Here is something new

#1 Alone in the Dark?

#2 I have played Alone in the Dark. The full story is completly differnt and only a few of the gameplay ideas are similar to Alone in the Dark. You have to read the story to see just how differnt the two are.

#3 Nocturne
Alone in the Dark series
Blair Witch series
Undying
Resident Evil

The idea isn't that new(nothing wrong with that) but don't say something that has never been done before when it has.

#4 Alright, the idea is not brand new, sorry about that. its just survival horror has never really been used to its full potential. Has any game really ever scared anyone. I can only think of 1 and that would be silent hill. There are so many other ways to do survival horror games. Paranormal will take a differnt approach at horror. Sorry about the title though. I know the survival horror idea is not new.

#5 Don't forget the Sierra classic series Gabriel Knight, that was a really sweet game series about the occult and supernatural.

Logan

#6 For good inspiration for this stuff check out the author H.P.Lovecraft. Many developers have tried to recreate this story/game type but none have succeded IMHO. I'm hoping the new one coming out will be better. :)

#7 A game based on the Cthulu cult (this is the group that Lovecrafts books were based on if you didn't know) would be fairly intersting.

Although with all the so called "special interst" groups out there trying to "protect" the mind of the population you'd instantly have a game that would be controversial and banned in half the civilized world... wait a second, that sounds like fun actually :)

#8 Thanks for telling me about H.P. Lovecraft. I am going to check out some of his work today.

#9 In my opinion, survival horror games don't really work unless the player fears death (or some other consequence of "losing"). Saved games kill this fear very quickly. If I may ask, Greg, how do you intend to induce this fear?

Aliens vs Predator tried using limited saved games per level, but that became more frustrating than immersing. (And the game broke down to a puzzle game: how do I get from here to the level's end without dieing, and how many retries will it take to find the answer?) Arcade games induce fear by making you pay to continue if you die, but that of course doesn't work with a PC or console.

I'd be very interested to hear your plans on the matter (I personally hate the whole saved game idea, but I haven't come up with any reasonable solutions myself).

Hmmm.... How about the zombies holding your computer hostage? "Survive or the mp3 collection gets it!" Hmm, evil :)

#10 I really agree with the last post... I have found survival horror games to be some of the least scary games I've ever played.... when you're reloading every 3 minutes, it takes the fear out of it real quick. It's not very scary if your death is guaranteed.

I think games in all genres need to move away from punishing the player for doing poorly by making them repeat themselves. Why should the penalty for failure be repeating the task that you failed? Adventure games did this by taking player death out of the equation. It is different for other genres but I think a little creativity in this area could yield some games that feel a lot different from what exists today.

#11 System shock 2 was a game that allways kept mwe jumpy while I was playing it. The randomly spwning monsters were what did it, unlike in other games, where you can just clear an area and then move through, you never knew if they would be behind the next door, even if you had allready been there. If you got stuck and have to keep wandering through the level looking for a way to progress this adds alot to the "survival factor". Sure, you could just reload from a saved game, but never knowing if there are or aren't enemies around the next corner helps alot.

Also the security system helped, tripping it and having hoards of zombie mutants attack you is nerve racking. In the end alot of things about SS2 got annoying and repetitive, the "go find the :insert object here: and use it to :insert objective here:", the constant degrading of weapons and the respawning mosters made me stop playing after a few levels (When you get the fusion cannon). But having a few respawning monsters would help your game, as long as you don't have degrading weapons ;) .

#12 Josh: That's a very good point, about death being GUARANTEED Too many games just go for the "game over" message too often. With my current project, I'm aiming (eventually) to have the player control two or three different characters at various times... if one dies, the game won't be specifically harder, but the storyline will be impacted. (Lose all characters and the game's over, sure, but at least mistakes can happen without immediately forcing a bad ending or repetition.)

Jonathon: SS2 WAS a jumpy game, I agree :) I disagree on random spawning though, for three reasons:
* More often than not, it's unrealistic. I've cleared an area, and I'm standing at the only access door, so how COULD that zombie have appeared there. (If he got in through the ventilation shafts, then why can't I use them too?)
* It's often too linear, and can be damned frustrating. There was one point in SS2 - a long corridor, punctuated by doors every 10 feet - where a spawned zombie was guaranteed to come along every 15-20 seconds. I couldn't stop to read a log that I'd picked up, because I'd be constantly interrupted. After killing five of the mindless freaks, and realising that I was running out of ammo and health, I decided to restart on an easier level...
* It forces the player to move at a certain pace. Go too slow, and you'll encounter many more spawned creatures, like I did above. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I admit, but it is a limitation.

Sure, it does bring that essential element of uncertainty, but I'd personally prefer that uncertainty to come from a less frustrating source!

I found Thief 2 to be one of the better games for sustaining tension. It isn't a survival horror, but it has several of the important elements - a world filled with enemies, a task to complete, surprises and uncertainty. And there was no certain death - any level can be completed without losing a drop of health. But nor was having full health any certainty of success... it was a very good system. (Oh, and since it took upwards of a minute to reload a saved game, I found it a lot easier to accept minor setbacks and just get on with it...)

The other key element seems to be having the player involved with a concrete and interesting goal. In SS2 and T2, the player is very involved with doing something without dieing; forming a plan; putting it into action; hoping and preying that it works out. Too many "survival horrors" just degenerate to a dark'n'gloomy version of Quake.

Sorry about the long rant.

#13 I really liked that aspect of Thief also. I think that the addition of stealth to FPS games, Theif being the most obvious example, was a great step... it builds tension, as opposed to older designs which are pretty much just all about *releasing* tension. And so someone does spot you in Thief and a chase ensues, it's pretty damn exhilarating IMO.

I think the idea that you mention about having the game continue, slightly differently, if you lose your characters is on the right track. The idea I've been mulling over for a while now is having a strategy game where there's no real way to lose a battle. Just have different outcomes depending on how well the player performs. The thing I'm trying to avoid is the way almost all games force you to use your first few cracks at a level to figure out what the situation is, then you can come up with a real plan to beat it. The game would be designed to be played only once (or at least the design focus would be on the first play-through). This would make for a short game but I think most modern games are too long anyway. It would have to be balanced differently than most games also (basically be easier so the player has a good shot at winning on their first try. Of course the danger with this is the dreaded Exponentially Branching Storyline but I think that could be overcome.

Apologies to the original poster... I'm way off topic =)

#14 Well said, Josh :)

Greg's survival horror would do well to similarly use sound/stealth, attracting the attention of zombies by a misplaced step, followed by a noisy chase through the mansion attracting even more freakies... a scene out of a movie, no less :)

With the obligitory on-topic comment out of the way, we now progress to other things... ;)

I DESPISE the way so many games make you have many attempts at a level. (Especially survival horrors.) I'd like to know more of your ideas with regards to the strategy game; it's a problem I've mulled over myself. I don't see that it needs to be any easier, as long as the computer doesn't have the classic huge advantages (complete knowledge of the battlefield and a huge base to start with), and battles are not so clear-cut. At the moment, most battles are completely one-sided one way or another, but more specialised units and interesting terrain advantages could make battles much longer, unclear, and interesting to play. Possibly. I've done a little thinking about it, but no experimentation!

#15 This Penny Arcade cartoon is rather relavant... ;)

#16 I just thought I would chime in here, I thought silent hill was probbly one of the creeper games i have played. Anyone remember the foggy town streets.....or the hospital, remember that all dark and forboding man that was actually creepy....

#17 Horror, now that's a game I would really like to see done well.

However, if you've ever played Undying ask yourself this question.
Q. When were you scared the most?

Was it when you walked down the hallway and saw the reflection of the ghost in the mirror? Or when you are shooting all the bad monster things?

I think too often horror is considered to be throwing horrible monsters at you and you having to destroy them somehow.
Take a look at good horror films though, personally I think the best horror films are the ones where you see the least. Where films build up to something and let your mind terrorise you during that period.
Alien is a good example of this.

This is where I would like to see things go, use suspense, have all the creepy stuff going on, make it last until the player has become slightly used to it then then BAM! hit them with something unexpected that will make them jump out of their socks.

Lower the monster count, increase the atmosphere and create an environment where the user will terrify themselves. The best horror is that which we make up ourselves because we know our own worst fears.

So don't set out to scare people, just give them the environment where they can do it themselves.

#18 There's already a Lovecraftian/Cthulhu Mythos game in the works:

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth

I've been watching Headfirst's dev for awhile now, quite a remarkable game they've got going there. Watch some of the vids in that link, the terror factor is pretty cool and innovative. And be careful where you pull from for inspiration that you don't infringe on copyrights already in place (like Lovecraft's works). But CoC:DCotE is a must for Lovecraft fans.

#19 just go to www.chaosium.com to get all the cthulu info you could ever want. They have great resources for anyone looking for inspiration for a horror game. Chaosium publishes the Call of Cthulu RPG and they sell just about anything H.P. Lovecraft related.