|
I've been on this horror genre kick these past 2 weeks between reading about the new Fatal Frame game and a lengthy preview of the Silent Hill remake (more about that further down).
Since then I've started to think about how I would do a true horror title, not my Evil Dead remake idea but a game that is designed to strike fear into gamers. Last night a game idea came to me that I really like and while it's no where near the point that I could reveal it to the public, the design philosophies I have in mind are ready. (Warning very long post)
1. Horror and Combat don't mix : This week I've been replaying Eternal Darkness on the Gamecube and while it says that the game is psychological horror it's not. The reason is being able to fight everything I see, it's hard to feel scare when I know I can handle anything the game throws at me.Same goes for the Resident Evil series, RE 4 and 5 are not horror titles period. Don't tell me how something popped out of a window and made you jump and call it horror. The designers behind the Silent Hill Remake have the same idea and that brings me to my next point.
In the preview I read on the remake the designers have opted to have no combat at all, instead the player can only run and hide from the enemies in the game.Now just from this preview at this point personally I think that this is too far as it removes one of the basic tactics we all have, to defend ourselves. Let's face it most of us put into the world of Silent Hill would be screwed, however if backed into a corner we would at least have the sense to pick up the nearest blunt object and start swinging.Someday the question will have to be answered "can a horror game be made with a solider as the lead?" but for now an idea hit me last night that could work. Instead of giving the player the option to attack, why not give them the option to defend themselves?
I know that the past sentence sounds like a contradiction but there is a method to my madness. Offense is about being proactive, knowing that you can approach any creature that wants to kill you and fight it no problem.Defense is about being reactive, knowing that you cannot kill whatever is coming at you but you can at least disable it long enough to get away. My idea is to give the player defensive items similar to the Resident Evil 1 remake, items that have only a few shots before they break keeping the player from relying on them too much. Depending on the power of the item it may have fewer chances to be used giving the player more decisions.
2.Balancing out ways to survive: To deliver horror in games, nothing should be distracting the player or cheapening the experience. Such as a camera focused on the complete opposite direction or controls turning your character into a tank, by removing the ability to attack there needs to be something in place to give the player some kind of hope of surviving.Which is why for my game the player is going to be agile, not Prince of Persia agile but enough that it would put most horror games to shame. Any place you could realistically get to in real life the character in game should too. The other trump card the player has is a way of basically enhancing any activity through using up "endurance".
While the character in game is faster then other video game characters, he can still be outran by his captors but using up endurance to dash away can allow him to keep ahead. It can also be used to break down doors quickly and to wrestle free from being caught. However it drains quickly which moves it from a constant tactic to a panic button. Now that I've blabbered on about what the player can do, it's time to talk about what the player would be up against.
3:Giving the player something to fear: I think that this is the section that the games industry has the biggest trouble with due to the disconnect between games and horror. In most non zombie related horror movies the villain is most often barely seen for the majority of the movie until it's time for the confrontation with the title actor/actress.This is a great way to build up suspense and such for movies, but would be horrible for a game. Imagine spending 5 hours roaming around not meeting anything scary until the serial killer appears for 15 minutes and the game ends, doesn't sound all that fun to me. So the games industry over compensates and gives us plenty of action and in the process kills the horror in my opinion.Take Silent Hill 2 regular case of creeps for instance, sure watching a screwed up mannequin come at you is scary the first time. However watching the 50th lurch slowly towards you is another story which is why I think quality enemies is the way to go.
Strangely enough look at Silent Hill 2's main villain, pyramid head as a good example. The creature only appears rarely in the game but is sure to put a shock into the player whenever they meet him. Nemesis from Resident Evil 3 is another example as he is one of the few enemies I can think of that actively chases you in a horror game as well as the Clock Tower series.For my idea I'm going the route of Haunting Ground in the sense that in each area of the game the player is chased by a new villain, but unlike HG there is more to it then that. In some areas the player will be chased by one main enemy in others he will be attacked by a group of people all seeking to kill him.With a group each individual member is weaker then one main villain, however they can cover more ground and gang up on the player. In fact if the group manages to catch the player at the same time they will kill him on the spot which can make a group in some cases more dangerous then a single entity.
To make things interesting whenever the player goes up against a group, the group will be set a given number.You won't have to avoid hundreds of the same looking enemy which brings an interesting dynamic to choosing defensive options. Getting an item that is a guarantee kill on one of the members of the group could outweigh the risk of being left defenseless if you encounter more then one.
With that I believe I've said everything I've wanted to about the horror genre for now, I feel that this idea I have has merit and could be something big. Hopefully this will get you to think about how to create a game that really scares the player and not about how many closets you can fill up with generic monsters.
Josh
|
I think even better than this is the ghosts, they're the perfect scary enemy, shoot one and it goes away....and then reappears and attacks from another direction (not sure if its the same ghost or various, and yes in some parts it does seem you can end them permanently, but in a couple you can't). It gives the player a sense of futility, and a sense of urgency, they get that "I just wanna get the @&#! outta here" feeling. But if you were forced to feel this way the entire game long it would detract from the horror the same way as being able to kill them all.
I think ultimately my point, is combat should exist, the player needs to be able to fight, but not necessarily kill. The creature runs round the corner and you blast full in the face with your "limited ammo" shotgun, the face gets messed up, the creature stumbles into walls unable to see, but as the player watches the face begins to heal, to flow back together....
Perhaps certain enemies ought to be killable, like when being attacked by a group, make them defeatable, but make them innumerable. So when the player rounds a corner and two drop in front of him from nowhere he can hit one with a crowbar, dodge the other and keep running, sure, don't make putting them down easy, make it a quite tricky enterprise, make avoidance the more attractive option.
Pull a supernatural (as in the tv series), make you know, shotguns filled with salt can deform a ghost temporarily, salt around doorways can stop a creature entering that way, this gives players a tactical advantage, and if you limit the number of materials they have you'd have a very high strung player. Perhaps make one or two creatures defeatable, but make it a difficult process, for instance, silver can kill the werewolf (just an example), so we go and find a silver candlestick, awesome, silver, now how the shit to you hit the wolf with it, the wolf will kill you before you get close enough to stab it with a silver candlestick. Sure maybe make a makeshift crossbow or fire it from a gun somehow? cool, now you only get 1 shot, enjoy that, if you miss you're back to running.
I suppose my point is that the player needs to fight and to a least be able to win "sometimes", take mirrors edge (not a horror I know), but the game would be lame without the "possibility of" combat, sure you can avoid it, but without it, you'd feel like the game was a cop out. In fear the ability to combat some of the stuff makes the game that much more tense when the stuff you can't kill appears. It also avoids the, oh how unexpected (enter sarcasm) another thing I can't kill, it makes the player want to test themselves against the bad dude, when they think they've found a solution and fire their silver candlestick at the wolf and it swats it out the air it gives them a ...."oh my god....I'm @#$!ed" moment that is the crux behind why people fear those things they can't defeat in the first place.
Second thanks for the responses, I did play AVP and found those sections interesting but I haven't played the Cthulhu game. Re Chris: what you were suggesting about weapons only being able to stun or knock out enemies for a short period is what my point was about the defensive options, but I think you are on the side that the player should be able face down any foe even for a short while. Personally I feel that makes the game too much of an action title. Combat in an horror game shouldn't be the player's first option but the last.
I did not play Fear other then the demo that was released, however the Fatal Frame series is a good example of being able to fight most enemies and having to run like hell at the ones you can't fight.
1. People fear losing things
Real People fear losing their lifes, their family, their jobs... In games, a good stealth sentence sometimes brings more tension than many "horror" and "action" games, because players simply "fear" being seen... It's not action what takes fear out of games, not exactly the "action".
2. People fear what they don't know
In other words, people fear the future, not the past. A game in which the player constantly dies takes death's meaning down. Words like "almost", "probably", "suddenly" are pretty useful.
As same as not to know is good, to see that what you know is wrong has same wheight. So, don't tell me twice with the same joke, I won't laugh. But if you tell me again, bring the funny about I'm thinking that it was the same old one.
3. People fear situation that they can't keep under control
Using the stealh exemple again, being seen is to lose control of the situation. Being able to fight but not to "win" is losing control. Being able to run but not run away is having no control. You can do things, you can run, you can fight, you can avoid, you can try to keep safe, but nothing seems to be enough.
To show it in a different way, the normal human reaction is "fight OR flight", its the two sided coin of our survival instinct. Stealth in and of itself isn't a reaction, it's a premeditated action, and while it can be tense, nerve racking, and yes scary, it's knowledge (or lack thereof) of what happens after discovery that makes stealth scary. So to make a person only run away, mitigates half of their adrenal reaction, you stymie 50% of their natural response (that's why frustration creeps in). Sure you can build a game around running away, but there must be the opportunity for combat, or the choice to try and engage in it at least, especially if your player can be backed into a corner. Even if you make combat ultimately futile, it needs to be there.
You also mention that combat makes it too much of an "action" game. What on earth is a game that involves running away....at worst it's a movement puzzle game, which, oft by necessity, is an action game, if it's not an action game, then it's going to be exceptionally boring and not scary at all, much like a horror movie with really poor pacing and an overly predictable script.
@ Corey
Just like to point out that Clock Tower 3, ends up with you fighting each subordinate, and in Haunting ground you can fight your opponents by kicking them, having Hewie bite them, or by even using various alchemical weapons. Sure you can't stop them permanently, but you CAN fight, and the combat mechanics are a major part of the game. In fact Fiona's pathetic attacks are a good example of what I'm talking about, they do nothing, and when the player realises that, it just enhances the fear, rather than detracting from it.
The problem with discussing combat in horror titles is that it has always been paired with terrible controls. Can anyone name one horror title that has an excellent camera and tight fine tuned controls? For my horror idea I want to remove any "distractions" that will keep the player out of the experience. If the player is too busy trying to orient the camera or turn the character to run away then there is something wrong. Talking about the futility of combat equaling terror, Rule of Rose tried that and instead of feeling scared , I felt pissed at how horrible the camera was (also that battle music gave me a headache but that is for another time).
I do agree completely that the situation itself plays a huge role in creating horror, that's why we don't have horror games taking place in a bright sunny park at 2 in the afternoon. I have an idea for just the kind of situation for my idea, but it's still too early to talk details.
Success in a game doesn't have to be violent. Escaping or saving other people can be satisfying. Combat is well explored in games. I think horror is one place where it isn't necessary for a fun experience.
Now you might argue that surprise indicates horror, but I'd like to point out that in a horror movie, usually you know that something will jump out, a lot of those moments are predictable(a lot of the time purposefully thanks to audio queues), and they don't really scare you, they just make you jump (an adrenal reaction). Are they tense, yes, horrific, no. (far closer to suspense than horror, perhaps I'll make an allowance though if we don't know what's going to jump out)
That aside, as for clunky cameras, I think a lot of that is related with 3rd person games, often having your own character "in the way" prevents you from getting the full impact from things you see. Also while you can relate to the character better (you can see them being scared etc), in first person, you ARE the character and there's far more room for close ups and things getting in your face (only penalty here being that you can lose your bearings, mini-map anyone?). For fear of sounding like a fanboy, FEAR has excellent controls in that they're merely fps controls, if you're intent on designing a game about running away perhaps look to controls like mirrors edge and it's neat "up, down" context sensitive style of doing things (even has a nice 180 turn button, useful I imagine if you all of a sudden need to go back down that hallway you ran up =D). If you wanted that same context sensitive goodness in 3rd person, assassins creed is fairly neat, but you do often find yourself adjusting the camera. (not all horror titles but smooth controls and camera of the sort you'd want for a horror)
As for bright sunny park, there's a reason that that sounds vaguely familiar to something I've seen before, in addition I would truly praise a horror for going there, I mean where else do we feel safer but in the light....
Either way, I'd be willing to be proved wrong, and would most definitely play such a game if it should show it's face, I think we can all happily agree on wanting more horror in video games, regardless of how we feel this should be done.
Of course, I would never play such a game since I don't like being scared. Haha.
-time.html