Genuinely confused about going non lethal

[Slippery Williams]

If you are playing the morality card of ‘not all nazis were bad and were remorseful etc’ I can sort of understand that logic, but if they want to give us that kind of ‘real world morality and consequences’ thing, wouldn’t the consequence of leaving Nazis alive in the first mission just mean they are going to have more men to gun down the allies when they advance on the beach?

I’m fine just popping any unconscious Nazis in the head but the issue that does affect gameplay is they put the non lethal mines in there, taking up a slot I could of used for the very useful trip and S mines from 4.

I’m just going to put it down to the devs just being ‘oh gamers being non lethal in stealth games is popular so that’s what we will put in our games’ and just being a bit dense to the whole sympathise with Nazis thing.

What’s the reason they suddenly decided to let you just pacify them? Aside from the above idea I don’t get it

[hog_jockey]

Wilku21 eredeti hozzászólása:

hog_jockey eredeti hozzászólása:

Nope, haven't seen it, and don't care. When I play a Sniper Elite game, I'm only interested in killing nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi.

Then kill them, nobody stops you

Just a short while ago, I fired up Sniper Elite 4 and killed about 100 nazis. I genuinely hope that makes you upset. ^_^

[Pharmacy Princess]

What nazis? All I see are wehrmacht soldiers

[hog_jockey]

pioneer eredeti hozzászólása:

What nazis? All I see are wehrmacht soldiers

I do not care about--nor will I ever acknowledge--the difference. Their brains all splatter on the walls just as effectively.

[Mandalore]

Non lethal option is completely dumb and should be removed. There are no " capture " missions in the entire game ( I have finished it already ), so the entire point of non-lethal is completely stupid.

Please remove non-lethal ammo from the game Dev's, or give us an actual gameplay reason to use it.

The " distraction mines " are also a complete let down from the S mine. However, I have found certain situations where a " timed " distraction mine has come in handy, but ulltimately only in 5% of situations.

Idea: Remove non-lethal ammo and give us more ammo capacity for other ammo types.

[Smokedice]

it basically turns the game into....Dishonored??! You even get the little stealth/lethal/nonlethal/assault grid after each mission like a high chaos/low chaos system but seemingly no affect on the following levels...

[startrekmike]

I don't get why this is such a controversial thing. The developers clearly observed that non-lethal playthroughs are a common thing in the stealth genre and as such, they found a way to fit that into this one as a option for players that wish to take advantage of it. The fact that it is 100% optional and its inclusion doesn't really change the fact that you can very much kill every soldier/officer you see in the same way you could in all the other games in the serious.

To be blunt. This is a non-issue that people seem to really want to make into a big one for no real reason.

As far as I can tell. This is really a case where the mere presence of a non-lethal option (even though it is entirely optional) seems to cause some degree of very personal offense and to be blunt, it is pretty weird. There was even a Youtuber that was linked on this forum not long ago that was practically foaming at the mouth while telling the audience how much he enjoys killing the Nazis in the game and how the inclusion of the non-lethal option is somehow the developers way of advocating for the Nazi regime or some such nonsense.

Here is the thing. Sniper Elite 5 is a stealth game that fits into a ecosystem of a lot of other stealth games (Splinter Cell, Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, Dishonored, etc). Some of those stealth games provide a non-lethal option only because players might want to try to do a run where they only kill the specified targets. The non-lethal option is a tool you can use to achieve that goal and it makes sense that the developers would add it.

It isn't hard to figure out. I have no idea why people are making this into any kind of a big deal. It is just absurd.

[astrofelix59]

OrangeBoxCat eredeti hozzászólása:

some enemy story make me "this guy not deserve to die" like 2 guy i read his story "he is kind , everyone like him" or "he just got a newborn baby" so ok I'm use non-lethal style at them

but one of them when I read his story...I shot him without thinking
"he hate cat and shot them if the on his way"
you can meet this terrible guy near extraction point of mission 2 (white shirt soldier on clift)

There's one in another game you can hear say "I think I'll get a kitten when all this is over"
I really hated killing him ... Every time.

[DarkFire]

startrekmike eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't get why this is such a controversial thing. The developers clearly observed that non-lethal playthroughs are a common thing in the stealth genre and as such, they found a way to fit that into this one as a option for players that wish to take advantage of it. The fact that it is 100% optional and its inclusion doesn't really change the fact that you can very much kill every soldier/officer you see in the same way you could in all the other games in the serious.

To be blunt. This is a non-issue that people seem to really want to make into a big one for no real reason.

As far as I can tell. This is really a case where the mere presence of a non-lethal option (even though it is entirely optional) seems to cause some degree of very personal offense and to be blunt, it is pretty weird. There was even a Youtuber that was linked on this forum not long ago that was practically foaming at the mouth while telling the audience how much he enjoys killing the Nazis in the game and how the inclusion of the non-lethal option is somehow the developers way of advocating for the Nazi regime or some such nonsense.

Here is the thing. Sniper Elite 5 is a stealth game that fits into a ecosystem of a lot of other stealth games (Splinter Cell, Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, Dishonored, etc). Some of those stealth games provide a non-lethal option only because players might want to try to do a run where they only kill the specified targets. The non-lethal option is a tool you can use to achieve that goal and it makes sense that the developers would add it.

It isn't hard to figure out. I have no idea why people are making this into any kind of a big deal. It is just absurd.

I agree entirely with this. The *option* of acting non-lethally has existed in first / third person stealth game since the genre was invented by the first Thief game all the way back in 1998. Acting non-lethally has always been a feature of such games and has pretty much always been an option. Nobody is forced to make use of it so I find complaints about it to be without much merrit.

I also like that the developers attempt to humanise some of the German soldiers in the game. It adds an interesting moral dilemma for those who wish to engage with it: taking out a soldier who's bio states that he's memorised Mein Kampf, or one who delights in reporting people to the SS, is very easy. Taking out Herman who hates the war and just wants to get home to look after his fish, or Barnard who's just been sent a cake by his mother for his birthday... not necessarily so easy.

Finally, from a coldly tactical perspective the non-lethal takedowns also tend to be quieter and are therefore less likely to result in detection by the enemy. 'Ghosting' a map has also been a staple test of personal skill and a measure of satisfaction in stealth games since the genre was first invented.

As for the youtube clown who sought to somehow conflate non-lethal takedowns with support for fascism - that unfortunately speaks volumes about his intellectual abilities, or complete lack thereof.

[astrofelix59]

Non lethal rounds because of the target bios, last game had same bios but no way not to kill. Why do one without the other, people probably said some things.
Anyway haven't got time to adjudicate, he may have a baby on the way but he may have pulled the trigger on some civilian locals too or he may go on to kill 10 allies all with babies on the way. They will shoot on sight without question, my job is to clear a path and I don't like the idea if one is revived and shoots me in the back. I don't feel the need to be the bigger man here, I'm just playing by their rules. A bullet to the brain solves all conundrums, plus the lower ranks can be a bit flighty, so run up the pirate flag and spread the word.
Aside from everything else, Pixel Lives Don't Matter you weirdo's.

[Beegrene]

I just genuinely don't understand the purpose of non-lethal options. I just finished the game and I couldn't tell any meaningful difference between incapacitated and dead. In Metal Gear Solid 5 it made sense because capturing enemy soldiers was a major part of the game, but here it feels pointless. Besides, why would I *not* want to kill a nazi?

[Spill]

opens for a non lethal playthrough, why not
doubt ill do it, but each their own
non letal is quieter so there is that

[[HPC] Crplsteve]

*Laughs in no survivors*

[GroovyHobo]

startrekmike eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't get why this is such a controversial thing. The developers clearly observed that non-lethal playthroughs are a common thing in the stealth genre and as such, they found a way to fit that into this one as a option for players that wish to take advantage of it. The fact that it is 100% optional and its inclusion doesn't really change the fact that you can very much kill every soldier/officer you see in the same way you could in all the other games in the serious.

To be blunt. This is a non-issue that people seem to really want to make into a big one for no real reason.

As far as I can tell. This is really a case where the mere presence of a non-lethal option (even though it is entirely optional) seems to cause some degree of very personal offense and to be blunt, it is pretty weird. There was even a Youtuber that was linked on this forum not long ago that was practically foaming at the mouth while telling the audience how much he enjoys killing the Nazis in the game and how the inclusion of the non-lethal option is somehow the developers way of advocating for the Nazi regime or some such nonsense.

Here is the thing. Sniper Elite 5 is a stealth game that fits into a ecosystem of a lot of other stealth games (Splinter Cell, Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, Dishonored, etc). Some of those stealth games provide a non-lethal option only because players might want to try to do a run where they only kill the specified targets. The non-lethal option is a tool you can use to achieve that goal and it makes sense that the developers would add it.

It isn't hard to figure out. I have no idea why people are making this into any kind of a big deal. It is just absurd.

A lot of people today have been raised with no nuance. A mentality of "either you're with me or you're against me. Either you're with me or a fascist."

DarkFire eredeti hozzászólása:

I also like that the developers attempt to humanise some of the German soldiers in the game. It adds an interesting moral dilemma for those who wish to engage with it: taking out a soldier who's bio states that he's memorised Mein Kampf, or one who delights in reporting people to the SS, is very easy. Taking out Herman who hates the war and just wants to get home to look after his fish, or Barnard who's just been sent a cake by his mother for his birthday... not necessarily so easy.

A lot of people in this thread don't know the regular German soldiers were not the same people that were in the SS. It's quite interesting.

[Ģ◊иℤ◊⚡ℤ∀муpΛй]

You play the game for the X-ray not because you want to knock out soldiers.

[A Hoonter of Hoonters]

I think it's just there to provide replay value. It's fun to go around bonking Nazis on the head and trying to avoid alarms/bodies discovered. Just as much fun as the lethal rounds.