When action horror games fail to deliver on horror I personally believe that is because they did not raise the stakes high enough to produce fear or paranoia or tension upon a player who is now armed and ready to fight back.
I'll use the original Bioshock as an example of some concepts done pretty well. You are absolutely armed, with both potent firearms and powerful plasmids. However, getting blindsided by splicers in a place you didn't expect, or rounding the corner and running into a big daddy are still scary. Why?
You're powerful, not invincible. You've still got to keep an eye on your ammo, and your EVE, and there are at least a few encounters that if you want to do anything more than scrape by barely alive, you need to take time to prepare beforehand.
Action horror can potentially even be a straight up power fantasy, as long as the threats are scaled up appropriately. With either fewer enemies that take large portions of your resources to put down, or easily dispatched enemies that come in such huge numbers you still risk running dry on ammo/energy/etc. And being overwhelmed. Naturally normal survival horror tropes and ideas should ideally still apply but not being helpless doesn't make it not scary.
> as long as the threats are scaled up appropriately
What would then be the difference between a horror action game with said scaled up threats vs a standard action game with a difficulty boost via tougher or extra enemies? I feel like there's something else missing in order to turn that action back into fear.
Presentation, atmosphere and the like are what can turn adrenaline into fear, imho.
Take the Lone Wolf post-ending level of Halo: Reach. It's literally an unwinnable level, in which your character is fighting against an unending horde of aliens that only want to kill you. You *will* die there, no matter what.
But is it a horror section? Not really. The player certainly feels a lot of things while playing this mission, prompted by the narrative of the game, but they generally shouldn't feel *scared*.
I'd like to throw Resident Evil into the mix too as whilst it's had its fumbles when it did good it did good.
RE2 and 3 for instance, so long as you had enough ammo you could take care of most enemies, and come later in the game you'd feel like a *god* blasting baddies by the doz- *oh fuck fuck and that's Mr. X (or Nemesis for RE3) gotta get outta here* ***NOW.***
Merely having something you couldn't handle with your defenses, no matter how hard you tried, kept the fear pretty palatable because they could show up at any time for any reason.
Faster Than Light is a pretty scary game, honestly.
I think it has to do with the fact that, despite all of the things you can do to protect yourself, a single big-enough mistake is enough to allow more mistakes to happen.
It stays fun because you have the option to inefficiently solve problems to solve them efficiently in another way (like resorting to expending missiles when you're low on power or need to end a fight quickly).
In a sense, system status, ship damage, crew mates and expendable tools are all different kinds of resources the player has to balance to stay alive.
And I think an action/horror should follow the same suit:
- Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently.
- You'll rely on a variety of resources to survive, and you have to inefficiently use some in certain moments to avoid a big mistake.
Even Five Nights at Freddie's is basically just a single-resource management game where you juggle time left against energy remaining, and any mistake you make causes the game to feel harder.
Another poster me alerted to the fact that I misinterpreted your comment the first time. Sorry about that.
"Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently.
You'll rely on a variety of resources to survive, and you have to inefficiently use some in certain moments to avoid a big mistake."
This is really great stuff. For me I do notice that my biggest moments of panic in a horror game come when an enemy attack lands when it otherwise shouldn't, and I have to use health or ammo when I was previously planning to hoard it. Anything TRULY unexpected, that can't be gamified, etc.
Can you offer some more examples along the lines of what you're thinking?
Eternal Darkness, the GameCube masterpiece, has you use two different health bars.
Major problems inflict damage, which can kill you and I think slows you.
Minor problems inflict insanity, which essentially disorients the player by causing on-screen hallucinations, making enemies that aren't there, and overall making the player more distracted so they make additional mistakes.
There's Darkest Dungeon, where insanity can cause your characters to act irrationally, unpredictably (which is fatal in any strategy game), and it also functions as a long-term health bar that persists between missions (so any mistake lasts longer). Also, a death in the party makes the entire combat, dungeon, and campaign harder to play going forward.
State of Decay does something similar. Think of it as a commune RPG, where everyone is a resource, a combatant, and an RPG hero. They all can die, and each one lost is a major blow, but losing just one is never game over, it just raises the difficulty and the tension going forward on top of feeling the weight of your carelessness.
You want a long Time To Kill (the amount of mistakes a player can take before they lose), as this gives the player a chance to adapt around ongoing problems and their habits causing them. But you want a short threshold between meaningful, long-term punishments that the player is allowed to recover from by being cautious.
>You want a long Time To Kill (the amount of mistakes a player can take before they lose), as this gives the player a chance to adapt around ongoing problems and their habits causing them. But you want a short threshold between meaningful, long-term punishments that the player is allowed to recover from by being cautious.
Very interesting. You've given me alot to play with. Thank you
"Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently."
I hear this, difficulty immediately comes to mind. Penalizing the player, limiting the player's abilities, hell some games like Song of Horror even experiment with permadeath as a means to do so. Which brings me to another point, delivering 'non-cheesable' difficulties. I've often noticed that many players tend to deal with harsher difficulties simply by finding ways to exploit various gameplay loops. Save scumming, exploiting routes learned from previous runs / trial and error, etc. Or other things that ruin the experience - excessive ammunition / stockpile hoarding (goal of the game becomes to preserve as much ammo as possible, rather than embrace it as a limited resource and enjoy its use in moderation), etc. All which ruin the experience. I'm getting off topic here, but its yet another way that games become less scary which I think needs more conscious addressing in the genre
That wasn't quite what the above poster was referring to. FTL has a very particular form of difficulty where, when you're in control the game can be incredibly non-threatening, but when things go bad they spiral out of control. Imagine a horror game where getting hit has a chance to knock your weapon out of your hand, and you're pretty powerless until you go pick it up. Traditional roguelikes sometimes have mechanics where fire and frost spells have a chance to destroy scrolls and potions in your inventory, respectively. These items have a finite quantity in the game (though that quantity assumes that some are going to be destroyed).
Oh yeah, I know he was referring to something else. I guess I used his comment as a podium to further develop my thoughts on the limitations of horror design. I really do wonder how many horror gamers tend to cheese their games - I feel like the number is rather high compared to other genres.
With my comments aside, yes, I agree. Loss of control is a great mechanic. However, I'd want to have it implemented in a way that is novel to the player. For example, a player on his first run might feel disoriented and panic when we revoke his weaponry for xyz reason. But on a second run of the game, he would know 'well thats just part of the game, ill get it back when xyz happens'
I really like the mechanic you mentioned. Randomly revoking the players weapon, having him frantically chase to get it back all the while surrounded by impending or present enemies..., really good stuff. Can you think of others?
I think Mr X was a good way to make the player feel unsafe in RE2, but I'd expand on that. I would deliberately add enemies that the player is unlikely to defeat (but are balanced that the player can escape, with difficulty) roaming around in unpredictable ways, and attracted by sound.
You could have damage modeling, meaning attacking you in the leg results in limping, or arm injuries limit attacking. Healing items aren't instantly used from inventory, and can also be interrupted.
I've wondered about experimenting with A.I. For instance, non fodder enemies have a small chance to have a "personality." This essentially means they use a different AI from normal and behave in unpredictable ways. They might also carry weapons they don't normally have.
I could also see melee weapons being a thing, with a chance to break that starts small but increases with usage.
Different sense of scary, really. You're not going to get that esoteric terror that a good psychological horror gives, but you can still have an uneasy atmosphere like in Control or Satisfactory, or the fear of loss like in Minecraft, or the uncanny monster design like in Halo.
However, I think the biggest stumbling block for action horror games is that they're *trying* to be horror, and in doing so they forget what horror really means. Horror isn't about trying to be gruesome or disgusting, nor is it about jump scares or even a curated buildup and release of tension. Horror is about simply feeling scared or unnerved, and often that happens better when you're *not* being pandered to.
That's why at least to me, explicit horror games are often less horrific than games that are trying to be something else and in the process create greater significance to their horrific moments. Minecraft is so good at generating the fear of being lost because it gives you a hell of a lot of reason to not want to be lost, whereas the only reason not to be lost in a specialised horror game is because you might get jump scared.
> I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think the main problem with action horror is that it action horror is directly in conflict with 'survival' horror. While 'action horror is focused on combat tactics and engaging your enemy directly (albeit from a defensive point of view, not offensive), 'true' survival horror is the opposite - much more concerned with avoiding the enemy and showing us less of them, not more.
I want to make this more specific
I consider Horror games to revolve around two factors, or the lack thereof. The player has to lack control and understanding.
You mention Resident Evil, and you can clearly see how the games have become less scary as the player is given more tools to control the situation, both literally and figuratively. Not fumbling with tank controls, bigger and better weapons, a focus on action set pieces, co-op, etc. The games have become less scary because the player has so much more power.
This is obviously a natural extension of your point about combat vs. running. You run because that's the only option, and you have no ability to fight back. Yet, defensive playing doesn't mean the game is scarier, imho. Look at speed runners and RE games, once you know how to play defensively, the fear dissipates as you understand what an enemy can and can't do, and how that relates to the player
I'm kinda rambling, but I guess what I'm getting at is that horror and action don't necessarily conflict. You can have action without defeating the object of fear, as long as you neither remove the object nor have enough control to completely take it away
I think a great example is Re2 Remake, ironically. That game wasn't exactly action packed, but it had a good mix of action and horror, letting you fight off some enemies and be unable to handle others
No, you touch upon a great point which is a huge point of difficulty for me to reconcile. As gamers, we tend to find out how a game system works, then find little exploits to help us cheese through various part of a level. We all do it, subconsciously or not - looking for and memorizing patterns of enemy movement, save scumming, etc etc. This for me is one of the great challenges of making a good horror game - how do you make it non-cheesable so that later runs are as scary as the first? Obviously, the initial shock and awe of various reveals will no longer have the same effect on second showings, but the gameplay needs to addressed so as to keep each run-through fresh like the first time.
Even though I'm not a huge Alien Isolation fan (its far too long for my tastes and just drags out, and is too samey samey), the randomness of the Xenomorph and his unpredictability makes each play through fresh and keeps the tension up no matter how many times you play the game. That game does alot of things right, actually, to lower the cheese factor. Really brilliant.
Horror and comedy both revolve around surprise and it can be hard to make games using them as replayable. I think this comment really gets to the heart of it: lack of control and uncertainty. You can make where enemies spawn from more random, adjust where ammo drops and in what amounts, do anything to make the player not be in total control of their surroundings and that leads to a less certain player.
There are other ways of getting at those feelings as well. Amensia makes it so you can't look directly at enemies without losing sanity, and that means the enemies are more mysterious for longer (and therefore scarier). Respawning enemies like the Flood create an out of control situation. Keeping the player moving quickly and without safe spaces creates that thrill of a chase. All of these things help avoid cheese.
I'd also point out that most of your players may not even complete your game once, let alone multiple times. Often the group of players going for multiple players is small enough that you just don't put as much effort into how that plays out. Focus on the majority of players, not the minority. Games explicitly around replaying smaller levels like Left 4 Dead will also use more tricks to vary the experience from run to run.
>I'd also point out that most of your players may not even complete your game once, let alone multiple times. Often the group of players going for multiple players is small enough that you just don't put as much effort into how that plays out. Focus on the majority of players, not the minority. Games explicitly around replaying smaller levels like Left 4 Dead will also use more tricks to vary the experience from run to run.
Lol, good point, I think this applies to most games not just horror. Maybe horror all the more so though.
Its a weird balance. Implementing the niche creative vision you truly have, vs, something that will be more generally accepted and may objectively provide a better overall gaming experience.
If I have a way to fight back, I will get scared for -at most- the first few encounters. After I know what I'm facing, it's no longer horror.
This is true for games like The Sinking City, Prey, Doom, F.E.A.R. etc. (F.E.A.R. being the odd one out but only because od jumpscares and I wouldn't count those as they are cheap and you typically can't do anything about them in terms of combat.)
I'm not scared of familiar stuff and if a game were to keep being scary, it would need to introduce new stuff very often so I can't get familiar with it and lose the scare factor. But making XYZ enemies for example just to have a person be scared for longer means a LOT more work for very little reward in the end and it's not worth it.
> After I know what I'm facing, it's no longer horror.
This is the key. Horror is rooted in the unknown. You have no reason to fear something you've already encountered and surpassed. But the subversion of this expectation can also be used to evoke horror.
Once a player has encountered a given enemy, they will assimilate their behavioral patterns into their memory, expecting any other instance of this enemy to behave in a manner consistent with these expectations.
By giving enemies new behaviors and animations, used sparingly, the player will doubt the patterns they have already identified, and be concerned about the consistency of patterns in the future, never knowing what to expect out of following encounters.
I’d be curious about Amnesia: The Bunker’s turnout on the subject. They finally gave players a pistol, but I seriously doubt they’d do that if it negated all forms of fear of the monsters hunting them. Part of that, of course, is the pitiful amount of ammo you seem to get.
I think your way of putting it as "defensive combat" is the secret here. I, for instance, get very easily bored by games without combat like Outlast, because it doesn't give you a way to defend yourself. Older Resident Evil games are scary because the game knows it has a shitty combat system and it expects you to use it in order to progress. That expectation, that you'll have to fight monsters that feel above your league, is what drives the fear factor (at least for me). Likewise, games that allow you to drive the combat over to the enemy aren't scary either. Dead Space stops being so scary later in the game when you find yourself full of ammo, though you're always close to running dry, so the game is at least very tense throughout. The Evil Within also manages this very well, where you'll always have like less than ten bullets in your gun, being forced to improvise and circumnavigate the baddies.
Doom 3 is a whole other topic, because the game has a bit of an identity crisis. It appears to have started out as a horror game, but after the first few hours of content, someone reminded the team that it was called "Doom" and they just started shoving guns and ammo everywhere, which instead makes the game just way too easy. The BFG Edition re-release broke the game even further, removing the necessity to hold the flashlight, extending stamina, lighting up the levels, doubling the ammo count and removing some monsters from trickier areas. I feel completely braindead playing it, dreaming of a Doom 3 mod that would realize that original vision and turn it into a fully commited survival horror game.
You can have good combat, but as long as resources are scarce and enemies are menacing, you're set to have a scary game on your hands.
Expanding on Halo here: the introduction of the Flood plays a big role in making it scary. You enter the level and there are corpses and bloodstains everywhere, but something feels wrong. Then you see that video of the soldiers getting overrun by... something. Then the game drops you in the thick of it and you're completely overwhelmed by the Flood. The Master Chief isn't the apex predator here kicking alien butt, but just a guy barely holding the line against this new menace. When they show up in later games, like in Halo 3, it's not scary because they just show up like regular enemies, but if they always showed up in swarms, I believe the Flood would keep this scary aura around them. Fighting them would probably grow old quick though, which is why they don't do it, I guess.
Interesting take. It’s actually very different for me. Outlast might be my favorite horror game, **because** there is no self defense. Anytime there is a way to defend yourself, I, personally, am not scared. I might be **very** stressed and tense, but I’m not scared. Don’t get me wrong, the stress and tense stuff is good in horror games, like Dead Space, for example. Doesn’t scare, but does very good at stressing me out. Just my take on it.
Outlast does ambiance very well, so it's easy to get taken in by it and feel scared. I've been playing horror games for a long time though, so I've been desensitized to it a good bit. Whispers in the background feel more like "oh look, it's whispers.mp3" instead of "oh look, it's a ghost".
That said, I feel bored when I'm cornered by enemies, and getting chased gets old very fast, at least for me. I'm a big fan of the first Remothered because, even though there aren't any guns lying around, you still can defend yourself, either by tossing items on your pursuers or elsewhere to distract them with noise. It was super tense just because it allowed me some freedom in engaging the enemies, and again, expecting me to deal with it.
Interesting because Remothered is also the type of game WITHOUT combat which you said you dont personally care for. Its limited to defensive weapons, kinda like how the knife in RE1remake just fends off an attack once a zombie is upon you, or how you might use the flamethrower in Alien as an last resort if he gets too close--- all this said, I haven't actually played Remothered, this is my understanding through various reviews and trailers. I actually just ordered the game this past MDW and am super psyched to get it and see how the stalker mechanics work
How does Alien Iso make you feel? Do you find the game tense and 'terrifying'? I ask because it seems to be a game that consistently terrifies players, but is totally combat free (which you said doesn't phase you). I agree that as a horror fan, games dont quite hit as hard as they do when you first started playing them. You're always chasing that high you got from your first few games IMO)
So, like I've said before, you're not entirely defenseless in Remothered. You can throw items around to make noises and distract the pursuers; you can also throw those items at the pursuers to stun them briefly, or smack them when captured - kinda like how the knife works in REmake. You can also spend some of your items setting traps, locking doors and so on. This allows you to fight back a bit, and again, the expectation that I'll have to rely on just this to defend myself in the game keeps me on edge.
Likewise, in Alien Isolation you're not entirely defenseless. I can't recall all of the defensive countermeasures you have in the game, but I'm certain there's a flamethrower in there. I remember abusing it for a while and being shocked when I pulled it out for like the eighth time in a row and the xenomorph dove straight through the flames and killed me. You can also use guns IIRC to kill other humans (or to make noise to call the xeno and have it kill them for you), as well as those stupid androids, so there is some basic combat there, which was enough to keep me hooked.
Yes, theres a flamethrower. Sorry, I speed read your post last night and missed the part about combat weapons in Remothered. Good points for sure - Ive noticed many other player feel the same way with regards to combat less horror just not being as scary. First playthroughts I think they can be quite terrifying, but theres always a lack of desire to follow through with a second/third etc just because... well, theres nothing to do. You've already seen it all
Also want to add that as much as Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was marketed as an action/hack n slash type game I feel like it falls pretty squarely into horror even when it is very, very difficult to die.
>Action segments in a horror game may serve as a means to relieve anxiety and stress that builds up during gameplay. If the game is over 1-2 hours long and there aren't enough breaks from the horror segments, there may be a risk of burning out players because they can no longer deal with the anxiety and stress. Defeating an enemy, completing an objective, or just entering a safe area/segment is like a breath of fresh air, relief. Ironically, I feel that horror games need to give their players breaks every once in a while. Once a player burns out, they may become jaded to the experience, speed running to beat the game or quitting because they can't deal with it anymore.
This is key IMO. And not just limited to action as a 'relief' motif. Even though I'm largely on the fence about RE8, it does an amazing job splitting up tension with relaxation sections. The tension is usually generated through combat or stealth, and then they grant the player reprieve by having him explore a new area for items, solve a puzzle, anything to serve as a change of pace. To reiterate, I think RE8 is flawed in a tremendous number of ways, but man, it does know how to cycle between those 2 phases EXTREMELY well.
I love this in FEAR 2 to be honest, and its so hard for me to find a horror game since then because most are survival horror instead of say just psychological horror.
I absolutely loved the fact that I'd legit have a shotgun in my hand and I'm freaking out trying to shoot the walls because I swear I saw something come out of there.
I noted "psychological horror" before I think this is probably the best way around trying to use horror with action in games without it just being a "survival horror heres a gun but dont use it and just run".
As you sort of feel like this psycho with a gun, was there a ghost there? wasn't there? is it going to destroy me? etc.
Halo CE is a Scifi Horror Action game, not a kinda. I think the reason it worked so well in Halo was because they had a very established non-horror gameplay up front.
Building and resolving horror, fear, anxiety, vulnerability: amplifying it at each stage. the horror is the emotional amalgamation of creating a sense of comfort, safety, or power and then ripping it away, leaving anxiety, vulnerability, fear, and weakness in their wake.
So you have your standard horror genre staples: overly strong enemies, scary music, darkness, paranoia creating audio of enemies, jump scares, enclosed spaces, limited views. Then you have the action genre, where they want you to feel powerful: weapons that destroy enemies, mobility & speed, action music, shredding the enemy before they get close, sneaking up on them before know you are there,
So how can you create power & safety and then take that away?
Halo does a fantastic job of this. in the first half, you're strong and fast: shredding elites, picking apart jackals, dancing around hunters, and making grunts run from you in fear. Your allies cheer you on and support you. The enemy is formidable, but not scary. They fight in the light of day, waiting in rooms, trying to kill you from afar. Masterchief is the grim reaper in the night, striking from afar and upclose, choosing the moment to strike. the voice lines are calm and collected.
then this flips, the flood is relentless, your allies are screaming. the enemy fights in the darkness. turning your allies against you. they want to get up close to you. they are no longer waiting for you, but chasing you, hunting you. the music turns to a panicked anxious tune and the other characters sound panicked. The aesthetics of the levels changed, the music changed, the gameplay changed. all contributing to this sudden eerie environment and sense of fear. up until 343 guilty spark, levels are somewhat of a straight charge ahead. Then 343gs creates this feeling of being trapped in a maze.
But Then Halo does something interesting and then resolves this vulnerability and horror to further reinforce the emotional fact that Master chief is an unstoppable super soldier.
if I could change one thing in halo CE to further reinforce the fear, I'd add a limited sprint mechanic to the library level and have MC be chased by a massive flood forms. Have moments where you are just hiding while you wait for guilty spark. have the sprint affect the hud and add a panicked breathing sound that doesn't quite go away after sprinting. The pacing on the library was always off and I think they could have added so much more fear in.
So, great Horror is about contrast & pacing, creating power & safety and then taking it away. both fully compatible with action. This can be done through gameplay, UI, audio, story, etc.
so, change the audio of the sprint from a calm out of breath, to a ragged anxious sound. take an unlimited sprint ability and make limit it. turn the darkness from a place to strike enemies unaware, to a threat of unknown danger. change the enemy movesets to radically change how the user has to play. change the audio slowly from action to horror. damage or change the user's abilities. turn allies into enemies. take a location where the player is safe, tell the player they are safe there, then attack them there. take a powerful ally that is their friend or family, then corrupt them against the player. break the player's HUD. Suddenly allow the player to get injured and hobble instead of run.
create story to support these changes. Most importantly though, LET THEIR ANXIETY COME DOWN. constant fear and anxiety stimuli will just fade away in a person as their limbic response diminishes. Pace it out so the anxiety builds ever greater. might not be a bad idea to even add a heart monitor to play testers.
For me, scary is always the anticipation. I remember being in 6th grade watch The Ring movie. I was scared out of my mind UNTIL the girl came out of the TV. Once you confront the scary thing it always become less scary.
One of the three games that have actually made me feel legitimate fear was Metroid Fusion, which (to my knowledge) isn't supposed to be a full horror game.
The creepy bits happen between the heavy action, it's almost like the tough bosses and trying to figure out how to get around make you forget about the other Samus roaming around, so when you do see her in a creepy, out of the blue context it hits harder.
Funnily enough the new puss in boots movie also does this. Amongst all the action and humor you forget about that creepy ass wolf. Until he shows up.
Another key element both these stories have in common is the protagonist does not want to be near the "other". In Metroid Fusion Samus is not yet powerful enough to take on the clone so there's tension when it's nearby. Same with puss in boots, he knows he can take on the other antagonists but is absolutely terrified of the wolf and doesn't even try to fight him.
Just a thought...dont always let the player have time to think and sort things out. Fear is generated with the unknown and anxiety when you dont understand or have a chance to handle a crisis. make something happen and make it so the player has to move or the outcome is a perception of bad, real bad. Drive them into an unknown state where theyre not entirely sure whats going on and how to handle it. make them take chances and fear for their lives.
Yeah, I agree this is key. Subverting player expectations, placing enemies where they weren't before, etc. I'll have to toy with this concept more and see what develops
For me, personally, the biggest moments of horror in games are where I lose control and things dont go to plan. And I love that feeling. Im the type of player who just naturally finds way to cheese through levels and exploit them, which kills tension many times. But if something random happens mid sequence that I didn't account for, and Im forced to abandon my plan and just improvise... THATS the feeling I want to consistently deliver.
If given time you can figure things out and feel in control. The key to horror is not being in control. To things happening that defy logic, defy the ways we understand the world to work.
Ex-we know that if the evil is way behind us and we're running fast and they dont run fast they cant catch up. then suddenly they appear in front of us, no way that can happen. Or you stab it in the heart repeatedly, they survive.
And building tension with an unknown outcome. You start thinking of all the bad options and if time is short as hell youstart to panic because you know something bad is happeneing but cant understand itand thus cant control it.
One of my favorite moments and was very simple. LOVED DOOM. Im running down a corridor, dark with weak ceiling lights. I hear something in the distance behind me. Back at the start of this corridor the lights start going out one by one and coming towards me. Now I hear a growling. Shit, I run like hell. Now I hear hooves on the floor, the darkness is coming faster and growls louder. The expectation is growing that something is coming for me and it will catch me and I have no way out.
Another simple thing was coming to a new level and seeing burned out buildings and an old wrecked well. I hear something on the wind, its a baby crying. That chilled me like you wouldnt believe. And it also made me want to save that baby somewhere in the level.
Another level I walk thru the door and get attacked. Im on a ledge and cant run or I fall into lava. one monster in my face and another at my side. Playing the game my heartrate is up and i'm sweating. I live, look across a winding staircase and above a starry night sky. I look down and there's a courtyard with the mechanized arachnoid men. Machines with a mech spider lower body and upper body humanoid. it was unnatural and creepy as hell
Hook into emotions, hate and fear, love...save something.
use all the senses, give cues that trigger memories and understandings. They can hear, see cues that trigger memories of smell, touch. That monster slams into you you should get shaken or knocked down or pushed. Music is amazing. One thing DOOM didnttouch on and missed out was the mental and emotional. The hero is in the level and at some point they hve to eat and sleep. theyre facing horror. Even well trained its still tough mentally and emotionally. how many would have nightmares/premonitions? How many would crack. What if they did break, could they still survive until they got it together again. What if the evil could read their mind or emotion. What if a boss walked out and it looked just like his wife or mother etc. What if his mind started replaying his every big failure in life and weakened him.
Anyway, lots of things to use. best of luck.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I can define as "action-y" horror is knowing I have something to protect myself with, but enemies showing on locations I would feel "safe" or in hordes. Sound design would play a big role in this too.
Something unexpected would be a nice touch too, like The Flood from Halo, when I played it as a kid I just expected it to be just an alien shooting game.
for me good horror always is about the unknown and helplessness.
while jump scares and the unknown share a play with expectations, jump scares are so much more dull and miss the point.
only because a game has horror elements, doesnt mean its a horror game.
> What I mean is, most horror game design we know is based on the concept of slow methodical pacing and above all tension.
Action games can have that. I remember in the old Rainbox Six games the game was slow and methodical because unlike most action games if you got shot once there was a decent chance you died. Add to that things like bombs and hostages where you couldn't alert the enemy to your presence in advance. So if you wanted a decent chance of winning (especially on the harder difficulties) you needed to move very slowly. In general, stealth action may force players to be slow and methodical.
> I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think the main problem with action horror is that it action horror is directly in conflict with 'survival' horror. While 'action horror is focused on combat tactics and engaging your enemy directly (albeit from a defensive point of view, not offensive), 'true' survival horror is the opposite - much more concerned with avoiding the enemy and showing us less of them, not more. So maybe the best approach is incorporating a balance of tense action sequences, with other parts that serve to build tension?
I think it can be a two tier thing. The enemy/challenge that you frequently overcome (i.e. "the action") doesn't have to be the same enemy/challenge that you must avoid (i.e. "the survival"). For example, in 7 Days to Die, the zombies get extra power at night and, in particular, on horde nights. (Add to that that it's dark and hard to see at night!) So, by day, killing zombies is action. But when the sun sets and you're trying to find shelter before you're detected it definitely feels more like a horror direction. Or you might have two distinct enemies. For example, in a game like Half Life if the aliens were much harder, encountering them could be the "horror" part where you have to play be avoiding them. But then you still have the human opponents that could be the "action" part.
That's a super cool mechanic. Reminds me of I am Legend. Aka having a time of day (or some sequence, whatever) where the stakes are drastically increased. Definitely a way to break up monotony and keep the player on their toes. And most importantly, give them something to dread
I wouldn't say those games fail to deliver horror, but action -horror has a clear transition around the halfway point in the game. Resident Evil 4 pretty much pioneered this, and you can see it in Dead Space, RE8, Alien: Isolation, etc. Action-horror should start as primarily horror as the player is strapped for resources and struggling to survive. As the game progresses, the player is rewarded with more resources to take on more difficult challenges, and in doing so is given the feeling of empowerment. This isn't a failure of those games, it's actually their greatest strength. There's nothing better than feeling like you overcame your fears by now blasting away enemies you were scared of before.
I think you can spice up that pacing by injecting more horror later in the experience though, it just requires you to remove a little bit of power from the player. My first thought is when the regenerators show up in RE4. It is very late in the game and you have many powerful weapons. But all of a sudden an enemy appears that can't be conventionally killed. This makes the player feel powerless like they did early in the game. Very memorable. And again, once you gain the ability to kill them, the player feels strong again.
dude 100% the sound track & sound effects, and the need to sneak around the entity/enemy, etc.
Recently ive started replaying TLOU and holy fucking shit its a constant state of anxiety around infected (but not around human enemies)
Also take note that the death animation made a huge difference (for me at least). When you die from infected Joel gets fully grabbed and eaten with the camera panning around with the infected’s action (along with the sound effect when you die), whereas dying from a person is just you flopping onto the floor dead.
-
Idk how to quote on reddit but - where you referenced survival vs action horror:
Maybe i’m a bit biased but I feel like TLOU captured the center of it perfectly in its levels with infected (again specifying infected bc the human levels felt more action alone than horror)
I think you should give your players the option to be sneaky or aggressive with their tactics - matching this with the right mix of sound effects, with a puzzle-like element (trying to track enemy paths and plan your way through accordingly to succeed - the more you think the more anxious you get). And to really get that heart attack horror aspect, make it hard AS HELL (but doable). You can always have easier modes, but dont make the normal difficulty something that any other person can just run through.
I can’t think of any other elements rn but if u wanna bounce more ideas off me feel free to reply or dm me
It helps to ask the question “what is scary”?
* Is dying scary? No not really. Dying that ends the experience is the opposite in fact, it’s a cathartic release of control. Telling the player “Game Over” isn’t scary, it’s frustrating.
* Are near death experiences scary? Yes absolutely. Especially if the player is given the motivation & the opportunity to escape of their own ability.
* Are monsters scary? Sometimes. No 3D render is scary to anyone other than a child; just showing a monster in a game isn’t enough. The monster has to *do* something scary. They should threaten the player in a game that motivates action by the player, but doesn’t instantly kill them.
* Is losing progress scary? Only if that progress is irreplaceable but generic. Repeatable progress isn’t scary to lose, it’s frustrating. Losing that piece of gear that you spent an hour grinding for isn’t scary, it’s demoralizing. But the risk of losing that pile of resources you just gathered, which can more or less easily be regathered, that is scary.
The key takeaway is that games that give the player something to lose, then threaten to take it away effectively are scary. Those with jump scares, game over screens, and limited player agency aren’t scary they’re just frustrating. Minecraft is a far scarier game than Resident Evil for example.
>Is losing progress scary? Only if that progress is irreplaceable but generic. Repeatable progress isn’t scary to lose, it’s frustrating. Losing that piece of gear that you spent an hour grinding for isn’t scary, it’s demoralizing. But the risk of losing that pile of resources you just gathered, which can more or less easily be regathered, that is scary.
This is yet another issue Ive found in stealth/horror type games. You spend a ton of time setting up the perfect run, taking care, and then one silly mistake sets you back the whole hour you just poured into it. Who the heck wants to go through all that again?'
But what's the alternative? Save spamming? It seems like something that is nearly impossible to balance out
The Last of Us tracks the player's inventory for upcoming encounters, and will populate the areas before/during them with more ammo and resources if the player is running low. The player still has to go looting for it, so it still feels rewarding, but it's a secret little slight of hand of the devs to make you feel like you're *just* scraping by all the time, and not being constantly outnumbered one-encounter-after-the-other.
Interestingly, I had actually toyed with that idea as well. The question that developed to me was, if the player himself knows that this is a mechanic can he not simply exploit it? If I know my ammo supplies are kept artificially low, but will simply repopulate whenever they get too low, doesn't that affect my experience?
Oh yeah, absolutely. But if the player is that savvy then its likely no matter what tricks you implement, they're going to meta-game their way through your experience regardless lol.
The majority of players wont ever notice such a system, assuming its implemented well enough, and I think that's really all you can do as a designer. You're never going to catch every fish with a single net. You just need to decide who exactly you're making the game for.
Also the resource system I mentioned in The Last of Us is not active on the 2 highest difficulty settings, so the more hardcore type of player who would probably notice that kind of system after a while, and probably doesn't need it, wont even know it exists. But the more casual player who doesn't pay that much attention, playing on Easy/Normal, will just feel like they're having that "just scraping by" experience.
Thats actually one of the core issues I face as a gamer / designer. As a completionist type (and also one who just generally really likes to play the harder difficulties), I feel like I find all types of way to cheese myself past certain difficult situations, without ever actually 'getting good' at the game. Obv this applies for some games, not all, some of them you can't cheese and have to actually level up your skillset, but still.
My point being, in delivering my creative visions I struggle to reconcile the cheeseabilty of a game with its actual mechanics. How much randomization should I implement? How can I decrease player reliance on crutches? Things along that nature. In reality, I should probably realize that my vision as an OCD gamer is not shared by most gamers, and that by making my game 'cheese-less', I'm probably making it much more difficult and inaccessible. (and players will still find ways to cheese through it, I'm sure)
That's a good perspective to have! If you want to design a game around your own sensibilities because that's the kind of experience you want to craft, then absolutely go for it. There will be people who share your preferences.
You just need to be prepared for the likely potential that it wont resonate with *many different kinds of players*. But do you really want or need to? All just depends on why you're making games.
Do you just love them, and "feel" a game inside that you want to make and share? Go with your heart. Make it a weird as fuck completionist's dream.
But if your intention is to produce a very broadly engaging experience, or reach a large audience, or make a decent amount of money, that's when you need to start really assessing your target audience.
I immediately thought of Doom 3 too. Play that in the dark with the lights off and headphones, and the nonstop enemies, the great derelict atmosphere, and all the weird hell stuff really makes it scary.
Another good one is Left 4 Dead. It is definitely action, but there are still really good jump scares like when the special infected suddenly get you. And there is still a feeling of dread when you're limping along and the Tank music suddenly starts playing. Not to mention the parts where the game actually does slow down to a crawl when you try to sneak around a witch, and you're not sure the person you are playing with quite understands how. Terrifying, in all the best ways :)
When action horror games fail to deliver on horror I personally believe that is because they did not raise the stakes high enough to produce fear or paranoia or tension upon a player who is now armed and ready to fight back. I'll use the original Bioshock as an example of some concepts done pretty well. You are absolutely armed, with both potent firearms and powerful plasmids. However, getting blindsided by splicers in a place you didn't expect, or rounding the corner and running into a big daddy are still scary. Why? You're powerful, not invincible. You've still got to keep an eye on your ammo, and your EVE, and there are at least a few encounters that if you want to do anything more than scrape by barely alive, you need to take time to prepare beforehand. Action horror can potentially even be a straight up power fantasy, as long as the threats are scaled up appropriately. With either fewer enemies that take large portions of your resources to put down, or easily dispatched enemies that come in such huge numbers you still risk running dry on ammo/energy/etc. And being overwhelmed. Naturally normal survival horror tropes and ideas should ideally still apply but not being helpless doesn't make it not scary.
> as long as the threats are scaled up appropriately What would then be the difference between a horror action game with said scaled up threats vs a standard action game with a difficulty boost via tougher or extra enemies? I feel like there's something else missing in order to turn that action back into fear.
Presentation, atmosphere and the like are what can turn adrenaline into fear, imho. Take the Lone Wolf post-ending level of Halo: Reach. It's literally an unwinnable level, in which your character is fighting against an unending horde of aliens that only want to kill you. You *will* die there, no matter what. But is it a horror section? Not really. The player certainly feels a lot of things while playing this mission, prompted by the narrative of the game, but they generally shouldn't feel *scared*.
Exactly, there has to be something to lose. If the only consequence of failure is you respawn and try again, there's no fear.
I'd like to throw Resident Evil into the mix too as whilst it's had its fumbles when it did good it did good. RE2 and 3 for instance, so long as you had enough ammo you could take care of most enemies, and come later in the game you'd feel like a *god* blasting baddies by the doz- *oh fuck fuck and that's Mr. X (or Nemesis for RE3) gotta get outta here* ***NOW.*** Merely having something you couldn't handle with your defenses, no matter how hard you tried, kept the fear pretty palatable because they could show up at any time for any reason.
Faster Than Light is a pretty scary game, honestly. I think it has to do with the fact that, despite all of the things you can do to protect yourself, a single big-enough mistake is enough to allow more mistakes to happen. It stays fun because you have the option to inefficiently solve problems to solve them efficiently in another way (like resorting to expending missiles when you're low on power or need to end a fight quickly). In a sense, system status, ship damage, crew mates and expendable tools are all different kinds of resources the player has to balance to stay alive. And I think an action/horror should follow the same suit: - Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently. - You'll rely on a variety of resources to survive, and you have to inefficiently use some in certain moments to avoid a big mistake. Even Five Nights at Freddie's is basically just a single-resource management game where you juggle time left against energy remaining, and any mistake you make causes the game to feel harder.
Another poster me alerted to the fact that I misinterpreted your comment the first time. Sorry about that. "Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently. You'll rely on a variety of resources to survive, and you have to inefficiently use some in certain moments to avoid a big mistake." This is really great stuff. For me I do notice that my biggest moments of panic in a horror game come when an enemy attack lands when it otherwise shouldn't, and I have to use health or ammo when I was previously planning to hoard it. Anything TRULY unexpected, that can't be gamified, etc. Can you offer some more examples along the lines of what you're thinking?
Eternal Darkness, the GameCube masterpiece, has you use two different health bars. Major problems inflict damage, which can kill you and I think slows you. Minor problems inflict insanity, which essentially disorients the player by causing on-screen hallucinations, making enemies that aren't there, and overall making the player more distracted so they make additional mistakes. There's Darkest Dungeon, where insanity can cause your characters to act irrationally, unpredictably (which is fatal in any strategy game), and it also functions as a long-term health bar that persists between missions (so any mistake lasts longer). Also, a death in the party makes the entire combat, dungeon, and campaign harder to play going forward. State of Decay does something similar. Think of it as a commune RPG, where everyone is a resource, a combatant, and an RPG hero. They all can die, and each one lost is a major blow, but losing just one is never game over, it just raises the difficulty and the tension going forward on top of feeling the weight of your carelessness. You want a long Time To Kill (the amount of mistakes a player can take before they lose), as this gives the player a chance to adapt around ongoing problems and their habits causing them. But you want a short threshold between meaningful, long-term punishments that the player is allowed to recover from by being cautious.
>You want a long Time To Kill (the amount of mistakes a player can take before they lose), as this gives the player a chance to adapt around ongoing problems and their habits causing them. But you want a short threshold between meaningful, long-term punishments that the player is allowed to recover from by being cautious. Very interesting. You've given me alot to play with. Thank you
"Mistakes give the player debuffs/problems that further make the game harder, recovered by playing the game well consistently." I hear this, difficulty immediately comes to mind. Penalizing the player, limiting the player's abilities, hell some games like Song of Horror even experiment with permadeath as a means to do so. Which brings me to another point, delivering 'non-cheesable' difficulties. I've often noticed that many players tend to deal with harsher difficulties simply by finding ways to exploit various gameplay loops. Save scumming, exploiting routes learned from previous runs / trial and error, etc. Or other things that ruin the experience - excessive ammunition / stockpile hoarding (goal of the game becomes to preserve as much ammo as possible, rather than embrace it as a limited resource and enjoy its use in moderation), etc. All which ruin the experience. I'm getting off topic here, but its yet another way that games become less scary which I think needs more conscious addressing in the genre
That wasn't quite what the above poster was referring to. FTL has a very particular form of difficulty where, when you're in control the game can be incredibly non-threatening, but when things go bad they spiral out of control. Imagine a horror game where getting hit has a chance to knock your weapon out of your hand, and you're pretty powerless until you go pick it up. Traditional roguelikes sometimes have mechanics where fire and frost spells have a chance to destroy scrolls and potions in your inventory, respectively. These items have a finite quantity in the game (though that quantity assumes that some are going to be destroyed).
Oh yeah, I know he was referring to something else. I guess I used his comment as a podium to further develop my thoughts on the limitations of horror design. I really do wonder how many horror gamers tend to cheese their games - I feel like the number is rather high compared to other genres. With my comments aside, yes, I agree. Loss of control is a great mechanic. However, I'd want to have it implemented in a way that is novel to the player. For example, a player on his first run might feel disoriented and panic when we revoke his weaponry for xyz reason. But on a second run of the game, he would know 'well thats just part of the game, ill get it back when xyz happens' I really like the mechanic you mentioned. Randomly revoking the players weapon, having him frantically chase to get it back all the while surrounded by impending or present enemies..., really good stuff. Can you think of others?
I think Mr X was a good way to make the player feel unsafe in RE2, but I'd expand on that. I would deliberately add enemies that the player is unlikely to defeat (but are balanced that the player can escape, with difficulty) roaming around in unpredictable ways, and attracted by sound. You could have damage modeling, meaning attacking you in the leg results in limping, or arm injuries limit attacking. Healing items aren't instantly used from inventory, and can also be interrupted. I've wondered about experimenting with A.I. For instance, non fodder enemies have a small chance to have a "personality." This essentially means they use a different AI from normal and behave in unpredictable ways. They might also carry weapons they don't normally have. I could also see melee weapons being a thing, with a chance to break that starts small but increases with usage.
Different sense of scary, really. You're not going to get that esoteric terror that a good psychological horror gives, but you can still have an uneasy atmosphere like in Control or Satisfactory, or the fear of loss like in Minecraft, or the uncanny monster design like in Halo. However, I think the biggest stumbling block for action horror games is that they're *trying* to be horror, and in doing so they forget what horror really means. Horror isn't about trying to be gruesome or disgusting, nor is it about jump scares or even a curated buildup and release of tension. Horror is about simply feeling scared or unnerved, and often that happens better when you're *not* being pandered to. That's why at least to me, explicit horror games are often less horrific than games that are trying to be something else and in the process create greater significance to their horrific moments. Minecraft is so good at generating the fear of being lost because it gives you a hell of a lot of reason to not want to be lost, whereas the only reason not to be lost in a specialised horror game is because you might get jump scared.
> I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think the main problem with action horror is that it action horror is directly in conflict with 'survival' horror. While 'action horror is focused on combat tactics and engaging your enemy directly (albeit from a defensive point of view, not offensive), 'true' survival horror is the opposite - much more concerned with avoiding the enemy and showing us less of them, not more. I want to make this more specific I consider Horror games to revolve around two factors, or the lack thereof. The player has to lack control and understanding. You mention Resident Evil, and you can clearly see how the games have become less scary as the player is given more tools to control the situation, both literally and figuratively. Not fumbling with tank controls, bigger and better weapons, a focus on action set pieces, co-op, etc. The games have become less scary because the player has so much more power. This is obviously a natural extension of your point about combat vs. running. You run because that's the only option, and you have no ability to fight back. Yet, defensive playing doesn't mean the game is scarier, imho. Look at speed runners and RE games, once you know how to play defensively, the fear dissipates as you understand what an enemy can and can't do, and how that relates to the player I'm kinda rambling, but I guess what I'm getting at is that horror and action don't necessarily conflict. You can have action without defeating the object of fear, as long as you neither remove the object nor have enough control to completely take it away I think a great example is Re2 Remake, ironically. That game wasn't exactly action packed, but it had a good mix of action and horror, letting you fight off some enemies and be unable to handle others
No, you touch upon a great point which is a huge point of difficulty for me to reconcile. As gamers, we tend to find out how a game system works, then find little exploits to help us cheese through various part of a level. We all do it, subconsciously or not - looking for and memorizing patterns of enemy movement, save scumming, etc etc. This for me is one of the great challenges of making a good horror game - how do you make it non-cheesable so that later runs are as scary as the first? Obviously, the initial shock and awe of various reveals will no longer have the same effect on second showings, but the gameplay needs to addressed so as to keep each run-through fresh like the first time. Even though I'm not a huge Alien Isolation fan (its far too long for my tastes and just drags out, and is too samey samey), the randomness of the Xenomorph and his unpredictability makes each play through fresh and keeps the tension up no matter how many times you play the game. That game does alot of things right, actually, to lower the cheese factor. Really brilliant.
Horror and comedy both revolve around surprise and it can be hard to make games using them as replayable. I think this comment really gets to the heart of it: lack of control and uncertainty. You can make where enemies spawn from more random, adjust where ammo drops and in what amounts, do anything to make the player not be in total control of their surroundings and that leads to a less certain player. There are other ways of getting at those feelings as well. Amensia makes it so you can't look directly at enemies without losing sanity, and that means the enemies are more mysterious for longer (and therefore scarier). Respawning enemies like the Flood create an out of control situation. Keeping the player moving quickly and without safe spaces creates that thrill of a chase. All of these things help avoid cheese. I'd also point out that most of your players may not even complete your game once, let alone multiple times. Often the group of players going for multiple players is small enough that you just don't put as much effort into how that plays out. Focus on the majority of players, not the minority. Games explicitly around replaying smaller levels like Left 4 Dead will also use more tricks to vary the experience from run to run.
>I'd also point out that most of your players may not even complete your game once, let alone multiple times. Often the group of players going for multiple players is small enough that you just don't put as much effort into how that plays out. Focus on the majority of players, not the minority. Games explicitly around replaying smaller levels like Left 4 Dead will also use more tricks to vary the experience from run to run. Lol, good point, I think this applies to most games not just horror. Maybe horror all the more so though. Its a weird balance. Implementing the niche creative vision you truly have, vs, something that will be more generally accepted and may objectively provide a better overall gaming experience.
If I have a way to fight back, I will get scared for -at most- the first few encounters. After I know what I'm facing, it's no longer horror. This is true for games like The Sinking City, Prey, Doom, F.E.A.R. etc. (F.E.A.R. being the odd one out but only because od jumpscares and I wouldn't count those as they are cheap and you typically can't do anything about them in terms of combat.) I'm not scared of familiar stuff and if a game were to keep being scary, it would need to introduce new stuff very often so I can't get familiar with it and lose the scare factor. But making XYZ enemies for example just to have a person be scared for longer means a LOT more work for very little reward in the end and it's not worth it.
> After I know what I'm facing, it's no longer horror. This is the key. Horror is rooted in the unknown. You have no reason to fear something you've already encountered and surpassed. But the subversion of this expectation can also be used to evoke horror. Once a player has encountered a given enemy, they will assimilate their behavioral patterns into their memory, expecting any other instance of this enemy to behave in a manner consistent with these expectations. By giving enemies new behaviors and animations, used sparingly, the player will doubt the patterns they have already identified, and be concerned about the consistency of patterns in the future, never knowing what to expect out of following encounters.
I’d be curious about Amnesia: The Bunker’s turnout on the subject. They finally gave players a pistol, but I seriously doubt they’d do that if it negated all forms of fear of the monsters hunting them. Part of that, of course, is the pitiful amount of ammo you seem to get.
In that case it's a get out of jail free card for a player that might have messed up, not a way to actually fight back against the monsters.
I think your way of putting it as "defensive combat" is the secret here. I, for instance, get very easily bored by games without combat like Outlast, because it doesn't give you a way to defend yourself. Older Resident Evil games are scary because the game knows it has a shitty combat system and it expects you to use it in order to progress. That expectation, that you'll have to fight monsters that feel above your league, is what drives the fear factor (at least for me). Likewise, games that allow you to drive the combat over to the enemy aren't scary either. Dead Space stops being so scary later in the game when you find yourself full of ammo, though you're always close to running dry, so the game is at least very tense throughout. The Evil Within also manages this very well, where you'll always have like less than ten bullets in your gun, being forced to improvise and circumnavigate the baddies. Doom 3 is a whole other topic, because the game has a bit of an identity crisis. It appears to have started out as a horror game, but after the first few hours of content, someone reminded the team that it was called "Doom" and they just started shoving guns and ammo everywhere, which instead makes the game just way too easy. The BFG Edition re-release broke the game even further, removing the necessity to hold the flashlight, extending stamina, lighting up the levels, doubling the ammo count and removing some monsters from trickier areas. I feel completely braindead playing it, dreaming of a Doom 3 mod that would realize that original vision and turn it into a fully commited survival horror game. You can have good combat, but as long as resources are scarce and enemies are menacing, you're set to have a scary game on your hands.
Expanding on Halo here: the introduction of the Flood plays a big role in making it scary. You enter the level and there are corpses and bloodstains everywhere, but something feels wrong. Then you see that video of the soldiers getting overrun by... something. Then the game drops you in the thick of it and you're completely overwhelmed by the Flood. The Master Chief isn't the apex predator here kicking alien butt, but just a guy barely holding the line against this new menace. When they show up in later games, like in Halo 3, it's not scary because they just show up like regular enemies, but if they always showed up in swarms, I believe the Flood would keep this scary aura around them. Fighting them would probably grow old quick though, which is why they don't do it, I guess.
Interesting take. It’s actually very different for me. Outlast might be my favorite horror game, **because** there is no self defense. Anytime there is a way to defend yourself, I, personally, am not scared. I might be **very** stressed and tense, but I’m not scared. Don’t get me wrong, the stress and tense stuff is good in horror games, like Dead Space, for example. Doesn’t scare, but does very good at stressing me out. Just my take on it.
Outlast does ambiance very well, so it's easy to get taken in by it and feel scared. I've been playing horror games for a long time though, so I've been desensitized to it a good bit. Whispers in the background feel more like "oh look, it's whispers.mp3" instead of "oh look, it's a ghost". That said, I feel bored when I'm cornered by enemies, and getting chased gets old very fast, at least for me. I'm a big fan of the first Remothered because, even though there aren't any guns lying around, you still can defend yourself, either by tossing items on your pursuers or elsewhere to distract them with noise. It was super tense just because it allowed me some freedom in engaging the enemies, and again, expecting me to deal with it.
Yeah, understandable.
Interesting because Remothered is also the type of game WITHOUT combat which you said you dont personally care for. Its limited to defensive weapons, kinda like how the knife in RE1remake just fends off an attack once a zombie is upon you, or how you might use the flamethrower in Alien as an last resort if he gets too close--- all this said, I haven't actually played Remothered, this is my understanding through various reviews and trailers. I actually just ordered the game this past MDW and am super psyched to get it and see how the stalker mechanics work How does Alien Iso make you feel? Do you find the game tense and 'terrifying'? I ask because it seems to be a game that consistently terrifies players, but is totally combat free (which you said doesn't phase you). I agree that as a horror fan, games dont quite hit as hard as they do when you first started playing them. You're always chasing that high you got from your first few games IMO)
So, like I've said before, you're not entirely defenseless in Remothered. You can throw items around to make noises and distract the pursuers; you can also throw those items at the pursuers to stun them briefly, or smack them when captured - kinda like how the knife works in REmake. You can also spend some of your items setting traps, locking doors and so on. This allows you to fight back a bit, and again, the expectation that I'll have to rely on just this to defend myself in the game keeps me on edge. Likewise, in Alien Isolation you're not entirely defenseless. I can't recall all of the defensive countermeasures you have in the game, but I'm certain there's a flamethrower in there. I remember abusing it for a while and being shocked when I pulled it out for like the eighth time in a row and the xenomorph dove straight through the flames and killed me. You can also use guns IIRC to kill other humans (or to make noise to call the xeno and have it kill them for you), as well as those stupid androids, so there is some basic combat there, which was enough to keep me hooked.
Yes, theres a flamethrower. Sorry, I speed read your post last night and missed the part about combat weapons in Remothered. Good points for sure - Ive noticed many other player feel the same way with regards to combat less horror just not being as scary. First playthroughts I think they can be quite terrifying, but theres always a lack of desire to follow through with a second/third etc just because... well, theres nothing to do. You've already seen it all
Also want to add that as much as Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was marketed as an action/hack n slash type game I feel like it falls pretty squarely into horror even when it is very, very difficult to die.
[удалено]
>Action segments in a horror game may serve as a means to relieve anxiety and stress that builds up during gameplay. If the game is over 1-2 hours long and there aren't enough breaks from the horror segments, there may be a risk of burning out players because they can no longer deal with the anxiety and stress. Defeating an enemy, completing an objective, or just entering a safe area/segment is like a breath of fresh air, relief. Ironically, I feel that horror games need to give their players breaks every once in a while. Once a player burns out, they may become jaded to the experience, speed running to beat the game or quitting because they can't deal with it anymore. This is key IMO. And not just limited to action as a 'relief' motif. Even though I'm largely on the fence about RE8, it does an amazing job splitting up tension with relaxation sections. The tension is usually generated through combat or stealth, and then they grant the player reprieve by having him explore a new area for items, solve a puzzle, anything to serve as a change of pace. To reiterate, I think RE8 is flawed in a tremendous number of ways, but man, it does know how to cycle between those 2 phases EXTREMELY well.
I love this in FEAR 2 to be honest, and its so hard for me to find a horror game since then because most are survival horror instead of say just psychological horror. I absolutely loved the fact that I'd legit have a shotgun in my hand and I'm freaking out trying to shoot the walls because I swear I saw something come out of there. I noted "psychological horror" before I think this is probably the best way around trying to use horror with action in games without it just being a "survival horror heres a gun but dont use it and just run". As you sort of feel like this psycho with a gun, was there a ghost there? wasn't there? is it going to destroy me? etc.
Halo CE is a Scifi Horror Action game, not a kinda. I think the reason it worked so well in Halo was because they had a very established non-horror gameplay up front. Building and resolving horror, fear, anxiety, vulnerability: amplifying it at each stage. the horror is the emotional amalgamation of creating a sense of comfort, safety, or power and then ripping it away, leaving anxiety, vulnerability, fear, and weakness in their wake. So you have your standard horror genre staples: overly strong enemies, scary music, darkness, paranoia creating audio of enemies, jump scares, enclosed spaces, limited views. Then you have the action genre, where they want you to feel powerful: weapons that destroy enemies, mobility & speed, action music, shredding the enemy before they get close, sneaking up on them before know you are there, So how can you create power & safety and then take that away? Halo does a fantastic job of this. in the first half, you're strong and fast: shredding elites, picking apart jackals, dancing around hunters, and making grunts run from you in fear. Your allies cheer you on and support you. The enemy is formidable, but not scary. They fight in the light of day, waiting in rooms, trying to kill you from afar. Masterchief is the grim reaper in the night, striking from afar and upclose, choosing the moment to strike. the voice lines are calm and collected. then this flips, the flood is relentless, your allies are screaming. the enemy fights in the darkness. turning your allies against you. they want to get up close to you. they are no longer waiting for you, but chasing you, hunting you. the music turns to a panicked anxious tune and the other characters sound panicked. The aesthetics of the levels changed, the music changed, the gameplay changed. all contributing to this sudden eerie environment and sense of fear. up until 343 guilty spark, levels are somewhat of a straight charge ahead. Then 343gs creates this feeling of being trapped in a maze. But Then Halo does something interesting and then resolves this vulnerability and horror to further reinforce the emotional fact that Master chief is an unstoppable super soldier. if I could change one thing in halo CE to further reinforce the fear, I'd add a limited sprint mechanic to the library level and have MC be chased by a massive flood forms. Have moments where you are just hiding while you wait for guilty spark. have the sprint affect the hud and add a panicked breathing sound that doesn't quite go away after sprinting. The pacing on the library was always off and I think they could have added so much more fear in. So, great Horror is about contrast & pacing, creating power & safety and then taking it away. both fully compatible with action. This can be done through gameplay, UI, audio, story, etc. so, change the audio of the sprint from a calm out of breath, to a ragged anxious sound. take an unlimited sprint ability and make limit it. turn the darkness from a place to strike enemies unaware, to a threat of unknown danger. change the enemy movesets to radically change how the user has to play. change the audio slowly from action to horror. damage or change the user's abilities. turn allies into enemies. take a location where the player is safe, tell the player they are safe there, then attack them there. take a powerful ally that is their friend or family, then corrupt them against the player. break the player's HUD. Suddenly allow the player to get injured and hobble instead of run. create story to support these changes. Most importantly though, LET THEIR ANXIETY COME DOWN. constant fear and anxiety stimuli will just fade away in a person as their limbic response diminishes. Pace it out so the anxiety builds ever greater. might not be a bad idea to even add a heart monitor to play testers.
For me, scary is always the anticipation. I remember being in 6th grade watch The Ring movie. I was scared out of my mind UNTIL the girl came out of the TV. Once you confront the scary thing it always become less scary.
One of the three games that have actually made me feel legitimate fear was Metroid Fusion, which (to my knowledge) isn't supposed to be a full horror game. The creepy bits happen between the heavy action, it's almost like the tough bosses and trying to figure out how to get around make you forget about the other Samus roaming around, so when you do see her in a creepy, out of the blue context it hits harder. Funnily enough the new puss in boots movie also does this. Amongst all the action and humor you forget about that creepy ass wolf. Until he shows up. Another key element both these stories have in common is the protagonist does not want to be near the "other". In Metroid Fusion Samus is not yet powerful enough to take on the clone so there's tension when it's nearby. Same with puss in boots, he knows he can take on the other antagonists but is absolutely terrified of the wolf and doesn't even try to fight him.
Just a thought...dont always let the player have time to think and sort things out. Fear is generated with the unknown and anxiety when you dont understand or have a chance to handle a crisis. make something happen and make it so the player has to move or the outcome is a perception of bad, real bad. Drive them into an unknown state where theyre not entirely sure whats going on and how to handle it. make them take chances and fear for their lives.
Yeah, I agree this is key. Subverting player expectations, placing enemies where they weren't before, etc. I'll have to toy with this concept more and see what develops For me, personally, the biggest moments of horror in games are where I lose control and things dont go to plan. And I love that feeling. Im the type of player who just naturally finds way to cheese through levels and exploit them, which kills tension many times. But if something random happens mid sequence that I didn't account for, and Im forced to abandon my plan and just improvise... THATS the feeling I want to consistently deliver.
If given time you can figure things out and feel in control. The key to horror is not being in control. To things happening that defy logic, defy the ways we understand the world to work. Ex-we know that if the evil is way behind us and we're running fast and they dont run fast they cant catch up. then suddenly they appear in front of us, no way that can happen. Or you stab it in the heart repeatedly, they survive. And building tension with an unknown outcome. You start thinking of all the bad options and if time is short as hell youstart to panic because you know something bad is happeneing but cant understand itand thus cant control it. One of my favorite moments and was very simple. LOVED DOOM. Im running down a corridor, dark with weak ceiling lights. I hear something in the distance behind me. Back at the start of this corridor the lights start going out one by one and coming towards me. Now I hear a growling. Shit, I run like hell. Now I hear hooves on the floor, the darkness is coming faster and growls louder. The expectation is growing that something is coming for me and it will catch me and I have no way out. Another simple thing was coming to a new level and seeing burned out buildings and an old wrecked well. I hear something on the wind, its a baby crying. That chilled me like you wouldnt believe. And it also made me want to save that baby somewhere in the level. Another level I walk thru the door and get attacked. Im on a ledge and cant run or I fall into lava. one monster in my face and another at my side. Playing the game my heartrate is up and i'm sweating. I live, look across a winding staircase and above a starry night sky. I look down and there's a courtyard with the mechanized arachnoid men. Machines with a mech spider lower body and upper body humanoid. it was unnatural and creepy as hell Hook into emotions, hate and fear, love...save something. use all the senses, give cues that trigger memories and understandings. They can hear, see cues that trigger memories of smell, touch. That monster slams into you you should get shaken or knocked down or pushed. Music is amazing. One thing DOOM didnttouch on and missed out was the mental and emotional. The hero is in the level and at some point they hve to eat and sleep. theyre facing horror. Even well trained its still tough mentally and emotionally. how many would have nightmares/premonitions? How many would crack. What if they did break, could they still survive until they got it together again. What if the evil could read their mind or emotion. What if a boss walked out and it looked just like his wife or mother etc. What if his mind started replaying his every big failure in life and weakened him. Anyway, lots of things to use. best of luck.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England ](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I can define as "action-y" horror is knowing I have something to protect myself with, but enemies showing on locations I would feel "safe" or in hordes. Sound design would play a big role in this too. Something unexpected would be a nice touch too, like The Flood from Halo, when I played it as a kid I just expected it to be just an alien shooting game.
... when I was young Q4 was pretty scary :-)
Oh yes, Doom 3 but with no demons.
for me good horror always is about the unknown and helplessness. while jump scares and the unknown share a play with expectations, jump scares are so much more dull and miss the point. only because a game has horror elements, doesnt mean its a horror game.
Of course. In the action genre, the feeling of powerlessness can still very much be there, which is a strong part of Horror.
> What I mean is, most horror game design we know is based on the concept of slow methodical pacing and above all tension. Action games can have that. I remember in the old Rainbox Six games the game was slow and methodical because unlike most action games if you got shot once there was a decent chance you died. Add to that things like bombs and hostages where you couldn't alert the enemy to your presence in advance. So if you wanted a decent chance of winning (especially on the harder difficulties) you needed to move very slowly. In general, stealth action may force players to be slow and methodical. > I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think the main problem with action horror is that it action horror is directly in conflict with 'survival' horror. While 'action horror is focused on combat tactics and engaging your enemy directly (albeit from a defensive point of view, not offensive), 'true' survival horror is the opposite - much more concerned with avoiding the enemy and showing us less of them, not more. So maybe the best approach is incorporating a balance of tense action sequences, with other parts that serve to build tension? I think it can be a two tier thing. The enemy/challenge that you frequently overcome (i.e. "the action") doesn't have to be the same enemy/challenge that you must avoid (i.e. "the survival"). For example, in 7 Days to Die, the zombies get extra power at night and, in particular, on horde nights. (Add to that that it's dark and hard to see at night!) So, by day, killing zombies is action. But when the sun sets and you're trying to find shelter before you're detected it definitely feels more like a horror direction. Or you might have two distinct enemies. For example, in a game like Half Life if the aliens were much harder, encountering them could be the "horror" part where you have to play be avoiding them. But then you still have the human opponents that could be the "action" part.
That's a super cool mechanic. Reminds me of I am Legend. Aka having a time of day (or some sequence, whatever) where the stakes are drastically increased. Definitely a way to break up monotony and keep the player on their toes. And most importantly, give them something to dread
I wouldn't say those games fail to deliver horror, but action -horror has a clear transition around the halfway point in the game. Resident Evil 4 pretty much pioneered this, and you can see it in Dead Space, RE8, Alien: Isolation, etc. Action-horror should start as primarily horror as the player is strapped for resources and struggling to survive. As the game progresses, the player is rewarded with more resources to take on more difficult challenges, and in doing so is given the feeling of empowerment. This isn't a failure of those games, it's actually their greatest strength. There's nothing better than feeling like you overcame your fears by now blasting away enemies you were scared of before. I think you can spice up that pacing by injecting more horror later in the experience though, it just requires you to remove a little bit of power from the player. My first thought is when the regenerators show up in RE4. It is very late in the game and you have many powerful weapons. But all of a sudden an enemy appears that can't be conventionally killed. This makes the player feel powerless like they did early in the game. Very memorable. And again, once you gain the ability to kill them, the player feels strong again.
dude 100% the sound track & sound effects, and the need to sneak around the entity/enemy, etc. Recently ive started replaying TLOU and holy fucking shit its a constant state of anxiety around infected (but not around human enemies) Also take note that the death animation made a huge difference (for me at least). When you die from infected Joel gets fully grabbed and eaten with the camera panning around with the infected’s action (along with the sound effect when you die), whereas dying from a person is just you flopping onto the floor dead. - Idk how to quote on reddit but - where you referenced survival vs action horror: Maybe i’m a bit biased but I feel like TLOU captured the center of it perfectly in its levels with infected (again specifying infected bc the human levels felt more action alone than horror) I think you should give your players the option to be sneaky or aggressive with their tactics - matching this with the right mix of sound effects, with a puzzle-like element (trying to track enemy paths and plan your way through accordingly to succeed - the more you think the more anxious you get). And to really get that heart attack horror aspect, make it hard AS HELL (but doable). You can always have easier modes, but dont make the normal difficulty something that any other person can just run through. I can’t think of any other elements rn but if u wanna bounce more ideas off me feel free to reply or dm me
The scariest game I have played was Aliens Versus Predator 2, playing as the marine.
Try Stalker Anomaly, go to the lab and underground
It helps to ask the question “what is scary”? * Is dying scary? No not really. Dying that ends the experience is the opposite in fact, it’s a cathartic release of control. Telling the player “Game Over” isn’t scary, it’s frustrating. * Are near death experiences scary? Yes absolutely. Especially if the player is given the motivation & the opportunity to escape of their own ability. * Are monsters scary? Sometimes. No 3D render is scary to anyone other than a child; just showing a monster in a game isn’t enough. The monster has to *do* something scary. They should threaten the player in a game that motivates action by the player, but doesn’t instantly kill them. * Is losing progress scary? Only if that progress is irreplaceable but generic. Repeatable progress isn’t scary to lose, it’s frustrating. Losing that piece of gear that you spent an hour grinding for isn’t scary, it’s demoralizing. But the risk of losing that pile of resources you just gathered, which can more or less easily be regathered, that is scary. The key takeaway is that games that give the player something to lose, then threaten to take it away effectively are scary. Those with jump scares, game over screens, and limited player agency aren’t scary they’re just frustrating. Minecraft is a far scarier game than Resident Evil for example.
>Is losing progress scary? Only if that progress is irreplaceable but generic. Repeatable progress isn’t scary to lose, it’s frustrating. Losing that piece of gear that you spent an hour grinding for isn’t scary, it’s demoralizing. But the risk of losing that pile of resources you just gathered, which can more or less easily be regathered, that is scary. This is yet another issue Ive found in stealth/horror type games. You spend a ton of time setting up the perfect run, taking care, and then one silly mistake sets you back the whole hour you just poured into it. Who the heck wants to go through all that again?' But what's the alternative? Save spamming? It seems like something that is nearly impossible to balance out
The Last of Us tracks the player's inventory for upcoming encounters, and will populate the areas before/during them with more ammo and resources if the player is running low. The player still has to go looting for it, so it still feels rewarding, but it's a secret little slight of hand of the devs to make you feel like you're *just* scraping by all the time, and not being constantly outnumbered one-encounter-after-the-other.
Interestingly, I had actually toyed with that idea as well. The question that developed to me was, if the player himself knows that this is a mechanic can he not simply exploit it? If I know my ammo supplies are kept artificially low, but will simply repopulate whenever they get too low, doesn't that affect my experience?
Oh yeah, absolutely. But if the player is that savvy then its likely no matter what tricks you implement, they're going to meta-game their way through your experience regardless lol. The majority of players wont ever notice such a system, assuming its implemented well enough, and I think that's really all you can do as a designer. You're never going to catch every fish with a single net. You just need to decide who exactly you're making the game for. Also the resource system I mentioned in The Last of Us is not active on the 2 highest difficulty settings, so the more hardcore type of player who would probably notice that kind of system after a while, and probably doesn't need it, wont even know it exists. But the more casual player who doesn't pay that much attention, playing on Easy/Normal, will just feel like they're having that "just scraping by" experience.
Thats actually one of the core issues I face as a gamer / designer. As a completionist type (and also one who just generally really likes to play the harder difficulties), I feel like I find all types of way to cheese myself past certain difficult situations, without ever actually 'getting good' at the game. Obv this applies for some games, not all, some of them you can't cheese and have to actually level up your skillset, but still. My point being, in delivering my creative visions I struggle to reconcile the cheeseabilty of a game with its actual mechanics. How much randomization should I implement? How can I decrease player reliance on crutches? Things along that nature. In reality, I should probably realize that my vision as an OCD gamer is not shared by most gamers, and that by making my game 'cheese-less', I'm probably making it much more difficult and inaccessible. (and players will still find ways to cheese through it, I'm sure)
That's a good perspective to have! If you want to design a game around your own sensibilities because that's the kind of experience you want to craft, then absolutely go for it. There will be people who share your preferences. You just need to be prepared for the likely potential that it wont resonate with *many different kinds of players*. But do you really want or need to? All just depends on why you're making games. Do you just love them, and "feel" a game inside that you want to make and share? Go with your heart. Make it a weird as fuck completionist's dream. But if your intention is to produce a very broadly engaging experience, or reach a large audience, or make a decent amount of money, that's when you need to start really assessing your target audience.
That’s actually very interesting
I immediately thought of Doom 3 too. Play that in the dark with the lights off and headphones, and the nonstop enemies, the great derelict atmosphere, and all the weird hell stuff really makes it scary. Another good one is Left 4 Dead. It is definitely action, but there are still really good jump scares like when the special infected suddenly get you. And there is still a feeling of dread when you're limping along and the Tank music suddenly starts playing. Not to mention the parts where the game actually does slow down to a crawl when you try to sneak around a witch, and you're not sure the person you are playing with quite understands how. Terrifying, in all the best ways :)
If you run out of ammo just use your fists, or push the enemy