Poll: killing in-game kids?

[Eve Charm]

Here's the thing, it just doesn't fit in a game where you can Kill anything but not specific whatever on some bs morality. imagine how pissed you'd be if you weren't allowed to attack a character of the opposite sex for sexism or race for racism or whatever other isms might offend someone. Don't give the free choice to do anything and add stupid restrictions to it. it just pulls you out of being sucked into a game and just starts people griping on it.


Also if your that offended or afraid of what people would do, then don't even put the kids in the game, How many kids do you kill in GTA or saints row, zero.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Depends on the point of view.
Mine was and is as follows : there are much better activities than debating over existence of killable models of smaller people often called "kids". We can't consider ourselves serious if we're trying to prevent our kids from - i don't know what - by censoring some game content while we do nothing for those living and actually dying in slums. Especially if we're talking about games that aren't PG-rated for Christ's sake !

No one said it was about "protecting the kids;" the central argument seems to be that it's inherently wrong in the same way people argued that the school shooter mod is wrong. I get how you were connecting the two now, but the jist of what I said earlier is still true. It's not wrong to deal with a smaller problem in lieu of a bigger one, even if it's very similar, especially if your power to fix the smaller problem is greater. It wouldn't be wrong to give meals to poor, lower class families just because they have more than other starving people in other parts of the world. Dealing with street children is a complex and difficult issue, but if you think you can also protect children by curbing the inclusion of offensive material in video games (somehow), that would be much easier to accomplish. And you should do so, even if you're not helping to fix the greater problem.

If not kids, then who ? Adults, that are suposed to tell the difference between bunch of pixels and real life ? Average gamer is in his 30ties if i'm not mistaking. The younger - kids - should be simply supervised by their parents or whoever cares about them, and on top of that : "Parental Guidance". We invented it ealier than last Thursday. Case closed.

And it's not about fixing smaller issues either. It's creating problems where none exist, while other, much serious matters are still unresolved. I don't buy this "it's not wrong" part. That's exactly what's wrong with our world - people deal with things they shouldn't instead of those that need to be fixed as soon as possible. We waste resources instead of focusing on a single task.

...and that's why i think this kind of discussion is pointless and people offended by such things simply don't deserve their existence obviously filled with luxury and spare time they waste on bulls*t.

 

[Lyri]

Of course you should be able to. If killing children is such a big deal to people then it could be used as an effective tool. For example you could have a moral choice decision where you are forced to kill a bunch of kids or watch your best friend die or something, I don't know. All I know is that it is an excellent way to convey a message and shouldn't be banned simply because some people are a bit squeamish (I know I am oversimplifying that a bit).

Why?

A question you haven't really answered in your post, you say you should be able to but you never really gave specifics as for wanting it.
Yes it could convey a message of sorts but do we really need to lower the already terrible moral choice system?
The example you gave doesn't really stand up to support your argument either, "kill the children and save your friend or freind dies and children live" what message could this be used to send?

I find the argument for killing children to be borderline asinine, whilst yes it's not entirely realistic that you can't axe murder a child as they frolic down the streets of Whiterun.
Does it really need to be in there to help you have fun whilst you play Skyrim?
If the answer is yes then I'm happy you're staying indoors away from the rest of society.

People wonder why gaming and gamers aren't taken seriously, we have a millions of worlds to explore, people to meet and enemies to slay.
Yet we're complaining we can't kill children, really?

 

[Necrofudge]

Personally, I'd just like the option.

That situation with the child in Skyrim that keeps saying "I could take you" is supposed to show that the little girl is arrogant. It's not supposed to be that she's some sort of undying monster who CAN actually take you on, if only because you would eventually grow so tired of hitting her that you'd crumble under the weight of your own exhaustion/madness.

 

[Soviet Steve]

So long as it fits with the rest of the game, sure. I don't feel children should be above other things seeing how video games don't involve actual people getting killed. We can have children being killed in all other form of media and for the folks who want a realistic modern setting for whatever they want to happen it'd be jarring not to have kids around.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Now, such games could (especially the now-SRSFACE Grand Theft Auto series) include a story arch that includes child death. Specifically in Grand Theft Auto IV, when Niko mentions encountering child war victims and the effect it had on him, could have worked exceptionally well as a flashback sequence even if children were absent from the rest of the game. It was an event that clearly had a massive impact on the protagonist, and could potentially have had the same effect on the player. This could have given us, as gamers, a closer connection with Rockstar's character.

That's about emotion and story, something most games refuse to acknowledge. Unfortunately. Imagine a survival-horror game where either you were a young child (which couldn't respawn), or you were protecting a young child (that could die without causing a game over).

I downloaded the child death mod for Skyrim and proceeded about my adventuring. Didn't change how i play the game, didn't make any difference to my behavior or conduct all ti did was make me treat them more like any other NPC...

I'd do that as well if I had a PC that could run Skyrim and a copy of Skyrim. The option should be there in open worlds. Something like the Child Killer perk would be handy to keep players in line: yes, you can kill kids, but it's a special kind of evil. Same goes for things like rape and torture mechanics; you shouldn't be rewarded for it.

(Yes, I approve of rape mechanics in games, as long as the gaming public was mature enough to never use them.)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm confused. You argument seems to be "child killing is upsetting to me, so it shouldn't be in games," but that doesn't sound right. Did you switch sides while I wasn't paying attention? Or was that never your position to begin with?

I think you misunderstood me.

Logically, there's no difference between killing a child and killing an adult. Emotionally, that can carry a lot more weight - so if it is done it has to be an "unreal" child.

(Bioshock's Little Sisters, Isaac's Bretheren, House of the Dead's Zombies.)

The problem comes when it happens in a "realistic" landscape (realistic in this case being something you're involved in) - then your emotions are tuned in to reacting as "you" - even if you're being this big ass hero.

Possibly why The Scouring of the Shires wasn't done in detail...?

Certain events rank really high on stress levels - and can carry over into fantasy - rather than the other way around. You wouldn't give a guy who had just escaped a burning building Left 4 Dead 2, for instance.

TL;DR: Killing children can be OK, but - out of kindness - we should limit them so they don't resemble real life tragedy. Because that shit is tough enough to get over. Equally, watching someone die slowly from disease is very rarely shown.

Killing Adults is emotionally "easier", because we're already trained to see them as a crowd rather than individuals through our own coping mechanisms.

(As a test, see if you can record one of your friends squealing in pain, and then fit that .wav into a civilian in game. Not quite so easy now, is it?)

 

[LordCyril]

I think that if you put children in a game where you have the freedom to kill normal friendly NPCs you should also be able to kill the children.

This is because if you put children in a game like WoW/Oblivion and so on, where you may want to behave like a total ass and slaugther a whole village then you should also be able to slaugther the the whole village seeing as the game experience will be broken when you stand amongst a sea of corpses together with a bunch of immortal children.

 

[lunam-kardas]

Depends....are they really REALLY creepy like that one kid in Haven(DA:O)?

Because that little monster scared the crap out of me and yet he wasn't one of the crazy villagers you end up killing.... which means that he's roaming the countryside of Ferelden... with that human finger bone in his pocket... singing messed up nursery rhymes...

...yeah I'm just going to sleep with the door locked and the light on tonight.

 

[Weentastic]

I think in some games it breaks the idea of freedom that a game strives after if they disable the killing of children. Its absurd to make a game like Skyrim, boast that you can do whatever you want, be whoever you want, and then stop you when you want to see how evil you could be, since child killing is "too bad". I get it if they just keep kids out of a game altogether, but purposefully making them immortal wizards in Skyrim was stupid. If you are going to get all upset at how awful it is that anyone would ever want to kill a virtual kid at all for any reason, wouldn't you think its just plain awful that anyone would want to kill a virtual adult?

 

[BathorysGraveland]

It doesn't bother me, really. I separate fiction from reality, so my morality (although I don't have much of it anyway) doesn't exactly count when I'm playing a video game. I actually think this whole taboo with children is insulting. It seems that the lives of children are more important than everyone else. Why can we butcher innocent human beings in games, and there is absolutely no problem. Yet some kid is involved, and everything is turned to shit? There is a similar outlook in real life. There could be two vicious murders committed, one against a child and the other against a middle-aged man and you can guarantee the one involving the kid will get precedence over the other, and the one who killed the kid would more than likely get a harsher sentence and more backlash than the other.

It really is a whole big pile of bullshit. That said, in a game, I wouldn't deliberately kill a child since it doesn't interest me.

 

[Jimbo1212]

It is fine. I remember killing kids in Deus Ex: Invisible War and guess what? No one cared and I am not in prison.

 

[Nalbis]

I'd not feel the need to kill them, maybe one day I'd go on a child murdering spree but it isn't something I'd actually play the game to do, y'know? Even in GTA I'm rarely the kinda guy to go and kill a bunch of pedestrians unless I want some cops on me. Most of the time if I kill one its a complete accident while I'm driving a car too fast.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Children die in droves every day. As the gap in the world between wealthy and poor societies becomes wider and wider, artistic mediums are going to have to address this fact.

Even if it's used purely because someone likes killing children?
It's alright.
Just like the school shooter mod of Half Life was alright.
Just like Postal 2 was alright.
Some people will make horrible things.
It's ok.

why mention postal 2? its not like you have to do anything violent in that.. hardest game ive ever played.. nonviolent postal 2

Good place for a "not sure if serious or just trolling" graphic.
Postal 2 is fairly controversial.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Snip!

In that case, the only argument remaining is the devs' own moral standpoint. For some reason, the fine folks at Bethesda feel that killing virtual kids is wrong, even though you can submit them to crushing and awful personal losses. I once lost patience in Riverwood and murdered everyone who wasn't set as a child or as an Essential character (e.g. Delphine).

I began to feel rotten about it the moment I noticed Frodnar wouldn't be able to talk to his uncle Ralof and that Dorthe was now an orphan. An arrow-riddled orphan, yes, but an orphan nonetheless.

I'll admit that doing what I did would be even more cruel than a quick death in a realistic environment. I don't think it was intended, but the fact that you can't kill kids pushes the player in the other direction. At least, it does if they're receptive at that moment in time and have something like a soul.

"See? You just created orphans who will spend the rest of this game running away from you and huddling in the Sleeping Giant for protection. I don't care that you're trying to play an amoral and sneering assassin, you should feel bad for doing what you just did!"

Besides, killing everyone in town is counter-productive, unless you've completed each and every quest available that's not just randomly generated as a contract or by the Night Mother. I might be wrong, but to me, this is indicative of the fact that not being able to kill children serves a purpose. It pushes the player in a more productive direction than just going "Hurp, gonna kill everyone for the lulz, durp!" even in the context of being able to load a save dating back to before the created genocide.

Killing the citizens and villagers in Skyrim might not exactly qualify as emergent gameplay seeing as they *can* be killed to begin with, but I think it's not encouraged, either.

Then there's the argument of personal preference. Even if you bought me a game when I could unlock an achievement called "Complete Monster", I probably wouldn't be able to drive myself to try and obtain it. Heck, I could never goad myself into starting an evil Fable III game!

As with everything else, I might be totally shooting myself in the foot, though. That's just my personal opinion.

 

[minimacker]

Looking at Dead Island. If they would have taken a suprsrs approach (like they did in the famous trailer) with children, it would allow an entire new layer of emotional depth.

Again, this is really situational. Dead Island is the best example I could think of. Other games such as Grand Theft Auto, I don't think adding children would add much depth in the general gameplay. Only the story would benefit.

 

[Aizsaule]

In bioshock, you can choose to murder the little sisters, you couldnt shoot them but you could pull out their organs. the moral dillema of killing them or saving them is one of the best parts of the game.

 

[Tayh]

Sometimes, a simple Yes/No/Maybe poll is all you need, otherwise your result becomes too muddled.

That said, yes.