Whoever says no has clearly never been trying to have dinner in a nice restaurant while some 2 year old is screaming his head off at the next table.
Should you be allowed to kill children in games?
- Thread starter Munkebo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This topic makes me sick, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. It also makes me shake my head to the "gamer logic" of things.
You say pixels are just pixels, but if that's true, then why does it matter what shape they are? It's obvious many of you want to achieve the *feeling* of killing children, as if killing adults in games is not somehow enough for you.
This whole topic makes me take a step towards the "games influence people's minds" camp, because it's seeping through every post here. You are talking about how not being able to kill kids in games are "breaking the immersion and realism" and how awesome it would be to be able to do that, and that makes me see you as budding psychopaths. Kids die in movies and other media as well, yet their consumers don't go around declaring how "cool" it was, do they?
You say you wouldn't do it in real life, and I believe you, but some of you still admit you'd enjoy killing children in games, which proves that they wouldn't be "just pixels" to you.
I personally could approve killing virtual children as part of a significant plot involving morality choices, like the aforementioned Dragon Age example, or if the children were monstrous fantasy beings, but shooting kids en masse and driving on them would really be repulsive to me, and I don't get why someone would even want to do that.
You ask what makes virtual children different from virtual adults? It's the same thing that separates real kids from adults. You wouldn't send a child to jail or a fight or a war, because they aren't able to defend themselves or cope by themselves. Besides, an anonymous adult game character is a symbol for a random person, while an anonymous child character would already have that much of a background story for them, giving them just a hint more humanity.
This is my opinion on the matter, and I don't want to moralize you guys, but I do find most of your logics very faulty.
You say pixels are just pixels, but if that's true, then why does it matter what shape they are? It's obvious many of you want to achieve the *feeling* of killing children, as if killing adults in games is not somehow enough for you.
This whole topic makes me take a step towards the "games influence people's minds" camp, because it's seeping through every post here. You are talking about how not being able to kill kids in games are "breaking the immersion and realism" and how awesome it would be to be able to do that, and that makes me see you as budding psychopaths. Kids die in movies and other media as well, yet their consumers don't go around declaring how "cool" it was, do they?
You say you wouldn't do it in real life, and I believe you, but some of you still admit you'd enjoy killing children in games, which proves that they wouldn't be "just pixels" to you.
I personally could approve killing virtual children as part of a significant plot involving morality choices, like the aforementioned Dragon Age example, or if the children were monstrous fantasy beings, but shooting kids en masse and driving on them would really be repulsive to me, and I don't get why someone would even want to do that.
You ask what makes virtual children different from virtual adults? It's the same thing that separates real kids from adults. You wouldn't send a child to jail or a fight or a war, because they aren't able to defend themselves or cope by themselves. Besides, an anonymous adult game character is a symbol for a random person, while an anonymous child character would already have that much of a background story for them, giving them just a hint more humanity.
This is my opinion on the matter, and I don't want to moralize you guys, but I do find most of your logics very faulty.
but in a postal-like game wouldn't it add realism (i'm sure if i went bat shit mental i probably wouldn't discriminate who i shot to pieces) but children are most of the time no threat to the player so it would either be the player's choice or self-defenseBoneasse said:
I think it should be based on the type of game of course, I mean running around shooting down Sims children sounds a little crazy... (wait can you do that in Sims 3? then think of another example 
) but I'd personally only bother killing kids if:
A) They tried to kill me.
or:
B) I had something to really gain out of killing them.
....and this is why Little Sisters never stood a chance...apart from that I wouldn't bother. All in all, Yes the option should be there if it's the kind of a game where mature violence is expected.
) but I'd personally only bother killing kids if:A) They tried to kill me.
or:
B) I had something to really gain out of killing them.
....and this is why Little Sisters never stood a chance...apart from that I wouldn't bother. All in all, Yes the option should be there if it's the kind of a game where mature violence is expected.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Sorry for the late reply, the first one I typed failed when my internet went down :-(ciortas1 said:
A) is definitely more wrong than B), as a real being is harmed. In truth, the killing of a child in a videogame is not that wrong, compared to other moral wrongs. However I personally love children and naturally want to care and protect them, so it angers me that some people would enjoy doing that even if it isn't real. There isn't really a logical reason for that, it's just a gut feeling.
As for your second point, I believe that all human life is to an extent sacred, however the little ones seem more precious. Again this is just a gut feeling and I couldn't specify an exact age when this wears off.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that you're definitely a bad person if you want to do this, most posters here are for it and so at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what you want to believe.
This is iffy territory. I would like to say 'Yes, stop making kids invulnerable or omitting them from the game altogether.' However, once discovered, the mechanic would draw enormous amounts of attention, most of it negative.
Then again, these are GAMES we're talking about. Reactionary imbeciles will find whatever media they want to vilify in order to find a semblance of relevance in their shallow lives. While the socially responsible side of an individual may rebel against harming or killing children, if the designers put the mechanic into their game, then according to this world's rules, it's A-OK!
Then again, these are GAMES we're talking about. Reactionary imbeciles will find whatever media they want to vilify in order to find a semblance of relevance in their shallow lives. While the socially responsible side of an individual may rebel against harming or killing children, if the designers put the mechanic into their game, then according to this world's rules, it's A-OK!
A lot of the soldiers in WWII and other wars that have had games made about them were pretty young, down to 18 and in some cases down to 16; their depiction obviously varies but these games are based on situations that included these young people, so it depends on who you consider a child and your general viewpoint as to how present it already is (can you kill the "little sisters" in BioShock?). As for future games, it's going to happen, period, postulating and arguing won't change it.
If its what the gamer wants to do then yes, options are lovely things!
You can't kill them, they are indestructible. However either way when you get Adam out of them they wonder off and die.......General Vagueness said:
I'm surprisingly mixed on this. The reason I say "Surprisingly" is back in Fallout 1, I slaughtered the children without mercy on my first play through with the strength pumped up and the Intelligence at 0, forcing me to kill everyone due to my inability to speak or know what the fuck I'm doing. Yeah, back when Fallout WAS a roleplaying game. Yet go to Fallout 3, I saw a "Killable Children" mod and I was like "Who would download this?" Yet I could go back to Fallout 1 and have no problem.
Well... here's the thing. I know this probably makes no sense, but I can kill a "child" if it's a faceless blob of nothing or the story finds a just reason for it instead of just wanton violence. Yet if it actually has a face and a voice it DOES bother me. I don't know why but maybe its because the faceless blob doesn't make me think of a child, and despite the fact that I hate children in real life I still think the idea of killing one in cold blood is disturbing to me.
I suppose that I'm not against the idea of it being "allowed" as long as it's not portrayed in the most tasteless way possible or involving rape or something, but hopefully the latter will never be portrayed in any manner; but I personally wouldn't do it unless, once again, it is part of the story or is justified in context.
Well... here's the thing. I know this probably makes no sense, but I can kill a "child" if it's a faceless blob of nothing or the story finds a just reason for it instead of just wanton violence. Yet if it actually has a face and a voice it DOES bother me. I don't know why but maybe its because the faceless blob doesn't make me think of a child, and despite the fact that I hate children in real life I still think the idea of killing one in cold blood is disturbing to me.
I suppose that I'm not against the idea of it being "allowed" as long as it's not portrayed in the most tasteless way possible or involving rape or something, but hopefully the latter will never be portrayed in any manner; but I personally wouldn't do it unless, once again, it is part of the story or is justified in context.
If it has something behind it like a plot device sure. But you shouldn't be allowed to just randomly stab any kid you see.
That wouldn't really encourage gaming as an art form now would it? Then again, we get achievements for kicking a chicken in Fable and killing Moa in Halo Reach, yet we cross the line at children, so I'm not sure. I can't say one is morally worse than the other, but regardless if it's fantasy or not, it's still a dumb way to draw attention to a game.
Shit, look at Dante's Inferno.
Shit, look at Dante's Inferno.
I guess if I read the question as it is, I'd say yes -- the question being: "Should we be ALLOWED to kill children in games?" I've always considered games to be escapism and fantasy, very different from the real world. Because of that opinion, I almost universally argue that games should have very few restrictions, including killing children.
Now, when faced with the question of "SHOULD we kill children in games?" that's a personal choice to each player. I generally don't hurt kids in video games, especially those with moral choice systems. The only exception to this was in Knights of the Old Republic, where I exploited a glitch to max out my Dark Side points because I hated being an ass to random people (except the Sith). And even in that game, you don't kill the girl in question.
Either way, I generally that think the more freedom games have, the better it is. Just because I don't like killing kids in them (or even random adults not posing me any threat), I don't look down on people who do. It's not like these pixels are magically tied to some random children in real life, and if one dies, so does the other.
Now, when faced with the question of "SHOULD we kill children in games?" that's a personal choice to each player. I generally don't hurt kids in video games, especially those with moral choice systems. The only exception to this was in Knights of the Old Republic, where I exploited a glitch to max out my Dark Side points because I hated being an ass to random people (except the Sith). And even in that game, you don't kill the girl in question.
Either way, I generally that think the more freedom games have, the better it is. Just because I don't like killing kids in them (or even random adults not posing me any threat), I don't look down on people who do. It's not like these pixels are magically tied to some random children in real life, and if one dies, so does the other.
