Jimquisition: The Ugly Secret of Horror Games

[dsawyers9]

The issue I have with the idea of ugly games = scary, the graphics of their time, in this case Resident Evil 1 & 2, were the best of that time.

So basically if you go by this concept, in 10 or 15 years when our graphics look like crap compared to the future, then will our games now days become ugly enough to scare you?

That is the major flaw in this episode. I feel this is just another cry out for fanboyism that older games = better than now games, which I have to say is a horrible lie.

Yes indie games are great and I love them, but lets face it, the music and lighting and graphics, and story (in general) are far better for the Horror genre than going back to the past.

This reminds me of the episode of Extra Credits when they discussed the music of games and the claim that older games have better music, which was a flat out lie. Back then, the amount of data which could be put on a game, also the type of recording was far below what we have today. If I remember correctly, the past had some 8-10 type of noise/tone and was used over and over. Now days we have entire orchestras to play for us. This is why I disagree with this episode, to claim that the past or lower budget games have a higher possibility to produce the real fear or horror isn't correct.

 

[Bluecho]

Back before the days of CGI, filmakers had two ways to create things that didn't exist outside putting in a 2D animated thing in there: 1) Stop motion, and 2) Practical Effects. The latter is very important to horror films. When you must fool the audience into thinking what's on screen is really real, and be able move it around and stuff, the director has to get creative. He has to be very good at staging and framing shots so the effects and do their job without exposing the fact that they're fake. Before the days of CGI, a director had to be good at cinematography.

Nowadays, CGI makes it so they can just slap something onto the screen anywhere. That means the directors can get away with not working on creative use of lighting or frames. CGI, in short, breeds cinematic laziness.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Hey, you should do a Final Fantasy IX video. You seem to be well versed in its OST.

But yeah, I'm very weak in the horror realm; anything that was and wasn't meant to be horrifying in any game that even dips it's fingernail into the genre will easily scare me. So I'd never check out Amnesia. I'll take everyone else's word for it.

 

[Worr Monger]

I'd say I mostly agree. I think lower budget/indie horror is generally where you'll find the true gems.... because the lower budget require people to be more creative with their scares.

BUT... I'd say the great John Carpenter proves that Jim's theory is not always right:

Halloween - Indie film with a low budget of ~$300,000
The Thing - Carpenter's first big Hollywood movie with a whopping $15 million budget... and I believe he had about a year's worth of production time.

Both films are often considered his best and scariest. But I do believe the practical effects of The Thing weigh heavily on the scare factor rather than if they were able to use CGI. My point is... big production isn't always bad... it also depends on the people making it.

Also... the American version of The Ring scared the shit out of me when it came out, Jim.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I agree.

However when it came out, Silent Hill 2 had some of the best graphics around especially the cgi. Silent Hill 1 just had the cgi, the in game graphics were quite bad. Which again ratifies the Jimquisition theory.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

Heck, Diablo one, with it's dark, pitch black dungeons scared the crap out of me the first time I played it. Granted I was kid then but still.
When I entered Leoric's Tomb the first time, this big red skeleton coming at me "The warmth of life has entered my tomb" I freaked out so bad I reflexively shut off the computer.

Jim makes a very good point but in my opinion another key aspect to horror is is it believable? The more I believe a certain "horror scenario" is actually possible or even plausible, the more effective and ultimately the more scary it is.

 

[Ephixa]

That we always be truth, games with bad graphics are scary as hell, but not necessarily, especially these days where is a lot of games trying to scary gamers to the point of dead... i believe that someday will be some game that will tear me apart! DD

 

[Strazdas]

i agree with you in general, but Friday the 13th? that has gameplay so bad it is used to teach people how NOT to make games. you could have easily picked a better example.

also, "these days they cant get away with "
yes they can. silent hill 5 proved that they can make profit by making game hard just because it dont do what you tell it to.

P.S. am i the only one who can load only every second video? every other seems to be bugged soemehow, maybe it will get fixed.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I think horror in games is about 2 things:
1. How freaky something looks. This is why bad graphics help horror, they make things look more inhuman and unfamiliar which makes things more scary. However, this doesn't mean you can't make a horror game with excellent graphics, you just need to make the features of the game freaky at the same time, which leads me to...
2. Atmosphere. There are a lot of parts to this, every part of the game should scare you in some way regardless of what's happening. The best horror games have always been the ones that keep you in suspense the entire game, if you think that something bad is going to happen at any second constantly thoughout the game yet are completely unprepared when that bad thing does happen you are all the more frightened than you would be if something just jumped out at you while you're lesiurely walking around. Music or the lack thereof is a big part of suspense, if the music scares you everything else is just icing on the cake. Both the monsters and the world around you should be familiar enough that you have a frame of reference for them yet are different enough from that to seem alien. Flesh on the walls, rivers of blood, humanoid creatures that move erratically in ways that would hurt or even kill a normal person are old standbys, but they work. Darkness above all is the thing that even people that never were scared of always helps build the suspense.

Horror is changing, becoming more and more realistic, but this is not a bad thing. What is bad is horror game developers are relying on boo scares far too much these days, the far more effective use of suspense is quickly becoming a lost art.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

I know I'm very late to the party but I just had to post this:

All these games Jim points out as being scary because they're ugly (except for Friday the 13th, obviously that was a joke... or at least I hope it was) are not scary because they're ugly, but because they leave a lot to the imagination.

This is proven when he pulls out Amnesia: That game looks gorgeous... I don't really get how you can say it looks ugly while showing gameplay footage... anyhow: Amnesia leaves most things to the imagination. You don't get to see the monsters for quite a while and if you see them, you're pretty screwed. After a while, when you get the hang of things and get the rules of how the monsters work etc, the game loses its scariness. Oh, and on top of not knowing a thing, you're completely defenseless.
Same things can be said about Penumbra, the game Amnesia's devs did before that: It's scariest at the beginning, when you know very little and the shadows are most foreboding.

Resident Evil 1 was scarier because it was actual survival horror and it got the genre's main ingredient: Lack of resources. That's also why Dead Space isn't really scary or horror IMO: It shoves the threat in your face a few minutes after the game starts and you get plenty of resources to fight back.