Not that that's actual "horror", it just currently seems to overshadow the genre. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] And before zombie blood splatter it was that whole sadistic voyeur thing, with all the Saw's and such. Yeah, it really has been a while since I've last seen anything that could properly be described as horror =(
Back to gaming, another F.E.A.R. has just been announced -which makes like 7 games in that f'ing series already- while the second Condemned didn't even get a PC port. It's probably like you just said: "Genuine" horror is out of style now, hence it doesn't sell, hence no more "genuine" horror games.
That's why I put pretty much every hope I could gather in Amnesia. Those guys would seem to be the last hope for the genre.
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 6/10/2010 6:17 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--] God forbid a game these days provides predefined spots in which to save progress, instead of a one-button quicksave and quickload function. It will be criticised as being unfair and outdated, because apparently jumping back and forth through time has become a player's right. Make an enemy impossible to kill? The game is instantly said to be unfairly bending the rules and cheating on its player. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] And they would be absolutely right.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 6/10/2010 11:39 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]And they would be absolutely right.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]
Would they really?
Qucksaving and quickloading - the ultimate way of removing any need of actually thinking about your situation in a game. Just quicksave before any decision you make, quickload if you're not happy about the consequences. Never again settle for anything less than a perfect playthrough. Also automatically removes any possibility of "horror" in the game, or actually challenging the player, because salvation is always a button press away. Is that good game design? Would Heavy Rain feel as real-time, as genuinely on-your-toes sweat-inducing if you could just always rewind? This style of playing actually almost ruined Mass Effect for me, because the temptation was too big. Until I manned up, restarted and played it for real.
In my opinion the same goes for, abstractly speaking, "no unbeatable enemies". Making games conform completely to such traditional mechanics eliminates most of hte surprise and suspense. The focus shifts from thinking about how to progress in the game - oh my, what mess am I in, what would be the best course of action now - to just thinking superficially about how I can make the game let me win - what do I have to do first before the game will let me kill this? In my experience the most rewarding games were those that put me in a position where I had to think about the situation my character was in, rather than just farming him to a high enough level to beat the final boss.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 6/11/2010 12:59 AM · Permalink · Report
This puts me in mind of two things -- Agrippa, WIlliam Gibson's poem-program about memory that would erase itself after being displayed, and FORBIDDEN.EXE, a horrific game that threatened to do harm to your system. I think it might be very consistent for a horror game to not allow reliable replay from a fixed point -- perhaps approximating the player's situation, but maybe monkeying with their possessions or attributes or in any case disorienting the circumstances of return.
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 6/11/2010 6:42 AM · Permalink · Report
The end doesn't justify the means. If you don't like quicksaves - just don't use them. Not hard. Problem solved. Personally I play games to have fun and not to repeat the last thirty minutes over and over again because of one unfair/hard part right before the next checkpoint.
Automated saving? Sierra adventures all over again. Millions of possibilities to screw yourself over without having the option to revert to a previous save. The only genres where this is not a big "fuck you, player" are (well designed) adventure games. I can't judge Heavy Rain, just Fahrenheit. And there it works because it is an interactive movie without any interaction besides decisions and simple action sequences with a million checkpoints.
If the game has to rely on bad design decisions to "work" or be "challenging", there is something fundamentally wrong with the game itself. There is no point in save scrumming the decisions in The Witcher because the game doesn't shove the consequences in your face directly afterwards. Problem solved without having to use cheap tricks.
But, to be fair, I never cared about "survival horror" games. System Shock 2 is probably the only game which is halfway in this direction which I enjoyed. And it didn't feel the need to scream "We hate you, player". Well, at least if you don't count badly balanced weapons and useless skills - but that's another topic.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 6/11/2010 12:52 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]The end doesn't justify the means. If you don't like quicksaves - just don't use them. Not hard. Problem solved. Personally I play games to have fun and not to repeat the last thirty minutes over and over again because of one unfair/hard part right before the next checkpoint.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]
Actually, temptation is a real problem here and I don't think that I'm the only one who sees it that way. I'm not talking about unfair, of course there's a limit to everything. But let me just go back to the example of Mass Effect again. When I first started playing the game, I used to quicksave a lot, and when a conversation didn't turn out as I'd wanted (for example concerning Paragon/Renegade points) I just quickloaded and chose other dialogue options. Like everyone else I play games to have fun, and quickloading was my own decision, but it almost ruined the game for me, because the whole concept of "player freedom" and "choice" just went away and was completely pointless. I had to re-start from the beginning and force myself to play it "for real". I still quicksave a lot, in case I really mess up, i.e. die, or the game crashes, etc. but I don't quickload just because the story didn't take the turn I wanted it to. This ruins the game, ruins the story, and ruins it forever because you will have "exploited" the game to a point where even replaying it is not fun anymore. If there's just no limits and penalty to quickloading and quicksaving, in my opinion people will ruin their game. I have had similar problems in Morrowind as I remember. It's a reflex, but it is actually nothing else but cheating and takes away from the experience that a game can be.
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]Automated saving? Sierra adventures all over again. Millions of possibilities to screw yourself over without having the option to revert to a previous save. The only genres where this is not a big "fuck you, player" are (well designed) adventure games. I can't judge Heavy Rain, just Fahrenheit. And there it works because it is an interactive movie without any interaction besides decisions and simple action sequences with a million checkpoints.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]
Well yes, it depends on the game, above I was more arguing for predetermined save spots not being a bad thing, but automatic saves are really a different beast. In Heavy Rain it works just as well - saves happen between chapters and between "acts" within each chapter. You can go back to the latest autosave, or you can revert to a previous chapter (either without saving, or by completely reverting the storyline to that point). It works well. If you could just save at any point, i.e. before conversations, and reload, it would again ruin the game. I think that Heavy Rain strikes a good balance in that the saving/loading system is really fair, but the way it is designed it really encourages you to not bother with it and just play it through as it happens. That's all I'm asking. Let the players experience the game, and don't tempt them to jump forth and back like some time traveller on drugs.
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]If the game has to rely on bad design decisions to "work" or be "challenging", there is something fundamentally wrong with the game itself. There is no point in save scrumming the decisions in The Witcher because the game doesn't shove the consequences in your face directly afterwards. Problem solved without having to use cheap tricks.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]
Is it really a bad design decision if it makes the game challenging or work well? Developers just really need to put some thought in it, like you said for the example of The Witcher (which I haven't played). It depends heavily on the game. And I just argue that with the usual one-button quicksave quickload anytime mechanism as you for example have in most shooters, a horror game looses its sense of danger, and without a sense of danger it can't really be horror.
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 6/11/2010 3:32 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]
Actually, temptation is a real problem here and I don't think that I'm the only one who sees it that way. I'm not talking about unfair, of course there's a limit to everything. But let me just go back to the example of Mass Effect again. (...) It's a reflex, but it is actually nothing else but cheating and takes away from the experience that a game can be.[/q] Well, that's hardly the game's fault. I believe that every player has the right to save scrum if it improves his playing experience (due to lacking skill level, mostly). Sure, it is not ideal to do this with dialogue choices, especially in games like Mass Effect where different takes on the same situation can be easily experienced in a second playthrough. Unless of course there is a chance to render the game unwinnable, but I think that is not an issue in modern games.
Nevertheless it is a valid way to play the game. Don't get me wrong, the saving system is not necessarily a reason for me to not play a game (unless it is as ridiculous as in Ninja Blade) but quicksave is generally a good thing and I want to have the option to use it. There is no "right" way to play a game - just "fun" or "not fun". And that is something that every player has to decide himself.
[q] Is it really a bad design decision if it makes the game challenging or work well? Developers just really need to put some thought in it, like you said for the example of The Witcher (which I haven't played). It depends heavily on the game. And I just argue that with the usual one-button quicksave quickload anytime mechanism as you for example have in most shooters, a horror game looses its sense of danger, and without a sense of danger it can't really be horror. [/Q] My thesis is as it stands: A good game doesn't need to restrict the player's saving mechanics. If it doesn't work when the player can quicksave, then there are serious faults in the game design/balance which need to be fixed. (Of course this also applies if the player has to quicksave.) There are many ways to build tension or be challenging without having to resort to cheap tricks. Taking away quicksave is just the easy solution.
Both System Shock 2 and the Cradle level in Thief 3 are filled with tension and are one of my most intense gaming moments. Both have quicksaves. And yet they work flawlessly because of the level design and the sound. Every game can achieve this if someone puts enough thought into it. The most important part to create a horror game is atmosphere, nothing else.
Of course a game can be good and fun without quicksave, no question about that. But not because - despite.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/11/2010 3:46 PM · Permalink · Report
My thesis is as it stands: A good game doesn't need to restrict the player's saving mechanics. If it doesn't work when the player can quicksave, then there are serious faults in the game design/balance which need to be fixed.
I absolutely agree with you. There are few things I hate in games more than increased difficulty due to inability to save. I hate platform games with a passion for this reason, and it drives me crazy, because I love the game mechanics of platform games, but I'm feeling violent at the thought of the idiot who decided we can't save normally in those games because that's how the first Mario did it.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 6/11/2010 8:09 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--] My thesis is as it stands: A good game doesn't need to restrict the player's saving mechanics. If it doesn't work when the player can quicksave, then there are serious faults in the game design/balance which need to be fixed. (Of course this also applies if the player has to quicksave.) There are many ways to build tension or be challenging without having to resort to cheap tricks. Taking away quicksave is just the easy solution. [/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]
I'd like to repeat that I did not say quicksave is a bad thing. It's the whole system of saving, loading, and how it interacts with the specific game in question, to be evaluated for each game specifically. I do think though that it is partially the game's fault if it effectively tempts players to save-load-cheat their way through it. Of course it's the player's own loss, but it's not something you can usually prevent; many games actively support it. Of course we all play games to have fun. But games are only fun because they are based on rules, and rules are not there to ensure your safe and obstacle-less progress through the game - they are there to provide challenge, whether it be mental or skill-based. A game without rules/mechanisms that hinder your progress is not really a game, it's a movie. You make it sound like making a player work for their success in a game automatically makes the game less fun, or unfair, and I disagree with that. In fact I think that's a main reason why I find so few of today's games gripping anymore. They're all so afraid of estranging any of their potential customers that the games are effectively afraid to ever tell you "YOU FAILED" anymore. When you feel that while playing a game, the suspense is gone, because you know you're going to win anyway, no matter how badly you mess up.
The problem is game design and balancing. Few games get this right. Heavy Rain does: at any point you can revert to any of the previous scenes or chapters. The point is that you don't want to - no matter how good or bad the things are that happened, you don't want to jump back and forth, you want to know how the story, as it happened, progresses. The game is fair by allowing you as much saving/loading freedom as makes sense in an interactive-drama-style game, but doesn't tempt you to wiggle your way through it. You want to experience it, partly because it is a well-told story no matter if you do well or not, meaning that making a mistake doesn't feel like you mess up your whole game/experience, or as you stated it, is instantly tallied according to some win/fail metric. That's good design.
Mass Effect is on the brink. It's a good design choice to allow for free quicksaving and loading in a game like this, especially due to its action scenes. That's not what I hold against it. If anything, what I dislike is that in most (not all) situations there is this excruciatingly clear Paragon/Renegade path, that is instantly tallied after every choice you make, thus tempting you to reload every time the meter goes in a direction you didn't want it to go.
On the bad side, you have games like Avatar, that demonstrates in the extreme what I hate about most modern games. In fact it is also good to illustrate that my grip is not the quicksaving and quickloading per se - Avatar doesn't have that. But it is the perfect example for how a lack of challenge can eliminate any fun you have in a game. For one, it is almost impossible to die in the game. You literally have to want to screw up, otherwise it just isn't going to happen. And if you die? You respawn at the last gizmo a few steps further back, and you jump back in full-strength right where you left off, all enemies you already killed are still dead etc. There's just no challenge at all anymore. You might call it fair that you can always pick up where you left off, but to me it is really detrimental to the game because to me personally, it feels like it doesn't even matter anymore how well or badly I do.
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 6/12/2010 6:39 AM · Permalink · Report
Basically I agree with almost everything you said.
[q]You make it sound like making a player work for their success in a game automatically makes the game less fun, or unfair, and I disagree with that. When you feel that while playing a game, the suspense is gone, because you know you're going to win anyway, no matter how badly you mess up.[/q]
Of course not, challenge is the basic idea of almost every game. For example I'm playing Two Worlds right now and if you die you get instantly reborn with no penalty, the enemies probably regenerate a bit of health while you walk back. That's a bit overboard and just because they messed up the balance (most enemies are cannon fodder and then are some which kill you with one hit - nothing in between). Personally it doesn't annoys me because for me the fun part is not fighting but the exploring, but still...
There are so many ways to make a game interesting and challenging without taking away the quicksave. It's like making the player to play blind to add to the challenge - may work but is stupid.
[q]You want to experience it, partly because it is a well-told story no matter if you do well or not, meaning that making a mistake doesn't feel like you mess up your whole game/experience, or as you stated it, is instantly tallied according to some win/fail metric. That's good design.[/q] That's exactly my point: a good game makes people want to continue without reloading at every step. A good game gives the player the feeling that every choice is valid. With games like Fahrenheit I really don't care about automated saving - I don't want to quickload anyway. In don't even remember if Dreamfall had save points. But this only works with very few games where decisions are the main part of the game and the chapters are short - if there are action sequences or you have to play for an hour until it saves it gets frustrating (action game) or tedious (if it crashes or you have to go to an appointment or something).
[q]Mass Effect is on the brink. It's a good design choice to allow for free quicksaving and loading in a game like this, especially due to its action scenes. That's not what I hold against it. If anything, what I dislike is that in most (not all) situations there is this excruciatingly clear Paragon/Renegade path, that is instantly tallied after every choice you make, thus tempting you to reload every time the meter goes in a direction you didn't want it to go.[/q] That's the problem with alignment meters. It was a good addition when it came because there were fewer games which offered valid evil choices but nowaydays games drift to a grey area where choices have long-time consequences. That's good. Personally it doesn't matter to me that much because I knew the character of "my" Shepard beforehand and took the choices based on that.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 6/12/2010 12:59 PM · Permalink · Report
I think I can agree on all of that. Skimming some of my earlier posts I wasn't really that clear on what I mean, but you worded it nicely.
It's really not that bad in Mass Effect, and I'm not even sure if I want to put part of the blame on the game. Of course I love about the series that you really shape the story, and you don't feel like playing a linear story with a few branches here and there. And that there is no real right or wrong way of playing the game. I just felt at times that the game didn't live up to the potential - for instance, how they stressed that Paragon/Renegade points are independent and do not correspond to a blatant good/evil path, and that what ends up being a Paragon or Renegade decision is not always clear, that you have to really think. I was a bit disappointed in the game in that respect, because to me it felt exactly like a linear good/evil scale, even more so with the according positioning of the dialog choices that basically allowed you to define your character without even reading the dialogue. That's probably what tempted me to re-do conversations on my first attempt at playing it. The game could have worked even better in my opinion if the decisions weren't always as clear-cut.
I also agree on everything concerning Two Worlds. The exploration is what really makes the game, though the respawning is a bit of a let-down. You should play the game in Hard difficulty as not only the fights finally become a little challenging, but you also no longer respawn.
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 6/12/2010 2:18 PM · Permalink · Report
That is exactly what I didn't like about Mass Effect: you don't even need to think about the answer if you are only interested in playing a totally Paragon/Renegade character: the top answer is always Paragon and the lower answer is always Renegade. You could play the game blind! In Kotor you at least had to read the answers to choose the "children eating moron" answer...
That's why I am pumped up to play Alpha Protocol next month - as far as I heard this could be exactly the game I was waiting for regarding decisions and dialogue. And I am excited about the time restrictions for choosing an answer - this worked well in Fahrenheit even if it was a bit illogical at times (Yes, I am a policewoman. No, I am not allowed to ask more than two questions to the murder witness).
I really recommend The Witcher which handles this subject flawlessly.
As far as I know you only can change the difficulty when beginning a new game in Two Worlds. I'm already ten hours in so that is no option. When I die I reload anyways.
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (95187) on 6/11/2010 8:52 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]If there's just no limits and penalty to quickloading and quicksaving, in my opinion people will ruin their game. I have had similar problems in Morrowind as I remember. It's a reflex, but it is actually nothing else but cheating and takes away from the experience that a game can be. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] I think you may have just figured out for me why I got absolutely sick of both Morrowind and Oblivion after a few hours and can't play western-style RPGs at all. I have absolutely no will for resisting quicksaves -- playing through Doom last month on hard, I made upwards of a hundred saves on some levels -- but I love that feeling of fighting tooth and nail to reach the next checkpoint or save point.
But then, I also loved Ninja Blade.
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/10/2010 5:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Adzuken wrote--]There should also be no safe zones. The player should never feel safe. Likewise, making weapons unreliable, or removing them entirely would remove the player's confidence to deal with threats. [/Q --end Adzuken wrote--] I sort of agree with that, but not in that stupid Resident Evil ammo-starvation mindset, where you're just playing a regular shooter with slightly less ammo than you actually need. That's not horror, that's lazy design.
My ideal horror game would be a mixture of Penumbra: Black Plague and Condemned: My main protagonist would be a regular Joe with, say, a 2x4 or a lead pipe, and he would be able to smack enemies on the head with that, and the action of doing so would be all sorts of intense and visceral; but it wouldn't be lethal: At best, you would stun the enemy for a brief period so you can turn tails and sprint the hell away; at worst, the enemy would either avoid the attack or block it and you'd be done; so fighting would be a measure of last resource because you'd be actually taking a big risk by doing it.
However, I think there should be "safe zones". But, again, like those in the Penumbra games: Small, closed rooms you get in to get a breather and maybe solve a puzzle or two, but you know the moment you step out the door you'll be in danger again. Though I'd also make it so that you'd have to barricade the door because enemies could feel like smashing in at any moment, so even the "safe zone" wouldn't be completely safe.
Lain Crowley (6629) on 6/10/2010 9:51 PM · Permalink · Report
I was just thinking recently that the physics engine in Backbreaker would make for a great first person fighting game, and it would probably work just as well for a horror game with melee weapons. I'd love to see a video game weapon with some actual weight to it instead of just cleanly slicing through an enemy.
Safe rooms are basically a necessity of the entire horror genre, video game or otherwise. Horror has to be built up to; just springing something on a player when they don't expect it is a shock and nothing more. Think of the scene where the girl gets splattered by a bus in the first Final Destination movie. That was shocking, sure (shocking enough they actually put a clip of the audience reaction clip in commercials), but there wasn't any continuing dread. The strength of the safe room is that you can't stay in one perpetually, and eventually you have to willfully leave it and put yourself back in danger.
Adzuken (836) on 6/11/2010 8:42 PM · Permalink · Report
I apologize, I didn't explain myself clearly.
I don't mean that there shouldn't be any rooms without enemies, but rather that there shouldn't be rooms that are predefined as safe. When I say predefined, I'm referring to Resident Evil's typewriter rooms or those rooms in Silent Hill 2 with red squares. By removing places where the player knows they're safe, they're placed in a perpetual state of dread and uncertainty. Sure, maybe the coast looks clear, but who the hell knows?
Of course, you're right, however. There is a certain power in safe rooms. I'm reminded of Silent Hill 4's apartment. It was always really comforting to return to it because it was your impenetrable stronghold against the unexplained. Then, halfway through the game (about the time the whole game goes downhill) that safety net is taken away and your room becomes hostile. It was probably the most effective aspect of that otherwise poorly executed game.
So I see what you mean about the usefulness of a closet to hide in. I just wouldn't put it in my ideal horror game. Then again, I'm not game designer.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 6/11/2010 11:43 PM · Permalink · Report
I remember the infuriating lack of safe areas in Ecstatica and Alone in the Dark, but it definitely contributed to the general sense of foreboding!
—- (1623) on 6/14/2010 5:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] My main protagonist would be a regular Joe with, say, a 2x4 or a lead pipe, and he would be able to smack enemies on the head with that, and the action of doing so would be all sorts of intense and visceral; but it wouldn't be lethal: At best, you would stun the enemy for a brief period so you can turn tails and sprint the hell away; at worst, the enemy would either avoid the attack or block it and you'd be done; so fighting would be a measure of last resource because you'd be actually taking a big risk by doing it. [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] Can you say Siren?
—- (1623) on 6/13/2010 11:48 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]the last proper horror game ever released was Condemned: Criminal Origins [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] Why not Condemned 2, then?
Anyway, I just gotta mention the Fatal Frame series again, which has a fantastic sense of how to create atmosphere, despite its uninspired stories.
Also, Wolpaw plays in a whole different league compared to Yahtzee, IMHO.
Slug Camargo (583) on 6/15/2010 4:29 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--] [Q2 --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]the last proper horror game ever released was Condemned: Criminal Origins [/Q2 --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] Why not Condemned 2, then? [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--] For one thing I haven't played it, and I tend to not trust anything until I played it firsthand. But also I read a few times about how it goes down the drain about halfway into the story with a lot of retarded, over-the-top, unnecessary additions; so I don't have much trust in it either. To me, a bad resolution for a horror game can ruin everything that was good about it at the beginning (Silent Hill 4 would have been pretty good if it weren't for the unbelievable wave of stupidity that starts to kick in after the hospital).
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--] Anyway, I just gotta mention the Fatal Frame series again, which has a fantastic sense of how to create atmosphere, despite its uninspired stories. [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--] Never played that either. It is in my to-do list for when I get a PS2 or a PC that can run an emulator properly, though, along with Siren and Clock Tower 3.
[Q --start Ash Ligast II wrote--] Also, Wolpaw plays in a whole different league compared to Yahtzee, IMHO. [/Q --end Ash Ligast II wrote--] There's never gonna be another Erik Wolpaw, that's for sure; but "a whole different league" seems exaggerated. The OMM-era Wolpaw has a lot of common with Yahtzee, and while I think Wolpaw was way more ingenious, you gotta hand it to Yahtzee that's he's really dedicated --even Erik (as well as Chet) said as much in a Rock Paper Shotgun podcast a while ago.
Lain Crowley (6629) on 6/15/2010 5:37 AM · Permalink · Report
Clocktower 3 is... eh.... better left forgotten. I mean I guess maybe you could only play the first two levels and just pretend that the game actually followed up on those and improved enough in this hypothetical second half to be worth playing, but the CT3 of the real world is a confused, frustrating mess.
Also Yahtzee has already started branching out, and it hasn't worked so well for him. I've never read it myself, and I never will, but I have not heard kind words spoken of his novel.