I'm so tired of the killing.

[Maximum Bert]

I personally dont mind but ironically I suppose fighting games have little killing its usually just K.O s.Others include

Point and clicks (adventure games)
Racing games
Sports titles
Puzzle games
Simulators
Rhythm games
Visual novels

Really its mainly action games that have a lot of killing which also happens to be the biggest genre but I suppose violence and sex are two of the biggest draws that a lot of people can comprehend on some level its just I guess people like violence mainly impersonally and sex the other way.

Violence in games is not necessarily bad though if it serves the game I am all for it if it dosent then leave it out.

Also using the Last of Us was not a good example violence and killing fit that world well.

If you really are sick of it though just play games without it there are plenty there its just most arent as popular as the ones that do contain violence and killing.

The reason I am not disgusted by violence in games is because its not real no one really dies or gets hurt its all make believe and so it can go ott. I remember getting pissed off with Metal Gear Solid 2 because you couldnt kill anyone as that would put you in a whole load of trouble so instead you had to tranquilise them instead which just didnt feel as satisfying, there was nothing like taking out a whole room in Metal Gear Solid without being detected and watching the bodies flash and dissapear, yeah none of this having to hide bodies in cupboards crap.

 

[Foolery]

What ? You mean stealth? Like Metal gear solid where you don't actually have to kill anyone?

Except 4. Where you can run and gun a fair bit, before having to go lie in the shade and wheeze like an old man to get your psyche down. Snake also hallucinates Liquid's voice and pukes at one point if you kill too many people in the first chapter. Peacewalker could also be pretty trigger happy, but you'd lose hero points and not be able get an S-Rank. But there's always the Monster Hunter and mech missions if ya feel like going nuts with explosions, gunfire, etc.

But anyway back on topic. Maybe play one of the old Thief games. GOG.com has plenty of non-murder titles to pick from.

 

[Gronk]

Also using the Last of Us was not a good example violence and killing fit that world well.

I actually think that "the Last of us" is an excellent example. I accept that it is futile to use games like "Call of duty" or other "whackamole"-style games. The killing IS the game. The game and the story is built to satisfy the generic gameplay.

"The last of us" on the other hand, i get the impression, is NOT built around the act of killing. It seems they aimed for an engaging and emotional story, focusing on Joel and his memories and relationship with Ellie. That story, would not have changed one single bit, if they had chosen to remove the killing. Not at all.

I would go as far as to say that the killing actually hurt this story and it's characters. That's why I used it as an example.

 

[FalloutJack]

The Infraggable Gronk!

Gronk, I'm gonna level with you, man. It is never...ever going to become unacceptable. Violence has always sold, from the first moment anybody paid anybody else to hit someone for some reason 'till now. And I'm not going to go on a tangeant about human nature or crap like that. It's just that once people found that violence could be a form of entertainment or as a spectacle (So, perhaps we blame Romans?), it never stopped being on the market in some way. Here, in the 21st century, we have violence in books, TV, games, and music. Because it's not real, it's acceptable. Because it takes a certain edge off of our day and relieves stress, it has a purpose. Because it goes as far as to brutally maim and kill people in nasty horrible ways, even those with the most violent fantasies can be brought down instead of being tempted to exercise their desires in the real.

Now, this isn't for everybody, and it's sure as hell not going to be pretty, but there is solid reasoning for why, and it makes money. In your case, I dunno what to do. You see, as opposed to what game companies call a vocal minority (namely, 8/10 of their customers if not more), your case really is in the minority. Not many people are calling for the mid-range just-knock-folks-out kind of game. Games tend to play to the extremes and alot of people go for that. To get more games that are not all about the killing, you need to drum up a bigger demand for it, and create the case for why it stands up alongside the big violence hits, because you'll never erase them. Co-existence is what you should be aiming for.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well you can always play games where you don't have to kill people, like Scribblenauts, Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero, Portal 1 & 2, ICO, Journey, Flower, Animal Crossing, Myst, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, any LEGO game... or games where you COULD kill people, but are given the option NOT to, like Metal Gear Solid, Thief, Mirror's Edge, Fallout, Planescape, Deus Ex, Heavy Rain... remember you don't HAVE to play!

 

[veloper]

Plenty of good suggestions here of non-violent games and entire genres that the OP has been missing out on.

If you're going to pick up another a shooter anyway, get in the killing mood already. Many gamers simply love that shit and they will always be catered to.

 

[BoogieManFL]

The fact that it's a game pretty much nullifies your problem in my mind. I've killed trillions in games over the years and More than once i've tore apart my garage to get a lizard who got stuck inside of it out alive and safe. I once spent over an hour safely capturing a spider to let it go outside.

Might as well complain about movies and books as well. Fiction is fiction, let it go. You'll be happier.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Also using the Last of Us was not a good example violence and killing fit that world well.

I actually think that "the Last of us" is an excellent example. I accept that it is futile to use games like "Call of duty" or other "whackamole"-style games. The killing IS the game. The game and the story is built to satisfy the generic gameplay.

"The last of us" on the other hand, i get the impression, is NOT built around the act of killing. It seems they aimed for an engaging and emotional story, focusing on Joel and his memories and relationship with Ellie. That story, would not have changed one single bit, if they had chosen to remove the killing. Not at all.

I would go as far as to say that the killing actually hurt this story and it's characters. That's why I used it as an example.

You dont think not having any killing in a post apocalyptic setting where society has crumbled to a huge extent and humans are fighting for survival would be a little odd. I am pretty sure people would be less squeamish about killing in such a setting especially when it comes to be attacked by what are essentially human shaped monsters.

Nature is all about killing and that games premise is essentially a what if story about nature taking back from the humans. The whole thing is set up to allow for conflict so it would be odd if there wasnt any. You wouldnt think oh ill just try and knock them out or some shit if your life was on the line its kill or be killed.

The killing may not be the game like it is in a lot of first person shooters for instance or games like Bayonetta or Ninja Gaiden but its a huge part of the setting and the world if they took it out then it would be a very different game.

 

[Seydaman]

Try roleplaying. A lot of server based games have a lot of roleplaying communities, the whole (or supposedly the whole)point being story telling. Been part of one for a bit now on NwN2 [http://talesofamn.myfreeforum.org/index.php], I know Garry's Mod also has one or two.

While the settings are usually close to violent themes, (HL2, DnD etc.), there's usually ample opportunity to engage in non-combat pastimes.

 

[Busard]

The last of us is one of the only games that justifies why your character kills as you progress though the game. Joel is not a nice person, he's actually pretty damn sociopathic. Having survived in an absolute hellhole through 20 years, it's pointed out numerous time how he became like this during those times.

So things like this...

"The last of us" on the other hand, i get the impression, is NOT built around the act of killing. It seems they aimed for an engaging and emotional story, focusing on Joel and his memories and relationship with Ellie. That story, would not have changed one single bit, if they had chosen to remove the killing. Not at all.

...i disagree entirely with. It would've completely changed Joel's character and his development, his "true self", which is the one of a brutal man driven to the edge.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I'm just sick of it because it's become BORING; it's just used as filler as it's a lot easier to do than making complex puzzles, sneaking sections, or platforming. It's prevalent because of instant gratification which is why you see it even in games where it doesn't fit. For instance, Heavy Rain (which I found to be questionable at best in the adventure aspects) completely undermines its design whenever killing is involved. Another example of that is LA Noire whenever its crappy shooting mechanics come up.

The Elder Scrolls is another example of combat being utterly superfluous because it's just so...bleh. Fighting in those games isn't the point and whenever fighting comes up you just want to get it over with.

Dishonored was actually really good with the no-kill policy as it often felt more rewarding to outright avoid conflict even not kill your targets. Hell, you can even sneak right past the biggest badass in the game and leave him shaking his fist in anger.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is also a great game that even outright ENCOURAGES stealthy pacifist runs due to giving more EXP for not killing people and rewarding HUGE bonuses at the end of a mission if you got through without being seen.

I would like to see more games do that, but we're probably not going to see it as, like I said, killing is the most simplistic way to making something "thrilling."

 

[Dragonbums]

Here is a solution for you.

Don't play games that are rated M.
Turns out, those games tend to do a lot of killing.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Remember Me's protagonist Nilin doesn't go out of her way to kill people. She just beats them up, and alters their memories so they don't wanna fight anymore. Infact it was a goal of the developer to make a less kill-fest sort of game.

I'd say Batman, and Catwoman aren't in the business of killing either, so the Arkham Asylum/City games might be up your alley.

The Way of the Samurai series allows you to beat people up bare handed, or with the blunt side of your weapon(s) so you don't kill a person. Infact in WotS 3 it's encouraged that you knock people out as every person you knock out as opposed to kill, you unlock their appearance for your character as a customization option!

I doubt it matters a whole lot, but Dynasty Warriors series doesn't have a "kill" counter, it has a KO counter. Despite being one of china's most battle ridden eras, a surprising amount of the enemy officers you fight survive the encounter to fight again later.
In Dynasty Warriors 7 Empires, and in several other Empires installments (They're a mix between stand-alones, and expansions as often there's carry over, but you can just buy the often cheaper empires game, and play it without the main game), when you capture an officer as a ruler, you have the option to recruit, release, or kill. You can even turn off officer deaths, and remove the execute option.

There's been pacifist runs in the fallout series, though I've never really tried those.

I could prolly name more if I put my mind to it, but there's a short list.

Kinda reminds me of a part of Sun Tzu's Art of war that I can only paraphrase atm.
To kill one is murder, and makes the killer a criminal, and is punished.
To kill many makes one a greater criminal.

On the other hand the people you kill in games are generally bad people. They take up arms against you to prevent you from saving something, or someone the enemy is putting in peril. The people you kill want you dead. You're often faced with no recourse but to fight.

 

[tilmoph]

I'm not really sick of violence per se. I don't mind building up a high level murder lord and annihilating swarms of mutants and not-nazis (and sometimes actual nazis). But I do like games that have diplomatic options, the more the merrier. Fallout and VTM: Bloodlines (for a while anyway) are decent examples. ME 1 and 2 to some extent, though you do murder a ton of random, nameless mooks, so it can seem a bit hypocritical. After all, Fist tried to kill you, but you can still choose to spare his ass. None of his mercs got a chance to surrender. It makes sense, since it's a firefight but shouldn't the realize they're outclassed and throw down their weapons... but that was another thread.

So, I'm not anywhere near where OP seems to be on this, but I do appreciate the sentiment. Sometimes, you want your peacemaker, heroic type character not to kill more people than the atom bomb. Fortunately, many games and even genres let you do that without sacrificing story. Unfortunately, most of those only allow mercy for certain characters. Fortunately, a good number of games have viable pacifist runs you can try and do.

 

[Chie]

I agree, to an extent. Personally, I can't play FPS because it's just a little too real (and also: motion sickness, but that's another issue.) I really wanted to play Bioshock for the story and wonderful atmosphere/graphics, but I found that the killing took me out of the experience. I ended up selling my copy. I love a good story, and sometimes it feels like the shooter aspect has been shoved in to sell more games (which I totally understand, it's just.. man, I really wanted to love Bioshock!)

I like stealth, but I'm terrible at it. I want to play The Last of Us, and I probably will, but I'm curious to see how I feel about the violence aspect. I'm ok with violence if it feels earned by the story.

 

[Gronk]

The fact that it's a game pretty much nullifies your problem in my mind. I've killed trillions in games over the years and More than once i've tore apart my garage to get a lizard who got stuck inside of it out alive and safe. I once spent over an hour safely capturing a spider to let it go outside.

I just want to clarify that my complaints have nothing to do with whether or not violence in games makes you less empathic or affect you in any other way in real life, that is a totally different discussion.

 

[Gronk]

I really wanted to play Bioshock for the story and wonderful atmosphere/graphics, but I found that the killing took me out of the experience.

This is what i am talking about (and perhaps Chie describes the problem better). Why build such an amazingly good looking wasteland as they do in "the Last of us" and then just fill it with murder? Yes, it's a wasteland. yes, it's an action adventure game (sort of). But it's far from the first wasteland in games, and far from the first action adventure game. Why not do something different? Why not care more for your characters and for their actions? Yes, Joel is traumatized and he has to do nasty things to get by.. I get that. But, Killing hundreds (of non-infected) without flinching? If he did this for 20 years, im surprised there's anyone left at all.

And yes i know there are other genres of games, but i want to play action adventure games (because often they try to have some kind of story) and i know you can make them without resorting to mass slaughter, just like you can make action films without hundreds of dead.

I'm looking for the action adventure game where killing is only used for real drama, where killing someone is a defining moment of a character's arc, or something that demands a serious choice. I think that if you only kill one or two people through an entire game, those deaths are probably gonna be something you remember.

edit: Oh and since i bet some of you are thinking "Why doesnt he play adventure games?". I do, but most of them have a heap of other problems ("use mailman on broken space station".. "say what?").

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It's all very well to preach, but do you have any ideas for alternative gameplay? Because unless you do I suggest you get off your soap box. Just saying.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I kind of agree with you, but for different reasons. Main characters who murder 1000+ people per game tend have to be either "edgy" anti-heroes or have to deal with trying to characterize and justify somebody who goes on killing sprees every Tuesday. It's because of this almost every single AAA protagonist is either one of those aforementioned broody anti-heros or suffer from massive ludo-narrative dissonance as your perfectly normal protagonist butchers thousands.Not to mention it tends to make every game "faceless mook slaughter simulator 2013" without much creativity on the pacing of gameplay or explaining who you're killing and why they keep throwing themselves into your bullets.

Although The Last of Us is a bit of a bad example, since there is much less killing (comparatively) then most AAA shooters, and it's in a setting where shit has already hit the fan and everybody's trying to survive. The Joel thing actually has a 20 year time gap in between them, which I felt could have been a bit better expressed other then "he's willing to kill now", but there is a reason for it.