NPCs - To kill or not to kill?

MeridianFlight

MeridianFlight

New Member
I've broached the subject on this videogame board in part because a large majority of the gamers here on Christians. I know if I were to post this on 1 UP or other secular gaming boards the response would overwhelmingly be "ANNIHILATE THE (Insert favored obscenity here)!!!"

I was curious as to how other Christian gamers acted against Non Playable Characters when presented with the option of sparing them. Obviously, in many action titles, including FPS games, your primary objective may very well be to obliterate the enemy, so this option isn't terribly prevalent. However, there are exceptions, with Deus Ex: Invisible War being one of them. Since very few people have played that game and are likely unfamiliar with it, I'll use a more conspicuous example, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.

In Chaos Theory, it isn't always necessary to kill NPCs (some level sections go a step further and don't allow you to). When you sneak up on a NPC in the game and restrain him, you have the option of killing him or inducing involuntary sleep. Which option do you choose? Do you kill him so in the event the body is found they can't be revived, or do you do it just for fun? Do you spare the guard, sending them into a state of unconsciousness?

Of course this option isn't limited to Chaos Theory. There are several games where you can avoid killing NPCs, should you so choose. In fact, you can play all of Deus Ex: Invisible War without killing a single NPC. Admittedly, this route presents a greater challenge in completing the game. The fact that the option is there though, presents an interesting approach to playing the game.

So would you spare some NPCs, any NPCs, when presented with the option? Undoubtedly the argument that "those dudes are just pixels, AI, who cares? Kill 'em all! Go make Oatmeal with Quakers!" will arise, but I don't believe that to be valid. Your behavior against the computer reflects, somewhat, your behavior concerning everything else. Videogames provide an escape, but do you completely abandon your ideology while playing? (This is perhaps another argument).

Well, how do you play?
 
Resident Evil: Outbreak File #2 has Unlockable NPC's. So, naturally, I use the NPC's since their alot better looking and better equiped than the normal characters.

Example: George, George:B & George:C

George has a old brown suit and pants with black shoes.
George:B has a yellow raincoat and on the back says, "Raccoon Volunteer Corps" (RVC).
George:C has a blue-ish/white surgery clothes, however, I do not have it unlockable.

I would kill the NPC's or let them get killed if they cannot defend/protect/fight off/do their objectives themselves.

Such as when its me and 2 CPU NPC's in a scenario, as obvious, the CPU's have never been good in this game, so they would waste ammo, wont heal themselves when dying, and even get killed when the game is on infinity ammo!. Which from that point, I would think, "Ah, forget them!"

That's why I prefer human players since they are alot smarter than CPUs and fairly wise when saving ammo, healing themselves, fighting off zombies, etc.
 
For me i would have to say that it really depends on the game. For a war game such as Medal of Honor or what have you, I usually go out of my way to protect the npcs, sometimes spending way more time then I normally would because I quickload when they die so i can try again. In Splinter Cell I usually for the non lethal aproach unless it's hard to do it without killing them or its a special occasion, such as those guys who are torturing the hostage in Chaos Theory, I killed them. With games that give you a good/evil choice I usually play throught it the first time as a good guy and the second time i play evil. I actually own Invisible War, and I played through it like three times. The last time I played it, I went through it as a homicidal maniac and killed everyone I could. Frankly, I was disappointed by the lack of consequences for doing so.
 
Well, most of the time I'll spare them. For games were my actions can affect the path of the games i.e. Deus Ex and KOTOR I and II I normally play as a good guy first and spare all the people I can. Then once I beat it I'll play as a bad guy and leave death and destruction in my wake.
 
I play based on what my character should do. In most RPGs, I play a good or neuutral character first and a bad character after that. So my answer is much like the one above.
 
Hmm...very fascinating. So some of you will play through an RPG as both good and evil characters. Does playing as the evil character for 35 plus hours (using KotOR as a measuring stick for time) begin to wear on anyone? Does anyone feel guilty for constantly making evil decisions, or is it just game, and a different way to play through?
 
I've never felt guilty. It's probably not good. That means I'm completely desensitized to violence in games. I would never do something such as rape another character, though, even in a video game. But when it comes to killing/murder, it just seems so... accepted. :(
 
I almost never feel guilty, though sometimes a really evil decision comes up that i just don't feel like doing. But that's the exception rather than the rule. for example im kotor I wouldn't kill the rakghoul victims 'cus it was really evil and they were about to die anyway. on the other hand (possible spoilers) I immensly enjoyed using force persuade to make zaalbar kill mission. I was really evil, but I hated mission anyway. It cracked me up, I think that was my favorite evil moment ever. (end spoilers) In general, while there may be a few exceptions, being evil is just another style of play to me.
 
It's just a game, if I commit an evil deed in a game, it'll probalby be humorous to me rather than offensive, because I would never do something so vile in real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top