Female characters in gaming

Women in video games is a sensible topic. I once wrote that I think the best way to spark a rational discussion about this topic, would be to show examples, good and bad, of women in video games and whats behind them.

And as a white, straight guy from the middle class, who would be better for that job.

First we need to find out what a strong female charakter is. Because strength has many different nuances. A loving mother caring for her family and securing the future by raising her children is just as strong as a female knight fighting for her country. It's just that not all the different faces of strength are immediately visible.

In the last couple of years we had some strong female characters. Ellie (The Last of Us), Elizabeth (Bioshock Infinte), Lara Croft (Tomb Raider 2013), Nilin (Remember Me), Chell (Portal). And that is just a selection from AAA games. But as a (primarily) nintendo gamer, let's talk about some of their characters.

Princess Peach:

Peach often is used a symbol figure of the damsel in distress trope and in general bad female characters. And it's true, but not because Peach is a bad female character, but because she is barely a character at all. No character in the main Mario games is more than a cardboard cutout. And they don't need to be. It doesn't matter if Mario needs to save Sprixies, Peach, Daisy, his castle or whatever. The Story in the Jump'n'Runs don't matter, because there is barely any story at all. Of course you can criticize this fact, but by doing so you entirely miss the point of the games.

If you want characterization you need to look for the Mario rpgs. And in them Peach isn't just the damsel, even if she often occupies this role there too. But here she often has an active role. In Super Paper Mario and Super Mario RPG she even becomes an active member of your party. Her talking down the smug chameleon in Super Paper Mario is one of the more hilarious video game moments. And if you truly want a great depiction of the princess you should check out the Super Mario comics from Nintendo Power. The nostalgia critic did a great episode about them.

So to make Peach a good character, she would first need to develop a character.

Princess Rosalina:

Now that is good example for a female character.

I know that many of you may now scratch your heads and ask: But doesn't she need to be saved in Super Mario Galaxy? That is true, but why does that make her weak or a bad character? Nobody can do everything on their own. That's why we have specialists for pretty much everything. Rosalina isn't a damsel in distress, but a supporting character. And a pretty great one given the circumstances of the game she comes from. She is the mother of stars. Guiding them while they are still Luma and watching over them. She controls the birth of new galaxies. That is pretty powerful if you ask me. It's true that without Mario she couldn't retrieve the Power Stars, but without her Mario could never reach the center of the universe. Both need each other. Does that make them weak or bad characters? I would say no!

Even her backstory, paints the picture of a strong women. Does she miss her home? Of course she does, but she chooses her new life. As mother of the lumas she holds the future of the galaxy in her hands.

In my eyes she is a pretty amazing character.

Samus (Other M):

This on the other hand is a pretty terrible female character, because she is the opposite of Rosalina. On the first glance Samus seems strong, but at her core she is shown as submissive and weak. I'm not saying that submissive characters are bad, although I wouldn't choose them as my main character, but the dissonance between how the creator wants us to see Samus and how we see her, makes this iteration of her a bad character. The game shows us that Samus, during her time in the galactic federation, was often singled out. Giving thumbs down instead of up and such things. Maybe we should think that this shows her strong spirit, who doesn't confirm to norms, but it just makes her look bratty. We also learn that she holds Adam Malkovich in high regards. Such high regards that she shuts down her own brain completely, when he is in charge.

The truly bad thing about this game is that Samus doesn't show any signs of initiative at all. She only reacts to the actions her male comrades perform. She never acts. But the game still wants us to believe that she is a strong, independent women, when everything it depicts shows in the other direction.

Princess Zelda:

Now Princess Zelda is not ''one'' character. She has many iterations. Some of the them better, some of them worse. My favorite is the one from Skyward Sword and on her I want to set my focus. In Skyward Sword Link and Zelda have a really close relationship. But, and that is the important part, they both have their tasks, which they couldn't complete without the other. Link may be the hero, but Zelda is just as important to defeat Demise. She gives you the time to grow by keeping the Imprisoned locked away. They both need to fulfill their destiny and they both need each other to accomplish that. Zelda in this game is a warm an cheerful character, who outgrows herself with time. Just like Link. They just have different progression paths.

Another good Zelda is the one from Spirit Tracks. Arguably the most ''active'' Zelda. Without her many tasks would be impossible. She accompanies you through the game. Supporting Link all the way till the end. And it doesn't end here. Twilight Princess Zelda is the ruler of her country, sacrificing herself for the best of her country, because she believes that Midna and Link can save Hyrule. In Ocarina of Time Zelda, disguised as Shiek, guides you through the tasks ahead of you. And in Wind Waker Tetra is a badass pirate captain.

Of course at the end of the most games the princess gets captured, and I also would enjoy a break away from this tired trope, but for me it doesn't devalue her character.

Also in the end of most games Zelda plays a pivotal role in defeating Ganon. Because Courage is nothing without wisdom.

This are just four pics from many, many female characters. The game industry grew tremendously in the last years. But it is still a young industry. With time changes will happen, but brute forcing it is not the way.

A game creator should be able to choose whichever character he sees most fitting for the narrative and purpose of his game. And we shouldn't be to quick to jump to conclusions. Just because a girl has big breasts, doesn't mean that she is a bad character.

TL;DR: Big tits ≠ bad character.

and as always

thanks for reading

All aboard the Hypetrain

Games media 101: Be a fan by all means, just not a fucking fanboy. Check your erections at the door and do your job objectivly. - Marcus Beer ''The annoyed gamer''

I think this sums my thoughts on hype up perfectly. The whole games industry is build on hype nowadays. It's a downward spiral which only can end in another crash, because one day the industry won't be able to sustain its own weight anymore.

Now to make things clear. I'm not against someone getting excited for the newest Halo/Uncharted/Zelda, but I'm against this blind hype that dominates the industry nowadays. Please get excited for new games that interest you, but don't get blinded.

But Hype is now an integral part of the game industry. New game get's announced ---> Hype gets built---> game releases and (most of the time) ---> doesn't meet expectations.

It would be so simple to solve this problem by telling your customers the truth, but I can also understand the publishers. I know this sounds controversial at first glance, but I can understand the publishers desire to build Hype in such a front loaded industry. If it wouldn't be for the fact that they themselves created this industry. They laid out the railroads for the Hypetrain, but forgot the brakes.

So now let's talk about Hype, why it's bad and what it means for the industry.

The tricky part about hype is that his toxic effects aren't immediately visible. Aliens: Colonial Marines sold over one million copies. Even through all the backlash it received immediately. And this is an extreme example. Destiny and Watch Dogs sold much more, but I'm not so sure if this will apply to their sequels. Normally you'd expect a new ip to grow from one installment to the next, but when your first game was overhyped and therefore disappointed many gamers, I'm not sure if that is possible.

But the question is. Can todays game industry survive without hype?

The industry today is extremely front loaded with an immense decline in values. Most retail games don't sell for their full retail price for even a month. After that the steam sales start to hit. We, the customers, aren't wiling anymore to pay the full price for games. Even for those who offer more than a five hour long campaign.

So the only way the publishers knew to respond was by creating overhyped games. Because if you hyper your audience enough the won't be able to wait a month. They need to have the game right now. Hype is a safety net for the publisher. Big Hype generates high pre-orders. And Pre-orders mean guaranteed sales on day one.

Hype, pre-oders, review embargos... They all revolve around the mythical day one sales. If you can't break even on day one, you fail. Coupled with unrealistic expectations (Tomb Raider was considered a flop with 3.4 Million sold copies) this can only lead to another crash. One day one of this hyped games will ''flop'' (even if it's only by the definition of the publishers) and what then? The only answer the publishers currently know is to make everything even bigger. And I'm pretty sure that I will live to see the day when everything collapses under its own weight.

The other offenders in this whole hype building are the customers. We are also responsible. Hype and fanboys go hand in hand. And both destroy games. For others and themselves. Because a fanboy will defend his game till the bitter end. He won't allow any rationale discussion, but only his opinion. Even worse than that are the disappointed fanboys. They turn their former excitement for a game into pure hatred. Because the game didn't live up to their expectations it is utter garbage.

Both versions are pretty toxic and not fit for any discussion. And they're both created through hype. In an age where we get buried under thousands of free to play games, 0.99 cent apps on our phones and steam sales, games have lost their value. Games turned into another product to passively consume. We need to start consume games actively again. Don't buy into the publishers lies. Be critical, but by all means get excited. Love your hobby. A healthy industry can only thrive long term with critical customers.

Hype makes everyone blind and we, the customers, need to break through this circle. Because the publishers won't do anything till it's to late.

So don't believe the hype.

Does anyone even remember which game this slogan was used for?

And as always

Thanks for reading  

Game Reviews

And once again I'm pushing my thoughts about hype back a little bit to talk about something completely different.

In recent times I often found reviews, I've read on different sites, lacking. I also tried to write some game reviews on my own and for that I came up with a code of ethics when writing a review... or to put it better, because I'm no news outlet, but instead a lone lunatic in the wide fields of the internet, some points which I deem important when reviewing a game.

These are points, from which I think that they are important cornerstones when writing a review, and which, in my eyes, have sadly been lacking in reviews from many websites.

1. Be objective:

Of course this is a no brainer. Or at least, it should be. But with the recent controversy in video game ''journalism'' I wouldn't be so sure anymore.

To put it bluntly. No one is truly objective, but we all can try our best. Just question everything you wrote. Let it rest for a night or two and read it again. Put yourself into the shoes of someone, who doesn't have any ties to the game. What would he see?

I'd like to summarize this point with the phrase: Don't be a fan; Don't be a hater.

Question everything, but don't overthink it. Sometimes a gun is just a gun and not a statement about the lax gun laws in the united states of America. In fact, most of the time it is just a gun.

Another point that plays into this is the rise of social commentary in games journalism. While I agree that this should be discussed, a game review is the wrong place for that. It shouldn't matter if the main character is female or male. All that matters is the game!

Even if you decide for yourself that you deem this game ''bad'' because of some social issues you have with the presentation or the story, it isn't your place as a objective reviewer to devalue it because of that. Super Mario doesn't get better or worse just because Peach's role is that of a damsel in distress. What makes the game good or bad is the level design, the mechanics, the presentation, the sound, how well it runs, bugs, ... Not the social issues that you may, or may not, see in this work.

Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about that, but it means that it shouldn't impact your review. Because none of the standpoints in this debate are absolute. What you can, and should do, is start a rationale discussion if you think it's important and necessary.

But for the actual review: Stay objective. Rate the game and the game alone.

That's also why I'm against video game websites running ads of games that they review. Even if you have your own separate PR-Department and tell everyone that it's its own separate division, it will influence your writers, when the ad money begins to dry up because of unfavorable reviews. Because it's still one company under which roof you all work together!

2. Respect:

Now that is something I see lacking in many pieces about games. Respect for the medium. Respect for the game that was crafted. And not just for the games, but also for your audience. How can you expect them to listen to you, if you threat them like children or, even worse, like an enemy. I know that the internet creates hateful individuals, I truly do, but when has fighting hatred with even more hatred ever worked? Fight fire with fire an you'll burn the whole building to the ground.

So show some respect. Video games deserve it and your audience at least deserves someone who doesn't look down on them.

Video games are many things. To some they're works of art. To others they're portals into different worlds to escape their everyday life. Some find life long friends through them, and others love. Some people want them to tackle social issues and others just want to have fun. Games can be all of this and are all of this. For that we should respect them.

3. Get excited, but don't get hyped:

This is actually the central statement of my upcoming thoughts about hype. As a reviewer you should obviously love what you're doing. That is important, but it's also important to keep a professional distance. That is actually pretty hard. If you get invited to exclusive preview events, get studio tours and meet the developers, it's hard to keep a distance and not get hyped. I get that.

But it's one of the most important things and if you truly want to be a good reviewer, you need to master this challenge. You owe your audience that. You owe them a truthful and objective review. It's ok for a reviewer to get excited, but he should never ''Believe the Hype!''

Question the intentions of the developers. Ask yourself. Why are they doing this? Ask them. Why are you doing this? Never straight out accept the answers of the PR-Department for why they're canceling the single player.

Sorry, but I couldn't hold back on that one.

4. Be open for criticism, but don't let the haters get the best of you.

You'll always attract some haters. I think this is the basic rule of the internet, or even life itself. If you create something, someone will hate it. And that's ok. Because of this, the world is as diverse as it is. If there would be something everybody likes, then why should we produce something different?

So just ignore the haters. If they don't like you or your product (reviews) they will go away and if they're just trolls they will go away when you ignore them. Trolls thrive on attention, so don't give them any.

But stay open for criticism. Don't dismiss a well thought out and polite counter view to your points. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean you have to change your views. But it can be a welcome opportunity to view your points from a different angle. Listen to the points your discussion partner makes, and bring forth your own. But don't shut yourself in and dismiss all criticism. If you do that, you'll set yourself on a dangerous road to fanaticism. And then you'll reach a point where only your opinions and the ones from people, who agree with you, matter. Then every counter argument will sound like hate in your ears, no matter how valid and well said it is. And this makes you an unpleasant and downright toxic person for everybody else.

Not all criticism is a direct attack at yourself. I even would go so far as to say, that less then 10% is.

Because of that you should welcome an (intelligent) discussion and not condemn it from the start.

And if you don't reach some common ground in the end , politely end the discussion. It's ok to have different opinions. Just stay polite and don't lash out at people. That just makes you seem like a giant douche.

These are the four cornerstones on my way to approach video game reviews. Of course I'm not a ''professional'', but I grew up with video games and genuinely care for them. And because of that I think we deserve reviewers and journalist who feel the same. But we also deserve professionalism. We deserve reviews free of agendas and unneeded luggage. We deserve good, objective and honest reviews. Because in the end all that matters is the answer to the question: Is this game fun?

What are your thoughts on this topic?

And as always

thanks for reading

New 3DS

I originally planned to post an opinion piece about hype today, but Nintendo doesn't agree with my plans, or so it seems.

Because today Nintendo announced the New Nintendo 3DS and the New Nintendo 3DS XL and I'm a little bit torn. But first let me tell you about the facts.

The new 3DS has some nice improvements over the original one. First it now has ZR and ZL shoulder-buttons and a second circle pad. The second circle pad is located next to the A/B/X/Y buttons and much smaller, but it seems to handle quite nicely. It will be supported through games like Super Smash Bros. 3DS, Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate and the newly announced Xenoblade Chronicles, which is exclusive to the new 3DS.

Apart from that the new models has a slightly bigger screen and an improved 3D effect. Through facetracking it will now be possible to see the 3D effect from different angles. So no more straining the eye, or at least it will be greatly dimished.

The next improvement comes with an integrated NFC reader on the lower screen. So Amiibos can be used without the adapter, which Nintendo will release for the older 3DS-Systems.

The last improvement is the one that creates the dilemma for me. The new System has an improved CPU. At first I didn't think that this is a problem. Faster loading times while browsing the net, the Miiverse and the e-shop sounded like a nice bonus for the buyers of the new model. But then Nintendo also announced that Xenoblade Chronicles for 3DS would be exclusive to the new model. And that's the problem.

With that Nintendo creates a rift between owners of the original system and the new one. So if I want to play the new game I have to upgrade my System in the middle of its life cycle. It's ok to release revisions of your hardware, but when you begin to exclude the owners of the original to (maybe) force them to upgrade, we have a problem. Nintendo did many things right in the last couple of months, but this doesn't make them immune in this case.

If you want to play Xenoblade you have to buy the new system. And if this applies to more games from now on I see a big problem. The games business is front loaded. And by the constant revisions and now with the release of an 1.5 version of their hardware in the middle of its life cycle Nintendo conveys an image, that their first releases aren't worth it. Why should I buy the next handheld from them when it releases, if I may not be able to play all games developed for this hardware? Who says that the won't release a revision like the New 3DS again, so that I have to upgrade again in the middle of a life cycle to be able to play the newer games?

With the 3DS-XL I didn't feel excluded. It provided improvements, but I can enjoy all the features of it on my original 3DS. But if want to enjoy Xenoblade I have to pay 180 bucks to upgrade. All the other things I could enjoy on my original 3DS through the use of adapters and so, and that is ok, but gating games is not. How would the reaction look like if, for example, Microsoft releases a new X-Box One after two years and says, that if you want to play Halo 5 you better upgrade. The shitstorm would be unbelievable. I'm a big Nintendo fan and I'll often and gladly defend them when they get flak for some shit, like it happens so often, but as a fan I'm also the first to criticize them if they do wrong. And with the exclusivity of Xenoblade they did wrong in my opinion. I just hope that this stays the only game that is exclusive, but I don't really have much faith.

Also this will create massive confusion with the costumer. People who don't see the difference between the Wii and the Wii-U will buy Xenoblade for their children and when it doesn't work on their 3DS systems... well lets just say that this doesn't shed a good light on Nintendo in the eyes of the normal customer.

TL;dr: 

The New Nintendo 3DS has some nice improvements and overall sounds pretty good, but by making Xenoblade Chronicles 3DS exclusive to this new version of the system Nintendo creates a rift. And the only way to cross this rift is with money. If this applies to more games in the future Nintendo conveys the picture that it's not worth to buy their hardware at release, but to wait till the definite version releases 2-3 years later. To improve your hardware with revisions is ok, but don't gate actual content like games behind the new version.

A little news bit to end this post on a positive note. Amiibos will release this winter and cost 12 bucks a piece. I think this is a fair price and I can't wait to get my hands on Samus.

Here's also a pic of the twelve amiibos which will be available with the launch of Super Smash. Bros for Wii-U.

And as always

thanks for reading

Picture Source: Nintendo

Mario Kart 8 DLC

Yesterday Nintendo announced that they're planning to release DLC for Mario Kart 8. And the reaction has been mostly positive so far. At least on the sites and forums I frequent recently.

Mario Kart DLC is something a lot of people asked for. Especially considering the... not so optimal battle mode. It only makes sense for Nintendo to respond to that and give the people what they want. Each Pack will cost roughly 8 bucks and if you buy both of them at the same time, you'll get a discount. So 12 bucks for sixteen ''new'' (yes some of them will be reworked retro tracks) courses, eight new karts and six new drivers is a fair price. Also you get 8 different colors for Yoshi and Shy Guy if you buy both DLC packages. Nintendo has been experimenting with DLC for quite some time now. The overpriced level packs for New Super Mario Bros. 2, the Season Pass like, already made Cups in Mario Golf for 3DS and the full blown addon like Super Luigi U. And if that Mario Kart DLC or something like Luigi U. are their sweet spot I'm totally fine with that. Also the dates on which the DLC will be released (November 2014 and May 2015 respectively) show that they started working on this new tracks only after the core game was released.

So all in all the DLC sounds pretty awesome, but I'm still going to complain anyway. Now I don't want you to get me wrong. I will buy both packs and I will absolutely love them. That I'm sure about, but I still think Nintendo could have done better.

Characters:

Buying both packs will get you six new characters. Cat Peach, Tanuki Mario, Dry Bowser, Isabella, the Villager and Link. Honestly this is the only gripe I have with the DLC. Why do they add Link and Animal Crossing characters. The answer is obviously Amiibos, but I'm not sure how I should feel about this. Yes it's cool that you can race as Link, but I'm afraid that this opens the floodgates. Why can't I drive as Samus, Fox or Captain Falcon? With this Nintendo moves Mario Kart in the direction of Smash Bros. And I'm not sure I like it. Having Mario characters race each other for fun is one thing, but for example, with Samus it just doesn't feel right.

It's just strange to play a real Metroid Game and after that have Samus squeeze herself into a much to small kart (Just look at link) and drive around colorful courses.

I full understand anyone who absolutely loves the idea and I can see why you're probably pretty excited about this DLC, but I personally would have preferred if Mario Kart would stay Mario Kart.

The only character I truly am excited for is Dry Bowser, because he's just Metal as fuck. Yes I needed to say that.

If I could choose which DLC characters I would want, it would be something like this:

Pack 1 (Minions Pack): Boo (Light), Kamek(Medium), Dino Piranha (Heavy)

Pack 2 (Koopa Pack): Dry Bones (Light), Bowser Jr. (Medium), Dry Bowser (Heavy)

Pack 3 (Kong Pack): Dixie Kong (Light), Diddy Kong (Medium), Funky Kong (Heavy)

That would be my humble suggestions for characters.

Karts:

I don't have much to say about the new karts. I only saw the blue falcon so far and I like it. It's a nice nod towards the neglected F-Zero franchise and it fits Mario Kart 8's anti-gravity theme.

Courses:

First let me say, that it's awesome to get new courses. The ''old'' ones didn't get stale for me yet, as I only reached 3000 points in online races so far, but I can see it happening if you play the game extensively. So new course are always welcome. And the inclusion of the Zelda and Animal Crossing franchise opens up cool possibilities, but Nintendo doesn't seem to restrict it to these franchises.

On the screenshots released so far you can spot a course which is obviously located in Mute City and one which seems to be inspired by Excite Bike. It's really cool and I'm hoping for a Zelda Course in which you either race through Hyrule City and the castle, or around Death Mountain.

But does it really need this? It's only another step in the direction of Nintendo Kart. Mario Kart 8 showed us that there are no boundaries in the Mario series for creative courses. Or would you have thought something like Mount Wario or the Water Park would be possible, before seeing them? Adding these other franchises adds more possibilities one might say now, but I'm not so sure. I would rather say that it adds more boundaries.

Now you have to do a Zelda course each time. You have to do your Animal crossing race track. And some things just don't mix. You can't have a water park esque course on the shores of lake Hylia.

Maybe I'm just too skeptical and negative, but I'm just not a fan of the nintendo kart idea. But even I have to admit, that this is a DLC done right. It's a really good deal and I'm sure it will be top notch quality wise. And they even got pre-orders right for me. The Yoshi and Shy Guy skins are not really a pre-order bonus, because you get them even when you buy the packs separately and it doesn't matter when you buy them.

You should never feel the need to pre-order something. If you pre-order it should always be on your own accord. It's a sign of your trust in that developer. You should never feel the need to pre-order just so you can get an exclusive DLC. And for getting that right I applaud Nintendo. But I think this is a topic for another day.

TL;dr: 

12 bucks for 16 new courses, 8 karts and 6 characters is a phenomenal deal and if you did enjoy Mario Kart you should buy it. I would prefer that Mario Kart stays Mario Kart and doesn't turn into a racing version of Smash Bros., but I get why others are excited by this very thought. Also only pre-order games on your own accord as a sign of trust to this developer, but never because the bribed you with exclusive content.

And as always

Thanks for reading

Picture Source: Nintendo

Oh the Horror...

I could talk about the whole Zoegate scandal, but honestly I don't care. So let's talk about horror games.

The reveal of Silent Hills generated some buzz, and while I'm interested in Kojimas take on horror, I'm also sceptical. Not because I don't trust Hideo Kojima, but because I don't think that big AAA Horror games work very well. The last “AAA” Horror Game that worked for me was Dead Space 1 and you could argue that it wasn't really AAA. Every other big horror game fell flat on the horror aspect. My hope now rides on the shoulders of The Evil Within, but the previews I've seen don't fill me with much confidence.

But why do AAA horror games don't work?

Horror is a niche genre. It's that simple.

True Horror doesn't have a mass appeal. The ordinary human just doesn't like beeing scared. And how do you expect to get back all your investments on fancy graphic engines, motioin capturing, voice work and marketing, if you can't sell your product to at least two million people? The answer is simple. You can't! And that is why you focus test the hell out of your product to find the biggest mass appeal. That's why RE 6 was a watered down, action mess.

The solution to this is simple and I already talked about in another blog post. Know your audience! I just don't think that horror games work on the current AAA market. But luckily we live in a time, where digital distribution makes it possible to produce smaller games. I think horror games coud thrive best in this environment. Just like Call of Juarez Gunslinger or FarCry Blood Dragon.

If you buy an AAA game for 60 or 70 bucks you expect a minimum value and play time, or you won't be satisfied. And rightfully so. But a long game time works against the ideals of horror games. The longer you play, the more you get accustomed to the situation. It becomes familiar. You know what to expect. And that's the greatest enemy of horror. There is a german saying: In der Kürze liegt die Würze, which means, roughly translated of course, keep it simple.

Fear is a basic human emotion. Normally it's a short an powerful impulse that wears down over time when we grow accustomed to the situation. Slender worked so well, because it didn't take more than half an hour to play and complete the game. But if you make your game an AAA experience you can't say stop after an hour. You have to provide more content. You have to provide variety. Different locations and different enemies. My fist encounter with a Necromorph in Dead Space was memorable. And this intensity remained for the first 1-2 hours, but after that, and with the inclusion of new monsters, they became just an nuisance. Isn't that the death of horror if your audience reaction is: Eh not those monsters again... BORING!

But the new monsters fill up that spot, don't they? Yes and no. Yes they're frighting at first, but in the back of your mind the image of the first enemy lingers. With becoming just simple cannon fodder they destroyed the picture of all monsters in the game. If they can be killed that easily, then everything can.

With your horror game you want to keep the player on the edge of his seat the whole time. At no time he should feel safe or relaxed. You don't want him to get accustomed. Yes I've said that a lot in this post, but it's important. You can keep him from growing accustomed with different means. Change the environment and the monsters constantly. Keep the game short. Create an environment in which he can't trust nothing(Eternal Darkness comes to mind). These all work if executed properly, but I think the best, and most cost efficient, way would be a short game.

For 10 bucks no one will complain if your game is only about two hours long. Well but some may complain, but they always do. With that you can keep the horror fresh without spending thousands of dollars on different locations and so on.

So that's my opinion on horror games and a possible future in which they could thrive. I just don't think that a game can carry true horror over an extended period of time in today’s industry. Of course you may disagree, so what are your thoughts on this subject? Are you huge fans of horror games? What was the last game that truly chilled your bones from start to finish?

Well anyways... thanks for reading

and... boo