Poll: Opinion: Not being able to fight back in a game...good, bad, indifferent?

[plugav]

I'll add another vote on the "depends on the game" option.
Pac Man is not scary, but that famous bit [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxZpuHVwWOA] in Call of Cthulhu is.

Still, I prefer the Silent Hill 2/Condemned way of combat - sure, you can grab that pipe and swing away, but you're no soldier.

By the way, undefeated horror enemies don't have to be monsters. The Ocean House level from Bloodlines is a good example (though it was only scary on my first playthrough).

 

[King Kupofried]

I think being unable to even 'try' to defend yourself is highly irritating to play.
If a horrifying, mouthless, iron clawed monstrosity came shambling after me...I would probably run.
If I couldn't run, you know what I'd do? Anything besides sit there and wait for death.
Let me try to shove them away, let me swing or throw something at them. Even if it is made so you can't kill it, or even barely phase it, all it would do is add to the helplessness of the situation.
It doesn't have to be either 'Totally Helpless' or 'Doom Marine'.

 

[Nouw]

Would you rather have Doom 3 be the norm for Horror games?

That'd be gaming hell.

 

[SnowyGamester]

It's fine as long as it's a part of the game mechanics. However if you lose control in a cut-scene where you could potentially have made a difference, or if there is an not-impossible-to-hit-but-invincible enemy that does some scripted thing, that can be frustrating.

 

[Jordan Snidal]

i think that you should be able to if your supposed to the average joe, but you shouldn't be able to go through a whole game doing that. if it came down to something 1 0n 1 then you should be able to TRY and fight. But with multiple enemies it should be a definite no. But still only should apply to horror games or something where combat isn't that important overall.

 

[maturin]

It can be lots of fun. But I remember this stupid Half-Life 2 mod where you were on an oil tank that suddenly heeled over a couple degrees, and as a result all your weapons flew out of your hands and disappeared.

 

[Risingblade]

I think trying to fight back and having it do no damage to the enemy would cause more tension

 

[Frotality]

as is always the answer...it depends. depends on the type of game (horror games come to mind) and depends on how its done. in and of itself its not supposed to be 'fun', but is meant to force you into some other option (like running) that is at least meant to add suspense and challenge to the gameplay. for a game like silent hill, being able to just kill any given monster would kinda make them not very scary (being dead and all), so the game implements them more as environmental challenges, meant to be overcome, escaped, or otherwise avoided, not outright destroyed. that way when you see them, you dont go, "oh shit, have to kill it now" you go "oh shit, have to run now" which should be the proper response to something scary.

 

[FalloutJack]

It works for some and not for others. That's just how it is. I DO like to fight back, though. That's only natural.

 

[Kyle Roberts]

Its what should be done in horror games that decapitated mutant chasing you will be a lot less scary when you have a mass murdering RPG to greet it with.

I think it adds thought to the game if all you have is your hands thats why amnesia done so well.
(I think)

But then its opinion i guess halo would be alot more annoying without a "Mass murdering RPG" to greet everything with.

 

[Murray Whitwell]

I don't think that any amount of grotesque beasties or tense music is enough to create a good horror environment when the threat is rendered vulnerable by weapons.
The mechanics in games such as Amnesia that work to take you out of your comfort zone (being defenseless, not being able to look at your assailant, and being discouraged from light areas) are what makes a game scary. We rely heavily on sight, so taking it away is jarring and discomforting.

 

[Hader]

It has its merits. Amnesia did it damn near perfectly.

 

[Pearwood]

I much prefer being able to fight back, it doesn't necessarily take away from the horror and it adds a lot to the gameplay. Not being able to fight back needs to be executed very well to be good but when it is it works fantastically.

 

[Strife17O7]

I think I like it. 'Offers a refreshing change of pace.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I just finished Amnesia, so I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. Handy!

I'd say I was sufficiently unnerved the first few times I had to hide in a closet or a dark corner, but it started to wear pretty thin by the end. Eventually I started to anticipate the helplessness and prepare accordingly, and at that point it's really just another predictable play mechanic - only far more passive and, arguably, less engaging than straight-up combat.

My overall take? I think variety is important, and I think decisions about player vulnerability, or lackthereof, should be made organically with respect to the environment. A game where every threat is major, or where players cannot deal with even minor ones, quickly becomes one-note. On the flip side, games that build the player up into unstoppable, unwavering badasses only to arbitrarily shaft you with an unkillable enemy for obvious meta-game purposes? Those games feel pretty contrived.

Applying all of this to Amnesia, I'd say the game was about halfway there. The early scenes of vulnerability were effective, but I think they would have been even more effective if you were given some lesser adversaries who were vulnerable to more traditional combat tactics. Then, when you did run up against something truly terrifying, you'd have a greater sense of impotence. I think the sensation of helplessness is heightened when you discover the uselessness of previously effective strategies.

As a for instance: let's say you had some sort of ancient revolver and a puny sword. Early on, you might run into a few monsters that, while disturbing and sanity-draining, could be dispatched by a little swordplay. Then, as you progress, those monsters start to get a bit bigger, and suddenly your sword isn't so helpful. You can use the gun, but there's virtually no ammo for the thing. Then you have to consider the noise; sure, you blasted one monster, but the thunderous gunshot will probably attract others. So now you have to hide...

Of course there will still be monsters you can't fight, and that's when you have to run and hide. But doesn't it seem a lot scarier to see something, shoot it in the fucking face just like you did the last half dozen, and then run for your life when it doesn't even flinch?

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Not being able to fight means you never have to confront the monsters that chase you and if they catch you you will already have accepted your fate.