Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

I am just tired of all the killing and war...

123468

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Biskop
     

    A very good post and I agree 100%. It's like some people here fail to realize that the OP is not saying combat should be removed and everybody be forced to do "mundane tasks" instead. All he's saying is that today's games focus too much on combat and exclude all other options because there's this widespread notion that anything but non stop slaughter is dull and boring.

     

    At the root, even stealth gameplay is about violence. You avoid NPCs who want to kill you, and you kill or disable them with less direct means than blazing your guns.

    I am all for choices .. but choices for conflict resolution. Deus Ex is a great example. You can avoid violence. You can use less violence (disable, not kill). You can kill directly, stealthly, with robots and less direct means. But at the end, it is still about violence.

    Now if you put in the choice to bake bread, or tends to garden in game, it is irrelevant for me, because that is not fun for me. I won't care if you put it in, but certainly that resouces going into make that does zero fun for me.

     

  • LithuanianLithuanian vilniusPosts: 203Member Uncommon

    My two cents (again).

    Stealth games may be not entirely on violence. Or, to make things better, they can offer great many choices.

    Example: you are Allied top-spy and need to infiltrate Nazi facility, steal "Tiger IV" documentation and destroy equipment needed to produce these monster-tanks. And here you go with moral choices. You can kill the guard, sounding alarm (every kill does it) and fight too hard to neariest safe place. However, the more you kill, the more you are hated by any civilian or enemy and should you kill too much - everyone would try to kill you, also - do not expect any friendly civilian. You can knock the guard and have 45% probability of souding alarm - but if things go good, you just go to the neariest safe place. If you knock too much - Allied HQ will notice you refrain from violence and may drop some "silent way" equipment, commend you or even give a medal; civilians will be kind of friendly towards you. You can bypass guard, killing/knocking nobody. If you do it too much - enemy and civilians will respect you (reasons different, of course) and should some officer try to catch you - there is a good chance enemy soldier will try to be at your side, like "Herr Officer, but this Allied spy did not harm any of our men! He spared my life while he had a chance to kill!". Civilians will be helpfull: they will give you food, medicines, distract enemy patrols or occasionally self-sacrifice (however, up to first killing).

    Imagine in this game player rushes to Tiger-IV base...and NPC asks to bring him to some place nearby, he would pay with a bunch of Reichsmarks. Player has to choose, whether this is Gestapo agent (and protagonist will be killed), deserter or civilian. Outcome may be different: if player acts positively towards civilians, they will help him: hide, give food, information. If player ignores civilians - they will mostly ignore him; if player is bad towards civilians - Allied war effort is slowed down, civilians become pro-Nazi.

    Of course, in such game the more silent and stealth you are, the better equippment you may use. Be very silent and you could use enemy uniform with documents: nobody will suspect since you are Shadow, a legend whose face was not seen. Help great many civilians and one day you would be given secret flat where you could rest without being noticed by patrols.

    It's all about fantasy and real choices. Maybe one day we would see MMORPG that would involve stealth instead of "kill 10.000 rainbow monkeys because I said so".

  • ragz45ragz45 rochester hills, MIPosts: 686Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sk1ppeR
    Would you rather my little pony MMO? I know I wouldn't but I'm not a violent person, so yeah ... for people like you there is Hello Kitty Online. It's colorful enough :) 

    Even my little pony has villians

  • CothorCothor Houston, TXPosts: 163Member Uncommon
    The only real answer is that there is no God, we are animals floating on a rock, and combat is in our DNA and that will never change. Deal with it *shades*
  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • moshimomoshimo Upland, CAPosts: 6Member
    Most games are just ripping each other off, which is why they're all starting to look the same.  YOu get a few successes that are all about war and killing and they're all gonna use that as a jump off point after a while.  We seriously need to start jumping on some more original games to at least keep the interest up.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Lithuanian

    My two cents (again).

    Stealth games may be not entirely on violence. Or, to make things better, they can offer great many choices.

    Example: you are Allied top-spy and need to infiltrate Nazi facility, steal "Tiger IV" documentation and destroy equipment needed to produce these monster-tanks. And here you go with moral choices. You can kill the guard, sounding alarm (every kill does it) and fight too hard to neariest safe place. However, the more you kill, the more you are hated by any civilian or enemy and should you kill too much - everyone would try to kill you, also - do not expect any friendly civilian. You can knock the guard and have 45% probability of souding alarm - but if things go good, you just go to the neariest safe place. If you knock too much - Allied HQ will notice you refrain from violence and may drop some "silent way" equipment, commend you or even give a medal; civilians will be kind of friendly towards you. You can bypass guard, killing/knocking nobody. If you do it too much - enemy and civilians will respect you (reasons different, of course) and should some officer try to catch you - there is a good chance enemy soldier will try to be at your side, like "Herr Officer, but this Allied spy did not harm any of our men! He spared my life while he had a chance to kill!". Civilians will be helpfull: they will give you food, medicines, distract enemy patrols or occasionally self-sacrifice (however, up to first killing).

    Imagine in this game player rushes to Tiger-IV base...and NPC asks to bring him to some place nearby, he would pay with a bunch of Reichsmarks. Player has to choose, whether this is Gestapo agent (and protagonist will be killed), deserter or civilian. Outcome may be different: if player acts positively towards civilians, they will help him: hide, give food, information. If player ignores civilians - they will mostly ignore him; if player is bad towards civilians - Allied war effort is slowed down, civilians become pro-Nazi.

    Of course, in such game the more silent and stealth you are, the better equippment you may use. Be very silent and you could use enemy uniform with documents: nobody will suspect since you are Shadow, a legend whose face was not seen. Help great many civilians and one day you would be given secret flat where you could rest without being noticed by patrols.

    It's all about fantasy and real choices. Maybe one day we would see MMORPG that would involve stealth instead of "kill 10.000 rainbow monkeys because I said so".


    To some extent, stealth gameplay just give more choices, and have more shades of violence. The core is still conflict resolution even if avoidance & seek help from others become a part of it. It is fun .. i like it .. but the point is that it is still about violence, or the avoidance of it.

    Secondly, i doubt it is suitable for a MMORPG. What is the point of stealth if you have 100 players infiltrating the same base? If you limit it to small group (like in an instanced), you may as well just do a lobby-based co-op game, which exists today.

     

  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    I'm making a game that has a huge focus on economy and politics, but it still has a military element to it.  How many successful purely economic games exist?  Not many.  There needs to be some sort of tension in a game to make it fun, and this usually involves war.

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,758Member Uncommon
    Do we have any care bear games online yet? Someone's belly button heart needs scratching.
  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    Do we have any care bear games online yet? Someone's belly button heart needs scratching.

    Care Bears?  Boy that's dating yourself.

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    Do we have any care bear games online yet? Someone's belly button heart needs scratching.

    Hello Kitty online?

    Farmville?

     

  • karat76karat76 Wellston, OHPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon
    I am partially with the OP in that it would be nice to have more options. Not saying no combat in a combat but just bring back so virtual worlds  like UO or a functional SWG or I would settle for a DAoC. Always enjoyed displaying my trophies and keeping my merchant full in DaoC at my house. It was a great place to unwind with guildies after killing dirty hibbies all day.
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by karat76
    I am partially with the OP in that it would be nice to have more options. Not saying no combat in a combat but just bring back so virtual worlds  like UO or a functional SWG or I would settle for a DAoC. Always enjoyed displaying my trophies and keeping my merchant full in DaoC at my house. It was a great place to unwind with guildies after killing dirty hibbies all day.

    As called out on the first page of the thread:

    • Tons of non-combat games exist.
    • If you want them, play them.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,771Member Uncommon

    i think the game industry needs to have more variety of game styles and genres. Almost every game you purchase nowadays is focused on combat.

    Nowadays zombie games are all about who kill more zombies.... back in the day when resident evil started it was all about who can survive the zombies and that was more fun.

    I love a well made combat in my games but i would prefer to purchase a game where i can use visceral combat as a last resort specially if its a horror survival game like Resident evil and Dead space or a stealth game like Metal gear, Thief, Splinter cell, Deus ex, etc.

     

    I would like to see similar survival mechanics in mmos where you can progress your character by surviving and only fight in PvE when necessary. For example, if the land is peaceful i dont need questing to kill rats. Dynamic content would add town sieges by both AI and enemy players so you fight when its necessary to survive (hunting for food and leathers or fighting back active enemies that are actually to invade you in real time, not just walking around in the forest).

     

    Also, A sneaking mechanic like Skyrim for PvE while taking a more dynamic approach of the same mechanic for PvP. For example, sneaking in the shadows can render you totally invisible in PvP as long as you stay in the shadows.

    image
  • sunshadow21sunshadow21 Omaha, NEPosts: 354Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by karat76
    I am partially with the OP in that it would be nice to have more options. Not saying no combat in a combat but just bring back so virtual worlds  like UO or a functional SWG or I would settle for a DAoC. Always enjoyed displaying my trophies and keeping my merchant full in DaoC at my house. It was a great place to unwind with guildies after killing dirty hibbies all day.

    As called out on the first page of the thread:

    • Tons of non-combat games exist.
    • If you want them, play them.

    The problem is that increasingly one is forced to accept only combat or no combat, whereas many people would prefer a game that incorporates both. The past has shown it can be done, so it's not an unrealistic expectation.

  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member

    As a 39yo I completely agree and wonder about that myself. The only games seem to be pushing nothing but combat or combatlike activities. It's big time problem for me. I like combat as much as the next guy and I like it to be balanced....but there are times when some of us would like nothing more then to work on a trade or something, build, fish, enjoy the scenery and the world around us without having to fight all the time. Like....The zones in places in most of these games tend to have something big happening where some enemy is there taking up every square inch, and that simply respawn after about a minute of being dead by popping back up out of the ether.

    No time to do anything in these games everything has to be rushed. Rush to the max level because that's where all the major game updates will focus, rush to the end of crafting because the gear uses stats, rush to the end of the dungeon because that's where the boss is, for even more fighting.

    I'm glad some of these games are waking a bit to what people want these days but they really globally need to put forth more effort because some of us just want peace and quiet but to explore and enjoy the world we're in in these titles. Why can't more devs do that I wonder?

    Also, there doesn't seem to be a combo of the two in most games. It's like they're afraid to cater to all audiences or something. I can't imagine that would be too difficult I know about the skills vs leveling thing but I'm talking about open world explorers/crafter/hobbiers vs hard core raiders.

    I'm not seeing any mmo's out right now that has a beautiful world to wanderlust around in without the need to fight every minute and with the ability to make things or setup shop that combines open world combat/gear progression.

  • karat76karat76 Wellston, OHPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sunshadow21
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by karat76
    I am partially with the OP in that it would be nice to have more options. Not saying no combat in a combat but just bring back so virtual worlds  like UO or a functional SWG or I would settle for a DAoC. Always enjoyed displaying my trophies and keeping my merchant full in DaoC at my house. It was a great place to unwind with guildies after killing dirty hibbies all day.

    As called out on the first page of the thread:

    • Tons of non-combat games exist.
    • If you want them, play them.

    The problem is that increasingly one is forced to accept only combat or no combat, whereas many people would prefer a game that incorporates both. The past has shown it can be done, so it's not an unrealistic expectation.

    That was my point. If all they offer is combat why have a world just make a game that is a giant thunderdome and players can runaround smacking each other. Give us some depth. Viable crafting and world worth exploring. I hated EQ crafting but the world was interesting and worth exploring. I loved DAoC I could have my combat, my crafting and housing it was all good and then trials of atlantis happened.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by karat76
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    The problem is that increasingly one is forced to accept only combat or no combat, whereas many people would prefer a game that incorporates both. The past has shown it can be done, so it's not an unrealistic expectation.

    That was my point. If all they offer is combat why have a world just make a game that is a giant thunderdome and players can runaround smacking each other. Give us some depth. Viable crafting and world worth exploring. I hated EQ crafting but the world was interesting and worth exploring. I loved DAoC I could have my combat, my crafting and housing it was all good and then trials of atlantis happened.

    In isolation, a complaint about combat-centric gaming is preposterous.  Plenty of non-combat games exist.

    Combined with a demand to also have combat and also have several other specific features, the request becomes "make my perfect MMORPG" which obviously is less likely to occur.

    It might not be completely unlikely -- I mean, Skyrim exists as a game which unapologetically does nothing great (except art) yet which still seems to entertain a lot of people -- but it's less likely than expecting specialized (and therefore higher-quality) titles.  And among those specialized titles are plenty of non-combat games.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • Aldous.HuxleyAldous.Huxley Monticello, MNPosts: 418Member
    I agree in part with the OP. All he's asking for is a a balanced approach to a modern mmo. I think Wildstar is attempting to address this with their pathing concept which gives player a choice of focus, ie: crafting, exploring, combat, puzzles etc. While still giving the player a taste of everything. We'll see how it's implemented but I think it's a step in the right direction.
  • kedarakedara Seattle, WAPosts: 51Member

    Mabinogi?

    Eve?

    There is always going to be conflict in the world as we all have differing views, regardless of anyone who says otherwise.

    Games reflect our world, thus there is violence in our games. The only reason to not have violence is if we are all happy and at peace, which will never happen. YAY VIOLENCE!

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    There is something more subtle about battle-fatigue than simply the desire for a non-violent game, it's about having a path that leads to non-violence.

  • sunshadow21sunshadow21 Omaha, NEPosts: 354Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by karat76
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    The problem is that increasingly one is forced to accept only combat or no combat, whereas many people would prefer a game that incorporates both. The past has shown it can be done, so it's not an unrealistic expectation.

    That was my point. If all they offer is combat why have a world just make a game that is a giant thunderdome and players can runaround smacking each other. Give us some depth. Viable crafting and world worth exploring. I hated EQ crafting but the world was interesting and worth exploring. I loved DAoC I could have my combat, my crafting and housing it was all good and then trials of atlantis happened.

    In isolation, a complaint about combat-centric gaming is preposterous.  Plenty of non-combat games exist.

    Combined with a demand to also have combat and also have several other specific features, the request becomes "make my perfect MMORPG" which obviously is less likely to occur.

    It might not be completely unlikely -- I mean, Skyrim exists as a game which unapologetically does nothing great (except art) yet which still seems to entertain a lot of people -- but it's less likely than expecting specialized (and therefore higher-quality) titles.  And among those specialized titles are plenty of non-combat games.

    You would have a point except that MMOs were supposed to be persistent "worlds," i.e. not hyper specialized games but spaces where combat and non combat activities not only both existed, but supported each other. Older game did this but very few games today even attempt it despite having a much larger capacity to do so and successfully pull it off. Such games will never be on the cutting edge of graphics or animations, and not every system in the game is going to be completely unique and eye-popping, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility to create a combination of subsystems that delivers a more interesting game overall. Too many people (and both devs and players are guilty of it) focus too much on individual aspects of the game rather than the overall experience, and that is limiting to the genre as a whole. Specialized, cutting edge games have a place, but so do more generalized games where the focus is less on individual systems and more on the game as a whole.

    As an example (non-MMO I know, but it works), Final Fantasy 7 is seen as one of the best games ever made despite the combat being largely unoriginal and having very few truly unique systems and a relatively mundane story; despite this it worked because what they did implement worked well as a complete package, and this helped people perceptions of the game as a whole. It's successor, Final Fantasy 8, went cutting edge on both story and game mechanics, on the other hand, and ended being so disjointed and complex that it never really got much of a following. Final Fantasy 9 tried going the other way, seemingly having simplicity as a core design of it's different elements, and ended up being too bland for a lot of people. What the two latter games failed to understand was balance and the big picture. Neither were bad in their own right, and both had some interesting mechanics, but neither were able to blend the different mechanics together. MMOs today have very similar problems; the individual features themselves may be great, but most devs aren't doing anything to blend them into a complete game where they work together. The biggest difference between WoW and EVE and the rest of the market isn't what they implement, it's how they implement it to create an inviting and interesting game overall. It's not even significantly harder to do if you plan to do so from the start, so the idea that something must be specialized to be a quality game feels flat and more like an excuse to me.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,853Member Uncommon
    Conflict is engaging and exciting in a story environment. About every fantasy movie, book, story in general has some sort of conflict. I see the point of the OP but taking conflict out of a story also means taking out the victory as well.
  • karat76karat76 Wellston, OHPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon
    Sunshadow21 gets what I mean. If older games could offer what  some of us are asking for why do the new games all fail? I would not play the game without some combat but would it really be that hard to make a virtual world considering mmos were doing it over a decade ago but seem to have devolved into instant gratification theme parks. I love killing but I need more to keep me around. I truly loathe raiding so I need something end game to do so would it hurt to provide meaning crafting or housing .
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    You would have a point except that MMOs were supposed to be persistent "worlds," i.e. not hyper specialized games but spaces where combat and non combat activities not only both existed, but supported each other. Older game did this but very few games today even attempt it despite having a much larger capacity to do so and successfully pull it off. Such games will never be on the cutting edge of graphics or animations, and not every system in the game is going to be completely unique and eye-popping, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility to create a combination of subsystems that delivers a more interesting game overall. Too many people (and both devs and players are guilty of it) focus too much on individual aspects of the game rather than the overall experience, and that is limiting to the genre as a whole. Specialized, cutting edge games have a place, but so do more generalized games where the focus is less on individual systems and more on the game as a whole.

    As an example (non-MMO I know, but it works), Final Fantasy 7 is seen as one of the best games ever made despite the combat being largely unoriginal and having very few truly unique systems and a relatively mundane story; despite this it worked because what they did implement worked well as a complete package, and this helped people perceptions of the game as a whole. It's successor, Final Fantasy 8, went cutting edge on both story and game mechanics, on the other hand, and ended being so disjointed and complex that it never really got much of a following. Final Fantasy 9 tried going the other way, seemingly having simplicity as a core design of it's different elements, and ended up being too bland for a lot of people. What the two latter games failed to understand was balance and the big picture. Neither were bad in their own right, and both had some interesting mechanics, but neither were able to blend the different mechanics together. MMOs today have very similar problems; the individual features themselves may be great, but most devs aren't doing anything to blend them into a complete game where they work together. The biggest difference between WoW and EVE and the rest of the market isn't what they implement, it's how they implement it to create an inviting and interesting game overall. It's not even significantly harder to do if you plan to do so from the start, so the idea that something must be specialized to be a quality game feels flat and more like an excuse to me.

    They're not "supposed" to have a lot of activity variety any more than they're "supposed" to not have activity variety.

    MMORPGs are simply MMORPGs.  If you're a shared, online, persistent game world involving progression, story, and a low or non-existent twitch element, you're a MMORPG.

    You don't get to say your favorite MMORPG style is what MMORPGs are "supposed" to be any more than I do.

    While some of your second paragraph is true, I feel obligated to point out that FF7 is a game which has one core system with very few other types of gameplay.  FF7 is an example of the type of focused "you're going to be doing this 90% of the time" type of game I'm talking about.  Few RPGs diverge from that formula, with notable exceptions being Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3, because as you point out: a well-implemented version of those games is a complete blast. 

    The path to implementing something well is putting most of your eggs in that basket and iterating on the design.  You don't have time to iterate if you split between too many game systems.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

This discussion has been closed.