Is there a non-violent option?

[2fish]

I?m going to say no as most RPGs that are mostly nonviolent would probably be labeled as sim games.
Since horror/FPS/action/adventure tend to focus on an emotional high it is harder to achieve this without action (read violence) let alone any killing. We would need far better stories than most video games seem to provide.

RTS just needs a conflict to work at its core. I suppose you could make it a verbal conflict?but where would we put base building?

MMO no idea as I can?t stand the gameplay. MMO is so broad I am sure we could make one fit this category. MMO farming or something, however this would again probably fall under simulation.

The best I can think of is a spy game where it plays like hitman/thief but no weapons. Steal secrets get out clean.

However I tend to play games that allow me to wear on of my titles.

2fish:
Hunter of men
Knife in the Shadows
Silent Assassin
Let?s burn things!
You hear the voices too? Do you see the waypoints too?
Lord of the Economy
=I= Inquisitor =I=

 

[alexwbyrd]

[quote="
I guess the real question here is why, why do we feel the constant need to create and take in media like that.
[/quote]

Because us Americans LOVE our depicted violence and action. Although, I certainly can't speak for any other countries, our culture seems to be enamored in violence depicted within our media.

 

[MrCollins]

Harvest Moon, any game in the series. A peaceful game where you play a farmer that tends to his crops and befriends the locals and cares for his animals, oddly medidative gameplay and I find it oddly compleling.
Animal Crossing, any game in the series. Needs no explanation
Any form of simulation/management game. I like RollerCoaster Tycoon, but any games in that series.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

For platformers, there's VVVVVV. It's completely non-violent, unless you count the player dying as violence. Your goal is to get from point A to point B without coming into contact with any of the various hazards in the environment which can kill you. You, however, can't kill anything. Just die and respawn a few feet away if you screw up.

 

[00slash00]

Isn't it possible to do a pacifist run of Mirror's Edge but it's just really hard?

not entirely. you can do a run where you just knock guards out but dont kill them, because there are sections where the door to the next room wont open until you take care of all the guards. thats not really a pacifist run though, because youre still resorting to violence, you just arent resorting to murder. and actually you cant even do that, because theres that one part where you have to use the sniper rifle.

 

[Scarim Coral]

This thread remind me what my bro had to go through in his videogame course. They had to make a game well a demo that has no violences at all. He pulled it off at the end but it was a hard task to do.

Anyway there's Animal Crossing or does accidently stepping on insect count as violent?

 

[veloper]

Are there any non-violent games?

Obviously there's racing/sports/simsville genre games, lets discard those.

We shouldn't. They fit the requirement of non-violence afteral. Let's add computer versions board games and card games aswell as management sims to the pile.

I'm talking about genres that are based almost entirely on violence, the worlds of action

Pitfall. Bittrip. Shuggy.

/adventure

You seriously mean you never heared of any of the popular AGs like Monkey Island?

/fps

Does shooting animals count? If not, then there are some games that qualify, but not any good ones. Goes with the shooter part of FPS.

/rpg

Dangerous highschool girls in trouble. Surprisingly decent game too.

/rts

Violence is kind of inherent to warfare, unless we don't count robots in which case you can still play the real gems like TA and Supcom.

/mmo.

MMO doesn't have to mean MMORPG. Play Habbo hotel or something.

 

[Zantos]

This is honestly the biggest problem with gaming IMO. There has never once been a popular, mainstream game without combat.

What about Myst?

OT: Yes, Myst, with no combat, no violence, no enemies, no failure, no death. Not my cup of tea, but it certainly fits the bill you're after.

This discussion does seem a little odd. We're looking for non-violent games, except not these non-violent games, and those games don't count because there is the option to be violent in them. I can play and win on Endless Space without a single shot being fired from the massive railguns of the capital fleet, in fact I think with the consumption of resources to rebuild, rearm, and research new ships and weapons I'd say it does push you towards diplomatic means.

 

[Pink Gregory]

It's a strange one, much of making a game interesting or compelling is conflict and resolution; Dear Esther may have been atmospheric and good at storytelling (don't know, haven't played), but it can barely be called a game in the traditional sense, much as I am an advocate of interactive storytelling.

And this is all in the context of what the OP is talking about, not across all games. I don't really see why it's that much of a problem (although I do think a few too many new releases go to extra lengths to be needlessly graphic), though it's an interesting experiment.

I 'unno, maybe something needs a real threat to be made that much more compelling; imagine if it was impossible to die in Amnesia, for example.

 

[Hagi]

Almost all games currently do two things.

1. They're primarily spatial. The main controls function to move things around and everything is represented through spatial means, position and shape. The most important piece of hardware involved is focused purely on rendering 3D environments.
2. They're interactive. It's all about providing input and interpreting output. Whether it's with other players online or against the game itself offline what defines games is that they're always interactive. You can't play video games at all without input and output devices.

In the end this means that the vast majority of games are about spatial interactions. And there's only so many of those that are popular within our cultures, and from those there's only really one that's always better in a video game than it is in real life.

Dance is a form of spatial interaction and dancing games are quite popular, but the simple fact remains that real life dancing is a serious competition and probably better in the end.
Sport is another form of spatial interaction and sports games are again very popular, but the same fact applies that real life sports are arguably better and more fun.
Combat whilst also a form of spatial interaction differs because, especially in it's lethal forms, it's probably much better in a video game. You can't get hurt and especially not killed, two very major advantages.

If video games want to take a non-violent popular route then designers need to think of a spatial interaction that's both great fun and better in a video game. Alternatively AIs need to be developed that are advanced enough for other types of interactions, either more emotional ones in games that rely almost exclusively on character development and interaction or more logical ones for games that rely on debating, curiosity and that type of problem-solving.

 

[DoPo]

I 'unno, maybe something needs a real threat to be made that much more compelling; imagine if it was impossible to die in Amnesia, for example.

You can have a failure state with no death or blood or anything. In racing games you can finish last (or maybe "not first"), in timed games you can run out of time, etc. I played some Ghost Master yesterday (by the way it's still less than a dollar on Steam for the next 4 hours) and your goal is to scare people using different kinds of ghosts - you fail the mission if you run out of plasm (you get plasm if you scare people, otherwise, it slowly runs out).

 

[munx13]

Without the games already mentioned, I'd say STALKER CoP. While it cant be completed without shooting some mutants and monolith fighters, many quests can be completed with a non-violent choice and you always have the ability to run away from a fight.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I 'unno, maybe something needs a real threat to be made that much more compelling; imagine if it was impossible to die in Amnesia, for example.

You can have a failure state with no death or blood or anything. In racing games you can finish last (or maybe "not first"), in timed games you can run out of time, etc. I played some Ghost Master yesterday (by the way it's still less than a dollar on Steam for the next 4 hours) and your goal is to scare people using different kinds of ghosts - you fail the mission if you run out of plasm (you get plasm if you scare people, otherwise, it slowly runs out).

I think those are outside the (admittedly strange) remit of the OP. Though a similar thing in the context of the OP could certainly work, although then taken out of context it really comes down to the same thing.

Like when people say that Pokemon 'die' rather than 'faint'. That failure state is essentially a death, in a sense; but at this point I'm risking overanalysing it.

 

[DoPo]

I 'unno, maybe something needs a real threat to be made that much more compelling; imagine if it was impossible to die in Amnesia, for example.

You can have a failure state with no death or blood or anything. In racing games you can finish last (or maybe "not first"), in timed games you can run out of time, etc. I played some Ghost Master yesterday (by the way it's still less than a dollar on Steam for the next 4 hours) and your goal is to scare people using different kinds of ghosts - you fail the mission if you run out of plasm (you get plasm if you scare people, otherwise, it slowly runs out).

I think those are outside the (admittedly strange) remit of the OP. Though a similar thing in the context of the OP could certainly work, although then taken out of context it really comes down to the same thing.

Like when people say that Pokemon 'die' rather than 'faint'. That failure state is essentially a death, in a sense; but at this point I'm risking overanalysing it.

For Ghost Master, without even going into the puns, no it's not death, nor an euphemism of some kind. In fact, it's closer to Neighbours from Hell, in a sense - the failure state there does not result in death, although it could be some harm.

 

[Tropicaz]

Well as others have said there are plenty of non violent games out there, but you wanted to discard them.

Ask yourself this - why do most people buy 'violent genre' videogames? I'll give you a clue, it's not so they can take an utterly pacifist approach. There is unlikely to be a non-indie game that has you unable to kill stuff thats trying to kill you because it's unlikely to appeal to the masses. And if it's unlikely to appeal to the masses, it's unlikely to appeal to a mainstream developer to make it.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

So you want a game that you'd expect to be violent...but has at least a permanently viable non-violence option. A lot of games have the option to kill someone or knock them out for roughly the same effect. MGS4, DE:HR, those sorts of things. As far as games with diplomatic or completely non-confrontational options...maybe Dishonored? Mark of the Ninja? Mirror's Edge sort of discourages gun combat by making it impractical more often than not. Often they don't really bother with a non-confrontational system alongside when the game is 99% of the time going to be played in violent lethal or violent non-lethal ways.

EDIT: And since I've read a few other posts, I think I need to state that I love violent games and most of the time, games like fantasy RPGs and MMOs and that sort of thing would be boring as hell without violence. There are actually plenty of non-violent games that have no violent option, including entire genres, and I'm happy for it to stay that way. In a world like Lordran, Skyrim or Hyrule, violence SHOULD and WOULD be the best option in many scenarios. If you get jumped by bandits, what are you going to do? Convince them to let you go, when you're clearly decked out in the best armour and weapons around and have gold spilling from your pockets? You're going to cleave those bastards in half. What if the enemies are all mindless servants of your evil nemesis who are only trying to kill you, or simply insane zombies who have no other impulse? I think there is a lot of opportunity for games to have diplomatic or non-violent routes, and it could be done more often (doesn't have to be combat ALL the time), but it certainly isn't a bad thing.

 

[snagli]

Anyone mentioned portal yet? You can look at it as an fps where instead of having to shoot people you shoot walls and ceilings!

Turrets have feelings, you monster. Throwing them in acid pits or burning them up with lasers? Chell is pure evil.

OT: A lot of RPG-ish stealth games have at least some sort of non-violent option. Deus Ex, Dishonored, Mark of the Ninja, the Thief series. I once tried to go pacifist on Crysis, too. Actually turned out pretty well, if you don't count the people/squids you HAVE to kill.

 

[talker]

not sure if this is simsville genre, but maybe From Dust? yes you can kill people, by not getting the (as i like to call it) anti-nature music back to the villages in time, or dropping lava on them in a pinch, but it is possible to get through the entire game without losing a single villager

 

[Frasman]

Shenmue. Most times you beat someone up and they run away. Hardly anybody fights with weapons. The fight seaquences are fairly scarce.

The Longest Journey series is more puzzle solving than action.

 

[Tiamattt]

It does feel like a silly question, it's kinda like walking into a vegan restaurant and asking the waitress what kind of beef steaks are they serving, while dismissing her suggestion of the Outback Steak house a block away from there.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that a lot of games mentioned here give the players non-violent ways to play and even rewards them for it, but at the end of the day it doesn't change what kind of game it is.

Point is if I want a non-violent game, then I do NOT look at the genres with violent games in it, I look at the many options that was immediately discarded for some strange reason.