The Pacify/Kill Games - Why always Pacify?

[Paragon Fury]

Maybe it's just me, but in the Dishonored/Deus Ex/Splinter Cells etc. of the world where you get the option between killing and stealthiness/pacifying I admit I always choose the stealth route; because I feel like these games generally have one flaw -

Using the non-lethal toys they give you often leads to the game being ridiculously easy. I mean yeah they're awesome, but when you let me off the reins to do what I want like half the encounter is gonna get dropped in stealth-based entrance and then the survivors dropped by headshots/quick sword play.

Yes, using my explosive shot/ground pound or throwing half the baddies across the room with my tentacle powers is awesome - but it also kind of shits on the encounter design you had going on there.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

On top of stealth being more challenging/fun the games also tend to congratulate you for it one way or another - giving you a higher score, unlocking the happy ending and so on.

 

[Saelune]

I am...not sure what you are criticizing.

 

[Zhukov]

I have a hundred games that focus on kicking in the door and shooting everything in the room. When a game lets me be more subtle about it I'm going to give it a go.

Likewise I have a hundred games that are all about the murder. So when some non-murder options are on the table I'm going to try them out.

Most games that combine stealth and combat fuck it up anyway. The combat makes the stealth a waste of time (why sneak around when punching everyone in the face is quicker and just as viable?) The stealth makes the combat super easy (oh look, obvious enemies evenly spread out staring intently at walls). The Last of Us did it best by allowing you to transition back to stealth after going into open combat. Even then it wasn't perfect, enemies would start searching for you around wherever they happened to standing when they lost track of you rather than converging on where they last saw you, making it a bit too easy.

The Batman Arkham games did an alright job, but they cheated by just alternating the two approaches. Enemies have guns? Sneaky time. Enemies don't have guns? Facepunch time.

Dishonored 2 did the pacify/kill thing best by giving non-lethal players their own cool toys and a heart that told you if random enemies or NPCs deserved a stabbing, a gentle tranq dart or a firm but non-lethal kick in the ribs. Then they went and fucked it up by giving you the bad ending for too many stabbings because apparently killing serial killers (who seemed to constitute 30% of the population) causes "chaos".

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I like stealth in a context that makes sense and is cool. It works in Dishonored but it feels like a waste sometimes in other games.


The best example would prolly be something like the classic Tenchu games for ps1/2.

 

[Aetrion]

I am...not sure what you are criticizing.

Looks like he accidentally typed "non-lethal" instead of "lethal" to identify what he finds too easy.


I generally agree, stealth games that give you the option to go all murderhobo tend to be way easier if you just go lethal, but I like the way Dishonored does it where that does allow you to complete the game, but you get a "bad ending" essentially.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I actually go pacify because it never seems like the dudes you are chopping up deserve it.

Dishonored 2 is the most egregious example, as Emily you go around slaughtering innocent dudes who could possibly be still loyal to you. Even if they weren't, it would be like deciding that all Germans should die because of the Nazis.

In Metal Gear, especially Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain, a lot of the soldiers you face are the epitome of a grunt. Most of the time, they are doing completely acceptable things or were forced into their situations. In Metal Gear Rising, they tried touching on it for a bit before they went back to all the slicing and dicing. Going around slaughtering people makes you both a psychopath and a hypocrite.

For Splinter Cell, well, I spare them because it gives you more points.

I hope one day for a stealth game where you could have enemies that you would feel bad or good about killing.

 

[kurupt87]

The new Deus Ex games, the melee takedowns.

You can do either lethal or non-lethal. There is one small difference, non-lethal takedowns are quieter so have less risk of discovery. This irks me.

1. That is backwards, it would be quieter to kill than to subdue.
2. Since that is the only differnce, there is 0 reason to do a lethal takedown except for wanting to be a murder-y son-of-a-*****.

 

[Zhukov]

2. Since that is the only differnce, there is 0 reason to do a lethal takedown except for wanting to be a murder-y son-of-a-*****.

Not quite. The other difference is that dead enemies can't be woken up.

 

[iwinatlife]

I really want to see a game do a subversion on this and letting the people live actively hurts you in some manner while going through and killing everyone gives benefits.
For instance in Dishonered if you go high Chaos there are more guards and they are on higher alert. A reasoning for the opposite would be because you killed all the previous Guards they are having hiring troubles, and instead of being more vigilant the remaining guards are terrified, while the nonviolent takedown leads to basic guard training to shoot at you when you try to distract them or Patroling in pairs to make takedowns harder.
the endgame has the first target you didnt assasinate stop you at the last moment from subduing your final target you are then captured and executed. To make it fair though the kill everyone ending is you getting ambushed and betrayed by your boss whoever they may be and killed. No one wins, no good ending.
It would either be the next Spec Ops the Line or totally bomb.

 

[happyninja42]

Maybe it's just me, but in the Dishonored/Deus Ex/Splinter Cells etc. of the world where you get the option between killing and stealthiness/pacifying I admit I always choose the stealth route; because I feel like these games generally have one flaw -

Using the non-lethal toys they give you often leads to the game being ridiculously easy. I mean yeah they're awesome, but when you let me off the reins to do what I want like half the encounter is gonna get dropped in stealth-based entrance and then the survivors dropped by headshots/quick sword play.

Yes, using my explosive shot/ground pound or throwing half the baddies across the room with my tentacle powers is awesome - but it also kind of shits on the encounter design you had going on there.

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying, as others have pointed out, your choice of wording makes your statement unclear.

In my experience, the non-lethal route is usually the harder route, because it often limits your available tools. Dishonored especially had this going on. When I did my Kill Everything run, it was stupidly easy, compared to trying to be non-lethal. I had over twice the number of tools at my disposal, and twice as many Outsider powers too. Every encounter went from "How am I going to get through this in the first place?" to "How am I going to murder all of these chumps?" It wasn't a question of if I'd make it through, it was HOW. Would I play the Pied Piper of Fuck You, and just let my rat swarms eat them all? Would I mind control them and let them kill their allies? Would I just stop time and put a bullet in each of their heads?

Deus Ex was similar, there's no need for stealth if you are running around with a rocket launcher blowing up squads of enemies at once.

So yeah, I don't really see what your problem is? Stealth is usually harder in my experience. Though, if you are playing it to simply bypass stuff, then yeah, it's a lot easier. But if you are, like most gamers, trying to still take out all the badguys, and get all the loot, AND do it non-lethal, it's much more difficult. If you simply avoid the content, and just make a beeline for the objective, then it can be easier. But I don't see that as a problem? You are playing a sneaky bastard who intentionally avoids confrontation, using skill and guile to find the least dangerous path in. Why wouldn't that be easier than trying to also take down everyone you see?

 

[babinro]

I'd like to see a game where the Stealth/Pacifist mode actually leads to the BAD ending with the kill road being the good one. I can't think of a single game that has taken that route and I'm curious if it would have any influence at all on the players preferred method of play.

Take Dishonored. Imagine if the world and the rat problem worsened as a result of keeping gangs/criminals alive and able to resume their work. Imagine pacifist actions against a gang just led to escalated retaliations and made the world worse as a direct result of your actions.

 

[stroopwafel]

In Metal Gear, especially Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain, a lot of the soldiers you face are the epitome of a grunt. Most of the time, they are doing completely acceptable things or were forced into their situations.

Yeah, those games do stealth really well by making you actually feel a bit guilty killing conscripted schmucks(like in Afghanistan) when it could have been easily avoided. Espescially in a huge open area where stealth is more than viable. The game has some insanely good gameplay mechanics when you want to go down the lethal route but actually discourages this through it's thematic messages and open ended levels. That is good design. Often in Phantom Pain when I was caught at the very last moment and more guards were alerted I resorted to an assault rifle without having the kind of satisfaction you normally have in a shooter. Dishonored 2 was pretty good in this regard as well but here I felt choice was often much more restricted. You really have to go out of your way to do a pacify run here while in Phantom Pain most of the time all you have to do is just suppress your bloodthirst.

 

[DoPo]

I'd like to see a game where the Stealth/Pacifist mode actually leads to the BAD ending with the kill road being the good one. I can't think of a single game that has taken that route and I'm curious if it would have any influence at all on the players preferred method of play.

Take Dishonored. Imagine if the world and the rat problem worsened as a result of keeping gangs/criminals alive and able to resume their work. Imagine pacifist actions against a gang just led to escalated retaliations and made the world worse as a direct result of your actions.

I'd love it if a non-lethal route actually has downsides. In most cases, it's just a different button you press and you get the same result - the NPC is down. At the end of the day, though, there is very little functional difference between a dead NPC and a knocked out NPC - they are both out for the count and won't bother you any more, both usually require the equal amount of resources and effort and the immediate effects are quite the same. The only noticeable differences are that knocked out NPC might be woken up and in the long therm not killing is usually considered "better" by the game.

However, when you think about it - knocking out people is not and should not be automatically good. Not for them, at the very least. A non-lethal take down will involve choking them, punching them, zapping them, drugging them or otherwise making them unconscious which is rarely gentle. I mean, dude, that's not exactly something you walk away from like it's nothing. First of all, they stop moving. Usually forever. In the real world that's BAD. Second, most, if not all, methods of inducing unconsciousness will have some side effect and could actually make people die.

At least, say, Dishonored and Deus Ex recognise that so you might kill an unconscious person if you're not careful (like knock somebody out and they fall off a ledge). However, you shouldn't underestimate what damage could simply falling in your place can cause. Going off personal experience - I've lost consciousness four times in my life and it was not really pleasant. First time I was fine, but the second time I managed to hit my jaw on the way down and bit my tongue. Nothing serious but it hurt for a couple of weeks and I had trouble eating some foods. Third time I didn't damage myself - I was standing next to a door so I sort of slumped down gently. It still felt really bad afterwards - my head felt like it was full of cotton and it also hurt - it took a couple of days to actually feel normal again. Final time I banged my head on a chair when falling - nothing serious again, a small nick on my forehead but I also got a minor concussion. It took about a week to recover. So, while I was quite lucky, suddenly losing all control of your body and collapse to the ground is still dangerous.

Games should really make the "non-lethal" take downs more dangerous to the recipients. It shouldn't be synonymous with "pacifist" because you ARE assaulting them to begin with. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution Jensen does some really nasty stuff during a non-lethal take down and I'd hate to be on the receiving end of those.

 

[Benpasko]

In Metal Gear Rising, they tried touching on it for a bit before they went back to all the slicing and dicing. Going around slaughtering people makes you both a psychopath and a hypocrite.

That was the whole point of that sequence. The villains were just like "dude, you're chopping guys into little bits, don't act like you're a hero you hypocrite", and the major character development Raiden went through was admitting that he was a murderous psycho and dropping all the pretense. Which is a character arc I love, honestly.

OT: As someone who really enjoys murdery stealth, I usually just ignore the consequences for killing people. I got the low chaos ending for Dishonored once, and I got to see it. And then I went back to stopping time and inserting a knife into everyone in the room. I also play Metal Gear more actiony than you're supposed to, to hell with the bad rating the game will give me at the end.

 

[Quellist]

I just dislike how in a game that's supposed to have 'no right path' that blatant kills give the least xp, stealth kills give slightly more and stealth pacify give the most. That's clearly skewing the game toward a particular playstyle

 

[nondescript]

I'd like to see a game where the Stealth/Pacifist mode actually leads to the BAD ending with the kill road being the good one. I can't think of a single game that has taken that route and I'm curious if it would have any influence at all on the players preferred method of play.

Uh, I can. Any game where your only option is to murderize people. What happens if you choose not to kill? They kill you instead. Most of these games have no stealth option.

Why would you pick a game though where you can be extra punchy/stabby/shooty? And more importantly, with things like Nightmare Mode, Hell Mode, and Insanity Mode, how could you tell the difference? If you want a choice on how to murder, you already have that in games. If you want a choice in how many to murder, you also have that in those games. There are very few games now though that offer the body count to be as low as zero.

So why does this bother anyone, though? Probably because we, as gamers, get a lot of flak from outside sources about being closet psychopaths or sociopaths just waiting for a moment to start gunning down theaters or schools. And that's not fair, nor is it unwarranted. When you watch enough violence, you become inured to it. Which means anyone exposed is likely to commit it. Not just us, but anyone watching enough footage of atrocities. Games like Undertale, Dishonored, and Deus Ex are a way of saying that violence is part of our world, but we don't have to let it be part of us. And the endings, I believe, are a reflection that if we could all come to this understanding, violence wouldn't be a part of the world either.

So, yeah, you can want what you want. But the fact that these games are so popular, and that the Pacifist runs are all I ever see, I take it as a good sign.

 

[nondescript]

In my experience, the non-lethal route is usually the harder route, because it often limits your available tools. Dishonored especially had this going on. When I did my Kill Everything run, it was stupidly easy, compared to trying to be non-lethal. I had over twice the number of tools at my disposal, and twice as many Outsider powers too. Every encounter went from "How am I going to get through this in the first place?" to "How am I going to murder all of these chumps?" It wasn't a question of if I'd make it through, it was HOW. Would I play the Pied Piper of Fuck You, and just let my rat swarms eat them all? Would I mind control them and let them kill their allies? Would I just stop time and put a bullet in each of their heads?

Deus Ex was similar, there's no need for stealth if you are running around with a rocket launcher blowing up squads of enemies at once.

So yeah, I don't really see what your problem is? Stealth is usually harder in my experience. Though, if you are playing it to simply bypass stuff, then yeah, it's a lot easier. But if you are, like most gamers, trying to still take out all the badguys, and get all the loot, AND do it non-lethal, it's much more difficult. If you simply avoid the content, and just make a beeline for the objective, then it can be easier. But I don't see that as a problem? You are playing a sneaky bastard who intentionally avoids confrontation, using skill and guile to find the least dangerous path in. Why wouldn't that be easier than trying to also take down everyone you see?

This. Totally this. I tried Dishonored on a No Kill, Ghost, No Upgrade run. On of the toughest runs in a stealth game ever, and I loved it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I always choose stealth primarily because it?s generally more fun, rewarding and ultimately seems like that?s how games with the option are meant to be played. There?re enough games out there where you run around as a nigh-invulnerable pain sponge (thanks, overused regenerating health mechanic,) but when a game offers a genuine stealth option, it?s more an opportunity to ?role play? and experience/immerse in the game as a ?real? person would. A ?real? Sam Fisher wouldn?t run into an enemy stronghold, by himself, with guns blazing at midday, but he would sneak in through an air duct or open window, at night, and do so as quietly as possible attracting as little attention as possible.

 

[Ravenbom]

Depends on the game, but some games really reward a stealthy approach and in others, they insist upon it even if they give you other options.
Some games are completely the opposite and give you token stealth, like Breath of the Wild.

As long as I know what type of game I'm buying, I'm usually fine playing a game the way it was clearly designed.

I'd say the main problem is that offering more than one method, in theory, gives you an incentive to play through again another way. The problem being that usually the "Stealth" or "Rogue" route is usually the one where you find and unlock all the secrets. So if you play that way once, you never unlock anything (other than achievements/trophies) when you go in guns blazing the second time.


I think a lot of games would do better if they had character unlocks (maybe even unlocks part of the way through the game, instead of at the end) instead of choose your character at the beginning like Dishonored 2.

A lot of stealth games (Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, Thief, etc) are making the mistake of giving approaching stealth games like they're Skyrim.
At it's core, good stealth is a puzzle game. Like Braid, Toki Tori or Portal: it's better when you have to figure out how to use these particular tools in this particular instance.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVED MGS5! I love that nothing is fucked after 45 minutes of careful stealth and prep because it's a dynamic battlefield and screwing up stealth usually led to my favorite unplanned moments.

I don't see Mirror's Edge as a Stealth game per-se, but killing seems out of place and usually breaks the flow of the game. The first Mirror's Edge gave you a limited skill set and still managed to have many paths and unexpected moments while giving you tools to figure out puzzles and work-arounds. That first game is linear but one of the best un- or underused templates for how satisfying a pacifist playthrough can be.