To some extent that's the point of my suggestion - to suck some of the fun out of simply fighting. It probably won't surprise you that I've been playing Final Fantasy Tactics Advance lately, and I like what an arbitrary ruleset (even one as eccentric and random as FFTA's) adds to combat. It naturally leads to tactical rulebreaking, which is an interesting play mechanic.

I guess my suggestion with regards to sunandshadow's game is to use a legal system that punishes an overly-aggressive or misplacedly aggressive approach. For example, if a village was under attack from monsters then it would be legal to defend that village, but an unprovoked attack would be punished. The intention would be to force the player to carefully consider the repercussions of violence and its justification.

Wav - It's not so much that I think my game will single-handedly teach people how to live (although that is kind of the point of making art - that you have a message you want the world to hear). It's just that I would feel hypocritical and irresponsible if I created a game that rewarded attitudesand behaviors I don't think should be rewarded IRL.

Grim - I'm not interested in portraying the horrors of violence, that does't fit with the romantic tone of my story at all. What I am looking for is not really a way to make combat cute, but an alternaive to combat, something with the same fun kind of gameplay but different details to give it a different phlosophical meaning. Thus my original cheesy suggestion of competing against NPCs at DDR.


Here's something interesting I thought of - it won't work ith my story, bt maybe somebody else will want the idea. Fighting Yourself - In a game where the PC has false or repressed memories, he might have to fight a representation of himself inside his subconscious to regain each memory.

What will work for my game, but isn't complete enough: Fighing automatic guard objects such as dumb robots and animate trees. Fightn these sorts of enemies is fine with my ethics - but no way can I make all the combat for a game out of this. :/ Well, you al keep up the good suggestions and I'll keep thnking about it, and maybe more pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. :)

I kinda like the suggestion about non-lethal weaponry that was made early in the thread. I haven't had time to read the doc for Xenallure but IIRC it takes place in a somewhat alien setting, which offers lots of possibilities for interesting weapon design. The first thing that popped into my mind was the gun in FF: the Spirits Within which spawned some sort of large block of jelly upon impact (of course they used it to save somebody from a lethal fall there, not to incapacitate an enemy), but all sorts of machinery or spells can be designed to immobilize or slow down enemies while still giving the game a "serious" feel.
Of course, nonlethal combat is not quite what you were after...

Another possibility, consequence of watching too much samurai movies, is the duel. A fight to which both parties agreed and which is regarded as acceptable and even honourable by society. In these movies they often try to convey to feeling it's not physical strength that wins the fight, but that both duelists are conflicting on a somewhat deeper level. Though really, the underlying morals still glorify violence as a way to solve problems, so I'm not sure it's that appropriate...

<slightly off-topic>
The "fighting yourself" bit is really intriguing, and has actually been used in a way in a recent game, Metal Gear Solid 3. It was a prequel to the series, and told the story of one character who would later be regarded as a legendary warrior. The bosses of the game were designed as incarnations of primary emotions experienced on a battlefield, and the hero had to overcome them to evolve from a naive soldier to a strong, but disillusioned mercenary.

As such, these bosses, though they were supposed to be real persons in the game, had nearly no past, no identity apart from their callsigns (the emotions they were avatars of, e.g. "the pain", "the fear", "the sorrow"), sometimes no face and capabilities so unnatural you couldn't help but wonder at times if they were anything but a figment of the hero's imagination. The series has always had several layers of interpretations, and this one has been very interesting to me.
<back on topic>

As another alternative, there is, of course, the pokemon way (replace with Battle Network, Yu-gi-oh, whatever). Not exactly the "collect stuff" aspect, but the fact the monsters or cards or auras or whatever, provide a way to solve conflict that is physically separated from the characters.

In other words, you have an emissary who fights for you, and when a person's emissary is defeated its master admit the defeat and won't be an obstacle to you anymore. To work beyond the whole friendly tournament aspect of these games and in a more serious conflict, of course, the emissary has to be something so unnaturally powerful no one would want to fight it without an emissary of his own (i've got a vague design going on based on that system, with some sorts of demonic robots who are mentally bound to the characters, but really, it could be auras or totems of the characters, engaged in a mental fight), or it is simply a socially accepted fact that once the emissary is defeated the fight is ended.

To talk in programming terms, you'd add a layer of abstraction to the conflict. Personally it's my favourite solution. Of course, it doesn't remove the violence, it only delegates it to the emissaries (Unless you go for the card thing :P).

Well, if violence makes things worse, thats how it should work in the game. Don't eliminate violence, give the players an consequence for taking that road.

However, your game sounds interesting enought without fighting. Just my opinion...

Quote:

Wavinator: Typically, people turn to ideology and religion for that, not entertainment.

I've known many teens who picked up philosophy from movies. They stick with it and see if it works in the real world.
One thing that stuck with me forever was Mortal Kombat 3's line: "there is no knowledge that is not power"
Then again, as you say, everyone picks what they want to pick from their experiences. And the idea of designing around a philosophy is good, so if there is any message to be spread, you already thought of it.

Quote:

sunandshadow:Well, I don't want the player to feel guilty or condemnedfor fighting, I want the combat to be fun, otherwise I woud just leave it out entirely.

Well damn. [smile] I'd really like to see a game that lets you follow the FPS stereotype and kill someone... then make you feel really guilty about it. Maybe show you his widow crying desperately and asking you why... maybe see his children.. or his ambitions, etc. Or alternatively, follow's someone else's death trail, finding said situations.

Quote:

Yohumbus:2. You could have the main character be a pacifist or someone that is really violent but put them in a utilitarian situation where violence is required to reduce or prevent massive death. In doing so story elements could be employed to show the horrors of the violence the protagonist is inflicting. This could possibly change the character from being violent (if that is the path you took) or could be placed as a huge emotional obstacle to a pacifist character.

A la Die Hard. This works, hollywood does it all the time. Enhance the effect by having the player go over the effects of the little violence he had to use, making patently obvious that it was a choice of lesser evil (rather than wh00t! kill the baddies!).

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow I like combat in games, especially action/arcade style combat, it's fun.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Wav - It's not so much that I think my game will single-handedly teach people how to live [...] It's just that I would feel hypocritical and irresponsible if I created a game that rewarded attitudesand behaviors I don't think should be rewarded IRL.

You want the fun of combat, but you don't want to condone it.

Well, if your game is going to be of a political nature and content with different social organizations, why not have the virtues that are most clearly manifested in physical conflict be revered by one or more of the groups? Say one of your three civiizations has a warrior legacy, like the Maori. The physical endurance and mental nimbleness that lead to great combat prowess are beloved by these people, and while they do not engage in warfare the way they used to, their metaphysical outlook still places great value on these attributes.

So, if you're trying to join one of their social groups, or wooing one of their daughters, or trying to impress allies, you must demonstrate that you posess the strength of mind, body and character to gain combat abilities. Ritualized fighting, with proper safety precautions, will test your mettle without any of the hard feeling or risks assiciated with deadly force. The consequences of your performance in a fight would be at least as profound as actually harming someone in such a culture, but might not be tied so decisively to winning or losing. I assume you've read Whitman's "Song of Myself", but I'll quote a few little bits from stanza 18 here...

Quote:

[...] I play not marches for accepted victors only, I play marches for conquer'd and slain persons. Have you heard that it was good to gain the day? I also say it is good to fall, battles are lost in the same spirit in which they are won. [...] Vivas to those who have fail'd! And to those whose war-vessels sank in the sea! And to those themselves who sank in the sea! And to all generals that lost engagements, and all overcome heroes! And the numberless unknown heroes equal to the greatest heroes known!

So if you can make a great effort, losing is a little matter. This way, violence is not being rewarded so much as spirit and character are. You show the perseverence to learn to fight well, the courage to face your adversary, the dedication to fight on even in the face of defeat, and the dignity to admit when you are beaten. The scoring system could take all of this into account, and give you not a "score" per se, but more of a psychological evaluation. Fighting wouldn't necessarily gain or cost you anything specific, but would teach you and others about yourself.

I like the ideas expressed in the previous post.
- The magicals are probably the best choice for ritual combat.

I'd like to suggest sport as a form of non-violent conflict. It might fit with the technos, but then again it might not.

I don't really see the spirituals having a culturally based form of non-violent conflict.


I think that there should always be the possibility for non-violent conflict to degenerate into violent conflict, but there should be repercussions if this happens (this is where the law comes into play?).

A game called Paradroid had two combat elements to it. First the standard shoot to kill sort of thing. The second was a battle to take control of a target robot, sort of like trying to take over their mind. This was done in a sort of timed action logic puzzle where each side would race to get the majority of "control registers" on a somewhat random playing field. The one with the most registers when the time was up won control of the other robot. Lots of fun.

Can you create individual puzzles of to disable or "de-animate" foes? De-animation could be the result of some sort of anti-spell weaving that takes place. Maybe the strength of the foe would make the proccess more complex.

After reading all of the posts here, I have to agree that the best solution that fits well with this theme of social interaction and exploring seems to be a duel system, with a non-violent form of resolving the conflict. Losing a duel would be considered a dishonour, just like losing a game you're good at against someone else, or like those duels in the Renaissance times of Europe where the first one to draw blood on the opponent is the winner (it's violent, I know, but the idea is that losing or winning has a profound psichological effect on the duelers, there's no need to kill anyone). The biggest problem would be in finding an appropriate game, or form of resolving conflict, that gives you good gameplay mechanics and blends seamlessly into the rest of the game. Right now the only ideas I have are combat through an avatar (robot for the technological race, summon for the magic race, and spirit or projection of the own's mind for the psychics), which could still be considered ethical if they are not sentient creatures but entities directly controlled by their masters instead; or some kind of a "national sport", maybe even with leagues and similar competitions. I know that all of these were already mentioned before but I just wanted to put it in another perspective, especially where you tie it with an honour system that is related to the rest of the gameplay, I hope it helps :)

Hmm, some interesting food for thought here! :) Totems/mental duels we could possibly do something with, since they could be made to fit in with the story and worldbuilding. Ritual combat does indeed sound like it would fit well with the Magical's culture. Not sure how that would work with the technos... We already plan to have a sport mini-game and a speed-puzzle mini-game, so it might be redundant to use something like that instead of combat.



I've been thinking about why I want combat. Well, combat is fun. Fun? What kind of fun exactly?

1) Combat is visceral, so it makes the player feel more invested in the PC - if the PC dies, the player 'dies' or at least has to restart from last save, and if the PC is victorious the player feels vicariously victorious.

2) Combat gets the player's adrenaline flowing more than almost any other type of gameplay because it requires strategy under time pressure with a constant threat of failure. It makes a valuable break from the main game, which is more relaxed and cerebral because it is mostly exploring and assorted non-speed puzzles.

3) Combat gives the player a sense of progress. Acquiring new combat abilities is tangible evidence that the PC is learning about the game world, making progress towards becoming a master of it rather than a clueless newbie. Seeing the PC get better at kicking monsters' asses makes the player vicariously feel as if he/she is improving him/herself.

4) Combat provides a reason for 'treasure' to exist in the rest of the game, and thus for the player to eagerly search for it.


So, then I wondered, have I played any non-combat games which felt like this? PopCap's Zuma and Neopets' Freaky Factory are two games that immediately spring to mind. Both of these games provide the player with a steady stream of raw materials interspersed with random bonuses which increases in speed as the game progresses. The player has to grab these before they escape or overflow, and make the most strategic moves to create combos as quickly as possible, to fulfill a quota before time runs out. So this fulfills #2. If the bonuses, instead of being random, were found as treasure so that the player acquired a larger arsenal of them throughout the game, that might take care of #3 and #4. To make it visceral an image of the PC would have to appear to be taking the actions the player chose during the game. Also the powers the PC is gaining and using in the game would have to have some vague real-world applicability to make the player feel that they were improving the PC in a way that was truly meaningful.


So, I haven't decided how combat or whatever should work in Xenallure yet, but I feel that we're making progress by getting all these ideas out on the table. :) So, do you all have any more ideas about totems, mental duels, a sport, and fulfilling the 4 points above?