Original post by sunandshadow 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.
The same could be achieved through stealth for example, where you have to try to sneak past enemies. Not only do you avoid combat, (Avoiding it is the point, as otherwise YOU will die) but if fills these requirements nicely.
If you must, you could include the option of killing an enemy if all else fails, but at the cost of your score.
The four points that sunandshadow posted why combat is fun are not constraints. They are objectives. Any gameplay can be designed to satisfy those objectives. For instance, Tetris can have all four, after adding 'treasure' items.
[Edited by - Estok on February 18, 2005 9:37:37 PM]
You are going to include physical confrontation in the game, right? Even if you don't valorize it, I think violence is always available, and its conspicuous absence would make the world less feasible. If absolutely nobody hurts anybody else, or even tries to, it could mess with suspended disbelief.
Several weeks ago I wrote a reply to this topic but I didn't post it because the reply was too long (mainly due to the examples I would give you, which dicated me to define yet another hypothetical game with complete gameplay in order to fully explain it), and that the solution is intuitive and obvious. If you took some time off and think about it again, I was sure that you would come to the same perspective and conclusion.
In summary, what that post would have said included:
1) The problem you were addressing is the same argument as that between pornography and art. The existence of violence does not contradict the underlying philosophy of peace, in fact it can be use to highlight the presentation of the philosophy. (Including combat will also fit the central idea in your design that there are different believes and lifestyles, and NONE of them is the best for everyone and all the time. This philosophy points toward the idea that violent is the best for some situations. If you excludes it you would homogenized a remarkable limitation of the presented philosophy. I am evaluating the choice of gamplay based on the core, the central ideas, at the top level.)
2) The four points that you gave by no mean limit any gameplay. Any gameplay can be designed to achieve those effects.
3) The gameplay can follows naturally from the top level designs and the story. Since any gameplay can satisfy them, the gameplay you choose should be integrated with the story to maintain the focus of the game. The main features in your game are political and relational conflicts. These conflict do not point naturally to 'combat'.
4) The four points you gave are not all of the 'reasons' why combat was chosen originally. More subtle and crucial reasons include immersion through physical correspondence, and expression of real life fantasy. This is about bridging between the game world and the real world.
[Edited by - Estok on February 21, 2005 9:18:06 AM]
What about restricting combat to specific locations, such as the arena in the Might and Magic series?
You could make it illegal to fight outside of these locations, but allow people with disputes to choose between trial by combat or in law courts. The seriousness of the dispute could determine the level of violence allowed.
You could even give the player the option of acting as a champion for others.
100 nukes? I like that idea :) If I had the game I'de take you up on the challenge.
Instead of the puzzle, why not use the method employed in the US in the place of combat. Sue the twerps :) Since this is a game where you have to get the NPCes to like you why not utilize this concept with a jury. Maybe even make it fast paced. With rebuttals and accusations. You could use a method like DDR and have to press proper buttons in order to rebuttal all of the accusations coming your way, and then maybe some other way to bring the accusations back on the opponent. That's the only non-violent method I think I could come up with :)
