Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

I like having the option to.  I will download the mod for it.  Its just, even if I can, I don't have to...  Unless they are being little shits that deserve it enough for me to take the 'Child Killer Perk'. 
Also, they can now properly die in a firefight if they are dumb or unlucky enough to get shot/exploded/maimed by others.  Which is realistic, since about everyone else can die.  Either way, you can RP yourself heroicly trying to save the little runts or something.

[Itnetlolor]

I like having the option to.  I will download the mod for it.  Its just, even if I can, I don't have to...  Unless they are being little shits that deserve it enough for me to take the 'Child Killer Perk'. 
Also, they can now properly die in a firefight if they are dumb or unlucky enough to get shot/exploded/maimed by others.  Which is realistic, since about everyone else can die.  Either way, you can RP yourself heroicly trying to save the little runts or something.

That was something that bugged me about Fallout3. In my more sociopathic 'New Weapons Testing' phase of the game where I eradicate Megaton to see how effective a new weapon in my arsenal is, somehow, the mayor's kid survives every single onslaught.

I mean, this kid frustrated me and ended my spree, despite the fact that I poisoned him with at least 30-odd darts (breaking his legs in the process), punched him out with a power fist several times (breaking every limb), burned him alive with a shishkebab, and attempted to finish him off with a few mini-nukes (and Ex-MIRV) around the bigger nuke, in an attempt to detonate it (though I already disarmed it) while trying to wipe him out. He survived it all. I would like to pit this kid up against a max-level Fawkes and see if he can survive against him.

In any other case, I don't condone any truly violent act in reality, nor enforce the behavior too much in games. Don't want violence to be central to a game provided there's more to it than just the killing (SEE Hitman or Max Payne), unless it is the very point of it (Unreal Tournament or Doom, for example), but if I have a simulated environment, the safety that it won't affect reality in any way, and I am free to break some rules (SEE Garry's Mod especially), I put "over the top" over the top, and then put that over the top. I mean, I regularly assassinate big dinosaurs with armies of chickens. Or where humans are concerned, look at the above example for a non-GMOD.

[Biag]

Input: I am bothered by invincible kids in games like Fable, because they break immersion and don't make any kind of sense. However, I don't care in the least that there are no children walking the streets of Saints Row: The Third. I don't want to kill kids, I want the game world to mesh together, and inexplicably invulnerable characters don't mesh.

I wouldn't object to children being exempt from dismemberment in games like Fallout, though. That is scuffing at the line of socially acceptable for no real benefit.

[Zangi]

Input: I am bothered by invincible kids in games like Fable, because they break immersion and don't make any kind of sense. However, I don't care in the least that there are no children walking the streets of Saints Row: The Third. I don't want to kill kids, I want the game world to mesh together, and inexplicably invulnerable characters don't mesh.

I wouldn't object to children being exempt from dismemberment in games like Fallout, though. That is scuffing at the line of socially acceptable for no real benefit.

Little buggers shouldn't exist then.  If adults can be made a bloody mess, so should the wee ones, if they are there.

[Itnetlolor]

Input: I am bothered by invincible kids in games like Fable, because they break immersion and don't make any kind of sense. However, I don't care in the least that there are no children walking the streets of Saints Row: The Third. I don't want to kill kids, I want the game world to mesh together, and inexplicably invulnerable characters don't mesh.

I wouldn't object to children being exempt from dismemberment in games like Fallout, though. That is scuffing at the line of socially acceptable for no real benefit.

Little buggers shouldn't exist then.  If adults can be made a bloody mess, so should the wee ones, if they are there.

At least allow them to be knocked unconscious even. How did that kid not get knocked out after getting a few megatons of explosives to the back of his head? Kid must be made of lead.

[HLBeta]

For me it's largely a matter of tonal differences. Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are each fairly light in their own way, no matter how grimdark they insist they are. The presentation always feels too tongue-in-cheek or caught up in high fantasy narrative for child death to make much sense. For that matter, it seems a bit odd that children are included at all considering how poorly they seem to fit into the games. Going out of your way to be to kill them seems even more bizarre and repugnant than including them to start with.

Yet in Dwarf Fortress it makes sense to have both children and horrible things happening to them. The history/society sim aspects of Dwarf Fortress make children matter in ways totally alien to a player-centric RPG. When taken literally, Dwarf Fortress is also an exceedingly grim game. Those poor dwarves are locked in a state of total war against the land itself and must struggle for survival. The occasional and tragic loss of a child contributes to that narrative tone. Every child that dies in the fortress represents game years of effort and resources gone to waste and a weakening of your all-important community.

In essence, DF makes child death a sincere tragedy and failure condition while Fallout and TES shouldn't have even had children to put in harm's way. A child's death in Dwarf Fortress is harrowing because of player investment in that child while a child's death in Skyrim is disturbing because it serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Crustypeanut]

For me it's largely a matter of tonal differences. Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are each fairly light in their own way, no matter how grimdark they insist they are. The presentation always feels too tongue-in-cheek or caught up in high fantasy narrative for child death to make much sense. For that matter, it seems a bit odd that children are included at all considering how poorly they seem to fit into the games. Going out of your way to be to kill them seems even more bizarre and repugnant than including them to start with.

Yet in Dwarf Fortress it makes sense to have both children and horrible things happening to them. The history/society sim aspects of Dwarf Fortress make children matter in ways totally alien to a player-centric RPG. When taken literally, Dwarf Fortress is also an exceedingly grim game. Those poor dwarves are locked in a state of total war against the land itself and must struggle for survival. The occasional and tragic loss of a child contributes to that narrative tone. Every child that dies in the fortress represents game years of effort and resources gone to waste and a weakening of your all-important community.

In essence, DF makes child death a sincere tragedy and failure condition while Fallout and TES shouldn't have even had children to put in harm's way. A child's death in Dwarf Fortress is harrowing because of player investment in that child while a child's death in Skyrim is disturbing because it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Your logic on this is actually very, very reasonable, and I totally agree with it. 

Its just funny how if taken literally, DF is a very grim game.. yet we make so much fun of what happens to our dwarves.  :X

[Vibhor]

For me it's largely a matter of tonal differences. Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are each fairly light in their own way, no matter how grimdark they insist they are. The presentation always feels too tongue-in-cheek or caught up in high fantasy narrative for child death to make much sense. For that matter, it seems a bit odd that children are included at all considering how poorly they seem to fit into the games. Going out of your way to be to kill them seems even more bizarre and repugnant than including them to start with

Actually fallout does have a pretty grim dark presentation. See, in the first and the second games kids were able to die. Not only that but you could kill them horribly(minigun with burst mode at point blank range). It wasn't until fallout 3 that kids got invulnerable.

[Bdthemag]

For me it's largely a matter of tonal differences. Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are each fairly light in their own way, no matter how grimdark they insist they are. The presentation always feels too tongue-in-cheek or caught up in high fantasy narrative for child death to make much sense. For that matter, it seems a bit odd that children are included at all considering how poorly they seem to fit into the games. Going out of your way to be to kill them seems even more bizarre and repugnant than including them to start with

Actually fallout does have a pretty grim dark presentation. See, in the first and the second games kids were able to die. Not only that but you could kill them horribly(minigun with burst mode at point blank range). It wasn't until fallout 3 that kids got invulnerable.

But the games aren't really that grim, considering it's full of jokes and pop culture references.

[Enzo]

For me it's largely a matter of tonal differences. Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are each fairly light in their own way, no matter how grimdark they insist they are. The presentation always feels too tongue-in-cheek or caught up in high fantasy narrative for child death to make much sense. For that matter, it seems a bit odd that children are included at all considering how poorly they seem to fit into the games. Going out of your way to be to kill them seems even more bizarre and repugnant than including them to start with

Actually fallout does have a pretty grim dark presentation. See, in the first and the second games kids were able to die. Not only that but you could kill them horribly(minigun with burst mode at point blank range). It wasn't until fallout 3 that kids got invulnerable.

But the games aren't really that grim, considering it's full of jokes and pop culture references.

Black Comedy is still dark bro. Wouldn't describe fallout as GRIMDARK though.

Personally, I find the child-killing taboo a bit strange. Sure, you can kill hundreds of innocents in a plethora of games and that's all A-OK, but killing children is completely off limits. Is killing children worse then killing adults? Yeah, marginally. But it's strange that that's where we draw the line. Maybe I hate kids and completely lack empathy? I dunno.

[Flare]

Personally, I think if a person has enough mental fortitude to distinguish between a interpretation of reality and reality itself, this person can probably handle graphic and disturbing images without much trouble given some previous exposure to it.

[rhesusmacabre]

The biggest limiting factor to true immersion in games is current level of AI. It's simple enough (as simple as in films or books anyway) to get characters to act through a scripted plot, but this breaks down when forced to react to the actions of the player, or other events. In real life, someone experiencing pain or grief will be affected much more profoundly than in any game I've seen. This is especially true concerning the death of children. Even in DF, as much as we might imagine the dwarves having long term mental trauma, for the most part they don't (other than 'not caring about anything anymore'). As AI improves so will the experience of the game; graphics aren't the issue here.

[jmancube]

I still don't understand the differentiation between killing an adult and a child. Society places a big difference on it, including in video games, but I feel like it's pretty illogical. Sure, children are considered innocent, but from societies standpoint, the adult is already a productive member of society, whereas the child is currently a drain on resources until they develop further. It seems like the adult would be more of a loss than a child from this view. But all of this becomes irrelevant when it's not in reality, as it's simply a game and the death of anything has no consequences beyond those in the game. I doubt I would go around killing children in games, but I certainly would rather them not be invincible. It just seems silly and like previous comments stated, breaks immersion.

Dwarf Fortress is an entirely different circumstance, seeing that deaths and events are represented via simplistic graphics and texts, but it really shouldn't be. If killing an adult in a video game with more sophisticated graphics is acceptable and not considered disturbing, I don't see why the death of a child would be considered any different. I suppose this is just a case of social norms influencing games, but it seems unnecessary to me, seeing that it's a video game.

[LoSboccacc]

it's part of the 'think of the children' culture we grew into the last century and the 'spare lady and children' culture of the last two millennia.

most games also present the killing an a unambiguous choice: they're the enemy. you can't really pretend to have that kind of justification with children involved, and here it is where society draws the line: you can see it in the reaction to the 'no russians' level of mw2.

[rhesusmacabre]

Like any animal, humans have a greater sense of protection towards their children. Logic has nothing to do with it.