Friday, April 4, 2014
The Four Types of Scares
Currently I am sidetracked on a different side project (again), but considering the depth of the games I want to create, and the depth of this current side project, I think it would be better to devote my precious resources to this side project instead.
So here we go:
I've been reading up a bit on the different types of scares, and in my expert opinion with no professional experience on the psychology of fear, I theorize that there are four different types of "Fears", or "Scares".
This article at Gamasutra.com is much of my basis, for these opinions, though I am presenting them in a different format.
Firstly there is the Paranoia scare, which is the fear of the unknown, or rather the anxiety over the unexpected. They come from the player's experience over the Hostile scare and the Startle scare. Both the Startle scare and the Hostile scare feed into the Paranoia scare, and the tension comes from the player unable to find the sources of their anxiety, and thus will look into every nook and cranny in order to prepare for either of the Startle or the Hostile scares. The purpose of this scare is to make the player find many false negatives in their search for these respective scares, much like gambling; give the player a series of rewards set to vend out at regular intervals, with varying degrees of success, and then mix it up with randomly inserted scares so that they are on the lookout for these "rewards".
Next up is the Startle scare, also known as the "jump" or "cat" scare. This is the scare when something just so happens to jump out at you and startle you, like a cat jumping into your lap while you are reading your book outside in the afternoon sun. Most people view the Startle scare with disdain (mostly players I think, but I think a handful of game designers also think that the Startle scare is a bit cheap). I once thought that the Startle scare was a bit cheap too, until I watched the popular youtuber Markiplier play Ju-on (2:00) and Outlast (13:21). There are certain instances when the player looks behind a corner, checks under a desk, or peaks behind a curtain, and at the very first moment of that action, BOOM! The creepy-ugly-thing-stalking-you pops out. Now at every moment that the player checks behind the corner, under the desk, or behind the curtain, the memory of that initial scare reoccurs. As a matter of fact, the first time Markiplier gets that jump scare performing that certain action, the nasty critter calls the player a "little piggy", and every time Markiplier performs that action again, he repeats the mantra "oh little piggy no no, oh little piggy no no", reliving that initial memory of being scared, despite the fact that he never gets scared in that way again.
The Startle scare is good because it brings the player's adrenaline up, and due to the Two Factor Theory of Emotion, gets the player scared from the outset, making the player more afraid and hyper-sensitive to potential scares. This hyper-vigilance makes the player test for more "false-positives" in their search for potential threats, feeding into the Paranoia scares. Like an endless cycle of doom :)
The next scare is what I call the Hostile scare. It is the fear of something that can potentially harm you. These are the types of critters (or afflictions/status effects) that the player wants to avoid at all costs. Imagine the nasty critter that is three times your size chasing you and crashing through walls and furniture in its pursuit to turn you into a nice, bloody, abstract art piece on the walls. It could also be a trap, pitfall, or some other mechanical/non-sentient force that has the potential to harm you. These scares are easily identifiable, and it is the fact that the player wants to avoid them that makes them so scary. In fear, there is only fight or flight, so if the player is only given the option to "run", then it becomes a frantic scramble to avoid the thing that may kill you at all costs.
The problem with this is fear is that you have to use it sparingly, otherwise it may frustrate players trying to avoid something so unavoidable, and then you are forced to design the Hostile scare into something that is more manageable, thereby removing the threat in the scare. By also using the Hostile scare sparingly, you also feed into the Paranoia scare; the player doesn't know when the Hostile scare will appear, and will devise ways to avoid the scare if possible.
Finally, there is the Unnatural scare. This is the scare "which should not be". For example:
You have been walking around the abandoned hospital/insane asylum/mine, dodging all the nasty things that go bump in the night, and as you are entering a room and looking at the puzzle on the wall, you hear the sound of a little girl playing. You turn around, and there she is, back facing towards you, wearing a dress that belongs in the 1920's, when suddenly, her head spins 180 degrees to face you, and then she says in her sweet little voice: "wanna play?"
The Unnatural scare is meant to be disturbing, unnerving, or otherwise bizarre. In the above example, little girls are not supposed to be playing in a dangerous environment, they are not supposed to be wearing a dress from 90 years ago, and their heads are most definitely not supposed to turn around 180 degrees. Unnatural scares help create the atmosphere of unease, they are the things "which should not be".
The problem with this scare is that too much of it and then you desensitize the player. Too much blood, gore, or things that are disturbing and then you have to escalate the Unnatural scare so that the player can feel unnerved again. Use it sparingly, and feed into the Paranoia scare to help create that sense of atmosphere.
I'm pretty beat right now. I might be able to say more on this later.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Strategy vs Variety
The constant credo that I want to expound about the games I want to create is "never the same game twice", and that has been a very concerning problem for me. How do I make a game that gives the player a brand-new, novel experience, every playthrough?
One of my theories as to why players will replay a game is because it allows strategy, but strategy can only occur if you give the game an element of predictability as well. Strategy relies on the fact that your brain can make guesses about the future, and you'll react to each situation as they arise to solve the problems, much like how you are supposed to walk on the outer ring of a level in Slender: The 8 pages, and then move into the inner ring. People who have played that game understand that they have to check all of the possible spawn points of the eight pages, and be able to conserve their flashlight's battery and their running stamina. The problem with that game-making style is that after a while it becomes a robotic repetition of following the same steps you did previously to complete the game, and after a long enough time doesn't give the player enough replayability.
Games that gives you a set of iterated problems with specific solutions (like enemies which may be immune to one form of attack but vulnerable to another) gives the player some variety, but in the end is just a game of rock, paper, scissors that relies on your ability to predict which move your opponent will make. I'm reminded of Starcraft, Diablo, and Skyrim when I say this, though Skyrim's and Diablo's RPG elements add another aspect of variety in their gameplay: specialization.
Specialization is a fantastic tool, and if enough specialization options are available to the player, gives the player a multitude of options to address each challenge presented. The problem with this style is that it again is a game of rock, paper, scissors, only this time you are constantly choosing "rock, rock, rock, rock", and sooner or later you will encounter a critter who chooses "paper", making your life interesting. This reminds me of how I typically play Skyrim, a rogue/sniper/thief. You take the least amount of damage, and if you are patient enough, you can eventually wear down every enemy into death. The only problem I encountered is when I had to go head-to-head with a magic-user who could heal themselves: if I brought their health down far enough they would just heal up, so I had to do enough damage to them quickly enough while getting them to spend all of their mana before hand to prevent them from healing, or have a few poisons or weapons specifically reserved for when I encountered those enemies.
Despite the fact that getting hit with "rock" while choosing "scissors" is a bit vexing, it actually doesn't demean or limit gameplay. It just means that a variety of creatures were presented and you finally encountered one that exploited your limitations. Given a long enough time scale, you would always eventually encounter a challenge that countered your strength.
Rogue-like games are interesting because they give the player a variety in environments to explore, but also prevents the player from developing a strategy because there isn't enough predictability to develop a strategy. If another player and I are both playing Terran, and the other player is building tanks, I understand that spamming marines isn't the best bet for me. If I'm playing a rogue-like game, then I have little to no idea as to what to expect as I progress from level to level. Being unable to guess my enemy (in this case the game environment) lends a sense of realism to games: life is unpredictable, and so is this game. You can also add RPG elements to a rogue game to encourage specialization, giving the player a variety in environments and specialization choices, but the problem with that is that you'll create a game that is more about casual, arcade style playing. Not only that, but rogue games may or may not give you the correct equipment drops to allow you to progress to the final stage of the game (I'm looking at you Faster Than Light).
So how do you create a game that gives the player enough variety to keep the player interested, but enough predictability that the player can develop a strategy? One possible solution is just to create enough content and then barring the player from taking alternate routes to find the solution. The problem with this style is that given enough playthroughs, players will eventually come across all of the content. On top of that, the human brain desires novelty, and barring a player from exploring alternate paths makes the player feel as if they failed to complete a challenge, much like how one will find a waist-high fence that "just so happened" to barricade the player from going down the rest of that one hallway. So, creating copious amounts of content is not the solution either.
So the question remains: how to create enough variety to keep the novel experience, but enough predictability to allow the player to develop a strategy?
Curious question indeed.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
On Replayability Pt2
In a previous article I talked about several different games that I have played and talked about why they were so replayable for me. It then occured to me that I missed a couple other games, and since that previous post is already WAAAAY too long, I decided to highlight some other games I forgot about, as well as talk about replayability in the horror genre overall.
So, I will talk about the replayability of Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (LOKSR) for the PS1, and Halo 2 for the Xbox, in context of the different tactics available, storyline, and player rewards.
LOKSR
Tactics: The player's tactics really don't change from game to game as much as from encounter to encounter. Using the different elemental spells against enemies is an interesting trick, however, after looking at the cost to find the mana to use such spells, as well as the more fun I had fighting and impaling enemies, I hardly ever used the elemental spells. As an action platformer, LOKSR does not allow much in the way of specialization.
Story: The game does not alternate it's ending based on the player's choices during play. The player follows a linear story, unlocking stages of the game as the player gains powers.
Rewards: No rewards. Playing the game does not give you a better score or any incentive to play the game again with a different mechanic or bragging rights.
Analysis: This game was fun because I could conquer it, because it had a tight storyline with an interesting twist on the vampire genre, and because the graphics and gameplay were amazing. I played it many times for all of these reasons, not because the game was altered or aware of the fact that I had played it before.
Halo 2
Tactics: As an action FPS game, Halo 2 didn't offer much in the way of different ways to finish the game. It seems that the designers actually created certain levels where you had to use different weapons in light of the enemies you were fighting and the design of the level (like being given a sniper rifle to take out vultures, or vehicles to fight over vehicles and traverse over land quickly, or rocket launchers or other vehicles to fight other vehicles). The player does not consistently maintain specialization while playing this game.
Story: No alternate endings, no changes to the story based on the player's actions.
Rewards: The player is given certain rewards based on which level the game was completed on, thus giving the player bragging rights.
Analysis: I managed to complete this game on Hard mode, but legendary just seemed a little out of my reach. The main attraction to this game, and the majority of the hours I put into it were from, its multiplayer support. Obviously, I lack the technical skill to try to make a game that supports multiplayer, and I want to build a gae based on the specialization of a character, which means creating an MMO, which is another thing I do not want to do.
Finally a note about replayability and the horror genre: part of the scares that come from the horror genre is the use of jump scares as well as displaying the freakish, weird, or otherwise unnerving. Replaying the game means the characters will inevitably be desensitized to the scares and to the unnatural.
I'm planning on creating an AI director, much like Left 4 Dead, that tracks the progress and actions of the player and adjusts the game accordingly. I'm also not very interested in creating shock scares, so trying to make things new and refreshing in context of shock scares is not important to the development of this game.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
On Replayability
Tactics: Tactics remain the same from one playthrough to the next
Tactics: The four available characters to play TNMT allowed you to choose from better reach or attack by their character choice (if I remember correctly), but for the most part the differences were just different color models. Completing the game with different characters didn't change the gameplay as much, though completing it with a different character gave the player a sense of minor accomplishment.
Tactics: As an action game MGS allows you to play with different tactics by allowing the character to use different bonus items based on the previous gameplay. Being allowed access to different tactics entailed actually replaying the game.
Tactics: Not much for tactics, aside from having a different combination of characters available to play on a different playthrough.
Tactics: ME allowed you to actually create your main character, with different cosmetic changes to the models and voice acting, and a set of character classes to choose from. ME's main source of replayability is built into the first decision of character class: if you choose one class, having a balanced team means having one or two different character combinations to your main team.
Tactics: Much like ME and Diablo, at the character start the player was given an option to play one of seven available bloodlines, with two gender models. This choice greatly affected gameplay, as certain clans, like Nosferatu, were given different advatanges and disadvantages to deal with while traversing through the game world. On top of that, other clans, like Malkavian, were given alternate dialogue options which changed the tone in which the game is played. Like Diablo, each clan also allowed the player to embrace different tactics, with the clan choice giving an overall theme as to how the game is played. Finally, the game also didn't award the player for the number of creatures killed as much as whether or not the objectives were completed, thus rewarding the player for finding alternate ways to complete each mission regardless of style of play.
Tactics: Diablo gave you different characters with different skills and character models, and, especially in the case of Diablo II, each character gave you separate tactics with which you could play the game. Not only that, but the difficulty of the game required the player to replay the game and earn more experience before proceeding to the next level, and the game had different settings (including a hardcore setting with permadeath) which changed the gameplay experience. On top of that, Diablo had multiplayer support, allowing the player to compete online with other characters, much like other popular MMO games that would soon enter the market.
Tactics: Skyrim and ME are similiar in that you can make cosmetic changes to the central character of their stories, but where ME has different classes to choose from Skyrim allows you to pick between different races. Aside from a couple dialogue changes from picking an alternate race, the initial character choice doesn't affect the player much as he or she progresses through the game, especially in the later levels when the majority of the character skills are maxed out, and with the addition of the legendary mode allows the character all the perks to be accessed.
What makes a game replayable is the audience into which the game is tailored to. Flappybird, Angrybirds, Tetris, and TMNT are or were all popular because they catered to the casual gamer market. I, however, am not interested in the casual game market, because the survivor-horror genre as well as the RPG are nearly impossible to create tailored for the casual gamer. This means I have to find surivor horror rpg's that have replay value. That's peachy.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Elrich the Old
Monday, March 3, 2014
The Father's Realm: An Alternate High Fantasy Setting
A First Post
I tried making one on Tumblr, though I think they are more interested in content reposting than *actual* people making *actual* content. Most of the popular blogs are about making something short and visual, and I can appreciate that business model because our brains seek novelty and having short little quips is far more interesting than long narratives about a specific subject or object.
But I digress.
I want to work on a video game, and not just any video game, a game that features a storyline setting that I have been working on since highschool (about 10+ years). To tell the truth, it is an amalgamation of several different concepts that I have toyed with, and they all just kinda got... mashed together. I'm hoping that I can make this blog and that it'll get a following to help encourage me to continue pursuing this project. I think my problem isn't that I don't want to work on projects as much as I need some sort of reason to focus all of my creatives juices into one project.
It's like my brain seeks novelty or something.
I don't know how often I'll be updating this blog, or what exactly I'll be updating this blog with, but right now I have some content that I can simply throw out there and maybe some people will find it interesting enough to follow.
As a special note: I'm looking for people who can help me create this monster project. I'm especially interested in animators, modelers, concept artists, and sound people. Persons who know how to program would be a nice plus too. For right now, I want to build the game in Unity 3D because it is free, there is a lot of online content to help realize my vision, and considering my level of programming knowledge it seems to be right at my skill level. I'm expecting to make this a PC game.
My next few posts will deal with the setting of the game I'm working on.