/v/ - Video Games

>>15613400

Go play Outlast you pussy faggot. Amnesia isn't shit, there's like 4 instances where monsters actually chase you, everything else is smoke and mirrors fuckery.

>>15613417

No, I mean games like Dead Space. The first one, anyway.

Is F.E.A.R a good shooter?

Doom with the music turned off.

>>15613480

it's okay, kinda repetitive and there's not really any enemy variety. The environments feel very samey too and never really become an interesting location. Takes itself a bit seriously with its horror which isn't really effective at any point. It's at least short so it doesn't outstay its welcome. The weird thing is, there's a few types of enemies but they ultimately just use the generic humanoid soldiers for 90% of the game instead of the weird ninja guys or the mechs frequently.

Just finished Outlast without hiding in a locker/closet, reloading batteries, and on Insane. There's very little room for error and playing on Insane with those restrictions actually makes the game much more terrifying than it should be. Instead of brazenly using your camcorder all the time you have to stumble around in the darkness while being chased or trying to find your way out, and having no hiding spots gives very little room for error when dealing with one shot enemies.

I enjoyed it much more than the first time I played it. Same as Alien Isolation on Nightmare difficulty with permadeath.

>>15613512

After you play FEAR2, FEAR3, you realise that what people say is bad about FEAR, is actually a big part of what sets it above the rest of the industry.

>there's not really any enemy variety

FEAR2 adds more enemy variety, and the result is that you appreciate the enemies less, because you have less opportunity to really get to know them, the way they interact with the environment, the way they communicate, and the way they react to the player. There is also the pure mathematical problem of more enemy designs = less work put into each one. Instead of being a generic shooting gallery, FEAR is a game with a very well defined enemy. You're fighting the replica, no replica and co, not replica and their immediate surroundings, not replicas and the friends they made on their journey, just the replica.

>The environments feel very samey too and never really become an interesting location

Again, FEAR2 adds more environments and level variety, and the result is rather than figuring out formulas, tools, systems, and patterns that they can use throughout the game with guaranteed good design, they're constantly having to think up new ideas with every level which at best creates interesting little gimmicks, and at worst, creates boring filer levels which try to make up for bad design by jamming in as much into the level as possible (creating the double issue of sucking up resources that could be otherwise used on good level design, and accentuating the lack of design by pushing more of that bad design on the player). The various school levels are good examples of this, although its a very well designed school, its a horribly designed shooter level.

TL;DR by finding a narrow scope of design which works well with the combat model and gameplay they devised (pulping smart but fun soldiers with a shotgun in an office building) FEAR was able to create a small set of *incredibly* well designed levels and encounters which is unparalleled in a modern shooter.

>Takes itself a bit seriously with its horror

I don't understand how you could possibly come to this conclusion, at no point does the game place the horror before the shooting. The horror is always used as an atmospheric backdrop to the shooting so it doesn't just feel like a shooting gallery.

>The weird thing is, there's a few types of enemies but they ultimately just use the generic humanoid soldiers for 90% of the game instead of the weird ninja guys or the mechs frequently

A big part of what made the stalkers/ninjas so good was that levels were designed around them, it would be very difficult to combine replica, and the ninjas, and not have them stepping on eachothers' toes in terms of design since the ninjas require the player to be careful and pay attention, while the replica require the player to think fast and keep mobile. It's also why they're best utilized sparingly, they work as a pace mixup.

>It's at least short so it doesn't outstay its welcome

This is ultimately the issue with the game, it's short and there's not enough of it. But the experience isn't improved by trying to add more, all you end up doing (as FEAR2 showed) is you dilute the good design.

>>15614445

>FEAR was able to create a small set of *incredibly* well designed levels and encounters which is unparalleled in a modern shooter

Disagree. FEAR's level design was boring as fuck. FEAR with FEAR 2's level design would have been GOAT.

>>15614445

I'm not playing a shit game just so I can like a 6/10 more that's just retarded

>>15613400

>but perhaps suffer from an anxiety condition

are you a fucking tumblr whale or what, man the fuck up

>>15613400

Project Zero/Fatal Frame is what you're looking for. It is very slow-paced and works with isolation, atmosphere and loneliness. You have to explore a place that's haunted as fuck but the ghosts that actually attack you are almost always the one's you're currently investigating about, and the encounters are usually pretty far apart and fairly predictable. There are jumpscares in the technical sense, but instead of a loud "BOO", they appear suddenly, but with a quiet, eerie sound.

That said, every game has THAT ghost encounter where the screen turns black and white, the ghost is invincible and kills you instantly and you have to run the fuck away. Project Zero 2 is the most vicious about it. Also, the notes paint a picture of horrific rituals and the psychological torment of innocent girls. It's the kind of games that work on creating tension where, gameplay wise, you're not actually in danger.

>>15614545

>Comparing FEAR to DOOM

That's why I specifically said that FEAR was unparalleled compared to any other MODERN shooter.

>FEAR was able to create a small set of *incredibly* well designed levels and encounters which is unparalleled in a modern shooter

It's much easier to create fun enemies, and design a level around them when all most of them have to do is teleport into the room when you flip a switch, shoot off a couple fireballs, then die to a shotgun. Not to mention they are totally different design approaches. Almost your entire argument seems to be founded on this mistake except

>If the levels needed to be designed around ninjas in order to have more of them then that's exactly what they should have done (…) they failed as a pace mixup since they were only in the game 3 times in the span of over 10 hours

It took you over ten hours to finish FEAR? That's probably why you have such issues with the pacing of the game.

I would have enjoyed maybe one more fight with the ninjas, but they were just on the cusp of still feeling unique and special enough that seeing them was exciting. More fights and they wouldn't be a pacing mixup, they'd just be part of the pacing.

>>15614671

>That's why I specifically said that FEAR was unparalleled compared to any other MODERN shooter.

Wouldn't exactly call it a modern shooter. It's closer to DOOM 2 (11 years) than it is to codblops 4 (13 years), so I think it's fair to compare it to the 90s classics.

>>15613480

the best one ever made

>>15613417

Sauce?

>>15614545

>If you just made every enemy in DOOM a zombieman in order to "aapreciate the enemies more" the game would suck massive dick

Of course in DOOM it wouldn't work because all the enemies in DOOM are dumb and slow, and can essentially be reduced to being turrets. That's why the level design of DOOM compensated for this by placing enemies around by hand in hand-crafted situations together with a suitable level layout to create a plethora of unique challenges, but in essence the levels in DOOM are always stacked against the player.

This approach cannot work when your enemies have a respectable movement speed, and when they have an actually responsive AI. You can't really show off that fancy AI when you put enemies on ledges or closets they can't move much around in, for example. Once you have designed an enemy AI capable of utilizing the environment to their benefit, then levels should be designed around points of opportunity which you or the AI can either use. Which can come down to height advantages, flanking routes, or what have you.

The core experience of a good hitscan-focused FPS such as F.E.A.R. is the dynamic conflict between the player and seemingly-intelligent, active enemies. This means that both parties need meaningful combat verbs to exploit-- expressive movement, a wide variety of attack types-- as well as spaces which encourage and highlight the use of these verbs.

The worst place to roll out these combat mechanics is in an empty hallway-- no cover, no lateral movement potential, no interesting geometry for the AIs to interact with, no strategy, no surprise. Conversely, the best space is arena-like and varied, with an emphasis on flanking opportunities. The closer any given encounter space drifts towards the hallway model, the less interesting the gameplay there is going to be.

The primary elements of a good FPS encounter space (at least when the combat is heavily hitscan-focused) are these:

1. Varied, clustered cover. Players and AI both need useful and varied cover for any kind of tactics to arise. Half-height and full-height cover each serve a purpose, as the verticality/laterality of each is significant (full-height cover is useful against elevated enemies, while half-height cover is invalidated; full-height cover forces actors to alter their lateral path while half-height can be vaulted, etc.)

Clustering of cover is important, as cover which is too evenly distributed becomes undifferentiated and leads to a flat experience. Cover should exist as discrete islands with meaningful no-man's land between each. This gives the player meaningful moment-to-moment choices to make ("should I risk exposing myself to enemy fire in favor of running for a better vantage point?") and causes AIs to be out in the open and moving laterally to the player's view on a frequent basis as they seek new cover, allowing for a shooting gallery experience of trying to take the enemy down before he reaches safety. The idea is to create meaningful points of emphasis instead of an undifferentiated field of scattered, equally-useful cover nodes.

The most useful cover should be placed in the arena's mid-orbital, the dense ring between the outer edge and the central point of the encounter space. This encourages the player to move into the thick of the action instead of hanging on the periphery, and leaves the central dead zone as a no-man's land that remains risky to advance through, encouraging circular navigation.

Changes in elevation are also recommended, as high ground from which to fire down on enemies can be just as useful as a solid piece of cover to hide behind. Mid-field rises also provide the opportunity to observe the space mid-fight, allowing the player to reassess the situation and adjust his tactics accordingly.

>>15614864

2. Circular navigability. This goes back to the "as little like a hallway as possible" point. A good encounter space gives the actors options, and encourages variability each time an encounter plays out there. This requires not just a wide hallway with islands of cover distributed throughout it, but an open arena that is circularly navigable– one with pathways around the edges which allow defended flanking movement. This encourages the player to advance and be mobile, and allows the AI to surprise the player by swooping in on their starting position from the side. A wide hallway with cover in it still boils down to advancing battle lines, while defended flanking corridors on the peripheral encourage the actors to circle around one another, take risks ("should I risk flanking into the thick of the enemy force to gain a better close-range firing position?") and generally be active instead of sticking to a single safe point and taking potshots. Circular arenas should give the player a multiplicity of options while keeping him wary of possible enemy flanking maneuvers, dynamics which are conversely defused by the binary flow of a linear hallway no matter how wide or cover-strewn.

3. Observability. As the player approaches an encounter space, he should be able to observe its major features and devise an initial plan of attack. This means that the entry point should feature a vantage point, often elevated, that illustrates the layout of navigable space, cover points, and interactive objects (explosives, water hazards.) All relevant features of the space should be visible and readable, and any element of the space that is obscured should be intentionally so (for instance, the terminal point of a flanking corridor might be obscured to increase the player's feeling of risk in attempting a flanking maneuver by reducing his knowledge of what lies at the other end.) The player, having observed the space, may hereby think beyond arm's reach once he's in the thick of a fight by relating his current position to the overview he saw before the encounter began. Should the player die during the fight, this initial vantage point on respawn provides a reminder of the space's layout, to aid his survivability for the next go round.

Assessing a space for these high-level principles should lay a strong groundwork which can be further refined– by line of sight tuning, strategic item placement, lighting readability– to form the basis for an excellent encounter.

The second aspect of setting up the encounter is blocking out the placement and initial behaviors of the enemy AI that the player will be facing. This determines how the player enters the fight, and ultimately how he walks away from it. In an FPS that features expressive combat mechanics and active enemies, the best place for the player to begin the fight is right in the middle of the action; how does one encourage him to dive in, instead of plinking at his foes from the sidelines?

One way is to give the player the first move– let him get the drop on his enemies. This ties into the observability factor, while also encouraging the player to set up the fight to his advantage and close the distance before fighting starts.

In this scenario, the player approaches the encounter space and observes his opponents standing or patrolling around in the center or at the far end, unaware of his presence. These enemies should be spread out enough that a single grenade blast won't take them all out, and having backup waiting in the wings is important. The player may observe the enemies' movements undisturbed as long as he doesn't attack or advance too close. This presents the player with options– does he hang back on the outer ring of cover and line up a headshot on one of the enemies? Does he plant some proximity mines around the flanking corridors then toss a grenade at the group to make them scatter? Does he close the distance and open up with automatic fire just as they notice his presence? The player is allowed to choose his tactics and consider his approach. This is invaluable from a player experiential standpoint.

>>15614867

The opposite experience is often encountered in F.E.A.R. 2: as the player steps through a doorway into the fight arena, enemies are already aware of his presence and spraying the entry point with suppressive fire. What options does the player have now? The only valid ones are to retreat and use the edge of the entry door as cover, or to dash blindly forward into a hail of bullets, which is most often suicide. An unaware enemy is key– it allows the player to strike the match setting off the encounter, instead of being purely reactive to his opposition's opening moves. It allows the player to take up an optimal position for beginning the fight, which a good level designer makes sure is significantly deeper into the arena than the entry door. It allows the respawning player to intentionally alter his tactics upon retry, instead of being forced to deal with the exact same setup each time.

An unaware enemy is subject to extermination by an opening headshot or grenade, but this is a small price to pay– backup can be spawned at the far end of the arena to replace any intial fodder as a second wave of enemies advances into the encounter. The gains in player control over the fight's initial moments are worth it.

An alternate approach is the ambush– the player observes a quiet arena, and advances into the middle, only for the enemy to pop out of hiding and attack (rappel down through skylights, jump down off of balconies, swarm in through multiple entry doors, burst through a wall, etc.) This is a fair approach in the back half of the campaign, as the player should be experienced fighting his enemy and could use some variety to encounter setups. However, the ambushing enemies should nonetheless have terrible reflexes– enemies that pop out guns blazing will merely frustrate the player. Rappelling/door-bashing/balcony-diving/wall-busting ambushers should take a while to ready their weapons and draw a bead on the player, allowing him to make it to cover and get the first shot off. The idea is for the player to retain some initial advantage while still being thrust suddenly into the middle of an encounter.

My experience with F.E.A.R. 2 is that it unfortunately often misses the principles that made the encounters in the original game so engaging– frequent are restrictive, linear encounter spaces without flanking corridors, precognitive enemies that begin firing on the player before he gets a chance to enter the space, and unobservable spaces without clear flow or points of emphasis. This not only makes the player's role in combat more frustrating, but makes the enemies appear less intelligent– with fewer navigational options, they tend to remain stationary more and surprise the player less. Moreover, FEAR 2 fell into the same trappings of most modern shooters at the time such as Medal of Honor, RTcW, even Monolith's own NOLF, where in order to cover up the fact that the base combat and enemy AI/arena design is weak, they thrust you into entirely different situations that change up the gameplay entirely, such as the obligatory sniper section, the obligatory vehicle section, the obligatory turret section, the obligatory stealth section, etc. In a way it betrays the developer's own trust in their combat system that they have to completely change it up with gimmicks in order to prevent the player from getting bored. Smart AI is only half the equation– smart arena design is required to convincingly demonstrate your enemies' innate abilities. F.E.A.R. 2 had more enemy variety, yet it amounted to little because the arena design didn't utilize that variety at all.

Go play Firewatch. That's more to your liking.

>>15613400

fear is too stressful, zombeis ate my neighbors is a better contender

I nominate Thief 1/2 and Thief FMs. They're not horror games, but they're very atmospheric and some missions are creepy. I also recall playing several high quality halloween themed FMs.

Onimusha 1 is just a Resident Evil game but more action oriented. A little bit spooky.

>>15615002

It was only a matter of time before 'NPC' became the new 'shill'. Even has a cuckchan filename to boot

>>15615002

>>>/4chan/

>>15615002

Nice spacing, cuck.

>>15614836

http://absurveillancesolutions.com/

Login with the username 00437 and with the password bedsheets.

The password for the archives is SADDAY.

>>15615002

it's funny because it's true

someone should take like fear

strip down quantity of guns but keep the meaty mechanics

turn those linear sections into more semi-open world things

take spooks more to psychological stuff but keep it low-stress mostly

make the those section longer or like half the game, not small parts

tie it to a good IP or make new horror property

id play it

>>15615024

>>15615027

>>15615243

>wordless butthurt

Remember, the meme only hurts you when it's real. See you next time you bring up more cookie cutter consensus like EYE and original Prey.

>>15615704

That was the Call of Cthulu one. It didn't turn out well.

>>15615809

>EYE

It's alright with a friend. Can't recommend it solo.

>Prey

A little bit too we wuz spiritual KANGZ on the story front, but I really liked the creative level design and overall aesthetic.

>>15615819

What a waste of my fucking time that game was.

>>15613400

necrovision

>>15615809

what's wrong with EYE and Prey?

>>15615015

Dude, Thief scared the fuck out of me. Especially at times when all of a sudden all those creepy monsters that you can't even outrun notice your existance and you hide behind a door hoping nothing comes through it as they are looking for you. Probably the most stressful and horrifying experience i've ever had playing vidya.

>>15613480

Does dog shit smell like roses?

This thread is gay because you opened it with a horror game when what you should be looking for is a game with a scary atmosphere but isn't built around its horror elements.

I mean, Subnautica is comfy as hell but you don't even need a pre-existing fear of the deep sea to start getting nervous in the dark, barren depths that span most of the mid-game.

You could read a horror visual novel, which is about as low-stress as it gets because it's the kind of horror that makes you think rather than the horror that jumps out at you and requires fast reactions.

Soma has an option to even turn the stressful encounters of the game off entirely, which makes it even lower stress than a visual novel would be.

>>15620417

>Soma has an option to even turn the stressful encounters of the game off entirely

Why would they do this? The tiny handful of enemy encounters are the only gameplay the game has. Without that it's a walking sim in the truest sense of the term.