I don't think anyone is suggesting a forced non-lethality, what everyone seems to want is the option of whether to kill or not. It would be silly to force non-lethality in some situations, I agree. My day-job is soldiering, so I can definitely say that when bullets are flying at you you want nothing more than to annihilate the source, if only so you can stop craping your pants as those little puffs of dust stop appear near you. At the same time though, there's a weight that killing leaves on you, so if you can avoid doing it then so much the better. I mean, I know it's a game and not real life, so the metaphysical argument is kinda meh, but still it's there and I know there's been games where I killed someone or someone got killed and I felt terrible for the rest of the game because of it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting a forced non-lethality, what everyone seems to want is the option of whether to kill or not. It would be silly to force non-lethality in some situations, I agree. My day-job is soldiering, so I can definitely say that when bullets are flying at you you want nothing more than to annihilate the source, if only so you can stop craping your pants as those little puffs of dust stop appear near you. At the same time though, there's a weight that killing leaves on you, so if you can avoid doing it then so much the better. I mean, I know it's a game and not real life, so the metaphysical argument is kinda meh, but still it's there and I know there's been games where I killed someone or someone got killed and I felt terrible for the rest of the game because of it.
No, Kil, that's not what I mean.
I mean THERE ARE SITUATIONS where even the option for non-lethal resolution - other than doing nothing, I suppose, and letting the chips fall where they may - is unrealistically supplied to us.
The point of the sniper example was that there are in-game situations where if you want a certain result - like saving the hostage's life - you have to kill. And do it well and quickly.
That's it. It's either kill the guy or the hostage dies.
Another example might be standing atop a roof while the Booster twenty feet from you holds a 12 gauge autoshotgun - Say, the Arasaka 12 - on you. You can't get him with a taser, he's shielded. He's too far for melee. If you turn to run back into the doorway you just came out of, he's going to shoot you and kill you. Your choices are get shot or shoot him.
There's a reason lethal force is employed - and it's not because those who use it are frothing gamers ranting about kill fun times.
It's because whatever else you were going to use instead of lethal force is a worse idea. Or a terminally bad idea.
Edited for Katja's response: and I'm not against non-lethal as an option. Hell, no. My issue is that a game design where EVERY force resolution scenario allows a non lethal option seems to me to be...preposterous.
I mean THERE ARE SITUATIONS where even the option for non-lethal resolution - other than doing nothing, I suppose, and letting the chips fall where they may - is unrealistically supplied to us.
The point of the sniper example was that there are in-game situations where if you want a certain result - like saving the hostage's life - you have to kill. And do it well and quickly.
That's it. It's either kill the guy or the hostage dies.
Another example might be standing atop a roof while the Booster twenty feet from you holds a 12 gauge autoshotgun - Say, the Arasaka 12 - on you. You can't get him with a taser, he's shielded. He's too far for melee. If you turn to run back into the doorway you just came out of, he's going to shoot you and kill you. Your choices are get shot or shoot him.
There's a reason lethal force is employed - and it's not because those who use it are frothing gamers ranting about kill fun times.
It's because whatever else you were going to use instead of lethal force is a worse idea. Or a terminally bad idea.
Edited for Katja's response: and I'm not against non-lethal as an option. Hell, no. My issue is that a game design where EVERY force resolution scenario allows a non lethal option seems to me to be...preposterous.
Exactly. We don't need some Splinter Cell Conviction remake -_-
^^ I think this is a better expression of my sentiment.
I certainly don't expect a dialogue option at the beginning of every potential combat along the lines of, "Can't we all just get along?"
And it certainly is, the scenario you presented is an excellent example of something that could likely happen and where killing is how you'd get out of it. There should be a way to avoid those scenarios though, if you can help it. Say you have a camera to look around the corner and feed the video into your cyberoptic, you take a peek, see that Booster, and now you have the knowledge and time to rethink your course of action. Takes a bit of lateral thinking perhaps, but you can then still avoid having to kill someone if you're trying not to.
Of course, if you managed to corner yourself while trying to escape from a firefight, tough luck. Hope you're good with that pop-gun choomba.
EDIT: Putting this in so I sound less flip-floppy, and explaining my point. I think the option to avoid combat or killing altogether should be present in the game. However, I don't think that you should always have the ability to escape some situations without dropping some enemy. What it comes down to then is being able to avoid throwing yourself into those situations. Once you're in it? Too late start shooting or reload. If you find a way around it, then great, here's a gold star, now Charlie Mike.
The only way to be forced into killing, unless your job involves killing, is by neglecting foresight and not being careful not to get into situations where it becomes the only option. That is why it is called stealth. If the Booster didn't see me before I can see him, I can retreat quietly and hope he doesn't notice. I can sit somewhere in a corner in the shadows and wait for him to walk off, or I search for a different route.
Okay, see, now you guys are being reasonable. Disgusting.
Well of course with foresight and planning a non-lethal option is an option. But that's my point, really: at a certain stage, the point for non-lethal has passed. And trying for a non-lethal shot with someone else's neck o the line? That's video game thinking, I.e. "I can reload if I fail!"
And that stage can happen awfully quickly. Especially since CPunk stealth is like real-life stealth - hard to do and no magic invisibility cloak.
And in the main-plot, it might well be a LOT of trouble to allow you that much leeway. More than it's worth to do without seeming jarring.
Also, Kil, pulling Judge Dredd out? That's cheating.
Well of course with foresight and planning a non-lethal option is an option. But that's my point, really: at a certain stage, the point for non-lethal has passed. And trying for a non-lethal shot with someone else's neck o the line? That's video game thinking, I.e. "I can reload if I fail!"
And that stage can happen awfully quickly. Especially since CPunk stealth is like real-life stealth - hard to do and no magic invisibility cloak.
And in the main-plot, it might well be a LOT of trouble to allow you that much leeway. More than it's worth to do without seeming jarring.
Also, Kil, pulling Judge Dredd out? That's cheating.
I think non lethal options are all OK from a theoretical point of view, cause they give the player choice... But I think this setting is -from the little understanding that I have of it- far too violent and dangerous to have non.lethality be a proper alternative way of progressing the game. It doesn´t fell right to me.
And the examples that are given (Deus Ex: HR), kind of confirm it... In Deus Ex you were basically a mercenary working for a corporation, but you could progress the game like a "knight in shining armor", kind of the John Wayne/Clint Eastwood power fantasy... You didnt end with your hands dirty... You see it in all sorts of games right now, like in the "Uncharted" series: You are a lovable/dark humor/hero, who by the end of the game has killed like a thousand people, without loosing that lovable persona... A pretty immature depiction of violence, if you aske me.
And I view this game quite differently; I think you WILL have to make tough decisions, people will eventually get killed (by your actions or not), and sometimes you will be forced to choose not the "best solution", but the lesser of two evils... That tragic element, very important in the genre HAS to be be accounted for. Even if you are not a killer, you have to witness the violence somehow... I remember "Vampire TM: Bloodlines" did a terrific job here, adding the concept of loosing your "humanity" if you killed too many of your victime...
Sneaking and stealth is OK in my book, also "incapacitating enemies", when that option is available (not all the time), but I would argue that non lethality in some situations will force you to either escape/hide, and then fail your mission, which could also be possible...
And the examples that are given (Deus Ex: HR), kind of confirm it... In Deus Ex you were basically a mercenary working for a corporation, but you could progress the game like a "knight in shining armor", kind of the John Wayne/Clint Eastwood power fantasy... You didnt end with your hands dirty... You see it in all sorts of games right now, like in the "Uncharted" series: You are a lovable/dark humor/hero, who by the end of the game has killed like a thousand people, without loosing that lovable persona... A pretty immature depiction of violence, if you aske me.
And I view this game quite differently; I think you WILL have to make tough decisions, people will eventually get killed (by your actions or not), and sometimes you will be forced to choose not the "best solution", but the lesser of two evils... That tragic element, very important in the genre HAS to be be accounted for. Even if you are not a killer, you have to witness the violence somehow... I remember "Vampire TM: Bloodlines" did a terrific job here, adding the concept of loosing your "humanity" if you killed too many of your victime...
Sneaking and stealth is OK in my book, also "incapacitating enemies", when that option is available (not all the time), but I would argue that non lethality in some situations will force you to either escape/hide, and then fail your mission, which could also be possible...
No, but there is a cybernetic invisibility cloak
There is? Where? There are vision-reduction gear options, in terms of chameleoline gear, but those reduce the chance to be spotted - and not by very much and by even less while moving.
Stealth gameplay in Cpunk is actually pretty tough, due to software suites, multi-spectrum sensors and the Awareness skill. I mean, you can get a Radar dish built into your head!
If you try to sneak up on an actual professional, he gets to add his Combat Sense to his Awareness skill. Yeah.
Which is..fine. Ninja outside of fiction are not too common. Sneaking around should be fun, but not a case of "Hit V and run towards cover." I think.
Unlike in GiTS, where the major and crew had all the best gadgets, EVERYONE in CP2020 can get access to some crazy gear. In Cyberpunk terms, the Major would have eaten 5.56 API on that first try through the window if the bodyguards had been geared to CP2020 Solo standards. The tank spotted her on Thermo and so would the Solos.
I like the "Hitman" series approach to some of their missions; you could either go in, guns blazing, or take a finesse approach, sneaking, stealthing, and disguising your way up to your main target, "removing" said target, and leaving as quietly as you arrived.
THAT was awesome. =)
