To Kill, or Not to Kill... Does the question really matter?

[Cronky]

After just viewing the E3 Trailer of Deux Ex 3 (Link at the bottom) I have come to reminisce about my past iconic experiences with the series. Whether it be that tough choice between putting a point in Lockpicking, or putting one in Hacking. The knowledge of Deus Ex 1's beginning and knowing that right below the dock lies a boat with a cache of items within it... also knowing that without a point in swimming it might as well be a world away due to limited air supply. Resulting in either death or at the very least severe injury. The simple freedom the game gave you to play it the way you wanted was amazing to me at the time, but I've come to wonder why one choice has never really been looked upon in any game with the same mechanics.

Kill, or Don't Kill

Many games have employed a way to have a choice in the matter. Thief with it's blackjack, Splinter Cell with Knock-outs, Deus Ex and it's Tranquilizer gun and certain melee, Hitman with Anesthetics, Alpha Protocol's Takedowns, even Mass Effect 1 tasks you with trying to save a colony without killing them in the process. Maybe not all games give you the choice all the time, but it's when it they do that I find it odd that the choice you've made never gets a legit response.

(I know games like Hitman eventually told you how many people you killed in Newspaper format, if you were caught, which effected other levels because of notoriety. It's the starting point to this idea, but not entirely what I'm getting at.)

I usually play games trying to be sneaky, and not killing anyone (Knocking out is different). I generally try to throw my own personal tastes into the situations presented by the game to immerse myself even more. Which usually equates to, "These people have nothing to do with what I'm doing other than being in the way. I don't HAVE to kill them". Only problem with this way of playing is that immersion is lessened when at the end of the game they assume I'm some murdering twatbag.

(This is much in the same way that when you are in a huge battle in game and the NPC's die first thing. You finish the battle yourself, but in the following cutscene the NPC's show back up shouting "Yeah! WE did it!".)

THIS is what I want to change

I want to see a day when I'm playing through a game like Splinter Cell and when the final choice of, "To Kill, or Not to Kill" comes up... They actually play along with it.

Imagine if you will that they go Psycho Mantis on your ass and start yelling out things like, "You haven't killed anyone on your path to me. Do you actually value the life of the people you came across on your journey to me, or are you just unable to take the weight of ending a person's life yourself?". A newly crafted Scene created for you because of the way you played.

It's not even that hard to see coming true. It's much like Bioshock's choice of saving the Little Sisters vs. Harvesting them. Even ONE harvest means that you get a different ending. Enough harvests and you will be presented with a different cut-scene before the ending. Not a DRAMATICALLY different one, but different none the less.

I hope that the game of choice evolves to that with games like Deus Ex 3. Deus Ex 1 was touted for being able to beat the game without killing anyone. Can 3 bring a new standard to the way we play? Only time will tell.

tl;dr: I have to wonder why games with choices never look to your kill-count to add another level to your choices (if given the option to not kill through the whole game).

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6JTvzrpBy0&feature=player_embedded

You all can shout out what you think on the subject, but I just wanted to get some thoughts out there that were in my brainular area.

[Farley4Fan]

Well, Bioshock comes to mind.  If you save more sisters than you harvest (kill) then you get a savior ending.  But I sort of see what you're saying.  More intricate presentational/story details that give shoutouts to the way you play are fine in my book as long as they are done well - not just some gimmicks...

[Cronky]

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it.

Alpha Protocol is the closest thing to the idea so far. It's just a shame that the actual game aside from it's features are... less than stellar.

It's the next logical step that "Choice" games can go to in my mind. How long that will take is a whole other deal.

I did mention Bioshock in that wall o' text. Though admittedly perhaps with faulty info because I was pretty sure that in order to get the "Good" ending (Which I assume is the Savior one by your words) you had to save ALL the little sisters. Not just have a higher ratio of Saving to Harvesting.

[Farley4Fan]

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it.

Alpha Protocol is the closest thing to the idea so far. It's just a shame that the actual game aside from it's features are... less than stellar.

It's the next logical step that "Choice" games can go to in my mind. How long that will take is a whole other deal.

I did mention Bioshock in that wall o' text. Though admittedly perhaps with faulty info because I was pretty sure that in order to get the "Good" ending (Which I assume is the Savior one by your words) you had to save ALL the little sisters. Not just have a higher ratio of Saving to Harvesting.

I knew right when I saw Alpha Protocol that it was destined to be dissapointing.  Lazy animations, lazy gameplay, lazy graphics, lazy AI, but very promising intricate storyline.  Possibly even a step up from what mass effect does so well.  But unfortunately the game itself is apparently not very good.

I admit that I just skimmed a lot of your post and didn't see Bioshock.  Either you had to save them all or get a pretty high ratio, I can't remember.  

What about Heavy Rain?  I haven't played the game yet but I hear that a lot of the choices you make shape the plotline.  But, like Mass Effect, the choices aren't made during gameplay but rather a scene where you choose someone's fate or something like that. 

I think it would be cool to have the game comment on your playstyle.  Imagine if you ran through the game and beat it really fast.  The end boss could make a little comment like "You sure didn't waste your time coming to see me."  It all depends on whether or not the developers are willing to take the time to put in all that extra work to make the game more involving - especially when you consider that a lot of gamers either won't notice or care about that extra little detail.

[Cronky]

The idea in play I think would actually add to variety also within those games. Since most of the time when, at least I, play games like Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Bioshock, "Choice" games as I've mentioned before, just sticking to what I started as.

Splinter Cell: Sneaky/Knockouts only

Thief: Knockouts

Deus Ex: Tranq Gun and Baton

Alpha Protocol: Take-Downs only (Unless otherwise forced to use a gun)

If the game instead "Changed" based on your actual play style it could add in other things that could change it on the fly.

Not whether you're the good, law abiding guy, or the evil, destroyer of all. Just simply, "Do you kill everyone, or do you just knock everyone out". Have the game read how you're playing and show it off in subtle ways.

Imagine two nameless guards talking about you mid-game, your name being... Reed.

-------------------------
Guard 1: I hear Reed has been spotted near this area.

Guard 2: Yeah? So what? All I've heard from people who've ran into him is that the worst he'll do is knock you out.

Guard 1: That's true.

-------------------------

At that point either you go:

A.) Continue your way through this situation knocking people out

or

B.) Kill them in spite of what they've said

----------

Imagine even more if within that conversation between the two nameless guards one of them doesn't agree with what the other one is saying ABOUT you.

Such as Guard 1 referencing that he has a wife and kids and acknowledges that you may be the "Enemy", but that you at least are thinking of the people. A bickering fight ensues about your ethical conclusion to situations.

All the while you slip by them while they are distracted with their conversation... which if you would have killed everyone before hand WOULDN'T of happened. In fact, them being more on guard because they know you ruthlessly kill anyone.

Shaping your gameplay by how you play, but not Forcing a gameplay type upon you. (Since you still have the option of killing them)

[Farley4Fan]

Something I appreciate is when developers make multiple dialogue lines for the same situation.  Like in rockstar games like GTA4 or RDR, if you have to replay a section because you die/fail, the dialogue during that section will be similar but have different wording.  Helps for replay I guess.

[Cronky]

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it.

Alpha Protocol is the closest thing to the idea so far. It's just a shame that the actual game aside from it's features are... less than stellar.

It's the next logical step that "Choice" games can go to in my mind. How long that will take is a whole other deal.

I did mention Bioshock in that wall o' text. Though admittedly perhaps with faulty info because I was pretty sure that in order to get the "Good" ending (Which I assume is the Savior one by your words) you had to save ALL the little sisters. Not just have a higher ratio of Saving to Harvesting.

I knew right when I saw Alpha Protocol that it was destined to be dissapointing.  Lazy animations, lazy gameplay, lazy graphics, lazy AI, but very promising intricate storyline.  Possibly even a step up from what mass effect does so well.  But unfortunately the game itself is apparently not very good.

I admit that I just skimmed a lot of your post and didn't see Bioshock.  Either you had to save them all or get a pretty high ratio, I can't remember. 

What about Heavy Rain?  I haven't played the game yet but I hear that a lot of the choices you make shape the plotline.

I haven't played Heavy Rain either. My PS3 broke like 2 months before it came out... No monies to fix it.

From what I've seen though it's another game ALONG the same lines of this idea, but slightly different. More suited to the kind of game it is.

Not a case of, "Did you kill people, or did you knock them out". Instead more like, "Did you get through the situation cleanly". Sharing same values, but ultimately different. It's based on Quick Time Events from what I saw (Much like their game before it, Indigo Prophecy). Which leads to... a... Can you live with the fact that you messed up something and see where the story takes you from there.

I have a feeling if I was playing it, there would be a lot of loading past saves to try and get a "Perfect" end to every situation. Which is kind of counter-productive to the idea I'm going off on.

Something I appreciate is when developers make multiple dialogue lines for the same situation.  Like in rockstar games like GTA4 or RDR, if you have to replay a section because you die/fail, the dialogue during that section will be similar but have different wording.  Helps for replay I guess.

That is always a pleasant little add on. Something that I'm hating wasn't implemented into Alpha Protocol. Their checkpoint system not ONLY can make you have to play a whole mission over again because it sets you up with fights that are unavoidable and not suited to your skills, but nothing ever changes. Not even enemy patrols/positions.

Ex. I'm stuck on a "Boss" battle right now that is harder than crap for me on that game cause I put all my points into Stealth/Sabatage(Hacking/Lockpicking). If I could SNEAK attack the boss that would be great, but it's a forced Firefight... meaning I am S.O.L. cause I can't use guns to save my life... Quite Literally.

[Ion.67]

To play Heavy Rain correctly, you never reload a save. You just keep going. That is why it was so good. I ended the game with all of my characters alive, but I guess it is possible to keep playing even if a couple died along the way. That game branches out so much. I was watching a commentary of two people playing it and they had no clue what the other was talking about because they chose different choices throughout the game. It's epic.

[Farley4Fan]

Yeah I heard the guy who made the game encouraged players to only play through the game once so that their story would be unique.

I can't understand why he would say that as it would probably be bad for business but I guess he cares about the product people play.