Pacifist Run's consequences

[Ffordesoon]

Dammit! I didn't mean to post that yet! Shoot!

[PrimeJunta]

There are also lots of possibilities there, beyond Fallout's "buff up your social skills to the max and clickity-click on dialog options." Corruption, both as petty bribery and at the large scale. Stealth. Careful balancing acts between factions, pitting them against each other. Tricking crucial NPC's into saying the wrong thing at the wrong place, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

 

It could be quite a lot of fun.

 

It would also be a quite a lot of work.

 

I'm more in favor of a free-form approach. If "pacifist options" fit in a given context, then of course they should be included. But to go out of your way to make sure every situation on the critical path has a "pacifist solution," especially in a game that's overtly billed as combat-heavy? Nah.

 

With Torment: ToN on the other hand... yeah, the pacifist thing fits the Tides perfectly and I would hope to see much more of it there.

[Auxilius]

 

 

October 12, 2012 PC Gamer live interview (3:54)

Josh Sawyer:

since tactical combat is one of the core features from IE that we're trying to emulate, we're not specifically designing the game for a pacifist run. that said, we do want to give the player many options to avoid combat, either through stealth, conversation, or the use of other skills. tim and i both want to make sure that players have a lot of options to use non-combat skills across the game. we think it adds a lot to the game.

 

I expect a healthy range of diverse confrontation options, but a 100% noncombat run will probably be impossible, and I'm fine with that, because it was impossible in the likes of PS:T as well. 

 

There's also the mod possibility.

 

Well, that settles it.

 

The thread went a little out of control so i didn't post a lot but I now want to say dire consequences for quests mean there is no quest at all. Imagine how people would react if the jobs you took resulted in such ways, no matter if you're doing this the violent way or not. Unless you're warned, be it subtile or not.

 

Let's consider this point under another angle. Say, killing the bandits also end in a bad way since their families go after you and you're forced to slaughter teens and mothers. So then, while tackle the quest if at the end, you can only screw up?

 

What's the logical basis for this? I don't think your typical bandit or highwayman is just putting in a day's work to support a hungry family. And if that "hungry" family has both the strength and the remarkable tracking skills to hunt you down, how is there a moral dilemma? Most soldiers in most wars throughout history have been no more than teenagers. Before the industrial age, successful completion of puberty was considered the transition to adulthood (for males, for females all they needed was to menstruate once and then they were up for sale.) Why would there be any qualms about killing a teenager who wants to kill you? There are frequently hostile female NPC combatants already, what's the dilemma there?

 

Like it or not, absent a functional penal system, killing the sociopathic killers is essentially the only morally just/societally beneficial decision when dealing with sociopathic killers. Why does Batman always take the Joker to a madhouse he's always escaped from? Because Batman is a sociopath, too.

It was merely an example. I just wanted to prove you can also make the world a worst place by choosing the "sensible" option by killing the bandits. Let's just say you kill a spouse murderer who at the same time, was a philanthropist. It's the same thing. Sure, he killed someone, but he helped countless children to get by at the same time. It is a fine moral dilemma but if people don't know that beforehand, they just feel cheated. It's game design 101.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is a quest won't be satisfying if you screw up when you have no mean to know you were going to.

 

Think about it. What is a video game? At the end, it's something to have fun with. Depending of what you like, you'll focus on gameplay, story or graphics but at the end of the day, you want to have a good time, alone or with friends. That's why I felt putting dire consequences out of the wazoo for pacifist solutions just because, was a horribly horribly bad idea, unless it's the point of the game, hence why I talked about Spec Ops: the Line.

 

Besides, it's weird to explain how bad my example is while trying to be realistic about causes and consequences (which is kind of a moot point because people can't sadly predict anything) then telling me Batman is a sociopath. If I were to give my opinion that way, then Batman is a comic book hero who is there to prove to kids justice must not be soft but not bloodthirsty either. Except people don't care about that. Otherwise, Batman wouldn't be the icon he is. They just want to have a good time. And Batman, cool, classy and collected as he is, is there to give that to them.

If DC killed the Joker for good, I'm pretty sure it would be a terrible business move. Hell, people like the Joker. There is no entertainment without buyers, and buyers define the entertainment they want. It doesn't mean you have to go for the Call of Duty crowd. But Obs can't jeopardy their followers by making their game unfunny just for the sake of realism. It's more than black and white.

 

Finally, the penal system of Project: Eternity is actually an interesting idea to study. How can you rule a country, take taxes and make business when your country is overrun by bandits? Since the PC will get a stronghold at one point, I think this is the kind of subject Obsidian should tackle. But that's another story for another thread.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Auxilius

[Auxilius]

Sometimes, it's better to not make too much sense out of stories.

[Sensuki]

First question is whether or not when you win an encounter, are all the enemies considered dead from being dropped to 0 Stamina, or just unconscious?

 

I have a feeling it'll probably be dead, but they'll be able to hook in some dialogue scenes with knocking an opponent to 0 (or X) stamina.