As someone who likes scary games, but not hard games, I'm wondering if someone could give me some insight on Outlast 2? Can you die? Is there combat? Is it hard? Do you need to hide?

You can achieve the same horror by limiting ammo and weapons, giving you a choice whether to fight, run or hide. This can be accompanied by scenes with enemies you cannot kill so you have to run or hide, also stealth kills should be possible.

I don't think so. Limited ways of killing are still ways to get rid of that what scares you, ultimately diminishing it's threat and danger to you. The perceived follows the real.

As for the in-game logic, why "should" stealth kills be possible? As with all means to fight, it depends on the nature of the threat. Classic zombies should be killable by enough damage to the head and it would feel strange in a game if I couldn't try to use any blunt object to try, but ghosts or other less human or animal-like horrors like The Blob can make any normal weapon useless. Stealth depends on the awareness and senses of the opponents – it may only work to some extend but not up close, or not at all.

It also depends of the protagonist. Not all people are able or willing to fight. They may be too weak (children, seniors, sluggards) or psychologically inhibited (like in the games Penumbra and Amnesia). The monsters can be just too tough for humans to fight directly (Aliens). Weapons are not available everywhere (even in America ;) ) and makeshift ones may be just not enough to harm your adversary. A game may even give you real weapons, only to discover that they don't help you one bit (apart from breaking doors etc.)

Most of the above reasons are about the in-game logic why fighting may not be an option. From an narrative standpoint, it comes down to whether helplessness raises fear. I still think it does, you don't. All the better there are different games available for both our tastes.

edit: As an afterthought, opposable enemies may also focus your thinking too much on killing them. I noticed that about myself in Penumbra 1, where just avoiding them didn't feel enough somehow. (In Thief 1-3 I didn't have that effect, but that may have come from the overall premise of being a thief, not an assassin.) Taking away that "distraction" may free the player's mind for the rest of the game. In any case, it adds to my understanding and acceptance why developers would choose this approach.

If you're not going to let the player defend themselves, the game needs to offer something else. Penumbra had puzzles whereas way too many "new" horror games (including outlast) have barely any game to them. Not letting me/my character interact in ANY way feels extremely artificial, especially with the danger they're frequently in and it's amplified by the monotony of doing it over and over again. Even if it was just a shove or a punch that only worked to push away weak enemies for a second, hell even if the punch did nothing, at least I was able to come to the conclusion of "don't bother trying to fight" myself instead of having to take the game's word for it.

Right on. And unlike V4V's examples up there, in the Outlast series you're generally not up against superhuman aliens, demons or whatever. You're up against humans. They may be pretty damn crazed, messed up humans, but they're still human, with all the limitations that ( should ) come with that.

And while I understand that the characters you're playing are supposed to be reporters, not soldiers, anyone can and will attempt to defend themselves when their life is threatened, no matter how futile that attempt may seem. Think about it -- when some crazy psychos are coming for you, what's the first thing you do? You try to arm yourself, to improve your chances of survival if it comes to a fight. And I'm not talking about a shotgun or machete here -- a big ol' stick, a rock, a bottle, a frying pan... generally anything is better than trying to fight with your bare hands, especially when the attackers are armed. It's ridiculous that the protagonists in these modern horror games won't even attempt to fight back. It feels forced and unrealistic, like various other aspects of the gameplay. And it also carries the risk of making what's left of the gameplay seem repetitive, as you mentioned. I haven't seen enough of Outlast 2 at this point, but I thought the gameplay in the first felt very repetitive after the first few hours.

That is exactly what I mean. You should at least be able to stun enemies or disable them temporarily. Even if you are uncapable of fighting back, at least set up traps for enemies should be possible. The best horror experience I had was when I was underpowered but not completely passive like in old Resident Evil, Silent Hill or Condemned. Adding sequences where you have no choice but to run or hide adds to the thrill as well, but making a complete game out of this just doesn't work for me. The whole setting of the Outlast games looks promising to me but the gameplay is just nothing that appeals to me.

I've been following a walkthrough of the game (at MrKravin). The game looks more cinematic than the first one, with some added gameplay elements, like crawling and using audio cues. I'm not liking the storyline as much though. I feel like I've seen very similar things in horror movies, so it feels more predictable than the first game game in this regard. Still, it's certainly a fun game to watch.

However I'm not in the right consumer group for these types of game, when it comes to horror I prefer stuff like Stasis, System Shock 2, Deadly Premonition, Sanitarium, Dark Fall, Harvester and so on.

The production value is the most impressive thing so far in this new game. It shows they had a much bigger budget to work with.

OK now I'm trying to figure out what those have in common. I guess you prefer a stronger focus on story and richer gameplay, rather than non-stop action and jump-scares? Or is it something else? Hm, I still need to play Stasis and its sequel.

I've been watching an hour or two of Outlast 2 as well. Has some good and some bad things going for it, but I agree that the production values seem impressive. I mean, even the first one was remarkable for the efforts of a small team, but the sequel seems very much like a "AAA" production.

If you're a fan of slasher flicks then Outlast 2 seems like a safe bet, just know it comes with quirks common to that genre. In the opening few minutes the protagonist is prompted to explore the new camera options by filming the flaming wreckage of a crash that may contain his wife's body. Imagine if a family member was seriously injured in an accident and your immediate response was to film it as it was happening before even checking on them. Priorities!

im getting it but no way in hell am I going to play it. I'll watch from a safe distance while my husband drills thru it :P

Hmm .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEkp0iuwfVs

Hey Bonsewswesa, CharlesGrey, and AHF1349,

it took me a while to answer because of a busy week. We're not that far apart actually. I'm not against ways to fight back in horror games if the balance of power remains clearly shifted against the player's protagonist(s). I just wanted to take the cudgels for games without any means of fighting, which may have good reasons or even add to the experience. I concur that it's illogical with enemies you should be able to fight.

Some of my all-time favorite games are the classic Thief games and System Shock 2 which gave me the creeps many times despite many ways to dispose of enemies. That said, SS2 is also a good example how the enemies are robbed of their menace if the protagonist gets too powerful, which usually happens towards the end of the game. But then, SS2 isn't a horror game per se, but an narrative sci-fi action-rpg with horror elements.

I didn't play Outlast yet, but I bought part one in the last sale, and I am curious if I will experience the issues you brought up. However, I may not play it until fall when the evenings get longer, because I only play horror games when it's dark.