19 replies to this topic

I got Assassin's Creed: Origins.  As of late I have been finding notes in bandit's hide outs who have loving wives and are expected to bring home items.  They're like the bandits were sent out to get some bread and milk.  I thought the old caves leading to tombs were more like paying jobs, but each had the notorious signs of bandits, thieves, and grave robbers in, around, and on them.

 

Kill the leader, find the loot!

 

I got so tired of it I put in two hours scouring the area looking for archaeological references that actually exist while I dodged hippo's, crocodiles, hyenas, lions, leopards, spitting cobras, and crooked Egyptian priest and military, and Greeks taking over the country by means of poisoning food, slaughter with their gangs of Greek military.  It was like a vacation for 2 hours without lifting a hand to help anyone or do any killing.

 

Just like David Tennant in Dr. Who.  RUN!

[Fkemman11]

 

 

Has anyone played a violent game with battles and such that actually made you regret some of your decisions to kill? And I don't mean because that one npc would have had a great reward for you later on.

 

the only game that even begins to come to mind is Dishonored , and that one doesn't really make the merciful options seem merciful

in fact , some of the non lethal options seem far worse than any of the lethal options

but this isn't really the case of finding a non violent solution

I don't really remember any game that gives serious non violent options , or focuses on a non violent gamestyle (I know of games like Thief and games with a similar formula , and I believe Hitman is the game you mention where you are penalized when killing innocents , but I never played these so I can't speak from experience)

if such games truly exist , I don't think I've ever heard of them

 

 

Elder Scrolls Online penalizes you if you kill civilians or steal from them, but it's not an altruistic feature: it is part of the Dark Brotherhood/Thieves Guild mechanism. Far Cry 5 also warns you if you kill captives/innocents, but there is no penalty. Essentially, the only game that rewards you for being stealthy and choosing not to kill anyone is Dishonored. The low chaos ending is much more rewarding than the opposite.

 

Dishonored. That's the game I was trying to remember. I never did finish that game for one reason or another, though, I did like it. Being that stealthy is so nerve wracking to me. If your timing is off by a little, you are spotted and have to try and escape to hide again or you have to subdue at least one guard to get hidden again somewhere else.

 

 I suppose one could sneak the whole way through most of Beth's games. For some reason, I liked being stealthy in Oblivion better than in Skyrim. Wouldn't it be cool if the game gave you an option if caught to try and fib your way out of trouble based on your speech skill? That one guard spots you as they come around a corner. Instead of just automatically attacking you, he decides to interrogate you instead....."You there! What in the blazes are you doing sneaking around back here?!" Okay, let's add the bonus for high charisma and luck here and roll......"So sorry old boy! I seemed to have dropped my coin purse passing by here earlier today. Would you help me look for it?"- and pass. Another way I looked for to deal with multiple "enemies" was a sleep spell or a gas or something. No need to send them to their maker this time around. Of course you could just charm lower level npcs into letting you go about your business. But, the illusion spells only work on characters up to a certain level- which is why I stopped relying on them at one point in the games. Will have to make or look for a mod that improves them.

 

As far as consequences go, I was thinking that the player could run into the deceased's children living in the street or by the road somewhere, poor and destitute because their mother or father had been their only provider. Do you take responsibility for putting them in that situation by giving them some money and helping them? Would you adopt them as your own? Would you laugh at their misfortune or ignore it? Would seeing the consequences of your actions make you think twice before killing again?

 

Let's say you killed someones brother and there were witnesses that saw you do it. Okay, you get a bounty and either bribe someone, pay the fine, or do some time in jail. But, what if some or all of that dead person's family wants revenge against you? What if instead of them being idiots about it and attack you in the streets, they secretly plot your demise. Let's say they are clever about it and try to use an opportune moment to strike- like when you're sleeping or something. Things could get very interesting...

Dishonored on PC connected to STEAM crashed many times.  In my case "Too many Times".

 

I found a game for those who like games with the theme for all who are a child at Heart.  It requires hiding, stealth, pick pocketing, dungeon creeping, disguises, meeting others and learning about other people ... and ... you can practice avoiding violence all through the game.

 

If you put your mind to it. 

 

Great Graphics!

 

If you've got the video card to handle it.

 

And it's even got some bits of information that might inspire a person to take up a civilian civilized job which is non-violent.

 

Ghost of a Tale

 

LMB Click this >>> LINK

[Fkemman11]

Well you know the question that burns on that. Can it be modded? Looks like it can be.

[Mudran]

I think that war sells well because you are forced to use the best out of you to survive and that is something a lot of people want to experience - their limits. And war games are based on more or less simulation of that. Many people wouldn't even want to experience real war because they know they wouldn't survive most likely and because it sucks, but so even more they are eager to experience "light" version in comfort of their home. 

When it comes to kids - they copy everything around and weapons looks like something different and special.

[kthompsen]

It's a constant cashflow. Especially for those who manufacture and/or play for both sides. It's not about victory or winning any conflict - or anything silly like that. But selling goods and weapons... ideally to BOTH sides. People made a killing in WW1 like nothing else in history.. and it died off once the war ended. No way were they going to let that opportunity slip by again. So they agitated the situation enough to bring on WW2. The downside was how catastrophic WW2 was.. You don't want to ruin things with TOO MUCH war, so they learned some lessons. Now it's like a slow drip, of constant threats and the manufacturing to "stop" them. Do you think it's any accident that the Cold War and the War On Terror are so hard to define, in comparison to the big World Wars? They're the perfect cashcows, that drag on for decades. Not like those damn 5 year type of wars that destroy everything. They breed unease and boil situations enough to make the world an unsafe place, but not enough to blow up into world wars anymore. Just enough to insure constant weaponization and scare populations into funding it.

 

edit: And I'm not just talking firearms btw.. The most non-obvious businessman can be war-profiteers. Look at the American companies who set up the Nazi's infrastructure, for example: AT&T built state-of-the-art communications, Ford helped build many of their vehicles, IBM built their databases that helped them catalogue Jews and other "undesirables". They helped BUILD the Nazi threat. They knew Hitler was crazy.. It doesn't take a genius to know how bad he was.. But he was useful for them. They wanted war. Do you think that guy got his country out of debt, rebuilt infrastructure within a decade, and took on THE WHOLE WORLD because he was uber-competent or something? 

Edited by kthompsen, 26 May 2018 - 05:41 AM.

[skyquest32]

Globally and historically speaking, its been good for economies and wining well, dose good for the given leaders legacy, also the common man, needs a enemy to be happy, again historically if they cant find one they create one,...or there will be in fighting if too much time passes. Such as civil war from internal bickering.

 

Its human nature up to a point, and the reason for the distasteful blood spectacles of the arena in Rome...before we had tv or the news for sickos to enjoy. The people demanded it through pretense.

 

Its hard coded into there genetics. There however are people that are exceptions to this that prove the rule. They are often not liked from a early age and are probably subconsciously thought to be mutants or aberrations. "'unless wealthy''

 

Probably noticed at a young age by the other children, because they lack the innate cruelty of young children, such as boys torment bugs or killing kittens, kicking/peeing on/dogs, and such.

Edited by skyquest32, 31 May 2018 - 12:09 AM.

Globally and historically speaking, its been good for economies and wining well, dose good for the given leaders legacy, also the common man, needs a enemy to be happy, again historically if they cant find one they create one,...or there will be in fighting if too much time passes. Such as civil war from internal bickering.

 

Its human nature up to a point, and the reason for the distasteful blood spectacles of the arena in Rome...before we had tv or the news for sickos to enjoy. The people demanded it through pretense.

 

Its hard coded into there genetics. There however are people that are exceptions to this that prove the rule. They are often not liked from a early age and are probably subconsciously thought to be mutants or aberrations. "'unless wealthy''

 

Probably noticed at a young age by the other children, because they lack the innate cruelty of young children, such as boys torment bugs or killing kittens, kicking/peeing on/dogs, and such.

 

Are you quoting someone else's work?

 

Or do you have personal experience, hopefully which you've recorded so you can prove those acts are a fact of life, while living among the majority?

 

Is it a world wide human form of mental frailty?

 

Do both men and women suffer the same problem?

 

Do young people start out being cruel, or do they, like most children whose interest is food?  Finding an insect, arachnid, butterflies, worms, cut worms, ants, beetles, and other little things crawling around them and pick them up, to see if the small critters could become part of their growing hunger as a child more likely would if they were set down to play in the dirt?

[kvnchrist]

It's sensational

There are people who have web sites with documented information, even videos, who spend a lot of time and their own money improving on ways to destroy stuff, including their competitors.

 

What ever I do, I am not getting into the middle of any field where they hold any of their debates.