MGS2, coming from the huge success of MGS1, had a lot of fans from the get-go and the director of that game took that (among other things) into account in an interesting way. Basically, MGS2 deliberately (and obviously) baited and mocked their fans while also in a way making fun of the fact that the player was playing the game. It’s the only one of its kind and, at the time, MGS2 was meant to be the final game in the series.
Anyway, thought it had some sort of relevance in this thread.
I know there is a couple of instances that’ll make me not want to complete a game (win or lose).
1) Exploration: If there is a lot of things in the game that I need to collect, or if there is a different play through of the game that I can explore (without having to restart). These things really keep me from finishing a game and instead put me in the mode to collect as much as I can.
2) Frustration: If a game is way too “punishing”. I don’t want to take the time to complete it. A game that doesn’t make me feel like I’m getting anything out of the experience is one I don’t want to waste my time on.
3) Boredom: If a game can’t hold my interest. I usually will not try to win it at all.
If there is any way to create a game that will try to prevent you from winning, it would probably be akin to the first option. Games usually have “multiple” endings, and each of those endings can be associated to actually “winning” the game. Of course, I am associating “winning” to actually mean “completing” the game. A game that awards you for losing would be a good example of this.
To be honest, getting a person to morally not want to complete a task can be as easy as making that choice very unappealing. You can be direct by just preventing them from entering a room via an invisible wall. You can be indirect by making the boss of that room impossible to defeat. Getting someone not to complete your game really takes a lot of work, turning it into an endless grind. An MMORPG as it were; Something where you can spend hours of time and never essentially win.
However, in terms of emotion, you would need to give the antagonist as much impact as the protagonist. You would have to get the player to feel emotionally invested in both characters of the story. Both of those characters would have to be correct, and the choice would have to be very debatable between both parties. A game like that would really need to be stellar in order to pull that amount of depth out of two characters, though it could be possible with a group (like Mass Effect managed to do with its choices).
Thinking about it, making a game that is very easy to win might be engaging if you can see how long you can last without winning. However, then you’d just be using a cheap sense of reverse psychology. 
Damn it! slaps self Why didn’t I think about this before?
This topic is defining the freaking Companion Cube “effect” from Portal!
For those not in the know, the companion cube was given a special texture and presentation so players would hold on to it (as the puzzle required lugging a single cube throughout the map).
Turns out that, by the end of the map, players would not want to let go of the cube to proceed (would reject the “win state”), which eventually led to the creation of the memorable disposal puzzle.
Go listen to the Dev comments on that, it’s fascinating!
So I guess the key is texturing things with cutesy hearts?
I would have to break the fourth wall… Like the stanly parable!
There was a wee bit more to the Companion Cube than a texture. Like, yunno, all the design and writing that went into that level. So yeah, the key to good writing is … good writing.
An Idea that came to me: Offering the player the option of winning the game after each level or at certain points of the game - depending on game style. So if somebody just wants to win he only has to choose accordingly. On the other Hand those who “do not want to win” go on with the game (next level/map/area/quest/…).
You could pair this with a story of good vs evil where the opposing side knows it can not defeat you in the state you currently are but wants you out of the way.
They offer you to just win the game so they can follow ther evil/good deeds without you interfering.
Basically appealing to the players curiosity. 
@meingrosserfreundjo I really like this idea. A sort of - “You can quit any time you like. Its no matter to us, you just won’t see what happens next.” - mentality.
@Oskuro Duh! I’d forgotten companion cube. That really fits the idea of “NO I really don’t wan’t to win this one”
From what I’ve read, a game that did a splendid job of manipulating the player’s emotions was Ico (didn’t play it myself, though).
The technique it uses is to, at the beginning of the game, keep showing the player that they need to keep close to the princess to succeed. Repetition of this situation conditions the player to feel uneasy about being separated from her.
So once this mental state has been managed, it’s when you can start doing interesting stuff, including having the player reject the “win state” because it would mean separation from the “princess”.
The bottom line is that games, as anything you train for, can reinforce certain behaviours, and saavy devs can use these behaviours to their advantage.
To cite an example from Yatzhee’s ZP videos:
[quote]“In a video game one would visit every bathroom stall in search of medkits and ammo, instead of doing it for illicit sexual thrills”
[/quote]
The lesson here? Turn the game into a massive tutorial, reinforcing the behaviours you want in the player carefully until you’re ready to pull the rug from under them.
Heck… That reminds me of me DM-ing Call of Cthulhu games…
[quote]You want automatic weapons? Sure, sure, stock up! Wow, you really showed those cultists who is boss around these parts. Oh, wait, every monster from now on is completely impervious to bullets! Trying to run? How much do those guns and ammo actually weigh?
[/quote]
Am I correct in saying you want to question the player’s morals for winning the game? Or make them not want to win the game for their own sake?
Yeah, very cool idea. I definitely agree that one way is to create a sense of loss as a result, whether it’s through story or gameplay perks.
One other way that might be interesting is to make it in the same vein as Brenda Romero’s Train game. In that case, the user was doing some fun task but was unaware of the broad context. Once they became aware, most people left in disgust. For those who don’t want to read the article, it’s a board game where you load people onto trains as efficiently as possible, all the while responding to orders from a typewriter. Eventually you realize you have been loading Jews onto trains to concentration camps. The point of it was mainly to make people think about blind order following and how even normal people can do terrible things without thinking about it.
Personally, if I were to make a game where the ending was bittersweet in some way, I would not go Romero’s route or a path where I make the player character seem evil or something. To me that kind of ruins the whole point of a video game, unless you’re trying to teach something like Romero was. Instead, I would probably go the route of a sacrifice. You kill yourself or lose stats or whatever to benefit the greater good. That can be an impactful ending, and it also still leaves the feeling of accomplishment.
Shadow of the Colossus had more than one reviewer thinking “why am I killing these majestic creatures who just seemed to be peacefully wandering around?” The fact that the spirits that your hero is appealing to appear to have a really malevolent aura to them adds to the moral ambiguity (the dialogue is in some made-up language that has no subtitles, so you’re left to guess).
In BL2, after I listened to the Dahl Echo recordings, I felt kinda bad for killing crystalisks and Blue in particular.
A lot of the ideas in this thread seem to be really interesting. Since I’m on summer break and I haven’t got anything to do, I’ll see if I can put together a short game and test out a few concepts.
Perhaps you could implement a system where the win state is far greater the longer you played the game.This would certainly insight confusion in the player. But the further you get in the game, the closer and more reqarding the winstate gets and the easier it is to win. If the aim of the game was to avoid winning to win bigger :persecutioncomplex: perhaps this would insight what you are talkign about?
What you could do is make the final level so hard so aggrivating that it even the thought of attempting it would make you want to smash your computer at the wall.
I thinkt he classic approach is a morale dilemma. The win state has to come with an unethical or immoral choice, and the player must decide if they want to screw ethics and morals to become a winner, or stay a godo person and not win the game.
There is a quote on war games if one doesn’t want to lose units: “The only way to win is not to play at all.”
Shall we play a game?
eeOHEU7Ykyg
The game Defcon is pretty much built around the theme of the only way to win is not to play.
Having something or someone that a player can grow attached to is probably one of the best ways.
Fallout 3
[spoiler]That option to go into the chamber instead of the girl in Fallout 3. I instantly sacrificed myself without a second thought and the game ended on me haha.[/spoiler]
Dark Souls
[spoiler]The conclusion to Solaire’s quest to find his sun if you didn’t take the shortcut. That was probably one of the most painful especially since it was my first play through.[/spoiler]
Also AC: Black Flag.
[spoiler]When you meet the merchant dude in the very beginning I was like this dude is gonna be my new best friend and was pissed when I didn’t get a option to get his sugar.[/spoiler]
I kind of play games by doing what I’d feel like I’d do in that situation, and do grow attached to alot of characters in games both intentional and unintentional characters. But at the same time I watched my siblings play games and they just kill everyone and what not so I can’t say for sure if it can cause most people to turn away from an end to the game.
Yeah, I remember Shadow of the Colossus. The more I played the game, the more I wanted to leave these giants alone. But I couldn’t since I wanted to complete the game (“win” feels like the wrong word for SotC).
I´m thinking that letting the player play a person that has a really questionable character, forcing you to do things you don´t want to do. For example, let´s say the protagonist is schizofrenic (the real schizofrenic with wierd halucinations and not a split personality) and the levels are episodes from his sickness. He ventures into really cool looking, grand worlds with wierd monsters and outerworldly architecture but during the game you get flashes from the real world. Then you realize that the player character is actually acting out his sick visions in the real world, and the monsters he´s killing is actually real people, innocent victims. This would lead you to feel an aversion to not wanting to play anymore, but still feel excited about what the next world will be like.
Although I don’t remember the main character wasn’t acting out sick fantasies in the real world, the premise you describe sounds a lot like the game Sanitarium. As I recall the fight was more about fighting inner demons to figure out the “truth” behind how you got to where you are and the events leading up to it. While I think that particular game had a “happier” ending, you could very well leverage the same sort of mechanic of discovering the truth to make players reluctant to complete a game, especially if you drop hints that the truth may reveal a horrific revelation about the protagonist. This of course relies on your audience developing a deep empathy with, and attachment to the character before hints about the darker truth start to fall into place.
Another similar take on the idea can be found in the movie Memento. Though it lacks the hallucination aspect, nothing is as it appears to the main character and there is definitely manipulation by a third party going on.