Horror adventure games

Creepy sounds/music is always good.

Make us the bad guy for once if you really want to do something new and exciting. Just saying....

• The music needs to be good. That can help set the mood. Even when nothing is happening, you can still be in fear of what may come next.
• Inability to fight back. The scariest games I've played would have me running and hiding. Sure, Dead Space and the like have some scares, but I can point a gun in their direction and down they go.

• Interesting combat mechanics. Dead Space is an excellent example of that.
• Tension from not seeing what's hunting you/"the monster" is more important that jump scares from seeing it. Mix it up. Amnesia.
• Music/sounds/ambiance. Any horror film director will tell you that.

I love horror games, so I could go on forever but I'll let other people throw in some stuff. ;)

I really don't like when people jump in a bandwagon, there's just too many horror-adventure games now. :(

And don't ask what other people like in games of that genre, you'll just end up creating some generic content. Ask yourself what is missing in those games, not what they already have, what can you offer that others didn't.

Scratches: Director's Cut is a great example of a good horror adventure. Atmosphere and ambience, plus the story.

Don't do want CAPCOM did to resident evil, don't put action in it.

No user interface, a really shitty flashlight and smart unscripted monsters that randomly move around so you can never really know when you're gonna walk into one.

Don't write stupid shit on the walls.

you remember the first time you played resident evil on the psx? you remember the scene where that fucking thing jumps through the mirror and scares the everloving shit out of you? you remember the excitement it caused that a game just nearly made you wet yourself?

include stuff like that in the game. things that happen out of nowhere and just absolutely scare the crap out of you.

No jump scares.

It's all about the atmosphere and how well you can create it ;)

The atmosphere, the feeling and the mystery.
It has to make you wanna push forward even if you know you'll most likely scare the hell out of you.
Actually, it should make you wanna get scared.

Lol, usually, it's the really bad ones which are the scariest :P

Well, I'm a horror fan in general (movies, books, games, etc...).

The common answer is "People like to experience fear without being in danger", and this is true for pretty much any medium, video games included. The great part about video games is that we get to interact with things and so we are more susceptible at getting scared.

For me Silent Hill 2 is the best horror game around. It is the one that do the most important stuff the best. And no, the most important stuff is not scare the shit out of you. Slender scared me, but I still don't think it's a good horror game.
Atmosphere is important, of course, we have to have a sense of despair and loneliness, but it helps if the gameplay helps that and Silent Hill's or Resident Evil's (The originals) gameplay manages to improve with their shaky cameras. Amnesia and Penumbra use the fact that we have no weapons to fight with.

The sound and music are important too. Just look at Silent Hill's OST for a good example.

And in the end, the story. Because all in all, if the game is scary but the story is boring, I won't care.

I think these are all the important points to make a good horror game. The most important being the atmosphere.

As huge fan of horror genre let me tell you this: we dont like combat, we dont like junpscares, we dont like monsters. We DO like that feeling whne you EXPECT it.. waiting for it, you scare of what CAN HAPPEN.. in other words your own imagination produce most of that feeling for which we like horror. Thats why silent hill - cult. OST, sounds is very important. Style is very important (However graphics in general is not). Feeling that you are weak and cant fight back - i like it.

It is usually good atmosphere (inventive visuals and music), the feeling of constant danger (tune the gameplay to reach the effect) and a very simple story, but narrated so that it makes you curious to go on. Like you have to give a clear goal, and pave the way to it with bits of information leading up to the final revelation/confrontation. This usually works.

Well, that depends a LOT on what kind of game you're making or intending to do. As with all genres most people put dozens of different shades in the same bag, and while thats good in general its terribad when discussing a genre or trying to learn from it.

So theres multiple sub 'genres' and kinds of horror, and when we mix that with the varied kinds of gameplay... in short, im left too much in the dark to give any in depth comment beyond the short generic kind you've already readed here (and most of those things obvious).

One of the most important things is what sort of aesthetics and graphic engine you're going after, and of course what kind of gameplay you have in mind. For example, a first person perspective allows some iterations that wouldn't work in other perspectives and vice versa; When graphics are minimal and more left to imagination its easier to achieve certain effects once the players are sucked in (the main reason why older horror games had more impact); that is, the more a game have aestetical fidelity ('realism', 'good graphics') the harder it becomes to extract certain kinds of reactions. For example, a gory effect have greater impact the higher the fidelity, but pretty much everything else becomes harder- the more close to life/recognizeable the graphics are, less the player imagine and more they expect. If a certain scene or thing in the middle of a graphically acurate game don't seens realistic enought it doesn't scare, and generally detracts from the overall effect.

Plus theres certain things you shouldn't touch upon depending on the scope and resources this game will have, as many things in horror depends on characters conveying the right feeling with enought drive; something that should be avoided if you don't count with motion capture for example.

Im sort-of a game designer, just finishing my degree on it and pushing foward a project of my own(but no releases thus far); Add me to steam if you want to chat, i love talking about game development. Plus i have 2 drafts 'waiting to see the light of the day' in the genre; 2 horror games gamebibles that i had put some effort and research into. They're not in english(not my main language) but theres definitly something in them i can share or translate, not to say about references, sources or links.

By the way, what scope were talking here? Full one-man-army indie? A small team? Something already in the works or its all concepts yet? That makes the biggest difference, when designing we must start from size and resources so the whole thing is kept in frame and grounded in reality, its really frustrating nurturing a concept only to see its unfeaseable for the current team, needing to be cut in many parts(risking loosing all shine and delivering a bad half-assed game) or scraped alltogether.

I have a good suggestion for you, something a bit different than the games you listed: look at Project 0/Fatal Frame games... Specially the 2nd game.

I feel like I need mention that Scratches is currently in the groupees bundle. It was pretty good, and for a buck I'd say it's definitely worth it.

Limited resources is a must!

Here is an advice - as a person who generally dislikes horror adventure games, the series I fell immidiately in love is are the Chzo Mythos (5 Days A Stranger, 7 Days A Skeptic, Tribly's Notes and 6 Days A Sacrifice - in that order). The games won me for three reasons - it's an old-school type of point-and-click adventure game, the atmosphere for a game with 256 colors is phenomenal, and the story is brilliant. I must have replayed the games just for the story's sake at least 5 times. The developer (infamous Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, of Zero Punctuation) has stated numerous times that his influences were mainly Silent Hill and a japanese horror adventure game, which I currently cannot remember. I'll never forget in one of his commentaries, he said what in his opinion makes a horror game/movie great. It isn't gore or shock attacks - it's the feeling of the inexplicable. The thing the human mind cannot comprehend or understand. Once you get the player into the mindset that absolutely anything can happen at any moment - that can make a great horror game. I've beaten Sanitarium and played a lot of SH2 - i've never jumped off my seat with fear because a monster popped out of nowhere and scared me, but I've sat on my chair for hours feeling fright I've never felt in my life.
Also - the horror element can be nice, but in my opinion - a memorable and worthwhile story is a must in any horror. The fabula is the most important thing in an adventure game. If the story cannot immerse you in the game, there is no point in the game being a horror, because you will feel nothing playing it.
That's my two cents.

I adore horror games done well. I feel that the first and most important part is not to neglect any aspect of the game. Audio resources are often lower on the list than graphical development, but audio is an exceptionally strong part of creating atmosphere and tension.

You should also try to think ahead and decide what kind of horror you're making, and what the primary methods of scare are. An awful lot of modern 'horror' could actually be better described as low-grade suspense, action or mystery, which just happens to feature overdone tropes, "screamers" or startle scares, and gorn. Gorn (or "gore porn") is a term used when something substitutes genuine horror for simply adding excessive gore, either in a dumb slapstick fashion, or overly realistic making it more akin to a 'torture movie' which is more about disgust and cringe reflex than full-on horror. Startle scares are simply when a sudden change in the situation causes a 'flinch' reflex from the viewer/player, which causes a brief sting of fake primal fear, but ultimately wastes any built tension. Actual fear is something that you tend to be fully aware of and that clings to you, altering how you behave or perceive. Fear built through a series of startle-scares is only a fear of more startle scares, simply because people don't like to be forced to flinch. That isn't really a fear because of what is happening in the game, that is an apprehension of a twitch reflex. "Screamers" are the most hamfisted version of a startle-scare, trying to overload a person's flinch reflex by adding excessively loud audio and often a full-screen switch in visuals. ANY medium can make use of gorn and startles to fake being a horror, just like any film can fake emotional depth by randomly adding half-assed loved-one abduction or near-rape scenes.

Gore is most effective when it serves a distinct purpose, rather than thrown around for no reason. Overdone gore just becomes "a bunch of red stuff", finely tailored gore becomes "oh GOD that spear really did just get stuck in his abdomen!". Also, do not make death or suffering a cheap animated sideshow. Consider the lack of impact of a cheap action movie where many people get shot and killed, each time yelling "GYAAAARGHAGLHGLH" and then falling in an overly dramatic perfect configuration on the floor, compared to brief low-quality footage of a real gun-related death. Do not mistake the shock factor as being "it's real", it is also infinitely more gruesome because of the process, or lack thereof. There is no double-backflip, no bucket of airborn blood and no long-winded grunty "AVENGE MEEE", there is a gunshot that sometimes sounds more like a 'snap', there is a crumple, sometimes no immediately recognisable blood, and in place of a death scream, there is often a muffled drunken sigh as they -try- to yell in pain but find their bodies are rapidly becoming unresponsive. A little realism in fake gore can dramatically increase its impact. While gorn is often a bad sign, do not be frightened to make death scenes or large player errors result in gruesome happenings. Rather than keeling over to a "YOU DIED YOURSELF DEAD" sign, a brief but detailed animation of the moment of the death throes can provide a much needed sting to keep the player wanting to avoid it on more than just a gameplay level. In Resident Evil 6, death by a biological chainsaw-creature would often result in simply falling over with a grunt and a black screen, or occasionally a badly done decapitation with no real drama behind it. However in Resident Evil 4, being struck and killed by a chainsaw wielding humanoid would cause a very brief show of the chainsaw biting into the player's flesh, quickly chewwing through to the other side, and the head rolling free. If the player was lucky, they would block the chainsaw with the barrel of their weapon and have a brief period to struggle and push the attacker away. Failure caused the gun barrel to be cut in half too. In RE4, the enemy and the weapon felt like a stark, grisly threat the entire time, and the level of death response matched the happenings in combat. In RE6, they were merely a "mandatory death animation, because this is what games do". There is even the chance in RE6 to be impaled and lifted up by the chainsaw, but the lack of suiting drama or detail still made it fall flat. In fact, I suggest you look up videos on youtube of various death montages from the Resident Evil series, and contrast the kinds of impact and attention to detail in each. It is not enough that your character wishes to evade death, the player should also feel the urgency of preserving what they feel is their own life, either through virtue of immersion, or because the immediate death-threat is strong enough to elicit a self-preservation response.

Surprise your audience, but do not startle them overmuch. Some startle-scares can be genuinely good, especially if they are unintentional, but be careful about desensitising them. If you can break the audience's expectations of the limits of the game, you can often catch them off-guard and put them in an uneasy state. Rob them of their comfort zone where you can, but offer them the occasional breather so that they can be re-sensitised to the tension. Imagine having played halfway through the game on certain assumptions of what the game engine can do, only to find your antagonist breaking that assumption and immediately using it against you. Early Resident Evil style games had the assumption that each room was a contained environment that could be freely escaped by the simple use of a door. Imagine that moment of panic when a player is gathering their wits in an cleared room, only to hear the distinct sound of a door being opened, followed by sounds of something searching for them. Imagine the player having become desensitised to a frequently appearing type of monster, that while difficult and deadly, has an easy way of defeating them if tackled correctly... and then the player finds themselves disarmed, or unable to make use of their normal strategy, or placed into an environment where they have to adapt.

The greater part of making a good game is in being able to place yourself within the gamers shoes. Try to remember the things that made you roll your eyes and think "Why would you deliberately annoy us / design it that way?", and do it different. Try to remember the things that had no effect other than to pad the game amount in a boring stretch, and use something different. The moment a group of game developers lose sight of the gameplay experience, is the moment they start to take wild guesses and create a game full of unentertaining happenings just to stretch the playtime. Having 10 minutes of good stuff and 3 hours of tedium is no good. Gamers will forgive you for a lot of things, but rarely will they forgive you for making them wait to be entertained. A mediocre game is easily forgivable if it readily surprises and challenges them. In fact, some excessively flawed games have come to be regarded as great milestones simply because they offered something new, or something noteworthy. The original Silent Hill was considered an incredible horror game despite long-winded exploration and often confusing backtracking and layouts, for instance.

Tension and atmosphere are vital, but on their own are nothing but an empty promise. Timing and pacing are important. The level, frequency and type of the 'scares' must always be considered. Combat must be weighed as not to allow the player to feel too empowered. The characters must be alive in a sense that they seem like fully realised people, not just walking stereotypes and arbitrary "I'm here to die for false impact" units, gamers can smell these things a mile off. There are a million tiny important factors to keep in mind before you even get into dreaming up the characters, locations, themes, story and potential novelties. Oh yes, the novelties. Even horror games can benefit from having a slightly unique take on things. It could be an overarching enemy theme, or a specific enemy that is particularly feared or gruesome. It could be a weapon or a gameplay mechanic. If you have a little something that makes you stand out without looking like you're trying to be a special snowflake, that is always a bonus.

Sorry for rambling like this, but horror is a complex and often badly done subject (and a passion of mine).
There is simply too much to cover, and for everything I just said? A lot of it comes down to a kind of intuition. Perhaps try building small mock-up games with placeholder materials to get a feel for what kind of scares you like best, and what you feel you can execute the best. Some people have a great affinity for psychological horror, where your 'enemy' may not even be a physical or immediately tangible thing, or your antagonist may not be physically hostile (yet). A zombie-vampire running after you with a knife can be intense, but a ghost that floats an inch behind you, unshakeable, making occasional death-rattle noises and gesturing in a manner you can't tell is an attempt at guiding or threatening you? Yeah. Others realise that a purer kind of horror just won't work for them, so go for fuller hybrids like action-horror or adventure-horror. Imagine how Amnesia would have turned out if they instead added more enemies, scattered ammo drops, and occasional firearms? You just have to find what you think works for you. Be flexible, try to be a little original, surprise your audience (but not always startle), aim for a strong response but not necessarily with by using the maximum of effort, and above all : Don't be afraid to admit when something isn't working and needs to be re-thought and re-done. A game that is pretending that it is scary according to what an executive designer says "should" be, despite all participants knowing better? Yeah. There is nothing worse than a horror that causes it's audience to laugh.

Again, sorry for the babbling. Good luck with your project!

Oh... yes.
And the best way you can learn, is simply by being a fan. When you run short on inspiration, or you can't quite work out -why- a specific moment doesn't seem to be clicking, try breaking out some horror movies or creepy games, and after your initial view/play, go back and try to dissect -why- it worked. Failed horror-hybrid games often have obvious flaws that got overlooked by the designers who were undoubtedly swamped by the creation process. Sometimes it's too much combat. Sometimes it's too little combat and then having a 'struggle for life' scenario appear unexpectedly. Was it a quicktime event? Was it a lack of the player's ability to respond? Was it the fact that combat simply didn't belong in that scenario/game? Was the gore overstated? Was there too much or too little dialog? Were there too many characters in a scene? Was there too little? Was the type of atmosphere simply a bad match for the effect you were going for? Did the player become desensitised? Was the scene predicted or too transparently staged? Did another recent scene have a negative effect on this one?

Trying to 'max out' the player's response is kind of like playing a puzzle game where you have a million little multi-coloured sliders, and every time you adjust one, three others move. Then on top of this, you have to consider that not all players react or feel the same. How are you going to effect as many as possible without over-reaching and making a messy "a little bit of everything" product?

I'm... I'm not helping am I? XD
Just remember to take the time to experience it yourself. You may not be able to truly play your own horror game, as you already know it inside out, but refer to other media. Hell, have your team secretly mock up tiny scenarios or rooms, and then get everyone to play each other's micro-work to see how you think it'll play out. Take time to sit back and scribble concept art so you have a good pool of ideas to toy with. You don't need to be a professional grade artist, even half-stick doodles just to archive the things you came up with in your headspace. The first step is to be inspired, to think "Yes, THAT is totally going in", and the second is not to lose sight of the good bits while you're converting it into code.

...
Okay I'm stopping now. :P

No! Wait! Not done yet!
(hey, blame googling movie openings)

While I haven't seen this movie, this trailer is a fine example of relying on cheap scares and overdone material

And a few thoughts on the classic horror mix relating to the movie.