Letting children die horribly seems to be the new 'hook'. (Now includes video, due to popular demand

[Candidus]

Snip

Censors. People who sometimes limit the options available to those *defined* by the right to choose for themselves what is within and what is beyond their tolerances, supposedly for our own good. Usually conservatives with no particular qualifications... I'm aware of what they require. I'm glad such minor details are being moved past by the industry- I look forward to the day we abolish censors of media aimed at adults.

What are you on about, prior to mentioning censors? I said: "Any game which includes a populated area and is interested in immersion is going to include the young."

So if your decision is to create a populated virtual environment that is believable and immersive, you will *RATIONALLY* <-- key word, need to represent all appropriate age groups and demographics for the environment you've selected. *Of course* there are rational reasons to introduce children into these environments, and it goes without saying that an environment based on a human city- for example- would have animate, organic, adults as well.

What were you trying to get at?

 

[Trolldor]

You said "refusing to include children has never been fully rationalised".
Neither has the idea that children ought to be included.
There is no rational explanation for why any of our present stabby shootey killey games have the enemies they do

 

[Candidus]

You said "refusing to include children has never been fully rationalised".
Neither has the idea that children ought to be included.
There is no rational explanation for why any of our present stabby shootey killey games have the enemies they do

Wrong. If you want to tell a story in a certain setting, you will need certain entities to be represented. When the setting is an invasion by North Korea of America, if the protagonist is American, the enemies would rationally have to be North Korean conscripts. There's a sound A to B rationale.

I don't think you've thought this through.

By contrast: You want to tell a story in a believable, populated city. Rationalise the omission of young characters, NPC, background or otherwise, without damaging the core goal in the process.

 

[kouriichi]

Its simple honestly.

Because its the next step towards realism.
Planets arnt populated entirely by adults. How many video games never feature a single child?
Children are part of the human race. Its time we accept that they will infact, pass away one day like any other human.

Im fine with children dying in video games. Infact, there are times i want them to die.
((such as that amazing time i spent in Little Lamplight in FO3.))

Now, i like kids. I some day wish to have several of my own. ((probably 3)) But that doesnt mean i think theyer a gift from god that nothing bad will ever happen to.

 

[Candidus]

Apparently it's a violation of (German?) obscenity laws to kill kids in video games.

It's a violation of German obscenity laws if a character sneezes isn't it? Whenever a game is altered for all of Europe based on conservative German fanatics, they basically become the censors of all of Europe. It'd be better if developers and distributors just cut them out of the loop completely, seriously...

(I'm aware that more than half the time, games which require tweaking for Germany are tweaked *just* for Germany- but frankly, a blanket change 10% of the time is 10% too often.)

Edit: Obviously, I was pretty shocked to hear Deadspace 2 got over almost without a hitch, but the truth is I don't know exactly what they altered on the child killing front to make it acceptable... I'm digressing really, because I don't care being as it was only changed for them.

 

[moon2doggy]

It 3 Titles really a trend?, even more so when these titles were being made around the same time and never saw other? Regen health, that's a Trend. A leveling up, perk system, that's a trend. 3 games which have monsters with some children isn't.

 

[mooncalf]

Videogames are in their teething period of controversial subjects where they'll gnaw on some things and just dribble on others, just let it go and their cries for attention will subside, someday they may even grow up.

 

[Trolldor]

You said "refusing to include children has never been fully rationalised".
Neither has the idea that children ought to be included.
There is no rational explanation for why any of our present stabby shootey killey games have the enemies they do

Wrong. If you want to tell a story in a certain setting, you will need certain entities to be represented. When the setting is an invasion by North Korea of America, if the protagonist is American, the enemies would rationally have to be North Korean conscripts. There's a sound A to B rationale.

I don't think you've thought this through.

By contrast: You want to tell a story in a believable, populated city. Rationalise the omission of young characters, NPC, background or otherwise, without damaging the core goal in the process.

Emotional reasons? Yes.

Rational? No.

 

[Kopikatsu]

It 3 Titles really a trend?, even more so when these titles were being made around the same time and never saw other? Regen health, that's a Trend. A leveling up, perk system, that's a trend. 3 games which have monsters with some children isn't.

Trends have to start somewhere, don't they? But it isn't that the three titles started a trend. No, it's more that...as was mentioned a short while ago, it was MANDATED that children cannot be harmed, if they were allowed to be in the game at all. Now, there were some exceptions (Like the earlier Fallout games, and Dues Ex I guess), but three very popular games (Assuming Dead Island will be popular. Very popular.) with the same overall theme around the same time?

Mostly, it shows that the rules concerning violence in videogames concerning children are slacking (Not the lazy kind of slacking. Like...a length of rope that isn't taunt.) so...a start of a trend.

Not saying it's good or bad, just...that its there.

 

[DracoSuave]

There's two classes of people who might play this game. Adults, and children.

Regarding adults playing this: MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS PLEASE AND THANK YOU. What adults do and enjoy in artistic media is NOT YOUR CONCERN MOVE ALONG.

Regarding children playing this: Okay. I know some of you might never have met children, but they come in all sorts of different shapes sizes, and attitudes. I remember when I was a kid, I used to like robots blasting and shooting at robots. I thought that was really cool. My friend across the street? She liked stories of kids being eaten by scary monsters. I don't know why. She just did. Kids are weird that way. It's like... some kids can't handle it, some kids don't care, and some kids LOVE it.

This is where the parent steps in. If your kid can't handle it, your kid does not play this game. Wow. Easy parenting tip there. If your kid doesn't care, he won't play this game. Jesus. Two for two. I'm on a roll. If your kid can handle it, and likes this sort of thing... well, believe it or not it's perfectly harmless. It's like road runner cartoons. Your kid knows it's not real, kids are NOT near as stupid as many adults claim they are in that regard. I certainly wasn't as a kid, and my imagination was awesome.

It's parents who decide, without knowing kids, that things are automatically bad for them like that... that's why we can't have nice things.

 

[_Cake_]

Yet I still can't kill brats in Fallout New Vegas. It better happen in Fallout 4 >_<

 

[Trolldor]

I can guarantee that as a child you were nowhere near as developed and intelligent as you would like to think.

It 3 Titles really a trend?, even more so when these titles were being made around the same time and never saw other? Regen health, that's a Trend. A leveling up, perk system, that's a trend. 3 games which have monsters with some children isn't.

Trends have to start somewhere, don't they? But it isn't that the three titles started a trend. No, it's more that...as was mentioned a short while ago, it was MANDATED that children cannot be harmed, if they were allowed to be in the game at all. Now, there were some exceptions (Like the earlier Fallout games, and Dues Ex I guess), but three very popular games (Assuming Dead Island will be popular. Very popular.) with the same overall theme around the same time?

Mostly, it shows that the rules concerning violence in videogames concerning children are slacking (Not the lazy kind of slacking. Like...a length of rope that isn't taunt.) so...a start of a trend.

Not saying it's good or bad, just...that its there.

Actually, we don't know that Dead Island will have zombie children.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I can guarantee that as a child you were nowhere near as developed and intelligent as you would like to think.

It 3 Titles really a trend?, even more so when these titles were being made around the same time and never saw other? Regen health, that's a Trend. A leveling up, perk system, that's a trend. 3 games which have monsters with some children isn't.

Trends have to start somewhere, don't they? But it isn't that the three titles started a trend. No, it's more that...as was mentioned a short while ago, it was MANDATED that children cannot be harmed, if they were allowed to be in the game at all. Now, there were some exceptions (Like the earlier Fallout games, and Dues Ex I guess), but three very popular games (Assuming Dead Island will be popular. Very popular.) with the same overall theme around the same time?

Mostly, it shows that the rules concerning violence in videogames concerning children are slacking (Not the lazy kind of slacking. Like...a length of rope that isn't taunt.) so...a start of a trend.

Not saying it's good or bad, just...that its there.

Actually, we don't know that Dead Island will have zombie children.

If it doesn't, I'll be upset. Do you know how long I've waited for zombie children? And space zombies/Necromorphs don't count.

 

[Trolldor]

I would prefer they didn't use zombie children as mindless cannon fodder.

There are so many better ways to use a 'zombie child'.

 

[Infernai]

Drakengard for the PS2.

You're fighting 'The Empire' (Which isn't exactly third world), but...I'll put this into perspective for you.

You have three party members. One is a Priest who is, surprise, a pedophile. The other one is an elf who is insane and eats children alive while screaming 'MY BABIES'.

Who is your third party member? A boy who is eternally 8 years old! OF COURSE! Just completes the whole little team, don't it?

Also, you actually get a mission to murder all of the children conscripts (Drafted because you murdered all of their parents who were fighting you at first). Some run from you and scream 'HELP US!' 'I DON'T WANT TO DIE!' 'Please...someone...save me!' But no. There is no help. You just slaughter all of them. Easily.

Then you set boats on fire and watch the women and children on them drown! (I have to admit, I had much, much more fun playing Drakengard than I should have.)

You forgot to mention that the main villain of the game is an eight year old girl....who dies in one of the alternate endings and even in the canon ending is fought as a boss.

Drakengard- It HATES Children

 

[Kopikatsu]

Drakengard for the PS2.

You're fighting 'The Empire' (Which isn't exactly third world), but...I'll put this into perspective for you.

You have three party members. One is a Priest who is, surprise, a pedophile. The other one is an elf who is insane and eats children alive while screaming 'MY BABIES'.

Who is your third party member? A boy who is eternally 8 years old! OF COURSE! Just completes the whole little team, don't it?

Also, you actually get a mission to murder all of the children conscripts (Drafted because you murdered all of their parents who were fighting you at first). Some run from you and scream 'HELP US!' 'I DON'T WANT TO DIE!' 'Please...someone...save me!' But no. There is no help. You just slaughter all of them. Easily.

Then you set boats on fire and watch the women and children on them drown! (I have to admit, I had much, much more fun playing Drakengard than I should have.)

You forgot to mention that the main villain of the game is an eight year old girl....who dies in one of the alternate endings and even in the canon ending is fought as a boss.

Drakengard- It HATES Children

Actually, the canon ending is the Tokyo Ending. (Which leads to Nier: Gestalt/Replicant)

But...yes. It does hate children. So very much. AND...the only party member who can die is...!

Is it the pedophile priest? Nope!

Is it the insane cannibal? Nope!

Is it the eight year old kid? Fuck yes! DRAKENGAAAAAAARD!

Well, that's just how Drakengard rolls. The funny thing is, you're the one who kills the kid, and it just makes the situation go from bad to horribly, horribly worse.

 

[joshthor]

its better than the kids being invincible. its realistic. if a game is going to have kids they should be able to die. the kid in fallout 3 pissed me off. i killed off the entire town of megaton and the damn kid is still running around.

 

[OddOzZy666]

I honestly don't see a problem with this, in a real zombie apocalypse the children wouldn't be immune to the virus. By including zombie children, its only adding realism to the game (Damn, analytical Media side coming out )

 

[SinisterGehe]

Maybe because it is easy way to ignite feelings in people, since humans are genetically encoded to look after their young, even if it is not theirs, for the sake of the survival of the species. I know there are people who literally hate children but they are rare minority. If you say that I hate children over everything, then I will give you baby on your hands and say, If you hate them, leave him outside to the cold and let him/her die. Or look after him/her for me for the next 3 weeks. The fact is even if you "hate" children, when you get one, either biological or non-related you will learn to love it. Sorry, thats the way our brains work.

So basically children dying = Dramatic, inhuman and wrong. This equals to emotions and there for usually a good experience of the game. But just good premise and story doesn't make a game good if it is shit to play.