What would be "Proper Jumpscares?"

[FlawlessHappiness]

Alex? This thread is from august...

[Alex Ros]

It does not matters at all. Most of times I am writing down something that is interesting for me myself in the first place. As for jump-scares I was interested by myself to formulate some simple concrete-useful rules. I am myself going to stick to them, to practically use them. So these are just thoughts that are actual for me myself and I just shared them by keeping in mind they might be useful-helpful for someone else.

I think it's right and reasonable to share that is important for you personally. It could be stupid and even rude to share something that is of no use for you, it's could be like: "Hello guys, I got some useless trash, do you want some?"

[MyRedNeptune]

3. Do not link jump-scares close to dynamical changes-transformations at levels. For example, when something ruins and blocks a way back or forward, when the player is teleported to some new space, etc.

I might be missing something, but what's the reasoning behind this one?

[Alex Ros]

Simply because of death. When something changes in the surrounding world of the player it's better to give a minute (or less) to the player, so he might just look around just a bit. So when something horrible would happen the player wouldn't be absolutely confused where to run, hide, etc. and would not die.

---

It's not strictly on the theme of the thread. But death in a game is the most confusing thing for me. I mean right now. Because yes it ruins the immersion. And seems like it's better not to kill player. But there is a paradox. Because at the same time you have to always keep it dangerous to make player cautious, afraid, etc. And as a result it's really confusing - to keep it dangerous, but not to kill. I'd say it's a really hard to make it well balanced - death-possibility and the danger-state-of-mind of the player. I am thinking about that balance all the time and I can confess that I do not know how exactly to keep it well. I feel it, yes of course. But I can't formulate it clear. And it's a drastic difference between thinking and writing down.

[MyRedNeptune]

I see what you mean now, but I wouldn't have understood that from your original post.

I asked because I remembered that at the beginning of An Unexpected Arrival there is a cave-in event - maybe not an intentional jumpscare, but with the tension that was built up at the time and the sudden break in silence it acted as one. But I understand now that you were addressing something else.

---

I thought about it for a moment, and decided that to come close to formulating what you want would require a lengthy prelude and setting up definitions, so it would probably take considerable time if you want to write it down in a precise and thorough manner.

[Streetboat]

Alex Ros. I like your style. We should parlay.

[Alex Ros]

Alex Ros. I like your style. We should parlay.

Fucking google translator... I do not know that word "parlay". And fuck me for my poor English vocabulary... What that sentence "We should parlay" means?

---

...I thought about it for a moment, and decided that to come close to formulating what you want would require a lengthy prelude and setting up definitions...

Be honest, my goal was to make rules without clear explanations. My reference was (no jokes, seriously) the Ten Commandments, I mean the set of biblical laws, like "Do Not Steal" and that's all, no explanations. And my silly rules could look like that...

1. Do not link jump-scares close to any objective completion.
2. Do not make jump-scares that would lead to the player's death.
3. Do not link jump-scares close to dynamical changes-transformations at levels..
4. Do not make jump-scares if some part of a gameplay feels boring while testing.
5. Do not make jump-scares without an explanation.

[MyRedNeptune]

The problem with that kind of approach arises when the rules are either not precise or not intuitive enough. The Ten Commandments are a set of pretty simple and basic laws. In contrast, I had trouble understanding one of your rules because it was too vague and/or generalizing.

Unless you expand and explain, you will either end up with people avoiding the rules because they do not understand them, or inaccurate interpretations.

That leads me to think that because of the multi-factor nature of creating a sense of danger, you will be faced with unnecessary challenges if you try to create a point-by-point list of rules. They will either have to be too complex or too generalizing to actually cover the whole subject by their own.

Any reason for such a specific "format", btw? ^^

[Alex Ros]

...Any reason for such a specific "format", btw? ^^

Simplicity. That's the only reason.

...In contrast, I had trouble understanding one of your rules because it was too vague and/or generalizing.

I'd say if that particular rule is not clear enough and needs an explanation, than the rule itself is bad. I think that rule is not something that could be a true rule-law, but just some thoughts... so it's better to delete that rule-law. Seriously. And so far I think that the only really simple and clear (as rules I supposed to be) are only those 3:

1. Do not make jump-scares close to any objective completion or event.
2. Do not make jump-scares that would lead to the player's death.
3. Do not make jump-scares without an explanation in terms of the storyline.

[MyRedNeptune]

I've no doubt that it's possible to teach everything one needs to know about a theory (let's call it that) through a list of rules. I just don't think it would be the most efficient way. You would either need too many simple rules or several complex rules if you want to be exhaustive.

I hope you can see that what I am trying to say is that if you want to create a method or a theory (for example, to induce a sense of danger, as you expressed in an earlier post), then thinking in terms of simple rules is not the best way to go.