Slashdot Mirror
Non-Violent, Cooperative Games?
jandersen writes "While I generally don't play computer games, I do occasionally play games like Crossfire or The Mana World, because they have more of a story line and allow you to go at your own pace. What I don't care much about, though, is that they are still focused on killing monsters and amassing wealth, and it gets very tedious after a while. Are there really no games where the goal isn't so much about increasing your own power and defeating others, but where you instead grow by doing things that benefit others, where enemies shouldn't be killed out of hand, but befriended; where learning, teaching, research and social skills are more important than killing and conquering? Would people be interested in a game of that nature?"
I don't know... SimCity? Wii Sports? Jewel Quest & friends?
But much like the real world, it won't get you very far.
... then get Little Big Planet
Have fun.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
You pretty much described the game.
of pink fluffy bunny flower friends. Great game!
"I don't care much about, though, is that they are still focused on killing monsters and amassing wealth, and it gets very tedious after a while. Are there really no games where the goal isn't so much about increasing your own power and defeating others, but where you instead grow by doing things that benefit others, where enemies shouldn't be killed out of hand, but befriended; where learning, teaching, research and social skills are more important than killing and conquering?"
The truth is not enough is known to make such a game, not only that it is subject to aesthetic prejudices and what not. I would imagine text adventures would fall into the realm you're looking for... any GUI based game needs all the bells and whistles to be compelling to an audience.
If the market wanted such games it would demand them and pay for them, you are in an extreme minority IMHO.
The technology is not there yet to do "social" games, the AI and interfaces are pretty primitive and no computer NPC's would be believable, hell games have a hard enough time portraying well voice acted computer animated characters with gusto... the truth is what the OP wants in the story is not technically within our means, and most "help each other games" are subject to the same kind of politics and BS and those who have free time vs those who don't (disproportionately kids, teens or idiots).
Finally.. go do good deeds in the real world, that is what the real world is for. Games are an escape from real life, that is what they are supposed to be - fantasy and wish fulfillment.
The point of games is to do what is entertaining. Almost all videogames have elements of competition in them, or competition against the computer.
Doom.
M.U.L.E, players who cooperated had a better outcome for their colony than when everyone was back stabbing each other. (Not that I knew that when I was playing.) The genre of "German Boardgames" avoids violence and usually has an interplay of cooperation and competition, there are computer implementations of some of the more popular, like settlers of catan.
There's always the Myst [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst] and Monkey Island [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Island_(series)] series...
You can win the game by killing or making friends. Pick whatever you want.
That game was pretty much designed just for this scenario. Hell, as a hardcore gamer (logged nearly 1000 hours in FFXI) even I enjoyed it. Sequel's gonna be out in the US on the 16th, too.
I sought long and hard for just the games you mentioned after Myst Online crashed for the second time, and the only thing I found is A Tale of the Desert. This game exactly suits your needs, I think. No violence, you can trade stuff you grew or made, etc. I never played it because I basically want MystOnline to be back online, but I think you should give it a try.
-- Cheers!
Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe. http://www.openttd.org/
It's an open source recode of the original classic game, but with all the tweaks to bring it up to modern standards (8-players multiplayer, huge maps, better cargo routing algorithms, etc). Fantastic stuff.
There's also a large massively OpenTTD cooperative group, focussing on ways of making huge efficient cargo networks and other scenarios. http://www.openttdcoop.org/blog/
But the Victorians had the golden era of cooperative gaming.
Syberia?
Give the original neverwinter nights a try, playing online in the user made persistent worlds.
Though there is some combat and such, and some of the worlds are focused on this, other are much more character driven.
It's actually a breath of fresh air to realise that a character you create can over time make a sizable change to the world it lives in.
You just described *half* the FPS genres out there... Seriously.
There were two different FPS genres establised in the early 90s
The first type (and first 3D FPS game) started with a game called Ultima Underworld, and was an open-goal type of FPS where you could do many things and interact with many people. You could achieve your goals by helping people, or perhaps if you were more ruthless, killing them (although the latter often had consequences).
The second was called Wolfenstein 3D. It's the more common type of FPS. Just run around blowing things up. That's the plot... And make your way through a level.
Still, it's gone of from there - Both types of game type exist within the whole of the FPS type of gameset.
Games such as Dark Messiah and Deus Ex ( and sequels ) is a help-people type of game (if you want to) while games like Doom, Quake etc, are a If-it-moves-kill-it-if-it-doesn't-kill-it-anyway sort of FPS.
The same themes exist in many other games. The extent varies and they often get a bit of each mixed in (eg, System shoch is the latter with a little bit of the first)
Try some of the "Single-player" focus FPS games.... They can often be played mostly non-violently - eg, stealth, skill, persausion.
Of course, if you want violence banned from the game entirely, there's always "My Little Ponies" but as an adult, part of the enjoyment of a game is making decisions and seeing the outcome. Sometimes you choose the stick, sometimes the carrot, but at the end of the day, it's your choice on how you want to play.
GrpA.
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
... best explains this. Play Civ 4. Play it by researching and trading and and expanding with friendly means. Play through the game on settler and never get attacked, and there is never any conflict or risk of losing. Then be so bored you dont want to come back.
After her second game which I forced her to play, on a higher difficulty, she made the comment "war is the part that is more fun".
And that is why games center more on violence.
There is a Wii game called World of Goo. Sounds a lot like what you're looking for.
I mean even pokemon had enemies in it, and yes you befriended monsters but you also tried to be the best through collecting them all, and the monsters being the highest level possible and such... my point is that even this innocent game doesn't sound like it fits your standards. I personally like to play games because they allow me to do the very things that i wouldn't (or get the chance to) do in real life. like steal a car, or kill aliens. while i love your noble ideals, i just can't see any game without grit (except puzzle games like tetris) and even if there was a game like that, i am sure the players would end up teaching false knowledge just for sh**'s and giggles, for instance, if i was playing a game you just described, i would see how many people i could convince that gullible was not in the dictionary, and then turn around and tell them that lubricity is a word in the hopes that they will think i am trying to trick them about that as well. My overall point is this: even if you do manage to create a game without the bad things (violence, lack of cooperation/teamwork, quest for power) then the players will put it in there themselves I can't count the amount of times i burnt down my Sim's house or didn't let him go to the restroom to see the chaos that ensued
Many sports games may fit what you require? Some simulation games?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Just as the death in a video game
is meaningless and not real
so is the 'charity' that you do in
a video game.
You are thinking too hard about it.
In the game I play you get ahead by
jumping and grabbing and timing the moves.
Killing things is just there to make it even harder.
It isn't real.
It is a video game.
Stop looking for the moral virtue.
The virtue is the diversion it provides.
So Friday is coming
next Friday
and I've been looking forward to it.
My friend likes to play by not killing tigers,
etc, when Laura can just run through a room.
And he says that the healthpack you get in
there isn't needed if you don't fight
the tiger.
But you are correct that the game 'scores'
the kill.
On one level in one of the early tomb raider games
if you killed a monk then they all attacked you.
If you did not they helped you fight the real
bad-guys.
But again, it is a game, not real.
If you convert someone to your point of view
in a video game
it is not real either.
Why don't you try like a Tricky SX (which is a
snow boarding game) or maybe a
railroad simulator (which might be like having
toy trains)
I'm nota persona who-a plays-a the games-a, but I sometimes have to feign interest in rock band. From what I've been unable to block out, I think its a cooperative non violent game. For my money, time and effort are best applied to life rather than any sort of game. But apparently that's a minority opinion in most places. I sort of take that back, the only worthwhile games are the ones that aren't played to win the game, but as a structure which advances life.
"While I generally don't play computer games, I do occasionally play games like Crossfire or The Mana World, because they have more of a story line and allow you to go at your own pace."
These are D&D style games, with Ultima Online style graphics. Minus the Ultima Online part, you will find dozens upon dozens of games which will fit the bill. Allowing you to express yourself further with jobs and professions added on to mix up the quest/kill/loot/reward style game play.
"What I don't care much about, though, is that they are still focused on killing monsters and amassing wealth, and it gets very tedious after a while. Are there really no games where the goal isn't so much about increasing your own power and defeating others, but where you instead grow by doing things that benefit others, where enemies shouldn't be killed out of hand, but befriended; where learning, teaching, research and social skills are more important than killing and conquering?"
So you are looking for a game like Second Life, where its a purely social experience, since if given an option majority of the people would rather kill the monster to get the golden key, than befriend it to get the golden key.
Would it require you to level by reading the "Enchanted Book of Teaching IX"?
Would you require you to wait for a "teacher" to log online so that he can enchant your toon? If this is the case, you will quickly fall into the same problem. Supply/demand. Where the item is replaced with fake knowledge and where you pound your head against the wall because you have 10g, and the bastards in the tavern wants 150g for teaching enchantment.
You have limited activities, most people will not pay, much less play, a game where all you do is hug, talk to your friends and jump around holding hands. You just do not have a game in your idea. The success of other non-violent games resolved around puzzles, or even building (i.e. Little Big Planet).
However keep in mind that your idea is for a small market share. Majority of people will not play the game, much like majority of the people didn't play animal crossing a great deal. Most people socialize on Facebook/Myspace/Twitter. Since these games provide you an "optimized" experiance. Of listening to music, talking to friends, smoking pot, and talking about games that revolve around flowers and love.
"Would people be interested in a game of that nature?"
Majority of the population would not be interested, and you would be hard pressed to reach critical mass on a user base. As a kids game it has a good possibility, however that would lead to poor parenting. With IHFL (It's hippie-flower-love) MMO replacing sound parenting.
Either way upgrade your Pentium II and Voodoo 1, and you might find out that these "crazy new" games are actually quite entertaining. And these days the emphases is made on morals in games (karma, reputation, etc.).
Even in WoW, the social part is there, if you use it its up to you. As a game, its good, and it has enough side jobs to keep you entertained for hours on end.
Games such as Dark Messiah and Deus Ex ( and sequels ) is a help-people type of game (if you want to)
I think the OP's point is that even games like Deus Ex cannot be played in a completely peaceful way. While DX did give you ways to end many situations peacefully, you would be quite hard-pressed to not commit any acts of violence through the entire game. I've gone through without a single kill (except those required by the story), but I don't think it's possible not to *attack* at all.
If you want non-violent games, then try Hello Kitty Online. It's truly innovative.
The only non-violence I enjoy in games is the time I spend reloading whatever weapon I'm wielding. Yup, it's my Moment of Zen before a massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_in_the_Desert
Wham. Question Answered. A Co-Op MMO based entirely around Social interaction and economic development. No Combat system whatsoever.
I tried it myself once. it was actually fun for a few days. but Alas, Azeroth Calls.
Example of the latest game: LEGO Batman.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
How about Planescape: Torment?
The complex and storyline-based nature of the game means that gameplay often focuses on resolution of quest and story objectives through selection from available dialogue choices, rather than combat. Simply stopping and having a long (often very long) chat with one of the other members of the player's group can often advance the game more (and reveal more surprising things) than hours of combat and questing in other games. In fact, there are only four or so required combat encounters within the game, while contemporary role-playing games have tens or hundreds. All other encounters can be resolved or avoided through dialogue or stealth.
Planescape: Torment is notable for the quality and quantity of textual dialogue it contains. It is estimated that the game's script contains around 800,000 words. A review in the New York Times noted that, "The game's level of detail and its emotional impact have prompted some players to cast about for literary peers."
It has some pretty witty dialogue too, and it's an interesting universe. You may be familiar with the general principles if you ever dabbled in D&D, though naturally some adaptations were made to make sure it worked better as a computer game.
It has some issues(for one, finding a legitimate copy). There were some bugs in the final shipped version and it's not supported anymore, but fans have fixed a few more of the bugs and have a patch available(linked in the wikipedia article, reference 9).
You are of course free to slaughter all sorts of things in the game(though there are consequences for killing lots of townfolk or dabus' in particular). But you don't have to by any stretch of the imagination, and usually you shouldn't just stick your knife in things for fun. Heck, the final boss fight at the end of the game can be resolved in a couple different ways through dialogue(and this approach gives IMO by far the most satisfying ending). Wisdom is by far the most important stat in the game for The Nameless One, followed by Int and then Cha.
I'd heartily recommend it, as do some game reviewing companies for what that's worth.
There's a reason why so many games are focused around destroying and killing: it's just so much easier to do than create.
It only takes one button to fire a gun and take a virtual life, but take a look at how long it takes to build something in a game: a life-form evolves throughout Spore, a household is built room-by-room in the Sims, or a small base is constructed through balancing resources in any number of RTS wargames. That's a lot for a gamer to think about and handle. Much easier--and perhaps more natural?--to assess a threat and obliterate it with some kind of weapon. A lot simpler with a greater payoff, perhaps.
Killing and inflicting violence is easy to portray. Death is just about the simplest thing anyone understands (bizarre cultural interpretations and rituals aside). One minute something is flopping around, the next it isn't.
"Ragdoll" death physics was all the rage a few years ago, long before we had the life-like procedural animations of Spore, Grand Theft Auto 4, and Left 4 Dead (not so sure about L4D, only saw a few minutes, so I could be fooled). Even those games never quite got life looking right; check out any bipedal in Spore. I'd argue that it's much easier to simulate a body flopping around and coming to a stop than it is to simulate a thinking body reacting and responding to stimuli (i.e., being struck, stumbling around, and then reorienting itself). Past games even used to fake it by providing a number of standard animations: running around, jumping, and dying were a few of the essentials.
If you're asking for games that teach, require social interaction, or encourage cooperation--whew! We're still trying to figure out how these things work in real life, much less understand a way to fake it with AI or provide all the necessary tools of communication for players stuck with a keyboard and a headset.
Think of the much-lauded Civilization 4 diplomacy system or a Neverwinter Nights dialogue tree: each are a series of screens. There are some interesting equations hidden behind the scene, but rarely do they approach the sophistication of something like ragdoll physics. Maybe an unfair comparison. But I think it's much easier to figure out the calculations for bouncing heads off a brick wall than it is to engineer a life-like system of actual human social interaction.
I'm not giving a value judgment. I like games of all types. I'm just arguing that the content of games is limited by the audience (who often expects simple gratification without convoluted gameplay), our knowledge (how does the body move, how do societies and individuals interact with one another, etc.), and our technology (you can't simulate human social interactions until we have a human-like intelligence inside the computer, but it's pretty easy to fake human death and get away with it).
However, I'm optimistic that games are going to get pretty intense in a couple years. For instance, street-level combat and aerial dogfights will always be popular in military games, but imagine a game that allows the player to engage in propaganda campaigns, door-to-door searches, and hostage negotiation. I'm talking something like IRAQ ONLINE! (forgive me), something that pushes us past shoot-em-ups and tank battles--i.e., dynamic city life, soldiers and civilians reacting in accordance to their personalities and history, or complex peace agreements where the stakes are a bit higher than "I will give you 150 gold pieces from my treasury if you stop burning down my cities." Imagine a game where killing the bad guy or having an arbitrary stat higher than your foe isn't the only way to win. Imagine the last time you thought, "Wow! This is so realistic." Imagine saying that while you're carrying out a conversation with an NPC.
We will see greater and greater complexity in our games, but only if we as an audience demand it.
Harvest moon...you farm and help other people out i mean you still get money to increase your house and farm and what not but there isn't any violence in it
I believe the perfect game for you is Hello Kitty Online. I think the beta is still open if you'd like to try it early.
Yes, it does exist.
No, I am not making this up.
You could try Clonk (www.clonk.de)
It can be a lot of fun co-operatively mining gold...
They have released the previous-to-latest iteration (clonk endeavor) as a freebie.
... racing sims, with your friend playing as Timo Glock.
I think you've rather eloquently made my example - You didn't kill people out-of-hand, but only when offered no other choice.
The choices you make throughout the games ( eg, do you release the nanites to clean the air or allow them to be withheld making it poisonous for people to live outside ) - there are often no clear right and wrong choices - each choice makes you acutely aware of the consequences of the decision and you must talk to many NPCs and gain insights from each perspective into the problem to make a choice.
Being anti-violence to the point of denying it entirely is a form of violence itself, because it takes the option (choice) away from you, which is fundamentally evil in an of itself.
There are trade games, but the aim is to get rich. Puzzle games, but the aim is to beat it. The only games that really teach you about consequences are the ones that place you in a difficult position and make you decide on the course of actions.
In Deus Ex, if you kill someone, you can't discuss things with them and maybe learn something that will help you. If you start killing people, your brother attempts to teach you why you are wrong, his attitude towards you getting stronger and stronger the more violent you are. If you open your eyes and look for other ways, you win his praise and people are more likely to help you.
The inclusion of non-lethal weapons is novel as well. It makes it harder to play, but you gain more respect for your action.
And you must learn insight in the way you ask questions. Which responses convince the person to help you?
Deus Ex was a good game for this reason. It excelled.
Even the original Ultima Underworld was a good game. People needed your help and you performed quests for them, many spanning the entire game. The result was that you received your eight "Virtues" and could use these to defeat the evil at the bottom of the pit. You also gained other items of value from people you helped, such as goggles that let you see traps.
But sometimes the simplest reward in a game is praise. After all, that one rewards is what we all grew up learning to look for,
Even Bioshock proved that point. It wasn't any more difficult to defeat the end-game boss if you harvested the little sisters (I couldn't) but I really liked the ending I got and I enjoyed anticipating the next teddy bear waiting for me.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
And we're still waiting for the Vth...
There is a certain irony in seeing ads for D&D right below this post.
Eve Online. There is a nice friendly, cooperative, social player base for you.
I feel it would be remiss not to mention Okami if you are looking for a story-based game truly about doing good. Yeah, you fight some demons and collect money. But you also feed starving animals, rejuvenate plants and the land as a whole, perform miracles to help people, etc. I don't think I've ever played a game that seems more about making the world a better place.
Otherwise, look into puzzle games and games. Myst seems like a no-brainer recommendation.
It's not a game you need, it's to work for a NPO. Past a certain point, real life's challenges might meet your expectations better than virtual ones. Or maybe try dating simulations! There's a lot of befriending going on.
http://www.atitd.com/
(Damn slashdot javascript ate my comment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_in_the_Desert
It's non-combat, based around social interaction, development and construction. Very tightly knit community. I'd really give it a try, monthly fee but first 24 hours of play are free.
Try Foldit. It's a game where you fold proteins to get a ranking / score (no money incentive at the moment). If you want to cooperate, join a team and evolve someone else's folded protein. There's also a duel mode, where you battle against someone else, trying to fold a protein in as few moves as possible.
And just in case you're interested, the folding helps researchers who are looking for ways in which humans can fold better than computers.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
How about Instant Messaging and facebook?
;)
Seems quite popular. Lots of people go about collecting friends/"friends".
Some of the AIs involved may even surprise you once in a while and say something coherent and intelligent.
Then there's also Slashdot.
I used to play some online games, too, but after a while i got also bored of that killing.
Then i tried "EVE Online". Ok, This game is a space simulation where you own no avatar in the common sense. You are a ship pilot but thats kinda nice to look at.
The big point of this game is, that is not necessarily a killing game. A lot of played are trade mens. They controll the market, craft things, make politics, ...
Every aspect of this game is controlled by players. Yesterday we had an election for an important poistion of leadership.
All prices of the resources are controoled by a full open market. If you want you can be miner to mine all kind of resouces, or trademan, to deliver lots of goods of cargo from point to point to get a charge, or get a politician and discuss the development and pregress of the fraction (where are more then just good and bad) or be scientist and to researching.
Just try it out. The UI is a bit heavy to use in the biginning but after a while you get used to it.
and if you feel that you have to need to kill something you can just attack everything in game even players of your own coorporation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What exactly is it that you do want?
You write a little about what you don't want, and hint at why, but really not enough to answer your question. Are you fundamentally opposed to violence for some reason, or is it just that mindless shooting bores you?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Pokemon?
Try Pingus. It's a free lemmings clone covered by the GNU GPL. http://pingus.seul.org/
Puzzle games /thread
you can all go home now!
Eat sleep die
Why not go to board games like chess or Monopoly?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
SimWork? Sounds like fun. What do you imagine the benefits would be?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
The game Leisure Suit Larry seems to fit your description perfectly. Enjoy!
A great board game and apparently a great XBox Live Arcade game as well. I'd imagine that there are other versions floating around too. Absolutely no combat (unless you get Cities and Knights, the expansion), just building, trading, and negotiation. Great fun.
http://www.tenjou.net/
..you can win Master of Orion, Civilization etc by clever trade & diplomatics.
A completly non-violent game: http://mysqlgame.appspot.com/ Just sit peacefully and look at your very own rows ;)
The Japanese have an entire game genre dedicated to building social interaction. :-)
The end-goal might not be what you're looking for, though
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
How about A Force More Powerful?
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/game/index.php
I believe there might be a sequel in the works, too.
Cyan Worlds' Uru Live (aka Myst Online).
The specific goal for the player of the game is benefiting others, without any cute silliness or sentimentality.
Sadly this game, which IMO is a work of flawed genius, has flopped repeatedly despite several launches.
It DOES have some very dedicated fans, but unfortunately its repeated failures seem to show that no, most people just aren't interested in a game like this.
Dating sims, most of those for the PC are eroge (hentai) but their PS2 counterparts have the adult sections edited out. Sadly most are in Japanese. Still there are a handful of English DVD player playable Dating Sims without the sex.
From what I've read about the differences in the sexes, it seems to me that this is the main problem. Games tend to focus on violence more because most game developers are male, and they make what they like. I think if we had greater sexual equality in the development community, we'd have more games that were quite interesting but with a lot less violence. Just because current games that have violence as an option are often more entertaining with said violence is only an indication that the developers didn't spend enough time and effort on the non-violent paths. It does not indicate that violence is inherently more fun.
As for existing non-violent games, you could definitely try Galactic Civilizations 2 from Stardock, which has the option for violence, but can be won in completely non-violent ways as well. The AI of the computer-controlled players also makes for some interesting interactions.
... Black and White series?
I've not played B&W2, but B&W was certainly playable without killing everything within your field of vision.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
A computer clone of Settlers. It does not have all bells and whistles, but is 100% playable.
http://pio.sourceforge.net/
I think the current apex of cooperative games has to be Eve Online (genre: massively multiplayer internet spaceships game) At first glance, it doesn't seem that suitable. It's pvp-oriented, with nonconsensual pvp even in the supposedly safest parts of the game (well once you're flying in space, technically anyone can attack you though there are consequences in the securer regions, namely dying in 10-20 seconds due to massive law enforcement retaliation). Scams are allowed and the game admins will not compensate you unless the loss in question can be shown to be due to a game failing. The secure regions are known collectively as "empire" and there are some repercussions to attacking other players in these regions which can range from certain death to security rating penalties (which collectively govern where you can go in Empire without getting shot at). The game can have tens of thousands of users on at a time. All those users play in the same world.
Massive corporations (what a guild is in Eve) and alliances (groups of corporations) can compete both in the relatively safe Empire regions and the completely unfettered "0.0" regions. In the 0.0 regions the largest cooperative efforts, of any game I know of on the internet, exist. Thousands of players work together to hold territory and exploit the bounty contained therein. This is also the zone of primary violence with battles of dozens or hundreds of players being common.
However those fighters need a lot of logistics in order to function well. This leads to numerous roles for the less violently inclined either supporting these fighters directly or making products elsewhere for use in these wars. The paradox of the game is that while scams, random violence, piracy, theft, and other forms of complete noncooperation are commonplace, cooperation is amply rewarded and a vital part of the game.
Further the game has an interesting and very sophisticated manufacture and trade aspect. Industry is quite contrived as to materials. You take fantasy elements and minerals and turn them into fantasy spaceships and other gear. However, one interesting feature is that a considerable portion of the equipment in the game is made directly by the players, including most spaceships. Further, the economics model is amazing. More than any other game I've seen, investment makes sense. One has player capital, assets that can be used to produce income even when the player is not online. Industrialists often construct and maintain elaborate supply chains to produce highly valued goods. The market system is very sophisticated and the best effort I've seen.
So this is a violent, often fustrating game, but it is remarkable for the degree of cooperation and competition present. The annoying non-cooperative aspects spice up it up and I doubt there is any online game (outside of some bizarre niche games like nomic) where one sees such a wide range of legal noncooperative behaviors to overcome. Who to trust and how far to trust them is an integral challenge of the game.
Try Blockland, multiplayer Lego.
http://www.blockland.us/index.asp
Here's a description I wrote around 1993 of the multi player version of SimCity that I developed.
The source code is now freely available on Google Code at: http://code.google.com/p/micropolis/
In the process of adapting it to the OLPC XO-1 laptop, I disabled the X11 based multi-player user interface, but all the code is still in there, and could be re-enabled with a little work.
But I'm rewriting the user interface in Python, and the new version will use a much better network protocol and architecture than X11 for implementing the multi-player mode.
Here's the proposal I wrote (and which was accepted) to demonstrate multi player SimCity at INTERCHI'93 in Amsterdam, which explains the cooperative nature of the game:
There's a market for any game if you can make it challenging.
Smile at someone as you walk past. Have a conversation with a stranger at a bus stop. For more hardcore players, try volunteer work at a local charity.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
This reminds me an awful lot of a story from the Acts of Gord....
It's a truly cooperative board game (either you beat the game as a team, or you all lose), non-violent, and a lot of fun!
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/30549
Really the only problem has been finding a copy, but I think the new batch is finally in stock at many stores.
How critical is social interaction to you in gaming? If not terribly important, then SimCity or something similar. If so, then The Sims or similar. Both had extremely long, successful 'careers' and are still played. I would love to see some of the clever simulation logic in SimCity into an FPS engine or similar. Building worlds, creating some basic rules and letting those rules develop a complex system... or crash/stop... would be interesting, especially if one had the ability to step into that world and walk around it and experiencing it as the automata that inhabited it did. The original game of Life is kind of interesting that way, but not terribly much fun (in the 'gamer' sense) unless you understand what is happening - the UI on most implementations is a simple grid with colored dots.
The first two Fallout games *allowed* combat, but didn't require it. Via stealth, social skills and occasionally running away you could bypass all combat and still win the game. You got bigger XP awards for quests than for kills, so while advancement was slowed, it was still tenable to play without combat.
Unfortunately, from what I've heard, this may not be possible in Fallout 3.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
How about a nice game of chess? Just aim for stalemate.
alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls
http://cultivation.sourceforge.net/
Lemmings is an often overlooked gem. There is "peril" in the sense that the lemmings are in danger, but its the players job to keep them safe. I think there's a huge overlooked market for games like this. Its not exclusively a kids market, but providing a kids market is important, since games are becoming increasingly relevant in social development. To clarify, replacing rocket-launchers with mushrooms or teddy-bears doesn't make the game any less violent.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's called life. That is the stuff you do in life. The whole point in a game is that you can do fun stuff that you cant do in life. The only person who would play this sort of game is one who doesn't have a life of their own.
of course it was cancelled. There was a MMO game that came out a couple years ago that I was really excited about. It was called Seed, and it was about a colony (space) ship that crashed on the wrong planet. The missions in the game were colonizing the planet and repairing the systems on the ship. I mention this because there was talk at one point of resurrecting this game. Here is the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_(computer_game)
...lets you play online in bands over Xbox live or PSN.
still no sig
I've seen it done, actually. There's only one absolutely required take-down/kill in the game, and even that can be bypassed if you're insanely good. Other than that one, ordinary skill, some luck, and a lot of observation of the environment can get you through every situation.
Go check out A Tale in the Desert. Yes, it even has a linux client.
They're called Barbie dolls.
HelloKittyOnline is in Beta and should be out soon. Sounds like it should be right up your alley.
http://www.hellokittyonline.com/us/
http://www.citiesxl.com/
Wait for Cities XL the new simcity type game the road systems looks to be much much better then it was in simcity 4 RH.
Massive "be-friending" ensured!
on the other hand lots of mmorpgs let you become a crafter, you don't really need to kill monsters, just buy stuff from auction house and make things out of those items. Pretty much like the real world, where you don't really have to slay a cow to get beef, just buy from the local butcher... heh
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
X3 (can get it from Steam) can be played without firing a shot. Although you have to ignore the plot.
It is a space based game (simulator like Star Wars which is really not much of a simulator but more of a fantasy) that you build an empire and cooperatively trade with the other races. It takes about 6 months to get really good at the game and have a massive empire built.
If you get bored with just empire building, you can shoot bad guys (AI alien ships and Insect like race ships, or pirates, or for the evil in you, other races).
There is also the Railroad Tycoon games that empire build that works well with working with others.
More news on health and exercise related video games:
http://www.healthygaming.com/blog/
Animal Crossing
Harvest Moon
How is rolling up cows, humans, islands, etc, into big balls and then throwing them into space to make stars out of them, not violent? =)
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
I think a lot of the tradition of AD&D has been overlooked. Games in the Baldurs Gate / Neverwinter Nights series had many elements of this philosophy. Many times situations were much more beneficial if one simply disabled opponents or arranged for a situation of mutual interest. Talking your way out of things is more than handy enough.
Morrowind is another example. I've been playing it lately, but have come to the realization that much of the game is truly about using your words to work out situations and dodge the challenges of your opponents. With a high enough sneak and speechcraft skill you spend most of the game talking. If you combine that with Dominate you don't have to fight near as often.
Sure, there are some violent missions and some players may prefer to get their hands dirty, but you usually have a choice in how your work is handled.
I don't know if it was already said, but RPG games are usually a good way to go. The best one I can think of would be the Elder Scrolls. Great story line, so many options you can choose from, help people till you fall over dead, and more. Cheers --KOMODO
While racing games do smash up cars (motorcycles, etc.), *usually* you're not also trying to kill people.
Sports sims (with obvious exceptions like boxing) also are generally non-violent.
They may or may not be quite as free as you want in terms of development (i.e. the story generally drags you along whether you want it to or not) but the classic graphics adventures are great for storyline. Find a copy of Grim Fandango if you can. Also look at The Longest Journey.
Puzzle games are fun, and World of Goo seems to be the current addiction, with a bit of a silly storyline to it. Also, a few years back was Psychonauts, with surprising depth. (And not coincidentally, written by the creator of Grim Fandango.)
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I would suggest Dwarf fortress, it is very sandbox like and if you can get past the graphics (and maybe turn off invasions in the init file) it can really be played as a group of dwarves building metal and rock toys for children out of precious gems they mine from the mountain. No war required. even comes with unicorns and merpeople.
Game renditions of board and card games are also nice.
Tycoon games. Monopoly tycoon was my favourite of the tycoon games, these are non violent and mostly non competitive (the monopoly one is competitive)
eve online can be played as a trader, politician, miner, businessman, but there will still be other players trying to kill you. Actually if you stick to empire space you should be unbothered.
open ttd has been mentioned but ther is also an open source one called simutrans.
peggle, lots of people like peggle, in fact popcap games in general.
If you dont mind it being kind of flaky and outdated seeming there is another bay12games one called liberal crime squad. This is the epitome of 'lets go against the norm of violent games'
getting a psx emulator like ePSX will allow you to play some of the best driving games ever made, I reccomend driver 2 and Gran Turisimo 2.
any game with sim in the name, simearth, simcity, thesims, simpicking-your-nose
Oh and I am told microsoft flight sim is pretty good and I know it has no violence or competition.
Thats all I can think of for now.
This is an old one, but it still stands as one of the best games ever designed. It's non-violent in the sense that enemies are indestructible and may only be avoided (specifically, jumped over). If you like a game that throws unique challenges with every permutation a la the Civ series, check it out.
"...and social skills are more important..."
I think you just narrowed down your gaming community to English teachers and slashdot readers.
Allucarrd: I have sword 4 sell!!!!
* System: Your social skill has decreased 5 points.
The MMO called A Tale in the Desert fits the bill very well. The level of competition varies, but it is an incredibly social game, very player driven, and requires a lot of cooperation to be successful. There is no violence of any sort, at least not when I was playing. It's the perfect environment for those people that have the urge to let their inner trade-skiller out.
http://www.atitd.com/
Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
There's your game Butters.
Find a friend with Animal Crossing whose town has a different native fruit tree (this is for the DS version)
You can get all fruits even without visiting another town. If you write letters to your neighbors that contain recognized keywords (such as "friend") and enclose a native fruit or any other cheap item, they send you something based on the length of the message. For shorter messages, this is either clothing or sometimes a foreign fruit.
But if you need help getting all fruits and a perfect town, and you have a friend code, I'd be glad to hook you up.
SeaMan on the Sega Dreamcast was non-violent and encouraged interaction, they even did a good job making the lone character in the game quite passable as a personality and worked out voice recognition fairly well, also.
id's Catacomb 3D came before Ultima Underworld: FPS History
www.everybody-dies.com
Collaborate with your partners/enemies, no visualized violence, just abstract scores.
Sure, there are plenty of cooperative, non-violent video games out there. Reader Rabbit, the entire Barney series, Mavis Beacon teaches typing, Dora the Explorer, the Barbie dress up series, there are just a few of the popular games that have sold greater than 5million titles.
None of them made any money and none are really geared for adults (with the exception of Mavis Beacon, which is for adults who don't know how to use a keyboard). Just take the brand for any popular children's show on PBS or Nickelodeon and you will find a beavy of non-violent, non-competitive titles released for it.
Real gaming is always competitive, in the sense that chess is competitive. There are always challenges to be worked out, which can be done through slick moves executed as combos, puzzle solving, outstrategizing the computer, building a fortress, developing an economy, and the like. There is no reason why games have to depend on violence to acheive this basic goal.
The reason there are few non-violent titles out there is simple. Games have to appeal to the widest possible audience to be appealing, and consumers have grown up with a set of expectations for their entertainment corresponding to Hollywood archetypes. Blowing things up, fantastic settings, oversexualized female characters, strong good guy / bad guy roles, etc. are all part of what modern audiences have been spoon fed, and this is an important step in the evolution in games. People are still not used to the idea that being able to interact with others online, solving puzzles, etc. can be rewarding in itself.
The tastes of audiences changes over time, and something tells me that 100 years from now violent games will be as alien to adult gaming audiences as Barney's Puzzle Time Theater is to them now. But right now people are still infants in the world of online gaming, and non-violent, cooperative play is something that will enjoy widespread popularity in the future moreso than today.
M
" it seems to be working" That's what we (a game developer) were told, seriously.
Having developed a co-op MMO shooting game, we were told to stop and develop an online multiplayer competitive one. Not just by our investors and industry experts, but by focus groups of 9-15 year olds. ( http://www.moondo.com ).
While we made it non-bloody and fun as possible, the result is very competitive based.
Basically, to develop a game these days you need over a million dollars -> to get that , you need to focus on a genre that sells -> most of the top-selling genres are competitive (not to say violent) , that's why you'll find very few good coop or non-violent games.
You cannot live in the world without violence. It is a childish notion and people insist that they can only charge others with using force on their behalf.
Mankind has consistently proved that as a species, we are not to be trusted with too much power. Once things get out of balance (the 20th Century is rife with examples: Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Communist China, and so on) other people have to use force to restore order.
We are a dangerous and violent species and we remain so to protect ourselves from the worst among us. Rendering yourself and or your tribe incapable or unwilling to use force is rendering your gene pool unfit and marking yourself for extinction.
Grow up and live in the world as it is - pull your weight.
There are so many real life puzzles that you can dedicate yourself to solving. The food bank, the local stream restoration group, your local university will have tones volunteer opportunities as well as your local elementary school. There are also many international projects such as Engineers Without Boarders working on clean drinking water, lighting and cooking. These projects have real story lines that effect real people and solving these real problems will introduce you to real people and make you feel real good. Be a producer not just a consumer!
In Deus Ex 2 you could complete the game without firing/using a single weapon, or killing anything, or attacking anything. It involves running a lot, and immersion is lost to too many loading zones, but it is possible.
Katamari has no killing or wealth-amassing, you just roll around a giant sticky ball and pick up anything in your path. We Love Katamari has a mode where you and a friend can cooperatively control said sticky ball and try to achieve the same objectives. This is harder than it sounds, but if it's cooperation and communication you want, this is it. As for learning, teaching, and helping others, there isn't too much of it of any real value in the Katamari series, but I still recommend it.
Also, anybody who recommended anything from Sid Meier's Civilization series for the PC was spot on. I almost never conduct wars in that game. I instead concentrate on science, culture, and exploration to a ridiculous degree. I don't get bored of it--that's the game to me. Seeing an advanced civilization that's large, learned, and wealthy is its own reward.
Rock Band seems to meet your criteria, assuming you're not tied up on the whole MMORPG thing. It can also teach you some real-life musical skills. Little big planet probably mostly qualifies as well. Assuming the occasional comic punch, or jump on the head of a cartoon enemy isn't too "violent" There's actually quite a few non violent games in general. Just not of the huge, lock you in, timesucker MMORPG type.
Everblue 2
Try Dwarf Fortress (www.bay12games.com/dwarves). There was an article about it on Slashdot a while back and I think it fits your requirements. There is very little killing, beyond hunting, little or no competition, and you are working for the benefit of your dwarves. This game is extremely complex and the dwarves all have personalities and roles. The bad thing is that I feel a little sad every time a dwarf dies and leaves behind a widow and children.
For non-violent, cooperative games, I preffer Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted. Sure, there is lots of 'kill the monster' content, but there is a HUGE crafting side to the game, for both biped and dragon players. It is possible to max crafting and dragon lairshaping without fighting, and it's possible to help others and get others to help you when you build on your own personal lair or plot. Istaria has the best crafting content I've seen in an MMORPG so far. It's a shame that the game is getting dated, and it's a shock that it's still alive after what it's been through. But it's an amazing game, and deserves more players than it actually has. The world in the game is also quite huge.
but where you instead grow by doing things that benefit others, where enemies shouldn't be killed out of hand, but befriended; where learning, teaching, research and social skills are more important than killing and conquering? Would people be interested in a game of that nature?
You've clearly never played Master of Orion. But I hate to break it to your pacifist nature, but games are almost always about controlled conflict. On second thought, I don't hate to break it to you: welcome to the Real World.
Every time I've played German boardgames in real life, backstabbing, blocking, and competition was everyone's M.O. There's some cooperation in certain games but ultimately everyone's out for themselves.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Harvest Moon is a farming sim. You're a new arrival in the village and you need to help the other villagers, integrate yourself into village life, woo a wife, etc.
There are versions for PS1 and PS2.
My wife normally hates video games, but she really liked Boom Blox for the Wii. It's mostly nonviolent (there are some levels where you shoot baseballs at ghosts with a gun) and has a pretty good multiplayer mode. Some of the multiplayer is competitive, but there is also a good amount of it that is cooperative (although frequently that cooperative means taking turns). At the very least there are so many different game modes that if you run into something you don't like it's ok, just move on to the next mode.
I read the internet for the articles.
Simulation games, puzzle games, sports games, and RPGS like Ultima 4.
I've looked for the sort of games you're talking about, and they're exceedingly rare, and yes, I would also be very interested in finding one.
Here's one in the meantime:
Based on the documentary/book series of the same name about nonviolent political struggles, A Force More Powerful: The Game of Nonviolent Strategy seems to be basically a 'sim protest'.
I don't think this really gets to the essence of 'building cooperation', but it's a start.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
"URU: Ages beyond Myst" was a really good single player game with a chilled, puzzle solving theme. I think they created an online co-op version called something like "URU online". Would be worth checking out.
On the cooperative angle, in boardgames there are a couple which are fairly unique for their cooperative (or rather, player group vs game system) mechanics: Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings, and Garry Kevin Wilson's remake of Arkham Horror.
In both, they're definitely 'war' games in that you're fighting an adversary, but the group dynamics are all about sharing resources and if necessary sacrificing for the team, and there's no 'coopetition' aspect; it's pure cooperation, either you win (and Earth does not get destroyed) or you lose (and everything's gone).
I still want to see this kind of dynamic in a nonwar scenario that represents the actual kind of challenges our world faces right now: ecological repair, economic collapse, plague, etc. Otherwise we're going to get stuck in an 'I've got my tin 'o' beans and a shotgun, I win' kind of mentality which will be very dangerous.
Being able to game through some of the possible, say, post-peak-oil scenarios and have a Sim-city or wargame type grasp of possible consequences of various policy alternatives, seems like it would be hugely valuable.
No
"Being anti-violence to the point of denying it entirely is a form of violence itself, because it takes the option (choice) away from you, which is fundamentally evil in an of itself."
Sorry, but that statement is nonsense. Violence is violence. Choosing not to be violent is the opposite of violence, not 'another form of it'.
Being anti-violence isn't some kind of fashion statement. It's a tactical choice which flows out of a deeper vision of the universe, which is that all life is connected and that ultimately living as a fulfilled human requires respect and cooperation with others.
*That* aspect, the deeper vision of cooperation, is what is missing in even 'mostly nonviolent' games - there's no sense of *working together toward a common goal*. There's no sense that people on opposite teams can even *have* a shared goal, and no way to live from that philosophy; it's instantly rejected by the game world. You kill, or you die, and those are the two verbs the game is structured around. In story-driven FPSes, you may well switch your alliegance between multiple factions, but it's usually done just to give you a change of what colour uniforms you kill.
But real people are more than killing/dying machines, and the problems we now face as a planet are far more interesting than 'kill all the guys wearing the other uniform'. In fact, it's that kind of us/them thinking which has created many of our scariest problems.
I'd like to see a game, for instance, which starts from trying to *stop* a war and goes from there.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
URU, AKA Myst Online http://www.mystonline.com/forums/index.php was a valiant attempt - twice! Featuring unparalleled graphics, an absorbing back-story, and challenging puzzles, URU offered a whole universe of destinations to explore, alone or in cooperation with others. Unfortunately, the first attempt by Ubisoft in 2003 and the second by GameTap in 2007 both met with economic failure. Speculation is rampant as to why, but each incarnation had about a years' run before it was withdrawn. Supposedly Cyan Worlds, the game's author, would consider having another run at it if sufficient financial backing could be found. Otherwise, there is a slim possibility of opening the game up to fan authors while still keeping control of content with Cyan. IMHO, this has been a major tragedy of the century in the gaming world. Walt
Dude...at the end of the day, it is a story. As a writer (and poet and game designer and musician and dungeon master and editor and a lot of other nerdy-creative crap) I can tell you first hand that a story that does not have conflict is gonna...hmmm...yawn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Sorry, what was I saying? Even Fried Green Tomatoes needed some spousal abuse and a murder with BBQ!
Tongue-in-cheekiness aside, and putting on my 'why do I really spend that much time thinking about such pointless crap' hat, I really can't think of a compelling theory. I have written role-playing modules that follow your premise: they are VERY well received by a VERY limited audience, but for the larger poulation as a whole they seem to...hmm...yawn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Sorry!
I get your point. I will play Tetris for too many hours and there is nothing to "beat" there (other than my own score...and I wonder if it didn't track that and if there wasn't that conflict to upset the current-self with my future-much-higher-score-self, would it be as engaging?) and the whole notion and concept I am behind you 110%.
Just write me a story that has absolutely no conflict, is 100% about co-operation and...hmm...yawn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In the late 90s a company called Purple Moon released several games aimed at tweener girls which emphasized cooperation over conflict. Some of the titles were "Rocket's New School" and "Secret Paths in the Forest"
They were fairly popular for a short time, due in part to their early social website. However the company didn't have the funds to market extensively, never made a profit and had to fold their operations.
I'm a little surprised that SL is not better represented in the comments here. I guess it depends on what your definition of "Game" is.
For the serious social interaction while still a game with rules and stuff, there are all the Nomic variants on various mailing lists.
I wonder too about the same thing. A non-violent cooperative game.
I played a MMORPG which was great, it was roleplaying and fun. Then it got gradually worse with cheaters, pking, power abusing, people who bought chars, etc.
I jokingly said that I would develop and MMORPG where everyone is the same level, so everyone is equal. I joked about it making some hippie MMORPG. :D
I also joked about an MMORPG where you get exp (experience points) for hugging other players, cuddling with animals, baking pies, having picnics, etc.
Coming into this topic a little bit late, so I'm sure this comment will be pretty well buried but if your mainly looking for games that are not all about killing monsters and gaining power, points, etc you should look into adventure games.
Take the DS game hotel dusk for example. No one to kill, no monsters, no competition. It's a story, and you lead the main character through the events of that story. You get to the end of the story and you win.
If you looking for something multi-player and cooperative things get more difficult, but if you just want something different from the standard RPG grind or mindless FPS, games that are interesting, with a story, and where your success is due to thinking, creative reasoning, learning, exploration and a small amount of social skills (where how you treat others in the game does matter) adventure games are just the thing.
They are not so common anymore (however there are few good ones for the DS), but the adventure games of old are worth looking into (like books - when the story is what matters, age doesn't matter much) although the amount of fighting involved might vary a bit with some. I suggest a copy of dosbox and a few of the lucus arts classic adventures (loom, monkey island, zak mccracken, etc). If your not put off by the concept of violence in general, and just don't want that to be the whole focus of the game I'd also look into games like the first gabriel knight, and the first phantasmagoria. For (relatively) modern PC games check out the longest journey, syberia, and even fahrenheit (the censored US version is called indigo prophecy).
There's a game called Myst Online Uru Live. You explore worlds, there's a great storyline (which you can effect), you solve puzzles alone or with friends... really good game.
WAS. It was cancelled last year. Too high expectations, less players, lower quality because of less players, even more less players, and than BOOM! closed down. Second time.
But there's a chance the game will return. We just need more support. If you like great community, puzzles and exploration, you can join the forums at http://www.mystonline.com/forums/index.php .
Baldur's Gate. The Big Bad is trying to engineer a war by manipulating local power blocs; your mission is to prevent this. Among a few other things.
There's a mod for Baldur's Gate 2 which imports the game data from the original and lets you play it using the BG2 engine. Much better, since BG2 supports higher screen resolutions. You should be able to find the whole saga right through to Throne of Bhaal for pretty cheap now. See you in, oh... April.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This one is really cool, so called edutaiting... http://www.powerupthegame.org/ alas, windows only =(
A game just like that is the entire Myst series, where there's no killing and all that stuff; the point of the game is to explore, study what you find, understand what you have to do and solving puzzles.
MYST
Medieval life simulation with great 3D graphics. Unique blend of RPG, strategy and business simulation. Four different character classes with specific abilities and advantages, from honest craftsman to fierce rogue...10 different professions, including alchemist, smith and rogue, countless titles, elected positions and benefits. The game had immense depth and lots of means to succeed in life without bashing people or monsters. There are some game flaws, but it has been completely playable. Online forums answer those questions not covered in the manual. Playable learning embedded in game is usable. Get The Guild 2 Gold for $20 and download the 2.1 patch. This is what I am using and enjoying.
Sorry I'm anonymous--I'm (gasp) not a slashdot member and actually heard about this discussion on another forum, and rushed over to throw in my own two cents ;).
Unfortunately the pop-media culture of games today is violence personified, especially in the MMO world.
I HAVE however found 2 MMOs which are indeed both nonviolent and cooperative. One is the aforementioned Puzzle Pirates--a fun little casual game. Technology-wise, it's nothing on par with games like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, and while nonviolent, my own experience was that it was just as repetitive and "grind-based" as W.O.W. and similar games.
The other MMO was "Myst Online: Uru Live" (not sure if that's been mentioned yet, there's a lot of comments to read through here). It had beautiful graphics, genius puzzles, and best of all, an on-going persistent story that was universal to the game world, not repeatable by character the way most MMOs are. It was also completely cooperative and non-violent. As an MMO it was definitely something completely new and different. Unfortunately I've been speaking in the past tense for a reason--MO:UL was cancelled last April due to the fact that not enough people were playing it for it to make enough of a profit for the publisher to want to continue.
That last part, in and of itself, is a basic statement of your problem. Yes, there ARE people who make cooperative non-violent games. The big problem is that only a small but dedicated elite core group play them. The fact that most gamers are more interested in killing something on the screen then they are in experiencing a new and versatile form of art has been a huge ball-and-chain on the games-as-art argument for years now.
On the bright side, I see more nonviolent story-oriented games on store shelves today then I have in the recent past. Puzzle/story adventure games are making a valiant pseudo-successful effort to come back as a popular genre. I still have hopes that the computer game industry can still be turned around. Hopefully someday we'll see another MMO like Myst Online (maybe a return of that game itself as well), but unfortunately for people like you and I, I don't think that day is particularly soon and it won't happen at all without considerable effort on our part.
Just my two cents ;)
--Storygamer
(http://storygamer.blogspot.com)
Hello Kitty Island Adventure.