Is it possible to create a game that is centered on conflict yet that prohibits the player from utilizing violence as a form of problem-solving? Would such a game even be fun? I feel like it would have to be quite sophisticated.
probably tylo be chillin
>>344661556
Does making your enemies fight each other count as violence?
>it would have to be quite sophisticated
you can do this in fucking undertale
>>344661702
/thread
>>344661556
>is it possible to create a game about violence
>but also not about violence?
Zero Escape does this most of the time.
>>344661669
I would say yes. Violence would be an ever-present threat but succumbing to it or being unable to prevent it would almost certainly result in death and cause a game-over. For this reason I think it would have to be a rogue-like or something to provide an interesting experience. A fixed story or world an save system would make it too predictable and easy to hash out.
>>344661702
I haven't played Undertale, I suppose I should. Could you explain in greater detail?
>>344661769
Yes, that is my hypothetical. Would the player even be entertained?
>>344662132
>Could you explain in greater detail?
nah, I'll let you experience the disappointment for yourself
>>344662132
Not him, Undertale focuses on the violence between humans and monsters, having banished the monsters to the Underground.
You are a human child who fell into the Underground through a hole in a mountain.
You can beat the entire game without killing anyoneThe game does feature a select few situations in which you do need to fight, though, because Toby couldn't be bothered to put in an alternative.
They will try to kill you though.
It's not amazing by any stretch, but it meets what you asked in the OP.
>>344662463
Sounds interesting, I'll check it out.
See I had this idea for a game that is set in a very violent world, but the player would control a pacifistic character who is trying to gain as many followers and save as many lives as possible. You would have to resolve conflicts peacefully, either by reasoning with your enemies or offering something they want (in which case they could return at a later point, stronger and less willing to resolve things diplomatically.)
The game would be won by ringing peace to the kingdom, while engaging in violence would likely result in player death and game over. Save-scamming would likely ruin such an experience, hence the thought that it would need to be a rogue-like.
Play civilization V. You can play the entire game without ever fighting someone, but still clearly have conflict over land expansion, city states, trade deals, culture and etc.
People do no-kill runs of stealth games all the time.
>>344661556
come back to this thread when you're sober and think about what you've done
There are a ton of RPG's that feature peaceful solutions through dialog choices. New Vegas is a good example of this.
Edea: The Awakening and Renowned Explorers also has you solving battles through peaceful means as well.
In strategy games, you could feasibly win a game by being diplomatic. Civ V is a good example of this.
>>344663582
I've played New Vegas and Planescape: Torment and I appreciated the wealth of options at one's disposal. Have not played Edea though, I will look into it. Civilization V as well, the last one I played was IV and it's been years.
However, I suppose I should have been more clear in the OP. In most RPGs or strategy games it's equally if not more viable to solve all of your problems through violence if you choose. I envision a game where the player cannot engage in violence whatsoever, even as a last resort. Enemies may attack the player but in those instances you will either be killed or possibly attempt to flee. This is why I'm curious if it's possible to design such a game in an entertaining fashion.
>>344664096
Well, you could feasibly look into psuedo VN games like Phoenix Wright, Danganronpa and VA-11. There are also a ton of Point & Click adventure games that give you non-violent solutions to problems.
![SCP-173[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3KqQxHH.jpg "SCP-173[1].jpg")
>>344664096
>I envision a game where the player cannot engage in violence whatsoever, even as a last resort. Enemies may attack the player but in those instances you will either be killed or possibly attempt to flee.
Many horror games fall into this category. The first Penumbra has some shitty combat, but the sequel completely does away with it. You can't attack enemies in Amnesia either. Haven't played SOMA but I assume it's the same.
SCP Containment Breach is also pretty great; the main focus is the main enemy SCP-173, a statue which can only move and interact with objects when no one is looking at it. There is a blinking mechanic in place where your character automatically blinks after a certain time (or you can force it earlier manually), and during blinks the enemy moves few meters towards you and tries to open closed doors or if it's near enough, snap your character's neck.
>>344665069
Point and click Adventures crossed my mind but I'm thinking something more dynamic.
>>344666225
I was not considering horror but nevertheless these sound interesting and I haven't played any of them. Thank you anon.
I wouldnt make a game purely on not killing. Just make not killing rewardable. Like in undertale its easy to go through killing everything gettting gold and xp. But if you are pacifistic then you dont get gold or xp but those characters you let live become your friends or you see them in the real world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHH7M4siPM
here is a video done by mark brown about morality in video games. i recommend you watch it it might help you come to whatever it is you are looking for.
