Showing posts with label SOMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOMA. Show all posts

Friday, April 8, 2016

News & Views
4/2/16-4/8/16

Phew, I’m lucky to even be writing this post this week. Enter the Gungeon is finally out and I’m totally obsessed. What game are you really into right now? I would love to know.

News & Views is your weekly infusion of great gaming content! I scour the web each week to find the articles, opinions, videos & more that are worth consuming. Check out the links below for stories about a blind gamer who excels at a highly competitive fighting game, how one pair of game developers are nearly halfway to simulating existence, and the rise of young eSports pros for a smartphone game.

And of course please check out the brand new episode of The Impact Factor podcast that was posted today! You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, or if you prefer other methods, check out our SoundCloud. We’re on YouTube too!

Spotlight
Justin McElroy, Polygon

Worth Reading
Wes Fenlon, PC Gamer

Wesley Yin-Poole, Eurogamer

Brandon Sheffield, Gamasutra

Luke Winkie, The Daily Dot

Thomas Grip, GDC 2016 via GDCVault.com

With Comments
Heather Alexandra, Giantbomb
Heather Alexandra writes a fantastic piece about violence in games. The Division’s subject matter continues to be divisive among professional game critics. She writes that the game displays a recurring power fantasy of legitimized violence. The Division not only allows you to wantonly kill other survivors, it actively encourages you to do so. I might just have to play this game at some point. The discussion surrounding it is just too fascinating not to.

David ‘dacidbro’ Broweleit, The Pop Tart Diary
I always love reading about success stories. More than that, I love reading about how people have used games to over come obstacles, stave off criticism, and escape dark times. Dacidbro’s story is a nice one and I’m glad he’s found his calling. His story reinforces the idea that games can be more than just a diversion or escape. Games can fundamentally change the core of your identity.

Caty McCarthy, Kill Screen
Reading about games I have never heard of continues to be great. Caty McCarthy spotlights the old Japanese title Idolm@ster and its depiction of depression. McCarthy applauds the game for not focusing on overcoming depression or finding a cure as so many other titles (across all media) do. Instead Idolm@ster shows the past, present, and future of depression and accepting it as just a part of life. The game is able to transport the player to a world, a depression, that almost none of us will experience: being a pop idol. Really cool story.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Sticker Shock: No Man’s Sky, Value Assessments & the Need for Analog
Article

Abstract: Late last week developer Hello Games announced the release price for No Man’s Sky: $60. The news was met with resistance as many found the price to be too steep. This hesitation arose due to a history of price standardization as well as No Man’s Sky’s indie lineage. The way video games are priced, and the culture surrounding if a game is priced correctly, has huge room for improvement. A game’s cost shouldn’t be boiled down to only two factors: the type of team that made it and the infamous ‘ratio’ of dollars paid / hours played. Pricing should be analog, not binary. With proper justification game devs should be able to set their own price, free from the negative cognitive weight alternate price points elicit. Thankfully, we’re beginning to see that shift.

What would you pay to be a galactic pioneer? What is a fair price of traveling to 1:1 sized planetary bodies, or engaging in dramatic space battles against alien pirates? No Man’s Sky’s promises are lofty, but even if the game cannot fully live up to expectations Hello Games’ newest endeavor promises to be one of the most exciting titles this year. The release date announcement last week reignited a widespread fervor for No Man’s Sky. But that news was overshadowed by one key piece of information: No Man’s Sky would cost $60 at launch. Last week proved that you can give people an entire universe and they’ll still balk at the sight of a $60 price tag. Why did this happen?

Video game pricing, and if a game has earned its price tag, is a hot topic in the gaming. But it didn’t always used to be this way. By the time I was old enough to consider buying games for myself, game cost had been largely standardized. Aside from the rare exception or two, new games cost $50. That’s for a SNES game, an N64 game, a PS1 game. There were far less discussions about if a game had earned its $50 price tag simply because that’s what all games cost.  As the industry moved forward, however, several factors began to uproot the idea of a fixed cost for new games. The biggest among them was the rise of digital distribution. This brought with it not only budget-priced games (usually ~$15), but also the now standard digital sale events, like seasonal Steam sales or PSN Flash sales. No longer were games just $50 (now $60), they were also $15, or steeply discounted. A new pricing hierarchy emerged alongside the notion of a game’s monetary worth. It created a dogma of sorts—a set of expectations for what you would get at either of the discrete prices. $60 games were AAA experiences from a large team of individuals, replete with top-of-the-line graphics, a variety of game modes, huge worlds or bombastic campaigns. $15 games were indies: small teams of people making tight experiences with a limited scope but filled with new ideas. Paying a certain price for a game now was inherently associated with the type of experience should you expect, as well as the perceived amount of content within the game.
 
Yes, even Crash 2 had standard pricing.
No Man’s Sky comes from a long lineage of indie game development. The core members of Hello Games, the studio behind No Man’s Sky, is just 4 people. Hello Games have only released two previous titles, Joe Danger and Joe Danger 2: The Movie, both $15 downloadable digital games. Indie games. Even after the studio expanded to handle the gargantuan No Man’s Sky, the team is still comprised of only 15 individuals. Therefore, as ambitious as No Man’s Sky is, it was still an indie game. And indie games simply don’t cost $60.
 
Don't let Joe Danger set your pricing expectations for No Man's Sky.
A lot of this comes down to the discussion surrounding monetary value assessments in modern gaming. Like I alluded to earlier, the rise of a new pricing tier was the flash point for discussions surrounding a game’s worth. Generally speaking, the value assessment comes down to two things. First, whether the game is indie or AAA, as I described above. Second is one simple math equation: dollars paid divided by hours played. It’s an aspect of video game culture I absolutely despise. A game is only ‘worthy’ of its price tag if it fulfills some set dollar to hour ratio of the player. For example, I’ve observed that many individuals want a ratio of around $2/hour. That is, a $60 game should provide at least 30 hours of gameplay. I’ve seen others touting the $1/hour figure, demanding 60+ hours for their purchase to be worthwhile. Though less strict for indie and/or $15 games, this calculation is still widely used. I saw dozens of threads on how Gone Home was not worth $15 because you could finish the game in 2 hours. I have noticed that, to a certain extent, this ratio trumps the overall quality of hours played. 30 good hours in a game are generally valued higher than 3 exceptional hours.

Let’s look at this in the context of No Man’s Sky. What would you expect to pay? First and foremost, No Man’s Sky in an indie game, so according to dogma it cannot be $60. But the game is huge, with promises of limitless galactic travel, realistically sized planets, trading, gunplay, resource collection, upgrading equipment. It’s hard to imagine the game offers fewer than 30 hours of gameplay to those of whom No Man’s Sky appeals. Further, Sony has poured an undisclosed amount of money into Hello Games to complete No Man’s Sky. How does that affect cost? If we go by this binary pricing structure, however,  Hello Games would be hard-pressed to ask for more than $15-20. But No Man’s Sky doesn’t fit comfortably into the widely accepted rubric for game pricing. So where does that leave us?

From everything I've seen and heard, No Man's Sky promises
to be absolutely massive.
I would argue there should not be a set pricing structure. There is no one right answer to game cost. Perhaps most important from my perspective, monetary value assessments vary dramatically from person to person. I am a person who feels far more satisfied in my financial investment in a game when my experience is phenomenal, rather than just good, regardless of the numbers of hours played. Firewatch was a better purchase than Batman: Arkham Knight, even though ‘the  ratio’ is roughly $7/hour for the former and $1.80/hour for the latter. I did not walk out of a movie theater wishing that the exceptional It Follows cost me less because it was an hour shorter than Avengers: Age of Ultron. In that way, game pricing should not be dependent on just perceived classification (AAA or indie) or ‘the ratio.’ Pricing should be reflective of the gamers’ anticipated experience, developer value assessments, developer financial needs, and the broader ecosystem of gaming. It all comes down to rhetoric. If you justify the right cost for your game, you should be able to charge what you feel is fair. Unfortunately, with current pricing dogma comes with baggage.
 
Firewatch was more than worth its sticker price.
Games that stray away from conventional pricing have been shackled by negative connotations of the decision. It goes in both directions. If an indie charges ‘too much’ for their title, the developers are greedy and just trying to get rich quick. It can even work against the developer to charge less for their game, believe it or not. Back in the 1990s, games that cost less than $50 were ‘bargain.’ This could mean a number of different things, but usually consisted of being made from an unknown team, being derivative of another popular IP, or being a game that shipped with considerable problems. When a new game launched for $30, you knew it was something to avoid. The industry has largely moved past creating and releasing these kinds of games, but the cognitive and connotative weight still exists and still acts as a serious impediment to pricing flexibility. Take the latest Ratchet and Clank, for example. It’s releasing in a little over a month, a reboot of one of the most popular IPs on the PlayStation 2, from a AAA-sized team with a long pedigree of amazing games. But Insomniac decided to set the game’s price at $40 and the internet began questioning the decision. Did this mean that Insomniac and Sony are not confident in the game? Will it be a bargain experience? Obviously none of us can say if that will be the case, but the fact remains that games that exist outside of traditional pricing structures are viewed with reservation.
 
Just because Ratchet & Clank costs $40 doesn't mean
it will be a 'bargain' game.
But why can’t games exist in a much fuller spectrum of pricing options? Why can’t pricing be analog rather than discrete? Nowhere is it set in stone what a game should cost. Nor have we strictly defined what $1, $5, $20, $60 or even $100 games should be. It’s clear that video game pricing structure hasn’t caught up with changes to game development. Indie studios are no longer just three gals working out of their basement to make a short, mechanically simplistic game. Indies dominate the game landscape, with titles big and small, scope limited or broad, gameplay hours many or few, with 2 employees to 2 dozen. Similarly, AAAs are no longer the be-all end-all gaming experiences. AAAs are often content dense, but have become iterative rather than innovative. Further, video game enthusiasts are gradually moving away from physical disks as the digital revolution continues forward. As manufacturing and retail reliance diminish, one should expect the pricing dogma to dramatically shift. And what an exciting future that could be. What will be the new face of a $40 game?
 
Not the be-all end-all.
An important thing to remember for all video game enthusiasts is to not set yourself up for disappointment when it comes to a game’s monetary worth. It’s difficult, but I would urge you to separate yourself from the ingrained connotations of a game’s inherent value given its price. If a new game you’re excited for is asking for $30 instead of $20, work to decipher why. Be introspective about determining your monetary value assessment. It’s not wrong to agree with the $2/hour ratio, but search for your specific evidence that supports that conclusion. Value your anticipated experience rather than focusing on how a company may be attempting to swindle you. From personal experience, at least, removing the shackles of standardized pricing has been liberating. I’m free to discern my feelings about a game without having to worry if my hard-earned dollar went far enough. It’s a fantastic feeling.

Even as I write this, it’s clear that we’re starting to see gaming’s pricing ecosystem beginning to shift. It was just three years ago or so that we saw the rise of the $20 indie game. Games like Firewatch and Gone Home argued that what they bring to the table is worth more than the standard $15. They argued so well, in fact, that $20 is essentially the new standard price. Steam has allowed for the rise of $5-10 indies like Undertale. February had the $25 SUPERHOT, January the $40 The Witness. Last year there was the $30 SOMA. Exploring pricing options is an essential part of the industry’s continued growth, and I’m fascinated to see where we will end up.
 
Welcome to planet Impact Factor Gamma-1. Or something like that.

Is No Man’s Sky worth $60? There isn’t one right answer. A jury of your peers shouldn’t decide your answer, though. It’s up to you. Like any good scientist you should make observations, perform a self-assessment, synthesize your findings, and draw a conclusion based upon them. You might just discover liberation too. And, if you’re lucky, maybe even a solar system to call your own.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The Impact Factor’s 2015 Game of the Year Awards!
Article, Part 2 of 2
Here's part two of The Impact Factor's game of the year discussion! If you missed it, you can find part one HERE. Onto more great games!

Honorable Mention: Shovel Knight, Heroes of the Storm, Rocket League, Cibele

These games were all great, but just missed the cut. These four stood out as ones that, at one point or another, were well within my top 10 games of 2015 before being shuffled out for the others I’ve listed here. Congrats to these games on a job well done!


6. Fallout 4


What can I say about Fallout 4 that hasn’t been said a million times in a million different places before? Let’s check some of the boxes off: Fallout 4 is amazing. Fallout 4 builds upon and refines the gameplay foundation laid out by Fallout 3. Fallout 4 has an immersive open world so filled with great details, side-quests and environmental storytelling you won’t ever want to leave. Fallout 4 is peerless in the type of game it tries to be. Fallout 4 gives the player agency in nearly every element of the game, creating one of the best truly role-playing games released this year. Fallout 4 finally made it fun to shoot things without the use of V.A.T.S. Phew, that’s a lot of boxes. All of that aside, Fallout 4 meant a lot to me personally. I had been craving a content dense open world for months leading up it its release. I was lukewarm on Fallout 3 but wanted to be part of the Fallout fervor. I wanted to play a game where reality would fade away, where I would be a survivor in post-nuclear war America. Fallout 4 met and exceeded all of my expectations. I essentially played the game without interruption until I had not only beaten the main story, but also accomplished nearly every in-game achievement (trophy). I loved exploring, finding the hidden richness of every nook and cranny. Voice acting added a new level of gravity to the game’s world, and for the first time I cared about the goings on of other survivors. The harshest critique I’ll levy here is that Fallout 4 is just Fallout 3, but better. Is that really so bad? I respect Fallout 4 as a game on so many different levels, not the least of which was (hopefully) setting a new precedent in which you don’t need a multi-year marketing and preview cycle to make a game a success. I can’t wait to jump back in once DLC is released.

5. Nuclear Throne


The team that made Ridiculous Fishing and Luftrausers is making a 2D twin-stick bullet hell roguelike? You had my attention, Nuclear Throne. Little did I know that attention would turn to adoration and my dabbling would turn into full on obsession. Nuclear Throne is fantastic. It’s my new Spelunky. Ponder for a second what I mean when I write that. Spelunky is in my top five favorite games of all time. Nuclear Throne is giving me the same kind of feeling that I had while I was learning Spelunky, during which every day was an adventure as I set new goals for myself. Nuclear Throne has me fully in its clutches. The team at Vlambeer know how to make a game with sublimely satisfying gameplay and a loop that hooks you, and Nuclear Throne is no different. Where it is different, though, is just how deep and nuanced a game Nuclear Throne can be. Each character you play as completely changes the way you approach the levels. The game is filled with secrets, some clear some obscure. Some that require an unfathomable level of skill. Nuclear Throne is a perfect roguelike. You never feel like stopping a run prematurely because you either took too much damage early or found bad weapons. At the end of each run, good or bad, I found myself thinking, “just one more run.” I played Nuclear Throne for over 35 hours after only two weeks of owning the game. Considering each run is usually between 5-15 minutes, that’s a whole lot of runs (& deaths). And still, I feel like I have such a long way to go because the skill ceiling is so high. I keep on coming back for more because it’s a perfect test of what I’ve learned. It’s fun, frantic, punishing, and addicting. Nuclear Throne sounds good, looks good, and is expertly designed. Of all the games on this list, Nuclear Throne is the one I’ll still be playing in 2016. And I can’t wait.

4. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt


If you were to go around the internet and see what game won the most ‘Game of the Year’ awards, it would be The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. By a landslide. For a lot of good reasons too. The Witcher 3 is one of the best open-world western RPGs ever made. The team at CD Projekt Red poured their heart and soul into the game, and it can be seen in every element of The Witcher 3. The world is expansive and brimming with things to see, people to meet, and quests to complete. The story, while simple, is easy to follow and unencumbered by usual RPG tedium. Combat is simple too, but its speed and fluidity give the player a great feeling of power. Most strikingly, every single thing in The Witcher 3 feels hand crafted. No location or path or monster is just there to fill space. Side quests are meaningful, more so than any other RPG I’ve ever played. They feel just as fleshed out as the main story quests, always having something to say or giving the player something new to do. Geralt, Yennifer, Tris and the rest of the cast are instantly familiar with distinct and charming personalities. The Witcher 3 is steeped in Slavic lore, making the monsters you fight all the more interesting (i.e. not always your standard western fantasy fare). Heck, The Witcher 3 even has a fully fleshed out card-based mini game that could have easily been a standalone release. It’s baffling to think how much work into creating The Witcher 3. But the payoff is worth it. The Witcher 3 has made me into both a Witcher and CD Projekt Red fan for life, even if I didn't like item degradation in the game. I’m so excited for what comes next.

3. SOMA


I’ll let a bit of my SOMA review serve as a quick intro, “SOMA sets a new high watermark for narrative in games. Frictional’s newest explorer slash survival horror title is a thought provoking, immersive masterpiece. Smart level and monster design keep the player actively engaged with the heady experience and maintain a great sense of momentum throughout. SOMA is deeply unnerving, content to keep you up at night rather than jump out of a dark corner to scare you.” SOMA is a game that asks the player questions about what it means to be human and what it means to die. Frictional Games matured in their storytelling, world building and gameplay in a way I never expected following Amnesia: The Dark Descent. You can tell each and every part of your trying experience in SOMA is handcrafted to immerse you in the world and the questions it asks. Long after I finished playing SOMA I wrestled with the ideas put forth by the game. How do I define my own humanity, for instance. But SOMA isn’t just some philosophy textbook. It’s a meticulously well thought out interactive experience. SOMA is a game that uses the tangibility and immersion to reinforce a narrative that could only be found in games. Frictional’s horror pedigree strengthens the game’s more terrifying moments, but also acknowledges that the scariest thing is your imagination. SOMA is easily one of the best horror games I’ve played in years and makes me so excited for the future of narrative in gaming.

2. Undertale


I was a bit late to the Undertale party, but man oh man I’m so happy I played it. This charming, old school-inspired RPG from toby fox met, exceeded, and subverted my expectations. Narrative, gameplay, fourth wall or otherwise. Undertale is a game that both stands alone as an exceptional experience as well as offers a commentary on games as a whole. The central message behind Undertale is one of non-violence or, at the very least, understanding the ramifications for your violent actions in video games. Undertale is supremely clever in doing so, with an innovative battle system and remembering your actions across play throughs or saves. The world Undertale establishes is so fully realized it comes as no surprise when you start discovering all the game’s hidden complexity. Undertale is also genuinely funny, filled with hilarious dialogue and some of the best gaming characters of 2015 (Sans and Papyrus are so great). And the music! Undertale has the best soundtrack of the year, too. I’ve seen Undertale described as a JRPG in which tedium and monotony is stripped away and replaced by humor. I can’t say I disagree (though I often like JRPG tedium). Undertale is a concise 5-8 hour experience that knows what it is and what its not. In these couple of hours Undertale establishes its own rules, tweaks them, breaks them, and keeps you on the edge of your seat as it constantly keeps the gameplay and story fresh. Undertale is probably one of the most replayable RPGs ever made, as each time you play you gain a new or fuller appreciation for the world. From my Undertale review, “Undertale is a peerless experience and serves as a perfect example of the power of auteurship in games. It’s one you shouldn’t miss.” I couldn’t agree more, me.

1. Bloodborne


Bloodborne is a true evolution of the Souls series, taking an enormous leap forward in much the same way Dark Souls did for Demon’s Souls before it. Miyazaki and team distilled the truest essence of what makes a Souls game work and builds upon that foundation in a thoroughly unique and profoundly interesting way. The brutal and often unforgiving nature of Bloodborne works in perfect synergy with its lightning fast, hyper-aggressive precision combat. A dark and grotesque world serves as the perfect foundation of this blood-filled dark odyssey into madness and nightmares. Bloodborne has a nearly unparalleled sense of cohesion, and exudes complete confidence in every single design decision. I cannot recommend Bloodborne highly enough.” (You can read my full Bloodborne review for more)

Bloodborne is a masterpiece. Bloodborne has fought off a deluge of exceptional games over the course of 2015, staying at the top of my tentative game of the year list ever since it was release. The game is just…perfect. Combat is at a series best. The world is dark and fascinating. The gameplay loop is better than ever. The feeling of satisfaction you get when taking down one of the game’s many challenges is unrivaled in gaming. Perhaps the highest praise I can give Bloodborne is that it is just so damn confident in its design. Nothing has been compromised. Bloodborne is unashamed by its ambition, unfettered by the demands of modern gaming. It gives you a fun you can only ever find while playing Bloodborne. I’m confident Bloodborne will be looked back on as one of the best games this console generation. Bloodborne is not only my favorite game of the year, but it’s objectively 2015’s best too. So congratulations Bloodborne, you are The Impact Factor’s Game of the Year!

And of course you can hear my thoughts on the top five I listed here in The Impact Factor's game of the year podcast! You can find it below.

Friday, January 1, 2016

News & Views
12/26/15-1/1/16

Happy New Year! 2015 is done and gone, leaving some pretty big changes in its wake. The year had its up and downs, but I think I can say I came out of pretty happy. I got engaged, started and maintained The Impact Factor, reconnected with old friends, make good progress & have direction for my thesis project, and more. Here’s to hoping 2016 is even better! I know that the gaming side is already looking pretty darn great, even if only half of the announced games actually get released.

News & Views is here for you as always here on TIF. There’s no better place (probably) to find the week’s best video game writing, be they editorial, opinion, essay or otherwise! The holiday meant not a whole lot of new stuff, but still check out below for stories about uncovering the heart of one of my favorite games this year (Undertale), how The Witcher 3 understands war, and how the first 15 minutes of SOMA set up its phenomenal experience.

And of course you can check out the brand new episode of The Impact Factor podcast that was posted today! You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, or if you prefer other methods, check out our SoundCloud. We’re on YouTube too!

Spotlight
Patrick Miller, Medium

Worth Reading
Richard Cobbett, Eurogamer

Alexa Ray Corriea, Gamespot

Matthew Gault, War Is Boring

Christopher Grant, Polygon

[game array], YouTube

With Comments
Sarah Kessler, Fast Company
This piece was too good not to include, though not strictly (or really at all) about gaming. I’ve always wondered about the people who work for these app companies. The people on the ground making this modern, connected, app-filled service-filled life so complete. Perhaps unsurprisingly, but still tragically, life is hard for the employees of this gig economy. The expectation of cheap labor is a serious problem in the US. I wish the best for everyone trying to make a living in the gig economy in 2016 and hope things can improve on the whole.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

On Horror, Games, Death, and Immersion
Article

Abstract: Horror is a balancing act between immersion, momentum and tension. The movie genre is one of my favorites for its ability to create and draw me into a new worlds. Horror is not my favorite game genre, however. Player deaths can break immersion and halt forward momentum, which weakens them as horror experiences. My favorite horror games, Dead Space, Resident Evil 4 and SOMA however, are able to find this balance and each accomplishes this feat it it’s own unique way.

Horror speaks to me. I love the thrills, chills, kills. All of it. Slashers and monsters and psychological and supernatural. Every October I throw together a Scare Fest list, compiling a bunch of horror movies to watch and review. This year I even started doing a special seasonal podcast in which my fiancĂ©e and I discuss a recent scary movie we’ve seen together: Snuggle & Scream.



There are a lot of reasons I love horror, too many to write out in this article. One of the main reasons, and the inspiration for this article, is immersion. The genre as a whole is routinely effective at world building. The movies craft their characters, motivations, and the antagonist  clearly—and have them fit into a cohesive world. The source material mandates this. To be scared you need to be involved. A part of that world. Often this can be difficult when the ‘truth’ of your world involves werewolves and ghosts and preternaturally strong psychopaths. Horror movies often create worlds entirely dissimilar to our own. So they work to create a setting detailed enough that the viewer is transported there. Once you’re in the world, you can be scared.

John Carpenter's The Thing brought me into a new world. A terrifying one.
The immersion typically found in horror films is a strange one, though. There’s limitations. You’re in the world, you are the characters… right up until they die. As a viewer, you’re free from the deaths and murder. In the best horror films, you’re affected by it as if you were the character themselves but there’s that crucial separation that occurs at the character’s last few moments. The observer-participant hybridization is something that continues to fascinate me about horror, and one of the main reasons it’s my go-to movie genre.

Horror’s observer-participant dynamic allows for several things, the most important of which is momentum. Deaths do not remove you from the experience. Quite the contrary, deaths are a key facet of the experience. Despite rapid ends to character arcs, you’re (almost) always treated with one continuous experience. Culling, whether it be of characters or questions, is additive in horror—it narrows the focus and builds towards the film’s conclusion.

In Alien, you are the crew of the Nostromo. Until you're not. Because they're dead.
Despite my fanaticism for horror movies, that level of adoration hasn’t directly translated to a passion for horror video games. Don’t get me wrong, I do love horror games. I’ll talk about my three favorites here shortly. Several horror games have even been seminal in the understanding and implementation of modern game design. I would say, however, that as a whole horror games struggle to recapitulate the feeling you get while watching a scary movie. All too often, horror games fail at preserving momentum.

How do horror games, even some of the best, struggle to maintain a brisk momentum throughout? It all comes back to immersion. Like I wrote above, in horror movies you’re immersed right until the point of death. Your immersion breaks for a few moments, and then you’re right back in with the characters who’re still alive. But dying is a serious issue in games. The immersion in games does not end when a character dies. You are that protagonist whether you die or not. Death results (usually) in a game over screen and being sent back to your last checkpoint. This loop is problematic in three important ways. First, you lose momentum. The actions of your hero are halted dead in her tracks, only to be repeated once you make your way back to where you died. Second, it breaks immersion. Dying and coming back to life five minutes before you ate it isn’t something that happens in real life, nor is it a part of the game world that’s ever explained. To clarify that last point: when you die and respawn in Outlast it doesn’t fit within the reality of the game. There’s no explanation to it. There isn’t something like “In this insane asylum, those confined within its walls are doomed to live and die endlessly.” Or something to that effect. You respawn in a horror game because you have to, not because it fits the truth of the world. Functionally, the game just pretends you didn’t die. And finally, player deaths remove tension. Knowing what killed you and where it’s hiding (usually) strips fear from the encounter, and makes the final experience weaker overall.

Friday the 13th had a great / terrible game over screen. Seeing this too often
can kill the 'horror' of your time with any horror game.
Horror works when you have a perfect balance of the three: immersion, momentum, and tension. Horror games work when the balance of difficulty and death is titrated in such a way that you need to just barely survive. You are constantly in fear of dying, but death comes infrequently. Because you’re ostensibly one of the few characters that survives the ordeal, or at the very least makes it to the end of the ordeal (i.e. the end of the game), death is more set-back than an intended possibility. So few games get this balance right. In some, you die far too often and it kills momentum, tension, and immersion. In others, you never die and the game loses its scariness, transforming into either an action or exploration game depending on the underlying systems. Fortunately, there are a select few horror games that do an excellent job at maintaining this delicate balance. They also happen to be my three favorite horror games of all time. Let me tell you about how all three get the balance of difficulty, death and momentum correct, each in their own unique way.

2008’s Dead Space, by EA Redwood Shores (a.k.a. Visceral Games now) is first on the list. Let me make something clear from the start. Unless you’re incredibly, overly, pain-stakingly cautious, and good at third-person shooters, you will die during your time with Dead Space. It’s going to happen. Isaac Clarke, space-engineer turned space-alien slayer, can die in some pretty gruesome ways. Why deaths work in Dead Space as opposed to other titles, though, is how intimately they are a part of the game’s narrative and world. Ok, sure, Isaac Clarke isn’t supposed to die and the game offers no explanation on why you respawn. Death in Dead Space, however, is edifying. It builds immersion. The mysterious necromorphs are at the heart of your experience. Necromorphs are these emaciated, gory humanoid forces of dismemberment and death. Throughout most of the game, though, their particular brand of evil is a mystery. Why they are, what they are, and what their purpose is. While the game offers other types of narrative to answer these questions, one of the key ways in which you begin to understand your foe is death. They ways in which they decapitate you, disembowel you, build Dead Space’s world. There aren’t very many characters with which to interact in Dead Space. The necromorphs have no other way to communicate with the player other than tearing you limb from limb, so your early deaths act as a conversation. On top of all that, the ways in which they kill the player (rending extremities from torso, generally) reinforces the central gameplay mechanic of ‘strategic dismemberment.’ Shooting off necromorph limbs is the only way to kill them. Well, that plus a swift stomp to their noggin. Your death works synergistically with both world building and gameplay. In that way, Dead Space finds it’s own way to balance player deaths with its horror intentions.

Deaths are used as both conversation & world building. They're essential
to your experience with Dead Space.
Resident Evil 4 is next on the list. I love the Resident Evil franchise, but it wasn’t until the fourth entry into the main series that it really clicked for me. And I think a large part of why it felt so good to play, and felt so authentically horror, is because it nailed the balance of death and momentum. What I didn’t expect, however, is that the infusion of better action elements would be the reason behind this balance working so well. Leon Kennedy isn’t your standard powerless horror protagonist: he’s a government agent who has already proven his skill at killin’ zombies. With that knowledge, it makes sense he comes equipped with plenty of tools to handle his situation: guns, knifes, grenades, you name it. And you know how to use them. In addition, you have access to a fairly generous merchant who shows up everywhere to keep your personal armory stocked. All of this is necessary though, because Resident Evil 4 pits you against unfathomable odds. While playing the game you always feel like you’re on the cusp of dying. After each fight you’re left with precious little health and even less ammo. But you made it out alive. Resident Evil 4’s scenarios are perfectly designed to give the player this feeling over and over again. Case in point is one of the game’s earliest encounters in the town square. The player is tasked with fighting off a seemingly endless horde of angry villagers. The fight can last upwards of 15-20 minutes. Every time I’ve played the scenario I feel like I’m teetering on the precipice of death—my health is too low so I’m forced to sprint to a distant house to hide and heal, or my ammo is low so I try to bait the angry mob to come at me one at a time by strategically running way and re-engaging. Sure, you can die (and I did), but with skillful play and the right difficulty setting (normal or hard depending on player skill) Resident Evil 4 kills the player only a precious handful of times, and has them spread out often enough they don’t severely impact immersion or momentum.

You might be a badass, but Resident Evil 4 continually finds way
to put you on the precipice of death.
The most recent addition to this list is Frictional Game’s SOMA. The game does so much exceptionally well, and it’s easily one of the best games I've played this year. On top of having an incredible and mature sci-fi narrative that leaves the player with lingering existential dread, SOMA also has created a stunningly immersive world that is reinforced by a perfectly crafted balance of death and momentum. Perhaps most importantly, SOMA tries to scare the player very differently than most other horror games. SOMA isn’t about the fear of death and dying, like in Dead Space or Resident Evil, but rather the fear that arises when you ask questions like ‘what is death’ or ‘what does it mean to die.’ SOMA would be terrifying even if it were impossible for the player to die. But there are monsters, and you can die. Smartly, SOMA moves away from one-hit-kills like those in games like The Evil Within or Amnesia: The Dark Descent. It’s always two. This maintains momentum and severely limits replaying sections. Further, monsters appear frequently (or infrequently) enough that you’re constantly on edge that they might appear, but you’re never bogged down having to move past monster after monster. It maintains their scare factor. And finally, SOMA gives the player interesting ways to avoid dying. Some enemies, for example, can only see you if you are looking at them. This creates a new kind of tension. The player not only must move without looking at the monster, but it also places you physically closer an enemy than most other games. That quasi-safety in proximity creates a near-death feeling horror strives for. As a result, SOMA is a fantastic horror experience. Game or not.


SOMA moves away from scaring the player with death. It scares the player
by making them think about what death actually is.
The best of the best, whether movie or game, balance the many tensions that exist in horror. Horror games must be exceeding hard to design in this way, which makes the exceptions I described above all the more worth commending. So maybe give one of them a shot this Halloween weekend. Happy Scare Fest everyone.