Hypothetical - Multiplayer Horror

[Apjjm]

I feel like continuing this discussion a little further - there is plenty of it to be had i am sure . I am happy to have my opinion changed on the matter at hand so below are my thoughts on the matter - framed as a reply to two viewpoints.

Guys this thing will never work as intended and it comes down to basic human instincts. And not only humans. There is a reason why people, wolves, dogs, birds etc...(animals) form groups. Not only are they stronger but most importantly they feel safe. Sometimes, this feeling is all that is needed to do things that you previously would have never imagined doing. That's why aggressive dogs are so unpredictable when they form a small group. That worm feeling of being safe is what effectively ruins horror.

Whilst true to some extent, I have to respectfully disagree with this point as a whole. I do agree that the primary reason social groups evolved is that altruism and teamwork greatly increase the fitness of an animal (further reading for those interested). I would, however, argue that "groups provide a feeling of safety" with an implication that members of a group are less susceptible to fear as a result is a simplification too far. To indulge a little in group psychology, even though i really don't know much about it admittedly - and posit a counter-scenario or two:

"Get a group of people, tell them to spend a night together in a derelict old building after feeding them some story about a haunting / death / killer."

That or for some other examples, look at lets plays where people watch somebody else play Amnesia in person - they often scream/jump with that player, and this is in a game not designed around multiplayer horror at all! This trait can be traced somewhat back to emotional contagion: Provided enough of the party becomes scared, then the group will eventually become frightened and tense. Additionally, groups also have a tendency to reinforce commonly shared beliefs and feelings, group think, note that this dynamic also is exacerbated in groups in which members are tense or under pressure (e.g. scared). To draw a simplification of my own: If you make a few people in a group scared - and the rest of the group buys it - the fear will propagate through the group, and the group shall be more perceptive towards being scared in future, a kind of feedback loop.

It should already be apparent, at least in a cooperative environment, there are already some different dynamics at play for generating fear than in single player games. Fear is not necessarily a direct consequence of events in the game, but can also come from the group - if the group is scared and you are able to discern that, then it is plenty possible that you, as a part of that group will become scared or feel tense - This is something that at the very least should be tested and explored by a game before being dismissed outright in my opinion, otherwise we may be missing a trick!

Single player horror (SPH) has the job of scaring the same player almost every time - if any of the scares fall flat/miss/aren't seen then it can make a huge difference to the experience, yet too many scares can also break the experience.
Multiplayer horror (MPH) just has to scare, startle or increase tension in the group through a handful of individuals - not necessarily the same ones each time! This may mean that MPH can throw out a bunch of context sensitive scares to increase the fidelity of the world and subsequently immersion. Depending on the game, individuals may also be far more expendable to be used as tools for creating fear: A problem Amnesia had to overcome, which FG has covered before, is that when players get to see/be killed by a monster, the death breaks the immersion and also reduces the room for imagination around the monster, yet monsters trying to not kill the player has to be carefully hidden or fear is lost. Death also means immediate retrial of the part the player was at in order to progress the narrative. MPH can get both the dangerous monsters and maintain the mystery for free - monsters can simply pick off stragglers, and if there are no stragglers the game can, through level design, try to split the group.

There are tonnes of group dynamics out there waiting to be tested out by a MPH: E.g. "herd behavior" of groups - more specifically the examples of when under pressure, the tendency for people to group and follow nearby people - often ignoring the surroundings to some degree. Take the exit example in the Wikipedia page - that could easily be used to panic a group more.

My position on the matter remains that I would much rather see a well executed and solely co-op MPH tried & failed instead of dismissed straight off the bat. I think a survival environment in which players can actively hunt and kill others (e.g. dayZ) already has the workings to be plenty scary (i would love to see a dayZ game set in the STALKER universe with far fewer weapons, by the way), so i have focused my discussion on the co-op viewpoint.

Let's face it. Introduce co-op and you will have non-stop shenanigans. Such as dicks being drawn in the mini-map, or group therapy sessions with Stephano.

I remain unconvinced by this train of thought. An analogous argument could be made for any horror game: if you don't take any of the elements seriously and play the game in a way it was not intended - then it won't be scary. The only discussions worth having along viability due to the playerbase are:

1. Provided a player buys into the environment, can the player be scared by the game? (Yes - it is plenty possible to scare groups! It may be a lot harder though?)
   
2. Provided the player buys into the environment, will the players horror experience be ruined by those who don't? (This is a very important topic which i think needs much more discussion)
   
3. Are players significantly less likely to buy into horror scenarios as a group? (?)
   

Edit: This was way longer than i was intending . Apologies for the wall of text and i hope i didn't waffle too much