Horror Discussion Thread

[BioMechanical Dude]

I really want to know how comparable to a computer the human mind is. I mean, you have short term memory, which is ram, long term memory, which is like a hard drive... Getting into a coma is like crashing? (I'm not sure how you'd get out then...) Okay, I'll stop my dumb talking. I just wonder how CPUs can be so good at math while so bad at doing things like interpreting pictures while it's the other way around for a human. I guess one's just made better for the certain task, although I'm not sure how.

Well, I guess it's because we've made computers specifically for the task to crunch numbers. Although you could say, that our conscious mind is the OS and the brain actually does calculations, when it comes to maintaining the body and stuff. I don't know either. Our technology is not advanced enough to know how this would go.

Could God create a boulder that's to heavy for him to lift? I mean, I feel like he imposes limits on himself all the time. If he wants everyone to go to believe in him, then why don't they because he made them?

I've heard this paradox before and, yeah, it gets you thinking. I guess the only person who knows the answer to this is... well... God Although religion claims He wants you to believe in Him, you've got to take that with a grain of salt (especially when it comes to religion). As someone who believes in God, I don't think he really cares whether you believe in Him or not. Cause when you think about it, whether He exists or not is an interesting topic, but it's not an important thing in life. I think, that God just wants us to develop ourselves as people, work to achieve happiness, that kind of stuff. And because it'd be too easy if He just told us everything from the get-go, He just left us to figure things out for ourselves. Another noticeable thing are the laws of physics and all the complicated things going on in the universe, which God might have set up, but doesn't seem to interfere with that much. The only way I can explain it is if you think about it this way: if you're creating a game, didn't design any mechanics or rules and everyone playing knew everything and could do everything they wanted, what would be the point of there being a game, in the first place? Who knows? Considering God is something the human mind cannot comprehend, His reasoning about most of this stuff is probably something we wouldn't really understand, either. This is what I think, at least.

You know, it's kinda weird. This is a Horror Discussion Thread, yet there's very little discussion about horror.

[Drew Sebastino]

You know, it's kinda weird. This is a Horror Discussion Thread, yet there's very little discussion about horror.

What's there even to say?

[tepples]

Another noticeable thing are the laws of physics and all the complicated things going on in the universe, which God might have set up, but doesn't seem to interfere with that much. The only way I can explain it is if you think about it this way: if you're creating a game, didn't design any mechanics or rules and everyone playing knew everything and could do everything they wanted, what would be the point of there being a game, in the first place? Who knows?

Something like Minecraft creative mode, especially early on.

You know, it's kinda weird. This is a Horror Discussion Thread, yet there's very little discussion about horror.

I think Minecraft was supposed to be survival horror-ish.

Perhaps the question would be how a "Mary Sue" figure who tames all the horror monsters could become viewed as a horror monster himself.

[Drew Sebastino]

I think Minecraft was supposed to be survival horror-ish.

Oh, Minecraft is a horror all right...

[93143]

Could God create a boulder that's to heavy for him to lift?

No, because that's a contradiction in terms, like a triangle with four sides. It inherently can't exist, just like God inherently can't not exist (so the philosophy runs).

...a Christian in a less than serious mood might note that it would be quite easy to find a boulder Yeshua the Nazarene was biologically incapable of lifting. But that's not really the question, is it...

[Drew Sebastino]

It inherently can't exist

Are you saying that the supposed creator of the universe doesn't have the power to create this one object? It doesn't make any sense (to us anyway,) but I don't see God not being able to create a four sided triangle if he had the power to create the concept of a triangle or four sides. This is all my opinion though.

[93143]

That's the point, though; it's not an "object" you can point to (in imagination or abstraction or anything) and say "God can't do that". There is no "that". The phrase "a rock so heavy God can't lift it" does not constitute a coherent description of anything. It contradicts itself.

Similarly, a triangle by definition has three sides (for the sake of the analogy, at least). Anything - anything at all - that had four sides would therefore not be a triangle. End of story.

Reason still applies to God. It applies to everything. One has to be careful not to apply principles to God that are not fundamental (like laws of physics, which if they are manifestations of the will of God could easily have been other than they are), but the Principle of Contradiction is pretty fundamental. Trying to use the "omnipotence" of God as an excuse to ignore it is just sophistry.

...and here I was just commenting on how relaxing it was to be debating the artistic merits of Super Mario World, because it's a subjective question that doesn't really matter at all...

[Drew Sebastino]

"God can't do that". There is no "that".

Well, when I'm talking about this, I'm not talking about an actual physical object. I'm just wondering if he has so much power that He can limit something as powerful as Himself. This applies to what I said earlier:

I feel like although no human is able to do something that they don't want to do (you can be selfless, but that's because seeing the other person be happy would please you), God is because he's free from that limitation because he can do anything.

He made that limitation for Himself. Clearly, He'd want to overcome the limitation if it were possible for Him because that's what He wants, but He imposed this limitation onto Himself to where he can't, or at least that's how I think of it.

Trying to use the "omnipotence" of God as an excuse to ignore it is just sophistry.

I didn't think so... We're talking about the creator of every principle in existence.

Similarly, a triangle by definition has three sides (for the sake of the analogy, at least). Anything - anything at all - that had four sides would therefore not be a triangle. End of story.

Not quite the end. It makes me think of the whole Holy Trinity. How can 3 = 1, but 3 not = 4? And as I understand it, it's not like 1/3 x 3 = 1, it's 1 x 3 = 1. It's like a magical zebra that's somehow fully white and black vs. half white and black. Like I said, we're talking about the creator of the universe. I don't think saying that was an excuse, because it's true.

Really though, this is a pointless conversation, because we aren't God and we'll never know how any of this can make sense if it even does at all. It's pretty interesting to me though.

...and here I was just commenting on how relaxing it was to be debating the artistic merits of Super Mario World, because it's a subjective question that doesn't really matter at all...

Well, what qualifies as "mattering" in life? What's our goal? To make ourselves happy, or just to survive as long as possible? (Alright, sorry... )

[zzo38]

Now you get into a lot of philosophy too, not just horror.

Horror: Well, there can be good and bad stuff regardless of genre, and different people also can like different individual story/game regardless of the kind of genre or whatever. (Same to me, I suppose. Isn't it???)

Minecraft: I have not played Minecraft (nor intend to), so I cannot comment much about that. I think my brother has and I do not know his opinion about its relation to horror.

Afterlife: At least my opinion (and a few others) is: The biggest Greed is wanting an afterlife. (My brother has said there is actually one more: wanting an afterlife and taking everything with you.)

God: What I can say is that my own beliefs (about God and that kind of stuff) are very unusual; I will not attempt to describe them here at this time. (I will say one thing: I consider myself to be a panendeist, as well as a mathematical platonist.)

Goal of life: You can have your own goal of life; there is your own thing, as well as good thing to "improve the state of the universe"; to me, happiness is not a goal, but is a feeling instead.

[Bregalad]

There aren't really set rules for this, but when most people think of Castlevania, they think of horror.

Well, before your post, I never associated Castlevania with horror. When I think of Castlevania, I think of YEEEAH SUPER COOL best game series ever. I don't think of horror.

Why do people watch dramas, considering the real-life dramas we go through are bad enough already? Why don't people watch only fun movies?

Well, it's very personal, but I really enjoy fun movies the best. I don't think I've ever even watched a truly horrifying film, they don't even attract me.

[BioMechanical Dude]

Oh, boy... This started out as just a little device to meet people, who like the stuff I do, make new friends and look at where we went. Oh, well, at least the conversation is somewhat meaningful and not just a bunch of shitposting.

I think Minecraft was supposed to be survival horror-ish.

I don't really think so, but that's my opinion.

About the whole paradox thing: I did not want to really bother with that paradox, because we can't really find a definitive answer anyway. Although some people say there are no paradoxes. It's just that we lack important information on the subject. And it's exactly the case here.

Really though, this is a pointless conversation, because we aren't God and we'll never know how any of this can make sense if it even does at all.

Agreed.

Horror: Well, there can be good and bad stuff regardless of genre, and different people also can like different individual story/game regardless of the kind of genre or whatever.

Well, I never said I don't enjoy other genres, it's just that I keep coming back to horror and it has become a huge influence for me.

Afterlife: At least my opinion (and a few others) is: The biggest Greed is wanting an afterlife.

Well, that depends on why you would want an Afterlife. If it's because you want something completely different and/or better than your regular life and you ignore the latter, doing nothing to achieve your goals and make it better, then, yes, you could say so. I personally want there to be an Afterlife, because right now I feel that even after a whole life of doing useful stuff here, I'd probably be able to do even more. Is that greedy? I don't know...

I consider myself to be a panendeist

Well, after looking it up and finding this meaning, I think I might be one myself.

Well, before your post, I never associated Castlevania with horror. When I think of Castlevania, I think of YEEEAH SUPER COOL best game series ever. I don't think of horror.

OK, I'm gonna stop arguing over this, although I will point out, that in the case of Castlevania, I wasn't talking about horror as a feeling, but as a genre and style or something similar.

Well, it's very personal, but I really enjoy fun movies the best. I don't think I've ever even watched a truly horrifying film, they don't even attract me.

Yeah, I guess I underestimated the fact that people might not like tragic and/or depressing stuff to begin with. Sorry about that. It would kinda piss me off, though, if someone told me that they like depressing drama movies, like Requiem for a dream, but then tell me they wouldn't like horror, cause they don't like being depressed and/or scared. This, however, is not the case here.

[93143]

Trying to use the "omnipotence" of God as an excuse to ignore it is just sophistry.

I didn't think so... We're talking about the creator of every principle in existence.

Except principles that would have to have their foundation in God's own nature, like the one I cited. Things can be true or false about God, so the Principle of Contradiction can't be a created thing. It would have to be inherent in God's existence.

It makes me think of the whole Holy Trinity. How can 3 = 1, but 3 not = 4? And as I understand it, it's not like 1/3 x 3 = 1, it's 1 x 3 = 1.

Careful there. The Trinity is not supposed to be both three and one of the same type of thing. It's not three persons in one person, or three beings in one being. It's three persons in one being. We're used to one person corresponding to one being, so it's hard to understand. But it's not a contradiction in terms. If it were, we would know it was false.

I suppose one could compare it to how a 6502 wouldn't be able to understand the concept of two bytes in a single word. Only not; that's probably a worse analogy than the shamrock...

Anyway, I was going to comment further, but I suspect this isn't the right venue for such a discussion. I may or may not decide to PM you about it.

[DRW]

Well, sequels have to try out new things, otherwise it'll get stale.

Sure, but the movie is titles "A Nightmare on Elm Street", so it should keep that suburban feel. They went back to it in part 4, but unfortunately, the overall atmosphere has become too comedic by then.

Well, you're kinda focusing too much on action. While this is what the NES is really good at, it can do adventure games, involving exploration and puzzle-solving just fine.

It's just that you cannot really do this when you intend to create a game modeled specifically after the original movie. You could maybe do this with an original storyline based on the game. But not when you try to replay the first movie.
Furthermore, I explicitly want to do this as if it was created after the movie came out. Such a complex game doesn't fit into 1984/1985.

But, if you really want to make an arcade-style game, I am getting some vague ideas about a top-down perspective, with Freddy chasing you throughout the house, boiler room and other locations, while you have to navigate through them, avoiding obstacles, maybe solving simple puzzles or getting some items, something like that.

Yeah, top down was my preferred perspective as well since you can't really make it a platformer without it looking stupid. Or maybe changing perspectives: In the boiler room, it's classical top down. And in the house, it could be like in "Little Computer People".

Puzzle solving won't really work in a four level arcade looping highscore game.

Also, I must be careful to avoid that the game feels like "Pac-Man".

The movie's climax is perfect for a video game, because Nancy first gets Freddy into the real world and then has him chasing her throughout the house, setting off traps, that she made for him. The earlier scenes, though... Hmmm...

I thought about the following levels:

Level 1: The boiler room
When she falls asleep in school. Unfortunately, she wasn't in danger yet when walking though the school hall, only when the school has tranformed into the boiler room. This would have made for a nice setting.
Here, she has to reach the pipe to burn her arm to wake up.

Level 2: Elm Street
When she visits Rod cell, then is chased through the street, then through the house with the final battle in her bedroom until the alarm clock rings.

Level 3:
Boiler room again. This time she has to find Freddy and grab him in time to get back to the real world. The last scene could play in front of the house.

Level 4: House, including cellar
In the real world where Freddy first has to run into the traps, she has to smash the glass to call out to her father, then she has to set Freddy on fire.

But the really last finale where she turns her back on him, so he can't hurt her anymore and dissolves into light: I have no idea how to transform that into a video game.

[BioMechanical Dude]

It's just that you cannot really do this when you intend to create a game modeled specifically after the original movie. You could maybe do this with an original storyline based on the game. But not when you try to replay the first movie.

Actually, it can work pretty well. Look at games like Clock Tower on SNES. An adventure game, based on A Nightmare on Elm Street would be great in that way. You would have to take some liberties, but it's an adaptation, some changes have to be made. The point is to keep the most of the original content and feel. But, yeah, this work if this is a mid-80s style game.

But the really last finale where she turns her back on him, so he can't hurt her anymore and dissolves into light: I have no idea how to transform that into a video game.

I actually thought about this. The whole point is that throughout the movie, she has been afraid of Freddy and that's what gave him his power. She does not believe in him anymore, so he can't hurt her anymore. Throughout the game the player would be chased by Freddy. I think at the end, the player should not run away, but stay, let Freddy catch them and he'll dissolve into light, because the player is not afraid of him anymore. You can have some kind of text above saying "Freddy's not real. He can't hurt you." or something like that to hint the player, that they should do this.

Also, does the game have to be looping? Can't you have an ending and then have the game restart and be harder?
In fact, the movie's ending would work well here.

[DRW]

I think at the end, the player should not run away, but stay, let Freddy catch them and he'll dissolve into light, because the player is not afraid of him anymore. You can have some kind of text above saying "Freddy's not real. He can't hurt you." or something like that to hint the player, that they should do this.

This twist will work only once, so it will be pointless if you re-play the game. Also, how are you still supposed to lose in this situation? Because if you cannot lose, there's no need to make it a gameplay situation.

Maybe the game should end with Nancy putting Freddy on fire and then that scene is just a cutscene.

Also, does the game have to be looping? Can't you have an ending and then have the game restart and be harder?

Yes, that's what I mean: You get to see the ending and then the game starts again. Like in "Donkey Kong".

In fact, the movie's ending would work well here.

Well, I wouldn't pretend that Nancy literally has to go through the trouble again. The loop would just be rewinding the tape and the player has to play the movie once again. I wouldn't imply that Nancy has to re-live the story "Groundhog Day"-like.