SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Got an idea to a non-combatant WW2 game

Platapus · 05-18-20, 06:25 AM

Well there has to be some sort of conflict that needs to be overcome by the player in order to give the player a sense of accomplishment.

Certainly, killing/destroying characters in a video game is a very popular one, primarily because it is easy. Program 10 targets, if the player ends up with less than 10 targets remaining there is a sense of accomplishment that has a metric scoring principle.

There is a reason why sports and other games have scores.

Another type of conflict is the game environment. The game design places obstacles that inhibit the player from meeting goals. Accomplishment is recorded by either number of obstacles overcome or the time it takes to overcome the obstacles.

Some of the First Person Sneak games like the Thief series are like this. The player is penalized for killing NPCs by the game mechanics. Points are scored by being able to move your character to a specific location and picking up an object all the while not observed.

Building type games are also an example of environmental conflict.

There are other types of conflicts, but the element of any enjoyable game is the prevention/mitigation of some sort of conflict.

Any type of non-killing game needs to have a type of conflict that will attract the interest of the player.

Unfortunately, since killing stuff is an easy way to represent conflicts and the resolution of that conflict, it is not surprising that killing type games are popular. It is less because of any attraction to violence, and more because if the ease of developing a conflict that is straightforward to solve and the results easily measured.

This is especially true on any type of war game. Take WWII for example. Despite the fact that only about 10% of the military forces were actually engaged in combat, it is the combat nature that most people think of when considering WWII activities.

Designing a WWII video game that does not involve killing, will go against most people's concept of what happened in WWII.

But let's be honest, part of the attraction of video games is being able to "do" things that we never get a chance to do in real life.

Most of us don't spend our days killing people.

Most of us would not enjoy a video game of working in an office processing documentation.

So in order to successfully design a video game that does not involve killing, the designer has to create a set of activities that are

1. Conflict resolution orientated. Most likely will be some form of environmental conflict

2. Involve risks to the player character. Failing a timed mission is probably not enough

3. Has metric accomplishments (aka scores, ranks, RP levels, or missions)
4. Involves an activity that the player does not do in real life. I am not going to buy a game about morning commutes and office politics. I get paid to put up with that. I am not paying anyone else.

5. Has some sort of urgency or importance that the player would care about. Grocery shopping and garden weeding are probably not good examples.

If you want your game to take place during wartime, but you don't want the player to be killing things, the choices are, in my opinion, limited to three

1. Intelligence type games. WWII was won because of SIGINT. A considerable amount of SIGINT techniques were developed in WWII. A SIGINT simulator would be interesting to me, but most likely not too interesting to normal air-breathing humans. Why? Because SITINT is rarely exciting. SIGINT, like most intelligence is the slow disciplined analysis of data over long periods of time. Essential in real life, boring in a video game. Measuring the accomplishments (Score) in a SIGINT simulator would be either time based (and those suck) or in the context of successful or unsuccessful outcomes of combat activities performed by NPCs.

In a previous post, I gave some idea about reconnaissance planning as a potential basis for a video game

1a. A subset of Intelligence type games would be cryptography. There have been plenty of cryptography types games even before the advent of video games. Unfortunately, in real life, breaking codes takes a lot of people, a lot of time, and a lot of calculations.. and a lot of luck, none of which translates well to video games. People may like code breaking games as a diversion similar to a crossword puzzle, but I don't know if players would like that as a full time part of a video game.

2. Logistics. This, I think, is the most likely type of game that can take place during a war but does not involve the player killing. I already talked about a merchant marine type logistics game. Other types might include fleet support logistics. Aircraft Carriers and Battleships get thirsty and want to be fed. How do you do that? Do you bring your carriers back to port for supplies? Do you have logistics with or follow the carriers/battleships? Do you set up remote fueling areas in mid ocean?

The Germans tried this with their surface resupply forces both surface and submarine craft. This brings, to me, an interesting type of game idea. If you are operating a mid ocean resupply force that force, itself needs logistical support. You want to remain hidden from the enemy but at the same time be able to be located by friendly forces. Do you stay in one place and hope that you are not discovered by the enemy? Or do you move, which may or may not increase your chances of being found by the enemy, but in any case makes finding you by your friendly forces more difficult (remember SIGINT!)

The third type of non-killing type war game would involve security.
One option would be operating the security forces guarding a base. You want to prevent enemy soldiers from getting in. You have a finite amount of resources and a finite amount of area that needs to be guarded. Do you set up your security forces so they don't move or do you have them patrol where they can be predictable? Do you put all of your forces in one ring of security or do you have multi level security? How to your manage morale and logistics?

Another option would be running a POW camp. Here you are trying to prevent the prisoners from getting out. Most likely your resources will be very scarce. You want to maintain security while obeying the various treaties. Morale of the prisoners is important as you want to convince them that it might be easier to stay there then it would be to return to their home country via escape. How do you structure security in a way that does not create predictable patterns.

I seriously applaud you for having an interest in non-killing type games. I think that with the advent of today's gaming techniques, it should be easier to program and design non-killing games than it was years ago. At one point, killing pixels was pretty much the only way to design a video game. These days, we have the technology to design other types of games.

The problem will be, of course, the customers. If the customers of video games want violence and killing, that's what they will be willing to pay for.

Thanks for bring up this topic.

05-18-20, 06:25 AM	#12
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 18,957 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Well there has to be some sort of conflict that needs to be overcome by the player in order to give the player a sense of accomplishment. Certainly, killing/destroying characters in a video game is a very popular one, primarily because it is easy. Program 10 targets, if the player ends up with less than 10 targets remaining there is a sense of accomplishment that has a metric scoring principle. There is a reason why sports and other games have scores. Another type of conflict is the game environment. The game design places obstacles that inhibit the player from meeting goals. Accomplishment is recorded by either number of obstacles overcome or the time it takes to overcome the obstacles. Some of the First Person Sneak games like the Thief series are like this. The player is penalized for killing NPCs by the game mechanics. Points are scored by being able to move your character to a specific location and picking up an object all the while not observed. Building type games are also an example of environmental conflict. There are other types of conflicts, but the element of any enjoyable game is the prevention/mitigation of some sort of conflict. Any type of non-killing game needs to have a type of conflict that will attract the interest of the player. Unfortunately, since killing stuff is an easy way to represent conflicts and the resolution of that conflict, it is not surprising that killing type games are popular. It is less because of any attraction to violence, and more because if the ease of developing a conflict that is straightforward to solve and the results easily measured. This is especially true on any type of war game. Take WWII for example. Despite the fact that only about 10% of the military forces were actually engaged in combat, it is the combat nature that most people think of when considering WWII activities. Designing a WWII video game that does not involve killing, will go against most people's concept of what happened in WWII. But let's be honest, part of the attraction of video games is being able to "do" things that we never get a chance to do in real life. Most of us don't spend our days killing people. Most of us would not enjoy a video game of working in an office processing documentation. So in order to successfully design a video game that does not involve killing, the designer has to create a set of activities that are 1. Conflict resolution orientated. Most likely will be some form of environmental conflict 2. Involve risks to the player character. Failing a timed mission is probably not enough 3. Has metric accomplishments (aka scores, ranks, RP levels, or missions) 4. Involves an activity that the player does not do in real life. I am not going to buy a game about morning commutes and office politics. I get paid to put up with that. I am not paying anyone else. 5. Has some sort of urgency or importance that the player would care about. Grocery shopping and garden weeding are probably not good examples. If you want your game to take place during wartime, but you don't want the player to be killing things, the choices are, in my opinion, limited to three 1. Intelligence type games. WWII was won because of SIGINT. A considerable amount of SIGINT techniques were developed in WWII. A SIGINT simulator would be interesting to me, but most likely not too interesting to normal air-breathing humans. Why? Because SITINT is rarely exciting. SIGINT, like most intelligence is the slow disciplined analysis of data over long periods of time. Essential in real life, boring in a video game. Measuring the accomplishments (Score) in a SIGINT simulator would be either time based (and those suck) or in the context of successful or unsuccessful outcomes of combat activities performed by NPCs. In a previous post, I gave some idea about reconnaissance planning as a potential basis for a video game 1a. A subset of Intelligence type games would be cryptography. There have been plenty of cryptography types games even before the advent of video games. Unfortunately, in real life, breaking codes takes a lot of people, a lot of time, and a lot of calculations.. and a lot of luck, none of which translates well to video games. People may like code breaking games as a diversion similar to a crossword puzzle, but I don't know if players would like that as a full time part of a video game. 2. Logistics. This, I think, is the most likely type of game that can take place during a war but does not involve the player killing. I already talked about a merchant marine type logistics game. Other types might include fleet support logistics. Aircraft Carriers and Battleships get thirsty and want to be fed. How do you do that? Do you bring your carriers back to port for supplies? Do you have logistics with or follow the carriers/battleships? Do you set up remote fueling areas in mid ocean? The Germans tried this with their surface resupply forces both surface and submarine craft. This brings, to me, an interesting type of game idea. If you are operating a mid ocean resupply force that force, itself needs logistical support. You want to remain hidden from the enemy but at the same time be able to be located by friendly forces. Do you stay in one place and hope that you are not discovered by the enemy? Or do you move, which may or may not increase your chances of being found by the enemy, but in any case makes finding you by your friendly forces more difficult (remember SIGINT!) The third type of non-killing type war game would involve security. One option would be operating the security forces guarding a base. You want to prevent enemy soldiers from getting in. You have a finite amount of resources and a finite amount of area that needs to be guarded. Do you set up your security forces so they don't move or do you have them patrol where they can be predictable? Do you put all of your forces in one ring of security or do you have multi level security? How to your manage morale and logistics? Another option would be running a POW camp. Here you are trying to prevent the prisoners from getting out. Most likely your resources will be very scarce. You want to maintain security while obeying the various treaties. Morale of the prisoners is important as you want to convince them that it might be easier to stay there then it would be to return to their home country via escape. How do you structure security in a way that does not create predictable patterns. I seriously applaud you for having an interest in non-killing type games. I think that with the advent of today's gaming techniques, it should be easier to program and design non-killing games than it was years ago. At one point, killing pixels was pretty much the only way to design a video game. These days, we have the technology to design other types of games. The problem will be, of course, the customers. If the customers of video games want violence and killing, that's what they will be willing to pay for. Thanks for bring up this topic. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.