How Would YOU Explain This...

[ShindoL Shill]

As you probably know, lots of video games don't have children/the children are invincible so that people don't get angry at the game.

But why are there no children in Oblivion? How come you can break into someone's house in Fable 2 (which has kids) but the people are never boning? In games with kids, nobody (except maybe you) seems to get pregnant.

So why, in the game universe, do you think that nobody seems able to have children, and when they come out they're invincible? Do you think it was a secret government project? Aliens? A side-effect of the bad guy's plan?

Maybe people just stop boning and hide their children when they hear you're in town with a lockpick and a murder-boner.

Sicko.

but even when i dont murder everyone, it still happens.

EDIT: i'm not asking why we do this, i'm asking why there are either no children/invincible children in the game world, if that world were reality.
Imagine you live in Tamriel, why do you think there are no children?

 

[Kermi]

Maybe people just stop screwing and hide their children when they hear you're in town with a lockpick and a murder-boner.

Sicko.

 

[Dr Druza]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

 

[Sarah Frazier]

It may have something to do with the (mostly) natural reflex to protect kids, at least in the real world. There are still enough people who over react to the mere idea of violence done to imaginary kids and what that may teach gamers that kids are either not put in games or made to be untouchable. It's not some villain's plan so much as too much discomfort at the idea of killing kids who did nothing wrong but talk too much or just stand there.

I think the reason that only your character gets involved with pregnancy is because that's all that really matters in the story. A dozen pregnant NPCs may be more realistic for a population, but they'd only really be there as random bodies and targets for random violence... And that would play into the imagined propaganda that some groups claim exist.

 

[Elijah Ball]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

its not realistic

 

[Rolf]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

I agree with this. I could not imagine what sick f*** would want to hurt kids in a game. I could never bring myself to harrvest the little sisters in Bioshock and i can't imagine what kind of sick perverted mind thinks even thinks about it.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

I don't see why it matters whether a virtual child or adult dies in games, it makes no difference to me, they are just pixels. I don't understand why a childs life is more valuable than an already established adults life.

 

[CommanderL]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

its not realistic

if i want realistic i will go outside i play games for fun and realism sucks some of the fun away

 

[Tiswas]

Twilight Princess had a pregnant woman in it, didn't it?

Maybe it's just more effort to make pregnant people than it is to make normal.

 

[Kinguendo]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

its not realistic

Unless they smack kids around in real life its not going to be realistic anyway, so why add it for the vast-minority of criminals who do assault children? They will be too busy being shived in prison to play the game, everyone knows that even the majority of criminals HATE anyone who harms kids so that is an accurate representation of what their time in prison will be like.

Its pointless trying to make your game "realistic" by adding vulgar/cruel things, there is no WAY you could make a game that allows you the freedom of choice that you have in reality so since you are limited to what can be done... why choose beating up kids and barging in on people banging to be in it? Just seems like a waste of effort, time and space for something ultimately worthless or at most detrimental.

As this thread clearly shows, most people didnt even notice you couldnt do those things.

 

[Athinira]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

Adults are also weak and defenseless in their civilian form. Why is it okay to murder them?
And how come we still have games like Dead Space, which floods you with killer-zombie children?

And why do you think it will add more harm than good? Because of public outcry from non-gamers? Here is a newsflash: People get used to anything if you just expose them to it, so the sooner we start actually doing stuff, the sooner people will forget about it.

Also, saying nobody would harm a child is very incorrect. I'll just quote Yahtzee here: The character of your ingame personality is not the same as your real personality. It's about as usuful an argument as saying "Who would take a flamethrower and start burning people to death in a major city?" I'll answer that: I would, and have done so several times in Grand Theft Auto. Would i do it in real life? Obviously not, but when I'm playing GTA, I'm not playing myself.

 

[dimensional]

I don't see why it matters whether a virtual child or adult dies in games, it makes no difference to me, they are just pixels. I don't understand why a childs life is more valuable than an already established adults life.

Agreed I would have no qualms about killing (actually is it even killing?) a pretend child anymore than I would a pretend adult or pet or monster in game they dont exist in anyway they are just an animated picture usually devoid of almost any personality. That being said I can see why they are usually absent or made invincible it is just much easier to avoid controversy and to be honest being able to kill them would add such little to the game that it is not worth deliberately being controversial.

Personally I dont care whether you can kill them or not I dont play games because I like murdering things even if I arguably end up doing quite a bit of that in them, I just play for entertainment and this is not an issue that is stopping that being pushed.

Same with never seeing people boning and not becoming pregnant or having kids if it adds nothing to the game why bother putting it in, it is just more work for what? a pointless feature?. In some games characters can have children, like little kings story and I dont believe they are invincible either (although you cant attack them yourself so you have to send them off to fight the monsters alone if you wanted to gimp yourself and kill them for some reason).

 

[Blunderboy]

Because the last thing we need is Fox News and the Daily Mail banging on about games full of child murder.
Sadly, until the medium is viewed as mature enough to handle such subjects, there will always be a shit storm should we try to.

 

[Lord Rothschild]

play fallout 3 and tell me them little shits in little lamplight don't deserve to be smaked around

 

[Neverhoodian]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

You could kill children in Fallout and Fallout 2.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Childkiller

Indeed. Let's not forget the adventures of J.C. Denton either:
What a shame.

Games weren't always so squeamish about such things, though they still often had consequences. As for in-universe explanations, here's a few off the top of my head:

Games with no children - everyone's an adult clone (or created/summoned via a sorceror if it's fantasy).

Games with children, but no pregnant women - babies are delivered via the stork like in nursery rhymes.

Games with invincible children - they're actually a race of trans-dimensional, hyper-sentient beings. They quietly disposed of the real children and are now masquerading as them. Now they are observing the denizens of the various gaming worlds, waiting for the opportune time to make them their next clutch of slaves.

Spoiler

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[chstens]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

I agree with this. I could not imagine what sick f*** would want to hurt kids in a game. I could never bring myself to harrvest the little sisters in Bioshock and i can't imagine what kind of sick perverted mind thinks even thinks about it.

I would like to hurt kids in games. Why? Because kids in games tend to be fucking annoying, and they're not real, so I don't give a flying fuck. I was a serial killer who only killed children in fallout 2.

 

[masterbazza]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

i beg to differ

 

[Pontus Hashis]

Children are weak and defenseless. Who would harm a child? Nobody. So why add a feature that will do more harm that good?

The guy sitting next to me shoot chilldren when play Fo1....
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Childkiller