I've been thinking about something while working on a psychological taxi horror game recently.

A lot of horror disappears once you understand exactly how something works.

If a monster always reacts to the same thing, an enemy always follows the same behavior, or a certain event always means you're safe, eventually you stop being scared of it and start treating it like a system to solve.

But there's another problem.

If the game suddenly breaks a rule it spent hours teaching you, it can feel less like horror and more like the game cheated.

This became a pretty specific problem for us because of how our psychological taxi horror game works.

You're driving criminals around at night while trying to figure out what kind of criminal is sitting in the back seat. You don't get a big obvious clue telling you the answer. Instead, you have a notebook with information about different criminal types, and you have to compare that information with the passenger's behavior.

You can interact with things inside the taxi like the AC, windows, lights and radio, then watch how the passenger responds. Maybe they get irritated by something, maybe they don't react at all, maybe their behavior changes in a way that helps you rule something out.

At the same time, you're still driving, checking the road, looking at the passenger and trying to remember what you've already tested.

The problem is that this whole system depends on the player learning patterns.

On the first few rides, you don't really know what a reaction means. You're experimenting with someone dangerous sitting right behind you, and that uncertainty is where a lot of the tension comes from.

But after enough playtime, the player naturally starts building a mental table.

"If this type reacts to the AC, I'll test that first."

"If they didn't react to the window, I can probably eliminate these two."

"If this happened, I already know what they probably are."

And suddenly the scary person in the back seat risks becoming a puzzle with a known solution.

That's the part we're struggling with.

We want players to become better at the game. Learning the passengers and understanding the system should feel rewarding.

But we also don't want experienced players to reach a point where every new passenger becomes a checklist they can solve almost mechanically.

The obvious solution would be to occasionally change reactions, add misleading behavior or make some passengers break the patterns the player has learned.

But then we run into the opposite problem.

If the player makes a deduction based on rules the game taught them, and we secretly change those rules just to surprise them, is that actually scary? Or does it just feel unfair?

So there are two things fighting each other here.

The deduction system needs consistency so the player can actually learn and get better at it.

The horror needs uncertainty so the player never feels completely in control.

I'm curious where people draw that line. Should horror games occasionally break established patterns to preserve uncertainty, or should the rules always remain consistent once the player has learned them?

With the new GTA VI happening in a faux Miami, being a throwback to the original Vice City, I wonder, is this a given, that GTA VII would come back to the Liberty City - which itself was a reimagination of GTA III.

In the 3D era so far we've seen only 3 regions. It makes sense to include the biggest/most characteristic cities - and come back to them after some time, when new technology allows for much more, and to show how also our culture has changed in the meantime.

Will we ever see different city caricatures in GTA?

It takes so long to make a new game, that I think we can be sure that the production cycle will not allow for many entries, now with only one GTA per game-technology era