Should you be allowed to kill children in games?

[Jimmybobjr]

No.

Just no.
It is wrong.
the next worst thing you could do in a video game is rape someone.

 

[ajofflight]

In a game like ES IV: Oblivion it felt a little artificial, mostly because of the lack of children. In Fallout 3 they added a FEW children, 99% of which you could kill, should you feel so inclined. I think occasionally it's good for the atmosphere, like in a fantasy world or post-apocalypse world, but in a realistic universe game, it just feels a little cruel.
To me, anyways.

 

[Casual Shinji]

No.

Just no.
It is wrong.
the next worst thing you could do in a video game is rape someone.

Haven't you heard yet? Nothing in a videogame has meaning or context, because it's all just pixels.

/sarcasm

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I say Little Lamplight should be a free-fire zone.

You're next, Princess...

 

[GebGuy]

yes

 

[MetalGenocide]

Considering we've been killing everything else, why not? It's just a game.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Yes, any npc in the game should be killable.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

If it's a sandbox game and you can't kill children, it's a bad game.

 

[Keava]

The nineties are not a long time ago and children haven't been a neglected minority group ever. So not political correctness. The question was rhetorical anyway, the answer is a media focus on doing right by the children and the dangers to children that's been creeping up since the late sixties and currently reached a point where any portrayal of children has to be done carefully for fear of repercussion.

That's exactly what political correctness is about tho. It's about minimizing the social and political awkwardness, and apparently portrayal of children in games, especially as moving targets, stirs enough emotions to be an issue.

I think the question is being approached the wrong way. What makes children so special that they shouldn't obey the rules of a game world? Games, as I said earlier, have their own rules and playing within those rules is part of what makes a game fun. If you don't have to break immersion of force suspension of disbelief then why do it?*

Challenge is the other main part and that can be done as how do the rules apply to me and what are the consequences of them. In some games having children give no XP would be enough to stop players from killing them in earnest and can be explained simply as children haven't garnered enough skills and are too weak for you to learn anything from fighting them. others could have penalties weather as social interaction like annoying the guard\police faction lowering standing with the peasantry\citizens or gaining a social debuff like fallouts child-killer.

Killing a child can have a mild emotional impact in a story driven game and unlike MW2's airport level it could be short and to the point. Is agent 47 really a stone cold killer? How about a contract that turns out to be a child, do you press on or fall back?

How many of games however managed to deal with it properly ? For such implementation of children in the game you need a more evaluated system of action-reaction mechanics that takes notice of something called consequence. In GTA or any other 'shoot em up' production it makes no real difference who you point your gun at. Even in tho 'oh so controversial' MW2 scene, it has no impact on gameplay at all whenever you shoot or not.

Every time there is a discussion about the place of games as a medium in enriching the society or about it's effects on our daily lives. We can give plenty of example how tough moral decisions in such games let us see ourselves better, but in the end, it's just a small percentage of what is being released.
Most games lack context. They are simple, basic entertainment without any deeper meaning. GTA or MW doesn't face you with any actual choices. You can shoot everyone. Hurray. Enjoy your mindless fun, we all do need something like that sometimes, but don't ever try to pretend it's something more. What purpose in such games would placement of children have? If it doesn't affect the character or the world it's simply pointless.

Again simple atmosphere is another reason. The world has adults, ergo the world has children. If you want to go spraying bullets around in GTA not caring about civilians in the crossfire then maybe you'll think twice if some are children, or maybe not. Kite a mob into town in an RPG to let the guards handle it, risk civilians including children. It gives another aspect to decision making in games and it's one which is simple to understand and easy to see when thing are about to happen as children are easy to identify from other people. I don't kill critters in WoW as they are defenceless, I wouldn't kill children either; Some people would, but it does no harm so why restrict it?

The harm of children is seen often enough in films and TV and they usually claim to have handled things tastefully or for a reason so why can't gaming. *If immortal children doesn't even register with a player then it's probably because they are used to gaming current rules.

Bottom line is, if someone makes a game where it actually matters, feel free to do so. If you want to re create a world with as much gritty realism, do so. I don't object. If it all serves to enrich the atmosphere and add a moral layer it's perfectly fine. But adding such options just for sake of it, without any impact and consequence? Waste of development time.

As it is with every other medium - song, literature or movie - games should aim to be consistent with themselves. If you add a random chapter to a book or a verse to a song that doesn't match the rest of it you create unnecessary content. It ruins the way the product as a whole is perceived. When creating something there should a purpose in every little detail of it. Pointless things are just pointless if they exist without a reason.

 

[AugustFall]

Personally it would ruin my enjoyment of a game like GTA, I like hopping the curb and hitting people but if there was a mother and a pram I would be forced to drive safely.
It shouldn't not be aloud, but I don't think it adds to a gaming experience.

 

[Jack Bz]

It entirely depends. I mean, more often than not it'd be tasteless, but there could be some really powerful, shocking moments in games if it was allowed. Like being forced to kill a child in a game, would be really emotive.

 

[Shycte]

It's a bad fucking idea and damn stupid, but I wouldn't want to ban it. I hate banning things.

Dragon Age did it great.

 

[kouriichi]

Eh. I could care less eather way. I mean, some games kinda need it for the sake for connectivity.

When i played Fallout 3, i fired a mini nuke into a crowd of people, and out from the ashes ran a little girl. It completely ruined my killing spree from me.

I mean, children are humans. If your allowed to kill humans, why not children?

I normally play a morally good character in video games, but every now and then i like to destroy all life on the planet. Children included.

 

[Withall]

For some reason, I can picture that killing children would be a part of some sort of war-based shooter. Perhaps a war-shooter based on the Nazi-campaigns, and really hammer in the point that the orders are given from a infallable leader?

 

[Tony2077]

its a game it's not real so why not