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?"
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.
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/
... 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.
much like the real world, it won't get you very far.
Part of the allure of MMORPGs is the accumulation of wealth and the feeling of dominance and superiority. Most of the older gamers that feel the need to create a sense of community, or contribute to a common goal are usually doing so within a guild/group, and competing with other groups. This appeals to another part of the human psyche, the need to establish an out-group, and to be better than the opposition!
There are games for younger children which don't incorporate violence, and encourage good skills - but they're marketed to parents, not to children, and usually aren't that much fun.
So, whether or not there is a market for such games, I don't know. But I do get the sense that the target audience doesn't have the buying power, and the people who would purchase these games are already purchasing other educational and boring games.
So, if you're not a child, why would you want to immerse yourself in a world where you help people? If you are that sort of person, you probably realize that your time would be better spent actually helping people in real life. And if helping is really that important to you... well, you're probably not playing videogames in your spare time, anyways.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Having spent quite a few hours playing LBP with 4 players I can straight off say that your post is completely off base. The one point you did get is the control scheme, it is certainly flaky, and could use a bit of work.
There is very little competitive content, the only actual competition going on is a race to see who can get the most points. The reward is a little trophy over your head in the last 5 seconds of the match. That said, it is without argument to your advantage to help the other players out. Not only does letting them die waste lives from the general pool, but also there are more than a few points where the camera will decide to focus on the lagging player, killing anyone who gets too far by off screen timer.
Then there is the killing monsters thing. There are maybe 20 or 30 killable monsters in the game, usually used to give you a moving obstacle that you can use as a platform to jump higher. These "monsters" look like something you'd put together from the spare parts in a kid's toy-box, which is quite obviously the theme they were going for in this game.
So yes, while the game does not quite meet the qualifications the article stated, it is certainly a lot more cooperative than what you described. As for obligatory "I'm with the in group" quip. I am a Slashdotter, I care about freedom, and I own a PS3. Just because a company is willing to take steps to protect their investments, does not mean I should deprive myself of enjoyment on the argument that it might, in some roundabout way, reduce the freedoms that everyone enjoys. If you do not want Sony to own your levels, don't post any, or play offline. Magically, the problem goes away. And before you go off on the tried and true, "You're a fanboy, you wouldn't understand." I own every single current gen console, with plenty of games for each, and I do most of my gaming on my PC. I also work for a company with some stake in the 360, so if anything I would be rooting for it.
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.