Print

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

[Metalax]

I think the reason that killing a child is viewed as worse than killing an adult is precisely because they have less experience than an adult, a child who has their life taken away like that has not had the chance to experience of what life has to offer yet while an adult has.

It can be equally argued that losing the experience of the adult is a much greater loss than that of a replaceable child. After all that experience is a fact, which is being put up against only the potential experience of the child.

There's also plenty of evidence of dolphins trying to rape or kill humans, too.

Just because dolphins can be evil doesn't mean that they don't also have empathy.

Oh, they're not being evil. They're just reacting as instinct tells them to. Stop thinking they have the same capability as humans.

Indeed they clearly have greater capability, after all which species is the one that gets to play around and get thrown free fish for showing off? 

[shadenight123]

no one still mentioned bioshock.
i am surprised.
i mean, little girls? you can either harvest or safe?
and by harvesting practically ripping their insides out to grab more "juice" to pump you up?
sure, one can block it off going "they are mutated organism, we are in a friggin underground city which doesn't exist, so it's obvious they are fake"
in the end, it's all about how one thinks the stuff.
a computer engineer, or someone who KNOWS how games are actually (an ensemble of zeroes, ones, bit's of codes, scripting) doesn't see a kid. he sees an entity realized in a program which once dead simply has the status acknowledged of death.
a mother of two childrens, who see a little girl getting brutally ripped in half, sees a little girl getting brutally ripped in half.
so, it can all be resumed in:
visive part.
understandment-knowledge part.

visive is the part of how well a scene is depicted. like it was said, throwing a dwarf baby inside a series of rotating adamantium discs makes df players giggle.
would they giggle if instead of a letter there was an accurately depicted image of all the intestines, internal organs, and various parts which move, with all the sounds it makes, the noise, the screams? remember that when you play, you hear a music in the background always playing. and not the actual sounds of what happens. even then, one with a really strong gut, or one who's not bothered  by it could do it. but would he? the point is that even if you enable childrens to be killed, it's the player who decides.
if the game gives freedom, then it must give freedom all the way.
the faults are of the players thus.
then the understandment. even if it is utterly gorgeous in seeing, if you know they are just pixels, an ensemble of brigthly differently illuminate tiny squares on you pc desktop, all made of tiny bits of codes and of 0's and 1's, your reaction is smaller than if you just know that "it's a game".
what people actually fear is that somebody could get the idea of doing it in real life.
but then again, that would be the PARENTS fault for that. wouldn't it? if you leave your son to watch dragonball, or to play WWE: smackdown, and then expect him to understand it's a game when he's 12 years old or less or more, and then you come back home to realize he tried flying off the window, or punched to death with a friend his baby sister (real, sad story) the fault isn't of the tv, or of the game.
it's yours.
because you weren't there to explain, prevent, and stop.
it's your fault. you gave up your duty as parent and left it to the tv, to the games.
and it's not their fault. because they do not have a soul, or bad or good intentions. they are machines. they simply act.

[LoSboccacc]

your assumption that we are better and superior to animals because we have the oh so powerful reason that overcomes our instinct is just a delusion.

most of our behavior is, in fact, post factual rationalization, and neither our ability to learn from experience and crowdsourcing is an exclusive.

the most restrictive test you can use is the self recognition, which puts us in a restricted elite with just pigeons, elephants, magpies, dolphin and monkeys.

children protective view is just a modern word construct of occidental countries. child soldiers in third world countries, including china up to some decade ago, would agree with that; this put us 'think of the children' crowd in minority over a world wide statistic.

there is nothing in our species when taken as a whole that goes toward or against children protection (other's children, not our own, obviously) so this repulsion against virtual children crime steams from ethnical and moral conventions.

[Kansa]

I think the reason that killing a child is viewed as worse than killing an adult is precisely because they have less experience than an adult, a child who has their life taken away like that has not had the chance to experience of what life has to offer yet while an adult has.

It can be equally argued that losing the experience of the adult is a much greater loss than that of a replaceable child. After all that experience is a fact, which is being put up against only the potential experience of the child.

Yes but what if that experience would have been greater than the adult that had been killed, we would never know because the child would have been killed so we doubt about whether the child would have been a greater loss in the long term than the adult.

[Metalax]

I think the reason that killing a child is viewed as worse than killing an adult is precisely because they have less experience than an adult, a child who has their life taken away like that has not had the chance to experience of what life has to offer yet while an adult has.

It can be equally argued that losing the experience of the adult is a much greater loss than that of a replaceable child. After all that experience is a fact, which is being put up against only the potential experience of the child.

Yes but what if that experience would have been greater than the adult that had been killed, we would never know because the child would have been killed so we doubt about whether the child would have been a greater loss in the long term than the adult.

Precisely, you are arguing potential against existing reality. Judging which is worse boils down to whether the group can afford to risk doing without the experience of the adult while the child grows.

[Kansa]

I think the reason that killing a child is viewed as worse than killing an adult is precisely because they have less experience than an adult, a child who has their life taken away like that has not had the chance to experience of what life has to offer yet while an adult has.

It can be equally argued that losing the experience of the adult is a much greater loss than that of a replaceable child. After all that experience is a fact, which is being put up against only the potential experience of the child.

Yes but what if that experience would have been greater than the adult that had been killed, we would never know because the child would have been killed so we doubt about whether the child would have been a greater loss in the long term than the adult.

Precisely, you are arguing potential against existing reality. Judging which is worse boils down to whether the group can afford to risk doing without the experience of the adult while the child grows.

And because we are in a stage where we can risk that, is why killing a child is viewed as worse than killing an adult

[Dsarker]

your assumption that we are better and superior to animals because we have the oh so powerful reason that overcomes our instinct is just a delusion.

most of our behavior is, in fact, post factual rationalization, and neither our ability to learn from experience and crowdsourcing is an exclusive.

the most restrictive test you can use is the self recognition, which puts us in a restricted elite with just pigeons, elephants, magpies, dolphin and monkeys.

children protective view is just a modern word construct of occidental countries. child soldiers in third world countries, including china up to some decade ago, would agree with that; this put us 'think of the children' crowd in minority over a world wide statistic.

there is nothing in our species when taken as a whole that goes toward or against children protection (other's children, not our own, obviously) so this repulsion against virtual children crime steams from ethnical and moral conventions.

So either you're arguing that moral conventions are genetic (like the same way Chomsky said language was), or that we're better than animals.

[jester]

Human beings are hardwired to see harm to children as worse than harm to adults.  Babies laughter makes (most) people happier and we are hardwired to find babies crying grating.  While there are many examples of horrible things being done to children, generally (yes there are exceptions, but lets be honest, they are outliers) it is when one group views another to be subhuman.  Logic doesnt come into it at all.  Do you really look at human nature and see alot of logic at work?  Also, almost always when these things happen there are huge outside stresses acting, things like child soldiers and mass child killing are not things that happen in situations where there is enough food and no constant fear of violence. 
 
  Generally (again, there are exceptions, but outliers) those who commit these crimes are VERY mentally effected by what they have done a few years down the track.

  Instinct, genetics, whatever you want to call it, the majority of the general population is hardwired to value a childs life more highly than that of an adult and if you look at laws and punishments throughout history you can see that this is not a new thing.

[Deon]

When I see any thread about children kills, I always think of Fallout 1/2... Those introduced me to it.

[Leatra]

I have no problem with seeing children get massacred in a video game. It's a video game and not real. Death of a child and death of an adult is the same for me in video games. I find this debate funny when real children get raped, murdered, forced to work in real life. Why cover your ears and eyes when a child gets murdered in a video game while it actually happens in real life?

I also find this "violent video games leads to violance" thing stupid. People who think video games can lead to murder are mostly people who never played a game. To me, playing a violent pointless hack&slash game is like... having sex. I don't get angry or violent after playing a violent video game. I actually feel calm and relaxed. You just let off steam. I have been playing video games since I was 7 and still, I didn't kill anybody. I think it depends on what kind of life you are living.

[Gabeux]

I have no problem with seeing children get massacred in a video game. It's a video game and not real. Death of a child and death of an adult is the same for me in video games. I find this debate funny when real children get raped, murdered, forced to work in real life. Why cover your ears and eyes when a child gets murdered in a video game while it actually happens in real life?

I also find this "violent video games leads to violance" thing stupid. People who think video games can lead to murder are mostly people who never played a game. To me, playing a violent pointless hack&slash game is like... having sex. I don't get angry or violent after playing a violent video game. I actually feel calm and relaxed. You just let off steam. I have been playing video games since I was 7 and still, I didn't kill anybody. I think it depends on what kind of life you are living.

I agree. I also play games since I was 5, and never killed anyone. Of course, games teach us many ways to kill people, however, it's not like that we are going to build a danger room in real life and throw people in there.

I played Skyrim and it breaks immersion not being able to kill children.
The problem, for me, is not the actual freedom of being able to kill the kids (after all, I wouldn't have any reasons to do so), the problem is when there's a huge fight going, or people throwing spells/arrows around, everybody dies..and the kid just keep running in circles, invencible.

As someone said in this thread, on DF, the death of a child is tragic and almost a sign of failure, depending on your gameplay style.
On other games, it wouldn't have a purpose, so it makes no sense killing them. Still, I think the freedom to do so should be implemented.

Can't help but think that all this "invincible children" comes from the thought that "if someone kills a kid in a game, they will want to do it in real life!", which is dumb. But also, they 'disable this feature' mostly for the disturbing experience most people would have, seeing a kid dying (even if in a 3D-game representation).

Most people here are experienced gamers, that see games differently as other people.
We understand that it is a virtual representation, and if asked if we would do things to kids in real life as we (occasionly) do in DF, we'd just laugh and say "What the fuck?".
Even if DF was as realistic as Elder Scrolls, I still don't think people would be playing the game just to make children suffer or something.

[Azkanan]

It's inhumane.

Scenario 1
Bits of ²s.

Newbie Reaction: wat is this
Veteran Reacton: Lol, that went far.

Scenario 2
8-bit child being killed.

Newbie Reaction: LOL.
Veteran Reaction: ...Another one bites the dust.

Scenario 3
Modern Day-graphics game child being killed, a war-axe to the face, blood spurting.

Newbie Reaction: Jesus Christ. What have I done?
Veteran Reaction: I should... probably look away. Meh.

Scenario 4
Punching a real child to death in real life.

Overall Reaction: Jail.

Scenario 5
Killing a dragon's child. Or some other non-human child.

Overall Reaction: So?

Scenario 6
Killing a humanoid child. Goblin, Ogre, Orc. A child that looks somewhat human

Overall Reaction: Between Scenario 3 and 5.

[Zangi]

I guess its been reiterated a bunch of times. 
Kids have no place in freeplay games where everyone and their mother could get killed by the player/npc/anyone, either intentionally or by accident.  If they are, they should be subject to the same in-game laws as adults.

At least in the games like the Sims, if they can't die, they get abducted by child services.  Doesn't work so well in Fallout/Elder Scrolls type games. 
I don't know about Skyrim, but in Fallout, most if not all the Mods removing invincibility add in a child killer perk.  Which really isn't a perk...

[Crustypeanut]

Wait, in the Sims 3, can't children die in fires and other major accidents like that? I know teenagers + can.

Thinking of that, I find it hilarious that in that game, teenagers are practically considered adults when it comes to all the glorious deaths that can happen to them.. they're still children, why treat them any differently?

I think one of the major aspects of this, and the whole "Its alright to kill adults in games, but not children," is that adults, and teenagers in the case of the Sims 3, are far more capable of taking care of themselves be it in everyday life or in an emergency (i.e., someone throwing fireballs everywhere, or shooting up the place) situation.  Children in general are considered helpless (Probably due to our culture, aye?), and therefore it is considered wrong to kill them, although its apparently ok to include them in games with death.  o.O  This is the case in almost all games that include children.  Except of course, DF.  However, not a ton of games do include children, for good reason.

Personally, I agree fullheartedly when it comes to being able to kill them in a game that allows you to kill everyone randomly (skyrim, fallout 3).  They either need to be killable to not break immersion, or not there at all.  Seriously, what purpose do they serve in Skyrim? I understand that having children running around playing in a medieval game such as Skyrim is realistic, but when they're the sole survivors of a massacre, that just ruins it.  I'd much rather see it be like in DF that children are subject to THE SAME RULES that apply to adults.  I'm not going to actively seek out and kill them, unless they piss me off.  An example of that would be that little brat in Whiterun that keeps saying she's not afraid of me, when I'm a large ass orc dual wielding katanas in full orcish armor.. my spit could probably kill that little bugger.


I also agree with the whole idea of "Games don't influence people to be violent."   Heres why:  Non-violent people will have a hard time getting into violent games.  Its the people who are already violent who get into the violent games, and in many ways, this will allow them to blow off steam by butchering people in said games.  Its not that those games made them violent, they were already that way, at least inwardly.  I know for a fact that I'm sometimes like this, even though I don't like to admit it.  When I'm angry, I used to want to punch a wall or something.  Now, I go get on a first person shooter and KILL EVERYTHING.  It lets off steam.  It releases stress.  And it does both without hurting anyone.  I personally would never want to hurt someone in real life, and even without access to such violent games, I would never do so.  The important thing is that you know its a game, its not real life, even if it might be based on real life.  People who never played a game in their lives, yet say games are violent and cause people to be violent don't know that we know this. 

Its also a reason why those same people say no good can come of video games, which again, is absolutely wrong.  There are so many games out there nowadays that teach positive things like management, cooperation, etc etc.  Sure, often theres a violent side to those games, but the ones without a violent side can be useful in teaching important things.

Anyways, I'm starting to get off subject.. so I'll stop there. 

[UltraValican]

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.

My only problem with this is the fact that in DF, your better off killing off a kid and waiting for migrants atleast till dwarves stop living 200+ years...