"Perfect" Horror Game?

...

Combat also ties in to resource management, which will stress you out which enhances the horror and tension. You could attack the monster so your health will be fine, but now you have less ammo that you could have needed later, if you run you could end up damaged thus needing to use precious medical supplies, but have saved ammo for more serious encounters, risk reward. With combat you need to decide between fight or flight and you have to do it fast or you're fucking dead. Without combat the decision is already made for you, you run every time, which is mindless and boring, imagine if the solution to every puzzle in an Adventure game was the exact same thing.

Nothing is going to better than anything your own mind can conceive. If you could utilize a piece of technology that could throw you into a hyper realistic simulation of the darkest corners of your own psyche, then you'd have the ultimate horror game. Since that is not currently feasible, we're stuck with the monotonous tools of the trade; jump scares, attempts at creating tension, atmosphere, and incorporating literary elements into your designs.

In short, try to make a game that uses these principles well. Silent Hill is good not because it's actually scary, but because it manages to competently pull this off.

Well yeah but the question here is not "what if", but how to best utilize those tools.

Too many fucking words, god damn. I didn't know Bum Tickley was into RE.

isn't one of the problems of horror games is what makes people terrified is different from others?

The bigger problem is that too many of them don't want to risk scaring anyone away.

Am I the only one who thought RE4 was okay? It was a solid action thriller game that continually changed what it was throwing at you to keep you on your toes. It had solid monster closet design and good replayability.
It was a better game than 5

you're going to think me weird for saying this but a horror game objective should not be to terrify or even scare the player, that should be the side effect of what a horror game achieves

I liked RE4 once I accepted that it wasn't RE.
So is tic tac toe.

You want to convince the player that he's doing everything he can to survive, and then you want to introduce elements that will subvert this belief.
Horror is all about the setting and immediate circumstances. The presentation has to work in tandem with the design to facilitate a good experience.
Most of the horror games that are widely revered for being the pinnacle of the genre are very story heavy, but they tend to go on and on with their cut scenes and transitions and such. Maybe have semi-linear, segmented, open levels that have unique scenarios in them that the player can discover at his discretion. Something like a Banjo Kazooie map but without the primary "collect all the maguffins" objective. Exploration is a valuable tool and I don't think it's used as often as it could be.

Now, I know this all sounds very vague, but we're dealing with a game at the conceptual level to begin with. I'd show you examples from popular games, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head, and most games tend to only partially incorporate these aspects into their final designs.

is this your shit thread? if so, then I can tell you with perfect confidence that 095cc3 is not who (you) think they are.

Two things:
1. There is nothing scarier than being in an area where you know something dangerous is lurking, but you don't know what, or where.
2. Sound.

Combining these two is what makes a game like Subnautica, which isn't even a horror game, so scary. You're swimming through murky waters, unsure of where you're going, what you're looking for, or why there aren't any enemies in the area. Then you hear a roar.

Clock Tower: First Fear and the sequel Clock Tower are point and click games that nailed the feeling of being hunted better than most modern horror games. Put up against an antagonist who isn't just chasing you but toying with you. Its easy to spot how scripted most events are in First Fear after going through most of the endings first time around but the music and art style still make it stand out. While the switch from sprites to early ps1 polygons don't do much for the look everything else is improved in the sequel for the most part. Choices that matter, multiple story paths, really it captures the B-horror slasher perfectly; story of a group of people way in over their heads trying to figure out how to kill something immortal before they get all get picked off one by one.

My problem with horror is just that, it's not really scary and not fun to play pretty much, like it stops being scary pretty much when you get used to what your seeing. So what's the point in continuing?

Problem with that, is there certain laws that would allow a creator to go into the darkest areas we should be able to go.

The last game that actually got me with what was going on with either visual or sound, was pray when basically kids were killed horribly and become monsters, that actually caught me off guard and was pretty fucked.

Here's the thing, most modern "Horror" games are "Terror" games, oh you'll be scared by the big bad guy with a sack on his head till you escape him, then it becomes fucking reflex then you'll get some magic mcguffin or a bigger gun to just one-shot kill the faggot, there's little to no subtlety in the visuals or keeping up the suspense, I fucking blame RE4 and Amnesia for this bullshit.

games that you don't expect to be scary, bonus if they're an fps so you're not restricted to shitty gameplay like all horror games

sounds like you have something to prove

This user gets it.

F.E.A.R. was kind of spoopy. Also pretty decent graphics for 2005. (It had a couple good expansion packs, too.) The sequel was a good follow up. (Also had an expansion or two, IIRC.) The third one was pretty meh, but a decent enough capstone to the series.

Nothing is ever truly scary, though. You have to be invested in something for it to scare you; you have to have something to lose. What does an apathetic bunch of NEETs really have to lose? I honestly believe that the events of some of the already mentioned games could unfold IRL right in front of you, and you would hardly notice.

Want to know what a truly scary game would be? A Life Simulator where you spend weeks and weeks and months leveling up through grade school, high school, college, you land the good job, get a fly ride and a nice house, only to have your simulated wife run off with simulated Jamal and leave you living in a cardboard box behind the dumpster at the local Costco.

Here is an idea: The "Optional" Horror game.

Say you have a game where you're living in a house outside of town. You can do shit like hunt, farm, craft and all the other gay shit you'd do in a life sim. Lets say though, that you either had an attic the game TOLD you not to go into, or it says NEVER go into the woods at night. Now. If you never do the one thing you're hinted or outright told never to do, the game just goes on as usual. But if you DO trigger the trap/event, the game changes into mindfuck horror, (maybe just at night) and there is (almost) no way of getting back to normal. The compelling bit to this is you TECHNICALLY have a choice, but because of the way our minds work, everyone will HAVE to trigger the scary shit.

Resident Evil 5 is pretty fun if you think of it as an ethnic cleansing simulator

I still get spooked playing this game

I'm more bothered that the artist thinks RE4 took place in Mexico.

This is true, but I was more thinking traditional survival horror, which for all intents and purposes seems to be a dead genre at this point.

Hilarious user.

F.E.A.R. is dog shit, through and through.

Atmosphere, suspense and dread.

Jump scares should be limited and sparse. They're cheap and if your game relies on them mostly, it's shit.

Alien: Isolation and Friday The 13th: Game are good.

Yeah. Horror can be a genre of games that directly try to scare you but horror is also an aesthetic primarily lots of games to put on for varieties sake.

The biggest problem is they are all just totally predictable jump scare simulators, or boring run away from the totally predictable AI games.

I like RE4 but this is setting the bar kind of low. RE6 was better than 5.

The entire trick really is NOT to show players the spooky shit. Most monsters stay creepy for precisely as long as you actually have their first encounter with them and realize that they are just "Generic_Enemy_02" and will result in a game over screen with the ability to restart at the last checkpoint if you touch them.
If you, on the other hand, make sure that the player is not actually quite sure whether or not there is a monster stalking him, it is far easier to keep him on edge, because he has no pattern of behavior he could fall back on to.

You know what really would be interesting? A game in ye olde haunted mansion, but instead of spoopy skeletons or jump scares a la Ocean House from VtM:B, the only thing suggesting you're not alone in the house are relatively minor cues

Comparing RE5 to RE6 is like arguing which shade of diarrhea is the more pleasing one.

No the best thing is make levels randomly generated, and spooks being introduced only after an hour or two of gameplay, and then appear as rare as possible.
Also restrict save system to check points and punish player for dying by reshuffling the randomly generated levels and encounters.

And when the player realizes they're in no danger they blast through the game making fun of the absolutely harmless "spooky" noises

What you're saying is that Nethack is the best foundation for horror games since the possibility of instantly losing your character to some dumb shit no matter how powerful they are is infinitely more scary than any spook.

There already is one. No jumpscares no combat, just puzzles and amazing sound design that manage to make a point and click adventure game terrifying.

You need to mod it back to all niggers for maximum fun

I own the boxed game and you're wrong

Are you implying that this game has combat or that something can't be a horror game without combat? Either way your argument makes no sense.

a game can't be an effective horror game without combat because from the start the suspension of disbelief is shattered.

You are retarded

...

A game can make you feel helpless and scared through other ways, why would you think the only way to communicate the feeling of horror is through combat? So there are no such things as horror novels or movies?

I think I like it, as long as it's not all sound/music changes but rather creates a sense of dread somehow - you're not alone but there's no sign of anyone living in the place, no edible food, minor items change their places over time (for example, if you don't have enough space for a first aid kit in a bathroom but come back later, the kit will move somewhere else or still in the bathroom, maybe with a noticeable change like it's partially open suggesting someone used it already).

Which is why you start the shit subtle and slowly make it ever-more threatening until a skeleton pops out and you have to leave the mansion in a hurry.

You're right about the sound design, but some of the puzzles downright nonsensical, and the underlying trigger system (You saw something scary and want the game to progress? Go to bed, faggit) make no sense whatsoever.

The Last Visit from the Directors cut also killed the story by throwing the entire African curse plot out of the window.

I realized this the first time playing Amnesia. They did it so much it got hammy

absolutely, usually this is improved the greater your level of involvement, how close you are to being realized in that game world. Combat is one of the best ways to help achieve this as it provides a clear case of vulnerability.

So far you've made no case as to why its the "perfect horror game." Just that it eschews genre tradition. You have to explain what is filling the void after it subtracts those traditions.

...

Scratches has the ability to invoke a feeling of dread.
as far as I can recall, and it's been a minute.
There are certain moments where you are like "oh goddamn I gotta go in there to solve this puzzle, but shit I really don't want to go in there."
I think you're on the right path, but don't forget that a game that utilizes your mind instead of your reflexes is just as involving. But I 100% get the point you are coming fro

clunky combat doesn't really mean anything to me. Silent Hill 2 had effective combat situations because of how weak James felt. He had long, hefty swings and wasn't particularly good at dispatching enemies, and combat became a very cautious, intense exercise because you have to put so much investment into every swing because the wrong move could leave you open enough to put you in a situation that you won't be getting out of in good shape or at all.

The problem with the "good combat" meme is it means entirely different things on a case by case basis. SH2 has slow, plodding combat with attacks that have a high cost potential which is what makes it good. It can also be described as clunky because it's not action game combat.

I know, I'd argue that dread is a different feeling than horror. Dread is an anticipatory feeling, horror is a reactionary one. Scratches may handle dread well, but I think that puts it in a different class because it doesn't really attempt the horror part of things.

Often times combat that was solely made to make you feel helpless and vulnerable comes off as tedious and annoying. I love the Silent Hill series but once the scare factor goes away the games combat becomes just frustrating. Scratches involves and invests the player in its world through great use of writing with terrifying imagery and great sound design. When something is described to you or you hear something but don't see it, your imagination goes crazy, something unknown to me is far more scary than any Silent Hill enemy I can think of. Scratches likes to play psychological tricks on you and let your imagination work against you to get its scares, just like any good horror novel.

combat isn't the only way silent hill works. It has moments of confusing, droning level design that it exploits to great effect. I could use almost the entirety of your post to describe silent hill 2 and be just as correct.

Something that always struck me as unfortunate for horror games is that they (obviously) become less scary on replays, because then you know what to expect and how to get past things effectively, or even cheese it. Good atmosphere may get you in the right mood, but even that is bound to wear off. How would you make a horror game which remains scary and unpredictable on future playthroughs?

One obvious factor is to largely rely on RNG for enemy and item placement, which leads me to believe that roguelikes would make for very good horror games.

On the topic of jumpscares, I'd like to see a slow scare: an ugly but mostly harmless creature slowly crawling into player's view.

Interesting idea. I've thought about a new game+ mindfuck horror game. Say the attic (or basement) is locked and you only get a clue how to get there during the ending cutscenes.

didn't that doki doki game try to do this? I didn't really play the game so I dnnno

Yeah but a properly designed horror set piece can be far scarier than anything you can procedurally generate, and while its effectiveness might diminish over subsequent playthroughs it might not necessarily drop to 0.

The ideal horror game is one that slowly but surely ratchets up the tension, makes you helpless, and doesn't rely solely on jump scares.

The essence of great horror video games is that the horror is either of the "within" sort as opposed to fighting hordes of monsters that are exterior to a character and no matter how numerous can theoretically be overcome (whereas "horror within" is much harder and more abstract).

So this would be basically the entire Silent Hill series where horror is the manifestation of a character's struggle with their past and of games that followed like TEW series.

Then, the other sort, that still works really well is the 'exterior horror'-type if you follow my dichotomy, but that doesn't emphasize struggle with a single entity rather emphasizes global horror. Resident Evil 2 is a really good example of this (whereas RE 1 was confined to a single mansion and RE 3 was all about one big boss, Nemesis, following RE 4 completely went the Hollywood route).

Silent Hill 2, to me, is simply put the best game ever made in the horror genre, possibly the best game ever made period. If someone did not have a grasp of the concept of nostalgia and the sorrow that accompanies it then playing through that game would teach them, I believe.

the Silent Hill series can't be the best horror games created, as the resident evil games play better. The horror aspects of the Silent Hill games are good, but if we are talking from a game play perspective the classic RE games are the best of the genere they created. The only thing that comes close gameplay wise and isnt made by capcom is probably something like Blue Stinger.

I feel that the SH2 "inner demons" thing has been done to death though.

Oh yeah, I mean that's the thing, you've got the original vision (Silent Hill 1, where the concept originated, Silent Hill 2, where it was mastered, and arguably 3, a variation on that concept, with 4 being an interesting attempt to innovate) and the rest… That's how it always is.

No one cares for the copies, video games or otherwise.

I personally don't care much for any of the Silent Hill games outside of SH 1 - 4… I don't think TEW are very good games, they have highlight moments where you can kind of see glimpses of a much greater game (but essentially a current age Silent Hill 2), but mostly they just feel like weird patchworks and uncoordinated ideas and regurgitated stuff.

...

...

I'll try doing my best 'millennial gamer' impression here :

That's it. That's pretty much every gamer born around the millennium.

What about a game where the monsters are unique, everything is randomly made, the levels you have to get through are progressionally generated and when you die, you spawn in the exact same spot and the monster that killed you is nearby somewhere.

Are you implying that RE6 WAS a good horror game? I pirated and played that thing with my friend earlier this year, it's simultaneously less frightening than re-Veronica and below, and less fun than RE-5 to coop.

I still think the most interesting RE was Outbreak. I wish they'd make another. (Or at least rerelease Outbreak with less awful netcode. The community project's servers are broken as fuck)

In Forbidden Sirens 2, there was a blind character and you had to rely on his AI-driven guide dog to provide sight for him (by using 'Sightjack' to look through NPCs and enemies' eyes to pinpoint where they are and what they are looking at.) That was a interesting approach, and it made me wonder if there's other methods with 'helpless' characters.
For example, you could have a game with multiple characters - one of them is deaf. If you play as him, you get a soundless game - making it a challenge to avoid enemies you couldn't hear. I've thought that perhaps you could use Vibration feature on controllers to judge the distance of enemy.
Multiple characters games works better for the scenario I described as I can't imagine players enjoying playing a game without sounds if it's a single character only.

One thing I should mention is that I'm not sure if it's possible for a horror game to be spooky without sounds. If anything, it sounds more likely that you'll be startled/annoyed with the 'jumpscares' (though that wouldn't be a issue as you'll be on alert from Vibration on controllers regardless).
Can a horror game still be a horror without audio? I get the impression that it's necessary and completes the full package, making it a "proper" horror game. If you remove audio, does it lose its impact? Does losing audio makes it seem as it'll be filled with jumpscares out of nowhere?

I suppose it's also correct to say that the aim of a good horror game isn't to scare, because anyone who's ever played or watched one horror game / movie won't really get scared. It's about being unsettled.

Fear was repetitive and unoriginal what with it's joun girl shit. i can only assume this is bait because you even included the sequals

Silent Hill 2 is one of the greatest games ever made.
Atmospherically it cant be topped, its really amazing what they were able to do with limited hardware and how nothing else since, in my opinion has ever come close to the level of somberness, isolation, and hopelessness that a little fog and an excellent soundtrack can produce.

Maybe I am biased because Jacob's Ladder is one of my all time favorite movies, but this game is seriously way too good.

Having combat is fine, having gore is fine, hell, having no puzzles is fine. Jumpscares aren't though. Don't let game design memes influence your vision. However art direction is the most important aspect of all horror games.

Here's my vision.

It certainly sounds interesting and has never been tried before.

I have a feeling that SH1-3 excelled in environmental atmosphere and some random scenarios, but everything else was disappointing. The puzzles were bad, the story and lore were shit, the level design was boring, the combat was bad, and most of the enemy design wasn't unsettling enough in my opinion. SH games always bore me to death.

Also, Jacob's Ladder was shit tbh. The best horror film imo is either The Beyond or The House by the Cemetery.

System Shock 2 is the best horror game ever made. Objective fact, no point in contesting it.

Not really scary or unsettling and not even a good game. Non supernatural theme is very rarely scary tbh.

Play Silent Hill 3 for the horror and Silent Hill 2 for the masterful storytelling.

d'awwww, look at you, being born after 2000! cute!

Combat. Always have combat be an option, just make it clear that it's okay to flee or run past enemies, and make combat something costly or difficult even for skilled players.
As few as possible. Maybe put a non-threatening one in a place the player considers a safe zone, just to keep him on edge next time he sits down to buy upgrades or whatever.
Some. Guts are disgusting, not scary. Unless you're doing some body horror where the intestines are actually tentacles trying to pull you into the mouth of some unseen creature. Subverting expectations is always good. You can also use gore as a warning of sorts, or to make the player anticipate a monster that may or may not be there.

Another thing is toying with the players imaginations. That's one reason why sound design is so important, and why low-detail graphics can still scare the shit out of people. Letting the player fill in the blanks about what he's seeing, or letting him imagine what's making those awful noises is sure to creep him out. After all, he knows what he's scared of better than you do.

Fatal Frame

The more I think of it the more I see combat in horror games as an obstacle that hinders you from exploration. Maybe you have to explore a given room for a puzzle, but if there's a monster there you have to fight it, so you'd want to choose to run past the one in the hallway and keep your ammo for the one in the room.

But it brings failure into the equation.
If you're not threatened, a creepy feeling can only last so long until you decide the game is not going to hurt you and you sprint through everything carelessly.
That said, exploration IS good to break the pace of combat. A room that's too silent, or too noisy, will unsettle players.
You don't want combat to be like an obstacle in a marathon, you want it to break into the player's "safe zone" and keep them on edge, not letting them relax even when the situation is calmed down. Even better when you make it so carelessness brings a high chance of failure.

No, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean that in a negative context, I mean that hindering exploration is a legit form of obstacle in a survival horror game.

It's OK if it hinders exploration in some ways. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of leaving things up to the imagination, well what if you have an opportunity to uncover the games' stories secrets? But you're being threatened. You can learn some but not everything, and some things not at all. The threat of combat, or death makes it all the more terrifying to explore.

You could make it so taking your time and being aware of your surroundings makes you finish fights with little to no expenditure of resources.
That way it's not really an obstacle, rather a slowdown that could end terribly wrong.
Again, keep the player on their toes.

But then, I feel like we are missing something here. Shouldn't we start to consider what makes a novel scary, before we tackle videogames? It feels like we're building a castle with no foundation.

...

Are Outlast and Amnesia good examples of horror?

Combat should be avoidable, but not by fleeing past enemies, but rather by puzzle solving. The puzzles should be related to the lore of the enemies itself. For example in Alone in the Dark, there are 10 zombies in a dining room that could be avoided by putting a pot of human meat on the table, or the winged demons that can be avoided by putting mirrors in front of them. Every enemy should also have a secret weakness that's also tied to the lore. The player should figure out this lore through reading the game's manuscript and/or environmental clues.

Regarding puzzles in horror games, they shouldn't be the only way for the player to progress, but rather a very rewarding mechanic for a very difficult game. Such as opening shortcuts and giving access to powerful tools. The player should be optionally allowed to brute through the game, with the consequence of dying a lot or losing a very significant amount of resource.

Amnesia is.
Outlast isn't.
People hate on both because of cheap jumpscares, but at least the first one was interesting and with a good writing.

No, F.E.A.R is a great game but barely scary, the sequels are anal sewage aside from Extraction Point which is where the franchise died.
Go play Underhell now and shut your fucking mouth.

Yes it is, it's unsettling as all hell from the Nurses to the Many and even the Brain Boss maniacal laugh.
Objectively wrong, barely any games like it at the time and it was executed it really well despite some flaws from an outdated engine and an undercut budget.
See, this is why I miss Deep Sea threads when this board wasn't overflowing with cuckchan, then retards like you would keep their mouth shut.

These aren't scary because they're only life threatening experiences. You'd have to be actually there to actually feel your life being threatened, for a video game player it would just feel like a nuisance. Such horror does not extend beyond the screen.
Supernatural is different. It is omnipresent by it's nature, and thus not limited by it's medium. It's something that plays with our emotional perception more than logic. Therefore, it is objectively scarier and emotionally more relateable than the science fiction.

I sincerely hope you're baiting right now.

No, you don't really get a choice.

F-FUCK YOU

So has anyone played Monstrum? Is it any good? I find the premise interesting but I don't wanna waste my time if it's shit and/or dull.

Details?
Like are you saying we can't make a horror game about a churchboy trying to not get molested by a priests? Or avoiding being attacked by a school shooter or terrorists as a weaponless civilian?

I do this, but whenever I do a heavy workout, I take a nice hot shower first and then switch the water temperature to ice cold to keep my body from overheating and sweating.

F.E.A.R. and the expansions definitely have some freaky scenes. Sequels are dogshit, though. Only reason why you should play F.E.A.R. 2 is for the rape scenes, but other than that, there aren't any redeemable qualities in either of them.

Dead Space, it's great gameplay, it's got a great design and graphics. Yeah, it doesn't switch up the enemy encounters, so the scaries dull out, but I just consider it fun, solid and serious. I don't like 2, it was gay, issacs girlfriend was gay and the repeal of issac as a silent protagonist was gay as were his lines, the only thing better about it was the graphics and that dead guy that smeared his shit all over his cell, and 3 was never made as far as i'm concerned.

I'm much more of a macho water man than you, putito. I bet you don't even drink boiling water on a cup just for the heck of it.

Same question to you for falling for it and furthering the shittening of the thread, sissy gayboy.

What's the appeal of being scared by yourself? I understand having fun getting spooked with friends or family because it can be pretty funny, but what do you get out of it solo?

EW2 was actually good though and had some great atmosphere in some locations

You don't deserve those digits

We can't all be right

Sound design is definitely key, it can make things more disconcerting if it's sporadic when it picks up and doesn't always signal something is about to happen. There has to be a way to fail or die otherwise it's just not going to put me the slightest bit on edge if I know I'm just in some Halloween spook house.

Cold showers are the best way to start the day.

...

Also, funny enough, I just recently played through SH1 and SH3 again, they only had 1 jumpscare each (the body in the locker in SH1 and the hanging suicide body in SH3)

I think it's acceptable when it's that rare. It's memorable and not just a blur of retarded pranks.

evil within 2 became really shit after that faggot with the purple suit died. the game even took you back in that medieval setting where everywhere you go, youll shit textures.

the hanging corpses segment from the first area tho was goddamn beautiful. all in all,tew2 suffers from the problem of the 1st game where it doesnt know whether its a psychological horror, or an action driven one

"Classic RE" picks Jill from Resident Dino 3 a game where you find tons of ammo and can make your own ammo, only way you can run out of ammo is if you play on hard and fight Nemesis every time for gun parts.

Well, very often limitations in art are a source of inspiration/creativity.

The same way there's something special about alternative rock or hip hop from the 1990's (especially the latter which relied heavily on samplers that strictly speaking are technologically inferior to today's, considering their limited memory and low fidelity) that can't be quite re-captured today even when people go to extremes to re-use the exact same equipment, the same is true of classic 1990's games like Silent Hill.

There's also a definitive Lynchian quality to the Silent Hill games that I enjoy a lot (Twin Peaks).

It's not really spooky, but Gregory Horror Show had a fun little survival horror game. It's nice you you enjoyed the show and comic.

What's your deal bud?

There's a huge breach between the classic Resident Evil's - by which is meant RE1, RE2 and RE3 only - and RE4.

The producers of the series basically completely sold out - this is not a matter of opinion, but it's on record - and basically said :

Let's dumb shit down, sprinkle some Hollywood on that bitch and make it a Schwarzenegger action type thing with a Hollywood-worthy homosexual villain that will meet mainstream middle America sensibilities, to say nothing of intellectual capacities.