Decline So much potential for Lovecraftian Games, yet so little effort

[aleph]

Ebonsword: "The Hoofed Thing" sounds great, thanks

 

[Comte]

Terror from the Deep is my favorite Lovecraftian game

 

[chestburster]

You guys need to read some of the Lovecraftian fiction that Robert Howard wrote.

Yes and since we're talking about fan fictions, homages and random stories written by Lovecraft's beer buddy, apparently anything can be "Lovecraftian" as long as it quotes HPL mythos in names or bears graphical likeness.

In that case, don't know what the OP is complaining about. There are many games on the market in which you can shoot Cthulhu in the face (which I enjoyed greatly for their cheesiness). For example this:

 

[trustno1code]

Try the mentioned Darkness Within: In Pursuit of Loath Nolder (here or here or trade for pennies because bundles) for a solid effort. It manages to create a really good Lovecraftian atmosphere without being blatant about it (well made adventure game overall). The sequel is clearly rushed, and less subtle, but still better than most stuff with Shoggoths in wells.

 

[Night Goat]

You don't survive or retain your sanity in the face of a Lovecraftian being. Period.

Go read The Dunwich Horror, you fucking poser.

 

[chestburster]

You don't survive or retain your sanity in the face of a Lovecraftian being. Period.

Go read The Dunwich Horror, you fucking poser.

So apparently random slimy monsters and such all qualify as "Lovecraftian beings", just because HPL wrote about them. Why don't you also mention witches, ghouls and niggers?

Thanks for being so shallow. Now go watch your tentacle hentai.

 

[Excidium]

You people are p. dumb

 

[chestburster]

August Derleth approves this thread:

 

[argan]

Try the mentioned Darkness Within: In Pursuit of Loath Nolder (here or here or trade for pennies because bundles) for a solid effort. It manages to create a really good Lovecraftian atmosphere without being blatant about it (well made adventure game overall). The sequel is clearly rushed, and less subtle, but still better than most stuff with Shoggoths in wells.

This. The atmosphere is really good, and quite uncomfortable in many cases. I never did bring myself to finish the sequel, it felt less polished.

 

[A user named cat]

Try the mentioned Darkness Within: In Pursuit of Loath Nolder (here or here or trade for pennies because bundles) for a solid effort. It manages to create a really good Lovecraftian atmosphere without being blatant about it (well made adventure game overall). The sequel is clearly rushed, and less subtle, but still better than most stuff with Shoggoths in wells.

This. The atmosphere is really good, and quite uncomfortable in many cases. I never did bring myself to finish the sequel, it felt less polished.

I actually did the opposite, finished the sequel but not the first one. Really should go back to it some day. There was certainly a lack of polish in the sequel but the patch helped quite a bit. I especially enjoyed the ride once you reach the old mansion. The whole ending area was far too rushed though and a let down, should've been longer. Still, it's worth playing through if you can look past a few inane puzzles (don't feel guilty for checking a walkthrough) and the whole Amnesia vibe it gave off. I had posted a bunch of pics while playing through a while back, thankfully dug them up.

Major spoiler warning

 

[ZodoZ]

imho:
Lovecraft wove his stories from vocabulary that invoked atmosphere as much from what he did not write as from what he did write.

Maybe someone could come along and unearth his literary work as the basis of some type of game.
Not sure that anyone could translate into a game what Lovecraft created with writing {at this time-technology level}

Once, and if, someone develops some kind of VR suit - or maybe some kind of chamber for eXtremists.

Maybe like this - but with semi-comatose drug induced dream interaction interface.

In other words, the day scientists introduce gaming software for my hard-wired cranial rig - I want the Lovecraft eXperience.

Well, I can dream still, can't I ?

 

[Gragt]

I don't know why combat doesn't fit Lovecraftian fiction. Just because Lovecraft wasn't really good at writing action scenes — well, he wasn't really good at writing fiction in general and action in particular — doesn't mean it's out of place. Lovecraft did pulp fiction after all. Many board games with a Lovecraft theme feature combat and still retain the dark and oppressive atmosphere, although in this case combat is only one option available and depending on the enemy might best be avoided in some circumstances.

 

[warpig]

Depends how the combat is handled. A combat heavy game with a Ramboid protagonist armed with BFG-esque weaponry who is effortlessly killing enemies by the hundreds hardly feels "Lovecraftian". You are not going to feel terrified when your character is a big bad motherfucker. Combat shouldn't be the main focus of a "Lovecraftian" game, and it should be difficult, the player should be aware of his vulnerability. Enemies that are nearly impossible to defeat and are better to be avoided would be a nice feature.

 

[Azrael the cat]

It's because the addition of visuals makes clear the weakness of Lovecraft's writing.

The supposed strength of Lovecraft is the idea of a creature/creatures/planes that reveal humanity as completely meaningless. But there's never any reason why that should be the case. Something that can kill/enslave en masse doesn't significantly alter the human condition - if anything, the constant threat of uncontrollable, unpredictable mortality makes life even more meaningful (suicides are notoriously a 1st world problem).

The idea of something beyond all human comprehension doesn't make humanity meaningless - it's been the key to humans FINDING meaning. We already KNOW that the universe bears absolutely no resemblance to our everyday perception of things: ever since the dawn of quantum mechanics we've known that time is a dimension affected by mass and gravity, and that there's no such thing as physical matter (let alone solid objects) but merely probabilities of particles existing in a certain space and time. We know that if we're not observing an object, none of its constituent particles are fixed in space or time, but merely exist as a series of probabilities (where the probability of a particle existing in some spots is greater than in others, so that when combined they give the illusion of object permanence). Ordinary science has long shifted the reality of the universe far beyond anything the human brain can directly comprehend.

If we lived forever, and there was nothing that could not be understood by the human mind (at least in theory), THEN there might be a reasonable basis for holding that life is meaningless (Tolstoy's unsatisfied hedonism and all that). But the concept of some ultra-complex godlike creature making life meaningless is just silly - there's literally nothing to separate Lovecraft's horrors from your average pantheistic religion (which Lovecraft DID think of as a source of unimagineable horror for some reason).

Lovecraft presents that shit as mind-destroying because he was a doctrinaire modernist and couldn't handle the idea that humanity might not be on an 'onwards and upwards old chap' singular path to enlightenment - so he equates the idea that western civilisation is trivial in the context of the universe with some unspeakable madness that ought destroy everything one sees as meaningful. But most of us find that idea completely trivial - of COURSE the atoms and stars that make up the universe couldn't give a shit about western civilisation.

Presented in book form, he's able to fudge it a little bit, by inviting the reader into the narrator's head so that you adopt his modernist perspective. Even then, it isn't actually scary - the most you can say is 'I get why the narrator finds it unimaginably horrific, because he's a modernist and can't handle being insignificant to the universe'. When you put visuals to it, so you're approaching it from your own perspective, instead of that of a quintessential modernist, all you've got is a murderous mook from a fairly dull patheistic religion.

 

[ZodoZ]

I'm guessing you think R.A. Salvatore is a much more better writer than HPL?

well, he wasn't really good at writing fiction in general and action in particular — doesn't mean it's out of place. Lovecraft did pulp fiction after all.

"...he is now regarded as one of the most significant 20th-century authors in his genre." - Wikipedia
Yeah, I know, wikipedia is not "official", but maybe you should try reading his works?

Let's point out the obvious:

1) A person who would quarterback a Lovercraftian game would by default be a huge Lovecraft fan. Otherwise, why?
2) Any Lovecraftian writings fan would most likely not debase the inspiration for his project by including heavy combat elements.

Why? Because a true fan understands that Lovecraft did not write Conan books and although a lot of fantasy is part of his work, the protagonists were not Lara Croft/Indiana Jones/Conans/Fighter magic users/warlocks or Night Elf Rogues. Maybe Alan Wake type - that type of combat would be more true to HPL writing.

 

[groke]

Lovecraft is pulp fiction, dood. Acting like his work (however enjoyable) is some tier above Robert E. Howard because he wrote about scientists banishing invisible space-tentacles is retarded.

 

[ZodoZ]

Dood, Pulp Fiction is a 1994 film directed by Quentin Tarantino.

No one is acting.

The only tier you understand most likely is w/e one piece of tier armor your WoW character is wearing.

Leave this debate to people who can appreciate the nuances young man.

Thank you for playing.

Next.

 

[Gragt]

"...he is now regarded as one of the most significant 20th-century authors in his genre." - Wikipedia
Yeah, I know, wikipedia is not "official", but maybe you should try reading his works?

Good to know you assumed things prior to writing your reply. It always helps to know where the discussion is going. And I guess I can believe Wikipedia about his reputation but that's no argument about the quality of his writing, is it?

1) A person who would quarterback a Lovercraftian game would by default be a huge Lovecraft fan. Otherwise, why?

Because there are good things to take out of Cthulhu Mythos without being a huge fan of Lovecraft.

2) Any Lovecraftian writings fan would most likely not debase the inspiration for his project by including heavy combat elements.

Again that's assuming that anyone leading such a project would consider Lovecraft's writing as Holy Scriptures which should be followed reverently, something rather laughable considering the pulp fiction world it belongs to. And speaking of characters, those are one of Lovecraft's weak points as there is not a single one that really leave a mark on a story, not a piece of memorable dialog, etc. Lovecraft's stories have never been about the characters but the events they find themselves in.

Lovecraft is pulp fiction, dood. Acting like his work (however enjoyable) is some tier above Robert E. Howard because he wrote about scientists banishing invisible space-tentacles is retarded.

I started to read Howard recently and have been pleasantly surprised. He is very much a pulp writer but he has some way with words, characters and storytelling that is consistently solid and at times clever. He's definitely a step above Lovecraft, despite the latter being regarded in pop culture as the better writer.

Dood, Pulp Fiction is a 1994 film directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Well this clarifies things further.

 

[MapMan]

Check out those projects:
http://www.u55.eu/
http://www.routinegame.com/

 

[ZodoZ]

"...he is now regarded as one of the most significant 20th-century authors in his genre." - Wikipedia
Yeah, I know, wikipedia is not "official", but maybe you should try reading his works?

Good to know you assumed things prior to writing your reply. It always helps to know where the discussion is going. And I guess I can believe Wikipedia about his reputation but that's no argument about the quality of his writing, is it?

Sorry not following your train of thought here. So significant does not equate to quality? Wikipedia saying "his genre" kind of explains things. It was his.

1) A person who would quarterback a Lovercraftian game would by default be a huge Lovecraft fan. Otherwise, why?

Because there are good things to take out of Cthulhu Mythos without being a huge fan of Lovecraft.

Yeah, sure, D&D is a good example. They included the Cthulu mythos in one of their rule books iirc.

2) Any Lovecraftian writings fan would most likely not debase the inspiration for his project by including heavy combat elements.

Again that's assuming that anyone leading such a project would consider Lovecraft's writing as Holy Scriptures which should be followed reverently, something rather laughable considering the pulp fiction world it belongs to. And speaking of characters, those are one of Lovecraft's weak points as there is not a single one that really leave a mark on a story, not a piece of memorable dialog, etc. Lovecraft's stories have never been about the characters but the events they find themselves in.

Not really where I was going with that. So you don't think that in this day and age someone would have to be kinda OCD about Lovecraft's writing to undertake a serious attempt at a game based on it. Maybe your right. IDK.

Lovecraft is pulp fiction, dood. Acting like his work (however enjoyable) is some tier above Robert E. Howard because he wrote about scientists banishing invisible space-tentacles is retarded.

I started to read Howard recently and have been pleasantly surprised. He is very much a pulp writer but he has some way with words, characters and storytelling that is consistently solid and at times clever. He's definitely a step above Lovecraft, despite the latter being regarded in pop culture as the better writer.

They seem too different to compare to me. Like if I tried to compare The Hobbit to the Dragonlance series. Both enjoyable in their own right, I don't feel the need to put one above the other on a bookshelf.

Dood, Pulp Fiction is a 1994 film directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Well this clarifies things further.

Well how am I supposed to answer a kid who writes "dood" and "retarded" and at the same time attempts to fool monkeys in to believing that type of response is alpha male scholar material or really destined for much more than a facebook like by a bro of his?

 

[groke]

RPGCodex is serious business.

EDIT:

Well how am I supposed to answer a kid who writes "dood" and "retarded" and at the same time attempts to fool monkeys in to believing that type of response is alpha male scholar material or really destined for much more than a facebook like by a bro of his?

Actually, maybe you should learn how a fucking comma works before you call me on my choice of invective.

 

[Ebonsword]

Lovecraft is pulp fiction, dood. Acting like his work (however enjoyable) is some tier above Robert E. Howard because he wrote about scientists banishing invisible space-tentacles is retarded.

I started to read Howard recently and have been pleasantly surprised. He is very much a pulp writer but he has some way with words, characters and storytelling that is consistently solid and at times clever. He's definitely a step above Lovecraft, despite the latter being regarded in pop culture as the better writer.

Agreed--Howard is vastly underrated as a writer. Mocking someone for thinking Lovecraft is better than a "crap" author like Howard is like mocking someone for preferring Arthur Conan Doyle to a "crap" author like G.K. Chesterton.

 

[octavius]

I've read both Lovecraft and Howard recently; Lovecraft for the first time, and Howard for the first time since I read some Conan stories 20 years ago. There's no doubt Howard was technically the better writer, and unlike Lovecraft he could write both action (very well) and dialogue, and overall his prose is less dated and more varied than Lovecraft's.
But Lovecraft had the better ideas, and was good at writing "moody" descriptions. His horror stories have not aged very well, since we're all too jaded to become scared of them nowadays, but his earlier Dunsanian "Dream Cycle" stories hold up better IMO.

As for games that capture the Lovecraftian mood, I think Thief: The Dark Project does to some degree, especially the supernatural levels, without really trying (AFAIK) to be Lovecraftian, with a very vulnerable protagonist sneaking around in dark places.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

In terms of a stylistic comparison between Howard and Lovecraft, Howard's Worms of the Earth is mandatory reading. Howard's "let's get shit done" approach to storytelling lends itself to gaming, whereas Lovecraft's slow (turgid in the case of At the Mountains of Madness) build up to an eventual payoff is more suited to passive media. The 1973 film The Wicker Man is very Lovecraftian in the sense that 99% of the move is atmospheric build up. It's a classic movie, but it'd make a shitty game.

 

[chestburster]

...

Dude you can't call something "trivial" simply because YOU happen to know/understand it beforehand.

Lovecraft's nihilistic attitude toward "science" and reason is not mainstream even to this day.

During my many years of interacting with scientists, I'm surprised regularly that a majority of scientists haven't even heard of the concept of Kuhn's paradigm shift. I can very much imagine their utmost disgust if presented with the Lovecraftian idea that the universe is ultimately meaningless and incomprehensible.

You talk about quantum physics. Mind you, there is AFAIK no satisfactory ontological explanation for quantum physics yet. And if you venture into the realm of complexity, cellular automata and theoretical biology, you'd notice that a new paradigm shift is coming and many questions could potentially be proven to be unsolvable and incomprehensible.

Put yourself in the shoes of a "man of science" who believes that science and reason can give the answer to everything, yes Lovecraft's idea is horrifying and can drive you insane.