I think that would be a torturer/sadists dream come true - you've removed the possibility of death but kept the pain intact. So from the point of view of an interrogator, it would give them much more freedom.


I've thought about using a system like this for a shooter, where when you 'die' you're not really dead as long as you are brought back to a medical facility where they can put your back together. My intention was to try and get players to help each other out more, by requiring alive players to drag the 'dead' players back to the evacuation helicopter (etc). If you leave a man behind, then his 'corpse' would be captured by the enemy where he would become a POW.

You could even implement perma-death, where after 'dying', your body could be buried to ensure that you're never taken back to a medical facility - this would be a concious choice by another player to actually "kill", which could be a powerful decision...


Most games technically do this kind of thing already, but not through medical science. They often don't even explain it... it's just re-spawning ;)

Quote:Original post by Edtharan
IF you were to replace a person's brain with a cybernetic brain (see movie and series: Ghost in the Shell), then such a thing could be possible. Not only that, if you made the cyber brain sophisticated enough, you could give the person the ability to shut off pain (or tone it down) at will. This would mean physical torture would be useless.

Ahh. But the trick to that would be make the ability temporary, time-lapseable. So therefore, it can't be permanent or long-lasting or do it as many times as you want.

Quote:Also, with a cyber brain, as your entire brain is just a computer simulation of your real brain, it could be uploaded to a server (or backup cyber brain) for storage and reinsertion. Then through clone banks, you could regrow a body (sans brain) and insert the new cyber brain into that body.

What about virus, HDD failures, two of you running around in cyberspace?

Quote:Original post by Kest
What would you think of a violent game that gives advanced medical science to its game world to the point where it prevents all unnatural death? By all unnatural death, I mean it would be impossible to kill anyone, regardless of how horribly you devastate their physical body. They could certainly look dead during the violence, but you'll always know they will fully recover from it.

If the goal is to avoid killing crucial NPCs, I believe it's pretty overkill... maybe underkill would be a better word.

Quote:Original post by Kest
How much would this change the feeling of employing violence? Would it make violence feel less satisfying for you, or would it give you freedom to enjoy the violence more?

Meeting a dead guy will be weird. As you suggested and other users replied, this could be viable in some context but as an exception, not as a rule.
Personally I wouldn't justify it, sounds more like a cheap trick than a real need. It could be justified if the story is complex enough but I don't think there's a single game with enough story here.

They will still remember what you did to them after they become revived. And because no one truly "dies", this could definitely change the environment or how the game is played.

This could affect the gameworld setting or storyline - a guy you caused a painful death to might come back to seek vengeance on you. Quick-death weapons or strategies might become the law inside this particular gameworld, such which are employed by the police. There might be a rebellious group of people such as street gangs, who use slow-death weapons, thus making people fear them more because not only do they kill, but they do it painfully. Players would now think twice when using pain-causing non-lethal weapons that cause slow-death on their enemies, least they want to have a bunch of newly revived bodies holding grudges against them, or to be branded unlawful/unethical.

This could impact your weapons gameplay - there might be two groups now, of weapons:
- Quick Death - Kills and eliminates bodies as fast as possible, with as little pain as possible. Such include sniper weapons, projectile weapons, etc.
- Slow Death - Inflicts pain to which is designed to stun, slow, disable/handicap, or cause bodies to stop what they are doing; death may not always result. Though it is very useful in stopping bodies, people dislike it whenever you do this to them. Such include flamethrowers, slugs, blunt weapons, edged/pointed weapons (bleeding to death), pepper sprays, acids, poisons, etc.

This could impact the economics of the gameworld. The cost of reviving a body could also affect tactics and strategy - cheaper weapons, while plentiful and common (like a baseball bat lying around), cause Slow Death, and are thus illegal to be used against others, until resources start to dwindle, then things become ugly quick. More expensive weapons are legal, for they are refined, and cause Quick Death. When you start the game out, you would perhaps have more access to Slow Death weapons than anything else, and might create a lot of people holding grudges against you to which you must deal with later in the game, with expensive Quick Death weapons. This might also be something to look at story-wise - a nation might actually start becoming poorer from all the revivals due to the laws they set in place (the Ethos of "Non-Sufferage"), and thus, because of this, the authorities would have to revert to lesser refined ways of killing, creating riots. This might spur off a whole new development of technology in that world that deals with the taking of pain, such as the use of "pain-pills", or even cybernetics and prosthetic bodies to which transmit no pain at all.

The theme and name for the game could be called PAIN. Subsequent sequels could have adjectives in front of the title: PAIN II: EXCRUCIATING PAIN. PAIN III: AGONIZING PAIN. PAIN TACTICS: LIVING HELL (or, the Pain of Everyday Life).

I could see that the only way to truly secure your hold over an enemy is to surgically chop off his limbs and jail him in your closet - he won't get revived, and he can't do anything about getting out.

[Edited by - Tangireon on June 19, 2008 7:22:50 AM]

Quote:Original post by Kest
The only goal is to the change the implications of voilence. You can be as violent as you want without inflicting death. That's the message. Gameplay could be influenced by it when an NPC changes strategy or makes comments because you've taken them out before. But other than that, it's purely psychological.

I understand. Taking out the story issue, I'm not sure it changes much - as noticed, it's going pretty virtual-sadistic anyway... But why the problem arises in the first place?