Sep 10, 2012

Dead Space 3: can it beat horror fatigue?

Dead Space (2008)

This preview originally appeared in issue 244 of PC Gamer UK.

Three games in and the Dead Space series has got problems. And I’m not referring to the fact that protagonist Isaac Clarke has cleverly managed to crash-land on an inhospitable ice planet that may hold the horrible secret to the entire Necromorph space-zombie menace.

The problem is the Necromorph menace itself. Or rather, the fact that, after all this exposure in the Dead Space games, it isn’t really that menacing any more. The resurrected space-dead are still pretty ghastly, perhaps, with their spider’s legs, collapsed faces and that nasty ability to sprout tangles of gristle from the least likely of places, but we’ve been looking them straight in their oozing dead eyes for a couple of games now, and over time you can become immune to just about anything.

Example? Early on in the latest Dead Space 3 demo, I was wandering around another abandoned space hulk looking for another way to get past another locked door when a Slasher dropped down from the ceiling in front of me, accompanied by a sudden shriek of sound design. I should have leapt from my chair or watched in horror as my beard turned white and fell out, one hair at a time. Instead, I just took aim at a juddering limb and idly wondered how the thing managed to climb all those ladders with talons in place of hands.

Visceral Games have at least one decent solution to the problem of audience complacency, as it happens, but they waited until a fair proportion of the demo had passed before revealing it. For the first ten minutes, it was business as usual – and business as usual is pretty much the kiss of death when it comes to the production of startles and shocks. I was wandering around an empty ship, collecting ammo and health packs, listening to audio logs left by a deceased crew, and besting the odd toggle puzzle, when I found a door that wouldn’t respond to a smart blast of telekinesis. If the team were building up to a big fright, it had better be a belter.

Luckily, it was. It was a new kind of Necromorph called the Swarm Infector, and while it’s a piddling thing on its own, scrabbling across the floor with tiny tendrils flying, it’s capable of pulling an extremely unpleasant trick. Like the much larger Infector from the previous games, it can reanimate any nearby corpses, sending them spasming into epileptic life. They judder around for a few horrible seconds, then the gristle starts to warp outwards and – presto – you’ve got another Slasher on your hands.

It’s standard Dead Space stuff, perhaps, but combining the Infector with the series’ diminutive Swarmers has resulted in a genuinely unnerving combination. Once again, corpses can no longer be treated as mere set dressing, and there’s something new to squash underfoot.

Elsewhere, if the team has to struggle a little harder in order to scare you, the consolation prize is that Dead Space 3 still looks like an atmospheric and fiercely competent action game. Isaac has clearly been having the futuristic equivalent of Hot Yoga sessions, as he’s generally a little quicker on his feet this time around and can now combat-roll away from danger when things get bad. He’s also joined by a brand new co-op partner, in the form of Sergeant John Carver, an EarthGov super-soldier and all-round grumpy hard nut whose family has been wiped out by the Necromorphs.

Co-op play is of the drop-in, drop-out variety, and although it will open new paths through the levels and even unlock the odd additional side mission, it’s entirely optional. Inevitably, it makes the whole thing even less scary than it already is at this point in the series. Down on the frozen surface of the ice planet Tau Volantis, however, there are suggestions that the developers haven’t completely given up on creating an air of prickly tension. Snowstorms reduce visibility, while nearby science installations are covered with flapping cables and guide wires, encouraging us to waste precious ammo shooting at shadows.

Carver’s presence has also enabled the design team to scale up the enemies, chucking the duo against a vast hairy spider known as the Snow Beast, and a huge out-of-control drill. The latter has a glowing core that has to be shot out using well-timed blasts of stasis while your partner keeps you safe from the crowd of Necromorph monsters and Unitologist soldiers now gunning after you as well. The developers have yet to reveal all of the game’s new weapons and enemies, but with the head count steadily increasing in most battles, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if the firepower starts to escalate too.

If Dead Space 3 can’t always keep you quaking in your spaceboots, it should at least keep you busy. That’s not the ideal path for a survival horror franchise to take, but it’s better than the alternative – which is generally an accidental lunge towards painful self‑parody.

Jul 25, 2012

Dead Space 3 Changes Might Not Be Anything to Fear

Dead Space (2008)

These days Dead Space fans seem scared by something other than the jumps and thrills of the series. It's what the next installment in their beloved horror series could turn into that terrifies them.

Visceral's horror franchise has won players' loyalty for a few key staples, like dark claustrophobic corridors, sudden scares and menacing Necromorph enemies. In the two Dead Space games released so far, great sound design and assured pacing—where big set pieces balance against sequences of quiet dread—have created memorable experiences for players.

But fans of the franchise are nervously awaiting the release of Dead Space 3, a title in the series that seems to take some steps away from said familiarity.

For one thing, there will be co-op for the first time. Cooperatively playing through Dead Space is for pansies, some fans say. It takes the thrill away from exploring the religious lore, ominous artifacts and hallucinations you experience as a lonely Isaac. And while I don't personally feel this takes away from the franchise, it's obvious to Visceral and EA that introducing a co-op mode has taken the title's fans outside their comfort zones.

So they want you to know: as much as this new title is making steps outside the bounds of the original Dead Space, it's still very much building on the same foundation of what made the first two games great.

Where's the proof? I saw some encouraging signs in an optional Dead Space 3 side mission I checked out last week.

Wait, optional side mission? We're talking full-on, non-linear, exploration-encompassing side missions. That doesn't sound very Dead Spacey.

Even so, it's in this side mission that I found the game to resonate with its predecessors. Isaac is exploring the Lost Lunar Flotilla and, in response to an outgoing signal, boards one space ship that's been desolate for over 200 years. He'll find more information on the origin of the Necromorphs—a very clearly pressing matter if you've ever played even a moment of any Dead Space title—while aboard this research facility floating in space.

It's here that I navigate Isaac up and down ladders, and around the bends of windy, dimly-lit corridors. The only difference in navigation is that now Isaac can roll, and take (non-sticky) cover. But Isaac doesn't just encounter the gangly Necromorphs he's encountered dozens of times previous. He'll also have to solve certain puzzles to be able to open doors or start generators. Sometimes, this includes using Kinesis to turn handles or remove doors.

In between ships—as well as debris of ships floating around the Flotilla—Isaac will gracefully float in zero gravity to carry out his investigative exploration. (I'm told that certain paths will be specifically dedicated for the co-op experience, so it sounds like exploring with a friend has its benefits.) If you've played a Dead Space game, you might be taking in a breath of air from relief. These are all familiar aspects of the franchise.

But while I was playing I couldn't help but think dreamily of the newer Dead Space developments. I thought back to the swirling snowstorm I first saw at E3 and how it could hide armed enemies (a new inclusion) that could strike at me from the blinding whiteness. That's a case of new elements creating a different kind of fear. Potentially not such a bad thing.

I can see why there's some trepidation towards antagonists equipped to shoot back at you. Maybe you're thinking this is just going to be some other actiony shooter that you don't care for. Horror isn't mainstream, after all, so it figures they'd water it down with fast-paced action, right? Since my encounters with them have been hands-off, I can't speak to how it feels to have armed zombie-like enemies tracking you through the snow. But I'm optimistic. Visceral hasn't let me down with the series yet, and I don't expect them to start now.

My time hands-on with the game was short. EA took me through a short sequence to show off some of the more claustrophobic environments that harken back to older Dead Space. Demos like the one I checked out at E3 seem to be a stretch for the franchise. Once you factor in the wide-expanse of a snowy planet and new, human-like enemies that can shoot guns at you, it's easy to wonder what happened to your Dead Space. Fortunately, if you were looking for it, this one particular level showed off the traditional feel that the game's representatives promise it won't forget about.

But I'm not so concerned. I want to see more of what's different. I'm hopeful. I'm confident, even, that the developers have had enough experience with their own franchise to evolve it properly. It may very well turn out that a less linear experience and experimental enemies might not do the game any favors. Maybe co-op—which is 100% optional (your co-op bud won't appear as AI if you choose to experience the game in the traditional single player route)—won't be as terrifying. But I'm curious to see where the franchise goes next. Even if it isn't the Dead Space you remember and love, maybe Visceral can introduce you to another side of Dead Space that you never expected. It might even be great.

Jul 20, 2012

Horror Is Not Mainstream

Dead Space (2008)

With each new year, it feels like I'm watching another horror series becomes less horrific. Resident Evil, Alien, and most recently, Dead Space. What started out as pure, hardcore horror becomes a fun, popcorn-munching good time.

But hey, that's okay. It's the natural way of things. Horror isn't mainstream.

Much has been made recently about the addition of co-op gameplay to Visceral Games' upcoming Dead Space 3. I remember a similar batch of complaints came up around the introduction of co-op to Resident Evil 5.

Up front: Broadly, I think Visceral has earned the benefit of the doubt. I remember lodging some similar complaints when they first showed Dead Space 2, and that game was fantastic. So, let's cut 'em some slack. However scary or not-scary it is, it's a fairly safe bet that Dead Space 3 will be a fun video game.

On to the co-op thing: It's true, co-op gaming hasn't traditionally proven to be all that scary. When I think of a horror video game, I don't think about playing it with friends. I think about being alone, in the dark. Sweating. In front of a door. You know:

I have to go through the door. I have to! But fuck, man, I do not want to. If I go through the door, that means I have to pass through the flooded basement. There's nowhere else to go. And yet I don't want to go through the door, I don't want to go fucking near that flooded basement, because there's SOMETHING HORRIBLE DOWN THERE, BREATHING.

It's the sick thrill of horror. I've felt the same way in nightmares. Actually, I've long been of the opinion that horror games channel nightmares even more effectively than horror films. You're really there, you know? You want to hide, but there's nowhere to hide. Nothing for it but to press onward and hope you wake up soon.

Horror Is Not Mainstream

Picture that iconic Dead Space image with another dude standing next to Isaac. Yup, not as scary. Co-op undercuts tension to a significant degree.

Have you ever watched a horror movie with your friends? It's fun! But it's not as scary as watching one alone. But then again, it is really fun—and who's to say that making a good jump-scare co-op thriller isn't a great idea? That kind of thing could be really cool. It's not an accident that horror movies are so popular for couples on dates—there's something fun (and kind hot) about grabbing each other as blood sprays onscreen.

So, okay, Dead Space seems to be more Resident Evil 5 than Resident Evil 2. Put another way, it's more Gears of War 3 than Gears of War. Put yet another way, it's more Aliens than Alien. Which brings me to my second thought here: There's a pattern with horror, isn't there? The first in a given horror series is truly scary, and subsequent entries are less scary and more bombastic.

It doesn't happen with every series, but it still happens a lot—Evil Dead, Alien, Predator, the Resident Evil games and films… it would seem that the more popular something gets, the greater the chances it'll file down its teeth in pursuit of a bigger audience.

I asked Stacie Ponder, who runs the magnificent horror blog Final Girl and has seem way more horror films than I have, for her thoughts on the matter. She agreed with my basic idea that mainstream success and horror are incompatible, noting that the scariest films tend to be small-budget works made by a single (possibly deranged) director. "Every big budget has a fleet of executives behind it looking to earn back that money," she said. "They've all got a vested interest in the property and a say in what ends up on the screen. It becomes filmmaking by committee and it shows. Some of the greatest horror films of all time—The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, and so on—were made on shoestring budgets and were therefore solely the vision of the writers and directors."

Horror Is Not Mainstream

On top of that deranged-auteur theory, there's something illicit about horror, something pornographic—it's outlandish to imagine a mainstream film being marketed in the way that some of the films in Ponder's splendid "Awesome Movie Poster Friday" series are marketed. It's so smutty! Historically, publishers haven't quite known how to market horror games either, from that strange, tonally inaccurate Dead Island trailer to EA's dumb and off-putting "Your mom will hate Dead Space 2" ads.

"John Carpenter once said that horror is viewed maybe a notch or two above pornography by the masses," said Ponder, "and I don't think that consensus has changed much since he made Halloween." The best horror takes us to a dark place, in which we must imagine ourselves in the place of the terrified, the powerless, the victims—and often, imagine ourselves in the place of their butchers, as well. Horror is exploitative by its very nature—it exploits our fears and desires in order to titillate and entertain us.

Just like in film, the scariest horror games will likely always exist at the fringes. But hey, the fringes of the video game scene have never been more buzzing with empowered talent! There are a good number of brilliant, terrifying indie horror games out right now, and more on the way.

Benjamin Rivers' Home is a creepy-as-hell exploration game. Jasper Byrne's Lone Survivor is a freaky low-res trip through a post-apocalyptic purgatory. The prototype for Slender, which is based on the terrifying 'Slenderman' internet legend, was truly terrifying despite being low-budget and unfinished. (Which reminds me: The scariest damned thing I've seen in ages is 'Marble Hornets', a super low-budget YouTube series starring the Slenderman. Go watch it. It'll freak you out more than any horror movie to hit theaters this year.)

Horror Is Not Mainstream

Back to games: I'd be remiss not to mention the game that jump-started indie horror: Frictional's Amnesia: Dark Descent. That sucker was and remains balls-to-the-wall terrifying. The team behind that game appears to grasp horror on such a fundamental level (basically: hide in a cupboard while the thing you can't see hunts you) that I'd be surprised if the sequel, A Machine For Pigs, is any less of a frightfest. Ponder agrees that sequels themselves aren't always anathema to fear: "I think any sequel can be as scary as an original work if the creators can find new ways to utilize the essence of horror, which is what makes the originals work."

All of those games, including the Amnesia sequel, have something in common—they're not big-budget games from major publishers. It could even be argued that the essence of horror—vulnerability, panic, loss of control—runs counter to the things that make mainstream video games tick, things like power fantasy, mastery and progression. What's cool is that it's easy to be scary with limited resources—after all, it's what you don't see that's truly scary, and it's really cheap to not show people monsters.

We may still get the odd big-budget horror game that's truly scary (the Wii U's upcoming ZombiU seems like a candidate), but by and large, mainstream games aren't going to be the ones that really scare our pants off. And that's fine, really—fear is a dark, complicated thing, and it lives at the fringes by necessity. It's not the product of focus groups, or of user feedback.

Let the mainstream have their thrillers and their action-packed monster-fests. Let those games sell 5 million copies and spawn a dozen action-packed sequels. We'll find our scares someplace else—somewhere darker, off the beaten path. In the shadows.