Non-Violent Game Idea: Puppies in Hell

[Zeekar]

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.

 

[Zeekar]

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.

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.

For that matter, the exact same thing could be said about your opinion that the puppy game would fall flat (on it's arse).

 

[Batou667]

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.

For that matter, the exact same thing could be said about your opinion that the puppy game would fall flat (on it's arse).

You think so? Naturally the preference for blood and gore isn't universal, but I think there must be some element of "destruction" or "sweeping-clear" to make a game feel satisfying. Even something as innocuous as Tetris or Windows Solitaire contain these elements.

Naturally this is only a gut feeling, but I think Yahtzee's hypothetical game would just feel incredibly frustrating and unsatisfying.

 

[Trillovinum]

what's he have against cats?

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

i would play this game if it came out

 

[Spygon]

Games that dont have violence in them sorry yahtzee but i think you have forgotten several genres. Racing,puzzle,sport and racing games do not have violence in them.

But intresting idea and i would proberly buy it if it was made

 

[Ninedeus]

Makes me curious, what would be a GAME OVER like? Would our hero be violently ravaged by the denizens of hell as the cute and innocent puppies look on with eyes wide open with shock and fear as they're friend is beaten and hurt in unimaginable ways..... Mmmmmmmmm, violence.

 

[flaviok79]

I love your game idea and hope something like that gets made, but I must disagree with you on cats. They are awesomelly cute.

 

[tyriless]

Finish working on Realistic Space Game and then we will talk.

 

[Wiryjackal]

This game needs to be made.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Pffft. Puppies.

Ponies are more contemporary.

Yes, but the ponies deserve to be in Hell, so the effect and effort are wasted.

Mayday, mayday, calling in all ponies to hug Zachary Amaranth. Mayday mayday...

Joke's on you. I'm not a demon. I just work for one.

There are very few people in this world I'd willingly get near, but I'd gladly shake your hand, sir. We are a better species for a temperament such as yours.

That said, as much as I revile sharing an opinion with the "OMG SOMEONE I LIKE SAID SOMETHING SO I MUST AUTOMATICALLY LIKE IT" crowd, your video game idea is quite amusing, Yahtzee, and I'd genuinely like to see how it'd play out. I'd buy it for the concept alone, and really, with the independent market as strong as it is now, it might be fool of you not to pursue the means to have it realized.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the pile of money The Escapist is giving you is probably already pretty comfortable, but it's the principle at this point, I'd say; I know as well as anyone how much fun it is to ***** about other peoples' stupidity and ineptitude, but few of us who enjoy the art actually have the influence to do something about it, and perhaps you, as a critic, as the one saying "I know this would work if you'd bother to try to think outside of the box", have as much responsibility as any of us to prove your point. Yeah, there's not an independent game in the world right now that's going to change the industry, so it's not going to get the seven hundred thousand knock offs that it being a success from a prominent developer would cause, but are they going to acknowledge your challenge anyway?

Not that you'll read this, but if you do, perhaps it'll be food for thought.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Cats would be way better in this scenario. They can cling better than dogs, are cuter, and are overall just better. It would take a highly cynical and soulless individual to want puppies over kitties . . oh wait it's Yatzee. Makes sense now.

don't forget that cats are meaner by nature.

Meaner? No. More calculating in their plots, yes. They are also 10X less hyper, loud, and annoying than dogs.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Anyone else notice how huggy wuggy Yahtzee is being? He mentioned in his log a while ago that he's having a flare up of depression. Maybe this twee, lovely sort of thing is being written because he wants to end his blasted depression, or maybe he's coming out of it and feeling bloody optomistic.

Cats would be way better in this scenario. They can cling better than dogs, are cuter, and are overall just better. It would take a highly cynical and soulless individual to want puppies over kitties . . oh wait it's Yatzee. Makes sense now.

But cats only like you for your warmth and food. Puppies actually want to socialise and be your friend and have a role in your life. Hence why there's no such bloody thing as Cats for the blind. If you stop feeding a cat it fucks off elsewhere, if you stop feeding a dog it gets sad eyes and hassles you and tends to nonverbally asks if you still love it and will probably try to please you until you're nice to it again.

That's not why cats aren't used for the blind. They are just too curious and independent for that. Cats want to socialize too, dogs are just more demanding, loud, and wet in their protestations that you should socialize more.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Anyone else notice how huggy wuggy Yahtzee is being? He mentioned in his log a while ago that he's having a flare up of depression. Maybe this twee, lovely sort of thing is being written because he wants to end his blasted depression, or maybe he's coming out of it and feeling bloody optomistic.

Cats would be way better in this scenario. They can cling better than dogs, are cuter, and are overall just better. It would take a highly cynical and soulless individual to want puppies over kitties . . oh wait it's Yatzee. Makes sense now.

But cats only like you for your warmth and food. Puppies actually want to socialise and be your friend and have a role in your life. Hence why there's no such bloody thing as Cats for the blind. If you stop feeding a cat it fucks off elsewhere, if you stop feeding a dog it gets sad eyes and hassles you and tends to nonverbally asks if you still love it and will probably try to please you until you're nice to it again.

That's not why cats aren't used for the blind. They are just too curious and independent for that. Cats want to socialize too, dogs are just more demanding, loud, and wet in their protestations that you should socialize more.

Thing is, Cats don't socialise because they enjoy being with people. They socialise because they enjoy eating people's food and recieving physical affection. if you died right now, your cat (assuming you have one) wouldn't give a single, solitary fuck.

Dogs, on the other hand, socialise because they're all about co-operation and teamwork. We rarely see this with domestic dogs, however, because they're forever stuck with a "puppy" mentality, a side-effect of never having to fend for themselves. It's a lot easier to see in working dogs.

You can still see how eager even domestic dogs are for a productive role in the group with how easy they are to train. They don't let you train them because they're thick, they let you train them because they've come to see you as their superior and will therefore do whatever you say because you're in charge.

Going off on a stupid irrelevant dog-lover tract here, but you can pin about 90% of the problems people have with their dogs on their ignorance rather than the dog's nature. There are whole programs out there made to educate the people that thought they might be able to take care of a live animal without first adopting the weighty responsibility of, y'know, reading a fucking book or two about them first and getting some first-hand experience of having a dog.

Cue hundreds of hours of perfectly good program slots taken up with footage of imbeciles being told things that should be fucking self-evident, like "don't give the dog something just because he asks for it" and "walk it and feed it properly" and "never let it try to boss you around" and "don't let it do bad things" and "dogs won't obey you just because you act hard" and "don't try to fucking reason with it when it misbehaves like it's your angry spouse" and "if it intimidates you, don't adopt a large bloody dog to start with".

Sorry. It's just, i've seen far too many of the loveable bouncy sods go to nice enough people who haven't got a clue. They try to politely discuss house rules with the illiterate animal when it acts out, get surprised when it doesn't stop, and then let it act out without punishing it. Cue a dog that thinks it's in charge because of the owner's incompetence, usually followed by the dog crossing an important line and getting a bullet in the brain that it wouldn't have gotten had the owners taken resonsibility for it, as the law expects you to do for good reason.

Yeah, I was just reading about the number of domestic dogs put down in the UK on an annual basis. Sorry for irrational rant.

I don't understand how this necessity to be joined in a group is a virtue. Certainly the ABILITY to be part of the group and work together is admirable, but the necessity of dog's following a lead is why calling someone a "dog" is generally a disparaging remark, intended to cast the person as an unthinking drone. Cats are independent minded, but can cooperate when required, which I find to be the more admirable of the two.

 

[Infernal_Dalek]

3 - How are cats related to demons? Well, aside from the notion of a black cat just crossing your path causing you to be cursed, hard to say.

I read a bit about suspicions involving cats. Egyptians saw them as the guardians of the underworld, having knowledge of both good and evil while being neither. Also, the killer of snakes, though I've never seen such a thing happen. I also read that pharaohs would watch them and use their actions (yawns, stretches, etc.) as predictions; which is funny to imagine.



On the topic of game ideas, I thought I'd share one of my own. Inspired partly by "Ghost Trick" and "Final Destination", a multiplayer game where 2 or more players, controlling ghosts(or some other intangible force), fight to protect/kill an NPC. The evil forces want them dead, and manipulate objects in the environment with intent to harm/kill the NPC. The good forces want to save him, and must keep him alive for a certain amount of time or until something specific happens.

On second thought, the NPC(s) could be controlled by a player of a 3rd team. Their natural instinct would be to flee from any object being manipulated; this would allow the good forces to scare them away from dangerous areas with unseen dangers.

Heh, having ideas is fun, but ideas aren't worth much unless you can convince a publisher that a developer will be able to turn them into something that will make money...now I'm sad.

 

[spaceinvaderj]

Yahtzee, have you ever had a cat thrown at you?
They are a bundle of claws, teeth and venomous looks.

Mind you, I have a cat, and she's the cutest thing ever.
So maybe the cats are DLC?

Please?