Non-Violent Game Idea: Puppies in Hell
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hrm, the flaw I see in this sort of game is your lose condition. What happens when you lose? in the traditional violent games you get set back to a checkpoint or spawn point and lose progress in the game through "death".
The reason combat games are compelling is that your win/lose conditions are the ultimate stakes - life and death. Either you die or he does. Which is what made SWAT so interesting a game. You could complete the game just fine being a trigger happy mass murderer, but to actually get a high score you had to arrest rather than kill. I think a game that rewards not using violence which IS available is far preferable to a game with no violence. It also makes for good difficulty. If you are in an easy part, you win the objective and the game by being non-violent. If you are in a hard part you break out the guns, complete the objective but deep down in your soul you know the game has bested you.
The reason combat games are compelling is that your win/lose conditions are the ultimate stakes - life and death. Either you die or he does. Which is what made SWAT so interesting a game. You could complete the game just fine being a trigger happy mass murderer, but to actually get a high score you had to arrest rather than kill. I think a game that rewards not using violence which IS available is far preferable to a game with no violence. It also makes for good difficulty. If you are in an easy part, you win the objective and the game by being non-violent. If you are in a hard part you break out the guns, complete the objective but deep down in your soul you know the game has bested you.
What about a kitten riding a puppy riding a pony?honestdiscussioner said:
GENIUS!
I also beleive that the player will have to retreive the puppies manually, which could lead to situations wherein the player is forced to choose between retreiving his favorite lump of cuteness or chasing down a fleeing boss monster or something like that. (moral choice system of sorts)
Like, every puppy attached to your back makes you less vulnerable to the evils of hell, and the less puppies you have on you the faster your sanity/health degenerates until you become a demon yourself or something like that.
I also beleive that the player will have to retreive the puppies manually, which could lead to situations wherein the player is forced to choose between retreiving his favorite lump of cuteness or chasing down a fleeing boss monster or something like that. (moral choice system of sorts)
Like, every puppy attached to your back makes you less vulnerable to the evils of hell, and the less puppies you have on you the faster your sanity/health degenerates until you become a demon yourself or something like that.
Really?
No mention of Phoenix Wright, and Ace Attorney in general?
That has the gratification of outwitting your enemies, not turning them to mush.
The only Schadenfreude you can derive from that is entirely self-inflicted - THEY trap themselves with their words, you merely reveal their mistake.
It's how non-violence in games should be done - with a serious challenge beyond killing things, and a bloody good soundtrack to back it up.
No mention of Phoenix Wright, and Ace Attorney in general?
That has the gratification of outwitting your enemies, not turning them to mush.
The only Schadenfreude you can derive from that is entirely self-inflicted - THEY trap themselves with their words, you merely reveal their mistake.
It's how non-violence in games should be done - with a serious challenge beyond killing things, and a bloody good soundtrack to back it up.
Evidently everyone else read a different EP to me, because I found myself tl;dring by page 2.
If I can't even read the pitch for a game without losing the will to live, I don't think that bodes well for the development, does it?
OT: Can a game be satisfying without violence? Yes and no. There are plenty of fun games where nobody gets hurt - some of my past and present favourites include Space Channel 5, the Professor Layton series, Mr Driller, Puyo Puyo, and so on. And yet, all of these games still include elements of, or substitutes for, physical conflict.
In Space Channel 5 the aliens get "zapped" out of existence, albeit by a campy teleport-ray-gun.
Solving a puzzle in Professor Layton is accompanied by a triumpant win-animation and the sound of peals of thunder.
Mr Driller is all about the satisfaction of grinding rocks to smithereens with a fat-off drill.
Puyo Puyo is "won" by creating chain-reactions of popping enemies.
Although the window-dressing (context and audiovisual element) is different, the underlying mechanics of gameplay (and the gratifying feedback) of these "nonviolent" games is actually virtually analogous to much more overtly violent games like, say, Serious Sam or a Bullet Hell shooter. All games involve risk/reward, and what risk do we respond to most strongly if not the threat of death/defeat?
In summary, Yahtzee's hypothetical puppy game would fall flat on its arse. The idea of temporarily (rather than permanently) neutralising an enemy deprives the player of any kind of satisfaction of having removed a threat to their goal of a win-state. Games need conflict that a) provides a lose-condition and b) gives you adversity to triumph over - so yes, even the sophisticated and bloodless game of chess contains a "violence" of sorts.
That doesn't mean every victory has to be accompanied with fountains of gibs and decapitated hookers.
If I can't even read the pitch for a game without losing the will to live, I don't think that bodes well for the development, does it?
OT: Can a game be satisfying without violence? Yes and no. There are plenty of fun games where nobody gets hurt - some of my past and present favourites include Space Channel 5, the Professor Layton series, Mr Driller, Puyo Puyo, and so on. And yet, all of these games still include elements of, or substitutes for, physical conflict.
In Space Channel 5 the aliens get "zapped" out of existence, albeit by a campy teleport-ray-gun.
Solving a puzzle in Professor Layton is accompanied by a triumpant win-animation and the sound of peals of thunder.
Mr Driller is all about the satisfaction of grinding rocks to smithereens with a fat-off drill.
Puyo Puyo is "won" by creating chain-reactions of popping enemies.
Although the window-dressing (context and audiovisual element) is different, the underlying mechanics of gameplay (and the gratifying feedback) of these "nonviolent" games is actually virtually analogous to much more overtly violent games like, say, Serious Sam or a Bullet Hell shooter. All games involve risk/reward, and what risk do we respond to most strongly if not the threat of death/defeat?
In summary, Yahtzee's hypothetical puppy game would fall flat on its arse. The idea of temporarily (rather than permanently) neutralising an enemy deprives the player of any kind of satisfaction of having removed a threat to their goal of a win-state. Games need conflict that a) provides a lose-condition and b) gives you adversity to triumph over - so yes, even the sophisticated and bloodless game of chess contains a "violence" of sorts.
That doesn't mean every victory has to be accompanied with fountains of gibs and decapitated hookers.
I'll take this opportunity to plug Mirror's Edge again. Dice could have (or could make the sequel) made the game entirely nonviolent on your part, besides maybe a fist fight towards the end.
It makes me think of Toe Jam and Earl: Panic on Funkatron.
You play as aliens that arrive home to discover their planet is infested with Earthlings, which include bratty girls that kick your shins, tourists that flash you to death with their cameras, and a crazy opera-singing naked man that lives in a cardboard box.
Instead of vaporizing the Earthlings with space guns, you have to capture them by throwing magic jars at them until they get trapped inside of one. The object of the game is to capture and collect all Earthlings in each level and throw them onto a space capsule heading back to Earth.
Come to think of it, your puppy game doesn't sound as silly as you made it out to be.
edit:
Not all dogs are inherently buddies, either. I had dogs all my life, and none of them had interest in establishing a bond with me. Yet, I've had cats that always wanted to be in the same room as me and be involved with my activities.
And finally, there's no cats for the blind because domestic cats don't have the physique to pull or carry a human. Why do you think guide dogs are always German Sheppards and labs? Because they're easy to train? So are toy poodles and you don't see them guiding blind people through cities.
You play as aliens that arrive home to discover their planet is infested with Earthlings, which include bratty girls that kick your shins, tourists that flash you to death with their cameras, and a crazy opera-singing naked man that lives in a cardboard box.
Instead of vaporizing the Earthlings with space guns, you have to capture them by throwing magic jars at them until they get trapped inside of one. The object of the game is to capture and collect all Earthlings in each level and throw them onto a space capsule heading back to Earth.
Come to think of it, your puppy game doesn't sound as silly as you made it out to be.
edit:
This isn't true. Several breeds of cats are well known for being incredibly social and people-loving, which includes the Ragdoll, Persians, and Turkish Van.DressedInRags said:
Not all dogs are inherently buddies, either. I had dogs all my life, and none of them had interest in establishing a bond with me. Yet, I've had cats that always wanted to be in the same room as me and be involved with my activities.
And finally, there's no cats for the blind because domestic cats don't have the physique to pull or carry a human. Why do you think guide dogs are always German Sheppards and labs? Because they're easy to train? So are toy poodles and you don't see them guiding blind people through cities.
This idea puts me in mind of the Gamecube game "Chibi-Robo!", where the method of advancement of story and character level involves doing progressively nicer things for the family who bought you. The ultimate goal is to be the robot who makes their family the happiest in the world. It starts out with you picking up bits of paper and cleaning footprints and by the end you've reconciled their marriage, saved the future, and become a Space Hunter. Admittedly there is some violence in the form of Spider-bots randomly teleporting in to kill you, but these are such a small portion of the game they're more like other ways of cleaning up more than anything. This game is just unique. It's got wacky, yet heartfelt characters, quirky music, and a message about energy consumption that is cleverly worked into the story. Anyway, I think its neat.
And the final boss would obviously be Cereberus, because the whole point of the game would be to break out of hell with the only weapon at one's desposal (puppies), and Cereberus stands at the entrance.
What? Did you think someone like Lucifer would be the final boss? No, but he would be one of the optional super bosses, alongside Beelzibub, Lord of the flies, and other assorted demon lords. Lucifer in particular would be a battle in which the Prince of Lies tries to get you to join his cause and kill the puppies yourself. Because obviously, while demons cannot damn a puppy (it's the law), humans can break whatever law the like. They suffer the consequences, which is the whole point of why the laws exist in the first place, but they can break them.
What? Did you think someone like Lucifer would be the final boss? No, but he would be one of the optional super bosses, alongside Beelzibub, Lord of the flies, and other assorted demon lords. Lucifer in particular would be a battle in which the Prince of Lies tries to get you to join his cause and kill the puppies yourself. Because obviously, while demons cannot damn a puppy (it's the law), humans can break whatever law the like. They suffer the consequences, which is the whole point of why the laws exist in the first place, but they can break them.
You win the Internet, good sir.The Gentleman said:
I really gotta say I juts giggled all the way to the end through this week's EP. Looking forward to the next ZP and see what monumental piece of garbage you eviscerate next because that seems to be the only thing we're all here for.
On another note:
Actually the earliest instance is the celebration of the names day of adam and eve where people shook apples of a tree. To proclaim that anything in the ancient world was able to continue until today unchanged by various criteria is just very unlikely (to avoid the word WRONG). Actually a lot of that pagan holiday stuff is made up by Jacob Grimm. Yes he is one of the Super Grimm Brothers that brought various fables. To answer why he would do that is to find any or made up any mumbo jumbo in history to strengthen german national feelings because a little frenchman was fucking around in europe earlier to give any other nation an inferiority complex.
He had me going until dogs > cats. Come on, have you -ever- seen a dog hug someone? They are anatomically incapable of clinging to things. Let's face it, "hug" means "hump" to dogs.
Cats on the other hand excel at clinging to things...Painfully. It's the thought that counts, though.
/**End of entirely pointless rant**/
Who exactly would this game be marketed towards, and how would a game called "Puppies in Hell" where you must face terrifying abominations irregardless of actual violence level help you in an argument against "Hurrdurr, vidyas cause violence"? I think that'd just give them more ammo in the form of "Hideous games marketed towards our precious childrens".
I love the concept and I'd happily play it if it came to be, but I think Yahtzee may have been stricken by a bout of ADHD mid-thought when he was coming up with this idea.
Cats on the other hand excel at clinging to things...Painfully. It's the thought that counts, though.
/**End of entirely pointless rant**/
Who exactly would this game be marketed towards, and how would a game called "Puppies in Hell" where you must face terrifying abominations irregardless of actual violence level help you in an argument against "Hurrdurr, vidyas cause violence"? I think that'd just give them more ammo in the form of "Hideous games marketed towards our precious childrens".
I love the concept and I'd happily play it if it came to be, but I think Yahtzee may have been stricken by a bout of ADHD mid-thought when he was coming up with this idea.
Some people (not I) enjoy farming games or simulation games or god games, none of which have violence, implied or otherwise. I agree with your stance on violence, and how it can take many forms, but to imply that a game cannot be satisfying without some form of violence says more about your personal tastes in games than about games in general.Batou667 said:
For that matter, the exact same thing could be said about your opinion that the puppy game would fall flat (on it's arse).