Creating fear in an adventure game
I've been thinking for the past few days about the 'no death' principle of LucasArts and Telltale adventure games. "The Tomb of Sammun-Mak" had some 'deaths' that heightened the suspense occasionally, but it's not a technique you can use all the time.
My point in mentioning death is *fear*: how do you guys think you could stimulate fear in a game where you're essentially an immortal?
Say you're playing a game where there's a serial killer in kitchen, and you're hiding underneath the sink. He's looking for you. He knows you're somewhere in that room.
How do you make sure you keep it scary if you can't die?
How do you make sure it doesn't become frustrating or laughable? You can't keep the player there forever, repeating over and over. You can't punish the player. Then what? Is the answer a compromise, or am I not thinking outside of the box enough?
I know some people consider the underground tunnel scenes of Monkey Island 2 to be scary. I found them scary as well (mostly because of LeChuck's insane grin, which made me realize he was enjoying it), but it's hardly a blanket rule. Yet part of me thinks that may have hit on something. Or has time played with my memories?
It's frustrating. I haven't come up with any smart ideas. I know there's an answer, but I can't quite find it.
What do you guys think?
(And for those wondering what's up with that image, I was thinking specifically in terms of the Doctor Who episode "Blink", which feels like an adventure game at the end with the TARDIS. I started wondering how you'd adapt that into a game and, well, three days later here I am. If you haven't seen this episode, do it. Even if you're not a Who fan.)
My point in mentioning death is *fear*: how do you guys think you could stimulate fear in a game where you're essentially an immortal?
Say you're playing a game where there's a serial killer in kitchen, and you're hiding underneath the sink. He's looking for you. He knows you're somewhere in that room.
How do you make sure you keep it scary if you can't die?
How do you make sure it doesn't become frustrating or laughable? You can't keep the player there forever, repeating over and over. You can't punish the player. Then what? Is the answer a compromise, or am I not thinking outside of the box enough?
I know some people consider the underground tunnel scenes of Monkey Island 2 to be scary. I found them scary as well (mostly because of LeChuck's insane grin, which made me realize he was enjoying it), but it's hardly a blanket rule. Yet part of me thinks that may have hit on something. Or has time played with my memories?
It's frustrating. I haven't come up with any smart ideas. I know there's an answer, but I can't quite find it.
What do you guys think?
(And for those wondering what's up with that image, I was thinking specifically in terms of the Doctor Who episode "Blink", which feels like an adventure game at the end with the TARDIS. I started wondering how you'd adapt that into a game and, well, three days later here I am. If you haven't seen this episode, do it. Even if you're not a Who fan.)
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
The way I see it, fear is like pain, except one is physical and the other is emotional. They're both supposed to be a signal telling you something is wrong, that you can push through if you think and realise the signal is "wrong".
But just like I have no interest in playing a game that would physically hurt me, I have no interest in a game that would scare me.
This being said, you don't risk dying in horror movies, do you? They're still scary. Plus you CAN die in Lucasart style adventure games, as long as it's part of the story.
I don't think that scene is scary at all, personally. It's basically the same scene as Lechuck punching Guybrush in MI1, except with different sprites, and a teleporting voodoo doll instead of a 9000-foot-in-the-air punch.
I think it's extremely hard to achieve real fear in a game environment without having fear for your character's life. It works in a horror movie because you have no control over any of the characters, and you are not sure when and if any of them will die. When you're being placed into a character, and given free reign to move around and do things, they have to somehow make you feel as though things that you do can cause them to be killed, and without allowing death, there is no possibility of real fear. That said, I hate the way death is handled in old Sierra games, simply because of how nonsensical half of them are, and how a death could mean replaying a good length of the game if you accidentally forget to save extremely often.
If you want my personal favorite example of how to create fear and properly handle death in an adventure game, try the Penumbra series by Frictional Games, specifically Penumbra Black Plague (the second one).
i think if you want to create fear in an adventure game, something is wrong with you, because all the adventure games ive played have been lighthearted. but i havent really played a hell of a lot of adventure games in my time, so i dont know...
Take Sanitarium, for instance. An absolutely incredible game, but outside of two truly disturbing scenes, it's not scary. For one, the isometric view always reminds you that you're playing a game. For another, the acting is atrocious. Had these two things been altered, we'd likely remember Sanitarium as one of the most terrifying games ever made.
I agree to some extent that it's really difficult to create fear in a game where you can't die. The thing to remember is that the player doesn't have to know that you can't die. It doesn't have to say at the start of the game "By the way, you can't die", just like it doesn't have to say "They all live happily ever after" at the beginning of a movie.
The protagonists in movies rarely die either, but a variety of techniques are used to create fear anyway. For example, making it look like death is imminent is a great way to create fear. The only thing that adventure games lack in order to do this is immediacy.
The reason the underground tunnel scene in MI2 was so scary was that it created an artificial sense of immediacy by having you rush between rooms, and it made it seem as if you could die if you weren't fast enough.
You might remember that MI3 created a similar effect at the end, however, but it wasn't as scary (at least it's largely regarded as being less scary from what I've seen and heard). The reason for this is atmosphere.
Darkness, for one thing, is always scary. Humans are naturally afraid of the dark because we don't know if there's a predator or the end of a sheer cliff waiting for us round the corner.
The fact that the tunnels looked disused and dirty also helped with the atmosphere. The reason we found that so chilling was that it gave us the sense that there was no authority or protection there. It made it look like we were the only humans down there and all we had for company was an undead maniac with a vendetta and lots of voodoo.
The image of an Angel will in itself become an Angel!
I suppose, though, if you're going to insist on not having deaths, then you're going to have to come up with something equally unpleasant. The consequences of failure have to be something unpleasant that the player is driven to avoid.
The consequences of being caught by LeChuck at the end Monkey Island 2 were that you had to watch the scary animation sequence where LeChuck stabs Guybrush's voodoo doll and that your puzzle-solving was interrupted and you were forced to find your way back to whatever room you were in to finish what you were doing.
If we were to apply what Monkey Island 2 did to your scenario, I suppose failure could result in a scary scene where the killer lunges at you and automatically chases the player character to another room. Then, as with Monkey Island 2, if there was something you still needed to do in the kitchen, you'd have to work your way back there without being caught again. This would feel a little bit cheap to me in this context, but it might work.
There are a lot of other possible unpleasant failure scenarios, I suppose. Maybe your character can't die but can sustain physical injury, and the more you mess up the more mutilated and disfigured your character will become. Maybe failure could result in the death of an NPC character you've grown to care about instead of you. Maybe the killer doesn't intend to kill you right away, and he ties you up or something when he catches you, creating an additional puzzle to solve.
I'm just kind of rambling and thinking aloud at this point. In summary, I don't see why you wouldn't want to have deaths in a horror game, but it's definitely possible to come up with creative solutions to the problem you've presented.
In movies, you can have characters get into trouble by doing really stupid things. "Maybe we'll be safe if we run deeper into the woods!" If the characters are being controlled by an adventure game player, it's harder to get them to do stupid things - you basically have to force it by not allowing an alternative.
If Telltale wanted to give horror gaming a try, though, I think it would be interesting to see what they'd come up with.
That's just a good little video that possibly demonstrates how scary Penumbra is, although it's 10 times scarier when you're the one playing.
I bet she hasn't REALLY lost her most recent saved game... she's probably just confronting a knife-wielding maniac in her shower or something.
"You can butter your own damn toast, I'm TRYING to wash my hair!"
Holy Jesus I almost thought I saw another Weeping Angel!
My PC has become a death trap!
Just pretend I said "suspense" instead of "fear", then. It's something that drives you forward, that threatens the well-being of your character and that you'd rather avoid. How do you maintain it?
The reason I said *fear* specifically was because fear's payoff can be so rewarding. I understand people not enjoying it - I almost always regret being scared myself, even if I keep coming back to it.
Of course, suspense is a bridge to fear. I have a hard time believing you can make fear - genuine fear, not "BOO! ZOMBIE JUMPED OUT OF CAR!" fear - without first creating suspense.
In a movie, you're invested in the character. Their fate is out of your hands, so you hope they make logical decisions and survive. That's how I see it, anyways. I'm sure any interview with Hitchcock could inform you a little better.
I don't think I've ever come across an example of a game where death was actually used well, though admittedly I haven't played "Loom", "The Dig" or the "Indiana Jones" games.
Which is why so many people get flustered with horror movies. Characters are incapable of doing the logical thing sometimes, like telling others of a thing they've seen.
I'm not sure. Death is the final result of a threat; I think people are more scared of potential threats than death itself, which is why people, say, were scared of members of a different race sixty years ago, or why a cat will hiss at you if you approach its babies.
Thanks! Do you know where I can get them?
I think being killed can be frustrating, though. Sierra's games were perfect examples. Yet, giving, say, check points can feel shallow because, well, a load is just a save game away. It's interesting how that rule doesn't apply to FPS games, by the way. I'll have to pnder that.
That's an interesting idea, but it'd have to go deeper - this being a game and as fully interactive as possible - than just, say, 'animation of player character fighting off knife-wielding maniac'. It's a little like 'Maniac Mansion', actually.
You raise a very good idea, though, with harming the player character's *feelings*: maybe hurting someone the player *and* character both care about could be a way to force success. So, for example, your lovable and awesome girlfriend gets electrocuted or something.
Thanks for that post. It got me out of that perpetual Sierra-LucasArts adventure game style loop I was stuck in.
There are demos available at www.penumbragame.com and you can purchase them direct from Frictionalgames.com.
Personally, I just love psychological horror games but it also takes alot to create that anxiety especially as far as I'm concerned.
I got to thinking of this the last few days as I'm currently in the process of playing the first Thief game (which I haven't really played before). There are some levels there that are pretty damn frightening though I think that's due to ambience, scary decorations and the fact you don't really know what's in the next room. Sure you go through tombs, really really freaky environments and haunted graveyards and I've been startled more than once but you can't deny that Thief is a fantastic game with some amazing level designs. Unfortunately games like these are very rare and it is pretty damn hard to get a proper psychological horror feel going on.
Even if you only kinda like the first one, the second is so much better.
(I bet you got the first in the Humble bundle, right?
Yet, when I play Mass Effect (1, haven't started on 2 yet), I'm far less afraid, even though you're also sure to be shot at.
So I think the main difference is the point of view. HL2 is first-person, so you're far closer to the action, and it seems as if everything that happens in the game happens to you, people shoot at you. Mass Effect is third-person. Things happen to Shepherd, you're just the person telling him/her where to go and what to do. The third-person perspective creates a kind of distance that diminishes the effect of what happens in the game.
Imagine this scenario in an adventure game. You come to a house. Friendly place with flowers and beautiful Victorian wallpaper and the friendliest people you've ever met. You stay the night there. You wake up in the morning only to discover your own bed is covered in blood, and the place looks sick and decrepit. There are nasty deep throaty demonic voices everywhere, tormenting you, playing with you, telling you to eat your eyes and claw your throat and other sick things. You end up trapped in the house, and a bunch of crazy scary things happens. Basically your basic jump scares and such. Anyway the plot twist is that the people in the house became possessed at night by evil spirits, and they killed you in your sleep. You find this out when you find your own body in the cellar. You are now a ghost, helpless, without anyone who can help you, alone and trapped to the house along with demons and horrifying spirits. The only one who can help you is a traveler who just wandered into the house just like you. You have to protect said person from being murdered as they slowly uncover the mystery and the truth about the people of the house. The people of the house disappear after a while, and the person gets trapped in the house with you, still alive. You also have to keep from getting taken over by demons when they come out at night. so not only do you have to worry about your fear and safety, but also the safety of the person who is slowly realizing your presence and wanting to help you escape.
Now in said scenario, it's the horror of the situation itself, plus the atmosphere, that makes the adventure incredibly terrifying and scary. And that's all you need. You need a good setting, a good story, and good characters, but above all you need great atmosphere. There is no escape is a great way to terrify you. You are completely alone is another horrifying aspect. Then there is The shining ray of hope in the person who might be able to save you. Then there is the Defeat of that hope and the Addition of hopelessness when he is trapped there too. There is also the Fear of the unknown and The terror of the malevolent power in the demonic creatures and The disappearing and reappearing monster into which the house's residents fit. And finally the The desire to live and the Fear of pain in the fact that everyone you are trapped with wants to hurt you. Maybe to add to it even more you could have the Defending spirit which is then destroyed leading to the Nowhere you can hide from us/me category of fear. All very bleak, and all things which are either essential or wonderful tools in the aid of the storyteller to present an atmosphere of abstract fear. Of course you can also make something too scary, and then no one would want to play it. Pretty much, though, you need to be able to create an emotional response in the player using psychological archetypes.
So...any given Friday night.
This thread reminds me of a short game I played a while ago called "Monster Basement". Links and more information can be found here. (jayisgames.com)
Oldskool fear = trying to get out of a Bard's Tale dungeon with your messed up party and whilst you're only three more steps away from the exit, the floppy drive starts reading and shortly after that you're facing death in form of some dragons.
Let's use Krom's differentiation between "fear" and "suspense". Imagine these emotional states to lie along a continuum, with "fear" being a more extreme variation of "suspense". In fact, every story-driven book, movie and game tries to create this emotion. Basically, we feel suspense if something "is at stake" for the main protagonist(s). That doesn't necessarily have to be life, but it always has to be something extremely important (like love or friendship, for example). Still, I presume that there are a lot of movies or books you like where the protagonist's life is indeed at stake, because this narrative characteristic is not at all exclusive to the horror genre.
By the way, the "something important must be at stake" idea is from Francis Glebas' book "Directing the Story". If you are interested in the ways in which suspense can be created in movies (but not only in movies), his book can be very informative. It's basic somehow and not all parts are entirely well-researched. It's a great effort nonetheless!
In books and movies, we know that the main protagonist has only a very slight chance of dying (at least in adventure movies). If he or she does die, however, the whole "suspense" idea is immediately gone. You may feel grief for the character - but the suspense-creating question whether the hero will die is forever answered.
Also - probably a very subjective thought - I do not consider the interactivity of a game to be hindering suspense. In fact, I think the opposite is true, regardless whether the game has the possibility of death.
Still, it is death that could feel more artificial. Unlike movies or books, the story restarts until the character succeeds, which could render the idea of "death" altogether insignificant. In fact, we feel frustration if death sequences are too frequent or if we have to replay too much after our character's death. Very bad things from a game designer's point of view! The designer has a far better chance at succeeding at creating suspense if he relies on the "classic" narrative techniques.
I don't think it works (which is a pity!). We do not experience fear in such situations, but failure. In "Final Fantasy VII", Aerith's death, which can not be avoided, leads to grief - a great emotional scene. In "Metal Gear Solid", Meryl's (optional) death creates the impression that we have somehow taken the wrong turn and failed miserably at what we did. I am the very first to be impressed by a non-linear storyline, still there are very few games in which this actually works. In playing games, we would like to shape our own story, not be punished by a loved character's death because we sucked. It just doesn't create an emotionally satisfying experience (and that's what we're always after).
In fact, the part where I see the monster, and is fighting it off with a rusty pipe or a TV I concealed in my pocket (heh), it usually the least scary part. The part where I'm in an empty room, and anything can pop out, anything, not even things that would kill you, can pop out, is the scary part.
The fear of something suddenly popping out, or something happening, lethal or not, is the scariest thing I face in video games.
Those are typically just jump scares, not real fear.