"The MUM people, though, wanted a story inspired by Hindu mythology that illustrated the Hindu principle of nonviolence, ahimsa. In other words, having spent $250,000 to license one of the most kickass, muy-macho, hyper-adrenalized deathmatch shmups on the planet, the Maharishi disciples wanted a game where you could only win if you never killed, injured or damaged anyone or anything in the game. Anything at all." Allen Varney describes his adventures in the world of freelance game design in "My Hindu Shooter."
My Hindu Shooter
I read "nonviolent shooter" and immediately thought Chex Quest.
As for the game idea, the idea you described sounded quite excellent. I'd love to see it exist someday, even if for no other reason than to see more diverse mythologies represented in our games.
semi off topic..
But I've always thought it'd be cool if semi-realistic war games like Battlefield 2 and 2142 had non-fatal ways of dealing with enemies. And that these ways would net you bonus points for NOT killing your enemy. Basically, you could kill your enemy and score 1 point, or you could take the more difficult route of disabling and capturing him and score 2 points. To me this is also a realistic method of warfare. Nowadays many militaries are trying to find more ways of dealing with enemies in non-fatal ways, because this can increase the public relations points of the war back home and within the country you're fighting with. If you kill less people you seem more humane, ya know? SWAT4's multiplayer let you do this. Although capturing was a bit TOO hard for my liking.
It'd be cool if you could capture people in 2142 through the use of some stun pistol or something. The other day I killed 20 people in one round with a pistol (trying to get a expert pistol badge), it was challenging but fun. Too bad it wasn't a stun pistol. sniff.
On that note, when I finished Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter on the 360 a week or so ago, I discovered that I'd massacred nearly 600 Mexican rebels. As the uplifting music played and the credits rolled, I felt very ambivalent about the moral framework espoused by the game. Yes, I prevented a secret weapon from falling into the hands of a notorious terrorist, but I had to perpetrate mass murder to do so, and the game did nothing but cheerlead my slaughter.
GRAW was a very good game, but where's this generation's Shadow of the Colossus? I'd like some moral ambiguity with my murder, please.