Horror games are scarier in FP view
Agree
69.7% (101)
69.7% (101)
Disagree (give example)
30.3% (44)
30.3% (44)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Horror games are scarier in first person

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Its a weird question but I believe that most horror games that have spooked me have been first person third person horrors have just never scared me as much probably due to the fact because the first person view makes me feel like I am looking through the characters eyes experiencing all this.

Anyone else want to agree or argue against it by telling of a horror game that they that wasn't in first person view?

Well, Dead Rising 2 is thirdperson and the zombie scares made me starte a little. Nothing big obviously, but it does get you a little each time it happens. Thats more than what I can say of the "true" horror games- I never found a proper horror game to be... well, horror. It just not scary if you know what it is about. Instead in other games were those moments are found, but are not the premise of the game, are actually scary imo (Another good example is Minecraft´s dark caves?

Resident Evil (Remake).
It used tank controls and set camera angles that changed quite frequently.
But that's what makes it exactly like FPS horror games; the deliberate choice to have the players unaware that something is coming. In FPS games, it's often from behind or otherwise out of sight while TPS games have things coming from around corners or from the sides. The remake on the Gamecube had excellent atmosphere and graphics that were well ahead of its time (though pre-rendered). You are highly encouraged not to kill zombies, because leaving them to rot brings them back as a much more powerful enemy after a certain amount of time has passed. Thus, you had to dodge them in cramped corners whenever possible lest you have a fetish for fetching kerosene over and over for body cremation. The tanks with kerosene run out, so you'd have to locate another one if you were particularly trigger happy.

Clock Tower (SNES) was also quite unnerving, likely due to the general inaction going on. The atmosphere was creepy and most of the "creepiness" that the game has stems from your own mind making sense of the pixel world. But periodically, Scissorman would pop out and you'd need to scramble to a hiding place on a separate screen (each hiding place only works once). You had no means of defense in this game, and had to avoid traps/Scissorman and the other hazards that popped out.

Thus, I believe that horror comes from gimping the player in some way (be it restricting vision, movement or highly discouraging combat) and maintaining a good atmosphere throughout the experience.

First person horror games are a bit scarier because of the restricted viewpoints (also what made the first couple of resident evil games scary). The viewpoints could make you feel like a spider was crawling up your neck in amnesia. Visual perspectives matter which is why I wasn't scared in Dead Space, because I could take a full look at the monster and see where to shoot it, in Resident Evil you had to take your chances with the switching angles. Amnesia, by not allowing you to look behind or obscuring monsters with vision blur, became a terrifying game.

Depends. A first-person horror game like Amnesia or (oddly enough) certain sections of STALKER? Yeah, definitely. But something where you're armed to the teeth like the FEAR series or Doom 3, not so much. Well, D3 had loads of jump scares, but FEAR 2 and 3 basically relied on the time-tested tactic of "things are getting creepy? Equip shotgun, find target, time slow, empty magazine. Repeat as necessary."

When I'm wrestling with the camera controls, I find it hard to be scared by anything. Not too much of a fan of third person, and with First Person making you feel more immersed in the character you are playing as, I thing First Person is scarier.

Dead Space was one of the scariest games I've played, and it was third-person. I will say, however, I think its a bit easier for first-person games to do it, because you're given a better sense of control than in most third-person games. I think Dead Space is one of the few exceptions because it gives you some control, and it lets you see a good amount, but as everybody who has played the game knows, its just not quite pulled back enough for you to feel safe walking down a hallway.

Part of the scare in a videogame is either losing that control and that little bit of control you do have being meaningless. Its why I think Dead Space, for the most part, was scarier than the corridor-camera Resident Evil games, which are more frustrating than anything else. The fixed cameras tell me how I can look and screws me over, rather than say Amnesia, where I can choose where I look, but even given this control, its not enough to keep me safe. I'm putting myself into a vulnerable position, no matter which direction I turn, and I can't look one way for too long, or can't focus on what I'm doing too much lest mean old monster gets the jump on me. I can't imagine anybody would prefer walking down a hallway and then suddenly coming across a zombie that the character should be able to see because the fixed camera is crap, and then when you get to either end of the hall, my direction controls change.

Ryanrulez5:
Its a weird question but I believe that most horror games that have spooked me have been first person third person horrors have just never scared me as much probably due to the fact because the first person view makes me feel like I am looking through the characters eyes experiencing all this.

Anyone else want to agree or argue against it by telling of a horror game that they that wasn't in first person view?

Sure i'll agree ^_^ Games like condemned are definitley scary-er because of the perspective. You ever tried project zero 2 in FPS view? (It let you choose) Lordy.

The first four silent hill games were still scary though, down to the sounds I guess.

Ravinoff:
snip

Yeah fear relies on alma popping up out of nowhere. I call a "jump" a cheap scare :/

Still there was one particular corridor in fear 2 that got to me. The level in the school where zombie-alma is disappearing with the flickering lights was really well done. Probably the scariest 30 seconds in the whole series, too bad they couldn't do that more often.

Silent Hill 2.

Nothin' much else to say, really. Just... Silent Hill 2.

There are plenty games that would beg to differ with the whole "first-person is scarier" line.

Silent Hill, Fatal Frame, and Resident Evil are just a few.

Disagree. The whole Silent Hill series is proof that perspective doesn't make a game scarier. Lone survivor is a more recent example.

Personally the perspective doesn't matter to me whatsoever, but I'm a sucker for well done fixed camera angles. They can be really creepy and cool if done well. For example Resident Evil 0 used them and they looked great. Especially since they often weren't static and had moving parts, like on the train you can see bottles rolling around on the table and things swaying as the train moves, and out of the window you can see things rushing by and the curtains are blowing.

Thoughtful_Salt:
First person horror games are a bit scarier because of the restricted viewpoints (also what made the first couple of resident evil games scary). The viewpoints could make you feel like a spider was crawling up your neck in amnesia. Visual perspectives matter which is why I wasn't scared in Dead Space, because I could take a full look at the monster and see where to shoot it, in Resident Evil you had to take your chances with the switching angles. Amnesia, by not allowing you to look behind or obscuring monsters with vision blur, became a terrifying game.

yup this entirely. the viewpoint cone is what matters mostly, not to mention in third person you can see your body/if something is hitting/sneaking up on you, in first person the biggest slender you've ever seen could be behind you and you'd have no clue.

I still attest that the first strolls into Rapture was one of the most intense and frightening moments I've ever played in a game.

First person would be scarier for jump scares and the like simply because of the limited field of view that you would have. Outside of that context though it's really the atmosphere of the game that makes the game tense and scary, and that's experienced the same way whether you're in first or third person, in first person you just have the extra bit of tension because you can't see nearly as well, or track multiple enemies well simultaneously, but that has less to do with the actual horror aspects of the game.

It can, depending on the kind of horror you're going for. Most japanese horror games I've come across have third person cameras because their horror is more cerebral and less of the jump scare type. It relies a lot on atmosphere and things just seeming off

Other kinds of horror that rely on more of the sudden scare after building tension(like Amnesia) do well with first person cameras due to a limited field of view and less awareness of your surroundings. That extra second or two it takes you to turn and face a noise can make it all the more terrifying.

It's a design choice, and not one you should make lightly. In the end, one is not better than the other, they're just different.

Yeah, as others have said, the Silent Hill series is still top tier in horror. At least, the first games are.

I find it much more frightening to actually be able to see whats slowly creeping up behind you while you frantically try to run/leave, Silent Hill is full of that. You miss a lot of that with first person, and that limited perspective may even make the game resort to a lot of jump scares; which don't really do anything for me.

I would tend to disagree.
While the 1st person view might go a bit towards allowing the player to step into the role of the protagonist it fails to immerse me in the story precisely because of all the little things that you don't notice from day to day that aren't in an FPS game.

For example I just assume every FPS hero is wearing hover boots because we rarely hear footsteps and the first person camera doesn't have the slight bob and weave that you come to expect from walking. It's also very rare for these games to have a real tactile feel to them. Clubbing splicers in the noggin with a pipe wrench may be fun but there's very little these games can to to emulate the feel of just such an attack.

Of the other hand a 3rd person view doesn't necessitate a consistent viewpoint for the character so it can allow for more interaction with the world. When James Sunderland clubs a monster to death with a lead pipe you can see the physical effort going into the attack, and see the resistance as the weapon makes contact.

To me it's the latter that allows for more immersion into the game itself. While I can't put myself in the shoes of James Sunderland or Leon Kennedy I find that I can be more emotionally invested in the story and therefore more likely to be frightened when things go wrong.

I would disagree because generally with first person games you tend to be armed in one way or another and you usually can be a crack-shot against whatever is attacking you. But with 3rd person I usually can't be the same dead eye and I feel more vulnerable and less safe.

Also with first person games, they rarely tend to throw anything behind you, because it would be pretty damn hard/unfair. So when you know to expect everything scary to be in front of you, you generally feel a bit safer. But with 3rd person games you do get that partial view behind you so game developers usually see it as fair to throw stuff from any direction which in my opinion makes things a lot more tense.

I think OP is generally absolutely right.

However, with Demon's and Dark Souls, the horror soon gets well beyond skin deep once you get used to and accept the presentation. The first time the Taurus Demon made his surprise appearance, I nearly peed my pants and panicked quite a bit. The first Capra Demon confrontation is nightmare inducing, giving folks that usually don't have any issues a taste of claustrophobia.

Every time you see something strange and scary from afar, it usually piques your interest... and when you finally reach it, and it turns out to be a scary place and a huge big bad, you usually wish you were somewhere completely different, as death is sometimes very likely to happen. After a while, you can get truly paranoid about the slightest sounds. Every time you enter a new area, it eventually becomes quite natural to always expect the worst... it's what keeps you alive.

I like that.

First person can very well be OK. But, alas, the actual fighting mechanics (if there are any beyond pew pew pew shooty shooty bang bang) tend to be rather dull and simple. Which is OK for games like Slenderman or other titles that are different enough, but it really gets annoying fast in everything from Generic Crap Game X to, well, even Skyrim. I like magic and bows in Skyrim, to some extent, but melee combat is just so unrefined it hurts.

The first games that come to mind that legitimately scared me were the Silent Hill and Fatal Frame series. So, I disagree.

xPixelatedx:
Yeah, as others have said, the Silent Hill series is still top tier in horror. At least, the first games are.

I find it much more frightening to actually be able to see whats slowly creeping up behind you while you frantically try to run/leave, Silent Hill is full of that. You miss a lot of that with first person, and that limited perspective may even make the game resort to a lot of jump scares; which don't really do anything for me.

It does seem like a good way to take in the whole effect of the immediate environment.
That is, once you stop wrestling with fixed camera angles in time to see that Pyramid Head's following you..

In general, I find first-person to be much scarier. Having absolutely no clue what is outside your field of vision is just a lot scarier than being able to see Slit McThroatson coming up on you. That isn't to say that third-person horror can't be done, but it seems much harder to do.

However, the problem with a lot of first-person horror is that it is really just an FPS with survival horror elements (ex. BioShock). This generally reduces the fear of the game rather substantially, as the enemies obviously aren't as much of a threat as they would be if you were unarmed. Some games manage to overcome this. For instance, the first F.E.A.R. generally gave you action sections where the FPS elements were prevalent, but then it gave you a horror section where you understood that your weapons were completely pointless, and having that sudden loss of power really did play with my mind. However, most games don't manage to pull off the FPS-with-some-survival-horror game. On the other hand, though, when it is true survival horror like Amnesia, then it truly feels like the pinnacle of horror.

I don't find horror games to be particularly scary. They don't engage me, regardless of the point of view.

I don't know if I should vote "no," though.

I don't think first person is scarier because all of the classic great horror games I can think of were not first person. I could start with every Silent Hill minus Shatter Memories and all the Resident Evil games before the series became an action game, continuing in that manner until I reach Lone Survivor. Now sure I cannot overlook Amnesia or Slender, but there is a reason why most horror games are 3rd Person. Atmosphere.

There are two basic ways to scare people with atmosphere, ominous horror and paranoid horror.

Ominous horror is about teaching players to preceptive certain things as warning of things to be frighten about. Then once you expect a thing to bring trouble, you surround the player in these warning signs and force them to approach these omens. Trouble doesn't always come, but being enclosed in these reminders that trouble is coming provides the anxiety to put the player in the proper state to be scared.

Paranoid horror is just the opposite. Teaching the player that trouble comes with no regard to warning signs. So when you look around and there no warning signs to be seen, trouble comes out of no where. That doesn't make sense, maybe you missed something. Stare into the abyss deeper. Make sure you miss nothing. Because trouble comes quick. Faster than you can believe. Don't look away. And don't blink.

Now these two methods can work with first person, after all first person has a lot of control at what the player sees and gives the player the power to look away or have to look around. The issue is first person games limit what you can see, so beyond sound effects a player cannot feel enclosed by the terror surrounding them. It might be counter intuitive, but more information just gives you more to fear. Being able to see behind your own back, will make you check it more often, even when you don't want to see if anything is there. Basically, you can't show people there is something to fear if they aren't looking, and third person lets you make them look in all directions. Making it easier to have more omens and weak assurances to be paranoid about.

The weirdest part about this is third person sometimes gives your directional vision with a flashlight. But the player sees the darkness around them, constantly made aware of that which they can't see. And this reminder makes you feel isolated, small, ignorant, and weak. Really there is little advantage of first person horror games from this style, other than the obvious easy to use first person game engines to build off of that fueled the last generation of games. And it can be done, with darkness and sound. But its not at all surprising third person the preferred method, since its more versicle in the horrors it can bring. And scares are like jokes, more effective if you don't repeat them

It's probably because all third-person horror games have abysmal tank controls, while 1st person games tend to have very fluent controls. It's be a toss-up between an expertly placed fixed camera with bad controls or a claustrophobic first-person view with passable controls. The first-person camera wins out now simply because horror games can not figure out how to make the player feel inhibited without ruining the controls.

I definitely feel more scared in first person than 3rd.

That's not to say 3rd person games aren't scary.

Rednog:
I would disagree because generally with first person games you tend to be armed in one way or another and you usually can be a crack-shot against whatever is attacking you. But with 3rd person I usually can't be the same dead eye and I feel more vulnerable and less safe.

Also with first person games, they rarely tend to throw anything behind you, because it would be pretty damn hard/unfair. So when you know to expect everything scary to be in front of you, you generally feel a bit safer. But with 3rd person games you do get that partial view behind you so game developers usually see it as fair to throw stuff from any direction which in my opinion makes things a lot more tense.

So poorer controls make you feel more helpless? hmm interesting but there are definitely some first person horror games that you're practically never armed in.

OffTopic:I really love your avatar. I really enjoyed Jack of All trades.

Every 3rd person game that is scary I believe would have been more scary if it was first person.

Imagine Dead Space where your vision is impaired by your helmet and you get to see the necromorphs up REAL close during frantic QTEs.

Tom_green_day:
When I'm wrestling with the camera controls, I find it hard to be scared by anything. Not too much of a fan of third person, and with First Person making you feel more immersed in the character you are playing as, I thing First Person is scarier.

You confuse "Immersion" with "Projection."

That aside, since Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever, the first-person theory really has no legs to stand on.

I have said this before in these forums, but horror is never about the monsters or the lame jump-out scares, true horror forces the player to face their own internalized fears and bring them to the surface as a form of catharsis. The current misunderstanding of what horror is has lead to many people believing that films like "Human Centipede" are frightening, when in fact, they are little more than childish excursions into sadism.

Oddly, games have traced the path that literature took almost 200 years ago, when two different men both held that Edgar Allen Poe was the greatest writer of all time. H.P. Lovecraft tried to emulate Poe's gothic sensibilities by creating worlds of eldrich beings always trying to break through some threshold or other, and he failed miserably. Charles Baudelaire, on the other hand, took Poe's keen sense of psychology and fused it with the growing existentialist movement, and succeeded in inspiring many of the great writers of the 20th century.

Games are something of the same sort. Silent Hill uses the Baudelaire / Existentialist approach, while the lesser games, even Amnesia: The Dark Descent, take their cues from mere grotesques and jump-out scares.

I always found Aliens versus Predator (the first game.) be extremely scary as marine, mostly because the aliens often kept on spawning and there was a limited amount of ammo and the crawling on the walls was very adrenaline producing.

I'd like to point out that 3rd person controls are usually more clunky than 1st person controls, so even if you see the monster coming up behind you, it's harder to react.

That said, one of the scariest games I've ever played (as well as the grand prize winner for "most violent scare-reaction") was an amateur text adventure. It combines the inability to see anything with difficult controls. I'm not sure why people don't try it anymore.

Ryan Hughes:

Tom_green_day:
When I'm wrestling with the camera controls, I find it hard to be scared by anything. Not too much of a fan of third person, and with First Person making you feel more immersed in the character you are playing as, I thing First Person is scarier.

You confuse "Immersion" with "Projection."

That aside, since Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever, the first-person theory really has no legs to stand on.

I have said this before in these forums, but horror is never about the monsters or the lame jump-out scares, true horror forces the player to face their own internalized fears and bring them to the surface as a form of catharsis. The current misunderstanding of what horror is has lead to many people believing that films like "Human Centipede" are frightening, when in fact, they are little more than childish excursions into sadism.

Oddly, games have traced the path that literature took almost 200 years ago, when two different men both held that Edgar Allen Poe was the greatest writer of all time. H.P. Lovecraft tried to emulate Poe's gothic sensibilities by creating worlds of eldrich beings always trying to break through some threshold or other, and he failed miserably. Charles Baudelaire, on the other hand, took Poe's keen sense of psychology and fused it with the growing existentialist movement, and succeeded in inspiring many of the great writers of the 20th century.

Games are something of the same sort. Silent Hill uses the Baudelaire / Existentialist approach, while the lesser games, even Amnesia: The Dark Descent, take their cues from mere grotesques and jump-out scares.

You have to be DAMN SURE of your statement that Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever when you post analyses like this. Sadly, it is not. In fact, it is the least scary of the first four Silent Hill games. I can see the argument that it has the most emotional punch (although I'd argue that Silent Hill 4 beats it), but Silent Hill 1 beats it in oppressive atmosphere, Silent Hill 3 beats it in straight-up scares, and Silent Hill 4 beats it in plot and story.

It's a great game and a wonderfully brooding story, but scary? No. I don't see why it's so scary to everyone else, either, unless there's a ton of self-hatred in the gaming community- oh. Oh. Got it.

At any rate, you're foolish to ignore the visceral aspect of horror. You can say that it's not about the monsters, but that didn't stop me from falling out of my chair the first time I met an enemy in Amnesia. You can say that sadism is cheap, but that doesn't change the fact that Silent Hill 3 makes me more terrified to continue than any other game. You can say that Lovecraft failed while Baudelaire succeeded, but that doesn't change the fact that Lovecraft is immeasurably more popular and copied. And most importantly, you can say that horror that doesn't directly rub your face in your own hang-ups is "fake horror", but that doesn't mean that Amnesia isn't more outright terrifying in the moment than the Silent Hill series could ever hope to be.

I'll agree with you on jump scares, though. Jump scares only last a second. I'm interested in fear that lasts longer than a second.

lacktheknack:

Ryan Hughes:

That aside, since Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever, the first-person theory really has no legs to stand on.

I have said this before in these forums, but horror is never about the monsters or the lame jump-out scares, true horror forces the player to face their own internalized fears and bring them to the surface as a form of catharsis. The current misunderstanding of what horror is has lead to many people believing that films like "Human Centipede" are frightening, when in fact, they are little more than childish excursions into sadism.

Oddly, games have traced the path that literature took almost 200 years ago, when two different men both held that Edgar Allen Poe was the greatest writer of all time. H.P. Lovecraft tried to emulate Poe's gothic sensibilities by creating worlds of eldrich beings always trying to break through some threshold or other, and he failed miserably. Charles Baudelaire, on the other hand, took Poe's keen sense of psychology and fused it with the growing existentialist movement, and succeeded in inspiring many of the great writers of the 20th century.

Games are something of the same sort. Silent Hill uses the Baudelaire / Existentialist approach, while the lesser games, even Amnesia: The Dark Descent, take their cues from mere grotesques and jump-out scares.

You have to be DAMN SURE of your statement that Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever when you post analyses like this. Sadly, it is not. In fact, it is the least scary of the first four Silent Hill games. I can see the argument that it has the most emotional punch (although I'd argue that Silent Hill 4 beats it), but Silent Hill 1 beats it in oppressive atmosphere, Silent Hill 3 beats it in straight-up scares, and Silent Hill 4 beats it in plot and story.

It's a great game and a wonderfully brooding story, but scary? No. I don't see why it's so scary to everyone else, either, unless there's a ton of self-hatred in the gaming community- oh. Oh. Got it.

At any rate, you're foolish to ignore the visceral aspect of horror. You can say that it's not about the monsters, but that didn't stop me from falling out of my chair the first time I met an enemy in Amnesia. You can say that sadism is cheap, but that doesn't change the fact that Silent Hill 3 makes me more terrified to continue than any other game. You can say that Lovecraft failed while Baudelaire succeeded, but that doesn't change the fact that Lovecraft is immeasurably more popular and copied. And most importantly, you can say that horror that doesn't directly rub your face in your own hang-ups is "fake horror", but that doesn't mean that Amnesia isn't more outright terrifying in the moment than the Silent Hill series could ever hope to be.

I'll agree with you on jump scares, though. Jump scares only last a second. I'm interested in fear that lasts longer than a second.

I am not foolish to ignore the visceral aspect of horror because there is no visceral aspect of horror. Look, there is a reason we use three different words: Scare, Fright, and Horror. Amnesia was truly frightening, but it can never be truly horrifying because the main character is simply a vehicle for the player to psychologically project onto or out of at will. This is what I meant when I said people often confuse immersion with projection.

The protagonist from SH4 was terrible, simply because he had no personality, an empty template for the blank projection of the player. This can work in games like Zelda, Half-Life, or Portal, but if you want true horror, you are going to have to face the fact that every human being has the capacity to commit terrible crimes, or be wracked with guilt over things they have done in the past that they subconsciously feel the need to be punished for.

A scare is putting a snake in a cupboard and having it jump out at some point. Fright is being chased by an army of snakes. Horror is being convinced that it is possible that you may very well be a snake.

Also, in popular culture, Lovecraft has a huge advantage in influence. Not so in high literature, Baudelaire vastly overpowers Lovecraft in terms of influence, and over time, this will become his advantage in popular culture as well.

Ryan Hughes:

Tom_green_day:
When I'm wrestling with the camera controls, I find it hard to be scared by anything. Not too much of a fan of third person, and with First Person making you feel more immersed in the character you are playing as, I thing First Person is scarier.

You confuse "Immersion" with "Projection."

That aside, since Silent Hill 2 is the most frightening game ever, the first-person theory really has no legs to stand on.

I have said this before in these forums, but horror is never about the monsters or the lame jump-out scares, true horror forces the player to face their own internalized fears and bring them to the surface as a form of catharsis. The current misunderstanding of what horror is has lead to many people believing that films like "Human Centipede" are frightening, when in fact, they are little more than childish excursions into sadism.

Oddly, games have traced the path that literature took almost 200 years ago, when two different men both held that Edgar Allen Poe was the greatest writer of all time. H.P. Lovecraft tried to emulate Poe's gothic sensibilities by creating worlds of eldrich beings always trying to break through some threshold or other, and he failed miserably. Charles Baudelaire, on the other hand, took Poe's keen sense of psychology and fused it with the growing existentialist movement, and succeeded in inspiring many of the great writers of the 20th century.

Games are something of the same sort. Silent Hill uses the Baudelaire / Existentialist approach, while the lesser games, even Amnesia: The Dark Descent, take their cues from mere grotesques and jump-out scares.

HP Lovecraft failed?

-what-?

Admittedly, I'm not a buff on horror, but I'm reasonably sure a -lot- more people have heard of Lovecraft than have heard of this Baudelaire guy. Maybe Baudelaire made more money, but Lovecraft practically invented a new genre.

PrinceOfShapeir:

HP Lovecraft failed?

-what-?

Admittedly, I'm not a buff on horror, but I'm reasonably sure a -lot- more people have heard of Lovecraft than have heard of this Baudelaire guy. Maybe Baudelaire made more money, but Lovecraft practically invented a new genre.

An artistic failure. You cannot really judge authors by popularity in their lifetime, Poe, Lovecraft, and Baudelaire all died before their work had much popularity to speak of. Though, Poe was arguably the most successful in his time, but he was constantly screwed over by his publishers and died penniless.

I really do not care about who made how much money, but Lovecraft blindly parroted Poe's more grotesque sensibilities without understanding the psychological implications and moral metaphors Poe used. Thus, he was a failure.

I'm not saying that 1st person isn't scary, but I just haven't played any good examples. I can't even name one.

The closest I can think of is the Fatal Frame series which does both.

Silent Hill, Siren, Kuon, Fatal Frame, etc. are all 3rd person and it works.

How many legit horror films are filmed from 1st person POV? About none of them? There is probably a reason.

I mean Jacob's Ladder would have been pretty weird in first person, but it might have worked.

The trouble with 1st person games in general is that it mostly works if you are playing as YOU. When its a character with predetermined/scripted dialogue and attitudes etc. you are made to be an observer of the bad things happening to them. The field of view, and what you can see of yourself, is limited in games. That zombie biting your shoulder from behind might scare the crap out of you if you can only see directly in front of you, but in 3rd person you get to see the whole thing happen.

Sure you are getting shanked in the back, but if you can't see it and all you see is a red flash on screen then it loses the impact of actually seeing the knife going in etc.

And if your character is scared its helpful to see them freaking out and panicking. Voice acting can do a lot, but body language is infinitely more effective at conveying it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked