Should Horror Games be "Forgiving"?

[Asita]

I know what you're thinking, it sounds like a dumb question. But bear with me a moment.

Recently in my YouTube recommendations, I saw a video about "How Subnautica Uses TERROR". Being someone who quite liked Subnautica, I figured I'd give it a look. And it touched on something that I hadn't really thought much on. One thing that I feel Subnautica did really well was keeping me on edge. I had my little hidey-hole, and while I would leave it to accomplish my objectives, I was always very hesitant to stay out too long, and while it was easy to figure out which biomes were safe-ish, I found that even towards the end I was acutely aware of the surrounding sounds and the 'dangerous' ones (Crashfish, Reapers, Crabsnakes, Crabsquids, etc) still inspired the appropriate "oh crap" reaction in me even with the benefit of familiarity.

Where the video comes in is that it made me realize how forgiving Subnautica was when it came to danger. While yes, there's a lot in there that can kill you, especially if you're already hurt, the AI and enemy damage values mean that death is actually quite rare in game. So while you have a persistent threat of death, the game's design is such that - provided you react normally - feeling that you just barely escaped is almost easier than actually dying. And because of this, lethal enemies and death don't become the annoyances that they do in games like Dark Souls (I know, I know, not horror) or Five Nights at Freddy's; they retain some of the fear that they inspired in your early encounters.

So today, Escapists, I ask for your two cents on difficulty and the horror genre. Is horror more effective in a game where you can 'easily' escape so long as you have your wits about you, or is it more effective in less forgiving games where mistakes are much more lethal?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Interesting question. I certainly agree that horror games are more effective when they dangle survival in front of you versus hammering you over the head with death. It?s a psychological thing; similar to how often the anticipation of a gift outweighs the ultimate receiving of the gift, the possibility of survival elicits stronger, more potent emotion (tension) than the certainty of failure.

One of the my favorite levels of any horror game I ever played was one in Condemned 2: Bloodshot. I can?t recall the specifics, but I remember you?re walking through a newly abandoned and disheveled office environment (under the influence of a drug or something, IIRC.) The level bleeds with tension, constantly grabbing your attention and making you think something is about to happen with screen flashes/distortions, noises in the environment, etc., then? nothing; the level just ends. This stands out because Condemned is a combat-heavy survival horror game, and that level manages to scare the shit out of you without your every having actually having to test your survival skills; it was great.

Or Inside; not purely a horror game that shoots for terror, but there are some truly scary moments that aren?t necessarily difficult to overcome, but they?re extremely tense, i.e.: you?re initial run in with the dogs where simply pushing forward on the controls and jumping at the right moment ensures you?ll make it, but every time, those dogs are on your heels; watch any blind let?s play, every player has the ?OH SHIT!? moment with at least that first dog, if not several encounters with them. Or the ?mermaid? creature; again, easily avoidable, but between her ghastly, ever-increasing hiss and safety always being *just* within reach, it?s still frightening multiple playthroughs later.

 

[sXeth]

Well yes, the threat is almost always more effective then the actual reality. There's no tension to be found once the direct encounter occurs because the threat is either triumphed over, or you are.

Videogames these days are (generally) far far too long to actually maintain a horror tension. You get the direct encounter, and then there's still 10-20 odd hours of game left. So either they keep trying to throw newer bigger threats at you (Which becomes an ever-ludicrous arms race (How many clickers can TLOU put in one room, find out now!)), or the same threats get re-used and become annoyances rather then something to be feared (by the end of Alien Isolation or Outlast its just a spectacle of amusing at how incompetent these vicious killers are at actually killing something that is even vaguely elusive).

There's also the videogame metalogic that will usually defuse horror (or even something like Dark Souls intimidation). Videogames are designed to be won, or at the least, not to be lost by the players own actions, only in tragic ending narrative interventions and such. What you encounter in the game is intended to be surmountable, designed to be overcome, not designed to be a true threat.

 

[CaitSeith]

They tried it with Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, and it was much less effective than Amnesia: The Dark Descent. They also tried it with SOMA and although it wasn't as scary, it didn't feel as faked.

Horror videogames really need more ways to instigate fear than just tension from "something scary to fight off" or "something scary to run/hide from".

 

[Specter Von Baren]

They tried it with Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, and it was much less effective than Amnesia: The Dark Descent. They also tried it with SOMA and although it wasn't as scary, it didn't feel as faked.

Horror videogames really need more ways to instigate fear than just tension from "something scary to fight off" or "something scary to run/hide from".

SOMA failed because they completely popped the fear bubble 1/3 of the way into the game so they could contemplate AI.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

To me horror is always about the unknown vs how strong/weak the enemy is. Something killing say your friend and not knowing what did it is far more scarier than knowing it was a werewolf because then you know what it is, its weakness, and you can prepare.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Subnautica is a great game and I could talk about it at length. I think it's funny how people react to it so differently, with some calling it a straight up horror game and others considering it a very relaxing fantasy aquarium. But the OP is about difficulty in horror games so I will try to restrain myself

I thought the key part of the video linked in the OP is when it briefly mentions how the horror elements actually become way less scary once they've killed you once or twice. They stop being that thing that could kill me(or worse) and become that thing that will set me back a few minutes if I don't press X quickly enough. If the game is too hard, it forces you to go into gamer mode and start to break down the mechanics and figure out the best way forward, which isn't what you want in a horror game. You want the player imagining the horrible things that would happen if you failed, instead of fixating on the best way to avoid failure after encountering it repeatedly. It's why games like Dark Souls or the Binding of Issac aren't considered horror games despite overflowing with visual and story elements that would fit the bill. It's also why horror is one of the few(easiest?) ways to make Walking Simulators engaging.

Side note: Is the video technically right about the difference between horror and terror? I would have said the connotations of those words to be exactly the opposite of what was outlined in the video, with horror being more about suspense and the imagined threat, and terror being more about the direct scare. Maybe it's because if I hear someone is "terrified" I think of someone who either is or is on the verge of panicking, but if someone is "horrified" I tend to think of disgust or realizing the horrible implication of something.

 

[Squilookle]

I can't really comment on the horror genre as I don't play it, but it certainly does piss me off when there are animals in the game that will blindly hunt you down on sight always every time. Even carnivores have to rest and digest their food occasionally, and every now and then eat so much they're not interested in chasing more. Not in games though, in those it's just 'kill KILL KILL'

 

[Dalisclock]

Or Inside; not purely a horror game that shoots for terror, but there are some truly scary moments that aren?t necessarily difficult to overcome, but they?re extremely tense, i.e.: you?re initial run in with the dogs where simply pushing forward on the controls and jumping at the right moment ensures you?ll make it, but every time, those dogs are on your heels; watch any blind let?s play, every player has the ?OH SHIT!? moment with at least that first dog, if not several encounters with them. Or the ?mermaid? creature; again, easily avoidable, but between her ghastly, ever-increasing hiss and safety always being *just* within reach, it?s still frightening multiple playthroughs later.

INSIDE did a very good job of being unsettling. You never really knew what was going on and the game would throw new things at you on a regular basis to keep you on your toes so you never really got comfortable. And speaking of that damn "mermaid", that's probably the bit I dread the most when I get around to playing it again. Especially since you'd keep thinking you were safe and.....there it is again.

Little Nightmares works on many of the same levels but is a lot more explicitly horror, though somewhat fantastical.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

It's an interesting concept, between horror and terror. But more to the point (of OP):

I think 'forgiving' can be seen in a couple ways. There's even more nuance to horror and terror than the video describes. How scary is something that you can't fight, but can only outrun? Or can't even outrun, but just have to hide from?

In the case of Alien Isolation, it's done so well. Superbly, in fact. But for me personally, it just doesn't hold up for the entire game. Yes there are other parts to it, but by the 20th time I've been impaled through the chest, it's more of an annoyance, a hindrance to my progress. The game is not forgiving by any stretch, but it does get easier once you know how to kite the thing around and avoid direct confrontations.

You mention Dark Souls as an extreme example of being unforgiving. And that it is, because it quite literally punishes you for your failures. I mean most games will to some extent (as simple as mis-timing an attack in a fighting game leaving you open for example), but Dark Souls pushes it a step further. The stakes being so high is what adds to the horror of dying (running back again, respawn enemies, getting back to your souls alive).

So back to Subnautica: If you died to a creature, or happened to drown, you would usually leave everything you were carrying. If it wasn't too valuable, you could obviously retrieve/reharvest them at some point. But if you happen to be in a Prawn, and die somewhere really really inaccessible (Prawns have great crush depths), then you can say good bye to that thing, at least for a very long time. Or if you die in it, then well yes all the resources you poured into it are gone. The time investment element can make death very agitating, as it's a bit of a milestone to put one of those things together.

So that bit of tension, or stress, adds to the horror. It's what made Bioshock 2 so un-scary, despite the brilliant atmosphere and enemy design. The fact that you just respawn in a vita chamber, takes away that element. Save-scumming does as well, and that's why hardcore modes exist. I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it bears heavily on what is deemed 'forgiving' or not. I think there's also a fine line between 'unforgiving' and just plain 'annoying' (which is to me like Dead Rising, where you also have to jog all the way back to where you died, through respawning enemies). The more cheaper the deaths too, can push it into 'annoying' territory.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Well yes, I agree that the threat of violence, death or whatever is often more effective at creating tension than the actual violence/death. I'd also say the threat doesn't necessarily need to be real either, i.e. there is no actual danger. So long as the player is carefullly kept under the illusion that it is. Which is very tricky to pull off, of course, since all semblance of tension will be immediately gone from the moment a player realises the threat is not real. Some examples of what I mean:

Spoiler: Alien: Isolation

For a large part of the game, the Alien is a very real threat, capable of killing you with ease if you mess up, sometimes even once you're actually equipped to drive it off. However, there is a point in the game where it appears you've finally got rid of it by dumping it into space. Yet the game kept going. So genre savvyness told me my victory was a fake-out. The Alien is either still around or there is more than one. I initially continued as before, successfully under the illusion.

But that bubble popped quickly. I was getting away with way too much too many times. I realized the Alien wouldn't show up anymore, not until a predetermined point ahead of me, probably marked by some scripted sequence (my hunch proved correct). Just like that, all tension was gone and the rest of that section turned from a suspensefull survival game into a rather dull first person shooter.

Spoiler: Layers of Fear

That section of Alien: Isolation I mentioned above? I didn't like it. But it's still far better than what this game does. Because here the threat is never real. It pretends like there is but that illusion is lost immediately upon first contact. There's a few places in the game where you encounter your typical Baba Yaga type ghost. She shows up and eventually catches you, doing that cliched jittering head thing while getting all up in your personal space. Screen goes black, then you wake up in the same place, none for worse. Like nothing happened.

And every 'threat' in the game is like that. Anticlimactic. I know the game is supposed to be psychological horror and that these encounters are probably meant to be representations of your characters madness, but in my opinion it does a poor job of making you question whether or not it's real or hallucination. It got so bad that when the witch lady showed up again, I just made a beeline straight towards it. Because I knew it didn't matter. Nothing of consequence would happen. It would just waste some of my time. All suspense gone for the rest of the game, partly because the game felt hellbent on launching every single horror trope at you in rapid succession, never allowing tension to rise for any lenght of time. Like the game is afraid you'll get bored if it doesn't go 'ooga booga' in your face every few minutes.

 

[Elijin]

There's a fine line between suspenseful gameplay with meaningful weight to failure, and an exercise in frustration where every other moment you're quick loading or restarting.

Most horror games sit on the latter option.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Forgiving in that way?

I think horror games should aim to make encounters frighteningly dangerous if caught unaware. But if a player can prepare for it, the danger should be mitigated to traversible. The reason being is you lose pacing in the narrative. And if threats just become trial and error, then you're going to lose all that pacing.... similarly, if too easy then it disincentivizes the idea with connecting with your avatar's idea of a struggle to survive. A struggle of resources, time, stamina, brainpower.

So I feel like 'less forgiving'... if you make poor decisions, or are inattentive, or wasteful, then obviously something has gone wrong if that is never punished. A couple of hard encounters early on that highlight the need to be aware, to be resourceful, to be quick, and decisive-- and that should carry a player a fair ways into a horror game alone, I feel.

Like, Dark Souls games .... they're not actually that hard. If you are quick, aware, resourceful, and decisive, that alone can carry you. Precisely because of that, it rewards persistence with progress... and it punishes a lack of involvement.

Compare that with the old Ninja Gaiden series on the NES which was literally rote learning and perfect choreography. If youcouldn't play it reasonably well in your dreams because you had attempted it again, and againb, and again... you won'tmake it up to the last levels. Only if you can play it blindfolded because your eyes and corpus callosum literally cannot parse the information to your occipital lobe fast enough, much less process what you're seeing, and thus you can no longer rely on them ... you won't ever beat it.

I'm convinced of that.

This assumes an action adventure styled horror games we're talking about...

 

[Saelune]

Well, the fear of losing progress is a different kind of fear than what horror usually goes for, so it makes sense. Any game can make you feel fear if it means going back to a far away checkpoint, losing your save, or losing progress in some other way, and sometimes that fear can override a horror's fear, or even replace it with anger and frustration which tends to spoil the scariness of a game when it just becomes 'I need to just beat this part and move on'.

 

[Silvanus]

It depends on the style they're going for.

Silent Hill 1 - 3 are some of the most effective horror games ever made, and mechanically, they're actually relatively easy. Horror comes from an oppressive atmosphere, which doesn't rely on challenging gameplay.

 

[Worgen]

You generally want a horror game to be on the easier side since nothing brings you out of the experience like remembering that you are essentially immortal. You do want the enemies to be dangerous enough to kill you once or twice but more then that can change things from horror to annoying. I suppose you could change that up and make a horror game hard with a larger cast of characters who can all die, maybe make a mechanic out of each one down makes the game a little easier or something.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

In the case of Alien Isolation, it's done so well. Superbly, in fact. But for me personally, it just doesn't hold up for the entire game. Yes there are other parts to it, but by the 20th time I've been impaled through the chest, it's more of an annoyance, a hindrance to my progress. The game is not forgiving by any stretch, but it does get easier once you know how to kite the thing around and avoid direct confrontations.

Ditto. Isolation still ranks for me as one of the best survival horror games made, especially just the right amount of fight vs flight scenarios. And yes, I think a horror game SHOULD have some combat in it, those moments where you have no choice but to face something nasty and wanting your skin. (which for me was one of Amnesia's few flaws).

But even a really good survival horror game can overdo it, as you said. There were stretches that were just plain tedious, especially the living quarters/lounge sector.