Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Ariseishirou:

Arif_Sohaib:
There is another reason to add that mod in, it is easier to make than most other mods.
And for Call of Duty, there is one way they could surprise us, by showing actual interrogation of suspected terrorists by the so-called good guys. They almost did this in Modern Warfare 2 in a scene which lasted almost a second where Soap readies a car battery to interrogate someone and then the shutter closes, it goes so fast that most players will not notice it.

They have you stuff glass in someone's mouth and then press a button to punch him repeatedly during an interrogation in Black Ops - was that not good enough?

I was under the impression that most COD fans only consider the Infinity Ward games as real COD, otherwise both World at War(Russians are shown shooting unarmed Nazi prisoners, Japanese are burned alive by Americans) and Black Ops(the player is repeatedly shocked by his interrogators) were more brutal and bloody than the Modern Warfare series.

Tin Man:

"If some random psycho decided to bust into my room right now armed with a gun and kill me, I couldn't defend myself either, and I sure as hell didn't do anything to him. Does it really matter whether I am 8 or 28 in that situation?"

Here you bring up the age thing, but deny that the point is that children are drastically incapable of self-defense/security/generally protecting themselves from things that you know are in the world that children don't have a clue about. And while age doesn't factor into that, your general state in life does, of which age is a factor, because aging takes away your naivety, gives you knowledge about protecting yourself, makes you wise to the world and makes you much more physically capable.

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel it's important to bring up the point in regards to self defence.

The problem is simply that the other guy having a gun or a knife is essentially an 'instant win' button. Sometimes people let movies and cop dramas fool them into thinking that they could potentially stop even a weaker enemy wielding either of those weapons, but 8 or 80 you actually do have roughly the same chance of survival, a bit higher at 18.

Next time you buy a melon from the grocers, pull out one of your pointed butchers knives and, starting at the hip, thrust the knife forward into the melon (you don't even need to hold the melon with your other hand). Now, piercing the melon with the knife was approximately 1.25-1.5 times more difficult than it is to pierce a human. The melon is now in shock from the stab, and fluids from their stomach or bowels are leaking into their bloodstream, poisoning them from the inside out.

So you can't really argue that when faced with a weapon carrying enemy, an older person has much more chance. They don't even need to be skilled with that weapon, simply thrusting forward will most likely cause substantial damage. An 18 year old might have a better chance of dodging the attack, though its more likely that they would just take the damage but be able to survive assuming the attacker stops there. At 8as young as 60 any of the benefits age gave the person are long since gone, and past 70 with the onset of advanced aging diseases and affliction the person is more likely less capable than a child at self defence.

So... Y'know. Just don't think that being older makes you less at risk than a child against attacks with a weapon. It can be very dangerous.

Tin Man:

"If some random psycho decided to bust into my room right now armed with a gun and kill me, I couldn't defend myself either, and I sure as hell didn't do anything to him. Does it really matter whether I am 8 or 28 in that situation?"

Here you bring up the age thing, but deny that the point is that children are drastically incapable of self-defense/security/generally protecting themselves from things that you know are in the world that children don't have a clue about. And while age doesn't factor into that, your general state in life does, of which age is a factor, because aging takes away your naivety, gives you knowledge about protecting yourself, makes you wise to the world and makes you much more physically capable.

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel it's important to bring up the point in regards to self defence.

The problem is simply that the other guy having a gun or a knife is essentially an 'instant win' button. Sometimes people let movies and cop dramas fool them into thinking that they could potentially stop even a weaker enemy wielding either of those weapons, but 8 or 80 you actually do have roughly the same chance of survival, a bit higher at 18.

Next time you buy a melon from the grocers, pull out one of your pointed butchers knives and, starting at the hip, thrust the knife forward into the melon (you don't even need to hold the melon with your other hand). Now, piercing the melon with the knife was approximately 1.25-1.5 times more difficult than it is to pierce a human. The melon is now in shock from the stab, and fluids from their stomach or bowels are leaking into their bloodstream, poisoning them from the inside out.

So you can't really argue that when faced with a weapon carrying enemy, an older person has much more chance. They don't even need to be skilled with that weapon, simply thrusting forward will most likely cause substantial damage. An 18 year old might have a better chance of dodging the attack, though its more likely that they would just take the damage but be able to survive assuming the attacker stops there. At 8as young as 60 any of the benefits age gave the person are long since gone, and past 70 with the onset of advanced aging diseases and affliction the person is more likely less capable than a child at self defence.

So... Y'know. Just don't think that being older makes you less at risk than a child against attacks with a weapon. It can be very dangerous.

Tin Man:
I'm not saying that there are some IRL violent people here and games are to blame, I think i've put myself across in a less than ideal way...

Fact is, as far as I see it, if seeing dead kids is something you need to have a game world feel complete, you're a pretty desensitized individual. And that is what I'm trying to say.

And you are wrong.

Imagine for a second that the next GTA came out and people suddenly realized that Rockstar had decided to remove the ability to kill cops in the game. It isn't rocket science to figure out that this would cause a massive outcry and have a massive impact on the sales of the game. But by your argument, those people are just desensitized individuals if they can't play GTA without killing cops, right? Well, wrong, because GTA is a world where cop-killing is part of the fun.

Listen. Every single game-world invites to specific kinds of action (like GTA invites you to go on a kill-frenzy rampage), and there is no universal rule that says that child-killing in games are wrong. It differs from game to game. Modern Warfare 3 did it in a cutscene (not to mention the airport level from the previous game).

And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists, for the simple reason that they're simply annoying, and there is nothing morally wrong with removing annoying elements that detracts from your gameplay experience. As another poster pointed out earlier, the game even has a mechanic where NPC's can report you if you commit any crimes, which can be countered by killing any witnesses.... except if a child happens to be the witness, in which case you're screwed.

So the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks (a third, if you consider the incentive to just go nuts and murder everyone GTA-style), which basically makes them antagonists to your fun, and there is nothing wrong with killing antagonists in any way, whether they be children, cops, or aliens from space.

Finally there is the point of story consistency (note: not 'realism', CONSISTENCY, which is what creates immersion). As someone pointed out earlier, when a dragon attacks a village, your first thought should be "Get the women and children to safety", not "Lets use the children as a diversion while i pump the dragon full of arrows". Immortal children also raises several questions that breaks consistency, like for example why no-one would use them as a fighting force since they are basically untouchable. Even if you were a good king who wouldn't want to use children that way, sooner or later one of your enemies is going to. It raises questions, questions that the game can't answer, which equals broken immersion.

.

As for the people who just want to see dead child for the reason of seeing a dead child, it's the same as i said earlier: Who you are in a game doesn't equal who you are in real life. It's not uncommon in games to do things just because you CAN, like going nuts in GTA, turning on godmode and infinite ammo in any FPS and start shooting everything. It's a kind of sandbox-mindset, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with being desensitized.

Arif_Sohaib:

I was under the impression that most COD fans only consider the Infinity Ward games as real COD, otherwise both World at War(Russians are shown shooting unarmed Nazi prisoners, Japanese are burned alive by Americans) and Black Ops(the player is repeatedly shocked by his interrogators) were more brutal and bloody than the Modern Warfare series.

I can't speak for other CoD fans obviously, but as for myself and all of the fans I know personally, we love WaW and Blops, and don't have a terribly high opinion of those who engage in IW = "True" CoD snobbery.

WaW and Blops were excellent. And yeah, they both had torture and cruelty. So...

EvilRoy:

Tin Man:

"If some random psycho decided to bust into my room right now armed with a gun and kill me, I couldn't defend myself either, and I sure as hell didn't do anything to him. Does it really matter whether I am 8 or 28 in that situation?"

Here you bring up the age thing, but deny that the point is that children are drastically incapable of self-defense/security/generally protecting themselves from things that you know are in the world that children don't have a clue about. And while age doesn't factor into that, your general state in life does, of which age is a factor, because aging takes away your naivety, gives you knowledge about protecting yourself, makes you wise to the world and makes you much more physically capable.

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel it's important to bring up the point in regards to self defence.

The problem is simply that the other guy having a gun or a knife is essentially an 'instant win' button. Sometimes people let movies and cop dramas fool them into thinking that they could potentially stop even a weaker enemy wielding either of those weapons, but 8 or 80 you actually do have roughly the same chance of survival, a bit higher at 18.

Next time you buy a melon from the grocers, pull out one of your pointed butchers knives and, starting at the hip, thrust the knife forward into the melon (you don't even need to hold the melon with your other hand). Now, piercing the melon with the knife was approximately 1.25-1.5 times more difficult than it is to pierce a human. The melon is now in shock from the stab, and fluids from their stomach or bowels are leaking into their bloodstream, poisoning them from the inside out.

So you can't really argue that when faced with a weapon carrying enemy, an older person has much more chance. They don't even need to be skilled with that weapon, simply thrusting forward will most likely cause substantial damage. An 18 year old might have a better chance of dodging the attack, though its more likely that they would just take the damage but be able to survive assuming the attacker stops there. At 8as young as 60 any of the benefits age gave the person are long since gone, and past 70 with the onset of advanced aging diseases and affliction the person is more likely less capable than a child at self defence.

So... Y'know. Just don't think that being older makes you less at risk than a child against attacks with a weapon. It can be very dangerous.

to counter that, if both the attacker and I (i'm 23) had knives the stakes would be, barring outside training/quality of the weapon, etc, essentially equal. this is not so at all for a child. yes, there are child soldiers out there who know how to wield a weapon with relatively deadly efficency, but in this case the children are just that...children. I'd expect people to be sad if I got killed by some dude with a knife, but if I also had a knife in the engagement, then it was, at least to some degree, a "fair" fight. Discounting the child soldier thing above, there's no way an 8 year old with a knife against a 24 year old with a knife is as "fair" of a fight

Athinira:

Tin Man:
I'm not saying that there are some IRL violent people here and games are to blame, I think i've put myself across in a less than ideal way...

Fact is, as far as I see it, if seeing dead kids is something you need to have a game world feel complete, you're a pretty desensitized individual. And that is what I'm trying to say.

And you are wrong.

Imagine for a second that the next GTA came out and people suddenly realized that Rockstar had decided to remove the ability to kill cops in the game. It isn't rocket science to figure out that this would cause a massive outcry and have a massive impact on the sales of the game. But by your argument, those people are just desensitized individuals if they can't play GTA without killing cops, right? Well, wrong, because GTA is a world where cop-killing is part of the fun.

Sorry, this is where I stopped reading because if this is the kind of analogy you're making, the rest of your post was probably just going to make me angry.

Thats a horrible example because the pigs in a GTA game are a constant threat and depending on how you play, are probably going to be your chief aggressors. When you get to the 4* level, they'll smoke you faster and easier then the dragons in Skyrim. This argument boggled my mind so badly I lost the ability to read and won't make any attempt to read through your post, because you clearly don't get my point. Or even come close to getting it.

So at this point, I walk away. Enjoy seeing nothing wrong at all with, by your own argument, playing a game where you've made killing kids 'a part of the fun'.

Schwenkdawg:

EvilRoy:

Tin Man:

"If some random psycho decided to bust into my room right now armed with a gun and kill me, I couldn't defend myself either, and I sure as hell didn't do anything to him. Does it really matter whether I am 8 or 28 in that situation?"

Here you bring up the age thing, but deny that the point is that children are drastically incapable of self-defense/security/generally protecting themselves from things that you know are in the world that children don't have a clue about. And while age doesn't factor into that, your general state in life does, of which age is a factor, because aging takes away your naivety, gives you knowledge about protecting yourself, makes you wise to the world and makes you much more physically capable.

Sorry to just jump in here, but I feel it's important to bring up the point in regards to self defence.

The problem is simply that the other guy having a gun or a knife is essentially an 'instant win' button. Sometimes people let movies and cop dramas fool them into thinking that they could potentially stop even a weaker enemy wielding either of those weapons, but 8 or 80 you actually do have roughly the same chance of survival, a bit higher at 18.

Next time you buy a melon from the grocers, pull out one of your pointed butchers knives and, starting at the hip, thrust the knife forward into the melon (you don't even need to hold the melon with your other hand). Now, piercing the melon with the knife was approximately 1.25-1.5 times more difficult than it is to pierce a human. The melon is now in shock from the stab, and fluids from their stomach or bowels are leaking into their bloodstream, poisoning them from the inside out.

So you can't really argue that when faced with a weapon carrying enemy, an older person has much more chance. They don't even need to be skilled with that weapon, simply thrusting forward will most likely cause substantial damage. An 18 year old might have a better chance of dodging the attack, though its more likely that they would just take the damage but be able to survive assuming the attacker stops there. At 8as young as 60 any of the benefits age gave the person are long since gone, and past 70 with the onset of advanced aging diseases and affliction the person is more likely less capable than a child at self defence.

So... Y'know. Just don't think that being older makes you less at risk than a child against attacks with a weapon. It can be very dangerous.

to counter that, if both the attacker and I (i'm 23) had knives the stakes would be, barring outside training/quality of the weapon, etc, essentially equal. this is not so at all for a child. yes, there are child soldiers out there who know how to wield a weapon with relatively deadly efficency, but in this case the children are just that...children. I'd expect people to be sad if I got killed by some dude with a knife, but if I also had a knife in the engagement, then it was, at least to some degree, a "fair" fight. Discounting the child soldier thing above, there's no way an 8 year old with a knife against a 24 year old with a knife is as "fair" of a fight

This is true, but the problem is that functionally within the game you are almost always a 24 year old fighting an 8 year old. After only a few hours it becomes generally unusual for you to be defeated, and armed civilians pose roughly the same threat as unarmed children. Sure they have the capacity to defend themselves in a way that children do not, but when so vastly outclassed by an opponent, a knowledge of the basics of stabbing tactics is unlikely to even cause a hindrance.
One might call it a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, but even if properly outfitted they are still fighting an enemy that is smarter, faster, stronger and with substantially more experience in a fight.

Tin Man:
Sorry, this is where I stopped reading because if this is the kind of analogy you're making, the rest of your post was probably just going to make me angry.

Thats a horrible example because the pigs in a GTA game are a constant threat and depending on how you play, are probably going to be your chief aggressors.

Then maybe you should not be on a forum if you can't even bother reading peoples post.

If you had actually read it, you would have seen the following paragraph:

And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists, for the simple reason that they're simply annoying, and there is nothing morally wrong with removing annoying elements that detracts from your gameplay experience. As another poster pointed out earlier, the game even has a mechanic where NPC's can report you if you commit any crimes, which can be countered by killing any witnesses.... except if a child happens to be the witness, in which case you're screwed.

So the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks

If you can't stand arguing in the first place, why are you here?

jessegeek:

Father Time:

jessegeek:
I draw the line at watching gamers protest their lack of child-killing options in a game where it is irrelevant to the story.

It's a sandbox game. There's a ton of stuff you can do that's irrelevant to the story. Kind of the point of a sandbox.

Granted, me using the word story there was incorrect: world or environment would have made more sense. My point is pretty much the article's argument about the fact that you are an adventurer, maybe you are playing a scurrilous one but you're still an adventurer as opposed to a sadistic psychopathic, Manhunt-esque character, where a child-killing mechanic would make complete sense.

But you can be a sadistic psychopath. You can run around killing every single adult you come across.

There's a video of a player in Skyrim who literally keeps decapitated heads in his house as trophies (and other things that make him look like a psychopath). I don't recommend watching it it's creepy as all hell.

Immortal chilluns running around after a dragon has murdered everyone else in a town doesn't make any sense. Also, how about the added incentive to be careful when blasting off spells or swinging an axe because you might just kill little Susie or Timmy?

My point is there are elements of immersion that can be achieved by allowing children to die that have nothing to do with players wanting to murder children personally.

Father Time:

jessegeek:

Father Time:

It's a sandbox game. There's a ton of stuff you can do that's irrelevant to the story. Kind of the point of a sandbox.

Granted, me using the word story there was incorrect: world or environment would have made more sense. My point is pretty much the article's argument about the fact that you are an adventurer, maybe you are playing a scurrilous one but you're still an adventurer as opposed to a sadistic psychopathic, Manhunt-esque character, where a child-killing mechanic would make complete sense.

But you can be a sadistic psychopath. You can run around killing every single adult you come across.

There's a video of a player in Skyrim who literally keeps decapitated heads in his house as trophies. I don't recommend watching it it's creepy as all hell.

I've seen that video (the title is the worst thing about it, imo) but just because that player has been physically able to do it does not mean it's in-keeping with the game's internal world. Whilst he's been able to do it, it somewhat defeats the "point" of the game. I know you can choose your own destiny etc, but within the context of the DnD-esque type roles. It's like if he played Saints Row II and just walked around the city observing the green cross code; even if you can, it seems like you're probably playing the wrong game if that's all you want to do, therefore adapting the game world to include aspects of gameplay that facilitate it seems kinda redundant to me.

jessegeek:
I've seen that video (the title is the worst thing about it, imo) but just because that player has been physically able to do it does not mean it's in-keeping with the game's internal world. Whilst he's been able to do it, it somewhat defeats the "point" of the game. I know you can choose your own destiny etc, but within the context of the DnD-esque type roles. It's like if he played Saints Row II and just walked around the city observing the green cross code; even if you can, it seems like you're probably playing the wrong game if that's all you want to do, therefore adapting the game world to include aspects of gameplay that facilitate it seems kinda redundant to me.

The thing with the Elder Scrolls series is that aside from a main quest to provide a driving force behind the game and a dramatic question, and the plethora of lore available at the player's perusal via dialog and in-game books, it's a largely context-less fantasy RPG setting. The very point of the game is to maximize player choice vis-a-vis nonlinearity and a relative stripping of context that subconsciously shoehorns the player into a necessarily heroic or villainous path. Even upon completing the main quest in later Elder Scrolls games, there's a perfunctory "well, you're destiny's complete. Go do whatever it is you really want to do now" scene.

Being able to be a serial-killing psychopath is perfectly in line with the game's internal world. Look at the Morag Tong (ethical assassins), Dark Brotherhood (religious zealot assassins and psychopaths), the "Blood on the Ice" quest, and the cults of the Daedric Princes (especially Malacath, Boethiah, Molag Bal, and Mephala). Some of these quests and plotlines actually have an (unspoken) prerequisite of the player-character being mentally-unbalanced at best and an utter, unrepentant sociopath at worst.

Really, look no further than "Blood on the Ice" which is in Skyrim itself (big time spoilers ahead):

For me the issue is that NPCs in Skyrim have 3 major functions. They talk, they fight, and they die. Children don't do the latter two, and they barely do the first. Aside from a throwaway quest in Whiterun and a game of tag in that first village, all I've gotten from children are single lines of dialogue.

If you're going to put them in the game, make them a meaningful part of the game. They don't have to be killable. Children in Fallout 3 couldn't die, but they did more than take up space. There weren't many around, but the ones that were there were as characterized as their adult counterparts. In Skyrim, they just feel like filler. I'd rather have a mod that took them out entirely than a mod that let you kill them.

I'm surprised Yahtzee would take this stand. The man who often preaches the fact that how you act in a game is often very different to how you act in real life.

So, why shouldn't you be allowed to play as a child rapist in Skyrim? Of course he's right. Restrictions are okay, but so is modding. Being allowed to seduce the children makes little sense, they should be programmed to simply not be interested. But killing or raping them is wrong whether or not they're children.

I can get why you can't kill children in Skyrim. As far as I've gotten, you can't be KOTOR-dark-side-evil, at least not in the story sense. I know I killed a few innocents with no names, but that's about it.

However I absolutely can't get why you couldn't in "Fallout 3". You could be a slave trader in "Fallout 2". Heck, you could annihilate an entire town with a nuclear device in "Fallout 3", but killing children is where the devs draw the line? And yes, that town had children by the way.

That reminded me of an incident I had whilst playing "Fallout 2" back in the days when it was still new. I was never a child killer by choice, however one of my stray bullets, well strayed and ended a life of a six-year old. A total accident, as I was trying to shoot a guy 90 degrees to the side of that kid, with the kid being about a hundred feet away.

That child's prostitute a mother then started screaming and charging at me, her death was entirely my choice. The death of that child at my hands was one of the most powerful experiences I had whilst playing a game. It truly brought out the dread of that barren world. A world of cruelty, inhumanity and "moral bankruptcy", where nobody's clean, not even the protagonist.

I think that there is another reason why child murder shouldn't be exempted from games. It reminds us that murder is a monstrous act. Interplay interpreted it well in their Fallout-series: once you'd become a child murderer or a slave trader there would be some very dear consequences. In the first case a bunch of mercs would once and again appear on the world map to claim their reward for claiming a head of a child murderer and these guys were tough and well equipped. In the second case, if you would choose to become a slave trader that would forever screw your relationships with the democratic NCR, since you had a slaver tatoo on your forehead, "Inglorious Basterds" style.

In short, you could permit child murder, but don't make it consequence free. Children make great collateral damage. For what I see it, a murder is a murder, it is also a thing that games make you do 90% of the time. Killing a child with consequences once in a while could remind you that genocide isn't all it's cracked up to be... and killing a child from the shadows with no witnesses (or perhaps disposing of witnesses) would teach you that some people get away with it, you know, if you want realism and shit.

The reason that unkillable children ruin immersion is that enemies still aggro them and they didn't bother programming them to run the fuck away. So you get invincible children standing around in the middle of an epic dragon battle getting chewed on while saying "Oh look another adventurer here to lick my father's boots."

No, fuck that. I would rather have no kids than have invincible kids. They are so fucking annoying.

It's more of an extreme litmus-test of whether or not a game is truly "open" and allows you to "do anything". From a game-play perspective it's totally f*ing annoying when you are able to hit your allies, kids, townspeople, guards, dogs, etc. with attacks when you DON'T want to because it can totally screw up a quest and cost you some serious coin to pay off the fines. I hated the crappy lack of targeting in Oblivion which had me hacking the subject of my quest instead of the attackers. But if you're looking to test the edges of an "open sandbox" that's one logical test - are the kids target-able?

Other tests would be "can you cut down the trees?" or "can you dig a hole through a mountain?" or "can you block or divert the couse of a river or stream?" or "can you start a forest fire?" or "Does my character defecate/urinate?" or even "If I eat enough beets will my character pee pink?". These are all tests of the "sand-boxiness" of the world, and in almost all cases the answer is "no". So when people harp on about not being able to hit kids with attacks but aren't equally concerned with other instances of less-than-reality in the gameplay, I can only conclude they're creepy lunatics.

How do you know that immortal children and mandatory undergarments are actually meant to be in there? These were invented to appeal laws and reduce age restrictions in the first place:
Fallout 2 US -> Fallout 2 UK children made invisible
Daggerfall (yes you dont need a nude patch for that) -> Morrowind
As a sensible adult, one could argue that these patches turn the game into what the devs wanted to make, if it wasnt for the legal consequences and publishers.

Everyone has their limits. I guess we've found Yahtzee's.

Athinira:

Tin Man:
I'm not saying that there are some IRL violent people here and games are to blame, I think i've put myself across in a less than ideal way...

Fact is, as far as I see it, if seeing dead kids is something you need to have a game world feel complete, you're a pretty desensitized individual. And that is what I'm trying to say.

And you are wrong.

(snip)
Listen. Every single game-world invites to specific kinds of action (like GTA invites you to go on a kill-frenzy rampage), and there is no universal rule that says that child-killing in games are wrong. It differs from game to game. Modern Warfare 3 did it in a cutscene (not to mention the airport level from the previous game).
(snip)

Finally there is the point of story consistency (note: not 'realism', CONSISTENCY, which is what creates immersion). As someone pointed out earlier, when a dragon attacks a village, your first thought should be "Get the women and children to safety", not "Lets use the children as a diversion while i pump the dragon full of arrows". Immortal children also raises several questions that breaks consistency, like for example why no-one would use them as a fighting force since they are basically untouchable. Even if you were a good king who wouldn't want to use children that way, sooner or later one of your enemies is going to. It raises questions, questions that the game can't answer, which equals broken immersion.

I'm with you on this one: pretty much all games are ROLE PLAYING games, i.e. games WHERE YOU PLAY A ROLE. The role isn't a reflection of your personality, it's A ROLE. There's a difference between acting out what you think the character you're playing would do and what you would actually do in that situation. Barring young impressionable children (who shouldn't be allowed to play these games without an adult putting it in context, or perhaps at all), you would have to have some preexisting form of mental instability to confuse yourself with the character you play.

Yahtzee went on about how killing children isn't allowed by the roles Skyrim lets you play, but if that was the case then they wouldn't have the dark brotherhood questline where you kill and torture innocent and defenseless people for profit and fun. (And this is from the character's perspective, not the player's, as the dialogue options imply that you're character enjoys killing people.) Am I supposed to accept that a dark brotherhood assassin who goes on and on about how good it feels to tear out the intestines of innocent defenseless people is somehow going to draw the line at children? That's just stupid. In fact, I could have sworn there was a little piece of NPC dialogue where they described how they assassinated a child (I think it was in Oblivion). Hell, anyone who played the dark brotherhood storyline in Oblivion will know that it revolved around some sick stuff:

So all that stuff is perfectly alright, but killing children isn't? How about some freaking consistency.

I understand it in a game like Fable, which doesn't try to be dark (except for the random Cthulhu wannabe in #3, but that just made the game seem schizophrenic considering you could fight him in a chicken suit). But you need to have some consistency in the game. If you allow the player to play as an evil twisted murderer then you have to allow them to play that way, or else you'll destroy immersion. If you're going to allow a character to be really depraved and evil, then you probably shouldn't even have children in the game if you have a problem with the player killing them.

Yahtzee's pretty right. What a lot of people are forgetting is that all games are trying to achieve a sort of narrative; games aren't tools for you to escape from your daily lives into some fantasy world. Getting the player sucked into a game and the game's world should not be the objection of a conscious, moral, and talented game designer. I would say that's unethical if someone did. Rather, the goal is to make the player say the game is pretty good and maybe make a statement. Perhaps the designer just wants to tell a good story to someone and make someone's evening go smoothly; maybe the designer wants to inspire future generations of producers. In that way, the designer must be careful to craft a coherent narrative for the player in order for one to experience these pleasures and other feelings the designer wants one to feel.

When Yahtzee defines the word "immersion" it's not about putting yourself in the avatar's shoes. "My own definition of immersion is the point when you have stopped noticing the actual nuts and bolts of the game and can enjoy the experience as intended." 'Intended' is the key word in that sentence. Some people have valid arguments, in that Skyrim's 'intended' purpose is for the player to create some sort of mythology around them (although killing children is not considered a feat legendary heroes do). I still don't think Yahtzee is wrong, and this is why.

Yahtzee, I think this is what you have to do: Admit that killing children is in poor taste, but concede that by disallowing players to do so is also simply a problem game designers have simply been ignoring for too long. Give examples for ways for designers to avoid this, and list examples of great games where designers do avoid it (Infamous series is a good example). However, you must also say that those people who hack the game--make real, non-leisurely, effort--in order to kill children are really just weird as hell. Make a distinction between those who act poorly in games as a result of leisure and those who act poorly in a game as a result of intending to do real, substituional harm. Then make a joke about murder or something, usually pertaining to yourself, you lovable, lovable killer.

I think the thing that bothered me about not being able to kill children was context. I've done two playthroughs, on as a goody two shoes like saint that sided with the Empire, and another psychopathic thief that joined each faction, pretending to be friendly then murdering entire towns.

Now the reason this is important is because one of the most commonly used tropes in superhero mythology is that villains kill the parents and allow the child to live, it always bothers me especially since half the time the child in a known potential threat. So after killing everyone in... I think it was Whiterun, I saw this child that had bragged about her fighting skills, yet was hiding in a corner. I thought to myself... if I let her live, there would be the potential for her to go Batman on my ass years later.

But... it's not like it ruined my game, I figured that it would be more sadistic to just let those children live unprotected with monsters and bandits surrounding their town. You also can't kill some of the storyline characters like the jarl and his associates.

The killing of civilians and children IS modern warfare.

Wikileaks a couple months ago uncovered a case of US marines executing a family and ordering an airstrike to level their building to cover up their tracks. Try that as the shock scene for MW4.

*dons armchair philosopher fez*
Although I understand the desire of a developer to shape the experience though the available actions in-game, the ability to do evil things in a game world makes 'good' choices meaningful. In any game for that matter, are you the "good guy" because the game says so, or because you're avoiding killing civilians and going out of your way to help NPCs because it's the right thing to do?

Wanna know the difference between child killing and child raping?

Child killing has been in games before. Older PC games allowed it. People have grown used to it. Hell worrying about getting the Child Killer reputation in Fallout 2 made slaughtering a town a huge decision (Odd that killing 1 child is more damaging that killing a hundred adults, but oh well).

I think Yahtzee missed the point of the mod.
The main point, is that dragons could easily fire-breathe all over a town, potentially killing all the adults, but if it fire-breathes a kid it just goes right through them, it's really immersion breaking.
It's not that I want to kill kids, it's that I want them to die when they should, like everything else.

As for the rape example, horrible analogy, you don't see a rape option for the adults either so having it for the kids would just be stupid.

Besides, there is already implied child death (e.g. Helgen), so what's wrong with seeing it?

P.S. I find it amusing that this is in Yahtzee's profile : Interests: Being a professional troll, setting fire to childrens' dreams and your mum.

The dragons are only attacking because they know that they're doomed to extinction the moment after parents realize all they need to do is start arming their utterly invincible offspring. Wouldn't you strike out to protect the future of your species if you were surrounded by potential enemies who could pop out an invincible killing machine every eight years with a 4-6 year shelf life that they could spend killing dragons?

They're all just tragically misunderstood. :P

Athinira:

Then maybe you should not be on a forum if you can't even bother reading peoples post.

If you had actually read it, you would have seen the following paragraph:

And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists, for the simple reason that they're simply annoying, and there is nothing morally wrong with removing annoying elements that detracts from your gameplay experience. As another poster pointed out earlier, the game even has a mechanic where NPC's can report you if you commit any crimes, which can be countered by killing any witnesses.... except if a child happens to be the witness, in which case you're screwed.

So the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks

If you can't stand arguing in the first place, why are you here?

Firstly, I did actually go back and read your post after a chill down ciggie, and I do enjoy a bit of discussion, but posting with you isn't discussion, it's more like hitting yourself in the head with the stupid hammer.

You're the kind of person that will make completely obscene jumps in logic and reason to prove their own point, without even listening to what drivel is coming out of their mouths/keyboards.

Seriously, listen to yourself -

"And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists"

the children happen to be...antagonists. What? No really, WHAT?

"the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks"

Again. What? Are you sure you're enjoying this epic fantasy quest where the antagonists aren't children, they're undead, giants, monsters, evil men and dragons? Because it sounds like you'd be happier playing Saints Row...

But yeah, the kind of mind that argues like that and makes just no sense can't be argued with, only given the attention it craves, so I'm out.

Tin Man:
You're the kind of person that will make completely obscene jumps in logic and reason to prove their own point, without even listening to what drivel is coming out of their mouths/keyboards.

Seriously, listen to yourself -

Oh, this is irony.

Typically the people who come up with what you just said only did so as an excuse because they actually can't figure out a way to counter the logic in the first place, no matter how hard they try, so it's much easier to dismiss it as "completely absurd".

I'm listening to myself, thank you very much, and i even reread my own post, and i stand by my point: The children in Skyrim is no different than the cops in GTA. They set themselves up as someone who deserves to get axed in the face for several reasons.

So to answer the last part of your post:

Seriously, listen to yourself -

"And in Skyrim, the children happen to be set up as a kind of antagonists"

the children happen to be...antagonists. What? No really, WHAT?

"the game gives you two heavy incentives to kill the smug pricks"

Again. What? Are you sure you're enjoying this epic fantasy quest where the antagonists aren't children, they're undead, giants, monsters, evil men and dragons? Because it sounds like you'd be happier playing Saints Row...

...I'll reply right back: Seriously listen to yourself, because you sound like someone who has become emotionally attached to a bunch of pixels.

You are just like the 238967360893 people i have seen argue who resort to that kind of arguing because they just can't counter the point to begin with (and no, they weren't all arguing with me).

And i enjoy Skyrim, thank you very much. And no, i didn't install the addon in question, but that doesn't mean i understand others who do. And no, i wouldn't be more happy playing Saints Row instead, i actually despise that kind of game. I don't enjoy GTA very much either, but having played it, i just used it to make a point.

I don't think it's the fact that people want to kill children outright, it's more a case of unrealism in video games. I mean come on, every one can die, but not children, thanks to programmed immortality? If I'm going to play a video game where every and any NPC can be killed at will, why is it children get spared? It's a bit of an irk, where many people play games because they're immersive, it just throws this monkey wrench into the system.

Athinira:

Oh, this is irony.

Typically the people who come up with what you just said only did so as an excuse because they actually can't figure out a way to counter the logic in the first place, no matter how hard they try, so it's much easier to dismiss it as "completely absurd".

I'm listening to myself, thank you very much, and i even reread my own post, and i stand by my point: The children in Skyrim is no different than the cops in GTA. They set themselves up as someone who deserves to get axed in the face for several reasons.

Don't big yourself up. There is no logic here. This is not a logical conclusion -

"The children in Skyrim is no different than the cops in GTA". Yes. Yes they are. The kids in Skyrim are NOT antagonists no matter how much you say it, being annoying and being an enemy element in the game aren't the same thing. Fuck around too much and the cops in GTA games will relentlessly hunt you down. Some missions have you cross them anyway. There are game mechanics devoted entirely around defeating/evading them. They are an enemy element of the game. In San Andreas, a cop is actually the primary antagonist of the entire plot. The kids in Skyrim may wind a few of you up, but they are NOT malign.

You know what, honestly, your stupid and dogged fucking defenses of this shit have wound me up more then the original topic at hand. Good job.

Athinira:

...I'll reply right back: Seriously listen to yourself, because you sound like someone who has become emotionally attached to a bunch of pixels.

You are just like the 238967360893 people i have seen argue who resort to that kind of arguing because they just can't counter the point to begin with (and no, they weren't all arguing with me).

In some circles on the interwebs, the bolded means that you've just robbed yourself of even the smallest amount of credibility in the eyes of anyone reading. Being the first to be all 'look, it's just a game', is the last line of defense. I know it is, and so do you, but if this was your original stance, and not the weak ass fallback that it clearly is, we wouldn't be here would we?

And what point am I unable to counter? Would it be the point about GTA cops being exactly the same as the kids in Skyrim? Yeah, I shat that one. What else you got that I just can't argue? Seems like fuck all to me kid.

Also, I'm not attached to any pixels. Incidentally, I'm not actually as crazy for Skyrim as everyone else in the world is, it's just a Bethesda game. Big n Glitchy, absolutely no skill in it, (I hear some of the skills are completely overpowered) and interesting enough combat for an RPG. What my problem is, is that there are LOTS of people in this thread with some seriously twisted social views and some completely ludicrous things to say.

I think the notion of "kill children in RPGs" come form fallout 2, where you had immortal pickpocketing children runing around. they kept stealing your stuff and you couldnt do a thing about it. Also in europe they were moded out to be also INVISIBLE IMMORTAL STEALING CHILDREN. take that.
also, how do you like to have wiped out whole city, burned the building and sitll have 5 children run around like nothing has happened? thats simply silly. Had they went away, ran way or whatever dissapeared it would have been fine with being immortal, but they just have to stroll about in the streets like they are the boss.

a few months ago you talked how "going around the game mechanics" was a thing to be longer for, now you praise game mechanics. ironic isnt it?

I thought that comparison to the romance options was pretty rubbish. There's no in-universe reason for why kids are completely unaffected by the gameplay-effects of the mayhem (storytelling doesn't spare them tho, they're getting emotional scars left and right), just as there's no in-universe reason for why perfectly innocent civilians are immortal.

Yet you can harm one but not the other, just because of their age. I just don't get it.

With romance it's another thing because of the age of consent and laws, so being able to marry children, pets and dwemer modules wouldn't add to the realism and it wouldn't make sense in-universe - just like the immortal children. And before you go on about sex or rape, there's no option to do that to anyone universally, so that's a global gameplay restriction nobody is this picky about.

If you're not going to apply the same rules to children as to any other NPCs, then why include children at all? It's like they're standing with one foot in the universe, the other being pulled by soccer moms.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here