Horror developers need to study human psychology more.

[Air]

I mean, really, that's the problem with most horror games, they're lacking the the most important element to scaring someone: and that would be screwing with the player's head in unexpected ways. It doesn't matter how well-made a horror game is, it just can't be very scary if it doesn't use psychology to push players out of a sense of normality in the game.

I'll be honest, A Machine for Pigs only scared me in any way on two occasions-
1: A door slammed shut when I tried to open it.
2: The game glitched out and one of the "pigs" suddenly appeared right in front of me.

Other than that, nothing got to me. Why? It was all too expected. The first thing is that the "pigs" aren't surprising because you're given a peek at them beforehand(taking away the "What the HELL is THAT?" element as they chase you). The second thing is that there are no other monsters besides them, so you always know that kind of monster to expect. Thirdly, the "pigs" have absolutely no variation in behavior(They walk around. They chase and attack you when they see you. End of story).

Not to say that the game is bad or that I didn't enjoy it when I played it, it just didn't scare, pressure, confuse, or suprise.

[illgib]

You claim "psychologic horror" then point out all the elements of the modern "BOOH" scare fest.
Sorry mate that you didn't find it "scary" as you expected, but it's one of the most disturbing installements of the last years, if you only cared more about the notes and Mandus psichology instead of searching for cheap scares.

[Wang]

Personally I think they did one thing right. My biggest fear in games is when you don't know what, where or how a monster is/are/look likes. Like the invisble lightning pigs in the sewers.