Desensitized Horror Game Fans

>>1

I, for one, don't think RE3 Remake is scary. I feel alone in this sentiment, but I'm looking for others who feel the same way.

Besides the sewers where you face the Gamma Hunters, nothing really creeped me out in RE3 Remake. The few jumpscares from Nemesis didn't work as the camera angles before it gives it out that something is coming

>>3

Yeah, modern horror seems to prepare us for what's coming, which totally removes the surprise element from jump scares. Jump scares aren't really scary, but they don't even get them right anymore.

>>4

Jump scares were never right to begin with. That's not real fear. It's just surprise. Real fear should give you involuntary bowel movements.

>>5

Ahahah right. As a kid, when I was still easy to scare, I used to pee my pants (not even embarrassed about it anymore). But now, I just give "scary" things a blank look and go on with my day.

On the rare occasion that I DO get surprised, I tend to punch whatever surprises me. Then I laugh. But that's very rare. The last time that happened was in 2009.

>>7

Dude how can you remember that far back? That was 11 years ago! 11 years is half of my life. I can't even remember what I ate for lunch last week.

>>8

It's easy to remember things when every year is eventful or when things happen with good people. I remember that moment, because my best friend was the one who surprised me and my reflex was to punch his chest.

>>9

I would have punched you back. Ow. You can't just go around punching people in the chest.

>>10

He shouldn't have been going around trying to scare me, knowing that my reflex is to punch. We laughed about it then, and we laugh about it now. So, no biggie

>>11

Well, I guess if he's your best friend... Still. I don't care who the person is or what I did to them. I would punch back.

>>12

Then I guess that makes you a violent person? Doesn't seem like you have the same reflex as me though, so you should be good.

>>13

Haha yeah. I just yelp when I get surprised. I laugh at people who cover their eyes when something scary is about to happen. Especially when it's from a game or a movie. I'm like, why are you playing/watching if you're just gonna cover?

>>14

Haha exactly, such a waste of all the effort the creator put into making something scary. But what's funny to me is that the people around me are a bunch of scaredy-cats about things that aren't scary.

>>15

Uhuh. Like why is a "ghost" on the screen scary? It's just on the screen and you've seen hundreds of ghosts on the screen in your lifetime.

>>16

Or any kind of "scary" thing, for that matter. Zombies, monsters, ghosts, paranormal crap. These things do nothing for/to me. I wonder what COULD be scary anymore.

>>17

Well, religion-related paranormal things are creepy, but that's as far as it goes. Just creepy. Not scary.

>>18

I miss the days when I used to get nightmares or can't sleep, because of how scared I was.

>>19

Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore. My nightmares are usually about real-life drama. I just wake up crying. Not scary at all.

>>20

OMG me too. Apparently, I talk in my sleep. The people that listen to me gets creeped out, but when I wake I tell them it was a nightmare about dealing with drama. It's pretty lame.

So maybe drama scares you? If you classify those "drama" dreams nightmares, then maybe that's scary?

>>22

No. I call them nightmares because they're not nice dreams. But not necessarily scary. But I wouldn't mind playing a drama-filled horror game. Maybe the drama element could make the "scary" things scary.

>>23

Well, they DO try to add drama to these horror games, but the acting and the animation falls short. I mean look at Death Stranding. As good as it looks, The Uncanny Valley still makes it hard to fully suspend your disbelief.

THIS was scary in the 90s

>>25

I raise with this:

>>26

OHHHHHHHH yeah. I didn't have my own computer yet, but my step-sister let me watch her as she played this and THIS gave me NIGHTMARES.

>>27

There is another game similar to that, that had slightly better graphics. The main character was female and she had to pick up hidden things from the environment to use them against the crazed people trying to kill her.

>>28

It's not Phantasmagoria? That seems exactly like what you described.

>>29

No, it's something else. I played the game before I played Phantasmagoria. I wish I knew the title of it. I want to play it again, because it gave me nightmares too.

So, are we desensitized, because we played these games back then, or new games just not that scary anymore?

>>31

It's probably a double-whammy. I think we, old kids, have been desensitized AND new games aren't scary anymore. I guess these new games really ARE made for younger minds, that haven't experienced much to be jaded.

>>32

True. Maybe they should be more specific with their ratings, or have a separate rating for "scare-level" or something. 1: For players scared of everything, to 5: For players scared of nothing.

>>33

Then it would be up to us to choose the horror games with the 5 rating.

>>34

WE WILL ACCEPT NOTHING BELOW 5!

>>35

Damn right. But how will they scare us if we're scared of nothing. They have to make some REALLY SCARY SHT to scare us. If that's the case, why weren't THEY scared when they made it?

>>36

Maybe they were and they all died in the making of the game. Died from fright.

>>37

Geez. That's only a LITTLE dark. Good enough I guess. At least they died doing what they loved?

>>38

WOAH THAT'S DARK and TOO SOON!

>>39

Haha. No really. If they sacrificed their lives to create a level-5 scary game, then wouldn't they consider it a success if they died, BECAUSE they were scared by their own game?

>>40

Yes, and I think we all wish this were real (not necessarily the dying part), but a level-5 scary game. This is a big tease.

>>41

What if dying is PART OF THE GAME?! What if they knew what they were messing with when they made it, and set things up so the game would complete itself and get published, even AFTER they've died?

>>42

You mean, a cursed game, where you die when you play it? It's like Jumanji meets the Ring.

>>43

To borrow another commenter's wise words, I'm having a gamegasm just thinking about it.

GEEZ. The RING meets JUMANJI. Still hits nostalgia, without being a direct remake. We're not even devs and we're coming up with creative sht. Should we become devs and just make it?

>>45

Beyond the Gates is a campy version of what you're describing.

>>46

No, what I'm describing hasn't been created yet, so it's not like anything. It's inspired by The Ring and Jumanji, just so people can wrap their head around the idea.

>>47

But it's not necessarily a "real-life board game that kills you 7 days after you play it" movie. It could be totally new. It COULD be original, if original and creative minds worked on it.

>>48

I guess so, but can anything ever be original? Isn't everything inspired by something else?

>>49

Hm. Maybe we can only innovate at this point. What can be invented anymore?

>>50

I think it's still possible to invent. There's no time machine yet, and time travel IS theoretically possible. So if there's one thing left, there must be endless things left.

>>51

Well, can they invent a game system that we can live in already? I'm tired of this reality.

>>52

ikr. someone posted a PS9 commercial from Sony in 2000. Why are we still waiting for the PS5 and the Xbox Series X?

>>53

Yeah, WHY are they still bulky ass systems? Shouldn't we be dealing with nanotech already?

>>54

Well, technically, there's nanotech INSIDE the bulky systems. That's why they're so powerful, because they're bulky and saturated with nanotech. There are probably thousands of PS1 power in the PS5.

>>55

So you're saying they've shrunk and advanced the PS1 and put thousands of them in the PS5, so we're really get PSx10^x?

>>56

Yes, math whiz. Haha pretty much.

>>57

Well, in that case, why can't we live in our games yet? If the systems are so advanced, why is that the realism, speed, and game size are the only things they're improving?

>>58

Don't they have R&D working on ways to inject the game into our brains, so we won't even need a system? Can't we have some Black Mirror tech already?

>>59

Yeah, I would love that Season 5 system. Oh, the possibilities!

>>60

I have to admit, RE3 in THAT system might be a little scary.

>>61

Hmmmmmm. Still no, but Parasite Eve would be.

>>62

Hahahaha Zombies Ate My Neighbors and Luigi's Mansion would be creepy in that system.

>>63

Creepy, but not scary. Hm... let's brainstorm on what would make us sht our pants.

>>64

Invisible things. Any sentient thing that we can't see, but messes with us. YOU KNOW that's scary.

>>65

Yes, but it can get old after a while. I can see myself getting used to having an invisible thing around.

>>66

True. But then what? We can get used to having ANYTHING around. Even if there's a threat of being killed, oh well. Staying alive would be a CHALLENGE, but it wouldn't be SCARY.

>>67

Yeah, when you die, you're dead. No need to be scary anymore, because you'll just be one of the spooky things in the universe.

>>68

What if ghosts have ghosts. That's a game idea. Dead people being haunted by dead ghosts, because there are different levels of death.

>>69

Woah. Like Death-ception or something? Haha that's a cool concept. You play as a ghost, running away from Level 2 ghosts, the bosses you fight are Level 3 ghosts, and the final boss is a Level 4 ghost. Damn.

>>70

And there's an infinite number of death levels. The more you die, the closer you get to achieving godly status.

>>71

But to reach the next level, you have to die a natural death, or if you get murdered, you have to have lived a minimum number of years. Suicides don't count.

>>72

If you don't satisfy this criteria, you just reincarnated back to Level 1 with no knowledge of your previous life.

>>71

So, you do you learn about this process only after you satisfy the Level 2 death criteria? Or are you "living" Level 2 death like a normal "person" without knowing you'r in Level 2, and that if you die, you'll go to Level 3?

>>74

Hmmm. I guess it would be more interesting if no one ever learns that they've already died and about the level they're in. But each level should have a distinct "normal reality," because there would be no point if every level is the same.

>>75

For example: Person A lives their Level 1 life, and dies. This satisfies the Level 2 criteria, so Person A is now living their Level 2 life.

The laws of reality (physics, colors, how the universe works, and etc.) in Level 2 don't follow the laws of any other level.

Person A doesn't know this. They are unaware of their Level 1 life and they're unaware that they're in Level 2.

They're just living life, as it's supposed to be lived in their designated level.

So where does the fear factor come in?

It comes in the same way it comes in at Level 1. The "dead" haunting your current reality (level). Any level can "haunt" another level, but the haunted only perceives it as a haunting, because they don't understand the laws of where it's coming from.

>>81

So even someone possibly closer to godly-status, in Level 100, can be haunted by someone in Level 1, accidentally stumbling into the portal between 1 & 100.

>>82

So, a haunting doesn't even have to be deliberate? Crayyyyyy

>>82

Dude. Are you a god and you're secretly trying to tell us the secrets of the universe?

>>84

Maybe. I'm from Level 5000, and I've managed to communicate with you, Level 1-ers.

>>82

Wait. Wouldn't someone from Level 100 have an idea of what's really going on with a haunting? Wouldn't they know better, because they're further dead? Haha.

>>86

It's possible that they can, but more probable that they don't. Remember that they live their lives normally. Something has to happen to someone, whatever level they're in, for them to get glimpses of the process. Call it the Third Eye.

>>87

Something has to happen for them to develop a Third Eye. Let me think about it and get back to y'all.