next »

[jamesprimate]

citing a positive example for a change, this seems awesome and clever: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/chroma-squad-produce-a-tv-show-in-this-very-meta-power-rangers-game

preserves all of the action gameplay elements you'd expect in a tactical combat game, but within a self-aware context, that adds an entirely new angle with potential to hugely expand gameplay and narrative possibilities. a developer could choose to do this sort of thing, or they could make Generic Hack-n-Slash Tactics Clone #345783465-B. Im just hoping to encourage the former  

[Sik]

it's not call hatred, it's call gta, hotline miami, unchartred, etc ...

Even those put a silly excuse to justify it (no matter how much sense it makes). Hatred is just blunt about the whole idea.

[SousaVilla]

citing a positive example for a change, this seems awesome and clever: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/chroma-squad-produce-a-tv-show-in-this-very-meta-power-rangers-game

preserves all of the action gameplay elements you'd expect in a tactical combat game, but within a self-aware context, that adds an entirely new angle with potential to hugely expand gameplay and narrative possibilities. a developer could choose to do this sort of thing, or they could make Generic Hack-n-Slash Tactics Clone #345783465-B. Im just hoping to encourage the former 

There's already some big games with some self-awareness of its violence like shadow of colossus, and now bloodborne, and even though I like these games they have this paradox since the main way of progressing through the story is exatcly the way that is criticized by the plot. It has some charm, but is the kind of the thing that is better used in special cases and I prefer not the see it everywhere. I wish more games that wanted to criticize violence would simply give bad feedback to players that decide to use it, or making impossible to do it altogether.   

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

Hatred seems to be postal 1997 bis.

[valrus]

There's already some big games with some self-awareness of its violence like shadow of colossus, and now bloodborne, and even though I like these games they have this paradox since the main way of progressing through the story is exatcly the way that is criticized by the plot. It has some charm, but is the kind of the thing that is better used in special cases and I prefer not the see it everywhere. I wish more games that wanted to criticize violence would simply give bad feedback to players that decide to use it, or making impossible to do it altogether.   

It's definitely a cake-and-eat-it kind of strategy.  I did like SotC a lot, although about halfway through I said "You're right, game, I shouldn't be doing this" and turned it off.

Speaking of which, one of the things I'd like to see is better support for the choice of no-kill runs, of levels or of the entire game, and within the realm of normal gameplay choices.  (That is, not just no-kill runs for experts, or unlockable on your second playthrough, or via exploits, but intended from the beginning to be a valid play style that a new player might choose.)  I thought Dishonored did this pretty well, except for a glitched choice near the end of the game.

In some games it wouldn't even require a significant overhaul, just a little more attention to structure, so that you don't put a forced-kill objective as a bottleneck in an arc that can otherwise be completed by no-kill play.

[s0]

I thought Dishonored did this pretty well, except for a glitched choice near the end of the game.

many of the "non lethal takedowns" in dishonored are much more cruel than killing your target imo

[Schoq]

I haven't played dishonored but what can you do to a person that's less moral than killing them?

[s0]

iirc some of the "non lethal" methods resulted in the likely death of your target except slower and more painful than if you'd just killed them right away. there were (again iirc) several instances where you basically just delegated the murder to someone else. i also thought selling that one guy into slavery was pretty sadistic compared to just slitting his throat or watever.

i replaced morally reprehensible with cruel, illustrates my point better

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

Firt Person Lover does it well with the power of love.

[gimymblert]

We should make a list of game that allow non violent run or are non violent, as a way too look for gameplay loop that work and inspire:

- Princess maker
- tokimeki memorial
- harvest moon
- deus ex HR director's cut
- animal crossing
- professor layton
- phoenix wright
- sports game
- jet set radio
- peggle
- match 3 and tetris like
- sim city and management game without war
- racing, driving and simulator genre
- adventure game in general
- puzzle games
- the sims
- minecraft creative mode
- fez
- journey
- world of goo
- dance and rythm game
- super monkey ball
- pet games
- walking simulator (stanlay parable, gone home, etc ...)
- tiny wing
- democracy
- lemmings
- education game



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_video_game

http://feministfrequency.com/2011/12/14/top-10-best-non-violent-iphone-games/


Let's be honest, when people talk of non violent game they want "action game" with high frequency of high tension but dead simple actions" generally "view based game" (tps, fps, etc ...) with space traversal.

That's why minecraft is so successful, he made one simple non violent action the basis of the whole game, collecting and placing is high frequency, motivated and challenging.

[cynicalsandel]

visual novels are nonviolent but are a little light on gameplay.

[gimymblert]

shooter are light on gameplay too, copy pasting the same element over and over isn't gameplay, it's churning. People dn't just understand choice as a mechanics is rooted in understanding, understanding is a gameplay mechanics because at the moment of the choice every bit of information counted, ie text is gameplay if you don't pay attention you can't make the choice or the choice is irrelevant. If anything sid meiers said, a game is a series of interesting decision, then visual novel are more of a game than shooter, most of the decision in shooter are not decision or are not interesting.

[valrus]

iirc some of the "non lethal" methods resulted in the likely death of your target except slower and more painful than if you'd just killed them right away. there were (again iirc) several instances where you basically just delegated the murder to someone else. i also thought selling that one guy into slavery was pretty sadistic compared to just slitting his throat or watever.

i replaced morally reprehensible with cruel, illustrates my point better

Crueler than killing them, certainly, and maybe even more morally reprehensible.  (I don't remember a delegated murder option, but there was a pretty stark one where you come to realize that you've kidnapped a woman for a lovesick weirdo.)

I like always having the choice to not kill, but for me it's ok if the story is such that sometimes the no-kill choice leads to a morally bad outcome.  (I kind of prefer that to the normal RPG "moral choice", e.g., "Save the sick child, or murder their parents?")

[MeshGearFox]

shmups are actually oblique math simulators.

[valrus]

We should make a list of game that allow non violent run or are non violent, as a way too look for gameplay loop that work and inspire:

- Tony Hawk, other skate games, Dolphin Olympics
- Stunt games (e.g. Trials HD)
- Surgery and medical sims
- Logistics games (e.g. Flight Control)
- Time management
- Business sims
- Trade games (e.g. Taipan!, Gazillionaire)
- Many idle games
- VVVVVV, Super Meat Boy, You Have To Win the Game, that whole style of platformer
- Starseed Pilgrim
- Parkour games (Mirror's Edge, Dustforce)
- Grow Home
- Many stealth games
- Scribblenauts

This would good to split off into another thread for later reference.

[vinheim3]

Similarly to dustforce, would An Untitled Story count? While there are bosses, I find there's a lot more emphasis on a variety of platforming gauntlets, and a lot of enemies you tackle in a way that they help you, more than just being a hindrance that you kill to get out of your way. I think more platformers could take this approach, and be more of a platformer than just another action variant

[oahda]

Bosses, if a game otherwise more or less lacks violence, are a prime example of violence thrown in for content IMO.

Can't remember its title now, but a game has been mentioned here a few times where there is optional violence that can be avoided entirely if one so wishes, except for the bosses. That's dumb. It breaks the whole setup.

[JWK5]

^^^ Deus Ex: Human Revolution

[Nillo]

I like always having the choice to not kill, but for me it's ok if the story is such that sometimes the no-kill choice leads to a morally bad outcome.  (I kind of prefer that to the normal RPG "moral choice", e.g., "Save the sick child, or murder their parents?")

Yeah, I actually found the moral ambiguity of Dishonored refreshing in that regard. In most games the "good" choice is so obvious that it's almost immersion-breaking.

[s0]

iirc some of the "non lethal" methods resulted in the likely death of your target except slower and more painful than if you'd just killed them right away. there were (again iirc) several instances where you basically just delegated the murder to someone else. i also thought selling that one guy into slavery was pretty sadistic compared to just slitting his throat or watever.

i replaced morally reprehensible with cruel, illustrates my point better

Crueler than killing them, certainly, and maybe even more morally reprehensible.  (I don't remember a delegated murder option, but there was a pretty stark one where you come to realize that you've kidnapped a woman for a lovesick weirdo.)

I like always having the choice to not kill, but for me it's ok if the story is such that sometimes the no-kill choice leads to a morally bad outcome.  (I kind of prefer that to the normal RPG "moral choice", e.g., "Save the sick child, or murder their parents?")

point is, dishonored is not a nonviolent game by any stretch