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
 

The three most annoying traits in an NPC are:

- Pointless: serves no gameplay or plot purpose besides being an arbitrary collision barrier when you're trying to get through a doorway or something.

- "Supposed to be cute" through some cheap and obviously manipulative gimmick (or two, or three).

- Invincible by game design so you can't. Get. Them. To. Go. Away. So even if they're only mildly annoying they have literally infinite opportunity to build that grain of sand up into a shiny pearl of murderous, blinding rage.

What I'm saying here is that people are willing to potentially break a game's mechanics to kill child characters for the same reason that every third reference to Zelda* in any form of online literature (comics, fanfiction, flash videos) involves someone, usually Link, stomping Navi into a pile of Twilight-themed salsa. If the little tag-playing cretins were killable there'd be a potential relief valve for that impulse and probably no one would do it outside of the obligatory "I wonder what happens if I set the entire setting on fire" playthrough.

*I would say what is going on in the other two, but I'm pretty sure the FBI can still prosecute that as a felony in most areas of my country of residence.

Athinira:

The "Video games breeds violence" discussion is about whether or not violence in video games stimulate our brains in a way that makes us more likely to commit violence in real life. Who the target of the violence happens to be is 100% irrelevant.

You are mixing up two entirely different discussions.

I've read on this thread that people get annoyed by the kids in Skyrim, so they enable the mod and kill them, just for being annoying. And I find it funny that these are the same people that say that video games have absolutely no effect whatsoever on violent tendencies. Like I said, I was just highlighting that and putting it out there, not judging.

Tin Man:
I've read on this thread that people get annoyed by the kids in Skyrim, so they enable the mod and kill them, just for being annoying. And I find it funny that these are the same people that say that video games have absolutely no effect whatsoever on violent tendencies. Like I said, I was just highlighting that and putting it out there, not judging.

So videogames make people violent if you count video game character actions as violence. I guess that's technically logically valid, but I don't really see the overall value in the argument since the second bit of that last sentence is an assertion made by essentially nobody. Arguments that you can only render valid by redefining terms to mean something entirely different from their commonly understood meaning aren't very effective, y'know.

Tin Man:

Athinira:

The "Video games breeds violence" discussion is about whether or not violence in video games stimulate our brains in a way that makes us more likely to commit violence in real life. Who the target of the violence happens to be is 100% irrelevant.

You are mixing up two entirely different discussions.

I've read on this thread that people get annoyed by the kids in Skyrim, so they enable the mod and kill them, just for being annoying. And I find it funny that these are the same people that say that video games have absolutely no effect whatsoever on violent tendencies. Like I said, I was just highlighting that and putting it out there, not judging.

In GTA, I'm a relentless psycho gangster and cop killer because i find the cops in GTA annoying, and yes i DO enjoy killing them. That doesn't mean i would enjoy killing a cop in real life (even if i found him annoying).

I'll just quote Yahtzee himself here, because as much as i disagree with him in the latter part of the Extra Punctuation, he was still very right when he said this: "Who you are in a game is a very different person to who you are in real life" (Silent Hill: Shattered Memories - 1:45).

It's a terrible argument to begin with, no matter whether or not you are just 'highlighting' it.

the thing is, sometimes adventurers DO kill children. MAking these children mortal can also make them seem more precious to the town's atmosphere, considering you know that one misplaced fireball can decimate an entire playground. They kids just seem like roaches in a nuclear holocaust when they walk away unscathed from a near-genocidal dragon attack.

Jordi:
Consider these two scenarios:
1) A dragon attacks a town, everybody dies, except the children.
2) A super-Casanova comes to a town and fucks everybody, except the children.

I think the exception for children in the first one is completely unrealistic, while in the second one it seems very plausible. There's no reason why a dragon (or any other wild beast or force of nature) would spare children, but there is a very good reason why this casanova would not want to do children. Furthermore, I think Yahtzee's argument only holds if rape were a standard option in the game. If we're talking about consensual sex, it is again entirely likely that you'd be able to screw adults but not children.

I was getting ready to write a post agreeing with the points Yahtzee raised, but then I read this. After reading said comment I find I have really very little (if anything) to add. Well played sir, well played.

This is a game where you can get married and then beat your spouses family to death while they stand paralyzed. You can find said kids and beat them within an inch of their life before butchering their parents.

The 900 year old murderous Vampire is immortal because she looks like a child, meanwhile the pregnant woman is not. Morality and tone my fucking ass, this is about avoiding controversy, we all know that.

To get immersed in a game you have to feel that your actions have consequences, otherwise the world feels token and unreal, and you can't put stake in it because it doesn't seem important. This is one thing Fallot 3 does better than Skyrim, the world feels more alive because what you do has real, immediate impact on peoples lives. Not on the world, on everyday life. Not some vague world saving bit that nobody even thanks you for(You know the world isn't going to end), but on characters that feel like real people, not because of AI or animation, but because they're written so well.

Like Yahtzee said, Skyrim isn't a game prepared to deal with subject as emotionally disturbing and complex as pedophilia, but I would argue because murder is much simpler the game world can react to it more appropriately(Still not as well as it should), so that way it can be worked into the character as a moral event horizon, a sort of "If you do this, you're beyond help" moment. By default, it's just red tape to keep you in line.

Once a game establishes it's rules, it has to stick to them to keep you immersed, and when it suddenly drops restriction onto an action you're used to being able to do, it yanks you out of the experience.

Even if you shouldn't to it you still have to be able to, if you know the game is going to bail you out and keep you in line then there's no reason to put stake in it because your actions don't matter.

And that's what it's about, it's about the game world reacting in a believable way, "I can do this so why can't I do this?, oh, that's right, this is just a game. My actions are restricted and ultimately don't matter, because the game has a certain experience in mind for me". The player should never reach this conclusion, even if it is true, the point is to sustain the illusion, the prestige. The same principal doesn't apply to sex because it would break more immersion then it would add, because the game is(Like Yahtzee said) working towards a different tone, something like pedophilia, even if it was a believable reaction, would be to bleak for that tone.

The game doesn't make pedophilia seem possible, so the thought never crosses your mind(I would hope it wouldn't anyway), but you kill things all the time, so the kids being immortal feels arbitrary, token and unreal, thus the prestige is broken.

Mimsofthedawg:
Why's it so bad for games to allow child killing? If movies can simulate sex with a child (in an artistic fashion, of course), or the murder of a child, etc., and if books can be written about horrible atrocities/oddities with children (Lord of the Flies anyone?), why is it so wrong for games to be able to express themselves in such a way?

Take this for example. Say you're some hero walking through a standard fantasy world, and you come across a village. This village is haunted, and every night demonic entities come out and take away the children and kill the adults. One of the village elders explains this to you, telling you that they seem to be coming from some ruins at the top of Ye Olde Mountain. You get a quest to save the children and extinguish the source of these hauntings. You go through the dungeon, discover a room full of children, and as you're about to unlock the gate that keeps them back, a child walks up behind you and demands what you're doing. As you talk to the child, it's clear he is demon possessed, and you have two choices - kill him and thus the demon, let him continue terrorizing the village, or making a pact with him that would spare his life but allow him to wander the world terrorizing people until the child's mortal body dies. Would it be so wrong to kill the child? Is this whole situation an invalid quest because it involves the harm of a child? Or is it an interesting, shocking artistic expression? I vote the latter.

and THESE sorts of possibilities are what we hardcore Skyrim players want. We see missed opportunities in quests for moral delimmas, confoundedness when an entire village is destroyed but the children survive (The Republic of Dave in Fallout 3 is a prime example of this), and disappointment at the general blandness of children. the truth behind the children in Skyrim has nothing to do with their immortality, but that they're added in as "realism fodder" - wasted polygons used to increase a sense of immersion. Yet what do they offer to the world? Outside of a single Dark Brotherhood quest, none of them have stories. None of them have abilities. None of them have anything interesting to say, no reason to effect the player, nothing extra to give the player in his/her experience. and I ask why? why are children so bland. why are they a taboo subject to include in the gaming medium when every other medium conjures up horribly pitiful ways of torturing children? Why can't we have the same artistic expression to create an emotional impact and say something about our society? It's not that I care about killing children (I have never harmed a child in any game - except in the aforementioned Republic of Dave when, in a fierce fire fight, I blew one over a chain link fence with a nuke by accident, forcing him to live an immortal life being perpetually chased by Yao Guai). It's not about killing children at all. It's about (in Skyrim's case) being given the ability to craft the best story possible, and the fact that children are so unimportant, carry so little weight, it makes me wish they just didn't add them at all.

Agreed, it's not that we're all murderous kitten rapists who have a long standing vendetta against our younger siblings, it's that we want the game to feel more real. I have the mod that makes children killable, but I've yet to exercise that ability.

sumanoskae:

Mimsofthedawg:
Why's it so bad for games to allow child killing? If movies can simulate sex with a child (in an artistic fashion, of course), or the murder of a child, etc., and if books can be written about horrible atrocities/oddities with children (Lord of the Flies anyone?), why is it so wrong for games to be able to express themselves in such a way?

Take this for example. Say you're some hero walking through a standard fantasy world, and you come across a village. This village is haunted, and every night demonic entities come out and take away the children and kill the adults. One of the village elders explains this to you, telling you that they seem to be coming from some ruins at the top of Ye Olde Mountain. You get a quest to save the children and extinguish the source of these hauntings. You go through the dungeon, discover a room full of children, and as you're about to unlock the gate that keeps them back, a child walks up behind you and demands what you're doing. As you talk to the child, it's clear he is demon possessed, and you have two choices - kill him and thus the demon, let him continue terrorizing the village, or making a pact with him that would spare his life but allow him to wander the world terrorizing people until the child's mortal body dies. Would it be so wrong to kill the child? Is this whole situation an invalid quest because it involves the harm of a child? Or is it an interesting, shocking artistic expression? I vote the latter.

and THESE sorts of possibilities are what we hardcore Skyrim players want. We see missed opportunities in quests for moral delimmas, confoundedness when an entire village is destroyed but the children survive (The Republic of Dave in Fallout 3 is a prime example of this), and disappointment at the general blandness of children. the truth behind the children in Skyrim has nothing to do with their immortality, but that they're added in as "realism fodder" - wasted polygons used to increase a sense of immersion. Yet what do they offer to the world? Outside of a single Dark Brotherhood quest, none of them have stories. None of them have abilities. None of them have anything interesting to say, no reason to effect the player, nothing extra to give the player in his/her experience. and I ask why? why are children so bland. why are they a taboo subject to include in the gaming medium when every other medium conjures up horribly pitiful ways of torturing children? Why can't we have the same artistic expression to create an emotional impact and say something about our society? It's not that I care about killing children (I have never harmed a child in any game - except in the aforementioned Republic of Dave when, in a fierce fire fight, I blew one over a chain link fence with a nuke by accident, forcing him to live an immortal life being perpetually chased by Yao Guai). It's not about killing children at all. It's about (in Skyrim's case) being given the ability to craft the best story possible, and the fact that children are so unimportant, carry so little weight, it makes me wish they just didn't add them at all.

Agreed, it's not that we're all murderous kitten rapists who have a long standing vendetta against our younger siblings, it's that we want the game to feel more real. I have the mod that makes children killable, but I've yet to exercise that ability.

Still, they could have called it Immortality Remover Mod instead of Child-Killing mod.

chadachada123:

Acrisius:

chadachada123:

I'm a good character, committing very few if any crimes, never murdering anyone unless they are at least slightly evil.

I killed Nazeem after hearing him say "Have you gotten to the Cloud District lately? Ho, what am I saying, of course you haven't" for the hundredth time. I felt so freaking good absorbing his soul and using it for a speechcraft-enchanted necklace.

There needs to be at LEAST an option for making those kids shut the hell up. A good persuasion check (or slap across the face), or even a talk with their mother, would be sufficient. It need not be murder, but there needs to be something, otherwise just leave them out of the game. PLEASE, Bethesda.

So why not mod them to be quiet then..? Wow...that's just..so much simpler?

*EDIT*

I've seen a damn mod to make Livia shut up. If the kids really piss people off, why is the first thing they came up with to mod, a way to kill them instead of making the quiet?

I'm sure that type of mod will be created, but as a console gamer, it saddens me that Bethesda would put characters in the game that are so unlike the other characters (invincible) while also having the worst traits of the other NPCs. That's why there should be options for silencing these kids, either through a persuasion or through a fist fight, etc. That, or leave them out, because they're making the game crappier. See: Little Lamplight.

Lol, I think the kids are hilarious. I would miss them if they were removed from the game. They say funny stuff and add a lot of immersion. It always breaks immersion for me when I realize that a town I'm in is made up of 100% adults. These people never reproduce? Are they sterile? Do they have the most efficient and convenient birth control methods ever imagined?

Turns out, a lot of people here think Croshaw is a Prophet of the way gaming Should Be. A messiah for the geeks of the internet...

Until he criticises them. Then all bets are fucking OFF.

sinterklaas:

And even disregarding everything else, why in god's name is killing an adult somehow less evil than killing a child?

Jesus wept... Did you just... Did you really just ask why killing an adult isn't as bad as killing a child? How about because of things like being innocent of the world? Or not being able to defend themselves? There is a reason why the most heinous, depraved and disgusting criminals are child killers...

Wow.

I might have to quit this internet thing.

Wow...never thought I would say this about Yahtzee...

But I completely disagree.

Athinira:

In GTA, I'm a relentless psycho gangster and cop killer because i find the cops in GTA annoying, and yes i DO enjoy killing them. That doesn't mean i would enjoy killing a cop in real life (even if i found him annoying).

I'll just quote Yahtzee himself here, because as much as i disagree with him in the latter part of the Extra Punctuation, he was still very right when he said this: "Who you are in a game is a very different person to who you are in real life" (Silent Hill: Shattered Memories - 1:45).

It's a terrible argument to begin with, no matter whether or not you are just 'highlighting' it.

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. That on the one hand, people are like 'yeah, gaming is a completely fine thing, I'm totally not in the slightest bit immune to shock' and on the other, the same people are all 'If I can't put EVERYTHING to my axe then what the hell is the point in those things even being there!?'

Besides, a large part of the articles argument is that people were actually calling for the straight up in game torture and terrible death of children, on screen, full on, because that might shock them. And 'What the hell is wrong with you people', is a very correct question.

Tin Man:

Jesus wept... Did you just... Did you really just ask why killing an adult isn't as bad as killing a child? How about because of things like being innocent of the world? Or not being able to defend themselves? There is a reason why the most heinous, depraved and disgusting criminals are child killers...

Wow.

I might have to quit this internet thing.

You might rather start the using Your brain thing.

Skyrim. You're a lvl 45 ranger/mage. You go up to a beggar, or a farmer. Cast paralyse on him. Back up a bit just in case. Put an arrow through his kneecap. Then the other one. Continue hittin targets as You please until You get bored and aim for something lethal.

Wow. That guy sure was able to defend himself! And he should have known better than to... uh... go about his business, harming noone, and not getting in Your way.

But it's not as bad as killing a child, because... yeah... right.

~Sylv

Rawne1980:
The main reason I add in certain mods like the "child killing" mod in Skyrim is because they make the kids so fething irritating.

That little shit in Whiterun, the one that runs past you saying "i'm not scared of you, even if you are my elder" .... really, well then eat my axe you gobby little shit.

No, no I can't nor would I want to do it in real life.

And there lies the point.

Skyrim isn't real life, it doesn't even come close to real life. If something annoys me in a game I can kill it. If I don't like certain NPC's I can kill them. If i'm bored I can go on a rampage throughout the game world and kill everything.

It's a bloody game, it's pixels.

"Oh no, you killed those children you horrible murderer"

Now marvel as I reload to an earlier save and they are alive again ... it's magic.

Let alone the fact that in the last three games, the character starts off as some kind of prisoner. That is what really annoyed me about Yahtzee telling us what we "aren't" since the point of the game is that we are what we choose to be. Sooooo, in an open world, isn't it MY decision if I am a complete monster or not? Having demigods insult me as I walk past is grating when I know I can't do anything to them. A dragon attack also lacks impact when I see child immortals chilling out afterward. It also takes away the impact of the Daedra lords. I know they won't let me touch them and thus their invincibility has weight... Which is then taken away when I walk into a city, knowing that four or five Daedra lordlings will walk about and irritate me.

Have an increased bounty and stronger bounty hunters come about if you kill a kid. It would make sense and please both sides. A child's life would have impact instead of being an insult box that we just have to endure.

Funny thing is that I wouldn't make a point of killing them. Their vulnerability would simply make them more... human and thus perhaps I 'should' care.

Sylvine:

You might rather start the using Your brain thing.

Skyrim. You're a lvl 45 ranger/mage. You go up to a beggar, or a farmer. Cast paralyse on him. Back up a bit just in case. Put an arrow through his kneecap. Then the other one. Continue hittin targets as You please until You get bored and aim for something lethal.

Wow. That guy sure was able to defend himself! And he should have known better than to... uh... go about his business, harming noone, and not getting in Your way.

But it's not as bad as killing a child, because... yeah... right.

~Sylv

And who the fuck asked for your input? Especially if what you have to say is completely not what we were talking about and insulting to boot.

In game, you can kill anyone you want however you want, and pretty much everything is pretty much equally powerless to stop you.

But he didn't ask that did he you tard, he asked, aside from everything, as in for real, how is child murder worse then regular murder, and what happens? You DEFEND that point of view. You're the kind of thing that makes people feel bad to be a gamer. I'm really not gonna take being trolled on this subject, and I reckon that another ban will be heading my way if I say what I actually want, so please do us both a favour and not quote me on anything, again, ever.

Falseprophet:

ravenshrike:
When I see a dragon slaughter everyone in a town, I want them to be dead, not with 5 children standing calmly around the flaming corpses.

This. A savage massacre of this scale kind of loses its gravity when everyone under the age of 13 is magically invulnerable to it. You want one or two shell-shocked survivors still in the cellar where mom hid them for dramatic purposes? Fantastic. But having a whole village reduced to a pile of ash but half a dozen kids cluster around completely unscathed? Talk about immersion-breaking.

Agreed. I wouldn't go on a hunt to kill every little brat either, but I also don't want to see immersion breaking stuff like this.

The kids should be mortal, just like the NPCs. Trigger an event if you kill a critical NPC, everybody and everything starts attacking you. It would be kind of fun to go out that way before eventually dying and reloading your last save. Like when you attacked Sheogorath in Shivering Isles, that was a fun way to die too. :)

You should get some feedback though. If others see you intentionally killing kids, you should get a higher bounty and more angry people after you. Assuming you can get away and get rid of your bounty, which would cost more, the criminals would talk down to you because of what you did, treating you like crap.
I don't know if it's possible for the game to determine if it was accidental, but if it was, you shouldn't get a harsher penalty.
If you manage to do it without witnesses, you could get bad karma. Meaning you'd run into more powerful enemies more often, other thieves would steal from you and so on... And there wouldn't be any indication in any kind of menu about this. And if you want to have good karma again, you'd have to go through some hoops to get it.
But even if you weren't caught, you could get in trouble. For example, if it was some important/rich character's kid, there could be a chance for them hiring someone to investigate the death and sometimes determining that you were responsible. Then you'd have to deal with the law and/or assassins.
Of course if players knew all about this, or figured it out sooner or later, it could lose impact. Unless you're a real RPG fan, because then you'd still take it seriously.
Ok, it's probably not the best way to do it, but I'm no game designer either.

In Deus Ex: IW, when you killed a kid in the school (accidentally or on purpose), the game reacted to it, a character condemned your actions through your infolink and the guards were cursing you while trying to kill you.

Tin Man:
Turns out, a lot of people here think Croshaw is a Prophet of the way gaming Should Be. A messiah for the geeks of the internet...

Until he criticises them. Then all bets are fucking OFF.

You act surprised. This has been the deal for ages.

"LOL I LOVE IT WHEN YOU RIP INTO VIDEO GAMES...BUT HOW DARE YOU PICK ON THAT GAME I LIKE?"

It's been pretty common here on the Escapist since day 1.

Jesus wept... Did you just... Did you really just ask why killing an adult isn't as bad as killing a child?

A good number of people on here seem to lack a certain grasp of social nuances. I'm not trying to attack anyone, but again I'm hardly surprised a ton of people here seem to have this question of why it's wrong to do bad things to children.

As I'm sure many, many others have likely pointed out: in the case of wanting to kill children in Skyrim, at least for me it wasn't even about wanting it to be more realistic and have the laws of life and death extend to everyone. I honestly wouldn't care about not being able to kill children if they were smiling, happy-go-lucky little squirts who chased each other around singing songs and skipping down the road. But no, we've got little fuckers waiting inside shops to greet you with "Pfffft, I thought adventurers were supposed to be tough." Or walking into the Jarl's longhouse only to have his little brat say "*sigh* Another wanderer here to lick my father's boots, good job." It's not about realism, it's about good ol' fashioned vengeance. When some snot-nosed kid approaches the legendary Dragonborn after he just got done gleefully assassinting the emperor to please the dark lord Sithis and says "I'M NOT AFRAID OF YOU! EVEN IF YOU ARE MY ELDER!" it just REALLY makes you want to shank the little brat to get him to shut up.

In short: it's as though Bethesda specifically made every child in the game just the most obnoxious little bastard specifically to rub in the fact that "Nyah-Nwahhhh! You can't kill me so take my snide little comments and shove'em up your ass!"

If anything, it's not about wanting the game to be realistic, it's simply a matter of getting the respect a hero deserves.......by murdering children who piss him off. :3

Zachary Amaranth:

Tin Man:
Jesus wept... Did you just... Did you really just ask why killing an adult isn't as bad as killing a child?

A good number of people on here seem to lack a certain grasp of social nuances. I'm not trying to attack anyone, but again I'm hardly surprised a ton of people here seem to have this question of why it's wrong to do bad things to children.

And you'll commend me for doing bad things to everyone else? Without being FOR this mod, the idea is that it's pretty arbitrary that in this entire game, the children are built like Panzers.

Aside, you cannot bring Jesus into this, he would weep the minute he saw you in that prison cart in the first 5 minutes for whatever reason you RPed yourself into that situation.

Tin Man:

And who the fuck asked for your input? Especially if what you have to say is completely not what we were talking about and insulting to boot.

In game, you can kill anyone you want however you want, and pretty much everything is pretty much equally powerless to stop you.

But he didn't ask that did he you tard, he asked, aside from everything, as in for real, how is child murder worse then regular murder, and what happens? You DEFEND that point of view. You're the kind of thing that makes people feel bad to be a gamer. I'm really not gonna take being trolled on this subject, and I reckon that another ban will be heading my way if I say what I actually want, so please do us both a favour and not quote me on anything, again, ever.

Wow. Classy. You might also rethink the "posting on a public forum" thing. Yeah, I AM going to quote You on what I perceive to be bullshit. It's a discussion board, not a soapbox.

It's really quite the same thing in real life, in any case. Both of Your arguments are just emotional appeals, having little to do with reality. 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? It's the murder of a defenseless, innocent person.

Yes, I defend that point of view. I defend the point of view that murder is wrong, terribly wrong, and it does not get any more wrong. You say there is a reason "why the most heinous, depraved and disgusting criminals are child killers." Yes. The reason is that we view them as such. But that's not a rational reaction, and not a reasonable one, either. In a prison, regular rapists despise child rapists, regular killers hate child killers - what gives them the right? How dare they? How can they seriously think "Well, I am a killer, but at least I'm not a scumbag child killer?" Bullshit! You really think they are right to feel good about themselves?

That makes ME sick. Killing an innocent person is despicable. It does not matter whether the person is 8, 18, or 80. And as long as we think that killing a child is somehow the worst, we indirectly encourage the line of thinking that killing an adult is not that bad. This whole Skyrim thing actually goes to show it. That is not a position I am willing to take.

~Sylv

Sylvine:
Wow.

Just wow.

Your views are pretty fucked dude, and while this is indeed a discussion forum, this isn't a 'quote random people and make the first thing you write an insult' forum.

But if you honestly, truly, see NO DIFFERENCE in doing terrible things to children and doing terrible things to grown people(and I'm not defending that don't get me wrong), then I truly hope you never breed. I don't even mean that in a bad way either, it's my honest opinion. A person like you should simply never, ever be in charge of a young life.

Zachary Amaranth:
I, for one, want to exchange insurance information in Saints Row.

I just wish people weren't so suicidal in Saints Row. I'm driving on the street and the people dive right in front of my car. What's up with that?

Anyways. All Bethesda had to do was not have them in the game or have them only die from NPC actions (such as a dragon attack) and I think the majority of gamers would have been happy with it. Also, they are ruining my game by being so annoying. I don't care if they are still alive, but why do they constantly have to annoy me and taunt me. I just wish I could mod my 360 version of it.

Tin Man:

Just wow.

Your views are pretty fucked dude, and while this is indeed a discussion forum, this isn't a 'quote random people and make the first thing you write an insult' forum.

But if you honestly, truly, see NO DIFFERENCE in doing terrible things to children and doing terrible things to grown people(and I'm not defending that don't get me wrong), then I truly hope you never breed. I don't even mean that in a bad way either, it's my honest opinion. A person like you should simply never, ever be in charge of a young life.

Implying You should stop and think a little is an insult. Okay.

A person like me should never be in charge of a young life? Fancy. Up 'til now, all I expressed is a strong moral conviction that the murder of an innocent, defenseless person is inexcusable. I fail to see how that makes me unqualified for parenthood.

Hence my comment about using Your brain. I'm not saying children do not deserve special care and protection. I'm saying that they deserve it because they're relatively defenseless, weak, naive and innocent. But not simply because they're under a certain age. As such, it is undoubtedly easier to prey upon a child, but the ease of commiting an evil deed does not necessarily say something about the degree of immorality of said deed.

~Sylv

Nikolaz72:

sumanoskae:

Mimsofthedawg:
Why's it so bad for games to allow child killing? If movies can simulate sex with a child (in an artistic fashion, of course), or the murder of a child, etc., and if books can be written about horrible atrocities/oddities with children (Lord of the Flies anyone?), why is it so wrong for games to be able to express themselves in such a way?

Take this for example. Say you're some hero walking through a standard fantasy world, and you come across a village. This village is haunted, and every night demonic entities come out and take away the children and kill the adults. One of the village elders explains this to you, telling you that they seem to be coming from some ruins at the top of Ye Olde Mountain. You get a quest to save the children and extinguish the source of these hauntings. You go through the dungeon, discover a room full of children, and as you're about to unlock the gate that keeps them back, a child walks up behind you and demands what you're doing. As you talk to the child, it's clear he is demon possessed, and you have two choices - kill him and thus the demon, let him continue terrorizing the village, or making a pact with him that would spare his life but allow him to wander the world terrorizing people until the child's mortal body dies. Would it be so wrong to kill the child? Is this whole situation an invalid quest because it involves the harm of a child? Or is it an interesting, shocking artistic expression? I vote the latter.

and THESE sorts of possibilities are what we hardcore Skyrim players want. We see missed opportunities in quests for moral delimmas, confoundedness when an entire village is destroyed but the children survive (The Republic of Dave in Fallout 3 is a prime example of this), and disappointment at the general blandness of children. the truth behind the children in Skyrim has nothing to do with their immortality, but that they're added in as "realism fodder" - wasted polygons used to increase a sense of immersion. Yet what do they offer to the world? Outside of a single Dark Brotherhood quest, none of them have stories. None of them have abilities. None of them have anything interesting to say, no reason to effect the player, nothing extra to give the player in his/her experience. and I ask why? why are children so bland. why are they a taboo subject to include in the gaming medium when every other medium conjures up horribly pitiful ways of torturing children? Why can't we have the same artistic expression to create an emotional impact and say something about our society? It's not that I care about killing children (I have never harmed a child in any game - except in the aforementioned Republic of Dave when, in a fierce fire fight, I blew one over a chain link fence with a nuke by accident, forcing him to live an immortal life being perpetually chased by Yao Guai). It's not about killing children at all. It's about (in Skyrim's case) being given the ability to craft the best story possible, and the fact that children are so unimportant, carry so little weight, it makes me wish they just didn't add them at all.

Agreed, it's not that we're all murderous kitten rapists who have a long standing vendetta against our younger siblings, it's that we want the game to feel more real. I have the mod that makes children killable, but I've yet to exercise that ability.

Still, they could have called it Immortality Remover Mod instead of Child-Killing mod.

Yeah, and it would be nice if they could remove the "Essential" status from other NPC's, IMO.

NotLikeOtherGuys:

And you'll commend me for doing bad things to everyone else?

Yes, that's exactly what I said, word for word, and you totally didn't put words in my mouth.

Congrats.

Also, I didn't bring Jesus into it. Or even mention him.

FoolKiller:

I just wish people weren't so suicidal in Saints Row. I'm driving on the street and the people dive right in front of my car. What's up with that?

Have you played the Third?

There's a certain event after which some of the bridges in the game are raised, split down the middle. You get to see REAL suicidal tendencies when you watch how drivers handle those....

If it was up to me i'd not put child killing in my game either, instead i'd make it so that the player can choose to either help the kid out if his family/village has been slaughtered or just leave the kid there to suffer, if he helps him the kid would then be seen in an orphanage (Like the one in Riften, for example) and if they choose to leave the kid there then the kid would later be seen in rags in the town scavenging for food.

If I was to actually allow child deaths on the other hand i'd still lock it out from the player and allow anything else to kill the kid since then the entire argument of the child being there even though the rest of his village is a smouldering ruin would be gone and we'd just be left with the people who actively go through the hassle of finding and installing a mod just to be able to kill kids.

I'd still have kids being able to get hurt, but just like an important NPC they wouldn't be able to actually die.

Sylvine:
Skyrim. You're a lvl 45 ranger/mage. You go up to a beggar, or a farmer. Cast paralyse on him. Back up a bit just in case. Put an arrow through his kneecap. Then the other one. Continue hittin targets as You please until You get bored and aim for something lethal.

Because that is exactly how we all kill our enemies in-game.

Speak for yourself buddy, that's pretty fucking sadistic even if it's just a character in a videogame.

Heck I liked MW3's campaign tremendously and even I have to agree that the child dying lacked all shock value. Anyone with a brain in their head knows children have died in the MW series - in the nuclear explosion, in the rocket attacks that have killed "hundreds of villagers" in Russia, in the invasion of DC, in the airport massacre, etc., etc. - even if we didn't see them on screen directly. It's not exactly a series with a low civilian body count. By the end of the game I'd forgotten that scene even happened. I mean, who cares? I'm sure thousands of other children died during the gas attacks. I'm trying to kill Makarov, here. It's irrelevant. Whereas both the nuclear blast and the airport massacre were key elements of the plot, and you didn't see them coming. You thought that surely you'd escape the blast. You can't believe it (unless you've been told in advance, obviously) that suddenly you've got a machine gun and are expected to mow down hundreds of helpless people who can't fight back. Those things have literally never happened in an FPS before, to my knowledge.

But watching one kid die, out of thousands? Meh. What does that have to do with Price or Soap?

RE: the Skyrim thing. That's really disappointing, too. One of my favourite aspects of Fallout 3 was that you could kill anyone you wanted. Not that I wanted to or ever did kill children, or many other NPCs for that matter, but the knowledge that you could and that actions have consequences made the whole experience feel so much more immersive. My first character was Neutral-Good, but what if I wanted to play an Evil one? Do I just randomly have some magical aversion to child killing, like some Hollywood assassin trope that's meant to make the character more "likeable"? No, fuck that. There's nothing more morally wrong about killing a young human being than killing a slightly older one. This is purely moronic terror of censorship (or why would they have let us do it before?), and it's cowardly in the extreme.

Poor form, Bethesda. Poor form.

Sylvine:

Implying You should stop and think a little is an insult. Okay.

A person like me should never be in charge of a young life? Fancy. Up 'til now, all I expressed is a strong moral conviction that the murder of an innocent, defenseless person is inexcusable. I fail to see how that makes me unqualified for parenthood.

Hence my comment about using Your brain. I'm not saying children do not deserve special care and protection. I'm saying that they deserve it because they're relatively defenseless, weak, naive and innocent. But not simply because they're under a certain age. As such, it is undoubtedly easier to prey upon a child, but the ease of commiting an evil deed does not necessarily say something about the degree of immorality of said deed.

~Sylv

Right, now that you're we're longer throwing poo around the place, points are being made that actually make a certain degree of sense.

But firstly, don't insult my intelligence any further, you know that there is a big difference between appealing to someones sense and logic to make your viewpoint clearer, and saying something childish and insulting like - "You might rather start the using Your brain thing"

But we're past that.

Also, you've backtracked on yourself a tad - "they deserve it because they're relatively defenseless, weak, naive and innocent". When I said something very similar to that(particularly about innocence and defenslessness, but being naive factors well into it as well), you responded with -

"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.

Hence my original stance, to somebody that wasn't you(which they haven't argued or had a problem with, funnily enough), that while obviously all murder is unacceptable, killing kids is much worse, for reasons you yourself have stated. And someone actually, seriously, asked what the difference was. And frankly, if we need to highlight to people why killing kids is one of the worst things that someone can do, then we're in a dark place indeed.

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.

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?

Sylvine:

Tin Man:

And who the fuck asked for your input? Especially if what you have to say is completely not what we were talking about and insulting to boot.

In game, you can kill anyone you want however you want, and pretty much everything is pretty much equally powerless to stop you.

But he didn't ask that did he you tard, he asked, aside from everything, as in for real, how is child murder worse then regular murder, and what happens? You DEFEND that point of view. You're the kind of thing that makes people feel bad to be a gamer. I'm really not gonna take being trolled on this subject, and I reckon that another ban will be heading my way if I say what I actually want, so please do us both a favour and not quote me on anything, again, ever.

Wow. Classy. You might also rethink the "posting on a public forum" thing. Yeah, I AM going to quote You on what I perceive to be bullshit. It's a discussion board, not a soapbox.

It's really quite the same thing in real life, in any case. Both of Your arguments are just emotional appeals, having little to do with reality. 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? It's the murder of a defenseless, innocent person.

Yes, I defend that point of view. I defend the point of view that murder is wrong, terribly wrong, and it does not get any more wrong. You say there is a reason "why the most heinous, depraved and disgusting criminals are child killers." Yes. The reason is that we view them as such. But that's not a rational reaction, and not a reasonable one, either. In a prison, regular rapists despise child rapists, regular killers hate child killers - what gives them the right? How dare they? How can they seriously think "Well, I am a killer, but at least I'm not a scumbag child killer?" Bullshit! You really think they are right to feel good about themselves?

That makes ME sick. Killing an innocent person is despicable. It does not matter whether the person is 8, 18, or 80. And as long as we think that killing a child is somehow the worst, we indirectly encourage the line of thinking that killing an adult is not that bad. This whole Skyrim thing actually goes to show it. That is not a position I am willing to take.

~Sylv

The reason even prison inmates and convicted murderers despise child killers/rapists etc is because there exists a certain threshold of self-defense. Now, I'm not saying that murder in any form is right (occasionally justified, maybe, but definitely not right), but to use your own example, if a psycho burst into my room right now in your situation he'd have one hell of a fight on his hands. I'm not a small person, and my room's pretty confined, so unless he could shoot me right off the bat then things would probably get pretty dangerous for him. even more so if he only had a knife or just his fists. A child has none of the size or strength of a grown human, and therefore, is more deserving of protection. The flip-side of this is that those who prey on people who can't defend themselves aren't deserving of even the modicum of compassion given to murderers of adults. To put it in an absolutely disturbing, but perhaps illuminating light, its kind of like hunting. Shooting a baby bear isn't much of a challenge because they haven't fully developed the senses or reactions necessary to survive against you (hence why they're protected by the mother bear), but if you go hunting for a full grown bear, it's much more dangerous/challenging.

Welcome to the age of Hollywood video games. It's an open secret that there's a lot of wanna-be Hollywood directors who have gotten into the video game industry, and this kind of B-movie storytelling is a result. Also to their debit are the cutscene-heavy "storytelling" and QTE-mode gameplay, both of which let them "express their vision" without interference from those pesky players, but that's another rant.

I have several problems with this reasoning, and I'll talk about at least some of them. First of all, this isn't a question of realism. Fuck realism. When I play a game like Skyrim, what I want is immersion, a concept which in gaming seldom goes hand in hand with arbitrary limitations of the real world. Speaking for myself, I find that being able to put an entire household to death apart from the children because of the game director's sensibilities to be a jarring immersion breaker. This is the reason you're seeing these mods; not being able to kill children does not make sense within the context of the game, and thus, some of us are taken out of the experience by it.

Secondly, morally there is nothing worse about rape than murder. Consequentially, I see no reason that a game which allows you to kill someone, shouldn't also be able to allow you to rape someone. Oh, but do you think you should be able to do so to a child? I hear you say. Well, of course! The notion that a child's life and well-being is somehow more sacred than that of an adult goes against the principle that all lives are equal in worth, so in my eyes it's an utterly ridiculous stance to take. Indeed, from my point of view, anyone who rails against violence against children without simultaneously speaking against the murder of adults is a hypocrite.

In short: There's nothing wrong with us, you're just holding a double standard.

 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