OT: Will anyone ever create a game...

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PvK:
The whole Sim series (Earth, Ant, etc).

SimAnt was noncombat? I seem to remember the joy of hopping into a Soldier and leading your team to search-and-destroy the enemy queen, and building chokepoints out of rocks, and other such combative tactics.

Then again, maybe I'm just one of those people who can turn anything into a battle.

[Argitoth]

Well I guess it's come to the conclusion it's either strategy or MMORPG genre.

Remember Gandalf, I is talking about multiplayer/Online games, so Sims games won't cut it. MUDs wont really do the trick either because I cannot stand text-based games. They is not for me and a lot other people are turned off by them

I can tolerate SOME MUDs where the graphics are made up of numbers, letters, and cymbols...

Edit: Oh yes, and this thread is NOT just about me.

[ March 09, 2004, 03:15: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

[Demosthenes]

I was a beta-tester and now have a lifetime membership to There. It is more of an Online community than a game, but there is certainly no combat (except paintball for sport) and people have all kinds of strategies to make money and gain popularity and stuff. I haven't checked in in quite a while, but for a while I thought it was pretty freakin' neat. Happy Place.

http://www.there.com

[Karacan]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

King of Dragons Pass (an excellent example)

You mean there's a multiplayer Version floating around somewhere? Me wants! Me wants!

It's not really non-combat, though...


Anyway, not to flame you Argitoth, but the majority of people looking for more or less noncombat multiplayer games are usually those that can put up with pure text-based things, too (I for one wouldn't be able to stand a MUD with ASCII-graphics...) - that's my experience at least, and obviously the one from most gamedevelopers, too.

I heared of this Desert Tale thing, too... sounded horribly interesting, actually - people competed with each other for the gods' favour by fulfilling specific quests once a week, like putting up the most impressive firework, or building fantastic statues, designing gardens to their gods' likening, etc... all from a *ton* of variables. Entirely no-combat, though, as far as I understood. Ah, just found the link: www.ataleinthedesert.com ... if anyone gets to play it, let me know.


Anyway, why not just play Black & White? It's much more fun playing multiplayer than singleplayer, and you can win over enemy villages by having your big monster cuddle the inhabitants. It even has decent graphics, especially for its time - I still think they're good, but then again, I am not much of a graphics addict.

[Argitoth]

As I look for an exceptional non-combat system, if there is no combat at all, it makes the game just as bad as a non-combat game IMO.

[ March 09, 2004, 13:26: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

[Leif_-]

Originally posted by Argitoth:
As I look for an exceptional non-combat system, if there is no combat at all, it makes the game just as bad as a non-combat game IMO.

Alpha Centauri would fit the bill - if your playstyle is low focus on combat and military strength.

[mivayan]

I played A Tale in the Desert a bit around a year ago. It is entirely non-combat except for a few small minigames. You cut grass, chop wood, grow garlic, raise sheep, build pottery stuff, grow flax and turn it into thread and canvas, make firebricks, build mines and greenhouses, crossbreed beetles etc. Since the available level of technology is increasing there are probably lots of other stuff that can be done now that were not available then.

The game is supposed to run on a cycle, when the combined efforts of the players have completed the big goal, the game will start over. The cycle is 1-2 years I think.

I quit because of several reasons:
You dont get to kill stuff and take their loot, which I find fun to do in games. Most of the 'tests' that you can pass in the game are in competition with other players, like 'build a bigger obelisk than anyone nearby ever has'. The tests have only minor game-play benefits but they are the only big visible goals the game gives you. It got boring for me since I did not socialize a lot with other people.

Edit: It kind of reminded me of the old game serf city (settlers I) where you build an economy with the help of hundreds of little serfs. The main difference is that in a tale in the desert you play one of the serfs.

[ March 09, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: mivayan ]

[Unwise]

Many (but not most) games can be "won" through non-combat means, even multi-player ones. I once won a Civ3 game without ever actually engaging in combat.

Star Wars Galaxies, poor as it is, allows you to play a character with practically nill combat skills. In fact, it encourages it. When I was beta-testing the game I played an artisan character to very high levels who never once fired a gun in anger or otherwise.

In fact, I'd wager that almost every "new genration" MMORPG offers a greater or lesser facility for non-combat progression... even if the stuff you create is generally used in combat by other people.

[mr.white]

I tried out some Muds a while back...there was one where a few classes could get xp without fighting. It was a lot of fun at first to play a necromancer stalking high-level parties to steal the corpses of their kills But in the end sitting around for ages waiting for a crafting timer to reach zero is just boring...and I'm not sure how you could do non-combat stuff without something like that.

Of course, combat can be like this too depending on the game. I've heard good things about Final Fantasy XI's combat though.

Not that I've been playing much MMoRPGs lately.

How about this?
http://ukosite.jolt.co.uk/imprunner.html

Peaceful competition to beat other people's highscores I had a lot of fun with it anyway...more than some games I've paid for.