Study Declares Dead Space 2 "Scariest 360 Game"
- Thread starter Barbalute
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I said it before and I'll say it again, but this time in computer psuedo code 
(jump_scares || gore) != horror
Besides, why is Resident Evil 5 even on the list when none of the original Silent Hill games or Amnesia are on there? That's like putting Evil Dead 3 in a list of Horror films and leaving out Psycho and Nightmare on Elm Street.
btw I'm not ragging on Resident Evil 5 or Army of Darkness, I love them both so much because they're so hilarious
(jump_scares || gore) != horror
Besides, why is Resident Evil 5 even on the list when none of the original Silent Hill games or Amnesia are on there? That's like putting Evil Dead 3 in a list of Horror films and leaving out Psycho and Nightmare on Elm Street.
btw I'm not ragging on Resident Evil 5 or Army of Darkness, I love them both so much because they're so hilarious
How do these people get funding?? Seriously?? Yesterday it was the study to link "aggression" to video games based on how "loudly" you yelled at the screen, and now we've got these dumb fops trying to find what's "scariest" among four of the most heavily advertised games in the current console gen, NOT the entire (survival) horror genre.
This is aggravating, even moreso when you consider someone thought this was a good idea/valid study and gave these idiots money!
This is aggravating, even moreso when you consider someone thought this was a good idea/valid study and gave these idiots money!
*head to wall* Owww...
Wait, how come Fatal Frame does not count? Weren't at least the first two games re-released for the XBox? Those games... *twitches* They terrify me, but I love them anyway. <3
Wait, how come Fatal Frame does not count? Weren't at least the first two games re-released for the XBox? Those games... *twitches* They terrify me, but I love them anyway. <3
I'm kind of iffy on the results of this study.
The study examining physical responses of 6 individuals, of questionable backgrounds, and of such a short time slot makes me think the bearing of the study was focused on how 'casual & core gamers' react differently to varying levels of control in gameplay.
In this case, a more cinematic experience correlates to the casual group being endemic to the feeling elicited by the lack of control and provoking physical responses with it, and the core group having the opposite physical response to the feeling of control, or otherwise the reaction to the nature of cutscenes as separate to the gameplay.
I'm a bit peeved over not seeing how the vertical scale was labeled, or if it was accurately measured. What factors they've taken into consideration is nice to hear, but I'd rather see how the game progresses to interact and produce the intended effect, or in this case how the study sees the bits that provoked the user.
My personal experience with DS 2 had been in a similar allotted 30 minute time slot because I had played the demo. Although I had predisposed knowledge of the game and understood the scare tactics used in the framework of level progression, I kept my cool. My reaction to Necros popping out of the woodwork plateaued after the first few, and the cutscenes were no exception.
-----
After doing a bit of poking around on the internet, found out that a publication will be release in the June edition of OXM magazine.
http://www.verticalslice.co.uk/blog/?p=241
The study examining physical responses of 6 individuals, of questionable backgrounds, and of such a short time slot makes me think the bearing of the study was focused on how 'casual & core gamers' react differently to varying levels of control in gameplay.
In this case, a more cinematic experience correlates to the casual group being endemic to the feeling elicited by the lack of control and provoking physical responses with it, and the core group having the opposite physical response to the feeling of control, or otherwise the reaction to the nature of cutscenes as separate to the gameplay.
I'm a bit peeved over not seeing how the vertical scale was labeled, or if it was accurately measured. What factors they've taken into consideration is nice to hear, but I'd rather see how the game progresses to interact and produce the intended effect, or in this case how the study sees the bits that provoked the user.
My personal experience with DS 2 had been in a similar allotted 30 minute time slot because I had played the demo. Although I had predisposed knowledge of the game and understood the scare tactics used in the framework of level progression, I kept my cool. My reaction to Necros popping out of the woodwork plateaued after the first few, and the cutscenes were no exception.
-----
After doing a bit of poking around on the internet, found out that a publication will be release in the June edition of OXM magazine.
http://www.verticalslice.co.uk/blog/?p=241
Dead Space is only scare because of the cheap scares after awhile it gets old but If you never played it before of course it is scary, paraphrasing someone who post on the dead space 2 post on the escapist forum "the first time it was scary after that it was funny "
Hmmm, interesting. To be honest though I think half the point of such studies is that people are rarely honest about what scares them. Something like "Dead Space 2" is the kind of somewhat goofy game that looked at objectively shouldn't be considered scary, especially to a genere veteran, but then again when you measure things scientifically and find out what people are really thinking, you get a differant result.
To be honest the results shouldn't surprise anyone, given that you have a lot of marketing people behind the production of games like this, who draw on all kinds of data similar to this study in order to determine the path of game design, a fairly big budget game like "Dead Space 2" probably drew on a lot of experience in being put together.
There is also the whole "nerd culture" aspect of things, especially among the hardcore. That is to say the tendency to want to say "this kind of thing isn't scary" and sing the praises of more cereberal horror because that's what everyone else is doing... but really, in the end that's not what's getting under their skin.
Another point to consider is that actual fans of horror are fairly uncommon. Most people who are, are kind of poseurs about it. These are the guys who lionize Steven King and those who emulate his style to an extent... like oh say "Alan Wake" but at the same time Steven King really isn't scary, especially not anymore. His entire "the best horror isin the mind" doctrine made him popular with those who like the idea of horror, but don't actually want to be scared or made uncomfortable. There have been some analysises of his work done in the past, similar to this one over a period of years, with him and other "pop horror" writers being compared to more fringe writers.
However, it's also noteworthy to point out that being a limited audience, successful horror is never going to be as popular as the stuff that seems like it should be horror, but is really little more than a suspense piece when you get down to it. Within things that actually qualify as horror it can get into some pretty serious debates between what's good, and what's bad.
The whole point of this study is that a lot of people will sit back and go "lol, Dead Space isn't scary, it just has a ton of gore" then ranting about atmosphere, which honestly Dead Space is actually oozing with, and so on, and then maybe going on about how it only has jump out scares. What this study shows is that this is the game that actually likely "got" those people and thus breeded the kind of resentment you see from non-horror fans when they actually run into the real deal, and try and disguise as something else so they don't come accross looking like terrified little girls.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were to pay a group of people to play through say the first two Silent Hill Games which are lionized as being "the most terrifying thing out there" and say the two "Dead Space Games" in their entirety under this kind of study. It would be a pretty long term project, we're talking about 20-80 hours of play time here.
I say this because to be honest while Jaded to the point where neither really "got" me, I honestly think Dead Space probably did a better job of actually producing a tight horror experience, where Silent Hill rarely progressed beyond the "creepy" level. Both being quite good games, but if your going to rate them as horror, well I think Silent Hill is more an exercise in surrealism than actual horror. Truthfully I think the two worst reviewed series installments, "The Room" and "Homecoming" actually came the closest to being actual horror games, and sometimes I suspect that is why they are among the least popular of the bunch.
To be honest the results shouldn't surprise anyone, given that you have a lot of marketing people behind the production of games like this, who draw on all kinds of data similar to this study in order to determine the path of game design, a fairly big budget game like "Dead Space 2" probably drew on a lot of experience in being put together.
There is also the whole "nerd culture" aspect of things, especially among the hardcore. That is to say the tendency to want to say "this kind of thing isn't scary" and sing the praises of more cereberal horror because that's what everyone else is doing... but really, in the end that's not what's getting under their skin.
Another point to consider is that actual fans of horror are fairly uncommon. Most people who are, are kind of poseurs about it. These are the guys who lionize Steven King and those who emulate his style to an extent... like oh say "Alan Wake" but at the same time Steven King really isn't scary, especially not anymore. His entire "the best horror isin the mind" doctrine made him popular with those who like the idea of horror, but don't actually want to be scared or made uncomfortable. There have been some analysises of his work done in the past, similar to this one over a period of years, with him and other "pop horror" writers being compared to more fringe writers.
However, it's also noteworthy to point out that being a limited audience, successful horror is never going to be as popular as the stuff that seems like it should be horror, but is really little more than a suspense piece when you get down to it. Within things that actually qualify as horror it can get into some pretty serious debates between what's good, and what's bad.
The whole point of this study is that a lot of people will sit back and go "lol, Dead Space isn't scary, it just has a ton of gore" then ranting about atmosphere, which honestly Dead Space is actually oozing with, and so on, and then maybe going on about how it only has jump out scares. What this study shows is that this is the game that actually likely "got" those people and thus breeded the kind of resentment you see from non-horror fans when they actually run into the real deal, and try and disguise as something else so they don't come accross looking like terrified little girls.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were to pay a group of people to play through say the first two Silent Hill Games which are lionized as being "the most terrifying thing out there" and say the two "Dead Space Games" in their entirety under this kind of study. It would be a pretty long term project, we're talking about 20-80 hours of play time here.
I say this because to be honest while Jaded to the point where neither really "got" me, I honestly think Dead Space probably did a better job of actually producing a tight horror experience, where Silent Hill rarely progressed beyond the "creepy" level. Both being quite good games, but if your going to rate them as horror, well I think Silent Hill is more an exercise in surrealism than actual horror. Truthfully I think the two worst reviewed series installments, "The Room" and "Homecoming" actually came the closest to being actual horror games, and sometimes I suspect that is why they are among the least popular of the bunch.
They need Amnesia for the 360, Dead Space 2 is a walk in a park compared to it. This is probably because, in Dead Space 2, you have a gun, armor, and could rip apart most of the enemies that attack you. In Amnesia, you have the ability to hide and wishful thinking.
Don't you love the combination of Science and Mass Media?
Science gives you:
a study on SIX participants and FOUR games.
Mass Media takes it and gives you:
"A study by UK-based videogame "user experience studio" Vertical Slice has declared that Dead Space 2 is the 360 game most likely to make you scream like a little girl."
Science gives you:
a study on SIX participants and FOUR games.
Mass Media takes it and gives you:
"A study by UK-based videogame "user experience studio" Vertical Slice has declared that Dead Space 2 is the 360 game most likely to make you scream like a little girl."
I don't really see this scale to be credible. I doubt the people tested didn't even know about Condemned: Criminal origins.
its the scariest out of the 4
but its not really scary
considering its the 360 which doesn't cater for the horror genre much it is up there
but it just isn't a scary game
but its not really scary
considering its the 360 which doesn't cater for the horror genre much it is up there
but it just isn't a scary game
