Quote:Original post by jbadams
I think it could negatively effect the feeling of satisfaction for some players. When you've just pulled off an awesome assault, taken down a bunch of enemies and managed to survive it feels good -- for some people this may be diminished if the bunch of enemies is lying around in pain -- it's harder to feel heroic with a visible reminder that you've caused pain and suffering.

Given that it doesn't neccesarily add much to the actual gameplay, is it worth potentially robbing players of the elation of victory?

But maybe that's the point. Like in Deus Ex (maybe there's a more recent example?), which did a lot to make you realize the pain and suffering you're causing, from your friends and brother chastising you for killing, to your friends turning enemies (I think the flavor texts went a long way), to even making you feel some sympathy for Gunther.

But Deus Ex was able to chatise you for killing so well because there were so many ways of NOT killing. You could sneak, for one, but more importantly there were many weapons in the game with less than lethal damage. Tranquilizer darts, batons, and tasers allowed you to knock out anyone you didn't manage to sneak around very effectively. If the game supports that kind of play via weapons and alternate routes, I fully support not always killing, but guns, for the most part, should just kill people (in games), unless these other options are allowed, also.

I should like to add, that it adds an extra degree of realism if after so long, enemies wake up, based on what kind of enemy, their training, and probably mostly from what knocked them out. There could be several kinds of tranquilizer darts (possibly made from mixing different things, Dino Crisis!), and several less lethal types of weaponry. Once again, the option of tying people up/restraining them once they're unconscious adds a large dimension of realism and gameplay.

Quote:Original post by Dekasa
but guns, for the most part, should just kill people (in games)

This reminded me of Jagged Alliance 2: if someone is wounded severely enough, they end up flat on their back in the "dying" state, requiring immediate medical attention from a skilled doctor, else losing 1hp per turn until they die.

All of this depends on what *kind* of game we're talking about. If it's a typical FPS, then yeah, what does it matter? If it's something deeper like Deus Ex, or a strategy game, or an RPG, the situation is very different.

Quote:Original post by Dekasa
But Deus Ex was able to chatise you for killing so well because there were so many ways of NOT killing.

Just to be clear, that was my point. I do agree that if it adds nothing then it's probably not worth doing. That is, if it's only added in the name of realism, forget it. If you just want something fun, it's only going to be fun for those who like causing suffering in others (which I would like to believe would make it less fun for the majority). If the whole point is to make killing less fun (like in Deus Ex, or like jbadams suggests the ideas in this thread would), then adding it may work toward that goal.

Quote:Original post by JBourrie

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Dekasa
I think this is time well spent only if there's a difference between death and disabling.

Apparently, there's additional work that I'm not aware of. Because as far as I know, the steps required to make this happen are pretty insignificant.

Either you're the fastest and hardest working developer in history, or you underestimate the magnitude of creating art assets.

I'm inclined to believe the latter, since the discussion is starting to sound awfully familiar...

How would I be able to underestimate the magnitude of something I do on a daily basis? Or do you mean you think I'm making things up? You can see some older screen shots of my project here. I'm not an expert with modeling and animation, but I'm happy with what I can do, and it's hella fun.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
If you just want something fun, it's only going to be fun for those who like causing suffering in others (which I would like to believe would make it less fun for the majority).

Since when is dropping someone by shooting them in the foot more depraved than blasting their head off or pumping their chest full of bullets?

Quote:Original post by JBourrie
how many enemy actions do you currently have

There are no specific enemy actions. Just character actions. Since the entire game revolves around it, there are quite a lot.

Quote:and how long did it take you to make those (art assets + AI routines + integration)?

It always depends. But I can usually add new action features to characters by just adding animations. Animations are loaded with a parsed settings/script file, which means I can control the character and game events from each animation resource. That usually means I don't need to program or write AI to make characters do new things. There are some exceptions, but not-so-dead death animations wouldn't be one of them.

Quote:Now how many additional enemy actions would be required to add the "injured to death" system you're talking about?

A loopable state animation, and if they can run away while disabled, a limp animation and AI tactic to retreat. But since the retreat AI tactic is already there, it's just the animations.

Quote:What is the time frame it would take to add this system?

I probably could have finished most of the animation in the time it took me to reply to this post. No joke. But I am a slow typist.

Quote:And what is the opportunity cost of said system? Could you be doing something else with that time that adds a more significant improvement?

Hah. That whole concept is a lot more practical in writing than in action. Could you be doing something else with the time you spent replying to this thread? That doesn't mean you would have been doing it if you weren't here. I like to jump around between different tasks to keep things interesting.

Quote:This has become far more of a debate than I originally intended it to be. My first post was just hoping to get you to consider the magnitude of this addition.

The magnitude of the work isn't an issue. I'm only interested in the consequences it would have to the game. A few people have mentioned that it might actually make shooting people more disturbing. That was my biggest concern. I was actually trying to help fix that, not make it worse. Apparently, some people feel worse for causing pain than death.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
If you just want something fun, it's only going to be fun for those who like causing suffering in others (which I would like to believe would make it less fun for the majority).

Since when is dropping someone by shooting them in the foot more depraved than blasting their head off or pumping their chest full of bullets?

How about since Wavarian posted? [smile]

I had it all typed up, but I typed in the wrong password. Short version:

Incentives to not kill them:
1) There are certain gameplay advantages to not kill them.
2) The story makes you feel morally responsible for using less than lethal force.
3) People like pulling the wings off butterflies.

You've said that it's just cosmetic, so (1) is out. You seem to feel that story/morality is missing the point (which is realism), so (2) is out. That leaves (3), which is more depraved than just killing them.

Really, unless you have (2), then I don't see why taking part in, say, the goblin genocide is any more depraved than sending a clergyman to kill your opponent's wife in chess (I suppose we use the word "capture", but at least Battle Chess took a more lethal interpretation).