Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

[OniaPL]

I admit, I got that Skyrim mod myself =/

I'm roleplaying a Good/kind Nord Warrior, who doesn't steal or murder innocent, and he will go out of his way most of the time to help others. But he's also a werewolf, and he will uncontrollably transform into the beast every now and then (I have actually dediced beforehand that it will be every 6th or 8th night xD )and when he transforms, he will go completely berserk and just hunt everything and everyone in sight. And when I realized that the children got out completely unscathed, it weakened the roleplay aspect for me.

In Fallout 3, I was annoyed by children in Little Lamplight. My character was a complete asshole, who didn't give a fuck about the children, they didn't let him pass, so he used force. But noticed that they were invulnerable.

It isn't really about the child killing for me, it just annoys me that when these games are about killing, why are these children an exception? I don't think your pedophile- example is a correct one here, since these games mechanisms don't revolve around sex, they revolve around killing things. And it just doesn't sit well with me that the children are invulnerable.
Yes, I am ready to kill pixel children for the sake of my roleplaying. And that is my choice.

 

[Dastardly]

Extra Punctuation: What Is the Matter with You People?

Yahtzee talks about the context of "shocking moments" in MW3 and Skyrim.

Read Full Article

We've moved away from such moments having function, to simply existing for their own sake. The "shock" used to be a hammer with which the story hit you over the head so that its message would have real force behind it. It was a tool, used for a purpose. Now it's just, Look here: We have a hammer. But no one's using it for anything.

As with the genitals, it's not the size that matters, but rather how it's used -- except in this case, it's actually true, and not just something we say to make the li'l fellas feel better. And introducing a shock and doing nothing with it is akin to sticking it in and laying completely still.

(As for the killing of kids, I think an acceptable compromise would be to link each child to an adult NPC. If the adult is killed, the child simply fades out. This way, the "whole village" is killed, but there is no need to depict dead kids -- what, are you going to loot them? -- and no need to empower the player to kill them.)

 

[DustyDrB]

Maybe its because I work around a large number of kids and teens with a criminal record and conduct disorder, but I don't see what the hell is annoying about Skyrim's kids.

I played hide-and-seek with a little girl in Whiterun yesterday. Though she did cheat and counted too fast when I went to hide. But then again...so did I.

Maybe The Escapist just attracts an unusually large number of child haters.

 

[Dastardly]

It has nothing to do with the fact that killing children is taboo.

It's that Bethesda knows how to make the most fucking annoying twats in existence. Besides that, if I'm going to raze a town to the ground, I want everyone to die. Men, women, children, quest-essential NPCs...everyone.

How about the idea I mentioned above: Each kid is linked to a particular adult (or pair of adults) in town. If said adult(s) is/are killed, the child vanishes from the game world. No leftovers, no invulnerable kids, but no direct killing or portrayal of killing kids. Acceptable compromise?

 

[seraphy]

Funny enough I seem to remember you complaining about NOT being able to kill children in a game yourself Mr Crowshaw. Fable 2 i think it was, Saying something about "So much for total freedom ey?"

Oh indeed, nice bit of hypocricy here.

Maybe The Escapist just attracts an unusually large number of child haters.

Child haters? Really?

Just because we don't particularly enjoy immortal children in VIDEO GAMES. That's bit judgemental don't you think.

 

[Falseprophet]

Sometimes I miss growing up in the shadow of the Cold War. While there were plenty of "think of the children!" busybodies, their concerns didn't seem quite as weighty when we were all 15 minutes away from being reduced to radioactive ash.

I don't want to go out of my way to kill children in a game. But if it actually makes sense in the story for children to die (e.g., Heavy Rain), games should be no more restricted in this than any other artistic medium.

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.

How about the idea I mentioned above: Each kid is linked to a particular adult (or pair of adults) in town. If said adult(s) is/are killed, the child vanishes from the game world. No leftovers, no invulnerable kids, but no direct killing or portrayal of killing kids. Acceptable compromise?

This works for me.

 

[Micalas]

Funny enough I seem to remember you complaining about NOT being able to kill children in a game yourself Mr Crowshaw. Fable 2 i think it was.

Ooh, shit's getting real. I love the fact that he quoted that facebook post though. Now I know he at least glances at feedback.

 

[Kopikatsu]

It has nothing to do with the fact that killing children is taboo.

It's that Bethesda knows how to make the most fucking annoying twats in existence. Besides that, if I'm going to raze a town to the ground, I want everyone to die. Men, women, children, quest-essential NPCs...everyone.

How about the idea I mentioned above: Each kid is linked to a particular adult (or pair of adults) in town. If said adult(s) is/are killed, the child vanishes from the game world. No leftovers, no invulnerable kids, but no direct killing or portrayal of killing kids. Acceptable compromise?

Acceptable compromise. Make it so that if the parents die, the kid vanishes.

I'm down with that.

Edit: While we're on the subject, I'd like it if guards stopped spawning if all non-guard NPCs in the town are killed, and that quest essential NPCs can be killed. I don't remember if it was Morrowind or Oblivion, but one of them let you kill anyone. If they were quest related, you just failed the quest. If they were main quest related, you just got a message saying 'And then the world lost it's only hope. Do you wish to continue playing in the doomed world you've created or reload a save?'

 

[Freaky Lou]

The reason I'm in favour of child-killing mods can be explained with my experience in New Vegas.

I was roleplaying as a psychotic, bloodthirsty character--not really what usually comes to mind when one says "evil", though, because he kills everyone, including people who contract him to kill others, and doesn't really discriminate by faction or standing or class.

So I came to this one point where I was massacring the Legion forces at the Fort, and I ran into some children. I'd been ruthlessly slaughtering everyone else here, and my character was a psychotic murderer---a cannibal, who'd help someone out and then chainsaw them to pieces while they were thanking him. So it only made sense that I'd murder the kids too, right? But---I didn't feel right about it. I'd gotten some moral twinges before while RP'ing as this guy, but--not like this. I gulped and held down the button to use my Ripper on the child, but---he screamed, ran away, and I didn't chase him. I cringed at his cries for help and hated myself for trying this. I just left the Fort in disgust. This is one of the strongest experiences I've had in gaming.

A week or so later, I wasn't RP'ing or trying to get immersed, just randomly gunning people down 'cause I was bored. I saw one of the kids and, since I hadn't been trying to get in RP-mode, just saw another bunch of pixels to wipe out. I opened fire and the kid ran away. I continued chasing him and firing and firing and firing and firing, but he never went down. It occurred to me that they'd probably made the kids unkillable.

And that ruined the previous experience because as it turns out there was never going to be any consequence for my action. My inability to kill the frightened child, even while absorbed in the role of a bloodthirsty killing machine, meant nothing because I wouldn't have been able to do anything of any significance even if I HAD been able to push myself over that edge.

So it's not so much that I want to kill kids. I want to be able to choose not to.

 

[Formica Archonis]

It brings to mind that one science experiment where members of the public continued electrocuting a prisoner because an authority figure told them to.

Just a clarification in case someone doesn't know: "Prisoner" in the sense of being strapped in to a death machine and trying to get out, not "prisoner" in the sense of guilt or committing a crime.

In the Milgram experiment, from the button-pusher's point of view the only difference between being the guy on the button and the guy strapped in to the chair was who pulled what name out of a hat. But for the grace of God go I, but I'll still kill you if the man in the coat says so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[Dastardly]

Acceptable compromise. Make it so that if the parents die, the kid vanishes.

I'm down with that.

This works for me.

I think we should mention it in feedback to the folks at Beth. It's a way for them to avoid this rather annoying issue in the future.

The Pro-Dead-Kid side gets: kids disappear when a town is obliterated, and you can at least indirectly remove annoying kids by killing their parents (if you're so inclined).

The Anti-Dead-Kid side gets: no one actively kills kids, no kid corpses are left behind, no one patches in dead kids to make media trouble.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I too have wondered why killing children is so important to gamers.

It's really not about killing children but about testing the games limits, how will it react if you do something absurd, of course we usually get disappointed because the game just ignores you.

If they just made the children run like hell for help when attacked it would be an infinite improvement, you can sell any silly mechanic / limit if you just present it well.

 

[Farther than stars]

Mayor MacReady (sp?) in Little Lamplight, Fallout 3. THAT is the reason why I should be able to kill the gobby little shits. Or at least have non-lethal ways to shut them up (and no, the mute button doesn't count).

After reading this column, I tried to remember why I was pro child killing in video games in the first place and now I do. I don't want kids to have to die in games, but if you do make them immortal, then don't make them the most annoying and arrogant people in the game. Because then you get the feeling that the only reason that they are like that is because you can't "change their attitude". It's deliberately bating you in front of your cage, is what it is.

 

[Giest4life]

Why are children exempt from all the dirty atrocities, which when committed on adults are deemed somewhat acceptable? I can understand the argument that the developer did not put rape children option for children for personal moral, or PR reasons, but I don't understand the argument against these things for being modded into the game. Hell, if a game lets us rape an adult human NPC, then I don't see a problem with modders adding a "rape the goat" option in the game.

Nothing should be off limits in a game, especially when it comes to content offered by non-developer parties.

Sorry, Yahtzee, I don't say this often, but your argument is severely flawed.

 

[Giest4life]

Interesting aside - should a child player be able to kill children in Skyrim?

What do you mean "child player"? The entire game is rated "M". Children shouldn't even be allow to play the damn thing, but, if they are being allowed to play the game, and they are being treated like adults, then they can make the adult choices in the game as well.