We’re concerned about Nature. We strive to preserve what’s left of our flora and fauna. So Zodiac Eclipse over at Destructoid wonders why we’re always killing animals in our games.
Not monstrous ones; the ordinary critters like bears, wolves, snakes and the like. He uses Lord Of The Rings Online as his example, but almost any RPG would serve as well.
We’re always encouraged to kill animals. NPCs task us with bringing back pelts, claws, and whatnot. Why? Well, it’s something to do that will reward us with money and experience.
When buzzing around the outdoors, we’re sure to come across some den or lair with animals inside. They’re not bothering us; they’re sticking to their home ground. But we go in and wipe them out anyway. After all, we’ll gain experience, and very likely, some Good Stuff, too.
This isn’t the same as the man-eating tiger/bear/giant snake that’s an actual menace. A creature that’s really dangerous to the population should be removed. However, that’s one animal.
We wipe out everything. So maybe it’s not surprising that all the predator-types always attack. They know we won’t leave them alone, that we’re going to chop them up the first chance we get.
In reality, of course, it’s the game designers who set this up – and we go along with it. We receive all sorts of benefits for these massacres, and nothing else matters. Hey, we’re out here to save the world, so whatever we do is a Right Thing.
Suppose it were different? What if invading some animal’s home and killing it (or them) brought no rewards? No experience, no loot? What if you didn’t get anything for killing animals in the wild that weren’t bothering you?
Would you go ahead and take them down anyway? Or would you leave them alone, because there’s nothing to be gained from their destruction? And would there be any reason at all to include natural animals in a game, if they didn’t provide some reward?
i think some would take a couple down just for the contest but after a few and no rewards, treasure or xp you’d stop bothering.
much like when you were fighting on lvl 8 or 9 of Wiz I, you just ran by all the monsters on lvl 1 cause it was just an ineffectent waste of your time. get deeper kill bigger stuff for MORE xp MORE loot.
The minute I see this post, and then I see James Malisewzski’s post on how there are too many monsters in D&D.
Perhaps great minds do think alike.
At least in WoW, there were never any quests that I am aware of to kill the less dangerous animals. Wolves, boars, bears, giant spiders, and tigers were fair game, but not the rabbits, deer, and squirrels.
One you leveled up the lower level creatures wouldn’t bother to attack you, for instance you could walk right up to a level 1 wolf if you were level 20 and it wouldn’t react. It might be satisfying to kill with one blow what used to take you ten hits to kill, but I would guess that would get old fast since you would not gain any type of reward.
Hmmm. I must check out that post, T-Boy. Thanks for the link.
Xian, interesting about WOW. Although I’d expect the wolf to run; most wild animals, predators or not, wouldn’t stand around waiting for you to approach. Still, a nice feature there.
Ag, yeah, but now you’re killing off all the predators, what’s gonna keep the veggie eaters from a population explosion? ;)
“…but now you’re killing off all the predators, what’s gonna keep the veggie eaters from a population explosion?”
Seriously, I’d like to see consequences in games. Our actions – all of them – should have consequences. But, of course, most games are set in a medieval environment, where every wolf would be killed, as a matter of course (just like in ranching country today). And there wouldn’t be an explosion in the population of deer, because they’d also be targeted by humans (no game laws).
I’d like to see consequences, but I see nothing wrong in targeting wild animals in RPGs. In those times, pelts, meat, and other items were valuable resources. That’s realistic. And hunting was pretty good experience for warfare, too. Nothing surprising about that, is there? I’d save the long-term consequences for Civilization-style (or Dwarf Fortress-style) strategy games. They have more of a long-term focus.
Scorpia, your population comments remind me of the pre-release dynamic ecology promises of Ultima Online, where hungry dragons would attack towns if you thinned out their food supply. Of course it never worked because the players were like locusts destroying everything in sight.
There’s probably an even more uncomfortable question here: Why do we slaughter for fun anyway? The game industry has had a love affair with alien and goblin genocide for ages. It’s even worse when we give them complex characterization and societies! What does that say about us as players?
I love RPGs but this has always bugged me. The only thing I can say is (to steal from designer Greg Costikyan) better we beat things with our naked minds than our naked fists.
I can point out a recent example: Drakensang. I just played the Blood Mountains section this weekend. This area is littered (literally) with boars, bears, wolves, giant fireflies, gaint toads, and cutthroats. Only a few of these things actually award XP. Those that do, generally only award 1 or 2 points per party member. Yet, they still ALWAYS attack if you get close enough. They can’t be avoided AND they respawn pretty quickly. I estimate I’ve killed around 35-42 cutthroats, and that was AFTER I eliminated their leader. The animal totals are probably the same or higher.
Skinning the animals yields components for crafting. Some, like bears, drop crafting components as regular loot. However, if killing the animals provided no benefit, why should they even be included in the game? There’s at least some effort that is made to create the renderable objects, make them move around, and ultimately fight. When you remove one of those things (fighting), what incentive is their to put a lot of time into the other two? They become scenery.
SIDE NOTE: The worst part of the Blood Mountains area of Drakensang is that the designers turned what should have been a story-based moral decision into a party mechanics based one. Want training in some spells and archery, then you better side with Faction A. Want training with melee weapons? Then you better side with Faction B. I wanted to side with Faction A due to the story, but unfortunately, my party benefited more by joining Faction B. Horrible setup. :(
Scorpia, what do you think of this list? And which games would you add to it in the 11th to 20th slots if you were to extend it to 20?
10 Games that Won’t Die!
1. Diablo II
2. MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries
3. People’s General
4. StarCraft
5. Fallout
6. Baldur’s Gate (and BG2)
7. WarCraft III
8. Battlefield 1942
9. Freelancer
10. Allegiance
Xian, WoW may not have quests to kill rabbits, deer, squirrels, and cows too, but there are incentives to do so. These critters are very useful for novice skinners to level their skill, plus the resulting skins can be sold on the AH for decent coin for a low level character. Skinning near Goldshire is one of the best ways for a new solo character to make money (assuming no guild, friends, or main as a source of funds).
High level characters will often one-shot the harmless low level fauna in passing in the hopes of getting a crit to see the damage. This is done as a quick check of their build and equipment.
The designers put the animals in the games to be killed — there’s no punishment for doing so. Having the real-world animals allows the fantasy elements to represent a variant of our own earth, thus more familiar than a completely alien ecosystem. That’s how Tolkien’s fantasy world was constructed, and as we know, most fantasy game ultimately derive from that.
Since combat is already implemented, it’s easiest to just apply it to harmless fauna, as opposed to having to design some other non-combat action.
Games are still stuck in the rut created 30 years ago when it was easier to code combat calculations than other behaviors. The role-playing stuff was hard, but all those programmers looking at pencil-and-paper game rules and combat tables thought “I can code that!” Only a few people, such as Chris Crawford (recently maligned by someone in this forum), attempted to apply the same degree of algorithmic complexity to non-combat behavior.
It’s encouraging though, that processors have gotten powerful enough for us to move beyond combat, like with the game Flower.
@Wavinator: I remember, once, long ago, when I was a wee lad, playing RetroMUD and attempting to pathetically roleplay, when I realized:
Holy crap, we, as the players, (the so-called “Chosen Ones”) basically went around murdering crap just… because we were compelled to. We weren’t able to interact with the world in any meaningful way, but we knew, from the flavor text, that there were people there, crowds of people, and we just… walked through them like a fog.
I spent the next two weeks in that game “roleplaying” a guy who kept going, “We’re a plague! A plague!”