11 replies to this topic

[starstutter]

something that's been eating at me for the past week or so is this:

How much does lighting truley effect horror games?

The dark patches and sharp cutoffs of light are not realistic, but provide limited visibility and plenty of room for scares. The shadows are well defined and visible in all situations (in some cases, razer sharp shadow volumes). Realistic light typically doesn't have sharp borders, and everything is lit to some extent. Shadows are typically very very soft if even there at all (talking about indoors here). I;ve never seem the latter in a horror game.

So I guess the most summed up way to put this is, does an artistic / unrealistic lighting model have more of an abillity to scare than a realistic one does? Unrealistic is certainly best for cheap scares (ie Doom 3), but would more realistic light allow for a deeper psycological disturbance?

Since I;ve never seen a correct light model in that type of game, I can really only guess what it would be like. The closest thing I can think of is Ravenholm in HL2, but that wasn't scary because you were armed to the teeth (except for maybe the fast zombies).

[red7]

I am a short film director. Speaking from my film school days, one of the key elements in horror movies is the lighting (if not ~the~ key element). It's also one of the reasons I have always turned down horror projects. I hate the lighting used in almost every horror movie.

Traditionally, the narrow, point light with blue filters. Hard (direct) lighting is good for defining confined spaces. Not my favorite, personally. But if you want to see this used check out some of the early 90's indie horror movies. (I don't know of any, as I'm no fan of the genre). They really capitalized on this technique because it requires smaller, cheaper light rigs (500w or less). Imagine a 500w halogen work light and a large coffee can... This is very good news for the 3D designer.

This technique is actually 'borrowed' from older, 1960's and 70's WWII navy movies. The equipment flooded the market in the early 80's and was picked up third-hand by indie film makers in the 90's.

Some of the modern horror film makers (eg. M. Night Shyamalan) use a different pallet altogether (eg. The Village, Unbreakable), and a different style of story telling (eg. Lady in the Water). Very atypical from the usual gore fest. I can't seem to think of any others off the top of my head.

So, is your game a gore fest or are you breaking with tradition? When it comes to lighting the horror genre you can do a lot with a little. It's all in the creative use of what little you have. The 'dogma' films of the late 90's / early 2k's from Europe (esp. Germany) exemplify this theory.

In horror, the key to lighting is using as few lights as you can, but using them in extremely creative ways. I don't envy you that ;)

[starstutter]

red7 said:

So, is your game a gore fest or are you breaking with tradition?

Man, I'm just trying not to over-react to that question...

It's not your fault though, it's just that every person I've told about using my engine for horror purposes has gone off on this incescent rant on how talentless I must be to make a gore game.

So short answer, no, I'm not using gore. In fact, I might not even be using blood. I do want to break tradition with this, as most indie developers kind of have to. This game's key mood revolves around being alone and trying to determine what's real vs what you're imagining. The main idea of this game (that I won't expand too much on) is seeing events from the past from your point of view, to solve puzzles and piece together the story that's happening now.

I'm not saying anymore beyond this, but a large part of the game will consist of following and listening to conversations of people who are dead.

red7 said:

In horror, the key to lighting is using as few lights as you can, but using them in extremely creative ways. I don't envy you that

If you know much about graphics programming, you know that's some of the best news a programmer can hear. Hopefully I never have to switch to deffered shading.

I guess one question I didn't make quite clear was this: Can a horror game be scary without the limited visibility of unrealistic lighting? As in, which is scarrier, a monster coming out of nowhere, or seeing it's dim figure coming at you slowley from more of a distance (I mean like 50 feet)?

[red7]

I don't mean to jump on the anti-gore-fest wagon, the reason I know Shyamalan's work (The Sixth Sense especially might interest you) is precisely because he breaks from that tradition. If you want to see it done, check out his movies - especially Signs. There are some lighting effects that he uses in the basement sequences in Signs that are incredibly well done - kind of like kicking sand in the face of the other type of horror movies.

As for watching something approach slowly... It's hard to say. The most horrifying thing to anyone is that which they imagine. One reason I don't like a gore fest and prefer the slower style of Shyamalan. Perhaps even one reason I might enjoy your game.

Also check out Hitchcock's Rear Window. Watch the lighting and how it changes from day shots to night shots.

Check out the older 60's and 70's WWII navy movies. They're very useful for the type of lighting you'll want to use. U-571, Ice Station Zebra, and even Das Boot (1981) are pretty good examples.

[red7]

I checked with a friend and he would like to refer you to Suspiria (1977) by Dario Argento. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076786/

[starstutter]

red7 said:

I don't mean to jump on the anti-gore-fest wagon, the reason I know Shyamalan's work (The Sixth Sense especially might interest you) is precisely because he breaks from that tradition. If you want to see it done, check out his movies - especially Signs.

Oh I love his work, although sometimes they get a bit predictable (a few select episodes of Robot Chicken will make you see what I mean :lol: "Vuat a twist!"

I actually don't know too much about Hitchcock, but I suppose I should look into his work. Do you know much about the Lovecraft style? From what I've seen that one may be a bit more demonicly oriented. This game isn't really meant to intentionally display "unspeakable evil", but tries to get the player to scare the hell out of himself.

As for "the most terrifying thing is your imagination", I find that very true. So far in games, I have seen either a completle absense of the monster untill all the sudden it reveals itself full on. I havent seen any examples where dark figures are visible, but you can't really make out what it is.

Also, really the main reason I think gore is lame is because it's overused and cheap. It's the mistake of many less talented writers and directors (no offense to you of course, I can't judge your work) to use just the most disgusting visuals they can conjure up. It's never scary, just kind of gross. Like Saw for instance, I never heard anyone I knew say it was scary, they just saw it because it makes you want to vomit... a strange motivation to see a movie.

[TheNut]

Quote

Can a horror game be scary without the limited visibility of unrealistic lighting?

Yes. Limited visibility is a means of removing a layer of control from the player, striking a form of direct fear. It is by no means the only one. In fact, the most successful way to scare somebody is to get them entranced into your game. You have to make them believe they are there, otherwise it doesn't matter what you do they will be turned off by the fantasy world you created.

Take F.E.A.R. for example. There were times I was entranced and had a heart rate increase in some environments. After the first few jumps, it got so boring that I just started running through the levels ala Matrix style blowing away anything that moved. It no longer mattered to me anymore how dark or spooked out the scenery was. No story and no reason to be scared.

And then there's System Shock 2. I only had to hear the screams and rambling of the hybrids to be fearful of what lied beyond the corridor. This was a game that was well lit, with very few scenes going into darkness. It was because of the story, the environment, and the presentation of it that really got me entranced. Truly a masterpiece in my opinion.

[starstutter]

TheNut said:

And then there's System Shock 2. I only had to hear the screams and rambling of the hybrids to be fearful of what lied beyond the corridor.

System Shock was actually at the top of my list for well lit horror games. I actually haven't played it (although i should), but everyone seems to love it to death. One thing that kind of pissed people off however, was that Bioshock wasn't scary in the least, it wasn't even creepy. Don't get me wrong, the game is terrific and gets an A+ in my book, but the feel is anything but frightening.

I can't say for sure that these are the reasons, but maybe you can correct me (I have played Bioshock btw):

- Enemys always charged at you at full throttle not even lurking around corners

- Whenever something was 200 feet away from you, you could tell immediatley because either they were already rushing toward you, or bitching about bad tenderloin.

- It was WAY too easy. You trip over weapons, ammo, and money. You get superpowers that make you a demi-god. You can make all of Rapture into your own personal defense system, and death is a minor inconvinience.

- Somehow having a rocket launcher and being more powerful than 3 captain planets removes the vulnerability you're supposed to feel in a horror game.


Honestly the only things that were moderatley scary were the Houdini Splicers that kind of popped in out of no-where and were near impossible to hit without freezing them. After a while though, they got more annoyng than scary. Other than that though, the only real pulse pounding moments were with the 'Elite Bouncers' charging toward you and you can't really do anything about it.

As for FEAR, I think they had a good concept if it didn't turn out to be a standard action FPS after the first few levels.

[TheNut]

Personally I didn't like Bioshock. It had potential given it was a neat idea in a well detailed environment, but it felt to linear to me. Just travel in a straight line and shoot anything that moves. And even then you'd have to pump several ammo boxes worth of ammunition and explosives to take someone down.

Some new games coming out for the PS3 show promise. Condemned 2 and Dead Space. Not to sure if lighting plays the key role, but they definitely have potential.

[Jare]

Bioshock was not so much a horror game, as an action game set in a horror environment; similar to, say, Aliens. They created a city where terrible things had happened, it was decaying and crumbling, and had plenty of remnants of what it had once been and hints at how it had fallen. The environment and narrative were very well put together, but I'd say the whole was more unsettling than scary. The action itself was meh, but it worked well within the environment, only if you were able to feel like you were in that place.

I never enjoyed System Shock (or its sequel), Condemned, Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark or Ravenholm in HL2. I appreciate what they were trying to do, but the clunky gameplay just didn't work for me, and the horror experience never materialized.

More in-your-face games like the Doom or Resident Evil series had more cheap shots, but the gameplay built enough tension to make me think twice before opening a door. FEAR had a few great thrills but they were embedded in clunky mechanics that, again, never let me feel immersed. It was like reading a horror novel in the subway.

For the games that were successful with me, lighting played a big part, but the soundscape, and the way the environments told a story of sorts, also played a huge part. And always, pacing and gameplay had to work with them and not despite them.

In the specific topic of lighting, it's not enough to have dark shadows and powerful light patches. You need to use them, make the player fear what may lurk in the shadows, and what he will see in the light.

[Kenneth Gorking]

:offtopic: The movie "Signs" in four easy steps :lol:

[starstutter]

Kenneth Gorking said:

:offtopic: The movie "Signs" in four easy steps :lol:

"like a porno with no money shot"

Can the world ever have enough Maddox? :lol: