Trail of Fears

[Dastardly]

Trail of Fears

The Oregon Trail is terrifying.

Read Full Article

 

[piclemaniscool]

Now I kind of want Yahtzee to review The Oregon Trail to see if he agrees with this.

 

[Azuaron]

The Banner Saga sounds like it might get into this: it's post-Ragnarok, and your goal is to not die in the harsh winter. Also there are monsters.

 

[Sabrestar]

Now I kind of want Yahtzee to review The Oregon Trail to see if he agrees with this.

Actually, this brought to mind his ruminations on "what if we levelled backwards", because come to think of it, OT is a bit like this. You don't really get extra stuff once you're on the trail, for the most part, and especially if you didn't play as the banker (I tried, it was rough), once you get close to the end, your stockpiles are low, you may be running up against winter, and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You finish weaker than you started. Maybe there's something there?

 

[Artemis923]

You have died of dysentery.

...That's terrifying right there.

 

[ASnogarD]

Go play Amnesia: The decent ... it has what you described and is scary ( for most ).
You have limited supplies of tinderboxes and oil for your lantern, and your character cannot fight the creatures in the game... you can only run and hide, and battle to keep insanity at bay.
Its really at its best when you let the game have a chance, and dont go in with the " LOL wtf is with those graphics, oh look the door open I is scared ...not " attitude. Try get into the characters shoes, and let the brilliant sounds take you to dark places.
Lights off, heaphones on... and possibly some diapers

 

[rayen020]

hey i'm not even pretending, i played the carpenter... once. the first time i played it... we all died before chimney rock... and i only played the banker from then on... but i played something else... once...

 

[craddoke]

I laughed at first, but this article makes a pretty compelling argument. The question is, can such mechanics (relying on entropy and scarcity) really work without introducing a large amount of random chance into the survival equation? I don't think so - and there are plenty of young players (under 30) who would freak out if there success in the game was endangered by random chance that couldn't be overcome with skill. Add into the fact that these mechanics are slow killers - meaning it might not be good enough to go back to the last check point or saved game - and I can imagine some serious backlash from mainstream players who never encountered a cheap death in a game that was intended by the designer.

 

[Dastardly]

I laughed at first, but this article makes a pretty compelling argument. The question is, can such mechanics (relying on entropy and scarcity) really work without introducing a large amount of random chance into the survival equation? I don't think so - and there are plenty of young players (under 30) who would freak out if there success in the game was endangered by random chance that couldn't be overcome with skill. Add into the fact that these mechanics are slow killers - meaning it might not be good enough to go back to the last check point or saved game - and I can imagine some serious backlash from mainstream players who never encountered a cheap death in a game that was intended by the designer.

Fair point! No one likes feeling that their success comes down to a coin flip (see: some Mario Party games). At the same time, I think random chance must play a part. Tension and fear are, at least in part, about uncertainty. While most games are about making the player feel powerful (thus favoring chance over skill is a huge no-no), I don't think most people come to survival horror for that. They come to be scared, or at least shaken up.

A little bit of chance ensures the player is never totally sure what to expect next. It changes how we think and what we bring. Oregon Trail doesn't really have any "min/max" options, where players can put all their eggs in one basket or another and manage to coast through. You have to be at least a little prepared for everything... which also means you're always a little unprepared, too.

What's more, good survival games (just like real survival situations) should be as much (or more) about preparation as they are about skill. We decide a lot by how we prepare for the challenge, and the game itself is mostly finding out how well we prepared. Our in-the-moment skill plays a different part than it usually does: How well are you able to recover from a mistake, or how quickly can you bounce back from an unexpected setback?

Luck makes us feel powerless. We even speak about Luck as though it is some force beyond our control or comprehension. "Powerless" is exactly what we need, too. The player should almost always feel like they're three steps behind where they want to be -- not so far that it's hopeless, but not so close that it's comfortable.

I think there's a lot of room to debate how much Luck should influence the game, but I really don't think there's any way to get the right emotional tone without having it in there.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Great article. Good to keep this in mind for games played and games run. My group now knows, and knowing is half the battle.

 

[lacktheknack]

You conclude that The Oregon Trail targets our inner fear of not making it.

It reminds me of Dwarf Fortress, which generally doesn't have scarcity (or entropy, if you play well), but there's always the underrunning current that if you do something wrong, you will die. I wonder if people are freaked out by that aspect of DF. I'm not, but then, the Oregon Trail doesn't freak me out either.

 

[oneeyemug]

I played this game a lot (enough that I could win as a butcher) and I never realized this alternate classification until now. Presents a good argument of how the monsters you face in a horror game are scarier when intangible.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Oregon Trail doesn't really have any "min/max" options, where players can put all their eggs in one basket or another and manage to coast through.

For most elementary-schoolers at the time, there was a min/max option. It was called guns, ammo and everything else. Won't say you could coast through, but I can't have been the only one who ended the game with a party that lost almost all its members but still had 5 tons of buffalo meat.

 

[Callate]

I have this strange sense that I must have been some kind of wunderkind at this game. I remember playing as the carpenter and regularly bringing my entire family in safe and sound.

I've heard this kind of argument before, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure I buy it. There's a fine line between "desperation" and "frustration". It's very easy and not all that uncommon for games that would identify as survival horror to provide insufficient weaponry and fail to offer viable alternatives to gunning the enemies down... The same might be said of some "stealth games". Being trapped in a corner slashing away desperately with a knife might be scary the first time; the fifth time it happens (god help you, the fifth time it happens in the same area) it's less scary and more "who designed this crap?"

I think this increasingly common focus on the desperation/scarcity angle is hindering the genre. Instead of using the entire toolbox, we're trying to get the entire job done with the hammer. There are other ways to scare a player than making them fight with inadequate weaponry; indeed, there are other ways to frighten a player than threatening them with (gasp!) having to reload. I think some of the most memorable scenes in scary games aren't the "I could beat these guys if I just had five more bullets!" type, but the ones where you face things you can't fight at all. Sometimes it's something that can't be killed by conventional means (an old C-64 game called Project Firestart had a late-occurring enemy that had to be brought to a high-oxygen environment to kill, and chased you at high speed all the way.) Sometimes it's things you just have to avoid at all costs (The screen-shaking vortex of evil in the original Alone in the Dark that appeared if you bumped into one of the ghosts is one of the most memorable encounters in all my game-playing.) Sometimes its a sense that your real tormentor is something alien to your understanding and forever beyond your reach (as in most of the better Silent Hill games.)

 

[craddoke]

A little bit of chance ensures the player is never totally sure what to expect next. It changes how we think and what we bring. Oregon Trail doesn't really have any "min/max" options, where players can put all their eggs in one basket or another and manage to coast through. You have to be at least a little prepared for everything... which also means you're always a little unprepared, too.

Absolutely correct - but that means there's always a chance that a player will do the right thing (be a little prepared for everything) but still lose (three random events involving a broken axle and she only had two spares). Entropy/scarcity only works as a horror mechanic if there's also uncertainty about what will break/run out - and you might not know the answer to this question until it's too late to reload and fix things.

As a gamer who started playing in the early 80s, I'm alright with the idea that sometimes losing has as much to do with luck as with skill. However, this is a type of game design that would be foreign to many players today. Perhaps the answer is a system that looks/feels like it is driven by entropy/scarcity but will dynamically provide a minimum of supplies for a player (i.e., if the player uses all their axles, they cannot break another axle until they have a chance to resupply). Of course, that makes the "horror" artificial and some players will see through the system and stop worrying.

 

[Dastardly]

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

There's a fine line between "desperation" and "frustration". It's very easy and not all that uncommon for games that would identify as survival horror to provide insufficient weaponry and fail to offer viable alternatives to gunning the enemies down...

There are plenty of games that use it incorrectly, just as there are plenty that don't use it at all. A lot of it has to do with the design of the rest of the game -- does the game encourage you to play in a way that the mechanics support, or does it ask you to do something that doesn't make sense?

For instance, in a lot of games, the assumption is that we're supposed to "clear the map." If there's an enemy in an area, it should be dead by the time you leave. If a game then doesn't give you enough ammo to do that, there's a problem... but where? Is the problem that the game isn't giving you enough ammo, or is the problem that the player is pursuing combat rather than avoiding it? I tend to think it's the latter, but even that isn't always the player's fault.

When a game diverges from the "norm," it's up to the game to let the player know that. Some early experiences in which a player has to avoid combat, or some guided situations in which it's clear there isn't enough ammunition... or even something so simple as turning a player's remaining bullets into points/experience at the end of a map, or something.

I think this increasingly common focus on the desperation/scarcity angle is hindering the genre. Instead of using the entire toolbox, we're trying to get the entire job done with the hammer.

In some cases, yes. You don't want to create just one golden path. At the same time, part of survival is exactly what you describe: I usually have tons of tools at my disposal, but what do I do when all I have left is a hammer? Survival is about finding as many uses for that hammer as you can, even non-traditional ones.

Of course, moderation is the key. You don't want the player to have forty different weapons, but you can probably give them more than three options. Provide plenty of options to the player, whenever you can, and find other ways to impose limits. Maybe there are forty different weapons to choose from, but you can only carry one at a time, and you can only change weapons on rare occasions. Limits are critical to any sense of "survival," but that doesn't mean every limit has to be the same kind.

Sometimes it's things you just have to avoid at all costs (The screen-shaking vortex of evil in the original Alone in the Dark that appeared if you bumped into one of the ghosts is one of the most memorable encounters in all my game-playing.) Sometimes its a sense that your real tormentor is something alien to your understanding and forever beyond your reach (as in most of the better Silent Hill games.)

That's the kind of thing I'm getting at here. Powerlessness and desperation. One way to do that is by making resources scarce. There are, of course, other ways. By literally making the player powerless against an enemy, you take a bit of a shortcut... but, in the right setting, it can work very well.

 

[IWCAS]

"When one of your party members dies, part of you mourns the loss - perhaps of the points more than of the character - but another part of you realizes this means fewer mouths to feed ... and the chilling fact is that part of you is a little relieved."

More survival games need to be able to make you think about things deeper. Actually having to question your own beliefs during a game would make for a closer experience. I'm not really sure how to say it... but maybe we should put a little more thought into making games?

 

[Callate]

Well said. One thing I would note, though, regarding this:

For instance, in a lot of games, the assumption is that we're supposed to "clear the map." If there's an enemy in an area, it should be dead by the time you leave. If a game then doesn't give you enough ammo to do that, there's a problem... but where? Is the problem that the game isn't giving you enough ammo, or is the problem that the player is pursuing combat rather than avoiding it? I tend to think it's the latter, but even that isn't always the player's fault.

When a game diverges from the "norm," it's up to the game to let the player know that. Some early experiences in which a player has to avoid combat, or some guided situations in which it's clear there isn't enough ammunition... or even something so simple as turning a player's remaining bullets into points/experience at the end of a map, or something.

The compliment is that sometimes game design aids and abets the player "thinking in the wrong way". If the player deals with a number of rooms in which the exit only opens if the last monster is killed, the player will probably continue to do so even if that condition of escape is removed. More subtly, if the game plays "aggression/fear" music, or causes the screen to redden or shake in the presence of the enemy, that leads the player to believe that there's something wrong that (based on earlier experience) they have the means and are being encouraged to set right.

Actually, this could be another interesting tool if it was used carefully. That what a player was doing before isn't working could lead to all sorts of uncertainty and distress, so long as the game was careful to make certain that the clues needed to succeed were within plain view. (The "shadow self" encounter in the original Prince of Persia comes to mind; I'd have to think for a while to come up with a good way of using the tactic in survival horror.)

Here's to hoping to see more games using the whole toolbox.

 

[BishopofAges]

Very interesting article with a really great point to make, I loved Oregon Trail, but it is hard as hell to find the exact version I played back in the day. For me, I nicknamed characters, it seemed that Grandma died of dysentary, Joe-bob gets shot by every ricochet bullet and the gal in my group always got scurvy because I didn't know anything about vitamin C.

Side note: Anyone else disappointed that this article didn't include a modded Oregon Trail that had 150% more horror elements in it?

Captcha: know your rights, like my right to die of dysentary?

Edit: Thanks for the link and all that mess, man it seems like forever since I played, back when the candy colored macs came into my elementary school, they were neat as hell!