next »

[ca3games]

Hello guys, I've always wondered why there's so few games that focus on non direct combat.

I mean, there's so much posibilities:

• Diferent types of magic
• Tricking the enemies
• Confusing them
• Bridbering them
• Making them bleed, poison, stone, diferent status
• Making them cursed by gods
• Summoning minions and summons
• Familiars and allies
• Using traps and pits
• Stealing them
• Luring them, food poisons

I'm sure there's other options, but to my surprise most games focus mostly on direct combat.
Of course this makes me sad because of the creative stagnation of games, but make me happy because there's a chance for something innovative.

[Xorglord]

I mean, the immediate answer is that these kinds of mechanics are a lot more complicated to create. Consider how simple it is to have a shoot / punch on an enemy, and track their health.

As opposed to that, looking through your list of ideas, around half of them require some kind of complicated AI programming. Tricking the enemies / confusing them / summoning allies / luring enemies. These are all things that for their interactions to work, and feel natural, would take a lot more effort.

Of course, that's not to say these aren't good ideas! They totally work, and have been implemented well in a number of games, but if something is more complicated to implement well, you're naturally going to see less of it.

[ca3games]

I mean, the immediate answer is that these kinds of mechanics are a lot more complicated to create. Consider how simple it is to have a shoot / punch on an enemy, and track their health.

As opposed to that, looking through your list of ideas, around half of them require some kind of complicated AI programming. Tricking the enemies / confusing them / summoning allies / luring enemies. These are all things that for their interactions to work, and feel natural, would take a lot more effort.

Of course, that's not to say these aren't good ideas! They totally work, and have been implemented well in a number of games, but if something is more complicated to implement well, you're naturally going to see less of it.

I do think is more like a lack of creativity than anything else.

[-Ross]

I do think is more like a lack of creativity than anything else.

If you already decided on the answer you wanted, why did you ask the question?

I agree with Xorglord, it's because it's more work to create good games with these ideas, and they don't have a guaranteed market. It's relatively easy and straightforward to make a fun, appealing game about punching things. The game industry isn't populated by mindless drones, I'd say just about everyone has thought about these ideas at some point. In fact almost every RPG has at least a couple of them. Bleeding, poison, summoning, allies, confusion, and traps are very common. High-budget games will always tend to lack innovation because the people paying for their production can't afford to risk millions of dollars on an untested idea with a questionable chance of success. The same is true for indies, though on a much smaller scale. Ideals about "creativity" are great, but at the end of the day most people don't want to spend their money and their life for no result other than personal satisfaction.

[ca3games]

I do think is more like a lack of creativity than anything else.

If you already decided on the answer you wanted, why did you ask the question?

I agree with Xorglord, it's because it's more work to create good games with these ideas, and they don't have a guaranteed market. It's relatively easy and straightforward to make a fun, appealing game about punching things. The game industry isn't populated by mindless drones, I'd say just about everyone has thought about these ideas at some point. In fact almost every RPG has at least a couple of them. Bleeding, poison, summoning, allies, confusion, and traps are very common. High-budget games will always tend to lack innovation because the people paying for their production can't afford to risk millions of dollars on an untested idea with a questionable chance of success. The same is true for indies, though on a much smaller scale. Ideals about "creativity" are great, but at the end of the day most people don't want to spend their money and their life for no result other than personal satisfaction.

There's no need to be aggressive though.
Just made this thread to discuss the idea.

So far can only think of roguelikes exploring these ideas as a legitimate way to play (Pacifist runs).

[Thaumaturge]

I imagine that non-combat solutions turn up reasonably often in point-and-click adventure games. Since there are no combat mechanics in most such, solutions tend to be as you describe: "use the sleeping potion on the guard", "play the harp to lull the dragon", etc.

For example, I recall LOOM having the player save a herd of sheep from predation by dragon not by fighting and slaying the wyrm, but instead by turning them green--hence blending them in against the green pasture in which they stood.

A slightly more general example might be found in the Quest for Glory series of games, which were a hybrid of point-and-click adventure and RPG: fighting enemies was generally only one way to proceed (and the encouraged way for the Fighter class), but players could also avoid combat via the "Calm" spell. For example, in Quest for Glory II the finale includes a fight against a powerful warrior--which can be skipped entirely by a magic-user (which a Fighter can be, if desired) via said spell, as I recall.

Overall, I do somewhat agree with the above poster that such solutions tend to be more complex to develop, especially as an addition to ordinary combat mechanics, and thus it seems natural to me that they would likely turn up less often.

[Al_B]

I think the reason these type of PASSIVE tactics aren't used much, because folks get a more VISCERAL feel from using combat in games (RPGs especially, due to the amount of reading, exploration, etc). It can feel more rewarding to swing a sword than say, planting a type of weed that prevents a forest fire or something like that. Most folks want to feel involved in the game.

Just my two cents...

[Tylenol]

Wouldn't an indirect combat system just count as a stealth killing mechanic?

Environmental, passive and indirect kills are all things that games like Hitman, Mark Of the Ninja etc used quite often.
If you want a system where killing someone/something feels rewarding like @AI_B said, you'd probably have to somehow make most kills feel like they make a difference.

[adrix89]

A couple of problems I can see:

First if a strategy works too well it would be used every time making the game trivial.

Second it requires high complexity for the AI and simulation. If Dwarf Fortress can do this then that's because of its complexity of simulation. And if its too simple then it hits the first point where its all shallow and boring.

Third with combat people have experience with how it works and in creating a meaningful satisfying challenge.
However there are games that tried some of those ideas also so its not all that hopeless. Games like Hitman, Dungeon Keeper, Orcs Must Die, Dwarf Fortress, Mount and Blade as well as RTS games in general can be used.

[gimymblert]

I mean, the immediate answer is that these kinds of mechanics are a lot more complicated to create. Consider how simple it is to have a shoot / punch on an enemy, and track their health.

As opposed to that, looking through your list of ideas, around half of them require some kind of complicated AI programming. Tricking the enemies / confusing them / summoning allies / luring enemies. These are all things that for their interactions to work, and feel natural, would take a lot more effort.

Of course, that's not to say these aren't good ideas! They totally work, and have been implemented well in a number of games, but if something is more complicated to implement well, you're naturally going to see less of it.

Complicated AI?
Luring: vector toward the bait, you already have movement and "following" behavior (in order to hit the enemy) in normal combat.
Confusing: state change, behavior 1 then goto confuse behavior 2 (confused state), more like what confused mean in your game, its' a design problem, game already have confused (rpg state) and it's generally random selection of movement or actions.
etc ...

People overcomplicate stuff, that's lack of creativity

Also ...

UNDERTALE

[Schoq]

I like monster infighting

[Thaumaturge]

Complicated AI?
Luring: vector toward the bait, you already have movement and "following" behavior (in order to hit the enemy) in normal combat.
Confusing: state change, behavior 1 then goto confuse behavior 2 (confused state), more like what confused mean in your game, its' a design problem, game already have confused (rpg state) and it's generally random selection of movement or actions.
etc ...

In all fairness, those approaches to the items listed aren't all that unusual, by my impression. The Evil Within had "luring"/"bait", I believe, and "confusion" is, as you mention, a fairly standard RPG status effect.

(Of course, if the original poster was suggesting a more natural form of confusion--that is, finding a way to leave a character uncertain of the truth of something--then that might be a little trickier, at least without it returning to something similar to the somewhat-simple approach mentioned above.)

Come to that, a few other items on that list--summons, status effects, and traps--are all staples of RPGs, if I'm not much mistaken.

[afender7]

I suppose the answer is stealth games. But even they tend to resort to aim-and-shoot or sneak-behind-and-stab more often than they ought to.

Hey, maybe Activision should do a Hacksaw Ridge game. [/s]