Written 01.10.2008 - Uploaded 01.10.2008
The point of this article series is to gather my thoughts about the typical problems I see in horror games. It is far from complete mostly because my experience of different horror games is still somewhat limited. This article is based mostly on two titles: Silent Hill and Project Zero (Fatal Frame in the US).
What's typical for action horror games as opposed to adventure horror games, is the presence of enemies that can be fought. Most modern and I think even past horror games do have this sort of action and I'm going to focus on them from now on because most of these problems do not appear in adventure horror games which is not to say they don't have problems, they just don't have the same problems. The thing I'm going to now rant about in this first article of the series is closely tied to these adversaries in horror games, or monsters like they're usually called.
A typical encounter in horror games involves some foreshadowing. Like the radio in Silent Hill, which acts not only to warn the player about the presence of a monster but also as an atmospheric element which actually creates much of the horror. The point of foreshadowing is, you know something is coming but at this point, you have no idea what it is and whether you'll be able to get rid of it. In other words, we are talking about fear of the unknown. It is an unnerving feeling and it cuts two ways: on the one hand, you want to avoid going forward but, on the other hand, because you have to, you rather get that unknown into sight quickly. This is the most common pitfall in horror games: once the threat is no longer unknown, it ceases to be frightening. This problem grows to larger proportions if the game has a relatively small selection of monsters; if your past encounters with them have been somewhat easygoing, you aren't going to fear them too much anymore. The trick does work when you are facing something new – while you can see it, you don't know what it does or how to fight it. Then again, if your past encounters with a particular type of monster have been tough and full of panic, you will fear them and you will pray that whatever comes from behind that corner is not one of those. That's when we have encounters that work for the game, not against it.
Making the fights tough but not frustrating is hardly an easy thing. There are several factors involved: frequency of encounters, game mechanics and controls, monster abilities, surroundings and, last but not least, directing of the scenes. A relatively typical mechanic is physical violence, like guns, and this is seen in several games. It is up to controls how easy this is, but typically, I find point and shoot to be a bit too simple method. Not to say it can't work, of course it can, but that requires better monster design. The problem does go away if the monsters are tough enough, fast enough or devious enough but then there's frustration on the other end. But let's leave that for another article. Instead let's move on to the setting, how the scene is directed, because it also does affect a lot. Facing a monster in a narrow corridor is not that frightening but facing two monsters in both ends of the same corridor does induce some panic and we haven't even gotten into ghosts coming through walls yet. They do work in Project Zero, I can tell you that much, especially because in that game, there is no way for you to deal with a ghost quickly.
Duration is indeed another typical indicator of encounter effectiveness at least as long as it is tied with indirectness. Waiting works too. When the battle becomes a waiting / stalking game between the player and his adversary, we are sliding slowly back into the unknown. In our first corridor example, the scene is very linear: to pass, you need to do away with the monster on the other end. When we introduce that other monster, you already have to decide which one to take down first. Forcing decisions in small time frames induces panic, and in horror games, that's a good thing. Another, very effective method, is to include some monsters in the game that cannot be killed or even harmed in any way, forcing the player to just escape in panic. We also have fakes, something that is foreshadowed like a monster but either is never found or once found, turns out to be nothing much. This works again because while there is no threat, it is unknown until it's revealed – if it is revealed at all.
In my opinion, it's always better to have few long and shifting encounters than many short ones. Rhythm is important: the game needs to have periods when things are mellow but the player must not be allowed to forget the threat. Once the threat does raise its ugly head, the contrast against the mellow phase works for the game once again. If you run into monsters somewhat regularly, they will sooner or later become just plain same old same old.
To summarize what we've gone through so far, the problem addressed in this article is keeping tension from the foreshadowing of an encounter into the encounter itself. Next time you play a horror game, try to pay attention to moments where tension drops at the exact moment the threat reveals its nature. I'm afraid you will be seeing this far too frequently. Of course, we are not done yet. Forcing the player to escape and avoid is a good thing but what if it becomes too easy? Such is the case in Silent Hill 2. If you set the action difficulty to hard or above, the monsters cannot be killed anymore. You can shoot them down, but they will just rise again. Sounds good so far but are they frightening? Nope. Why's that? In the game, it's too easy to lose them, especially because they cannot follow the protagonist through doors or other area changes. Of course if they did, the game would be way too frustrating because the encounters are too frequent. That's actually the biggest problem with the game. Encounter frequency, way too high.
Moving on with our train of thought, it's clear that the monsters in horror games must not be just obstacles for the player – they should be hunters instead, pursuing their prey relentlessly until they can be somehow lost or stopped. This concept is taken to an interesting level in Forbidden Siren where the player is, most of the time, entirely powerless against the monsters and has to work hard just to avoid them. Sadly the game does have its problems but they are not inside the focus of this article.
So currently, our ideal monster is dangerous enough to be a threat and hard to overcome by either avoiding or destroying it. But what about foreshadowing, are there any problems with that in typical horror games? While most horror games I have played handle this pretty well, there's the other category where foreshadowing is actually kind of, gone. These games rely on shock effect, scaring the player suddenly for a moment by something that just jumps on the screen out of nowhere. This is what I prefer to call cheap horror and it is neither enjoyable or artistic in my opinion, so I'd just rather leave it as the worst example. Don't do this. Surprising the player sometimes is good, but relying on it entirely is not. The psychological effect of foreshadowing is simply much more effective. One thing about foreshadowing is the fact that it's only as effective as the threat the player expects. If the game constantly fails to meet these expectations, foreshadowing loses its power and the game suffers greatly. Also, foreshadowing should not be too long because then the player will be numbed to it.
I guess that's it for today. The series will continue soon enough though, so stay tuned. Meanwhile, if you know some exemplary good horror games, drop me a hint. I already have Penumbra and Haunting Grounds on my to-play list.