Horror games are scarier when the protagonist is a girl?

Sack of Cheese

New member
Sep 12, 2011
907
0
0
I've recently finished Silent hill 3 and I have to say it's a more thrilling experience compared to Silent hill 2. Heather has rather small physique and it made me feel more vulnerable compared to other horror games where the protagonist was a man.

It must be why most Asian horrors have women as their main characters.

What do you think? Would games like Amnesia be scarier if you play as a female character?
 

Mikejames

New member
Jan 26, 2012
797
0
0
Honestly I probably felt more adept with Heather than a lot of the other SH protagonists...

The girl could steadily handle a sub-machine gun and unironic katana.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Mikejames said:
I actually thought SH3 was the scariest, but not because of Heather. It was mainly because unlike the other games in the series the horror doesn't ever let up, and there's much less supplies when playing on normal. I'm sure that if you simply replaced Heather with James Sunderland or Harry Mason the game would have been just as scary. Quite a lot of the scariness of Silent Hill comes from the protagonist being just a normal guy or girl in a terrible situation, it's why I really didn't find Downpour scary since you were playing as a criminal who's been hardened by prison.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
I don't think gender plays much of a role in how scary a game feels. Portrayal of the main character does however and if you go a stereotype "weak girl in distress" then it will obviously feel scarier than a "guy who has to do what it takes to save the day"-cliché. Arguably, the second part of Aliens isn't very scary because Ripley is so consistently portrayed as a capable survivor that we simply know she will make it out alive.
 

Mr Cwtchy

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,045
0
0
I don't think so. I didn't find the Justine expansion for Amnesia any scarier than the original game, for example.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
No. I do not think that it makes a difference. I'd say that is more down to your perception than anything else.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,445
5,270
118
The fear from Silent Hill doesn't come from physical vulnerability, but from psychological and emotional vulnerability. You're hardly ever in any real physical danger in the (good) Silent Hill games.

So no, gender means nothing in horror/survival.
 

Mikejames

New member
Jan 26, 2012
797
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
I actually thought SH3 was the scariest, but not because of Heather. It was mainly because unlike the other games in the series the horror doesn't ever let up, and there's much less supplies when playing on normal. I'm sure that if you simply replaced Heather with James Sunderland or Harry Mason the game would have been just as scary. Quite a lot of the scariness of Silent Hill comes from the protagonist being just a normal guy or girl in a terrible situation, it's why I really didn't find Downpour scary since you were playing as a criminal who's been hardened by prison.
I had mixed feelings on the scare factor.
Highlights like the hospital genuinely scared me, but some of the otherworlds were so consistently loud and dangerous that tension could wane when there wasn't much room given for the pacing to let you breath, and with the town being bluntly antagonistic it started to feel like reality had less grounding while Heather herself never actually needed to question her own mental stability.

Don't get me wrong, it was one of the top three scariest of the series for me, but maybe with Claudia being a loony unambiguous threat I felt less in the sense of psychological fear?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mr Cwtchy said:
I don't think so. I didn't find the Justine expansion for Amnesia any scarier than the original game, for example.
Excellent example.

I saw the title and was going to comment on how Silent Hill 3 was also a counter-example, but the OP reversed it on me. While Silent Hill 3 is my personal favorite and second-scariest after Silent Hill 4, Heather actually REDUCED the scare factor, because she regularly destroys monsters with a KATANA and SUBMACHINE GUN, and has a sassy attitude that is actually counter-productive to horror. The reason it's so scary is because the scares start coming non-stop with little breathing space about half way in and the game is significantly grosser than the others. (Seriously, I almost felt bad for Claudia at the end. Gaaaaah...) Admittedly, her being a girl probably helped her have the most horrifying death sequences (high pitched screams are inherently more terrifying than mid-pitched roars of pain), but at any given moment, Heather's actual badassery helped counterbalance the bleeding walls, not enhance them.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mikejames said:
ToastiestZombie said:
I actually thought SH3 was the scariest, but not because of Heather. It was mainly because unlike the other games in the series the horror doesn't ever let up, and there's much less supplies when playing on normal. I'm sure that if you simply replaced Heather with James Sunderland or Harry Mason the game would have been just as scary. Quite a lot of the scariness of Silent Hill comes from the protagonist being just a normal guy or girl in a terrible situation, it's why I really didn't find Downpour scary since you were playing as a criminal who's been hardened by prison.
I had mixed feelings on the scare factor.
Highlights like the hospital genuinely scared me, but some of the otherworlds were so consistently loud and dangerous that tension could wane when there wasn't much room given for the pacing to let you breath, and with the town being bluntly antagonistic it started to feel like reality had less grounding while Heather herself never actually needed to question her own mental stability.

Don't get me wrong, it was one of the top three scariest of the series for me, but maybe with Claudia being a loony unambiguous threat I felt less in the sense of psychological fear?
I never felt that there was any doubt of Heather's mental stability, seeing how a creepy woman is following her around and prophesying at Heather, causing her immense pain when it happens. That's not conductive to Heather being crazy, it makes her a victim. This seemed right to me, because while Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 reveled in the "Are you actually insane?" aspect (particularly Silent Hill 2), third time isn't always the charm. Having it reversed (Heather is definitely sane while the town is definitely out to get her) was actually kind of refreshing and disorienting.

That said, I still found it bloody terrifying psychologically. Instead of asking IF the town is truly out to get her, we have to ask WHY it's out to get her. There's still enough mind-screw moments and questioning reality moments to completely mess up the player, and Heather's admittedly placid reaction to most of it didn't really help.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Gender could matter in horror games, but it doesn't come up due to political correctness. In real life girls are weaker and less physically capable than guys are given a similar amount of development, which is why sporting events and such remain segregated. Then there is the who issue of rape, forced pregnancy, and other things, while dudes can be raped it's more of a present threat to girls, and there is a reason why the whole "OMG, there is something growing inside me" horror trope exists, along with some of the grosser monster birthing scenes in hollywood.

Video games generally aren't willing to go in the directions that would make a gender differance important, which is one of the reasons why most horror game sucks, they aren't willing to produce the kind of offensive and uncomfortable content that is going to shock a true horror fan and give them what they crave (which is usually a sort of retroactive enjoyment when they look back on something and remember how F@cked up it was, more than an "of the moment" enjoyment... hard to articulate). Pretty much all the reasons why I'm likely to get attacked in this thread for saying this are the reasons why it's a non-factor. For all intents and purposes male and female protaganists are pretty much the same, just with differant art and voice work.


As far as Silent Hill 3 goes, I'd point out that the degree to which Heather could kill things was kind of the point of that game, which was subverting the whole "heroic monster basher" trope. The ending you get is largely dependant on the number of monsters you kill. I believe the eventual reveal at the end of that one (it's been a long time) is that she's hallucinating and a lot of what she sees as monsters are actually people, you kill too many of them and she's pretty much revealed to be a rampaging, seriel killer, out of touch with reality. Granted the ending can vary, but it's a game that intentionally made it easy to kill the monsters, especially compared to the first two games, but then also punished you for doing so.

Incidently there is a variation on this in "Downpour" involving when you deliver a coup de grace to downed monsters. I won't say more about it due to spoilers since that's the newest game, but the point is that it's something Silent Hill recycled again in a somewhat differant form. Excepting perhaps "Homecoming" the general rule in the series being that the more capable your protaganist is of killing, either conceptually or in practice, the less desirable it is to getting the best possible, or "true" ending.

I'd argue (other points aside) that Heather is perhaps one of the most vulnerable Silent Hill protaganists, the abillity to inflict death and destruction (and the temptation to solve problems that way) actually being a limitation since to really "win" you have to go against that impulse. Incidently this entire "twist" was missing from the Silent Hill movie they loosely based on this storyline.

Truthfully I think the problem with horror games nowasys has nothing to do with gender, or the abillity to fight and kill, but entirely with the industry's unwillingness to push the envelope the way successful Hollywood movies have done. Typically successful horror movies, especially franchises, have gotten that way by having fans talk about how utterly F@cked up they are, whether that's Pinhead with his chains in Hellraiser, Freddy Kruegar's elaborate dreamscapes where he does things like trap girls in demonic high chairs and feed them their own guts, or even Jigsaw's elaboratly sadistic death traps. In general the most successful horror movies have had as many people going off about how bad they sucked, or how they were just "gross and shocking" because they hit everyone's yuck buttons. Good horror will never be a mainstream success because not everyone can find a sort of vicarious enjoyment out of being made uncomfortable. This is why it's always been so relatively rare. With Hollywood having problems, it only makes sense that the gaming industry which has become Hollywood's retarded younger sibling when it comes to producing content, rating it appropriatly, and understanding and catering to niche audiences as opposed to simply the mainstream, isn't going to create many successul works of horror, and rather mostly stuff that goes through the motions and at best manages to be mildly creepy with some jump out scares because that's all the mainstream can really handle.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
I don't think the protagonist's gender is a large factor in the 'scariness' of a game. I think it varies depending on the antagonist. Whilst I haven't played many horror games (mostly because I haven't found them all that scary) I do read Lovecraft and most of his protagonists are people who are well educated. This is because his take on what is horrific is the realisation than Man is not significant or all-knowing as we lead ourselves to believe, with the 'twist' in some stories being that something far beyond the ken of human understanding is pulling the strings. So it works to have someone who, by human standards, is expected to know a lot about the world suddenly be thrown in to a situation where all of their expertise means nothing. They start questioning what else is wrong. This wouldn't really work if the protagonists in the story were a group of sexually charged teens going on vacation in an abandoned clown factory, much like having an expedition of Harvard professors encounter a machete wielding maniac probably wouldn't be so great (mostly because they would be sensible, stick together and leave, mostly).

I guess, as others have said, it's a matter of women being seen as the more vulnerable sex. It would probably be a step too far to put children in to such situations even though they would be even more vulnerable and so we settle on women. Also boobs.
 

Auron

New member
Mar 28, 2009
531
0
0
So horror media with women lead is scarier because they're more fragile, etc? Ellen Ripley tends to disagree.
 

Mikejames

New member
Jan 26, 2012
797
0
0
lacktheknack said:
I never felt that there was any doubt of Heather's mental stability, seeing how a creepy woman is following her around and prophesying at Heather, causing her immense pain when it happens. That's not conductive to Heather being crazy, it makes her a victim. This seemed right to me, because while Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 reveled in the "Are you actually insane?" aspect (particularly Silent Hill 2), third time isn't always the charm. Having it reversed (Heather is definitely sane while the town is definitely out to get her) was actually kind of refreshing and disorienting.

That said, I still found it bloody terrifying psychologically. Instead of asking IF the town is truly out to get her, we have to ask WHY it's out to get her. There's still enough mind-screw moments and questioning reality moments to completely mess up the player, and Heather's admittedly placid reaction to most of it didn't really help.
That's my point though, with Heather it was less of a character study with the descending journey through the labyrinth of your psyche and more of a revenge story.
The feeling that starts to build up in Silent Hill 2 is that the town has unfathomable darkness behind it, but its merely toying with you in a passive manner. The thought that the town bluntly wants you dead, and that you just need to shoot your way through it to beat the head demon, doesn't hold the same level of dread for me.

Now when it makes use of unseen presences like Coleman or that recently abandoned wheelchair?
*shudder*

Therumancer said:
Video games generally aren't willing to go in the directions that would make a gender differance important, which is one of the reasons why most horror game sucks, they aren't willing to produce the kind of offensive and uncomfortable content that is going to shock a true horror fan and give them what they crave (which is usually a sort of retroactive enjoyment when they look back on something and remember how F@cked up it was, more than an "of the moment" enjoyment... hard to articulate).
I'm not sure that what you crave as a horror fan is what I crave as a horror fan...
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
It has less to do with the gender and more to do with the vulnerability of the protagonist. Amnesia, for example, is a very scary game despite having a male protagonist. Slender is an equally terrifying (probably scarier, actually) game with a female protagonist.

I think the thing is that we kind of expect male characters in fiction to be capable of taking care of themselves until proven otherwise, and assume the opposite of female characters. That's probably where the trend originates. Horror games with female protagonists may be scarier because the audience will assume that the female protagonist is more vulnerable, whereas with a guy they'll be subconsciously thinking "he's a guy, he knows how to throw a punch" because that's what we expect of guys.

What would be more effective - and subversive - is a horror game where you play as a child. That would amp up the helplessness way past 11.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Mikejames said:
lacktheknack said:
I never felt that there was any doubt of Heather's mental stability, seeing how a creepy woman is following her around and prophesying at Heather, causing her immense pain when it happens. That's not conductive to Heather being crazy, it makes her a victim. This seemed right to me, because while Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 reveled in the "Are you actually insane?" aspect (particularly Silent Hill 2), third time isn't always the charm. Having it reversed (Heather is definitely sane while the town is definitely out to get her) was actually kind of refreshing and disorienting.

That said, I still found it bloody terrifying psychologically. Instead of asking IF the town is truly out to get her, we have to ask WHY it's out to get her. There's still enough mind-screw moments and questioning reality moments to completely mess up the player, and Heather's admittedly placid reaction to most of it didn't really help.
That's my point though, with Heather it was less of a character study with the descending journey through the labyrinth of your psyche and more of a revenge story.
The feeling that starts to build up in Silent Hill 2 is that the town has unfathomable darkness behind it, but its merely toying with you in a passive manner. The thought that the town bluntly wants you dead, and that you just need to shoot your way through it to beat the head demon, doesn't hold the same level of dread for me.

Now when it makes use of unseen presences like Coleman or that recently abandoned wheelchair?
*shudder*
I'm opposite. The idea that the down was indifferent to me and just let me wallow in my broken psyche was very depressing (Silent Hill 2 made me cry quite a bit, actually), but I didn't find it especially scary.

In 3, I had the sense that the town actually wanted me dead, which made me actually feel a real threat. Now there was more enemies, there was blood pouring from the walls, there were people dying everywhere (not sure if for real, but that poor, poor shopkeeper...), and Silent Hill had actually leaked out and attacked the city you lived in specifically to get you. So I never thought it was "fight to the head demon and kill it" as much as I thought "OH GOD WHY HELP WHAT DID I DO AAAAUGH!"

This is why Silent Hill 4 is the scariest in my opinion: Because the town is following the lead of a man who's out to get you specifically. Best of both worlds.
 

NightmareExpress

New member
Dec 31, 2012
546
0
0
I think the "scariness" of horror games is entirely dependent on the opposing force.
Simply put, the stuff that you are up against. Jill and Heather felt just as capable of surviving their respective ordeals as Chris and Harry (SH1).

Take a game such as Fatal Frame or Amnesia where you could put a character of any race, sex or religion in the player's control and the situation wouldn't seem any less frightening. In the first, you're in a massive dark mansion/village filled with disturbed apparitions and you have but a camera to defend yourself with. In the second, you're in a massive dark castle full of oddities and abominations that chew away at your sanity with pretty much nothing to defend yourself with (save your wits).

Now, with those premises, does it really matter who the protagonist is?
Both sound like right nightmares to have to experience.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Therumancer said:
As far as Silent Hill 3 goes, I'd point out that the degree to which Heather could kill things was kind of the point of that game, which was subverting the whole "heroic monster basher" trope. The ending you get is largely dependant on the number of monsters you kill. I believe the eventual reveal at the end of that one (it's been a long time) is that she's hallucinating and a lot of what she sees as monsters are actually people, you kill too many of them and she's pretty much revealed to be a rampaging, seriel killer, out of touch with reality. Granted the ending can vary, but it's a game that intentionally made it easy to kill the monsters, especially compared to the first two games, but then also punished you for doing so.
Here, I'll clean up what you remember of Silent Hill 3.

The "They look like monsters to you?" bomb is dropped every time you play the game. It's followed up immediately by "Hey, don't worry. It's just a joke!" The point of it is to completely reverse and then obfuscate a part of the games that players took for granted, and then leave the question unanswered, just to screw with the player. I'll admit that it made me go pale when it happened and I suddenly felt a bit nauseous, but I'm fairly sure in retrospect that Vincent was just messing with Heather. Other people think he was telling the truth. There's reasons to believe either (there's not too many answered questions in Silent Hill).

This is why I stated earlier that I'm positive that Heather was a sane protagonist attacked by the town, unlike the second game.

The actual ending only had two outcomes (plus a joke ending that's not worth mentioning). On your first playthrough, you get the "canon" ending no matter what, which had a reveal that tied Heather perfectly to the first game. It was a bit of a stupid ending (who would be laughing and joking that soon after watching a vomit-fetus get eaten whole and fighting Nightmare Samara From Hell?), but it verified that Heather and Douglas both understood what was going on, lending to the idea that Heather was a normal girl being attacked all along.

The second ending (only in New Game Plus) was triggered, if I recall this correctly, if you got 10000 "points". A "point" was scored every time you spilled a drop of blood (be it an enemy's or your own), and you could get 5000 extra "points" if you made the "right" decision in the confessional booth near the end. If you spilled enough blood (and maybe displayed cult sympathy in the confessional booth), then instead of going back to Douglas and chatting with him in the end, she stabs him. This could be a statement of her corruption as the game progresses, but it's non-canonical, so I wouldn't really bet on it.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's "easier" to take out the monsters in Silent Hill 3. I'm pretty sure most of the fans (myself included) found it significantly harder than the first two games. In Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2, if I encountered an enemy, I could generally kill it safely enough if it was alone (excepting Pyramid Head and the things under the grates in Silent Hill 2). No such luck in Silent Hill 3. The dogs are hard to hit and come in swarms, the nurses are fast and strong, the tall thing with the massive arms (Closers) can kill you in two hits, the massive fat things (Insane Cancers) take forever to take down, the ****ING pendulums are hard to hit and do stupid amounts of damage, and the ****ING **** **** BASTARD ****HEAD SNOTBUCKETS FROM HELL (Slurpers) will knock you down over and over if you try to fight them without a gun (and even if you do have one). The game's difficulty was kind of brutal, even if you did take the "run away from everything" tactic. Plus, the combat difficulty ranged from "Easy" to "Extreme 10", so I don't think it was "easy" by any stretch of the imagination.