Design Intensive to Kill

[CloseRange]

I'm in need of ideas. In my game enemies will never attack you unless you attack first.
I do this because I want it to be possible to beat the game without killing anything (like a pacifist run) though of course I want it to be a lot harder to win that way.

As of right now there are no benefits to killing the enemy so it is very easy so if anyone has any ideas on what I can do it would be extremely appreciated.

 

[woodsmoke]

Have the enemys call you names and bully you. (making it psychologically difficult)

Enemys give you a quest (puzzle?) to pass a gate. Or you fight them (boss battle) to get the key.

 

[DukeSoft]

 

[Yal]

As of right now there are no benefits to killing the enemy so it is very easy so if anyone has any ideas on what I can do it would be extremely appreciated.

Add benefits for killing enemies? That's how most games do it, including games that want you to take a pacifist route like Undertale. If you have to actively avoid getting these rewards, and the game is balanced around obtaining the rewards, you're making the game harder for yourself by playing as a pacifist. Problem solved.

 

[r7465]

Maybe make a small pit where an enemy is sleeping and you need to either wait or shoot- just not be able to move past it.

And also an enemy that gives you a better weapon/inventory item when killed

Last but not least, an enemy that heads towards you but he does no harm unless he's in "aggressive" mode.

Additionally- make benefits from killing. Maybe make a kill-all mode or just a simple enemy that if you kill him and finish the game without dying once before the last level you encounter some sort of special boss...? That would add a reason to replay it.

 

[GMWolf]

Simple:
Add xp and levels. The more 'enemies' you kill, the more powerful your player grows.
As you progress through the game, enemies get harder to kill. (Unless you level up)
Any game-literate player will have the urge to kill as many 'enemies' as possible to level up.

Only by the end will the player realize all enemies where actually passive unless engaged.

The difficulty here is not from the game being more difficult as as you progress, sice you dont have to engage in battle. Instead it is from resisting the gaming urges of progressing your character.


On top of that, you could make some items obtainable through two means: either quest completion, or battle.
Somehow you need to make both choices prevalent, but make battle more apealing, by making the quest increadibly mundane. (Like a search and retrieve quest).
If course having boring quests would make the pacifist route boring, so you could make the quests degenerate into something more exciting. For instance, the item isnt where it was supposed to be, and so you have to solve puzzles, etc.

 

[Hyomoto]

Something that is often glossed over about Undertale is the enemies DO attack you, and for this you potentially have justification for your actions. The monsters of the Undertale world are motivated to kill you. It's through understanding, making friends and non-violence that you try to show them another way. But make no mistake, if you do not actively fight for your survival: they will kill you. The idea that you don't have to fight in Undertale is wrong, you most certainly DO have to fight: rather you can wear down your enemies resolve to murder you and befriend them in lieu of reciprocating their violence. In fact, if you played that game and came to the conclusion that they were justified in their actions and you were the monster: you've actually experienced the Stockholm syndrome. You are a lost child. Make no mistake, you are not showing Mercy on them, you are asking for Mercy.

So to get back to your question, if you can complete the game without killing the enemies and it's easier to do so: why would you fight the enemies? If they pose no threat, there is literally no reason for the player to kill them outside of maybe lulz. Instead, perhaps most enemies are 'neutral' and don't actually attack you, but will call for reinforcements that do. Do you kill them to make things a little easier on yourself? Or do you risk being seen and putting yourself in danger for an NPC you don't know and have no investment in? Perhaps if you kill a lot of them, the neutral NPCs start to be swapped out with ones that attack on sight. You could even invert the difficulty curve this way. If the game is particularly difficult early on, it would definitely encourage the player to do it to proceed, but the later levels that would have been easier with neutral NPCs are no much harder because you have NPCs actively seeking you out. You then have to weigh whether or not killing someone, because it's easy now, is worth turning the world against you. In this way the player can choose to front load their agony, whereas if they take the 'easy way' and kill, the game is now harder where once it would not have been. I don't know if that is a good system, but it does feature 'enemies' that don't explicitly harm you and represent a soft dilemma.

 

[Yal]

In this way the player can choose to front load their agony, whereas if they take the 'easy way' and kill, the game is now harder where once it would not have been. I don't know if that is a good system,

One benefit is that the players getting practice from killing easy targets will make them apter at killing harder targets later, at least in theory, so you get a self-balanced difficulty curve. It's harder to make stealth ramp up in the same way, though, since you can't just tweak the numbers and call it a day once your spreadsheet is happy.

Some recommended videos: