Kalahee said:
The Heik said:
WarZ and DAyZ are not co-op games. They are multiplayer, where other players are expected to mess with you as often as work with you. That's part of those games' appeal in the survival genre. But if in a co-op game your fellow player(s) are more of a threat than the enemies, then the game's mechanics are fucked up because they are directly interfering with the game mode ie. working together to overcome obstacles. And if that is happening, why would anyone want to play that co-op?
First, multiplayer isn't a genre. WarZ and DayZ may not be the best example of survival horror, you still can see how PvP is way more popular feature in all games than actual single player or cooperation is. The fact that another player may kill you plays on trust. Why would anyone want to play a COOP where the ally can be a threat, ask all those team killers and cheaters why they do it. Let's take the bridge level of Left 4 Dead or all Finals of it, in the end you do get the choice to escape on your own or leave your friend at his fate. it is still an exploitable outcome. It's a game, most people won't go over moral choices and may want to enjoy some douchebaggery.
See that bit of text I bolded and underlined in your quote of me? That is the genre I described. Please read through my post clearly before jumping off half cocked and calling me wrong. It'll save a lot of needless effort on both our parts.
As for the rest of this, you're just adding more proof as to why co-op and multiplayer are not suited to creating horror. When your team is more busy messing with each other and team-killing rather than continuing the game, any kind of fear or tension is kneecapped with Mjolnir.
Kalahee said:
That bolded text is you making my point for me. The less you have the weaker you are, and the less players who are a part of the game the more tense and (though I hazard calling L4D this) scary the game is. That is exactly what solitude is about. No one there to help you through a situation, to help take down threats, to share in negative situations. This is also why co-op horror doesn't work, because the only times that games even start to feel tense is when one or more of the group aren't playing, and that is scarcely a fair deal to the left out player(s). Why not instead play singleplayer where you could just as easily get the same scares without requiring another person to be in the room twiddling their thumbs?
You won't lose what you don't have first. So starting alone you are, as a player, aware that you are supposed to be able to get through on your own, otherwise it ain't a game. Playing L4D on your own is impossible, once you're pin down you're dead (exception of mutator that gets you up after some damages). Even if you are with someone, not some 20 heads public, it doesn't make it less that he's as much in deep shit as you are.
Are you honestly using the "you don't know what you got till it's gone" line on me?
Look, in most horror games you can fail. Heck in most games of any kind you can fail. Hell, in some cases seeing how long you can go before failing is the name of the game (tetris springs to mind). Victory is not a guaranteed outcome, it is simply possible, and depending on the difficulty and mechanics has varying levels of probability.
Just because you can win doesn't mean that you will the first time around. In fact the ability to lose is what makes winning so much more enjoyable. No risk, no reward as they say.
Besides, technically you DO lose those things when you play the game alone. No people around you, usually no means by which to protect oneself directly in the game, and rather than the familiar surroundings you are used to you have the eerie and disturbing settings of the game.
Kalahee said:
So horror doesn't scare you. Congratulations, but that still doesn't mean that horror games don't scare other people.
Point is not because an horror game doesn't scare means it ain't an horror game. As you said, we are all different.
No, it means that they are bad horror games, and as such not good representations of the horror genre. You don't use a guy with a leg cast and a pair of crutches set the benchmark for Olympic sprinting, and you don't use a game that can't scare it's target audience as a measure for a good horror game.
Kalahee said:
I refer thee again to the whole concept of "losing people leads to solitude", which again proves my point that being alone is far more scary than being in a group. And while solitude and isolation are not the only means to scare, they are among the primary means by which to scare someone because they rely on the player's own imagination creating the scares for them, because no one knows how to scare you better than you. Unfortunately, that doesn't get to happen when someone else starts commenting on the exact same horror situations. It's a bit of a mood killer.
Twice the merrier, being two doesn't mean we feel secured and may even catch on the partner's fear/stress (or at least to mock him for a good laugh, which may turn you into a threat)
Oh really? So you're saying that when you play with another player in the same room/same party you do not speak to or interact with them in any way, even in the game? Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that.
So long as two people are taking part in the same action (in this case playing a game), they have to interact with one another. Seeing as the most efficient way to do this is to use human speech, I'd consider a fairly safe bet that people are going to A) know what the other are doing and B) will want to work together with that information.
Kalahee said:
*facepalm* Ok, you are over-thinking this.
Yes, going out to the fridge and making a sandwich is a form of comfort, but then again, you are not playing the game at that point are you? Whilst you are playing the game, you are usually immersed in it, ie. you are placing your focus solely upon the events occurring in the game. While immersed you can pseudo-believe that these events are happening to you, and by that extent react to them accordingly. But if while playing the game you are thinking about going to the fridge to get something to eat, either you are very hungry or the game is doing a crappy job at keeping your focus.
So you are saying that school shootings really did happen because FPS genre made them violent, gun crazy and paranoid? Then maybe YOU are not playing your games right. The fact that I became violent with my controller because of a game means I'm doing it wrong.
........whadafuq?
Ok, one of two things has occurred here. Either your vocabulary is in dire need of beefing up, or you are smoking some mad-powerful stuff. I'm going to assume the former here, and thereby have to inform you that "pseudo-believe" means "fake-believe" as in not really, a facsimile of something. People don't really believe that are doing those things (unless they are mentally unstable), they are just losing themselves in the moment to get a feel of what it would be like. It's what thrill-junkies do.
Kalahee said:
And yes, in games no one is in any real danger, but a facsimile of that danger still exists to simulate a fear-inducing situation. That's what people usually play horror games for, in order for them to get the stimulation of the adrenaline high that comes from it. But again with another person that doesn't happen because having another player inherently reduces any form of tension by simply sharing in the experience.
Sorry to stay rational in emergency moments, and you say I'm over thinking this, all this time you were debating every single of my points saying that humans are social and would find comfort with someone next to him or speaking over voice, I'm using your own arguements.
No you are generally being a confusing individual, because using my arguments against me isn't doing anything but reinforcing my points unless you actually subvert or disprove them in some way, which to this point you haven't done.
As for the belief that humans are social beings, look around you right now. You are surrounded by the things we have as a result of people working together. If we were not inherently social, we wouldn't have complex languages and civilizations, because those are the result of people trying to communicate and work together.
And yet you think that two people playing co-op together won't result in some level of socialization?
Kalahee said:
Isn't thinking that an horror game should be single player and scary a bit narrow-minded? An horror game is just a different story genre, old Notre-Dame-de-Paris's Hunchback, Phantom of the Opera and Frankeinstein movies were considered horror. Peoples doesn't need to be scared to enjoy an horror game. Some get scared even by games that aren't scary. Because a game doesn't scare you it's not an horror game, why can't I just enjoy those kind of stories and the challenges they offer?
Not really. I wouldn't be narrow minded in expecting a first person shooter to be in first person perspective, and I wouldn't be narrow minded in expecting a horror game to contain some form of horrifying content. If it doesn't induce any horror, it has been mislabelled. As for the single-player aspect, if something doesn't work, it doesn't work. There's a reason why we don't use cars made of twix bars. And if a person can really get scared by things that are not scary to most everyone else, then they hardly need horror games do they?
Now if you enjoy a game, then good for you. But that doesn't change that if a horror game that doesn't horrify, then it is either a poor horror game, or it has been misrepresented by it's developers. It might be a game good game by other standards or perspectives, but it still does not achieve the primary representative feature that it was put out as.
Incidentally, who is still scared of Frankenstein? It's called "classical horror" now specifically because the scares it has doesn't work anymore due your average moviegoer being too well informed about monsters in general for them to really get scared.