Using Children for Shock Value /Rant

[Lunar Templar]

i haven't actually watched the dead island or ME 3 trailers, nor will i ever play anything named after a FISH (a nummy one at that if cooked right) so the fallowing is basically going off hear say.

k? expectations nice an low? good


its lazy writing, and as 'cold hearted' as this going to sound. if i don't know you, chances are, if you die, all your going to get out of me is 'bummer' and I'll go back to what ever i was doing.

if you want me to care 'kids are dieing' in your game, going to have to give me a reason beyond 'think of the children', characterize them, other wise, it just another random NPC that bought it, and i fill these [http://www.ausbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/mining-dump-truck-265x245.jpg] with dead NPCs on a regular basis

 

[AD-Stu]

AFAIK this is the only time the Mass Effect series has done it, and in general writers do it because it works.

Is it cheap and manipulative? Maybe. But does it get the job done? In 99% of cases yes, it does.

 

[iseeyouthere]

It is quicker to have a child die than have a character with a great personality who you have walked, talked and fought with during the course of half the game and now you consider them a brother/sister and you even go out of your way to make sure they are fighting fit.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

ME3 does have context.
The context is the Reapers are trying to end all life in the universe. Including kiddies.
Look at it this way: you save the kid, and bring him to safety. He gets on a transport, it looks like he's safe. Then the two transports of civilians get destroyed. It's like the Reapers said "Yeah, you can save these people. It won't help them, just give them a couple more minutes."
An adult wouldn't work. You might need to help them through a door or something, but they aren't totally helpless. Children are. You need to protect them, because they can't do it themselves. So you try, but you fail.

And think about this: you just watched two transports full of civilian adults and one child (you know of) get blown up. And you're just thinking about the child you saved. Of course, you're thinking about how it's such a 'cheap tactic' but only because other games did it first.

 

[Astro]

It's pretty lazy and bland writing but it gets the job done. I don't really have a problem with it, especially in the Mass Effect series which is practically partnered with cliché and ineffectual writing in the first place. The child dying thing was probably the most poignant thing in the trilogy thus far.

 

[spartandude]

ME3 does have context.
The context is the Reapers are trying to end all life in the universe. Including kiddies.
Look at it this way: you save the kid, and bring him to safety. He gets on a transport, it looks like he's safe. Then the two transports of civilians get destroyed. It's like the Reapers said "Yeah, you can save these people. It won't help them, just give them a couple more minutes."
An adult wouldn't work. You might need to help them through a door or something, but they aren't totally helpless. Children are. You need to protect them, because they can't do it themselves. So you try, but you fail.

And think about this: you just watched two transports full of civilian adults and one child (you know of) get blown up. And you're just thinking about the child you saved. Of course, you're thinking about how it's such a 'cheap tactic' but only because other games did it first.

hang on, i dont remember ever being able to help the civillians at all? what demo were you playing?
and second of all if the reapers are trying to kill everyone in the galaxy, why shoudl 1 child matter compared to lets say everyone else on earth?

and yes it was a cheap tactic, we had no connection to the child at all and its just in there to "look reapers kill children (along with everyone else) they must be so evil to kill a child (along with everyone else)" it doesnt work, and no not just because its done before, but its been done before and much much better and even then most people didnt give a shit

also when we talk about context, we mean context which makes that specific childs death relevent, i mean in ME3 the child wasnt needed, it could have gone on absolutely fine with out him being there making it seem more like it was just pulled out of their asses for shock value

 

[katsa5]

Ever since I became a father, seeing scenes like this really bother me. Before, I could easily just ignore them, but now they just kind of fuck with me. I hate it, plain and simple. I think I can get past it for ME3, but I have not played those other games mentioned, and will not play them for this reason(and a couple other reasons too).

I just don't need shock value, I want depth and resolution.

New mommy myself, I thought the same thing at first. But I can't bring myself to argue.
The subject of children-death is always awkward, to say the least. I agree with Confused Matthew in his review of Minority Report, "Because nothing says audience manipulation like killing children". It's rare because it has to be handled 'just right'. Personally-chosen example, I think Schindler's List did it right. The death was not out of nowhere. It had weight (^^ couldn't resist the dumb ME2 nod). And the audience sympathetically felt the responding change within the characters.
There are likely more, but a bad example would be the ending of the comic series, "Cry for Justice" (check out Linkara 'Atop the Fourth Wall' for a review on that) Lian, daughter of Red Arrow, was killed at the end. >< No reason at all! It was never even mentioned later! What was that?! Just getting rid of a character? Shock effect?! Explain comic! No?! That was infuriating!
Also, wasn't only two months ago that fans started pointing out that Skyrim had no dead children? Despite all the destruction that the dragons were doing? Can't find a right way to do it then don't add that element at all, I suppose.
In Mass Effect 3, I think Bioware wanted to drive home the fact that the Reapers are here. There is no. safe. place. anywhere. anytime. for anyone. And they succeeded. It left an impact on the player and drives home the importance of the mission. So, I think they did a good job, and I'm looking forward to seeing those so-called Dues-Machinas burn in flames.

 

[Mouse One]

It's a variant of Kick the Dog (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog)

It CAN work, and I suspect for parents, it's a pretty easy button to push. I had someone close to me die from cancer, and despite the fact I KNOW it's cliche, everytime I see the hospital scene with the beautiful girl passing away to the blip of a monitor, it still gets me.

That said, it works better if we've been given a chance to care about the character. If, for example, Shep had actually talked the kid out of the ventilation duct and escorted him to the shuttle only to see it blown up later, we'd care more. Or take the girl (name escapes me) that Morinth killed in ME2. We get a chance to listen to her diary and learn from her mom that she was a creative, but introverted, artist. That actually pulled a heartstring, but not in a cheap "Oh look, pretty girl is dead" way. She was a real character, even if she never appeared onscreen.

 

[EyeReaper]

maybe we are looking at this all wrong. just because a child dies, that doesn't instantly make it shocking. just like every time a joke is told, it isn't always funny. Why can't we just think that the genocidal aliens who melt people into robots are gonna kill everyone, kids included? maybe it was the opposite of shock value, and you ae supposed to not care, like the hardened soldier you are playing as.