Noncombat realistic gameplay and writing

[doomed89]

I've been thinking on this for a while, as I'm sure many others have too. I can't for the life of me think of a well written game that does not either have combat (ex. pretty much everything) or isn't really abstract (ex. Super Brothers, Thomas was Alone, Braid). When I say abstract, I mean how in comparison to the combat games, the gameplay kinda doesn't make sense. Platformers make no realistic sense at all, especially.

The only style I could think of that might fit is point and click, but even then the gameplay is never challenging, it's never about honing skill, it's just messing with combinations and clues until you find the right one.

This is probably one of the biggest issues the industry faces, as there is so much more potential for the medium than just violence. How can we approach this and find a decent solution?

The issue is they are trying to ground their games in reality not that there aren't a lot of gameplay elements to ground to reality. As for some examples though Mirror's Edge is a platform that makes realistic sense, point and click adventure games can make sense, racing games make sense. But again there is no reason games have to make realistic sense, in fact it does them a disservice quite often.

 

[Bonk4licious]

Heavy Rain didn't involve any combat that the player forced onto people, but it wasn't exactly a game filled with bright tones either. I think Quantum Dream is one of those few publishers that really knows how to set up a story in a different way from what we're expecting, and I'm excited for their coming next gen projects.

I think the big problem is that publishers that want to make these experiences always relate video game stories to multi-person conflicts, basically wars on different scales. Characters can live their life and deal with internal conflicts, but I guess developers don't think we learned anything unless we killed someone before our decision of what socks to wear for the morning, which will probably stain the socks they didn't want you to wear anyway, because multiple paths are hard to design for. I want to see some character development like from Spec Ops or Heavy Rain, but maybe we'll have to go through some more tasteless shooters before these ideals come through.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Er...what's wrong with having simple gameplay in point and click adventure games, where the story is more important than button mashing?

But, if you wanted fancier gameplay without combat, I guess you can just stick a flight simulator in there somewhere or something.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

I'd like to see a few new concepts, but not necessarily by abolishing combat. Instead, combat is regarded as a means to an end, not the most important thing in the gameplay.

What about a mystery game where you have only one single enemy, who is undefeatable for a large portion of the game? I thought of this when reading the tales of Jim Corbett, a British hunter who was known for killing a number of man-eating leopards and tigers, some of whom racked up to 400 kills while terrorizing a wide area.

It shouldn't be purely scripted either, rather you are left to your own devices to stalk the predator AI(or killer or whatever) and the AI has a behaviour of its own, but you can't effectively kill it until you progress in the story etc.

 

[Racecarlock]

I mean that we have all of this untapped potential, but no grasp on where to go with it. I want more System Shocks and Braids, but I also want the elusive game where it feels grounded, and violence and death aren't at the forefront. Surely we as an industry can come up with something, but where do we start?

Have you tried the sims? It's basically a life simulator where you can make a person and tweak things down to an insane level (in fact, you can make him insane or give him traits like "Can't stand art"), and then you can make his house and have him learn stuff and interact with people and make lunch and lots of other things.

It really is a great game series, and it sounds like exactly what you're looking for. The sims 3 even lets you roam around town.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

Thomas was Alone, Braid

you know naturally in both these games i killed myself which was I guess kinda violent.

Players are always drawn to violent actions because even if its never an intended action its a players natural instinct to test the parameters of their play space.

(of course that's violence assumed from an external viewpoint.)

I think so long as a game gives us control it has the potential to be viewed or played violently and that's a potential that will always be there.

Among many things Spec Ops the line showed us that given every opportunity we won't put the control down, given games will always have the potential for violence i would suggest it's better to hope for games that discuss violence as a actionable property with a greater richness

 

[yamy]

Portal! Great gameplay, great story! The gameplay isn't realistic exactly but it's not that much of an abstract concept (speedy things goes in, speedy things comes out ). Apart from the portals themselves it's all based on physics.

 

[IronMit]

Do conversations count? LA Noire, Deus ex Human Revolution' conversations
Does is have to be realistic: Portal 1-2
Can it stretch the boundaries of realism; mirror's edge, Prince of Persia platforming

puzzles - The last of us could of had more complicated platforming involving ladders/planks. Possibly physics based
Hacking mini games.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I think I should clarify, when I said realistic, I meant grounded. In that sense, Portal is realistic, because even though you're dealing with a sci fi portal gun, it makes sense in the game world, which is mainly grounded in reality.

 

[doomed89]

I think I should clarify, when I said realistic, I meant grounded. In that sense, Portal is realistic, because even though you're dealing with a sci fi portal gun, it makes sense in the game world, which is mainly grounded in reality.

Again why would you want that. The game is good because it doesn't care about being realistic, they didn't go way off the reservation but honestly why shouldn't games? Anything can make sense in a game world because games are their own world, the developers make the physics and the laws, so having magic and being able to jump 20 feet makes sense because that's just the way the world is. Why impose all these limitations for the sake of realism?

 

[Lilani]

I think I should clarify, when I said realistic, I meant grounded. In that sense, Portal is realistic, because even though you're dealing with a sci fi portal gun, it makes sense in the game world, which is mainly grounded in reality.

If that is how you're defining reality, then how can you think we're lacking games that take that approach? The Half-Life series is grounded, but the people still behave like people and all of the science-fiction elements follow a pretty strict set of rules, so in that sense it is "grounded." Just regular people in a bizarre situation. Mass Effect would also qualify, LA Noire, Rainbow Six, etc. And then there's portal as you mentioned.

 

[Syzygy23]

I dunno, our species is at the top of the food chain today because we spent the last 60k years perfecting the art of killing.

After animals and plants stopped being a challenge we started killing each other. Then we learned about micro organisms and we've been finding newer and better ways to kill THOSE. Hell, even sharks are in danger of going extinct lately because we're eating all their food.

Friggin' SHARKS, who haven't had to evolve from their current forms much, if at all, due to being so efficient at killing. And we're out-muscling them because KILLING.

Killing is in our genes at this point. It's just what we do, it's a fact of our existence. Hence why Simulated killing is so popular, it provides catharsis for us. I get my bloodlust satiated without actually having to go out and stab someone or something.

That's probably why we don't see many, if ANY, "realistic" games without killing. Realistically, humans are inclined to kill everything.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I know what you're saying but I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. Just because a game has combat doesn't mean that's the main focus of it. Think Minecraft, Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Animal Crossing, etc.

 

[The]

What about Catherine? Sure it's got a cel-shaded art style and doesn't look close to real life, but it tells a realistic story about relationships and has this block puzzle gameplay in the dream sequences, which is non-combat. One might argue that the dream sequences are unrealistic, but it's a dream, anything can happen.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I editted the OP to clarify, hopefully. I like these other games, but I also want to see the type of games I'm talking about in the OP. And imagine how many people are averse to violence and killing, but would love a good interactive and well written story?

 

[Gatx]

There's always this?
Super realistic (to the point of extreme awkwardness), and absolutely no combat whatsoever. I was tempted to buy it when it first came out (because of the tantalizing eating sequences).

 

[devilkingx]

mirror's edge.

EDIT: have you considered more or less every racing game except burnout?(I remember that burnout was like... one of the only combat focused racing games because of that whole encouraging you to crash all the other racer's cars thing in burnout revenge) oh yeah, avoid twisted metal(I think) too

so like... google need for speed most wanted, get the original I heard the remake sucks

 

[Gronk]

I played this little experimental game called Facade a few years back. It was a short little game where you are invited to to a dinner with some friends and things soon spiral out of control with arguments and bickering. Now the game was FAR FAR from perfect, or even working. The dialogue system was sometimes hilarious in it's failure to adjust to certain situations.

But I did appreciate the attempt to make something different. And as an experience it has stayed with me.