Tricky stuff, fear. It’s a precision target. Miss by a couple of feet, and you get moody intrigue. Miss by an inch and you get all-out comedy.
Fear’s particularly difficult for games, I suspect, just as, you know, particularly difficult for games: for the most part a designer has to relinquish any control over timing. But is there more to it than that? I’ve been thinking about this sort of stuff over the last few days because I’ve been playing early versions of two forthcoming horror games – two games where fear is a target the designers have to hit. Both are very different, both rely on procedural generation, and both are shaping up to be excellent in their own ways. But will either truly give you the fear? So far, I’m not so sure, but I think their problems in that department are still pretty interesting.
Monstrum’s the most direct of the two games. I’ve been playing the same alpha build that Ian Higton used for a Let’s Play recently, and it’s actually been the perfect point at which to encounter this atmospheric and wonderfully compact treat. Every now and then, you see a game with everything but the very core of the concept stripped away, and you think: In Monstrum’s case, I suspect a lot of what’s missing is polish, thankfully. The game’s recently been delayed until 2015, but I don’t think that’s because the developers are diluting the experience by adding RPG upgrades or card-battling mini-games.
Monstrum – Eurogamer Let’s Play Watch on YouTube
The idea with Monstrum is that you’ve been dumped onto a boat, a creaking, rust-scarred ghost ship home to assorted clutter from the 1970s. Sadly, it’s also home to a rampaging monster, and it’s your job to sneak around the procedurally scrambled decks looking for the bits and pieces you might need to hatch an escape plan.