Poll: To kill or not to kill...

[Olas]

If you kill them, they're simply dead.

But if you leave them alive they'll eventually find out that you snuck past them, and go on knowing that they failed and that you probably could have killed them if you wanted to.

To me the latter feels much more satisfying.

 

[BQE]

I always go max body count. Sometimes I'll backtrack for hours just to make sure I got them all.
Or in something like Assassin's Creed I'll run around getting guard attention intentionally.

Dishonored sucked in this regard, combat in that was weak shit. Once you get slow time there's nothing left to even remotely challenge you.

Everything inevitably screws up for me regardless of how hard I try, so I end up having to leave a wake of death and destruction rather than reload a game because of finnicky guards.

Besides, a master thief/assassin is boring. I don't know want to story of the awesome status quo agent, I want the one that laughs at the thought of an armed response and welcomes reenforcements. It is oft a contest of how many I take out before I can make my exit.

Metal Gear Solid 4 just became a shootout for me. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was also a treat, they must have had to scrape off their allies after some of the encounters. Dishonored was the same way....

*Sneaking sneaking sneaking!*
"Hey, who are you!?"
".......*BANG!* Safety's off! Take out everything that moves."

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Depends, just like everything.

If I'm playing a runthrough as an evil **** then ill kill everyone. If I'm playing as a "good guy" I usually kill or spare depending on who they are. Like w/ alpha protocol kill the terrorists k/o the police.

 

[Battenberg]

Totally depends on the game and even the level I'm on. For example in The Last of Us I stealthed as much as possible but still killed every enemy because I felt like that was what Joel would do however *very minor spoiler warning* playing as Ellie I was aware that she was not the same unsympathetic killing machine and that she would be wise enough to avoid any fight she could so I changed my playstyle accordingly.

In general though I like a challenge in a game and the most challening thing in any stealth game is to avoid killing (barring specific objectives) so that's how I try to play. Saying that there are times where going for a tota wipeout can be fun too for example Hitman Absolution where I found it more fun than the actual 'right' way to do a lot of the missions.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I like to do a bit of both.
In that I sneakily knock the guards out, line them all up in a little room and then shoot them all in their unconscious faces!

"Sweet dreams..."

 

[Suave Charlie]

On a slight tangent, but in the same morality ballpark I realised yesterday:
In GTAV I am absolutely fine with mowing people down, accidentally running people over just because I wanted to get from A to B faster, but it genuinely really irks me when I switch characters and whoever I swap to has just been to a cafe or whatever and then just drops the cup on the ground.

I really hate litter, but I think it's the lack of control over that animation that annoys me.
Also I discovered that I hate virtual litter more than virtual murder, go figure.

 

[NeutralDrow]

If I'm actually given the choice, I nearly always go nonlethal. The main exceptions would be if there's some other factor making nonlethal force totally impractical (DX:HR's prologue, or the DLC if doing a Factory Zero run) or making lethal force justified. I don't really like to kill guards who are just doing their jobs, or enemies who are in over their heads, but if they're, say, actively killing people, then stopping them is an end that can justify the means.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

I usually go for pacifist runs. In most games I do non-lethal takedowns (DE:HR, Alpha Protocol) but in the Hitman games I pride myself on only taking down my targets. Sometimes it is almost impossible for me to not subdue at least one person or guard but I try.
I usually get the Silent Assassin ranking for most missions on the harder difficulties in the Hitman games, except for Absolution.
Then again there isn't much plain assassinating in that game and in most missions its impossible to get through them without taking down a mook or three.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The point of stealth games has nothing to do with whether or not you kill. It's about whether or not you get caught

I have no qualms about just killing some faceless mooks. Though if killing someone will make my situation worse I'll try to knock them out, or better yet, avoid them altogether. Stealth games are all too often stealth action, whereas sneaking past enemies is harder and more fulfilling.

I TRY to be as non-lethal as possible. It's more challenging and, in the end, more satisfying.

If Stealth games end up becoming stealth action, then you've done something wrong. If you do it right there is no combat because they never get the chance to fight back. Being able to take out all the guards one at a time without raising the alarm is very satisfying.

That's why I love the Arkham games so much. Picking 'em out one at a time is incredibly satisfying, more so if you're never seen/spotted. But it doesn't really count because you don't actually "kill" enemies, you subdue them or whatever.

 

[MammothBlade]

If Stealth games end up becoming stealth action, then you've done something wrong. If you do it right there is no combat because they never get the chance to fight back. Being able to take out all the guards one at a time without raising the alarm is very satisfying.

No, killing mooks stealthily still counts as stealth action.

Incapacitate as many guards without getting caught. Yeah. Still the principle of using violence, lethal or non-lethal, as the core "stealth" mechanic. It's lazy level design, and it gets easier the more enemies you neutralise. That shouldn't be what stealth is about. Make it more tactical, subterfuge, and disguise based. I love missions where you can pose as someone else, where the objective is to fit in. Hitman did that well on a primitive level, I think. (The original) Splinter Cell mastered the formula of agility-based stealth. Using lethal weapons was a last resort (or a method of assassination), and non-lethal was also a plan B for enemies which couldn't be avoided.

Those are what I have in mind.

 

[spartan231490]

Depends on the game. Usually angel of mercy, but in some games(Like assasin's creed) I'm a total murderer. Just depends on the character I'm playing, I guess.

 

[WenisPagon]

If Stealth games end up becoming stealth action, then you've done something wrong. If you do it right there is no combat because they never get the chance to fight back. Being able to take out all the guards one at a time without raising the alarm is very satisfying.

No, killing mooks stealthily still counts as stealth action.

Incapacitate as many guards without getting caught. Yeah. Still the principle of using violence, lethal or non-lethal, as the core "stealth" mechanic. It's lazy level design, and it gets easier the more enemies you neutralise. That shouldn't be what stealth is about. Make it more tactical, subterfuge, and disguise based. I love missions where you can pose as someone else, where the objective is to fit in. Hitman did that well on a primitive level, I think. (The original) Splinter Cell mastered the formula of agility-based stealth. Using lethal weapons was a last resort (or a method of assassination), and non-lethal was also a plan B for enemies which couldn't be avoided.

Those are what I have in mind.

Hitman's fun with this; even stealthy, clever stuff could be dramatic as hell. Like rigging a barbecue to explode or drugging a child star's panties(ugh) in Blood Money.

 

[MammothBlade]

If Stealth games end up becoming stealth action, then you've done something wrong. If you do it right there is no combat because they never get the chance to fight back. Being able to take out all the guards one at a time without raising the alarm is very satisfying.

No, killing mooks stealthily still counts as stealth action.

Incapacitate as many guards without getting caught. Yeah. Still the principle of using violence, lethal or non-lethal, as the core "stealth" mechanic. It's lazy level design, and it gets easier the more enemies you neutralise. That shouldn't be what stealth is about. Make it more tactical, subterfuge, and disguise based. I love missions where you can pose as someone else, where the objective is to fit in. Hitman did that well on a primitive level, I think. (The original) Splinter Cell mastered the formula of agility-based stealth. Using lethal weapons was a last resort (or a method of assassination), and non-lethal was also a plan B for enemies which couldn't be avoided.

Those are what I have in mind.

Hitman's fun with this; even stealthy, clever stuff could be dramatic as hell. Like rigging a barbecue to explode or drugging a child star's panties(ugh) in Blood Money.

Yeah. Good stealth games are also puzzle games in more ways than one. How do you get around the map without being killed? How do you avoid suspicion? Should you really attack that guard? Where should you dump the body? And so on.

Sadly, in almost EVERY stealth game I've played, alerting the enemy to your presence has no permanent consequences for their behaviour. What would you do if you found one of your comrades murdered on the porch? Would you just search for the perpetrator in the local vicinity and then get back to business as usual? I don't think so. You'd scour every nook and cranny, you'd call in reinforcements. You wouldn't stop until the intruder was found and shot. The entire premises would go into complete lock-down. It would get a lot harder to infiltrate with the enemy on high alert. You'd get VIPs to hide under trigger-happy armed guards and possibly evacuate. Instead, stealth game AI have the memory of a goldfish. That's what makes it all too easy to game the system and pick off mooks one by one.

Games like this need to be more convincing. I don't think that will mean nightmarish difficulty or tedium. There could be whole new ways to complete missions. Enemies might not shoot on sight. They could just challenge your identity, and if you answer smoothly (using a dialogue tree), let you past with only minimal suspicion. There could be creative ways of escaping if you are caught.

 

[Angelous Wang]

I would like to kill everyone, but games often reward you more for not killing when it's optional (Deus Ex and Hitman being good examples of this) so I tend to end up not killing everyone, even though really a want to.

 

[mirage202]

For me it depends on the game.

DXHR for example gives greater reward for non-lethal, so I'll use a takedown.. then shoot them in the head for good measure.

If there is no difference between lethal or non-lethal I will largely just kill everything though it can depend on my mood that particular day. Some times I'll do a playthrough with each method, Paragon/Renegade if you will.

 

[SadisticFire]

Depends?
I personally want to say to not kill, but I try also to put it in perspective of the character. "Would she do this? What's the emotional state of them? How angered are they at this group? And how many times have I gotten passed these guards and I had to restart do to XXX"
That's typically what I ask myself. Generally when my characters start out in any game they're super stealthy, but they get more blood crazed as time goes on. Example is in Hitman Absolution where you had to

Spoiler

Go through the nursery and find the crazy sadist, terrible father

I started off pretty stealthy, but by the time of it, where I figured Agent's patiences and emotional stress is burning, he turned to be a "FUCK YOU ALL DIE DIE DIE" person. Or atleast, that' show I perceived him as acting.*
But yeah...um..both?
*has not play any other hitman game.

 

[GigaHz]

snip

You do know that an assassin by very definition is a murderer, right?

Therefore, by not killing people as an assassin, you're NOT playing as an assassin.

It's not silly. Playing as a pacifist is silly.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

No kill for me (unless it's an assassination mission, in which case I stage it to look like an accident). I don't like leaving collateral damage, and I like the challenge associated with it. It's not really a moral thing, I just prefer not to deviate from my objectives or introduce an unknown quantity to my mission by going kill-crazy. You could also rationalize it by explaining that since you're presumably not getting paid to take out hired goons or civilians, taking out the hired help is just an unnecessary expenditure of resources that you won't get recompensated for later. Besides, if you do end up killing them then they're just going to leave behind a mess that will blow your cover later on. If you're in a position where you can easily overpower or sneak by your enemy without them even knowing you were there, why bother killing them? I like to think of it in the way JC Denton put it at the Brooklyn Bridge Station when he was tasked with taking out a drug dealer in exchange for some land mines: "I used as much force as the situation required. You trying to lecture me on tactics?"

In Deus Ex: HR (and to some extent the original Deus Ex, though it doesn't really have take downs in the same way unless you count the stun gun thing) I mostly went with a mix of non-lethal takedowns (partly to stay stealthy) and lethal silenced sniper rifle bullets in the head. I did break out a few lethal takedowns in HR on levels where knocked out enemies were hard to get away from patrols though (the Picus building being the top example).

You do remember that the baton you started out with could knock out any organic enemies in one hit, right?

 

[MammothBlade]

snip

You do know that an assassin by very definition is a murderer, right?

Therefore, by not killing people as an assassin, you're NOT playing as an assassin.

It's not silly. Playing as a pacifist is silly.

Hahaha no. Assassins (at least professionals) don't kill indiscriminately. They have a specific target. Killing faceless mooks is silly for any assassin worth their salt.