Suggestions for Future Horror Games

[Streetboat]

The ending of the Berserk animated show, bscly.

[Googolplex]

Hi. I've been coming up with some ideas that would make horror games scarier and more immersive, and I was wondering what the Frictional Games community could come up with. My idea is an enemy that always stays in your peripheral vision, in the darkness. When you turn to look at it, it would seemingly vanish because it moves incredibly fast. The farther you get into the game, the more frequently it would appear. It would make no noise, and would never harm you. This is similar to a fictional creature dubbed SCP-372 which always stays in your blind spots.



So, what do you all think? What would make horror games scarier?

Hello Zaffre.

I like this whole idea, but let me explain why it will kill the immersion.
The idea is excellent, but the problem is, that you'll become familiar to that effect when a monster is appearing in a more frequently. And a further problem is, that the monster would be a main part of the game and you need a story for it.
The horror would not be improved when you always repeat the same effects.
The idea is good, but it should only appear one or two times in the game. Otherwise it will lose credibility.

I also wanted to add a nice feature by that you'll hear someone behind you, but you can't see anyone when looking around. But a horror game should be careful with that effects, you need talented people as Frictional Games knowing how and where to build in such effects. Because sometimes it's scarier when nothing is happen instead of a couple of effects following you. The horror mainly is in the head and not always existing in reality. I think, Frictional Games are good guys and they understand something about that. Let's be patient for their next upcoming game they're working since 2 years.

[Sexbad]

That, and people won't really think of it s something in the dark coming to get you, rather the darkness hurts, which in a video game just isn't scary.

Something I think is important in these type of games is to keep the gameplay simple to keep the player from needing to strategize too deeply. In my opinion, the more you have to strategize in terms of gameplay, the more it will take away from the game's setting, and atmosphere.

A more complex game just gives you more ways to get into the player's head. There are plenty of ways to fuck it up, but a designer worth his salt can keep a multifaceted experience intriguing and engrossing. Tight scripts and unique setpieces can definitely have their place, but they need to be tied together by lots and lots of challenge.

[Kazakarumariou]

I think the thing that keeps the tension going is if you don't have a clue to what the monster is like, only what it sounds like. I always flip shit if the monster sounds are behind me in the fog chasing me and I have no clue what he looks like.

[failedALIAS]

That, and people won't really think of it s something in the dark coming to get you, rather the darkness hurts, which in a video game just isn't scary.

Something I think is important in these type of games is to keep the gameplay simple to keep the player from needing to strategize too deeply. In my opinion, the more you have to strategize in terms of gameplay, the more it will take away from the game's setting, and atmosphere.

A more complex game just gives you more ways to get into the player's head. There are plenty of ways to fuck it up, but a designer worth his salt can keep a multifaceted experience intriguing and engrossing. Tight scripts and unique setpieces can definitely have their place, but they need to be tied together by lots and lots of challenge.

Unless that designer is a snail, just saying.

---

I think the thing that keeps the tension going is if you don't have a clue to what the monster is like, only what it sounds like. I always flip shit if the monster sounds are behind me in the fog chasing me and I have no clue what he looks like.

The worst thing that can possibly happen to a horror game? The internet. Pictures, memes, stupid videos all ruin it indefinitely. I'd rather have an amazing game that 50,000 epic people play, and fucks with them in just the right way, then have an amazing game that 50,000,000 idiots play, who use it as the butt of their dumb-ass jokes.
The worst thing that can happen to a horror game like that? Computer savy jackasses look in the entities file.



THIS SHOULD NOT FUCKING EXIST!!

[Zaffre]

Hi. I've been coming up with some ideas that would make horror games scarier and more immersive, and I was wondering what the Frictional Games community could come up with. My idea is an enemy that always stays in your peripheral vision, in the darkness. When you turn to look at it, it would seemingly vanish because it moves incredibly fast. The farther you get into the game, the more frequently it would appear. It would make no noise, and would never harm you. This is similar to a fictional creature dubbed SCP-372 which always stays in your blind spots.



So, what do you all think? What would make horror games scarier?

Hello Zaffre.

I like this whole idea, but let me explain why it will kill the immersion.
The idea is excellent, but the problem is, that you'll become familiar to that effect when a monster is appearing in a more frequently. And a further problem is, that the monster would be a main part of the game and you need a story for it.
The horror would not be improved when you always repeat the same effects.
The idea is good, but it should only appear one or two times in the game. Otherwise it will lose credibility.

I also wanted to add a nice feature by that you'll hear someone behind you, but you can't see anyone when looking around. But a horror game should be careful with that effects, you need talented people as Frictional Games knowing how and where to build in such effects. Because sometimes it's scarier when nothing is happen instead of a couple of effects following you. The horror mainly is in the head and not always existing in reality. I think, Frictional Games are good guys and they understand something about that. Let's be patient for their next upcoming game they're working since 2 years.

I see your point. This creature might appear in one area of the game only, and be so subtle at first you never notice it unless you're very alert, and as you progress through the area, its encounters get more and more frequent. It could be like one of the scrapped enemies in SCP: Containment Breach, which stays in your blind spots but only starts to appear once an event triggers it. This could be similar, where it only starts to appear once you get to a certain point.

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

A more complex game just gives you more ways to get into the player's head. There are plenty of ways to fuck it up, but a designer worth his salt can keep a multifaceted experience intriguing and engrossing. Tight scripts and unique setpieces can definitely have their place, but they need to be tied together by lots and lots of challenge.

I'm not so sure about that - or maybe I just misunderstood your post. Challenge is good in general, but it can get in the way of immersion if it is too game-like. If the player has to focus on tons of controls or a lot of complicated game mechanics it will be much harder for him to believe that he is truly in the game world, as he is thinking about the abstract mechanics behind that world instead. The same applies if a challenge is too hard and the player needs to constantly reload and start over - the whole immersion is lost. A monster that appeared as a horrifying threat at first simply becomes an annoying obstacle if you fail to get past it for the tenth time - like a difficult jump in Mario.

The classic challenge-reward scheme of game design does not work well for horror games in my opinion...which of course doesn't mean there can't be any challenges at all. But I think they need to be of a different kind - and of course not action-oriented (reflexes, dexterity etc.). Right now puzzles seem to be the only way to present a challenge to the player without putting him in a "game" mindset. But I'm sure there's more ways.

I think the thing that keeps the tension going is if you don't have a clue to what the monster is like, only what it sounds like. I always flip shit if the monster sounds are behind me in the fog chasing me and I have no clue what he looks like.

Yup, exactly. I think one could create an amazing horror experience without ever showing the monster. (Would prevent people from creating kinky fanart, too!) Maybe have the player catch a tiny glimpse of it every now and then to make sure he doesn't just ignore the sounds after a while. It would work very well with some sort of Deep-Sea setting imo: The monster could come from every direction, it could have any size, your sight is naturally limited by your mask, the flashlight and murky water and sounds are already very strange under water...

[Sexbad]

A more complex game just gives you more ways to get into the player's head. There are plenty of ways to fuck it up, but a designer worth his salt can keep a multifaceted experience intriguing and engrossing. Tight scripts and unique setpieces can definitely have their place, but they need to be tied together by lots and lots of challenge.

I'm not so sure about that - or maybe I just misunderstood your post. Challenge is good in general, but it can get in the way of immersion if it is too game-like. If the player has to focus on tons of controls or a lot of complicated game mechanics it will be much harder for him to believe that he is truly in the game world, as he is thinking about the abstract mechanics behind that world instead. The same applies if a challenge is too hard and the player needs to constantly reload and start over - the whole immersion is lost. A monster that appeared as a horrifying threat at first simply becomes an annoying obstacle if you fail to get past it for the tenth time - like a difficult jump in Mario.

The classic challenge-reward scheme of game design does not work well for horror games in my opinion...which of course doesn't mean there can't be any challenges at all. But I think they need to be of a different kind - and of course not action-oriented (reflexes, dexterity etc.). Right now puzzles seem to be the only way to present a challenge to the player without putting him in a "game" mindset. But I'm sure there's more ways.

I expected this sort of reply. Lots of people who fawn over games that focus on some kind of immersion have a very limited view of challenge and often consider it a bad word. In most games, challenge comes down to a formula of "do it right or you will die and restart the course" with little intricacy. And of course, this doesn't work well in a horror game because horror has to be meaningful and deep. If the only thing that is noticeably endangered is the health of some guy carrying a pistol and a flashlight, the developers are doing it wrong. More "conventional" challenge, like an increase in monster population density or a limited sprint bar, can be daunting or frightening at first, but surely enough it can make the experience extremely stale when overdone. Cry of Fear has a lot of this, with enemies that are just monster-closet bullet-sponges and very out of place platforming bits, and it ends up feeling less like survival horror and more like a survival gauntlet sort of deal.

What good horror needs is more ways for you to invest yourself in a game so that your health measure isn't the only thing that matters. Frictional have done this in some very effective ways that not many people really acknowledge. Penumbra's point-and-click adventure side was a pretty nice challenge by itself, but it became special because of how it connected with the history of the world. When you read notes, you came for the puzzle hints and stayed for the layered backstory full of interconnected tales, none of which ended well. The puzzles were part of a challenge that actually had little to do with surviving (except for when you were getting from place to place) but they still built upon a very rich setting and atmosphere.

I really think Amnesia suffered a little because it sort of cast away more complex adventure game elements where it was possible to get stuck in exchange for more flow when facing immediate physical threats, but Amnesia had its own strong unconventional challenge in the form of sanity and light management. Keeping your lantern off had a better guarantee of safety, as monsters were less likely to spot you, whereas turning it on allowed for more clarity and, in a sense, security. Light was a limited resource too, so you really had to judge when it was appropriate if you were stumbling through the campaign the first time, and this was an especially hard decision because no light meant draining sanity and less clarity, leading to more unsettling occurrences.

[the dark side]

i see Challenge like this..


Horror: not vital, but it can make the game feel more scary. its nice to have it, but, its not vital, so long as the game doesnt hold your hand for the sake of "ease of immersion" though, too LITTLE challenge is worse than having too Much, as it can make the game feel like a tutorial, wich is as bad as the challenge making it feel like "a game".

other Genres; Vital, i am sick of having my hand held, i want a game to Donkey kick me in the privates when i get it wrong, like the 90s games did! the Tutorial level should be just that, one, optional, level, not the whole flipping SP campaign!

[failedALIAS]

i see Challenge like this..


Horror: not vital, but it can make the game feel more scary. its nice to have it, but, its not vital, so long as the game doesnt hold your hand for the sake of "ease of immersion" though,.

other Genres; Vital, i am sick of having my hand held, i want a game to Donkey kick me in the privates when i get it wrong, like the 90s games did! the Tutorial level should be just that, one, optional, level, not the whole flipping SP campaign!

Artsy games must've kicked up their gears since the last time I saw them.