Does introducing combat into a horror game ruin the experience? In fact, is it even possible to be afraid of something if you have the power or weapons to handle the situation? Is the creature hiding in the dark really that scary if you have an assault rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, and rocket launcher on you at any given moment?
Most people would immediately say no upon hearing that statement, but it actually depends on how dangerous the creature/killer is in the context of the game. Dealing with zombies or werewolves would not be scary in the scenario above, but a creature that can imitate the appearance of your loved ones would be frightening, no matter how armed you are in that scenario. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not combat itself that can ruin a horror game, but the player getting too comfortable in the situation. If a horror game has weapons, it is easy for the player to feel secure. In order to remove this sense of security, the game needs to put the player into scenarios that force them into a tough situation where they can't rely on things that made them feel safe.
When Combat in Horror Works
I believe Resident Evil 2 remake is a perfect example of this done right. The zombies in the beginning are not scary for the most part, unless you get jump scared from encountering them around a blind corner or door. Jump scares are startling, yes, but they don’t fill you with a sense of anxiety or dread. The lickers and Mr. X, on the other hand, very much do. The lickers punish the player for making too much noise, so you can’t use your gun or run. Mr. X is an unkillable giant man stomping around the map looking for you nonstop, so you can't kill him, nor can you stay in any one location (besides safe rooms) for too long. Both enemies are designed to keep the player on edge by preventing the player from being able to rely on their safety net i.e., their weapons. So, what does “Silent Hill F” have to do with any of this? Silent Hill F is an example of an amazing game that unfortunately fails to understand how to effectively implement combat in a horror game.
When Combat Takes Away from the Experience
Now, I personally loved everything about the game, story, visuals, sound, environments, atmosphere, characters, and even sometimes the combat when it worked, especially in new game plus when Hinako is a lightsaber wielding death machine, but I kind of agree with others and think the game would have been better if it focused less on combat. You know how I mentioned that Resident Evil 2 gave you two enemies that removed the players safety nets, well there is nothing like that in Silent Hill F. There are no enemies that shake up how you engage with each monster, allowing me to form a sense of familiarity and security, removing the fear and tension from any monster engagement. All enemies are dealt the same way, through the power of the pipe and Hinako's hilariously exaggerated sidestep and counterattacks. Throw in some special mobs that are spongy, annoying and show up a lot towards the end and you have a combat experience that can leave people pondering if psychological horror games should or shouldn’t have combat in them at all. I lean towards the latter, since psychological horror games are mainly focused on making the player feel scared and telling an engaging narrative. I mean, in general, no one plays a horror game to experience groundbreaking combat mechanics. What people want is a scary setup, full of opportunities to scare them, supported by an intriguing mystery that makes them want to understand why this horrific story is happening.
Excessive combat encounters can get in the way of this. Nothing breaks a player's immersion more than dying repeatedly in a horror game. The moment a player dies, they are no longer as afraid of the monster/s chasing them as they were initially. Part of the fear in a horror game is not knowing what the monsters are going to do to you when they catch you. Once the player sees what happens when they die, the mystery is gone, and so is the fear. Then, if they die too often due to the game's reliance on combat sections to fill out the game's length, they will no longer be anxious or fearful of the situation, just frustrated. So when people hear that a new Silent Hill game has been released, they're looking forward to experiencing a narrative that explores the horrific traumas/guilt of the protagonist, and “Silent Hill F” does deliver in this aspect, but there are a lot of combat sections in Silent Hill F that can feel unnecessary at times.
Now, I have played this game a lot, a total of five times, to get all of the endings and completely max out Hinako's attributes. So I know that 90% of the game's design connects to the overarching themes of the story, which is one of the many things I love about the game. I loved piecing together how the creature designs, environments, and documents related back to Hinako's psyche. However, sticking too close to the themes of the story is the root cause of some of the game's issues. For example, since every enemy in the game is a representation of Hinako's fears, there is a lack of enemy variety in the game as a whole. This wouldn't be a problem if the game didn't become extremely combat-focused for the final third of the game, where you are forced to encounter the same few enemies over and over again. Now, I personally didn't mind this because I was aware of the creator's design decisions, but I totally understand someone being confused and disappointed that the later stages of the game lean more towards action horror than the psychological survival horror that the game starts as in the beginning.
Would Story Alone Be Enough?
Most people would have preferred if Silent Hill F focused more on story and puzzles than combat. With that being said, I wouldn't exactly pay 80+ dollars for a game that is just a walking simulator. Gamers' reaction to Death Stranding 1 versus the second game is a perfect example of why it can be hard for games to be successful without having tons of combat. Especially since you are required to beat the game multiple times over to get the full story. Playing a walking simulator five times in a row to get more story sounds like a nightmare to me, and I'm pretty sure the developers thought the same thing. So, in the end regardless of the design path they would have chosen, I think there would have always been a vocal group of people dissatisfied with the game. I mean the game had an impossible job. It had to follow up the critically acclaimed Silent Hill 2 remake, push the franchise forward in new directions while trying not to completely abandon its roots, and justify an $80 price tag. I personally believe the game was a masterpiece, but next time I hope they chill on the number of monsters we have to fight.
