Imagine a typical FPS game where you start loaded out with grenades, machine gun, sniper rifle, etc, and are dropped into a war zone… but, in a starting cut scene, your character has taken a vow of nonviolence.
You now must use these weapons to puzzle-solve your way through environments (grenades make distracting noises, shotguns open locked doors, sniper rifles accurately knock things off ledges, etc.) and, if you accidentally DO kill or injure another person, you have to start that level over.
Forced pacifism is a huge backlash waiting to happen.
Well yeah, but that’s because gamers are assholes, not because there’s anything wrong with the concept.
Certainly nothing wronger with it than there is with forced violence, aka how 90% of all video games operate.
No it’s more because railroading is a terrible design strategy.
that’s why people hate mario, right, it forces you to stomp on goombas and drop bowser into a pit, the railroading piece of shit
or like pac-man, railroading me into eating all those dots, how dare that game have success perimeters i tell you
why won’t punch-out!!! let me calmly talk through my problems with these muscular men, who designed this thing, some kind of train engineer
It’s why Portal, which has a specific solution for each level, is so deeply unpopular. It’s why Assassins Creed, which desynchronizes if you kill anyone other than your targets, never got anything but hatred from the larger gaming community.
I would play that
Gamer dude logic: Forced violence is normal gameplay, forced passivity is “railroading” and bad design.
That game concept would be so fun though
Implying most shooters arent an interactive movie
Motherfucking Cowboy Meowchow 