Would you guys play a platformer or a top-down shooter in which you don't kill?

I have this idea rattling around in my brain, but I'm unsure if it would be fun or not. Essentially I want to create a game in which killing is impossible, or at least discouraged; you as the player would have to either avoid enemies or perhaps negotiate with them. The character would be inherently non-violent in some way, so as to give a justification for the lack of violence, but the game itself could still be violent in theme in that you as the player can still be killed.

I'd just like to know if people would play this or not, is it a good idea?

 

I don't think the idea is fleshed out enough to be good or bad; the value will be in the details. But sure, why not? Most Little Big Planet levels are like this; only on rare occasions do you have an enemy you can "kill" by jumping on some sort of button. I don't recall a lot of killing enemies in Sonic either; it was all about getting through the level as fast as possible (collecting rings along the way).

 

I don't care if I am a plumber jumping on mushroom monsters heads. If it's fun, it's fun.

I've got grand designs for a stealth-action story driven game that involves avoiding combat in a world filled with combat, so yeah I think it's a great idea, but it cannot be done by taking your standard genre game and just removing the killing. You have to design around the core principle of fun, first.

So, the game in a sentence can't be "you don't kill anything!" because the question is "what do I do in this game?"

 

I would and I do play non-violent video games. The problem is: you have started on the wrong end. Being non-violent does not make a game fun (as neither being violent). You really should concentrate on the verbs right now, not on the negation. Find your fun verbs and if they lead you to a fun to play (!) non-violent game don't let you be discouraged.

 

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned Undertale yet.

 

I'd say that non-violence isn't a factor in whether I'd want to play a game. I play for fun, not violence.

Hmmm, when I think about games (that include combat) that I've enjoyed, what comes to memory are non-violent events: finding a secret, avoiding triggering a combat, building something. The combats themselves fade from memory quickly.

 

You're only going to make a good game if your focus is on what you actually do that is fun in the game, rather than focusing on what you plan to prevent the player from doing. What you have described so far is not fun, simply because you haven't mentioned a single thing that would create the fun in your game.

For example, if you described the game as being a lost puppy in a big city, where you need to find food, beg tourists for handouts, avoid getting caught by the dog catcher, avoid getting killed by a car, all while trying to find your owners, that might be a fun game (first non-violent character game idea that popped in my head, where the character can still die).

Lost puppies aren't known for their violence, so being a non-violent character would actually make sense and wouldn't feel out of place. But just focusing on making the game not something doesn't make it automatically fun. What makes it fun or not depends on what the game is, not what it isn't.

 

Make it a cat, though, and we expect a murderous rampage.

 

Yes please for more games not centered on killing. I honestly don't understand why it is so common, of all the things you could do in a virtual world.

I have an idea for a game where the "enemies" are completely harmless until you anger/frighten them. You could just walk by them, but I think many games would identify them as enemies, starts fighting them, and have a completely different experience. It would be fun to create a game that my 30 or so year old male gamer cousin struggles with, but that the 8 or so year old daughter of another of my cousin can peacefully stroll through while enjoying the world.

 

If you study a bit of human psychology, all would make sense.
Two words: Competition & Reward

You can think about packman, mario as killer and destroyer, as well as breakout, because killing bricks.
Is just different means of presenting and pretending things.

 

When I think about the one thing in common in nearly all my favorite games it is to see something grow. Whether it's civilization, a home in the Sims or a server in Minecraft, I love that gradual growing, and the nostalgia that comes when you look at old screenshots or old save files. I just love looking at that city in the very core of your empire and thinking back on how far away you felt with your settler when you founded it 2000 years ago. Or how long the first railway line on my minecraft server felt when it was built, despite the towns it connected now virtually having merged into one continuous monster-free urban landscape.


I wonder what more totally different things can drive us psychologically to engage in games.

 

I would, for me it would have to be something like the Journey or NaessanceE (neither is a platformer or top down though). Exploration with an interesting, vast world and some sort of cool movement idea.


I also like the thrill of stealth games but they'd have to offer some kind of reward.

 

I'm with you. My favorite games have pretty much always been like these, though I will confess to having jumped on a fair number of koopa troopas in my youth.

I think the core aspect of fun is accomplishment. We get that from building/growing things: see what we have made! Early video games had different constraints — get the player to insert a quarter every few minutes. There wasn't much time to grow things there. So they became very centered on overcoming difficulties (which is another route to that feeling of accomplishment).

Since then, the design space has opened up dramatically, but honestly I think many game designers lack imagination. That's why we see so many FPSes, enemy-infested platform games, etc. And it's almost always been games that broke the mold (The Sims, Minecraft, Candy Crush, etc.) that also broke all sales records.

 

Sure, but then you have to make sure whatever the core gameplay mechanic is is nailed perfectly. Hell in some of the early Zeldas there was minimal combat inside dungeons and it was more about exploring and figuring things out.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it yet, but Portal is literally exactly how you describe. There are "enemies" but they are just turrets that you can use to further your own goals. You also have to strategically place boxes in order to sneak around them. It's entirely a platformer with just an FPS look.

 

I believe it can be done, but would be very difficult to do. I think the main obstacle is represented by the first part of your concept of 'I can be killed, but I cannot kill'. This sets up the player to feel victimized and helpless, immediately below the level of capability of their enemies. While this sounds like an exciting plot theme, it really isn't, unless you sort it out very carefully.

I think it's useful to look at video games, like life itself, as a coexistence of one or more 'games'. To feel successful, you must dominate in one or more of these games, because if this game you win at is important, losing any of the other games (such as the killing game) is not so important. And when I say 'dominate', I mean winning, not simply 'not losing'. The only exception is horror games, where the enemy is so malevolent, such distilled and unrestrained evil that simply surviving an encounter with it represents a win in itself.

So the question is, as a result of a successful (mortal or not) encounter with an enemy, what game will your player win at? What will they achieve? What will they gain? How will they level up? If you cannot provide a result that would be better than never having encountered the enemy at all, I doubt you'll successfully pull players into your game.

 

But this presupposes that there even need to be enemies. As @eneroth3 and @newjerseyrunner pointed out, many of the most popular games have no enemies in the traditional sense.

 

That makes things much easier, but the OP pointed out that their game would have enemies which could and would kill the player. This is what presents a difficulty, in my opinion.

As others have pointed out, a game that is based on growth, construction or non-violent competition to begin with is much easier to deliver to players without the inclusion of weapons.

But a game where the player is hunted and cannot destroy enemies is asking players to play the victim, the prey, and that's not going to go down well unless it's balanced with a very strong reward of some kind, an example of which doesn't immediately come to mind.

 

I played tons of different genre games.
From bloody FPS like Doom, Quake, Unreal, Tomb Rider, Crysis etc,
via Tetris, Sudoku, breakouts, other puzzles,
to Sims, Simcity, Civilization, Anno, Minecraft, KSP etc.

All common has discussed by other, is challenge.
But what driving us to it, is a reward of executed task.

Specially before industrialization, but not exclusively, for example reward may be satisfaction, access to better food, or better social position. Or if looking for partner, then reward will be relation ship -> procreation -> family.
We carry this urge and behaviors from our ancestors.

Hence by playing games, we accelerate gaining rewards, we stimulate our urge to have more.

Let take a look simple game as for example flappy birds.
People played it hundreds of times, just to get further and get higher score. Even going through pain and frustration of starting over.
For many just for them self, for others, they wanted to show off to others (instagram, facebook, twitter etc.), to get social recognition.

 

I think you should have worded your poll differently. You might have gotten a more interesting result if the question was more along the lines of: 'What new game announcement would interest you more: another 'kill enemies' game, or one where you don't kill enemies?' The latter would certainly catch my attention more, since it is more likely to provide something innovative.

 

As it has been said, "don't kill enemies" doesn't "provide something innovative", in fact it provides absolutely nothing. It just removes. A game is defined by what it has, not what it doesn't have. It's not the absence of machine guns, survival crafting or geography quiz sections that make a Mario game great, it's the platforming.

 

I play a first person shooter where nobody dies all the time, I don't see why I'd have a problem with any other genre doing it.

 

There is no a problem.
This is why we have so many variations of games. Mixing all possible genres together.
Is just about finding right mix for right market.

 

I would be happy to play such a game if the story it tells is interesting.

 

I prefer killing stuff because its fun (in games, I'm no psychopath). Not being able to see the dramatic effects makes a game boring. Case in point: that game based on the TV show about navigating obstacle suspended above water.. I think it was called Wipeout!

 

I didn't say that not killing enemies would provide innovation. I said that it was more likely to provide something innovative. It's more likely to because without the simple solution (kill enemies for fun), the designer would have to come up with something else to provide fun. Not that there's no possibility for innovation with enemy killing games, but I think it's less likely simply because it's the simple solution.

If I started reading a story about a new game that was a top-down shooter, I most likely wouldn't continue reading past that point. If it was about a top-down shooter without killing, I might at least read further.

 

But you keep reading this thread and responding. So is not entirely true.
Title is caught your eye, because you got feeling something is not right probably. Hence you are suggesting changes.
In marketing is often called click bite. But not necessary that was intention of OP.

I wouldn't necessary agree. Mostly all was probably done anyway at some point. Is just about, how to sell it.
Remake of remake of remake, until successful.

But on topic, lets consider soccer / football, top down, "shooting" ball (no killing)
What about shooting with a paint?

So what makes so different and so important in terms of killing not killing?



How little differentiate these two example, arcanoid - space invaders, just to stick label "killing".
Is just human perception.

Anyone is familiar with classic carmagedon? I think one of best car destruction based games of its times.
But anyway:

Quite bloody game, and you could drive over people as well to get points, along smashing others cars for better upgrades. Well, that was in original. Until later they replaced people with zombies, for reaching wider market.

Equally these could be cubes. But hey, it wouldn't be game about killing anymore. Just collecting cubes, and smashing cars.

My point is, how little is needed, to stick some different label.

 

So you never played Amnesia?
Or similar survival-horror games?

Also, you fight though, but it's very limited, procedural and not horror, but definitely "victimized": Sir, you're being hunted.

 

As I said in a previous post, horror is the only real exception, because the enemy is a representation of pure evil, and simply surviving an encounter with it has a sort of heroic value. It is almost a moral virtue not to engage it on its own terms.

Perhaps there are other exceptions, such as a child being hunted by adults. In every case though, there is a clearly visible gulf in terms of 'physical' capability of violence between the hunted and the hunter, as well as an intuitive moral 'high ground' for the hunted.

But someone who simply won't fight? Some people might have their own beliefs, but someone who conceivably could destroy, or prepare themselves to destroy, an enemy that would do them harm - but does not, for some debatable reason - is very very hard to sell as a heroic figure.

 

It's the other way around: the victimized state, the pure vulnerability which defines horror, not the horror defines the vulnerability and the inability to fight back.
The Sir, you're being hunted is not a classic horror game, and still, it's horror, because of these things. It's unsettling to be vulnerable and unable to defend yourself or fight back.

So every game which put you in the state where you can't fight back, but you should and you are vulnerable is horror.
The We happy few also similar to this, and it has the same horror element. Although you can fight back, but you really shouldn't.

IDK, I wouldn't use the term 'heroic'. Games gone through this trope. You really don't need to be heroic for a good game. You can be the darkest thief and go through the entire game without killing or harming anyone. (classic Thief games?)
And also the fact that you really should not fight (disadvantage on many levels) gives a subtle horror element to the game even on the non-horror levels.

 

Fair point, bit in any case the theme is not that you wouldn't fight back, but that you can't.

I think it's important to consider the context that the OP gave. They say that the main character would be 'non-violent in some way' which suggests a choice or a belief. I don't know of any horror game or movie victim that was 'non-violent' by nature, only cases where it would have been futile and/or fatal to attempt it. And often they end up wreaking some kind of satisfying end on their pursuer anyway, directly or indirectly.

When I use the term 'heroic' I don't mean in some grand sense, only that the character is someone worthy of respect. Someone who is 'non-violent' by nature, even when faced by it, is very hard to respect. Again, some people might have their own beliefs, but it's not instinctively respectable, and therefore a risky sell.

 

Fair point.

Depends on the offered alternative playing styles. I'll come up with the Thief again. Where you can choose (and on very hard it's sometimes mandatory to not kill): they offer a very good alternative to fight: hide and seek. And it works.
The problem is, there is limited number of similar path exist. If you can't talk out yourself from a situation then it's either sneak or fight. End of story.

If the environment isn't aggressive, then we can talk about other possibilities.

 

In Thief, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not being actively hunted. If anything, you are the aggressor, trespassing in other people's houses and stealing their stuff. And when people attack you they are defending themselves.

It's the same thing in a game like Splinter Cell. You are not victimized. The ability to carry out your objective, without being seen or heard or leaving any trail, is the ultimate act of conquest. You are untouchable, and (like Thief) you are on the offensive, you are active and they are essentially passive. If you never infiltrated the enemy base, there would be no conflict. Achieving your objective is a positive act of aggression in itself.

Everything has to have context. Again, I think that it matters very much whether the protagonist cannot, or would not fight.

 

Technically you're always (almost) hunted by the guards even on the streets. But you're right, you're active if you "go there".
But following this thinking if you don't start the game, you have no conflict...

And the basic premise was non-violence, not non-aggression (if we count trespassing as aggression).

 

Let's say you have a setting like the Walking Dead. Instead of killing zombies, you avoid them. Instead of fighting opposing gangs who are out to get what you have, you negotiate with them. This doesn't work. You have no moral high ground. You have no reason not to fight. You are unwilling to do what seems prudent to survive. This is not sellable.

 

This idea kinda reminds me a bit, of the gameplay in Captain Toad!


Would you play a platformer/top-down game where you cannot kill?
Yes! I would.