To Kill, or Not to Kill... Does the question really matter?

[Cronky]

After just viewing the E3 Trailer of Deux Ex 3 I have come to reminisce about my past iconic experiences with the series. Whether it be that tough choice between putting a point in Lockpicking, or putting one in Hacking. The knowledge of Deus Ex 1's beginning and knowing that right below the dock lies a boat with a cache of items within it... also knowing that without a point in swimming it might as well be a world away due to limited air supply. Resulting in either death or at the very least severe injury. The simple freedom the game gave you to play it the way you wanted was amazing to me at the time, but I've come to wonder why one choice has never really been looked upon in any game with the same mechanics.

Kill, or Don't Kill

Many games have employed a way to have a choice in the matter. Thief with it's blackjack, Splinter Cell with Knock-outs, Deus Ex and it's Tranquilizer gun and certain melee, Hitman with Anesthetics, Alpha Protocol's Takedowns, even Mass Effect 1 tasks you with trying to save a colony without killing them in the process. Maybe not all games give you the choice all the time, but it's when it they do that I find it odd that the choice you've made never gets a legit response.

(I know games like Hitman eventually told you how many people you killed in Newspaper format, if you were caught, which effected other levels because of notoriety. It's the starting point to this idea, but not entirely what I'm getting at.)

I usually play games trying to be sneaky, and not killing anyone (Knocking out is different). I generally try to throw my own personal tastes into the situations presented by the game to immerse myself even more. Which usually equates to, "These people have nothing to do with what I'm doing other than being in the way. I don't HAVE to kill them". Only problem with this way of playing is that immersion is lessened when at the end of the game they assume I'm some murdering twatbag.

(This is much in the same way that when you are in a huge battle in game and the NPC's die first thing. You finish the battle yourself, but in the following cutscene the NPC's show back up shouting "Yeah! WE did it!".)

THIS is what I want to change

I want to see a day when I'm playing through a game like Splinter Cell and when the final choice of, "To Kill, or Not to Kill" comes up... They actually play along with it.

Imagine if you will that they go Psycho Mantis on your ass and start yelling out things like, "You haven't killed anyone on your path to me. Do you actually value the life of the people you came across on your journey to me, or are you just unable to take the weight of ending a person's life yourself?". A newly crafted Scene created for you because of the way you played.

It's not even that hard to see coming true. It's much like Bioshock's choice of saving the Little Sisters vs. Harvesting them. Even ONE harvest means that you get a different ending. Enough harvests and you will be presented with a different cut-scene before the ending. Not a DRAMATICALLY different one, but different none the less.

I hope that the game of choice evolves to that with games like Deus Ex 3. Deus Ex 1 was touted for being able to beat the game without killing anyone. Can 3 bring a new standard to the way we play? Only time will tell.

tl;dr: I have to wonder why games with choices never look to your kill-count to add another level to your choices (if given the option to not kill through the whole game).

What are your peoples thoughts on the idea at hand? Could it work? Do you actually want to see it in games? What games do you think would be better/worse if it were implemented?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Well, as long as they don't get all bitchy if you kill people.

Sometimes it's good to kill a terrorist/Nazi/Jelly Fish Dinosaur instead of having a whole basefull of them wake up in a few hours, puzzle over all the bullet holes in the cameras and bruises on their necks, and go kill some innocent people for shits n' giggles.

Sorry for the mini rant, but this seems like it could be cool only if they don't disadvantage you without then giving you some kind of bonus.

 

[Pyroco101]

Well, as long as they don't get all bitchy if you kill people.

Sometimes it's good to kill a terrorist/Nazi/Jelly Fish Dinosaur instead of having a whole basefull of them wake up in a few hours, puzzle over all the bullet holes in the cameras and bruises on their necks, and go kill some innocent people for shits n' giggles.

Sorry for the miny rant, but this seems like it could be cool only if they don't disadvantage you without then giving you some kind of bonus.

did you just spell "mini" wrong?

OT: That seems like a good mechanic, and quite parallel to stuff like in Dante's Inferno.

 

[quack35]

In Alpha Protocol often people get pissed off when you kill people during certain missions. Have you played it?

 

[Cronky]

Well, as long as they don't get all bitchy if you kill people.

Sometimes it's good to kill a terrorist/Nazi/Jelly Fish Dinosaur instead of having a whole basefull of them wake up in a few hours, puzzle over all the bullet holes in the cameras and bruises on their necks, and go kill some innocent people for shits n' giggles.

Sorry for the miny rant, but this seems like it could be cool only if they don't disadvantage you without then giving you some kind of bonus.

Yeah, I understand what you're getting at. It is another level of thought that the developers would have to mull over. Probably too much work with too little reward, for right now.

If implemented right though I imagine it would be balanced for both sides. A game already based on choice giving you an actual Cause:Effect based on how you play. In my mind, more in the sense of a specialized cutscene (again like the Psycho Mantis Boss Fight in MGS).

PRETTY much it's what Alpha Protocol is doing, but missed because of the game not living up to the features.

(Actually had someone notice the clothes I was wearing in that game. Made me all giddy inside cause it's something so minor, but was still acknowledged.)

In Alpha Protocol often people get pissed off when you kill people during certain missions. Have you played it?

I've played through a couple of those kinds of missions. They were fun and I liked that someone actually yelled at you if you did something they personally didn't like. Again I think Alpha Protocol is doing almost exactly what I'm saying, but is just missing out because the game isn't exactly up to par with the features it has...

For reasons I can't quite put words to.

 

[gonzo20]

i actually prefer the whole aspect of not killing people and having alternate ways, but its always nice to go on a rampage sometimes

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Well, as long as they don't get all bitchy if you kill people.

Sometimes it's good to kill a terrorist/Nazi/Jelly Fish Dinosaur instead of having a whole basefull of them wake up in a few hours, puzzle over all the bullet holes in the cameras and bruises on their necks, and go kill some innocent people for shits n' giggles.

Sorry for the miny rant, but this seems like it could be cool only if they don't disadvantage you without then giving you some kind of bonus.

did you just spell "mini" wrong?

OT: That seems like a good mechanic, and quite parallel to stuff like in Dante's Inferno.

How the fuck did I do that?

Jesus, I thought I was only a little tired...

 

[Cronky]

i actually prefer the whole aspect of not killing people and having alternate ways, but its always nice to go on a rampage sometimes

And I'm not saying that either option be taken away. Just games like Deus Ex that are about Freedom of Choice actually care about what your main choice is... how to approach each action packed situation.

Not whether you're the good, law abiding guy, or the evil, destroyer of all. Just simply, "Do you kill everyone, or do you just knock everyone out". Have the game read how you're playing and show it off in subtle ways.

How that would change your playing style would be a thought too.

Imagine two nameless guards talking about you mid-game, your name being... Reed.

-------------------------
Guard 1: I hear Reed has been spotted near this area.

Guard 2: Yeah? So what? All I've heard from people who've ran into him is that the worst he'll do is knock you out.

Guard 1: That's true.

-------------------------

At that point either you go:

A.) Continue your way through this situation knocking people out

or

B.) Kill them in spite of what they've said

----------

Imagine even more if within that conversation between the two nameless guards one of them doesn't agree with what the other one is saying ABOUT you.

Such as Guard 1 referencing that he has a wife and kids and acknowledges that you may be the "Enemy", but that you at least are thinking of the people. A bickering fight ensues about your ethical conclusion to situations.

All the while you slip by them while they are distracted with their conversation... which if you would have killed everyone before hand WOULDN'T of happened. In fact, them being more on guard because they know you ruthlessly kill anyone that gets in your way.

Shaping your gameplay by how you play, but not Forcing a gameplay type upon you. (Since you still have the option of killing them)

 

[gonzo20]

i actually prefer the whole aspect of not killing people and having alternate ways, but its always nice to go on a rampage sometimes

And I'm not saying that either option be taken away. Just games like Deus Ex that are about Freedom of Choice actually care about what your main choice is... how to approach each action packed situation.

Not whether you're the good, law abiding guy, or the evil, destroyer of all. Just simply, "Do you kill everyone, or do you just knock everyone out". Have the game read how you're playing and show it off in subtle ways.

How that would change your playing style would be a thought too.

Imagine two nameless guards talking about you mid-game, your name being... Reed.

-------------------------
Guard 1: I hear Reed has been spotted near this area.

Guard 2: Yeah? So what? All I've heard from people who've ran into him is that the worst he'll do is knock you out.

Guard 1: That's true.

-------------------------

At that point either you go:

A.) Continue your way through this situation knocking people out

or

B.) Kill them in spite of what they've said

----------

Imagine even more if within that conversation between the two nameless guards one of them doesn't agree with what the other one is saying ABOUT you.

Such as Guard 1 referencing that he has a wife and kids and acknowledges that you may be the "Enemy", but that you at least are thinking of the people. A bickering fight ensues about your ethical conclusion to situations.

All the while you slip by them while they are distracted with their conversation... which if you would have killed everyone before hand WOULDN'T of happened. In fact, them being more on guard because they know you ruthlessly kill anyone that gets in your way.

Shaping your gameplay by how you play, but not Forcing a gameplay type upon you. (Since you still have the option of killing them)

well that sounds like an excellent idea to me and i have played deus ex and killing is frowned upon in that, but it would be nice to have a stealth game where you can do both for once instead of being a pansy who cant go out in open conflict but still die after being shot a few times.

 

[Purplefood1]

I generally feel proud if i've managed to kill as many people as possible in a game.
But there should be some more relation to how many people you kill not just different endings.

 

[Abedeus]

I love when games give you the option of not killing more than necessary. Gives a huge satisfaction when you can sneak your way through guards in Hitman, then assassinate your target, and sneak out.

...Or sneak in and blow everything up after finishing your assignment, like in Prototype.

 

[Kollega]

Yes, it could work... and it would be completely awesome (especially that bit you've described where guards start arguing about you and that lets you slip by). But it would take a big amount of resources to implement properly. It's only worth doing in case the game is all about variety of approach - but if it's that kind of game, it definetly should be done.

All in all, that would help immersion much better than "graphics 10% better than the next leading competitor".

 

[dududf]

snip

You should go into game design, or try to apply for a job as an "idea man" or something, as I'd play that game.


Seriously, I'd pay a hundred bucks for a game like that, focus on the gameplay, and your choices upon it. Hell I don't even care if it's PS1 graphics, I'd really like that.

 

[Evil the White]

- Snip -

That is an amazing idea. I think it would work very well in the Deus Ex universe, because of the choices it encourages you to take. Some of my favourite moments are when you've snuck up on some guards and you can hear them having their conversation. Especially if there was also a thing where if you hadn't knocked out or killed many people, they would be talking about a Mysterious Person and none of them would really know who you are. Also, things like maybe having more guards if you keep knocking them out/killing them, tighter security, etc, as well as maybe the guards shouting warning at you if you only knock people out.

 

[Incredible Bullshitting Man]

I wholeheartedly support your cause, dear OP. I also like to play sneaky, and usually go way out of my way not to kill anyone. Like in Deus Ex, scuttling the superfreighter, I don´t even knock anyone out, since being unconscious in a sinking ship can be fatal. The only downside is, that the joy is rather one sided. The game doesn´t recognize my endeavors in any way. Single e-mail or a tiny newspaper article would be enough to make it feel like I´m making an impact, like my choices matter. Too few games do this.
We can render near-photorealistic environments, that will make your eyes orgasm, but we can´t do this. Perhaps someday.

 

[Cronky]

Yes, it could work... and it would be completely awesome (especially that bit you've described where guards start arguing about you and that lets you slip by). But it would take a big amount of resources to implement properly. It's only worth doing in case the game is all about variety of approach - but if it's that kind of game, it definetly should be done.

All in all, that would help immersion much better than "graphics 10% better than the next leading competitor".

That is true, the direction the game is trying to go dictates whether this idea actually makes sense for it. Games like Splinter Cell and Hitman just give you more the Option to not kill, rather than the Choice. Adding the mechanic in there would be impeding the games production for a minor mechanic, while in some cases... being counterproductive to the whole idea behind the game.

(Who wants to play as a Hitman who doesn't kill anyone?)

It's a mechanic that a majority of games can benefit from, but only a handful can legitimately use.

It's just always urked me when, in my widely used example game Splinter Cell (Pre-Conviction), I'm given the option to be sneaky, or be non-lethal. Though, when it really comes down to it I could shoot up the whole place as loud as possible knowing that in the next level they'll all be unaware of what I might do to them, or that I might be going there next.

(Conviction went the opposite direction and regardless to how sneaky you were, they always knew you were coming. Which isn't quite right either. Of course now, perhaps, I'm just getting picky.)

- Snip -

That is an amazing idea. I think it would work very well in the Deus Ex universe, because of the choices it encourages you to take. Some of my favourite moments are when you've snuck up on some guards and you can hear them having their conversation. Especially if there was also a thing where if you hadn't knocked out or killed many people, they would be talking about a Mysterious Person and none of them would really know who you are. Also, things like maybe having more guards if you keep knocking them out/killing them, tighter security, etc, as well as maybe the guards shouting warning at you if you only knock people out.

The ideas you presented would be a great addition. Not only things such as if you've been spotted they don't give an actual name, but knocking out a majority would equate to tighter security.

It all plays hand in hand with so many different choices with a wide variety of outcomes. To expand your part of the idea even more there could be things such as:

-Knocking Out guards equals tighter security in the next level considering they would have woke up eventually and alerted other bases.

-"Ghosting" a level (Not knocking out or being caught) could result in less security in the next level than merely knocking out. (If no one even knew you were there then no one would be the wiser anywhere else)

-Knocking out a majority could indeed end up with guards being less apt to actually killing you. This would be a fine line to try and walk on because you'd still want guards that wouldn't care in order to have situations like the conversation above. If everyone is treating you nicely then nobody has a unique personality.

-Killing everyone could go both ways in the upcoming levels... depending on the circumstances from which the events are laid out. Assuming all "Bases" are in contact with each other you would be hard pressed to believe that even killing everyone Silently without alerting anyone would not get noticed eventually. Perhaps doing so on the otherhand means that instead of INSTANT notification of tighter security; your cover get's "Blown" mid mission (They connected the dots while you were sneaking about in the current level).

The timeframe between levels really dictates what would happen in there, as does the story in general. The next level happening within hours of your previous mission could encompass the example above, days after might result in the knockout result (Tighter security right away). All in all, it'd give you more control in the way you play. Which I personally like.

We can render near-photorealistic environments, that will make your eyes orgasm, but we can´t do this. Perhaps someday.

I'm glad to hear that there is another person that plays games like I do.

As for the line I quoted... I couldn't have said it better myself. There is only so much more they can do graphics-wise, so hopefully the actual Gameplay of Games becomes a priority soon.

well that sounds like an excellent idea to me and i have played deus ex and killing is frowned upon in that, but it would be nice to have a stealth game where you can do both for once instead of being a pansy who cant go out in open conflict but still die after being shot a few times.

I believe Stealth games are getting to that point. Splinter Cell Conviction comes to mind, as does Alpha Protocol, but the only problem being that Action and Stealth are two separate entities with little that connects them gameplay-wise.

AI on Enemies seems to be something that get's games that do this. With different game types it becomes hard to express the best of both worlds with AI. To have an AI that can shoot at you, but then lose you because you hid behind a box for a minute just seems ridiculous. In reality if you saw someone, shot at them, and couldn't find them anymore you'd never stop searching for them... in other words... an action game. Where enemies always know where you are.

To add in a Stealth element is to take away that action AI and have them become "Dumb" because they have to have the ability to lose you. There is no game design theory I know of that can differentiate between a "Good" hiding spot, and a "Stupid" one.

Hiding behind a box 3 feet away from where you were last seen instead of running to a completely different area can't be seen as different from an AI perspective, and even if it was... would that be fun?

It'll be some time when they will figure out a way to do this right. Some games have shown real promise in this category, but I believe thus far none have come close to perfecting it.

As for how much damage you take in correlation to how you can play the game... That falls into the same general rant as I mentioned above with AI. I just could explain the "Idea" behind it better with AI then how you stated it.

It's two Opposite game types that are trying to share the same space. Unless choice is given through Character Customization it's hard to find a nice balance between the two. Though with Character Customization in mind... doing that means that you pick which type of gameplay you plan on doing from the start. Thus expelling the other option. (The question, "Should I play as a weapon focused character, or Sneaky one" comes to mind.)