Meeting the player halfway.

[Warachia]

After the personally dissapointing episode of extra credits, I began wondering, what could most non combat games, or games in general do better?

Somebody once said that the simple mechanics were always the best ones, you could add large complex sections into a game without any combat, but it would lose it's appeal too quickly, why? Simple, games should never fully rely on the player.

A game that gives the player full freedom can't ever compensate for what happens when everything has been done, it is then that you realize just how empty the game is when you hit that metaphorical wall. In this case, the game is much more of a simulation than any notable reward. Some of the most noteworthy games I have played are when you know the computer is almost consciously working against you, you realize there is more than just simply getting to the end or collecting everything, and that is what will make you come back when you had originally finished it.

In my mind a perfect game is a game that is simple, and abstract, it takes simple mechanics, so that anybody picking up a controller will immediately know what to do, this joystick moves in this direction while the game autocorrects the animation to make the character do what you did, this button is your all purpose tool (lets say the A button for now), near an object it will collect, doors will open, enemies will get hit, a fusion of control between a person and the computer working inside through simple mechanics, whereas another button (lets say B) will disengage current actions that you are undertaking whereas others will swith between actions you can take, preventing you from being locked in only one action. If you enter a new scenario, hanging from a rope for example, you know that these buttons still do these general things, the joystick will make you swing, A will grab to nearest objects and B will let go of what you are holding, whatever scenario you enter, you can instinctively know the controls without any measure of a tutorial.

What I'm getting at is I almost had this with the first Assassins Creed game which for me was never based around combat, it was based entirely around me telling Altair to do a general thing and the computer figured it out in an abstract way, increased my personal immersion to the point that fighting was about 2% of the things I did in that game. I enjoyed it without any fighting, the prime focus was on the simple, yet complex mechanics working out of sight, the reason that a lot of games don't find appeal to me is because they rely on the person to do everything or give too much freedom, a lot of which is very hard to figure out and the interfaces are anything but intuitive, which is the reason that a lot of games without combat fail.

Getting back on track, a game without combat can only work if there is abstract work, the interface must be able to be used by people who don't know what they are doing, if the computer comes to meet the player halfway, and very clearly states what can be done, and what can't, and deliberatly leaves all else in the grey area, it suddenly becomes a great way to demonstrate non linear game progression. Bringing up another game is Way of The Samurai 3, I had never heard of it before, but I bought it, and found several new intruiging mechanics that would allow a person to play through the entire game without even drawing their weapon, and it was just as, if not more, engaging. It was also one of the best examples of the work I just ranted about, you have these set buttons with these set items that do a general thing of which the animation will vary to get the same result. My question would be, why can't more game developers consider these ideas? And what would you think of them?

 

[zfactor]

You ever played Minecraft?

It drops you in the world and says "Go nuts." It never ends. It is never complete. It can't be beaten.

Sure there's combat, but I find it awkward and unrewarding. The monsters exist to gum up your construction plans, but you can turn them off and create whatever you want to create.

In my opinion, it is one of the best games I have ever played, up there with LoZ:OoT (That's Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time).

 

[SimuLord]

You ever played Minecraft?

It drops you in the world and says "Go nuts." It never ends. It is never complete. It can't be beaten.

You just explained my love for Mount and Blade.

As far as "just a simulation", the most rewarding games I know are the builders---the games that create rather than destroy. My Sims 3 neighborhood (and the Sims 2 neighborhood I had before it), my SimCity 4 region, and my trade empire in Patrician 3 and 4 and Port Royale 2 all stand as testament to that idea.

A game that relies on combat eventually devolves into just combat, for exactly the reasons the OP indicated---running out of content. A game that allows for a built-out, living economy? There is always something new to create, always some new demand that needs to be supplied, always some little way to make it bigger, stronger, faster, more efficient, more profitable.

To me the Extra Credits episode missed the point it was trying to make. Because a "persuasion bar" (as used as an example) is just combat by another name---the use of a game mechanic to eliminate a threat to the player. Killing something outright and (metaphorically) talking it to death are just six of one and half a dozen of the other, because the end result is the same---something stood in the player's way and was defeated. Whether it was defeated with words or 5.56mm hollow-points is irrelevant, because it's exactly the same game mechanic in the end.

 

[ShakesZX]

I don't understand how Assassin's creed is a "non-combat" game to you. Unless you think that a "combat game" is something like an FPS where the only action the player can take is obligatory combat. The "combat" they were pointing out was the fact that a combat game was one where the major interaction the player had with progression was obtained through acts of combat. This could be anything, ranging from fighting games, to shooters, to RPGs, to even your more arcade style racing games (ex: NFS: Hot Pursuit).

The point of their video was to point out the simplicity and fun that could be had by taking a step back from the established norm of confrontation for conflict, and instead examine how enjoyable alternative experiences could be for players. That is what I got out of it.

 

[Warachia]

I don't understand how Assassin's creed is a "non-combat" game to you. Unless you think that a "combat game" is something like an FPS where the only action the player can take is obligatory combat. The "combat" they were pointing out was the fact that a combat game was one where the major interaction the player had with progression was obtained through acts of combat. This could be anything, ranging from fighting games, to shooters, to RPGs, to even your more arcade style racing games (ex: NFS: Hot Pursuit).

The point of their video was to point out the simplicity and fun that could be had by taking a step back from the established norm of confrontation for conflict, and instead examine how enjoyable alternative experiences could be for players. That is what I got out of it.

the game was non combat for me because I looked a little too deeply at what else the game offered, namely exploration, and climbing, which I ended up doing a lot of, so I started looking at how it was so easy to push a general direction and see the game pathfind itself to get there, or running to a spot with pigeon crap, and jumping off knowing I was going to land in a haystack regardless of where I was facing previously. Also I was good at not getting caught.

 

[ShakesZX]

I don't understand how Assassin's creed is a "non-combat" game to you. Unless you think that a "combat game" is something like an FPS where the only action the player can take is obligatory combat. The "combat" they were pointing out was the fact that a combat game was one where the major interaction the player had with progression was obtained through acts of combat. This could be anything, ranging from fighting games, to shooters, to RPGs, to even your more arcade style racing games (ex: NFS: Hot Pursuit).

the game was non combat for me because I looked a little too deeply at what else the game offered, namely exploration, and climbing, which I ended up doing a lot of, so I started looking at how it was so easy to push a general direction and see the game pathfind itself to get there, or running to a spot with pigeon crap, and jumping off knowing I was going to land in a haystack regardless of where I was facing previously. Also I was good at not getting caught.

Just because you had a different experience with a game does not absolutely mean that the game as a whole fits with whatever description you deem it. Not getting caught (or avioding the combat in a combat oriented game) does not remove the fact that you're merely avoiding the premise of the gameplay instead of interacting with it. However, the alternative is also not necessarily true either.

The main point to take from this discussion and the video is that intriguing, well implemented mechanics and alternative experiences can be just as enjoyable as those we are currently having shoved down our collective throats. They were examining the current state of affairs that gaming finds itself in and similarly lamenting the lack of diversity in conflict types.

 

[Warachia]

I don't understand how Assassin's creed is a "non-combat" game to you. Unless you think that a "combat game" is something like an FPS where the only action the player can take is obligatory combat. The "combat" they were pointing out was the fact that a combat game was one where the major interaction the player had with progression was obtained through acts of combat. This could be anything, ranging from fighting games, to shooters, to RPGs, to even your more arcade style racing games (ex: NFS: Hot Pursuit).

the game was non combat for me because I looked a little too deeply at what else the game offered, namely exploration, and climbing, which I ended up doing a lot of, so I started looking at how it was so easy to push a general direction and see the game pathfind itself to get there, or running to a spot with pigeon crap, and jumping off knowing I was going to land in a haystack regardless of where I was facing previously. Also I was good at not getting caught.

Just because you had a different experience with a game does not absolutely mean that the game as a whole fits with whatever description you deem it. Not getting caught (or avioding the combat in a combat oriented game) does not remove the fact that you're merely avoiding the premise of the gameplay instead of interacting with it. However, the alternative is also not necessarily true either.

The main point to take from this discussion and the video is that intriguing, well implemented mechanics and alternative experiences can be just as enjoyable as those we are currently having shoved down our collective throats. They were examining the current state of affairs that gaming finds itself in and similarly lamenting the lack of diversity in conflict types.

You're right, just because I had a different experience doesn't mean I can define it however I want, which is why I didn't, I wanted to talk about an alternate game experience taken out of context and using it as an example of what could be done as an alternate gaming type to enrich more games in the future, in whatever genre they belong in.

You ever played Minecraft?

It drops you in the world and says "Go nuts." It never ends. It is never complete. It can't be beaten.

Sure there's combat, but I find it awkward and unrewarding. The monsters exist to gum up your construction plans, but you can turn them off and create whatever you want to create.

In my opinion, it is one of the best games I have ever played, up there with LoZ:OoT (That's Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time).

Sadly I have not played Minecraft, although it is high on my list of things to try out, the discussion I wanted to start was based around working with the computer and specific mechanics limiting some freedoms in order to enrich the experience and have many gameplay scenarios that anybody could instantly grasp and play, without control scheme changes tutorials, or even different button combinations.