Support NeoGAF

[the_batman]

are there tranquilizer guns?

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

are there tranquilizer guns?

I doubt it. I don't recall any non-lethal weapons in Fallout 3.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I wholly agree. Though most games do reward equally, if not more so, for players using non-violent means to resolve issues. Just because something is harder to do or less direct doesn't mean it should the more optimal option default. So on that we can agree. All aspects of the game could use more nuance and varying degrees of success/failure.

Yeah, exactly. I think New Vegas has a few great examples of this in action too, Mr House springs to mind.

I don't fully agree with this. While it is technically true you can kill your way through most encounters, the very nature of these games with enemy levels and strength in numbers can often mean that trying to resolve things guns a blazing can often result in a very difficult, if impossible depending on your level, undertaking. So quite often non-violent means are better if not outright necessary to proceed.

You see, I don't think that is true! Non-violent solutions aren't the norm in the majority of RPGs. More often than not, 99% of situations can be resolved with a gun or a sword. It's a rare instance where progress is blocked by a pacifistic solution. It's all very one sided.

If you don't have enough Dakka-Dakka to get through a particularly difficult enemy or mob, you can usually come back with a bigger gun or grind levels till you can bludgeon your way through.

That said I think they need to do a better job of crafting those kind of violence isn't an option situations to better force players to think outside the box for ways to tackle a situation beyond blowing everyone's head off.

Precisely. Bethesda tout their WRPGs as "be who/do what you want" so I don't think it's much to ask for them to consider the pacifist approach more thoughtfully. That doesn't mean a non-violent easy pass.

This is more than fine and quest designs like this will work for the majority of cases the majority of the time. But I still don't think that this should be a hard rule applied to all situations. If a game designer can create a game that allows for all these options all the time that's great, but if they come upon a scenario they've crafted that is really great, but it can only be tackled one way to work I would much rather they keep it that way than try and rework in order to allow for some other means of resolution and possibly dilute the experience in the process. That goes for situations that require speech or sneaking or violence.

All I'm asking for is the main story to these games not have their progress blocked by being forced to kill someone so players can "complete" the game non-violently. In instances where a main story character must be neutralised, I would ideally like an alternate non-violent solution be possible.

I'm not asking for all side missions or fetch quests to be like this, although the option to go back to the quest giver and say: "I ain't like that" would be welcome. It could even have some nasty consequences (ie a hit squad later down the line).

I don't think any of that's unreasonable or impossible to implement, nor do I think it skews the game in favour of the Ghandi approach.

To hammer home the point: the non-violent solution doesn't need to be positive. There are a lot of potential subversions that could really add to the experience. For example:

Imagine there was a tough boss-level bad guy you had to kill to progress. If you were to use the optional pacifistic route to move forward, the boss character would basically hound you for the rest of the game until you either completed it or got so mad you killed them.

Not only that but I think it's important to sometimes force a player into a situation that they are possibly wholly unprepared for and force them to figure out a solution they may not be accustomed to. In an RPG of all games I think it's important to test yourself and your character, regardless of build type. It makes for interesting scenarios when your greatest strengths can end up being completely useless and you have to use other means in order to continue on. That goes equally for the smooth talking, the unseen ninja, or the pulverizing death machine.

Right, totally agree; however, I don't think that should mean forcing people to kill in progress-critical story missions

Spoiler

like (potentially) the mini gun/power armour demo in the Fallout Exploration video

. In an RPG that sells itself on the "be anyone, do anything" mantra, situations where there is only a single solution seem odd to me. It shows a lack of imagination (or resources!).

That's not to discount story-based ethical-type situations that the other poster mentioned. Take Lonesome Road where

Spoiler

you have to stop the launch of a nuke

. If that were designed so the player was forced to decide where

Spoiler

the nuke lands and there was no option to disable it

, I wouldn't consider that ruining a pacifist run because it doesn't affect the moment-to-moment gameplay. I think it would actually have more impact on the pacifist player.

No one is saying otherwise, just that games shouldn't be forced to provide for all play styles all the time. Options and diversity are good and the more of it the better. But certain instances may not allow for every option.

An all or nothing mentality seems kind of pointless and shallow to me. Every encounter and situation should be crafted to be the best it can be. Often times that means multiple options and means to resolve them, sometimes though it might mean only one. Would it be that big a deal if the game provided a number of quests that had outstanding non-violent resolutions, but still had a couple instances elsewhere that required it? Shouldn't we be focusing on quality not quantity? Especially for a feature only a handful of people will ever actually attempt, let alone see through to the end?

I think a variety of options in an RPG is a sign of quality. It shows that the developers have deeply considered the player's reactions and approach to problem solving.

As I said earlier, it's only really the main quest that I'd like to see have definite non-violent solutions with any kind of regularity. Optional side missions are totally fair game.

But you kind of are. You want to reach the very end of the game same as a player who killed in order to get there, but that may not always be possible. I doubt you would be very happy if 20 hours into your pacifist run you received a game over screen with ending slides and monologue talking about how you failed and this that and another thing happened to the world as a result when there were technically another 20 hours left in the game. But realistically that should be possible, just like it should be possible to kill vital NPCs like we could in Morrowind. Maybe that one last guy you sneaked past or convinced not to kill you went on to kill someone else important to the main plot and cut your journey then and there. The game let you do that, it was an option, but the outcome was one I doubt you'd care much for.

I'm not asking for that though! I'm talking in terms of moment-to-moment gameplay and the ability to get to the end of a game without being penalised for a play style. Especially not in a genre that is, for the most part, built on accommodating different builds (WRPG not JRPGS).

Have missions where killing is the only option, just don't have them critical to player progress in the main story. New Vegas did exactly that (I think).

 

[BlackRock]

I think an important point to note is that many of us want wide freedom in how we approach the game and overcome problems. What many of also us want, however, is for the game to remain true to its savage setting. This is a bleak world full of brutal people (and mutants). What we don't want to see are artificial solutions that break with the setting just to allow for certain play styles. You may be able to achieve a pacifist outcome, but it may require deep sacrifice (you may watch innocents get slaughtered for instance) and it may require luck (run like hell from that raider ambush and hope you don't catch a bullet). This is just the reality of the wasteland. It's a savage world.

 

[Harmen]

I want choices. Not necesarily preventing kills trough the whole game, though, since I feel that in a world like Fallout's there can be situations were it is either you or the other. But having many options that make sense within the setting and situation would be great.

Maybe Howard wants us to play as this kind of pacifist:

In a postapocalyptic world without proper healthcare at all severely handicapping a person is not what I consider to be on the good side of morals. Badass, but it is basically giving people a cruel death sentence in the world of Fallout.

I think an important point to note is that many of us want wide freedom in how we approach the game and overcome problems. What many of also us want, however, is for the game to remain true to its savage setting. This is a bleak world full of brutal people (and mutants). What we don't want to see are artificial solutions that break with the setting just to allow for certain play styles. You may be able to achieve a pacifist outcome, but it may require deep sacrifice (you may watch innocents get slaughtered for instance) and it may require luck (run like hell from that raider ambush and hope you don't catch a bullet). This is just the reality of the wasteland. It's a savage world.

I agree.

 

[Unai]

I think an important point to note is that many of us want wide freedom in how we approach the game and overcome problems. What many of also us want, however, is for the game to remain true to its savage setting. This is a bleak world full of brutal people (and mutants). What we don't want to see are artificial solutions that break with the setting just to allow for certain play styles. You may be able to achieve a pacifist outcome, but it may require deep sacrifice (you may watch innocents get slaughtered for instance) and it may require luck (run like hell from that raider ambush and hope you don't catch a bullet). This is just the reality of the wasteland. It's a savage world.

No problem with that. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I think an important point to note is that many of us want wide freedom in how we approach the game and overcome problems. What many of also us want, however, is for the game to remain true to its savage setting. This is a bleak world full of brutal people (and mutants). What we don't want to see are artificial solutions that break with the setting just to allow for certain play styles. You may be able to achieve a pacifist outcome, but it may require deep sacrifice (you may watch innocents get slaughtered for instance) and it may require luck (run like hell from that raider ambush and hope you don't catch a bullet). This is just the reality of the wasteland. It's a savage world.

Yup. I agree totally.

 

[Paasei]

Talk my way out of everything. Speech is the way to go. Always will be in Fallout, it's hilarious.

 

[Tigress]

Talk my way out of everything. Speech is the way to go. Always will be in Fallout, it's hilarious.

I love talking my way out of things. This is the one thing I'll be really super pissed if they don't have anymore (and I want it to be something I can fail if I don't have the right perks or enough of the right stat).

 

[staticneuron]

The number is an RPG abstraction for power. What the bandits should realize is that they are horribly outclassed and have no chance to beat him, and hence back off.

Again how would they know that?

No one quite knows how dangerous another person is and a group of bandits may think they are safe because of numbers. If it was a one on one battle the individual might not pick a fight when approaching a tough looking person, that same individual in a group may try odds on the hopes the opponent might not be able to fend off all attackers at once.

So again, without seeing a number over the guys head, or being afraid of a type of sword they see (pro tip most swords are pretty deadly) then how would they up and assume they are so outclassed it is pointless to attack even in a group?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Again how would they know that?

No one quite knows how dangerous another person is and a group of bandits may thing they are safe because of numbers. Where as if it was a one on one battle the individual might not pick a fight while when attacking a tough looking person in a group means that they might not be able to fend off all attackers at once.

So again, without seeing a number over the guys head, or being afraid of a type of sword they see (pro tip most swords are pretty deadly) then how would they up and assume they are so outclassed it is pointless to attack even in a group?

Depends on the game, of course, but in something like The Witcher, it feels a little silly when random barely-trained bandits charge out at you instead of hiding, when your reputation (both personal and related to the job) precedes you.

It feels like the equivalent of some gangbangers with a few glocks coming after a uniformed Navy Seal carrying a couple of serious guns and a grenade belt.

This is not a thing sane people do, they would hide and wait for the next unarmed merchant to stroll by.

 

[staticneuron]

Depends on the game, of course, but in something like The Witcher, it feels a little silly when random barely-trained bandits charge out at you instead of hiding, when your reputation (both personal and related to the job) precedes you.

It feels like the equivalent of some gangbangers with a few glocks coming after a uniformed Navy Seal carrying a couple of serious guns and a grenade belt.

This is not a thing sane people do, they would hide and wait for the next unarmed merchant to stroll by.

At any point in the entire series, from the first to the third game, did you have an enemy back down or a group of enemies? They know who you are and what you do. They think you are a freak but not invincible. Hence most of the encounters in "all" of the games from bandits to soldiers. Nothing highlights this more than the attack on Kaer Morhen in the very first witcher.

Examples:

Witcher 1

Because of spoilers I decided against posting attack on Kaer Morhen video

Witcher 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5sXuxC_q6g




Also unless Navy seal training or their uniforms make them impervious to bullets I do not see how that example helps.

 

[BigTnaples]

No game does freedom like a Bethesda game.


Will be nice to see just how non violent one can be.