Nonviolent Gameplay Options

[Soviet Heavy]

This is a really strange thing I've noticed whenever I play games, and I'm wondering if anyone else feels the same way. Whenever I am playing an RPG, or any game with a choice system, if the option comes up to avoid conflict, either through dialogue or by achieving goals to prevent a fight, I always choose that route.

Does anyone else do this? I wonder if it has to do more with myself, or with the game rewarding me for finding nonviolent solutions. Whenever conflict is the only option, and you have no choice in the matter to proceed, I'll go along with it. But when given the choice, I always take the peaceful route.

So would this suggest that I am less inclined towards violence than the media would suggest? If the option to take a peaceful solution is my first choice every time, what does that say about me? About the game? Or about players in general?

 

[tippy2k2]

I don't know if my reasoning is the same as yours but no, you are not the only one who does that.

Generally, when I play games with choice systems, I do my very best to project myself to that character. Just like in real life, I will not attack someone if I don't feel that they are going to attack me (this is why you never come at me in a ninja suit; I will assume you to be an assassin and attack you). The fact that we are talking means that the person may be willing to not attack me and therefore I will go with that line of thought until it's clear that they are going to attack me.

I'll even take this a step further: If I am given the choice to kill or to incapacitate the enemy, I generally will incapacitate them unless they give me a reason to kill them. For example, if I saw a guard in Deus Ex, I would choke'm out. However, if I saw a guard in Deus Ex gunning down the poor unarmed scientist, I will specifically go out of my way to kill that man.

 

[Keoul]

Yeah same here.
I purposely maxed out my speech skill in New Vegas just to avoid conflict, that and money but avoiding conflict for the most part!
I also replayed ME2 several times just to achieve the path that allowed me to choose the most Paragon options, and to save any team mates that died on my first run (Poor bastards, I never knew I had to upgrade the ship...).

 

[Zhukov]

Yup. Same here.

If the game allows for it then I'll avoid conflict. Negotiation, bribes, stealth, whatever. If direct violence isn't the only resort then it automatically becomes my last resort.

Furthermore, in game that allow for non-lethal violence (Human Revolution, Dishonored, etc) then I'll take that route. Although I'll sometimes then do a second murder-tastic playthrough.

Guess I'm just a big pussy, peacenik teddy bear at heart.

Not sure if it has much to do with empathy though. I mean, sometimes it does. I'm currently doing a lethal second playthrough of Dishonored. I pointed the talking heart at one of the street thugs and it said, "He feeds a stray dog every night. He named her Billy." Yeah... not only did I not hurt that guy, I also ended up going out of my way to protect him from a swarm of rats.

But in other games it's more about restraint.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Perhaps Empathy isn't the right word. Nonviolent Gaming perhaps?

 

[Mikejames]

I suppose ,on my initial playthrough at least, I do tend to aim for what I would morally do within the realm of the story.

If there's a diplomatic way out of things I'll probably aim for it, but there are situations where I think that a overtly lenient route isn't always the right one.

Generally, when I play games with choice systems, I do my very best to project myself to that character. Just like in real life, I will not attack someone if I don't feel that they are going to attack me (this is why you never come at me in a ninja suit; I will assume you to be an assassin and attack you). The fact that we are talking means that the person may be willing to not attack me and therefore I will go with that line of thought until it's clear that they are going to attack me.

I'll even take this a step further: If I am given the choice to kill or to incapacitate the enemy, I generally will incapacitate them unless they give me a reason to kill them. For example, if I saw a guard in Deus Ex, I would choke'm out. However, if I saw a guard in Deus Ex gunning down the poor unarmed scientist, I will specifically go out of my way to kill that man.

A balance between merciful and realistic sounds about right. Then again, situations in games like Walking Dead and Spec Op: The Line made me less than rational.

 

[skywolfblue]

I too prefer peaceful solutions, so long as they're ethical ones and not "blackmail" type stuff.

So would this suggest that I am less inclined towards violence than the media would suggest? If the option to take a peaceful solution is my first choice every time, what does that say about me? About the game? Or about players in general?

It would suggest good things I hope.

I really don't buy into the "You have to play all the alignments, even the ones you don't like" spiel. There's no harm in playing your favorite choices each and every time.

As far as games go I'd like to see them do better at offering good thoughtful non-violent solutions. (I'm looking at YOU Dragon Age 2, There's like a billion ways that a non-violent solution could have been offered, but nooooo the game railroads you into a "Kill all 'da mages!" or "kill all 'da templars!" in a way that doesn't make much sense at all)

 

[Oroboros]

In jedi Academy, you could use force choke (a darkside power) to disarm most enemies, if you colected their weapon before they had a chance to pick it up, they would be unarmed and would not attack you, even putting up their arms and surrendering if you got close. I used this to spare as many enemies as I could on levels, as a sort of challenge-it seems like the appropriate sort of thing to do for a jedi.

In a lot of rpgs that have a 'diplomacy' skill I max it out so I can potentially talk my way out of fights. In practice however, a lot of developers seem to be adverse to really putting a lot of thought into non-violent alternatives to confrontations, and investing in diplomatic skills in rpgs usually come at the cost of other, combat-related skills, so sometimes it feels like I'm purposefully depowering my character for no real benefit. (combat usually gives better rewards and usually isn't avoidable anyways). I keep on doing it anyways, I just like the idea of someone who's more than a thug with a sword/gun, and since I usually play some form of mage in fantasy rpgs, it just seems to be a natural extension of that archtype.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

It depends on the game, the characters, the combat. For example, I really dislike the combat in Fallout 3/NV, but I love the dialogue, so I enjoy playing as a silver-tongued psychopath who does his killing after dark and uses his wits when possible. This has the benefit of allowing me to enjoy all of the characterization while avoiding the shitty shooter mechanics. And I still get to play with womens' heads later on. Win-win-win.

I liked combat a little more in Mass Effect 3. My Commander Shepard was a loose cannon. He didn't negotiate with terrorists. He shot first and never asked questions. He nuked them from space because it was the only way to be sure.


I guess it isn't so much that I choose nonviolence so much as I just don't want to do all the work. Let me drop an anvil on a guy instead of shooting him in the face and I'm all for it. Most of the time.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I tend to do whichever I think would be the quickest and easiest i.e talk my way out of a confrontation with an huge amount of enemies and save some time yup ok or quickly kill some guys and save the trouble of having to go through a few dailogue options and try to convince them.

If I cant decide which would be the best it will depend on the game if I like the combat I will fight if I dont I will talk if I dont care either way then I just decide on the fly.

Usually the game is skewed towards favouring fighting or conversation though so its often easy to see where your skills and choices would be better invested.

 

[piinyouri]

Depends.
I'm much different than I used to be about how I played games.
When I first ran through the first Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Neverwinter Nights I killed anyone I came across that I could attack, or coerce into attacking me. Cause killing equals experience. And experience equals power.
Hell sometimes I'd even do a quest that helped somebody, and if the dialogue allowed for it, betray them and demand money for my services. Then kill them anyway. MORE POWAH.

I tend to role play more nowadays. If I'm playing a non-violent character than yes, I will try to take the path of least contention.

 

[Doom972]

I do that too. I find that non-violent (not be confused with non-lethal) methods are much more interesting instead of having another battle. I always wonder if that character might appear later in the game if I let him live.

 

[Nouw]

I don't know about you guys, but I went on a fucking killing spree against the Thin and Fatmen in Lone Survivor. I still somehow got the blue ending.

 

[Pink Gregory]

It's usually because the non-violent option is more challenging, and consequently more satisfying (hello there, Dishonored), but when it's about the same?

I 'unno, I don't really stick to one or the other, which seems strange considering that the non-violent option often means skipping some gameplay...

 

[Daniel Ferguson]

I have taken the path of diplomatic resolutions before. In Fallout 3, no less.

Spoiler

EDEN and Colonel Autumn (I think that's his name) were defeated by words instead of lasers. I managed to make EDEN let me go... then blow itself up. I maxed out my Persuade skill though. Silver tongued devil that I was.

But FPSs, obviously, and a lot of RPGs, are violent by nature.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

In RPG's I find the peaceful solutions often the most satisfying. It gives me the feeling that I am actually roleplaying as a character rather than a FPS/Kratos-esque war mongrel who only eats and breathes murder and bloodshed.

Killing is always my last resort if other options are available.

 

[MammothBlade]

Naw, I don't shy away from violent solutions. Though I pick my fights. If at all possible, I like to gain allegiance with a few factions so that I can crush others. So I might take non-violent options towards them, whilst using the most violent or ruthless options to take down those I consider my real enemies.

 

[Bertylicious]

Depends.
I'm much different than I used to be about how I played games.
When I first ran through the first Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Neverwinter Nights I killed anyone I came across that I could attack, or coerce into attacking me. Cause killing equals experience. And experience equals power.
Hell sometimes I'd even do a quest that helped somebody, and if the dialogue allowed for it, betray them and demand money for my services. Then kill them anyway. MORE POWAH.

I tend to role play more nowadays. If I'm playing a non-violent character than yes, I will try to take the path of least contention.

I do this, basically.

The speech checks in Fallout 3 basically gimped you out of XP, loot and content (they just gave you a shortcut to the end) so I rarely bothered. Fallout 2, on the other hand, was a much more text heavy game and the combat far messier. I'd still end up doing things to maximise my "POWAH", though I would ulitmately tailor my approach depending on how I wanted the ending to go but I'd certainly never avoid combat for the sake of story.

The exception would be in games without loot, XP or filling up of bars generally like The Walking Dead. I'll RP the shit out of those, though arguably in those games the closeness of the story on screen to the one in my head is really my "POWAH" so I guess it's the same thing.

 

[Candidus]

I don't usually choose the nonviolent option. My first run through an RPG is always a self-insertion, and pacifism is just about the polar opposite of who I am and how I really behave. If I'm going through the game a second time specifically to see other content, or to roleplay someone else, then by all means I might choose to avoid conflict.

 

[Jamash]

No, I seldom enjoy choosing the non-violent solutions, especially if I enjoy the gameplay.

Even if the non-violent solution is my moral choice, I'll save the game beforehand and experience the violent solution, play that particulate fight or battle, before reloading and going with initial moral choice (although I feel that fighting a bad person is more morally correct than bribing them or not defending the innocent).

Even in games with the complete freedom to ignore people I'll try and provoke a fight for a laugh, like in GTA IV, after I've visited TW@T to check the internet, I'll always pick up a doughnut from the table on my way out and if the clerk says "There's a tip jar Jackass!", then I'll throw the doughnut at him to evoke his Nerd Rage and have a justified punch up on the street.

It's funny because although I mostly follow my own morals when playing games and seldom enjoy killing innocents, I also look for the most tenuous excuse to have a fight or cause some destruction and mayhem, often going out of my way to put myself in situations in which I feel that violence is a justified response.

I guess at the end of the day, I don't play the type of videogames I enjoy to avoid the action.