Am I the only one...

[Dark_Raven]

Pacifist? Sounds boring.

[Plano Skywalker]

well, Indigo Prophecy has plenty of carnage in it (which, I guess, helps with the excitement factor)....it's just that YOU are not the one doing the carnage.

 

so, it can work when done right.

[Pidesco]

The thing with computer role-playing games - espicially the fantasy ones is that they foten deal with things like monsters and the like that simply don't talk.

 

A lot of people seem to think that it's like in the real world where it's posisble to 'talk down' possible violent people. You simply cna't see too many ogres or giants negotiating with a PC. Not to mention the mutants in FO. Not to mention all the non intelligent monsters.

 

 

What's wrong with making a game that involves talking, intelligent monsters? (Persona?)

[Calax]

but monster = no intelligence!

[Llyranor]

And that's how we like our games!!!

[Volourn]

"What's wrong with making a game that involves talking, intelligent monsters? (Persona?)"

 

Nothing, actually. It depends on the world, and the monster of course since the word 'monster' covers many creatures - some intelligent, and some not so intelligent.

 

But, overall, most monsters tend not to be the talkative type. btw, Talking and intelligent are two different things. You can have a highly intelligent monster who aren't exactly talkative - see beholders or mind flayers.

[StillLife]

The more options to solve situations in CRPGs, the better. I do wish more games provided diplomatic solutions to their games.

 

However, Americans, and even our Canadian brethren(baby seal clubbers!) -- though they may not admit it -- are obsessed with violence and therefore it must be the focus of all RPGs if they wish to be successful. I mean naturally, heroes primarily kick the **** out of stuff, they don't talk through delicate situations or anything boring like that. That's why there are confused posts in this thread from a few people:

 

"Wait...non-violent solutions to problems? WTF kinda RPG would that be?"

[Llyranor]

Well, the fact that some players can't ponder CRPGs as being any fun without combat/violence is fairly telling. It also showcases, perhaps, how the medium is still in its infancy.

[Volourn]

"they don't talk through delicate situations or anything boring like that. That's why there are confused posts in this thread from a few people:"

 

I have no problem with the PC having the ability to ATTEMPT to talk through delicate situations; but it shouldn't always work. The idea that every single being you'll meet is somehow convinceable not to use violence is silly. Heck, it's not even possible in the real world when you aren't dealing with fantasy stuff like slimes or umber hulks.

 

That's why VD's game will likley be able to pull off 'non violent situations' and have it remain logical.

 

 

"The more options to solve situations in CRPGs, the better."

 

I agree with this 100%; but the options should fit the situation; not the other way around. Having to fight all the time can be boring no doubt about it; but so is something like every quest having a 'sneaky, dialogue, and combat option' is also silly, blasse, and without imagination.

 

Heck, I'd prefer it if games threw situations out there where combat is the 'wrong' solution. ie. An enemy so powerful that full out combat is nothing but suicide - in my module, I have an enocunter that a player must get through where combat will likely lead to death 9.9 out of 10 times; but you can talk your way out (3 different ways) or sneak past it. The option to attempt to fight is there; but you are likely to fail at it.

 

Game over.

 

 

One example of dialogue not being an options as well is with the stereotypical BBG who wants to rule/destroy the world. Chances are you'll likely neve rbe able to 'talk him down'; but you *coul* have other non aggresive (for the PC anyway) to 'get rid' of me - convince others to betray/attack him, sabatoge his plans, et.c, etc.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Volourn

[Tigranes]

Actually.... the current combat model is a lot easier to make and is still fun than complex diplomatic situations, because emergent AI is not sufficiently advanced. All dialogue / talking / 'social' situations where there are actions and reactions must be fully scripted then (e.g. Bioware dialogue system), which means lots of work, and even after lots of work, very hard to get right / fun. Comparatively, combat situations can be left to the A.I. for varying experiences every time.

[alanschu]

The more options to solve situations in CRPGs, the better.  I do wish more games provided diplomatic solutions to their games.

 

However, Americans, and even our Canadian brethren(baby seal clubbers!) -- though they may not admit it -- are obsessed with violence and therefore it must be the focus of all RPGs if they wish to be successful.  I mean naturally, heroes primarily kick the **** out of stuff, they don't talk through delicate situations or anything boring like that.  That's why there are confused posts in this thread from a few people:

 

"Wait...non-violent solutions to problems?  WTF kinda RPG would that be?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you can replace Americans and Canadians with human beings.

[astr0creep]

I mean naturally, heroes primarily kick the **** out of stuff, they don't talk through delicate situations or anything boring like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except for Robert Langdon and other cerebral literary heroes.

[Atreides]

Use your fists and not your mouth.

[Dark_Raven]

but monster = no intelligence!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Kaftan Barlast]

RPG solution to real-life problems:

 

 

PROBLEM: Youre at the airport, checkin closes in 5 minutes and you realise youve forgot your passport at home.

 

SOLUTION: Force your way to the airplane, killing everyone and everything in your path. Then by the time youre in the c o c k p i t, you will have amassed enough EXP to raise your pilot skill so you can fly the plane yourself.

 

Edited June 3, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Dark_Raven]

Excellent.

[Atreides]

It'd take some serious charming and persuasion to let them fly you.

 

Fist 1 Pascifist 0.

[Shadowstrider]

It'd take some serious charming and persuasion to let them fly you.

 

Fist 1 Pascifist 0.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyone who is dumb enough to forget their passport/ID when going to the airport is likely not smart enough to persuade someone into buying them coffee, let alone board a plane.

 

Then again, boarding a plane through violence would fail miserably too.

 

Looks like intelligence and perception, or stealth win.

[Llyranor]

Then again, boarding a plane through violence would fail miserably too.

Maybe if you're not a ninja. Loser.

[Atreides]

Yeah. If they were perceptive they'd have noticed that their passport was missing before leaving the house.

[Craigboy2]

Am I the only one who really misses the ability to play CRPG's as a pacifist? I've always loved playing through Planescape: Torment only fighting four or five battles. I've found it's way more interesting to see how you can avoid a battle rather than fighting it, and it also improves the backstory of your character. Just a thought, I loved the KOTOR's, especially II, but I long not to have to fight all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet you died a lot...

[Shadowstrider]

Yeah.  If they were perceptive they'd have noticed that their passport was missing before leaving the house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which was my point.

[Shadowstrider]

Then again, boarding a plane through violence would fail miserably too.

Maybe if you're not a ninja. Loser.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ninjas rely on stealth and cowardice. I eat ninjas for breakfast, while still sleeping.

[kirottu]

Ninjas rely also on sexcraft... At least all the ninjas I have seen in hentai and hentai never lies.

[Llyranor]

No, ninjas eat YOU for breakfast, while sleeping.