Doom 3 was pretty spooky, but only because it was dark. But it didn't generate fear because I had high-tech weaponry to blow things up. Resident Evil 4 was freaky at times, especially getting my head chopped off by that chainsaw guy...but that was more disturbing than scary. And Salazar's mutated form made me jump out of my seat when that venus fly trap thingy ate me up. But still, all the weapons and third-person point of view made the game more like target practice than being a scary game. Also, I know that these games are all based on a fictional setting, so that sense of realism wasn't there, even though the game was realistic.

Than I finally played Condemned, and I think the devs got it pretty good with scaring you. I think it's because you don't have guns or high-tech gadgets to survive. But you use primitive, melee weapons like pipes, shovels, fire-axes, and crowbars to kill the bad guys. And the physics are quite realistic. Also, you deal with psychos that actually exist in the real world and you play as a FBI agent taking them down. So that sense of realism also takes up the scary volume up a notch.

Condemned doesn't scare me, but I do have to say that's it's the best example of a game that generates fear and is the closest thing to being called a truly scary game. At the end, it is still a game which is why it doesn't scare me, but it is very close.

So I have to say that Condemned is scarier than the Resident Evil series, Doom 3, FEAR, or even Fatal Frame. It does take up the survival/horror genre to another level.

ASK_Story

Some games that aren't necessarily even meant to be scary, have some very scary levels. The haunted mansion and condemned hospital in Vampire The Masquerade come to mind. The "Shalebridge Cradle" (an abandoned orphanage reformed asylum) in Thief 3 is legendary. To this day you'll find new threads in forums for Thief with people complaining about how they can't bring themselves to finish the level.

All in all, the big key to allowing yourself to get into these types of games and ultimately allow yourself to be scared, is to not play during the day, not play with any lights on, not play with the volume on low or with background noise, and do not play lazily on the couch or bed while 10 feet away from the screen. You follow that advice, and even the tamest of gameswill make you jump from time to time.

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]Did I mention how unpleasant it looks to see wooden chairsburst into a million splinters (among other objects) every time you walk or butt slide into them?GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="EdgecrusherAza"]

I actually agree with him about interactive cutscenes. I find them incredibly annoying most of the time, and its the one and only thing that I absolutely did not like about Resident Evil 4.

I'd be trying to watch a scene and listen to what characters are saying, then they have to break my immersion by just throwing a random button up there for a mili-second. Miss it, game over. Annoyed. Of course, it wouldn't have been as bad if it wasn't a RANDOM button every time so you could just memorize it. Towards the end of the game, these random scenes were upwards of a half dozen button presses.

EdgecrusherAza

For some reason, I can't remember how I felt about GOW2's cutscenes. But if they were like RE4's, then yeah...not a fan of that style. You're right, though, in the Wii version they're easier to pull off. However, towards the end of the game they still got pretty annoying, the worst of which SPOILER!!!!!is the Krauser confrontation.

Like Carnage says, there's a right and a wrong way to do those kinds of scenes. If it breaks my immersion instead of adding to it, then IMO its pointless.

I hope the entire concept of QTE is buried after the release of Heavenly Sword. The clostst thing to QTE that I found enjoyable were the little "Mexican standoff" parts in the new Stranglehold game. Although I'm not sure that even qualifies.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"][QUOTE="Gangans"][QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]

[QUOTE="Gangans"]If mario games were hyper realistic then it would be just the stupidest thing ever. The idea is to escape into another fantastical world not to recreate our one.Gangans

Just because a game is realistic doesn't mean that it isn't fantastical. For the vast majority of people, leading a professional football team to victory in the superbowl is everybit as much of a fantasy as saving the princess from a kingdom of evil Turtles.

Ok sports games are a different thing but what about fantasy games, like morrowind and oblivion. Which one is visually more interesting and less repetitive? Morrowind by far. Oblivion was damn generic and boring, if they stuck with an out of this world style instead of recreating boring trees and medieval architecture, then oblivion would have been much more interesting. Even shivering isles looked generic.

I'm not a fan of any of the Elder Scrolls games. so I can't really argue one vs the other. Eitherway, I'm not going to wake up tomorrow, toss on some robes that magically enhance my strength, and go lob fireballs at orcs from the palm of my hand. Even if the game has a very realistic look and feel, it is far from it.

Well I thought thats what were were discussing, the look and feel, the visuals to be specific. Realistic visuals are not required to make a 'fantasy' game more immersive, thats all I'm getting at. What should immerse you into a game is the gameplay, and to a lesser extent the art direction, because it's a game, you're playing it, not watching a movie.

2.) Morrowind still had a very realistic look. You going to tell me that if Morrowind looked like Wind Waker, you would be even happier with it, because less realism in visuals is more fun and feels more like an escape?

3.) Realistic visuals enhance the immersion level of many games. Some games don't require any level of immersion and don't really benefit from heightened immersion to begin with (Mario, Viva Pinata, Tetris). Others, like Bioshock or FEAR, do very well to have realistic visuals and suck one into the environment.

4.) I don't even think this post had anything to do with realism in visuals, but rather to do with realism in gameplay. It's a compeltely different issue, and I for one don't care for too much realism in my gaming. I don't play flight simulators, hated the old Rainbow Six' on PC, and am bored to tears by Forzaor Gran Turismo compared to more arcade-y racers like Burnout. Not that there's anything wrong with realistic gameplay, but I just don't feel that realism suits our current limited control method very well. Perhaps someday when we're all suited up in sensored body suits and real life actions can be more accurately mimicked, then I will be more open to the idea. Currently though, I don't feel it works all that well to strive for realism, nor is it particularly very fun.

[QUOTE="themadshimsham"]I'm surprised no one has brought up the Metroid Prime - First Person Shooter or First Person Adventure debate.dvader654

Oh no. :P

Its still an action/adventure game, actually its one of the purest examples of one.

The biggest games of any consols in the US was Halo, GTA, and of course, Madden. So right now, here's what I see: 360 already has Halo, and they will have the superior GTA4 with the episodic content, and now they have the superior Madden with 60fps...can this gen make a huge turn around from last-gen? I think so because these three franchises will be the biggest key. And let's not forget Bioshock's 360 exclusitivity.

Anyway, this is good news for 360 and Madden fans...now if only Microsoft finally fixes that red ring of death problem...

ASK_Story

Seriously though, I think Sony will have quite a few games worth owning sometime next year. Once they get the price down, I'm sure there will be plenty of people more than willing to take the dive on a PS3 once it has a lineup of quality under it's belt.

I found the game enjoyable, but PLEASE do something about that butt slide. you literally butt slide on any table or ledge that is waist high, and it is absolutely ridiculous when walking slowly up to along bar table and accidentally touching it makes you butt slide across the whole thing like youhad just been slung shotat it with an ass covered in Crisco.

I find many games are doing things these days that are dampening the enjoyability of an otherwise great looking game.

Does everyone you walk up close to or choose to target in Assassin's Creed really have to light up like a light bulb and become bathed in milky white to the point that the person is completely unrecognizable? Is a small icon over the head too much to ask for? I'd much rather see my opponent and the expressions on his face while I fight him.

Another one is the Aggro meter in Army of Two. Game looks like a blast, but do I have to turn into a glowing red blob every time I fire a gun and my partner doesn't? Do I have to turn see-through every time my partner starts shooting?

Be a little more subtle devs.....

[QUOTE="anime-2k3"]Itagaki is right on this one. After all who made NG.CarnageHeart

George Lucas could say 'Who made The Empire Strikes Back?' when criticizing the likes of Dark City and Serenity, but the obvious rejoinder would be 'Who made The Phantom Menace?'.