Video games can't do horror.

[Kopikatsu]

I wrote a post for another thread, and after reflecting on it for a bit, I found that it's a very accurate statement.

[Horror] simply doesn't translate to video games. You can't accurately capture what makes Xenomorphs scary if the protagonist cannot fail. But if the protagonist was capable of dying permanently (whether through a scripted event or just persistence like ZombiU), then you would be right back here complaining that it's Call of Duty all over again.

Pure horror just isn't something that video games do well, because the aforementioned fact that you absolutely cannot fail. For example, Dead Space 2. They put a lot of effort into trying to make you feel unsafe in the vents...but the vents were where I felt safest, specifically because you were completely defenseless inside of them. If a Necromorph were to legitimately attack you there, then you would have no chance to stave off your death. A video game can't allow that, and so vents = safe.

I could even use Amnesia as an example. Amnesia wasn't scary because you were never backed into a corner. There was always a way to proceed, you just needed to find it. No matter how powerful the monsters were or how weak you are, as long as success is inevitable, it's not horror. There's just nothing to fear.

No matter how powerful an enemy or obstacle seems, it is not insurmountable. You can overcome it. You are inherently better than it, simply because you can defeat it without exception.

Now, I want to know if anyone agrees with this viewpoint. That if you absolutely cannot fail given the mechanics of a game, then true horror cannot exist. If not, why not?

 

[shrekfan246]

Horror doesn't mean certain death, or even uncertain success.

One of the issues present in a lot of survival-horror games is how to actually balance death as an in-game mechanic. Many of them just make dying feel like a slap on the wrist, so the fear of death isn't really an issue for the player. And that's when you start treading into subjective territory, because then you're examining what actually breeds fear within a person.

Personally, I find games like Dead Space or Amnesia to be creepy and atmospheric because I have a holdover fear of the unknown darkness from when I was younger, I hate hearing distant loud noises that I can't determine the location of, and I've got a mild case of claustrophobia. The fear of being killed by a monster isn't what creeps me out, it's the knowledge that anything could be hiding around that next corner, or being funneled into this dead-end room means I'll have to hide, run, or fight something (depending on the game). It's that I don't know when something is going to pop up at me next, where it's going to come from, what it will look like, or what the best way to overcome it as an obstacle might be.

If I feared failure, practically every game in existence would terrify me. Sure, everything is technically surmountable with the rules and mechanics the player is provided with. But that doesn't mean you can't fail. I'm not ashamed to admit that at my current location in Dark Souls' DLC area, I've pretty much hit a brick wall and because of that I've stopped playing it lately. I've failed as I am right now. But that's not because the game made itself unwinnable.

 

[sethisjimmy]

I disagree, I think video games often are the best media form for horror, mainly because I am the one in control, and I know that if I don't act I will fail.

In a movie or book, I'm just an audience, watching the plot unfold and having no stake in it. Nothing to gain from their success or failure, I'm merely an invisible observer. In a game, the story ends if I don't act, if I don't do my best to survive against the horror.

Fear isn't eliminated by knowing you'll succeed. Especially on the large scale. Knowing you'll succeed in the long run doesn't prevent you from feeling fear in the short term.

Fear often comes from the unknown. You might know you'll eventually get to the end of the game, just like you know a book or movie will eventually end, but you have no idea what's between now and then, and that's where the fear comes from.

Most media sees this "inherently better/will always succeed" phenomena as well. Typically the protagonist of any horror story is guaranteed to survive until at least the end, because if he/she died, or failed, the story would be over.

 

[The Madman]

You should play roguelikes. You can die in those. Permanently. A horror-based roguelike game has the potential to be amazing, unfortunately it's never really been done so far. I hear ZombiU kinda sorta is like that, albeit not very well, but that's the only example I can think of and unfortunately I've never played it myself.

That aside I loves me my horror movies and books just like I love my horror games, and if there's one thing games can do, arguably better than either movies or books, it's atmosphere. Creating a tense and vivid sense of 'place' for the viewer, or in our case player, to explore and experience. That's something no other genre can do as well and a powerful tool in making a terrifying experience.

And even with all that said your view of horror is also being pretty narrow. The protagonist doesn't need to die in a horror film or book to make it horror. Some of Stephen King's best stuff as well as Clive Barker tend to be the stuff where the protagonist doesn't die at all and often isn't really even in any danger to begin with. Hell, the protagonist in H.P. Lovecrafts work rarely died, in his works the horror came from the vivid and surreal subjects he wrote about. The terrible fantasies about the absolute cosmic insignificance of man and our shallow viewpoint in a world we can't even hope to ever conceive.

Silent Hill 2 isn't scary because you're afraid of dying, it's scary because of the atmosphere created via the sights and sounds of the place you explore combined with a ghastly story. System Shock 2 isn't scary because you die, it's scary because of the creaks and groans of the ships you're stuck in, observing the decay of everything around you and the terrifying state in which you find much of the ships crew.

Death isn't the most scary thing out there, you don't need it to make something scary. In fact if there's one thing reading and watching too much horror has taught me it's that death is the easy way out, there are much more terrifying things that can happen when someone is alive and knows they're not dying any time soon.

 

[Dead Seerius]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Games can do horror very well, but it's not necessarily the same horror you'll find in a movie, which is what I think you're trying to compare it to.

In a movie you don't know how the story will end, granted. In fact, horror movies are infamous for having some pretty 'well that didn't end well' finales. Any character could die at any moment, and when they do, they're gone for good (usually). But is death really the only thing that can frighten you?

To me, games do something better than any other movie could - immersion (HOLY SHIT, BET 'YALL DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!!).
It's not so much 'oh I don't want to die' as it is 'how am I going to die?' What will this game throw at me? And will I be able to overcome the challenge?

To me, wondering what lies in the shadows is far more scary than the idea of dying. Well-designed, creepy game settings convey that fear perfectly. Perhaps this kind of fear doesn't get to you, but it does to a lot of us. Not to mention, the fate of my character relies on me, not a film projector. And that's scary.

 

[Kopikatsu]

H
Personally, I find games like Dead Space or Amnesia to be creepy and atmospheric because I have a holdover fear of the unknown darkness from when I was younger, I hate hearing distant loud noises that I can't determine the location of, and I've got a mild case of claustrophobia. The fear of being killed by a monster isn't what creeps me out, it's the knowledge that anything could be hiding around that next corner, or being funneled into this dead-end room means I'll have to hide, run, or fight something (depending on the game). It's that I don't know when something is going to pop up at me next, where it's going to come from, what it will look like, or what the best way to overcome it as an obstacle might be.

Mmm. So fear for you comes from a preexisting condition. What about someone like me, though? I have no fear of needles, or the dark, or small places. That's not to say that I'm never scared, just not in a way that would translate well to a video game. (Someone hiding in a small closet, desperately clutching a Shotgun to their chest with one hand because the other arm has been rendered unusable after being stabbed and cut multiple times on that side)

If I feared failure, practically every game in existence would terrify me. Sure, everything is technically surmountable with the rules and mechanics the player is provided with. But that doesn't mean you can't fail. I'm not ashamed to admit that at my current location in Dark Souls' DLC area, I've pretty much hit a brick wall and because of that I've stopped playing it lately. I've failed as I am right now. But that's not because the game made itself unwinnable.

I'm not saying that failure as a concept is scary, but what comes with it. Death. Finality. Even a game like Call of Duty could be terrifying if dying there meant you actually died in real life. The difference between a game and the example provided above is that there is an unspoken guarantee of success. I was terrified because the assailant could easily have of finished what they set out to do. There was a real risk of dying without being able to fight back. That no matter what action you take, it ends in complete and total failure. Over and over again. Ad infinitum.

I disagree, I think video games often are the best media form for horror, mainly because I am the one in control, and I know that if I don't act I will fail.

In a movie or book, I'm just an audience, watching the plot unfold and having no stake in it. Nothing to gain from their success or failure, I'm merely an invisible observer. In a game, the story ends if I don't act, if I don't do my best to survive against the horror.

Fear isn't eliminated by knowing you'll succeed. Especially on the large scale. Knowing you'll succeed in the long run doesn't prevent you from feeling fear in the short term.

Fear often comes from the unknown. You might know you'll eventually get to the end of the game, just like you know a book or movie will eventually end, but you have no idea what's between now and then, and that's where the fear comes from.

Most media sees this "inherently better/will always succeed" phenomena as well. Typically the protagonist of any horror story is guaranteed to survive until at least the end, because if he/she died, or failed, the story would be over.

I don't disagree. The tensest part of any game (especially those that are horror-styled) is the beginning. But that's because even the mechanics are hidden from you. You're playing a new game without being shown the rule book. After that first encounter...you know what you're up against. You know it's capabilities. You know what you have to fight back with and how effective it is. It loses everything that could possibly make it scary. The only possible exception are abnormalities within even that subgrouping (RE's Nemesis, Dead Space's Hunter, etc), but even those can be easily analyzed shortly after their first appearance. I don't know. Maybe I'm saying that humans are too smart for their own good?

Edit: The responses seem to be overwhelmingly 'Death isn't what makes horror scary'. I'm not sure what does, then. As detailed above, I don't see the unknown as frightening, but interesting. The first chapter or two of a game is always my favorite, because that's when you're introduced to everything. My favorite levels of action-horror games tend to be sections that are completely devoid of enemies, where the expected ambush never occurs. Both because it's tense, and it subverts expectations.

Edit 2: I'll put it this way. The way I hear people describe their 'ideal' horror game on the Escapist, is that they basically want Amensia reskinned as X, because they like to feel 'helpless' in the face of monsters or whatever. The point that I'm trying to make is that you aren't helpless. In a video game, you can never be helpless. The fact that you can survive to the conclusion of the game means that every encounter between those two points can/will be surmounted. It's not the fact that failure is scary so much as...even when you're supposedly 'helpless', you're still incredibly powerful. Whether it's because you're stronger, smarter, faster, etc than the adversaries. No matter how helpless you appear to be, you never are.

I see no fundamental difference between sneaking past monsters in Amnesia and gunning down hordes of Xenomorphs in Aliens: Colonial Marines. In both cases, they are merely obstacles to overcome. One is done through guile and one is done through force. But fundamentally, they're the same.

 

[Trollhoffer]

Now, I want to know if anyone agrees with this viewpoint. That if you absolutely cannot fail given the mechanics of a game, then true horror cannot exist. If not, why not?

I don't agree with your assertion, but for the purposes of my question, let's assume it's true:

What about a horror game that, instead of being driven by linear gameplay and narrative, had true fail states? An example might be a horror game with roguelike elements, such as permanent death of the player avatar.

 

[TehCookie]

Just because there is a path doesn't mean you will be able to find it and there lies the horror. That makes it more terrifying when you know there is an answer but die anyways because you made the wrong choice as opposed to just watching someone else flander around.

As a lot of others have said as well atmosphere can scare a lot of people as well. While things trying to be scary don't get to me one level that did was Psychonauts milkman level since I got stuck there and ended up running back and forth for over an hour and the click of the cameras made it feel like someone really was watching me.

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm not saying that failure as a concept is scary, but what comes with it. Death. Finality. Even a game like Call of Duty could be terrifying if dying there meant you actually died in real life. The difference between a game and the example provided above is that there is an unspoken guarantee of success. I was terrified because the assailant could easily have of finished what they set out to do. There was a real risk of dying without being able to fight back. That no matter what action you take, it ends in complete and total failure. Over and over again. Ad infinitum.

Play rogue-likes.

I don't really know what else to say, if perma-death is the only thing in a video game that will make you "afraid".

I'm not saying Dead Space or Amnesia scared me (outside of typical jump scares built out of contrasting a loud musical track and crashing with previously dead silence), but allowing myself to get into the atmosphere they set out to create put me into a state of unease, which I believe is what the developers intended. I wasn't blowing around like a gung-ho action hero, I was carefully looking everywhere around my surroundings and making sure I knew the optimal way of approaching whatever room I was entering.

It's easy to disconnect yourself from the situation of a game you're playing, especially if it's in your normal comfort zone. If you don't fear the "unknown", then good for you. Or you just haven't played the right games. But that doesn't mean Silent Hill, Call of Cthulu, System Shock 2, Bioshock, Fatal Frame, Alone in the Dark, or Amnesia: The Dark Descent "can't do horror". It just means they can't do the kind of horror that resonates with you.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Now, I want to know if anyone agrees with this viewpoint. That if you absolutely cannot fail given the mechanics of a game, then true horror cannot exist. If not, why not?

I don't agree with your assertion, but for the purposes of my question, let's assume it's true:

What about a horror game that, instead of being driven by linear gameplay and narrative, had true fail states? An example might be a horror game with roguelike elements, such as permanent death of the player avatar.

It still wouldn't be scary. It would be tense in the same way that playing Dead Space 2/3's Hardcore mode is tense. But it is not scary. Just stressful. See the final sentence of the response to Shrek's post for the key point I'm trying to make-

I'm not saying that failure as a concept is scary, but what comes with it. Death. Finality. Even a game like Call of Duty could be terrifying if dying there meant you actually died in real life. The difference between a game and the example provided above is that there is an unspoken guarantee of success. I was terrified because the assailant could easily have of finished what they set out to do. There was a real risk of dying without being able to fight back. That no matter what action you take, it ends in complete and total failure. Over and over again. Ad infinitum.

Play rogue-likes.

I don't really know what else to say, if perma-death is the only thing in a video game that will make you "afraid".

I'm not saying Dead Space or Amnesia scared me (outside of typical jump scares built out of contrasting a loud musical track and crashing with previously dead silence), but allowing myself to get into the atmosphere they set out to create put me into a state of unease, which I believe is what the developers intended. I wasn't blowing around like a gung-ho action hero, I was carefully looking everywhere around my surroundings and making sure I knew the optimal way of approaching whatever room I was entering.

It's easy to disconnect yourself from the situation of a game you're playing, especially if it's in your normal comfort zone. If you don't fear the "unknown", then good for you. Or you just haven't played the right games. But that doesn't mean Silent Hill, Call of Cthulu, System Shock 2, Bioshock, Fatal Frame, Alone in the Dark, or Amnesia: The Dark Descent "can't do horror". It just means they can't do the kind of horror that resonates with you.

I made this edit after you posted, so I'll throw it in.

I'll put it this way. The way I hear people describe their 'ideal' horror game on the Escapist, is that they basically want Amensia reskinned as X, because they like to feel 'helpless' in the face of monsters or whatever. The point that I'm trying to make is that you aren't helpless. In a video game, you can never be helpless. The fact that you can survive to the conclusion of the game means that every encounter between those two points can/will be surmounted. It's not the fact that failure is scary so much as...even when you're supposedly 'helpless', you're still incredibly powerful. Whether it's because you're stronger, smarter, faster, etc than the adversaries. No matter how helpless you appear to be, you never are.

I see no fundamental difference between sneaking past monsters in Amnesia and gunning down hordes of Xenomorphs in Aliens: Colonial Marines. In both cases, they are merely obstacles to overcome. One is done through guile and one is done through force. But fundamentally, they're the same.

My point is that it's not real horror because you cannot fail. How can the unknown be terrifying if you will always, without exception, be adequately prepared for what comes next? I only keep using death as the primer example because it is ultimately the fate the player character succumbs to, with rare exception.

The main point is; How can a game be scary if the player character is always stronger than his adversaries by virtue of it being a video game?

Edit: A big complaint that many gamers make about modern games is that control is commonly wrest away from the player for the sake of narrative. Is this considered acceptable for games that claim to be horror? That you spend the entire game killing, evading, or outwitting the enemy, only for the final scenes of the game to suddenly condemn you to death, becoming a monster yourself, or what have you?

 

[daveman247]

Well, i already got ninja'd on how this rule of thinking could be applied to films and books

What makes horror can, unsurprisingly be different for each person. Could be the dark, jump scares, gore, weird sounds, weird creatures etc.

For example, like you i can say most things don't scare me. Have gotten over gore ( slightly worrying :S ) the dark never bothered me and jump scares just feel cheap. Unfortunatly these three things are all the more recent mainstream horror games have got.

Unnatural sounds seem to be what gets to me. Which silent hill did very well so those games are the top horror games for me.

Basically you are just going to have to find the horror that scares you (fear of failure?) And go and find a game about that.


If you truly have a heart of stone, i cannot help you.

EDIT: If you havnt already, try an early silent hill game or one of the fatal frame/ project zero games. Both made me feel uneasy at least.

 

[Mikejames]

In a movie or book, I'm just an audience, watching the plot unfold and having no stake in it. Nothing to gain from their success or failure, I'm merely an invisible observer. In a game, the story ends if I don't act, if I don't do my best to survive against the horror.

Seconded. There's an investment to be had in horror games knowing I'm the one who could be initiating things. I'm the one hesitating to open a door, or the one trying to make sense of the character's deteriorating mental state.
Just because you know that a main character will likely live long enough for the narrative to work doesn't have to take away from what makes the story scary.

Hell, the protagonist in H.P. Lovecrafts work rarely died, in his works the horror came from the vivid and surreal subjects he wrote about. The terrible fantasies about the absolute cosmic insignificance of man and our shallow viewpoint in a world we can't even hope to ever conceive.

Death isn't the most scary thing out there, you don't need it to make something scary. In fact if there's one thing reading and watching too much horror has taught me it's that death is the easy way out, there are much more terrifying things that can happen when someone is alive and knows they're not dying any time soon.

Well said. Games like Silent Hill weren't memorable because of the attempts at combat segments; I may have been scared of Pyramid Head, but it was the psychological downward spiral it sets you on that got to me. Shooting monsters doesn't hold up to essentially exploring the mental states of people who were losing themselves.

 

[Trollhoffer]

The main point is; How can a game be scary if the player character is always stronger than his adversaries by virtue of it being a video game?

Well, let's define "stronger", then.

There's a few different ways we could look at this. I think where you're most fundamentally correct is that video game AIs are much more limited than the human brain, which possesses more creativity and malleability. Another way to look at it, though, is in the hard values within a game. Numerically, an enemy can easily be stronger than you. RPGs thrive on this idea, which drives player power progression. No matter how powerful a character gets in an RPG, chances are that some enemies were probably designed to be more or less invincible against level 1 characters.

I think it's also important that enemies are ultimately able to be defeated or evaded. If neither can be accomplished, then there's no win state, only a fail state, and therefore no tension for someone familiar with the game system. So while enemies probably ought to be more powerful than the player character, they must also be weak enough to be defeated or evaded in some manner.

So if technical enemy strength is just a matter of punching in the right numbers, then we have to solve the problem of AIs that fail to exceed human psychology while also allowing the enemies to be overcome so as to assure that the game has a win state. While Slender isn't what I consider the pinnacle of gaming, I think it ultimately had a really great core horror mechanic -- wherever you are, whatever you're doing, Slender is seeking you out and becomes a stronger adversary when you look at him. On the other hand, that game violates the principle of having a win state, so once you realise it's pointless to complete, the game can lose much of its tension as there's no stakes at play.

All the same, that idea applied to a more mechanically diverse game could be brilliant. We could make up for flaws in AI by having factors of enemy entities exist in relation to the player. These could be anything, from their numerical strength (as in stats, rather than "how many") to their placement to their special abilities and beyond. Who knows?

 

[shrekfan246]

I made this edit after you posted, so I'll throw it in.

I'll put it this way. The way I hear people describe their 'ideal' horror game on the Escapist, is that they basically want Amensia reskinned as X, because they like to feel 'helpless' in the face of monsters or whatever. The point that I'm trying to make is that you aren't helpless. In a video game, you can never be helpless. The fact that you can survive to the conclusion of the game means that every encounter between those two points can/will be surmounted. It's not the fact that failure is scary so much as...even when you're supposedly 'helpless', you're still incredibly powerful. Whether it's because you're stronger, smarter, faster, etc than the adversaries. No matter how helpless you appear to be, you never are.

I see no fundamental difference between sneaking past monsters in Amnesia and gunning down hordes of Xenomorphs in Aliens: Colonial Marines. In both cases, they are merely obstacles to overcome. One is done through guile and one is done through force. But fundamentally, they're the same.

My point is that it's not real horror because you cannot fail. How can the unknown be terrifying if you will always, without exception, be adequately prepared for what comes next? I only keep using death as the primer example because it is ultimately the fate the player character succumbs to, with rare exception.

The main point is; How can a game be scary if the player character is always stronger than his adversaries by virtue of it being a video game?

What's the difference between a tense game and a scary game? What would even qualify as a "scary" game? Something you dread playing further? You're really testing the line of what a "game" actually is here, you know. Why do you play games? Do you want to enjoy experiencing the gameplay, the narrative, the unique locations? Or is there some nebulous other option? Permanent failure is a boon to all of those, because unless it's a scripted "bad ending" sequence, all you're doing is artificially extending the amount of time the person will continue playing the game if they want to see it through to the "normal" ending (provided there is one). And if there isn't one, then... you're basically playing Minecraft.

If you played a game that provided you with permanent fail states, what would you do after reaching one of those failures? Would you start again, from the beginning, and make your way to that point again? Would you give up and play a different game? Because as games stand right now, there's not much in the way of branching story-lines or worlds, so you're running through the exact same locations over and over and over again. Which I suppose is why rogue-likes often use random generation. If there were more games that were like old choose-your-own-adventure books, then sure, I'd agree with at least part of your point, because having paths that lead to definite failed endings could be interesting to see in a game. But at the same time, it needs to be implemented in such a way that it's not detrimental to the overall experience. There's a fine line between making something tense and making it tedious.

As an aside: You know what's more frightening to me than the threat of permanent failure? The knowledge that even though I'm provided with all of the tools necessary to overcome an obstacle, there's a very real chance of me not overcoming it. Permanent failure isn't "scary" to me because the thought of spending five to ten hours in a game only to have all of that progress go to waste because of one stupid mistake makes me more angry than afraid.

 

[Kopikatsu]

[
What's the difference between a tense game and a scary game? What would even qualify as a "scary" game? Something you dread playing further? You're really testing the line of what a "game" actually is here, you know. Why do you play games? Do you want to enjoy experiencing the gameplay, the narrative, the unique locations? Or is there some nebulous other option? Permanent failure is a boon to all of those, because unless it's a scripted "bad ending" sequence, all you're doing is artificially extending the amount of time the person will continue playing the game if they want to see it through to the "normal" ending (provided there is one). And if there isn't one, then... you're basically playing Minecraft.

Well, that's a good question. I suppose the difference is... a tense game is simply frustrating by virtue of it's mechanics. For example, the aforementioned Hardcore mode. Your saves are arbitrarily limited in such a way that death only causes frustration. A scary game is one that so profoundly disturbs you that it would make you want to put the controller down and not come back. For example, in class today, my Professor played a clip (without telling us what it was about) where a suspect that was about to be interrogated by police pulled out a gun and shot himself in the head. One girl in the class stood up in the middle of the clip, walked out, and did not return. She was disturbed beyond words by what she witnessed. I would consider that experience to have instilled horror as opposed to tenseness.

Edit: As for why I play games? I honestly have no idea. To have fun, I guess? No...for the challenge, maybe? Aliens: Colonial Marines's Challenges are extremely frustrating. But I can't stop trying to complete them. I've long since stopped having fun, but I just cannot stop working at it.

If you played a game that provided you with permanent fail states, what would you do after reaching one of those failures? Would you start again, from the beginning, and make your way to that point again? Would you give up and play a different game? Because as games stand right now, there's not much in the way of branching story-lines or worlds, so you're running through the exact same locations over and over and over again. Which I suppose is why rogue-likes often use random generation. If there were more games that were like old choose-your-own-adventure books, then sure, I'd agree with at least part of your point, because having paths that lead to definite failed endings could be interesting to see in a game. But at the same time, it needs to be implemented in such a way that it's not detrimental to the overall experience. There's a fine line between making something tense and making it tedious.

Well, as I said, tenseness is needlessly frustrating. Tenseness and fear aren't mutually exclusive, but tenseness alone is poor design. And so I would say that a game with permanent fail states is a poor game. Which is why I made the original assertion that video games can't do horror, for the same reason that video games can't make a commentary on war. Because if you try to say 'War is Hell' and then make war fun, then you're undermining your point. But if you're trying to say 'War is Hell' and then make the game dull...who would play it, and why? It defeats the purpose of the medium and squanders potential.

Edit: To clarify, I'm saying that the game mechanics themselves are inherently at odds with the concept that's being pushed forward.

As an aside: You know what's more frightening to me than the threat of permanent failure? The knowledge that even though I'm provided with all of the tools necessary to overcome an obstacle, there's a very real chance of me not overcoming it. Permanent failure isn't "scary" to me because the thought of spending five to ten hours in a game only to have all of that progress go to waste because of one stupid mistake makes me more angry than afraid.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying that your greatest fear (in this context) is being inadequate? Do you find puzzle games scary, as there is the very real possibility that it will present you with a scenario in which you can hypothetically solve, but practically it is beyond your comprehension?

 

[shrekfan246]

A scary game is one that would make you want to put the control down and not come back.

Okay.

But that's not what the point of a video game is.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying that your greatest fear (in this context) is being inadequate? Do you find puzzle games scary, as there is the very real possibility that it will present you with a scenario in which you can hypothetically solve, but practically it is beyond your comprehension?

In this particular context, yes, a puzzle game that I'm incapable of completing would be "scarier" to me than, say, The Binding of Isaac, in which the failure state (in this case, dying) would mean that I have to begin anew from the start of the game.

In actuality, I do not find puzzle games scary because limitations of a cerebral nature are very different than limitations of a skillful nature; and because most of the time they don't appeal to the emotional side by way of sounds, visuals, or the threat of danger. Despite mostly being an adventure/puzzle game, Amnesia remained unnerving to me throughout because of the very real threat of being chased down by a horrible creature, whereas Portal 2 felt like a joyous romp through a run-down laboratory. There's a whole thing about tone and aesthetic that factors into that difference.

I have to commend your deduction skills, though, because one of my greatest real fears is being inadequate.

 

[Kopikatsu]

A scary game is one that would make you want to put the control down and not come back.

Okay.

But that's not what the point of a video game is.

...Which is why I said I don't believe a video game can adequately capture real horror.

But then I have to ask, what is a video game to you? Or at least, the point of one. To provide entertainment? To provide a soapbox? To provide stress relief?

 

[imagremlin]

Like most I will disagree strongly with this one. Games can do horror as least as well, and sometimes better than other media.

For me, Horror is not about consequences like permadeath. A game with permadeath is not likely to scare me as much as to annoy me, by simply incovenience. For me, horror is about slowly nudging you out of your comfort zone, the subtler the better. Sounds, images, and general atmosphere. It has to mess with your head. But for that to work, you have to actively suspend disbelief, you have to let yourself go, allow the game to pull you in. No book or movie can pull you into its world the way a game can. Books and movies are better at human stories, whilst games are more effective at drawing you into a world.

If I play a game, even though I cannot fail, if at the end I feel sort of icky, but can't tell exactly why then the game has "horrorified" my successfully.

I have not played any Dead Space, but I have to bring the obvious: Silent Hill. Both SH1 & 2 achieved this with me. Of course, as I said I actively help the game do its thing. I would play late a night, alone in my room, all lights off. My mind gets into it, and I'm experiencing the horror.

Having said that, I believe that horror in any media loses its impact over time. Books were genuinely scary once upon a time (say, Lovecraft), but eventually you've seen all the tricks and cannot be scared by them anymore (OK, so here comes the indescribable horror again, seen it before). Movies were scary at some point, but that's past.

I think games are past it as well. WIll be picking up Dead Space and play in the wee hours of the morning to find out.

 

[shrekfan246]

A scary game is one that would make you want to put the control down and not come back.

Okay.

But that's not what the point of a video game is.

...Which is why I said I don't believe a video game can adequately capture real horror.

In which case, I see your point but disagree with your definition of "horror". But that's semantics, and I won't bother arguing that.

But then I have to ask, what is a video game to you? Or at least, the point of one. To provide entertainment? To provide a soapbox? To provide stress relief?

It depends.

Games like Mass Effect, I play for the experience of the narrative arc that they present me with. Seeing the locations, interacting with the characters, shaping the player character, that sort of thing.

Games like Sonic the Hedgehog or Devil May Cry, I play for raw entertainment. When I want to unwind and have fun, something quick and simple that I don't need to spend hours getting heavily invested in is perfect.

Games like Dark Souls, I play when I want a challenge. When I want to really focus and bust my way through something difficult so I can feel good about overcoming it, there's really nothing better.

And games like Dead Space are perfect for when I want tension. Because sometimes I want to build up a feeling of unease that crescendos to a cathartic release. Dark Souls can double in this section as well.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Games like Dark Souls, I play when I want a challenge. When I want to really focus and bust my way through something difficult so I can feel good about overcoming it, there's really nothing better.

And games like Dead Space are perfect for when I want tension. Because sometimes I want to build up a feeling of unease that crescendos to a cathartic release. Dark Souls can double in this section as well.

Isn't that wholly on the skill of the player, though? Dark Souls, for instance. I found Dark Souls to be extremely easy...but that's because I'm good at parry/countering from Devil May Cry 3/4 and playing Fiona in Vindictus. A lot of the difficulty goes out the window when you deal massive (often fatal) damage whenever an enemy has the audacity to attack you. Parrying in Dark Souls was made especially easy because it counted as an attack before the enemy started their attack animation. After timing an enemy's basic attack 2-3 times, it became possible to parry and counter an attack that they hadn't even preformed yet.

Same with Dead Space. I started Dead Space 3 on Impossible difficulty and breezed through it without using the microtransactions or getting low on resources. (Chaingun + Force Gun is super broken apparently). A lot of people will argue that games like Dead Space were never meant to be scary in the first place, but eh.

I'm not sure if Dark Souls counts as action-horror, though.