I feel that pacifism/nonlethal routes in game are great so long as they feel like part of the game design. For example, in a game like Fallout New Vegas you could technically pacifist at least most of the game, but most of it is by running away from encounters and refusing to engage with a lot of the game. By contrast, games like Deus Ex or Thief actually give options to dispatch or avoid enemies without killing them, making those kinds of play throughs actually fun to do.
Agreed. Metro 2033 did this exceedingly well, at least in regard to humans, changing the outcome drastically. Of course, the "canon" ending is nonetheless tied to Artyom having had less...self-dsicipline. So, it wound up not mattering in the next installment at all. Only so much you can do with code before it beomes so convoluted, it's impossible to keep it straight, maybe? I don't mind those "canon" endings so much myself, though it would be nice if highly impactful decisions like that actually made a perpetual difference in the game world. (And, by 'perpetual', I don't mean necessarily never-ending) ) The 'pick one faction and *destroy* the others' way out, otoh, is a different story. That's just an unthinking perpetuation of real world mentalities. How hard could it be to include an option to have all the factions retain their distinctiveness, though not necessarily their dogmatism, and cooperate for a change? Should I see an "integral consciousness" like that (though not of the Ken Wilber variety) emerge in a video game before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I'd be sorely amazed.
@@blacxthornE Yeah I don't think the overall narrative should punish pacifism. I like Dishonored's approach where it classifies your games as low chaos or high chaos and your own violence leads to later levels being more dangerous with more numerous and alert enemies, and NPCs commenting on your behaviour. That said, a pacifist run is mean to be a challenge so I don't mind the idea in a game that just killing someone (who is about to use violence on others etc) is the 'simple' option sometimes and insisting on doing it non-violently adds complications and can lead to different outcomes. But if pacifist choices have consequences so should violent ones.
This is one thing I dislike about many modern RPGs - you're expected to kill scores of nameless mooks on your way to your goals, but their leaders, who sent all those people to their deaths and are arguably worse people than anyone you've killed thus far? Those people you can spare, and not doing so is evil(tm). Stealth and dialogue are often simply means to make fights easier or maybe skip a boss battle. Of course, the main cause of this is that such games typically give XP for combat, so if they want you to reach a certain level by a certain point, they need to line up a bunch of nameless mooks for you to kill on your way there. If XP is given for achieving objectives instead, it allows there to be the option of lots of combat without the necessity of it. It's a lot easier for a game to treat the death of some misguided villain as tragic when it's not in the immediate aftermath of you murdering two hundred guys to get there.
@@aslkdjfzxcv9779 lol this is such a rich fucking thing to say on a website where most videos have thumbnails and titles that are literally engineered to be clickbait. What the fuck are you on about
No need to apologize or worry about where ads are. Your videos and insights are great. Your focus on player driven activity is always a breath of fresh air in an era of railroading.
The old Fallout games indeed had many ways to knock out, cripple or blind enemies without killing them, and that really showed how versatile the game mechanics were.
Thank you so much for supporting pacifist playthroughs in your games! They inspire replaying and validate player's character builds! Having said that, I really wish more effort being put in developing fun gameplay around peaceful solutions. Especially the social play (dialogue etc) is still in many RPGs underwhelming (even though social interactions are usually a core pillar of role playing ganes). Combat has such variety and strategy and yet social encounters tend to be fairly railroad-y. I wonder if Tim has looked into designing more replayable social interaction systems. I would be curious what they would look like :) Thanks again Tim! Have a great day 😊
I love these videos. I am just gobbeling these up. Let me just say that Fallout, the original, is by far the best experience I have ever had in computer games. Was probably my first introduction to exploration games and I absolutely loved it and still play it from time to time today. Keep the videos comming, they are very helpful for someone trying to break into the industry.
I'm playing through Dishonored finally and i love playing a stealthy professional who wants to perserve life. Makes playing a bloodthirsty maniac in following playthroughs fun too because the stealth/pacificisn route really teaches you to learn the level, the npcs, and get so immersed to the role.
This is true but are the takedowns in Dishonored strickly pacifist? You can still injure someone (they could fall awkwardly, or you can poison dart them and they fall in to the water and drown - happened to me on one of my runs). I know within the game itself it's classed as a pacifist run though.
I feel the narrative pushes you towards pacifism in Dishonored. But the gameplay pushes you towards violence because thats easier and more fun. It has an elaborate combat system after all. I also did a 98% pacifist run my first time. But I feel I would probably have had more fun if I fought my way there instead.
@@cmdr.jabozerstorer3968The game does help you to track how many enemies you killed. There's summaries at the end of every level, and achievements for ensuring nobody dies. In the first Dishonored, there is a maximum of four bodies (including both unconscious and dead guards). Any more than that, and the oldest unconscious/dead guy will just vanish. This is due to memory reasons on consoles, but on PC I highly recommend editing a config file to turn it to unlimited, which actually makes a pacifist run slightly harder. This is because unconscious enemies may be eaten by the ever-present swarms of rats, which then counts as a death, whereas if they're removed from the game, they're considered to be ok. If you set the game to have unlimited bodies, you have to actually move all the unconscious guards to safe places where the rats can't reach them, which adds extra effort to the game but adds a bit of realism :D
That one of the most important why first 2 Fallout games are soo unique back then and even since i may not realize any other games like that you can both go active or passive gameplay . When i played both fallout games in passivist gameplay i enjoyed soo much that you actually can finish the game without doing almost any physical actions :)
I love novelty builds, character builds that lean into an ability that others had dismissed or hadn't considered, and figuring out what skillset and playstyle is needed to support it, then report on what works, what challenges it presents, and where and why it didn't work. I played Arcanum through 8 times because the potential for novelty builds was so great, and in fact did complete a pacifist (technically) playthrough. Of course that character was heavily invested in any persuasive stats and skills. There's no endgame Epic weapon for such a build, but who needs one when you're surrounded by Epic weapon wielders?
Thanks, Tim! I love to craft backstories for my characters in pacifist playthroughs to justify why they avoid killing at all costs. It was a challenge doing it for Tyranny though, since some combats couldn't be avoided. Still, it was very rewarding to have an 'as good as possible' playthrough in a game where you are supposed to be evil. Regarding TTRPGs, I have a 591-year-old undead Firbolg named Har that's a pacifist. He was a pacifist in life, and after his death, a mysterious necromancer desecrated his resting place, stole his body, and reanimated him as his mindless undead servant to study and use his centuries-old knowledge of natural magic. However, Har woke up from his stupor and, enraged, killed his 'master' by squishing his head with his bare hands. This was the first and last time he has ever killed. Little did he know that the necromancer would live forever inside him as a symbiote: a tiny humanoid facial feature protruding from his palm. So now Har has to constantly wage an internal war against the murderous nature of the necromancer inside him!
@@renaigh highly correlated though, and widely understood as such. So, for all intents and purposes, when talking about character concept, we might as well treat it as such. Cheers! Edit: removed a line
I think an interesting follow-up discussion to this topic would be about what goes into designing for more combat/optimization-based players who enjoy min-maxing etc., how much time is devoted to balancing classes or skills, what is a good ratio of easy/moderate/hard combat content to satisfy different players etc. I thought there was an interesting contrast hearing that story about when you submitted that article for Dragon magazine as a teenager, going into excrutiating detail about D&D class XP rates etc., while you've mentioned that as a developer, you tend to invest less time into balancing the minutia and more into overall balance of different playstyles being end-game viable. I love tinkering with builds and optimization, and booting up Arcanum to see a ton of backgrounds which very drastically alter stats positively and negatively, or heavily influence playstyle was terrific, and something I just haven't seen in many other role-playing games to date.
Pacifism can be an accidental byproduct of level designs where you were never given a goal of assassinating someone. It's possible to do from rpg to simulators as long as they allow enough freedom. Like technically you don't have to stomp k*opas and goombas outside boss levels to beat a level in most Mario games.
There's some blurred lines though. Like in Dishonored or Deus Ex where you can peacefully take someone out but they may be injured (so using a tranquiliser dart or the electric baton). In Dishonored for example, this is actually classed as a pacifist run but it's ambiguous.
Dishonored doesn't really have a direct pacifist option as such - there's no kill (clean hands) and no detection (ghost). If you get both achievements in a single run then the easiest way of doing this is pacifism (because you just avoid combat) but you can knock people out and still get it.
I think it is crazy reading the comments of not seeing anyone talk about Undertale. The pacifism in that is awesome and I feel like it probably is the best way to play the game. I imagine every game can't be like Undertale but game designers could try to think what they can do similar to Undertale somehow.
It's been forever, but wasn't pacifism basically the correct way to play Undertale? Most people go full pacifist on the second run cause they understand what the game's trick is.
@@psykomancer4420 I feel like that is the point though. To have another way to play the game. I feel like this could be implemented more though where you play the game first and maybe there is a secret given through the story that changes how you want to approach the game again. That I believe is the whole point. If you can get a player to play your game another time is awesome nowadays.
It was cool you could convince the Master his plan was foolish to a point where there was no way of the Super mutants could not reproduce, Kerghan's POV on the existence of life to commit soduko etc, brilliant game design and optimal for all player types.
Interesting take on things. I tend to view this sort of thing as situational--not all situations require going kinetic, but sometimes they do. I think one of my favorite instances of talking it out was in FO4. It's the little random side-scenario of the Sole Survivor running across a group of log-rollers, usually some lot demanding 'tolls' crossing a bridge. I still recall Nora being so obstreperous that whatever group of raiders/gunners/whathaveyou just throw up their hands and tell her it's not worth the trouble and to just...go.
I can relate. My characters don't harm animals or "good" humans. :) It's a compliment to the game if I feel compelled to play this way though. It means that, for me, it is a quality, immersive and meaningful experience.
Great video, as always - thanks so much. About the lighting: my first thought going into this video was: wow, Tim has this healthy glow about him... I like the lighting you've going on currently, to me it creates this cozy, intimate atmosphere that goes well with Tim's dev story time vibe.
hello tim, i been on a spree about your games while i am studying computer science stuff, i pretty much find you as a person who is very professional to his works, a person who aims to give 110% on anything he sets himself to be, and you starting in a very technical role and then ending up in producer roles, is pretty much how i inspire to be one day, youre my role model Tim thank you for sharing your work, is eye opening, and wild sometimes! haha
This is such a fascinating concept to me. I'd love a deep dive that covers games with true pacifism or ones that are almost perfect. Whenever I talk about my love for Fallout 1, I always mention the two sides of the coin, not killing anyone, or massacring everyone. Pure freedom.
Hello Tim, I love your videos and your design philosophies. Fallout was a huge part of my childhood and I want to thank you and everyone else who worked on the games for making such an amazing experience. Hope you have a great day!
Amazing timing as ive been wrestling with this on a needlessly philosophical level. Ive been playing Deus Ex Human Revolution and love the pacifism/no kill aspect, but couldn't help but think about it in both a philosophical way, but also a gameplay way. I realised that, whilst i didnt want to kill the majority of AI, the game could become a bit boring for me, so i would either save, go on a spree, then reload before, or just go on a spree. Its my own morals and interest in RP'ing as myself vs the want to have more fun, which is a rare conundrem in video games, but a welcome one. It makes you think.
Are philosophy (i.e. merely "love of wisdom", not the often confused and hardened ideologies that try to pass themselves off as wisdom today) and gameplay mutually exclusive, though? Or are most video games designed (purposefully or otherwise) to overstimulate us, appealing to our emotions and "lizard brains" to the exclusion of our intellects? Could that be a factor in any way in your getting bored playing intelligently and, alternatively, going scorched earth for a while out of sheer boredom because the game, perhaps, didn't get that balance right or couldn't find a way to make "pacifist" and other options to scorched earth sufficiently interesting to keep you engaged throughout? That's been much on my mind of late, at least. The dark humor, characterizations and gameplay of the early Fallouts were immanently enjoyable, but the developers of those games didn't ask us to put our intellects on hold to play them and actually exercised theirs during development -- researching real world scenarios to make the FEV, for example, seem more grounded in reality so that we might suspend our disbelief more easily. (Tim talked about that in one of his videos and, in fact, good authors do that all the time when writing novels.) In fact, those games actually asked us to excercise our intellects on occasion rather than pushing ideologies like supposed "transhumanism" (which is actually cyborgism, btw) down our throats, but still provided options to suit all manner of imaginative gameplay on the part of the player. I doubt they even thought twice about doing that because it was a different, more innocent (and intelligent) time and they seemed to assume players are just as intelligent and imaginative as they are. I tend to wonder if the earlier cRPGs weren't tied more to their literary roots -- even if it was the "Choose You Own Adventure" children's book variety -- simply because the technology to produce dazzling visuals (just like motion pictures) wasn't there. They relied on text descriptions and the like to get various concepts about the game world across to the player, whereas most games today rely overmuch on visuals and "tactile" stimulation, e.g. haptic feedback, to try and keep players engaged...at least, those that aren't straight up Skinner boxes. Thinking mindfully and coherently is not a criminal activity...yet.
I remember trying cyber punk on lauch and trying to see if pacifist was a option to change the game. However after finding out it does not matter it took away from my decision making and reduced the ammount of thinking that went into decisions. Pacifism provides engaugement through creative problem solving and not just brute forcing situations.
I personally dislike pacifism in RPGs because in my experience developers make speech skill disproportionately the "I win" button, with very little, if any challenge.
Хм , а если подумать то реально , пацифизм в играх редко где можно встретить. Многие игры люди пытались проходить без убийств , но итог все упиралось в один уровень или врага без убийства которого нельзя пройти игру. Спасибо вам Тим , очень интересную тему вы затронули.
There's another big angle to pacifist routes which I've found often goes under-discussed, in that they allow for a much larger swath of the global population to feel comfortable playing the game. I distinctly remember a conversation I had with a very pious and devout Muslim guy from Riyadh who was a huge Metal Gear fan but said that for however much the Metal Gear community loves Revengeance he'll probably never be personally able to play it due to the lack of a pacifist route making it too at-odds for him.
Really appreciate your take and insight into this. It was always a welcome thing, in your games, to be able to talk, sneak, or fight and even mix it up depending on how I felt about the 'target' of the mission. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the ethical quandary of being a 'pacifist' in a war party. If you're perfectly happy to let everyone else do the fighting, while you hang back and sling buffs, are you *really* a conscientious objector--or just wearing your party as armour?
I played a cannibal character in FNV who was a tactical vegan. He wouldn’t eat animal products for ethical reasons, but he considered any attack upon him to be a form of tacit consent.
The other kind of character I think is memorable is when you make a joke character just to have fun with what seems like a silly game mechanic or something you never use, and the character turns out to be insane and really fun.
Games like dishonored and deus ex reward you for pacifism with some extra dialogue while eavesdropping or some effect on a future level, usually not much but they acknowledge what you did or didn't do. Outside of games about stealth, pacifism being built in feels like anyone can be talked down or bargained with in some way which feels predictable and I could win just by having a stat at a certain high lvl which kinda ruined the problem solving aspect of pacifism. It can be solved by adding some key items and clues that unlocks dialogue options in off beaten path locations, I always like that way to handle it.
There are some MMOs that manage to bypass combat, crafting and building and agreements tend to be their things from what I've seen. Tech trees, farming/collection. It's just rare, I guess
In the past, you've talked about how excited you are when creating new IP's and starting new worlds. Despite this, do you ever feel sad or melancholic when moving on? Do endings affect you, and if so, how do you move on and endure?
I've actually wondered about trying to use something like the XP for loot mechanic from early D&D -- and wonder if videogamers who don't play TTRPGs, or have only played newer TTRPGs, would react when everyone is so used to XP for kills. For that matter, I've wondered about a morale system, though I suspect players wouldn't get it since a very popular game series has basically every enemy fake surrender and then just attack again once they have their breath.
Well, getting XP for lockpicking and hacking are a thing in Fallout 3 and NV. It feels great, like you're being rewarded for doing what you're good at, which in turn leads to specializing those skills. NV even went so far as to give XP for achievements, which led to a sense of greater reward. I would not be surprised if people who play video games would love those older mechanics. AAA companies want essentially another Doom even to this day, and tend to neglect other play styles. There's a real thirst and hunger for choice in games, but due to the extra work, we tend to get murder as the only solution.
How do you determine if you current game concept is doable solo, small team, large team etc? If the concept is too large, how do you determine to scope down or start a different concept?
Scott Bennie, on trying to get my pacifist martial artist in Champions into a fight: “You see an old lady with a bulging purse approaching the bank.” I smile and go back to enjoying the breeze. “You’re danger sense goes off - there’s a purse snatcher edging closer to her. What do you do?” I lean over to the old lady, and gently say, “You must learn to renounce material wealth!” “The purse snatcher snatches the purse, the old lady shrieks and curses.” “Ahhhhh, but no one was hurt! AHHHOOoooooooommmmmm.” Some other hero retrieves the purse after pummeling the villain into the sidewalk (Weidman? Wait, no, he was laughing too hard…someone else). Scott finally figured out that someone good had to be threatened with physical harm to trigger my character. Three cheers for allowing a pacifist approach. Of course, I’m one of those guys who made a habit out of slaughtering Lord British (and thanks to LB for allowing it!).
Another important aspect to pacifism is that it doesn't have to be a guarantee. Failure to pacify particularly volatile situations would naturally result in escalation which could end with a fight where one or both parties are injured or worse. A part of every encounter when trying to talk your way through it is going to be the other party and their resolve in their own point of view.
I just completed the Murder on Eridanos DLC for The Outer Worlds, and wondered if you have any thoughts and/or advice regarding how DLC Development compares to Full Games, or even old-school Expansion Packs?
I feel pacifist routes are important to include, even if most players aren’t gonna play pacifist for the whole game. You may normally play as a fighter of some sort but decide to do some quest passively for whatever reasons you have. Also wanna say imo there’s a big distinction between pacifism as a playstyle, and pacifism as a self imposed challenge, ala “can YOU beat [trendy game] WITHOUT [arbitrarily chosen game mechanic]”. As a playstyle, you need to have mechanics built for pacifism like weapons that incapacitate and don’t kill, or speech or whatever else. It doesn’t matter if you can technically play as a pacifist if the game isn’t really built for that
It's a shame that there's no current-gen games that are following player driven freedom, fallout classics and arcanum were the last ones i can recall allowing you to do anything you would want.
hi tim a 2 part question sorry if you have answered this before. When did you experience people speed running your games? and did it ever impact internal development discussions? thank you.
Fallout was the first game I saw someone speed run, back in the 90s. And no, I cannot recall a single design discussion that involved speed running. I have a whole video about speed running here: th-cam.com/video/l-Vuw-qWCgY/w-d-xo.html
I am wondering do you have quantifiable metric of fun? Personally i found out that fun can be quantified in terms of combinations, the number of ways of interaction which the entity will bring to the system, whatever i think of: npc encounter, pvp gameplay mechanic, social gameplay mechanic, visual character design, quest/campaign design, dungeon design, basically anything it’s universal, I try to assign a number of combinations it will bring to the system and measure one decision against the other by that number.
This is a semi-related question, but I do wonder what your or any commenter's stance is on dialogue-based playthroughs in RPGs. Over the years, I've become a bit jaded with them. Sure, it's cool that it's an option and story-wise often more interesting, but ultimately the way these encounters are resolved is so much simpler and less immersive than any other aspects of games. With combat, you have to time your dodges, attacks, know which spells to use against what enemies. With stealth, you have to similarly time your movement, plan in accordance with how the enemy is behaving, and try to find shortcuts or specific paths without much light. However, dialogue and persuasion feel fundamentally different. The only choice I make is investing in the diplomacy or whatever it's called skill during leveling up, and then I just pick the dialogue option with that skill mentioned in the brackets. It doesn't feel "gameplay-like" in the same way that combat and stealth do (even when they also depend on stats and equipment). I actually feel badass when I defeat a hard boss or cunning when I sneak into a base and leave without anyone noticing me. However, picking the speech option doesn't really make me feel charismatic. I know some people might mention Fallout 1 and 2 or Planescape: Torment, which didn't actually mention which dialogue option would lead to a peaceful resolution, but even then, it was rather obvious which one to pick. Even if it somehow wasn't obvious, it's still a far cry from how engaging these other aspects are. Back then, the combat and sneaking also came off as a lot simpler than compared to now, so the difference between fighting and dialogue in Fallout 1 didn't feel as jarring as these two mechanics do in modern action RPGs. I guess my question is if there is a way to make diplomacy somehow translate to player-directed gameplay in the same way that combat and stealth do. This might be in the future resolved with LLMs, but I'm wondering if designers ever tried to figure out ways without them.
It's not just for RPGs, any game can support pacifism with a bit of forethought. A great example is the stealth genre, which often have allowances or even bonuses for completing a level without killing anyone. They might've actually been the first games to support it! Most entries in the Tenchu series, for example, would give you the highest rank for completing a mission as long as you weren't seen, regardless of if you killed anyone or not. Then of course you have Metal Gear Solid, most of which have special awards for completing the game or missions without killing anyone. The stealth option for pacifism is applicable in most games in which the dialog option is not, and the few exceptions would be covered by speedrunning tactics, where there's no need to waste time on unnecessary fighting. I wish more games would try to include it.
Also I have come to really despise 'essential NPCs'. Most of the time it would be a simple matter to provide alternative methods of completion like you did in Arcanum. Even without that, for side quests you can just fail it. Bethesda is one of the worst offenders. 90% of the named NPCs in Starfield are unkillable, and it really breaks immersion at times.
Healers in FF14 actually do have to contribute to damage- high end raids in particular are impossible to complete without healers doing damage because you won't make the dps checks. I think the best implementation of a pacifist option I have ever seen is in the old Daniel Remar game "Iji"
Pacifist Gameplay Can Be Something "Plastic" Cause I Doesnt Match With The Situation, But Its Someting That I Amazing To Play Around, Like Imagine What Kind Of Reason Could Have Your Character To No Spill Blood Unless It Necessary, Or Even If His Own Life Is In Play.
What I really don't like is when pacifism is mixed up with fighting. Like in Fallout: Las Vegas, where you can slay the whole Legion camp and then convince the boss to give up, which makes no sense. He will probably be killed for failing and if he isn't, he will return for revenge which is why the player can't let him leave. It's like James Bond letting Blofeld live just to have a sequel...
You can use a legion disguise to walk past them in the legion camp. Before that you can have your companions and allies fight the legion or run from them. Then you can talk down Lanius (he sees through your disguise)
And the legion is pretty much doomed unless you fix cesars tumor. And even then you just prolong his life by 10-30 years? Cesar has made sure he is the legion and have done nothing with heirs etc. In fact he has done the opposite, making sure everyone and everything revolves around him. The legion collapses without him. Joshua Graham says he has nevet met anyone that could take Cesars place. Ulysses says the legion without Cesar is like a dead man taking his last steps not realising he is dead etc. Lanius will never return as the legion will go up in flames without Cesar and Lanius is 100% violent and it will be even quicker with him at the helm.
I had a characters in Ultima Online that my friends still talk about. His name Pedro The Sultan of Smut, I would just buy blank books then copy and paste naughty stories from Penthouse magazine into them and peddle my filthy wares along side my loyal dog Smutt for 20gp a book.
I think one of the Postal games had the best pacifist ending. The one where you get out alive and the game shows how everybody else is fucked in the head except you.
I'm trying to step back from all games except pacifist games for 2024... until now it's going pretty well... there are some new games coming out that seem to be a solely adventure and exploration based game but oddly enough I find it a bit difficult to find a community Q...q that's very odd
There are actually some philosophers who argue that it is immoral to kill NPCs in games. And I think, the Man in Black in the first season of Westworld is an interesting character to think about this.
do you have a patreon or something? just so i can get you more monthly revenue compared to me turning off my adblocker which gives you little to nothing in revenue for a single view per video.
robots don't have to be sentient for a character to have a problem fighting them, a Robotics Expert may be more comfortable reprogramming them to make them less of a danger.
Hsbing pacifist options is good for someone like me who chooses based on morality most of the time. That said pacifism is largely immoral because it doesnt stop evil from acting in your vicinity, thus i never play a pacifist
having actual attributes is so important for these games I really dont understand the point of taking that out , the way the games were theres a reason fallout new Vegas is literally just a expansion to fall out 3 but feels like a new game, if you can play fallout 3 5 times and have fun doing different stuff, its like just add a whole new world and storylines with new options , fallout 3 was a game I would still play if they just added more content like they did with new Vegas. all new Vegas was, is more content for fallout 3
Have you considered trying to use the copyright deadlock trick invented by Jimquisition? I think people who complain about ads are just being babies. If you don't want ads pay for premium. It's $14 a month.
Pacifism in an RPG is like playing Madden but your character spends every game on the bench. Why make a game where you allow the player to skip the whole game? It makes no sense. Like it or not CRPGs are combat simulators and I'm glad this nonsense didn't catch on.
Hold on... When a mage summons milk, where the fuck does it come from? It is materialised, from arcane powers, using some pattern that the mage has hearnt? Is it a teleport & telekenesis spell? Where they reach out across time and space to milk a cow (or other animal). Is there a milk dimension? Somewhere in the multiverse there exists a universe that is pure milk all the way down, maybe they just open a portal there with a nozzle on it. Is she some fetishist in disguise, who's not even a mage, just wears a pump rig 24/7? We may never know.
how is eating conjured(!!!) cheese and milk not vegan??? what??? there is no animal suffering there, it's like misunderstanding the entire concept, similarly, how causing death deliberately but not directly with your hand makes you a pacifist??? these concepts actually have meaning not just surface level pretendings
Never saw the appeal of pacifism in games. But how about other styles? All RPGs should allow me to be evil, genocidal, a thief, a liar, a charlatan, a saboteur, a rebel, a no-quetion asked soldier that follows orders.
I feel that pacifism/nonlethal routes in game are great so long as they feel like part of the game design. For example, in a game like Fallout New Vegas you could technically pacifist at least most of the game, but most of it is by running away from encounters and refusing to engage with a lot of the game. By contrast, games like Deus Ex or Thief actually give options to dispatch or avoid enemies without killing them, making those kinds of play throughs actually fun to do.
Be nice if you got narratively punished for being a pacifist too (like an ally dies if you act like a pacifist in a certain situation).
True it all depends on context
Agreed. Metro 2033 did this exceedingly well, at least in regard to humans, changing the outcome drastically. Of course, the "canon" ending is nonetheless tied to Artyom having had less...self-dsicipline. So, it wound up not mattering in the next installment at all. Only so much you can do with code before it beomes so convoluted, it's impossible to keep it straight, maybe?
I don't mind those "canon" endings so much myself, though it would be nice if highly impactful decisions like that actually made a perpetual difference in the game world. (And, by 'perpetual', I don't mean necessarily never-ending) ) The 'pick one faction and *destroy* the others' way out, otoh, is a different story. That's just an unthinking perpetuation of real world mentalities. How hard could it be to include an option to have all the factions retain their distinctiveness, though not necessarily their dogmatism, and cooperate for a change?
Should I see an "integral consciousness" like that (though not of the Ken Wilber variety) emerge in a video game before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I'd be sorely amazed.
@@MYFAVORITES5that's a terrible idea and makes a horrible political statement about pacifism. this is how zack snyder ruined DC.
@@blacxthornE Yeah I don't think the overall narrative should punish pacifism. I like Dishonored's approach where it classifies your games as low chaos or high chaos and your own violence leads to later levels being more dangerous with more numerous and alert enemies, and NPCs commenting on your behaviour.
That said, a pacifist run is mean to be a challenge so I don't mind the idea in a game that just killing someone (who is about to use violence on others etc) is the 'simple' option sometimes and insisting on doing it non-violently adds complications and can lead to different outcomes. But if pacifist choices have consequences so should violent ones.
This is one thing I dislike about many modern RPGs - you're expected to kill scores of nameless mooks on your way to your goals, but their leaders, who sent all those people to their deaths and are arguably worse people than anyone you've killed thus far? Those people you can spare, and not doing so is evil(tm). Stealth and dialogue are often simply means to make fights easier or maybe skip a boss battle.
Of course, the main cause of this is that such games typically give XP for combat, so if they want you to reach a certain level by a certain point, they need to line up a bunch of nameless mooks for you to kill on your way there. If XP is given for achieving objectives instead, it allows there to be the option of lots of combat without the necessity of it. It's a lot easier for a game to treat the death of some misguided villain as tragic when it's not in the immediate aftermath of you murdering two hundred guys to get there.
TH-cam picks the best parts of your videos to make thumbnails for, I love it.
im sure hes picking them :D
They’re too perfect
you enjoy manipulative thumbnails?
@@Suds_Mc_Duffyep. he said in an earlier video (probably one about youtube) that it gives him a selection of thumbnails and he picks the silliest one.
@@aslkdjfzxcv9779 lol this is such a rich fucking thing to say on a website where most videos have thumbnails and titles that are literally engineered to be clickbait. What the fuck are you on about
No need to apologize or worry about where ads are. Your videos and insights are great. Your focus on player driven activity is always a breath of fresh air in an era of railroading.
The old Fallout games indeed had many ways to knock out, cripple or blind enemies without killing them, and that really showed how versatile the game mechanics were.
Thank you so much for supporting pacifist playthroughs in your games! They inspire replaying and validate player's character builds!
Having said that, I really wish more effort being put in developing fun gameplay around peaceful solutions. Especially the social play (dialogue etc) is still in many RPGs underwhelming (even though social interactions are usually a core pillar of role playing ganes). Combat has such variety and strategy and yet social encounters tend to be fairly railroad-y.
I wonder if Tim has looked into designing more replayable social interaction systems. I would be curious what they would look like :)
Thanks again Tim! Have a great day 😊
You will very happy with Monday's video.
@@CainOnGames you are a blessing, thank you and have a great weekend:)
@@StavrosNikolaou When you watch, remember that I recorded it a few weeks ago based on a question you asked back then. You ask good questions!
@@CainOnGames you are too kind, thank you! Your work inspires good questions :)
I love these videos. I am just gobbeling these up.
Let me just say that Fallout, the original, is by far the best experience I have ever had in computer games. Was probably my first introduction to exploration games and I absolutely loved it and still play it from time to time today.
Keep the videos comming, they are very helpful for someone trying to break into the industry.
I'm playing through Dishonored finally and i love playing a stealthy professional who wants to perserve life. Makes playing a bloodthirsty maniac in following playthroughs fun too because the stealth/pacificisn route really teaches you to learn the level, the npcs, and get so immersed to the role.
This is true but are the takedowns in Dishonored strickly pacifist? You can still injure someone (they could fall awkwardly, or you can poison dart them and they fall in to the water and drown - happened to me on one of my runs). I know within the game itself it's classed as a pacifist run though.
You play the most basic
General audience game
That happened to have
Pacifist as aftertouth
I feel the narrative pushes you towards pacifism in Dishonored. But the gameplay pushes you towards violence because thats easier and more fun. It has an elaborate combat system after all. I also did a 98% pacifist run my first time. But I feel I would probably have had more fun if I fought my way there instead.
@@SCARawis that supposed to be a haiku?
@@cmdr.jabozerstorer3968The game does help you to track how many enemies you killed. There's summaries at the end of every level, and achievements for ensuring nobody dies.
In the first Dishonored, there is a maximum of four bodies (including both unconscious and dead guards). Any more than that, and the oldest unconscious/dead guy will just vanish. This is due to memory reasons on consoles, but on PC I highly recommend editing a config file to turn it to unlimited, which actually makes a pacifist run slightly harder.
This is because unconscious enemies may be eaten by the ever-present swarms of rats, which then counts as a death, whereas if they're removed from the game, they're considered to be ok.
If you set the game to have unlimited bodies, you have to actually move all the unconscious guards to safe places where the rats can't reach them, which adds extra effort to the game but adds a bit of realism :D
That one of the most important why first 2 Fallout games are soo unique back then and even since i may not realize any other games like that you can both go active or passive gameplay . When i played both fallout games in passivist gameplay i enjoyed soo much that you actually can finish the game without doing almost any physical actions :)
I love novelty builds, character builds that lean into an ability that others had dismissed or hadn't considered, and figuring out what skillset and playstyle is needed to support it, then report on what works, what challenges it presents, and where and why it didn't work. I played Arcanum through 8 times because the potential for novelty builds was so great, and in fact did complete a pacifist (technically) playthrough. Of course that character was heavily invested in any persuasive stats and skills. There's no endgame Epic weapon for such a build, but who needs one when you're surrounded by Epic weapon wielders?
Thanks, Tim!
I love to craft backstories for my characters in pacifist playthroughs to justify why they avoid killing at all costs. It was a challenge doing it for Tyranny though, since some combats couldn't be avoided. Still, it was very rewarding to have an 'as good as possible' playthrough in a game where you are supposed to be evil.
Regarding TTRPGs, I have a 591-year-old undead Firbolg named Har that's a pacifist. He was a pacifist in life, and after his death, a mysterious necromancer desecrated his resting place, stole his body, and reanimated him as his mindless undead servant to study and use his centuries-old knowledge of natural magic. However, Har woke up from his stupor and, enraged, killed his 'master' by squishing his head with his bare hands. This was the first and last time he has ever killed. Little did he know that the necromancer would live forever inside him as a symbiote: a tiny humanoid facial feature protruding from his palm. So now Har has to constantly wage an internal war against the murderous nature of the necromancer inside him!
Pacifism is not a synonym for 'good'.
@@renaigh highly correlated though, and widely understood as such. So, for all intents and purposes, when talking about character concept, we might as well treat it as such.
Cheers!
Edit: removed a line
I think an interesting follow-up discussion to this topic would be about what goes into designing for more combat/optimization-based players who enjoy min-maxing etc., how much time is devoted to balancing classes or skills, what is a good ratio of easy/moderate/hard combat content to satisfy different players etc.
I thought there was an interesting contrast hearing that story about when you submitted that article for Dragon magazine as a teenager, going into excrutiating detail about D&D class XP rates etc., while you've mentioned that as a developer, you tend to invest less time into balancing the minutia and more into overall balance of different playstyles being end-game viable.
I love tinkering with builds and optimization, and booting up Arcanum to see a ton of backgrounds which very drastically alter stats positively and negatively, or heavily influence playstyle was terrific, and something I just haven't seen in many other role-playing games to date.
Pacifism can be an accidental byproduct of level designs where you were never given a goal of assassinating someone. It's possible to do from rpg to simulators as long as they allow enough freedom. Like technically you don't have to stomp k*opas and goombas outside boss levels to beat a level in most Mario games.
There's some blurred lines though. Like in Dishonored or Deus Ex where you can peacefully take someone out but they may be injured (so using a tranquiliser dart or the electric baton). In Dishonored for example, this is actually classed as a pacifist run but it's ambiguous.
Dishonored doesn't really have a direct pacifist option as such - there's no kill (clean hands) and no detection (ghost). If you get both achievements in a single run then the easiest way of doing this is pacifism (because you just avoid combat) but you can knock people out and still get it.
@@dplfs Yeah. I'm doing a clean hands and ghost run (or attempting to) and I'm just ignoring those two on the bridge because they always detect you.
I think it is crazy reading the comments of not seeing anyone talk about Undertale. The pacifism in that is awesome and I feel like it probably is the best way to play the game. I imagine every game can't be like Undertale but game designers could try to think what they can do similar to Undertale somehow.
It's been forever, but wasn't pacifism basically the correct way to play Undertale? Most people go full pacifist on the second run cause they understand what the game's trick is.
@@psykomancer4420 I feel like that is the point though. To have another way to play the game. I feel like this could be implemented more though where you play the game first and maybe there is a secret given through the story that changes how you want to approach the game again. That I believe is the whole point. If you can get a player to play your game another time is awesome nowadays.
It was cool you could convince the Master his plan was foolish to a point where there was no way of the Super mutants could not reproduce, Kerghan's POV on the existence of life to commit soduko etc, brilliant game design and optimal for all player types.
Interesting take on things. I tend to view this sort of thing as situational--not all situations require going kinetic, but sometimes they do. I think one of my favorite instances of talking it out was in FO4. It's the little random side-scenario of the Sole Survivor running across a group of log-rollers, usually some lot demanding 'tolls' crossing a bridge. I still recall Nora being so obstreperous that whatever group of raiders/gunners/whathaveyou just throw up their hands and tell her it's not worth the trouble and to just...go.
I can relate. My characters don't harm animals or "good" humans. :) It's a compliment to the game if I feel compelled to play this way though. It means that, for me, it is a quality, immersive and meaningful experience.
Great video, as always - thanks so much. About the lighting: my first thought going into this video was: wow, Tim has this healthy glow about him... I like the lighting you've going on currently, to me it creates this cozy, intimate atmosphere that goes well with Tim's dev story time vibe.
hello tim, i been on a spree about your games while i am studying computer science stuff, i pretty much find you as a person who is very professional to his works, a person who aims to give 110% on anything he sets himself to be, and you starting in a very technical role and then ending up in producer roles, is pretty much how i inspire to be one day, youre my role model Tim thank you for sharing your work, is eye opening, and wild sometimes! haha
This is such a fascinating concept to me. I'd love a deep dive that covers games with true pacifism or ones that are almost perfect. Whenever I talk about my love for Fallout 1, I always mention the two sides of the coin, not killing anyone, or massacring everyone. Pure freedom.
Hello Tim, I love your videos and your design philosophies. Fallout was a huge part of my childhood and I want to thank you and everyone else who worked on the games for making such an amazing experience. Hope you have a great day!
Amazing timing as ive been wrestling with this on a needlessly philosophical level.
Ive been playing Deus Ex Human Revolution and love the pacifism/no kill aspect, but couldn't help but think about it in both a philosophical way, but also a gameplay way.
I realised that, whilst i didnt want to kill the majority of AI, the game could become a bit boring for me, so i would either save, go on a spree, then reload before, or just go on a spree. Its my own morals and interest in RP'ing as myself vs the want to have more fun, which is a rare conundrem in video games, but a welcome one. It makes you think.
Are philosophy (i.e. merely "love of wisdom", not the often confused and hardened ideologies that try to pass themselves off as wisdom today) and gameplay mutually exclusive, though? Or are most video games designed (purposefully or otherwise) to overstimulate us, appealing to our emotions and "lizard brains" to the exclusion of our intellects? Could that be a factor in any way in your getting bored playing intelligently and, alternatively, going scorched earth for a while out of sheer boredom because the game, perhaps, didn't get that balance right or couldn't find a way to make "pacifist" and other options to scorched earth sufficiently interesting to keep you engaged throughout?
That's been much on my mind of late, at least. The dark humor, characterizations and gameplay of the early Fallouts were immanently enjoyable, but the developers of those games didn't ask us to put our intellects on hold to play them and actually exercised theirs during development -- researching real world scenarios to make the FEV, for example, seem more grounded in reality so that we might suspend our disbelief more easily. (Tim talked about that in one of his videos and, in fact, good authors do that all the time when writing novels.) In fact, those games actually asked us to excercise our intellects on occasion rather than pushing ideologies like supposed "transhumanism" (which is actually cyborgism, btw) down our throats, but still provided options to suit all manner of imaginative gameplay on the part of the player. I doubt they even thought twice about doing that because it was a different, more innocent (and intelligent) time and they seemed to assume players are just as intelligent and imaginative as they are.
I tend to wonder if the earlier cRPGs weren't tied more to their literary roots -- even if it was the "Choose You Own Adventure" children's book variety -- simply because the technology to produce dazzling visuals (just like motion pictures) wasn't there. They relied on text descriptions and the like to get various concepts about the game world across to the player, whereas most games today rely overmuch on visuals and "tactile" stimulation, e.g. haptic feedback, to try and keep players engaged...at least, those that aren't straight up Skinner boxes.
Thinking mindfully and coherently is not a criminal activity...yet.
I wonder if Fallout 1 was the first video game in history that, having a developed combat system, allowed a pacifist walkthrough.
I remember trying cyber punk on lauch and trying to see if pacifist was a option to change the game. However after finding out it does not matter it took away from my decision making and reduced the ammount of thinking that went into decisions. Pacifism provides engaugement through creative problem solving and not just brute forcing situations.
I personally dislike pacifism in RPGs because in my experience developers make speech skill disproportionately the "I win" button, with very little, if any challenge.
I dislike that too. I will discuss it in detail on Monday.
Хм , а если подумать то реально , пацифизм в играх редко где можно встретить. Многие игры люди пытались проходить без убийств , но итог все упиралось в один уровень или врага без убийства которого нельзя пройти игру. Спасибо вам Тим , очень интересную тему вы затронули.
There's another big angle to pacifist routes which I've found often goes under-discussed, in that they allow for a much larger swath of the global population to feel comfortable playing the game. I distinctly remember a conversation I had with a very pious and devout Muslim guy from Riyadh who was a huge Metal Gear fan but said that for however much the Metal Gear community loves Revengeance he'll probably never be personally able to play it due to the lack of a pacifist route making it too at-odds for him.
Really appreciate your take and insight into this. It was always a welcome thing, in your games, to be able to talk, sneak, or fight and even mix it up depending on how I felt about the 'target' of the mission.
I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the ethical quandary of being a 'pacifist' in a war party. If you're perfectly happy to let everyone else do the fighting, while you hang back and sling buffs, are you *really* a conscientious objector--or just wearing your party as armour?
You can't retire. We need to clone you and get y'all working on the next generation of RPGs.
This channel is my attempt to clone my design philosophy in the next generation of game developers. I want to play such games too!
I played a cannibal character in FNV who was a tactical vegan. He wouldn’t eat animal products for ethical reasons, but he considered any attack upon him to be a form of tacit consent.
Perfect thumbnail
The other kind of character I think is memorable is when you make a joke character just to have fun with what seems like a silly game mechanic or something you never use, and the character turns out to be insane and really fun.
Games like dishonored and deus ex reward you for pacifism with some extra dialogue while eavesdropping or some effect on a future level, usually not much but they acknowledge what you did or didn't do. Outside of games about stealth, pacifism being built in feels like anyone can be talked down or bargained with in some way which feels predictable and I could win just by having a stat at a certain high lvl which kinda ruined the problem solving aspect of pacifism. It can be solved by adding some key items and clues that unlocks dialogue options in off beaten path locations, I always like that way to handle it.
There are some MMOs that manage to bypass combat, crafting and building and agreements tend to be their things from what I've seen. Tech trees, farming/collection. It's just rare, I guess
Ads? I never see any ads on your videos 🤔
In the past, you've talked about how excited you are when creating new IP's and starting new worlds.
Despite this, do you ever feel sad or melancholic when moving on? Do endings affect you, and if so, how do you move on and endure?
I've actually wondered about trying to use something like the XP for loot mechanic from early D&D -- and wonder if videogamers who don't play TTRPGs, or have only played newer TTRPGs, would react when everyone is so used to XP for kills. For that matter, I've wondered about a morale system, though I suspect players wouldn't get it since a very popular game series has basically every enemy fake surrender and then just attack again once they have their breath.
Well, getting XP for lockpicking and hacking are a thing in Fallout 3 and NV. It feels great, like you're being rewarded for doing what you're good at, which in turn leads to specializing those skills. NV even went so far as to give XP for achievements, which led to a sense of greater reward. I would not be surprised if people who play video games would love those older mechanics. AAA companies want essentially another Doom even to this day, and tend to neglect other play styles. There's a real thirst and hunger for choice in games, but due to the extra work, we tend to get murder as the only solution.
How do you determine if you current game concept is doable solo, small team, large team etc?
If the concept is too large, how do you determine to scope down or start a different concept?
Hi Tim, would love to hear your thoughts on the Nemesis System if you had a chance to play Shadow of War/Mordor. Cheers!
Scott Bennie, on trying to get my pacifist martial artist in Champions into a fight:
“You see an old lady with a bulging purse approaching the bank.”
I smile and go back to enjoying the breeze.
“You’re danger sense goes off - there’s a purse snatcher edging closer to her. What do you do?”
I lean over to the old lady, and gently say, “You must learn to renounce material wealth!”
“The purse snatcher snatches the purse, the old lady shrieks and curses.”
“Ahhhhh, but no one was hurt! AHHHOOoooooooommmmmm.”
Some other hero retrieves the purse after pummeling the villain into the sidewalk (Weidman? Wait, no, he was laughing too hard…someone else).
Scott finally figured out that someone good had to be threatened with physical harm to trigger my character.
Three cheers for allowing a pacifist approach. Of course, I’m one of those guys who made a habit out of slaughtering Lord British (and thanks to LB for allowing it!).
Another important aspect to pacifism is that it doesn't have to be a guarantee. Failure to pacify particularly volatile situations would naturally result in escalation which could end with a fight where one or both parties are injured or worse. A part of every encounter when trying to talk your way through it is going to be the other party and their resolve in their own point of view.
Gotta love those Seattle winter mornings!
Could you make a video about the cut invasion mechanic in F1? :)
I just completed the Murder on Eridanos DLC for The Outer Worlds, and wondered if you have any thoughts and/or advice regarding how DLC Development compares to Full Games, or even old-school Expansion Packs?
I feel pacifist routes are important to include, even if most players aren’t gonna play pacifist for the whole game. You may normally play as a fighter of some sort but decide to do some quest passively for whatever reasons you have.
Also wanna say imo there’s a big distinction between pacifism as a playstyle, and pacifism as a self imposed challenge, ala “can YOU beat [trendy game] WITHOUT [arbitrarily chosen game mechanic]”. As a playstyle, you need to have mechanics built for pacifism like weapons that incapacitate and don’t kill, or speech or whatever else. It doesn’t matter if you can technically play as a pacifist if the game isn’t really built for that
It's a shame that there's no current-gen games that are following player driven freedom, fallout classics and arcanum were the last ones i can recall allowing you to do anything you would want.
hi tim a 2 part question sorry if you have answered this before. When did you experience people speed running your games? and did it ever impact internal development discussions? thank you.
Fallout was the first game I saw someone speed run, back in the 90s. And no, I cannot recall a single design discussion that involved speed running.
I have a whole video about speed running here: th-cam.com/video/l-Vuw-qWCgY/w-d-xo.html
I am wondering do you have quantifiable metric of fun?
Personally i found out that fun can be quantified in terms of combinations, the number of ways of interaction which the entity will bring to the system, whatever i think of: npc encounter, pvp gameplay mechanic, social gameplay mechanic, visual character design, quest/campaign design, dungeon design, basically anything it’s universal, I try to assign a number of combinations it will bring to the system and measure one decision against the other by that number.
This is a semi-related question, but I do wonder what your or any commenter's stance is on dialogue-based playthroughs in RPGs. Over the years, I've become a bit jaded with them. Sure, it's cool that it's an option and story-wise often more interesting, but ultimately the way these encounters are resolved is so much simpler and less immersive than any other aspects of games.
With combat, you have to time your dodges, attacks, know which spells to use against what enemies. With stealth, you have to similarly time your movement, plan in accordance with how the enemy is behaving, and try to find shortcuts or specific paths without much light. However, dialogue and persuasion feel fundamentally different. The only choice I make is investing in the diplomacy or whatever it's called skill during leveling up, and then I just pick the dialogue option with that skill mentioned in the brackets.
It doesn't feel "gameplay-like" in the same way that combat and stealth do (even when they also depend on stats and equipment). I actually feel badass when I defeat a hard boss or cunning when I sneak into a base and leave without anyone noticing me. However, picking the speech option doesn't really make me feel charismatic. I know some people might mention Fallout 1 and 2 or Planescape: Torment, which didn't actually mention which dialogue option would lead to a peaceful resolution, but even then, it was rather obvious which one to pick. Even if it somehow wasn't obvious, it's still a far cry from how engaging these other aspects are.
Back then, the combat and sneaking also came off as a lot simpler than compared to now, so the difference between fighting and dialogue in Fallout 1 didn't feel as jarring as these two mechanics do in modern action RPGs. I guess my question is if there is a way to make diplomacy somehow translate to player-directed gameplay in the same way that combat and stealth do. This might be in the future resolved with LLMs, but I'm wondering if designers ever tried to figure out ways without them.
It's not just for RPGs, any game can support pacifism with a bit of forethought. A great example is the stealth genre, which often have allowances or even bonuses for completing a level without killing anyone. They might've actually been the first games to support it!
Most entries in the Tenchu series, for example, would give you the highest rank for completing a mission as long as you weren't seen, regardless of if you killed anyone or not. Then of course you have Metal Gear Solid, most of which have special awards for completing the game or missions without killing anyone.
The stealth option for pacifism is applicable in most games in which the dialog option is not, and the few exceptions would be covered by speedrunning tactics, where there's no need to waste time on unnecessary fighting. I wish more games would try to include it.
Also I have come to really despise 'essential NPCs'. Most of the time it would be a simple matter to provide alternative methods of completion like you did in Arcanum. Even without that, for side quests you can just fail it.
Bethesda is one of the worst offenders. 90% of the named NPCs in Starfield are unkillable, and it really breaks immersion at times.
Death stranding was pacifist theme. Loved it. I look for games where I don’t have to kill things, just like your friend.
I played through all the Deus Ex games as a pacifist and boy was that challenging (but also rewarding).
Healers in FF14 actually do have to contribute to damage- high end raids in particular are impossible to complete without healers doing damage because you won't make the dps checks.
I think the best implementation of a pacifist option I have ever seen is in the old Daniel Remar game "Iji"
Pacifist Gameplay Can Be Something "Plastic" Cause I Doesnt Match With The Situation, But Its Someting That I Amazing To Play Around, Like Imagine What Kind Of Reason Could Have Your Character To No Spill Blood Unless It Necessary, Or Even If His Own Life Is In Play.
What I really don't like is when pacifism is mixed up with fighting. Like in Fallout: Las Vegas, where you can slay the whole Legion camp and then convince the boss to give up, which makes no sense. He will probably be killed for failing and if he isn't, he will return for revenge which is why the player can't let him leave. It's like James Bond letting Blofeld live just to have a sequel...
You can use a legion disguise to walk past them in the legion camp. Before that you can have your companions and allies fight the legion or run from them. Then you can talk down Lanius (he sees through your disguise)
And the legion is pretty much doomed unless you fix cesars tumor. And even then you just prolong his life by 10-30 years? Cesar has made sure he is the legion and have done nothing with heirs etc. In fact he has done the opposite, making sure everyone and everything revolves around him. The legion collapses without him. Joshua Graham says he has nevet met anyone that could take Cesars place. Ulysses says the legion without Cesar is like a dead man taking his last steps not realising he is dead etc. Lanius will never return as the legion will go up in flames without Cesar and Lanius is 100% violent and it will be even quicker with him at the helm.
The easy fix is to have an opportunity for knock outs. Or sleep darts, like in MGS games.
I had a characters in Ultima Online that my friends still talk about. His name Pedro The Sultan of Smut, I would just buy blank books then copy and paste naughty stories from Penthouse magazine into them and peddle my filthy wares along side my loyal dog Smutt for 20gp a book.
I love pacifist playthroughs. The Dishonored series springs to mind, but I also liked how Death Stranding kinda forced you into it.
Incrível, criador de Fallout tem canal no TH-cam ❤
TH-cam premium is so worth it I got the family plan years ago and haven’t regretted it at all
Arcanum you can end with zero talking is great desing.
Arcanum is legendary
what is the difference between an RPG and an action adventure? what features should a game have for it to count as an RPG?
I think one of the Postal games had the best pacifist ending. The one where you get out alive and the game shows how everybody else is fucked in the head except you.
I'm trying to step back from all games except pacifist games for 2024... until now it's going pretty well... there are some new games coming out that seem to be a solely adventure and exploration based game but oddly enough I find it a bit difficult to find a community Q...q that's very odd
😎👍
There are actually some philosophers who argue that it is immoral to kill NPCs in games.
And I think, the Man in Black in the first season of Westworld is an interesting character to think about this.
do you have a patreon or something? just so i can get you more monthly revenue compared to me turning off my adblocker which gives you little to nothing in revenue for a single view per video.
it was something i really liked in outer worlds
You can play a completely pacifist game in Kingdom Come: Deliverance (with the exception of one boss), and there's an achievement for it.
I don't think there needs to be a pacifist routes, it should form organically when you pick pacifist choices and the npc should acknowledge it.
robots don't have to be sentient for a character to have a problem fighting them, a Robotics Expert may be more comfortable reprogramming them to make them less of a danger.
Hsbing pacifist options is good for someone like me who chooses based on morality most of the time. That said pacifism is largely immoral because it doesnt stop evil from acting in your vicinity, thus i never play a pacifist
An add is worth my daily does of Tim Cain sorry Seattle is super dark in winter
having actual attributes is so important for these games I really dont understand the point of taking that out , the way the games were theres a reason fallout new Vegas is literally just a expansion to fall out 3 but feels like a new game, if you can play fallout 3 5 times and have fun doing different stuff, its like just add a whole new world and storylines with new options , fallout 3 was a game I would still play if they just added more content like they did with new Vegas. all new Vegas was, is more content for fallout 3
Have you considered trying to use the copyright deadlock trick invented by Jimquisition?
I think people who complain about ads are just being babies. If you don't want ads pay for premium. It's $14 a month.
Its doable
Put your videos in odysee also please.
Arcanum have no true way for pacifist
In final cadtle you need to "fake kill" 2 rock guards
Pacifism in an RPG is like playing Madden but your character spends every game on the bench.
Why make a game where you allow the player to skip the whole game? It makes no sense. Like it or not CRPGs are combat simulators and I'm glad this nonsense didn't catch on.
Hold on... When a mage summons milk, where the fuck does it come from?
It is materialised, from arcane powers, using some pattern that the mage has hearnt?
Is it a teleport & telekenesis spell? Where they reach out across time and space to milk a cow (or other animal).
Is there a milk dimension? Somewhere in the multiverse there exists a universe that is pure milk all the way down, maybe they just open a portal there with a nozzle on it.
Is she some fetishist in disguise, who's not even a mage, just wears a pump rig 24/7?
We may never know.
how is eating conjured(!!!) cheese and milk not vegan??? what??? there is no animal suffering there, it's like misunderstanding the entire concept, similarly, how causing death deliberately but not directly with your hand makes you a pacifist??? these concepts actually have meaning not just surface level pretendings
Lol fixpontt crits tims old wow pal for 456 dmg bypassing her armor.
What would be nice is if there was a game where you could be a total asshole while chosing only the pacifists options.
Never saw the appeal of pacifism in games. But how about other styles? All RPGs should allow me to be evil, genocidal, a thief, a liar, a charlatan, a saboteur, a rebel, a no-quetion asked soldier that follows orders.
People actually takes time to kvetch about the lighting?!?
Unemployed behavior.
I think POSTAL 2 does really good with pacifism.