Nonviolent Gameplay Options

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I tend towards that, too. For me, it's more that I can go and play almost any game out there if I wanna go on a murder-spree whereas games with none-violent options are a fair bit rarer.

I mean, outside of sports game and adventure games and such, obviously.

 

[Mordekaien]

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?

I do it too. It's not about not being able to take those guys out, because, you can easily do that in any game, if you're supposed to, but I always find it more enjoyable to come up with different means of bypassing obstacles- makes me feel like a better person inside. I did that in the first two levels of prince of persia, you can spare those guards in the original one. I feel so good about myself when I do it.

 

[Akytalusia]

i too prefer the non-violent route whenever possible, unless it means i'll miss some unique item or achievement. i'd like to play nice all the time, but it's game first. i will do what i have to do, with no regrets.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

snip

And yet you chose Ulkesh as an avatar? Interesting choice jazz.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

I do the same.

Part of it is because I'm just not a big fan of violence, either real or imaginary, and so I just have zero desire to actually be violent in a game. I'll still do it if the combat system is fun, but I don't seek it out. Another reason is that I'm just shitty at action-y, stressful, twitch-based games. I prefer to take my time.

This is how it is for me:
* If the game is entirely non-violent (focus on puzzles, exploration, crafting, and sometimes platforming), then I will play the hell out of it. Yes, this is real gameplay.
* If the game has combat but you can avoid most of it (stealth, talking enemies down, just running past them, the ability to gain experience by doing other stuff, etc.) then if I'm actually interested in the game, that's how I'll choose to play whenever possible.
* If the combat is integral to the game but it's non-stressful (turn-based, or cooperative multiplayer with friends, or whatever) then my potential interest in the game will be much higher than it would be otherwise.
* If there is combat and the encounters are all gimmicky trial-and-error things, I'll just look up the solution on a wiki and move on to the parts that I find more fun. Fuck dying repeatedly, I don't find it fun and there's no hope of my skills improving with time anyway.
* If there is PvP and no way to avoid it (open-world PvP with no dedicated PvE servers), I will not play the game at all.

Most of the time, I find myself enjoying games in spite of the combat rather than because of it.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

Quoted

......interesting, this reminds of the internal dialogue i had when i played sole survivor last year, the game clearly offered me a non-violent means of playing a horror-survival game (well, survival might be a a hyperbole, i ate dried squid and warm beans) and yet it took me a fem hours into the game to see it as a viable option. I'd like to think that years of gaming has given me the innate assumption that the character i play is entitled to take the lifes of those that impede me. As a rule at least.

That doesn't swang enough to give a tithe to the question though.

Yes, through the black isle titles and Deus ex series i've come to appreciate that diplomatic resolutions in most (bioware or other western style rpgs) result in greater net gains than a violent one. this is even the case in one of my all-time-fav' JRPGS. Suikoden. The suikoden series is about aquiring a large host of characters with which you starta revolution and lead your rag-tag army to victory, the kicker? If you want the "golden" endning, you must find it in your gaming heart to "forgive" them of some pretty serious crimes, against you, and the rest of the land, be it indifference,corruption or belligerence. NOT killing them ,and forgiving them of their crimes resolves in a healthier and better country in the end.

Throughout the Kojima series i've learnt to see non-lethal gameplay as a challenge. In most Fox productions it gets pretty easy killing the genetically enhanced "Soldats" that come at you. And ergo i see it as more of a challenge to sneak, and quietly tranquilize them. The challenge is in the gameplay and the rewards are a mere arbitrary "rank" at the end. But it does give a reward. And that can be enough if executed well enough.

But, yes, i do prefer non-violent gameplay, but in some games it's easier to project myself in to the PC resulting in me playing as "I" would.

Dragon age, for all it's faults, was pretty open about that, mercy or cruelness both offered rewards on different levels, and i am not ashamed to say that i took some pleasure in getting the occasional brief revenge i had in lieau of justice.

....

'cause he didn't show up until awakening

 

[Bostur]

The peaceful solution is too easy sometimes without downsides. I think thats often why it seems like the most viable. In games where non-confrontation is costly I think we are more inclined to choose the conflict. Civilization is one example, when faced with the choice of handing over all our stuff or go to war, a lot more players will choose the war.

In RPGs the peaceful solutions will save the player from health loss, use of consumable and the risk of having to start over from a previous checkpoint. The only downside is potential loss of XP and loot, which often doesn't amount to much in many games.

 

[Auron]

Depends on the character I'm playing, but I have nothing against killing completely irredeemable people. I did finish Fallout by convincing the Master he was an idiot though.

 

[Grottnikk]

Sometimes I'll negotiate, but in other situations I'll beat the living shit out of things. In some games you'll get more XP or better rewards for doing things one way or another. Sometimes it's appropriate, but other times it just seems contrived.

There are a few times in Neverwinter Nights where you can either beat something into paste or talk your way through the situation. Talking gets you next to no xp while just beating seven bales of shit out of everyone gets you a ton of xp and all the baddies gear. I don't like that. If you put your points/xp/upgrades/whatever into being better at weaseling your way out of things, then you ought to get rewarded for it. Sure, the combat might be more difficult, but that doesn't mean it HAS to be the route that gets you more xp.

 

[ShadowKatt]

I'm a HUGE fan of non-violent gameplay, ESPECIALLY in violent games. My biggest hero in gaming is that one girl in World of Warcraft that maxed the character level with a 0 kill count. And I HATE WoW. I detest it. I smear it whenever I can. And that's where my hero is.

I'm a big fan of non-violent options when they're present. Not always in choices like Let Live or Execute, but stealth in general that lets you avoid combat all together. My biggest gripe with most games is that stealth might be an option, but you get experience from kills. If you don't kill everything, you handicap yourself, and that's not right. However, I also do tabletop RPGs like D&D and I understand that video games are impossible to open to every choice, so it's something you just have to deal with and saver the options when they come.

 

[Marik2]

Not sure if this counts but MGS is very good at rewarding for a non kill playthrough. It makes the game more challenging and keeps reminding you that people aren't timeless enemies and they are being used sometimes.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Quite a lot of the time I try to find and choose non violent ways of solving issues in the game but most of the time I'm faced with "kill them now" or "cancel" and then nothing is resolved until I'm forced into doing what was stated.

 

[Vidiot]

I can't help it. I used to laugh like crazy playing the "Dark Side" solutions in KotOR and Jade Empire, but over the years I've chilled out a bit, and now if a game offers me a non-violent or non-lethal solution to a conflict, I feel honor-bound to take that route. (Dishonored, Deus Ex:HR, etc.)

Even in Assassin's Creed 2 through 3 I would disarm rooftop guards, walk to the edge of the roof, drop their weapon, then give the guard a thrashing, even going so far as to make sure they didn't fall off by accident. Oddly enough, it makes me feel like even more of a boss, knowing that they had guns, swords, axes, and spears, and I took them all down empty-handed without even hurting them.

LIKE A SIR.

(off topic, I miss the "evil" paths that made sense, like Closed Fist in Jade Empire. My character wasn't a prick, he just believed that the strong should help themselves, and humanity as a whole would benefit from natural selection culling the weak and rewarding the strong who were willing and able to solve their own problems. Admittedly a rare trait in the RPG world. These days I'm tired of seeing "evil" options that make no sense aside from "Hmm, do I have enough dickhead points to bang Jack? No? Better burn down this orphanage.")

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It's moreso out of practicality. In games that have non-violent/stealth options, I usually take that option whenever I can to avoid using ammo and wasting health as much as possible, conserving it for when the shit really hits the fan.
That's about it.

I'd like to see nonviolent options in more non RPG's though. An FPS (not counting stuff like Rainbow 6 or SWAT) or RTS where you can force a group of enemies into surrendering instead of basically slaughtering everything from point A to point B would be nice.

 

[MoreThanANoob]

Peaceful solution saves resources. Be it ammo, health potions, mana or patience, things just work out better if I don't have to use as much of it.

 

[simple64]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I generally agree, I prefer to use non-violent solutions...often enough.

Of course, I love combat in games, but when I roleplay, I wanna roleplay not as some violent psychopath who murders everything, but as a guy who uses violence when necessary. Y'know, like an actual hero.

That said, too many games actively penalizes you for not doing things the violent way. Sure, they may not stack penalties, but you'll get better rewards if you pick a fight, be it XP, money, gear, etc.

More games need to reward roleplaying, not murdering you way to victory, unless that's what you want to do. This is why I'm so hype for this Project Eternity thing, the mentioned something like that.

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

I did this in Dragon Age until I realized there was a fixed amount of enemies and I was missing out on experience points. When I learned you can level up by donating resources to your allies I went back to nonviolence. It never really had anything to do with conserving resources. I never ran out of potions and there was no ammo. It just seemed like the right thing to do.

Even in Assassin's Creed 2 through 3 I would disarm rooftop guards, walk to the edge of the roof, drop their weapon, then give the guard a thrashing, even going so far as to make sure they didn't fall off by accident. Oddly enough, it makes me feel like even more of a boss, knowing that they had guns, swords, axes, and spears, and I took them all down empty-handed without even hurting them.

I started doing this a lot in AC 3. I was just fine killing guards in the other games, they were mostly templars so fuck them anyways, but my position as the good guy was never that clear in AC 3. The stupid things I was expected to kill people over in that game really surprised me. I remember running around the Boston Tea Part desperately trying to knock out the British before the Sons of Liberty started trying to kill them. I kept yelling things like, "It's just tea! Stop fighting you assholes!" to both sides.

 

[Auron225]

Something that I noticed after a while of playing Fallout 3 was that I had written myself a rule;

"Don't go looking for a fight"

This may have been more to save resources given the survival element of it but if in the wasteland I saw a radscorpion, etc in the distance - I would sometimes take a different route just to bypass it.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

When I play games that offer choice I always try to project myself onto the character. And my tendencies towards violence depend entirely upon the situation, if it's deserved I usually take the violent route even if a nonviolent route is present.

 

[Raine_sage]

I love taking nonviolent options because in most cases it makes me feel like more of a badass than if I'd just killed the guy. Getting that band of highway men to not only back down, but hand over their valuables and then turn themselves into the police, without even lifting a finger? Much more satisfying than just lodging my sword in their eyesocket.