For a class about character design, we had a project about creating a set of characters for a horror game. Just my [bad] luck, I already had a very fleshed-out story horror concept running amok in my head... but it only had 2 characters in it: The main character, an opportunistic journalist who found a deserted underground military complex full of bodies, and the monster (mostly unseen). This did not fulfill the requirements of the project in that I basically only had one character to turn in; but I was super convinced that this could make a great story for a horror game so I insisted and re-did the project except this time I fleshed-out the monster some more and added the setting as a "third character" to meet the project requirements.
I failed again because it still only had one real character according to my teacher. The class turned into a huge discussion about how one character is not enough for a story, and it really seemed like everyone was against me on this. Sadly, this was before Portal and waaay before Amnesia: TDD.
I learned my lesson, though: Don't shoehorn your own concept into a project for which it doesn't really fit, just because it's a great concept in itself. The class was about character design, after all. And it's not like I didn't have 20 other old ideas in my notebooks that I could have used instead.
As it just happens, I'm writing something very intricate and this really helped frame the mechanics of what I want to portray. So thanks for breaking the Halloween rule on this episode.
Seems as though James is going on a bit of a tangent.
But anyway I completely agree with you. All forms of media including TV and Film forget what horror is. I think it was Steven Spielberg who said that modern horror films don't create horror they create disgust which is completely different to being scared. Games do this too. Some of my friends say that left for dead is incredibly scary because it has zombies. It's not.
Slenderman is probably the closest thing I have seen to being scary. I don't think it is scary though because it doesn't have anything to it. It's just a shell with nothing inside. Saying that though I don't know what you could do to make it truly scary. Maybe you could have some human characters that are completely psychotic and try to kill you to save their own skin. I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I just hope the industry realise that what they call horror is not horror. Who knows maybe we'll get a film or video game that is truly the scariest thing we have ever experienced.
What happened to monsters that simply represent primal fears that are come standard in the human operating system? The dark. Blood. Insects. Wild Animals. Death. I think this piece kind of misses out/glosses over these, because it's really focused on psychological 'horror', which is kind of what I get from the 'part 1' thing. I think it's a kind of snobbery to negelect those. Yes, I think that, intellectuals especially, no longer respond well to that kind of horror after a point, because we 'know' that this isn't affecting us, it's just created media. Most of our audience are not intellectuals, however.
And it does a disservice to game creatures to neglect that side of horror creation. Especially because the 'monsters' that James listed here, the ones that stand the test of time, have to work on more than one level. An Alien is not terrifying just because it represents some psychobabble about subversion or loss of identity. It's also terryfing because it is nigh-unkillable, looks otherworldly and strange, and enjoys mutilating its prey. And monsters that fail to satisfy on either level fail to last. Dorian Grey is a good example of that. The story of Dorian Grey lasts because it was incredibly well written - but the 'monster' Dorian Grey doesn't exist outside his story, by and large, because while being psychologically terrifying, it doesn't terrify on that more primal level.
Seems as though James is going on a bit of a tangent.
But anyway I completely agree with you. All forms of media including TV and Film forget what horror is. I think it was Steven Spielberg who said that modern horror films don't create horror they create disgust which is completely different to being scared. Games do this too. Some of my friends say that left for dead is incredibly scary because it has zombies. It's not.
Slenderman is probably the closest thing I have seen to being scary. I don't think it is scary though because it doesn't have anything to it. It's just a shell with nothing inside. Saying that though I don't know what you could do to make it truly scary. Maybe you could have some human characters that are completely psychotic and try to kill you to save their own skin. I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I just hope the industry realise that what they call horror is not horror. Who knows maybe we'll get a film or video game that is truly the scariest thing we have ever experienced.
What happened to monsters that simply represent primal fears that are come standard in the human operating system? The dark. Blood. Insects. Wild Animals. Death. I think this piece kind of misses out/glosses over these, because it's really focused on psychological 'horror', which is kind of what I get from the 'part 1' thing. I think it's a kind of snobbery to negelect those. Yes, I think that, intellectuals especially, no longer respond well to that kind of horror after a point, because we 'know' that this isn't affecting us, it's just created media. Most of our audience are not intellectuals, however.
And it does a disservice to game creatures to neglect that side of horror creation. Especially because the 'monsters' that James listed here, the ones that stand the test of time, have to work on more than one level. An Alien is not terrifying just because it represents some psychobabble about subversion or loss of identity. It's also terryfing because it is nigh-unkillable, looks otherworldly and strange, and enjoys mutilating its prey. And monsters that fail to satisfy on either level fail to last. Dorian Grey is a good example of that. The story of Dorian Grey lasts because it was incredibly well written - but the 'monster' Dorian Grey doesn't exist outside his story, by and large, because while being psychologically terrifying, it doesn't terrify on that more primal level.
I had never heard that particular explanation of original vampires and werewolves. Very insightful. I've tried running "horror" tabletop campaigns before, but despite vampires, werewolves, and undead being perfectly suited for the storyline, being a fantasy setting, they never really work for scary. Partly that may be because adventurers who fight monsters on a weekly basis just aren't going to get scared of that kind of stuff. But exploring what made those monsters compelling really does explain why old-school monsters haven't been scary in a long time.
I find Horror films intensely boring. I can jump at all the shocks in the world, but it doesn't engage me in the setting or characters. I also really dislike the type of Horror filmns that are basically just light snuff films, and I am greatly concerned about anyone who enjoys that as entertainment.
The only times I have ever been genuinely frightened in a game however, is when I was led into a situation without having fear foisted on me until the last minute. Metroid Prime.
Metroid Prime is a 12, and an action game, but it balanced the power of my character with my own human limitations really effectively. I got to the point where I thought I had a hold on what was going on, Then the lights went out.
I literally stopped and had to catch my thoughts, because I panicked fast. I'd been led to associate with this character comfortably and now I wasn't sure what to do, and that bled into reality.
That doesn't happen in horror films because I don't feel the need to invest in the characters.
I enjoyed this episode immensely, but it's worth pointing out, that those type of monsters don't just work in horror, all monsters in straight sci-fi and fantasy work better in they play on the same values.
The Dark: Type 1. Fear of darkness is programmed into humans specifically *because* we don't know what's in it. People who are scared of the dark in their own bedrooms, for example, are the exceptions not the rule; most of us learn as children that darkness isn't scary when we know what's in it.
Death: If it's not our own death, we aren't really afraid of it. When was the last time you had to turn off a Die Hard movie because of the extreme physical danger that nearly all of the characters are in at all times (and which many succumb to)? Never is when, because death only frightens when paired with other circumstances.
The others aren't worth dignifying; as someone said below, they're more in the "disgust" camp than fear, and when they are fear inducing, there's something else going on (ie; bugs alone are gross, bugs burrowing inside you and eating you from the inside out might be horrifying).
TLDR; just because you're not an intellectual (what does that even mean? Do "regular" people not have conscious thought?) doesn't mean the two-dollar words you stubbornly refuse to learn aren't real things that can and do scare people.
Amnesia doesn't just "hide the monster", they added the sanity mechanic so that when it comes out you're discouraged from getting a good look at it (for most of the game you basically have to die or risk dying to do that).
'Slender' was a success because it rather effectively applied the first category of monster to a somewhat spooky setting. Also, because it is only a brief experience the game could highlight the feeling of being alone and helpless, giving you no way to fight back or fend off the incoming threat. If we're honest here, the Slender character isn't exactly all the interesting a 'monster', based as it is purely on a well-known image.
This actually underlines the dilemma for creating 'monsters' for horror games as choices have to be made not just about appearance and backstory but also the mechanics of how it assaults the player and, importantly, what options the player is given to escape and / or defeat it. Videogames have certain benefits when it comes to creating tense experiences but also have to find a precarious balance between the relative powers of the hero and antagonist- give the player too many powers and you reduce the terror but if you don't give players at least some options then it may feel like the game is playing itself.
Personally, I feel like making monsters with uniquely terrifying appearances and creating complex relationships to the protagonist, while useful, aren't the paths game designers should be concentrating on right now. There are so many unexplored ways to utilise game mechanics to put the player in horrifying interactive experiences. I mean, if you think about it, isn't the Jekyll and Hyde concept something you can imagine making for an intriguing game beyond that infamously terrible adaptation? You could take the 'Otherworld' setting twist of the Silent Hill series to turn your perspective on its head. You could make the element of losing control, friends becoming foes, turning on your own allies, etc. into something different.
@Timebolt: That's setting the bar pretty high, innit? The "scariest thing ever" seems to be one of the more subjective things in human nature.
I've been scared of death since I was 10. Voltorocks seems to sneer at it. I don't say that to argue his points, I say that to demonstrate the contrast.
I think we'll be doing better if more people make things that are genuinely scary *to the creator*. Then, other people like the creator will be scared, and some will still say "not scared" out of authenticity or bravado.
Personally, I want someone to do a contemporary movie or game in the Cthulu mythos. Like the Ninth Gate, only with more insanity and horror.
@Maxsimal
"What happened to monsters that simply represent primal fears that are come standard in the human operating system? The dark. Blood. Insects. Wild Animals. Death."
Apart from death they are already representations of our fears. The dark is a fear of the unknown and blood of our own fragile nature. Insects are very culture and time dependent for their fear factor outside of the uneasy feel of them on your body. Wild animals trigger the good old fight or flight part of the brain and that one is concerned not dying.
Death is a very hard monster to make a monster for in a computer game as it's so common an element in games that video game death is part of the ordinary day.
Considering the episode was focused on monsters I also don't find it strange that any of the examples you gave where mentioned. They have no iconic figure to use as example that really does the fear justice.
@voltorocks
I'd expand on the darkness bit -- the fear isn't only of what we can't see, it's of the sensory deprivation and of the existential loneliness that the dark sometimes instills (i.e. sometimes it isn't that the dark hides something sinister, it's that it negates what is good and meaningful). In the absence of light, the absence of stimulation, our minds turn differently, in ways that might frighten us.
Also, as regards "death" as a vehicle for horror: Have a kid, then tell me you aren't afraid of someone else's death. Or, hell, a pet. The death of somebody you care about and are responsible for is at least as terrifying as the prospect of one's own death and, in most cases, exceeds it. And game designers have started to realize this.
@Maxsimal
I think you have a good point that when speaking of horror folks who consider themselves high-minded often neglect to talk about the mechanics of visceral, pulp horror in favor of a sort of literary, psychological horror. But I don't think it's because those folks are snobs; it's more that the alternative isn't a terribly interesting avenue of discussion, and moreover the works that rely on those kinds of scares are often very culturally regressive (e.g. they play on xenophobic fears or stereotypes). What I'm saying is, EC seems to be endorsing horror that tries to reveal something to us <i>about</i> us; however, most of popular horror really just exploits and reinforces the impulses of our darker sides (e.g. the slasher porn that's been in vogue for the past decade or so). And while we can and should talk about those vile, sad veins that run through popular culture, that would be a different topic for a different time.
@voltorocks
I'd expand on the darkness bit -- the fear isn't only of what we can't see, it's of the sensory deprivation and of the existential loneliness that the dark sometimes instills (i.e. sometimes it isn't that the dark hides something sinister, it's that it negates what is good and meaningful). In the absence of light, the absence of stimulation, our minds turn differently, in ways that might frighten us.
Also, as regards "death" as a vehicle for horror: Have a kid, then tell me you aren't afraid of someone else's death. Or, hell, a pet. The death of somebody you care about and are responsible for is at least as terrifying as the prospect of one's own death and, in most cases, exceeds it. And game designers have started to realize this.
@Maxsimal
I think you have a good point that when speaking of horror folks who consider themselves high-minded often neglect to talk about the mechanics of visceral, pulp horror in favor of a sort of literary, psychological horror. But I don't think it's because those folks are snobs; it's more that the alternative isn't a terribly interesting avenue of discussion, and moreover the works that rely on those kinds of scares are often very culturally regressive (e.g. they play on xenophobic fears or stereotypes). What I'm saying is, EC seems to be endorsing horror that tries to reveal something to us <i>about</i> us; however, most of popular horror really just exploits and reinforces the impulses of our darker sides (e.g. the slasher porn that's been in vogue for the past decade or so). And while we can and should talk about those vile, sad veins that run through popular culture, that would be a different topic for a different time.
Now I'm thinking about the objectively awesome "The Monsters and the Critics" by Tolkien. It's not about horror, of course, so maybe none of it applies, but maybe some of it does so here I go.
Anyway, it's basically about Beowulf and his three monsters: Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon. Though the psychological ideas we have about seeing the monster in ourselves applies pretty clearly to modern stories (Aliens 4 does this and is underrated), I don't know that it's true of pre-Freudian stories. That is, Beowulf is just a decent bro. He's not part monster; he's not greedy like the dragon who sits on the gold hoard. He's just a hero.
But then maybe that's exactly why we think of Beowulf as in the heroic mode and not horror. Maybe the threat of the interior monster is the main province of horror stories for a reason.
@Maxsimal
Probably because outside of the horror that is based primarily in the psychological, there isn't much else.
Even "Aliens", as you mentioned, is based on a lot of psychological fear: Rape. The theme of at least the first "Aliens" movie is rape.
"Horror" that doesn't have much psychological elements in it are usually more akin to just straight out action movies.
Jurassic park taps into a lot of "primal fear", but it is still a sci-fi adventure movie, not a horror film.
I think the best avenue to explore horror may actually be ARGs and their ilk. If interactivity is what makes game horror capable of more than movie horror, then ARGs take the cake. One of the internet's most famous creepypastas is also one of her most famous ARGs. I wonder if this could be expanded upon or brought to a wider audience? I know ARG fans will probably stone me even for suggesting this, but could we keep the spirit of an ARG while making it at least a teeny bit more accessible?
For some reason, when the third kind of monster was mentioned and I saw "fear" as a prompt, I thought of Francisco de Goya's "Saturn Devouring His Son". If you're disturbed easily I don't recommend looking this up without the lights on, but it's a fascinating thought on how to show a monster of fear, as Saturn feared being overthrown if he didn't commit this taboo.
I love reading/viewing stuff like this, because it's a perfect insight to how writers and game makers can overcome some of the more laughable stuff in modern media trying to present itself as 'horror'.
For some reason, when the third kind of monster was mentioned and I saw "fear" as a prompt, I thought of Francisco de Goya's "Saturn Devouring His Son". If you're disturbed easily I don't recommend looking this up without the lights on, but it's a fascinating thought on how to show a monster of fear, as Saturn feared being overthrown if he didn't commit this taboo.
I love reading/viewing stuff like this, because it's a perfect insight to how writers and game makers can overcome some of the more laughable stuff in modern media trying to present itself as 'horror'.
I thought of zombies as a type 3 monster, they're sloth with a little bit of wrath on gluttony.
It's like how Tool and Maynard put it in Vicarious.
"Stare like a zombie, into the t.v. wide open mouthed."
They're symbolic (imo) of the brain-dead consumer state.
Or like that interview I just read on Io9 in regards to the movie Warm Bodies.
Allow me to copy and paste.
"There's a scene in it I really like where R (the zombie and protagonist) thinks it must have been so great when everyone was able to connect with and could talk to each other. And it cuts to a past scene with everyone just wandering through and airport, just locked into their cellphone. To me, one of the core questions of this movie is, what does it actually mean to be alive? I think in many ways R is more alive than a lot of the people who you see on a day-to-day basis. "
And that's what makes zombies special, they're no more alive nor deader than the way they where before the outbreak.
The true fear for me at least is, whence the zombie out break starts and we have to leave our old lives behind, were our old lives worth living? did you make the most out of your opportunities? Did you live when you still had the chance?
Or it's like what Rick said (spoilers) "We are the walking dead."
As popular as Twilight is it is not the 'go to' for the horror version of vampires. It is more a romantic version of the monster much of the down sides effectively removed and seems adrift. By contrast Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and the Hellsing OVA (which has Alucard aka Dracula if the name wasn't obvious) as the anti-hero fighting Nazi vampires) turn the vampire into a moral riddle about power, the temptation to give into its abuse, and the question of how far one will go to avoid death.
To be fair werewolves and Mr. Hyde haven't really been used much in recent years (likely why you went to a horrid to the point it should have been never made 1988 video game)
0
Options
WalsfeoGames & Technology LibrarianGeorgetown County SCRegistered Userregular
Don't wait for a specific holiday season to do a certain topic. If we care about the topic we'd probably like to have it off cycle so it's useful to us before then.
I liked the topic, but because I've spent so long thinking about these things I felt the coverage was very weak. I hope you dig into it more in the future.
A first person, a second person, and a third person walk into a bar. The Bartender says "Hey, get some perspective."
There's another type of horror I like to use, False Situational Horror. It's when something at first seems truly horrific but then after a key insight is revealed and the horror is re-experienced, folks actually embrace the "terror" and even identify with the act deeply, or find it endearing... There's those moments when newer players are pit against the despicable acts of the experienced players, and even fight them off; only to eventually embrace the "evils" themselves becoming the monsters they once feared. Those with the insight might even pity the others who are fighting against them.
I have a really good example, but it's a plot device for an upcoming game, so forgive me this unrefined example as I'm making it up on this spot:
You race down the war torn street away from the fire-eyed demons, occasionally stopping to lay down cover fire for those unfortunate souls racing along behind you. You dare not stop, you've seen what they do. Ripping open the chests and tearing out the still beating hearts of those who fell behind. A choke point ahead is already clogged with other players scrambling for their lives, some are even killing others to make their own way through.
Soon you're overcome by a beast of brimstone. You scream as it tosses you to the ground and you're brutally eviscerated. Darkness closes in on your final glimpse of this world: Your own bloody heart beats before you, persisting against the blanket of black that envelopes all else. It begins to shimmer with an otherworldly light. Suddenly a blinding brilliance burst from it.
You stand now in another world, yet somehow familiar. Gone is the red sunset of horror replaced by a cool mist-filled overcast. A single ray of sun pierces the heavens above. Your body lies at your feet, bruised and torn, swirling with shadowy evil-looking clouds that flee from the angel that's now standing beside you, there's something familiar about those white wings...
As the bright haze lifts your surroundings become clear. You're still at the choke-point. The others are gone, they must have fled as you were... killed? This must be a trick, you turn to flee the now angelic once demonic form, and notice you're hovering above the ground. A soft glow seems to follow wherever you go, but it's not important: You've got to get away; Help your friends! So you rush off through and above the choke point -- You can fly!
Down on the rubble lined road below pin points of light clouded in murky darkness crawl like ants, where your friends should be. Several glowing angels whisk past you; Some onward towards your friends but more flit away to the horizon where inky darkness looms, and leaks across the land flowing in tiny rivers of pitch. The white winged forms seem to be herding the mists away from your only briefly forgotten friends.
You approach your friends at great speed only to have them shriek and run from you. A man pale as death with sunken eyes fires his rifle through you, and you're stunned, slowed, but still moving. A dark fog seems to exude from the people and cling to their wretched forms; They all look dead, some are obviously mortally wounded yet still walk. In an effort to flee from you a woman brutalizes another and clamours over the fresh bloody body. A tendril of blackness peals off from a nearby black stream and swiftly shrouds the murderer in a mist so dark that only her glowing heart stands out as a beacon.
An angel rushes past to fight through the dark woman's evil snake-like mists. He pulls the pulsing ember from within her. There's a flash of bright cold light. Her body falls and an angel stands in its place, spreading it's wings. The inky evil that once swarmed the body now retreats from it.
On a side note, "Jekyll" is a really good show that puts a good modern twist on Jekyll and Hyde.
It's a British show, but follows a man, Dr. Jackman, who at first glance seems to have "split personality", but there are physical changes when he switches. "Hyde" is a monster, not through anything like psychopathy, but through his child-like nature. Combined with his inhuman strength and significant intellect, he has no qualms about killing people and enjoying it.
The show is brilliant because ultimately Hyde represents the dark side in all of us, but is played an anti-hero, not an antagonist. Hyde is the necessary dark side we have, the one that allows us to perform unspeakable acts for the greater good.
Finally, during the show, Hyde is almost identical to Jackman in appearance. His hair is darker and the hairline is different, but generally they look the same. Except very occasionally. There are rare times when you do see Hyde the monster, very brief flashes normally intended to scare another character (and the viewer by extension). This underscores the fact that the acts that Hyde performs are essentially capable by anyone.
A bit off topic, but it is a good example of a classic "monster" in a modern context. It takes what made them, them, and wraps a nice new setting around it.
On a side note, "Jekyll" is a really good show that puts a good modern twist on Jekyll and Hyde.
It's a British show, but follows a man, Dr. Jackman, who at first glance seems to have "split personality", but there are physical changes when he switches. "Hyde" is a monster, not through anything like psychopathy, but through his child-like nature. Combined with his inhuman strength and significant intellect, he has no qualms about killing people and enjoying it.
The show is brilliant because ultimately Hyde represents the dark side in all of us, but is played an anti-hero, not an antagonist. Hyde is the necessary dark side we have, the one that allows us to perform unspeakable acts for the greater good.
Finally, during the show, Hyde is almost identical to Jackman in appearance. His hair is darker and the hairline is different, but generally they look the same. Except very occasionally. There are rare times when you do see Hyde the monster, very brief flashes normally intended to scare another character (and the viewer by extension). This underscores the fact that the acts that Hyde performs are essentially capable by anyone.
A bit off topic, but it is a good example of a classic "monster" in a modern context. It takes what made them, them, and wraps a nice new setting around it.
@Maxsimal
I think you have a good point that when speaking of horror folks who consider themselves high-minded often neglect to talk about the mechanics of visceral, pulp horror in favor of a sort of literary, psychological horror. But I don't think it's because those folks are snobs; it's more that the alternative isn't a terribly interesting avenue of discussion, and moreover the works that rely on those kinds of scares are often very culturally regressive (e.g. they play on xenophobic fears or stereotypes). What I'm saying is, EC seems to be endorsing horror that tries to reveal something to us <i>about</i> us; however, most of popular horror really just exploits and reinforces the impulses of our darker sides (e.g. the slasher porn that's been in vogue for the past decade or so). And while we can and should talk about those vile, sad veins that run through popular culture, that would be a different topic for a different time.
And one that was done much, much earlier in the series.
"I think in many ways R is more alive than a lot of the people who you see on a day-to-day basis. "
and zombies also serve now as a reflecting point on the condition of our culture that causes us to think of ourselves as special beacons of shining light in a mass of dim bulbs that couldn't possibly be as introspective or have lives as full of meaning as ourselves.
we don't even think of people outside our spheres of influence as humans any more. It's an arrogant, self centered, disgusting way to go through life, and yet something we're all guilty of.
Do it. Horror Settings ftw. *THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD YE LAND LUBBER*Also, wouldn't you consider Daniel from Amnesia: The Dark Descent to be just as much the horror monster as the beasts that hunt you? (I do, He tortured and killed people, even if he was being tricked, damn I love that game).*SPOILERS OVER YE MAY NOW RETURN LAND LUBBERS* I'm also super excited for the next Amnesia game, can you try to interview Frictional Games? Because everyone that works there must be AWESOME and I want to know about their next game. Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs. (PIGS IT MUST BE GLUTTONY RIGHT????).
Posts
I failed again because it still only had one real character according to my teacher. The class turned into a huge discussion about how one character is not enough for a story, and it really seemed like everyone was against me on this. Sadly, this was before Portal and waaay before Amnesia: TDD.
I learned my lesson, though: Don't shoehorn your own concept into a project for which it doesn't really fit, just because it's a great concept in itself. The class was about character design, after all. And it's not like I didn't have 20 other old ideas in my notebooks that I could have used instead.
Though I think I'm fine with my setting.
Sorry about that, NoeL.
But anyway I completely agree with you. All forms of media including TV and Film forget what horror is. I think it was Steven Spielberg who said that modern horror films don't create horror they create disgust which is completely different to being scared. Games do this too. Some of my friends say that left for dead is incredibly scary because it has zombies. It's not.
Slenderman is probably the closest thing I have seen to being scary. I don't think it is scary though because it doesn't have anything to it. It's just a shell with nothing inside. Saying that though I don't know what you could do to make it truly scary. Maybe you could have some human characters that are completely psychotic and try to kill you to save their own skin. I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I just hope the industry realise that what they call horror is not horror. Who knows maybe we'll get a film or video game that is truly the scariest thing we have ever experienced.
And it does a disservice to game creatures to neglect that side of horror creation. Especially because the 'monsters' that James listed here, the ones that stand the test of time, have to work on more than one level. An Alien is not terrifying just because it represents some psychobabble about subversion or loss of identity. It's also terryfing because it is nigh-unkillable, looks otherworldly and strange, and enjoys mutilating its prey. And monsters that fail to satisfy on either level fail to last. Dorian Grey is a good example of that. The story of Dorian Grey lasts because it was incredibly well written - but the 'monster' Dorian Grey doesn't exist outside his story, by and large, because while being psychologically terrifying, it doesn't terrify on that more primal level.
But anyway I completely agree with you. All forms of media including TV and Film forget what horror is. I think it was Steven Spielberg who said that modern horror films don't create horror they create disgust which is completely different to being scared. Games do this too. Some of my friends say that left for dead is incredibly scary because it has zombies. It's not.
Slenderman is probably the closest thing I have seen to being scary. I don't think it is scary though because it doesn't have anything to it. It's just a shell with nothing inside. Saying that though I don't know what you could do to make it truly scary. Maybe you could have some human characters that are completely psychotic and try to kill you to save their own skin. I don't know I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I just hope the industry realise that what they call horror is not horror. Who knows maybe we'll get a film or video game that is truly the scariest thing we have ever experienced.
And it does a disservice to game creatures to neglect that side of horror creation. Especially because the 'monsters' that James listed here, the ones that stand the test of time, have to work on more than one level. An Alien is not terrifying just because it represents some psychobabble about subversion or loss of identity. It's also terryfing because it is nigh-unkillable, looks otherworldly and strange, and enjoys mutilating its prey. And monsters that fail to satisfy on either level fail to last. Dorian Grey is a good example of that. The story of Dorian Grey lasts because it was incredibly well written - but the 'monster' Dorian Grey doesn't exist outside his story, by and large, because while being psychologically terrifying, it doesn't terrify on that more primal level.
The only times I have ever been genuinely frightened in a game however, is when I was led into a situation without having fear foisted on me until the last minute. Metroid Prime.
Metroid Prime is a 12, and an action game, but it balanced the power of my character with my own human limitations really effectively. I got to the point where I thought I had a hold on what was going on, Then the lights went out.
I literally stopped and had to catch my thoughts, because I panicked fast. I'd been led to associate with this character comfortably and now I wasn't sure what to do, and that bled into reality.
That doesn't happen in horror films because I don't feel the need to invest in the characters.
I enjoyed this episode immensely, but it's worth pointing out, that those type of monsters don't just work in horror, all monsters in straight sci-fi and fantasy work better in they play on the same values.
The Dark: Type 1. Fear of darkness is programmed into humans specifically *because* we don't know what's in it. People who are scared of the dark in their own bedrooms, for example, are the exceptions not the rule; most of us learn as children that darkness isn't scary when we know what's in it.
Death: If it's not our own death, we aren't really afraid of it. When was the last time you had to turn off a Die Hard movie because of the extreme physical danger that nearly all of the characters are in at all times (and which many succumb to)? Never is when, because death only frightens when paired with other circumstances.
The others aren't worth dignifying; as someone said below, they're more in the "disgust" camp than fear, and when they are fear inducing, there's something else going on (ie; bugs alone are gross, bugs burrowing inside you and eating you from the inside out might be horrifying).
TLDR; just because you're not an intellectual (what does that even mean? Do "regular" people not have conscious thought?) doesn't mean the two-dollar words you stubbornly refuse to learn aren't real things that can and do scare people.
I really enjoyed this episode.
This actually underlines the dilemma for creating 'monsters' for horror games as choices have to be made not just about appearance and backstory but also the mechanics of how it assaults the player and, importantly, what options the player is given to escape and / or defeat it. Videogames have certain benefits when it comes to creating tense experiences but also have to find a precarious balance between the relative powers of the hero and antagonist- give the player too many powers and you reduce the terror but if you don't give players at least some options then it may feel like the game is playing itself.
Personally, I feel like making monsters with uniquely terrifying appearances and creating complex relationships to the protagonist, while useful, aren't the paths game designers should be concentrating on right now. There are so many unexplored ways to utilise game mechanics to put the player in horrifying interactive experiences. I mean, if you think about it, isn't the Jekyll and Hyde concept something you can imagine making for an intriguing game beyond that infamously terrible adaptation? You could take the 'Otherworld' setting twist of the Silent Hill series to turn your perspective on its head. You could make the element of losing control, friends becoming foes, turning on your own allies, etc. into something different.
I've been scared of death since I was 10. Voltorocks seems to sneer at it. I don't say that to argue his points, I say that to demonstrate the contrast.
I think we'll be doing better if more people make things that are genuinely scary *to the creator*. Then, other people like the creator will be scared, and some will still say "not scared" out of authenticity or bravado.
Personally, I want someone to do a contemporary movie or game in the Cthulu mythos. Like the Ninth Gate, only with more insanity and horror.
"What happened to monsters that simply represent primal fears that are come standard in the human operating system? The dark. Blood. Insects. Wild Animals. Death."
Apart from death they are already representations of our fears. The dark is a fear of the unknown and blood of our own fragile nature. Insects are very culture and time dependent for their fear factor outside of the uneasy feel of them on your body. Wild animals trigger the good old fight or flight part of the brain and that one is concerned not dying.
Death is a very hard monster to make a monster for in a computer game as it's so common an element in games that video game death is part of the ordinary day.
Considering the episode was focused on monsters I also don't find it strange that any of the examples you gave where mentioned. They have no iconic figure to use as example that really does the fear justice.
I'd expand on the darkness bit -- the fear isn't only of what we can't see, it's of the sensory deprivation and of the existential loneliness that the dark sometimes instills (i.e. sometimes it isn't that the dark hides something sinister, it's that it negates what is good and meaningful). In the absence of light, the absence of stimulation, our minds turn differently, in ways that might frighten us.
Also, as regards "death" as a vehicle for horror: Have a kid, then tell me you aren't afraid of someone else's death. Or, hell, a pet. The death of somebody you care about and are responsible for is at least as terrifying as the prospect of one's own death and, in most cases, exceeds it. And game designers have started to realize this.
@Maxsimal
I think you have a good point that when speaking of horror folks who consider themselves high-minded often neglect to talk about the mechanics of visceral, pulp horror in favor of a sort of literary, psychological horror. But I don't think it's because those folks are snobs; it's more that the alternative isn't a terribly interesting avenue of discussion, and moreover the works that rely on those kinds of scares are often very culturally regressive (e.g. they play on xenophobic fears or stereotypes). What I'm saying is, EC seems to be endorsing horror that tries to reveal something to us <i>about</i> us; however, most of popular horror really just exploits and reinforces the impulses of our darker sides (e.g. the slasher porn that's been in vogue for the past decade or so). And while we can and should talk about those vile, sad veins that run through popular culture, that would be a different topic for a different time.
I'd expand on the darkness bit -- the fear isn't only of what we can't see, it's of the sensory deprivation and of the existential loneliness that the dark sometimes instills (i.e. sometimes it isn't that the dark hides something sinister, it's that it negates what is good and meaningful). In the absence of light, the absence of stimulation, our minds turn differently, in ways that might frighten us.
Also, as regards "death" as a vehicle for horror: Have a kid, then tell me you aren't afraid of someone else's death. Or, hell, a pet. The death of somebody you care about and are responsible for is at least as terrifying as the prospect of one's own death and, in most cases, exceeds it. And game designers have started to realize this.
@Maxsimal
I think you have a good point that when speaking of horror folks who consider themselves high-minded often neglect to talk about the mechanics of visceral, pulp horror in favor of a sort of literary, psychological horror. But I don't think it's because those folks are snobs; it's more that the alternative isn't a terribly interesting avenue of discussion, and moreover the works that rely on those kinds of scares are often very culturally regressive (e.g. they play on xenophobic fears or stereotypes). What I'm saying is, EC seems to be endorsing horror that tries to reveal something to us <i>about</i> us; however, most of popular horror really just exploits and reinforces the impulses of our darker sides (e.g. the slasher porn that's been in vogue for the past decade or so). And while we can and should talk about those vile, sad veins that run through popular culture, that would be a different topic for a different time.
Now I'm thinking about the objectively awesome "The Monsters and the Critics" by Tolkien. It's not about horror, of course, so maybe none of it applies, but maybe some of it does so here I go.
Anyway, it's basically about Beowulf and his three monsters: Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon. Though the psychological ideas we have about seeing the monster in ourselves applies pretty clearly to modern stories (Aliens 4 does this and is underrated), I don't know that it's true of pre-Freudian stories. That is, Beowulf is just a decent bro. He's not part monster; he's not greedy like the dragon who sits on the gold hoard. He's just a hero.
But then maybe that's exactly why we think of Beowulf as in the heroic mode and not horror. Maybe the threat of the interior monster is the main province of horror stories for a reason.
Good stuff.
Probably because outside of the horror that is based primarily in the psychological, there isn't much else.
Even "Aliens", as you mentioned, is based on a lot of psychological fear: Rape. The theme of at least the first "Aliens" movie is rape.
"Horror" that doesn't have much psychological elements in it are usually more akin to just straight out action movies.
Jurassic park taps into a lot of "primal fear", but it is still a sci-fi adventure movie, not a horror film.
I love reading/viewing stuff like this, because it's a perfect insight to how writers and game makers can overcome some of the more laughable stuff in modern media trying to present itself as 'horror'.
I love reading/viewing stuff like this, because it's a perfect insight to how writers and game makers can overcome some of the more laughable stuff in modern media trying to present itself as 'horror'.
It's like how Tool and Maynard put it in Vicarious.
"Stare like a zombie, into the t.v. wide open mouthed."
They're symbolic (imo) of the brain-dead consumer state.
Or like that interview I just read on Io9 in regards to the movie Warm Bodies.
Allow me to copy and paste.
"There's a scene in it I really like where R (the zombie and protagonist) thinks it must have been so great when everyone was able to connect with and could talk to each other. And it cuts to a past scene with everyone just wandering through and airport, just locked into their cellphone. To me, one of the core questions of this movie is, what does it actually mean to be alive? I think in many ways R is more alive than a lot of the people who you see on a day-to-day basis. "
And that's what makes zombies special, they're no more alive nor deader than the way they where before the outbreak.
The true fear for me at least is, whence the zombie out break starts and we have to leave our old lives behind, were our old lives worth living? did you make the most out of your opportunities? Did you live when you still had the chance?
Or it's like what Rick said (spoilers) "We are the walking dead."
To be fair werewolves and Mr. Hyde haven't really been used much in recent years (likely why you went to a horrid to the point it should have been never made 1988 video game)
I liked the topic, but because I've spent so long thinking about these things I felt the coverage was very weak. I hope you dig into it more in the future.
I have a really good example, but it's a plot device for an upcoming game, so forgive me this unrefined example as I'm making it up on this spot:
You race down the war torn street away from the fire-eyed demons, occasionally stopping to lay down cover fire for those unfortunate souls racing along behind you. You dare not stop, you've seen what they do. Ripping open the chests and tearing out the still beating hearts of those who fell behind. A choke point ahead is already clogged with other players scrambling for their lives, some are even killing others to make their own way through.
Soon you're overcome by a beast of brimstone. You scream as it tosses you to the ground and you're brutally eviscerated. Darkness closes in on your final glimpse of this world: Your own bloody heart beats before you, persisting against the blanket of black that envelopes all else. It begins to shimmer with an otherworldly light. Suddenly a blinding brilliance burst from it.
You stand now in another world, yet somehow familiar. Gone is the red sunset of horror replaced by a cool mist-filled overcast. A single ray of sun pierces the heavens above. Your body lies at your feet, bruised and torn, swirling with shadowy evil-looking clouds that flee from the angel that's now standing beside you, there's something familiar about those white wings...
As the bright haze lifts your surroundings become clear. You're still at the choke-point. The others are gone, they must have fled as you were... killed? This must be a trick, you turn to flee the now angelic once demonic form, and notice you're hovering above the ground. A soft glow seems to follow wherever you go, but it's not important: You've got to get away; Help your friends! So you rush off through and above the choke point -- You can fly!
Down on the rubble lined road below pin points of light clouded in murky darkness crawl like ants, where your friends should be. Several glowing angels whisk past you; Some onward towards your friends but more flit away to the horizon where inky darkness looms, and leaks across the land flowing in tiny rivers of pitch. The white winged forms seem to be herding the mists away from your only briefly forgotten friends.
You approach your friends at great speed only to have them shriek and run from you. A man pale as death with sunken eyes fires his rifle through you, and you're stunned, slowed, but still moving. A dark fog seems to exude from the people and cling to their wretched forms; They all look dead, some are obviously mortally wounded yet still walk. In an effort to flee from you a woman brutalizes another and clamours over the fresh bloody body. A tendril of blackness peals off from a nearby black stream and swiftly shrouds the murderer in a mist so dark that only her glowing heart stands out as a beacon.
An angel rushes past to fight through the dark woman's evil snake-like mists. He pulls the pulsing ember from within her. There's a flash of bright cold light. Her body falls and an angel stands in its place, spreading it's wings. The inky evil that once swarmed the body now retreats from it.
You realize now what you must do...
It's a British show, but follows a man, Dr. Jackman, who at first glance seems to have "split personality", but there are physical changes when he switches. "Hyde" is a monster, not through anything like psychopathy, but through his child-like nature. Combined with his inhuman strength and significant intellect, he has no qualms about killing people and enjoying it.
The show is brilliant because ultimately Hyde represents the dark side in all of us, but is played an anti-hero, not an antagonist. Hyde is the necessary dark side we have, the one that allows us to perform unspeakable acts for the greater good.
Finally, during the show, Hyde is almost identical to Jackman in appearance. His hair is darker and the hairline is different, but generally they look the same. Except very occasionally. There are rare times when you do see Hyde the monster, very brief flashes normally intended to scare another character (and the viewer by extension). This underscores the fact that the acts that Hyde performs are essentially capable by anyone.
A bit off topic, but it is a good example of a classic "monster" in a modern context. It takes what made them, them, and wraps a nice new setting around it.
It's a British show, but follows a man, Dr. Jackman, who at first glance seems to have "split personality", but there are physical changes when he switches. "Hyde" is a monster, not through anything like psychopathy, but through his child-like nature. Combined with his inhuman strength and significant intellect, he has no qualms about killing people and enjoying it.
The show is brilliant because ultimately Hyde represents the dark side in all of us, but is played an anti-hero, not an antagonist. Hyde is the necessary dark side we have, the one that allows us to perform unspeakable acts for the greater good.
Finally, during the show, Hyde is almost identical to Jackman in appearance. His hair is darker and the hairline is different, but generally they look the same. Except very occasionally. There are rare times when you do see Hyde the monster, very brief flashes normally intended to scare another character (and the viewer by extension). This underscores the fact that the acts that Hyde performs are essentially capable by anyone.
A bit off topic, but it is a good example of a classic "monster" in a modern context. It takes what made them, them, and wraps a nice new setting around it.
And one that was done much, much earlier in the series.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/where-did-survival-horror-go
and zombies also serve now as a reflecting point on the condition of our culture that causes us to think of ourselves as special beacons of shining light in a mass of dim bulbs that couldn't possibly be as introspective or have lives as full of meaning as ourselves.
we don't even think of people outside our spheres of influence as humans any more. It's an arrogant, self centered, disgusting way to go through life, and yet something we're all guilty of.
-Walt Kelly