Sign up
  • Articles can be formatted in a much more readable style using the [ap] BBCode.
  • If the article is from another location, provide attribution using the [source] BBCode, URL's can be used inside.
Fork


Note: Despite the video going for 10 minutes, only the first 5 minutes is about this topic.

I think the grounds for the reason are pretty sound. The player is dead or alive, or they win or lose. Everyone knows the fundamentals and since it's so familiar everyone can get behind it, so to speak. I thought the brief psychological analysis was very interesting too.

It also seems that most games that don't have killing in them need to be familiar in a different way, and often just recreate boring everyday tasks like farmville or fast food franchises. These get kids to grow carrots or make burgers for fun.

I'm hard pressed to count more than a few games I've played without any sense of lives or win/lose scenario other than the games ending. Flower is one of them and Journey (not played it yet, waiting for it on PS4) was mentioned in the video. I suppose the old point and click games weren't kill/die either, nor very win/lose in terms of levels, but about the journey the game took you on.

Something to think about, at the least.

What do you think?
kiral
Remedial wrote:
I also like to concept of video games with not kills.


Yeah same. It's actually quite refreshing when a game comes out which doesn't involve killing.

I think that's one of the best things about indie games, they're more willing to go against the proven formula of games only involving killing.
Fork
It's an interesting concept to think about.

The vast majority of games are the player attacking or defending.

There are story driven games, but in them there's generally no real gameplay mechanics other than move and talk.

Good point about the indie games, there's now a lot of puzzle games with cool mechanics like time manipulation and portals and stuff.

I wonder what a game would be like that had some sort of conflict but success/failure didn't matter, and how that would change the narrative.
Malieus
Fork wrote:
There are story driven games, but in them there's generally no real gameplay mechanics other than move and talk.
Good point about the indie games, there's now a lot of puzzle games with cool mechanics like time manipulation and portals and stuff.
I wonder what a game would be like that had some sort of conflict but success/failure didn't matter, and how that would change the narrative.


I like the concept of a game where there is more talking and such, I really want to play the Alan Wake games as they seemed to be more run and hide and solve the story than BANG BANG BANG.

The games like portal and fantastic where it is more solve the puzzle but as the game goes on it does fall back on kill the robots.

The last idea where success/failure doesn't matter would be cool, the story continues, just like in real life. So you could learn the story. For example imagine a game like witcher where if you died, you played as the next witcher and so on untill you either wiped out all the witcher and started to play as a regular joe who hears stories about the fabled witchers in passing while he attempts to kill monsters. Or a game where you can establish a dynasty and your success on the battlefield over many campaigns meant that when you finally died your heir took over what you had conquered, maybe some kind of game of thrones kind of thing where you get to play people till they are dead and other keep stepping in, you might even play all these different characters and as you choose to have certain ones fail or succeed in certain situations it changes the story.

Spoon wrote:
I'm not so sure if I can to concept of video games with or with not kills

not kills is such a good concept
thorment
IMO, "Killing as a fundamental game mechanic" is simply confirmation bias. I mean, if your preferred genre are games with kill mechanics, then sure, you'll only notice those sor oft games.

Fact of the matter is, people play games to do stuff they would normally not do. Killing games just happened to be the more popular genre.

Then there are other simulation games that do not (necessarily) require killing.

Car Simulator, human simulator, train simulator, flight simulators, trade simulators.., GOD simulator, Universe simulator, city building sims


In fact there's pretty much sims for almosteverything.
DRINKING simulators


GRASS simulator


Cheating simulator


Jiminy Simulator
Fork
thorment wrote:
In fact there's pretty much sims for almosteverything.

Very true, but that falls in the "recreate boring everyday tasks" category. Though I suppose all games are simulations of sorts.

Malieus wrote:
The last idea where success/failure doesn't matter would be cool, the story continues, just like in real life. So you could learn the story. For example imagine a game like witcher where if you died, you played as the next witcher and so on untill you either wiped out all the witcher and started to play as a regular joe who hears stories about the fabled witchers in passing while he attempts to kill monsters. Or a game where you can establish a dynasty and your success on the battlefield over many campaigns meant that when you finally died your heir took over what you had conquered, maybe some kind of game of thrones kind of thing where you get to play people till they are dead and other keep stepping in, you might even play all these different characters and as you choose to have certain ones fail or succeed in certain situations it changes the story.

Yeah it's a pretty awesome concept. Closest to this I've seen is Rogue Legacy where if you die, your traits get passed down to your son/daughter along with your "powerups" which is a very cool idea. But still it has the win/lose element.
Post Reply