Player Beats Fallout 4 Without Killing Anything

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Player Beats Fallout 4 Without Killing Anything

fallout 4 pacifist run

Fallout 4 often demands you shoot people in the face. To this, gamer Kyle Hinckley says "no".

"I can't tell you that you can play the whole game without violence - that's not necessarily a goal of ours," Fallout 4 lead designer Todd Howard said back in July, 2015. While most people would take this quote at face value, gamer Kyle Hinckley took it as a challenge. Hinckley has just accomplished the unthinkable: completing a full "pacifist" run of Fallout 4, where his character doesn't kill a single person, creature, or mutant.

You can watch the entire series of Hinckley's play-through right here, but keep in mind there are a few caveats. First up, to make it even more impressive, Hinckley is playing the game on "survival" mode - the hardest difficulty in the game. And, while his character technically never kills anyone, it doesn't mean no blood is shed. With a very high charisma stat, Hinckley is able to convince various characters to do his dirty work for him. It's worth noting that Hinckley achieves all of this without the use of a companion, as any kills made by your companion count towards the kill count.

He says that the hardest part of the game is the *SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD* fight with Kellogg. Kellogg is a character that absolutely has to die for the story to progress. In the end, he managed by luring Kellogg onto some mines to bring down his health, and brainwashing his AI goons into landing the killing blow.

"I'd love to ask [Todd Howard] why pacifism is so difficult in this Fallout," Hinkley Told Kotaku. He said that as a result of his pacifist playthrough, the game "broke" several times. It didn't know how to react to a player who could simply pacify every enemy, and would do weird things like spawn additional enemies, or cause NPCs to shut down completley, and cease to interact with the player.

In contrast, Hinckley says that Fallout: New Vegas had a pacifism option built-in from the ground up, as the player could talk his way out of most situations.

Source: YouTube

Permalink

So it involves playing a mob boss who orders killings of people. Quite far away from a "pacifist" if you ask me.

This is pretty impressive don't get me wrong, but you're really stretching the definition of "Pacifist" here.

See I was expecting it was some clever way to get through the game without anyone dying. But no, he just has his companions get the killing blow.
That's not even close to pacifist, by the way.
It's like saying someone got through all of Starcraft without killing anyone because technically speaking his Marines and Firebats did all the killing!
It defeats its own purpose.

I think it's less stretching the definition of "pacifist" and more flat-out ignoring it.

Pulling the trigger of a gun to make a bullet fly out and hit the target enemy is just the same as ordering a robot slave (AI goon) to take arms and murder a human (Kellogg).

A true pacifist run abhors all violence, would not permit allies to harm others, and would prevent enemies causing harm as much as possible too. The main story of FO:4 just can't be beaten in a pacifist run (is it really not possible to skip Kellogg or pickpocket his key and access the computer? If so then for shame Bethesda, for shame).

Should call it a "Purple Man Run" instead... I wonder if you could create someone who looks like Tenant in the character designer..

Prefered new vegas in general tbh. Obsidian dont get enough credit for what a great game they made there.

Kevashim:
I think it's less stretching the definition of "pacifist" and more flat-out ignoring it.

Pulling the trigger of a gun to make a bullet fly out and hit the target enemy is just the same as ordering a robot slave (AI goon) to take arms and murder a human (Kellogg).

A true pacifist run abhors all violence, would not permit allies to harm others, and would prevent enemies causing harm as much as possible too. The main story of FO:4 just can't be beaten in a pacifist run (is it really not possible to skip Kellogg or pickpocket his key and access the computer? If so then for shame Bethesda, for shame).

As far as I know, no. I don't think you can progress without killing him. I do think Bethesda did drop the ball with the options of this game but it still was enjoyable, at least for me.

Kevashim:
(is it really not possible to skip Kellogg or pickpocket his key and access the computer?

If someone mods in fatigue weapons you probably can.(although the outer thing you need from him is not exactly pacifist friendly).

But due to how he fights, and the way his convo/attack trigger starts. I don't think you can target him or stealth before he starts shooting.
to boot, the way he fights(stealth boy), you don't have the option to pickpocket.

Kevashim:
(is it really not possible to skip Kellogg or pickpocket his key and access the computer? If so then for shame Bethesda, for shame).

No. It's impossible to keep him alive to beat the main story.

Reminds me of a saying, "Lies, damn lies, and statistic." Ordering a death is just as violent as pulling the trigger yourself. Was what they did really amazing? Yes. Was it pacifism? Not in the slightest.

direkiller:

Kevashim:
(is it really not possible to skip Kellogg or pickpocket his key and access the computer?

If someone mods in fatigue weapons you probably can.(although the outer thing you need from him is not exactly pacifist friendly).

But due to how he fights, and the way his convo/attack trigger starts. I don't think you can target him or stealth before he starts shooting.
to boot, the way he fights(stealth boy), you don't have the option to pickpocket.

kellog uses a stealthboy? I never knew, I crited his face with a gaussrifle before he could even move

Steven Bogos:
In the end, he managed by luring Kellogg onto some mines to bring down his health,

Mines that he placed down himself I suppose?

As others have said, the logic here is stupid. I'm half-expecting him to unlock the Minutemen artillery and simply use that to kill everything, because it's technically not *him* firing the artillery.

It's dumb logic.

I'm going to echo everyone else with a brain cell, WHAT. A. LOAD. OF. SHIT.

This isn't pacifism, it's just ordering others to do the killing for you.

Why the fuck is everyone clamouring on about how this isn't real pacifism?

Wake up people, the guy is telling you he tried to do a full pacifist run, just as he had done in previous Fallout games, but that in this game it was impossible.

The quote in the story from him is him asking Bethesda why they made it so hard to be a pacifist.

We know it's not real pacifism if you have to get others to do the killing for you but the title of the news story is "..without killing anything" not "pacifist run of fallout 4" and by the game's own statistics is true because he doesn't use a companion (which adds to your kill count in the game's stats) and only uses perks to command NPCs; the game recorded 0 kills for the player.

Props to him, this is the first thing I tried to do in my first run with my 10th Doctor character, with even looser rules, and still found it.... well too hard to be any fun frankly. My rule was no sentient kills.

Then we got to Kellog, and I decided... well he killed The Doctor's child, and it was mutual combat so...

well I ended up renaming a Mini-Nuke launcher "The Fury Of The TimeLord", which I thought was cool.

Whatislove:
Why the fuck is everyone clamouring on about how this isn't real pacifism?

Because this is the Escapist. The users who would happily chat about the achievement rather than grab at any opportunity to put it down are loooooong gone.

OT: I'm impressed. Usually, if a pacifist run starts "breaking" the game, I give up.

Whatislove:
Wake up people, the guy is telling you he tried to do a full pacifist run, just as he had done in previous Fallout games, but that in this game it was impossible.

Well, if it would just been an indirect kill of Kellogg (as far as I know, the only REQUIRED kill in the entire game), yes, it would be.
But he didn't, he had his companions and a lot of other folks he persuaded do killing for him. That's not a pacifist run anymore, that's just avoiding the kill-stat actually getting tracked.

Whatislove:
"..without killing anything"

Except he clearly killed things on purpose, just not with his own weapons. And there is no mention of not destroying robots (which, depending on your definition might be allowed, forbidden or only forbidden against Synths)

He did a pacifist run in as much as the game would let him. I too would like to know why the devs made a true pacifist run impossible.

- posted in wrong thread, sorry -

On this thread, meh he did the best he could given the parameters he had to work with - if the body count was kept to the BARE minimum

Caramel Frappe:
Guys, please ... don't take the word "Pacifist" literally, for the gamer played the best he could without involving violence. In other words, he did everything in his power to avoid it, and only had the companions do the dirty work when Bethesda forces you to kill someone (aka Kellogg) despite we should of had the option to spare / forgive him. But welp, Bethesda demands you kill him due to reasons despite it should be a open world RPG where we have a say in what happens.

Heck, he didn't even use any companions. Which means he had to convince and/or brainwash strangers to turn on their allies, especially with Kellogg.

Kinda curious what he did with all the wildlife though...might have to look into this.

008Zulu:
He did a pacifist run in as much as the game would let him. I too would like to know why the devs made a true pacifist run impossible.

Because that would require too much effort in world building, story telling, creating dialogue, etc. Much easier to just make everything an fps forever...

I don't know, I get that this is a challenge run, but if pacifism is really important to you, this probably isn't the right game for you.

+points for creativity I guess.
Mines ain't a very pacifist thing to use, like using the minuteman artillery or the tactical nuke.
Maybe he should have used the junk jet to kill with nothing but teddies, death by hugs!

I guess Hitler was a pacifist during WW2

Ha, congrats. Thinking about how

But the methods is just evidence how... linear Fallout 4 in comparison to almost all the previous Bethesda titles is, not to mention all main Fallout titles.

I have completed the whole game with one ending and all sidequests available in under 60 hours. Fallout 4 is the most disappointing title of 2015 to me. This here proves it, given how much constraints he had to achieve this and additionally how shit the engine behaves when you try this.

And I'm not getting tired to tell how "shit" Fallout 4 is, in comparison even to Skyrim.

So FO4 doesn't allow to deal with enemies non-lethally? Disappointment :(

And here I hoped that Mesmetron from FO3 will receive an upgrade in FO4.
(mod for multiple slave collars allowed to turn Paradise Falls into penal colony for raiders and likes of them)

Wow, instead of a hearty "well played", most folks here would rather dismiss it and argue over their definition of the word "pacifist". Look, pacifist does mean avoiding/abhoring violence, yes, but this game was intended that players used weapons. The fact that a player completed the game, on the hardest difficulty, without using a weapon or proper companion (ie. Dogmeat, Strong, Piper, Cait, Hancock, MacReady, Preston) is an incredibly tough challenge and a cool achievement, the first we've heard about.

Stop arguing semantics and word definitions. The man did a "pacifist" run within the context of FO4, a game wherein one cannot proceed in the main quest without Kellog dying.

I would love to know how the Battle of Bunker Hill went down. Since...

Anyway, kudos to beating the game in such a manner. It sounds extremely difficult and credit where it's due for beating the game with such a challenge. I'd miss Dogmeat too much. And my plasma rifle.

Caramel Frappe:
Guys, please ... don't take the word "Pacifist" literally, for the gamer played the best he could without involving violence. In other words, he did everything in his power to avoid it, and only had the companions do the dirty work when Bethesda forces you to kill someone (aka Kellogg) despite we should of had the option to spare / forgive him. But welp, Bethesda demands you kill him due to reasons despite it should be a open world RPG where we have a say in what happens.

this amuses me more than it should due to it being the obvious path they'd take.
I mean, you can't beat unmodded vanilla Fallout 3 without KILLING YOURSELF and that's with three very good plausible alternatives open to you and they even kinda mock it with Fawkes' refusal to enter the GECK chamber. The only way to avoid it is to convince Sarah to do it for you which is even lamer.
Also you have a very appropriate icon for this post.

Quick unrelated q to everyone, how do you make yours animated? I uploaded a gif but it doesn't move on the forums, only when I copy image from the profile. Weirdness.

blackrave:
So FO4 doesn't allow to deal with enemies non-lethally? Disappointment :(

And here I hoped that Mesmetron from FO3 will receive an upgrade in FO4.
(mod for multiple slave collars allowed to turn Paradise Falls into penal colony for raiders and likes of them)

The concept of a "Persuadatron" has existed since SYNDICATE
In 20 years time it's only come back once in highly limited fashion. (which even then requires exploitive abuse at times to function properly) What the dealio, people!
And it appeared in a game where you were encouraged/rewarded for wanton destruction most of the time, too!!!
Just don't understand what's so hard about this...especially if you've already got AI for them to do random things without your presence.
Also there needs to be options to be a 'good' slave owner or a 'good' Caesarian dictator, maybe if they ever make another Tactics game they could do that. Like being The Pitt minus The Pitt. I don't like how it's always Either/Or so often in most games lately. You only get alternative options if the game is engineered around politics itself (like Rogue State)
There has got to be a way somehow to do that. Maybe like an area with contested territory like New Vegas, but instead of being some random person, you've got rank and position in one of the groups from the start and can affect policies which will change NPC AI behaviour...something like that. There's lots of ways it could be done I'm just not sure what would be the most efficient way to do so. (Or you could even Mezz a bunch of raiders/townfolk and break away to start your own colony)

I find it funny that people are complaining that this game is making it so freaking hard to avoid killing anything when it's the first game in the series to even HAVE anything resembling a nonlethal option to deal with most enemies built into it, that being the pacify perks. Yes, other Fallout games gave you the ability to talk your way out of a few fights here and there and even run away a lot, but all of the games involved getting into combat with both mutated creatures, robots, and people unavoidably at plenty of points whether you wanted to or not.

As much as I praise Hinckley for pulling a pacifist run off to the furthest extent possible I also find it downright ridiculous that anyone would even expect or even want there to be pacifist options in a game like Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is part of a series of games about trying to survive the post apocalypse in an irradiated hellhole filled with psychotic nutjobs and mutant monsters, being pacifistic has never been the theme of the series in any sense of the word like games like Dishonored or Human Revolution were. Picking up Fallout 4 and expecting it to have nonlethal options is like picking up a game like say Manhunt and then expecting there to be the same, the expectations are utterly unreasonable to expect just by knowing anything about the game they are picking up, and if they were interested in picking up a game like that they wouldn't desire such a thing in the first place.

Caramel Frappe:

OT: Yeah, for a game that's all about being whatever you want or choosing which faction / group you want to side with ... you cannot choose a pacifist route. Maybe that's why Undertale is such a breath of fresh air because you have the choice to kill / spare anything you want BUT it does affect things and can alter almost any scene to change which is awesome.

Undertale is a good example of a game where it DOES make sense for the player to be able to resort to nothing but nonlethal options to deal with enemies, choices and in particular the choice whether or not to kill is the entire thematic point of the game, but it doesn't make sense with Fallout 4 because while choice IS a theme, nonviolence or even nonlethal violence isn't, quite the opposite. Being forced by really crappy circumstances to kill and dominate over others to accomplish your goals or just to survive and even coming to enjoy doing so has been the central theme of the Fallout series from the very beginning. Bethesda makes it difficult if not impossible to have a real pacifist run because NOT being able to do that is built into it's entire premise.

Caramel Frappe:

Pinkilicious:
this amuses me more than it should due to it being the obvious path they'd take.
I mean, you can't beat unmodded vanilla Fallout 3 without KILLING YOURSELF and that's with three very good plausible alternatives open to you and they even kinda mock it with Fawkes' refusal to enter the GECK chamber. The only way to avoid it is to convince Sarah to do it for you which is even lamer.
Also you have a very appropriate icon for this post.

Quick unrelated q to everyone, how do you make yours animated? I uploaded a gif but it doesn't move on the forums, only when I copy image from the profile. Weirdness.

If you're talking about Avatars, it is based on size restrictions since Pub Members get 115 x 115 with 400 KB Avatars while Non Pubs get 85 x 85 with 120 KB as their limit. Also make sure it's a .gif file because if it's not a jpeg or .gif, it might screw with the site's requirements and not work properly.

Ah, thanks! Turns out that looks like what the problem might be. It let me upload larger than 120kb, but it changed it upon upload. I wasn't sure why the gif worked on my pc, but then I'd upload it, and it would work in the profile as I was seeing it from my cache but it ceased to work anywhere else. It turned it into a plain picture instead of animated.

immortalfrieza:
Undertale is a good example of a game where it DOES make sense for the player to be able to resort to nothing but nonlethal options to deal with enemies, choices and in particular the choice whether or not to kill is the entire thematic point of the game, but it doesn't make sense with Fallout 4 because while choice IS a theme, nonviolence or even nonlethal violence isn't, quite the opposite. Being forced by really crappy circumstances to kill and dominate over others to accomplish your goals or just to survive and even coming to enjoy doing so has been the central theme of the Fallout series from the very beginning. Bethesda makes it difficult if not impossible to have a real pacifist run because NOT being able to do that is built into it's entire premise.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Completing_Fallout_without_killing_anyone Doesn't meant it wasn't possible though.
The complaint is that it was wholly coded as impossible not that it was difficult.
New Vegas and F1 both allow full playthroughs, and the only reason you're stopped from doing it on F2 is you can't literally do anything else once you've encountered Richardson. You just get stuck there until you take'im out.
Also, like I mentioned, what they should've done is expanded the functionality of the mesmertron and slave collars, perhaps even let you build your own. So close, and yet so far...

Aww, I was kinda' hoping that he was the 60 Billion Double-Dollar Man!

Oh well.

Pinkilicious:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Completing_Fallout_without_killing_anyone Doesn't meant it wasn't possible though.
The complaint is that it was wholly coded as impossible not that it was difficult.
New Vegas and F1 both allow full playthroughs, and the only reason you're stopped from doing it on F2 is you can't literally do anything else once you've encountered Richardson. You just get stuck there until you take'im out.
Also, like I mentioned, what they should've done is expanded the functionality of the mesmertron and slave collars, perhaps even let you build your own. So close, and yet so far...

My point is that such a complaint makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. It's like jumping into a pool and then complaining that water is wet, or sticking your hand into a fire and complaining that the fire burns you, killing in a Fallout game should be something that expected from it, it's the wrong game to expect even the option of a lack of such. No sensible person will walk into an action movie expecting to see no action the whole movie, nor will they go into an horror movie expecting to see no horror, etc. such expectations could not possibly be more unreasonable and nonsensical based on the very concept of these movies and the same goes for any Fallout games.

immortalfrieza:
I find it funny that people are complaining that this game is making it so freaking hard to avoid killing anything when it's the first game in the series to even HAVE anything resembling a nonlethal option to deal with most enemies built into it, that being the pacify perks. Yes, other Fallout games gave you the ability to talk your way out of a few fights here and there and even run away a lot, but all of the games involved getting into combat with both mutated creatures, robots, and people unavoidably at plenty of points whether you wanted to or not.

As much as I praise Hinckley for pulling a pacifist run off to the furthest extent possible I also find it downright ridiculous that anyone would even expect or even want there to be pacifist options in a game like Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is part of a series of games about trying to survive the post apocalypse in an irradiated hellhole filled with psychotic nutjobs and mutant monsters, being pacifistic has never been the theme of the series in any sense of the word like games like Dishonored or Human Revolution were. Picking up Fallout 4 and expecting it to have nonlethal options is like picking up a game like say Manhunt and then expecting there to be the same, the expectations are utterly unreasonable to expect just by knowing anything about the game they are picking up, and if they were interested in picking up a game like that they wouldn't desire such a thing in the first place.

Caramel Frappe:

OT: Yeah, for a game that's all about being whatever you want or choosing which faction / group you want to side with ... you cannot choose a pacifist route. Maybe that's why Undertale is such a breath of fresh air because you have the choice to kill / spare anything you want BUT it does affect things and can alter almost any scene to change which is awesome.

Undertale is a good example of a game where it DOES make sense for the player to be able to resort to nothing but nonlethal options to deal with enemies, choices and in particular the choice whether or not to kill is the entire thematic point of the game, but it doesn't make sense with Fallout 4 because while choice IS a theme, nonviolence or even nonlethal violence isn't, quite the opposite. Being forced by really crappy circumstances to kill and dominate over others to accomplish your goals or just to survive and even coming to enjoy doing so has been the central theme of the Fallout series from the very beginning. Bethesda makes it difficult if not impossible to have a real pacifist run because NOT being able to do that is built into it's entire premise.

FO1, FO2 and FONV all had pacifist options built in from the ground up.

Azrael the Cat:

FO1, FO2 and FONV all had pacifist options built in from the ground up.

No they didn't. They did not have any nonlethal weapons (actually Fallout 3 did, but it was just as likely to cause the heads of your enemies to explode as it was to actually pacify them) and no pacify options like Fallout 4 does. All they had was the ability to run and hide from enemies while very occasionally being able to talk your way out of a confrontation, and ultimately you are required to kill somebody no matter whose side you're on in all of those games. If that qualifies as "pacifist options built in from the ground up" then any game in existence could be considered to have pacifist options as long as you could run away from your enemies. Even if that wasn't true, it's definitely never been anything anyone could consider remotely practical to go pacifist in any Fallout game.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here