I like Lovecraft's vision of horror. He doesn't write epics of good versus evil, he writes of evil versus evil and humanity is doomed either way. Eternal Darkness tried to replicate the mind-breaking effects of seeing monsters, but the acquisition of magic and the ease of combat breaks any sense of danger. ED's secret ending did a lot to capture that hoplessness, but man alive beating it three times was tedious. How can a game designer represent the hopelessness and pure horror in works like Lovecraft's? I think diminishing the protagonist's power is one way. For instance, Silent Hill games are terrifying before you get any respectable weapon. I was nervous running through that town with a stick not fit to stir paint with. Eventually, though, the weapons upgrade and the weirdness of the monsters wears off. bottom line: Would you play a game in which the protagonist is largely helpless? Even if you did, what could the game contain that would be any fun? Puzzle solving? Horrifying chase sequences? Monster hide-and-seek? Also, would this be sufficient to capture that sense of despair and horror that I'm after? Do games even affect you this way? Do movies? Is it possible for any medium to present these sensations effectively? Finally, one of the most interesting parts of any horror game or movie is the design of the monsters. Before they became (hilarious) jokes, zombie movies were great for this, because the living dead is humanity destroying itself. That kind of metaphorical meaning adds a visceral impact for me. Does it do the same to you? What makes a monster effectively scary? Are you affected more by the physical design of it? Can the physical design of a monster maintain its grotesque and repulsive qualities once you've seen it clearly? Thanks for your ideas, templewulf

Quote:

Original post by templewulf What makes a monster effectively scary? Are you affected more by the physical design of it? Can the physical design of a monster maintain its grotesque and repulsive qualities once you've seen it clearly?

Tell me that it's so hideous that a single glimpse will break my mind. Don't describe it. Let my imagination do the rest. Gothic horror relies not on vivid descriptions, but on the sheer apprehension that is created within the reader's (player's) mind by reading an euphemistic sketch.

Quote:

Original post by ToohrVyk Quote: Original post by templewulf What makes a monster effectively scary? Are you affected more by the physical design of it? Can the physical design of a monster maintain its grotesque and repulsive qualities once you've seen it clearly? Tell me that it's so hideous that a single glimpse will break my mind. Don't describe it. Let my imagination do the rest. Gothic horror relies not on vivid descriptions, but on the sheer apprehension that is created within the reader's (player's) mind by reading an euphemistic sketch.

I generally agree with that, but my questions were aimed to elicit ideas about how to represent monsters in games the same way.

More specifically, how can I represent an in-game monster as a euphemistic sketch? Dim lighting? Suspenseful (i.e. bad for gameplay) camera angles?

Are you saying that it's impossible to represent a monster in gameplay and get the same reaction as you would from reading horror fiction?

How about some groaning sound in the distance, or seeing the results of the monster only (e.g. broken walls, mutilated corpses, etc.)? Granted, it's easy to go overboard with this and it's perhaps a tad bit overused, but at least it's a sketchy way.

Anyway, I don't like horror all that much so that's probably the most helpfull thing I've got to say about it. ;)

Maybe it has something to do with the endings; a horror novel doesn't have to have that happy ending, where everything's explained. A gamer on the other hand, may feel cheated if the horror game ends with him (his alter ego) being destroyed (eaten, killed, etc.).

I remember reading about a really old game (for the C64?), where you were being chased by a T-rex. The game itself was just a standard "3D"-maze, and you didn't really see the dino, until of course he catch up with you. You would only get small hints at the top of the screen ("He's seen you!", "He's around that corner!", etc.), that could be true or false. The goal of the game was just to make it to the next level (in form of a stair down) - classic arcade! :)
Maybe not really a true horror game, but the feeling of being chased by something you can't see is indeed disturbing; sheer paranoia!

Maybe a modern, high def-version of this can help people to crap their pants? :)

Most "horror" movies and games are not scary, they are laughable at best, because they show too much. As soon as I see the creature clearly, it is no longer frightening. This is hard to avoid in a game because usually they are "enemies". In the end, they are no different than Goombas.

So heres the trick: how do you create challenging gameplay without showing too much? I'm too tired right now to have any answers.

Difficult to say. I think the horror experience is different for each person. Some will start puking after seeing some guts, others will start laughing. Some will find zombies scary, others will find them hilarous because they're so stupid.

It's also depends on the context of course. Take Resident Evil for example. I played the Gamecube Remake version, and was pretty difficult scared. The zombies were dumb, but the clumsy movements, narrow corridors and low ammo, made difficult and worked on my nerves. The newest Resident Evil 4 had some sort of zombies as well, but they didn't scare me at all. The enemy was much faster and smarter, but the music, environment and all those weapons available made it more an action game than horror. At some point even zombies with mini-guns showed up. From that moment Re4 was more a spectacular Hollywood movie for me, than a serious horror game. It was fun though, but I probably would like the early version of Re4 much more:


I liked the Silent Hill athmosphere, pretty bizarre. But after a while, you get a little bit used to the environment because there is not very much happening. Doom3 had some good horror too, although it were not the monsters themselves that did the trick for me. The monsters looked cool, but most of them were too easy to be scary. Except for those nasty imps. They didn't look that scary, but they always suddenly showed up on unexpected moments. Besides of that, the ambient sound and the darkness did a good a job in my opinion. Strange that many didn't like the darkness in Doom3. Too scared maybe?

I think Resident Evil 1 was the most scariest game for me. The monsters were stupid, but difficult. In Doom3 it gives a kick to floor down a large Hellknight, but in RE1 you'd rather avoid zombies because it was too risky. That in combination with the great music, good sounds, nice story and tastefull environment. And to be honest, also the cheesy clichè tricks to scare someone still work for me :)

Don't know if this was helpfull, just my thoughts on a couple of horror games.
Rick

Quote:

Original post by JBourrie So heres the trick: how do you create challenging gameplay without showing too much?

This is exactly the question I'm getting at. One idea so far is removing any real interaction as Captain P suggested with seeing only the aftermath, but without any threat of immediate danger, wouldn't most players realize it is just Myst with an eldritch facelift?

Aside from that, you could use dramatically awkward camera angles that keep the monster just out of view, but that seems like it would almost be stealing from the player the thrill of seeing the monster which may be the focus of the game.

@NBL:
I had never thought about the ending aspect. I had considered making a Halo 2 joke, but I might be a little late to the party on that one. On the other hand, didn't the original Silent Hill have all super-depressing endings unless you got the best one?

I like the idea of a predator chasing you through a maze (cretian minotaur?), but I'd like something more sophisticated. I think the difference here is that a T-Rex is frightening because it's dangerous. Dread Lord Cthulhu is frightening because he's dangerous and he shouldn't exist. The real terror is that seeing the unnatural brings revelations about the true, awful nature of the universe. I guess what I'm asking is whether that's even possible in video games, even theoretically.

Ratings++ all around, but don't stop yet!

EDIT:
@spek:
That's a lot of what I was getting at with playing a protagonist that is largely helpless. Even in RE1, you eventually get a grenade launcher. What if you play a completely normal person (no STARS training) whose only abilities were to run, hide and solve puzzles? Would that even be fun anymore?

I think part of it needs to be a shift of winning conditions. You're not trying to "win", you're trying to "not die". Make getting out your goal. Part of the horror will remain in knowing that the horror remains.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf Aside from that, you could use dramatically awkward camera angles that keep the monster just out of view, but that seems like it would almost be stealing from the player the thrill of seeing the monster which may be the focus of the game.

Well, as others have said, seeing it can kill the horror. I say, make it something the player doesn't want to see. You can't kill the monster, but it can make quick work of you. My scariest moments in video games are the ones where I'm running from something I can't beat. Too often this emotion is killed by finally finding the weapon that can kill those things.

Also, the best suspense/horror films have plenty of "down time". Done right, this time is almost worst than when the beast is on your heels. You're preparing, you're thinking. In other words, let the player do the work for you. Give him time to prepare. Give him time to ponder his fate.

Quote:

I like the idea of a predator chasing you through a maze (cretian minotaur?), but I'd like something more sophisticated. I think the difference here is that a T-Rex is frightening because it's dangerous. Dread Lord Cthulhu is frightening because he's dangerous and he shouldn't exist.

If anything is the key, this is it. Don't make it scary because of what it might do to you, make it scary because of what it is. In real life, I'd be much more afraid of a ghoul than I would be of a man with a gun. They both pose an equal threat on my life, but the living dead simply shouldn't be!

The 7th Guest freaked me out not because I was running for my life, but because that house was just... off.

Quote:

The real terror is that seeing the unnatural brings revelations about the true, awful nature of the universe. I guess what I'm asking is whether that's even possible in video games, even theoretically.

I think it is possible. You'll have some challenge in that first and foremost you are making a game. Players are first and foremost playing your game, which brings a clinical attitude to the mechanics. And, in a way, this is an impossible barrier. However, you can try to leverage it. Try making the monster truly frightening in terms of the game mechanics. I usually don't fear the ultimate evil in a game because I know that at some point, I'll face it (it's the final boss, right?) and the game is designed such that, eventually, I'll be able to defeat it.


Of course, this sort of highlights why I think the idea that games must be better at this sort of thing than movies because they have everything movies have and interaction. Putting the interaction in there gives everything else a different flavor. Movies have the finality that gives real life decisions much of their impact; in a game, there's always the reset button.

>Even in RE1, you eventually get a grenade launcher.

True, and once you're getting finally equiped pretty well, it starts to loose some "scariness". Although this also has to do with getting used to the game.


>What if you play a completely normal person (no STARS training) whose only >abilities were to run, hide and solve puzzles? Would that even be fun anymore?

Although I personally liked Re1 more than Re4 because it had much better horror, the "mass" preferred Re4. Logical, because when it comes to entertainment, Re4 has much more to offer. The firefights are more tactical, more detailed, and thus way more fun. I almost never play a game again after finishing it, but I did this one a couple of times again. Just because it was fun to shoot around.

So it's most probably getting very difficult to make an interesting game if the abilities of the player are very limited. You could focus on the puzzle part, and make it somewhat like the 7th Guest or Phantasmagoria. Nice titles, but not for everyone of course. Running and hiding for the enemy can be pretty tense I think. Re4 had a small part where you had to control a girl, without weapons. The only thing you could do, was running away or attack your enemy with a few candles to set them on fire. It gave a nice twist and variation, but I really doubt if this could stay nice for hours. In fact, I was pretty happy when I could grab my gun again after ~10 minutes playing with that girl.

I think it can, but you really need to do something special with the way you can run/hide and the way how monsters try to catch you. Otherwise it gets repetive very soon, and thus boring I guess. Probably you need more cinematic scenes and add very unpredictable behavuar from the enemy to keep it interesting.

Games are all about rewarding. You're not playing Doom3 only for shooting monsters. I mean, just shooting some random enemies in 1 nice room becomes boring soon. It's all about finding new weapons, stories, encounter new enemies, discover breath-taking scenery, and so on. It will encourage to keep on playing, it's the "red line" of a game. But you need to fill the gap between those moments. Shooting and action is a popular way to do it. Puzzling can be very interresting too, but probably not for the big mass. In that case, you really need to sit down for the game. And that is something not everyone wants to do. Now I'm getting older and have less time, most games I play are easy-to-access and offer much action for a short time. After 10 minutes, I save it, and quit. You can't do that with a puzzle game (although I'm really looking forward to the new Zelda game :) )

Running and hiding is pretty easy to learn as well. It could be interresting, but it's more difficult to give the player that "rewarding" feeling I think. Nevertheless, I think it can be pretty scary as well. Gore does not make an enemy scary if it's easy to kill. Difficulty is the key in my opinion. If you can only hide for them, you feel pretty rushed and vulnereable. Which makes it scary I think. But then again, like described above, many people don't like difficult games nowaydays... I don't know what your plans are, but I think you need to decide for what audience you make this game. Like I said, the horror experience really differs per group. You could take little girls as an audience, they are easy to scare :)

Greetings,
Rick