A gamers view on violence Thread

That's right. It does indeed focus entirely on stealth mechanics. Served me simply as an example of how challenges can be build without having to kill anything. In fact in Thief on the hardest level you are not allowed to kill any human being. It's therefore the entire other way around. But it's correct that mechanical gameplay ( and both shooting on something or stealthing around it is based on a mechanical action ) is easier to do than social gameplay. But they are also not impossible. Games like Phoenix Wright jump to my mind in that regard. This is in fact a puzzle solving game although the puzzles are presented as investigation parts or finding the hole in a testimony part. Nevertheless it poses a challenge which in my opinion also includes social situation interpreting. It's though limited to the scripted actions so not a simulation as combat games tend to be. But it's one of the many possibilities to create something interesting and challenging without resorting to gunfighting.

Deleted posts are never interesting! Especially when they are my posts!

Edited by: Orion

I dont see how that would in the least bit disprove god. But either way by the time we have AI that advanced i think religion will have been long gone.

I disagree. Being a creator of life (even real life) would not make you "god."
In this situation you could possibley be considered a "god of AI," but that is all.

Edited by: ngs616

Haha. Well.. i personally believe in evolution; so, i consider my(our) intelligence more of a natural refinement then artificial.

But i wouldn't say it's impossible. Maybe "aliens" (gods) are beaming messages into our brains from "far, far away."
Or maybe they were on earth influencing, teaching, and forming the first "humans."

Edited by: ngs616

Hence what iam saying. If we can create a real A.I we would just prove that.
This is an interesting field of discussion but its rather  philosophical, so lets drop it and get back to the topic at hand

For me violence in games should not be banned, it should be impossble for inappropriate audiences such as kids to get their hands on it. But for adults? They should be able to decide whats good for them and what not.
For the point of games making addincting, thats a valid point. And i am all for prevention of "games/computer addiction" because i strongly feel its a threat.
And to be honest i was, probably are, addicted to computers. This should be treated as every other diesease/addiction.

Edited by: N0dachi

I'm not really in favor of calling only combat gameplay "dynamic" and all other forms of gameplay scripted. If a game really only uses scripted sequences it is in for a hard time that's true. But why should any other gameplay not relying on violence have to be scripted? Such systems are simulations as combat oriented games are a simulation. I'm am also not fond of hiding ( as developers ) behind "lack of technology". They claim how their combat simulation becomes better due to technology but on the other hand they claim that they can't evolve other gameplay because of the technology. That somehow bytes itself. If I can improve combat gameplay with technology why should I not be able to improve non-combar gameplay with technology?

It's because by "technology," they don't mean so much the engines behind the games becoming more advanced in a variety of play perspective but instead in a graphics standpoint.

Also, it's not about people being in favor or not being in favor of calling certain aspects of gameplay "scripted" or "non-scripted." The reality is that while the combat part of gameplay might have scripts to make things more interesting, they are not fundamentally needed for an FPS. AI behavior is already defined, and the player's actions are by definition not scripted. Now, we could talk about multiple events being based on the same script, but then patterns would likely emerge that players would notice, and negotiating with the enemy might become just as boring as some might say going around and doing nothing but shooting people in a game is. The other choice we have already covered: every discussion is individually scripted. This can make gameplay repetitive the second time around (not that it isn't already). Like I said earlier, you would also have to have a save system that would set the player back considerably if they were to "try the various options for the one that seems the best." I also have another idea: earlier scripted events can also impact later ones. So, for example, you might make a deal with an enemy pretending to be on his side to completely prevent violence. This might come back to bite you later, however, as you might be thought to be a traitor by someone, or the enemy might find out that you were lieing and send a while lot more enemies after you.

Right, which is why I stated "while the combat part of gameplay might have scripts to make things more interesting, they are not fundamentally needed for an FPS." It used to be that AI didn't really react differently; scripts have allowed for AI to react in more intelligent ways. Also, what about my concern about dialogue? That is certainly something that cannot simply be generated for the specific situation (it would have to be general) and yet be different so as to not sound like a broken record (if common dialogue is used it can get repetitive).

Sure, maybe the technology is there now to some extent. But the better combat technology was there first, so that's the way the industry went. Now, the pencil pushers likely see too much risk in trying something innovative like this, especially with the investment that might be required and the great potential for failure (not because the idea itself is bad, but because it might be poorly executed; although they might not see the difference).

Edited by: Kyogreex

Indeed, you would need some sort of really damn good chatbot (coupled with text-to-speech maybe) with conversation "Goals"

they would have to direct the conversation towards the games goals ... it would suck to talk to an enemy and they have a tendancy to go off on a tangent in the conversation ... or if you go off on a tangent they can try to guide the discussion back to the info you really need rather than "Why is the sky blue?" discussions ...

Also the chat bot has to steer clear of the philosophical crap and the "restate the question and ask it back" crap most chatbots algorithums like to do to so they can make the conversation more predictable ...

For example if i took out an assasin in the hypothetical game and said "Who do you work for?!?!" to him/her and he/she responds "Interesting, who does any of us work for?" = fail

Then you would need some sort of fuzzy logic personality vector integrated into the chat bot that tells the bots what their general personality should be and what "mood" their discussions should have ... just for more personality depth than talking to the same chatbot over and over ...

say, a (blank)D vector that expresses aggressiveness/passiveness in one dimension, overall happiness/sadness in another, stupidness/smartness, etc ...

Edited by: Assaultman67

I'd rather have the killing in pixels than real blood.