#1 Edited by popmasterruler (574 posts) -

http://kotaku.com/5927923/horror-is-not-mainstream?utm_campaign=socialflow_kotaku_twitter&utm_source=kotaku_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

An article talking about how big budget titles and sequels typically are not scary(or as scary as their predecessors),reciting titles like Resident Evil 5 and the yet to be released Dead Space 3.

#2 Posted by laserbolts (5370 posts) -

I'm assuming you want to discuss this so I'll give my 2 cents. I think one of the main reason sequels tend to be less scary has something to do with a been there done that feeling people can get. For example dead space 1 was sort of scary because it was all new. Not knowing what kind of horror lies around the corner helps build tension. In dead space 2 once I saw necromorphs again I basically sighed and cut the shit out of them.

#3 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

I'm assuming you want to discuss this so I'll give my 2 cents. I think one of the main reason sequels tend to be less scary has something to do with a been there done that feeling people can get. For example dead space 1 was sort of scary because it was all new. Not knowing what kind of horror lies around the corner helps build tension. In dead space 2 once I saw necromorphs again I basically sighed and cut the shit out of them.

I don't think that's the case. Silent Hill 2 is terrifying. It's not a difficult game to complete, but it is as scary as they come. The later Fatal Frame games are also no less scary than the original.

What makes games less scary is when the scares aren't done as well as in the previous games or when, as was the case in the Resident Evil series, the horror elements are abandoned in favor of action. Silent Hill: Homecoming, for example, is not seen as scary by a lot of people because the game abandons elements of the earlier games and makes the protagonist a competent fighter. But Silent Hill: Shattered Memories is frightening because it takes the opposite approach, leaving the protagonist defenseless and constantly on the run.

#4 Edited by LikeaSsur (1592 posts) -

Funny, I always thought Resident Evil was meant to be a story about bio-terrorism and genetic mutations, and horror was just the effect of that. That's probably why I'm not up in arms like everyone else when Resident Evil 4 and 5 wasn't "scary" enough.

But it's really hard to produce horror. You have to have the right sounds, the right music, the right balance of combat and non-combat (here's where everyone fails), and the right kind of fear. Tension and the feeling of dread are all good, but they're largely unsatisfying the longer you go on. Actual things are good to payoff the tension, but then that gives you something to fight, which means something to kill. And eventually, you're going to overpower that fear, thus removing it from the game, which makes it useless now. Removing the combat prevents players from fighting their fears, but it also means you can't make it dang near impossible to escape, or else the player loses momentum when he dies. Checkpointing is a horror game's biggest drawback.

Basically what I'm saying is everything needed to make a horror game good is almost the polar opposite of how video games are being made.

@laserbolts: Awww. Somebody hasn't tried Hardcore Mode in Dead Space 2. That'll make you fear Necromorphs again real quick.

#5 Edited by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

Resident Evil I can understand, but Dead Space 3? I find it hard to simply say it's not scary when nobody has even played through it. I mean, of course it's going to be slightly less scary, because we've been through the first two games, so we're used to the monsters, and we know when a lot of them will pop out at us. But the Dead Space 3 is kind of hard to pin down at the moment, because we've only seen a little bit of it in action.

#6 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

eh, i dunno the addition of co-op INSTANTLY makes it less scary, by like ten-fold. probably the worst thing to do in a horror game is make it co-op or multiplayer.

#7 Posted by Christoffer (1922 posts) -

As movies like Paranormal Activity and games like Amnesia have proven, horror does have a huge fanbase (including me) and can lead to huge profits for the developers. And that's enough for me. In terms of mainstream, I understand that those products hold a certain kind of polish compared to everything else, and I would love if a mad billionaire would fund a 100 million dollar budget horror game title... but in the end, I just want to get scared. And low budget games are already making that happen.

Also, why is Kirk Hamilton talking about RE6 and DS3? As far as I know, co-op doesn't have to mean that the main game is any less scary, does it? Wait for the end product before you judge it.

#8 Posted by WarlordPayne (706 posts) -

The co-op is optional. Of all the things that I'm worried about in that game the co-op is the least.

#9 Posted by JEC03 (919 posts) -

The mainstream watches America Idol so it doesn't surprise me there a bunch of pussies.

#10 Posted by tsiro (214 posts) -
@Clonedzero If you had done any reading on the subject, you would know that the co-op and single player stories are structlured very slightly differently such that if you're playing single player, you don't have an AI buddy running around with you (much like DS1 and 2). It's not nearly as bad as you have convinced yourself.
#11 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

@tsiro said:

@Clonedzero If you had done any reading on the subject, you would know that the co-op and single player stories are structlured very slightly differently such that if you're playing single player, you don't have an AI buddy running around with you (much like DS1 and 2). It's not nearly as bad as you have convinced yourself.

well no, see thats not what im talking about. even if you're separated, playing online with a buddy talking on the headset and stuff. well that relieves 90% of the tension, all that will get you at that point is cheap jump scares and cheap jump scares are like the worst way to do a horror game.

i know that apparently, in deadspace 3 if you play single player they keep the co-op buddy away more. i dont know if this si true or not, but the mere fact they added in co-op in a genre where co-op actually ruins the mood is baffling to me.

i wasn't even really talking about deadspace 3 specifically. im just saying co-op is pretty much the worst idea for a horror game. you're supposed to feel alone, tense, scared, ect. not "ohhhH man!!! haha that monster totally scared you dude haha!" over the mic. horror is all about tone, if you can't maintain the tone and mindset the player is in, then its not going to be scary.

#12 Posted by tsiro (214 posts) -

@Clonedzero: Sure, you get a different experience when playing it with a friend. But it's a similar thing with horror movies: lots of people enjoy watching them with friends! I'm a big baby when it comes to watching horror movies, so I'd never want to hole up at night and watch them alone in the dark, but they can be fun with a friend or two to relieve tension with! Plus, it's a fun shared experience. Why can't this be the same with games?

#13 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -

Horror is all about the pacing. There aren't many developers, and also film makers, who understand that. To them horror is about a monster coming out of the corner and screaming at you. I also dislike it when they just throw everything in your face and expect you to be frighten. Sometimes what you don't see can be a 1000 times stronger.

#14 Posted by NTM (7547 posts) -

@Clonedzero said:

@tsiro said:

@Clonedzero If you had done any reading on the subject, you would know that the co-op and single player stories are structlured very slightly differently such that if you're playing single player, you don't have an AI buddy running around with you (much like DS1 and 2). It's not nearly as bad as you have convinced yourself.

well no, see thats not what im talking about. even if you're separated, playing online with a buddy talking on the headset and stuff. well that relieves 90% of the tension, all that will get you at that point is cheap jump scares and cheap jump scares are like the worst way to do a horror game.

i know that apparently, in deadspace 3 if you play single player they keep the co-op buddy away more. i dont know if this si true or not, but the mere fact they added in co-op in a genre where co-op actually ruins the mood is baffling to me.

See, the point is that you don't have to play online with a friend, and whenever you're going through the campaign, there'll never be a time when you are next to someone shooting guys, or if you are, it'll be a special moment which is a rare thing to see in the game. It may happen once, that's it. So you should throw the whole co-op thing out the door if that's not what you like in a horror game, and just be excited for the single-player campaign.

#15 Posted by Clairabel (160 posts) -

@Clonedzero said:

eh, i dunno the addition of co-op INSTANTLY makes it less scary, by like ten-fold. probably the worst thing to do in a horror game is make it co-op or multiplayer.

My thoughts exactly.

Visceral haven't exactly been reassuring about the fact that the fans are worried about the lack of horror in the new game - especially as they're quick to not use the word 'horror' in any of their news releases about the game.

#16 Posted by Baillie (4285 posts) -

I love co-op, I'll take it any way I can. I loved Dead Space, would I complain if it had co-op? Not at all.