ID:154138
 May 18 2002, 3:11 pm
|
|
Looking for ideas here... Anyone have ideas for games that are not based on violence, but have support for campaign type gameplay similar to that of a warcraft/starcraft style? I'm looking for something that's non violent, so wargames are out, but at the moment I can't think of anything else that would fit into a campaign type setting. Anyone have ideas for one that would?
| |
Exadv1 wrote:
Leftley said non-violent. =] No, Foomer said non-violent. Leftley said "A business or political sim could fit that mold fairly well, I should think." =) | |
No, neither of them said anything, they TYPED something, so there :p
Anyway, another option would be a mystery/puzzle type game. As you progress you'd get new members in your team with different problem solving abilities. Perhaps you could make a religious conversion game. You'd start with a church or temple of some sort (Townhall) then you could gradually gain converts that would give you money and resources. You could then "hire" missionaries and send them to different towns/houses to try to convert people. It's hard to think of a non-violent campaign game... | |
Sometimes I think some of you guy's phobia of war/violent games is just a tad much! ;)
LJR | |
Sorry foom, war is the only thing bouncing in my mind. Although you don't have to use humans, you could do like immune system verus virus or something. Maybe where you upgrade by getting pharmasutical(forgive the spelling) drugs, and getting stronger cells and vitamin c launchers etc.....
Semaj | |
You guys? You mean, me? (Being the only violence hater I know.) It's not a phobia. It's a concious dislike for violent things, and I have plenty of reason for it.
You know, last week I watched one of my friends get killed. That was violent. Was it fun? No. Why should violence in games be any more fun that violence in real life? It's pretty sick how people make violence fun, in my opinion. | |
You know, last week I watched one of my friends get killed. That was violent. Was it fun? No. Are you creating that for sake of example, or is that truth? If it was truth, you have my sincerest condolences; I had no idea that had happened. If you need support, there's lots of people here. Why should violence in games be any more fun that violence in real life? It's pretty sick how people make violence fun, in my opinion. Violence in games is violence without consequences, because it's not actual violence, merely depicted violence. It's more amusing than horrifying -- i.e. puts a lighter side of the horrible things we face in our day-to-day lives. Watching a guy get shot, that's sick. Watching a guy in a movie get shot, that's entertainment. The reason being is that the guy in the movie never actually did get shot. And, unless a person is a total desensitised robot, they will still feel an extreme pity for the person that was shot, unless the movie made him or her a bad person, in which case it was justice. When people watch the news on TV and hear news of people getting shot, they feel bad. But they'd feel fine and dandy if they watched a person get shot in a movie right afterwards. The reason being, it's not real. Look at your average four-year-old and he or she will be absolutely horrified in an action movie or something, until you tell him or her, "Don't worry, it's just a movie. They're just actors and they're not really being shot. That's just fake blood." Suddenly, the kid thinks it's neat. But will that kid go shoot other children? Heck no, that's really shooting people, and that's wrong. If the kid doesn't realise that shooting real people is wrong, then the kid has a severe mental condition that must be checked by a psychiatrist (or, debatably more or less likely, has terrible parents). And, besides, it's human nature to be violent; you don't think that humans only started eating meat after violent games, do you? Violence in games was created to satisfy one of a human's natural desires, just like humans crave sex and social interaction (yes, those are two different things =P). Do you want to know what I feel before I play a game of Counter-Strike? Bored, nervous, and fidgety. How do I feel while playing it? Violent. Know how I feel afterward? Tired, passive, and relaxed. Before and after, the violence is nowhere to be found. I find it far more of a release of tension than a way to blow peoples' heads off. Sure, you might claim that's not the case, but I can just as easily claim that's your excuse for not accepting my truth. =P For me, it's just like playing any sport, like hockey, baseball, or football, but it's safer, because no one can get hurt. (A sports game! Going back on topic, that might not be a bad idea for this thread.) | |
Are you creating that for sake of example, or is that truth? If it was truth, you have my sincerest condolences; I had no idea that had happened. If you need support, there's lots of people here. Ha! Support from the BYOND community is the last thing I'd want. And yes, it really happened. Violence in games is violence without consequences, because it's not actual violence, merely depicted violence. That's a common responce. It shows what the people who like it believe, but it doesn't show what research has concluded. Look at your average four-year-old and he or she will be absolutely horrified in an action movie or something, until you tell him or her, "Don't worry, it's just a movie. They're just actors and they're not really being shot. That's just fake blood." Suddenly, the kid thinks it's neat. But will that kid go shoot other children? Heck no, that's really shooting people, and that's wrong. Of course, there are still those occasions where children mistake real weapons for toys like they are in the movies, but that's beside the point. And, besides, it's human nature to be violent; you don't think that humans only started eating meat after violent games, do you? Violence in games was created to satisfy one of a human's natural desires, just like humans crave sex and social interaction (yes, those are two different things =P). You've got a pet cat. I'm sure that cat likes to sleep in the window and get petted a lot, right? Probably likes to pester you and rub against your leg and get you all covered in cat hair like mine does. Does that mean that it's kitty nature to sleep in the window and get petted a lot? Doubtful, since most wild cats won't let you touch 'em. So why does it become natural for house cats to want to be petted? Because they're raised that way. Same way, if people are tought that violence is normal, it will become natural to them. Do you want to know what I feel before I play a game of Counter-Strike? Bored, nervous, and fidgety. How do I feel while playing it? Violent. Know how I feel afterward? Tired, passive, and relaxed. Before and after, the violence is nowhere to be found. I find it far more of a release of tension than a way to blow peoples' heads off. Sure, you might claim that's not the case, but I can just as easily claim that's your excuse for not accepting my truth. =P The lesson: violence is relaxing. I hear abusive people think that way too. For me, it's just like playing any sport, like hockey, baseball, or football, but it's safer, because no one can get hurt. (A sports game! Going back on topic, that might not be a bad idea for this thread.) I hate sports :oP And I'll happily argue the fact that violence of any kind is bad to the ends of the earth, real or not, if you want. You can't win, because there is simply too much against it, and you can't lose, because for you, violence is natural. | |
Ha! Support from the BYOND community is the last thing I'd want. Are you saying that to blow me off, or are you saying that to blow other people off, or all of the above? No offense, but if you're a particularly religious person, that is not the kind of response I would expect from you -- it seems very unbrotherly. I far from dislike you, and would be more than happy to act as your friend. On what grounds do you refuse my sympathy? And yes, it really happened. Then, again, you have my sincerest condolences. I'm surprised you're able to handle it so well, given that you're not desensitised to violence. That's a common responce. It shows what the people who like it believe, but it doesn't show what research has concluded. I'd like to see this research -- and I'm not talking about transcripts or anything, I'm talking about actual research, on government-approved websites. As far as my observations have concluded, every person I know and every person around me feels the same way as I do. You've got a pet cat. I'm sure that cat likes to sleep in the window and get petted a lot, right? Probably likes to pester you and rub against your leg and get you all covered in cat hair like mine does. Does that mean that it's kitty nature to sleep in the window and get petted a lot? Doubtful, since most wild cats won't let you touch 'em. So why does it become natural for house cats to want to be petted? Because they're raised that way. Same way, if people are tought that violence is normal, it will become natural to them. My cat usually doesn't like being petted unless she specifically asks me for it. And she sits in the window because she watches the birds outside. The very first day I let my cat out on her own since we've moved (just last month), she caught a bird, brought it in the house, and broke its neck. I had to bury it myself. My cat is still a violent animal, because it's part of her instincts. But she brought that bird as a gift, or possibly as a trophy of her first kill in our new residence. It's likely she would've eaten it if I didn't (I wouldn't, but she doesn't know that), but that gesture was a symbol that even real violence has applications. I had very little part in teaching her how to live; I taught her that I bring her food and water when she's hungry and thirsty, I taught her that I'll pet her if she meows and comes near me, and I taught her that if she hurts me (physically), I will remove privileges (like refusing to let her outside, or refusing to allow her to sleep on my bed) -- if she really hurts me (physically), I will give her a slight tap on the nose and make a loud growl, as a sign that I can inflict injury on her but refuse to. Otherwise, I had very little to do with her development and personality. My garden has proof of that. Aside from that, human society is a violent place. Humans are violent. Some are less violent, some are more violent, but all are violent. I'd be happy if that wasn't the case, but why deny your instincts? Do you want to know what I feel before I play a game of Counter-Strike? Bored, nervous, and fidgety. How do I feel while playing it? Violent. Know how I feel afterward? Tired, passive, and relaxed. Before and after, the violence is nowhere to be found. I find it far more of a release of tension than a way to blow peoples' heads off. Sure, you might claim that's not the case, but I can just as easily claim that's your excuse for not accepting my truth. =P Violence is not relaxing. Violence is releasing. Violence causes a stream of adrenaline (which also releases dopamine; I don't ask my brain to make violence pleasing, it does it for me when it gets me to manufacture adrenaline); I'd hardly call that relaxing. Once I get sufficiently tired of playing, I quit; my muscles are tired from the adrenaline, and the tiredness relaxes me. And I'll happily argue the fact that violence of any kind is bad to the ends of the earth, real or not, if you want. You can't win, because there is simply too much against it, What is against it? because for you, violence is natural. Yes, it is. For everyone else I know, it is, too. Let me bring in an example. The Al Qada shouldn't have attacked the Twin Towers. But would it be intelligent or wise for the U.S. government not to retaliate, to symbolise that the terrorists were acting out of line? Of course it wouldn't -- that would just inform the terrorists they could kill whomever they pleased in the name of their religion. The American retaliation was many levels of justified. (The new Axis of Evil thing is many levels of paranoid, but I digress.) | |
The BYOND community in general is less than supportive in my experience. Being around people here in general tends to make me upset and annoyed, and I defenitelly wouldn't want them to be the least little bit a part of my personal life. Even though I certainly like some people here more than others, they're still not what I'd consider friends unless they know me personally. I didn't bring it up because I want sympathy, I brought it up to aid my point. (Now that I think of it, the refusal to talk about my personal life to people online is generally what causes me to lose arguments with Lexy.)
I've put up with violence enough to be as used to it as I need to be, but that doesn't mean I like or enjoy it. When I come across the researched information in website format, I'll be sure to send it to you. And you're right, most people do agree with you, which is why violent games are so popular. Just because the popular opinion agrees with you doesn't make it correct. The popular opinion used to be that the Earth was flat. Were they right? As for Purdy (right?), I wasn't talking about animal instincts for survival, I was asking where cats learn to like being petted? Cats that aren't raised in a household don't like being petted, why do house cats like it? Some house cats at least want to be petted all the time. Most wild cats don't. House cats learn to like being petted, while wild cats don't. People learn to like being violent, but that doesn't mean it's what they are. Exercise and salsa have similar effects to violence, you know ;o) Pay attention to the news to find out what's against violence. Yes, it is. For everyone else I know, it is, too. Well at least I can be confident that I'm weird. Let me bring in an example. The Al Qada shouldn't have attacked the Twin Towers. But would it be intelligent or wise for the U.S. government not to retaliate, to symbolise that the terrorists were acting out of line? It's the difference between going out and shooting someone, and hitting someone with a crowbar who's attacking you with a knife. One makes sense, one doesn't. | |
If evil represents brutal, I think that describes the attack on the WTC quite well.
| |
Blatantly ignoring most of which you said (hey, I'm tired -- I'll go over it in the morning =) ), I'll clarify a couple things.
George Bush is under the asinine belief that North Korea, Iraq, and Viet-nam are in cahoots in an effort to bring down America. One of the terms used to explain it was the "Axis of Evil". There were talks of prolonging the stay in Afghanistan and using it as a staging area from which to strike at these nations. I'm speaking of this from rumour, but my source was very reliable -- he was a Canadian military analyst (his name escapes me at the moment) that spoke at a symposium, to which our school generously footed the $750 session fee, as well as the good $500 in bus fees. In my humble opinion, it's a vengeance-hungry Department of Defense convincing a reasonable but gullible president, but that's just me. | |
Doesn't matter what you said, killing thousands of people because of hate is still brutal. And if evil represents brutal, then it's evil too.
| |
Foomer wrote:
The BYOND community in general is less than supportive in my experience. Being around people here in general tends to make me upset and annoyed, and I defenitelly wouldn't want them to be the least little bit a part of my personal life. Even though I certainly like some people here more than others, they're still not what I'd consider friends unless they know me personally. I didn't bring it up because I want sympathy, I brought it up to aid my point. (Now that I think of it, the refusal to talk about my personal life to people online is generally what causes me to lose arguments with Lexy.) I can relate to that, though I found I was much happier when I was fully open with people in this community, even to total strangers (or... shudder... pbaggers =) ). I do still keep secrets to myself, especially with regards to opinions on people, but opinions on life and opinions on design theory are something I share freely. It does still feel a little awkward when people refer to me as "Jeremy", but it does make me feel more like the person using it has an air of familiarity. (I am somewhat opposed -- though not strongly -- to people using my real name if they've never really talked to me before; that feels creepy. =P) I've put up with violence enough to be as used to it as I need to be, but that doesn't mean I like or enjoy it. Well, to be fair, I don't like nor enjoy violence either. I only like and enjoy violence in games, which in my honest opinion is a different form of violence altogether. Even that has limits, too... remember, I'm the person that disgusted himself when making a demo to his s_damage library. (I later got accustomed to it, but I did have to tone it down a little. =P) Just because the popular opinion agrees with you doesn't make it correct. The popular opinion used to be that the Earth was flat. Were they right? Very good (and convincing!) point, but what makes you absolutely certain that you're correct either? =) As for Purdy (right?), I spell it with an E, as in Perdy; it's supposed to be short for Perdita. The reason for that odd name? The first animal I saw on the day I was bringing Perdy home was a Dalmation. If one thinks back to 101 Dalmations, he/she might recall the name of the mother dog... =) I wasn't talking about animal instincts for survival, I was asking where cats learn to like being petted? Cats that aren't raised in a household don't like being petted, why do house cats like it? Some house cats at least want to be petted all the time. Most wild cats don't. House cats learn to like being petted, while wild cats don't. People learn to like being violent, but that doesn't mean it's what they are. I think it's more the bonding aspect -- when cats live around humans, they treat us as cats, in a sense. It's more of a companionship and familiarity, like cats share with their brothers and sisters in their litter. They grow up to compete and find hunting grounds of their own in the wild, but in our society they are restricted to a single domain -- hence, we're their permanent siblings. That's all just conjecture on my part, though. I fully expect I could dig up five pages that support my conjecture with all their effort, and five pages that deny it wholeheartedly. Let me bring in an example. The Al Qada shouldn't have attacked the Twin Towers. But would it be intelligent or wise for the U.S. government not to retaliate, to symbolise that the terrorists were acting out of line? ...which is what I also tried to use as a defense for playing Counter-Strike, in a way. Simulated applied violence -- Counter-Terrorists are fighting to prevent unnecessary loss of life, Terrorists are fighting for what they believe in. Incidentally, because most scenarios don't actually establish why the terrorists are doing what they are, I generally don't play as a terrorist. If any scenario were to give a good cause for a terrorist (from a terrorist's perspective) I would be more than happy to roleplay that. It is somewhat stupid, however, that Counter-Strike doesn't make surviving a major concern. In real life, hostage-rescue activities (let alone counter-terrorist activities) are done in the most excruciating detail, in an effort to make sure that lives lost -- those of the counter-terrorists, hostages, and terrorists -- are minimal to nil. | |
Ok, for one thing evil shouldn't even be judged by human beings, has a mystical being been around earth in the past 100 years telling people this and that are evil? No. Evil shouldn't even be judged by humans because it only leads to unjust wars, because there cannot be a just war its just impossible until we are certain what is evil and what is not. Human nature tells us what is evil, but most of the time human nature is wrong, so does human nature give us the right to declare something "evil" and to go out and kill the evil thing? The answer again is no. We think evil is an act of sin, which it probably is, but are we so totally sure what is sin or not? When this world was created, and if it was created by some almighty powerful being, don't you think he might of set up some rules for the most intelligent creatures to abide by? The thing is, I'm not calling anything evil unless a higher holy being just happens to come to earth ring my doorbell and say, "WILLY!! Don't pee on the toilet seat, thats evil!".
So truthfully, nothing pretty much should be declared evil. Semaj PS: Get back to the gaming subject, like my idea ;) | |
Being tought to do something brutal doesn't make it any less brutal :oP It just makes them think it's okay.
Same goes for violent games today. They're ugly, but people are tought that they're okay, so everyone thinks they're okay. | |
^^ I know it kinda sounds like a fan-game, but I think it would be a -good- fan-game ^^
How many people here have read a book by Orson Scott Card called 'Enders Game'? ^_~ Ive been thinking and I think the battle-room would be a pretty kewl game @.@ even if it was only done in 2d. Basicaly the game is a war-game. In the book at least, kids are trained through this and other means to be commanders. The game is played in zero-g in a lage room. The lighting can be set to different levels, and there can be large cubes floating in the room called 'stars' to add a little more tactical thinking to it. The people in the battle are armed with glorified flashlights with 2 settings. The usual one basicaly mimics a laser and the other one is a short range flash. Players are clothed in a suit that freezes up when it gets hit by the light. The winner of the battle is the group that can defeat the enemy, and have enough troops left over for 4 of them to press thier helmets against the enemies 'gate' (door) and have 1 left to go through it. Of course, this could be easily changed if you're leary on a fan-game. Just an idea of a game I think would work pretty well. ^_^ El | |
A business or political sim could fit that mold fairly well, I should think.