I played through Dishonored without killing a single person. Of course, I've also played through Dishonored slaughtering everyone in my path.
It's a nice optional way to play.
Back in 2020, my Fixer would often talk his way out of situations, so I'd like to see some sort of option like that.
It's a nice optional way to play.
Back in 2020, my Fixer would often talk his way out of situations, so I'd like to see some sort of option like that.
Dishonored is a good example. If you go around killing innocents, or guards who are just doing their job, you stop being the hero and become the monster. And the non-lethal options against the bosses were a little more inventive than just "kill or knock unconscious".
This is a very good point. In my opinion even during a non-lethal walkthrough player should be forced at some point to make a hard decision. To go against his principles and kill someone to save someone else for example. Gives the depth to the character.
not sure it has to be Pacifist exactly , but getting your objectives met without having to get your OWN hands dirty and blood stained appeals to alot of people . Pay some one to make the hit for you ...... better yet blackmail them or call in a debt they owe you. Manipulation is a skill in and of its self ..... How many Corps do you think do their own killing first hand?
The highest points on almost every (if not every, haven't finished it yet) mission in Deus Ex: Human Revolution are gained by taking every single target down with a sleeper hold. In other words, being 100% non-lethal.
Not a pacifist, but non-lethal.
While I definitely don't want another Deus Ex or a Deus Ex clone, not killing anyone in a game clearly can be done.
Not a pacifist, but non-lethal.
While I definitely don't want another Deus Ex or a Deus Ex clone, not killing anyone in a game clearly can be done.
Wimps. I picked Pacifist for a reason: to polarize the disc..err, to properly represent the extremity of the options.
Anyway, it's not that it cannot be done, Connor, it's that I find it unreasonable and silly that these crazed violent situations we end up in these video games have non-lethal solutions to very lethal problems, just to give people a feel-good option.
It's the Dark Future. Hug this.
Anyway, it's not that it cannot be done, Connor, it's that I find it unreasonable and silly that these crazed violent situations we end up in these video games have non-lethal solutions to very lethal problems, just to give people a feel-good option.
It's the Dark Future. Hug this.
it oughta be damn hard to do - as no-kill runs in most games that allow such things usually are - but succeeding should also be very very rewarding to balance that out.
Hey don't get me wrong. I fully intend to play a solo, augment my character to the brink of psychosis and kill anyone who looks at me funny, looks funny in general, or happens to exist in the same time-space continuum as I do at any given moment.
I'm not advocating a pacifist game. I just happen to think taking down opponents quietly without lethal force can be more challenging than shooting them in the head. Like it is in DE:HR.
It was pretty easy in DE HR unless you didn't have cloak or enough candy bars.
And that's an interesting point you make. Shooting someone in the head is actually pretty hard to do - never done it, but shot at similar sized targets. Whereas tasering is pretty easy to do and so is hitting them in the back of the head with a baton.
Perhaps they will have a skill-modified cross hair or something to represent that all-so-important skill in CPunk, Rifle. Or handgun. Or whatever. The thing we Solos put the most points into outside of CS and Awareness.
Because shooting teh guns is actually pretty hard to do accurately, on the move , in the rain, wounded, etc. etc.
Also, I wouldn't reward people for what is basically a Reload playstyle, which is what non lethal nearly always is. Reward them for not dying, that I would do.
What I meant though, mainly, was that it would be harder to be quiet and non-lethal when taking down a couple dozen alert enemies, having to ambush each one individually in some dark corner, than it would be simply to run in and start blasting people away. Especially on a min/maxed solo. Hell, you'd kill a couple before anyone even acted, and in your armored duster and orbital crystal cyberware you wouldn't even take much damage if they happened to hit you.
Pacifist Play-through: No Killing Needed?
Yes, it should
according the site-should-not-be-named competitive balance should exist to increase replay value of a game, and to make sure that game breaker didn't spoil the fun
Yes, it should
according the site-should-not-be-named competitive balance should exist to increase replay value of a game, and to make sure that game breaker didn't spoil the fun
I don't think there should be any difference in difficulty if you want to go full on pacifist, the "punishment" should be in the story. The person you spare could later go on a killing spree in a civilian area, or something like that, so that this becomes a moral issue. It's on you to choose whether or not you become a killer, or risk that person slaughtering a bunch of other people, and deal with the consequences.
Bollocks to that.... you try taking down a 7 foot tall full conversion all jacked up on black lace and tricked out with guns and enough ammo to level a neighborhood. That shit should be hard as hell with the biggest guns you can find.... and near impossible to do non-lethally.
This is Cyberpunk baby.... if you wanna try and tame that guy with milk and cookies fine, I will be over here laughing as he uses your head to complete his modern art project...
For the game to be as easy for total non-lethality as it is to kill someone, the enemies would pretty much all have to be wusses, and I definitely do not want that. And I say this as someone who DOES try to play at least one run through of being as non-lethal as possible in most games...