Can we make non-violent gameplay ie. games where you don't need to kill other characters to get past the next area? Can we also make non-combat based gameplay that has the same kind of exciting qualities as combat-based gameplay? Some ideas, Dynamic puzzle solving. Instead of a boring puzzle this would be more of an 'action' puzzle, a 'survival' puzzle game. You would have a variety of tools that allow you to solve the puzzle, but the environment would actively be trying to destroy you. But you wouldn't be trying to destroy it. Ie. Playing a platform game in the middle of a game of Tetris. There would be a stream of platforms slowly falling downwards, you would need to jump out of the way to avoid being crushed by them, you would have to use the environment to get higher up and out of the way of the falling platforms. Sometimes you would have to use the falling blocks to get across the level. Of course this wouldn't be very creative, so what if we gave the player tools to interact with the platforms. Ie. They can place blocks in the environment to slow the progress of the platforms, they could make bridges to other areas etc. (Like the girders in Worms).

Quote:

Original post by Ketchaval Can we make non-violent gameplay ie. games where you don't need to kill other characters to get past the next area? Can we also make non-combat based gameplay that has the same kind of exciting qualities as combat-based gameplay? Some ideas, Dynamic puzzle solving. Instead of a boring puzzle this would be more of an 'action' puzzle, a 'survival' puzzle game. You would have a variety of tools that allow you to solve the puzzle, but the environment would actively be trying to destroy you. But you wouldn't be trying to destroy it. Ie. Playing a platform game in the middle of a game of Tetris. There would be a stream of platforms slowly falling downwards, you would need to jump out of the way to avoid being crushed by them, you would have to use the environment to get higher up and out of the way of the falling platforms. Sometimes you would have to use the falling blocks to get across the level. Of course this wouldn't be very creative, so what if we gave the player tools to interact with the platforms. Ie. They can place blocks in the environment to slow the progress of the platforms, they could make bridges to other areas etc. (Like the girders in Worms).

Probably the most successful non-violent game in history, apart from the Sims, was probably Myst and its sequels. And now with the adition of the online version, Uru.

True and neither of them had any of the qualities of combat.
I think the idea I'm trying to work out is how to make non-violent (3rd person character based) games for people who like combat oriented games. Ie. How to make it exciting.

Deadend pursuit?

Combat has always been the weakest element of the Prince of Persia series. Really, I think the enemies were just put in there as an "X-Factor" to reduce your health when you were too good at avoiding traps.

PoP: Sands of Time is one of the finest games of recent years, and would lose little if combat were removed entirely. PoP: Warrior Within, which attempts to make the game more fighting-oriented, suffered terribly as a result.

Play Sands of Time for a good trap-based acrobatic obstacle course. It's a blast. Spider-man 2 is another example of a fun game that gains very little from its violent content. Web-swinging and racing and rescuing people from rooftop ledges or sinking boats was way more fun than punching bad guys. There's nothing quite so satisfying as a huge hail-mary tarzan swing to catapult yourself eight stories above the rooftops to retrieve some kid's balloon.

So keep the pace, and the twitch controls, but be dodging traps Indiana Jones-style or scaling a crumbling tower. heck, Super Mario 64 was predominantly non-violent, and it's one of the finest games of all time. Moving platforms, lava pits, monkeys that steal your hat... What could be better?

Non-violent gameplay?

What's the point?

I play nonviolent games all the time (seems to be Nintendo's specialty). Although, there is a difference between comedic violence, and the crazy gore you see in games today. Though I'm not a fan of seeing blood spout all over the place (which seems to be the new trend), I would be pretty POed if someone gayed up Tie-(Kickass)-Fighter.

I just wrote a longish message with 3 ideas and accidently cleared it.. but here I go again.

Idea 1) Hide and seek / Tag style game
Idea 2) Scare game - you have to scare NPCs or other PCs
Idea 3) Non-combative RPGs, quest driven, you can still have fast paced puzzles, suchs as shifting floors, and dodging things (rolling boulders that push you back, rather than squish you).

I hope these ideas are some help.. I can give more ideas possibly if I'm along the right track.

-Bobo the Clown

I really enjoy the simcity series, and I really enjoy building my base in RTS games.. (I usually make it a fortress because I'm not so good at commanding armies).

Quote:

Original post by Ketchaval True and neither of them had any of the qualities of combat. I think the idea I'm trying to work out is how to make non-violent (3rd person character based) games for people who like combat oriented games. Ie. How to make it exciting. Deadend pursuit?

Do you call Mario violent?

Well, the clear problem is the definition of combat.

If combat means fighting, then there's always violence.
If combat pertains to just plain competetion, then there are many options.
If combat means conflict, then there are non-violent ways to do that too.

But I think the key I don't get is exactly what you mean by "combat."

Then there's violence, which can be defined on many levels as well. Violence as in seeing blood and gore? Or violence that simply inflicts pain?

It seems the game Ico has some of the qualities you refer to with a combat system that's not very violent in nature.