Horror does not require a death at the end. Hell, there plenty of famous horror movies where at least one character survives. The RISK of death can be scary all by itself. Besides, what's really important is being forced to leave your comfort zone. It's why state fright is a thing. You can be afraid of things that aren't death, even if it's not logical. I once woke up in the middle of the night to find a millipede on my mattress. That was scary as shit, yet here I am, very much alive.
Also,
Kopikatsu said:
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.
TBH, what I get from the 1st couple of posts from the OP this thread is "something really scary happened to me IRL and make believe cannot replicate that feeling".*
No shit?
Games can't do "true" horror, neither can movies, books, erm...whatever other kinds of media there might be. They can push a few of the same buttons that cause fear IRL, but we have pretty advanced brains, we can work out that vital elements are missing. Even if on a gut level it instills us with the idea we should run like fuck from that thing that is totally going to murder us we can also comprehend that actually, no it isn't, so we're fine.
* I should also add my sympathies, that must have been incredibly shitty.
As little as I know about horror in any media, I disagree with the idea that the horror isn't there because you know there is a way to get through. One, because this is also true of films and books and whatnot for the main character. They may be placed in a compromising situation, but there's another hour to go or another 200 pages, so they can't be killed off. The other characters, yes, but then so are NPCs in games. I honestly think horror could be better in videogames than in other media, because the player is the character. It's not the characters shortfalls and fears that are being leveraged, it's the player's, and it's the player's inaction or failure that causes death, to themselves or to NPCs. You still don't know when things will happen, what horrible things you may be forced to do, or whether your closest NPCs are safe. The protagonist's life is rarely at stake in any horror media.
I don't think horror is caused by some "fear of death" or failure to defend yourself, by that definition a movie can not scare you because you don't have to defend yourself, you are in your couch watching. Then again that does not make games the absolute best way of bringing horror. As others have mentioned, horror is not about the inability to succeed,I think too that it is more about having the reader/player/viewer constantly on the edge, slightly disturbed, eager to know how the events go on but at the same time have them think about the dark corners in their own minds.
So what in your opinion are good examples of horror (movies, books, etc). Also, do you feel that it is different for everyone, that horror is difficult to share with an audience?
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.
Hearing you say that, I can't believe no-one's ever thought of that before.
OT: Yes, as long as you know that in the end, you can't fail, horror games aren't scary. That's why it's so important for horror games to be atmospheric. Once you're immersed in the world, you forget that in reality, you're sitting behind the safety of your computer. You think as if you were in the game world, and death for the protagonist would mean a permanent end. Once you die however, you realize you're playing a game, and it takes time for the game to get scary again.
On a related note, the game being dark isn't the only reasen we turn off the lights when playing horror games. It's also so we don't notice the rest of the room, and are therefore less likely to remember we're playing a game.
I think that games like dead space and amnesia do horror a lot better than any movie. I personally feel no tension watching horror movies, i don't care for the characters because their only purpose is to get slaughtered, except for one girl and some guy she likes if hes lucky. Truth be told i don't even know what fictional horror is, is it supposed to scare me or something? The only thing that i can find even a little bit scary is when i'm about to get my head bitten off in dead space and i don't really want to replay that part again.
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?
While I agree in principle, I feel you may have underestimated the scope of it.
In truth, no form of horror medium is truly scary because no matter what, the audience/player/reader etc. is never in any real danger. They're just experiencing facsimiles of horror for the adrenaline high afterwards, but barring the most freak accidents, they will be able walk away from it. If there were any real danger (read: not simply "risk" like in skydiving) to any horror work, you couldn't drag them to go and experience it because unless they have a death wish they're not crazy enough to put themselves majorly on the line simply for a little bit of excitement.
And in my case at least, I simply couldn't find any horror settings remotely scary anymore once I realized this. Yeah, they can try a few jump scares, but all that's really doing is activating my fight-or-flight instinct, which is really just surprising me.
However, if we're going by the facsimile basis for horror, there are some ways to inflict the "fail state" on horror gamers. The one that springs to mind is to actually give them something to lose a la FTL and ZombiU, where if your character dies that's perma-game over for that character. If the atmosphere and enemies are up to snuff, then when you run into an actual threat (preferably with the character lacking an appropriate means of defence) suddenly the players genuine have something to lose, and it should create a decent amount of horror tension.
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.
I can see that being SUPER hard to implement. You get a shit tonne of pros and an ass tonne of cons.
Pros:
Perma death means death is scary.
Randomized experience means horror can NEVER be expected in any particular.
The game can and WILL occasionally give you such an unlucky start that doom is inevitable. You WILL fail.
Cons:
Randomized environment? Hard to craft a scary atmosphere when SO many things can be different and an atmosphere has so many layers. Most of the roguelikes i play are fairly basic and interchangable in terms of encounters and scenery. Having a monster in a well lit area or PLENTY of avenue for escape will make it hard to "Plan" good moments.
Enemies will become known and recognized. It didnt matter in FTL that i knew what a rock cruiser enemy was because NO element of the fun hinged on me being unfamilar with EVERY particular of the rock cruiser because ive encountered it in every possible scenario. I know that thing like the back of my hand. If i got to know a monster that well it wouldn't be scary.
Horror is built with good planning. A roguelike would need to include good tension building and release while still being random, that seems super hard without becoming obviously patterned.
I think games can be super scary even though you know you can win. Horror movies shouldnt become scary until the last 5 minutes by that logic because i KNOW that the movie is at least 2 hours long so nothing happening at the 30 minute mark can possibly be a major issue. The protagonist has to survive at least that far. Same with books. I can SEE how long a book is. I know they will succeed and if they DO fail in a permanent manor it will be toward the end. These still manage to be scary.
Helplessness is scary. Im scared most by the super natural. By things i cannot rationalise and that are obviously FAR greater than me in EVERY aspect. I dont find serial killers in real life as scary as demons in movies. Because a serial killer is just a human like me and is capable of all the things im capable of. I know how strong they can be and how cunning and i have a chance to survive such an encounter. A demon is superior and esoteric on every level and totally beyond my understanding. Its why pyramid head was scary. He was a total unknown. I dont know how he operates or why he operates or what he will do next or how on earth i was supposed to outmatch him because hes infinitely more powerful than me. Games can achieve this effect ergo - scary for me.
Horror dosen't mean death, it means something that unworldly, or a thing that looking at it would drive the strongest man insane. Sure its scary to die, but what if something is there just toying with you? The unknown is what is scareist.
What about multiple endings? Sure, if you die, you can restart at the last checkpoint, but that doesn't mean it's all without consequences. Certain actions in the game may very well have lasting effects for later in the game, and may turn out horrifying if you've invested yourself with the character.
But you're right, video games can never have "true horror". And neither can movies or books or anything that isn't actually happening to you at that moment in real life. I'd say the immersion is so much higher though with video games that it works significantly better for horror. It doesn't progress until you move, and I can't tell you how many times I've just had to say "NOPE, DONE" when going through, say Silent Hill 2. Watch a movie, it's just happening to that cute girl or that douchebag or whatever. In a game, it's as close as can be to happening to you. So that's what makes it scarier.
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.
Movies can't do horror because your TV screen can't physically stab you to death. No amount of protagonist death or pain can actually harm the audience in any way, so there's nothing actually to be afraid of. Unlike a videogame, there's not even an avatar of you that you are trying to protect. It's just a bunch of actors pretending to be scared who will be there again just fine if you start the movie over again. The only real way horror can be done is someone actually stabs you in the fucking face.
*nods sagely*
All joking aside, arguments like this always have the basic fact that people have, in fact, been scared by games. It's, like, a thing that has actually happened. Theoretical discussion does nothing to nullify that.
I damn near pissed myself in F.E.A.R. Penumbra made me feel guilty and helpless for what I had done. Games have induced in me wide range of feelings that would fall under 'horror.' What is the counter argument to that?
"YOUR FEELINGS ARE WRONG. YOU ARE NOT SCARED. SHUT UP AND SIT IN THE CORNER."
I would actually say that video games do horror better, since it puts the life of the protagonist in your hands. You don't just watch people be on edge as they fight for their lives, you have to *be* on edge, or you'll never make it to the end of the bloody corridor. Video games have a very direct way of making you care whether or not a character lives, and furthermore of making sure your emotional state matches theirs. Suspense, too, I think is enhanced by interactivity. Watching someone go investigate the noise from around the dark corner is one thing, but it's another to know that you personally are going to have to deal with whatever is there. With a movie it could be cthulu around the corner and everything would be all sorted out by the time I came back from making another bag of popcorn. Yeah, character might be dead, might not be, but that was always going to happen and would happen again a dozen times if I re-watched it. Video games however don't just make you watch the protagonist get horribly mutilated; they make you personally responsible for the fact.
I'm scared of spiders. If (and this once actually happened), I woke up and had spiders literally crawling all over me, I'd be scared shitless, and I would say that would be horror to me. Will I die? No probably not (Depends on the spider), but I'd still be scared.
So no, I dont think a game cant do horror just cause it has an answer. Every horror portrayed in media has an answer, or at least most do. Silent Hill 2 was and still is one of the scariest games played, and there are always solutions. Maybe you just dont get drawn into the sotry and atmosphere, but thats what horror is. It draws you in and puts you in a position where you dont want to be and makes your heart race and blood run just a little bit colder.
Are you high OP? Of course video games can do horror, in fact, they can do it better than film based on the fact that you've actively involved instead of passively observing. It might be scary to watch the protagonist go down a hallway where the horror lies in wait, but it's twice as scary when you have to do it yourself.
Of course, video games are beatable, while some horror films end with the death of the protagonist. But good horror is more than just the ending, and if the hero is going to make it out alive or not. The Shining is a great horror film, but it's not the ending that makes it scary, it's watching the Jack Nicholson character slowly loose his mind.
Even if you know that it's possible to finish a game, and you can re-load a save if you fail, that doesn't invalidate the entire game. Eternal Darkness has some great horror moments mostly revolving around the insanity effects that never fail to send a chill up my spine. This is despite the fact that these segments are very short and don't tie in to the ending at all.
Honestly OP, if you think games can't do horror, it's painfully obvious you've never played a horror game.
thats taking for granted the horror genre is and always will be about over coming an obstacle.
this is simply silly.
horror has always been an attempt to create an experience that exposes the weakness in the human.
that weakness is so much more apparent when it flows unbroken from viewer to experience. video games are almost alone in making that flow unbroken, where the player character is often a direct surrogate for the player.
Well, how can any work of fiction be scary if its protagonist must overcome every obstacle they encounter in order to survive and carry the narrative to its conclusion?
Games give us a more transparent version of quantum immortality [http://www.cracked.com/article_20109_5-mind-blowing-academic-theories-as-taught-by-classic-movies_p2.html] that allows us to catch a glimpse of our character's grisly failures before reloading and trying again. It's a ubiquitous conceit of narrative fiction dealing with dangerous subject matter; that protagonists can survive seemingly overwhelming situations because it's a near-necessity for telling a cohesive story. Would 28 Days Later have been a better film if Cillian Murphy had died the second he left the hospital and the movie ended there?
True, movie characters don't have the option of replaying a section to get it right. But horror film protagonists do adapt to their surroundings. At least a little; it helps the audience suspend our disbelief as to how our everyperson main character has survived this far into the zombie apocalypse--or whatever. For real, how many horror movies give us no justification as to why the final survivor lasts as long as they do?
Kopikatsu said:
For a movie...the protagonist can simply be made to putz around for the duration, right up until their untimely demise (whether it's death or otherwise) and have not learned anything. They don't know what the nature of the monster is, or what it's capabilities are. Where it came from. Nothing. That can't fly in a video game.
James from Silent Hill 2, to use a more retro example. Despite what happens over the course of the game, James does not change. The James you control at the beginning of the game is not fundamentally different from the James you control at the end of the game.
The new knowledge that James is a guilt-wrapped delusional mess changes the way we perceived earlier chapters; the appearance of the monsters, the way Angela and Eddie treated him, the reason he was drawn to the town; everything, we now view in a new, distressing light. It all starts to make a horrible amount of sense as we realize why James has been taking this awful journey through his own psyche. And of course, how well James looks after Maria and himself affects their ultimate fate.
Kopikatsu said:
A protagonist in a movie or book can very well be killed, or succumb to madness, or become that which they have fought against. But a video game protagonist cannot.
The majority of Eternal Darkness's 12 playable characters go insane or die horribly or both. Silent Hill 2's plot is driven by James' delusions and neurosis. For that matter, how much of the Silent Hill series could potentially be taking place inside our characters' heads? The most recent Far Cry has Jason Brody grappling with madness; sure, the visions don't hamper his gameplay abilities, but how healthy is it living in a perpetual drug-fueled murder rampage? The brainwashed protagonist, and the players themselves, are manipulated into terrible things in Bioshock; to say nothing of Spec Ops: The Line...
Kopikatsu said:
Any attempt at trying to show the darkness within the human mind is doomed to fail for the same reason. The protagonist will not succumb to madness. They can't. That's what makes them the protagonist.
Spec Ops: The Line's protagonist, Captain Walker, starts the game as a ruggedly handsome, noble-minded US soldier. By the story's end he is a burned-out wreck of a man in a tattered uniform, screaming death threats at opponents. The atrocities we've seen throughout the game were Walker's fault; he turned a simple recon mission into an absolutely monstrous bloodbath, urging his ragged men on because he was desperate to feel like a hero. He spends the entire game justifying his actions as harsh but necessary, until the end reveals that the expected antagonist was inside himself this whole time. He--and by extension we the players--made everything worse with every action we took, slaughtering untold innocents and turning his men into blood-soaked self-loathing killers, all for less than nothing.
As was previously explained (This goes for everyone else who brings this up as well), it's not that failure is scary, it's that the protagonist is always stronger than the adversaries, whether it be through guile, strength, or what have you.
Running away, hiding in closets, crying like a little girl? Being incredibly lucky? Having helpful friends/canine companions? Knocking furniture over? Being guided along by forces beyond their comprehension? A hallmark of plenty of horror games is characters who survive through cowardice and sheer chance. You might be bypassing your monstrous enemies by running away from them, but you're still helpless; the power is in the monsters' hands. In those scenarios you're making a reflexive, reactive bid for survival that is entirely dictated by your opponents' actions.
If you hand a mugger your wallet and they let you live you haven't overcome your adversary with guile. And if you have to reincarnate 3 times to figure that out it doesn't make you stronger than him.
Kopikatsu said:
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.
If you're able to finish a game is there nothing you could see, hear, or experience along the way that would be horrific?
I mean, it's totally rad if you're stoic to the point where an irreversible final death is the only things that frightens you, but there are a lot of people out there who can be scared by atmosphere, disturbing images or sounds, the familiar becoming the unfamiliar, body horror, glimpses into the darker aspects of human nature or the human condition, loss of self, betrayal of trust, etcetera, etcetera...
Many of the scariest moments in my gaming history have come from Silent Hill 3, and none of them involved the protagonist being in direct physical danger. The spinning wheelchair wheel stopping as you approach it; finding the roasted dog and wondering what deranged person could have possibly prepared it; the screaming headless mannikin after endless rooms of deathly silence; your reflection in the mirror freezing as you continue running.. None of them were explained. Disturbing, distressing things that build a deep-rooted sense of dread and apprehension as your subconscious works against you, filling in the blanks with your own unvoiced fears...
Kopikatsu said:
Let me put it this way. What is it that makes a game scary, what turns it into horror? It's extremely easy to disturb a human. For example, you can force emotions through certain sounds, because they essentially trick the brain. Infrasound, for example, can even cause the human mind to hallucinate as well as cause anxiety, fear, and revulsion. I would argue that games were people feel are 'horror' simply fool people into thinking they are with techniques like Infrasound.
Well, yeah. That's what horror, as a genre of entertainment, is; using words or images or sounds to trick people's brains into feeling fear.
If you wanna move beyond simple scary tricks, go for the real deal like I do; when you play Condemned: Criminal Origins duct tape a live cobra to your controller.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
