Edgy Horror Games

Well, for this article in my series about horror videogames, I thought that I’d talk about edgy horror games. These are horror games that focus more on using a harsh atmosphere, disturbing subject matter and/or shock value in order to horrify and disturb the player, and they are a really interesting sub-genre of horror games.

I ended up thinking about this topic after I started playing a 2D indie horror game called “The Cat Lady” (2012) again. Although I couldn’t really “get into” this game when I first tried playing it about five years ago, I found it to be a lot more compelling this time round. Seriously, I’d planned to just reinstall it and maybe look at it again for half an hour, but I had to reluctantly drag myself away from the computer after about three and a half hours of solid binge-playing. And, on both occasions, my differing reactions to it were probably due to the fact that it is unlike almost every other horror game I’ve ever played.

This is a screenshot from “The Cat Lady” (2012).

The closest thing I can think to compare it to isn’t even a videogame. It’s the type of edgy 1970s-1990s splatterpunk  horror novels (by authors like Shaun Hutson, James Herbert etc…) that I first discovered during my teenage years in the early-mid 2000s. If you haven’t heard of splatterpunk fiction, it’s an intensely ultra-gruesome type of horror fiction that – in keeping with its “punk” name – is often also filled with lots of cynicism, nihilism, social satire and/or edginess too. Novels of this type that were written in 1970s-80s Britain were also something of a rebellion against the strict horror film censorship of the time too. Seriously, most horror movies look like Disney cartoons in comparison to some of these old splatterpunk novels. Nothing was off-limits and it wasn’t for the faint-hearted.

And, although “The Cat Lady” (2012) technically fits more into the psychological horror genre, it still has a lot of the edgy attitude of the splatterpunk genre 🙂 Filled with bitter cynicism, creepy characters, disturbing subject matter, disturbing imagery and numerous extremely cruel and/or gruesome moments, it is one of those few horror games that really feels like something that is completely uncensored. A “video(game) nasty”, if you will. The low-budget “photo-montage” style graphics also add to the punk atmosphere of the game and it is the sort of thing that you’ll feel like you “probably shouldn’t be playing”, yet will be too morbidly fascinated by the game’s grim story to stop playing it.

I would say that it’s the sort of ultra-edgy horror game that could only have been made by a rebellious indie developer from outside the “AAA” mainstream games industry, but there was once a time when mainstream horror games had a bit more of an “edge” to them. For example, although I’ve only played a small amount of the first game quite a few years ago, I can’t help but think of the “Manhunt” series (2003-2007) here. This was a series of stealth-horror games from a major “AAA” developer – Rockstar Games – that tried to be as edgy as possible.

“Manhunt” (2003) was a game that focused on a death row inmate who has been spared execution in order to participate in a cruel and murderous game for the amusement of a sadistic film director. The game’s grim moral ambiguity and focus on extreme “realistic” brutality caused no end of media controversy when it was released. “Manhunt 2” (2007) was even banned in the UK for about a year after its release. Yet, unlike these days, the 2000s were still a time when – far from damaging a games company – controversy was actually something to be actively sought after. It gave these games notoriety and – along with the equally controversial “Grand Theft Auto” series – cemented Rockstar Games’ reputation as one of the more “cool” and “rebellious” large game corporations.

The “Manhunt” games were also part of a more general shift towards extremity in the horror genre at the time, with ultra-cruel Hollywood films like “Saw” (2004) and its sequels also popularising extreme horror media for several years during the mid-late 2000s. So, surprising as it may sound, “edgy” horror was still very much a mainstream part of the genre less than two decades ago.

With horror games shifting away from “AAA” developers and more towards indie developers from about the early 2010s onwards, not to mention the rise of online game distribution too, edgy horror games could really thrive. Seriously, whilst edgier indie horror games like “Amnesia: The Dark Descent” (2010), “The Cat Lady” (2012) or “Outlast” (2013) thankfully didn’t have to contend with stricter 2000s game censorship, they’re the sort of firmly niche creative projects that would probably make modern mainstream “AAA” games companies recoil with horror. These are games made by horror fans for horror fans.

Yet, one of the fascinating things about edgy horror games – like with more extreme types of horror fiction – is that they often aren’t just about overwhelming the audience with extreme gruesomeness. Often, these games feel so incredibly edgy and transgressive because of other things than just lots of red pixels on the screen. Ironically, this is best summed up by the British film censors when they mentioned that one of the reasons why they tried to ban “Manhunt 2” in 2007 was because of its “unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone“.

And this is the perfect description of what sets an edgy horror game apart from just an ultra-gruesome horror game. Edgy horror games disturb the player through their general attitude, mood and atmosphere more than anything else. Whether it is a completely nihilistic, cruel and/or bleak worldview or even just an attitude of “literally no subject or theme is off-limits”, these games are as much about psychological horror as they are about shock value.

For example, “Outlast” (2013) is set in a semi-abandoned mental hospital where strange and cruel experiments have taken place. Although it certainly tries to shock the player with lots of ultra-gruesome background details and frantic chase sequences, the game’s overall mood and atmosphere was also one of the many things that quite literally scared me away from it when I tried to play it last year. You play as an unarmed reporter who is completely alone in a strange and hostile place filled with creepy characters and vicious foes. There is little to no humour or Hollywood-like spectacle in this game. It’s just unrelenting grimness and extreme heart-pounding suspense.

Earlier, I mentioned that “The Cat Lady” (2012) is technically more of a psychological horror game than anything else. And this is another example of what sets an “edgy” horror game apart from just an ultra-gruesome or “slasher movie” type horror game. Yes, the game’s plot takes influence from the slasher genre and also includes numerous gory moments too, but – even from the very first moment of the game – it focuses on some extremely bleak themes and subject matter. Although this is balanced out slightly via an extremely cynical sense of humour, this is a game that will unsettle you as much as it does because of the disturbing topics that it focuses on and dares to include in a game. Even if it didn’t contain a single red pixel, this would still be an incredibly disturbing horror game just from the atmosphere, writing and subject matter alone.

And this is one of the most amusing paradoxes of “edgy” horror games. In order to actually feel like something genuinely edgy, these games can’t just rely on immature shock value. Instead, they actually have to take a genuinely mature attitude towards storytelling, characters and atmosphere. These are games that just focus on telling the stories they want to tell without fear of limitations or censorship. And, again, they are much closer to the psychological horror genre than anything else.

—————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Three Tips For Making “Edgy” Horror Scary

Well, since I’m still going through a horror movie phase at the moment, I thought that I’d talk about “edgy” horror today. I ended up thinking about this after watching two horror movies from 2007 – a low-budget found footage film called “The Zombie Diaries” and the director’s cut of Rob Zombie’s remake of “Halloween” (MAJOR SPOILERS ahead for both films).

Both of these films are surprisingly “edgy” horror films that – in some ways – have more in common with 1970s-90s British horror novels than many 2000s horror movies. They are grim, gritty and shocking films that will really catch you by surprise if you are just expecting a fun and cheesy horror movie to pass an hour or two with. So, naturally, this made me think about – if only to get over the lingering fear that I still feel from these films – how to make “edgy” horror genuinely scary.

1) Human evil: One of the main reasons why both films are genuinely shocking and horrifying is because of their heavy focus on human evil. Although both films contain some stylised and “unrealistic” elements, many of their most horrifying moments are so horrifying because they focus on realistic examples of human evil.

For example, the scariest and most disturbing moments in “The Zombie Diaries” revolve around the reveal that one of the survivors is an incredibly evil man who is using the chaos and anarchy of the zombie apocalypse as an excuse to gleefully do all sorts of extremely nasty and disgusting things. Despite being in the zombie apocalypse genre, the film’s zombie-based scenes aren’t what make this film so deeply disturbing to watch.

Likeiwse, the 2007 remake of “Halloween” devotes a surprisingly large amount of time to Michael Myers’ backstory and these are some of the most disturbing parts of the film. Although there are hints that Myers is already an evil character, the opening scenes show him being subjected to almost constant bullying at home and school. Not only does this put the viewer in the uncomfortable position of actually feeling sorry for one of the horror genre’s most notorious villains, but many of his later crimes are clearly shown to be a product of the relentless barrage of human evil that he has been subjected to.

Not to mention that this also makes the failed attempts by the film’s few sympathetic characters (eg: Dr.Loomis, Myers’ mother and an older hospital guard) to “save” Myers seem even more tragic because there is a palpable feeling of “too little, too late” about these scenes. Myers has been so corrupted by the human evil that he has experienced that no amount of care, friendship or compassion can bring him back from the terrible place that his mind has retreated to in the face of so much hostility from the world. It’s a really disturbing element of the film.

So, yes, one way to make “edgy” horror genuinely scary is to place a heavy emphasis on “realistic” human evil, rather than on a story’s more fantastical or stylised elements.

2) Atmosphere: Another thing that both of these films have in common is a grim and bleak atmosphere. “The Zombie Diaries” is, as the name suggests, set in the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse. Although this is a commonly-used horror genre setting, it is made a lot more chilling than usual thanks to the “realistic” way that it is presented.

Not only do some of the opening “news report” segments of the film feel chillingly prescient when watched in 2020 (even though they were based on mid-late 2000s worries about Bird Flu), but the film’s “ordinary” urban and rural British settings will be instantly recognisable to many UK viewers too. Add to this the fact that most of the film consists of “realistic” camcorder footage and the fact that – despite some corny acting – most of the survivors behave in a realistic way (eg: banding together to help each other, arguing with each other etc..) and this film has a surprisingly believable and grim atmosphere to it that really adds to the feelings of horror.

On the other hand, Rob Zombie’s remake of “Halloween” creates an unsettling and bleak atmosphere in a much more stylised way. This is mostly done through the use of almost relentless cynicism and crudeness. Not only are almost all of the characters extremely cynical about everything, but the film’s dialogue is so heavily peppered with four-letter words that they quickly go from being ordinary signifiers of informal speech and/or emphasis to being something that sets a mood of unremitting harshness, menace and cynicism. It’s a really clever dramatic technique that – surprisingly- doesn’t really comes across as being “immature” or anything like that most of the time.

Add to this the run-down nature of many of the film’s settings and the fact that – as mentioned earlier- there are only about three sympathetic characters in the entire film (all of whom end up being directly, or indirectly, killed by the villain) and this movie has an incredibly unsettling and bleak atmosphere to it that sets it apart from a typical “cheesy” slasher film.

So, yes, “edgy” horror works best when there is a heavy focus on creating a grim and bleak atmosphere.

3) What isn’t shown: As utterly paradoxical as this might sound, “edgy” horror is often at it’s most disturbing when it leaves things to the audience’s imagination. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be shocking or transgressive moments that are there to horrify and disgust the audience, but the audience should leave with a feeling of “If they showed that, then what they didn’t show must be ten times worse…”

For example, the most disgusting, obscene and just generally gross story element in “The Zombie Diaries” isn’t actually directly shown to the audience. We see enough “before and after” details to get a strong hint of what has been happening but we – fortunately – don’t actually see it. Yet, this actually makes it even more horrifying for the simple reason that these hints force the viewer to imagine the sickening crime in question. This is why this film will haunt you for several hours or days after you’ve watched it.

Likewise, whilst the 2007 remake of “Halloween” shows the viewer many shocking examples of bullying, violence and cruelty, there is a very strong hint that we are only seeing a few carefully-selected glimpses of a much larger amount of of this stuff. As hinted earlier, a lot of this is also implied by the cynical and weary attitude of the film’s characters too. They are people who have grown up with this sort of thing as an “everyday” part of their lives and have either become cynical or evil as a result of it.

So, yes, as paradoxical as it sounds, “edgy” horror is as much about what isn’t shown to the audience as it is about what is shown to them.

—————

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Why Are Novels “Edgier” Than Film Or TV?

Well, I thought that I’d talk about one of the things that I’ve noticed again after I got back into reading regularly a year or two ago – novels are often at least slightly “edgier” than equivalent pieces of film or television usually are. Of course, back when I was a teenager, this was quite literally the coolest thing in the world. And, although it was a little bit of a shock when I got back into reading regularly again, it is still one of the most interesting elements of the medium.

So, I thought that I’d look at some of the reasons why novels can be more shocking, more salacious, much grittier and just generally “edgier” than pretty much every other storytelling medium out there.

1) History: Although many countries have their own different version of this history, I’ll focus on the British one. I am, of course, talking about the Lady Chatterley Trial in 1960. This trial, revolving around the reprinting of D. H. Lawrence’s “Lady Chatterley’s Lover“, was a pivotal test of a newly-introduced artistic merit exemption in the literary censorship laws of the time. The after-effects of this trial were that novels are literally the only storytelling medium that is exempt from any kind of official censorship 🙂

About two and a half decades later, the “video nasties” moral panic of the mid-1980s led to much stricter home video censorship in the UK. This, combined with traditional film censorship in cinemas, gave writers a giant advantage over the competition when it came to giving audiences the “edgy” content that was popular at the time.

Plus, although there are still sporadic literary controversies these days, books often seem to be exempt from major moral panics thanks to the fact that they are no longer the popular entertainment medium they once were. People are more interested in streaming, smartphones, politics, social media and videogames than reading these days. One good side-effect of this is that it lends novels a refreshing degree of relative privacy, where writers have a little bit more creative freedom because they don’t have to worry so much about the reactions of a mass audience.

2) Non-visual storytelling: Books take a lot more effort to enjoy than many other storytelling mediums do. They require readers to quite literally translate words into pictures. Reading a book is an active activity that requires your full attention, unlike sitting in front of a screen and watching something. It is something where you, the reader, have to co-create the experience that the author has planned out for you. Unlike a film playing in an empty room, a book cannot “work” without a reader.

What all of this means is that the reader has more control over their experience of reading a novel than the viewer of a film (or even the player of a videogame) does. If you read something that shocks or repulses you, then you can just imagine it in less detail, skim those parts of the novel or stop reading. As such, novels have a built in psychological safety mechanism that visual mediums don’t really have. Likewise, because reading fiction is an introspective activity that requires both thought and empathy, the audience is more likely to know themselves and to be better prepared to deal with anything they encounter on the page.

For example, the “edgy” late 1990s horror novel I’m reading at the moment (“Warhol’s Prophecy” by Shaun Hutson) contains at least one especially horrifying “gross out” chapter that could probably never be faithfully adapted to film without major censorship or controversy. Yet, when I read the chapter and recoiled in horror, I was not only able to imagine some parts of it in less detail but – thanks to lots of reading and introspection over the years- also had the level of self-awareness to think: “It’s a horror novel. I’m supposed to be horrified by it. Being horrified is a good thing in this context. It would be a lot more disturbing if I wasn’t horrified.”

Plus, because novels are a non-visual medium, they are much more clearly in the realm of the imagination. They are very blantantly something that someone made up. Yes, all readers temporarily mistake printed symbols for reality whenever they pick up a novel, but there is still a very clear separation between the page and reality. Words are not pictures.

3) Individuality: Film, music, videogames and television are usually collaborative mediums. They require a team of creative people and, because this costs money, they often have to aim for the largest possible audience. Likewise, because they are a team effort, no one individual person’s view is paramount. These things are the product of meetings, discussions and stuff like that. And, whilst this can result in great things, it also means that these things don’t have the level of individuality that books do.

This individuality is important for fiction because it is what sets novels apart from other mediums. We quite literally get to look inside someone else’s imagination, to see their thoughts and their perspective on the world. And, although popular culture might be becoming increasingly standardised these days, anyone with the imagination to write a novel is probably still going to be someone who thinks for themselves.

And, in an increasingly standardised world, individuality is – by its very nature – “edgy” and “rebellious”. Including things like nuance, ambiguity, complex thoughts and other stuff that is often absent from popular media is a rebellious act in it’s own right. Thinking for yourself and trying to see things from different perspectives (inherent parts of both reading and writing fiction) are deeply subversive acts.

So, novels are inherently “edgy” because they are the work of one author, rather than a crowd of people.

——————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂